Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 17
`Date: May 29, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`CHIAN CHIU LI,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`Before THU A. DANG, GARTH D. BAER, and JASON W. MELVIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 17
`Date: May 29, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`CHIAN CHIU LI,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`Before THU A. DANG, GARTH D. BAER, and JASON W. MELVIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple Inc. (‘Petitioner’) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
`
`inter partes review of claims 1—6, 8-12, 14—16, and 18—20 (“the challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,016,564 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the *564 patent”).
`
`Chian Chiu Li (“Patent Owner’) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5. We
`
`instituted review. Paper 6. Patent Ownerfiled a Response (Paper 8,
`
`“PO Resp.’’), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 9, “Pet. Reply’’), and Patent
`
`Ownerfiled a Sur-Reply (Paper 10). We held an oral hearing on April 24,
`
`2024. Paper 16 (“Tr.”).
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has
`
`proven that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`A. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`Each party identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 65;
`
`Paper 3, 1 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices).
`
`B.
`
`RELATED MATTERS
`
`The parties identify the following related district-court litigation
`
`involving the *564 patent: Apple Inc. v. Chian Chiu Li, No. 3:22-cv-02956-
`
`TLT (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 65; Paper 3, 1.
`
`C.
`
`THE ’564 PATENT
`
`The °564 patentistitled “System and Method for Providing
`
`Information”and relates to presenting information using an electronic device
`
`that starts showing content when it detects a user gazing at the idle device.
`
`Ex. 1001, codes (54), (57). The patent discloses transitioning to show
`
`information “when a user shakes, taps, or speaks to a standby or idling
`
`device, and then looksat it.” /d. at 2:36-41.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`Asthe specification describes, the device may include multiple
`
`sensors, including “sensor 10[,] which tracks the eye of a user using mature
`
`eye-tracking technologies”(id. at 3:65—66), and “sensor 20[,] which
`
`functions as a motion detector, [and] which is well knownin the art and
`
`employed at some devices already”(id. at 4:12—14). The device mayinclude
`
`“sensor 24 to detect its own movementby sensing acceleration, deceleration,
`
`and rotation,” thus “detecting device shaking, device vibration, user running,
`
`user walking, and so on.” /d. at 4:22—28.
`
`Thus, “[w]hen a user approachesa device, sensor 20 may detect it and
`
`then the system may activate sensor 10 to detect the user’s gaze direction.”
`
`Id. at 6:33-35. Detecting gaze only after detecting movementprovides a
`
`benefit according to the ’564 patent: “Since a motion detector may consume
`
`less powerthan an eye-tracking sensor, it saves energy and extends the
`
`battery life of a device.” /d. at 6:40—42. In another embodiment, the device
`
`uses sensor 24 to detect the user’s desire to “make use of standbyor idle
`
`device in a simple and convenient manner.” /d. at 6:50—52. To that end, “a
`
`circuitry may be configured such that shaking may activate a gaze sensing
`
`system.” /d. at 6:64—66. The patent explains that using sensors to detect
`
`movementbefore activating gaze detection “avoids content shows caused by
`
`unintended gaze” and “saves energy as a gaze sensing system maybeoff
`
`most of the time unless getting activated upon receiving shaking signals.” /d.
`
`at 7:7-12.
`
`D.
`
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, and 18—20. Pet. 1, 4—5.
`
`Claim | is independent and 1s reproduced, below:
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`1. A methodfor presenting information at an electronic device,
`comprising:
`
`1) detecting an act made by a user involving physical
`contact with the electronic device or physical movement
`of the electronic device when a display of the electronic
`device has an idle screen or a screen in standby mode,
`inactive mode, or screen-saver mode;
`
`2) performing gaze detection only after detecting the act;
`
`3) ascertaining whether the user looks at a direction toward
`the electronic device;
`
`4) determining whetherthe user is recognized via a
`recognition mechanism; and
`
`5) presenting a plurality of content items when the useris
`recognized via the recognition mechanism andit is
`ascertained that the user looks at a direction toward the
`electronic device.
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:56—13:4. Claims 8 and 14 are independent, andrecite
`
`limitations similar to claim 1’s, with claim 8 reciting a method and claim 14
`
`reciting an electronic device. /d. at 13:24—39 (claim 8), 14:6—25 (claim 14).
`
`The other challenged claims depend directly from one of the independent
`
`claims.
`
`E.
`
`PRIOR ART AND ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner asserts the following unpatentability grounds:
`
`
`
`
`1-5, 8,9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 20
`1,6, 8, 10, 14, 19
`
`Ryu,' Hodge?
