Filed on behalf of: Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
`
`Paper No. _____
`Date Filed: March 15, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00389
`U.S. Patent No. RE43,564
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Contents
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv 
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ....................................................................................................... vii 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`THE ’564 PATENT............................................................................... 3 
`
`THE ’564 PATENT CLAIMS .............................................................. 4 
`
`APPLIED REFERENCES .................................................................... 6 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Heikkinen .................................................................................... 6 
`
`Newton Internet Enabler Users Manual ...................................... 8 
`
`Haffey .......................................................................................... 9 
`
`III. 
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 9 
`
`IV.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9 
`
`V. 
`
`PRIORITY CLAIMS ..................................................................................... 10 
`
`VI.  LEGAL STANDARDS FOR ANTICIPATION AND
`OBVIOUSNESS ............................................................................................ 10 
`
`A.  ANTICIPATION ................................................................................. 10 
`
`B. 
`
`OBVIOUSNESS ................................................................................. 10 
`
`VII.  THE BOARD SHOULD NOT INSTITUTE REVIEW ON
`ANY OF GROUNDS 1-3 .............................................................................. 12 
`
`A.  WASTE OF BOARD RESOURCES .................................................. 12 
`
`1. 
`
`Petitioner Relies on the Same Prior Art Previously
`Presented to the Office .............................................................. 12 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`Petitioner Presents Redundant Grounds ................................... 14 
`
`B. 
`
`GROUND 1 – ANTICIPATION BY HEIKKINEN ........................... 16 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Heikkinen fails to disclose “rendering an image
`corresponding to the data received” by a wireless
`modem ....................................................................................... 16 
`
`Heikkinen fails to disclose the features recited in
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 20 
`
`Heikkinen fails to disclose the features recited in
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 24 
`
`C. 
`
`GROUND 2 – OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEIKKINEN
`(CLAIM 2) .......................................................................................... 26 
`
`D.  GROUND 3 – OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEIKKINEN &
`NEWTON ENABLER MANUAL (CLAIMS 3 AND 4) ................... 29 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Petitioner Fails to Establish Newton Enabler
`Manual as a Printed Publication ............................................... 29 
`
`Petitioner Appears to Rely on the Newton Device,
`Rather Than a Particular Document .......................................... 30 
`
`Petitioner Fails to Articulate How it Proposes to
`Combine Heikkinen and Newton Enabler Manual ................... 31 
`
`Petitioner Fails to Articulate Any Reasoning
`Supported by Rational Underpinning for
`Combining Heikkinen and Newton Enabler
`Manual ...................................................................................... 34 
`
`Any Combination of Heikkinen and Newton
`Enabler Manual Would Fail to Satisfy Features of
`Claims 3 and 4 ........................................................................... 37 
`
`E. 
`
`GROUND 4 – OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEIKKINEN,
`NEWTON ENABLER MANUAL, AND HAFFEY
`(CLAIM 5) .......................................................................................... 39 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`Again, Petitioner Failed to Establish Newton
`Enabler Manual as a Printed Publication .................................. 39 
`
`Petitioner Improperly Equates Streaming Video To
`a Collection of Still Images Displayed in
`Heikkinen .................................................................................. 40 
`
`Newton Enabler Manual Does Not Disclose
`Streaming of Video to a Handheld Device ............................... 40 
`
`Heikkinen Does Not Disclose Transfer of Data
`Beyond SMS User Messages .................................................... 42 
`
`Petitioner Again Fails to Articulate How
`Heikkinen, Newton Enabler Manual, and Haffey
`are Proposed to be Combined ................................................... 43 
`
`Petitioner Again Improperly Equates “Possible to
`Combine” With “Reasons or Motivation to
`Combine” .................................................................................. 44 
`
`Petitioner Mis-Applies Haffey’s Reasoning
`Towards Heikkinen and/or Newton Enabler
`Manual ...................................................................................... 45 
`
`Petitioner Failed to Establish How a POSA Would
`Have Combined Haffey’s “Zooming Engine” with
`Heikkinen and Newton Enabler Manual ................................... 48 
`
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 49 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`IPR2016-01473, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2017) ................................ 35, 36
`
`Apotex Inc. v. OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2016-01284,
`Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2017) ..................................................................... 13
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) ................................................................................................................ 2
`
`Celeritas Tech., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354
`(Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d
`1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009).............................................................................. 27, 28
`
`DirecTV, LLC v. Qurio Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-02006, Paper 6
`(P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2016) ................................................................................. 35
`
`Illumina, Inc. v. Trs. of Columbia Univ. in the City of New
`York, IPR2012-00006, Paper 43 (P.T.A.B. May 10, 2013) .......................... 16
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................. 35
`
`Innovative Environmental Techs., Inc. v. Peroxychem LLC,
`IPR2016-00198, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. May 16, 2016) ............................. 35, 36
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d
`1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................... 3
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................. 10, 11, 34, 35
`
`Liberty Mutual Insur. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insur. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ............................. 14, 15
`
`Microboards Tech., LLC v. Stratasys Inc., IPR2015-00287,
`Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. May 28, 2015) ................................................................ 12
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Neil Ziegman, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens, IPR2015-01860, Paper
`11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`No. 2016-1900 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2017) ..................................................... 20
`
`Personal Web Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc., 2017 WL 587132 (Fed.
`Cir. Feb. 14, 2017) ................................................................................. passim
`
`Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC, IPR2014-
`00689, Paper 32 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2014) ................................. 27, 34, 35, 36
`
`Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325 (Fed.
`Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................... 27
`
`Seabery North America, Inc. v. Lincoln Global, Inc., IPR2016-
`00904, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2016) ..................................................... 29
`
`ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., IPR2015-00707,
`Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2015) ................................................................. 30
`
`Silver Star Capital, Inc. v. Power Integrations, Inc., IPR2016-
`00736, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016) ................................................... 35
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00041,
`Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013) ................................................................ 11
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2013-
`00421, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2014) ..................................................... 15
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2013-
`00423, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2014). .................................................... 15
`
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., IPR2014-00293,
`Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2014).................................................................... 11
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Berman, IPR2016-01571, Paper 10
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016) ............................................................................... 14
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.
`2011) .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., IPR2013-00054,
`Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2013) .................................................................. 11
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................. 10, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................... 27, 31, 43
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ................................................................................................. 29, 39
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .............................................................................................. 1, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ....................................................................................................... 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 26
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`The History of Smartphones: Timeline, The Guardian (Jan. 24,
`
`2012)
`
`2002
`
`First Smartphone Turns 20: Fun Facts About Simon, Time
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`Magazine (Aug. 18, 2014)
`
`The Mac Observer, March 1997 Archive
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (2007), selected pages
`
`Reserved
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982),
`
`selected pages
`
`2007
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., No.
`
`2016-1900 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2017)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (“Patent Owner”) submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition of Google Inc. (“Petitioner”) seeking inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. RE43,564 (“the ’564 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny the Petition for IPR
`
`against the ’564 patent. Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it will prevail in showing that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`The invention claimed in the ’564 patent is directed to, in part, a handheld
`
`device with a touch-based system for zooming particular image content in a
`
`specific manner. The invention, developed before the advent of smartphones with
`
`touchscreens, allows for easier selection of particular image content, such as a
`
`hyperlink, on a relatively small screen.
`
`Petitioner relies on U.S. Patent No. 6,073,036 (“Heikkinen”) as a basis for
`
`all of its proposed grounds. The Examiner during reissue prosecution not only
`
`cited Heikkinen, but also specifically compared it against the allowable claims in
`
`his reasons for allowance. Petitioner provides no substantive argument as to how
`
`its analysis of Heikkinen adds anything new or why the grounds based on
`
`Heikkinen should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as directed to “the same
`
`or substantively same prior art … previously … presented to the Office.” For that
`
`reason alone, the Board should decline to institute trial.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Moreover, Heikkinen fails to disclose the claimed elements of (i) rendering
`
`an image corresponding to data received from a wireless modem and (ii) enabling
`
`a user to select a portion of this rendered image, displayed at a first scale, for
`
`rendering at a second scale larger than the first scale. Rather than acknowledge
`
`this deficiency, Petitioner tries to side-step it by presenting an anticipation ground
`
`that ignores that the rendered image corresponds to wirelessly received data.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner relies upon Heikkinen’s magnification of an on-screen
`
`keyboard that is not rendered from wirelessly received data. Thus, Heikkinen
`
`cannot anticipate the claims.
