Daifuku Co., Ltd.v.Murata Machinery, Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 4, 2015

11652707 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper10
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 4, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
DAIFUKU CO., LTD. AND DAIFUKU AMERICA CORP.,
Petitioner,
v.
MURATA MACHINERY, LTD.,
Patent Owner.
_____________

Case IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
Case IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165,927 B2)1
_______________

Before KEN B. BARRETT, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
BRIAN P. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

1 This Decision addresses the same legal and factual issues raised in
IPR2015-00084 and IPR2015-00087. The patents at issue in both cases are
related, and the claim limitations at issue are very similar. The arguments
made by Petitioner and Patent Owner are largely the same in both cases.
Therefore, we issue one Decision to be entered in each case.
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

2

I. INTRODUCTION
Daifuku Co., Ltd. and Daifuku America Corp. (together, “Petitioner”)
filed a corrected Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 6–14 of
U.S. Patent No. 7,771,153 B2 (“the ’153 patent”).2 Paper 6 (“Pet.”). Murata
Machinery, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the
Petition. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have statutory authority under 35
U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be
instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
petition.”
Petitioner challenges claims 6–14 of the ’153 patent as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on multiple grounds. Pet. 3–4. Based on the
information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we are not
persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with
respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we
decline to institute inter partes review.
A. Related Proceedings
The parties identify the following as related proceedings regarding the
’153 patent:
U.S. district court action titled Murata Machinery USA, Inc. v.
Daifuku Co., Ltd., No. 2:13-cv-00866 (D. Utah 2013), in which the ’153
patent and two related patents are at issue. The related patents are U.S.
Patent No. 7,165,927 (“the ’927 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,197,172
(“the ’172 patent”);

2 For clarity and expediency, we treat IPR2015-00084 as representative of
IPR2015-00084 and IPR2015-00087. All citations are to IPR2015-00084.
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

3

IPR2015-00083 (the ’172 patent); IPR2015-00085 (the ’153 patent
claims 6–11 and 14); IPR2015-00087 (the ’927 patent); IPR2015-00088 (the
’927 patent); and
Pending related U.S. Patent Application Nos. 10/682,809 (filed
October 9, 2003), 13/492,341 (filed June 8, 2012), and 14/080,590 (filed
November 14, 2013). Pet. 2–3; Paper 3, 1.
B. The ’153 Patent
The ’153 patent, titled “Automated Material Handling System for
Semiconductor Manufacturing Based on a Combination of Vertical
Carousels and Overhead Hoists,” issued August 10, 2010 from an
application filed January 12, 2007, which claims priority to provisional
applications filed on October 11, 2002 and June 19, 2002. Ex. 1002. The
Automated Material Handling System (“AMHS”) described in the ’153
patent includes an overhead hoist to load and unload work-in-process
(“WIP”) parts, such as semiconductor wafers stored in cassette pods, for
transport between various workstations during a semiconductor
manufacturing process. Id. at 1:57–66. The ’153 patent states that “[b]y
configuring the AMHS to allow the overhead hoist to directly load and
unload WIP parts to/from the carousel storage bins from a position above the
respective storage bin, more efficient AMHS operation can be achieved.”
Id. at 3:19–22.
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

4

Figures 5a and 5b of the ’153 patent are reproduced below.

Figures 5a and 5b, above, depict a translating hoist vehicle subsystem.
Id. at 7:13. In Figures 5a and 5b, overhead transport vehicle 705 includes “a
hoist gripper 731 mounted to a translating stage and configured to extend
from the vehicle 705, pick up the FOUP [front opening unified pod] 710,
and retract back to the vehicle 705,” which moves FOUP 710 within the
overhead transport vehicle (see FIG. 5b). Id. at 7:27–32. In a preferred
embodiment, the translating stage is configured to allow hoist gripper 731 to
extend and grip a pod on either side of overhead transport vehicle 705. Id. at
7:32–35. Overhead transport vehicle 705 transports the pod to a
workstation, for example, on a semiconductor manufacturing floor. Id. at
7:35–38.
Claim 6 of the ’153 patent is illustrative and reproduced below.
6. An automated material handling system, comprising:
an overhead transport subsystem including an overhead
transport vehicle, a suspended track, an overhead hoist, a
translating stage and a gripper, the suspended track forming at
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

5

least one predetermined route and the overhead transport
vehicle being configured to carry the overhead hoist, translating
stage and gripper along the at least one predetermined route;

at least one storage bin located adjacent the suspended track,
the at least one storage bin being configured to hold at least one
unit of material; and

the translating stage being configured to laterally translate the
gripper from a first position proximate to the overhead
transport vehicle to a second position proximate to the at least
one storage bin and the gripper being configured to directly
access the at least one material unit from the at least one storage
bin;

wherein the overhead transport vehicle transports the at least
one material unit between various manufacturing equipment
locations within a production manufacturing facility along the
at least one predetermined route.

