• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2015 · IPR2015-01442 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the asserted combinations did not disclose the claimed hand-held device.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Figure 18 illustrates use of the PCS device within the communications web of Snelling. Id. at 41:29–30. The PCS device “may be coupled to NCU 100 via an adapter 1905 that interfaces with the cellular phone 1800.” Id. at 41:30– 32. NCU 100 itself, however, is not described as being “hand-held.” Patent Owner highlights a number of factors supporting the allegation that one of ordinary skill in the art would not view NCU 100 as a device that is hand-held or even mobile in operation: its ability to be “rapidly installed in any location” (citing Ex. 1001, 54:30–32 (emphasis added)); the examples of situations in which NCU 100 could be used—trade show, construction site, emergency aid organization providing assistance after a disaster (id. at 55:4– 8); and power sources including “a dedicated battery, an electric power generator, automobile cigarette adapter, solar cells, any electro-mechanical converter” (id. at 55:13–16). Prelim. Resp. 31. Although the NCU can harness the functionality of a hand-held device to access a wireless network, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence that Snelling does not identify NCU 100 as a hand-held device. Petitioner relies on certain sections of Snelling discussing the ability of NCU 100 to be made mobile, in that NCU 100 may be moved from location to location, but does not point to any evidence persuading us that NCU 100 is a hand-held device. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that NCU 100 itself is a hand-held device including the components and functionality of the hand-held device set forth in the challenged claims. Taking into account our construction of “hand-held device,” we are unpersuaded that a “hand-held device” is disclosed by the combination of Snelling and Router Plugins. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner would prevail on its contention that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 23 would have been obvious over the combination of Snelling and Router Plugins.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “appearance in the preamble renders it limiting. “A claim’s preamble may limit the claim when the claim drafter uses the preamble to define the subject matter of the claim.” August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett- Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “Whether to treat a preamble as a limitation is a determination ‘resolved only on review of the entire[ ] . . . patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.’” Id. at 808 (quoting Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “Where a patentee uses the claim preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed invention, the PTO and courts give effect to that usage.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (when limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention). Our consideration of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the preamble is limiting. The term “hand-held device” appears prominently in the specification. In the “Summary of the Invention” section, the specification states: “A hand-held device for providing communication between a wide area network and a wireless local area network is provided . . . .” Ex. 1001, 1:61–64 (emphasis added). This section also states: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, the hand-held wireless device is a cellular telephone . . . .” Ex. 1001, 4:1–2 (emphasis added). The specification uses the term “hand-held device” as the heading for Detailed Description Section II, which describes device 106 and terminals 107: “II. Hand-held Device/Terminal Hardware” in which “FIG. 2 illustrates embodiments of terminals 107 and device 106.” Id. at 6:36–38. Rather than glossing over the role of the hand-held device in the overall invention, other portions of the specification provide additional details about the hand-held nature of the claimed device. See, e.g., id. at Abstract (identifying a cellular telephone), 6:16–19 (identifying different embodiments of the present invention), 6:37–59 (discussing the hand-held device with reference to Fig. 2), 14:23–15:38 (discussing usage scenarios including a cellular telephone as the hand-held device). The term “hand-held device” appears prominently in the claims as well. The challenged claims all are directed to a device, rather than a method or a system; in each case, the device is a hand-held device. The term “handheld device” recites a structural limitation of the claim, in that the “hand-held” aspect of the device is a dimensional, physical restriction on the size of the device. The limitations in all of the claims rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, in that they are housed within a hand-held device, which limits the size and adaptations required of the remaining limitations in the claims. Every claim depending from claim 1 recites “[t]he hand-held device of claim 1.” Ex. 1001, 17:8–18:47. Thus, we determine the use of “hand-held device” in the preamble of the challenged claims is limiting, in that it denotes a structural limitation of the claimed device.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Having determined that the term “hand-held device” is limiting, we turn to the construction of the term. Petitioner urges that the term be construed “broadly enough to encompass a mobile device for enabling communication between one or more devices connected to one or more cellular networks and one or more devices connected to a wireless local area network.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner, although urging that no additional construction is needed, states the plain meaning of the term “hand-held device” is “a device that is hand-held, i.e., a device that that is designed to be held and operated in a person’s hand.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We adopt Patent Owner’s construction, namely, “a device that is designed to be held and operated in a person’s hand.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “Figure 18 illustrates use of the PCS device within the communications web of Snelling. Id. at 41:29–30. The PCS device “may be coupled to NCU 100 via an adapter 1905 that interfaces with the cellular phone 1800.” Id. at 41:30– 32. NCU 100 itself, however, is not described as being “hand-held.” Patent Owner highlights a number of factors supporting the allegation that one of ordinary skill in the art would not view NCU 100 as a device that is hand-held or even mobile in operation: its ability to be “rapidly installed in any location” (citing Ex. 1001, 54:30–32 (emphasis added)); the examples of situations in which NCU 100 could be used—trade show, construction site, emergency aid organization providing assistance after a disaster (id. at 55:4– 8); and power sources including “a dedicated battery, an electric power generator, automobile cigarette adapter, solar cells, any electro-mechanical converter” (id. at 55:13–16). Prelim. Resp. 31. Although the NCU can harness the functionality of a hand-held device to access a wireless network, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence that Snelling does not identify NCU 100 as a hand-held device. Petitioner relies on certain sections of Snelling discussing the ability of NCU 100 to be made mobile, in that NCU 100 may be moved from location to location, but does not point to any evidence persuading us that NCU 100 is a hand-held device. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that NCU 100 itself is a hand-held device including the components and functionality of the hand-held device set forth in the challenged claims. Taking into account our construction of “hand-held device,” we are unpersuaded that a “hand-held device” is disclosed by the combination of Snelling and Router Plugins. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner would prevail on its contention that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 23 would have been obvious over the combination of Snelling and Router Plugins.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,295,532
• Toshiba Corporation / Funai Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Gold Charm LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2015 · IPR2015-01479 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[t]he use of the term ‘backlight’ rather than simply ‘light’ indicates that something is being illuminated from behind.” Id. at 28. Petitioner’s proposed constructions (Pet. 13–16) are unreasonably broad insofar as they do not account for the use of the term “backlight.” We also agree with Patent Owner (see id.) that it is clear in the context of the ’833 patent that the recited backlights are in a liquid crystal display apparatus. See Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus. Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (words used in a claim are not construed in a “lexicographic vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawings”); In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548 (CCPA 1976)). Petitioner, and its expert Dr. Silzars, recognize in their statements regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art that the relevant art here is “display technologies.” See Pet. 12; Ex. 1002 ¶ 13. Notably, however, despite Petitioner’s assertions and Dr. Silzars’ opinions that “[t]he alleged invention boils down to a method for minimizing the electrical noise generated when simultaneously driving multiple lights,” that the “‘liquid crystal display’ modifier” in the preambles of the challenged claims “merely states a purpose or intended use of the invention” (Pet. 20–22; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 58–59), and that “there is no structure that is specific to LCDs recited in the body of any of the claims,” neither Petitioner nor Dr. Silzars identifies any context in which backlights would be employed by those of ordinary skill in the art of display technologies, other than in an LCD. Accordingly, on this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “backlight” is “a lamp or set of lamps that illuminates a liquid crystal display from behind.” Because the claims already explicitly define the relationship between the “first backlight” and the “second backlight”—for example, claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that the second backlight is “driven simultaneously with said first backlight” and “ha[s] an oscillation wave whose phase is inverted with respect to an oscillation wave of the first backlight”—we discern no need to provide separate interpretations of “first backlight” and “second backlight.” We also decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to limit the “second backlight” to include “all remaining lamps of the . . . apparatus that are not in the first backlight.” Because independent claims 1 and 16 use the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising,” those claims do not exclude additional, unrecited elements and method steps, respectively. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03 (9th ed., Rev. 07.2015 Nov. 2015). 2. Other Claim Terms For purposes of this Decision, no other claim terms require express interpretation. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “B. Anticipation and Obviousness “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). [U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed[,] and thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); accord In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).” slip op. at 12

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

    “A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter[,] as a whole[,] would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 13

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached

    “D. Remaining Contentions The above determination makes it unnecessary to resolve any other disputes, including Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner failed to list all of the real parties in interest. See Prelim. Resp. 4–14; Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 9; Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioners’ Reply, Paper 10.” slip op. at 33

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,417,833
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01429 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 56–61 were unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 56–61 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. B.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “1002, 1:7–23. For a claim to gain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to that earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Satisfaction of the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, does not require the description to be literally the same as the claim language at issue. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265 (CCPA 1976); In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969 (CCPA 1971). Rather, by whatever language, the specification only must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date of the application, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing with approval the standard in Vas Cath, and stating “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “and, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the ’287 patent is prior art.” slip op. at 6

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

    “b) Rationale Petitioner’s rationale for the proposed modification is not persuasive. First, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to utilize Klappenbach’s housing 2 in Blank’s device to provide rain sensor functionality. Pet. 37. Then Petitioner reasons it would have been obvious to replace Klappenbach’s rain sensor with the improved functionality of Schofield’s camera that includes rain sensing capability. See id. at 43. Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select Schofield’s camera rather than the Klappenbach’s rain sensor, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount Schofield’s camera in Klappenbach’s housing. See Prelim. Resp. 32–33. Second, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s housing would advantageously seal the components of Schofield’s camera to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 38, 44–45 (citing Ex. 1513 ¶ 58). However, Schofield’s camera already is protected from such intrusions. See Ex. 1007, 3:67–4:4; Prelim. Resp. 32, 34. Third, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s technique of attaching the fastening device during windshield manufacture is an advantage because the sensor is not mounted until after the motor vehicle is built. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1010, 2:11–16; Ex. 1513 ¶ 58). As discussed above, Klappenbach’s device is mounted pressed against and at the angle of the windshield, while Schofield’s is mounted spaced from the windshield and horizontal. Petitioner does not explain persuasively how Klappenbach’s technique provides a manufacturing advantage for a device such as Schofield’s camera that is mounted in a different manner. See Prelim. Resp. 32 (noting this advantage is particular to a refractive rain sensor). Further, Petitioner’s reasoning is contradictory in that it touts that Schofield’s camera “advantageously eliminates the requirement for optical coupling,” yet relies upon Klappenbach’s mounting technique for optical coupling. See Ex. 1513 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 14

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,692,659
• Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien AGInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2015-01275 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1–18 were unpatentable, chiefly because the cited art did not teach the uniform-distance limitation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “distance between the jaw members along the length thereof,” a limitation required by all challenged claims. Both the Specification and the challenged claims of the ’284 patent require this distance when tissue is held between the jaw members. Indeed, the Specification discloses that the stop members are “positioned to control the gap distance between the opposing jaw members when the tissue is held therebetween.” Ex. 1001, 3:50–54; see also id. at Abstract (stating the same), 5:3–6 (stating the same). In addition, claim 15 recites “[a]n endoscopic bipolar forceps according to claim 12 wherein the jaw members and the non-conductive stop members are configured such that the distance between the jaw members when tissue is held therebetween is between about 0.002 inches and about 0.003 inches.” Id. at 15:21–16:3. Thus, we conclude that the challenged claims require “a 5 uniform distance between the jaw members” when tissue is held between the opposing jaw members.” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner asks us to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), arguing that all but one references relied on in the Petition were considered during prosecution. Prelim. Resp. 9–12. The statute allows, but does not require, the Director to deny a petition if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). We decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under § 325(d).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Under the statute, an inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response filed [thereto] shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail” in the unpatentability challenge. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (emphasis added). In the Petition, Petitioner does not rely on claim 2 of the ’284 patent to support, as the dissent insists, a uniform distance between the jaw members. To the contrary, when discussing claim 2, Petitioner submits that this claim limitation is (a) not supported by the disclosure of the ‘284 Patent and (b) at odds with the requirement of claim 1 (and PO’s arguments during prosecution) that “the non-conductive stop members [are] configured to maintain a uniform distance between the jaw members along the length thereof.” Providing stop members of different heights as required by this claim necessarily results in a non-uniform distance between jaw members. Pet. 26 (emphasis added). As a result, the information presented in the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail, based on claim 2 of the ’284 patent, that an “island of insulation” of unknown size and location, is sufficient to maintain a uniform distance between the jaw members. We decline to join the dissent in reforming the Petition and rely on an argument Petitioner specifically disclaimed.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Fox and Eggers ’142. Id. at 14–18. Petitioner also refers to the prior art for teaching each and every limitation of claims 1–11. Id. at 18–32. Assuming, without deciding, that Petitioner has provided sufficient rationale for combining the prior art, we nevertheless agree with Patent Owner that the combination does not teach “non-conductive stop members configured to maintain a uniform distance between the jaw members along the length thereof,” as all challenged claims require. See Prelim. Resp. 14–26.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,241,284
• Johns Manville Corporation / Johns Manville, Inc. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc. And Knauf Insulation SPRLInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2015-01598 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds because Petitioner did not clearly articulate the differences or show the proposed combinations would meet the challenged claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “D. Claims 3, 16–21, 27, 34, 43, 45–49, 51–56, 63, and 73 1. Failure to articulate a clear difference Petitioner has failed to set out precise differences between Swift and the subject matter of the challenged claims. As we explained in declining to institute on Ground 2 in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01402 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2015) (Paper 18, pages 12–14), failure of a petitioner to set out differences in a § 103 context complicates consideration of a petition, both for the Board and the patent owner. Due to Petitioner’s failure to articulate a clear difference between the subject matter of the challenged claims and Swift, we decline to institute an IPR trial in this case. See also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (petition identifies with particularity) and 37 C.F.R. 41.104(b)(4) (set out how claim is unpatentable).” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use an ammonium phosphate in place of ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of mono-ammonium phosphate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 27 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1004, col. 1:72. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change to something that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a block made according to Example 3 with ammonium phosphate would have properties that might differ from those made in accordance with Example 3 with ammonium sulfate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using mono-ammonium phosphate, would meet claim 27 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The testimony in support of obviousness of the subject matter of claim 27 is that of Dr. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1006, ¶ 105: At the time of the purported invention of the ’089 Patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate to the binder composition of Example 3 of Gogek in order to reduce the corrosivity of the binder and preserve . . . manufacturing equipment. In the continuous manufacturing process disclosed in Swift, some manufacturing equipment will be in contact with the solution at all times, amplifying the need to include a corrosion inhibitor to extend the life of the manufacturing equipment. Accordingly, in order to prevent corrosion and “decrease the cost of manufacturing bound materials” (Ex. 1003, ¶ [0073]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a mono-ammonium phosphate as disclosed in Swift to the binder of Example 3 of Gogek to inhibit corrosion. Assuming arguendo that Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations are correct, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use an ammonium phosphate in place of ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of mono-ammonium phosphate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 27 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1004, col. 1:72. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change to something that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a block made according to Example 3 with ammonium phosphate would have properties that might differ from those made in accordance with Example 3 with ammonium sulfate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given” slip op. at 11

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,940,089
• Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. / Ion Geophysical Corporation et al. v. Westerngeco LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2015 · IPR2014-00688 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Workman and obvious over Workman alone and Workman combined with Elholm.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Inst. Dec. 9. Our claim construction relies specifically on the nature of the temporal component described in the ’607 patent specification which states “the global positioning system runs position predictor software to estimate the actual locations of each of the birds 18.” Ex. 1001, 4:51–55. Based on the specification, the estimated “actual locations” recited in our construction is a future prediction relative to the old (measured) position data that takes into account the time delay, or lag, and as stated in Patent Owner’s point (1) above. The “actual location” in our claim construction is “where the streamer positioning device will be at the time when commands are received at the device” as contended by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 7.” slip op. at 12

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

    “This argument is not persuasive because Workman clearly describes that the Kalman filter would first receive signals including vessel positioning and location sensing device signals, i.e. position and location signals, and that the network solution 10 would make use of such signals to determine “real time . . . streamer cable positions.” Ex. 1004, 3:46–51, see also Ex. 1092, 434. We further understand the term “real time” cable positions to mean a cable position as a function of time and signal processing delay time, and that is most reasonably understood in context as current, actual, or some future estimated time relative to when the data i.e. old data, used to compute the “real time” cable position was observed. Thus, we interpret Workman to disclose a Kalman filter that provides an estimate of real time, i.e. actual, streamer positions based on previously observed location data, an interpretation that falls squarely within an “estimate of an actual position” as determined in our claim construction for the “predict[ing] positions” limitation in claims 1 and 15.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Despite Patent Owner’s arguments, we agree with Petitioner’s analysis as supported by Dr. Evans testimony, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Workman and Elholm to achieve the invention recited in challenged claims 1 and 15 with a reasonable expectation of success. Workman teaches every aspect of the claimed invention including towing an array of streamers, each streamer having a plurality of streamer positioning devices, predicting the positions of at least the streamers (if not the streamer positioning devices) and calculating changes in position of the streamer so as to control a streamer positioning device to affect the streamers. Based on Dr. Evans testimony, we are persuaded that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Workman, by measuring, observing and changing the position of an SPD itself (as opposed to merely the streamer) as taught by Elholm, in order to accurately and precisely control the streamer. We agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Elholm’s teaching of an observable and controllable SPD via a “computer programme,” as a compatible streamer positioning device providing more accurate positional control of a streamer along its length, in the manner of Workman’s streamer control processor as it controls an array of streamers via multiple SPD’s on each streamer. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s position that Elholm only discloses a single SPD at the front of a streamer array because Petitioner is relying on Elholm for its teaching of an observable and controllable SPD, whereas it is Workman that teaches multiple SPD’s along the length of each streamer. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“[F]amiliar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purpose, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”). Additionally, Patent Owner is arguing the references individually and these arguments fail to consider the collective teachings of Workman and Elholm from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 40–43. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when a challenge is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In attacking Elholm individually, Patent Owner fails to address Petitioner’s actual challenges or, therefore, establish an insufficiency in the combined teachings of the references. Accordingly, we conclude Petitioner has established by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1 and 15 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the disclosures of Workman and Elholm.” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Id. Patent Owner argues that these references to trial testimony from district court litigation support a finding of long-felt need but does not explain with any detail why, or how, the referenced testimony, evidences a long-felt need, failure of others, or industry praise. In this regard, we limit our review to evidence actually discussed in Patent Owner’s Response. We will not play archeologist with the record to discover evidentiary support for bare attorney argument made in such a response. See Google Inc. v. ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH, Case IPR2015-00788, slip. op. at 10 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2015) (Paper 7) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (“The Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.”)). We decline to consider, moreover, information presented in an Exhibit, but not discussed sufficiently in Patent Owner’s Response. See PO Resp. 48 (citing Ex. 2035 and 2036, without any discussion of that evidence). Among other reasons, doing so would permit the use of declarations to circumvent our rules relating to page limits. In that regard, our rules prohibit a party from incorporating by reference from one document (such as a supporting declaration) into another document (such as Patent Owner’s Response). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Patent Owner argues that the Declaration of Robin Walker is firsthand evidence of industry praise “and how WesternGeco’s revolutionary lateral steering technology satisfied a long-felt need in the industry (Ex. 2077, ¶¶ 12–37) and ultimately contributed to billions of dollars in revenue (Ex. 2077, ¶¶ 47–51).” PO Resp. 48–49. Patent Owner, however, does not explain adequately how the Q-Marine product allegedly embodies the challenged claims in the ’607 patent. Mr. Walker states specifically that [t]hrough its provision of WesternGeco’s patented lateral steering technology, Q-Marine satisfied a significant, previously unmet need in the industry for better quality data and more cost-effective surveys by offering numerous benefits, including those detailed below. Ex. 2077 ¶ 12. The benefits described in the subsequent paragraphs of Mr. Walker’s Declaration are apparently based on lateral steering technology, with the result that “better data quality could be achieved without the risk of costly downtime and damage due to streamer tangling.” Id. at ¶ 15. It may be that Q-Marine provides a better, faster, more reliable and commercially successful 4D survey, but any commercial success enjoyed by the Q-Marine product is relevant only if the challenged claims are shown to embody those products. Patent Owner has not made out that critical showing. See In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding no nexus, absent evidence that “the driving force behind [the allegedly successful product’s sales] was the claimed combination”) (emphasis added); Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311–12 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring a “nexus between the claimed invention and the commercial success”); Huang, 100 F.3d at 140 (requiring proof that sales were a “direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention”). In the alternative, Patent Owner’s evidence of commercial success does not outweigh the strong showing of obviousness made out by Petitioner in view of anticipation by Workman, and also Workman and Elholm. See Sud-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Techs., Inc., 554 F.3d 1001, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“evidence of unexpected results and other secondary considerations will not necessarily overcome a strong prima facie showing of obviousness”). Accordingly, the alleged commercial success of the Q-Marine product does not support a conclusion of nonobviousness of the challenged claims in this case.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 7,080,607 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,080,607
• St. Jude Medical, Inc. / St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. et al. v. Atlas IP LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2015 · IPR2015-00534 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 are unpatentable: claims 6, 14, and 21 as anticipated by Natarajan 1992 and obvious over Natarajan ’542 and Bantz; claim 11 as obvious over two combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “I. INTRODUCTION We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734 are unpatentable. A. Procedural History St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., and Pacesetter, Inc. (collectively, “St. Jude”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 14, 21, and 44 of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734 (Ex. 1001, “the ’734 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Atlas IP LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On December 8, 2014, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 of the ’734 patent on asserted grounds of unpatentability. Paper 7 (“Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

