• Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01414 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the 17 combinations listed in the order.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The fact that other parts of the claims recite locations of the image capture devices and the overlap zones does not mean that anything more should be read into the “without duplication of objects” clause, which appears clear on its face. Further, the claims do not say anything about parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized image. Indeed, parallax is not the same as the duplication of objects. See Ex. 1066 ¶ 11 (“Duplication . . . is different from parallax. For example, when each of the cameras have a common center of projection, there will be little or no parallax, but given their overlapping fields of view, the cameras may nonetheless capture the same objects multiple times resulting in duplication.” (citation omitted)). Thus, we are not persuaded that reading in any language pertaining to parallax effects would be appropriate based on the language of the claims.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Neither party explains in detail why their proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted. After reviewing the evidence, including the cited prior art, however, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s definition is substantially correct. The ’724 patent describes “rearview vision systems which provide the vehicle operator with scenic information in the direction rearward of the vehicle” using “image capture devices, such as CMOS [(complementary metal-oxide semiconductor)] imaging arrays and the like.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 22–27. “Camera-based rearview vision systems” had been proposed at the time, but had not “obtained commercial acceptance” and suffered from various problems according to the ’724 patent. Id. at col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 55. The ’724 patent further acknowledges that various aspects of the disclosed systems, such as, for example, CMOS and charge-coupled device (CCD) imaging arrays, optical correction systems, various types of image filtering, backlit liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), and systems for measuring the distance of an object behind the vehicle, were known at the time. See, e.g., id. at col. 11, ll. 60–64, col. 12, ll. 33–37, col. 13, ll. 26–41, col. 17, ll. 48–62, col. 20, ll. 42–53, col. 22, ll. 3–19, 44–55. Drs. Wolberg and Wilhelm further testify as to the development and state of the art by the time of the ’724 patent, which we find helpful in assessing what background knowledge would have been available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 27–39; Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 20–27. As a whole, the evidence indicates a higher level of ordinary skill than what Patent Owner proposes, and suggests, for example, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had at least some understanding of ways in which images from multiple cameras could be combined. See, e.g., Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 28–38; Ex. 1003, 3, 6; Ex. 1005, 3–6. Accordingly, based on our review of the ’724 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’724 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s or master’s degree in engineering, computer science, or physics (or equivalent work experience), with some familiarity with how cameras may be used in vehicles and a working understanding of combining image data from multiple cameras and microprocessor-driven controls for displays, actuators, and elementary decision making. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for three reasons. First, as explained above, to establish an earlier constructive reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show that the ’527 application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Patent Owner states that “each limitation of [the set of claims listed above] is supported in the ’935 patent disclosure,” but includes no substantive arguments in its Response explaining why. See id. Rather, Patent Owner cites 46 paragraphs of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration and a “Constructive Reduction to Practice Chart” spanning 43 pages. Id. (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–99). Any arguments contained in these materials cannot be incorporated by reference into the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).12 Consequently, we do not consider information presented in the declaration or claim chart but not discussed sufficiently in the Response. Second, even if Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s analysis and the claim chart are considered, they are not sufficient. The claim chart provides only block 12 See also Paper 8, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00013, 8 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 37) (“Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration.”), reversed-in-part on other grounds, No. 2015-1703, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 6958650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses” of the page limits established for the parties’ substantive papers, and that citing “large portions of another document, without sufficient explanation of those portions, amounts to incorporation by reference”). quotes and figures from the ’935 patent,13 but does not explain in any detail why they provide support for the various limitations of the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001. Likewise, the majority of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration merely states that “the features of [the respective claim] are disclosed” at the block-quoted portions of the ’935 patent, without explanation. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 56–61, 64, 65, 67–74, 76–99. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the ’935 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the independent claims of the ’724 patent (claims 1, 49, 65, and 78), each of which recites that the “synthesized image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle.” See Reply 13–15. As explained above, we interpret “reconfigurable display” to mean a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display to selectively display various types of auxiliary information. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner cites various excerpts from the ’935 patent describing display 20, but these portions do not call the display device “reconfigurable” or disclose that it is used to selectively display information. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 5–6 (citing Ex. 2002, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 5, col. 5, ll. 48–50, col. 6, ll. 5–12, 22–39); Ex. 2004 ¶ 56. Indeed, the ’724 patent Specification 13 It is unclear why Patent Owner attempts to map the disclosure of the ’935 patent, rather than the ’527 application, to the challenged claims. The ’935 patent issued on September 23, 1997 (after Yamamoto published), from the ’527 application filed on May 22, 1995 (before Yamamoto published). Patent Owner does not provide a copy of the ’527 application in the record to show that the written description is the same as that of the issued ’935 patent.” slip op. at 26

