`
`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