PTAB

IPR2015-00149

Kingston Technology Co Inc v. CATR Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Flash Memory Apparatus
  • Brief Description: The ’544 patent discloses a flash memory apparatus, such as a USB drive, that includes an integrated, rotatable protective cover. The invention's stated purpose is to prevent the loss of a separate cap while shielding the USB connector from damage and contaminants.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Matsumiya and Deng - Claims 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 20 are obvious over Matsumiya in view of Deng.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matsumiya (Patent 6,480,390) and Deng (Patent 6,829,672).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Matsumiya taught virtually all elements of the claimed invention except for the specific use of a USB interface. Matsumiya disclosed a memory card with a U-shaped, hinged "dustproof cover" comprising parallel arms that swingably mount to the memory card's housing to protect its electrical contacts. Petitioner asserted that Deng taught the remaining element: a conventional USB flash memory device with an exposed, unprotected USB connector. The combination of Deng's USB device with Matsumiya's integrated swivel cover allegedly met every limitation of independent claim 8. Dependent claims related to hinge structures (protuberance and hole), rectangular shape, and curved features were also argued to be expressly or inherently taught by Matsumiya or would have been obvious design choices.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to solve the well-known problem of protecting vulnerable USB connectors from dust, dirt, and physical damage—a problem explicitly addressed by Matsumiya for a similar device. Petitioner argued that the known deficiency of unprotected USB devices like Deng's would have motivated a POSITA to apply Matsumiya's effective and integrated protective cover solution. The clear visual and functional similarity between Matsumiya's memory card contacts and a USB interface provided a strong suggestion to adapt the cover for use with a USB device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as applying a known type of protective swivel cover to a known type of electronic device to shield its connector was a simple and predictable mechanical integration.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Wu, Schaub, and Hoogesteger - Claims 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 20 are obvious over Wu in view of either Schaub or Hoogesteger.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wu (Patent 6,522,534), Schaub (Patent 4,854,045), and Hoogesteger (Patent D199,589).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Wu provided the base invention: a "pen-type portable memory device" with a USB interface that Wu itself acknowledged was susceptible to damage. To provide the claimed cover structure, Petitioner pointed to Hoogesteger and Schaub. Hoogesteger disclosed a protective swivel cover for a magnifying glass, and Schaub disclosed a modular pocketknife with tools (including electronic modules) that rotate out of a protective casing formed by parallel side plates. Petitioner contended that these references taught the claimed cover structure: parallel plates defining an inner space, hinged to an object to allow it to be alternately covered and exposed. Combining Wu's USB device with the cover design from either Hoogesteger or Schaub would allegedly result in the claimed apparatus.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, recognizing the need to protect the USB connector of Wu, would look to common, established designs for protecting handheld objects. Hoogesteger and Schaub provided well-known examples of such swivel covers. Petitioner argued that applying the long-known concept of a swivel cover from a non-analogous field (magnifying glasses, pocketknives) to solve the known problem of protecting a USB connector was a classic example of obviousness. The motivation was simply to apply a known solution to a known problem.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a common, well-understood mechanical design (a swivel cover) to a standard electronic device. The implementation was straightforward and would have been entirely predictable to a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "plate": For purposes of the inter partes review (IPR), Petitioner proposed that "plate" should be construed as "a thin, flat sheet or strip of metal or other material." This broad construction was argued to encompass the parallel "arms" of the cover disclosed in the prior art, such as Matsumiya, which were not explicitly described as plates.
  • "thickness": Petitioner proposed that "thickness" be construed as "the distance between opposite sides of something." This construction supported the argument that the interval spacing the parallel members of the prior art covers corresponded to the thickness of the device body, as required by claim 8.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’544 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.