`
`Paper No. 10
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`PHISON ELECTRONICS CORP.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014—0015O
`
`'
`
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)
`
`ME] 17807458v.2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`_PEg9_(§1
`
`Case
`
`Bilstad v. Wakalopulos,
`386 F.3d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................
`
`-
`......................... ..2
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R.§42.71(c)..-. .......................................................... ..1,2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). .1 ............................................................... ..2
`
`MEI 17807458v.2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014—00150
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(c), Petitioner, PNY Technologies,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”), hereby submits the following Request for Rehearing in response to
`
`the Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review (“the Decision”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,518,879 (“the ‘879 Patent”) dated April 28, 2014 (Paper 8).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Decision ordered review of the ‘879 Patent on two grounds of
`
`unpatentability:
`
`(i) Claims
`
`1, 3-9, and 11-21 as obvious over U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2004/0259423 to Elbaz in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,829,672 to Deng; and (ii) Claims 2 and 10 as obvious over Elbaz in view of
`
`Deng and Applicant—Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) set forth at Col. 1, line 10 to C01.
`
`2,
`
`line 26 in the ‘879 Patent.
`
`Petitioner appreciates the Board’s decision to
`
`institute review on these grounds.
`
`The Decision did not, however, order review of Claims 1, 2, 8-10, and 16 as
`
`obvious over Elbaz in View of AAPA. For the reasons set forth herein, Petitioner
`
`requests that the Board reconsider its decision in this regard, and that the Board
`
`institute review of Claims 1, 2, 8-10, and 16 of the ‘879 Patent as obvious over
`
`Elbaz in view of AAPA.
`
`ME] l7807458v.2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014—00150
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.71(d).
`
`“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the
`
`decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion
`
`is found if the decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is
`
`based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact
`
`findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board
`
`could rationally base its decision.” Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, 386 P.3d 1116, 1121
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`III. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that
`
`the Board abused its discretion in
`
`declining to institute review of Claims 1, 2, 8-10, and 16 of the ‘879 Patent as
`
`obvious over Elbaz in View of AAPA, as set forth in the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (Paper No. 1).
`
`The Decision denied review of Claims 1, 2, 8-10, and 16 as obvious over
`
`Elbaz in view of AAPA for two reasons. First, the Decision held that Elbaz does
`
`not disclose a “USB memory plug” as required by the claims. Decision, p. 11.
`
`In
`
`ME1 17807458v.2
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 14-00 1 50
`
`so holding, the Decision stated that “to the degree that Elbaz discloses a memory,
`
`that memory could easily be read only memory (ROM) and would not comport
`
`with an ordinarily skilled artisan’s understanding of a ‘USB memory plug.”’
`
`Decision, p. 12. Second, although the Decision acknowledged that AAPA teaches
`
`a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA),
`
`the Decision held that Petitioner
`
`purportedly did not “provide any discussion of whether it would have been obvious
`
`to fashion the device [of Elbaz] as a USB memory plug” that includes such a
`
`PCBA. Decision, pp. 12-13. However, these conclusions are clearly erroneous
`
`and contrary to the express teachings of E_lb_a; and AAPA that were cited in the
`Petition, and they ignore the obviousness rationales that were provided in the
`
`Petition.
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Established that Both Elbaz and AAPA Disclose a
`
`“USB Memory Plug”
`
`At the outset, Petitioner submits that the Board improperly interpreted the
`
`term “USB memory plug” to exclude devices with read-only memory.
`
`In this
`
`regard, the Board stated “... to the degree that Elbaz discloses a memory, that
`
`memory could easily be read only memory (ROM) and would not comport with an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan’s understanding of a ‘USB memory plug.’” Decision, p.
`
`12. However, Petitioner submits that this narrow interpretation is contrary to both
`
`MEI 17807458V.2
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 l 4-00 1 50
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term, as well as the teachings of the
`
`‘879 Patent.
`
`The Petition requested that the claims of the ‘879 Patent be construed using *
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Petition, p. 5. However,
`
`the
`
`Board’s interpretation of the term “USB memory plug” is not
`
`the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`Instead, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`term “USB memory plug” merely only requires that (i) the device has memory,
`and (ii) that the device has a UEB plug. This is plainly what the claim language of
`
`the ‘879 Patent says, and imparting an interpretation that excludes ROMs is unduly
`
`narrowing. Moreover, dependent Claims 4 and 12 of the ‘879 Patent recite ROMs
`— they require thatthe memory be “one of a flash memory and an Electrically
`
`Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory (EE-PROM)?’ PNY Exhibit 1001
`
`(‘879 Patent) at 6:32-35; 7:1—_4 (emphasis added). To interpret the term “USB
`
`memory plug” in Claim 1 to exclude ROMS would ignore the express recitation of
`
`ROMS in Claims 4 and 12. As such, the claims were not given the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`Even if the term “USB memory plug” is interpreted to exclude ROMS, bot//z
`
`’ Elbaz and AAPA disclose memories that are re-writable, as established in the
`
`Petition. With respect to Elbaz, nowhere does Elbaz state that the module 5 is
`
`MEI l7807458v.2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014—OOl 50
`
`limited to a ROM. Rather, as established in the Petition, Egg; discloses a module
`5
`that _complies with Subscriber
`Identity Module (SIM) or
`International
`
`Organization for Standardization (ISO) 7816 specifications. See Petition, pp. 11-
`
`12 (citing PNY Exhibit 1003 (Ell_:>a_z) at 11 66). The module 5 is provided in an
`
`adaptor 514 that can be plugged into a Universal Serial Bus (USB) port of a
`
`computer. See id., p. 13 (citing PNY Exhibit 1003 (Elbaz) at FIGS. 10a—l0c; and
`
`1111 3, 16, 25, and 43). The module 5 is a memory because it stores information for
`
`identification purposes. To interpret E_1b_ag as having only a ROM would mean that
`
`the devices of _Elb_a; could only be programmed once. Nowhere does E113; state,
`
`much less even hint, at this.
`
`Moreover,
`
`the AAPA cited in the Petition explicitly teaches that USB
`
`memory plugs were known in the art prior to the filing of the ‘879 Patent. See
`
`PNY Exhibit 1001 (AAPA), FIG.
`
`1 and 1:41-52.
`
`In particular,
`
`the AAPA
`
`expressly discloses a USB connector [plug] with a housing having a printed
`
`circuit board assembly (PCBA) for providing memory storage. See Petition, p. 12
`
`(citing AAPA at FIG. 1 and 1:41-52). The AAPA clearly teaches USB memory
`
`plugs.
`
`ME1 17807458v.2
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 14-00 1 50
`
`It is thus clear that both Elbaz and AAPA teach USB memory plugs, and the
`
`Board’s conclusion that Elbaz does not teach a “USB memory plug” is clearly
`
`GITOIIGOUS .
`
`B.
`
`The Board’s Own Analysis of the Term “USB Memory Plug”
`Compels a Finding of Obviousness over Elbaz in view of AAPA
`
`In interpreting the term “USB memory plug,
`
`the Decision pointed to
`
`73
`
`disclosure in the AAPA. Specifically, the Decision stated the following: “it [Elbaz]
`
`does not disclose a ‘USB memory plug,’ as that claim term would have been
`
`understood in the context of the specification. See Ex. 1001, 1:41-52.” Decision,
`
`p. 12 (emphasis added). Ex. 1001, 1:41-52 is the same AAPA cited by the
`
`Petition. Thus, by citing the AAPA as an example of what one would understand
`
`the term “USB memory plug” to mean,
`
`it
`
`is clear that the AAPA provides
`
`sufficient teachings of that claim term.
`
`In other words, if the Board considers
`
`Elbaz as missing av“USB memory plug” but then points to AAPA as an example of
`
`such a plug (as it has in the Decision, p. 12), then it is only proper that the AAPA
`
`be combined with Elbaz. As such, at the Very least, the Decision should have
`
`adopted the obviousness grounds raised in the Petition on the basis of Elbaz in
`
`View of AAPA.
`
`MEI l7807458v.2
`
`
`
`Case IPR20l4-00150
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Clearly Set Forth Obviousness Rationales for
`
`Combining the Teachings of AAPA with the Teachings of Elbaz
`
`The Board concluded that Petitioner purportedly did not “provide. any
`
`discussion of whether it would have been obvious to fashion the device [of Elbaz]
`
`as a USB memory plug” that includes a PCBA. Decision, pp. 12-13. However,
`
`this conclusion ignores the obviousness rationales that were expressly set forth in
`
`the Petition.
`
`Petitioner explicitlyarticulated rationales in supportof why one of ordinary
`
`skill
`
`in the art would combine Elbaz with AAPA. For example, the Petition
`
`advanced the following rationales, neither of which were addressed in the
`
`Decision:
`
`»
`
`(1)
`
`“Modifying the USB device of Elbaz et al.
`
`to
`
`include the printed circuit board assembly of _AAI:A_ is
`
`nothing more
`
`than combining prior
`
`art
`
`elements
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results.
`
`fiefi M.P.E.P. § 2143(a). Moreover, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand that the printed circuit board
`
`assembly of ;AAflX_ could be used with USB memory
`
`devices, and that doing so is nothing more than a mere
`
`substitution of a well—known type of circuit configuration
`
`ME] l7807458v.2
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR20l4-001 50
`
`(PCBA) for the module 5 of Elbaz et al. §e_:§iM.P.E.P. §
`
`2l43(b).” Petition, p. 12.
`
`(2)
`
`“Specifically, PNY submits that
`
`it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`_combine the teachings of _/gflllé with the teachings of
`
`Elbaz et al., so that the housing is made from a metallic
`
`conductive material.
`
`_S_ge_3 M.P.E.P. § 2143 (a).
`
`Such
`
`would be a simple substitution to yield predictable
`
`results.
`
`_S_e_e_ M.P.E.P. § 2143 (b). Still further, _AAP_A
`
`explicitly teaches the use of metallic components with a
`
`USB flash drive connector, and thus one of ordinary skill
`in the art would be motivated to provide such a connector
`
`9
`
`in the device of Elbaz et al.
`
`S_e_e M.P.E.P. § 2143(g).”
`
`Petition, p. 13.
`
`Accordingly, sufficient rationales for combining Elbaz with AAPA were
`
`provided in the Petition, but these rationales were not addressed and adequately
`
`considered by the Decision. This was clearly erroneous, and Petitioner respectfully
`
`submits that the Board should not only consider these rationales, but also institute
`
`ME] l7807458v.2
`
`
`
`Case lPR2014—00150
`
`review on obviousness grounds in View of Elbaz and AAPA as urged in the
`
`Petition and this request for rehearing.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`It is clear from the combined teachings of Elbaz and AAPA that Claims 1, 2,
`
`8-10,‘ and 16 of the ‘879 Patent are obvious. Accordingly, for the foregoing
`
`’
`
`reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board institute review of Claims 1,
`
`2, 8-10, and 16 as obvious over Elbaz in view of AAPA. '
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: M rk E. Nikolsky (Lea Counsel)
`Reg. No. 48,319
`
`’ ’
`
`By: Sa _]1V M. Chokshi (Back-up Counsel)
`Reg. No. 44,080
`Attorneys for PNY
`McCarter & English, LLP
`Four Gateway Center
`100 Mulberry Street
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`
`5
`Dated
`
`Zo/
`
`5
`
`20/4’
`
`Dated
`
`'
`
`MEI l7807458v.2
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 14-00 1 50
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.6(e), I hereby certify that a true and complete
`
`copy of this PNY Technologies, Inc.’s Request for Rehearing was provided by
`
`email to the Patent Owner on May 9, 2014, by serving the correspondence email
`
`address of record as follows:
`
`V
`
`Joshua A. Griswold, Reg. No. 46,310
`3200 RBC Plaza
`
`60 South Sixth Street
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Email:
`Griswo1d@fr.com,
`00l0IPl @fr.com.
`
`Hoffman@fr.com,
`
`and
`
`IPR23490—
`
`
`
`By: Ma
`
`E. Nikolsky (Lead ounsel)
`
`ologies, Inc.
`Attorney for PNY Tec
`McCarter & English, LLP
`Four Gateway Center
`100 Mulberry Street
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`973.639.6987 (Mr. Nikolsky)
`
`May 9, 2014
`Dated
`
`I
`
`MEI l7807458v.2
`
`10