Omnitracs, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 13, 2021

IPR2020-01612 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11
571-272-7822 Date: April 13, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
PLATFORM SCIENCE, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
OMNITRACS, LLC,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2
____________

Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314

IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Background
Platform Science, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and
151 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,925,308 B2 (Ex. 1001,
“the ’308 patent”). Omnitracs, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”).
An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information
presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that
there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
(2018). For the reasons given below, Petitioner has not established a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of
at least one of the challenged claims of the ’308 patent. Accordingly, we do
not institute an inter partes review.

1 In one instance, the Petition indicates that claims 1–15 are challenged and
refers to that set of claims as “the Challenged Claims,” which phrase is then
repeated throughout the Petition. See Pet. 1 (“Platform Science Inc. . . .
petitions for Inter Partes Review . . . of claims 1–15 (‘the Challenged
Claims’) . . . .”). The Petition, however, does not challenge claims 5, 10, 13,
and 14. See id. at 2 (grounds listing); Paper 3 (Petitioner’s Notice Ranking
and Explaining Material Differences Between Petitions for Inter Partes
Review of U.S. Patent 6,925,308), 2 (identifying “claims 1–4, 6, 7–9, 11, 12,
15” as challenged in IPR2020-01612). Claims 5, 10, 13, and 14, however,
are among the claims challenged by Petitioner in related case, IPR2020-
01613. See Paper 3, 2 (identifying claims 1–3 and 5–15 as challenged in
that proceeding).
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

3
Related Proceedings
Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following related matter:
Omnitracs, LLC and XRS Corp. v. Platform Science, Inc., 20-cv-0958 (S.D.
Cal.). Pet. 77; Paper 5 (Patent Owner Omnitracs, LLC’s Mandatory Notices
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8), 2. In addition, Petitioner challenges several
claims of the ’308 patent in IPR2020-01613. Paper 5, 2.
Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner identifies Platform Science, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Pet. 77. Patent Owner identifies Omnitracs, LLC and XRS Corporation as
the real parties in interest. Paper 5, 2.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

4
The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability and Declaration
Evidence
Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and
15 of the ’308 patent on the following grounds:
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §2 Reference(s)/Basis
1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, 153 102(e), 103(a) Coffee
4
1–4, 7–9, 12 103(a) Coffee, Heijden5
Pet. 2. Petitioner supports its challenge with a Declaration by Scott
Andrews (Ex. 1003, “the Andrews Declaration”).
The ’308 Patent
The ’308 patent is directed to “text-based communications” and more
particularly to “providing a method and apparatus for automatically entering
information into pre-formatted messages in a communication terminal.”
Ex. 1001, 1:7–11. The ’308 patent explains that traditional text-based
communications between a dispatch station and a vehicle operator have
several disadvantages, particularly when considering response messages

2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013.
Because the ’308 patent has an effective filing date before March 16, 2013,
we apply the pre-AIA versions of the statutory bases for unpatentability.
3 Petitioner’s listing of grounds does not include claim 4 as challenged in
what it refers to as “Ground 1A” based on Coffee under §§ 102 and/or 103,
but Petitioner’s Ground 1A heading and the discussion that follows includes
claim 4. Compare Pet. 2 (Petitioner’s grounds listing), with id. at 25
(Ground 1A heading), 43–47 (discussing claim 4). Accordingly, we
understand that Petitioner’s first ground includes claim 4.
4 U.S. Patent No. 6,611,755 B1, issued August 26, 2003, from an application
filed December 19, 1999 (Ex. 1005, “Coffee”).
5 U.S. Patent No. 6,880,016 B1, issued April 12, 2005 (Ex. 1006,
“Heijden”).
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

5
(i.e., messages sent by a vehicle operator in response to messages from a
dispatch station). Id. at 2:21–29. In particular, the ’308 patent indicates that
manually entering information (a) may lead to errors in the entries and (b) is
a slow process, which can delay the vehicle operator from transporting
goods as quickly as possible. Id. The ’308 patent states that “[w]hat is
needed is a method and apparatus for allowing information to be entered
quickly into such response messages to minimize the chances of error and to
reduce the vehicle operator’s time spent sending response messages.” Id. at
30–33.
Figure 1 is reproduced below:

Figure 1 of the ’308 patent “illustrates a communication system 100 in
which the method and apparatus for automatically entering information into
formatted messages is used.” Ex. 1001, 3:36–38; see id. at 3:1–3. The
’308 patent explains that “[d]ispatch center 106 and vehicle 108 are capable
of communication with each other via central station 102 and satellite 104.”
Id. at 3:38–40. “In one embodiment, vehicle 108 is a commercial trucking
vehicle having a mobile communications terminal (MCT) mounted in a
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

6
tractor or cab of the vehicle, not shown [in Figure 1].” Id. at 3:50–52. The
’308 patent states, “[t]he MCT is capable of respectively transmitting and
receiving communication signals to and from central station 102 via data
satellite 104.” Id. at 3:52–55.
The ’308 patent explains the following regarding messages
transmitted between the MCT and the central station:
Information transmitted between the MCT and central
station 102 is accomplished using formatted messages,
otherwise known as “macro” messages, or pre-formatted
messages. Formatted messages are useful because they
minimize the amount of information being transmitted, thus
reducing communication costs. Cost savings are achieved by
transmitted only pertinent data, without sending “overhead”
information.
Ex. 1001, 3:59–66. Figure 2 is reproduced below:

