US 9595008

Here is a concise summary of US patent 9,595,008:

US Patent 9,595,008 Summary

• Title: Systems, methods, apparatus for evaluating status of computing device user
• Assignee: Nobots LLC
• Inventor: Timothy P. Heikell
• Filing Date: 2008-11-19
• Issue Date: 2017-03-14

Abstract:
Methods, systems and apparatus for assessing the likely user status of a client computing device interacting with a server where the computing device is in bi-directional operative communication with the server, wherein the likely user status is one of a human operator or a computer executable program such as a “bot”. By presenting issued data from the server to the client computing device and monitoring at least some of the data generated at the client computing device in response to the issued data, a comparison can be made between the monitored data and model data relating to human interaction with or in response to the issued data. The results of the comparison can lead to a value that represents the likelihood that the monitored data results from human interaction with or in response to the issued data. Modeled data includes, but is not limited to, data indicative of human interaction with a computing environment, whether active or passive.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method for determining how confident one can be that a person, not an automated program ("bot"), is operating a client computing device that is interacting with a server. The method involves:
  • A user on a client device asking a server for data.
  • The server sending data to that client device.
  • Observing data that the user generates on the client device in response to the server's data.
  • Comparing this observed user data to pre-existing "model data" which represents typical human interaction.
  • Generating a confidence score indicating the likelihood that the observed data came from a human rather than a bot.
• Independent Claim 19: This claim describes an alternative method for assessing the confidence level that a human, rather than an automated program, operated a client computing device. This assessment happens before the server sends any specific data to the client device. The method comprises:
  • Gathering "interest data" from the client computing device before the server delivers its data.
  • Comparing this interest data to "model data" that represents how humans typically interact with a computing device before such interest data is acquired.
  • Generating a confidence score indicating the likelihood that a human, not a bot, was operating the client device at the time the interest data was gathered.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, the patent US9595008B1 has been the subject of an appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (case 24-1432, Nobots v. Google). Google, LLC challenged the patentability of US9595008B1, and on November 20, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a ruling reversing the underlying patentability determination and remanding the case. This indicates that while a decision has been made, the legal proceedings related to the patent's validity are ongoing and have implications for 2026.

US Patent 9595008 has been involved in several litigation cases. Here's a summary of the known cases:

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Case:

• Case Number: IPR2022-00940 [cite: Original Patent]
• Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents [cite: Original Patent, 4, 7]
• Defendant(s): Nobots LLC (current assignee of US9595008) [cite: Original Patent]
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Filing Date: April 29, 2022 (Effective date of IPR filing) [cite: Original Patent]
• Outcome/Status: Final Written Decision issued. [cite: Original Patent]

District Court Cases:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court [cite: Original Patent]
  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-01290 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Nobots LLC (implied, as the assignee of the patent) [cite: Original Patent]
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent information.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent information.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation. [cite: Original Patent]
• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court [cite: Original Patent]
  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-00585 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Nobots LLC (implied, as the assignee of the patent) [cite: Original Patent]
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent information.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent information.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation. [cite: Original Patent]

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Case:

• Case Number: 24-1432 [cite: Original Patent]
• Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided patent information.
• Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent information.
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: Original Patent]
• Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent information.
• Outcome/Status: Litigation. [cite: Original Patent]

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 9,595,008: IPR2022-00940. This proceeding initially resulted in the invalidation of most challenged claims by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with two claims sustained. Upon appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB's decision on one of the sustained claims, resulting in its invalidation. Consequently, claims 1-17, 19, and 20 of US9595008B1 have been deemed unpatentable, leaving only claim 18 as sustained. This provides a strong defensive posture for a defendant, as the vast majority of the patent's claims have been canceled.

IPR2022-00940 — Google LLC v. Nobots LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: April 2022
• Status: Final Written Decision issued by PTAB on 2023-11-29; appealed to the Federal Circuit, with a decision issued on 2025-11-20 reversing the PTAB's finding for claim 19 and remanding the case.
• Judge panel: Cocks, joined by Pettigrew and Parvis (at PTAB). MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO, Circuit Judge, and CHUN, District Judge (on appeal at Federal Circuit).
• Petition grounds: Google LLC challenged all twenty claims (1-20) of US9595008B1. At least one ground invoked U.S. Patent Application No. 2008/0114624 (Kitts) to argue claim 19 was unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103.
• Institution decision: Instituted. Google successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR of all twenty claims of the '008 patent. The precise date of the institution decision is not publicly available in the search results.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2023-11-29): The PTAB rejected Google's challenges to claims 18 and 19, holding them patentable. All other claims (1-17, 20) were held unpatentable. The PTAB initially upheld claim 19 based on its construction of "acquiring interest data." Nobots LLC argued this phrase required "active data," despite the patent defining "interest data" as "active or passive data."
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; a Final Written Decision was issued and subsequently appealed.
• Appeal: Yes, Google LLC appealed the PTAB's upholding of claim 19 to the Federal Circuit (Docket Number 24-1432). The Federal Circuit issued its ruling on 2025-11-20, reversing the Board's determination that claim 19 is not unpatentable. The Federal Circuit found the Board's claim construction of "acquiring interest data" erroneous, concluding that the phrase applies even when only passive data are obtained. Since Nobots LLC did not dispute that unpatentability would follow under Google's proposed construction, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board's upholding of claim 19. The case was remanded.
• Defensive value: This proceeding significantly narrowed the patent. Claims 1-17 and 20 were found unpatentable by the PTAB. Claim 19, initially upheld by the PTAB, was subsequently found unpatentable by the Federal Circuit. Only claim 18 remains patentable. Any infringement theory relying on claims 1-17, 19, or 20 is likely without merit or would face substantial challenges.

Strategic summary

As a result of IPR2022-00940 and its subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit, claims 1-17, 19, and 20 of US9595008B1 are now CANCELED as unpatentable. Only claim 18 has been SUSTAINED. This represents a substantial narrowing of the patent's scope.

Regarding estoppel, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Google LLC (the petitioner) and its privies are estopped from asserting in a civil action or ITC investigation that claims 1-17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable on any ground that Google raised or reasonably could have raised during IPR2022-00940 based on patents or printed publications. However, this estoppel primarily impacts the petitioner. For other potential defendants, prior-art grounds not raised by Google, or grounds of invalidity not permissible in an IPR (e.g., challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or § 112, or prior art that is not a patent or printed publication), may still be available.

The pattern of litigation shows that Google LLC, a major tech company, initiated the IPR against Nobots LLC, a common type of patent owner that can be associated with patent assertion entities. The fact that Google challenged all claims and largely succeeded, even pursuing an appeal to invalidate an additional claim, signals a strong belief in the invalidity of the patent. The Federal Circuit's reversal on claim construction for claim 19 demonstrates that careful claim interpretation remains critical in these proceedings.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US9595008B1, the primary takeaway is the significant reduction in patent scope. Claims 1-17, 19, and 20 are now canceled. Any demand letter or infringement theory citing these claims has been largely negated.

• Review the Federal Circuit's opinion in Google LLC v. Nobots LLC, No. 24-1432 (Fed. Cir. 2025-11-20), available on CourtListener or the Federal Circuit's docket, paying close attention to the claim construction for "acquiring interest data" and its impact on claim 19. The Federal Circuit's reversal of the Board's determination for claim 19 means: "We hold that the Board's claim construction was erroneous, and we therefore reverse the Board's determination that claim 19 is not unpatentable." This effectively invalidates claim 19.
• Focus defensive efforts on claim 18, which remains the only surviving claim. Conduct thorough prior art searches and invalidity analyses specifically targeting claim 18, potentially exploring grounds not raised in the IPR (e.g., different prior art, § 101 or § 112 challenges if applicable).
• Given the remand, monitor the PTAB's docket for IPR2022-00940 to see how the Board addresses the Federal Circuit's remand regarding claim 19. While the Federal Circuit's decision strongly points to claim 19 being unpatentable, the remand technically means further proceedings could occur at the PTAB.

