`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`
`
` Entered: July 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 IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, filed a
`corrected Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–14, 16–19,
`21–32, and 34–38 of U.S. Patent No. 7,280,097 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’097
`patent”). Paper 4 (“Pet.”). In response, Patent Owner, Aplix IP Holdings
`Corporation, filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 12 (“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 1–14, 16–19, 21–32, and 34–38 of the ’097 patent.
`
`A. Related Matter
`The ’097 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.
`
`B. The ’097 Patent
`The ’097 patent relates to hand-held input acceleration devices that
`interface with electronic devices, such as cell phones, personal digital
`assistants (“PDAs”), pocket personal computers, smart phones, hand-held
`game devices, bar-code readers, MP3 players, and other similar input
`devices having a keypad or one or more input elements. Ex. 1001, 1:11–18.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`The hand-held input acceleration device transfers data bi-directionally with a
`hand-held host device. Id. at Abstract.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1, 16, and 27 are only independent claims. Claims 2–14, 17–
`19, 21–26, 28–32, and 34–38 depend from one of claims 1, 16, and 27.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
`1.
`An input accelerator device for controlling a hand-held
`host device, the input accelerator device comprising:
`a communication channel configured to interface with the
`hand-held host device;
`an input assembly comprising a plurality of input
`elements, each input element being configured to be selectively
`mapped to one or more functions of a software application in
`order to minimize actuation required of at least one input
`element of the hand-held host device; and
`an input controller communicatively coupled to the input
`assembly and the communication channel, the input controller
`being configured to generate an input signal upon actuation of
`at least one of the plurality of input elements and being further
`configured to relay the input signal to the communication
`channel for transmission to the hand-held host device to control
`execution of the one or more functions of the software
`application mapped to the actuated input element.
`
`Ex. 1001, 20:31–50.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Mollinari WO 2004/007041 A2
`Jan. 22, 2004
`(Ex. 1003)
`Nishiumi US 5,903,257
`
`May 11, 1999
`(Ex. 1004)
`Tu
`
`US 2004/0139254 A1
`July 15, 2004
`(Ex. 1005)
`Shima
`US 2002/0198030 A1 Dec. 26, 2002
`(Ex. 1006)
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`Kerr
`Lum
`
`July 15, 2004
`US 2004/0137983 A1
`US 2005/0221894 A1 Oct. 6, 2005
`
`(Ex. 1007)
`(Ex. 1008)
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Challenged Claims
`1, 13, 14, 16, 17, 25–28,
`and 36–38
`1–4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16–18,
`21, 23–29, 31, and 34–
`38
`1–4, 6–8, 13, 14, 16–18,
`21–32, and 34–38
`1–5, 7, 9, 16–19, 21, 23,
`27–31, and 34
`1, 10–14, 16, 17, 25–28,
`and 36–38
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 102(b) Mollinari
`
`§ 103(a) Mollinari and Nishiumi
`
`§ 103(a) Mollinari, Nishiumi, and Tu
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`Shima
`
`§ 102(b) Kerr
`
`1 and 10–12
`
`§ 103(a) Kerr and Lum
`
`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. 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`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
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). At this juncture, we do not need to explicitly construe any term.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`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). 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 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 Mollinari and Nishiumi
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16–18, 21, 23–29, 31,
`and 34–38 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`combination of Mollinari and Nishiumi. Pet. 22. To support its contentions,
`Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how the prior art meets each
`claim limitation. Id. at 7–28. 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.
`Mollinari describes a game controller holding a releasable mobile
`telecommunication terminal. Ex. 1003, Abstract. Figure 1 of Mollinari is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Mollinari, the game controller includes inputs
`11, 12, 13 on a front surface for user commands. Mollinari discloses a first
`set of keys 11 are used to activate certain game functions, while a second set
`of keys 12 are used for navigational purposes. Id. at 6:30–33. Mollinari
`discloses transmitting the user commands using data transmission means to
`and from a mobile telecommunications terminal 3, 3a, 3b, 3c held by the
`game controller. Id. at Abstract. Mollinari describes user commands as a
`user pressing buttons or moving a joy-stick to react to events of a game
`installed on their mobile phone and re-mapping the user commands into a
`scan code required by a game application. Id. at 7:4–12; 11:9–12:21.
`Mollinari’s data transmission means may include an electromechanical
`connector, wireless infrared, wired infrared, other optical interfaces, or
`wireless short range radio data transmission such as Bluetooth. Id. at 7:15–
`25; 6:25–26; Fig. 9.
`Nishiumi teaches a game controller having inputs on a front surface
`and a bottom surface. Ex. 1004, 7:1–5. Figures 7–8 of Nishiumi are
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`
`As shown in Figure 7 of Nishiumi, there are numerous front surface
`inputs including a designation switch 403, input keys 404A–F, and an
`analog joystick 45. See also, id. at 6:45–67. In addition, as shown in Figure
`8 of Nishiumi, a bottom surface switch 407 is formed approximately at the
`center of the game controller, and a pair of side surface switches 406L, 406R
`are located on the side of game controller. See also, id. at 6:45–7:1–5.
`The present record supports the contention that Mollinari describes an
`input accelerator with a communication channel to control a hand-held host
`device. Pet. 7–15; Ex. 1003 (multiple paragraphs and figures cited in
`Petition). The present record also supports the contention that Mollinari
`describes selectively mapping one or more input elements to one or more
`functions of a software application in order to minimize actuation required
`of at least one input element of the hand-held host device. Pet. 7–15; Ex.
`1003 (multiple paragraphs and figures cited in Petition).
`Petitioner relies on Nishiumi’s bottom surface switch 407, a pair of
`side surface switches 406L, input keys 404A–F, designation switch 403, and
`an analog joystick 45 to meet the limitations of input elements on the front,
`side and rear surface, “a key,” “a D-pad,” and “a miniature analog thumb
`joystick,” respectively. Pet. 22–28; Ex. 1004 (multiple paragraphs and
`figures cited in Petition). Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in
`the art would have recognized that Mollinari’s game controller could be
`modified to include elements on the side and rear surfaces, like Nishiumi’s
`analogous game controller with input elements, to enhance the user’s ability
`to control a game application running on the mobile telecommunications
`terminal. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 41–45. Patent Owner does not make
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`arguments, at this time, regarding the merits of this ground of unpatentability
`against challenged claims 1, 6, and 7.
`Petitioner also accounts for all of the challenged dependent claims.
`Pet. 7–28. Patent Owner argues that, with respect to this ground, the Petition
`does not map any part of Nishiumi to claims 1, 13, 14, 16, 25, 26, 27, 36, 37,
`and 38, but rather cites to Mollinari alone for challenging those claims.
`Prelim. Resp. 4. We are not persuaded by this argument.
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over Mollinari
`and Nishiumi against claims 1–4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16–18, 21, 23–29, 31, and 34–
`38, 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 1–4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16–18, 21, 23–29, 31, and 34–38 on
`this ground.
`We also 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. Prelim. Resp. 14–17. We find,
`however, that the explanation of the grounds that we are instituting on in the
`Petition is sufficient and, therefore, we are not persuaded by this argument.
`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 this Declaration or the way in
`which Petitioner relies on the Declaration.
`Lastly, we have considered Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition
`improperly relies on arguments presented in claim charts. Id. at 17–18. We
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`have considered the argument given by Patent Owner, but do not find that
`argument to be sufficient to dismiss the Petition.
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims over Mollinari, Nishiumi, and Tu
`Petitioner asserts that claims 6, 22, and 32 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mollinari, Nishiumi,
`and Tu. Pet. 28. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. at 28–
`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.
`Tu describes efficiently using an input device, such as a game
`controller, for alphanumeric character entry. Ex. 1005 ¶ 2. Figure 4 of Tu is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 4 of Tu, a user using a game controller enters data
`quickly and easily without needing to visually examine an entire list of
`characters. See also id. ¶¶ 14–17 and 32–33.
`Claims 6, 22, and 32 depend indirectly from claims 1, 16, and 27
`respectively. Claim 6, 22, and 32 each recite “accelerat[ing] text[ual]
`input[s].”
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`
`Petitioner relies on Tu’s description of a user using a game controller
`entering data quickly and easily without needing to visually examine an
`entire list of characters to meet the limitation of “accelerat[ing] text[ual]
`input[s].” Pet. 28–30; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 14–17, and 32–33. Petitioner
`concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
`hand-held device of Mollinari and Nishiumi’s game controller device could
`be modified with alphanumeric data inputting, like Tu’s game controller, to
`rapidly input alphanumeric data. Pet. 29; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 47–48. Patent Owner
`does not make arguments, at this time, regarding the merits of this ground of
`unpatentability against challenged claim 5.
`Patent Owner argues that, with respect to this ground, the Petition
`does not map any part of Tu to claims 6, 22, and 32, but rather cites to
`Mollinari and Nishiumi for challenging those claims. Prelim. Resp. 4. We
`are not persuaded by this argument.
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over
`Mollinari, Nishiumi, and Tu against claims 6, 22, and 32 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
`6, 22, and 32 on this ground.
`
`E. Anticipation of Claims by Shima
`Petitioner asserts that claims 5, 9, 19, and 30 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Shima. Pet. 30. To support its
`contentions, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how the prior art
`meets each claim limitation. Id. at 30–43. Petitioner also relies upon a
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`Declaration of Dr. Gregory F. Welch, who has been retained as an expert
`witness by Petitioner for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1009.
`Shima discloses a portable telephone set having input elements used
`to control cursor functions on a “portable type personal computer” such as a
`laptop, a notebook-sized personal computer, or a handheld personal
`computer. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1, 8, 30, Fig. 14. Specifically, the portable telephone
`set includes mouse input element 5 that is selectively mapped to cursor
`control or scrolling functions of a software application on the personal
`computer. Id. ¶¶ 32–33, 50, 65–66, Figs. 14, 15. Likewise, keys 4 may be
`selectively mapped to character and numerical input functions. Id. ¶ 33.
`Shima discloses that the mouse input element on the portable telephone is to
`be used in lieu of a “mouse incorporated in a personal computer body”
`because of the poor operability in comparison with an external mouse. Id.
`¶ 9. The portable telephone set also includes display section 8, control
`section 3 that is communicatively coupled to the input elements 4 and 5 and
`external interface 6. Id. ¶¶ 30–31, 59, Figs. 2, 3, 13. Control section 3
`generates a transmission signal upon actuation of input elements such as the
`mouse input element 5 or selection/execution button. Id. ¶¶ 31–0032, 59,
`61–62, Fig. 2. The control section 3 transmits the transmission signal to the
`personal computer through the external interface 6. Id. ¶¶ 64–66, Fig. 15.
`The transmission signal controls execution of cursor and scrolling functions
`on application software running on the personal computer. Id.
`The present record supports the contention that Shima discloses an
`input accelerator with a communication channel to interface with a hand-
`held host device. Pet. 30–36; Ex. 1007 (multiple paragraphs and figures
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`cited in Petition). The present record also supports the contention that
`Shima describes selectively mapping one or more input elements to one or
`more functions of a software application running on the hand-held host
`device to control the mapped one or more functions of the application to
`minimize actuation of at least one input element of the hand-held host
`device. Pet. 30–36; Ex. 1007 (multiple paragraphs and figures cited in
`Petition). The present record also supports the contention that Shima
`describes an input controller. Pet. 30–36; Ex. 1007 (multiple paragraphs and
`figures cited in Petition).
`Petitioner relies on Shima’s button on the front side of the main body
`of the portable telephone set that is to be manipulated by the user’s index or
`middle finger, key 33 on the side surface of the main body to be manipulated
`by the user’s thumb, and mouse input section 5 on the bottom surface of the
`main body (Pet. 31, 36 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 38, 41, Fig. 5.)) to meet the
`limitation of “the front input assembly, the rear input assembly, and the side
`input assembly are further configured to optimize a biomechanical effect of
`the human user’s opposing thumb and fingers.” Pet. 31, 36, 38, 40, 42; Ex.
`1007 (multiple paragraphs and figures cited in Petition). Petitioner relies on
`Shima’s display section 8 to meet the limitation of the input accelerator
`“comprising a display unit” as recited in claim 9. Pet. 39. Patent Owner
`does not make arguments, at this time, regarding the merits of this ground of
`unpatentability against challenged claims 5, 9, 19, and 30.
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of anticipation by Shima
`against claims 5, 9, 19, and 30, and we are persuaded, at this juncture of the
`proceeding, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claims 5, 9, 19, and 30 on this
`ground.
`
`F. Obviousness of Claims over Kerr and Lum
`Petitioner asserts that claims 10–12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Kerr and Lum. Pet. 58–59. To
`support its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how
`the prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. at 43–59. 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.
