• Commscope Technologies LLC. v. Belden Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01061 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19, 20, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Yanagita, Jachimowicz, and, for claims 20 and 22, Gingue; alternative grounds were not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Based on the record before us and crediting this testimony by Mr. Cornelison, we agree that a POSITA would have understood that Yanagita” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Petitioner argues that a “person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’537 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a minimum of 3–4 years of industry experience in connection with designing, manufacturing, and testing of twisted-pair data cables.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 12). Petitioner also argues an “individual with a master’s degree in electrical engineering would require less industry experience (e.g.,1–2 years).” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 12). Patent Owner did not dispute this proposed definition prior to institution. See generally Prelim. Resp. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. During the trial, neither party expressly disputed our definition of a POSITA or explicitly argued that the outcome of this case would differ based upon our adoption of any particular definition of a POSITA. See generally Pet. Reply; PO Resp. Upon review of the full record, we see no reason to modify, and we thus maintain, the definition of a POSITA applied in our Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “After institution, Patent Owner argued that the plain and ordinary meaning of twisted pairs requires “two insulated conductors twisted together around one another to form a balanced transmission line” as shown in Figure 4 of the ’537 patent. PO Resp. 13. Petitioner replied that Patent Owner’s addition of “balanced transmission line” to the Board’s preliminary construction is unnecessary as the dispute is whether the conductors of the asserted art are “twisted together” (i.e., twisted around each other) and that neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner dispute that if a pair of conductors are twisted around one another, they form a balanced transmission line. See Pet. Reply 1. Based upon a full record, we maintain our construction of the term “twisted pairs,” which both parties agree require a “pair of insulated conductors that are twisted together,” (i.e., “two insulated conductors twisted around each other”). We agree with Petitioner that no further construction of the term is required as there is no dispute between the parties that if a pair of insulated conductors are twisted together (i.e., two insulated conductors are twisted around each other), that they form a balanced transmission line. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10

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

    “c) Motivation to Combine Based upon review of the full record, we determine Petitioner has articulated a sufficient reason a POSITA would have added the foamed polymer tape of Jachimowicz to Yanagita’s cable between core material 2 (separator) and at least one set of twisted pairs. See Pet. 40–42. In particular, Petitioner states that additing a foamed polymer tape to Yanagita’s separtor core material 2 would have been expected to improve the electrical perforamce of the cable by reducing the capitance between twisted pairs on one side of Yanagita’s separator and twisted pairs on the other side, thus reducing current leakage between them and reducing the transmission loss due to such leakage. Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 45, 139). Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have been motivated to add a foamed polymer tape, such as Jachimowicz’s foamed polyethlyene tape to Yangida’s core, because it would have been expected to beneficially lower the dielectic contsant of the material between twisted pairs on either side of the separator due to the addition of low-dielectric constant foamed material. Pet. 42–43.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 6,998,537 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,998,537
• Commscope Technologies LLC v. Belden Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01062 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 27–33 are unpatentable: claims 27–29 are anticipated by GmbH-866, and claims 30–33 are obvious over GmbH-866, Jachimowicz, and Gingue.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”). Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner argues that a “person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’095 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a minimum of 3–4 years of industry experience in connection with designing, manufacturing, and testing of twisted-pair data cables.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 13). Petitioner also argues an “individual with a master’s degree in electrical engineering would require less industry experience (e.g., 1–2 years).” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 13). Patent Owner did not dispute this proposed definition prior to institution. See generally Prelim. Resp. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. During the trial, neither party expressly disputed our definition of a POSITA or explicitly argued that the outcome of this case would differ based upon our adoption of any particular definition of a POSITA. See generally Pet. Reply; PO Resp. 7 Patent Owner does not rely on evidence of secondary considerations to support its patentability arguments. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. thus maintain, the definition of a POSITA applied in our Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “To the extent Petitioner argues that Dr. Eldering does not meet the minimum qualifications of a POSITA, we disagree. First, our definition of a POSITA requires 3–4 years of industry experience for those holding only a bachelor’s degree and that less years of industry experience is required for those with additional education. Inst. Dec. 8–9. Dr. Eldering holds a Ph.D. in electrical industry and, thus, less than 3–4 years of industry experience is required. Moreover, Dr. Eldering’s declaration, testimony, and CV demonstrate that Dr. Eldering has many years of industry experience with twisted pair data cables. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶ 13 (discussing his 1990–1993 industry experience with twisted wire pairs, including research regarding delivery of high-speed digital data services over twisted wire pair cable), ¶ 14 (discussing industry experience at General Instrument, including the development of products using twisted wire pair cable for distribution of voice signals), ¶ 15 (discussing additional industry experience including evaluation of crosstalk in systems using twisted pair wire cabling and optimizing modulation format), App’x A; Ex. 1070, 201:1–202:7. We thus determine that Dr. Eldering’s education and industry experience qualifies him to testify regarding the perspective of a POSITA. experience of Dr. Eldering, Petitioner does not allege that Dr. Eldering is not qualified to opine from the perspective of a POSITA and did not file an objection to Dr. Eldering’s testimony under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b) or a motion to exclude Dr. Eldering’s testimony under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). See Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (stating that an expert witness in a patent case must have at least an ordinary skill in the art to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan). We address how much weight should be given to Dr. Eldering’s testimony, as well as to Mr. Cornelison’s testimony, throughout our Decision below.” slip op. at 10

