Paper 21
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 28, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`CARDIOCOM, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review and Joinder With Case IPR2013-00468
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108, 42.122
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
` A. Background
`
`Cardiocom, LLC (Petitioner) filed a Petition to institute an inter partes
`
`review of claims 20-37 of U.S. Patent No. 7,516,192 B2 (―the ‘192 patent‖).
`
`Paper 1. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. (Patent Owner) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), which provides as follows:
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 on the following specific grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`Wright Jr., U.S. Patent No.
`5,704,029 (Ex. 1002)
`Wright Jr. and Goodman, U.S.
`Patent No. 5,827,180 (Ex.
`1003)
`Goodman and Wahlquist, U.S.
`Patent No. 5,367,667 (Ex.
`1004)
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 102
`
`20-23, 29-30, and
`35-36
`20-37
`
`§ 103
`
`20-37
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`For the reasons given below, we grant the Petition and institute an
`
`inter partes review of all claims challenged.1
`
`B. Additional Proceedings
`
`Petitioner asserts that the ‘192 patent is the subject of co-pending district
`
`court litigation: Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems v. Cardiocom, LLC, Civil
`
`Action No. 2:13-cv-349 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1. Furthermore, at the time the Petition
`
`was filed, patents related to the ‘192 patent were the subject of other district court
`
`litigation, ex parte reexamination, and inter partes review. Pet. 1-2.
`
`C. The ’192 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The decision on institution in IPR2013-00468, which is being entered
`
`concurrently with this decision, has an overview of the ‗192 patent at pages 3-4.
`
`We incorporate that description into this decision.
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 20 and 37 are independent claims. Claim
`
`20 illustrates the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`20. A method for communicating with at least one
`individual, the method comprising the steps of:
`
`(A) generating a generic script program in a computer,
`the generic script program comprising at least one of
`(i) one or more messages to be presented to the
`individual, (ii) one or more queries to be answered by
`the individual, (iii) one or more response choices
`corresponding to the one or more queries or (iv) any
`combination thereof;
`
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner also filed another petition challenging claims 1-19 of the ‘192 patent.
`See Case IPR2013-00468. As explained below, this proceeding is joined with
`Case IPR2013-00468.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(B) generating a customized script program in the
`computer by customizing the generic script program,
`wherein the customized script program is to be
`executed by a remotely situated apparatus;
`
`(C) transmitting the customized script program to the
`remotely situated apparatus, wherein the customized
`script program includes (i) a display command to
`present to the individual at least one of the one or
`more messages, the one or more queries, the one or
`more response choices corresponding to the one or
`more queries, or any combination thereof and (ii) an
`input command to receive responses when the script
`program includes one or more queries to be presented;
`and
`
`(D) storing the generic script program and any
`responses received from the remotely situated
`apparatus in one or more databases.
`
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Public Law No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011),
`
`the Board will interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent. See Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`The following terms are construed in the decision on institution in co-
`
`pending inter partes review IPR2013-00468: ―script program‖; ―data merge
`
`program‖; ―pointer‖; and ―script assignment unit.‖ The parties‘ arguments
`
`regarding these terms, as recited in claims 20-37, are substantially identical to the
`
`arguments made with respect to those terms in IPR2013-00468. See Pet. 12-14.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`For the purpose of this decision, we adopt the constructions of those terms recited
`
`in the decision in IPR2013-00468.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Overview of Asserted Prior Art
`
`The decision on institution in IPR2013-00468 provides an overview of
`
`Wright Jr., Goodman, and Wahlquist. We incorporate that description into this
`
`decision.
`
`A. Obviousness over Wright Jr.2
`
`1. Claims 20-23, 29, 30, 35, and 36
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 20-23, 29, 30, 35, and 36 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wright Jr. Pet. 5.
`
`Petitioner argues that Wright Jr. provides teachings for sending customized
`
`script programs to remote computing devices for collecting and recording data.
`
`Pet. 16, 21-23. Patent Owner argues that Wright Jr. ―does not teach a customized
`
`script program for presenting messages or queries and for receiving responses,
`
`because . . . [Wright Jr.] only teaches scripts that execute after questions are
`
`displayed to, and input is collected from, the user.‖ Prelim. Resp. 29.
`
`Claim 20 recites ―the customized script program includes (i) a display
`
`command to present to the individual . . . queries . . . and (ii) an input command to
`
`receive responses . . . .‖ Patent Owner argues that Wright Jr. teaches that ―its
`
`‗execute script‘ function is distinct from the functions that display queries and
`
`receive responses.‖ Id. at 29-30 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 17, ll. 29-45). However, for
`
`
`2 References to anticipation, on page 17 and the Table of Contents of the Petition,
`appear to be typographical errors, as the discussion on pages 17-20 and the detailed
`claim charts on pages 32-55 refer to obviousness.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`the purposes of this decision, we construe a ―script program‖ to be a program that
`
`contains a set of instructions that is capable of being executed and interpreted.
`
`Wright Jr. teaches that a forms designer can create an electronic form that displays
`
`queries and provides user input responses. See Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 9, l.
`
`33 – col. 13, l. 23). Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that Wright Jr.
`
`discloses an executable form capable of executing ―script‖ functions and that the
`
`executable form may be considered a ―script program.‖
`
`Patent Owner argues Wright Jr. ―does not teach at least the limitation ‗one or
`
`more databases . . . for storing the generic script program,‘‖ recited in claim 20.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 36. Petitioner explains that user responses are stored on the personal
`
`computer in a tab-delimited format for use with a database. Pet. 35 (citing
`
`Ex. 1002, col. 3, ll. 28-40; col. 5, ll. 7-15; col. 14, ll. 1-10). Wright Jr. also teaches
`
`that a form can be selected from a list of existing forms. Id. It is not necessary for
`
`the cited art to teach precisely ―the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,
`
`for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.‖ KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 418 (2007) (―KSR‖). On the record before us, we are persuaded Petitioner
`
`has shown sufficiently that an existing electronic form (generic script program)
`
`may be stored in a database.
`
`
`
`Petitioner provides explanations as to how each remaining claim limitation
`
`is disclosed or suggested by Wright Jr. and articulates sufficient reasoning with a
`
`rational underpinning to support its obviousness challenge. Pet. 17-20, 32-55; see
`
`also KSR, 550 U.S. 398. Upon consideration of Petitioner‘s analysis and
`
`supporting evidence, and taking into account Patent Owner‘s preliminary response,
`
`we determine that Petitioner‘s contentions have merit.
`
`Accordingly, on the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in its assertion that independent
`
`claim 20 is unpatentable over Wright Jr. Additionally, we are persuaded in
`
`connection with this ground that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of
`
`unpatentability as to claims 21-23, 29-30, 35, and 36, which ultimately depend
`
`from claim 20.
`
`B. Obviousness over Goodman and Wright Jr.
`
` Petitioner asserts that claims 20-37 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over Goodman and Wright Jr. Pet. 5. Petitioner relies on the teachings of
`
`Goodman for certain claim limitations of claims 20-37.
`
`Claims 24-28 and 31-34 depend from claim 20 and thus recite a ―script
`
`program‖ and storing a generic script program in a database. As explained above,
`
`Petitioner has shown persuasively that at least Wright Jr. teaches these limitations.
`
`Petitioner provides explanations as to how each remaining claim limitation is
`
`disclosed or suggested by Wright Jr. and Goodman, and Petitioner articulates,
`
`based on the current record, sufficient reasoning with a rational underpinning to
`
`support its obviousness challenge. Pet. 17-20, 32-55; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at
`
`418.
`
`Claim 37 recites, in part, ―transmitting to the computer (i) an identification
`
`code associated with the individual‖ and ―the customized script is transmitted in
`
`response to receipt of the identification code.‖ Patent Owner argues that Goodman
`
`does not teach this limitation. Prelim. Resp. 39-44. Petitioner argues Goodman
`
`teaches the limitation to ―a customized algorithm transmitted in response to receipt
`
`of the identification code.‖ Ex. 1008 ¶ 102; Pet. 52. Goodman further teaches
`
`using ―individual identification, addressing and messaging.‖ Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll.
`
`20-23. Goodman also teaches a customized algorithm transmitted to a patient in
`
`response to receipt of information specifically provided by that patient. Pet. 27
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`(citing col. 8, ll. 37-63; col. 10, ll. 37-60); see Ex. 1003, col. 2, l. 64 – col. 3, l. 4.
`
`Petitioner argues Goodman teaches that data transfer can begin after identifying the
`
`message device. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 7, ll. 3-5). Thus, on the record
`
`before us for the purpose of this decision, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`
`Goodman suggests ―transmitting to the computer (i) an identification code
`
`associated with the individual,‖ and (ii) ―the customized script is transmitted in
`
`response to receipt of the identification code.‖
`
`Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to combine Wright Jr. and Goodman ―because the script programs of
`
`Wright Jr. provide numerous advantages relating to flexibility and customized
`
`collection of user information.‖ Pet. 21. Patent Owner argues that it would not
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of
`
`Wright Jr. and Goodman because, among other things, ―there are significant
`
`differences between the system of Goodman and the system of Wright.‖ Prelim.
`
`Resp. 46. Patent Owner argues that Goodman‘s system does not use script
`
`programs (Prelim. Resp. 46), and Wright Jr. ―does not teach all of the advantages
`
`of scripts that Cardiocom alleges‖; thus, the ―actual teachings of Wright offer no
`
`significant advantages to the system of Goodman.‖ Prelim. Resp. 45-46.
`
`Goodman discloses a system in which a computer generates an algorithm at
`
`a device and programs the algorithm into another device (i.e., a message device).
`
`Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 49-50, 54-58. Wright Jr. also discloses a system in which a
`
`script file (or algorithm) is generated at a computer device and sent to and executed
`
`on another device (i.e., a PDA). Id. at col. 6, ll. 33-45, 62-67; col. 7, ll. 47-62. In
`
`other words, both Wright Jr. and Goodman disclose systems in which an algorithm
`
`or script file is generated at one device and sent to another device for execution.
`
`Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively that the combination of the
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`known system of Wright Jr.3 and the known system of Goodman4 would have
`
`entailed any more than the combination of known systems to perform their known
`
`functions to achieve the predictable result of a system in which a device generates
`
`an algorithm and programs the algorithm into another device for execution on the
`
`other device. ―The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
`
`is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.‖ KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
`
`Petitioner provides explanations as to how each claim limitation is disclosed
`
`or suggested by the combination of Wright Jr. and Goodman and articulates, based
`
`on the current record, sufficient reasoning with a rational underpinning to support a
`
`conclusion of obviousness. Pet. 21-28, 34-54. Upon consideration of Petitioner‘s
`
`analysis and supporting evidence, and taking into account Patent Owner‘s
`
`preliminary response, we determine that Petitioner‘s contentions have merit.
`
`Accordingly, on the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in its assertion that independent
`
`claims 20 and 37 are unpatentable over Wright Jr. and Goodman. Additionally, we
`
`are persuaded in connection with this ground that Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood of unpatentability as to claims 21-36, which ultimately
`
`depend from claim 20.
`
`
`
`
`3 i.e., a device (i.e., computer) that generates an algorithm (or script file) and
`programs the algorithm (i.e., downloads the algorithm) to another device (i.e., a
`user‘s computer) for execution on the other device.
`4 i.e., a device that generates an algorithm and programs the algorithm into another
`device for execution.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`C. Obviousness over Goodman and Wahlquist
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 20-37 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over Goodman in combination with Wahlquist. Pet. 6. In support of this asserted
`
`grounds of unpatentability, Petitioner argues that Wahlquist teaches a script file,
`
`specific to a user‘s problem, is sent from a remote help desk, is executed on the
`
`user‘s computer to perform diagnostic tests, and the results from the diagnostics
`
`tests are returned to the help desk computer. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 5-
`
`19, 38-43).
`
`Patent Owner challenges Petitioner‘s assertions by arguing that (1)
`
`Wahlquist fails to teach the ―customized script program‖ limitation of the claims,
`
`(2) a person of ordinary skill would not have combined Goodman and Wahlquist in
`
`the manner asserted, and (3) Wahlquist is non-analogous prior art and should,
`
`therefore, be ignored. Prelim. Resp. 32-34, 48-51. We are not persuaded by these
`
`arguments.
`
`Petitioner asserts Wahlquist discloses generating a customized script file to
`
`address a user‘s explanation of a problem. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 3, ll. 44-
`
`55; col. 2, ll. 10-23; col. 4, l. 61 – col. 5, l. 11). As such, based on the current
`
`record, Petitioner provides a persuasive explanation as to how Wahlquist discloses
`
`a customized script program.
`
`As to the combination of Goodman and Wahlquist, as previously described,
`
`Goodman discloses a system in which a computer generates an algorithm at a
`
`device and programs the algorithm into another device (i.e., a message device).
`
`Ex. 1003, 2:49-50, 54-58. Wahlquist also discloses a system in which a script file
`
`(or algorithm) is generated at a computer device and sent to and executed on
`
`another device (i.e., a user‘s computer). Ex. 1004, 2:17-23, 39-40, 42-43. In other
`
`words, both Goodman and Wahlquist disclose systems in which an algorithm or
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`script file is generated at one device and sent to another device for execution.
`
`Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively, based on the record before us,
`
`that the combination of the known system of Goodman5 and the known system of
`
`Wahlquist6 would have entailed any more than a combination of known systems to
`
`perform their known functions to achieve a predictable result of a system in which
`
`a device generates an algorithm and programs the algorithm into another device for
`
`execution on the other device. ―The combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results.‖ KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner asserts it would have been ―obvious to adapt
`
`Wahlquist to generate a script program for executing diagnostic tests to address
`
`health issues on a remote device, as provided by Goodman.‖ Pet. 29; Ex. 1008 ¶
`
`136. As such, Petitioner articulates, based on the current record, sufficient
`
`reasoning with a rational underpinning to support a conclusion of obviousness. See
`
`Pet. 28-55.
`
`As to the argument that Wahlquist is non-analogous art, ―[w]hether a
`
`reference in the prior art is ‗analogous‘ is a fact question.‖ In re Clay, 966 F.2d
`
`656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d
`
`1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). One criterion for answering the question is
`
`―whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
`
`addressed.‖ In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658-59 (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436,
`
`
`5 I.e., a device that generates an algorithm and programs the algorithm into another
`device for execution.
`6 I.e., a device (i.e., computer) that generates an algorithm (or script file) and
`programs the algorithm (i.e., downloads the algorithm) to another device (i.e., a
`user‘s computer) for execution on the other device.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Wahlquist is directed to a system for performing
`
`computer diagnostic tests, as opposed to monitoring and gathering information
`
`about an individual, such as a patient. Prelim. Resp. 48-49. The distinction
`
`attempts to characterize narrowly the field of endeavor pertaining to the subject
`
`matter of the ‘192 patent to exclude art pertinent to personal computers. That
`
`distinction is not supported by either the claims or the specification of the ‘192
`
`patent. The ‘192 patent claims involve communication systems with data
`
`transmissions between a server and a household appliance or a primary device.
`
`See Ex. 1001, Abstract; claim 1. Furthermore, the specification describes an
`
`embodiment of a personal computer that receives the computer program. Ex.
`
`1001, col. 15, l. 58-61 (stating in particular that ―[i]t can be appreciated to those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art that the system of FIG. 20 provides all or part of the
`
`functionality of the apparatuses shown in FIGS. 3 and 13, but does it on a personal
`
`computer.‖) (emphasis omitted). Wahlquist describes the technology underlying
`
`communications, involving computer programs, between two computers: a user
`
`computer and a help desk computer. Ex. 1004, Abstract; see Pet. 16. We conclude
`
`that there is no relevant disparity between the technology involved in the
`
`Wahlquist communications, i.e. a personal computer, and the communication of
`
`computer programs involved in the subject matter claimed in the ‘192 patent.
`
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner‘s argument that Wahlquist is
`
`not in the same field of endeavor of the ‘192 patent.
`
`Patent Owner presents arguments that Wahlquist is incompatible with the
`
`problems addressed by the ‘192 patent. Prelim. Resp. 48-51 (arguing that
`
`Wahlquist addresses a malfunction—not proactive monitoring, that Wahlquist‘s
`
`complex and specialized software is not a solution for a ―simple and inexpensive
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`system,‖ and that Wahlquist‘s computer diagnostics programs do not address the
`
`problem of interactive patient monitoring). Those arguments are directed to a
`
`determination that the prior art is not reasonably pertinent to the alleged solutions
`
`of the patent-at-issue. That determination is applicable only if the prior art
`
`reference is not in the same field of endeavor. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658.
`
`Having determined that Wahlquist is analogous art, for purposes of this decision,
`
`we need not address these additional arguments.
`
`Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner‘s arguments
`
`that Wahlquist is non-analogous art.
`
`Upon consideration of Petitioner‘s analysis and supporting evidence, and
`
`taking into account Patent Owner‘s preliminary response, we determine that
`
`Petitioner‘s contentions have merit. On this record, we conclude that Petitioner
`
`has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with
`
`respect to its asserted ground of obviousness of claims 20-37 over Goodman and
`
`Wahlquist.
`
`III. SUMMARY
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing
`
`that claims 20-37 of the ‘192 patent are unpatentable. The Board, however, has not
`
`made a final determination as to the patentability of these claims.
`
`The Petition is granted as to the following proposed grounds: obviousness
`
`of claims 20-23, 29-30, and 35-36 over Wright Jr.; obviousness of claims 20-37
`
`over Wright Jr. and Goodman; and obviousness of claims 20-37 over Goodman
`
`and Wahlquist.
`
`IV.
`
`JOINDER
`
`The AIA permits joinder of like review proceedings. The statutory
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`provision governing joinder of inter partes review proceedings is 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(c), which provides:
`
`(c) JOINDER.–If the Director institutes an inter partes review,
`the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter
`partes review any person who properly files a petition under section
`311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under
`section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response,
`determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under
`section 314.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a) provides that ―[w]here another matter involving the patent is
`
`before the Office, the Board may, during the pendency of the inter partes review,
`
`enter any appropriate order regarding the additional matter including providing for
`
`the stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of any such matter.‖ The Board‘s
`
`rules for AIA proceedings ―shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.‖ 37 C.F.R. § 1(b); see Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,758.
`
`We conclude that, under the present circumstances, securing the just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the instant proceeding would best be served
`
`by joining this proceeding with that of Case IPR2013-00468. Decisions to institute
`
`inter partes review are entered concurrently in both proceedings. The proceedings
`
`were filed on the same day and involve the same patent, parties, and prior art.
`
`There also is no discernible prejudice to either party, as the Scheduling Order
`
`entered for the joined proceedings contemplates a final decision within one year of
`
`institution. Joinder, therefore, is appropriate.
`
`We also note that Petitioner has filed Exhibits 1001-1011 in Case IPR2013-
`
`00468 and Exhibits 1001-1011 in Case IPR2013-00469. There is some overlap
`
`between the proceedings, as certain exhibits were filed in both proceedings. To
`
`avoid confusion, Petitioner will be required to refile the unique exhibits (i.e., those
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`only filed in this proceeding) in Case IPR2013-00468.
`
`V. ORDER
`
`For the reasons given, it is
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is granted as to claims 20-37.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes
`
`review of the ʼ192 patent is hereby instituted, commencing on the entry date of this
`
`Order. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given
`
`of the institution of a trial.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds identified
`
`above. No other grounds are authorized.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is joined with Case
`
`IPR2013-00468;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order entered concurrently in
`
`Case IPR2013-00468 shall hereafter govern the schedule of the joined
`
`proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is terminated under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.72, and all further filings in the joined proceedings shall be made in Case
`
`IPR2013-00468;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall within five business days refile
`
`those exhibits filed only in Case IPR2013-00469 (and not Case IPR2013-00468) in
`
`the joined proceeding, using unique sequential numbers as required by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.63(c), and file an updated exhibit list pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e); and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in Case IPR2012-00468 shall
`
`be changed to reflect the joinder with this proceeding in accordance with the
`
`attached example.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Daniel W. McDonald
`Andrew J. Lagatta
`MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C.
`dmcdonald@merchantgould.com
`alagatta@merchantgould.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Don Daybell
`Davin M. Stockwell
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ddaybell@orrick.com
`dstockwell@orrick.com
`ptabdocket@orrick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Paper 21
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 28, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CARDIOCOM, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-0046817
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17 Case IPR2013-00469 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`