`v.
`The Chamberlain Group, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`Patent Owner Demonstratives
`Case Nos. IPR2017-01132 / IPR2017-01137
`U.S. Patent No. 6,998,977
`Before Hon. Joni Y. Chang, Justin T. Arbes, and Jon M. Jurgovan
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`1
`
`CG 2002
`Techtronic v. Chamberlain
`IPR2017-01132
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Section
`Introduction
`Menard does not anticipate independent claims 1 and 12
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 9
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 14
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 18
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 19
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 20
`Kennametal does not permit missing elements in the prior art
`to be filled in
`
`Slide
`3
`11
`23
`29
`36
`50
`54
`63
`70
`
`2
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`Introduction
`
`3
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`IPR2017-01132
`• Ground 1 – Claims 12-21 anticipated by Menard
`• Ground 2 – Claims 13 and 21 obvious over Menard in view of Lee
`
`IPR2017-01137
`• Ground 1 – Claims 1-4, 6-11 and 22-25 anticipated by Menard
`• Ground 2 – Claims 11 and 25 obvious over Menard in view of Lee
`• Ground 3 – Claim 5 obvious over Menard in view of Held
`• Ground 4 – Claim 5 obvious over Menard in view of HomeRF
`
`4
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 12
`
`‘977 Patent, claim 12
`
`5
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`‘977 Patent, claim 1
`
`6
`
`
`
`Menard, paragraph 50
`
`Menard, ¶ 50
`
`7
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 9
`
`Dependent Claim 9
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 14
`
`Dependent Claim 14
`
`14. A method of claim 12 further comprising the step of
`
`?
`
`9
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 17-20
`
`Dependent Claims 17-20
`
`17. The method of claim 12—
`_
`
`'18. The apparatus of claim '17—
`
` 10
`
`10
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate
`Independent claims 1 and 12
`
`11
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claims 1 & 12
`
`‘977 Patent, claim 1
`
`12
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claims 1 & 12
`
`‘977 Patent, claim 12
`
`13
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claims 1 & 12
`
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Petition, p. 19
`
`14
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claims 1 & 12
`
`Menard, ¶ 50
`
`‘977 patent, claim 12
`
`15
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claims 1 & 12
`Patent Owner:
`
`Menard – the source of the “inquiry” is not express
`
`POR, pp. 4-5
`
`16
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claims 1 & 12
`Patent Owner:
`
`Menard – the source of the “inquiry” is not inherent
`
`POR, pp. 9-10:
`
`17
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claims 1 & 12
`Patent Owner:
`
`Menard – the “inquiry” is not inherently over the network;
`other possibilities exist
`
`POR, p. 12:
`
`18
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claims 1 & 12
`Patent Owner:
`
`Menard – other possible sources of the “inquiry”
`
`POR, p. 12:
`
`19
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claims 1 & 12
`Patent Owner:
`Menard – other
`possible sources of
`the “inquiry”
`
`POR, pp. 12-13
`
`20
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claims 1 & 12
`Menard – other possible sources of the “inquiry”
`
`Reply, p. 13, note 7
`
`21
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claims 1 & 12
`Patent Owner:
`
`POR, p. 12:
`
`22
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 9
`
`23
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 9
`
`24
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 9
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Petition, p. 39:
`
`25
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 9
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`POR, p. 26:
`
`26
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 9
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`POR, p. 26:
`
`27
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 9
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`POR, p. 26:
`
`28
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 14
`
`29
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 14
`
`30
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 14
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`POR, p. 19
`
`31
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 14
`Patent Owner:
`
`POR, p. 20
`
`32
`
`
`
`Claim 14: ReFLEX
`
`Petitioner argues:
`Claim 14: ReFLEX
`
`Petitioner argues:
`
`When combined with the optional PocketGenie
`
`Internet service package, the pager could navigate and display webpages at least as
`
`early as 2001. Ex.1014fl55. Patent-Owner’s expert has taken the position that
`
`(Motorola). . ..”), 110043 (disclosing “ReFLEX (by Motorola)”); Ex.1014‘|l5 8.
`
`“Menard includes no express disclosure describing” such a pager. Ex.20011l43.
`
`This.» however, is also incorrect,as—
`
`See Ex.1003110049 (“Examples of two way pager protocols include ReFLEXTM
`
`Reply, p. 23
`
`33
`
`
`
`Claim 14: ReFLEX
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Citing Menard:
`
`Reply, p. 23
`
`Menard, ¶ 49
`
`Menard, ¶ 43
`
`34
`
`
`
`Claim 14: ReFLEX
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Reply, p. 23
`
`Citing Lipoff:
`
`Ex. 1014, ¶ 58
`
`35
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`
`36
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`
`37
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`
`38
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Petition, p. 37:
`
`39
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`POR, p. 21:
`
`40
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Reply, p. 25
`In support Petitioner cites the ‘977 patent:
`
`Ex. 1001 (‘977 patent), 1:55-60
`
`41
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Citing ‘977 patent:
`
`Reply, p. 25
`
`Ex. 1001 (‘977 patent), claim 12
`
`42
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Reply, p. 25
`
`43
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`POR, p. 21
`
`44
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`
`Patent Owner cites:
`
`POR, p. 21
`
`45
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`POR, p. 21
`
`46
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Reply, p. 24
`
`47
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`
`But Petitioner also argues:
`
`Reply, p. 4
`
`Reply, p. 4
`
`48
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 17
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Reply, p. 25
`
`POR, p. 21
`
`49
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 18
`
`50
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 18
`
`51
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 18
`
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Menard states:
`
`Reply, p. 25:
`
`Menard, ¶ 69
`
`52
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 18
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`POR, p. 23
`
`53
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 19
`
`54
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 19
`
`55
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 19
`
`56
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 19
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Petition, p. 39:
`
`57
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 19
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`POR, p. 25
`
`58
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 19
`
`Menard states:
`
`Menard, ¶ 50
`
`59
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 19
`
`Menard states:
`
`Menard, ¶ 48
`
`60
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 19
`
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Reply, p. 26
`
`61
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 19
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Reply, p. 26
`
`POR, p. 21
`
`62
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 20
`
`63
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 20
`
`64
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 20
`
`65
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 20
`
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Petition, p. 39:
`
`66
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 20
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`POR, p. 26:
`
`67
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 20
`
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Reply, p. 26
`
`68
`
`
`
`Menard does not anticipate Claim 20
`Petitioner argues:
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Reply, p. 26
`
`POR, p. 21
`
`69
`
`
`
`Kennametal does not permit missing
`elements in the prior art to be filled in
`
`70
`
`
`
`Kennametal (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`* Quotes from Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 851 F.3d 1270, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(cited at POR, pp. 27-28)
`
`71
`
`
`
`Nidec (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`Nidec (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`‘—
`
`-. Rather, Kennametal addresses Whether the disclosure
`
`of a limited number of combination possibilities discloses one of
`
`the possible combinations.” Nidec at 1274.
`
`
`
`_ [] simply because a skilled artisan would
`
`immediately envision them.” Nidec at 1274 (internal quotes and
`
`72
`
`cites omitted).
`
`
`
`WesternGeco (Fed. Cir. May 2018)
`
`73
`
`