throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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,
`
`

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