`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 45
` Entered: August 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
` FEDEX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`FedEx Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) to
`
`institute an inter partes review of claims 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 19 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,047,586 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’586 patent”). Petitioner indicates
`
`that FedEx Corp., FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Federal Express
`
`Corporation, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Freight, Inc.,
`
`FedEx Custom Critical, Inc., FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc., and
`
`GENCO Distribution System, Inc., are real parties in interest. Pet. 82–83.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, in our Institution Decision (Paper 7,
`
`“Dec.”), we instituted this proceeding as to claims 7, 8, 12, and 13 of the
`
`’586 patent.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 20, “PO
`
`Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 24, “Reply”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Mr. Mark Reboulet.
`
`(Ex. 1005, “Reboulet Decl.”), and Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of
`
`Daniel W. Engels, Ph.D. (Ex. 2002, “Engels Decl.”; Ex. 2005, “2nd Engels
`
`Decl.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`Oral argument was held on April 26, 2018 (Paper 34, “Tr.”).
`
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged
`
`in the petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`(2018). Following the Supreme Court’s decision, we modified our Decision
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on Institution to institute on all of the challenged claims and all of the
`
`grounds presented in the Petition, namely claims 16, 18, and 19. Paper 42.
`
`Notwithstanding, the parties waived additional briefing and agreed that we
`
`should base our final written decision for claims 16, 18, and 19 on the
`
`evidence and arguments presented in the Petition and the Preliminary
`
`Response. Id.
`
`
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Decision is a final
`
`written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of claims 7,
`
`8, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 19. Based on the record before us, Petitioner has
`
`proved, by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 7, 8, 12, and 13 of
`
`the ’586 patent are unpatentable, but not claims 16, 18, and 19.
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`
`
`The parties indicate that the ’586 patent has been asserted in
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp., No. 2:16-cv-980 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Pet. 83; Paper 4, 1.
`
`C. Asserted Prior Art References
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD FOR MATERIAL HANDLING—UNIT
`
`LOADS AND TRANSPORT PACKAGES—TWO-DIMENSIONAL SYMBOLS, ANSI
`
`10.8.3M-1996 (1996) (Ex. 1002, “ANSI Standard”).
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,298,731, issued Mar. 29, 1994 (Ex.1003, “Ett”).
`
`GUIDE TO BAR CODING WITH UPS FOR CUSTOMERS GENERATING BAR
`
`CODE LABELS, VERSION III (Ex. 1004, “UPS”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`D.
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`We instituted trial on the following grounds of unpatentability
`
`(Dec. 22–23; Paper 42).
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`ANSI Standard and Ett
`
`§ 103(a) 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 19
`
`ANSI Standard and UPS
`
`§ 103(a) 7, 12, 16, 18, and 19
`
`ANSI Standard, UPS,
`and Ett
`
`E.
`
`The ’586 Patent
`
`§ 103(a) 8 and 13
`
`The ’586 patent describes a method of tagged bar code data
`
`interchange that includes creating electronic and/or printed documents with
`
`tagged bar coded information. Ex. 1001, [57]. Figure 2, reproduced below,
`
`illustrates an example:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`Figure 2 is a pictorial representation of a document containing tagged bar
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`codes. Id. at. 4:1–2. According to the ’586 patent, function key tags identify
`
`data fields. Id. at 5:31–33.
`
`Claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the invention:
`
`7. A computer-readable storage device storing computer
`executable instructions that are executable by a computer
`system to cause the computer system to perform operations for
`data interchange, the operations comprising:
`creating an electronic document having a plurality of bar
`codes, wherein the plurality of bar codes encode respective data
`tags and data items, and wherein at least one of the data tags
`includes an identifier identifying one of the data items;
`sending the electronic document for decoding of a first
`one of the plurality of bar codes to recover a first data tag and a
`first data item.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:29–40.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`
`
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–45 (2016). In applying a broadest reasonable
`
`construction, claim terms generally are 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. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Limitations with the language “means” or “means for” are presumed
`
`to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`F.3d 1339, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part) (“use of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”); see also In re
`
`Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[P]aragraph six
`
`applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-
`
`function language arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability
`
`determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or infringement
`
`determination in a court.”). The sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 provides
`
`that
`
`[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a
`means or step for performing a specified function without the
`recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such
`claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure,
`material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`Where a challenged claim contains a means-plus-function limitation under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the Petitioner “must identify the specific
`
`portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts
`
`corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).
`
`In the present case, for the decoding means of claim 16, both parties
`
`identify the parsing and data cache application that identifies scanned bar
`
`coded data as at least part of the structure corresponding to the function of
`
`“decoding the plurality of bar codes to recover the respective data tags and
`
`data items,” recited in claim 16. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:40–42, Figs. 6,
`
`9); Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:37–47, 4:43–49, 5:40–48, 5:57–67,
`
`10:19–20, 10:52–56; Ex. 2002, 5:61–63). Our Decision on Institution
`
`agreed with Petitioner regarding the corresponding structure for the means-
`
`plus-function limitation of claim 16, but determined that the structure for
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`claim 16 also included the algorithm identified in the ’586 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specification, which Petitioner’s identification omitted. Dec. 6–9, 19–20.
`
`The parties have agreed that we should base our final written decision for
`
`claims 16, 18, and 19 on the evidence and arguments presented in the
`
`Petition and the Preliminary Response. Paper 42. Neither party has
`
`addressed or objected to the algorithm (Ex. 1001, 5:40–48) being identified
`
`as the structure corresponding to the decoding means of claim 16. Dec. 8–9;
`
`see Pet. 10–11, 55–57 (identifying structure but omitting algorithm).
`
`Based on the ’586 patent specification and the decoding means of
`
`claim 16, and related dependent claims 18 and 19, we determine that the
`
`structure includes the algorithm that performs the decoding function. See
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:40–48 (describing particular “logic and computer routines” in
`
`step 127 of Figure 1). Thus, the corresponding structure is more than a
`
`general purpose computer or controller. Pet. 10–11; see Aristocrat Techs.
`
`Austl. Party Ltd. vs. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005)).
`
`Petitioner does not address the algorithm identified as corresponding
`
`structure for the “means for decoding” of independent claim 16 as construed
`
`above, and in particular, Petitioner fails to show that the asserted prior art
`
`teaches or discloses the algorithm in claim 16 and its dependent claims 18
`
`and 19. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown the unpatentability of
`
`claims 16, 18, and 19.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`
`have held at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Engineering, Supply Chain or Logistics Management, or the industry
`
`equivalent thereof, and approximately two or more years of industry
`
`experience in the field of bar code technology, or the academic equivalent
`
`thereof.” Pet. 9. Petitioner bases its argument on the testimony and
`
`experience of Mr. Reboulet. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 56–60).
`
`Patent Owner argues that
`
`a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention of the
`’586 patent would have held at least a Bachelor’s Degree in
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer
`Science, Information Technology, Operations Research, Supply
`Chain or Logistics Management, or the industry equivalent
`thereof, and approximately two or more years of industry
`experience in the field of data interchange, including the
`exchange of electronic information and the various formats for
`that exchange, and specific experience using electronic
`documents for data interchange. (Engels Second Decl. ¶¶ 30–
`31.)
`
`PO Resp. 12. Thus, Patent Owner appears to dispute certain aspects of
`
`Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. (citing Ex. 2004,
`
`33:2–3; 33:4–22). At the oral hearing, however, Patent Owner stated that
`
`differences between the parties’ proposals are not a determinative factor in
`
`reaching a conclusion of non-obviousness. Tr. 23:16–24:2.
`
`We agree that the differences are not determinative. We also find that
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence of the level of skill in the art, although generally
`
`expansive regarding “data interchange” and exchange using electronic
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`documents, casts an overly broad net for the ’586 patent, which describes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that the “present invention relates generally to bar code technology”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:19–20). We agree with Petitioner that bar code technology is
`
`the technology that forms the background of the claims and specification.
`
`Reply 15–16; Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007) (referring to “the invention” and “the claim[s]” to determine the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s
`
`identification of the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflecting the claims
`
`and specification of the ’586 patent.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1002, 1006, 1011, and 1039
`
`pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 801, 802, and 901. Paper 30 (“PO
`
`Mot. Excl.”), 3–7. Patent Owner also seeks to exclude paragraphs 9–23 of
`
`the Declarations of Mr. Reboulet (Exhibits 1008 and 1022) and paragraphs
`
`6–20 of the Declaration of Mr. Halliday (Exhibit 1023) as inadmissible
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence 602 and 701. PO Mot. Excl. 7–10.
