Samsung Display Co., Ltd.v.Gold Charm Limited

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2015

09310574 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 12
571-272-7822 Entered: December 29, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and
FUNAI ELECTRIC CO., LTD.,
Petitioners,

v.

GOLD CHARM LTD.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1
____________

Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioners, Samsung Display Company Limited, Toshiba
Corporation, and Funai Electric Company Limited (collectively, “SDC”),
filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–9 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,211,534 B1 (“the ’534 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
Patent Owner, Gold Charm Limited (“Gold Charm”), timely filed a
Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an
inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in
the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
Taking into account the arguments presented in Gold Charm’s Preliminary
Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does
not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that SDC will prevail in
challenging any of claims 1–9 of the ’534 patent as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, deny the Petition.
A. Related Matters
The ’534 patent has been asserted in the following district court cases:
(1) MiiCs & Partners, America, Inc., v. Toshiba Corp., No. 1:14-cv-00803-
RGA (D. Del.); (2) MiiCs & Partners, America, Inc., v. Funai Electric Co.,
No. 1:14-cv-00804-RGA (D. Del.); and (3) MiiCs & Partners, America,
Inc., v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., No. 1:14-cv-00805-RGA (D. Del.)
(dismissed on July 7, 2015). Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2–3. In addition to this
Petition, SDC filed other petitions challenging the patentability of a certain
subset of claims in the following patents owned by Gold Charm: (1) U.S.
Patent No. 5,850,275 (Case IPR2015-01416); (2) U.S. Patent No. 5,966,589
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

3
(Case IPR2015-01417); (3) U.S. Patent No. 5,995,176 (Case IPR2015-
01448); (4) U.S. Patent No. 7,460,190 B2 (Case IPR2015-01452); (5) U.S.
Patent No. 6,909,053 B2 (Case IPR2015-01468); (6) U.S. Patent No.
5,870,163 (Case IPR2015-01469); (7) U.S. Patent No. 6,417,833 B1 (Case
IPR2015-01479); (8) U.S. Patent No. 6,734,927 B2 (Case IPR2015-01491);
(9) U.S. Patent No. 5,790,092 (Case IPR2015-01497); and (10) U.S. Patent
No. 6,816,213 B2 (Case IPR2015-01525).
A. The ’534 Patent
The ’534 patent, titled “Thin Film Transistor Array and Method for
Fabricating the Same,” issued April 3, 2001, from U.S. Patent Application
No. 09/310,574, filed on May 12, 1999. Ex. 1001, at [54], [45], [21], [22].
The ’534 patent claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 10-
150592, filed on May 14, 1998. Id. at [30].
As the title suggests, the ’534 patent generally relates to a thin film
transistor (“TFT”) array and, in particular, to a TFT array used, e.g., in a
liquid crystal display that is free from electrostatic damage during the
manufacturing process. Ex. 1001, 1:6–12. According to the ’534 patent,
one of the problems to be solved in this field of endeavor is decreasing or
avoiding electrostatic damage caused by electrification during the
fabrication process of the TFT array or by abnormal discharge in the film
forming apparatus. Id. at 1:15–22. Conventional techniques to solve this
problem have their disadvantages because they make it impossible to
perform an inspection for detecting defects in the TFTs after finishing the
fabrication process. Id. at 1:29–32, see also id. at 1:57–59 (further
disclosing that conventional techniques make it impossible to perform an
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

4
inspection for detecting defects in the TFTs for displays with high
precision).
The ’534 patent purportedly addresses these disadvantages associated
with the conventional techniques by providing a TFT array that decreases
discharge between gate wirings and a common line on the gate wiring side,
as well as decreases discharge between signal lines and the common line on
the signal line side. Ex. 1001, 3:49–55. These decreases in discharge
purportedly help to suppress the electrostatic damage that may occur during
the manufacturing process. Id. at 3:56–62.
B. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 6, and 8 are independent.
Independent claims 1, 6, and 8 each are directed to a TFT array. Claims 2–5
directly depend from independent claim 1; claim 7 directly depends from
independent claim 6; and claim 9 directly depends from independent claim
8. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged claims and is
reproduced below:
1. A thin film transistor array comprising:
a substrate;
a plurality of pixel electrodes formed on said, substrate
and disposed in a matrix having rows and columns;
a plurality of thin film transistors (TFTs) for display
which are formed on said substrate and each of which is
connected to a corresponding one of said pixel electrodes;
a plurality of gate wirings which are formed on said
substrate, which are formed by a first conductor layer, each of
which is disposed along every row of said pixel electrodes and
each of which is used for supplying a gate signal to said TFTs
in a corresponding row;
a plurality of signal lines which are formed on said
substrate, which are formed by a second conductor layer, each
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

5
of which is disposed along every column of said pixel
electrodes, and each of which is used for supplying a data
signal to said TFTs in a corresponding column;
a common conductor line on the gate wiring side formed
on said substrate and extending in a direction perpendicular to
the direction of extension of said gate wirings;
a common conductor line on the signal line side formed
on said substrate and extending in a direction perpendicular to
the direction of extension of said signal lines;
nonlinear elements which are respectively disposed
between one end of each of said gate wirings and said common
conductor line on the gate wiring side and between one end of
each of said signal lines and said common conductor line on the
signal line side, and each of which comprises a plurality of
TFTs;
wherein one of gate electrodes of said TFTs in each of
said nonlinear elements disposed between one ends of said gate
wirings and said common conductor line on the gate wiring side
is formed separately from said common conductor line on the
gate wiring side;
wherein one of source/drain electrodes of said TFTs in
each of said nonlinear elements disposed between one ends of
said signal lines and said common conductor line on the signal
line side is formed separately from said common conductor line
on the signal line side;
wherein said one of the gate electrodes of said TFTs in
each of said nonlinear elements disposed between one ends of
said gate wirings and said common conductor line on the gate
wiring side is electrically coupled to said common conductor
line on the gate wiring side via contact holes formed in an
insulating film formed on said first and second conductor layers
and via a third conductor layer; and
wherein said one of the source/drain electrode of said
TFTs in each of said nonlinear elements disposed between one
ends of said signal lines and said common conductor line on the
signal line side is electrically coupled to said common
conductor line on the signal line side via contact holes formed
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

6
in said insulating film formed on said first and second
conductor layers and via said third conductor layer.

Ex. 1001, 15:34–16:24.
C. Prior Art Relied Upon
SDC relies upon the following prior art references:
Noguchi US 5,220,443 June 15, 1993 Ex. 1004
(filed Apr. 29, 1991)
Satou US 5,930,607 July 27, 1999 Ex. 1003
(PCT filed Oct. 2, 1996)

D. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
SDC challenges claims 1–9 of the ’534 patent based on the asserted
ground of unpatentability (“ground”) set forth in the table below. Pet. 3, 24–
60.
References Basis Challenged Claims
Satou and Noguchi § 103(a) 1–9

II. ANALYSIS
A. Real Parties in Interest
In its Petition, SDC certifies that the following parties are the real
parties in interest in this proceeding: (1) Samsung Display Co., Ltd.;
(2) Toshiba Corporation; (3) Funai Electric Co., Ltd.; (4) Toshiba America,
Inc.; (5) Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; (6) Funai Corporation,
Inc.; and (7) P&F USA, Inc. Pet. 1. In response, Gold Charm contends that
the Petition should be denied for failing to name all real parties in interest, as
required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Prelim. Resp. 4–14. We then authorized
SDC to file a Reply that addresses Gold Charm’s arguments regarding
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

7
whether the Petition identifies all real parties in interest. Paper 9, 2–3. We
also authorized Gold Charm to file a Sur-reply limited to addressing the
issues raised in SDC’s Reply. Id. SDC timely filed its Reply (Paper 10) and
Gold Charm timely filed its Sur-reply (Paper 11).
The current situation does not require us to assess the merits of the
real parties in interest issue because, as we explain below, the dispositive
issue in this proceeding is whether SDC provides a sufficient rationale to
combine the teachings of Satou and Noguchi. Consequently, we need not
reach and, therefore, do not address whether SDC identifies all real parties in
interest in its Petition, as required by § 312(a)(2).
B. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, we construe claims by applying the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any
special definitions, claim terms or phrases 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. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In its Petition, SDC proposes constructions for the claim phrases “first
conductor layer,” “second conductor layer,” and “third conductor layer” (all
challenged claims). Pet. 8–9. In response, Gold Charm accepts SDC’s
proposed constructions for these claim phrases, but also proposes a
construction for the claim phrase “formed separately” (claims 1–5). Prelim.
Resp. 34–36. We, however, need not assess the parties’ proposed
constructions because they are not necessary to resolve the dispositive issue
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

