Apple Inc. v Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Dynamic Advances, LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 15, 2014

09861860 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12
571-272-7822 Entered: April 15, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

APPLE INC.
Petitioner

v.

RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE and
DYNAMIC ADVANCES, LLC
Patent Owner

Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

2
INTRODUCTION
Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a corrected petition requesting an inter
partes review of claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,798 B2 (Ex. 1001,
“the ’798 patent”). Paper 4 (“Pet.”). In response, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute and Dynamic Advances, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a patent
owner preliminary response on January 30, 2014. Paper 11 (“Prelim.
Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
THRESHOLD—The Director may not authorize an inter
partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
that the information presented in the petition filed under section
311 and any response filed under section 313 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.
For the reasons that follow, the Board does not institute an inter
partes review.
A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner indicates that the ’798 patent is involved in co-pending
litigation captioned Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. & Dynamic Advances, LLC
v. Apple Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00633-DNH-DEP (N.D.N.Y). Pet. 2.
B. The ’798 Patent
The ’798 patent is to natural language processing on computers, and
more specifically, to computer-user interfaces that recognize natural
language. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 21-23. The invention is directed to
technology that allows a user to communicate verbally with a computer in
the same manner that he or she would communicate naturally with another
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

3
person, i.e., through a natural language interface (“NLI”). Id. at col. 6, ll.
35-39.
The system processes a user’s natural language input by identifying
database objects through a search of the properly structured metadata
database. Id. at col. 7, ll. 57-63. The metadata database that is searched to
interpret the user’s input has four types of information as the resources-of-
search—case information, keywords, information models, and database
values. Id. at col. 8, ll. 50-57.
C. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 9 are independent claims.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claimed subject matter of the ’798 patent, and is
reproduced as follows:
1. A method for processing a natural language input
provided by a user, the method comprising:
providing a natural language query input by the user;
performing, based on the input, without augmentation, a
search of one or more language-based databases including at
least one metadata database comprising at least one of a group
of information types comprising:
case information;
keywords;
information models; and
database values;
providing, through a user interface, a result of the search
to the user;
identifying, for the one or more language-based databases, a
finite number of database objects; and
determining a plurality of combinations of the finite number of
database objects.
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

4
D. Prior Art Relied Upon
Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
Shwartz US 5,197,005 Mar. 23, 1993 (Ex. 1007)
Warthen US 6,584,464 B1 June 24, 2003 (Ex. 1011)
Jürgen M. Janas, The Semantics-Based Natural Language Interface to
Relational Databases, in COOPERATIVE INTERFACES TO INFORMATION
SYSTEMS 143 (L. Bolc & M. Jarke eds., 1986) (Ex. 1008).
Beatrice Bouchou & Denis Maurel, Using Transducers in Natural
Language Database Query, PROC. 4TH INT’L CONF. NLDB (1999) (Ex.
1009).
Shaul Dar et al., DTL’s DataSpot: Database Exploration Using Plain
Language, PROC. 24TH VLDB CONF. 645 (1998) (Ex. 1010).
David L. Waltz, An English Language Question Answering System for
a Large Relational Database, 21 COMM. ACM 526 (1978) (Ex. 1012).
E. The Asserted Grounds
Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
the following grounds:
Reference(s) Basis Claims challenged
Shwartz § 102 1-21
Janas § 102 1-11, 13, 15, 16, and 18-21
Bouchou § 102 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, 20, and 21
Dar § 102 9, 10, and 13-16
Warthen § 102 1-11 and 13-21
Janas and ordinary skill in the art § 103 12 and 14
Janas and Waltz § 103 17
Warthen and ordinary skill in the art § 103 12
Warthen and Waltz § 103 17
Bouchou and Waltz § 103 17
Dar and ordinary skill in the art § 103 11 and 12
Dar and Waltz § 103 17

Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

5
ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term
must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The following claim construction applies for purposes of this decision.
1. “case information” (claims 1-21)
Petitioner argues that the phrase “case information” means
“information about instances of use of the natural language processing
method.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner argues that “‘case information’ refer[s] to
the NLI’s information about prior instances of the NLI’s natural language
processing that can be used to improve the processing of subsequent natural
language inputs.” Prelim. Resp. 11.
The specification discloses that case information is related to “usage
patterns.” Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 36-38 (“The NLI could also retain valuable
cases (usage patterns) so that the NLI could improve its performance.”).
The specification also states that a case in the context of the invention
generally includes a problem definition and a solution. The problem
definition is generally a set of known terms and the solution is the user’s
selection among possible choices for the meaning of the term. Id. at col. 16,
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