Id. at 9:23–43 (emphases added).
C. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner asserts that claims 6, 7, 9–11, and 14 of the ’153 patent are
unpatentable as obvious over JPAP 2163 and JPAP 237.4 Pet. 3. Petitioner
asserts that claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over JPAP 216, JPAP 237,
and Slutsky.5 Id. at 3–4. Petitioner further asserts that claims 12 and 13 are

3 Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2001-31216, published
February 6, 2001. Ex. 1007 (“JPAP 216”).   
4 Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2000-53237, published
February 22, 2000. Ex. 1012 (“JPAP 237”).
5 U.S. Patent No. 3,770,137 issued Nov. 6, 1973 to Slutsky et al. Ex. 1010
(“Slutsky”).
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

6

unpatentable as obvious over JPAP 216, JPAP 237, and JPAP 050.6 Id. at 4.
Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Robert H. Sturges (Ex. 1028) in
support of its arguments. We address Petitioner’s arguments below.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patent specification.
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271,
1279–81 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 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). “The specification ‘is the single best
guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Any special definition for a
claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity,
deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
1. Claim 6: “the translating stage being configured to laterally
translate the gripper from a first position proximate to the
overhead transport vehicle to a second position proximate to the at
least one storage bin”
Petitioner argues for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the ’153
patent claim language, but does not otherwise propose any particular
construction for any claim limitations. Pet. 16–17. Patent Owner construes

6 Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 1987-297050. Ex. 1008
(“JPAP 050”).
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

7

“translating” as “moving without rotation or angular displacement,” in
reliance on a dictionary definition provided as Exhibit 1014. Prelim. Resp.
9–10. Patent Owner’s proposed definition, however, does not construe
“translating” in the context of the claim language of independent claims 6
and 10 in light of the written description of the ’153 patent.
The claimed “translating stage” is recited as part of an “overhead
transport subsystem including an overhead transport vehicle, a suspended
track, an overhead hoist, a translating stage and a gripper.” Ex. 1002, 9:24–
26. The overhead transport vehicle travels along a “predetermined route”
defined by the suspended track that passes adjacent to “at least one storage
bin.” Id. at 9:26–33. The translating stage is defined functionally in terms
of how it controls the movement of the gripper when adjacent to the storage
bin. The translating stage must be “configured to laterally translate the
gripper” such that the gripper moves from a position “proximate to the
overhead transport vehicle” to a position “proximate to” the storage bin in
order to “directly access” “at least one material unit” (e.g., a semiconductor
cassette pod) from the storage bin. Id. at 9:34–39. The overhead transport
vehicle transports the material unit accessed by the gripper along the
predetermined route to “various manufacturing equipment locations within a
production manufacturing facility.” Id. at 9:40–43.
The claim language requires the translating stage to be configured to
move the gripper laterally (horizontally) after the overhead transport vehicle
has positioned the translating stage and gripper “adjacent to” the storage bin.
The gripper moves laterally such that it can “directly access” the material
unit in the adjacent storage bin. The claimed system, taken as a whole, is
not defined in such a way as to prevent the gripper from having rotational or
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

8

angular movement, as argued by Patent Owner, as long as the gripper moves
laterally to grip the stored material unit.
The ’153 patent describes “lateral translation” of the gripper in
Figures 5a and 5b, such that the gripper is “configured to extend from . . .
and retract back to the [overhead transport] vehicle” in order to move the
semiconductor cassette pod out of the adjacent storage bin and into the
overhead transport vehicle for transport to the desired location on the
semiconductor manufacturing floor. Id. at 7:27–38. Figure 6 illustrates a
translating stage and gripper capable of both “horizontal and vertical
motion,” but the description and illustration of “lateral” translation of the
gripper—“retracted [horizontally] via the translating stage 833” —is very
similar to that of Figures 5a and 5b. Id. at 7:57–8:5. We note further that
the ’153 patent does not describe any particular structure for the translating
stage, apart from rectangular arm 833 shown in Figure 6 as extending
laterally from overhead transport vehicle 805. Id.
We perceive nothing in the description of the claimed invention that
would limit lateral movement of the gripper to movement “without rotation
or angular displacement,” and Patent Owner has pointed us to none. The
’153 patent describes and illustrates “lateral translation” of the gripper as a
sideways or horizontal extension and retraction movement that permits
direct access of the stored material unit. Nothing further is required by the
claim language in view of the description in the ’153 patent.
For the reasons given above, we construe the claim phrase “the
translating stage being configured to laterally translate the gripper from a
first position proximate to the overhead transport vehicle to a second
position proximate to the at least one storage bin” as “a mechanism
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

