Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
` Paper No. 10
`
` Entered: September 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMPASS BANK, COMMERCE BANCSHARES, INC., and
`FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and,
`BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
` Paper No. 10
`
` Entered: September 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMPASS BANK, COMMERCE BANCSHARES, INC., and
`FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and,
`BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Compass Bank, Commerce Bancshares, Inc., and First National Bank
`of Omaha (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`review of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,826,694 B1 (Ex. 1004, “the ’694
`patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311–319. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Intellectual
`Ventures II LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the
`Petition. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Petitioner contends
`that claim 1, the sole claim of the ’694 patent, is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the
`challenged claim. For the reasons described below, we institute an inter
`partes review of claim 1.
`
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner states that the ’694 patent is involved in numerous district
`
`court cases, including Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. BBVA Compass
`Bancshares, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-01106 (N.D. Ala.), Intellectual Ventures II
`LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-04160 (W.D. Mo.), and
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. First National Bank of Omaha, No. 8:13-cv-
`00167-LSC (D. Neb). Pet. 1–2; Paper 7, 2–3.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`Additionally, the ’694 patent is the subject of two additional Petitions
`
`for inter partes review, Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II
`LLC, Case IPR2014-00587 (PTAB) and Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v.
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case IPR2014-01465 (PTAB).
`
`
`C. The ’694 patent (Ex. 1004)
`The ’694 patent is titled “High Resolution Access Control,” and
`
`issued on November 30, 2004. Ex. 1004, 1. The ’694 patent claims priority
`to Provisional Patent Application No. 60/105,188, which was filed on
`October 22, 1998. Id. The ’694 patent discloses a system and method of
`filtering data packets at a firewall. See id. at col. 1, ll. 11–12. The packet
`includes a header and a payload. Id. at col. 1, ll. 16–17. The header
`includes header parameters, such as source address, destination address, port
`number, and protocol number. Id. at col. 1, ll. 16–26; col. 2, ll. 27–29. The
`payload includes data intended to be conveyed to the destination, such as a
`connection request or document data. Id. at col. 1, ll. 26–28; col. 2, ll. 28–
`31. Figure 1, reproduced below, is a flow chart illustrative of the method.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 is a flow chart depicting the method of the ’694 patent.
`When a packet is received at the firewall, the system determines a rule
`
`based upon header parameters. Id. at col. 3, ll. 9–12; Fig. 1, steps 101–102.
`Depending on whether the packet satisfies the rule, the packet is then either
`dropped or passed to an access control proxy. Id. at col. 3, ll. 12–18; Fig. 1,
`steps 103–105. The access control proxy, then, selects an access rule based
`upon the content of the payload of the packet and the access rule is
`implemented for that packet and any related packets. Id. at col. 3, ll. 18–37;
`Fig. 1, steps 106–108. In a preferred embodiment, the packet may be passed
`or dropped based upon the content of the payload. Id. at col. 3, ll. 32–38.
`
`In another embodiment, the access rule is selected based upon a
`combination of the content and the header parameters of the packet. Id. at
`col. 4, ll. 36–38. In yet another embodiment, the access rule is selected
`based upon the contents of one or several packet payloads. Id. at col. 3,
`ll. 22–29; col. 4, ll. 38–40; col. 5, ll. 1–26.
`
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole claim of the ’694 patent.
`
`1. A method for filtering a packet, including the steps of:
`a. receiving a packet having at least one header parameter and a
`payload;
`b. selecting an access rule based upon the contents of the
`payload of the packet received in step a;
`c. implementing the access rule for a packet, wherein the access
`rule is selected based upon a combination of the contents of the
`packet received in step a and the contents of at least one other
`packet.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground Prior Art
`Abraham1 and Rubin2
`§ 103
`§ 102(b) Rubin
`Norman3 and Rubin
`§ 103
`§ 102(e) Cunningham4
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Patent Owner argues that we should not institute inter partes review
`
`of claim 1 of the ’694 patent because the Petition does not list all of the real
`parties-in-interest, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Prelim. Resp. 1–7.
`According to Patent Owner, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
`(“BBVA”) is a real party-in-interest “because it controls BBVA Compass
`[Bancshare][5] and Petitioner Compass Bank.” Prelim. Resp. 4 (internal
`footnote added).
`
`
`1 Abraham et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,983,270 (issued Nov. 9, 1999)
`(Ex. 1008).
