Paper 7
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: August 14, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`K/S HIMPP,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`III HOLDINGS 7, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JASON J. CHUNG, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: August 14, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`K/S HIMPP,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`III HOLDINGS 7, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JASON J. CHUNG, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`K/S HIMPP (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of
`claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, and 20–30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’722 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). III Holdings 7, LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. Institution of an inter
`partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the
`petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`Upon consideration of the Petition, we conclude the information presented
`shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, and 20–
`30 of the ’722 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties state that there is no matter that would affect, or be
`affected by, a decision in this proceeding. Pet. 2; Paper 5, 2.
`
`B. The ’722 Patent
`The ʼ722 patent is directed to a hearing assist device capable of
`functioning with a coprocessor device. Ex. 1001, 1:11–14. The hearing
`assist device is capable of stand-alone signal processing in the absence of a
`coprocessor device. Id. at Abstract. Alternatively, the hearing assist device
`directs processing of a signal to the coprocessor device when the
`coprocessor is detected, or the coprocessor supplements signal processing
`performed by the hearing assist device. Id. The hearing assist device can be
`a hearing aid or other component used to distinguish or enhance sound for
`users with or without hearing impairment. Id. at 3:4–15. The ’722 patent
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`describes that hearing assist devices have a small size that limits
`functionality, and “[t]his form-factor constraint is apparent in short battery
`life, low powered processors, and weak signal processing algorithms.” Id. at
`1:28–32. The ’722 patent is said to improve these shortcomings by using a
`coprocessor device. Id. at 1:44–60.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, and 20–30 of the
`’722 patent. Claims 1, 8, 20, and 24 are independent claims. Claims 1 and
`20, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`1. One or more processor-readable storage media containing
`instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform acts
`comprising:
`detecting a coprocessor device;
`comparing a functionality of a hearing assist device to a
`functionality of the coprocessor device to determine if:
`a signal processing functionality absent from the
`hearing assist device is available on the coprocessor
`device or a signal processing functionality absent from
`the coprocessor device is available on the hearing assist
`device; or
`a signal processing functionality present on the
`hearing assist device is enhanced on the coprocessor
`device or a signal processing functionality present on the
`coprocessor device is enhanced on the hearing assist
`device; and
`directing a signal obtained at the hearing assist device for
`at least partial processing to at least one the hearing assist
`device or the coprocessor device.
`
`Id. at 12:58–43:61.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`20. A hearing assist device comprising:
`a sensor configured to detect energy in the form of sound
`waves;
`a converter configured to convert the detected energy into
`a signal;
`a memory configured to store one or more signal
`processing algorithms;
`a processor configured to execute one or more of the signal
`processing algorithms to process the signal;
`a communication interface configured to communicate
`with a coprocessor device;
`a handshaking module configured to receive information
`regarding a functionality of the coprocessor device via the
`communication interface;
`a functionality comparing module configured to compare
`the functionality of the coprocessor device to a functionality of
`the hearing assist device;
`a processor switching module configured to direct the
`signal to at least one of the processor of the hearing assist device
`or a processor of the coprocessor device; and
`a stimulator configured to stimulate an auditory nerve of a
`user based on the signal as processed by at least one of the
`processor of the hearing assist device or the processor of the
`coprocessor device.
`
`Id. at 14:44–67.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, and 20–30 are
`unpatentable based on the following grounds (Pet. 4):
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Moallemi1
`Moallemi
`Moallemi and Sommer2
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`1–3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 20–25,
`29, and 30
`4 and 5
`26–28
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms found
`in all challenged claims: “hearing assist device,” “coprocessor device,”
`“functionality,” and “module.” Pet. 7–10.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposed constructions and determine
`that they are consistent with the broadest reasonable construction. For
`purposes of this Decision, we adopt the following claim constructions:
`
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0254728 A1, filed Apr. 26,
`2007, published Nov. 1, 2007 (Ex. 1004) (“Moallemi”).
`2 PCT W0 2006/117365, published Nov. 9, 2006 (Ex. 1005) (“Sommer”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`Claim Term
`
`Construction
`
`hearing assist device device used to enhance sound for users with or
`without hearing impairment
`
`coprocessor device
`
`functionality
`
`module
`
`device that includes a processor for providing
`additional processing power
`device capability, including at least a processor
`speed, a processor load, a processor capability such
`as graphics rendering, a memory capacity, a
`memory capability such as access speed, an
`available signal processing algorithm, an
`enhancement of a signal processing algorithm, a
`sensor capability, a strength of a communication
`signal, battery life, processor power, and/or quality
`of signal processing algorithms
`hardware, software, or firmware implementations,
`or combinations thereof
`
`B. Anticipation of claims over Moallemi
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 20–25, 29, and 30
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (e) as anticipated by Moallemi.
`Pet. 10–40. In support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the declaration
`of Dr. Les Atlas. Id. (citing Ex. 1002).
`
`1. Moallemi
`Moallemi describes an apparatus and method of distributing device
`functionality and resource management. Ex. 1004, Title. For example, a
`first device wirelessly connected to a second device may include monitoring
`at least one resource for performing at least one function and determining
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`whether to assign the function to the second device. Id. at Abstract. Figure
`1 of Moallemi is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 of Moallemi is a block diagram illustrating a network of
`wirelessly connected devices.
`As shown above, system 100 includes wirelessly connected devices
`102a, 102b, 102c, and 102d configured to communicate over wireless link
`106. Id. ¶ 17. Devices 102 may comprise devices such as headsets,
`watches, input/output devices, sensors, and medical devices. Id. One or
`more of devices 102 may detect the presence of another device 102 when the
`other device initially communicates over link 106. Id. ¶ 18.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`
`Figure 2 of Moallemi is a block diagram illustrating an example of a
`wireless device such as illustrated in Figure 1.
`As shown above, figure 2 of Moallemi shows an example of a
`wireless device from figure 1 where the device 102 includes a processor 202
`that is in communication with memory 204 and network interface 206 to
`communicate with link 106. Id. ¶ 21. Device 102 may include optionally
`battery 231 to provide power to one or more components of device 102. Id.
`¶ 24. Device 102 may comprise at least one of a mobile handset, a personal
`digital assistant, a laptop computer, a headset, a vehicle hands free device, or
`any other electronic device. Id. Device 102 may comprise a biomedical
`device such as a hearing aid. Id. Devices 102 can be configured to
`communicate resource information and functional assignment data to
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`distribute functionality between devices 102 to better utilize power and
`processing capabilities of the various devices 102. Id. ¶ 31.
`
`2. Discussion
`Petitioner asserts that Moallemi describes all of the elements of claims
`1–3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 20–25, 29, and 30. Pet. 10–40. We begin our
`analysis with claim 1. The present record supports the contention that
`Moallemi describes “[o]ne or more processor-readable storage media
`containing instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform acts”
`(preamble of claim 1). In particular, Moallemi describes that each device
`102 includes a processor 202 in communication with memory 204. Id. at 10
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 12, Fig. 2).
`The present record supports the contention that Moallemi meets the
`claim 1 phrase of “detecting a coprocessor device.” As explained in the
`Petition, Moallemi describes that one or more of the devices 102 may detect
`the presence of the other devices 102 and that any of the devices 102 may be
`a coprocessor that provides additional processing power. Id. at 12–14 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 17, 18, 21, 24, 31, Fig. 1). Claim 1 also claims, in essence,
`comparing functionality between a hearing assist device and a coprocessor
`device to determine whether a signal processing functionality on one of the
`devices is either absent from or enhanced on the other device. The present
`record supports the contention that Moallemi describes this claimed feature.
`In particular, Moallemi describes that devices 102 communicate resource
`information to allow functions to be distributed between devices 102 to
`better utilize processing capabilities. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 31).
`Petitioner asserts, for example, that a processor of a first device, such as a
`hearing aid, monitors at least one resource for performing at least one
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`function, where the resource may be of the first device 102 and one or more
`second devices 102, namely coprocessors. Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 32,
`Fig. 5). Petitioner further contends that the processor of the first device 102
`(the hearing aid) determines whether to assign a function to at least one of
`the second devices (the coprocessors) based on the monitored resources. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 33, 41, Fig. 5). Petitioner concludes that, therefore,
`Moallemi discloses, for purposes of determining where to assign a function,
`comparing resources of a hearing aid and a coprocessor. Id. (citing Ex. 1002
`¶ 51). Petitioner further contends, with supporting evidence, that Moallemi
`describes comparing functionalities to determine whether a functionality on
`one of the devices is enhanced on the other device resulting in shifting
`functions to more capable devices 102 having better resource capabilities
`such as better power, storage, data communication, data processing, display,
`or audio input or output resources. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 31).
`Lastly, claim 1 recites “directing a signal obtained at the hearing assist
`device for at least partial processing to at least one the hearing assist device
`or the coprocessor device.” The present record supports the contention that
`Moallemi meets this limitation. For instance, Petitioner explains that
`Moallemi describes that a function may be offloaded from one of the devices
`to another device with the results returned to the corresponding device for
`further processing or action. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 40).
`Independent claim 8 is broader, but similar to claim 1, and Petitioner’s
`showing is nearly the same for claim 8 as that for claim 1. See Pet. 24. For
`similar reasons provided above, the present record supports Petitioner’s
`contention that Moallemi anticipates claim 8. Claims 2, 3, and 7 depend
`directly from claim 1, and claims 11, 12, and 14–16 depend directly from
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`claim 8. Petitioner’s contentions demonstrate, at this stage of the
`proceeding, that Moallemi anticipates claims 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, and 14–16. For
`instance, claim 2 requires, in essence, comparing functionality between at
`least one of the hearing assist device or the coprocessor device to an
`additional coprocessor device to determine whether a signal processing
`functionality on one of the devices is either absent from or enhanced on the
`other device. Claim 2 further requires “directing the signal obtained at the
`hearing assist device for at least partial processing to at least one the hearing
`assist device or the coprocessor device, or the additional coprocessor
`device.” The present record supports the contention that Moallemi
`anticipates claim 2. For example, Moallemi describes that a first device 102
`may detect the presence of other devices 102, and that each device 102
`determines whether to assign particular functions to one or more other
`devices 102 and instructs or requests that the other device perform the
`function based on the determination. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 18, 31,
`33, 39–41).
`Independent claim 20 (reproduced above) is directed to a hearing
`assist device with several elements that are not claimed in either of claim 1
`or claim 8. Nonetheless, the present record supports Petitioner’s contentions
`that Moallemi describes all of the elements of claim 20. For instance, claim
`20 recites “a sensor configured to detect energy in the form of sound
`waves.” Petitioner contends that Moallemi describes that any of its devices
`102 may comprise a headset or a hearing aid and that the device may also
`include a microphone 216 comprising a transducer adapted to provide
`audible input of a signal. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 21, claim 77). Petitioner
`further contends that Moallemi’s microphone meets the “converter
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`configured to convert the detected energy into a signal,” because the
`microphone converts detected sound waves into sensed data on which a
`processor performs at least one function. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, claim 77; Ex.
`1002 ¶ 73). The present record supports the contention that Moallemi meets
`the claim 20 requirement that “a memory configured to store one or more
`signal processing algorithms.” In particular, Petitioner contends that
`Moallemi discloses devices 102, such as a headset, that perform functions
`such as MP3 decompression, echo cancellation, or side tone. Petitioner
`contends, with supporting evidence, that because MP3 decompression, echo
`cancellation, and side tone are functions performed on audio signals, and
`thus comprise signal processing algorithms, Moallemi discloses a hearing
`assist device that includes a processor configured to execute signal
`processing algorithms to process an audio signal and a memory configured
`to store the signal processing algorithms. Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 41;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 74). For similar reasons, the present record supports Petitioner’s
`contention that Moallemi meet the claim 20 requirement that “a processor
`configured to execute one or more of the signal processing algorithms to
`process the signal.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 75).
`The present record also supports the contention that Moallemi’s
`disclosure that device 102 includes network interface 206 for
`communicating via wireless link 106 with other devices 102 meets the claim
`20 requirement of a “communication interface configured to communicate
`with a coprocessor device.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 17, 21, 22). The
`record supports the contention that Moallemi describes the claim 20
`requirement of “a handshaking module configured to receive information
`regarding functionality of the coprocessor device via the communication
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`interface.” Petitioner contends, with supporting evidence, that Moallemi
`describes its methods may be embodied in a software module executed by a
`processor, pairing two devices via the communication interface over
`wireless link 106, and that pairing is a handshaking process for connecting
`two devices over a communication interface. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1004
`¶¶ 18, 32, claims 23, 48, 73; Ex. 1002 ¶ 77).
`Claim 20 also recites “a functionality comparing module configures to
`compare functionality of the coprocessor device to a functionality of the
`hearing assist device.” The present record supports the contention that
`Moallemi describes this requirement as Moallemi describes its methods may
`be embodied in software module executed by a processor, whereby the
`module compares functionality of the coprocessor device to the functionality
`of the hearing assist device. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 47; Ex. 1002 ¶ 78).
`Claim 20 recites “a processor switching module configured to direct the
`signal to at least one of the processor of the hearing assist device or a
`processor of the coprocessor device.” The present record supports the
`contention that Moallemi discloses that the steps of its methods or
`algorithms may be embodied “in a software module executed by a
`processor.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 47. Moallemi discloses a hearing assist device
`configured to direct the signal to at least one of the processor of the hearing
`assist device or a processor of the coprocessor device. Pet. 33 (citing Ex.
`1002 ¶ 79).
`Claim 20 also recites “a stimulator configured to stimulate an auditory
`nerve of a user based on the signal as processed by at least one of the
`processor of the hearing assist device or the processor of the coprocessor
`device.” The present record supports the contention that Moallemi describes
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`that the hearing assist device comprises a processor that may execute signal
`processing algorithms like MP3 decompression, echo cancellation, and side
`tone to process the audio signals for a user of the hearing assist device.
`Moallemi’s hearing assist device is a device 102 comprising a headset or
`hearing aid. The present record supports the contention that both a headset
`and a hearing aid include a loudspeaker (stimulator) comprising a transducer
`to provide an audible output to the user. Ex. 1004 ¶ 21 (“device 102 may
`also include . . . a loudspeaker 214 comprising a transducer adapted to
`provide audible output”). Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶ 80).
` Independent claim 24 is similar to claim 20, but is directed to a
`coprocessor device. Petitioner’s showing is nearly the same for claim 24 as
`that for claim 20 and claim 1. See Pet. 35–38. For similar reasons provided
`above, the present record supports Petitioner’s contention that Moallemi
`anticipates claim 24. Claims 21–23 depend directly from claim 20, and
`claims 25–30 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 24. Petitioner’s
`contentions demonstrate, at this stage of the proceeding, that Moallemi
`anticipates claims 21–23 and 25–30.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s showing with respect to claims 1–3, 7,
`8, 11, 12, 14–16, 20–25, 29, and 30 along with the supporting evidence and
`determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail
`in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 20–25,
`29, and 30. For all of the above reasons, we are persuaded, at this juncture
`of the proceeding, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claims 1–3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16,
`20–25, 29, and 30 as anticipated by Moallemi.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Moallemi
`
`Petitioner contends claims 4 and 5 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Moallemi. Pet. 40–43. Relying on the testimony
`of Dr. Atlas, Petitioner explains how Moallemi teaches or suggests all of the
`limitations of claims 4 and 5. Id. (citing Ex. 1002).
`Petitioner has accounted sufficiently for the limitations of claims 4
`and 5. For example, claim 4 depends directly from claim 1 and recites “[t]he
`one or more processor-readable storage media of claim 1, further comprising
`repeating the comparing if at least a one of the coprocessor device or the
`additional coprocessor device is no longer detected.” Petitioner contends
`that Moallemi discloses communicating resource information periodically to
`allocate dynamically the function to devices as available resources change
`over time due to changes in the availability of devices such as when a device
`reenters the system 100. Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 32, 33). Petitioner
`contends, with supporting evidence, that because Moallemi discloses a
`device 102 that reenters the system, Moallemi contemplates that the device
`102 had earlier entered and then left the system, such as by power down or
`moving out of communications range. Petitioner contends that it would
`have been obvious to implement the system of Moallemi to repeat the
`comparison of functionality with coprocessor devices such that functions are
`re-assigned based on resource information when a device becomes
`unavailable and no longer detected. Id. at 41–42 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 32, 41;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 94). Claim 5 is similar to claim 4 and based on the record before
`us, Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that claim 5 would have been
`obvious in view of Moallemi. Id. at. 42–43.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`Based on the current record before us, we determine the information
`presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`establishing that claims 4 and 5 would have been obvious over Moallemi.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Moallemi and Sommer
`Petitioner contends claims 26–28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Moallemi and Sommer. Pet. 43–47. Relying on
`the testimony of Dr. Atlas, Petitioner explains how the combination of
`Moallemi and Sommer teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claims
`26–28. Id. (citing Ex. 1002).
`Petitioner has accounted sufficiently for the limitations of claims 26–
`28. For example, claim 26 depends directly from claim 24 and recites
`“wherein the processor is further configured to process a plurality of signals
`received from a plurality of hearing assist devices and to send the plurality
`of processed signals to each respective one of the plurality of hearing assist
`devices.” Petitioner contends that Sommer describes a plurality of hearing
`devices 106 in communication with a server device 112 for providing
`services such as an environment service for reducing background noise
`experienced by the hearing devices 106. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:10–
`11:20, Fig. 1). Petitioner further contends that Sommer’s service device is a
`shared device for handling a number of hearing devices and may be included
`in a mobile or cellular telephone. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:18–20).
`Petitioner contends that Sommer’s hearing devices and server are similar to
`Moallemi’s hearing assist devices and coprocessor device. Id. at 45.
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
`been motivated to modify Moallemi’s devices such that not only one but
`multiple hearing devices assign a signal processing function to a shared
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`server coprocessor device based on a comparison that determines the
`coprocessor device has the signal processing functionality or is more capable
`of providing that functionality, such as allowing access to a common
`environment memory bank storing environment compensation signals for
`masking background noise. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 31; Ex. 1005 8:5–27; Ex.
`1002 ¶ 98).
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s showing with respect to claims 26–28
`along with the supporting evidence and determine that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of
`those claims as well. Based on the current record before us, we determine
`the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in establishing that claims 26–28 would have been obvious
`over Moallemi and Sommer.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, and 20–30 of the ’722 patent
`are unpatentable.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, and 20–30
`of the ’722 patent on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Moallemi
`Moallemi
`Moallemi and Sommer
`
`§ 102
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial, which
`commences on the entry date of this decision; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`identified immediately above, and no other ground is authorized.
`
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`1–3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 20–25,
`29, and 30
`4 and 5
`26–28
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00929
`Patent 7,929,722 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Donald R. Steinberg
`Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`Haixia Lin
`Haixia.Lin@wilmerhale.com
`
`Christopher R. O’Brien
`Christopher.O’Brien@wilmerhale.com
`
`Vera A. Shmidt
`Vera.Shmidt@wilmerhale.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Henry A. Petri, Jr.
`hpetri@polsinelli.com
`
`James P. Murphy
`jpmurphy@polsinelli.com
`
`Margaux A. Savee
`msavee@polsinelli.com
`
`Tim R. Seeley
`tims@intven.com
`
`Russ Rigby
`rrigby@intven.com
`
`19
`
`
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
