Paper No. 13
`Filed: June 15, 2017
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOCIETÀ ITALIANA PER LO SVILUPPO DELL’ELETTRONICA
`S.P.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, JAMES A. WORTH, and
`MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: June 15, 2017
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOCIETÀ ITALIANA PER LO SVILUPPO DELL’ELETTRONICA
`S.P.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, JAMES A. WORTH, and
`MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,754,580
`
`B1 (“the ’580 patent”). Pet. 2. Società Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo
`
`Dell’Elettronica S.p.A. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition, contending that the Petition should
`
`be denied as to all challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 1.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`
`which 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.” Having considered the arguments and the
`
`evidence presented, for the reasons described below, we decline to institute
`
`an inter partes review of any of the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any related proceedings involving the
`
`’580 patent. Pet. 1.
`
`B. The ’580 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’580 patent is titled “SYSTEM FOR GUIDING VEHICLES.”
`
`Ex. 1001, Title. The ’580 patent “relates to a system for controlling vehicles
`
`movements, principally in densely populated areas containing a road
`
`network . . . [and information is transmitted] between the vehicle in
`
`question[] and a traffic information center.” Id. at 1:6–12.
`
`According to the ’580 patent, in addition to sending the intended
`
`destination, “each vehicle identifies itself at the time of logging in . . . [so]
`
`that information about the position and the speed of the vehicle is reported at
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`regular intervals to the aforementioned traffic information center, whereby
`
`overall control of the traffic is achieved on the basis of the information
`
`reported to the traffic information center.” Id. at 2:46–55. To illustrate the
`
`claimed system, we reproduce Figure 7 of the ’580 patent, below:
`
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts the ’580 patent’s system including road network 1
`
`and vehicle 2 with means for identification 3, means for road information 4,
`
`and means for transmission of information 6 between vehicle 2 and traffic
`
`information center 6. Id. at 6:59–65. The ’580 patent describes numerous
`
`traffic information centers 6, 6A, 6B, and 6D to permit roaming between the
`
`vehicle and centers. Id. at 7:37–41.
`
`The ’580 patent attempts to distinguish its disclosed system from prior
`
`art systems—including that disclosed by Gazis, discussed infra (id. at 1:35–
`
`38)—by asserting, “[t]he prior art does not focus on the fact that the vehicles
`
`must be ‘logged into’ the system . . . [and] does not contain any reference to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`the fact that the road network must have, for example, environmental and
`
`vehicle type classification in order for guiding to function correctly.” Id. at
`
`2:15–16, 23–26.
`
`C. Prosecution History
`
`On March 12, 2002, the applicant submitted an information disclosure
`
`statement disclosing six references (D1–D6), including Gazis (D1), which
`
`were identified in a related International Preliminary Examination Report
`
`(the “Report”). Ex. 1003, 61, 73–74. The Report reads, “new claim 1 . . .
`
`states that an ID is obtained and information relating to the respective
`
`vehicle is transmitted in conjunction with logging in. The invention defined
`
`in the amended claims 1–9 is not disclosed by any of these documents D1–
`
`D6.” Id. at 61.
`
`In an Office Action dated January 27, 2003, the U.S. Examiner
`
`objected to and rejected the claims for containing informalities. Id. at 75–
`
`82. The Examiner did not, however, reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`or § 103. Id. On June 4, 2003, the applicant amended the claims to
`
`overcome the Examiner’s claim objections and rejections. Id. at 172–175.
`
`On February 10, 2004, the Examiner allowed the claims. Id. at 177–179. In
`
`the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner stated that the prior art did not
`
`disclose the claimed limitation, “the system exhibits an exact image of the
`
`actual traffic situation and guides the traffic dynamically for control of the
`
`traffic situation centrally.” Id. at 178.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, with claims 2–13 depending
`
`therefrom. Id. at 10:45–12:27. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter at
`
`issue and is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`1.
