Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
`
`
` Entered: June 22, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
`
`
` Entered: June 22, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, filed a
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 21–24, 26–29, 52–56,
`and 58–60 of U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’313 patent”).
`Paper 2 (“Pet.”). In response, Patent Owner, Aplix IP Holdings Corporation,
`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 . . . the information presented in the
`petition . . . 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.”
`For the reasons set forth below, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 21–24, 26–29, 52–56, and 58–60 of the ’313 patent.
`
`
`A. Related Matter
`The ’313 patent is involved in the following lawsuit: Aplix IP
`Holdings Corporation v. Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. et al.,
`No. 1:14-cv-12745 (MLW) (D. Mass.). Pet. 59–60.
`
`
`B. The ’313 Patent
`The ’313 patent relates to hand-held electronic devices, such as cell
`phones, personal digital assistants (“PDAs”), pocket personal computers,
`smart phones, hand-held game devices, bar-code readers, remote controls
`having a keypad or one or more input elements. Ex. 1001, 1:5–11; 7:7–11.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`The hand-held device includes, on one surface, one or more software
`configurable input elements that can be manipulated by a user’s thumb(s) or
`stylus, and on the other surface, one or more software configurable selection
`elements that can be manipulated by a user’s finger(s). Id. at Abstract.
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 21 and 52 are the only independent
`claims. Claims 22–24 and 26–29 depend either directly or indirectly from
`claim 21 and claims 53–56 and 58–60 depend either directly or indirectly
`from claim 52.
`Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative.
`21. A method for configuring a human interface and input
`system for use with a hand-held electronic device configured to
`run a plurality of applications, each application associated with
`a set of functions, the method comprising:
`disposing on a first surface a first input assembly having
`a plurality of input elements configured to receive input from a
`human user through manipulation of the plurality of input
`elements, wherein at least one of the input elements of the first
`input assembly is further configured to map to more than one
`input function associated with a selected one of the plurality of
`applications;
`disposing on a second surface a second input assembly
`having one or more
`input elements configured
`to be
`manipulated by one or more of the human user’s fingers,
`wherein at least one of the input elements of the second input
`assembly is further configured to selectively map to one or
`more of the input functions associated with the selected
`application; and
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`arranging the plurality of input elements of the first input
`assembly and the one or more input elements of the second
`input assembly to substantially optimize a biomechanical effect
`of the human user’s hand.
`Ex. 1001, 17:50–18:6.
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`Griffin
` US 2003/0020692 A1 Jan. 30, 2003
`Pallakoff
` US 2002/0163504 A1 Nov. 7, 2002
`Liebenow
` US 2002/0118175 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
`Rekimoto
` US 7,088,342 B2
`Aug. 8, 2006
`Armstrong
` US 6,469,691
`
`Oct. 22, 2002
`Hedberg
` WO 99/18495
`
`Apr. 15, 1999
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1003)
`(Ex. 1004)
`(Ex. 1005)
`(Ex. 1006)
`(Ex. 1007)
`(Ex. 1008)
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Challenged Claims
`
` 21, 22, and 52–54
`
` 21, 22, 52–54, and 58
`
` 21–24, 26, 52–56, and
`58
` 21–24, 26, 52–56, and
`58
`
`References
`
`Basis
`§ 102(a)
`and
`§ 102(e)
`§ 102(a)
`and
`§ 102(e)
`§ 103(a) Griffin and Liebenow
`
`Griffin
`
`Pallakoff
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pallakoff and Liebenow
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
` 21–24 and 52–56
`
`§ 103(a) Griffin and Rekimoto
`
`21–24, 26, 52–56, and
`58
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pallakoff and Rekimoto
`
` 21, 22, and 27
`
`§ 103(a) Griffin and Armstrong
`
`21, 22, and 27
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pallakoff and Armstrong
`
` 21,–2, 28, 29, 52–54,
`59, and 60
` 21, 22, 28,–9, 52–54,
`59, and 60
`
`
`
`§ 103(a) Griffin and Hedberg
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pallakoff and Hedberg
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281–1282 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015)
`(“Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
`PTO regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “substantially
`optimize a biomechanical effect of the human user’s hand” (claims 24, and
`56) and “delineated active area,” (claims 21, and 52). Pet. 7–11.
`Specifically, Petitioner proposes that “substantially optimize a
`biomechanical effect of the human user’s hand” must “include any
`configuration designed to take advantage of any biomechanical effect” Id. at
`8. Petitioner also proposes that delineated active areas “must at least include
`areas that are differentiated from each other either physically or tactilely to
`assist the user in locating the position on the sensor pad of the active areas.”
`Id. at 10–11.
`At this juncture, Patent Owner only argues that Petitioner fails to
`demonstrate why construction of the phrase “substantially optimize a
`biomechanical effect of the human user’s hand” is necessary. Id. at 24–26.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposed construction and portions of the
`Specification of the ’313 patent that Petitioner relies on for the proposed
`construction. Based on the record before us at this juncture, we determine
`that Petitioner’s proposed construction of the phrase “substantially optimize
`a biomechanical effect of the human user’s hand” is consistent with the
`broadest reasonable construction, and, therefore, adopt that construction.
`Regarding “delineated active area,” Patent Owner argues that
`Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why the term “delineated active
`area” needs to be construed. Prelim. Resp. 24–26. In addition, Patent
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`Owner argues that Petitioner has submitted an unduly narrow construction
`for “delineated active area.” Prelim. Resp. 26–31.
`For purposes of this decision, we need not construe “delineated active
`area.” Even assuming Petitioner has an unduly narrow construction for
`“delineated active area,” we are persuaded that it has accounted for the
`limitation in the prior art under such construction.
`
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims over Pallakoff and Liebenow
`Petitioner asserts that claims 21–24, 26, 52–56, and 58 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`Pallakoff and Liebenow. Pet. 37. To support its contentions, Petitioner
`provides detailed explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim
`limitation. Id. at 10–30. Petitioner also relies upon a Declaration of
`Dr. Gregory F. Welch, who has been retained as an expert witness by
`Petitioner for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1009.
`Pallakoff teaches a handheld electronic device having “face keys” on
`the front surface and “modifier buttons,” which are also referred to as “side-
`buttons,” on the side or back. Ex. 1004, Abstract, ¶¶ 15, 196, Fig. 1. The
`primary embodiment described in Pallakoff relates to a cellular telephone;
`however, Pallakoff also teaches that the invention could also be applied to a
`PDA or handheld computer. Id. at Abstract, ¶ 16. The handheld device
`includes a processor that runs email, instant messaging, calculator, and web
`browsing applications. Id. ¶¶ 24, 208.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of Pallakoff is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3 above and described in Pallakoff, the user types
`characters or invokes functions by pressing the keys on the front surface
`while simultaneously holding one or more modifier buttons with his or her
`fingers. Ex. 1004 at Abstract. For example, pressing the “2” key alone
`results in a lowercase “a” being input into an application. Id. ¶¶ 17–19, Fig.
`1. Similarly, pressing the “2” key in addition to the “Shift” modifier button
`101 results in an uppercase “A,” pressing the “2” key in addition to the “2nd
`Letter” modifier button 102 results in a lowercase “b,” etc. Id.
`Additionally, Pallakoff discloses that the user holds the device in one
`hand and manipulates the modifier buttons with the fingers of the hand
`holding the device. Id. at Abstract, ¶ 193. In one arrangement, fingers of
`the other hand manipulate the face keys. Id. However, Pallakoff also
`suggests that the user may use the thumb or fingers to manipulate the input
`elements to enable one-handed operation. Id. ¶ 193.
`Pallakoff discloses that specific keys may be mapped to more than
`one function of a particular application. Id. ¶ 322. For example, Pallakoff
`discloses that the “a” face key on the front surface may be mapped to up to
`eight different functions of an e-mail application. Id.
`Liebenow describes an electronic hand-held information appliance
`having a display disposed on a first surface and an input device disposed on
`a second surface opposed to the first surface for inputting information. Ex.
`1005, Abstract. Figure 1 of Liebenow is reproduced below.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Liebenow, digital information appliance 100
`is sized and shaped to be held by a user in both hands. Housing 102 includes
`front surface 104 and back surface. Id. ¶ 25. One or more function keys
`such as 150, 152, and 154 may be mounted on front surface 104 and may be
`manipulated by a user’s thumb. Display 116 may be a touch-screen for
`touch or pen input of information and data. Id. ¶¶ 26, 33. Figure 5 of
`Liebenow is reproduced below.
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 5, back surface may be comprised of one or more
`touch sensitive panels 140. Id. ¶¶ 13, 36. Areas of panel 140 may be
`defined as keys of a keyboard (emulated as an electromechanical keyboard
`seen in Figure 2) so that a user touching the panel (with the user’s fingers,
`for example) within such an area would accomplish actuation of a key. Id.
