Arista Networks, Inc.v.Cisco Systems, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 6, 2015

10307154 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7
571-272-7822 Entered: October 6, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
Patent Owner.

Case IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

I. INTRODUCTION
Arista Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter
partes review of claims of claims 1–10, 12, 13, 15–28, 30, 31, 33–43, 45–
49, 51–64, 66, 67, and 69–72 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
7,224,668 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’668 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Cisco
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

2
Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which
provides that an inter partes review may be authorized only if “the
information presented in the petition . . . and any [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(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the
Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented by
Petitioner does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that
Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the
challenged claims 1–10, 12, 13, 15–28, 30, 31, 33–43, 45–49, 51–64, 66, 67,
and 69–72 of the ’668 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–10, 12, 13, 15–28, 30, 31,
33–43, 45–49, 51–64, 66, 67, and 69–72 of the ’668 patent.
A. Related Proceedings
The ’668 patent is involved in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks,
Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-05343 (N.D. Cal.) and Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista
Networks, Inc., Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof
(II), ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-945. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. Petitioner has also filed
petitions requesting inter partes review of other patents owned by Patent
Owner: IPR2015-00973 (U.S. Patent No. 6,377,577), IPR2015-00975 (U.S.
Patent No. 8,051,211), IPR2015-00976 (U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853),
IPR2015-00978 (U.S. Patent No. 7,340,597), IPR2015-01049 (U.S. Patent
No. 6,377,577), and IPR2015-01050 (U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853).
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

3
B. The ’668 patent
The ’668 patent relates generally to an internetworking device, such
as a router, with improved immunity to Denial of Service (“DoS”) attacks.
Ex. 1001, Abstract. At the time, a router typically separated its functionality
into a data plane, responsible for accepting transit packets at input ports and
routing or switching them to output ports, and a control plane, responsible
for higher layer functions, such as establishing routing tables. Id. at 1:52–
59. Denial of Service attacks were commonly directed at the control plane.
Id. at 1:59–67. Attempts to solve such problems were difficult to administer
and could result in poor performance when control-plane policies were
applied not only to control plane packets, but also to transit packets. Id. at
2:24–3:2.
To address these and other issues, the ’668 patent discloses an
internetworking device whose control plane processes are collectively
arranged as a single addressable port such that all packets intended for the
control plane always pass through this designated port, which thereby
provides the ability to better manage control plane traffic. Id. at 3:42–50. A
set of port services unique to the control plane may be applied to the
aggregate control plane port. Id. at 3:54–56.
Figure 1 is reproduced below.
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

4

Figure 1 is a block diagram of internetworking device 100, such as a router,
comprising control plane port 140, which defines a single access path
between switch engine 130 and control plane 150. Id. at 4:47–67. Line
cards 110 and central switch engine 130 accept packets received on a given
port 120 and route them through to another output port 120. Id. at 5:5–7.
Because all packets destined to control plane 150 pass through central switch
engine 130 prior to being routed to functions 155, central switch engine 130
can be used to implement aggregate control plane protection. Id. at 5:36–42.
Control plane port services determine if a given packet is destined to a
control plane process 150. Id. at 5:56–58. Control plane port 140 may be a
single physical port or may be a virtual address, but either way, it can be
treated as a traditional hardware port to which a full range of traditional port
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

5
control features—e.g., rate limiting, access lists, hierarchical queues based
on priority—can be applied to help protect control plane 150 from a DoS
attack, or to provide other QoS (quality of service). Id. at 5:1–4, 5:66–6:44.
C. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 9, and 11 are independent. Claim
1 is reproduced below:
1. An internetworking device comprising:
a. a plurality of physical network interface ports,
each for providing a physical connection point to a network for
the internetworking device, the ports being configurable by
control plane processes;
b. port services, for operating on packets entering and
exiting the physical network interface ports, the port services
providing an ability to control and monitor packet flows, as
defined by control plane configurations;
c. a control plane, comprising a plurality of
internetworking control plane processes, the control plane
processes for providing high-level control and configuration of
the ports and the port services;
d. wherein:
i. a control plane port entity provides access to
the collection of control plane processes, so that a set of
control plane port services can be applied thereto; and
ii. the control plane port services operate on
packets received from specific, predetermined physical
ports and destined to the collection of control plane
processes in a way that is independent of the physical
port interfaces and services applied thereto.
Ex. 1001, 9:17–40.
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

