DSS Tech. v. Apple (Fed. Cir. 2018)
In its March 23 opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed two USPTO IPR decisions favoring the patent challenger — holding that “the Board did not provide a sufficient explanation for its conclusions” of obviousness.
In its decision, the PTAB held that the “ordinary creativity” of a skilled artisan would supplied the previously undisclosed function of energizing a transmitter base-station using “low duty cycle RF bursts” — even though it was not taught in any of the cited prior art. The PTAB did not provide evidence to support its creative-leap. Still, that leap might have been appropriate if the addition was “unusually simple” or “particularly straightforward.” On appeal though, the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB had not shown its case — its conclusions lacked evidentiary support.
Dissent by Judge Newman mostly on procedure.