`Ryu, Hodge,Stallings®
`
`
`
`
`"US 10,540,013, issued Jan. 21, 2020 (Ex. 1004).
`7 US 2010/0079508, published April 1, 2010 (Ex. 1005).
`> US 8,331,992, issued Dec. 11, 2012 (Ex. 1006).
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`Pet. 4—5. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson.
`
`Ex. 1003.
`
`I. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had“at
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, software engineering, or an
`
`equivalent degree with at least one year of experiencein the fields of human
`
`computer interaction, software engineering or computer engineering in either
`
`a research or work capacity.” Pet. 3-4 (citing Ex. 1003 § 30-32). Petitioner
`
`adds that “this hypothetical person would have experience with user
`
`interface design, user interface/mobile device software, and user interaction
`
`techniques, or their equivalent.” /d. at 4. Patent Owner does not addressthe
`
`level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Weadopt Petitioner’s
`
`proposedlevel of ordinary skill as it appears to be consistent with the level
`
`of skill reflected by the specification and in the asserted prior art references.
`
`B.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Neither party argues for an express claim construction. See Pet. 5; see
`
`generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s arguments, however, focus on the
`
`independent claims’ requirement to “perform gaze detection only after
`
`detecting the [physical contact or movement] act.” /d. at 1, 13-18. Patent
`
`Ownerarguesthat this “only after” claim language excludesa device that
`
`uses triggers for gaze detection other than movement detection. /d. at 3-4, 7,
`
`9-10; Tr. 24:5—-10, 24:16—18, 25:3—5. Petitioner does not dispute that gaze
`
`detection must be triggered by movementdetection, but submits further that
`
`the “only after” claim limitation is temporal in nature, rather than structural
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`or capability limiting, and thus does not exclude devices that, for example,
`
`use proximity detection before the claimed movement detection, as long as
`
`the movement detection must occur before performing gaze detection. Pet.
`
`Reply 1-8; Tr. 16:17—21.
`
`Patent Owner attempts to elaborate on the claims’ scope by pointing
`
`to three different scenarios in the specification: (1) gaze detection is
`
`performed continuously without any trigger act such as a physical movement
`
`or proximity event (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 2, 2:33-36, 4:31-38); (2) gaze
`
`detection is performed after an act such as a proximity eventor a physical
`
`movement(citing /d. at Fig. 6, 6:32—37, 6:58-66); and (3) gaze detection is
`
`performed only after a physical movement(the “Given Act’’) (citing /d. at
`
`7:9-12). PO Resp. 2-4. For scenario (3), Patent Owner contendsthat “[t]he
`
`Given Actexcludes a user approaching a device, and only involves touching
`
`or physical movement of a device by a user, which more accurately indicates
`
`the user’s intention to view content at a device and a gaze (or a glance)at the
`
`device further confirms the intention.” /d. at 3-4. Patent Owner contends
`
`that when gaze detection is performed only after physical movement, the
`
`risk of accidental display of information is reduced, unnecessary gaze
`
`detection is avoided, and less poweris consumed./d. at 4. In other words,
`
`Patent Ownerjustifies the “only after” claim language as providing a
`
`benefit.
`
`Petitioner agrees that the °564 patent describes various gaze-detection
`
`scenarios, but submits that it teaches an electronic device that has the
`
`capability to perform each of the scenarios. Pet. Reply 3—4 (citing Ex. 1001,
`
`Fig. 1, 3:65, 4:12—4:13, 4:18—24). Thus, in Petitioner’s view, the user could
`
`specify which, if any, user input would be necessary to trigger gaze
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`detection. Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:35—36, 6:58-59, 7:13-24;
`
`Ex. 1010 4] 4-7). Petitioner argues that the claims do not preclude the
`
`capability to detect proximity events, as the “only after” limitation requires
`
`that “performing” occurs “only after’ detecting the act, and thus the device
`
`is not precluded from being able to detect other, unclaimed acts. /d. at 6—7;
`
`Tr. 12:20—-13:9. Stated otherwise, Petitioner contends that the claims are
`
`directed to a device performing in a particular way and do not exclude a
`
`device capable of other modesof operation.
`
`Patent Ownerrelies on its view to assert that the claims require a
`
`device that affirmatively excludes performing gaze detection after detecting
`
`proximity. PO Resp. 7. For example, Patent Owner submits that even if a
`
`device lacks a proximity sensor, it must further exclude the possibility of
`
`gaze detection based on proximity. /d. (“[R]Jegardless of whether the
`
`device 100 has a proximity sensoror not, Ryu... does not disclose gaze
`
`detection is performed only after detecting [physical movement]. As a
`
`consequence, Ryu does not exclude performing gaze detection after
`
`detecting an event using proximity information.”’).