`
`Petitioner advances various obviousness grounds against the dependent
`
`claims, but those theories also fail. In particular, the Petition fails to articulate how
`
`it proposes to combine the references, including which reference serves as the
`
`primary reference. Petitioner also fails to provide any rational underpinning to
`
`support blanket conclusory statements. For example, while Petitioner repeatedly
`
`alleges that the references “could be” combined (without actually explaining how
`
`they would be combined), it provides no articulated reasoning with rational
`
`underpinning as to why a POSA would have made such a combination. Such
`
`“could be” theories have been rejected expressly by the Federal Circuit. Personal
`
`Web Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc., 2017 WL 587132, at 5 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2017)
`
`(citing Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014)).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. THE ’564 PATENT
`The ’564 patent issued from Application No. 12/980,454 filed on December
`
`29, 2010, and is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,203 (’203 patent). The ’203
`
`patent issued on October 15, 2002, from Application No. 09/619,426 (filed on July
`
`19, 2000), which is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 09/062,364 (filed on
`
`April 17, 1998).
`
`The ’564 patent describes a handheld communication device with an
`
`improved graphical user interface having a zoom function applied to a feature
`
`sought for selection by a user, “allow[ing] the user to perceive the graphical
`
`information of the image regardless of the display size.” (Ex.1001, 2:57-58.) This
`
`feature is particularly useful to “handhelds, such as PDA’s, palmtops, … mobile
`
`phones, web pads …, etc..” (Id., 2:58-63.) As explained by the ’564 patent, a
`
`“limiting factor” of handheld communication devices is that the size of a
`
`handheld’s display is necessarily small due to the required form factor and weight
`
`limitations. (Id., 2:57-3:2.) The invention of the ’564 patent provides a unique
`
`zoom feature that overcomes this limitation.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`As an example, the zoom operation involves initially retrieving a web page
`
`which, when displayed on the device’s screen, leads to individual hyperlinks or
`
`text fragments being difficult to discern. (Id., 4:16-26.) When the user touches the
`
`screen in an associated location or area, that part of the web page image is zoomed
`
`in, centered around the touch location. (Id.) This zoom feature provides the
`
`ability for a user to recognize, when viewing a zoomed-out view, screen areas of
`
`potential interest and the hyperlinks therein, while enlarging and displaying at a
`
`second, larger scale a portion of the image selected based on a touch location so
`
`that hyperlinks can be individually selected. (Id., 3:50-56.)
`
`It is important to recognize that, at the time of the ’564 patent, the idea of
`
`phones with touch screens was still in its infancy. The first mainstream
`
`smartphone, the Apple iPhone, for example, was not released until 2007, years
`
`after the filing date. (Ex.2001, p.1.)
`
`THE ’564 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`B.
`The challenged claims of the ’564 patent are directed to a handheld
`
`communication device with a display for processing data received from a wireless
`
`modem and rendering an image corresponding to the received wireless data. The
`
`device enables the user to select, through a touch location on the touch screen, a
`
`portion of the image so as to render the selected portion at a larger scale (i.e., to
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`zoom), thereby facilitating selection of a feature. The ’564 patent contains 7
`
`claims, with claims 1 and 6 being independent. Claim 1 reads as follows:
`
`1. A handheld communication device comprising:
`a wireless modem for receiving data;
`a display that has a substantially small size suitable for
`the handheld communication device;
`a data processing system connected to the modem and to
`the display for processing the received data and for
`rendering an image corresponding to the data
`received;
`a touch screen for enabling a user to interact with the
`device;
`wherein:
`the system is operative to enable the user to select
`through a touch location on the touch screen a
`portion of the image, when displayed at a first
`scale, for rendering the selected portion on the
`display at a second scale larger than the first scale
`thereby facilitating a selection of a feature; and
`the selected portion when rendered at the second scale
`is a zoomed-in version of part of the image at the
`first scale substantially centered around the touch
`location.
`
`Independent claim 6 recites a similar handheld communication device, while
`
`reciting a non-transitory computer readable medium embodying software to
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`perform selected features. The remaining dependent claims further limit the device
`
`recited in claim 1.
`
`C. APPLIED REFERENCES
`1. Heikkinen
`U.S. Patent No. 6,073,036 (“Heikkinen”) discloses a wireless user station
`
`such as a cellular telephone, with a touch-sensitive display. (Ex.1005, Abstract;
`
`2:30-36.) The touch-sensitive display provides an on-screen keyboard for
`
`character entry. (Ex.1005, Figs. 3, 5A; 5:32-47.) Characters of the on-screen
`
`keyboard can be magnified for easier identification and designation. (Ex.1005,
`
`5:62-6:5.)
`
`Heikkinen discloses two approaches to magnifying the characters. In a first
`
`approach, which Petitioner terms the “matrix” embodiment, a user touch input
`
`causes a block of the symbols displayed at the touch location to be magnified at
`
`double their original size. (Ex.1005, 6:35-52; Fig. 3.)
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`In a second approach, which Petitioner terms the “fisheye” embodiment, a
`
`user touch input causes magnification as if a convex lens were utilized, such that
`
`the symbol button corresponding to the touch location is magnified the greatest,
`
`and the magnification is gradually reduced in portion to distance from the symbol
`
`button. (Ex.1005, 9:1-7, 14-17, 35-38; Figs. 5A-5F.)
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`For the independent claims, Petitioner cites to both embodiments. For
`
`certain dependent claims, Petitioner relies solely on the fisheye embodiment.
`
`
`
`Newton Internet Enabler Users Manual
`
`2.
`The Newton Internet Enabler Users Manual (“Newton Enabler Manual”) is
`
`an instruction guide for enabling internet access on an Apple Newton device. The
`
`Apple Newton was a touch-screen organizer device produced by Apple Computer
`
`during the mid-to-late 1990’s. The Apple Newton did not possess built-in cellular
`
`connectivity—connection to an external cellular phone was required for this
`
`access. (Ex.2002, p.4.)
`
`Newton Enabler Manual instructs that to use the Internet on the Apple
`
`Newton, “an analog phone line, cellular telephone, or wireless connection” is
`
`required. (Ex.1028, p.1.) Newton Enabler Manual further instructs that the user
`
`must install separate third-party web browser software. (Ex.1028, pp.1-2.)
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`3. Haffey
`U.S. Patent No. 6,396,962 (“Haffey”) discloses a method for transforming a
`
`video file provided to a computer. (Ex.1027, Abstract.) A “zooming engine”
`
`accomplishes the transformation by enlarging a displayed video image. (Ex.1027,
`
`Figs. 5A, 5B; 4:45-58, 7:66-8:13.) The zooming engine is implementable as a set
`
`of instructions written in the JAVA programming language and executed by a
`
`JAVA virtual machine. (Ex.1027, 4:59-5:4.) Haffey discloses that this feature
`
`allows the user “to be able to view the received video image at a larger size.”
`
`(Ex.1027, 1:48-50.)
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL
`Petitioner provides a statement of what it believes to be the level of skill for
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”). (Petition, p.21.) This Preliminary
`
`Response establishes that Petitioner’s arguments fail even under its preferred
`
`definition of a POSA. Patent Owner reserves the right to dispute Petitioner’s
`
`definition of a POSA if a trial is instituted on any ground.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner proposes constructions of various claim terms. (Petition, pp.21-
`
`26.) For present purposes, this Preliminary Response establishes that Petitioner’s
`
`arguments fail even under its preferred claim constructions. Patent Owner reserves
`
`the right to dispute Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions if a trial is instituted
`
`on any ground.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`PRIORITY CLAIMS
`
`Petitioner alleges that the ’564 patent is not entitled to a filing date earlier
`
`than July 19, 2000. For present purposes, this Preliminary Response establishes
`
`that Petitioner’s arguments fail even if the ’564 patent is subject to an effective
`
`filing date of July 19, 2000. Patent Owner reserves the right to dispute Petitioner’s
`
`allegation as to the proper effective filing date of the ’564 patent.
`
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS
`A. ANTICIPATION
`A claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 when each and every limitation
`
`as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art
`
`reference. Celeritas Tech., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998).
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS
`As stated in KSR, “a patent 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. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`“This is so because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building
`
`blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be
`
`combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.” Id. at 418. For this
`
`reason, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
`
`claimed new invention does.” Id. at 418; see also Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex,
`
`Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`Petitioners must identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable” and
`
`“must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4); TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., IPR2014-00293, Paper
`
`19, at 16 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2014). Specifically, the Petition must both “clearly point
`
`out the differences between the claimed invention and [the prior art]” and “explain
`
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed subject
`
`matter obvious in spite of those differences.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
`
`Corp., IPR2012-00041, Paper 16, at 14 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013). “[C]onclusory
`
`statements, without more detail, fail to satisfy any of the above-noted
`
`requirements.” Id.; see also Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00054, Paper 12, at 15 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2013).
`
`The Board should not speculate as to how some or all of the references could
`
`render claim limitations obvious where the petitioner does not provide “sufficient
`
`explanation for how it believes a [POSA] would have combined the different
`
`systems disclosed in the cited references.” TRW Auto., IPR2014-00293, Paper 19,
`
`at 15.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT INSTITUTE REVIEW ON ANY OF
`GROUNDS 1-3
`A. WASTE OF BOARD RESOURCES
`1.
`Petitioner Relies on the Same Prior Art Previously
`Presented to the Office
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) states that the Office “may … reject the petition or
`
`request because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously were presented to the Office.” See Microboards Tech., LLC v. Stratasys
`
`Inc., IPR2015-00287, Paper 13, at 12 (P.T.A.B. May 28, 2015). Indeed, entire IPR
`
`petitions have been denied on this basis. See, e.g., Neil Ziegman, N.P.Z., Inc. v.
`
`Stephens, IPR2015-01860, Paper 11, at 2 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016) (“[W]e
`
`conclude that the Petition presents substantially the same art or arguments as those
`
`previously presented to the Office, and, thus, exercise our discretion under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review as to claims 12-15.”).
`
`In addition, 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 sets forth the PTO’s intention “to secure the just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” Thus, the Board has the
`
`authority to reject the present Petition in light of Petitioner’s reliance on art that
`
`was previously before the Examiner.
`
`All of Petitioner’s grounds rely on Heikkinen, the reference relied upon by
`
`the Examiner during the entire prosecution of the reissue application, and a
`
`reference listed under “References Cited” on the face of the ’564 patent. (Ex.1001;
`
`Ex.1013, p.148.) While Petitioner concedes Heikkinen is of record, it alleges that
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Heikkinen “was not discussed in any substantive or meaningful way.” (Petition,
`
`p.27.) In fact, the opposite is true—the Examiner expressly singles out Heikkinen
`
`in explaining why the ’564 patent claims are allowable, stating that Heikkinen,
`
`“singularly or in combination with other art, fail[s] to anticipate or render the
`
`[claim] limitations obvious.” (Ex.1013, pp.219-20 (emphasis added).) 1
`
`Petitioner’s failure to articulate why the proposed grounds in the IPR are not
`
`based on the “same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously …
`
`presented to the Office” is particularly troubling in this proceeding, given that one
`
`of the Examiner’s reasons for allowance—that Heikkinen “fail[s] to anticipate”
`
`certain claimed features—run directly contrary to Ground 1 (i.e., anticipation based
`
`on Heikkinen). See Apotex Inc. v. OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2016-01284,
`
`Paper 8, at 7-8 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2017) (denying institution of an anticipation
`
`ground where the Examiner during prosecution specifically noted that certain
`
`
`1 While the Examiner associated Heikkinen with US 2005/0057191, this citation
`
`number does not correspond to a “Heikkinen” reference, was not cited by either the
`
`Examiner or Patentee in a citation form, and is not of record in the ’564 patent.
`
`The Examiner correctly identifies Heikkinen in a List of References Cited form
`
`(Ex.1013, p.148), making clear the Examiner’s reasons for allowance refer to the
`
`Heikkinen reference applied by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`claim features “are not found in” the same applied reference). As Petitioner “fails
`
`to present any argument distinguishing the Examiner’s prior consideration of [a
`
`reference considered by the examiner] or … provide a compelling reason why [the
`
`Board] should readjudicate substantially the same prior art and arguments as those
`
`presented during prosecution and considered by the Examiner,” the Board should
`
`likewise deny institution of all grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Unified Patents
`
`Inc. v. Berman, IPR2016-01571, Paper 10, at 11 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016) (denying
`
`institution of two grounds on this basis and ultimately denying institution entirely).
`
`Petitioner Presents Redundant Grounds
`
`2.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a), the Board may “authorize the review to
`
`proceed on all or some of the challenged claims and on all or some of the grounds
`
`of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” If a petitioner presents multiple
`
`grounds without drawing any meaningful distinction between them, the Board may
`
`deny redundant grounds as contrary to “regulatory and statutory mandates” for the
`
`“just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of [the] proceeding.” Liberty Mutual
`
`Insur. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insur. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7, at 2
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012).
`
`In addition to the Petition in this proceeding, Petitioner concurrently filed a
`
`second Petition (IPR2017-00388) in which it asserted that several of the same
`
`challenged claims are obvious based on the combination of U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`5,579,037 (“Tahara”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,615,384 (“Allard”). Specifically, both
`
`Petitions assert that claims 1-7 are unpatentable, based on distinct and separate
`
`prior art combinations. However, in both Petitions, Petitioner fails to “explain why
`
`one reference more closely satisfies the claim limitation at issue in some respects
`
`than another reference, and vice versa.” See Liberty Mutual, CBM2012-00003,
`
`Paper 7, at 2-3 (emphasis in original). Indeed, there is no explanation in either
`
`Petition as to why the arguments should not be considered redundant.2
`
`Thus, to the extent that the Board institutes review on any ground in
`
`IPR2017-00388, the grounds herein should be denied as redundant, and vice versa.
`
`3 See Toyota Motor, IPR2013-00423, Paper 14, at 21 (denying certain proposed
`
`grounds as redundant “because Petitioner has not shown why one reference is
`
`better in one respect but worse in another respect”); Illumina, Inc. v. Trs. of
`
`
`2 Distinguishing references based on whether or not they were of record during
`
`prosecution of the challenged patent, does not constitute a basis against
`
`redundancy. See Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2013-
`
`00421, Paper 15, at 27-28 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2014); Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am.
`
`Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2013-00423, Paper 14, at 21 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2014).
`
`3 Patent Owner’s primary position is that no inter partes review should be
`
`instituted, in connection with either the IPR2017-00388 petition or instant petition.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Columbia Univ. in the City of New York, IPR2012-00006, Paper 43, at 11
`
`(P.T.A.B. May 10, 2013) (denying certain proposed grounds as redundant where
`
`they “appeared to rely on the same prior art facts as other challenges”).
`
`B. GROUND 1 – ANTICIPATION BY HEIKKINEN
`
`Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires each and every claim limitation
`
`to be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single reference. For at least the
`
`following reasons, claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are not anticipated by Heikkinen, and
`
`Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of success as to this ground.
`
`1. Heikkinen fails to disclose “rendering an image
`corresponding to the data received” by a wireless