6
D. Evidence Relied Upon
Petitioner relies upon the following references:
Amara US 6,674,743 B1 Jan. 6, 2004 Ex. 1004
Moberg US 6,460,146 B1 Oct. 1, 2002 Ex. 1005
Subramanian US 6,970,943 B1 Nov. 29, 2005 Ex. 1006
Hendel US 6,115,378 Sept. 5, 2000 Ex. 1007
Joe Habraken, PRACTICAL CISCO ROUTERS, Que Corp. (1999)
(hereinafter “Habraken”).
Ex. 1010
Pet. 3–4. Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Bill Lin (“Lin
Decl.”) (Ex. 1002).
E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner argues that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
the following grounds:
References Basis Claims challenged
Amara § 102 1–6, 8, 9, 15–22, 24–27,
33–40, 42, 45–47, 51–
58, 60–63, and 69–72
Amara & Habraken § 103
Amara & Moberg § 103 7, 23, 41, and 59
Amara, Habraken, & Moberg § 103
Amara & Subramanian § 103 10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31,
43,48, 49, 64, 66, and 67 Amara, Habraken, & Subramanian § 103
Amara & Hendel § 103
Amara, Habraken, & Hendel § 103
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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir.
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

7
2015). Applying that standard, we interpret the claim terms according to
their ordinary and customary meaning in the context of the patent’s written
description. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Petitioner proposes constructions for ten terms. Pet. 9–14. Patent
Owner disputes some of those constructions and proposes an additional term
for construction. Prelim. Resp. 9–19.
For purposes of this Decision, we determine that we need not
expressly construe any of the terms for which the parties have proposed
constructions.
B. Claims 1–6, 8, 9, 15–22, 24–27, 33–40, 42,
45–47, 51–58, 60–63, and 69–72 – Asserted Anticipation by Amara
Petitioner argues that claims 1–6, 8, 9, 15–22, 24–27, 33–40, 42,
45–47, 51–58, 60–63, and 69–72 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Amara. Pet. 4, 15–38.
Amara (Exhibit 1004)
Amara describes a packet-forwarding device that provides policy-
based services for internal applications. Ex. 1004, Title, Abstract.
Figure 3 is reproduced below.

IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

8
Figure 3, above, is a block diagram of packet forwarding device 200.
Device 200 includes interfaces 202–206 that are able to transmit packets to
and to receive packets from nodes 208–212, respectively. Id. at 5:51–55.
Packet classifiers 214–218 classify the packets received by nodes interfaces
202–206, respectively, as either internally-destined packets or external
packets, based on the packets’ destination addresses. Id. at 5:55–58. Packet
classifiers 214–218 forward the internally-destined packets to internal
interface 220, and packet classifiers 214–218 forward the external packets to
packet forwarder 222 via policy engines 224–228, respectively. Id. at 5:58–
62. Internal interface 220 forwards the internally-destined packets from
packet classifiers 214–218 to internal applications 230 and forwards the
internally-generated packets from internal applications 230 to packet
forwarder 222. Id. at 5:63–6:2. Packet forwarder 222 forwards the external
packets from packet classifiers 214–218 and the internally-generated packets
from internal interface 220 to one or more of interfaces 202–206, via policy
engines 224–228, based on the destination addresses of the packets. Id. at
6:3–8.
Device 200 applies policies to the internal packets and to the external
packets. Specifically, policy engine 232 applies a policy to the internally-
destined packets used by internal applications 230 and to the internally-
generated packets generated by internal applications 230. Id. at 6:9–12.
Policy engines 224–228 apply policies to the external packets forwarded by
packet classifiers 214–218, respectively, and typically also apply policies to
the external packets forwarded by packet forwarder 222. Id. at 12–16. The
policies applied to internal packets may differ from those applied to external
packets. Id. at 6:17–19.
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

9
Analysis
In light of the arguments and evidence, Petitioner has not established a
reasonable likelihood that claims 1–6, 8, 9, 15–22, 24–27, 33–40, 42, 45–47,
51–58, 60–63, and 69–72 are unpatentable as anticipated by Amara.
1. “a plurality of physical network interface ports . . . the ports being
configurable by control plane processes.”
Independent claims 1, 19, 37, and 55 recite “a plurality of physical
network interface ports . . . the ports being configurable by control plane
processes.” Petitioner relies upon Amara’s disclosure that its “internal
applications,” which Petitioner identifies as corresponding to the recited
“control plane processes,” “typically serve to control or configure device
100.” Pet. 21 (quoting Ex. 1004, 4:34–35). Petitioner contends that:
A POSITA would have read these aspects of Amara as
disclosing that internal applications 230 configure interface
ports 202, 204, and 206 in appropriate circumstances. Ex.
1002, ¶ 46. In particular, a POSITA would have understood
that the internal applications of a router that provide control and
configuration were designed to configure the status of the
router’s ports, for example, as either enabled or disabled, and
other characteristics of the ports. Id. Accordingly, a POSITA
would have understood that Amara describes the interface ports
202-06 being configurable by internal applications 230 and,
when appropriate, internal applications 230 configuring ports
202-06.
Pet. 21–22. In the testimony cited by Petitioner, Dr. Lin elaborates:
In particular, a POSITA would have understood that the
internal applications 230 would be able to enable or disable any
given physical interface port, set a protocol for any given
physical interface port, or set the address of any given physical
interface port. See, e.g., Habraken, page 132-134. The
capability to disable a certain physical interface port, for
example, would have been necessary to handle a situation in
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

10
which the link connected to the port became unreliable.
Further, a POSITA would have understood that the internal
applications 230 would, for example, need to be able to
configure whether a port operates in 10 Mb Ethernet mode, 100
Mb Ethernet mode, or 10/100 Mb Ethernet mode, or whether a
port operates in half-duplex or full-duplex mode, or whether
auto-negotiation is enabled. Because routers as of the Critical
Date operated in these different modes, it was critical for
networking devices to be configurable by the internal
applications in the manner described. Accordingly, a POSITA
would have understood that Amara describes the interface ports
202-208 being configurable by the internal applications 230
and, when appropriate, the internal applications 230 configuring
the ports 202-206.
Ex. 1002 ¶ 46.
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to establish that Amara
discloses this limitation expressly or inherently. Prelim. Resp. 22. As to the
express disclosure in Amara, Patent Owner argues that it does not disclose
that (1) Amara’s interface ports—as opposed to “the device” generally—are
configurable; or (2) that it Amara’s internal applications actually configure
these interface ports. Id. As to Petitioner’s assertions about how a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand Amara, Patent Owner
characterizes those statements as an inherency argument, and disputes
whether Dr. Lin’s testimony establishes that internal applications necessarily
are able to configure the interface ports. Id. at 22–25.
We agree with Patent Owner that Amara’s express disclosure is not
sufficient. Amara’s disclosure that internal applications control or configure
the device only “typically” suggests that they do not necessarily serve that
purpose and, therefore, that another component of device 100 may serve that
purpose. Moreover, Amara’s disclosure that internal applications control or
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

11
configure the “device” is not sufficiently specific as to whether the interface
ports are an aspect of the device being controlled or configured by the
internal applications.
Our reviewing court has held that a prior art reference that does not
expressly disclose a limitation, may nevertheless anticipate if a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the prior art to disclose the
limitation and could combine the prior art description with his own
knowledge to make the claimed invention. See Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok,
Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000). After reviewing the arguments
of the parties and the testimony of Dr. Lin, however, we are not persuaded
that a person of ordinary skill in the art1 would understand the cited sentence
in Amara as necessarily disclosing that the network interface ports of
Amara’s internetworking device are configurable by its internal applications.
Dr. Lin relies on pages 132 to 134 of Habraken, which is a textbook
that describes, inter alia, configuring the interfaces of a Cisco router through
a Setup dialog. While this passage describes configuring a port, it is not
clear what aspect of the Cisco router is providing the Setup dialog. Nothing,
for example, attributes the Setup dialog to “control plane processes” or
“internal applications” or the like of the Cisco router. Even assuming that
the Setup dialog is provided by an “internal application” of the Cisco router,

1 Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that a person of
ordinary skill as of the critical date would have had a Master of Science
Degree in an academic area emphasizing computer networking or,
alternatively, a Bachelor Degree in an academic area emphasizing the design
of electrical, computer, or software engineering and several years of
experience in computer network engineering and the design of computer
networks. Pet. 7.
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

12
nothing in Habraken supports the determination that the network interface
ports of all routers, such as the 3Com router described in Amara, are
configurable by “internal applications” of that router. At best, Habraken
establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have
known that Cisco routers include a Setup dialog for configuring router
interfaces. This is not sufficient, however, to persuade us that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have read Amara as necessarily disclosing that
the network interface ports of the “device” are configurable by the internal
applications.
2. “port services . . . as defined by control plane configurations”
Independent claims 1, 19, 37, and 55 recite “port services . . . as
defined by control plane configurations.” Petitioner contends that:
[A] POSITA would have understood Amara as describing the
policies applied by the policy engines 224-28 being configured
by internal applications 230 based, for example, on inputs by
administrators. Ex. 1002, ¶ 37.
Pet. 24. In the testimony cited by Petitioner, Dr. Lin elaborates:
A POSITA would have understood that Amara describes the
policies applied by the policy engines 224-228 and 232 as being
controlled and configured by the internal applications 230
based, for example, on inputs from administrator. In describing
prior policy engines, Amara notes that policy engines are
configurable and, in fact, multiple policy engines in a device
may be separately configurable so as to apply different policies.
Id. at 2:53-57. A POSITA would have understood that such
policies are typically set in devices such as routers by a network
administrator. See, e.g., Habraken, 144-145; 244-258. In fact,
even the ’668 patent, in its discussion of FIG. 5, notes that such
configuration commands for rate limiting are “familiar to
network administrators.” The ’668 Patent, 7:23-26. To set
such policies, administrators would often use a remote access
application, for example Telnet, to instruct the internal
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

13
applications running on the router to appropriately configure
the router to enforce the policies. See, e.g., Habraken, 144-145;
244-258. Accordingly, based on Amara’s combined description
of (1) the policy engines 224-228 and 232 with associated
policies, (2) the internal applications serving to configure or
control the device, and (3) the internal applications being
remotely accessed using, for example, Telnet, a POSITA would
have understood Amara as disclosing the policies being set by
administrators remotely accessing the internal applications and
sending commands to the internal applications, and the internal
applications as a result configuring the device appropriately so
that the policy engines 224-228 and 232 apply the policies.
See, e.g., id.
Ex. 1002 ¶ 37.
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to establish that Amara
discloses this limitation expressly or inherently. Prelim. Resp. 28. Patent
Owner argues that Amara does not disclose that (1) Amara’s interface
ports—as opposed to “the device” generally—are configurable; or (2) that it
Amara’s internal applications actually configure these interface ports. Id. at
28–29. As to Petitioner’s assertions about how a person of ordinary skill in
the art would understand Amara, Patent Owner characterizes those
statements as an inherency argument, and disputes whether Dr. Lin’s
testimony establishes that internal applications necessarily are able to
configure the interface ports. Id. at 29–31.
We agree with Patent Owner that Amara does not adequately disclose
this limitation expressly or inherently. Petitioner cites only to the
Declaration of Dr. Lin for support. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 37). Dr. Lin’s
testimony as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
about Amara’s “internal applications” and their role in configuring the
policies enforced by policy engines 224–28 does not adequately tie the
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

14
policies enforced by policy engines 224–28 to the “internal applications.”
Dr. Lin relies on Habraken’s disclosure of the use of Telnet to configure
Cisco routers, but does not establish that the port services of all routers, such
as the 3Com router described in Amara, were necessarily configurable by
“internal applications” of the router.
Conclusion
On this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1–6, 8, 9,
15–22, 24–27, 33–40, 42, 45–47, 51–58, 60–63, and 69–72 are unpatentable
as anticipated by Amara.
C. Assserted Obviousness over Amara and Moberg, over
Amara and Subramanian, and over Amara and Hendel
Petitioner argues that (1) dependent claims 7, 23, 41, and 59 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Amara and Moberg;
(2) dependent claims 10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 43, 48, 49, 64, 66, and 67 are
obvious over either Amara and Subramanian, or Amara and Hendel. Pet.
38–58. In each ground, Petitioner relies upon its analysis of Amara with
respect to the independent claims from which these claims depend, and
alleges that the additional reference—Moberg, Subramanian, or Hendel—
teaches the additional limitation(s) recited in the dependent claim. Id.
As discussed above, we are not persuaded that Amara discloses “a
plurality of physical network interface ports . . . the ports being configurable
by control plane processes,” as recited in each of the respective independent
claims from which these claims depend. Petitioner does not allege that the
additional references—Moberg, Subramanian, or Hendel—teach this
limitation. Pet. 38–58. Accordingly, we are not persuaded, on this record,
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

15
that the underlying independent claims would have been obvious in view of
either Amara and Moberg, or Amara and Subramanian, or Amara and
Hendel. Because we are not persuaded that the underlying independent
claims are unpatentable, we also are not persuaded that the dependent claims
challenged in these grounds are unpatentable.
D. Claims 1–10, 12, 13, 15–28, 30, 31, 33–43, 45–49,
51–64, 66, 67, and 69–72 – Obviousness Based on Habraken
Petitioner argues that (1) claims 1–6, 8, 9, 15–22, 24–27, 33–40, 42,
45–47, 51–58, 60–63, and 69–72 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Amara and Habraken; (2) claims 7, 23, 41, and 59 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Amara, Habraken,
and Moberg; and (3) claims 10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 43, 48, 49, 64, 66, and 67
are obvious over either Amara, Habraken, and Subramanian, or Amara,
Habraken, and Hendel. Pet. 58–60.
Patent Owner accurately observes that “Petitioner presents four
additional obviousness grounds in the final two pages of the Petition”
(Prelim. Resp. 49) and faults Petitioner’s analysis for (1) providing no
reason to combine Habraken with any of Moberg, Subramanian, or Hendel;
(2) summarily citing nearly 50 pages of Habraken without explanation; (3)
not identifying claim features missing from Amara; and (4) “shift[ing] the
burden to the Board and to Patent Owner to ‘sift through’ Habraken to
synthesize and speculate as to the specific unpatentability arguments
intended by Petitioner.” Prelim. Resp. 49–52.
We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not identify with
sufficient particularity the ground on which the challenge to the independent
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

16
claims is based. For example, the Petition identifies two limitations of
independent claim 1 for which we could rely on either Amara or Habraken:
As described above with respect to Ground 1A, Amara
describes (1) the internal applications configuring the interface
ports 202-06, (2) the internal applications configuring policies
applied by the policy engines 224-28, and (3) the addresses of
the device being specified in the configuration of the device
200. Supra, [1.1], [1.2], [3.0]. However, even if one were to
conclude that this is not the case, it would have been obvious in
view of Habraken to modify Amara’s device to include any or
all of (1), (2), and (3).
Pet. 58 (emphasis added). The Petition then blanket cites 46 pages of
Habraken to support its contention that Habraken teaches these features. Id.
at 58–59. This analysis addresses explicitly limitations [1.1] and [1.2], but it
applies equally to independent claims 19, 37, and 55, which recite similar
limitations. Moreover, for independent claims 37 and 55, the Petition
identifies a third limitation for which we could rely on either Amara or
Habraken:
Similarly, as described above, Amara describes (4) the internal
applications being executed by a processor and (5) the device
including a computer readable medium, such as a memory, to
store instructions that configure the router, and all of its
components, to operate as expected. Supra, [55.0], [37.3].
However, even if one were to conclude that is not the case, it
would have been obvious in view of Habraken to modify
Amara’s device to include any or all of (4) and (5).
Pet. 59. As a result, this ground presents three possible combinations of
Amara and Habraken for claims 1 and 19,2 and seven possible combinations

2 For claim 1, for example, the three possible combinations are: (1) Amara
for [1.1] and Habraken for [1.2]; (2) Habraken for [1.1] and Amara for [1.2];

IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

17
of Amara and Habraken for claims 37 and 55. Each of the possible
combinations serves as a separate basis for considering the obviousness of
the claimed invention as a whole, yet it is uncertain which of the different
combinations is relied upon to support that conclusion. The Petition
nowhere indicates, sufficiently, which one of the 3 or 7 potential sets of
differences underlies the obviousness conclusion. The Petition, therefore,
fails to identify with sufficient specificity the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art.
Petitoner’s assertions with respect to dependent claims 2–10, 12, 13,
15–18, 20–28, 30, 31, 33–36, 38–43, 45–49, 51–54, 56–64, 66, 67, and 69–
72 are undermined by the above-discussed deficiencies with respect to
independent claims 1, 19, 37, and 55. Petitioner’s sole conclusory sentence
addressing the dependent claims (Pet. 60) does not cure the deficiencies
stemming from the independent claims on which the dependent claims
depend.
Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the
unpatentability of claims 1–10, 12, 13, 15–28, 30, 31, 33–43, 45–49, 51–64,
66, 67, and 69–72 over any combination based on Habraken.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not
established that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail

and (3) Habraken for [1.1] and Habraken for [1.2].
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

18
in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–10, 12, 13, 15–28, 30, 31, 33–
43, 45–49, 51–64, 66, 67, and 69–72 of the ’668 patent.
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
the ’668 patent; and
FURTHER ORDERED no inter partes review is instituted.
IPR2015-00974
Patent 7,224,668 B1

19
For PETITIONER:

W. Karl Renner
Kevin E. Greene
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
axf@fr.com
IPR40963-006IP1@fr.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Lori A. Gordon
Daniel Block
Robert G. Sterne
Jon E. Wright
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
dblock-PTAB@skgf.com
rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
jwright-PTAB@skgf.com