Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: April 26, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW,
`and JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: April 26, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW,
`and JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Netflix, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,444,868 B2 (Ex.
`1001, “the ’868 patent”). Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 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 the Director determines
`. . . 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 and the Preliminary Response, we
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing with respect to claims 1–20 of the ’868 patent. Accordingly, we
`institute inter partes review with respect to those claims.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties note that the ’868 patent, as well as related U.S. Patent
`No. 9,094,802 (“the ’802 patent”), are at issue in Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
`v. Netflix, Inc., 1:15-cv-849-RP (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 3; Paper 7, 1. The parties
`further note that the ’802 patent is at issue in IPR2016-01701. Pet. 3; Paper
`7, 1.
`
`B. The ’868 Patent
`The ’868 patent is directed to a delivery system for digitally stored
`content, including audio, video, and textual information. Ex. 1001, 1:25–27,
`3:20–25. The ’868 patent instructs that information may be “formatted,
`segmented, compressed, modified, etc. for the purpose of providing or
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`communicating” the information to a user. Id. at 3:25–33. In one
`embodiment of the ’868 patent, the selected audio information may be
`wirelessly communicated using a “hybrid of wireless communication rates.”
`Id. at 6:12–22. In this method, “the selected audio information may first be
`transmitted to the electronic device via high-speed communication until
`enough information” is buffered into the memory of a recipient device. Id.
`at 6:15–19. Slower communication speeds may then be used to
`communicate additional selected audio information to the device. Id. at
`6:19–22.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative of the challenged claims and are
`reproduced below:
`1. A media system, comprising:
`a plurality of independent segment files, wherein a given
`segment file of the plurality of independent segment files has a
`given format and a different segment of the plurality of
`independent segment files has a different format, further
`wherein the given format facilitates an outputting of
`information in the given segment file at a given rate that is
`different than a rate associated with the different format;
`a playlist that comprises a list, and the list includes a first URL
`for the given segment file and a different URL for the different
`segment file;
`a network-based communication system operable: to distribute
`media content to a remotely located requesting device; to
`receive an HTTP communication from the remotely located
`requesting device that indicates a desire to access the available
`media; to send information representing the playlist to the
`remotely located requesting device; to send information
`representing the given segment file to the remotely located
`requesting device; and, to send information representing the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`different segment file to the remotely located requesting device;
`and
`a plurality of remote devices configured to request media,
`wherein each of the plurality of remote devices comprises:
`(1) an internal memory system; (2) a collection of instructions
`stored in the internal memory system that is operable when
`executed to utilize information representing the playlist, to
`request a streaming delivery of the information representing the
`given segment file, and to request a streaming delivery of the
`information representing the different segment file; and (3) a
`buffer configured to output the information representing the
`given segment file at the given rate and to output information
`representing the different segment file at the rate, which is
`different than the given rate
`Ex. 1001, 18:56–19:24.
`2. The media system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the
`plurality of remote devices is a portable handheld device having
`a display, and the available media is a video.
`Id. at 19:25–27.
`D. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–20 of the ’868 patent are
`unpatentable based on the following grounds (Pet. 12–66):1
`References
`Basis Claims Challenged
`Treyz2 and Fuller3
`§ 103 1–12, 14, 15, and 17–20
`
`Treyz, Fuller, and Glaser4
`
`§ 103 13 and 16
`
`
`1 Petitioner also relies on a declaration from Dr. Nader Mir (Ex. 1007).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,678,215 B1, issued Jan. 13, 2004 (Ex. 1015).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,711,622 B1, issued Mar. 23, 2004 (Ex. 1016).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,985,932 B1, issued Jan. 10, 2006 (Ex. 1017).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`Petitioner asserts that Treyz, Fuller, and Glaser are prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 6. Patent Owner does not, at this stage of the
`proceeding, challenge the prior art status of any reference.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard). In determining the broadest reasonable
`construction, we presume that claim terms carry their ordinary and
`customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). A patentee may define a claim term in a manner that
`differs from its ordinary meaning; however, any special definitions must be
`set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “segment files,”
`“cellular telephone,” and “a different segment”/“the given segment.” Pet. 7–
`9. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed constructions in the
`Preliminary Response or propose its own constructions for any additional
`terms.
`Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we
`determine that only the term “available media” requires express construction
`for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy.”).
`
`available media
`Independent claims 1, 7, and 14 require an “available media.” Ex.
`1001, 19:5, 19:49–50, 20:54. In IPR2014-00407 we determined that the
`term “available media” is “not limited to a single file, song, or video,” and is
`broad enough to include, at a minimum, a “collection of audio or video
`files.” See Samsung Electronics Co. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, Case
`IPR2014-00407, slip. op. at 6 (PTAB July 21, 2014) (Paper 15) (noting that
`dependent claims 12 and 13 of the involved patent define “the available
`media” as a “collection of audio files” and a “collection of video files,”
`respectively). Patent Owner did not subsequently contest this construction.
`See Samsung Electronics Co. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, Case IPR2014-
`00407, slip op. at 6 (PTAB July 20, 2015) (Paper 48).
`Because the patent at issue in IPR2014-00407 (U.S. Patent No.
`8,359,007 (“the ’007 patent”)) and the ’868 patent each claim benefit to the
`same parent application (U.S. Application No. 09/537,812) through a line of
`continuing applications, we adopt our previous construction of “available
`media” for purposes of this Decision. See NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion,
`Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Because NTP’s patents all
`derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we
`must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.”).
`
`B. Alleged Failure to Provide Proposed Claim Constructions
`Patent Owner contends that during proceedings before the District
`Court, Petitioner and its declarant, Dr. Mir, asserted that several claim terms
`of the ’868 patent are set forth in means-plus-function format and that
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`several other claim terms, including “segment files” and “independent
`segment files,” are “confusing” and require one to “guess” as to their
`meaning. Prelim. Resp. 12–15. According to Patent Owner, because
`Petitioner must “guess” as to the meaning of limitations in the challenged
`claims, and because Petitioner does not identify corresponding structure for
`the claim terms it alleged before the District Court are in means-plus-
`function format, Petitioner cannot meet its burden to show obviousness in
`this proceeding. Id. at 13 (“[Petitioner] cannot meet its burden to show
`obviousness where it and its expert must speculate in order to construe the
`challenged claims and compare them to the prior art, and the petition should
`be denied.”), 15 (“[Petitioner’s] failure to identify a function and
`corresponding structure . . . requires denial of this petition.”).
`We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, neither party in this
`proceeding contends that any limitations of the ’868 patent are in means-
`plus-function format. Second, even if Petitioner and its declarant could not
`identify the precise contours of certain claim limitations before the District
`Court, they provide detailed citations and arguments in this proceeding
`explaining where they contend each limitation of the challenged claims is
`disclosed in the recited prior art. Pet. 18–66; see also id. at 7–8 (providing a
`proposed definition for “segment files”).
`
`C. Claims 1–12, 14, 15, and 17–20 over Treyz and Fuller
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1–12, 14, 15, and
`17–20 would have been obvious over Treyz and Fuller. Pet. 18–62.
`
`1. Treyz
`Treyz is directed to devices that receive and process audio signals.
`Ex. 1015, 1:25–28, 8:28–32. The audio device of Treyz is primarily
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`described as a clock radio. Id. at 8:29–32. Treyz notes, however, that the
`features of the invention may also be applied to “stereos, portable digital
`audio players, automobile personal computers, web appliances, personal
`computers with audio cards and speakers,” and a “handheld computing
`device.” Id. at 8:35–40, 26:60.
`The device of Treyz may have a web browser that allows a user to
`interact with the Internet and review available Internet radio stations. Id. at
`17:29–42, Fig. 9b. A user may select available Internet radio stations “by
`clicking on links for stations that the user is interested in or by otherwise
`selecting the proper Internet addresses for the desired stations.” Id. at 5:31–
`37. The selected stations may then be streamed to the user’s device in real
`time and buffered using local memory to improve audio quality. Id. at 1:56–
`60.
`
`Figure 14 of Treyz is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 14 of Treyz depicts a web page
`used to schedule segments for playback
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`As shown in Figure 14, “a web page or other suitable remote interface may
`be used to allow the user to set up a schedule of content to be played” by the
`device “upon wake-up.” Id. at 21:49–55; Pet. 12–13. Region 234 of the
`web page is used to set the content delivery schedule. Ex. 1015, 22:7–9.
`Clicking on a blank cell in the “content” column allows a user “to select
`from various content options using, for example, a drop-down menu, a pop-
`up list, direct alphanumeric entry, or any other suitable user interface.” Id. at
`22:9–14. The available content for delivery “upon wake-up” includes
`music, Internet radio stations, e-mail, news, stock reports, weather reports,
`etc. Id. at 22:55–63. Treyz notes that “news information,” as well as
`“information from other sources,” “may be in the form of text, audio, and
`video.” Id. at 8:63–9:6; Pet. 13, 35.
`
`Treyz explains that station preference information gathered using web
`page 226 may be stored on a remote server until it is time to deliver content
`to the device or may be provided to the device and stored in memory. Ex.
`1015, 22:19–23, 22:37–39; Pet. 26.
`
`2. Fuller
`Fuller is directed to a system for providing streaming audio and video
`data to multiple users. Ex. 1016, 1:14–17, 2:53–54. In various
`embodiments of Fuller, the audio data is broken “into time periods” and is
`“compressed into various sets of compressed data corresponding to different
`audio rates,” with higher audio rates corresponding to better quality audio
`signals. Id. at 9:14–20. Based on the connection speed selected by the user,
`a Java applet installed on the client machine requests a particular quality of
`audio or video signal. Id. at 8:37–41, 10:48–55, 10:66–11:6. Subsequently,
`if the Java applet determines that the audio or video information is not being
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`received by the client at a sufficient rate, it “can request a different rate of
`transmission.” Id. at 10:11–14. For example, the Java applet may request “a
`lower rate corresponding to a lower audio or video signal that will more
`appropriately match the bandwidth of the client.” Id. at 10:14–17.
`
`3. Analysis
`Petitioner provides detailed analysis, supported by the testimony of
`Dr. Mir, identifying where the subject matter of independent claims 1, 7, and
`14 is disclosed in Treyz and Fuller. Pet. 18–35, 38–46, 52–55. With respect
`to the reason to combine the references, Petitioner contends that both
`references “concern the delivery of streaming multimedia content over an
`Internet-based client/server network” and one of ordinary skill in the art
`would have been motivated to incorporate Fuller’s rate switching method in
`Treyz to prevent the input buffer from running out of data. Id. at 15–16
`(asserting that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`that “if the client does not receive sufficient data, the input buffer for the
`audio/video decoders may run out of data, and hence the decoders would
`have nothing to output”).
`Patent Owner contends the challenged claims would not have been
`obvious over Treyz and Fuller because the Internet radio links of Treyz do
`“not comprise links or network locations to segments of the same available
`media at different output rates as required by the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 21;
`see also id. at 16 (asserting that independent claims 1, 7, and 14 “each
`require a list or listing that contains a URL or network location for segments
`of an available media, such as a song or video, which is available at different
`output rates”). We are not, on this record, persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`argument.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`As noted above, the term “an available media” is not limited to a
`single song or video, and may include, at a minimum, a “collection of audio
`or video files.” Moreover, the term “segment,” which is generally defined as
`“[e]ach of the parts into which something is or may be divided,” is, on this
`record, broad enough to encompass an individual song, video, or station
`contained within a broader collection of audio or video files. Ex. 30015; Ex.
`3002; see also Samsung, IPR2014-00407, Paper 15, 6 (concluding that the
`term “portions of an available media” encompasses “songs or stations in a
`playlist or parts of an Internet radio broadcast”). Thus, on this record
`Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently that the links or network locations of
`Treyz are to segments of an available media.
`Petitioner also presents evidence that the segments of an available
`media provided in Treyz and Fuller would be formatted at different rates,
`either before or during transmission to a user. Pet. 19–23. For example,
`Petitioner presents evidence that audio files are typically formatted
`differently than video files and would be output via a buffer at different
`rates. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1016, 5:66, 6:28; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 52, 99 (Dr. Mir
`asserting that video is typically encoded at a higher bitrate than audio); Ex.
`1040 ¶ 33). Petitioner also presents evidence that the device of Treyz may
`receive audio or video data using different technologies, including a cellular
`modem, a digital subscriber line (DSL), or cable modem, and that these
`different methods of transmission will result in songs or video being
`formatted for output at different rates. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1015, 2:41–44;
`Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 46–49, 94). Finally, Petitioner presents evidence that the
`
`
`5 Segment Definition, OXFORDDICTIONARIES.COM,
`https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/segment.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`system of Fuller compresses audio information using different compression
`formats, resulting in files that will be output at different rates. Id. at 22–23
`(citing Ex. 1016, 5:63–67, 9:14–30). Thus, Petitioner demonstrates
`sufficiently that the links in Treyz and Fuller are to segments of an available
`media that are available at different output rates.
`As noted above, Petitioner provides detailed arguments explaining
`where it contends the subject matter of independent claims 1, 7, and 14 is
`disclosed in Treyz and Fuller. Petitioner also provides an explanation
`supported by record evidence as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have sought to combine the two references. Accordingly, we determine that
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that independent claims
`1, 7, and 14 of the ’868 patent would have been obvious over Treyz and
`Fuller.
`With respect to dependent claims 2, 5, 8, and 9, which require that
`“the available media” is “a video,” 6 Petitioner presents evidence that the
`customized playlist of Treyz (as depicted in Figure 14) may contain URLs or
`network locations for “news,” which Treyz explains may be provided to a
`user in the form of text, audio, or video. Ex. 1001, 19:25–27, 19:37–39,
`20:12–26; Pet. 12–13, 26, 35, 48 (citing Ex. 1015, 8:64–66, 9:4–6, 21:50–
`51, 22:19–24, Fig. 14). Petitioner also provides detailed arguments
`
`
`6 As a general rule, the indefinite article “a” or “an” carries the meaning of
`“one or more” in open-ended “comprising” claims. See Baldwin Graphic
`Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Patent
`Owner may address in its Patent Owner Response whether the language of
`the claims, the specification, or the prosecution history of the ’868 patent
`necessitate a departure from this general rule, such that the term “a video” is
`limited to a single video file. See id. at 1343.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`identifying where it contends the subject matter of dependent claims 3, 4, 6,
`10–12, 15, and 17–20 is disclosed or suggested in Treyz and Fuller. Pet. 35–
`38, 49–51, 55–62. Patent Owner does not address directly Petitioner’s
`arguments with respect to the dependent claims of the ’868 patent.
`Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the
`subject matter of dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, 15, and 17–20 would have
`been obvious over Treyz and Fuller.
`
`4. Conclusion
`For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood that the subject matter of claims 1–12, 14, 15, and 17–
`20 of the ’868 patent would have been obvious over Treyz and Fuller.
`
`D. Dependent Claims 13 and 16 over Treyz, Fuller, and Glaser
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 13 and 16 would
`have been obvious over Treyz, Fuller, and Glaser. Pet. 63–66.
`
`1. Glaser
`Glaser discloses a method for ensuring that the buffers of a CPU are
`“maintained at near maximum capacity without overflowing.” Ex. 1017,
`16:1–5. In one embodiment of Glaser, a first audio data bank contains audio
`data compressed according to a known compression algorithm, whereas a
`second audio data bank contains data compressed according to a lossless
`compression algorithm. Id. at 21:36–51. A switching system allows an
`audio control center to switch alternately between the two audio banks. Id.
`at 21:51–55. When a user’s computer determines that the buffers are near
`maximum capacity, the user’s PC sends a “high quality” signal to the audio
`control center to indicate that high quality data should be sent by the audio
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`control center. Id. at 22:7–13. If the buffers fall beneath a certain
`percentage of maximum capacity, the user’s PC transmits a “normal quality”
`signal indicating that the audio control center should resume transmitting
`data from the normal quality audio bank. Id. at 22:58–64. According to
`Glaser, this process may be repeated multiple times “so that a net overall
`improvement of sound quality results.” Id. at 23:16–19.
`
`2. Analysis
`Claim 13 requires considering the amount of buffer fill within an
`internal buffer before requesting a “different segment file” and claim 16
`requires considering the amount of buffer fill when determining which
`additional media segment files to request. Ex. 1001, 20:44–48, 21:15–20.
`Petitioner asserts that Fuller discloses changing transmission rates
`when the client is not receiving data at a “sufficient rate,” but does not
`disclose “how a client should determine whether it is receiving data at a
`‘sufficient rate.’” Pet. 64. Petitioner further contends that Glaser discloses
`monitoring buffer fill states when determining whether to request high or
`low quality data, as is disclosed in Fuller. Id. at 64–65. According to
`Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to
`implement Glaser’s buffer monitoring method in Treyz and Fuller in order to
`successfully “implement the buffering suggestions disclosed in the Treyz-
`Fuller combination.” Id. at 64. Patent owner does not address Petitioner’s
`arguments with respect to claims 13 and 16 of the ’868 patent.
`On this record, Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently that Treyz, Fuller,
`and Glaser disclose the subject matter of claims 13 and 16. Petitioner also
`provides sufficient explanations as to why one of ordinary skill in the art
`would have sought to combine the three references. Accordingly, Petitioner
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 13 and 16 of the ’868
`patent would have been obvious over Treyz, Fuller, and Glaser.
`
`E. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), “the Director may take into account
`whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially
`the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”
`Patent Owner contends that, because Treyz, Fuller, and the petition and
`supporting declaration testimony from IPR2014-00408 (directed to U.S.
`Patent No. 8,359,007) were before the Examiner during prosecution, we
`should exercise our discretion and reject the Petition under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 23–26.
`As noted by Patent Owner in the Preliminary Response, the
`claims of the ’868 patent are distinct from the claims of the ’007
`patent at issue in IPR2014-00408. Compare U.S. Patent No.
`8,359,007, with U.S. Patent No. 9,444,868. And, although Treyz and
`Fuller were both before the Examiner during prosecution, and
`although Petitioner relies upon similar reasoning as to why the two
`references would be combined by one of ordinary skill in the art, we
`are directed to insufficient evidence that the Examiner ever considered
`the “exact same . . . arguments” set forth by Petitioner in this
`proceeding, as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 26–27.
`Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`1–20 of the ’868 patent would have been obvious over the recited prior art.
`Accordingly, we institute inter partes review with respect to these claims as
`set forth in the Order.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is hereby
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review
`is instituted on the following grounds:
`(1) Whether claims 1–12, 14, 15, and 17–20 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 as having been obvious over Treyz and Fuller; and
`(2) Whether claims 13 and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`as having been obvious over Treyz, Fuller, and Glaser;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no ground other than those specifically
`granted above are authorized for inter partes review as to the claims of the
`’868 patent.
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00122
`Patent 9,444,868 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Hector Ribera
`David D. Schumann
`MARTON RIBERA SCHUMANN & CHANG LLP
`hector@martonribera.com
`david@martonribera.com
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan M. Schultz
`Shui Li
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`RSchultz@RobinsKaplan.com
`SLi@RobinsKaplan.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
