2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 12884

2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 12884

Opinion

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION

35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., Sensata Technologies Holding N.V., and SI International (Topco), Inc. (collectively, "Petitioner") filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-6, 9-19, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524 (Ex. 1001, "the '524 patent"). Paper 1 ("Pet."). The Petition was not accompanied by an expert declaration.  [*2]  Wasica Finance GmbH and BlueArc Finance AG (collectively, "Patent Owner") did not file a Preliminary Response. In our Decision on Institution (Paper 7, "Dec."), we instituted a trial to review the patentability of claims 1-6, 9, 10, 12-19, and 21 based on the following grounds:

References

Basis

Claims

Oselin ¹

§ 102

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21

Oselin

§ 103

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13-15, 17-19, and 21

Oselin and Schultz ²

§ 103

4, 12, and 16

Oselin and Nowicki ³

§ 103

3 and 10

Oselin and Barabino ⁴

§ 103

Id. at 28.

During trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 16, "PO Resp."), which was accompanied by an expert declaration from Scott [*3]  Andrews (Ex. 2004, "Andrews Declaration"). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response. Paper 21 ("Pet. Reply" ). An oral hearing was held on April 13, 2015. A transcript of the hearing has been entered into the record. Paper 29 ("Tr.").

We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).

We determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-5, 10, 12-19, and 21 of the '524 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner, however, has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 6 and 9 of the '524 patent are unpatentable.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.