`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 50
`Entered: July 17, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PRIMERA TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AUTOMATIC MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS, INC.,
`D/B/A ACCUPLACE,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Primera Technology, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requested inter partes review
`
`of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,013,884 B2 (“the ’884 patent”) pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319. Paper 6 (“Pet.”). We granted the Petition and
`
`instituted trial for all asserted claims. Paper 19 (“Dec. on Inst.”). Although
`
`Petitioner proposed six grounds of unpatentability, we instituted trial on
`
`three grounds:
`
`a) obviousness of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 over Hodai1 and
`
`Levine;2
`
`b) obviousness of claims 6 and 16 over Hodai, Levine, and Geddes;3 and
`
`c) obviousness of claims 9 and 19 over Hodai, Levine, and Bouchard.4
`
`During trial, Automatic Manufacturing Systems, Inc., d/b/a Accuplace
`
`(“Patent Owner”), filed a Patent Owner Response (“PO Resp.”) addressing
`
`the three obviousness grounds and relying on the declaration of Dr. Charles
`
`DeBoer (Exhibit 2001). Paper 27. Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (“Pet. Reply”) relying primarily on additional prior art
`
`references and on Petitioner’s cross-examination of Dr. DeBoer (Exhibit
`
`1018). Paper 30.
`
`
`
`1 JP Patent Pub. No. 2003-312063 (“Hodai”) (Ex. 1003). Here we refer to
`the English translation (Ex. 1003) of the original reference (Ex. 1002).
`Petitioner has provided an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the
`translation. See Ex. 1003; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,676,910 (“Levine”) (Ex. 1004).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,629,792 B2 (“Geddes”) (Ex. 1005).
`4 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0219344 A1 (“Bouchard”) (Ex. 1006).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`Both parties filed Motions to Exclude. In particular, Petitioner filed a
`
`motion seeking exclusion of Dr. DeBoer’s testimony. Paper 36. Patent
`
`Owner’s motion seeks to exclude the additional prior art references on which
`
`Petitioner relies in its Reply. Paper 43.
`
`An oral hearing was held on April 28, 2014, and a transcript of the
`
`hearing is included in the record (Paper 49) (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has met its
`
`burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-20 of the
`
`’884 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A. THE ’884 PATENT (EXHIBIT 1001)
`
`The ’884 patent5 relates to “the attachment of information to objects,”
`
`and more specifically to “attaching medical information to glass surfaces
`
`such [as] glass slides during the processing of these slides.” Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 1, ll. 15-20. The patent describes the problem in the prior art of the
`
`potential error in matching patient information to a specimen slide. Id. at
`
`col. 1, ll. 21-48. One solution for preventing the error is to attach the patient
`
`
`
`5 The ’884 patent, titled “Device and Method for Printing Information on
`Glass Surfaces,” issued on September 6, 2011, based on Application
`12/147,407, filed on June 26, 2008, which claims priority to Provisional
`Application 61/035,016, filed on March 9, 2008. On September 6, 2013,
`Patent Owner filed Application 14/020,322 for reissue of the ’884 patent,
`seeking to add an additional claim 21 to the patent. The reissue application
`is pending.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`information at the time the specimen is placed on the slide. Id. at col. 1,
`
`ll. 49-51. The patent describes that at the time of the invention there were
`
`various known ways of marking specimen slides: printing labels and
`
`attaching them by hand or machine, printing on the slide with ink jet
`
`printers, and marking the slide with laser beams or diamond scribing. Id. at
`
`col. 1, ll. 60-65. According to the patent, however, these machines were
`
`large, complex, expensive, and costly to operate (id. at col. 1, l. 65 – col. 2,
`
`l. 3), provided no ability to verify the correctness of the information marked
`
`on the slide (id. at col. 2, ll. 9-15), were hazardous to operate (id. at col. 2,
`
`ll. 22-23), or produced dust byproduct (id. at col. 2, ll. 21-22). The
`
`’884 patent identifies a need for an “economical method that very accurately
`
`matches and places patient information on patient specimen slides, which
`
`provides these features with a maximum of flexibility for use in a diagnostic
`
`laboratory.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 24-27.
`
`In the summary of the invention, the patent describes the printing
`
`device as a device that prints medical information onto slides that are stored
`
`in a slide storage section, where the printing is performed with ink media
`
`tape and a print head to transfer the medical information onto the surface of
`
`the slide. Id. at col. 2, ll. 34-44. Reproduced below is an annotated Figure 2
`
`of the ’884 patent showing a front side perspective view of a printing device
`
`of a preferred embodiment of the invention and highlighting ink tape roll
`
`170 and tape 180. See Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 39-41.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 2, the printing device includes slide storage
`
`section 102 for loading a plurality of slides and a printing section that
`
`includes print head assembly 166 with print head 162, take-up reel 168, ink
`
`tape roll 170, tension roller 172, driven roller 174, and support roller 176.
`
`Id. at col. 6, ll. 55-60. During printing, a slide carrier is “moved to the left
`
`incrementally, per print row, while in contact with the tape 180.” Id. at
`
`col. 6, ll. 63-65. “This action draws the tape from the print rol[l] 170, such
`
`that an unprinted section of the tape 180 is interposed between the next print
`
`row beneath the print head 162.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 65-67.
`
`After printing the last row on the slide, “the print head and slide move
`
`to a non-contact position, and the slide transport moves the carrier with the
`
`completed slide to an output section.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 51-54; see also id. at
`
`col. 6, ll. 16-18 (describing that a slide shuttles moves to the right to eject
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`the slide into an output tray). “The motion then is reversed . . . to acquire
`
`another slide and repeat the printing process.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 48-52.
`
`The patent further describes that the printing device provides the
`
`“ability to print any specific information onto a slide 140 upon request.”
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 24-25. “The information can be manually entered for
`
`each slide or series of slides, downloaded from a database, scanned in via a
`
`bar code scanner, and the like.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 25-28. “Alternately, the
`
`information can be obtained directly from the microtome.” Id. at col. 7,
`
`ll. 28-29. The patent adds that “[t]he ability to print upon demand helps
`
`ensure the printed information matches the desired information respective to
`
`the material deposited upon the slide.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 29-32.
`
`B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
`
`Challenged claims 1 and 11 of the ’884 patent are the only
`
`independent claims at issue:
`
`1. A method of transferring information onto
`surfaces of objects comprising:
`inputting information into an input device, the input
`device transforming the information into an image for
`storage in a printing memory as a stored image;
`positioning one or more glass objects in an object
`storage section by a printing device;
`removing one glass object from the storage location
`in a glass object carrier of the printing device;
`indexing the glass object in the carrier to initialize
`the printing;
`transporting the object to a first position under a
`print head of a printing means for transferring such
`information to the object;
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`positioning an ink media tape from a driven feeder
`between the print head and the glass object;
`moving the print head and glass object together to
`cause the tape to contact the glass object in the carrier;
`heating, as required, at least one pixel element in a
`predetermined manner in the print head to print a row
`from the stored image by a thermal process to cause an
`inked media to transfer onto the object as determined by
`the stored image;
`advancing the tape and indexing the object to a next
`print row and repeating the steps from positioning the tape
`to transfer the desired information to the object;
`after printing the last row of data, separating the
`print head and object to an non-contact position;
`transporting the glass object by the carrier to an
`output section;
`removing the glass object wherein the object is
`mechanically removed into the output section; and
`repeating said method as many times as necessary
`as determined by the operator.
`
`11. A printing device for attaching information to a
`glass like object, the printing device comprising:
`an
`input/interface means
`for
`transferring
`information to the printing device;
`a processing means for receiving the information
`from the input/interface means and transforming the
`information into an image for printing, the image being
`stored in a memory of the processing means;
`a control means for the input/interface means and
`the processing means;
`a storage section for the object, the storage section
`being an integral part of the printing device;
`a shuttle having a carrier for removing one of the
`objects from the storage section in a controlled manner
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`and indexing the object for printing, the shuttle moving
`the object so indexed to a first print position;
`a printing section, the printing section comprising:
`a tape feeder, the taper feeder being driven by a
`processing means, a tape from the tape feeder being
`positioned for printing in close proximity to the glass like
`object in the first print position;
`a print head, the print head having a plurality of
`heating pixel elements in a row for printing the stored
`image by a thermal process to cause an inked media to
`transfer onto the object as determined by the stored image,
`after printing data in the first print position, the print head
`and tape are advanced to the next printing position, this is
`repeated until the stored image is printed on the glass like
`object, after printing the stored image, the print head and
`glass like object separate to a non-contact position, and
`the carrier moves the glass like object therefrom; and
`an output section, the object with a printed image
`thereon is moved to the output section, after which
`another glass like object is removed from the storage
`section by the carrier if so required and the process
`repeated as necessary.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). Claim terms are also 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`Cir. 2007). Also, we must be careful not to read a particular embodiment
`
`appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is
`
`broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
`
`specification”).
