Paper 14
`
`Entered: December 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PRIME FOCUS CREATIVE SERVICES CANADA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEGEND3D, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`Entered: December 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PRIME FOCUS CREATIVE SERVICES CANADA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEGEND3D, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Prime Focus Creative Services Canada Inc. requested, on
`
`June 21, 2016, inter partes review of claims 1–20 (the “Challenged Claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,907,793 B1 (“the ’793 patent”). Paper 1 (“Petition” or
`
`“Pet.”). On September 23, 2016, Patent Owner Legend3D, Inc. filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 14 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`
`unless it is determined that there is “a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`
`the petition.” Based on the information presented in the Petition and
`
`Preliminary Response, we are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`Petitioner would prevail with respect to claims 1–20. Accordingly, we
`
`institute inter partes review of claims 1–20 on the grounds specified below.
`
`Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding are
`
`based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final
`
`decision as to patentability of claims for which inter partes review is
`
`instituted.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The ’793 patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’793 patent relates to an image sequence depth enhancement
`
`system and method that allows for the rapid conversion of a sequence of
`
`two-dimensional images into three-dimensional images. Ex. 1001, 1:21–25.
`
`The ’793 patent describes two tasks: colorizing black-and-white feature
`
`films (id. at 1:27–65) and converting two-dimensional images to three-
`
`dimensional images (id. at 1:65–2:16). To perform either of these tasks, the
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`’793 patent classifies elements from movie scenes into two separate
`
`categories: “either background elements (i.e. sets and foreground elements
`
`that are stationary) or motion elements (e.g., actors, automobiles, etc.) that
`
`move throughout the scene.” Id. at 2:21–25. In one embodiment, the
`
`background elements are combined to create a composite background image,
`
`and colorization or depth information is applied to the background elements.
`
`Id. at 15:15–25. In another embodiment, the motion elements are masked
`
`throughout a scene, and colorization or depth information is applied to the
`
`masked motion elements. Id. at 2:29–3:5.
`
`B.
`
`Illustrative Claims
`
`Claims 1, 13, and 20 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 13
`
`are reproduced below.
`
`A method for modifying a set of time ordered
`1.
`digital images comprising:
`
`associating a plurality of images comprising common
`background elements;
`
`obtaining a composite background comprising said
`plurality of
`images wherein said composite background
`excludes a set of motion objects moving in relation to said
`common background elements;
`
`setting at least one depth parameter associated with a
`region within said composite background;
`
`applying said at least one depth parameter to at least one
`image selected from said plurality of images using a computer.
`
`
`
`13. A method for modifying a set of time ordered
`digital images comprising:
`
`associating a first mask with a motion object in a first
`image;
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`
`copying said first mask to create a second mask
`associated so with a second image;
`
`moving said second mask to a location of said motion
`object in said second image;
`
`reshaping said second mask to fit said motion object in
`said second image using a computer;
`
`setting at least one depth parameter associated with said
`first mask;
`
`applying said at least one depth parameter to said second
`image using said computer.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`1. Sandrew, U.S. Patent No. 7,181,081 B2 (“the ’081 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1003).
`
`2. Sandrew, U.S. Patent No. 7,333,670 B2 (“the ’670 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1004).
`
`3. Passmore, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0219383 A1, issued
`
`Sept. 3, 2009 (Ex. 1005, “Passmore”).
`
`4. Sullivan et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,573,475 B2, issued Aug. 11, 2009
`
`(Ex. 1006, “Sullivan”).
`
`Petitioner further relies on the Declaration of David Forsyth, Ph.D.
`
`(Ex. 1009).
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner advances the following grounds of unpatentability under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Pet. 3–4):
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`
`References
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`’081 patent and Passmore
`
`1, 2, and 7–12
`
`’081 patent and Sullivan
`
`1–12
`
`’670 patent and Passmore
`
`13, 14, and 19
`
`’670 patent and Sullivan
`
`13–19
`
`’081 patent, ’670 patent, and
`Passmore
`
`’081 patent, ’670 patent, and
`Sullivan
`
`20
`
`20
`
`
`E.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The ’793 patent is the subject of ongoing litigation between the
`
`parties: Prime Focus Creative Services Canada Inc. v. Legend3D, Inc.,
`
`Central District of California, Case No. 2:15-cv-2340-MWF-PLA, filed on
`
`April 21, 2016.1 Pet. 1.
