Paper 12
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: April 9, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: April 9, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Microsoft Corporation, filed a corrected petition requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 B1 (Ex.
`1001, “the ’290 patent”). Paper 5 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, B.E. Technology,
`L.L.C., did not file a preliminary response. We have jurisdiction under 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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.”
`Upon consideration of the petition, we conclude that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1-3
`as unpatentable. Accordingly, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we authorize an
`inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 1-3 of the ’290 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner states that the ’290 patent is involved in B.E. Technology,
`L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:12-cv-02829 (W.D. Tenn.). Pet. 1. We
`also note that the ’290 patent is involved in numerous district court cases
`filed by Patent Owner against other defendants. In addition, the ’290 patent
`is the subject of these inter partes reviews: IPR2014-00029, IPR2014-
`00031, IPR2014-00033, and IPR2014-00044.
`In IPR2014-00039, Petitioner requests inter partes review of related
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 B1 (“the ’314 patent”), also at issue in B.E.
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:12-cv-02829 (W.D. Tenn.).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`The ’314 patent is also the subject of these inter partes reviews: IPR2014-
`00038, IPR2014-00052, and IPR2014-00053.
`
`B. The ’290 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’290 patent describes a system that provides remote storage of
`user-specific files and resources that can be accessed over a network, such as
`the Internet. Ex. 1001, 5:43-50, 12:45-50. The disclosed system includes
`client computers, each running a client software application that provides
`access via a network to an advertising and data management (ADM) server.
`Id. at 11:42-49. The server includes a user database that stores a user profile
`and a user library for each user. Id. at 12:45-13:12. The user profile is
`accessed by the client software application using a unique identifier for the
`user via a login. Id. at 12:52-56. The user profile may contain user-specific
`customized settings for the operating system used by the client computer.
`Id. at 12:56-58. Additionally, the user profile may contain “bookmarks,
`shortcuts, and other such links to files and information resources accessible
`via” the network. Id. at 12:67-13:3. The user library “enables the user to
`store files (documents, executable programs, email messages, audio clips,
`video clip, or other files) that can then be accessed from any client
`computer.” Id. at 13:4-7. By storing user profiles and user libraries on the
`server, users “can have world-wide access to their preferences, addresses,
`bookmarks, email, and files without having to physically transport them
`from one place to another.” Id. at 13:9-12.
`The ’290 patent further describes a user interface on a client
`computer, provided by a graphical user interface (GUI) module. Id. at
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00040
`
`
`Patennt 6,771,2990 B1
`
`
`
`13:441-43. Thee user inter
`ith
`window wpplication wface comprises an ap
`
`
`
`
`
`selecctable itemms such as iicons. Id. at 13:43-5
`
`
`
`
`3. As showwn in Figuure 5b,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`varioous files annd links to informatioon resourcees.” Id. at
`
`
`
`
`15:48-53.
`
`reprooduced bellow, the appplication wwindow mmay includee “icons thaat represennt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figgure 5b illuustrates an applicationn window
`
`with iconss
`files and l
`
`reppresenting
`
`
`inks to infformation rresources.
`
`
`s a library
`5b includeThe applicationn window in Figure 5
`
`
`
`
`icon, whicch, when
`low.
`
`
`
`
`
`seleccted, provides a displlay as showwn in Figurre 5c, repr
`oduced be
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00040
`
`
`Patennt 6,771,2990 B1
`
`
`ndow ication wines an appliFigure 55c illustrate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dissplaying files in a useer library.
`
`
`
`The
`user files contaained in a u
`
`a list of all display in Figure 5c provides a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`libraary. Id. at 15:55-56. From this window, ““the user ccan access
`any of the
`
`files containedd in his or hher user libbrary.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`at 15:56-557.
`
`
`
`C. Illusstrative Claaims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Indeependent cllaims 1 andd 2 are illuustrative:
`
`
`
`Petitioneer challengges all claimms (claimss 1-3) of thhe ’290 pattent.
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`A commputer-reaadable memmory for uuse by a cclient
`
`
`
`
`
`
`computeer to providde a user oof the commputer withh an integrrated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`customizzed, graphhical user iinterface too a pluraliity of commputer
`
`
`
`
`
`resourcees, the commputer-readdable memoory comprrising:
`
`
`
`a non-volatile data sto
`
`rage devicce;
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`a program stored on said non-volatile data storage device
`
`in a computer-readable format;
`
`said program being operable upon execution to display a
`graphical user interface comprising an application window
`separated into a number of regions;
`
`a first one of said regions including a number of
`graphical objects, at least some of which are each representative
`of a different software application and are selectable by the user
`via an input device, wherein said program is operable upon
`selection of one of said graphical objects to initiate execution of
`the software application associated therewith;
`
`a second one of said regions including a number of user-
`selectable items, at least some of which are each associated
`with a different data set, said data sets each comprising a
`number of links to different information resources, wherein said
`program is operable in response to selection of at least one of
`said items to provide the user with access to its associated data
`set;
`said program including a login module that is operable
`
`upon execution to identify the user of the computer; and
`
`said program being operable following execution of said
`login module to provide an identification of the user to the
`server and to receive from the server a user profile containing
`one or more user data sets and user links to information
`resources, with said program further being operable to display
`in one of said regions a user-selectable item for each of said
`user data sets and each of said user links.
`
`A computer-readable memory for use by a client
`2.
`
`computer in conjunction with a server that is accessible by the
`client computer via a network, the server storing a user profile
`and user library for each of a number of different users, with the
`user library containing one or more files and the user profile
`containing at least one user link that provides a[] link to one of
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`the files in the user library, the computer-readable memory
`comprising:
`
`a non-volatile data storage device;
`
`a program stored on said non-volatile data storage device
`in a computer-readable format;
`
`said program being operable upon execution to display a
`graphical user interface comprising an application window
`having a number of user-selectable items displayed therein,
`wherein each of said items has associated with it a link to an
`information resource accessible via the network and wherein
`said program is operable upon execution and in response to
`selection by a user of one of said items to access the associated
`information resource over the network;
`
`said program being operable upon execution to receive
`from [the] server one of the user profiles and to display a user-
`selectable item for user links contained within the user profile,
`said program further being operable in response to selection by
`a user of one of the user links to access the file associated with
`the selected user link from the user library associated with the
`received user profile.
`Id. at 38:30-40:11.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-3 of the ’290 patent are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on the following specific grounds:
`
`Reference[s]
`Kikinis1
`AOL2
`
`Basis
`§ 102(b)
`§ 102(b)
`
`Challenged Claims
`1-3
`1-3
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`As a step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a review,
`we determine the meaning of the claims for purposes of this decision. In an
`inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired patent
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug.
`14, 2012). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms
`are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from
`its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`
`1 PCT International Publication Number WO 97/09682, published Mar. 13,
`1997 (Ex. 1005) (“Kikinis”).
`2 JOHN KAUFELD, AMERICA ONLINE FOR DUMMIES (3d ed. 1996) (Ex. 1006)
`(“AOL”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`1. Claim Terms Defined in the ’290 Patent
`The ’290 patent recites explicit definitions for many terms. In the
`table below, we construe the claim terms that are relevant to our decision in
`accordance with the definitions provided in the ’290 patent, which are set
`forth in the ’290 patent with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.
`
`Claim Term
`
`data set
`
`file
`
`information resource
`
`link
`
`Construction
`“A group of data items; for example, links,
`keywords, or entries in an address book.”
`Ex. 1001, 4:18-19.
`“Any digital item, including information,
`documents,
`applications,
`audio/video
`components, and the like, that is stored in
`memory and
`is accessible via a file
`allocation
`table or other pointing or
`indexing structure.” Ex. 1001, 4:25-28.
`“A source of information stored on a
`server or other computer that is accessible
`to other computers over a network.”
