Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 7
`571-272-7822 Entered: October 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MICHAEL PHILIP KAUFMAN,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. PARVIS, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 1
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–6 (all
`claims) of U.S. Patent No 7,885,981 B2, issued on February 8, 2011
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’981 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Michael Philip Kaufman
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a).
`To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the
`information presented in the Petition shows “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). Having considered both the Petition and
`the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the
`unpatentability of any of claims 1–6 of the ’981 patent on any alleged
`ground. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim
`on the record before us.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. The ʼ981 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ʼ981 patent is titled “System and Method for Generating
`Automatic User Interface for Arbitrarily Complex or Large Databases.”
`Ex. 1001, [54]. The “software system automatically and dynamically
`generates a fully functional user interface (UI) based upon, and connected
`directly to, an underlying data model (as instantiated within a relational
`database management system (RDBMS)).” Id. at [57]. The ’981 patent
`describes generating the UI “from an automated interrogation of the
`RDBMS,” and also integrating four modes, or mode displays for all tables.
`Id. A full complement of mechanisms may be “integrated directly into the
`
`
`
`2
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`mode display[ ] for representing, navigating, and managing relationships
`across tables, regardless of the complexity of the underlying RDBMS
`schema.” Id. A relational database schema is also described as, for
`example, a “data model,” which is further explained as a “complement of
`tables which store data, and the relational links between these tables.” Id. at
`2:41–48.
`An objective of the ’981 patent is “to provide a complete and fully
`functional user interface (UI) for any arbitrarily complex or large database
`schema, without any custom software programming.” Id. at 3:9–12. To
`achieve that stated objective, “once a back-end schema has been designed
`and constructed within the RDBMS, the system can automatically
`‘interrogate’ this schema, and ‘absorb’ its structure into an internal cache.”
`Id. at 3:13–16. This structure is later used to develop “a comprehensive
`application through which the back-end can be operated, and through which
`all conventional database activities––searching, listing, adding, editing––can
`be supported, across all base-tables comprising the schema.” Id. at 3:19–24.
`This application “reveals (and enforces) the relational/hierarchical
`organization among the tables within the back-end via smoothly integrated
`UI mechanisms which are embedded directly into the base-table screen
`displays––providing a natural, powerful, and easy-to-use environment for
`managing complex data relationships and interactions.” Id. at 3:26–32.
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims at issue:
`1. A method for operating a server comprising a processor for
`automatically generating an end-user interface for working with
`the data within a relational database defined within a relational
`DBMS whose data is stored in machine-readable media and
`
`
`
`3
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`
`which is accessible to said server, wherein said relational
`database comprises a plurality of tables, constraints and
`relationships stored in said DBMS in accordance with a data
`model comprising said tables and their column-complements and
`datatypes, said constraints, and the relationships across said
`tables, and wherein said relational database may be of any
`arbitrary size or complexity, said method comprising
`
`(a) providing an output stream from said server, for user display
`and input devices, defining a user interface paradigm comprising
`a set of modes for interacting with a given database table, said
`modes comprising create, retrieve, update and delete, and a
`corresponding display format for each mode;
`(b) causing said server to scan said database and apply a body of
`rules
`to determine
`the
`table structures, constraints and
`relationships of said data model, and store representations
`thereof in machine-readable media accessible to said server; and
`(c) causing said server to use said representations to construct a
`corresponding client application for access through said user
`display and input devices, wherein said client application
`provides a connection to said database, provides displays of the
`table contents of said database for each of said modes in
`accordance with the display formats of said paradigm, integrates
`into each said mode display processes for representing,
`navigating, and managing said relationships across tables, for
`selecting among said modes, and for navigating across said tables
`and interacting in accordance the selected mode with the data in
`the tables that are reached by said navigation, while observing
`and enforcing relational interdependencies among data across
`said tables.
`Ex. 1001, 377:2–38.
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify a related litigation in the
`Southern District of New York involving the ʼ981 patent: Kaufman v.
`Microsoft Corp., Case No. 16-CV-2880-LTS-SN. Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`Petitioner also identifies a related petition (IPR2017-01141) challenging
`claims 1–6 of the ’981 patent. Pet. 2.
`D. Real Party-in-Interest
`Petitioner certifies that the real party-in-interest for this Petition is
`Microsoft Corporation. Pet. 2.
`
`E. References
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`Reference
`
`Simpson
`
`Prague
`
`Alan Simpson et al.,
`Access 2003 All-in-One
`Desk Reference for
`Dummies
`Cary N. Prague &
`Michael R. Irwin,
`Access 97 Bible
`
`Date
`
`2003
`
`1997
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Kesler
`
`U.S. 7,062,502 B1
`
`Bennett
`
`U.S. 5,615,367
`
`Dec. 28, 2001 (filed)
`June 13, 2006 (issued) Ex. 1006
`Mar. 25, 1997 (issued) Ex. 1007
`
`F. Grounds Asserted
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–6 of the ʼ981 patent
`
`on the following two grounds (Pet. 4):
`References
`Basis
`Simpson and Prague
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–6
`
`1–6
`
`Kesler and Bennett
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`5
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (“We
`conclude that the regulation represents a reasonable exercise of the
`rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the Patent Office.”). Under
`that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition, the Board may not
`“construe claims during [an inter partes review] so broadly that its
`constructions are unreasonable under general claim construction principles.”
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`Petitioner proposes the construction of three limitations. Pet. 12–14.
`Patent Owner focuses its analysis on one of those claim limitations. Prelim.
`Resp. 29. For purposes of this Decision, we find it necessary to address only
`the claim limitation challenged by Patent Owner: “a user interface paradigm
`comprising a set of modes for interacting with a given database table, said
`modes comprising create, retrieve, update and delete, and a corresponding
`display format for each mode.” Ex. 1001, 377:15–19 (claim 1), 377:59–
`378:4 (claim 4), 378:33–36 (claim 5). This limitation is found in each of
`independent claims 1, 4, and 5. Id.
`Petitioner contends this limitation means “there is a respective user
`interface for each of the specified modes (‘create,’ ‘retrieve,’ ‘update,’ and
`
`
`
`6
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`‘delete’) for interacting with a given database table.” Pet. 13–14 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 43). Petitioner relies on the claim language that requires
`“displays of the table contents of said database for each of said modes,” to
`argue that each mode must have its own “respective” display format. Pet. 14
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 43). Petitioner also relies on the testimony of David
`McGoveran, who opines that the Specification depicts “separate, or at least
`distinctive, ‘displays’ for the four modes.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1001,
`4:63–5:2, 4:5–13, 5:2–5:11, 6:4–6, Figs. 1–4).
`Patent Owner contends “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`word ‘mode’ as used in the claims is that a ‘mode’ means literally what the
`claim says – i.e., ‘mode for interacting’ – in which the word ‘mode’ has its
`ordinary meaning of a manner or mechanism for effecting the subject
`interaction.” Prelim. Resp. 4. According to Patent Owner, “the word
`‘mode’ as used in the present claims means a mode or manner of operation
`or interaction, that is, a type of operation, that may be performed on database
`data.” Id. at 5.
`Patent Owner contends the claim term “corresponding display format”
`within the limitation should not be limited as Petitioner proposes to only a
`separate or distinct display for each mode. Id. at 5, 7. Instead of limiting
`“the term ‘corresponding’ to an exclusive one-to-one correspondence, in
`which there is one and only one ‘mode’ implemented per ‘display format,’”
`Patent Owner contends that “corresponds” can also be a one-to-many
`correspondence such that “the screen display formats can be shared so as to
`support more than one of these operations.” Id. at 6; see also id. at 7
`(“Neither the word ‘corresponding,’ nor the word ‘respective’ that Microsoft
`seeks to substitute, implies an exclusive one-to-one relationship between the
`
`
`
`7
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`specified software functionality and the implementing screen display, as
`would be required to support such an additional, limiting requirement.”).
`The parties’ arguments center on whether the claim language “and a
`corresponding display format for each mode” requires a separate or
`distinctive display format for each mode (one-to-one correspondence) or
`whether two or more modes could have a corresponding display format by
`sharing portions of the same display (one-to-many, or many-to-many
`correspondence). Patent Owner contends that both of these scenarios are
`“within the scope of what is normally understood as ‘corresponding’ or
`‘correspondence,’” and we agree. We find most persuasive the statement
`found in the Specification that the “DELETE capability” may be implemented
`“simply by adding . . . another pushbutton within the Edit-mode display.”
`Ex. 1001, 5:63–6:3. We determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art1
`would understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “mode” is
`a manner or mechanism for effecting the subject interaction. See Ex. 1001,
`3:43–47 (“a full complement of mechanisms, integrated into the mode
`displays for representing, navigating, and managing relationships across
`tables”). Further, the description of the “DELETE capability” being
`implemented as a pushbutton within the Edit-mode display (Fig. 3)
`demonstrates that the claimed “corresponding display format” does not
`require a separate user interface for each mode. Instead, the “display
`format” for the delete mode may be a unique pushbutton, or similar feature
`
`
`1 The Petition does not offer any explanation defining the person of ordinary
`skill in the art. Petitioner’s expert, Mr. McGoveran, offers testimony as to
`the person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 25. For our analysis, we
`determine the level of skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art of record.
`See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`
`
`8
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`known in the art, within an existing interface that allows a user to effect the
`subject interaction.
`We have considered Petitioner’s position that the described “DELETE
`capability” is not the same as the claimed delete mode, but find these
`arguments unpersuasive. See Pet. 10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. Petitioner does not
`establish persuasively how the “DELETE capability” fails to provide the
`interactivity/functionality of the modes as required by the claims. See
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. The fact that Figures 1–4 of the ’981 patent depict other
`modes, except for the delete mode, is of no consequence because the
`corresponding description (Ex. 1001, 5:63–6:3) explains that the “DELETE
`capability” is not depicted separately because the delete mode could be
`added to another interface such as the Edit-mode display as a pushbutton.
`We also note that the “DELETE capability” is described in the same section
`of the Specification (id. at cols. 5–6) as the other modes, which further
`suggests that the “DELETE capability” is indeed referring to the delete mode
`found in the claims. See, e.g., id. at 6:4 (describing “[a] set of rules and
`methods for moving among the modes” immediately after the “DELETE
`capability” description).
`We also have considered the parties’ claim construction positions set
`forth in the related district court proceeding. See, e.g., Ex. 1009, 1 (Patent
`Owner asserting that “[f]or each of the specified modes of operation (create,
`retrieve, update and delete), the generated UI includes among its provided
`display formats at least one display format which supports that operation”).
`Patent Owner’s litigation position is consistent because including the delete
`mode display within the edit mode display would also be a corresponding
`
`
`
`9
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`display (the pushbutton itself) that supports the unique operation. Further,
`our determination is made under a different claim construction standard.
`B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains.” We resolve the question of obviousness on the basis of
`underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.2 See Graham v. John Deere
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In a chain of continuation applications, a claim in a patent receives the
`benefit of the filing date of an earlier application in the chain, if the claim is
`supported by the written description of the earlier application. 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 112, 120. The test for determining compliance with the written
`description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1,3 is whether the original
`disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to
`one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the
`claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application.
`
`
`2 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of
`nonobviousness.
`3 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), took effect on March 16, 2013.
`Because the application from which the ’981 patent issued was filed before
`that date, our citations to Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`(en banc).
`Petitioner contends that each of the asserted references qualifies as
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the challenged claims are only
`entitled to the October 26, 2007 filing date of the application leading to the
`’981 patent. Pet. 4, 10. Petitioner contends the claims of the ’981 patent are
`not entitled to an earlier priority date because the “delete mode” limitation is
`new matter that was added in 2007. Id. at 10. Patent Owner contends the
`claims are entitled to at least the October 31, 2001 filing date of
`International Application No. PCT/US0l/42867 (hereafter “the ’867
`application”),4 to which the ’981 patent claims priority via a chain of
`continuation applications. See Ex. 1001, 1:9–16; Prelim. Resp. 10–11.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not
`established sufficiently that the challenged claims are not entitled to the
`benefit of an earlier filing date. Instead, as discussed below, Patent Owner
`has established persuasively that the claims of the ’981 patent are entitled to
`a priority date of at least October 31, 2001. Consequently, Petitioner fails to
`make a threshold demonstration that two of the asserted references—
`namely, Simpson and Kesler—are available as prior art to the challenged
`claims of the ’981 patent in this proceeding. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(2).
`1. Priority Date – Delete Mode Limitation
`Each of the challenged claims requires “said modes comprising create,
`retrieve, update and delete, and a corresponding display format for each
`
`
`4 The ’867 application was published as International Patent Publication No.
`WO 02/059793.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`mode.” Ex. 1001, 377:17–19 (claim 1), 378:2–4 (claim 4), 378:34–36
`(claim 5). Petitioner argues that earlier applications in the family of the ’981
`patent do not explicitly or inherently disclose a delete mode and a
`corresponding display format for the delete mode. Pet. 10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35.
`According to Petitioner, “[t]he only reference to ‘delete’ in the ’981 patent
`specification is the bare mention of a ‘Delete capability’ provided by
`‘another pushbutton within the Edit-mode display,’ but nothing teaches that
`this pushbutton provides the interactivity/functionality of the ‘modes’ as
`recited in claim elements [1.5]-[1.6].” Id.
`Patent Owner contends a person with ordinary skill in the art would
`have recognized that the ’867 application discloses the claimed delete mode
`“and a corresponding display format” because the specification of the ’867
`application describes the delete mode and also provides an example of its
`implementation. Prelim. Resp. 10–13. Patent Owner relies on a disclosure
`within the ’867 application:
`Note that, although not shown in the reference implementation,
`DELETE capability is also readily incorporated—as either (or
`both) true record-removal from the underlying table, and/or
`record “flagging”
`for UI suppression
`(with continued
`underlying-table record retention)—simply by adding (according
`to the user’s access rights, potentially) another pushbutton within
`the Edit-mode display.
`
`Id. at 11 (quoting Int’l Pat. Pub. No. WO 02/059793, 7:11–15 and Ex. 1001,
`5:63–6:35). Patent Owner argues that the above disclosure of the “DELETE
`capability” satisfies the written description requirement for the claimed
`
`
`5 Patent Owner asserts that the disclosure in the ’867 application related to
`the delete mode limitation “is identical to that in the ’981 Patent
`specification.” Prelim. Resp. 11.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`delete mode. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand “delete is one of the modes of operation on a database (in
`addition to create, retrieve, and update)” and the above description would be
`sufficient to demonstrate possession of the claimed delete mode to a person
`of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 12. Patent Owner also relies upon its claim
`construction position, with which we agree, that the corresponding display
`format does not have to be a separate display.
`Based on the evidence in this record, we are not persuaded by
`Petitioner’s arguments or supporting evidence. Pet. 10, 13, 14; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 35, 43. Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that the ’867
`application lacks adequate written description support for delete mode “and
`a corresponding display format.” As discussed above in our claim
`construction analysis, in light of the specification, we construe the claim
`term “a corresponding display format” for the delete mode to encompass the
`embodiment described by the specification––the delete pushbutton is
`integrated with the edit mode such that the modes share a display format. As
`our reviewing court has articulated, the written description “test requires an
`objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.
`The description of the “DELETE capability” being implemented with a
`separate pushbutton interface is sufficient for a person of ordinary skill in
`the art to understand that the inventor had possession of the claimed delete
`mode “and a corresponding display format” at the time of ’867 application–
`October 31, 2001.
`Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that the
`challenged claims are not entitled the benefit of priority to the ’867
`
`
`
`13
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`application. To the contrary, Patent Owner has demonstrated that the ’867
`application provides adequate written description support for the claimed
`delete mode and a corresponding display format for the delete mode.
`2. Obviousness Based on Simpson and Prague
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–6 of the ’981 patent
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Simpson and Prague. Pet. 16–
`52. For the reasons set forth above and below, we are not persuaded that
`Petitioner’s explanations and evidence establish a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on its asserted ground as to claims 1–6.
`At issue is whether Simpson qualifies as prior art based upon its
`publication date. According to Petitioner, “Simpson provides a copyright
`notice indicating a publication date [2003] from the publisher (Wiley
`Publishing, Inc.).” Pet. 4. Petitioner states that “[t]he 2003 publication date
`is corroborated by its U.S. Copyright registration, its Library of Congress
`Catalog Card Number, and its International Standard Book Number
`(ISBN).” Id.
`Because the October 31, 2001 filing date of the ’867 application in the
`’981 patent’s priority chain predates Simpson, Petitioner has not established
`that Simpson is prior art. Prelim. Resp. 11. Consequently, we conclude that
`Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`assertion that claims 1–6 of the ’981 patent are unpatentable over Simpson
`and Prague.
`3. Obviousness Based on Kesler and Bennett
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–6 of the ’981 patent
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Kesler and Bennett. Pet. 52–94.
`For the reasons set forth above and below, we are not persuaded that
`
`
`
`14
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`Petitioner’s explanations and evidence establish a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on its asserted ground as to claims 1–6.
`At issue is whether Kesler qualifies as prior art. Kesler is a United
`States Patent issued on June 13, 2006, and filed on December 28, 2001.
`Ex. 1006, [45], [22]. Petitioner claims that Kesler is prior art under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it “published over a year before the October 26,
`2007 priority date of the ’981 patent.” Pet. 4. As we determined above, the
`priority date for the challenged claims of the ’981 patent is at least October
`31, 2001. Kesler, therefore, does not qualify as § 102(b) prior art or as prior
`art under any other subsection of § 102 because Kesler’s filing date is after
`the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’981 patent.
`Because the October 31, 2001 filing date of the ’867 application in the
`’981 patent’s priority chain predates Kesler, Petitioner has not established
`that Kesler is prior art. Consequently, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims
`1–6 of the ’981 patent are unpatentable over Kesler and Bennett.
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that any of
`the claims 1–6 of the ’981 patent are unpatentable.
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is,
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims and
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01142
`Patent 7,885,981 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Michael T. Hawkins
`Kim H. Leung
`Jason W. Wolff
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`hawkins@fr.com
`leung@fr.com
`wolff@fr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Ronald Abramson
`Ari J. Jaffess
`M. Michael Lewis
`LEWIS BAACH KAUFMANN MIDDLEMISS PLLC
`ronald.abramson@lbkmlaw.com
`ari.jaffess@lbkmlaw.com
`michael.lewis@lbkmlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Salesforce Ex. 1016 – Page 16
`
`