Inventors

• Timothy P. Heikell (Employer at time of filing: Individual)

Original assignee

The original assignee, Timothy P. Heikell, appears to have been an individual inventor at the time of filing, as indicated by "Original Assignee: Individual" on Google Patents. The patent was later assigned to Nobots LLC. It is unclear whether Timothy P. Heikell shipped a product embodying the claims prior to the assignment to Nobots LLC. Nobots LLC is the current assignee and is involved in litigation concerning this patent.

Assignment timeline

• 2020-05-25 (executed) / recorded 2020-05-27 — Reel 052770/0389
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Heikell, Timothy P.
  • Assignee: NOBOTS LLC
  • Correspondent: Matthew J. R. Marquadt, PO Box 31228, Seattle, WA 98103
  • Context: Transfer to asserter

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9595008
    2008 : Filed by Timothy P. Heikell
    2017 : Issued to Timothy P. Heikell
    2020 : Assigned to NOBOTS LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While Nobots LLC's name does not explicitly contain "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures", its primary line of business is not apparent from the patent information alone. The correspondent's address is a PO Box, which can sometimes be a characteristic of shell entities, but this alone is not definitive.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Nobots LLC is a known NPE, as evidenced by its involvement in litigation (e.g., IPR2022-00940 against Google LLC) and the ongoing appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Only one assignment is recorded, so there is no recurrence of a correspondent within this specific chain. Matthew J. R. Marquadt is the correspondent for the single recorded assignment.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is only one recorded assignment for this patent.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The assignment to Nobots LLC was executed on 2020-05-25 and recorded on 2020-05-27. While there is current litigation, the exact date of the first infringement suit naming this patent is not provided in the readily available information, making it unclear if the transfer occurred within 6 months prior.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy proceedings for the original assignee, Timothy P. Heikell, or the current assignee, Nobots LLC, is present in the provided information.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no information provided to suggest an operating company transferred the patent to Nobots LLC to assert on its behalf against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends at Nobots LLC, which is involved in patent assertion.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The patent was assigned from the individual inventor to Nobots LLC, which is identified as an NPE actively engaged in litigation related to this patent, including an Inter Partes Review against Google LLC and an appeal at the Federal Circuit. This pattern, coupled with Nobots LLC being the current assignee, strongly indicates an NPE assertion strategy.

USPTO Assignment Center search page

To determine the most relevant prior art for US patent 9595008, I will examine the "Cited By" and "Citations" sections of the patent information provided, as these list patents and non-patent literature considered by the examiner or by the applicant during prosecution. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 means that every element of a claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.

Here's an analysis of the citations for US9595008, focusing on potential anticipation:

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 9595008

The following prior art references were cited against US9595008. For each, I'll provide a brief description and indicate which claims it might potentially anticipate, keeping in mind that anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element of a claim.

Patent Citations (Examiner Cited)

1. US8775236B2

   • Full Citation: US8775236B2, "Electronic toll management and vehicle identification"
   • Publication Date: 2014-07-08
   • Priority Date: 2003-02-21
   • Assignee: Accenture Global Services Limited
   • Description: This patent describes systems and methods for electronic toll management and vehicle identification, which may involve monitoring vehicle interaction and data for various purposes.
   • Potential Anticipation: While this patent deals with monitoring and identification, it is in a different domain (toll management vs. bot detection). Its relevance to US9595008's claims would depend on whether it explicitly discloses the comparison of monitored user interaction data with model data of human interaction to generate a confidence level for distinguishing humans from automated programs. It is unlikely to anticipate Claim 1 or 19 directly due to the differing application and the specificity of "human interaction" and "autonomic computer application" as defined in US9595008.

