Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`
`
`
` Entered: January 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`YMAX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`
`
`
` Entered: January 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`YMAX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`YMax Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,298 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’298 patent”) and a Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002).
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Focal IP, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response and a Declaration of Mr. Regis J. Bates Jr. (Ex. 2001). Paper 7
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to our prior authorization, Petitioner filed a
`Reply to the Preliminary Response. Paper 11 (“Reply”).
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, as to claims 1 and 20 of the ’298 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’298 patent is involved in Patent Asset
`Licensing LLC v. Bright House Networks, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-00742-J-
`32MCR (M.D. Fla.), and identify other related proceedings. Pet. 1–2;
`Paper 4, 2–3. There are other petitions challenging the ’298 patent
`(IPR2016-01259 and IPR2016-0163) and two related patents: (1) U.S.
`Patent No. 7,764,777 B2 (“the ’298 patent”), which issued from a divisional
`application of the ’298 patent’s parent application; and (2) U.S. Patent No.
`8,457,113 B2 (“the ’133 patent”), which issued from a continuation
`application of the ’298 patent.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`B. The ’298 Patent
`The ’298 patent is directed to a system for allowing a subscriber to
`select telephone service features. Ex. 1001, 1:20–23. Figure 1 of the ’298
`patent is reproduced below (with annotations).
`
`
`Annotated Figure 1 illustrates tandem access controller 10 connected
`to conventional Public Service Telephone Network (PSTN) tandem
`switch 16. Id. at 4:60–64. According to the ’298 patent, “[d]etails of the
`operation of the existing phone network,” including directing of phone calls
`by “existing” PSTN tandem switch 16 to central offices 17, 18 are further
`described in a publication incorporated by reference, as well as “numerous
`books describing the PSTN.” Id. at 4:60–5:4.
`The call flow in the network illustrated in Figure 1 with tandem access
`controller 10 remains the same as that in a conventional network, “except
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`that additional 3rd-party features are applied to the call.” Id. More
`specifically, in the network illustrated in Figure 1, a call from calling party
`20 to subscriber’s phone 14 is directed to tandem access controller 10, which
`places a second call, subject to 3rd party control information to subscriber 12.
`Id. at 5:5–20. The second call is placed “to the subscriber’s ‘private’ phone
`number,” without terminating the first call. Id. When subscriber 12 answers
`the call, tandem access controller 10 connects the first call to the second call
`so as to connect calling party 20 to subscriber 12. Id.
`Figure 1 also shows web server 23 within World Wide Web 22, which
`is connected to tandem access controller 10. Id. at Fig. 1. Subscriber 12
`specifies 3rd-party call control features via web server 23 and these features
`are then relayed via World Wide Web 22 to tandem access controller 10. Id.
`at 5:33–41.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges independent claims 1 and 20 of the ’298 patent
`in this proceeding. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`1. A method for providing user control selections for routing of
`one or more communications between users of one or more
`communications networks, wherein the users either 1) initiate a
`communication, 2) receive a communication, or 3) control a
`communication, the user control selections provided by a user
`via access to a web server of a web-enabled processing system
`connected to operate at least in part with the one or more
`communication networks, wherein at
`least one of
`the
`communication networks is a network comprising edge switches
`for routing calls from and to users within a local geographic area
`and switching facilities for routing calls to other edge switches
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`or other switching facilities local or in other geographic areas,
`the web server of web-enabled processing system facilitating
`direct access by a user for providing user control selections to the
`at least one of the switching facilities, the user having a
`communications device with which to communicate with the
`web server of the web-enabled processing system, the method
`comprising the steps of:
`facilitating access by authorized users to the web-enabled
`processing system, via the web server, the web-enabled
`processing system coupled to at least one of the switching
`facilities of the network, the web-enabled processing system
`configured to route a communication from a specific one of the
`users to an intended recipient of the users;
`executing control criteria, via the web-enabled processing
`system, to control the routing of the one or more communications
`via the web-enabled processing system, the control criteria
`predetermined by the users control selections via the web server
`before the control criteria are executed via the web-enabled
`processing system,
`wherein the web-enabled processing system is configured to
`perform the following operations to execute the control criteria:
`first, receive a message indicating a communication request from
`a user initiating a communication for an intended recipient user,
`wherein the message request is transmitted using a [signaling]
`protocol of the at least one communication network;
`second, validate and acknowledge said communications request
`without first forwarding said request to a terminating edge switch
`within the geographic area of the intended recipient of the users;
`third, determine the control criteria for access to the intended
`recipient of the users;
`fourth, facilitate selection of a routing path over the at least one
`communication network in accordance with the control criteria
`for the intended recipient user;
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`fifth, route the communication in accordance with the control
`criteria; and
`sixth, complete a communications link between the user
`initiating the communication and the intended recipient of the
`users, when the intended recipient of the users accepts the
`communication from the user initiating the communication.
`Ex. 1001, 12:46–13:35 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`O’Neal
`
`US 6,463,145 B1 Oct. 8, 2002
`Chang
`
`US 5,958,016
`Sep. 28, 1999
`McMullin
`
`US 5,809,128
`Sep. 15, 1998
`Admitted Prior Art (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:42–55).
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1003)
`(Ex. 1004)
`(Ex. 1005)
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1 and 20 of the ’298 are unpatentable
`based on the following grounds of unpatentability. Pet. 3–4.
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`O’Neal
`O’Neal, McMullin, and the
`Admitted Prior Art1
`
`§ 102(a)
`
`1 and 20
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1
`
`
`1 Although discussed in the Petitioner’s analysis (Pet. 39–40), the Admitted
`Prior Art is omitted inadvertently from the statements of the asserted
`grounds. Therefore, we treat the statements as harmless error and presume
`that Petitioner intended to assert that claims 1 and 20 are unpatentable based,
`in part, on the Admitted Prior Art.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`20
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`O’Neal, Chang, and the Admitted
`Prior Art
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Under this standard, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and
`customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`1. “switching facility”
`
`Petitioner contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“switching facility” is “any switch in the communication network.” Pet. 21;
`Reply 1. Patent Owner contends that “switching facility” (1) is a switch for
`routing calls to edge switches or other “switching facilities” local or in other
`geographic areas; and (2) is not an edge switch or edge device. Prelim.
`Resp. 34, 40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 68, 80).
`The preamble of each independent claim recites “a network
`comprising edge switches for routing calls from and to users within a local
`geographic area and switching facilities for routing calls to other edge
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`switches or other switching facilities local or in other geographic areas.”
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 12:54–58. On this record, the parties do not present, nor
`can we discern, a reason why the preamble should not be given patentable
`weight. In fact, both parties agree that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting.
`See, e.g., Pet. 39; Prelim. Resp. 34. For purposes of this decision, we
`proceed on the assumption that it is.
`We turn to the Specification of the ’298 patent itself to discern the
`meaning of “switching facility.” As pointed out by both parties, the term
`“switching facility” is not found anywhere in the Specification of the ’298
`patent. The term was added during prosecution. Accordingly, there is not
`much, if anything intrinsically in the Specification of the ’298 patent that
`explicitly defines or informs a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the invention the meaning of “switching facility.”
`Patent Owner argues that the prosecution history makes clear that
`switching facility cannot include an edge switch. Prelim. Resp. 34–40. The
`remarks made during prosecution, however, are equivocal, and do not
`persuade us of a disavowal or disclaimer of the scope of the term “switching
`facility” to exclude an edge switch. For example, the portion of the
`prosecution history that Patent Owner cites includes a footnote for defining a
`“switching facility” as:
`Any point in the switching fabric of converging networks, also
`referred to in industry as a signal transfer point (STP), signal
`control point (SCP), session border controller (SBC), gateway,
`access tandem, class 4 switch , wire center, toll office, toll center,
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`PSTN switching center, intercarrier connection point, trunk
`gateway, hybrid switch, etc.
`Ex. 2005, 82.
`The above description does not explain that a switching facility does
`not include an edge switch. Indeed, “[a]ny point in the switching fabric of
`converging networks” appears broad. We have considered all of the
`arguments and evidence in this record, regarding the term “switching
`facility,” including the definitions set forth in the Federal Standard 1037C
`(Ex. 1008) and the Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (Ex. 1009). Ex. 1008, S35
`(defining “switching center” and “switching facility” as synonyms that mean
`“a facility in which switches are used to interconnect communications
`circuits on a circuit-, message-, or packet-switching basis”); Ex. 1009
`(defining “switching centers” to refer to all five classes of switches in the
`PSTN). At this juncture of the proceeding, we determine that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of the term is any switch in the communication
`network.
`
`2. “coupled to”
`
`Claim 1 recites “the web-enabled processing system coupled to at least
`one of the switching facilities of the network.” Ex. 1001, 12:65–67 (emphasis
`added). Petitioner argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“coupled to” means “connected directly or indirectly.” Pet. 27–28.
`Although Patent Owner does not dispute that the plain and ordinary meaning
`of the term “couple to” does not require a direct connection between the
`web-enabled processing system and the switching facility, Patent Owner
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`argues that the term should be interpreted to mean “direct connection.”
`Prelim. Resp. 40–41. In Patent Owner’s view, the configuration of an
`indirect connection of these elements was allegedly disclaimed by
`Applicants. Id.
`However, the portions of the prosecution history cited by Patent
`Owner for support (e.g., Ex. 2005, 66) are, at most, ambiguous. The
`Amendment that added the limitation “coupled to a switching facility for
`routing calls to edge switches or other switching facilities in local or other
`geographic areas” is silent as to whether “coupled to” requires a direct
`connection between the elements. Id.
`Patent Owner also contends that the web-enabled processing system
`cannot be coupled to a switching facility through an edge switch because
`this construction reflects Applicants’ disclaimer of controllers that applied
`call control features through an edge switch. Prelim. Resp. 40–41. As
`discussed above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s disclaimer
`arguments that the term “switching facility” excludes an edge switch.
`Based on the record before us at this juncture of the proceeding, we
`determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “coupled to”
`includes direct or indirect coupling.
`
`3. “controller”
`
`Claim 20 recites a “controller.” Ex. 1101, 14:64. Patent Owner does not
`dispute that the plain and ordinary meaning of this term does not exclude an edge
`device or a system that communicates with an edge device. Prelim. Resp. 41–42.
`Nevertheless, relying on its prosecution disclaimer arguments presented in
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`connection with the term “switching facility,” Patent Owner alleges that a
`“controller” cannot be an edge device or a system that applies call control features
`through an edge switch. Id. As discussed above, we are not persuaded by those
`disclaimer arguments. Based on the present record, we determine that the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “controller” does not exclude an edge
`device or a system that applies call control features through an edge switch.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`Petitioner asserts that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as
`obvious over O’Neal in view of McMullin and the Admitted Prior Art, and
`that claim 20 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over O’Neal in view
`of Chang and the Admitted Prior Art. Pet. 36–69. Patent Owner opposes,
`arguing that the prior art combinations do not disclose a web enabled
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`processing system, or a controller, coupled to a “switching facility.” Prelim.
`Resp. 46–51.
`We begin our discussion below with an overview of O’Neal,
`McMullin, and Chang, and then we address the parties’ contentions in turn,
`focusing on the deficiencies alleged by Patent Owner.
`
`1. Overview of O’Neal
`O’Neal describes communication services available via a data-centric
`network and a telephony-centric network. Ex. 1003, 1:48–50. A subscriber
`of various communication services reviews and customizes communication
`options, in an interactive and simplified manner, via either the data-centric
`network or the telephony-centric network. Id. at 1:52–57.
`Figure 1 of O’Neal is reproduced below.
