throbber
Paper No. 9
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: July 3, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`____________
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,034,623 (“the ’623 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319. Paper 5 (Petition, or “Pet.”).
`
`Blackberry Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a preliminary response
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`provided for by 37 C.F.R. § 42.107. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`§ 314.
`
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 3 and 4 of the ’623 patent. We do not institute review of challenged
`
`claims 1 and 2.
`
`
`
`The Challenged Patent
`
`The ’623 patent relates to the field of radio telemetry. Ex. 1001, col.
`
`1, ll. 1-2.
`
`Figure 4 of the ’623 patent is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 4 is said to be a block diagram of the radio telemetry system
`
`that shows the basic elements and remapping of the serial port. Id. at col. 3,
`
`ll. 49-52. Radio modem 60 includes antenna 92, radio interface 88,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`microprocessor 80, serial interface 90, RAM 82, and Flash EEPROM 86.
`
`
`
`The radio modem receives data in packets from central computer 74 via
`
`antenna 72 and sends packet data to the central computer via antenna 92. Id.
`
`at col. 5, l. 63 - col. 6, l. 5.
`
`Programming stored in Flash EEPROM 86 enables the radio modem
`
`to operate as a standard radio modem with serial port 90 configured as a RS-
`
`232 interface. The programming also enables the radio modem to operate in
`
`a telemetry mode, interfacing with I/O devices 94, 96, and 98, by remapping
`
`the radio modem serial port such that there are four general purpose TTL
`
`logic level ports. Id. at col. 6, ll. 19-64.
`
`
`
`Illustrative Claims
`
`3. A dual-mode radio modem capable of operating in a
`first mode as a general-purpose radio device in conjunction
`with a host processing system and in a second mode as a
`special-purpose stand-alone radio telemetry computer,
`comprising:
`
`an RF transceiver for sending and receiving data;
`
` a
`
` serial port; and
`
` a
`
` microprocessor coupled to the RF transceiver and to the
`serial port, wherein the microprocessor includes a
`reprogrammable memory for storing a radio configuration and
`control program that causes the radio modem to operate in one
`of two modes, a first mode that configures the radio modem to
`operate as a general-purpose radio device coupled to the host
`processing system via the serial port, and a second mode that
`configures the radio modem to operate as a special-purpose
`telemetry computer by configuring the serial port to directly
`interface with a plurality of input/output devices.
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. A radio modem, comprising:
`
` a
`
` radio frequency interface circuit including a modulator
`and a demodulator;
`
` a
`
` microprocessor coupled to the radio frequency interface
`circuit;
`
` a
`
` serial interface coupled to the microprocessor, wherein
`the serial interface is directly connected to a plurality of
`input/output devices that generate telemetry data and respond to
`telemetry commands; and
`
` a
`
` programmable memory coupled to the microprocessor,
`the re-programmable memory encoded with a telemetry
`management program for directing the operations of the
`microprocessor in order to control and communicates with the
`input/output devices over the serial interface, and to manage
`communication with the radio frequency interface circuit,
`
`wherein the telemetry management program includes a
`plurality of configurable state machines that control the
`reception of telemetry data from the input/output devices and
`the transmission of telemetry commands to the input/output
`devices.
`
`
`
`Related Proceeding
`
`According to the parties, the ’623 patent is involved in the following
`
`lawsuit: BlackBerry Limited v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., No. 3:13-cv-
`
`04431 (N.D. Tex.). Pet 1; Paper 7 at 2.
`
`
`
`Prior Art
`
`
`Ehlers et al.
`(hereinafter “Ehlers”)
`
`US 5,572,438 Nov. 5, 1996
`
`(Ex. 1004)
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`
`
`US 5,249,218
`
`US 5,212,774
`
`
`
`Sept. 28, 1993
`
`(Ex. 1005)
`
`May 18, 1993
`
`(Ex. 1006)
`
`Oct. 5, 1999
`
`(Ex. 1007)
`
`May 5, 1998
`
`(Ex. 1008)
`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`
`Sainton et al.
`(hereinafter “Sainton”)
`
`
`Grider et al.
`(hereinafter “Grider”)
`
`US 5,963,650
`
`Simionescu et al.
`(hereinafter “Simionescu”)
`
`US 5,748,104
`Argyroudis et al.
`(hereinafter “Argyroudis”)
`
`Funabashi
`
`US 5,687,222
`McLaughlin et al.
`(hereinafter “McLaughlin”)
`
`
`Reagle et al.
`(hereinafter “Reagle”)
`
`
`
`
`
`EP 0 185 098 A1 June 25, 1986
`
`(Ex. 1009)
`
`Nov. 11, 1997
`
`(Ex. 1010)
`
`Jan. 31, 1995
`
`(Ex. 1011)
`
`US 5,386,518
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following twelve grounds of unpatentability (Pet.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`
`
`Basis (35 U.S.C.)
`
`Claim
`
`
`
`3-4):
`
`Sainton, Ehlers, and
`Grider
`Sainton, Ehlers, and
`Simionescu
`Argyroudis, Reagle, and
`Grider
`Sainton, Ehlers, and
`Funabashi
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`5
`
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`
`
`Basis (35 U.S.C.)
`
`Claim
`
`Argyroudis, Reagle, and
`Funabashi
`Sainton, Ehlers, and
`McLaughlin
`Sainton, Ehlers, and
`Simionescu
`Sainton, Ehlers, and
`Grider
`Simionescu
`
`Simionescu
`
`Sainton, Ehlers, and
`Reagle
`Argyroudis and Reagle
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`2
`
`3
`
`3
`
`3
`
`3
`
`3
`
`4
`
`4
`
`In an inter partes review, the Board construes claim terms in an
`
`unexpired patent using their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). The claim language should be read in light of the specification as it
`
`would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
`
`Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Office must
`
`apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into
`
`account any definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing In re Bass,
`
`314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). There is a “heavy presumption” that a
`
`claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The “ordinary and
`
`
`
`customary meaning” is that which the term would have to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`Means Plus Function
`
`Petitioner submits there are three “means plus function” limitations
`
`that are to be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`Pet. 5-7. For purposes of this decision, we need not determine whether the
`
`limitations are to be construed under § 112, sixth paragraph, nor whether, if
`
`they are to be so construed, Petitioner properly has identified the
`
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
`
`equivalents thereof. The “means” limitations appear only in claim 1 or
`
`claim 2. As discussed infra, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds asserted against those
`
`claims for reasons unrelated to interpretation of the alleged § 112, sixth
`
`paragraph limitations.
`
`
`
`Link Byte
`
`Claim 2 of the ’623 patent recites a “link byte.” According to
`
`Petitioner, “[t]he specification of the ‘623 Patent specifically defines the link
`
`byte. ‘623 Patent at 8:14-8:54 (‘The Link Byte allows the state machines to
`
`pass signals to each other….’), 9:30-9:40.” Pet. 5. Petitioner also refers to
`
`its declarant’s (Dr. Joshua Phinney’s) testimony. Id. Dr. Phinney refers, in
`
`turn, to the ’623 patent specification. Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. Petitioner submits that,
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`accordingly, “link byte” should be construed as “a signal between at least
`
`
`
`two state machines to pass information to each other.” Pet. 5.
`
`Petitioner’s construction, however, disregards the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the word “byte.” A “byte” is a collection of adjacent
`
`binary digits that are operated on as a unit. See WILEY DICTIONARY OF
`
`COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY: TERMS, DEFINITIONS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`(1998) (Ex. 3001); ACADEMIC PRESS DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE AND
`
`TECHNOLOGY (1996) (Ex. 3002). The term became ubiquitous and entered
`
`the general lexicon. See AMERICAN HERITAGE® DICTIONARY OF THE
`
`ENGLISH LANGUAGE (2nd College Ed. 1984) (Ex. 3003, 2) (“A sequence of
`
`adjacent binary digits operated on as a unit by a computer.”).
`
`The use of the term “byte” in the ’623 patent is consistent with the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of the word. Contrary to Petitioner’s
`
`assertion, we disagree that the specification “defines” the term as something
`
`that “allows” the state machines to pass signals to each other. Although the
`
`link byte does “allow” the state machines to pass signals to each other, the
`
`patent describes the link byte as eight adjacent binary digits, operated on as a
`
`unit. Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 35-54. The patent further provides:
`
`Each [state] machine is capable of modifying the special “link”
`byte 218 [Fig. 5], which in turn becomes 8 of the 16 bits of
`input used by subsequent machines. In this manner the state
`machines can communicate with each other, the state of one
`machine affecting the state of another machine.
`
`Id. at col. 9, ll. 33-38.
`
`Accordingly, consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`“byte,” and consistent with the ’623 patent specification, we interpret a “link
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`
`byte” as a collection of adjacent binary digits that are operated on as a unit to
`
`provide a link.
`
`
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Claim 1 – § 103(a) over Sainton, Ehlers, and Grider or Simionescu
`
`Petitioner challenges claim 1 as unpatentable under § 103(a) over
`
`Sainton, Ehlers, and Grider or Simionescu. Petitioner notes that during
`
`prosecution of the ’623 patent the Examiner found that Sainton and Ehlers
`
`disclosed all limitations of present claim 1 except for “wherein the decision
`
`state machines are password protected so that a decision state machine can
`
`only be reconfigured by an authorized user of the telemetry system.” Pet.
`
`21. The Examiner did not find disclosure of this claimed feature in the prior
`
`art. Ex. 1002, 92. Petitioner offers Grider and Simionescu, as alternative
`
`additions to the basic combination of Sainton and Ehlers, for disclosure of
`
`this claimed feature.
`
`Dr. Phinney testifies that Grider discloses the use of a password to
`
`secure a main microcontroller. Ex. 1003 ¶ 46. Further, Dr. Phinney opines
`
`that Simionescu renders obvious making a telemetry system secure by
`
`requiring a password to reprogram a remote telemetry computer. Id. ¶ 47.
`
`Claim 1, however, is more specific than a requirement for a password
`
`to secure a telemetry system or its microcontroller. The claim recites that
`
`“the decision state machines” are password protected “so that a decision
`
`state machine can only be reconfigured by an authorized user of the
`
`telemetry system.” Consistent with that claim scope, the ’623 patent
`
`discloses that each command packet transmitted to the radio modem, which
`
`includes packets that contain configuration data for the state machines,
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`includes a 32-bit password number that must be set correctly for acceptance
`
`
`
`of the packet. Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 6-33.
`
`Petitioner’s declarant, implicitly acknowledging the deficiency in the
`
`teachings of Grider and Simionescu in view of the requirements of claim 1,
`
`refers to the ’623 patent’s disclosure of finite state machines and opines that
`
`reconfiguring memory remotely, whether for finite state machine
`
`configuration or for updating firmware and software more generally, “is
`
`fundamentally the same in either case.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 48. Dr. Phinney
`
`concludes that “the use of passwords in such reprogrammable state machines
`
`would have been an obvious measure to implement security in a remotely
`
`managed telemetry system.” Id.
`
`Unfounded testimony is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.65(a). Petitioner has provided an insufficient factual basis for the
`
`assertion that it would have been obvious to password-protect the decision
`
`state machines as required by claim 1. We, thus, are not persuaded there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to its
`
`challenge of claim 1 over Sainton, Ehlers, and Grider or Simionescu.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 – § 103(a) over Argyroudis, Reagle, and Grider
`
`The proposed ground challenging claim 1 as obvious over Argyroudis,
`
`Reagle, and Grider suffers the same deficiency as the other grounds
`
`proposed against claim 1, addressed above. Petitioner has not provided the
`
`requisite factual basis for the assertion that it would have been obvious to
`
`password-protect the state machines. See Ex. 1003 (Phinney Decl.) ¶¶ 81-
`
`87. Accordingly, we are not persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`Petitioner would prevail with respect to its challenge of claim 1 over
`
`
`
`Argyroudis, Reagle, and Grider.
`
`Prior Art – Funabashi
`
`
`
`Funabashi describes an integrated circuit controller that includes a
`
`plurality of finite state machines. Ex. 1009, Abstract. Figure 2 of Funabashi
`
`is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 2 illustrates the general structure of the integrated circuit
`
`controller of Funabashi. Ex. 1009, 7, ll. 17-19. Controller 201 includes state
`
`machines 208, 209, and 210. Id. at 8, ll. 11-16. The data path employs
`
`known bus structure 205. The control path includes three kinds of signals: a
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`start signal to be sent from microprogram controller 211 through signal line
`
`
`
`206, a busy signal to be sent to the microprogram controller from a state
`
`machine on signal line 206, and start signal 207 from one state machine to
`
`another state machine. Id. at 9, l. 15 - 10, l. 7.
`
`
`
`Claim 2 – § 103(a) over Sainton, Ehlers, and Funabashi
`
`Petitioner challenges claim 2 as unpatentable under § 103(a) over
`
`Sainton, Ehlers, and Funabashi. Dr. Phinney testifies that Funabashi
`
`discloses the claim 2 requirement of “a link byte connecting each decision
`
`state machine to at least one other machine so that each machine can effect
`
`the operation of at least one other machine.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 96. According to
`
`Petitioner’s declarant, the reference discloses “multiple finite state machines
`
`that are connected via a control bus that can effect the operation of at least
`
`one other state machine,” generally referring to Funabashi at pages 8
`
`through 10 and Figures 2 and 3. Id. ¶ 95. Dr. Phinney concludes that “[i]t
`
`would have been obvious and a matter [of] design choice by a person [of]
`
`ordinary skill to use a control bus for communicating signals between the
`
`finite state machines.” Id.
`
`Claim 2, however, does not recite using a “control bus for
`
`communicating signals” between finite state machines. The relied-upon
`
`disclosure of Funabashi teaches start and busy signals between the
`
`microcontroller and the state machines and a start signal from one state
`
`machine to another state machine. Ex. 1009, 9, l. 15 - 10, l. 7. Petitioner,
`
`however, has not shown disclosure or suggestion in Funabashi of a “link
`
`byte connecting each decision state machine to at least one other machine”
`
`as claimed.
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`
`
`The Petition must specify where each element of a challenged claim is
`
`found in the prior art patents or printed publications. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner has failed to do so. Accordingly, we are not
`
`persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to its challenge of claim 2 over Sainton, Ehlers, and Funabashi.
`
`
`
`Claim 2 – § 103(a) over Argyroudis, Reagle, and Funabashi
`
`Petitioner’s challenge of claim 2 over the combination of Argyroudis,
`
`Reagle, and Funabashi relies on the same disclosure from Funabashi for the
`
`“link byte” of claim 2 as in the proposed combination with Sainton and
`
`Ehlers, discussed above. Ex. 1003 ¶ 105. Accordingly, we also are not
`
`persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the
`
`ground of claim 2 as obvious over Argyroudis, Reagle, and Funabashi.
`
`
`
`Claim 3 – § 103(a) over Sainton, Ehlers, and McLaughlin or Grider
`
`Petitioner challenges claim 3 as unpatentable under § 103(a) over
`
`Sainton, Ehlers, and McLaughlin or Grider. Claim 3 is drawn to a dual-
`
`mode radio modem capable of operating in a general-purpose radio device
`
`mode or a special-purpose stand-alone radio telemetry computer mode. We
`
`agree with Petitioner to the extent that, as a general matter, combining dual,
`
`known functions in a single device would result in an obvious device. “The
`
`combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co.
`
`v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
`
`Claim 3, however, recites a first mode that enables operation as a
`
`general-purpose radio device coupled to the host processing system “via the
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`serial port” and a second mode that enables operation as a special-purpose
`
`
`
`telemetry computer “by configuring the serial port to directly interface with
`
`a plurality of input/output devices.” We are not persuaded that the Petition
`
`(e.g., Pet. 41-47 (claim chart)) and Petitioner’s declarant (e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶
`
`109-122) address sufficiently where the requirement of the same serial port
`
`being configured or reconfigured for the two modes is found in the applied
`
`prior art.1 Because Petitioner has not demonstrated where each element of
`
`claim 3 is found in the prior art (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)), we are not
`
`persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in its
`
`challenge of claim 3 over the combination of Sainton, Ehlers, and
`
`McLaughlin or Grider.
`
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner does submit that Simionescu discloses or suggests reconfiguring
`the same serial port consistent with the requirements of claim 3. We discuss
`Simionescu in the context of separate grounds, infra.
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`Prior Art – Simionescu
`
`
`
`
`
`Simionescu describes a radio frequency (RF) telemetry system. Ex.
`
`1007, Title. Figure 7 of Simionescu is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 7 is said to be a block diagram of a data acquisition device. Id.
`
`at col. 4, ll. 5-6. Data acquisition (DA) device 102 includes RF transceiver
`
`210, microprocessor 212, and I/O interface 204. The I/O interface is a
`
`standard connector that can be configured for standard protocols such as
`
`analog, digital, asynchronous serial I/O, or (synchronous) SPI-BUS, and
`
`may be connected to RS-232, 485, or optical I/O device interfaces. I/O
`
`interface connector 204 can thus receive data via I/O interface connector 702
`
`from I/O device 206, which may be, for example, a passive sensor or
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`computer-controllable equipment. Id. at col. 11, ll. 16-43. Software
`
`
`
`applications can be pre-loaded to I/O device 206. Microprocessor 212 has
`
`programmable application storage and EEPROM data storage, each of which
`
`is user-accessible. Id. Data collection system (DCS) 100, preferably a
`
`server, controls data collection for monitoring applications. Id. at col. 5, l.
`
`58 - col. 6, l. 10.
`
`
`
`Claim 3 – § 102(e) over Simionescu
`
`Petitioner lists claim 3 as challenged for anticipation by Simionescu
`
`(Pet. 4) and submits that Simionescu anticipates the claim (id. at 47-50).
`
`Petitioner’s declarant, however, does not allege anticipation over
`
`Simionescu but submits that the claimed subject matter would have been
`
`obvious over the reference. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 123-129. Based on the information
`
`presented in the petition, which includes this discrepancy between Petitioner
`
`and its proffered expert, we conclude Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its challenge of claim 3 as
`
`anticipated by Simionescu.
`
`
`
`Claim 3 – § 103(a) over Simionescu
`
`Petitioner challenges claim 3 under § 103(a) over Simionescu.
`
`Simionescu details the asynchronous serial communication function
`
`associated with DA 102 and microprocessor 212 (Fig. 7). Supporting
`
`components include an Asynchronous Serial Communications Interface
`
`(SCI) 808 (Fig. 8). Ex. 1007, col. 11, l. 59 - col. 12, l. 4. Pin voltages may
`
`be TTL (digital) logic levels but can be translated to the appropriate levels
`
`for serial communications (e.g., RS-232). SCI 808 also can produce queued
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`idle or break characters, “therefore allowing modem applications.” Id. at
`
`
`
`col. 12, ll. 5-19. “Asynchronous serial communication functions of this type
`
`are well known in the art.” Id. at ll. 19-21.
`
`Dr. Phinney testifies that, in view of the same pins that are used for
`
`serial communications being repurposed for general purpose digital I/O
`
`signals (Ex. 1003 ¶ 124), it would have been obvious to configure
`
`Simionescu’s device as both a general-purpose radio modem for I/O devices
`
`with serial communication and a special-purpose telemetry module for
`
`devices such as passive sensors and computer-controllable equipment (id.
`
`¶ 126). Dr. Phinney also indicates that Simionescu’s disclosure of
`
`configuring SCI 808 so as to allow “modem applications” discloses or
`
`suggests that the data acquisition module of Simionescu may be
`
`programmed such that connected serial devices can use the module as a
`
`wireless modem. Id. ¶ 127.
`
`Based on the evidence presented, we conclude the Petition
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to its challenge of claim 3 as obvious over Simionescu.
`
`
`
`Claim 4 – § 103(a) over Argyroudis and Reagle
`
`Petitioner challenges claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Argyroudis and Reagle. Argyroudis describes a wireless remote telemetry
`
`system that includes a remote metering unit (Ex. 1008, Fig. 2). Petitioner
`
`submits that all limitations of claim 4 are taught by Argyroudis except for
`
`the telemetry management program including a plurality of configurable
`
`state machines that control the reception of telemetry data from the
`
`input/output devices and the transmission of telemetry commands to the
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`devices. Pet. 53-56 (claim chart). We find the mappings in the Petition’s
`
`
`
`claim chart to be well-founded, except for the chart’s limitation (c) of the
`
`claim, which requires a serial interface that is directly connected to a
`
`plurality of input/output devices that generate telemetry data and respond to
`
`telemetry commands. For this limitation, Petitioner refers to a serial
`
`interface for connection to a personal computer, a fax machine, or a user
`
`terminal (Pet. 54-55), none of which appear to be described by Argyroudis
`
`as input/output devices that generate telemetry data and respond to telemetry
`
`commands, as required by the claim language.
`
`Dr. Phinney, on the other hand, submits that the “serial interface”
`
`limitation is disclosed, or rendered obvious, by Argyroudis’ description of
`
`“CEBus interface 224 [Fig. 2] and transceiver (a serial port)” connected to
`
`CEBus compliant appliance(s) 136 (Fig. 1), such as a security system and
`
`thermostat, which respond to commands and generate telemetry data. Ex.
`
`1003 ¶ 142; Ex. 1008, col. 12, ll. 10-54. The declaration does not specify
`
`the “transceiver” structure that Argyroudis may describe, expressly or
`
`inherently, as a serial port. However, Argyroudis discloses that Consumer
`
`Electronic Bus (CEBus) technology supports communication over pre-
`
`existing power lines and twisted-pair cabling. Id. at col. 2, ll. 2-17. As
`
`shown in Figure 2 of Argyroudis, for example, CEBus interface 224
`
`connects to twisted-pair transceiver 234 and power line transceiver 226, to
`
`which CEBus compliant devices attach and communicate over an effective
`
`single conductor (e.g., power lines 228 and 230, or twisted pair line 232).
`
`Id. at col. 12, ll. 2-8. We are persuaded, therefore, that Argyroudis teaches
`
`the “serial interface” limitation of claim 4.
`
`18
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`
`We are persuaded also that Reagle would have suggested including a
`
`
`
`plurality of configurable state machines that control the reception and
`
`transmission of telemetry commands as required by claim 4. Ex. 1003
`
`¶¶ 77, 144. In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to its challenge of claim
`
`4 as obvious over the combination of Argyroudis and Reagle.
`
`
`
`Other Challenges
`
`We have concluded that Petitioner has demonstrated there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its challenge of claims 3 and 4
`
`on the grounds discussed above. We decline, however, to institute inter
`
`partes review on the additional grounds that claim 3 is obvious over Sainton,
`
`Ehlers, and Simionescu and claim 4 is obvious over Sainton, Ehlers, and
`
`Reagle. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the
`
`obviousness grounds of unpatentability based on: Simionescu as to claim 3;
`
`and the combination of Argyroudis and Reagle as to claim 4.
`
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`
`any challenged claim.
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to claim 3 of
`
`the ’623 patent on the obviousness ground based on Simionescu;
`
`19
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to
`
`
`
`claim 4 of the ’623 patent on the obviousness ground based on Argyroudis
`
`and Reagle;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all other
`
`grounds set forth in the Petition;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ’623 patent is instituted with trial commencing on the
`
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4, notice is given of the institution of the trial; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`
`identified immediately above and no other ground is authorized for the ’623
`
`patent claims.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`James Hannah
`Aaron Frankel
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`afrankel@kramerlevin.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Mattson
`John Kern
`Christopher Bullard
`OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,
`MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`cpdocketmattson@oblon.com
`cpdocketkern@oblon.com
`cpdocketbullard@oblon.com
`
`21

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket