Paper 12
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: November 7, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP., FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`LIMITED, and FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01482
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: November 7, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP., FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`LIMITED, and FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01482
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01482
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd., TSMC North
`America Corp., Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited, and Fujitsu Semiconductor
`America (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of
`claims 30–37 of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775 B2 (“the ’775 Patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”) timely filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`“unless . . . 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).
`Upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and
`the Preliminary Response, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 30–37. Accordingly,
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted as to the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’775 Patent was asserted in TSMC Tech.,
`Inc. v. Zond LLC, No.1:14-cv-00721 (D. Del.) and Zond, LLC v. Fujitsu
`Semiconductor Limited, No. 1-14-cv-12438 (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. Petitioner
`also identifies other proceedings in which Zond asserted the ’775 Patent. Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01482
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Related Inter Partes Reviews
`
`The following Petition for inter partes review also challenges the
`same claims, based on the same grounds of unpatentability as those in the
`instant proceeding: The Gillette Co. v Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00604.
`In IPR2014-00604, we instituted inter partes review of claims 30–37
`of the ’775 Patent, based on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim(s)
`
`30–34 and 37
`
`35
`
`36
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a) Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman
`§ 103(a) Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman, and
`Kudryavtsev
`§ 103(a) Wang and Mozgrin
`
`
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder with IPR2014-00604. Paper 5.
`In a separate Decision, we grant Petitioner’s Motion, joining the instant
`proceeding with IPR2014-00604, and terminating the instant proceeding.
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`Lantsman
`
`US 6,190,512 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
`Wang
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1 July 2, 2002
`
`
`(Ex. 1104)
`(Ex. 1108)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1102) (hereinafter “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS.
`TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1103) (hereinafter “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01482
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at
`Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1106) (hereinafter
`“Mozgrin Thesis”).1
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim(s)
`
`30–34 and 37
`
`35
`
`36
`30–34 and 372
`
`35
`
`36
`
`
`
`References
`Basis
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis, and
`Lantsman
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis, Lantsman,
`and Kudryavtsev
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`§ 103(a) Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman
`§ 103(a) Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman, and
`Kudryavtsev
`§ 103(a) Wang and Mozgrin
`
`
`1 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. The citations to the
`Mozgrin Thesis are to the certified English-language translation submitted
`by Gillette (Ex. 1105).
`2 Although “Ground 3” is recited in the Petition as being directed to “Claims
`30–35 and 37,” Pet. 39 (emphasis added), there is no analysis or discussion
`of claim 35 in that ground. We take the reference to claim 35 as a
`typographical error and consider the ground as being applied to claims 30–
`34 and 37.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01482
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner makes the same claim construction arguments The Gillette
`Company (collectively, “Gillette”) made in IPR2014-00604. Compare Pet.
`12–16, with ’604 Pet. 12–15.
`Zond, in its Preliminary Response, does not address the claim
`construction arguments raised by Petitioner. In fact, Zond’s Preliminary
`Response appears to respond to the grounds raised in IPR2014-00578, with
`respect to claims 1–29, as opposed to claims 30–37, the subject of the instant
`proceeding. Although this may be an unintended error, we find Zond’s
`Preliminary Response to be nonresponsive to the Petition.
`We construed several claim terms identified by Gillette and Zond in
`IPR2014-00604. See ’604 Dec. 6–14. For the purposes of the instant
`decision, we incorporate our previous analysis and apply those claim
`constructions here.
`
`B. Obviousness over Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman
`In its Petition, Petitioner asserts the same ground of unpatentability
`based on the combination of Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman, as that on
`which a trial was instituted in IPR2014-00604. See Pet. 39–51; ’604 Dec.
`28. Petitioner’s arguments are substantively identical to the arguments made
`by Gillette in IPR2014-00604. Compare Pet. 39–51, with ’604 Pet. 38–51.
`Petitioner also proffers the same Declaration of Mr. DeVito that Gillette
`submitted in support of its Petition. Compare Ex. 1111, with
`IPR2014-00604, Ex. 1111.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01482
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted ground of
`unpatentability based on the combination of Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman
`(’604 Dec. 15–22), and determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this ground of unpatentability.
`
`C. Obviousness over Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev
`In its Petition, Petitioner asserts the same ground of unpatentability
`based on the combination of Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev,
`as that on which a trial was instituted in IPR2014-00604. See Pet. 52–53;
`’604 Dec. 28. Petitioner’s arguments are substantively identical to the
`arguments made by Gillette in IPR2014-00604. Compare Pet. 52–53, with
`’604 Pet. 51–53.
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted ground of
`unpatentability based on Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev (’604
`Dec. 22–26), and determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on this ground of unpatentability.
`
`D. Obviousness over Wang and Mozgrin
`In its Petition, Petitioner asserts the same ground of unpatentability
`based on the combination of Wang and Mozgrin, as that on which a trial was
`instituted in IPR2014-00604. See Pet. 53–58; ’604 Dec. 28. Petitioner’s
`arguments are substantively identical to the arguments made by Gillette in
`IPR2014-00604. Compare Pet. 53–58, with ’604 Pet. 53–59.
`We incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted ground of
`unpatentability based on Wang and Mozgrin (’604 Dec. 26–27), and
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01482
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this ground of unpatentability.
`
`E. Other Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner also asserts that claims 30–37 are unpatentable on other
`grounds. The Board’s rules for inter partes review proceedings, including
`those pertaining to institution, are “construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see also
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) (regulations for inter partes review proceedings take into
`account “the efficient administration of the Office” and “the ability of the
`Office to timely complete [instituted] proceedings”). Therefore, we exercise
`our discretion and do not institute a review based on these other asserted
`grounds for reasons of administrative necessity to ensure timely completion
`of the instituted proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 30–37 of the ’775 Patent as
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). At this stage in the proceeding, we
`have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the
`challenged claims.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01482
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted for the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim(s)
`
`30–34 and 37
`
`35
`
`36
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a) Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman
`§ 103(a) Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman, and
`Kudryavtsev
`§ 103(a) Wang and Mozgrin
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`asserted in the Petition is authorized for this inter partes review; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that 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; the trial
`will commence on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01482
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`David M. O’Dell
`David L. McCombs
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`David.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Gregory Gonsalves
`The Gonsalves Law firm
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bruce Barker
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
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
