- Foundation Medicine, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 20, 2019 · IPR2019-00637 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show it had adequately supported the claimed ligation efficiency or a specific motivation to modify Schmitt.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“ligation efficiency. Indeed, we expressly acknowledged it. See Dec. 14 (noting Petitioner’s argument that “tagging ‘at least 20% of the cfDNA molecules’ would have been obvious because ligation efficiency ‘could be improved using a variety of techniques’”). After reviewing Petitioner’s evidence and argument, however, we were not persuaded that it was sufficient. Id. Even if the relevance of ligation efficiency was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated by Petitioner, the Petition still fails to provide a specific motivation to modify Schmitt. As explained in the Decision, “even if techniques were known that could have improved ligation efficiency, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Schmitt to tag ‘at least 20%’ of the DNA molecules.” Dec. 15; see also Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). That is, Petitioner’s motivation is “generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements.” (Fed. Cir. 2012). As the Federal Circuit has explained, “knowledge of a problem and motivation to solve it are entirely different from motivation to combine particular references to reach the particular claimed method.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It is not until its Rehearing Request that Petitioner specifically ties its ligation efficiency argument to Schmitt. Reh’g Req. 11. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that “[b]ecause it would have been desirable to improve the sequencing library’s diversity or representation of the genome, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] trying to detect genetic aberrations with the DCS method of Schmitt would have been motivated to modify the method of Schmitt to optimize sample preparation, e.g., improve ligation efficiency, based on the techniques known in the art.” Id. As evidenced by the lack of citation, Petitioner did not make this argument in its Petition. We, therefore, do not consider it on rehearing, as a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in the petition.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,902,992 - Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 20, 2019 · IPR2018-01039 · APJ Scott R Boalick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing on printed-publication accessibility, finding a reasonable likelihood Dougherty was publicly accessible before the critical date, and remanded for consideration of institution on obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“We grant Petitioner’s request for rehearing. We conclude that, based on the totality of the evidence currently in the record, Petitioner has submitted evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the Dougherty reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent, and, thus Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the reference qualifies as a printed publication. In view of this holding, we remand to the merits panel to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“reasonable likelihood that a reference is a printed publication. If trial is instituted, the petitioner will ultimately have the burden to prove that the reference is a printed publication by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude that, based on the totality of the evidence currently in the record, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the Dougherty reference is a printed publication that was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent. V. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that Request for Rehearing is granted to address the POP review issue; and FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is remanded to the original merits panel for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including consideration of whether to institute a trial on the merits of the obviousness ground presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“institution, and based on the totality of the evidence to date, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Dougherty is a printed publication. The face of Dougherty bears a copyright date of 1990, a printing date of November 1992, and an ISBN date of 8/94. Ex. 1004, 4. In addition, the book is a textbook from an established publisher, O’Reilly, and a well-known book series. See Canon Br. 11–12 (quoting https://www.oreilly.com/about/history.html). As Canon asserts, the cover of Publisher’s Weekly stated (with respect to this series) that “The Internet Was Built With O’Reilly Books.” Id. Altogether, this is sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood that Dougherty is a printed publication that a publisher made available to the pertinent public prior to the October 1995 critical date.” slip op. at 19
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 5,806,062 - Cxloyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 19, 2019 · CBM2018-00037 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 101; the motion to amend is granted for proposed substitute claims 16–23, which were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“does not remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. See Pet. 52–53; Reply 12; SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that it “does not matter to [the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea] whether the information here is information about real investments,” as “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract” (citation omitted)). Further, the last two clauses of claim 1 that recite how the transaction is viewed from the perspectives of the participant and vendor system, respectively, merely express the “non-physical result” of the information transfers and confirm the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter. See Pet. 57. In fact, as to the vendor system clause, the Specification indicates that the vendor system transfers information no differently than it would for any other transaction. See Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 15–18 (disclosing that vendor system 208 responds to purchase request 216 “in the same way that it would respond to any other purchase request from a consumer that presents a credit card”).” slip op. at 35