`
`As illustrated in Figure 1 of O’Neal, unified messaging system 101 is
`connected to a public telephone network 129, such as the PSTN through
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`telephone link 128. Id. at 9:9–30, Fig. 1. Unified messaging system 101
`includes telephony server 126 that receives calls made to a subscriber and
`reroutes the call in accordance with a subscriber's communication option
`setting by forwarding the call to the subscriber via an alternate number. Id.
`at 9:55–58, 11:40–51, 15:14–43.
`The subscriber may use user computer 100 to access the unified
`messaging system through a website over a data-centric network 102 such as
`the Internet. Id. at 16:35–17:10, 5:41–60, Fig. 1. Website access allows the
`subscriber to review and/or modify their communication options. Id. at
`16:36–64, 7:45–8:22, Fig. 1. For example, with regard to call forwarding,
`the subscriber is “able to check whether it is enabled, verify the forwarding
`number, select a number from a preprogrammed list, add a new number to a
`preprogrammed list, or enter a temporary number.” Id. at 5:62–6:9. When a
`caller calls the subscriber, the call is routed over public telephone network
`129 and received by the telephony server of the unified messaging system.
`Id. at 8:41–62, 9:20–30, 15:14–43, 17:11–49, Fig. 1. The telephony server
`then uses the subscriber’s communication option settings to “decide how to
`handle the message.” Id. at 8:41–9:9. If the subscriber has enabled “call
`forwarding,” the “telephony server receives the forwarding number from the
`database server and initiates an outgoing call (step 706) to the forwarding
`number on another port (e.g., one of the outgoing lines as seen in FIG. 2).”
`If “the call is accepted” by the subscriber, the telephony server completes the
`call by “connect[ing] the port of the incoming call with the port of the
`outgoing call.” Id. at 17:11–49, 11:40–51, Figs. 1, 3–4, and 7. In this
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`manner, the telephony server may route the call back through the public
`telephone network to the subscriber “in accordance with a subscriber's
`communication option setting.” Id. at 8:41–62, 9:20–30, 9:55–58, 11:40–51,
`15:14–43, 17:11–49, Fig. 1.
`O’Neal further discloses that the subscriber could be using a computer
`“enable[d] [with] digital/Internet telephony.” Id. at 19:1–8. The telephony
`server can re-route the call to the subscriber through the Internet “in
`accordance with a subscriber's communication option setting.” Id. at 9:55–
`58, 18:19–23, 19:1–8, Fig. 1.
`
`2. Overview of McMullin
`McMullin discloses an interactive voice response system for
`providing automatic redirection of an incoming telephone call from a caller.
`Ex. 1005, Abstract, 5:11–16. The redirection allows the system to receive a
`call made to a subscriber, and then redirect the call to a voice mail system or
`to another destination on the PSTN. Id. at 8:1–4. The system also receives
`information about the original destination of the call, known as Dialed
`Number Identification Service (DNIS) information, and validates the DNIS
`information against the subscriber records located in the customer record file
`to ensure that the subscriber number is a valid subscriber authorized to use
`the service. Id. at 6:64–7:14.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`3. Overview of Chang
`Chang discloses a system that has a web browser interface for
`allowing subscribers to control call features. Ex. 1004, Abstract, 4:45–58,
`7:9–16. Figure 1 of Chang is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Chang illustrates a telephone network that includes one or
`more tandem switching offices (11T) that provide connections between end
`offices and/or between other tandem offices. Id. at 8:2–5. Secure access
`platform 25 allows the subscribers to control their call features using a Web
`browser through the Internet, and provides user control selections to the
`tandem switches (11T) through Service Control Point (SCP) 19 and
`Signaling Transfer Point (STP) 15 using Signaling System 7 (SS7)
`signaling. Id. at Abstract, 8:48–9:7, 11:9–12:17, 12:64–13:27.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`4. Discussion
`Claim 1 recites “a network comprising edge switches for routing calls
`from and to users within a local geographic area and switching facilities for
`routing calls to other edge switches or other switching facilities local or in
`other geographic areas.” Ex. 1001, 12:53–58. Claim 1 also recites that “the
`web-enabled processing system coupled to at least one of the switching
`facilities of the network.” Id. at 12:65–67. Claim 20 requires a controller
`with access to a network that “is coupled to a switching facility.” Id. at
`14:63–67. Petitioner takes the position that O’Neal, in combination with
`other asserted prior art, teaches or suggests these limitations. Pet. 36–66.
`In particular, Petitioner alleges that O’Neal discloses a
`telephony-centric network—e.g., the PSTN that is a network that comprises
`edge switches and tandem switches (switching facilities). Id. at 39 (citing
`Ex. 1003, 9:10–19). Citing to the Admitted Prior Art, the prosecution
`history, and its expert testimony, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily
`skilled artisan would have recognized that the PSTN “consists of a plurality
`of edge switches connected to telephones on one side and to a network of
`tandem switches on the other.” Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:42–51;
`Ex. 1019, 5 (“It is well known that a conventional PSTN includes edge
`switches (commonly referred to as central office switches . . .) that originate
`and terminate calls for connected subscribers, and tandem switches which
`route these calls internally within the PSTN (i.e. tandem switches are not
`capable of originating or terminating PSTN calls, but rather directs calls
`to/from an edge switch or another tandem switch).”); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 98–99).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner also explains that O’Neal discloses a “web-enabled
`processing system coupled to at least one of the switching facilities of the
`network” in that O’Neal’s unified messaging system is connected to the
`PSTN through tandem switches of the PSTN. Id. at 42–43 (citing Ex. 1003,
`9:10–19, Fig. 1; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–06; Ex. 1019, 5). Petitioner further
`contends that O’Neal’s telephony server is a “controller” because, by
`forwarding a call to the user selected forwarding number, it is causing the
`switches of the PSTN to route the call to the desired number. Id. at 54
`(citing Ex. 1003, 5:62–6:4, 8:8–22, 9:55–58, 11:40–51, 15:14–43, 16:35–64,
`Figs. 1, 3–4).
`Patent Owner counters that “Petitioner cannot show that O’Neal’s
`purported web-enabled processing system is coupled to a ‘switching
`facility,’ as that term is properly construed.” Prelim. Resp. 47–51.
`According to Patent Owner, O’Neal’s system is connected to an edge switch,
`and “Applicants disclaimed coupling a ‘web-enabled processing system’ or a
`‘controller’ to the PSTN via an edge switch.” Id.
`Patent Owner’s arguments are premised on its proposed narrow
`interpretation of “switching facility,” “coupled to,” and “controller.” Id. At
`this juncture of the proceeding, and for reasons provided above, we decline
`to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed interpretations. Accordingly, we are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.
`Based on the current record before us, we determine that Petitioner
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that
`claim 1 is unpatentable over O’Neal, in combination with McMullin and the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`Admitted Prior Art, and that claim 20 is unpatentable over O’Neal, in
`combination with Chang and the Admitted Prior Art.
`
`D. Remaining Ground Challenging Claims 1 and 20 of the ’245 Patent
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes proceedings
`were promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`rules provide that they are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As a
`result, and in determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a
`patent, the Board, in its discretion, may “deny some or all grounds for
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108(b).
`Based on the record before us, we exercise our discretion and decline
`to institute review based on the remaining asserted ground advanced by
`Petitioner that is not identified below as being part of the trial. See, e.g.,
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1 and 20 of the
`’298 patent. At this preliminary stage, we have not made a final
`determination as to the patentability of the challenged claims, or with respect
`to claim construction.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`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 as to claims 1 and 20 of the ’298 patent on the
`following founds of unpatentability:
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claim
`
`References
`O’Neal, McMullin, and the
`Admitted Prior Art
`O’Neal, Chang, and the Admitted
`Prior Art
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`asserted in the Petition is authorized for this inter partes review; and
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`20
`
`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.
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Mark Passler
`ip@akerman.com
`
`Bruce Dumais
`Brice.dumais@akerman.com
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brent Bumgardner
`bbumgardner@nbclaw.net
`
`John Murphy
`murphy@nelbum.com
`
`
`20
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