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id. (citation omitted). We first summarize the evidence presented regarding Wang’s alleged public accessibility. Wang is a publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and has a copyright notation of “TH0367-3/91/0000/0100$01.00 © 1991 IEEE” on the first page. See Ex. 1009, 1. Petitioner contends that the document was published “on May 27–31, 1991,” citing the testimony of Dr. Wolberg. Pet. 7. Dr. Wolberg testifies that “[a]s a person who regularly reviews scholarly articles, including IEEE publications such as the Wang article, and as someone who regularly attends conferences such as the IEEE conference in which the Wang paper was presented,” he believes that Wang was published in May 1991. Ex. 1020 ¶ 84. Dr. Wolberg also discusses two publications (Exhibits 1040 and 1042) that cite Wang prior to the effective filing date of the ’724 patent (May 22, 1996), “which further indicates to [Dr. Wolberg] that Wang was publicly accessible.” Id.; see Ex. 1040, 12 (cited reference 16); Ex. 1042, 3 (cited reference 4). Finally, he cites the University of Edinburgh website, which “states that the authors of the Wang article began work on CMOS imaging sensors as early as 1986, and began publishing articles reporting the results of their work that led to the incorporation of a CMOS chip in a video camera in 1989.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1044). Petitioner presents additional evidence with its Reply that allegedly confirms Wang’s public accessibility prior to May 22, 1996. Reply 11–12. First, Petitioner submits a declaration from Gerard P. Grenier, the Senior Director of Publishing Technologies for the IEEE.17 Ex. 1055. Mr. Grenier states that Wang “was published and presented as part of [the] Euro [A]SIC ’91 [conference] which occurred May 27–31, 1991.” Id. ¶ 9. According to Mr. Grenier, “[t]he Article was published by IEEE as part of the conference proceedings on the date of the conference. Copies of the conference proceedings were made available to attendees of the conference.” Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Grenier also testifies that “IEEE maintains records of the dates on which articles were first made available for public download,” “[t]hese records are maintained as part of the ordinary course of business of the IEEE [and] are updated regularly as articles are published,” and he has “personal knowledge of the records.” Id. ¶ 7. Second, Petitioner submits a copy of Wang, with a “EURO ASIC ’91” cover page and table of contents, “[s]helved” at the Linda Hall Library in Kansas City, Missouri in 1991. Ex. 1046. Third, Petitioner submits a certified copy of Wang from the Library of Congress, with the same cover page and table of contents and a date stamp of June 5, 1992. Ex. 1060. Fourth, Petitioner notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board decision finding similar claims with a priority date of February 26, 1993, unpatentable based in part on Wang in 17 Petitioner submitted a substantially similar version of the declaration, dated approximately one month earlier, with its Petition, but did not discuss the declaration in the Petition. Compare Ex. 1039, with Ex. 1055. Our analysis applies equally to both versions of the declaration. In re Magna Elecs., Inc., 611 F. App’x 969, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (Ex. 1045). Reply 11. Patent Owner disputes the sufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence of” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,643,724 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,643,724
• Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01410 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combinations listed in the Order.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “On December 28, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 on 17 grounds of unpatentability and consolidated Case IPR2015-01414 with Case IPR2015-01410 (Paper 7, “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner Magna Electronics Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 17, “Reply”). The parties did not request oral argument, and no hearing was held. See Paper 22.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for three reasons. First, as explained above, to establish an earlier constructive reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show that the ’527 application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Patent Owner states that “each limitation of [the set of claims listed above] is supported in the ’935 patent disclosure,” but includes no substantive arguments in its Response explaining why. See id. Rather, Patent Owner cites 46 paragraphs of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration and a “Constructive Reduction to Practice Chart” spanning 43 pages. Id. (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–99). Any arguments contained in these materials cannot be incorporated by reference into the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).12 Consequently, we do not consider information presented in the declaration or claim chart but not discussed sufficiently in the Response. Second, even if Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s analysis and the claim chart are considered, they are not sufficient. The claim chart provides only block 12 See also Paper 8, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00013, 8 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 37) (“Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration.”), reversed-in-part on other grounds, No. 2015-1703, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 6958650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses” of the page limits established for the parties’ substantive papers, and that citing “large portions of another document, without sufficient explanation of those portions, amounts to incorporation by reference”). quotes and figures from the ’935 patent,13 but does not explain in any detail why they provide support for the various limitations of the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001. Likewise, the majority of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration merely states that “the features of [the respective claim] are disclosed” at the block-quoted portions of the ’935 patent, without explanation. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 56–61, 64, 65, 67–74, 76–99. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the ’935 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the independent claims of the ’724 patent (claims 1, 49, 65, and 78), each of which recites that the “synthesized image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle.” See Reply 13–15. As explained above, we interpret “reconfigurable display” to mean a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display to selectively display various types of auxiliary information. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner cites various excerpts from the ’935 patent describing display 20, but these portions do not call the display device “reconfigurable” or disclose that it is used to selectively display information. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 5–6 (citing Ex. 2002, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 5, col. 5, ll. 48–50, col. 6, ll. 5–12, 22–39); Ex. 2004 ¶ 56. Indeed, the ’724 patent Specification 13 It is unclear why Patent Owner attempts to map the disclosure of the ’935 patent, rather than the ’527 application, to the challenged claims. The ’935 patent issued on September 23, 1997 (after Yamamoto published), from the ’527 application filed on May 22, 1995 (before Yamamoto published). Patent Owner does not provide a copy of the ’527 application in the record to show that the written description is the same as that of the issued ’935 patent.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized image. See supra Sections II.A.2–3. Rather, we interpret “synthesized image is generated without duplication of objects” to mean the synthesized image is generated with minimal multiple exposure of objects appearing in the overlap zones, and interpret “synthesized image approximates a view as would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the equipped vehicle” to mean the synthesized image is a nearly exact representation of what would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the vehicle. Id. Thus, the claims allow for a “minimal” level of multiple exposure and only require a “nearly exact” representation of what the virtual camera would see. We are not persuaded that any parallax effects that might remain when the pattern recognition techniques of Mitsubishi are used in Yamamoto’s system, as Petitioner asserts, would cause more than “minimal” multiple exposure or prevent the resulting image from being a “nearly exact” representation. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 110; Ex. 1066 ¶ 25. Moreover, even if the resulting image in the combined system would suffer from some parallax effects, we do not see how that contradicts Petitioner’s asserted reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yamamoto’s system, or why parallax concerns would have outweighed the advantage of improved image processing, such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have abandoned the three camera arrangement of Yamamoto. See Reply 15–17; Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). In that respect, we find Dr. Wolberg’s analysis of how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references’ teachings compelling. See Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 101–15; Ex. 1066 ¶¶ 22–37.” slip op. at 32

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “public accessibility. PO Resp. 17–21. Based on all of the evidence of record,18 however, we are persuaded that Wang was disseminated or otherwise made available prior to May 22, 1996, to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence could have located it. Most probative are the Library of Congress certification and Linda Hall Library documentation, which show that Wang was catalogued and readily available through these libraries. See Exs. 1046, 1060. Mr. Grenier further testifies that copies of the article were made available to attendees of the EURO ASIC ’91 conference, which was an IEEE academic conference pertaining to ASICs. See Ex. 1039; Ex. 1055; Ex. 1060, 2–13 (stating that the conference “includes reports on ASIC design experiences, advances in design methods and tools, and on the evolution of ASIC technology,” and is “the definitive place . . . for the academic community to exchange ideas”; listing numerous papers to be 18 We are persuaded that all of Petitioner’s evidence should be considered, including the evidence introduced with the Reply, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Further, during a conference call with the parties on May 26, 2016, Patent Owner sought authorization to file a motion to “strike” Petitioner’s new evidence and portions of Petitioner’s Reply. See Paper 20. We determined that a motion to strike was not appropriate at that time, but stated that “[s]hould either party request a hearing in this proceeding, . . . the parties may address the propriety of the exhibits and Petitioner’s Reply during oral argument. If the parties choose not to request a hearing, Patent Owner may request another conference call and we will determine whether additional briefing or any other action may be appropriate at that time.” Id. at 3; Ex. 1071, 20:14–22:18. Patent Owner did not request oral argument, and did not request another conference call to address the issue. presented relating to, for example, digital signal processing ASICs, chip architecture, and graphic application and image processing ASICs). Given the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’724 patent set forth above, see supra Section II.B, we are persuaded that the EURO ASIC ’91 conference is the type of conference that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been interested in and likely attended. The dates and documentation for the conference also are consistent with the other submitted evidence, including the copyright notation of Wang itself, which states in part “© 1991 IEEE.” See Ex. 1009, 1. Finally, as Petitioner correctly points out, the first article cited by Dr. Wolberg shows that Wang in fact was accessed by some other individuals working in the field of image sensors. See Reply 12; Ex. 1040. Based on the record presented, we are persuaded that Wang is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 8,643,724 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,643,724
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01444 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–7, 12, 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, 28, 34, 39, 40, 42, and 46 are unpatentable under the stated § 103 combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ arguments require us to consider whether a printer is commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “thin terminal.” See Pet. 30–31; PO Resp. 42–43; Pet. Reply 18–20. The ’033 patent describes “thin terminals” as having “a relatively low power central processor and operating system” and as being “mainly used as peripherals to an Application server in a PAN.” Ex. 1001, 5:2–5. The main tasks of a thin terminal are described as “user interaction, rendering output for a user and providing an Application server with a user’s input.” Id. at 5:5–7. Examples of thin terminals provided in the ’033 patent include a watch and a messaging terminal. Id. at 5:5–7. Furthermore, the ’033 patent contrasts thin terminals with smart terminals having “a relatively powerful central processor, operating system and applications,” such as “a computer notebook and PDA.” Id. at 4:62–5:2. In describing a messaging terminal in one embodiment, the ’033 patent states that the terminal “has no embedded application code or data.” Id. at 10:18–21. Petitioner contends a printer is a thin terminal because, at least, a printer “has a low power central processor and operating system relative to a laptop computer or PDA.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 25) (internal quotation omitted). We agree with Petitioner, and we additionally observe that a printer is a peripheral utilized for rendering user output, which is consistent with the Specification’s description of a thin terminal. We also agree with Petitioner that the Specification’s reference to “no embedded application code or data” (Ex. 1001, 10:18–21) does not preclude a printer with application code and/or data from being a thin terminal, because the ’033 patent also describes the thin terminal locating, downloading, and executing software. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:13–25). As such, we determine the “thin terminal” recited in claims 7 and 46 encompasses a printer.1” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Master[] of Science Degree (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science with a concentration in communication and networking systems or, alternatively, a Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical or computer engineering and having two or more years of experience in communication and networking systems. Pet. 7–8. Petitioner’s contention is supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei, who bases his testimony on his “experience working in industry and academia, with undergraduate and postgraduate students, with colleagues from academia, and with engineers practicing in industry.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15– 16. IXI does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and, in fact, IXI applies it in IXI’s Patent Owner Response. PO Resp. 8; see also Ex. 2301 ¶ 16 (IXI’s declarant, Dr. Mandayam, applying same definition). Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. We further observe that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the qualifications a person would need to understand and implement the teachings of the ’033 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “3. Marchand Marchand is a published international patent application, and Petitioner asserts Marchand’s priority date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is April 3, 2000, the date of filing for a prior national application (i.e., Marchand Priority) in the United States. See Pet. 4–5. IXI does not contest Petitioner’s priority date assertion. Therefore, for purposes of this decision, we find Marchand qualifies as prior art to the ’033 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because April 3, 2000, predates the May 7, 2001, filing date of the ’033 patent.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “ordinarily skilled artisan “would have modified Marchand’s system such that the public IP address of the mobile phone gateway 33 was provided by the cellular network 35.” PO Resp. 40 (quoting Pet. 17–18). IXI argues that Marchand and Vilander do not indicate a need for the cellular network to provide a public IP address for the gateway mobile phone. Id. (citing Ex. 2301 ¶ 70). Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that “using Vilander’s address allocation in Marchand would have amounted to nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way or the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Pet. Reply 15 (citing, inter alia, KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)); see also Pet. 19 (citing same). Although Marchand describes gateway mobile phone as having “a public IP address recognized in the wireless IP network,” Marchand does not explicitly describe how the public IP address is assigned. Pet. Reply 16 (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:23–30). In light of this, Petitioner identifies evidence that Vilander’s GGSN would have improved Marchand by allocating the public IP address to Marchand’s gateway mobile phone 33. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 46; Ex. 1011, 1:48–52, 1:57–59).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 7,039,033 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,039,033
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01446 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–16, 21–24, 26–28, and 30 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Marchand and Sears, or Marchand, Sears, and Lee.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’648 patent would have had a Master of Science Degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science or a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and two or more years of experience in communication and networking systems. Pet. 7. Petitioner’s contention is supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei, who bases his testimony on his “experience working in industry and academia, with undergraduate and postgraduate students, with colleagues from academia, and with engineers practicing in industry.” Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 15– 16. IXI does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and, in fact, IXI applies it in IXI’s Patent Owner Response. PO Resp. 8; see also Ex. 2501 ¶ 16 (IXI’s declarant, Dr. Mandayam, applying same definition). Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. We further observe that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the qualifications a person would need to understand and implement the teachings of the ’648 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner also cites Sears’s description that device information can be “provided by a device or user during a request for . . . application download.” Pet. 36 (quoting Ex. 1015 ¶ 41) (emphasis added). Petitioner additionally cites Sears’s description of software that is downloaded “based on a user profile sent at the time of search.” Pet. Reply 7 (quoting Ex. 1015 ¶ 42). Contrary to IXI’s arguments, these citations establish that Sears is not limited to providing device information in one transaction and then downloading software in a separate transaction. Rather, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s analysis that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Sears as also teaching contemporaneous downloading and sending of device information. See Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 62–63. Thus, Petitioner establishes that the combination of Marchand and Sears teaches every limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “IXI also characterizes Petitioner’s alleged motivation to combine Marchand and Sears as being a “hindsight-fueled, juxtaposition of discrete elements of the references.” PO Resp. 27. IXI argues that Petitioner’s alleged motivation “is based entirely on maintaining the benefits (or not ‘negating the benefits of’[)] of each individual system after making the alleged combination.” PO Resp. 26 (citing Pet. 15–16). We do not find Petitioner’s alleged motivation to be flawed, however. Supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei, Petitioner provides an extensive analysis that turns on an ordinarily skilled artisan being motivated to add “Sears’ techniques for optimized downloading of applications” to Marchand. See Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 31–34). Petitioner’s mention of “retain[ing] the benefits” of Marchand simply underscores that Sears’s server and optimized application downloading functionality augment and provide further benefits to Marchand’s piconet and its use of a gateway mobile phone to connect to a cellular IP network. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 37). Petitioner’s combination also is rooted in the common teachings mentioned above. Thus, Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Sears’s technique would also improve similar devices in the same way; as such, using Sears’s technique in this way “is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. The relatively high level of skill ascribed to an ordinary artisan—namely, a Master of Science degree in engineering (see supra § II.A.2.)—suggests that applying Sears’s techniques to Marchand would have been well within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. For these reasons, Petitioner has established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Marchand and Sears to achieve the method recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsOther

    “c. Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness IXI did not put forth any evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,016,648 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,016,648
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01445 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 13–17, 19, 21–23, 27, 28, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Liu alone and Liu with Chiloyan; anticipation by Liu was not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “systems. Pet. 7. In its Response, Patent Owner states it applies Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill on in the art. PO Resp. 9. Based on our review of the ’648 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’648 patent and cited prior art, we adopt, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner submits that “all terms of the ’648 Patent should be given their broadest reasonable plain meaning.” Pet. 4. Patent Owner submits that “the terms of the challenged claims should be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 9. Just as in the Decision on Institution, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation standard here. In our Decision on Institution, we stated that “we do not explicitly construe any claim terms.” Dec. 5. We similarly see no reason to construe explicitly any claim term at this stage in this proceeding. B. Anticipation Analysis” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “identifier includes manufacturer information, as required by the independent claims. Patent Owner correctly notes that there is no explicit disclosure in Liu of manufacturer information present in the device information. PO Resp. 21–22. Petitioner has not directed us to a disclosure in Liu that expressly states that manufacturer information is present in the device information. We are unpersuaded by Dr. Kiaei’s testimony, which is couched in terms of what Dr. Kiaei opines “must be” in Liu, rather than what Liu expressly discloses. Ex. 1003 ¶ 39. Dr. Kiaei’s testimony discusses portions of Liu regarding manufacturer 1670 and its registration of device identifiers for toys, but these citations to Liu do not expressly disclose the disputed claim limitation. Id. ¶¶ 37–39. Dr. Kiaei provides no additional authority for the statements supporting the assertions in paragraphs 37–39, in particular, the statement that “each identifier must be associated in some way to the particular manufacturer of the toy to allow ‘each toy to be used within the system [to] be uniquely recognized.’” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 39); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (stating opinion testimony that does not disclose underlying facts or data “is entitled to little or no weight”). We also find unpersuasive the argument that “each identifier must be associated in some way to the particular manufacturer of the toy to allow ‘each toy to be used with the system [to] be uniquely recognized.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 39. Liu states that, via registration of a device identification number for the toy, “each toy to be used in the system may be uniquely recognized.” Ex. 1005, 46:5–7. If, as hypothesized by Dr. Kiaei, two manufacturers registered the same toy identifier for two different toys, then by its terms, the toy would not be uniquely recognized, as required by Liu. Id. Petitioner also has not carried its burden to establish that Liu inherently discloses that the device information includes a manufacturer of the device. “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference.’” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Inherency is not “established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. (quotation omitted).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that there remains ambiguity about the field of endeavor Patent Owner seeks to identify with respect to the ’648 patent. Reply 20. “The field of endeavor of a patent is not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner characterizes the field of endeavor of both disclosures as “techniques for network communication between devices and servers,” which, while broad, is not unreasonable. Reply 22. Although Liu’s most noticeable feature may be a teddy bear, the underlying networking and functionality of its system place it in the same field of endeavor as the ’648 patent. See id. at 20–21 (including citations to Liu’s disclosures of aspects of network interactions between toy devices and servers). Limiting Liu’s field of endeavor to “toys” is insupportably narrowing when Liu in fact discloses networking features that in numerous instances align with the disclosure of the ’648 patent. Regarding the particular problem to be solved, our position remains the same as in the Decision on Institution. Liu’s disclosure is, at least, reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors of the ’648 patent, i.e., “the problem of ‘sending software to a device connected to a local network from a remote server.’” Dec. 14. Thus, we remain persuaded that Petitioner has established sufficiently that Liu is analogous art.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,016,648 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,016,648
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01443 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 5, 7–9, 12, 14–16, and 23–24 are unpatentable under § 103 over the instituted combinations of Marchand, Router Plugins, and the applicable additional references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “For the purpose of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s undisputed contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the critical date would have had a Master’s of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree) with a concentration in communication and networking systems or, alternatively, a Bachelor Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and having two or more years of experience in communication and networking systems. Ex. 1003 at 15. Additional education in a relevant field, such as computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above. Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner applied Petitioner’s definition in its Patent Owner Response. PO Resp. 10–11. The level of ordinary skill in the art is further” slip op. at 8

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

    “the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In our Decision on Institution, we determined that the claim 1 phrase “software component . . . loaded . . . from the one or more devices connected to said one or more cellular networks” needed no express construction. Dec. 7–8. Patent Owner, in its Response, agrees that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this recitation without an explicit construction.” PO Resp. 11. We see no reason to modify our position in light of the record developed at trial. No other claim terms have been presented to us for construction, and we determine that no other claim terms require express construction. B. Principles of Law” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments in this regard. We understand Petitioner as premising the combinability of Marchand and Router Plugins on the routing of IP packets. Pet. 14 (Marchand’s “mobile gateway 33 performs routing for IP packets”), 23 (“Marchand discloses a mobile phone gateway 33 that routes IP packets between a local area network and an external cellular network . . . .”); Reply 3. Petitioner relies on Router Plugins’ “plugin-based routing software” to be “implemented in Marchand’s mobile phone gateway 33 to implement various types of router functionality, such as routing of IP packets and IP address translation.” Pet. 24. Indeed, Dr. Mandayam agrees that routing of IP packets is done by Marchand, and is done at a network layer of the protocol stack. Reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1016, 21:21–22:2, 160:16–19; Ex. 2201 ¶¶ 34, 35). Dr. Mandayam also agrees that Router Plugins performs routing of IP packets, and that routing of IP packets occurs at a network layer of the protocol stack. Id. at 5–6 (citing Ex. 1016, 145:15–24, 21:21–22:2). We further agree with Petitioner’s contention that, even though the Router Plugins routing framework fits within an operating system kernel, “Router Plugins does not describe routing IP packets at the operating system layer,” but rather, performs routing of IP packets at a network layer of the protocol stack. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1006, 229 col. 2, 231 col. 2, Fig. 1). We credit Dr. Kiaei’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art, understanding that both “Marchand and Router Plugins describe devices that utilize software to route IP packets and perform network address translation,” would have been motivated to make Marchand’s IP routing “more ‘flexible and modular’ by using the plugin-based router software of Router Plugins.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 55. The enhanced routing of IP packets at the network layer, as demonstrated by Router Plugins, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the inclusion of Router Plugins’ technology to better the IP routing of Marchand, which also takes place at the network layer.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We have the discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including opinion testimony, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. See, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to credit one witness’s testimony over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Dr. Kiaei’s testimony as a whole should be given “little weight, if any.” We have considered Patent Owner’s sub-piconet theory, and we determine that it would not have limited an ordinarily skilled artisan’s understanding of Marchand. Thus, we accord an appropriate weight to Dr. Kiaei’s testimony as indicated in this Decision and for the reasons articulated in this Decision. F. Motion to Exclude” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 7,295,532 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,295,532
• Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC v. Nidec Motor CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01617 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–13 were not shown unpatentable because Beifus did not disclose the claimed torque table with alternate torque settings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Beifus states that Figure 6 “is a chart illustrating an induction motor speed-torque curve that is programmed into a memory of an ECM.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 11. Because “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference,” the dispositive issue in this proceeding is well defined: does Figure 6 (and related disclosure) of Beifus teach “selecting a torque table associated with the adjustment factor, the torque table including alternate torque settings,” as recited in independent claim 7? See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “reasoning of Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner contends that “[u]pon reading Beifus, a person of ordinary skill would immediately recognize that the ECM control circuit could handle the torque values in two ways – storing a set of torque values in a memory or by calculating the torque values ‘on the fly.’” Reply 18. Kennametal explains that “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘do[es] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal at 1381 (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). Petitioner did not raise the Kennametal theory of anticipation in its Petition, and the argument based on it in the Reply is, therefore, improper. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”) (emphasis added); CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Helferich Pat. Lic., LLC, Case IPR2013-00033, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 79) (“Should there be improper arguments or evidence presented with a reply, the Board, exercising its discretion, may exclude the reply and related evidence in their entirety, or alternatively, decline to consider the improper arguments and/or related evidence.”). Although Patent Owner addressed this theory in its Response (PO Resp. 21–24), Patent Owner appears to have done so only prophylactically after the theory was raised by Petitioner in redirect examination of Dr. Sidman. See PO Resp. 21 (“During Dr. Sidman’s redirect examination by [Petitioner’s] counsel, he was asked the following leading question . . . .”) (“The Board should disregard any of this new evidence and argument if [Petitioner] intends to rely on it.”). Because this is a new argument, not raised in the Petition, we do not consider it.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “the ambiguity when Figure 6 is actually described in detail in the specification.” Id. at 16. As Patent Owner asserts, “Beifus makes it clear that Figure 6 is a plot of values derived from key characteristics which are motor parameters of the emulated motor.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 36; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16, 31). This understanding of Beifus is confirmed by testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mark N. Horenstein, Ph.D. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16. Dr. Horenstein explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the parameters stored in the ECM are key parameters used with the formula reproduced above to describe the torque-speed curve of the induction motor being emulated, namely the no-load speed, breakdown speed, and shape description number n. Id. ¶ 15. Dr. Horenstein further testifies that, “although square and diamond symbols appear along the curves in Figure 6, nowhere does Beifus describe the storing of these individual points.” Id. ¶ 16. Rather, Dr. Horenstein expresses his opinion that “a person of skill would understand these symbols to be included simply to identify which curve applies to Option 1 and which to Option 2 [i.e., different options for the induction motor breakdown speed], as indicated by the legend to the right of the plots.” Id. Petitioner challenged Dr. Horenstein’s opinion at his deposition, in part by comparing a drawing from one of Dr. Horenstein’s own patents that included a series of curves with data marked by different symbols: Q. So if a person of ordinary skill in the art looking at Figure 6 of the Beifus patent sees diamonds and squares, wouldn’t they come to an understanding that those are data points? A. I don’t think so. And the reason is that a formula is given that explains how the curves are computed. Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s patent], those are discretely measured points performed by experiment, and there really is no formula that applies to those curves per se, they’re just data points that have some scatter relative to each other and they happen to be connected by lines, but those lines do not represent a formula. Ex. 1013, 54:2–16. We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of this testimony as explaining that “the reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the diamonds and squares appearing in Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s] patent are data points, as opposed to mere curve identifiers, is because the diamonds and squares are connected by lines.” Reply 15. Rather, Dr. Horenstein’s testimony makes clear that his opinion is grounded in Beifus’s disclosure of a formula that allows calculation of the illustrated points and that connection of data points measured by experiment with lines is incidental. Dr. Horenstein’s testimony is more persuasive than the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Michael D. Sidman, Ph.D., on the identification of “key characteristic points” disclosed by Beifus. For example, Dr. Sidman appeared to suggest at his deposition that the entire speed-torque curve of Beifus’s Figure 6 is itself a “key characteristic point,” but qualified that position when challenged by Patent Owner. See Ex. 2001, 23:22–25:15. Nevertheless, Dr. Sidman agrees that (1) a curve can be generated from a mathematical formula and graphed (Ex. 2001, 30:8–11); (2) Beifus’s two formulas correspond to the formulas for “Option 1” and “Option 2” shown in Figure 6 (id. at 33:12–36:19); (3) operating speed, breakdown speed, no load speed, and shape-description number n are variables used in the formula disclosed by Beifus (id. at 22:23–23:10); (4) the calculation disclosed by Beifus could be performed on the fly in a motor controller (id. at 47:6–14); and (5) Beifus does not explicitly disclose that any precalculations are performed (id. at 43:1–23). These aspects of Dr. Sidman’s testimony are consistent with Patent Owner’s reading of Beifus.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “We see no compelling reason to modify these constructions based on the positions of the parties as developed during the trial, and adopt them for this Decision. With respect to the construction of “torque table,” Patent Owner asserts: If the Board’s construction means that the table need not be in any particular format in the memory, but the table must still store the alternative torque values required by the claim “in a memory connected to the motor,” then Patent Owner accepts this interpretation for the purposes of this proceeding. However, if the Board’s construction including reference to “a torque curve graphically representing a set of torque values” does not require the torque values shown on the curve to be stored in memory, it is erroneous. PO Resp. 9. We agree with Patent Owner’s position, namely that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘table’ still must require the torque values to be stored in the table.” Id. As Patent Owner points out, “[t]he only intrinsic evidence available in this proceeding demonstrates a ‘torque table’ stores alternative torque settings.” Id. In particular, the ’092 patent consistently uses “table” to refer to discrete data that are stored in a memory, such as in the “speed tables” described as alternatives to “torque tables.” See Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 5–24, col. 16, ll. 63–66 (“Instead of adjusting the torque as described above, the motor controller 18 could store a plurality of different torque or speed tables and select one of the torque/speed tables based on an input provided by the torque adjustment mechanism.”). This aspect of the construction of “torque table” is reflected in its reference to including a graphical representation of “a set” of torque values in a memory connected to a motor.” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,990,092 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,990,092
• Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00343 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Takano and Yanai because the proposed combinations and calculations lacked adequate support and relied on hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’290 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 57–61, of the ’290 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’290 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 60, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

  Patent outcomesUS 7,554,290 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,554,290
• Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00344 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable over Takano and Yanai under §103 because Petitioner’s evidence did not establish the 20 Amp Limitation without unsupported assumptions and hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’173 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 59–63, of the ’173 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’173 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “18650-size and 26650-size cells is flawed and thus fails to support Petitioner’s assertion that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Takano and Yanai. Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “e) Secondary Considerations Patent Owner argues that “[n]umerous secondary considerations strongly favor the patentability of the challenged claims.” PO Resp. 26–59. Because we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Takano and Yanai render claim 1 obvious, we need not reach Patent Owner’s assertions regarding secondary considerations.” slip op. at 23

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 62, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,944,173 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,944,173
• Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00345 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Takano and Yanai because Petitioner’s evidence did not establish the 20 Amp Limitation without unsupported assumptions and hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “example 2 is described as having a positive electrode surface area of 6,700 cm2 (id. ¶ 40). This wide variance in the surface areas disclosed by Adachi suggests that the working examples are specific embodiments and not indicative of “common knowledge” in the field. Moreover, we are not persuaded that the range of 400– 680 cm2 is an industry standard surface area for 18650-size cells or that one of ordinary skill in the art necessarily would consider a value in this range to be a typical or likely choice of surface area for any 18650-size cell. Accordingly, the only basis to assert that it would have been obvious to select a positive electrode surface area of 540 cm2 for Yanai’s cell 1-4 would be to rely on the disclosure of Adachi; that is, to assert that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Takano and Yanai with the teaching of Adachi. Petitioner, however, has repeatedly argued that this is not what it proposes. Reply 3; Tr. 22:22–23:4. Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not provide an adequate reason to combine Adachi with Takano and Yanai.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’510 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 61–65, of the ’510 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’510 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 59, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,999,510 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,999,510

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.