Eastman Kodak Companyv.CTP Innovations, LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2015

09365365 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 40
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: November 25, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
EASTMAN KODAK CO., AGFA CORP., ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and
HEIDELBERG, USA,
Petitioner,
v.
CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1
_______________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

2

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Eastman Kodak Co., Agfa Corp., Esko Software BVBA, and
Heidelberg, USA (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition
(Paper 4, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–3 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,611,349 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’349 patent”). CTP Innovations,
LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8) (“Prelim.
Resp.”). We instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–3 based on the
following alleged grounds of unpatentability:
Reference[s] Basis Claims Challenged
Jebens,
1
Apogee,
2
and OPI White
Paper
3

§ 103(a) 1–3
Dorfman,
4
Apogee, and
Andersson
5

§ 103(a) 1and 2
Dorfman, Apogee, Andersson, and
OPI White Paper
§ 103(a) 3

Decision on Institution (“Dec. on Inst.”) 25.
After the Board instituted trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
Response (Paper 19, PO Resp.”),
6
to which Petitioner replied (Paper 29,

1
Jebens et al., US 6,321,231 (iss. Nov. 20, 2001) (Ex. 1006).
2
AGFA, Agfa Apogee, The PDF-based Production System (Ex. 1008).
3
Apple OPI White Paper (Ex. 1009).
4
Dorfman et al., WO 98/08176 (pub. Feb. 26, 1998) (Ex. 1007).
5
MATTIAS ANDERSSON ET AL., PDF PRINTING AND PUBLISHING, THE NEXT
REVOLUTION AFTER GUTENBERG (Micro Publishing Press 1997)
(“Andersson”) (Ex. 1010).
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

3

“Pet. Reply”). Oral Hearing was held on June 30, 2015, and the Hearing
Transcript (Paper 39, “Tr.”) has been entered in the record.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Decision is
entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). We determine that Petitioner has not
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3 are unpatentable.
B. Related Proceedings
Petitioner discloses that the ’349 patent has been asserted in 49
infringement actions. Pet. 1; Ex. 1002. Petitioner also has filed three
additional petitions for inter partes review: IPR2014-00791, for review of
claims 4–14 of the ’349 patent; IPR2014-00788, for review of claims 10–20
of U.S. Patent 6,738,155 (“the ’155 patent”), which shares the ’349 patent’s
disclosure; and IPR2014-00789, for review of claims 1–9 of the ’155 patent.
Pet. 2. The ’349 and ’155 patents were also the subject of two previous
petitions for inter partes review, both of which were denied. See Printing
Indus. of Am. v. CTP Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2013-00474 (PTAB Dec.
31, 2013) (Paper 16) (denying petition for inter partes review of the ’349
patent); Printing Indus. of Am. v. CTP Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2013-
00489 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2013) (Paper 15) (denying petition for inter partes
review of the ’155 patent).
C. The ’349 Patent
The ’349 patent issued August 26, 2003 from an application filed July
30, 1999. Ex. 1001, cover page. The ’349 patent relates to “a system and
method of providing publishing and printing services via a communications

6
Patent Owner also filed two Motions To Exclude Evidence, which are
discussed in section II.B.4 below.
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

4

network.” Id. at 1:9–10. According to the ’349 patent, “[k]ey steps for
producing printed materials using a plate process include (1) preparing copy
elements for reproduction, (2) prepress production, (3) platemaking, (4)
printing, and (5) binding, finishing and distribution.” Id. at 1:12–15. In the
first or “design” stage, an end user—e.g., a publisher, direct marketer,
advertising agency, or corporate communication department—uses a
desktop publishing program such as “QuarkXpress” to design “pages” from
image and data files. Id. at 1:16–25. In the prepress production stage, the
user-created pages are “transformed into a medium that is reproducible for
printing.” Id. at 1:26–28. This transformation typically involves
typesetting, image capture and color correction, file conversion, “RIPing,
trapping, proofing, imposition, filmsetting, and platesetting.” Id. at 1:29–32.
“RIPing” is based on the acronym “RIP,” which stands for raster
image processor. Id. at 7:57–59. A RIP is a hardware or software
component that “rasterize[s]” an image file—i.e., converts it to a “bitmap”
or raster image. Id. “RIPing” is therefore synonymous with rasterizing. A
bitmap “is a digitized collection of binary pixel information that gives an
output device, such [as a printer, proofer, or platesetter,] the ability to image
data to paper, film, or plate.” Id. at 7:59–62. “Proofing” involves creating a
sample of the finished product that is sent to the end user for approval. Id. at
1:32–35. Once the end user approves the proof, a medium, such as a
computer-to-plate (CTP) file, is produced and sent to the printer. Id. at
1:35–39. “Imposition” involves “the set of pages on a particular plate as
well as their positioning and orientation” to facilitate “the stripping,
collating, and folding of the printed product.” Id. at 1:38–44. A printer
makes a plate “using the medium created during prepress,” e.g., a CTP file.
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

5

Id. at 1:45–48. The printer uses the plate on a printing press to reproduce the
product, which is then bound, finished, and distributed. Id. at 1:45–51.
The ’349 patent describes and claims a publishing and printing system
in which “[s]ystem components are installed at an end user facility, a
printing company facility, and a central service facility,” each connected to
the others via a communication network. Id. at 2:31–36, 51–56. Figure 1,
reproduced below, depicts an embodiment of the claimed invention:

Figure 1 depicts end user facility 300, printing company facility 400,
and central service facility 105 connected together via either private network
160 or public network 190. Id. at Fig. 1. In this embodiment, end user
facility 300 comprises a router, a desktop computer for page-building
operations, and a color proofer and black and white printer for high-
resolution proofing. Id. at 7:38–40, Figs. 1, 2, 5. Printing company facility
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

6

400 comprises a router, a server, a desktop computer, a laser printer, a color
plotter, and a platesetter, and performs production management, digital
plate-making, desktop imposition, and press services. Id. at 8:31–33, 9:38–
43, Figs. 1, 4, 5. Central service facility 105 comprises server 110,
“hierarchical storage management” (HSM) system 120, “digital content
management” system 130, local area network (LAN) 150 and
communication routing device 200. Id. at 5:34–50. “Data may be
exchanged between central service facility 105 and either private network
160 or public network 190 in any suitable format, such as in accordance with
the Internet Protocol (IP), the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), or other
known protocols.” Id. at 5:21–25. An end user can store files in HSM
system 120 to reduce storage needs at the end user facility. Id. at 7:19–23,
38–40.
Server 110 uses software capable of performing “open prepress
interface” (OPI) operations. Id. at 5:62–64. OPI operations include “high
resolution image swapping.” Id. at 10:31–33. That is, OPI permits a lower
resolution image file to be used as a proxy for a higher resolution file during
page-building operations, which is advantageous because the low resolution
image can be transmitted and manipulated more quickly. Id. at 7:46–49,
10:44–49. The low resolution images are replaced by the corresponding
high resolution images before final proofing and printing. Id. at 7:49–51.
D. Illustrative Claims
Claims 1–3 are independent and are drawn to printing and publishing
systems comprising, inter alia, an end user facility, a central service facility,
and a printing company facility. Ex. 1001, 21:18–22:30.
Claims 1–3 are reproduced below:
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

7

1. A printing and publishing system which generates a
printing plate-ready file from data provided remotely in real
time using a communication network, the printing and
publishing system comprising:
an end user facility coupled to a communication network,
the end user facility providing page building operations, the
page building operations including the design and construction
of pages from images, text, and data available via said
communication network;
a central service facility coupled to said communication
network, the central service facility providing storage, file
processing, remote access, and content management operations;
the file processing operations including generating a plate-ready
file from pages designed at said end user facility, said plate-
ready file having a file format capable of high resolution and
ready for creation of a printing plate;
a printing company facility coupled to said communication
network, the printing company facility providing printing
operations, the printing operations including producing a
printing plate from said plate-ready file; and
wherein the end user facility further comprises a
communication routing device coupling the end user facility to
the communication network, a computer which performs page
building operations, and a proofer which provides printed
samples of pages.

2. A printing and publishing system which generates
printing plate-ready file from data provided remotely in real
time using a communication network, the printing and
publishing system comprising:
an end user facility coupled to a communication network,
the end user facility providing page building operations, the
page building operations including the design and construction
of pages from images, text, and data available via said
communication network;
a central service facility coupled to said communication
network, the central service facility providing storage, file
processing, remote access, and content management operations;
the file processing operations including generating a plate-ready
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

8

file from pages designed at said end user facility, said plate-
ready file having a file format capable of high resolution and
ready for creation of a printing plate;
a printing company facility coupled to said communication
network, the printing company facility providing printing
operations, the printing operations including producing a
printing plate from said plate-ready file; and
wherein said file processing further comprises performing
open prepress interface (OPI) operations.

3. A printing and publishing system which generates a
printing plate-ready file from data provided remotely in real
time using a communication network, the printing and
publishing system comprising:
an end user facility coupled to a communication network,
the end user facility providing page building operations, the
page building operations including the design and construction
of pages from images, text, and data available via said
communication network;
a central service facility coupled to said communication
network, the central service facility providing storage, file
processing, remote access, and content management operations;
the file processing operations including generating a plate-ready
file from pages designed at said end user facility, said plate-
ready file having a file format capable of high resolution and
ready for creation of a printing plate;
a printing company facility coupled to said communication
network, the printing company facility providing printing
operations, the printing operations including producing a
printing plate from said plate-ready file; and
wherein the printing customer[
7
] facility further comprises a
communication routing device coupling the printing company
facility to the communication network, a computer which
performs imposition operations, and a platesetter which exposes
a printing plate.

7
“[P]rinting customer facility” should probably read “printing company
facility” to conform to the term’s antecedent.
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

9

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
The claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793
F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under this standard, the claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260
(Fed. Cir. 2010). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in
the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
We expressly construe below only those claim terms that require
analysis to resolve arguments related to the patentability of the challenged
claims. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those [claim] terms need be construed
that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
controversy”). All other terms will be accorded their ordinary and
customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill at the
time of the invention.
1. A printing and publishing system which generates a
printing plate-ready file from data provided remotely in
real time using a communication network
The preamble for each of independent claims 1, 2, and 3 recites a
“printing and publishing system which generates a printing plate-ready file
from data provided remotely in real time.” In the Decision on Institution, we
determined that “the preambles in the claims at issue, including the term
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

10

‘real time,’ do not limit the scope of the claims.” Dec. on Inst. 14. Neither
Patent Owner in its Response nor Petitioner in its Reply disputed this
determination. Further, we are not aware of any evidence adduced at trial
that calls this determination into question. Therefore, based on our analysis
in the Decision on Institution, we determine that the preambles in the claims
at issue, including the term “real time,” do not limit the scope of the claims.
2. “end user facility,” “central service facility,” and
“printing company facility” (all claims)
Claims 1–3 are each drawn to a printing and publishing system
comprising, inter alia, an “end user facility,” a “printing company facility,”
and a “central service facility,” each coupled to the same communication
network. Petitioner has “applied the construction of these terms as provided
by the PTAB in connection with the [IPR2013-00489] Petition, which is that
‘the claimed facilities must be distinct from each other in some manner.’”
Pet. 22 (quoting Ex. 1004, 11). Patent Owner responds that this requirement
should not be adopted because it “is unclear and ambiguous,” in that “in
some manner’ can mean almost anything.” PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner
further contends that “any operational distinctions that can be made between
these facilities are clear from the terms of the applicable claims.
We agree with Patent Owner to the extent that the claim itself defines
“end user facility,” “printing company facility,” and “central service facility”
in terms of the particular functions they perform; e.g. the end user facility
performs page building operations, the printing company facility provides
printing operations, and the central service facility performs file processing
and content management operations.
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

