• Quasar Science LLC v. Colt International Clothing, Inc. D/B/A Colt LedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00614 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6–18, 21–24, and 27–29 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the evidence did not establish all limitations or a reason to combine the cited teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe a claim term “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under that standard, the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The parties agree that, for purposes of this Decision, no claim term needs specific construction beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 14; PO Resp. 10. Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any claim term.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Here, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, or a closely related field, along with at least two years of experience in the design of entertaining lighting systems, and the design and use of LEDs.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would have had “2 to 4 years’ experience in electrical engineering/design of film and television lighting systems, including the design and use of LED lights, combined with two to three years of work experience as a set lighting technician in television and/or motion picture industry.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2047 ¶¶ 16–17; Ex. 2100 ¶¶ 156–161). Patent Owner does not identify any specific instance in which the differences between the parties’ respective descriptions of the level of ordinary skill in the art impacts the analysis or conclusions of either party, or either party’s declarant, in this case. In fact, Patent Owner acknowledges that any differences between the parties’ respective descriptions do not impact the conclusions in this case. Id. (“Regardless of which definition of a POSITA is applied, the conclusion(s) would be the same.”). For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA because it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the skill level at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Kit and Katzir. Petitioner argues that “Katzir further discloses daylight and tungsten temperature ranges within the claimed temperature ranges.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 53, 54, Figs. 5A, 5B). Petitioner relies on the Holmes Declaration to show that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to look to Katzir to design an LED array to be retrofit in a fluorescent tube.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 102). Mr. Holmes testifies that [b]oth Kit and Katzir teach using LEDs of various colors in a fluorescent tube form factor, like a T8 or T12 fluorescent tube. Katzir also discloses various LED array layouts that a POSITA would have a looked to when designing an LED tube lighting like that disclosed in Kit. A POSITA would have had strong motivation to look to Katzir to design an LED array to be retrofit in a fluorescent tube form factor. Ex. 1003 ¶ 102 (internal citations omitted). As discussed above, however, the cited passages of Kit describe a light with LEDs that produces a single, consistent temperature of warm white, commercial white, or cool white. Ex. 1004, 3:28–36, 22:9–25. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Holmes sufficiently explains why a POSITA would have modified Kit to include Katzir’s particular layout that includes both cool white LEDs and warm white LEDs. See Pet. 19, 24; Ex. 1003 ¶ 102; In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (instructing that we must articulate a reason why a POSITA would combine the prior art references). We identified the aforementioned deficiencies for this asserted challenge in the Decision on Institution. DI 21–23. Petitioner did not address those deficiencies in the Reply. See generally Reply; Tr. 6:16–7:10. Thus, based on the entire record developed at trial, and for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kit, Ianiro, Ducharme, and Katzir.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “Petitioner asserts that Mr. Holmes cited Hasnain’s heat dissipation techniques. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 490; Ex. 1049 ¶¶ 41–49). Paragraph 490 of Exhibit 1003 relates to Ducharme, not Hasnain, and thus, does not support Petitioner’s argument. Although paragraphs 41 to 49 of Exhibit 1049 span more than seven pages, other than the single citation in the Reply, Petitioner does not discuss any of the testimony presented therein. We, thus, do not consider this portion of the Holmes Supplemental Declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3). Furthermore, we would not be persuaded by Mr. Holmes’ testimony even if we considered it. For example, Mr. Holmes testifies that Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure “a variety of heat dissipating techniques are disclosed by Hasnain, any one of which could readily be used in a T12 form factor LED light, as expressly recognized by Hasnain.” Ex. 1049 ¶ 46. We disagree with Mr. Holmes that Hasnain teaches enclosing its heat-dissipating structure in a fluorescent light tube. Hasnain teaches “a replacement LED light source for fluorescent tube 22 [that] plug[s] into the same connectors and operate[s] from the voltage patterns generated by the ballasts.” Ex. 1008, 3:23–26. Hasnain also teaches that “the replacement LED light source has a plurality of LEDs mounted on a heat-dissipating substrate that has a width that is less than or equal to the diameter of the fluorescent tube that the light source is designed to replace.” Id. at 5:52–56. Thus, Hasnain teaches that its LED light fits into, and connects with, an existing structure that previously held a fluorescent light tube. Id. at 2:50–56, 3:23–26, 4:58–64, 5:52–56, Figs. 1A, 4. As discussed above, however, Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure is not enclosed in a tubular housing in order to dissipate heat to the surrounding air or via thermal contact with the existing structure that a fluorescent light tube is inserted into. Id. at 2:50–56, 4:23–28, 4:51–64, Figs. 1A, 3, 4.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,566,895 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,566,895
