Paper 45
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: December 16, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,1
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Patent Owner represents that the owner of the patent and real party-in-
`interest is Universal Electronics, Inc. Paper 4. Office assignment records
`indicate, however, that U.S. Bank National Association is the owner of the
`patent. Patent Owner should update Office assignment records to be
`consistent with its representations made in Paper 4 of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: December 16, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,1
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Patent Owner represents that the owner of the patent and real party-in-
`interest is Universal Electronics, Inc. Paper 4. Office assignment records
`indicate, however, that U.S. Bank National Association is the owner of the
`patent. Patent Owner should update Office assignment records to be
`consistent with its representations made in Paper 4 of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Petitioner Universal Remote Control, Inc. filed a request for inter
`
`partes review of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,831,930 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`’930 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. The Board instituted an inter
`
`partes review of the claim on an asserted ground of unpatentability for
`
`obviousness. Paper 9 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner Universal Electronics Inc.
`
`filed a Patent Owner Response in both unredacted (confidential) and revised
`
`redacted forms (Papers 16 and 39 (“PO Resp.”)), along with a Motion to
`
`Seal (Paper 18). Petitioner filed a Reply in both unredacted (confidential)
`
`and revised redacted forms (Papers 26 and 40; (“Pet. Reply”)), along with a
`
`Motion to Seal (Paper 24).
`
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 29; “PO Mot. to
`
`Exclude”). Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Exclude (Paper
`
`34; “Pet. Exclude Opp.”), and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 35; “PO
`
`Exclude Reply”). Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 30; “Pet. Mot.
`
`to Exclude”). Patent Owner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Exclude
`
`(Paper 33; “PO Exclude Opp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 36, “Pet.
`
`Exclude Reply”).
`
`An oral hearing was held on August 19, 2015. A transcript of the
`
`hearing is included in the record (Paper 44; “Tr.”).
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a
`
`
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’930 patent is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’930 patent is involved in the following
`
`lawsuits: Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., No.
`
`SACV 13-00984 AG (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.); and Universal Electronics Inc. v.
`
`Peel Technologies, Inc., No. SACV 13-01484 AG (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.). Pet.
`
`1–2.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. The ’930 Patent
`
`The ’930 patent relates to a user interface for a universal remote
`
`control application resident on a hand-held electronic device. Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 1, ll. 13–16. In one embodiment of the invention, the remote control
`
`application may provide one or more “favorites” pages containing button
`
`icons which the user may configure for direct access to favorite
`
`programming (e.g., to cause the transmissions of commands to cause a
`
`device to tune to a favorite channel). Id. at col. 19, ll. 26–30. Figures 17a
`
`and 17b are reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 17a and 17b illustrate exemplary steps to set up a remote
`
`control application favorite-channel soft key. Id. at col. 2, ll. 30–31. An
`
`exemplary “favorites” page is illustrated in Figure 17a, showing content
`
`providers by their logos. Id. at col. 19, ll. 32–36. To configure or add a
`
`“favorites” icon, one may tap customize icon 122 while a favorites page is
`
`displayed and select “Add Favorite” or “Edit Favorite,” or may tap one of
`
`the default icons that is displaying the wrench overlay, to indicate that it is
`
`not yet configured. In either case, a “favorites” setup wizard may be
`
`invoked to configure a “favorites” entry. Id. at col. 19, ll. 46–59. Once
`
`enabled or set up, the button icons (Fig. 17a) provide direct access to
`
`programming by causing the transmission of commands to tune a device to a
`
`favorite channel. Id. at col. 19, ll. 26–30.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`
`C. The Claim
`
`
`
`
`
`The challenged claim is reproduced below.
