Trials@uspto.gov
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
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
