`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: February 27, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BIXOLON CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SHINHEUNG PRECISION CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`____________
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Bixolon Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,629,666 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’666 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). In response, Patent Owner, ShinHeung
`Precision Co., Ltd., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`35 U.S.C. § 314 provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`“unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`For the reasons set forth below, we deny institution of an inter partes
`review of the ’666 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`According to the parties, the ’666 patent is involved in the following
`lawsuit: ShinHeung Precision Co., Ltd. v. Bixolon Co., Ltd. et al., 2:16-cv-
`00109-CAS-SS (C.D. Cal.). Pet. 1; Paper 6, 1. Additionally, Petitioner
`challenged claims 1–18 of the ’666 patent in IPR2016-01068, in which
`institution of an inter partes review was denied. Pet. 1; Prelim. Resp. 1.
`
`B. The ’666 Patent
`The ’666 patent relates to a printer “for detecting a termination of a
`web of printing medium that is continuously fed from a supply reel.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:8–11. Figure 2 of the ’666 patent is reproduced below.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts the detecting device of a printer according to the ’666
`patent. Id. at 3:65–67. Printer frame 110 includes “a first printing medium
`detecting means 210 and a second printing medium detecting means 220 for
`non-contact detecting the termination of the printing medium.” Id. at 4:50–
`54. Detecting means 210/220 include windows 111/112 for transmitting
`light, photo sensor modules 211/221 for emitting light to the windows and
`detecting light reflected from the windows, and housings 212/222 having
`apertures 217, for movably supporting the sensor modules. Id. at 5:13–23,
`Figs. 2, 4A, 4B. Because both first and second detecting means are
`provided, termination of the printing medium can be detected “in a desktop
`posture or wall mount posture without having to adjust an initially set
`posture” of the detecting device. Id. at 2:53–58, 4:31–38, Figs. 2–3.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`
`Figure 9A of the ’666 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 9A depicts printer frame 110 positioned in a horizontal,
`desktop posture. Id. at 5:3–7. Figure 9A also depicts, in broken line, an
`original diameter of printing medium roll 1 and depicts, in solid line, a
`reduced diameter of the roll. Id. at 5:3–7, 7:11–15. When the diameter is so
`reduced, the roll of printing medium sits in the lowest portion of frame 110,
`along guiding end 123. Id. In such a position,
`one end of the roll is exposed through the window 112 . . . [and]
`light emitted from the photo sensor module 221 is reflected
`back to the photo sensor module 221. In response, the main
`controller (not shown) outputs the results in the form of an
`electric signal.
` Accordingly,
`information
`indicating
`the
`termination or near-termination of the printing medium 1 is
`detected, and this information is conveyed to the user through a
`display or a certain form of an alarm.
`Id. at 7:14–25; see also id. at 5:8–12, 7:26–37, Fig. 9B (explaining
`comparable operation of sensor module 211 when printer frame 110 is
`mounted in a vertical, wall mount posture).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’666 patent, reproduced above, also depicts position
`adjusting means 300, which adjusts the initial set position of first and second
`detecting means 210/220 according to the initial diameter of the roll of
`printing medium. Id. at 4:55–60, 8:27–35. Position adjusting means 300
`includes rotary knob 310 with lever 320 and first and second cam grooves
`311/312, which constrain cam pins 213/223 provided on housings 212/222
`of detecting means 210/220. Id. at 6:1–12, Figs. 6A–6B. Therefore, to set
`the initial position of the detecting means,
`rotary lever 320 is rotated in direction a or b, [such that] the
`position adjusting means 300 moves the housing 212 in
`direction c or d according to the cam following movement of
`the first and the second cam grooves 311 and 312 and the cam
`pins 213 and 223. At the same time, the housing 222 is moved
`in a direction e or f. As a result, according to the diameter of
`the roll of the printing medium 1 in use, the detection points of
`the photo sensor modules 211 and 221 can be adjusted higher or
`lower within the windows 111 and 112, and the initial set
`position of the photo sensor modules 211 and 221 can be
`adjusted easily.
`Id. at 8:41–53, Fig. 8.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Challenged claims 1 and 6 are independent. Challenged claims 2–5
`depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and challenged claims 7–18
`depend directly or indirectly from claim 6.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`
`1.
`An apparatus of a printer for detecting a
`termination of a printing medium, comprising:
`a frame, the frame housing and supporting a roll of the
`printing medium;
`printing medium detecting means for non-contact
`detecting of the termination or a near-termination of the
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`
`printing medium according to a varying diameter of the roll of
`the printing medium; and
`position adjusting means for adjusting an initial set
`position of the printing medium detecting means according to
`an initial diameter of the roll of the printing medium;
`wherein the position adjusting means comprises:
`a cam pin formed on a housing; and
`a rotary knob rotatably mounted on the frame, and having
`a cam groove for linearly reciprocating the housing in
`cooperation with the cam pin which is contained in the cam
`groove and movable along the cam groove.
`Ex. 1001, 9:64–10:14.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`
`Duncan
`Tamotsu
`Shibata
`Shiga
`Hosomi
`Hsu
`
`
`US 5,138,150
`JP H7-2212
`HP H8-34554
`JP H8-330023
`US 5,820,068
`US 5,857,364
`
`Aug. 11, 1992
`Jan. 25, 1995
`Feb. 6, 1996
`Dec. 13, 1996
`Oct. 13, 1998
`Jan. 12, 1999
`
`(Ex. 1009)
`(Ex. 1005)1
`(Ex. 1007)2
`(Ex. 1003)3
`(Ex. 1002)
`(Ex. 1010)
`
`
`1 A certified English translation of Tamotsu (Ex. 1005) is provided as
`Exhibit 1006. We cite the translation in this Decision.
`2 A certified English translation of Shibata (Ex. 1007) is provided as Exhibit
`1008. We cite the translation in this Decision.
`3 A certified English translation of Shiga (Ex. 1003) is provided as Exhibit
`1004. We cite the translation in this Decision.
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`References
`Basis
`Challenged Claim(s)
`Hosomi and Shiga
`§ 103(a)
`1–3 and 5
`Hosomi, Shiga, and Tamotsu
`§ 103(a)
`4
`Hosomi and Shibata
`§ 103(a)
`6–10 and 18
`Hosomi, Shibata, and Duncan
`§ 103(a)
`11–13
`Hosomi, Shibata, and Hsu
`§ 103(a)
`14–16
`Hosomi, Shibata, Hsu, and Tamotsu
`§ 103(a)
`1–5 and 16–17
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’666
`patent would have had (a) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or
`mechanical engineering (or comparable degree), as well as two years of
`experience in printer design, or (b) a master’s degree in electrical
`engineering or mechanical engineering (or comparable degree). Pet. 14–15
`(citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not state a proposed level of skill
`in the art in its Preliminary Response.
`At this stage of the proceeding, we determine that it is not necessary
`to establish a specific level of skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in
`the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under that standard, claim
`terms are generally 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).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following terms and phrases,
`in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph: “printing medium
`detecting means,” “position adjusting means,” and “guiding means.” Pet.
`15–17. For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not challenge
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Prelim. Resp. 13.
`On the record before us, we need not construe explicitly this language
`in reaching our Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`C. Overview of Petitioner’s Asserted Grounds of Obviousness
`Petitioner contends that challenged claims 1–18 are unpatentable as
`
`obvious over Hosomi in combination with one or more of Shiga, Shibata,
`Tamotsu, Hsu, and Duncan. Pet. 17–83. However, as Patent Owner
`correctly states, “[w]e’ve been here before.” Prelim. Resp. 1. Indeed, in
`IPR2016-01068, Petitioner previously contended that claims 1–18 of the
`’666 patent were unpatentable as obvious over the same prior art reference
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`to Hosomi in combination with one or more of Sato,4 Duncan, and Hsu.
`Ex. 2002, 6. In that proceeding, we denied institution of an inter partes
`review, and Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, because the Petition failed to
`establish that it would have been obvious to utilize together Hosomi’s
`“means for optically detecting” with the structure upon which Petitioner
`relied as the claimed “position adjusting means,” i.e., hole 72 and bolt 25,
`which are incorporated in the structure of Hosomi’s contact-based detector
`24 for actuating limit switch 67. Id. at 11–15; see also Ex. 2003. The
`instant Petition relies upon Hosomi in the same manner and, therefore,
`suffers the same deficiencies, which Shiga, Shibata, Tamotsu, Hsu, and
`Duncan do not cure.
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1–18 are
`unpatentable over Hosomi in combination with one or more of Shiga,
`Shibata, Tamotsu, Hsu, and Duncan, for the same reasons we articulated in
`IPR2016-01068. We explain those reasons below, for convenience.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Obviousness over Hosomi and Shiga
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3 and 5 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hosomi and Shiga. Pet. 17–37. To
`support this contention, Petitioner provides explanations and claim charts
`specifying how claim limitations are disclosed or suggested purportedly in
`the references, and why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to
`combine them. Id. Petitioner cites the Declaration of Charles Curley
`
`
`4 Petitioner does not assert Sato as prior art in this proceeding.
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`(Ex. 1011) in support. Id. Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s contentions.
`Prelim. Resp. 13–30.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`challenged claims 1–3 and 5 are unpatentable over Hosomi and Shiga.
`1. Hosomi
`Hosomi discloses “a printer comprising paper end detecting means for
`detecting the remaining amount of rolled recording paper . . . even when the
`printer is installed at different angles.” Ex. 1002, 1:6–8, 1:60–64. Figure 1
`of Hosomi is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a printer with detector 24 attached to printer frame
`13. Id. at 3:13–15, 4:45–51.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 9 of Hosomi is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 9 depicts details of paper end detector 24. Id. at 3:38–39.
`Detector 24 includes detector frame 62 and detector lever 63, with detector
`element 64 and detector projection 65 extending from the lever. See id. at
`6:36–59, Figs. 7, 9. Detector 24 also includes limit switch 67, such that
`when lever 63 is rotated, as shown in broken line in Figure 9, the limit
`switch is turned on or off. Id. at 7:3–9. Specifically, when a large amount
`of paper is present in the printer, either “detecting element 64 or the
`projection 65 of the detection lever 63 abuts against the side face of the
`recording paper . . . [such that] the detection lever 63 is pressed backward
`and the limit switch 67 is kept to be in the off state.” Id. at 8:40–45, Fig. 9
`(hashed line), Fig. 11a. By contrast,
`[i]n the case where the recording paper S has a very small
`remaining amount . . . the recording paper S is moved and the
`detecting element 64 of the detection lever 63 enters the space
`76 in a core portion 75, with the result that the limit switch 67 is
`set to be [in] the [on] state. A signal indicative of the above is
`coupled to a main circuit board (not shown) which is connected
`by an FFC or the like and controls the printer.
`Id. at 9:14–21; see id. at 8:35–39, Fig. 9 (solid line), Fig. 11b.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`
`Hosomi also discloses that detector 24 includes elongated hole 72
`through which bolt 25 passes. Id. at 7:19–24, Figs. 7–8. This arrangement
`permits detector 24 to rotate about bolt 25 (see id. at 4:45–48, 8:9–11), and
`permits the position of detector lever 63 to be adjusted along hole 72, to
`accommodate recording paper cores having different widths (id. at 8:18–34).
`Hosomi also discloses, “[t]he paper end detecting means is not
`restricted to that using a limit switch. For example, means for optically
`detecting the end of the recording paper may be used.” Id. at 10:21–23.
`2. Shiga
`Shiga discloses “a lever-style connector that disengages a plug from a
`cap by means of turning a lever,” with cam grooves and protrusions. Ex.
`1004 ¶ 1, Abstract.
`
`3. Independent Claim 1
`Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “printing medium detecting
`means for non-contact detecting . . . and position adjusting means for
`adjusting an initial set position of the printing medium detecting means.”
`Ex. 1001, 10:1–6.
`With respect to the claimed “printing medium detecting means for
`non-contact detecting,” Petitioner identifies Hosomi’s “paper end detector
`24 [which] includes the detecting element 64 ‘for optically detecting the end
`of the recording paper.’” Pet. 18, 19, 28–29 (citations omitted). Petitioner
`continues, “[i]n Hosomi’s optical sensor embodiment, one of ordinary skill
`in the art would have understood that the detecting element 64 would be
`replaced by the optical sensor.” Id. at 26 (discussing dependent claim 2); see
`also Ex. 1011 ¶ 109. With respect to the claimed “position adjusting
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`means,” Petitioner identifies Hosomi’s bolt 25 and hole 72, associated with
`paper end detector 24. Pet. 18–19, 29.
`Patent Owner contends, inter alia, that Hosomi does not disclose the
`claimed “printing medium detecting means for non-contact detecting,”
`because Hosomi’s detector 24 operates by physical contact of detecting
`element 64 with the recording paper. Prelim. Resp. 14–18. Patent Owner
`contends that Hosomi’s disclosure of optical detection is not associated with
`detecting element 64. Id. at 16.
`We agree with Patent Owner. Hosomi discloses, primarily, a contact-
`based mechanism for detecting paper. Specifically, Hosomi discloses
`contact-based detector 24, which includes detection frame 62 and detection
`lever 63. Ex. 1002, 6:32–40. Hosomi specifies that detection lever 63
`includes contact-based detecting element 64 to “abut[] against a side end
`face of the recording paper.” Id. at 6:47–49, 8:40–45. Hosomi also specifies
`that detection frame 62 includes limit switch 67, such that “[w]hen the
`detection lever 63 is rotated, the limit switch 67 is turned on or off” to
`indicate the remaining amount of paper. Id. at 7:3–13, 8:40–9:21, Figs. 7, 9,
`11a–11b. In this contact-based embodiment, Hosomi specifies that detection
`frame 62, which includes limit switch 67, also includes grip portion 69, in
`which oblong hole 72 is created, with bolt 25 passing therethrough. Id. at
`7:3–24. Finally, Hosomi states, “[t]he paper end detecting means is not
`restricted to that using a limit switch. For example, means for optically
`detecting the end of the recording paper may be used.” Id. at 10:21–23.
`Patent Owner is correct that the Petition’s attempt to tie detecting
`element 64 of Hosomi’s contact-based detector 24 to Hosomi’s “means for
`optically detecting” is unsupported by Hosomi. The Petition’s sole citation
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`to Hosomi at column 10, lines 21–23 does not suggest use of contact-based
`detecting element 64 in conjunction with “means for optically detecting.”
`Pet. 18, 29. Rather, the cited portion of Hosomi states only that the
`detecting means “is not restricted to that using [the] limit switch [67]” of
`Hosomi’s contact-based detector 24 but, instead, “means for optically
`detecting the end of the recording paper may be used.” Ex. 1002, 10:21–23;
`see also id. at 10:23–26 (disclosing advantages associated with use of the
`limit switch). In other words, Hosomi states that an optical detector may be
`used as an alternative to limit switch 67, which is triggered by detection
`lever 63, but Hosomi does not state that the two detection mechanisms are
`utilized together.
`Although it may be feasible for Hosomi’s “means for optically
`detecting” to be used together with the remaining structure of Hosomi’s
`contact-based detector 24, the Petition presents no persuasive technical
`reasoning or evidence to establish that such use would have been obvious to
`a person of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, the Petition does not explain
`persuasively whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood Hosomi’s “means for optically detecting” to be used in
`conjunction with Hosomi’s contact-based detector 24, in light of Hosomi’s
`disclosure or the knowledge generally available to a skilled artisan.
`Similarly, the Curley Declaration fails to explain persuasively whether a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize
`Hosomi’s “means for optically detecting” in conjunction with the remainder
`of contact-based detector 24. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 97, 108–109.
`Petitioner’s vague statement that contact-based detecting element 64
`may be replaced with an optical detector (see Pet. 26; Ex. 1011 ¶ 109) does
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`not address the impact of that modification on other related structures
`(i.e., limit switch 67, actuating lever 63, supporting frame 62, hole 72/bolt
`25). For example, this modification does not account for Hosomi’s
`explanation that optical detection is an alternative to the limit switch.
`Ex. 1002, 10:21–23. Indeed, the Petition fails to explain whether it would
`have been obvious to utilize an optical detector in place of contact-based
`detecting element 64 but to nonetheless retain other portions of Hosomi’s
`contact-based detector 24 (e.g., actuating lever 63, supporting frame 62) that
`are not utilized with optical detection, but instead actuate the unused limit
`switch. To the contrary, if optical detection were an alternative to limit
`switch 67, it would appear that the limit switch’s actuating lever 63 and
`supporting frame 62 are unnecessary to the modified detector. Without
`more, an optical detector appears mutually exclusive to the structure used to
`actuate the limit switch, e.g., lever 63 and frame 62.
`The presence or absence of the remaining structure of contact-based
`detector 24 directly implicates Petitioner’s treatment of the claimed
`“position adjusting means,” which Petitioner contends to be Hosomi’s bolt
`25 and hole 72. Pet. 18–19, 29. The Petition has not shown reasonably that
`height adjustment would be achieved with bolt 25 and hole 72 when optical
`detection is utilized. Bolt 25 and hole 72 are integrated with actuating lever
`63 and supporting frame 62 of contact-based detector 24, wherein lever 63
`rotates about frame 62 to actuate limit switch 67. Ex. 1002, 6:44–45, 7:8–9,
`7:14–25, 8:18–34. As discussed above, the Petition fails to address whether
`it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to retain
`these structures, used for actuating limit switch 67, when Hosomi’s detector
`is modified to include means for optically detecting instead of a limit switch.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, the Petition relies on different, apparently mutually
`exclusive embodiments of Hosomi to satisfy the elements of claim 1.
`Namely, the Petition relies on Hosomi’s disclosure of “means for optically
`detecting” to satisfy the claimed “printing medium detecting means for non-
`contact detecting,” but relies on structure associated with contact-based
`detector 24, e.g., hole 72 and bolt 25, to satisfy the claimed “position
`adjusting means.” Pet. 18–19, 28–29. Because these structures appear to be
`mutually exclusive, they cannot be relied upon together to satisfy claim 1,
`without persuasive evidence or reasoning explaining that their combined use
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`Accordingly, we determine that the information presented in the
`Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in showing that independent claim 1 is unpatentable over Hosomi
`and Shiga.
`
`4. Dependent Claims 2, 3, and 5
`Because we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing that independent claim 1 is unpatentable
`over Hosomi and Shiga, and because Petitioner’s analysis of claims 2, 3, and
`5 does not remedy the underlying deficiencies in its analysis of independent
`claim 1, we likewise conclude that the information presented in the Petition
`fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that claims 2, 3, and 5, which depend from claim 1, are
`unpatentable over Hosomi and Shiga.
`
`E. Asserted Ground of Obviousness over Hosomi, Shiga, and Tamotsu
`Petitioner contends that claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Hosomi, Shiga, and Tamotsu. Pet. 37–44. To
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`support this contention, Petitioner provides explanations and claim charts
`specifying how claim limitations are disclosed or suggested purportedly in
`the references, and why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to
`combine them. Id. Petitioner cites the Declaration of Charles Curley
`(Ex. 1011) in support. Id. Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s contentions.
`Prelim. Resp. 31–32.
`
`1. Tamotsu
`Tamotsu discloses a printing gap adjustment mechanism comprising:
`a wheel 13 in which continuous wavy concave parts 19a and
`convex parts 19b are formed inside a circular arc, an engaging
`piece 24 having a concave part 23b where the convex parts 19b
`engages at the center of a wedge-shaped tip 23a that engages
`with the concave part 19a, and a lever 14 in which the engaging
`piece 24 is slidably held, and at the same time, an energized coil
`spring 22 that has the wedge-shaped tip 23a of the engaging
`piece 24 engaged to the concave and convex parts 19a and 19b
`is held, wherein the lever rotates using the center of the circular
`arc comprising the concave and convex parts 19a and 19b of the
`wheel as a fulcrum.
`Ex. 1006, 2.
`
`2. Dependent Claim 4
`Petitioner does not contend that Tamotsu cures the deficiency noted
`above with respect to independent claim 1. Pet. 37–44. Therefore, for the
`same reasons discussed above, we determine that the information presented
`in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in showing that dependent claim 4 is unpatentable over Hosomi and
`Shiga in further combination with Tamotsu.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`
`F. Asserted Ground of Obviousness over Hosomi and Shibata
`Petitioner contends that claims 6–10 and 18 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hosomi and Shibata. Pet. 44–58. To
`support these contentions, Petitioner provides explanations and claim charts
`specifying how claim limitations are disclosed or suggested purportedly in
`the references, and why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to
`combine them. Id. Petitioner also cites the Declaration of Charles Curley
`(Ex. 1011) in support. Id. Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s contentions.
`Prelim. Resp. 33–44.
`
`1. Shibata
`Shibata discloses a device for detecting the remaining amount of
`printer paper, which includes two detection sensors. Ex. 1008 ¶ 11.
`2. Claims 6–10 and 18
`Independent claim 6 recites, inter alia, first and second “printing
`medium detecting means for non-contact detecting . . . and position
`adjusting means for adjusting an initial set position” of the printing medium
`detecting means. Ex. 1001, 10:48–58. The Petition’s analysis of these
`elements of claim 6 incorporates its prior discussion of the similar elements
`of claim 1, discussed above. Pet. 44 (“Hosomi is prior art as established
`above.”), 45–46 (referring to analysis of claim 1), 52–54 (same).
`Patent Owner contends, inter alia, that Hosomi does not disclose the
`claimed “printing medium detecting means for non-contact detecting,” as
`argued with respect to claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 40. Patent Owner also
`contends that Shibata does not remedy this deficiency. Id. at 41.
`As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the Petition does not
`explain persuasively whether it would have been obvious to a person of
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`ordinary skill in the art to utilize together Hosomi’s means for optically
`detecting with the hole 72 and bolt 25 of contact-based detector 24.
`Petitioner does not contend that Shibata cures this deficiency.
`Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we determine that the
`information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that independent claim 6,
`or claims 7–10 and 18, which depend therefrom, are unpatentable over
`Hosomi and Shibata.
`
`G. Asserted Ground of Obviousness over Hosomi, Shibata, and Duncan
`Petitioner contends that claims 11–13 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hosomi, Shibata, and Duncan. Pet. 58–
`65. To support this contention, Petitioner provides explanations and claim
`charts specifying how claim limitations are disclosed or suggested
`purportedly in the references, and why one skilled in the art would have
`found it obvious to combine them. Id. Petitioner cites the Declaration of
`Charles Curley (Ex. 1011) in support. Id. Patent Owner challenges
`Petitioner’s contentions. Prelim. Resp. 44–47.
`1. Duncan
`Duncan discloses a photoelectric sensor having pivotable shutter 26,
`which rotates across aperture 4b of lens 8. Ex. 1009, Abstract, 3:42–58.
`2. Dependent Claims 11–13
`Petitioner does not contend that Duncan cures the deficiency noted
`above with respect to independent claim 6. Pet. 58–65. Therefore, for the
`same reasons discussed above, we determine that the information presented
`in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`prevail in showing that dependent claims 11–13 are unpatentable over
`Hosomi and Shibata in further combination with Duncan.
`
`H. Asserted Ground of Obviousness over Hosomi, Shibata, and Hsu
`Petitioner contends that claims 14–16 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hosomi, Shibata, and Hsu. Pet. 65–78.
`To support this contention, Petitioner provides explanations and claim charts
`specifying how claim limitations are disclosed or suggested purportedly in
`the references, and why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to
`combine them. Id. Petitioner cites the Declaration of Charles Curley
`(Ex. 1011) in support. Id. Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s contentions.
`Prelim. Resp. 47–55.
`
`1. Hsu
`Hsu discloses a computer enclosure having a lock that includes cam
`plate 36, which engages bolts 20/22 and translates rotational motion of the
`lock into linear sliding motion of the bolts. Ex. 1010, Abstract, 3:14–20.
`2. Dependent Claims 14–16
`Petitioner does not contend that Hsu cures the deficiency noted above
`with respect to independent claim 6. Pet. 65–78. Therefore, for the same
`reasons discussed above, we determine that the information presented in the
`Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in showing that dependent claims 14–16 are unpatentable over
`Hosomi and Shibata in further combination with Hsu.
`
`I. Asserted Ground of Obviousness over
`Hosomi, Shibata, Hsu, and Tamotsu
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–5 and 16–17 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hosomi, Shibata, Hsu, and Tamotsu.
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`Pet. 78–83. To support this contention, Petitioner provides explanations and
`claim charts specifying how claim limitations are disclosed or suggested
`purportedly in the references, and why one skilled in the art would have
`found it obvious to combine them. Id. Petitioner cites the Declaration of
`Charles Curley (Ex. 1011) in support. Id. Patent Owner challenges
`Petitioner’s contentions. Prelim. Resp. 55–58.
`1. Claims 1–5
`The Petition’s analysis of independent claim 1, and claims 2–5, which
`depend therefrom, incorporates its prior discussion of claims 6, 9, 10, 14, 16,
`and 17, discussed above. Pet. 82–83 (“[T]he same reason for unpatentability
`of Claims 6, 9–10, 14, 16–17 are applicable to Claim 1–5.”).
`As discussed above with respect to claims 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17, the
`Petition does not explain persuasively whether it would have been obvious
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize together Hosomi’s means for
`optically detecting with the hole 72 and bolt 25 of contact-based detector 24.
`See Section II(F)–(G). Petitioner does not contend that Shibata, Hsu, or
`Tamotsu cure this deficiency. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed
`above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition fails to
`establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing
`that claims 1–5 are unpatentable over Hosomi and Shibata, in further
`combination with Hsu and Tamotsu.
`2. Dependent Claims 16–17
`Petitioner does not contend that either Hsu or Tamotsu cure the
`deficiency noted above with respect to independent claim 6. Pet. 78–82.
`Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we determine that the
`information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00086
`Patent 6,629,666 B2
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that dependent claims
`16–17 are unpatentable over Hosomi and Shibata in further combination
`with Hsu and Tamotsu.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that P
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
