throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 18
`Entered: January 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOUCH COFFEE & BEVERAGES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER,
`and MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`A. Background
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2,
`
`“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–5, 8–14, 16, 17, and 20–
`
`22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,149,149 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’149 patent”). Touch
`
`Coffee & Beverages, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for
`
`instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 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.”
`
`After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`
`evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly,
`
`we do not institute inter partes review.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The parties note that the ’149 patent is the subject of Keurig Green
`
`Mountain, Inc. v. Touch Coffee & Beverages, LLC, Case No. 1:16-CV-
`
`10142-DJC (D. Mass.). Pet. v; Paper 5, 1. Petitioner also challenges the
`
`’149 patent in a co-pending petition for inter partes review, IPR2016-01396.
`
`In addition, Petitioner challenges related patents in IPR2016-01390
`
`(challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,144,343); IPR2016-01394 (challenging U.S.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`Patent No. 9,149,151); and IPR2016-01395 (challenging U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,149,150). Pet. v; Paper 5, 1.
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–5, 8–14, 16, 17, and 20–22 of the
`
`’149 patent are unpatentable based on the following grounds (Pet. 13–55):1
`
`Statutory
`Ground
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Castellani2 and Yoakim3
`Castellani, Rivera,4 and
`Sylvan5
`
`1–5, 8–14, 16, 17, and 20–22
`1–5, 8–14, 16, 17, and 20–22
`
`D. The ’149 Patent
`
`The ’149 patent “is directed to a beverage brewing system, and in
`
`particular, to a brewing system for making hot beverages.” Ex. 1001, 1:18–
`
`19. In particular, it “is directed to a cartridge system adapted to brew a
`
`beverage through a brewer having a brewing chamber adapted to receive the
`
`cartridge system.” Id. at 4:24–26. “The cartridge system may include a
`
`holder adapted to receive a first beverage cartridge and a second beverage
`
`cartridge,” where the second cartridge is taller than the first. Id. at 4:50–53.
`
`“The holder may also have a first needle and a second needle,” where “[t]he
`
`
`1 Petitioner also relies on a declaration from Paul A. Phillips. Ex. 1012.
`
`2 Castellani, WO 2013/153473 A1, published Oct. 17, 2013 (Ex. 1002,
`“Castellani”).
`
`3 Yoakim et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,569,243 B2, issued Aug. 4, 2009
`(Ex. 1003, “Yoakim”).
`
`4 Rivera, U.S. Patent No. 9,232,871 B2, issued Jan. 12, 2016 (Ex. 1008,
`“Rivera”).
`
`5 Sylvan et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,325,765, issued July 5, 1994 (Ex. 1009,
`“Sylvan”).
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`first needle may be adapted to pierce through the first beverage cartridge,
`
`and the second needle may be adapted to pierce through the second beverage
`
`cartridge.” Id. at 4:55–60. The design of the cartridges and the placement of
`
`the needles within the holder are such that each type of cartridge is only
`
`pierced by the needle designed to pierce it, and not by the other needle. Id.
`
`at 4:61–65. Those features are shown in Figures 7 and 11 of the ’149 patent,
`
`which are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts holder 116 with short cartridge 100 inserted and
`
`being pierced by first needle 130 and not second needle 132. Id. at 10:15–
`
`16, 10:20–23. Figure 11 depicts the same holder with tall cartridge 300
`
`inserted in place of the short cartridge of Figure 7. Id. at 13:12–13. The tall
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`cartridge is pierced by second needle 132 but not by first needle 130. Id. at
`
`13:18–23.
`
`E. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims in the ’149 patent, claims 1, 10, 13, and 22
`
`are independent. Ex. 1001, 33:27–36:46. Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative;
`
`they recite:
`
`1. A method of brewing a beverage from either one of a first
`beverage cartridge having a beverage ingredient therein and a
`second beverage cartridge having a beverage ingredient therein,
`which is taller than the first beverage cartridge, with a brewer
`having an inlet needle, a first outlet needle, and a second outlet
`needle, the method comprising the steps of:
`
`piercing the first beverage cartridge with the inlet needle and,
`at a first predetermined piercing location within the
`brewer, piercing the first beverage with the first outlet
`needle;
`
`not piercing the first beverage cartridge at a second
`predetermined piercing location within the brewer, that is
`vertically offset from the first predetermined piercing
`location, with the second outlet needle;
`
`injecting liquid into the first beverage cartridge with the inlet
`needle; and
`
`draining beverage from within the first beverage cartridge
`with the first outlet needle.
`
`Id. at 33:27–44.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`10. A method of brewing a beverage with a brewer having an
`inlet needle, a first outlet needle, and a second outlet needle
`located in spaced relation to the first outlet needle, the method
`comprising the steps of:
`
`piercing a first beverage cartridge having a first configuration
`and a beverage ingredient therein with the inlet needle and
`with the first outlet needle;
`
`not piercing the first beverage cartridge with the second outlet
`needle;
`
`injecting liquid into the first beverage cartridge with the inlet
`needle;
`
`draining beverage from within the first beverage cartridge
`with the first outlet needle;
`
`after the first beverage cartridge has been removed from the
`brewer, piercing a second beverage cartridge having a
`second configuration that is different than the first
`configuration and a beverage ingredient therein with the
`inlet needle and with the second outlet needle;
`
`not piercing the second beverage cartridge with the first outlet
`needle;
`
`injecting liquid into the second beverage cartridge with the
`inlet needle; and
`
`draining beverage from within the second beverage cartridge
`with the second outlet needle.
`
`Id. at 34:39–62.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`
`patent 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); see
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144 (2016) (upholding
`
`the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Claim terms
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`generally 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). Both parties suggest that three terms need to be construed: “beverage
`
`ingredient,” “vertically offset,” and “needle.” Pet. 9–12; Prelim. Resp. 8–9.
`
`But the parties do not disagree on the proper construction of any of those
`
`terms, Prelim. Resp. 8–9, and, rather than offering an actual proposed
`
`construction for any term, Petitioner merely asks us to hold Patent Owner to
`
`positions it has taken in the related litigation. Pet. 9–12. Thus, there is no
`
`actual dispute over those terms for us to resolve. Accordingly, we need not
`
`construe any of those terms expressly. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be
`
`construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`
`the controversy”).
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness over Castellani and Yoakim
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–5, 8–14, 16, 17, and 20–22 would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of
`
`Castellani and Yoakim. Pet. 13–42.
`
`1. Castellani
`
`Castellani teaches “capsules for producing a beverage, or more
`
`generally an edible product, by flowing hot and possibly pressurized water
`
`through the capsule, which contains at least one or more ingredients for the
`
`preparation of edible product.” Ex. 1002, 1:2–4. Specifically, Castellani
`
`teaches brewing two different types of coffee from the same cartridge.
`
`“Brewing espresso coffee requires flowing hot and pressurized water
`
`through the capsule containing coffee powder,” whereas “‘American coffee’
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`is usually produced by flowing a large amount of water at reduced or zero
`
`pressure across a coffee powder bed.” Id. at 1:14–19. Castellani purports to
`
`solve the problem of making those two types of coffee “having variable
`
`organoleptic characteristics using the same single-serving package.” Id. at
`
`1:22–25. The disclosed method of doing so is illustrated in Figures 4, 5, and
`
`5A of Castellani, which are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figures 4 and 5 depict brewing chamber 15 with lower brewing
`
`chamber 15A including capsule recess 17. Id. at 10:15–24. Both figures
`
`show capsule 1 introduced into capsule recess 17. Id. at 10:22–24. Piercing
`
`members 27 and 29, containing hollow ports 27A and 29A, respectively, are
`
`placed on the bottom of capsule recess 17 projecting upward. Id. at 11:12–
`
`15. Piercing member 29 projects further into capsule recess 17 than does
`
`piercing member 27. Id. at 11:26–29.
`
`Capsule 1 may be introduced into capsule recess 17 in two alternative
`
`ways, one shown in Figure 4, and one shown in Figure 5. In Figure 4,
`
`capsule 1 is introduced so that wall portion 7A is pressed against piercing
`
`member 27, causing piercing member 27 to puncture wall portion 7A before
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`brewing begins. Id. at 12:2–7. In Figure 5, capsule 1 is introduced so that
`
`wall portion 7A does not make contact with piercing member 27, and no
`
`puncturing of capsule 1 occurs before brewing begins. Id. at 12:8–12. As
`
`shown in Figure 5 (before brewing begins) and Figure 5A (after sufficient
`
`pressure develops inside capsule 1 during brewing), piercing member 29
`
`does not puncture capsule 1 until sufficient pressure develops inside
`
`capsule 1 to deform wall 7. Id. at 12:13–23.
`
`The two different possible orientations of capsule 1 in capsule
`
`recess 17 permit the same capsule to be used to conduct two different
`
`brewing operations. In the Figure 4 orientation, “water can flow at a
`
`relatively high flow rate and low pressure through the capsule.” Id. at 13:7–
`
`11. That produces “‘American’ coffee.” Id. at 13:12–13. In the Figure 5
`
`orientation, “brewing will be performed at a higher water pressure and lower
`
`flow rate, obtaining for example an espresso coffee with a top cream layer.”
`
`Id. at 13:14–27.
`
`Castellani describes other embodiments in which, in contrast to the
`
`embodiment illustrated in Figures 5 and 5A, piercing member 29 does
`
`partially or entirely perforate wall 7 of capsule 1 before brewing begins. Id.
`
`at 12:13–13:4. Each of those embodiments, however, is described as not
`
`permitting any liquid to exit capsule 1 via port 29A until the pressure inside
`
`capsule 1 rises to a sufficient value to deform wall 7. Id.
`
`2. Yoakim
`
`Yoakim “relates to a device for preparing a food product from a
`
`capsule,” where the device is adapted to accommodate capsules of at least
`
`two different sizes. Ex. 1003, 1:41–54, Figs. 8–11. That allows a large
`
`capsule to be used to brew “a concentrated drink in a cup of large capacity,”
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`rather than forcing a user “to use two capsules of product in succession to
`
`obtain the desired concentration.” Id. at 1:30–37. Each of Yoakim’s
`
`capsules has a flat bottom when placed into the brewing device. Id. at
`
`Figs. 3–6.
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Petitioner argues that, between them, Castellani and Yoakim teach or
`
`suggest each of the limitations of claims 1–5, 8–14, 16, 17, and 20–22 of the
`
`’149 patent. Pet. 13–42. Petitioner also argues that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of
`
`Castellani and those of Yoakim. Id. at 20–22. After reviewing the Petition,
`
`the Preliminary Response, and the evidence currently of record, we conclude
`
`that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently a reason to combine the teachings
`
`of Castellani and Yoakim.
`
`First, the combination of Castellani and Yoakim Petitioner proposes
`
`would eliminate the benefits of the device of Castellani alone. Petitioner
`
`argues that the combined teachings of Castellani and Yoakim would have
`
`led the person of ordinary skill in the art to use Castellani’s brewer, one tall
`
`cartridge of the type and in the position shown in Castellani Figure 4, and
`
`one short cartridge of the same type and in the same position, but modified
`
`to have a flat bottom. Pet. 23, 34–35. Thus, in Petitioner’s proposed
`
`combination, Castellani’s brewer is used with two different cartridges of
`
`different sizes and configurations to brew two beverages of different sizes.
`
`But the sole benefit that Castellani teaches is solving the “need for a system
`
`which is capable of producing beverages having variable organoleptic
`
`characteristics using the same single-serving package.” Ex. 1002, 1:22–24.
`
`By modifying Castellani to remove that benefit, the proposed combination
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`renders Castellani unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. This eliminates
`
`any reason to modify Castellani using the teachings of Yoakim. In re
`
`Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`Moreover, Petitioner offers only one reason for the combination:
`
`“allow[ing] Castellani’s brewer to . . . mak[e] beverages in different sizes.”
`
`Pet. 20. But Yoakim’s brewer can be used on its own to make beverages in
`
`different sizes, making it unclear why a person of ordinary skill would
`
`abandon it in favor of using Castellani’s brewer.
`
`Second, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had a reason to make all the modifications needed
`
`to make the combination of Castellani and Yoakim work as intended.
`
`Petitioner argues that the Castellani brewer would need no modification to
`
`work with the proposed flat-bottom cartridge. Pet. 20–23. But the evidence
`
`of record establishes that some modifications to the brewer would have been
`
`necessary, without establishing that those modifications would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s declarant, Paul
`
`A. Phillips, testifies that “any modifications necessary to the piercing
`
`element 29” to enable coffee to be made using the modified cartridge would
`
`have been obvious. Ex. 1012 ¶ 66. But that testimony is insufficiently
`
`supported. It does not explain why Mr. Phillips is of the opinion that those
`
`modifications would have been obvious, nor does it even explain what those
`
`modifications would have been. “Expert testimony that does not disclose
`
`the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little
`
`or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Accordingly, the testimony of
`
`Mr. Phillips is insufficient to support the obviousness of the modifications to
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`Castellani’s piercing element 29 that would have been necessary for the
`
`brewer to make coffee.
`
`An obviousness argument cannot succeed without Petitioner
`
`establishing a reason to combine the relevant references. There must be
`
`“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to combine
`
`the known elements in the manner required in the claim at issue. KSR Int’l
`
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Because Petitioner does not
`
`provide adequate “articulated reasoning,” we determine that Petitioner has
`
`not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the
`
`obviousness of the challenged claims over the combination of Castellani and
`
`Yoakim.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Castellani, Rivera, and Sylvan
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–5, 8–14, 16, 17, and 20–22 would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of
`
`Castellani, Rivera, and Sylvan. Pet. 42–55.
`
`1. Sylvan and Rivera
`
`Sylvan discloses a beverage filter cartridge with a base, a cover, and a
`
`filter. Ex. 1009, 3:48–53, Fig. 1. The filter “contains coffee powder,” and
`
`the base “has the shape of an inverted truncated cone.” Id. Rivera
`
`incorporates Sylvan by reference and further describes Sylvan’s cartridge.
`
`Ex. 1008, 1:25–31, 2:28–43, Fig. 1. Rivera describes Sylvan’s cartridge as
`
`having a flat bottom and a frusto-conical shape. Id. at 2:28–43, Fig. 1. The
`
`cartridge “includes a pierceable shell 14 and contains brewing material 16.”
`
`Id. at 2:32–33.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Petitioner argues that, between them, Castellani, Rivera, and Sylvan
`
`teach or suggest each of the limitations of claims 1–5, 8–14, 16, 17, and 20–
`
`22 of the ’149 patent. Pet. 42–55. Petitioner also argues that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the
`
`teachings of Castellani and those of Rivera and Sylvan. Id. at 42–49. After
`
`reviewing the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence currently
`
`of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently a reason to
`
`combine the teachings of Castellani, Rivera, and Sylvan.
`
`First, as with the combination of Castellani and Yoakim discussed
`
`above, the combination of Castellani, Rivera, and Sylvan that Petitioner
`
`proposes would eliminate the benefits of Castellani alone. Petitioner argues
`
`that the combined teachings of Castellani, Rivera, and Sylvan would have
`
`led the person of ordinary skill in the art to use Castellani’s brewer, one tall
`
`cartridge of the type and in the position shown in Castellani Figure 4, and
`
`one short cartridge of the type disclosed in Rivera and Sylvan. Pet. 47–48;
`
`Ex. 1012 ¶ 69. Thus, in Petitioner’s proposed combination, Castellani’s
`
`brewer is used with two different cartridges of different sizes and
`
`configurations to brew two beverages of different sizes. But the sole benefit
`
`that Castellani teaches is solving the “need for a system which is capable of
`
`producing beverages having variable organoleptic characteristics using the
`
`same single-serving package.” Ex. 1002, 1:22–24. By modifying Castellani
`
`to remove that benefit, the proposed combination renders Castellani
`
`unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. This eliminates any reason to
`
`modify Castellani using the flat-bottom cartridge teachings of Rivera and
`
`Sylvan. Gordon, 733 F.2d at 902.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`Moreover, Petitioner offers only one reason for the combination: the
`
`cartridges disclosed in Rivera and Sylvan were widely used, effective, and a
`
`market leader available in over 200 varieties, so a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would want to use them in any brewer. Pet. 43. But Rivera and
`
`Sylvan disclose the existence of brewers designed to make use of the
`
`cartridges described therein, making it unclear why a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have abandoned those brewers in favor of Castellani’s
`
`brewer. Ex. 1008, 1:23–31 (noting that the cartridge of Ex. 1009 is designed
`
`“for use in a Keurig® coffee maker”); Ex. 1008, 2:28–32 (noting that the
`
`cartridge of Fig. 1 is the cartridge of Ex. 1009).
`
`Second, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had a reason to make all the modifications needed
`
`to make the combination of Castellani, Rivera, and Sylvan work as intended.
`
`Petitioner argues that the Castellani brewer would need no modification to
`
`work with the proposed shorter, flat-bottom cartridge. Pet. 45. But the
`
`evidence of record establishes that some modifications to the brewer would
`
`have been necessary, without establishing that those modifications would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner itself
`
`acknowledges that the size of the Castellani brewing chamber would need to
`
`be chosen properly, that Castellani’s tag sensor would need to be moved,
`
`and that the Castellani brewer would need to be reprogrammed. Id. at 45–
`
`46. Mr. Phillips testifies that those modifications would have been obvious,
`
`Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 67–68, but, as with the testimony discussed above, that
`
`testimony is unsupported. Accordingly, it is insufficient to support the
`
`obviousness of the modifications Petitioner argues would have been
`
`necessary for the proposed combination to work properly.
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`Third, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how the teachings of
`
`Castellani and those of Rivera and Sylvan would have been combined to
`
`allow the Rivera/Sylvan cartridge to work with the Castellani brewer. As
`
`noted above, Petitioner argues that no changes to the Castellani brewing
`
`chamber other than changes to its size would be required to use the
`
`Castellani brewing chamber with the cartridges disclosed in Rivera and
`
`Sylvan. Pet. 45. That argument is supported by the testimony of
`
`Mr. Phillips. Ex. 1012 ¶ 67. Accordingly, Petitioner does not propose
`
`moving any part of the Castellani brewer from the locations described in
`
`Castellani. But the evidence of record establishes that Castellani’s piercing
`
`element 29 is located so as to pierce the center of any cartridge inserted into
`
`the brewing chamber, whereas the cartridges disclosed in Rivera and Sylvan
`
`would not have worked if pierced in the center. Ex. 1002, Fig. 4A; Ex. 2011
`
`¶ 107. Petitioner does not direct us to sufficient record evidence that
`
`explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified those
`
`apparently incompatible components to achieve compatibility.
`
`Because Petitioner does not provide adequate “articulated reasoning,”
`
`we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing in showing the obviousness of the challenged claims over the
`
`combination of Castellani, Rivera, and Sylvan.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`
`evidence before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that any of claims 1–
`
`5, 8–14, 16, 17, and 20–22 is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`inter partes review of those claims on either of the grounds advanced by
`
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`It is hereby
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied,
`
`and no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01392
`Patent 9,149,149 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Richard F. Giunta
`Robert E. Hunt
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.comRHunt-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Sang N. Dang
`BLUE CAPITAL LAW FIRM, P.C.
`sdang@bluecapitallaw.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