`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PNY Technologies, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Phison Electronics Corp.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PHISON ELECTRONICS CORP.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................. 3
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE ‘879 PATENT ................................................. 3
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 4
`
`A. “Concave” requires “curving inwards to form a recess” ..................... 4
`
`B. Petitioner’s construction of “concave” is inconsistent with the ‘879
`patent .................................................................................................................... 8
`
`“Prop” requires “a structure that supports (i.e., props-up) one thing
`C.
`apart from another” ............................................................................................ 9
`
`V. DEFECTS IN THE PROPOSED GROUNDS OF
`UNPATENTABILITY .......................................................................................... 12
`
`A. Grounds 1 and 3 are defective because Minneman does not teach
`“concave props” as recited in the claims ....................................................... 12
`
`B. Grounds 1 and 3 are defective because Minneman does not teach
`“said PCBA is fixed by means of pressing of said plurality of concave
`props” as recited in the claims ........................................................................ 19
`
`C. Ground 2 is defective because Takahashi does not teach “concave
`props” ................................................................................................................. 21
`
`D. Ground 2 is defective because a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would not have combined Minneman and Takahashi................................ 23
`
`E. Grounds 4 and 5 are defective because Wang does not teach
`“concave props” as recited in the claims ....................................................... 25
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`F. Ground 5 is defective because Wang does not teach “said PCBA is
`fixed by means of pressing of said plurality of concave props” as recited
`in the claims ....................................................................................................... 28
`
`G. Grounds 6 and 7 are defective because another of Ni’s patent
`describing a similar invention was relied on and overcome during
`prosecution of the ’879 patent ......................................................................... 28
`
`H. Grounds 6 and 7 are defective because Ni does not teach “concave
`props” as recited in the claims ........................................................................ 30
`
`I. Grounds 6 and 7 are defective because Ni does not teach “said
`PCBA is fixed by means of pressing of said plurality of concave props”
`as recited in the claims ..................................................................................... 32
`
`J. Ground 7 is defective because a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would not have combined Ni and Takahashi .............................................. 33
`
`VI. REDUNDANT GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ...................... 35
`
`A. Grounds 1, 4, 5 and 6 are redundant ..................................................... 35
`
`B. Grounds 1, 2 and 3 are redundant ......................................................... 37
`
`C. Grounds 6 and 7 are redundant ............................................................. 38
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 39
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2001
`File History of the ’879 Patent
`2002
`U.S. Publication No. 2007/0178769 to Ni (“Ni Publication”)
`Collins English Dictionary, pp. 350, 452, 725 (2005)
`2003
`Erik Oberg et al., Machinery’s Handbook, 26th Edition, pp. 720-
`2004
`973 (2000)
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM2013-00003 (Paper 7, Oct. 25, 2012)
`DETENTS & DIAMETERS OF SPRING LOADED DEVICES,
`http://www.vlier.com/product_index/sld/
`sel_06_diam.html (2007)
`
`2006
`
`2005
`
`iii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM2013-00003 (Paper 7, Oct. 25, 2012) ................................................... 2, 35
`
`Ex parte Moller,
`Appeal 2010-012534 (BPAI 2010) ........................................................... 7, 8, 11
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
`496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................... 7, 8, 12
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................................... 7, 8, 12
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................... 12
`
`CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc.,
`780 F. Supp. 2d 196, 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) ...................................................... 14
`
`Net MoneyIN v. Verisign,
`545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................... 14
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................. 12, 25, 35, 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................................... 19, 21, 27, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 (b) ............................................................................................. 2, 35
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a), the patent owner, Phison
`
`Electronics Corp. (“Patent Owner”), hereby submits the following
`
`Preliminary Response in response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,518,879 (“the ‘879 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ‘879 patent, entitled “Universal Serial Bus (USB) Memory Plug”
`
`contains twenty-one claims, of which claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent.
`
`The Petition asserts invalidity of claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16. The Petition
`
`relies on four different references and the alleged “Applicant Admitted
`
`Prior Art (AAPA)” of the ’879 patent1 to propose seven grounds of
`
`unpatentability: (1) anticipation based on Minneman (Ground 1), (2)
`
`obviousness based on Minneman in view of Takahashi (Ground 2), (3)
`
`obviousness based on Minneman in view of the AAPA of the ’879 patent
`
`
` 1
`
` For brevity, the patent owner will refer to the alleged Applicant Admitted
`
`Prior Art simply as the “AAPA” of the ’879 patent in the present response.
`
`However, patent owner does not necessarily agree that the ’879 patent
`
`includes any admitted prior art.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`(Ground 3), (4) anticipation by Wang (Ground 4), (5) obviousness based on
`
`Wang in view of AAPA of the ’879 patent (Ground 5), (6) obviousness
`
`based on Ni (Ground 6), and (7) obviousness based on Ni in view of
`
`Takahashi (Ground 7). The Petition is deficient, and should be denied in
`
`whole, for at least the following reasons.
`
`The Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`with respect to any of the proposed grounds for rejection for at least three
`
`reasons. First, none of the references cited in the Petition disclose, teach, or
`
`suggest the “concave props” recited in all claims of the ’879 patent.
`
`Second, the concave shape of the props is not an obvious design choice, as
`
`alleged in the Petition, because the patent owner selected the concave
`
`shape of the props due to particular advantages it provides. Third, none of
`
`the references cited in the Petition disclose, teach, or suggest that the
`
`“PCBA is fixed by means of pressing of said plurality of concave props” as
`
`recited in the claims of the ’879 patent.
`
`Further, multiple grounds of unpatentability proposed in the Petition
`
`are redundant, and should be denied as contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) and
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Liberty Mutual representative order.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Co., CBM2012-00003 (Paper
`
`7, Oct. 25, 2012); BC-2024.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny the Petition
`
`for IPR of claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16 of the ‘879 patent for at least the reasons
`
`discussed above.
`
`Alternatively, if the Board institutes IPR review of the ‘879 patent,
`
`Patent Owner additionally requests that the Board:
`
`(1) Reject Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions, and instead
`
`adopt a construction consistent with Patent Owner’s constructions
`
`proposed herein;
`
`(2) Decline to adopt Petitioner’s Grounds of Unpatentability.
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE ‘879 PATENT
`
`The ’879 patent describes a universal serial bus (USB) memory device
`
`having a housing enclosing a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA). Ex.
`
`1001 (’879 patent), Abstract. The housing includes a plurality of orientated
`
`indentations formed by punching on the housing. Id. at 2:55-57; See Fig. 6
`
`ref. 511. The orientated indentations facilitate the connection of the device
`
`to a female USB socket, such as by receiving spring engagement
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`mechanisms of the socket. Id. at 4:35-39. Punching the housing to form the
`
`orientated indentations creates a plurality of concave props protruding
`
`inward into the interior of the housing. Id. at 2:55-57, 4:28-32; See Fig. 6 ref.
`
`512. The concave props are operable to fix the PCBA in place and to
`
`supplant the flake spacer in forming a space between the PCBA and the
`
`housing. Id. at 2:50-52, 5:40-45. The space resulting from removal of the
`
`flake spacer enables additional components to be included within the USB
`
`housing. Id. at 2:6-9, 4:-53-56, 5:35-39. The ’879 patent states that the use of
`
`“punched concave props” to support the PCBA both “decreases the cost”
`
`and “simplifies the manufacturing process” of the USB memory device
`
`versus prior methods. Id. at 2:39-40, 5:40-45.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“Concave” requires “curving inwards to form a recess”
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’879 patent
`
`would have understood the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`
`“concave” to at least require “curving inwards to form a recess,” such as
`
`curving inwards to form a recess in the outer surface of the USB housing.
