`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Date: December 16, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`SANDISK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NETLIST, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`____________
`
`Before: LINDA M. GAUDETTE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Sandisk Corporation, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition, on June 20,
`
`2014, requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–30 of US Patent No.
`
`8,301,833 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’833 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Netlist, Inc.
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response on October 2, 2014. Paper 7
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`
`inter partes review may be authorized only if “the information presented in
`
`the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . 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). Pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314, the Board does not find a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim of the ’833 patent
`
`and, thus, does not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to
`
`those claims.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’833 patent is involved in the following
`
`co-pending actions: Netlist, Inc. v. Smart Modular Technologies, Inc., U.S.
`
`District Court for the Northern District of California, Civil Action No. 3:13-
`
`CV-05889-YGR; Diablo Technologies, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., U.S. District
`
`Court for the Northern District of California, Civil Action No. 4:13-CV-
`
`03901-YGR; and Smart Modular Technologies, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., U.S.
`
`District Court for the Northern District of California, Civil Action No. 4:13-
`
`CV-03916-YGR.). Pet. 59.
`
`B. The ’833 Patent
`
`The invention in the ’833 patent relates to a specific configuration of
`
`hybrid memory systems that addresses non-volatile memory backup, while
`
`running the volatile memory subsystem at lower power, and therefore, at
`
`lower clock speeds. Ex. 1001, col. 16, ll. 29–34. Specifically, the alleged
`
`invention of the ’833 patent includes circuitry for providing a regular high-
`
`2
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`speed clock frequency (first clock frequency) during communications
`
`between the host and the volatile memory subsystem, and a slower clock
`
`frequency during communications between the volatile memory subsystem
`
`(using third clock frequency) and the non-volatile memory subsystem (using
`
`second clock frequency). Id. at col. 21, ll. 5–21. Further, the second and
`
`third clock frequencies may be substantially equal. Id. at col. 21, ll. 23–24.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, 1 and 5 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
`
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter of the ’833 patent, and is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`A method for controlling a memory system operatively
`1.
`coupled to a host system, the memory system including a
`volatile memory subsystem and a non-volatile memory
`subsystem, the method comprising:
`operating the volatile memory subsystem at a first clock
`frequency when the memory system is in a first mode of
`operation in which data is communicated between the volatile
`memory subsystem and the host system;
`operating the non-volatile memory subsystem at a second
`clock frequency when the memory system is in a second mode
`of operation in which data is communicated between the
`volatile memory subsystem and the nonvolatile memory
`subsystem; and
`operating the volatile memory subsystem at a third clock
`frequency when the memory system is in the second mode of
`operation, the third clock frequency being less than the first
`clock frequency.
`
`3
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`1.
`
`Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Fukuzo
`(“Fukuzo,” Ex. 1013)
`Panabaker
`(“Panabaker,” Ex. 1014)
`Li
`(“Li,” Ex. 1015)
`Spiers
`(“Spiers,” Ex. 1016)
`Hansen
`(“Hansen,” Ex. 1017)
`Sun
`(“Sun,” Ex. 1018)
`Komatsuzaki
`(“Komatsuzaki,” Ex. 1019)
`
`
`
`US 2006/0294295 A1
`
`US 7,716,411 B2
`
`US 6,336,174 B1
`
`US 2006/0080515 A1
`
`US 2005/0132250 A1
`
`US 7,102,391 B1
`
`US 6,944,042 B2
`
`
`June 24, 2005
`
`June 7, 2006
`
`August 9, 1999
`
`October 12, 2004
`
`December 16, 2003
`
`July 29, 2004
`
`December 31, 2002
`
`2.
