Paper 9
`Entered: September 16, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ZTE CORPORATION and ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`E-WATCH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01336
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`Grant of Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 122(b)
`
`
`
`
`Entered: September 16, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ZTE CORPORATION and ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`E-WATCH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01336
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`Grant of Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively
`
`“ZTE”), filed a petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–8 and
`
`12–14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,365,871 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’871 patent”). Paper
`
`1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, e-Watch, Inc. (“e-Watch”), did not file a
`
`preliminary response. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The
`
`standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a) which provides:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 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.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence submitted by
`
`ZTE, we determine that ZTE has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–8 and 12–14 of the
`
`’871 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`ZTE identifies these related cases involving the ’871 patent: (1) E-
`
`Watch, Inc. and E-Watch Corporation v. Apple Inc., No. 2:13-CV-1061
`
`(JRG/RSP) (E.D. Tex.), to which the following case numbers in the same
`
`tribunal are consolidated: CV-1062, 1063, 1064, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072,
`
`1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, and 1078; (2) IPR2014-00439 (PTAB);
`
`(3) IPR2014-00987 (PTAB); (4) IPR2015-00402 (PTAB); (5) IPR2015-
`
`00404 (PTAB); (6) IPR2015-00406 (PTAB); (7) IPR2015-00411 (PTAB);
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`(8) IPR2015-00412 (PTAB); (9) IPR2015-00413 (PTAB); (10) IPR2015-
`
`00541 (PTAB); and (11) IPR2015-00610 (PTAB). Pet. 1–2. e-Watch does
`
`not identify any additional related district court litigation, but additionally
`
`identifies IPR2015-00612 (PTAB) as involving the ’871 patent. Paper 6.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`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.
`
`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, 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;
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`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
`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. Evidence Relied Upon
`
`
`
`ZTE relies on these prior art references:
`
`Reference
`
`Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`McNelley
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,550,754
`
`Aug. 27, 1996 Ex. 1003
`
`Umezawa
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,491,507
`
`Feb. 13, 1996 Ex. 1004
`
`
`
`Pet. 16–25. ZTE also relies on the Declaration testimony of Tim A.
`
`Williams, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002). Pet. 5.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`E. The Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`The sole ground of unpatentability alleged by ZTE is that claims 1–8
`
`and 12–14 of the ’871 patent are unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
`
`obvious over McNelley and Umezawa. Pet. 16.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In
`
`re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Even under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms
`
`generally also 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. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only
`
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`
`
`If 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). If a feature is not necessary to give meaning to what
`
`the inventor means by a claim term, it would be “extraneous” and should not
`
`be read into the claim. Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 950
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1993); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,
`
`849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`“an image framed by the camera” (claim 1)
`“framing the image to be captured” (claims 2)
`“framing an image to be captured (claim 12)
`“visually framing a visual image to be captured” (claim 6)
`“framing the visual image” (claim 7)
`
`Claim 1 recites “an image framed by the camera.” Claim 2 recites
`
`
`
`“framing the image to be captured.” Claim 12 recites “framing an image to
`
`be captured.” Claim 6 recites “visually framing a visual image to be
`
`captured.” Claim 7 recites “framing the visual image.” Petitioner proposes
`
`that “an image framed by the camera” means “an image having boundaries
`
`established by the camera.” Pet. 8. Petitioner proposes that “framing the
`
`image to be captured,” “framing an image to be captured,” and “visually
`
`framing a visual image to be captured” each mean “visually establishing the
`
`boundaries of an image.” Id. at 9. Petitioner proposes that “framing the
`
`visual image” means “establishing the boundaries of an image.” Id.
`
`
`
`As used in the claims, “framed” and “framing” appear to refer to
`
`composing an image by positioning the subject of the image within the
`
`boundaries of the camera’s field of view. The terms “framed” and
`
`“framing” are not used in the Specification. The term “frame” is used in the
`
`Specification, but it is used as a noun, not as a verb, and only in an image-
`
`processing context. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:21–23 (“At this point a single
`
`frame is captured in RAM 71 and/or on the portable medium RAM 72.”).
`
`
`
`On the present record, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an
`
`image framed by the camera” (claim 1) is “an image having boundaries
`
`established by the camera”; the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“framing the image to be captured,” “visually framing a visual image to be
`
`captured,” or “framing an image to be captured” (claims 2, 6, and 12) is
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`“visually establishing the boundaries of an image to be captured”; and the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “framing the visual image” (claim 7) is
`
`“establishing the boundaries of an image.”
`
`B. Obviousness of Claims 1–8 and
`12–14 over McNelley and Umezawa
`
`
`
`Obviousness is determined on the basis of underlying factual
`
`inquiries, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2)
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). A
`
`patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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).
`
`McNelley (Exhibit 1003)
`
`
`
`McNelley discloses a combination portable recording video camera
`
`and video-conferencing terminal. Ex. 1003, Abst. McNelley describes its
`
`device as a “telecamcorder configured for use as a self-contained
`
`teleconferencing terminal as well as a camcorder.” Id. at 6:35–37. The
`
`device includes an integrated phone, camera, microphone, speaker, and
`
`antenna for transmission/reception of images and sound. Id. at Fig. 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`
`Figures 6–8 of McNelley are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 illustrates a preferred placement of the camcorder camera in
`
`relation to the teleconferencing display. Id. at 3:14–15. Figure 7 illustrates
`
`a preferred captured image of a conferee. Id. at 3:16–17. Figure 8 illustrates
`
`a configuration of a complete telecamcorder terminal. Id. at 3:18–19.
`
`Figure 8 shows the telecamcorder in teleconferencing mode where camera
`
`102 is pointed in the same direction as the viewing side of display 100. Id.
`
`at 6:37–39. Camera 102 is placed above display 100 along center axis 150,
`
`thus permitting straight-on face-to-face conversation. Id. at 6:43–45.
`
`Microphone 114, light 152, and camera 102 are contained in rotatable
`
`camera boom 156. Id. at 6:45–48. Handset 174, including microphone 176
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`and speaker 178, functions like a traditional phone and can be connected
`
`directly to main housing 148 by line 184 via common phone jacks. Id. at
`
`7:41–44. Handset 174 also includes network access controls 186,
`
`telecamcorder controls 188, and latch 190 that mates with latch 92 on main
`
`housing 148. Id. at 7:58–61.
`
`Umezawa (Exhibit 1004)
`
`
`
`Umezawa discloses a video telephone in a casing for holding in one
`
`hand, which permits a user to transmit and receive pictures and speech.
`
`Ex. 1004, Abst. The video telephone includes a microphone, a speaker, a
`
`display panel, a control panel, and a camera. Id. Figure 1 of Umezawa is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows a perspective external view of an embodiment of a video
`
`telephone according to Umezawa. Id. at 4:24–26.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, Umezawa’s video telephone 1 has body 2. Id.
`
`at 5:31–34. Mounted on body 2 are camera 3, speaker 6 within ear pad 4,
`
`display panel 11, transmission/reception key 12, termination key 13, control
`
`panel 14, functional keys 15, and microphone 16. Id. at 5:35–49.
`
`
`
`Umezawa’s Figure 3 is reproduced blow.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is an exploded view of Umezawa’s video telephone, illustrating
`
`various components within the video telephone. Id. at 4:30–31. The video
`
`telephone includes circuit board 17 containing a processor and a memory,
`
`communication device 18, speaker 6, liquid crystal display panel 11, control
`
`circuit board 20, microphone 16, battery 90, antenna 21, and camera 3. Id.
`
`at 5:53–62.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`Discussion of Obviousness
`
`
`
`In light of the arguments and evidence submitted by ZTE, we
`
`determine that ZTE has established a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8
`
`and 12–14 are unpatentable as obvious over McNelley and Umezawa.
`
`
`
`For instance, with respect to limitations 1(g) of claim 1, 6(k) of claim
`
`6, and 12(d) of claim 12, which pertain to a processor that generates an
`
`image data signal (claim 1), a processor for capturing and digitizing the
`
`framed image (claim 6), and a processor for processing the image framed by
`
`the camera for generating a digitized framed image for display (claim 12),
`
`ZTE identifies sufficient disclosure of such a processor in McNelley’s
`
`disclosure. Pet. 17–18. In particular, ZTE states:
`
`McNelley discloses video camera electronics shown in Figure
`30 which process the output of the camera 406 into a final
`video signal to be fed to the controller 400 and which are
`contained in the housing. Ex. 1003, McNelley at 21:13–16.
`McNelley also discloses that advanced digital compression can
`be implemented using ASIC chips, id. at 18:43–48, the use of
`microprocessors for operational functions, id. at 20:54–58, and
`that image capture and recording can be digitized, id. at 12:36–
`39, 13:5–9. These digitized images are viewed on the display,
`which can acts as a viewfinder. See id. at 6:41-43, 7:14–16.
`
`Id. at 18.
`
`
`
`With respect to limitations 1(i) of claim 1, 6(m) of claim 6, and 12(e)
`
`of claim 12, which pertain to a memory “accessible for selectively
`
`displaying in the display window and accessible for selectively transmitting
`
`over the wireless telephone network the digitized framed image” (claim 1), a
`
`memory “accessible for selectively displaying in the display window and
`
`accessible for selectively transmitting over the cellular telephone network
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`the digitized framed image” (claim 6), and “a memory associated with the
`
`processor for receiving and storing the digitized framed image, for
`
`selectively displaying in the display window and for selectively transmitting
`
`over a wireless telephone network the digitized framed image” (claim 12),
`
`ZTE identifies sufficient disclosure of such a processor in McNelley’s
`
`disclosure. Id. at 18–19. In particular, ZTE states:
`
`McNelley’s device includes recording electronics 420, which
`processes signals for storage in memory 422, which can
`comprise any type of data recording medium ranging from tape
`and disks to solid state microelectronic memory. Ex. 1003,
`McNelley at 21:19–26. Image capture, recording, and storage
`can be digitized. See id. at 12:36–39, 13:5–9, 20:54–58. These
`stored signals include video image signals, and the stored
`signals can be played back through the speaker and display or
`sent out over connection 104 to a remote terminal or network
`including a wireless network allowing it to operate like a
`portable cellular phone. See id. at 21:48–67, 22:1–3, 14:28–31.
`Thus, the memory in the McNelley device is used for receiving
`and storing digitized framed images that can be selectively
`displayed in the display or selectively transmitted over a
`wireless telephone network.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`With respect to limitations 1(l) of claim 1 and 6(h) of claim 6, which
`
`pertain to “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” (claim 1), and “a keypad for entering manually input alphanumeric
`
`signals to be transmitted over the cellular telephone network” (claim 6), ZTE
`
`identifies sufficient disclosure for such input keys and keypad in McNelley’s
`
`disclosure. Id. at 21. In particular, ZTE states:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`The McNelley device includes a set of input keys in the housing
`which permit alphanumeric signals to be manually input by an
`operator, as illustrated in McNelley’s Figure 9. Ex. 1003,
`McNelley at Fig. 9. As McNelley describes, “the dialing
`controls 186 and the telecamcorder controls 188 [are] built into
`the main housing 148. Built-in controls may serve in lieu of
`controls on the handset 174.” Id. at Fig. 9, 8:10–15. One of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood these controls to
`allow for the alphanumeric signals to be manually input into the
`McNelley by an operator. Ex. 1002, Williams Decl. at ¶¶ 81–
`87, 107–108, 132–135.
`
`Pet. 21. Dr. Williams also testifies that “the input from the dialing controls
`
`186 in a digital wireless telephonic system as taught in McNelley are
`
`digitized alphanumeric signals, and these digitized alphanumeric signals
`
`would be sent across the digital wireless network as disclosed in McNelley,
`
`e.g., for network access.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 84.
`
`
`
`With respect to limitations 6(i) of claim 6 and 12(g) of claim 12,
`
`which pertain to “a display window for viewing the manually input
`
`alphanumeric signals” (claim 6), and “a set of input keys supported by the
`
`housing to permit alphanumeric signals to be manually input by an operator
`
`into the wireless telephone, the alphanumeric signals being presented in the
`
`display for viewing by the operator” (claim 12), ZTE identifies sufficient
`
`disclosure for such input keys and keypad in McNelley’s disclosure. Pet. 21,
`
`41, 54–55. In particular, ZTE states:
`
`Although McNelley does not expressly disclose that the
`alphanumeric signals would be presented in the display for
`viewing by the operator, it was conventional in the art to have
`control inputs displayed on a display (such as an LCD),
`particularly if such a display is already present on the device
`and is capable of displaying such signals. Id. at ¶¶ 92–93, 109,
`132–133. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`understood the McNelley device’s display to be capable of
`displaying alphanumeric signals. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, McNelley
`at 22:1–3. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`skill in the art for the input from controls 188 to be displayed on
`the provided display. See Ex. 1002, Williams Decl. at ¶¶ 92–
`93, 109, 132–133. Thus, McNelley combined with the
`understanding of one ordinarily skilled in the art renders this
`limitation obvious.
`
`Id. at 21–22.
`
`
`
`With regard to limitations 1(j) of claim 1 and 6(n) of claim 6, which
`
`pertain to “a user interface for enabling a user to select the image data signal
`
`for viewing and transmission” (claim 1), and “a user-interface for enabling a
`
`user to selectively display the digitized framed image in the display window
`
`and subsequently transmit the digitized framed image over the cellular
`
`telephone network” (claim 6), ZTE’s position is not clearly expressed. For
`
`instance, in the claim chart on pages 31 and 47 of the Petition, multiple
`
`portions of McNelley’s disclosure are listed as corresponding to these
`
`limitations. Yet, the explanation or narrative of how the limitations are met,
`
`as expressed on pages 22 and 23 of the Petition, indicate reliance only on
`
`Umezawa’s disclosure to meet these limitations. Such ambiguous use of the
`
`claim chart, not supported by corresponding narrative elsewhere in the
`
`Petition, creates confusion and raises a notice issue as to whether and how e-
`
`Watch should respond to the unexplained disclosure of McNelley. Where a
`
`claim chart in a petition lists, for a particular limitation, portions of multiple
`
`references, as here, the petitioner should ensure that the narrative elsewhere
`
`in the petition is clear in how the portions fit together to meet the
`
`corresponding limitation.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`
`In this case, we focus on Umezawa’s disclosure because that is what
`
`ZTE has addressed in its narrative. ZTE identifies sufficient disclosure for
`
`such an interface in Umezawa’s disclosure. Pet. 22. In particular, ZTE
`
`states:
`
`Umezawa also discloses the claimed “user interface for
`
`enabling a user to select the image data signal for viewing and
`transmission” as recited in claim 1 and recited similarly in
`claim 6. Umezawa’s user interface includes control panel 14
`and function keys 15 for changing-over pictures, scrolling the
`picture frame, inputting telephone numbers, and starting and
`stopping a video phone transmission. [sic] Ex. 1004, Umezawa
`patent at 8:30–35, 10:16–31, 10:62–11:8. Thus, Umezawa
`expressly discloses a user interface that enables a user to select
`the image data signal for viewing and transmission. Ex. 1002,
`Williams Decl. at ¶¶ 77–78, 117–118.
`
`Id. at 22. We also are, on this record, sufficiently persuaded by the reasons
`
`asserted by ZTE with regard to combining teachings of McNelley and
`
`Umezawa, with regard to limitations 1(j) and 6(n). ZTE has articulated
`
`sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings. For example, ZTE states:
`
`One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`combine Umezawa’s user
`input and
`interface with
`the
`McNelley device. As described above, Umezawa’s user
`interface functionality allows for size reduction and more
`convenient hand-held operation, problems that McNelley was
`interested in solving. The Umezawa interface’s ability to
`enable user selection of images for display and transmission
`enhances the operational convenience of McNelley’s device.
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`skill in the art to combine McNelley with Umezawa to achieve
`the claimed features. Ex. 1002, Williams Decl. at ¶¶ 77–78,
`117–118.
`
`Id. at 22–23.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`
`We further are persuaded sufficiently, on this record, that McNelley
`
`discloses limitation 12(f) as identified by ZTE (Pet. 52–53) (“the wireless
`
`telephone being selectively operable to accept and digitize audio signals to
`
`be transmitted, the wireless telephone being selectively operable to convert
`
`received digitized audio signals into acoustic audio, the wireless telephone
`
`being selectively operable to transmit and receive non-audio digital signals,
`
`the non-audio digital signals including a selected digitized frame image”).
`
`ZTE points to various portions of McNelley to support its contention.
`
`Id. at 53–54.
`
`
`
`The above analysis with respect to the independent claims is
`
`representative. ZTE similarly addressed sufficiently each of the dependent
`
`claims. Id. at 21–25.
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, ZTE has shown a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of each of claims 1–8
`
`and 12–14 of the ’871 patent as obvious over McNelley and Umezawa.
`
`
`
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`
`any challenged claim.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`
`hereby instituted for each of claims 1–8 and 12–14 of the ’871 patent, under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103, as obvious over McNelley and Umezawa;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial on the
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`grounds of unpatentability authorized above, and that the trial commences
`
`on the entry date of this Decision;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that ZTE’s unopposed Motion for Joinder
`
`(Paper 3) which seeks to have this proceeding joined with IPR2015-00412,
`
`is granted, subject to the limitations agreed to by ZTE, e-Watch, and Apple
`
`as summarized in Paper 8 of this proceeding and Paper 23 of IPR2015-
`
`00412; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is joined with IPR2015-
`
`00412, that the currently effective due dates in IPR2015-00412 control the
`
`joined proceeding, and that all future papers shall be filed only in the joined
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01366
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Steve Moore
`Richard Thill
`Barry Shelton
`Brian Nash
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com
`richard.thill@pillsburylaw.com
`barry.shelton@pillsburylaw.com
`brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert C. Curfiss
`bob@curfiss.com
`
`
`
`David O. Simmons
`IVC Patent Agency
`dsimmons1@sbcglobal.net
`
`
`
`
`19
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
