Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 17
`
`Entered: November 26, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 17
`
`Entered: November 26, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Ford Motor Company, requests rehearing (Paper 13, “Req.
`
`Reh’g.”) of the Board’s Decision (Paper 10, “Dec.”), which instituted inter
`partes review of claims 30–33, 35, 36, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097
`B2 (“the ’097 patent”). In particular, Ford seeks rehearing of certain
`grounds on which we denied review, namely, the grounds of obviousness
`that relied on Caraceni, either alone or in combination with Boberg. Req.
`Reh’g. 1. Ford’s request for rehearing is denied.
`ANALYSIS
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes proceedings
`
`were promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`rules are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As a result, and in
`determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a patent, the Board
`may exercise its discretion to “deny some or all grounds for unpatentability
`for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b).
`
`Here, the Board exercised its discretion in denying the grounds that
`relied on Caraceni and Boberg because Ford did “not articulate reasonably
`how the implicit teaching of a stoichiometric ratio by Caraceni and Boberg
`is meaningfully distinctive from the express teaching of this same limitation
`by Severinsky and Anderson.” Dec. 11. On rehearing, Ford argues that the
`Board abused its discretion because the grounds based on Caraceni and
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`Boberg present “different information in a different way than the
`combination of Severinsky’970 and Anderson.” Req. Reh’g. 2–3.
`
`An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is based on an
`erroneous interpretation of law, or if a factual finding is not supported by
`substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment
`in weighing relevant factors. Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338,
`1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Ford has not demonstrated an abuse of our
`discretion.
`
`Although Ford contends that the grounds on which we denied
`institution are “different” from the grounds on which we instituted trial, the
`proper focus of a challenge based on multiple grounds is not simply whether
`a difference exists between the grounds. Rather, the petitioner must explain
`some meaningful advantage for proceeding on multiple grounds in terms of
`their variant strengths and weaknesses as applied to the challenged claim.
`Where the petition fails to include a sufficient explanation as to how the
`asserted grounds differ from one another, the Board is within its discretion to
`presume that one ground is weaker than another ground, and, thereby, deny
`institution on the ground that is perceived to be weaker.
`
`Here, Ford expressly acknowledges that, with respect to the
`“stoichiometric ratio” limitation of independent claim 30, the combination of
`Caraceni and Boberg includes a “potential deficiency” not found in the
`combination of Severinsky ’970 and Anderson. Pet. 59 (recognizing that the
`combination of Severinsky ’970 and Anderson “overcomes the potential
`deficiency of Caraceni and Boberg”). In that context, we are not informed
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`by either the petition or the rehearing request as to how the combination of
`Caraceni and Boberg exhibits any meaningful advantage over the
`combination of Severinsky ’970 and Anderson upon which we instituted
`trial of claim 30. As such, our decision denying institution of the grounds
`relying on Caraceni and Boberg, which Ford admits are deficient in regard to
`the claimed “stoichiometric ratio” limitation, does not amount to an abuse of
`discretion.
`
`Moreover, we are not persuaded that Ford’s Caraceni-based grounds
`even demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of meeting the “stoichiometric
`ratio” limitation of claim 30. For example, Ford relies primarily on
`Caraceni’s disclosure of a “three-way catalyst” as “necessarily” teaching
`combustion at or near a stoichiometric ratio. Pet 37, 40–42. But Ford’s own
`evidence indicates that more details need to be known about Caraceni’s
`three-way catalyst before making the leap that its disclosure necessarily
`teaches stoichiometric combustion. See, e.g., Ex. 1011 at 304 (“Depending
`on the details of the three-way catalyst used for cleanup of all three
`pollutants (CO, HC, and NO,) in the exhaust, the optimum average
`equivalence ratio may not be precisely the stoichiometric value”) (emphasis
`added). Given this apparent gap in Ford’s evidence, our denial of the
`Caraceni-based grounds does not amount to an abuse of discretion.
`CONCLUSION
`For all of the above reasons, Ford’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Sangeeta G. Shah
`FPGP0106IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`FPGP0106IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`Kevin Greenleaf
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`
`Lissi Mojica
`lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy W. Riffe
`riffe@fr.com
`
`Kevin E. Greene
`IPR36351-0012IP1@fr.com
`
`
`5
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