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Fukuzo
`
`Panabaker
`
`Fukuzo and Li
`
`Fukuzo,
`Li, and Spiers
`Fukuzo
`and Hansen
`Fukuzo, Li, and Hansen
`
`Fukuzo
`and Sun
`Fukuzo, Li,
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`4
`
`Claims challenged
`
`1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 22,
`24, 27, and 28
`1–6, 8, 11–13, 15, 17–22,
`24, and 27–29
`3 and 19
`
`3 and 19
`
`7 and 23
`
`7, 9, 10, 23, 25, and 26
`
`14 and 30
`
`14 and 30
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`and Sun
`
`Fukuzo and
`Komatsuzaki
`Fukuzo, Li, and
`Komatsuzaki
`Panabaker and Li
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Panabaker and Spiers
`
`§ 103
`
`16
`
`16
`
`1–6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17–22,
`24, 27, and 28
`3 and 19
`
`Panabaker, Li, and Spiers § 103
`
`3 and 19
`
`Panabaker and Hansen
`
`§ 103
`
`7, 9, 23, and 25
`
`7, 9, 10, 23, 25, and 26
`
`13 and 29
`
`13 and 29
`
`14 and 30
`
`14 and 30
`
`16
`
`16
`
`Panabaker, Li, and
`Hansen
`Panabaker and Fukuzo
`
`Panabaker, Li, and
`Fukuzo
`Panabaker and Sun
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Panabaker, Li, and Sun
`
`§ 103
`
`Panabaker and
`Komatsuzaki
`Panabaker, Li, and
`Komatsuzaki
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`
`
`
`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 construction standard, 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). Any special definition for a claim term
`
`must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Petitioner does not present any claim constructions, rather, Petitioner
`
`states that “each claim should be construed in accordance with its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning under the required broadest reasonable interpretation.”
`
`Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner provides a construction for one term only—“clock
`
`frequency.” Patent Owner argues “the claimed ‘clock frequency’ should be
`
`construed literally as clock frequency.” Prelim Resp. 18. Because the
`
`claims refer specifically to “clock” frequency, on this record, and for
`
`purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “clock frequency” requires identification of a clock running
`
`at a particular frequency.
`
`B. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 22, 24, 27, and 28—Anticipated by
`Fukuzo (Ex. 1013)
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 22, 24, 27, and
`
`28 are anticipated by Fukuzo under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e). Pet. 9–17.
`
`Fukuzo discloses an SDRAM memory chip device that comprises a non-
`
`6
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`volatile memory controller operating a nonvolatile memory and a FIFO
`
`memory. Ex. 1013, Abstract, ¶ 27. Fukuzo’s SDRAM memory chip device
`
`is used to store data to its internal SDRAM memory array (volatile memory)
`
`and to external FLASH (nonvolatile memory) using at least two additional
`
`pins as compared with conventional SDRAM standard. Id. Two further
`
`pins reflecting the flash memory status provide appropriate issuance of load
`
`or store signals by the host. Id. Fukuzo teaches using foreground and
`
`background operations such that read/write operations to volatile memory
`
`can occur simultaneously with read/write operations to non-volatile memory.
`
`Id
`
`Below we discuss independent claims 1 and 15, from which all other
`
`dependent claims challenged in this ground depend. Claim 1 recites
`
`“operating the volatile memory subsystem at a third clock frequency when
`
`the memory system is in the second mode of operation, the third clock
`
`frequency being less than the first clock frequency.” Claim 15 recites “the
`
`volatile memory subsystem further being operable at a third clock frequency
`
`when the memory system is in the second mode of operation, the third clock
`
`frequency being less than the clock first frequency.” Figure 3 of Fukuzo is
`
`7
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3, above, depicts a schematic block diagram of a memory chip
`
`device according to the invention of the Fukuzo device.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Fukuzo’s disclosure of SDRAM memory chip
`
`device 40 (“SDRAM Chip 40”) is the claimed volatile memory subsystem
`
`and Fukuzo’s disclosure of clock generator 110, which operates at 110 MHz
`
`and is valid for blocks 10 and 20 of the SDRAM chip 40, is the claimed first
`
`clock frequency. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 84, 87–8). Further, Petitioner
`
`asserts that Fukuzo’s disclosure of flash clock 310 which drives flash
`
`controller 320 and flash input/output buffer 390, which is described as
`
`operating at 20 MHz and is valid for block 30 of SDRAM chip 40, meets the
`
`limitation to a third clock frequency. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 84, 87–88).
