`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PHISON ELECTRONICS CORP.’S
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)
`
`PNY Technologies, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Phison Electronics Corp.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Stevens v. Tamai, 366 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................... 1
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wash., 334 F.3d 1264,
`1266-67 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) ................................................................................... 1
`
`Agilent Tech., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383
`(Fed.Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). ...................................................... 3
`
`In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed.Cir. 1999) ................................................ 3
`
`Hitzeman v. Rutter, 243 F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). ................................... 3
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), the patent owner, Phison Electronics
`
`Corp. (“Patent Owner”), hereby submits the following Request for
`
`Rehearing in response to the Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,518,879 (“the Decision”) (Paper 10).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Decision ordered review on two grounds of unpatentability:
`
`claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16 as anticipated by Minneman (US 7,074,052); and
`
`claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16 as unpatentable over Minneman in view of
`
`Takahashi (US 2004/0027809). Patent Owner requests that the Board
`
`reconsider its decision to institute on both grounds, in light of the
`
`governing law regarding inherency, and in light of the proper reading of
`
`“concave.” Therefore, Patent Owner further requests that no trial be
`
`instituted on the ‘879 patent.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the
`
`party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place
`
`where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or
`
`reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, the
`
`panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.7 1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision (1) is clearly
`
`unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion
`
`of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4) involves a record
`
`that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its
`
`decision.” Stevens v. Tamai, 366 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Eli
`
`Lilly & Co. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wash., 334 F.3d 1264, 1266-67 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003)).
`
`III. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. The Decision Overlooked, and Thus Failed to Apply, the Law
`Governing Inherency.
`
`Patent Owner requests reconsideration of the decision to institute on
`
`claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16 as anticipated by Minneman, because the Decision
`
`overlooked, and thus failed to adhere to, the legal standards for inherency.
`
`Claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16 all require a “concave prop.” The phrase
`
`“concave prop” is construed in the Decision to require at least “a structure
`
`curving inwards from a housing providing support.” (Decision, pg. 8).
`
`The decision to institute on anticipation by Minneman is based on a finding
`
`that Minneman’s captivating indentations are curved, and thus meet the
`
`claim feature of a “concave prop.”
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`It is undisputed that Minneman’s captivating indentations are not
`
`shown in the figures and are not described to be curving. The finding that
`
`the captivating indentations are curved relies entirely on inherency
`
`stemming from an assumption in the Decision that the pressing described
`
`by Minneman to form the captivating indentations would form curved
`
`shapes.
`
`The assumption on which the Decision relies, however, is not
`
`sufficient to meet the legal requirements for inherency specified in Federal
`
`Circuit caselaw. It is well established that to show inherency of a property
`
`requires that the "reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.”
`
`Agilent Tech., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed.Cir. 2009),
`
`citing In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d
`
`743, 745 (Fed.Cir. 1999). "Inherency, however, may not be established by
`
`probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result
`
`from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient." Hitzeman v. Rutter, 243
`
`F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`Here, as stated in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, “curved
`
`shapes do not necessarily follow from these processes. . . Rather, the shape
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`depends on the shape of the presses and dies used.” (Preliminary
`
`Response, pg. 16). In fact, the Board agreed with this statement, stating in
`
`the Decision that it is “conceivable that the processes of Minneman could
`
`create an indent with no curvature.” (Decision, pg. 11).
`
`Despite agreeing with Petitioner that the Minneman disclosure might
`
`not result in an indent with curvature, the Decision went on to commit
`
`legal error in at least two respects. First, while the Federal Circuit has
`
`made clear that inherency may not be based on “probabilities or
`
`possibilities,” the Decision improperly based its conclusion on the notion
`
`that “logic and physics dictate” that it is “likely” to create some curvature.
`
`Whether an outcome is “likely” is insufficient to establish inherency.
`
`Hitzeman at 1355. Second, the Decision appeared to put the burden on
`
`Petition to show the possibility of a non-curved indent as the outcome of
`
`the Minneman disclosure. Again, this is legal error. Inherency requires
`
`that the disclosure “unavoidably teaches the property in question,” and the
`
`Decision’s agreement that it is “conceivable” that a non-curved indent
`
`could be created in Minneman by itself establishes a lack of inherency
`
`under the proper Federal Circuit standard. Therefore, Minneman’s
`
`4
`
`
`
`captivating indentations cannot satisfy the claimed feature of a “concave
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`prop.”
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that the decision to institute on
`
`claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16 as anticipated by Minneman withdrawn and the
`
`ground be denied.
`
`B.
`
`The Decision Misapprehended the Disclosure of Takahashi
`
`Patent Owner requests reconsideration of the decision to institute on
`
`claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16 as unpatetable over Minneman in view of
`
`Takahashi, because the Decision misapprehends the disclosure of
`
`Takahashi, and particularly, Takahashi’s Figs. 4A and 4C.
`
`As mentioned above, claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16 all require a “concave
`
`prop.” The Decision found that “the concave protrusions of Takahashi
`
`would provide a suggestion for rounding off the stand-offs of Minneman”
`
`to yield the concave props. (Decision, pg. 14). However, like Minneman’s
`
`stand-offs, Takahashi’s protrusions are not concave in any sense of the
`
`word. Takahashi’s protrusions are convex.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Figs. 4A and 4C of Takahashi as annotated in Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response show the protrusions 32. (Preliminary Response, pp.
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`22-23).
`
`Takahashi, FIG. 4A (annotated)
`
`
`
`Takahashi, FIG. 4C (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`The figures, as reproduced herein, have been further shaded to make
`
`clearer what they show, i.e., that Takahashi’s protrusions 32 are solid and
`
`6
`
`
`
`curve outward, not inward. There is no aspect of Takahashi’s protrusions
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`32 that is concave.
`
`Compare, below, the protrusions 32, enlarged from Fig. 4A, to the
`
`example of a concave shape from the Machinery’s Handbook included in
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. The shapes are opposite: the
`
`Machinery’s Handbook figure is concave and Takahashi’s protrusion 32 is
`
`convex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Machinery’s Handbook
`
`Takahashi, FIG. 4A
`
`Similarly, the concave props of the ‘879 patent are not concave
`
`because they protrude inward into the housing. Rather, they are concave
`
`because a recessed, concave shape is formed on the exterior of the housing
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`when the props are punched or pressed into the housing. (Preliminary
`
`Response, pg. 6).
`
`Therefore, as neither Minneman’s stand-offs 45 nor Takahashi’s
`
`protrusions 32 are concave, the combination does not produce “concave
`
`props” as recited in the claims of the ’879 patent.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that the decision to institute on
`
`claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16 as unpatentable over Minneman in view of
`
`Takahashi be withdrawn, and the ground be denied.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner requests that the Board
`
`deny Grounds 1 and 2 in the Petition, and decline to institute Inter Partes
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Joshua A. Griswold/
`Joshua A. Griswold,
`Reg. No. 46,310
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 214-292-4034
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Phison Electronics Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Review of the ‘879 patent.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 18, 2014
`
`
` (Trial No. IPR2013-00472)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on February 18, 2014, a complete and entire copy of this Patent
`
`Owner Phison Electronics Corp’s Preliminary Response was provided via
`
`email to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence email address of
`
`record as follows:
`
`Mark E. Nikolsky
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`Four Gateway Center
`100 Mulberry Street
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`
`Email: mnikolsky@mccarter.com
`
`schokshi@mccarter.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Susan C. Johnson/
`Susan C. Johnson
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(214) 292-4086
`
`10