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

    “by the parties as the “each” limitation: “repeating communication cycles, each of which has intervals during which the hub and the remotes transmit and receive frames.” E.g., Ex. 1001, 46:29–31 (claim 6). In the Decision on Institution, we construed this claim limitation “to require that each communication cycle include intervals during which the hub and remotes are allowed to transmit and receive, without requiring actual transmission of frames.” Dec. 12. We based our construction on the language of the claims, including additional language referring to “intervals . . . when the hub is allowed to transmit frames to the remotes [and] when the remotes are allowed to transmit frames to the hub.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 46:36– 39). We also considered the written description of the ’542 patent, which speaks of transmission opportunities during which remotes are provided an opportunity to transmit messages to the hub. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 12:14– 17).” slip op. at 9

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

    “With respect to transmission by the remotes, the proper construction of the “each” limitation requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit. See supra Section II.A.1. Period B is such an interval, as it contains allocated slots during which individual mobile stations are allowed to transmit packets to the Access Point. See Ex. 1011, 5–6; Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 118. The individual slots within Period B are also intervals. See Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 122. Patent Owner’s argument that Period B is not an interval meeting the requirements of the claim is unpersuasive because it is premised on an incorrect claim construction requiring at least one interval in which a remote actually transmits to the hub. See PO Resp. 5–7. As explained previously, the Federal Circuit has rejected Patent Owner’s proffered construction of the “each” limitation. See supra Section II.A.1.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner relies on a combination of Bella’s time slot cancellation method with the system of Natarajan 1992 to satisfy the additional limitations of claim 11. Pet. 34–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 161–67. Like Bella, Natarajan 1992 describes a system in which mobile stations make reservation requests for slot allocation. Ex. 1011, 7–8; see Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 165. If a mobile station requests isochronous service, the requested number of slots will be allocated to the mobile station in Period B of every frame until the mobile station cancels the allocation by sending a cancellation request. Ex. 1011, 8; see Pet. 36, 38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 166. Thus, Natarajan 1992 teaches “revoking a previous transmission opportunity allocation of a remote,” as recited in claim 11, when the hub receives a cancellation request from the remote. See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 166–67. If the system of Natarajan 1992 instead utilized Bella’s cancellation method, which revokes a previous transmission allocation when a remote transmits no packets in a communication cycle, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the combination would result in “the hub revoking a previous transmission opportunity allocation of a remote which has not transmitted more than a predetermined number of frames” (zero) “during a previous number of communication cycles” (one). See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 167. Furthermore, if Natarajan 1992 employed the cancellation technique of Bella, the hub would be “monitoring the frames transmitted by each remote during its transmission opportunity.” See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 162, 164. Petitioner also has articulated sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that the subject matter of claim 11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of the references. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Pet. 35–37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 156–60. According to Petitioner, for example, the combination would simplify the cancellation method of Natarajan 1992 by allowing the hub to revoke a time slot allocation when the remote stops transmitting. Pet. 36; Ex. 1002 ¶ 158. Relying on Dr. Haas’s testimony for support, Petitioner also asserts that using Bella’s cancellation method makes even more sense when the remotes are mobile, as in Natarajan 1992, because they may move outside of the hub’s range abruptly and be unable to cancel their own reservations. Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Moreover, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s position that only ordinary skill would be required to implement the reservation and cancellation method of Bella in the Natarajan 1992 system. See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 160.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 5,371,734 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,371,734
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00824 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 19, and 20 are unpatentable over Spadaro and Hodge; claim 13 is unpatentable over Spadaro, Hodge, and Cree. Claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14–18 were …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “the burden of persuasion is on Petitioner to prove “unpatentability by a preponderance of evidence,” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the Patent Owner. See id. (explaining petitioner “had the burden of 11 Dynamic Drinkware issued after the time of the trial hearing and post-hearing briefing. 11 persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and this burden never shifted”). Petitioner also has the initial burden of production. Id. Petitioner satisfied its burden of production by arguing in its Petition that Spadaro was prior art under § 102(e) and, in combination with one or more other prior art references, would have rendered claims 1–20 obvious at the time the invention was made under § 103(a). Pet. 4–5, 19–35.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “production under § 103(c)(1), Petitioner contends it carried its burden of production to show that the ’167 patent (grandparent) sufficiently would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Patent Owner had possession of the claimed subject matter and, therefore, the ’260 patent is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the ’167 patent. Reply 7. As Petitioner recognizes (Reply 6), a claim in an application is entitled, under 35 U.S.C. § 120, to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims in the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. 35 U.S.C. § 120; In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner’s argument consists of a single paragraph identifying claim numbers and locations where the ’167 patent purportedly describes the subject matter of most, but not all, of the claims at issue and a citation to a single paragraph in its declarant’s supplemental declaration supporting Petitioner’s Reply. Reply 7 (listing claims 2, 8, 9, 11, and 14–18, but not listing claims 5 and 12; citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 16).” slip op. at 21

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

    “The ’260 patent does not set forth a special definition for “call application management system.” As confirmed by Dr. Forys (id.), the plain language of the claim specifies the function required to be performed by the call application management system—connecting calls responsive to 26 receiving a request to connect the call. Although Dr. Forys found Patent Owner’s proposed construction to be “reasonable,” Patent Owner’s proposed construction unnecessarily introduces the term “call processing,” which is not recited by the claim itself and on its face seems broader than the recited function of a call application management system—to connect a call. We do not agree with Patent Owner that a call application management system must perform examples of call processing described by the Specification, but not recited in the claim. Limitations from embodiments are not to be imported into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Furthermore, we find that Patent Owner’s contention— the name “the call application management system would be understood [by one of ordinary skill in the art] to manage, from start to finish, each call placed or received at the plurality of prisons” (PO Resp. 6)—places too much weight on the term “management” without sufficiently addressing the term “application.” We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, who disagrees that call application management system is required to manage “all call processing, ‘from start to finish.’” Ex. 1020 ¶ 8. Therefore, in light of the plain language of the claim, the Specification of the ’260 patent, and according the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant and Petitioner’s declarant appropriate weight, we construe “call application management system” to mean a system that performs the enumerated function—“connecting a call to or from the telephone terminals over a telephone carrier network responsive to receiving a request for connecting the call.”” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties propose similar levels of ordinary skill in the art and do not directly challenge the other’s proposal. We consider the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The prior art references, like the ’260 patent, relate to telephone communication systems. See Ex. 1001, 1:60–62 (indicating the technical field relates to inmate management and call processing); Ex. 1004, 1:7–9 (indicating the field of the invention relates to the processing of voice telephone calls); Ex. 1005, 1:7–9 (indicating the field of the invention relates to telephone communication systems). In general, we adopt the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience of telephony15 systems comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record, which relate to telephone communication systems. Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why the broader field of communications systems is a more appropriate area of academic or industry 15 MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS 2112 (6th ed. 2003) (defining telephony as “[t]he transmission of speech to a distant point by means of electric signals”) (Ex. 3001). 30 experience than telephony systems. Thus, we generally adopt Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience in telephony systems. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,340,260 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,340,260
• Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2015 · IPR2014-00787 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–22 and 24–30 are unpatentable as anticipated by Gough; claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–14, and 21 are not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although Figures 4 and 5 of the ’960 patent show keys that are partially surrounded by shadowing or shading, there is no suggestion in the Specification that the “blended shadow” recited in the claims should be limited to only this shadowing. The claim language itself, referring to a blended shadow of the representation of at least one key and the main image (see claim 24), indicates explicitly that the blended shadow incorporates both the key image and the main image and, thus, should not be limited to the shadowing surrounding the keys. Accordingly, based on the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “blended shadow” as “a portion of a composite image in which the main image is visible through the overlaid image as a result of combining the data from corresponding pixels from the main and overlaid images” for the purpose of this Final Written Decision. B.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain adequately where the detailed analysis set forth in the Reply is made in the Petition, and, in any event, we do not find the arguments persuasive. “A patent claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently discloses every limitation of the claim.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, Petitioner does not describe sufficiently how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to accomplish the blending process.6 We do not agree that either Gough’s description of the blending process depicted in Figures 10a–10f (Ex. 1007, 10:23–41) or Gough’s description of using the color look-up table (id. at 14:9–19) expressly discloses using logical operators, and such express disclosure is required for anticipation. At best, Petitioner’s arguments suggest how Gough could be envisioned as using logical operators, but do not explain adequately where or how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to carry out the blending process. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 depending therefrom, are anticipated by Gough.” slip op. at 15

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

    “3. Harrison Petitioner also argues Harrison teaches certain limitations. Pet. 44, 48, 52–55. Petitioner does not explain what Harrison adds to what is taught by Buxton. See id. at 48 (“[t]o the extent that these features may not be fully disclosed in Buxton, they are clearly disclosed in Harrison”). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine the teachings of Harrison are cumulative to the teachings of Buxton, and therefore, do not address Harrison further.7 4. Claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 Petitioner argues that “Buxton discloses nearly all of the elements and limitations” of the challenged claims. Pet. 42. With respect to claim 1, Petitioner argues that Buxton discloses using alpha blending in accordance with the equation I = αI1 + (1-α)I2, where I is the resulting color intensity, I1 is the color intensity of the foreground image pixel, I2 is the color intensity of the background image pixel, and α is the specified transparency level between 0 and 1. Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1009, 17:17–28). Petitioner argues that Buxton’s alpha blending “permits pixels to be ‘dedicated simultaneously’ to both images in order to produce a composite image” and is an “example of an operation using logical operators to provide different blending effects.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1009, 16:63–17:4). Petitioner contends that although “Buxton may lack explicit disclosure of . . . a touchactivated device (required in claims 1 and 26),” Bier discloses that a touch screen is interchangeable with a mouse. Id. at 44–45. Petitioner also contends that Bier discloses a keyboard superimposed over a display. Id. at 7 Because the asserted ground includes Harrison, we continue to include it as part of our overall analysis.” slip op. at 23

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

    “After considering all evidence and arguments, we agree with Patent Owner. In particular, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that Buxton’s alpha blending equation uses operators that manipulate binary values at the bit level, consistent with our construction of “logical operators.” The alpha blending equation unquestionably involves arithmetic operations, which we find differ from logical operations. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown persuasively whether any logical operations overlap with any arithmetic operations. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner’s contention that Buxton’s alpha blending equation does not use logical operators.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,121,960 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,121,960
• 10x Genomics, Inc. v. The University Of ChicagoInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 16, 2015 · IPR2015-01163 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 and 11 were obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–9 and 11. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of those claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “For purposes of this Decision, we do not discern an appreciable difference between Petitioner and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art that would impact our ultimate conclusions. Patent Owner does not indicate how many years of experience a “researcher interested in microfluidics” would have. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, bioengineering, or mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with at least four or five years of relevant experience. We also consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding the absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 6

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

    “At this stage of the proceeding, we find Patent Owner’s proposed construction more persuasive because it is more consistent with the Specification’s definition of “plugs.” The Specification states: “‘Plugs’ in accordance with the present invention are formed in a substrate when a stream of at least one plug-fluid is introduced into the flow of a carrier-fluid in which it is substantially immiscible.” Ex. 1001, 9:27–30. To further limit the claim term, Petitioner relies on the Specification’s disclosure of other optional characteristics of a plug. For example, the Specification states that the plug’s “cross-section should be substantially similar to the cross-section of the channels in which they are formed.” Id. at 9:34–37 (emphasis added). The Specification also states that the carrier fluid “preferably” wets the walls of the channels and, “[i]f this condition is satisfied, the plug . . . remains separated from the walls by a thin layer of the carrier-fluid.” Id. at 20:59–63 (emphasis added). Because neither of these disclosures expressly limits the “plugs” of the claimed invention, we decline to include these limitations from the Specification in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term. Accordingly, on the current record, we determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “plugs of the aqueous fluid” to be “volumes of aqueous fluid formed when a stream of aqueous fluid is introduced into the flow of a substantially immiscible carrier-fluid.”” slip op. at 7

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

    “3. Remaining Claim Terms Petitioner proposes constructions for other claim terms of the ’193 patent. Based on the current record, however, we determine that the remaining claim terms need not be construed explicitly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,304,193

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.