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“Our conclusion also is supported by the ’087 patent’s description of” slip op. at 41
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75
- 101 substituteMixed
“transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75
Patent outcomesUS 7,134,087 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · EnfishPatents in suitUS 7,134,087 - Opec Engineering Co., Ltd. D/B/A Opecmade, Inc. v. Berkenhoff GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 9, 2019 · IPR2019-01090 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood on only a limited portion of the challenges, making review of all claims and grounds inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a). As discussed above, the present Petition challenges six of the claims of the ’789 patent on five asserted grounds, and Petitioner fails to carry its burden with respect to three of those grounds and five of those claims. This leaves two grounds that, between them, challenge a single claim of the ’789 patent. Were we to institute trial on either (or both) of the remaining grounds, we would be required to consider at trial not only the challenge that those grounds present to the remaining claim, but also the challenges to the five claims and three grounds on which Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. at 1356. In exercising discretion, we are guided by the philosophy embodied in the statutory requirement to promulgate regulations for inter partes review that further “the efficient administration of the Office [and] the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). We also are guided by the requirement to construe our rules to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Consistent with these policies, Office guidance explains that we may consider the number of claims and grounds that meet the reasonable likelihood standard when deciding whether to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). SAS Q&A’s, Part D, Effect of SAS on Future Challenges that Could Be Denied for Statutory Reasons (June 5, 2018), available at https://www.uspto.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/ sas_qas_20180605.pdf (“[T]he panel will evaluate the challenges and determine whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system (see 35 USC § 316(b)), the entire petition should be denied under 35 USC § 314(a).”). Here, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on a majority of its asserted grounds of unpatentability and with respect to nearly all of its challenged claims. This raises at least some question as to whether instituting a trial with respect to all six claims and on all five grounds would be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. See, e.g., Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018). We must, therefore, decide whether the game is worth the candle; specifically, is resolving the question as to the patentability of claim 1 a sufficient reason to proceed to trial on claims 1 and 10–14? We assume, without deciding, that there may be situations in which resolving the patentability of one claim might justify trial as to six claims. For example, the Patent Owner in some cases may prefer to proceed to trial—and risk the patentability of the single claim—to gain the potential preclusive effect that would attach at the entry of a final written decision (see 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)) finding the remaining five claims not unpatentable. In other situations, the arguments against the patentability of that one claim may be so strong that we believe it is in the public interest to resolve them. Or it is possible the scope of the various claims challenged might merit review as to only some of them. For example, if a petition were to challenge a single, broad independent claim and a number of very narrow dependent claims, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to the independent claim alone may justify proceeding to trial on all claims, because a potential finding of unpatentability would significantly narrow the overall scope of the patent. Notably, none of these circumstances is present in the case at hand. Patent Owner has not expressed a preference that we proceed to trial so that it may have the benefit of estoppel under § 315(e). Nor is claim 1, the sole claim still potentially at issue in the case, significantly broader than claims 10–14. All the challenged claims are independent, and, indeed, it appears that claim 10 (directed to a sheath with an outer layer “consisting of a copper/zinc alloy comprising gamma and epsilon phases and predominantly containing a gamma phase”) has a broader scope than claim 1 (directed to a sheath with an outer layer “consisting of a copper/zinc alloy consisting of a gamma phase”). In other words, finding claim 1 unpatentable would not significantly narrow the scope of the ’789 patent. As a result, it is hard to discern how resolving the question as to the patentability of claim 1 would significantly benefit the public interest by narrowing the overall scope of the patent.