`
`1.
`
`Exhibits 1002, 1008, 1022, and 1023
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s motion that Petitioner has
`
`failed to show that the ANSI Standard (Exhibit 1002) is authentic and not
`
`hearsay. PO Mot. Excl. 1, 3–5. Our prior case, cited by Patent Owner,
`
`acknowledges that panels have more often relied on copyright notices as
`
`probative evidence of publication. See Ford Motor Co. v. Versata Dev.
`
`Grp., Inc., Case IPR2016-01016, at 6 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2016) (Paper 11)
`
`(citing cases); see also Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00527, Paper 41, at 10–11 (PTAB May 18, 2015). We find the
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`copyright notice on a commercial standards document, such as the ANSI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Standard copyright marking that is not directly challenged by the Patent
`
`Owner, is generally reliable indicia used by the interested public, absent
`
`counterfactual evidence. FRE 803(17); see Ex. 2004, 95:23–96:20;
`
`Ex. 1008 ¶ 19; Ex. 1002, vvi. We note that Patent Owner acknowledges that
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art turn to ANSI publications as a recognized
`
`source. PO Resp. 15.
`
`We agree with Petitioner that the copyright notice of the ANSI
`
`Standard
`
`is admissible under the residual hearsay exception. FRE 807.
`ANSI has “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” due to
`the voluminous evidence referencing it (e.g., Exs. 1011, 1032–
`1034, 1037), the formalized processes culminating in its
`publication (Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 9, 11–17; 1023 ¶¶ 6, 8–14; Exs. 1009,
`1010), and its status as a standards document. There can be no
`question that industries rely on ANSI standards. E.g., Ex. 1008
`¶ 19; Ex. 1023 ¶ 20; Ex. 2004 at 95:21–96:11, 190:16–194:7.
`
`(Paper 34) Pet. Opp. Excl. 2 (footnote omitted). Patent Owner also does not
`
`challenge the ANSI Publication Manuals (Exhibits 1009, 1010), which
`
`further support the evidence that the ANSI Standard was published as a
`
`standards document.
`
`We also reject Patent Owner’s argument to exclude the declarations
`
`submitted in support of the ANSI Standard, Exhibit 10081 and Exhibit 1023,
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Patent Owner acknowledges that “Exhibits 1008 and 1022 [declarations of
`Mr. Reboulet] are identical in all relevant respects.” PO Mot. Excl. 7.
`Accordingly, our analysis for Exhibit 1008 in this section is equally
`applicable to Exhibit 1022.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`under FRE 602 and 701. PO Mot. Excl. 1–5, 8–11. Patent Owner’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`citations to particularized knowledge or a lack of personal knowledge by
`
`both Messrs. Reboulet and Halliday are not availing. See PO Resp. 35–37;
`
`39–44; see, e.g., Ex 2004, 167:7–11, 163:21, 164:20, 165:13–166–21
`
`(deposition of Mr. Reboulet); Ex. 2007 26:14–24, 30:6–24, 30:2–31:20
`
`(deposition of Mr. Halliday). Patent Owner’s narrow focus on knowledge of
`
`the document’s various stamps and publication process does not undermine
`
`the import of the testimony of Mr. Reboulet who testified to drafting the
`
`document at issue and participating in its approval as a standard. Indeed,
`
`such evidence has been accepted as probative of the process of publication
`
`and relied upon to establish publication. See Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`
`IPR2016-01585, Paper 32, at 14 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2018); Palo Alto Networks,
`
`Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-01974, Paper 49, at 22–24 (PTAB Mar. 16,
`
`2017); Wangs Alliance Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., IPR2015-01292,
`
`Paper 64, at 14–17 (PTAB Nov. 23, 2016).
`
`Similarly, Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuade us that
`
`Mr. Halliday lacks personal knowledge regarding Exhibit 1002 based on a
`
`failure to directly witness specific events related to the ANSI Standard. PO
`
`Mot. Excl. 10–11. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s narrow cross-
`
`examination regarding direct perception and find that it fails to undermine or
`
`refute evidence that Mr. Halliday was an ANSI representative, reviewed the
`
`publication of the ANSI Standard, and was familiar with ANSI publication
`
`practices. Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 2–6. In sum, Patent Owner’s argument
`
`notwithstanding, we find that Mr. Halliday’s and Mr. Reboulet’s testimonies
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`are admissible and based on personal knowledge. Both declarants testify to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`personal experience with the standards publications at issue.