9

configured to extend and retract the gripper in a sideways or horizontal
motion from a first position proximate to the overhead transport vehicle to a
second position proximate to the at least one storage bin.”
2. Claim 10: “the translating stage is configured to move the gripper
portion laterally from a first position proximate to the overhead
hoist transport vehicle past the outer peripheral border of the one
of the plurality of storage bins to a second position proximate to
the one of the plurality of storage bins”
Claim 10 recites that the “translating stage is configured to move the
gripper portion laterally,” using language similar to that used in claim 6.
Although claim 10 requires the gripper to move past the outer peripheral
border of the storage bin, from our review of the’153 patent we do not
discern any functional difference between the “translating stage” limitations
of claims 6 and 10. Therefore, for the reasons given in section II.A.1.,
above, we construe the claim phrase:
the translating stage is configured to move the gripper portion
laterally from a first position proximate to the overhead hoist
transport vehicle past the outer peripheral border of the one of
the plurality of storage bins to a second position proximate to
the one of the plurality of storage bins
as
a mechanism configured to extend and retract the gripper in a
sideways or horizontal motion from a first position proximate to
the overhead hoist transport vehicle past the outer peripheral
border of the one of the plurality of storage bins to a second
position proximate to the one of the plurality of storage bins.

IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

10

B. Obviousness of Claims 6, 7, 9–11, and 14 over JPAP 216
and JPAP 237
Petitioner asserts that claims 6, 7, 9–11, and 14 would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art over JPAP 216 in combination
with JPAP 237.7 Pet. 17–25. Petitioner provides certified English language
translations of JPAP 216 and JPAP 237 as Exhibits 1007 and 1012,
respectively. Patent Owner opposes. Prelim. Resp. 10–34. We address the
parties’ arguments below.
1. JPAP 216
JPAP 216 Figure 1, below, shows vertical carousel stocker 2 for
storing cassette pods 40 in semiconductor manufacturing facility 4. Pet. 18
(citing Ex. 1007 claim 3, ¶¶ 8, 12); Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 10, 13, Fig. 1.

JPAP 216 Fig. 1 semiconductor manufacturing facility

7 JPAP 216 and JPAP237 were cited during examination of the applications
leading to issuance of the ’153 patent. Ex. 1002, 2.
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

11

In JPAP 216 Figure 1, above, storage shelves 20 are attached to main
chain 14, which is looped around sprockets 10, 12 to raise and lower the
storage shelves inside the stocker in the vertical direction. Id. at 19 (citing
Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 8, 12; Ex. 1028 ¶ 50); see also Ex. 1007 ¶ 10 (“main chain 14 is
circulated endlessly in the vertical plan”). Ceiling vehicle 36 contains
transfer apparatus 38 that carries article 40 “in and out directly at the
required shelf” 20 through transfer port 28 (opening in wall of stocker 2).
Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 7); Ex. 1028 ¶ 51. JPAP 216 does not disclose the
mechanism of transfer apparatus 38, and Petitioner does not discuss any
specific differences between the ’153 patent claims and JPAP 216. Id. at 20
(“there is little difference between the ’216 publication and the claimed
subject matter.”).
Petitioner’s claim chart for claim 6, however, does not identify “an
overhead hoist,” “translating stage,” or a “gripper” in JPAP 216; those
limitations are identified as disclosed in JPAP 237. Id. at 26. We infer,
therefore, that the “overhead hoist,” “translating stage,” and “gripper”
limitations of the ’153 patent are not disclosed in JPAP 216. Petitioner
further asserts the functional recitations of the translating stage and gripper
are disclosed in the “combined system” of JPAP 216 and JPAP 237. Id. at
28.
2. JPAP 237
JPAP 237 Fig. 1, below, discloses conveyance truck 21 for handling
semiconductor cassette pods 49. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 2).
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

12

JPAP 237 Fig. 1 semiconductor cassette conveyance truck
In JPAP 237 Figure 1, above, semiconductor cassette conveyance
truck 21 loads and unloads cassette pods 49 to and from storage stockers 15
and manufacturing process stations 16 (shown in Figure 3). Pet. 20 (citing
Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 2, 12, Fig. 3). The conveyance truck, which moves along a
predetermined path on top of track 13, has extendable arm 42 that “advances
and retreats freely in the horizontal direction” (double-dot lines) to move
attached hoist 43 (winch 46, wire 45, and chuck 47) laterally to enable
hoisting of the semiconductor cassette pods for loading and unloading the
storage stockers. Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 22, Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 1028 ¶¶
55, 56); Ex. 1012, Abstract, ¶¶ 2, 18, 19.
3. Analysis
Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that transfer apparatus 38 in JPAP 216 “must have the capability
to move horizontally (laterally) and vertically to effect transfer of articles 40
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

13

to and from port 28 and station 56.” Pet. 22 ((emphasis added) citing Ex.
1028 ¶ 58). Petitioner argues it would have been obvious for a person of
ordinary skill to modify the transfer apparatus of JPAP 216 to provide it
“with the laterally translating stage 42 and hoist 43 for transferring a cassette
pod 49 to and from the rail-mounted vehicle 21” as disclosed in JPAP 237,
one of a “finite number of possibilities” “yielding no more than one would
expect from such an arrangement.” Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 59–62).
Patent Owner responds that JPAP 216 does not disclose an overhead
vehicle that can move articles vertically to a processing station as stated by
Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 18–19. We agree with Patent Owner. In JPAP
216 Figure 1, vertical movement of the storage shelves is performed by the
vertical carousel stocker. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1007, Fig. 3); Ex. 1007, ¶
10, Fig. 1. Vertical movement of the ceiling vehicle is not necessary, or in
any way indicated, to move the pods vertically from port 28 to work station
56 as argued by Petitioner. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1007, Fig. 3); Ex. 1007
¶¶ 13, 15, 17–19. Petitioner’s reliance on paragraph 58 of Dr. Sturges’s
Declaration (Pet. 22) is not persuasive, because it makes the conclusory
statement that a person skilled in the art would have recognized that transfer
device 38 “must have the capability to move . . . vertically to effect transfer
of the article 40 to both port 28 and station 56,” without explaining why.
Ex. 1028 ¶ 58. The quoted statement, moreover, appears to be at odds with
the drawings and description of JPAP 216, as explained by Patent Owner.
Prelim. Resp. 19–20. In the absence of any engineering and design analysis
of the AMHS disclosed in JPAP 216 to support the quoted statement, we
give it no weight.
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

14

Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s posited “design problem” –
how to move semiconductor cassette pods “back and forth between a rail-
mounted hoist vehicle and a stocker and a processing machine” utilizing
horizontal and vertical motion of a hoist vehicle (Pet. 24–25) – is illusory,
because JPAP 216 “does not use a rail-mounted hoist vehicle at all.” Prelim.
Resp. 20–21. As further noted by Patent Owner, JPAP 216 discloses using
automated ground vehicles and the stocker itself to move semiconductor
cassette pods to the work stations, not the overhead ceiling vehicle. Id. at 21
(citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 12, 13, Fig. 3). We agree that Petitioner does not address
the absence of an overhead hoist in JPAP 216 or explain why it would have
been obvious to modify the ceiling vehicle in JPAP 216 to include the hoist
mounted to a conveyance truck disclosed in JPAP 237. Petitioner also has
not provided persuasive evidence of a particular design problem or
inadequacy with the use of a vertical carousel stocker and ground transport
vehicles to move semiconductor cassette pods to processing stations in a
wafer fabrication facility, as described in JPAP 216. Therefore, we do not
credit the “design problem” premise for Petitioner’s “finite possibilities” test
as articulated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)
(hereafter, “KSR”).
The Supreme Court has made clear that we apply “an expansive and
flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at
415. Whether a patent claiming the combination of prior art elements would
have been obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than
the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions. Id. at 417. To reach this conclusion, however, requires more than
a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

15

separate limitation in a claim under examination. Unigene Labs., Inc. v.
Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness
requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of
the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in
the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed
invention. Id.
We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not provided
persuasive evidence of a reason why a person skilled in the art of AMHS
would have been motivated to combine JPAP 216 and JPAP 237 in the
manner asserted by Petitioner, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Prelim. Resp. 21–26. Petitioner generally describes how the two references
could be combined to meet the claim limitations, but Petitioner does not
explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined JPAP
216 and JPAP 237 “‘in the way the claimed invention does.’” Id. at 22
(citing ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694
F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). In particular, we are not persuaded that
Petitioner has explained why a person of skill in the art would want to add
an overhead hoist to the AMHS of JPAP 216. The AMHS of JPAP 216
utilizes the vertical motion of the storage carousel to move the pods, and
there is no indication in JPAP 216, JPAP 237, or Petitioner’s analysis of
why an overhead hoist would be necessary or beneficial to the functioning of
an AMHS of the type disclosed in JPAP 216. Id. at 27–28. Although
Petitioner consistently paraphrases the tests for obviousness set forth by the
Supreme Court in KSR, we agree with Patent Owner that such paraphrasing
cannot substitute for factual analysis and application of the particular facts
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

16

and evidence of this case according to the analytical framework set out in
KSR. Id. at 22.
For example, Petitioner argues that modifying the system disclosed in
JPAP 216 to use the extendable arm and hoist disclosed in JPAP 237 “would
have been merely an arrangement of old elements with each performing the
same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one
would expect from such an arrangement, and this conclusion is supported by
logic, judgment, and common sense.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶ 61).
Although the quoted statement is consistent with KSR, neither Petitioner nor
Dr. Sturges provides the important analysis of explaining why, based on the
particular facts and evidence of the present case, one of ordinary skill would
have made the suggested modification or why the logic, judgment, and
common sense of such a person would have led to the asserted combination
with a reasonable expectation of success. A review of the cited testimony
from paragraphs 60 and 61 of Dr. Sturges’s Declaration reveals similarly
conclusory testimony, unsupported by a specific engineering and technical
analysis of how the asserted combination would have worked and why it
would have been an obvious combination to one of skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (Quoted with approval in
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Perhaps the most relevant evidence relied upon by Petitioner is found
in one sentence from paragraph 62 of Dr. Sturges’s Declaration. “[T]he
motivation to modify is self-evident from the problem that needed to be
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

17

resolved – moving article 40 from port 28 to station 56.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex.
1028 ¶ 62). Dr. Sturges, however, does not explain why such a problem
existed – JPAP 216 does not indicate such a problem – or precisely how and
why it would have been resolved by a person of skill in the art in the manner
claimed in the ’153 patent. The quoted sentence, by itself, is far from
sufficient to satisfy Petitioner’s burden of persuasion on the question of
obviousness. We find that “[t]he expert failed to explain how specific
references could be combined, which combination(s) of elements in specific
references would yield a predictable result, or how any specific combination
would operate or read on the asserted claims.” ActiveVideo Networks, 694
F.3d at 1327.
For the reasons given above, we are not persuaded by a preponderance
of the evidence that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing in its challenge that claims 6, 7, 9–11, and 14 of the ’153 patent
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention over JPAP 216 and JPAP 237.
C. Other grounds
Petitioner’s remaining grounds challenge claims 8, 12, and 13 of the
’153 patent based on the combination of JPAP 216, JPAP 237, and either
Slutsky or JPAP 050. Pet. 3–4. For the reasons given in section II.B.3.,
above, we have determined that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden of
establishing that independent claims 6 and 10 would have been unpatentable
for obviousness over JPAP 216 and JPAP 237. Claim 8 depends from claim
6 and claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 10. Slutsky and JPAP 050 do not
cure the deficiencies of the combination of JPAP 216 and JPAP 237,
articulated above, with respect to claims 6 and 10. Therefore, we determine
IPR2015-00084 (Patent 7,771,153 B2)
IPR2015-00087 (Patent 7,165, 927 B2)

18

Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence that claims 8, 12, and 13
would have been unpatentable for obviousness to a person of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention over JPAP 216, JPAP 237, and either
Slutsky or JPAP 050.
III. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in this
Petition, based on the grounds asserted and information presented therein.
IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the Petition is denied.

FOR PETITIONER:
Mark J. Thronson
Dipu A. Doshi
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
thronsonm@dicksteinshapiro.com
daifuku.IPR@dicksteinshapiro.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:
David McCombs
Thomas King
Greg Michelson
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
ipr.thomas.king@haynesboone.com
greg.michelson.ipr@haynesboone.com