Paper: 7
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`Entered: October 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`Entered: October 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–6 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,345,779 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’779 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). An
`inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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 also 37
`C.F.R. § 42.108.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–6 of the ’779
`patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.
`A. Related Matters
`Both parties point out that the ’779 patent was asserted against
`FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation, et al., in Sony Corporation et al. v.
`FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation, et al., No. 337-TA-1036 (ITC) and Sony
`Corporation et al. v. FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation, et al., Case No.
`1:16-cv-25210 (S.D. Fla.). Pet. 1; Paper 4.
`B. The ’779 Patent
`The ’779 patent relates to a data storage tape cartridge having a
`retainer for a leader pin. Ex. 1001, 1:5–8. Figure 3 of the ’779 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`Figure 3 above shows a fragmentary horizontal cross-sectional view
`of a magnetic tape cartridge. Ex. 1001, 2:24–25. The magnetic tape
`cartridge includes housing 12 having first section 13 and second section 14
`operatively connected to each other. Ex. 1001, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 3. First
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`positioning member 40 and second positioning member 50 are operatively
`connected to the housing and are in axial alignment with each other. Ex.
`1001, Abstract; Figs. 3 and 5. Leader pin 30 is positioned in positioning
`members 40 and 50. Springs 60 and 70 secure leader pin 30 in position. Id.
`Tape access opening 16, formed in housing 12, provides access to leader pin
`30. Id. at 3:33–36.
`As shown in Figure 3, spring 70 is generally L-shaped and has a first
`portion and a second portion. Id. at 4:1–2. Base member 70a forms the first
`portion of spring 70, and elongate member 70b forms the second portion.
`Id. at 4:2–3. Elongate member 70b has a first end 70c and an arcuate second
`end 70d. Id. at 4:4–7, 17–18. First portion 70a is operatively connected to
`housing section 14 by suitable means such as sonic welding or hot staking.
`Id. at 4:9–11. Second portion 70b is not connected to section 14, in order to
`apply a force to leader pin 30, to hold the leader pin in place. Id. at 4:14–16.
`For example, when leader pin 30 is inserted into access opening 16,
`cylindrical end 33 of the leader pin pushes second end 70d of the spring
`away, to allow end 33 to be positioned in positioning member 50. Id. at
`4:16–18, 5:11–16. Then, second end 70d of the spring provides a positive
`force, to hold the leader pin in this position. Id. at 4:18–20, 5:16–18.
`Positioning member 40 and spring 60, located on section 13 of
`housing 12 as shown in Figure 5, have similar configurations and provide
`similar functions as positioning member 50 and spring 70. Id. at Abstract,
`3:45–4:21, 5:8–18, Fig. 5.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 of the challenged claims of the ’779 patent is independent and
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`1. A data storage cartridge comprising:
`a) a housing having a first section and a second section
`operatively connected to form the housing:
`b) the housing defining a tape access opening;
`c) a first positioning member operatively connected to the first
`section and a second positioning member operatively connected
`to the second section, the positioning members in axial alignment;
`d) an end of tape attachment member having a first end positioned
`in the first positioning member and a second end positioned in the
`second positioning member;
`e) a first spring having a first portion operatively connected to the
`first section and a moveable second portion securing the end of
`tape attachment member in position; and
`f) a second spring having a first portion operatively connected to
`the second section and a moveable second portion securing the
`end of tape attachment member in position.
`Ex. 1001, 5:25–43.
`
`D. References
`Petitioner relies on the following references. Pet. 15–16.
`Ex. No.
`Reference Patent No.
`Date
`Morita
`US 6,236,539 B1
`May 22, 2001 1004
`Sandell
`US 4,945,530
`July 31,1990
`1005
`Ishihara
`JP H11-339432
`Dec. 10, 1999 1006
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of William Vanderheyden
`
`(Ex. 1002) in support of its arguments. Patent Owner relies on the
`Declaration of Dr. Richard Klopp (Ex. 2002) in support of its arguments.
`E. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–6 of the ’779 patent are unpatentable
`
`based on the following specific grounds:
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Morita 15th embodiment
`Morita 15th embodiment
`Morita 13th and 15th embodiments
`Morita 6th embodiment
`Morita 6th embodiment and
`Figures 3 and 40-41B
`Morita 6th embodiment and
`Sandell
`Ishihara
`
`
`
`Basis
`§ 102
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 102
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–6
`5 and 6
`1–6
`1–4
`5 and 6
`
`§ 103
`
`5 and 6
`
`§ 102
`
`1–6
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`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);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in inter
`partes reviews). 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). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different
`from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner proposes the broadest reasonable construction of the claim
`term “a second spring” requires a spring separate and detached from the first
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`spring. Pet. 10–11. To support this proposed construction, Petitioner
`contends the ’779 Patent shows a first spring 60 and a second spring 70
`being separate and distinct. Id. Patent Owner does not propose a
`construction of this term.
`“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific
`embodiments of the invention, [the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly warned
`against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Here, neither the claim
`language nor the rest of the Specification requires the second spring to be
`separate, distinct, and detached from the first spring. Petitioner does not
`persuade us that the broadest reasonable construction of “a second spring” is
`a spring separate and detached from the first spring. We determine that this
`claim term does not otherwise require an express construction at this stage of
`the proceeding.
`Patent Owner proposes the broadest reasonable construction of the
`claim term “operatively connected” means arranged in a manner capable of
`performing a function. Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner proposes the
`broadest reasonable construction of the claim term “a housing having a first
`section and a second section operatively connected to form the housing”
`requires a first section and a second section arranged in a manner capable of
`performing the function of forming the housing. Prelim. Resp. 11, 14–15.
`According to Patent Owner, the “operatively connected” first and second
`sections also require the function of providing a secure connection in the
`area of the tape access opening. Id.
`To support this construction, Patent Owner relies on testimony of Dr.
`Klopp, who testifies that the ’779 patent teaches that a problem with prior art
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`tape cartridges is that the portion of the housing in the immediate area of the
`leader pin is not securely fastened. Ex. 2002 ¶ 72. According to Dr. Klopp,
`the ’779 patent addresses this concern by providing a secure operative
`connection in the area of the tape access opening. Id. According to Patent
`Owner, the detailed description of the ’779 patent describes an example of
`the secure connection that achieves this function as a snap fit locking
`mechanism. Prelim. Resp. 12.
`“To begin with, the context in which a term is used in the asserted
`claim can be highly instructive” as to the meaning of a particular claim term.
`Phillips, 415 F.3d. at 1314. Here, claim 1 recites “a first section and a
`second section operatively connected” performs the function of “to form the
`housing.” Claim 1 further recites a “movable second portion” of the first
`spring and second spring performs the function of “securing the end of tape
`attachment member in position.” The language of claim 1 itself specifies
`that the function of securing the leader pin in position is performed by the
`springs, not the “operatively connected” sections of the housing.
`Further, because “claim terms are normally used consistently
`throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate
`the meaning of the same term in other claims.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314
`(internal citations omitted). Claim 10 recites “a housing having a first
`section and a second section operatively connected to form the housing,”
`and further recites that the first and second sections of the housing further
`have “a first locking surface and a second locking surface.” Accepting
`Patent Owner’s contention that the locking mechanism performs the function
`of providing a secure connection in the area of the tape access opening,
`Claim 10 illuminates the meaning of the “operatively connected” sections
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`recited in claim 1 does not include the function of providing a secure
`connection in the area of the tape access opening.
`We do not agree with Patent Owner that the broadest reasonable
`construction of “a housing having a first section and a second section
`operatively connected to form the housing” requires a secure connection in
`the area of the tape access opening to achieve the function of securely
`fastening the leader pin. We determine that this claim term does not require
`an express construction at this stage of the proceedings. We also determine
`that none of the other terms require express construction at this stage.
`B. Asserted Unpatentability Over Morita
`1. Morita (Ex. 1004)
`Morita describes a magnetic tape cartridge including a cartridge
`casing formed by upper and lower casing halves, and a single reel.
`Ex. 1004, Abstract; 1:6–8. A magnetic tape is wound around the single reel.
`Id. A leader pin is fixed to the leading end of the magnetic tape. Id. at 1:8–
`11. A spring member removably holds upper and lower end portions of the
`leader pin on the cartridge casing. Id. at Abstract. Figure 1 of Morita is
`reproduced below.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 above shows magnetic tape cartridge 1 with a single reel 4
`and cartridge casing 7. Ex. 1004, 4:25–27. Cartridge casing 7 has upper
`casing half 2 and lower casing half 3, fastened together by screws and the
`like. Id. at 4:29–31, 12:12–13. Magnetic tape 20 is drawn out through tape
`outlet opening 26 formed in a side wall of cartridge casing 7. Id. at 4:57–59.
`Leader pin 21 is fixed to the leading end of magnetic tape 20, and when
`cartridge 1 is not used, magnetic tape 20 is wound around reel 4 with leader
`pin 21 held in recess 28 formed near tape outlet opening 26. Id. at 4:63–67,
`12:11–13.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`In the fifteenth embodiment, leader pin 21 is removably held in
`recesses 28 formed in upper and lower casing halves 2 and 3 by pin holding
`member 540 disposed in each recess, as shown in Figures 40 through 42B.
`Id. at 12:10–14. Figure 40 of Morita is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 40 above shows pin holding member 540 holding leader pin 21
`in recess 28 of lower casing half 3. Id. Pin holding member 540 is in the
`form of a plate spring formed of metal or hard plastic. Id. at 12:14–15. Pin
`holding member 540 has holding portion 540a at its free end, and is held in
`cartridge casing7 by press-fitting its base end portion 540b in cutaway
`portion 531 formed on inner surface 3a of lower casing half 3 of cartridge
`casing 7. Id. at 12:15–21. A similar pin holding member is also located in
`upper casing half 2 of cartridge casing 7. Id. at 12:10–14, 17–21.
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner, relying on the Declaration of Mr. Vanderheyden
`(Ex. 1002), challenges claim 1 as anticipated by the fifteenth embodiment of
`Morita. Pet. 11–17.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`Petitioner contends “a housing having a first section and a second
`section operatively connected to form the housing” is described by Morita’s
`disclosure in Figure 1 of cartridge casing 7 having upper casing half 2 and
`lower casing half 3 fastened together by screws or the like. Pet. 12–13
`(citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1; 4:29–31, 12:12–13; Ex. 1002 ¶ 100).
`Petitioner contends “the housing defining a tape access opening” is
`described by Morita’s disclosure in Figure 1 of tape outlet opening 26 in
`cartridge casing 7. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, 4:57–59; Ex. 1002
`¶ 101).
`Petitioner contends “a first positioning member operatively connected
`to the first section and a second positioning member operatively connected
`to the second section, the positioning members in axial alignment” is
`described by recesses 28 in upper and lower casing halves 2, 3 of casing 7.
`Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004, 12:11–13; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102). Petitioner relies on
`testimony of Mr. Vanderheyden to contend that, because leader pin 21
`stands straight in cartridge 7, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand recesses 28 in upper and lower casing halves 2 and 3 are axially
`aligned. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103).
`Petitioner contends “an end of tape attachment member having a first
`end positioned in the first positioning member and a second end positioned
`in the second positioning member” is described by Morita’s disclosure of
`leader pin 21 fixed to the leading end of magnetic tape 20 and removably
`held in recesses 28 formed near tape outlet opening 26 of cartridge casing 7.
`Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, 4:63–67, 12:10–15; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104).
`Petitioner contends “a first spring having a first portion operatively
`connected to the first section and a moveable second portion securing the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`end of tape attachment member in position” is described by Morita’s
`disclosure in Figure 40 of pin holding member 540, which is a plate spring,
`having base end portion 540b operatively connected to lower casing half 3,
`and holding portion 540a to hold leader pin 21 in place. Pet. 15–16 (citing
`Ex. 1004, Figs. 40, 41A, 12:10–16, 22–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–107).
`Petitioner contends “a second spring having a first portion operatively
`connected to the second section and a moveable second portion securing the
`end of tape attachment member in position” is described by Morita’s
`disclosure of a pin holding member disposed in recess 28 in each of upper
`casing half 2 and lower casing half 3. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004, 12:13;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 108).
`Patent Owner contends that Morita does not describe “operatively
`connected” first and second sections of a housing as recited in claim 1.
`Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner’s contention is based on the premise that
`the operative connection required by claim 1 must be located in the area of
`the tape access opening, to ensure that the leader pin does not become
`dislodged. See Prelim. Resp. 11–15, 17–18. However, Patent Owner’s
`construction of “a first section and a second section operatively connected to
`form a housing” as requiring the additional function of securing the leader
`pin is unduly narrow as discussed in our claim construction above.
`Patent Owner further contends that Morita was already considered by
`the Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution of the ’779 patent,
`because a European Application with the same disclosure as Morita was
`cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and subsequently
`initialed and signed by the Examiner. Prelim. Resp. 19–21. Petitioner
`contends that the Examiner did not fully consider all fifteen embodiments of
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`Morita. Pet. 3. Here, Petitioner provides detailed mapping of each
`limitation of claim 1 to the disclosure of Morita. The Examiner, on the other
`hand, did not consider the mapping presented by Petitioner on the record.
`
`The current record demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least
`claim 1 is anticipated by the fifteenth embodiment of Morita. Having
`decided that Petitioner is likely to prevail on at least one of the claims
`challenged in the petition on the basis of Morita, we exercise our discretion
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 to have the review proceed on all claims and
`grounds where Morita serves as a basis for unpatentability.
`C. Asserted Unpatentability Over Ishihara
`1. Ishihara (Ex. 1006)
`Figure 1 of Ishihara is the same as Figure 1 of Morita discussed
`above. Ex. 1004, Fig. 1; Ex. 1006, Fig. 1; Ex. 2002 ¶ 95. Figure 15 of
`Ishihara is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 15 of Ishihara above shows a retention structure for retaining
`leader pin 21 in cartridge casing 7. Ex. 1006 ¶ 42. Figure 15 shows spring
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`member 80 holding leader pin 21 in recess 28 of lower casing half 3. Id. at
`¶ 44. Figure 16 of Morita is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 16 above shows a perspective view of spring member 80. Id.
`at ¶ 42. Spring member 80 is in the form of a plate spring formed of metal
`or hard plastic. Id. at ¶ 43. Spring member 80 has abutment section 80d
`formed at a tip and bent to abut on respective lateral-wall inner surface 3a of
`lower casing half 3. Id. Spring member 80 also has zigzag-shaped root part
`80b, elastically fit into a space between convex walls 42 and 43, and retainer
`section 80a between abutment section 80d and root part 80b. Id. A similar
`pin holding member is also located in upper casing half 2 of cartridge casing
`7. Id. at ¶¶ 43–44.
`
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner, relying on the Declaration of Mr. Vanderheyden
`(Ex. 1002), challenges claim 1 as anticipated by Ishihara. Pet. 63–72.
`Petitioner contends “a housing having a first section and a second
`section operatively connected to form the housing” is described by
`Ishihara’s disclosure of cartridge casing 7 having upper casing half 2 and
`lower casing half 3 fastened together by screws and the like. Pet. 64 (citing
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 12; Ex. 1002 ¶ 239).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`Petitioner contends “the housing defining a tape access opening” is
`described by Ishihara’s disclosure of opening 26 for drawing out magnetic
`tape 20. Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 15).
`Petitioner contends “a first positioning member operatively connected
`to the first section and a second positioning member operatively connected
`to the second section, the positioning members in axial alignment” is
`described by recesses 28 in upper and lower casing halves 2, 3 of casing 7.
`Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 16, 18; Ex. 1002 ¶ 241). Petitioner relies on
`Figure 2 of Ishihara and testimony of Mr. Vanderheyden to contend that
`recesses 28 in upper and lower casing halves 2 and 3 are axially aligned.
`Pet. 64–65 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 241).
`Petitioner contends “an end of tape attachment member having a first
`end positioned in the first positioning member and a second end positioned
`in the second positioning member” is described by Ishihara’s disclosure of
`flanges 21c inserted into recesses 28. Pet. 65 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 22;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 241).
`Petitioner contends “a first spring having a first portion operatively
`connected to the first section and a moveable second portion securing the
`end of tape attachment member in position” is described by Ishihara’s
`disclosure of spring members 80, which are flat springs and can be easily,
`stably attached to upper and lower casing halves 2 and 3. Pet. 66 (citing
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 16, ¶ 43). Petitioner contends each spring member 80 has
`zigzag root part 80b elastically fit between convex walls 42 and 43, and a
`movable portion between abutment section 80d and retainer section 80a for
`securing leader pin 21 in position. Pet. 66–67 (citing Ex. 1006, Figs. 15, 16;
`¶ 43; Ex. 1002 ¶ 244).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`Petitioner contends “a second spring having a first portion operatively
`connected to the second section and a moveable second portion securing the
`end of tape attachment member in position” is described by Morita’s
`disclosure of a pin holding member disposed in recess 28 in each of upper
`casing half 2 and lower casing half 3. Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 43).
`Patent Owner contends that Ishihara does not describe “operatively
`connected” first and second sections of a housing as recited in claim 1.
`Prelim. Resp. 21–24. According to Patent Owner, because the cartridge
`structure shown in Figure 1 of Ishihara is identical to the cartridge structure
`shown in Figure 1 of Morita, Ishihara does not disclose a secure connection
`in the area of the tape access opening. Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 95).
`However, Patent Owner’s construction of “a first section and a second
`section operatively connected to form a housing” as requiring the additional
`function of securing the leader pin is unduly narrow as discussed in our
`claim construction and our analysis of Figure 1 of Morita above.
`Patent Owner further contends that Ishihara is cumulative to the
`Morita EP Application considered by the Patent Examiner during
`prosecution of the ’779 patent. Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner contends that
`Ishihara was not previously presented to the PTO. Pet. 4. Here, Petitioner
`provides detailed mapping of each limitation of claim 1 to the disclosure of
`Ishihara. The Examiner, on the other hand, did not consider Ishihara during
`prosecution.
`
`The current record demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least
`claim 1 is anticipated by Ishihara. Having decided that Petitioner is likely to
`prevail on at least one of the claims challenged in the petition on the basis of
`Ishihara, we exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 to have the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`review proceed on all claims where Ishihara serves as a basis for
`unpatentability.
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`
`presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail with respect to claims 1–6 of the ’779 patent.
`
`Any discussion of facts in this Decision is made only for the purposes
`of institution and is not dispositive of any issue related to any ground on
`which we institute review. The Board has not made a final determination on
`the patentability of any challenged claim. The Board’s final determination
`will be based on the record as fully developed during trial.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we institute an inter
`
`partes review on the following grounds:
`
`Claims 1–6 of the ’779 patent as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`the fifteenth embodiment of Morita;
`
`Claims 5–6 of the ’779 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over the fifteenth embodiment of Morita;
`
`Claims 1–6 of the ’779 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over the thirteenth and fifteenth embodiments of Morita;
`
`Claims 1–4 of the ’779 patent as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`the sixth embodiment of Morita;
`
`Claims 5–6 of the ’779 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over the sixth embodiment and Figures 3 and 40–40b of Morita;
`
`Claims 5–6 of the ’779 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over the sixth embodiment of Morita and Sandell; and
`
`Claims 1–6 of the ’779 patent as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`Ishihara; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ’779 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`entry date of this Order, and 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`Eliot D. Williams
`Robert Scheinfeld
`Robert L. Maier
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`robert.scheinfeld@bakerbotts.com
`Robert.maier@bakerbotts.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`Brett N. Watkins
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`kevinjohnson@guinnemanuel.com
`brettwatkins@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Matthew Smith
`TURNER BOYD LLP
`smith@turnerboyd.com
`
`
`21
`
`
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
