Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: March 30, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`RF CONTROLS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`A-1 PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: March 30, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`RF CONTROLS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`A-1 PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`RF Controls, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 4, Corrected
`Petition (“Pet.”)) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–16 (the
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,001,057 B1 (Ex. 1008, “the ’057
`patent”). See 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. A-1 Packaging Solutions, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “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.” Upon consideration of the Petition and
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determine Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the
`unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. We therefore
`institute an inter partes review as to claim 1. We decline to institute an inter
`partes review as to claims 2–16.
`Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding
`are based on the evidentiary record developed thus far (prior to Patent
`Owner’s Response). This is not a final decision as to patentability of claims
`for which inter partes review is instituted. Our final decision will be based
`on the record as developed fully during trial.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Matters
`Subsequent to the instant Petition, Petitioner also filed a second
`petition for inter partes review of the ’057 patent: RF Controls, LLC v. A-1
`Packaging Solutions, Inc., Case IPR2015-00119 (PTAB).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`
`B. The ’057 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’057 patent relates to a process management system that uses a
`radio frequency identification (RFID) detection system in the form of, for
`example, a phased array antenna based RFID detection system to track and
`manage material storage and flow in a manufacturing process or plant.
`Ex. 1001, Abstract. A block diagram of an exemplary process management
`system is shown in Figure 3 of the ’057 patent, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 3, above:
`[I]nventory and process management or tracking system 10
`include[s] a command system 12 connected to an RFID
`detection and tracking system that includes a network of
`antenna systems 14 (which may be for example, one or more
`electronically steerable phased array antenna systems each
`having multiple antenna elements 24) connected to a processor
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`(not shown) that directs or operates the antennas or elements 24
`. . . and performs RFID detection and tracking.
`
`Id. at 13:66–14:7. “During operation, material inputs and material outputs at
`each stage or region of the manufacturing process 19 are tagged with RFID
`tags 22 for identification and tracking.” Id. at 14:25–28. “The antenna
`systems 14 . . . are used to detect and track the location and movement of the
`RFID tagged material inputs and material outputs and use this tracking
`information to manage the manufacturing process 19 using, for example, the
`controllers 16.” Id. at 14:28–36.
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is independent. Claim 1,
`reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`1.
`An inventory tracking system for use in tracking
`placement of physical items within an inventory tracking
`region, comprising:
`a radio frequency tag detection system including:
`a plurality of radio frequency antennas disposed in a
`spaced apart manner within the inventory tracking
`region; and
`a detection controller coupled to the plurality of radio
`frequency antennas, the detection controller
`including a beam-steering control system that
`controls the operation of each of the radio
`frequency antennas, wherein one of the plurality of
`radio frequency antennas uses a beam to scan a
`portion of the inventory tracking region to detect a
`current physical location of one or more radio
`frequency tags disposed in a scanned portion of the
`inventory tracking region, wherein the current
`physical location corresponds to a position defined
`by two coordinate units in a multidimensional
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`
`coordinate system and the value of each of the two
`coordinate units is determined by the one of the
`plurality of radio frequency antennas, and wherein
`the detection controller generates indications of the
`one or more detected radio frequency tags and the
`current physical locations of the one or more
`detected radio frequency tags in the scanned
`portion within the inventory tracking region; and
`a tracking system coupled to the radio frequency tag detection
`system to receive the indications of the one or more
`detected radio frequency tags and the current physical
`locations of the one or more detected radio frequency
`tags in the scanned portion within the inventory tracking
`region, the tracking system including:
`a memory for storing inventory item information for each
`of a plurality of inventory items, the inventory
`item information for each of the plurality of
`inventory items including an inventory item radio
`frequency tag identifier, inventory item
`identification information defining the identity of
`the inventory item, and an indication of the current
`physical location of the inventory item within the
`inventory tracking region; and
`an access system that accesses the memory and provides
`at least a subset of the inventory item information
`for one or more of the inventory items to a user for
`determining the current physical location of the
`one or more of the inventory items within the
`inventory tracking region,
`wherein the tracking system updates the indication of the
`current physical location of at least one particular
`inventory item within the inventory tracking region as
`stored in the memory for the at least one particular
`inventory item based on the indication of the current
`physical location of the one or more detected radio
`frequency tags for at the least one particular inventory
`item as produced by the detection controller.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`
`D. Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner’s patentability challenges are based on the following
`references:
`
`Reference
`Subramanian
`
`Patent/Printed Publication
`US 2013/0049925 A1
`
`Hofer
`
`Bloy
`
`Husak
`
`Takaku
`
`
`
`US 8,493,182 B2
`
`WO 2009/035723 A1
`
`US 7,667,575 B2
`
`US 2007/0046439 A1
`
`Exhibit
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Patent Owner asserts “[t]he Petition is fatally flawed because it
`provides no declaratory evidence of any kind.” Prelim. Resp. 5. Patent
`Owner is correct that “[t]he Board expects that most petitions and motions
`will rely upon affidavits of experts.” Prelim. Resp. 4 (quoting Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012)).
`Especially in complex cases where obviousness is asserted as a ground of
`unpatentability, “expert testimony may be critical, for example, to establish
`the existence of certain features in the prior art or the existence (or lack
`thereof) of a motivation to combine references.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231, 1240 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). But expert
`testimony is not a per se requirement—where the technology is simple,
`where the references are easily understandable without the need for expert
`explanatory testimony, or where the factual inquiries underlying the
`obviousness determination are not in material dispute, expert testimony,
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`though it might be helpful, may not be indispensable. Allergan, Inc. v. Barr
`Labs., Inc., 501 F. App’x 965, 972 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (nonprecedential).
`Therefore, we reject a bright-line rule requiring expert testimony analyzing
`unpatentability for all petitions for inter partes review.
`At this stage of the proceedings, Petitioner has provided sufficient
`evidence and we understand the prior art disclosures without guidance of an
`expert.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the ’057 patent claims based
`on the following grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`Subramanian
`
`Hofer
`
`Husak
`
`Any combination of
`Subramanian, Hofer, and
`Husak
`Any combination of
`Subramanian, Hofer, and
`Husak with Takaku
`
`
`
`
`Basis
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1–7, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1–7, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16
`
`8, 9, 12, and 14
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent. See 37
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., No. 2014-1301,
`2015 WL 448667, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 04, 2015). Petitioner and Patent
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`Owner offer respective constructions for several claim terms. See Pet. 5–13;
`Prelim. Resp. 6–11. For purposes of this decision, we determine the only
`claim language requiring express construction is the term “antenna,” recited
`in independent claim 1.
`Petitioner contends the term “antenna” should be interpreted as
`meaning “a phased array antenna comprising a plurality of antenna
`elements.” Pet. 6–11. Petitioner admits that “the usage within the [’]057
`patent at times indicates that an antenna means both an antenna system
`comprising a plurality of antenna elements, and an individual antenna element
`in such a system.” Id. at 6–7 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:27-33, 15:55-56, 16:9-12,
`16:22-26). In support of its proposed interpretation of “antenna,” Petitioner
`argues the written description in the ’057 patent does not disclose
`sufficiently or enable “an individual antenna element within an array
`detecting the physical location of an RFID tag and determining the value of
`two coordinate units.” Id. at 7. We cannot consider a challenge to the
`claims as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first or second paragraph,
`because it exceeds the scope of inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).
`Petitioner asserts, without citation, that, nonetheless, we “may and should
`construe the claim language to avoid interpretations which would invalidate
`the claims under § 112.” Id. at 7 n.1.
