throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper8
`Entered: July 1, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CoO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`NEODRONLTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, PATRICK M. BOUCHER,and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOWARD,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Jnter Partes Review
`35 US.C. $ 314
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background and Summary
`
`SamsungElectronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner’) filed a Petition to institute an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1—24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,024,790 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’790
`
`patent”). Paper 3 (“Petition,” “Pet.”). Neodron Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) did
`
`not file a Patent Owner Preliminary Response.
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`Wehaveauthority, acting on the designation of the Director, to
`
`determine whetherto institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may notbeinstituted unless
`
`“the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`
`responsefiled under section 313 showsthat there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challengedin the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). A decision to
`
`institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may notinstitute on fewer than all claims
`
`challenged in the Petition. SAS Inst, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359-60
`
`(2018).
`
`For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition and the
`
`evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the
`
`Petition establishes a reasonablelikelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respectto at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute
`
`inter partes review onall of the challenged claims basedonall of the
`
`groundsidentified in the Petition.
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America,Inc. as the real parties in interest. Pet. 2.
`
`Patent Owneridentifies Neodron Ltd.as the real party in interest.
`
`Paper 6, 1 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices).
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`Theparties identify the following district court proceeding involving
`
`the °790 patent: Neodron Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 6:19-cv-
`
`00398-ADA (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 2; Paper 6, 2.
`
`Petitioner identifies additional proceedings involving either the ’790
`
`patent or United States Patent No. 8,102,286—the parent of the ’790 patent:
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`In the Matter of Certain Touch-Controlled Mobile Devices, Computers, and
`
`Components Thereof, ITC Inv. 337-TA-1162; Neodron Ltd. v. Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 6:19-cv-00903-ADA (W.D. Tex.); and Samsung Elecs.
`
`Co., Ltd. v. Neodron Ltd. , IPR2020-00259. Pet. 2-3.
`
`D. The ’790 Patent
`
`The ’790 patent relates to keypads having capacitive keys. Ex. 1001,
`
`code (57). The ’790 patent discloses that keypads maysuffer from keying
`
`ambiguity problems caused, for example, when a user’s finger touches a key
`
`and adjacent ones. Jd. at 1:36—40. To select one key amongseveral keys
`
`that exhibit activity, the °790 patent determines which key has the maximum
`
`signal strength, and maintains that selection until either the first-determined
`
`key drops below somethreshold level, or a second key’s signal strength
`
`exceedsthe first key’s signal strength. Jd. at 2:9-17. The method deselects
`
`all other keys and enhancesthe selected key’s signal strength value. Jd. at
`
`2:17-19. In particular, the 790 patent explains that the “winning”keyis
`
`given a slight advantage in subsequentrepetitions of the decision process, in
`
`order to avoid indecisiveness and eliminate oscillation between two or more
`
`keys having moreorless the same signal strength. Jd. at 2:63-67. For
`
`instance, the first key to win remains selected even when the maximal
`
`strength has shifted to a new key,if the first key has enough signal strength
`
`in excess ofits associated threshold value. /d. at 3:10-14. That threshold
`
`value is further described as the “biasing or skewing”of the key selection
`
`method in favor of an already selected key. Jd. at 5:42—48. According to
`
`the ’790 patent, the “bias” may be provided in many ways in subsequent key
`
`selection decisions, such as:
`
`These ways may be equivalent to adding an incremental value to
`the signal associated with the selected key; multiplying the signal
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`strength of the selected key by a value greater than one in
`subsequentselections; subtracting a respective incremental value
`from the signal strengths associated with each of the non-selected
`keys; or multiplying the signal strength of each of the non-
`selected keys by a respective value less than one.
`
`Id. at 5:51-58. The biasing is further explained in connection with Figure
`
`5A, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Start
`K1 tnactive Acquire $1
`
`Key K1
`Signal for
`
`
`
`Compare S1
`with Sj
`all j
`
`
`30
`
`=F ;
`—/
`AllotherSj
`
`
` Di =O +1
`
`
`
`lim T.C.
`
`33
`
`FIG. 5A
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`Figure 5A showsa flow chart of a method carried out when a Key 1 goes
`
`from inactive to active. Id. at 4:22—24. For example, when the signal
`
`acquired from Key 1 exceedsa certain threshold value at step 26, the
`
`acquired signal is compared against other acquired signals. Jd. at 7:54-60.
`
`In determining whether Key 1 “wins” over other active key(s), the method
`
`introduces a non-dithering bias value “k,” which is addedto the active key at
`
`step 30. Id. at 7:60—63; 8:9-12. If the signal value of Key 1 exceeds the
`
`signal value of the active key byat least the bias “k” value, Key 1 will
`
`becomethe active key when a counter is reached, and all other keys become
`
`inactive. Id. at 8:19-22.
