Asma Raza

Google Fails to Overturn PTAB Decision Upholding Koninklijke Philips Patent Claims at Federal Circuit

“Google contended that the PTAB mishandled its watchfulness by not considering its conspicuousness contention [but] the PTAB wouldn’t consider [the] contention, clarifying that it was impermissibly raised without precedent for Google’s answer brief, counteracting Koninklijke Philips from having the option to react”.

In 2016, Google requested of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for entomb partes survey (IPR) of Claims 10-16 and 20-21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,114 (the ‘114 patent) possessed by Philips, entitled “High Frequency and Low Frequency Audio Signal Encoding and Decoding System.” In 2018, the PTAB gave a last composed choice holding that Google had not appeared by a prevalence of the proof that cases 10-16, 20, and 21 of the ‘114 patent were unpatentable.

The ‘114 patent identifies with an encoding plan for transmitting sound sign. As indicated by the ‘114 patent, earlier transmission frameworks that split a sign into unearthly parts required impressive calculation limit. The transmission framework portrayed in the ‘114 patent indicates to enhance those earlier frameworks by diminishing calculation limit. In particular, the ‘114 patent portrays a transmitter that utilizations Linear Predictive Coding (LPC) to code the high recurrence bit of a sign preceding transmission. LPC coding decreases the calculation limit of a coding gadget in the transmitter on the grounds that LPC coding doesn’t require a down-sampler. Moreover, the ‘114 patent portrays a beneficiary that utilizations background noise a source to remake the high recurrence part of a got sign. This decreases the calculation limit of the collector.

The tested cases all require a “second decoder” that applies a high-pass channel to a commotion signal, creating a reproduced sign inside a high-recurrence extend. This is outlined in guarantee 10:

10. A transmission framework, containing:

  • a transmitter including
  • a splitter for separating a transmission signal into a low recurrence signal inside a low recurrence run and a high recurrence signal inside a high recurrence extend, the low recurrence range being lower than the high recurrence go, a first coder for determining an initially coded sign inside the principal recurrence run from the low recurrence signal, and
  • a second coder for determining a second coded sign inside the high recurrence go from the high recurrence signal;
  • a recipient in electrical correspondence with said transmitter to get the primary coded signal and the second coded sign, said collector including
  • a first decoder for successively applying a thin band decoder, an up-sampler and a low-pass channel to the main coded sign to create an originally remade signal inside the primary recurrence run, and
  • a subsequent decoder, wherein, in view of the second coded sign, said second decoder consecutively applies a high-pass channel, a LPC combination channel and an intensifier to a commotion sign to produce the second recreated sign.”

Weight Not Met Through Combining Art

The Federal Circuit’s feeling clarified that it was undisputed that the guaranteed high-pass channel transmits frequencies over the cutoff recurrence and generously lessens all others. Notwithstanding, Google contended that Tucker’s exposure of a low-pass channel and reflection step when consolidated are earlier craftsmanship to the guaranteed high-pass channel, in light of the fact that the blend transmits the high-band segment of the info signal while weakening the low-band part of the information. The CAFC couldn’t help contradicting this. The Tucker low-pass channel, contended the Board, transmits frequencies beneath the given cutoff recurrence, and the reflection step just serves to take the low-recurrence band yield of the low-pass channel and move it to the high-recurrence band. This shows in the Tucker creation, the low-recurrence substance of the information sign is transmitted with no transmission of the information sign’s high recurrence content. Along these lines, the CAFC held that the Tucker development was not foreseen by the ‘114 patent on the grounds that the creation didn’t transmit the high-recurrence substance of an information signal; in this manner, it couldn’t unveil the high-pass channel.

The Federal Circuit’s feeling clarified that it was undisputed that the guaranteed high-pass channel transmits frequencies over the cutoff recurrence and generously lessens all others. Notwithstanding, Google contended that Tucker’s exposure of a low-pass channel and reflection step when consolidated are earlier craftsmanship to the guaranteed high-pass channel, in light of the fact that the blend transmits the high-band segment of the info signal while weakening the low-band part of the information. The CAFC couldn’t help contradicting this. The Tucker low-pass channel, contended the Board, transmits frequencies beneath the given cutoff recurrence, and the reflection step just serves to take the low-recurrence band yield of the low-pass channel and move it to the high-recurrence band. This shows in the Tucker creation, the low-recurrence substance of the information sign is transmitted with no transmission of the information sign’s high recurrence content. Along these lines, the CAFC held that the Tucker development was not foreseen by the ‘114 patent on the grounds that the creation didn’t transmit the high-recurrence substance of an information signal; in this manner, it couldn’t unveil the high-pass channel.

Last Plea to the CAFC

Ultimately, Google contended that the PTAB manhandled its circumspection by not thinking about its conspicuousness contention. Google contended in its IPR request that the cases at issue were evident over Tucker, since it would have been clear to incorporate a high-pass channel in Tucker’s collector instead of the low-pass channel and reflection process. The PTAB would not think about this contention, clarifying that it was impermissibly raised without precedent for Google’s answer brief, keeping Philips from having the option to react. The CAFC held that the PTAB was inside its carefulness in declining to think about the contention, as the contention was outside of the extent of the IPR appeal. The CAFC subsequently confirmed the PTAB’s decision that Google neglected to meet its weight of indicating that the tested cases were evident or foreseen by Tucker or other earlier workmanship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *