• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01169 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–20 are unpatentable over Thomas; claim 3 is not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 22–36 are unpatentable, and substitute claim 21 is not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “g) Conclusion—Claim 1 Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that” slip op. at 28

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “g) Conclusion—Claim 1 Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that” slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “with the computer program 110.” Ex. 1005, 3:54–55. Thomas describes that (1) the “collected data is then stored in the database 130,” (2) the collected “data is stored in a data structure, generally referred to as a user’s profile,” and (3) the collected “data is logically linked to an event, or situation, that initiated the user’s input.” Id. at 3:56–61. Thomas describes creating or establishing a user profile by simulator 120 recording “the user’s decision/input” and storing “the user’s input in the field or sub-profile associated with the particular situation and/or event.” Id. at 4:67–5:5, Fig. 6. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing for element [1.3]. Also, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, we must consider what Thomas discloses rather than whether Thomas uses the exact claim term “instruction sets.” Cf. Gleave, 560 F.3d at 1334 (a reference does not have to satisfy an ipsis verbis test to disclose a claimed element). For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Thomas does not “mention instruction sets” or “anything related to an instruction set.” PO Resp. 36–37; PO Sur-reply 17.” slip op. at 42

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “C. Indefiniteness Petitioner argues that proposed substitute claims 22–36 are indefinite.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 10,607,134 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,607,134
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01172 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 11–14, 16–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grotmol; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable because Grotmol does not disclose its required sequence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jason Janet. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner “adopts” Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We also adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “The parties appear to agree that the term “connection” refers to a relationship, but dispute whether it includes a link. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 23. We need not resolve this claim construction issue in order to resolve the parties’ disputes about the asserted ground of unpatentability. Specifically, as discussed below, even if we assume for the purposes of this Decision that the term “connection” means a “relationship that includes a link,” the asserted prior art still discloses the disputed claim limitation. See Section II.D.23.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that claim 15 requires modifying the first instruction set before determining the modified first instruction set based on an at least partial match between the new digital picture and the first digital picture. Claim 15 recites “modifying: the first one or more instruction sets” and “determining the modified the first one or more instruction sets . . . based on the at least partial match between the new one or more digital pictures and the first one or more digital pictures.” Ex. 1001, 162:65–163:15 (emphasis added). The phrase “the modified . . . instruction sets” in the determining limitation indicates an order because it refers back to the instruction sets modified in the modifying limitation. Id. Further, the phrase “based on the at least partial match” indicates that a partial match between the new picture and the first picture returns the modified first instruction set. Id. In order for a partial match to return the modified first instruction set, it is logical that the first instruction set previously was modified and correlated to the first picture. Id. Thus, claim 15 indicates that the modifying limitation is performed before the determining limitation. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, [the recited steps] must be performed in the order written.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “3. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure for the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more digital pictures,” the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device,” and the “means for learning the first one or more digital pictures correlated with the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device” in claim 34 is “one or more processor circuits.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:8–60). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 11. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for purposes of this Decision. D. Anticipation of Claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 by Grotmol Petitioner argues that claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 11,055,583 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 11,055,583
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01054 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4 and 11 are unpatentable over Grotmol and Hickman; claims 5 and 7 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 21 and 24–26 are unpatentable; claims 22 and 23 are not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art, 3 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness in this proceeding. would have [had] at least: (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–42). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Considering the subject matter of the ’974 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’974 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment” slip op. at 11

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

    “1. “connection” Claim 7 recites, in pertinent part, that “a first connection is generated” slip op. at 14

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

    “c) Conclusion—Claim 7 After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record, we” slip op. at 52

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “7 We recognize that our conclusion here differs from the preliminary determination made in our Preliminary Guidance. After considering the full trial record, including Patent Owner’s MTA Reply, Petitioner’s MTA Sur-reply, Patent Owner’s Sur-sur-reply, and the arguments made at the oral hearing, we find that Petitioner has satisfied its burden of showing that this claim limitation would have been obvious over the Grotmol-Hickman combination. When issuing our Preliminary Guidance, we emphasized that the views expressed therein were “preliminary,” “subject to change upon consideration of the complete record,” and “not binding on the Board when reaching a final written decision.” See Prelim. Guid. 3.” slip op. at 99

