Kingston Technology Company, Inc.v.CATR Co., Ltd.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2016

10346105 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 60
571.272.7822 Entered: May 10, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________
KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
CATR CO. LTD.,
Patent Owner.
_____________

Case IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2
_____________

Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Kingston Technology Company, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
(Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1–7,
9, 10, 13–15, 17, 19, and 21–24 of U.S. Patent No. 6,926,544 B2 (Ex. 1001,
“the ’544 patent”). CATR Co. Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

2
Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 314, in our Decision to Institute, we instituted this proceeding as to
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 21–24 of the ’544 patent. Paper 7
(“Dec.”).
After the Decision to Institute, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
Response (Paper 26, “Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
Owner Response (Paper 42, “Reply”). A consolidated oral hearing was held
on December 14, 2015, in this matter and Kingston Technology Co. v. CATR
Co., IPR2015-00149. Paper 59 (“Tr.”).
Petitioner relies on the testimony of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D., (Ex. 1016,
“Wolfe Declaration”; Ex. 1058, “Wolfe Reply Declaration”; Ex. 10641) in
support of its contentions. Patent Owner relies on the testimony of Professor
Steven Carl Visser (Ex. 2013, “Visser Declaration”) and Mr. Bruce W.
Pearman (Ex. 2014, “Pearman Declaration”) in support of its contentions.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Decision is a final
written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the
challenged claims. Based on the record before us, we determine that
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 9, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 21–23 are unpatentable, but Petitioner has not
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
and 24 are unpatentable.

1 Exhibit 1064 is called a “Correction to Reply Declaration of Andrew
Wolfe (Ex. 1058),” whereby a correction is made to paragraph 15 of the
Wolfe Reply Declaration.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

3
B. Related Proceedings
The parties represent that the ’544 patent is asserted in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California in CATR Co. v.
Kingston Technology Co., No. 8-14-cv-01352. Pet. 1–2; Paper 43, 2–3.
Petitioner also challenged several claims of the ’544 patent in
IPR2015-00149 (“IPR 149”). In that proceeding, we issued a final written
decision determining that Petitioner had demonstrated, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that claims 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’544 are
unpatentable. Kingston Tech. Co. v. CATR Co., IPR2015-00149
(PTAB Apr. 14, 2016) (Paper 64) (“IPR 149 Decision”).
C. Real Parties-in-Interest
The Petition identifies Kingston Technology Company, Inc., as the
real party-in-interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner’s Updated Mandatory Notice
identifies Pavo Solutions LLC and Golden Wave Partners Co. Ltd. as the
real parties-in-interest. Paper 38, 2. Patent Owner indicates that the
’544 patent was assigned from Patent Owner to Pavo Solutions LLC and that
Golden Wave Partners Co. Ltd. is the sole member of Pavo Solutions LLC.2
Id.

2 For the purposes of this Decision, however, we refer to CATR Co., Ltd., as
Patent Owner.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

4
D. The References
The references upon which we instituted review consist of the
following:
U.S. Patent No. 6,480,390 B2, issued November 12, 2002
(“Matsumiya,” Ex. 1003);3
U.S. Patent No. 6,829,672 B1, issued December 7, 2004 (“Deng,”
Ex. 1005);
U.S. Patent No. 6,522,534 B1, issued February 18, 2003 (“Wu,”
Ex. 1006);
U.S. Patent No. D199,589, issued November 17, 1964
(“Hoogesteger,” Ex. 1008); and
U.S. Patent No. 6,019,238, issued February 1, 2000 (“Kindig,”
Ex. 1033).

3 Matsumiya published as U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2001/0017771 A1 on August 30, 2001 (Ex. 1004), and issued on
November 12, 2002. Pet. 3. Matsumiya is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(a) and (e), and the published application is prior art under §§ 102(a)
and (b). Id. The parties’ citations, however, are to Matsumiya (i.e., the
issued patent) rather than the published application.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

5
E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted this proceeding based on the following grounds of
unpatentability:
References Basis Claims Challenged
Matsumiya and Deng § 103(a) 1, 2, 7, 9, 14, 17, 19, and 21–24
Matsumiya, Deng, and
Kindig § 103(a) 4, 5, and 13
Wu and Hoogesteger § 103(a) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 21–24

F. The ’544 Patent
The ’544 patent is directed to a flash memory apparatus wherein a
cover is not completely separated from the main body when in use so that
loss of the cover is prevented. Ex. 1001, 1:8–11. The ’544 patent explains
that prior art flash memory apparatuses with a “separation type” cover can
result in a user losing the cover. Id. at 2:11–15. An object of the invention
is “to provide a flash memory apparatus having a single body type rotary
cover, wherein a cover is not completely separated from the main body
during use so that loss of the cover is prevented.” Id. at 2:24–28.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

6
Figure 2 is reproduced below:

Figure 2 of the ’544 patent shows “an exploded, perspective view of a flash
memory apparatus having a single body type, rotary cover.” Id. at 2:54–55.
To use the flash memory apparatus, a user holds cover 40 and rotates
flash memory main body 30 in the arrow direction indicated in Figure 3a
(shown below) so as to expose Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) terminal
piece 32, as shown in Figure 3b (also shown below).

Figures 3a and 3b of the ’544 patent “are perspective views showing keeping
and usage status, respectively, for a flash memory apparatus having a single
body type rotary cover.” Id. at 2:57–59.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

7
G. Illustrative Claims
Claims 1, 7, and 24 are the independent claims challenged in this
proceeding. Claims 2, 4, and 5 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1.
Claims 9, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 21–23 depend, directly or indirectly, from
claim 8. Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and are
reproduced below:
1. A flash memory apparatus comprising:
a flash memory main body including a rectangular shaped
case within which a memory element is mounted, an USB
(Universal Serial Bus) terminal piece electrically connected with
the memory element and installed at a front end of the case in a
projecting manner, and a hinge protuberance formed on at least
one side of the case; and
a cover including pair of parallel plate members facing
each other and spaced by an interval corresponding to the
thickness of the case, the cover having an open front end and a
closed rear end with a pair of lateral side openings; the parallel
plate members having at least one hinge hole receiving the hinge
protuberance on the case for pivoting the case with respect to the
flash memory main body, whereby the USB terminal piece is
received in an inner space of the cover or exposed outside the
cover.
Ex. 1001, 4:42–59.
7. A flash memory apparatus comprising:
a flash memory main body including a case within which
a memory element is mounted, an USB (Universal Serial Bus)
terminal piece electrically connected with the memory element
and installed at a front end of the case in a projecting manner,
and at least one first hinge element formed on at least one side of
the case; and
a cover including pair of parallel plate members facing
each other and spaced by an interval corresponding to the
thickness of the case, the cover having an open front end and a
closed rear end with a pair of lateral side openings; the parallel
plate members having at least one second hinge element
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

8
cooperating with the first hinge element of the case for pivoting
the case with respect to the flash memory main body, whereby
the USB terminal piece is received in an inner space of the cover
or exposed outside the cover.
Id. at 5:23–39. Independent claim 8 is directed to a flash memory apparatus,
but does not recite a hinge protuberance or hinge element. Id. at 5:40–56.
Independent claim 24 is directed to a flash memory apparatus comprising a
flash memory main body including “a hinge element formed on at least one
side of the case.” Id. at 6:48–62.
II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the “broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); accord In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.
LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly
approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the
AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation”), cert.
granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 72016 WL 205946 (U.S.
Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
Reg. 48,756, 48,764, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Claim Construction). Claim
terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

9
In the Decision to Institute, we construed the claim terms reproduced
in the table below:
Claim Term Claim Construction in the Decision to Institute
“plate” (all challenged
claims)
a thin, flat sheet or strip of metal or
other material (Dec. 7)
“thickness” (all challenged
claims)
the distance between opposite sides
of something, distinct from width
(Dec. 7)
In the Response and Reply, neither party disputes our constructions of
“plate” and “thickness.” We, therefore, use these constructions of “plate”
and “thickness” for the reasons stated in our Decision to Institute.
Patent Owner proposes constructions for additional claim terms in the
Response. Petitioner responds to Patent Owner’s constructions in its Reply.
In addition, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner has waived the opportunity
to propose constructions for additional terms by not setting forth such
constructions prior to institution. Reply 3 (citing Silicon Motion Tech. Corp.
v. Phison Elecs. Corp., IPR2013-00473, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2014)
(Paper 14)). We do not agree. Under our rules, a patent owner’s
preliminary response is optional (see 35 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)), and, therefore,
there is no waiver if a patent owner proposes constructions for terms in its
response. Nor is there wavier when, as here, a patent owner chooses to file a
preliminary response and yet proposes that additional terms be construed in
a patent owner response.4 Accordingly, we address Patent Owner’s newly
proposed constructions below.

