Trials@uspto.gov Paper 15 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 21, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

_______________

LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Petitioner,

v. IN-DEPTH TEST LLC,

Patent Owner. _______________

Case IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2 _______________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review

37 C.F.R. 42.108

I. INTRODUCTION

Linear Technology Corporation (Petitioner) filed a Petition (Paper

4, Pet.) to institute an inter partes review of claims 120 (the challenged

claims) of U.S. Patent No. 6,792,373 B2 (Ex. 1001, the 373 patent). In-

Depth Test LLC (Patent Owner) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12,

Prelim. Resp.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 314, which

provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless . . . there is

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

2

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 Patent Owners Preliminary Response, we determine Petitioner

has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing

the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, the

Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) for the reasons that follow.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Related Matters

Patent Owner filed suit against Petitioner alleging infringement of the

373 patent in In-Depth Test LLC v. Linear Tech. Corp., Case No. 1-14-cv-

01091 (D. Del. Aug. 22, 2014). Paper 9, 1; Paper 5. The 373 patent is also

the subject of a co-pending petition for covered business method review:

Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. In-Depth Test LLC, Case CBM2015-

00060 (PTAB January 13, 2015) (Paper 1). Paper 9, 1.

B. The 373 patent (Ex. 1001)

The 373 patent relates to a test system that executes an enhanced test

process for testing components, such as semiconductor devices on a wafer,

circuit boards, packaged devices, or other electrical or optical systems, and

collecting and analyzing test data. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:2730, 5:1821.

Test system 100 includes tester 102 compris[ing] any test equipment that

tests components 106 and generates output data relating to

the testing. Id. at 3:3436. Tester 102 operates in conjuction with

computer system 108 that includes processor 110 and memory 112. Id. at

3:4243, 5960.

[T]est system 100 [] uses a predetermined set of initial parameters

and, if desired, information from the operator to configure the test system

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

3

100. Id. at 5:3941. When the initial configuration process is complete,

tester 102 executes [a] test program to apply signals to connections on the

components 106 and read output test data from the components 106. Id. at

6:2225. Each test generates at least one result for at least one of []

components [106]. Id. at 6:3233.

[T]ester 102 may[, however,] perform multiple tests on each component 106 on a wafer, and each test may be repeated several times on the same component 106. Test data from the tester 102 is stored for quick access and supplemental analysis as the test data is acquired. The data may also be stored in a long-term memory for subsequent analysis and use.

Id. at 6:2531. Exemplary test results may include both results with

statistically similar values as well as results that stray from these similar

values. Id. at 6:3337. If any of these latter results exceeds an upper or

lower control limit, the tested component may be classified as a bad part.

Id. at 6:3840. The 373 patent describes results that stray from the

statistically similar values but do not exceed control limits as outliers. Id.

at 6:4345.

Computer 108 receives the data file from tester 102 and uses a

supplementary data analysis element 206 to analyze the data and provide

enhanced output results Id. at 6:6466, 9:1921. Data analysis element 206

includes outlier classification element 212, which is configured to identify

and/or classify the various outliers in the data according to selected

algorithms. Id. at 14:714. The outliers in the test results may be

identified and analyzed for any appropriate purpose, such as to identify

potentially unreliable components (id. at 6:4548), [f]or example, . . . to

classify the components 106 into critical/marginal/good part categories (id.

at 14:5961). The outliers may also be used to identify various potential

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

4

problems and/or improvements in the test and manufacturing processes. Id.

at 6:4850.

C. Representative Claims Petitioner challenges the patentability of all claims in the 373 patent,

claims 1, 8, and 15 of which are independent. See Pet. 1. The independent

claims are reproduced below:

1. A test system, comprising: a tester configured to test a component and generate test

data; and a computer connected to the tester and configured to

receive the test data, identify an outlier in the test data, and generate an output report including the identified outlier.

Ex. 1001, 19:2329.

8. A data analysis system for semiconductor test data, comprising a computer system, wherein the computer system is configured to operate:

a supplementary data analysis element configured to identify outliers in the semiconductor test data; and

an output element configured to generate an output report including the identified outliers.

Id. at 19:4820:4. 15. A method for testing semiconductors, comprising:

generating test data for multiple components; and automatically identifying an outlier in the test data at run

time using a computer system. Id. at 20:2932.

