`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 16
`
`
` Entered: April 23, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PHISON ELECTRONICS CORP.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
`RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Phison Electronics Corp. (“Phison”) filed a Request for
`
`Rehearing (Paper 12, “Req.”) of the Decision on Institution (Paper 10, “Dec.”),
`
`which instituted inter partes review of claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,518,879 (“the ‟879 patent”). In its request, Phison argues that we misinterpreted
`
`the governing law regarding inherency, and that we provided an improper
`
`construction of the claim term “concave.” The request for rehearing is granted-in-
`
`part.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision
`
`for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be
`
`determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual
`
`finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an
`
`unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United
`
`States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d
`
`1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); and In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2000).
`
`The Decision on Institution included two grounds: a first indicating that
`
`claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16 were anticipated by Minneman, and a second with the
`
`same claims being obvious over Minneman and Takahashi. Dec. 16. Beginning
`
`with the first ground, we found that Minneman discloses the claim limitation
`
`“concave props,” as recited in claims 1 and 9. Dec. 9-10.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`Phison argues that the Decision failed to adhere to the legal standards for
`
`determining inherency in the application of anticipation. Req. 2. Phison also
`
`argues that it is undisputed that Minneman‟s captivating indentations are not
`
`shown in the figures and are not described as curving. Req. 3. Phison takes issue
`
`with statements provided in the Decision detailing that it is “conceivable that the
`
`processes of Minneman could create an indent with no curvature” (Dec. 11), and
`
`that “logic and physics dictate that any die pressed into a housing sufficient to form
`
`an indentation on the inside of the housing, without puncturing the housing, is
`
`likely to create some curvature in that indentation through deformation of the
`
`housing material” (id.). Phison argues that these statements illustrate “a lack of
`
`inherency under the proper Federal Circuit standard.” Req. 4.
`
`“A reference may anticipate inherently if a claim limitation that is not
`
`expressly disclosed „is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating
`
`reference.‟” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010)). “„Inherency . . . 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.‟” Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).
`
`We agree that we misapplied the standard for inherency based on the
`
`analysis provided for the anticipation ground over Minneman. Upon
`
`consideration, we agree with Phison that the institution of the instant proceeding
`
`should not have included the unpatentability ground of claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16 as
`
`anticipated by Minneman.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`Turning to the second instituted ground, over Minneman and Takahashi,
`
`Phison also argues that Takahashi‟s protrusions “are not concave in any sense of
`
`the word.” Req. 5. Phison argues that Takahashi‟s protrusions are solid and curve
`
`outward, such that no aspect is concave. Req. 6-7. Phison also argues that the
`
`concave props of the ‟879 patent are concave because a recessed, concave shape is
`
`formed on the exterior of the housing when the props are punched or pressed into
`
`the housing. Req. 7-8. We are not persuaded by Phison‟s arguments.
`
`As discussed in the Decision: “[w]e conclude that such a limitation can be
`
`met based on the shape of an element, such that the particular element need not
`
`have a recess.” Dec. 7. In fact, we interpreted “concave” as “curving inwards
`
`from a housing.” Id. In addition, we are uncertain how the Machinery‟s
`
`Handbook illustration, Req. 7, could illustrate a “concave prop.” The indentation
`
`illustrated, Req. 7, is certainly concave, but it does not appear it can act as a prop,
`
`i.e., it acts as a notch instead. Rather, the statement in the Request that “the props
`
`are punched or pressed into the housing” is more consistent with the specification
`
`of the ‟879 patent. Req. 8.
`
`Although we acknowledge that Minneman does not inherently disclose the
`
`formation of “concave props,” the formation of such concave props was concluded,
`
`in the Decision (Dec. 11), to be likely. Minneman provides that the “captivating
`
`indentations may be formed by pushing or pressing on the outside of the housing
`
`25 to cause it to deform to cr[e]ate guides or detents on the inside of the housing.”
`
`Dec. 10-11; Ex. 1003 at 10:55-58. As such, we concluded that it would have been
`
`obvious to provide curvature to the stand-offs of Minneman in view of the curved
`
`protrusions disclosed in Takahashi. Dec. 13.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`While Phison is correct that “Takahashi‟s protrusions are not concave in any
`
`sense of the word” and that “Takahashi‟s protrusions are convex,” (Req. 5), that
`
`does not mean that Takahashi cannot suggest a particular shape. In addition, per
`
`the adopted claim construction, the limitation may be met by the shape of the
`
`element, and not the presence of a recess. Dec. 7. We were further persuaded that
`
`“„[t]he concave shape is a matter of [design] choice which a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have found to be obvious.‟” Dec. 13. (citation omitted).
`
`In essence, Phison asks us to reconsider the references, Minneman and
`
`Takahashi, separately; it would be error, however, to consider the references only
`
`separately, when they are applied together in a proper combination. One cannot
`
`show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the obviousness
`
`findings are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413
`
`(CCPA 1981). Additionally, Phison presented the same argument in its
`
`Preliminary Response, (Prelim. Resp. 21-22); therefore, we did not overlook or
`
`misapprehend the argument in the Decision.
`
`With respect to dependent claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, and 16, we relied upon the
`
`discussion of aspects of those claims being described in Minneman. Dec. 14.
`
`Because Phison has not contested that elements of those claims are taught by
`
`Minneman, limiting its arguments to an element of claim 1 not found in Minneman
`
`inherently, we continue to rely on that analysis of the dependent claims in the
`
`remaining ground.
`
`As such, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked the
`
`disclosure of Takahashi in the Decision in determining that PNY demonstrated that
`
`it has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1-4, 8-12, and
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`16 of the ‟879 Patent would have been obvious over Minneman and Takahashi
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Phison has not shown that the Board abused its
`
`discretion in instituting trial on the ground of claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16 as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Minneman and Takahashi.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner‟s request for rehearing is granted-in-part;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Order instituting trial is modified so that the
`
`trial is limited to the following ground:
`
`Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Minneman and Takahashi.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial schedule remains as set forth in the
`
`Scheduling Order (Paper 11), as modified by stipulations of the parties (Paper 15).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Mark E. Nikolsky
`Sanjiv M. Chokshi
`McCARTER & ENGLISH LLP
`mnikolsky@mccarter.com
`schokshi@mccarter.com
`
`
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joshua A. Griswold
`David M. Hoffman
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`griswold@fr.com
`hoffman@fr.com
`IPR23490-0008IP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`7
`
`