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“In no case, however, does Petitioner offer sufficient argument or supporting evidence for the existence of a reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of the references. With respect to the Briffod2/Groos ground, Petitioner asserts that “[t]he technologies in Briffod2, Groos and the ‘789 Patent are very closely related,” going on to demonstrate the existence of several similarities between the three patents. Pet. 55–56. This may be enough to show an analogous-art type relationship between the references, but there is a difference between proving that the references could have been combined and showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to do so. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987–88 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that the inquiry as to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the references “picks up where the analogous art test leaves off”). The same flaw affects Petitioner’s arguments with respect to the Briffod2/Groos/Briffod1 ground and the Briffod2/Groos/Tominaga ground, both of which assert merely that “the technologies in [the references in question] are extremely closely related.” Pet. 57–58, 72. Because Petitioner fails to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the prior-art references asserted in Petitioner’s multi-reference obviousness grounds, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim on any of those three grounds.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“Patent Owner argues that we should deny institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because Briffod2, the only prior-art reference at issue in the two asserted single-reference grounds, as well as the primary reference at issue in the combination grounds, previously was presented to the Office during prosecution of the challenged patent. Prelim. Resp. 21–29. We need not consider that argument because we determine that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a). As discussed above, the present Petition challenges six of the claims of the ’789 patent on five asserted grounds, and Petitioner fails to carry its burden with respect to three of those grounds and five of those claims. This leaves two grounds that, between them, challenge a single claim of the ’789 patent. Were we to institute trial on either (or both) of the remaining grounds, we would be required to consider at trial not only the challenge that those grounds present to the remaining claim, but also the challenges to the five claims and three grounds on which Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. at 1356.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial - Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2019 · IPR2018-01138 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 12–45 are unpatentable: claims 1–10, 12–15, 17–32, 34–43, and 45 as obvious over Rothbaum and Denison; claims 16, 33, and 44 over Rothbaum, Denison, and Ott.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Here, the same RPI issue was raised in the prior decisions, the RPI issue was actually litigated by the parties (replete with discovery and dispositive motions on this issue), and our determination that the RPI identification was proper was essential to the prior decisions (especially because Patent Owner has sought to have the proceedings terminated due to an allegedly improper identification of RPIs). As such, we agree with the parties’ assertion that collateral estoppel applies to the RPI issue in this case, and we conclude that no exception to collateral estoppel applies. Thus, we determine that collateral estoppel prevents the relitigation of the RPI issue in this proceeding. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the 1900 IPR Decision and in the Order on Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate from IPR2017-00344, we determine that Petitioner identified all RPIs in this proceeding, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s declarant, Thaine Allison III, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a four year technical degree (e.g. B.S. engineering) with a minimum of three years of experience in using, provisioning, designing or creating, or supervising the design or creation, of such theft prevention devices, and other related security devices. Extended experience in the industry could substitute for a technical degree. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have known how to research the technical literature in fields relating to theft prevention, including in retail and other environments, as well as security in general. Also, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] may have worked as part of a multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but also taken advantage of certain specialized skills of others in the team, e.g., to solve a given problem. For example, designers, engineers (e.g., mechanical or electrical), and computer scientists or other computer programmers may have been part of a team. Ex. 1019 ¶ 20; see Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 18–21). Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of Mr. Allison, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth in the Decision on Institution, which is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a four-year technical degree or equivalent experience with a minimum of two years of professional technical experience in the field of theft prevention devices or related security devices. Dec. on Inst. 10; see also PO Resp. 17–18 (agreeing with statement of level of ordinary skill in the Decision on Institution). We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in our analysis below.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededOther
“usable in only a single retail store,” “unique to the single retail store and the programming station,” “a ‘housing’ with ‘a port,’” “logic control circuit,” and “‘invalidating’ the ‘key.’” Pet. 8–14. Patent Owner seeks construction of “single security code” and “invalidates the single security code,” and Patent Owner provides arguments responsive to Petitioner’s proposed construction of “usable in only a single retail store.” PO Resp. 12–17. Based on the issues before us, we discern a need to provide express construction for “single security code,” “unique to the single retail store and the programming station,” and “invalidating the single security code.” No other term requires express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“Id. at 38. Petitioner responds by arguing that Patent Owner is not addressing the combination proposed in the Petition, which is “modifying Rothbaum’s system (used in a retail store) to have an electronic-key system instead of a mechanical-key system. It isn’t a vending machine.” Reply 4. Thus, Petitioner’s argument focuses on incorporating the teachings regarding Denison’s key into the retail security system of Rothbaum. Therefore, Patent Owner’s arguments that are directed to the features of Denison’s vending machines are not responsive to the proposed combination because the vending machine is not part of the proposed modified system. Mr. Allison’s testimony supports Petitioner by explaining that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found it obvious that a retail store employing the modified Rothbaum system would not share or use the system (or individual parts of the system, for example, the programming station / “external computing device,” the electronic keys, and the security device / “strip or housing 12”) with another retail store because doing so would compromise the integrity of the security system. Ex. 1019 ¶ 116. We credit Mr. Allison’s testimony and find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve security by using Denison’s operation limits to limit the use of the security code to a single store because such a limit would reduce the possibility that unauthorized individuals would gain access to the code by, for example, obtaining a key from one store and using it in another store. See Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 113, 116. We determine that the findings made in our analysis of claim 1 of the ’762 patent along with our findings regarding the “usable in only a single retail store” limitation also support a finding of unpatentability of claim 17 of the ’472 patent. We are careful to view the claim as a whole and not just its constituent parts. We determine that the findings noted above as to prior related cases along with the findings we make in this Decision as to the disputed limitation are sufficient to establish the unpatentability of claim 17 as a whole. The prior findings were essential to determining the patentability of the prior challenged claims and the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 17 of the ’472 patent would have been obvious over Rothbaum and Denison. As noted above, our analysis equally applies to claims 1 and 39 of the ’472 patent. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 17, and 39 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,659,472 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,659,472 - Charter Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 3, 2019 · IPR2019-01135 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–53 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood it will succeed in its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Sampsell and Yosuke.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field with at least five years of experience or research in interactive systems applicable to digital television, including VOD for cable and Internet delivery.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth (“Almeroth Dec.”) ¶¶ 44–46. Patent Owner does not offer a definition of the level of ordinary skill, but reserves the right to dispute Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 20. Petitioner’s commensurate with the subject matter for the ’7907 patent, for purposes of this Decision we apply Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“Having reviewed the claims and the specification of the ’7907 patent, we determine that the phrase “video-on-demand” in the preamble is necessary to give life and meaning to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”). The difference between watching television and watching a video on demand is a difference in kind, rendering a video-on-demand system different from a non-video-on-demand system. While a person watching television can change channels and thus in some sense selects video content, such video content is being distributed regardless of whether the user selects specifically selects it.1 Because of that nature, the user also has control over the playback of the video content, such as pausing and stopping. Although the dependent claims more clearly demonstrate the on-demand nature of the video content (e.g., with the menu and control buttons), only the preamble in the independent claims provides the clue as to this context.2 Thus, the preamble serves to provide the framework necessary to understand the body of the claims, and is limiting.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for petitioner