2. US8738287B2

   • Full Citation: US8738287B2, "Systems and methods for off-board voice-automated vehicle navigation"
   • Publication Date: 2014-05-27
   • Priority Date: 2004-09-10
   • Assignee: Sirius Xm Connected Vehicle Services Inc.
   • Description: This patent focuses on voice-automated vehicle navigation systems.
   • Potential Anticipation: Similar to US8775236B2, this patent is in a distinct application domain. It is highly unlikely to anticipate claims of US9595008, as it does not appear to address the core problem of distinguishing human users from bots based on general computing device interaction.

3. US8700259B2

   • Full Citation: US8700259B2, "Systems and methods for off-board voice-automated vehicle navigation"
   • Publication Date: 2014-04-15
   • Priority Date: 2004-09-10
   • Assignee: Agero Connected Services, Inc.
   • Description: This patent is also related to voice-automated vehicle navigation.
   • Potential Anticipation: As with US8738287B2, the different technical field makes direct anticipation of US9595008's claims improbable.

4. US8706405B2

   • Full Citation: US8706405B2, "Systems and methods for off-board voice-automated vehicle navigation"
   • Publication Date: 2014-04-22
   • Priority Date: 2005-01-05
   • Assignee: Agero Connected Services, Inc.
   • Description: This patent also describes systems for voice-automated vehicle navigation.
   • Potential Anticipation: Unlikely to anticipate US9595008 due to the differing subject matter.

5. US8694244B2

   • Full Citation: US8694244B2, "Systems and methods for off-board voice-automated vehicle navigation"
   • Publication Date: 2014-04-08
   • Priority Date: 2005-01-05
   • Assignee: Agero Connected Services, Inc.
   • Description: Another patent concerning voice-automated vehicle navigation systems.
   • Potential Anticipation: Unlikely to anticipate US9595008 due to the differing subject matter.

6. US8825379B2

   • Full Citation: US8825379B2, "Systems and methods for off-board voice-automated vehicle navigation"
   • Publication Date: 2014-09-02
   • Priority Date: 2005-01-05
   • Assignee: Sirius Xm Connected Vehicle Services Inc.
   • Description: Similar to the above, this patent relates to voice-automated vehicle navigation.
   • Potential Anticipation: Unlikely to anticipate US9595008 due to the differing subject matter.

7. US8824659B2

   • Full Citation: US8824659B2, "System and method for speech-enabled call routing"
   • Publication Date: 2014-09-02
   • Priority Date: 2005-01-10
   • Assignee: At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.
   • Description: This patent describes a system and method for routing calls using speech recognition.
   • Potential Anticipation: While involving user interaction (speech), the specific context of "speech-enabled call routing" is different from detecting bots in general computing device interaction, and thus unlikely to anticipate US9595008's claims.

8. US9088652B2

   • Full Citation: US9088652B2, "System and method for speech-enabled call routing"
   • Publication Date: 2015-07-21
   • Priority Date: 2005-01-10
   • Assignee: At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.
   • Description: Another patent related to speech-enabled call routing.
   • Potential Anticipation: Unlikely to anticipate US9595008 due to the differing subject matter.

9. US8775235B2

   • Full Citation: US8775235B2, "Electric toll management"
   • Publication Date: 2014-07-08
   • Priority Date: 2005-06-10
   • Assignee: Accenture Global Services Limited
   • Description: This patent covers electric toll management systems.
   • Potential Anticipation: Unlikely to anticipate US9595008 due to the differing subject matter.

10. US9240078B2

    • Full Citation: US9240078B2, "Electronic toll management"
    • Publication Date: 2016-01-19
    • Priority Date: 2005-06-10
    • Assignee: Accenture Global Services Limited
    • Description: This patent also describes electronic toll management.
    • Potential Anticipation: Unlikely to anticipate US9595008 due to the differing subject matter.

