In Microsoft Corp v. Biscotti, Inc., [2016-2080, 2016-2082, 2016-2083] (December 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s determination in the IPR’s that Microsoft failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182 were anticipated or obvious.
The challenged patent related to “tools and techniques for providing video calling solutions” and relates to real-time video conferencing where two or more users communicate, over a network, in a conference that includes video and audio of each participant.
Microsoft appeared to challenge the standard of review of anticipation, so the Federal Circuit began by reiterating that anticipation is a question of fact subject to substantial evidence review. Noting that the Board correctly articulated the anticipation standard, the Federal Circuit considered whether the Board properly applied that standard. To anticipate the claimed invention, a prior art reference must disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, and it must disclose those elements arranged as in the claim, noted the Federal Circuit.
Citing that the Board may have used wording such as “identically” more liberally than it should have —because an anticipation analysis indisputably allows for some flexibility — the Federal Circuit found that the Board’s analysis did not suffer from a misapplication of the anticipation standard. The Federal Circuit found that the Board therefore did not require word-for-word similarity or perfection, and explicitly considered whether a POSA would “at once envisage” the combination of the claimed invention given the disconnected teachings of the reference.
However, even though the Board articulated the correct standard, and applied the correct standard, this did not mean that the Board’s analysis was correct. Microsoft argued that the Board read the prior art too narrowly, limiting certain disclosures to particular embodiments and not applying them to all disclosed embodiments.
The Federal Circuit said although Microsoft’s arguments were not unreasonable, it does not review this question de novo; anticipation is a question of fact, reviewed for substantial evidence. In light of this deference, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision.
The Federal Circuit found that Microsoft’s brief on appeal with respect to one claim was more detailed and contained substantial new arguments regarding anticipation, and rejected them because they were not presented in the Petition.