throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Entered: February 17, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, and
`DAVID C. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Petitioners”)
`filed a Corrected Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 125
`(“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’944
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`Petitioners challenge claims 125 as being obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103).
`For the reasons to be discussed, Petitioners have not established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail on its challenge of claims 1–25 of the ʼ944
`patent. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review of any claim.
`Petitioners indicate that the ’944 patent is involved in the following
`co-pending civil actions in the United States District Court for the District of
`Delaware: Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., 1:13-
`cv-01668-UNA; Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Leap Wireless International
`Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-01669-UNA; Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Nextel
`Operations Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-01670-UNA; Intellectual Ventures II LLC v.
`T-Mobile USA Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-01671-UNA; Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`v. United States Cellular Corporation, 1:13-cv-01672-UNA. Pet. 1.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`
`A. The ’994 Patent
`
`The ʼ994 patent is directed to “to gateway queuing algorithms in
`packet networks. The invention is applicable to, but not limited to, gateway
`queuing algorithms in packet data transmissions, for example for use in the
`universal mobile telecommunication standard.” Ex. 1001, 1:5–9. In an
`embodiment of the invention of the ’994 patent, “one or more processing
`elements 248 contained with one or more RNCs [Radio Network
`Controllers] 236–240 have been adapted, to facilitate packet data queuing
`and scheduling in accordance with the preferred embodiment of the present
`invention.” Id. at 6:14–19. The ’994 patent recognizes that in embodiments
`“any elements managing packet data transmission, queuing, scheduling
`and/or routing may be controlled, implemented in full or implemented in
`part by adapting any other suitable part of the communication system 200.”
`Id. at 7:8–12.
`The exemplary packet data queuing algorithm “is based around the
`concept of employing different tiers of service. In particular, each tier, of a
`number of tiers of service, is configured to provide users with a commitment
`that a proportion of the entire system bandwidth will be allocated to users
`operating on that particular tier.” Id. at 6:47–51. The ’994 patent provides
`an example: “if we assume two tiers of service with a single user in each
`tier, we might allocate 75% of the entire system resource to the user of the
`higher tier and 25% of the entire resource to the user of the lower tier.”
`Id. at 6:52–55.
`The ’994 patent explains that, in an embodiment, the “tier of service
`for each user is determined when the session for each user begins.” Id. at
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`7:22–23. In this exemplary embodiment, “each user is provided with an
`identification (ID) code, which provides an identifier for the user and an
`indication of the amount of the data the user wishes to transfer.” Id. at 7:26–
`28. When a user is entered onto the exemplary packet data scheme, the
`user’s ID is placed at the tail of the appropriate queue. Users “move from
`the tail of the queue at location 355, through an intermediate location at 365
`to the head of the queue at location 375, and then back to the tail of the
`queue at location 355.” Id. at 7:62–65. This process “is repeated for all
`tiers, in the pre-allocated proportions for each tier. Within each lower tier,
`packets are also allocated in a round-robin fashion.” Id. at 8:1–3.
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, 1, 11, and 24 are independent. Claim 1 is
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter of the ’994 patent and is reproduced
`below:
`
`1. A method of processing queued data packets in a packet
`data communication system, the method comprising:
`allocating a tier of service for each of a plurality of
`individual packet data queues, wherein allocating a tier of
`service comprises:
`determining a total number of data packets that can use
`an available communication resource;
`allocating different weights to each tier of service based
`on a number of users requiring access to the available
`communication resource;
`allocating a proportion of said total number of data
`packets to a number of the tiers of service to allow individual
`packet data queues on a number of tiers to share a
`communication resource; and
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`
`providing said communication resource to queued packet
`data users on a tier-by-tier basis, such that said communication
`resource is made available to a number of tiers.
`Ex. 1001, 9:1228.
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioners rely upon the following prior art references (Pet. 5):
`
`Applicant
`Patent No.
`Effective
`Exhibit
`Date
`Number
`Jan. 16,
`Ex. 1002
`2001
`July 27,
`1993
`Oct. 21,
`1999
`May 24,
`2001
`April 17,
`1997
`
`Mäkelä, et al.
`(“Mäkelä”)
`Hluchyj , et. al.
`(“Hluchyj”)
`Tzeng (“Tzeng”)
`
`Yamamoto
`(“Yamamoto”)
`Giroux, et al.
`(“Giroux”)
`
`
`
`
`US 7,336,661 B2
`
`US 5,231,633
`
`US 6,438,135 B1
`
`US 6,993,041 B2
`
`WO97/14240
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`D.
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioners assert that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
`the following grounds (Pet. 7):
`Reference[s]
`Basis
`Mäkelä and Giroux
`§ 103
`
`Claims challenged
`17, 1017, and 2025
`8, 9, 18, and 19
`
`17, 1017, 20, and 2325
`8, 9, 18, and 19
`
`21 and 22
`
`Mäkelä, Giroux, and
`Yamamoto
`Hluchyj and Tzeng
`Hluchyj, Tzeng, and
`Yamamoto
`Hluchyj, Tzeng, and
`Mäkelä
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`Hluchyj and Giroux
`Hluchyj, Giroux, and
`Yamamoto
`Hluchyj, Giroux, and
`Mäkelä
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`17, 1017, 20, and 2325
`8, 9, 18, and 19
`
`21 and 22
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also, In re
`Cuozzo Speed Tech, No. 2014–130, 2015 WL 448667 (Fed. Cir. February
`04, 2015). 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) (quoting Philllips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (en banc)). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth
`in the specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.”
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioners recognize that claims 11231 contain limitations written in
`means-plus-function format and that, as such, they are presumed to be
`governed by § 112, ¶ 6. On the present record, we determine that § 112, ¶ 6
`
`
`1 Claims 20–23 depend ultimately from claim 11 and incorporate the means-
`plus-function limitations of claim 11.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`governs the limitations, as they use the word “means,” and no rebuttal has
`been presented. Thus, pursuant to the statute, they are to be construed to
`cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and
`equivalents. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`Claim 24 of the ’994 patent recites limitations that include the term
`“logic for.” The claim does not include the term “means,” which creates a
`rebuttable presumption that the claim is not written in means-plus-function
`format under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. See Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood
`Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, this
`presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation “fails to ‘recite
`sufficiently definite structure’” or recites a “‘function without reciting
`sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. at 1358 (quoting
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed.Cir.2000)). We conclude that
`the term “logic” would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art
`as providing sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed
`function. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1015, ¶ 40). Because Claim 24 fails to recite
`sufficiently definite structure, the presumption that the claim is not written in
`means-plus-function format is rebutted. Accordingly, we interpret claim 24
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`Petitioners contend that the only possible structure that could be relied
`upon for the recited function is disclosed in two sentences of the ’994
`specification. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1015 (“Lanning Dec.”) ¶ 41). However,
`neither Petitioners nor Patent Owner points to any algorithm for performing
`the functions contained in the limitations of claims 11–19 and 24. Pet. 9; see
`also Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
`2013) (holding that a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`is indefinite because the specification failed to disclose the specific
`algorithm used by the computer to perform the recited function). Thus,
`Petitioners fail to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its
`challenge to claims 1124 and the Petition as to those claims is denied.
`See Blackberry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, IPR2013-00036, Paper
`No. 65 (Mar. 7, 2014) (terminating inter partes review proceeding because
`specification did not disclose specific algorithm to perform recited function
`of a computer-implemented means plus-function term).
`
`B. Claims 17, 10, and 25—Obviousness over Mäkelä (Ex. 1002) and
`Giroux (Ex. 1003)
`
`Petitioners argue that claims 17, 10, and 25 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mäkelä and Giroux. Pet. 1027.2 Mäkelä is
`directed to packet data queuing and scheduling systems in which data
`packets are queued based on priority and the queues are weighted relative to
`other queues according to priority. Ex. 1002, Abstract. Giroux is also
`directed to packet processing and queuing, specifically utilizing fair queue
`servicing using dynamic weights. Ex. 1003, 2:58, 3:18–21.
`Below we discuss independent claim 1. Claim 1 recites “allocating a
`proportion of said total number of data packets [that can use an available
`communication resource] to a number of the tiers of service to allow
`
`
`2 We denied institution of claims 1117 and 2024, which are included in
`this ground, based on a failure to cite to an algorithm. Thus, we will not
`discuss those claims in this section of the decision.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`individual packet data queues on a number of tiers to share a communication
`resource.” Petitioners assert that Giroux teaches this limitation. For
`example, Petitioners assert that “Figure 1 discloses that ‘Timescale [Ts] = ~
`100 cell units,’ which is the number of cells that can be sent in a given
`time.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 1). We note that “[Ts]” does not appear
`in Figure 1 but was added by Petitioners. See Prelim. Resp. 21. Petitioners
`assume, for purpose of the challenge, that a cell is a data packet of
`fixed-length. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 58; Ex. 1016, 134, 509; Ex. 1001,
`6:3537). Petitioners assert that Figure 3 discloses a service weight (Wi)
`which is the “number of cells to be served in [Ts] for output queue i.” Id.
`(quoting Ex. 1003, Fig. 3). Petitioners state “[t]he relationship between
`these elements is shown by ‘Wi =μi·Ts,’ which indicates that the service
`weight (Wi) is a proportion of the total number of cells that can be sent in a
`given time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 5:206:3). Petitioners, thus, argue that
`Giroux determines that 100 cell units are available to be allocated in a
`sampling interval Ts and further determines a service weight (Wi) for each
`queue representing the portion of those 100 cell units allocated to each
`queue. Id. (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 58).
`Patent Owner asserts that there is no disclosure in Giroux tying
`“Timescale” to Ts. Prelim. Resp. 21. Additionally, Ts is described as the
`number of cell slots in a sampling interval. Id. Thus, Petitioners have not
`explained sufficiently how Timescale or Ts represents the total number of
`data packets that can use an available communication resource.
`Additionally, Petitioners have not explained how Timescale or Ts relate to
`the total number of cell slots for the entire communication resource as
`opposed to one particular tier and how the allocation of that total to a
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`particular tier is determined. Thus, on the record before us, Petitioners have
`not shown sufficiently that Giroux teaches or suggests this limitation.
`Thus, upon review of Petitioners’ analysis and supporting evidence,
`we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim 1 and claims
`27, 10, and 25 that ultimately depend from claim 1.
`
`C. Claims 1–7, 10, and 25 – Obviousness over Hluchyj (Ex. 1004) and
`Tzeng (Ex. 1005)
`
`Petitioners argue that claims 1–7, 10, and 25 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hluchyj and Tzeng.3 Pet. 30-43. Hluchyj is
`directed to packet data queuing and scheduling systems in which data
`packets are queued based on priority and the queues are weighted relative to
`other queues according to priority. Ex. 1004, Abstract, Fig. 2, 2:123;
`4:1417). Tzeng also is directed to packet processing and queuing,
`specifically utilizing fair queue servicing using dynamic weights. Ex. 1005,
`Abstract, 5:27–37.
`Below we discuss independent claim 1. Claim 1 recites “allocating
`different weights to each tier of service based on a number of users requiring
`access to the available communication resource.” Petitioners assert that
`Hluchyj discloses that “packets are queued into multiple queues, for
`example, CBO traffic is queued in queues 507–509 and data traffic is queued
`
`3 We denied institution of claims 11-17, 20, 23, and 24, that are included in
`this ground, based on a failure to cite to an algorithm. Thus, we will not
`discuss those claims in this section of the decision.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`into queues 511–513 based on the requirements of the source of the traffic
`and that the system separates out packets from different sources into more
`than one queue.” Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:43–63). Petitioners further
`assert that the “weighted round-robin (WRR) packet selector serves each of
`the queues proportional to its weight.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 7:17–31).
`Petitioners also rely on the statement in Tzeng that when setting weights of
`the queues, “if the administrator is aware of a condition which may change
`network usage, such as the addition of a new network user or other network
`pattern change, then appropriate changes to service the EIDs and weights
`can also be made.” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1005, 7:1–15).
`Patent Owner argues, as to Hluchyj, that the evidence cited by
`Petitioners does not explain how any individual weight is assigned but only
`states that queues are assigned to different sources of data and those queues
`may have different weights. Prelim Resp. 34. We are persuaded by this
`argument. Petitioners’ argument assumes that a source of traffic is a “user”
`as recited in claim 1. Pet. 31. Even if this is so, Hluchyj does not disclose
`that the number of sources of traffic (“users”) affects the allocation of
`weight to a particular queue.
`Patent Owner argues, as to Tzeng, that the statement relied on by
`Petitioners does not state that the number of users is the basis for allocating
`different weights to the queues. Prelim Resp. 35–36. We are persuaded by
`this argument. The statement from Tzeng simply notes that “appropriate”
`changes to weights may be made when a user is added without discussing or
`explaining what changes would be made. The statement does not suggest
`that different weights are allocated to each queue based on the number of
`users requiring access to the communication resource as recited in the claim.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`Neither Petitioners nor its declarant Dr. Lanning relies on the knowledge of
`one of skill in the art to teach this limitation; rather they state specifically
`that Tzeng teaches this limitation. Pet. 31; Ex. 1015 ¶ 116. We are not
`persuaded that Tzeng so teaches. Thus, Petitioners have not shown
`sufficiently that the combination of Hluchyj and Tzeng teaches or suggests
`this limitation.
`Thus, upon review of Petitioners’ analysis and supporting evidence,
`we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim 1 and claims
`2–7, 10, and 25 that ultimately depend from claim 1.
`
`D. Claims 8 and 9 – Obviousness over Mäkelä, Giroux, and Yamamoto
`
`Petitioners argue that claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Mäkelä, Giroux, and Yamamoto.4 Pet. 27–30. Claims 8 and 9
`depend ultimately from claim 1. As discussed above in Section II.B.,
`Petitioners have not shown sufficiently that Mäkelä or Giroux discloses
`“allocating a proportion of said total number of data packets [that can use an
`available communication resource] to a number of the tiers of service to
`allow individual packet data queues on a number of tiers to share a
`communication resource,” as is required by independent claim 1.
`Additionally, Petitioners do not argue that Yamamoto makes up for this
`
`
`4 We denied institution of claims 18 and 19, which are included in this
`ground, based on a failure to cite to an algorithm. Thus, we will not discuss
`those claims in this section of the decision.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`deficiency. Thus, upon review of Petitioners’ analysis and supporting
`evidence, we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the ground that
`claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable over Mäkelä or Giroux and Yamamoto.
`
`E. Claims 8 and 9 – Obviousness over Hluchyj, Tzeng, and Yamamoto
`
`Petitioners argue that independent claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hluchyj, Tzeng, and Yamamoto.5 Pet. 43–44.
`Claims 8 and 9 depend ultimately from claim 1. As discussed above in
`Section II.C., Petitioners have not shown sufficiently that Hluchyj and Tzeng
`discloses “allocating different weights to each tier of service based on a
`number of users requiring access to the available communication resource,”
`as is required by each of independent claim 1. Additionally, Petitioners do
`not argue that Yamamoto makes up for this deficiency. Thus, upon review
`of Petitioners’ analysis and supporting evidence, we determine that
`Petitioners have not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail with respect to the ground that claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable
`over Hluchyj, Tzeng, and Yamamoto.
`
`F. Claims 21 and 22 – Obviousness over Hluchyj, Tzeng, and Mäkelä
`
`Petitioners argue that independent claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hluchyj, Tzeng, and Mäkelä. Pet. 44–45.
`
`5 We denied institution of claims 18 and 19, which are included in this
`ground, based on a failure to cite to an algorithm and will not discuss those
`claims in this section of the decision.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`We denied institution of claims 21 and 22, each of the claims included in
`this ground, in Section II.A. above, based on a failure to cite to an algorithm.
`Therefore, this challenge is denied.
`
`G. Claims 1–7, 10, and 25 – Obviousness over Hluchyj and Giroux
`
`Petitioners argue that independent claims 1–7, 10, and 25 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hluchyj and Giroux.6 As
`discussed above, Petitioners have not shown sufficiently that Giroux
`discloses “allocating a proportion of said total number of data packets [that
`can use an available communication resource] to a number of the tiers of
`service to allow individual packet data queues on a number of tiers to share a
`communication resource,” as is required by independent claim 1.
`Additionally, for this ground, Petitioners do not rely on Hluchyj to teach or
`suggest this limitation. Thus, upon review of Petitioners’ analysis and
`supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the
`ground that claim 1 and claims 2–7, 10, and 25 are unpatentable over
`Hluchyj and Giroux.
`
`
`6 We denied institution of claims 11–17, 20, 23, and 24, which are included
`in this ground, based on a failure to cite to an algorithm. Thus, we will not
`discuss those claims in this section of the decision.
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`H. Claims 8 and 9 – Obviousness over Hluchyj, Giroux, and Yamamoto
`
`Petitioners argue that independent claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hluchyj, Giroux, and Yamamoto.7 As
`discussed above, Petitioners have not shown sufficiently that Giroux
`discloses “allocating a proportion of said total number of data packets [that
`can use an available communication resource] to a number of the tiers of
`service to allow individual packet data queues on a number of tiers to share a
`communication resource,” as is required by each of independent claim 1.
`Additionally, for this ground, Petitioners do not rely on Hluchyj or
`Yamamoto to teach or suggest this limitation. Additionally, Petitioners do
`not argue that Yamamoto makes up for this deficiency. Thus, upon review
`of Petitioners’ analysis and supporting evidence, we determine that
`Petitioners have not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail with respect to the ground that claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable
`over Hluchyj, Giroux, and Yamamoto.
`
`I. Claims 21 and 22 – Obviousness over Hluchyj, Giroux, and Mäkelä
`
`Petitioners argue that independent claims 21 and 22 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hluchyj, Giroux, and Mäkelä. We denied
`institution of claims 21 and 22, each of the claims included in this ground, in
`
`
`7 We denied institution of claims 18 and 19, which are included in this
`ground, based on a failure to cite to an algorithm. Thus, we will not discuss
`those claims in this section of the decision.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`Section II.A. above, based on a failure to cite to an algorithm. Therefore,
`this challenge is denied.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`The information presented does not show that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioners would prevail at trial with respect to at least one
`claim of the ’994 patent, based on any ground presented in the petition. On
`this record, we deny the petition for inter partes review of claims 1–25.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that that the petition is denied as to all challenged claims,
`and no trial is instituted.
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994 B2
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`J. Robert Brown, Jr.
`Charles J. Rogers
`Amy E. LaValle
`CONLEY ROSE, P.C.
`rbrown@dfw.conleyrose.com
`crogers@conleyrose.com
`alavalle@dfw.conleyrose.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Michael D. Specht
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Donald J. Coulrnan
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
`dcoulrnan@intven.com
`
`
`
`17

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