`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
`
`