- Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch LtdAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 30, 2015 · IPR2014-01361 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–43 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 44 and 45 are not shown patentable, and the Second Motion to Amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In our Decision on Institution, we discussed the meaning of the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” but otherwise found that no claim terms required express construction. Dec. on Inst. 4. In its Second Motion to Amend, Patent Owner does not dispute our interpretation of “consisting essentially of,” or propose constructions for any additional claim terms. Upon review of Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments, we conclude that no explicit constructions are required in order to resolve the issues pending before the Board.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“establishing that it is entitled to add proposed substitute claims 44 and 45. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). As part of this showing, Patent Owner must demonstrate (1) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (2) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter; (3) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; and (4) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Upon review of the Second Motion to Amend, we are persuaded that the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 have been met. For example, Patent Owner seeks to add only two substitute claims, each of which serves to narrow the scope of original claim 18. Mot. 17–18. Patent Owner also identifies exemplary electrolytes disclosed in the originally-filed application that fall within the scope of proposed substitute claims 44 and 45. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1010, 33, 35–36 (disclosing an electrolyte containing ethylene glycol, water, isobutyric acid, and ammonium hydroxide (which results in an ammonium salt of the organic acid) with a pH of 4.9, a conductivity of 7.1 mS/cm, and an anode breakdown voltage of 395 volts)). Thus, we focus on whether Patent Owner has met its burden of proof to show that proposed substitute claims 44 and 45 are patentable over the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentable
“Clark, however, discloses successfully substituting acetic acid in an electrolyte solution with “other low molecular weight paraffin acids,” including butyric, propionic, and lactic acids, as well as forming corresponding ammonium salts of these organic acids. Ex. 1003, 2:40–46, 3:46–61. Likewise, GB 466,193 broadly discloses that acetic acid may be replaced in an electrolyte solution with organic acids of the aliphatic series, including butyric acid and isobutyric acid. Ex. 1015, 3:73–79. In its Second Motion to Amend, Patent Owner does not point to any persuasive evidence to support or explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered isobutyric acid, as implied in Clark and expressly identified in GB 466,193, to be a suitable substitute for acetic acid in the electrolyte of Shah. Indeed, similar to the disclosures of Clark and GB 466,193, the ’117 patent discloses that “other relatively weak organic acids of the general formula cnH2+nO2 (where n=2 to 7) are acceptable.”9 Thus, we are not persuaded that Shah, Clark, and GB 466,193 fail to teach or suggest every limitation of proposed substitute claim 44.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable
“1 of Shah is ten times higher than electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent, and the resulting conductivity (47.5 mS/cm) is 6.7 times higher than that of electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent (7.1 mS/cm). First Mot. to Amend 9 (Table 3); Ex. 1001, 2:14–16 (confirming that the ammonium salt “provides electrical conductivity” in the electrolyte). Given the disclosure of Evans that anode breakdown voltage decreases with increasing conductivity (conductivity being the inverse of resistivity), Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why the 150 volt difference in anode breakdown voltage between electrolyte 1 of Shah and electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent is “contrary to” the teachings of Evans. First Mot. to Amend 9 (Table 3),11; Ex. 2004, 3 (Figure 4). Nor does Patent Owner explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art could not use the disclosure of Evans to modify the resistivity of the electrolyte of Shah, Clark, and GB 466,193 to obtain an anode breakdown voltage within the 370 to 400 volt range of proposed substitute claim 45. Thus, we are not persuaded that the 150 volt difference between electrolyte 1 of Shah and electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent is nonobvious or surprising. Patent Owner also contends that if acetic acid was equivalent to isobutyric acid, such that it could be replaced interchangeably, “a substantially similar anode breakdown voltage would have been achieved in both Shah’s electrolyte and the ’117 Patent electrolyte, both of which have almost identical pH~4.9.” First Mot. to Amend 11. We note, however, that, as set forth in Table 3 above, electrolyte 1 of Shah has a conductivity that is 6.7 times higher than electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent, as well as ten times the ammonium constituent, two and a half times the acid constituent, half the ethylene glycol, and five times the phosphoric acid as compared to electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent. In view of the wide difference in constituents and resulting conductivity levels between the two electrolytes, and in view of the teaching of Evans that anode breakdown voltage depends on the resistivity of the electrolyte, Patent Owner provides insufficient argument or evidence to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that “[i]f acetic acid were equivalent to isobutyric acid . . . a substantially similar anode breakdown voltage would have been achieved in both Shah’s electrolyte and the ’117 patent electrolyte . . . .” First Mot. to Amend 11. Accordingly, even if arguments made in the First Motion to Amend were considered, we would still not be persuaded that proposed substitute claim 45 is patentable over the prior art. Thus, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has carried its burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claim 45 is patentable over the prior art of record.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 6,687,117 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,687,117 - Emnos USA Corp. v. Dunnhumby LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 30, 2015 · CBM2015-00162 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not establish that the ’246 patent qualifies as a covered business method patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), the Director may not authorize a covered business method patent review unless the information in the petition, if unrebutted, “would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” As explained below, we do not institute a covered business method patent review because the Petition does not establish that the ’246 patent qualifies as a covered business method patent.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“remains deficient. The Petition relies on the Oracle Pro*C reference as disclosing the script template limitations of the independent claims, but as Patent Owner points out, the Petition does not present evidence establishing that Oracle Pro*C qualifies as a prior art printed publication. See Pet. 32– 34; Prelim. Resp. 50–53. Petitioner asserts that Oracle Pro*C “was published in 2002” but does not point to any specific evidence of its publication or public availability in 2002. Id. at 33. If Petitioner’s assertion is based on the “March 2002” statement that appears on the cover of the Oracle Pro*C reference, that statement is hearsay, and Petitioner does not argue that any hearsay exception or exclusion applies. See Ex. 1041, 1; see also ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Case IPR2015-00716, slip op. at 16 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2015) (Paper 13) (“To the extent that Petitioner relies on the date on the face of each exhibit and the indications of availability of these references for download . . . for the truth of that information, and considering that Petitioner has not established that any hearsay exception or exclusion applies, we agree [that the statements are inadmissible hearsay].”). Petitioner also argues, with citation to the testimony of Dr. Smyth, that Oracle Pro*C is a reference used by programmers who develop applications in Oracle database environments. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶ 57). However, neither the Petition nor Dr. Smyth explains how or when the specific Programmer’s Guide, Release 9.2 that Petitioner relies on as the Oracle Pro*C reference (Ex. 1041) was made available to skilled artisans. Because the Petition does not establish that Oracle Pro*C qualifies as prior art, Section VIII.B. of the Petition does not remedy the deficient showing in Section III.D. of the Petition on the first consideration of the technological” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,214,246 - HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2014-01155 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 25, 30, 59, 77, 82, 85, and 117–122 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated prior-art combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1009 ¶ 240 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio 30 management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 242 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 30
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Exclude 1. Pursuant to our Rules, a motion to exclude evidence must be filed to preserve any previously-made objections to evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). The motion must identify where in the record the objections were made, and must explain the objections. Id. We note that AAD does not identify where in the record its objections to evidence were made prior to their being the basis of the Motion to Exclude, in violation of Rule 42.64(c). Indeed, the Board is aware of AAD’s prior objections only because they were quoted in HTC’s opposition to the Motion to Exclude. For this reason, AAD’s Motion is procedurally deficient, and may be denied on this basis alone.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 242 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In our view, HTC’s proposed analysis better comports with the “expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1009 ¶ 240 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio 30 management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 242 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,289,393 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,289,393 - HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2014-01154 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 35–37, 43, and 45–47 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 49–65 were denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“AAD misunderstands our prior claim construction ruling. We cited the above-quoted portions of the specification to demonstrate that, when the ’403 patentee wished to refer to ordering sound tracks, the terms rearranging or customizing were used—as opposed to the term organizable. Dec. 9. By contrast, we noted that the specification of the ’403 patent does not use the word organizable outside the claims. Id. The claim language itself, therefore, is the best guide to the meaning of the term. As we noted in our Decision, claim 1 requires that the music library is “organizable into a 10 master song list and at least one group of sound tracks.” Ex. 1001, 21:32–33 (emphasis added); Dec. 9. This usage implies that the user must be able to, at the very least, add songs from the music library into groups such as the master song list and the group of sound tracks. We note that AAD’s expert, Mr. McAlexander, agreed with our construction of the term, with a minor caveat discussed below. Ex. 1016, 31:6–32:16 (“The actual context of an arrangement ordering and grouping, I have no problem with that. I think they’re right.”). AAD’s proposed construction, which limits organizable to only the ordering of songs, is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“b. Analysis of Anticipation by Nathan ’259 Anticipation requires not only that all elements of a claim are disclosed within the four corners of a single prior art reference, but that the elements are “arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For the following reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Nathan ’259 teaches all elements of claim 1, and by extension, any of the challenged dependent claims.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In our view, HTC’s proposed analysis better comports with the “expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the 37 teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1007 ¶ 168 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 170 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1007 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2003 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of 38 ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.” slip op. at 37
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“In cases in which the proffered evidence of commercial success is licenses, rather than sales of products embodying the invention, there is a danger that the licenses may have been taken only because they were cheaper than defending an infringement suit. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In such situations, nexus between the commercial success and the patent cannot be inferred; rather, “affirmative evidence of nexus” is required. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, a patent owner must demonstrate “a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record”; otherwise, the licenses are to be accorded little weight. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1580 (emphasis added). HTC notes that each of the licenses listed by Mr. Keller includes at least two patents that explicitly claim a compact disc recorder, an element not present in the claims of the ’403 patent. Pet. Reply 24. HTC also contends that AAD fails to demonstrate any link between the invention of the ’403 patent and the taking of the license; for example, AAD provides no 27 apportionment of revenues to show the amount attributable to the ’403 patent, as opposed to the other members of the licensed family. Id. We agree with HTC that the evidence provided by AAD does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’403 patent and the taking of the licenses. Although Mr. Keller notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was no pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2004 ¶ 9), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against those parties. We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’403 patent, or whether they were taken merely to avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, AAD’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success. We conclude that the evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness is insufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness over the combined Nathan references.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 6,587,403 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,587,403 - Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2015-00726 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Capella’s request for rehearing of its decision allowing Fujitsu to submit supplemental information.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(b). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Here, Capella contends the following in its Request for Rehearing:” slip op. at 2
- Additional discoveryOther
“for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(b). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Here, Capella contends the following in its Request for Rehearing:” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(b). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Here, Capella contends the following in its Request for Rehearing: First, the Board’s decision granting Fujitsu’s motion to submit supplemental information is not supported by substantial evidence. Second, the Board misapprehended or overlooked that substantive content was added to Dr. Ford’s declaration. Third, the Board’s continued reliance on Dr. Drabik’s declaration, where cross-examination is impossible, violates the rules of discovery, the rules of evidence, and curtails due process.” slip op. at 2
None - PTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2015-01499 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 were obvious over Satou and Noguchi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“5. Summary Based on the record before us, SDC has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertion that claims 1–9 would have been obvious over the combination of Satou and Noguchi because SDC does not provide a sufficient rationale to combine the respective teachings of these asserted references. III. CONCLUSION Taking into account the arguments presented in Gold Charm’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that SDC would prevail in challenging claims 1–9 of the ’534 patent as unpatentable under § 103(a). IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“On the present record, we are not persuaded that SDC has articulated a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Satou and Noguchi. With respect to SDC’s assertion that the teachings of Satou and Noguchi are capable of being combined because both of these references solve the same problem using essentially the same structure, this assertion, at best, indicates that Satou and Noguchi are analogous art to each other. Merely asserting that these prior art references are analogous art to each other, however, does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to combine their respective teachings—more is required to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. With respect to SDC’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented components of Satou’s active matrix substrate in accordance with the configurations taught by Noguchi, this assertion lacks a convincing rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Noguchi for guidance as to how these components disclosed in Satou should be re-configured in the manner required by independent claim 1. Based on this assertion, we understand SDC to argue that the components disclosed in Satou’s active matrix substrate account for all the features required by independent claim 1, but these components are not configured in the same manner required by this claim. We further understand SDC to argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi in order to achieve the particular configuration of features required by independent claim 1. Without engaging in impermissible hindsight reconstruction, it is not clear to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi, especially given that, according to SDC, Noguchi solves the same problem as Satou using essentially the same structure. See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.”’).” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We also are not persuaded by the supporting testimony of Mr. Credelle regarding SDC’s rationale to combine the teachings of Satou and Noguchi because it essentially repeats the arguments advanced by SDC in its Petition. Compare Pet. 38–40, with Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 76, 77. For instance, Mr. Credelle testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Satou and Noguchi because they solve the same problem using essentially the same structure. Ex. 1006 ¶ 76 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:52– 56; Ex. 1004, 2:38–41). Similar to our explanation above, simply demonstrating that these prior art references are analogous art to each other does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to combine their respective teachings—more is required to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Mr. Credelle also testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented components of Satou’s active matrix substrate in accordance with the configurations taught by Noguchi. Ex. 1006 ¶ 76. Similar to our explanation above, without engaging in impermissible hindsight reconstruction, it is not clear to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi, especially given that, according to SDC, Noguchi solves the same problem as Satou using essentially the same structure. See Grain Processing, 840 F.2d at 907.” slip op. at 17
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,211,534 - Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2015 · IPR2015-01434 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,908,343 B2 (“the ’343 Patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311. Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response, Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”), contending that the Petition should be denied as to all challenged claims. We have jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- BurdenOther
“map each claim element to a particular teaching of an asserted reference. In particular, Patent Owner notes that, rather than state the claim language in the Petition, Petitioner provides Exhibit 1013, which breaks the claims into specific phrases and assigns each phrase a designation, e.g., 1.A, 1.B. Prelim. Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s approach improperly incorporates the claims by reference and that no relief can be granted unless the arguments in the Petition itself, of which the claims are an essential part, support granting the relief. Id. at 33. We agree that Petitioner’s use of an Exhibit to specify the claim elements and its failure to include the claim language anywhere in the Petition is an improper incorporation by reference. Nevertheless, although the claim language is not repeated in the Petition, the Petition contains a paragraph for most, if not all the claim element designations. Therefore, we do not dismiss the Petition on this basis alone.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“specification, neither “data parcel” nor “update data parcel” is defined explicitly in the ’343 Patent. The ’343 Patent refers to “source image data” being processed to obtain a series of K1-N derivative images of progressively lower image resolution. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 6–6. The ’343 Patent also discloses the source image data corresponding to the series image K0 being subdivided into a regular array such that each resulting “image parcel” of the array has, for example, 64 by 64 pixel resolution, where the “image data” has a color or bit per pixel depth of 16 bits, which represents a “data parcel” size of 8 K bytes. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 6–11. Thus, an image parcel is an element of a source image array that defines a source image and a data parcel is data that corresponds to an image parcel. In view of this disclosure, we construe “data parcel” to mean data that corresponds to an element of a source image array. We agree that no other specific claim construction is required and we accord the claim terms their ordinary meaning as used in the ’343 Patent specification.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artReference not prior artMixed
“REFERENCES ARGUED AS NOT APPLICABLE PRIOR ART Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Potmesil (Ex. 1002) and Lindstrom (Ex. 1004) constitute applicable prior art references. Prelim. Resp. 3–12. We addressed the same arguments as those advanced by Patent Owner in this proceeding in our Decision to Institute in related proceeding Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC, Case IPP2015-01432, slip op. at 10–14 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2015)(Decision to Institute)3 and Microsoft corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-01435, slip op. at 8–16 (PTAB Dec. XX, 2015)4. We arrive at the same result in this proceeding and find that, although Petitioner has established that Potmesil is applicable as prior art, Petitioner has not established Lindstrom is prior art that may be applied in Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,908,343 - Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2015 · IPR2015-01435 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any claim unpatentable on the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“Whether a reference qualifies as a “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). A reference is considered “publicly accessible” upon a satisfactory showing that the document has been “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence[] can locate it.” Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Often, the determination of public accessibility turns on whether a reference is indexed and catalogued in a meaningful way. For example, an uncatalogued and unshelved thesis in a university library, notwithstanding its accessibility to a graduate committee, was not sufficiently accessible to the public to constitute a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the “thesis could have been located in the university library only by one having been informed of its existence by the faculty committee, and not by means of the customary research aids available in the library.” In re Bayer, 568 F.2d 1357, 1361–62 (CCPA 1978). In contrast, a dissertation shelved in the stacks and indexed in the catalog at a university library was found to be a printed publication. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, indexing and cataloging must be prepared in a “meaningful” way, e.g., in relationship to the subject matter of the references, to allow an interested researcher exercising reasonable diligence to locate the prior art. See Cronyn, 890 F.2d at 1161.