`
`
`Applicant:
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`Filing Date:
`
`Patent No.:
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Arling et al.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01084
`
`
`
`09/19/2003
`
`7,126,468
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`System and Method for )
`Monitoring Remote
`)
`Control Transmissions
`)
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics, Inc.
`
`
`
`Trial Paralegal: Amy Kattula
`
`Attny Doc.: 059489.143800
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b)
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Certificate of Filing: I hereby certify that his correspondence is being electronically filed with the USPTO on this
`14th day of October, 2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Eric J. Maiers/
`Eric J. Maiers
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Pages
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 3
`
`III. THE PETITION DOES NOT MEET THE STATUTORY
`REQUIREMENTS OF 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................... 8
`
`A. Ground 1: Cohen Does Not Anticipate Or Render Obvious
`Claims 1, 2, 11, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35, 45, 46, And/Or 49 ....................... 11
`
`1.
`
`Cohen Does Not Anticipate Claims 1, 2, 11, 27, 28, 29,
`33, 35, 45, 46, And/Or 49 Of The ‘468 Patent ......................... 11
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................ 11
`i.
`Claim 2 ............................................................................ 15
`ii.
`iii. Claim 11 .......................................................................... 15
`iv.
`Claim 27 .......................................................................... 15
`v.
`Claim 28 .......................................................................... 17
`vi.
`Claim 29 .......................................................................... 17
`vii. Claim 33 .......................................................................... 18
`viii. Claim 35 .......................................................................... 19
`ix.
`Claim 45 .......................................................................... 20
`x.
`Claim 46 .......................................................................... 20
`xi.
`Claim 49 .......................................................................... 21
`
`2.
`
`Cohen Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1, 2, 11, 27, 28,
`29, 33, 35, 45, 46, And/Or 49 Of The ‘468 Patent ................... 22
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Harris Does Not Anticipate Or Render Obvious
`Claims 1, 2, 27, 29, 33, 35, 46, And/Or 49 ......................................... 24
`
`1.
`
`Harris Does Not Anticipate Claims 1, 2, 27, 29, 33, 35,
`46, And/Or 49 Of The ‘468 Patent ........................................... 24
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................ 24
`i.
`Claim 2 ............................................................................ 27
`ii.
`iii. Claim 27 .......................................................................... 27
`iv.
`Claim 29 .......................................................................... 29
`v.
`Claim 33 .......................................................................... 29
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`vi.
`Claim 35 .......................................................................... 29
`vii. Claim 46 .......................................................................... 31
`viii. Claim 49 .......................................................................... 31
`
`2.
`
`Harris Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1, 2, 27, 29, 33,
`35, 46, And/Or 49 Of The ‘468 Patent ..................................... 31
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Harris In View Of CORE Does Not Render Obvious
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 32
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`CORE Does Not Qualify As A Printed Publication Under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................... 32
`Harris In View Of Core Does Not Render Obvious Claim
`11 ............................................................................................... 35
`
`D. Ground 4: Harris In View Of Hatakeyama Does Not Render
`Obvious Claims 28 And/Or 45 ............................................................ 36
`
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Niles Does Not Anticipate Or Render Obvious
`Claims 1, 2, 11, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35, 45, 46, And/Or 49 ....................... 39
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Niles Does Not Qualify As A Printed Publication Under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................... 39
`Niles Does Not Anticipate Claims 1, 2, 11, 27, 28, 29,
`33, 35, 45, 46, And/Or 49 Of The ‘468 Patent ......................... 41
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................ 41
`i.
`Claim 2 ............................................................................ 45
`ii.
`iii. Claim 11 .......................................................................... 46
`iv.
`Claim 27 .......................................................................... 46
`v.
`Claim 28 .......................................................................... 48
`vi.
`Claim 29 .......................................................................... 48
`vii. Claim 33 .......................................................................... 49
`viii. Claim 35 .......................................................................... 49
`ix.
`Claim 45 .......................................................................... 51
`x.
`Claim 46 .......................................................................... 51
`xi.
`Claim 49 .......................................................................... 52
`
`3.
`
`Niles Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1, 2, 11, 27, 28,
`29, 33, 35, 45, 46, And/Or 49 Of The ‘468 Patent ................... 52
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Niles In View Of CORE Does Not Render Obvious
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Neither Niles Nor CORE Qualify As A Printed
`Publication Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................... 53
`Niles In View Of CORE Does Not Render Obvious
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 53
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 3
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................ 33, 34, 40, 41
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .............................................................................. 22, 31, 32, 52
`In ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 34, 40
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................ 33, 34, 39, 41
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 22
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 33, 39
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................... 32, 39
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................ 43, 46, 49
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`560 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .......................................................... 32, 39
`
`P.T.A.B. Cases
`3D-Matrix, Ltd. v. Menicon Co.,
`Case IPR2014-00398, Paper No. 11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2014) ......... 43, 44, 46, 49
`Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. AutoAlert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00222, Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2013) ...................... 36, 37, 54
`eBay, Inc. v. Paid, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00125, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2014) ...................................... 23
`Eizo Corp. v. Barco N.V.,
`IPR2014-00358, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. July 23, 2014) .................................... 22, 23
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`Heart Failure Techs., LLC v. CardioKinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183, Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) ....................... 36, 37, 54
`Mohawk Resources Ltd. v. Vehicle Service Group, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00464, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014) ............................ 9, 10
`Moses Lake Indus., Inc. v. Enthone, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00243, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. June 18, 2014) ........................................... 23
`Moses Lake Indus., Inc. v. Enthone, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00246, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. June 18, 2014) ........................................... 23
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013) ...................... 36, 37, 54
`Synopsis v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`IPR2012-00042, Paper No. 16 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013) ............................. 32, 39
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................... 32, 34, 39, 41
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................. 34, 40
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................... 32, 34, 39, 40, 41, 53
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................ 23, 32, 52
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ...................................................................................................... 1, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................ 9
`MPEP § 2111 ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`
`2001. Mohawk Resources Ltd. v. Vehicle Service Group, LLC,
` Case IPR2014-00464, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014)
`
`
`2002. Eizo Corp. v. Barco N.V.,
` IPR2014-00358, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. July 23, 2014)
`
`
`2003. Moses Lake Indus., Inc. v. Enthone, Inc.,
` IPR2014-00243, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. June 18, 2014)
`
`
`2004. Moses Lake Indus., Inc. v. Enthone, Inc.,
` IPR2014-00246, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. June 18, 2014)
`
`
`2005. eBay, Inc. v. Paid, Inc.,
` CBM2014-00125, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2014)
`
`
`2006. Synopsis v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
` IPR2012-00042, Paper No. 16 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013)
`
`
`2007. Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. AutoAlert, Inc.,
` IPR2013-00222, Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2013)
`
`
`2008. SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
` IPR2013-00581, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013)
`
`
`2009. Heart Failure Techs., LLC v. CardioKinetix, Inc.,
` IPR2013-00183, Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013)
`
`
`2010. 3D-Matrix, Ltd. v. Menicon Co.,
` Case IPR2014-00398, Paper No. 11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2014)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Universal Electronics, Inc. (“UEI” or “Patent Owner”), respectfully submits this
`
`Preliminary Response in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`in response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims 1, 2, 11, 27-29, 33,
`
`35, 45, 46, and 49 of U.S. Patent No. 7,126,468 (the “‘468 patent”) filed by
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc. (“URC” or “Petitioner”). This Preliminary
`
`Response is timely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) because UEI filed this Response
`
`within three months of July 14, 2014, the mailing date of the Notice of Filing Date
`
`Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 3).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner formally alleges six grounds of unpatentability, that, in truth,
`
`comprise nine independent challenges to various claims of the ‘468 patent.
