Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
` Entered: March 6, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRGINIA INNOVATION SCIENCES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
` Entered: March 6, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRGINIA INNOVATION SCIENCES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a corrected petition
`requesting inter partes review of claims 23, 24, 26, and 33 (the “challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,899,492 (Ex. 1001, “the ’492 patent”). Paper
`5 (“Pet.”). Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`preliminary response. Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`Upon consideration of the petition and the preliminary response, we
`determine that the information presented by Petitioner does not establish that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing
`unpatentability of the challenged claims of the ’492 patent. Accordingly, the
`petition is denied.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’492 patent was asserted
`against Petitioner in a co-pending case filed on October 4, 2012, and
`captioned Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications
`America LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-00548-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va.). Pet. 1;
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`Paper 7 at 2. Petitioner also has filed four petitions for inter partes review
`of related patents: IPR2013-00569 (U.S. Patent No. 8,145,268); IPR2013-
`00570 (U.S. Patent No. 8,224,381), IPR2013-00571 (U.S. Patent No.
`8,135,398), and IPR2013-00573 (U.S. Patent No. 8,050,711). Id.
`
`B. The ’492 Patent
`The ’492 patent relates to mobile terminal signal conversion for
`external display. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 19-21. According to the ’492 patent,
`multimedia information, such as television, 3-D images, network games, and
`video phone calls are transmitted from various service providers and
`received for display on a screen of a mobile terminal. Id. at ll. 36-40.
`However, the limited size and capability of the mobile terminal screen may
`diminish user enjoyment of high rate data flow applications. Id. at ll. 47-50;
`col. 2, ll. 1-4.
`To address these issues, the ’492 patent discloses converting a
`multimedia signal destined for the mobile terminal and providing it to an
`external display system so that corresponding video and/or audio may be
`reproduced using the external display system. Id. at col. 2, ll. 10-15. Figure
`1 of the ’492 patent is reproduced below:
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00572
`
`
`Patennt 7,899,4992
`
`
`
`system in
`ample of a ting an exaam illustratmatic diagrats a schemFiguure 1 depict
`
`
`
`
`
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whicch mobile tterminal siignal conveersion mayy reside. AAs shown inn Figure 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`serviice provideers 102a annd 102b deeliver multtimedia infformation tthrough
`
`
`
`
`
`
`netwwork 104 too base statiion 106, whhich transmmits the muultimedia
` Id. at col
`. 3, ll. 31-
`
`
`
`
`
`inforrmation, ammong other things, too cellular pphone 108.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`36. External ddisplay systtem 114 mmay be digittal (e.g., HHDTV, LCDD, or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ssize constraaints of a ddisplay screeen on celllular phonee 108. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`at ll. 42-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`48. Mobile terrminal signnal converssion modulle (“MTSCCM”) 112 rresides
`08. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`
`withhin separatee housing 1110 outsidee of cellulaar phone 1
`ll. 52-54.
`
`
`110 by a wwired or wiireless
`
`
`
`
`Celluular phonee 108 is connnected to MTSCM
`4
`
`plasmma) or anaalog (NTSCC, PAL, SEECAM, SVVGA, VGAA), and doees not havee
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00572
`
`
`Patennt 7,899,4992
`
`
`
`
`
`
`connnection. Idd. at col. 4, ll. 1-14. AA multimeedia signal
`transmitte
`d to
`108 may i
`
`for reprodduction by
`
`celluular phone
`
`
`nclude a vvideo signaal intended
`
`
`the displayy screen off cellular pphone 108.. Id. at coll.
`108 using
`
`celluular phone
`
`
`
`
`
`3, ll. 59-64. MMTSCM 11
`
`convertedd
`
`
`
`2 processees the videoo signal too provide a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`video signal thhat has a display formmat and/or ssignal powwer level apppropriate
`
`
`
`
`
`for eexternal dissplay termiinal 114. IId. at col. 44, ll. 17-200. Followinng signal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`convversion, MTTSCM 1122 provides the converrted video
`
`signal to eexternal
`
`
`
`displlay terminaal 114 for display. Idd. at ll. 30--34.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 33 of the ’4992 patent iss reproduceed below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuure 3 is a bllock diagraam illustratting an exaample of thhe MTSCMM.
`
`
`
`
`
`Interrface/buffeer module 3302 providdes, for exaample, ade
`
`quate bufffering and
`
`
`
`e real-timee audio andd video. Idd. at col. 5,, ll. 57-65.
`
`
`proccessing ratee to provid
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`Video Compress Decoder 304a receives a multimedia signal, typically in a
`compressed format (e.g., MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4), and outputs a
`decompressed digital multimedia signal to Digital/Analog Video Encoder
`(“DAVE”) 304b and/or Digital/Digital Video Encoder (“DDVE”) 304c. Id.
`at col. 6, ll. 6-17 and 26-36. DAVE 304b and DDVE 304c receive the
`decompressed multimedia signal and convert the signal to the display format
`and signal power level required for the external display terminals with which
`they interface. Id. at ll. 32-36. Exemplary signal formats for an analog
`display terminal include S-video, RGBHV, RGBS, and EIA770.3. Id. at ll.
`37-39. Exemplary signal formats for a digital display terminal include DVI,
`DVI-D, HDMI, and IEEE1394. Id. at ll. 39-40. The signals provided by
`DAVE 304b and DDVE 304c are provided to external display terminal 114
`through conventional interfaces 306a and 306b. Id. at ll. 40-43.
`
`C. Exemplary Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claim 23 is independent. Claim 23 is
`reproduced below:
`23. An apparatus for processing signals to accommodate
`reproduction by an alternative display terminal, the apparatus
`comprising:
`an interface module, which receives a video signal
`appropriate for displaying a video content on a mobile terminal,
`the video signal being received from a cellular network
`communication that is sent to the mobile terminal and then
`received by the interface module;
`a signal conversion module, in operative communication
`with the interface module, which processes the video signal to
`produce a converted signal for use by the alternative display
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`
`terminal, wherein processing by the signal conversion module
`includes converting the video signal from a compression format
`appropriate for the mobile terminal to a display format for the
`alternative display
`terminal
`that
`is different
`from
`the
`compression format, such that the converted video signal
`comprises a display format and a power level appropriate for
`driving the alternative display terminal; and
`a device interface module, in operative communication
`with the signal conversion module, which provides the
`converted video signal to the alternative display terminal to
`accommodate displaying the video content by the alternative
`display terminal.
`
`D. References Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`Palin
`US 7,580,005
` Aug. 25, 2009
`Hayakawa
`US 2003/0137609
`July 24, 2003
`Seaman
`US 2004/0223614
`Nov. 11, 2004
`
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner argues that the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`upon the following grounds:
`Reference[s]
`Palin
`Palin & Hayakawa
`Palin & Seaman
`
`Basis Claims challenged
`§ 102
`23, 24, and 33
`§ 103
`26
`§ 103
`33
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted 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);
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`2012). Also, claim terms 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. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007).
`1. “display terminal”
`Independent claim 23 recites a “display terminal.” Petitioner proposes
`that “display terminal” be construed as “device for video display.” Pet. 4
`(citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 23-26 and 42-47; col. 4, ll. 30-34). Patent Owner
`neither disputes Petitioner’s proposed construction nor proposes a different
`construction. Patent Owner repeatedly identifies a television as an example
`of a “display terminal.” See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 5 (“display terminal (e.g.,
`television)”); see also id. at 7, 8, and 42. The ’492 patent describes the use
`of a “separate multimedia display terminal including but not limited to a
`monitor, television set, projector, or LCD display.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 24-
`26 (emphasis added). Each of the recited devices is a device for video
`display. Therefore, on this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s
`construction constitutes the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`with the Specification. Accordingly, we construe “display terminal” as
`“device for video display.”
`2. “cellular network communication”
`Independent claim 23 recites “cellular network communication.”
`Petitioner proposes that “cellular network communication” be construed as
`“transmission from a cellular network.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll.
`31-43). Patent Owner neither disputes Petitioner’s proposed construction
`nor proposes a different construction. Apart from the claims, the ’492 patent
`does not use the term “cellular network communication.” However, the ’492
`patent does disclose the “transmission of the multimedia information, among
`other things, to a cellular phone 108” (Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 34-36) by “any
`conventional or to-be-developed technology for delivering voice and/or data
`to mobile terminals” (Id. at ll. 37-39), including “a cellular communications
`network or a wireless local area network” (Id. at ll. 40-41). The disclosed
`embodiments of a “cellular network” comprise at least a base station 106
`and cellular phone 108. Petitioner’s proposed construction is ambiguous
`because it is unclear whether it encompasses transmissions “from” only base
`station 106, “from” only cellular phone 108, or “from” both. Nothing in the
`’492 patent indicates that the term “cellular network communication”
`implies a particular direction of communication—i.e., from a base station to
`a mobile terminal, or from a mobile terminal to a base station. To the extent
`that Petitioner’s proposed construction suggests that, because the
`transmission is from the wireless network, it must be to something other than
`the wireless network, the construction is not consistent with the
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`embodiments described in the ’492 patent. Finally, Petitioner’s use of the
`word “transmission” is overly narrow to the extent that it excludes the act of
`receiving information. In the context of the ’492 patent, “communication” is
`broad enough to encompass both information being transmitted and
`information being received. On this record, the broadest reasonable
`interpretation consistent with the Specification encompasses any
`communication over a cellular network, including information transmitted
`from a base station to a cellular phone or vice-versa, and information
`received by a base station from a cellular phone or vice-versa. Accordingly,
`we construe “cellular network communication” as “information transmitted
`or received over a cellular network.”
`3. “a power level appropriate for driving the alternative display
`terminal”
`Independent claim 23 recites “a power level appropriate for driving
`the alternative display terminal.” Petitioner proposes that “a power level
`appropriate for driving the alternative display terminal” be construed as “a
`signal power level appropriate for driving the alternative display terminal.”
`Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 17-28). Patent Owner neither disputes
`Petitioner’s proposed construction nor proposes a different construction.
`Petitioner’s proposal modifies “power level” by specifying that it is a “signal
`power level.” In the context of claim 23, which recites “the converted video
`signal comprises . . . a power level,” it is clear that the recited “power level”
`is a property of the “converted video signal.” On this record, we are
`persuaded that Petitioner’s construction constitutes the broadest reasonable
`interpretation consistent with the Specification. Accordingly, we construe “a
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00572
`
`
`Patennt 7,899,4992
`
`pow
`
`
`
`
`
`
`er level apppropriate ffor drivingg the alternaative displlay terminaal” as “a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`signaal power leevel approppriate for ddriving thee alternativve display tterminal.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BB. Claims 23, 24, annd 33 – Antticipated bby Palin
`
`Petitioneer contend
`
`s that claimms 23, 24,
`
`
`and 33 aree unpatentaable under
`
`
`35 UU.S.C. § 1002(e) as antticipated by Palin. PPet. 11-15,
`
`support off
`
`
`
`27-40. In
`
`led explannations as t
`o
`
`
`
`
`
`this gground of unpatentabbility, Petittioner provvides detai
`
`
`
`
`how each claimm limitation is met byy Palin, an
`
`
`
`d relies uppon the Decclaration oof
`
`
`
`
`Dr. KKevin C. AAlmeroth (EEx. 1005). Id. (citingg Ex. 10055 ¶¶ 151-599, 164-65)
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`Palin (EExhibit 10002)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Palin describes wirrelessly linnking a moobile terminnal to a dissplay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device to proviide better ddisplay quaality to a uuser of a moobile termiinal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 11002, col. 2, ll. 11-155. Figure 11(a) of Paliin is reprodduced beloow.
`
`Figuure 1(a) deppicts a basee station, mmobile phoone, and exxternal dispplay devicee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1(a), a conventtional wireeless conneection has wwireless
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`link 12 betweeen base stattion 10 andd mobile teerminal 20 to exchannge
`
`
`convventional raadio frequeency (RF) signals. Idd. at col. 4
`
`
`
`Wireless
`, ll. 5-10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`short range RFF link 22, suuch as a Bluetooth liink, is estabblished bettween
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`mobile terminaal 20 and aan external
`
`
`display deevice, like
`
`television
`
`30. Id. at
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00572
`
`
`Patennt 7,899,4992
`
`
`
`
`ll. 155-18.
`
`
`
`In operaation, a servvice providder transmiits data fraames as pacckets to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30-332. A packket containiing video iinformationn may havve a data frrame
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`struccture that ccan be splitt into a moobile terminnal part 544, and an exxternal
`
`
`displlay device part 56, ass shown inn Figures 4((a) and 4(bb). Id. at lll. 33-38.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuures 4(a) annd 4(b) are reproduceed below.
`
`mobile terminaal 20 over a wireless communiccation netwwork. Id. aat col. 5, ll..
`
`
`
`video signnal. Mobille
`
`mobile terminaal 20 such as textual informatioon, caller-IDD, and e-mmail. Id. att
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuures 4(a) annd 4(b) deppict, respecctively, firsst and secoond possiblle data
`
`
`
`
`framme structurees for transsmitting a ccombined
`audio and
`
`
`and other
`
`
`
`
`termminal part 54 includess voice dataa, images,
`data to be
`used by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 5, ll. 39-444. In contrrast:
`
`
`Externall display ddevice partt 56 is thee part to b
`
`e forwardded to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the exterrnal displaay device 330 and gennerally folloows the mmobile
`
`
`
`terminall part 54 wwithin the
`
`
`signal sennt by a basse station 110 to
`
`
`
`
`allow thhe mobile tterminal part 54 to bbe split offff first and
`used
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by the mmobile termminal 20. TThe externnal displayy device paart 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generallyy includes a video poortion of thhe signal annd may incclude
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`
`an audio portion to be played with the video on the external
`display device.
`Id. at ll. 44-51 (emphasis added). After a packet is received by mobile
`terminal 20, splitting application 218 splits mobile terminal part 54 from
`external display device part 56. Id. at col. 6, ll. 28-31. Once split, external
`display device part 56 is further processed by, in one embodiment, Bluetooth
`protocol stack 65, where one or more external display device parts 56 are
`reassembled into one or more Bluetooth-compliant packets. Id. at ll. 45-52.
`These packets are then transmitted to external display device 30. Id. at ll.
`61-64.
`Analysis
`In light of the arguments and evidence, Petitioner has not established a
`reasonable likelihood that claims 23, 24, and 33 are unpatentable as
`anticipated by Palin.
`Independent claim 23 recites:
`wherein processing by the signal conversion module includes
`converting the video signal from a compression format
`appropriate for the mobile terminal to a display format for the
`alternative display
`terminal
`that
`is different
`from
`the
`compression format, such that the converted video signal
`comprises a display format and a power level appropriate for
`driving the alternative display terminal.
`To account for the aforementioned limitation in the prior art, Petitioner relies
`upon Palin. Specifically, Petitioner relies upon the splitting, by splitting
`application 218, of a packet, such as data frame structure 50, into mobile
`terminal part 54 and external display device part 56, the latter of which is
`then transmitted from mobile terminal 20 to external display device 30
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`using, e.g., a Bluetooth protocol. Pet. 14-15, 31-33. Dr. Almeroth’s
`declaration repeats the Petition nearly verbatim. Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 157-58.
`Patent Owner argues, inter alia, that external display device part 56 is not
`“convert[ed] . . . from a compression format . . . to a display format . . . that
`is different than the compression format” because isolating and reassembling
`one or more external display device parts 56 as a Bluetooth packet does not
`alter the “format” of the video signal contained therein. Prelim. Resp. 6-10,
`25-33.
`We are persuaded that external display device part 56 is not
`“convert[ed] . . . to a display format . . . that is different from the
`compression format.” Palin discloses that splitting application 218 isolates
`external display device part 56 of a received payload from mobile terminal
`part 54. Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 41-46; col. 5, ll. 24-26; col. 6, ll. 28-45. Once
`external display device part 56 is isolated, it is repackaged into another
`transport protocol, such as the Bluetooth protocol, for transmission to
`external display device 30. Id. at col. 5, ll. 58-61; col. 6, ll. 45-52.
`According to Palin:
`[E]ach Bluetooth packet 95 comprises . . . payload 98, which
`comprises one or more external display device parts 56 or a
`portion of an external display device part, the organization of
`the data into Bluetooth packets depending on the size of
`external display device part 56 and the size of payload 98.
`Id. at col. 6, ll. 53-60 (emphasis added). Palin further states:
`Upon receipt at external display device 30 the packets are
`buffered at buffer (not shown) having a sufficient memory for
`the data stream (step 104), and the packets are stripped of the
`access code 96 and header parts 97 (step 106) and the payloads
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`
`95 of the various packets are then reassembled by the Bluetooth
`protocol stack 66 at the external display device 30 into a data
`stream to be played, whether as video only or with audio
`available (step 108).
`Id. at col. 7, ll. 45-53 (emphasis added). Thus, one or more external display
`device parts 56 are received by mobile terminal 20, and are later
`reassembled at external display device 30 into a data stream to be played.
`Id. Even assuming that the format of the video signal contained in external
`display device parts 56 is in “a compression format appropriate for the
`mobile terminal,” the video signal is not “converted” because external
`display device parts 56 output to external display device 30 are the same
`external display device parts 56 received by mobile terminal 20. The IEEE
`Dictionary defines “convert” as follows: convert (data processing); to
`change the representation of data from one form to another, for example, to
`change numerical data from binary to decimal or from cards to tape.
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, The Authoritative
`Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms 238 (7th Ed., IEEE Press 2000). This
`definition is consistent with the specification, which discloses converting
`multimedia content to the following signal formats: S-video, RGBHV,
`RGBS, EIA770.3, DVI, DVI-D, HDMI, IEEE1394. Ex. 1001, col. 18, ll.
`1-10, Fig. 11. Indeed, the specification differentiates repeatedly between
`converting signal formats and routing via a communications
`protocol. Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 33-46, col. 21, ll. 33-40, col. 26, ll. 28-32 and
`59-63, col. 27, ll. 1-16. When this definition is applied to Palin, even after
`splitting, the first display device part(s) and second display device part(s) of
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`Palin retain their original form such that they can still be displayed on their
`respective devices. The same analysis applies if Petitioner is attempting to
`assert that reassembling one or more external display device parts 56 into
`one or more Bluetooth-compliant packets corresponds to the recited
`converting. Thus, splitting application 218 does not “convert[] the video
`signal from a compression format appropriate for the mobile terminal”—
`i.e., the format of the video signal in external display device parts 56—“to a
`display format for the alternative display terminal that is different from the
`compression format,” as required by claim 23.
`Conclusion
`We are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 23, 24, and 33 are
`unpatentable as anticipated by Palin.
`
`C. Claim 26 – Obvious over Palin and Hayakawa
`Petitioner argues that claim 26 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Palin and Hayakawa. Pet. 15-18, 27-40. In
`support of this ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations of how each claim limitation is taught or suggested by Palin
`and Hayakawa, and relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Almeroth. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45-115, 151-80).
`Analysis
`In light of the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded that
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that claim 26 is
`unpatentable as obvious over Palin and Hayakawa.
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`
`As discussed above, we are not persuaded that Palin anticipates
`independent claim 23, from which claim 26 depends. Moreover, Petitioner
`does not allege that any limitation of claim 23 would have been obvious in
`view of Palin or Hayakawa. Pet. 15-18, 27-35. Petitioner cites Hayakawa
`only for teaching the additional limitation recited in claim 26. Id. at 36-37.
`Because we are not persuaded that Palin teaches the limitations of claim 23,
`and because Petitioner does not argue that Hayakawa cures the deficiencies
`noted above, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that claim
`26 is unpatentable as obvious over Palin and Hayakawa.
`Conclusion
`We are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 26 is unpatentable as
`obvious over Palin and Hayakawa.
`
`D. Claim 33 – Obvious over Palin and Seaman
`Petitioner argues that claim 33 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Palin and Seaman. Pet. 18-20, 39-40. In support
`of this ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as
`to how each claim limitation is taught or suggested by Palin and Seaman,
`and relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Almeroth. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45-
`115, 151-59, 162-80).
`Analysis
`In light of the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded that
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that claim 33 is
`unpatentable as obvious over Palin and Seaman.
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`
`As discussed above, we are not persuaded that Palin anticipates
`independent claim 23, from which claim 33 depends. Moreover, Petitioner
`does not allege that any limitation of claim 23 would have been obvious in
`view of Palin or Seaman. Pet. 18-20, 39-40. Petitioner cites Seaman only
`for teaching the additional limitation recited in claim 33. Id. at 39-40.
`Because we are not persuaded that Palin teaches the limitations of claim 23,
`and because Petitioner does not argue that Seaman cures the deficiencies
`noted above with respect to claim 23, Petitioner has not established a
`reasonable likelihood that claim 33 is unpatentable as obvious over Palin and
`Seaman.
`Conclusion
`We are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 33 is unpatentable as
`obvious over Palin and Seaman.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the petition establishes that there is not a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 23,
`24, 26, and 33 of the ’492 patent.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the petition is denied and no trial is instituted.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00572
`Patent 7,899,492
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph S. Presta
`Updeep S. Gill
`Nixon & Vanderhye, P.C.
`jsp@nixonvan.com
`usg@nixonvan.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER
`
`D. Richard Anderson
`George S. Dolina
`Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
`dra@bskb.com
`gsd@bskb.com
`
`19
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`Entered: March 6, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRGINIA INNOVATION SCIENCES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00573
`Patent 8,050,711
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00573
`Patent 8,050,711
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a corrected petition
`requesting inter partes review of claims 16 and 18 (the “challenged claims”)
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,050,711 (Ex. 1001, “the ’711 patent”). Paper 5 (“Pet.”).
`Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a preliminary
`response. Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`Upon consideration of the petition and the preliminary response, we
`determine that the information presented by Petitioner does not establish that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing
`unpatentability of the challenged claims of the ’711 patent. Accordingly, the
`petition is denied.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’711 patent was asserted
`against Petitioner in a co-pending case filed on October 4, 2012, and
`captioned Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications
`America LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-00548-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va.). Pet. 1;
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00573
`Patent 8,050,711
`
`Paper 7 at 2. Petitioner also has filed four petitions for inter partes review
`of related patents: IPR2013-00569 (U.S. Patent No. 8,145,268); IPR2013-
`00570 (U.S. Patent No. 8,224,381), IPR2013-00571 (U.S. Patent No.
`8,135,398), and IPR2013-00572 (U.S. Patent No. 7,899,492). Id.
`
`B. The ’711 Patent
`The ’711 patent relates to mobile terminal signal conversion for
`external display. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 22-24. According to the ’711 patent,
`multimedia information, such as television, 3-D images, network games, and
`video phone calls are transmitted from various service providers and
`received for display on a screen of a mobile terminal. Id. at ll. 39-44.
`However, the limited size and capability of the mobile terminal screen may
`diminish user enjoyment of high rate data flow applications. Id. at ll. 50-53;
`col. 2, ll. 4-7.
`To address these issues, the ’711 patent discloses converting a
`multimedia signal destined for the mobile terminal and providing it to an
`external display system so that corresponding video and/or audio may be
`reproduced using the external display system. Id. at col. 2, ll. 12-16. Figure
`1 of the ’711 patent is reproduced below:
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00573
`11
`
`Patennt 8,050,7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuure 1 depictts a schemmatic diagraam illustratting an exaample of a
`system in
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whicch mobile tterminal siignal conveersion mayy reside. AAs shown inn Figure 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`serviice provideers 102a annd 102b deeliver multtimedia infformation tthrough
`
`
`
`
`
`
`netwwork 104 too base statiion 106, whhich transmmits the muultimedia
` Id. at col
`. 3, ll. 32-
`
`
`
`
`
`inforrmation, ammong other things, too cellular pphone 108.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37. External ddisplay systtem 114 mmay be digittal (e.g., HHDTV, LCDD, or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ssize constraaints of a ddisplay screeen on celllular phonee 108. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`at ll. 43-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`48. Mobile terrminal signnal converssion modulle (“MTSCCM”) 112 rresides
`08. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`
`withhin separatee housing 1110 outsidee of cellulaar phone 1
`ll. 52-54.
`
`
`110 by a wwired or wiireless
`
`
`
`
`Celluular phonee 108 is connnected to MTSCM
`
`
`
`
`
`connnection. Idd. at col. 4, ll. 1-14. AA multimeedia signal
`d to
`transmitte
`4
`
`plasmma) or anaalog (NTSCC, PAL, SEECAM, SVVGA, VGAA), and doees not havee
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00573
`11
`
`Patennt 8,050,7
`
`108 may i
`
`celluular phone
`
`
`
`nclude a vvideo signaal intended
`for reprodduction by
`
`
`the displayy screen off cellular pphone 108.. Id. at coll.
`108 using
`
`celluular phone
`
`
`
`
`
`3, ll. 59-64. MMTSCM 11
`
`convertedd
`
`
`
`2 processees the videoo signal too provide a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`video signal thhat has a display formmat and/or ssignal powwer level apppropriate
`
`
`
`
`
`for eexternal dissplay termiinal 114. IId. at col. 44, ll. 17-200. Followinng signal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`convversion, MTTSCM 1122 provides the converrted video
`
`signal to eexternal
`
`
`
`displlay terminaal 114 for display. Idd. at ll. 30--34.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 33 of the ’7111 patent iss reproduceed below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuure 3 is a bllock diagraam illustratting an exaample of thhe MTSCMM.
`
`
`
`
`
`Interrface/buffeer module 3302 providdes, for exaample, ade
`
`quate bufffering and
`
`
`
`e real-timee audio andd video. Idd. at col. 5,, ll. 57-65.
`
`
`proccessing ratee to provid
`
`cally in a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Videeo Compreess Decodeer 304a receives a muultimedia ssignal, typi
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00573
`Patent 8,050,711
`
`compressed format (e.g., MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4), and outputs a
`decompressed digital multimedia signal to Digital/Analog Video Encoder
`(“DAVE”) 304b and/or Digital/Digital Video Encoder (“DDVE”) 304c. Id.
`at col. 6, ll. 6-17 and 26-36. DAVE 304b and DDVE 304c receive the
`decompressed multimedia signal and convert the signal to the display format
`a
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
