`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: November 18, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED and
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00856
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL,
`and JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00856
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited and Fujitsu Semiconductor America,
`Inc. (collectively, “Fujitsu”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 30–37, 39, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 B2
`(Ex. 1201, “the ’779 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”), filed
`a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The standard for
`instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`provides:
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that 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.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`conclude that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Fujitsu would prevail in challenging
`claims 30–37, 39, and 40 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an inter partes review to
`be instituted as to claims 30–37, 39, and 40 of the ’779 patent.
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`Fujitsu indicates that the ’779 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Fujitsu, No.1:13-cv-11634-WGY (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. Fujitsu also identifies
`other proceedings in which Zond asserted the ’779 patent. Id.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00856
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Related Inter Partes Reviews
`
`The following Petitions for inter partes review also challenge the
`same claims based on the same grounds of unpatentability as those in the
`instant proceeding: Intel Corp. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00765; Taiwan
`Semiconductor Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00828; The
`Gillette Co. v Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-001022; and Advanced Micro
`Devices, Inc. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-01070.
`In IPR2014-00765, we terminated the proceeding, prior to institution,
`in light of the Joint Motion to Terminate and Written Settlement Agreement,
`made in connection with the termination of the proceeding in accordance
`with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b), between Intel Corp. and
`Zond. IPR2014-00765, Papers 9, 10; IPR2014-00598, Ex. 1013.
`In IPR2014-00828, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 30–
`37, 39, and 40 of the ’779 patent, based on the following grounds of
`unpatentability, IPR2014-00828, Paper 9 (“’828 Dec.”), 26:
`Claims
`Basis
`References
`
`30–33, 35, 37, 40 § 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley
`
`34, 39
`
`36
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and Wells
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`
`Fujitsu filed a revised Motion for Joinder with IPR2014-00828, and
`Zond filed an Opposition to Fujitsu’s Motion. Papers 9, 10. In a separate
`decision, we grant Fujitsu’s revised Motion for Joinder, joining the instant
`proceeding with IPR2014-00828, and terminating the instant proceeding.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00856
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`PCT WO 83/01349
`EP 0 242 028 A2
`
`
`Apr. 14, 1983
`Oct. 21, 1987
`
`(Ex. 1214)
`(Ex. 1215)
`
`Fujitsu relies upon the following prior art references:
`Pinsley
`
`US 3,761,836
`Sept. 25, 1973
`(Ex. 1205)
`Angelbeck
`US 3,514,714
`May 26, 1970
`(Ex. 1206)
`Iwamura
`US 5,753,886
`May 19, 1998
`(Ex. 1207)
`
`
`Wells
`Lovelock
`
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS, NO. 5, 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1203, “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS.
`TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (1983) (Ex. 1204, “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Fujitsu asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`30–33, 35, 37, 40 § 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley
`
`34, 39
`
`36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and Wells
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00856
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`30–33, 35, 37, 40 § 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley1
`
`34, 39
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and Wells
`
`36
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Fujitsu makes the same claim interpretation arguments that TSMC
`made in IPR2014-00828. Compare Pet. 18–19, with IPR2014-00828,
`Paper 2 (“’828 Pet.”), 19–20.
`We construed several claim terms in the Decision on Institution for
`IPR2014-00828. See ’828 Dec. 7–10. For the purposes of the instant
`decision, we incorporate our previous analysis and apply those claim
`constructions here.
`
`
`B. Obviousness over Iwamura in Combination with Other Cited References
`In its Petition, Fujitsu asserts the same grounds of unpatentability
`based on various combinations of Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, Wells, and
`
`
`1 Pinsley is omitted inadvertently from each statement of the asserted
`grounds of unpatentability based on Iwamura, although included in the
`corresponding analysis. See Pet. 41, 47–48, 57, 58. Therefore, we treat each
`statement as mere harmless error and presume that Fujitsu intended to assert
`that the challenged claims are unpatentable under § 103(a) based, in whole,
`or in part, on the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00856
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lovelock, as those on which a trial was instituted in IPR2014-00828. See
`Pet. 41–60; ’828 Dec. 26. Fujitsu’s arguments are substantively identical to
`the arguments made by TSMC in IPR2014-00828. Compare Pet. 41–60,
`with ’828 Pet. 41–60. Fujitsu also proffers the same Declaration of Dr. Uwe
`Kortshagen that TSMC submitted in support of its Petition. Compare
`Ex. 1202, with IPR2014-00828 Ex. 1202. Zond’s arguments in the
`Preliminary Response are essentially identical to those arguments that it
`made in IPR2014-00828. Compare Prelim. Resp. 18–49, with
`IPR2014-00828, Paper 8 (“’828 Prelim. Resp.”), 18–49.
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted grounds
`of unpatentability based on various combinations of Iwamura, Angelbeck,
`Pinsley, Wells, and Lovelock (’828 Dec. 10–25), and determine that Fujitsu
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on those grounds of
`unpatentability.
`
`
`C. Other Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Fujitsu also asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`30–33, 35, 37, 40 § 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley
`
`34, 39
`
`36
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and Wells
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`
`The Board’s rules for inter partes review proceedings, including those
`pertaining to institution, are “construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00856
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see also
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) (regulations for inter partes review proceedings take into
`account “the efficient administration of the Office” and “the ability of the
`Office to timely complete [instituted] proceedings”). Therefore, we exercise
`our discretion and do not institute a review based on these other asserted
`grounds for reasons of administrative necessity to ensure timely completion
`of the instituted proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Fujitsu would prevail in challenging claims 30–37, 39, and 40 of the ’779
`patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). At this stage in the
`proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the
`patentability of the challenged claims, including the claim construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00856
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted for the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Claims
`Basis
`References
`30–33, 35, 37,
`and 40
`34 and 39
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`36
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and Wells
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`asserted in the Petition is authorized for this inter partes review; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that 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; the trial
`will commence on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00856
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David M. O’Dell
`David McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Richard C. Kim
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`rckim@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`CHAO HADIDI STARK & BARKER LLP
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9