UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[Scruffer]

In Totality, Most claims Upheld; Progressing

Unless mistaken,

We hold that RPX has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–31 of the ’822 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

The ’822 patent is asserted in several cases in the District of Delaware. Pet. 2–3; Paper 4, 2–3; Paper 15, 2–3. In addition, we have
IPR2016-00234 Patent 7,941,822 B2 3 instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23, and 29 of the ’822 patent in IPR2016-01744.

http://www.merchantpostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/PTAB-05252017-RPX-7941822-IPR2016-00234.pdf

This brings us here where 8 of the 31 claims not patentable. UOIP still progressing.

These may have been overall supporting claims describing the patent in totality with additional detail, used to technically and legally describe the entire patent in complete and absolute detail.

This may have been a temporary momentum win for Cisco, but not much has changed. No need to interpret this out of proportion.

Intellectual property utility patents require them to be useful, novel (new) and non-obvious. Still got it.

Cisco, IPR2016-01889, Paper 10, slip op. at 13–14. In reaching this conclusion, we noted that the patents-at-issue “discuss[] RF channels in terms of frequency bands.” Id. at 10. Furthermore, in response to argument that CDMA channels are encompassed by the claims because the specification “teaches that both analog and digital signals can be sent using modulation carrier, such as in digital PCS and cellular telephone and that the cellular CDMA defines two types of channels—CDMA and code channels” (id. at 11 (internal quotation omitted)), we observed that “Petitioner does not explain why this would be the case and does not cite to any evidence” to support the conclusion that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand “RF channel” to include CDMA and code channels (id.).

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2016-01744%2F28

My interpretation (for what it's worth) is similar to ice's.

As papa p wrote, need Arris's appeal to fail. I believe someone wrote, they were beyond their time to file.

Patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=7%2C941%2C822&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

All JMHO.