Paper 14
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: January 6, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01004
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: January 6, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01004
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01004
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Gillette Company (“Gillette”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claim 35 of U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1 (Ex. 1201, “the
`
`’652 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”), filed a Preliminary
`
`Response. Paper 12 (“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
`
`claim 35 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
`
`claim 35 of the ’652 patent.
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`
`
`Gillette indicates that the ’652 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 ’652 patent. Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01004
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Related Inter Partes Reviews
`
`The following Petitions for inter partes review also challenge the
`
`same claim based on the same grounds of unpatentability as those in the
`
`instant proceeding: Intel Corp. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00923 and
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-01089.
`
`In IPR2014-00923, 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. Intel Corp. v. Zond, IPR2014-00923, Papers 7, 8; Intel Corp. v. Zond,
`
`IPR2014-00843, Ex. 1115.
`
`Gillette also filed a renewed Motion for Joinder, seeking to join the
`
`instant proceeding with GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. v. Zond, LLC,
`
`Case IPR2014-01089 (“IPR2014-01089”). Paper 10 (“Mot.”). In a separate
`
`decision, we grant Gillette’s renewed Motion for Joinder, joining the instant
`
`proceeding with IPR2014-01089, and terminating the instant proceeding.
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Gillette relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`
`Iwamura et al.
`
`US 5,753,886
`
`May 19, 1998
`
`(Ex. 1208)
`
`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. 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 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1206) (“Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01004
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. W. Fahey, W. F. Parks, and L. D. Schearer, High Flux Beam
`
`Source of Thermal Rare-Gas Metastable Atoms, 13 J. PHYS. E: SCI.
`INSTRUM. 381–383 (1980) (Ex. 1205) (“Fahey”).
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Gillette asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`35
`
`35
`
`35
`
`35
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fahey
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Iwamura
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Iwamura, and Fahey
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The parties make the same claim interpretation arguments that
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`
`One LLC & Company KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`
`Two LLC & Co. KG (collectively, “GLOBALFOUNDRIES”) and Zond
`
`made in IPR2014-01089. Compare Pet. 13–17, with ’1089 Pet. 12–17;
`
`compare Prelim. Resp. 10–21, with ’1089 Prelim. Resp. 10–21.
`
`We addressed the proposed constructions of the claim elements
`
`identified by Gillette and Zond in IPR2014-01089. See ’1089 Dec. 8–18.
`
`For the purposes of the instant decision, we incorporate our previous
`
`analysis and apply our claim constructions here.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01004
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Obviousness over Mozgrin in Combination with
`Other Cited References
`
`In its Petition, Gillette asserts the same grounds of unpatentability
`
`based on the same combinations of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and
`
`Iwamura as those on which a trial was instituted in IPR2014-01089. See Pet.
`
`24–53; ’1089 Dec. 32. Gillette’s arguments are substantively identical to the
`
`arguments made by GLOBALFOUNDRIES in IPR2014-01089. Compare
`
`Pet. 24–53, with ’1089 Pet. 23–52. Gillette also proffers the same
`
`Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen that GLOBALFOUNDRIES submitted
`
`in support of its Petition. Compare Ex. 1202, with IPR2014-01089,
`
`Ex. 1202. Zond’s arguments in the Preliminary Response are essentially
`
`identical to those arguments that it made in IPR2014-01089. Compare
`
`Prelim. Resp. 21–53, with ’1089 Prelim. Resp. 21–53.
`
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted ground of
`
`unpatentability based on various combinations of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev,
`
`Fahey, and Iwamura (’1089 Dec. 19–31), and determine that Gillette has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on those grounds of
`
`unpatentability.
`
`C. Other Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Gillette also asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`35
`
`35
`
`
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fahey
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Iwamura
`
`The Board’s rules for inter partes review proceedings, including those
`
`pertaining to institution, are “construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01004
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 claim 35 of the ’652 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 claim construction or
`
`that patentability of the challenged claim.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 following grounds;
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01004
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`35
`
`35
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Mozgrin, Iwamura, and Fahey
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01004
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Larissa Bifano Park
`Larissa.Park@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
