Paper 13
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: November 18, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01019
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: November 18, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01019
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01019
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`The Gillette Company (“Gillette”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43 of U.S. Patent No.
`6,805,779 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’779 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC
`(“Zond”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“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 43 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and claims 5, 6, 8, 19,
`22, and 23 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 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43 of the ’779 patent.
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`Gillette indicates that the ’779 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`The Gillette Co., No.1:13-cv-11567-DJC (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. Gillette also
`identifies other proceedings in which Zond asserted the ’779 patent. Id.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01019
`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 IPR2014-00686; and
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-01076.
`In IPR2014-00686, 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. IPR2014-00686, Papers 11, 12; IPR2014-00598, Ex. 1013.
`In IPR2014-01076, we instituted an inter partes review for the
`following grounds of unpatentability, IPR2014-01076, Paper 11
`(“’1076 Dec.”), 30:
`
`Claims
`43
`
`Basis
`§ 102(b)
`
`References
`Iwamura
`
`5, 6, 8, 19, 22, and 23
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley
`
`
`
`Gillette filed a revised Motion for Joinder, seeking to join with
`IPR2014-01076, and Zond filed an Opposition to Gillette’s Motion.
`Papers 11, 12. In a separate decision, we grant Gillette’s revised Motion for
`Joinder, joining the instant proceeding with IPR2014-01076, and terminating
`the instant proceeding.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01019
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Gillette relies upon the following prior art references:
`Pinsley
`
`
`US 3,761,836
`Sept. 25, 1973
`Angelbeck
`
`US 3,514,714
`May 26, 1970
`Iwamura
`
`US 5,753,886
`May 19, 1998
`
`
`(Ex. 1105)
`(Ex. 1106)
`(Ex. 1107)
`
`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. 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 (1983) (Ex. 1104, “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Gillette asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`43
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`Iwamura
`
`5, 6, 8, 19, 22, and 23
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley1
`
`5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23,
`and 43
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley
`
`
`
`
`1 Pinsley is omitted inadvertently from the statement of this asserted ground
`of unpatentability, although included in the substantive analysis. Pet. 52, 54.
`Therefore, we treat the statement as mere harmless error and presume that
`Gillette intended to assert that claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, and 23 are unpatentable
`under § 103(a) based on the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and
`Pinsley.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01019
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Gillette makes the same claim interpretation arguments that
`GlobalFoundries made in IPR2014-01076. Compare Pet. 17–18, with
`IPR2014-01076, Paper 2 (“’1076 Pet.”), 17–18. We construed several claim
`terms in the Decision on Institution for IPR2014-01076. See ’1076 Dec. 7–
`10. For the purposes of the instant decision, we incorporate our previous
`analysis and apply those claim constructions here.
`
`
`B. Grounds of Unpatentability Based on Iwamura, alone or in Combination
`with Angelbeck and Pinsley
`In its Petition, Gillette asserts the same grounds of unpatentability
`based on Iwamura, alone or in combination with Angelbeck and Pinsley, as
`the ground on which a trial was instituted in IPR2014-01076. See Pet. 41–
`60; ’1076 Dec. 30. Gillette’s arguments are substantively identical to the
`arguments made by GlobalFoundries in IPR2014-01076. Compare Pet. 41–
`60, with ’1076 Pet. 41–60. Gillette also proffers the same Declaration of
`Dr. Uwe Kortshagen that GlobalFoundries submitted in support of its
`Petition. Compare Ex. 1102, with IPR2014-01076, Ex. 1102. Zond’s
`arguments in the Preliminary Response are essentially identical to those
`arguments that it made in IPR2014-01076. Compare Prelim. Resp. 19–56,
`with IPR2014-01076, Paper 10 (“’1076 Prelim. Resp.”), 19–56.
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted grounds
`of unpatentability based on Iwamura, alone or in combination with
`Angelbeck and Pinsley, (’1076 Dec. 10–29), and determine that Gillette has
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01019
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on those grounds of
`unpatentability.
`
`
`C. Other Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Gillette also asserts that claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43 of the ’779
`patent are unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley. Pet. 18–40. 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 claim 43 of the ’779 patent as
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and in challenging claims 5, 6, 8, 19,
`22, and 23 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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01019
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`respect to the patentability of the challenged claims, including the claim
`construction.
`
`
`
`
`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
`43
`
`Basis
`§ 102(b)
`
`5, 6, 8, 19, 22, and 23
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`References
`Iwamura
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and
`Pinsley
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01019
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Michael Diener
`Larissa Park
`WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE AND DORR, LLP
`michael.diener@wilmerhale.com
`larissa.park@wilmerhale.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`CHAO HADIDI STARK & BARKER LLP
`bbarker@chsblaw.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
