Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: March 12, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SHENZHEN ZHIYI TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., D/B/A ILIFE,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IROBOT CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Partial Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: March 12, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SHENZHEN ZHIYI TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., D/B/A ILIFE,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IROBOT CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Partial Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology Co. Ltd., d/b/a iLife, (“Petitioner”) filed
`a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 7, 12, and 42 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,809,490 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’490 patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). iRobot Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in
`the Petition and the Preliminary 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; see also 37 C.F.R
`§ 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Taking
`into account the arguments presented in the Preliminary Response, we
`conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to the claims
`challenged on the basis of anticipation (claims 1–3, 7, and 12) but does
`establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on the basis of
`obviousness (claim 42). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review for
`claim 42 only.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following matters related to the ’490 patent
`(Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2–3; Paper 6, 2–3):
`In re Certain Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices And Components
`Thereof Such As Spare Parts, Inv. No. 337-TA-1057 (USITC);
`iRobot Corp. v. Hoover, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-10647 (D. Mass.);
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`iRobot Corp. v. Bissell Homecare, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-10649 (D.
`Mass.);
`iRobot Corp. v. Bobsweep, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-10651 (D. Mass.);
`
`and
`
`iRobot Corp. v. Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology Co. d/b/a iLife, Case No.
`1:17-cv-10652 (D. Mass.).
`In addition, Petitioner has filed petitions challenging five of Patent
`Owner’s other patents in IPR2017-02050 (U.S. Patent No. 9,038,233 B2),
`IPR2017-02078 (U.S. Patent No. 7,155,308 B2), IPR2017-02133
`(U.S. Patent No. 8,600,553 B2), IPR2017-02137 (U.S. Patent No. 9,486,924
`B2), and IPR2018-00005 (U.S. Patent No. 8,474,090 B2).
`
`B. The ’490 Patent
`The ’490 patent is directed to a mobile robot used, e.g., in vacuum
`cleaning or mowing. Ex. 1001, 1:9–12. A challenge acknowledged in the
`prior art is designing an algorithm that allows the robot to cover all of an
`area of unknown geometry in an efficient amount of time. Id. at 1:22–2:19.
`The ’490 patent discloses a robot that moves through various operational
`modes, including spot cleaning, edge cleaning, and room cleaning modes to
`effectively cover the area. Id. at 8:35–47. These high-level operating modes
`are, in turn, effected by the robot giving priority to various behaviors
`dictating how the robot reacts in various situations (e.g., hitting a wall). Id.
`at 8:48–9:5, 13:26–35.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 7, 12, and 42 of the ’490 patent.
`Independent claims 1 and 42 are reproduced below.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`1. A mobile robot comprising:
`(a) means for moving the robot over a surface;
`(b) an obstacle detection sensor;
`(c) and a control system operatively connected to said obstacle
`detection sensor and said means for moving;
`(d) said control system configured to operate the robot in a
`plurality of operational modes and to select from among the
`plurality of modes in real time in response to signals
`generated by the obstacle detection sensor, said plurality of
`operational modes comprising: a spot-coverage mode
`whereby the robot operates in an isolated area, an obstacle
`following mode whereby said robot travels adjacent to an
`obstacle, and a bounce mode whereby the robot travels
`substantially in a direction away from an obstacle after
`encountering the obstacle, and wherein, when in the obstacle
`following mode, the robot travels adjacent to an obstacle for
`a distance at least twice the work width of the robot.
`
`
`42. A mobile robot comprising:
`(a) means for moving the robot over a surface;
`(b) an obstacle detection sensor;
`(c) a cliff sensor; and
`(d) a control system operatively connected to said obstacle
`detection sensor, said cliff sensor, and said means for moving;
`(e) said control system configured to operate the robot in a
`plurality of operational modes, said plurality of operational
`modes comprising: a spot-coverage mode whereby the robot
`operates in an isolated area, an obstacle following mode
`whereby said robot travels adjacent to an obstacle for a
`distance at least twice the work width of the robot, and a
`bounce mode whereby the robot travels substantially in a
`direction away from an obstacle after encountering the
`obstacle.
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`
`D. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 7, and 12 are anticipated by Ueno-
`642,1 and that claim 42 would have been obvious in view of Ueno-642 and
`Bissett-612.2 Pet. 4.
`
`II. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`No terms require construction for purposes of this decision. See Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`(only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`
`B. Anticipation by Ueno-642
`(Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, and 12)
`Petitioner asserts that Ueno-642 anticipates independent claim 1
`(Pet. 14–32) and claims 2, 3, 7, and 12, which depend therefrom (id. at 32–
`35). As to claim 1, Petitioner asserts that Ueno-642 discloses a robot having
`wheels 3, 4 for moving the robot over the surface. Id. at 15–16 (citing, e.g.,
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 15). Petitioner asserts that the robot in Ueno-642 has an obstacle
`detection sensor and a control system. Id. at 17–18 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004
`¶¶ 16, 21). For element 1(d), Petitioner asserts that Ueno-642 discloses a
`control system having a plurality of operational modes (spiral, border-
`following, and random) and can switch among them “in real time in
`
`
`1 Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. H11-212642,
`pub. Aug. 6, 1999 (Ex. 1004).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,493,612 B1, iss. Dec. 10, 2002 (Ex. 1005).
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`response to signals generated by the obstacle detection sensor.” Id. at 18–22
`(citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 23–26, 30, 33, 35, 38–40). Petitioner then goes
`into more detail regarding the various operational modes in Ueno-642. Id. at
`2–32.
`
`Patent Owner focuses its Preliminary Response on element 1(d).
`Prelim. Resp. 23–29. Patent Owner argues that Ueno-642 shows various
`modes of operation, but not selection between the modes “in response to
`signals generated by the obstacle detection sensor,” as required by claim 1.
`Id. at 24.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments and
`evidence with respect to element 1(d), and are persuaded that Petitioner has
`not shown sufficiently that Ueno-642 describes this claim element. See
`Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
`2001) (stating that, to establish anticipation, “all of the elements and
`limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged
`as in the claim”). Our reasons follow.
`The critical language in claim 1 is that the control system “select[s]
`from among the plurality of modes . . . in response to signals generated by
`the obstacle detection sensor” (emphasis added). This requires, in practical
`application, that the system can choose a mode in which to operate (“select
`from among”), based on inputs from the obstacle sensor (“in response to
`signals”).
`The first mode in Ueno-642 identified by Petitioner is the spiral mode.
`Pet. 19 (“[I]n Ueno-642, the robot operates in at least three modes: ‘spiral
`travel,’ ‘border-following travel’ and ‘random travel.’”). Petitioner directs
`us to a disclosure in Ueno-642 where, “[i]f a sensor 26 or 25L detects a
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`boundary, a wall surface or an obstacle,” the spiral is determined to be
`complete and a stop instruction is given. Pet. 20 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 40);
`see also Ex. 1004, Fig. 10 (depicting the spiral mode algorithm), Fig. 9
`(depicting the overall algorithm, where, when spiral mode is determined to
`be finished at S59, the algorithm goes back to 1 and then S1 where the travel
`mode pointer is updated and read, i.e., the next mode begins). Notably,
`however, signals from the obstacle sensors in the spiral mode determine
`when to exit the spiral mode. Determining when to exit the present mode is
`not the same as selecting the next mode based upon signals generated by the
`obstacle detection sensor.
`As Patent Owner points out, the three modes in Ueno-642 are chosen
`based on the status of a “travel mode pointer.” Prelim. Resp. 26–27 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 35, 37). We do not find this alone to preclude that the travel
`mode pointer was set based on obstacle sensor input. However, Petitioner
`does not explain or direct us to any discussion in Ueno-642 that sufficiently
`tells us which travel mode pointer value is selected in response to obstacle
`sensor input. At best, we have a statement that Figure 9 explains how “the
`robot travel control operations [are] based on the output signal of each
`sensor described above.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 35 (citing Pet. 20). The rest of that
`paragraph, however, describes how the travel pointer value is not selected
`from among its possible values but rather merely moves to the next part of a
`pre-ordained, repeated sequence:
`As to in what sequence these travel modes are executed varies
`depending on the size and shape of the region planned for travel
`and also if there are obstacles, but the inventors involved herein
`confirmed that a good result later described was obtained by
`simulations in which the combination of a spiral travel, a random
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`travel and a border-following travel and a random travel are
`executed repeatedly in this sequence.
`Of course, it is possible that by making other various
`combination sequences, for instance, spiral - border-following -
`random as a set, these can be repeated by the same sequence or
`changed sequence, but as in spiral - random - border-following -
`random - spiral, at least one of border-following travel and spiral
`travel is alternatively executed between two random travels that
`are before and after. And it can be designed such that the worker
`can set up these and register each time or can preregister and
`select and set up at work start time. Like this, the combination
`sequence of the travel modes thus set up and registered is
`temporarily stored in memory and the travel mode to be executed
`as of now is instructed sequentially by aforementioned pointer
`(not shown in figure).
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 35–36 (emphases added).
`
`In our view, these paragraphs characterize the mode selection in
`Ueno-642 as a pre-ordained sequence of modes rather than a selection based
`on obstacle sensor input. See also id. ¶ 35 (noting that the travel mode
`pointer starts at 0 and goes to 1 for the initial mode, indicating a mode
`scheme such as 1=spiral, 2=random, 3=border, which could be repeated to
`provide the sequence described)
`To the extent Petitioner’s argument is that exiting the spiral mode due
`to obstacle detection effectively selects the next mode in sequence, we
`determine that is not what the claims require. Instead, the claims recite that
`the system “selects from among the plurality of modes” (emphasis added),
`and we understand the plain meaning of this phrase to be that the control
`system has several options to choose from, and that choice is in response to,
`i.e., is based on, input from the sensor. In Ueno-642, there does not appear
`to be a choice made “among the plurality of modes” by the control system,
`but rather it must simply move to the pre-ordained next mode. In contrast,
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`claim 1 requires the control system to choose the mode from among the
`claimed modes.
`Nevertheless, even if we were to be persuaded that exiting one mode
`is effectively choosing the next, albeit preprogrammed, mode, we agree with
`Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 27) that Petitioner has not shown how Ueno-
`642 discloses exiting the border-following mode using obstacle detection
`because it appears the border-following mode only exits upon an expiration
`of a timer or a crossing of a distance threshold. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 23 (“The
`border-following travel pattern . . . is continued for a planned time.”), 25
`(“[T]he border-following travel is stopped after continuing for a planned
`time (or distance), it moves to a random travel mode.”), Fig. 4; Pet. 20
`(citing Exhibit 1004 ¶¶ 23–25). Thus, even under the alternative reading of
`“selecting . . . in response to” (which we determine is incorrect), Petitioner
`has not shown how Ueno-642 satisfies the limitations of the claim.
`We also agree with Patent Owner’s analysis as to the disclosures in
`Ueno-642 regarding priority of operations and action plans not being a
`disclosure of a control system selecting modes as required by claim 1. See,
`e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 21 (“[O]peration decision unit 18 . . . generates an action
`plan depending on the signal status from sensor 25L, 26, 5A and outputs an
`execution request.”). As explained in paragraphs 21 and 22, Ueno-642 is
`discussing how the robot handles the immediate consequences of hitting an
`object, for example, because the operations among which it selects are not
`the operating modes but rather smaller tasks such as retreat, advance, stop,
`rotate, etc. See id. ¶¶ 21 (“[A]ction plans that were individually generated
`based on information from each sensor are piled up and the entire robot
`operations, that is, the operations such as a straight advance, a retreat, a stop
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`and a slow rotation, a fast rotation and a pivot turn, an ultra-pivot turn etc[.]
`are decided.”), 22 (similar). The next paragraph discusses the operational
`modes, bringing into contrast the sensor-driven tasks of the prior paragraph.
`Id. ¶ 23. Thus, the action plan determines what the robot does within a
`given mode, but is not itself selection of a mode. For example, the action
`plan helps the robot decide whether to stop if it thinks it hits something, for
`example a wall in the random mode, and then helps it decide how to
`maneuver into a turn away from that wall. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 42–44
`(explaining how the robot uses the action plan to maneuver when it hits a
`wall in the spiral mode). This is not a disclosure of selection among
`operating modes as required by the claim.
`Having reviewed the arguments and evidence before us, we determine
`that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success of
`showing that claim 1 is anticipated by Ueno-642. Petitioner’s ground as to
`dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 12 is deficient for the same reason.
`
`C. Patent Owner’s 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Argument
`Patent Owner argues that the Petition should be denied because it
`relies on “substantially the same prior art or arguments previously . . .
`presented to the Office.” Prelim. Resp. 11 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)); see
`also id. at 11–23 (setting forth the full § 325(d) argument). We have denied
`the Petition as to the anticipation ground on the merits; there is no reason to
`analyze that ground in view of § 325(d). As to the obviousness ground, we
`determine that the Ueno-642/Bisset ground is not substantially the same
`prior art or argument previously presented to the Office, for the reasons set
`forth below, such that 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not a reason to deny the
`Petition.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`In the underlying prosecution of the application leading to the ’490
`patent, the examiner rejected the claims as obvious in view of Noonan3 and
`Ueno-025.4 Ex. 2001, 756–763 (Sept. 3, 2003 Non-Final Office Action),
`317–324 (Dec. 29, 2003 Final Office Action). In the Non-Final Action, the
`examiner found that Noonan discloses a spot coverage mode and an obstacle
`following mode, but not a bouncing mode. Id. at 759 (“[G]uide path [in
`Fig.] 1A represents a pattern for spot coverage mode. Fig. 1C represents a
`pattern that is required for obstacle following mode.”). The examiner found
`Ueno-025 teaches a spot coverage mode and a random, or bounce, mode (id.
`at 760), and found that the reason to combine was to “improve robot work
`efficiency” (id. at 761).
`The applicant amended the claims to specify, inter alia, that the
`modes were operational modes. Id. at 343, 345, 347. The applicant then
`pointed out that Noonan does not teach an obstacle-following mechanism
`but rather an obstacle-avoiding mechanism. Id. at 353. The applicant
`further pointed out that Noonan’s device merely follows a predetermined
`guided path, and modifying it to have a random bounce mode “would
`completely change the nature of Noonan’s device.” Id. at 362.
`The examiner indicated the applicant’s arguments were considered,
`and maintained the same rejection, but did not provide much further
`explanation. Id. at 319 (stating, “Applicant’s arguments have been
`considered. However, . . . the examiner[’]s responsibility is to interpret
`claim language as broad as possible [sic].”), 320 (effectively relying on the
`
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,204,814, iss. Apr. 20, 1993.
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,076,025, iss. June 13, 2000 (Ex. 2002).
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`same rejection). On March 11, 2004, an interview occurred after the final
`rejection, wherein the examiner noted the interview involved discussion of
`potential new claim language specifying that “in obstacle following mode,
`the robot travels adjacent to an obstacle for a distance at least twice the work
`width of the robot,” and then indicated that a search would be provided. Id.
`at 67.
`
`For the majority of claims, the applicant subsequently added not only
`the “twice the work width” limitation (id. at 75, 80, 80–81; but cf. id. at 79
`(not adding the “twice” limitation to prosecution claim 36)), but also added
`some language not identified as having been discussed in the interview,
`directed to the control system “select[ing] from among the plurality of
`modes in real time in response to signals” (id. at 75, 76, 80; but cf. id. at 79
`(not amending prosecution claim 36 to require “selecting among,” but rather
`“alternat[ing] modes”)), i.e., the limitation we found missing in Ueno-642.
`The examiner then issued a notice of allowance, stating the reason for
`allowance is “based on provided amendment after final office action and
`further search.” Id. at 63–65. Reviewing the prosecution history, we find
`that the issues raised during prosecution largely involve Noonan, and to the
`extent they involve Ueno-025, the issue stems from the applicant’s position
`that Ueno-025 operated in a disparate fashion compared to Noonan in the
`combination.
`The prior art rejection faced by the applicant during examination is
`much different from the prior art ground offered by Petitioner. Ueno-642
`includes the obstacle-following limitations that the applicant pointed out
`were problematic in the examiner’s rejection using Noonan, and further
`these limitations were not alleged to have been present in Ueno-025. Ueno-
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`025 and Ueno-642 do include some similar disclosures, as Patent Owner
`points out. See Prelim. Resp. 13–14 (showing Figures 5a–b are the same
`and Figures 6a–c are the same in each), 18–21 (showing various isolated
`passages share similar language). However, there is only a passing
`resemblance to the way Ueno-642 is used here compared to Ueno-025 in the
`rejection. For example, Ueno-642 is the primary reference whereas Ueno-
`025 was a secondary reference. Ueno-642 is used to teach each of the
`claimed modes in the same device, being combined with Bisset for a
`particular sensor, whereas the examiner was combining a preprogrammed
`path robot (Noonan) with a random path robot (Ueno-025) in the rejection.
`Ueno-642 allegedly teaches all three modes, whereas Ueno-025 does not.
`Noonan is not present in the ground, and Bisset’s role in the ground is
`secondary in nature, to teach a cliff sensor in a vacuum robot. On whole, the
`Ueno-642/Bisset prior art ground bears little resemblance to the
`Noonan/Ueno-025 prior art rejection.
`In conclusion, we find no substantial similarity between Petitioner’s
`ground (i.e., the prior art) and the examiner’s rejection (i.e., the prior art
`previously considered), and find no substantial similarity between the issues
`raised in Petitioner’s ground (e.g., Ueno-642’s specific teachings regarding
`three modes) and the issues raised during prosecution (e.g., Noonan’s
`specific teachings, combinability of predetermined path and random path
`robots). Because the Office has not considered substantially the same prior
`art and has not considered substantially the same arguments, we decline to
`deny the Petition on the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`D. Obviousness over Ueno-642 and Bisset
`(Claim 42)
`According to Petitioner, the main difference between claim 42 and
`claim 1 is that claim 42 requires a cliff sensor. Pet. 35. Petitioner’s ground
`relies on the same teachings in Ueno-642 for the claimed control system and
`operating modes (id. at 40–41), but claim 42, unlike claim 1, does not set
`forth a requirement that the modes are selected in any particular manner.
`The deficiency we identified with respect to Petitioner’s ground asserting
`anticipation of claim 1 is not found in this ground. As to the additional cliff
`sensor limitation, Petitioner asserts that Bisset describes a cliff sensor and
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to
`add a cliff sensor in Ueno-642 in order to prevent the robot from falling off a
`cliff (e.g., stairs), as taught in Bisset. See Pet. 35–38 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005,
`1:46–47, 7:51–8:4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 53); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
`398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
`similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
`actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
`Reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence,5 we are persuaded
`that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of establishing the subject
`matter of claim 42 to have been obvious in view of Ueno-642 and Bisset.
`
`
`5 Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does not discuss the merits of this
`ground.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`
`III. ORDER
`In view of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that an inter partes review of the ’490 patent is instituted,
`commencing on the 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; and
`FURTHER ORDERD that the inter partes review is limited to
`determining whether claim 42 of the ’490 patent would have been obvious in
`light of the teachings of Ueno-642 and Bisset.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02061
`Patent 6,809,490 B2
`PETITIONER:
`
`Patrick McCarthy
`mccarthyp@gtlaw.com
`
`Cameron Nelson
`nelsonc@gtlaw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Walter Renner
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`
`Jeremy Monaldo
`jjm@fr.com
`
`Tonya Drake
`tdrake@irobot.com
`
`Patrick Bisenius
`bisenius@fr.com
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
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
