` Entered: July 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`E-WATCH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00612
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00612
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1–
`
`15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,365,871 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’871 patent”). e-Watch,
`
`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 be authorized only if “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). Upon
`
`consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine
`
`that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`
`showing the unpatentability of any of claims 1–15 of the ’871 patent.
`
`Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review for any of these
`
`challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The ’871 patent is involved in eleven co-pending district court cases
`
`that have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
`
`of Texas. Pet. 49–50; Paper 6, 2–3. The ’871 patent is the subject of a
`
`petition previously filed by Petitioner in IPR2015-00541. Id. The ’871
`
`patent also is the subject of IPR2014-00439 (terminated), IPR2014-00987,
`
`IPR2015-00402, IPR2015-00404, IPR2015-00406, IPR2015-00411,
`
`IPR2015-00412, IPR201-00413, and IPR2015-0610. Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00612
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`B. The ’871 Patent
`
`The ’871 patent relates generally to “image capture and transmission
`
`systems and is specifically directed to an image capture, compression, and
`
`transmission system for use in connection with land line and wireless
`
`telephone systems.” Ex. 1001, 1:17–20. According to the ’871 patent, the
`
`system “is particularly well suited for sending and/or receiving images via a
`
`standard Group III facsimile transmission system and permits capture of the
`
`image at a remote location using an analog or digital camera.” Id. at 5:3–6.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’871 patent is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a basic facsimile camera configuration for
`
`capturing an image via a camera and transmitting it via Group III facsimile
`
`transmission to a standard hard copy medium. Id. at 4:27–30.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00612
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`Figure 7A of the ’871 patent is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 7A depicts “a hand[-]held device for capturing, storing, and
`
`transmitting an image in accordance with the invention.” Id. at 4:46–48,
`
`
`
`11:3–20.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 6, 9, and 12 are independent.
`
`Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`
`telephone and
`A handheld self-contained cellular
`1.
`integrated image processing system for both sending and
`receiving telephonic audio signals and for capturing a visual
`image and transmitting it to a compatible remote receiving
`station of a wireless telephone network, the system comprising:
`
`a manually portable housing;
`
`an integral image capture device comprising an electronic
`camera contained within the portable housing;
`
`a display for displaying an image framed by the camera,
`the display being supported by the housing, the display and the
`electronic camera being commonly movable in the housing
`when the housing is moved by hand;
`
`a processor in the housing for generating an image data
`signal representing the image framed by the camera;
`
`a memory associated with the processor for receiving and
`storing the digitized framed image, accessible for selectively
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00612
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`displaying in the display window and accessible for selectively
`transmitting over the wireless telephone network the digitized
`framed image;
`
`a user interface for enabling a user to select the image
`data signal for viewing and transmission;
`
`a telephonic system in the housing for sending and
`receiving digitized audio signals and for sending the image data
`signal;
`
`alphanumeric input keys in the housing for permitting
`manually input digitized alphanumeric signals to be input to the
`processor, the telephonic system further used for sending the
`digitized alphanumeric signals;
`
`for
`adapted
`communications device
`a wireless
`transmitting any of the digitized signals to the compatible
`remote receiving station; and
`
`a power supply for powering the system.
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:4915:13.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies on Int. Pub. Pat. App. WO 99/035818 (Ex. 1002,
`
`“Monroe”). Pet. 7.
`
`E. The Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–15 of the ’871 patent are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Monroe. Pet. 7.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`First, we review the status of Monroe as prior art against the ’871
`
`patent. Monroe was published on July 15, 1999. Ex. 1002, at [43]. The
`
`’871 patent issued from Application 10/336,470, filed on January 3, 2003
`
`(“the child ’470 application”), and is a divisional application of Application
`
`09/006,073 (“the parent ’073 application”), filed on January 12, 1998.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00612
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, at [21], [22], [62]. If Monroe is not prior art with respect to the
`
`claims of the ’871 patent, then we would not institute an inter partes review
`
`in this proceeding because the only ground of unpatentability asserted by
`
`Petitioner is based on Monroe.
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that the claims of the ’871 patent are not entitled
`
`to the earlier filing date of the parent ’073 application under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 120, not because any claim is without written description support or
`
`enabling disclosure in the parent ’073 application, but because of lack of co-
`
`pendency between the child ’470 application and the parent ’073 application.
`
`Pet. 5–6, 10–20. According to Petitioner, because the ’871 patent is not
`
`entitled to the 1998 filing date of the parent ’073 application, Monroe, with
`
`its publication date in 1999, constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) to
`
`the claims of the ’871 patent, filed on January 3, 2003. Pet. 5.
`
`
`
`Had Petitioner’s argument been that the parent ’073 application does
`
`not support the subject matter of the challenged claims, and had Petitioner
`
`identified specific claim limitations in that regard, Patent Owner would have
`
`to show that the challenged claims are entitled to the earlier effective filing
`
`date of the parent ’073 application. Here, however, Petitioner asserts only
`
`lack of co-pendency between the parent ’073 application and the child ’470
`
`application. Moreover, Petitioner asserts lack of co-pendency in a manner
`
`that amounts to a collateral attack on a petition decision, in 2003, of an
`
`official of the Patent and Trademark Office regarding the status of the parent
`
`’073 application.
`
`
`
`Specifically, the parent ’073 application was abandoned for failure of
`
`the Applicant to file a timely response to an Office Action mailed August
`
`29, 2000, and a Notice of Abandonment, notifying the Applicant of that
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00612
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`circumstance, was mailed on April 10, 2001. Ex. 1003, 595–97. The child
`
`’470 application was filed on January 3, 2003, together with a petition to
`
`revive the parent ’073 application (“Petition to Revive Parent ’073
`
`Application”) on the basis of “unintentional abandonment.” Ex. 1003, 598–
`
`99, 602. The Petition to Revive Parent ’073 Application was granted on
`
`March 11, 2003. Ex. 1003, 603–04. Revival of the parent ’073 application,
`
`thus, provided the co-pendency between the parent ’073 application and the
`
`child ’470 application to permit the ’871 patent to have the benefit of the
`
`earlier filing date of the parent ’073 application, i.e., January 12, 1998.1
`
`
`
`According to Petitioner, the parent ’073 application was
`
`“purposefully” abandoned on March 1, 2001, and, thus, the parent ’073
`
`application should not have been revived, by way of the Petition to Revive,
`
`as “unintentionally” abandoned. Pet. 11, 17–19. Petitioner asserts that the
`
`granting, on March 11, 2003, of the Petition to Revive Parent ’073
`
`Application was incorrect. Pet. 14.
`
`
`
`Petitioner has not identified proper jurisdiction or authority of the
`
`Board either (1) to review and overturn the March 11, 2003, decision of the
`
`Patent and Trademark Office on the Petition to Revive Parent ’073
`
`Application, or (2) to ignore that decision and make our own determination
`
`on whether the parent ’073 application should have been revived on the
`
`basis of “unintentional” abandonment. In that connection, Petitioner states:
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board has the
`
`authority to evaluate evidence and render decisions on factual
`
`
`1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 120, “An application for patent for an invention
`disclosed . . . in an application previously filed in the United States . . . shall
`have the same effect . . . as though filed on the date of the prior application,
`if filed before the patenting or abandonment of . . . the first application. . . .”
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00612
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`and legal issues involving priority claims and the status of a
`reference as prior art in instituting the instant Petition. See,
`e.g., IPR2014-00439, Paper 16, pp. 5-8 (where the Board
`rendered a decision on the insufficiency of an inventor affidavit
`as to diligence in reduction to practice during prosecution
`(which impacted the alleged invention date) and made an
`associated determination as to the availability of a reference as
`prior art).
`
`Pet. 5–6. The contention is misplaced.
`
`
`
`Not all issues having an impact on determination of
`
`patentability are the same. Where the issue is the status of an applied
`
`reference as prior art, viewed in light of a patent owner’s effort to
`
`antedate the date of the reference, as in the case of IPR2014-00439,
`
`we can review the evidence submitted to show a date of invention
`
`prior to the date of the reference. That issue is substantive and central
`
`to the merit of the patentability determination. On the other hand,
`
`where the issue is the status of an application as abandoned or
`
`revived, the matter is procedural and not central to the substantive
`
`merit of a patentability determination. We have jurisdiction to review
`
`and determine the former, not the latter. PTO revival actions are no
`
`more subject to third party challenge in an inter partes review than
`
`they are under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See Exela
`
`Pharma Sciences, LLC v. Lee, 781 F.3d 1349, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(“PTO revival actions are not subject to third party challenge under
`
`the APA.”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that the parent ’073 application was
`
`revived from abandonment to pending status on March 11, 2003.
`
`That fact may not be changed or undone by any decision of the Board
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00612
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`in this proceeding. Consequently, Petitioner has not identified any
`
`matter that needs to be addressed or otherwise accounted for by Patent
`
`Owner, in this proceeding, with regard to according the challenged
`
`claims of the ’871 patent the earlier filing date of the parent ’073
`
`application.
`
`
`
`The unchangeable fact is that the child ’470 application was
`
`filed on January 3, 2003, and that the parent ’073 application was, on
`
`March 11, 2003, revived from abandonment, and, thus, there was the
`
`necessary co-pendency between the parent ’073 application and the
`
`child ’470 application to accord the latter the filing date of the former.
`
`
`
`Because Monroe was published on July 15, 1999, and because
`
`Petitioner asserts only a lack of co-pendency between the parent ’073
`
`application and the child ’470 application as the basis for not
`
`according the challenged claims a priority date of January 12, 1998,
`
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Monroe constitutes prior art
`
`to any challenged claim of the ’871 patent.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of
`
`claims 1–15 of the ’871 patent on any alleged ground of unpatentability.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
`
`the ’871 patent; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00612
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Steven L. Park
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`stevenpark@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert C. Curfiss
`David O. Simmons
`bob@curfiss.com
`dsimmons@sbcglobal.net
`
`
`
`10