Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: February 9, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MYTEE PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JOHN FRANKLIN GEURKINK,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: February 9, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MYTEE PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JOHN FRANKLIN GEURKINK,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`
`Mytee Products, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1 and 5 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,522,385 B2, issued on September 3, 2013 (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`’385 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). John Franklin Geurkink (“Patent Owner”)
`
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a).
`
`To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the
`
`information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`
`the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered both the Petition and
`
`the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the
`
`unpatentability of either claim 1 or 5 of the ’385 patent. Accordingly, we do
`
`not institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The ʼ385 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`The ʼ385 patent is titled “High Efficiency Floor Treating System and
`
`Method.” Ex. 1001, (54). The “[e]mbodiments of the floor treating system
`
`include a floor treating device with a power source having a rotatable drive
`
`shaft with an axis of rotation, a flywheel with an aperture for receiving the
`
`drive shaft, a counterbalance connected to the flywheel, and a floor treating
`
`attachment.” Id. at Abstract, (57).
`
`As depicted below in Figure 2 of the ʼ385 patent, a floor treating
`
`system and method includes bottom portion 110, in which flywheel 210 is
`
`driven by drive shaft 200 powered by power source 150. Id. at 1:38–58,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`2:37–62. Drive shaft 200 connects to flywheel 210 via aperture 215, and
`
`flywheel 210 in turn connects to counterbalance 230. Id. Bolt 270 is
`
`radially offset (d2) from drive shaft 200 and supports floor treating
`
`attachment 130 via plug bearing 240. Id.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’385 patent represents a cross-sectional, side view of the
`bottom portion of a floor treating system.
`
`The ’385 patent describes floor treating attachment 130 located at
`
`multiple distances (d1, d2, d3) from axis of rotation (R) of rotatable drive
`
`shaft 200 of power source 150, including at least 0.400 inch. Id. at 2:47–55,
`
`3:49–52. “Each distance from the axis of rotation R corresponds to a
`
`different speed of oscillating motion that may be imparted from the drive
`
`shaft 200 to the floor treating attachment 130.” Id. at 2:52–55. The
`
`Specification states that an increased distance between floor treating
`
`attachment 130 and axis of rotation of the rotatable drive shaft (R) produces
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`a corresponding increased orbit size and increased speed of oscillating
`
`motion, which improves efficiency in floor treating. Id. at 4:39–46.
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims at issue:
`
`1. An oscillating, floor treating device comprising:
`
`a power source having a rotatable drive shaft, wherein
`the rotatable drive shaft rotates around an axis of rotation;
`
`a flywheel having an aperture configured to receive the
`drive shaft;
`
`a counterbalance connected to and extending radially
`from the flywheel; and
`
`a floor treating attachment configured to connect to the
`counterbalance at at least two different distances from the axis
`of rotation of the drive shaft, a first distance being at least 0.400
`inch from the axis of rotation of the drive shaft.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:27–38. Independent claim 5 is similar in scope but adds
`
`the recitation of “a plug bearing configured to be positioned between a
`
`bottom of the counterbalance and a top of the floor treating
`
`attachment.” Id. at 6:48–61.
`
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`
`According to the parties, there are no related proceedings involving
`
`the ’385 patent. Pet. 29; Paper 4, 2.
`
`
`
`D. References
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,448,476, filed Mar. 6, 1967, issued June 10, 1969
`
`(Ex. 1006, “Zaccone”);
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,482,362, filed Jan. 28, 1966, issued Dec. 9, 1969
`
`(Ex. 1003, “Bangerter”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,550,324, filed Apr. 17, 1968, issued Dec. 29, 1970
`
`(Ex. 1004, “Gerry”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,938,295 B1, filed Apr. 9, 2003, issued Sept. 6, 2005
`
`(Ex. 1002, “Lancaster”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,294,095 B1, filed May 4, 2004, issued Nov. 13,
`
`2007 (Ex. 1005, “Charnitski”); and
`
`International Publication No. WO 2008/062280 A2, filed Nov. 20,
`
`2007, published May 29, 2008 (Ex. 1012, “Marton”).
`
`E. Grounds Asserted
`
`
`
`Petitioner challenges the ʼ385 patent on the following grounds
`
`(Pet. 8–9):
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Lancaster, Bangerter,
`Gerry (or Marton), and
`Charnitski
`
`Zaccone, Gerry (or
`Marton), and Charnitski
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)1
`
`1, 5
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 5
`
`
`1 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the application from which the ’385 patent issued was filed
`before that date, our citations to Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`
`F. Claim Construction
`
`Although the parties propose constructions for several claim terms, we
`
`determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of
`
`this Decision.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A petition must show how the challenged claims are unpatentable
`
`under the statutory grounds it identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a
`
`petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`A. Obviousness Based on Lancaster, Bangerter,
`Gerry (or Marton), and Charnitski
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1 and 5 of the
`
`’385 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Lancaster,
`
`Bangerter, Gerry (or Marton), and Charnitski. Pet. 15–21, 26–27. In
`
`support thereof, Petitioner identifies the disclosures in each reference alleged
`
`to describe the subject matter in the challenged claims. Id.
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence.
`
`Given the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`
`claims 1 and 5 of the ’385 patent would have been obvious. We begin our
`
`analysis with the principles of law that apply generally to a ground based on
`
`obviousness, followed by a brief summary of each reference, and then the
`
`reasons for our determination.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`
`1. Principles of Law
`
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter 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; (3) the level of skill in
`
`the art;2 and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`An invention “composed of several elements is not proved obvious
`
`merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
`
`known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418. The relevant
`
`inquiry is whether Petitioner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with
`
`some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Further, “rejections on
`
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements.”
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Based on the current record, including our review of the ’385 patent and
`cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary
`skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See Pet. 7 (arguing
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been someone with a
`good working knowledge of orbital machines and familiar with surface
`treatment machines,” and with “education and training, several years of
`practical experience, or a combination of these”).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`
`2. Overview of Lancaster (Ex. 1002)
`
`Lancaster discloses an “[o]rbital floor treatment device having a two-
`
`component flywheel which facilitates installation and reduces vibration.”
`
`Ex. 1002, Abstract (57). Lancaster describes a floor treatment device having
`
`a power source with a rotating drive shaft, and transmitting power from the
`
`rotating drive shaft through a flywheel to a floor treatment surface. Id. at
`
`1:39–44. As depicted in the Figure below, disk shaped first component 12
`
`couples to flywheel spindle 12A and second disk shaped component 13
`
`carries counterweight 20 at one side. Id. at 2:12–39.
`
`
`
`The Figure of Lancaster represents an exploded, schematic, cross-sectional
`view of an orbital floor treatment device.
`
`Further, second component 13 is connected to the lower surface of first
`
`component 12. Id. Floor treating assembly 14 is disposed below second
`
`component 13 and has a rotational axis that is parallel to, but radially offset
`
`from, flywheel spindle 12A. Id. Bearing housing 16 with bearing 17 is
`
`disposed between second component 13 and floor treating assembly 14, and
`
`is separated from floor treating assembly 14 by spacer 18. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`
`3. Overview of Bangerter (Ex. 1003)
`
`Bangerter discloses a power tool such as a rotary sander or buffer.
`
`Ex. 1003, 1:22–23, Fig. 1. Bangerter describes how threaded member 2,
`
`driven by a motor, causes cup shaped housing 1 to rotate. Id. at 2:10–14.
`
`Cup shaped housing 1 has an eccentric cylindrical recess. Id.
`
`4. Overview of Gerry (Ex. 1004)
`
`Gerry discloses a surface treating apparatus, in which shaft 21 is
`
`received in carrier means 35 having a disk shape. Ex. 1004, 3:5–32, Fig. 3.
`
`Stub shaft 41 is received in a radially offset opening of carrier means 35 and
`
`rotates within a bearing system 64. Id. at 3:20–57. Surface treating head 40
`
`rotates about stub shaft 41. Id.; see also id. at Fig. 1. Gerry discloses a
`
`distance between shaft 21 and stub shaft 41 “of 0.2 – 2.0 inches to sustain
`
`appreciable change in the radial position of each point on the work-treating
`
`face of the head.” Id. at 6:45–54.
`
`5. Overview of Marton (Ex. 1012)
`
`Marton relates to an orbital off-centric sanding and grinding
`
`apparatus. Ex. 1012, 1:3–5, Fig. 1. Marton describes drive shaft 16 that
`
`rotates abrasive disc support 10 about axis 20. Id. at 6:20–32. Axis 20 is
`
`offset radially from center 12 of abrasive disc support 11 and causes an
`
`abrasive member, mounted on support 10, to travel in an elliptical path. Id.
`
`6. Overview of Charnitski (Ex. 1005)
`
`Charnitski discloses a vibrating exercise device. Ex. 1005, 1:6, Fig. 1.
`
`Charnitski describes disk 42 driven by a shaft rotating about axis 30. Id. at
`
`6:44–45. Oscillating surface 26 couples to disk 42 and rotates with an
`
`orbital movement about axis 28 at a varying distance d from axis 30. Id. at
`
`Fig. 3, 2:47–48, 4:55–62, 5:27–29. Disk 42 may also act as a flywheel to
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`help counterbalance the force caused by the offset rotation about axis 30. Id.
`
`at 6:56–60.
`
`7. Discussion
`
`Petitioner asserts that Lancaster teaches most of the limitations of
`
`claims 1 and 5 as well as a rotational axis in an offset position. Pet. 15–21,
`
`26–27. Petitioner acknowledges, however, that Lancaster does not teach “a
`
`floor treating attachment configured to connect to the counterbalance at at
`
`least two different distances from the axis of rotation of the drive shaft, a
`
`first distance being at least 0.400 inch from the axis of rotation of the drive
`
`shaft,” as recited in claims 1 and 5. Pet. 18–20. For this limitation,
`
`Petitioner relies on Gerry, or in the alternative Marton. Id. at 18. Petitioner
`
`also contends that to the extent Patent Owner argues that the counterbalances
`
`must have a plurality of attachment points, Charnitski teaches a plurality of
`
`attachment points. Id. at 19.
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`considered it obvious to combine the features of Gerry or Marton with
`
`Lancaster. Id. at 19–20. Petitioner argues, “[a] person of skill in the art
`
`would have learned from Gerry that the amount of space between the drive
`
`shaft and the shaft of the counterbalance may be varied.” Id. at 20.
`
`Petitioner contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`
`further learned from Gerry that it is desirable to set the distance r at different
`
`values in order to achieve appreciable changes in the surface treatment
`
`pattern.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 6:45–54). According to Petitioner, setting the
`
`distance r at different values “would enable him (her) to handle different
`
`floor treating situations more efficiently.” Id.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`
`Petitioner further contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have learned from Marton that the floor treating attachment may be
`
`positioned at various offset distances, “and that it is desirable to change that
`
`offset distance depending upon the application of interest.” Id.
`
`
`
`Based on these observations as to what a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have “learned” from each of Gerry and Marton, Petitioner
`
`concludes:
`
`a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
`the disclosures of Lancaster, Gerry or Marton, and Charnitski to
`increase the performance of the device disclosed by Lancaster
`by positioning the oscillating attachment at different offsets from
`the drive shaft, larger than 0.400 inch, as disclosed by Gerry or
`Marton, for example, by providing a plurality of counterbalances
`as disclosed by Marton or a counterbalance with holes at
`different offset distances as disclosed by Charnitski.
`
`Id. at 21 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner disagrees and contends Petitioner fails to show a reason
`
`to combine Lancaster, Bangerter, Gerry (or Marton) and Charnitski to arrive
`
`at the invention of claims 1 and 5. Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner argues
`
`that Petitioner’s basis for the combination “is nothing more than the ‘mere
`
`showing’ that certain features may be found in disparate references, without
`
`providing any reason for making the combination.” Id. at 16–17. Patent
`
`Owner further contends that the sole basis provided by Petitioner
`
`(“increasing performance of a device”) cannot qualify as a proper reason to
`
`combine the references because no patent would issue that resulted in
`
`increased performance over the prior art. Id. at 17.
`
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not established
`
`persuasively a rationale to combine the teachings of Lancaster with Gerry or
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`Marton. Petitioner’s sole rationale (“to increase the performance of the
`
`device”) is conclusory and lacks a rational underpinning. Seeking “to
`
`increase the performance of the device” is too generic a reason, which,
`
`without more, fails to constitute a reasonable rationale with a rational
`
`underpinning. Specifically, Petitioner does not explain adequately how the
`
`proposed combination would increase performance, or why changing an
`
`offset distance would increase performance.
`
`Petitioner’s citations to Gerry and Marton do not establish factual
`
`support for concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`combined the references for the purpose of achieving some generic increase
`
`in performance. Petitioner contends Gerry discloses changing the r value
`
`“to achieve appreciable changes in the surface treatment pattern,” which
`
`would allow a user “to handle different floor treating situations more
`
`efficiently.” Pet. 20. The cited portions of Gerry do not discuss any benefit
`
`resulting from a changed r distance. Instead, the cited language discloses
`
`that the distance r may “be in the approximate range of 0.2 inch to 2.0 inches
`
`to sustain appreciable change in the radial position of each point on the
`
`work-treating surface in the radial position.” Ex. 1004, 6:45–54. The cited
`
`portion of Gerry discloses that changing r will have a corresponding change
`
`in radial position of points on the work-treating surface, but the cited
`
`passage does not discuss making the device more efficient, or increasing its
`
`performance. Petitioner has not established persuasively that Gerry supports
`
`modifying Lancaster in the proposed manner to increase the performance of
`
`the device.
`
`
`
`Similarly, Petitioner has not established persuasively that Marton
`
`supports modifying Lancaster in the proposed manner to increase the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`performance of the device. Petitioner argues, without citation, that Marton
`
`discloses the desirability of changing the offset distance depending upon the
`
`application of interest. Pet. 20. Accepting this argument as true, Petitioner
`
`has not provided persuasive reasoning as to how changing the offset distance
`
`for different applications would increase the performance of the device, or
`
`why Lancaster would even need to be modified to change applications. For
`
`example, Lancaster teaches that its floor treatment device, with its singular
`
`offset distance, can already be used for multiple applications, including
`
`polishing, stripping, and scrubbing. Ex. 1002, 1:10–18, 4:3–8.
`
`
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on Charnitski, Petitioner also has not
`
`established persuasively a rationale to combine the teachings of Charnitski
`
`with Lancaster. See Pet. 21. Petitioner has not explained adequately how
`
`Charnitski’s “attachment holes in different positions” would “increase the
`
`performance of the device.” Id.
`
`To prevail, Petitioner’s analysis must explain adequately why one
`
`skilled in the art would combine the elements in the way the claimed new
`
`invention does. Petitioner has provided only conclusory assertions by
`
`counsel, unsupported by declaration testimony. In particular, Petitioner fails
`
`to provide support for its own position that the proposed combination would
`
`“increase the performance of the device” based on the combination. Id.
`
`Further, Petitioner’s reason for the modification appears to come solely from
`
`the ’385 patent and its file history. Compare Pet. 21, with Ex 1001, 4:39–42
`
`(“increased distance” would “improve efficiency in floor treating”) and
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 4 (inventor declaration discussing increased performance). The
`
`rationale relied upon by Petitioner must not come solely from the description
`
`in the ’385 patent. See W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 421 (“A
`
`factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight
`
`bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.”).
`
`Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s articulated reasoning for why
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed combination is
`
`based on rational underpinnings.
`
`In view of the above discussion, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the
`
`challenged claims would have been obvious over Lancaster, Bangerter,
`
`Gerry (or Marton), and Charnitski.
`
`A. Obviousness Based on Zaccone,
`Gerry (or Marton), and Charnitski
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1 and 5 of the
`
`’385 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Zaccone, Gerry
`
`(or Marton), and Charnitski. Pet. 21–26, 28–29. In support thereof,
`
`Petitioner identifies the disclosures in each reference alleged to describe the
`
`subject matter in the challenged claims. Id.
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence.
`
`We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1 and 5 of the ’385 patent
`
`would have been obvious based on Zaccone, Gerry (or Marton), and
`
`Charnitski. Below, we provide an overview of Zaccone and explain the
`
`reasons for our determination.
`
`1. Overview of Zaccone (Ex. 1006)
`
`Zaccone relates to a portable polishing machine with drive shaft 16
`
`received in housing 12. Ex. 1006, 1:11–16, 2:55–56, Figs. 1, 2. Zaccone
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`describes balancing member 60 connected to the lower surface of housing 12
`
`and polishing head 26 disposed below balancing member 60. Id. at 2:52–
`
`3:69. Pivot shaft 24 for polishing head 26 is parallel to, but radially offset
`
`from, drive shaft 18.
`
`2. Discussion
`
`Petitioner relies on Zaccone as teaching most of the limitations of
`
`claims 1 and 5. See Pet. 21–26, 28, 29; id. at 25 (“Zaccone discloses a
`
`device having all the claimed limitations except for a floor treating
`
`attachment configured to connect to the counterbalance at at least two
`
`different distances from the axis of rotation of the drive shaft, a first distance
`
`being at least 0.400 inch from the axis of rotation of the drive shaft.”).
`
`Petitioner again relies on Gerry (or Marton) as teaching these missing
`
`limitations. Id. at 23–24.
`
`Petitioner’s basis for combining the teachings of Zaccone with those
`
`of Gerry (or Marton) is the same as set forth above related to Lancaster. Id.
`
`at 25–26. Specifically, Petitioner provides the same reason a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Gerry (or
`
`Marton) with those of Zaccone as Petitioner provided for the Lancaster and
`
`Gerry (or Marton) combination – “to increase the performance of the
`
`device.” Id. at 21.
`
`For the same reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded that
`
`Petitioner’s articulated reasoning for why one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have made the proposed combination is based on rational
`
`underpinnings. In view of the above discussion, we likewise conclude that
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`showing the challenged claims would have been obvious over Zaccone,
`
`Gerry (or Marton), and Charnitski.
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail
`
`in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1 and 5 on any ground of
`
`unpatentability asserted in the Petition.
`
`
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`V. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims and
`
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2016-01654
`Patent 8,522,385 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Franco Serafini
`David Fortner
`THEMIS LAW
`fserafini@themisipc.com
`contact@themisipc.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Andrew D. Dorisio
`Trevor T. Graves
`King & Schickli, PLLC
`andrew@iplaw1.net
`trevor@iplaw1.net
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