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

    “After institution, Patent Owner argued that the plain and ordinary meaning of “twisted pair of insulated conductors” requires “two insulated conductors twisted together around one another to form a balanced Petitioner replied that Patent Owner’s addition of “balanced transmission line” to the Board’s preliminary construction is unnecessary as the dispute between the parties centered only on whether the conductors of the asserted art are “twisted together” (i.e., twisted around each other) and that neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner dispute that if a pair of conductors are twisted around one another, they form a balanced transmission line. See Pet. Reply 1. Based upon a full record, we maintain our construction of the term “twisted pairs,” which both parties agree require a “pair of insulated conductors that are twisted together,” (i.e., “two insulated conductors twisted around each other”). We agree with Petitioner that no further construction of the term is required as there is no dispute between the parties that if a pair of insulated conductors are twisted together (i.e., two insulated conductors are twisted around each other), that they form a balanced transmission line. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “GmbH-866 discloses a first and second “twisted pair of insulated conductors” as required by claim 27. Anticipation is assessed from the perspective of a person of ordinarily skill in the art. Dayco Prods., 329 F.3d at 1368. The “dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching” that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference. Id. (quoting Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 390). Thus, the understand or infer that the “stranded” conductors in GmbH-866 constitute “twisted pairs,” not whether the term “stranded” or “stranding” conductors could have another meaning in another context.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,570,095 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,570,095
• Topp & Screed S.A. v. Somero Enterprises, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00051 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by Quenzi and obvious over Quenzi; claims 10–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Jochems and Quenzi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing. Although Jochems discloses that its machine includes “a vibration beam 27 which is driven by vibration motor 28” (Ex. 1004, 4:14–16), Jochems does not provide details regarding the nature of its vibration beam or how it functions. See generally Ex. 1004. Quenzi, on the other hand, explains that its vibrating beam “flatten[s], smooth[s] and consolidate[s] the uncured concrete while being partially supported thereon.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 13; see also id. ¶ 81 (“The floating action of the vibrator beam 20 over the uncured concrete then continues to consolidate, smooth, level and finish the uncured concrete surface.”). Petitioner’s contentions are supported by its witness, Mr. Breidenbach. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 183. Mr. Breidenbach further testifies that the benefits of a floating-type vibration beam, such as disclosed by Quenzi, were well known and desirable at the time the application resulting in the ’366 patent was filed. Id. ¶¶ 184–188.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “an undergraduate education in mechanical, civil, construction, or industrial engineering, or a related field and at least two years of experience in research, design, development, testing, or use of mechanical or industrial equipment.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 42). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education may substitute for experience and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 42). 3 At this stage of the proceeding, the parties have not directed us to any such objective evidence. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with Petitioner’s interpretation of the Second Wherein Recitation. Of particular note, the ’366 patent states that, “[i]n the illustrated embodiment [of Figure 19], screed head assembly 314′ is attached at the front frame portion 312a.” Ex. 1001, 20:45–47 (emphasis added). Figure 19 is reproduced below. Figure 19 illustrates screeding machine 310′ comprising wheeled support 312, including front frame portion 312a, and screed head assembly 314′. Id. at 20:34–37. The screed head assembly is not mounted directly to the front frame portion. Rather, “screed head assembly 314′ is pivotally mounted to front frame portion 312a via an upper arm linkage 334 and a lower arm linkage 332.” Id. at 20:61–63. Thus, based on our review of the record, “attached at” as used in the ’366 patent does not require a direct connection. Instead, the use of intermediate components is within the meaning of “attached at.” It follows that “said vibratable member is adjustably attached at a rearward end of said grade establishing element” as recited in claim 1 does not require the vibratable member to be connected directly to the grade establishing element, but rather allows for the vibratable member to be connected to the grade establishing element via intermediary components. The patent Examiner and Applicant appear to have interpreted the term in the same manner during prosecution. See Ex. 1002, 94 (the Examiner finding that Nomura’s4 tamper 34 “is adjustably attached at a rearward end of” leveling blade 33), 116–18 (the Applicant addressing the Examiner’s rejection but not contesting the Examiner’s interpretation); Ex. 1007, Fig. 2 (illustrating the positioning of Nomura’s tamper 34 and leveling blade 33).” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Quenzi repeatedly discloses that its vibration beam floats on and is at least partially supported at the struck-off surface of the uncured concrete. In the summary section, Quenzi discloses that its “vibrating member generally floats upon or is supported directly on the uncured concrete surface created by the grade setting device ahead of it.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 9; see also id. ¶¶ 11 (“the ability of the apparatus to be at least partially supported upon the desired correct elevation surface it creates”), 12 (“[t]he concrete surface working member is at least partially supported on the uncured concrete surface”), 13 (“the concrete surface working member comprises a vibrating member or beam which is vibratable to flatten, smooth and consolidate the uncured concrete while being partially supported thereon”). Regarding the first embodiment discussed in the detailed description, Quenzi discloses that “the vibrator beam 20 floats on or is at least partially supported on the uncured surface” and “vibrator beam 20, along with the screeding device 10, floats on or is at least partially supported on the uncured concrete surface.” Id. ¶¶ 68, 70. Quenzi discloses that the vibrating beams of the asserted embodiments operate in the same manner as the first embodiment. See id. ¶¶ 90, 102, 121. Quenzi also explicitly discloses that the vibrating beams of the asserted embodiments operate in this same manner. See id. ¶¶ 92 (“the vibrating beam 220 rests upon the uncured concrete”), 112 (“vibrating beam 320 is at least partially supported by, or essentially ‘floating’ upon, the uncured concrete surface”), 121 (“vibrating beam 420 [is] substantially similar to . . . vibrating beam 320”); see also id. ¶ 141 (referring to the asserted embodiments when describing another embodiment as “[s]imilar to the embodiments discussed above, screeding device 810 is at least partially supported on an uncured concrete surface and moved along and over the concrete surface to screed and smooth the surface via vibration of the vibrator beam 820 as the vibrator beam 820 floats on or is at least partially supported on the uncured surface” (emphasis added)). And as correctly noted by Petitioner, the ’366 patent relies on Quenzi as an example of how its screed head assembly operates and is attached to the frame portion. See Ex. 1001, 20:45–54. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Quenzi supports Petitioner’s contentions. g. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 is anticipated by Quenzi.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,038,366 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,038,366
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01055 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3, 6–8, and 10–18 are unpatentable; cancellation of claims 4, 5, and 9 is granted, and proposed substitute claims 21–29 are unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Accordingly, we maintain our determination at the institution stage” slip op. at 11

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

    “f) Conclusion—Proposed Substitute Claim 21 For the reasons given, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a” slip op. at 111

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “g) Conclusion—Disclaimed Claim 1 For the reasons given above and the reasons presented by Petitioner,” slip op. at 25

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

    “4. Claim 6 Claim 6 depends from claim 3 and recites the following:” slip op. at 73

  Patent outcomesUS 11,238,344 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,238,344
• Google LLC v. Wirelesswerx IP LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00850 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Wrappe and Belcea; claims 6–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Wrappe, Belcea, and Christopher.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’203 patent. Dec. on Inst. 11. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in research, design, development, and/or testing of GPS and/or positioning techniques, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Id. (citing Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 40)). Patent Owner states that it “adopt[s] Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’203 Patent as well as the asserted prior art.” PO Resp. 8. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’203 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner argues that “[t]he most practically near node” “does not have an ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 6–7. Rather, it is defined in the Specification as “the node that is located at the closest accessible location to the movable entity,” according to Patent Owner. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:55–67). Petitioner argues that “there is no material difference between how Petitioner and Patent Owner interpret this term, and claim construction is therefore not necessary to resolve this dispute.” Pet. Reply 2. In particular, Petitioner argues that “[t]he construction that the Patent Owner applies is that ‘the most practically near node’ is the node that is closest to the movable entity while being on the same floor as the user.” Id. (citing PO Resp. 14–15, 19–29). Petitioner argues that “[t]he Petition applies that same understanding, explaining that the combination of Wrappe and Belcea renders obvious identifying a node that is on the same floor as the user.” because “the system identifies a beacon ‘nearby’ on the same floor.” Id. (citing Pet. 38). We agree with Patent Owner that the Specification states that “[t]he most practically near node is defined as the node that is located at the closest accessible location to the movable entity.” Ex. 1001, 6:55–57. We conclude that this definition provides the proper construction for this term, and we apply it below. No construction of other terms6 is needed to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “most practically near node is defined as the node that is located at the closest accessible location to the movable entity.” Ex. 1001, 6:55–57. We conclude that this definition provides the proper construction for this term, and we apply it below. No construction of other terms6 is needed to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 13

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

    “router (“FIR”) is present in a stairwell and by an elevator shaft at each floor in a building. Ex. 1008 ¶ 43. Belcea926 explains that because signals lose energy when passing through floors and walls, “a FIR . . . may not be able to communicate with a [device] that is not on the same floor as the FIR.” Id. In accordance with Belcea926’s teachings, “all FIRs deployed on the same floor are on [a] same line of [a] matrix, regardless [of] the position on the floor,” and that “filtered data can be compared for finding the floor where is located the FIR that provides to the targeted mobile device the smallest TOF and the best RSSI simultaneously.” Id. ¶¶ 47, 55. We find persuasive Mr. Andrews’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that Belcea teaches to first identify the nodes on a specific floor, disregard nodes on other floors, and then perform location determinations using only the nodes on the specific floor desired,” as this testimony is consistent with these teachings. Compare Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169–171, with Ex. 1006, 11:26–38, and Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 43, 47, 55. In addition, we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement these teachings [from Belcea and Belcea926] with Wrappe to ensure that the user is connected to a beacon from the store that they are in as opposed to a different store on the floor above or below the user.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 172. We also find persuasive Mr. Andrews’s testimony that “[d]ifferent stores on different floors are less relevant to [a] user, because even though they may be nearby in the vertical sense (e.g. directly underneath the user on a different floor), if the user is not in the store, then they are less likely to be interested in messages from that store.” Id. This testimony is consistent with Wrappe and Belcea’s teachings of improving the precision of locating position. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (57); Ex. 1006, code (57). In sum, we agree with Petitioner and find that the combination of Wrappe and Belcea teaches that the system narrows the plurality of nodes for use by the user at a first elevational level (i.e., narrows to the nodes on a user’s floor, excluding nodes on other floors), and determines the closest node on that floor to the user (i.e., the node at the closest accessible location to the user).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,315,203 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,315,203
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01040 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 48–87 are unpatentable: Alden anticipates most challenged claims, while claims 49 and 51 are obvious over Alden and Beam, and claims 52, 60, 68, 76, and 84 over Alden and Kobayashi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art and refer to people with it as skilled artisans.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “enablement for Alden’s system detecting road curves. Pet. Reply 21. As Petitioner points out, Alden uses both intensity and a detected object’s location (including distance) to inform its response. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 27–28. Petitioner’s expert testifies that the same physical system used to accommodate oncoming vehicles could be used to detect roadside reflectors and direct light into road curves. Ex. 2041, 78:16–80:24. Further, Petitioner’s expert testifies that skilled artisans would adjust the intensity and distance thresholds to distinguish roadside reflectors from oncoming vehicles. IPR2023-01039, Ex. 1003 ¶ 150. Based on Alden’s disclosures, we credit Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that Alden’s system would detect and accommodate road curvatures as claimed by the ’551 patent. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–134. Although Patent Owner argues that Alden’s system could not do so while also accommodating oncoming vehicles, that position is based on the argument that “the system can’t tell the difference between signs and headlights.” PO Surreply 21–23. Patent Owner contends that “detected intensity is a function of both distance and emission intensity” so a threshold couldn’t distinguish headlights from signs. Id. at 24–25. That position ignores that Alden uses triangulation to calculate each object’s distance, as discussed, which would allow it to distinguish different types of objects using an intensity threshold. We agree with Petitioner’s expert that Alden’s system can distinguish the two, as discussed.” slip op. at 33

