Apple v. PersonalWeb
Full2013-00596 · US7802310B2
In plain English: The Board reviewed these claims and cancelled all of them. A later appeal affirmed part of that result and reversed, vacated, or remanded the rest.
How to read this page: start with the Case brief above, use (the small numbered links) to open the exact source page they cite, then use Reference material further down for claim-by-claim and ground-by-ground detail.
All challenged claims cancelled
The Board found all six challenged claims obvious over two references, in the case that now defines how carefully the Board must explain itself.[18][28]
Apple petitions for review of six claims of the '310 patent September 27, 2013·Board institutes on a single obviousness ground March 26, 2014·Oral hearing before the Board November 17, 2014·Final written decision holds all six claims unpatentable March 25, 2015·Federal Circuit affirms constructions, vacates obviousness, remands February 14, 2017
- The '310 patent names data by its contents - True Names - so identical files share one content-based identifier wherever they live.[4][5]
- Apple asserted nine grounds against all six claims; the Board instituted on exactly one - Woodhill plus Stefik - and turned the rest away as redundant.[8][11][14]
- After briefing and a November 2014 hearing, the Board found every instituted claim obvious over Woodhill and Stefik.[19][23]
- The Federal Circuit kept the Board's claim constructions but threw out its obviousness analysis as too thin to review.[25][28]
PersonalWeb is the Federal Circuit's standing answer to a conclusory obviousness ruling: agreeing with the petitioner is not an explanation.[28][29]
- Federal Circuit Remands Apple PTAB Victory Because Board Failed to Explain Motivation to Combine
IPWatchdog · February 24, 2017
- Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
Knobbe Martens case writeup · March 8, 2019
- Why the Disconnect? Federal Circuit Reverses Yet Another Inherent Obviousness Decision
PTAB Law Blog (Perkins Coie) · March 22, 2019
Reference material
Claim-by-claim and ground-by-ground records underlying the brief above.
- Ground 1: §102Not instituted
Browne
Claims 24, 32, 70, 81-82, 86
Paper 9 at 19; redundant under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) - Ground 2: §103Not instituted
Browne
Claims 24, 32, 70, 81-82, 86
Paper 9 at 19; redundant under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) - Ground 3: §103Not instituted
Browne, Stefik US7359881
Claims 24, 32, 70, 81-82, 86
Paper 9 at 19; redundant under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) - Ground 4: §102Not instituted
Woodhill US5649196
Claims 24, 32, 70, 81-82, 86
Paper 9 at 19; redundant under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) - Ground 5: §103Not instituted
Woodhill US5649196
Claims 24, 32, 70, 81-82, 86
Paper 9 at 19; redundant under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) - Ground 7: §102Not instituted
Langer
Claims 24, 32, 70, 81-82, 86
Paper 9 at 19; redundant under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) - Ground 8: §103Not instituted
Langer, Stefik US7359881
Claims 24, 32, 70, 81-82, 86
Paper 9 at 19; redundant under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) - Ground 9: §102Not instituted
Farber WO9632685
Claims 24, 32, 70, 81-82, 86
Paper 9 at 13; Farber not prior art after priority determination