6
l. 52 – col. 17, l. 5. Thus, Petitioner’s proposed construction of that phrase
appears to be consistent with the specification.
As applied to the prior art, however, Petitioner appears to construe
“instances of use” of the system to mean indications of how to use the
system, e.g., how the system interprets words or phrases. On the contrary,
we agree with Patent Owner that a “case” is a prior use of the system, not a
rule regarding how the system interprets current word or phrase input.
Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that the prior uses must be uses of
the system contemplated by the invention, not uses of any other natural
language processing system. On the record before us, we construe “case
information” to mean “information about prior instances of use of the natural
language processing method.”
2. “metadata database comprising at least one of a group of
information types comprising: case information; keywords;
information models; and database values” (claims 1-8); and
“metadata database comprising at least one of a group of
information comprising case information, keywords, information
models, and database values” (claims 9-21)
Petitioner argues that “[t]he clause ‘at least one of’ followed by a list
of elements . . . requires the listed elements in the alternative—to disclose
the claim limitation, a prior art reference needs only describe one of the
elements in the list.” Pet. 7. Although not explicitly argued in the petition,
Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Allen, explains that “where claim 1 of the ’798
patent recites ‘at least one of a group of information types comprising: case
information; keywords; information models; and database values,’ a prior art
reference that discloses all other claim limitations but only discloses ‘case
information’ or only ‘keywords’ anticipates the claim.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 62.
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

7
Patent Owner argues the limitation at issue means “the referenced
metadata database comprises one or more groups of information types, and
at least one of the groups in the metadata database must contain at least the
following four information types: case information, keywords, information
models, and database values.” Prelim. Resp. 18.
The specification discloses that “there are four layers of enterprise
metadata (resources of search) considered; i.e., cases, keywords, information
models, and database values.” Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 51-54. Further, “[t]he
new approach includes designing a reference dictionary of concepts that
integrates enterprise information models and contextual knowledge with
user-oriented keywords and past cases of usage . . . .” Id. at col. 12, ll. 22-
28. Finally, “[a] reference dictionary according to one embodiment of the
invention has four fundamental attributes, as compared to conventional
systems: the reference dictionary . . . generates . . . [a] representation of all
four layers of resources.” Id. at col. 14, ll. 30-34. Thus, Patent Owner’s
proposed construction of that phrase is more consistent with the
specification than Petitioner’s proposed construction.
Additionally, the Federal Circuit, when faced with similar claim
language, determined that the phrase “at least one” followed by a list of
categories separated by “and” rather than “or” suggests a conjunctive list in
which each one of the members of the list is necessary to satisfy the claim.
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 885-86 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“A common treatise on grammar teaches that ‘an article of a
preposition applying to all the members of the series must either be used
only before the first term or else be repeated before each term.’”) (quoting
WILLIAM STRUNK, JR. & E.B. WHITE, THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE 27 (4th ed.
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

8
2000)). On the record before us, consistent with the plain English meaning
and the specification, we construe “metadata database comprising at least
one of a group of information [or information types] comprising: case
information; keywords; information models; and database values” to require
that each of the listed information types must be present in a prior art
metadata database to meet that claim limitation.
3. remaining claim terms
All remaining claim terms recited in claims 1-21 need not be
construed explicitly at this time..
B. Claims 1-21 – Anticipated by Shwartz (Ex. 1007)
Petitioner argues that claims 1-21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Shwartz. Pet. 2. Shwartz describes a database retrieval
system having an NLI. Ex. 1007, Abstract. Shwartz is built around a
Knowledge Base (or reference dictionary) with information about
structuring and using data that would enable the system, in an efficient and
economical manner, to retrieve and report data from a database responsive to
an unskilled user’s query articulated in conversational English (in a way that
a native speaker could understand and use sensibly). Id. at col. 1, l. 62 – col.
3, l. 15; col. 3, l. 40 – col. 4, l. 3.
Claim 1 recites “at least one metadata database comprising at least
one of a group of information types comprising: case information;
keywords; information models; and database values.” Claim 9 recites
essentially the same limitation. Our construction of these limitations
requires that the Knowledge Base of Shwartz contain, at least, “case
information” to meet these limitations. As noted above, our construction of
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

9
“case information” is “information about prior instances of use of the natural
language processing method.”
Petitioner asserts that Shwartz’s system meets the limitation calling
for case information by including “rules” in its Knowledge Base. Pet. 15.
Specifically, Shwartz recites “[t]he semantic knowledge base contains
dictionary information used by the language processing facility, and
conceptual information about application databases. This knowledge base
includes . . . rules (including data class-to-table rules and word-to-data class
rules).” Id. (quoting Ex. 1007, col. 10, ll. 27-38). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr.
Allen, explains that “word-to-data class rules allow the Query System to
handle particular input cases by identifying the appropriate corresponding
data groups or data categories,” and that “[d]ata class-to-table rules allow the
Query System to handle particular input cases by specifying which of
several columns referred to by a particular data class should be used.”
Ex. 1005 ¶ 115. Nonetheless, Petitioner has not explained how the use of
rules to handle a current particular user input relates to storing prior
instances of using the natural language processing method of Shwartz in the
Knowledge Base. It is the rules themselves that Shwartz stores in the
Knowledge Base. Petitioner did not explain how the rules represent or
incorporate prior uses of the natural language processing method of Shwartz.
Thus, on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that
Shwartz discloses “at least one metadata database comprising at least one of
a group of information types comprising: case information; keywords;
information models; and database values” as required by claims 1 and 9.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence and
Patent Owner’s preliminary response, we determine that Petitioner has not
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

10
demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with
respect to claims 1 and 9, or claims 2-8 and 10-21, which depend ultimately
from claims 1 and 9, on the ground that these claims are unpatentable over
Shwartz.
C. Claims 1-11, 13, 15, 16, and 18-21 – Anticipated by Janas (Ex. 1008)
Petitioner argues that claims 1-11, 13, 15, 16, and 18-21 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Janas. Pet. 3. Janas describes a
system to evaluate a natural language input by following a sequence of steps
to translate the query into an equivalent query graph by making reference to
a vocabulary (reference dictionary) and a database graph of the database to
be accessed. Ultimately, the system translates a query graph representing
the optimal interpretation of the user’s query into a formal query language
for execution. Ex. 1008, pp. 5-6, 9-12, 14.
Claim 1 recites “at least one metadata database comprising at least
one of a group of information types comprising: case information;
keywords; information models; and database values.” Claim 9 recites
essentially the same limitation. Our construction of these limitations
requires that the vocabulary of Janas contain, at least, “case information” to
meet these limitations. As noted above, our construction of “case
information” is “information about prior instances of use of the natural
language processing method.”
Petitioner asserts that Janas’s system meets the limitation calling for
case information by including “natural language words and phrases” in its
vocabulary. Pet. 25. Specifically, Janas recites, “[a]s a result of compiling
the designations of relations, attributes and values we obtain a vocabulary of
natural language words and phrases which refer to the constituents of the
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

11
database.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1008, p. 9). Designations are words used to
refer to the relations, attributes, and values in a database. Ex. 1005 ¶ 170
(citing Ex. 1008, pp. 7-8). We note, however, that Petitioner has not
explained how storing words representing relations, attributes, and values
relates to storing prior instances of using the natural language processing
method of Janas in the reference dictionary. In that regard, Petitioner has
not explained how the designations represent or incorporate prior uses of the
natural language processing method of Janas. Thus, on the record before us,
Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Janas discloses “at least one
metadata database comprising at least one of a group of information types
comprising: case information; keywords; information models; and database
values” as required by claims 1 and 9.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we
determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 1 and 9, or claims 2-8,
10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 18-21, which depend ultimately from claims 1 and 9,
on the ground that these claims are unpatentable over Janas.
D. Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, 20, and 21 –
Anticipated by Bouchou (Ex. 1009)
Petitioner argues that claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, 20, and 21 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over Bouchou. Pet. 3. Bouchou
describes a natural language database querying system that is based on an
electronic reference dictionary built with information from the database
itself (fields, tables, etc.), the contents of the database, and dictionaries of
synonyms. Ex. 1009, p. 11. A database administrator guides the
construction of this electronic dictionary by choosing natural language
words that represent each table or field in the database, adding synonyms for
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

12
the words in the lexicon, and providing alternate forms of the nouns (e.g.,
singular/plural) and verbs (e.g., conjugations) in the lexicon. Id.
Claim 1 recites “at least one metadata database comprising at least
one of a group of information types comprising: case information;
keywords; information models; and database values.” Claim 9 recites
essentially the same limitation. Our construction of these limitations
requires that the electronic dictionary of Bouchou contain, at least, “case
information” to meet these limitations. As noted above, our construction of
“case information” is “information about prior instances of use of the natural
language processing method.”
Petitioner asserts that Bouchou’s system meets the limitation calling
for case information by including linguistic knowledge of operators in its
lexicon. Pet. 34. Specifically, Bouchou recites, “[t]he electronic dictionary
is built starting from 4 sources: . . . linguistic knowledge of general operators
on the one hand, and operators related to the domain on the other hand.” Id.
(quoting Ex. 1009, p. 11). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Allen, explains that
“[t]ransducers 2 and 3 of the cascade of transducers store system knowledge
of these linguistic operators.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 216 (citing Ex. 1009, pp. 11-12,
15). Nonetheless, Petitioner has not explained how the knowledge of
operators or the use of transducers relates to storing prior instances of using
the natural language processing method of Bouchou in the electronic
dictionary. The knowledge of operators is not characterized as a prior use of
the natural language processing method of Bouchou. Petitioner has not
explained how transducers represent or incorporate prior uses of the natural
language processing method of Bouchou. Thus, on the record before us,
Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Bouchou discloses “at least one
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

13
metadata database comprising at least one of a group of information types
comprising: case information; keywords; information models; and database
values” as required by claims 1 and 9.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we
determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 1 and 9, or claims 2-6,
8, 10-12, 14-16, 20, and 21, which depend ultimately from claims 1 and 9,
on the ground that these claims are unpatentable over Bouchou.
E. Claims 9, 10, and 13-16 – Anticipated by Dar (Ex. 1010)
Petitioner argues that claims 9, 10, and 13-16 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Dar. Pet. 3. Dar describes a database publishing
tool designed to provide a means for exploring databases of business
information. Ex. 1010, p. 645. Dar’s system discloses a data structure
called a “hyperbase” that represents data as a graph of associated elements
tailored to support free-form query algorithms. Nodes in the hyperbase
represent data objects, and edges represent associations between data
objects. Id. at 645-46. To perform a search, first Dar finds in the hyperbase
the records that are related to the words in the user natural language query
through relational and linguistic associations. Heuristics are applied that
select “distinguished answer node[s],” and a list of answers are presented to
the user. Id. at 647.
Claim 9 recites “a metadata database comprising at least one of a
group of information comprising case information, keywords, information
models, and database values.” Our construction of these limitations requires
that the hyperbase of Dar contain, at least, “case information” to meet these
limitations. As noted above, our construction of “case information” is
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

14
“information about prior instances of use of the natural language processing
method.”
Petitioner asserts that Dar’s system meets the limitation calling for
case information by including linguistics and user-defined associations in its
hyperbase. Pet. 15. Specifically, Dar allows for “built-in associations, such
as concepts, numbers and dates, and allows for user-defined associations
(e.g. geographical information)” and that “linguistic associations may also
include related words and concepts associated via a thesaurus.” Ex. 1010, p.
647. Petitioner has not explained how the use of a thesaurus and other
“associations” relates to storing prior instances of using the natural language
processing method of Dar in the hyperbase. Thus, on the record before us,
Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Dar discloses “a metadata database
comprising at least one of a group of information comprising case
information, keywords, information models, and database values” as
required by claim 9.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we
determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim 9, and also claims 10
and 13-16 that depend ultimately from claim 9, on the ground that these
claims are unpatentable over Dar.
F. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 – Anticipated by Warthen (Ex. 1011)
Petitioner argues that claims 1-11 and 13-21 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Warthen. Pet. 3. Warthen describes a Web-based
search engine system that responds to natural language queries. Ex. 1011,
col. 1, ll. 33-51; col. 2, l. 55 – col. 3, l. 17. A query processor uses a
dictionary and a semantic net snapshot (knowledge base) to process the
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

15
natural language input to generate template questions in response to a user-
entered question. Id. at col. 3, ll. 46-50; col. 2, ll. 3-11.
Claim 1 recites “at least one metadata database comprising at least
one of a group of information types comprising: case information;
keywords; information models; and database values.” Claim 9 recites
essentially the same limitation. Our construction of these limitations
requires that the reference dictionary of Warthen contain, at least, “case
information” to meet these limitations. As noted above, our construction of
“case information” is “information about prior instances of use of the natural
language processing method.”
Petitioner asserts that Warthen’s system meets the limitation calling
for case information by including “template questions” in its knowledge
base. Pet. 46. Specifically, Warthen recites “QPE 30 is coupled to
dictionary 34 and semantic net snapshot 40 and uses the information
obtained from those sources to generate template questions in response to a
user-entered question. Template questions are questions that are mapped to
answers in question-answer mapping table 42.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1011, col.
3, ll. 46-50; col. 2, ll. 3-11). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Allen, explains “the
question-answer mapping table in the knowledge base stores information
used to map template questions to answers. Thus the mapping information
and the knowledge base both represent instances of use of the natural
language processing method (i.e., cases).” Ex. 1005 ¶ 312 (citation
omitted). Nonetheless, Petitioner has not explained how the use of question-
answer mapping to map template questions to answers relates to storing
prior instances of using the natural language processing method of Warthen
in the reference dictionary. The question-answer mapping itself is what is
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

16
stored in the reference dictionary. Ex. 1011, col. 3, ll. 46-50; col. 2, ll. 3-11.
Petitioner has not explained how the question-answer mapping represents or
incorporates prior uses of the natural language processing method of
Warthen. Thus, on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown
sufficiently that Warthen discloses “at least one metadata database
comprising at least one of a group of information types comprising: case
information; keywords; information models; and database values” as
required by claims 1 and 9.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we
determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 1 and 9, or claims 2-8,
10, 11, and 13-21, which depend ultimately from claims 1 and 9, on the
ground that these claims are unpatentable over Warthen.
G. Remaining Challenges
Petitioner contends that claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over a combination of Janas and Waltz. A patent 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.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved 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) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

17
Based on the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner, we are
unpersuaded that it has established a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail on showing the unpatentability of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Janas and Waltz.
As discussed above in the context of the anticipation analysis with
regard to Janas, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Janas discloses a
metadata database that contains case information, as is required by each of
independent claims 1 and 9. Petitioner’s obviousness argument assumes that
Janas discloses that limitation. Pet. 54. Petitioner bears the burden of proof
of showing that limitation for each independent claim.
Petitioner’s remaining challenges are similarly based on one of the
anticipation challenges above to meet the “case information” limitation
required by claims 1 and 9. Pet. 54, 56-59. However, as shown above, none
of the challenges relied on to meet claims 1 and 9 has shown sufficiently the
required “case information.” Thus, upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and
supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that
there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to: the
ground that claims 12 and 14 are unpatentable over Janas and ordinary skill;
the ground that claim 12 is unpatentable over Warthen and ordinary skill;
the ground that claim 17 is unpatentable over Warthen and Waltz; the
ground that claim 17 is unpatentable over Bouchou and Waltz; the ground
that claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable over Dar and ordinary skill; and the
ground that claim 17 is unpatentable over Dar and Waltz.

Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

18
CONCLUSION
The information presented does not show that there is a reasonable
likelihood that Petitioner would prevail at trial with respect to at least one
claim of the ’798 patent, based on any ground presented in the petition. On
this record, we deny the petition for inter partes review of claims 1-21.

ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that that the petition is denied as to all challenged claims,
and no trial is instituted.

Case IPR2014-00077
Patent 7,177,798 B2

19
For PETITIONER:

Hector Ribera
Jennifer Bush
FENWICK & WEST LLP
hribera@fenwick.com
jbush@fenwick.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Tarek Fahmi
FAHMI, SELLERS, EMBERT & DAVITZ
tarek.fahmi@fseip.com

Donald E. Tiller
SKIERMONT PUCKETT LLP
dynamic_team@skiermontpuckett.com