`
`Specifically, the Petition sets forth the following grounds of invalidity: (1) U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,235,414 (“Cohen”) anticipates or renders obvious Claims 1, 2, 11,
`
`27, 29, 33, 35, 45, 46, and 49; (2) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0045819
`
`(“Harris”) anticipates or renders obvious Claims 1, 2, 27, 29, 33, 35, 46, and 49;
`
`(3) Harris in view of the Core Reference Manual, Ron Karr, et al. (“CORE”)
`
`renders obvious Claim 11; (4) Harris in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,545,587
`
`(“Hatakeyama”) renders obvious Claims 28 and 45; (5) IntelliControl Reference
`
`Manual, Version 8.1 (“Niles”) anticipates or renders obvious Claims 1, 2, 11, 27-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`29, 33, 35, 45, 46, and 49; and (6) Niles in view of CORE renders obvious Claim
`
`11.
`
`The Board should decline to institute inter partes review proceedings based
`
`on each of the above grounds because each suffers from one or more fatal defects.
`
`For example, rather than specifically identify if and where each limitation of each
`
`challenged claim can be found in each of its dual anticipatory / single-reference
`
`obviousness grounds, Petitioner simply waives its hand over the references and
`
`concludes without support that certain limitations are either expressly, inherently,
`
`and/or obviously disclosed.
`
`Further, the Petition relies on several prior art references, i.e., Cohen and
`
`Harris, that are discussed in the Background section of the ‘468 patent
`
`specification. Nevertheless, the Petitioner claims that the Examiner never
`
`considered these references. The Board should reject such unsubstantiated
`
`attorney argument. Petitioner glosses over the presumption of administrative
`
`correctness as it hurls ridiculous aspersions at Patent Owner by accusing it of
`
`“misdirecting the reader to other features” of these references in the ‘468 patent
`
`specification. The Patent Office has already concluded that the ‘468 patent is
`
`patentable over Harris and Cohen, and the Board should come to the same
`
`conclusion. Needless to say, Harris and Cohen are redundant of and cumulative to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`the prior art that the Examiner already considered because they are the exact same
`
`prior art references that the Examiner already considered.
`
`Further, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Niles is
`
`a printed publication. Nevertheless, those references, indeed each of the references
`
`upon which Petitioner relies, does not disclose at least one limitation of each of the
`
`challenged independent claims, such that the Board should reject each of
`
`Petitioner’s anticipatory grounds. Moreover, none of Petitioner’s obviousness
`
`combinations identify any motivation to combine the references by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Indeed, Petitioner never mentions, let alone applies, the Graham
`
`obviousness test.
`
`The Petition does not present a single cogent and complete basis for
`
`invalidity that meets the requirements for inter partes review. For these reasons,
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Claims 1, 2, 11, 27-29, 33, 35, 45, 46, and/or 49 are invalid, and as such, the Board
`
`should decline to institute inter partes review.
`
`II.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`At the outset, Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that because the ‘468
`
`patent has not expired, the Board must construe its claims under the “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation” standard. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
`
`1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP § 2111; 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘468 patent reads as follows:
`
`A method of monitoring remote control transmissions, comprising:
`
`identifying to a recipient device a plurality of intended target
`appliances;
`
`receiving at the recipient device a transmission from the remote
`control;
`
`determining at the recipient device if the transmission from the
`remote control is intended to command an operation of one of
`the plurality of intended target appliances; and
`
`when the transmission from the remote control is determined to be
`intended to command an operation of one of the plurality of
`intended target appliances, comparing the transmission from the
`remote control against a plurality of commands maintained
`within the recipient device to update data maintained within the
`recipient device such that the updated data reflects a state of the
`one of the plurality of intended target appliances which will
`result from the one of the plurality of intended target appliances
`performing the operation.
`
`(‘468 patent at Claim 1.)
`
`Briefly, Claim 1 of the ‘468 patent discloses a method whereby after a
`
`recipient device receives a transmission from a remote control, the recipient device
`
`determines whether the remote control transmission is intended to command a
`
`target appliance previously identified to the recipient device. If the recipient
`
`device determines that the remote control transmission is intended to command a
`
`target appliance, the recipient device compares the received remote control
`
`transmission against a plurality of commands maintained within the recipient
`
`device to update data maintained within the recipient device, wherein the updated
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`data reflects the current state of the target appliance after the target appliance
`
`performs the operation. (Id.)
