• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
62 results

EMC Corporation v. Clouding Corp.

Docket IPR2014-01309, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Aug. 16, 2014)
Jameson Lee, Miriam Quinn, Rama Elluru, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
5944839
Petitioner EMC Corporation
Patent Owner Clouding Corp.
Assignee DBD CREDIT FUNDING LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
...
cite Cite Docket

36 Final Decision: Final Written Decision on Remand

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 36 Final Decision - Final Written Decision on Remand (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2017)
Of relevance to this decision, the Federal Circuit determined that Patent Owner’s only argument to the Board in support of nonobviousness was that Petitioner’s proposed combination of Barnett and Allen ’664 would not yield a solution that involves “saving a state of a computer system,” as the second half of claim 6, step 5 requires.
In addition, as Petitioner argues, “Barnett explicitly contemplates an embodiment in which the diagnostic system would initially fail to determine a likely solution to a fault, but in which its configuration manager nonetheless remains capable of introducing ‘new component types, which require new models and meta-models.’” Pet.
Dr. Sacerdoti, Petitioner’s expert, states that a skilled artisan “would understand this citation to mean that, absent the encoding of models and meta-models describing the new component types, the diagnostic system would be unable to derive a precise diagnosis.” Ex. 1024 ¶ 18.
Patent Owner concludes that “any combination of Barnett and Allen ’664 would, at best, save case criteria and user-supplied information as a new case and would not save computer state, as required by claim 6.” Id. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s argument and evidence and determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Allen ’664 teaches and Barnett teaches the limitation at issue.
Petitioner’s argument is supported by Dr. Sacerdoti’s testimony, which was formed from his “own extensive experience in managing and teaching the development of rule-based expert systems, and from what [he was] aware was the state of the art at the time of the invention of the ’839 patent.” Ex. 1024 ¶ 32.
cite Cite Document

34 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 34 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)
Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Barnett and Allen ’664 teaches or suggests the condition “when a likely solution [to a problem in the computer system] cannot be determined,” as recited in claim 6.
Patent 5,944,839 A fault” and that this is “a situation that is not truly contemplated by Barnett” (PO Resp. 6–7), Petitioner does not contend that it instead relies on Allen ’664 as teaching or suggesting the condition “when a likely solution to a problem [in the computer system] cannot be determined.” See Pet.
Based on this disclosure, Petitioner asserts that “Barnett explicitly contemplates an embodiment in which the diagnostic system would initially fail to determine a likely solution to a fault, but in which its configuration manager nonetheless remains capable of introducing ‘new component types, which require new models and meta-models.’” Pet.
In particular, Dr. Sacerdoti does not provide sufficient factual basis in support of his opinion that Barnett contemplates the situation in which there is an absence of models and meta-models describing the new component types.
Patent 5,944,839 A Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Allen ’664 and Barnett teaches or suggests “when a likely solution cannot be determined,” as recited in claim 6.
cite Cite Document

33 Notice: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 33 Notice - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2015)

cite Cite Document

30 Order: Order Trial Hearing

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 30 Order - Order Trial Hearing (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2015)

cite Cite Document

27 Notice: Revised Scheduling Order

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 27 Notice - Revised Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2015)

cite Cite Document

20 Notice: Order 37 CFR 4210

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 20 Notice - Order 37 CFR 4210 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2015)

cite Cite Document

15 Notice: Scheduling Order

Document IPR2014-01309, No. 15 Notice - Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2015)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 >>