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument or cited disclosure.
`
`Petitioner reads the entire SDRAM chip 40 on the volatile memory
`
`subsystem. However, SDRAM chip 40 has at least two clocks running at
`
`different frequencies. Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how the chip
`
`reads on operating at a first frequency in one mode and a second frequency
`
`8
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`in a second mode when the chip appears to be running both frequencies all
`
`the time or at least at the first frequency all the time. See Prelim. Resp. 21.
`
`It appears what Petitioner is actually doing is using blocks 10 and 20 to be
`
`the volatile memory subsystem at one time and block 30 to be the volatile
`
`memory subsystem at other times.
`
`Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference
`
`disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as
`
`in the claim. Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist &
`
`Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, Petitioner
`
`reads inconsistently the claim limitation on two distinct structures, SDRAM
`
`core section 10 and flash controller section 30 of the SDRAM chip 40,
`
`described in the reference as being driven by two different clocks.
`
`Petitioner presents no persuasive or credible explanation or disclosure
`
`to support this way of reading Fukuzo on the claim language. Alternately, if
`
`the Petitioner reads the volatile memory subsystem to be chip 40 as a whole,
`
`then it does not appear the chip “operates” at the frequency of flash clock
`
`310, but rather at the frequency of the system clock 110. See Prelim. Resp.
`
`21. Nonetheless, Petitioner does not explain its reading of two different
`
`clocks which drive different sets of components as corresponding to the
`
`clock for the single volatile memory subsystem of the claim.
`
`The claim language must be read in light of the specification as it
`
`would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710
`
`F.2d 1544, 1548, (Fed. Cir. 1983). While it would be unreasonable to ignore
`
`any interpretive guidance afforded by the specification, see In re Morris, 127
`
`F.3d 1048, 1054–55, (Fed. Cir. 1997), it is improper to read limitations from
`
`the specification into the claims. Id. For example, the specification of the
`
`9
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`’833 patent discloses only one bank of volatile memory devices 32. Ex.
`
`1001, Fig. 1. The Specification of the ’833 patent discloses only one clock
`
`input into the volatile memory subsystem and does not suggest that there are
`
`subsections of the volatile memory subsystem that are operating at different
`
`clock frequencies. Id. at col. 15, l. 41–col. 17, l. 38.
`
`Additionally, the specification suggests “[r]unning the volatile
`
`memory subsystem 30 at the reduced frequency during a backup and/or
`
`restore operation may advantageously reduce overall power consumption of
`
`the memory system 10.” Id. at col. 16, ll. 34–37. Petitioner’s reading of two
`
`separate sections of memory on the volatile memory subsystem is not
`
`consistent with the goal of reducing overall power consumption because the
`
`memory that Petitioner points to as running at a reduced frequency
`
`(flash/input output buffer 390) is not the same memory that is accessed by
`
`the host system (SDRAM array 190). Thus, on the record before us,
`
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Fukuzo discloses the limitations to
`
`“operating the volatile memory subsystem at a third clock frequency . . . the
`
`third clock frequency being less than the first clock frequency” and “the
`
`volatile memory subsystem further being operable at a third clock frequency
`
`. . . the third clock frequency being less than the clock first frequency,” as
`
`recited in independent claims 1 and 15.
`
`Thus, upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence,
`
`we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 1 and 15, or claims 2,
`
`6, 8, 11, 12, 18, 22, 24, 27, and 28 that depend ultimately from claims 1 and
`
`15, on the ground that these claims are anticipated by Fukuzo.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`
`C. Claims 1–6, 8, 11–13, 15, 17–22, 24, and 27–29 — Anticipated by
`Panabaker (Ex. 1014)
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–6, 8, 11–13, 15, 17–22, 24, and 27–29
`
`are anticipated by Panabaker under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9–17.
