`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 14
`
`
` Entered: October 17, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Webasto Roof Systems, Inc., filed a Petition (Paper 4,
`
`“Pet.”)1 requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 2, and 5–8, less than all
`
`of the claims, of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,612 (Ex. 1001, “the ’612 patent”)
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. The Petition is supported by a
`
`Declaration of Hamid A. Toliyat, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003) which includes an
`
`“Appendix A” (Ex. 1004). Patent Owner, UUSI, LLC, submitted a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may be instituted
`
`only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and
`
`any response filed under section 313 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.” Petitioner contends the challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Pet. 8, 16, 31, and 46.
`
`We determine that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will
`
`prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, and 5–8 and
`
`institute inter partes review as to those claims. Our factual findings and
`
`conclusions at this stage of the proceeding are based on the evidentiary
`
`record developed thus far (prior to Patent Owner’s Response). This is not a
`
`final decision as to patentability of claims for which inter partes review is
`
`instituted. Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed
`
`during trial.
`
`
`1 Throughout this decision all citations to “Petition” or “Pet.” refer to the
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review filed on April 30, 2014 (Paper 4).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`
` The ’612 Patent
`
`The ’612 patent describes protecting against pinching objects in the
`
`travel path of a vehicle power-driven movable panel, such as a window or
`
`sun roof. Sensor signals are analyzed to determine panel movement directly
`
`or indirectly and determine whether a panel collides with an object in its
`
`travel path. See Ex. 1001, [57] (Abstract), l:56 – 2:20.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’612 patent is shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary actuator safety feedback
`
`control system 1. Ex. 1001, 2:24–25, 2:63–65. Controller 2 monitors and
`
`controls movement of a motor driven panel. See id. at 2:65 – 3:5. Forward
`
`and reverse motor drives 7a and 7b drive the motor (not shown in Figure 1)
`
`in forward and reverse directions, respectively. See id. at 3:36 – 41.
`
`Controller 2 can sense obstacles in the panel’s path in various ways based on
`
`sensor signals from, e.g., a paired infrared emitter and detector disposed
`
`along the panel’s path (see id. at 3:60 – 4:64), a motor current monitor (see
`
`id. at 4:9 – 11, 7:20 – 8:3, 8:33 – 10:5), and other monitors (see id. at 11:14
`
`– 20).
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 6 are independent and
`
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`
`1. Apparatus for controlling activation of a motor coupled to a
`motor vehicle window or panel for moving said window or
`panel along a travel path and de-activating the motor if an
`obstacle is encountered by the window or panel, said apparatus
`comprising:
`
`a) a sensor for sensing movement of the window or panel and
`providing a sensor output signal related to a speed of movement
`of the window or panel;
`
`b) a switch for controllably actuating the motor by providing an
`energization signal;
`
`c) one or more switches for use by the controller to determine
`window or panel position; and
`
`d) a controller having an interface coupled to the sensor and the
`switch for controllably energizing the motor; said controller
`sensing a collision with an obstruction when power is applied to
`the controller by:
`
`i) monitoring movement of the window or panel by monitoring
`a signal from the sensor related to the movement of the window
`or panel;
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`
`ii) adjusting an obstacle detection threshold in real time based
`on immediate past measurements of the signal sensed by the
`sensor to adapt to varying conditions encountered during
`operation of the window or panel;
`
`iii) identifying a collision of the window or panel with an
`obstacle due to a change in the signal from the sensor that is
`related to a change in movement of the window or panel by
`comparing a value based on a most recent signal from the
`sensor with the obstacle detection threshold; and
`
`iv) outputting a control signal to said switch to deactivate said
`motor in response to a sensing of a collision between an
`obstacle and said window or panel.
