Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`Entered: January 30, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION, NETAPP INC., and HUAWEI
`TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KALAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`Entered: January 30, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION, NETAPP INC., and HUAWEI
`TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KALAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners Oracle Corporation, NetApp Inc., and Huawei Technologies
`Co., Ltd. filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’147 patent”)
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Patent Owner Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 11, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that inter partes review
`may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and
`any [preliminary] response . . . 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).
`Petitioners challenge claims 1–13 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`We institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 13 on
`certain grounds as discussed below.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’147 patent is asserted in co-pending
`matters captioned Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., Case No. 1-13-
`cv-00895-SS (W.D. Tex.), Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies
`Co. Ltd., Case No. 1-13-cv-01025-SS (W.D. Tex.), and Crossroads Systems,
`Inc. v. NetApp, Inc., Case No. 1-14-cv-00149-SS (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 2–3;
`Paper 9, 3. The ’147 Patent is also involved in Case IPR2014-01207, and
`belongs to a family of patents that are the subject of multiple petitions for
`inter partes review, including IPR2014-01177, IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-
`01226, IPR2014-01233, and IPR2014-01463.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`B. The ’147 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’147 patent, titled “Storage Router and Method for Providing
`Virtual Local Storage,” issued on May 23, 2006. The ’147 patent describes a
`storage router, storage network, and method that provide virtual local storage
`on remote Small Computer System Interface (SCSI) storage devices to Fibre
`Channel (FC) devices. Ex. 1001, Abstract; 1:23–26. “A plurality of Fibre
`Channel devices, such as workstations, are connected to a Fibre Channel
`transport medium, and a plurality of SCSI storage devices are connected to a
`SCSI bus transport medium.” Id. at 2:11–14. The storage router interfaces
`between the Fibre Channel transport medium and the SCSI bus transport
`medium, maps between the workstations and the SCSI storage devices, and
`implements access controls for storage space on the SCSI storage devices. Id.
`at 2:14–19. “The storage router then allows access from the workstations to
`the SCSI storage devices using native low level, block protocol in accordance
`with the mapping and the access controls.” Id. at 2:19–22.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 of the ’147 patent is reproduced below:
`1.
`A storage router for providing virtual local storage on
`remote storage devices to a device, comprising:
`a buffer providing memory work space for the storage router;
`a first Fibre Channel controller operable to connect to and
`interface with a first Fibre Channel transport medium;
`a second Fibre Channel controller operable to connect to and
`interface with a second Fibre Channel transport medium; and
`a supervisor unit coupled to the first and second Fibre Channel
`controllers and the buffer, the supervisor unit operable:
`to maintain a configuration for remote storage devices
`connected to the second Fibre Channel transport medium that
`maps between the device and the remote storage devices and that
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`implements access controls for storage space on the remote
`storage devices; and
`to process data in the buffer to interface between the first
`Fibre Channel controller and the second Fibre Channel controller
`to allow access from Fibre Channel initiator devices to the
`remote storage devices using native low level, block protocol in
`accordance with the configuration.
`Ex. 1001, 9:24–47.
`
`D. The Prior Art
`
`Petitioners rely on the following prior art:
`1. CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller User’s Manual (1996)
`(“CRD-5500 User’s Manual”) (Ex. 1003);
`2. CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller Data Sheet (Dec. 4,
`1996) (“CRD-5500 Data Sheet”) (Ex. 1004);
`3. Smith et al., Tachyon: A Gigabit Fibre Channel Protocol
`Chip, HEWLETT-PACKARD J. (Oct. 1996) (“Smith”) (Ex.
`1005);
`4. U.S. Patent No. 6,219,771, issued Apr. 17, 2001 (“Kikuchi”)
`(Ex. 1006);
`5. U.S. Patent No. 6,073,209, issued June 6, 2000 (“Bergsten”)
`(Ex. 1007); and
`6. JP Patent Application Pub. No. Hei 5[1993]-181609,
`published July 23, 1993 (“Hirai”) (Ex. 1008).
