Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 9
`Entered: December 1, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ENFORCEMENT VIDEO, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DIGITAL ALLY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`____________
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, MINN CHUNG, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 9
`Entered: December 1, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ENFORCEMENT VIDEO, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DIGITAL ALLY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`____________
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, MINN CHUNG, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Enforcement Video, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–4, 8–10, 12–17, 20–22,
`and 24 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’950 patent”). Digital Ally, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have authority to determine
`whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4(a).
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the
`Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information
`presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the
`challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, we
`deny Petitioner’s request to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 8–
`10, 12–17, 20–22, and 24.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Proceeding
`The parties indicate that the ’950 patent is the subject of the following
`patent infringement cases: Digital Ally, Inc. v. Enforcement Video, LLC
`d/b/a WatchGuard Video, 2:16-CV-02349-JTM-JPO, pending in the United
`States District Court for the District of Kansas. Pet. 9; Paper 3, 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`
`B. The ’950 Patent
`The ’950 patent describes a vehicle-mounted video and audio
`recording system using distributed processing. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:7–9.
`In an embodiment, the video system for a vehicle comprises a video camera
`mounted on the vehicle for capturing and encoding video, a central control
`unit mounted on the vehicle for receiving and decoding the encoded video,
`and a display monitor mounted on the vehicle for displaying the decoded
`video. Id. at 2:13–18. In addition, the system may include a microphone to
`capture and encode audio, which is received and decoded by the central
`control unit. Id. at 2:30–32.
`In another embodiment, the video cameras may include a unique
`identifier, such as a serial number. Id. at 10:14–17. The audiovisual signals
`recorded by a camera are stamped with the camera’s identifier so that the
`identity of the camera that acquired the video is verified and maintained with
`the recorded data itself. Id. at 10:17–21.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is
`illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below.
`1.
`A video system for a law enforcement vehicle, the system
`comprising:
`a first video camera mounted on the law enforcement vehicle and
`configured to capture and encode video of an event and to
`associate the encoded video with a first unique camera
`identifier;
`a second video camera configured to capture and encode video
`of the event and to associate the encoded video with a
`second unique camera identifier;
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`
`wherein the first video camera and the second video camera are
`configured to implement a pre-event recording loop;
`a central control unit configured to receive, decode, and
`timestamp the encoded video from the first video camera
`and the encoded video from the second video camera,
`wherein the central control unit is configured to be updated in the
`field via a wireless data link;
`a memory for receiving and storing the captured, decoded, and
`timestamped video from the central control unit,
`wherein the central control unit is further configured to
`wirelessly upload the captured, decoded, and timestamped
`video stored in the memory to a remote computer,
`wherein one or both of the video captured by the first video
`camera and the video captured by the second video camera
`is selectively playable on a display of a smartphone carried
`by a user of the video system, such that the display is
`configured to display the selected decoded video; and
`a microphone configured to capture and encode audio, wherein
`the central control unit is configured to receive and decode
`the encoded audio.
`Ex. 1001, 10:59–11:23.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Prior Art and Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner cites the following references in its challenges to
`patentability.
`
`Designation Exhibit No.
`
`Pandey
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Monroe
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Sony
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Reference and Relevant Date
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
`2009/0195655 A1 (published Aug. 6, 2009)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,518,881 B2 (issued Feb. 11,
`2003)
`Sony Network Camera User’s Guide
`(Copyright 2004)
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
`2004/0008255 A1 (published Jan. 15, 2004)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,081,214 B2 (issued Dec. 20,
`2011)
`
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 11):
`
`Lewellen
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Vanman1
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`References
`
`1–4, 8, 12–17, 20, and 24
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`9 and 21
`
`10 and 22
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pandey, Monroe, and Sony
`Pandey, Monroe, Sony, and
`Lewellen
`Pandey, Monroe, Sony, and
`Vanman
`
`
`1 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of William C. Easttom II
`(Ex. 1007).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the claim construction
`standard to be applied in an inter partes review proceeding). Under the
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any special
`definitions, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in view
`of the specification. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007).