• Quasar Science LLC v. Colt International Clothing, Inc. D/B/A Colt LedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00613 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6–14, 16–19, 21–24, and 26–31 were not shown unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner does not identify any specific instance in which the differences between the parties’ respective descriptions of the level of ordinary skill in the art impacts the analysis or conclusions of either party, or either party’s declarant, in this case. See id. In fact, Patent Owner acknowledges that any differences between the parties’ respective descriptions do not impact the conclusions in this case. Id. at 9 (“Regardless of which definition . . . is applied, the conclusion(s) would be the same.”). Therefore, to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s description, which is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Fred Holmes, and is consistent with the asserted prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 32.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 10. We determine that no claim terms require an express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See Sections II.D.1, II.E.1.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Thus, Petitioner’s assertion that Hasnain’s LED light emits at least 1000 lumens requires distributing LEDs on a heat-dissipating structure that transfers heat to the surrounding air or via thermal contact with another existing structure. Id. at 4:23–28, 4:51–5:6, Figs. 3, 4; see Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 49, 5 Figure 4 shows heat-dissipating structure 59, not heat-dissipating structure 47. Ex. 1008, Fig. 4. But Hasnain describes those structures similarly. Id. at 4:51–5:6. 66. Petitioner, though, does not explain how Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure would work when combined with Ducharme’s tubular housing. See Pet. 62–63; Pet. Reply 10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 490; Ex. 1049 ¶¶ 41–49. In particular, Petitioner does not explain how Hasnain’s heat- dissipating structure would dissipate sufficient heat to the surrounding air when enclosed in Ducharme’s tubular housing. See id. Petitioner also does not explain how Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure would dissipate sufficient heat via thermal contact with another existing structure when enclosed in Ducharme’s tubular housing. See id. Furthermore, Petitioner does not propose combining Ducharme and Hasnain so that Hasnain’s heatdissipating structure is in thermal contact with Ducharme’s tubular housing. See id. Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently how the proposed combination of Ducharme and Hasnain was supposed to work. See Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he Board nowhere clearly explained, or cited evidence showing, how the combination of the two references was supposed to work.”).” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to achieve high lumen output, we determine that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the specific cited teachings of Ducharme and Hasnain.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,411,582 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,411,582
• Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 25, 2024 · IPR2022-01223 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5 were not shown unpatentable over Yegoshin, Bernard, Johnston, and Preiss under § 103 because the evidence did not establish multiplexing signals.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “communication device for multiplexing signals.” Ex. 1001, 12:2–3 (emphasis added). The language in the preamble does not support adopting Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “multiplexing” to mean that “the connections may be used simultaneously or sequentially for combining multiple data paths into a single path,” because signals are being multiplexed, not connections or data paths. Pet. Reply 10. No connection is recited in the preamble with regard to multiplexing.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 (file history of the ’075 patent), 12; Ex. 2003 (Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief from related litigation), 40–41; Ex. 2023 (Claim Construction Order from related litigation), 7). “Petitioner does not dispute that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting.” Pet. Reply 9 (citing PO Resp. 9–10; Ex. 2003, 45–46). Based on the full record, we adopt the parties’ agreement that the preamble is limiting. See also Ex. 2003, 45–46; Ex. 2023, 7.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “show by a preponderance of the evidence that Yegoshin teaches or would have been understood to reasonably suggest “multiplexing signals” and that Bernard “includes or operates as a multiplexer for combining the data packets.” See Pet. 32–40. Because Petitioner does not show multiplexing signals in any of the asserted references, Petitioner does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that its proposed combination of Yegoshin, Bernard, Johnston, and Preiss would have rendered obvious “[a]n IP-enabled communication device for multiplexing signals,” as recited by claim 1. Also, because Petitioner fails to show Yegoshin teaches or would have been understood to reasonably suggest multiplexed signals and fails to show that Bernard “includes or operates as a multiplexer for combining the data packets,” Petitioner’s asserted motivation to modify Yegoshin in view of Bernard for “multiplexing signals” lacks rational underpinning. Weighing the underlying factual determinations, a preponderance of the evidence does not persuade us that claim 1 of the ’075 patent is unpatentable over Yegoshin, Bernard, Johnston, and Preiss. Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361.” slip op. at 44

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not credit Petitioner’s cited testimonial evidence because, for the reasons above, Yegoshin and the full record do not support it. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79, 80. We, instead, credit Patent Owner’s cited testimonial evidence because Yegoshin and the full record better support it. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 50, 51, 55–56, 58–61; see also Ex. 2025, 65:19–66:4.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,319,075 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,319,075