`System for controlling vehicle movements, in areas
`containing a road network, and a plurality of vehicles that exhibit
`means for identification, means for road information and means
`for transmission of information between the vehicle and a traffic
`information center, characterized in that the road network is so
`arranged as to be entered into the system as a data network,
`each vehicle that is intended to make use of the road
`network is logged in for travelling on the road network,
`the each vehicle is identified with an identity at the time of
`logging in, in conjunction with which the identity is either
`dynamic or static,
`information relating to the intended destination is sent in
`from each vehicle to the traffic information center in conjunction
`with logging in or later in the course of a journey when there is a
`new desired destination,
`information about position and speed of the each vehicle
`is reported at regular intervals to the aforementioned traffic
`information center,
`whereby overall control of the traffic is achieved on the
`basis of the information reported to the traffic information center,
`information about a proposed route for each vehicle is
`transmitted from the traffic information center to the each
`vehicle, and
`the system exhibits an exact image of the actual traffic
`situation and guides the traffic dynamically, for control of the
`traffic situation centrally.
`
`
`E. References Relied Upon
`
`The Petitioner relies in relevant part on the following references:
`
`Reference
`Name
`US 5,610,821, issued Mar. 11, 1997
`Gazis
`UK 2,288,892, published Nov. 1, 1995
`Oates
`Anagnostopoulos WO 93/05492, published Mar. 18, 1993
`Mertens
`US 5,767,505, issued June 16, 1998
`
`Ex. No.
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`F. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–13 of the ’580 patent are
`
`unpatentable under the following grounds:
`
`Basis
`Prior Art
`§ 103
`Gazis, Oates, and Anagnostopoulos
`§ 103 Gazis, Oates, Anagnostopoulos, and Mertens
`
`Claims
`1–8, 10, and 11
`9, 12, and 13
`
`Pet. 3–4.
`
`Petitioner also relies on the declaration testimony of Scott Andrews
`
`(Ex. 1002) in support of its Petition. Id. at 4.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`As a first step in our analysis, we determine the meaning of the claims
`
`using the “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) (upholding the use of
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation approach). 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).
`
`We determine that no terms require express construction for the
`
`purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642
`
`F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to
`
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc.
`
`v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`B. Summary of Prior Art
`
`1. Gazis (Ex. 1004)
`
`Gazis discloses “vehicle route planning systems, and in particular . . .
`
`a system for maintaining optimal vehicle traffic flow.” Ex. 1004, 1:6–8. To
`
`illustrate Gazis’s system, we reproduce Figure 1 of Gazis, below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a preferred embodiment of “a transportation network
`
`optimal and stable route planning system.” Id. at 2:10–12, 33–34. The
`
`figure illustrates a system with a plurality of traffic management centers 2
`
`(“TMC”) and a plurality of in-vehicle communication and processing units 6
`
`located in vehicles participating in data network 4, such as a wireless cellular
`
`network. Id. at 2:35–54. Each TMC and each vehicle computer is assigned
`
`to an internet protocol (“IP”) address. Id. at 3:17–19.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`2. Oates (Ex. 1005)
`
`Oates discloses a vehicle fleet monitoring apparatus (Ex. 1005, (54))
`
`and, specifically, a “data monitoring apparatus . . . for the monitoring of fleet
`
`vehicles such as trucks” (id. at (57)). Oates’s system provides remote
`
`monitoring of vehicle performance, including monitoring of technical
`
`problems with the vehicle and whether the vehicle is broken down. Id. at
`
`(57), 1:6–11. We reproduce Figure 1 of Oates, below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 discloses an embodiment of Oates’ vehicle fleet monitoring
`
`apparatus. Id. at 8:25–27. In particular, Figure 1 depicts data capture
`
`device 5, data analyser 20, vehicle sensors 6–10, and transmitter and/or
`
`receiver 11 for communicating with data analyser 20. Id. at 10:34–12:2.
`
`Data may be collected by the data capture device by various methods,
`
`including by inputting data directly from one or a number of vehicle
`
`sensors 6–10. Id. at 11:25–32. Oates discloses that the following
`
`parameters are read by the sensors:
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`The parameters may comprise a selection from the
`following: engine on/off; alternator current/voltage; engine oil
`pressure; engine water temperature; tyre pressures; vehicle
`security; cargo security; cargo temperature; refrigeration unit
`operation; refrigeration unit oil pressure; refrigeration unit
`alternator; anti lock brake operation; electronic fuel control;
`transmission diff lock; transmission power take off; vehicle road
`speed; excessive or harsh vehicle braking; engine speed; engine
`running hours.
`
`Id. at 18:1–2, 16–25.
`
`3. Anagnostopoulos (Ex. 1006)
`
`Anagnostopoulos discloses a method of “automatic routing,
`
`navigation, protection, and guidance for vehicle drivers.” Ex. 1006, (54),
`
`(57). Anagnostopoulos describes “measurement and protection devices”
`
`located on-board the vehicle, with “information devices” on the driver, and
`
`with “guidance devices” located in the surrounding area. Id. at (57). To
`
`illustrate Anagnostopoulos’s system, we reproduce Figure 1 below:
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`
`
`According to Anagnostopoulos, Figure 1 depicts microcomputer 1
`
`installed on-board a vehicle; peripherals (or devices) 2, 3 for providing
`
`services to the driver; and memory units 4, 5. Ex. 1006, 17:20–33.
`
`Receiver 7 provides routing services and “permits the automatic input of
`
`parameters and elements, in the data processing unit, affecting the routing
`
`services.” Id. at 17:36–18:2. These routing services include: weather
`
`bulletin, cartography of ports, parking spaces; road network traffic; and
`
`topographic reckoning of areas which may be interesting, such as a gas
`
`station. Id. at 18:4–8.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`C. Challenges
`
`1. Unpatentable Over Gazis, Oates, and Anagnostopoulos
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–8, 10, and 11 are unpatentable as
`
`obvious over Gazis, Oates, and Anagnostopoulos. Pet. 22. For the reasons
`
`that follow, we are not satisfied that the Petition provides adequate
`
`explanation or is appropriately precise and specific in articulating the basis
`
`of the proposed ground to warrant institution of an inter partes review.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 312(a), a Petition may be considered only if it
`
`“identifies, in writing and with particularity each claim challenged, the
`
`grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that
`
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that “[e]ach reference involves vehicles that are
`
`logged in to a data network to provide information about the vehicles” (id. at
`
`30) and proposes to modify Gazis and by combining it with Oates and
`
`Anagnostopoulos so as to provide more detailed information about a vehicle
`
`(id. at 30–31). The Petition fails to identify “with particularity,” however,
`
`the grounds and evidence that form the underlying basis for the patentability
`
`challenge. For instance, with respect to independent claim 1, Petitioner’s
`
`claim chart (offered to point out where the features of the claim are present
`
`in the prior art) spans twenty-three pages and constitutes bulk citations to
`
`large portions of Gazis, Oates, and Anagnostopoulos. See id. at 34–56.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner submits a table that “summarizes the components of
`
`Gazis, Oates, and Anagnostopoulos most directly corresponding to elements
`
`in the claims of the ’580 Patent,” wherein each claim element has a
`
`corresponding element in Gazis, Oates, and Anagnostopoulos. See id. at 28–
`
`29. Such an approach does not provide meaningful “particularity” sufficient
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`for the panel to ascertain where, specifically, Petitioner identifies the
`
`limitations of the claim in the prior art.
`
`Moreover, the Petition fails to adequately “explain why a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific
`
`references in the way the claimed invention does.” ActiveVideo Networks,
`
`Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`In combining Gazis with Oates and Anagnostopoulos, Petitioner
`
`explains that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have found it obvious to modify Gazis’s system for
`centralized, holistic routing at [traffic management centers
`(“TMCs”)] by incorporating Oates’s transmission of more
`detailed identification data and other information from a vehicle
`with the identification data in Anagnostopoulos that may include
`information about the type of vehicle such as whether a vehicle
`is a passenger vehicle, truck, tractor, or ambulance.
`
`Id. at 31. Petitioner reasons that the proposed combination would “optimize
`
`routes for factors other than just the shortest time, such as minimizing
`
`pollution and/or fuel consumption.” See id. at 31–32; see also id. at 33
`
`(reasoning that it would have been obvious to “modify the system of Gazis
`
`to use the transmittal of information, as taught by Oates, to plan routes based
`
`on the more-detailed vehicle identification, as taught in Oates and
`
`Anagnostopoulos, at least to minimize pollution or fuel consumption.”).
`
`Petitioner also cites to a particular disclosure within Gazis as providing
`
`motivation to modify its system in view of Oates and Anagnostopoulos
`
`(Pet. 31), which we reproduce below:
`
`The TMC may also be equipped with algorithms to optimize
`routes based on other criteria, possibly selected by the driver,
`such as cheapest route (shortest time constrained to minimize
`cost), or least acceleration/deceleration (to minimize pollution
`and/or fuel consumption).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`The particular Gazis disclosure, however, does not provide motivation
`
`to combine Gazis with Oates and Anagnostopoulos, as Petitioner proposes.
`
`Rather, the disclosure simply states that Gazis’s system may already be
`
`equipped with algorithms for optimizing routes based on: (1) the cheapest
`
`or shortest (time-wise) route; and (2) the route with the least acceleration
`
`and deceleration, thereby leading to reduced pollution and fuel consumption.
`
`Nothing in this disclosure suggests—and the Petition fails to persuade us
`
`otherwise—that Gazis’s route planning system may be further optimized by
`
`including the type of information disclosed in Oates or Anagnostopoulos.
`
`Moreover, and as pointed out correctly by Patent Owner, Petitioner’s
`
`declaration evidence “merely repeat[s] Petitioner’s assertions . . . [and]
`
`provides no further elaboration or citation to evidence.” Prelim. Resp. 54
`
`(citation omitted). In particular, paragraph 98 of Mr. Andrews’ declaration,
`
`which Petitioner cites to in support for its reasoning to combine the
`
`references, merely repeats, verbatim, the language of the Petition. Compare
`
`Pet. 33, with Ex. 1002, ¶ 98; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert
`
`testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the
`
`opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight”).
`
`In relying on Oates, Petitioner cites to Oates’s disclosure of a
`
`vehicle’s engine number and registration number. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`18:33–19:5). The portion of Oates to which Petitioner refers discloses:
`
`The input device, eg. a hand held terminal and/or model,
`and/or PC or computer memory storage device, may be used to
`program the data capture device unit with various vehicle
`specifications, for example manufacturers engine and or chassis
`number; registration number; owner; supplier/dealer details;
`road fund tax license category; recommended oil type, eg.
`synthetic/mineral; recommended tyre size; purchase price paid
`for vehicle.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`Ex. 1005, 18:33–19:5. Based on this disclosure, Petitioner argues that this
`
`“is sufficient for a vehicle to be guided based on its pollution potential or
`
`fuel consumption via a centralized control because the identification in
`
`Oates implicitly indicates that the network receives relevant data to
`
`recognize a type of vehicle.” Pet. 32 (emphasis added). This quoted
`
`language also appears verbatim in Mr. Andrew’s Declaration but without
`
`any citation to Oates or other evidence (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 96); without
`
`evidentiary support, we consider Mr. Andrews’ testimony to be of little
`
`probative value.
`
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have combined Oates’ vehicle specification information,
`
`which along with the vehicle’s chassis number includes purchase price,
`
`recommended tire size, recommended oil type, and supplier/dealer details,
`
`with Gazis’s sytem to “optimize routes” based on “pollution potential.” We
`
`find nothing in the Petition or Mr. Andrews’ testimony to explain why it
`
`would be beneficial to guide a vehicle based on “pollution potential,”
`
`whatever that may mean. As explained above, the cited motivation for
`
`combining the references “optimizes routes” based on: (1) the cheapest or
`
`shortest (time-wise) route; and (2) the route with the least acceleration and
`
`deceleration, thereby leading to reduced pollution and fuel consumption.
`
`Ex. 1004, 3:45–50. Here, we do not see how Oates’s specification
`
`information would be helpful in either: (1) further shortening Gazis’s travel
`
`time; or (2) reducing the amount of acceleration/deceleration used, thereby
`
`minimizing pollution and or fuel consumption.
`
`In relying on Anagnostopoulos, Petitioner argues that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined Anagnostopoulos’s vehicle
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`identity information, such as whether the vehicle is a truck or an ambulance.
`
`Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1006, 34:4–6). Petitioner explains that whether “a vehicle
`
`is a truck may prompt the vehicle to be guided to an area that can tolerate
`
`some pollution, while awareness that a vehicle is an ambulance would
`
`prompt the shortest route to be emphasized.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 88,
`
`91, 96).
`
`Although Petitioner’s rationale for using ambulance information to
`
`guide the ambulance via the shortest route provides some reasoning, we are
`
`not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
`
`Gazis to guide a truck to an “area that can tolerate some pollution.” Pet. 32
`
`(citing Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 88, 91, 96). Nothing in the cited motivation suggests
`
`that vehicles are directed to areas that may tolerate different levels of
`
`pollution. See Ex. 1004, 3:45–50. Neither Petitioner nor its expert explain
`
`what these areas may be (see Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 88, 91, 96)), and we
`
`are not persuaded that vehicles are guided based on areas that tolerate
`
`different levels of pollution, as if exhaust pollution is stationary when
`
`emitted from a vehicle’s tailpipe. Rather, the cited portion of Gazis clearly
`
`states that reduced pollution is a product of minimizing the vehicle’s
`
`acceleration and deceleration, and we are not persuaded that information
`
`pertaining to whether the vehicle is a truck or not affects this. See Ex. 1004,
`
`3:45–50. Furthermore, Mr. Andrews’ declaration testimony in support of
`
`this reasoning merely mimics that which is in the Petition, without
`
`identifying any further evidence as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan
`
`would further optimize Gazis’ system by directing vehicles to areas that “can
`
`tolerate some pollution.” Compare, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 96, with Pet. 32.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`In the present case, it appears that Petitioner relies overly on the fact
`
`that Gazis, Oates, and Anagnostopoulos each discloses similar technology to
`
`support the proposed combination. See, e.g., Pet. 30 (“[e]ach reference
`
`involves vehicles that are logged in to a data network to provide information
`
`about the vehicles.”). It is not sufficient, however, for references to disclose
`
`generally similar technology to support an obviousness combination. See,
`
`e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[I]t can be
`
`important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
`
`claimed new invention does . . . 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.”).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish a
`
`reasonable likelihood of success at trial on its challenge that claims 1–8, 10,
`
`and 11 are obvious over Gazis, Oates, and Anagnostopoulos.
`
`2. Unpatentable Over Gazis, Oates, Anagnostopoulos, and Mertens
`
`Petitioner contends that dependent claims 9, 12, and 13 are
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Gazis, Oates, Anagnostopoulos, and Mertens.
`
`Pet. 63. In presenting this challenge, Petitioner relies on the same
`
`unsupported testimony and inadequate explanation discussed supra. See id.
`
`at 66–69.
`
`Accordingly, and for the same reasons as discussed above, Petitioner
`
`has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial on its
`
`challenge that claims 9, 12, and 13 are obvious over Gazis, Oates,
`
`Anagnostopoulos, and Mertens.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`For the reasons given, it is
`
`ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Kevin Laurence
`Matthew Phillips
`LAURENCE & PHILLIPS IP LAW LLP
`kevin.laurence@renaissanceiplaw.com
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy Devlin, Reg. No. 41706
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`
`
`18
`
`
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