11

But we maintain the view that these facilities must be distinct
components of the claimed printing and publishing system. “Where a claim
lists elements separately, the ‘clear implication of the claim language’ is that
those elements are distinct components of the patented invention.” Becton,
Dickenson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); cf. Regents
of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 935 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(holding that phrase “first and second occluding disks” means physically
separate occluding disks). The Specification supports this conclusion
because it consistently describes the three facilities as separate entities, each
connected to the same communication network to facilitate the transfer of
data between each other. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:54–64, 4:26–33, Figs. 1–5.
3. plate-ready file (all claims)
Independent claim 1 requires a printing company facility to generate a
“plate-ready file.” Petitioner asserts that:
The plate-ready file represents a page layout file that has gone
through the prepress process (e.g., imposition, screening,
trapping, color management, etc.) and has been RIPed such that
it contains the exact dots to be transferred onto a printing plate.
[Ex. 1021] at ¶ 65. The plate-ready file may be in a format that
can be used with a platesetter as the output device, such that the
digital file is directly used to create a printing plate; or in a
format that can be used with an imagesetter, such that the
digital file is indirectly used to create a printing plate. Id. at ¶¶
65–69.
Pet. 21 (footnote omitted).
Patent Owner asserts that a plate-ready file is “a file that is ready to be
made into a printing plate.” PO Resp. 10 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner
relies in part on the deposition testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Brian
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

12

Lawler, which mirrors Petitioner’s contentions above. Id. at 12 (quoting Ex.
2017 at 35:19–36:3).
The Specification does not define “plate-ready file” expressly, but its
meaning is discernible from the term itself: a file that can be used to
produce a printing plate without further modification. See Ex. 1001, 10:7–
14 (equating the term “plate-ready file” with “a single file that is stable,
predictable, and ready to image to proof or plate”). Moreover, as Petitioner
states, the plate-ready file can be used with a platesetter to create a plate
directly, or with an imagesetter to produce film that is then used to create the
plate. Pet. 21. Further, we agree with the parties that because the file is
“plate-ready,” it represents a page layout file that has gone through the
prepress process, including RIPing. That is the purpose of prepress
production: transforming “copy” into “a medium that is reproducible for
printing,” such as a “computer to plate (CTP) file.” Id. at 1:26–38.
Accordingly, in addition to the constructions we applied in the Decision on
Institution, we construe “plate-ready file” to mean a file that represents a
page layout that has gone through prepress processing, including RIPing,
and is ready to image to a plate using either a platesetter or imagesetter.
B. Claims 1–3—Jebens, Apogee, and OPI White Paper
Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Jebens, Apogee, and OPI White Paper. Pet. 23–39.
1. Jebens
Jebens describes “a digital image management and order delivery
system.” Ex. 1006, 2:13–14. The system provides a centralized, searchable
database of digital images that can be used and modified by authorized
users. Id. at 4:54–56. The system also serves as a job order developer and
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

13

conduit for routing files from a client, such as an advertising agency, to a
printer. Id. at 4:60–62. Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates Jebens’
invention.

Figure 1 depicts a data management and work-order delivery system
constructed according to Jebens. Id. at 4:20–23. The system comprises host
system 10 in communication with a variety of users, such as browsers and
client “orderers” 12, image providers 14, and suppliers 16. Id. at 6:52–65.
The host system software includes, inter alia, an image database that
archives low and high resolution copies of digital image files. Id. at 8:12–
13. The system is “ideally suited for facilitating publication and the like.”
Id. at 4:66–67. Image providers 14 may include a corporation that stores
digital images of its products on host system 10 to more efficiently use its
in-house computer storage facilities. Id. at 4:67–5:5, 6:55–60. Browsers
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

14

and client orderers 12 may include an advertising agency that the
corporation hires to create a brochure using the stored images, and suppliers
16 may include the printer that will print the finished brochure. Id. at 5:5–
10, 6:54–65. To use the system, the corporation gives the agency
information to access the host system; the agency searches the host system,
downloads low-resolution copies of desired images, and uses the low-
resolution images to create the brochure. Id. at 5:11–17. The agency then
reconnects to the system “to request that the system electronically route the
created document with high resolution copies of the selected digital images
to a publishing entity such as a printer, where the finalized brochure would
be published.” Id. at 5:17–22. Communication between host system 10 and
users 12, 14, and 16 “can be effected by any known means of connectivity,”
such as “through local area networks or wide area networks,” or “hardwired
to one another as an intranet.” Id. at 6:66–7:4–20.
2. Apogee
Apogee describes the Agfa Apogee print-production system.
Ex. 1008, 1. Content can be created in any format and output to Apogee in
either PostScript or PDF; Apogee normalizes incoming files to PDF “to
guarantee complete predictability and compatibility.” Id. at 3–4. The PDF
files are stored as individual PDF pages and become “Digital Masters” to
create all production versions of the document and to provide a version that
can be proofed and edited remotely. Id. at 4, 6. For a specific print job,
Apogee collects the appropriate pages, automatically imposes the pages into
a “digital flat,” and rasterizes it for the selected output device (e.g., an image
setter or plate setter). Id. at 6. The result is a “Print Image File” (PIF) that
“contains all the dots that will appear on the film or plate.” Id.
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

15

3. OPI White Paper
OPI White Paper describes the OPI “image swapping” process. Ex.
1009, 10. “[I]image swapping enables a page designer to work with a small
screen-resolution picture file during page design and then rely on the
intervention of the OPI server to swap it out for the high-resolution, color-
separated file necessary to render the picture in print.” Id. at 10, 12, Fig. 2d.
OPI White Paper describes the typical manner in which the low-resolution
image files, or “preview files,” are generated: a user saves a high-resolution
file to a particular folder on the OPI server, which triggers a routine that
creates a preview file and puts it in a different folder. Id. at 12. A particular
implementation of the OPI process at a printing facility is also described. Id.
at 31–32, Fig. 4c.
4. Whether Apogee is a Prior Art Publication
Before discussing the merits of this ground of unpatentability, we first
address Patent Owner’s contention, PO Resp. 53–59, that Petitioner has not
shown that Apogee was publically accessible before July 30, 1999, the ’349
patent’s filing date. Petitioner contends that Apogee—which bears a
copyright date of 1998 by Agfa-Gevaert N.V.—was published in 1998, and
“[a]t the latest” was made available to the public on May 28, 1998. Pet. 5
(citing Ex. 1023); see Ex. 1008, 8. Petitioner relies on the Declaration of
Johan Suetens, an employee of Agfa Graphics, to support this contention.
Mr. Suetens testifies that in 1998 he was responsible for “marketing-
communications of commercial printing” at Agfa. Ex. 1023 ¶ 4. According
to Mr. Suetens, the Apogee reference was created to promote the Agfa
Apogee system to potential customers. Id. ¶ 8. Mr. Suetens further testifies
that a code appearing on the last page of the Apogee reference—
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

16

“NEFDU”—is unique to the Apogee reference, and is used by Agfa’s
“Enterprise Management System” to track the document. Id. ¶ 10.
Attachment D to Mr. Suetens’ Declaration is a printout from the Enterprise
Management System that Mr. Suetens asserts shows that 76,030 copies of
the Apogee reference were printed for Agfa in April 1998. Mr. Suetens
asserts that this printed version of the Apogee reference was distributed by
Agfa sales departments at “seminars, exhibitions, and demos of Apogee to
the public,” and was made available to the public as an electronic PDF file
on Agfa’s website, www.agfahome.com, no later than May 28, 1998, when
Agfa issued a press briefing announcing the release of Apogee Pilot. Id. ¶¶
8–9.
Patent Owner counters that “Petitioners have failed to establish that
[Apogee] was distributed outside of Agfa or was otherwise publicly
accessible.” PO Resp. 53. Based on Mr. Suetens’ deposition testimony,
Patent Owner asserts that he “has no actual personal knowledge of when (or
even if) the Apogee reference was distributed to the public, made available
to the public, or provided to any member of the public.” Id. at 54.
According to Patent Owner, Mr. Suetens testified at his deposition that
(1) Agfa’s marketing-communication department “does not provide
documents—including the Apogee reference—directly to the public,” but
only makes documents available to Agfa subsidiaries (id. (citing Ex. 2016,
23:8–24:10)); (2) he does not have any personal knowledge of the
distribution of the Apogee reference to a customer or potential customer, or
when the printed form would have been distributed to Agfa subsidiaries (id.
at 54–55 (citing Ex. 2016, 34:4–18, 40:7–41:1, 50:5–23)); (3) he does not
know who, if anyone, posted a PDF version of Apogee on Agfa’s website or
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

17

when it was posted (id. at 57 (citing Ex. 2016, 48:3–49:21); and (4) he does
not remember seeing it on the website (id.).
Petitioner responds to Patent Owner’s contentions by submitting
additional evidence with its Reply, i.e., a supplemental Declaration from Mr.
Suetens (“Supplemental Suetens Declaration,” Ex. 1025), and a Declaration
from Michael Jahn (“Jahn Declaration,” Ex. 1024). Attached to the
Supplemental Suetens Declaration are additional records obtained from
Agfa’s Electronic Management System. Ex. 1025, Att. E–H. According to
Mr. Suetens, these records demonstrate how the Electronic Management
System tracked the ordering and delivery of copies of the Apogee reference
and other promotional brochures from Agfa headquarters to its subsidiaries
and regional offices in 1998. For example, Mr. Suetens testifies that
Attachment H demonstrates that 400 copies of the Apogee reference were
sent to Declarant Michael Jahn. Id. ¶ 14, Att. H.
Mr. Jahn testifies that from August 1997 to September 2001 he
worked for Agfa Corporation as a contract consultant. Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 4–5. Mr.
Jahn asserts that “it was my job, beginning in August 1997 until leaving the
company in September 2001, to travel internationally and throughout the
U.S. to meet with potential customers and industry groups for the purpose of
educating them on the AGFA Apogee PDF workflow.” Id. ¶ 10. He states
that he “recognize[d] [the Apogee reference] as one that I personally
distributed to interested members of the public on behalf of Agfa beginning
in 1998, and thereafter.” Id. ¶ 9. For example, Mr. Jahn testified that he
attended the “Vue/Point conference 9
th
annual communication event held
April 14–16 in Arlington, Virginia, and the PIRA International meeting held
in England,” and that “[a]t these conferences, . . . [t]he Apogee [reference]
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

18

was the literature that attendees were given to take back to their office.” Id.
¶ 11. Mr. Jahn also testifies that he directed conference attendees to his
website, www.jahn.org, where he had posted and made publicly available an
earlier “near identical” version of the Apogee reference. Id. ¶¶ 12, 15,
Att. C.
a. Patent Owner’s First Motion to Exclude Evidence
On April 2, 2015, concurrently with its Patent Owner Response,
Patent Owner filed its First Motion to exclude the Apogee reference, Ex.
1008, and Mr. Sueten’s first Declaration, Ex. 1023. Paper 18, 4–8. On April
16, 2015, Petitioner responded to Patent Owner’s First Motion as if it were
evidentiary objections filed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), and served on
Patent Owner “supplemental evidence” under 37 C.F.R. § 64(b)(2);
specifically, the Supplemental Suetens Declaration and the Jahn Declaration.
Paper 35, 3; Tr. 31:4-8.
Patent Owner seeks to exclude Mr. Suetens’ first Declaration for
essentially the same reasons discussed above: that Mr. Suetens lacks
personal knowledge regarding the public accessibility of Apogee. We have
reviewed the First Motion and determine that Patent Owner’s objections to
the First Suetens Declaration go more to the weight of the Declaration than
to its admissibility. Further, we note that the public accessibility of the
Apogee reference is a substantive issue that is better suited for Patent
Owner’s Response than for a motion to exclude. For these reasons, we deny
Patent Owner’s first motion to exclude.
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

19

b. Patent Owner’s Second Motion to Exclude
Evidence
Patent Owner filed its Second Motion on June 11, 2015, ten days after
Petitioner filed its Reply and Exhibits 1024 and 1025, the Jahn Declaration
and Supplemental Suetens Declaration, respectively. In the Second Motion
Patent Owner moves for the exclusion of these Declarations. Patent
Owner’s principal argument is that the Declarations constitute
“supplemental information, not supplemental evidence.” Paper 31, 10.
According to Patent Owner, “[i]nformation submitted to the Board that is
directed to the public accessibility of Apogee is per se supplemental
information . . . because Apogee serves as one of Petitioners’ asserted bases
for unpatentability.” Id. Because Petitioner did not follow the procedure for
submitting supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b), Patent
Owner argues that the Supplemental Suetens Declaration should be
excluded. Id. at 11.
Petitioner responds that both the Jahn and Supplemental Suetens
Declarations are “offered solely to support the admissibility of Apogee,” and
“are not offered to further support ‘any argument on the merits (i.e.,
regarding the patentability or unpatentability of a claim)’ in view of Apogee,
and, therefore, are proper supplemental evidence.” Paper 35, 4.
As an initial matter, we reject the notion that evidence submitted to
support a reference’s public availability can never be served as
“supplemental evidence” under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2). The rule does not
limit the subject matter of evidence served under this rule, and at least two
other panels have noted that such evidence has been served as supplemental
evidence. See Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

20

IPR2013-00369, slip op. at 2, 5 (PTAB Feb. 5, 2014) (Paper 37) (noting its
understanding that the supplemental information under consideration
previously had been served to Patent Owner in response to Patent Owner’s
evidentiary objections); Toyota Motor Corp. v. American Vehicular Sci.,
LLC, Case IPR2013-00417, slip op. at 8 (PTAB Jan. 7, 2015) (Paper 78)
(noting Petitioner’s submission of supplemental evidence to establish prior-
art reference’s publication date).
More importantly, we disagree with Patent Owner that evidence must
be submitted as supplemental information in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.123 in order for the evidence to be admitted as rebuttal evidence with
Petitioner’s Reply. The Board “has broad discretion to regulate the
presentation of evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 611(a).” Belden Inc. v. Berk-
Tek LLC, –––F.3d–––, 2015 WL 6756451, at *14 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2015).
In particular, the Board has discretion to permit Petitioner to submit
evidence with its Reply to rebut an argument raised in the Patent Owner
Response. Id.; Flir Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., Case IPR2014-00411,
slip op. at 11 (PTAB Sept. 3, 2015) (Paper 113).
Under the circumstances of this case, we determine not to exclude the
Jahns and Supplemental Suetens Declarations into evidence. First, the
Declarations serve the permissible rebuttal function of responding directly to
an argument Patent Owner made in its Response, PO Resp. 53, that
Petitioner has failed to establish that Apogee “was distributed outside of
Agfa.” See Belden, 2015 WL 6756451, at *14 (“the traditional principle is
that evidence offered to rebut must accomplish the function of rebuttal; to
explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the evidence of the adverse party”);
Flir, slip op. at 11 (“[t]he object of a reply is to address arguments made in
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

21

an opposition”). Second, Patent Owner had a fair opportunity to respond to
the Declarations. Because the Declarations were served on Patent Owner on
April 16,
8
well before they were filed with the Reply, Patent Owner had
ample opportunity to depose Mr. Jahn and Mr. Suetens before the June 11
deadline for filing motions for observations regarding cross-examination.
Indeed, Patent Owner has not argued that it did not depose the Declarants
because it was unable to do so, but rather because it believed that such
depositions were “unnecessary.” Paper 38, 4–5. Finally, the Declarations
do not add to the evidence initially presented in the Petition to support the
grounds of unpatentability authorized in this proceeding, but are relied on
only to support the public accessibility of a reference that was presented
with the Petition. See Belden, 2015 WL 6756451, at *11 (rejecting
argument that rebuttal expert declaration was necessary to establish prima
facie case of unpatentability because “prior art itself, together with the
Petition, sufficed to supply a prima facie case of obviousness”).
We have reviewed the additional arguments that Patent Owner raises
in support of its Motion, and determine that they address the weight to be
given the Declarations rather than their admissibility. For these reasons,
Patent Owner’s Second Motion to Exclude Evidence is denied.
c. Petitioner Has Shown That Apogee Is Prior Art
“In order to qualify as a printed publication within the meaning of
§ 102, a reference must have been sufficiently accessible to the public
interested in the art.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “Whether a reference is
publicly accessible is determined on a case-by-case basis based on the facts

8
Paper 35, 3; Tr. 31:4–8.
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

22

and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the
public.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “A reference is
considered publicly accessible if it was disseminated or otherwise made
available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the
subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Id.
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
We find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that Apogee was publicly accessible before the ’349 patent’s filing date.
There does not seem to be any dispute that Apogee was printed at least as
early as April 1998. Further, Petitioner has shown that a large number of
copies were printed and distributed to Agfa subsidiaries around the world in
1998. Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 10–14, Atts. E–H. Petitioner also has proffered evidence
of at least one Agfa sales representative, Mr. Jahn, publicly distributing
Apogee to potential customers at conferences. Ex. 1024. We also credit Mr.
Jahn’s testimony that an earlier version of Apogee was posted on his website
before the critical date, and that he directed interested persons to that
document. Although we do not rely on this version itself in considering
Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability, we consider this testimony evidence
that a person of ordinary skill, using reasonable diligence, could have gained
access to the earlier version Apogee, which reasonably would have led that
person to the updated version. Given that Apogee was created to promote
the Apogee system to prospective customers; a very large number of copies
of the reference were printed, at least some of which were distributed at
conferences and trade shows; and an earlier, substantively identical version
was publicly available in electronic form on the internet; we find that
Apogee was publicly accessible before the critical date.
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

23

5. The Parties’ Contentions
Petitioner generally relies on Jebens for its disclosure of a “digital
data management system” that “can be used to coordinate design, prepress,
and printing activities, by connecting the front-end users (e.g., page
designers) to service bureaus and printing companies over a communication
network.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶ 86). Petitioner relies on Apogee to
teach the generation of a plate-ready file by subjecting the digital file to
prepress operations and then RIPing the digital file into a format that can be
used to produce a printing plate. Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 65–68).
According to Petitioner, Apogee shows:
[W]hat would have been well-known and understood to one of
ordinary skill—namely, that in order for a printing plate to be
produced, a software program that rasterizes the output of the
prepress process must be incorporated into the printing system
workflow to produce a plate-ready file. Thus, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the
teachings of Apogee into the Jebens printing system to allow
for a printing facility to produce a printing plate for offset
printing.
Id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶ 94).
Likewise, Petitioner relies on OPI White Paper “for its disclosure
regarding imposition.” Pet. 28. Petitioner contends that “it would have been
commonplace and entirely obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
include, at the printing facility of Jebens, a computer that performed
imposition operations.” Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶ 101).
Thus, for claim 1, Petitioner contends that (1) Jebens discloses an end-
user facility coupled to a communication network and providing the
requisite page building operations (id. 31 (citing “Ex. 1006, 5:11–17, 13:58–
67)); (2) Jebens teaches a central service facility coupled to the
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

24

communication network and providing, e.g., file processing and content
management operations, with Jebens combined with Apogee to teach
generating a plate-ready file from pages designed at the end user facility (id.
at 31–33 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:30–41, 4:54–5:15, 5:17–22, 16:22–47; Ex.
1008, 6–7); and (3) Jebens and Apogee teach a printing company facility
providing the requisite printing operations (id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:17–
22; Ex. 1008, 6–7)); (4) Jebens teaches an end user facility comprising a
communication routing device and computer, with Jebens and OPI White
Paper teaching an end user facility having a remote proofer (id. at 34–35
(citing Ex. 1006, 3:51–59, 5:11–17, 7:22–28; Ex. 1009, 22, Fig. 3c)).
Petitioner makes similar contentions for claims 2 and 3. Id. at 35–39.
Patent Owner disputes that the proposed combination renders claims
1–3 unpatentable. In particular, Patent Owner disputes that the proposed
combination teaches the requirement in all three claims of a central service
facility that provides file processing services that includes generating a
plate-ready file from pages designed at the end user facility. PO Resp. 26.
According to Patent Owner:
The Jebens system does not actually replace low-resolution
images with high-resolution images in a document; instead, it
only serves as an image warehouse and job order forwarding
service, and simply forwards the document as received from the
advertising agency without modifying the document.
Id. at 27. Moreover, Patent Owner asserts that “Apogee does not cure the
defects of Jebens,” because “[t]o the extent that Apogee discloses PDF RIP
process, a POSITA would consider this process to be taking place at the
jobber or supplier, i.e., at a printing company facility.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex.
2014 ¶ 24; Ex. 2017, 31:12–32:4).
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

25

Patent Owner also disputes that the proposed combination teaches the
claimed facilities “all coupled to the same communication network.” PO
Resp. 33. Instead, Patent Owner contends that Jebens’ “user 12
communicates with the hosting system via a network separate and apart from
the communication network used by hosting system to communication with
one of the several printing companies that are separate users 16[, and] Jebens
does not show a communication network established between user 12 and
users 16.” Id. at 28. Relying on the testimony of its expert, Patent Owner
asserts that “[w]hile the communications between the host system and the
suppliers may occur over the Internet, or private networks, this should not be
confused with an end user facility, a central service facility, and a printing
company facility all coupled to a single communication network.” Id. at 30–
31 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 24). Finally, Patent Owner asserts that Apogee and
OPI White Paper do not “cure this defect.” Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1007, 6–
7; Ex. 1008, 33, 40; Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 25–26).
In Reply, Petitioner disagrees that Jebens does not disclose the three
facilities connected to the same communication network, as Figure 1 of
Jebens “clearly shows all three facilities coupled to an intranet or the
internet.” Pet. Reply 4. Petitioner further contends that “whether or not the
claimed facilities operate through the central service facility is inapposite;
the facilities are still internetworked, and the claims require nothing more.”
Id. at 3.
Further, Petitioner asserts that Jebens in combination with Apogee,
teaches the claimed step of generating a plate-ready file at a central service
facility and providing that plate-ready file to a remote printer.” Id. at 4
(emphasis in original). According to Petitioner, “claims 1–3 of the ‘349
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

26

patent do not require the central service facility to directly send the
generated plate-ready file to the printing company facility as argued by
Patent Owner.” Id. at 5. Rather, Petitioner argues, “the specification teaches
indirect communication between facilities and, thus, the claims must be
interpreted to cover an embodiment in which the printing company facility
indirectly receives a plate-ready file from the central service facility.” Id.
Further, even if the claims did contain such a requirement, Petitioner argues
that “[n]othing in Apogee limits the implementation of the processes
described therein to occur at a printing company facility, and one of ordinary
skill could predictably implement Apogee at a central service facility.” Id.
at 4 (emphasis in original). Petitioner cites to Professor Lawler’s deposition
testimony that “the generation of a plate-ready file as described by Apogee
can occur either at the printing facility or the host/central service facility,
and that none of the reference are limited to preparing the plate-ready file at
the central service facility or the printing company facility.” Id. 6–7 (citing
Ex. 2017, 1001:21–103:3).
Petitioner also disputes Patent Owner’s argument that Jebens’ central
services facility does not carry out OPI. Petitioner contends, first, that
“claims 1 and 3 of the ‘349 patent do not recite or require OPI to occur,”
and, second, if it is determined that OPI is necessary to create a plate-ready
file, “Petitioners’ rely on Apogee for its teaching of a plate-ready file, not
Jebens alone, which clearly teaches the incorporation of OPI into a pre-press
workflow.” Pet. Reply 8. Petitioner also asserts that Jebens does, in fact,
perform OPI, “which could occur either at the central service facility or
printing company facility,” arguing that “[w]hether the files are already
embedded in the page layout [when it is routed to the printer], or sent
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

27

separately, they have been swapped or ‘replaced’ for the low resolution
images used during page building operations and, therefore, OPI has
occurred.” Pet. 6–7.
6. Analysis
All three claims recite a “central service facility” that provides “file
processing” operations, which include “generating a plate-ready file from
pages designed at said end user facility, said plate-ready file having a file
format capable of high resolution and ready for creation of a printing plate.”
Petitioner relies on the combination of Jebens and Apogee to teach this
limitation. Pet. 33. Specifically, Petitioner contends that “Jebens discloses
that the created document is processed and routed to a printer,” and “Apogee
discloses the generation of a plate-ready file (“PIF,” below) that is ready for
the creation of a printing plate.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 5:17–22; Ex. 1008, 6–
7).
Jebens does not teach or suggest generating a “plate-ready file” as we
have construed the term above, i.e., a file that “has gone through prepress
processing, including RIPing.” Although Petitioner alleges that Jebens
“clearly teaches the incorporation of OPI into a pre-press workflow,” Pet.
Reply 8, Petitioner does not allege that the resulting file is a “plate-ready
file,” because it has not been RIPed. Apogee does teach generating a plate-
ready file from a PDF, but does not teach or suggest that it be generated at
any particular facility. Petitioner asserts that “one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to incorporate Apogee into the Jebens’ printing
system to allow for a printing facility to produce a printing plate for offset
printing,” Pet. 29, but Petitioner does not assert, much less point us to any
evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

28

motivated to combine Jebens and Apogee in such a way that a plate-ready
file would have been produced at Jebens’ host facility (which is alleged to
correspond to the claimed central service facility) rather than at its printing
facility.
Petitioner does allege that “one of ordinary skill could predictably
implement Apogee at a central service facility.” Pet. Reply 4 (emphasis
added). But as our reviewing court recently stated, “obviousness concerns
whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been
motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at
the claimed invention.” Belden, 2015 WL 6756451, at *5 (emphasis in
original) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’n, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327,
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Evidence that a skilled artisan could have generated
the plate-ready file at Jebens’ host facility, without any evidence of a reason
why the skilled artisan would have done so, is insufficient to show
obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421–23
(2007) (considering the obviousness of a claim to an adjustable automobile
throttle pedal combined with an electronic sensor, holding that “[a] person
having ordinary skill in the art could have combined [the adjustable pedal]
with a pedal position sensor in a fashion encompassed by [the claim], and
would have seen the benefits of doing so” (emphasis added)); InTouch
Techs., 751 F.3d at 1352 (holding that expert witness “succumbed to
hindsight bias” in basing obviousness opinion on “belief that one of ordinary
skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been
motivated to do so” (emphasis in original)).
Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3 “do not require the central service
facility to directly send the generated plate-ready file to the printing
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

29

company facility,” but because “the specification teaches indirect
communication between facilities and, thus, the claims must be interpreted
to cover an embodiment in which the printing company facility indirectly
receives a plate-ready file from the central service facility.” Pet. Reply 5.
But the issue is not whether the claims specify how the printing company
facility receives the plate-ready file, but rather that they require that the
central service facility generate the plate-ready file. Here, as stated above,
Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Jebens and Apogee teaches
the generation of a plate-ready file at a central service facility.
For these reasons, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1–3 would have been obvious over Jebens, Apogee, and
OPI White Paper.
C. Claims 1 and 2—Dorfman, Apogee, and Andersson
Petitioner contends that claims 1 and 2 would have been obvious over
Dorfman, Apogee, Andersson, and OPI White Paper. Pet. 41–55.
1. Dorfman
Dorfman describes a “technique for easily creating and proofing
customized printed material before printing on a production printing
system.” Ex. 1007, 1 (abstract). A user can access a template in PDF format
from the system’s website, modify the template by adding low-resolution
copies of selected images and other variable data, and thereby create a
dynamic PDF file. Id. at 4:3–8, 8:1–4.
9
The PDF file may be viewed or
printed to a local low-resolution printer for final proofing. Id. at 8:4–11.

9
We conform to Petitioner’s usage of Dorfman’s original page numbers
rather that Petitioner’s supplemental page numbers.
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

30

The user can make any necessary changes or corrections to the PDF file
from the system website and send the file “for printing using conventional
printing technology where the low resolution images would be replaced by
the high resolution images by an OPI . . . process before printing.” Id. at
4:18–21; see id. at 8:23–26.
Figure 1, reproduced below, depicts an embodiment of this system:

Figure 1 depicts Dorfman’s system comprising front end 2, memory 4,
PDF builder 6, and production printing system 10. Id. at 5:25–6:7. Front
end 2 may be the office of a graphic artist employed by an advertising
agency, and typically includes a PC with internet connectivity and browser
software. Id. at 5:29–6:10. Memory 4, PDF builder 6, and printing system
10 are remotely located from front end 2, e.g., at the facilities of a
commercial printing service. Id. at 6:4–7. Memory 4 may contain a
reference library, low resolution and high resolution images, and other data.
Id. at 5:27–29. Commercial printer 10 maintains a website that allows front
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

31

end users access to templates and images stored in memory 4.
Id. at 6:10–13.
2. Andersson
Andersson describes the PDF format. According to Andersson, a PDF
document is a self-contained file format that includes multiple objects, e.g.,
bitmap images, text, font information, and line art. Ex. 1010, 22–24.
Andersson teaches how to create, view, and edit PDF files, and how to use
them to create and simplify digital prepress workflows as compared with
“traditional” prepress workflows. Id. at 66–67. Andersson also discusses
digital environments, in particular, computer networks and servers, suitable
for implementing these workflows. Id. at 51.
3. The Parties’ Contentions
For claim 1, Petitioner relies on Dorfman to teach an end user facility
coupled to a communication network and providing page building
operations. Pet. 47–49, 52–53 (citing Ex. 1007, Abstract, 5:25–6:2, 6:20–
27, 7:9–12, 7:15–8:5, Figs. 1, 6). Petitioner also relies on Dorfman to teach
the claimed central service facility performing, e.g., file processing
operations, and on Dorfman combined with Apogee to teach the file
processing including generating a plate-ready file. Id. at 49–52. Finally,
Petitioner relies on Dorfman to teach the claimed printing company facility.
Id. at 52. Petitioner makes similar allegations with respect to claim 2. Id. at
53–55.
Patent Owner disputes that the proposed combination renders claims
1–3 unpatentable. First, Patent Owner argues that Dorfman is a “response
on demand” digital printing system, which is “one where a digital-based file
is printed directly to a variety of media.” PO Resp. 39 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

32

32). As a result, Patent Owner argues that “a POSITA would understand
that the system of Dorfman does not and would not involve the generation of
printing plates or plate-ready files.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 40–41).
Second, Patent Owner argues that claim 1 “requires a separate central
service facility and remote printer,” but Dorfman “merges the central service
facility and the printing company facility, which are described as all being
present at the same remote location, e.g., the facilities of a commercial
printing service.” PO Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:4–7). Patent Owner
further argues that neither Apogee nor OPI White Paper cures this defect.
Id.
Petitioner replies that Dorfman’s teachings are not limited to
“response on demand” or low-volume print jobs. Pet. Reply 10. Petitioner
further contends that Dorfman’s system may use “conventional printing
technology,” which includes offset printing using an imagesetter or a
platesetter. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 8:1–23; Ex. 1021 ¶ 116). Petitioner also
argues that Dorfman teaches separate central service and printing facilities,
stating that “[n]othing in the [claims] require the facilities to be
geographically remote from one another.” Id. at 9.
4. Analysis
This proposed ground of unpatentability suffers from the same
deficiency noted above with respect to the Jebens/Apogee combination:
Petitioner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
had reason to produce the plate-ready file anywhere other than at Dorfman’s
production printing system. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above with
respect to the Jebens/Apogee combination, we determine that Petitioner has
IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

33

not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 2 would
have been obvious over Dorfman and Apogee.
D. Claim 3—Dorfman, Apogee, Andersson, and OPI White Paper
Petitioner asserts that claim 3 would have been obvious over
Dorfman, Apogee, Andersson, and OPI White Paper. Pet. 55–60.
Petitioner’s reasoning is essentially the same as for the previous proposed
ground of unpatentability. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we determine
that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim
3 would have been obvious over these references.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3 would have been
obvious over Jebens, Apogee, and OPI White Paper; that claims 1and 2
would have been obvious over Dorfman, Apogee, and OPI White Paper; and
that claim 3 would have been obvious over Dorfman, Apogee, Andersson,
and OPI White Paper.
IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that claims 1–3 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
This is a Final Decision. Parties to the proceeding seeking judicial
review of the decision must comply with the notice and service requirements
of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2014-00790
Patent 6,611,349 B1

34

PETITIONER:

Scott McKeown
cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com

Michael L. Kiklis
cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com

PATENT OWNER:

W. Edward Ramage
eramage@bakerdonelson.com

Samuel F. Miller
smiller@bakerdonelson.com