Stryker Corporationv.Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2015

10033316 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9
571-272-7822 Entered: August 3, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

STRYKER CORPORATION,
Petitioner,

v.

KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2
____________

Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Stryker Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–16, 19–22, 25, and 26 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,471,310 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’310 patent”). Karl Storz
Endoscopy-America, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . .
there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
Upon consideration of the Petition, and for the reasons explained
below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims.

B. Related Proceedings
The parties identify the following case involving the ’310 patent:
Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv-00876-
RS (N.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2014). Pet. 1; Paper 5, 3. The parties also identify
seven other pending requests for inter partes review involving the ’310
patent or a patent related to the ’310 patent. Pet. 1–2; Paper 5, 3.

C. The ’310 Patent
The ’310 patent is titled “Intelligent Camera Head.” The Abstract
describes the subject matter as follows:
A video imaging system that minimizes the effect of EMI
on the image data, provides a small, lightweight easy to use
camera head, permitting interchangeable use of a variety of
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

3

intelligent camera heads with a single camera control unit, and
allows the utilization of new camera heads with new functions
as they become available without having to replace the existing
CCU.
Ex. 1101, Abstract.

D. The Challenged Claims
Petitioner challenges claims 1–16, 19–22, 25, and 26 of the ’310
patent. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and
is reproduced below:
1. A video imaging system comprising:
a camera control unit processing a continuous stream of
digital video data;
a cable, connected to said camera control unit, for
transmitting the stream of digital video data to said
camera control unit; and
a camera head, connected to said cable, for providing the
stream of digital video data, said camera head
including;
an imager, for generating an analog stream of video
data;
a timing generator, generating a timing signal particular
to said camera head, the timing signal actuating said
imager and sent to said camera control unit;
a converter, for converting the analog stream of video
data into the stream of digital video data;
a serializer, for serializing the stream of digital video
data for transmission over said cable;
at least one digital serial driver;
a processor; and
a memory device, accessible by said processor,
containing camera head information;
said camera control unit having at least one digital serial
receiver and is controlled based at least in part upon
said timing signal particular to said camera head.
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

4

Ex. 1101, 9:17–39.
E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C § 103 based on the following grounds. Pet. 4–5, 9–60.
References Claims Challenged
Eto1 and Okada2 1–3, 6, 9–12, 15, 16, 21, 22
Eto, Okada, and Adler3 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26
Eto, Okada, and TI-LVDS4 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26
Eto, Okada, and King5 1–3, 6, 9–12, 15, 16, 21, 22
Nakamura6 and Okada 1, 2, 9–12, 15, 16, 21, 22
Nakamura, Okada, and Adler 3–8, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26
Nakamura, Okada, and TI-LVDS 3–8, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
We construe claims in an unexpired patent by applying the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, – F.3d –, No. 2014-1301,
2015 WL 4097949, at *7–8 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2015) (“Congress implicitly
approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the
AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation”). Under
the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their

1 Eto, US 5,701,581, issued Dec. 23, 1997 (Ex. 1103).
2 Okada, US 6,476,852 B1, issued Nov. 5, 2002 (Ex. 1104).
3 Adler, US 6,659,940 B2, issued Dec. 9, 2003 (Ex. 1105).
4 Texas Instruments, Interface Circuits for TIA/EIA-644 (LVDS) Design
Notes, Mixed Signal Products (Nov. 1998) [hereinafter “TI-LVDS”] (Ex.
1106).
5 King, US 6,608,647 B1, issued Aug. 19, 2003 (Ex. 1107).
6 Nakamura, US 6,278,492 B1, issued Aug. 21, 2001 (Ex. 1108).
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

5

ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). On the other hand, a
“claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his
own lexicographer” and clearly set forth a definition of the claim term in the
specification. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366
(Fed. Cir. 2002).
In light of Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims, we
address the following terms in the challenged claims: “video imaging
system” and “camera head.” Other terms in the challenged claims need no
express construction at this time.
1. “video imaging system”
The preambles of independent claims 1, 9, 15, and 21 recite “[a] video
imaging system.” Ex. 1101, 9:17, 60, 10:32, 62. Asserting that “the patent
claims do not have meaning removed from the context of the disclosure,”
Patent Owner contends that the preambles are limiting. Prelim. Resp. 7. In
particular, Patent Owner contends that the recited video imaging system
means “endoscopic video imaging equipment for use in medical
procedures.” Id. at 6. In support of its contention, Patent Owner explains:
The specification describes explicitly the context in which the
inventive video imaging system arose: “video endoscopy,”
“[which] includes medical diagnostic and therapeutic
disciplines that utilize endoscopes to penetrate and view
otherwise inaccessible body cavities utilizing minimally
invasive surgical procedures.” The terms “endoscopic” or
“endoscopy” automatically evokes [sic] medical imaging in the
minds of those of skill in the art. The specification describes
numerous issues and characteristics unique to the field of video
endoscopy.
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

6

Id. at 7 (internal citation omitted).
Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the preambles are not
limiting because the recited video imaging system “describes only the
intended use.” Pet. 6. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention in this
regard.
In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential
structure or steps, or if it is “‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to
the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d
801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A preamble, however, is not limiting
where the claim body defines a structurally complete invention and the
preamble only states a purpose or intended use for the invention. Id.
Each of the bodies of independent claims 1, 9, 15, and 21 recites a
system that includes a camera control unit, a cable, and a camera head. Each
recited camera head includes some combination of the following
components: an imager, a timing generator, a converter, a serializer, a
digital serial driver, a processor, and a memory device. The recited systems
correspond at least to the embodiment shown in Figure 1 of the ’310 patent,
which illustrates a “camera head, universal cable and camera control unit.”
Ex. 1101, 4:45–47. Figure 1 shows that the camera head includes an imager,
a converter, a timing generator, a multiplexer, a processor, a memory, a
serializer, and a driver. See id., Fig. 1. Thus, each of the bodies of claims 1,
9, 15, and 21 recites a structurally complete invention.
Moreover, although the Specification may be “replete with . . .
references to endoscopic/medical imaging,” as Patent Owner contends,
(Prelim. Resp. 7), we note that Patent Owner does not direct our attention to
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

7

any language in the Specification that defines a video imaging system as
endoscopic video imaging equipment for use in medical procedures. Claim
terms should generally be given their ordinary and customary meaning
unless “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim
term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony
Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “To act
as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the
disputed claim term . . . . ’” Id. (quoting CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366).
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we determine that the preambles
of claims 1, 9, 15, and 21 do not recite any essential structure not already
recited in the bodies of these claims.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with Petitioner that the preambles
of claims 1, 9, 15, and 21 are non-limiting.
2. “camera head”
Independent claims 1, 9, 15, and 21 recite “a camera head.” Ex. 1101,
9:23, 66, 10:38, 11:1. Petitioner argues that this limitation means “a device
that generates an uninterrupted sequence of data that represents moving
visual images.” Pet. 6. We are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument.
In support of its construction, Petitioner points out that claims 1, 9, 15,
and 21 further “recite[] that the camera head must provide a ‘stream of
digital video data’ and the camera control unit processes a ‘continuous
stream of digital video data.’” Pet. 6. Given these further recitations,
Petitioner contends that the recited camera head must therefore “be a device
that generates an uninterrupted (i.e., continuous) sequence of data (i.e.,
stream of data) representing moving visual images (i.e., video).” Id. In light
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

8

of the issues before us at this stage of the proceeding, however, it is not
necessary for us to decide whether the camera head generates an
uninterrupted sequence of data. We therefore decline to limit our
construction accordingly.
Petitioner also contends that the recited camera head “is not limited to
an endoscopic video camera, at least in part because dependent claim 21 is
narrower in requiring an endoscope.” Id. According to Petitioner, “[i]f a
‘camera head’ in claim 1 was limited to an endoscopic video camera, then
the quoted language from claim 21 would be redundant.” Id. at 7. We are
unpersuaded by Petitioner’s contention in this regard. Petitioner does not
direct us to any evidence showing that an endoscopic video camera
necessarily is or includes an endoscope.
Petitioner further contends that, during prosecution, Patent Owner
“never argued that [the Examiner’s] . . . rejections were improper because
the [applied] references lacked disclosure of an endoscopic video camera.”
Id. We also are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s contention in this regard. As
discussed above, we construe claims in light of the specification. See
Cuozzo, 2015 WL 4097949, at *7–8. As Patent Owner points out, the
Specification defines “camera head” as an endoscopic video camera.
Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1101, 1:18–19).
We note Patent Owner’s contention that an endoscopic video camera
is “a video camera that includes or is adapted to be connected to an
endoscope.” Id. at 9 (emphasis omitted). On this record, we agree with
Patent Owner. See Ex. 1101, 1:15–17 (“[c]oupling of video imaging
cameras (incorporating solid-state imagers) to endoscopes”), 11:1 (“a
camera head, connected to said cable and an endoscope”).
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

9

Based on the record before us, we determine that, under a broadest
reasonable construction in light of the Specification, the recited term
“camera head” means an endoscopic video camera, which is a video camera
that includes or is adapted to be connected to an endoscope.

B. Obviousness over Eto and Okada
Petitioner argues that claims 1–3, 6, 9–12, 15, 16, 21, and 22 of the
’310 patent would have been obvious over Eto and Okada. See Pet. 9–27.
Petitioner relies on a Declaration by Dr. John Grindon (Ex. 1109). See id.
We are unpersuaded that Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence have
established a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in showing the
unpatentability of the claims.
1. Eto
Eto describes a video signal transmission system including a
television camera 1, a cable 7, and a camera control unit (“CCU”) 2. See Ex.
1103, Fig. 1. The system also includes a transmitting/receiving apparatus
150 on the camera side. See id. The apparatus 150 includes A/D converters
and a multiplexer. See id. The camera and CCU are coupled using a single
transmission path through which video, audio, and control signals are
multiplexed and transmitted in a bidirectional manner. Id. at 1:7–13.
2. Okada
Okada describes an imaging system for an endoscope. Ex. 1104,
1:12–13. The system has a scope side and a processor side. See id., Fig. 1.
The scope side includes a CCD 1, an A/D converter 6, a timing generator 16,
a ROM 21, and a CPU 20. See id. The timing generator is selectively
connected to a NTSC oscillator 17 and a PAL oscillator 18, which generate
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

10

different frequencies. See at 3:26–49, Fig. 1. When one of the oscillators
17, 18 is selected, picture data is written (on the scope side) and read (on the
processor side) in the same timing of the signal formed in the timing
generator 16. See id. at 5:21–26. This helps minimize screen flicker, which
arises when the write-in signal is based on the NTSC frequency and the
read-out signal is based on the PAL frequency. See id. at 1:66–2:3, 2:20–25,
2:57–64.
3. Claims 1–3, 6, 9–12, 15, 16, 21, and 22
Independent claims 1, 9, 15, and 21 recite “a camera head.” For this
limitation, Petitioner relies on Eto. See Pet. 11–12, 23–25; Ex. 1109 ¶¶ 59,
86. In particular, Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would recognize
that Eto’s camera 1 and transmitting/receiving apparatus 150 together
constitute the recited camera head. See Pet. 12; Ex. ¶ 59. Based on the
record before us, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s contention in this
regard. As discussed above, we construe the recited camera head to mean an
endoscopic video camera. Petitioner does not direct us to any disclosure in
Eto that describes the camera 1 or the transmitting/receiving apparatus 150
as an endoscopic video camera. In fact, Petitioner directs us to disclosure in
Eto that explicitly describes the camera 1 as a television camera. See Pet. 12
(citing Ex. 1103, 7:7–18); see also id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1103, 1:8–14).
Petitioner appears to also contend that Okada alternatively teaches the
recited camera head. See Pet. 25 (claim chart citing Ex. 1104, 4:4–15).
Based on the cited portion of Okada, we are persuaded that Okada
alternatively teaches the recited camera head. See id.; Ex. 1104, 4:4–15.
It is not sufficient, however, for Petitioner to demonstrate that each of
the components is known. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

11

418 (2007). Petitioner must also provide “some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In that regard, Petitioner
does not provide any rationale for combining Eto and Okada to obtain the
recited camera head (i.e., an endoscopic video camera). Petitioner’s citation
to Okada as teaching this feature appears in a claim chart without further
explanation. See Pet. 25; see also id. at 11–12 (“Fourth, Eto discloses a
‘camera head, connected to said cable, for providing the stream of digital
video data,’ as recited by claims 1, 9, and 15”). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not
established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
independent claims 1, 9, 15, and 21 would have been obvious over Eto and
Okada. Claims 2, 3, 6, 10–12, 16, and 22 depend from claims 1, 9, 15, and
21. We therefore also determine that Petitioner has not established a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that these depending claims
would have been obvious over Eto and Okada.

C. Obviousness over Eto, Okada, and Adler
Petitioner argues that claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, and 26 of
the ’310 patent would have been obvious over Eto, Okada, and Adler.
See Pet. 28–31. These claims depend from claims 1, 9, 15, and 21. As
discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

12

1, 9, 15, and 21 based on Eto and Okada. For the same reasons, we also
determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing in showing the unpatentability of depending claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13,
14, 19, 20, 25, and 26 based on Eto, Okada, and Adler.

D. Obviousness over Eto, Okada, and TI-LVDS
Petitioner argues that claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, and 26 of
the ’310 patent would have been obvious over Eto, Okada, and TI-LVDS.
See Pet. 31–33. These claims depend from claims 1, 9, 15, and 21. As
discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims
1, 9, 15, and 21 based on Eto and Okada. For the same reasons, we also
determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing in showing the unpatentability of depending claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13,
14, 19, 20, 25, and 26 based on Eto, Okada, and TI-LVDS.

E. Obviousness over Eto, Okada, and King
Petitioner argues that claims 1–3, 6, 9–12, 15, 16, 21, and 22 of the
’310 patent would have been obvious over Eto, Okada, and King. See Pet.
33–37. In particular, Petitioner contends that the combination of Eto and
Okada teaches all the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 15,
and 21. See Pet. 33. For example, Petitioner contends that the combination
of Eto and Okada teaches the recited camera head. See Pet. Pet. 11–12, 23–
25. As discussed above, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s contention in
this regard.
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

13

Although Petitioner relies on King for alternatively teaching certain of
the recited limitations in claims 1, 9, 15, and 21, Petitioner does not contend
that King alternatively teaches the recited camera head. See Pet. 33–34
(“This includes the requirement of ‘a timing generator . . . ’ [and] ‘a
plurality of camera heads . . . .’ Alternatively, even if these elements were
not disclosed in the combination of Eto and Okada, it would have been
obvious to include these features in view of King.”). Accordingly, based on
the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1, 9, 15, and 21
would have been obvious over Eto, Okada, and King. As claims 2, 3, 6, 10–
12, 16, and 22 depend from claims 1, 9, 15, and 21, we also determine that
Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
showing that these depending claims would have been obvious over Eto,
Okada, and King.

F. Obviousness over Nakamura and Okada
Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, 9–12, 15, 16, 21, and 22 of the ’310
patent would have been obvious over Nakamura and Okada. See Pet. 37–55.
Petitioner relies on the Grindon Declaration (Ex. 1109). See id. We are
unpersuaded that Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence have
established a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in showing the
unpatentability of the claims. We discussed Okada above.
1. Nakamura
Nakamura describes a digital transmission system that includes a
camera head 10 and a camera control unit 20. See Ex. 1108, Fig. 2. The
camera head 10 includes CCDs 13, A/D conversion circuits 15, and a
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

14

parallel/serial (PS) conversion circuit 17. See id. Serial digital video signals
outputted from the camera head 10 are sent to the camera control unit 20 via
a cable. See id. at 5:27–29.
2. Claims 1, 2, 9–12, 15, 16, 21, and 22
Independent claims 1, 9, 15, and 21 recite “a camera head.” Petitioner
contends that the camera head 10 in Nakamura teaches this limitation. See
Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1108, Fig. 2), 50, 53; Ex. 1109 ¶ 136. Based on the
record before us, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s contention in this
regard. As discussed above, we construe the recited camera head to mean an
endoscopic video camera. Petitioner does not direct us to any disclosure in
Nakamura that describes the camera 10 as an endoscopic video camera. See
Prelim. Resp. 38; see also Pet. 59–60 (“Eto and Nakamura, however,
disclose the various ’310 patent claim elements . . . . Okada discloses the
same type of video imaging system, but specifically for use in an
endoscope.”). In fact, as Patent Owner points out, Nakamura describes the
camera 10 in the context of a television transmission system. See Prelim.
Resp. 39–40; Ex. 1108, 1:12–19 (“portable television camera”), 2:14–15
(“format of so-called SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television
Engineers) 295M composite signals”), 5:39 (“SMPTE 295M standard
composite digital video signals are outputted from the camera control unit
20”).
Petitioner appears to also contend that Okada alternatively teaches the
recited camera head. See Pet. 53 (claim chart citing Ex. 1104, 4:4–15).
Based on the cited portion of Okada, we are persuaded that Okada
alternatively teaches the recited camera head. See id.; Ex. 1104, 4:4–15.
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

15

As discussed above, it is not sufficient for Petitioner to demonstrate
that each of the components is known. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner
must also provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Kahn, 441
F.3d at 988. Petitioner does not, however, provide any rationale for
combining Nakamura and Okada to obtain the recited camera head (i.e., an
endoscopic video camera). Petitioner’s citation to Okada as teaching this
feature appears in a claim chart without further explanation. See Pet. 53; see
also id. at 40 (“Fourth, Nakamura discloses a ‘camera head, connected to
said cable, for providing the stream of digital video data,’ as recited by
claims 1, 9, and 15.”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
provided adequately articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not
established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
independent claims 1, 9, 15, and 21 would have been obvious over
Nakamura and Okada. Claims 2, 10–12, 16, and 22 depend from claims 1,
9, 15, and 21. We therefore also determine that Petitioner has not
established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that these
depending claims would have been obvious over Nakamura and Okada.

G. Obviousness over Nakamura, Okada, and Adler
Petitioner argues that claims 3–8, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, and 26 of the
’310 patent would have been obvious over Nakamura, Okada, and Adler.
See Pet. 55–57. These claims depend from claims 1, 9, 15, and 21. As
discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

16

reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims
1, 9, 15, and 21 based on Nakamura and Okada. For the same reasons, we
also determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing in showing the unpatentability of depending claims 3–8, 13, 14,
19, 20, 25, and 26 based on Nakamura, Okada, and Adler.

H. Obviousness over Nakamura, Okada, and TI-LVDS
Petitioner argues that claims 3–8, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, and 26 of the
’310 patent would have been obvious over Nakamura, Okada, and TI-LVDS.
See Pet. 57–59. These claims depend from claims 1, 9, 15, and 21. As
discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims
1, 9, 15, and 21 based on Nakamura and Okada. For the same reasons, we
also determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing in showing the unpatentability of depending claims 3–8, 13, 14,
19, 20, 25, and 26 based on Nakamura, Okada, and TI-LVDS.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on any of the
challenges to patentability of the ’310 patent set forth in the Petition.

IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
no trial is instituted.
IPR2015-00673
Patent 7,471,310 B2

17

PETITIONER:

Robert A. Surrette
Merle S. Elliott
Christopher Scharff
Michael Carrozza
MCANDREWS, HELD AND MALLOY
bsurrette@mcandrews-ip.com
melliot@mcandrews-ip.com
cscharff@mcandrews-ip.com
mcarrozza@mcandrews-ip.com

PATENT OWNER:

Wesley Whitmyer
Michael Kosma
Michael Lavine
WHITMYER IP GROUP LLC
litigation@whipgroup.com
mkosma@whipgroup.com
mlavine@whipgroup.com