Trials@uspto.gov
`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
`
`
`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
`
`
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