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

    “sufficiently clear to impart a requirement on “classifying” such that a system must choose from multiple classes or types of objects. The parties do not appear to dispute that “classifying the object” includes arranging or grouping the object according to some system or principle. Thus, there is no need to further construe the claims for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner. Alden’s system does not simply dim its headlights where it detects spots of light. Rather, it performs a multistep process in which those spots are detected, analyzed with triangulation to determine distance, and then used to determine dimming zones. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 27–28. Alden discloses that its sensor “detects the two headlights” of an oncoming vehicle when “[e]lectrons corresponding to the position and intensity of light are categorized by a logic and CPU 71 and stored in a memory 72.” Id. ¶ 27. Petitioner’s expert noted that Alden’s description “move[s] from lights – thresholding lights to objects, and then calculate[s] distance of each thresholding object using triangulation.” Ex. 2041, 109:23–110:2. That testimony supports our view that Alden first detects lights, uses those detected lights to identify and classify an oncoming car, then dims the headlight output to prevent glare. Alden’s dimming decision particularly indicates that it classifies pairs of detected headlights as oncoming vehicles. The CPU makes “assumptions about the space that may potentially be occupied by the driver of the sensed vehicle” and identifies an area of the segmented headlight to dim that is “significantly larger than the headlight dots that were initially received.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 27. Patent Owner agrees that Alden dims “selected surrounding sectors” around detected light (PO Resp. 30), and the way Alden selects those sectors indicates that it identifies vehicles. It does not simply expand an area around each detected light; it dims an area to encompass the driver of the identified vehicle. Ex. 1005 ¶ 27, Fig. 3. By treating a pair of corresponding detected lights collectively for dimming, Alden indicates that it classifies pairs of detected lights as vehicles.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01039 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8, 10–18, and 24–47 are unpatentable: Alden anticipates claims 24–27, 29–35, 37–43, and 45–47; the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), effective March 16, 2013, amended the applicable statutes. Because the application from which the ’551 patent issued was filed before this date, the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply. 4 US 2003/0137849 A1, filed Jan. 22, 2002 (Ex. 1005). 5 US 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000 (Ex. 1006). 6 US 2002/0057572 A1, published May 16, 2002 (Ex. 1007). 7 WO 2001/70538 A2, published Sept. 27, 2001 (Ex. 1008). similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art and refer to people with it as skilled artisans.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The problem with Patent Owner’s claim-construction position is that neither the dictionary definition nor the ’551 patent’s specification establish any degree of proof, verification, or confirmation that an object has been correctly identified. The specification discloses that “techniques known in the art” may be used “to classify, identify or locate the contents” visible to a camera sensor. Ex. 1001, 44:67–45:9. That does not establish any certainty obtained by the preexisting techniques. The specification states that the system can “illuminate distant overhead and roadside signs” and can use “[i]mage recognition via a camera” so that the illumination beam may “follow the retroreflective sign as the vehicle moves.” Id. at 51:59–67. That disclosure does not speak to any degree of confirmation or certainty. The specification’s other disclosures are no different. Id. at 52:19–27 (disclosing automated control over lighting and referencing “automatic dimming of high beam due to detection of oncoming vehicles”), 52:66–53:4 (“Using color and pattern recognition techniques it is possible to determine what is a sign.”), 63:9–12 (“Using real time image processing methodologies with image and scene recognition technology known in the art, room or outdoor area elements, objects and people are identified.”), 64:46–49 (“Using machine vision technology known in the art such as neural networks training and other pattern recognition techniques the vision system has sensor, algorithmic and computation means for identifying devices or objects.”), 69:54–57 (“In a preferred embodiment of the invention the logical controller 454 receiving image input from the camera 453 and running pattern recognition software will identify what is the visual task a person is trying to perform.”), 75:48–62 (“Using programmed scene recognition algorithms, the luminaire’s computer vision system comprised of the camera sensor 