`
`Patent Owner, however, has not identified any disclosure in the *564
`
`patent that requires an affirmative exclusion for alternative triggers when a
`
`device has only a movementsensor. To the extent the specification
`
`addresses devices using only a physical movement sensor, it does not speak
`
`to whether such devices exclude other sensors or how such devices might
`
`affirmatively exclude alternative triggers. Rather, it simply addresses how a
`
`device may use a physical movement sensorto trigger gaze detection.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:49-66. As a whole, the described scenarios encompassa device
`
`that operates in various modes using appropriate sensors to implement a
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`desired mode. Ex. 1001, 6:31-7:48. Thus, Patent Owner’s position on claim
`
`scope is not persuasive and weagree with Petitioner that the claims are
`
`directed to methods and devices that operate in the claimed manner, even if
`
`they could be configured to operate in a different manner.
`
`Weconcludethat “only after” does not require further construction.
`
`See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that
`
`are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`C. OBVIOUSNESS OVER RYU AND HODGE
`
`Petitioner asserts a combination of Ryu and Hodge. Pet. 5-52. Ryu
`
`relates to a method of performing a function of a device based on motion
`
`information of the device in a standby mode. Ex. 1004, code (57). Ryu’s
`
`Figure | is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`INFORMATION
`LINPUTMOQUTRUT UNIT
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows a block diagram of device 100 that performs a
`
`function based on motion information regarding movementof device 100,
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`including sensor 101, storage 102, processor 103, and information
`
`input/output unit 104. /d. at 4:58—65. Ryu discloses that “sensor 101 may
`
`include a plurality of sensors of various types to sense movementof the
`
`device 100.” /d. at 5:15—16; accord id. at 7:29—30 (“[S]ensor 101 may be
`
`referred to as a movement sensorfor detecting the movement of the
`
`device 100.”). It elaborates that “sensor 101 may includeat least one of a
`
`gyro sensor for sensing a rotation based movementof the device 100 and an
`
`accelerometer sensor for sensing a perpendicular direction based movement
`
`of the device 100 and a moving distance of the device 100.” /d. at 6:62—-67.
`
`Ryu’s Figure 8 illustrates a device entering active mode after
`
`performing gaze detection subsequent to physical movementof the device:
`
`FIG. 8
`
`
`
`Figure 8 illustrates screen activation by device 100 after a 180° rotation of
`
`device 100 and gaze detection of the user. /d. at 19:49—20:3. Ryu discloses
`
`that device 100 can be in standby modein whichscreen 810 is black. /d. at
`
`19:51-53. When device 100 is rotated by 180°, processor 103 activates front
`
`camera 821. /d. at 19:54—56. Processor 103 may then determine whether a
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`user 1S looking at device 100 using image 822 obtained from front
`
`camera 821. /d. at 19:64—67. If processor 103 determinesthat the user is
`
`looking at device 100, an operation mode may be entered as depicted by
`
`screen 830. /d. at 19:67—20:3.
`
`Hodgerelates to an electronic device with “gaze detection capabilities
`
`that allow the device to detect when a useris looking at the device.”
`
`Ex. 1005, code (57). Hodge teachesthat its device may include
`
`user-identification capabilities to distinguish between authorized and
`
`unauthorized users. /d. ¥ 116.
`
`Petitioner maps the independent claim elements to Ryu’s method of
`
`performing gaze detection after detecting a device’s physical movement.
`
`Pet. 5—52. Petitioner maps the claimed “recognition mechanism”to Hodge’s
`
`capability of distinguishing between authorized and unauthorizedusers. /d.
`
`at 28-33, 44-46, 49-50 (citing Ex. 1003 9] 50-53, 64-67, 77, 99-100;
`
`Ex. 1005 4 116). Petitioner reasons that using Hodge’s recognition
`
`mechanism with Ryu’s device would allow the device “to recognize only an
`
`authorized user” and therefore “improve the security and privacy of Ryu’s
`
`device.” Pet. 13. Petitioner further submits that using Hodge’s approach
`
`would work in Ryu’s device the same wayit did in Hodge’s device to
`
`improve privacy and security. /d. at 13-14.
