Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 6
` Entered: August 31, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIKEY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`____________
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 6
` Entered: August 31, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIKEY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`____________
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (“Pet.”) requesting
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–18, 20–29, 31, 33–35, 37–42,
`
`44, and 45 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210 B2 (“the
`
`’210 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 2. UniKey Technologies, Inc. (“Patent
`
`Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. We have jurisdiction under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a).
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`
`instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`After considering the Petition and associated evidence, we conclude
`
`that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`
`showing the unpatentability of all challenged claims. Thus, we institute an
`
`inter partes review as to claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–18, 20–29, 31, 33–35, 37–42,
`
`44, and 45 of the ’210 patent.
`
`A.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Patent Owner identifies certain patents and pending patent
`
`applications that it states may be affected by a decision in this proceeding.
`
`See Paper 5, 2–3.
`
`B.
`
`The ’210 Patent
`
`The ’210 patent relates to wireless access control systems having
`
`locks that communicate with remote access devices to control the locking
`
`and unlocking operation of the lock. See Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`
`C.
`
`Illustrative Claims
`
`Claims 1, 14, 23, and 33 are independent claims. Claims 2–7, 9, 10,
`
`12, and 13 depend from independent claim 1; claims 15–18 and 20–22
`
`depend from claim 14; claims 24–29 and 31 depend directly or indirectly
`
`from claim 23; and claims 34, 35, 37–42, 44, and 45 depend directly or
`
`indirectly from claim 33.
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`A wireless access control system for a door, the wireless
`1.
`access control system comprising:
`a lock assembly carried by the door and comprising
`a lock,
`wireless communications circuitry,
`a lock controller coupled to said lock and said
`wireless communications circuitry, and configured to
`switch the lock between a locked position and an unlocked
`position, and
`a proximity detector coupled to said lock controller
`and configured to detect presence of a user; and
`a user access device remote from said lock and comprising
`an accelerometer,
`remote access wireless communications circuitry,
`and a
`remote access controller coupled
`to said
`accelerometer
`and
`said
`remote
`access wireless
`communications circuitry, and configured to cooperate
`with said remote access wireless communications circuitry
`to wirelessly transmit a command to switch said lock
`between the locked and unlocked positions based upon a
`sensed acceleration;
`said lock controller configured to switch said lock
`between the locked and unlocked positions based upon
`wirelessly receiving, via said wireless communications
`circuitry, the command directly from said user access
`device and cooperate with said wireless communication
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`
`to wirelessly communicate at a higher
`circuitry
`communication rate based upon a detected presence of the
`user.
`
`
`
`D.
`
`References
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`
`Luebke
`McLintock
`Willats
`Howarter
`Hassan
`Popelard
`
`
`Mar. 7, 2000
`US 6,034,617
`July 25, 2002
`US 2002/0099945 A1
`Jan. 9, 2003
`US 2003/0008675 A1
`US 2010/0075656 A1 Mar. 25, 2010
`US 2010/0171642 A1
`July 8, 2010
`US 2011/0181387 A1
`July 28, 2011
`
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1010
`
`E.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–18, 20–29, 31, 33–35, 37–
`
`42, 44, and 45 of the ’210 patent based on the asserted grounds of
`
`unpatentability set forth in the table below. Pet. 3.
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Howarter and Willats
`
`§ 103(a) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–15,
`17, 18, and 20
`§ 103(a) 2
`Howarter, Willats, and Hassan
`§ 103(a) 5, 7, 16, and 18
`Howarter, Willats, and Luebke
`Howarter, Willats, and McLintock § 103(a) 21 and 22
`Howarter
`§ 102
`23, 24, 26, and 27
`Howarter and Popelard
`§ 103(a) 23, 24, 28, 29, and 31
`Howarter and Luebke
`§ 103(a) 25 and 27
`Howarter and McLintock
`§ 103(a) 33, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44,
`and 45
`Howarter, McLintock, and Hassan § 103(a) 34
`Howarter, McLintock, and Willats § 103(a) 37
`Howarter, McLintock, and Luebke § 103(a) 40 and 42
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). In determining the broadest
`
`reasonable construction, we presume that claim terms carry their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This presumption may be rebutted when a patentee,
`
`acting as a lexicographer, sets forth an alternate definition of a term in the
`
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Petitioner contends that, although the phrase “communication rate”
`
`does not appear in the written description of the ’210 patent, certain passages
`
`therein “at least partially inform a proper interpretation of the term.” Pet. 5
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 4:35–40, 5:60–62, 12:10–12, Fig. 6a). For example, the
`
`’210 patent explains that “the lock 11 may be advertising or listening
`
`(sending or sampling signals) at a low frequency rate in order to conserve
`
`battery power.” Ex. 1001, 4:35–37). The ’210 patent further explains that,
`
`during certain time intervals, “one may want the radio 22 to be broadcasting
`
`or listening at a faster rate to eliminate any delay in the operation of locking
`
`or unlocking the door.” Ex. 1001, 12:10–12. Petitioner contends “any
`
`reasonable interpretation of the term ‘communication rate’ in light of the
`
`specification must at least include how frequently communication events
`
`occur.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 20).
`
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`
`arguments. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`reasonable interpretation of “communication rate” in view of the
`
`specification includes how frequently communication events occur.
`
`We determine that the remaining terms of the challenged claims do
`
`not require express constructions at this time.
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Unpatentability Challenge Based on Howarter and Willats
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–15, 17, 18, and
`
`20 would have been obvious based on the combination of Howarter and
`
`Willats. Pet. 3, 13–38. Petitioner explains how the cited prior art references
`
`allegedly teach the claimed subject matter and relies upon the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Richard T. Mihran (Ex. 1004, hereinafter, the “Mihran Declaration”) to
`
`support its positions. Pet. 13–38. Petitioner’s analysis, claim mapping, and
`
`supporting evidence have not been addressed by Patent Owner at this stage
`
`of the proceeding.
`
`1. Independent Claim 1
`
`a. “Wireless access control system for a door”
`
`Petitioner contends Howarter teaches a “wireless access control
`
`system for a door,” as recited in the preamble of independent claim 1. Pet.
`
`13–14 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 14–16, 18, 40–48, 60, 65, Figs. 3, 6, 7). We are
`
`persuaded because Howarter discloses:
`
`One embodiment includes a system and method for unlocking a
`vehicle with a cell phone. Wireless signals may be monitored
`from a cell phone. A signal may be received from the cell phone.
`A distance between the cell phone and the vehicle may be
`determined. Doors of the vehicle may be unlocked in response
`to the cell phone nearing the vehicle. The doors of the vehicle
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`
`may be locked in response to the cell phone being further
`separated from the vehicle.
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 3.
`
`b. “Lock assembly carried by the door”
`
`Claim 1 recites that the “wireless access control system” comprises “a
`
`lock assembly carried by the door,” which itself comprises the following:
`
`(1) “a lock,” (2) “wireless communications circuitry,” (3) “a lock controller
`
`coupled to said lock and said wireless communications circuitry, and
`
`configured to switch the lock between a locked position and an unlocked
`
`position,” and (4) “a proximity detector coupled to said lock controller and
`
`configured to detect presence of a user.”
`
`Petitioner contends Howarter teaches “a lock” because it describes a
`
`system for locking and unlocking the doors of a vehicle. Pet. 15 (citing Ex.
`
`1005 ¶¶ 3, 14–16, 18, 19, 22, 25, 33, 36, 38, 52; Ex. 1004 ¶ 29). Petitioner
`
`also contends Howarter teaches a “lock assembly” having “wireless
`
`communications circuitry.” Pet. 16–17. In particular, Petitioner argues that,
`
`“[t]aken together (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 below), or separately,
`
`the scanner 210 and transceiver 212 correspond to the claimed wireless
`
`communications circuitry.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 31). Howarter
`
`discloses that “scanner 210 is a scanning device configured to read
`
`information, data, or a signal from the cell phone 214.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 37.
`
`Howarter further discloses that “transceiver 212 is a device operable to
`
`communicate with the cell phone 214.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 38. On this record, we
`
`are persuaded that Howarter’s disclosure of a transceiver and a scanner
`
`teaches “wireless communications circuitry,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`
`Petitioner also contends that “processor 202, memory 204 and control
`
`logic 206 correspond to the claimed ‘lock controller.’” Pet. 18 (citing Ex.
`
`1004 ¶ 30). Howarter discloses that “[t]he control logic 206 is the logic for
`
`controlling the vehicle system 200.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 32. Petitioner argues
`
`Figure 2 depicts how processor 202, memory 204, and control logic 206 are
`
`“coupled to” the wireless communications circuitry. Pet. 17. Citing
`
`Howarter’s disclosure that “the control logic 206 may further unlock the
`
`driver’s door,” Petitioner contends that Howarter teaches “a lock controller
`
`coupled to said lock” and “configured to switch the lock between a locked
`
`position and an unlocked position,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 18 (citing Ex.
`
`1005 ¶ 33).
`
`Petitioner further contends Howarter teaches a “lock assembly”
`
`having “a proximity detector coupled to said lock controller and configured
`
`to detect presence of a user,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 18–21. Petitioner
`
`cites several teachings regarding proximity detection in Howarter. See id.
`
`For example, Howarter discloses “the van may automatically be locked
`
`based on a proximity detection.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 56. Howarter discloses
`
`“determination of distance may be made utilizing global positioning
`
`information from the cell phone 214” or “a signal strength read by the
`
`vehicle system 200 or the transceiver 212 may indicate an approximate
`
`distance between the vehicle system 200 and the cell phone 214.” Ex. 1005
`
`¶ 32. Howarter further discloses “changes in signal strength may be
`
`converted to distance measurements based on pre-configured settings,
`
`calibrations, and tests.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 44. Thus, Petitioner contends
`
`“transceiver 212 in conjunction with the control logic 206 provide a
`
`‘proximity detector’ configured detect the presence of a user, at least insofar
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`as the user is carrying the cell phone 214.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 16–
`
`17). On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that
`
`Howarter teaches a “lock assembly” having a “proximity detector” as
`
`claimed.
`
`Citing Howarter’s disclosure that components, such as scanner 210,
`
`“may be imbedded or integrated within the driver’s side door” (Ex. 1005
`
`¶ 37), Petitioner contends Howarter teaches “a lock assembly carried by the
`
`door.” Pet. 15 (emphasis added). Howarter further discloses “the
`
`transceiver 212, scanner 210, control logic 206, and other elements of the
`
`vehicle system 200 may be further integrated.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 38.
`
`On the current record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions
`
`that Howarter teaches “a lock assembly carried by the door” having the
`
`components recited in claim 1, discussed above.
`
`c. “User access device remote from said lock”
`
`Claim 1 further recites that the “wireless access control system”
`
`comprises “a user access device remote from said lock,” which itself
`
`comprises the following: (1) “an accelerometer,” (2) “remote access
`
`wireless communications circuitry,” and (3) “a remote access controller
`
`coupled to said accelerometer and said remote access wireless
`
`communications circuitry, and configured to cooperate with said remote
`
`access wireless communications circuitry to wirelessly transmit a command
`
`to switch said lock between the locked and unlocked positions based upon a
`
`sensed acceleration.”
`
`Petitioner contends Howarter discloses a cell phone as one example of
`
`such a remote “user access device.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 14–16,
`
`18); see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 16 (“The cell phone 104 is one embodiment of a
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`wireless device. In another embodiment, the cell phone 104 may be a digital
`
`personal assistant (PDA), Blackberry® device, mp3 player, laptop, evolution
`
`data optimized (EVDO) card, or other electronic and/or voice
`
`communications device suitable for wireless communications with the
`
`vehicle 106.).” Petitioner also contends Howarter teaches that the “user
`
`access device” has “remote access wireless communications circuitry.” Pet.
`
`22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 16–18). We are persuaded because Howarter
`
`discloses:
`
`The cell phone 104 is a device configured for wireless
`communications. The cell phone 104 may communicate with the
`vehicle 106 utilizing any number of transmission signals,
`protocols, or standards. For example, the cell phone 104 may
`communicate utilizing Bluetooth®, WiFi™, TDMA, CDMA,
`GSM, WiMAX, analog signals, or any number of other
`communications standards.
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 16.
`
`Petitioner also contends Howarter teaches that the “user access
`
`device” has “an accelerometer” and “a remote access controller coupled to
`
`said accelerometer and said remote access wireless communications
`
`circuitry, and configured to cooperate with said remote access wireless
`
`communications circuitry to wirelessly transmit a command to switch said
`
`lock between the locked and unlocked positions based upon a sensed
`
`acceleration.” Pet. 22–24. Howarter discloses that “a tactile response of
`
`tapping the cell phone 104 twice may be read by accelerometers within the
`
`cell phone 104 which may generate a signal to unlock the doors of the
`
`vehicle 106.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 24. Howarter also discloses that “[t]he cell phone
`
`104 and the vehicle 106 may include hardware, software, and firmware
`
`configured for communication between the two devices.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 18.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`Petitioner contends, therefore, that “the unlock command triggered by
`
`detection signal from the accelerometer is transmitted wirelessly from cell
`
`phone 104 to vehicle 106 via appropriate hardware, software, and firmware
`
`– i.e., a ‘controller.’” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 32). On this record, we are
`
`persuaded that Howarter teaches “an accelerometer” and “a remote access
`
`controller,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`Therefore, on the current record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`
`contentions that Howarter teaches “a user access device remote from said
`
`lock” having the components recited in claim 1.
`
`d. “Lock controller configured to switch said lock”
`
`Claim 1 further recites:
`
`said lock controller configured to switch said lock between the
`locked and unlocked positions based upon wirelessly receiving,
`via said wireless communications circuitry, the command
`directly from said user access device and cooperate with said
`wireless communication circuitry to wirelessly communicate at
`a higher communication rate based upon a detected presence of
`the user.
`
`As discussed above, we are persuaded on the current record that
`
`Howarter teaches “a lock controller . . . configured to switch the lock
`
`between a locked position and an unlocked position.” Also, as discussed
`
`above, we are persuaded on the current record that Howarter teaches the
`
`remote user access device “wirelessly transmit[s] a command to switch said
`
`lock between the locked and unlocked positions.” Petitioner contends
`
`Figure 4 of Howarter “demonstrates that the controller of the vehicle system
`
`is designed to unlock the vehicle in response to receiving an appropriate
`
`command from the cell phone.” Pet. 25–26. Petitioner also contends
`
`Howarter teaches that communications between the remote device and the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`vehicle are transmitted directly, citing Howarter’s disclosure of the use of
`
`Bluetooth for communications. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 16, 20, 42–46;
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 24).
`
`Petitioner further contends the combination of Howarter and Willats
`
`teaches “communicat[ing] at a higher communication rate based upon a
`
`detected presence of the user,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 26–30. Petitioner
`
`contends Howarter’s disclosures of polling for a signal from a cell phone
`
`and entering an “active listening mode” if a signal is detected teach the use
`
`of “a higher communication rate based upon a detected presence of the
`
`user,” as claimed. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 23; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 36–43).
`
`Howarter discloses:
`
`The vehicle 106 may also prepare to receive an additional user
`selection or user input from the cell phone 104 in response to
`detecting a communications signal from the cell phone 104. For
`example, the vehicle 106 may enter an active listening mode in
`which a voice command, tactile input, or button sequence may
`be received as a user input through the cell phone 104.
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 23. With reference to Figure 3, Petitioner also contends
`
`Howarter’s disclosure of transitioning from an initial polling mode in step
`
`306 to continuous distance monitoring in step 312 teaches the use of “a
`
`higher communication rate based upon a detected presence of the user,” as
`
`claimed. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 41–46, Fig. 3; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 36–43).
`
`Petitioner further contends Willats teaches increasing a
`
`communication rate based on detecting the presence of a user. Pet. 28–30.
`
`For example, Willats discloses a vehicle access control system that has a
`
`scanning device that communicates with response devices. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 13–
`
`14, Fig. 1. Willats discloses:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`
`In use, authorized users of the vehicle carry the response device
`22 which preferably takes the form of a transponder having an
`identifier code stored therein.
` The scanning sensor 16
`periodically scans for the existence of such response devices 22
`within its range of operation under the control of controller 14
`and when such a response device 22 is detected, the scanning
`sensor 16 interrogates the response device to obtain the identifier
`code which is then passed to the controller 14 so that it may be
`authenticated against codes held within a memory associated
`with the controller 14.
`
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 15. Citing the testimony of Dr. Mihran, Petitioner contends that
`
`“the communication events which constitute the interrogation of the
`
`response device triggered by detecting its presence represents a higher
`
`communication frequency or rate than would otherwise occur if no user was
`
`detected.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 46).
`
`Willats also discloses that, to save power, “the scanning device 12 of
`
`the present invention reduces the scan rate dependent upon the time elapsed
`
`since a response device was previously detected.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 18. Petitioner
`
`argues that “the reduced scan rate in Willats would be reset back to the high
`
`scan rate after each detection of the user’s response device so that the user
`
`does not perceive a delay in operation of the lock” and that the transition
`
`from a low scan rate to a high scan rate teaches wireless communications at
`
`a higher communication rate. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 47).
`
`Petitioner contends “[i]t would have been obvious to modify
`
`Howarter’s vehicle system to include the functionality of selectively
`
`reducing and increasing the rate of automatic polling, such as described by
`
`Willats.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–49). Petitioner presents articulated
`
`reasoning with rational underpinning to support its argument that it would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Howarter
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`in view of the teachings of Willats, as alleged. Pet. 30–32. For example,
`
`Petitioner argues “modifying Howarter’s vehicle system to incorporate the
`
`variable-polling-rate functionality taught by Willats provides the same
`
`improvement in Howarter’s system as it does in Willats’ – namely,
`
`strategically conserving battery power without disturbing the user’s
`
`interaction with the vehicle locks.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 48–49).
`
`Therefore, according to Petitioner, “the proposed combination would be
`
`simply a routine upgrade, adding predictable, yet desirable, functionality to
`
`Howarter’s vehicle system for the important purpose of extending battery
`
`life.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 49).
`
`On the current record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions
`
`that the combination of Howarter and Willats teaches having communication
`
`events occur more frequently, which is encompassed within the meaning of
`
`a higher “communication rate,” as discussed above. Furthermore, we are
`
`persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that the combination of Howarter and
`
`Willats teaches that the lock controller is “configured to switch said lock
`
`between the locked and unlocked positions based upon wirelessly receiving,
`
`via said wireless communications circuitry, the command directly from said
`
`user access device and cooperate with said wireless communication circuitry
`
`to wirelessly communicate at a higher communication rate based upon a
`
`detected presence of the user,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`e. Claim 1 Conclusion
`
`Petitioner’s explanation that independent claim 1 would have been
`
`unpatentable over the combination of Howarter and Willats is supported by
`
`the record and persuasive at this stage in the proceeding. Thus, Petitioner
`
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`independent claim 1 would have been unpatentable over Howarter and
`
`Willats.
`
`2. Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–15, 17, 18, and 20
`
`Petitioner further contends independent claim 14 and dependent
`
`claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 would have been obvious
`
`based on the combination of Howarter and Willats. Pet. 32–38. Based on
`
`our review of Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence, which have
`
`not been addressed by Patent Owner at this stage of the proceeding, we are
`
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on its assertions that claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–15, 17, 18, and 20
`
`would have been obvious based on the combination of Howarter and
`
`Willats.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Additional Unpatentability Challenges
`
`Petitioner additionally asserts claims 2, 5, 7, 16, 18, 21–29, 31, 33–35,
`
`37–42, 44, and 45 would have been obvious based on Howarter alone or in
`
`combination with other prior art references. Pet. 3, 38–59. Petitioner
`
`explains how the cited prior art references allegedly teach the claimed
`
`subject matter and relies upon the Mihran Declaration to support its
`
`positions. Pet. 38–59. Petitioner provides articulated reasoning with
`
`rational underpinning, supported by evidence in the record, to support its
`
`contentions of obviousness. See id. We have reviewed Petitioner’s analysis,
`
`claim mapping, and supporting evidence, which have not been addressed by
`
`Patent Owner at this stage of the proceeding, and we are persuaded that
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`
`assertions that claims 2, 5, 7, 16, 18, 21–29, 31, 33–35, 37–42, 44, and 45
`
`would have been obvious over the cited art.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the information presented
`
`in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`would prevail in showing that claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–18, 20–29, 31, 33–35,
`
`37–42, 44, and 45 of the ’210 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a). However, we have not made a final determination with respect to
`
`the patentability of these challenged claims.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`V. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–18, 20–29, 31, 33–35,
`
`37–42, 44, and 45 of the ’210 patent on the following grounds:
`
`A. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–15, 17, 18, and 20 as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Howarter and
`
`Willats;
`
`B. Claim 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
`
`combination of Howarter, Willats, and Hassan; and
`
`C. Claims 5, 7, 16, and 18 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over the combination of Howarter, Willats, and Luebke; and
`
`D. Claims 21 and 22 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`the combination of Howarter, Willats, and McLintock;
`
`E. Claims 23, 24, 26, and 27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Howarter;
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`
`F. Claims 23, 24, 28, 29, and 31 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over the combination of Howarter and Popelard;
`
`G. Claims 25 and 27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`the combination of Howarter and Luebke;
`
`H. Claims 33, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, and 45 as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Howarter and McLintock;
`
`I. Claim 34 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
`
`combination of Howarter, McLintock, and Hassan;
`
`J. Claim 37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
`
`combination of Howarter, McLintock, and Willats; and
`
`K. Claims 40 and 42 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`the combination of Howarter, McLintock, and Luebke.
`
`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
`
`will commence on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00679
`Patent 9,057,210 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Thomas A. Rozylowicz
`Kenneth Wayne Darby, Jr.
`IPR42746-0006IP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven M. Bauer
`Joseph A. Capraro Jr
`Gerald Worth
`Micah Miller
`PTABMattersBoston@proskauer.com
`JCapraro@proskauer.com
`gworth@proskauer.com
`mmiller@proskauer.com
`
`18
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