`2 Aviel D. Rubin, et al., Blocking Java Applets at the Firewall, IEEE, 1–11
`(1997) (Ex. 1009).
`3 Norman Data Defense Systems, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NORMAN
`FIREWALL: THE SECURE WAY TO CONNECT TO THE INTERNET AND OTHER
`TCP/IP-BASED NETWORKS, vol. 12, Firewalls & Internet Security, 1–10,
`(Oct. 1995) (Ex. 1010).
`4 Cunningham et al., U.S. Patent No. US 6,219,786 B1 (issued Apr. 17,
`2001) (Ex. 1011).
`5 The Petition lists BBVA Compass Bancshare, Inc. as a real party-in-
`interest. Pet. 1.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`On this record, we are not persuaded that BBVA is a “real party-in-
`
`interest” with respect to this proceeding. Whether a non-party is a “real
`party-in-interest” or “privy” for purposes of an inter partes review
`proceeding is a “highly fact-dependent question” that takes into account how
`courts generally have used the terms to “describe relationships and
`considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of
`estoppel and preclusion.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Trial Practice Guide”). The Trial Practice
`Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining
`whether a party is a real party-in-interest. A primary consideration includes
`whether a non-party exercises control over a petitioner’s participation in a
`proceeding. Id. at 48,75960. Other considerations may include whether a
`non-party, in conjunction with control, funds the proceeding and directs the
`proceeding. Id. at 48,760.
`Patent Owner argues that BBVA is a real party-in-interest because
`Compass Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBVA Compass Bancshare,
`Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBVA. Prelim. Resp. 4–5.
`Patent Owner further argues that BBVA Compass Bancshare, Inc.’s Form
`10-K Annual Report (Ex. 2001), filed with the Securities and Exchange
`Commission, contains statements that allegedly show that BBVA, through
`BBVA Compass Bancshare, Inc., controls some aspects of Compass Bank’s
`banking operations and financial operations that are not related, directly, to
`this proceeding. See id. at 4–6.
`Upon review of Patent Owner’s evidence, we determine that Patent
`Owner has not shown that BBVA controls, directs, or funds Compass
`Bank’s participation in this proceeding. We conclude on the present record
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`that Petitioner has identified all of the real parties-in-interest, as required by
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`We interpret claims using the broadest reasonable construction in light
`of the Specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. §
`42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms
`are 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. Cir. 2007).
`“contents of the packet”
`Claim 1’s step c recites “wherein the access rule is selected based
`
`upon a combination of the contents of the packet received in step a and the
`contents of at least one other packet.” Ex. 1004, col. 6, ll. 4144. Petitioner
`proposes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “contents of the
`packet” is the contents of “the header and/or payload of the packet.” Pet. 5–
`6. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed interpretation is
`unreasonably broad, and proposes a narrower interpretation: “contents of the
`header and the payload of the packet.” Prelim. Resp. 9–17. According to
`Patent Owner, its proposed interpretation requires that the access rules must
`be selected based on both the contents of the header and the contents of the
`payload of the packet. Id.
`
`Patent Owner has not persuaded us, at this stage of the proceeding,
`that Petitioner’s proposed interpretation is unreasonably broad, or that it is
`inconsistent with the term’s ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`disclosure.6 See Pet. 5–6. We are not persuaded that the term “contents of
`the packet,” itself, necessarily refers to both the header and the payload,
`rather than just the header or just the payload. In addition, we are not
`persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed interpretation is inconsistent with the
`’694 patent, which discloses using different information from the packet’s
`payload and header. See Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 40–43 (describing analyzing
`header information); col. 3, ll. 4–8 (describing analyzing contents of the
`payload); col. 3, ll. 39–42 (describing analyzing payload and header
`parameters).
`
`Further, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that
`Petitioner’s proposed interpretation conflicts with claim 1’s step b, which
`requires that the access rule be selected based upon the contents of the
`payload of the packet received in step a. See Prelim. Resp. 10–13. We are
`not persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed interpretation prevents step b from
`further requiring that the access rule be selected based upon the contents of
`the payload of the packet received in step a.
`For these reasons and on this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner
`that the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification of
`“contents of the packet” is the “contents of the header and/or payload of the
`packet.”
`
`
`C. Grounds Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
`the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
`
`
`6 Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner asserts that the ’694 patent contains a
`lexicographic definition of this limitation.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).
`
`
`i. Anticipation By Rubin
`
`Petitioner argues that Rubin anticipates claim 1, and, in particular, that
`Rubin’s description of implementing a blocking strategy based upon the
`payloads of Internet Protocol (“IP”) packets reassembled into a
`Transmission Control Protocol (“TCP”) stream meets step c’s requirement
`that the access rule is selecting based on the contents of multiple packets.
`Pet. 33–40 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 58, “Kesidis Decl.”).
`
`Patent Owner, however, argues that claim 1’s step c requires selecting
`the access rule based on both the headers and the payload of multiple
`packets and, therefore, Rubin does not anticipate claim 1 because Rubin
`describes using only the payloads, and not both the headers and payloads of
`multiple packets, to select the access rule. Prelim. Resp. 19.
`
`From the outset, we find Patent Owner’s argument unpersuasive
`because it is not based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“contents of the packet.” As discussed above, we determined, for purposes
`of this decision, that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “contents of
`the packet” is the “contents of the header and/or payload of the packet.”
`
`When “contents of the packet” is given the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, we are persuaded by Petitioner that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Rubin. Rubin is a paper titled
`“Blocking Java Applets at the Firewall.” Ex. 1009, 2.7 Rubin describes a
`firewall scheme that routes relevant data packets to a secure proxy host, via
`
`7 We refer to the pagination inserted by Petitioner to Ex. 1009 not to the
`original pagination of Rubin and Norman.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`a TCP session, and the proxy host reassembles the packets into TCP streams.
`Id. The proxy host applies a block strategy based on the content of the TCP
`streams. Id. at 6–9. Rubin describes three types of blocking strategies:
`rewriting <applet> tags in HTML documents (id. at 7), blocking files having
`the 4-byte hex signature CA, FE, BA, BE found in Java Class files (id. at 8),
`and blocking browser requests for files having the .class. or .zip. suffixes (id.
`at 8–9). Each blocking strategy is applied based on information found in the
`payloads of the IP packets in the reassembled TCP stream. For example,
`Rubin states:
`blocking CA FE BA BE — the simplest scheme — requires
`searching IP packets for that four byte signature. However,
`those four bytes need not arrive in the same IP packet, and if
`split up, the individual packets may arrive out of order.
`Id. at 10. Given this, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) by Rubin.
`
`
`
`ii. Anticipation By Cunningham
`
`Petitioner argues that Cunningham anticipates claim 1, and, in
`particular, that Cunningham’s description of applying rules from a rules base
`based upon the payloads of assembled IP packets meets step c’s requirement
`that the access rule is selected based on the contents of multiple packets.
`Pet. 54–60 (citing Kesidis Decl. ¶ 69).
`
`Patent Owner, however, argues that “Petitioner argues only that
`Cunningham discloses selecting an access rule based on the payload of
`multiple packets,” and not based upon both the header and payload of
`multiple packets, as required by claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 22 (citations and
`emphasis omitted). Patent Owner, further, argues that the Petition’s textual
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`argument spanning pages 54–55, as opposed to the six page claim chart, is
`not sufficiently detailed to explain how Cunningham anticipates claim 1. Id.
`at 21–22 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4)).
`
`As to Patent Owner’s first argument, we find this argument
`unpersuasive because it is not based upon the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of “contents of the packet.” As discussed above, we
`determined, for purposes of this decision, that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of “contents of the packet” is the “contents of the header
`and/or payload of the packet.”
`
`When “contents of the packet” is given the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, we are persuaded by Petitioner that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Cunningham. Cunningham is titled
`“Method and System for Monitoring and Controlling Network Access.” Ex.
`1011, col. 1, ll. 1–2.
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`
`
`Cunningham’s Figure 7 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts a process flow for operating an access control device
`Cunningham’s Figure 7 depicts “the steps of providing access
`control.” Id. at col. 10, ll. 52–53. At step 94, multiple packets of a
`particular node-to-node transmission are assembled, and, at step 96, it is
`determined whether the assembled packs contain enough information to
`apply rules from a rules base. Id. at col. 10, ll. 55–59. When enough
`information has been acquired, it is determined which rules from the rules
`base match the packet information, and the matching rules are then applied.
`Id. at col. 10, l. 60–col. 11, l. 3; Fig. 7, steps 98, 100, 102.
`Cunningham describes that the rules are matched based on
`information contained in the data field (i.e., the payload) of the packets. Id.
`at col. 8, ll. 9–19. Given this, and on this record, we determine that
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 1
`is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Cunningham.
`As to Patent Owner’s second argument, we are not persuaded that the
`Petition contains insufficient analysis in relation to Cunningham to satisfy
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4). Patent Owner’s argument
`narrowly focuses on only the textual paragraph that spans pages 54–55 of
`the Petition and does not account for the six page claim chart that
`sufficiently maps each step of claim 1 to Cunningham.
`
`
`D. Grounds Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
`a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains.”
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill
`in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966); see KSR, 550
`U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
`any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
`controls.”).
`
`
`i. Unpatentability Over Norman and Rubin
`
`Petitioner argues claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of
`Norman and Rubin, and, in particular, that the combination’s teaching of
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`blocking data packets based upon the payloads of multiple packets meets the
`requirement of claim 1 step c that the access rule is selected based on the
`contents of multiple packets. Pet. 40–55 (citing Kesidis Decl. ¶¶ 61–67).
`Patent Owner, however, argues that claim 1’s step c requires selecting the
`access rule based on both the headers and the payload of multiple packets
`and, therefore, the combination of Norman and Rubin does not teach claim
`1, because both Norman and Rubin disclose using only the payloads, and not
`both the headers and payloads. Prelim. Resp. 19–21.
`
`We again find Patent Owner’s argument unpersuasive because it is not
`based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of “contents of the
`packet.” As discussed above, we determined, for purposes of this decision,
`that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “contents of the packet” is the
`“contents of the header and/or payload of the packet.”
`
`When “contents of the packet” is given the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, we are persuaded by Petitioner that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Norman and
`Rubin. Norman is a paper titled “An Introduction to The Norman Firewall.”
`Ex. 1010, 5.8 The Norman Firewall uses a proxy service to pass data packets
`from one network to another. Id. at 13. The Norman Firewall includes an
`anti-virus scanning engine that scans files or emails for known viruses or
`hotwords, so that data transactions that include known viruses or hotwords
`can be blocked. Id. at 15.
`
`Petitioner argues that, although not expressly disclosed by Norman,
`one of ordinary skill in the art would know that a single file is often received
`in multiple packets due to, for example, packet fragmentation, and that,
`
`8 We refer to the pagination inserted by Petitioner to Ex. 1010 and not to the
`original pagination of Rubin and Norman.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`therefore, there is a need to scan for the virus or hotwords that may span
`more than one packet payload. Pet. 46 (citing Kesidis Decl. ¶ 66).
`
`As discussed above, Rubin discloses a similar system to Norman’s
`system that blocks IP packets based on a signature found in a file and
`discloses that, because of packet fragmentation, it is desirable in
`reassembling a stream of related data packets in a proxy application to
`search the payloads of multiple IP packets for the signature in a file. See Ex.
`1009, 6–9. On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Norman with
`Rubin in order to secure a network by scanning for files that contain viruses
`or hotwords that may span the payloads of multiple data packets. See Pet.
`45–47.
`Given this, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is
`a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Norman and Rubin.
`
`
`ii. Unpatentability Over Abraham and Rubin
`We do not institute inter partes review of claim 1 of the ’694 patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Abraham and Rubin. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Exercise of our discretion in declining to institute on
`the ground based on Abraham and Rubin is consistent with the authority
`granted under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) to manage inter partes proceedings and
`with the objective of “secur[ing] the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution
`of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1.
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`On this record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of:
`claim 1 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Rubin;
`claim 1 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Cunningham; and
`claim 1 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Norman and Rubin.
`The Board has not yet made a final determination as to the patentability of
`claim 1.
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of
`the ’694 patent is hereby instituted 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
`hereby given of the institution of a trial; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds of:
`claim 1 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Rubin;
`claim 1 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Cunningham; and
`claim 1 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Norman and Rubin.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00786
`Patent 6,826,694 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jason S. Jackson
`Sean P. Connolly
`Geoffrey K. Gavin
`Marc Vander Tuig
`jason.jackson@kutakrock.com
`sean.connolly@kutakrock.com
`ggavin@jonesday.com
`MVanderTuig@senniger.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Herbert D. Hart III
`Aaron F. Barkoff
`Donald J. Coulman
`hhart@mcandrews-ip.com
`abarkoff@mcandrews-ip.com
`dcoulman@intven.com
`
`17
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