`
`With respect to the authenticity of the ANSI Standard, we credit the
`
`declarants’ testimony and evidence in the record as sufficient to establish
`
`Exhibit 1002 as authentic. See Ex. 1009, Ex. 1023. In particular,
`
`Mr. Reboulet testified that he helped develop ANSI MH10.8.3M-1996
`
`(Ex. 1008 ¶ 4) and declared that this standard “has been submitted as Exhibit
`
`1002 in this proceeding” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 67). See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 13, 32; Ex. 1023
`
`¶¶ 3, 5; Ex. 2007, 28:6–16. Patent Owner’s narrow focus on the similarities
`
`of the declarant testimony and wording of the identification of the ANSI
`
`Standard document does not undermine the sufficient proof offered by
`
`Petitioner to meet the burden of authenticating the ANSI Standard. See
`
`generally Lexington Ins. Co. v. Western Pennsylvania Hosp., 423 F.3d 318,
`
`329 (3d Cir. 2005) (the burden of proof for authentication is “slight”).
`
`In sum, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 1002,
`
`1008, 1022, and 1023.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibits 1006, 1011, and 1039
`
`On the full record, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Exhibits
`
`1006, 1039 (excerpts from “The Bar Code Book”), and 1011 (“ANSI
`
`Catalog”) are inadmissible. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Exhibits
`
`1006 and 1039 do not address whether the exhibits are admissible under
`
`FRE 703. In this case, we find that Exhibits 1006 and 1039 are admissible
`
`under FRE 703 to the extent that Petitioner’s expert cited and relied on the
`
`documents. We also agree with Petitioner that Exhibit 1011, which lists
`
`ANSI publications, is admissible as evidence that is used to show statements
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`regarding the ANSI Standard as being available. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 20, 22; see
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 220 & n.8 (1974) (“Evidence is not
`
`hearsay when it is used to prove that a prior statement was made and not to
`
`prove the truth of the statement.”). We determine that Petitioner’s declarant
`
`discusses Exhibit 1011 to establish that the ANSI Standard is listed in
`
`further support of the testimony discussing the publication of the ANSI
`
`Standard. Finally, Petitioner’s evidence indicates that the listing of ANSI
`
`publications is the type of commercial data relied upon by the interested
`
`public, and thus, falls within an exception to hearsay under FRE 803(17).
`
`See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 19–20; Ex. 1023 ¶ 17; Ex. 1011, 4. We deny Patent
`
`Owner’s motions to exclude Exhibits 1006, 1039, and 1011.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibits 1032–1034 and 1037
`
`Patent Owner’s contentions that Exhibits 1032–1034 and 1037 should
`
`be excluded because they are improperly served supplemental evidence or
`
`offer a new theory of public accessibility are misplaced. PO Mot. Excl. 11–
`
`13. “[A] motion to exclude is not a vehicle for arguing that a Petitioner’s
`
`arguments and supporting evidence are outside the proper scope of a reply.”
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-01974, Paper 49, at 38
`
`(PTAB Mar. 16, 2017); accord Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, IPR2016-
`
`01760, Paper 35, at 42 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2018); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
`
`Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2013-00004, Paper 53, at 62 (PTAB Mar.
`
`13, 2014). Based on the full record, we do not agree with Patent Owner that
`
`Petitioner advances a new theory of public availability or publication with
`
`the exhibits in question, or submits new versions of documents to establish
`
`publication of the original document, unlike the document in question in
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc., IPR2016-00850, Paper 41, at 18–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21 (PTAB Oct. 5, 2017). See PO Mot. Excl. 12.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Exhibit 1037 is inadmissible because it
`
`is irrelevant under FRE 402. PO Mot. Excl. 13. Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`that the evidence has “no probative value” under FRE 401 and 402 is
`
`conclusory and unduly limits Exhibit 1037. Relevant evidence need only
`
`make a finding “more probable” than it would be without the evidence.
`
`FRE 401(a). Patent Owner has not identified sufficient prejudice or shown
`
`that Exhibit 1037 lacks minimal relevance to the inquiry regarding the
`
`publication of Exhibit 1002.
`
`We deny Patent Owner’s motions to exclude Exhibits 1032–1034 and
`
`1037.
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`ANSI Standard
`
`
`
`The ANSI Standard describes using two-dimensional symbols in
`
`conjunction with unit loads and transport packages to convey data between
`
`trading partners. Ex. 1002 § 1.1. Figure 17, reproduced below, illustrates an
`
`example:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 17 is a pictorial representation of a label complying with
`
`standard encoding “Formats ‘01’ and ‘06’ using a MaxiCode symbol for
`
`automated sortation/tracking.” Id. § 7.8. In the example set forth in
`
`Figure 17, carrier data (i.e., data Format “01”) are combined with Data
`
`Identifier data (data Format “06”). Id.
`
`2.
`
`Ett
`
`
`
`Ett describes a data processing system for combining alphanumeric
`
`data streams into a bar code representation. Ex. 1003, [57]. Figure 1,
`
`reproduced below, illustrates an example:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of system comprising general purpose
`
`computer 20, display 18, keyboard 20, scanner 21, printer 22, and memory
`
`12. Id. at 3:43–47. According to Ett, Bar Code Generator code 48, Bar
`
`Code Interpreter code 50, and Bar Code Reading code 52 reside in memory
`
`12. Id. at 4:9–15. To generate and print combined bar codes, character data
`
`is entered using keyboard 20 and binary data is entered by a binary input
`
`channel. Id. at 4:16–20. The inputs are converted to binary sequences, with
`
`one binary stream representing bar widths and space widths, and the other
`
`stream representing bar heights. Id. at 4:20–25. The two streams are stored
`
`in memory 12.
`
`Ett further describes that Bit Graphic Code Module 46 or Printer
`
`Control Code Module 48 uses stored bit data to generate bit maps
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`representing bars and spaces in the bar code thereby creating a combined bar
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`code pattern. Id. at 4:31–39. When the combined bar code pattern is
`
`completed, it is sent as a graphic bit stream to the printer according to the
`
`format required by the printer. Id. at 4:40–44.
`
`3. UPS
`
`UPS describes specifications to follow when “generating your own
`
`bar code and MaxiCode labels.” Ex. 1004, 3. In particular, UPS provides
`
`recommended label formats. Id. at 18.
`
`E.
`
`Printed Publication Status of UPS and ANSI Standard
`
`1. UPS
`
`Petitioner contends “UPS is a printed publication authored and
`
`published by UPS in January 1996.” Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1004, 45).
`
`Petitioner submits and relies on the deposition testimony of Mr. Lewis taken
`
`in another proceeding, i.e., Bartex Research, LLC v. FedEx Corp., No. 6:07-
`
`cv-00385 (E.D. Tex.). Id.
`
` Patent Owner contends and we agree that “Petitioner has not made a
`
`preliminary showing that UPS was publicly accessible before May 30,
`
`2001,” because “[t]he only evidence Petitioner offers to support its assertion
`
`that UPS was publicly available is the 8-year old Lewis Transcript from an
`
`unrelated litigation.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Patent Owner further contends that
`
`Petitioner has not established that the transcript relates to UPS because
`
`Petitioner did not submit the exhibit that was the subject of Mr. Lewis’
`
`deposition testimony. Id. at 20–22.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`We are not persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that UPS qualifies as a prior art printed
`
`publication. The last page of UPS includes the following: “01880273 REV.
`
`1/96 50M.” Ex. 1004, 47. Although “1/96” appears to be the date January
`
`1996, the annotation itself does not indicate that the document was
`
`disseminated on that date. Additionally, the deposition testimony from
`
`Bartex that Petitioner relies on (Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1012, 58–60)) pertains to
`
`“Exhibit 4” (Ex. 1012, 58–60), which has not been submitted in this
`
`proceeding. In sum, we have no way to determine if UPS is the same as
`
`“Exhibit 4,” and Petitioner fails to establish as much. Thus, we do not find
`
`Mr. Lewis’ testimony regarding “Exhibit 4” persuasive, nor do we find that
`
`the record contains sufficient evidence to support the finding that UPS was
`
`publicly disseminated. Thus, Petitioner has not established that UPS
`
`qualifies as a prior art printed publication.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to show that the two grounds
`
`including UPS render the challenged claims unpatentable by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`2.