`
`E.
`
`Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Each
`ofchallenged claims 2—6, 8-12, and 14-20 dependsdirectly from claim 1, 7,
`
`or 13.
`
`Claim1is illustrative and reads as follows:
`
`1. An apparatus comprising:
`
`plurality of keys;
`
`control logic operatively coupled to the plurality of keys
`and configuredto:
`
`analyze, to determine a first active key, respective first
`signal values of the plurality of keys;
`
`assign, based at least on the respective first sensor values
`of the plurality keys, a first key as the first active key; and
`
`to determine a second active key, respective
`analyze,
`second signal values of the plurality of keys, the analysis, to
`determine the secondactive key, of the respective second signal
`values of the plurality of keys being biased in favor ofthe first
`key.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:58—9:3.
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`F. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1-24 are unpatentable on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged|35 U.S.C. §' Reference(s)/Basis
`
`
`
`1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19-24|102(b)?
`pee EE Tia
`4,10, 11, 16, 17
`5, 12, 18
`3, 9, 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jahier, Senk*
`Jahier, QT60161°
`
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson,
`
`Ph.D., filed as Exhibit 1002 (“Bederson Declaration”).
`
`! The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the
`790 patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we
`apply the pre-AIA versionsofthe statutory bases for unpatentability.
`2 Although the Petition only identifies section 103 as a basis for
`unpatentability in the section titled “Precise Relief Requested,” the Petition
`sets forth that claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 19-24 are either anticipated or
`rendered obvious by Jahier. Compare Pet. 4 (Precise Relief Requested) with
`id. at 17-39 (arguing claims 1, 7, and 13 are either anticipated or obvious),
`45—51 (arguing Jahier discloses the additional limitations recited in claims 8,
`14, and 19-24).
`
`3 US 5,525,908, issued June 11, 1996 (Ex. 1005).
`
`4 US 5,760,715, issued June 2, 1998 (Ex. 1006).
`> Quantum Research Group QT60161 16 Key QMatrix Keypanel Sensor IC
`Datasheet (2002) (Ex. 1007)
`© US 5,831,597, issued Nov. 3, 1998 (Ex. 1008).
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`1. Anticipation
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if “the four
`
`comers of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed
`
`invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person ofordinary skill
`
`in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.”
`
`Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2000). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a
`
`feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or
`
`inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373,
`
`1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Moreover, the reference must also “disclose[] within
`
`the four corners of the documentnotonlyall of the limitations claimed but
`
`also all of the limitations arranged or combinedin the same wayasrecited in
`
`the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008). However, “the reference need notsatisfy an ipsissimis verbis
`
`test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`2. Obviousness
`
`In Graham v. John Deere Co. ofKansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966),the
`
`Supreme Court set out a framework for assessing obviousness under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 that requires consideration of four factors: (1) the “level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art,” (2) the “scope and contentofthe prior
`
`art,” (3) the “differences betweenthe priorart and the claimsat issue,” and
`
`(4) if in evidence, “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness such as
`
`“commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.”
`
`Id. at 17-18. “While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`any particular case,” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 407
`
`(2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit has “repeatedly
`
`emphasized that an obviousness inquiry requires examination of all four
`
`Graham factors and that an obviousness determination can be made only
`
`after consideration of each factor,” Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326,
`
`1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016), overruled on other grounds by Aqua Prods., Inc.v.
`
`Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In determining whether an invention would have been obviousat the
`
`time it was made, weconsiderthe level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`
`at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of
`
`resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of
`
`maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v.
`
`Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The “person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art” is a hypothetical construct, from whose vantage point
`
`obviousness is assessed. Jn re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed.Cir.
`
`1998). “This legal construct is akin to the ‘reasonable person’ used as a
`
`reference in negligence determinations” and “also presumesthatall priorart
`references in the field of the invention are available to this hypothetical
`
`skilled artisan.” Jd. (citing In re Carlson, 983 F.2d 1032, 1038 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1993)).
`
`Here, Petitioner asserts a certain education and work experience of a
`
`person commensurate with the level or ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 10-11
`
`(stating that the proffered level or ordinary skill in the art comes from a
`
`finding in a related, co-pending ITC investigation). Patent Owner does not
`
`address this issue.
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art that Petitioner proffers, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to
`
`eliminate vaguenessas to the amountof practical experience. The qualifier
`
`expandsthe range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a
`meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.’
