Paper 11
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: June 27, 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
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: June 27, 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
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`In a decision entered June 11, 2014 (Paper 8, “Decision”), the Board
`
`granted Petitioner’s request for inter partes review as to claims 1, 2, 8, 14-
`
`17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 30, 36-39, 42, and 43 of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 B2 on
`
`the ground of obviousness over Pandit (U.S. 5,859,636). We denied the
`
`request with respect to any other challenges. Petitioner has filed a timely
`
`motion for rehearing (Paper 10, “Req. Reh’g”).
`
`A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel reviews the decision for an
`
`abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).
`
`For the reasons that follow, the request for rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Petitioner requests rehearing with regard to the denial of inter partes
`
`review of claims 1, 13, 18, 19, and 23 on the ground of obviousness over
`
`Luciw (U.S. 5,644,735). Req. Reh’g 1. Petitioner argues that we erred in
`
`the interpretation of language present in claim 1. Each of claims 13, 18, 19,
`
`and 23 depends from claim 1. Accordingly, our review of the Decision for
`
`an abuse of discretion will be limited to consideration of claim 1 in view of
`
`Petitioner’s challenge over Luciw.
`
`Petitioner argues that we failed to give certain language in claim 1 its
`
`required broadest reasonable interpretation. Req. Reh’g 1-4. Specifically,
`
`as we noted at page 13 of the Decision, 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
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`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.” The
`
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet”) did not offer any construction for the terms in the
`
`language in question. See Pet. 6-7. Petitioner notes that neither the Decision
`
`nor Patent Owner in its preliminary response cited to a definition in the
`
`specification of the ’843 patent that would limit the language to something
`
`narrower than its broadest reasonable construction. Req. Reh’g 3-4.
`
`Petitioner, for its part, does not point to any special definitions in the
`
`specification.
`
`Because the language in question is clear on its face, we disagree with
`
`the construction offered in the Request for Rehearing. Petitioner submits
`
`that nothing in the language requires an analysis to determine the first type
`
`of information. Req. Reh’g 3. According to Petitioner:
`
`Such an analysis would yield a “type” as an answer. The actual
`claim language, however, requires the system to determine “if”
`the first information falls into the set of types that can be
`searched. This determination yields a “yes” or “no” answer:
`“yes” the information is of a type that can be searched, or “no”
`it is not.
`
`Req. Reh’g 3.
`
`We agree with Petitioner to the extent that the “determination” may
`
`reduce to a “yes” or a “no” answer. Claim 1 recites, however, “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” (emphasis added). The first information is analyzed to
`
`determine if the first information is a particular type of information, or “falls
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00208
`Patent 7,917,843 B2
`
`
`
`into the set of types that can be searched,” as expressed by Petitioner (id.), in
`
`order to reach the “yes” or the “no” answer. Petitioner is correct in its
`
`assessment that the Decision “appears to have interpreted the analyzing
`
`limitation to require an analysis to determine the type of the first information
`
`in the document.” Id. at 2. Petitioner has not, however, demonstrated such
`
`interpretation to be in error.
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and re-arguments with
`
`respect to how Luciw is deemed to teach the “analyzing” limitation of claim
`
`1. Req. Reh’g 4-10. Because the allegations are premised on an unfounded
`
`claim interpretation, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or
`
`overlooked anything in making our determinations. We reiterate that we
`
`find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive as to why, in view of the
`
`information presented in the petition, Petitioner failed to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its § 103(a) challenge over
`
`Luciw. Decision 13-14.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has not carried its burden of
`
`demonstrating that the Board’s Decision misapprehended or overlooked any
`
`matters. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
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
