Background - The ’233 patent (CRFD) claims methods/systems to transfer an on‑going software session from a first device to a second device by (inter alia) discontinuing the session on the first device, transmitting a session history to a session‑transfer module, specifying a second device, and resuming the session on the second device. Claim 1 is representative. - Three prior art references were central: Phan (two conference papers describing iMASH/TWIST with middleware servers and pull/push handoff modes), Bates (patent describing sharing browser session info and various "share events"), and additional secondary refs (Chan, Zou) used in combinations for obviousness grounds. - Three consolidated appeals from PTAB IPR final written decisions: Iron Dome (IPR2015‑00055), DISH (IPR2015‑00627), and Hulu (IPR2015‑00259). Petitioners argued claims were anticipated or obvious by the cited prior art; CRFD defended validity. - The Board construed claim 1 to require that the session be discontinued before transmitting the session history but did not require that the second‑device specification occur before discontinuation. The Board found Phan (pull mode) and Phan Helsinki anticipate/teach the specifying/transmitting steps in Iron Dome and DISH proceedings, and found Bates did not anticipate the "after discontinuation" transmitting limitation in Hulu. - This Court affirmed the Board in the Iron Dome and DISH appeals (anticipation/obviousness findings based on Phan San Jose and Phan Helsinki), but reversed the Board in the Hulu appeal, holding the Board erred in its obviousness analysis regarding Bates and that Bates would have made the disputed "transmitting after discontinuation" limitation obvious. ### Issues | Issue | CRFD (or Patent Owner) Argument | Petitioners (Iron Dome/DISH/Hulu) Argument | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Whether claim 1 is anticipated by Phan San Jose (Iron Dome) | Phan’s pull mode does not "specify a second device" as claimed; therefore no anticipation | Phan San Jose (pull mode) discloses suspending session, saving session history to MWS, and later specifying/resuming on a second device — satisfying claim 1 | Affirmed: substantial evidence that Phan San Jose anticipates claim 1 (specifying can occur when second device resumes session) | | Whether claims 4–6, 8–11 are obvious over Phan San Jose + Phan Helsinki (Iron Dome) | Dependent claims add limitations not taught by Phan refs, so not obvious | Phan San Jose and Phan Helsinki, taken together, render dependent claim limitations obvious | Affirmed: Board reasonably found obviousness in view of Phan San Jose and Phan Helsinki | | Whether claims 1,4,23,25 are anticipated by Phan Helsinki (DISH) | Phan Helsinki identifies user by user‑ID but does not "specify a second device"; thus no anticipation | Phan Helsinki’s pull mode shows a second device is specified when a user logs in/acts on that device to resume session; MWS must be able to identify target device | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports anticipation by Phan Helsinki (specifying occurs when device/user acts to resume) | | Whether asserted claims are obvious over Bates (and combinations) because Bates teaches transmitting session history after session discontinuation (Hulu) | Bates transmits browser info during the browsing session (Figure 7); the Board found it likely occurs before or during session termination, not after — so claims nonobvious | Bates discloses options for transmission timing (user request, shutdown, idle) and its goal to preserve session history makes transmitting after discontinuation a predictable, finite design choice; thus Bates would have suggested the "after discontinuation" limitation | Reversed: Board erred by relying on anticipation findings and failing to analyze obviousness independently; a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Bates to transmit after discontinuation, making the asserted claims obvious over Bates (and combinations) | ### Key Cases Cited Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir.) (anticipation requires single reference disclose all claim limitations) Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir.) (anticipation standard: what skilled artisan would reasonably understand/infer) In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir.) (substantial evidence and considering entire reference for all teachings) KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (Sup. Ct.) (obviousness—predictable solutions and design choice rationale) Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir.) (obviousness is legal question based on subsidiary facts) Intelligent Bio‑Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.) (motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success for obviousness) * Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.) (review standard: factual findings for substantial evidence, legal conclusions de novo)