Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
` Entered: May 17, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., AND ZTE
`(USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`____________
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
` Entered: May 17, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., AND ZTE
`(USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`____________
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, listed above, filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1–10, 12, 13, and 15–18 (“the challenged claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’449 patent”). Paper 1
`
`(“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to all
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’449 patent in cases taking place in
`
`several district courts. Pet. 4; Paper 5, 4–5. This patent has also been
`
`challenged in several other petitions for inter partes review. Pet. 4-5; Paper
`
`5, 2–4.
`
`B. The ’449 Patent
`
`The ’449 patent describes interface devices for communication
`
`between a computer host device and a data transmit/receive device (e.g., a
`
`multi-meter, transmitting measured data to a computer). Ex. 1001, 1:13–17,
`
`1:49–55. According to the ’449 patent, using a specific driver to match very
`
`closely to an individual host system would achieve high data transfer rates
`
`across the interface, but the specific driver cannot be used with other host
`
`systems. Id. at 1:66–2:11. Several solutions to this problem were known in
`
`the art. Id. at 2:15–3:20. For example, IOtech introduced an interface
`
`device for laptops, using a plug-in card for converting the personal computer
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`memory card association (PCMCIA) interface into a known standard
`
`interface (IEEE 1284). Id. at 2:18–23. The plug-in card provided a printer
`
`interface for enhancing data transfer rates. Id. at 2:23–27. In another
`
`example, a floppy disk drive interface was used for connecting a host device
`
`to a peripheral device. Id. at 3:4–8. The interface appeared as floppy disk
`
`drive to the host, allowing a floppy disk drive and another peripheral device
`
`to be connected to the host device. Id. at 3:11–13.
`
`The ’449 patent indicates that the “invention is based on the finding
`
`that both a high data transfer rate and host device-independent use can be
`
`achieved if a driver for an input/output device customary in a host device” is
`
`utilized. Id. at 3:27–31. Figure 1 of the ’449 patent, reproduced below,
`
`illustrates a block diagram of an interface device.
`
`As shown in Figure 1 above, interface device 10 connects to a host
`
`device via host line 11, and to a data transmit/receive device via output line
`
`16. Id. at 4:46–62. Interface device 10 includes first connecting device 12,
`
`second connecting device 15, digital signal processor 13, and memory
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`means 14. Id. In a preferred embodiment, the interface device is attached to
`
`a host device via a multi-purpose interface—e.g., a small computer systems
`
`interface (SCSI) interface—which includes both an interface card and
`
`specific driver software for the interface card. Id. at 3:44–50, 8:37–41.
`
`According to the ’449 patent, SCSI interfaces were known to be present on
`
`most host devices or laptops. Id. at 8:30–34. By using a standard interface
`
`of a host device and by simulating an input/output device to the host device,
`
`the interface device “is automatically supported by all known host systems
`
`without any additional sophisticated driver software.” Id. at 11:28–32.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 17, and 18 are independent.
`
`Claims 2–10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative:
`
`1. An interface device for communication between a host device,
`which comprises drivers for input/output devices customary in a
`host device and a multi-purpose
`interface, and a data
`transmit/receive device comprising the following features:
`
`a processor;
`
`a memory;
`
`a first connecting device for interfacing the host device with the
`interface device via the multi-purpose interface of the host
`device; and
`
`a second connecting device for interfacing the interface device
`with the data transmit/receive device,
`
`wherein the interface device is configured by the processor and
`the memory in such a way that the interface device, when
`receiving an inquiry from the host device as to the type of a
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`device attached to the multi-purpose interface of the host device,
`sends a signal, regardless of the type of the data transmit/receive
`device attached to the second connecting device of the interface
`device, to the host device which signals to the host device that it
`is a storage device customary in a host device, whereupon the
`host device communicates with the interface device by means of
`the driver for the storage device customary in a host device, and
`
`wherein the interface device is arranged for simulating a virtual
`file system to the host, the virtual file system including a
`directory structure.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:46–12:6.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the prior art references listed below (Pet. 7).
`
`
`
`Reference
`
`Murata
`
`US 5,508,821, issued April 16, 1996
`
`Schmidt
`
`FRIEDHELM SCHMIDT, THE SCSI BUS AND IDE
`INTERFACE PROTOCOLS, APPLICATIONS AND
`PROGRAMMING, (J. Michael Schulz trans., Addison-
`Wesley Publishing Company 1995)
`
`Beretta
`
`US 5,850,484, issued Dec. 15, 1998
`
`THE MS-DOS ENCYCLOPEDIA, (Ray Duncan ed.,
`Microsoft Press, 1988)
`
`MS-DOS
`Encyclopedia
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1010
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 7–8):1
`
`Challenged Claims Basis
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1–3, 6–10, 12, 13,
`and 15–18
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Murata, Schmidt, and MS-DOS
`Encyclopedia
`
`4 and 5
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Murata, Schmidt, MS-DOS
`Encyclopedia, and Beretta
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms generally are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`We note that only those claim terms and elements which are in
`
`controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`
`
`
`1 Because the claims at issue have a filing date prior to March 16, 2013, the
`effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102, 103, and 112 in this Decision.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The parties propose constructions for several claim
`
`terms. Pet. 11–13; Prelim. Resp. 7–9. For purposes of this Decision, we
`
`find it necessary to address only the claim terms “multi-purpose interface”
`
`and “data transmit/receive device.”
`
`“multi-purpose interface”
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “a first connecting device for interfacing
`
`the host device with the interface device via the multi-purpose interface of
`
`the host device.” Ex. 1001, 11:5456. The Specification of the ’449 patent
`
`describes “the interface device according to the present invention is to be
`
`attached to a host device by means of a multi-purpose interface of the host
`
`device which can be implemented, for example, as an SCSI interface or as
`
`an enhanced printer interface.” Id. at 3:44–48. The Specification also
`
`indicates that SCSI interfaces were known to be present on most host
`
`devices or laptops. Id. at 8:33–34. In light of the Specification, we construe
`
`the claim term “multi-purpose interface” to encompass a “SCSI interface.”
`
`“data transmit/receive device”
`
`All the challenged claims require a “data transmit/receive device.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:46–50, 13:14–17, 14:8–12. Petitioner proposes a broadest
`
`reasonable construction of “a device capable of transmitting or receiving
`
`data.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner, however, explains that the U.S. Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit has not contradicted a district court
`
`construction of this term as a device that “is capable of either
`
`(a) transmitting data to or (b) transmitting data to and receiving data from
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`the host device.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing In re Papst Licensing GmbH & Co.
`
`KG v. Fujifilm Corp., 778 F.3d 1255, 1265–68 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ex. 2002).
`
`Patent Owner argues that although the Federal Circuit applied the Phillips
`
`standard, the disclosure of the ’449 patent dictates that same construction
`
`under the broadest reasonable construction. Id.
`
`Petitioner does address the district court’s construction or explain why
`
`its proposed definition is reasonable in light of the ’449 patent’s disclosure.
`
`Pet. 12. Instead, Petitioner simply points to the ’449 patent’s statement “a
`
`data transmit/receive device which is to receive data from the host device or
`
`from which data is to be read, i.e. acquired, and transferred to the host
`
`device.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:55–59) (emphasis added by Petitioner).
`
`This statement, however, does not limit the capabilities of a data
`
`transmit/receive device, and therefore also supports the district court’s
`
`construction.
`
`It is not clear that there is a meaningful difference between the parties’
`
`positions as it relates to the analysis below. To the extent, however, that
`
`Petitioner is proposing a construction that would not require a data
`
`transmit/receive device to be capable of transmitting data as long as it is
`
`capable of receiving data, we are not persuaded, at this point in the
`
`proceedings, that we should deviate from the district court construction. The
`
`district court construction is not inconsistent with the ’449 Specification.
`
`For example, the ’449 patent describes “a data transmit/receive device from
`
`which data is to be acquired or with which two-way communication is to
`
`take place.” Ex. 1001, 1:13–17. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`adopt as the broadest reasonable construction a device that “is capable of
`
`either (a) transmitting data to or (b) transmitting data to and receiving data
`
`from the host device.”
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(citation omitted). In that regard, Dr. Ameroth testifies that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have [had at
`
`least] a four-year degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a
`
`related field of study,” and “either a Master’s degree, or at least two years of
`
`experience in one of the relevant fields, computer science, computer
`
`systems, or peripheral devices.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 45–49.)
`
`Patent Owner confirms that Petitioner’s statements regarding the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art is at least partially consistent with Patent Owner’s
`
`view, but nonetheless contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`
`“a bachelor’s degree in a related field such as computer engineering or
`
`electrical engineering and at least three years of experience in the design,
`
`development, and/or testing of hardware and software components involved
`
`with data transfer or in embedded devices and their interfaces with host
`
`systems.” Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Alternatively, Patent Owner states that a
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`person of ordinary skill “may have five or more years of experience in these
`
`technologies, without a bachelor’s degree.” Id. at 7.
`
`We do not observe any meaningful differences between the parties’
`
`definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Our analysis in this
`
`Decision is supported by either level of skill. We further find that the prior
`
`art in the instant proceeding reflects 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).
`
`C. Obviousness over Murata, Schmidt, and MS-DOS Encyclopedia
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 6–10, 12, 13, and 15–18 (all the
`
`challenged claims except claims 4 and 5) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Murata combined with Schmidt and MS-DOS
`
`Encyclopedia. Pet. 7, 18–60. We determine that Petitioner has established
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to this ground of unpatentability.
`
`Overview of Murata
`
`Murata discloses an image scanner used with an external host
`
`computer. Ex. 1005, Abs. According to Murata, the image scanner includes
`
`an optical system and CCD image sensor for reading an image of a
`
`document, a SCSI interface for connecting the image scanner to the external
`
`host, a CPU, a nonvolatile memory, and a “SCSI controller etc. for
`
`emulating a file system contained in the external host computer.” Id. An
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`object of Murata is “to provide an improved image handling apparatus . . .
`
`which requires no preparation of any new device driver.” Id. at 1:58–61.
`
`Figure 3 of Murata is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of Murata is a block diagram of an image scanner. Id. at 2:40. It
`
`includes CCD image sensor 31, which “carries out main-scanning” by
`
`reading reflected light from a document and converting it to analog electric
`
`signal 32. Id. at 3:12–27. Analog image signal 32 is then amplified by
`
`amplifier 33 and converted to digital signal 35 by A/D converter 34. Id. at
`
`3:27–29. After the signal has traversed the rest of the scanner elements,
`
`SCSI controller 64, controlled by CPU 50, transfers data to and from the
`
`external host computer. Id. at 3:29–4:11.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`Murata explains that “[b]ecause an operating system of a computer
`
`constructs a file system in a hard disc, there invariably exists a device driver
`
`for the hard disc.” Id. at 2:5–7. Moreover, because Murata’s image scanner
`
`includes a file system emulation means, control of the image scanner or
`
`transfer of image data “can be carried out using the device driver for existing
`
`hard discs” meaning “it is not necessary to prepare the device driver for each
`
`type of computer if the file system of the computer is the same.” Id. at 2:12–
`
`21. In short, the image scanner “can be connected to any one of various
`
`types of computers having the same file system, e.g. any one of all
`
`computers having software called the ‘UNIX’ as an operating system.” Id.
`
`at 18–26.
`
`Overview of Schmidt
`
`
`
`Schmidt describes the SCSI bus and IDE (Integrated Drive
`
`Electronics) interface, both of which are ANSI (American National
`
`Standards Institute) standards. Ex. 1006, Preface. According to Schmidt,
`
`these interfaces are two of the most important interfaces for computer
`
`peripherals in use at that time, and almost all computers at that time, from
`
`PCs to workstations to mainframes, were equipped with a SCSI interface.
`
`Id. The SCSI bus is designed for hard drives, as well as tape drives, CD-
`
`ROM, scanners, and printers. Id.
`
`Overview of the MS-DOS Encyclopedia
`
`
`
` The MS-DOS Encyclopedia is a book describing both the
`
`development and programming of MS-DOS. Ex. 1010, Preface. It describes
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`MS-DOS and Microsoft Windows 95 as “the most widely used computer
`
`operating system in the world.” Id. According to MS-DOS Encyclopedia,
`
`MS-DOS supported a large number of different peripherals. Id. at 59.
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioner relies on Murata as disclosing the majority of limitations
`
`required by the challenged claims. To demonstrate its mapping of Murata to
`
`the challenged claims, Petitioner creates an annotated version of Murata’s
`
`Figure 3. Pet. 23. Petitioner’s annotated Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`Id. Petitioner explains that elements 33–65 of scanner 20, as shown in
`
`Murata’s Figure 3, comprise the claimed interface device. Id. at 24.
`
`According to Petitioner, SCSI controller 64 is the claimed “first connecting
`
`device” for interfacing with workstation 21, the “host device.” Pet. 23–24.
`
`Petitioner relies on amplifier 33 and A/D converter 34 together as the
`
`claimed “second [interfacing] device” for interfacing with CCD 31, the “data
`
`transmit/receive device.” Id. Petitioner then explains how Murata discloses
`
`the rest of the limitations of the challenged claims. Id. at 24–60.
`
`Petitioner relies on Schmidt to provide a detailed discussion of a SCSI
`
`device recognition process because “Murata does not describe all of the
`
`details of the operation of SCSI, the communication protocol used to
`
`facilitate the transfer of information or all the details about an operating
`
`system that would be used.” Id. at 18. According to Petitioner, a person of
`
`ordinary skill, understanding that Murata discloses a scanner that connects to
`
`a workstation via SCSI, would have looked to “a reference, like Schmidt, to
`
`provide details of the SCSI bus initialization process between a host
`
`computer and a peripheral device that involve the peripheral device.” Pet.
`
`18–19 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶ 55). “Schmidt serves only to provide the
`
`foundation for what knowledge a POSA would have had with regard to
`
`SCSI.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 55.
`
`Petitioner relies on the MS-DOS Encyclopedia because Murata
`
`describes a scanner connected to a host computer running the Unix operating
`
`system. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56). According to Petitioner, MS-
`
`DOS and Microsoft Windows 95, in the 1997 timeframe, were more popular
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`operating systems on personal computers. Id. To reach a larger customer
`
`base, therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`implement Murata using a computer running MS-DOS or Microsoft
`
`Windows. Id. Petitioner adds that both MS-DOS and SCSI, were, at the
`
`time, well-established and well-documented and it was known they worked
`
`together. Pet. 20 (relying on Ex. 1003 ¶ 57, which cites Ex. 1006, 240).
`
`Thus, Petitioner concludes that a person of ordinary skill would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success and would find the implementation of
`
`Murata for MS-DOS, instead of Unix, as a routine exercise. Id.
`
`We determine that Petitioner, on this record, provides sufficient
`
`evidence to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that
`
`Murata, Schmidt, and the MS-DOS encyclopedia together disclose all the
`
`limitations of the challenged claims. On the current record, Petitioner also
`
`provides a reasonable rationale for how and why a person of ordinary skill
`
`would combine the teachings.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the asserted prior art does not disclose the
`
`claimed data transmit/receive device. Patent Owner argues that a charge
`
`coupled device (CCD) is, by definition, “an electronic device operated by
`
`charge, especially one which converts photons of light into a digital signal,
`
`converting an optical image into a digital image.” Prelim. Resp. 20 (quoting
`
`Ex. 2003). According to Patent Owner, a CCD is not required to allow for
`
`the transmission of data to a host device. Id. Petitioner, however, points out
`
`that Murata states that CCD 31 “reads an image of a document placed on a
`
`document platform, converts the read image to an electric signal, and outputs
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`an analog image signal 32.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:24–27, Fig. 2; Ex.
`
`1003 ¶ 64). Moreover, Murata discloses that after some more processing,
`
`that image is transferred to an external host computer via SCSI controller 64.
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 4:12–16; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 65–66). We are persuaded, on
`
`this record, that Petitioner sufficiently shows that Murata discloses CCD 31
`
`is capable of transmitting data to a host device and, thus, qualifies as the
`
`claimed “data transmit/receive device” as we have construed that term. Ex.
`
`1005, 3:24–27; 4:12–16.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner does not sufficiently explain
`
`why Murata, Schmidt, and the MS-DOS Encyclopedia would have been
`
`combined by a person of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 17. According to
`
`Patent Owner, Petitioner’s explanation “is merely conclusory analysis
`
`without any evidence that a SCSI bus, such as described in Murata, would
`
`necessitate the use of the Schmidt interface adaptor.” Id. at 19. We,
`
`however, are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale is sufficient for purposes
`
`of institution. Petitioner explains, in some detail, that a person of ordinary
`
`skill would have known the information set forth in Schmidt and the MS-
`
`DOS Encyclopedia and why they would have been motivated to apply that
`
`knowledge to the invention described by Murata. Pet. 18–20.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that
`
`claims 1–3, 6–10, 12, 13, and 15–18 are unpatentable as obvious under
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`§ 103(a) over Murata, in combination with Schmidt and the MS-DOS
`
`Encyclopedia.
`
`D. Obviousness over Murata, Schmidt, MS-DOS Encyclopedia, and Beretta
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 4 and 5 are unpatentable under § 103(a)
`
`as obvious over Murata, Schmidt, MS-DOS Encyclopedia, and Beretta.
`
`Pet. 60–65. Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 2, which in turn depends
`
`from claim 1. Claim 4 further recites “wherein the executable file includes a
`
`Fast Fourier Transform routine for transforming data acquired by the second
`
`connecting device into the frequency domain for examining frequency
`
`domain data.” Ex. 1001, 12:15–19. Claim 5 recites “wherein the executable
`
`file includes a data compression routine for compressing data to be
`
`transmitted form the data transmit/receive device to the host.” Id. at 12:20–
`
`23. Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, does not raise any separate
`
`argument with regard to claims 4 and 5 other than those already addressed
`
`above in connection with the other challenged claims.
`
`Petitioner, on this record, provides sufficient evidence to show that
`
`Beretta discloses the additional limitations recited in claims 4 and 5.
`
`Notably, Petitioner explains that Murata discloses improved methods for
`
`compressing images. Pet. 60–61 (citing Ex. 1007, 4:44–46, 4:65–67; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 155). Petitioner adds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have enhanced Murata’s scanner with Beretta’s improved compression
`
`algorithms because Beretta teaches that its methods were designed and
`
`intended to be used to compress images produced by scanners. Id. at 61–62
`
`(citing Ex. 1007, 4:65–67, 5:39–63; Ex. 1003 ¶ 157).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`Based on the evidence currently in this record, we are persuaded that
`
`Petitioner has articulated a sufficient rationale to combine the teaching of
`
`Murata, Schmidt, the MS-DOS Encyclopedia, and Beretta. See KSR Int’l
`
`Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (noting that “if a technique
`
`has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`
`using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
`
`her skill”).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–10, 12, 13,
`
`and 15–18, as unpatentable under § 103(a). At this point in the proceeding,
`
`we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of
`
`the challenged claims, nor with respect to claim construction.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted for the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1–3, 6–10, 12, 13, and
`15–18
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Murata, Schmidt, and MS-DOS
`Encyclopedia
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`4 and 5
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Murata, Schmidt, MS-DOS
`Encyclopedia, and Beretta
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`
`asserted in the Petition is authorized for this inter partes review; 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00415
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David A. Garr
`Gregory S. Discher
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`Huawei-Papst_Covington@cov.com
`
`Herbert H. Finn
`Jonathan E. Giroux
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`LG-Papst-IPR@gtlaw.com
`
`Scott R. Miller
`Darren Franklin
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
`legalTm-Papst-ZTE@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory S. Donahue
`Minghui Yang
`DINOVO PRICE ELLWANGER & HARDY LLP
`docketing@dpelaw.com
`Anthony L. Meola
`Jason A. Murphy
`Victor J. Baranowski
`Arlen L. Olsen
`SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS, LLP
`ameola@iplawusa.com
`jmurphy@iplawusa.com
`vbaranowski@iplawusa.com
`aolsen@iplawusa.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
