2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 6029

2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 6029

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

Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. ("Petitioner") filed a corrected Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-21 of  U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524 (Ex. 1001, "the ' 524 patent"). Paper 6 ("Pet."). The Petition was supported by a declaration [*2]  from Ray Mercer, Ph.D. Ex. 1010 ("Mercer Declaration"). Wasica Finance GmbH and BlueArc Finance AG (collectively, "Patent Owner") did not file a Preliminary Response. In our Decision on Institution (Paper 11, "Dec."), we instituted trial for claims 1-3 and 5-21 on the following grounds:

References

Basis

Claims

Oselin ¹

§ 102

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15,

18, 19, and 21

Oselin

§ 103

1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 15,

18, 19, and 21

Oselin and Williams ²

§ 103

3, 7, 8, and 20

Oselin and Schultz ³

§ 103

12 and 16

Oselin and Barabino ⁴

§ 103

Oselin, Schultz, and Li ⁵

§ 103

Id. at 31-32.

During trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 27, "PO Resp."), which was accompanied by an expert declaration from Scott Andrews (Ex. 2006, "Andrews Declaration"). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response. Paper 29 ("Pet. Reply"). An oral hearing was held on March 9, 2015. A transcript of the hearing has been entered into the record. Paper 40 ("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 shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-3, 5, 10-19, and 21 of the ' 524 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner, however, has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 6-9 and 20 of the ' 524 patent are unpatentable.

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