• Cisco Systems, Inc. / Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00037 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 12–24, and 27–31 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not prove either asserted obviousness combination taught the claimed controller or packet-applicable criterion.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA): would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience, and a POSA would have had a working knowledge of hardware and software for packet-switched networking. EX1004, ¶¶48-49. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education and vice versa. Id., ¶48. Pet. 5. “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 16. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’111 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Both parties agree that the ultimate analysis “remains the same” under either construction. Id. at 2; PO Sur-reply 2. We likewise agree that we do not need to decide between the two constructions. At the same time, consistent with parties’ positions, we construe “controller” to mean an entity that is either 1) configured to 2 Though Patent Owner does not provide a citation in support, Petitioner does not disagree that this is consistent with what occurred in the parallel district court proceeding. See Reply 1. perform deep packet inspection on packets, or 2) that is capable of controlling deep packet inspection. We determine that no other terms need to be construed. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Though Petitioner asserts that there are a “limited number of design options” and that it would have been obvious to combine the different components of Lin, Petitioner does not establish that a controller configured to perform DPI analysis on packets was a known solution, and thus one of the limited design options. As discussed in KSR: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that is was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Besides asserting the combination would have been “obvious to try,” Petitioner provides no other analysis or reason why one of skill in the art would have modified the teachings of Lin to obtain the claimed controller. Thus, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the teachings of Lin render obvious all of the features of claim 1.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Further, we find the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant more persuasive based at least on his consideration of Swenson as a whole and his more detailed analysis and explanations. For example, Patent Owner’s declarant explains in detail why, “[i]n the context of a HTTP GET request and response, as disclosed in Swenson, the message does not constitute a single packet but a flow of packets:” Furthermore, Swenson discloses that the steering device 130 “sends an ICAP request message 516 comprising [a] HTTP GET request header and a portion of the [HTTP] response payload to the network controller 140, which inspects the message to determine whether to monitor the flow or optimize the video.” Ex. 1007 [0065]. In the context of a HTTP GET request and response, as disclosed in Swenson, the message does not constitute a single packet but a flow of packets. The reference to a HTTP request and response “header” and “payload” are thus not references to the header and payload of a packet. A POSA would know that despite common parlance references to “HTTP packets,” HTTP does not pertain to individual packets, whereas packet transmission is governed by the TCP protocol. HTTP utilizes TCP to exchange data such that information may be used by an end user (e.g., a video or audio stream). Even assuming that Swenson’s controller were analyzing the header and payload of an HTTP request/response, a POSA would understand that this analysis is not at the packet but at the flow level and thus does not constitute deep packet inspection. Ex. 2025 ¶ 69. Petitioner’s declarant merely responds by reiterating what was previously stated: Swenson is explicit in stating that its inspection techniques include inspection of “a portion of the [HTTP] response payload.” . . . A POSA would have understood the analysis of the “response payload” to be DPI by a DPI-capable controller, as DPI refers to monitoring the payload of a packet.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,652,111 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,652,111
• Cisco Systems, Inc. / Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2024 · IPR2023-00554 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 12–24, and 27–31 were not shown unpatentable because neither asserted obviousness combination established all limitations of claim 1.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA): would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience, and a POSA would have had a working knowledge of hardware and software for packet-switched networking. EX1004, ¶¶48-49. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education and vice versa. Id., ¶48. Pet. 5. “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 16. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’111 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “We likewise agree that we do not need to decide between the two constructions. At the same time, consistent with parties’ positions, we construe “controller” to mean an entity that is either 1) configured to 2 Though Patent Owner does not provide a citation in support, Petitioner does not disagree that this is consistent with what occurred in the parallel district court proceeding. See Reply 1. perform deep packet inspection on packets, or 2) that is capable of controlling deep packet inspection. We determine that no other terms need to be construed. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that DPI and DFI would have been understood to be different processes – That DPI inspects the detailed contents of individual packets in a granular, thorough manner; and, in contrast, DFI focuses on the broader patterns of network traffic flows by looking at aggregate data flow characteristics. As discussed above, the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant as to the understanding of DPI is largely uncontested. Further, the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant as to the understanding of DFI is supported by Swenson when considered as a whole as well as supported by Exhibit 2027.