496 and logical controller 494 identifies the food on the plate, looks-up in storage the recommended CCT and powers each of the different colored LED chips aimed thereon at the correct power level in order to provide the optimal color illumination.”), 76:33–39 (“[A] camera vision system has algorithmic means to identify and track the position of people and objects and the logical controller has motion control means for re-aiming the light sources towards targeted elements and changing the power level to the LED chips.”). None of those disclosures addresses a requirement for confirming or verifying an identification that the system makes; nor does any address a particular accuracy requirement in identifying an object. Based on the specification using “identify” without any requirement that identifying an object requires confirmation or verification of the object’s true identify, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Although the construction itself similarly does not expressly require the confirmation or verification that Patent Owner seeks to impose, we understand that to be Patent Owner’s intent, and accordingly do not adopt the proposed construction. The parties dispute no other aspect of “identify,” and we therefore need not expressly construe the term.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Because Alden describes its segmented headlights as implementing a process using two-dimensional signals for two-dimensional dimming functionality, we find that Figure 5 depicts a section of an embodiment that contains more than a single row of lighting elements. Stated otherwise, Alden’s disclosures are consistent with each other and are directed to a two-dimensional approach to sensing, control, and illumination. Further, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not addressed the legal standard for lack of enablement. Pet. Reply 2. In particular, to overcome the presumption that prior-art disclosures are enabled, Patent Owner must show ordinarily skilled artisans would require undue experimentation to practice the disclosed invention. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F. 3d 1313, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F. 3d 1282, 1287– 88 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We do not agree with Patent Owner that Alden lacks a presumption of enablement (see PO Surreply 7–8), because we determine that Petitioner’s contentions rely on Alden’s disclosures regarding its invention as a whole. Other than arguing that Figure 5 discloses a single-row embodiment that is unusable with Alden’s other disclosures, Patent Owner has made no attempt to show Alden lacks enablement. Patent Owner has not addressed what experimentation skilled artisans would require to practice an invention using Alden’s Figure 5 segmented headlight with the remainder of Alden’s system as disclosed in Figures 2, 3, and 4, and Alden’s corresponding textual description. We therefore determine that Patent Owner has not shown Alden to lack enablement for its disclosed invention.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have had reason to incorporate Kobayashi’s teachings that its controller receives “road map information” from a “road profile calculating means” and uses it to adjust the headlamp’s illumination. Pet. 63–64. Petitioner reasons that it would be obvious to “apply these teachings to Alden to use map data to identify road curvature when adapting the LEDs of Alden to ‘direct light into the corner.’” Id. at 64 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 122). And Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans had reason to do so because it would “maximize successful detection in different environments” such as where the road lack reflectors. Id. at 65 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123). Other than as discussed above regarding Alden’s disclosures, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing for claims 28, 36, and 44. We have considered the full record, including evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner on whether the combination of Alden and Kobayashi discloses each limitation of claims 28, 36, and 44, and whether skilled artisans would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings as asserted. Based on the full record, we conclude that Petitioner has proven that claims 28, 36, and 44 would have been obvious over Alden and Kobayashi. Pet. 62–65.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• DISH Network L.L.C. / DISH Technologies L.L.C. v. Digital Broadcasting Solutions, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00977 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Casagrande, Russ, and Miller; the Board did not reach the Dow grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “25), and the doctrine of claim differentiation, support Petitioner’s arguments (Reply 3–4) regarding the “first period of time.” Accordingly, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. We use the plain and ordinary meaning of the term here.” slip op. at 15

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

    “agree, Russ discloses that trick play functionality is restricted for only a specified period of time. See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 34–35. Accordingly, we find support for Dr. Jeffay’s testimony that, in the view of one of ordinary skill in the art, Casagrande in combination with Russ teaches that after the expiry of the first period of time there is a second period of time in which commercials may be skipped. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 148–151; see also Pet. 32. Additionally, we agree that Petitioner has demonstrated a rationale to combine Casagrande and Russ with a reasonable expectation of success of the combination, as discussed above in the discussion of limitation 1[a][i].” slip op. at 63

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,538,122 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,538,122
• Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless v. General Access Solutions, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00461 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 28 and 29 are unpatentable as obvious over Vornefeld and Atsuta; the Board did not reach the four remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Vornefeld in combination with Atsuta discloses or suggests all of the limitations of dependent claim 28. We also determine that Petitioner has shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination proposed by Petitioner and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 44

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 12. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. But see Ex. 2028 ¶ 19 (Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Chrissan, stating: “Patent Owner has not offered a different understanding of a POSITA [as set forth in the Petition], and the PTAB accepted Petitioner’s submission. . . . [F]or the purposes of the subject IPR proceedings, I accept and use Petitioner’s and the PTAB’s definition of a POSITA.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “The parties, at oral argument, confirmed that a construction of “sector” is not necessary to decide this case. See Tr. 14:9–15:3 (Petitioner: “JUDGE MCMILLIN: Do we need to engage in claim construction in order to decide this case? MR. ROSENTHAL: I don't believe so, Your Honor.”); id. at 62:13–18 (Patent Owner: “That [prior IPR] proceeding was decided and did not turn on a definition of sector. In this case, this doesn’t need to turn on the definition of sector either.”). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Even if Patent Owner is correct that Atsuta is an FDD system, that argument does not show a fatal flaw in Petitioner’s obviousness case. Petitioner is not, as Patent Owner implies, proposing to change Atsuta’s purportedly FDD system to a TDD system or to bodily incorporate Atsuta’s entire system into Vornefeld’s system or to make a system that attempts to use both FDD and TDD together. Rather, Petitioner is applying Atsuta’s frame structure—the organization, in the same portion of the same frame, of timeslots for users located in different sections—in Vornefeld’s downlink portion of a frame in a TDD system. See, e.g., Pet. 38 (“the combination would use one known frame structure in place of another—specifically, Atsuta’s design that includes transmissions to multiple sectors in one frame.”). Patent Owner does not persuasively argue that Atsuta’s teachings in that regard are uniquely applicable to an uplink portion in a FDD system such that they are not also applicable to Vornefeld’s system. Rather, Patent Owner, in response to Petitioner’s contention that Atsuta’s frames are compatible with a TDD frame, argues that, “[b]ecause Atsuta provides little explanation as to how its invention could be modified to apply to downlink transmissions at all, let alone in addition to uplink, a POSA would not have applied Atsuta’s invention to downlink transmissions in a TDD frame as Petitioner alleges without support.” PO Resp. 44 (citing Ex. 2028 ¶ 109). That is an argument that there is no reason to combine the references’ teachings because Atsuta lacks an explicit teaching to combine them. It is not an argument that Atsuta’s frame structure cannot work in Vornefeld’s system and therefore the teachings cannot be combined. Additionally, Patent Owner’s requirement of an explicit teaching to combine in the references themselves has been rejected. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 415; see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 7,230,931 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,230,931
• Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless v. General Access Solutions, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00392 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 28 and 29 are unpatentable as obvious over Vornefeld and Atsuta; the Board did not reach the four remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “fundamentally incompatible.” PO Sur-reply 13 (citing Ex. 2028 ¶¶ 44, 148); see also id. at 11–19. The basis for Patent Owner’s argument is Dr. Chrissan’s testimony that FDD and TDD are mutually exclusive alternatives that cannot be combined in the same system and that one must select one or the other. See id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1024, 30:21–31:19; Ex. 2022, 4, 6; Ex. 2030, 9–10). This is not on point as Petitioner’s proposed combination does utilize one, namely Vornefeld’s TDD duplexing. Patent Owner does not address adequately the pertinent issue—whether Atsuta’s teaching of a portion of frame having timeslots for users in different sectors may be applied to Vornefeld’s TDD downlink frame. Dr. Almeroth’s testimony is credible and persuasive, and we find that Atsuta’s frame structure teachings are compatible with and applicable to the downlink portion of Vornefeld’s TDD frame. We do not find to be persuasive Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Chrissan’s associated testimony that the references are not combinable because they purportedly are different in certain ways.” slip op. at 39

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

    “In contrast, Petitioner persuasively presents argument and evidence that the pertinent teachings of Atsuta are compatible with Vornefeld’s system.8 Dr. Almeroth, in support of the Petition, testifies that “the frames 8 To the extent that Patent Owner asserts that the argument and evidence regarding compatibility in Petitioner’s Reply is untimely, we disagree. See, e.g., PO Sur-reply 16–17 (arguing that certain evidence “is support for Petitioner’s prima facie obviousness case, and so must have been provided in the Petition, if at all.”). The Petition contains the contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Atsuta’s frames “are in Atsuta are comprised of different timeslots reserved for data transmission (Ex. 1005, 6:35-58), just as a TDD frame is.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 105 (cited at Pet. 32 for the “compatible” proposition); see also id. ¶ 94 (“Vornefeld’s and Atsuta’s frame structures are consistent with each other. Both are directed to TDMA frame structured transmissions between a base station and subscribers.”). Dr. Almeroth also provided credible testimony in support of Petitioner’s contention (Pet. 28–29) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 95–97; see, e.g., id. ¶ 96 (“A POSA would readily understand that combining Atsuta with Vornefeld would have been straightforward. Atsuta’s method for allocating time slots to subscribers in different sectors within a single TDMA frame matches Vornefeld’s MAC protocol, which allows transmission to a subscriber with the ‘granularity of a single time slot.’” (citing Ex. 1004, 54)). Dr. Almeroth further testifies that certain cited disclosures in Atsuta “is all the information a POSA would need to determine that it would be obvious that a single frame in Vornefeld could include downlink transmissions to different sectors,” and “[t]hat would be true regardless of Atsuta’s duplexing method (e.g., FDD or TDD).” Ex. 1025 ¶ 22 (citations omitted). Dr. Almeroth additionally opines that “a POSA would understand that Atsuta’s description of a TDMA frame would indicate to a POSA a methodology that would incorporate one or compatible with a TDD frame.” Pet. 32; see also id. at 27–29 (contentions regarding a reasonable likelihood of success in making the proposed combination). In the Response, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s compatibility contention is incorrect. PO Resp. 44. We find that Petitioner’s subsequent argument and accompanying evidence is an appropriate reply to Patent Owner’s argument of incompatibility.” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues “Atsuta teaches away from the objective of Vornefeld . . ., instead teaching that transmissions must be made sequentially so they never overlap in time.” PO Resp. 2–3; see also id. at 46. Even if Vornefeld’s purported purpose is simultaneous transmission and even if the proposed combination would not retain such, as Petitioner contends (Pet. Reply 14–15), Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive because the teaching of something different does not constitute a teaching away. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Patent Owner points to Vornefeld’s disclosure of simultaneous transmissions and to Atsuta’s disclosure of transmitting in a manner such that the signals to the stations do not overlap, but does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in this art would be discouraged from combining the references teachings so as to arrive at claimed subject matter that does not require simultaneous transmissions. See PO Resp. 45–46.” slip op. at 40

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner counters that there is no motivation to combine because “a POSA would have recognized that Atsuta’s design would have provided little to no benefit of reduced power or hardware complexity relative to the added costs of its implementation in Vornefeld.” PO Resp. 58 (citing Ex. 2028 ¶ 128); see also id. at 55–56. We do not agree with Patent Owner. Atsuta explains that, in the then-conventional TDMA method, each of three zones had an independent frame and used three independent apparatuses. See Ex. 1005, 1:53–60, 5:21–27, Fig. 1 (depicting three circuits of the prior art). Atsuta teaches using one apparatus and a single frame for three zones. See id. at 3:59–66; Figs. 2, 4 (depicting one combined circuit). Atsuta further teaches that, due to the use of a common frame, “regardless of the number of divided zones, the demodulating circuit and the TDMA control circuit can be shared,” and, “[t]hus, the size of the receiving apparatus can be reduced and thereby the power consumption can be decreased.” Id. at 3:59–66; see also id. at 2:60–63 (“An object of the present invention is to share the same functional circuit so as to simply the structure the entire apparatus and reduce the size and power consumption thereof.”). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s complexity argument is incorrectly based on a comparison of only one of the three circuits of the conventional system to Atsuta’s system. See Pet. 18–19; PO Resp. 55–56 (arguing, for example, that Atsuta’s invention of Figure 2 has to handle three times the number of outputs and handle three times the number of mobile stations as the prior art device but failing to acknowledge that the prior art device required three circuits to do the same). Dr. Chrissan agreed on cross-examination that the TDMA control circuit itself in the combined system would not be three times as complex as one of the three in the conventional system. See Ex. 1024, 157:12–158:16. Dr. Almeroth credibly and persuasively testifies that “Atsuta’s system also simplifies the signal processing structure at the base station, reducing the required number of functional circuits (and computational requirements) to a single circuit.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 92 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:60–64). We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would see a benefit in using a single-frame system, as taught by Atsuta, to reduce the number of functional circuits and the overall complexity of the device, and that provides a motivation for making the proposed combination. See Pet. 27. Patent Owner argues that Atsuta’s frame structure—combining into a single frame what before was three frames for three sector zones—will require more bandwidth and that the TDMA control circuit will have to run at a higher clock rate, thereby offsetting some of the power savings. See PO Resp. 56–58. We disagree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not make the combination because of this purported tradeoff, as Patent Owner urges. See id. at 58. “It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” Intel Corp., 21 F.4th at 800 (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[J]ust because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”).” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 7,230,931 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,230,931

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.