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1001, col. 12, ll. 47–52; col. 13, ll. 55–60; col. 14, ll. 57–62. For claim 1, Petitioner identifies this limitation as elements 1.H, 1.I, and 1.J.8 Ex. 1012, 1. Petitioner treats these elements separately as if they are three distinct limitations, each describing or capturing a discrete feature or concept. See Pet. 44–45. As discussed below, Petitioner’s analysis is fundamentally flawed because the common limitation set forth above must be considered as a whole. The reason is that the limitation captures a single concept described in the Specification—a concept that can be understood only when the limitation is considered as a whole. Petitioner’s omission of the actual claim language in its analysis and using the labels (e.g., claim elements 1.H, 1.I, or 1.J) in place of the claim language obscures the problem underlying Petitioner’s approach and reinforces the erroneous impression that the Petitioner-identified elements are separate and distinct limitations.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not explain adequately the reasons to combine the references to teach elements 1.H, 1.I, and 1.J. An invention “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner must also show that there was a reason to combine those elements to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). First, we note that not all combinations elements 1.H and 1.I satisfy element 1.J, “such that each image parcel being of a fixed byte size.” For example, if the resolution increased by a factor of two while the array subdivision decreased by a factor of two from one image to the next in the series of images, the byte size of the image parcels would increase by a factor of four. In another example, reducing the resolution by a factor of four while reducing the array subdivision by a factor of eight would increase the byte size of the image parcels by a factor of two. In both examples, elements 1.H and 1.I would be satisfied but not element 1.J because each image parcel of the two successive images would not be of a fixed size as required by the claim. Hence, in order to show that the combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper teaches the claimed feature of elements 1.H, 1.I, and 1.J, Petitioner must show how a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the references to teach varying the resolution and array subdivision in a specific way, e.g., both decreasing by a factor of four, “such that each image parcel [is] of a fixed byte size.”” slip op. at 23
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“testifies that “[s]ince each tile in a layer has the same size (‘fTileSize’) . . . it would be obvious that each image parcel could have the same fixed byte size.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 218. However, the cited portion in column 13 of Ligtenberg appears to be a listing of C language source code, which shows that “fTileSize” is a variable for storing 16-bit integer values. See Ex. 1005, col. 13, ll. 30–37 (“UInt16 fTileSize;”). Dr. Michalson does not cite any disclosure in Ligtenberg that requires this value to remain constant for all layers of resolution. Instead, Dr. Michalson asserts that “it would be obvious that each image parcel could have the same fixed byte size” because “using a fixed size . . . could improve predictability of the system” by making “the caching process more straightforward.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 218 (emphases added). However, “obviousness 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.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Dr. Michalson justifies his “could have” reasoning by making an analogy to stacking cubic boxes of the same size in a room. Ex. 1009 ¶ 218. We are not persuaded by Dr. Michalson’s testimony because it is conclusory and provides insufficient explanation why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Ligtenberg to teach the claimed feature, i.e., each image parcel having the same byte size for any resolution layer or across all resolution layers. The lack of adequate reasoning in Dr. Michalson’s testimony indicates that Dr. Michalson relies on impermissible hindsight. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.”); Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Where, as here, the necessary reasoning is absent, we cannot simply assume that ‘an ordinary artisan would be awakened to modify prior art in such a way as to lead to an obviousness rejection.’ It is in such circumstances, moreover, that it is especially important to guard against the dangers of hindsight bias.” (citation omitted)); ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he expert’s testimony on obviousness was essentially a conclusory statement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, based on the ‘modular’ nature of the claimed components, how to combine any of a number of references to achieve the claimed inventions. This is not sufficient and is fraught with hindsight bias.”). Therefore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated Ligtenberg teaches element 1.J, “such that each image parcel being of a fixed byte size,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 22
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,924,506 - PTAB · Dec 22, 2015 · IPR2014-00963 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its decision that claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS The burden of showing that the Decision should be modified is on Petitioner, the party challenging the Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify 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.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Figure 6 is a detailed diagram of a TDM FIFO receiver. Ex. 1006, 10:34– 35. “The TDM slot counter 200 and enable DP-RAM 202 operate as for the TDM FIFO driver 180-1 shown in FIG. 5,2 to identify when the receiver 212 is to be active.” Id. at 10:36–39. When DP RAM Enable 202 of Figure 3 (or Figure 5) enables driver 208 to permit DP RAM Data 204 to assert data at a particular slot, the corresponding DP RAM Enable 202 of Figure 6 enables receiver 212 to remove data from the bus at the same time slot. Id. at 10:36–43. As with the DP RAM Enable 202 of Figure 3, the DP RAM Enable 202 of Figure 6 does not determine which slot is associated with which DSP. It simply allows data to pass through during an enabled time slot to FIFO Data 214, which clocks data into the DSP associated with the enabled time slot. Id. In the Decision, we found that “Petitioner and Dr. Stark do not explain persuasively how simply reprogramming DP RAM Enable 202 would provide a different mapping between the data stored in DP RAM Data 204 and the DSPs.” Dec. 27. Simply reprogramming the corresponding DP RAM Enable 202 of Figure 6 to coincide with the mapping of DP RAM Enable 202 of Figure 3 does not address this deficiency. The Decision did not discuss Figure 6 explicitly. Nevertheless, because Petitioner’s proposed re-programming of its DP RAM Enable 202 mirrored that of Figure 3’s DP RAM Enable 202, we implicitly rejected Petitioner’s arguments regarding” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“frequency hopping. Req. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1023, 33:6–13, 34:3–14, 43:12– 44:1). Petitioner did not make this argument in the Reply. Indeed, Petitioner made the opposite argument—criticizing the same testimony for stating that the ’480 patent does not disclose implementing the optional frequency hopping portion of GSM. Reply 5–6. We find that Dr. Wells has testified consistently that the portion of the ’480 patent quoted above “actually means . . . that it can support GSM, and then it characterizes GSM as a frequency hopping standard. It doesn’t say that it supports frequency hopping.” Ex. 1023, 34:10–14; accord Ex. 2007 ¶ 78. We continue to credit Dr. Wells’s testimony.” slip op. at 5
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“LLC, 805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Req. 2, 13–15. Belden addressed the Board’s denial of a motion to exclude reply expert testimony as beyond the proper scope of a reply, as informed by our Office Patent Trial Practice Guide.3 805 F.3d at 1077–78. In upholding the Board’s denial, the Federal Circuit noted that “[e]vidence admitted in rebuttal to respond to the patent owner’s criticisms will commonly confirm the prima facie case. That does not make it necessary to the prima facie case.” Id. at 1079. Petitioner argues that it should have been permitted to present responsive evidence confirming the prima facie case it presented in the Petition. Req. 13–14. Petitioner’s second theory for combining the ’480 patent and GSM 05.02, however, is not designed to support or confirm the prima facie case it presented in the Petition. As explained above (taking into account Petitioner’s Figure 6 argument), and in the Decision (at 25), the prima facie case presented in the Petition was that a skilled artisan would have modified the ’480 patent simply by reprogramming the DP RAM Enable 202 mappings. Petitioner’s second Reply argument was that a skilled artisan would have modified different components of the ’480 patent “without any modification to the memory (DP RAM Enable) mapping 3 “While replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned. The Board will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply. Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). used.” Req. 14 (quoting Ex. 1022 (Stark Reply Decl.) ¶ 43).4 This is an attempt to argue an entirely new prima facie case. Thus, our refusal to consider Petitioner’s second reply argument was consistent with Belden and the Office Trial Practice Guide.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,952,408 - TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01450 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 were unpatentable under § 103.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 of U.S. Patent No. 8,692,659 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’659 patent”). Magna Electronics Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. 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). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“As best understood from FIG. 16B, extension 8513 of header console 8512 extends downwardly behind the upper portion of windshield W (such portion of windshield W which typically includes a shadeband element as known in the art) and includes a forked portion 8513a, such as an inverted V-shaped or U-shaped portion, which straddles a mirror mounting button 8536 that is mounted to windshield W. Optionally, the downwardly extending portion of header/header console 8512 may be mounted to the inner surface of windshield W, such as by an adhesive or may be releasably, mechanically attached such as by being received by and/or supported by one or more attaching members adhered to the inner surface of the windshield, such as by attachment members, including rails, channels, or the like. Ex. 1012, col. 28, ll. 15–28 (emphasis added). The above disclosure in the ’287 patent describes a console that straddles (and thus is local to) a mirror mounting button and is mounted to a vehicle windshield using attachment members, such as rails or channels. Id. As such, the above disclosure in the ’287 patent is sufficient to show that the inventors had possession of the claimed attachment members. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“obvious to combine the cited teachings of Schofield and Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to use the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach because the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield provides more functionality. Id. at 46–48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶¶ 56, 59). Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield using the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that the housing in Klappenbach would advantageously seal the components of the camera in Schofield to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 47–48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because Schofield teaches that the imaging sensor module disclosed therein already is protected from such intrusions. Ex. 1007, col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 4. Further, the housing in Klappenbach is not just a protective housing for sensor components, but, rather, a structure designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 46–67, Fig. 1. Petitioner also argues that the fastening device in Klappenbach can be preinstalled. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶ 58). Petitioner does not explain, though, why that would have made it obvious to use the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach with the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield. Moreover, Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach is, or can be, configured to accommodate a forward facing camera generally or the vehicle headlight dimming control in Figure 1 of Schofield particularly. Pet. 45–48. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited teachings of Blank, Schofield, and Klappenbach in the manner proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,692,659
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.