Toshiba Corporation et al.v.Intellectual Ventures II LLCDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 21, 201409671554 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2014) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 21, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ TOSHIBA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC.; TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.; AND TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC Patent Owner _______________ Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 _______________ Before KEVIN F. TURNER, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and DAVID C. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 2 I. INTRODUCTION A. Background Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition (Paper 8, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 6,618,788 (Ex. 1001, “the ’788 patent”). See 35 U.S.C. § 311. Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 10, “Prelim. Resp.”). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows: THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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. We determine that the record before us does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We consequently deny the petition and decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’788 patent. B. Related Matters Patent Owner has asserted the ’788 patent against Petitioner in Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Toshiba Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00453 (D. Del.). Pet. 1; Paper 4 at 2. Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 3 C. References Relied Upon Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references: Ex. 1003 Bastiani US 6,609,167 B1 Aug. 19, 2003 (filed Mar. 15, 2000) Ex. 1005 McDonald US 6,421,760 B1 July 16, 2002 (filed Apr. 26, 2000) Ex. 1006 Clay US 5,465,338 Nov. 7, 1995 D. The Asserted Grounds Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 7): References Basis Claims challenged Bastiani § 102(e) 1, 9, 10, 17-20, 22, 24 Bastiani § 103(a) 1-27 Bastiani and McDonald § 103(a) 7, 16, and 21 Bastiani and Clay § 103(a) 23 II. ANALYSIS A. The ’788 Patent The ’788 patent is directed to techniques for communicating over a serial communication connection, such as a universal serial bus (“USB”), between a computer host and a remote device that conforms to one or more of the Advanced Technology Attachment (“ATA”) standards. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ATA standards are promulgated by the American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) and define the physical, electrical, transport, Case Paten and c over an in Figu Figu exter can b is co port at th 140. that devi IPR2014- t 6,618,78 ommand an ATA b ternal hard One emb re 5, repro re 5 is a bl nal ATA d e, for exa nnected to 132 on the e other end Id. at col converts d ce 140. Id 00201 8 protocols f us. Id. at drive of odiment o duced belo ock diagra evice 140 mple, an e ATA Dev host. Id. of the sm . 5, ll. 34-3 ata for com . at col. 5, or the atta col. 1, ll. 1 a personal f the inve w: m illustrat . Id. at co xternal har ice 140 vi at col. 5, l art cable m 5. Smart municatio ll. 39-43. 4 chment of 1-22. An computer. ntion of th ing host 1 l. 4, ll. 63- d drive. I a smart ca l. 17-18, 2 ates with cable 150 n between devices to example o Id. at col e ’788 pat 30 in com 65. The e d. at col. 3 ble 150 th 1-22, 34-3 socket 14 includes b USB hos a comput f an ATA . 1, ll. 17- ent is show municatio xternal AT , ll. 55-57 at plugs in 5. A conn 2 of ATA ridging cir t 130 and er host device is 19. n in n with A device . Host 130 to USB ector 152 device cuit 156 ATA Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 5 The host communicates with the ATA device by accessing, reading from, and writing to registers on the ATA device. Id., col. 1, l. 61-col. 2, l. 23. For example, the ATA device executes register-driven commands from the host when those commands are written to the ATA device’s “COMMAND” register. Id. at col. 2, ll. 1-9. The host includes a register- based ATA host driver that formats ATA register accesses into ATA command blocks, which are packets. Id. at col. 4, ll. 11-14; col. 5, ll. 57-63; Fig. 7. The command blocks are sent from the host to the bridging circuit. Id. at col. 4, ll. 14-15; col. 5, l. 64-col. 6, l. 6; col. 6, ll. 26-34. At the bridging circuit, a controller receives an ATA command block, recognizes it as a command block, and parses it into a sequence of ATA register accesses. Id. at col. 6, ll. 7-14; Fig. 7. The controller then delivers the ATA register access sequence to an ATA register protocol adapter for execution. Id. at col. 6, ll. 14-15; Fig. 7. The ATA register protocol adapter contains the functionality for communicating asynchronously with the ATA device. Id. at col. 6, ll. 20-22. When a given ATA register-delivered transaction requests the values stored in one or more of the ATA device’s registers, the bridging circuit sends those values to the host in a packet format. Id. at col. 4, ll. 20-23. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of controlling an ATA device using packet-based communication between a host and a packet-to- ATA bridge, the method comprising at the host: Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 6 formatting the ATA register accesses necessary to execute a given ATA register-delivered transaction into a command block; and transmitting the command block to the packet-to- ATA bridge in a packet format, and at the packet-to-ATA bridge: parsing the command block into a sequence of ATA operations necessary to execute the given ATA register-delivered transaction; communicating with an ATA device attached to the bridge via an ATA interface to execute the sequence of ATA operations on the ATA device; and when the given ATA register-delivered transaction requests the values for one or more registers on the ATA device, returning the register values to the host in packet format. B. Claim Construction As a step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a trial, we determine the meaning of the claims. The Board interprets claims using the broadest reasonable construction. See 37 C.F.R. § 100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claim terms generally are given their 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). Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 7 1. “parse” / “parsing” Neither party proposes an express construction of “parse” or “parsing.” However, Petitioner contends that a component in Bastiani “parses or breaks down” an ATA command into a standard sequence of ATA operations. Pet. 16. Thus, Petitioner implicitly proposes construing “parse” to mean break down into constituent parts. An ordinary meaning of “parse” is: To resolve a request or response into component parts. In the context of messages, a device can break the message into pieces, each of which consists of a header and sometimes some corresponding data. If a device is able to parse a message, it can recognize each piece of a message. It does not necessarily make use of the data found in that message. However, it shall make any confirmation responses or other responses that the message requires. IEEE 100, THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS TERMS 795 (7th ed. 2000) (Ex. 3001). The specification describes parsing consistently with breaking down a larger block into its component parts. For example, the ’788 patent explains that “[t]he bridge parses the command block into a sequence of ATA operations necessary to execute the given ATA register-delivered transaction.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 15-17. Similarly, the patent explains that “[w]hen controller 166 receives an ATA command block, it recognizes the command block as such, checks it for inconsistencies, and parses it into a sequence of ATA register accesses.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 11-14. Accordingly, on this record, “parse” means to break down a data packet or block into its component parts. Case Paten expr term antic proto comm hard 23. Figu (“ID IPR2014- t 6,618,78 2. For purp ess constru s, consiste C. Antic 1. Petitione ipated by col (“ASP unicating drives and Figure 3 is re 3 is a bl E”) device 00201 8 Other ter oses of thi ction and nt with the ipation by Bastiani r contend Bastiani. ”) that de between CD-ROM reproduce ock diagra connected ms s decision we apply specifica Bastiani s that claim Pet. 12-36 fines a dat a compute drives. E d below: m illustrat to a host 8 , no other a plain and tion of the s 1, 9, 10 . Bastiani a transmis r system a x. 1003, c ing an Int computer term in cla ordinary ’788 paten , 17-20, 22 describes sion enviro nd periphe ol. 1, ll. 2 egrated Dr through an ims 1-27 meanings t. , and 24 a an advanc nment for ral device 5-32; col. ive Electr ASP Ada requires to all othe re ed serial s, such as 2, ll. 20- onics pter. r Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 9 Id. at col. 3, ll. 63-65. According to Petitioner’s declarant, Thomas Gardner, the terms IDE and ATA are interchangeable. Ex. 1007 ¶ 11 (citing MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 33 (4th ed. 1999) (Ex. 1004)). For purposes of this decision, we accept the argument that IDE and ATA are interchangeable. IDE device 122 and ASP Adapter 118 are connected through standard IDE parallel cable 120 and are enclosed within enclosure 116. Ex. 1003, col. 6, ll. 44-47. ASP Adapter 118 is connected via serial bus 110 to host adapter 104, which connects to the motherboard of host 102 through a Peripheral Component Interconnect (“PCI”) interface. Id. at col. 6, ll. 20-28. The host creates a Command Descriptor Block (“CDB”) with an ATA command and stores it in memory. Id. at col. 49, ll. 13-15; col. 50, ll. 16-23. The host then communicates the ATA Command to the IDE device by sending the ATA Command packaged in a packet (an “OUTDATA0/1 packet”). Id. at col. 41, ll. 23-27; col. 50, ll. 24-26. The packet is sent over serial bus 110 to ASP Adapter 118. Id. at col. 42, ll. 6-10. After IDE device 122 executes the ATA command, the device returns its status to the host in a packet (a “DATA0/1 packet”). Id. at col. 41, ll. 27-31. 