Trial@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 21
`
`
`
`Entered: February 12, 2013
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MICHAEL ARNOUSE
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00010 (MT)
`Patent 7,516,484
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, JONI Y. CHANG and
`JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 21
`
`
`
`Entered: February 12, 2013
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MICHAEL ARNOUSE
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00010 (MT)
`Patent 7,516,484
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, JONI Y. CHANG and
`JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`On October 2, 2012, Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”) filed a
`petition requesting an inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,516,484 (“the
`’484 patent”).1 (“Pet.” Paper 2.) In response, the patent owner, Michael
`Arnouse (“Arnouse”), filed a preliminary response on January 7, 2013.
`(“PR” Paper 14.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) which provides:
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Motorola challenges the patentability of claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 of
`the ’484 patent. We determine that the information presented in the petition
`and patent owner preliminary response shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Motorola would prevail with respect to at least one
`challenged claim. Accordingly, we authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted for the ’484 patent.
`Motorola indicates that the ’484 patent is the subject of litigation
`styled Arnouse Digital Devices Corp. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., No. 5:11-
`cv-00155-cr (D. Vt.). (Pet. 2.)
`
`
`1 The Board has determined that the petition was timely filed. (Paper 20.)
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00010
`
`
`Patennt 7,516,4884
`
`
`
`A. TThe ’484 Paatent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’4844 patent deescribes a rreader adappted for a pportable coomputer.
`nd portabl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, Abss.) Accordding to the ’484 patennt, when thhe reader an
`
`
`
`
`
`compputer are cconnected ttogether, thhe combineed system
`
`becomes aa fully
`
`
`
`funcctional perssonal compputer. (Id.)) By itselff without c
`to the
`
`
`onnecting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`portaable compuuter, the reeader is a nnon-functiooning “shelll” that inccludes at
`
`
`
`
`leastt one inputt device andd at least oone output
`
`
`
`
`
`a dissplay. (Id.)) A user c
`
`
`
`
`annot interract with thhe portablee computerr without
`r
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the rreader. (Exx. 1001, Abbs.) Figurre 4, reprodduced beloow, shows aa computer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systeem that hass a portable computer and a pluurality of reeaders:
`
`device, suuch as a keyyboard andd
`
`e
`
`
`Figgure 4 illusstrates an eembodimennt of the ’4484 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As showwn in Figurre 4, a plur
`
`ality of reaaders may
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`locattions so thaat a user mmay use thee portable ccomputer iin those remmote
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`locattions. (Ex. 1001 6:599-7:6.) Thhe main funnction of thhe readers
` (Id.)
`
`
`
`
`a useer to interaact with thee portable ccomputer.
`
`be locatedd at variouss
`
`is to alloww
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`B. Representative Claim
`On the claims challenged, claims 1 and 15 are the only independent
`claims. Claims 3 and 7 depend from claim 1, and claims 16, 18, and 20
`depend from claim 15.
`Claim 15, reproduced below, is representative:
`A computing system comprising:
`at least one portable computer, each comprising:
`storage; and
`at least one connector for connecting to at least one reader;
`at least one reader, each comprising:
`an input device;
`an output device; and
`a connector for connecting to the at least one portable computer,
`wherein the portable computer excludes means for a user to
`interact directly with the portable computer,
`wherein the reader and portable computer are configured to
`become a fully functioning computer when connected,
`wherein the readers are configured so that they will not
`operate with a computer other than a portable computer of the
`system, and
`wherein the reader is configured to be a non-functioning
`shell when not connected to the portable computer.
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Motorola relies upon the following prior art references:
`(Ex. 1004)
`Nelson
`U.S. Patent 5,436,857
` Jul. 25, 1995
`Kobayashi U.S. Patent 5,463,742
` Oct. 31, 1995 (Ex. 1003)
`Jenkins
`U.S. Patent 6,029,183
` Feb. 22, 2000 (Ex. 1005)
`Warren
`U.S. Patent 6,999,792 B2 Feb. 14, 2006 (Ex. 1006)
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`Motorola challenges the patentability of claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18,
`and 20 of the ’484 patent based on the following grounds (Paper 2 at 3-4):
`1. Claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Warren.