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “a POSA would have understood that one of the limited number of design options would have been to implement the security service as part of a controller configured to perform DPI analysis on packets, and a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation that the controller would have been successful in performing DPI analysis. Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 79 (making an identical statement)). No additional discussion, explanation, or evidence on these points were provided at the Petition stage. Patent Owner argues that: The mere fact that the security service may share certain common technical characteristics with the controller (i.e., its connection to the network switch and the hardware in which these two separate entities are implemented) cannot in and of itself suggest to a POSA that the function carried out by the security service should also be performed by the controller or that the controller should be configured to perform that function (i.e., deep packet inspection). PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 54–55). We agree. Though Petitioner asserts that there are a “limited number of design options” and that it would have been obvious to combine the different components of Lin, Petitioner does not establish that a controller configured to perform DPI analysis on packets was a known solution, and thus one of the limited design options. As discussed in KSR: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that is was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Besides asserting the combination would have been “obvious to try,” Petitioner provides no other analysis or reason why one of skill in the art would have modified the teachings of Lin to obtain the claimed controller. Thus, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the teachings of Lin render obvious all of the features of claim 1.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,652,111 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,652,111
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Corrigent CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00447 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–26 were not shown unpatentable because the Petition did not establish the claimed port assignment and packet labeling under Raz or adequately explain the Raz–Ferguson combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “packet-switched networking, MPLS and LAG.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 57–58). Petitioner also states that a lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 57). Patent Owner “uses the same definition.” PO Resp. 4. We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill, which is undisputed and is consistent with the level reflected by the ’602 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “We construe claims using the principles set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) and related cases. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2022). Under that precedent, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Neither party proposes any express claim constructions. Pet. 6–7; see PO Resp. 4. To the extent that the parties dispute the meaning of certain claim terms, we address those issues below, but we determine it is unnecessary to expressly construe any terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner argues, and we agree, that the cited portions of Raz do not disclose a LAG between two switches. PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner acknowledges this; as stated in Petitioner’s Reply, “Petitioner has always acknowledged that Raz addresses the use of subports within an LSR, but a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found it obvious from Raz to use Ethernet physical data ports of a router or switch in an Ethernet LAG to communicate high-speed packet streams in [an] MPLS network.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Pet. 15, 19, 22–25; Ex. 1021 ¶ 13; Ex. 1006, 1:16–19, 2:23– 31, 7:7–29, 11:3–12, 13:16–19, 14:42–44, 15:56–58, 17:7–9). Petitioner argues that LAGs were well known and, “[w]hile PO argues that Raz teaches the use of a single high-speed link to communicate between LSRs, that is merely a design choice.” Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 15–17; PO Resp. 8–9). Further, Petitioner argues “[i]t would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] that high-speed packet streams could be communicated between switches or routers through a physical tunnel port of a LAG.” Pet. Resp. 3 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 15–17) (emphasis added). Among other problems, though, those arguments were not in the Petition; the Petition does not describe modifications of Raz’s teachings, much less establish those modifications as a “design choice.” See Pet. 25; see also PO Sur-reply 3. Further, we agree with Patent Owner that Raz is fundamentally different with its teachings of multiplexing the outputs of multiple slow- speed subports/processors into a single stream for transmission across a single high-speed link. PO Resp. 7–9, 12–13, 15–16; PO Sur-reply 4–5. As stated in Raz, “[t]he present invention provides a subport forwarding and provisioning mechanism whereby a plurality of subports comprising slower speed processors are used to perform the packet processing for a higher speed packet stream.” Ex. 1006, 6:24–27. Additionally, where Raz describes communication between two LSRs, Petitioner acknowledges that Raz teaches that its cited second LSR assigns the port on which it will receive a data packet. Pet. Reply 4; Ex. 1021 ¶ 20 (“in Raz, the second LSR chooses the subport that will be used to transmit the data packet from the first LSR and receive the data packet at the second LSR”). According to Petitioner, Raz teaches that “a first LSR generates a data packet label in which a port serial number is encoded and sends the label to a preceding LSR. Subsequently, the preceding LSR sends a data packet to the proper subport for processing. The process is then repeated in sending the data packet from the first LSR to a second LSR.” Pet. Reply 4 (citations omitted). “This technique just as easily could have been implemented to identify a single physical tunnel port through which a data packet in a first router or switch would be communicated to a second router or switch via a LAG.” Pet. Reply 4 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1006, 2:23–25, 7:7–16, 7:22–26, 11:3–29, Fig. 5; Ex. 1021 ¶ 18). Again, these arguments were not made in the Petition (see Pet. 22–25), and Petitioner’s assertions that Raz’s teachings “just as easily could have been implemented” in the manner claimed is improper hindsight and inconsistent with the fundamental differences between Raz’s multiplexing within an LSR and the claimed link aggregation and port assignment between MPLS/LAG switches.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “[c]laims 1–13, 15–24 and 26 set forth above in Ground 1.” Pet. 52. Further, Petitioner states that “[f]or independent [c]laims 1, 15, and 26, Ferguson builds on the previous analysis of Raz by disclosing a system for communicating packets between switches and routers in an MPLS network.” Pet. 52; see Pet. 52–55. Critically, though, Petitioner does not specifically explain how the combined teachings of Raz and Ferguson would satisfy individual claim elements. Among other problems with Petitioner’s proposed combination, Petitioner does not adequately explain how or why a person of ordinary skill would have combined the references to include the claimed port assignment and packet labeling for transmission of a packet from a preceding node and then between a first and second MPLS switch. See Pet. 56–59. Instead, Petitioner generally advocates for the combination of Raz and Ferguson, arguing for example that “both Raz and Ferguson are directed to solving the problem of ensuring enough bandwidth is available to communicate high-speed packet streams through an MPLS network.” Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:60–11:12, 14:33–41, 15:47–55, 17:1–9, Fig. 5; Ex. 1007, 1:28–42, 2:54–57, 4:55–60; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 247–249). Further, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill “would have understood from the disclosures in Ferguson that techniques for utilizing an Ethernet physical data port in a LAG to communication data packets between routers or switches in an MPLS network are also applicable to the use of subports transmitting the data packets within the routers or switches, and vice versa.” Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 250; Ex. 1007, 5:61–6:6); see Pet. 56–59; Pet. Reply 20. But Petitioner does not adequately explain how the proposed combination of Raz and Ferguson would cure the deficiencies addressed above in Petitioner’s analysis of Raz for Ground 1. Among other problems, none of Petitioner’s arguments adequately address port assignment and labeling in the proposed combination, much less adequately explain why the proposed combination would satisfy the challenged claims. See Pet. 55–56. As Petitioner does not adequately explain how the teachings of Raz and Ferguson might be combined to cure the deficiencies addressed above, we additionally determine Petitioner’s arguments and evidence advanced for the combination of Raz and Ferguson do not establish obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence for any of claims 1–26.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 9,118,602 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,118,602
• Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2024 · IPR2022-01222 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 14, 19, and 24 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish a distinct server and network switch box in the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal and does not propose its own level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art). Based on the full record, we maintain and affirm that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a working knowledge of the wireless communication arts pertinent to the ’863 patent” and “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner argues that “said server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of network devices” recited by claim 1 “should be understood to recite that a server is ‘configured with a controller’ and that it is the server that is ‘in communication with a plurality of network devices.’” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:1–4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). We preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s understanding of the phrase. Inst. Dec. 9. “Patent Owner does not concede that Petitioner’s construction [of a ‘server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of under any construction so it is not necessary to construe the term to resolve this IPR.” PO Resp. 14 n.1. Based on the full record, we determine that “said server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of network devices” does not require express interpretation to resolve the parties’ dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We find that the cited portions of Ahopelto describe a GRPS GSN or GGSN connects to data networks, such as an inter-operator backbone IP network, X.25 network, and IP network. Ex. 1005, code (57), 6:16–19, Fig. 1. Based on the portions relied upon by Petitioner, we find that Ahopelto does not describe expressly that its GGSN is “a server” and a separate and distinct “network switch box.” Ex. 1005, code (57), 6:16–19, 7:35–42, 8:40–41, 10:22–23, 10:48–50, 10:56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (“Ahopelto does not describe any details about a GGSN’s hardware/software”). We also find that Ahopelto does not describe expressly that a GGSN has separate and distinct functionalities (1) for receiving a packet and determining the protocol of the encapsulated packet is separate and (2) for connecting to data networks. Ex. 1005, code (57), 6:16–19, 7:35–42, 8:40–41, 10:22–23, 10:48–50, 10:56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 2008 ¶ 39 (“Ahopelto never mentions the term ‘server functionality’ or the term ‘routing functionality.’”).” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s declarant also opines that the asserted server functionality includes controlling where a packet is routed. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 77 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that Ahopelto’s GGSN exercises control over how a packet is routed, based on the protocol type (the ‘server functionality’ herein for simplicity of reference).”), ¶ 78 (“[T]he GGSN’s server functionality would exercise the disclosed control (the platform implementing the GGSN).”); Ex. 2005, 46:22–47:4 (Petitioner’s declarant answering “Yes” and “Routing is about where to send a packet,” in response to whether it was correct that “deciding where to send a packet is an essential part of routing”). According to Petitioner’s declarant, the asserted server functionality includes, or overlaps with, aspects of a “GGSN routing process.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 78; Ex. 1013, 14:1– 3; Ex. 2005, 46:22–47:4. Petitioner’s testimonial evidence does not show a clear distinction between the asserted server and routing functionalities to support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a server functionality separate and distinct from a routing functionality in Ahopelto’s GGSN.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,982,863 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,863
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2023 · IPR2022-01002 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 12–20 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Paulraj and Heath because the combination did not teach or suggest the claimed plurality of antennas.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Although we do not understand the claims to require both transmission and reception “via all antennas” all of the time, we determine the claims require a set of antennas in which at least some of the antennas are for both transmitting and receiving. We disagree with Petitioner that two separate sets of antennas—one set of transmitting antennas and a separate, nonoverlapping set of receiving antennas—fall within the scope of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Although we do not understand the claims to require both transmission and reception “via all antennas” all of the time, we determine the claims require a set of antennas in which at least some of the antennas are for both transmitting and receiving. We disagree with Petitioner that two separate sets of antennas—one set of transmitting antennas and a separate, nonoverlapping set of receiving antennas—fall within the scope of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 13

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We determine these arguments are not grounded in or supported by the Petition or within the scope of reasonable reply arguments. Nothing in the Petition maps any limitations of the challenged claims to alleged teachings in Paulraj of antennas that perform both transmission and reception. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner (Sur-Reply, 7) that this argument in Petitioner’s Reply would improperly recast Petitioner’s reliance on Paulraj and is therefore untimely. Moreover, we agree with Dr. Cooklev (Ex. 2004 ¶ 37) that Paulraj is consistent in describing separate transmit units and receive units throughout its disclosure, and without an appropriate mapping of Paulraj’s alleged teachings of transmit/receive antennas to the challenged claims in the Petition, Petitioner has not carried its burden to show unpatentability under such a theory, even if it were timely.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,191,083 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,191,083
• Commscope, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2023 · IPR2022-01012 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the petitioner did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine the cited references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed7 proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 12. In the Response, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed 7 Patent Owner did not challenge the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art in the Preliminary Response. level of ordinary skill in the art, as consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “ordinary meaning” and “[t]o the extent certain terms are subject to multiple interpretations, those questions do not affect the grounds advanced here.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116). Patent Owner “does not believe that the Board[] needs to expressly construe any claim limitation to find that the claims have not been proven unpatentable.” Resp. 13–14. There are no claim terms in dispute, so we need not expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “header with a sequence number. See Pet. 31; Resp. 20–21. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine G993.2 with Fukushima “[to] provid[e] improvements” (Pet. 22), but does not further explain what improvement to G993.2’s would result from the combination. Rather, Petitioner describes these improvements as “use of . . . packets with message counts and/or sequence IDs,” (id.), which provides nothing more than a statement of what claim 1 recites and what Fukushima discloses without any explanation as to what improvement is provided to G993.2 or why the use of packets with sequence IDs would improve G993.2. Petitioner’s asserted rationale for combining the references includes additional generic statements, e.g., by referring to “predictable benefits,” “predictable results described above,” and “these predictable, beneficial results” which are never specifically explained. See Pet. 22–23 (emphasis added). For example, Petitioner does not articulate why Fukushima’s sequence numbers would be an improvement or beneficial to G993.2’s “packets.” We recognize that Petitioner does not need to show “improvement” in a “categorical sense,” and need only show that Fukushima’s sequence numbers were a “suitable option,” see Intel Corp. v. process depicted in Figure 9[-]1, that data that flows from that process is in fact the packet.” Tr. 12:9–14. PACT KPP Schwiez AG, 61 F. 4th 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023), but in generically relying on “improvement” and “predictable, beneficial results” without further explanation, Petitioner has not established that Fukushima’s sequence numbers were a “suitable option” for G993.2’s “packets.” None of Petitioner’s assertions provide a sufficient reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine G993.2 with Fukushima as proposed. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (in an obviousness analysis, one must “determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”); In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “a conclusory assertion with no explanation is inadequate to support a finding that there would have been a motivation to combine”). We, therefore, disagree with Petitioner that “Petitioner set forth numerous reasons a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would be motivated to combine” VDSL2, Mitlin, and Fukushima. Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 140–148, 306–310); see also Reply 22–23.” slip op. at 25

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “At the hearing, Petitioner also relied on deposition testimony of Mr. McNair that G993.2 inherently discloses a sequence ID (Tr. 16:15–16), but this appears inconsistent with Petitioner’s position in the Reply, where “Petitioner describes the manner in which the ‘Sequence Identifier (SID)’ claim element is disclosed by Fukushima.” Reply 10. However, the testimony from Mr. McNair was cited in the Reply, stating that “VDSL2 ‘implicitly’ uses ‘some numbering of packets,’ such that there ‘has to be some kind of an indicator and the sequence number is one.’” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 2020, 91:10–22); see also id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 2020, 91:23–25 (Mr. McNair testifying that “there’s got to be some kind of marker, whether you call it a sequence number or you call it some other kind of marker….”)). This theory of inherency is not argued in the Petition, and is therefore a new theory raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply, so we will not consider it. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73-74 (Nov. 2019)12 (explaining that “‘[r]espond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing,”). However, even assuming this is not an improper new argument, Petitioner has not established that G993.2’s “packet” inherently teaches a header field comprises a sequence identifier (SID), or addressed how this might affect the combination with Fukushima. PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“A party must . . . meet a high standard in order to rely on inherency . . . —the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.”). That is, we do not find that Mr. McNair’s testimony that “there has to be some kind of an indicator and the sequence number is one” supports that a sequence number is necessarily present in G993.2. Moreover, Petitioner’s inherency theory seems to be in tension with Petitioner’s contentions that the combination with Fukushima provides an improvement or benefit to G993.2.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,833,809 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,833,809
• Commscope, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00809 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–12, 14, 15, 17–20, 22–24, 26, and 28 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed a Bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or the equivalent, and at least 5–6 years of experience; a Master’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or the equivalent, and at least 2–3 years of experience; or a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in electrical or computer engineering, or the equivalent, with at least 1–2 years of experience. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–33). In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed7 proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 13. In the Response, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Petitioner asserts that “claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning” and “[t]o the extent certain terms are subject to multiple interpretations, those questions do not affect the grounds advanced here.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–24, 116–118). Patent Owner “does not believe that the Board[] needs to expressly construe any claim limitation to find that the claims have not been proven unpatentable.” Resp. 13–14. There are no claim terms in dispute, so we need not expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Fukushima in the manner proposed.10 See Resp. 26; Sur-reply 17; see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)) (“It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.”). Specifically, we determine that Petitioner has not provided sufficient rationale establishing why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified G993.2’s “packet”11 with Fukushima’s packet with a header including a sequence number. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (establishing that an invention would have been obvious requires “a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 23

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “detail why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized the value of modifying VDSL2 by the disclosures of Fukushima.” Reply 19 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 140–148, 301–305, 314); see also Reply 28. Mr. McNair’s testimony is not only largely repetitive of the Petition, but similarly does not (1) provide any explanation as to what “improvements,” “predictable benefits,” or “value,” arises from the combination, or (2) even directly address the combination of G993.2’s “packet” with Fukushima’s sequence number. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 144, 145, 146; see ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Comms., Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (2012) (describing expert testimony that “motivation to combine would be because you wanted to build something better . . . a system that was more efficient, cheaper, or you wanted a system that had more features” as “generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of the prior art elements”).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,094,348 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,094,348

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.