`In an inter partes proceeding there is no presumption of validity,
`therefore, we will not be applying a rule of construction with an aim to
`preserve the validity of claims. Case SAP v. Versata, slip opinion at 17
`(PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 70). Thus, we decline to consider Petitioner’s
`arguments regarding enablement or written description as they relate to
`claim construction at pages 7–10 of the Petition.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s proposed definition of “antenna”
`is based on an erroneous contention that the specification is limited to phase
`array antenna systems. See Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Patent Owner argues
`because the specification teaches that the antenna system may include one
`antenna element or multiple antenna elements, applying the narrow
`interpretation of the term antenna of only the specific type of phased array
`antennas sold by the Petitioner, as suggested in the Petition, would be
`improper. Id. at 8. Patent Owner suggests the term “antenna” be interpreted
`in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. In support of its
`proposed interpretation of “antenna,” Patent Owner relies on portions of the
`specification that describe many options for the antenna and phased array
`systems as only one example of an antenna according to the invention. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1008, 14:8–14, 28–30, 18:19-24). Patent Owner also relies on
`Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2002 but does not include an
`excerpt from the dictionary as an exhibit. Id. At issue here is whether
`“antenna” includes a phase array antenna system. Both parties appear to
`concede at least this point. See Pet. 6–11; Prelim. Resp. 7–8.
`We do not find that a specific definition of antenna is necessary for
`the purpose of this decision. Nonetheless, we agree with Patent Owner that
`the intrinsic evidence supports an interpretation of the claim term “antenna”
`as meaning, inter alia, a single antenna. On the record before us, and for
`purposes of this decision, however, we are persuaded that one of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand the term “antenna,” when used in the claims
`as singular, refers to a single antenna. Thus, for the purpose of this decision,
`we find one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “one of the
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`plurality of radio frequency antennas” may refer to a single antenna such as
`a phase array antenna.
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`A. Anticipation of Claim 1 by Hofer
`1. Hofer (Ex. 1007)
`Hofer further discloses that each steerable phased array antenna
`module comprises an “RFID reader module 16 [which] directs an
`interrogation signal to and receives corresponding signals from the steerable
`phased array antenna 18” as well as a “beam steering unit 12 under the
`control of a location processor 14.” Ex. 1007, 2:46–50, 2:50–57. Hofer
`further discloses that “[a]n output 36 of the location processor comprises the
`tag identifier, time stamp and three dimensional location of the associated
`RFID tag.” Ex. 1007, 3:15–17. “Hofer generally describes that the steerable
`phased array antenna system scans a volume, detects RFID tags, and gathers
`data sets associated with each detected RFID which are processed by a
`location processor to derive the three-dimensional position of each detected
`RFID tag.” Pet. 25–26 (emphasis deleted) (citing Ex. 1007, 3:8–12, 30–33,
`44–49, 56–58.) “Hofer further discloses that the data sets include the values
`of the two angular dimensions of a polar coordinate system (phi and theta),
`which are provided by the beam steering unit, and the value of the third
`coordinate (distance or range of the tag from the antenna) is derived from
`other data in the data set using a phase ranging algorithm.” Id. at 26
`(emphases deleted) (citing Ex. 1007, 3:8–17, 30-33, 4:1–5:44). Hofer
`further discloses that "[a]n output 36 of the location processor comprises the
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`tag identifier, time stamp and three dimensional location of the associated
`RPID tag.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 3:15–17).
`Hofer purports to incorporate by reference the tracking system
`described in Bloy (Ex. 1008). Ex. 1007, 1:11–29. “To incorporate material
`by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity
`what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that
`material is found in the various documents.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v.
`Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282–83 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Whether a
`patent describes material to be incorporated by reference with sufficient
`particularity is assessed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
`the art. Id. at 1283. Hofer recites:
`Commonly owned PCT Patent Application Publication
`WO 2009/035723, titled "Radio Frequency Signal Acquisition
`and Source Location System" by Bloy et al published Mar. 19,
`2009, hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, discloses
`a real-time RFID location system that utilizes an Intelligent
`Tracking and Control System (ITCS) coupled to one or more
`intelligent scanning antenna Signal Acquisition and Source
`Location (SASL) modules (an ITCS installation) to enable the
`accurate 3-dimensionallocation of RFID tags arbitrarily placed
`and/or moving through a defined target area (volume). Touch
`free Identification, location and/or tracking systems such as the
`ITCS object identification systems disclosed in WO
`2009/035723 enable the identification and location of tags
`and/or tagged items, attributing significance to the appearance,
`disappearance, location or co-location of tags or tagged items
`and thereby facilitating better business process decisions.
`
`Ex. 1007, 1:11–29. Given this text from Hofer, we find the citations to Bloy
`relied on by Petitioner properly are incorporated by reference.
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner provides citations, as detailed above, to Hofer that
`correspond to the radio frequency antennas and detection controller recited
`in claim 1. Pet. 25–26. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Hofer’s phased
`array antenna is a single antenna that meets the limitation to a location “one
`of the plurality of radio frequency antennas,” recited in claim 1. Patent
`Owner appears to agree that Hofer discloses a single antenna. Patent Owner
`discusses “the Hofer/Bloy single phased array antenna” and refers to the
`Hofer reference as a “single antenna reference.” Prelim Resp. at 31, 32.
`Nonetheless, Patent Owner argues “[n]either Hofer nor Bloy is
`directed towards inventory management using RFID tags, or even inventory
`management of any kind, but instead deal with general methods of locating
`RFID tags.” Id. at 21. To anticipate, a prior art reference need not come
`from the same field or have the same intended function as the patent-in-suit.
`In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“Schreiber”). In
`Schreiber, for example, the Federal Circuit held that prior art disclosing a
`container with a conical top for dispensing liquids anticipated a patent for a
`container with a conical top for dispensing popcorn. Id. (“It is well settled
`that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a
`claim to that old product patentable.”). We note that, with respect to
`inventory tracking, the body of the claim refers only to an “inventory
`tracking region” (an area where tag detection occurs) and an “inventory
`item” with associated “inventory item information” (data to be stored and
`displayed). Additionally, Bloy does state that the invention provides
`tracking that may be useful to identify movement related to inventory
`tracking. Ex. 1008, 23–24 (Bloy at 21–22). Thus, we are persuaded, on this
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`record, that Hofer (with Bloy) is directed at least in part to inventory
`management.
`Petitioner states that “the remaining elements of independent claim 1
`[i.e., the tracking system and access system limitations] recite little more
`than generic computer hardware performing generic computer operations
`and add no patentable weight to independent claim 1,” citing to Alice Corp.
`Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (“Alice”). Pet. 27.
`Petitioner’s citation to Alice appears to conflate subject matter eligibility
`issues with issues related to anticipation such as affording patentable weight
`to a limitation. In any event, we will give patentable weight to the allegedly
`generic computer operations recited in the tracking system and access
`system limitations. Nonetheless, we also find that the inventory tracking
`aspect of those limitations is an intended use in the claim. In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d at 1477.
`We also find that the specific recitation of “inventory item
`identification information defining the identity of the inventory item, and an
`indication of the current physical location of the inventory item”—upon
`which the generic computer operations are performed—is non-functional
`descriptive material related to the RFID tag which lacks patentable weight.
`Whether the recited “inventory item information” is related to an item of
`inventory does not affect the operations of the “access” or “tracking”
`limitations, rather the information is simply stored and provided to a user. In
`re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381,
`1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (holding when descriptive material is not functionally
`related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the
`invention from the prior art in terms of patentability). It is the RFID tag that
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`has a functional relationship to the limitations of the claim, i.e. a fair reading
`of the claim reveals that the location of the inventory item is commensurate
`with the location of the RFID tag such that it is the RFID tag’s location
`which is detected and updated in claim 1.
`Given the discussion above, we examine Bloy with an understanding
`of the patentable weight to be afforded the inventory tracking aspects of the
`claim. As noted above, Bloy is directed at least in part to inventory
`management. In addition, we look to Petitioner’s citations to Bloy that
`allegedly disclose the tracking system and access system limitations recited
`in claim 1. Pet., App. C, 7–10. We are persuaded, on this record, by those
`citations. Thus, upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting
`evidence, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a
`reasonable likelihood it would prevail with respect to claim 1, on the ground
`that these claims are anticipated by Hofer (with Bloy).
`
`
`B. Anticipation of Claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16 by
`Subramanian
`1. Subramanian (Ex. 1006)
`Subramanian discloses an adjustable-orientation RFID tag reader
`system and method wherein one or more RFID antennas are disposed within
`a controlled interior area and operated using a computer, and the antennas
`scan and detect RFID tags in the controlled area and maintain and update
`data about the tags in an external computer system. Ex. 1006 ¶ 12.
`2. Analysis
`Below we discuss independent claim 1, from which all other
`dependent claims challenged in this ground depend. Claim 1 recites
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`“detect[ing] a current physical location of one or more radio frequency tags
`disposed in a scanned portion of the inventory tracking region, wherein the
`current physical location corresponds to a position defined by two
`coordinate units in a multidimensional coordinate system and the value of
`each of the two coordinate units is determined by the one of the plurality of
`radio frequency antennas.”
`Petitioner asserts that Subramanian’s disclosure that a “geometric
`analysis . . . using the angular orientation data for the RFID tag and the
`known physical location of the RFID tag reader system 300 to determine, at
`least, a direction in which antenna 314 was pointing at the time when RFID
`tag was detected by the RFID tag reader system 300” meets the above
`limitation. Pet. 20–21 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 51). We are not persuaded by
`Petitioner’s argument or cited disclosure.
`Patent Owner argues “the starting point of an angle (the location of
`Subramanian’s system), and the value of an angle (e.g. 30 degrees) . . .
`provides nothing more than an infinite range of possible locations of the
`RFID tag.” Prelim. Resp. 14. We agree. Petitioner does not explain
`sufficiently how Subramanian provides a physical location of a tag using one
`antenna rather than a general area based on an angle at which the RFID
`reader was directed. See id.
`Anticipation requires the disclosure in a single prior art reference of
`each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim.
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
`F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We are not persuaded Petitioner has
`shown sufficiently that Subramanian discloses the limitations to “detect[ing]
`a current physical location of one or more radio frequency tags disposed in a
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`scanned portion of the inventory tracking region, wherein the current
`physical location corresponds to a position defined by two coordinate units
`in a multidimensional coordinate system and the value of each of the two
`coordinate units is determined by the one of the plurality of radio frequency
`antennas,” as recited in independent claim 1.
`Thus, upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence,
`we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable
`likelihood it would prevail with respect to claim 1, or claims 2–7, 10, 11, 13,
`15, and 16 that depend ultimately from claim 1, on the ground that these
`claims are anticipated by Subramanian.
`C. Anticipation of Claim 1 by Husak
`1. Husak (Ex. 1009)
`Husak discloses a “system and method of determining locations of
`one or more RFID tags within an RFID environment. The system includes a
`plurality of RFID readers, each operative to transmit and receive RF signals
`for scanning a tag disposed within an RF coverage region.” Ex. 1009,
`Abstract.
`
`2. Analysis
`Claim 1 recites “detect[ing] a current physical location of one or more
`radio frequency tags disposed in a scanned portion of the inventory tracking
`region, wherein the current physical location corresponds to a position
`defined by two coordinate units in a multidimensional coordinate system and
`the value of each of the two coordinate units is determined by the one of the
`plurality of radio frequency antennas.”
`Petitioner asserts that Husak’s disclosure of “tag location
`virtualization” discloses this limitation. Pet. 29. Specifically, Petitioner
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`argues that in Husak “location of each tag within the RFID environment is
`[determined] using a detected tag identifier, the mapping of the tag data to a
`plurality of segments, and the mapping of the segments to the predefined
`locations within the environment.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1009, 33:9–13).
`Petitioner asserts “the ‘segments’ are portions of RFID interrogation zones,
`and thus correspond to a 2- or 3-dimensional volume or area.” Id. (citing Ex.
`1009, 50, 34–46. Petitioner argues “[t]he ‘mapping of the tag data’ thus
`comprises determining a location in a 2- or 3-dimensional coordinate
`system.” Id. (citing, Ex. 1009, 52:63–67). We are not persuaded by
`Petitioner’s argument or cited disclosure.
`Patent Owner argues Husak describes the overall process as matching
`a tag to the reader that detected it. Prelim. Resp. 24. (citing Ex. 1009,
`35:50–36:4 (“The tag data collected by each reader from each tag within its
`interrogation zone includes a first identifier identifying the tag and a second
`identifier identifying the reader.”). Petitioner does not explain sufficiently
`how Husak provides a current physical location of a tag rather than an
`identification of the area in which the tag is found based on predefined
`“zones” or “segments.” See Prelim. Resp. 14.
`Anticipation requires the disclosure in a single prior art reference of
`each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim.
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
`F.2d at 1458. We are not persuaded Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`Husak discloses the limitations to “detect[ing] a current physical location of
`one or more radio frequency tags disposed in a scanned portion of the
`inventory tracking region, wherein the current physical location corresponds
`to a position defined by two coordinate units in a multidimensional
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`coordinate system and the value of each of the two coordinate units is
`determined by the one of the plurality of radio frequency antennas,” as
`recited in claim 1.
`Thus, upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence,
`we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable
`likelihood it would prevail with respect to claim 1 on the ground that the
`claim is anticipated by Husak.
`D. Obviousness of Claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16 over any
`combination of Subramanian, Hofer, Husak, and/or common
`knowledge in the art
`Petitioner contends claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16 would have been
`obvious over any combination of Subramanian, Hofer, Husak, and/or
`common knowledge in the art. Pet. 36–39.
`With respect to the motivation to combine the references, Petitioner
`contends:
`The reason to combine with respect to Petitioner’s patent
`portfolio is manifest, as [’]057 itself explains that the antennas
`which are the subject of its claims are the antennas sold by
`Petitioner, and [’]057 goes so far as to incorporate by reference
`a carefully selected patent belonging to Petitioner. As to
`Subramanian, Patent Owner provided the rationale in the
`prosecution of [’]057, in that Patent Owner claimed in its Office
`Action response that Subramanian is incapable of pinpointing
`location unless a plurality of antennas are used. While this is a
`clear mischaracterization of Subramanian, it is also a rationale
`to combine. One of ordinary skill in the art would simply use
`Hofer/Bloy’s phased array antennas, which are capable of
`pinpointing location without a plurality of antennas for the
`purpose of overcoming the asserted shortcoming of
`Subramanian or Husak. See, e.g., MPEP § 2143 (simple
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`predictable results is a sufficient rationale to support a
`conclusion of obviousness).
`Id. at 36–37 (emphases deleted).
`Petitioner does not assert that Subramanian provides any motivation
`for modifying its teachings with those of the secondary references, and
`Petitioner provides no explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art
`would look to any other reference for missing elements. Instead, Petitioner
`points to the following: (1) citations from the specification in which the
`applicant describes the invention; and (2) arguments made by the applicant
`during prosecution. Id. “The inventor's own path itself never leads to a
`conclusion of obviousness; that is hindsight. What matters is the path that
`the person of ordinary skill in the art would have followed, as evidenced by
`the pertinent prior art.” Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d
`1280, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`As to whether the combination would be a “simple substitution,” the
`Federal Circuit explains, “[a]lthough predictability is a touchstone of
`obviousness, the ‘predictable result’ discussed in KSR refers not only to the
`expectation that prior art elements are capable of being physically combined,
`but also that the combination would have worked for its intended purpose.”
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
`Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why, or identified evidence that
`shows, the invention described in the ’057 patent falls into a very predictable
`field, or that one of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed the
`requisite skills to make the proposed combination, or that one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have anticipated reasonably the combination to
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01536
`Patent 8,690,057 B2
`
`function in an ordinary and expected way. See Rothman v. Target Corp.,
`556 F.3d 1310, 1319–20 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`Finally, notably absent from Petitioner’s argument is an explanation
`of how the teachings of Subramanian, Hofer, and Husak might be combined
`to arrive at the claimed invention, e.g., by combining and applying specific
`teachings of Subramanian, Hofer, and Husak to account for all the features
`of the challenged claims. See ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon
`Commc'ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`We acknowledge that we instituted on Hofer but the ground based on
`obviousness requires making a combination we decline to make.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently a
`motivation to combine Subramanian, Hofer, and/or Husak, and for the
`above-stated reasons, on this record, we determine Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood it would prevail on the ground that
`claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16 would hav
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
