`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`5 71—272—7822
`
`I
`
`Paper 16
`Entered: August 31, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`E—WATCH, INC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015—00413
`
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge;
`
`DECISION
`
`On Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42. 7]
`
`(cid:36)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)
`Apple Inc.
`Exh. 1011
`Petitioner: Apple Ina/Patent Owner: E-Watch, Inc.
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:90)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:16)(cid:58)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`|PR2015-00412
`
`Exh. 1 O1 1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00413
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`Petitioner requests rehearing of the Board's Decision declining to institute
`
`Introduction
`
`trial in this proceeding. Paper 14 ("Req. Rehg.").
`
`Discussion
`
`Petitioner requests rehearing because the Board allegedly
`
`(1) "misapprehended the broadest reasonable construction of the term 'select[ing]
`
`... the image,"' and (2) misapprehended the disclosure of the asserted prior art
`
`references. Req. Rehg. 1. Both reasons, in the absence of the Board's having
`
`misapprehended or overlooked an assertion by Petitioner, merely reflect
`
`disagreement with the Board's conclusion or determination. As such, they are an
`
`inappropriate basis for a rehearing request, which is not an opportunity to make
`
`further briefmg before the Board. Petitioner does not identifY any argument or
`
`assertion in the Petition that was misapprehended or overlooked.
`
`No further discussion is necessary. Nevertheless, we make several
`
`a~ditional points·. First, we correct a misstatement by Petitioner of our claim
`
`construction. According to Petitioner, the Board interpreted the various selecting
`
`limitations as requiring a selection from two or more images. Req. Rehg. 1-2,4-7.
`
`That is incorrect. Note the following statement from the Decision: "But that does
`
`not cure the deficiency discussed above, in the context of limitation 1 G), regarding
`
`the selection of an already generated or digitized image." Paper 13, 19 (emphasis
`
`added). In that regard, note further that limitation 1 G) requires the already
`
`generated image to be selected for "viewing" as well as for transmission, and that
`
`with regard to a similar limitation in claim 12, i.e., limitation 12(e), we stated:
`
`The cited text is not sufficiently on point, relative to the limitation that
`one or more stored images are selectable from memory for display.
`Instead, the image output from camera module 68 simply may be sent
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00413
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`both to the display and the memory. In that regard, Apple does not
`provide an adequate explanation.
`Paper 13, 19 (emphases added). Thus, taking a picture does not meet the
`
`requirement of selecting an already generated image for viewing or display.
`
`Second, Petitioner believes because we instituted a challenge based on a
`
`continuation application ofthe application that issued as Parulski in IPR2014-
`
`00439based on a petition filed by another petitioner, we must do the same here.
`
`That also is incorrect. No final determination was made in the other proceeding,
`
`which has terminated. We must assess this Petition based on the arguments and
`
`evidence made herein without regard to the other proceeding.
`
`Third, Petitioner presents this new argument on page 11 of the rehearing
`
`request: "Any use of the keypad in a transmit mode, as opposed to an image
`
`capture mode, requires that the user select an 'already generated' image data signal
`
`for viewing or transmission." Petitioner provides no citation to indicate where this
`
`contention was made in the Petition. It is inappropriate in a rehearing request.
`
`Fourth, Petitioner asserts in the rehearing request that its Petition had
`
`asserted that Umezawa discloses limitations 1G), 6(n), and 12(e). Req. Rehg. 13.
`
`That is incorrect. The cited portions of the Petition, i.e., pages 44-45 and 48--49,
`
`indicate only that to the extent Patent Owner would argue that Parulski does not
`
`teach the "framing feature" or "framing aspect" of the claims, Umezawa discloses
`
`the framing limitation, to combine with the disclosure from Parulski, not that
`
`Umezawa itself discloses limitations 1 G), 6(n), and 12( e).
`
`Fifth, contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the Board made no determination in
`
`IPR2015-00412 about Parulski or Parulski in combination with Umezawa.
`
`The request for rehearing is denied.
`
`Conclusion
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00413
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Brian Buroker
`Blair Silver
`Gibs on, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`b buroker@gibsondunn.com
`bsilver@gibsondunn.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`Robert C. Curfiss
`bob@curfiss.com
`
`David 0. Simmons
`IVC Patent Agency
`dsimmons 1 @sbcglobal.net
`
`4
`
`