`
`This construction is proper because (i) such a definition of “concave” was
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`generally accepted in the art at the time; and (ii) any broader construction
`
`would be inconsistent with the ’879 patent.
`
`First, “concave” was generally accepted to mean “curving inwards to
`
`form a recess” at the time of the ’879 patent. For example, the Collins
`
`English Dictionary from 2005 defines “concave” as “curving inwards.” See
`
`Ex. 2003 (Collins English Dictionary), p. 3. This definition is instructive, yet
`
`imprecise in the context of the ’879 patent, because the word “inwards” is
`
`relative and the definition is silent as to what “inwards” is relative to. In
`
`another example, the Machinery’s Handbook from 2000, a handbook for
`
`metal working such as manufacturing metal USB housings, includes the
`
`following illustration of a concave feature:
`
`
`
`Surface
`
`Recess
`relative to
`the surface
`
`
`
`Ex. 2004 (Machinery’s Handbook), p. 71 (annotated).
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`As shown in the annotated figure above, the concave feature curves inward
`
`into the surface and necessarily forms a recess. Thus, in the construction of
`
`“curving inwards,” further stating that the concave feature forms a recess
`
`eliminates ambiguity in the relative term “inwards.”
`
`Second, to construe “concave” more broadly than the Patent Owner’s
`
`proposal would be contrary to the ’879 patent. By specifying a “concave”
`
`prop, the ‘879 patent distinguishes its prop from other types of props. The
`
`’879 patent describes its “concave” props as integrally formed from the
`
`housing, stating that “[c]ertainly, the plurality of orientated indentations
`
`and the plurality of concave props are integrally formed by means of
`
`punching on the housing.” Ex. 1001 (‘879 patent) at 2:55-57 (emphasis
`
`added). The housing material displaced in integrally forming the ‘879
`
`patent’s props from the housing leaves a concave shape that curves
`
`inwards to form a recess.
`
`Also, punching, pressing and similar processes enable the orientated
`
`indentations and concave props to be formed integrally and
`
`simultaneously using the same manufacturing process. Id. at 4:28-32. The
`
`specification confirms that the goal of punching the concave props is to
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`“decrease the cost” and “simplify the manufacturing process” for USB
`
`memory devices. Id. at 2:39-40. Recesses with curved bends that follow
`
`from deformation of the housing, such as by types of punching, pressing or
`
`other similar metal working processes, are simple and cheap to form.
`
`Shapes that are not curved or that do not form a recess, such as those
`
`formed by affixing pre-formed shapes to the housing, are not integral and
`
`introduce additional manufacturing processes and additional steps to the
`
`manufacture of the housing that add cost and complexity. A construction
`
`of “concave” that encompasses these shapes would fail to give meaning to
`
`“concave” in the phrase concave props and would be contrary to the goals
`
`of decreased cost and simplicity of manufacturing stated in the ’879 patent,
`
`and thus impermissibly broad. See Ex parte Moller, Appeal 2010-012534 at
`
`p. 9 (BPAI 2010), citing In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007), and In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`B.
`Petitioner’s construction of “concave” is inconsistent with the
`‘879 patent
`
`Petitioner proposes construing “concave” so as “to encompass a prop
`
`that extends inwardly from a housing.” Petition, p. 5. This construction is
`
`inconsistent with the ‘879 patent for a number of reasons.
`
`Petitioner’s construction is impermissibly broad. If “concave” were
`
`construed as Petitioner proposes, it would read on any prop, regardless of
`
`its shape, regardless of whether it is integral or not, and regardless of how
`
`difficult and costly to manufacture. Such props are contrary to the
`
`explicitly stated goals of the ‘879 patent, thus rendering the proposed
`
`construction of “concave” impermissibly broad. See Ex parte Moller, Appeal
`
`2010-012534 at p. 9 (BPAI 2010), citing In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496
`
`F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255,
`
`1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Further, Petitioner’s proposed construction of “concave” renders the
`
`word superfluous and redundant in the claims. For example, claim 9 of the
`
`’879 patent recites that “said plurality of concave props protrude inward.”
`
`See Ex. 1001, claim 9. If “concave” means no more than simply extending
`
`inwardly, as proposed by Petitioner, then the word “concave” is wholly
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`redundant to the explicit language of claim 9, because the claim already
`
`explicitly states that the props protrude inward.
`
`In fact, the Petitioner, itself, implicitly acknowledges the improper
`
`breadth of its proposed construction and that “concave” means “curved”
`
`by repeatedly using the terms concave and curved synonymously or
`
`conflating the meaning of the terms. For example, the Petition states that
`
`“it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`modify the shape of the ribs in Ni et al. so that they would be concave
`
`(curved).” Petition, p. 37 (emphasis added); see many other examples p. 14,
`
`15, 19, 29, 32, 38, 41, 44, 45, and 49.
`
`Accordingly, for at least the foregoing reasons, “concave” is properly
`
`construed to require at least “curving inwards to form a recess.”
`
`C.
`“Prop” requires “a structure that supports (i.e., props-up) one
`thing apart from another”
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’879 patent
`
`would have understood the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`
`“prop” to require “a structure that supports (i.e., props-up) one thing apart
`
`from another.”
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`The ’879 specification defines the function of the concave props as to
`
`“prop up” the PCBA, stating that it “simplifies the manufacturing process
`
`because the PCBA could be propped up by punched concave props instead
`
`of uncontrollable flake spacer.” Ex. 1001 (’879 Patent), 5:43-45 (emphasis
`
`added). Use of the word “prop” in the claims is a reference to this
`
`function. The props are also described in the ’879 patent as supplanting the
`
`flake spacer. Id. at 5:40-43. The flake spacer spaces the PCBA from the
`
`housing. Id. at 1:58-59. Accordingly, any construction that does not require
`
`the props to support (i.e., prop-up) at least a portion of one thing apart
`
`from another, e.g., the PCBA from the housing, would be impermissibly
`
`broad, and thus inconsistent with the ’879 patent.
`
`Notably, the background of the ’879 patent acknowledges and
`
`distinguishes other non-prop structures that protrude inward into the
`
`housing. Figures 3 and 4 of the ’879 patent, reproduced below, show these
`
`structures:
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`Non-prop
`recess
`
`
`
`
`
`Neither the original examiner, nor the ‘879 patent, assert these
`
`structures as props, because these structures (detents that press into the
`
`flake spacer 33 to secure it to the housing 31) do not space the PCBA or the
`
`flake spacer from the housing. A construction of “prop” that encompasses
`
`structures that do not, at least partially, space things apart would
`
`encompass these distinguished structures, and would be contrary to the
`
`’879 patent. “It is not reasonable to read the claims as reading on a prior art
`
`configuration which was expressly addressed and remedied by [the
`
`patent].” Ex parte Moller, Appeal 2010-012534 (BPAI 2010), citing In re Am.
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re ICON Health
`
`& Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and In re Suitco Surface,
`
`Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`’879 patent would have understood the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of the term “prop” to require “a structure that supports (i.e., props-up) one
`
`thing apart from another.”
`
`V. DEFECTS IN THE PROPOSED GROUNDS OF
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`The Petition proposes 7 grounds of unpatentability for the ’879
`
`patent. This section identifies reasons why all 7 of the grounds advanced
`
`in the Petition are defective, and, thus, why the Petition itself should be
`
`denied. Patent Owner reserves the right to further contest any of the
`
`grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition later in this proceeding
`
`for additional reasons other than those presented below.
`
`
`
`A. Grounds 1 and 3 are defective because Minneman does not
`teach “concave props” as recited in the claims
`
`Ground 1 alleges that claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16 are anticipated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Minneman. Minneman describes two different
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`examples of “securement mechanisms” that function to secure the housing
`
`and the circuit board sub-assembly together: stand-offs and captivating
`
`indentations. Ex. 1003 (Minneman) at 10:43-61.
`
`The stand-offs are described as “plastic studs, electrically non-
`
`conductive rivets, screws, bolds [sic], studs, or electrically conductive ones,
`
`etc., support and retain the circuit board 40 in the housing 25.” Id. at 10:48-
`
`52. FIG. 4 from Minneman shows the stand-offs (45):
`
`Ex. 1003 (Minneman), FIG. 4 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The captivating indentations are not shown in the figures of Minneman,
`
`and very little detail is given.
`
`As a threshold matter, the Petition conflates the stand-offs and
`
`captivating indentations described by Minneman into a single structure,
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`attempting to combine features of the captivating indentations with the
`
`stand-offs to argue that the stand-offs are concave props. The Petition
`
`states that “Minneman et al. discloses a ... plurality of stand-offs 45 (props).
`
`Minneman et al. discloses that the plurality of props 45 can be captivating
`
`indentations formed in the housing, which would be concave in nature.”
`
`Petition, p. 7 (citations omitted). The stand-offs and the captivating
`
`indentations, however, are described in Minneman as being two wholly
`
`different structures. See id at 10:48-62. Combining the features of the
`
`stand-offs and captivating indentations into a single structure, as the
`
`Petitioner does in Grounds 1 and 3, is improper. The features of each
`
`structure, the stand-offs and the captivating indentations, must be
`
`analyzed separately. See CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 2d 196,
`
`254 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (“[W]hen making an anticipation determination, it
`
`would be inappropriate to combine multiple listings/examples ... to meet
`
`the requirement of a single claim.”) (citing Net MoneyIN v. Verisign, 545
`
`F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`Further, neither the stand-offs nor the captivating indentations
`
`described by Minneman can be read, individually, as being the “concave
`
`props” of the ’879 patent.
`
`As noted above, the stand-offs are described as “plastic studs,
`
`electrically non-conductive rivets, screws, bolds [sic], studs, or electrically
`
`conductive ones, etc.” Id. at 10:48-52. FIG. 4 of Minneman (reproduced
`
`above) shows the stand-offs as rectangular solids attached to the housing
`
`and to the PCBA. None of these variations of stand-offs can be
`
`characterized as “concave, ” as required by the claims, because none of
`
`these variations can be described as “curving inward” nor do they “form a
`
`recess,” such as a recess on the outer surface of the housing. See, Section
`
`IV.A, supra.
`
`Moreover, Minneman’s stand-offs suffer from the same
`
`manufacturing difficulties the ‘879 patent sought to remedy. For example,
`
`the background of the ‘879 patent states that the flake spacer, an additional
`
`element added into the housing, “is not easy to...fabricate[] into the space
`
`between the metallic conductive housing 11 and the PCBA 12.” Ex. 1001
`
`(‘879 patent) at 1:60-62. The ‘879 patent states that the concave props being
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`integral with the housing “simplifies the manufacturing process because
`
`the PCBA could be propped up by punched concave props instead of
`
`uncontrollable flake spacer.” Id. at 5:43-45. The stand-offs, like the
`
`uncontrollable flake spacer distinguished by the ‘879 patent (see ‘879 FIG.
`
`4), are an additional element that is added into the housing and not easy to
`
`be fabricated into the housing.
`
` Accordingly, for at least these reasons, the stand-offs of Minneman
`
`cannot be read as the concave props recited in the claims.
`
`
`
`The captivating indentations of Minneman also cannot be read as the
`
`concave props of the ’879 patent. The captivating indentations are not
`
`shown in the figures, and Minneman does not describe their shape. The
`
`captivating indentations cannot be characterized as “concave,” because
`
`Minneman does not disclose that the captivating indentations are
`
`“curving” as in “curving inward to form a recess.” See Section IV.A, supra.
`
`Although the captivating indentations in Minneman are said to be formed
`
`by “pushing or pressing on the outside of housing,” curved shapes do not
`
`necessarily follow from these processes. Ex. 1003 (Minneman) at 10:55-56.
`
`Rather, the shape depends on the shape of the presses and dies used.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`Indeed, the only examples of “captivating indentations” disclosed in
`
`Minneman are described as “guides or detents.” Id. at 10:56. A detent is a
`
`“locking piece of a mechanism.” Ex. 2003 (Collins English Dictionary), p. 4.
`
`A guide is “any device that directs the motion of a tool or machine part.”
`
`Id. at p. 5. Neither of these structures is a “prop,” which, as discussed
`
`previously, requires at least “a structure that supports (i.e., props-up) one
`
`thing apart from another.” See Section IV.A, supra. For example, nothing
`
`in the function of a detent relates to propping-up one thing apart from
`
`another, and detents do not typically do so. Similarly, a guide can take
`
`many forms. Nothing in the function of a guide relates to propping-up one
`
`thing apart from another, and guides do not typically do so.
`
`In fact, Minneman describes the function of the stand-offs, shown in
`
`FIG. 4 as stand-offs 45 supporting the circuit board 40 apart from the
`
`housing 25, as to “support and retain” the circuit board. Ex. 1003
`
`(Minneman) at 10:51. By comparison, Minneman describes the function of
`
`the captivating indentations as to “position and retain the subassembly 44,”
`
`including the circuit board. Id. at 10:59. The choice of the alternative verb
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`“position” supports the conclusion that Minneman does not disclose the
`
`captivating indentations perform the “support” function of the stand-offs.
`
`Notably, there are many structures that could be formed by pushing
`
`and pressing on the housing that cannot be characterized as concave props.
`
`For example, consider the non-prop recess, discussed above, that are
`
`distinguished in background of the ‘879 patent. See, Section IV.A, supra.
`
`Non-prop
`recess
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Minneman’s captivating indentations, as detents and guides, are two
`
`additional examples of structures that cannot be characterized as concave
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`props.
`
`Accordingly, for at least these reasons, the captivating indentations
`
`cannot be read as the “concave props” of the ‘879 claims.
`
`Ground 3 alleges that claims 1-4 and 8 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 over Minneman in view of AAPA. As discussed above, Minneman
`
`does not teach the “concave props” recited in the claims of the ’879 patent.
`
`The Petition does not allege that the AAPA of the ’879 patent teaches the
`
`claimed “concave props.” Accordingly, as the AAPA does not address the
`
`deficiencies of Minneman discussed above with respect to Ground 1,
`
`Ground 3 is defective for at least the same reasons as Ground 1.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that the Board deny Grounds 1
`
`and 3 of the Petition.
`
`B. Grounds 1 and 3 are defective because Minneman does not
`teach “said PCBA is fixed by means of pressing of said plurality of
`concave props” as recited in the claims
`
`Minneman’s stand-offs further do not meet the limitation of “said
`
`PCBA is fixed by means of pressing of said plurality of concave props” in
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`claims 1-4 and 8. As noted above, the stand-offs are described as “plastic
`
`studs, electrically non-conductive rivets, screws, bolds [sic], studs, or
`
`electrically conductive ones, etc.” Id. at 10:48-52. FIG. 4 of Minneman
`
`(reproduced above) shows the stand-offs as rectangular solids attached to
`
`the housing and to the PCBA. Although each of these structures may
`
`retain the circuit board, they do so not by pressing the circuit board, but
`
`rather by a mechanical attachment to the board, such as an adhesive, solder
`
`connection, or mechanical retainer. Id. at 10:43-47.
`
`The citation by Petitioner to suggest the stand-offs retain the circuit
`
`board “by mechanical interference, by friction fit, and/or by press fit,” is
`
`describing the operation of captivating indentations (i.e. – the guides or
`
`detents), not the stand-offs. See id. However, as previously discussed, the
`
`stand-offs and captivating indentations are two separate structures, and
`
`therefore importing features from the captivating indentations (e.g., the
`
`alleged pressing on the PCBA) to the stand-offs is improper.
`
`Accordingly, the stand-offs of Minneman do not disclose at least that
`
`“said PCBA is fixed by means of pressing of said plurality of concave
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`props” of claims 1-4 and 8. Therefore, Patent Owner respectfully requests
`
`that the Board deny Ground 1 of the Petition for at least this further reason.
`
`
`
`Ground 3 alleges that the same claims as Ground 1 are unpatentable
`
`over Minneman in view of the AAPA of the ’879 patent. The Petition does
`
`not allege that the AAPA of the ’879 patent teaches that “said PCBA is fixed
`
`by means of pressing of said plurality of concave props” as recited in
`
`claims 1-4 and 8. Accordingly, as the AAPA does not address the
`
`deficiencies of Minneman discussed above with respect to Ground 1,
`
`Ground 3 is defective for at least the same reasons as Ground 1. Further, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to combine
`
`Minneman with the AAPA.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that the Board deny Grounds 1
`
`and 3 of the Petition.
`
`C. Ground 2 is defective because Takahashi does not teach
`“concave props”
`
`Ground 2 alleges that claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16 are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over Minneman plus Takahashi. As discussed above,
`
`Minneman does not teach the “concave props” recited in the claims.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`Takahashi does not cure this deficiency of Minneman, because the
`
`structures alleged to be concave props in Takahashi are in fact convex, and
`
`not concave (i.e., not forming a curved recess) from any surface.
`
`
`
`Takahashi describes an integrated circuit or “IC” card including a
`
`“base card” held in place in the device by a number of “protrusions 32.”
`
`Ex. 1006 (Takahashi), ¶ 0159. Fig. 4A from Takahashi shows the
`
`protrusions 32:
`
`
`Ex. 1006 (Takahashi), FIG. 4A (annotated)
`
`Petitioner asserts “protrusions 32” as teaching the claimed concave
`
`props. However, these “protrusions” are not concave. As previously
`
`discussed, concave means “curving inward to form a recess.” Takahashi’s
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`protrusions are solid and curve outward from the sidewalls of IC receiving
`
`portion 13. FIG. 4C from Takahashi shows a side view of the protrusions
`
`32, confirming that they are solid:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006 (Takahashi), FIG. 4C (annotated)
`
`As such, the protrusions 32 do not form a recess, and therefore are
`
`not concave.
`
`Accordingly, Takahashi does not teach at least the “concave props”
`
`recited in the claims of the ’879 patent. Thus, as Minneman also does not
`
`teach at least “concave props” as discussed previously, Patent Owner
`
`requests the Board to deny Ground 2 of the Petition.
`
`D. Ground 2 is defective because a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would not have combined Minneman and Takahashi
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to
`
`combine the IC card design of Takahashi with the USB device of
`
`Minneman beyond impermissible hindsight. Petitioner fails to identify a
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`
`
`reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
`
`two references, stating only that “concave shape is a matter of choice which
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found to be obvious.”
`
`Petition, p. 14. Notably, the IC card receptacle of Takahashi and USB
`
`device of Minneman have different constructions, and thus are faced with
`
`different problems in their manufacture. The purposes and teachings of
`
`Takahashi relating to its providing protrusions 32 are inapplicable to
`
`Minneman’s USB drive. Therefore, there is no reason to combine the
`
`references as Petitioner suggests.
`
`Moreover, the concave shape of the claimed “concave props” is not a
`
`matter of mere design choice obvious to a person of ordinary skill. There
`
`are an infinite number of shapes that can be adopted. As discussed above,
`
`the inventors of the ‘879 patent sought to provide space for additional
`
`components i