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted various claim terms of
`
`the ’884 patent as follows:
`
`Term
`
`Interpretation
`
`“carrier” (claims 1 and 11)
`
`“shuttle” (claim 11)
`
`a structure, which may be fixed
`or may move, that carries an
`object
`
`a structure that moves back and
`forth to move an object
`
`“printing means” (claim 1)
`
`a structure for printing
`
`“input/interface means” (claim
`11)
`
`Function: transferring
`information to the printing
`device
`
`Corresponding structures
`include: (1) an Ethernet
`network interface; (2) user
`interface, including a control
`panel for manually inputting
`information; (3) a bar code
`scanner; and (4) interface to a
`microtome
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`Term
`
`Interpretation
`
`“processing means” (claim 11)
`
`Function: receiving the
`information from the
`input/interface means and
`transforming the information
`into an image for printing.
`
`
`
`Corresponding structure
`includes a processor
`
`“control means” (claim 11)
`
`Function: control
`
`Corresponding structures
`include: (1) user interface
`section; and (2) a control panel
`
`Dec. on Inst. 10-16. Petitioner does not dispute these constructions. Patent
`
`Owner challenges the Board’s construction of all the above-listed terms,
`
`except “printing means” and “input/interface means,” and proposes
`
`constructions for terms that the Board did not construe. PO Resp. 8-23. We
`
`note that Patent Owner’s proposed challenge of the construction of “shuttle”
`
`and “carrier” does not appear to be dispositive of any issue at trial, because
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that the “shuttle” and “carrier” limitations are
`
`disclosed in the asserted references based on either Patent Owner’s or the
`
`Board’s construction of these terms. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments regarding “shuttle” and “carrier,” but see no reason to change our
`
`original constructions.
`
`Regarding the remaining terms that Patent Owner disputes, the
`
`construction for “processing means” is revised per the analysis that follows,
`
`and the construction for “control means” is not changed, as discussed below.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`The analysis below further addresses the claim terms not addressed in the
`
`Decision on Institution, terms which Patent Owner argues provide alleged
`
`distinctions over the asserted prior art.
`
`1. “printing means” (Claim 1)
`
`Patent Owner agrees with the Board’s construction of this term. PO
`
`Resp. 22-23. Accordingly, we adopt here the analysis and construction for
`
`the term “printing means” as set forth above, and in accordance with our
`
`Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 13-14.
`
`2. “operator” (Claims 1, 10, and 20)
`
`The Decision on Institution did not provide a construction for the term
`
`“operator.” This term appears as part of the “repeating” step recited in claim
`
`1. Claims 10 and 20 further recite that the “printing device is transportable
`
`by the operator.” Patent Owner contends that “the operator” is “the operator
`
`that determined the quantity of slides to be created by the printing device for
`
`each cassette and that placed specimens on the slides.” PO Resp. 9. We are
`
`not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments because they do not reflect the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language in light of the
`
`specification. Independent claims 1 and 11 (from which claims 10 and 20
`
`depend, respectively) are silent concerning the action of determining the
`
`quantity of slides to be created by the printing device for each cassette. The
`
`claims are silent also concerning the action of specimen placement on the
`
`slides by an operator of the printing device. Thus, neither action is anchored
`
`in the claim language or called for by the specification, which does not
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`define in any way the term “operator.” At best, the specification describes
`
`that an “operator can determine the quantity of slides to be
`
`created/identified.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 11-13 (emphasis added). This
`
`description provides that the operator “can” determine the quantity of slides,
`
`but does not limit the operator to performing such a task, which, again, the
`
`claims do not recite. Furthermore, the specification does not link the
`
`specimen placement with the actions of the operator because it describes that
`
`a “laboratory technician”—not an operator of the printing device—places
`
`the specimen on the slides (id. at col. 5, ll. 15-18). See PO Resp. 10 (arguing
`
`that this passage of the specification supports the contention that the operator
`
`places specimens on the slides).
