Paper 28
`Date: 25 February 2013
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2012-00026 (TLG)
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and THOMAS L.
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: 25 February 2013
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2012-00026 (TLG)
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and THOMAS L.
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00026
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation moves for rehearing and reconsideration of
`
`that portion of the Decision on Request for Inter Partes Review (“Decision”)
`denying Petitioner’s request for inter partes review of claims 11, 12, and 14 of
`United States Patent 6,757,717. Paper 17. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s
`motion is denied.
`
`The applicable standard for this motion is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d),
`which provides in relevant part:
`
`
`A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing,
`
`without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a
`
`decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.
`
`The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the
`
`Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`
`previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply.
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner sought inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 10-12, 14, and 22-24 of
`
`the ʼ717 patent on September 18, 2012. Paper 6. The ʼ717 patent is directed to a
`system and method for data access in a packet switched network. For a fuller
`description of the technology of the ʼ717 patent, see Decision 2-6. The Petition
`challenged the enumerated claims as anticipated or obvious over several
`references, alone and in combination. See Petition 3.
`
`The Board granted the Petition in part and instituted an inter partes review as
`to claims 1, 3, 10, and 22-24. Decision 26. As to claims 11, 12, and 14, however,
`the Board determined that the Petitioner had failed to establish a reasonable
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00026
`
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`likelihood of prevailing, and therefore denied the petition as to those claims. Id.
`Petitioner now seeks reconsideration of that denial.
`
`Claims 11, 12, and 14 are each directed to an embodiment of the invention
`of the ʼ717 patent that is illustrated in Figures 8, 9, and 10 and described, e.g., at
`col. 8, ll. 11-39, of the specification. In accordance with that embodiment, a
`receiver/computer receiving an auxiliary digest issues a “partial” signal to a
`sender/computer if the received auxiliary digest matches a digest stored in the
`receiver/computer’s cache memory. Col. 8, ll. 28-31. Upon receiving the “partial”
`signal the sender/computer sends the difference between the requested data object
`and the data object corresponding to the digest. Id. ll. 34-39. If a negative signal is
`received from the receiver/computer, the sender/computer sends the requested data
`object. Id. ll. 31-34. Receipt of a positive signal indicates that the data object was
`found in memory by the receiver/computer. Id. ll. 23-26.
`
`Consistent with this description, the claims involved in this motion each
`recite the following method step:
`
`…receiving a response signal from said receiver/computer at said sender/
`
`computer, said response signal containing a positive, partial or negative
`
`indication signal for said digital digest….
`
`The Board’s decision construed this language in light of the specification as
`requiring the receiving of three signals (partial, positive, and negative) as
`necessary, rejecting Petitioner’s contention that the “partial” and “positive” signals
`are optional and thus entitled to “no patentable weight.” See Decision at 22-24.
`Because the Perlman, Yohe, and Santos references relied on by Petitioner fail to
`disclose receiving all these signals the Board denied Petitioner’s request as to those
`claims. Decision 24.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00026
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Claim Construction
`Petitioner’s main argument is that in construing the above “receiving” step
`
`of claims 11-12 and 14, the Board failed to apply the “broadest reasonable
`interpretation.” Motion 3-4. Petitioner is incorrect. The broadest reasonable
`interpretation of a claim must be consistent with the specification. See In re Suitco
`Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Petitioner’s contention that
`the alternative signals in the receiving step are “optional” conflicts with Figures 8-
`10 of the ʼ717 patent and the accompanying written description in the specification
`discussed supra and at pages 4-6 and 21-22 of the Decision.
`
`Petitioner’s newly-cited authorities are unavailing. In TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar
`Communications Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1298 (Fed. Cir 2008), the Court concluded
`that the claim term “multitude of standards” includes not only broadcast standards
`of the type set forth in the claim, but also data standards of the type set forth in the
`written description portion of the specification. EchoStar thus does not support
`Petitioner’s position; instead, it supports the view that claims must always be
`construed to be consistent with the specification. Petitioner’s reliance on Ex Parte
`Harris, 2010 WL 3065978 (BPAI August 4, 2010), on rehearing 2011 WL 309487
`(BPAI 2011), is likewise misplaced. This 2-1 decision is non-precedential and
`thus not binding on this panel. See PTAB Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 2
`(Rev. 7). And even if it were precedential, Harris would not support Petitioner as
`the claims there followed an “if … then” format setting forth a series of conditional
`steps that led the majority to conclude that the conditions were “mutually
`exclusive.” 2011 WL 309487 at *1. Here, the claim format is different from that
`in Harris, as the method steps are not conditional.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00026
`
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Alternatively, Petitioner contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of the claims requires but a “single” response signal resulting from “one run or
`operation of the recited method.” Motion 5-6. We are not convinced by
`Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner cites nothing in the specification of the ʼ717
`patent that leads to the conclusion that the claims are limited to “one run” of the
`claimed method. The patent, in fact, is directed to improving the efficiency and
`speed of data access in packet switched networks, where high data volume (and
`therefore many messages and responses) would be expected. ʼ717 patent, col. 1,
`ll. 61-65. A method limited to a single response would not achieve the stated
`improvement. Neither the ʼ717 patent itself nor the cited authorities therefore
`support Petitioner’s alternative claim construction, based upon its “one run” or
`other theories.
`
`
`2. Figure 10
`
`Petitioner suggests that including Figure 10 (showing the receiver) in the
`Decision was an error. Motion 6-7. It was not. The Decision refers to the
`embodiment of Figures 8-10, not just Figure 10. See Decision 21. Figure 10 was
`selected because it shows the three separate signals. In any case, as Petitioner
`recognizes, claims 11, 12, and 14 recite the receiver in the receiving step
`reproduced supra. There is no inconsistency between the Board’s construction of
`the claim language and the patent figures, as Petitioner suggests (Motion 7-8), or
`any uncertainty from the written description that the receiver/computer shown in
`Figure 9 must receive the three types of signals as shown. Motion 8. The patent
`figures support the Board’s construction, not Petitioner’s. See Decision 21-22.
`Petitioner’s contentions based on the patent figures and the Board’s construction of
`the term “receiver/computer” are without merit. Motion 7-8.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00026
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`3. Claim Differentiation
`
`This argument (Motion 8-9) is new and thus does not comply with Rule
`42.71(d). In any event, it is without merit. “It is axiomatic that the claim
`construction process entails more than viewing the claim language in isolation.”
`Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1305
`(Fed. Cir. 2011). Moreover, “[c]laim language must always be read in view of the
`written description, … and any presumption created by the doctrine of claim
`differentiation will be overcome by a contrary construction dictated by the written
`description or prosecution history.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks
`omitted). Petitioner’s claim differentiation argument is inconsistent with the
`specification and the figures showing three signals and is therefore unavailing.
`
`
`4. Schumer
`Petitioner revisits the Schumer decision (Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys.,
`
`Inc., 308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)), first cited in the Petition at 13. Schumer is
`discussed at length and distinguished in the Decision at 22-23. Petitioner’s new
`analysis of claims 11, 12, and 14 in relation to Schumer (Motion 9) does not
`convince us that anything was misapprehended or overlooked there. It furthermore
`ignores the patent specification and is otherwise not persuasive. Also unavailing is
`Petitioner’s reference to Proxyconn’s infringement allegations (Ex. 1012) without
`further explanation or analysis. Id.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00026
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`5. Section 101 etc.
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s additional arguments based on 35
`U.S.C. § 101, the rules of football, or chess. Motion 10. To the extent they are
`relevant, they seem to be a restatement of contentions already discussed supra.
`
`6. Additional Grounds
`
`There was no “misunderstanding” of the Petitioner’s contentions regarding
`the receiving step. Motion 11. The Board did not accept Petitioner’s claim
`construction and therefore was not persuaded by Petitioner’s application of that
`step to Perlman, Yohe, and Santos (which Petitioner refers to as its “fallback
`position”). Id. Likewise, there was no “incorrect” understanding as to claim 14.
`As claim 14 depends from claim 11 it includes the receiving limitation not taught
`or suggested by the references. Decision 24. The Board also concluded that the
`additional “plurality of data items” limitation of claim 14 is entitled to patentable
`weight but made no finding as to whether that is met by Perlman. Id.
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Petitioner has not carried its burden of demonstrating that the Board’s
`
`Decision misapprehended or overlooked any matters. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71d). For the
`foregoing reasons the Motion is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00026
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`For Patent Owner
`Matthew L. Cutler
`Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC
`Email: mcutler@hdp.com
`
`Bryan K. Wheelock
`Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC
`Email: bwheelock@hdp.com
`
`For Petitioner
`
`John D. Vandenberg
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`
`Stephen J. Joncus
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`stephen.joncus@klarquist.com
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
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
