`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`Entered: January 30, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION, NETAPP INC., and HUAWEI
`TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KALAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`1
`
`CROSSROADS EXHIBIT
`NetApp Inc. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`IPR2015-00773
`
`2121
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners Oracle Corporation, NetApp Inc., and Huawei Technologies
`Co., Ltd. filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’147 patent”)
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Patent Owner Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 11, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that inter partes review
`may not be instituted unless “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).
`Petitioners challenge claims 1–13 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`We institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 13 on
`certain grounds as discussed below.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’147 patent is asserted in co-pending
`matters captioned Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., Case No. 1-13-
`cv-00895-SS (W.D. Tex.), Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies
`Co. Ltd., Case No. 1-13-cv-01025-SS (W.D. Tex.), and Crossroads Systems,
`Inc. v. NetApp, Inc., Case No. 1-14-cv-00149-SS (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 2–3;
`Paper 9, 3. The ’147 Patent is also involved in Case IPR2014-01207, and
`belongs to a family of patents that are the subject of multiple petitions for
`inter partes review, including IPR2014-01177, IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-
`01226, IPR2014-01233, and IPR2014-01463.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`B. The ’147 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’147 patent, titled “Storage Router and Method for Providing
`Virtual Local Storage,” issued on May 23, 2006. The ’147 patent describes a
`storage router, storage network, and method that provide virtual local storage
`on remote Small Computer System Interface (SCSI) storage devices to Fibre
`Channel (FC) devices. Ex. 1001, Abstract; 1:23–26. “A plurality of Fibre
`Channel devices, such as workstations, are connected to a Fibre Channel
`transport medium, and a plurality of SCSI storage devices are connected to a
`SCSI bus transport medium.” Id. at 2:11–14. The storage router interfaces
`between the Fibre Channel transport medium and the SCSI bus transport
`medium, maps between the workstations and the SCSI storage devices, and
`implements access controls for storage space on the SCSI storage devices. Id.
`at 2:14–19. “The storage router then allows access from the workstations to
`the SCSI storage devices using native low level, block protocol in accordance
`with the mapping and the access controls.” Id. at 2:19–22.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 of the ’147 patent is reproduced below:
`1.
`A storage router for providing virtual local storage on
`remote storage devices to a device, comprising:
`a buffer providing memory work space for the storage router;
`a first Fibre Channel controller operable to connect to and
`interface with a first Fibre Channel transport medium;
`a second Fibre Channel controller operable to connect to and
`interface with a second Fibre Channel transport medium; and
`a supervisor unit coupled to the first and second Fibre Channel
`controllers and the buffer, the supervisor unit operable:
`to maintain a configuration for remote storage devices
`connected to the second Fibre Channel transport medium that
`maps between the device and the remote storage devices and that
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`implements access controls for storage space on the remote
`storage devices; and
`to process data in the buffer to interface between the first
`Fibre Channel controller and the second Fibre Channel controller
`to allow access from Fibre Channel initiator devices to the
`remote storage devices using native low level, block protocol in
`accordance with the configuration.
`Ex. 1001, 9:24–47.
`
`D. The Prior Art
`
`Petitioners rely on the following prior art:
`1. CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller User’s Manual (1996)
`(“CRD-5500 User’s Manual”) (Ex. 1003);
`2. CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller Data Sheet (Dec. 4,
`1996) (“CRD-5500 Data Sheet”) (Ex. 1004);
`3. Smith et al., Tachyon: A Gigabit Fibre Channel Protocol
`Chip, HEWLETT-PACKARD J. (Oct. 1996) (“Smith”) (Ex.
`1005);
`4. U.S. Patent No. 6,219,771, issued Apr. 17, 2001 (“Kikuchi”)
`(Ex. 1006);
`5. U.S. Patent No. 6,073,209, issued June 6, 2000 (“Bergsten”)
`(Ex. 1007); and
`6. JP Patent Application Pub. No. Hei 5[1993]-181609,
`published July 23, 1993 (“Hirai”) (Ex. 1008).
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioners challenge claims 1–13 of the ’147 patent on the following
`grounds:
`References
`
`Basis
`
`CRD-5500 User’s Manual, CRD-
`5500 Data Sheet, and Smith
`Kikuchi and Bergsten
`
`Kikuchi, Bergsten, and Smith
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`
`
`4
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1–13
`
`1–4 and 6–13
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`Bergsten and Hirai
`
`Bergsten, Hirai, and Smith
`
`
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1–4 and 6–13
`
`5
`
`F. Claim Interpretation
`The Board interprets claim terms in an unexpired patent using the
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning in view of the specification, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In
`re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For purposes
`of this Decision, we find that no express claim construction is necessary.
`III. ANALYSIS
`We turn now to Petitioners’ asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`Patent Owner’s arguments in the Preliminary Response to determine whether
`Petitioners have met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`A. Asserted Ground Based on CRD-5500 User’s Manual, CRD-
`5500 Data Sheet, and Smith
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 1–13 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over CRD-5500 User’s Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith. Pet. 12–
`29. To support this assertion, Petitioners rely on the Declaration of Professor
`Jeffrey S. Chase, Ph.D. (Ex. 1010, “Chase Declaration”).
`The Petition states that “[t]he explanations set forth below summarize
`the grounds of unpatentability. . . . Pinpoint citations are provided to the
`declaration of Professor Chase (Ex. 1010) which describes in further detail the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`combined system, supporting rationale, and the correspondence to the claimed
`subject matter.” Pet. 11–12. The Petition introduces and summarizes the
`CRD-5500 User’s Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith references. Pet.
`12–16. Petitioners then assert, in a section titled “The Combined System of
`CRD-5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet and Smith,” that the
`references, in combination, disclose the claimed subject matter. Pet. 16–19
`(including a figure representing the hypothetical combined system on page
`18). In the “Correspondence between Claims 1–13 and the Combined System
`of CRD-5500 and Smith” section, Petitioners alternately refer to the references
`and to paragraphs in the Chase Declaration in support of their arguments. Pet.
`19–29. Petitioners present specific arguments with respect to claims 1–5 and
`then, for claims 6–13, rely on their arguments for claims 1–5 and the Chase
`Declaration. Pet. 26–29.
`Patent Owner alleges that Petitioners fail “to show where the claim
`limitations can be found in the references and fail to provide a detailed
`explanation of the evidence” and instead improperly use “the 193-page Chase
`declaration to provide the necessary explanation, effectively expanding the
`petition well over sixty pages in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i).”
`Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner provides specific examples of Petitioners’
`reliance solely on the Chase Declaration to show where claim limitations can
`be found in the references (citing Pet. 21–22, 26–29) or to discuss exhibits
`never introduced in the Petition (citing Pet. 16). Prelim. Resp. 16–18.
`Namely, regarding the supervisor unit of claim 1, Patent Owner argues that
`the Petition “states that ‘the CRD-5500 User Manual describes a central
`processing unit (CPU) that is coupled to a host device interface module, a
`storage interface module and a buffer memory’” but that the Petition “does not
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`point out where the references show a central processing unit, but instead
`refers to the Chase declaration to provide further explanation.” Id. at 16
`(citing Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 48)).
`Citing the Chase Declaration to identify elements of the claims that are
`not otherwise supported in the Petition and to present additional arguments
`based on references that are not already discussed in the Petition amounts to
`incorporation by reference. It is improper to incorporate by reference
`arguments from one document into another document. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3);
`see also Rules of Practice for Trials Before The Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions; Final
`Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,617 (Aug. 14, 2012) (prohibition against
`incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses that arise from
`incorporation).
`A petition for inter partes review must identify how the challenged
`claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds asserted by the
`petitioners, and must specify where each element of the claims is found in the
`relied-upon prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). A petition must include “a
`detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material
`facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” Id. § 42.22(a)(2).
`We agree with the Patent Owner that Petitioners’ reliance on the Chase
`Declaration fails to show where the “supervisor unit” claim limitation can be
`found in the references. Petitioners fail to provide a detailed explanation of
`the evidence in the Petition for this and other claim limitations. See, e.g., Pet.
`20 (“first controller”), 25 (“hard disk drives”). With respect to the
`unpatentability grounds relying upon the Chase Declaration, the Petition does
`not specify sufficiently where each element of the claims is found in the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`applied references, and does not include a detailed explanation of the
`significance of the evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4), 42.22(a)(2). We
`decline to consider information not provided in the Petition, but instead
`incorporated only by reference to cited paragraphs in the Chase Declaration.
`Thus, on the present record, the information presented in the Petition does not
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–13 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over CRD-5500 User’s Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet,
`and Smith.
`
`B. Asserted Ground Based on Kikuchi and Bergsten
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 1–4 and 6–13 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Kikuchi and Bergsten. Pet. 29–43.
`Petitioners assert, in a section titled “The Combined System of Kikuchi
`and Bergsten,” that the references, in combination, disclose the claimed
`subject matter. Pet. 32–35. Petitioners argue that “[i]n the combined system
`of Kikuchi and Bergsten, multi-protocol intercommunication capabilities of
`the command and interpretation unit described in Kikuchi are enhanced by
`incorporating Bergsten’s emulation drivers 21 and physical drivers 22, which
`are detailed in Bergsten with a greater degree of specificity.” Id. at 32.
`Petitioners emphasize that “[t]o the extent that Kikuchi fails to explicitly detail
`every nuance of FCP-based encapsulation and de-encapsulation, the details of
`Bergsten’s emulation drivers 21 and physical drivers 22 more than sufficiently
`provide specific details.” Id. at 32–33. In the “Correspondence between
`Claims 1–4 and 6–13 and the Combined System of Kikuchi and Bergsten”
`section, Petitioners alternately refer to the references and to paragraphs in the
`Chase Declaration to support their arguments. Pet. 35–43. Petitioners present
`specific arguments with citations to the references for claims 1–4, and then,
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`for claims 6–13, rely primarily on their arguments for claims 1–4 and the
`Chase Declaration. Pet. 40–43.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioners “compare the claimed invention to
`a theoretical ‘combined system’ that never existed, but do not conduct the
`critical inquiry identifying the differences between the claimed invention and
`the prior art.” Prelim. Resp. 41. Petitioners’ citations in the “Correspondence
`between Claims 1–4 and 6–13 and the Combined System of Kikuchi and
`Bergsten” section, for the most part, map the claim elements to the references
`themselves rather than to the combined system. Petitioners also indicate that
`Kikuchi may demonstrate a lack of explicit disclosure of the nuances of FCP-
`based encapsulation and de-encapsulation, which identifies a difference
`between the claimed invention and Kikuchi that Bergsten’s emulation drivers
`21 and physical drivers 22 may supply. Pet. 32–33. Such an identification,
`although couched in conditional terms, constitutes a difference between the
`claimed invention and Kikuchi that Bergsten is cited to supplement.
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioners have failed to provide
`sufficient articulated reasoning to support Petitioners’ proposed obviousness
`ground. Prelim. Resp. 42. Petitioners argue that one skilled in the art at the
`relevant time “would combine the Kikuchi and Bergsten systems in this way
`in order to improve the Kikuchi system with the advantage of virtualized,
`networked storage.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 142–147). On this record,
`and for the purposes of institution, we consider Petitioners to have provided
`sufficient articulated reasoning to combine the references.
`For claim 3, however, which recites “wherein the Fibre Channel
`devices comprise workstations,” Petitioners cite to paragraph 158 of the Chase
`Declaration only, and provide no citation to Kikuchi or Bergsten. Pet. 40.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`Notwithstanding the introductory descriptions of Kikuchi and Bergsten, which
`generally outline the subject matter of the references (Pet. 29–32), and the
`analysis presented in the Petition itself, Petitioners have not met their burden
`in establishing a reasonable likelihood that claim 3 is unpatentable.
`Independent claim 6 recites “workstations connected to the first Fibre
`Channel transport medium,” and Petitioners argue that it “recites, in addition
`to the storage router, both workstations and storage devices” and thus the
`“discussion set forth above for claims 1 and 3 applies with equal force to
`claim 6.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 160–166). Claim 12, which depends
`indirectly from independent claim 10, recites “wherein the Fibre Channel
`devices comprise workstations.” Petitioners assert that “[d]ependent claims
`11-13 correspond to dependent claims 2-4” and that the “discussion . . . for
`claims 2-4 applies with equal force to claims 11-13.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1010
`¶¶ 185–187). For the reasons discussed for claim 3, Petitioners have not met
`their burden in establishing a reasonable likelihood that independent claim 6,
`claims 7–9 which depend from claim 6, and claim 12 are unpatentable. Thus,
`our institution of review on the ground of obviousness over Kikuchi and
`Bergsten is limited to claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13.
`Accordingly, we conclude Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on their assertion that claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13
`are obvious over Kikuchi and Bergsten.
`
`C. Asserted Ground Based on Kikuchi, Bergsten and Smith
`
`Petitioners challenge claim 5, which depends from claim 1, as
`unpatentable over Kikuchi, Bergsten and Smith. Pet. 43–44. Petitioners
`argue that “one of ordinary skill would understand that the emulation and
`physical drivers of Bergsten are designed to incorporate the functionality of
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`the Tachyon chip of Smith.” Pet. 43. Specifically, Petitioners argue that the
`combined system, and in particular, Smith, describes a Fibre Channel protocol
`unit, a FIFO queue coupled to the FC protocol unit, and inbound and
`outbound sequence managers that perform DMA transfers of inbound data and
`outbound data. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, pp. 5, 7, 9, Fig. 4). Patent Owner does
`not present arguments specifically directed to this combination. On this
`record, Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`their assertion that claim 5 is unpatentable over the combination of Kikuchi,
`Bergsten, and Smith.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds Based on Bergsten and Hirai
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 1–4 and 6–13 as unpatentable over
`Bergsten and Hirai. Pet. 44–57.
`Petitioners assert, in a section titled “The Combined System of Bergsten
`and Hirai,” that the references, in combination, disclose the claimed subject
`matter. Pet. 46–49. Petitioners argue that “[i]n the combined system [of
`Bergsten and Hirai], Hirai’s access controls are incorporated into Bergsten’s
`storage controllers.” Pet. 47. In the “Correspondence between Claims 1–4
`and 6–13 and the Combined System of Bergsten and Hirai” section,
`Petitioners alternately refer to the references and to paragraphs in the Chase
`Declaration in support of their arguments. Pet. 49–54. Petitioners present
`specific arguments with citations to the references for claims 1–4, and then,
`for claims 6–13, rely primarily on their arguments for claims 1–4 and the
`Chase Declaration. Pet. 55–57.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioners “compare the claimed invention to
`a theoretical ‘combined system’ that is known to have not existed at the time
`the invention was made,” but “failed to conduct the prerequisite factual
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`inquiry of identifying the differences between the claimed invention and the
`prior art.” Prelim. Resp. 51. Petitioners’ citations in the “Correspondence
`between Claims 1–4 and 6–13 and the Combined System of Bergsten and
`Hirai” section, for the most part, map the claim elements to the references
`themselves rather than to the combined system. Petitioners also state that
`Patent Owner may attempt to argue that “Bergsten may lack explicit and
`nuanced detail regarding the implementation of access controls and the
`ramifications of write-protecting data upon a single storage controller of a
`daisy-chained storage controller network,” and further state that “the access
`control map described in Hirai is detailed with a greater degree of
`particularity.” Pet. 47–48. Such an identification identifies a difference
`between the claimed invention and Bergsten that Hirai is cited to fill.
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioners have failed to provide
`sufficient articulated reasoning to support their proposed obviousness ground.
`Prelim. Resp. 52. With respect to claim 1, Petitioners argue that “[a]n artisan
`skilled in network storage during the relevant timeframe would combine the
`Bergsten and Hirai teachings . . . in order to provide additional levels of
`granularity to the access controls of the Bergsten system based on the
`mapping-based access controls of Hirai.” Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 247–
`251). For purposes of institution, Petitioners’ argument that it would have
`been obvious to combine Bergsten’s storage controller with Hirai’s access
`controls is reasonable and supported by record evidence.
`For claim 3, however, which recites “wherein the Fibre Channel
`devices comprise workstations,” Petitioners cite to paragraph 262 of the Chase
`Declaration only, and provide no citation to Bergsten or Hirai. Pet. 54.
`Notwithstanding the introductory descriptions of Bergsten and Hirai, which
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`generally outline the subject matter of the references (Pet. 30–32, 44–46), and
`the analysis presented in the Petition itself, Petitioners have not met their
`burden in establishing a reasonable likelihood that claim 3 is unpatentable.
`Independent claim 6 recites “workstations connected to the first Fibre
`Channel transport medium,” and Petitioners argue that it “recites, in addition
`to the storage router, both workstations and storage devices” and thus the
`“discussion set forth above for claims 1 and 3 applies with equal force to
`claim 6.” Pet. 54–55 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 264–270). Claim 12, which depends
`indirectly from independent claim 10, recites “wherein the Fibre Channel
`devices comprise workstations.” Petitioners assert that “[d]ependent claims
`11-13 correspond to dependent claims 2-4” and that the “discussion . . . for
`claims 2-4 applies with equal force to claims 11-13.” Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1010
`¶¶ 288–290). For the reasons discussed for claim 3, Petitioners have not met
`their burden in establishing a reasonable likelihood that independent claim 6,
`claims 7–9 which depend from claim 6, and claim 12 are unpatentable. Thus,
`our institution of review on the ground of obviousness over Bergsten and
`Hirai is limited to claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13.
`Accordingly, we conclude Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on their assertion that claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13
`are obvious over Bergsten and Hirai.
`
`E. Asserted Ground Based on Bergsten, Hirai, and Smith
`
`Petitioners challenge claim 5 as unpatentable over Bergsten, Hirai, and
`Smith. Pet. 57–58. Petitioners argue that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would
`understand that the emulation and physical drivers of Bergsten are designed to
`incorporate the functionality of the Tachyon chip of Smith.” Pet. 57.
`Specifically, Petitioners argue that the combined system, and in particular,
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`Smith, describes a Fibre Channel protocol unit, a FIFO queue coupled to the
`FC protocol unit, and inbound and outbound sequence managers that perform
`DMA transfers of inbound data and outbound data. Id. at 57–58 (citing Ex.
`1005, 5, 7, 9, and Fig. 4). Patent Owner does not present arguments
`specifically directed to this combination. On this record, Petitioners have met
`their burden in establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their
`contention that claim 5 is unpatentable over the combination of Bergsten,
`Hirai, and Smith.
`
`F. Consideration of Cited Art in Reexamination
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Patent Office has already considered the
`CRD-5500 User’s Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, Smith, Kikuchi, and
`Bergsten during prosecution of the ’147 Patent. Prelim. Resp. 19. Patent
`Owner further argues that the Patent Office has already considered CRD-5500
`User’s Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, Smith, Kikuchi, and Bergsten in the
`reexamination of patents related to the ’147 patent, confirming at least one
`related patent “over the same arguments as those presented under the First
`Ground.” Id. at 20, 29, 33. We are not persuaded. Although the references
`may have been cited during prosecution of the present patent or reexamination
`of a related patent or patents, Patent Owner does not explain how Petitioners’
`presently presented arguments regarding these references were previously
`considered. Furthermore, although Patent Owner alleges similarity among the
`related patents and the ’147 patent, Patent Owner does not explain specifically
`how the related patents and the arguments presented in reexamination
`correlate to the ’147 patent. Without such details, and on this record, we
`decline to deny institution of inter partes review on this basis.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`G. Conclusion
`
`We conclude that Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing with respect to their challenge of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 13
`of the ’147 patent. We have not made, however, a final determination under
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims.
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that inter partes review is authorized on the following
`grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition:
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kikuchi
`and Bergsten;
`Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kikuchi, Bergsten, and Smith;
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bergsten
`and Hirai; and
`Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bergsten, Hirai, and Smith;
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of the ’147 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the entry
`date of this Order, and 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; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds identified
`above, and no other ground set forth in the Petition as to any challenged claim
`is authorized.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Greg Gardella
`cpdocketgardella@oblon.com
`
`Scott McKeown
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven Sprinkle
`crossroadsipr@sprinklelaw.com
`
`John Adair
`crossroadsipr@sprinklelaw.com
`
`Russell Wong
`CrossroadsIPR@counselip.com
`
`James Hall
`CrossroadsIPR@counselip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16