8
discussed below. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those claim terms or phrases that
are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to
resolve the controversy).
C. Obviousness Over the Combination of Satou and Noguchi
SDC contends that claims 1–9 of the ’534 patent are unpatentable
under § 103(a) over the combination of Satou and Noguchi. Pet. 24–60.
SDC explains how this proffered combination teaches the subject matter of
each challenged claim (id.), and relies upon the Declaration of Thomas L.
Credelle (Ex. 1006) to support its positions. We have considered SDC’s
explanations and supporting evidence, but we are not persuaded that SDC
has presented a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Satou and
Noguchi.
We begin our analysis with the principles of law that generally apply
to a ground based on obviousness, followed by brief overviews of Satou and
Noguchi, and then we address the parties’ contentions regarding whether
SDC has presented a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Satou
and Noguchi.
1. Principles of Law
A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

9
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
An invention “composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Instead, a determination of
unpatentability on a ground of obviousness must include “‘articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.’” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The obviousness evaluation “should be made explicit,” and it “can be
important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does.” Id. We analyze the asserted ground with the
principles identified above in mind.
2. Satou Overview
Satou generally relates to methods for preventing the electrostatic
destruction of an active element included in a liquid crystal display device,
such as a TFT included in an active matrix substrate. Ex. 1003, 1:8–12,
1:53–56. Satou discloses at least three embodiments. Id. at 6:10–14, 9:10–
13, 13:1–5. The discussion of Satou below focuses primarily on the second
embodiment, particularly Figures 9 and 10. Id. at 9:10–13, Figs. 9, 10.
Figure 9 of Satou, reproduced below, illustrates a compositional
example of the active matrix substrate. Ex. 1003, 5:21–22, 9:14–16.
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

10

As shown in Figure 9, pixel parts 4000 are formed from multiple
pixels 120, each of which includes TFT 3000. Ex. 1003, 9:23–25. Each
TFT 3000 is attached to the intersecting points of scanning line 52 and signal
line 54. Id. at 9:25–27. Each end of scanning line 52 and signal line 54 is
attached to pads 160A and 160B, first protective elements 140A and 140B
are connected between the pads and LC-COM line 180, and second
protective elements 150A and 150B are formed between the pads and guard
ring 100. Id. at 9:28–33. LC-COM line 180 also is connected to a facing
electrode through silver point pad 110. Id. at 9:33–35.
Satou further discloses that pads 160A and 160B are electrodes used
to connect the bonding wire. Ex. 1003, 9:36–39. LC-COM line 180 is a line
that, when applied with an electric potential, becomes the standard liquid
crystal drive. Id. at 9:40–42.
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

11
Figure 10 of Satou, reproduced below, illustrates the practical
arrangement of the static electricity protective elements in the periphery of
pads 160A and 160B. Ex. 1003, 5:23–24, 10:40–42.

As shown in Figure 10, protective element 140A is constructed of
TFTs M60 and M62, which, in turn, are connected between a gate/drain.
Ex. 1003, 10:43–45. Protective elements 140B, 150A, and 150B are
constructed in the same manner, i.e., protective element 140B is formed by
TFTs M40 and M42, which, in turn, are connected between a gate/drain;
protective element 150A is formed by TFTs M80 and M82, which, in turn,
are connected between a gate/drain; and protective element 150B is formed
by TFTs M20 and M22, which, in turn, are connected between a gate/drain.
Id. at 10:45–50.
3. Noguchi Overview
Noguchi generally relates to a matrix wiring substrate used as, e.g., a
drive electrode assembly of an active matrix liquid crystal display and, in
particular, a matrix wiring substrate having a common electrode for
preventing an electrostatic breakdown or destruction in a manufacturing
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

12
process. Ex. 1004, 1:9–14, see also id. 2:37–41 (stating that an objective of
the invention disclosed by Noguchi “is to provide a matrix wiring substrate
capable of effectively preventing the electrostatic breakdown or destruction
and capable of allowing to easily execute the wiring check”).
Figure 10 of Noguchi, reproduced below, illustrates one embodiment
of the matrix wiring substrate. Ex. 1004, 4:19–21, 7:53–55.

As shown in Figure 10, non-linear elements 61 and 62 include a pair
of field effect transistors, such as TFTs. Ex. 1004, 7:61–64. In particular,
non-linear element 61 includes TFTs 61a and 61b, whereby the source and
the drain of TFT 61a, which has its gate and drain short-circuited to each
other, are connected to the drain and the source, respectively, of TFT 61b,
which also has its gate and drain short-circuited to each other. Id. at 7:65–
8:2. Non-linear element 62 includes TFTs 62a and 62b connected in a
similar manner. Id. at 8:2–4.
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

13
Figure 11B of Noguchi, reproduced below, illustrates the circuit
arrangement of non-linear element 61 connected to gate bus line 3 in the
matrix wiring substrate illustrated in Figure 10. Ex. 1004, 4:22–27, 8:7–12.

As shown in Figure 11B, non-linear element 61 includes gate
electrodes 71a and 71b formed from lower level wiring. Ex. 1004, 8:13–15.
These gate electrodes are located separately from each other on glass
substrate 25 so as to leave a predetermine space there between. Id. at 8:15–
17. Gate insulator 72 (not illustrated above) and amorphous silicon (“a-Si”)
film 73 are deposited on gate electrodes 71a and 71b in named order. Id. at
8:17–19. Contact holes are formed in gate insulator 72 to reach these gate
electrodes. Id. at 8:19–21. Source-and-drain electrodes 74a and 74b, which
resemble a U-shape, are formed on a-Si film 73 in such a way that one end
of these source-and-drain electrodes contacts gate electrodes 71a and 71b.
Id. at 8:21–26.
Figure 12B of Noguchi illustrates the circuit arrangement of non-
linear element 62 connected to drain bus line 4 in the matrix wiring substrate
illustrated in Figure 10. Ex. 1004, 4:28–33, 8:27–32. The circuit
arrangement of non-linear element 62 is essentially the same as the circuit
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

14
arrangement of non-linear element 61. Compare id. at 8:33–46, with id. at
8:13–26.
4. Rationale to Combine
SDC relies upon essentially the same rationale to combine the
teachings of Satou and Noguchi for each of independent claims 1, 6, and 8.
See Pet. 38–40 (presenting SDC’s rationale to combine for independent
claim 1), 54 (reiterating essentially the same rationale to combine for
independent claim 6). Our analysis below solely focuses on SDC’s rationale
to combine the teachings of Satou and Noguchi to satisfy the limitations of
independent claim 1.
In its Petition, SDC contends that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have looked to the teachings of Noguchi for further guidance on how
to configure Satou’s nonlinear element 140A on the signal side because both
Noguchi and Satou solve the problem of electrostatic destruction of an active
element included in a liquid crystal display device using essentially the same
structure. Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:52–56; Ex. 1004, 2:38–41;
Ex. 1006 ¶ 76). SDC also contends that Satou teaches that the TFT of a
protective element may be designed using an additional indium tin oxide
(“ITO”) metal layer connection between the source/drain and the gate of the
TFT. Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 76). SDC further argues that Noguchi
teaches configurations in which (1) the layer organization of the protective
element on the gate wiring side is similar to that on the signal line side; and
(2) on both the gate wiring side and the signal line side, the source/drain at
the top layer of one of the TFTs of the protective element is connected to the
gate at the bottom layer of that TFT. Id. SDC then argues that one of
ordinary skill in the art, starting with Satou’s teaching of an additional ITO
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

15
metal layer to connect the source/drain of a protective element TFT with its
gate, would implement the features consistent with the configurations taught
by Noguchi. Id. As a result, SDC asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art
would structure Satou’s signal line side protective element TFT in similar
manner to its gate wiring side counterpart, such that its source/drain
electrode is connected to the gate through contact holes using a third
conductor layer. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 76).
In response, Gold Charm contends that SDC’s rationale to combine
the teachings of Satou and Noguchi, particularly its statements that these
asserted references solve the same problem using essentially the same
structure, falls short of providing an articulated reason with a rational
underpinning that supports a legal conclusion of obviousness. Prelim. Resp.
37–38. Gold Charm argues that, even it were to assume that both Satou and
Noguchi solve the same problem of electrostatic destruction of an active
element included in a liquid crystal display device using essentially the same
structure, this, by itself, does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have combined the teachings of Satou and Noguchi in a way that
accounts for all the features of the challenged claims. Id. Gold Charm also
argues that, because the devices of Satou and Noguchi are very different
both in structure and function, they are incapable of being combined in the
manner proposed by SDC. Id. at 39–42.
On the present record, we are not persuaded that SDC has articulated
a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Satou and Noguchi. With
respect to SDC’s assertion that the teachings of Satou and Noguchi are
capable of being combined because both of these references solve the same
problem using essentially the same structure, this assertion, at best, indicates
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

16
that Satou and Noguchi are analogous art to each other. Merely asserting
that these prior art references are analogous art to each other, however, does
not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to combine
their respective teachings—more is required to support the legal conclusion
of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
With respect to SDC’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have implemented components of Satou’s active matrix substrate in
accordance with the configurations taught by Noguchi, this assertion lacks a
convincing rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
looked to Noguchi for guidance as to how these components disclosed in
Satou should be re-configured in the manner required by independent claim
1. Based on this assertion, we understand SDC to argue that the components
disclosed in Satou’s active matrix substrate account for all the features
required by independent claim 1, but these components are not configured in
the same manner required by this claim. We further understand SDC to
argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the
configurations taught by Noguchi in order to achieve the particular
configuration of features required by independent claim 1. Without
engaging in impermissible hindsight reconstruction, it is not clear to us why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations
taught by Noguchi, especially given that, according to SDC, Noguchi solves
the same problem as Satou using essentially the same structure. See Grain
Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir.
1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012
(Fed. Cir. 1983)) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by
using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references,
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

17
combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of
the claims in suit.”’).
We also are not persuaded by the supporting testimony of Mr.
Credelle regarding SDC’s rationale to combine the teachings of Satou and
Noguchi because it essentially repeats the arguments advanced by SDC in its
Petition. Compare Pet. 38–40, with Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 76, 77. For instance, Mr.
Credelle testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
the teachings of Satou and Noguchi because they solve the same problem
using essentially the same structure. Ex. 1006 ¶ 76 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:52–
56; Ex. 1004, 2:38–41). Similar to our explanation above, simply
demonstrating that these prior art references are analogous art to each other
does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to
combine their respective teachings—more is required to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Mr. Credelle also testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have implemented components of Satou’s active matrix substrate in
accordance with the configurations taught by Noguchi. Ex. 1006 ¶ 76.
Similar to our explanation above, without engaging in impermissible
hindsight reconstruction, it is not clear to us why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi, especially
given that, according to SDC, Noguchi solves the same problem as Satou
using essentially the same structure. See Grain Processing, 840 F.2d at 907.
5. Summary
Based on the record before us, SDC has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertion that claims 1–9
would have been obvious over the combination of Satou and Noguchi
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

18
because SDC does not provide a sufficient rationale to combine the
respective teachings of these asserted references.

III. CONCLUSION
Taking into account the arguments presented in Gold Charm’s
Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the
Petition does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that SDC
would prevail in challenging claims 1–9 of the ’534 patent as unpatentable
under § 103(a).

IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is
DENIED and no trial is instituted.
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

19
For PETITIONER:
Jay I. Alexander
Andrea G. Reister
Gregory S. Discher
Covington & Burling LLP
jalexander@cov.com
areister@cov.com
gdischer@cov.com

Paul T. Meiklejohn
Adam Floyd
Clinton L. Conner
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
meiklejohn.paul@dorsey.com
floyd.adam@dorsey.com
conner.clint@dorsey.com

Marc R. Labgold
Steven B. Kelber
Law Offices of Marc R. Labgold, P.C.
mlabgold@labgoldlaw.com
skelber@labgoldlaw.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Aaron R. Ettelman
Jeffrey W. Gluck
John D. Simmons
Frederick A. Teece
Clark A. Jablon
Dennis J. Butler
Stephen E. Murray
Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP
aettelman@panitchlaw.com
jgluck@panitchlaw.com
jsimmons@panitchlaw.com
fteece@panitchlaw.com
cjablon@panitchlaw.com
IPR2015-01499
Patent 6,211,534 B1

20
dbutler@panitchlaw.com
smurray@panitchlaw.com