`In particular, panel 140 may be divided into left and right key ranges 142
`and 144, such that fingers of a user’s left and right hands may be positioned
`over the touch sensitive panel to be in position for typing. Various key
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`configurations may be defined as desired by the user or as required by the
`applications executed by the digital information appliance. Id.
`Liebenow further describes, in connection with the hand-held device,
`a processing system 502 that includes a central processing unit such as a
`microprocessor or microcontroller for executing programs, performing data
`manipulations, and controlling tasks of the hand-held device. Id. ¶¶ 21, 56;
`Fig. 13.
`The present record supports the contention that Pallakoff describes a
`hand-held device with a processor for processing a plurality of applications
`having two or more functions. Pet. 23–28; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 4, 7, 196, 199,
`208. The present record also supports the contention that Pallakoff describes
`the hand-held device to have a first and second input assembly configured to
`map input elements (configured to be manipulated by human fingers) to
`input functions associated with applications as claimed in claims 21 and 52,
`for example. Pet. 28–36; Ex. 1004 (multiple paragraphs cited in petition).
`Petitioner relies on Liebenow for its description of input/output
`system 516, which includes “one or more controllers,” that receives signals
`generated by manipulation of the input elements 130 (that may include touch
`panels), 230, 320, and 416. Pet. 41–42, Ex. 1005 ¶ 62. Specifically,
`Petitioner relies on Liebenow’s one or more controllers to meet the
`limitation of claims 23, 24, 26, 55, 56, and 58 to “connecting a controller to
`the input elements.” Pet. 41–42. Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of incorporating the
`touch panels of Liebenow onto the back surface of the handheld device
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`taught by Pallakoff. Pet. 40–41, Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 51–54. Petitioner concludes
`that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that modifying
`Pallakoff to include the input/output system 516 of Liebenow would have
`been an obvious design variation and would have yielded predictable results.
`Pet. 41; Ex. 1009 ¶ 55.
`Petitioner also accounts for all of the challenged dependent claims.
`Pet. 37–46. Patent Owner argues that, with respect to this ground, the
`Petition does not map any part of Liebenow to claims 21, 22, 52, 53, and 54,
`but rather cites to Pallakoff alone for challenging those claims. Prelim.
`Resp. 5. We are not persuaded by this argument. Patent Owner does not
`make arguments, at this time, regarding the merits of this ground of
`unpatentability against challenged claims 21–24, 26, 52–56, and 58.
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over Pallakoff
`and Liebenow against claims 21–24, 26, 52–56, and 58, and we are
`persuaded, at this juncture of the proceeding, that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claims
`21–24, 26, 52–56, and 58 on this ground.
`We have considered Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition
`improperly incorporates arguments and evidence from the Declaration of
`Dr. Gregory F. Welch into the Petition. Id. at 19–21. We agree that, in
`general, arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one
`document into another document (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)). Here, however,
`Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to incorporation by reference are
`conclusory. Patent Owner’s sole example with respect to the impropriety of
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`incorporation by reference is with respect to the combination of Griffin and
`Liebenow. We do not, however, institute review based on the combination
`of Griffin and Liebenow, and, therefore, we are not persuaded by this one
`example. We have reviewed those portions of Dr. Welch’s Declaration, to
`which we are directed, with respect to the grounds upon which we institute,
`and have determined that there is nothing unusual about his declaration or
`the way in which Petitioner relies on the declaration.
`Lastly, we have considered Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition
`improperly includes argument in the claim charts. Id. at 21–23.
`Specifically, argues that “Petitioner’s claim charts [include] repeated
`characterizations, conclusions, and inferences drawn from the cited prior
`art.” We are not persuaded by this argument. Id. We have reviewed those
`portions of the claim charts, to which we are directed, with respect to the
`grounds upon which we institute, and have determined that the claim charts
`sufficiently are consistent with our rules.
`
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims over Pallakoff and Armstrong
`Petitioner contends that claim 27 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Pallakoff and Armstrong. Pet.
`52–55. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed explanations
`as to how the prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also relies
`upon the Declaration of Dr. Gregory F. Welch for support. Ex. 1009.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`Armstrong teaches a handheld electronic device, such as a
`PDA, with a display and a number of input elements for accepting user
`inputs. Ex. 1007, 2:5–15, 6:4–16.
`Claim 27 depends ultimately from claim 1. Petitioner relies on
`Armstrong for its description of positioning an input element with a
`“resilient dome cap(s) for providing tactile feedback to the finger depressing
`the depressible surface” on a hand-held electronic device. Pet. 52–55, Ex.
`1004, 6:10–14, 9:11–15. Specifically, Petitioner relies on Armstrong’s input
`elements that provide tactile feedback to meet the limitation of claim 27 to
`“a palpable detent with at least one input element . . . so as to provide tactile
`feedback when manipulated by the human user.” Pet. 54–55. Petitioner
`concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
`hand-held device of Pallakoff’s input elements could be replaced with input
`elements that provide tactile feedback, like Armstrong’s input elements, as a
`simple substitution of one known element for another known element. Pet.
`53–54; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 68–69.1 Patent Owner does not make arguments, at this
`time, regarding the merits of this ground of unpatentability against
`challenged claim 27.
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over
`Liebenow and Armstrong against claim 27, and we are persuaded, at this
`juncture of the proceeding, that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`
`1 The petition contains an apparent typographical error on page 54 in that it
`refers to Griffin when it should refer to Pallakoff. We read that portion of
`the petition as if it says Pallakoff.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim 27 on this
`ground.
`
`
`E. Obviousness of Claims over Pallakoff and Hedberg
`Petitioner contends that claims 28, 29, 59, and 60 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Pallakoff and
`Hedberg. Pet. 55–59. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides
`detailed explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim limitation. Id.
`Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Gregory F. Welch for
`support. Ex. 1009.
`Hedberg describes a hand-held display device that includes control
`buttons 3 on the display connected to control circuits, and a gyroscope 6
`incorporated in the display device and connected to the control circuits. Ex.
`1008, Abstract. The display device is responsive to movements in the space
`for displaying an image in different magnification and/or in different parts.
`Id. Hedberg describes that an equilibrium of force accelerometer may be
`used in place of the gyroscope. Id. at 3:26–32.
`Each of claims 28, 29, 59, and 60 depends ultimately from claims 21
`or 52. Each of claims 28, 29, 59, and 60 recites that the hand-held device
`includes an accelerometer or gyroscope.
`Petitioner relies on Hedberg for its description of a gyroscope or
`accelerometer included in a hand-held device. Pet. 55–59. Petitioner
`concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
`addition of a gyroscope and/or an accelerometer would have increased the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`ability to control the Pallakoff hand-held device. Pet. 57; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 72–
`73. Patent Owner does not make arguments, at this time, regarding the
`merits of this ground of unpatentability against challenged claims 28, 29, 59,
`and 60.
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over
`Liebenow and Hedberg against claims 28, 29, 59, and 60, and we are
`persuaded, at this juncture of the proceeding, that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claims
`28, 29, 59, and 60 on this ground.
`
`F. Remaining Grounds Challenging the Claims of the ’313 Patent
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes proceedings
`were promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`rules provide that they are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As a
`result, and in determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a
`patent, the Board, in its discretion, may “deny some or all grounds for
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108(b).
`We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments that the Petition
`improperly presents vertically and horizontally redundant grounds, and as
`such, the Board only should consider one challenge. Prelim. Resp. 7–18.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`Based on the record before us, Patent Owner’s arguments are moot, as we
`exercise our discretion and decline to institute review based on any of the
`other asserted grounds advanced by Petitioner that are not identified below
`as being part of the trial. See, e.g., Pet. 6; 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 21–24, 26–29, 52–56, and
`58–60 of the ’313 patent. At this juncture, we have not made a final
`determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims, nor
`with respect to claim construction.
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, 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)
`21–24, 26, 52–56, and
`58
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pallakoff and Liebenow
`
`27
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pallakoff and Armstrong
`
`28, 29, 59, and 60
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`
`Pallakoff and Hedberg
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Eric A. Buresh
`Abran J. Kean
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`Abran.kean@eriseip.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael Mauriel
`Sherman Kahn
`MAURIEL KAPOUYTIAN WOODS LLP
`mmauriel@mkwllp.com
`skahn@mkwllp.com
`
`Robert Gilbertson
`Sybil Dunlop
`X. Kevin Zhao
`GREENE ESPEL PLLP
`bgilbertson@greeneespel.com
`sdunlop@greeneespel.com
`kzhao@greeneespel.com
`
`kis
`
`20
`
`
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
