Sequenom, Inc.v.Sequenom, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2014

12696509 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 45
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: November 25, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
SEQUENOM, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2
_______________

Before LORA M. GREEN, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Statement of the Case
Sequenom, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review
of claims 1–17, all of the claims, of U.S. Patent No. 8,195,415 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
’415 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. We
instituted trial on the following grounds of unpatentability:
Reference[s] Basis Claim[s] challenged
Lo II1 § 102(e) 1–6, 8–12
Lo II, Hillier,2 Smith3 § 103 7
Lo II, Wang4 § 103 13, 16
Lo II, Shimkets,5 Dohm6 § 103 14

1 Lo et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0029377 A1 (filed July 23, 2008) (Ex.
1002, “Lo II”).
2 LaDeana W. Hillier et al., Whole-genome Sequencing and Variant Discovery in
C. elegans, 5 NATURE METHODS 183–88 (published online Jan. 20, 2008) (Ex.
1006).
3 Andrew D. Smith et al., Using Quality Scores and Longer Reads Improves
Accuracy of Solexa Read Mapping, 9 BMC BIOINFORMATICS 128 (Feb. 28, 2008)
(Ex. 1009).
4 Tian-Li Wang et al., Digital Karyotyping, 99 PNAS 16156–61 (Dec. 10, 2002)
(Ex. 1005).
5 Shimkets et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0221341 A1 (published Oct. 6,
2005) (Ex. 1004).
6 Juliane C. Dohm et al., Substantial Biases in Ultra-short Read Data Sets from
High-throughput DNA Sequencing, 36 NUCL. ACIDS RES. e105 (published online
July 26, 2008) (Ex. 1007).
Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

3

Reference[s] Basis Claim[s] challenged
Lo II, Quake7 § 103 15
Lo II, Wang, Hillier, Smith § 103 17
Decision to Institute 21–22 (Paper 7, “Dec.”).
After the Board instituted trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 24;
“PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 38; “Pet. Reply”). Oral Hearing
was held on August 5, 2014, and the Hearing Transcript (“Tr.”) has been entered in
the record. Paper 44.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision is
entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). We conclude that Petitioner has failed to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–17 of the ʼ415 patent are
unpatentable.
B. Related Proceedings
The ’415 patent is asserted in a co-pending district court case captioned as
Verinata Health, Inc. and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University v. Sequenom, Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine LLC,
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:12-
cv-00865-SI. Pet. 1. The ’415 patent also is involved in Interference No. 105,922,
declared on May 3, 2013. Id. Petitioner also filed a second petition seeking
review of the claims of the ’415 patent, Case IPR2014-00337. Paper 32. The
Board declined to institute trial on the grounds presented in that petition.
Sequenom, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. (“Sequenom

7 Quake et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,888,017 B2 (filed Feb. 2, 2007, ) (Ex. 1008).
Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

4

II”), Case IPR2014-00337 (PTAB July 16, 2014) (Paper 11); Sequenom II, Paper
14.
C. The ’415 Patent
The ’415 patent describes prenatal genetic diagnosis methods that allow
detection of chromosomal aberrations without the use of invasive techniques, such
as amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling, which pose potentially significant
risks to both fetus and mother. See Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 30–54. The ’415 patent
explains that, because fetal DNA can constitute nearly ten percent of the cell-free
DNA in maternal plasma, fetal aneuploidy can be detected by determining the
sequences of the DNA fragments in the maternal plasma. See id. at col. 1, l. 55–
col. 2, l. 24. More particularly, the ’415 patent describes “the successful use of
shotgun sequencing and mapping of DNA to detect fetal trisomy 21 (Down
syndrome), trisomy 18 (Edward syndrome), and trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome),
carried out non-invasively using cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma.” Id. at
col. 4, ll. 17–21.
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the challenged subject matter:
1. A method of testing for an abnormal distribution of a
specified chromosome portion in a mixed sample of normally
and abnormally distributed chromosome portions obtained from
a subject, comprising:

(a) sequencing DNA from the mixed sample to obtain
sequences from multiple chromosome portions,
wherein said sequences comprise a number of
sequence tags of sufficient length of determined
sequence to be assigned to a chromosome location
within a genome;

(b) assigning the sequence tags to corresponding
chromosome portions including at least the
Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

5

specified chromosome by comparing the
determined sequence of the sequence tags to a
reference genomic sequence;

(c) determining values for numbers of sequence tags
mapping to chromosome portions by using a
number of windows of defined length within
normally and abnormally distributed chromosome
portions to obtain a first value and a second value
therefrom; and

(d) using the values from step (c) to determine a
differential, between the first value and the second
value, which is determinative of whether or not the
abnormal distribution exists.

II. ANTEDATING LO II
A. The Parties’ Positions
Patent Owner contends that Lo II, which Petitioner relies upon in every
instituted ground of unpatentability, does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) because the invention recited in the ’415 patent claims was reduced to
practice before Lo II’s filing date of July 23, 2008. PO Resp. 31. Patent Owner’s
contentions in that regard involve a paper published in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences (“the PNAS paper”),8 which was co-authored by
the two inventors of the ’415 patent, Drs. Hei-Mun Christina Fan and Stephen R.
Quake, along with others. Id. at 38–39.
Specifically, Patent Owner contends that two early drafts of the PNAS
paper, presented in Exhibits 2111, 2112, and 2113, as well as email

8 Dr. Hei-Mun Christina Fan et al., Noninvasive Diagnosis of Fetal Aneuploidy by
Shotgun Sequencing DNA from Maternal Blood, available at
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0808319105 (2008) (Ex. 2139).
Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

6

correspondence associated with the drafts, and testimony by Dr. Yair J.
Blumenfeld, one of the other PNAS paper co-authors, establish that the inventors
had actually reduced to practice the subject matter recited in claims 1–17 of the
’415 patent before Lo II’s July 23, 2008 filing date. Id. Patent Owner presents a
chart to support its assertion that the two drafts of the PNAS paper describe all of
the subject matter claimed in the ’415 patent. Id. at 39–59.
Petitioner does not contend that the disclosures in Lo II relied upon to show
unpatentability in the instituted grounds are entitled to the benefit of the earlier
filing date of Lo II’s corresponding provisional application, Lo I. 9 See Pet. Reply
7–13. Instead, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner has failed to advance evidence,
independent of the inventors’ testimony, that sufficiently corroborates the asserted
actual reduction to practice before Lo II’s filing date. Id. at 7–8. Petitioner
summarizes its arguments as follows:
[Inventor] Quake’s declaration has been withdrawn, and [inventor]
Fan’s allegation of a reduction to practice lacks corroboration. Other
than the Fan declaration (Ex. 2132), the only evidence of an actual
reduction to practice proffered by Patent Owner is an unwitnessed and
unsigned laboratory notebook (Ex. 2110), emails between the
inventors and various parties that fail to reference the specific steps of
the ’415 Patent claims, and testimony by third parties who lack
specific knowledge of the inventors’ alleged activities during the
relevant time period ([Dr. J. Chris] Detter) and fail to corroborate a
reduction to practice of the steps of the ’415 Patent claims
(Blumenfeld).

Id.

9 Lo et al., U.S. Provisional Patent Application 60/951,438 (filed July 23, 2007)
(Ex. 1003, “Lo I”).
Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

7

Petitioner argues in particular that Patent Owner has not advanced evidence,
independent of the inventors’ testimony, corroborating Patent Owner’s assertion
that the copies of the drafts of the PNAS paper presented in Exhibits 2111 and
2113 are the actual documents communicated by inventor Dr. Christina Fan to the
asserted corroborating witness, Dr. Blumenfeld. Id. at 9–11. Further, Petitioner
argues, the Declaration by Dr. Blumenfeld (Ex. 2134) submitted by Patent Owner
is:
critically deficient because it provides no statement as to what Blumenfeld
actually knew and understood about the methods recited in the ’415 Patent
claims at the time of the alleged reduction to practice, and certainly no
evidence that he was aware of all of the steps or that he recognized a
complete reduction to practice.

Id. at 12.
B. The Issue
In light of the discussion above, the critical issue in this case is whether
Patent Owner has advanced evidence sufficient to corroborate an actual reduction
to practice of the subject matter of the ’415 patent’s claims before the July 23,
2008 filing date of the Lo II reference. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) (patent-defeating
published application must be “filed . . . before the invention by the applicant for
patent”).10 For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Patent Owner has
established an actual reduction to practice before the relevant date.

10 The application which that issued as the ’415 patent, serial number 12/696,509,
is a divisional application of serial number 12/560,708, which was filed on
September 16, 2009. Ex. 1001, 1. Accordingly, the version of § 102(e) in effect
before the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) applies to the claims of the
’415 patent. See AIA, Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3, 125 Stat. 288 (2011).
Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

8

C. Analysis
“Generally, the invention of a process is completed, or reduced to practice,
when it is successfully performed.” Shurie v. Richmond, 699 F.2d 1156, 1159
(Fed. Cir. 1983). “In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, an
inventor’s testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence. . . . [A] ‘rule
of reason’ analysis is applied to determine whether an inventor’s testimony
regarding reduction to practice has been sufficiently corroborated.” Cooper v.
Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). This “rule of
reason” analysis “requires an evaluation of all pertinent evidence when
determining the credibility of an inventor’s testimony.” Id. Under that analysis,
“to corroborate a reduction to practice, it is not necessary to produce an actual
over-the-shoulder observer. Rather, sufficient circumstantial evidence of an
independent nature can satisfy the corroboration requirement.” Id.
Corroborating evidence may be “testimony of a witness, other than an
inventor, to the actual reduction to practice or it may consist of evidence of
surrounding facts and circumstances independent of information received from the
inventor.” Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032–33 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Corroboration, however, “is not necessary to establish what a physical exhibit
before the [B]oard includes. Only the inventor’s testimony requires corroboration
before it can be considered.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (citation omitted).
In the instant case, as discussed above, Patent Owner advances Exhibits
2111 and 2113, which are essentially identical, to support its contention of
reduction to practice. PO Resp. 38–39. Patent Owner asserts that Exhibits 2111
and 2113 include a draft of the PNAS paper, which inventor Dr. Christina Fan
forwarded on June 19, 2008, to PNAS paper co-authors Drs. Stephen Quake and
Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

9

Yair Blumenfeld. Id. Patent Owner explains that Dr. Blumenfeld’s collaboration
with Drs. Fan and Quake consisted of providing patient blood samples for the fetal
aneuploidy diagnosis test conducted by Drs. Fan and Quake, and preparing the
protocol and consent forms “for the Institutional Review Board (‘IRB’) in order to
collect the samples from patients.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2134 ¶ 6 (Blumenfeld
Decl.)).
We note that Exhibits 2111 and 2113 include a copy of a manuscript entitled
“Universal Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Fetal Aneuploidy with Direct Sequencing,”
listing Drs. Fan, Quake, and Blumenfeld as co-authors. Ex. 2111, 1–14; Ex. 2113,
1–14. Exhibits 2111 and 2113 also include a copy of an email dated June 19,
2008, from Dr. Fan to Drs. Quake and Blumenfeld stating, “[a]ttached is a rough
draft of the non-invasive study.” Ex. 2111, cover page; Ex. 2113, cover page.
Inventor Dr. Fan testifies that she sent the draft of the PNAS paper in
Exhibits 2111 and 2113 to Drs. Quake and Blumenfeld on June 19, 2008. Ex.
2132 ¶ 44.
Dr. Blumenfeld testifies as follows:
On June 19, 2008, Dr. Fan sent to Stephen Quake and me a
“rough draft of the non-invasive study,” (Ex. 2111, 2113) which was
based on their first Solexa sequencing run and was to be submitted to
the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA,
which ultimately published as the article “Noninvasive diagnosis of
fetal aneuploidy by shotgun sequencing DNA from maternal blood,”
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (2008) 105(42):16266-16271 (“first draft
of the PNAS manuscript”; Ex. 2113). I was listed as an author on that
paper, along with Christina Fan, Usha Chitkara, Louanne Hudgins and
Stephen Quake.

Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

10

Ex. 2134 ¶ 9. Dr. Blumenfeld also testifies that “[o]n July 7, 2008, Drs. Quake,
Fan and I discussed revisions to the PNAS manuscript. (Ex. 2112, 2131).” Id. at
¶ 11.
Exhibit 2131, which Dr. Blumenfeld cites in his statement immediately
above regarding his discussions with Drs. Quake and Fan about revisions to the
PNAS manuscript, includes a copy of an email dated July 7, 2008, from Dr.
Blumenfeld to Dr. Fan. Ex. 2131, 1.11 Dr. Blumenfeld also copied Dr. Quake on
his July 7, 2008 email. Id. Dr. Blumenfeld’s email reads as follows:
Hi Christina,

It looks great. I think I answered most of the comments you directed
towards me and I added a little bit about the recent ACOG Practice
Bulletin which recommends that invasive testing now be offered to
ALL women, regardless of risk factors. I think it will play nicely with
the need for a “risk-free” non-invasive diagnostic test.

Thanks,

Yair

Id.
Dr. Blumenfeld’s testimony, considered in conjunction with the exhibits he
cites, persuades us that Patent Owner has advanced sufficient evidence,
independent of the inventors’ testimony, to corroborate reduction to practice of the
subject matter of claims 1–17 of the ’415 patent as of June 19, 2008. In particular,
Dr. Blumenfeld’s testimony persuades us that the copy of the draft of the PNAS

11 Exhibit 2131 does not include page numbers. We cite to the first page as page 1
and the remaining pages as if consecutively numbered.
Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

11

paper presented in identical Exhibits 2111 and 2113 is the document that Dr. Fan
sent to Dr. Blumenfeld on June 19, 2008.
Specifically, when referring to the draft of the PNAS paper Dr. Fan sent him
on that date, Dr. Blumenfeld expressly identifies Exhibits 2111 and 2113. Ex.
2134 ¶ 9 (“On June 19, 2008, Dr. Fan sent to Stephen Quake and me a ‘rough draft
of the non-invasive study,’ (Ex. 2111, 2113) . . . .”). Dr. Blumenfeld’s status as a
co-author of the paper, as well as his testimony that he reviewed Exhibit 2111 (Ex.
2134 ¶ 5), persuades us that Dr. Blumenfeld was aware of the contents of
Exhibit 2111 when he identified it as the document he received from Dr. Fan on
June 19, 2008. Moreover, as noted above, in addition to identifying Exhibits 2111
and 2113 as containing the document he received from Dr. Fan on June 19, 2008,
Dr. Blumenfeld testifies that, on July 7, 2008, he, Dr. Quake, and Dr. Fan
discussed revisions to the PNAS manuscript. Ex. 2134 ¶ 9. In so stating,
Dr. Blumenfeld cites to Exhibit 2131, which includes an email from
Dr. Blumenfeld explaining his revisions to the draft, and stating that the draft
“looks great.” Id.; see also Ex. 2131, 1. Consequently, Petitioner does not
persuade us (Pet. Reply 10) that Patent Owner proffers no testimony to verify that
the document in Exhibits 2111 and 2113 is a copy of the actual document received
by Dr. Blumenfeld on June 19, 2008. To the contrary, Dr. Blumenfeld’s testimony
that he provided an evaluation of the document in Exhibits 2111 and 2113, as well
as proposed revisions to it, shows that he reviewed that document, and
corroborates further that the document in Exhibits 2111 and 2113 is in fact a copy
of the document Dr. Blumenfeld received from his co-author Dr. Fan on June 19,
2008.
Petitioner gives us no credible reason to doubt that Exhibits 2111 and 2113
are copies of the actual document Dr. Blumenfeld received, nor does Petitioner
Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

12

direct us to specific evidence that undercuts Dr. Blumenfeld’s testimony in that
regard, or otherwise supports a contrary finding. Moreover, Petitioner does not
explain how the other co-authors and collaborators of the PNAS paper, with the
exception of Dr. Quake, were involved in the interchange between Drs. Fan and
Blumenfeld described in Dr. Blumenfeld’s Declaration. Accordingly, Petitioner
does not persuade us that the absence of testimony from those individuals warrants
drawing an “adverse inference” against Patent Owner on this issue. See Pet. Reply
13. Further, because, under the law, testimony by co-inventor Dr. Quake cannot
serve to corroborate evidence that the draft appearing in Exhibits 2111 and 2113 is
the document Dr. Fan sent to Dr. Blumenfeld, we decline to draw an adverse
inference based on the absence of Dr. Quake’s testimony. See id.
Regarding the content of the draft of the PNAS paper appearing in Exhibits
2111 and 2113, the fact that Dr. Blumenfeld might not have expressly mentioned
the method steps of the ’415 patent as being described in those Exhibits, or
discussed his understanding of those steps, does not demonstrate that the draft in
Exhibits 2111 and 2113 fails to describe an actual reduction to practice of the
processes recited in claims 1–17 of the ’415 patent. Similarly, the fact that the
Declarations of Drs. Blumenfeld and Detter (Exs. 2134, 2138) might not set forth
an explanation of the legal standard for actual reduction to practice does not
persuade us that the experiments disclosed in Exhibits 2111 and 2113 fail to
describe an actual reduction to practice. Specifically, as noted above,
“corroboration is not necessary to establish what a physical exhibit before the
[B]oard includes. Only the inventor’s testimony requires corroboration before it
can be considered.” Price, 988 F.2d at 1195 (internal quotations omitted). As
explained in Price, “[w]hile evidence as to what the drawing [in the Exhibit at
issue] would mean to one of skill in the art may assist the [B]oard in evaluating the
Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

13

drawing, the content of [the] Exhibit [at issue] does not itself require
corroboration.” Id. at 1195–96; see also Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d
1572, 1577–78 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“The trier of fact can conclude for itself what
documents show, aided by testimony as to what the exhibit would mean to one
skilled in the art.”).
In reviewing Exhibits 2111 and 2113, claims 1–17 of the ’415 patent, and
the claim charts presented by Patent Owner, we detect no deficiency in Patent
Owner’s assertion that the draft of the PNAS paper appearing in those exhibits
describes the subject matter of claims 1–17 of the ’415 patent. See PO Resp. 39–
60 (presenting claim charts); Ex. 2138 ¶ 7 (Second Declaration by Dr. J. Chris
Detter) (same). Moreover, Petitioner does not allege error in Patent Owner’s
assertion that the draft of the PNAS paper in Exhibits 2111 and 2113 describes the
subject matter of claims 1–17 of the ’415 patent. See Pet. Reply 7–13. Nor does
Petitioner advance expert testimony refuting that assertion or the accuracy of the
claim charts. See id. Indeed, Petitioner does not point to clear or specific evidence
contravening the central assertion in the draft in Exhibits 2111 and 2113, namely
that “[w]e demonstrate here the successful use of massively parallel sequencing to
detect fetal trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and trisomy 18 (Edward Syndrome) non-
invasively using cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma.” Ex. 2111, 2; Ex. 2113,
2. Thus, Petitioner does not advance clear or specific evidence suggesting that the
draft of the PNAS paper in Exhibits 2111 and 2113 fails to describe successful
performance of the processes recited in the claims of the ’415 patent. Accordingly,
we are persuaded that the evidence of record not only reasonably supports Patent
Owner’s assertion that the draft of the PNAS paper appearing in Exhibits 2111 and
2113 is the draft of the PNAS paper that Dr. Fan sent to Dr. Blumenfeld on June
19, 2008, but also reasonably supports Patent Owner’s assertion that that document
Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

14

describes an actual reduction to practice, on that date, of claims 1–17 of the ’415
patent, the claims challenged in this proceeding.
Petitioner does not persuade us that the holding in Hahn v. Wong mandates a
contrary result. In Hahn, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s conclusion that
a patent applicant had not made a prima facie case of prior reduction to practice
where the allegedly antedating evidence consisted of spectroscopic graphical data
from the inventor’s laboratory notebook pages, supplemented with two non-
inventor affidavits stating that the affiants had read and understood the notebook
pages. 892 F.2d at 1030–31, 1033–34. The court agreed with the Board’s
conclusion that the applicant had not shown prima facie reduction to practice,
because the corroborative affidavits did not explain why the graphical data in the
laboratory notebook actually represented the chemical compound in the challenged
claims, and because the dates of the alleged reduction to practice were ambiguous.
Id. at 1033–34.
In the instant case, in contrast, Petitioner has not shown ambiguity in the
asserted date of the draft in Exhibits 2111 and 2113. Nor has Petitioner explained
convincingly why the draft of the PNAS paper in Exhibits 2111 and 2113, which
Petitioner does not dispute describes the processes of the challenged claims, and
which is presented in straightforward manuscript form, requires testimony by a
technical expert to evaluate whether it describes successful performance of the
process recited in the challenged claims.
In sum, for the reasons discussed, non-inventor corroborating evidence
reasonably supports Patent Owner’s assertion that, on June 19, 2008, inventor Dr.
Fan sent to Dr. Blumenfeld the draft of the PNAS paper appearing in Exhibits 2111
and 2113. As also discussed above, the evidence reasonably supports Patent
Owner’s assertion that that document describes an actual reduction to practice of
Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

15

the processes recited in claims 1–17 of the ’415 patent. We are persuaded,
therefore, that Patent Owner has shown that the subject matter of the challenged
claims was reduced to practice before Lo II’s July 23, 2008 filing date.
Accordingly, because the evidence does not support Petitioner’s position that Lo II
constitutes prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and because
Lo II is relied upon in every ground on which trial was instituted, Petitioner has not
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims is
unpatentable, based on any of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons given, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–17 of the ’415 patent are unpatentable
based on the challenges on which trial was instituted.
IV. ORDER
It is ORDERED that claims 1–17 of the ’415 patent have not been shown to
be unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that because this is a final written 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.

Case IPR2013-00390
Patent 8,195,415 B2

16

For PETITIONER:
Michael Wise
Patrick Morris
PERKINS COIE LLP
mwise@perkinscoie.com
pmorris@perkinscoie.com

For PATENT OWNER:
R. Danny Huntington
Sharon Crane
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
dhuntington@rfem.com
scrane@rfem.com