Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`
`Entered: February 11, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`RAYMARINE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NAVICO HOLDING AS
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`
`Entered: February 11, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`RAYMARINE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NAVICO HOLDING AS
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Raymarine, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 4, 6, 8-9, 12-15, 22, 27-28, 34-37, 43, 54-55, 63, and 65-68 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840 (Ex. 1001, “the ’840 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). In
`response, Navico Holding AS (“Patent Owner”) filed a patent owner preliminary
`response on November 13, 2013. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). 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.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Board authorizes an inter partes review to
`be instituted as to claims 4, 6, 8-9, 12-15, 22, 27-28, 34-37, 43, 54-55, 63, and 65-
`68 of the ’840 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’840 patent is involved in Navico, Inc. v.
`Raymarine, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-00251 (N.D. Okla., filed Apr. 29, 2013). Pet.
`1. Patent Owner indicates that the ’840 patent also is involved in Navico, Inc. v.
`Raymarine, Inc., Inv. No. 337-TA-2981 (International Trade Commission). Paper
`6. Petitioner has filed two additional petitions seeking inter partes review of the
`’840 patent (IPR2013-00355 and IPR2013-00497).
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`
`
`
`B. The ’840 Patent
`
`The ’840 patent is described in the decision to institute in co-pending inter
`partes review IPR2013-00355. We incorporate that description here.
`
`C. Exemplary Claim
`
`None of the challenged claims are independent claims. Claims 28 and 63,
`which ultimately depend from claim 1, are exemplary of the claimed subject matter
`of the ’840 patent at issue in this decision, and are reproduced as follows
`(independent claim 1 is also reproduced for context):
`1. A sonar assembly for imaging an underwater environment
`beneath a watercraft traveling on a surface of a body of water, the
`sonar assembly comprising:
`a housing mountable to the watercraft;
`a single linear downscan transducer element positioned within
`the housing, the linear downscan transducer element having a
`substantially rectangular shape configured to produce a fan-shaped
`sonar beam having a relatively narrow beamwidth in a direction
`parallel to a longitudinal length of the linear downscan transducer
`element and a relatively wide beamwidth in a direction perpendicular
`to the longitudinal length of the transducer element, the linear
`downscan transducer element being positioned with the longitudinal
`length thereof extending in a fore-to-aft direction of the housing;
`wherein the linear downscan transducer element is positioned
`within the housing to project fan-shaped sonar beams in a direction
`substantially perpendicular to a plane corresponding to the surface of
`the body of water, said sonar beams being repeatedly emitted so as to
`sequentially insonify different fan-shaped regions of the underwater
`environment as the watercraft travels; and
`a sonar signal processor receiving signals representative of
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`
`sonar returns resulting from each of the fan-shaped sonar beams and
`processing the signals to produce sonar image data for each fan-
`shaped region and to create an image of the underwater environment
`as a composite of images of the fan-shaped regions arranged in a
`progressive order corresponding to the travel of the watercraft.
`
`28. The sonar system of claim 26, wherein at least one display of
`the plurality of displays is enabled to simultaneously provide different
`images representing different information from the processed sonar return
`signals.
`
`63. The sonar system of claim 46, wherein the sonar signal processor is
`further configured to perform additional processing to correlate sonar data to
`a GPS position.
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`Adams
`
`US 5,184,330
`Feb. 2, 1993
`Boucher ’798
`US 6,904,798
`Jun. 14, 2005
`Betts
`
`US 7,652,952
`Jan. 26, 2010
`Boucher ’552
`US 7,961,552
`Jun. 14, 2011
`
`DE JONG, C.D. ET AL., HYDROGRAPHY (1st ed. 2002) (“Hydrography,”
`Ex. 1003).
`
`DEROOS, BRADLEY G. ET AL., TECHNICAL SURVEY AND EVALUATION OF
`UNDERWATER SENSORS AND REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLES (May 1993)
`(“DeRoos,” Ex. 1008).
`
`(Ex. 1006)
`(Ex. 1005)
`(Ex. 1007)
`(Ex. 1004)
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the
`following grounds:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`
`Reference[s]
`Hydrography
`
`Hydrography, Boucher
`’552
`Hydrography, Boucher
`’798, and DeRoos
`Hydrography, Adams,
`and Betts
`Hydrography, Boucher
`’552, Adams, and Betts
`Hydrography, Boucher
`’798, DeRoos, Adams,
`and Betts
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Claims challenged
`4, 6, 9, 12-15, 22, and 34-
`37
`4, 6, 9, 12-15, 22, and 34-
`37
`4, 6, 9, 12-15, 22, and 34-
`37
`8, 27-28, 43, 54-55, 63, and
`65-68
`8, 27-28, 43, 54-55, 63, and
`65-68
`8, 27-28, 43, 54-55, 63, and
`65-68
`
`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, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special
`definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`The following terms are construed in the decision to institute in co-pending
`inter partes review IPR2013-00355: a single linear downscan transducer element
`(independent claims 1 and 23); sequentially insonify different fan-shaped regions
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`of the underwater environment; composite of images of the fan-shaped regions;
`and the linear downscan transducer element being positioned with the longitudinal
`length thereof extending in a fore-to-aft direction of the housing. For the purpose
`of this decision, we adopt the constructions of those terms recited therein.
`As to the terms, “simultaneously provide different images representing
`different information from the processed sonar return signals” and “perform
`additional processing to correlate sonar data to a GPS position,” not expressly
`construed previously, the following claim constructions apply.
`
`simultaneously provide different images representing different information
`from the processed sonar return signals (Claim 28)
` Petitioner does not construe “simultaneously provide different images
`representing different information from the processed sonar return signals.” Patent
`Owner argues that the phrase means “[simultaneously] provide at least two
`different images, each image including information from the processed sonar
`return signals that is different than the at least one other image.” Prelim. Resp. 20.
`Patent Owner’s construction simply restates the claim in different words without
`providing further explanation of the limitations. The claim term at issue needs no
`express definition because its ordinary and customary meaning can be understood
`without further explanation. Therefore, the phrase “configuration settings defining
`a predefined set of display images that may be presented” does not need further
`defining beyond what is claimed.
`perform additional processing to correlate sonar data to a GPS position
`(Claim 63)
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`
`Petitioner does not construe “perform additional processing to correlate
`sonar data to a GPS position.” Patent Owner argues that the phrase means
`“perform additional processing to match the sonar data with the corresponding
`GPS position in which the sonar data was received.” Prelim. Resp. 21.
`Patent Owner points out that the specification teaches that “the processor, in
`combination with suitable memory, may . . . alter images with additional
`processing . . . to correlate data, such as fish or bottom features to a GPS position
`or temperature.” Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 34-39; Prelim. Resp. 21. Nevertheless, that
`passage simply tracks the claim language, i.e. that sonar data, such as fish or
`bottom features, are correlated with a GPS position. The passage cited by Patent
`Owner does not further limit the term correlate to mean an exact match of GPS
`position to the location where the sonar data were received. Although claims are
`interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not
`read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). On
`the record before us, the claim language does not require the proposed language
`relating to pre-storing, image arrangements, separate display images, and different
`data. The claim term at issue needs no express definition because its ordinary and
`customary meaning can be understood without further explanation. Therefore, the
`phrase “perform additional processing to correlate sonar data to a GPS position”
`does not need further defining beyond what is claimed.
`All other terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning that those
`terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the ’840 patent
`specification.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`
`B. Claims 4, 6, 9, 12-15, 22, and 34-37 – Obvious over Hydrography
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 4, 6, 9, 12-15, 22, and 34-37 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hydrography. Pet. 13-28. Patent Owner made no
`specific arguments regarding this challenge. Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis
`and supporting evidence, and taking into account Patent Owner’s preliminary
`response, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 4, 6, 9, 12-15, 22, and 34-37
`on the ground that these claims are unpatentable over Hydrography.