  Patent outcomesUS 10,452,974 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,452,974
• Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00557 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 10–12, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 6, and 8 were not shown unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would be a person with a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent training or job experience, with two years of experience in computer networking technology, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or other equivalent degree.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). Patent Owner indicates that it does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. We find Petitioner’s proposal 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); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “associated sessions” With respect to the limitation “associated sessions,” Patent Owner asserted that the ’669 Patent defines those sessions as those that “should not be managed independent from each another,” and continues to assert the same in its Response. PO Resp. 14–15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:37–38). Based on the recitations of the Specification, we construe “associated sessions” as “sessions that should not be managed independent from each other,” as proffered by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 7:37–38. slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas rejected Petitioner’s proposed construction in the District Court Case, and following briefing and oral argument in that proceeding, the District Court concluded that “composition session” means “a signaling session that is separate from the associated sessions and that is for facilitating management of the associated sessions.” PO Resp. 16. Having reviewed the District Court’s determination, we do not discern a significant difference in scope between it and Petitioner’s formulation, and we, thus, adopt its construction of “composition session” in the analysis below.” slip op. at 9

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

    “As such, we continue to determine that Petitioner has sufficiently established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a rationale to combine the teachings of Foti with RFC 3261, RFC 4566, RFC 2326, Wright, and Lloyd, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving that combination, as we determined in the Institution Decision. See Inst. Dec. 17–18. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have consulted and utilized disclosures in the RFC references to understand and implement the protocols disclosed by Foti. We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that such skilled artisans would have had a rationale to combine the teachings of Wright and Lloyd with those of Foti for the reasons provided. Petitioner has asserted that each of the supporting references would have been used by persons of ordinary skill in the art to modify or enhance the system described in Foti for the benefits described for the proposed changes. Absent reasons the references should not be combined, we determine that the motivation proffered by the Petition is sufficient to support the combination, under the preponderance of the evidence standard.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,667,669 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,667,669
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00359 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 32, 34, 37–38, 55–57, and 59 are unpatentable over Cunningham; claims 1, 3–8, 11–14, 24–31, 36, 42, 43, 46–49, 51–54, and 60–64 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “This argument is conclusory and not supported by sufficient evidence. Moreover, the stated conclusion is vague with respect to the limitation at issue. Petitioner argues that “the node 18 must translate messages” (id. (emphasis added)), but does not explicitly argue that all three recited pieces of information—“the select information, the transmitter identification information, and transceiver identification information”—must be translated. Even assuming Mason’s node must translate all three recited pieces of information, Petitioner does not show that all such translated pieces of information must be further transmitted to the AMR server over the WAN. In particular, Petitioner does not show that transceiver identification information would have to be further transmitted.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that such a construction is “non- specific, vague and unhelpful” in the context of the ’692 patent. Reply. 16. Patent Owner’s construction limits “low power” to signals having a “limited transmission range,” but provides no guidance of what “limited” means, or what its boundaries might be. Petitioner argues correctly that Patent Owner’s construction fails to address questions its proposed construction raises, such as, what a ‘limited’ transmission range means and how ‘limited’ the range must be (i.e., what the range’s distance should be), whether the transmission range depends on the particular system or application, and whether other factors should be considered in determining whether the transmission range is limited.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Notably, Petitioner says these contentions are “further evidence” but does not explain how this evidence is to be used to buttress Cunningham’s disclosure or how it is to be combined with Cunningham’s disclosure. Specifically, given the limited contentions in the Petition detailed above, Petitioner does not explain how Energy Management Services or the “routines” described in the Provisional send control signals from the computer to the actuator as required by the claims. For example, even if we to accept that the “Williams Network Control Center” creates control signals as required by the claim Petitioner has not explained how those signals are translated from network transfer protocol to RF signals and then translated to an analog signal that can be used at an actuator. Even though the ’978 Provisional is allegedly incorporated by reference, an obviousness determination still requires--“[w]hether a [obviousness challenge] is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference[--] a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n. 1 (Fed. Cir. 2017); c.f. Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding obviousness shown despite fact that “all of the limitations are found in two separate embodiments pictured side by side in the patent, not in one embodiment” because the party showed motivation to combine and reasonable likelihood of success). Additionally, “there must be evidence presented on the obviousness of the claim as a whole.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 420, 127 S.Ct. 1727); see also Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The determination of obviousness is made with respect to the subject matter as a whole, not separate pieces of the claim”). Here, the “routines” described in the ’978 Provisional work differently than the “utility prices” embodiment of Cunningham. Petitioner has not explained how those would work together to meet the claim limitations.” slip op. at 30

