Patent 8,504,746 B2 Reference(s) Aytac,1 SCSI Specification,2 and Admitted Prior Art3 Basis § 103 Claim 1, 6, 15, 17, 18, 31, 34 In addition to the supporting argument for these grounds in the Petition, Petitioner also presents expert testimony.
For these claim limitations, the parties agree to adopt the construction proposed by Patent Owner in the related District Court proceeding— “without requiring the end user to install or load specific drivers or software
Patent owner alleges that the claim term “end user” should not be limited to “actual end user,” but instead should include a “system administrator” who sets up a computer for another or “a technically competent individual who understood how to install device drivers.” Prelim. Resp. 23–25.
Notwithstanding the apparent differing opinions, at this juncture, the variance between the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art does not have meaningful impact in our determination of whether to institute inter partes review.
Having found sufficient support for Petitioner’s contentions and having been unpersuaded, on the present record, by any of Patent Owner’s arguments, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claims 1, 6, 15, 17, 18, 31, and 34 are unpatentable over Aytac, the Admitted Prior Art, and the SCSI Specification.