`
`Patent Owner disputes only whether Ryu teachesthe claim limitation
`
`“performing gaze detection only after sensing the act,” which appears in
`
`each of the independent claims. PO Resp. 1, 6—10, 13-17. For that
`
`limitation, Petitioner relies on Ryu’s gaze detection performed after
`
`detecting the device’s physical movement. Pet. 20—24. Petitioner contends
`
`that Ryu teaches an electronic device in standby modethat requires sensed
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`movementbefore changing its operating modeto active mode. /d. at 22.
`
`Petitioner contends that once the device is in active mode,it executes an
`
`application related to its front camera to determineif the user 1s gazing at the
`
`device. /d. at 22—24 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 8, 19:49-56; Ex. 1003 4 58-59).
`
`Although Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s construction of the
`
`“only after” claim limitation (Pet. Reply 1-8), Petitioner contends that Ryu
`
`discloses this claim limitation even under a morerestrictive claim scope,as
`
`Ryu’s Figure 1 embodiment includes a movement sensor but does not
`
`include a proximity sensor (Tr. 8:16—10:17).
`
`Patent Owner contendsthat Ryu does not disclose or recognize the
`
`“only after” limitation because “Ryu is silent on whether the device 100 has
`
`any proximity sensor” and “Ryu detects an act by the movement sensor and
`
`uses the act as a trigger for gaze detection, while other triggers for gaze
`
`detection are not disclosed.” PO Resp. 8-9; Tr. 20:3-9, 22:13-20. As
`
`discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the
`
`claims require affirmatively preventing alternative gaze-detection triggers.
`
`See supra at 5 (§ II.B). Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument
`
`that Ryu doesnot disclose the “only after” claim limitation, even for a
`
`device that lacks a proximity sensor. /d. at 7.
`
`Asfor Ryu’s silence on whetherits device 100 has a proximity sensor,
`
`wefind that Ryu’s primary embodimentdoesnot include a proximity sensor.
`
`Petitioner contends that Ryu’s Figure 1 discloses the “only after” limitation
`
`because Ryu’s primary embodiment includes only a movement sensor and
`
`not a proximity sensor. Pet. 17-18; Pet. Reply 10; Tr. 8:6—9:14; Ex. 1004,
`
`4:63-65, 5:15—-16 (“The sensor 101 mayinclude a plurality of sensors of
`
`various types to sense movementof the device 100.”), 6:61-7:10. In some
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`regards, Patent Owner contendsthat “[i]n another embodiment,” Ryu
`
`discloses a device 1100 that has a sensor 1102 which could be a movement
`
`or proximity sensor. /d. at 6—7 (citing Ex. 1004, 21:38—40, 22:21—23, 22:27-
`
`35). Petitioner does not rely on Ryu’s “device 1100” embodiment, so Patent
`
`Owner’s argument based on that embodimentis inapposite.
`
`Further, Ryu’s contrast between its embodiments underminesPatent
`
`Owner’s position that Ryu’s “device 100, like the device 1100, may also
`
`have a proximity sensor.” PO Resp. 7. In Ryu’s primary embodiment, “[t]he
`
`sensor 101 detects movement of the device 100,” and Ryu details a variety
`
`of sensors that can detect movement. /d. at 6:47-7:33. Then, “[t]he device
`
`100 of Fig. 1 performsa preset function based on motion information
`
`regarding a movementof the device 100 and operation of the device 110.”
`
`Ex. 1004, 4:59-62. That describes a device performing the claimed method
`
`in which physical movementis used to trigger gaze detection. Ryu discloses
`
`that its device with a proximity sensor is “another exemplary embodiment”
`
`(Ud. at 21:37—22:47) and therefore supports that Ryu’s primary embodiment
`
`does not contain a proximity sensor—i.e., it is incapable of detecting
`
`proximity.
`
`Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Ryu discloses a device that
`
`triggers gaze detection only after the device senses physical movement.
`
`Patent Ownerargues further that Ryu has no motivation to implement
`
`an “only after” limitation because Ryu does not need to exclude other
`
`triggers that do not exist. PO Resp. 9. That argumentis not persuasive
`
`because, as explained, Ryu teaches a device with the claimed capability and
`
`no additional sensors that would suggest alternative approaches. Ryu need
`
`not address expressly elements that its device does not have.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`Patent Owner doesnot otherwise challenge Petitioner’s assertions
`
`regarding Ryu and Hodge. See generally PO Resp. Wefind that the
`
`combination of Ryu and Hodgeteaches the uncontested limitations and that
`
`skilled artisans would have had reason to make the combination as Petitioner
`
`explains. See Pet. 5-52. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentionsin light
`
`of the full record, and concludethat Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`
`preponderanceof the evidence that Ryu and Hodgerendersclaims 1-5, 8, 9,
`
`11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 obvious.
`
`D. OBVIOUSNESS OVER RYU, HODGE, STALLINGS
`
`Petitioner asserts that Ryu, Hodge, and Stallings teach claims 1, 6, 8,
`
`10, 14, and 19 of the *564 patent. Pet. 52-61. Stallings relates to a
`
`mobile-communication device that receives information while in a sleep or
`
`locked state, and associates one or more portions of the current information
`
`with one or more corresponding windows. Ex. 1006, code (57). Stallings
`
`teachesthat its device may display information provided by Really Simple
`
`Syndication (RSS) feeds, which allow a device to subscribe to RSS feeds to
`
`regularly check for new content and download any updates. /d. at 5:51-67.
`
`Petitioner largely follows the same mapping described above for Ryu
`
`and Hodge, but mapsthe “presenting a plurality of content items” claim
`
`elements of the independent claimsto Stalling’s teachings of a user
`
`configuring the numberof, arrangement, and the types of information
`
`provided in the RSS windows. Pet. 57—58 (citing Ex. 1003 4] 107-108;
`
`Ex. 1006, 6:55—7:1). Petitioner submits that using RSS feeds to provide
`
`information as taught by Stallings would improve the combination device’s
`
`functionality and “allow for a user to be presented with various pieces of
`
`information (content) on the gateway screen that the user would find
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`relevant prior to performing a function.” Pet. 55; accord id. at 56 (submitting
`
`Stallings’s functionality “allowed the user to be presented with a quick and
`
`concise overview of pertinent information that would allow a user to be
`
`informed or notified of any changes’).
`
`Petitioner further addresses claim 6, which dependsfrom claim 1,
`
`along with claims 10 and 19, which depend from claims 8 and 14,
`
`respectively, and recite limitations parallel to claim 6’s. Pet. 58-61. Claim 6
`
`requires that “the plurality of content items is arranged by a service.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 13:19—20. Petitioner contends that Stallings’s RSS windows
`
`satisfy that requirement because “content displayed in each of the RSS
`
`windows was downloaded from a corresponding URL to whichthe user had
`
`subscribed.” Pet. 58-59 (citing Ex. 1003 4¥ 109-111).
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat Petitioner’s obviousness showing1s
`
`inadequate for the same reasons as discussed above regarding obviousness
`
`over Ryu and Hodge. PO Resp. 1, 6-10, 17-18. We have addressedthat
`
`argument above. We further agree with Petitioner that Stallings discloses
`oe
`both claim 1’s “presenting” limitation and claim 6’s “arranged by a service”
`
`limitation and that skilled artisans would have had reason to incorporate
`
`Stallings’s teachings in both regards.
`
`Patent Owner does not otherwise challenge Petitioner’s assertions
`
`regarding Ryu, Hodge, and Stallings. See generally PO Resp. Wefind that
`
`the combination of Ryu, Hodge, and Stallings teaches the uncontested
`
`limitations for the reasons given by the Petitioner. Pet. 52-61. We have
`
`reviewedPetitioner’s contentions in light of the full record, and conclude
`
`that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidencethat
`
`Ryu and Hodgerenders claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 14, and 19 obvious.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`HI. CONCLUSION*
`
`Weconclude Petitioner has shownthe challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable. In summary:
`
`
`
`a oo
`1-5, 8,9, 11,
`
`
`
`-t2, 1103|Ryu, Hodge 12, 14-16, 18,
`14-16,18,
`50
`
`
`20
`
`103
`Ryu, Hodge,
`1, 6, 8, 10, 14,
`Stallings
`19
`
`1-5, 6, 8, 9,
`10, 11, 12, 14-
`Outcom
`— 16, 18-20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDEREDthat Petitioner has shown by a preponderanceofthe
`
`evidencethat claims 1—5, 6, 8,9, 10, 11, 12, 14-16, 18-20 of the °564 patent
`
`are unpatentable; and
`
`4 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendmentofthe challenged claims
`in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequentto the issuanceofthis
`decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
`Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
`Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed.
`Reg. 16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner choosesto file a reissue
`application or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we
`remind Patent Ownerofits continuing obligation to notify the Board of
`any such related matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat, because this is a Final Written Decision,
`
`parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
`
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Adam P. Seitz
`Clifford T. Brazen
`ERISEIP,P.A.
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`clifford.brazen@eriseip.com
`PTAB@eriseip.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Chian Chiu Li
`Xccli2002@yahoo.com
`
`17
`
`
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