Figure 2 of the ’308 patent “illustrates one embodiment of a formatted
message 200 which instructs vehicle 108 to pick up goods at one location
and deliver the goods to a second location within given time constraints.”
Id. at 4:1–4; see id. at 3:4–6. The ’308 patent states that the type of message
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

7
shown in Figure 2 is “typically known in the transportation industry as a
‘load assignment’ message.” Id. at 4:4–5.
The ’308 patent describes the following regarding “formatted
message 200”:
Formatted message 200 comprises information fields 202
through 216. When a formatted message is transmitted, only
the information contained in the information fields, plus some
overhead information, is transmitted. The other information in
the formatted message 200 is not transmitted, for example, the
words “From”, “Date:”, “Time:”, “Message: Please proceed
to”, “and pick up”, “by”, . . . “Deliver to”, . . . [and] “by” . . . .
When formatted message 200 is created at, for example, central
station 102, an operator first chooses which formatted message
to send to vehicle 108 from the total number of formatted
messages which are already defined. In this example, the
operator chooses to send a load assignment message, which has
been predefined as having a message identification code of “1”.
After choosing formatted message 200, the operator then enters
information into the information fields 202 through 216.
Ex. 1001, 4:11–26. The ’308 patent explains that a variety of formatted
messages can be defined that allow vehicle 108 to transmit status and
operational information to central station 102, including “message
acknowledgments, vehicle location, speed, and direction, engine
characteristics, arrival and departure notifications, and so on.” Id. at 4:46–
51. Each predefined, formatted message is assigned “a unique message
identification code for identifying the type of formatted message. For
example, formatted message 200 could be given a message identification
code of ‘1’, while another formatted message instructing vehicle 108 to
report its present location could be given a message identification code of
‘2’.” Id. at 4:53–60.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

8
The ’308 patent explains the following regarding the message
identification code:
The message identification code is used by central
station 102 and vehicle 108 to determine which type of
formatted message is being received so that it can be “decoded”
correctly. For example, when a formatted message having a
message identification code of “1” is transmitted to vehicle 108,
only the message identification code and the information fields
are sent. This information is received by a processor onboard
vehicle 108 that determines that it is a load assignment message
based on the message identification code, and that the received
information is in a format in accordance with a predefined
“template” stored locally to vehicle 108 (or central station 102,
as the case may be). The template comprises information
relating to overhead information that is not transmitted, i.e., the
words “Message: Please proceed to” and other non-fielded
information which comprises a formatted message. The
template also contains information relating to each information
field. For example, a received message having a message
identification code of “1” is defined as a message having
8 information fields 202 through 216, and in one embodiment, a
definition of how much information is contained in each field,
for example, the number of bits or characters which represent
each information field. In another embodiment, the template
does not define how much information is contained within each
information field.
Using the template information, the received information
can then be used to reconstruct the original formatted message
and presented to a user at either vehicle 108 or at central
station 102.
Ex. 1001, 4:61–5:22.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

9
Figure 3 is reproduced below:

Figure 3 of the ’308 patent “illustrates a functional block diagram of
communication terminal 300 used to transmit and receive information
relating to formatted messages.” Ex. 1001, 5:23–25; see id. at 3:7–9. The
functional blocks shown in Figure 3 can be used onboard vehicle 108 or at
central station 102. Id. at 5:25–28.
The ’308 patent explains that “[c]ommunication terminal 300
comprises receiver 302 for receiving information relating to formatted
messages.” Ex. 1001, 5:32–33. “The received information, comprising a
message identification code and one or more information fields, is provided
to processor 304, where it is decoded for presentation to a user of
communication terminal 300.” Id. at 5:45–48. According to the ’308 patent,
“[p]rocessor 304 determines the message identification code of the received
information and uses a predefined template stored in memory 306
corresponding to the message identification code to reconstruct the
formatted message, using information stored in memory 306 and the
information fields of the received information.” Id. at 5:50–55. “The
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

10
reconstructed message may then be stored within memory 306 as a
formatted message and/or presented to the user via output device 308.” Id.
at 5:55–58. And, output device 308 may be a display device, such as a
computer screen or monitor. Id. at 6:12–13.
Figure 5 is reproduced below:

Figure 5 of the ’308 patent “illustrates a flow diagram of one embodiment of
a method for automatically entering information into formatted messages in
a communication terminal.” Ex. 1001, 7:48–50; see id. at 3:15–17. The
’308 patent explains the following regarding Figure 5:
In step 500, a formatted message is selected to respond to. The
formatted message comprises a message identification code and
a number of information fields, the information fields filled in
by a sender of the formatted message. The message may be
chosen as a message which is currently-displayed by output
device 308, or it may be selected from a number of messages
stored within a memory of the communication terminal.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

11
In any case, a request to respond to the selected message
is entered using input device 310. Processor 304 receives the
user’s request to respond to the selected formatted message.
The request indicates which formatted message the user wishes
to respond, either explicitly with an indication of which
formatted message to respond, or implicitly by processor 304
knowing which formatted message the user is viewing when the
response request is entered.
Processor 304 then determines the message identification
code of the formatted message to which a response is desired,
as shown in step 502. The message identification code is either
provided explicitly along with the request to respond, or it is
determined by processor 304 identifying the selected formatted
message and determining the message identification code by
accessing memory 306. Memory 306 contains information
linking each received formatted message with a corresponding
message identification code. In step 504, processor 304
identifies information fields from the formatted message to be
copied into the response message using field-mapping
information stored in memory 306. The field-mapping
information comprises a number of stored message
identification codes and corresponding field identification
information for each stored identification code. The field
identification information identifies which information fields
from each type of formatted message is copied into information
fields of corresponding response messages. . . .
After processor 304 has identified the field-mapping
information corresponding to the identified message
identification code, a response message is created and provided
to output device 308, shown as step 506. Processor 304 copies
information fields from the message being responded to into the
response message information fields as directed by the field-
mapping information corresponding to the message
identification code of the formatted message.
In step 508, the user enters information into any
information fields that were not filled in automatically by
processor 304. Some response messages may not need any user
input, while other response messages may rely heavily on user
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

12
input. Generally, the user will be able to alter certain
information fields, as allowed by the field-mapping
information. . . .
After the user has entered information into the response
message, the response message is provided to processor 304,
where it is then transmitted to central station 102 in step 510.
Of course, the entire response message is not transmitted.
Processor 304 transmits a message identification code
corresponding to the response message type, and each
information field. Generally, some kind of formatting
information is transmitted as well, such as an indication of
stop/start bits between information fields, error correction
coding, and so on.
Id. at 7:49–8:57.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 7, and 12 are the independent claims challenged in this
proceeding. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is
reproduced below with Petitioner’s bracketing added for reference:
1. [pre] A communication terminal, comprising:
[1a] a receiver for receiving a formatted message out of a
number of pre-defined formatted messages, comprising a
message identification code and a plurality of information
fields;
[1b] an output device for presenting said formatted
message to a user of said communication terminal;
[1c] an input device for responding to said formatted
message;
[1d] a memory for storing said formatted message and for
storing field-mapping information, said field-mapping
information for indicating information to be copied from said
formatted message to a response message based on which one
of said pre-defined formatted messages was received;
[1e1] a processor for creating said response message in
response to an indication from said input device of a request to
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

13
respond to said formatted message, [1e2] said response message
comprising at least one response message information field,
[1e3] wherein information from at least one of said plurality of
information fields of said formatted message is copied into at
least one of said response message information fields based on
said field-mapping information; and
[1f] a transmitter for transmitting said information
relating to said response message.
Ex. 1001, 9:2–24.
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner, supported by Mr. Andrews’s testimony, proposes that a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree (or
equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
computer science, or a related technical field, and at least
2–3 years of experience in the fields of messaging systems, and
wireless communication devices, or an equivalent advanced
education in the field of messaging systems, including wireless
communication devices.
Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28).
Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary
skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8.
At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal
consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the
’308 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir.
1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt
Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for
purposes of this Decision.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

14
II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
In this inter partes review, claims are construed using the same claim
construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil
action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). The
claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with
the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See id.; Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In construing
claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, we take
into account the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1315–17.
Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed,
and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the
controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that
are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of
an inter partes review).
The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the
proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response
message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Petitioner
contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function
limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare
Pet. 2–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim.
Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

15
stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the
construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision.
Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the
purpose of this Decision.
III. ANALYSIS
Legal Standards – Anticipation
“[A] claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found
expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v.
Eon Labs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas
Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Anticipation is a question of fact, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334–35
(Fed. Cir. 2009), assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the
art, see Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s
whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the
[prior art reference’s] teaching that every claim element was disclosed in
that single reference” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)).
Legal Standards – Obviousness
The U.S. Supreme Court set forth the framework for applying the
statutory language of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in Graham v. John Deere Co. of
Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966):
Under § 103[(a)], the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the
obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is
determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial
success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.,
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

16
might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding
the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.
As explained by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex
Inc.:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace; and the
background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this
analysis should be made explicit.
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing 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.”)).
“Whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to
modify the teachings of a reference is a question of fact.” WBIP, LLC v.
Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
“[W]here a party argues a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
combine references, it must show the artisan ‘would have had a reasonable
expectation of success from doing so.’” Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier
Recreational Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting
In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent
Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1068–69 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Anticipation by and/or Obviousness over Coffee
Petitioner contends that Coffee discloses each and every element of
claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 and/or Coffee would have rendered the
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

17
subject matter of claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 25–62. We address
Petitioner’s contentions as to anticipation together with Petitioner’s
contentions as to obviousness with specific delineation of each.
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
As noted above, and for the reasons discussed therein, we adopt
Petitioner’s proposed definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art. See
supra § I.G.
Scope and Content of the Prior Art
a. Coffee
Coffee is directed to “asset management systems, and more
particularly to a system for tracking the real-time location and status of
vehicles of a fleet, and for communicating between the vehicles and a
dispatcher or expediter in the fleet offices.” Ex. 1005, 1:6–10. Coffee
explains that “[t]he primary goal of the fleet management system . . . is to
provide fleet management information to customers (i.e., the owners,
operators, subscribers, or users of the fleet . . .) to enable them to manage
their assets more profitably.” Id. at 2:38–50. Coffee provides several means
to accomplish this goal by: (1) giving a fleet operator the capability to locate
vehicles of the fleet in real-time; (2) allowing the operator to communicate
with those vehicles over a very efficient and reliable wireless network;
(3) enabling the operator to receive timely, accurate data regarding what
each vehicle of the fleet is doing; and (4) providing the operator with an
ability to correlate the position and messaging information generated by the
system with the operator’s other management information systems to
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

18
provide an integrated information source for improved fleet business
management. Id. at 2:50–64.
Figure 23 is reproduced below:

Coffee’s Figure 23 “illustrates an exemplary placement of the tracker, a
Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) and antennas on a typical fleet vehicle, the
vehicle being further equipped for accommodating various sensors for event
reporting.” Id. at 8:1–4. Coffee explains the following regarding the MDT:
The MDT 190 serves as a control and display unit (CDU)
for the tracker 135 (FIGS. 23, 26), primarily for the
convenience of the vehicle operator.
The MDT is a small conventional programmable
computer similar to but generally smaller than a notebook PC
(with customer-specific software) and display terminal with
liquid crystal display (LCD), keypad, associated memory, and
internal (integrated) circuitry, to enable display of text and other
data, and to enable the vehicle operator to respond to text
paging messages and to enter other data to be transmitted to the
dispatcher. MDT 190 and tracker 135 communicate over a
balanced, differential, asynchronous serial interface, which, in
the exemplary embodiment, uses a Texas Instruments (TI)
SN65C1167NS dual differential driver/receiver interface
circuit.
. . . .
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

19
In keeping with NavCore and other message numbering
conventions, each interface is identified by a different
thousands place in the message ID number. The MDT-tracker
interface uses 7000 as the interface identifier. Messages
transmitted by tracker 135 use ID numbers beginning with 7100
and messages received by it use ID numbers beginning with
7200. In the exemplary embodiment, the message IDs are:
For tracker to MDT:
7101 Navigation Data
7102 Received Message Data
7103 Received User Data
7104 Available Message Data
7106 User Data Message List
For MDT to tracker:
7201 Data Request
7202 Text Message Response
7203 User Data Output
7204 Request Available Message Data
7205 Request Message
7206 Request User Data Message List
When requested by MDT 190 (by action of the vehicle
operator), tracker 135 sends navigation data (message 7201,
Table 57, Appendix B) including current position, velocity, and
time at approximately 1 Hz to the MDT. When the tracker
receives a “Request Message” (7205, Table 66) from the MDT,
it sends the data for the requested text message to the MDT
using a “Received Message Data” packet (7102, Table 58). The
latter either contains the full text of the received message or an
ID number indicating a “canned” text to display. A response
set is sent along with the text message, containing a unique set
of text items that can be selected by the vehicle operator in
response to the received message.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

20
Each message has an identifier, or issue of data (IOD), a
rollover counter, to differentiate messages within the system
and to associate messages with their responses. When the
operator selects a response to a message (e.g., an inquiry from
the dispatcher), that message’s IOD is sent back to the tracker
with the response in message 7202. The response is selected
using arrow keys on the face (keypad) of the MDT.
Id. at 54:66–55:67.
Coffee explains that a “pre-defined message definition” packet
provides trackers with a text message that should be associated with a
specified “pre-defined message ID.” Ex. 1005, 19:64–67. “Trackers
receiving this message store the pre-defined message definition . . . . [and]
[t]his stored association is then used to display the appropriate message upon
receipt of a ‘Pre-Defined Message Packet.’” Id. at 20:4–9. The packet
“allows a shorter message format for ‘canned’ user messages that are
frequently transmitted by an individual customer. Since the trackers know
the text of these messages a priori, only a message ID and a 16-bit cyclic
redundancy check (CRC) need be sent by the NDC.” Id. at 20:9–13. Coffee
states that “[t]he ID identifies the message and the CRC allows the tracker to
determine whether the text matches the CRC of the known pre-defined
message.” Id. at 20:13–15.
Coffee further explains the following regarding receiving and
responding to messages:
In the “Received Message Data” (Table 58), the Message
Type indicates whether the message contains a canned or fall
[sic] text message. If the message is canned, the next byte
contains the ID number of the message; otherwise, it contains
the length in bytes of the received message text. The next
2 bytes contain the IOD number of the received text message
and the user response if a message has already been sent. The
next 3 words indicate the date and time the message was
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

21
received. The next word contains the number of valid
responses in the response list. Next is the list of 4 text
responses to be displayed above softkeys of the MDT. Unused
response strings are zero filled. If the message is full text, the
characters of the message follow in order. . . .
. . . .
Tracker 135 is programmed with a set of canned “User
Data” messages, a list of which (message 7106, Table 61) may
be requested for display on the MDT by the driver’s sending
“Request User Data Message List” message (7206, Table 67).
Upon subsequent receipt of a “Request Message” for a specific
“User Data” message, the tracker will provide the text of that
requested message to the MDT. . . .
. . . .
When the vehicle operator selects a response to a
received text message, the MDT sends that response to the
tracker using a Text Message Response message (7202,
Table 63) which contains the IOD of the message being
answered and the numeric response value.
The tracker is used to send customer-defined data to the
NDC . . . .
Ex. 1005, 56:5–57:2.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

22
Coffee’s Tables 58 and 63, described in detail above, are reproduced
below:

Id. at 101:14–35 (Table 58), 102:44–54 (Table 63). Coffee’s Table 58
shows “Received Message Data” 7102 (Ex. 1005, 55:54–55), and Coffee’s
Table 63 shows “Text Message Response” 7202 (id. at 56:65).
Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims;
Motivation to Modify
a. Independent Claim 1
i. 1pre and Limitations 1a–1c
Petitioner contends that Coffee discloses a “communication terminal,”
as recited in 1pre, by disclosing a mobile data terminal (MDT) that resides in
the fleet vehicles. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 76–78; Ex. 1005, 1:6–10,
15:33–37, 45:25–34, 54:66–55:9, Fig. 23).
Petitioner asserts Coffee discloses “a receiver for receiving a
formatted message out of a number of pre-defined formatted messages,
comprising a message identification code and a plurality of information
fields,” as recited in limitation 1a, by disclosing that a tracker includes two
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

23
receivers 207, 208 and that the MDT includes a receiver for receiving
messages from the tracker. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–82; Ex. 1005,
45:29–34, 45:39–44, 46:11–16, 55:9–13, Fig. 24). Petitioner contends that
Coffee’s system uses a predefined message packet, which, when received,
displays the appropriate message (i.e., a formatted message). Id. at 27
(citations omitted). Petitioner asserts that “[t]his message configuration
‘allows a shorter message format for ‘canned’ user messages that are
frequently transmitted by an individual customer.” Id. (citations omitted).
Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood
that Coffee’s predefined message packets, in which some of the data is not
sent in the message, but is instead provided at the receiver based on the
stored ‘pre-defined message definition’ are equivalent to the claimed
‘pre-defined formatted messages.’” Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 84).
Petitioner contends that each message exchanged between Coffee’s
tracker and MDT is a formatted message that has a four digit message ID
number (i.e., the message identification code), where the ID number
identifies the interface from which the message is sent and the type of
message transmitted from the tracker to the MDT or from the MDT to the
tracker. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 85; Ex. 1005, 55:27–34). Petitioner
asserts that messages sent between the tracker and MDT include multiple
information fields, for example a header, an ID number indicating a canned
text to display or the full text of the received message, the issue of data
(IOD), and a set of user selectable responses. Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 88;
Ex. 1005, 55:55–60, Table 58). Petitioner points to Table 58 as showing “an
exemplary configuration of a ‘Received Message Data’ packet. Id. (citing
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

24
Ex. 1003 ¶ 88, Ex. 1005, Table 58). Petitioner includes the following
annotated version of Coffee’s Table 58:

Pet. 32. Coffee’s Table 58 illustrates a received message data packet, which
Petitioner annotated to add (1) the phrase “Information Fields” with an
arrow pointing to highlighted portions identifying the “Header,” “IOD,”
“Response 1 Text,” “Response 2 Text,” “Response 3 Text,” and
“Response 4 Text,” and (2) the phrase “Message Identification Code” with
an arrow pointing to “7102.” Id.
Petitioner explains that “[t]he ‘Message Type’ in Table 58 indicates
whether the message is a full text message, or points to ‘canned’ text.”
Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 89; Ex. 1005, 55:55–57, Table 58). Petitioner
states that “[a] set of ‘canned’ messages (i.e., pre-defined message content)
is stored in memory of the tracker” and “[e]ach message also includes a
unique identifier, the issue of data (IOD), to differentiate messages within
the system, and to allow the recipient of a response message to associate that
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

25
response with the original request message.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–91;
Ex. 1005, 56:45–49, 55:61–63, Tables 58, 61, 63).
Petitioner contends that Coffee discloses “an output device for
presenting said formatted message to a user of said communication
terminal,” as recited in claim 1, by disclosing that the MDT includes a
display for presenting text and other data to the vehicle operator. Pet. 30
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 93; Ex. 1005, 54:66–55:9). Additionally, Petitioner
asserts that Coffee discloses “an input device for responding to said
formatted message,” as recited in claim 1, by disclosing that the MDT
includes a keypad, which allows the vehicle operator to respond to received
messages and to enter other data to be transmitted to the dispatcher. Id.
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 95; Ex. 1005, 54:66–55:9).
In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest that
Coffee discloses 1pre and limitations 1a–1c. See generally Prelim. Resp.
Based on the present record, including the arguments and evidence
provided by Petitioner, we find that Coffee discloses 1pre6 and
limitations 1a–1c.
ii. Limitation 1d
Petitioner asserts that Coffee “discloses and/or renders obvious” “a
memory for storing said formatted message and for storing field-mapping
information, said field-mapping information for indicating information to be
copied from said formatted message to a response message based on which
one of said pre-defined formatted messages was received,” as recited in
claim 1, by disclosing that the MDT “includes ‘memory, and internal

6 Because we find that Coffee discloses the preamble of claim 1, we need not
determine whether the preamble is limiting.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

26
(integrated) circuitry, [] to enable the vehicle operator to respond to text
paging messages and to enter other data to be transmitted to the dispatcher.”
Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 98; Ex. 1005, 54:66–55:9) (alteration by
Petitioner). Petitioner contends that “the MDT stores the received message
while it is displayed to the operator.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 98; Ex. 1005,
56:1–3).
Petitioner asserts that Coffee’s received message also includes
information fields corresponding to possible responses from which the user
can select a response, as shown in Table 58 reproduced above. Pet. 31
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 99; Ex. 1005, 55:55–60). Petitioner contends that
“[w]hen the vehicle operator enters a response to the received message with
the message ID number 7102, the MDT transmits a response message with
the message ID number 7202 back to the tracker.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1003
¶ 100; Ex. 1005, 55:35–47, 56:63–67). Petitioner further asserts that the
response message (shown in Table 63) includes “some of the same
information as the received message” (shown in Table 58), “such as header
information, the IOD, and the response selected by the operator.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–101; Ex. 1005, 56:63–67, Tables 58, 63). Petitioner
includes the following side-by-side annotated versions of Coffee’s Tables 58
and 63:
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

27

Pet. 33. Table 58, identifying the received message data 7102, and Table 63,
identifying the text message response 7202, are shown above, including
Petitioner’s annotations which place red boxes around the header, IOD, and
four Response Texts of Table 58 and the header, IOD, and Response of
Table 63. Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 101; Ex. 1005, Tables 58, 63).
Petitioner asserts that “[a]t least some of the information included
with the received formatted message (e.g., header, IOD, and selected
response) is copied over from the received message to the response
message.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 102). Petitioner contends that one of
ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that this correspondence
between fields in the request message and fields in the response message is
‘field-mapping.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 102).
To the extent not explicitly disclosed, Petitioner also asserts Coffee
inherently discloses limitation 1d. Pet. 33. Petitioner asserts that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood: (1) that, in the context of
Tables 58 and 63, “the inclusion of field names of the received message in
the response message is based on field mapping information” and (2) “that,
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

28
in order to implement this correspondence between the fields of the request
message and the fields of the response message, Coffee’s system must
inherently use ‘field-mapping information’ to know which field from the
received message is to be copied into which corresponding field in the
response message.” Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 103). Petitioner
contends that “[w]ithout such field-mapping information, the system would
not be able to copy over information from the received message into the
correct fields of the response message” and “would risk operator error in
hunting down and correctly copying over the header, IOD, and response
fields so the information in the response message would be correctly
matched with the information in the received message.” Id. at 34 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 103). Petitioner asserts that “[i]t is not reasonable to imagine that
a [person of ordinary skill in the art] at the time of the invention would have
left such a tedious task, routinely performed on a computer, to a human.” Id.
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 103).
As a second alternative, Petitioner contends:
To the extent that Coffee is deemed not to explicitly or
inherently disclose that “field-mapping information” is stored
on the MDT, it would have been obvious to a [person of
ordinary skill in the art] to include “field-mapping information”
with the “Received Message Data” packet (Table 58), the “Text
Message Response” (Table 63), and/or data “to enable the
vehicle operator to respond to text paging messages,” all of
which are stored, at least temporarily, in memory of the MDT.
Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 104; Ex. 1005, 54:66–55:9). Additionally,
Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that field-mapping information “would necessarily need to be available at
the MDT to generate a response message that includes at least some of the
same information as was included with the received message.” Id. (citing
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

29
Ex. 1003 ¶ 105). Petitioner contends that “without such field-mapping
information, information from the received message could not be copied to
appropriate corresponding fields in the response message because the MDT
would have no idea which copied information goes where in the response
message.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 105).
Patent Owner raises several arguments in response to Petitioner’s
discussion of limitation 1d, including that Petitioner fails to show Coffee
discloses and/or renders obvious “field-mapping information for indicating
information to be copied from said formatted message to a response message
based on which one of said pre-defined formatted messages was received.”
Prelim. Resp. 16; see id. at 16–20. In particular, Patent Owner contends,
“Petitioner entirely ignores that the claims require the ‘field-mapping’ to be
‘based on which one of said pre-defined formatted messages was received.’
Coffee explains that the contents of the ‘Text Message Response (7202) are
the same regardless of ‘which one of said pre-defined formatted messages
was received.’” Id. at 16.
Patent Owner’s argument identifies a deficiency in Petitioner’s
analysis. Even if we assume that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious
“field-mapping information for indicating information to be copied from
said formatted message to a response message,”7 Petitioner has not shown
that it is “based on which one of said pre-defined formatted messages was
received.” Rather, whatever information Coffee may copy appears to be the
same from each formatted message (as shown in Petitioner’s comparison of

7 For purposes of this Decision, we need not decide whether Coffee in fact
discloses or renders obvious this recitation of claim 1.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

30
Coffee’s Tables 58 and 63) and not based on which pre-defined formatted
message was received.8
Additionally, Petitioner’s alternative arguments as to whether Coffee
discloses (explicitly or inherently) and/or renders obvious field-mapping
information that is stored on the MDT do not address the specific deficiency
identified above and do not provide an alternative basis for finding that
Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious field-mapping information for
indicating information to be copied from said formatted message to a
response message based on which one of said pre-defined formatted
messages was received. See Pet. 33–35 (discussing explicit, inherent, and
obvious alternatives).
Accordingly, based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown
sufficiently that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious limitation 1d.
iii. Limitations 1e1, 1e2, 1e3, and 1f
In light of our discussion above finding that Petitioner has not shown
sufficiently that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious limitation 1d, we
need not determine whether Petitioner establishes that Coffee discloses
and/or renders obvious limitations 1e1, 1e2, 1e3, and 1f.
b. Independent Claim 7
Independent claim 7 is directed to “[a] signal-bearing medium
tangibly embodying a digital processing apparatus to perform operations for
automatically entering information into formatted messages in a

8 Petitioner relies upon Paragraph 102 of the Andrews Declaration, but
Mr. Andrews’s testimony therein is directed generally to copying and field-
mapping and not whether they are “based on which one of said pre-defined
formatted messages was received,” as recited in claim 1. Ex. 1003 ¶ 102.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

31
communication terminal, said operations comprising,” inter alia,
“identifying which information fields, from said plurality of information
fields, to be copied into said response message, based on said message
identification code.” Ex. 1001, 9:53–57, 10:1–3 (emphasis added).
Petitioner refers to this recitation of claim 7 as limitation 7e. Pet. 52–53.
Limitation 7e recites language that is similar to limitation 1d, discussed
above, and Petitioner incorporates its argument directed to limitation 1d in
its analysis of limitation 7e. See id. at 52 (incorporating, inter alia, Petition
§ VI.A.1.(e), which is directed to limitation 1d). In particular, each
limitation recites indicating or identifying what to copy based on which pre-
defined formatted message was received or the message identification code.
Even if we assume that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious
“identifying which information fields, from said plurality of information
fields, to be copied into said response message,” for the same reasons
discussed above Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that Coffee discloses
and/or renders obvious that said identifying is “based on said message
identification code.” Specifically, Coffee indicates that the same
information fields are reflected in the received message and text message
response regardless of which message identification code is received. See
Prelim. Resp. 26 (arguing the same).
Accordingly, based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown
sufficiently that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious limitation 7e.
c. Independent Claim 12
Independent claim 12 is directed to “[a] method for automatically
entering information into formatted messages in a communication terminal,
comprising,” inter alia, “[12c1] identifying one or more information fields
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

32
of said formatting message to be copied into a response message based on
field-mapping information stored in a memory, [12c2] said field-mapping
information for indicating information to be copied from said formatted
message to a response message based on which one of said pre-defined
formatted messages was received.” Ex. 1001, 10:33–35, 40–46 (emphasis
added). Petitioner refers to these clauses of claim 12 as limitations 12c1 and
12c2, as noted in brackets above. Pet. 59–61. Limitations 12c1 and 12c2
recite language that is similar to limitation 1d, discussed above, and
Petitioner incorporates its argument directed to limitation 1d in its analysis
of limitation 12c1. See id. at 59 (incorporating, inter alia, Petition
§ VI.A.1.(e), which is directed to limitation 1d). In particular, claim
limitations 1d and 12c2 recite that the information copied from a formatted
message to a response message is based on which pre-defined formatted
message was received.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
limitation 1d and based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown
sufficiently that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious limitation 12c2.
d. Dependent Claims 2–4, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 15
Dependent claims 2–4 and 6 depend from claim 1, dependent
claims 8, 9, and 11 depend from claim 7, and dependent claim 15 depends
from claim 12. Petitioner relies upon its discussion of the independent
claims in its analysis of these dependent claims. See, e.g., Pet. 40
(addressing dependent claim 2 and incorporating arguments from Petition
§§ VI.A.1.(e)–(h)). Accordingly, the deficiencies identified with respect to
the independent claims also apply to the dependent claims.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

33
Objective Considerations of Nonobviousness
Neither party presents evidence of objective considerations of
nonobviousness at this stage of the proceeding.
Conclusion as to Anticipation
For the reasons discussed above and based on the present record,
Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
showing that Coffee discloses each and every element of claims 1–4, 6–9,
11, 12, and 15.
Weighing the Graham Factors – Conclusion as to
Obviousness
“Once all relevant facts are found, the ultimate legal determination [of
obviousness] involves the weighing of the fact findings to conclude whether
the claimed combination would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.”
Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361. On balance, considering the record presently
before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail in showing that Coffee would have rendered the subject matter of
claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention.
Obviousness over Coffee and Heijden
Petitioner contends the combined teachings of Coffee and Heijden
would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–4, 7–9, and 12 obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 62–76.
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
The level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention is
discussed above. See supra § I.G.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

34
Scope and Content of the Prior Art
a. Coffee
The scope and content of Coffee is described above. See supra
§ III.C.2.a.
b. Heijden
Heijden is directed to a method and apparatus for point-to-point
communication between a sender and a receiver by means of messages with
flexible message formats. Ex. 1006, code (57). Heijden explains that “[t]he
flexible message format contains information that allows a receiver to
interpret, understand and display the contents of the message, even if it has
previously never been received.” Id. at 9:66–10:2. Heijden states that a user
can receive, view, and send messages on a terminal. Id. at 10:24–26.
Heijden’s flexible message format consists of header information and a
series of fields, objects, maps, and actions. Id. at Fig. 2a, 12:26–30, 12:45–
13:14.
Figure 1 is reproduced below:

Heijden’s Figure 1 shows a general overview in block diagram of the
disclosed system. Id. at 11:15–16. In particular, Figure 1 shows a plurality
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

35
of servers (SRV(m)) connected to a customer database (CDB(1)) and one or
more terminals (e.g., ILMC(1)), which includes monitor screen 6, processing
unit 1, keyboard 12, and mouse 13. Id. at 11:22–34.
Heijden explains that server SRV(1) “is provided with a processor
called InterLingua™ message server ILMS for receiving, passing or sending
messages.” Ex. 1006, 11:47–49. “Part of the ILMS processor is indicated
with IS (=InterLingua™ Script).” Id. at 11:50–51. IS “is a small, but
powerful set of calculation, execution and conditional logic statements that
give application level functionality to a message,” including the ability to
load and store mapped field data defined by a message. Id. at 17:34–38.
Server SRV(L) “also comprises a database ILMDB (=InterLingua™
Message Database) for storing several tables.” Ex. 1006, 11:53–55. Certain
relational tables within the database ILMDB are “needed to define and
control a message either received or to be sent.” Id. at 14:3–5. Heijden
explains:
Preferably, the database of the communication apparatus
is organized in several tables to which reference is made from
the message definition table. Then, the predetermined message
definition table comprises a message system identifier for use
as a reference to further tables in the database.
One of such further tables may be a field definition table
for holding primary definitions for any field of the messages.
Preferably, one of such further tables is a field mapping
table comprising mapping information usable by predetermined
fields, e.g. for mappings to hyper text markup language fields,
database fields, flat file fields and other message fields, said
database fields and flat file fields being stored in a customer
database.
Id. at 8:36–48.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

36
Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims;
Motivation to Modify
Petitioner contends:
To the extent that Coffee does not explicitly disclose “field-
mapping information” that is stored on the MDT, it would have
been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to include
“field-mapping information” with the “Received Message
Data” packet (Table 58), the “Text Message Response”
(Table 63), and/or data “to enable the vehicle operator to
respond to text paging messages,” all of which are stored, at
least temporarily, in memory of the MDT, as evidenced by
Heijden.
Pet. 62–63 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 214; Ex. 1005, 54:66–55:9). Patent Owner
asserts that “Heijden does not disclose and Petitioner does not argue that
Heijden discloses ‘field-mapping information for indicating information to
be copied from said formatted message to a response message based on
which one of said pre-defined formatted messages was received . . . .”
Prelim. Resp. 33–34.
Petitioner’s reliance upon Heijden does not cure the deficiencies noted
above in our analysis of Petitioner’s first ground based on Coffee alone. In
particular, as noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner does not rely upon Heijden
as disclosing the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 12 that we found lacking in
Petitioner’s analysis based upon Coffee. See, e.g., Pet. 62–70. Accordingly,
Petitioner’s combination of Coffee and Heijden suffers from the same
deficiencies as Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee alone.
Objective Considerations of Nonobviousness
As noted above, neither party presents evidence of objective
considerations of nonobviousness at this stage of the proceeding.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

37
Weighing the Graham Factors
“Once all relevant facts are found, the ultimate legal determination [of
obviousness] involves the weighing of the fact findings to conclude whether
the claimed combination would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.”
Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361. On balance, considering the record presently
before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail in showing that the combination of Coffee and Heijden would have
rendered the subject matter of claims 1–4, 7–9, and 12 obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at least one claim
of the ’308 patent is unpatentable.
V. ORDER
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to the Challenged Claims of
the ’308 patent; and
FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.
IPR2020-01612
Patent 6,925,308 B2

38
For PETITIONER:

John C. Phillips
Jason W. Wolff
Markus D. Weyde
John-Paul Fryckman
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
phillips@fr.com
wolff@fr.com
weyde@fr.com
fryckman@fr.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Gianni Cutri
Adam R. Alper
Michael W. De Vries
Akshay S. Deoras
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
gianni.cutri@kirkland.com
adam.alper@kirkland.com
michael.devries@kirkland.com
akshay.deoras@kirkland.com