`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: January 28, 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 IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`1
`
`CROSSROADS EXHIBIT
`Oracle Corp. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`IPR2015-0(cid:1005)(cid:1004)(cid:1010)(cid:1010)
`
`2141
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Oracle Corporation, NetApp Inc., and Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Petitioners”) filed a Corrected Petition requesting inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–53 of U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’041 Patent”).
`
`Paper 5 (“Pet.”). Crossroads Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`
`“unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`We determine that the information presented in the Petition does not
`
`show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail with
`
`respect to any challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–53 of the ’041 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The ’041 Patent has been asserted against Petitioners in the following
`
`district court proceedings: Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation,.
`
`Case No. 1-13-cv-00895 (W.D.Tex.); Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Huawei
`
`Technologies Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 1-13-cv-01025 (W.D.Tex.); and
`
`Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. NetApp, Inc., Case No. 1-14-cv-00149
`
`(W.D.Tex.). Pet. 3; Exs. 1034, 1035, 1036. The ’041 Patent is also the
`
`subject of other district court proceedings. Id. at 3; Ex. 1026; Paper 10, 1.
`
`The ’041 Patent is also involved in Case IPR2014-01463, and belongs to a
`
`family of patents that are the subject of multiple petitions for inter partes
`
`review, including IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209,
`
`IPR2014-01226, and IPR2014-01233.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`B. The ’041 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’041 Patent discloses “[a] storage router and storage network
`
`[that] provide virtual local storage on remote storage devices.” Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract. One embodiment of the storage network appears in Figure 3,
`
`reproduced below. Id. at col. 3, ll. 19–21, col. 4, ll. 25–27.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’041 Patent shows storage network 50, which includes
`
`storage router 56 bridging Fibre Channel high speed serial interconnect 52
`
`and SCSI bus 54. Id. at col. 4, ll. 25–30. Storage router 56 allows a number
`
`of workstations 58 to interconnect on a common storage transport and
`
`“access common storage devices 60, 62 and 64 through native low level,
`
`block protocols.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 30–33. Storage router 56 also implements
`
`security controls to allow each workstation 58 to access a specific subset of
`
`data stored in storage devices 60, 62, and 64. Id. at col. 4, ll. 35–39.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`
`The ’041 Patent shows more details of one embodiment of storage
`
`router 56 in Figure 4, reproduced below. Id. at col. 3, ll. 22–23, col. 5,
`
`ll. 34–35.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ’041 Patent shows components of storage router 56,
`
`including supervisor 86, buffer 84, Fibre Channel controller 80, and SCSI
`
`controller 82. Id. at col. 5, ll. 35–41. Buffer 84 connects to Fibre Channel
`
`controller 80 and SCSI controller 82. Id. at col. 5, ll. 37–39. Memory work
`
`space is provided by buffer 84. Id. Supervisor unit 86 includes a
`
`microprocessor for controlling storage router 56. Id. at col. 5, ll. 41–43.
`
`The microprocessor of supervisor unit 86 also processes mapping and
`
`security access for requests between Fibre Channel 52 and SCSI bus 54. Id.
`
`at col. 5, ll. 41–44.
`
`C.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 1–53 of the ’041 Patent. Claims 1, 20,
`
`and 37 are independent. Each of claims 2–19, 21–36, and 38–53 depends
`
`directly or indirectly from one of claims 1, 20, and 37. Claim 1 is
`
`illustrative and is reproduced below:
`
`1.
`A storage router for providing virtual local storage on remote
`storage devices, comprising:
`
`a first controller operable to interface with a first transport medium,
`wherein the first medium is a serial transport media; and
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`
`a processing device coupled to the first controller, wherein the
`processing device is configured to:
`
`maintain a map to allocate storage space on the remote storage
`devices to devices connected to the first transport
`medium by associating representations of the devices
`connected to the first transport medium with
`representations of storage space on the remote storage
`devices, wherein each representation of a device
`connected to the first transport medium is associated with
`one or more representations of storage space on the
`remote storage devices;
`
`control access from the devices connected to the first transport
`medium to the storage space on the remote storage
`devices in accordance with the map; and
`
`allow access from devices connected to the first transport
`medium to the remote storage devices using native low
`level block protocol.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 35–56.
`
`D.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`Petitioners rely on the following references and Declaration in support
`
`of their grounds for challenging the identified claims of the ’041 Patent (Pet.
`
`iv–vi, 5–6):
`
`References and Declaration
`
`CMD Technology, Inc., CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller User’s Manual,
`(1996) (“CRD-5500 User Manual”)
`CRD-5500 RAID Disk Array Controller, (Dec. 4, 1996),
`http://web.archive.org/web/19961226091552/http://www.cmd.com/brochure/
`crd5500.htm (last visited July 23, 2014) (“CRD-5500 Data Sheet”)
`Judith A. Smith and Meryem Primmer, Tachyon: A Gigabit Fibre Channel
`Protocol Chip, Hewlett-Packard J., 1–17 (1996) (“Smith”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,219,771 B1, issued Apr. 17, 2001 (“Kikuchi”)
`
`5
`
`
`Exhibit
`Nos.
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`Exhibit
`Nos.
`1007
`1008
`
`References and Declaration
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,073,209, issued June 6, 2000 (“Bergsten”)
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. HEI 5[1993]-181609, pub. July
`23, 1993 (“Hirai”)1
`Declaration of Jeffrey S. Chase, Ph.D. (“Chase Declaration”)
`
`1010
`
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioners challenge the patentability of claims 1–53 of the ’041
`
`Patent based on the following grounds (Pet. 5–6):
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`§ 103
`
`CRD-5500 User
`Manual, CRD-5500
`Data Sheet, and Smith
`Kikuchi and Bergsten § 103
`
`1–53
`
`1–53
`
`Bergsten and Hirai
`
`§ 103
`
`1–53
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
`
`the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). 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 disclosure. In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, if
`
`
`1 Our citations to Hirai are directed to the English Translation contained in
`the corrected version of Exhibit 1008 filed by Petitioners on July 30, 2014.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set
`
`forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`
`1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Petitioners proffer one claim construction. Pet. 11–
`
`12. No claim terms require express construction for purposes of this
`
`Decision.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1–53 Based on CRD-5500 User Manual,
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith
`
`The Petition argues that it would have been obvious to combine the
`
`system taught by the CRD-5500 User Manual with the Tachyon chip taught
`
`by Smith. Pet. 17. The Petition contends that the CRD-5500 Data Sheet
`
`specifically suggests such a combination. Id. The Petition asserts that it
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine
`
`the teachings of the references “to enhance the communication and storage
`
`options of a host computing device on a Fibre Channel transport medium,
`
`benefit from the ‘Host LUN Mapping’ feature of the storage controller, and
`
`avail the host computing device of ubiquitous mass storage applications
`
`(e.g., RAID).” Id. In concert with this, the Petition describes a “combined
`
`system” that results from combining the teachings of the CRD-5500 User
`
`Manual and Smith. Id. at 17–19.
`
`Neither the Petition’s description of the “combined system” nor its
`
`preceding discussion of the references addresses any specific limitation of
`
`the challenged claims. See id. at 13–19. After explaining the configuration
`
`of “the combined system,” however, the Petition offers a discussion that the
`
`Petition contends “demonstrates the correspondence between the claim
`
`terms and the structure and/or operation of the combined system of CRD-
`
`5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith.” Id. at 19–29.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Petition does not show where the
`
`references teach the limitations of the claims. Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent
`
`Owner contends that “Petitioners improperly use the 172-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).”
`
`Id. As a specific example, Patent Owner points to the portion of the Petition
`
`addressing the recitation in claim 1 of “a first controller operable to interface
`
`with a first transport medium, wherein the first medium is a serial transport
`
`medium.” Id. at 16. Patent Owner notes that the Petition addresses this
`
`limitation with one sentence, citing only the Chase Declaration as supporting
`
`evidence. Id. (citing Pet. 20). Patent Owner further notes that, in the portion
`
`addressing the limitations of claim 1 after the “first controller,” the Petition
`
`does not contain a single citation to the references on which Petitioners rely.
`
`Id. (citing Pet. 20–22).
`
`Under our rules, the Petition must contain a “full statement of the
`
`reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the
`
`significance of the evidence . . . .” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) (2). We, therefore,
`
`decline to consider information presented in a supporting declaration but not
`
`discussed sufficiently in a petition; doing so would permit the use of
`
`declarations to circumvent the page limits that apply to petitions. For the
`
`same reasons, our rules prohibit arguments made in a supporting document
`
`from being incorporated by reference into a petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)
`
`(3).
`
`Given this, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not
`
`explain adequately how the references teach the limitations of the claims.
`
`With respect to independent claim 1, the Petition’s one-sentence explanation
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`of how the references allegedly teach “a first controller operable to interface
`
`with a first transport medium, wherein the first medium is a serial transport
`
`medium” is not persuasive by itself. See Pet. 20 (“In the combined system,
`
`the FC-enabled host device interface module installed in the CRD-5500
`
`controller is coupled to Fibre Channel, a serial transport media, on the host
`
`side.”). Because we decline to consider information presented in a
`
`supporting declaration but not sufficiently explained in the Petition, the
`
`citations to the Chase Declaration do not cure the deficiency of the Petition
`
`with respect to addressing the “first controller” limitation.
`
`Following the “first controller” limitation, independent claim 1 recites
`
`a number of limitations related to “a processing device.” The Petition also
`
`fails to explain adequately how the references teach or render obvious these
`
`limitations. In the portion addressing these limitations, the Petition
`
`repeatedly cites the Chase Declaration. See id. at 20–22. Aside from the
`
`Chase Declaration, this portion of the Petition only once cites any other
`
`evidence, specifically Exhibit 1009, which contains Patent Owner’s
`
`infringement contentions from a district court proceeding. See id. at 22
`
`(citing Ex. 1009, 33–34). The cited portion of Exhibit 1009 outlines
`
`relationships between the claim limitations and “Pillar Axiom” systems; it
`
`does not demonstrate which portions of the references teach or render
`
`obvious the claim limitations. See Ex. 1009, 33–34. Thus, the Petition does
`
`not explain which parts of the references teach or render obvious each of the
`
`limitations related to the claimed “processing device.” Indeed, in addition to
`
`not identifying adequately which portions of the references Petitioners rely
`
`on, the Petition addresses the multiple limitations related to the “processing
`
`device” by grouping the limitations together and providing an extended
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`discussion of the “combined system.” In this discussion, the Petition does
`
`not explain which parts of the “combined system” purportedly correspond to
`
`which specific limitations. See Pet. 20–22.
`
`With respect to independent claims 20 and 37, the Petition asserts that
`
`these claims are similar to claim 1, that “[t]he discussion set forth above
`
`applies with equal force to claim 20” and claim 37, and that Professor Chase
`
`provides a detailed explanation regarding claims 20 and 37. Pet. 28–29. By
`
`relying on the inadequate explanation regarding independent claim 1 and the
`
`improper incorporation of the testimony in the Chase Declaration, the
`
`Petition does not explain adequately how the references relied on teach or
`
`render obvious the limitations of claims 20 and 37.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Petition
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in their
`
`challenge of independent claims 1, 20, and 37 as obvious over the CRD-
`
`5500 User Manual, the CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith. For the same
`
`reasons, we are not persuaded that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in their challenge of claims 2–19,
`
`21–36, and 38–53, each of which depends from and necessarily includes the
`
`limitations of one of independent claims 1, 20, and 37.
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1–53 Based on Kikuchi and Bergsten
`
`The Petition argues that it would have been obvious to incorporate
`
`emulation drivers 21, physical drivers 22, and virtualized network storage
`
`taught by Bergsten into the system taught by Kikuchi. Pet. 33–35. The
`
`Petition states that
`
`Professor Chase explains that a skilled storage engineer
`would have been motivated to incorporate the virtual
`storage emulation of Bergsten into the disk apparatus of
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`
`Kikuchi to increase both the number of storage devices
`accessible to hosts connecting to the disk apparatus and
`the storage address range available within the combined
`system.
`
`Id. at 35. In concert with this, the Petition describes a “combined system”
`
`that results from combining the teachings of Kikuchi and Bergsten. Id. at
`
`33–35.
`
`Neither the Petition’s description of the “combined system” nor its
`
`preceding discussion of the references addresses any specific limitation of
`
`the challenged claims. See id. at 29–35. After explaining the configuration
`
`of “the combined system,” however, the Petition offers a discussion that the
`
`Petition contends “demonstrates the correspondence between the claims
`
`terms and the structure and/or operation of the combined system of Kikuchi
`
`and Bergsten.” Id. at 35–44.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Petition does not show where the
`
`references teach the limitations of the claims. Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent
`
`Owner contends that “Petitioners improperly use the 172-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).”
`
`Id.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not explain
`
`adequately how the references teach or render obvious the limitations of the
`
`claims, for example, the recitation in claim 1 of “a first controller operable to
`
`interface with a first transport medium, wherein the first medium is a serial
`
`transport media.” To address this claim limitation, the Petition provides
`
`only one sentence and cites only the Chase Declaration as supporting
`
`evidence. See Pet. 36. As noted above, we decline to consider information
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`presented in a supporting declaration but not discussed sufficiently in the
`
`Petition. Accordingly, the citation to the Chase Declaration does not remedy
`
`the Petition’s inadequate discussion of the “first controller” limitation.
`
`Additionally, the Petition does not explain adequately how the
`
`references teach or render obvious the multiple subsequent limitations of
`
`claim 1 related to “a processing device.” The portion of the Petition
`
`addressing these limitations repeatedly cites the Chase Declaration as
`
`supporting evidence. See id. at 36–37. This portion of the Petition only
`
`once cites any other evidence, specifically Exhibit 1009, which contains
`
`Patent Owner’s infringement contentions from a district court proceeding.
`
`See id. (citing Ex. 1009, 33–34). The cited portion of Exhibit 1009 does not
`
`explain which portions of the references on which Petitioners rely teach or
`
`render obvious the limitations of independent claim 1. See Ex. 1009, 33–34.
`
`Thus, the Petition does not explain which parts of the references teach or
`
`render obvious each of the limitations related to the claimed “processing
`
`device.” Indeed, in addition to not identifying adequately which portions of
`
`the references Petitioners rely on, the Petition addresses the multiple
`
`limitations related to the “processing device” by grouping the limitations
`
`together and providing an extended discussion of the “combined system.” In
`
`this discussion, the Petition does not explain which parts of the “combined
`
`system” purportedly correspond to which specific limitations. See Pet. 36–
`
`37.
`
`With respect to independent claims 20 and 37, the Petition asserts that
`
`these claims are similar to claim 1, that “the discussion set forth above
`
`applies with equal force to claim 20” and claim 37, and that Professor Chase
`
`provides a detailed explanation regarding claims 20 and 37. Pet. 43–44. By
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`relying on the inadequate explanation regarding independent claim 1 and the
`
`improper incorporation of the testimony in the Chase Declaration, the
`
`Petition does not explain adequately how the references relied on teach or
`
`render obvious the limitations of claims 20 and 37.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Petition
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in their
`
`challenge of independent claims 1, 20, and 37 as obvious over Kikuchi and
`
`Bergsten. For the same reasons, we are not persuaded that the Petition
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in their
`
`challenge of claims 2–19, 21–36, and 38–53, each of which depends from
`
`and necessarily includes the limitations of one of independent claims 1, 20,
`
`and 37.
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims 1–53 Based on Bergsten and Hirai
`
`The Petition argues that it would have been obvious to incorporate the
`
`functionality of Hirai’s access controls into Bergsten’s storage controllers in
`
`order to improve Bergsten’s access controls. Pet. 47–49. The Petition notes
`
`that
`
`Professor Chase explains that one advantage of doing so
`would be that the blocks of host computers may be
`allocated varying levels of access to particular sets of
`data, such that certain systems within a business entity
`could modify the data while other systems within the
`business entity have read-only access, and further
`systems within the business entity may be denied access
`altogether (e.g., due to a level of sensitivity of the stored
`data).
`
`Id. at 49. In concert with this, the Petition describes a “combined system”
`
`that results from combining the teachings of Bergsten and Hirai. Id. at 46–
`
`13
`
`49.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`
`Neither the Petition’s description of the “combined system” nor its
`
`preceding discussion of the references addresses any specific limitation of
`
`the challenged claims. Id. at 30–32, 44–49. After explaining the
`
`configuration of “the combined system,” however, the Petition offers a
`
`discussion that the Petition contends “demonstrates the correspondence
`
`between the claims terms and the structure and/or operation of the combined
`
`system of Bergsten and Hirai.” Id. at 49–58.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Petition does not show where the
`
`references teach the limitations of the claims. Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent
`
`Owner contends that “Petitioners improperly use the 172-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).”
`
`Id.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not explain
`
`adequately how the references teach or render obvious the limitations of the
`
`claims, for example, the recitation in claim 1 of “a first controller operable to
`
`interface with a first transport medium, wherein the first medium is a serial
`
`transport media.” To address this claim limitation, the Petition provides
`
`only one sentence and cites only the Chase Declaration as supporting
`
`evidence. See Pet. 50. As noted above, we decline to consider information
`
`presented in a supporting declaration but not discussed sufficiently in the
`
`Petition. Accordingly, the citation to the Chase Declaration does not remedy
`
`the Petition’s inadequate discussion of the “first controller” limitation.
`
`Additionally, the Petition does not explain adequately how the
`
`references teach or render obvious the multiple subsequent limitations of
`
`claim 1 related to “a processing device.” The portion of the Petition
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`addressing these limitations repeatedly cites the Chase Declaration as
`
`supporting evidence. See id. at 50–51. This portion of the Petition only
`
`once cites any other evidence, specifically Exhibit 1009, which contains
`
`Patent Owner’s infringement contentions from a district court proceeding.
`
`See id. (citing Ex. 1009, 33–34). The cited portion of Exhibit 1009 does not
`
`explain which parts of the references on which Petitioners rely teach or
`
`render obvious the limitations of independent claim 1. See Ex. 1009, 33–34.
`
`Thus, the Petition does not explain which parts of the references teach or
`
`render obvious each of the limitations related to the claimed “processing
`
`device.” Indeed, in addition to not identifying adequately which portions of
`
`the references Petitioners rely on, the Petition addresses the multiple
`
`limitations related to the “processing device” by grouping the limitations
`
`together and providing an extended discussion of the “combined system.” In
`
`this discussion, the Petition does not explain which parts of the “combined
`
`system” purportedly correspond to which specific limitations. See Pet. 50–
`
`51.
`
`With respect to independent claims 20 and 37, the Petition asserts that
`
`these claims are similar to claim 1, that “the discussion set forth above
`
`applies with equal force to claim 20” and claim 37, and that Professor Chase
`
`provides a detailed explanation regarding claims 20 and 37. Pet. 57–58. By
`
`relying on the inadequate explanation regarding independent claim 1 and the
`
`improper incorporation of the testimony in the Chase Declaration, the
`
`Petition does not explain adequately how the references relied on teach or
`
`render obvious the limitations of claims 20 and 37.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Petition
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in their
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`challenge of independent claims 1, 20, and 37 as obvious over Bergsten and
`
`Hirai. For the same reasons, we are not persuaded that the Petition
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in their
`
`challenge of claims 2–19, 21–36, and 38–53, each of which depends from
`
`and necessarily includes the limitations of one of independent claims 1, 20,
`
`and 37.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the information
`
`presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners
`
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 1–53 of the
`
`’041 Patent.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to claims 1–53 of the ’041
`
`Patent.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01177
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`Greg Gardella
`Scott McKeown
`OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P
`CPDocketGardella@oblon.com
`CPDocketMcKeown@oblon.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven R. Sprinkle
`John Adair
`SPRINKLE IP LAW GROUP
`crossroadsipr@sprinklelaw.com
`
`Russell Wong
`James Hall
`WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, LLP
`CrossroadsIPR@counselip.com
`
`
`17