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Patent Owner’s argument is inapposite, as it is premised on reading a limitation into the claims, namely that the information encoded in the RF signal must be translated in real time. Further, we agree with Petitioner, that even under such an erroneously narrow construction, Cunningham would meet the limitation. In that regard, Petitioner argues that, “although Cunningham discloses sending cumulative data readings, individual signals from the sensor are identified by the gateway and this information is then transmitted (with transmitter identification information) to a computer on the WAN.” Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶31–32; Ex. 1004, 31:6–28). Petitioner argues, and we are persuaded, that “Cunningham explains that the ‘most current cumulative reading’ is the current absolute ‘reading’ (i.e., information signal) from the sensor (Ex. 1004, 13:44–46) and that two cumulative readings can be used to ‘interpolate’ and ‘recover’ a missed reading (i.e., a signal from the sensor).” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1004, 13:44–56; 31:6–27; Pet. 75; Ex. 1002 ¶¶115, 152; Ex. 1046 ¶32). We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. Lastly, claim 32 also recites “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” To meet this limitation, Petitioner accurately points out that “Cunningham discloses that[,] in response to receiving information from the sensor interface module through the data collection modules, the host module compiles the information into a user specified readable format and stores it for later retrieval upon demand from a customer computer or workstation.” Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:19–27, 44:12–41, 44:53–64, 46:44–61, 47:44–54, Ex. 1002 ¶¶138–140). Patent Owner does not contest that Cunningham discloses “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” See PO Resp. 22–29, 41–46. We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. For the forgoing reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 6,437,692 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,437,692
• Google LLC / Microsoft Corporation et al. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2018 · IPR2017-00447 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over SMIL 1.0 and SMIL 1.0 with Hua; claims 12–16 were not shown unpatentable, and anticipation was not established for claims 1–7 and 9–13.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or computer engineering, or the equivalent” and “3-5 years’ experience developing multimedia presentations using a markup language and/or developing software tools to automate the development of multimedia presentations, or equivalent academic experience (e.g., a master’s degree with a similar focus).” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 10. Patent Owner also does not provide its own definition. See id. Based on the evidence of record, including the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent and the asserted prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 15; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–23.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Ex. 1001, 5:54–55, 6:29–30. Petitioner proposes construing the phrase “a given segment of [a/the] media presentation” to mean “part or all of the media presentation.” Pet. 19. Petitioner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the claim language and specification of the ’806 patent. Id. at 17–19. Patent Owner proposes construing the phrase “a given segment of [a/the] media presentation” to mean “a media presentation with multiple segments.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the claim language and specification of the ’806 patent. Id. The dispute between the parties focuses on whether a media presentation can consist of only a single file or must have multiple segments. Pet. 17–19; PO Resp. 11. The ’806 patent consistently uses the term “segment” to indicate that a media presentation is divided into multiple segments. Ex. 1001, Abstract (“An electronic file, e.g., an MP3 file, is partitioned into a sequence of segments at the server side.”), 1:65–66 (“To this end the content file is split into multiple parts. Each part or segment requires a relatively short download time.”), 2:60–62, 2:67–3:2, 3:14–16, 3:31–33, 4:15–26 (“The segmentation of the content file into separately downloadable segments . . . .”), 4:35–38, Fig. 1. In contrast, the ’806 patent does not use the term “segment” to refer to a media presentation that consists of only a single file. Id. at 2:7–9. Therefore, because Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the specification of the ’806 patent, we construe the phrase “a given segment of [a/the] media presentation” to mean “a media presentation with multiple segments.”4” slip op. at 7