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

5

D. Evidence Relied Upon

Petitioners patentability challenges are based on the following

references:

Reference Patent/Printed Publication Exhibit

Ghaemi Application of Data Screening to the Characterization of Integrated Circuits, CAN. J. PHYS., Vol. 67, No. 4, 221224 (Apr. 1989)

1018

ONeill US 6,366,108 1019

Daasch Variance Reduction Using Wafer Patterns in IDDQ Data, Proceedings of International Test Conference, 189198 (Oct. 3, 2000)

1020

Ekstedt US 5,206,582 1021

Rostoker US 5,442,282 1024

La US 5,761,064 1025

In addition to these references, Petitioner relies on the Declaration of

Adit Singh, Ph. D. (Ex. 1028).

E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability

Petitioner challenges the patentability of the 373 patent claims based

on the following grounds:

Grounds Reference(s) Basis Claims Challenged

1 ONeill 102(a)/(e) 1, 2, 49, 1116, and 1820

2 ONeill and Ekstedt 103(a) 2, 9, and 16

3 ONeill and 103(a) 3, 10, and 17

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

6

Grounds Reference(s) Basis Claims Challenged

Rostoker

4 ONeill and La 103(a) 5, 12, and 20

5 ONeill and Daasch 103(a) 7, 14, and 19

6 Ekstedt 102(b) 13, 5, 6, 810, 12, 13, 1517, 19, and 20

7 Ekstedt and Ghaemi 103(a) 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18

8 Ekstedt and Rostoker

103(a) 3, 10, and 17

9 Ekstedt and La 103(a) 5, 12, and 20

10 Ekstedt and Daasch 103(a) 7, 14, and 19

III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

We interpret the claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest

reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R.

42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 2015 WL 4097949, at *6

(Fed. Cir., July 8, 2015). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation

standard, claim terms 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).

Petitioner and Patent Owner disagree on the scope and meaning of

various claim terms and phrases. Compare Pet. 1417 with Prelim. Resp. 5

26. For purposes of this decision, we determine the only claim language

requiring express construction is the term outlier (or outliers) recited in

each of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

7

Claims 1, 8, and 15 include the following, similar recitations requiring

the use of a computer to identify an outlier in test data: a computer . . .

configured to . . . identify an outlier in [] test data (claim 1); a computer

system . . . configured to operate: a supplementary data analysis element

configured to identify outliers in [] semiconductor test data (claim 8); [a]

method . . . comprising . . . identifying an outlier in [] test data . . . using a

computer system (claim 15). See Section II.C, above.

Petitioner contends [t]he term outlier should be construed as any

semiconductor device or part or data point associated with the device or part

that on some measure falls above or below a threshold value. Pet. 1416

(quoting Ex. 1028 67). Patent Owner contends the term outlier should

be construed as a test result whose value strays from a set of test results

having statistically similar values, but does not exceed control limits or

otherwise fail to be detected. Prelim. Resp. 5. Patent Owner argues

Petitioners proposed construction is: (1) overly broad, because it

encompasses components, not just measured data for the components; (2)

erroneously based on comparisons of measured data to static threshold

values rather than to a data set; and (3) overly broad in that it encompasses

measured data that exceeds a devices control limits and is not limited to

data that strays statistically from the data set. See id. at 610.

Words in a claim are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning

unless it appears from the patent that the inventor attached some different

and/or specific meaning to them. In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 57778 (Fed.

Cir. 2002).

As an initial matter, we observe from three of the references relied on

by Petitioner (Gaehmi, ONeill, and Daasch) that the term outlier has an

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

8

ordinary and accustomed meaning to those of ordinary skill in the field of

semiconductor testing,1 namely a data point that is outside a group of data

points representative of device behavior. See e.g. Ex. 1018, 221, 1 (To

recognize data that are a good representation of device behavior from those

which are not, one should scan through the data and use common sense and

engineering judgment. One common and simple method used to scan the

data is to plot them (for example, by histogram or scatter diagram) and then

visually inspect the result. Most of the data naturally tend to group into a

cluster . . ., but some abnormalities may appear. Common abnormalites are

clusters (a large group of points lying outside the main group . . .) and

outliers (one or several points lying outside the main group . . .)); Ex. 1019

(As known in the art, an outlier is defined as points outside of the

distribution of a population.); Ex. 1020, 2 (observing that a majority of

points on a min-max IddQ 2 plot form a single line and identifying points not

on the line as outliers).

The 373 patent likewise describes typical test results of

semiconductor components as a first set of test results having statistically

similar values and a second set of test results characterized by values that

stray from the first set. Ex. 1001, 6:3537. Unlike Ghaemi (Ex,.1018),

ONeill (Ex. 1019), and Daasch (Ex. 1020), however, the 373 patent further

1 The parties agree the invention is, at a minimum, within the field of semiconductor testing. See Ex. 1028 2735 (indicating semiconductor testing is the relevant field of art); Prelim. Resp. 10 (conceding ONeill and Ghaemi are artisans in the field). 2 The quiescent current . . . [(IddQ)] is composed primarily of leakage current. A defective circuit may draw a significantly larger amount of quiescent current than a non-defective circuit. Ex. 1019, 1:2124.

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

9

classifies measured values for components within the second set of test

results into two groups: (1) values exceeding upper or lower test limits or

(2) values straying from the first set, but not exceeding control limits or

otherwise failing to be detected. See id. at 6:3745. With respect to group

(1), the 373 patent states that if a measured value for a component exceeds

either test limit, a component may be classified as a bad part. With

respect to group (2), the373 patent explicitly states: For the present

purposes, those test results that stray from the first set but do not exceed the

control limits or otherwise fail to be detected are referred to as outliers.

Id. at 6:4345.

We understand the above-quoted language from column 6, lines 43

45, taken in the context of the entire 373 patent disclosure, in particular,

column 6, lines 3250, to explicitly define the term outlier as

encompassing only those measured values straying from test results having

statistically similar values, and to clearly disavow the full scope of the

ordinary and customary meaning of outlier that would also encompass

measured values exceeding upper or lower test limits. See Teleflex, Inc. v.

Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (The patentee

may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed

meaning of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of

manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim

scope.); Scimed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242

F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where the specification makes clear that

the invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to

be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

10

the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered

broad enough to encompass the feature in question.) .

Patent Owner tells us that in a prior patent litigation involving the

373 patent, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona adopted the

parties stipulated claim construction of the term outlier as a test result

that is within the upper and lower limits of the product's specifications (i.e.,

a test result that does not indicate a bad or out of spec part) but

nevertheless strays from values which are statistically similar (Ex. 2001, 1).

Prelim. Resp. 1415. We find this interpretation of the term outlier is

consistent with the broadest reasonable construction of the claims when read

in light of the 373 patent specification. Accordingly, for purposes of this

decision, we adopt the Arizona district courts claim construction of the term

outlier.

IV. ANALYSIS A. Anticipation of Independent Claim 1, 8, and 15 by ONeill

1. ONeill (Ex. 1019) ONeill is titled, System and Method for Detecting Defects Within

an Electrical Circuit by Analyzing Quiescent Current, and describes a

system and method for detecting defects within a complementary metal

oxide silicon (CMOS) circuit. Ex. 1019, 1:1012. In operation, current

meter 18 supplies current to circuit 14 and a test signal to analyzer 22. Id. at

4:2528. Analyzer 22, which is preferably implemented in software and

stored in memory 30 of computer system 31, detects defects in circuit 14

based on the test signal. Id. at 4:4551. More specifically, analyzer 22

compares the test signal to upper and lower threshold values. Id. at 5:3638.

If the test signal is higher or lower than those respective values, analyzer 22

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

11

identifies the circuit as defective. Id. at 5:3841. If a defect is detected,

then the analyzer 22 preferably indicates via display 35 or printer 36 . . . that

a defect has been discovered. . . . [T]he defective circuit is preferably

marked as defective or separated from the other circuits that have not been

determined to be defective. Id. at 7:5764.

ONeill defines the upper threshold value as the maximum measured

test signal value in a defect free state plus an outlier margin value. Id. at

5:5859. The lower threshold value is defined similarly as the minimum

measured test signal value in a defect free state minus an outlier margin

value. Id. at 5:5961. ONeill explains that the addition and subtraction of

the outlier margin value allows for small variations to occur which are

attributable to measurement inaccuracies and/or process variations instead of

circuit defects. Id. at 5:656:2. ONeill notes, however, that where these

calculated threshold values exceed absolute maximum and minimum values

established by the manufacturing process, test values should be compared to

the manufacturers maximum and minimum values. See id. at 9:121.

According to ONeill, the value of the test signal does not actually

have to be determined in comparing the test signal to the upper and lower

threshold values. Only a determination as to whether the test signal is

greater than or less than the threshold values needs to be made. Id. at 8:25

29. ONeill explains that [m]aking such a determination is much faster

than determining the value of the test signal. Id. at 8:2931.

2. Analysis Patent Owner contends Petitioner has not met its burden to establish a

reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing ONeill anticipates at

least one of the challenged claims, because Petitioner has not identified in

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

12

ONeill a description of identifiying a test result which is properly

characterized as an outlier within the meaning of independent claims 1, 8,

and 15.

In Section III, above, we determined (for purposes of this decision)

that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term outlier is a

test result that is within the upper and lower limits of the products

specifications (i.e., a test result that does not indicate a bad or out of spec

part) but nevertheless strays from values which are statistically similar.