`2. Claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Kobayashi.
`3. Claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Nelson.
`4. Claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Jenkins.
`5. Claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi, Nelson, or Warren in view
`of Jenkins.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`reasonable construction standard, claims are to be given their broadest
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim
`language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
`ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
`1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This means that the words of the claim will be given
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the
`specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In some
`cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of
`skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim
`construction in such cases involves little more than the application of widely
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`In its petition, Motorola states that the claim terms are presumed to
`take on their ordinary and customary meaning. (Pet. 5.) Motorola also
`states it “expressly reserves the right to present other interpretations of any
`of the ‘484 patent claims at a later time, which interpretation may differ, in
`whole or in part, from that presented within.” (Pet. 6.) In response, Arnouse
`argues that this statement amounts to a disavowal of any claim construction
`articulated in the petition and thus urges that the petition should be
`dismissed as incomplete. (PR 15-22.) We are not persuaded by Arnouse’s
`argument because Motorola also directs attention to the claim constructions
`made in the concurrent litigation, and identifies how the construed claims
`are unpatentable under the asserted grounds. (Pet. 38-52.) Moreover, we
`find Motorola’s statement reserving the right to present different
`interpretations in the future to carry little, if any, weight.
`Motorola identifies the following claim language in claim 15 for
`which claim construction is sought: “the portable computer excludes means
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`for a user to interact directly with the portable computer.” (Pet. 39-42.)
`In the related district court proceeding, Arnouse construed this limitation as2:
`By itself the portable computer cannot provide information
`to a user or receive information from a user. In other words,
`the portable computer needs the reader for the user to interact
`with the programs, hardware, and user information of the
`portable computer. (Ex. 1013 at 6, row 2, col. 3.3) (emphasis
`added)
`
`Motorola submitted the same construction (“by itself the portable
`computer cannot provide information to a user or receive information from a
`user”). (Ex. 1013 at 6, row 2, col. 2.)
`Because that construction is also consistent with the specification of
`the ’484 patent and the plain meaning of the claim terms, we adopt it for this
`proceeding. For instance, the specification provides (Ex. 1001 col. 5:63-
`6:31, emphasis added):
`
`
`2 Statements made in a related litigation may shed useful light to the
`meaning of the claim terms. Notably, the Joint Claim Construction and
`Prehearing Statement submitted by Motorola in Exhibit 1013 indicates how
`the parties construe the claim terms and where in the specification of the
`’484 patent provides support for the terms. However, we recognize that
`statements made in the course of litigation may include some degree of bias
`and may support an interpretation more narrow than the broadest reasonable
`interpretation given by the Office. We thus discount any conclusory
`unsupported statements as to the definition of a claim term, and any
`statements that are contrary to the plain meaning of a term or the written
`description of the patent.
`3 All references to the page numbers in Ex. 1013 refer to the page numbers
`located at the bottom, middle portion of each page.
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`In most embodiments, the computer does not contain
`means for a user to interact directly with the computer. In other
`embodiments, the computer contains means for interacting
`therewith. By interacting directly it is meant that a user cannot
`access the software programs, hardware or other functionality
`such as sounds, visuals, etc., on the computer without a
`portable computer reader, which provides the means for
`accessing the computer…
`As provided above, in one embodiment, the portable
`computer does not comprise means for a user to interact directly
`with the contents of the computer. For example, as shown in
`FIGS. 1-3, the portable computer does not have a display or
`monitor, a keyboard or keypad, voice input device, etc. Rather,
`such input devices are included on the portable computer
`readers. In other embodiments, the computer may have such
`input/output devices. For example, in one embodiment, the
`portable computer itself is a cell phone that can access the
`internet via a wireless network.