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “operator” is one who
`
`operates the printing device. This interpretation is supported by the
`
`specification. For example, the specification states that the
`
`“operator/technician of the machine is either in the room or in an adjacent
`
`room.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 33-34 (emphasis added). The specification
`
`further provides that “[t]he operations of the printing device should be as
`
`simple as possible and minimize operator intervention, such as, for example,
`
`that required during single slide loading methods.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 21-24.
`
`“[T]he operator scans the cassette.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 46-55. And the
`
`“printing device should have . . . a user interface that is adjustable in
`
`direction to accommodate different operating locations and different
`
`operator heights.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 41-44. These passages confirm that the
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`term “operator” is used in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of the word: one who operates the printing device.6
`
`Based on the foregoing and applying the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation consistent with the specification, we construe “operator” to
`
`mean “one who operates the printing device.”
`
`3. “repeating” Step (Claim 1)
`
`The Decision on Institution did not provide a construction for the step
`
`of “repeating said method as many times as necessary as determined by the
`
`operator.” According to Patent Owner, this claim limitation should be
`
`clarified in two aspects. First, Patent Owner contends that the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of this limitation is “repeating each and every step of the
`
`method as many times as necessary.” PO Resp. 10 (emphasis in original).
`
`Second, Patent Owner contends that the phrase “as determined by the
`
`operator” means “as determined by the operator that determined the quantity
`
`of slides to be created by the printing device for each cassette and that
`
`placed specimens on the slides.” PO. Resp. 11. We agree with Patent
`
`Owner’s first contention, but we do not agree with the second contention for
`
`the reasons described with regard to the term “operator,” above.
`
`Inspection of the claim language itself—“repeating the method”—
`
`yields the conclusion that the phrase refers to each and every step of the
`
`
`
`6 See Definition of operator, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE ® DICTIONARY
`OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (2011), available at
`http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hmdictenglang/operator/0
`(Exhibit 3001).
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`method (other than the “repeating” step of the method itself), as recited.
`
`And although the specification is unclear regarding whether all the expressly
`
`recited steps are repeated, the plain language of the claim leaves no room for
`
`interpreting otherwise. See Ex. 1001, col. 4, l 58 – col. 5, l. 10 (stating that
`
`“this process is repeated,” but not describing whether the described
`
`“process” refers to all the steps from “inputting information” to “removing
`
`the glass object”).
`
`Based on the foregoing and the evidence in the record before us, we
`
`conclude that the “repeating” step, construed broadly, but reasonably in light
`
`of the specification, means “repeating each and every step as many times as
`
`necessary as determined by the operator.”
`
`4. “input device” (Claim 1)
`
`The Decision on Institution did not provide a construction for this
`
`term. In its response, Patent Owner proffers that the construction of “input
`
`device” is “a processor that transforms information into an image to be
`
`printed.” PO Resp. 14. We do not agree with Patent Owner because the
`
`proposed construction (1) is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the term, (2) imports extraneous limitations, and (3) improperly
`
`reads an embodiment into the claims.
`
`First, the term “input device” is used in the specification and recited in
`
`the claims in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
`
`For example, claim 1 recites “inputting information into an input device”
`
`and “the input device transforming the information into an image.” These
`
`functional limitations of “input device” reveal that, according to the
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`broadest, but reasonable interpretation, the term refers to a structure for
`
`handling input of information: accepting and transforming the information
`
`as recited. The specification confirms that “input device” is a structure for
`
`handling input of information by stating that, in one exemplary embodiment,
`
`“[a] person or input device inputs the medical information into a processor
`
`that prepares a rasterized image to be printed and stores this image in a
`
`memory of the processor.” Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 36-39 (emphasis added);
`
`col. 4, ll. 58-61. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`“input device” is not limited to a “processor that transforms information into
`
`an image to be printed,” as Patent Owner urges us to conclude.
`
`Second, the specification uses “input device” distinctly and separately
`
`from the processor. In the passages cited above, the “input device” is used
`
`to input the medical information into a processor. Id. The specification
`
`further describes the processor as rasterizing an image to be printed. Id.
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction attempts to narrow the claims to an
`
`unrecited structure of a processor, which is not called for expressly by the
`
`claim language. Lastly, Patent Owner’s proposed construction limits the
`
`“input device” to an embodiment of a processor, and ignores the function of
`
`inputting information into the processor that is described and recited.
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“input device” is a structure for handling input of information.
`
`5. “processing means” (Claim 11)
`
`We construed “processing means” as a means-plus-function term, in
`
`accordance with section 112, ¶ 6. Dec. on Inst. 15. We identified the
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`function as “receiving the information from the input/interface means and
`
`transforming the information into an image for printing.” Id. We identified
`
`the structure linked to the function as a processor. Id.
`
`Patent Owner disagrees with the identified function, but does not
`
`disagree with the identified structure. In particular, Patent Owner argues
`
`that the above-identified functions of receiving and transforming are not the
`
`only functions attributed to the “processing means.” PO Resp. 12. Claim 11
`
`recites an unidentified function in the following limitation: “a tape feeder,
`
`the tape feeder being driven by a processing means, a tape from the tape
`
`feeder being positioned for printing in close proximity to the glass like
`
`object in the first print position” (emphasis added). According to Patent
`
`Owner, the specification describes a processor as the “structure
`
`corresponding to the function of driving the tape feeder.” PO Resp. 12
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 41-43, col. 4, ll. 64-65).
`
`We are persuaded by the argument that claim 11 recites an additional
`
`function of driving the tape feeder. The claim language expressly attributes,
`
`albeit in passive voice, to the processing means, the function of driving a
`
`tape feeder. We do not agree, however, that the structure corresponding to
`
`that driving function is a processor. First, the passages Patent Owner cites
`
`do not support its contention, because they do not describe a processor in
`
`any discernible manner. For example, the first cited passage states that “[a]n
`
`ink media tape roll acting through a driven feeder provides, in a controlled
`
`manner, a coated tape between a print head and the slide.” Ex. 1001, col. 2,
`
`ll. 42-44 (emphasis added). The claims recite a “tape feeder” being
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`“driven,” and the specification refers to a “driven feeder”—the structure
`
`driving the feeder, however, is unknown from this passage. The second
`
`citation relied on by Patent Owner is virtually identical to the first citation
`
`and fares no better: “An ink media tape roll acting through a driven feeder
`
`provides a coated tape between the print head and the slide.” Id. at col. 4, ll.
`
`64-66 (emphasis added). These passive-voice sentences give us no clue as
`
`to the structure that drives the feeder.
`
`Furthermore, the asserted testimony of Charles DeBoer does not
`
`support the proposed construction. Dr. DeBoer declares that the ’884 patent
`
`discloses a printing section that includes a tape driven by the processor.
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 56, 60. Dr. DeBoer supports that statement by pointing to the
`
`passive-voice sentences discussed above. Id. at n.37. Dr. DeBoer also relies
`
`on a passage in column 6 that describes the printing section of the device
`
`having various components, including ink tape roll 170, tension roller 172,
`
`driven roller 174, and support roller 176. Id.; Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 55-62. In
`
`that passage, however, the only structure linked in any way to the function of
`
`“driving” is driven roller 174—no processor is described.
`
`Additional testimony of Dr. DeBoer regarding whether a processor
`
`drives the tape feeder is unpersuasive because that additional testimony is
`
`conclusory. For example, Dr. DeBoer states that “a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art understands that the processor performs the function of driving the
`
`tape feeder.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 63. Although the law does not require that a
`
`structure be identified explicitly, the specification must identify some
`
`structure that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand as
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation. See Atmel Corp. v.
`
`Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Where
`
`our reviewing court has found that the structure is a computer, without an
`
`express disclosure of that computer, the specification has shown clearly the
`
`intent to attribute to a computer the recited functions. See In re Dossel, 115
`
`F.3d 942, 946-47 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although the ’884 patent describes a
`
`processor, Dr. DeBoer does not show how the description of that processor
`
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the
`
`function of driving the tape feeder. Nor does he explain how the ’884 patent
`
`specification shows that the processor is intended to drive the tape feeder.
`
`Therefore, because of the conclusory nature of, and the lack of support in,
`
`the written description for Dr. DeBoer’s testimony in this regard, we do not
`
`find his testimony on that issue persuasive.
`
`We now turn to identifying the structure linked to the function of
`
`driving the tape feeder. “Application of § 112, ¶ 6 requires identification of
`
`the structure in the specification which performs the recited function.”
`
`Micro Chemical, Inc., v. Great Plains Chemical Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 1250,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). Further, the statute does not permit
`
`“incorporation of structure from the written description beyond that
`
`necessary to perform the claimed function.” Id. at 1258. The patent
`
`describes that a drive system is located in the rear of the machine, shown
`
`below in Figure 1B of the ’884 patent. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 24-26.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1B depicts stepper motor 152 that moves certain parts in the
`
`device, such as translating back and forth slide supports that are slideably
`
`mounted on guide shafts 148. Id. at col. 6, ll. 1-6. Inspection of Figure 1B
`
`also shows that belt 190 is coupled to motor 152 and engages what Figure 2
`
`depicts as take-up reel 168 and driven feeder 174, and that the motor thereby
`
`causes the rotation of the take-up reel and the driven feeder. Further, there is
`
`a direct relationship between the back and forth motion of the slide and
`
`feeding the ink media tape during printing. The ’884 patent confirms this
`
`relationship stating that “[t]he ink media moves in tandem with the motion
`
`of the slide, presenting a continuously fresh section of ink between the print
`
`head and the slide throughout the printing process.” Id. at Abstract
`
`(emphasis added). Indeed, the patent describes that during printing, the
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`action of the slide carrier moving to the left, per print row, “draws the tape
`
`from the print rol[l] 170, such that an unprinted section of the tape 180 is
`
`interposed between the next print row beneath the print head 162.” Id. at
`
`col. 6, ll. 65-67. The ’884 patent further describes driven roller 174 in
`
`connection with the printing section of the device shown in Figure 2. Id. at
`
`col. 6, ll. 55-60. Because Figures 1B and 2 support the conclusion that only
`
`the take-up reel and driven feeder are rotated by the motor during printing,
`
`those devices, when “driven,” feed the ink media tape in the printing device.
`
`Therefore, we conclude that the structure that drives the recited “tape
`
`feeder” is a motor.
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that the structures of the “processing
`
`means” linked to the three recited functions (receiving the information from
`
`the input/interface means, transforming the information into an image for
`
`printing, and driving the tape feeder) are a processor and a motor.
`
`6. “input/interface means” (Claim 11)
`
`Patent Owner provides its proposed construction for the term in
`
`accordance with section 112, ¶ 6, and argues that the corresponding
`
`structures for the limitation include “(1) an interface to an Ethernet network,
`
`(2) a user interface for manually obtaining information, (3) an interface to a
`
`bar code scanner, (4) an interface to a microtome, and (5) an interface to a
`
`database.” PO Resp. 23. We find that Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction does not differ materially from our construction. Further, we
`
`do not discern any argument by Patent Owner that our construction should
`
`be revisited. Id. Accordingly, the construction for the term “input/interface
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00196
`Patent 8,013,884 B2
`
`
`means” is as set forth above and according to the analysis in our Decision on
`
`Institution. Dec. on Inst. 14-15.
`
`7. “control means” (Claim 11)
`
`Patent Owner requests a modification to the construction of “control
`
`means” provided in the Decision on Institution. PO Resp. 13. In particular,
`
`Patent Owner urges that under § 112, ¶ 6, the function of the “control
`
`means” is not control generally, as we initially determined, but “controlling
`
`the input/interface means and the processing means.” Id. We deny Patent
`
`Owner’s request because the proffered function is not supported by the claim
`
`language.
`
`Claim 11 recites the limitation as follows: “control means for the
`
`input/interface means and the processing means.” After the word for, there
`
`is no functional language tying the function of control specifically to the
`
`“input/interface means” and “processing means.” We interpret the general
`
`recitation of the function of “control” as broadly, but reasonably, being
`
`untethered to those specific means. The specification confirms this
`
`interpretation as it states that “a control panel and display 182 are used to
`
`initiate and control the operation of the printing device 110.” Ex. 1001,
`
`