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioners challenge claims 1–13 of the ’147 patent on the following
`grounds:
`References
`
`Basis
`
`CRD-5500 User’s Manual, CRD-
`5500 Data Sheet, and Smith
`Kikuchi and Bergsten
`
`Kikuchi, Bergsten, and Smith
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`
`
`4
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1–13
`
`1–4 and 6–13
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`Bergsten and Hirai
`
`Bergsten, Hirai, and Smith
`
`
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1–4 and 6–13
`
`5
`
`F. Claim Interpretation
`The Board interprets claim terms in an unexpired patent using the
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning in view of the specification, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In
`re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For purposes
`of this Decision, we find that no express claim construction is necessary.
`III. ANALYSIS
`We turn now to Petitioners’ asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`Patent Owner’s arguments in the Preliminary Response to determine whether
`Petitioners have met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`A. Asserted Ground Based on CRD-5500 User’s Manual, CRD-
`5500 Data Sheet, and Smith
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 1–13 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over CRD-5500 User’s Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith. Pet. 12–
`29. To support this assertion, Petitioners rely on the Declaration of Professor
`Jeffrey S. Chase, Ph.D. (Ex. 1010, “Chase Declaration”).
`The Petition states that “[t]he explanations set forth below summarize
`the grounds of unpatentability. . . . Pinpoint citations are provided to the
`declaration of Professor Chase (Ex. 1010) which describes in further detail the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`combined system, supporting rationale, and the correspondence to the claimed
`subject matter.” Pet. 11–12. The Petition introduces and summarizes the
`CRD-5500 User’s Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith references. Pet.
`12–16. Petitioners then assert, in a section titled “The Combined System of
`CRD-5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet and Smith,” that the
`references, in combination, disclose the claimed subject matter. Pet. 16–19
`(including a figure representing the hypothetical combined system on page
`18). In the “Correspondence between Claims 1–13 and the Combined System
`of CRD-5500 and Smith” section, Petitioners alternately refer to the references
`and to paragraphs in the Chase Declaration in support of their arguments. Pet.
`19–29. Petitioners present specific arguments with respect to claims 1–5 and
`then, for claims 6–13, rely on their arguments for claims 1–5 and the Chase
`Declaration. Pet. 26–29.
`Patent Owner alleges that Petitioners fail “to show where the claim
`limitations can be found in the references and fail to provide a detailed
`explanation of the evidence” and instead improperly use “the 193-page Chase
`declaration to provide the necessary explanation, effectively expanding the
`petition well over sixty pages in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i).”
`Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner provides specific examples of Petitioners’
`reliance solely on the Chase Declaration to show where claim limitations can
`be found in the references (citing Pet. 21–22, 26–29) or to discuss exhibits
`never introduced in the Petition (citing Pet. 16). Prelim. Resp. 16–18.
`Namely, regarding the supervisor unit of claim 1, Patent Owner argues that
`the Petition “states that ‘the CRD-5500 User Manual describes a central
`processing unit (CPU) that is coupled to a host device interface module, a
`storage interface module and a buffer memory’” but that the Petition “does not
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`point out where the references show a central processing unit, but instead
`refers to the Chase declaration to provide further explanation.” Id. at 16
`(citing Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 48)).
`Citing the Chase Declaration to identify elements of the claims that are
`not otherwise supported in the Petition and to present additional arguments
`based on references that are not already discussed in the Petition amounts to
`incorporation by reference. It is improper to incorporate by reference
`arguments from one document into another document. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3);
`see also Rules of Practice for Trials Before The Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions; Final
`Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,617 (Aug. 14, 2012) (prohibition against
`incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses that arise from
`incorporation).
`A petition for inter partes review must identify how the challenged
`claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds asserted by the
`petitioners, and must specify where each element of the claims is found in the
`relied-upon prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). A petition must include “a
`detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material
`facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” Id. § 42.22(a)(2).
`We agree with the Patent Owner that Petitioners’ reliance on the Chase
`Declaration fails to show where the “supervisor unit” claim limitation can be
`found in the references. Petitioners fail to provide a detailed explanation of
`the evidence in the Petition for this and other claim limitations. See, e.g., Pet.
`20 (“first controller”), 25 (“hard disk drives”). With respect to the
`unpatentability grounds relying upon the Chase Declaration, the Petition does
`not specify sufficiently where each element of the claims is found in the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`applied references, and does not include a detailed explanation of the
`significance of the evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4), 42.22(a)(2). We
`decline to consider information not provided in the Petition, but instead
`incorporated only by reference to cited paragraphs in the Chase Declaration.
`Thus, on the present record, the information presented in the Petition does not
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–13 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over CRD-5500 User’s Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet,
`and Smith.
`
`B. Asserted Ground Based on Kikuchi and Bergsten
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 1–4 and 6–13 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Kikuchi and Bergsten. Pet. 29–43.
`Petitioners assert, in a section titled “The Combined System of Kikuchi
`and Bergsten,” that the references, in combination, disclose the claimed
`subject matter. Pet. 32–35. Petitioners argue that “[i]n the combined system
`of Kikuchi and Bergsten, multi-protocol intercommunication capabilities of
`the command and interpretation unit described in Kikuchi are enhanced by
`incorporating Bergsten’s emulation drivers 21 and physical drivers 22, which
`are detailed in Bergsten with a greater degree of specificity.” Id. at 32.
`Petitioners emphasize that “[t]o the extent that Kikuchi fails to explicitly detail
`every nuance of FCP-based encapsulation and de-encapsulation, the details of
`Bergsten’s emulation drivers 21 and physical drivers 22 more than sufficiently
`provide specific details.” Id. at 32–33. In the “Correspondence between
`Claims 1–4 and 6–13 and the Combined System of Kikuchi and Bergsten”
`section, Petitioners alternately refer to the references and to paragraphs in the
`Chase Declaration to support their arguments. Pet. 35–43. Petitioners present
`specific arguments with citations to the references for claims 1–4, and then,
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`for claims 6–13, rely primarily on their arguments for claims 1–4 and the
`Chase Declaration. Pet. 40–43.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioners “compare the claimed invention to
`a theoretical ‘combined system’ that never existed, but do not conduct the
`critical inquiry identifying the differences between the claimed invention and
`the prior art.” Prelim. Resp. 41. Petitioners’ citations in the “Correspondence
`between Claims 1–4 and 6–13 and the Combined System of Kikuchi and
`Bergsten” section, for the most part, map the claim elements to the references
`themselves rather than to the combined system. Petitioners also indicate that
`Kikuchi may demonstrate a lack of explicit disclosure of the nuances of FCP-
`based encapsulation and de-encapsulation, which identifies a difference
`between the claimed invention and Kikuchi that Bergsten’s emulation drivers
`21 and physical drivers 22 may supply. Pet. 32–33. Such an identification,
`although couched in conditional terms, constitutes a difference between the
`claimed invention and Kikuchi that Bergsten is cited to supplement.
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioners have failed to provide
`sufficient articulated reasoning to support Petitioners’ proposed obviousness
`ground. Prelim. Resp. 42. Petitioners argue that one skilled in the art at the
`relevant time “would combine the Kikuchi and Bergsten systems in this way
`in order to improve the Kikuchi system with the advantage of virtualized,
`networked storage.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 142–147). On this record,
`and for the purposes of institution, we consider Petitioners to have provided
`sufficient articulated reasoning to combine the references.
`For claim 3, however, which recites “wherein the Fibre Channel
`devices comprise workstations,” Petitioners cite to paragraph 158 of the Chase
`Declaration only, and provide no citation to Kikuchi or Bergsten. Pet. 40.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`Notwithstanding the introductory descriptions of Kikuchi and Bergsten, which
`generally outline the subject matter of the references (Pet. 29–32), and the
`analysis presented in the Petition itself, Petitioners have not met their burden
`in establishing a reasonable likelihood that claim 3 is unpatentable.
`Independent claim 6 recites “workstations connected to the first Fibre
`Channel transport medium,” and Petitioners argue that it “recites, in addition
`to the storage router, both workstations and storage devices” and thus the
`“discussion set forth above for claims 1 and 3 applies with equal force to
`claim 6.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 160–166). Claim 12, which depends
`indirectly from independent claim 10, recites “wherein the Fibre Channel
`devices comprise workstations.” Petitioners assert that “[d]ependent claims
`11-13 correspond to dependent claims 2-4” and that the “discussion . . . for
`claims 2-4 applies with equal force to claims 11-13.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1010
`¶¶ 185–187). For the reasons discussed for claim 3, Petitioners have not met
`their burden in establishing a reasonable likelihood that independent claim 6,
`claims 7–9 which depend from claim 6, and claim 12 are unpatentable. Thus,
`our institution of review on the ground of obviousness over Kikuchi and
`Bergsten is limited to claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13.
`Accordingly, we conclude Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on their assertion that claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13
`are obvious over Kikuchi and Bergsten.
`
`C. Asserted Ground Based on Kikuchi, Bergsten and Smith
`
`Petitioners challenge claim 5, which depends from claim 1, as
`unpatentable over Kikuchi, Bergsten and Smith. Pet. 43–44. Petitioners
`argue that “one of ordinary skill would understand that the emulation and
`physical drivers of Bergsten are designed to incorporate the functionality of
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`the Tachyon chip of Smith.” Pet. 43. Specifically, Petitioners argue that the
`combined system, and in particular, Smith, describes a Fibre Channel protocol
`unit, a FIFO queue coupled to the FC protocol unit, and inbound and
`outbound sequence managers that perform DMA transfers of inbound data and
`outbound data. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, pp. 5, 7, 9, Fig. 4). Patent Owner does
`not present arguments specifically directed to this combination. On this
`record, Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`their assertion that claim 5 is unpatentable over the combination of Kikuchi,
`Bergsten, and Smith.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds Based on Bergsten and Hirai
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 1–4 and 6–13 as unpatentable over
`Bergsten and Hirai. Pet. 44–57.
`Petitioners assert, in a section titled “The Combined System of Bergsten
`and Hirai,” that the references, in combination, disclose the claimed subject
`matter. Pet. 46–49. Petitioners argue that “[i]n the combined system [of
`Bergsten and Hirai], Hirai’s access controls are incorporated into Bergsten’s
`storage controllers.” Pet. 47. In the “Correspondence between Claims 1–4
`and 6–13 and the Combined System of Bergsten and Hirai” section,
`Petitioners alternately refer to the references and to paragraphs in the Chase
`Declaration in support of their arguments. Pet. 49–54. Petitioners present
`specific arguments with citations to the references for claims 1–4, and then,
`for claims 6–13, rely primarily on their arguments for claims 1–4 and the
`Chase Declaration. Pet. 55–57.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioners “compare the claimed invention to
`a theoretical ‘combined system’ that is known to have not existed at the time
`the invention was made,” but “failed to conduct the prerequisite factual
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`inquiry of identifying the differences between the claimed invention and the
`prior art.” Prelim. Resp. 51. Petitioners’ citations in the “Correspondence
`between Claims 1–4 and 6–13 and the Combined System of Bergsten and
`Hirai” section, for the most part, map the claim elements to the references
`themselves rather than to the combined system. Petitioners also state that
`Patent Owner may attempt to argue that “Bergsten may lack explicit and
`nuanced detail regarding the implementation of access controls and the
`ramifications of write-protecting data upon a single storage controller of a
`daisy-chained storage controller network,” and further state that “the access
`control map described in Hirai is detailed with a greater degree of
`particularity.” Pet. 47–48. Such an identification identifies a difference
`between the claimed invention and Bergsten that Hirai is cited to fill.
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioners have failed to provide
`sufficient articulated reasoning to support their proposed obviousness ground.
`Prelim. Resp. 52. With respect to claim 1, Petitioners argue that “[a]n artisan
`skilled in network storage during the relevant timeframe would combine the
`Bergsten and Hirai teachings . . . in order to provide additional levels of
`granularity to the access controls of the Bergsten system based on the
`mapping-based access controls of Hirai.” Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 247–
`251). For purposes of institution, Petitioners’ argument that it would have
`been obvious to combine Bergsten’s storage controller with Hirai’s access
`controls is reasonable and supported by record evidence.
`For claim 3, however, which recites “wherein the Fibre Channel
`devices comprise workstations,” Petitioners cite to paragraph 262 of the Chase
`Declaration only, and provide no citation to Bergsten or Hirai. Pet. 54.
`Notwithstanding the introductory descriptions of Bergsten and Hirai, which
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`generally outline the subject matter of the references (Pet. 30–32, 44–46), and
`the analysis presented in the Petition itself, Petitioners have not met their
`burden in establishing a reasonable likelihood that claim 3 is unpatentable.
`Independent claim 6 recites “workstations connected to the first Fibre
`Channel transport medium,” and Petitioners argue that it “recites, in addition
`to the storage router, both workstations and storage devices” and thus the
`“discussion set forth above for claims 1 and 3 applies with equal force to
`claim 6.” Pet. 54–55 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 264–270). Claim 12, which depends
`indirectly from independent claim 10, recites “wherein the Fibre Channel
`devices comprise workstations.” Petitioners assert that “[d]ependent claims
`11-13 correspond to dependent claims 2-4” and that the “discussion . . . for
`claims 2-4 applies with equal force to claims 11-13.” Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1010
`¶¶ 288–290). For the reasons discussed for claim 3, Petitioners have not met
`their burden in establishing a reasonable likelihood that independent claim 6,
`claims 7–9 which depend from claim 6, and claim 12 are unpatentable. Thus,
`our institution of review on the ground of obviousness over Bergsten and
`Hirai is limited to claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13.
`Accordingly, we conclude Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on their assertion that claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13
`are obvious over Bergsten and Hirai.
`
`E. Asserted Ground Based on Bergsten, Hirai, and Smith
`
`Petitioners challenge claim 5 as unpatentable over Bergsten, Hirai, and
`Smith. Pet. 57–58. Petitioners argue that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would
`understand that the emulation and physical drivers of Bergsten are designed to
`incorporate the functionality of the Tachyon chip of Smith.” Pet. 57.
`Specifically, Petitioners argue that the combined system, and in particular,
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`Smith, describes a Fibre Channel protocol unit, a FIFO queue coupled to the
`FC protocol unit, and inbound and outbound sequence managers that perform
`DMA transfers of inbound data and outbound data. Id. at 57–58 (citing Ex.
`1005, 5, 7, 9, and Fig. 4). Patent Owner does not present arguments
`specifically directed to this combination. On this record, Petitioners have met
`their burden in establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their
`contention that claim 5 is unpatentable over the combination of Bergsten,
`Hirai, and Smith.
`
`F. Consideration of Cited Art in Reexamination
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Patent Office has already considered the
`CRD-5500 User’s Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, Smith, Kikuchi, and
`Bergsten during prosecution of the ’147 Patent. Prelim. Resp. 19. Patent
`Owner further argues that the Patent Office has already considered CRD-5500
`User’s Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, Smith, Kikuchi, and Bergsten in the
`reexamination of patents related to the ’147 patent, confirming at least one
`related patent “over the same arguments as those presented under the First
`Ground.” Id. at 20, 29, 33. We are not persuaded. Although the references
`may have been cited during prosecution of the present patent or reexamination
`of a related patent or patents, Patent Owner does not explain how Petitioners’
`presently presented arguments regarding these references were previously
`considered. Furthermore, although Patent Owner alleges similarity among the
`related patents and the ’147 patent, Patent Owner does not explain specifically
`how the related patents and the arguments presented in reexamination
`correlate to the ’147 patent. Without such details, and on this record, we
`decline to deny institution of inter partes review on this basis.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`G. Conclusion
`
`We conclude that Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing with respect to their challenge of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 13
`of the ’147 patent. We have not made, however, a final determination under
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims.
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that inter partes review is authorized on the following
`grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition:
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kikuchi
`and Bergsten;
`Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kikuchi, Bergsten, and Smith;
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bergsten
`and Hirai; and
`Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bergsten, Hirai, and Smith;
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of the ’147 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the entry
`date of this Order, 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; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds identified
`above, and no other ground set forth in the Petition as to any challenged claim
`is authorized.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Greg Gardella
`cpdocketgardella@oblon.com
`
`Scott McKeown
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven Sprinkle
`crossroadsipr@sprinklelaw.com
`
`John Adair
`crossroadsipr@sprinklelaw.com
`
`Russell Wong
`CrossroadsIPR@counselip.com
`
`James Hall
`CrossroadsIPR@counselip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
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