Patent Owner argues ONeill is concerned solely with identifying defective

devices and, therefore, only considers whether or not test signals exceed

threshold test values, but does not identify test results that stray from values

which are statistically similar, but still within a range of values that are not

indicative of a bad or out-of-spec part. See Prelim. Resp. 3537.

Petitioner contends ONeill describes an arrangement for identifying

outliers as claimed, because ONeills computer will identify those outlier

test results that stray from the statistically similar sample population of

values by way of being higher (or lower) than a set threshold value for

detecting the outliers, but are still below the absolute maximum value set by

the manufacturer. Pet. 25 (analysis of claim 1); see also id. at 2728

(analysis of the corresponding outlier limitations in claims 8 and 15).

Petitioners argument is not supported by ONeills disclosure.

ONeill considers both calculated threshold values (i.e., maximum/minimum

measured test signal values in a defect free state plus/minus an outlier

margin value (Ex. 1019, 5:5861)) and the manufacturers threshold values

to determine the narrowest range of minimum to maximum threshold values,

and then identifies a circuit as defective where a measured value is outside

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

13

of this narrowest threshold value range. See id. at 4:1012, 9:121. In other

words, regardless of whether a test result is within the manufacturers

tolerances, ONeill still identifies a device as defective if it exceeds the

calculated thresholds. A test result used to identify a device that is bad or

out of spec is not an outlier as we have interpreted that claim term for

purposes of this decision.

It is axiomatic that for anticipation, each and every claim limitation

must be explicitly or inherently disclosed in the prior art. In re NTP, INC.,

654 F.3d 1279, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We agree with Patent Owner that

Petitioner has not identified a a description in ONeill of identifying outliers

as recited in the claims. Petitioner, therefore, has not met its burden to

establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one

of challenged independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is anticipated by ONeill.

B. Anticipation of Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 by Ekstedt; and Obviousness of Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 over Ekstedt in view of Ghaemi

1. Ekstedt (Ex. 1021) Ekstedt is titled, Control System for Automated Parametric Test

Equipment, and describes a parametric test system controlled by controller

16, which may be a desktop computer. Ex. 1021, 3:6768, 4:79.

Controller 16 stores a general test program 24 which calls software

subroutines from measurement algorithm library 22 to perform specific

measurements on devices on wafer 15 by controlling measurement

instruments 10. Id. at 4:716, 4346, 7:5861. Measurement instruments

10 output voltage and current signals that relay matrix 12 selectively applies

to the devices. Id. at 3:4346. Relay matrix 12 also receives signals

generated by the devices in response and applies them to measurement

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

14

instruments 10. Id. at 3:5660. The subroutines from measurement

algorithm library 22 can generate one or more control codes in response to

the measured parameter to indicate certain types of defects[, f]or example, .

. . that [a device] is not viable and does not warrant further testing. Id. at

9:6610:3. Further, if a measured parameter is not within desired limits (see

id., Fig. 10) indicating a defective device, the normal test sequence for that

device can be terminated and testing can proceed to the next device. Id. at

11:1419. [A] continuously updated report can be provided on an I/O

device such as a CRT screen 54 or printer to inform the user of the most

recent measurement results and status information. Id. at 11:3639.

Ekstedt does not use the term outliers.

2. Ghaemi (Ex. 1018) Ghaemi is a journal article titled, Application of data screening to the

characterization of integrated circuits, and discloses a data-screening

method for identifying the presence of abnormalities (unexpected clusters

and (or) outliers) in sets of integrated-circuit test data. Ex. 1018, 221,

Abstract. According to Ghaemi, the method is useful when dealing with

the characterization of devices in a manufacturing environment. Id. at 224,

4.

3. Analysis a. Anticipation by Ekstedt

Petitioner contends Ekstedt describes the invention as claimed in

independent claims 1, 8, and 15, including use of a computer to identify

outliers in test data, because Ekstedt detects measured results that are outside

of desired limits. Pet. 3435; see also id. at 39 (noting the reports generated

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

15

by Ekstedt include outlier test results that were measured outside of the

desired limit).

In Section III, above, we determined (for purposes of this decision)

that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term outlier is a

test result that is within the upper and lower limits of the products

specifications (i.e., a test result that does not indicate a bad or out of spec

part) but nevertheless strays from values which are statistically similar.

We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified in

Ekstedt a description of identifying outliers as we have interpreted this

claim term, because Petitioner relies on Ekstedts disclosure of identifying

test results associated with bad or out of spec devices. See Pet. 3435, 39.

Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden to establish a reasonable

likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of challenged

independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is anticipated by Ekstedt.

b. Obviousness Based on Ekstedt and Ghaemi Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have been

motivated to use the statistical software of Ghaemi to identify an outlier in

the test data obtained by the semiconductor system disclosed by Ekstedt

because Ekstedt and Ghaemi are both directed to semiconductor testing, and

both disclose performing statistical analysis of semiconductor test data, and

Ghaemis method is particularly suited for use with large amount[s] of

measurement results that may be transmitted to a database for off-line data

analysis or saved for statistical analysis, as disclosed by Ekstedt. Pet.

4041 (citing Ex. 1028 15758). Petitioner further contends

[a] skilled person would [have been] motivated to modify the statistical output report generated by Ekstedt to include screening for outliers as shown by Ghaemi, as it furthers the

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

16

objective of Ekstedt of facilitat[ing] the development of tests and improv[ing] the documentation, reusability and maintainability of programs for performing testing routines. Further, combining the statistical software of Ekstedt and Ghaemi yields the predictable result of identifying outliers in the test data obtained by the semiconductor system disclosed by Ekstedt.

Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1028 15758) (internal citations omitted).

Patent Owner argues Ghaemi identifies the presence of

abnormalities such as outliers or clusters, but not outliers themselves

(Prelim. Resp. 31 (quoting Ex. 1018, 23)), and, at most, groups data so that

an outlier could be identified by a test engineer, but does not automatically

identify an outlier using a computer system (id. at 32).

Petitioner relies on Dr. Singhs declaration testimony in support of its

contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to

modify Ekstedts statistical output report to include screening for outliers as

shown by Ghaemi. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1028 15758). Dr. Singhs

opinion regarding motivation to modify Ekstedt is based on Ekstedts

statement that the invention is concerned with a system for controlling

automated parametric testers in a manner which facilitates the development

of tests and improves the documentation, reusability and maintainability of

programs for performing testing routines (Ex. 1021, 1:1520). Ex. 1028

157.

As discussed above, in Section IV.C.3.A, Petitioner has not shown

persuasively that Ekstedt describes identifying an outlier as we have

interpreted this claim term for purposes of this decision. Even assuming

Petitioner is correct in arguing that Ghaemi discloses identifying outliers as

claimed, absent from the Petition and the relied-upon paragraphs in Dr.

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

17

Singhs deposition testimony is any discussion of why one of ordinary skill

in the art would have understood from the prior art that screening for

outliers in Ekstedts method would somehow facilitate development of

Ekstedts tests and improve documentation, reusability, and maintainability

of Ekstedts testing programs. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed.

Cir. 1992) (It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an

instruction manual or template to piece together the teachings of the prior

art so that the claimed invention is obvious. (quoting In re Gorman, 933

F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed.

Cir. 2011)(Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using

the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references,

combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of

the claims in suit. (quoting Grain Processing Corp. v. American-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))).

Because Petitioner has failed to adequately explain the motivation to

modify Ekstedt based on Ghaemi to include identification of outliers (i.e.,

test results that are within the upper and lower limits of the products

specifications such that they do not indicate bad or out of spec parts, but

nevertheless stray from values which are statistically similar), Petitioner has

not met its burden to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail

in showing at least one of challenged independent claims 1, 8, and 15 would

have been obvious over Ekstedt and Ghaemi.

C. Anticipation and Obviousness of the Dependent Claims Petitioners arguments in support of its challenges as to dependent

claims 27, 914, and 1620 (see Section II.E., above), are based on its

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

18

contentions that Ekstedt, alone or in combination with Gaehmi, and ONeill

disclose systems and methods which include outlier identification as recited

in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. See generally, Pet. 4260. In Sections

IV.A.2 and IV.B.3, above, we concluded Petitioner had not identified

sufficient evidence to establish that these references disclose identifying

outliers as we have interpreted this claim term for purposes of this

decision, and, therefore, that Petitioner had not met its burden to establish a

reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the

independent claims challenged in the Petition. For the same reason, we

determine Petitioner has not met its burden to establish a reasonable

likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the dependent

claims challenged in the Petition.

V. CONCLUSION Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would

prevail in showing unpatentability of claims 120 based on the challenges

advanced in its Petition.

VI. ORDER

For the reasons given, it is

ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.

IPR2015-00421 Patent 6,792,373 B2

19

PETITIONER:

Bernard Knight bknight@mwe.com Kenneth Cheney kcheney@mwe.com

PATENT OWNER:

Joshua Wyde jwyde@wydelegal.com Daniel Noblitt dnoblitt@ngtechlaw.com