`Ex. 1001, 4:33-35.
`“A data item that identifies the location or
`address of a program or
`information
`resource.” Ex. 1001, 4:39-40.3
`
`
`3 The ’290 patent further provides: “A URL [i.e., a uniform resource
`locator] is a link, as is a path and filename of an information resource.”
`Ex. 1001, 4:40-41. We consider these to be examples of a “link,” not part of
`the definition, and, therefore, not part of our construction of the claim term.
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`non-volatile data storage
`device
`
`profile
`
`Construction
`“A memory device that retains computer-
`readable data or programming code in the
`absence of externally-supplied power,
`including such things as a hard disk or a
`floppy disk, a compact disk read-only
`memory (CDROM), digital versatile disk
`[(]DVD), magneto-optical disk, and so
`forth.” Ex. 1001, 4:46-51.
`“User-specific information relating to an
`individual using a computer.” Ex. 1001,
`4:52-53.
`
`2. “user library”
`In addition to the claim terms discussed above, we construe the claim
`term “user library” for purposes of this decision. Claim 2 recites a “server
`storing a . . . user library for each of a number of different users, with the
`user library containing one or more files.” Ex. 1001, 39:3-5 (emphasis
`added). Claim 2 further provides that files in the user library are accessed
`via user links in a user profile. Id. at 39:6-7, 40:8-11.
`Although the ’290 patent does not provide an explicit definition of
`“user library,” it provides the following description: “[T]he User Database
`46 of ADM server 22 can include a user library that enables the user to store
`files (documents, executable programs, email messages, audio clips, video
`clips, or other files) that can then be accessed from any client computer 40.”
`Id. at 13:3-7 (emphasis added). The written description of the ’290 patent
`further explains that a user library is “used to store [a user’s] individual files
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`and resources that the user wishes to be able to access from anywhere on the
`network.” Id. at 5:56-58.
`An ordinary meaning of “library” in the context of electronic
`document storage is a “collection of software or data files,”4 and, thus, a
`“user library” is a “collection of a user’s software or data files.” In view of
`this ordinary meaning and the claims and written description of the ’290
`patent, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of “user
`library” consistent with its use in the ’290 patent is “a collection of an
`individual’s stored files.”
`
`B. Anticipation by Kikinis
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-3 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Kikinis. Pet. 7-18. To support its contention,
`Petitioner explains how each claim limitation is described in Kikinis, relying
`on the declaration of Dr. Henry Houh (Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Kikinis (Ex. 1005)
`Kikinis describes a document management system that provides for
`remote storage and retrieval of electronic documents. Ex. 1005, Abstract,
`1:7-9. Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates Kikinis’s electronic document
`system.
`
`
`4 See MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 309 (5th ed. 2002).
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00040
`
`
`Patennt 6,771,2990 B1
`
`
`
`
`with a Weeb browserr
`
`
`
`
`hown in Figure 2, Kiikinis disclloses user
`station 53
`
`
`As s
`allows a u
`
`
`
`
`ser to acceess, via the Internet, sservers proovided by aa remote
`that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Interrnet servicee provider (ISP), labeeled “Userr’s Provideer” in the fiigure.
`
`Id. aat 6:11-14,
`24-26. In
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`incluudes Web sserver 67 aand a set off electronicc documennt servers 669, all of
`
`
`whicch have acccess to the Internet. IId. at 6:24
`
`
`-27.
`
`
`Each eleectronic doocument server 69 runns softwar
`
`
`
`e that suppports a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ram, a fax program,
`
`an e--mail prog
`
`
`
`a voice-maail programm, and otheer
`
`
`
`
`proggrams, incluuding videeo and grapphics. Id. aat 6:29-31.. Web servver 67
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`storees a set of ddatabases 771, each off which is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. aat 6:32-35. Each dataabase 71 inncludes homme page 733 that is
`
`the emboddiment shoown in Figuure 2, the rremote ISPP
`
`speccific application. Id. at 6:27-29. As showwn in Figurre 2, exampples includde
`
`associatedd with a diffferent userr.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00040
`
`
`Patennt 6,771,2990 B1
`
`
`
`
`indivvidualized to a speciffic user andd provides
`
`
`
` links to vaarious dataabases
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mainntained by electronic documentt server 69
`for each uuser, such aas e-mail
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`databbase 89, faax databasee 91, voicee-mail dataabase 93, annd other ellectronic
`
`
`
`docuuments in ddatabase 955. Id. at 6::35-7:4. AA user may
`
`
`
`be requireed to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provvide a passwword and uuser name to gain acccess to homme page 733 of an
`
`
`
`electtronic docuument dataabase. Id. aat 8:21-24..
`
`
`
`
`A user wwho wishess to access
`
`
`
`electronicc documentts stored onn an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7:17-29. Figurre 3 of Kikkinis, reprooduced beloow, illustraates a seriees of Web
`
`
`
`
`
`browwser windoows for acccessing electronic doccuments.
`
`electtronic docuument servver invokess the Web bbrowser att a user stattion. Id. att
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`As shown in Figure 3, a user enters a URL for his home page in field 113.
`Id. at 7:29-31. Home page 73 is retrieved from the remote server and
`displayed as a graphical user interface to data and other Web destinations,
`with on-screen links to the user’s electronic documents stored on the
`electronic document server. Id. at 7:31-8:1. For example, as shown in
`Figure 3, home page 73 provides links to the user’s voice-mail (button 117),
`e-mail (button 118), faxes (button 120), and other electronic documents
`(button 122). Id. at 8:2-13. A user also may use home page 73 to link to
`other databases, “such as a personal multi-lingual dictionary featuring
`pronunciation, a spelling checker, or a thesaurus; or indeed, almost any other
`sort of digital data or control routines.” Id. at 8:14-18.
`
`2. Claim 1
`Petitioner contends that Kikinis discloses all the limitations of
`claim 1. Pet. 8-12. First, Petitioner contends that user station 53 in Kikinis
`is a computer system having well-known elements of such a computer,
`including Web browser 65, and, therefore, Kikinis discloses a non-volatile
`data storage device and a program stored on that device in a computer-
`readable format, as recited in claim 1. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 118, 136-
`37).
`
`Next, Petitioner submits that user-specific home page 73 in Kikinis is
`a graphical user interface comprising an application window separated into a
`number of regions, as recited in claim 1. Pet. 9-10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122,
`124-28, 138-39); see Ex. 1005, Fig. 3. According to Petitioner, a section of
`the home page with user-selectable links, shown in Figure 3 of Kikinis,
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`corresponds to the claimed first region. Pet. 10. The user-selectable links
`for voice-mail and e-mail, for example, are graphical objects representative
`of different software applications. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119-21, 141-
`43). Claim 1 also requires a second region with user-selectable items
`associated with different data sets (which may be links, according to our
`claim construction), each of which comprises a number of links to different
`information resources. Furthermore, Petitioner submits that additional links
`not shown in Figure 3, such as links for a dictionary, spelling checker, and
`thesaurus, are user-selectable items in a second region. Pet. 11 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 8:14-18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 144-47).
`Petitioner also contends that Kikinis discloses a login module that
`identifies the user of the computer. Pet. 12; see Ex. 1005, 8:21-24
`(providing that a password and user name may be required for access to a
`home page). Further, Petitioner asserts that after execution of the login
`module provides a user’s identification to the server, the user’s computer
`receives from the server a user profile (home page 73) containing user data
`sets and links to information resources (user-selectable links to e-mail and
`voice-mail, for example), and displays a user-selectable item for each data
`set and link in one of the regions of the application window. Pet. 12 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 150-53); Ex. 1005, Fig. 3.
`On this record, we determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient
`showing that Kikinis discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly,
`we conclude that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as
`anticipated by Kikinis.
`
`3. Claims 2 and 3
`Petitioner contends that Kikinis discloses all the limitations of
`claim 2. Pet. 13-17. Beginning with the preamble, Petitioner asserts that
`Kikinis discloses a client computer (user station 53) and a server (electronic
`document servers 69) accessible by the client via a network (the Internet).
`Pet. 13-14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 154-57). Petitioner also contends that Kikinis
`discloses a user library (user-specific databases, such as e-mail database 89,
`fax database 91, voice-mail database 93, and electronic document database
`95, all of which contain user-specific files) stored on the server for each of a
`number of different users. Pet. 13-14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160-61). Further,
`Petitioner asserts, Kikinis discloses a user profile (home page 73) that has
`links to the user’s files (electronic documents, including e-mail messages
`and faxes). 13-14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160-61). Although the embodiment
`shown in Figure 2 of Kikinis maintains a user’s files on electronic document
`server 69 and a user’s home page on Web server 67, Kikinis also discloses
`that user profiles and user libraries can be stored on the same server.
`Ex. 1005, 10:30-11:9 (claim 7, which provides a user’s home page interface
`and electronic document database stored at the same server); see also id. at
`9:32-33 (“Arrangement and nature of electronic document databases can
`vary considerabl[y], as well.”).
`Petitioner also contends that user station 53 in Kikinis is a computer
`system having well-known elements of such a computer, including Web
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`browser 65, and, therefore, Kikinis discloses a non-volatile data storage
`device and a program stored on that device in a computer-readable format,
`as recited in claim 2. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 163-64).
`Furthermore, Petitioner asserts that the Web browser in Kikinis
`provides “a graphical user interface comprising an application window
`having a number of user-selectable items displayed therein,” as recited in
`claim 2. Pet. 15-16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 165-69). As described above, a user
`of Kikinis’s system enters a URL to retrieve his home page, which includes
`links or buttons that can be selected by the user. Ex. 1005, 7:31-8:13, Fig. 3.
`Moreover, Petitioner notes that when a user selects a link, the browser
`accesses an associated information resource (e-mail, fax, voice-mail, or
`other electronic document) over the network, as recited in claim 2. Pet. 15
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 167-68).
`Finally, Petitioner asserts that Kikinis discloses receiving one of the
`user profiles (user’s home page 73) from the server, displaying a user-
`selectable item for user links within the user profile (links or buttons that can
`be selected by the user), and, in response to a user’s selection of a link,
`accessing the file (e.g., electronic document, e-mail, fax, or voice-mail)
`associated with a selected user link from the user library (user-specific
`database for e-mail, fax, voice-mail, or electronic documents). Pet. 16-17
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 170-74).
`Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites that a browser is
`used for accessing an associated information resource over the network. As
`discussed, Petitioner asserts that Kikinis discloses a Web browser that
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`provides a user station with access to user-specific files in databases stored
`on a server over a network, such as the Internet. See Pet. 17-18 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175-77).
`On this record, we determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient
`showing that Kikinis discloses all of the limitations of claims 2 and 3.
`Accordingly, we conclude that the information presented shows a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claims 2 and 3
`are unpatentable as anticipated by Kikinis.
`
`C. Anticipation by AOL
`Having reviewed this ground of unpatentability asserted by Petitioner
`against claims 1-3, we exercise our discretion and determine that it is
`redundant to the ground of unpatentability on which we institute review for
`the same claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1-3 of the ’290 patent are
`unpatentable. At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final
`determination with respect to the patentability of these claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
` ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 1-3 of the ’290 patent on the ground
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`that they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
`Kikinis;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other grounds are authorized for inter
`
`partes review as to claims 1-3 of the ’290 patent;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that 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; the trial
`commences on the entry date of this decision; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board
`is scheduled for 3:00 PM Eastern Time on May 6, 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.
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Scott M. Border
`Sidley Austin LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`sborder@sidley.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason S. Angell
`Robert E. Freitas
`Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP
`jangell@ftklaw.com
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`
`20
`
`
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
