• Juniper Networks, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2020 · IPR2020-00337 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Rehearing

  Denied Patent Owner’s request to reverse institution of review of claims 1–3, 7, 16, and 18; Patent Owner did not show an erroneous construction or abuse of discretion.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “We maintain, at this stage of the proceeding, that the construction of conversational flow should not include “(for instance, the running of an application on a server as requested by a client), where some conversational flows involve more than one connection, and some even involve more than one exchange of packets between a client and a server.” As we explained in the Institution Decision, phrases beginning with “for instance,” “where some,” and “some” are “merely exemplary and non-limiting.” Inst. Dec. 29. Patent Owner does not persuade us, on this record, that omission of these phrases from our definition of “conversational flow” is, as a matter of claim construction, erroneous. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 811 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that exemplary language “introduces an example of a broader genus rather than limiting the genus to the exemplary species”).” slip op. at 4

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

    “We nevertheless preliminarily construed “conversational flow” as a “sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a result of an activity.” Inst. Dec. 29. We explained that we saw no “reason to include the additional phrases of the prior Board and district court constructions”— namely, the phrases “for instance, the running of an application on a server as requested by a client,” “where some conversational flows involve more than one connection,” and “some even involve more than one exchange of packets between a client and a server.” Id. (emphases added). We maintain, at this stage of the proceeding, that the construction of conversational flow should not include “(for instance, the running of an application on a server as requested by a client), where some conversational flows involve more than one connection, and some even involve more than one exchange of packets between a client and a server.” As we explained in the Institution Decision, phrases beginning with “for instance,” “where some,” and “some” are “merely exemplary and non-limiting.” Inst. Dec. 29. Patent Owner does not persuade us, on this record, that omission of these phrases from our definition of “conversational flow” is, as a matter of claim construction, erroneous. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 811 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that exemplary language “introduces an example of a broader genus rather than limiting the genus to the exemplary species”).” slip op. at 3

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

    “IV. CONCLUSION On this record, Patent Owner neither persuades us that we overlooked or misapprehended any matter, nor sufficiently shows that instituting an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 7, 16, and 18 of the ’646 patent was an abuse of discretion. V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 6,771,646
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2020 · IPR2019-01055 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, 12–17, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “would have had either: (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field; or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors as well as my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). slip op. at 12

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

    “We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached

    “Patent Owner counters that Koning does not qualify as analogous art and, relatedly, that judicial estoppel bars Petitioner from contending otherwise. PO Resp. 7–17. Patent Owner further argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Koning’s belt with Hedderwick and Benac, and would not have expected that combination to succeed. Id. at 18–33; Sur-Reply 13–19. Patent Owner also challenges the motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the incorporation of Owner argues that incorporating Benac’s paddle wheel would not yield a “nip” as claimed. PO Resp. 49–61; Sur-Reply 29. Patent Owner also submits evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 61–98; Sur-Reply 2–10. 2. Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Of the disputed issues summarized in the preceding section, our analysis focuses on whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner Petitioner proposes and would have reasonably expected success in doing so. Because those issues are dispositive of Petitioner’s challenge, it is unnecessary for us to resolve the other disputed issues. See, e.g., Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming Board’s determination that claims were not shown to be obvious because the petitioner had not demonstrated that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references); Samsung Electronics Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (determining that it is unnecessary to reach other issues when reasonable expectation of success is dispositive).” slip op. at 22

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

    “between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 78 (“[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would have determined through no more than routine experimentation how to orient Benac’s paddle wheel so that it could operate with Koning’s brush belt bristles to pinch seeds from the seed meter.”). It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the references in the proposed manner and would have reasonably expected success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,699,955 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,699,955
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01044 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “have had either (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19– 20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors together with my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).6 That standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). V. OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEDDERWICK, KONING, AND BENAC” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, explains that [i]f a wheel is used to load and place seeds within a moving belt with brush hairs, the wheel must be able to disengage from seeds while the seeds remain in between brush hairs. If the wheel maintains contact with the seed after the seed has moved into the brush hairs, the wheel will continue to apply force to the seed and eject or remove the seed from the profile of the brush hairs . . . . Ex. 2200 ¶ 223. Dr. Glancey testifies, credibly, that in Petitioner’s combination, seeds would have been rejected from the belt because, as the paddle wheel rotates, seeds “would be scooped through the belt.” Id. ¶ 225.” slip op. at 31

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

    “way the references use endless members in the form of brush belts and paddle wheels, versus the way Petitioner uses those components in the proposed combination. Contrary to Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s assertions, the proposed combination does not merely apply known techniques to a known device, because none of the cited references use brush belts and paddle wheels in the manner Petitioner proposes. As discussed in greater detail below, Benac teaches that a paddle wheel can be used to ensure that seeds jammed in vacuum holes are released reliably, and then dropped to the ground. Benac does not address brush belts as an endless member and, therefore, does not teach that paddle wheels can be used to guide seeds into the bristles of a brush belt, as Petitioner proposes. See Pet. 64. And Koning does not teach a brush belt that captures seeds released from above, as Petitioner and Mr. Prairie propose. See Pet. 61–62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 2193, 190:10–191:3; Ex. 2263, 167:21–170:9. Rather, Koning’s brush belt maintains the relative position of potatoes lying on a conveying surface by holding them from above while the conveyor moves them to the furrow. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4. Petitioner’s arguments do not adequately account for these differences between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 80. It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,813,663 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,813,663
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01046 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Yamahata under § 103 because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the evidence and arguments of record, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Our determination is primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above, as well as the prior art of record and the sophistication of the technology of the ’199 patent. We have considered Mr. Prairie’s opinion, but we give that testimony minimal weight due to the lack of supporting explanation. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in agricultural engineering, or a similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree.” slip op. at 13

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

    “IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION “In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).7 That standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1135 ¶ 51. Yet it is Petitioner’s burden to show motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combination, not Patent Owner’s burden to show that the prior art demonstrates the futility of the proposed combination. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner’s affirmative showing on motivation and reasonable expectation of success for using Koning’s brush belt in the proposed combination is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. And Patent Owner’s evidence of difficulties an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected to encounter in that proposal serves to highlight the issues that Petitioner’s showing ignores. Petitioner additionally contends that Patent Owner’s arguments are based on the erroneous premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan must be able to physically combine the references. See Pet. Reply 7 (citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). We disagree. Patent Owner’s arguments, summarized above, simply point out that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have expected success in combining the references’ teachings in the way Petitioner proposes. Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success are properly assessed with reference to the combination as Petitioner has framed it. The Federal Circuit has explained that doing so is not inconsistent with Mouttet. See Samsung, 925 F.3d at 1382–83 (“We will not fault the Board for analyzing Petitioners’ obviousness grounds in the way presented in the Petition.”).” slip op. at 34

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s analysis does not acknowledge, much less bridge, the gap between Koning’s use of a brush belt to hold potatoes from above as they lie on a conveying surface, versus the brush belt’s use in above.10 During his deposition, Mr. Prairie resisted agreeing that the potatoes are lying on the conveyor in Koning, testifying that he takes from Koning’s description that “they are captured within the belt with brush hairs. And that there is some weight that’s along the conveying member 23.” Ex. 2193, 96:24–99:25. Mr. Prairie testified that he “do[es]n’t believe the brush hairs support the full weight of the potatoes,” but that Koning did not provide him sufficient information to answer whether the conveying member supports the majority of the weight of the potatoes. Id. at 106:22–107:21. In our view, it is clear from Koning’s description that the potatoes lie on the conveyor and the purpose of the brush belt is to maintain their position relative to each other while they are moved by the conveyor. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4; see also Ex. 2205 ¶¶ 140–141 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, testifying that a simple mechanical analysis shows that in Koning, about 87% of the potatoes’ weight is supported by the conveying member). Mr. Prairie’s refusal to acknowledge the differences between the brush belt’s function in Koning versus the proposed combination undermines the credibility of his testimony that the proposed combination would have been a simple application of a known technique to a known device. 10 See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting expert testimony that supported the absence of a motivation to combine: “[I]f I can equate this one to kind of a simple analogy, if you’re trying to build a piece of furniture. What’s a typical thing? You put on a piece of wood. You take a nail, and you hit the nail with a hammer. In control terms, what Mr. Phipps is suggesting is that you put the hammer on the workbench, pick up the piece of furniture and bash the piece of furniture onto the hammer. It’s totally backwards from what I believe one of skill in the art would even attempt . . . .”). have been simple for an ordinarily skilled artisan to adapt Koning’s brush belt for use in the proposed combination, where seeds are deposited onto the brush belt from above—is further undermined by his testimony that he “can’t recall a time where I’ve seen a seed being dropped into a brush belt.” Ex. 2193, 113:5–9; see also Ex. 2263, 81:2–12 (“Q. And you never attempted to drop a seed onto a moving brush belt to see whether that would be inserted into the brush belt, correct? A. As I stated, for the purposes of this case, I did not do any physical experimentation with a moving brush belt as I didn’t feel it was necessary. The prior art discloses sufficient information.”) (objection omitted). Mr. Prairie has “had some industrial design projects where we’ve had to utilize brushes for various applications,” but he “ha[s] not used a brush belt to convey seed.” Ex. 2194, 297:6–16. Mr. Prairie testified that “prior to writing this declaration, brush belt technology was not a specific area that I study, that I was researching.” Ex. 2263, 79:6–9. Indeed, during his initial deposition in this case, the only specific example of a moving brush belt Mr. Prairie could recall seeing was Patent Owner’s ExactEmerge product. Ex. 2193, 108:6–110:10. The basis for Mr. Prairie’s opinion, that a seed would be expected to enter a moving brush belt in the proposed combination, appears to only be Koning itself. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–81; Ex. 2193, 116:12–19, 118:7–23; Ex. 2263, 159:5–160:2. When asked at his deposition, Mr. Prairie did not explain any other engineering analysis he performed to make that determination. Ex. 2193, 114:23–117:12. Mr. Prairie testified that he “did not operate a brush belt for this declaration because [he] didn’t feel it was necessary to make my assessments” and he “did not do study or experimentation on a brush belt as I did not feel it was necessary.” unpersuasive because, as discussed above, Koning does not teach using a brush belt to receive and convey seeds that have been dropped onto it from above. Mr. Prairie does not account for that difference by explaining why an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect Koning’s brush belt to effectively capture and carry seeds dropped from above, as in the proposed combination.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,480,199 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,199
• Renesas Electronics Corporation v. Broadcom CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2020 · IPR2019-01040 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 9–14 are unpatentable as obvious; the motion to amend is denied for substitute claim 15 and granted for substitute claims 16–19.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “§ 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1 and 9–14. Paper 9 (“Institution Dec.”). In the Institution Decision, we determined that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to the challenged claims, and we instituted trial on all challenged claims and all grounds in the Petition. Institution Dec. 35.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that “a person of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “Accordingly, we construe “configurable” in this context to mean” slip op. at 20

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

    “Accordingly, based on our review of the record and the parties’ submissions, we determine that the record establishes that each of Video Processor 280, H.221/BCH decoder 240, and Huffman decoder 260 disclosed in Fandrianto ’459 are hardware accelerators as claimed, and that Fandrianto ’459 would have taught the second limitation of claim 1. d) Claim 1 Summary In sum, based on our review of the record and the parties’ submissions, we determine that the record establishes that RISC microprocessor 220 disclosed in Fandrianto ’459 is a “processor,” as required by claim 1, and each of Video Processor 280, H.221/BCH decoder 240, and Huffman decoder 260 disclosed in Fandrianto ’459 are hardware accelerators as required by that claim. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’844 patent would have been obvious in light of Fandrianto ’459.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,284,844 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,284,844
• Tripadvisor, LLC v. Mimzi, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2020 · IPR2019-01080 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 7–18 are unpatentable over Roth and Ng; claims 1, 2, and 4, 7–18 are unpatentable over Roth and Fortescue; claim 3 and claims 1, 10, and 16 are not shown unpatentable on …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the invention, “would have (i) had a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or a closely related field, and about 1–2 years of practical experience in that field; or (ii) had a master’s degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering or a closely related field.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 55). Patent Owner argues “POSITA must have some familiarity with social network databases (the technology at issue) in addition to Petitioner’s proposed general experience in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or Computer Engineering.” PO Resp. 15. On this record, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed definition of person of ordinary skill in the art, and adopt it for purposes of this Decision. Although the claims of the ʼ981 Patent recite searching a social network database, we find the fields of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, and Computer Engineering would provide knowledge related to social networks and database search at a level commensurate with the disclosure of the ʼ981 Patent, and, thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that our analysis below” slip op. at 6

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

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments and the fully developed trial record, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction. The ʼ981 Patent describes metadata as data that includes “date data, time data, name data or location data.” Ex. 1001, 2:31–32. Figures 1 and 2 of the ʼ981 Patent list several examples of metadata, including, “Date of call, dictation or message,” “Start time,” “End Time,” Duration,” “Phone #,” “Phone # other party,” “Name,” “Name of other party,” “Date of Synopsis,” “Start time of Synopsis,” “End time of Synopsis,” “Duration of Synopsis,” “Location start,” “Location time 1,” “Location at end,” “Loc. Start synopsis,” and “Loc. End synopsis.” As can be seen, the ʼ981 Patent describes metadata broadly as encompassing a variety of data associated with various uses of the mobile device, such as calls, texts, dictation, photos, and the like. Patent Owner does not provide sufficient evidence that the word “associated” means “attached” in the context of the claim. The ʼ981 Patent does not use the term “attached” anywhere to describe the metadata associated with the spoken request, nor has Patent Owner identified the use of the term anywhere in the intrinsic evidence. Patent Owner cites Figures 1 and 2 of the ʼ981 Patent as supporting its construction but Figures 1 and 2 show that a time offset and location may be added to the transcript for each the time and location information. The claim, however, recites that metadata be associated with the spoken request, not that it be added to the transcript. Ultimately, we fail to see how these embodiments show that time and location are attached to the spoken request. In light of the parties’ arguments regarding unpatentability, we determine that we need not further construe the term “metadata associated with the spoken request.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence and the fully developed trial record, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction. The ʼ981 Patent states that it discloses “[a] system and method for providing social-network (Centralized Community Search database)—provided outputs to a mobile-electronic-device user in response to the user’s spoken request.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ʼ981 Patent explains that a user may wish to transmit their “text messages, photos, videos, call and voice annotations or synopsis (with speech-recognized text and location data), to a Centralized Community Search database” and that the user may designate this content to be public and “be shared with anyone via the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 14:64– 15:6. The ʼ981 Patent calls the public sharing of information as “Location Blogging.” See Ex. 1001, 15:1–6. The ʼ981 Patent explains that the publicly shared content contributed to the Centralized Community Search database may include information such as “a review of a restaurant or business.” Ex. 1001, 15:7–15. The Centralized Community Search database “may be searched or mined based on social network or type of information, restaurant location.” Ex. 1001, 15:22–26. Although the ʼ981 Patent describes information being stored in a centralized community search database, it does not restrict the community in any way nor does it describe the database as storing interpersonal relationships between community members. We find insufficient support in the ʼ981 Patent for such a limitation. Moreover, we find no support for Patent Owner’s argument that a social network database has a specific structure with relational tables and links between tables and between individuals, nor any support for the database being dynamic and two-way. We therefore decline to import such limitations into the claim. For purposes of this Decision, we do not consider whether the term “social network” should be given patentable weight. As explained below, even if we give the term patentable weight, when properly construed, the relied upon references teach a social network database. The ʼ981 Patent describes a centralized database that stores information, such as text messages, photos, videos, road warnings and restaurant reviews, accessible by anyone on the Internet, without disclosing or requiring the storage of interpersonal relationships. In light of the parties’ arguments regarding unpatentability, we need not further construe the term “social network database.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “We find Petitioner has demonstrated that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Roth with Fortescue. Both references relate to performing internet searches and both discuss searching for restaurants. On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill would have considered adding Fortescue’s social network elements and the ability to rank based on various factors to benefit Roth’s that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Fortescue to add Roth’s speech to text feature for additional convenience for the user.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,128,981 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,128,981
• Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies OYSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00823 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5–8, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 4, 9, and 11 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’494 patent as one who would have had “a Bachelor’s (B.S.) degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2–5 years of academic or industry experience in the field of Internet security.” Dec. on Inst. 7–8 (citing Pet. 17; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner does not dispute our adoption of Petitioner’s definition, nor otherwise address the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention of the ’494 patent. See generally PO Resp.; see also Ex. 2002 ¶ 22. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’494 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We apply Petitioner’s definition in our analysis below. IV.” slip op. at 8

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

    “A. Unique Identity In the Petition, Petitioner argues that “unique identity” means “one or more parameters that uniquely identify a secure connection.” Pet. 18. In our Decision on Institution, “we concluded that no express claim construction of the term ‘unique identity’ [wa]s necessary” because in its Preliminary Response “Patent Owner d[id] not argue that RFC3104 or Grabelsky fails to disclose this term and, therefore, this term is not in controversy.” Dec. on Inst. 9 (citations omitted). In the subsequent papers, the parties confirm “that there is no reason to construe this term” because “Patent Owner does not dispute that some form of a unique identity is found in the primary reference.” PO Resp. 20; see also Pet. Reply 8 (agreeing that this term need not be construed). Accordingly, we find that no express construction of “unique identity” is needed. 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 9

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

    “Specification support its proposed construction for this term. First, we find that Patent Owner conflates “mobility” with “mobile computer.”5 The Specification states that “the term mobility . . . meant moving from one network to another,” rather than the term “mobile computer” having this meaning. Ex. 1001, 4:34–38 (emphasis added). Moreover, the Specification uses the term “mobility” as a capability or condition. For example, the Specification uses the term “mobility” as follows: (i) certain “protocols are not well suited to mobility”; (ii) “[t]he intermediate host might be a Mobile IP home agent, that provides mobility for the connection between the mobile terminal and the home agent . . . .”; (iii) a disclosed “method solves the mobility problem, at the cost of adding extra headers to packets”; and (iv) “[o]ne example of a change in the [security association (‘SA’)] between the first computer and the intermediate computer is the change of addresses for enabling mobility.” Ex. 1001, 5:7–8, 5:17–21, 5:33–34, 7:56–58 (emphases added). In other words, mobility is a capability a mobile computer has, rather than being synonymous with mobile computer. As such, these passages from the Specification support Petitioner’s construction” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNot reached

    “Lastly,12 we find that Patent Owner’s remaining arguments for this limitation are premised on either its (i) proposed construction (i.e., a mobile computer is “a computer that moves from one network to another as opposed to a computer that is only capable of a static secure connection”), which we do not adopt; or (ii) inapposite argument that the mobile computer needs to 12 We need not, and thus do not, reach whether Petitioner’s arguments for this limitation in its Reply (Pet. Reply 8–14) are new arguments, as Patent Owner argues in its Sur-Reply (PO Sur-Reply 13–24), because we do not rely on them, but instead, we rely on Petitioner’s arguments, and citations to the record evidence, from the Petition. maintain the same secure connection. See PO Resp. 25–51. Thus, we find these arguments unavailing. Likewise, Dr. Borella’s declaration testimony is not helpful to our analysis as his “declaration employs the assumption that the ‘mobile computer’ recited in the claims moves from one network to another,” which is contrary to our construction, as we discuss above. Ex. 2010 ¶ 42; supra Section IV(B) (construing mobile computer).” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 9,712,494 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,712,494
• Shopify, Inc. / Priceline.Com LLC et al. v. DDR Holdings, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2020 · IPR2018-01014 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and held claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11–13, 15, 17, and 18 unpatentable over the listed prior-art grounds.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “Petitioner’s argument on rehearing is persuasive, particularly under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard of claim construction applied in this proceeding. See Dec. 12–13 (Final Written Decision noting that, for an inter partes review proceeding based on a petition filed prior to November 13, 2018, “the Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear”). Petitioner clarifies that the Petition identifies Exhibit 1009’s buy page as corresponding to the “composite web page contain[ing] one or more selectable URLs” recited in the claim and identifies the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages linked to the “buy” page as corresponding to the recited “hierarchical set of additional pages.” See Req. Reh’g 11 (asserting “the Petition demonstrated that the ‘view cart,’ ‘modify cart,’ and ‘checkout’ links satisfy the second ‘wherein’ clause”). In doing so, Petitioner points us to specific portions of its Petition that we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 102 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’825 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22. Petitioner thus demonstrates that the buy page shown in Exhibit 1009, i.e., the recited “composite web page,” contains one or more selectable URLs connecting the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages to the buy page, i.e., the recited “hierarchical set of additional web pages,” as required by the claim. Because each of those pages “pertain[s] to a subset of the product offerings in the electronic catalog,” such as those selected for purchase, Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each limitation of the second “wherein” clause of claim 3 is met by the Digital River Publications.” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard of claim construction applied in this proceeding. See Dec. 12–13 (Final Written Decision noting that, for an inter partes review proceeding based on a petition filed prior to November 13, 2018, “the Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear”). Petitioner clarifies that the Petition identifies Exhibit 1009’s buy page as corresponding to the “composite web page contain[ing] one or more selectable URLs” recited in the claim and identifies the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages linked to the “buy” page as corresponding to the recited “hierarchical set of additional pages.” See Req. Reh’g 11 (asserting “the Petition demonstrated that the ‘view cart,’ ‘modify cart,’ and ‘checkout’ links satisfy the second ‘wherein’ clause”). In doing so, Petitioner points us to specific portions of its Petition that we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 102 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’825 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22. Petitioner thus demonstrates that the buy page shown in Exhibit 1009, i.e., the recited “composite web page,” contains one or more selectable URLs connecting the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages to the buy page, i.e., the recited “hierarchical set of additional web pages,” as required by the claim. Because each of those pages “pertain[s] to a subset of the product offerings in the electronic catalog,” such as those selected for purchase, Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each limitation of the second “wherein” clause of claim 3 is met by the Digital River Publications.” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 102 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’825 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22.” slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,515,825
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2020 · IPR2019-00837 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 14–19, 26, and 36–44 are unpatentable as obvious over Kiss and FIPA97, with some claims also challenged over Cohen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We begin our analysis by addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Lieberman, opines that a person of ordinary been someone familiar with the principles and conventions of computer science and computer networking, and also with multi-agent systems and inter-agent communication languages as documented in agent-centered literature by 1999. Ex. 1050 ¶ 32; see Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1050 ¶ 32). Dr. Lieberman also testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art may have been a graduate student in mathematics, engineering, or computer science, and may have had an advanced degree in one of these disciplines, and would also have had at least two years of experience working in the field of computer science, or a related field, and may have worked in academia, either as a professor or a graduate student, for a technology company, or for a government. Ex. 1050 ¶ 32. Citing the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Medvidovic, Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’560 patent’s effective filing date would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or equivalent field and at least two years of work experience in design and development of distributed systems, software specification languages, or a related area.” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2032 ¶ 41). Patent Owner criticizes Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art as being “vague and uncertain” due to Petitioner’s and Dr. Lieberman’s use of the word “may” in their proposed definition. Id. at 28–29. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s proposed definition “leav[es] every aspect of the level of skill ‘fluid,’” which is “particularly problematic here, where Petitioner claims that it would have been obvious to create an agent system that is very complex and advanced in its facilitation, goal processing, and inter-agent communication capacities.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 2032 ¶ 44). alternatives—i.e., that a Skilled Artisan would have been at least a graduate student in several relevant fields, and would have had at least two years of work experience in those fields.” Pet. Reply 12; see Pet. 5. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner does not articulate how any differences between the parties’ proposals that would alter or even affect the outcome of this proceeding. Pet. Reply 12. Patent Owner asserts that it has “identified how the difference between the proposals would affect this proceeding” because Patent Owner has pointed out that “it is Petitioner’s burden under the law to address each Graham factor and Petitioner has failed to proffer a coherent level of ordinary skill in the art, [and] Petitioner’s obviousness assertion fails for that reason alone.” PO Sur-reply 16–17 (citing PO Resp. 29).” slip op. at 9

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

    “1. “goal satisfaction plan” The claim term “goal satisfaction plan” is recited in challenged independent claims 1 and 26 of the ’560 patent. Ex. 1001, 30:7–15 (claim 1), 32:43–51 (claim 26). It is also recited in independent claim 50 of the ’560 patent, not challenged in this proceeding. Id. at 35:1–10. Petitioner contends that a “goal satisfaction plan” is a “procedure for sending one or more requests for service to one or more agents in order to satisfy a goal.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner disagrees and asserts that the claim term “goal a complex goal expression in an optimal or near-optimal manner that is consistent with any advice parameters or constraints.” PO Resp. 32. a. Claim Language We begin our claim construction analysis by considering the language of the claims themselves. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Addressing the claim language of the disputed term, we note that the claim language “a goal satisfaction plan” indicates that the term’s plain meaning is “a plan for satisfying a goal.” In independent claims 1 and 26, the recited “goal satisfaction plan” is further constrained by specific limitations recited in the claims. Claim 1 recites: a facilitating engine . . . further operable for generating a goal satisfaction plan associated with the base goal, wherein the goal satisfaction plan involves: using reasoning to determine sub-goal requests based on non-syntactic decomposition of the base goal and using said reasoning to co-ordinate and schedule efforts by the service-providing electronic agents for fulfilling the sub-goal requests in a cooperative completion of the base goal.” slip op. at 14

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

    “relevant public, exercising reasonable diligence, could have located FIPA 97 Version 1.0 in late 1997 on the FIPA website, housed at the time at http://drogo.cselt.stet.it/fipa. FIPA published FIPA 97 Version 1.0 on its website at the conclusion of the Munich meeting on October 10, 1997, or shortly thereafter. See Ex. 1049 ¶ 20. In the several months leading up to the Munich meeting, persons of ordinary skill in the art would have known about the FIPA website through the widely distributed AgentWeb newsletters and the Software Agents mailing list, which provided website information or direct links to drafts of the specification and meeting announcements and reports. See Ex. 1091, 1–2; Ex. 1092, 3; Ex. 1093, 2; Ex. 1094; Ex. 1082, 1; Ex. 1083, 1. Therefore, people working in the field would have been sufficiently familiar with FIPA’s activities and its website to look for FIPA 97 Version 1.0 on the FIPA website when it was posted after the Munich meeting. Indeed, both Dr. Finin, who was affiliated with FIPA, and Dr. Lieberman, who worked in the software agent field, testify that they accessed FIPA 97 Version 1.0 on the FIPA website in late 1997. Ex. 1049 ¶ 21; Ex. 1050 ¶ 146.” slip op. at 50

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

    “skill in the relevant field to combine the prior art teachings, Petitioner “must show some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. A reason to combine teachings from the prior art “may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the references themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved.” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,069,560
• Polygroup Limited Mco v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2020 · IPR2016-01610 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the ’186 patent were held unpatentable; other remanded challenged claims were not shown unpatentable, and substitute claims 29 and 30 were allowed.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandMixed

    “On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated our Original Decision in part and remanded the cases for further proceedings. Polygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis Elec. Co., Ltd, 759 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019). After conferring with the parties, we permitted additional briefing to address the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 196.” slip op. at 2

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

    “and the second wire are detachably connected to the first trunk electrical connector of the first trunk portion.” Petitioner acknowledges that “Miller does not expressly teach that the wiring assembly is ‘modular’ or ‘separably connected.’” Pet. II 65. Petitioner contends that “assemblies for providing a detachable connection between electrical contact sets and wiring harnesses were well-known in the art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner contends that “Lessner teaches a ‘quick-disconnect electrical connector for receiving and releasably retaining a male tab connector’ and a [person of skill in the art (POSA)] would recognize that it may be used to create detachable connections between the electrical contacts of a connector or plug, and the wires of a wiring assembly.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 1:10–11; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner contends that one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings based on those from Lessner. Pet. II 65–70. Petitioner reasons, for example, that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to enhance the mechanical and electrical connections between the electrical contacts sets and wiring assemblies of Miller[] with the detachable electrical connectors of Lessner” for “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly.” Id. at 65–66 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner further reasons that “the detachable connectors of Lessner provide a quick-connect engagement allowing the builder to easily and quickly attach the wires to the terminals on the trunk connector during assembly,” which “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts.” Id. at 66. Petitioner’s contentions as to why one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings are unpersuasive. As discussed above, Petitioner cited Miller’s plug and socket connectors as corresponding to the recited trunk connectors. Petitioner’s proposed modification in the Miller alone challenge adds an additional connection point in Miller’s plug and socket connectors, further complicating assembly, rather than providing greater “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly” as alleged. Petitioner’s additional reasoning that the proposed modification “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts” is equally unpersuasive. The only difference resulting from the modification is that the plug and socket connectors could be removed from their respective wiring assemblies. That is, it provides for removal of one connector by providing yet another connector, which fails to provide a benefit because Miller’s plug and socket connectors are loose, rather than fixed within the trunk portions like Patent Owner’s connectors. For at least these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish unpatentability of claim 7 of the ’186 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedUnpatentable

    “D. Secondary Considerations As explained in the Original Decision, Patent Owner provides evidence related to non-obviousness of the claims. Original Decision 43–60. Considering that evidence, as explained in the Original Decision, relative to the fact that Miller alone teaches each element of these claims in a single embodiment16, we determine that Patent Owner’s evidence does not outweigh Petitioner’s case of obviousness for claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has established by the preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are unpatentable. Petitioner has failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that claim 7 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 21

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The figure reproduced above is a portion of Miller’s Figure 2, which is a front, partial section view of its artificial tree, along with Petitioner’s annotations noting Miller’s electrical connections (circled in red). Pet. I 29. As seen above, Petitioner cites Miller’s plug and socket connection as the electrical connection recited in the claims. See Pet. I 33 (“Miller also teaches that wires 22 of trunks 3, 5 are electrically connectable via plug and socket connectors of Fig. 2.”), 42, 57–58 (presenting similar contentions for claims 20 and 28). The problem with Petitioner’s contentions that rely on Miller alone is that the electrical connection in Miller is independent of the mechanical connection of tree portions (i.e., the mechanical connection does not result in the electrical connection in the manner claimed). For at least this reason, Petitioner’s challenges to claims 10, 20, and 28 based on Miller alone fail.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,454,186 mixed
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,454,186

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.