2. Claim 1 Regarding claim 1, Petitioner contends that Bastiani’s host computer is a host, its IDE device is an ATA device, and its ASP Adapter is a packet- to-ATA bridge. Pet. 13-15. Petitioner further contends that Bastiani’s creation of CDBs is formatting ATA register accesses necessary to execute a given ATA register-delivered transaction into a command block (Pet. 15- 16), and that Bastiani’s transmission of an OUTDATA0/1 packet is Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 10 transmitting the command block to the packet-to-ATA bridge in a packet format (Pet. 16). Petitioner also argues that Bastiani’s returning the DATA0/1 packets to the host constitutes returning the register values to the host in packet format. The parties dispute whether Bastiani discloses claim 1’s “parsing the command block into a sequence of ATA operations necessary to execute the given ATA register-delivered transaction.” Petitioner argues that Bastiani’s ASP Adapter “parses or breaks down” the ATA Command sent in the OUTDATA0/1 packet into a standard sequence of ATA operations. Pet. 16. Petitioner (Pet. 17) cites Bastiani (Ex. 1003) at column 42, lines 6-16, which states: The ASP protocol implements a serial transport mechanism and the commands and status that are passed are the normal ATA/ATAPI1 commands that are currently used with the parallel version of ATA/ATAPI. ATA/ATAPI commands are sent across the ASP bus by the transport mechanism and it is up to the device to execute these commands in a similar manner to what is done today. The code used to execute these commands should remain identical for all devices. The user should consult the current version of the X310 document on AT Attachement- 3 Interface for a complete listing of the commands and responses that the device uses. Petitioner argues that the ASP Adapter connects to the IDE device by a standard IDE cable; therefore it is sending ATA register-delivered transactions to the IDE device. Pet. 16-17. According to Petitioner, because 1 According to the ’788 patent, AT Attachment with Packet Interface Extension (“ATAPI”) specifies a method for controlling a storage device over an ATA bus using packet-delivered commands. Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 31-33. Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 11 the ASP Adapter receives the ATA commands in packets sent by the host over the ASP cable, “the ASP ADAPTER must parse or break down the ATA Command contained in the OUTDATA0/1 packets into [a] standard sequence of ATA operations and the ASP ADAPTER then causes those operations to occur by accessing ATA registers on the IDE device.” Id. at 17. Petitioner relies on its declarant, Mr. Gardner, to support this argument. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23-25). Mr. Gardner seeks to show the technical details of Bastiani’s ASP Adaptor through comparison of Bastiani’s system with that described in the ’788 patent. According to Mr. Gardner, Bastiani’s IDE device 122 is “identical” to the ATA device described in the ’788 patent. Ex. 1007 ¶ 24. Mr. Gardner argues that the connectors and the signals carried over Bastiani’s standard IDE cable must be identical to those of connector 152 of the ’788 patent because both the IDE cable and the connector comport to the same standard. Id. Because their connectors and signals are identical, Mr. Gardner continues, the ASP Adapter sends standard ATA commands to the registers of a device so that the device can perform register-delivered transactions, just as the ’788 patent’s bridging circuit does. Id. Mr. Gardner then concludes that, because both Bastiani’s ASP Adapter and the ’788 patent’s bridging circuit receive packets containing an ATA Command Block over a serial cable, Bastiani’s ASP Adapter must parse those packets into sequences of ATA operations in the same manner as the ’788 patent’s bridging circuit. Id. Patent Owner contends that Bastiani does not disclose explicitly the parsing limitation of claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 5. Rather, Patent Owner argues, Bastiani merely describes passing commands across the ASP bus to be Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 12 executed by the IDE device without describing any parsing. Id. at 6. We agree. The portion of Bastiani cited by Petitioner describes transmitting ATA commands across an ASP bus to a “device.” 2 Petitioner, however, has not identified persuasively where Bastiani describes the details of how the device processes the ATA commands once it receives them or whether it breaks down a packet into component parts. Rather, Bastiani simply states that “it is up to the device to execute these commands in a similar manner to what is done today.” Ex. 1003, col. 42, ll. 11-12. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner, by failing to show explicit disclosure of the parsing limitation and arguing instead that it “must” be disclosed, essentially argues that the parsing limitation is disclosed inherently in Bastiani. Prelim. Resp. 7. “A reference may anticipate inherently if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed ‘is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.’” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). “‘Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)). 2 Bastiani uses the term “device” to refer to both the “IDE device” of Figure 3 and an “ASP device” of Figures 2 and 4A-4C, which includes the functionality of the IDE device along with an ASP Adapter, either integrated with the IDE device or connected to the IDE device. Ex. 1003, col. 6, ll. 17- 61; col. 6, ll. 53-60. Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 13 According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s inherency argument is based on an unproved allegation that Bastiani’s ASP Adapter and the ’788 patent’s bridging circuit both comport to the same standard. Prelim. Resp. 8. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s use of the ’788 patent’s disclosure to prove the contents of Bastiani’s disclosure is an improper circular argument. Id. Patent Owner further argues that, even if the ASP Adapter in Bastiani and the bridging circuit in the ’788 patent do comport to the same standard, the IDE/ATA standard does not relate to the claimed parsing limitation. Id. at 9-10. Patent Owner contends that neither the ’788 patent nor the IDE/ATA standards define Bastiani’s ASP packets or specify how to parse them. Id. at 9. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Bastiani inherently discloses the parsing limitation of claim 1. Petitioner’s declarant essentially opines that because Bastiani’s ASP Adapter comports to the same standard as the ’788 patent’s bridging circuit, receives similar input, and outputs the same commands, it must be implemented in same way. Ex. 1007 ¶ 24. Mr. Gardner, however, does not introduce persuasive evidence that the parsing feature of the bridging circuit is a requirement of the ATA standards. Although the ’788 patent states that its bridging circuit parses a command block into a sequence of ATA operations, it does not identify this feature as a requirement of any version of the ATA standards. Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 15-17; col. 6, ll. 11-14. Moreover, as Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 9), Bastiani’s ASP Adapter receives different input than the ’788 patent’s bridging circuit. Specifically, Bastiani’s ASP Adapter receives a packet conforming to an ASP protocol (Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll. 21-34), while the ’788 patent’s bridging Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 14 circuit receives a Mass Storage Class (“MSC”) packet (Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 45-50; col. 10, ll. 14-20). Petitioner does not point to persuasive evidence that any ATA standard requires both types of packets to be processed using the same parsing technique. Specifically, Petitioner has not demonstrated that any such standard requires Bastiani’s ASP Adapter to break down an OUTDATA0/1 packet into a sequence of ATA operations. We also agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 8) that Petitioner has not shown that Bastiani’s ASP Adapter and the ’788 patent’s bridging circuit comport to the same standard. According to the ’788 patent, the ATA standards broadly include ATA/ATAPI-4, its predecessors, and future ATA standards. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 11-16. Mr. Gardner does not state to which version of the ATA standards the ’788 patent’s bridging circuit comports. He does state, however, that ATA-4 was the most recent version available at the time the ’788 patent was filed, suggesting that the preferred bridging circuit described in the ’788 patent would comport to ATA-4. Ex. 1007 ¶ 11. Petitioner also does not specify to which version of the ATA standards Bastiani’s ASP Adapter comports. The portion of Bastiani to which Petitioner cites suggests it is an earlier version, ATA-3, rather than ATA-4. Ex. 1003, col. 42, ll. 13-16 (“The user should consult the current version of the X3T10 document on AT Attachement-3 Interface for a complete listing of the commands and responses that the device uses.”). Mr. Gardner does not provide a comparison of ATA-4 with ATA-3. Nor does Mr. Gardner state that the ’788 patent’s preferred bridging circuit would have comported to ATA-3, or that Bastiani’s ASP Adapter would have comported to ATA-4. Because Petitioner has not shown that the bridging circuit and the ASP Adapter comport to the same standard, we are not convinced by Petitioner’s Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 15 argument that the ’788 patent is persuasive evidence of the implementation details of Bastiani’s ASP Adaptor, including any necessity for parsing. Regarding the contents of the ATA standards, Mr. Gardner further opines that the ATA-4 version of the ATA standards has clauses covering cabling, connector, and signaling requirements of an ATA cable that plugs into an ATA interface. Ex. 1007 ¶ 19. This opinion, however, is entitled to little weight as he does not identify any evidence to show the requirements of the ATA-4 standard.3 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). On the current record, we cannot say that the parsing feature of claim 1 necessarily is present in Bastiani’s ASP Adapter. Thus, we are not persuaded that Bastiani inherently discloses the parsing limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim 1. 3. Claims 9, 10, 17-20, 22, and 24 The remaining independent claims, 10, 18, and 24, each include substantially the same parsing limitation. Petitioner advances substantially the same arguments and evidence regarding these limitations. Pet. 22-23, 28-29, 33-34. Patent Owner also argues claims 10, 18, and 24 together with claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 3. For the reasons given above, Petitioner has not 3 Mr. Gardner cites to page vii of Clay, Ex. 1006, as setting forth certain clauses of the ATA-4 standard. This appears to by a typographical error, however, as Clay does not have a page vii and does not discuss specific clauses of the ATA-4 standard. Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 16 persuaded us that Bastiani explicitly or inherently discloses the parsing limitations of claims 10, 18, and 24, and, thus, has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 10, 18, and 24 as anticipated by Bastiani. Claim 9 depends from claim 1; claim 17 depends from claim 10; and claims 19, 20, and 22 depend from claim 18. In arguing claims 9, 17, 19, 20, and 22, Petitioner does not advance additional evidence regarding the parsing limitations of claims 1, 10, and 18. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 9, 17, 19, 20, and 22 as anticipated by Bastiani. D. Obviousness over Bastiani, McDonald, and Clay 1. Obviousness of claims 1, 9, 10, 17-20, 22, and 24 over Bastiani Petitioner contends that, even if claims 1, 9, 10, 17-20, 22, and 24 are not anticipated by Bastiani, they nevertheless would have been obvious over Bastiani. Pet. 36. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “[a]ny elements found to be missing were well known in the prior art, as Bastiani clearly discloses all points that the inventors of the ’788 patent considered to be novel. The claims are rendered obvious by modifying Bastiani to include whatever elements are found to be missing.” Pet. 36. Petitioner relies on Mr. Gardner’s declaration, which states [b]ased on the reasons stated in the petition, as well as my experience and knowledge, it is my opinion that claims 1, 9-10, 17-20, 22, and 24 of the ’788 patent are rendered obvious by modifications to Bastiani if not anticipated by Bastiani. The modifications would involve techniques already known in the prior art. Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 17 Ex. 1007 ¶ 32. For the reasons given above, we are not persuaded that Bastiani discloses the parsing limitations of claims 1, 9, 10, 17-20, 22, and 24. Thus, the issue is whether Petitioner has demonstrated that it is reasonably likely to show that these claims would have been obvious over Bastiani. We are not persuaded that claims 1, 9, 10, 17-20, 22, and 24 would have been obvious over Bastiani. An analysis of obviousness must be based on several factual inquiries: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if any. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, Petitioner’s obviousness argument is entirely conclusory. Petitioner does not identify the claimed parsing as a difference between the claims and Bastiani, nor does Petitioner explain how Bastiani would have been modified or the reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done so. Mr. Gardner’s declaration is equally conclusory. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 1, 9, 10, 17-20, 22, and 24 as obvious over Bastiani. 2. Remaining Obviousness Contentions Regarding claims 2-8, 11-16, 21, 23, and 25-27, Petitioner presents arguments and evidence to show that the additional limitations of these claims would have been obvious modifications to Bastiani. Pet. 36-51. Petitioner, however, does not present, in its analysis of these claims, any additional evidence or argument regarding the parsing limitation of claims 1, Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 18 10, 18, and 24, from which claims 2-8, 11-16, 21, 23, and 25-27 depend. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 2-8, 11-16, 21, 23, and 25-27 as obvious over Bastiani. Petitioner makes additional arguments that claims 7, 16, and 21 would have been obvious over Bastiani and McDonald (Pet. 51-55) and that claim 23 would have been obvious over Bastiani and Clay (Pet. 55-57). Once again, Petitioner does not present any additional evidence or argument regarding the parsing limitation of claims 1, 10, and 18, from which claims 7, 16, 21, and 23 depend. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 7, 16, and 21 as obvious over Bastiani and McDonald or claim 23 as obvious over Bastiani and Clay. III. CONCLUSION Petitioner has not demonstrated persuasively that Bastiani, alone or in combination, discloses or teaches “parsing the command block into a sequence of ATA [register] operations necessary to execute the given ATA register-delivered transaction,” as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 24, or “an ATA command protocol adapter to parse a command packet into a sequence of ATA register operations and cause that sequence of operations to be performed by the ATA register protocol adapter,” as recited in independent claim 24. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. The Petition is denied. Case IPR2014-00201 Patent 6,618,788 19 IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that the Petition challenging the patentability of claims 1- 27 is denied. FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted. PETITIONER: Brent Yamashita Brent.yamashita@dlapiper.com Gerald Sekimura Gerald.sekimura@dlapiper.com PATENT OWNER: Robert Sterne Rsterne-ptab@skgf.com Jon Wright Jwright-ptab@skgf.com Christian Camarce Ccamarce-ptab@skgf.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation