Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: December 27, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER,
`and MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: December 27, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER,
`and MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner requests an inter partes review of claims 1–14 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,060,360 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’360 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires
`demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail at trial
`with respect to at least one challenged patent claim, we institute an inter
`partes review of claims 1–14 of the ’360 patent.
`Our findings of fact and conclusions of law at this preliminary stage
`of the proceeding are not final and are made for the sole purpose of
`determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review.
`Any final written decision in this case will be based on the full trial record,
`including any Response timely filed by Patent Owner in accordance with the
`Scheduling Order entered with this Decision. In that regard, any arguments
`not raised in Patent Owner’s Response are deemed waived, even if they were
`included in the Preliminary Response.
`Taking account of the information provided in the Petition and the
`Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner shows sufficiently the
`following facts for the purposes of trial institution.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The Petition identifies no related district court actions or
`
`administrative proceedings. Pet. 1.
`
`B. The ’360 Patent
`The ’360 patent is titled “Bond Coat for Silicon Based Substrates.”
`
`Ex. 1001, Title. The ’360 patent relates to an environmental barrier coating
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`for protecting a silicon-containing substrate, such as combustor and turbine
`sections of gas turbine engines. Id. at 1:7–18. Specifically, the coating
`protects the substrate from the adverse effects of oxidation in high
`temperature, aqueous environments, thereby increasing the service life of the
`components. Id. That coating comprises an alkaline earth aluminosilicate
`based on barium and strontium (also known as “BSAS”), or yttrium silicate.
`Id. at 1:22–24, claim 1; Pet. 9. A “bond layer” is located between the
`substrate and the BSAS coating. Id. at 1:19–47; claim 1.
`
`The ’360 patent discloses that the BSAS coating was known in the
`prior art. Id. at 1:22–25. The specification also identifies, as prior art, a
`bond layer (located between the substrate and the BSAS coating) comprising
`“a dense continuous layer of silicon metal.” Id. at 1:21–22; Fig. 1. The
`inventors claim to have discovered that, by using a bond layer that includes
`an alloy comprising a refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic, instead of
`“a simple phase silicon metal bond coat,” the fracture toughness of the bond
`coat is increased, resulting in “more resistance to crack propagation.” Id. at
`1:50–2:3; see claim 1 (specifying a bond coat including an alloy comprising
`a refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic).
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter:
`1. An article comprising a silicon based substrate, at least one
`environmental barrier layer selected from the group consisting
`essentially of an alkaline earth aluminosilicate based on barium and
`strontium, and yttrium silicate, and a bond layer between the substrate
`and the environmental barrier layer, the bond layer comprises an alloy
`comprising a refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:55–62.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Prior Art and Other Evidence
`The Petition is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Andreas M.
`Glaeser (Ex. 1003) and asserts the following prior art references:
`
`
`1. Valentina Sergeevna Terentieva, et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,677,060,
`issued Oct. 14, 1997 (Ex. 1005, “Terentieva”);
`
`2. Harry Edwin Eaton, Jr., et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,387,456 B1,
`issued May 14, 2002 (Ex. 1006, “Eaton”);
`
`
`
`3. J.D. Webster, et al., Oxidation Protection Coatings for C/SiC
`Based on Yttrium Silicate, J. Eur. Ceramic Soc’y 18 (1998) 2345–
`2350 (Ex. 1025, “Webster”);
`
`4. Yoshikazu Suzuki, et al., Improvement in Mechanical Properties of
`Powder-Processed MoSi2 by the Addition of Sc2O3 and Y2O3, J. Am.
`Ceramic Soc’y Vol. 18 Num. 12. (Dec. 1998) 3141–3149 (Ex. 1024,
`“Suzuki”).
`The Preliminary Response is supported by the Declaration of
`Dr. David R. Clarke (Ex. 2001), which is new declaration evidence prepared
`for this proceeding. Id. at 52 (also identified as page 51),1 (signature page,
`reflecting that Dr. Clarke executed the document on October 6, 2016, the
`filing date of the Preliminary Response). Where new testimonial evidence
`advanced by a patent owner creates a genuine issue of material fact, we view
`the issue in a light most favorable to the petitioner for the sole purpose of
`deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`
`1 In this Decision, where possible, we refer to page numbers added by the
`parties, rather than the original page numbers of the Exhibits. Exhibit 2001
`contains two sets of page numbers, without a clear indication of which
`represents added or original page numbers.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–14 of the ’360
`
`patent on the following grounds:
`
`Claims
`1–14
`
`1–14
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`References
`Terentieva and Eaton
`Terentieva, Webster, Suzuki,
`and Allegedly Admitted Prior Art
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`For reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`We consider each ground of unpatentability in view of the
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this
`Decision, the prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect appropriate level
`of ordinary skill in the art). Further, based on the information presented at
`this preliminary stage of the proceeding, we consider Petitioner’s witness,
`Dr. Glaeser, and Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Clarke, qualified to opine from
`the perspective of an ordinary artisan at the time of the invention. Ex. 1004
`(curriculum vitae of Dr. Glaeser); Ex. 2005 (curriculum vitae of Dr. Clarke).
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`
`The Board interprets claims in an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`§ 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46
`(2016). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning in view of the specification,
`as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this
`section, we provide a preliminary claim construction for the sole purpose of
`determining whether to institute trial. We emphasize that any final claim
`construction shall be based on the full record developed during trial.
`
`The parties propose differing constructions for the term “bond layer”
`in claim 1. In Petitioner’s view, a “bond layer” is “any layer located
`between at least two other layers or between the substrate and another
`layer.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 43) (testimony of Dr. Glaeser). For
`support, Petitioner directs us to the ’360 patent specification, which
`describes the “bond layer” in terms of its location with respect to the
`substrate or an intermediate layer. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:13–17,
`Figs. 1a, 1b). Petitioner also relies on a statement made by the Examiner,
`during prosecution, that “when an outer layer is present, an intermediate
`layer existing between the outer layer and underlying layer is ‘considered to
`effectively function as a bond layer.’” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1002, 32). In
`sum, Petitioner advances intrinsic evidence tending to establish that the
`inventors defined the “bond layer” in terms of its relative location in the
`claimed article as well as its material composition.
`
`Patent Owner responds that the term “bond” within the phrase “bond
`layer” imparts an additional, functional requirement that the layer must be
`“specifically designed to adhere a coating (e.g., a barrier coating) to a
`substrate.” Prelim. Resp. 15. By way of support, Patent Owner directs us to
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of the term “bond.” See Prelim.
`Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 71–75 (Dr. Clarke’s testimony); Ex. 2002,
`311 (a textbook, indicating that a bond coat functions “to ensure sound
`adhesion”); Ex. 2004, 130 (dictionary definition of “’bond’ as ‘an adhesive,
`cementing material, or fusible ingredient that combines, unites, or
`strengthens”); Ex. 1013, Abstract (an extrinsic patent, indicating that a bond
`coat “serves to adhere the top coat to” a silicon-based substrate)).
`At this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner that the
`intrinsic evidence—specifically, the plain language of claim 1 and the
`disclosure of the ’360 patent specification—informs the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the term “bond layer” in claim 1. The plain language of
`claim 1 does not impart a functional requirement, for example, by specifying
`“a layer for bonding.” On the contrary, claim 1 defines the “bond layer” in
`terms of its location (“between the substrate and the environmental barrier
`layer”) and the material from which it is composed (“an alloy comprising a
`refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic”). Ex. 1001, 2:60–62.
`The ’360 patent specification further supports a conclusion that the
`specified “bond layer” is defined solely in terms of its location and material
`composition. In that regard, throughout the specification, the “bond layer” is
`described solely in the context of (1) its location between the substrate and
`the BSAS layer (id. at 1:19–29, 2:12–17); and (2) its material composition as
`comprising an alloy of a refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic (id. at
`1:51–54, 2:25–43). Significantly, the specification does not discuss a
`bonding function for the bond layer, or otherwise define the layer in terms of
`an adhering characteristic. See generally Ex. 1001.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`On that point, however, Patent Owner directs us to a disclosure in
`the ’360 patent specification that distinguishes a “bond layer” from an
`“intermediate layer.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:14–16). Patent
`Owner submits that this disclosure “uses both terms to identify and to
`ascribe functional traits to different structural layers.” Id. (emphasis added).
`The disclosure cited by Patent Owner does not, in fact, disclose or suggest
`any functional traits. On the contrary, the disclosure advanced by Patent
`Owner refers to the relative locations and material compositions of the
`structural layers. Id. (quoting Ex. 2:14–16) (“a silicon oxide intermediate
`layer or other intermediate layer may be provided between the bond layer
`and the silicon base substrate”). On this record, we are not persuaded that
`the specification distinguishes a “bond layer” from an “intermediate layer”
`based on differences between their relative adhering properties. We are
`persuaded, however, that the layers are distinguished by their relative
`locations within the article and their differing material compositions. Id.;
`see id. at 1:26–31 (describing intermediate layer in terms of its location
`between a bond layer and an environmental barrier layer, and its
`composition as “a mixture of the barrier layer material with an additional
`oxide such as mullite”).