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

    “constraints.” Ex. 1001, 5:57, 6:33. Petitioner proposes construing the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints” to mean “constraints upon a system.” Pet. Reply 9. Petitioner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the specification of the ’806 patent. Id. at 9–11. Patent Owner proposes construing the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints” to mean “constraints on a system imposed by resources.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the specification of the ’806 patent. Id. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1 and 9 are unpatentable even if we apply Patent Owner’s narrower proposed construction of the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints.” See infra Sections II.D.2, II.D.10. Therefore, we determine that it is unnecessary to resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the meaning of the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints” in order to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability in this case. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms 4 Our construction is consistent with the District Court’s determination that the term “media presentation” means “data having multiple segments.” Ex. 1014, 7. need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “3. Means-Plus-Function Limitations Claim 12 recites several limitations that begin with the phrase “means for.” Ex. 1001, 6:41–62. The parties agree that these limitations of claim 12 are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 19–20; PO Supp. Resp. 1–2. We address the means-plus-function limitations of claim 12 in detail below. See infra Sections II.C.2, II.D.13.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 7,529,806 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,529,806
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2018 · IPR2017-00001 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham; Petitioner did not show claim 8 unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction against the prior art than it does to construction of the term itself. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, like Petitioner’s, does not, on its face, exclude RF protocol conversion. In this respect, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is improperly attempting to read in additional limitations that go beyond claim 5’s broad recitation of a “transmitter . . . configured to encode the electrical signal.” See Paper 45, 3. As Petitioner further observes, the Specification of the ’661 patent refers interchangeably to data controller 324 (shown in Figures 3A–3E, not reproduced here) as “data formatter 324” (emphasis added), which “operates to form concise data packets.” Id.; Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 49–51. Petitioner’s proposed construction is thus consistent with the Specification. Patent Owner agrees that data controller 324 “encodes a physical condition into a function code,” but emphasizes that it does so “before getting converted by the RF transmitter.” Paper 44, 3. The distinction Patent Owner relies on to exclude RF protocol conversion from its proposed construction would improperly narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding a limitation that has no express basis in the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969) (“Nevertheless, ‘reading a claim in the light of the specification,’ to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.”). Having thus considered the parties’ positions, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “encoded electrical signal” as “coded information representing the electrical signal generated by the sensor.” We address application of this construction to the prior art in the analysis below.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not advocate for a specific level of skill in its Response, but its expert, Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D., articulates a level of skill similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 2009 ¶ 75. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth opines that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent and experience with, or exposure to, computer networks and routing.” Id. In addition, according to Dr. Almeroth, a person of ordinary skill “would also have approximately two years of professional experience with computer networking, routing, and wireless networks. Id. And “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Given the similarity of articulations by the respective experts, and because our Decision does not depend on nuanced distinctions of the level of skill in the art, we adopt Dr. Almeroth’s more detailed articulation, but include electrical engineering as an additional alternative educational background, as indicated by Mr. Kinney.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We thus agree with Patent Owner that the rationale articulated by Petitioner is conclusory, and insufficiently supported. PO Resp. 30–31. On the record before us, it is more reasonable to construe “the transceiver identification information” as referring to something other than the identification information for the at least one wireless transmitter. For example, Patent Owner contends that “[o]ne skilled in the art, reading the plain text of claims 5 and 8, would easily recognize that the ‘transceiver’ referred to in claim 8 is the transmitter in claim 5 that is configured to both send and receive signals.” Id. at 33. Patent Owner provides support for this reading both by identifying disclosure in the Specification of the ’661 patent consistent with its position, and through testimony by its expert, Dr. Almeroth. Id. at 33–36 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3C, 3D, col. 6, ll. 3–8, col. 9, ll. 53–56, col. 10, ll. 32–34; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 125–132). For example, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Mason’s AMR server “at most would need only some meter identification number and a meter reading.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 134. We credit this testimony, as well as Dr. Almeroth’s assertion that “[t]ransceiver identification information is extraneous for the needs of the AMR server in Cunningham and Mason.” Id. Ultimately, we need not resolve the construction issues, and the issue of whether claim 8 is indefinite is not before us. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (limiting inter partes review to “a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103”). It is sufficient for us to determine whether Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham. In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Petitioner has not.” slip op. at 34

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

    “c. “one or more additional wireless transmitters” Third, Petitioner combines the teachings of Shuey with those of Mason in addressing claim 5’s recitation of “one or more additional wireless transmitters.” Id. at 62–63. The claim requires that each such additional wireless transmitter is “electrically interfaced with a sensor and configured to receive the RF signal and retransmit the RF signal,” i.e., to act as a repeater. Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 22–24. As discussed above, Mason discloses that meter 12D is considered “inaccessible” with respect to node 18, and that another meter within the network may act as a repeater so that the inaccessible meter may still be contacted. Id. at col. 6, ll. 27–35. Petitioner cites Shuey for details regarding the information included in retransmission by meters acting as repeaters, and provides sufficient reason to effect the combination in light of Mason’s explicit reference to Shuey: “A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate into Mason’s system Shuey’s teaching of a repeater that retransmits all of the claimed information, because Mason explicitly notes that Shuey’s system is a system for which Mason’s invention is particularly suited.” Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 6, ll. 35–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–112). Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,468,661 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,468,661
• Old Republic General Insurance Group, Inc. / Old Republic Insurance Company et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2017 · IPR2015-01992 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14–24, and 34–48 are unpatentable over the stated grounds; claims 3 and 13 were not shown unpatentable, and claims 25–33 and 49 were disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “On February 8, 2017, Patent Owner informed the Board that it had “disclaimed claims 25–33 and 49” of the ’002 patent, thereby “rendering the institution of claims 25–33 and 49 in the subject inter partes review proceeding moot.” Paper 18, 1; Ex. 2005 (disclaimer of claims 25–33 and 49 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a)).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenMixed

    “2. Analysis To anticipate a claim a “prior art reference must disclose each and every feature of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 471 F.3d 1369, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An inherent disclosure may be found when an asserted prior art reference “necessarily” includes the unstated limitation. Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has identified where each limitation of independent claim 1 is disclosed in Huang. Claims 11, 34, and 40 contain limitations similar to claim 1, Petitioner provides detailed arguments as to where each limitation of these claims is disclosed in Huang, and Patent Owner does not present any arguments for these claims separate from those 7 At oral argument, Patent Owner asserted that we should not consider Petitioner’s argument that the icons of Huang contain URL information because this argument was presented for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply. Tr. 32:19–35:5. Patent Owner did not file a motion to exclude this evidence, however, or request a sur-reply to address any allegedly new issues raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply. Id. at 34:18–23. Nor is it evident why Petitioner’s arguments are not appropriate rebuttal arguments addressing Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “pointer.” Accordingly, we decline to exclude Petitioner’s URL arguments and evidence.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “be used in conjunction with the mobile interface agent, including “a computer, cable set top box, cellular phone, or other device.” Ex. 1001, 4:44–45. Patent Owner does not explain why the description of a “pointer” in one “context,” i.e., on a computer or PDA, represents a clear and deliberate attempt to define the term in all contexts, such that all pointers must be a “reference” to “a type of menu item” and be “accessible on a computer, PDA, or server.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (noting that an inventor is “free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention,” but “this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”). The broadest definition of the term “pointer” in the ’002 patent is “a link/shortcut to an item.” Ex. 1001, 10:8–10 (“As discussed above, a pointer is a link/shortcut to an item such as . . . .”); Dec. on Inst. 10. This definition is consistent with the description of “pointers” in the ’002 patent written description and claims. Ex. 1001, 20:4–6 (“wherein the pointers provide links to access the corresponding user specific resources and information.”). Accordingly, we construe “pointer” to mean “a link or shortcut to an item.”” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 6,546,002 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,546,002
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2016 · IPR2015-00377 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–16, 18–24, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious; the challenges to claims 2, 8, 11, 17, 25, and 27 were not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “claims). Pet. 7. In our Decision to Institute, we determined the broadest reasonable construction of anomalous is: “deviation/deviating from a model of typical computer system usage.” Dec. 6. We specifically recognized that the Specification contemplates that “attack data” may be used to build the model used as a baseline for comparison to identify anomalous behavior. Id. Neither party has indicated that our determination in regard to that claim construction was improper, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial determination.” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “one of these distinct models, the ‘Oracle model,’ is combined with other models.” Pet. Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1008, 11:53–64 (showing that a selected ‘Oracle model’ is used in combination with a k-means algorithm and a Markov transition model); Ex. 1015 (Goodrich Suppl. Decl.) ¶ 19). Petitioner has not explained, however, why models created on different computers would be relevant to Khazan’s static model where the specific execution of two different computers would not affect the model.2 See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 536 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (reasoning that even though a certain modification could have been possible, it would not have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art “would not have seen any need” to make the modification). Although we acknowledge Petitioner’s argument that Agrawal teaches using a combined model from different processors and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Goodrich to that effect (Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 84)), we are not persuaded that this would be sufficient to motivate the 2 Petitioner’s Declarant, in his supplemental declaration, states “[u]sing multiple computers spreads the computational overhead involved in creating the models across the computers, and allows for more models to be created in a shorter amount of time.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 20. We do not rely on this statement because this theory was not presented in the Petition and although the paragraph containing this language is cited to in Petitioner’s Reply at page 6, it is not explained or specifically relied upon. 24 combination given the differences discussed above. In other words, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that there was a motivation to apply the models produced on different computers as taught by Agrawal to the system of Khazan. Therefore, Petitioner, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 11, and 27 were obvious over the combination of Khazan and Agrawal.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot shown unpatentableUnpatentableMixed

    “Petitioner also asserts through its Declarant that “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that random selection of models is one of a finite number of identified, predictable selection techniques and it would be obvious to try random selection among models because it has a reasonable expectation of success.” Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 86). Petitioner does not explain how random selection is one of a finite number of predictable selection techniques; for example, Petitioner does not show how many other techniques could be considered. See Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“KSR posits a situation with a finite, and in the context of the art, small or easily traversed, number of options that would convince an ordinarily skilled artisan of obviousness . . . . [T]his clearly is not the easily traversed, small and finite number of alternatives that KSR suggested might support an inference of obviousness.”). Dr. Goodrich has not identified sufficient support for the predictability of the art. For example, Dr. Goodrich has not explained sufficiently why, or identified evidence that shows the invention described in the ’322 Patent falls into a very predictable field, one of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed the requisite skills to make the proposed combinations, or one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have anticipated the combination to function in an ordinary and expected way. See Rothman v. Target Corp., 556 F.3d 1310, 1319–20 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 21 Finally, Petitioner cites Sobel (Ex. 1011)1 as support for it being “obvious to randomly select a subset of a group of computing choices.” Pet. 30. Petitioner characterizes Sobel’s teachings too broadly. Ex. 2030 ¶ 117. Sobel is directed to “providing software updates to a random sample of computers,” not to randomly selecting models. Pet. 30. Thus, we are not persuaded that Sobel is relevant to the inquiry here. For the reasons stated above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 17, and 25 were obvious over the combination of Khazan and Agrawal.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition fails to propose properly a level of ordinary skill in the Petition itself and that the level of skill suggested by Petitioner’s Declarant is higher than the level used in the related district court case. PO Resp. 6–8. Nevertheless, Patent Owner does not argue that the combinations of the teachings of the references are beyond the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. The level of skill in the art might be gleaned from the prior art itself. See Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A specific finding on the level of skill in the art is not . . . required where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”). Here, we find that the prior art adequately reflects an appropriate level of skill and that Patent Owner does not demonstrate a need for testimony or other evidence to establish the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Also, we find that, even though Dr. Goodrich suggests a level of skill higher than the level used in the related district court case, Patent Owner does not show sufficiently that any such difference in level of skill is material to the obviousness analysis in this case.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,601,322 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,601,322
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00372 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bace and Russinovich; claims 9 and 10 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed likelihood of observing a feature.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “We have considered the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, and we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 3–8 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. We determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9 and 10 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Michael T. Goodrich, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 28. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 18–19. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex 1029 ¶¶ 13–14; Ex. 2018, 78:2-23. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations E. Patent Owner filed a Motion for Observations on the cross examination of Dr. Michael T. Goodrich (Paper 47), to which Petitioner filed a Response (Paper 50). We have considered Patent Owner’s observations and Petitioner’s responses, and we have given Dr. Goodrich’s testimony the appropriate weight in making our determination in this case.” slip op. at 30

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 9. Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 23–24; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 23–24; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’084 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 9 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. Claim 10 6. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and recites “wherein determining a likelihood of observing a feature comprises determining a conditional probability of observing a first feature in the records of processes that access the operating system registry given an occurrence of a second feature in the records.” Ex. 1001, col. 23, ll. 8–12. Because claim 10 depends from claim 9, and Petitioner has not shown that claim 9 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich, we determine that Petitioner also has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. See supra Section II.B.5.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,448,084 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,448,084

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.