Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`
` Entered: December 15, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CANON INC., CANON U.S.A., INC.,
`CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`FUJIFILM HOLDINGS AMERICA CORPORATION,
`FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, JVC KENWOOD
`CORPORATION, JVCKENWOOD USA CORPORATION,
`NIKON CORPORATION, NIKON INC., OLYMPUS CORPORATION,
`OLYMPUS AMERICA INC., PANASONIC CORPORATION,
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`____________
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`
` Entered: December 15, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CANON INC., CANON U.S.A., INC.,
`CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`FUJIFILM HOLDINGS AMERICA CORPORATION,
`FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, JVC KENWOOD
`CORPORATION, JVCKENWOOD USA CORPORATION,
`NIKON CORPORATION, NIKON INC., OLYMPUS CORPORATION,
`OLYMPUS AMERICA INC., PANASONIC CORPORATION,
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`____________
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, listed above, filed a Petition requesting inter partes review
`
`of claims 1–18, 23, 25, 29–31, 34, and 35 (“the challenged claims”)1 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’746 patent”). Paper 9
`
`(“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 14 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review
`
`as to any of the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’746 patent is involved in Papst Licensing
`
`GmbH & Co. KG v. Canon Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01692 (D.D.C.) and other
`
`proceedings. Pet. 11–13; Paper 12, 1–3. This patent has also been
`
`challenged in several other petitions for inter partes review. Pet. 13; Paper
`
`12, 1.
`
`B. The ’746 Patent
`
`The ’746 patent describes an interface device for communication
`
`between a computer host device and a data transmit/receive device (e.g., a
`
`multi-meter, transmitting measured data to a computer). Ex. 1101, 1:20–22,
`
`1:56–59. According to the ’746 patent, using a specific driver to match very
`
`
`
`1 Page 4 of the Petition indicates that claims 1–31, 34, and 35 are challenged.
`Only claims 1–18, 23, 25, 29–31, 34, and 35 are included in the enumerated
`grounds (id. at 7) and the analysis (id. at 27–76). We consider the claims
`listing on page 4 to be a typo and consider only claims 1–18, 23, 25, 29–31,
`34, and 35 as challenged in this Petition.
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`closely to an individual host system would achieve high data transfer rates
`
`across the interface, but the specific driver cannot be used with other host
`
`systems. Id. at 2:6–21. Several solutions to this problem were known in the
`
`art. Id. at 2:22–3:24. For example, IOtech introduced an interface device
`
`for laptops, using a plug-in card for converting the personal computer
`
`memory card association (PCMCIA) interface into a known standard
`
`interface (IEEE 1284). Id. at 2:25–30. The plug-in card provided a printer
`
`interface for enhancing data transfer rates. Id. at 2:30–34. In another
`
`example, a floppy disk drive interface was used for connecting a host device
`
`to a peripheral device. Id. at 3:10–14. The interface appeared as floppy disk
`
`drive to the host, allowing a floppy disk drive and another peripheral device
`
`to be connected to the host device. Id. at 3:17–19.
`
`The ’746 patent indicates that the “invention is based on the finding
`
`that both a high data transfer rate and host device-independent use can be
`
`achieved if a driver for an input/output device customary in a host device” is
`
`utilized. Id. at 3:33–37. Figure 1 of the ’746 patent, reproduced below,
`
`illustrates a block diagram of an interface device.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 above, interface device 10 connects to a host
`
`device via host line 11, and to a data transmit/receive device via output line
`
`16. Id. at 4:59–5:10. Interface device 10 includes first connecting device
`
`12, second connecting device 15, digital signal processor 13, and memory
`
`means 14. Id. In a preferred embodiment, the interface device is attached to
`
`a host device via a multi-purpose interface—e.g., a small computer systems
`
`interface (SCSI) interface—which includes both an interface card and
`
`specific driver software for the interface card. Id. at 3:49–55, 8:37–41.
`
`According to the ’746 patent, SCSI interfaces were known to be present on
`
`most host devices or laptops. Id. at 8:37–41. By using a standard interface
`
`of a host device and by simulating an input/output device to the host device,
`
`the interface device “is automatically supported by all known host systems
`
`without any additional sophisticated driver software.” Id. at 11:29–35.
`
`C. Prosecution History
`
`The ’746 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 12/891,443 (“the
`
`’443 Application”). Ex. 1101, [21]. The ’443 Application itself is a
`
`continuation of US. Application No. 11/928,283, which in turn is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Application No. 11/467, 073 (“the ’073 Application”),
`
`filed on August 24, 2006. The ’443 Application was filed September 27,
`
`2010, while the ’073 application was still being prosecuted. Ex. 1101, [22];
`
`Ex. 2005. Both applications were examined by the same Examiner. Ex.
`
`1101; Ex. 2005.
`
`On August 24, 2006, the same day the ’073 Application was filed and
`
`several years before the ’443 patent was filed, the applicant filed a
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`preliminary amendment with remarks explicitly distinguishing the claims
`
`over Murata. Ex. 2008. Specifically, the applicant explained that “[a]ll of
`
`the claims presented in this preliminary amendment generally require that
`
`the ADGPD send a response signal that allows a PC to automatically and
`
`without user intervention recognize that it can communicate with the
`
`ADGPD as if it were a commercially available mass storage device.” Id. at
`
`12. The applicant added:
`
`As one example [Murata] does not teach or suggest, for example,
`the above-noted “automatic recognition” feature because, for
`example, the system disclosed therein is UNIX based. As readily
`apparent to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, such UNIX
`based systems affirmatively require user intervention in order to
`operate and use the scanner disclosed in [Murata].
`
`Id. at 13.
`
`Murata was discussed at least two subsequent times in supplemental
`
`preliminary amendments dated July 17, 2007 and December 18, 2007—both
`
`before the filing of the ’443 Application. Ex. 2009, 10 (“The scanner related
`
`references (e.g., [Murata]) also require user intervention of some sort to
`
`allow scanned images to be transferred over to a personal computer.”); Ex.
`
`1125, 8–9 (“Murata does not, for example, teach or suggest structure that
`
`corresponds to the above-described claim feature. In direct contrast to the
`
`claimed subject matter, all devices disclosed in the ’821 patent affirmatively
`
`require intervention in order to cause the PC to understand how to
`
`communicate with the scanner disclosed in the patent.”). The remarks
`
`accompanying the December 18, 2007 amendment detailed the differences
`
`between Murata and the presented claims as follows:
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`
`Column 4, lines 20–35 of [Murata] state that an “mkfs” or
`“newfs” UNIX command must be executed before the scanner
`can be recognized. These commands are operating system
`commands, and have to be entered by the user or be embedded
`in an application program running on a workstation to which the
`’821 patent scanner is connected. The commands require
`parameters to be given, including at least mkfs i-node
`device_name. This means that, for example, the user has to enter
`the node at which the file system is to be made and the device
`name (associated with the device file and driver in the system).
`These parameter values are not standard and may differ
`according
`to
`the actual hardware configuration of
`the
`workstation. If these commands are embedded in an application
`program, the application program can only be successfully run
`on different workstations if there is an appropriate means for
`entering the parameters by the user.
`As readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the relevant
`the UNIX operating system of [Murata] does not
`art,
`automatically recognize devices, nor does it perform data
`transmission with a device even though the device may emulate
`the UNIX file system. Detailed operator instructions or an
`application program containing the embedded instructions is
`required to administer and coordinate the data exchange
`described in [Murata]. For this reason alone, for example, the
`new claims should be found to be patentable over the ’821 patent.
`
`Ex. 1125, 9.
`
`On August 13, 2009, again, before the filing of the ’443 Application,
`
`the applicant amended its proposed claims, including changing several
`
`instances of the term “user” to “end user.” Ex. 2010.2 The applicant
`
`
`
`2 Although Petitioner refers to this amendment in its arguments (Pet. 9, 66,
`n.3), it does not refer to, nor can we find, any Petitioner exhibit containing
`this amendment.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`explained that “additional limitations have been added into all of the new
`
`claims to further clarify the differences between them and the prior art,”
`
`including “the multi-use automatic processor feature has been clarified.” Id.
`
`at 25. Specifically, the applicant argued that “[t]he no-user loaded file
`
`transfer enabling software requirement ‘regardless of the identity of the
`
`manufacturer’ of the new claims stands in direct contrast to, for example,
`
`Hashimoto’s digital still camera, the Smith/Ristelhueber peripherals, and
`
`Kerigan’s ‘camera type peripheral device,’ all of which require user-loaded
`
`software.” Id. at 26.
`
`The ’073 Application issued as the ’144 patent on February 24, 2015.
`
`The ’443 Application issued as the ’746 patent on August 6, 2013.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 31, and 34 are independent.
`
`Claims 2–18, 23, 25, 29, and 30 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1,
`
`and claim 35 depends directly from claim 34. Claim 1 is illustrative:
`
`1. An analog data acquisition device operatively connectable to
`a computer through a multipurpose interface of the computer, the
`computer having an operating system programmed so that, when
`the computer receives a signal from the device through said
`multipurpose interface of the computer indicative of a class of
`devices, the computer automatically activates a device driver
`corresponding to the class of devices for allowing the transfer of
`data between the device and the operating system of the
`computer, the analog data acquisition device comprising:
`
`a) a program memory;
`
`b) an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal
`from an analog source;
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`
`c) a processor operatively interfaced with the multipurpose
`interface of the computer, the program memory, and a data
`storage memory when the analog data acquisition device is
`operational;
`
`d) wherein the processor is configured and programmed to
`implement a data generation process by which analog data is
`acquired from the analog signal acquisition channel, the analog
`data is processed and digitized, and the processed and digitized
`analog data is stored in a file system of the data storage memory
`as at least one file of digitized analog data;
`
`e) wherein when the analog acquisition device is operatively
`interfaced with the multipurpose interface of the computer, the
`processor executes at least one instruction set stored in the
`program memory and thereby automatically causes at least one
`parameter indicative of the class of devices to be sent to the
`computer through the multi-purpose interface of the computer,
`independent of the analog source, wherein the analog data
`acquisition device is not within the class of devices; and
`
`f) wherein the processor is further configured and programmed
`to execute at least one other instruction set stored in the program
`memory to thereby allow the at least one file of digitized analog
`data acquired from the analog signal acquisition channel to be
`transferred to the computer using the device driver corresponding
`to said class of devices so that the analog data acquisition device
`appears to the computer as if it were a device of the class of
`devices;
`
`whereby there is no requirement for any user-loaded file transfer
`enabling software to be loaded on or installed in the computer in
`addition to the operating system.
`
`Ex. 1101, 11:48–12:26.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`
`E. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the prior art references listed below.
`
`Murata
`
`
`
`US 5,508,821
`
`Apr. 16, 1996
`
`(Ex. 1102)
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE, INC., AMERICAN
`NATIONAL STANDARD FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS – SMALL COMPUTER
`SYSTEM INTERFACE-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994) (Ex. 1105, “the SCSI
`Specification”).
`
`MS-DOS® ENCYCLOPEDIA (Ray Duncan ed., 1988) (Ex. 1107, “the
`DOS Reference”).
`
`FRANK G. FIAMINGO, UNIX® SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION (1996) (EX.
`1108, “the UNIX-A Reference).
`
`FRISCH, ESSENTIAL SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION (2d ed. 1995) (EX. 1110,
`“the UNIX-B Reference).
`
`MCKUSICK, ET. AL, DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 4.4BSD
`OPERATING SYSTEM (1996) (EX. 1111, “the UNIX-C Reference).
`
`Huot
`
`
`
`US 5,731,834
`
`Mar. 24, 1998
`
`(Ex. 1112)
`
`JP H5-344283
`
`Takahashi
`(English translation, “Takahashi”).
`
`Dec. 24, 1993
`
`(Ex. 1113)3
`
`Muramatsu
`
`US 5,592,256
`
`Jan. 7, 1997
`
`(Ex. 1114)
`
`Admitted Prior Art (see, e.g., Ex. 1101, 1:28–55, 3:36–45, 4:17–20,
`5:8–11, 5:18–20, 5:34–44, 8:39–41, 10:20–34).
`
`
`
`3 The original, Japanese, version of Takahashi is appended to the end of Ex.
`1113. Citations to Takahashi are to the English translation (Ex. 1113, 1–25).
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 7)4:
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1–3, 6–9, 14, 15, 17, 18,
`25, 30, 31, 34, and 35
`
`§ 102(b) Murata
`
`1–3, 6–9, 13–18, 25, 29–
`31, 34, and 35
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Murata, the SCSI Specification,
`the DOS Reference, the UNIX-A
`Reference, the UNIX-B
`Reference, the UNIX-C
`Reference, and the Admitted
`Prior Art
`
`4 and 12
`
`§ 103(a) Murata and Huot
`
`5 and 11
`
`§ 103(a) Murata, Takahashi, and Huot
`
`10 and 35
`
`§ 103(a) Murata and Takahashi
`
`23
`
`§ 103(a) Murata and Muramatsu
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 6–9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 25, 30, 31, 34,
`
`and 35 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Murata.
`
`
`
`4 Because the claims at issue have a filing date prior to March 16, 2013, the
`effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102 and 103 in this Decision.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`Pet. 7, 27–52, 55–76. In addition, Petitioner addresses those same claims,
`
`along with claims 13, 16, and 29, stating “the teachings of the Admitted Art
`
`and the Basic SCSI/DOS/UNIX References are directly relevant to the file
`
`system and interface used by Murata’s scanner and would have provided
`
`teaching and motivation to a POSITA to arrive at the claimed invention (to
`
`the extent the details are not implicit and/or inherent in Murata alone).” Id.
`
`at 45; see also id. at 27–51, 59–62, 72–73. Petitioner also challenges (1)
`
`claims 4 and 12 as obvious over Murata combined with Huot (id. at 7, 52–
`
`53), (2) claims 5 and 11 as obvious over Murata, Takahashi, and Huot (id. at
`
`7, 53–55), (3) claims 10 and 35 as obvious over Murata and Takahashi (id. at
`
`7, 58–59, 75–76), and (4) claim 23 as obvious over Murata and Muramatsu
`
`(id. at 7, 71–72).
`
`Patent Owner urges that we reject this Petition under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d) because Murata was explicitly addressed during the prosecution
`
`history of the ’144 patent, an ancestor to the ’746 patent.
`
`For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner and
`
`decline to institute inter partes review on any of the grounds raised in this
`
`Petition.
`
`A. Overview of Murata
`
`Murata discloses an image scanner used with an external host
`
`computer. Ex. 1102, Abs. According to Murata, the image scanner includes
`
`an optical system and CCD image sensor for reading an image of a
`
`document, a SCSI interface for connecting the image scanner to the external
`
`host, a CPU, a nonvolatile memory, and a “SCSI controller etc. for
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`emulating a file system contained in the external host computer.” Id. An
`
`object of Murata is “to provide an improved image handling apparatus . . .
`
`which requires no preparation of any new device driver.” Id. at 1:58–61.
`
`Murata explains that “[b]ecause an operating system of a computer
`
`constructs a file system in a hard disc, there invariably exists a device driver
`
`for the hard disc.” Id. at 2:5–7. Moreover, because Murata’s image scanner
`
`includes a file system emulation means, control of the image scanner or
`
`transfer of image data “can be carried out using the device driver for existing
`
`hard discs” meaning “it is not necessary to prepare the device driver for each
`
`type of computer if the file system of the computer is the same.” Id. at 2:12–
`
`21. In short, the image scanner “can be connected to any one of various
`
`types of computers having the same file system, e.g. any one of all
`
`computers having software called the ‘UNIX’ as an operating system.” Id.
`
`at 18–26.
`
`B. Arguments
`
`Petitioner describes the prosecution history of the ’746 patent, but
`
`does not specifically address the discussion of Murata in the prosecution
`
`history of the ’144 patent in that section. Pet. 4. Petitioner, however, does
`
`address the prosecution of the ’144 patent in the claim construction section
`
`referring to the August 13, 2009 amendment and arguing that the change
`
`from “user” to “end user” in the proposed claims was “made in order to try
`
`to overcome cited prior art references (Hashimoto, Smith, Ristelhueber,
`
`Kerigan, and Shinohara).” Id. at 9. Petitioner also argues, in a footnote, that
`
`the amendments of August 13, 2009 “were made in an attempt to overcome
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`cited prior art references” and accordingly, Papst cannot now attempt to
`
`broaden the recited “‘end user’” of the Murata scanner with any user, like a
`
`“UNIX system administrator or manufacturer of the Murata scanner, either
`
`of whom would create a file system in the Murata scanner, such that the ‘end
`
`user’ would not have to do so.” Id. at 9, 66 n.3 (citing Ex. 1125, 9).
`
`Patent Owner responds that “Petitioners fail to raise any new issue
`
`with Murata that was not previously considered, and discarded by the
`
`USPTO [during examination of the ’073 application.]” Prelim. Resp. 22.
`
`According to Patent Owner, the change from “user” to “end user” “did not
`
`have the significance that Petitioners now assert.” Id. at 32–33. As support
`
`for its position, Patent Owner points out that the August 13, 2009
`
`amendments did not change all instances of “user” to “end user” and
`
`included other changes to the claims. Id. at 27–33. Moreover, Patent Owner
`
`notes that the remarks relied upon by Petitioner use the term “user” and “end
`
`user” interchangeably. Id. at 32–33. Patent Owner concludes that the
`
`prosecution history does not support Petitioner’s allegations that the change
`
`to “end user” was done specifically to overcome the prior art references
`
`listed above. Id. at 34–35.
`
`C. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`The Board may reject a Petition requesting institution of inter partes
`
`review because “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.3(a). Under the facts and circumstances presented here, we decline to
`
`institute an inter partes review based on any ground asserted in the Petition,
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`all of which rely primarily on Murata. We find that substantially the same
`
`argument regarding patentability of the claimed subject matter over Murata
`
`was previously presented to the Office. Specifically, Petitioner argues that
`
`Murata discloses the limitation “without requiring any end user to interact
`
`with the computer to set up a file system in the analog data acquisition
`
`device at any time.” Pet. 62–68. This issue was explicitly addressed several
`
`times in responses to the Examiner during prosecution. See Ex. 2009, 10;
`
`2008, 12.
`
`We do not agree that the substance of the August 13, 2009
`
`amendment is as significant to this issue as Petitioner asserts. In fact, we
`
`find this portion of the prosecution history ambiguous regarding the
`
`applicant’s intention regarding the definition of “end user.” Nothing pointed
`
`to by Petitioner supports reconsidering these arguments, which were directly
`
`in front of the Examiner during prosecution.
`
`Further, Petitioner does not argue that the secondary references added
`
`in its alternative ground—the SCSI Specification, the DOS reference, the
`
`UNIX-A, B, C references, and the Admitted Prior Art—add anything new to
`
`that which was before the Examiner. On this record, we are not persuaded
`
`that these references add to the information considered by the Examiner
`
`during prosecution.
`
`Finally, Petitioner does not explain how the other obviousness
`
`combinations it asserts—Murata combined with one or more of Huot,
`
`Takahashi, and Muramatsu—significantly add to the arguments and
`
`evidence in front of the Examiner during prosecution of the ’746 patent.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner relies on Huot for its teaching of “an attachable and
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`detachable CCD” (Pet. 53–55), Takahashi for its teaching “first and second
`
`face reading units . . . for simultaneously scanning the first and second
`
`faces” (id. at 54–55, 59, 75–76), and Muramatsu for its teaching of a “device
`
`that implements a fast Fourier transform during an analog data generation
`
`process” (id. at 71–72). Petitioner does not rely on any of these references
`
`for the issue discussed above.
`
`We decline to revisit an issue that has already been before the Office
`
`in prosecution history. Thus, we do not institute review based on
`
`Petitioner’s asserted grounds of anticipation by Murata or obviousness over
`
`Murata in combination with other cited references.
`
`It is ordered that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
`
`III. ORDER
`
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Dion M. Bregman
`Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman
`Chris Mizumoto
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com
`chris.mizumoto@morganlewis.com
`
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`Christopher J. Higgins
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`TVPPTABDocket@orrick.com
`0CHPTABDocket@orrick.com
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01206
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey
`JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL, LLP
`gcordrey@jmbm.com
`
`David L. Witcoff
`Marc S. Blackman
`David M. Maiorana
`F. Drexel Feeling
`Matthew W. Johnson
`JONES DAY
`dlwitcoff@jonesday.com
`msblackman@jonesday.com
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`f.dfeeling@jonesday.com
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`
`Brian C. Rupp
`Carrie A. Beyer
`Nikola Colic
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`Brian.Rupp@dbr.com
`Carrie.Beyer@dbr.com
`Nick.Colic@dbr.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Nicholas T. Peters
`Paul Henkelmann
`FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY LLP
`ntpete@fitcheven.com
`phenkelmann@fitcheven.com
`
`Anthony L. Meola, Jr.
`THE MEOLA FIRM, PLLC
`info@themeolafirm.com
`
`
`16
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
