`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PHISON ELECTRONICS CORP.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`PNY Technologies, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Phison Electronics Corp.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Statement of Relief Requested ....................................................................... 3
`
`III. Background OF THE ‘879 PATENT ........................................................... 4
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`"Fixed" is properly construed as "fastened securely in position" ........ 5
`
`“Concave” requires “curving inward to form a recess” ....................... 9
`
`V. DEFECTS IN THE PETITION ..................................................................... 15
`
`VI. DEFECTS IN THE PROPOSED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`20
`
`A. Elbaz ........................................................................................................... 20
`
`B. Grounds 1-4 are defective because the module of Elbaz (the alleged
`PCBA) is not “fixed” by the means for raising the module (the alleged
`concave props) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`C. Ground 1 is defective because Elbaz does not disclose a “Universal
`Serial Bus (USB) memory plug”...................................................................... 25
`
`D. Ground 1 is defective because Elbaz does not disclose a printed
`circuit board assembly (PCBA). ...................................................................... 27
`
`E. Grounds 2-4 are defective because a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would not have combined Elbaz and the AAPA or Deng. ................... 29
`
`F. Grounds 3 and 4 are defective because a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would not have combined Elbaz and Deng. .................................... 33
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 36
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2001
`File History of the ’879 Patent
`2002
`U.S. Publication No. 2007/0178769 to Ni (“Ni Publication”)
`2003
`Collins English Dictionary, p. 350 (2005)
`Erik Oberg et al., Machinery’s Handbook, 26th Edition, pp. 720-
`2004
`973 (2000)
`Oxford English Dictionary, p. 654 (2005)
`Webster’s New World Dictionary, p. 287 (1991).
`www.universetoday.com/82338/concave-lens; retrieved
`2/18/2014
`
`2005
`2006
`2007
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems v. Illumina Cambridge
`IPR2013-00324 (Paper 19, 2013) ................................................ 2, 16, 17, 18, 19
`
`Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC.
`677 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 7
`
`Tempo Lighting Inc. v. Tivoli LLC.
`2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2437 at (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................... 9
`
`Innova/Pure Water v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.
`381 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................... 14, 27
`
`In re Gurley
`27 F.3d 551, 53 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ....................................................................... 30
`
`Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang
`202 F. 3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................................... 30
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamar Danek, Inc.
`567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................... 30
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .............................................................................................. 2, 16
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`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 1-21. The Petition relies on two
`
`different references and the alleged “Applicant Admitted Prior Art
`
`(AAPA)” of the ’879 patent1 to propose four grounds of unpatentability: (1)
`
`anticipation based on Elbaz (Ground 1), (2) obviousness based on Elbaz in
`
`view of the AAPA of the ’879 patent (Ground 2), (3) obviousness based on
`
`Elbaz in view of Deng (Ground 3), and (4) obviousness based on Elbaz and
`
`
` 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 IPR2014-00150
`
`Deng in view of the AAPA of the ’879 patent (Ground 4). The Petition is
`
`deficient, and should be denied in whole, for at least the following reasons.
`
`The present Petition for inter partes review of the ’879 patent follows
`
`an earlier petition by the same real party in interest for inter partes review
`
`of the same patent. See Case IPR2013-00472. The Board, in Intelligent Bio-
`
`Systems v. Illumina Cambridge, recently denied institution on a second
`
`petition for inter partes review that failed to provide any justification for its
`
`filing, and failed to distinguish its cited references from the references cited
`
`in an earlier petition. Intelligent Bio-Systems v. Illumina Cambridge, IPR2013-
`
`00324, Paper No. 19 (2013) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)). The present Petition
`
`mirrors the defective petition in Intelligent Bio-Systems by failing to provide
`
`any justification for its filing, and failing to distinguish the cited references
`
`from those cited in the earlier petition for inter partes review of the ’879
`
`patent filed by Petitioner. Accordingly, the Board should treat the present
`
`Petition similarly to the petition in Intelligent Bio-Systems, and deny
`
`institution of the requested inter partes review.
`
`Even assuming arguendo that the Petition is proper in light of these
`
`deficiencies, the Petition also fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing with respect to any of the proposed grounds for rejection for at
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`least the following reasons. First, none of the cited references, either alone
`
`or in combination, teach or suggest that the concave props recited in all
`
`claims. Second, none of the cited references, either alone or in combination,
`
`teach or suggest that the PCBA is fixed as recited in all claims, as the
`
`alleged PCBA from the reference relied on as teaching this feature (Elbaz)
`
`is removable, and thus not fixed. Finally, the primary reference (Elbaz) fails
`
`to disclose other critical limitations of all of the claims, and it would not
`
`have been obvious to provide these limitations from Petitioner’s proposed
`
`combinations.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny the Petition
`
`for IPR of claims 1-21 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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`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. Because it is a memory device, the PCBA
`
`includes a storage memory, such as a flash memory. Id. at 4:41-49. 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 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 fasten the PCBA in position 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
`
`fix the PCBA both “decreases the cost” and “simplifies the manufacturing
`
`4
`
`
`
`process” of the USB memory device versus prior methods. Id. at 2:39-40,
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`5:40-45.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`"Fixed" is properly construed as "fastened securely in
`position"
`
`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
`
`“fixed” to require, at least, “fastened securely in position.” This
`
`construction is proper because (i) such a definition of “fixed” was generally
`
`accepted in the art at the time; and (ii) any broader construction would be
`
`inconsistent with the ’879 patent.
`
`“Fixed” was generally accepted to mean “fastened securely in
`
`position” at the time of the ’879 patent. For example, the Oxford English
`
`Dictionary from 2005 defines “fixed” as “fastened securely in position.”
`
`See Ex. 2005 (Oxford English Dictionary), p. 654.
`
`Use of “fixed” to mean “fastened securely in position” is reinforced
`
`throughout the ‘879 patent. For example, the ’879 patent describes the
`
`concave props as replacing a prior art flake spacer used to fasten the PCBA
`
`in position, in order to create a space within the housing. See Ex. 1001 (’879
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`Patent), 2:3-15, 2:40-41, 2:50. Moreover, the ’879 patent describes the
`
`fastening performed by the flake spacer as stemming from the flake spacer
`
`“fitting the PCBA 32 in the metallic conductive housing 31 tightly.” Id. at
`
`2:5-6. Analogously, the concave props fasten the PCBA securely in position
`
`by pressing on the PCBA. Id. at 4:23-26 and 5:2-4. While not necessary to
`
`satisfy the claim limitation, the concave props are the only aspect described
`
`in the ‘879 patent as fixing the PCBA and, in certain instances, the only
`
`portion of the housing contacting the PCBA. Id. at claim 16.
`
`To construe “fixed” more broadly than “fastened securely in
`
`position” would be contrary to the ’879 patent. For example, in its asserted
`
`grounds, Petitioner attempts to read “fixed” synonymously with merely
`
`supporting the PCBA. However, the claims use the words “fixed” and
`
`“support” as distinct concepts to describe distinct functions of the concave
`
`props: fixing the PCBA and propping up the PCBA so that a space is
`
`formed between the housing and the PCBA. In particular, dependent
`
`claims 8, 16, 19 use the word “support” even though the independent
`
`claims from which they depend already recite the word “fixed.” To read
`
`fixed and support synonymously would improperly ignore the differences
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`between the independent and dependent claims. It is well established that
`
`different words used in the claims are presumed to have different
`
`meanings. Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int'l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361,
`
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`To construe “fixed” more broadly than “fastened securely in
`
`position” would also encompass prior art disclaimed in the original
`
`prosecution. In particular, the applicant distinguished rib supports in Ni
`
`(Ex. 2002 (Ni Publication)) that merely support the PCB off the bottom of
`
`the housing, arguing that “the supports 356C and 357C do not correspond
`
`to the claimed props since they do not actually fix the PCBA 110 in the
`
`housing. Instead, PCB is fixed by ‘snap-coupling’ upper and lower
`
`housing portions over the PCBA as described in lines 11-38 of col. 9 of the
`
`Ni publication.” Ex. 2001 (’879 File History), p. 99. The examiner agreed,
`
`and subsequently allowed the application. Figures 4A and 4B of the Ni
`
`publication are reproduced below:
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`Ex. 2002 (Ni Publication), FIGS. 4(A) and 4(B)
`
`
`
`To read “fixed” synonymously with supporting runs counter to this
`
`prosecution history. “In claim construction, this court gives primacy to the
`
`language of the claims, followed by the specification. Additionally, the
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`prosecution history, while not literally within the patent document, serves
`
`as intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction. This remains true
`
`in construing patent claims before the PTO.” Tempo Lighting Inc. v. Tivoli
`
`LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2437 at 8 (Fed.Cir. 2014).
`
`Thus, the Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “fixed” to be, at
`
`least, “fastened securely in position,” is proper in light of the teachings of
`
`the ’879 patent, and any broader construction would be impermissibly
`
`broad.
`
`B.
`
`“Concave” requires “curving inward 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 require “curving inwards to form a recess,” such as curving
`
`inwards to form a recess on the exterior of the housing. This construction
`
`is proper because such a definition of “concave” (i) was generally accepted
`
`in the art at the time; and (ii) is required by ’879 specification.
`
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`Ex. 2003 (Collins English Dictionary), p. 350. Webster’s New World
`
`Dictionary from 1991 defines “concave” as “hollow and curved like the
`
`inside half of a hollow ball.” See Ex. 2006 (Webster’s New World
`
`Dictionary), p. 287.
`
`In another example, the edition of the Machinery’s Handbook from
`
`2000 includes the following illustration of a concave structure:
`
`
`
`Curving
`inwards to
`form a recess
`
`
`
` Ex. 2004 (Machinery’s Handbook), p. 71 (annotated).
`
`As shown in the annotated figure above, the concave shape not only curves
`
`inward, but forms a recess in the surrounding surface. The label
`
`“Concave” appears in the original figure.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`To further illustrate the point, the figure below illustrates a concave
`
`solid (labeled “Concave” in the original figure) in contrast with a convex
`
`solid (labeled “Convex” in the original figure).
`
`Recess formed by
`inward curve
`
`
`
`Ex. 2007 (universetoday.com) (annotated).
`
`Second, to construe “concave” more broadly than the Patent Owner’s
`
`proposal would be contrary to the ’879 specification. The ‘879 patent states
`
`that “Preferably, the plurality of concave props are formed by means of
`
`punching on the housing.” Ex. 1001 (’879 Patent), 3:15-16 (emphasis
`
`added). While the specification does not limit the concave props to being
`
`formed specifically by “punching,” it does state that “Certainly, the
`
`pulurality of orentated indentations and concave props are integrally
`
`formed . . . on the housing.” Id. at 2:55-57 (emphasis added). The term
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`“concave” refers to the recesses formed on the exterior of the housing from
`
`punching, pressing and other processes for integrally forming the concave
`
`props on the housing. Figure 6 of the ‘879 patent, reproduced below,
`
`illustrates the recess.
`
`Recess formed by
`the inward curve of
`concave prop 512
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (‘879 Patent), Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`The concave props are concave, because they curve inward from the
`
`exterior surface of the housing to form a recess.
`
`Punching the concave props enables the orientated indentations and
`
`concave props to be formed simultaneously using the same manufacturing
`
`process. Id. at 4:28-32. The specification also states that the goal of
`
`punching the concave props is to “decrease the cost” and “simplify the
`
`manufacturing process” for USB memory devices. Id. at 2:39-40.
`
`A construction of “concave” was initially adopted in the related
`
`proceeding IPR2013-00472 as “curving inward” and omitting “to form a
`
`recess.” This construction, however, is incorrect because it can be read to
`
`cover shapes that those of skill in the art would consider to be convex, not
`
`concave. For example, using the figure from above, the solid labeled
`
`“Concave” can be accurately described as “curving inward,” because it has
`
`a surface that curves inward from where the surface would be if it were
`
`flat. The result is a recess adjacent the concave surface. However, the
`
`solid labeled “Convex” can also be described as “curving inward,” because
`
`one surface curves inward toward the shape labeled “Concave.” Yet, the
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`solid labeled “Convex” is not concave and has no concave surfaces. Thus,
`
`the construction of “concave” adopted in IPR2013-00472 cannot be correct
`
`because it is so broad as to encompass the convex shape shown below.
`
`Curving inward
`toward the
`Concave shape
`
`Curving inward
`to form a recess
`
`
`
`Ex. 2007 (universetoday.com) (annotated)
`
`As a result, the prior construction adopted in IPR2013-00472
`
`improperly reads the term “concave” out of the claims. Innova/Pure Water
`
`v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (reading
`
`claim terms out is improper and “all claim terms are presumed to have
`
`meaning in a claim”).
`
`The Petitioner’s use of “concave” is even broader, as it asserts
`
`concave to “encompass a prop that extends inwardly from a housing.” Not
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`only does this construction deviate from the generally accepted meaning of
`
`concave, it would read on any shape, concave, convex or neither concave or
`
`convex. Thus, the Petitioner’s construction is wrong.
`
`Therefore, the Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “concave” to
`
`be, at least, “curving inward to form a recess,” is proper in light of the
`
`teachings of the ’879 patent, and any broader construction would be
`
`impermissibly broad
`
`V. DEFECTS IN THE PETITION
`
`A previous petition for inter partes review of the ’879 patent (the
`
`“Previous Petition”) was filed on July 29, 2013 by the same Petitioner (PNY
`
`Technologies, Inc.) as the present Petition. See Case IPR2013-00472, Paper
`
`No. 1 (2013). Two grounds from the Previous Petition were instituted. The
`
`present Petition does not provide any justification for its filing in light of
`
`the Previous Petition, and does not distinguish its cited references from
`
`those cited in the Previous Petition. Accordingly, institution of inter partes
`
`review on the Petition should be denied, as the Board has done previously
`
`when presented with similar facts.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`In Intelligent Bio-Systems v. Illumina Cambridge, the Board recently
`
`ruled against institution of a second petition because grounds from a
`
`previous petition on the same patent were previously instituted. Intelligent
`
`Bio-Systems, p. 7. The Board noted that it has discretion as to whether to
`
`institute inter partes review, noting that Congress mandated that the Board
`
`“may not institute review unless certain conditions are met,” not “that an
`
`inter partes review must be instituted under certain conditions.” Id. at 4
`
`(emphasis in original). The Board stated that 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) guides this
`
`discretion, stating that the Board may “take into account whether, and
`
`reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same
`
`prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Id. at 6
`
`(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)). The Board found that the petitioner did not
`
`“provid[e] any justification for filing the instant petition, other than its
`
`representation that it became aware of the relevance of” a particular
`
`reference cited in the petition “after the filing of the” previous petition.
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, p. 6. Further, the teachings of the new of the new
`
`prior art reference applied to the claims were “substantially the same” as
`
`those presented in the previous petition. Id. Weighing these factors, the
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`Board exercised its discretion and denied institution of inter partes review
`
`on the petition. Id. at 8.
`
`The present Petition is defective for the same reasons as the petition
`
`in Intelligent Bio-Systems. First, the Petition presents additional grounds of
`
`unpatentability based on the Elbaz and Deng references. Petition, pp. 3-4.
`
`The Previous Petition presented several grounds of unpatentability based
`
`on references other than Elbaz and Deng, specifically the Minneman,
`
`Wang, Ni, and Takahashi references. See Previous Petition, p. 3-4. The
`
`Elbaz and Deng references both describe USB devices similar to those
`
`described in Minneman, Wang, Ni and Takahashi. Petitioner has not
`
`provided any analysis distinguishing the teachings of Elbaz and Deng from
`
`those relied on from the Minneman, Wang, Ni, and Takahashi in the
`
`Previous Petition. Accordingly, the Elbaz and Deng references are
`
`substantially similar to the references presented in the Previous Petition,
`
`and the Board should weigh this against institution of inter partes review as
`
`it did in Intelligent Bio-Systems. See Intelligent Bio-Systems, p. 8.
`
`Further, the Petition presents grounds and arguments similar to those
`
`presented in the Previous Petition. For example, the Previous Petition
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`presents an anticipation ground based on Minneman, and obviousness
`
`grounds based on Minneman in combination separately with the AAPA
`
`and another reference (Takahashi). Similarly, the present Petition presents
`
`essentially the same grounds, an anticipation ground based on Elbaz, and
`
`obviousness grounds based on Elbaz in combination separately with the
`
`AAPA and another reference (Deng). Petitioner makes no attempt to
`
`explain the need for these additional grounds, and provides no rationale
`
`distinguishing them from the similar grounds presented in the Previous
`
`Petition. Accordingly, the grounds presented in the Petition are
`
`substantially similar to the grounds presented in the Previous Petition, and
`
`the Board should weigh this against institution of inter partes review as it
`
`did in Intelligent Bio-Systems. See Intelligent Bio-Systems, p. 8.
`
`Further still, the Petition does not provide any justification for its
`
`filing in light of the Previous Petition. In Intelligent Bio-Systems, the Board
`
`found that the petition did not justify its filing even though the petitioner
`
`stated that the petition was filed because that it had not become aware of
`
`the cited prior art reference until after filing of the first petition. See id. at 6-
`
`8. The present Petition does not even contain such a justification, and
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`therefore the Board should weigh this against institution of inter partes
`
`review as it did in Intelligent Bio-Systems.
`
`Finally, the additional claims challenged by the Petition could have
`
`been challenged in the Previous Petition. Such serial challenges place
`
`undue additional burden on the Patent Owner, and by extension the Board,
`
`and should be denied.
`
`In particular, the additional claims challenged in the Petition (claims
`
`5-7, 13-15, and 17-21) all include limitations related to an LED indicator
`
`included in the USB memory plug. When the Previous Petition was filed,
`
`Petitioner was aware of multiple references including teachings similar to
`
`the Deng reference applied to these LED indicator limitations. For
`
`example, the Ni reference cited in the Previous Petition includes disclosure
`
`of an LED indicator similar to that described in Deng. See, e.g., Case
`
`IPR2013-00472, Ex. 1005 (Ni), 12:28-29. Further, the Ni publication cited on
`
`the face of the ’879 patent and used during prosecution to address the LED
`
`indicator limitations also includes similar disclosure to Deng. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`2002 (Ni Publication), ¶ 68. Petitioner, thus, was aware of multiple
`
`references that were available against the claims, including LED indicator
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`limitations, when the Previous Petition was filed, yet has not indicated why
`
`Deng is different or special. By delaying the presentation of these grounds,
`
`Petitioner attempts to give the present Petition the appearance of
`
`addressing new issues in an effort to avoid its denial. The Board should
`
`reject this end-run around the rules and decline to institute an inter partes
`
`review on the present Petition.
`
`VI. DEFECTS IN THE PROPOSED GROUNDS OF
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`The Petition proposes 4 grounds of unpatentability for the ’879
`
`patent. This section identifies reasons why all 4 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.
`
`
`
`The Petition relies on Elbaz as the base reference for all 4 grounds of
`
`unpatentability. Accordingly, a brief overview of Elbaz may be inciteful.
`
`A.
`
`Elbaz
`
`Elbaz describes a “dongle which is intended to be connected to a port
`
`of a telecommunications device.” Ex. 1003 (Elbaz), Title. The dongle is not
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`a USB memory device. Rather, it is a security dongle of a type used in “the
`
`protection of data, access to the Internet, identification, electronic
`
`commerce, on-line payment, etc.” Id. at ¶ 0002. Therefore, the majority of
`
`Elbaz’s disclosure concerns manners of adapting its security dongle to
`
`work in a USB.
`
`One embodiment includes a USB adapter into which an integrated
`
`circuit “module” of the security dongle can be inserted and removed. Id. at
`
`¶ 0060. Examples of the module include a subscriber identification module
`
`(SIM) card or other integrated circuit in accordance with ISO 7816, entitled
`
`Identification Cards – Integrated Circuit Cards. Id. at ¶ 0066. The USB
`
`adapter includes a “means 516 for raising the module” running along the
`
`entire length of the bottom of the adapter, and a “guidance means 515.” Id.
`
`at ¶ 0061. FIG. 10C of Elbaz shows the means 516 for raising the module
`
`and the guidance means 515 in relation to the module 5:
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`Guidance
`means 515
`
`Module 5 inserted
`into adapter
`
`
`
`Means 516
`for raising
`
`Ex. 1003 (Elbaz), FIG. 10C (annotated)
`
`The adapter also includes a locking means separate from the means
`
`516 for raising and the guidance means 515. The locking means is not
`
`shown in the figures of Elbaz, and is described as “means (not shown) of
`
`locking the module 5 or the part 51, in the inserted position in the adaptor,
`
`consisting for example of a stop disposed at the bottom of the connector.”
`
`Id. at ¶ 0060. The module is intended to be easily inserted and withdrawn
`
`from the adapter, as Elbaz states that the module is “removable in order
`
`possibly to be replaced by another module.” Id. at ¶ 0060. FIGs. 10A-C
`
`from Elbaz shows the module 5 being inserted into the adapter:
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`Ex. 1003 (Elbaz), Figs. 10A – 10C
`
`
`
`
`B. Grounds 1-4 are defective because the module of Elbaz (the
`alleged PCBA) is not “fixed” by the means for raising the module
`(the alleged concave props)
`
`Claim 1 et seq. and 17 et seq. require “wherein said PCBA is fixed by
`
`means of pressing of said plurality of concave props.” Claim 9 et seq.
`
`requires the “plurality of concave props protrude inward to fix said
`
`PCBA.” As discussed above, “fixed” means at least “fastened securely in
`
`position.”
`
`The Petition alleges that the means 516 for raising described in Elbaz
`
`are concave props, and that the module (the alleged PCBA) is “held (fixed)
`
`in position between the means 516 and the guidance means 515.” Petition
`
`at 8. This interpretation of Elbaz is incorrect because Elbaz states that its
`
`module is held in position by a “means (not shown) of locking the module
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`5 or the part 51, in the inserted position in the adaptor.” Ex. 1003 (Elbaz), ¶
`
`0060. Accordingly, it is this means of locking, and not the means 516 for
`
`raising or guidance means 515, that fastens the module securely in position.
`
`There is nothing in Elbaz that says the means of raising fastens the
`
`module securely in position – to the contrary, Elbaz describes that the
`
`means for raising and guidance means specifically allow the module to
`
`move axially in the adapter, because the module is “removable in order
`
`possibly to be replaced by another module.” Id. at ¶ 0060. See also FIGS.
`
`10A-10C (showing the module being moved axially). Thus, Elbaz’s module
`
`is not “fastened securely in position” by pressing, if any, of the means for
`
`raising on the module, but is rather, intentionally, allowed to move axially
`
`in the adapter to allow the module to be removed.
`
`Neither the AAPA nor Deng disclose a concave prop, and thus
`
`cannot remedy this deficiency. Moreover, Elbaz’s teaching that the module
`
`be removable teaches away from modifying the means for raising to fasten
`
`the module in position.
`
`Therefore, Elbaz does not disclose the “PCBA is fixed by means of
`
`pressing of said plurality of concave props” as recited in claims 1 et seq.
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`and 17 et seq. or that the “plurality of concave props protrude inward to fix
`
`said PCBA” of claim 9 et seq.
`
`Accordingly, because Elbaz does not teach or suggest at least that the
`
`PCBA is fixed by the concave props as required by all claims of the ’879
`
`patent, Grounds 1-4 are defective and should not be instituted.
`
`C. Ground 1 is defective because Elbaz does not disclose a
`“Universal Serial Bus (USB) memory plug”
`
`All claims of the ‘879 patent require a “USB memory plug.” Elbaz
`
`describes a “dongle which is intended to be connected to a port of a
`
`telecommunications device.” Ex. 1003 (Elbaz), Title. The dongle is not a
`
`USB memory plug. Rather, it is a device of a type used in “the protection
`
`of data, access to the Internet, identification, electronic commerce, on-line
`
`payment, etc.” Id. at ¶ 0002. The dongle includes a “module” said to be
`
`based on a modified subscriber identification module (SIM) minicard or
`
`other integrated circuit in accordance with ISO 7816, entitled Identification
`
`Cards – Integrated Circuit Cards. Id. at ¶¶ 0012, 0066. There is no
`
`disclosure in Elbaz of its module containing or being used as a memory. In
`
`fact, the terms “memory” and “storage” never appear in the text of Elbaz.
`
`See id. at ¶¶ 1-69. While current SIM cards often include flash memory,
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00150
`
`
`Petitioner has made no showing that as of the effective filing date of the
`
`‘879 patent SIM minicards or integrated circuits in accordance with ISO
`
`7816 had included flash or any read/write memory, nor any showing that
`
`the form factor of a SIM card at the time of the effective filing date of the
`
`‘879 patent presented the same challenges as the form factor of a memory
`
`device at the same time. Indeed, SIM cards at the relevant time were much
`
`thinner than memory circuits. Similarly, Petitioner has made no showing
`
`that the SIM standard or the ISO 7816 requires any read/write memory.
`
`To the extent the Petitioner contends a memory is inherent in Elbaz’s
`
`dongle to st