`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: November 23, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`JOHNSON SAFETY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOXX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Johnson Safety, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to
`
`institute an inter partes review of claim claims 1, 5–7, 9, and 11 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,245,274 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’274 Patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 311–319. Voxx International Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. (Paper 5, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Section 314(a) provides that an inter
`
`partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the
`
`Preliminary Response, and associated evidence, we conclude that Petitioner
`
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability of claims 1, 5–7, 9, and 11.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties state that the ’274 patent has been asserted in Johnson
`
`Safety, Inc. v. Voxx International Corporation et al., No 5:14-CV-2591-
`
`ODW-DTB (C.D. Cal.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2. Petitioner has also filed a
`
`petition for inter partes review challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18,
`
`20, 26, 30, 32, 38, 39, and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 7,839,355 B2, IPR2016-
`
`01074.
`
`B. The ʼ274 Patent
`
`The ’274 Patent is directed to a “headrest mountable video system”
`
`and was filed on May 15, 2003. The ’274 Patent describes a video system
`
`capable of playing various types of digital media, coupled to a headrest of a
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`vehicle, with the video system allowing for a screen to pivot away from a
`
`base unit. See Ex. 1001, 3:3–5, 3:15–20, 3:28–34.
`
`
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`
`Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the challenged claims and is
`
`reproduced below (Ex. 1001, 6:5–13):
`
`1. A video system comprising:
`a base unit coupled to an internal headrest support
`structure; and
`a door pivotally connected to the base unit by a
`hinge, the door comprising a display and a media player
`comprising at least one of a DVD player, an MPEG player
`or a video game player.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth proposed grounds
`
`of unpatentability for the claims of the ’274 patent as follows (Pet. 17, 37,
`
`48):
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`Chang1 and Mathias2
`Chang, Jost3, and
`Mathias
`Chang and Tseng4
`Swaim5 and Compaq
`Manual6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1, 5–7, and 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1, 5–7, and 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1, 5–7, and 9
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the claim interpretation
`
`standard to be applied in inter partes reviews). Under this standard, we
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,871,356, October 28, 2002, Ex. 1007.
`2 Patent No. WO 00/38951, December 28, 1998, Ex. 1008.
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,883,870, March 20, 2002, Ex. 1016.
`4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0130616 A1,
`January 3, 2003, Ex. 1006.
`5 U.S. Patent No 6,685,016, December 1, 2001, Ex. 1011.
`6 Compaq, Hardware Guide, Compaq Tablet PC TC1000
`Series, document part no. 280133-001 (Nov. 2002), Ex. 1012.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in
`
`their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
`
`otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
`
`applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997). We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning. See Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must
`
`be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the
`
`specification and prosecution history.”); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is
`
`the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in question.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). A patentee,
`
`however, may rebut this presumption by acting as his or her own
`
`lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the specification with
`
`“reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Only those terms that 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).
`
`1. coupled
`
`Claim 1 requires “a base unit coupled to an internal headrest support
`
`structure.” Petitioner proposes that the term “coupled” should be given its
`
`broadest reasonable construction as “connected” in its plain and ordinary
`
`sense. Pet. 9. Petitioner states that the specification of the ’274 Patent
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`supports a broad construction of the term “coupled.” Id. According to
`
`Petitioner, the term does not denote permanence because the video system is
`
`meant to be “decoupled” from the docking station and used independently.
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:33–43). Petitioner states that the term is used
`
`distinctly from “permanently installed.” Id. (citing, Ex. 1001, 4:26–30.
`
`Finally, Petitioner states that the ’274 Patent’s use of the narrower phrase
`
`“directly coupled” contemplates the use of a “harness” to couple things
`
`otherwise remote from each other. Id.
`
`Patent Owner does not focus on the term “coupled,” but contends
`
`instead that Petitioner’s construction of the term “coupled” in conjunction
`
`with the term “an internal headrest support structure” reads out the term
`
`internal. Prelim. Resp. 2–4. We find that Petitioner’s construction of the
`
`term “coupled” is consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, and
`
`means connected directly or indirectly though several connections. See
`
`Bradford Co. v. Conveyor N. Am., Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, 1270 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010) (finding the Specification contained nothing that restricted “coupled
`
`to” to only “direct connections.”).
`
`We note that the Specification states “The docking station 303 can be
`
`secured by, for example, a catch 401 as shown in FIG. 4A and/or a screw
`
`402 as shown in FIG. 4B.” Ex. 1001, 3:22–24. The Specification states
`
`further that “One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that other
`
`means of securing the docking station can be used, for example, an adhesive
`
`compound.” Id. at 3:24–27. Thus, consistent with the Specification and the
`
`plain meaning of “coupled,” the term requires there be some “connection”
`
`between the base unit and the headrest support structure.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`2. an internal headrest support structure
`
`Claim 1 requires “a base unit coupled to an internal headrest support
`
`structure.” Petitioner proposes that the “internal headrest support structure”
`
`should be construed to mean “a support structure, all or a part of which is
`
`disposed inside a headrest.”7 Pet. 11. Petitioner states the specification of
`
`the’274 Patent only states that “the docking station 303 is secured in the
`
`headrest 102, and more particularly to an internal headrest support
`
`structure,” without describing what “an internal headrest support structure”
`
`may be. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:20–33).
`
`Petitioner points to claim 10 which explicitly contemplates a headrest
`
`support element “disposed inside and outside of the headrest,” such as
`
`headrest rods. Pet. 11. Petitioner further asserts that claim 16 requires a
`
`narrower “headrest support structure located within a headrest of a vehicle
`
`seat.” Id. Petitioner reasons that these claims suggest the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “an internal headrest support structure” is “a
`
`support structure, all or a part of which is disposed inside a headrest.”
`
`However, independent claim 10 explicitly contemplates part of the support
`
`being external to the headrest without using the words “internal headrest
`
`support structure,” as opposed to independent claim 1 which explicitly
`
`requires the support to be “internal,” and independent claim 16 which
`
`requires the support structure to be “located within a headrest.”
`
`Patent Owner asserts “Petitioner proposes that the term . . . ‘an
`
`internal headrest support structure’ . . . [should] mean ‘a base unit connected
`
`
`7 Petitioner asserts that this construction has been agreed to by Patent Owner
`in litigation. Ex. 1009, 2. We are not bound by that agreement.
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`to a headrest support structure’, irrespective of how and where such
`
`connection is made, to a headrest support structure, that can be either
`
`internal or external to a headrest.” Prelim. Resp. 2. According to Patent
`
`Owner, “[s]uch construction is neither supported by the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the claim terms nor the intrinsic evidence.” Id. We agree.
`
`Taking the above terms as a whole, “a base unit coupled to an internal
`
`headrest support structure” must include a structure internal to the headrest
`
`that may be connected to a base unit either directly or indirectly though
`
`several connections.
`
`3. other terms
`
`We need not construe any of the remaining terms offered for
`
`construction to resolve any dispute relevant to determining whether to
`
`institute. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803,
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in
`
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we presume the claims carry their plain
`
`meaning, and determine that no terms, other than those discussed above,
`
`require construction at this juncture.
`
`B. Obviousness Based on Chang (Ex. 1007) and Mathias (Ex. 1008)
`
`1. Chang
`
`Chang discloses a video system, as recited in Claim 1. In particular,
`
`Chang discloses “[a] mobile video system” that “includes a first video
`
`source, a second video source, a first video monitor, a second video monitor,
`
`an audio signal receiver, and a wireless transmitter.” Ex. 1007, Abstract.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`The video system of Chang provides a video source 52 for playing media to
`
`be displayed on a video monitor. Ex. 1007, 4:50-60.
`
`2. Mathias
`
`Mathias discloses a video system. In particular, Mathias discloses an
`
`“integrated visual display/digital media player in the form of an LCD/DVD
`
`unit or video display system and a docking member which is movably
`
`mounted within a console.” Ex. 1008, 3:1–7.
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 5–7, and 9 are obvious over Chang
`
`and Mathias. Pet. 17. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides
`
`detailed explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim limitation. Id.
`
`at 17–37. Petitioner also relies on the report of Ralph V. Wilhelm retained
`
`as a Declarant in this case. Ex. 1013.
`
`4. Claim 1
`
`Petitioner asserts that Chang describes a video system comprising a
`
`base unit coupled to an internal headrest support structure as recited in claim
`
`1. Pet. 17–20, 31–33; Ex. 1007, Abstract, 4:50–60, 12:28–32, 14:1–10,
`
`Figs. 2, 9A, 13B. The present record supports the contention that Chang and
`
`Mathias describe a door pivotally connected to the base unit by a hinge, the
`
`door comprising a display as recited in claim 1, for example. Pet. 20–23;
`
`33–34; Ex. 1007, 12:24–27; Ex. 1008, 8:15–17, 10:1–5, 10–11; Figs. 3, 4.
`
`The present record also supports the contention that Mathias describes a
`
`media player comprising at least one of a DVD player, an MPEG player or a
`
`video game player as recited in claim 1, for example. Pet. 23, 34–35; Ex.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`1008, 10:1–5, Fig. 4. Finally, Petitioner provides a reasonable rationale to
`
`combine Chang and Mathias. Pet. 23–29.
`
`Patent Owner argues Chang teaches away from having a door
`
`comprising a display and a media player. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Patent Owner
`
`further asserts “Chang teaches that additional depth beyond the thickness of
`
`the screen structure is required within a headrest to accommodate the prior
`
`art monitors, and that the extra thickness is disadvantageous ‘because limited
`
`space is available within a headrest.’” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1007 15:15-28).
`
`Patent Owner asserts that due to the thickness problem, “Chang teaches
`
`positioning the media player remote from the headrest; either ‘beneath the
`
`front seat’, ‘in the dashboard’, ‘in the trunk’, or ‘mounted overhead’.” Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1007, 5:16–34). Nevertheless, Patent Owner has not tied
`
`Chang’s positioning of the media player to Chang’s expressed concern for
`
`the thickness of the monitor nor has Patent Owner shown that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have believed that
`
`a monitor and media player combination could not be made thin enough to
`
`overcome the thickness concern. A “known or obvious composition does
`
`not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat
`
`inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,
`
`553 (Fed.Cir.1994). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`
`argument.
`
`Patent Owner argues that there is no evidence that Chang has an
`
`“internal headrest support structure” and that “securing to an interior of a
`
`headrest does not equate to securing to an internal headrest support
`
`structure.” Id. We agree. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the base
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`unit is coupled to an internal support structure of the headrest. Specifically,
`
`the screws used to support the base unit are screwed into an unidentified
`
`internal section of the headrest itself, rather than any identified support
`
`structure. Petitioner and its declarant also fail to argue that the existence of
`
`an internal support structure, which is not shown in Chang, would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 20 (“These screws run
`
`through the back of the housing 418 and into the headrest to secure the
`
`housing to the interior of the headrest.) (citations omitted); Ex. 1013 ¶ 55.
`
`Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions as to this claim
`
`element.
`
`5. Claims 5–7, and 9
`
`For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner
`
`has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`
`challenge to independent claim 1 based on the combination of Chang and
`
`Mathias. For claims 5–7, and 9, each of which depends directly or indirectly
`
`from independent claim 1, we agree that Petitioner has adequately shown
`
`Mathias’s disclosure of the additional limitations required by claims 5–7,
`
`and 9, however, Petitioner has not adequately shown all the limitation
`
`required by claim 1.
`
`6. Summary
`
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over Chang
`
`and Mathias against claims 1, 5–7, and 9 and we are not persuaded that
`
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail in its challenge to claims 1, 5–7, and 9 on this ground.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`C. Obviousness Based on Chang (Ex. 1007), Mathias (Ex. 1008), and Jost
`(Ex. 1016)
`1. Jost
`
`Jost describes a casing 14 (base unit) that is inserted into a housing or
`
`hole in a headrest of a vehicle, the casing 14 configured to hold in place a
`
`monitor 8. Ex. 1016 3:25-35. The casing 14 is “fixed to a support 12 by
`
`means of screws 15 and it comprises an oversize peripheral flange 16.” Id.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends that Chang, Mathias, and Jost teach the limitations
`
`of claims 1, 5–7, and 9. Pet. 37–48. To support its contentions, Petitioner
`
`provides detailed explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim
`
`limitation. Id. Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Wilhelm.
`
`Ex. 1013.
`
`The present record supports the contention that the combination of
`
`Jost (casing 14) and Chang describes a video system comprising a base unit
`
`coupled to an internal headrest support structure as recited in claim 1. Pet.
`
`37–40; Ex. 1007, Abstract, 4:50–60, 12:28–32, 14:1–10, Figs. 2, 9A, 13B;
`
`Ex. 1016, 3:25–35, Figs. 1–3. The present record also supports the
`
`contention that Chang and Mathias describes a door pivotally connected to
`
`the base unit by a hinge and the door comprising a display, as recited in
`
`claim 1, for example. Pet. 20–23; 33–34; Ex. 1007, 12:24–27; Ex. 1008,
`
`8:15–17, 10:1–5, 10–11; Figs. 3, 4. The present record also supports the
`
`contention that Mathias describes a media player comprising at least one of a
`
`DVD player, an MPEG player or a video game player, as recited in claim 1,
`
`for example. Pet. 23, 34–35; Ex. 1008, 10:1–5, Fig. 4. Finally, Petitioner
`
`provides a reasonable rationale to combine Chang, Jost, and Mathias. Pet.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`40–44.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Jost was considered by the Examiner and
`
`that the Board should “place extra weight on, and agree with, the Examiner’s
`
`decision to allow the claims over the considered references.” Prelim. Resp.
`
`8. We determine, nonetheless, that Patent Owner has not shown the
`
`proposed combination of Chang, Mathis, and Jost is the same as, or
`
`substantially the same as, a combination considered by the Office during
`
`original prosecution. Indeed, Jost was simply listed on an Information
`
`Disclosure Statement and, although considered, was not included in a
`
`rejection by the Examiner. Prelim. Resp. 8.
`
`For the reasons above, we are persuaded, at this juncture of the
`
`proceeding, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim 1. For claims 5–7 and 9,
`
`each of which depends directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, on
`
`this record, we agree that Petitioner has adequately shown Mathias’s
`
`disclosure of the additional limitations of claims 5–7, and 9.
`
`3. Summary
`
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over the
`
`combination of Chang, Mathias, and Jost against claims 1, 5–7, and 9, and
`
`we are persuaded, at this juncture of the proceeding, that Petitioner has
`
`established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`
`challenge to claims 1, 5–7, and 9 on this ground.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`D. Obviousness Based on Chang (Ex. 1007) and Tseng (Ex. 1016)
`
`1. Tseng
`
`Tseng describes “a video screen that can be flipped open,” and that
`
`has “an audio/video source mounted behind it and attached to the back of the
`
`headrest on the seat of an automobile.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 4, FIG. 1.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends that Chang and Tseng teach the limitations of
`
`claim 11. Pet. 48. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed
`
`explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. at 48–
`
`60. Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Wilhelm. Ex. 1013.
`
`The present record supports the contention that the combination of
`
`Chang and Tseng describes a video system comprising a base portion
`
`positioned in a headrest of a vehicle seat as recited in claim 11. Pet. 48–49,
`
`57, 58; Ex. 1007, Abstract, 4:50–60, 12:28–32, 14:1–10, Figs. 2, 9A, 13B.
`
`The present record also supports the contention that Chang and Tseng
`
`describe a display pivotally connected to the base portion as recited in claim
`
`1, for example. Pet. 20–23; 33–34, 51–60; Ex. 1007, 12:24–27, Ex. 1006
`
`¶ 4, claim 9. The present record also supports the contention that Tseng
`
`describes wherein the base portion accommodates a media player
`
`comprising at least one of a DVD player, an MPEG player, or a video game
`
`player as recited in claim 1, for example. Pet. 50, 59, 60; Ex. 1006, ¶ 4, Fig.
`
`1. Finally, Petitioner provides a reasonable rationale to combine Chang and
`
`Tseng. Pet. 51–57.
`
`Patent Owner argues Chang and Tseng do not teach certain individual
`
`elements of claim 11. Prelim. Resp. 9. However, Petitioner relies on a
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`combination, and Patent Owner’s argument improperly attacks the
`
`references individually. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1986). Patent Owner also argues that Chang teaches away from
`
`the combination with Tseng. We discussed this argument above and are not
`
`persuaded for the same reasons.
`
`For the reasons above, we are persuaded, at this juncture of the
`
`proceeding, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim 11.
`
`3. Summary
`
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over the
`
`combination of Chang and Tseng against claim 11, and we are persuaded, at
`
`this juncture of the proceeding, that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim 11 on this
`
`ground.
`
`E. Obviousness Based on Swaim (Ex. 1011) and Compaq Manual (Ex.
`1012)
`1. Swaim
`
`Swaim discloses “an entertainment system, comprising an
`
`entertainment device, a suspension platform, and an optional storage bag”
`
`which may include a DVD player and a viewing screen. Ex. 1011, 4:65–5:2,
`
`7:35–42. FIG. 7 is reproduced below:
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 7, above, illustrates the overall system of Swaim.
`
`2. Compaq Manual
`
`Compaq Manual discloses a tablet PC (“TC1000”) capable of playing
`
`digital media, as TC1000 allows users to connect a media drive (such as a
`
`DVD drive), via an external MultiBay or via USB. Ex. 1012, 4–1. Compaq
`
`Manual further states “when you insert a diskette, CD, or DVD into the
`
`system, the tablet PC can play the medium.” Ex. 1012, 4–8.
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Swaim and Compaq
`
`Manual teach the limitations of claim 1, 5–7, and 9. Pet. 61. To support its
`
`contentions, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how the prior art
`
`meets each claim limitation. Id. at 63–79. Petitioner also relies upon the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Wilhelm. Ex. 1013.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`Petitioner states that “As shown in FIG. 7 above, straps 60 are looped
`
`around support rods for the headrests of the front seats in a vehicle.” Pet. 65.
`
`Petitioner asserts that “Taking into account the proposed claim construction
`
`provided herein for ‘internal headrest support structure’ presented in this
`
`Petition, coupling the storage bag, containing an entertainment device/base
`
`unit, satisfies the claim language ‘a base unit coupled to an internal headrest
`
`support structure.’” Id. As discussed above, we construe “a base unit
`
`coupled to an internal headrest support structure” must include a structure
`
`internal to the headrest that may be connected to a base unit either directly or
`
`indirectly though several connections. Patent Owner asserts “No reasonable
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, who the Petitioner posits as one having a
`
`BS degree in electrical, mechanical, and/or computer science/engineering,
`
`would read ‘coupled to an internal headrest support structure’ to mean
`
`‘straps looping around support rods external to the headrest.’” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 11.
`
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently or alleged that the support rods
`
`of the headrest are internal to the headrest or that they are connected to a
`
`structure internal to the headrest.
`
`For the reasons above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`
`challenge to claims 1, 5–7, and 9 based on Swaim and Compaq Manual.
`
`4. Summary
`
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over the
`
`combination of Swaim and Compaq Manual against claims 1, 5–7, and 9,
`
`and we are persuaded that Petitioner has not established a reasonable
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim 1, 5–7, and
`
`9 on this ground.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`
`presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`would prevail in its challenge to claims 1, 5–7, 9, and 11 of the ’274 Patent.
`
`At this juncture, we have not made a final determination with respect to the
`
`patentability of the challenged claims, nor with respect to claim
`
`construction.
`
`IV.
`
`ORDER
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted for the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`Chang, Jost, and
`Mathias
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1, 5–7, and 9
`
`Chang and Tseng
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`11
`
` ;
`
` and
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Gregory Howison
`Keith Harden
`John Arnott
`Howison & Arnott, L.L.P.
`ipr@dalpat.com
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Dean McConnell
`Indiano & McConnell LLP
`dean@im-iplaw.com
`
`Frank Chau
`Richard Ratchford
`F. Chau & Associates LLC
`chau@chauiplaw.com
`rratchford@chauiplaw.com
`
`
`19