4 Petitioner’s citation to Silicon Motion Technology is inapposite as the
remarks therein were directed to a petitioner who had proposed additional
terms for construction in a request for rehearing of an institution decision.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

10
A. “a pair of parallel plate members”
Each of the challenged claims recites the phrase “a pair of parallel
plate members.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:50 (claim 1); id. at 5:30 (claim 7);
id. at 6:54 (claim 24). In our Final Written Decision in IPR 149, we
construed “a pair of parallel plate members” to mean “a pair of thin, flat
sheets or strips of metal or other material in a parallel configuration.” IPR
149 Decision 10. The parties raise the same arguments and provide the
same evidence here, with respect to the construction of this phrase, as they
did in IPR 149. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our Final Written
Decision in IPR 149, we adopt the same construction here. Id. at 8–10.
B. “open front end” / “closed rear end”
Each of the challenged claims recites “the cover having an open front
end,” and each of the challenged claims, with the exception of claim 24,
recites “a closed rear end.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:52–53 (claim 1); id. at
5:32–33 (claim 7); id. at 6:56–57 (claim 24). In our Final Written Decision
in IPR 149, we construed “open front end” to mean “that the plates are not
fixed together at that end,” and we construed “closed rear end” to mean “that
the plates are fixed together at that end.” IPR 149 Decision 12.
Additionally, we stated:
[T]he claim language and specification use the terms to describe
the structure of the cover and that description does not change
after the flash memory main body is inserted. In other words,
insertion of the flash memory main body in the open front end
such that hinge protuberances 33 extend through hinge holes 41,
thereby joining the plates (via the flash memory main body) at
their open front end, does not result in the cover no longer having
an open front end.
Id. The parties raise the same arguments and provide the same evidence
here, with respect to the construction of these phrases, as they did in IPR
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

11
149. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our Final Written Decision in
IPR 149, we adopt the same constructions here. Id. at 10–12.
C. “hinge protuberance”
Claim 1 and claims 2, 4, and 5, which depend therefrom, recite “a
hinge protuberance formed on at least one side of the case.” Ex. 1001,
4:47–48 (claim 1) (emphasis added). Claims 13 and 14, based on their
dependency from claim 11, include the recitation “wherein the cover and
case are hinged by a hinge protuberance on at least one side of the case and
at least one hinge hole in one of the parallel plate members that receives the
hinge protuberance.” Ex. 1001, 6:5–8 (claim 11) (emphasis added). In our
Final Written Decision in IPR 149, we construed “hinge protuberance” to
mean a “hinging structure that bulges out, protrudes, or projects, beyond the
surrounding surface.” IPR 149 Decision 15. The parties raise the same
arguments and provide the same evidence here, as they did in IPR 149, with
respect to the construction of this term. Accordingly, for the reasons set
forth in our Final Written Decision in IPR 149, we adopt the same
construction here. Id. at 11–15.
D. “hinge element”
Claim 7 recites “at least one first hinge element formed on at least one
side of the case” (Ex. 1001, 5:28–29), and claim 24 recites “a hinge element
formed on at least one side of the case” (id. at 6:52–53). Patent Owner
contends that “[t]he phrase ‘hinge element formed on at least one side of the
case’ should be interpreted to be a protuberance, and the other, cooperating
hinge element should be interpreted to be a hole rotatably mating with the
protuberance.” Resp. 19. First, Patent Owner asserts that the ’544 patent
specification provides only one example of a “hinge element formed on at
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

12
least one side of the case,” namely, that of a protuberance. Id. at 19–20.
Second, Patent Owner contends that the hinge element and protuberance are
equated in the prosecution history. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1002, 107). Third,
Patent Owner asserts that “the term ‘formed on’ also connotes that the ‘first
hinge element’ is of the protuberance type.” Id. at 20–21. Further, in light
of the specification’s description of a hinge protuberance, Patent Owner
argues that “none of . . . claims [1, 7, and 24] can be interpreted to include
an axle as the ‘protuberance.’” Id. at 21.
Petitioner contends (1) “protuberance” is not the broadest reasonable
interpretation of a “hinge element,” (2) Patent Owner fails to establish any
disclaimer of claim scope that would warrant limiting “hinge element” to
“protuberance,” and (3) the term “defines,” in the prosecution history, was
used to indicate “a mapping for one of the embodiments – not
unambiguously limiting the claim to only one embodiment.” Reply 7.
Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s construction is “little more than an
improper attempt to add the ‘axle-less’ negative limitation to the claims.”
Id.
We do not agree that the meaning of “hinge element” is limited to a
“protuberance.” First, the claim language “hinge element” is broader than
“hinge protuberance” because the term “element” is broader than the term
“protuberance.” Also, other claims, e.g., claim 11, and the specification use
the phrase “hinge protuberance.” Accordingly, to give meaning to each term
chosen by the patentee, absent a disclaimer or disavowal, “hinge element”
ordinarily should be construed broader than “hinge protuberance.”
Second, the phrase “hinge element” is not recited in the written
description portion of the specification; it is only recited expressly in
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

13
claims 7 and 24. Instead, the specification refers to a “hinge protuberance”
and a “hinge hole.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:23 (“hinge protuberance”), 3:34–
35 (“hinge hole”). Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, however, the
specification uses the term “formed on at least one side of the case” to refer
both to a hinge protuberance and a hinge hole, not solely to a protuberance.
See id. at 4:26–28 (“Also, the hinge protuberance could be formed on the
cover and the hinge hole could be formed on the flash memory main body.”
(emphasis added)).
Third, when claim 7 was added via amendment during the prosecution
of the ’544 patent application, the applicants stated the following in their
“REMARKS”: “New independent claim 7 defines each of the projections 33
as a first hinge element and each of the holes 41 as a second hinge element,
the first and second hinge elements cooperating for pivoting the case 30
within the cover 40.” Ex. 1002, 107 (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s
interpretation would read the first part of the sentence as though it were
written as: a first hinge element is defined as a projection and a second hinge
element is defined as a hole. The sentence, however, states that the claim
defines a projection as a first hinge element, not the other way around. The
most reasonable interpretation is not that the patentee was attempting to
define the terms “first hinge element” and “second hinge element,” nor is the
most reasonable interpretation that the applicants’ remarks were a clear and
unmistakable disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope. See, e.g., In re Bigio,
381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing disclaimers).
Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “hinge element”
encompasses at least a hinge protuberance and a hinge hole.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

14
E. “on at least one side of the case”
Claims 13 and 14 depend from claim 11. Ex. 1001, 6:12, 18. In the
Final Written Decision in IPR 149, we discussed the meaning of the phrase
“on at least one side of the case,” as recited in claim 11. IPR 149
Decision 15–21. In that case, we found that
the specification and claims of the ’544 patent use the phrase
“hinge protuberance formed on at least one side of the case” to
indicate integration or attachment of the protrusion, while they
use the phrase “hinge protuberance on at least one side of the
case” to indicate the relative position of the protrusion.
Id. at 21. The parties raise the same arguments and provide the same
evidence here, as they did in IPR 149, with respect to the construction of the
phrase “on at least one side of the case.” We adopt the same construction
and analysis from our Final Written Decision in IPR 149 for the reasons
explained therein. We address the separate phrase, “formed on at least one
side of the case,” below.
F. “formed on at least one side of the case”
Claims 1, 7, and 24 recite a hinge protuberance or hinge element
“formed on at least one side of the case.” Ex. 1001, 4:47–48 (claim 1),
5:28–29 (claim 7), 6:52–53 (claim 24). Petitioner asserts that “formed on”
has the same definition in the claims, simply another way of
saying “on.” However, it is undeniably slightly by lexicography
narrower than “on,” but as a practical matter it simply means that
the protuberance is, again, formed on that side, without a
requirement that it be integrally formed on that side.
Tr. 36:4–9. Patent Owner did not provide a construction for “formed on”
that was different from “on,” but counsel stated, at the oral hearing, that
Patent Owner does not “object to having those claims limited to
embodiments where it is integrally formed on.” Id. at 63:16–21.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

15
The phrase “formed on” is narrower than the term “on.” First, as
discussed above, claim 11 recites “a hinge protuberance on at least one side
of the case,” which suggests that when the patentee used the phrase “formed
on” something different was intended beyond the meaning of simply “on.”
Second, the specification indicates that the hinge protuberance “may
be form[ed] integrally with the case” or “may be manufactured in form of a
separate element so that the hinge protuberance 33 is assembled by means of
an adhesive agent.” Ex. 1001, 3:23–27. The specification recites the phrase
“formed on” in several instances.5 In describing the hinge protuberance as
“form[ed] integrally with the case” or manufactured separately and
assembled by means of an adhesive agent, the specification explains that
“[t]he present embodiment shows the latter case.” Id. at 3:26–27. In other
words, the specification explains that the embodiment illustrated in the
figures shows a hinge protuberance manufactured separately and assembled
by means of an adhesive agent, but then refers to that same embodiment in

5 See, e.g., id. at 3:34–36 (“Adjacent to its open end the cover has a circular
hinge hole 41 for receiving the hinge protuberance 33 formed on the flash
memory main body 30.” (emphasis added)); 4:26–32 (“Also, the hinge
protuberance could be formed on the cover and the hinge hole could be
formed on the flash memory main body. Furthermore, the hinge
protuberance could be formed on only one side between the front and rear
sides of the case, and also, only one hinge hole for receiving the hinge
protuberance could be provided to the cover.” (emphases added)).
The specification also uses the phrase “formed on” to describe joining
protuberance 35 as well as hooking groove 34 and hooking threshold 45.
See Ex. 1001, 3:27–30 (“Also, a closely joining protuberance 35 for fixing
the cover 40 in a forcibly fitting manner upon storage as described in the
following description is formed on one lateral side of the case 31.”); 3:36–39
(“Furthermore, a hooking groove 34 is preferably formed on the lower
periphery of the hinge protuberance 33. A hooking threshold 45 is hooked
on the hooking groove 34 and is preferably formed on a rim . . . .”).
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

16
the subsequent paragraph as having “hinge protuberance 33 formed on the
flash memory main body 30.” Id. at 3:35–36 (emphasis added). Thus, the
specification at least identifies a hinge protuberance manufactured separately
and assembled by means of an adhesive agent as one that is “formed on.”
Additionally, the specification supports a conclusion that the integrally
formed embodiment also is encompassed within the meaning of a hinge
protuberance “formed on” at least one side of the case.
In sum, the specification and claims of the ’544 patent use the phrase
hinge protrusion or hinge element “formed on at least one side of the case”
to indicate both integration and attachment of the protrusion or element.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness Overview
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), an invention is not patentable 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. See 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, including commercial success, long-felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected results. See Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17−18 (1966).
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

17
1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
In our Final Written Decision in IPR 149, we found “that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a degree in mechanical engineering
or industrial design, but also a general understanding of the use of electrical
components, which may be incorporated in mechanical designs.”
IPR 149 Decision 23. The parties present the same arguments here, with
respect to their views of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as they did in
IPR 149. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in our Final Written
Decision in IPR 149 we adopt the same level of skill here. Id. at 22–23.
2. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness
During the oral hearing, Patent Owner conceded that it had not proved
objective indicia. Tr. 75:1–16 (“So we are conceding that we haven’t
proven our case on objective indicia. . . . So it is -- it is not relevant to
moving forward.”).
Accordingly, there is no argument regarding secondary indicia of
nonobviousness before us.
B. Obviousness over Matsumiya and Deng
Petitioner asserts that the combination of Matsumiya and Deng would
have rendered obvious the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 14, 17, 19, and
21–24 of the ’544 patent to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. Pet. 3.
1. Matsumiya
Matsumiya discloses a “card-type peripheral device with a connector
element, the device comprising the function of shielding the contacts to
prevent the accumulation of dust and dirt on the contacts when the device is
not in use.” Ex. 1003, 1:42–46. Figures 15a and 15b are shown below:
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

18

Figures 15a and 15b of Matsumiya “are perspective views schematically
showing a card-type peripheral device . . . in which FIG. 15a shows the
device in open state and FIG. 15b shows the device in closed state.” Id. at
4:4–8.
2. Deng
Deng discloses “an electronic flash memory external storage
method[,]” including a flash memory device. Ex. 1005, 2:10–15. In
particular, Deng teaches that the external storage device is implemented with
a USB interface. Id. at 7:16–18. Figures 2 and 3 of Deng are shown below:

Deng’s Figure 2 shows “a hardware section diagram of the electronic flash
memory external storage device,” and Deng’s Figure 3 shows “the hardware
block diagram of the electronic flash memory external storage device
implemented with USB interface.” Id. at 3:47–51.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

19
3. Discussion
Petitioner contends that Matsumiya teaches a generic flash memory
device, but not a USB device, while Deng discloses a USB flash memory
storage device. Pet. 10. Petitioner asserts that Matsumiya discloses the
structural features of the claims, but differs in dimensions and the type of
electronic device included in the case. Id. at 9–10. Petitioner provides the
following illustration identifying where several of the structural elements of
the claims are taught by Matsumiya.

