`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————
`
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner
`
`—————————————
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`—————————————
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`
`
`The undersigned, on behalf of Patent Owner Progressive Casualty Insurance
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`
`
`Co. (“Patent Owner”), hereby provides Notice to the Board that the objections
`
`made on the record herewith were served to Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`
`part II, § I (77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 4, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`JONES DAY
`
`/s/Calvin P. Griffith
`Calvin P. Griffith
`Registration No. 34,831
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`(216) 586-3939
`(216) 579-0212 (Fax)
`Attorney For Patent Owner
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————
`
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner
`
`—————————————
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`—————————————
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of Patent
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`
`
`Owner Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. (“Patent Owner”), hereby submits the
`
`following objections to Exhibits 1031-1033 filed on August 27, 2013 by Liberty
`
`Mutual Insurance Co. (“Liberty” or “Petitioner”) in response to Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence, filed August 13, 2013. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.62,
`
`Patent Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”).
`
`I.
`
`PATENT OWNER MAINTAINS ITS PRIOR OBJECTIONS
`
`Patent Owner maintains all objections it previously set forth, including its
`
`objections filed on August 13, 2013. (See CBM2012-00002, Paper No. 34).
`
`II. EXHIBITS 1031-1033 GO BEYOND EVIDENCE PERMITTED
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(B)(2)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) provides that a “party relying on evidence to which
`
`an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental
`
`evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.” Patent Owner
`
`objects to Exhibits 1031-1033 because they go beyond, and are not proper
`
`supplemental evidence pursuant to, 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2).
`
`III. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 1031 AND ANY REFERENCE
`TO/RELIANCE THEREON
`
`Patent Owner hereby objects to Exhibit 1031, Declaration of Scott Andrews,
`
`dated August 26, 2013 (“Andrews Third Declaration”).
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`1
`
`
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (Admissibility of Evidence),
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`
`
`F.R.E. 402 (Relevance), F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice,
`
`Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons), F.R.E. 901 (Authentication), 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.223 (Filing of Supplemental Evidence), F.R.E. 702, 703, 705 (Witness
`
`Not Qualified to Provide Expert Testimony), F.R.E. 602 (Lack of Personal
`
`Knowledge), F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay), 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
`
`(Outside Scope of Response and Petition), and the Andrews Third Declaration is
`
`unauthorized testimony.
`
`Patent Owner advanced no position that provides a proper basis for the
`
`belated submission of the Andrews Third Declaration or the exhibits referenced
`
`therein, i.e., the Andrews Second Declaration (Exhibit 1019), a purported copy of
`
`an article titled “Application of a Clustering Adaptive Fuzzy Logic Controller in a
`
`Brushless DC Drive” (Exhibit 1020), and the Stark Declaration (Exhibit 1030).
`
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. 42, Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, part II, § I, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012)). The
`
`statements in the Andrews Third Declaration have no relevant bearing on any issue
`
`properly raised in this proceeding or argued by Patent Owner. (F.R.E. 402, 403; 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61). Rather, the Andrews Third Declaration is an attempt to raise new
`
`theories to support invalidity arguments in an effort to establish a prima facie case
`
`of unpatentability of the claims that should have been submitted with the
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s petition.1 The content of the Andrews Third Declaration and Exhibits
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`1019, 1020, and 1030 are either inapplicable or should have been submitted when
`
`the petition for review was filed, not after the institution of this trial. (F.R.E. 403;
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I).
`
`Further, Andrews’s new testimony could have been elicited during direct
`
`examination in the first instance. (Id.) Andrews’s attempt to now offer testimony
`
`in his Third Declaration is not rebuttal evidence and must not be allowed to
`
`remedy any deficiency with the improperly filed Andrews Second Declaration.
`
`Nor is Andrews’s characterization in ¶ 4 that he “was not attempting to clarify [his]
`
`testimony” in Exhibit 1019 change that fact that he was clarifying his testimony.
`
`
`1 For example, in ¶ 3, Andrews challenges Patent Owner’s objection that he
`
`is raising new theories in order to make out a prima facie case. Andrews bases this
`
`challenge on his understanding that “the Board already found [a prima facie case]
`
`to exist in its Institution Decision.” This challenge demonstrates Petitioner’s and
`
`Andrews’s profound misunderstanding as to what is proper to raise in a reply or
`
`rebuttal declaration. The fact that the Board instituted this case does not mean that
`
`Petitioner and Andrews are free to later raise new arguments and introduce new
`
`evidence that should have been offered at the time of filing the Petition.
