throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 20
`Entered: January 21, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD.,
`BROAD OCEAN MOTOR LLC, and
`BROAD OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`On July 3, 2014, Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd., Broad
`
`Ocean Motor LLC, and Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC (“Petitioners”)
`
`filed a Petition (Paper 1) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–3, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 19 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,626,249 B2 (“the ’349 patent”). A corrected Petition (Paper 7, “Pet.”)
`
`was filed on July 28, 2014. Nidec Motor Corporation (“Patent Owner”)
`
`filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 14, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the corrected
`
`Petition on October 24, 2014. On November 10, 2014, Petitioners filed a
`
`Motion to Submit Corrected Exhibits and Maintain Filing Date (Paper 17,
`
`“Mot.”). On November 17, 2014, Patent Owner filed an Opposition to the
`
`Motion (Paper 19, “Opp.”).
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we deny Petitioners’ Motion.
`
`Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires
`
`demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to at least one challenged claim, we institute an inter partes review
`
`of claims 1–3, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 19. The Board has not made a final
`
`determination of the patentability of any claim.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’349 patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’349 patent relates to heating, ventilating and/or air conditioning
`
`(“HVAC”) systems that use air-moving components, such as a blower.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 8–11. Figure 4 of the ’349 patent is reproduced below.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a block diagram of HVAC system 400, which includes system
`
`controller 402, motor controller 404, permanent magnet motor 406, and air-
`
`moving component 410. Id. at col. 3, ll. 50–52. Permanent magnet
`
`motor 406 includes shaft 408, stationary assembly 412, and rotatable
`
`assembly 414. Id. at col. 3, ll. 52–54. The rotatable and stationary
`
`assemblies are magnetically coupled, and the rotatable assembly is coupled
`
`to the air-moving component via the shaft to drive rotation of the air-moving
`
`component. Id. at col. 3, ll. 54–58. The motor controller is configured to
`
`perform sine wave commutation in response to one or more control signals
`
`received from the system controller to produce continuous-phase currents in
`
`the permanent magnet motor for driving the air-moving component. Id. at
`
`col. 3, ll. 59–63.
`
`The specification of the ’349 patent does not mention “values of Q
`
`and d axis currents” outside of its claims. Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Mark
`
`Ehsani, explains that “vector control” provides one method of controlling
`
`permanent-magnet synchronous motors, and that “[t]he concept of vector
`
`control, which typically uses d and [Q] current components, arises from [a]
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`principle [in which] torque arrives from the interaction of two magnetic
`
`fields, one originating from the stator and one originating from the rotor.”
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 13. The drawing from page 6 of Dr. Ehsani’s Declaration is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`The drawing from Dr. Ehsani’s Declaration illustrates a rotor, which has a
`
`permanent magnet having north and south poles Nr and Sr, respectively, and
`
`illustrates a stator, which includes electromagnets that result in a virtual
`
`stator magnet having north and south poles Ns and Ss, respectively. Id. at
`¶ 15. The d axis is aligned with the rotor and the Q axis1 is offset 90° from
`
`the d axis. The motor commutates the winding currents to maintain
`
`orthogonality of the d and Q axes as the rotor turns. Id. at ¶ 16.
`
`
`1 Dr. Ehsani uses a lower-case letter q in referring to this axis. We use an
`upper-case letter Q for consistency with the claims that are before us.
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`The ’349 patent incorporates the disclosure of U.S. Pat. No. 7,342,379
`
`(Ex. 3001, “the ’379 patent”) by reference. Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 23–29. The
`
`’379 patent describes embodiments in which a Q-axis current is calculated
`
`“based on a given [d-axis] current injection to produce a desired rotor
`
`torque.” Ex. 3001, col. 5, ll. 27–30. The ’379 patent also describes
`
`embodiments in which the Q-axis current and the d-axis injection current
`
`“are multiplexed.” Id. at col. 5, ll. 51–57.