Petitioner’s illustration shows a comparison between Figure 3b of the
’544 patent and Figure 15a of Matsumiya, in which Petitioner identifies a
“U shape,” “open sides,” “hinge,” “flash memory case,” and “connector.”
Id. at 9. Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have
been motivated to use the swivel cover design of Matsumiya as shown in
Figs 15a/b with Deng to protect the USB contacts of Deng.” Id. at 12 (citing
Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 71–75); id. at 11 (“One of ordinary skill upon reviewing
Matsumiya would have understood the problem that dirt and dust
accumulation (as well as damage) can cause deterioration of the electrical
contacts on a memory device and would have understood the need and
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

20
advantages of covering electrical contacts to avoid deterioration of those
contacts.” (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 71–74)).
a. Claims 1, 2, 7, and 24
Independent claim 1 is directed to a flash memory apparatus
comprising “a hinge protuberance formed on at least one side of the case.”
Ex. 1001, 4:47–48. Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Independent claim 7 is
directed to a flash memory apparatus comprising “at least one first hinge
element formed on at least one side of the case.” Id. at 5:28–29.
Independent claim 24 is directed to a flash memory apparatus comprising “a
hinge element formed on at least one side of the case.” Id. at 6:52–53.
Petitioner contends that Matsumiya discloses each of the
above-recited elements of the claims. Pet. 16 (addressing this element of
claim 1 and referring to it as claim element “1[E]”), 26 (addressing this
element of claim 7 by referring to claim element 1[E]6), 35 (addressing this
element of claim 24 by referring to claim element 1[E]). In particular,
Petitioner points to Matsumiya’s disclosure that the cover is mounted on the
housing “swingably about the forward end portions of the two arms 92.”
Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1003, 12:44–46, Figs. 15a, 15b). Petitioner contends
that Matsumiya “discloses a hinge element located on the outer part of
arm 92” as shown in Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 15a below:

6 Petitioner interchangeably refers to the element as “claim 1[E]” and
“claim 1 (e).” Compare Pet. 16 with id. at 26. For consistency, we refer to
it as claim element “1[E].”
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

21

Petitioner’s annotated version of Matsumiya’s Figure 15a is shown above,
including an expanded view of the connection between one of Matsumiya’s
arms and the case, labeled as “Hinge element.” Id. Petitioner further
asserts:
The ordinary artisan would have known from reviewing
Figs. 15a and 15b and the ’544 patent text describing the
swinging movement of the cover “swingably mounted” to the
case that Fig. 15a depicts a shaft that protrudes from each side of
the case and extend[s] through holes in the arms 92 of the cover
(as shown above).
Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 12:61–13:21; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 96–97).
Patent Owner asserts that “[t]here is nothing in Matsumiya that
teaches or suggests a ‘hinge protuberance.’” Resp. 35 (citing Ex. 2013
¶ 78). Rather, Patent Owner contends that “Matsumiya merely discloses a
post or screw in a retainer that acts as an axle extending either partially or
entirely through the housing 86 depending on whether the post or screw is
configured as an axle or a split axle.” Id. (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 78–82).
In its Reply, Petitioner argues that “there is no evidence that
Matsumiya requires an axle. The Matsumiya cover could also use a snap
hinge.” Reply 13 (citation omitted). Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s
expert, Professor Visser, conceded that a snap hinge is a hinge protuberance.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

22
Id. (citing Ex. 1050, 127:9–11). Petitioner contends that even if an axle
were used with Matsumiya, an axle would satisfy the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “protuberance” because “[i]t would . . . protrude out of the
case.” Id. (citing Ex. 1058 ¶¶ 9–10).
Petitioner’s arguments fail to account sufficiently for the presence of
the claim phrase “formed on at least one side of the case.” First, Petitioner’s
argument that Matsumiya discloses this element of the claims is based on its
proposed construction of “formed on” as meaning “located on,” in the
general sense. See Pet. 16 (stating that “Matsumiya discloses a hinge
element located on the outer part of arm 92” (emphasis added)).
Additionally, although Petitioner states that Matsumiya’s Figure 15a shows
a “shaft that protrudes from each side of the case,” id., Petitioner makes no
attempt to show that an alleged hinge element or hinge protuberance is
integrated with or attached to at least one side of the case.
Second, Dr. Wolfe testified that Matsumiya discloses “a shaft” that
protrudes from each side of the case. Ex. 1016 ¶ 97. On cross-examination,
however, Dr. Wolfe admitted that while Matsumiya could disclose a “split
axle,” “normally, you’d presume that it’s a through axle.” Ex. 2012, 85:9–
18. Dr. Wolfe did not explain in his direct testimony how either an axle or
split axle would be integrated with or attached to at least one side of the
case.
Third, Petitioner relied on the express disclosure of Matsumiya, not a
modification of Matsumiya, as teaching this element of the claims.
See Pet. 16 (relying only on Matsumiya’s disclosure). In its Reply,
Petitioner asserts, for the first time, that Matsumiya “could also use a snap
hinge,” pointing to Professor Visser’s cross-examination testimony.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

23
Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1050, 127:9–11). Professor Visser’s testimony,
however, does not support Petitioner’s argument. Professor Visser testified
that Matsumiya does not show a snap-on hinge, and that a snap-on hinge
would not have the same functionality as an axle. Ex. 1050, 127:18–21. He
also testified that the two concentric rings on the arms of Matsumiya are
inconsistent with a snap-on hinge. Id. at 128:17–20. Thus, the issue before
us is not whether it would have been obvious to modify Matsumiya to
include a snap-on hinge or hinge protuberance on the side of the case
because that was not the basis set forth in the Petition and upon which we
instituted review; rather, the issue is whether Petitioner has shown that
Matsumiya discloses a hinge element or hinge protuberance integrated with
or attached to at least one side of the case.
In light of the record before us, and as detailed in the discussion
above, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown that Matsumiya discloses a
hinge element or a hinge protuberance “formed on at least one side of the
case.” We find that Petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to
show that Matsumiya discloses this element of the claims, and we find
Patent Owner’s evidence in the form of Dr. Wolfe’s cross-examination
testimony and Professor Visser’s testimony more persuasive.
b. Claims 9, 17, 19, and 21–23
Claims 9, 17, 19, and 21–23 depend, directly or indirectly, from
claim 8. Petitioner challenged the patentability of claim 8 based on the
combined teachings of Matsumiya and Deng in IPR 149. Petitioner relies
upon the same evidence here with respect to the elements that claims 9, 17,
19, and 21–23 have in common with claim 8. Pet. 8–35. Additionally,
Petitioner identifies where Matsumiya discloses or would have rendered
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

24
obvious the additional elements recited by claims 9, 17, 19, and 21–23.
Id. at 28–29 (claim 9), 31–32 (claim 17), 32 (claim 19), 33–34 (claim 21), 34
(claim 22), 35 (claim 23).
Patent Owner raises the same arguments and evidence directed to
these claims as it did in IPR 149 with respect to claim 8. Resp. 27–34.
Patent Owner does not, however, challenge the additional recitations of
claims 9, 17, 19, and 21–23 beyond the elements they share with
independent claim 8. See Resp. 27–39.
We expressly adopt our findings and analysis with respect to the
elements of independent claim 8 as set forth in our Final Written Decision in
IPR 149 for the reasons explained therein. IPR 149 Decision 26–33.
Additionally, because claim 22 depends from claim 20, which depends from
claim 8, we expressly adopt our findings and analysis with respect to the
elements of claim 20 as set forth in our Final Written Decision in IPR 149
for the reasons explained therein. Id. at 37. Also, we expressly adopt our
findings and analysis with respect to why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been prompted to use the swivel cover design of Matsumiya
with Deng as set forth in our Final Written Decision in IPR 149 for the
reasons explained therein. Id. at 37–40.
As noted above, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s
arguments that the additional language of claims 9, 17, 19, and 21–23 is
either taught by Matsumiya and Deng or would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Thus, any argument for
the patentability of those claims beyond the arguments raised with respect to
claim 8 are waived. Paper 8, 3. Nonetheless, we have reviewed Petitioner’s
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