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`Weapply the same claim construction standard used in the federal
`
`courts, in other words, the claim construction standard that would be used to
`
`construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is
`
`articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under the Phillips standard, the
`
`“words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning,” whichis “the meaning that the term would have to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,i.e., as of the
`
`effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1312-13.
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for four terms. See Pet. 15-17.
`
`Because no express construction is needed to resolve any dispute in
`
`this proceeding, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See Nidec
`
`Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms‘that are in
`
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”
`
`7 If Patent Ownerproposesa different level of ordinary skill in the art in its
`Response, the parties are encouraged to address whether there are any
`material differences between the two proposals and what impact,if any, the
`different level has on the obviousnessanalysis.
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`D. Anticipation by Jahier
`
`Petitioner argues Jahier anticipates claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 19-24
`
`of the ’790 patent. Pet 23-39. Based on the current record, we are
`
`persuadedthat Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on its asserted anticipation ground with respect to claims1, 7, 8,
`
`13, 14, and 19-24.
`
`1. Overview ofJahier
`
`Jahier is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Operating a Capacitive
`
`Tactile Keyboard.” Ex. 1005, code (54). Jahier describes a process by
`
`whichthe position of an operator’s finger on the keyboard and the pressure
`
`exerted are determined cyclically by measuring capacitance andpressure.
`
`Id. at 1:10-13. Jahier determines the differences between measured
`
`capacitance values and a reference capacitance. Jd. at 2:39-41. This
`
`difference capacitance value is comparedto a low threshold and a high
`
`threshold. Jd. at 2:44—46. Based on the comparison, Jahier determines the
`
`state of the keyboard. Jd. at 2:41-43. The keyboard states and the
`
`transitions between states are depicted in Figure 3, reproduced below.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`FIG. 3
`
`
`
`
`REFERENCE
`
`VALUE. OF
`ASSOCIATED
`PRESSURE
`VALUE OF
`CURRENT
`PRESSURE
`ACQUIRED,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`END
`SELECTION
`SELECTION
`
`TATE
`
`
`
`
`
`SELECTION
`
`CONFIRMED
`STATE
`
`Figure 3 illustrates how the selection controller of Jahier operates to
`
`determine the state and transition betweenstates. Jd. at 3:61—64; 4:49-50.
`
`The states are: NO SELECTION, BEGIN SELECTION, SELECTION
`
`CONFIRMED,and END SELECTION./d. at 5:5—8; Fig. 3. Jahier explains
`that a key i becomesa preselected key /—thatis a transition from NO
`SELECTION to BEGIN SELECTIONstate occurs—whenthe capacitive
`
`difference (“ECC”) for key i is higher than a given threshold and above the
`
`ECCfor any other key.
`
`/d. at 5:11-20. Once in the BEGIN SELECTION
`
`state, there are three options. Jd. at 5:39-6:22. First, key J may be
`
`“confirmed”as the selected key (confirming that the user’s finger is on key
`
`J), shownin Figure 3 astransition “c.” Jd. at 5:63-6:4. Second, key J may
`
`1]
`
`

`

`IPR2020-005 15
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`no longerbe a preselected keyif its ECC falls below a low threshold, a
`
`transition that is shownin Figure 3 as transition “b.” Jd. at 39-58. Sucha
`
`transition may occur, for example, if the key was inadvertently touched. Jd.
`
`Third is transition “2,” in which another key altogether may become the
`
`preselected key. Jd. at 6:5-23. Jahier explains that if the ECC for key J is
`
`between a low anda high threshold, key J remains the preselected key. Jd. at
`
`6:5~12. But if the ECC of another key (read here a new key i) is equal to or
`
`higher than the high threshold, and the ECC ofpreselected key J stays below
`
`the high threshold, the new key i will become the preselected key. Jd. at
`
`6:13-27 (stating also that the controller remains in the BEGIN SELECTION
`
`with the new key i as the preselected key).
`2. Analysis of Claims 1, 7, and 13*
`
`Petitioner argues that Jahier discloses‘[a]n apparatus” as recited in
`
`claim 1. Pet. 23. Specifically, Petitioner argues that Jahier discloses “[a]
`
`method and apparatus for determining a valid selection of a capacitance
`
`'
`
`tactile keyboard.” Jd. (quoting Ex. 1005, code (57)).
`
`Petitioner also argues that Jahier discloses a “plurality of keys” as
`
`recited in claim 1. Pet. 23-24. Specifically, Petitioner argues that Jahier
`
`discloses capacitive keys which are “a touchable (e.g. by a user’s finger)
`
`portion of a mechanicalto electrical transducing device(i.e. a device that
`
`converts a mechanical energy in the form of a touch to electrical energy in
`
`the form of a capacitive measurement).” Jd. (citing Ex, 1005, 2:52-44,
`
`7:43-52). Petitioner further argues a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`8 Because Petitioner relies on substantially the same argumentsfor claims1,
`7, and 13, we will only address claim 1. See Pet. 36-39. Although weonly
`address claim 1, our analysis applies equally to claims 7 and 13.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`would appreciate that these capacitive keys are non-bistable. Jd. at 24
`
`(citing 2:39-3:4, 4:58-61, 5:10-6:23, 7:6-24,Figs. 1, 3, 4).
`
`Petitioner also argues that Jahier discloses “control logic operatively
`
`coupled to the plurality of keys” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 24-31.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner directs us to selection controller 2 which implements
`
`the state machine shown in Jahier’s Figure 3. Jd. at 24—25 (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`3:45—-47, 3:65—-4:3, Fig. 3). According to Petitioner, if the limitation is not
`
`construed as a means-plus-function limitation, no further analysis is
`
`required. Jd. at 26.
`
`Petitioner further argues that if the limitation is a means-plus-function
`
`limitation, then Jahier also discloses the structure shown in Figure 5A or
`
`Figures 5A and 5B ofthe ’790 patent. Pet. 16, 26; see also Ex. 1025, 18-19
`
`(claim construction order). Petitioner argues that Jahier discloses
`
`correspondingstructure:
`
`(1) logic for comparing the sensor values to a threshold, as shown
`in blocks 24, 26 of Figure 5a, (2) logic for comparing sensor
`values, including a bias, as shownin blocks 29, 30 of Figure 5a,
`and (3) a counter that increments to a terminal count (TC) as
`shownin blocks 28, 31, 32, 33 of Figure 5a. Ex-1001, Fig. 5a.
`Jahier discloses a microcontroller (element 2 in Figure 1, as
`described above) and each of these additional features, as
`described in detail below.
`
`Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1002 J] 75-78); see also id. at 27-28 (discussing logic
`
`for comparing the sensorvalues to a threshold (citing Ex. 1005, 2:39-3:4,
`
`4:55-58, 5:10-6:23, 7:6—24, Figs. 1, 3, 4; Ex. 1002 ¥ 79)), 28-29 (discussing
`
`logic for comparing sensorvalues, including a bias (citing Ex. 1005, 2:39—
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`3:4, 5:10-6:23, 7:6-24, Figs. 1, 3, 4; Ex. 1002 §§ 80-81°)), 29-31
`
`(discussing a counter that increments to a terminal count(citing Ex. 1005,
`
`2:39-3:4 3:22-33, 5:10-6:23, 6:50—60, 7:6—24, Figs. 1, 3, 4; Ex. 1002
`
`{1 82-86_).
`
`Petitioner also argues that Jahier discloses “control logic...
`
`configured to analyze, to determinea first active key, respective first signal
`
`values of the plurality of keys”as recited in claim 1. Pet. 31-33.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that Jahier discloses comparing ECC values
`of each ofthe plurality of keys and then selecting the one with the largest
`value—so long asit is above a Low Threshold—astheactive key. Jd.
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 2:39-3:4, 4:55-6:23, 7:6—24, Figs. 1, 3, and 4).
`
`Petitioner also argues that Jahier discloses “control logic...
`
`configured to .. . assign, based at least on the respective first sensor values
`
`of the plurality keys, a first key as the first active key” as recited in claim 1.
`
`Pet. 33. Specifically, Petitioner argues, “Jahier discloses assigningthefirst
`
`key as thefirst active key.” Jd. (citing Ex. 1002 § 88).
`
`Petitioner also argues that Jahier discloses “control logic...
`
`configured to .. . analyze, to determine a secondactive key, respective
`
`secondsignal values ofthe plurality of keys, the analysis, to determine the
`
`second active key, of the respective second signal values of the plurality of
`keys being biased in favor ofthe first key” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 33-36.
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that because the selection of a second key will
`
`only happen when the ECC ofthe second keyis greater than or equal to the
`
`High Threshold and the ECCofthe first key is less than the High Threshold,
`
`9° Petitioneralso refers to its arguments directedto the “analyze,to
`determine a secondactive key”limitation, discussed infra. Pet. 29.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`“the selection of the second active key is biased in favorof thefirst key
`
`because the second key’s signal must not simply exceedthat ofthefirst, but
`
`must exceed it by more than the amount by whichthe first key is below the
`
`High Threshold.” Jd. at 33-35 (citing 2:39-3:4, 5:10-6:23, 7:6—24,Figs. 1,
`
`3, 4). Petitioner further argues that “because the first preselected key
`
`remainspreselected if another key’s signal exceeds it but does not exceed
`
`the high threshold, butthe first preselected key can be replaced by another
`
`key if that other key’s signal exceedsthe first by more than the amount by
`
`whichthe first preselected key is below the high threshold,” the analysis is
`
`non-locking.
`
`/d. at 35-36 (citing Ex. 1002
`
`90).
`
`After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and information, including the
`
`Bederson Declaration (Ex. 1002), which Patent Owner does not addressat
`
`this stage, we are persuadedthat Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for
`purposesofthis Decision, that Jahier discloses each claim limitation recited
`in claim 1 and that each of the elements are arranged as in the claim.!°
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated, on this record, a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 along with claims 7 and
`
`13—whichrely on substantially the same arguments—are anticipated by
`
`Jahier.
`
`3. Claims 8, 14, and 19-24
`
`BecausePetitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`success in proving that at least one claim of the ’790 patent is unpatentable,
`
`'0 Because Petitioner treated the preamble asastructural limitation and
`sufficiently demonstrated that Jahier discloses the controllogic if it is a
`means-plus-function limitation, we do not decide whether the preambleis
`entitled to patentable weightor if claim 1 recites a means-plus-function
`limitation.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`weinstitute on all grounds andall claims raised in the Petition. See PGS
`
`Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (indicating
`
`that a decision whetherto institute an inter partes review “requires a simple
`
`yes-or-noinstitution choice respecting a petition, embracingall challenges
`
`includedin the petition”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide November 2019 (“CPTG”), 5!! (“In institutingatrial, the
`
`Board will either (1) institute as to all claims challenged in the petition and
`
`on all groundsin the petition, or (2) institute on no claims and deny
`
`institution. The Board will not institute on fewer than all claimsorall
`
`challengesin a petition.” (citations omitted)). Therefore, at this stage of the
`
`proceeding,it is not necessary for us to provide an assessmentof every
`
`challenge raised by Petitioner, especially as Patent Ownerhasnot presented
`
`any responsive argument.
`
`Nevertheless, we note that Petitioner provides detailed explanations
`
`supported by the testimony of Dr. Bederson, andspecific citations to Jahier
`indicating where in the reference Petitioner argues the additional limitations
`
`of claims 8, 14, and 19-24 are disclosed. Pet. 45-51. Accordingly,at this
`
`stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded the information presented in the
`
`Petition establishes there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail with respect to claims 8, 14, and 19-24.
`
`E. Obviousness Grounds
`
`As noted above, because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the 790 patentis
`
`unpatentable, weinstitute on all grounds andall claimsraised in the Petition.
`Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding,it is not necessary for us to
`
`Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`provide an assessment of every groundraised by Petitioner, especially as
`
`Patent Ownerhas not presented any responsive argument.
`Nevertheless, we note that Petitioner provides detailed explanations
`
`supported by the testimony of Dr. Bederson andspecific citations to the
`
`relevant references indicating where in the reference Petitioner argues the
`
`limitations of claims 1-24 are taught, and whya person ofordinary skill in
`
`the art would have combined or modified the teachings of the relevant
`
`references. See Pet. 17-67. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we
`
`are persuaded the information presented in the Petition establishes there is a
`
`reasonablelikelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to claims 1—
`
`24 based on the obviousness groundsin the Petition.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Following 35 U.S.C. § 314 we have determined whetherthetotality of
`
`the information presentedat this stage showsthere is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the Petition. And because Petitioner has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the
`
`790 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds andall claimsraised
`
`in the Petition.
`
`Ourfactual findings, conclusions of law, and determinationsat this
`
`stage of the proceeding are preliminary, and based on the evidentiary record
`
`developed thus far. This is not a final decision as to the patentability of
`
`claims for which inter partes reviewis instituted. Our final decision will be
`
`based on the record as fully developed duringtrial.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00515
`Patent 9,024,790 B2
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDEREDthat, that an inter partes review ofall challenged claims
`
`of the ’790 patent is instituted with respectto all groundsset forth in the
`
`Petition; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review ofthe ’790 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`entry date of this Decision, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37
`C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given oftheinstitution ofa trial.
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Marc Pensabene
`
`Nicholas Whilt
`
`Brian Cook
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERSLLP
`mpensabene@omm.com
`nwhilt@omm.com
`bcook@omm.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kent Shum
`Neil A. Rubin
`Russ August & Kabat
`kshum@raklaw.com
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`
`18
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket