throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: August 29, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOHAWK RESOURCES LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VEHICLE SERVICE GROUP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Mohawk Resources Ltd., filed a corrected petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 39, 42–51, 53, 55–61, 63–65, 68,
`70, 71, 76, 77, 79, 84, 133–135, and 157 of U.S. Patent No. 6,983,196 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’196 patent”). Paper 6 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Vehicle
`Service Group, LLC, did not file a preliminary response. We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes
`review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the
`petition . . . 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, we conclude the information
`presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in showing the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
`Accordingly, we authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to claims
`39, 42–51, 53, 55–61, 63–65, 68, 70, 71, 76, 77, 79, 84, 133–135, and 157 of
`the ’196 patent.
`
`A. The ’196 Patent
`The ’196 patent, titled “Electronically Controlled Vehicle Lift and
`Vehicle Service System,” describes a vehicle lift with an electronic control
`configured to control the raising and lowering of the lift and to display a
`variety of information regarding the operation of the lift. Ex. 1001,
`Abstract. One embodiment of a vehicle lift is shown in Figure 1 of the ’196
`patent, reproduced below:
`
`2
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 2
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates vehicle lift 2 with two posts 4. Id. at 3:24–29.
`Carriages 7 move vertically along the posts. Id. at 3:29–31. Arms 8 with
`flip up adapters 10 extend from each carriage 7 and engage the underside of
`a vehicle to be lifted. Id. at 3:31–35. Control assembly 16 is located on one
`of the posts and includes a user interface comprising a display screen and
`key pad. Id. at 3:50–51, 4:28–35, Fig. 3. Control assembly 16 includes
`components for selectively controlling the raising and lowering of the
`moveable lift engagement structure (including arms 8) and for displaying
`data pertaining to operation, control, and maintenance of the lift. Id. at 7:6–
`27, 8:58–61.
`
`3
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 3
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 39, 71, 79, 84, 133, and 157 are
`independent. Claims 39, 71, 84, and 157 are illustrative of the claimed
`subject matter:
`
`39. A vehicle lift comprising:
`
`a. a moveable lift engagement structure; and
`
`b. an electronic control configured to selectively control
`raising and lowering said moveable lift engagement structure
`based upon user input and configured to enable display of lift
`data regarding use of said lift.
`
`71. A vehicle lift comprising:
`
`a. a moveable lift engagement structure; and
`
`b. an electronic control comprising control logic
`operative to generate a signal indicative of a maintenance
`condition based upon predetermined criteria.
`
`84. A vehicle lift comprising:
`
`a. a moveable lift engagement structure; and
`
`b. an electronic control configured to monitor operation
`conditions, and to determine whether an operation fault
`condition exists based on the application of predetermined
`criteria to said operation conditions, and comprising control
`logic configured to control the raising and lowering of said
`moveable lift engagement structure in response to whether an
`operation fault condition has been determined to exist.
`
`157. A vehicle lift comprising:
`
`a. a frame work;
`
`b. a moveable lift engagement structure moveably
`supported by said frame work; and
`
`c. a communications port carried by said frame work.
`
`Id. at 19:15–20; 20:53–57; 21:34–43; 28:7–12.
`
`4
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 4
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`
`C. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that claims 39, 42–51, 53, 55–61, 63–65, 68, 70,
`71, 76, 77, 79, 84, 133–135, and 157 of the ’196 patent are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on the following specific grounds:
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Kogyo1
`
`Kogyo
`Kogyo and
`de Bellefeuille2
`Kogyo and SEFAC3
`Kogyo and Chu4
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claims
`39, 42, 44–51, 53, 55, 57–61, 63–65,
`71, 76, 79, 84, 133–135, and 157
`39, 42, 44–51, 53, 55, 57–61, 63–65,
`71, 76, 79, 84, 133–135, and 157
`43, 68, and 70
`56 and 77
`157
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`As a step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a review,
`we determine the meaning of the claims for purposes of this decision. In an
`inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired patent
`
`1 Japanese Patent Appl. Publ’n H8-333093, published Dec. 17, 1996 (Ex.
`1003, “Kogyo”). Citations to this reference are to its English translation
`(Ex. 1004).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,285,932 B1, issued Sept. 4, 2001 (Ex. 1006, “de
`Bellefeuille”).
`3 SEFAC Mobile Electromechanical Lift with Isolevelling System (Ex. 1007,
`“SEFAC”). Petitioner asserts that this user manual was publicly available at
`least as early as March 13, 1991. See Ex. 1008 (Linzer Decl.).
`4 German Patent Appl. DE 91 15 317, published Apr. 30, 1992 (Ex. 1009,
`“Chu”). Unless otherwise indicated, citations to this reference are to its
`English translation (Ex. 1010).
`
`5
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 5
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from
`its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 9–10.
`We address below the claim terms relevant to this decision; no other terms
`require express construction at this stage of the proceeding.
`
`1. “moveable lift engagement structure”
`Petitioner proposes that this claim term be construed as “[v]ertically
`movable parts of a vehicle lift which engage a vehicle in a manner so as to
`move the vehicle vertically in either direction.” Pet. 9. For purposes of this
`decision, we adopt Petitioner’s construction, which is identical to the
`meaning of “moveable lift engagement structure” expressly provided in the
`’196 patent. See Ex. 1001, 4:9–12.
`
`2. “lift data”
`The ’196 patent provides that “[l]ift data as used herein includes any
`data relevant to the operation or control of the lift.” Ex. 1001, 13:46–48. As
`further explained in the ’196 patent, “lift data” includes usage data,
`
`6
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 6
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`operation fault data, instructional data, troubleshooting data, and
`maintenance data. Id. at 13:52–64.
`Petitioner proposes that this claim term be construed as “[p]lurality of
`information pertaining to the operation and control of the lift, including
`usage, operational fault, instructional, troubleshooting, and maintenance
`data.” Pet. 10. This construction comports with the written description of
`the ’196 patent, except that Petitioner does not provide, nor do we discern,
`any basis for expressly including “plurality” in the construction. For
`purposes of this decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable
`construction of “lift data,” consistent with its use in the ’196 patent, is “data
`relevant to the operation or control of the lift, including usage data,
`operation fault data, instructional data, troubleshooting data, and
`maintenance data.”
`
`B. Anticipation by Kogyo
`Petitioner contends that claims 39, 42, 44–51, 53, 55, 57–61, 63–65,
`71, 76, 79, 84, 133–135, and 157 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`as anticipated by Kogyo. Pet. 11–43. To support its contention, Petitioner
`provides detailed analysis and claim charts explaining how each claim
`limitation allegedly is described in Kogyo. Id. Petitioner also cites the
`declaration of Dr. James H. Oliver (Ex. 1002) for support.
`
`1. Kogyo
`Figure 1 of Kogyo, reproduced below, illustrates a vehicle
`maintenance lift:
`
`7
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 7
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, vehicle maintenance lift 1 includes cylinder device 3,
`which lifts chassis bearing portion 2. Ex. 1004 ¶ 9. Hydraulic unit 4,
`comprising hydraulic pump 7 and drive motor 8, controls the raising and
`lowering of cylinder device 3. Id. Data memory device 5 stores data
`pertaining to the operating conditions and usage status of the lift based on
`information detected by sensors (not shown in Figure 1) built in to various
`components of the lift, including chassis bearing portion 2, hydraulic pump
`7, and drive motor 8. Id. ¶¶ 10–12. Diagnostic device 6 displays data
`obtained from data memory device 5. Id. ¶ 12.
`Figure 2 of Kogyo provides a more detailed diagram of data memory
`device 5 and diagnostic device 6:
`
`8
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 8
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 2, data memory device 5 includes control device 16
`(described as a central processing unit (CPU)) and analog-to-digital (A/D)
`converters 14 for converting data detected by sensors. Id. ¶ 11. Diagnostic
`device 6 includes arithmetic and control unit 18, display device 19, and input
`device 21 (e.g., a keyboard). Id. ¶ 12.
`When using the vehicle maintenance lift, an “operator operates a
`designated switch (not shown) to raise cylinder portion 22 of the cylinder
`device by means of hydraulic unit 4.” Id. ¶ 13. During operation, sampled
`data from the sensors falling outside of a range of preset reference values are
`counted and stored in memory as an “anomaly count.” Id. ¶ 14. Moreover,
`in the event of significantly different readings from pressure sensors on
`vehicle bearing portion 2, indicating an unbalanced load, “lift operation is
`immediately stopped.” Id. The operator can operate input device 21 to
`monitor and retrieve data pertaining to operating conditions and usage state
`of the lift as needed. Id. ¶¶ 15–16.
`
`9
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 9
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`
`2. Claims 39, 42, 44–51, 53, 55, 57–61, and 63–65
`Independent claim 39 of the ’196 patent is directed to a “vehicle lift”
`comprising “a moveable lift engagement structure” and an “electronic
`control” configured to perform certain functions. Petitioner contends that
`Kogyo discloses both limitations. Pet. 11–13. Specifically, Petitioner
`asserts that Kogyo’s chassis bearing portion corresponds to the recited
`“moveable lift engagement structure.” Id. at 12–13. Petitioner further
`asserts that Kogyo’s data memory device, diagnostic device, sensors, A/D
`converters, CPU, and designated operator switch work together to provide
`the recited “electronic control.” Id. According to Petitioner, Kogyo
`discloses an electronic control that is “configured to selectively control
`raising and lowering said moveable lift engagement structure based upon
`user input” (via operation of Kogyo’s designated switch) and “to enable
`display of lift data regarding use of said lift” (display of information
`detected from various sensors on Kogyo’s display device 19), as recited in
`claim 39. Id.
`Petitioner also contends that Kogyo describes the additional
`limitations set forth in claims 42, 44–51, 53, 55, 57–61, and 63–65, which
`depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 39. Pet. 14–32. For
`example, Petitioner argues that Kogyo discloses “selection of specific lift
`data enabled for display . . . based on user input,” as recited in claim 42,
`because an operator of Kogyo’s system can send a command using input
`device 21 to retrieve and monitor data pertaining to operating conditions and
`usage state of the lift (i.e., lift data), whenever needed. Id. at 14–15 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 16).
`
`10
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 10
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`
`With respect to dependent claim 44, Petitioner contends that Kogyo
`describes an “electronic control” that is “configured to monitor operation
`conditions” by sampling sensor data. Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 14).
`Further, Petitioner contends that Kogyo’s system includes “control logic . . .
`configured to modify operation of said lift, from the operation called for by
`said user input, based upon predetermined criteria applied to one or more
`operation conditions,” as recited in claim 44, because operation of Kogyo’s
`lift is stopped when monitored lift data indicate an unbalanced load. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 14).
`Petitioner also argues that Kogyo discloses control logic “configured
`to generate a signal indicative of an operation fault condition based upon
`said predetermined criteria,” as recited in claim 45, because Kogyo describes
`two fault conditions (“anomaly count” and imbalanced load) that are based
`upon predetermined criteria (a range of preset reference values and a
`significant difference in sensor readings, respectively) and cause a signal to
`be generated (signal sent to memory to store the count and signal to stop lift
`operation, respectively). Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 14; Ex. 1002,
`¶¶ 58–59).
`Petitioner further argues that Kogyo discloses the limitations recited
`in dependent claims 60 and 61, including “control logic operative to
`generate a signal indicative of a maintenance condition,” and “wherein
`predetermined criteria is applied to lift data to determine whether a
`maintenance condition exists.” Pet. 27–29. Petitioner cites, for example,
`Kogyo’s description of sending a signal to memory indicating sampled data
`outside a range of preset reference values. Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`11
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 11
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`¶ 14). According to Petitioner, Kogyo discloses that such a signal may
`indicate a maintenance condition:
`[A]n operator is able to retrieve data pertaining to the operating
`conditions and usage state of the lift stored in memory
`whenever needed, making it possible to predict and proactively
`prevent breakdowns and, in the event of a breakdown, to
`immediately ascertain the site and cause of the breakdown.
`This greatly facilitates maintenance.
`Id. at 28–29 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 16).
`We also have considered Petitioner’s arguments and claim charts for
`dependent claims 46–51, 53, 55, 57–59, and 63–65. On the present record,
`we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claims 39, 42, 44–51, 53,
`55, 57–61, and 63–65 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kogyo.
`
`3. Claims 71, 76, 79, 84, and 133–135
`Independent claims 71, 79, 84, and 133 recite, in various
`combinations, limitations similar to those in claims 39, 42, 44, 45, 60, and
`61, addressed above. With reasoning similar to that discussed above,
`Petitioner contends that Kogyo discloses all the limitations of claims 71, 79,
`84, and 133. Pet. 32–39. Petitioner also presents arguments and claim
`charts for dependent claims 76, 134, and 135. Pet. 34, 39–41.
`Based on our review of Petitioner’s arguments and claim charts, we
`determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claims 71, 76, 79, 84, and
`133–135 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kogyo.
`
`12
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 12
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`
`4. Claim 157
`Claim 157 is directed to a vehicle lift and recites “a frame work” and
`“a moveable lift engagement structure moveably supported by said frame
`work.” The term “frame work” does not appear in the ’196 patent except in
`claim 157. Although Petitioner asserts that a “frame work” is taught by
`Kogyo’s cylinder device 3, Petitioner does not explain how Kogyo’s
`cylinder device 3 constitutes a “frame work” that “moveably support[s]” the
`moveable lift engagement structure. See Pet. 42. Because Petitioner has not
`provided sufficient support to demonstrate that Kogyo’s cylinder device
`discloses the recited “frame work,” we conclude that the information
`presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in demonstrating that claim 157 is unpatentable as anticipated by
`Kogyo.
`
`C. Obviousness over Kogyo
`Petitioner contends that claims 39, 42, 44–51, 53, 55, 57–61, 63–65,
`71, 76, 79, 84, 133–135, and 157 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Kogyo. Pet. 43–44. The crux of Petitioner’s argument is
`that “to the extent that Kogyo is seen as missing any element of any of these
`claims, each claim still would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`the art as falling within that level of skill when combined with the teaching
`of Kogyo.” Id. at 44. The petition, however, does not identify any particular
`limitation of any particular claim that might be missing from Kogyo, nor
`does it provide any details as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have combined any missing element with the teachings of Kogyo.
`See id. at 43–44. Without any specific explanation regarding the alleged
`
`13
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 13
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`obviousness of these claims, we are unable to conclude that the information
`presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`demonstrating that claims 39, 42, 44–51, 53, 55, 57–61, 63–65, 71, 76, 79,
`84, 133–135, and 157 are unpatentable as obvious over Kogyo.
`
`D. Obviousness over Kogyo and de Bellefeuille
`Petitioner contends that claim 43, which depends from claim 42, and
`claims 68 and 70, which depend from independent claim 39, are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Kogyo and de
`Bellefeuille. Pet. 44–48. To support its contention, Petitioner provides an
`explanation of how each additional limitation in these claims allegedly is
`taught by de Bellefeuille. Id. Petitioner also provides a rationale for
`combining Kogyo with de Bellefeuille, relying on the analysis of Dr. Oliver.
`Pet. 45–48 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 187, 192).
`De Bellefeuille discloses a computerized vehicle servicing and
`diagnostic system. Ex. 1006, Abstract. Petitioner contends that de
`Bellefeuille teaches menu driven user input, as required by claim 43,
`because an operator can navigate de Bellefeuille’s system using a menu
`mode. Pet. 45–47 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:41–43). Petitioner also asserts that de
`Bellefeuille teaches an electronic control “configured to access another
`computer system through a network,” as recited in claim 68, because its
`vehicle sensors “are configured to communicate on an internal shop network
`or Intranet.” Pet. 47–48 (quoting Ex. 1006, 4:33–35). In addition, a user of
`de Bellefeuille’s system can access data relating to “alignment procedures,
`specific to both the vehicle and to the equipment for performing the
`alignment procedure,” which Petitioner contends corresponds to a control
`
`14
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 14
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`“configured to enable display of service data,” as recited in claim 70.
`Pet. 47–48 (quoting Ex. 1006, 4:24–26).
`On the present record, we determine that Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that de Bellefeuille teaches the additional limitations recited in
`claims 43, 68, and 70. We also determine that Petitioner has made a
`sufficient showing of articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for
`combining the teachings of de Bellefeuille and Kogyo. See Pet. 46 (stating
`that the combination “would provide the user with easier navigation when
`the control can perform multiple functions”); id. at 47 (stating that the
`combination “would provide the user with ready access to ‘data relating to
`the customer, the vehicle type, and vehicle problem information’” (quoting
`Ex. 1006, 4:22–23)). Accordingly, we conclude that the information
`presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`demonstrating that claims 43, 68, and 70 are unpatentable for obviousness
`over Kogyo and de Bellefeuille.
`
`E. Obviousness over Kogyo and SEFAC
`Petitioner contends that claims 56 and 77 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Kogyo and SEFAC. Pet. 49–52.
`To support its contention, Petitioner provides an explanation of how each
`additional limitation in these claims allegedly is taught by SEFAC. Id.
`Petitioner also provides a rationale for combining Kogyo with SEFAC,
`relying on the analysis of Dr. Oliver. Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 201).
`Claim 56 depends from claim 55 and requires a first user interface
`configured to transmit user input to said electronic control (claim 55) and a
`second user interface configured to transmit user input to said electronic
`
`15
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 15
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`control (claim 56). SEFAC is a user manual for an electromechanical lift,
`which includes a main control box and a secondary control box for
`controlling operation of the lift. Ex. 1007, 9.5 According to Petitioner, it
`would have been obvious to combine SEFAC’s teaching of two control
`boxes with Kogyo’s lift because the combination “would provide separate
`user interfaces for lift operation in two different locations on the lift, thereby
`facilitating the convenience of the operator,” which Kogyo teaches is
`desirable. Pet. 50.
`Claim 77 depends from claim 76 and requires the electronic control to
`permit movement of the lift structure in response to user input after
`movement has been inhibited “in response to the existence of a
`predetermined maintenance condition.” Petitioner asserts that this “manual
`override” feature is taught by SEFAC, which describes a procedure for a
`user to reinstate lift movement after operation has been halted due to a fault
`condition. Pet. 51–52 (citing Ex. 1007, 4). Petitioner contends one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined this feature with Kogyo to
`“enable removal of a vehicle from the lift to facilitate lift service after an
`automatic stop condition is triggered.” Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 207–
`08).
`
`On the present record, we determine that Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that SEFAC teaches the additional limitations recited in claims
`56 and 77, and has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational
`underpinning for combining the teachings of SEFAC and Kogyo.
`
`5 We refer to page numbers of the user manual rather than exhibit page
`numbers added by Petitioner.
`
`16
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 16
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that the information presented shows a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claims 56 and
`77 are unpatentable for obviousness over Kogyo and SEFAC.
`
`F. Obviousness over Kogyo and Chu
`Petitioner contends that claim 157 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) for obviousness over Kogyo and Chu. Pet. 52–54. Chu discloses a
`vehicle lift, shown in Figure 1 of Chu (Ex. 1009, 6), reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 of Chu illustrates a two-column vehicle lift with bases 12 and 22
`that slide vertically along vertical frames 1 and 2. Ex. 1010, 2.
`Petitioner relies on Chu for disclosing a “frame work,” as recited in
`claim 157. Pet. 52–54. On the present record, Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that Chu describes a vehicle lift with a “frame work.” Chu’s
`frames 12 and 22 resemble posts 4, the support structure shown in Figure 1
`of the ’196 patent, and Chu’s bases 12 and 22 resemble arms 8, the
`moveable lift engagement structure in Figure 1 of the ’196 patent. Compare
`
`17
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 17
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, with Ex. 1001, Fig. 1. Moreover, Chu uses the word
`“frame” to describe its support structure. Ex. 1010, 2. For these reasons, we
`conclude that, for purposes of this decision, the broadest reasonable
`construction of “frame work” as used in claim 157 encompasses the frame
`structure illustrated in Chu.
`Petitioner further argues that the combination of Chu’s frame structure
`with Kogyo’s teachings, including a communications port, as recited in
`claim 157, for connection to a computer/control system, would have been
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the combination of well-known
`elements with no change in their functions. See Pet. 53–54 (citing KSR Int’l
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)). Based on the record before
`us, we conclude that the information presented shows a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claim 157 is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kogyo and Chu.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that claims 39, 42–51, 53, 55–61, 63–65, 68, 70, 71, 76, 77, 79, 84,
`133–135, and 157 of the ’196 patent are unpatentable. At this stage of the
`proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination with respect to the
`patentability of the challenged claims or any underlying factual and legal
`issues.
`
`18
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 18
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
` ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 39, 42–51, 53, 55–61, 63–65, 68, 70,
`71, 76, 77, 79, 84, 133–135, and 157 of the ’196 patent for the following
`grounds of unpatentability:
` A.
`Claims 39, 42, 44–51, 53, 55, 57–61, 63–65, 71, 76, 79, 84, and
`133–135 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Kogyo;
` B.
`Claims 43, 68, and 70 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Kogyo and de Bellefeuille;
` C.
`Claims 56 and 77 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Kogyo and SEFAC; and
` D.
`Claim 157 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Kogyo and Chu;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other grounds set forth in the petition
`are authorized for inter partes review as to the claims of the ’196 patent; 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, which
`commences on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`19
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 19
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084
`
`

`
`20
`
`IPR2014-00464
`Patent 6,983,196 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Richard P. Beem
`John R. Linzer
`Beem Patent Law Firm
`Richard@BeemLaw.com
`JLinzer@BeemLaw.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ann G. Schoen
`Andrew B. Ulmer
`Edwin R. Acheson, Jr.
`Frost Brown Todd LLC
`aschoen@fbtlaw.com
`aulmer@fbtlaw.com
`eacheson@fbtlaw.com
`FBTIPLitigation@fbtlaw.com
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2001, Page 20
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01084

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket