MasterObjects, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2021

IPR2020-01201 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 26
571-272-7822 Date: January 11, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
Petitioner,

v.

MASTEROBJECTS, INC.,
Patent Owner.

IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4

IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background and Summary
Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC, filed a Petition requesting inter
partes review of claims 1, 2 and 4–12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,311,073 B2
(Ex. 1001, the “’073 Patent”). Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). The Petition
was accorded a filing date of June 30, 2020. Paper 3. Patent Owner,
MasterObjects, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”) on
October 16, 2020. Paper 12. Petitioner filed a Reply on November 10,
2020. Paper 17 (public version). By Order dated December 1, 2020, we
authorized additional discovery and briefing concerning the real parties in
interest, and adjusted the briefing schedule accordingly. Paper 20. Pursuant
to the Order, Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 22) on December 2,
2020, and Petitioner filed a Sur-Sur-Reply (Paper 25) (public version) on
December 9, 2020.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
unless the information presented in a petition “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.” Upon consideration of the
Petition and accompanying exhibits and evidence, we determine Petitioner
has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect
to at least one challenged claim in the inter partes review. Therefore, we
deny institution of an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of
the ’073 Patent.
B. Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 86.
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
3
Patent Owner also identifies itself as the real party in interest. Patent
Owner’s Mandatory Notice, Paper 5, 2.
C. Related Matters
Patent Owner has asserted the ’073 Patent in the following cases:
Case Name Case Number Court
MasterObjects, Inc. v.
Facebook, Inc.
6:20-cv-00087-ADA W.D. Tex.
MasterObjects, Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc.
1:20-cv-3478-PKC S.D.N.Y.
Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices, Paper 5, 2; Pet. 86-87.
The ’073 Patent is related to the patents at issue in the following
cases:
Case Name Case Number Court
MasterObjects, Inc. v
Google, Inc.
4:11-cv-01054 N.D. Cal.
MasterObjects, Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc.
3:11-cv-01055 N.D. Cal.
MasterObjects, Inc. v.
Microsoft Corp.
3:11-cv-02402 N.D. Cal.
MasterObjects, Inc. v.
Yahoo! Inc.
3:11-cv-02539 N.D. Cal.
MasterObjects, Inc. v.
eBay, Inc.
3:12-cv-00680 N.D. Cal.
eBay Inc. v.
MasterObjects, Inc.
18-2252 CAFC
MasterObjects, Inc. v
Google, Inc.
4:13-cv-04304 N.D. Cal.
MasterObjects, Inc. v.
Yahoo! Inc.
3:13-cv-04326 N.D. Cal.
MasterObjects, Inc. v
Google, Inc.
14-1148 CAFC
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
4
MasterObjects, Inc. v
Google, Inc.
4:15-cv-01775 N.D. Cal.
MasterObjects, Inc. v.
eBay, Inc.
4:16-cv-06824 N.D. Cal.
eBay, Inc. v.
MasterObjects, Inc.
IPR2017-00740 PTAB

Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice, 2; Pet. 86–87.

D. The ’073 Patent
The ’073 Patent, titled “System and Method for Asynchronous
Retrieval of Information from a Server to a Client based on Incremental
User Input,” describes a system with a client part, a communication
protocol, and a server part. Ex. 1001, code (54), code (57). The server part
receives incremental text-based input from one or more objects in the client
part, and asynchronously returns matching information to the client part
from content sources such as databases or search engines. Id. at code (57).
Figures 13A to 13D of the ’073 Patent, shown below, depict various
states 230 of an input element on the client part.

IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
5
In Figure 13A, the user has not yet entered a query so the client part is not
connected to the server. Id. at 21:61–64, 22:2–4. In Figure 13B, as the user
enters characters of a query, the client part fires a query to the server. Id. at
22:2–12. In Figure 13C, the user has typed three characters (“Fer”). Id. at
22:21–24. In Figure 13D, the server responds with results corresponding to
the input characters, which are displayed in a drop-down list.
Figure 12B of the ’073 Patent, shown below, depicts a screenshot of a
web page incorporating a client search object (“AutoComplete QuestField”).
Id. at 3:24–26, 21:22–24.

Figure 12B shows a screenshot of a device as it looks after the user enters
“Ferrari 3.” The screenshot lists various models corresponding to the
entered input, and shows images of those models. Ex. 1001, 21:31–39.
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
6
E. Challenged Claims
Claim 1 of the ’073 Patent is independent. Claims 2 and 4–12
depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claim 1 is set forth below with
annotated numbering of elements:
1. [1preamble] A method, comprising:
[1a] detecting, on a client computer, entry of a content search
query into a field on a web page by a user;
[1b] while the user is entering the content search query,
automatically sending a string representing an incomplete search
query to a server system comprising one or more computers;
[1c] receiving, by the server system, the string;
[1d] matching, by the server system, the string to entries in a
cache of query strings and search results based on content queries
received from multiple users, whereby cached search results contain a
subset of data from one or more content sources;
[1e] retrieving, by the server system, search result data for the
incomplete search query;
[1f] sending, by the server system to the client computer prior
to completion of the search query at the client, a message containing
information identifying the incomplete search query and at least a
portion of the search result data that identifies the content in a content
source;
[1g] asynchronously receiving, on the client computer, without
loading another web page and while the user is entering the content
search query into the field, the message, and
[1h] displaying at least a portion of the search result data on the
client computer and enabling the user to retrieve additional content
data corresponding to the search result.
Ex. 1001, 39:20–46.
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
7
F. Evidence
Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references (see Pet. 1), as
well as the Declaration of Dr. Harley R. Myler (Ex. 1002)1:
Reference Exhibit Patent/Printed Publication
1005 Kamvar U.S. Publication 2005/0283468 A1, published
December 22, 2005
1006 Baluja U.S. Publication 2006/0122976 A1, published
June 8, 2006
1007 Kravets U.S. Patent 6,704,727, issued March 9, 2004
1008 Porter U.S. Publication 2007/0130131 A1, published
June 7, 2007
1009 Barr U.S. Patent 5,873,076, issued February 16,
1999
Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Michael J. Pazzani
(Ex. 2028).
G. The Asserted Challenges
Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
Ground # Challenged Claims 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
1 1, 6–8 and 11 103 Kamvar
2 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 12 103 Kamvar, Baluja
3 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8–11 103 Kravets, Porter, Barr
Pet. 1.

1 As discussed below, for purposes of this Decision, the claims at issue have
an effective filing date prior to the effective date of the AIA’s amendments
to 35 U.S.C. § 112 (September 16, 2012) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
(March 16, 2013). Thus, we apply the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102, 103, and
112 in this Decision (pre-Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”)).
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
8
II. ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGES
A. Ground 1: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 6–8 and 11 over
Kamvar
1. Legal Background
For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of an earlier
application, the specification of the earlier application must provide written
description and enablement support for the patent’s claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 ¶ 1. That is, the earlier application must “contain a written description
of the invention, and the manner and process of making and using it, in such
full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art
to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and
use the same.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 ¶ 1, 120. A patent may claim priority
through a chain of applications, but this requires continuity of written
description and enablement support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 in each of the
applications back to the earliest asserted filing date. Id. This date may be
referred to as the “priority date” or “effective filing date” of the patent.
Priority should be considered in context with the respective burdens of
the parties. In an inter partes review, Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of
persuasion regarding unpatentability, which never shifts to Patent Owner.
Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379.
Petitioner has the initial burden of production to show a reference is prior
art. Id. The burden of production then shifts to Patent Owner to refute
Petitioner’s argument by either showing the prior art does not actually render
the claims unpatentable or does not qualify as prior art (such as by showing
that the patent at issue is entitled to priority to an earlier application that pre-
dates a prior art reference). Id. The burden of production then shifts back to
Petitioner to respond to Patent Owner’s argument. Id. The Board then
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
9
evaluates all of the evidence and determines whether Petitioner has satisfied
its burden of persuasion regarding unpatentability. Id.
At the institution stage, the Board has applied a similar burden-
shifting approach with respect to the effective filing date of the challenged
claims. The framework we apply here was explained in Polaris Wireless,
Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc., IPR2013-00323, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2013):
In an inter partes review, the burden is on Petitioner to show a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of
unpatentability. With respect to entitlement to earlier effective
filing dates, the Patent Owner is not presumed to be entitled to
the earlier filing dates of ancestral applications which do not
share the same disclosure. But, the issue first has to be raised by
Petitioner in its petition, by identifying, specifically, the features,
claims, and ancestral applications allegedly lacking § 112, first
paragraph, written description and enabling disclosure support
for the claims based on the identified features. Then, the Patent
Owner has to make a sufficient showing of entitlement to earlier
filing date or dates, in a manner that is commensurate in scope
with the specific points and contentions raised by Petitioner.
Id. at 29; see also Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., IPR2017-
01980, Paper 9 at 9–10 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2018) (discussing Dynamic);
Franklin Elec. Co. v. Liberty Pumps, Inc., IPR2017-00113, Paper 14 at 12–
13 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2017) (same); Lupin Ltd. v. Pozen Inc., IPR2015-01775,
Paper 15 at 10–11 (PTAB Mar. 1, 2016) (same).
2. Effective Filing Date of the ’073 Patent
The ’073 patent’s filing date is February 17, 2017. Through a granted
petition to correct its claim of priority (see Ex. 1004, part 1 of 3, 1–25), the
’073 patent asserts priority benefits under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to earlier filing
dates as a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/176,984, filed July
21, 2008 (“’984 Application”), which is a continuation-in-part of
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
10
Application No. 11/257,912, filed October 25, 2005 (Ex. 1011, the “’912
Application”), which is a continuation-in-part of Application No.
09/933,493, filed August 20, 2001 (Ex. 1010, “’493 Application”).2
As mentioned, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has the burden of
showing sufficiently that the patents or publications relied upon are prior art.
See Dynamic, supra. In ground 1, Petitioner alleges “Kamvar was filed on
June 22, 2004, and published December 22, 2005, making it prior art to the
’073 patent under at least §102(e).” Pet. 5; Ex. 1005. Specifically,
Petitioner contends that “[t]he claims of the ’073 Patent are not entitled to
the . . . priority date of the 2001 [’493] application” because it “does not
provide support for ‘a cache of query strings and search results based on
content queries received from multiple users,’ as recited by claim 1 of the
’073 Patent, on which all other claims depend.”3 Pet. 3–5. Petitioner alleges
that the claimed feature was added as new matter in the later-filed ’912
Application and ’984 Application. Id. at 4.
To the contrary, Patent Owner contends that the “cache” limitation is
supported by the ’493 Application. Prelim. Resp. 10–22. Patent Owner
notes that, “[t]o claim priority to a prior application, that application must
‘describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the
art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as

2 Although the ’493 application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to
provisional application 60/951,850 filed July 25, 2007, Patent Owner does
not assert priority to the provisional filing date in this proceeding. See
generally Prelim. Resp.

3 For the sake of brevity, this claim element is referenced as the “cache”
limitation at points in the remainder of this decision.
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
11
of the filing date sought.’” Id. at 14 (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
107 F.3d 1565, 1571–1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “[T]he exact terms need not
be used in haec verba,” rather “the specification must contain an equivalent
description of the claimed subject matter.” Id.
We find Patent Owner’s evidence shows sufficiently that the claim
limitation of “a cache of query strings and search results based on content
queries received from multiple users” is supported by the ’493 Application.
As Patent Owner notes, § 112 ¶ 1 support does not require literal support,
word for word, in the priority application, but only that the equivalent
description is present there. See Lockwood, supra.
Patent Owner notes that the “Content-based Cache” 222 (see Figure 2
of the ’493 Application) is defined as “[a] persistent store of Queries and
corresponding Result Sets executed by a Content Engine for a specific
Content Channel.” Prelim. Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1010, 18, 27; Ex. 2028
¶ 38). This establishes that the ’493 Application provides § 112 ¶ 1 support
for a server-side cache of content queries and corresponding search results.
Patent Owner further notes that the ’493 Application states that “[e]nd
users of the present invention experience an unprecedented level of user-
friendliness accessing information that is guaranteed to be up-to-date while
being efficiently cached for speedy access as the number of simultaneous
users grows.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1010, 55; Ex. 2028 ¶ 39)
(emphasis added). This statement indicates that the cached queries are
received from multiple users. Patent Owner’s other evidence also supports
this conclusion. See Prelim. Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 1010, 34; Ex. 2028 ¶¶ 41–
42), 19–20 (Ex. 1010, 2–4, 13–14; Ex. 2028 ¶¶ 44–45).
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
12
Patent Owner reproduces Figure 8A of the ’493 Application, which
depicts objects “QoResultsCache” and “QoResultsCacheEntry” in cache
embodiments that include query strings and search result sets received from
multiple users. Prelim. Resp. 16-17 (citing Ex. 1010, Fig. 8, ¶ 117; Ex. 2028
¶¶ 46–47). Patent Owner thus demonstrates sufficiently that the cache
includes query strings and their corresponding search results from queries of
multiple users.
“When neither the PTO nor the Board has previously considered
priority, there is simply no reason to presume that claims in a CIP
application are entitled to the effective filing date of an earlier filed
application.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305
(Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, Patent Owner has demonstrates that the ’493
Application supports the “cache” limitation under § 112 ¶ 1. Prelim. Resp.
21–22 (citing Ex. 2028 ¶¶ 50–54). Further, Patent Owner’s expert testifies
that support for the “cache” limitation is present in each application from the
’493 Application to the ’073 Patent. Prelim. Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 2028
¶¶ 50–54). In addition, each application in the chain of priority applications
incorporates the prior applications by reference, so the ’073 Patent
cumulates the written description and enablement disclosures of the earlier
applications. Ex. 1001, code (63), 1:7–30; Ex. 1004, part 1 of 3, 125 (the
’984 Application), 167, 198 ¶ 1, 201 ¶ 1 (the ’912 Application), part 2 of 3,
135–136 ¶ 2 (the ’073 Patent).
For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s evidence shows
sufficiently that the ’493 Application provides support under § 112 ¶ 1 for
the claim limitation of “a cache of query strings and search results based on
content queries received from multiple users” as recited in claim 1, and
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
13
thereby all dependent claims, of the ’073 Patent. As Petitioner’s only
priority contention alleged with specificity is that the “cache” limitation is
missing from the ’493 Application, and Patent Owner has shown sufficiently
that the equivalent disclosure is present there, Patent Owner has shown
sufficiently that the ’073 Patent is entitled to a priority date of August 20,
2001, for purposes of this Decision.
3. Conclusion for Ground 1
In ground 1, Petitioner asserts Kamvar as prior art against claims 1, 6–
8, and 11 of the ’073 Patent. Pet. 1, 5–38. Petitioner asserts that Kamvar,
filed June 22, 2004 and published December 22, 2005, is prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 5; Ex. 1005, code (22), code (43). Petitioner argues
that the ’493 application, to which the ’073 Patent claims priority, fails to
support claim 1’s limitation of “a cache of query strings and search results
based on content queries received from multiple users” under § 112 ¶ 1.
Patent Owner, however, sufficiently demonstrates that the ’073 Patent
supports the “cache” limitation of claim 1 under § 112 ¶ 1. Therefore, in a
manner that is commensurate in scope with the specific points and
contentions raised by Petitioner, Patent Owner sufficiently shows that the
’073 Patent is entitled to priority of the ’493 Application’s filing date of
August 20, 2001, which pre-dates Kamvar’s filing date of June 22, 2004.
Accordingly, Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show that Kamvar
is prior art to the ’073 Patent. For this reason, ground 1 of the Petition fails
to present a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one
claim of the ’073 Patent is unpatentable.
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
14
B. Ground 2: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 12 over
Kamvar and Baluja
In ground 2, Petitioner asserts Kamvar in combination with Baluja as
prior art against claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 12 of the ’073 Patent. Pet. 1, 38–
55. As noted above in Section II.A, Petitioner argues that the “cache”
limitation of claim 1 of the ’073 Patent lacks support under § 112 ¶ 1 in the
’493 Application. Patent Owner, though, has shown sufficiently that the
“cache” limitation of claim 1 of the ’073 Patent has written description and
enablement support under § 112 ¶ 1 and thus, for purposes of this Decision,
is entitled to the priority date of August 20, 2001 established by the ’493
Application’s filing. Because Kamvar’s filing date is June 22, 2004 and thus
after the ’073 Patent’s priority date of August 20, 2001, Petitioner fails to
demonstrate sufficiently that Kamvar is prior art to the ’073 Patent.
Petitioner asserts that Baluja, filed December 3, 2004 and published
June 8, 2006, is prior art to the ’073 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Pet. 38; Ex. 1006, code (22), code (43). As discussed above, for purposes of
this Decision, the ’073 Patent’s priority date is August 20, 2001, which is
before Baluja’s filing date of December 3, 2004. Therefore, Petitioner does
not meet its burden to show that Baluja is prior art to the ’073 Patent.
Prelim. Resp. 30–31; Ex. 1006.
Accordingly, ground 2 of the Petition fails to present a reasonable
likelihood that at least one claim of the ’073 Patent is unpatentable.
C. Ground 3: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8–11 over
Kravets, Porter and Barr
In ground 3, Petitioner asserts the combination of Kravets, Porter and
Barr against claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8–11 of the ’073 Patent. Pet. 1, 56–86.
Petitioner asserts that Porter, a published application, claims priority to a
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
15
provisional application filed on November 21, 2000, and is prior art to the
’073 Patent under § 102(e). Pet. 56; Ex. 1008, code (22), code (43).
Petitioner contends Dr. Myler’s testimony shows § 112 ¶ 1 support in the
Porter provisional application (Ex. 1013) for Porter’s claim 7 in asserting
that Porter is prior art to the ’073 Patent as of the Porter provisional
application’s filing date. Pet. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82–83).
Patent Owner contends that the Petition must show (1) that Porter’s
provisional application provides § 112 ¶ 1 support for the claims of Porter
(the published application); and (2) that Porter’s provisional application
supports the allegations in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 34–35 (citing
Dynamic, 800 F.3d at 1380, 1382; Intex Recreational Corp v. Team
Worldwide Corp., IPR2018-00859, Paper 128 at 26 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2019);
In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
Patent Owner further contends
Petitioner cites to Porter as teaching at least one limitation of
every challenged claim in Ground 3. However, there is not any
overlap between the cited portions of Porter and the provisional.
Throughout Ground 3, Petitioner cites Porter Figs. 2, 4 and ¶¶5,
15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 30, 32, 33, 39, 41. None of those figures
or paragraphs are in the provisional. Compare EX1008 with
EX1013. At no point does Petitioner attempt to identify an
equivalent disclosure in the provisional. Thus, for this additional
reason, Petitioner has not shown that any of the Porter disclosure
it cites is entitled to the priority date of the provisional. This is
fatal to Ground 3.
Id. at 38.
Although Petitioner attempts to show that Porter’s provisional
application supports claim 7 (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82–83), we agree with Patent
Owner that Petitioner fails to show that the provisional application supports
the portions of Porter relied upon to challenge the ’073 Patent’s claims. See
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
16
Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“an applicant is not
entitled to a patent if another’s patent discloses the same invention, which
was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application or U.S. non-
provisional application”). As Patent Owner notes above, there are
significant differences between Porter and its provisional application, and
one cannot assume that disclosure in Porter is necessarily present in the
provisional. Compare Ex. 1008 and Ex. 1013. Therefore, Petitioner fails to
meet its burden to show that Porter’s provisional application supports the
portions of Porter’s published application relied upon in ground 3. See
Dynamic, 800 F.3d at 1380, 1382.
In ground 3, Petitioner relies on Porter to disclose search-engine data
and displayable data, which allows for displaying search results immediately
without requiring selection of a link, for limitations [1d] to [1h] of the ’073
Patent. Pet. 64–80. Without Porter, Petitioner’s mapping fails to show that
each element of the claims is disclosed in the prior art because Kravets’s
HTML/JavaScripts are not the displayable search result data recited in
limitations [1d] to [1h] of the ’073 Patent. Pet. 64. Petitioner relies on Barr
merely to disclose a “query identification number” to identify a search query
of a user. Pet. 77. The Petition does not show sufficiently that the
combination of Kravets and Barr, without Porter, renders obvious all the
limitations of claim 1. In addition, Petitioner relies on Porter alone, or with
Kravets, to teach the limitations of claims 2, 4, 5 and 8–11 of the ’073
Patent. See Pet. 80–86. Without Porter, Petitioner’s mappings fail to show
sufficiently the obviousness of these dependent claims.
Accordingly, Petitioner fails to show that Porter is prior art to the ’073
Patent, and ground 3 of the Petition fails to present a reasonable likelihood
that at least one claim of the ’073 Patent is unpatentable.
IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
17
III. REMAINING MATTERS
Because we have decided to deny the Petition for the reasons
discussed above in Section II, we do not reach the remaining issues raised in
the briefings. These matters include arguments concerning motivation to
combine the alleged prior art references (Prelim. Resp. 42–43, 48); claim
elements alleged to be missing from the asserted prior art (Prelim. Resp. 23–
30, 31–34, 39–49); alleged lack of particularity in the challenges (Prelim.
Resp. 29, 31, 33–34, 39, 46, 48); discretionary denial under § 314(a)
(Prelim. Resp. 49–54; Reply 10; Sur-Reply 5); and alleged failure to name
all real parties in interest under § 312(a)(2) (Prelim. Resp. 54–63; Reply 1–
9; Sur-Reply 1–5; Sur-Sur-Reply 1–2).
IV. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that claims 1, 2 and 4–12 of the
’073 Patent would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly,
we decline to institute trial on claims 1, 2 and 4–12 on the grounds of
unpatentability asserted by Petitioner.
V. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the Petition for inter
partes review is denied.

IPR2020-01201
Patent 10,311,073 B2
18

For Petitioner:
Trenton Ward
A. Grace Mills
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Trenton.ward@finnegan.com
Gracie.mills@finnegan.com

Ashraf A. Fawzy
Jung Hahm
UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
jung@unifiedpatents.com

For Patent Owner:

Leslie V. Payne
Christopher L. Limbacher
HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
lpayne@hpcllp.com
climbacher@hpcllp.com