`
`Petitioner appears to offer a construction for the term “state table,” which
`
`occurs only in dependent challenged Claims 2, 29, and 46. (Pet. at 10-11.)
`
`However, Petitioner does not clearly articulate its proposed construction, nor why
`
`claims other than Claims 2, 29 and 46 should be interpreted so narrowly. First,
`
`Petitioner states, “[t]he ‘468 specification refers to a ‘state table’ very generically,
`
`as one ‘which stores parameters representative of one or more states of one or
`
`more appliances.’” (Id. at 10.) But Petitioner then concludes that “[t]herefore, a
`
`state table, under the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification
`
`of the ‘468 patent, simply associates one or more functions each with a
`
`corresponding state.” (Id.at 10-11 (citing Geier Decl. ¶¶ 25-26).) The Geier
`
`Declaration largely rehashes the statements contained in the Petition. (Geier Decl.
`
`¶¶ 25-26.) Although the Petition is not clear, Petitioner appears to argue that a
`
`“state table” can be something other than a “table,” which ignores the applicant’s
`
`word selection. To construe “state table” as not requiring a “table” would render
`
`superfluous the “state table” limitations of dependent Claims 2, 29, and 46 such
`
`that their scopes would be co-extensive with their respective independent claims—
`
`a clear violation of the doctrine of claim differentiation. The term “state table”
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`does not need additional construction, and the Board should simply construe “state
`
`table” according to its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`Patent Owner further proposes that the Board construe the term “update” to
`
`mean “rewrite,” (as opposed to “add”). In the context of independent challenged
`
`Claims 1, 27, and 35, the remote control transmission is used, if at all, to rewrite
`
`the data that reflects the current state of a target appliance. The ‘468 patent
`
`specification states: “what is needed is a system that functions to monitor remote
`
`control transmissions for the purpose of tracking the state of appliances.” (‘468
`
`patent, col. 1, ll.33-35 (emphasis added).) The ‘468 patent continues:
`
`Generally, the system monitors remote control transmissions for the
`purpose of updating state tables for one or more remotely controllable
`appliances. The state tables may then be queried for the purpose of
`determining the present state of an appliance whereby the
`transmission of a command that would place an appliance in an
`unintended state may be avoided.
`
`(Id. at col. 2, ll.5-11 (emphasis added).) In other words, the ‘468 patent
`
`specification establishes that only the current state of the appliance is preserved. In
`
`particular, the ‘468 patent explains:
`
`Further maintained within the non-volatile read/write memory 56 is a
`state table which stores parameters representative of one or more
`states of one or more appliances. More specifically, as illustrated in
`FIG. 4, the state table attempts to reflect the state of an appliance by
`storing parameters that are indicative of the transmission of
`commands to an appliance. For example, if the appliance responsive
`to a ‘power’ toggle command, the ‘power’ field (PF) for that
`appliance may toggle between a ‘1,’ being used to represent that the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`appliance power should be on, and ‘0,’ being used to represent that the
`appliance power should be off.
`
`(Id. at col. 4, l. 64 – col. 5, l. 8 (emphasis added));
`
`
`
`(id. at FIG. 4.) In view of the above, the claimed invention of the ‘468 patent does
`
`not store all of the remote control transmissions; rather, it stores only “parameters
`
`that are indicative of” those transmissions to reflect the state of the appliance. (Id.)
`
`Indeed, as FIG. 4 confirms, the ‘468 patent specification contemplates using only a
`
`current “state parameter” to identify each individual state of an appliance. “The
`
`state parameter may be simple Boolean value for states that are either ‘on’ or ‘off’
`
`or may be binary values, for example, representative of a number of times a
`
`command has been transmitted to an appliance.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 8-11; FIG. 4.)
`
`In contrast, no portion of the ‘468 patent discloses, contemplates, or suggests
`
`that “updating” could mean “adding” data, i.e., creating a history or log of remote
`
`control transmission information. Absent any indication that the inventors of the
`
`‘468 patent intended “to update data” to mean “to add” new state data without
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`overwriting the old state data, the Board should construe “update” to mean
`
`“rewrite.”
`
`III. THE PETITION DOES NOT MEET THE STATUTORY
`REQUIREMENTS OF 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`“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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For at least the reasons
`
`set forth below, no reasonable likelihood exists that the Petitioner will prevail in
`
`showing that any one of Claims 2, 5, 22, and/or 23 of the ’642 Patent is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`The Patent Office has already considered two of the three anticipatory prior
`
`art references upon which Petitioner relies in its Petition for inter partes review.
`
`The ‘468 patent specification discusses Harris and Cohen in its background
`
`section. (‘468 patent at col. 1, ll. 29-49 (Cohen); col. 1, ll. 50-62 (Harris).) In an
`
`attempt to skirt that fact, Petitioner makes the absurd claim that Patent Owner
`
`“misdirect[ed] the reader to other features of the [Cohen] invention” and did not
`
`disclose either Harris or Cohen in an Information Disclosure Statement. (Pet. at
`
`11-12.) The Board should reject Petitioner’s attorney argument that Patent Owner
`
`hid Harris and Cohen in plain sight in the specification of the ‘468 patent. Harris
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`and Cohen are redundant of and cumulative to the prior art already considered by
`
`the Patent Office. The Board should not waste its resources covering the same
`
`ground already traveled by the Examiner.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s multi-faceted, non-specific approach to its Petition
`
`does not meet the Board’s requirements, particularly with respect to Petitioner’s
`
`thinly-supported obviousness combinations and dual anticipatory / single-reference
`
`obviousness grounds. “Although the parties are given wide latitude in how they
`
`present their cases, the Board’s experience is that the presentation of an
`
`overwhelming number of issues tends to detract from the argument being presented
`
`…. Thus, parties should … focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow
`
`argument supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.” Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A Petitioner cannot simply conclude without support that to the extent an
`
`allegedly anticipatory prior art reference does not disclose a particular claim
`
`limitation, one of skill in the art would know to supply that limitation such that the
`
`single-reference renders obvious the challenged claim. Mohawk Resources Ltd. V.
`
`Vehicle Service Group, LLC, Case IPR2014-00464, Paper 10 (Aug. 29, 2014) (Ex.
`
`2001) (“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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`combined with the teaching of Kogyo. … 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 teaching of Kogyo. … Without any
`
`specific explanation regarding the alleged obviousness of these claims, we are
`
`unable to conclude that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner would prevail….”).
`
`Here, the Petition suffers from the exact same shortcomings as the petition
`
`filed in Mohawk. Petitioner offers numerous dual anticipatory / single-reference
`
`obvious analyses without ever identifying how such allegedly anticipatory
`
`references fall short of the claimed invention or, in the absence of disclosure of
`
`certain limitations, why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to modify the references to include those limitations. In view of the Petition’s
`
`deficiencies, as more fully discussed herein, the Board should exercise its
`
`discretion and not waste Board resources by instituting inter partes review based
`
`on Petitioner’s “more is more” approach to its Petition.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`A. Ground 1: Cohen Does Not Anticipate Or Render Obvious
`Claims 1, 2, 11, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35, 45, 46, And/Or 49.
`1. Cohen Does Not Anticipate Claims 1, 2, 11, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35,
`45, 46, And/Or 49 Of The ‘468 Patent.
`i. Claim 1
`At the outset, Petitioner’s reliance on the Geier Declaration is perfunctory
`
`and unhelpful. Mr. Geier simply cites to the same passages of Cohen referred to in
`
`the Petition and prefaces each such passage with the statement that “in my
`
`opinion,” Cohen discloses the limitation at issue. Put simply, the Geier
`
`Declaration does not provide any additional support or analysis that would assist
`
`the Board in determining whether Cohen anticipates the challenged claims of the
`
`‘468 patent.
`
`Indeed, Cohen does not anticipate independent Claim 1 because it does not
`
`disclose “receiving at the recipient device a transmission from the remote control.”
`
`The Petition equates monitor 34 of Cohen with the claimed “recipient device.”
`
`(Pet. at 20.) The Petition does not identify the “Receiver 38” as the recipient
`
`device. Yet, the Petition concludes that Cohen teaches “receiving at the recipient
`
`device a transmission from the remote control” by relying on the “Receiver 38”
`
`element of Cohen, not “Monitor 34.” (Id. at 21.) At most, the Petition explains
`
`that “Receiver 38, which is connected to Monitor 34 …, receives a transmission
`
`from the remote control 16.” (Id.) The cited paragraph of the Geier Declaration
`
`does not add any additional information. (See Geier Decl. ¶ 37.) Neither the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`Petition nor the Geier Declaration even allege that monitor 34 (Petitioner’s alleged
`
`recipient device) receives the transmission from the remote control. Cohen refers
`
`to Monitor 34 and Receiver 38 as distinct structures, and the Board should reject
`
`Petitioner’s tortured reading of Cohen onto Claim 1. Accordingly, Cohen does not
`
`disclose “receiving at the recipient device a transmission from the remote control.”
`
`Cohen also does not anticipate independent Claim 1 because it does not
`
`disclose “determining at the recipient device if the transmission from the remote
`
`control is intended to command an operation of one of the plurality of intended
`
`target appliances.” The Petitioner cites several passages from Cohen as
`
`purportedly disclosing this claim limitation. (Pet. at 22.) However, none of those
`
`passages confirm that the invention of Cohen performs the “determining step.”
`
`According to Petitioner, Cohen sets forth a process in which the IR decoder 52 of
`
`the monitor 34 automatically translates the signal received from the remote control
`
`to “a signal indicating the component of the home entertainment center being
`
`operated on and in what manner.” (Pet. at 22 (citing ‘468 patent at col. 4, ll. 51-
`
`55).) Neither the IR decoder 52 nor the microprocessor 53 of Cohen, at least based
`
`on these passages, determines if the transmission received from the remote control
`
`is intended to command an operation of a target appliance, as required by Claim 1,
`
`and as further discussed in the specification of the ‘468 patent. (‘468 patent at col.
`
`6, ll. 3-18 (“When monitoring for the transmission of one or more commands to an
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`appliance, especially in the case of IR transmission, numerous activities may
`
`interrupt the transmission of command codes from a remote control 10 to the
`
`appliances 12. For example, a user may move the remote control 10 such that an
`
`IR signal transmission is misdirected away from the appliances, another person
`
`may walk in front of the remote control 10 and inadvertently block an IR signal
`
`transmission, etc. Thus, as further illustrated in FIG. 5, the programming within
`
`the command receiver 14 preferably includes instructions for monitoring for the
`
`transmission of command codes by the remote control 10 and for determining,
`
`especially in the case of a macro where a plurality of commands are to be
`
`transmitted in sequence, if all of the command codes in the sequence were
`
`received by the command receiver14.” (emphases added).) Put simply, Cohen
`
`“assumes,” as opposed to “determines,” that the received signal is intended to
`
`control a target appliance. Accordingly, Cohen does not disclose “determining at
`
`the recipient device if the transmission from the remote control is intended to
`
`command an operation of one of the plurality of intended target appliances.”
`
`Cohen also does not anticipate independent Claim 1 because it does not
`
`disclose the “to update data maintained within the recipient device such that the
`
`updated data reflects a state of the one of the plurality of intended target
`
`appliances” limitation. The Petition states that “[w]hen monitor 34 receives a
`
`signal from a remote control, monitor 34 (using microprocessor 53) updates the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01084
`
`state data stored in memory. … For example, ‘[c]hannel selection, using remote
`
`control 16, is stored in monitor 34 for future retrieval.’” (Pet. at 24 (emphasis
`
`added).) The monitor 34 does not “update”