`
`Panabaker discloses a hybrid memory device comprising a memory
`
`controller, a volatile memory (e.g. SDRAM) and nonvolatile memory (e.g.
`
`flash memory). See e.g., Ex. 1014, Abstract, Fig. 3A, col. 7, ll. 8–11.
`
`Panabaker’s memory controller operates such that the memory device has
`
`only a single memory interface with respect to voltage and access protocols
`
`defined for one type of memory. Id. Panabaker teaches that the memory
`
`controller allows access to both SDRAM (volatile memory) and non-volatile
`
`memory, with the non-volatile memory overlaid in one or more designated
`
`blocks of the volatile memory address space (or vice-versa). Id. In
`
`Panabaker, a host is coupled to the controller of the hybrid memory device,
`
`where the controller either allows a direct access to the volatile memory or
`
`uses a buffer for speed matching between the host and the nonvolatile
`
`memory. Id.
`
`Below we discuss independent claims 1 and 15, from which all other
`
`dependent claims challenged in this ground depend. Claim 1 recites
`
`“operating the volatile memory subsystem at a third clock frequency when
`
`the memory system is in the second mode of operation, the third clock
`
`frequency being less than the first clock frequency.” Claim 15 recites “the
`
`volatile memory subsystem further being operable at a third clock frequency
`
`when the memory system is in the second mode of operation, the third clock
`
`frequency being less than the clock first frequency.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that Panabaker’s disclosure of SDRAM buffer set
`
`210 as the volatile memory subsystem “is at least as fast as a given SDRAM
`
`11
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`chip and its protocol requires . . . “ meets the limitation to a first clock
`
`frequency. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1014, col. 4, ll. 33–47). Further, Petitioner
`
`asserts that Panabaker’s disclosure of speed matching buffer set as volatile
`
`memory subsystem meets the limitation to a first clock frequency. Pet. 20
`
`(citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 84, 87–88). We are not persuaded by this cited
`
`disclosure.
`
`Petitioner apparently reads the controller 308A and the buffer 310 and
`
`the SDRAM 304 on the volatile memory subsystem in the first mode.
`
`However, in the second mode, Petitioner is unclear whether it reads the
`
`volatile memory subsystem on the controller 308A or the speed matching
`
`buffer 310. Reading the controller as the volatile memory subsystem is
`
`inconsistent with specification which discloses a controller 62 that is
`
`separate from the volatile and non-volatile memory subsystems. Ex. 1001,
`
`Fig. 1. The controller 62 provides the clock signal to the volatile and
`
`nonvolatile memory subsystems. Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. As Patent Owner points
`
`out, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain what it considers the volatile
`
`memory subsystem and does not point to any clock which provides a first or
`
`third frequency to that subsystem. See Prelim. Resp. 28–29.
`
`Petitioner does not specify that Panabaker teaches that the speed
`
`matching buffer operates at a third clock frequency. For example,
`
`Panabaker teaches that a firmware protocol is used for speed matching. See
`
`e.g., Ex. 1014, 6:32–36 (“As can be readily appreciated, because SDRAM is
`
`presently one or more orders of magnitude faster than flash, the protocol
`
`includes a way for the controller 308A to signal to the firmware 330 when a
`
`flash read or write request is busy and when the request is ready.”).
`
`Petitioner does not explain how this scheme amounts to operating the speed
`
`12
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`matching buffer at a third clock frequency. We find that one of ordinary
`
`skill at the time of the invention reasonably would not consider Panabaker as
`
`disclosing a volatile memory subsystem that operates at the first and third
`
`clock frequencies. Thus, on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown
`
`sufficiently that Panabaker discloses these limitations.
`
`Therefore, upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting
`
`evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 1 and 15,
`
`and claims 2–6, 8, 11–13, 17–22, 24, and 27–29 that depend ultimately from
`
`claims 1 and 15, on the ground that these claims are anticipated by
`
`Panabaker.
`
`
`
`D. Obviousness Grounds
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter 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 question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3)
`
`the level of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
`
`considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`Based on the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner, we are
`
`unpersuaded that it has established a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claim under
`
`13
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over a combination relying on either Fukuzo or
`
`Panabaker.
`
`As discussed above in the context of the anticipation analysis with
`
`regard to Fukuzo and Panabaker, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that
`
`Fukuzo or Panabaker discloses a volatile memory subsystem that operates at
`
`a third frequency, as is required by each of independent claims 1 and 15.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner does not provide any further explanation why
`
`Fukuzo or Panabaker disclose a volatile memory subsystem that operates at
`
`a third frequency under an obviousness analysis. Each of Petitioner’s
`
`obviousness grounds assumes that either Fukuzo or Panabaker discloses that
`
`limitation. Pet. 7–9. Petitioner bears the burden of proof of showing that
`
`limitation for each independent claim. Nonetheless, as shown above, none
`
`of the challenges relied on to meet claims 1 and 15 has shown sufficiently
`
`the required “third frequency.”
`
`Thus, upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence,
`
`we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail with respect to: the ground that claims 3 and
`
`19 are unpatentable over Fukuzo and Li; the ground that claims 3 and 19 are
`
`unpatentable over Fukuzo, Li, and Spiers; the ground that claims 7 and 23
`
`are unpatentable over Fukuzo and Hansen; the ground that claims 7, 9, 10,
`
`23, 25, and 26 are unpatentable over Fukuzo, Li, and Hansen; the ground
`
`that claims 14 and 30 are unpatentable over Fukuzo and Sun; the ground that
`
`claims 14 and 30 are unpatentable over Fukuzo, Li, and Sun; the ground that
`
`claim 16 is unpatentable over Fukuzo and Komatsuzaki; the ground that
`
`claim 16 is unpatentable over Fukuzo, Li, and Komatsuzaki; the ground that
`
`claims 1–6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17–22, 24, 27, and 28 are unpatentable over
`
`14
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`Panabaker and Li; the ground that claims 3 and 19 are unpatentable over
`
`Panabaker and Spiers; the ground that claims 3 and 19 are unpatentable over
`
`Panabaker, Li, and Spiers; the ground that claims 7, 9, 23, and 25 are
`
`unpatentable over Panabaker and Hansen; the ground that claims 7, 9, 10,
`
`23, 25, and 26 are unpatentable over Panabaker, Li, and Hansen; the ground
`
`that claims 13 and 29 are unpatentable over Panabaker and Fukuzo; the
`
`ground that claims 13 and 29 are unpatentable over Panabaker, Li, and
`
`Fukuzo; the ground that claims 14 and 30 are unpatentable over Panabaker
`
`and Sun; the ground that claims 14 and 30 are unpatentable over Panabaker,
`
`Li, and Sun; the ground that claim 16 is unpatentable over Panabaker and
`
`Komatsuzaki; the ground that claim 16 is unpatentable over Panabaker, Li,
`
`and Komatsuzaki.
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The information presented does not show that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail at trial with respect to at least one
`
`claim of the ’833 patent, based on any ground presented in the petition. On
`
`this record, we deny the petition for inter partes review of claims 1–30.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that that the petition is denied as to all challenged claims,
`
`and no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00994
`Patent 8,301,833 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David B. Cochran
`dcochran@jonesday.com
`
`Joseph M. Sauer
`jmsauer@jonesday.com
`
`Joshua R. Nightingale
`jrnightingale@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Gregory C. Schodde
`gschodde@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Scott P. McBride
`smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Ronald H. Spuhler
`rspuhler@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Wayne Bradley
`wbradley@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioners
`Ex. 1015, p. 16
`
`