Inadequate Board reasoning in TrustID

TRUSTID, Inc. (“TRUSTID”), the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,001,985 (“the ’985 patent”), appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that certain claims of the ’985 patent were shown to be unpatentable. Next Caller Inc. v. TRUSTID, Inc., No. IPR2019-00039 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2020), Paper No. 67, Corrected Non-Confidential Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 1–92 (“Final Written Decision”). Next Caller, Inc. (“Next Caller”) cross-appeals the Board’s determination that other claims of the ’985 patent were not shown to be unpatentable. We affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand. In particular, we affirm the Board’s decision finding claims 1– 7, 12–14, 16–18, and 22 of the ’985 patent unpatentable. However, because the Board did not adequately explain the reasoning for its non-obviousness determination as to claims 8–11, 19, and 20 of the ’985 patent, we vacate the Board’s decision with respect to those claims and remand for further proceedings.