UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`VALVE CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00948
`
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
`A. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ............................................. 2
`B.
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘525 PATENT .................................................. 3
`C.
`PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ‘525 PATENT ........................ 4
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 7
`A.
`LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................... 7
`B.
`PETITIONER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 35
`U.S.C.§ 112 IS IMPROPER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ................. 8
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................. 9
`1.
`“thickness” ............................................................................... 10
`2.
`“elongate member” .................................................................. 11
`3.
`“inherently resilient and flexible” ............................................ 12
`4.
`“recess” .................................................................................... 13
`5.
`“front end of the controller” ..................................................... 14
`6.
`“paddle lever” .......................................................................... 15
`IV. PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ‘525
`PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................................................................. 16
`A.
`PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO CARRY ITS BURDEN TO
`SHOW THAT THE TOSAKI REFERENCE ANTICIPATES
`ANY CLAIM ..................................................................................... 17
`1.
`The Base Reference Tosaki Is Characterized By
`Petitioner As A Hand Held Controller, But It Is Not; It Is
`Non-Analogous Art .................................................................. 18
`Tosaki Is A Steering Wheel ..................................................... 20
`Tosaki Does Not Include First And Second Back
`Controls Located On The Back Of The Controller As
`Claimed .................................................................................... 21
`
`2.
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Tosaki Does Not Have Back Controls With Elongate
`Members That Extend Substantially The Full Distance
`Between The Top Edge And The Bottom Edge ...................... 21
`Tosaki Does Not Have A “Recess” On The Back Of The
`Controller Where The Elongate Member Is Mounted ............. 21
`PETITIONER’S OBVIOUSNESS CHALLENGES FAIL TO
`PERFORM GRAHAM ANALYSIS AND ARE
`CONCLUSORY ................................................................................. 22
`1.
`Failure to Perform Graham Analysis ....................................... 22
`2.
`Lack of Rationale to Combine and Improper Hindsight ......... 26
`3.
`Petitioner Has Failed To Establish The Level Of
`Ordinary Skill In The Art As Required By KSR ..................... 28
`PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO CARRY ITS BURDEN TO
`SHOW THAT THE JIMAKOS REFERENCE QUALIFIES AS
`PRIOR ART ....................................................................................... 28
`1.
`Failure To Authenticate Jimakos ............................................. 29
`2.
`Failure To Qualify Jimakos As Prior Art “Printed
`Publication” .............................................................................. 30
`Improper Reliance On Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence
`To Suggest Publication Date .................................................... 32
`PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO CARRY ITS BURDEN ON
`ALL FIVE STATUTORY GROUNDS ............................................. 34
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 35
`
`3.
`
`D.
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`A.R.M., Inc. v. Cottingham Agencies, Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00671 ................................................................................................... 31
`Actavis, Inc. v. Research Corp. Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2014-0112 ..................................................................................................... 32
`Apple Inc. v. SmartFlash LLC,
`Case CBM2015-00029, slip op. (PTAB May 28, 2015) ........................ 10, 11, 25
`Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp.,
`441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 17
`Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 8
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 30
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 7
`Dexcowin Global, Inc. v. Aribex, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00436 ..................................................................................................... 8
`DirecTV, LLC v. Qurio Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-02006 ............................................................................................. 24, 27
`Dominion Dealer Sols., LLC v. AutoAlert, Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00225, slip op. (PTAB Oct. 10, 2013) ....................................... 25
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`Case No. IPR2013-00085, 2014 WL 2090664 (P.T.A.B. May 15,
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 29
`Endo Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Depomed, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00656 ..................................................................................................... 7
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 22
`In re Borkowski,
`422 F.2d 904, 164 USPQ 642 (CCPA 1970) ...................................................... 13
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Page
`
`
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .................................................................... 30, 31
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d at 899 ................................................................................................... 31
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 26
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 30
`In re: Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd.,
`Case No. 2015-1300, -- F.3d. __, 2016 WL 3974202 (Fed. Cir.
`July 25, 2016)
` ................................................................................................................. 1, 2, 9, 16
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 26, 27
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 7
`In re Wyer,
`655 F.2d 221 (CCPA 1981) ................................................................................ 30
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`Case CBM2012-00003, slip op. (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012)
`(representative) ................................................................................................... 25
`Lifewave, Inc. v. Edward Blendermann,
`IPR2016-00131 ................................................................................................... 10
`Loussier v. Universal Music Group, Inc.,
`No. 02 CIV. 2447 (KMW), 2005 WL 5644421 (S.D.N.Y. July 14,
`2005) ................................................................................................................... 33
`Macronix Int’l v. Spansion LLC¸
`IPR2014-00106 ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 8
`Microsoft Corporation v. Depomed, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00292 ..................................................................................................... 8
`Novak v. Tucows, Inc.,
`No. 06-CV-1909 (JFB) (ARL), 2007 WL 922306 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.
`26, 2007), aff’d, 330 F. App’x 204 (2d Cir. 2009) ............................................. 33
`Osborn v. Butler,
`712 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (D. Idaho 2010) ............................................................... 33
`Servicenow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`IPR2015-00707 ................................................................................................... 32
`Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2014-00148, 2015 WL 1906730 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23,
`2015) ............................................................................................................. 29, 32
`Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 8
`Suffolk Technologies, LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`752 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 30, 31
`Texas Instruments,
`988 F.2d at 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ...................................................................... 15
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`593 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 17
`Toxgon Corp. v. BNFL, Inc.,
`No. CT-00-5040 (WFN), 2003 WL 25860388 (E.D. Wash. July 7,
`2003) ................................................................................................................... 33
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`Case No. 2015-1631 at 7 (Fed. Cir. February 5, 2016) ........................................ 9
`Tyco Fire Prods. LP., v. Victaulic Co.,
`IPR2016-00276 ................................................................................................... 12
`Universal Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00152 ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 17
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. ¶ 112 ........................................................................................................ 10
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 31
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) ................................................................................. 4
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a) ................................................................................. 6
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 31
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 22
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................ 6, 8, 13
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ............................................................................................... 8, 29
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ..................................................................................................... 1
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 1.132 ....................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 1
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................................... 7
`MPEP 2164.02 ......................................................................................................... 13
`U.S. Patent No. 6,394,906 .......................................................................................... 4
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,514 .......................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`RULES
`F.R.E. 902 ................................................................................................................ 29
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Ironburg Inventions Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) respectfully submits this
`
`Preliminary Response in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107,
`
`in response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,641,525
`
`(“the ‘525 Patent”) filed by Valve Corporation (“Petitioner”). Patent Owner
`
`requests that the Board not institute inter partes review for several reasons.
`
`
`
`The Board has discretion to “deny some or all grounds for unpatentability
`
`for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b); see 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Furthermore, in an inter partes review, the petitioner has
`
`the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence under 35 U.S.C. §316(e). See In re: Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., Case
`
`No. 2015-1300, -- F.3d. __, 2016 WL 3974202, *5 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016). With
`
`respect to each challenged claim, the Petitioner has not satisfied that burden and
`
`trial should therefore not be instituted.
`
`
`
`Additionally, a trial should not be instituted in this matter because the
`
`Petition fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 by failing to specify where each
`
`element of the claims is found in the cited references.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`
`
`Additionally, a trial should also not be instituted in this matter because the
`
`Petition contains mere conclusory statements that it would be obvious to combine
`
`the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention, which is not sufficient for a finding
`
`of obviousness. See In re: Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 2016 WL 3974202, *10.
`
`
`
`Additionally, a trial should not be instituted in this matter because the
`
`Petitioner has failed to carry its burden to show that references relied upon in the
`
`Petition give rise to a reasonable likelihood of the Petitioner prevailing with
`
`respect to the challenged claims of the ‘525 Patent. Indeed, the Petitioner has
`
`failed to demonstrate that references such as Jimakos, a non-patent reference, can
`
`be used as prior art to the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`Should the Board decide to institute a trial, Patent Owner reserves the right
`
`to present additional arguments.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`The ‘525 patent relates to certain features and controls of hand held game
`
`controllers. In particular, the patent discloses a novel hand held game controller
`
`that has elongated controls on the back of the controller that can be operated by a
`
`middle, ring, or little finger of a user.
`
`A. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
` Conventional game controllers are held and operated with both hands.
`
`Conventional game controllers usually comprise a hard outer case with a plurality
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`of controls mounted about the front and top edge of the controller. The plurality of
`
`controls can be buttons, analog control sticks, bumpers, and triggers.
`
`
`
`As gaming consoles have become more powerful and games have become
`
`more complex, game controllers have had an increasing number of controls to give
`
`users command over increasingly complex game functions. For example, game
`
`controllers that originally began with two buttons soon had four, then eight, and so
`
`on.
`
`
`
`Due to the number of controls on the front of controllers held with the hands,
`
`the only way for a user to operate all of the front controls is by their thumbs.
`
`When a user must operate a plurality of controls on the front of the controller with
`
`only their thumbs, it may result in a loss of control. For example, a user cannot
`
`simultaneously operate four buttons and a control stick without moving their finger
`
`back and forth between the different controls. This movement takes additional
`
`time and may cause decreased user performance for particular games.
`
`
`
`There was a need for an improved controller that removed the need for the
`
`user to operate a plurality of buttons on the front of the controller with a single
`
`finger.
`
`B.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘525 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ‘525 patent describes a novel hand held game controller with back
`
`controls. The inventors recognized the need for hand held controllers that would
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`allow users to perform more complex game functions at a higher speed and
`
`efficiency. The inventors recognized that if one or more additional controls were
`
`located on the back of the controller in a position to be operated by the user’s other
`
`fingers, that more complex game functions could be achieved.
`
`
`
`In view of these principles, the controller described and claimed in the ‘525
`
`patent comprises an outer case, a front control, shaped to be held in the hand of a
`
`user such that the user’s thumb is positioned to operate the front control, and two
`
`back controls with elongated members, such that the user’s other fingers are
`
`positioned to operate the back controls.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ‘525 PATENT
`
`C.
`Below is a summary of the prosecution history for the ‘525 Patent:
`
` Initial Filing
`
`The application for the ‘525 patent was filed on June 17, 2011, as U.S.
`
`Application No. 13/162,727.
`
` First Office Action
`
`In the first office action, the Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(b) and 103(a) as being anticipated and unpatentable over U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,394,906 to Ogata.
`
` Response to First Office Action
`
`In response to the first office action, Patent Owner amended the claims to
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`clarify the various sides of the claimed controller, including the “back” of
`
`the controller. Applicant argued that the Examiner had shown no evidence
`
`supporting the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would construe the front
`
`side of the main body as both the “top edge” and “back” of a controller, as
`
`was recited in the claims.
`
`The Patent Owner also made of record the “Thurstmaster” (sic) controller
`
`that was disclosed in a web page. Id. at 68.
`
` Second Office Action
`
`In the second office action, the Examiner rejected the claims under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,859,514 to Park
`
`and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Park in view of U.S.
`
`Publication No. 2004/0224765 to Martinez.
`
`The Park reference, as described with reference to figures 5 and 6, includes a
`
`“rear face” with a variety of “keys” that can be engaged by a user.
`
` Response to Second Office Action
`
`In response to the second office action, Patent Owner amended the claims to
`
`clarify that there are two back controls located on the back of the claimed
`
`hand held controller that extend substantially the full distance between the
`
`top edge and the bottom edge. Applicant argued that the rejections were
`
`moot in view of the claim amendments.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
` Examiner Interview
`
`Patent counsel for Patent Owner conducted a telephonic interview with the
`
`Examiner on May 15, 2013, to discuss claim amendments proposed by the
`
`Patent Owner. In response to the proposed amendments, the Examiner
`
`conducted a brief updated search and identified the Burns reference, which
`
`the Patent Owner informed the Examiner that the inventor had possession of
`
`the claimed invention prior to the October 20, 2010 published date of the
`
`Burns reference.
`
` Third Office Action
`
`In the third office action, the Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a) as being anticipated and obvious over
`
`the Burns reference.
`
` Response to Third Office Action
`
`In response to the third office action, Patent Owner submitted an inventor
`
`declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 to swear behind the Burns reference.
`
` Notice of Allowance
`
`Soon after Patent Owner filed the response to the third office action, a
`
`Notice of Allowance was mailed. After receipt of the Notice of Allowance,
`
`the issue fee was timely paid and the application issued as the ‘525 patent.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`In an inter partes review, a claim of an unexpired patent is construed using
`
`the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b) (emphasis added); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the BRI standard, “[t]here is a ‘heavy
`
`presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.”
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2013-00152,
`
`Paper 8 (Aug. 19, 2013) (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d
`
`1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). A “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning,
`
`however, if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a
`
`definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution
`
`history.” Macronix Int’l v. Spansion LLC¸ IPR2014-00106, Paper 13 at 6 (Apr. 24,
`
`2014) (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002). However, “[a]ny special definitions for claim terms must be set forth
`
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Endo Pharmaceutical, Inc.
`
`v. Depomed, Inc., IPR2014-00656, Paper 12 at 6 (September 29, 2014) (citing In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
`
`
`
`Moreover, claims are to be construed “with an eye toward giving effect to all
`
`terms in the claim.” Endo Pharmaceutical, IPR2014-00656, Paper 12 at 8 (quoting
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also Merck
`
`& Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim
`
`construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one
`
`that does not do so.”)). Claims should therefore be construed so as not to render
`
`limitations redundant or superfluous. See Endo Pharmaceutical, IPR2014-00656,
`
`Paper 12 at 8 (citing Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007)); see also Microsoft Corporation v. Depomed, Inc., IPR2014-00292,
`
`Paper 33 at 11-12 (October 14, 2014).
`
`B.
`
`PETITIONER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`112 IS IMPROPER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)
`
`
`
`A petitioner in an inter partes review is not permitted to assert a ground of
`
`unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dexcowin Global, Inc. v. Aribex, Inc.,
`
`IPR2016-00436, Paper 12 at 5-6 (denying institution on the ground that claim is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112). Indeed, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), a
`
`“petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or
`
`more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or
`
`103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publication.”
`
`
`
`In this regard, Petitioner’s arguments that certain claims terms do not
`
`comply with written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is improper in an
`
`inter partes review. See, e.g., Petition, Paper 4 at 12, 15 and 43. For this reason
`
`alone, the Petition should be denied.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`C.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`Should a trial be instituted, the Patent Owner proposes that the Board adopt
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning for the terms “thickness,” “elongate member,”
`
`“inherently resilient and flexible,” “recess,” “front end of the controller,” and
`
`“paddle lever.” Here, there is no clear lexicography or disavowal in the intrinsic
`
`record to deviate from the plain and ordinary meaning of these claim terms. As
`
`stated above, there is a ‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary
`
`and customary meaning. While the broadest reasonable interpretation standard is
`
`broad, it is not an unfettered license to interpret the words in a claim without
`
`regard for the full claim language and the written description. Trivascular, Inc. v.
`
`Samuels, Case No. 2015-1631 at 7 (Fed. Cir. February 5, 2016). “Construing
`
`individual words of a claim without considering the context in which those words
`
`appear is simply not ‘reasonable.’ Id. “Instead, it is the use of the words in the
`
`context of the written description and customarily by those of skill in the relevant
`
`art that accurately reflects both the ‘ordinary’ and ‘customary’ meaning of the
`
`terms in the claims.” Id.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s constructions are flawed because no effort was made to construe
`
`the claims using the intrinsic record as required. Instead, the Petitioner offers the
`
`mere bald conclusions of its expert. This is improper and is entitled to no weight.
`
`Dismissal of the petition on this ground is appropriate. See In re: Magnum Oil
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`Tools Int’l Ltd., 2016 WL 3974202, *10. Here, the ordinary meaning of claim
`
`terms in light of the written description is as follows.
`
`1.
`
`“thickness”
`
`
`
`Claim 9 recites a “thickness between about 1 mm and 10 mm,” claim 10
`
`recites a “thickness between about 1 mm and 5 mm,” and claim 11 recites a
`
`“thickness between about 1 mm and 3 mm.” Patent Owner submits the claim term
`
`“thickness” is a common term in the English language and needs no construction.
`
`See Lifewave, Inc. v. Edward Blendermann, IPR2016-00131, Paper 11 at 7 (April
`
`26, 2016) (construing only the range for the challenged phrase “the thickness of
`
`said holding device may be up to 3 mm.”); Mitek Sys., Inc. v. Rothschild Mobile
`
`Imaging Innovations, LLC, IPR2015-00620, Paper 9 at 8 (July 27, 2015) (holding
`
`that the term “extract” is a common term in the English language and requires no
`
`construction).
`
`
`
`Petitioner laments that this common term “thickness” has no written
`
`description support, and is therefore, “vague and ambiguous.” Petition at 12.
`
`Incredibly, Petitioner further supports its strained argument with expert
`
`declaration. Id. As explained above, arguments under 35 U.S.C. ¶ 112 are
`
`improper in an inter partes review. Lest silence be construed as an admission, and
`
`to show that Petitioner and its expert’s argument is not credible, Patent Owner
`
`submits that the specification does have adequate support. For example, the ‘525
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`Patent describes the “paddles 11 are formed from a thin flexible material for
`
`example polyethylene. Preferably, the paddles 11 are less than 10 mm thick, but
`
`may be less than 5 mm thick, and more preferably are 3 mm thick or less.” ‘525
`
`Patent, Col. 3, lines 28-32.
`
`2.
`
`“elongate member”
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 7-13, 15 and 20 recite an “elongate member.” Patent Owner
`
`submits that this claim term also is a common term and needs no construction. In
`
`fact, the Board has even used the term “elongate member” to further construe
`
`another challenged term. See TRE Milano, LLC. v. TF3 Ltd., IPR2015-00649,
`
`Paper 15 at 3 (August 5, 2015) (construing the term “free end” to mean “an end of
`
`the elongate member that is unsupported when the movable abutment is in the open
`
`position.”)
`
`
`
`
`
`The words elongate and member are common and need no elaboration.
`
`Petitioner attempts to unreasonably construe “elongate member”.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that the elongate member “substantially extend in a
`
`direction from the top edge to the bottom edge of the controller 10.” Petition at 13.
`
`However, Petitioner’s proposed construction would add additional limitation into
`
`the claims, which is improper. Here, independent claim 1 merely provides that
`
`each “elongate member” be located on the back of the hand held controller and
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`“extends substantially the full distance between the top edge and the bottom edge.”
`
`‘525 Patent, col. 4, lines. 53-55 and col. 6, lines 24-26.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also baldly asserts, without support, that “elongate member”
`
`should be defined as “having more length than width; slender.” Petition at 13.
`
`There is no support for this additional limitation and Petitioner does not provide
`
`any. As such, it should be rejected.
`
`3.
`
`“inherently resilient and flexible”
`
`
`
`Claim 1 recites the “elongate member” as “inherently resilient and flexible.”
`
`‘525 Patent, col. 4, line 54. Patent Owner submits that “inherently resilient” and
`
`“flexible” are also common English terms and need no construction. See Tyco
`
`Fire Prods. LP., v. Victaulic Co., IPR2016-00276, Paper 9 at 4-5 (June 13, 2016)
`
`(noting that no terms in the challenged claims required construction, which
`
`included the terms “flexible” and “resilient” in challenged claim 1).
`
`
`
`Petitioner proffers no reasonable basis to depart from the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of “inherently resilient” and “flexible.” Instead, Petitioner again
`
`advances lack of written description for “flexible,” which is improper in an inter
`
`partes review and is belied by the ‘525 Patent’s disclosure of paddles “formed
`
`from a thin flexible material such as plastics material for example polyethylene.”
`
`‘525 Patent, col. 3, lines 29-31. Petitioner’s argument that “the ‘525 Patent does
`
`not make clear what else may qualify as ‘flexible’,” as a basis to depart from the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent 8,641,525
`
`term’s plain and ordinary meaning, is unreasonable and unsupported by law. To
`
`the contrary, the Patent Owner is not required to disclose each and every example
`
`of a “flexible” member. See MPEP 2164.02 (The specification need not contain an
`
`example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such manner that one skilled in
`
`the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation.”)
`
`(citing In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (CCPA 1970)).
`
`4.
`
`“recess”
`
`
`
`The term “recess” appears in Claims 7 and 8. Claim 7 recites that “each
`
`elongate member is mounted within a recess located in the case of the controller.”
`
`‘525 Patent, col. 5, lines 4-6. Further, claim 8 recites that “each elongate member
`
`comprises an outermost surface which is disposed in close proximity to the
`
`outermost surface of the controller such that a user's finge