`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: November 7, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00996
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00996
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Gillette Company (“Gillette”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 6–10 and 16–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184 B2
`
`(Ex. 1101, “the ’184 patent”). Paper 3 (“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 Gillette would prevail in challenging
`
`claims 6–10 and 16–20 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 6–10 and 16–20 of the ’184 patent.
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`
`
`Gillette indicates that the ’184 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Gillette Co., No.1:13-cv-11567-DJC (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. Gillette also
`
`identifies other proceedings in which Zond asserted the ’184 patent. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00996
`Patent 7,808,184 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 Intel Corp.
`
`v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00456, Paper 4, and in the instant proceeding:
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00803, Paper
`
`2; Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00858, Paper 1;
`
`and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-01061,
`
`Paper 2.
`
`In each of IPR2014-00456, IPR2014-00803, and IPR2014-00858, we
`
`instituted an inter partes review of claims 6–10 and 16-20 based on the
`
`grounds that claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as
`
`obvious over the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev, and that claims 8
`
`and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Wang,
`
`Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin. IPR2014-00456 (Paper 12); IPR2014-00803
`
`(Paper 9); IPR2014-00858 (Paper 12). In IPR2014-00456, we terminated
`
`the proceeding in light of the 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 and Zond. Intel
`
`Corp. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR 2014-00456 (PTAB) (Papers 14, 15); Intel
`
`Corp. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00455 (PTAB) (Ex. 1025).
`
`Gillette also filed a revised Motion for Joinder, seeking to join the
`
`instant proceeding with IPR2014-00803. Paper 10 (“Mot.”). In a separate
`
`decision, we grant Gillette’s revised Motion for Joinder, joining the instant
`
`proceeding with IPR2014-00803, and terminating the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00996
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Gillette relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1
`
`July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1105)
`
`
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1103) (“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 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1104) (“Kudryavtsev”).
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at
`Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1107) (“Mozgrin
`Thesis”).1
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Gillette asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`6–10 and 16–20
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`6–10 and 16–20
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis
`
`6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19,
`and 20
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`8 and 18
`
`§ 103(a) Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. Gillette provided a
`certified English-language translation (Ex. 1106).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00996
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The parties make the same claim interpretation arguments that Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC North America
`
`Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) and Zond made in IPR2014-00803
`
`(“’803”). Compare Pet. 13–15, with ’803 Pet. 13–15; compare Prelim.
`
`Resp. 11–16, with ’803 Prelim. Resp. 11–16.
`
`We construed the claim terms identified by TSMC and Zond in
`
`IPR2014-00803. See ’803 Dec. 8–12. For the purposes of the instant
`
`decision, we incorporate our previous analysis and apply those claim
`
`constructions here.
`
`B. Obviousness over Wang in Combination with
`Other Cited Prior Art References
`
`In its Petition, Gillette asserts the same two grounds of unpatentability
`
`based on various combinations of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin, as that
`
`on which a trial was instituted in IPR2014-00803. See Pet. 44–59; ’803 Dec.
`
`31–32. Gillette’s arguments are substantively identical to the arguments
`
`made by TSMC in IPR2014-00803. Compare Pet. 44–59, with ’803 Pet.
`
`44–59. Gillette also proffers the same Declaration of Mr. Richard DeVito
`
`that TSMC submitted in support of its Petition. Compare Ex. 1102, with
`
`IPR2014-00803, Ex. 1102. Zond’s arguments in the Preliminary Response
`
`are essentially identical to those arguments that it made in IPR2014-00803.
`
`Compare Prelim. Resp. 44–51, with ’803 Prelim. Resp. 44–51.
`
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the two asserted
`
`grounds of unpatentability based on various combinations of Wang and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00996
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`other cited prior art references (’803 Dec. 13–31), and determine that
`
`Gillette has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on those two
`
`grounds of unpatentability.
`
`
`
`C. Other Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Gillette also asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`6–10 and 16–20
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`6–10 and 16–20
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis
`
`
`
`The Board’s rules for inter partes review proceedings, including those
`
`pertaining to institution, are “construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`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
`
`Gillette would prevail in challenging claims 6–10 and 16–20 of the ’184
`
`patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). At this stage in the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00996
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to claim
`
`construction or that patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is:
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted on the ground that claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19,
`
`and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev, and that claims 8 and 18 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`
`Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin;
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2014-00996
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Michael A. Diener
`Michael.Diener@wilmerhale.com
`
`Larissa Bifano Park
`Larissa.Park@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com