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 of the ’349 patent is illustrative of the claims at issue:
`
`1. A heating, ventilating and/or air conditioning (HVAC)
`system comprising a system controller, a motor controller, an
`air-moving component, and a permanent magnet motor having
`a stationary assembly, a rotatable assembly in magnetic
`coupling relation to the stationary assembly, and a shaft
`coupled to the air-moving component, wherein the motor
`controller is configured for performing sine wave commutation,
`using independent values of Q and d axis currents, in response
`to one or more signals received from the system controller to
`produce continuous phase currents in the permanent magnet
`motor for driving the air-moving component.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`C. References
`
`Petitioners rely on the following references.
`
`Bessler
`
`Hideji
`
`US 5,410,230
`
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`JP 2003-348885
`
`Dec. 5, 2003
`
`Ex. 10032
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Peter Franz Kocybik, Electronic Control of Torque Ripple in
`Brushless Motors (University of Plymouth, July 2000)
`(“Kocybik”)
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 1–3, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 19 on the following
`
`grounds. Pet. 3–4.
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Hideji
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1–3, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 19
`
`Bessler and Kocybik
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1–3, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 19
`
`
`
`E. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioners state that the ’349 patent is a subject of the following civil
`
`action: Nidec Motor Corporation v. Broad Ocean Motor LLC et al., Civil
`
`Action No. 4:13-CV-01895-JCH (E.D. Mo.). Pet. 2.
`
`
`
`F. Claim Construction
`
`The Board interprets claims using the broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`
`
`2 Petitioner filed an English translation of Hideji as Ex. 1005.
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`1. “using independent values of Q and d axis currents”
`
`Each of independent claims 1, 16, and 19 recites performing sine
`
`wave commutation “using independent values of Q and d axis currents.”
`
`Patent Owner proposes that the phrase “be given its ordinary meaning, in
`
`which the values of Q axis current and d axis current are developed
`
`independently of each other, without relying on one to derive the other.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner supports its proposed construction with a
`
`dictionary definition of “independent” in mathematical contents as referring
`
`to quantities “incapable of being expressed in terms of, or derived or
`
`deduced from” other quantities. Id. at 9 (citing
`
`http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/independ
`
`ent#independent).
`
`Petitioners offer no construction of the phrase, but Petitioners’
`
`witness, Dr. Ehsani, addresses the term “independent” in explaining that
`
`orthogonal magnetic fields are “independent of each other.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 13;
`
`see id. at ¶ 17 (“Ideally, id and i[Q] are also independent of each other
`
`(orthogonal)”).
`
`Although we accept Dr. Ehsani’s explanation that orthogonal
`
`magnetic fields are independent of each other, the claims refer specifically to
`
`scalar values of Q and d axis currents, not to vector fields. Accordingly, for
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction and construe “using independent values of Q and d axis
`
`currents” as requiring the use of Q and d axis current values that are
`
`developed independently of each other, without relying on one to derive the
`
`other.
`
`
`
`2. “back-emf motor”
`
`Claim 9 recites that “the BPM [‘brushless permanent magnet’] motor
`
`is a back-emf BPM motor.” The Specification of the ’349 patent identifies
`
`“back-emf” as equivalent to a “back-electromagnetic field,” but does not
`
`otherwise define the term. Ex. 1001, col. 4, l. 41. Petitioners assert that the
`
`phrase is not a term of art known to those skilled in the art. Pet. 10 (citing
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 43). Petitioners propose that the term “back-emf motor” be
`
`construed as coterminous with the phrase “permanent magnet motor.”
`
`Pet. 10. Patent Owner neither opposes Petitioners’ proposed construction
`
`nor proposes its own construction.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioners’ proposed
`
`construction of “back-emf motor” as coterminous with “permanent magnet
`
`motor.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`II. MOTION TO SUBMIT CORRECTED EXHIBITS AND
`MAINTAIN FILING DATE
`
`“When a party relies on a document . . . in a language other than
`
`English, a translation of the document into English and an affidavit attesting
`
`to the accuracy of the translation must be filed with the document.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) (emphasis added). Although Petitioners filed an
`
`English translation of Hideji as Exhibit 1005, they did not include an
`
`affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation as required. We
`
`authorized Petitioners to file a motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c) to
`
`establish that the failure to submit attesting affidavits with the documents
`
`resulted from a clerical error that may be excused by allowing attesting
`
`affidavits to be filed subsequent to the filing of the documents. Paper 16.
`
`As noted above, Petitioners filed the Motion on November 10, 2014, and
`
`Patent Owner filed its Opposition on November 17, 2014.
`
`Petitioners’ statement of facts underlying the failure to file an attesting
`
`affidavit with the translation is not contested by Patent Owner, and we
`
`accept that statement as accurate for purposes of this Decision. Petitioners
`
`assert that as part of developing their defenses in the related litigation, they
`
`identified Hideji, and Petitioners’ litigation counsel obtained an English
`
`translation thereof. Mot. 1–2. Petitioners’ original lead counsel for this
`
`proceeding “assumed that an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the
`
`translation had been obtained from the translator at the time of translation
`
`and had been included as part of Exhibit 1005.” Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1012
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`¶ 6). While preparing that exhibit, Petitioners’ original lead counsel for this
`
`proceeding “did not notice that an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the
`
`English translation . . . was not included as the last page of Exhibit 1005.”
`
`Id. at 2–3. After being alerted to the defect when Patent Owner filed its
`
`Preliminary Response, Petitioners’ new lead counsel for this proceeding
`
`“arranged to obtain the attached affidavit from the translator who prepared
`
`the English translation . . . that was filed with the original petition.” Id. at 3.
`
`Petitioners represent that their original lead counsel for this
`
`proceeding “intended to file an attesting affidavit with the translations” and
`
`that “[t]he failure to do so was unintentional and inadvertent.” Id. at 1–2.
`
`They also represent that the failure of their original lead counsel to notice the
`
`lack of an attesting affidavit when filing English translations in this
`
`proceeding was an “oversight” that “was also unintentional and inadvertent.”
`
`Id. at 2–3.
`
`The standard for excusing a filing error under 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c) is
`
`not mere unintentionality or inadvertence, but instead requires a showing
`
`that a “clerical or typographical mistake” occurred. Petitioners contend that
`
`the omission of attesting affidavits under these facts is a “clerical error that
`
`is correctable under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c).” Mot. 4. We disagree.
`
`Our reviewing court has addressed when a “clerical error” occurs in
`
`the context of customs law, drawing a distinction between the acts of those
`
`who have discretion in the matter with those upon whom “no duty
`
`devolves . . . to exercise discretion or judgment.” Ford Motor Co. v. U.S.,
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`157 F.3d 849, 860 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing S. Yamada v. U.S., 26 CCPA 89
`
`(CCPA 1938)). Specifically, a “clerical error” may occur when a clerk who
`
`is not charged with exercising discretion fails correctly to follow
`
`instructions, but “[i]f the error had indeed been due in some measure to the
`
`party in interest or the supervisor—those upon who a duty did devolve ‘to
`
`exercise original thought or judgment’ in the matter—then making a
`
`correction would amount to more than correcting a ‘clerical error.’” Id.
`
`Unquestionably, lead counsel is a person upon whom a duty devolves
`
`“to exercise original thought or judgment.” The evidence supplied by
`
`Petitioners establishes that the mistake sought to be corrected was by
`
`Petitioners’ lead counsel and arose because incorrect assumptions were
`
`made without the necessary review to confirm the accuracy of those
`
`assumptions. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioners’ evidence
`
`fails to satisfy the necessary showing to establish a correctable clerical error.
`
`See Opp. 3. In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful of “the realities of
`
`the modern work place, where errors are as likely to be the result of clicking
`
`on the wrong link as hitting the wrong key.” ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp.,
`
`IPR2013-00063, Paper 21, 8 (PTAB Jan. 16, 2013). This is not an instance
`
`in which an attesting affidavit had been obtained but was omitted from
`
`Petitioners’ filing because of a clerical failure to collate the affidavit with
`
`other material being filed. Rather, the mistake resulted from a failure to
`
`obtain the attesting affidavit at all—until attention later was drawn to the
`
`error by Patent Owner.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`In reaching our decision, we also acknowledge that, because the rule
`
`is remedial in nature, it is entitled to a “liberal interpretation.” See Mot. 4
`
`(citing Syntroleum Corp. v. Neste Oil Oyj, IPR2013-00178, Paper 21, 4
`
`(PTAB Jan. 16, 2013)). “Notwithstanding the remedial nature of the rule,
`
`however, the burden remains on the moving party and the evidence of
`
`clerical error will be closely scrutinized.” ABB 8. Notably, the example
`
`cited by Petitioners in which the Board granted a motion under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 104(c) was supported by evidence that a subordinate attorney responsible
`
`for assembling exhibits failed to combine the original foreign-language
`
`patent with its attested translation. See Arthrex, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal
`
`Innovations, LLC, IPR2013-00631, Paper 15, 4–6 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2014)
`
`(relying on Exs. 1013–1015). Although a subordinate attorney is not
`
`absolved from exercising original thought and judgment in a matter, the
`
`distinction between the actions of a lead attorney and those of a subordinate
`
`attorney is of some relevance. More important, the circumstances before us
`
`are distinct from those of Arthrex because of the clear evidence that no
`
`attesting affidavit was even secured by, or otherwise available to, Petitioners
`
`to collate with other materials at the time of filing their Petition.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we deny Petitioners’ Motion to Submit
`
`Corrected Exhibits and Maintain Filing Date.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Anticipation by Hideji
`
`The filed copy of Hideji is defective because Petitioners failed to
`
`comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) by omitting an affidavit attesting to the
`
`accuracy of its translation. Accordingly, we do not consider Hideji and, as a
`
`result, deny the Petition with respect to the anticipation grounds based on
`
`Hideji.
`
`
`
`B. Obviousness Over Bessler and Kocybik
`
`Petitioners contend that claims 1–3, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 19 are
`
`unpatentable over Bessler and Kocybik under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 4.
`
`Bessler discloses an HVAC system that uses an electronically
`
`commutated motor (“ECM”). Ex. 1006, col. 4, ll. 11–13. In challenging
`
`independent claim 1, Petitioners contend that Bessler discloses all
`
`limitations, but acknowledges that “Bessler does not explicitly disclose the
`
`use of sine wave commutation and independent [Q]- and d- axis currents.”
`
`Pet. 36. For the limitation that recites such features, Petitioners rely on
`
`Kocybik, noting that, like Bessler, Kocybik discloses an ECM. Id. at 41–46.
`
`Petitioners present a similar analysis in challenging independent claims 16
`
`and 19. Id. at 53–58.
`
`Kocybik is a doctoral thesis that includes a survey of electric motor
`
`control schemes for permanent magnet motors. Ex. 1007, iii. Among
`
`Kocybik’s various teachings are disclosures of sine wave commutation and
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`the use of a d-Q reference frame. Id. at 11–12, 17, 37, 40. Of particular
`
`relevance, equation 4.3 on page 39 of Kocybik provides an expression of the
`
`torque equation that Petitioners contend uses independent values of Q- and
`
`d-axis currents.
`
`Patent Owner acknowledges that “Kocybik discusses motor control
`
`schemes including mentioning that sine wave commutation may be used
`
`with a [brushless permanent magnet].” Prelim. Resp. 17. But Patent Owner
`
`contends that one of skill in the art would not have combined the teachings
`
`of Bessler and Kocybik because “Kocybik does not discuss HVAC systems
`
`or the motors used in them.” Id. at 17–18. Rather, Kocybik “references
`
`relatively exotic applications at the time of its publication, including hybrid
`
`car engines, the aerospace industry, and high accuracy machine tooling
`
`applications.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1007, 19–20). Patent Owner argues that
`
`recitation of an HVAC system in the preambles of all the claims is limiting
`
`and, therefore, that one of skill in the art would not combine the teachings of
`
`Bessler and Kocybik. See id. at 12–17. Specifically, Patent Owner notes
`
`that Kocybik states that its motors are “‘more suitable for high precision
`
`control tasks’” and that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would not consider an
`
`HVAC blower to require high precision control tasks.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex.
`
`1007, 17).
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we need not decide whether recitation
`
`of an HVAC system in the preambles of the claims is limiting because
`
`Petitioners rely on Bessler for such a teaching, not on Kocybik, and there is
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`no requirement that all references applied in an obviousness challenge be
`
`drawn precisely from the same art. Rather, the determination of the scope
`
`and content of the prior art for an obviousness challenge considers whether
`
`references are “analogous.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`“Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous:
`
`(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
`
`problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the
`
`inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658–59
`
`(citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599
`
`F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)). For purposes of this Decision, Petitioners’
`
`identification of the disclosure of an ECM by Kocybik, in light of Bessler’s
`
`discussion of ECMs, provides a sufficient showing under the Clay test. See
`
`Pet. 41–42. In particular, the suggestion that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would substitute a sinusoidally commutated ECM, as disclosed by Kocybik,
`
`for the square-wave commutated ECM disclosed by Bessler is supported at
`
`this stage of the proceeding by sufficient rational underpinnings. See KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “Kocybik
`
`teaches away from the use of an ac BPM motor and sine wave commutation
`
`in the highly price sensitive application of an HVAC system.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 18. A prior-art reference does not teach away from the claimed
`
`subject matter unless the prior-art reference also criticizes, discredits, or
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
`
`1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When juxtaposed with remarks distinguishing
`
`“exotic applications” from HVAC applications, Patent Owner’s partial
`
`quotation of a statement by Kocybik that its brushless ac motors are “more
`
`suitable for high precision control tasks” is misleading. See Prelim.
`
`Resp. 18. Kocybik’s full sentence provides a comparison not of the type of
`
`system for which its brushless ac motor is most suitable, but instead provides
`
`a comparison of the type of motor most suitable for high-precision control
`
`tasks: “The brushless ac motor is therefore more suitable for high precision
`
`control tasks than the brushless dc motor.” Ex. 1007, 17 (emphasis added).
`
`Such a statement cannot be read reasonably as criticizing or discrediting the
`
`use of Kocybik’s brushless ac motor in HVAC applications. Nor do we find
`
`Kocybik’s observation that a decision whether to use a brushless motor or a
`
`different type of motor requires a compromise between performance and
`
`price to criticize or discredit the use of its brushless ac motor in HVAC
`
`applications. See Prelim. Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 1007, 20).
`
`We conclude that Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on their challenges of independent claims 1, 16, and
`
`19 as obvious over Bessler and Kocybik. We have also reviewed
`
`Petitioners’ analysis of dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, and 12, at pages 46–53
`
`of their Petition. We conclude that Petitioners also have demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenges of those claims as
`
`obvious over Bessler and Kocybik.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioners’ Motion to Submit a Corrected Exhibit
`
`and Maintain Filing Date (Paper 17) is denied;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted with
`
`respect to the following ground of unpatentability: claims 1–3, 8, 9, 12, 16,
`
`and 19 as obvious over Bessler and Kocybik under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that inter partes review is not instituted with
`
`respect to any other ground of unpatentability;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ’349 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`
`entry date of this Decision, and 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER
`
`Steven Meyer
`ptopatentcammunication@lockelord.com
`
`Charles Baker
`cbaker@lockelord.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Scott Brown
`jcrawford@hoveywilliams.com
`
`Matthew Walters
`mwalters@hoveywilliams.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

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