Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`Entered: August 16, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00381
`Patent 7,886,122 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`Entered: August 16, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00381
`Patent 7,886,122 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00381
`Patent 7,886,122 B2
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Polaris Innovations Limited (“Patent Owner”) filed a Request for
`Rehearing of the Decision to Institute (Paper 9, “Dec.”) an inter partes
`review as to claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent 7,886,122 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’122
`patent”). Paper 12, “Req. Reh’g.” For the reasons that follow, the Request
`for Rehearing is denied.
`
`II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
`A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the
`decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify
`specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place
`where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a
`reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the
`decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of
`discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous
`interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial
`evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing
`relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir.
`2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re
`Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Patent Owner contends that we misapprehended or overlooked Patent
`Owner’s arguments in connection with the claim language regarding the
`“read clock signal generated from the second clock signal” recited in certain
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00381
`Patent 7,886,122 B2
`
`
`of the challenged claims, as well as the “read clock” portion of the structure
`corresponding to the “means for interfacing” limitation recited in claim 24.
`Req. Reh’g at 1–14. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions
`that we misapprehended or overlooked its arguments in connection with
`these recitations in the claims.
` Regarding the “read clock signal generated from the second clock
`signal” recited, for example, in claim 2, Patent Owner points to contentions
`in its Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”) presented with
`respect to the second challenge in the Petition, i.e., obviousness over Lee
`alone. Id. at 4–6. Although Patent Owner acknowledges (id. at 10) we did
`not institute on this challenge (see, e.g., Dec. at 27), Patent Owner argues its
`Preliminary Response indicated those same contentions are applicable to the
`third and fourth challenges of obviousness over Lee and other art, i.e., Yoo
`and Kyung. Req. Reh’g at 7–10 (citing Prelim. Resp. 15–16, 21–22, 26, 31).
`More specifically, Patent Owner argues we overlooked its contentions
`regarding improper combination of different embodiments in Lee. Id. at 4,
`5. Unlike the second challenge of obviousness over Lee alone, however,
`with respect to the third and fourth obviousness challenges, as discussed in
`the Decision, Petitioner identified pertinent teachings in the additional prior
`art references, Yoo and Kyung, for the disputed limitation. See Dec. 19–21.
`Furthermore, Patent Owner identifies in its Preliminary Response only
`conclusory statements. For example, Patent Owner points to the following:
`“[a]ll three of these challenges are deficient with respect to the base claims”
`and “[t]his flaw undercuts all challenges.” Req. Reh’g at 8 (citing Prelim.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00381
`Patent 7,886,122 B2
`
`
`Resp. 15–16, 21–22).
`We turn to Patent Owner’s contentions regarding the “read clock”
`portion of the structure corresponding to the “means for interfacing”
`limitation recited in claim 24. Id. at 11–14. Patent Owner points to one
`conclusory statement without further explanation— “the Petition has not
`even attempted to show that Lee discloses the read clock signal RDQS2x
`that is part of the identified corresponding structure.” Id. at 12–13 (citing
`Prelim. Resp. 33–34). Patent Owner argues that the Decision to Institute
`“failed to find a read clock signal or anything equivalent,” (id. at 13 (citing
`Dec. 14)) (emphasis added), which is a new argument. Patent Owner,
`however, did not develop fully this lack of equivalence argument in its
`Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to express disagreement
`with a decision. During trial, Patent Owner has an opportunity to resubmit
`these arguments, along with any new arguments, explanations, and
`supporting evidence, in its Response. As noted in the Scheduling Order, any
`arguments for patentability not raised in the Response will be deemed
`waived. Paper 10, 3.
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that we
`abused our discretion for purposes of the Decision on Institution and,
`consequently, Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00381
`Patent 7,886,122 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeremy J. Monaldo
`W. Karl Renner
`David M. Hoffman
`Katherine Lutton
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`jjm@fr.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`hoffman@fr.com
`lutton@fr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Matthew Phillips
`Kevin Laurence
`LAURENCE & PHILLIPS IP LAW LLP
`mphillips@lpiplaw.com
`klaurence@lpiplaw.com
`
`Bryan Richardson
`WiLAN INC.
`brichardson@wilan.com
`
`5
`
`
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