“Owner’s proposed construction, i.e., plain and ordinary meaning or “a signal reflecting viewer control” and instead construed “view control signal” to mean “a viewer control signal generated and processed without the involvement of a set-top box for remote control of the video-on-demand system.” Pet. 15. Petitioner notes that the Comcast court found the ’7907 patent does not dispute the use of a set-top box for purposes other than remote control, e.g. for the purpose of decoding a video signal and presenting it to a television. Id. n. 3. Referring to Figure 1, the Specification states “[i]n response to viewer input to the control screen, the second display 122 transfers a corresponding viewer control signal to the second communication system 112,” the second communication system 112 1 See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:17–33 (instructing that, with video-on-demand, the system receives a request to view a selection from the video content library, the video is played “[i]n response to the [user’s] request,” and the user is allowed “to immediately view [the] selected video content”). 2 This is broadly recited in claim 12 to encompass the controls relevant to video-on-demand, e.g., play, pause, stop, etc. Limiting claim 1 to a video-on-demand system provides meaningful context. and “[t]he second communication interface 102 transfers the [viewer] control signal to the processing system 103.” Ex. 1001, 2:61–67. Thus, we understand the viewer control signal to be a signal generated in response to user input.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,757,907 - Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 3, 2019 · IPR2018-01140 · APJ Marc S Hoff · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ogino; claims 14 and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Ogino and Chen II.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“claims 1 and 13 of the ’032 Patent are anticipated by Ogino. Petitioner has also demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 14 and 15 of the ’032 Patent are unpatentable over the combination of Ogino and Chen II. The chart below summarizes our conclusion. References Claims Claims Claims 35. Shown Not shown Challenged U.S.C. Unpatent- Unpatentable able Ogino 1 and 13 1 and 13 § 102 Ogino, Chen 14 and 15 14 and 15 § 103 II 1 and 13-15” slip op. at 40
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“that Ogino and Chen II disclose substantially different lens systems. PO Resp. 36. As Petitioner points out, both Ogino and Chen II describe mobile phone camera systems with all lenses being aspheric; a first lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; a second lens with negative refractive power; a third lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power; a fourth lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; and a fifth lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power. Pet. Reply 22; Pet. 41–44. We agree with Petitioner that such a skilled artisan, possessing an applicable college degree, approximately three years experience in designing multi-lens optical systems, “experience in analyzing, tolerancing, adjusting, and optimizing multilens systems, and experience with lens design software such as CodeV, Oslo, or Zemax,” would have the appropriate knowledge to perform routine modifications to a lens design. Pet. Reply 24; Pet. 7; PO Resp. 12. Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Moore testified that such a skilled artisan “would be able to use the computer program [i.e. CodeV or Zemax] to optimize lens designs.” Pet. Reply 24; Ex. 1025, 29:25–30:9. Dr. Moore testified that the skilled artisan would “tell the [lens design] program that you want to vary certain parameters of a lens . . . . And then the program, through a fairly complicated algorithm, then actually goes through and varies them and determines how to make a better lens. You determine as a lens designer what you’re trying to improve.” Ex. 1025, 28:13–23.” slip op. at 38
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the skilled artisan would have understood that third, fourth, and fifth lenses also contribute to vignetting in Ogino. PO Resp. 38. We credit Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Moore’s conclusion regarding vignetting in the third, fourth, and fifth lenses is unreliable because it is based on assumptions not specified in Ogino. Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. For example, Ogino does not provide lens diameters or vignetting apertures for the lens assembly of Example 6 that would vignette the light beams on the third, fourth or fifth lens elements. Pet. Reply 17; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. Additionally, Dr. Sasián testifies that vignetting is a result of the second lens. Pet. Reply 17–18; Pet. 54; Ex. 1003, 59.” slip op. at 36
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Effective Focal Length (EFL) Petitioner asserts that while the specification of the ’032 Patent does not offer an express definition for the term “effective focal length,” “its meaning is well known in the art, as exemplified in Li (Ex. 1007), which states that “[t]he focal length of a lens assembly [is] also referred to as the effective focal length [(]EFL).” Pet. 9–10 (internal parentheses omitted); Ex. 1007, 2:59–61. Patent Owner, in response, does not dispute Petitioner’s construction of “effective focal length,” stating that the Petition does not turn on the construction of the term. PO Resp. 20. Having reviewed the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that Li supports construing the term “effective focal length” as “the focal length of a lens assembly.” We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 9,402,032 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,402,032 - Google LLC v. Agis Software Development, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2019 · IPR2018-01080 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 14, 15, 17, 21–25, 27, 28, 30, 32–34, 36, 37, 40–43, 45, 49, and 54 are unpatentable as obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at 417. Reaching this conclusion, however, requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention. Id. I. Obviousness over Fumarolo, Sheha, and Lazaridis” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 9,408,055 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,408,055 - NEC Corporation / Nokia Corporation et al. v. Neptune Subsea IP LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 25, 2019 · IPR2018-01157 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamamoto and Nishimoto; the Chowdhury and Webb grounds, with or without Tanaka162, do not establish unpatentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that each of claims 13–20 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties submit and we agree that there is no need to construe any term to resolve the issues in this decision. See Pet. 7–9; PO Resp. 6; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“e. Summary For the reasons described above, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have had reason to combine Yamamoto’s and Nishimoto’s teachings as asserted by Petitioner and that the combination teaches all of claim 13’s limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 13 would have been obvious over Yamamoto and Nishimoto.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“tunable compensators is a contingent argument, applicable only if one reads claim 13 to require a certain transmission rate. PO Resp. 21–25. We do not read Petitioner’s argument as so constrained. Rather, we understand Petitioner to argue that a desire for higher transmission speeds would drive skilled artisans to use solutions such as Nishimoto’s tunable compensators, particularly in light of Nishimoto’s guidance regarding the ability to achieve high speeds with the system. See Pet. 21–23. In that regard, we agree with Petitioner that the increase in transmission rates from Yamamoto’s to Nishimoto’s disclosures would have given skilled artisans reason to consider Nishimoto’s teachings. Pet. Reply 16–18 (citing Ex. 1005 8:9–11; Ex. 1007, 12:37–39). As Petitioner points out, Nishimoto specifically discloses that higher-speed transmissions were more sensitive to dispersion. Pet. Reply 17 n.9. Thus, we find the desire for higher transmission speeds and the need for techniques such as taught by Nishimoto would have given skilled artisans reasons to combine Nishimoto’s disclosure regarding dispersion compensation with Yamamoto’s system to achieve Yamamoto’s goals regarding the dispersion maps for multiple channels. Further, Petitioner does not rest entirely on the desire for high-speed operation. Petitioner argues also that using Nishimoto’s adjustable compensators and feedback control would “yield an improved WDM system capable of automatic compensation for degradation of the optical signal waveform caused by both wavelength dispersion and polarization mode dispersion of the optical transmission path, resulting in further reduced size and cost.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 99, 101; Ex. 1007, 3:41–60, 4:3–58, Figs. 17, 20, 21), 29–30 (quoting Ex. 1007, Abstract, 3:37–40, 6:56–64, 7:53–56, 11:41–46, 17:53–55, 17:59–60; citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–115); accord id. at 14 (quoting Ex. 1007, 3:19–25). Patent Owner recognizes that basis for the combination but argues that the record lacks evidence to support Petitioner’s claim of reduced size and cost. PO Resp. 25–26. Patent Owner does not contest that the modification would give Yamamoto’s system the ability to automatically compensate for signal degradation from dispersion. Nishimoto discloses that as transmission speeds increase, “changes in wavelength dispersion characteristics due to temperature changes of optical fiber; and the influence by polarization mode dispersion” both “can not be neglected,” therefore requiring a system for automatically compensating for wavelength dispersion and polarization mode dispersion,” as taught by Nishimoto. Ex. 1007, 1:34–41. We find that a skilled artisan would have had reason to make the combination because the system would gain capability for automatic compensation. Regarding reduced size and cost resulting from the combination, Patent Owner does not provide any contrary evidence and we conclude that Nishimoto’s statements regarding the benefit of its invention also would have motivated skilled artisans to make the combination. See Ex. 1007, 3:17–26 (“to thereby provide a dispersion compensating apparatus of reduced sizes at a reduced cost”).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,351,798 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,351,798 - Google LLC v. Agis Software Development, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 19, 2019 · IPR2018-01079 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 3–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Kubala and Hammond; the Board did not find them unpatentable over the Hammond, Johnson, and Pepe combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“2. Terms to be Construed Expressly Petitioner proposes that we construe as means-plus-function under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, the terms in claim 1 that include the word “means,” i.e., limitations 1.2 and 1.5 to 1.9. Pet. 10–12. Patent Owner agrees these terms should be construed as means-plus-function, and further argues we should adopt the constructions entered in the district court proceeding for the purposes of consistency across proceedings. Prelim. Resp. 9–14.10” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“creating a forced message alert”) (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1001, 10:14–17 (claim 6, “creating the forced message alert on said sender PDA/cell phone by attaching a voice or text message to a forced message alert application software packet to said voice or text message”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, by the very language of the claims, a message is forced because it is attached to a forced message alert software packet. Nothing in the claim language indicates that what makes the message forced is forcing its display without any action on the part of the recipient.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Accordingly, we are persuaded that “implementing Hammond’s” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,213,970 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,213,970
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.