`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
`
`