`Kerr describes a gaming shell structure for receiving a handheld
`wireless device, such as wireless phone 100. Ex. 1007 ¶ 66. Figure 7 of
`Kerr is reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 7 of Kerr, the gaming shell includes interface
`connector 708a that connects to accessory port 115 of wireless device 100.
`Id. ¶ 72. Alternatively, Kerr also discusses the interface device may include
`a Universal Serial Bus, RS-232 Transceiver, Universal Asynchronous
`Receiver/Transmitter, microchip, other circuitry to receive and transmit
`information such as infrared data. Id. ¶ 86. In addition, Kerr discloses
`mapping input elements 713a–d on the gaming shell structure to various
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`gaming functions, such as launching a missile in a shooting game, jumping,
`kicking, punching, flipping in an action game. Id. ¶ 79. Further, Kerr
`discloses the user’s data inputs are in the form of instructions and hardware
`memory processor 805 receives the instructions and acts on these
`instructions. Id. ¶¶ 86–88. Kerr discloses transferring the user’s data inputs
`from the gaming shell to the wireless phone, and then the wireless phone
`performs an action on the gaming operation in response to the data. Id. ¶ 89.
`Lum teaches a game controller having central processing unit 402,
`memory 404, 406, 408, and input elements 420/422. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 46–47.
`Figure 4 of Lum is reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 4 of Lum, one or more bussing structures connect
`central processing unit 402, memory 404, 406, 408, and input elements
`420/422 together. Id.
`Each of claims 10–12 depends ultimately from claim 1. Claim 10
`recites a storage device configured to store one or more instructions. Claim
`11 recites the one or more instructions comprising at least one of a text
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`application, a mapping software, a firmware, a gaming application, or a
`scrolling application. Claim 12 recites a processor interpreting the input
`signal and executing the one or more instructions, a main memory
`configured to load one or more instructions executed by the processor, and a
`bus configured to direct communications to and from the processor.
`The present record supports the contention that Kerr discloses a
`hardware processor that is also a storage device that stores and executes one
`or more instructions relating to firmware or a gaming application to meet the
`limitations of claims 10 and 11. Pet. 50–52; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 86–89 and 93.
`Petitioner relies on Lum’s one or more bussing structures to connect
`central processing unit 402, memory 404, 406, 408, and input elements
`420/422 together to meet the limitations “a bus configured to direct
`communications to and from the processor” as recited in claim 12. Pet. 59;
`Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 86–89 and 93; Fig. 4. Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have recognized that Kerr’s game controller could be
`modified as a simple design choice to include well known bus components,
`like Lum’s similar game controller with input elements, to enable the
`processor to communicate with other electronic components using a bus.
`Pet. 58–59; Ex. 1008 ¶ 73. Patent Owner does not make arguments, at this
`time, regarding the merits of this ground of unpatentability against
`challenged claims 10–12.
`Petitioner accounts for all of the challenged claims. Pet. 43–59.
`Patent Owner argues that, with respect to this ground, the Petition does not
`map any part of Lum to claims 10 and 11, but rather cites to Kerr alone for
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`challenging these claims. Prelim. Resp. 4–5. We are not persuaded by this
`argument.
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over Kerr and
`Lum against claims 10–12, 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 10–12 on this ground.
`
`G. Remaining Grounds Challenging the Claims of the ’097 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. 5–14.
`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).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`
`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 1–14, 16–19, 21–32, and 34–
`38 of the ’097 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:
`
`
`Claims
`1–4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16–
`18, 21, 23–29, 31, and
`34–38
`6, 22, 32
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a) Mollinari and Nishiumi
`
`§ 103(a) Mollinari, Nishiumi, and Tu
`
`5, 9, 19, and 30
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`Shima
`
`10–12
`
`§ 103(a) Kerr and Lum
`
`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
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097 B2
`
`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 W. Kahn
`MAURIEL KAPOUYTIAN WOODS LLP
`mmauriel@mkwllp.com
`skahn@mkwllp.com
`
`Robert J. Gilbertson
`Sybil L. Dunlop
`X. Kevin Zhao
`GREENE ESPEL PLLP
`BGilbertson@GreeneEspel.com
`SDunlop@greeneespel.com
`kzhao@greeneespel.com
`
`19