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`3
`
`
`
`The Andrews Third Declaration was not authorized by the Board. None of
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`
`
`the PTAB rules or regulations authorizes filing new testimonial evidence in
`
`conjunction with a Petitioner reply that does not arise from the submission of a
`
`substitute claim or is responsive to a Patent Owner’s claim amendments, especially
`
`in light of the prejudice to Patent Owner because there is no opportunity to respond
`
`to or rebut new declarations submitted at this stage. Consequently, the Andrews
`
`Third Declaration is both outside the scope of the Patent Owner’s Response and
`
`impermissible supplemental evidence. (37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b);
`
`37 C.F.R. 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I).
`
`Petitioner apparently presents the Andrews Third Declaration, and
`
`specifically ¶ 5, in an attempt to verify the source, dates and authenticity of Exhibit
`
`1020 and the veracity of Exhibit 1030. Stark claimed that Exhibit 1020 is a “true
`
`and correct copy” of Exhibit 1020 (Exhibit 1030, at ¶ 3), but the Andrews Third
`
`Declaration only establishes that Andrews downloaded a document on July 31,
`
`2103, not that he downloaded Exhibit 1020. Andrews also fails to provide any
`
`relevant statement or personal knowledge regarding the original publication date of
`
`Exhibit 1020. (F.R.E. 402, 602, 901; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61). He fails to establish any
`
`proper basis for concluding that it is a true and accurate copy as it existed at the
`
`time of publication. (F.R.E. 402, 901; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61). Therefore, the
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`declaration and testimony regarding Exhibit 1020 are both prejudicial and
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`irrelevant to any issue in this proceeding. (F.R.E. 402, 403; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61).
`
`Furthermore, the Andrews Third Declaration seeks to verify the source of
`
`Exhibit 1020 even though it is inadmissible supplemental evidence and not
`
`relevant to any issue of this proceeding. (F.R.E. 402; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61; 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I).
`
`Consequently, the Andrews Third Declaration is irrelevant, outside the scope of
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, and constitutes impermissible supplemental evidence.
`
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42, Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, part II, § I).
`
`All the statements contained in the Andrews Third Declaration are out of
`
`court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein and constitute
`
`impermissible hearsay. (F.R.E. 801, 802). Further, the Andrews Third Declaration
`
`refers to out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein,
`
`and they also constitute impermissible hearsay. (F.R.E. 801, 802).2 Nor has a
`
`showing been made that a hearsay exception or exclusion applies.
`
`
`2 For example, in ¶ 5, Andrews refers to Stark’s Declaration (Exhibit 1030)
`
`as to the website from which Exhibit 1020 was downloaded.
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`5
`
`
`
`Additionally, the Andrews Third Declaration is not relevant because
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`
`
`Andrews is not qualified to testify and lacks the necessary “scientific, technical, or
`
`other specialized knowledge [to] help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
`
`to determine a fact in issue” because he is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the
`
`subject matter on which he has offered his opinions in his declaration. (F.R.E.
`
`702; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65; see also F.R.E. 402, 703, 705).
`
`Accordingly, permitting any reliance on this purported expert testimony
`
`submissions of Petitioner would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to Patent
`
`Owner. (F.R.E. 403).
`
`IV. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 1032 AND ANY REFERENCE
`TO/RELIANCE THEREON
`
`Patent Owner hereby objects to Exhibit 1032, Declaration of Mary Lou
`
`O’Neil, dated August 27, 2013 (“O’Neil Third Declaration”).
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (Admissibility of Evidence),
`
`F.R.E. 402 (Relevance), F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice,
`
`Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons), F.R.E. 901 (Authentication), 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.223 (Filing of Supplemental Evidence), F.R.E. 702, 703, 705 (Witness
`
`Not Qualified to Provide Expert Testimony), F.R.E. 602 (Lack of Personal
`
`Knowledge), F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay), 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`(Outside Scope of Response and Petition), and the O’Neil Third Declaration is
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`unauthorized testimony.
`
`Patent Owner advanced no position that provides a proper basis for the
`
`belated submission of the O’Neil Third Declaration or the exhibits referenced
`
`therein, i.e., the O’Neil Second Declaration (Exhibit 1022) and a purported copy of
`
`Interpretative Opinion Nos. 3 and 4 (Exhibit 1023). (37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I). The
`
`statements in the O’Neil Third Declaration have no relevant bearing on any issue
`
`properly raised in this proceeding or argument raised by Patent Owner. (F.R.E.
`
`402, 403; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61). Rather, the O’Neil Third Declaration is an attempt
`
`to raise new theories to support invalidity arguments in an effort to establish a
`
`prima facie case of unpatentability of the claims that should have been submitted
`
`with the Petitioner’s petition.3 The content of the O’Neil Third Declaration and
`
`
`3 For example, in ¶ 3, O’Neil challenges Patent Owner’s objection that she is
`
`raising new theories in order to make out a prima facie case. O’Neil bases this
`
`challenge on her understanding that “the Board already found [a prima facie case]
`
`to exist in its Institution Decision.” As indicated in footnote 1, supra, this
`
`challenge demonstrates Petitioner’s and O’Neil’s profound misunderstanding as to
`
`what is proper to raise in a Reply or rebuttal declaration. The fact that the Board
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1022 and 1023 are either inapplicable or should have been submitted
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`when the petition for review was filed, not after the institution of this trial. (F.R.E.
`
`403; 37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II,
`
`§ I).
`
`Further, O’Neil’s new testimony could have been elicited during direct
`
`examination in the first instance. (Id.) O’Neil’s attempt to now offer testimony in
`
`her Declaration is not rebuttal evidence and should not be allowed to remedy any
`
`deficiency with the improperly filed O’Neil Second Declaration.
`
`The O’Neil Third Declaration was not authorized by the Board. None of the
`
`PTAB rules or regulations authorizes filing new testimonial evidence in
`
`conjunction with a Petitioner reply that does not arise from the submission of a
`
`substitute claim or is responsive to a Patent Owner’s claim amendments, especially
`
`in light of the prejudice to Patent Owner because there is no opportunity to respond
`
`to or rebut new declarations submitted at this stage. Consequently, the O’Neil
`
`
`(continued…)
`
`
`instituted this case does not mean that Petitioner and O’Neil are free to later raise
`
`new arguments and introduce new evidence that should have been offered at the
`
`time of filing the Petition – theories to which Patent Owner has no opportunity to
`
`rebut or respond.
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Third Declaration is both outside the scope of Patent Owner’s Response and
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`impermissible supplemental evidence. (37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b);
`
`37 C.F.R. 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I).
`
`Petitioner apparently presents the O’Neil Third Declaration, and specifically
`
`¶ 4, in an attempt to verify the source, dates and authenticity of Exhibit 1022, titled
`
`“Interpretative Opinion 3: Professional Communications of Actuaries and
`
`Interpretive Opinion 4: Actuarial Principles and Practices.” O’Neil claimed that
`
`Exhibit 1023 is a “true and correct copy” of Interpretative Opinion Nos. 3 and 4
`
`(O’Neil Second Declaration, at ¶ 6 n.1), but then does not purport to have any
`
`knowledge as to Opinion No. 3. (See O’Neil Third Declaration, at ¶ 4.) Even as to
`
`Opinion No. 4, O’Neil claims to have been in possession of a hard copy since
`
`1982, even though it was purportedly revised in 1990. (See id.) Nor is O’Neil
`
`claiming that her hard copy document is identical to Exhibit 1023, but rather
`
`simply that it contains similar “substance.” (See id.) O’Neil has failed to provide
`
`any relevant statement or personal knowledge regarding the original publication
`
`date of the materials submitted as Exhibit 1023 (F.R.E. 402, 602; 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.61); and she failed to provide any proper basis for concluding that the
`
`document is a true and accurate copy as it existed at the time of publication, to the
`
`extent it was published prior to when she purportedly downloaded it on July 30,
`
`2013 (F.R.E. 901). Therefore, the declaration, and testimony regarding Exhibit
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`1023, is both prejudicial and irrelevant to any issue in this proceeding. (F.R.E.
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`402; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61; F.R.E. 403).
`
`Furthermore, the O’Neil Third Declaration seeks to verify the source of
`
`Exhibit 1023 even though it is inadmissible supplemental evidence and not
`
`relevant to any issue of this proceeding. (F.R.E. 402; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61; 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I).
`
`Consequently, the O’Neil Third Declaration is irrelevant, outside the scope of
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, and constitutes impermissible supplemental evidence.
`
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42, Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, part II, § I).
`
`All the statements contained in the O’Neil Third Declaration are out of court
`
`statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein and constitute
`
`impermissible hearsay. (F.R.E. 801, 802). Further, the O’Neil Third Declaration
`
`refers to out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein,
`
`and they also constitute impermissible hearsay. (Id.)4 Nor has a showing been
`
`made that a hearsay exception or exclusion applies.
`
`
`4 For example, in ¶ 4, O’Neil refers to Exhibit 1023 and the date it was
`
`purportedly “adopted” by the American Academy of Actuaries and “republished”
`
`by the Actuarial Standards Board.
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`10
`
`
`
`Additionally, the O’Neil Third Declaration is not relevant because O’Neil is
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`
`
`not qualified to testify and lacks the necessary “scientific, technical, or other
`
`specialized knowledge [to] help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
`
`determine a fact in issue” because she is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the
`
`subject matter on which she has offered her opinions in her declaration. (F.R.E.
`
`702; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65; see also F.R.E. 402, 703, 705).
`
`Accordingly, permitting any reliance on this purported expert testimony in
`
`submissions of Petitioner would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to Patent
`
`Owner. (F.R.E. 403).
`
`V. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 1033 AND ANY REFERENCE
`TO/RELIANCE THEREON
`
`Patent Owner hereby objects to Exhibit 1033, Declaration of Jordan M.
`
`Rossen (“Rossen Declaration”), an attorney in the office of Petitioner’s counsel,
`
`dated August 27, 2013.
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (Admissibility of Evidence),
`
`F.R.E. 402 (Relevance), F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice,
`
`Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons), F.R.E. 901 (Authentication), 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.223 (Filing of Supplemental Evidence), F.R.E. 702, 703, 705 (Witness
`
`Not Qualified to Provide Expert Testimony), F.R.E. 602 (Lack of Personal
`
`Knowledge), F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay), 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`(Outside Scope of Response and Petition), and the Rossen Declaration is
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`unauthorized testimony.
`
`Petitioner apparently presents the Rossen Declaration in an attempt to verify
`
`the source, date and/or authenticity of Exhibits 1021 and 1024-1029 and
`
`substantiate the allegations in Exhibit 1030 that they are “true and correct
`
`cop[ies].” However, the Rossen Declaration simply reiterates allegations from
`
`Exhibit 1030, indicating that Exhibit 1021 “bears a library identification and date
`
`stamp” and Exhibit 1029 contains the date “(8/6/2013 9:34:54 AM) on the bottom
`
`of every page” and states that he downloaded documents on August 16, 2013.
`
`(Rossen Declaration at ¶¶ 3-9). However, the Rossen Declaration only establishes
`
`that what he allegedly downloaded on August 16, 2103 were not Exhibits 1024-
`
`1029 and, in fact, differed in formatting as to Exhibit 1029 and differed in
`
`formatting and headings as to Exhibit 1028. (See id. at ¶¶ 8-9). Rossen also fails
`
`to provide any relevant statement or personal knowledge regarding the original
`
`publication date of Exhibits 1021 and 1024-1029 or that the statements in Exhibit
`
`1030 are accurate. (F.R.E. 402, 602, 901; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61). He fails to establish
`
`any proper basis for concluding that Exhibits 1021 and 1024-1029 are true and
`
`accurate copies as they existed at the time of publication. (F.R.E. 402, 901; 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61). Therefore, the declaration and testimony regarding Exhibits 1021
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`and 1024-1029 are both prejudicial and irrelevant to any issue in this proceeding.
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`(F.R.E. 402, 403; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61).
`
`The Rossen Declaration is also unauthorized. None of the PTAB rules or
`
`regulations authorizes filing a new declaration as to new exhibits in conjunction
`
`with a Petitioner Reply that do not arise from the submission of a substitute claim
`
`or is responsive to a Patent Owner’s claim amendments, especially in light of the
`
`prejudice to Patent Owner because there is no opportunity to respond to or rebut
`
`new declarations submitted at this stage. Furthermore, the Rossen Declaration
`
`seeks to verify the source of a documents that are inadmissible supplemental
`
`evidence and not relevant to any issue of this proceeding. (F.R.E. 402; 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.61; 37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. 42, Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I). Consequently, the Rossen Declaration is
`
`irrelevant, outside the scope of Patent Owner’s Response, and constitutes
`
`impermissible supplemental evidence. (Id.)
`
`All the statements contained in the Rossen Declaration are out of court
`
`statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein and constitute
`
`impermissible hearsay. (F.R.E. 801, 802). Further, the Rossen Declaration refers
`
`to out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein, and
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`they also constitute impermissible hearsay. (Id.)5 Nor has a showing been made
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`that a hearsay exception or exclusion applies.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For at least these reasons, the Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1031-1033.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 4, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`JONES DAY
`
`/s/Calvin P. Griffith
`Calvin P. Griffith
`Registration No. 34,831
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`(216) 586-3939
`(216) 579-0212 (Fax)
`Attorney For Patent Owner
`
`
`5 In ¶¶ 3-9, Rossen refers to Stark’s Declaration (Exhibit 1030) as to what it
`
`indicates and refers to a “library identification and date stamp” on Exhibit 1021.
`
`CLI-2138992
`
`14
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 and PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`were served on September 4, 2013 by causing them to be sent by email to counsel
`
`for the Petitioner at the following email addresses:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`Nicole.jantzi@ropesgray.com
`James.myers@ropesgray.com
`LibertyMutualPTABService@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ John V. Biernacki
`John V. Biernacki
`Registration No. 40,511
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`Attorney For Patent Owner
`
`
`
`