`Hydrography comprises two chapters (chapters 10 and 11) from a textbook
`with the same name. Ex. 1003. Hydrography describes an echo sounder for
`imaging an underwater environment beneath a watercraft traveling on a surface of
`a body of water. The echo sounder consists of (1) a transmitter that generates
`pulses, (2) a transmitter/receiver that passes the power to a transducer, (3) a
`transducer mounted on the ship’s hull and contained in a housing, (4) a receiver
`that amplifies an echo signal and sends it to a recording system, and (5) a recorder
`that controls the signal emission, measures the travel time of the acoustic signal,
`stores the data, and converts time intervals into ranges. Id. at 320-321; Fig. 11.3.
`Figure 11.8 of Hyrography shows an echo sounder transducer mounted to
`the ship’s hull on the left side of the figure, and on the right side, a recorded image
`of the underwater environment as the watercraft travels on the surface of a body of
`water. In particular, the transducer emits sonar pulses into an underwater
`environment and detects echo returns from the underwater environment as the ship
`moves across the water. Id. at 323; Ex. 1010 ¶ 37. Figure 11.8 is reproduced
`below.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPPR2013-004497
`
`Patent 88,305,840
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 11.8 of Hyddrography shows, onn the left, a
`
`
`
`surveyingg vessel passsing alongg a
`
`
`
`
`
`ridgee, and, on the right, aa resultant recorded pprofile of thhe hyperboolic echoess.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` T
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The transduucers descrribed in secctions 11.11-11.3 (circcular and rrectangularr)
`id.
`
`producee single beaams, downnwardly poointed or diirected to tthe seabed.. See e.g.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`f the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 327 ((“Narrow bbeam echossounders ddo not provvide informmation off tthe sides o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ship.”). Consistennt with thatt descriptioon are Figuures 11.8 aand 11.9, wwhich showw a
`
`
`
`
`beam diirected dowwnwardly ffrom the vessel.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AA transduceer’s beam ppattern is ddeterminedd by the sizze and shappe of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transduccer. Id. at 325. Figuure 11.10 shhows a vieew of a trannsponder bbeamwidthh for
`
`
`
`
`a circulaar transduccer, which is conical in shape.
`
`Figure 11..12 shows
`
`a single linnear
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`downscan transduucer elemennt. The traansducer iss substantiaally rectanggular in shhape
`
`
`and produces a diffferent beaamwidth inn each of itts two princcipal axes.. Id. at 3255.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 111.12 is repproduced bbelow.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPPR2013-004497
`
`Patent 88,305,840
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`drography Fig. 111.12 of Hyd
`
`
`
`
`characteeristics of a rectanguular transduucer.
`
`shows thee resultant bbeam shapping
`
`
`
` T
`
`parallel to a longittudinal lenngth of the transducerr, and a rellatively widde beamwiidth
`
` directly b
`
`The beam ffootprint is
`
`
`elow the reectangular r transduce
`
`r. As furthher
`
`
`
`depictedd by Figuree 11.12, annd describeed on pagees 326-327,, the transdducer prodduces
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a fan-shhaped sonaar beam havving a relaatively narrrow beamwwidth in a ddirection
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in a direection perppendicular to the longgitudinal leength of thhe transduccer.
`
`
`HHydrographhy further ddescribes mmultibeam m echo sounnders (MBEES). Id. att
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`327. MMBES are ddivided intoo two grouups: swath
`
`
`
`systems aand sweep ssystems. AA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`swath syystem “prooduces multiple acouustic beamss from a sinngle transiistor systemm
`
`
`
`
`(althouggh dual transducer syystems are used and,
`
`
`sometimess the transmmitter and
`
`
`receiverr are separaate).” Id. aat 327.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Inndependennt claims 1 and 23 reccite “the linnear downnscan transdducer elemment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`being positioned with the longitudinal length thereof extending in a fore-to-aft
`direction of the housing.” Thus, the challenged claims all depend from claim 1 or
`23 and include this limitation. As noted above, we incorporate the construction of
`this phrase from the Decision to Institute in IPR2013-00355 (“355 Dec.”) that the
`longitudinal length of the transducer extends in a “fore-to-aft” direction of the
`housing which is the same direction as the “fore-to-aft” direction of the watercraft.
`355 Dec. 15. Thus, all of the challenged claims require that the longitudinal length
`of the transducer extend in the fore-to-aft direction of the watercraft.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not directed us to sufficient evidence
`to show that Hydrography teaches or suggests that the longitudinal length of the
`rectangular transducer, shown above in Figure 11.12, extends in a fore-to-aft
`direction of the watercraft. Prelim. Resp. 21.
`To account for this feature required in all of the challenged claims, Petitioner
`argues that to maximize seabed coverage for the fore-to-aft positioned ship shown
`in Hydrography Fig. 11.9, the transducer of Fig. 11.12 must be positioned with the
`longitudinal length in the fore-to-aft direction. Pet. 16. Neither figure, however,
`shows how the transducer is oriented, despite Petitioner annotating Fig. 11.12 with
`a “fore” and “aft.” Moreover, as even Petitioner and its expert recognizes, there is
`a possibility that a transducer may not be oriented necessarily such that the
`longitudinal length of the transducer is along the fore-to-aft plane (direction) of the
`housing. Pet. 16; Ex. 1010 ¶ 37.
`Nonetheless, Petitioner argues that it “would be very unlikely that such a
`transducer would be by default oriented with the longitudinal length in other
`directions.” Pet. 16. We credit Mr. Stokes’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`the art, with knowledge of Hydrography, would orient the transducer in the fore-to-
`aft direction to “sweep out a maximum portion of the sea bed.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 37.
`Based on the record before us, Hydrography would indicate to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art that the transducer shown in Fig. 11.12, for example, may be
`positioned in a fore-to-aft direction of the housing or watercraft. It is well
`established that ordinary creativity is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill
`in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). We find
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the transducer may
`be oriented in any number of positions, including a fore-to-aft direction of the
`watercraft, depending on the desired use. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:19-36.
`Petitioner provides explanations as to how each remaining limitation of
`claims 4, 6, 9, 12-15, 22, and 34-37 is taught or suggested by Hydrography and
`articulates, based on the current record, sufficient reasoning with a rational
`underpinning to justify a conclusion of obviousness. Pet. 20-28. 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 would prevail in its
`assertion that independent claims 4, 6, 9, 12-15, 22, and 34-37 are unpatentable
`over Hydrography.
`
`C. Claims 8, 27-28, 43, 54-55, 63, and 65-68 – Obvious over Hydrography,
`Adams, and Betts
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 8, 27-28, 43, 54-55, 63, and 65-68 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hydrography, Adams, and Betts. Pet.
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`13-28. Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, and taking
`into account Patent Owner’s preliminary response, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect
`to claims 8, 27-28, 43, 54-55, 63, and 65-68 on the ground that these claims are
`unpatentable over Hydrography, Adams, and Betts.
`Claim 28 recites “at least one display of the plurality of displays is enabled
`to simultaneously provide different images representing different information from
`the processed sonar return signals.” Petitioner argues that FIG. 19 of Betts teaches
`a display simultaneously displaying different images (e.g., port and starboard
`views) representing depth, bottom features, and fish from different regions (e.g.,
`port and starboard regions) from processed sonar return signals. (RAY-1007,
`11:15-21). Pet. 45. Petitioner provides reasons to combine the teachings of
`Hydrography with the teachings of Adams. Pet. 40.
`Patent Owner argues that “FIG. 19 is clearly one image of the underwater
`
`environment on one display.” Prelim. Resp. 35. Patent Owner fails to explain why
`an image of a port view is the same as an image of a starboard view. To the extent
`Patent Owner argues they are the same image because they are on the same
`display, we are not persuaded by that argument.1 On the record before us,
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that FIG. 19 shows providing simultaneously
`different images representing different information from the processed sonar return
`
`1 We note that claim 28 recites “the plurality of displays” but then requires only
`one display of the plurality of displays. Claim 28 depends from dependent claim
`26, and ultimately independent claim 23, neither of which recite “a plurality of
`displays.” Thus, there appears to be a lack of antecedent basis for the recitation of
`“the plurality of displays.”
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`signals.
`Claim 63 recites “the sonar signal processor is further configured to perform
`additional processing to correlate sonar data to a GPS position.” Petitioner argues
`that Betts teaches “GPS imaging is also provided with the side imaging [e.g., sonar
`data]. […] The GPS history may be used to determine the distance back and the
`sonar may be used to determine the distance to the side [e.g., to correlate sonar
`data to GPS position].” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1007, 3:40-46) (brackets by Petitioner).
`Patent Owner argues:
`[Betts] teaches processing of the GPS position separately from
`processing of the sonar. Indeed, the GPS position of Betts is used to
`determine the distance back to a particular way point that is marked
`via the GPS system and, then, the sonar is used to determine the
`distance to the side (e.g., the distance to an object of interest from the
`particular waypoint) without any correlation between the GPS and the
`sonar data.
`Prelim. Resp. 37-38. Patent Owner further argues “[t]his fails to teach correlating
`(i.e., matching) the sonar data with the GPS position, as required by Claim 63.” Id.
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding this claim term are based on its narrow
`construction, which we reject, for the purpose of this decision, as noted above.
`Thus, Patent Owner’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim
`language. The claim does not require matching, but instead correlation. Nor does
`the claim require the GPS data and sonar data be processed together. Thus,
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that using the GPS position data together with the
`sonar data to determine a position is correlating those data, as required by claim
`63.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`
`D. Other Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that (1) claims 4, 6, 9, 12-15, 22, and 34-37 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hydrography in view of Boucher ’552
`(Pet. 29-34), (2) claims 4, 6, 9, 12-15, 22, and 34-37 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hydrography in view of Boucher ’798, DeRoos (id. at 34-
`39), (3) claims 8, 12-15, 27-28, 34-37,43, 54-55, 63, and 65-68 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hydrography in view of Boucher ’552, Adams, and
`Betts (id. at 51-55), and (4) claims 3, 10-11, 26, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46, 49-53, 56-62,
`and 69 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hydrography in view of
`Boucher ’798, DeRoos, Adams, and Betts (id. at 55-59). We exercise our
`discretion and determine that those grounds of unpatentability are redundant to the
`grounds of unpatentability on which we initiate inter partes review. Accordingly,
`we do not authorize inter partes review on the remaining grounds of
`unpatentability asserted by Petitioner against claims 4, 6, 8-9, 12-15, 22, 27-28, 34-
`37, 43, 54-55, 63, and 65-68 of the ’840 patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. SUMMARY
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information presented in
`the petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail with respect to claims 4, 6, 8-9, 12-15, 22, 27-28, 34-37, 43, 54-55, 63, and
`65-68 of the ’840 patent.
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of any
`challenged claims.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`hereby instituted as to claims 4, 6, 9, 12-15, 22, 27-28, 34-37, 43, 54-55, 63, and
`65-68 of the ’840 patent for the following grounds:
`1. Claims 4, 6, 9, 12-15, 22, and 34-37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Hydrography; and
`2. claims 8, 12-15, 27-28, 34-37, 43, 54-55, 63, and 65-68 as unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hydrography in view of Adams and Betts;
`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 February 27, 2014; the parties are directed
`to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765-66 (Aug. 14,
`2012), for guidance in preparing for the initial conference call, and should be
`prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the Scheduling Order entered
`herewith and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00497
`Patent 8,305,840
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Michael D. McCoy
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