11. US9208461B2

    • Full Citation: US9208461B2, "Management and allocation of services using remote computer connections"
    • Publication Date: 2015-12-08
    • Priority Date: 2006-04-04
    • Assignee: Busa Strategic Partners, Llc
    • Description: This patent relates to managing and allocating services via remote computer connections.
    • Potential Anticipation: While involving remote computer connections, its focus on "management and allocation of services" is broad. To anticipate US9595008, it would need to specifically detail the comparison of user-generated data against human interaction models to assess bot status, which is not immediately apparent from the title.

12. US20080225870A1

    • Full Citation: US20080225870A1, "Methods, systems, and computer program products for providing predicted likelihood of communication between users"
    • Publication Date: 2008-09-18
    • Priority Date: 2007-03-15
    • Assignee: Sundstrom Robert J
    • Description: This publication describes methods for predicting the likelihood of communication between users.
    • Potential Anticipation: This reference is relatively closer in the sense of analyzing "user" behavior, but the context is predicting communication likelihood, not distinguishing humans from bots using active/passive interaction data against human models to generate a confidence score for access control. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate Claim 1 or 19.

13. US9152381B2

    • Full Citation: US9152381B2, "Systems and methods employing unique device for generating random signals and metering and addressing, e.g., unusual deviations in said random signals"
    • Publication Date: 2015-10-06
    • Priority Date: 2007-11-09
    • Assignee: Psyleron, Inc.
    • Description: This patent focuses on generating and analyzing random signals, potentially for detecting unusual deviations.
    • Potential Anticipation: This patent's focus on random signal generation and deviation analysis is quite different from the behavioral biometrics and human-bot distinction of US9595008. It is unlikely to anticipate any claims.

14. US8903052B2

    • Full Citation: US8903052B2, "Voice print tagging of interactive voice response sessions"
    • Publication Date: 2014-12-02
    • Priority Date: 2013-03-15
    • Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
    • Description: This patent describes tagging interactive voice response sessions using voice prints.
    • Potential Anticipation: While involving biometric-like data (voice prints) for user interaction, it is specific to voice response sessions and tagging, rather than the broader human-bot distinction based on diverse active/passive data in a general computing environment, as claimed in US9595008. The priority date of 2013 is also after US9595008's priority date of 2007-11-19, so it would not be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Non-Patent Citations (Examiner Cited)

1. "A proactive risk-aware robotic sensor network for Critical Infrastructure Protection"

   • Full Citation: Jamieson McCausland; George Di Nardo; Rafael Falcon; Rami Abielmona; Voicu Groza; Emil Petriu, "A proactive risk-aware robotic sensor network for Critical Infrastructure Protection" 2013 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Virtual Environments for Measurement Systems and Applications (CIVEMSA) Year: 2013 pp. 132-137.
   • Publication Date: 2013
   • Description: This paper discusses robotic sensor networks for critical infrastructure protection, focusing on risk awareness.
   • Potential Anticipation: The focus on robotic sensor networks and critical infrastructure protection is distinct from the human-bot assessment in a general computing device interaction. The publication date (2013) is also after US9595008's priority date of 2007-11-19, so it would not be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

2. "Testability modeling and analysis of a rocket engine test stand"

   • Full Citation: G. Temple; N. Jize; P. Wysocki, "Testability modeling and analysis of a rocket engine test stand" 2005 IEEE Aerospace Conference Year: 2005 pp. 3874-3895, DOI: 10.1109/AERO.2005.1559694 IEEE Conference Publications.
   • Publication Date: 2005
   • Description: This paper is about testability modeling and analysis in the context of a rocket engine test stand.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference is in a completely different technical field (aerospace engineering) and does not appear to relate to user status assessment in computing devices. Therefore, it is highly unlikely to anticipate any claims of US9595008. The publication date of 2005 is before the priority date of US9595008, making it potential prior art if relevant.