25
arguments and evidence, discussed above, and we find them persuasive with
respect to claims 9, 17, 19, and 21–23.
c. Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 11, which recites “wherein the cover
and case are hinged by a hinge protuberance on at least one side of the case
and at least one hinge hole in one of the parallel plate members that receives
the hinge protuberance.” Ex. 1001, 6:5–8. Claim 11 depends from claim 8.
Petitioner challenged the patentability of claim 8 based on the combined
teachings of Matsumiya and Deng in IPR 149. Petitioner relies upon the
same evidence here with respect to the elements that claim 14 has in claim 8.
Pet. 29–31. Additionally, Petitioner identifies where Matsumiya discloses or
would have rendered obvious the additional elements recited by claim 14.
Id. at 31. Patent Owner raises the same argument as it did in IPR 149—that
Matsumiya does not teach or suggest a hinge protuberance. See Resp. 35–
40.
In our Final Written Decision in IPR 149 we addressed Petitioner’s
arguments and evidence in support of finding claim 11 unpatentable and
Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence in opposition. We determined that
Petitioner had shown that Matsumiya discloses a “hinge protuberance on at
least one side of the case” because “Figure 15a teaches that a hinge
protuberance extends from the side of the case and into each of the arms of
the cover” and, thus, the relative position of the protrusion is on the side of
the case. IPR 149 Decision 35. Petitioner raises the same arguments and
evidence here, with respect to the elements that claim 14 has in common
with claim 11. Pet. 29–31. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

26
Final Written Decision in IPR 149 (IPR 149 Decision 33–36), we find that
Matsumiya discloses “a hinge protuberance on at least one side of the case.”
Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s arguments directed to
the additional language recited by claim 14. Thus, any separate argument
for the patentability of claim 14 beyond the arguments raised with respect to
claim 11 is waived. Paper 8, 3. Nonetheless, we have reviewed Petitioner’s
arguments and evidence discussed above, and we find them persuasive with
respect to claim 14.
4. Conclusion of Obviousness
For the foregoing reasons, after consideration of the entire record, we
conclude that Petitioner has not shown that the elements of claims 1, 2, 7,
and 24 are taught by Matsumiya and Deng or would have been obvious in
light of the combined teachings of those references. Thus, Petitioner has not
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 7, and 24 would
have been obvious over Matsumiya and Deng.
We conclude also that Petitioner has shown that the elements of
claims 9, 13, 17, 19, and 21–23 are taught by Matsumiya and Deng or would
have been obvious in light of the combined teachings of those references.
We also conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of the references for the reasons
explained. Further, there are no arguments regarding secondary
considerations of nonobviousness before us. Weighing all of the evidence,
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 9, 13,
17, 19, and 21–23 would have been obvious over Matsumiya and Deng.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

27
C. Obviousness over Matsumiya, Deng, and Kindig
Petitioner asserts that the combination of Matsumiya, Deng, and
Kindig would have rendered obvious the subject matter of claims 4, 5, and
13 of the ’544 patent to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. Pet. 3. As noted above, claims 4 and 5 depend, directly and
indirectly, from claim 1, which recites “a hinge protuberance formed on at
least one side of the case.” Ex. 1001, 4:47–48 (emphasis added). Petitioner
does not assert that Kindig teaches the “formed on at least one side of the
case” recitation from claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons explained supra
Section III.B.3.a., Petitioner has not shown that the combination of
Matsumiya, Deng, and Kindig teaches or suggests “a hinge protuberance
formed on at least one side of the case.”
We discuss claim 13 below.
1. Kindig
Kindig is directed to “an enclosure having two components connected
by a hinge assembly whereby the hinged connection can be readily
disconnected to separate the components.” Ex. 1033, 1:6–10. Figures 2 and
3 of Kindig are shown below.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

28

Kindig’s Figures 2 and 3 show perspective views of the base component and
cover component, respectively, of the enclosure. Id. at 2:21–24. Kindig’s
Figure 5 is shown below.

Kindig’s Figure 5 shows a top plan view of the base component shown in
Figure 2. Id. at 2:27–28. A hinge assembly 23 (not labeled) is formed on
each side of the enclosure. Id. at 3:25–26. “Each hinge assembly 23
includes a lug, generally indicated by the numeral 36, extending outwardly
from each side wall 24 of base component 21.” Id. at 3:26–28. Kindig
discloses that “[a] circular button 37 may be formed at the outer end of each
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

29
lug 36 and is thus spaced from side wall 24 by dimension A (FIG. 5).” Id. at
3:28–30.
2. Discussion
Claim 13 depends from claim 11 and further recites “wherein a
hooking groove is formed on a lower periphery of the hinge protuberance
and a hooking threshold for being hooked on the hooking groove upon
joining of the hinge protuberance and the hinge hole, is formed on a lower
portion of a rim confining the hinge hole.” Ex. 1001, 6:12–17.
Petitioner contends that Kindig discloses the hooking groove and
hooking threshold elements of claim 13, as shown below in Petitioner’s
annotated version of Kindig’s Figure 5. Pet. 24.

Id. Petitioner asserts:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
view of Kindig to provide a hinge protuberance with a hinging
groove (i.e., a lip) to retain the connection between the case and
the cover of Matsumiya because the groove of Kindig would
advantageously help to retain connection between the cover of
Matsumiya and the memory card.
Id. at 25. Petitioner contends:
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to use a snap fit
structure (in which the respective structures of the shaft and the
hole are mateably formed) or similar mateable structures as
recited in Claim 4 to mate the case and cover of Matsumiya at
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

30
least because the use of hinging grooves were well known to
those of ordinary skill in the art and would have further prevented
loss of the cover through accidental detachment.
Id. at 25–26.
As noted above, claim 13 depends from claim 11, which depends
from claim 8. Patent Owner asserts that Kindig fails to cure the alleged
deficiencies in Matsumiya and Deng as applied to claims 8 and 11.
Resp. 40–41. Patent Owner’s argument is premised upon the assumption
that we agreed with Patent Owner’s interpretation of Matsumiya and Patent
Owner’s proposed construction of the phrase “on at least one side of the
case.” We have not. Accordingly, there are no deficiencies in the teachings
of Matsumiya and Deng as applied to claim 13 based on its dependency
from claims 8 and 11.7
As to Petitioner’s contention that Kindig teaches the additional
limitations of claim 13, Patent Owner contends that Kindig is non-analogous
art. Resp. 41–44. “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness
determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed
invention.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing
Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321
(Fed. Cir. 2011), and In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Two separate tests define the scope of analogous art: (1) whether
the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field

7 Patent Owner acknowledges that the Petition does not rely upon Kindig as
disclosing the hinge protuberance and hinge hole elements of the claims, but
challenges whether Kindig discloses a “hinge hole.” Resp. 41. Petitioner
relies upon Matsumiya as disclosing the recited hinge hole of claims 11 and
13, and, therefore, Patent Owner’s argument regarding Kindig does not
respond to the specific arguments before us. Pet. 29–30.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

31
of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved.
Id. (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325).
Patent Owner asserts that Kindig “satisfies neither test.” Resp. 43.
With respect to the first test, Patent Owner contends that the field of
endeavor of the ’544 patent is “portable, hand-held memory devices,” “like
that of Matsumiya and Deng,” whereas Kindig’s field of endeavor is “an
enclosure for a blender.” Id. (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 94; Ex. 2014 ¶ 35). With
respect to the second test, Patent Owner asserts that we correctly identified
the particular problem with which the inventor of the ’544 patent was
involved in our Decision to Institute—“the problems associated with the loss
of a protective cover for a flash memory device.” Resp. 43 (quoting
Dec. 27). Patent Owner contends that Kindig “teaches a hinged connection
that can be readily disconnected to separate the components” (id. (quoting
Ex. 2013 ¶ 97)), and, thus, “Kindig is the antithesis of the ’544 Patent in this
key respect; Kindig’s design creates the exact problem that the ’544 Patent
aims to solve” (id. at 44 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 97; Ex. 2014 ¶ 35)).
Petitioner contends that Kindig is directed to the same field of
endeavor as the ’544 patent—“rotary covers for electrical devices, such as a
memory device”—and that Patent Owner is “wrong to limit the field of
endeavor to solely memory devices.” Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1058 ¶¶ 24–25).
Additionally, Petitioner asserts that “even if Kindig were outside the field of
endeavor, one of ordinary skill would certainly believe that hinged cover
designs for other sensitive electrical devices were pertinent to hinged cover
design.” Id. (citing Ex. 1058 ¶¶ 24–25). Petitioner contends that Patent
Owner’s argument regarding removability of the cover “would not have
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

32
caused one of ordinary skill to not consider Kindig pertinent.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1058 ¶¶ 24–25).
Kindig is directed to a hinge assembly for an enclosure that may be
used to house a blender or a food processor to deaden the noise emanating
therefrom. Ex. 1033, 1:5–7 (“This invention relates to an enclosure, for
example, of the type which might be utilized to house a blender or a food
processor to deaden the nose emanating therefrom.” (emphasis added)).
Kindig states: “More particularly, this invention relates to an enclosure
having two components connected by a hinge assembly whereby the hinged
connection can be readily disconnected to separate the components.” Id. at
1:7–11. Kindig explains:
Innumerable types of cabinets or enclosures are known in the art.
Some such cabinets, for example, are utilized to house electronic
stereo equipment or the like. Recently similar cabinets have been
utilized to house the typical electric blender so that when the
blender is in operation, the noise emanating therefrom will be
muffled. Such is particular, desirable when the blender is being
operated in a commercial environment, such as a restaurant, so
that the patrons are not annoyed by the sound of a blender
processing a beverage.
Id. at 1:14–23. Accordingly, we find that Kindig’s field of endeavor is
hinged enclosures to house appliances that make noise when operated.
The ’544 patent states that “[t]he present invention relates to a flash
memory apparatus, and more particularly to a flash memory apparatus,
wherein a cover is not completely separated from the main body upon being
in use so that lost [sic] of the cover is prevented.” Ex. 1001, 1:8–11. The
’544 patent is largely directed to a cover that rotates with respect to a case
(as is evident from the parties’, and consequently our, extensive discussion
of the hinged connection (i.e., hinge protuberances and hinge holes)), but is
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

33
not readily disconnected. In fact, the ’544 patent discloses the recited
“hooking groove” and “hooking threshold” specifically to prevent the hinge
hole from being easily detached from the hinge protuberance. Id. at 3:36–43
(“Furthermore, a hooking groove 34 is preferably formed on the lower
periphery of the hinge protuberance 33. A hooking threshold 45 is hooked
on the hooking groove 34 and is preferably formed on a rim confining the
hinge hole 41 in order to prevent the hinge hole 41 from being easily
detached from the hinge protuberance 33 after joining of the hinge hole 41
and the hinge protuberance 33.”). Thus, we find that the ’544 patent’s field
of endeavor is hinge assemblies for a flash memory apparatus.
In light of the above discussion, we find that Kindig is not within the
same field of endeavor as the ’544 patent. Although Kindig and the
’544 patent have different fields of endeavor, we consider whether Kindig
still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor
of the ’544 patent is involved.
In the context of such enclosures for appliances, Kindig notes that
prior arrangements with permanently hinged covers are convenient
compared to those with covers that merely lift off. Nevertheless, the
permanent hinge arrangements made cleaning the enclosure and placing
items into the enclosure more difficult. Ex. 1033, 1:24–32. Kindig states
that “the need exists for an enclosure which has its cover and base
components hinged together for convenient operation, and yet which can
have the hinged connection readily disconnected for easier access to the
inside of the enclosure.” Id. at 1:33–37. Accordingly, the problem to which
Kindig is directed is how to enclose an object with an enclosure that is
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

34
hinged together but that allows disconnection of the components of the
enclosure to access the inside of the enclosure. See id.
The ’544 patent is directed to a flash memory apparatus having a
single body type rotary cover. Ex. 1001 [54]. The ’544 patent states: “The
present invention relates to a flash memory apparatus, and more particularly
to a flash memory apparatus, wherein a cover is not completely separated
from the main body upon being in use so that lost [sic] of the cover is
prevented.” Id. at 1:8–11. In our Decision to Institute, we stated the
following with respect to the particular problem to which the inventor of the
’544 patent was directed: “The ’544 patent is directed to the problems
associated with the loss of a protective cover for a flash memory device.
Ex. 1001, 2:24–28. In particular, the ’544 patent explains that loss of the
cover for a flash memory device can result in damage to the device. Id. at
2:19–21.” Dec. 27. The parties do not challenge our identification of the
problem to which the ’544 patent inventor was directed and we adopt that
finding here.
In light of the above discussion, we find that Kindig would not have
logically commended itself to the attention of the ’544 patent inventors.
Accordingly, because Kindig is not within the same field of endeavor and is
not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem to which the inventor of
the ’544 patent was directed, we find that Kindig is non-analogous art to the
’544 patent.
Even if one of ordinary skill in the art were to have considered
Kindig, however, Petitioner has not shown that Kindig discloses each of the
elements of claim 13 or provided a reason with rational underpinning for the
proposed combination. First, it is not clear from Petitioner’s argument and
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

35
annotations of Kindig’s Figure 5 where “a lower periphery of the hinge
protuberance” and “a lower portion of a rim confining the hinge hole” are
located such that we can ascertain whether the elements annotated disclose
the recited “hooking groove” and “hooking threshold.” See Pet. 24. Thus,
we find that Petitioner has not shown that Kindig discloses each of the
elements recited expressly by claim 13.
Second, Petitioner asserts that Kindig’s hinge connection “would
advantageously help to retain connection between the cover of Matsumiya
and the memory card,” id. at 25, but Petitioner has not shown that
Matsumiya fails to retain the connection between case and cover or has
difficulty doing so. Rather, from our review the record supports that
Matsumiya’s cover is securely attached to the case. Additionally, we are
unaware of any teaching in Matsumiya of disconnecting the cover from the
case. Similarly, the ’544 patent aims to avoid disconnecting the cover from
the case, as discussed above. Kindig, however, is directed to an easily
detachable cover. Accordingly, Petitioner’s reason—as to why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to modify Matsumiya by
adding the elements of claim 13 from Kindig—lacks a rational
underpinning.
3. Conclusion of Obviousness
For the foregoing reasons, after consideration of the entire record, we
conclude that Petitioner has not shown that the elements of claims 4, 5, and
13 are taught by Matsumiya, Deng, and Kindig or would have been obvious
in light of the combined teachings of those references. We conclude also
that Petitioner has not shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine the teachings of the references for the reasons
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

36
explained. Further, there are no arguments regarding secondary
considerations of nonobviousness before us. Weighing all of the evidence,
Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 4,
5, and 13 would have been obvious over Matsumiya, Deng, and Kindig.
D. Obviousness over Wu and Hoogesteger
Petitioner asserts that the combination of Wu and Hoogesteger would
have rendered obvious the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17,
19, and 21–24 of the ’544 patent to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention. Pet. 4.
1. Wu
Wu is directed to “a housing structure of a memory device, and more
particularly to a pen-type memory device which can be conveniently
carried.” Ex. 1006, 1:5–7. Figure 3 of Wu is shown below:

Figure 3 of Wu shows a “perspective exploded view of the present
invention.” Id. at 2:16–17. Wu teaches that cartridge member 10 has
chamber 11 and cap member 12 detachably fitted with chamber 11. Id. at
2:30–32. Wu further discloses that USB plug or interface 21 of memory
unit 20 can extend through opening 14 out of chamber 11 for electrically
connecting with a computer main frame. Id. at 2:36–38.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

37
2. Hoogesteger
Hoogesteger is directed to an ornamental design for a hand magnifier.
Ex. 1008, Title. Figures 1–4 of Hoogesteger are shown below:

Hoogesteger’s Figure 1 shows “a top plan view of a hand magnifier in
closed position,” Figure 2 shows “a side view of said magnifier,” Figure 3
shows “a bottom plan view of said magnifier wherein said magnifier is in an
open position,” and Figure 4 shows “a fragmentary sectional view taken on
line 4—4 of FIG. 1.” Id.
3. Discussion
Petitioner contends that Wu “discloses a conventional memory unit 20
having a USB interface 21. . . . [and] further disclose[s] USB flash device
embodiments having various cap and body designs.” Pet. 36 (citing
Ex. 1006, 2:12–13, 2:32–38, Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 1016 ¶ 229). Wu further
“explains that USB plugs can be easily damaged during carrying and
describes ‘[a] hard plastic case . . . for enclosing the memory device and
protecting the memory device . . . from being damaged during carriage.”
Id. (quoting Ex. 1006, 1:29–31) (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 230). Petitioner asserts
that Hoogesteger “discloses another prior art swivel cover design – namely a
swivel cover for a magnifying glass.” Id. at 37 (referring to Ex. 1008,
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

38
Figs. 1, 3, 4). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art aware
of the “dangers of leaving electrical contacts unprotected and knowing the
cover design[] of . . . Hoogesteger . . . would have been motivated and had
good reason to use a swivel cover design as taught by . . . [Hoogesteger]
with Wu to protect the USB contacts of Wu.” Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1016
¶¶ 237–240).
a. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 24
Independent claim 1 is directed to a flash memory apparatus
comprising “a hinge protuberance formed on at least one side of the case.”
Ex. 1001:4, 47–48. Claims 2, 4, and 5 depend, directly or indirectly, from
claim 1. Id. at 4:60 (claim 2), 5:5 (claim 4), 5:11 (claim 5). Independent
claim 7 is directed to a flash memory apparatus comprising “at least one first
hinge element formed on at least one side of the case.” Id. at 5:28–29.
Independent claim 24 is directed to a flash memory apparatus comprising “a
hinge element formed on at least one side of the case.” Id. at 6:52–53.
Petitioner contends that Hoogesteger discloses each of the
above-recited elements of the claims. Pet. 41 (addressing this element of
claim 1 and referring to it as claim element “1[E]” (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 248–
249)), 51 (addressing this element of claim 7 by referring to claim
element 1[E]8), 59 (addressing this element of claim 24 by referring to claim
element 1[E]). In particular, Petitioner points to Hoogesteger’s Figure 3 as
shown in Petitioner’s annotated version below:

8 Petitioner interchangeably refers to the element as “claim 1[E]” and
“claim 1 (e).” Compare Pet. 41 with id. at 51. For consistency, we refer to
it as claim element “1[E].”
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

39

Petitioner’s annotated version of Hoogesteger’s Figure 3 is shown above,
including Petitioner’s annotations identifying an alleged “Hinge Hole” and
“Hinge Protuberance.” Pet. 41.
Patent Owner asserts that Hoogesteger discloses a “double-cap rivet”
as the retention device that “extends through the cover and the magnifier
holder.” Resp. 48. Patent Owner contends that Hoogesteger’s rivet is not
integral with the case or adhered to the case; rather, the rivet is on the cover
and not the lens holder. Id. at 49–50. Thus, Patent Owner argues that the
rivet is not “formed on” at least one side of the case. Id.
In its Reply, Petitioner argues that “the rivet is located on and makes
contact with the lens holder on the side.” Reply 19. Petitioner contends that
Patent Owner’s argument “incorrectly assumes that the claim term ‘on’
requires more than simply being located on a particular side. . . . which it is
in Hoogesteger.” Id.
The difference in the parties’ positions is based on their proposed
constructions of the phrase “formed on at least one side of the case.” In this
instance, Petitioner has not presented persuasive evidence to show that
Hoogesteger’s rivet is “integrated or attached to at least one side of the
case.” To the contrary, we find that the rivet simply goes through the case,
and is not integrated therewith or adhered to at least one side of the case.
Further, Petitioner’s position is not based upon whether it would have been
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

40
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hoogesteger’s rivet in
order to teach this element of the claims; rather, Petitioner’s position is that
Hoogesteger discloses a hinge protuberance or hinge element “formed on at
least one side of the case.” Pet. 41. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed
above, we find that Hoogesteger does not disclose a hinge protuberance or
hinge element9 “formed on at least one side of the case.”
b. Claims 9, 17, 19, and 21–23
Claims 9, 17, 19, and 21–23 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 8. Petitioner challenged the patentability of claim 8 based on the
combined teachings of Wu and Hoogesteger in IPR 149. Petitioner relies
upon the same evidence here with respect to the elements that claims 9, 17,
19, and 21–23 have in common with claim 8. Pet. 36–58. Additionally,
Petitioner identifies where Wu and Hoogesteger disclose or would have
rendered obvious the additional elements recited by claims 9, 17, 19, and
21–23. Id. at 52–53 (claim 9), 55 (claim 17), 56 (claim 19), 57–58
(claim 21), 58 (claims 22 and 23).
Patent Owner raises the same arguments and evidence directed to
these claims as it did in IPR 149 with respect to claim 8: (1) that “[t]he
combination of Wu and Hoogesteger would have destroyed the intended
functionality of Wu” (Resp. 44–46); (2) that “[t]he combination of Wu and

9 Although we construed “hinge element” to encompass both a “hinge
protuberance” and a “hinge hole,” Petitioner’s argument ties the first recited
“hinge element” of claims 7 and 24 to Petitioner’s argument based on the
“hinge protuberance” recited in claim 1, not claim 1’s “hinge hole.”
See Pet. 27 (referring to claim element “1 (e)” with respect to the first recited
“hinge element” and referring to claim element “1 (i)” with respect to the
second recited “hinge element); id. at 59 (same).
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

41
Hoogesteger fails to teach or suggest . . . ‘an open front end’” (id. at 46–47);
(3) that “[o]ne skilled in the art would not have thought to alter Wu based on
Hoogesteger’s teachings” and “would be discouraged from combining Wu
and Hoogesteger” (id. at 47, 50–51); and that Wu and Hoogesteger “fail to
teach or suggest . . . “pair of parallel plate members . . . being hinged to the
case” (id. at 47–48). Patent Owner, however, does not challenge whether
the combination of Wu and Hoogesteger teaches or suggests the additional
elements recited by claims 9, 17, 19, and 21–23 beyond the elements they
share with independent claim 8. See Resp. 27–39.
We expressly adopt our findings with respect to the elements of
independent claim 8 as set forth in our Final Written Decision in IPR 149
and for the reasons explained therein. IPR 149 Decision 43–47.
Additionally, because claim 22 depends from claim 20, which depends from
claim 8, we expressly adopt our findings with respect to the elements of
claim 20 as set forth in our Final Written Decision in IPR 149 for the reasons
explained therein. Id. at 50–51. Also, we expressly adopt our findings with
respect to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to
use the swivel cover design of Hoogesteger with Wu as set forth in our Final
Written Decision in IPR 149 for the reasons explained therein. Id. at 51–52.
As noted above, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s arguments
that the additional language of claims 9, 17, 19, and 21–23 is taught by the
combination of Wu and Hoogesteger or would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Thus, any argument for
the patentability of those claims beyond the arguments raised with respect to
claim 8 are waived. Paper 8, 3. Nonetheless, we have reviewed Petitioner’s
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

42
arguments and evidence discussed above, find them persuasive with respect
to claims 9, 17, 19, and 21–23.
c. Claims 13 and 14
As noted above, claims 13 and 14 depend from claim 11, which
depends from claim 8. Ex. 1001, 6:12 (claim 13), 18 (claim 14). Claim 11
recites “a hinge protuberance on at least one side of the case.” Id. at 6:6–7.
As noted above, claim 13 adds, inter alia, the limitations of a “hooking
groove” and a “hooking threshold” to the elements of claim 11. Id. at 6:12–
17. Claim 14 recites the apparatus of claim 11, “wherein a reception
maintaining arrangement is provided on the flash memory main body and
the cover and wherein when the USB terminal piece is received in an inner
space of the cover, the main body is maintained within the inner space of the
cover.” Id. at 6:18–23.
Petitioner contends that Hoogesteger discloses the “hinge
protuberance” element of claim 11, the “hooking groove” and “hooking
threshold” elements of claim 13, as well as the additional elements of
claim 14. Pet. 53–54 (incorporating argument for claim 13 from claim 4 and
incorporating argument for claim 14 from claim 2). In particular, Petitioner
points to Hoogesteger’s Figure 3 as disclosing the “hinge protuberance,”
“hooking groove,” and “hooking threshold,” as shown in Petitioner’s
annotated version below:
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

43

Petitioner’s annotated version of Hoogesteger’s Figure 3 is shown above,
including Petitioner’s annotations identifying an alleged “Hinge
Protuberance,” “Hooking Groove,” and “Hooking Threshold.” Pet. 49.
Each of Patent Owner’s arguments directed to claim 8 equally apply
to claims 13 and 14 because each claim indirectly depends from claim 8.
Additionally, Patent Owner argues that Hoogesteger does not disclose a
“hinge protuberance on at least one side of the case,” as recited by claim 11.
Resp. 48–50. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s argument and
evidence that Hoogesteger and Wu disclose the additional limitations of
dependent claims 13 and 14.
For the reasons we discussed above in the context of addressing
claims 9, 17, 19, and 21–23, Patent Owner’s arguments directed to claim 8
are not persuasive. Thus, we adopt our findings with respect to claims 9, 17,
19, and 21–23. Additionally, in our Final Written Decision in IPR 149, we
addressed Patent Owner’s argument that Hoogesteger does not disclose a
hinge protuberance on at least one side of the case, and found it
unpersuasive. We adopt the reasoning and findings of our Final Written
Decision in IPR 149, including the finding that Hoogesteger discloses a
hinge protuberance on at least one side of the case. IPR 149 Decision 47–
49.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

44
We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with respect
to the additional elements of claim 14, find them persuasive, and adopt them
as our own. With respect to claim 13, however, Petitioner’s annotations of
Hoogesteger’s Figure 3, shown above, fail to identify clearly where and how
Hoogesteger’s rivet meets the recited “hooking groove” and “hooking
threshold” limitations. Petitioner states that “the hinge protuberance of
Hoogesteger overlaps a hooking threshold of the Hoogesteger swivel case
and joins the hinge protuberance extending from the magnifier assembly to
the protective case. The hooking threshold is formed around the entire hinge
hole, and is, thus on the lower portion.” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 273).10
Petitioner does not point to any persuasive evidentiary support for this
argument and we find none. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed
to identify a hooking threshold or hooking groove with sufficient specificity
to show that Hoogesteger discloses these elements of claim 13 by a
preponderance of the evidence.
4. Conclusion of Obviousness
For the foregoing reasons, after consideration of the entire record, we
conclude that Petitioner has not shown that the elements of claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
7, 13, and 24 are taught by Wu and Hoogesteger or would have been
obvious in light of the combined teachings of those references. We also
conclude that Petitioner has shown that the elements of claims 9, 14, 17, 19,
and 21–23 are taught by Wu and Hoogesteger or would have been obvious

10 Dr. Wolfe’s testimony is even more conclusory, stating simply
“Hoogesteger discloses parallel plates being hinged to the magnifier using a
hooking groove and a hooking threshold around the hinge hole in the
configuration set forth in [the] claim . . . .” Ex. 1016 ¶ 273.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

45
in light of the combined teachings of those references. Additionally, we
conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine the teachings of the references for the reasons explained. Further,
there are no arguments regarding secondary considerations of
nonobviousness before us. Weighing all of the evidence, Petitioner has not
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 13, and
24 would have been obvious over Wu and Hoogesteger, but Petitioner has
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 9, 14, 17, 19, and
21–23 would have been obvious over Wu and Hoogesteger.
E. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
Petitioner moves to exclude Patent Owner’s Exhibit 2005
(Amazon.com reviews) and paragraphs 41–43 of the Pearman Declaration
(Exhibit 2014).11 Paper 47, 1 (“Pet. Mot.”). Patent Owner filed an
Opposition (Paper 54) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 57). Exhibit 2005
and paragraphs 41–43 of the Pearman Declaration are directed toward Patent
Owner’s arguments regarding objective indicia of nonobviousness that
Patent Owner has since conceded, as noted above. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
Motion is denied as moot.
F. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
Patent Owner moves to exclude, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702,
paragraphs 15 and 20–23 of the Wolfe Reply Declaration because “his
opinions expressed in those paragraphs are based on data that is unreliable or
incorrect, the product of unreliable principles and methods, and/or outside of
his area of expertise.” Paper 52, 1 (“PO Mot.”). Patent Owner’s challenge

11 Petitioner’s motion also includes the same paragraphs in the redacted
version of the Pearman Declaration (Exhibit 2015). Pet. Mot. 1.
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

46
to paragraph 15 of the Wolfe Reply Declaration is directed to Dr. Wolfe’s
testimony rebutting Patent Owner’s argument that modifying Wu’s cap to a
swivel cover, as disclosed by Hoogesteger, would destroy the functionality
of Wu because Hoogesteger’s swivel cover is not a tight cap. Ex. 1058 ¶ 15.
In our discussion of Patent Owner’s argument regarding the functionality of
the proposed combination, we did not rely upon either of the party’s expert
declarations. Rather, we observed simply that nothing in Wu would have
discouraged or led one of ordinary skill in the art away from using a swivel
cover because nothing in Wu requires or necessitates a tightly fitting cap.
Further, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding paragraph 15 of the Wolfe
Reply Declaration go to the weight of Dr. Wolfe’s testimony rather than its
admissibility. Nonetheless, because we did not, and do not, rely upon
paragraph 15 of the Wolfe Reply Declaration, Patent Owner’s Motion as
directed to paragraph 15 is denied as moot.
Paragraphs 20–23 of the Wolfe Reply Declaration are directed toward
rebutting Patent Owner’s arguments regarding secondary indicia of
nonobviousness, which Patent Owner has since conceded, as noted above.
Accordingly, we did not rely upon paragraphs 20–23 of the Wolfe Reply
Declaration and, thus, the remainder of Patent Owner’s Motion is denied as
moot.
IV. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:
(1) claims 9, 14, 17, 19, and 21–23 are unpatentable as obvious over
Matsumiya and Deng; and (2) claims 9, 14, 17, 19, and 21–23 are
unpatentable as obvious over Wu and Hoogesteger. Petitioner has not
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) claims 1, 2, 7,
IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

47
and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Matsumiya and Deng; (2) claims 4,
5, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Matsumiya, Deng, and Kindig; or
(3) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 13, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Wu and
Hoogesteger.
V. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, claims 9,
14, 17, 19, and 21–23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,926,544 B2 are unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
(Paper 47) is denied as moot;
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
(Paper 52) is denied as moot; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of it must comply with the
notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2015-00559
Patent 6,926,544 B2

48
For PETITIONER:

DAVID HOFFMAN
Fish & Richardson P.C.

MARTHA HOPKINS
Law Office of S.J. Christine Yang

IPR37307-0004IP2@fr.com
IPR@sjclawpc.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Matthew Phillips
Derek Meeker
Kevin Laurence
Renaissance IP Law Group LLP

matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
derek.meeker@renaissanceiplaw.com
kevin.laurence@renaissanceiplaw.com