`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: March 16, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MACROPOINT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`____________
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Ruiz Food Products, Inc.1 (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting
`inter partes review of claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,429,659 B1 (Ex.
`1001, “the ’659 Patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 2
`(“Pet.”). MacroPoint LLC (“Patent Owner) filed a Preliminary Response to
`the Petition. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Section 314(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that an
`inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information
`presented in the petition . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We determine that the
`Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We institute an
`inter partes review of claims 1–30.
`We base our findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding
`on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final decision as
`to the patentability of claims for which inter partes review is instituted. We
`will base our final decision on the record as fully developed during trial.
`
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner states that the ’659 Patent is subject to litigation in
`MacroPoint, LLC v. Ruiz Food Prods., Inc., 6:16-cv-01133 in the Eastern
`District of Texas. Pet. 4. In addition, Petitioner states that the ’659 Patent is
`
`
`1 The Petition identifies FourKites, Inc. as a real party in interest, in addition
`to Ruiz Food Products, Inc. Pet. 3–4.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`related to U.S. Patent No. 8,275,358, which is subject to a petition
`requesting inter partes review in IPR2017-02016. Pet. 4.
`
`C. The ’659 Patent
`The ’659 Patent is titled “Machine or Group of Machines for
`Monitoring Location of a Vehicle or Freight Carried by a Vehicle” and
`issued on August 30, 2016. Ex. 1001, [45], [54]. The ’659 Patent states that
`the invention “relates to a machine or group of machines for monitoring
`location.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–8.
`As examples of applications that monitor location information, the
`’659 Patent states that freight-hauling services, courier services, and other
`logistics and freight-service providers benefit from monitoring the location
`of vehicles in their fleets. Ex. 1001, 1:14–26. According to the ’659 Patent,
`conventional systems for monitoring vehicle locations have relied on global
`positioning systems (GPS) installed in each vehicle. Ex. 1001, 1:26–31.
`The ’659 Patent states that alternative methods for monitoring
`locations of vehicles include locating devices such as mobile phones (Ex.
`1001, 1:43–50) and correlating the devices with a vehicle (see, e.g., Ex.
`1001, 2:9–31). Among other embodiments, the ’659 Patent states that
`location of devices in a cellular network generally involves two positioning
`techniques, “1) techniques that require the device to incorporate a global
`positioning system (GPS) receiver, and 2) techniques that use some form of
`radiolocation from the device’s network and do not require the device to
`incorporate a GPS receiver.” Ex. 1001, 7:8–13.
`The ’659 Patent also describes a correlation logic that correlates a
`vehicle and a device. Ex. 1001, 5:7–40. In some embodiments, the
`correlation logic includes a database that correlates the vehicle and the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`device based at least in part on the vehicle being associated with at least one
`user who is also associated with the device and the vehicle. Ex. 1001, 5:7–
`24. As an example, the ’659 Patent describes an embodiment, in which a
`vehicle is associated with a driver of the vehicle who is also associated with
`the telephone number of a device. Ex. 1001, 6:20–48.
`In addition, the ’659 Patent states that use of location-information
`technologies raises privacy concerns and that various governmental and
`business organizations have developed rules and guidelines to protect users’
`privacy. Ex. 1001, 1:52–62. “For example, the International Association for
`the Wireless Telecommunications Industry (CTIA) has developed Best
`Practices and Guidelines for Location-Based Services (the ‘CTIA
`Guidelines’) . . . . The Guidelines provide a framework based on two
`principles: user notice and consent.” Ex. 1001, 1:58–64.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1, 2, 12, and 23 are independent claims, each of which is
`directed to “a machine or group of machines.” Claim 1, reproduced below,
`is illustrative of the challenged claims.
`1. A machine or group of machines for monitoring location of
`at least one of a vehicle or freight carried by the vehicle,
`comprising:
`a mobile device comprising a GPS receiver, a display, a
`microprocessor and a wireless communication transceiver
`coupled to the GPS receiver, the mobile device comprising
`the GPS receiver programmed to receive data sent by a
`plurality of GPS satellites, calculate location information
`of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver and
`transmit the location information;
`a server comprising a central processing unit, a memory, a
`clock, and a server communication
`transceiver
`that
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`
`receives the location information of the mobile device
`comprising the GPS receiver, and the central processing
`unit programmed to:
`receive a request for information regarding the location of the
`vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle;
`request location information of the mobile device comprising
`the GPS receiver from a location information provider;
`receive a signal that indicates that consent was given to
`transmission of location information;
`receive from the location information provider location
`information of the mobile device comprising the GPS
`receiver, wherein the location information of the mobile
`device comprising the GPS receiver originated from a
`device other than the mobile device comprising the GPS
`receiver itself; and
`estimate the location of the vehicle or the freight carried by
`the vehicle based at least in part on the location
`information of the mobile device comprising the GPS
`receiver; and
`communicate the location of the vehicle or the freight carried
`by the vehicle to cause a representation of the location of
`the vehicle or the freight carried by the vehicle.
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: The Petition challenges claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as being obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,130,630 to Enzmann
`et al. (Ex. 1004). Pet 8.
`Ground 2: The Petition challenges claims 5, 17, and 26 under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Enzmann and U.S. Patent No.
`8,045,995 to King et al. (Ex. 1005). Pet. 8.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`
`Ground 3: The Petition challenges claims 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as being obvious in view of Enzmann and U.S. Patent No.
`8,395,547 to Dhanani et al. (Ex. 1006). Pet. 8.
`Petitioner relies on a Declaration of Mr. Scott Andrew Denning to
`support its patentability analysis. Ex. 1002.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claim terms in an
`unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light
`of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46
`(2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`approach). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give
`claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as they would be
`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). Any
`special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.
`Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner states that each term in the challenged claims can be given
`its plain and ordinary meaning and that no constructions are necessary to
`resolve this dispute. Pet. 9. Patent Owner states that “[f]or the purposes of
`its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner has addressed the terms of
`challenged claims under Petitioner’s proposed construction of plain and
`ordinary meaning,” and Patent Owner additionally states that “the preamble
`of each of claims 1, 2, 12, and 23 is limiting.” Prelim. Resp. 13. For the
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`purposes of this Decision, we determine that no explicit claim constructions
`are needed to resolve the issues before us. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v.
`Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms
`need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy.’”) (citation omitted).
`B. Obviousness
`“Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The ultimate determination of obviousness under § 103 is a question
`of law based on underlying factual findings. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678
`F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
`U.S. 1, 17–18 (1996)). These underlying factual considerations consist of:
`(1) the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,”2 (2) the “scope and
`content of the prior art,” (3) the “differences between the prior art and the
`claims at issue,” and (4) “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness
`
`
`2 Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`have been ‘a person having at least a Bachelor of Science degree (or
`equivalent) in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or Electrical
`Engineering and two to three years of experience in the fields of
`telecommunications, location/navigation including tracking technologies,
`geolocation, triangulation and/or GPS.’” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 34–36).
`For the purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner accepts
`Petitioner’s characterization of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`Prelim. Resp. 13–14.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`such as “commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others,
`etc.”3 KSR, 550 U.S. at 406 (quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18).
`Ground 1—Enzmann
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–30 of the ’659 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Enzmann. See Pet. 23–64.
`Overview of Enzmann
`Titled “Location Query Service for Wireless Networks,” Enzmann
`issued on October 31, 2006. Ex. 1004, [45], [54]. Enzmann discloses “[a]
`location query service for use with a wireless network that tracks the
`location of network devices.” Ex. 1004, [57]. Enzmann states “[t]he service
`provides requestors with the location of network users, based on the
`locations of the users’ wireless network devices.” Ex. 1004, [57].
`Enzmann’s methods for determining device locations include GPS
`and triangulation across cell sites, among other methods. Ex. 1004, 4:32–38.
`For example, Enzmann teaches that “[l]ocation system 120 provides the
`location information, e.g., position coordinates of a handheld device, which
`indicates where a network user is located” (Ex. 1004, 4:25–27). Further,
`Enzmann teaches “a database or other memory storage device that can
`record relationships between device identifications . . . and network user
`identifications,” in addition to “authorized requestor lists for each device
`identification.” Ex. 1004, 5:30–34.
`Independent Claims 1, 2, 12, and 23
`Petitioner addresses each of claims 1–30 of the ’659 Patent,
`comparing Enzmann to each claim on a limitation-by-limitation basis and
`
`
`3 At this stage of the proceeding, the record contains no evidence of
`secondary considerations.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`citing the Denning Declaration in support of Petitioner’s arguments. See
`Pet. 23–64. Petitioner contends that Enzmann discloses a location-tracking
`service that determines a user’s location based on the location of a mobile
`device associated with the user. Pet. 28–29 (arguing vehicle and freight
`tracking were well-known applications of location-based services before the
`time of the ’659 Patent) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 84–85; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 0249–0251);
`see Pet. 23–25 (quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 70; citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 68–70; Ex. 1004,
`1:55–67, 3:1–16).
`Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill would recognize that
`there is no discernable difference between determining the location of a user
`and determining the location of vehicle or freight because the location of
`each would be based on location information from a GPS receiver in the
`mobile device. Pet. 34–36 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:55–67, 6:39–46, 17:43–58;
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 104–108; Ex. 1004, 1:30–40, 7:63–8:67, Fig. 2). In particular,
`Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill would recognize that the location
`information of the mobile device could be transformed or correlated to the
`location information of the vehicle or freight based on an association
`between the mobile device and the vehicle in the same way as is
`accomplished for determining the location of a user based on an association
`between the mobile device and the user. Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 105).
`Further, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill would have reason to
`determine the location of the vehicle or freight “in order to reduce costs
`involved with installing dedicated networks and network devices.” Pet. 36
`(quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 108; citing Ex. 1001, 1:55–67).
`Having considered Petitioner’s arguments in support of Ground 1,
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and the evidence currently of record,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`we determine that on this record Petitioner’s arguments and evidence are
`sufficient to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect
`to at least one claim on the ground of claims 1–30 being obvious in view of
`Enzmann.
`Addressing independent claims 1, 2, 12, and 23 collectively, Patent
`Owner contends Enzmann discloses only an association of a mobile device
`with a network user, not a correlation of a vehicle or freight with a mobile
`device, as required by each independent claim. Prelim. Resp. 15–18; accord
`id. at 1–2, 10–11. Patent Owner further contends that a person of ordinary
`skill would not have been motivated to “substitute” a vehicle for the network
`user of Enzmann, at least because such a substitution would eliminate the
`opportunity for a user to provide consent to location monitoring, as required
`by each claim. Prelim. Resp. 18–20.
`At this stage, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. As
`stated by Patent Owner, Enzmann teaches a location-query service that
`tracks the location of network devices. Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 1004,
`[57]). Enzmann also teaches using a database to translate the location of a
`network device into location information relating to a “network user.” E.g.,
`Ex. 1004, 5:28–33, 6:66–7:12.
`Similar to the correlation logic and database disclosed in Enzmann,
`the ’659 Patent describes a correlation logic and a database containing
`information to associate a mobile device with a user, with a vehicle, or both.
`Ex. 1001, 5:7–24 (describing examples of correlating users, vehicles, and
`devices, including an example in which “the user is associated with the
`vehicle 105, with the device 110, or with both in a database or in the
`correlation logic 170”), 5:35–6:19 (describing potential information that may
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`be used by correlation logic to correlate vehicles, drivers, and devices,
`among other information), 6:20–48 (describing an example in which a
`vehicle is associated with an active driver who is associated with an active
`device identified by a telephone number), Fig. 2 (depicting a chart
`illustrating how a correlation logic may correlate a vehicle to a
`communications device or the location of the vehicle to the location
`information of the communications device). Among other things, Figure 2
`of the ’659 Patent, copied below, illustrates how correlation logic can
`correlate mobile devices with other information. See Ex. 1001, 3:30–33,
`5:55–6:48.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’659 Patent
`Figure 2 of the ’659 Patent is a chart listing vehicles 105b, 105d, and 105f
`with data fields identifying drivers and telephone numbers associated with
`each vehicle, among other information. Ex. 1001, 5:55–6:3; accord Ex.
`1001, 5:19–21 (describing an example in which “the user is associated with
`the vehicle 105, with the device 110, or with both in a database or in the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`correlation logic 170”). Using that information, the ’659 Patent states that
`the correlation logic can transform the location information of a
`communication device into information regarding the location of the vehicle.
`Ex. 1001, 5:39–41, 6:39–48.
`We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s
`obviousness arguments are based on “substitution” of a vehicle or freight for
`Enzmann’s “network user.” At this stage and on this record, we are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence that a person of ordinary
`skill would have recognized no discernable difference in translating the
`location of a mobile device into the location of a network user, vehicle, or
`freight. See Pet. 34–36 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:55–67, 6:39–46, 17:43–58; Ex.
`1002 ¶¶ 104–108; Ex. 1004, 1:30–40, 7:63–8:67, Fig. 2); cf. Prelim. Resp.
`15–16 (recognizing that Enzmann teaches associating a user with a mobile
`device). Further, because we disagree that Petitioner’s obviousness
`arguments are based on “substitution” of a vehicle or freight for a network
`user, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that such a substitution
`would “sacrifice the association of the network user and the mobile device”
`or “eliminate[e] the opportunity for a user to provide consent” (Prelim. Resp.
`1–2; accord id. at 15–16, 18–20). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of
`ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
`Claim 7
`Claim 7 depends from claim 2 and further recites, “wherein the central
`processing unit receiving from the location information provider location
`information of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver is the signal
`that indicates that consent was given to transmission of location information
`of the mobile device comprising the GPS receiver.” Petitioner contends that
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`a person of ordinary skill would recognize possible variations of the
`components of Enzmann’s system, with one possible variation being for the
`user wireless network to have access to the separate storage memory
`maintaining the list of authorized requestors for a network user. Pet. 45–46
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 147–148; Ex. 1004, 6:28–40, 7:13–25).
`Patent Owner contends that “in every embodiment disclosed in
`Enzmann, location server 100 of Enzmann (which is the server that receives
`a ‘request for information regarding the location’) is the server that checks
`for consent prior to requesting the location information of the user’s mobile
`phone.” Prelim. Resp. 21. Further, Patent Owner argues Enzmann’s
`location server “could never receive location information without first
`knowing whether consent was given—because it would never have asked in
`the first place.” Prelim. Resp. 21.
`In an obviousness analysis, though, the question is not whether
`Enzmann discloses an embodiment that satisfies claim 7; the question is
`whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person
`of ordinary skill. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. Further, “[a] reference must be
`considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited
`to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect.” EWP
`Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here,
`in addition to the discussion above, the Denning Declaration indicates that a
`person of ordinary skill would have modified Enzmann’s system to reduce
`the processing load on the location server by allowing the location server to
`recognize that its receipt of location information indicates that the user
`wireless network determined that the user consented to share the location
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`information. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 148). Patent Owner disputes that a
`person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Enzmann as
`suggested by the Petition (Prelim. Resp. 23–27), but we do not resolve that
`dispute at this stage in the proceeding (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (“The
`Board's decision will take into account a patent owner preliminary response
`where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence, but a
`genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be
`viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of
`deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.”)).
`Without making a final determination regarding the patentability of
`any of claims 1–30, based on the record at this stage in the proceeding, we
`are persuaded that the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition’s
`Ground 1.
`
`Ground 2––Enzmann & King
`In addition to the challenge of claims 5, 17, and 26 addressed above as
`part of Petitioner’s Ground 1, Petitioner, in Ground 2, challenges dependent
`claims 5, 17, and 26 of the ’659 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`unpatentable in view of Enzmann and King. See Pet. 23–64. Petitioner cites
`King for its disclosures of, among other things, a centralized location system
`that includes a location update application programing interface (API) to
`receive varying types of location inputs for a user from an application
`providing location information. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, [57], 4:43–55.
`Stating that King does not cure the deficiencies of Enzmann relating
`to the relevant independent claims, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`has not meet its burden for institution of Ground 2 for the same reasons as
`those advanced for Ground 1. Prelim. Resp. 27–28.
`For the reasons explained above with respect to Ground 1, we find
`Petitioner’s arguments and evidence are sufficient to show a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to Ground 2.
`Ground 3––Enzmann & Dhanani
`In addition to the challenge of claims 11 and 16 addressed above as
`part of Petitioner’s Ground 1, Petitioner, in Ground 3, challenges dependent
`claims 11 and 16 of the ’659 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`unpatentable in view of Enzmann and Dhanani. See Pet. 23–64. Petitioner
`cites Dhanani for its disclosures of, among other things, known technologies
`used to determine device locations, including GPS, Advanced Forward Link
`Trilateration (AFLT), and Observed Time Difference, among other
`techniques. Pet. 69–70 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:12–19, 7:22–36).
`Stating that Dhanani does not cure the deficiencies of Enzmann
`relating to the relevant independent claims, Patent Owner contends that
`Petitioner has not meet its burden for institution of Ground 3 for the same
`reasons as those advanced for Ground 1. Prelim. Resp. 27–28. For the
`reasons explained above with respect to Ground 1, we find Petitioner’s
`arguments and evidence are sufficient to show a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing with respect to Ground 3.
`
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`On this record, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing as to unpatentability of at least 1 of the claims with
`respect to the following grounds: (1) claims 1–30 being unpatentable under
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Enzmann; (2) claims 5, 17, and 26 being
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Enzmann and King; and
`(3) claims 11 and 16 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Enzmann and Dhanani. The Board has not yet made a final determination
`as to the patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of
`the ’659 Patent is hereby instituted commencing on the entry date of this
`Order, and 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; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds of: (1)
`claims 1–30 being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`Enzmann; (2) claims 5, 17, and 26 being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) in view of Enzmann and King; and (3) claims 11 and 16 as being
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Enzmann and Dhanani.
`The Board has not yet made a final determination as to the patentability the
`challenged claims.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02018
`Patent 9,429,659 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`James P. Murphy
`Matthew Frontz
`Ryan Murphy
`POLSINELLI PC
`jmurphy@polsinelli.com
`mfrontz@polsinelli.com
`rmurphy@polsinelli.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Mark C. Johnson
`Luis A. Carrion
`RENNER OTTO
`mjohnson@rennerotto.com
`lcarrion@rennerotto.com
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`