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Overview of Cited References
`
`1.
`
`The ’670 and ’081 Patents
`
`Both Sandrew patents upon which Petitioner relies are parents of the
`
`’793 patent, the instant challenged patent. Specifically, the ’793 patent is a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 7,577,312, which is a continuation of
`
`
`1 Additionally, inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,922,628 is currently
`proceeding before this Board and involves the instant parties, but is not
`related to the ’793 patent. Legend3D, Inc. v. Prime Focus Creative Services
`Canada Inc., No. IPR2016-00806 (PTAB Mar. 28, 2016).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`the ’670 patent, which is a divisional of the ’081 patent. Both the ’081 and
`
`’670 patents provide for colorizing black-and-white feature films by
`
`classifying elements from movie scenes into two separate categories: “either
`
`background elements (i.e. sets and foreground elements that are stationary)
`
`or motion elements (e.g., actors, automobiles, etc.) that move throughout the
`
`scene.” Ex. 1003, 1:57–59; Ex. 1004, 1:64–66. In an embodiment of the
`
`’081 patent, the background elements are combined to create a composite
`
`background image, and the single background image is colorized. Ex. 1003,
`
`2:16–68. In an embodiment of the ’670 patent, the motion elements are
`
`masked throughout a scene, and colorization is applied to the masked motion
`
`elements. Ex. 1004, 2:3–45.
`
`2.
`
`Passmore
`
`Passmore discloses an image depth augmentation system and method
`
`for providing three-dimensional views from a two-dimensional image. Ex.
`
`1005, Abstract. In one embodiment, Passmore describes using the digital
`
`masks of colorized movies to augment the depth of an image. Id. ¶ 48.
`
`3.
`
`Sullivan
`
`Sullivan discloses systems for 2D to 3D image conversion, and
`
`creating a complementary stereoscopic image pair. Ex. 1006, Abstract.
`
`Sullivan describes “receiving a first 2D image comprising image data,”
`
`wherein “[t]he image data has depth values associated with the computer-
`
`generated geometry.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`The’081 and ’670 Patents as Prior Art to the ’793 Patent
`
`Petitioner relies extensively on the ’081 and ’670 patents as the basis
`
`for its challenges. For example, Petitioner relies on the ’081 patent as
`
`teaching or suggesting every limitation of challenged claim 1 but for the
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`claimed “depth parameter.” Pet. 19–21, 42–43. Petitioner similarly relies
`
`on the ’670 patent as teaching or suggesting every limitation of challenged
`
`claim 13 but for the claimed “depth parameter.” Id. at 34–36, 46–47.
`
`Petitioner further relies on the ’081 and ’670 patents together as teaching or
`
`suggesting every limitation of challenged claim 20 but for the claimed
`
`“depth parameter.” Id. at 39–42 and 49–52.
`
`Patent Owner urges the ’081 and ’670 patents cannot serve as prior art
`
`in an obviousness analysis of the Challenged Claims because the ’793 patent
`
`is entitled to priority on the basis of the disclosure in the ’081 and ’670
`
`patents themselves. Prelim. Resp. 15. Under 35 U.S.C. § 120, “a claim in a
`
`later application receives the benefit of the filing date of an earlier
`
`application so long as the disclosure in the earlier application meets the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, including the written description
`
`requirement, with respect to that claim.” Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek,
`
`Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To comply with the written
`
`description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 in order to be entitled to an
`
`earlier priority date under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each claim limitation must be
`
`expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the earlier-filed disclosure.
`
`Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998). When an explicit
`
`limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit
`
`is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description
`
`requires that limitation.” Id.
`
`The ’081 and ’670 patents do not recite the term “depth parameter.”
`
`Indeed, the only use of the constituent word “depth” in either the ’081 patent
`
`or ’670 patent is in a context unrelated to the “depth parameter” recited in
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`the Challenged Claims. Ex. 1003, 6:54 (only instance of the word “depth”
`
`in the context of “bit depth”); Ex. 1004, 3:65 (same). The claims of the ’081
`
`and ’670 patents, however, recite use of a “color parameter.” See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1003, 29:14 (claim 1 of the ’081 patent); see also Ex. 1004, 26:38–52 (claim
`
`3 of the ’670 patent).
`
`Petitioner contends the term “depth parameter” as used in the
`
`Challenged Claims “relates to the perceived distance of an object from the
`
`camera.” Pet. 10. Relying on Dr. Forsyth, Petitioner asserts the claimed
`
`“depth parameter” is an “entirely distinct, non-overlapping” concept from a
`
`“color parameter,” which “relates to the visible hue of an object.” Id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 39). Again relying on Dr. Forsyth, Petitioner contends:
`
`Given this complete lack of disclosure of depth anywhere
`in the family history and the material difference between
`“color” parameters and “depth” parameters, a person of
`ordinary skill in the art could not possibly have
`recognized that the inventor of the ‘081 Patent or ‘670
`Patent had possession of the depth-related invention of
`the ‘793 Patent when those earlier patents were filed.
`
`
`Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 40–41).
`
`Conversely, Patent Owner contends one of ordinary skill in art would
`
`have understood the disclosure of the ’081 and ’670 patents as describing
`
`sufficiently the claimed “depth parameter” to satisfy the written description
`
`requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Prelim. Resp. 15. According to Patent
`
`Owner, the term “color parameter” encompasses the components of the
`
`“HSL color space model” referenced in the ’081 and ’670 patents. Id. at 3.
`
`Patent Owner asserts one of ordinary skill would have understood the HSL
`
`color space model as defining colors in terms of three components: hue,
`
`saturation, and luminance. Id. at 6–10. An ordinarily skilled artisan would
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`have further recognized, according to Patent Owner, that alterations to
`
`saturation and luminance may be used “to achieve depth effects (known as
`
`‘depth cues’ in the art).” Id. at 11–14. Therefore, Patent Owner alleges, one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “depth parameter”
`
`of the Challenged Claims encompasses the “SL” components of the “HSL
`
`color space model” mentioned in the ’081 and ’670 patents, just as the
`
`“color parameter” recited in the claims of the ’081 and ’670 patents
`
`encompasses all three “HSL” components. Id. at 14–15.
`
`The written description requirement is satisfied by disclosure of “such
`
`descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that
`
`fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107
`
`F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, due to the absence of explicit
`
`disclosure of “depth parameter” in the ’081 and ’670 patents, we turn to the
`
`understanding of the ’081 and ’670 patents by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at time. Hyatt, 146 F.3d at 1353. Petitioner proffers the declaration of Dr.
`
`Forsyth in support of its contention that a person of ordinary skill would not
`
`have understood the specifications of the ’081 and ’670 patents to describe
`
`use of a “depth parameter.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 39–41). As
`
`discussed above, Dr. Forsyth attests that “depth parameter” relates to the
`
`distance of an object from a camera, a concept that does not appear to have
`
`been described in either the ’081 or ’670 patents, but is described in the ’793
`
`patent at issue. See Ex. 1015, 4, 13 (indicating new matter added). On the
`
`record before us and at this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded
`
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in
`
`showing the Challenged Claims are not entitled to a priority date based on
`
`the ’081 and ’670 patents. With regard to Patent Owner’s contentions,
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`Patent Owner relies on a single reference in each of the ’081 and ’670
`
`patents to “an HSL color space model.” Prelim. Resp. 3. Although Patent
`
`Owner adduces instances in the art of using saturation and luminance to
`
`achieve depth effects, we are not persuaded on this evidentiary record that a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have understood this single HSL reference
`
`together with the claims of the ’081 and ’670 patents as fully setting forth
`
`the inventions of the Challenged Claims, particularly with regard to a “depth
`
`parameter.”
`
`Accordingly, having decided based on the record before us and at this
`
`stage of the proceeding that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it will prevail in showing the Challenged Claims are not
`
`entitled to a priority date based on the ’081 and ’670 patents, we determine
`
`that the ’081 and ’670 patents are available as prior art for purposes of this
`
`decision.
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1–12 based on the ’081 patent in
`combination with either Passmore or Sullivan
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 7–12 over the ’081 patent and Passmore
`
`Petitioner asserts independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and
`
`7–12 would have been obvious in light of the ’081 patent and Passmore.
`
`Pet. 19–29. We have reviewed the information provided by Petitioner,
`
`including the relevant portions of the supporting Forsyth Declaration.
`
`Petitioner’s analysis demonstrates where each element of claims 1, 2, and 7–
`
`12 is taught or suggested by the ’081 patent and Passmore. Id. In particular,
`
`Petitioner’s analysis relies heavily on the ’081 patent. Id. For example,
`
`Petitioner relies on the ’081 patent as teaching or suggesting every limitation
`
`of claim 1 but for the claimed “depth parameter.” Id. at 19–21. Petitioner
`
`further relies on Passmore’s “depth pane 304” and “depth map 200 related
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`parameters” as meeting the claimed “depth parameter.” Id. at 21 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 41, 48 and Fig. 9). Finally, Petitioner asserts one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the ’081 patent and
`
`Passmore: “In essence, all that is required is the simple substitution of one
`
`known element from Passmore or Sullivan—depth—for another element
`
`from the ‘670 or ‘081 Patents—color—to obtain predictable results.” Id. at
`
`17 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); Ex. 1009
`
`¶¶ 48–49).
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments against this asserted ground are directed to
`
`whether the Challenged Claims are entitled to priority based on the ’081 and
`
`’670 patents, thereby rendering these patents ineligible as prior art. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 31–63. Having found Patent Owner’s priority assertion insufficient
`
`based on the record before us at this time, we are not persuaded by Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments. See supra Section III.B.
`
`For the reasons discussed above and based on the current record
`
`at this stage of the proceeding, we determine Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this obviousness challenge to
`
`claims 1, 2, and 7–12.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1–12 over the ’081 patent and Sullivan
`
`Petitioner asserts independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–12
`
`would have been obvious in light of the ’081 patent and Sullivan. Pet. 29–
`
`34, 42–46. We have reviewed the information provided by Petitioner,
`
`including the relevant portions of the supporting Forsyth Declaration.
`
`Petitioner’s analysis demonstrates where each element of claims 1–12 is
`
`taught or suggested by the ’081 patent and Sullivan. Id. As discussed
`
`above, Petitioner’s analysis relies heavily on the ’081 patent. Id. For
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`example, Petitioner relies on the ’081 patent as teaching or suggesting every
`
`limitation of claim 1 but for the claimed “depth parameter.” Id. at 42–43.
`
`Petitioner further relies on Sullivan’s “image data” containing “depth
`
`values” as meeting the claimed “depth parameter.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex.
`
`1006, Abstract). Finally, Petitioner asserts one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to combine the cited references. Id. at 17.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments against this asserted ground are directed to
`
`whether the Challenged Claims are entitled to priority based on the ’081 and
`
`’670 patents, thereby rendering these patents ineligible as prior art. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 31–63. Having found Patent Owner’s priority assertion insufficient
`
`based on the record before us at this time, we are not persuaded by Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments. See supra Section III.B.
`
`For the reasons discussed above and based on the current record
`
`at this stage of the proceeding, we determine Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this obviousness challenge to
`
`claims 1–12.
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims 13–19 based on the ’670 patent in
`combination with either Passmore or Sullivan
`
`1.
`
`Claims 13, 14, and 19 over the ’670 patent and Passmore
`
`Petitioner asserts independent claim 13 and its dependent claims 14
`
`and 19 would have been obvious in light of the ’670 patent and Passmore.
`
`Pet. 34–37. We have reviewed the information provided by Petitioner,
`
`including the relevant portions of the supporting Forsyth Declaration.
`
`Petitioner’s analysis demonstrates where each element of claims 1, 2, and 7–
`
`12 is taught or suggested by the ’081 patent and Passmore. Id. In particular,
`
`Petitioner’s analysis relies heavily on the ’670 patent. Id. For example,
`
`Petitioner relies on the ’670 patent as teaching or suggesting every limitation
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`of claim 13 but for the claimed “depth parameter.” Id. at 34–36. Petitioner
`
`further relies on Passmore’s “depth pane 304” and “depth map 200 related
`
`parameters” as meeting the claimed “depth parameter.” Id. at 36 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 41, 48 and Fig. 9). Finally, Petitioner asserts one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the cited references.
`
`Id. at 17.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments against this asserted ground are directed to
`
`whether the Challenged Claims are entitled to priority based on the ’081 and
`
`’670 patents, thereby rendering these patents ineligible as prior art. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 57–63. Having found Patent Owner’s priority assertion insufficient
`
`based on the record before us at this time, we are not persuaded by Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments. See supra Section III.B.
`
`For the reasons discussed above and based on the current record
`
`at this stage of the proceeding, we determine Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this obviousness challenge to
`
`claims 13, 14, and 19.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 13–19 over the ’670 patent and Sullivan
`
`Petitioner asserts independent claim 13 and its dependent claims 14–
`
`19 would have been obvious in light of the ’670 patent and Sullivan. Pet.
`
`37–39, 46–49. We have reviewed the information provided by Petitioner,
`
`including the relevant portions of the supporting Forsyth Declaration.
`
`Petitioner’s analysis demonstrates where each element of claims 13–19 is
`
`taught or suggested by the ’670 patent and Sullivan. Id. As discussed
`
`above, Petitioner’s analysis relies heavily on the ’670 patent. Id. For
`
`example, Petitioner relies on the ’670 patent as teaching or suggesting every
`
`limitation of claim 13 but for the claimed “depth parameter.” Id. at 46–47.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`Petitioner further relies on Sullivan’s “image data” containing “depth
`
`values” as meeting the claimed “depth parameter.” Id. at 47 (citing
`
`ex. 1006, Abstract). Finally, Petitioner asserts one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to combine the cited references. Id. at 17.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments against this asserted ground are directed to
`
`whether the Challenged Claims are entitled to priority based on the ’081 and
`
`’670 patents, thereby rendering these patents ineligible as prior art. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 57–63. Having found Patent Owner’s priority assertion insufficient
`
`based on the record before us at this time, we are not persuaded by Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments. See supra Section III.B.
`
`For the reasons discussed above and based on the current record
`
`at this stage of the proceeding, we determine Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this obviousness challenge to
`
`claims 13–19.
`
`E. Obviousness of Claim 20 based on the ’081 and ’670 patents in
`combination with either Passmore or Sullivan
`
`Petitioner asserts independent claim 20 would have been obvious in
`
`light of the ’081 patent, the ’670 patent, and Passmore. Pet. 39–42.
`
`Alternatively, Petitioner asserts independent claim 20 would have been
`
`obvious in light of the ’081 patent, the ’670 patent, and Sullivan. Id. at 49–
`
`52. We have reviewed the information provided by Petitioner, including the
`
`relevant portions of the supporting Forsyth Declaration. Petitioner’s
`
`analysis demonstrates where each element of claim 20 is taught or suggested
`
`by the ’081 patent, the ’670 patent, and Passmore (id. at 39–42) or
`
`alternatively the ’081 patent, the ’670 patent, and Sullivan (id. at 49–52).
`
`Finally, Petitioner asserts one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine the cited references. Id. at 17.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments against this asserted ground are directed to
`
`whether the claim 20 is entitled to priority based on the ’081 and ’670
`
`patents, thereby rendering these patents ineligible as prior art. Prelim. Resp.
`
`64. Having found Patent Owner’s priority assertion insufficient based on the
`
`record before us at this time, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments. See supra Section III.B.
`
`For the reasons discussed above and based on the current record
`
`at this stage of the proceeding, we determine Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on these obviousness challenges to
`
`claim 20.
`
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY
`
`
`
`We determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`
`of prevailing on its challenges to claims 1–20. At this stage of the
`
`proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of
`
`any of these challenged claims.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`V. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review of the ʼ793 patent is hereby instituted on the following grounds:
`
`A. Obviousness of claims 1, 2, and 7–12 over the ’081 patent and
`
`Passmore;
`
`B. Obviousness of claims 1–12 over the ’081 patent and Sullivan;
`
`C. Obviousness of claims 13, 14, and 19 over the ’670 patent and
`
`Passmore;
`
`D. Obviousness of claims 13–19 over the ’670 patent and Sullivan;
`
`E. Obviousness of claim 20 over the ’081 patent, the ’670 patent, and
`
`Passmore; and
`
`F. Obviousness of claim 20 over the ’081 patent, the ’670 patent, and
`
`Sullivan.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that review based on any other proposed
`
`grounds of unpatentability is not authorized; 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
`
`commencing on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2016-01243
`Patent 7,907,793 B1
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Joshua Glucoft
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`PrimeFocusIPR@irell.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph Mayo
`Danna Cotman
`ARC IP LAW, PC
`joe@arciplaw.com
`danna@arciplaw.com
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