3. "Trust Assessment from Observed Behavior: Toward and Essential Service for Trusted Network Computing"

   • Full Citation: P. Pal; F. Webber; M. Atighetchi; N. Combs, "Trust Assessment from Observed Behavior: Toward and Essential Service for Trusted Network Computing" Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA'06) Year: 2006 pp. 285-292, DOI: 10.1109/NCA.2006.53 IEEE Conference Publications.
   • Publication Date: 2006
   • Description: This paper discusses trust assessment based on observed behavior for trusted network computing.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference is highly relevant as it deals with "trust assessment from observed behavior" in "trusted network computing," which aligns with the general problem US9595008 addresses (determining user status based on observed behavior). To anticipate Claim 1 or 19, this paper would need to specifically disclose:
     • Presenting data from a server to a client.
     • Monitoring data generated by the user in response to issued data.
     • Comparing this monitored data to model data relating to human interaction.
     • Generating a confidence level that the monitored data is a result of human interaction rather than an autonomic computer application.
     • Alternatively, for Claim 19, acquiring "interest data" prior to delivering issued data, comparing it to "model data relating to human interaction," and generating a confidence level of human operation prior to acquisition.

   The concept of "observed behavior" and "trust assessment" is similar to "evaluating status of computing device user." The publication date of 2006 is before US9595008's priority date, making it a strong candidate for prior art analysis.

Summary of Potential Anticipation:

Based on the titles and brief descriptions, the most relevant prior art for potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 appears to be the non-patent citation by P. Pal et al., "Trust Assessment from Observed Behavior: Toward and Essential Service for Trusted Network Computing" (2006). This is because it directly addresses "observed behavior" and "trust assessment" in a computing context, which aligns with the core inventive concept of US9595008. All other listed patent citations appear to be in distinct technical domains (vehicle navigation, call routing, toll management, random signal generation) and are unlikely to disclose every element of claims 1 or 19 of US9595008. The priority dates for several of the patent citations and one non-patent citation are after the priority date of US9595008, thus they cannot serve as prior art for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

A thorough anticipation analysis would require a detailed comparison of the full text of the Pal et al. paper against each element of claims 1 and 19 of US9595008.

I'll ground the §103 analysis in the actual record before drafting. Let me verify the IPR grounds and the Federal Circuit posture.

Fetching the IPR ground structure (references and combinations) to anchor the §103 analysis.

One more check: the identity/filing dates of the primary IPR references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,595,008 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Bottom line up front. The § 103 case against the ’008 patent is not a close call on the merits — it was largely won — but it is a case that was made almost entirely with art that does not appear in the "Prior Art" section of this page. The references in that section (electronic toll management, off‑board vehicle navigation, speech‑enabled call routing, voice‑print tagging) are, with two exceptions, non‑analogous citation‑list artifacts. The art that actually invalidated claims 1–17 and 20, and claim 19 on appeal, is Willner (US 2009/0024971), O'Connell (US 2007/0239604) and Kitts (US 2008/0114624) — which do appear on this page, but under the family‑citation and PTAB sections. Below I triage the "Prior Art" section as instructed, then supply the operative combinations and their motivations, and finally address the only claim still standing, claim 18.

0. Posture and flagged contradictions

Contradictions with the earlier sections — flagged, not auto‑corrected:

1. Petitioner identity. The earlier litigation summary attributes IPR2022‑00940 to "Unified Patents." The page's own Legal Events list "Opponent name: GOOGLE LLC," and both the FWD and the Federal Circuit caption read Google LLC v. Nobots LLC. "Unified Patents" appears on the page as the data‑source attribution adjacent to the PTAB portal link, not as the petitioner. Treat Google LLC as petitioner.
2. "Reversed and remanded." The earlier summary says the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The opinion's disposition is a bare "REVERSED" ("The decision of the Board is reversed.") and the Fed Circuit Blog describes it the same way. There is no remand instruction in the text. (Mechanically the Board must still issue a revised decision/certificate, which likely explains the "remand" shorthand.)
3. "Canceled" / "sustained." Claims held unpatentable are canceled by certificate after appeals conclude (35 U.S.C. § 318(b)). Claim 18 was not "sustained" in the sense of an affirmative validity holding — it survived a failure of proof by the petitioner. Note the doctrinal oddity that claim 18 depends from claim 1, which was held unpatentable.
4. The "Prior Art" section is off‑target for this patent. Its 14 examiner‑cited patent references are dominated by Accenture toll patents, Agero/Sirius XM navigation patents and AT&T call‑routing patents — all directed to a different technical problem. They do not address human‑vs‑bot assessment and would be attacked as non‑analogous art.

1. Governing standard

Pre‑AIA § 103(a) applies (application filed 2008‑11‑19, effective priority 2007‑11‑19). The inquiry is the flexible KSR test: whether the differences between the claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter "as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made," requiring (i) a reason to combine and (ii) a reasonable expectation of success. Conclusory assertions will not do — there must be "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning." KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); In re Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

2. Triage of the references actually listed in the "Prior Art" section

Conclusion on the "Prior Art" section standing alone: Pal et al. + Sundstrom + Busa + Psyleron, even combined, would not render claim 1 obvious. None discloses comparing monitored user‑generated data to model data relating to human interaction to generate a human‑vs‑bot confidence value. A combination built from these would fail on (a) analogous‑art and (b) motivation, and the examiner‑cited patent list is largely irrelevant to the ’008's problem. Any serious § 103 challenge must use the operative art below.

3. The operative art (record‑grounded; drawn from elsewhere on this page)

Source caveat: the O'Sullivan, Meek, Kroll and ’941 ground descriptions come from the IPR2022‑00941 summary (secondary/AI‑generated) and the ’008 exhibit list. Verify the primary exhibits before relying on them in a filing.

4. Claim 1 element‑by‑element, and the combination catalog

Combination A — Willner alone (§ 103, alternatively § 102)

Motivation: none needed for a single‑reference § 103; for the alternative § 102 mapping, Willner's abstract expressly recites every functional element. Corroborated failure of proof: in the IPR, Patent Owner did not dispute that Willner meets claims 1–3 and 6–17 (Petitioner's demonstratives, Ex. 1058). Claims 1–17 and 20 were held unpatentable.

Combination B — Willner + Kitts (claims 4–5; and reinforcements throughout)

What Kitts adds: passive data (IP address, residence) as model data, and a probability‑of‑bot output.

Motivation (explicit teaching/suggestion, KSR prong 1): Kitts teaches that passive data is useful "[a]dditionally" with other "parameters" to "determine the probability" of the user being a bot, and identifies passive data as "an important tool" in bot detection. Google's expert testimony established that a POSA would add Kitts's passive‑data attributes to Willner's cursor analysis to improve detection accuracy (Reply Decl. of Lopresti, Ex. 1042, ¶¶5–7).

Patent Owner's counter‑argument, and why it fails: Nobots argued the combination's "drawbacks outweigh the potential benefits" (cost/complexity) and that there was no expectation of success. The Federal Circuit's precedent cited in the reply disposes of that: even an admitted cost increase is "insufficient to reject … arguments as to why a skilled artisan would have been motivated," Grit Energy v. Oren Techs., 957 F.3d 1309, 1323–24 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and "a given combination would not be made by businessmen for economic reasons does not mean that persons skilled in the art would not make the combination," In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Combination C — O'Connell alone, and O'Connell + Kitts (claims 1–5)

O'Connell supplies user‑browser interaction model data (claims 2–3 species) and, with Kitts, passive model data (claims 4–5). Patent Owner disputed only the "model data" and "passive data" mappings — i.e., the combination was otherwise conceded.

Combination D — Kitts alone (claim 19)

After the Federal Circuit's construction — "acquiring interest data" means gaining possession of whatever is within the category of 'interest data,' which can be passive data alone — Kitts's IP‑address/residence attributes satisfy claim 19(a), which made claim 19 unpatentable. Nobots expressly "does not dispute that unpatentability follows if we reject the Board's construction."

Cross‑record combination — O'Sullivan + Willner; Meek + Willner or Kroll

In the parallel IPR on the sibling ’885 patent (IPR2022‑00941), the same art family was used: O'Sullivan + Willner for claims 1–3, 5–6, 8, 10, 12–16 and 18–20, and Meek + Willner/Kroll. Motivation: identical problem, overlapping/shared inventors, and Willner's explicit teaching of the "stochastic pattern in human cursor movement vectors" — an express invitation to improve a click‑fraud/bot screen with better biometric analysis. Expectation of success: both are software analytics over the same input stream.

5. Claim‑by‑claim conclusion

6. Claim 18 — the only live claim, and how it can still be attacked

Claim 18 = claim 1 plus "repeating a)–c) and comparing the first instance of the value of d) to the second instance of the value of d)."

The Board held Google failed to prove this element, and the reason is instructive: according to Patent Owner's response, Google offered "only a single, conclusory obviousness sentence," which Nobots characterized as "untethered from the disclosures of the prior art and premised solely on hindsight bias" (POR). That is a proof defect, not a technical distinction.

A competent § 103 attack on claim 18 would require:

1. Primary art: Willner + Kitts (Combination B) for the claim‑1 steps.
2. Secondary art that expressly discloses repeated evaluation with comparison of successive scores. Candidates on/adjacent to this page: Yahoo's "Progressive captcha" (US 2009/0113294 A1, priority 2007‑10‑30 — a § 102(e) reference, and it appears in this page's family‑citation list), which escalates testing based on accumulating bot suspicion; Meek's continuous/trusted‑component monitoring; and the minimum expected human response time art (US 7,516,220 B1).
3. Rational underpinning (the step the Board found missing): successive scores from a single observation are noisy; aggregating or trend‑comparing successive classifications is conventional statistical pattern classification — precisely what Google's exhibits in this record establish (Jain, Statistical Pattern Recognition: A Review (2000); Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (2006); Duda, Pattern Classification (2001), Exs. 1043–1045). That supplies the "reasoned explanation" (In re Magnum Oil) the Board found absent.

Also worth noting — a § 112(b) soft spot. Claim 18 recites "the value of d)," but step d) is the comparing step; the value is generated in step e). Claim 18 also repeats only a)–c) while purporting to compare two instances of a "value" produced elsewhere in the method. This antecedent‑basis/indefiniteness flaw sits outside IPR estoppel and is available to any accused infringer or third‑party challenger. (My reading of the claim text, not a holding.)

Practical note on scope: because claim 18 depends from claim 1 and incorporates every step of claim 1, an accused product must practice all of claim 1 plus the repeat‑and‑compare increment. The surviving claim is therefore narrow — but a defendant should not assume it is invalid merely because the parent claim fell.

7. Limits of this analysis

• The FWD's and the petition's paragraph‑level mappings to Willner/O'Connell/Kitts are summarized here from party filings and secondary sources; the primary exhibits (Exs. 1005, 1007, 1009) should be read before any filing.
• O'Sullivan, Meek and Kroll disclosures are sourced from the sibling IPR2022‑00941 summary and should be independently verified.
• The "Prior Art" section of this page cannot support a § 103 challenge; if it is the only art available to you, the honest answer is that claims 1, 18 and (pre‑Kitts) 19 are not provable as obvious from that list alone.
• Estoppel asymmetry: under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), the petitioner and its privies are estopped as to grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised (note that O'Sullivan, Meek, Broder, Tanzer, Afergan, Ge, English and Alspector were all listed as exhibits in the ’008 IPR even though no ground rested on several of them). Third parties are not so limited and retain § 101, § 112 and non‑printed‑publication defenses against claim 18.