`
`1. An electronically readable media having embedded
`instructions executable by a processing device of a hand held
`device for displaying information to a user of the hand held
`device, the instructions performing steps comprising:
`allowing a plurality of lists of favorite channels to be
`defined for display in a display of the hand held device; and
`accepting input into the hand held device that specifies to
`the hand held device that the hand held device is to be placed
`into a mode to control at least one of a plurality of home
`appliances and, in response, using the input to select at least one
`of the plurality of lists of favorite channels whereby the user
`may interact with the at least one of the plurality of lists when
`displayed in the display of the hand held device to cause the
`hand held device to transmit one or more command codes to the
`at least one of the plurality of home appliances associated with
`the specified mode for the purpose of tuning the at least one of
`the plurality of home appliances to a channel represented on the
`at least one of the plurality of lists of favorite channels.
`
`
`
`Realistic
`
`Evans
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Prior Art
`
`Realistic, Owner’s Manual –
`Universal Remote Control Cat.
`No. 15–1903 (1989)
`US 4,825,200, Issued Apr. 25,
`1989
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted inter partes review on the ground that claim 1 is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Realistic and Evans.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, the Board construes claim terms in an
`
`unexpired patent using their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In
`
`re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The claim language should be read in light of the specification, as it would
`
`be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
`
`Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Office must apply the
`
`broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
`
`definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d
`
`575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). There is a “‘heavy presumption’ that a claim
`
`term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
`
`The “ordinary and customary meaning” is that which the term would have to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art in question. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`1. List
`
`Claim 1 contains the noun form of the word “lists.” Because we do
`
`not find the ’930 patent to set forth or contain any special definition for the
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`term, we interpret “list” in accordance with its ordinary and customary
`
`
`
`meaning. A “list” may be defined as an “item-by-item series of numbers or
`
`words, as the names of persons or things, written or printed one after the
`
`other,” such as a “shopping list” or a “guest list.” List Definition, AMERICAN
`
`HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, SECOND COLLEGE ED.
`
`735 (1982).
`
`
`
`2. Interact With
`
`Claim 1 recites, “whereby the user may interact with the at least one
`
`of the plurality of lists when displayed in the display of the hand held device
`
`to cause the hand held device to transmit one or more command codes to the
`
`at least one of the plurality of home appliances associated with the specified
`
`mode for the purpose of tuning the at least one of the plurality of home
`
`appliances to a channel represented on the at least one of the plurality of
`
`lists of favorite channels” (emphases added). Patent Owner contends that
`
`the “whereby” clause contains several interrelated elements that must be
`
`considered together. PO Resp. 2–4. Further, Patent Owner contends that
`
`“interact with” means “select a channel from.” Id. at 5–6.
`
`A general dictionary defines “interact” as an intransitive verb meaning
`
`“[t]o act on each other.” Interact Definition, AMERICAN HERITAGE
`
`DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, SECOND COLLEGE ED. 669 (1982).
`
`The claim recites that the user “may interact with the at least one of the
`
`plurality of lists when displayed in the display.” Although the user may
`
`“act” on the list,2 the list does not, in turn, “act” on the user. The term
`
`
`2 In the interest of brevity, in this Decision we will refer to the minimum
`requirement of “at least one of the plurality of lists” — a list.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`“interact” in claim 1 is, thus, not used in its ordinary, general dictionary
`
`
`
`sense. Rather, “interact with” appears to relate to user/device “interaction,”
`
`such as an interactive computer terminal that receives input from a user and
`
`provides output, which may include information (or “feedback”) to the user
`
`in response to the input.
`
`Petitioner submits that “interact with” is broader than “select a
`
`channel from.” Pet. Reply 2–5. Petitioner contends that “interact with”
`
`could be accomplished by, for example, scrolling or viewing information in
`
`a display. Id. at 2–3. We agree to the extent that the phrase “interact with” a
`
`list when displayed, in isolation, might be so interpreted. We also agree
`
`with Petitioner (id. at 2–5) to the extent that Patent Owner fails to show that
`
`the disclosure of the ’930 patent limits “interact with” to selection of a
`
`channel from the list. In the language of claim 1, however, that the user may
`
`“interact with” a list when displayed, to cause the device to transmit
`
`command codes for the purpose of tuning to a channel, implies that
`
`“interaction” with the list is selection of an item from the list, for effecting
`
`transmission of the codes.
`
`Patent Owner submits that when read as a whole, the “whereby”
`
`clause of claim 1 requires, in order “to interact” with a displayed favorite
`
`channel list to cause the remote to tune an appliance to a favorite channel
`
`represented on the displayed favorite channel list, a user must select a
`
`channel from the displayed favorite channel list. PO Resp. 10. According to
`
`Patent Owner, “‘[r]epresented on’ in the context of Claim 1 must reflect the
`
`concept that the selected channel be depicted on the display of the remote
`
`control for the user to select.” Id. at 11.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s construction of “represented
`
`
`
`on” would read out a “step-through” embodiment in the ’930 patent
`
`specification that, presumably, does not require display of a channel. Pet.
`
`Reply 6. The present inquiry, however, concerns the subject matter
`
`embraced by claim 1, as opposed to what any particular embodiment
`
`described in the patent may or may not require.
`
`Further in response to Patent Owner’s construction, without citation to
`
`any evidence in the record, Petitioner submits:
`
`One cannot display a channel on a list. A list is an object that
`can be displayed on a display, but nothing is displayed on a list.
`A channel can be a member of a list, i.e., it can be “represented
`on” a list, but it cannot be “displayed” on a list.
`
`Pet. Reply 6–7. A channel, or a representation of a channel, can however be
`
`displayed on a list. The displayed list of channels, represented as
`
`programming network icons, as depicted in Figure 17a of the ’930 patent
`
`(reproduced supra), contains representations of particular channels for
`
`selecting an icon for tuning to the particular channel associated with that
`
`icon. We agree with Petitioner to the extent that claim 1 does not require
`
`that a channel be depicted on the display of the remote control for the user to
`
`select. However, in view of the language of claim 1 that interaction with the
`
`displayed list is “for the purpose of” tuning to a channel “represented on” the
`
`list, the claim requires, at the least, that a representation of the channel for
`
`tuning be displayed when the user interacts with the list to cause the hand
`
`held device to transmit command codes for tuning the device to a particular
`
`channel. We emphasize that our determination results from the claim
`
`language requirements, not because any particular embodiment or any
`
`particular written description in the ’930 patent requires such interpretation,
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`and without any improper incorporation of details from its disclosure into
`
`
`
`the claim.
`
`
`
`B. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`1. Realistic as Prior Art
`
`Patent Owner contests the status of Realistic as prior art and, in
`
`particular, its status as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). PO
`
`Resp. 32–35. Although in view of the record at the time of institution we
`
`found there was a sufficient threshold showing that Realistic is § 102(b)
`
`prior art (Dec. on Inst. 5–6), we do not reach the final determination whether
`
`Realistic is proper prior art for this proceeding. For reasons expressed infra,
`
`even if we presume that Realistic is a printed publication under § 102(b), the
`
`evidence provided by Petitioner fails to establish, by a preponderance, the
`
`unpatentability of claim 1.
`
`
`
`2. Realistic
`
`An excerpt from page 36 of Realistic (Ex. 1003, 19) is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The excerpt from page 36 illustrates how favorite channels are
`
`specified. When the user presses the “LEARN” key, “SELECT” and “KEY”
`
`appear in the display. In the second step, the user presses “FAVORITE,”
`
`and the “FAV” (favorite) indicator appears. “CHN**” also appears in the
`
`display.
`
`A further excerpt from page 36 of Realistic (Ex. 1003, 19) is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`
`The further excerpt illustrates the next steps for selecting favorite
`
`
`
`channels. In the third step, the two-digit favorite channel is entered. For
`
`example, if the user presses the keys “0” and “4,” “CHN 04” appears in the
`
`display.
`
`An excerpt from pages 38 and 39 of Realistic (Ex. 1003, 20) is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`The excerpt from pages 38 and 39 illustrates how one uses the
`
`favorite-channel feature. When the user presses the “FAVORITE” key, the
`
`“FAV” indicator appears. In the second step, when the user presses
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`“CHANNEL” up or down keys, the remote control transmits the channels
`
`
`
`from the favorite-channel list. One may select between devices (step 3) such
`
`that the favorite-channel list becomes active for that selected device.
`
`
`
`3. Obviousness over Realistic and Evans
`
`Petitioner contends that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Realistic and Evans. Petitioner maps the limitations of claim 1
`
`to teachings in Realistic and Evans that are deemed to correspond to the
`
`limitations. Pet. 21–28.
`
`Although a channel number is not shown in Realistic in the illustrated
`
`step 2 of using the favorite-channel feature (reproduced supra), when the
`
`remote transmits the command code (channel number) to the device, one
`
`would not necessarily draw the inference that the channel number is not
`
`displayed when the command code is transmitted. Realistic does not show
`
`in its graphic description everything that is displayed. Compare, for
`
`example, step 2 of the favorite-channel selection, where the “FAV” indicator
`
`is said to appear and is shown in the display with step 1 of using favorite-
`
`channel, where the “FAV” indicator is said to appear but is not shown. See
`
`also, e.g., Ex. 1003, 12 (Realistic at pages 22–23; characters in display not
`
`shown in illustration for editing a command sequence). In fact, Patent
`
`Owner’s expert, Mr. Cook, admitted that when using the favorite-channel
`
`feature the selected channel number is displayed. Ex. 1052, 233:16–234:12,
`
`237:11–238:4.
`
`In any event, Petitioner submits that Evans teaches that the name of
`
`the key or function in a remote control device is displayed when the
`
`associated code is output to the receiving device. Pet. 27; Ex. 1004, col. 11,
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`l. 57 – col. 12, l. 26. Petitioner submits further that because Realistic and
`
`
`
`Evans are directed to remote controls from the same company, artisans at the
`
`time would have understood that it was obvious to implement the Realistic
`
`remote to use instructions executable by a processing device for displaying
`
`information to the user as taught by Evans. Pet. 28; Ex. 1008 (Declaration
`
`of James T. Geier) ¶¶ 34, 39. “Realistic teaches that the CHANNEL keys
`
`cause the remote to send commands from the favorites list, and Evans
`
`teaches to display the name of the key or function of the code to be
`
`outputted.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 39.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the combination of Realistic and Evans does
`
`not teach or suggest all the limitations of the “whereby” clause of claim 1.
`
`According to Patent Owner, “[c]laim 1 requires that a user interact with a
`
`favorite channel list displayed on the remote to cause the remote to tune an
`
`appliance to a channel depicted on the displayed favorite channel list.” PO
`
`Resp. 18. We do not read the requirements of claim 1 so narrowly.
`
`However, we have considered each of the parties’ positions with respect to
`
`claim construction as developed during the trial and we are persuaded that
`
`the claim requires, at the least, that a representation of the channel for tuning
`
`be displayed when the user interacts with the list to cause the hand held
`
`device to transmit command codes for tuning the device to a particular
`
`channel. See § II.A.2, claim construction, supra. Petitioner does not
`
`acknowledge that requirement, and, accordingly, does not show where
`
`Realistic, Evans, or a combination thereof might teach or suggest such a
`
`limitation. Moreover, Realistic and Evans teach, at best, that a channel or a
`
`representation of a channel is displayed when the command codes for tuning
`
`to the channel are sent by the remote control device, not a representation of a
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`channel being displayed a priori to aid in selection of the channel by the
`
`
`
`user; i.e., “for the purpose of” tuning to a channel represented on the list of
`
`channels. See Pet. 26–27 (disclosure of Realistic and Evans that Petitioner
`
`deems to correspond to “whereby” clause of claim 1).
`
`The Petition must specify where each element of a challenged claim is
`
`found in the prior art patents or printed publications. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(2). We are persuaded by Patent Owner that the Petition fails to
`
`do so.
`
`
`
`C. Conclusion — Realistic and Evans
`
` Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
`
`that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Realistic and Evans.
`
`
`
`D. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibit 1053 and Exhibit 1054, each
`
`of which was submitted by Petitioner in its Reply in support of showing that
`
`Realistic is prior art. Because we conclude that Petitioner has failed to meet
`
`its burden in showing unpatentability, even if we presume that Realistic is
`
`prior art, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is dismissed.
`
`
`
`E. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Petitioner moves to exclude testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr.
`
`Cook, under redirect examination that is said to be inconsistent with
`
`admissions under cross-examination, such as admissions that “interacting”
`
`with a favorite channel list may include scrolling through channels on the
`
`list and that in Realistic a channel from the favorite channel list is displayed
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`on the display of the remote when the up or down channel button is pressed
`
`
`
`a second time. Pet. Mot. to Exclude 2–3. Petitioner’s motion to exclude is
`
`dismissed because Petitioner has not shown where Patent Owner relies on
`
`the objected to testimony in any paper filed in this proceeding, and we find
`
`none. Moreover, we have given full weight to Mr. Cook’s admission with
`
`respect to channel display in Realistic (see § II.B.3, supra), and this final
`
`written decision presumes that “interacting” with a favorite channel list may
`
`include scrolling through channels on the list (see § II.A.2, supra).
`
`
`
`F. Motions to Seal
`
`
`
`Patent Owner and Petitioner each filed several papers (e.g., Paper 16)
`
`and exhibits (e.g., Exhibit 1050) under seal, along with motions to seal
`
`(Papers 18 and 24) and a protective order (Ex. 2045). The motions are
`
`unopposed and are granted.
`
`There is an expectation that information will be made public where
`
`the information is identified in a final written decision, and that confidential
`
`information that is subject to a protective order ordinarily would become
`
`public 45 days after final judgment in a trial, unless a motion to expunge is
`
`granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.56; Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,761 (Aug. 14, 2012). In rendering this Final Written Decision, it
`
`was not necessary to identify, nor discuss in detail, any confidential
`
`information. A party who is dissatisfied with this Final Written Decision
`
`may appeal the Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 141(c), and has 63 days
`
`after the date of this Decision to file a notice of appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a).
`
`In view of the foregoing, the confidential documents filed in the
`
`instant proceeding will remain under seal, at least until the time period for
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`filing a notice of appeal has expired or, if an appeal is taken, the appeal
`
`
`
`process has concluded. The record for the instant proceeding will be
`
`preserved in its entirety, and the confidential documents will not be
`
`expunged or made public, pending appeal. Notwithstanding 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.56 and the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, neither a motion to
`
`expunge confidential documents nor a motion to maintain these documents
`
`under seal is necessary or authorized at this time. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b).
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 of the ’930
`
`patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`
`combination of Realistic and Evans.
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that claim 1 of the ’930 patent has not been shown to be
`
`unpatentable;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ respective motions to seal are
`
`granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ respective motions to exclude
`
`evidence are dismissed; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a final written decision,
`
`parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
`
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Douglas A. Miro
`dmiro@ostrolenk.com
`
`Peter Kang
`pkang@sidley.com
`
`Theodore Chandler
`tchandler@sidley.com
`
`Ferenc Pazmandi
`fpazmandi@sidley.com
`
`Keith Barkaus
`kbarkaus@ostrolenk.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Eric Maiers
`maierse@gtlaw.com
`
`Michael Nicodema
`nicodemam@gtlaw.com
`
`James Lukas
`lukasj@gtlaw.com
`
`Robbie Harmer
`harmer@gtlaw.com
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