`
`The claim language “the portable computer excludes means for a user
`to interact directly with the portable computer” is also similarly recited in
`the preamble of claim 1 (“a portable computer without input and output
`means for interacting directly therewith”). In general, a preamble limits the
`invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is “necessary to give
`life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-
`Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, the preamble of
`claim 1 is entitled to patentable weight as it recites additional structure that
`is not included in the claim body. The parties do not dispute that the
`preamble of claim 1 is limiting. (Ex. 1013 at 1, row 1, col. 1-3.)
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`Lastly, we recognize that the claim element “means for a user to
`interact directly with the portable computer” is a means-plus-function
`element invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (now recodified as 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(f)). Based on the disclosure of the ’484 patent, the corresponding
`structure of that element is any component that allows a user to directly
`provide information to, or receive information from, the portable computer,
`such as a keyboard, keypad, display, or voice input device, on the portable
`computer. (Ex. 1001 col. 5:63-6:31, reproduced supra.)
`
`
`B. Anticipated by Warren
`Motorola asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Warren. (Pet. 42, citing to Ex. 1006.) We
`do not agree. Rather, we find that Warren does not describe all of the claim
`limitations.
`In particular, Warren does not disclose the limitation “the portable
`computer excludes means for a user to interact directly with the portable
`computer” as recited in claim 15 and similarly recited in claim 1.
`“Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
`expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a
`claimed invention.” RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d
`1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`Warren discloses an input-output device having a phone port for
`connecting to a portable phone. (Ex. 1006, col. 1:65-67.) For instance,
`Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates an input/output device in use with a
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00010
`
`
`Patennt 7,516,4884
`
`
`
`portaable phonee to commuunicate witth a compuuter and annother cell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`phone:
`
`
`Figure 1 iillustrates aan embodiiment of WWarren.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as a laptop commputer whiich includees a housinng 14, keybboard 16, mmicrophonee
`
`
`
`
`
`Referrinng to figuree 1 of Warrren, the inpput/output
`device 10
`is shown
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18, ddisplay screen 20, speeaker 22, aand phone
`
`
`interface 224 having aa support
`
`
`memmber 26 thaat supports
`
`
`
`the portabble phone 112 and a poort 28 for
`4:15-43.)
`Abs; col.
`
`
`
`
`
`commmunicatingg with the portable phhone 12. ((Ex. 1006,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wheen the portaable phonee 12 is inseerted into thhe supportt member 226, the userr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`may bring up aa web pagee or to vieww other datta on the diisplay 20 oor utilize
`
`
`
`
`the kkeyboard 16 to enter data. (Ex. 1006, col
`
`. 4:44-62.))
`
`
`As discuussed supraa, we cons
`
`
`true the di
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compputer excluudes means for a userr to interacct directly wwith the poortable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a useer or receivve informaation from a user. Mootorola equuates Warrren’s
`
`
`
`
`
`portaable phonee to the claiimed portaable compuuter. (Pet.
`
`43.) Howwever, we
`
`sputed limmitation “thhe portablee
`
`compputer” as the portablee computerr, by itselff, cannot prrovide infoormation too
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`do not find that Warren’s portable phone meets the disputed limitation
`because Warren’s portable phone includes a voice device, keyboard, and
`display screen, rather than excludes means for a user to interact directly with
`the portable phone.
`Specifically, Warren’s portable phone, by itself, may be used as a
`conventional portable phone allowing the user to interact directly with the
`portable phone such as engaging in a conversation with another person and
`accessing information (e.g., web pages or emails). (Ex. 1006, col. 1:20-27;
`1:37-61; 4:44-56; 5:1-4.) Warren’s portable phone has a mini keypad and
`display screen. (Id.) A user may enter data (e.g., email messages) using the
`mini keypad and access to text and images of web pages using the mini
`display screen. (Id.) Given those disclosures, Warren’s portable phone does
`not satisfy the limitation “the portable computer excludes means for a user
`to interact directly with the portable computer” as recited in claim 15 and
`similarly recited in claim 1. All other challenged claims depend from
`claim 1 or claim 15 and thereby require the same limitation.
` For the foregoing reasons, Motorola has not demonstrated that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its challenge that claims 1, 3,
`7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are anticipated by Warren. Accordingly, the petition is
`denied as to the ground based on Warren.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00010
`
`
`Patennt 7,516,4884
`
`
`
`Motorola asserts thhat the chaallenged claaims are unnpatentablle under 355
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Anticippated by KKobayashi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 102(aa) as anticippated by KKobayashi.
` (Pet. 6.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kobayasshi disclosees a singlee user compputer systeem that cann be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sepaarated into two parts: (1) a perssonal proceessor moduule (PPM)
`
`
`
`
`
`easilly transporrted (a porttable compputer); and
`
`
`(2) a dockking stationn that
`
`
`
`
`incluudes input and outputt devices such as a keeyboard annd a displaay.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stem by (Ex. 1003, col.. 3:9-17.) TThe user ggains accesss to the coomputer sys
`
`
`
`
`connnecting the PPM to thhe dockingg station. (
`Ex. 1003,
`
`col. 3:24-331.) Each
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PPMM has a processor withh related loogic, memmory (RAMM/ROM/CAASH
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMMORY), annd a mass storage deevice. (Ex.. 1003, col
`
`
`
`
`ated to perrsonal proccessing
`
`
`
`
`accoommodatess the hardwware and sooftware rel
`
`
`
`
`capaability, the customizeed operating system, tthe graphicc user interrface, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Ex. 10033, col. 3:188-23.) Figuure 1 of Koobayashi,
`
`
`the aapplicationn software.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reprooduced bellow, illustrrates severaal exemplaary PPMs aand dockinng stations
`
`that can bee
`
`. 3:40-47.)) The PPMM
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuure 1 of Koobayashi shhows severral exempllary PPMs
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`and dockinng stationss.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`The PPM does not contain user interface input/output devices and/or
`devices such a keyboard, display, printer and the like. (Ex. 1003, col. 3:53-
`55.) Therefore, the PPM always needs a docking station to allow user
`interaction. (Ex. 1003, col. 6:3-39.) The PPM works once it is connected to
`a docking station through a multi-connector. (Ex. 1003, col. 3:54-60.) The
`docking station has a physical connector 24 that interfaces with the PPM
`connector 22. (Ex. 1003, col. 5:64 to 6:1; Figures 2, 18-22.) As shown in
`Figures 2 and 18-22, the docking station is configured specifically to interact
`with the PPM.
`The docking station includes a housing, the input and output devices
`(e.g., keyboard and display), and the interfaces to those devices. (Ex. 1003,
`col. 4:1-5.) Figure 1 of Kobayashi shows a computer notebook 4 where the
`input device of the docking station comprises a keyboard and the connector
`is contained on the keyboard. (Ex. 1003, Figure1.) The docking station
`does not include a processor, the application software, and operating system,
`but rather these components are carried in and supplied by the PPM. (Ex.
`1003, col. 5:55-60; 6:14-26.)
`The explanations provided by Motorola as to how each element of the
`challenged claims is met by Kobayashi have merit and are unrebutted.
`Based on this record, Motorola has demonstrated that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and
`20 based on the ground that Kobayashi anticipates these claims.
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00010
`
`
`Patennt 7,516,4884
`
`
`
`Motorola asserts thhat the chaallenged claaims are unnpatentablle under 355
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Anticcipated byy Nelson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 102(aa) as anticippated by NNelson. (Peet. 14.)
`
`
`
`
`Nelson ddescribes aa personal ccomputer mmodule sy
`
`stem that hhas two
`
`
`
`
`sepaarable partss: (1) the pprocessor, hhard drive
`
`
`and memoory modulee 10
`1:37-52;
`
`
`
`
`(“proocessor moodule”), annd (2) a PCC base unit
`
`36. (Ex. 11004, col.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuure 2.) Figuure 2 of Neelson, reprroduced beelow, illusttrates a porrtable PC
`
`
`
`
`
`basee unit and aan associated processsor modulee:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 iillustrates an embodiiment of NNelson.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Nelsonn, reproducced below,
`
`
`unit:
`
`
`
`proccessor moddule and ann associatedd PC base u
`
`
`
`illustratess a block diiagram of aa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fiigure 1 of NNelson shoows a blockk diagram
`of a proce
`
`
`associateed PC basee unit.
`14
`
`
`ssor moduule and an
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`
`As shown in Figure 2 of Nelson, the PC base unit 36 is a portable PC
`base unit that includes a housing, a display 38, a keyboard 40, a base unit 12,
`and a receptacle 42 which is configured to receive the module 10.
`(Ex. 1004, col. 2:51-63.) A user may insert the processor module 10 into a
`PC base unit 36 to enable operations of the combined units as a complete
`data processing system. (Id.)
`Nelson’s processor module 10 includes a processor 14, a memory 16,
`a hard disk unit 18, a system controller 20, and an interface 22. (Ex. 1004,
`col. 2:25-30.) As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the processor module 10 does
`not include input and output devices for a user to interact directly with the
`processor module 10. (Ex. 1004, Figures 1-2.) Further, the PC base unit 12
`does not include a processor, system controller, and memory, and therefore
`it could not function when it is not connected to the processor module 10.
`(Id.)
`
`The interface 22 enables the processor module 10 to be coupled to the
`PC base unit 12. (Ex. 1004, col. 2:25-30.) The PC base unit interface 26
`engages the interface 22 of the module 10 to couple the module 10 to the
`base unit 12. (Ex. 1004, col. 2:35-37.) “As represented by the double-
`headed arrow 44 in Figure 2, the module 10 may be readily moved into and
`out of the housing of the portable PC 36, with the interface 22 of the module
`10 moving into and out of operative coupling with the interface 26 of the
`base unit 12.” (Ex. 1004, col. 2:57-63.)
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`The explanations provided by Motorola as to how each element of the
`challenged claims is met by Nelson have merit and are unrebutted. Based on
`this record, Motorola has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that it would prevail with respect to claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 based
`on the ground that Nelson anticipates these claims.
`
`
`E. Other Asserted Grounds
`Motorola also asserted that the challenged claims are anticipated by
`Jenkins and unpatentable over Kobayashi, Nelson, or Warren in view of
`Jenkins. Those asserted grounds are unnecessary as cumulative in light of
`the determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged
`claims are anticipated by Kobayashi and Nelson. Accordingly, the petition
`is denied as to the ground based on Jenkins and obviousness ground based
`on Kobayashi, Nelson, or Warren in view of Jenkins.
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the forgoing reasons, we determine that the information presented
`in the petition and patent owner preliminary response shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Motorola would prevail with respect to claims 1,
`3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’484 patent.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the forgoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review
`is hereby instituted for the following grounds:
`1. Claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 as anticipated by Kobayashi; and
`2. Claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 as anticipated by Nelson;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground is authorized for the
`inter partes review;
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`is commencing on the entry date of this decision; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board
`is scheduled for 2:00 PM Eastern Time on March 13, 2013; the parties are
`directed to the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48765-66, for
`guidance in preparing for the initial conference call, and should come
`prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the Scheduling Order entered
`herewith and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Ko-Fang Chang,
`Steven D. Moore,
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`kchang@kilpatricktownsend.com
`smoore@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lawrence H. Meier,
`Thomas D. Kohler,
`Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC
`lmeier@drm.com
`tkohler@drm.com
`
`
`18
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