`For the purposes of this decision, and on the record presented, we
`determine that no claim terms need express interpretation because we need
`only construe terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary
`to resolve the controversy.” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc.
`v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`B. Obviousness over the Combination of Pandey, Monroe, and Sony
`Petitioner contends claims 1–4, 8, 12–17, 20, and 24 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Pandey,
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`Monroe, and Sony. Pet. 14–53. Petitioner submits the Declaration of
`William C. Easttom II in support of its contentions. We have reviewed the
`parties’ contentions and supporting evidence. Given the evidence of record,
`we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing on this asserted ground as to any of these challenged claims for
`the reasons explained below.
`
`1. Overview of Pandey (Ex. 1002)
`Pandey discloses a remote video surveillance apparatus having a
`video camera and a cellular telephone connection so as to transmit live video
`images to a base station or to a user computer at a different remote location.
`Ex. 1002, Abstract, ¶ 5.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Pandey is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 above depicts an exemplary embodiment of Pandey in which two
`different remote units are mounted on vehicles. Id. ¶¶ 19, 24–25. As
`illustrated in Figure 1 above, the remote units have access to the Internet
`connection over a cellular telephone network, and communicate with a base
`station and at least two user computers. Id. ¶ 19.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`
`In another embodiment, the remote unit may include an Internet
`Protocol (IP) camera, such as a Sony Model Number SNCRZ25 camera. Id.
`¶ 38. Figure 2 (not reproduced herein) describes the structure and operation
`of IP camera 200 in an exemplary embodiment. Id. ¶ 39. According to
`Pandey, IP camera 200 can be controlled remotely and may transmit
`recorded video signals over the Internet connection. Id. ¶¶ 40–41. The
`video signals may be compressed by using a data compression routine. Id.
`¶ 41.
`
`2. Overview of Sony (Ex. 1004)
`Sony is a user’s guide that explains how to operate the Sony
`SNC-RZ25N and SNC-RZ25P model Network Camera from a computer.
`Ex. 1004, 7. The “requirements for the computer” specified in the user’s
`guide indicate that Sony contemplates “the computer” to be a Windows
`computer, such as a Windows PC. See id. at 8 (requiring the computer to
`include a “Pentium III 1 GHz or higher” processor and a “Windows
`2000/XP” operating system (OS), as well as an “Internet Explorer Ver. 5.5
`or Ver. 6.0” Web browser).
`Sony instructs the user to “[b]efore starting, connect the camera to a
`local network” and explains how to assign an IP address to the camera using
`the IP Setup program installed on the user computer. Id. at 9. According to
`Sony, the IP Setup program detects the SNC RZ25N or SNC-RZ25P
`cameras connected to the network and lists them on the Network tab window
`of the program. Id. The display window of Sony’s IP Setup program is
`reproduced below.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`The figure above depicts the Network tab window of Sony’s IP Setup
`program. Id. As shown above, the IP Setup program lists each of the
`cameras detected on the local network, including the IP address (if assigned
`already), the model number, and the serial number of the camera. Id. Sony
`explains that the IP address of the cameras may be assigned manually or
`obtained automatically from the DNS server on the network. Id. at 9–10.
`Once an IP address has been assigned to a camera connected to the
`network, Sony describes that the camera is accessed by “using the Web
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`browser installed in your computer.” Id. at 11. Sony also describes that,
`when the camera is first accessed, the “welcome page” and the “main
`viewer” screen are displayed on the Web browser. Id. According to Sony,
`the IP address assignment process is completed when the main viewer is
`correctly displayed. Id.
`Sony further describes that the IP Setup program also allows selecting
`various parameters for the communication between the camera and the user
`computer, such as the video format of the output video streaming signal
`from the camera (id. at 34–35) and the bandwidth of the transmission from
`the camera (id. at 66).
`In addition, Sony describes how to control the camera from the user
`computer over the network, including controlling the PanTilt, Zoom, and
`Focus functions of the camera, as well as the camera position. Id. at 18, 22–
`23.
`
`Finally, Sony describes that the video or audio data recorded on the
`camera can be accessed and played on the user computer by using the SNC
`video player. Id. at 70. The displayed image can be captured and saved on
`the user computer. Id. at 71.
`
`3. Discussion
`a. Claim 1
`Claim 1 recites “a first video camera mounted on the law enforcement
`vehicle and configured to capture and encode video of an event and to
`associate the encoded video with a first unique camera identifier.”
`Ex. 1001, 10:61–64 (emphases added). In other words, claim 1 requires the
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`first video camera to associate the video captured on the camera with a
`unique camera identifier.
`Petitioner asserts that the term “associate” should be construed to
`mean “to include as part of the same file.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not
`dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. Under Petitioner’s proposed
`construction, claim 1 requires the first video camera to place a unique
`camera identifier in the encoded video as part of the same video file.
`Although we need not construe the term expressly for purposes of this
`Decision, we note that the claim plainly recites the camera to associate “the
`encoded video” of an event with the camera identifier. Thus, the plain
`language of the claim requires the claimed association to be specific to the
`particular video or video file captured by the camera. In other words, a
`general relationship between all of the video files recorded on the camera
`and the camera identifier does not meet the recited “association” limitation.
`Put it differently, the mere fact that video files are recorded by a camera
`having a camera identifier does not create the “associat[ion]” recited in the
`claim. This interpretation is also consistent with “the claim construction
`principle that meaning should be given to all of a claim’s terms,” Dell Inc. v.
`Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Bicon, Inc. v.
`Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006)), because the claim
`expressly recites the first video camera “to capture and encode video of an
`event” and “to associate the encoded video with a first unique camera
`identifier.”
`Petitioner maps IP camera 200 of Pandey as the claimed first video
`camera (Pet. 18) and asserts that Pandey discloses the first video camera
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`capturing and encoding video of an event because Pandey describes that IP
`camera 200 outputs a video signal that has been compressed by using a data
`compression routine (id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 39, 41, 49)).
`Petitioner appears to acknowledge that “Pandey does not explicitly
`disclose associating the encoded video with a unique camera identifier.” Id.
`at 22. Indeed, Petitioner does not cite any disclosure from Pandey as
`disclosing this limitation. Instead, Petitioner relies on Sony for its purported
`disclosure of the claimed association. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that
`Sony discloses associating the serial number of a SNCRZ25 camera (i.e., the
`claimed “unique camera identifier”) with the video captured by the camera
`because Sony describes that the video file provided by the SNCRZ25 camera
`“includes various metadata regarding the video captured by the camera,”
`such as the model name, the IP address, and the serial number of the camera.
`Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 70–71). Petitioner further asserts that Sony’s video
`playback program displays information relating to “the selected video file”
`to be played, including “the serial number of the camera with which the file
`is recorded.” Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1004, 71).
`Patent Owner asserts that there is no description in Sony of any
`“metadata” associated with a video file. Prelim. Resp. 25. Patent Owner
`further asserts that there is no teaching in Sony that Sony’s video file
`includes the serial number of the camera as metadata. Id. Patent Owner
`argues that Sony, instead, describes obtaining the serial number from Sony’s
`camera during the initial IP address assignment process when the camera is
`connected to the network. Id. at 15–19, 25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 6, 9, 10, 11,
`31). Patent Owner further argues that there is no indication in Sony that the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`serial number of the camera shown in the Petitioner-cited pages 70–71 of
`Sony was “associated with . . . the video by the camera,” as recited in
`claim 1. Id. at 24.
`We agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. As discussed above in the
`Overview of Sony subsection, Sony describes how to operate the Sony IP
`camera from a user computer over the network. Ex. 1004, 7, 8. As also
`discussed in the same subsection, Sony describes using Sony’s IP Setup
`program on the user computer to assign the IP address to Sony’s camera
`connected on the network and obtaining the model number and the serial
`number of the connected camera during the initial IP address assignment
`process. Id. at 9–10.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`
`The display window of Sony’s SNC video player cited by Petitioner is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Id. at 70. The figure above depicts the control buttons or icons available on
`Sony’s SNC video player, as well as various information displayed on the
`program’s display window. Id. at 70–71. As shown above, certain
`information items regarding the connected camera, such as the model name,
`the assigned IP address, and the serial number, are displayed in a box titled
`“Camera information.” Id.
`Sony describes that the “Camera information” box displays the model
`name, the assigned IP address, and the serial number of “the camera with
`which the file [selected for playback] is recorded.” Id. at 71 (emphasis
`added). Hence, contrary to Petitioner’s contention, Sony does not describe
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`that the information displayed in the “Camera information” box is
`specifically associated with the “selected video file” to be played (see Pet.
`23 (citing Ex. 1004, 71)), but, rather, indicates that the information relates to
`identifying the camera where all of the video files have been recorded and
`stored. Furthermore, as discussed above, the Sony program on the user
`computer had already obtained the model name, the IP address, and the
`serial number of the camera when the IP address was initially assigned. As
`Patent Owner notes, the System tab of the Setting window of Sony’s Web-
`based application lists the serial number of the camera without referencing
`any video file. Prelim. Resp. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1004, 31). Hence, the mere
`fact that the serial number of the camera is displayed on the video playback
`screen does not demonstrate, without more, that the source of the
`information is the video file selected for playback.
`Further, as discussed above, claim 1 requires the first video camera to
`“associate the encoded video with a first unique camera identifier.” As
`Patent Owner notes (Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 1004, 70)), Sony describes
`at most that a program running on a user computer displays the serial
`number of the connected camera when playing back any of the video files
`recorded on the camera. Petitioner does not explain sufficiently or provide
`sufficient supporting evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand Sony to disclose that Sony’s IP camera (i.e., the claimed
`“first video camera”), rather than the user computer, associates the video
`recorded on the camera with the serial number of the camera, as required by
`the claim. As Patent Owner also notes, the Declaration of Mr. Easttom
`provides no discussion of whether Sony, Pandey, Monroe, or any other prior
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`art teaches or suggests the claimed video camera associating the encoded
`video with the unique camera identifier. See id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 23);
`see also Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 25 (“IP cameras, such as the one shown in the Sony
`User Guide, were known for their ability to encode audio and/or video.”),
`30(“[T]he Sony User Guide makes several statements that indicate that
`multiple cameras could be connected to an IP camera system.”).
`Petitioner further asserts that it would have been obvious to associate
`the serial number of the camera as metadata to the digitized video signal of
`IP camera 200 of Pandey because Pandey explicitly contemplates using the
`Sony Model Number SNCRZ25 camera and doing so would help establish a
`chain of title for evidentiary purposes. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 48).
`As discussed above, Petitioner has not established either Sony or
`Pandey discloses the first video camera associating the encoded video with a
`unique camera identifier. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s obviousness
`argument because Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Sony and
`Pandey to obtain this element missing from both references. See
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(“Although the KSR test is flexible, the Board must still be careful not to
`allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as
`to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed
`invention.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).
`Claim 1 further recites “a second video camera configured to capture
`and encode video of the event and to associate the encoded video with a
`second unique camera identifier.” Ex. 1001, 10:65–67 (emphases added).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`Apart from relying on the combination of Pandey and Monroe to teach a
`second IP camera that is identical to the first camera, Petitioner relies on the
`same arguments and evidence discussed above to argue that the combination
`of Pandey, Monroe, and Sony teaches the second camera configured to
`capture and encode video of the event and to associate the encoded video
`with a second unique camera identifier, as recited in the claim. Pet. 23–26.
`Hence, Petitioner’s argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed
`above.
`Therefore, Petitioner does not demonstrate sufficiently that the
`combination of Pandey, Monroe, and Sony teaches or renders obvious all
`limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, the information presented in the
`Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner
`prevailing in its challenge to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`over the combination of Pandey, Monroe, and Sony.
`
`b. Claim 13
`Similar to claim 1, independent claim 13 recites “a first video camera
`mounted on the vehicle and configured to capture and encode video and to
`stamp the encoded video with a first unique camera identifier” and “a
`second video camera mounted on the vehicle and configured to capture and
`encode video and to stamp the encoded video with a second unique camera
`identifier.” Id. at 12:2–7 (emphases added). Hence, similar to claim 1,
`independent claim 13 requires each camera to stamp the video captured on
`the camera with the unique camera identifier.
`Petitioner relies on essentially the same arguments and evidence to
`assert that the combination of Pandey, Monroe, and Sony teaches or renders
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`obvious these limitations of claim 13. Pet. 39–41. Thus, for the same
`reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, Petitioner does not
`demonstrate sufficiently that the combination of Pandey, Monroe, and Sony
`teaches or renders obvious all limitations of claim 13. Accordingly, the
`information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable
`likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in its challenge to claim 13 under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Pandey, Monroe, and
`Sony.
`
`b. Dependent Claims 2–4, 8, 12, 14–17, 20, and 24
`Claims 2–4, 8, and 12 each depend directly from claim 1, and claims
`14–17, 20, and 24 each depend directly from claim 13. Petitioner’s
`arguments and evidence presented with respect to these dependent claims do
`not remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s analysis of independent claims 1
`and 13 discussed above. See Pet. 42–53. Therefore, Petitioner does not
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to
`dependent claims 2–4, 8, 12, 14–17, 20, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious over the combination of Pandey, Monroe, and Sony.
`
`C. Obviousness over
`the Combination of Pandey, Monroe, Sony, and Lewellen or
`over the Combination of Pandey, Monroe, Sony, and Vanman
`Petitioner adds the teachings of Lewellen (Ex. 1005) to the basic
`combination of Pandey, Monroe, and Sony in an asserted ground of
`obviousness as to claims 9 and 21. Pet. 53–55. Similarly, Petitioner adds
`Vanman (Ex. 1006) to the basic combination of Pandey, Monroe, and Sony
`in an asserted ground of obviousness as to claims 10 and 22. Id. at 55–56.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`
`In these asserted grounds, Petitioner relies on Lewellen or Vanman
`only to teach the additionally recited limitations of these dependent claims.
`Id. at 53–56. Therefore, Petitioner’s evidence and arguments presented with
`respect to these asserted grounds of obviousness do not remedy the
`deficiencies in Petitioner’s analysis in the grounds based on Pandey,
`Monroe, and Sony discussed above.
`Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
`of Petitioner prevailing in its challenge to claims 9 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Pandey, Monroe, Sony, and
`Lewellen. Similarly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
`of Petitioner prevailing in its challenge to claims 10 and 22 as obvious over
`the combination of Pandey, Monroe, Sony, and Vanman.
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition, we
`conclude Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims of
`the ’950 patent is unpatentable based on any asserted ground of
`unpatentability. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review with
`respect to any of the challenged claims of the ’950 patent.
`
`
`
`V. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
`the ’950 patent, and no trial is instituted.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01401
`Patent 9,325,950 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Adam Sanderson
`adam.sanderson@rgmfirm.com
`
`William Moon
`amoon@winstead.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Jennifer Bailey
`jennifer.bailey@eriseip.com
`
`Jonathan L. Hines
`jonathan.Hines@eriseip.com
`
`Marshall Honeyman
`marshall.honeyman@eriseip.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