`
`ANSI Standard
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner vigorously dispute the printed publication
`
`status of the ANSI Standard. PO Resp. 34–37. Specifically, Patent Owner
`
`argues that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that the ANSI Standard was disseminated to the interested public. Patent
`
`Owner further argues that the ANSI Standard is not self-authenticating and
`
`that Petitioner’s summary assertion of its availability as of August 1996 is
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`based on declarants who lack personal knowledge sufficient to establish the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`publication. Id.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of
`
`persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`based on “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 311(b); see DynamicDrinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d
`
`1375, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Because there are many ways in which a
`
`reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’
`
`has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference
`
`constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” In re Hall,
`
`781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Whether a
`
`reference is publicly accessible is determined on a case-by-case basis based
`
`on the “facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to
`
`members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (citations omitted). A reference will be considered publicly accessible
`
`if it was “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that
`
`persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art
`
`exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Kyocera Wireless Corp. v.
`
`Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations
`
`omitted) (deeming a GSM standard was “sufficiently accessible, at least to
`
`the public interested in the art” (citing In re Hall, 781 F. 2d at 899)). “[A]
`
`printed publication need not be easily searchable after publication if it was
`
`sufficiently disseminated at the time of its publication.” Suffolk Techs., LLC
`
`v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Whether a reference
`
`qualifies as a printed publication is a legal conclusion based on underlying
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`factual determinations. See In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2009).
`
`On the full record, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence
`
`shows that the ANSI Standard is a printed publication that was available by
`
`May 2001. We credit Petitioner’s declarant testimony, which supports that
`
`the ANSI Standard was published in 1996 to the public interested in the
`
`standards and made available to the public. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 3–4, 8–23;
`
`Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 2–20. As Petitioner notes (Pet. Reply 17–18), our Board has
`
`held previously that ANSI standards are printed publications. See, e.g.,
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, IPR2016-01007, Paper No. 38 (ANSI
`
`T.1413-1995). In fact, Patent Owner’s arguments acknowledge and cite its
`
`own declarant’s testimony that known ANSI standards are where persons
`
`ordinarily skilled in the art would look for relevant barcode information. PO
`
`Resp. 15 (“A person of ordinary skill who wanted information specific to 1D
`
`barcodes, however, would look elsewhere, such as the 1993 ANSI
`
`MH10.8M standard directed to 1D barcodes.”).
`
`As discussed above with respect to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Exclude, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s
`
`declarants lack personal knowledge to testify about the publication and
`
`public accessibility of the ANSI Standard. Patent Owner’s arguments (PO
`
`Resp. 40) do not undermine the testimony that the ANSI Standard was
`
`sufficiently disseminated to be a printed publication. See Ex. 1023 ¶ 20;
`
`Ex. 2004, 189:4–193:7, 197:4–199:25; see also In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307,
`
`1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[O]nce accessibility is shown, it is unnecessary to
`
`show that anyone actually inspected the reference.”). Indeed, Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00859
`Patent 9,047,586 B2
`
`
`Owner’s attacks (PO Resp. 41–42) on Petitioner’s declarants’ lack of precise
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`memory regarding the ANSI Standard fail to undermine persuasive
`
`testimony from witnesses directly involved in the creation of the ANSI
`
`Standard and the process of its publication by the ANSI organization. See
`
`e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 13, 32; Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 3, 5; Ex. 2007, 28:6–16.
`
`Patent Owner’s reliance on Kinetic Technologies., Inc. v. Skyworks
`
`Solutions, Inc., Case IPR2014-00690, Paper 43, at 19 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2015)
`
`as finding unpersuasive “bare testimony” based on the common organization
`
`practice regarding documents similar to the ANSI Standard (PO Resp. 42) is
`
`not apt here. In Kinetic, we credited the common practice testimony, but
`
`found fault with the specific date of publication that testimony yielded. Id.
`
`at 19–20. In the present case, the declarants’ testimony, which we credit,
`
`establishes a printed publication date years before the priority date of the
`
`’586 patent. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence
`
`regarding the priority and authentication of the ANSI Standard publication
`
`as prior art to the ’586 patent.
`
`F. Unpatentability Under § 103
`
`
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that the ANSI Standard and Ett render claims 7, 8,
`
`12, 13, 16, 18, and 19 obvious. As discussed above, claims 16, 18, and 19
`
`recite means-plus-function language, and Petitioner has failed to show that
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR201