`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: October 23, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01014
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01014
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`The Gillette Company (“Gillette”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`partes review of claims 21, 24, 26–28, 31, 32, 37, and 38 of U.S. Patent No.
`6,853,142 B2 (“the ’142 Patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”)
`timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter
`partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and
`the Preliminary Response, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 21, 24, 26–28, 31, 32, 37,
`and 38. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted as to the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`Gillette indicates that the ’142 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 ’142 Patent. Id.
`
`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 IPR2014-00496;
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manuf. Co., v. Zond, LLC., Case IPR2014-00819;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01014
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fujitsu Semiconductor, Ltd. v Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00867; and
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-01046.
`In IPR2014-00496, we terminated the proceeding, prior to institution,
`in light of the Joint Motion to Terminate and Written Settlement Agreement
`filed by Intel and Zond in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.74(b). IPR2014-00496, Paper 7; IPR2014-00494, Ex. 1018.
`In IPR2014-00819, we instituted inter partes review of claims 21, 24,
`26–28, 31, 32, 37, and 38 of the ’142 Patent, based on the following ground
`of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`21, 24, 26–28, 31, 32, 37, and 38
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`
`
`Gillette filed a renewed Motion for Joinder with IPR2014-00819.
`Paper 10. In a separate Decision, we grant Gillette’s renewed Motion,
`joining the instant proceeding with IPR2014-00819, and terminating the
`instant proceeding.
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Gillette relies upon the following prior art references:
`Wang
`
`
`US 6,413,382
`July 2, 2002
`
`
`(Ex. 1205)
`
`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) (hereinafter “Mozgrin”).
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28 SOV. PHYS. TECH.
`PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1204) (hereinafter “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01014
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at
`Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1207) (hereinafter
`“Mozgrin Thesis”).
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Gillette asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`21, 26–28, 31, 37, and 38 § 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and
`Mozgrin Thesis
`§ 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`24 and 32
`21, 24, 26–28, 31, 32,
`37, and 38
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The parties make the same claim construction arguments that Taiwan
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC North America
`Corp. (collectively, “TSMC”) and Zond made in IPR2014-00819. Compare
`Pet. 12–14, with ’819 Pet. 13–15; compare Prelim. Resp. 17–19, with ’819
`Prelim. Resp. 17–19.
`We construed several claim terms identified by TSMC and Zond in
`IPR2014-00819. See ’819 Dec. 6–8. For the purposes of the instant
`decision, we incorporate our previous analysis and apply those claim
`constructions here.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01014
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Obviousness over Wang and Kudryavtsev
`In its Petition, Gillette asserts the same ground of unpatentability
`based on the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev, as that on which a trial
`was instituted in IPR2014-00819. See Pet. 39–56; ’819 Dec. 22. Gillette’s
`arguments are substantively identical to the arguments made by TSMC in
`IPR2014-00819. Compare Pet. 39–56, with ’819 Pet. 39–56. Gillette also
`proffers the same Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen that TSMC submitted
`in support of its Petition. Compare Ex. 1202, with IPR2014-00819
`Ex. 1202. Zond’s arguments in the Preliminary Response are essentially
`identical to those arguments that it made in IPR2014-00819. Compare
`Prelim. Resp. 21–47, with ’819 Prelim. Resp. 21–47.
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted ground of
`unpatentability based on the combination of Wang and Lantsman (’819 Dec.
`9–20), and determine that Gillette has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing on this ground of unpatentability.
`
`C. Other Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Gillette also asserts that claims 21, 24, 26–28, 31, 32, 37, and 38 are
`unpatentable on other grounds. 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
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01014
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 21, 24, 26–28, 31, 32, 37, and
`38 of the ’142 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.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, 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
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`21, 24, 26–28, 31, 32, 37, and 38
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01014
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Michael A. Deiner
`Larissa B. Park
`WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE AND DORR, LLP
`Michael.Diener@wilmerhale.com
`Larissa.Park@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory Gonsalves
`THE GONSALVES LAW FIRM
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bruce Barker
`CHAO HADIDI STARK & BARKER LLP
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7