`Patent Owner directs us to no other intrinsic support for a conclusion
`that the word “bond” within the term “bond layer” imposes an additional,
`functional limitation in claim 1 that requires a layer characterized by a
`specific adhering property. Prelim. Resp. 14–16. Instead, Patent Owner
`advances extrinsic evidence, which does not, on this record, justify an
`adoption of a narrower construction under which the word “bond” imparts a
`functional limitation relating to a property of adhering. See Prelim.
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`Resp. 15–16 (relying upon extrinsic evidence, including testimony of
`Dr. Clarke, an extrinsic patent, a textbook, and a dictionary definition).
`At this stage of the proceeding, we rely instead upon the plain
`language of claim 1, when read in light of the specification. For the sole
`purpose of reaching our decision to institute trial, we are persuaded that the
`intrinsic evidence supports a conclusion that the “bond layer” of claim 1 is
`defined solely in terms of the location of the layer within the article and the
`material composition of the layer. We hold that a “bond layer” is “any layer
`located between at least two other layers or between the substrate and
`another layer” (Pet. 17, 18), and which “comprises an alloy comprising a
`refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic.” Ex. 1001, 2:61–62. Any final
`decision will include a final claim construction based on the full trial record.
`No other claim term requires express construction for purposes of this
`Decision. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting that only claim terms which are in
`controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy).
`
`C. Challenge Based on Obviousness over Terentieva and Eaton
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–14 on the ground
`that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious at the time of the
`invention over the combined disclosures of Terentieva and Eaton. Our
`analysis of that ground focuses on claim 1, the only independent claim.
`
`Terentieva was before the Examiner during prosecution. Pet. 22–23
`(citing Ex. 1002, 29–33, 48). Like the Examiner, we are persuaded that
`Terentieva discloses a silicon-containing substrate coated with a refractory
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`metal disilicide/silicon eutectic layer, which meets the compositional
`requirements of the “bond layer” specified in claim 1. Ex. 1002, 31–32, 47
`(Examiner, finding that Terentieva discloses a silicon-containing substrate
`coated with a refractory disilicide/silicon eutectic layer); see Ex. 1005, 1:13–
`18, 4:1–4 (Terentieva, disclosing a silicon-containing substrate coated with a
`refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic layer); see also Pet. 22 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 69–80 (Dr. Glaeser, explaining how Terentieva meets those
`limitations of claim 1)). The critical question is whether one would have
`been led to add a BSAS layer to coat the article described by Terentieva.
`Taking account of the information contained in the Petition and
`Preliminary Response, we determine on this record that Petitioner shows
`sufficiently that an ordinary artisan would have been prompted to modify
`Terentieva’s article in that manner. Eaton discloses a prior art BSAS coating
`that meets the compositional requirements of the environmental barrier layer
`specified in claim 1 and, further, reveals that the BSAS coating was
`recognized as useful for protecting silicon-containing components in high-
`temperature, aqueous environments. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:60–63,
`2:5–8, 2:10–14, 3:2–5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 63); see id. at 23–24 (and citations to
`evidence therein) (showing that silica volatizes in water vapor, which causes
`rapid recession of silicon-based ceramics). Patent Owner admits in the
`Preliminary Response that Eaton describes the “prior art” environmental
`protective layer, or BSAS layer, that is referenced in the background section
`of the ’360 patent specification and is specified in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 5.
`A close question arises whether an ordinary artisan would have
`recognized the utility of employing Eaton’s BSAS layer to protect, not only
`a silicon-containing substrate, but also the “silica film” that forms on
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`Terentieva’s refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic layer. Pet. 24; see id.
`at 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 61 (testimony of Dr. Glaeser); Ex. 1005, 3:7–12
`(Terentieva’s disclosure of silica oxide, silicon carbide, and silicon nitride
`films that form on the surface of the eutectic)). On that point, Petitioner’s
`witness, Dr. Glaeser, opines that the subject matter of claim 1 represents no
`more than the use of a known material (the prior art BSAS coating) in a
`known way (as an environmental barrier layer) to achieve a predictable
`result (protecting a silicon-containing material; that is, the silicon-containing
`film that forms on Terentieva’s refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic
`layer). Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–77). Patent Owner counters that
`“the proposed addition of a barrier layer would merely duplicate the primary
`functionality of Terentieva’s protective coating” and, further, would result in
`“an increase in the thickness” of the layers that would be understood to yield
`“undesirable influences on the composite system,” citing Dr. Clarke’s
`testimony. Prelim. Resp. 22–23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 59–61, 96–98, 100–102
`(Dr. Clarke’s testimony)). Dr. Clarke’s testimony, pertaining to the
`obviousness of the proposed modification (id.), creates a genuine issue of
`material fact, which we view in a light favorable to Petitioner for the sole
`purpose of determining whether to institute trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we accept the testimony
`of Dr. Glaeser. We hold that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing at trial in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over the combined disclosures of Terentieva and Eaton. Any final
`decision will be based on the full trial record, including any countervailing
`argument and evidence pertaining to the reason to combine presented in any
`timely filed Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`Having decided that Petitioner satisfies the threshold for institution of
`review with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, we exercise our
`discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) and order the trial to proceed on all
`of the claims challenged as obvious over Terentieva and Eaton. In doing so,
`we seek to achieve finality of review at the Board and avoid parallel or serial
`review in a district court. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814
`F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that “[t]he validity of claims for
`which the Board did not institute inter partes review can still be litigated in
`district court”).
`D. Challenge Based on Obviousness over Terentieva,
`
`
` Webster, Suzuki, and Allegedly Admitted Prior Art
`Petitioner also asserts that claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious
`over the combined disclosures of Terentieva, Webster, Suzuki, and allegedly
`admitted prior art. This ground is similar to the ground that includes Eaton,
`and inclusion will not unduly complicate the trial.
`Petitioner advances Terentieva for the same disclosure discussed
`above in connection with the first ground. In a nutshell, in this second
`ground, instead of relying on Eaton for disclosure of the specified
`environmental barrier layer, Petitioner cites the inventors’ own admission in
`the ’360 patent specification that such coatings were known in the art.
`Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:10–24). On that point, Patent Owner admits
`that Eaton discloses the same “prior art system” that is described in the
`background section of the ’360 patent specification. Prelim. Resp. 5.
`Petitioner again directs us to Dr. Glaeser’s opinion that one would
`have modified the article of Terentieva by applying the prior art BSAS
`coating as an outer environmental protective layer “in order to protect” the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`silicon-containing layers of Terentieva “from deterioration in a high
`temperature, aqueous environment.” Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–54,
`58–59, 72–77) (testimony of Dr. Glaeser). That testimony is supported by
`objective proof—namely, the disclosures of Webster and Suzuki—which
`add to the weight of Dr. Glaeser’s opinion testimony. Id. at 41–42 (citing
`Ex. 1025, 8) (Webster); Ex. 1024, 23 (Suzuki)). In particular, Petitioner
`shows sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that the silica film layers formed by Terentieva’s refractory
`disilicide/eutectic bond layer “would be vulnerable to attack from water
`vapor and subsequent deterioration” and, for that reason, one would have
`been led to add a BSAS layer as an outer coating on Terentieva’s article.
`Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–26, 52–54, 58–59, 71–77). Patent Owner’s
`countervailing arguments, supported by the testimony of Dr. Clarke, raise
`genuine issues of material fact that, at this preliminary stage, are considered
`in a light most favorable to Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 27–28 (citing
`Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 44–52, 104–106) (Dr. Clarke’s testimony).
`Accordingly, we hold that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing at trial in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined disclosures of Terentieva and Webster,
`Suzuki, and the allegedly admitted prior art. We exercise our discretion
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) and order the trial to proceed on all claims
`challenged as obvious over Terentieva and Webster, Suzuki, and the
`allegedly admitted prior art. Under the particular circumstances presented in
`this case, we determine that sweeping all challenged claims into the trial will
`not unduly complicate the proceeding or undermine our overarching goal of
`securing the just, speedy, and efficient resolution of the parties’ dispute.
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Taking account of the information presented in the Petition and
`
`Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial in showing that claim 1 of
`the ’360 patent is unpatentable. In keeping with our mission of securing
`“the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of patentability disputes, we
`exercise our discretion to institute inter partes review of all of the claims and
`grounds specified in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1(b), 42.108.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`
`
`It is
`ORDERED that an inter partes review of claims 1–14 of the ’360
`patent is instituted and a trial shall proceed on the following grounds:
`(1) Whether claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Terentieva and Eaton; and
`(2) Whether claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Terentieva, Webster, Suzuki, and allegedly admitted prior
`art;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other grounds of unpatentability are
`authorized during the trial; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37
`C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial will
`commence on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Anish Desai
`Brian Ferguson
`Megan H. Wantland
`anish.desai@weil.com
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`megan.wantland@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Timothy Riffe
`Axf-ptab@fr.com
`ptabinbound@fr.com
`riffe@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`15
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
