throbber
Paper No. 8
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: June 11, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC., and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC (collectively
`
`“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-44 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`7,917,843 B2 (“the ’843 patent”) (Ex. 1001) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319.
`
`
`
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Arendi S.A.R.L. (“Patent Owner”) submitted a preliminary
`
`response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) on March 12, 2014. Paper 6 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 2, 8, 14-17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 30, 36-39, 42, and 43 of the ’843 patent.
`
`We do not institute review of challenged claims 3-7, 9-13, 18, 19, 22, 25-29,
`
`31-35, 40, 41, and 44.
`
`
`
`The Challenged Patent
`
`The ’843 patent relates to a computer program that receives
`
`information typed by a user into a document (as in a word processor) and
`
`searches an external source, such as a database, to determine if the typed
`
`information exists in the database. The computer program may add a user-
`
`selectable button to the word processor that causes execution of another
`
`program to receive the typed information and to search the database. Ex.
`
`1001, col. 3, ll. 35-54. Consequently, the user does not have to learn how to
`
`use and have access to the database. Id. at col. 1, ll. 43-49.
`
`Figure 3 of the ’843 patent is reproduced below.
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is said to be a screen shot that illustrates the inputting of a
`
`name to be searched and an address handling button within a word
`
`processor. Id. at col. 2, ll. 51-54. The user has typed the name of an existing
`
`contact 40. The user selects button 42, marked “OneButton.” In response,
`
`the program of the invention retrieves existing contact 40 from the document
`
`and searches a database for the name of the existing contact. Id. at col. 7, ll.
`
`30-37.
`
`Figure 4 of the ’843 patent is reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is said to be a screen shot illustrating a retrieved address in a
`
`word processor. Id. at col. 2, ll. 55-57. The user has typed a name and new
`
`address of existing contact 44. The user selects “OneButton” 42 and the
`
`program of the invention retrieves existing contact 44 from the document
`
`and searches a database for the name of the existing contact. Id. at col. 8, ll.
`
`13-19.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`
`
`
`
`1. A computer-implemented method for finding data
`related to the contents of a document using a first computer
`program running on a computer, the method comprising:
`
`displaying the document electronically using the first
`computer program;
`
`while the document is being displayed, analyzing, in a
`computer process, first information from the document to
`determine if the first information is at least one of a plurality of
`types of information that can be searched for in order to find
`second information related to the first information;
`
`retrieving the first information;
`
`providing an input device, configured by the first
`computer program, that allows a user to enter a user command
`to initiate an operation, the operation comprising (i) performing
`a search using at least part of the first information as a search
`term in order to find the second information, of a specific type
`or types, associated with the search term in an information
`source external to the document, wherein the specific type or
`types of second information is dependent at least in part on the
`type or types of the first information, and (ii) performing an
`action using at least part of the second information;
`
`in consequence of receipt by the first computer program
`of the user command from the input device, causing a search for
`the search term in the information source, using a second
`computer program, in order to find second information related
`to the search term; and
`
`if searching finds any second information related to the
`search term, performing the action using at least part of the
`second information, wherein the action is of a type depending at
`least in part on the type or types of the first information.
`
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`
`
`
`
`According to the parties, the ’843 patent is involved in the following
`
`lawsuits: Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:12-cv-01596-LPS (D. Del.);
`
`and Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 1:12-cv-01601-LPS (D.
`
`Del.); Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00920 (D. Del.); Arendi
`
`S.A.R.L. v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00919 (D. Del.); Arendi S.A.R.L. v.
`
`HTC Corp., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01600 (D. Del.); Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Sony
`
`Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., No. 1: 12-cv-01602 (D. Del.); Arendi
`
`S.A.R.L. v. Nokia Corporation, et al., No. 1:12-2cv-01599 (D. Del.); Arendi
`
`S.A.R.L. v. Blackberry Limited, et al., No. 1:12-cv-01597 (D. Del.); Arendi
`
`S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-015959 (D. Del.); and
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., No. 1:12--cv01598
`
`(D. Del.). According to Patent Owner, patents related to the ’843 patent are
`
`involved in the following inter partes reviews: IPR2014-00206, IPR2014-
`
`00207, IPR2014-00203, and IPR2014-00214.
`
`
`
`Prior Art
`
`Miller
`
`Luciw
`
`Pandit
`
`
`
`
`
`US 5,946,647
`
`Aug. 31, 1999
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`US 5,644,735
`
`Jul. 1, 1997
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`US 5,859,636
`
`Jan. 12, 1999
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Miller et al., From Documents to Objects, An Overview of LiveDoc, 30(2)
`
`SIGCHI (April 1998) (Ex. 1010) (“LiveDoc”).
`
`Bonura et al., Drop Zones, An Extension to LiveDoc, 30(2) SIGCHI (April
`
`1998) (Ex. 1010) (“Drop Zones”).
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Pet. 8):
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`
`
`LiveDoc and Drop Zones
`
`Miller
`
`Luciw
`
`Pandit
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`1-44
`
`1-44
`
`1-7, 10-29, and 32-44
`
`1, 2, 8, 14-17, 20, 21, 23, 24,
`30, 36-39, 42, and 43
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the Leahy-
`
`Smith America Invents Act (AIA), the Board will construe the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable interpretation. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012). The claim language should be read in light of the
`
`specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
`
`re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The
`
`Office must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language,
`
`taking into account any definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing
`
`In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). There is a “heavy
`
`presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`The “ordinary and customary meaning” is that which the term would have to
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art in question. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`
`
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`Providing An Input Device, Configured by
`
`the First Computer Program
`
`Each of the independent claims (1, 20, 23, and 42) contains the phrase
`
`“providing an input device, configured by the first computer program.” The
`
`’843 patent indicates that an “input device” can be a touch screen button, a
`
`keyboard button, an icon, a menu choice, or a voice command device,
`
`suitable for calling an external program from a word processor. See Ex.
`
`1001, col. 3, ll. 35-54. Petitioner submits that the ’843 patent specification
`
`“gives no guidance” regarding how the input device is “configured by” the
`
`first computer program. Pet. 7. Indeed, it appears that no form of the word
`
`“configure” is used in the patent’s description of the input device as it relates
`
`to a computer program. On the evidence before us, it appears that the phrase
`
`in question was added to the claims during prosecution, with no discussion
`
`as to how the input device may be “configured by” the first computer
`
`program, nor any indication as to how the phrase might be deemed to
`
`distinguish over the prior art. See Ex. 1003 at 9-19.
`
`Patent Owner provides a general dictionary definition to indicate that
`
`“configure” means “to design, arrange, set up, or shape with a view to
`
`specific applications or uses.” Prelim. Resp. 7 citing Ex. 2001 at 1. Based
`
`on this definition, Patent Owner submits that “providing an input device,
`
`configured by the first computer program” should be construed as “an input
`
`device, set up by the first computer program for use.” Prelim. Resp. 7.
`
`Patent Owner also contends that the claims require “providing” the input
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`device, in addition to the device being “configured by” the computer
`
`
`
`program (id. at 7-8), but does not offer any interpretation for what
`
`“providing” of the input device might require.
`
`Although claims 23 and 42 are drawn to “[a]t least one non-transitory
`
`computer readable medium,” the “providing” of an input device is in the
`
`form of a method step in all the independent claims. The phrase in question
`
`does not specify that the first computer program “provides” an input device.
`
`We interpret “providing” an input device merely as requiring the presence of
`
`the device; that is, the input device is a structure that exists in steps that
`
`“allow[] a user to enter a user command to initiate an operation,” as claimed.
`
`For purposes of this decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction
`
`that “an input device, configured by the first computer program” means that
`
`the input device is set up by the first computer program for use. We agree
`
`with Petitioner (Pet. 7) to the extent that the “input device” is an interface to
`
`receive a user command, such as a user-selectable area or icon on a
`
`computer screen.
`
`
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`LiveDoc and Drop Zones
`
`Petitioner submits that LiveDoc and Drop Zones teach a computer-
`
`implemented method for finding data related to the contents of a document
`
`that includes displaying the document electronically using a first computer
`
`program. Pet. 12 (claim chart). The document shown in Figure 2 of Drop
`
`Zones (Ex. 1006 at 7)1 is displayed by using a text entry application
`
`
`1 Although the Petition cites to page numbers in the LiveDoc and Drop
`Zones references, we cite to corresponding pages in Exhibit 1006.
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`program, LiveSimpleText, which the Petition maps to the claimed “first
`
`
`
`computer program.” Pet. 12. For the limitation of “providing an input
`
`device, configured by the first computer program,” Petitioner acknowledges
`
`that the “input device” in the reference (the highlighted area shown in Figure
`
`2 of LiveDoc) is not configured by the text entry application program. The
`
`reference, instead, teaches that LiveDoc “knows” where the structures
`
`appear in the text passed to it, but LiveDoc “has no idea” where in the
`
`window those characters physically appear. That information is held by the
`
`application, not by LiveDoc. Hence, LiveDoc must ask the application for
`
`the information about the structures it has found “via a callback” to the
`
`application. Pet. 13-14; Ex. 1006 at 8. To make up for the admitted
`
`deficiency of the references, Petitioner alleges that “it would have been
`
`obvious for LiveDoc to contact the word processor via callback and inform
`
`it of the position of the detected structures within text, such that the word
`
`processor would then construct the highlights (input device) by mapping
`
`positions in text to positions in the visible window.” Pet. 14. Petitioner
`
`refers, for support, to the Declaration of Dr. Daniel A. Menascé.
`
` Dr. Menascé testifies that the “approach” that is not described in
`
`LiveDoc would be “equivalent” and “would yield the same predictable
`
`result” to that described by the reference, apparently because it “would have
`
`been a predictable modification of LiveDoc that was well within ordinary
`
`skill, in order to perform a known function of standard word processing
`
`programs.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 61. Neither Petitioner nor Declarant, however,
`
`points to anything in the record to demonstrate existence of the asserted
`
`“known function of standard word processing programs” at the time of
`
`invention of the claimed subject matter of the ’843 patent. Expert testimony
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is
`
`
`
`based is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`We are persuaded by Patent Owner that Petitioner’s allegation that it
`
`would have been obvious to change the functionality of LiveDoc and the
`
`associated text entry application program in a way that is consistent with the
`
`claimed invention is, in effect, mere hindsight-driven argument. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 27 n.1.
`
`Although the obviousness analysis should “take account
`of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would employ,” the Supreme Court emphasized
`that this evidentiary flexibility does not relax the requirement
`that, “[t]o facilitate review, this analysis should be made
`explicit.” Id. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
`(2007)], 127 S.Ct. 1727 (citing [In re] Kahn, 441 F.3d [977,]
`988 [(Fed. Cir. 2006)]) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds
`cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead,
`there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)).
`
`Perfect Web Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009). In short, Petitioner’s allegations fail to “specify where each element
`
`of the claim is found . . . .” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`Each of the independent claims (1, 20, 23, and 42) contains
`
`substantially similar limitations that are material to the deficiency with
`
`respect to what the “first computer program” requires. In view of the
`
`foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of claims 1-44 in a
`
`§ 103(a) challenge over LiveDoc and Drop Zones.
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`Miller
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner submits that the “first computer program” of claim 1 is
`
`taught by Miller’s word processor (application 167) that is depicted in
`
`Figure 1 of the reference. Pet. 25-26. The “detect structures” button 520
`
`(Miller Fig. 5) is an input device that allows the user to enter a command for
`
`initiating program 165. Id. at 26.
`
`Figure 5 of Miller shows window 510 that presents an exemplary
`
`document. The window includes button 520 for initiating program 165. Ex.
`
`1007, col. 5, ll. 19-24. Application (word processor) 167 presents data on
`
`the output device to a user. Id. at col. 3, ll. 34-67. Although window 510
`
`includes button 520 for initiating program 165, Petitioner does not allege
`
`that button 510 is provided by the word processor. Petitioner submits,
`
`instead, that a modification must be made to the “first computer program” in
`
`Miller to include the “input device.” “It would have been obvious for the
`
`word processor program 167 to provide an interface, such as button 520, to
`
`receive a user command.” Pet. 26. Petitioner cites to, as support, the
`
`declaration of Dr. Menascé.
`
`Dr. Menascé testifies that it was well known to configure word
`
`processing programs to add graphical user interface (GUI) elements, such as
`
`additional menu options or buttons, to provide desired functionality. Ex.
`
`1002 ¶ 71. Dr. Menascé refers to a paper and a book, each co-authored by
`
`Declarant, which are asserted to discuss tools relating to “Visual Basic code”
`
`for customized GUI elements. Id. Declarant does not, however, provide a
`
`copy of relevant sections of the paper and book as exhibits, nor indicate or
`
`explain how the disclosures (not provided) might have led one of ordinary
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`skill in the art to modify Miller consistent with the requirements of claim 1,
`
`
`
`to support the allegation of what “would have been obvious.” We find
`
`Petitioner’s evidentiary basis for the allegation to be lacking.
`
`Each of the other independent claims (20, 23, and 42) contains
`
`substantially similar limitations that are material to the deficiency with
`
`respect to what the “first computer program” requires. In view of the
`
`foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of claims 1-44 in a
`
`§ 103(a) challenge over Miller.
`
`
`
`Luciw
`
`Claim 1 of the ’843 patent recites “while the document is being
`
`displayed, analyzing, in a computer process, first information from the
`
`document to determine if the first information is at least one of a plurality of
`
`types of information that can be searched for in order to find second
`
`information related to the first information.” For this limitation, Petitioner
`
`points to description in Luciw of entering information into a smart field.
`
`Pet. 37. Petitioner also refers to an “implicit assist” as taught by Luciw. Id.
`
`at 38.
`
`Luciw describes entering information into a smart field (e.g., Fig. 4b;
`
`“Name” field 175 in window 170). Ex. 1008, col. 8, ll. 15-18. The
`
`reference also describes an “implicit assist” action that may be triggered by
`
`writing in the notepad outside of a smart field. Id. at col. 8, ll. 30-41.
`
`As Patent Owner argues, however, by the act of using a smart field,
`
`the user informs the computing device what type of information the user is
`
`entering. No analysis to identify the type of information is performed or
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`needed. Prelim. Resp. 50. For example, as shown in Luciw’s Figure 4b,
`
`
`
`information may be entered into “Name” field 175 or “Phone” field 177,
`
`thus identifying the type of information.
`
`Further, as noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 51-53), Petitioner
`
`has not shown that analyzing entered text is part of Luciw’s “implicit assist”
`
`operation. Petitioner submits that “the device in Luciw analyzes a user’s
`
`entry (first information from the document) to determine if implicit
`
`assistance is possible and the kind of implicit assist indicated (determine
`
`whether first information can be used to find second information).” Pet. 38
`
`(referring to Ex. 1008, col. 10, ll. 15-20 and col. 8, ll. 7-13; Figs. 3 and 4a).
`
`However, determining if implicit assist is possible, and “the kind” of implicit
`
`assist indicated, has not been shown to be an analysis of the information to
`
`determine if it is a type of information that can be searched for in order to
`
`find second information related to the first information, in accordance with
`
`the requirements of the claim. As Patent Owner points out, Luciw does not
`
`teach analyzing the information to determine information type in the implicit
`
`assist operation. As shown in Luciw’s Figure 3, “Implicit Assist” (step 104)
`
`if enacted, results in “Query Database” (step 106), with no intervening step
`
`of determining the type of information. Ex. 1008, Fig. 3.
`
`Each of the other independent claims (20, 23, and 42) contains
`
`substantially similar limitations that are material to the deficiency with
`
`respect to what the “analyzing” requires. In view of the foregoing, we
`
`conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail with respect to any of claims 1-7, 10-29, and 32-44 in a
`
`§ 103(a) challenge over Luciw.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`Pandit
`
`
`
`
`
`Each of the independent claims of the ’843 patent recites “performing
`
`a search . . . wherein the specific type or types of second information [found]
`
`is dependent at least in part on the type or types of the first information [used
`
`as a search term].” Prelim. Resp. 53. Petitioner submits (Pet. 50-51) that
`
`Pandit discloses performing a search in an information source external to the
`
`document, which is a further requirement of the claim. Petitioner does not
`
`seem to allege that the disclosed dictionary search relates to the first and
`
`second types of information dependency in the claim. Petitioner submits,
`
`however, that Pandit discloses adding an identified number to an address
`
`book. Pet. 51; Ex. 1009, col. 2, l. 56 - col. 3, l. 10; Figs. 1d and 1f.
`
`Figure 1f of Pandit is reproduced below.
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1f is said to show a graphical representation of text on a video
`
`monitor. Ex. 1009, col. 1, ll. 59-60. The Figure shows that text (telephone
`
`number 16) has been selected by the user and highlighted. Pull down menu
`
`17 (“Phone #”) in menu bar 13 has been selected, yielding pulled-down
`
`menu 20. Links in pulled-down menu 20 allow the user to, for example,
`
`select the link “Add to address book. . .” in order to call a program to add the
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`selected text (telephone number 16) to the address book. Id. at col. 2, l. 1 –
`
`
`
`col. 3, l. 10.
`
`In order to avoid multiple entries of the same address, Petitioner
`
`submits that it would have been obvious that the first step in adding to an
`
`address book is to search the address book to determine if an entry already
`
`exists with the entered information, and displaying any associated
`
`information that is located. Pet. 51. Petitioner refers to the declaration of
`
`Dr. Menascé. Id. Dr. Menascé concurs. Ex. 1002 ¶ 99.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed search would fail to
`
`meet the requirements of the claim. The search for pre-existing entries
`
`would be a search for a duplicate telephone number. According to Patent
`
`Owner, a search for duplicate entries would be a search for “first
`
`information,” not a search “in order to find the second information, of a
`
`specific type or types,” as required by claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 58-59.
`
`We find Patent Owner’s argument to be unpersuasive. Pandit teaches
`
`that, from pulled down-menu 20 (Fig. 1f), programs that can be called may
`
`include a writeable computer database of telephone and telefax numbers.
`
`Ex. 1009, col. 3, ll. 1-3. Dynamically linked libraries may contain
`
`subroutines for implementing the invention with respect to telephone and
`
`telefax numbers. Id. at col. 4, ll. 20-31. It would be reasonable to presume,
`
`as a matter of common sense, that the subroutine would search for duplicate
`
`telephone numbers and, upon locating a duplicate entry, both the first
`
`information and associated (or second) information, such as the name and/or
`
`address associated with the telephone number, would be displayed to the
`
`user. A person having a bound paper address book would look first to
`
`determine if a potential new contact had been entered previously. A
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`
`computerized search for duplicate entries would be a search “in order to find
`
`the second information, of a specific type or types,” as claimed, in the same
`
`sense that the ’843 patent’s search is in order to find the second information.
`
`As shown, for example, in Figure 1 of the ’843 patent, a name (first
`
`information) can be searched for in a database (12), and more than one
`
`possible contact or address (containing second information) may be found to
`
`match with the first information (18). The first and the second information
`
`are displayed to the user for user action (20). Searching a database for a
`
`telephone number in Pandit’s system, and displaying results, would be no
`
`different in substance from searching a database for a name, and displaying
`
`results, in the disclosed example in the ’843 patent. “What matters is the
`
`objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is
`
`invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419
`
`(2007).
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence regarding the dependent
`
`claims as well and, based on this record, are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in the § 103(a) challenge
`
`of claims 1, 2, 8, 14-17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 30, 36-39, 42, and 43 of the ’843
`
`patent over Pandit.
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the
`
`obviousness ground of unpatentability based on Pandit.
`
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`
`any challenged claim.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to ’843 patent
`
`claims 1, 2, 8, 14-17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 30, 36-39, 42, and 43 on the
`
`obviousness ground based on Pandit;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all other
`
`grounds set forth in the Petition;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ’843 patent is instituted with trial 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 given of the institution of the trial; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`
`identified immediately above and no other ground is authorized for the ’843
`
`patent claims.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`
`David L. Fehrman
`Mehran Arjomand
`Morrison & Foerster LLP
`dfehrman@mofo.com
`marjomand@mofo.com
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`Zhuanjia Gu
`Turner Boyd LLP
`smith@turnerboyd.com
`gu@turnerboyd.com
`
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Robert M. Asher
`Bruce D. Sunstein
`Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
`rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`bsunstein@sunsteinlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20

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