`
`
`
`6. Apparatus for controlling activation of a motor coupled to a
`motor vehicle window or panel for moving said window or
`panel along a travel path and de-activating the motor when
`movement of the window or panel is stopped prior to reaching a
`predetermined position, said apparatus comprising:
`
`a) a sensor for sensing movement of the window or panel and
`providing a sensor output signal related to a position of the
`window or panel;
`
`b) a switch for controllably actuating the motor by providing an
`energization signal; and
`
`c) a controller having an interface coupled to the sensor and the
`switch for controllably energizing the motor; said controller
`programmed with multiple position limits that define an
`acceptable travel range and further programmed for controlling
`movement of the window or panel when power is applied to the
`controller by:
`
`i) monitoring the sensor output signal from the sensor related to
`the position of the window or panel;
`
`ii) identifying the position of the window or panel based on the
`sensor output signal from the sensor; and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`
`iii) outputting a control signal to said switch to deactivate said
`motor in response to a sensing said window or panel has
`stopped moving prior to reaching a position limit.
`
` Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, and 5 – 8 of the ’612 patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as summarized below:
`
`
`
`Reference[s]
`Bernard2
`Itoh3 and Kinzl4
`Lamm5, Itoh, and Bernard
`Duhame6 and Kinzl
`
`Basis
`§ 102(b)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claims
`6–8
`1, 2, and 5–8
`1, 2, and 5–8
`1, 2, and 5–8
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The parties state that the ’612 patent is asserted in the following
`
`district court proceedings:
`
`1. UUSI, LLC v. Robert Bosch LLC, No. 2:13-cv-10444 (E.D. Mich.)
`
`(“UUSI v. BNA”), filed February 4, 2013. See Pet. 1 and Paper 6, 2.
`
`2. UUSI, LLC v. Webasto Roof Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-11704 (E.D.
`
`Mich.) (“UUSI v. Webasto”), filed April 15, 2013. See Pet. 1, Paper 6, 2.
`
`The ’612 patent belongs to a family of patents involved in multiple
`
`inter partes reviews including IPR2014-00416, IPR2014-00417, IPR2014-
`
`00648 (this proceeding), IPR2014-00649, and IPR2014-00650. The petition
`
`in IPR2014-00416 (“the ’416 proceeding”), like the present Petition,
`
`2 U.K. Published Patent Application GB 2 026 723 A, published Feb. 6,
`1980 (Ex. 1005, “Bernard”).
`3
` U.S. Patent No. 4,870,333, issued Sept. 26, 1989 (Ex. 1006, “Itoh”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 4,468,596, issued Aug. 28, 1984 (Ex. 1007, “Kinzl”).
`5 German Published Patent Application DE 40 00 730 A1, published Aug. 1,
`1991 (Translation Ex. 1008, “Lamm”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,218,282, issued June 8, 1993 (Ex. 1009, “Duhame”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`challenges the ’612 Patent. We instituted trial in the ’416 proceeding on
`
`August 1, 2014. See Brose North America, Inc. and Brose Fahrzeugteile
`
`GMBH v. UUSI, LLC, Case IPR2014-00416 (PTAB Aug. 1, 2014) (Paper
`
`12). As discussed further below, some challenges in the ’648 proceeding are
`
`the same as or substantially the same as those in the ’417 proceeding.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In determining whether to institute inter partes review, we construe
`
`claim terms as necessary to apply the references. Claim constructions may
`
`change as a result of the record developing during trial.
`
`The ’612 patent has expired. We therefore construe its claims in a
`
`manner similar to that of a district court, as articulated in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005), albeit without any
`
`presumption of validity. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Claim terms are given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one 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). We construe
`
`the terms below in accordance with that standard.
`
`Petitioner proposes a construction for one claim term. Pet. 7 – 8.
`
`Although Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9), it has
`
`neither challenged Petitioner’s proposed claim construction nor proposed
`
`additional claim constructions. Aside from the claim term discussed below,
`
`no other claim terms require express construction at this stage of the
`
`proceeding.
`
`“a control signal . . . to deactivate said motor”
`
`Claims 1 and 6 require “a control signal . . . to deactivate said
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`motor.” Petitioner construes the term “deactivate” to mean “turn off”
`
`thereby excluding reversing a motor without turning it off. Pet. 7. Patent
`
`Owner does not comment on this term. See Prelim. Resp.
`
`Petitioner notes that the ’612 patent’s specification explicitly
`
`distinguishes and even disparages immediately reversing (without first
`
`deactivating) the motor in response to detecting an obstacle (Ex. 1001, 3:42
`
`– 55), which may result in “motor plugging,” described as “unnecessary”
`
`and “undesirable” as causing “undesired motor heating,” is “detrimental to
`
`the life and reliability” and because it “can also cause undesirable transients,
`
`trip breakers, and blow fuses in a power supply system.” Pet. 8. According
`
`to Petitioner, at least one of Patent Owner’s earlier patents includes claim
`
`language that is broader with respect to motor control. Pet. 8 (citing
`
`Ex. 1019, Claims). Therefore, according to Petitioner, the choice of the
`
`word “deactivate” in the challenged claims was a conscious decision that
`
`should be given effect. Pet. 8. We agree.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we construe the claim term
`
`“deactivate” to embrace any of turning off, removing power from, and
`
`stopping the motor. Our construction excludes immediate reversing of the
`
`motor without first turning off or stopping the motor.
`
`III. CLAIM CHALLENGES
`
`In the analysis that follows, we discuss facts as they have been
`
`presented thus far in this proceeding. Any inferences or conclusions drawn
`
`from those facts are neither final nor dispositive of any issue on which we
`
`institute trial.
`
`Grounds based on Bernard (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 6 – 8 are anticipated by Bernard (Pet.
`
`8–16). Bernard describes control circuits for electric window winders for
`
`operating moving windows in vehicles. Ex. 1005, p. 16,7 ll. 4 – 6.
`
`Bernard’s Figure 4 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a block diagram of a circuit for controlling an electric
`
`window winder. Id. at p. 18, ll. 75 – 77. Bernard provides protection
`
`against injury by sensing an increase in motor current resulting from a
`
`window meeting an obstruction. It deenergizes window winder motor 10 if
`
`microprocessor 150 determines that a threshold value of motor current is
`
`exceeded. Id. p. 16, ll. 111 – 118; p. 20, ll. 110 – 118; p. 22, ll. 97 – 110.
`
`
`7 Page numbers refer to the page number of the exhibit.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`
`Patent Owner does not comment on Bernard in the Preliminary
`
`Response. On the current record, we note that Bernard makes the
`
`obstruction detection decision based on sensed motor current, as does the
`
`’612 patent at issue.
`
`In light of the analysis presented in the Petition with respect to each of
`
`the challenged claims under this ground, we are persuaded that Petitioner
`
`has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that
`
`Bernard anticipates claims 6 – 8 of the ’612 patent. See Pet. 8 – 16.
`
`Grounds based on Itoh (Ex. 1006) and Kinzl (Ex. 1007)
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–2 and 5–8 are rendered obvious by
`
`Itoh and Kinzl. Pet.16 – 31. This ground relies on the same combination of
`
`references to challenge the same claims as a ground already under
`
`consideration in the IPR2014-00416 inter partes review, petitioned by Brose
`
`North America. Petitioner Webasto relies on a different expert declarant
`
`than relied upon in the ’416 inter partes review. See Ex. 1003. Having
`
`reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence thus far in each of the two
`
`proceedings, we conclude that this ground in the instant inter partes review
`
`presents the same or substantially the same arguments as already presented
`
`in the ’416 inter partes review. We exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d) and decline to institute on this ground, which is already under
`
`consideration in the earlier proceeding.
`
`Grounds based on Lamm (Ex. 1008), Itoh, and Bernard
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1 – 2 and 5 – 8 are rendered obvious by
`
`Lamm, Itoh, and Bernard. Pet. 31 – 46. Lamm “relates to a method and
`
`device for operating power-actuated components which pose a clamping
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`hazard to objects or body parts of people.” Ex. 1008, p. 2,8 col. 1. Lamm’s
`
`Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`Lamm Figure 1
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a drive of a power-actuated component.
`
`
`
`Id. at p. 3, col. 3. Electric motor 10 is controlled by signal processing device
`
`11 via motor driver circuit 12. Id. Sensor 13 detects the rotary speed of
`
`motor 10 and provides this speed to signal-processing device 11. Id. Device
`
`11 is given commands for controlling motor 10 via operating device 14. Id.
`
`at p. 3, col. 4. Lamm explains a relationship between rotary speed of motor
`
`10 as measured by sensor 13 and “rotary torque” M with reference to Figure
`
`2, reproduced below. Id.
`
`
`8 Page numbers refer to the page number of the exhibit.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`
`Lamm Figure 2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows a functional correlation between the rotary speed n
`
`and the rotary torque M of a direct current motor. Id. Lamm explains that,
`
`for various motor voltages, relationships between motor speed n and torque
`
`M are represented by curves 16 in Lamm Figure 2. Id. Thus, the force on
`
`an object being pinched is related to motor speed and voltage measured at
`
`motor 10 by a voltage meter 15 (Lamm Figure 1). Id. At least one
`
`derivative with respect to the path traveled by the moving panel is
`
`determined by signal processing device 11. Id. The derivative is compared
`
`to a pre-specified threshold, which, if exceeded, indicates a pinch condition
`
`that causes motor 10 to be switched off or reversed. Id.
`
`This ground depends upon Itoh which describes storing multiple
`
`window speed or position values. Pet. 33. It also relies upon Bernard which
`
`describes the use of switches for determining window position, and end of
`
`window travel detection. Pet. 35.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Lamm and Itoh cannot be combined because
`
`Lamm expressly requires a separate sensor to infer the position of the
`
`window whereas Itoh emphasizes that it does not want to use such a sensor.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner notes that Lamm states that “sensor 13
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`detects the rotary speed of the motor 10” and that a “Hall effect transmitter
`
`is particularly suitable for the detection of the rotary speed of the drive 10.”
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1008; p. 3, col. 5, p. 5, col. 7. In contrast, Itoh states that “the
`
`number of rotations of the motor 20 is counted by the counter 36, whereby
`
`the position of the window 26 is detected and a sensor is never mounted in
`
`the part of transmission mechanism including the motor’s own body.” Id. at
`
`11 (citing Ex. 1006, 12:32 – 36). Itoh reiterates that “it is possible to detect
`
`the squeezing of obstacles in an early stage and it is possible to prevent
`
`damage or injury of the squeezed obstacle without providing a special
`
`sensor.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1006, 13:58 – 61).
`
`We do not find Patent Owner’s argument to be persuasive.
`
`Obviousness does not require direct substitution. Both Lamm and Itoh are
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
`
`involved — preventing pinching. Thus, they both would have commended
`
`themselves to an inventor’s attention in considering the problem addressed
`
`by claims 1 – 2 and 5 – 8 of the ’612 patent. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343,
`
`1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`In light of the analysis presented in the Petition with respect to each of
`
`the challenged claims under this ground, we are persuaded that Petitioner
`
`has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that
`
`Lamm, Itoh, and Bernard render obvious claims 1 – 2 and 5 – 8 of the
`
`’612 patent.
`
`Grounds based on Duhame (Ex. 1009) and Kinzl (Ex. 1007)
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1 – 2 and 5 – 8 are rendered obvious
`
`by Duhame and Kinzl. Pet. 46 – 60.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`
`Duhame describes an automatic door operator including an
`
`obstruction detector for stopping the motor when a threshold related to the
`
`torque of the motor is exceeded. Ex. 1009, Abstract. Duhame Figure 1 is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`Duhame Figure 1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows a block diagram of an automatic door opener. Id. at
`
`4:66-67. Based on measurements of speed from its Hall-effect sensors 95,
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`Duhame’s controller (processor circuit 100 including CPU 110 shown in
`
`Duhame Figure 1) detects “[a]n obstruction . . . whenever th[e] rate of
`
`change of speed indicates a rate of increase in torque greater than a
`
`predetermined amount.” Id. at 3:38 – 41, 24:5 – 29. Memory 125 stores
`
`open and close travel limits of a door being controlled. Id. at 6:59 – 62. A
`
`closing torque limits input circuit 60 (detailed in Duhame, Figure 4) and
`
`travel limits circuit 163, among other inputs, establish limits of protection
`
`afforded to an object pinched by the moving door. Id. at 7:63 – 8:3, 11:52 –
`
`57. Travel circuit 163 includes a counter 510 (Duhame Fig. 6) that keeps
`
`track of door position with respect to a fully opened position. Id. at 12:17 –
`
`23.
`
`Patent Owner argues that because Duhame generally relates to
`
`“residential garage doors” it cannot and does not account for the “varying
`
`conditions” required by claim 1; and that Duhame does not disclose
`
`“adjusting an obstacle detection threshold in real time based on immediate
`
`past measurements of the signal sensed by the sensor to adapt to varying
`
`conditions encountered during operation of the window or panel” as required
`
`by claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 4 – 5. On this record, we are not persuaded by
`
`this line of argument.
`
`On this record, Petitioner has at least made a threshold showing
`
`sufficient to institute inter partes review on this ground. Petitioner argues
`
`that Duhame discloses that current speed calculation and immediate previous
`
`speed calculation are compared and are values based on averages of pulses
`
`from Hall-effect sensors. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1009, 10:32 – 40). This
`
`comparison, at least to some degree, adapts to varying conditions in that the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`prior average speed calculations will depend upon the existing conditions at
`
`the time speed measurements are taken.
`
`Petitioner argues that Duhame meets the claim 5 limitation: “wherein
`
`the immediate past measurements of said signal are sensed within a forty
`
`millisecond interval prior to the most recent signal from the sensor.” Pet.
`
`56. Petitioner reasons that Duhame meets this claim limitation because a
`
`“50 Hz or 60 Hz motor will complete 50 or 60 revolutions per second, or
`
`every 20 to 16 milliseconds, respectively.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner disagrees and argues that the 60 Hz or 50 Hz power
`
`merely indicates that the frequency of the AC line voltage that powers the
`
`motor is 50 or 60 cycles per second, and does not necessarily indicate or
`
`imply that the speed of the motor is 50 or 60 revolutions per second as the
`
`Petitioner argues. Prelim. Resp. 8.
`
`According to Patent Owner, Petitioner implies that if one revolution
`
`of the motor occurs in 20 milliseconds, then the time interval over which the
`
`immediate past measurements of the signal are sensed would be less than 20
`
`milliseconds. However, the length of time for each revolution of the motor
`
`does not determine the time interval over which the immediate past
`
`measurements of the signal are sensed. Even if Duhame implicitly taught
`
`that one revolution of the motor occurs in 20 milliseconds, Duhame would
`
`still be silent on the length of the time interval over which immediate past
`
`measurements of the signal would be sensed. Id. Therefore, according to
`
`Patent Owner, Duhame does not disclose that “the immediate past
`
`measurements of said signal are sensed within a forty millisecond interval
`
`prior to the most recent signal from the sensor” as recited in claim 5. We
`
`agree. Petitioner has not carried its burden with respect to claim 5.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`
`Patent Owner correctly notes that Petitioner does not rely on Kinzl as
`
`disclosing that “the immediate past measurements of said signal are sensed
`
`within a forty millisecond interval prior to the most recent signal from the
`
`sensor” as recited in claim 5. Prelim. Resp. 9.
`
`In light of the analysis presented in the Petition with respect to each of
`
`the challenged claims under this Ground, we are persuaded that Petitioner
`
`has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that
`
`Duhame and Kinzl render obvious claims 1 – 2 and 6 – 8 of the ’612 patent,
`
`but we are not persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing as to
`
`claim 5.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we institute trial on the indicated grounds.
`
`The Board has not made a final determination under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to
`
`the patentability of claims or any underlying factual and legal
`
`determinations, and will do so only after full consideration of all of evidence
`
`properly admitted during trial.
`
`V. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is granted;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) an inter
`
`partes review of the ’612 patent is hereby instituted, commencing on the
`
`entry date of this Decision, and 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;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`
`(1) Claims 6 – 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bernard;
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00648
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`
`(2) Claims 1 – 2 and 5 – 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
`
`over Lamm, Itoh, and Bernard;
`
`(3) Claims 1 – 2 and 6 – 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
`
`over Duhame and Kinzl; and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other grounds of unpatentability are
`
`authorized for this inter partes review.
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Charles Sanders
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`csanders@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Timothy Rousseau
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`trousseau@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Phong Dinh
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`pdinh@goodwinprocter.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Monte L. Falcoff
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`mlfalcoff@hdp.com
`
`
`Hemant M. Keskar
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`hkeskar@hdp.com
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`