Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: May 13, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`THE TORO COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MTD PRODUCTS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: May 13, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`THE TORO COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MTD PRODUCTS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner requests an inter partes review of claim 28 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,136,613 (Ex. 1001, “the ’613 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent
`
`Owner filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 7 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that
`
`an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claim 28 of the ’613 patent.
`
`Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding
`
`are based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final
`
`decision as to the patentability of claims for which inter partes review is
`
`instituted. Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed
`
`during trial.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties represent that the ’613 Patent is asserted in MTD Products
`
`Inc. v. Toro Company et al., 1:15-cv-00766-PAG (N.D. Ohio). Pet. 1; Paper
`
`6, 2. Petitioner also has filed a petition challenging Patent Owner’s U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,011,458 (IPR2016-00194). Patent Owner identifies U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,944,191 as a related patent and U.S. Patent App. No. 14/613,102 as a
`
`related application. Paper 6, 2.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`B. The ’613 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’613 patent is directed to a steering and driving system. Ex.
`
`1001, Abstract. In particular, the patent is directed to the steering systems of
`
`Zero Turn Radius (ZTR) lawn mowers. Id. at 1:6–14; 4:39–40. Figure 5 of
`
`the ’613 patent, reproduced below with color added and extraneous labeling
`
`removed by the Board, depicts this steering system:
`
`Figure 5 of the ’613 patent shows speed control device 28 (in orange), left
`
`and right speed input members 48 (in orange), left and right control
`
`members 36 (item numbers not shown, colored in green), left and right
`
`integration links 44 and control rods 104 (in blue), and left and right drive
`
`units 29 (in yellow). Control rods 104 are connected to drive units 29 in a
`
`manner such that the distance of the rod fore or aft of a neutral position
`
`causes the output of the corresponding drive unit to spin the wheel forward
`
`or backward with increasing speed. See Ex. 1001, 9:32–44; Fig. 14.
`
`Integration links 44 serve to integrate both speed control as well as steering
`
`control. See, e.g., id. at 9:57–10:21 (explaining how the linkages work as
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`the vehicle is operated from straight forward movement to left forward
`
`movement). Although the vehicle may include steerable wheels, turning can
`
`also be facilitated by spinning the outside wheel faster than the inside wheel
`
`(relative to the radius of the turn). See, e.g., id. at 10:8–21. To do this,
`
`integration links 44 are connected in a manner such as to respond to forward
`
`and reverse speed inputs from speed input members 48 as well as steering
`
`inputs from control members 36. See, e.g., id. at 10:22–35 (providing an
`
`example of how the various components interact to make a full forward left
`
`turn), Fig. 9 (cited in this example); see also Figs. 5–13 (showing how the
`
`various components interact to make each forward/reverse/neutral and
`
`left/right/straight permutation).
`
`C. Challenged Claim
`
`Petitioner challenges claim 28, which is reproduced below.
`
`28. A vehicle control system comprising:
`a pair of integration links, each integration link having
`a slot that is straight over substantially all of the
`length of the slot, and each integration link being
`movable in response to a speed input and configured
`to:
`
`lie in a plane parallel to any flat surface on which
`a vehicle that incorporates the steering control
`system is used; and
`
`transmit a drive signal that is a product of any
`received steering input and any received speed
`input.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`D. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claim 28 of the ’613 patent is unpatentable as
`
`anticipated by Seaberg1 or obvious in view of Engel.2 Pet. 2. Petitioner also
`
`relies on the declaration of Fred P. Smith, a Professional Engineer with a
`
`background in mechanical engineering. Ex. 1004 ¶ 4.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`We interpret the claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). Petitioner proposes a construction of the term “moveable.”
`
`Pet. 14–17. Patent Owner disputes this construction and offers an alternative
`
`construction, focusing on the “configured to” language. Prelim. Resp. 10–
`
`26. Although these constructions talk about different terms in the claim,
`
`both involve a determination of which structures are included in the claimed
`
`integration link.
`
`Petitioner’s position is that, where the claim says, “each integration
`
`link being movable in response to a speed input,” the claim does not
`
`preclude any particular type of movement. Pet. 14–15. In particular,
`
`Petitioner asserts that “moveable” includes movement parallel to the ground
`
`(horizontal movement) as well as movement relative to the ground (vertical
`
`movement). See Pet. 15–16. Petitioner points out that movement of the
`
`integration link shown in Figure 14 of the ’613 patent includes some amount
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 4,100,738, issued July 18, 1978 (Ex. 1002).
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 3,927,527, issued Dec. 23, 1975 (Ex. 1003).
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`of vertical movement in addition to horizontal movement. Id. Petitioner
`
`adds that the prosecution history does not clarify the type of movement of
`
`which the integration link is capable. Id. at 14.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the term “moveable” must be considered in
`
`view of the “configured to” language, and must be considered limited to
`
`horizontal movement. Prelim. Resp. 10–11; see also id. at 10–26 (setting
`
`forth Patent Owner’s construction). On the record before us, we do not
`
`consider Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive; we address those arguments
`
`in turn.
`
`1. The Claim Language Itself
`
`Patent Owner first argues that both the “lie in a plane” and “transmit a
`
`drive signal” elements of the “configured to” clause must happen both
`
`“simultaneously” and “during use” according to the claim language itself.
`
`Id. at 12–15. Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive because we are
`
`apprised of no such conditions in the claims. As to the “lie in a plane”
`
`element, it requires the integration link to “lie in a plane parallel to any flat
`
`surface on which a vehicle that incorporates the steering control system is
`
`used.” This element does say, “is used,” but that phrase modifies “surface.”
`
`Specifically, the surface is the one “on which a vehicle that incorporates the
`
`steering control system is used.” Thus, the integration link must “lie in a
`
`plane” that is defined essentially as parallel to the ground. On its face, for
`
`something to “lie” in such a plane does not mean it must “move” in a plane
`
`or always lie in the plane. As such, we are not persuaded this element
`
`requires the integration link to move or always to stay in the claimed plane;
`
`it simply must be configured to lie in the claimed plane. As to the “transmit
`
`a drive signal” element, it specifies that the integration link integrate speed
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`and steering inputs. There is nothing in the element that ties it to a particular
`
`orientation or timing. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument that the
`
`“configured to” elements somehow require the integration link at all times to
`
`“lie in a plane,” or more clearly stated, to move only in a plane, is
`
`unpersuasive.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments that In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014), or In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 959 (CCPA 1976), support
`
`their interpretation are unpersuasive. See Prelim. Resp. 13–15. In Giannelli,
`
`the Federal Circuit held that a prior art chest press device was not “adapted
`
`to be moved . . . by a pulling force” because the chest press device was
`
`specifically adapted to be pushed; that the chest press device could be
`
`improperly used by pulling did not anticipate because it was not configured
`
`in a manner conducive to exercising by pulling (rowing). See Giannelli, 739
`
`F.3d at 1380. In other words, the Federal Circuit found that there was a
`
`structural difference between the claimed device adapted to be pulled and
`
`the prior art device adapted to be pushed. Patent Owner does not explain
`
`sufficiently how it understands Giannelli to require the “configured to”
`
`language of claim 28 to be met under unclaimed conditions. As we
`
`mentioned above, the claims do not require the integration link to be adapted
`
`to move in a certain plane.
`
`As to Venezia, Patent Owner takes an isolated passage out of context.
`
`In Venezia, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held that a claim
`
`directed to a kit of parts (as opposed to an assembled device) did not violate
`
`the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because
`
`even though the kit of parts was not assembled, and was structurally defined
`
`in terms of how the parts would fit together if assembled, it was clear from
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`the claim what the structure of those parts would be: one that, once
`
`assembled, would result in the completed assembly. See Venezia, 530 F.2d,
`
`959. Venezia stands for the premise that structure can be defined by how the
`
`elements are to be connected together at a later time. It does not stand for
`
`the premise that all elements are to be construed necessarily as
`
`simultaneously being met throughout every use. Claims read on structures
`
`even if those structures sometimes, but not always, meet the claim language.
`
`Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 424 F.3d 1293,
`
`1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]his court held that the district court had erred by
`
`overlooking the rule that ‘an accused product that sometimes, but not
`
`always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless infringes.’”) (quoting Bell
`
`Com. Research Inc. v. Vitalink Com. Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622–23 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995). On this record, Patent Owner’s arguments that the claim itself
`
`requires the integration link to move in a certain plane throughout every use
`
`are unpersuasive.
`
`2. The Claim Language in View of the Specification
`
` Patent Owner argues that “[e]very embodiment described in the ’613
`
`specification and every figure shows the integration links lying in a plane
`
`parallel to the flat surface . . . when transmitting a drive signal.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 16; id. at 16–19 (going through examples). It is well settled that broad
`
`claims should not be limited to the exemplary embodiments shown in the
`
`specification. Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) (a particular embodiment appearing in the written
`
`description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader
`
`than the embodiment). In addition, the ’613 patent makes very clear that
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`“the present systems and devices are not intended to be limited to the
`
`particular forms disclosed.” Ex. 1001, 11:35–39.
`
`Patent Owner points to no passages in the ’613 patent that disclaim
`
`the broader scope or otherwise mandate a narrow reading of the claim, nor
`
`do we find any. Indeed, as Petitioner points out, and Patent Owner does not
`
`contest, the integration link shown in the specification moves vertically, at
`
`least to some degree. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 14, depicting
`
`integration link 44 and drive rod 104 attached to control mechanism 106,
`
`which in turn has an arcuate slot to accommodate the vertical motion).
`
`Patent Owner identifies a passage that indicates that the horizontal
`
`orientation of the links “can reduce the amount of space that the steering
`
`assembly 20 and control system 40 occupy.” Prelim. Resp. 19. (citing Ex.
`
`1001, 7:18–20). There is no requirement that patents may only claim that
`
`which satisfies every purpose and benefit described in its specification.
`
`Further, there is no evidence that establishes that this particular benefit is the
`
`sine qua non of the invention or is otherwise so significant such as to effect a
`
`disavowal of claim scope. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s arguments that the
`
`specification requires the integration link to move in a certain plane
`
`throughout every use are unpersuasive.
`
`3. The Claim Language in View of the Prosecution History
`
`Patent Owner argues that the prosecution history supports its position
`
`that “each integration link must lie in a plane parallel to a flat surface during
`
`operation while transmitting a drive signal.” Prelim. Resp. 20; see also id. at
`
`19–22 (setting forth the entire argument). As evidence, Patent Owner points
`
`out that the examiner cited Ishimori (Ex. 2006) to show that “each link lies
`
`in a plane parallel to the ground.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1023, 146). Ishimori
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`depicts integration links that allegedly only move in the horizontal plane.
`
`Ex. 2006, Fig. 2. That the examiner found a reference that would satisfy
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction does not mean the examiner would
`
`have agreed with Patent Owner’s proposed construction. The prosecution
`
`history does not tell us whether the examiner believed Ishimori represents
`
`the maximum breadth of the claim, because examiners need only find prior
`
`art reading on something that falls within the scope of the claim. At best, the
`
`prosecution history establishes that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is
`
`not unreasonable; it does nothing to establish that Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction is unreasonable.
`
`4. Petitioner’s Construction Does Not Render Limitations Meaningless
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction renders the
`
`“configured to” language meaningless. Prelim. Resp. 22–26. We disagree.
`
`Petitioner’s construction gives weight to these limitations and demands that
`
`the prior art have certain structures to meet them. The integration link must
`
`be configured to lie in the claimed plane. Although it need not lie in that
`
`plane at all times, it must lie in the plane in a manner that meets the claims.
`
`This distinguishes over art such as Engel, which, as Patent Owner argues,
`
`discloses vertically-oriented integration links that never lie in the claimed
`
`plane. Prelim. Resp. 33; see also Ex. 1003, Fig. 7 (noting element 78′ is
`
`disposed vertically). Further, the claims do not require the integration link
`
`to lie in that plane while the vehicle is moving but rather when the vehicle is
`
`in use. The vehicle can be in use when not moving, e.g., simply idling, or
`
`operating a scoop or mower. As to the “transmit a drive signal” limitation, it
`
`requires the link to integrate speed and steering controls. As Patent Owner
`
`pointed out, this limitation defines over art such as Ishimori; it is not
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`superfluous. Accordingly, Petitioner’s construction of the claim does not
`
`read out limitations. The claims do not say, “lie in a plane . . . while
`
`transmitting a drive signal,” or some similar language, to limit the claims to
`
`the particular structure Patent Owner contends.
`
`On this record, we agree with Petitioner that “moveable” means
`
`“moveable in any direction” and that an integration link “configured to lie in
`
`a plane” simply must be configured to lie in that plane and need not be
`
`wholly bound in that plane at all times.
`
`B. Description of the Asserted Prior Art
`
`Petitioner relies on Seaberg and Engel. We provide an overview of
`
`each of these references before turning to the individual grounds.
`
`1. Seaberg
`
`Seaberg describes an apparatus for driving and steering crawler
`
`tractors or skid steer tractors, or the like. Ex. 1002, Abstract. Figures 1 and
`
`2 of Seaberg, reproduced below, with colors added by Mr. Smith, depicts the
`
`steering and speed linkage assemblies:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 52. Figures 1 and 2 of Seaberg depict left and right steering
`
`petals 60, 70 (in yellow), speed control lever 40 (in purple), and left and
`
`right follower links 95, 96 (in blue). As shown in Figure 1, when in the
`
`neutral speed position, left and right follower links 95, 96 are parallel to the
`
`ground. Ex. 1002, 3:58–64 (describing links 94, 95 as “in a horizontal
`
`position”). Application of forward speed control lowers the links down the
`
`guide 68 and 78 of the steering petals, and pulls connector link 92 or 94 to
`
`activate the appropriate output from pump 10. See id. at 3:58–4:18.
`
`Pressing on the steering petals causes the linkage to pull connector link 92 or
`
`94, but unlike with activation of speed control lever 40, steering petals 60,
`
`70 only operate to speed up or slow down one side of the vehicle, effecting
`
`steering. See id. at 3:4–57.
`
`2. Engel
`
`
`
`Engel describes an apparatus for driving and steering tracked vehicles
`
`having a pair of hydrostatic drive pumps. Ex. 1003, Abstract. Figure 7 of
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`Engel, reproduced below with colors added by Mr. Smith, depicts the
`
`steering and linkage assemblies:
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 33. Figure 7 of Engel depicts driving direction control lever 110
`
`(in purple), rotating control head 90′ (in purple), steering control 115 (in
`
`yellow), first sliding block 50′ (in yellow), and sliding block 70′ (in blue).
`
`Inputs from steering control 115 and directional control lever 110 are
`
`combined by way of their connection at pin assembly 80′ to produce a
`
`resulting output at sliding block 70′, which is connected to the drive pump
`
`and slows, and then reverses, the drive output as it moves to the right. See
`
`Ex. 1003, 3:23–32, 4:34–66.
`
`C. Petitioner’s Asserted Grounds
`
`1. Anticipation of Claim 28 by Seaberg
`
`Petitioner’s ground addresses each limitation of claim 28. Pet. 17–28.
`
`In particular, Petitioner reads the claimed integration links on follower links
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`95, 96 (shown in blue in Figure 1 above), which have slots 97, 98 that are
`
`straight. Id. at 20–21. The follower links also move in response to speed
`
`input from speed control lever 41 (shown in purple in Figure 1 above). Id. at
`
`21–22. Petitioner points out that Seaberg expressly describes the follower
`
`links to be in a horizontal position. Id. at 22–25 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:62–64;
`
`Fig. 1. (“[certain structures] are in a horizontal position, as are follower links
`
`(95) and (96)”)). Petitioner also asserts that the follower links in Seaberg
`
`transmit both drive and steering signals, by way of their connections to
`
`speed control lever 40 and pedals 60, 70. Id. at 25–28.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Seaberg does not disclose linkages parallel
`
`to the ground during operation or while transmitting a drive signal. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 27–32. As we explained above, however, the claim does not state that
`
`the linkages need to be parallel to the ground “while transmitting a drive
`
`signal.” Likewise, Patent Owner’s arguments that Seaberg’s arms are only
`
`parallel to the ground “when idle” are also not commensurate in scope with
`
`the claims. Moreover, from a logical standpoint, vehicles can be “in
`
`operation” or “in use” without movement relative to a point on the ground,
`
`i.e., when idling or when operating a mower, articulating arms, scoops, or
`
`other connected tools.
`
`In view of the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that claim 28 is
`
`anticipated by Seaberg.
`
`2. Obviousness of Claim 28 by Engel
`
`Petitioner sets forth how it believes Engel addresses each limitation of
`
`claim 28. Pet. 28–42. Petitioner asserts that the integration links are sliding
`
`blocks 70, 70a (also shown as 70′ in blue in Figure 7 above). Pet. 31.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`According to Petitioner, “Engel itself is silent on the particular orientation of
`
`the multiplier, which includes sliding blocks (70, 70a).” Id. at 34. Petitioner
`
`adds that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing Engel would
`
`understand that the orientation of the integration links . . . is a design
`
`choice.” Id. Petitioner provides evidence that vertically-oriented links were
`
`known, as evidenced by Case. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1019). Petitioner
`
`provides evidence that horizontally-oriented links were known, as also
`
`evidenced by Case. Id. at 36. Thus, according to Petitioner, “[t]he prior art
`
`reflects that a person of ordinary skill in the art may readily design a vehicle
`
`using integration linkages so that the linkages are oriented parallel or
`
`perpendicular to the surface on which the vehicle may operate.” Id. at 37.
`
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 34–37, 83–89). The proposed modification is to rotate
`
`the assembly of items 50′, 70′, 80′, and 90′, shown in Figure 7 of Engel, so
`
`that they are parallel to the ground, and, as a matter of “simple substitution,”
`
`modify the linkages from steering input 115 and directional input 110
`
`accordingly. Id. at 37–39.
`
`Although it is clear that from Petitioner’s evidence that linkages were
`
`known to be oriented vertically or horizontally, what is missing here is
`
`reasoned explanation of why it would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to modify Engel’s linkage in the manner proposed.
`
`In particular, the orientation of items 50′, 70′, 80′, and 90′ in Engel are
`
`vertical, which is a configuration that connects them in a straightforward
`
`manner to steering input 115 and directional input 110. Rotating items 50′,
`
`70′, 80′, and 90′ to the horizontal plane would require different linkages, as
`
`Petitioner acknowledges. Pet. 37–38 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that a simple substitution of mechanical linkages may be
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`performed to orient the mechanical control mechanism”). Petitioner offers
`
`reasons why the modification to Engel is possible, but no reason for
`
`considering such a modification in the first place. Without such reasoning
`
`and with only the evidence and arguments before us, the only reason we can
`
`discern to rotate those components of Engel, and to come up with different
`
`linkages so that it works in that orientation, is so that the components are
`
`horizontal, i.e., solely to meet the claim limitations. Such is the classic
`
`indicator of impermissible hindsight.
`
`On this record, we are not persuaded Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the subject matter of
`
`claim 28 would have been obvious in view of Engel.
`
`
`
`In view of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`III. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that inter partes review of the ’613 patent is instituted on
`
`the ground of whether claim 28 is anticipated by Seaberg;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.4, inter partes review of the ʼ613 patent shall commence on the
`
`entry date of this Order, and notice is hereby given of the institution of a
`
`trial; and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no ground other than that specifically
`
`provided above is authorized.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00219
`Patent 8,136,613
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Cyrus Morton
`camorton@rkmc.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John Cipolla
`jcipolla@calfee.com
`
`Mark McDougall
`mmcdougall@calfee.com
`
`Tracy Johnson
`tjohnson@calfee.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
