`______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner
`v.
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner
`______________
`Case CBM2012-00003
`Patent 8,140,358
`______________
`Before the Honorable JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R.
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`RULE 42.64(b)(2) DECLARATION OF MARY LOU O’NEIL ON BEHALF
`OF PETITIONER LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. REGARDING
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,140,358
`
`I, Mary Lou O’Neil, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
`
`the United States of America:
`
`I have previously been asked by Liberty Mutual Insurance (“Liberty”) to testify
`
`as an expert witness in this action.
`
`I.
`
`Prior Testimony
`
`1.
`
`I am the same Mary Lou O’Neil who provided a Rebuttal Declaration in
`
`this matter executed on August 15, 2013 as Exhibit 1032. (My information regarding
`
`experience, qualifications, and compensation has been provided along with my
`
`Rebuttal Declaration, Exhibit 1032, and CV, Exhibit 1033.)
`
`
`
`
`
`Liberty Mutual Exhibit 1039
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive
`CBM2012-00003
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`Sep 05 13 0308p
`
`O'Neil Consulting Service
`
`4128842402
`
`II.
`
`Response to Evidentiary Objections
`
`2.
`
`I understand an evidentiary objection has been made to Exhibit 1032,
`
`asserting that it is hearsay, but in fact it is my sworn expert testimony in the matter.
`
`See Patent Ownefs Notice of Objectionto Exddence Pursuant to 37 CPR. § 42.64, at
`
`5.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that a further evidentiary objection has been made to
`
`Exhibit 1032, asserting that it has “no relevant bearing on any issue properly raised in
`
`this proceeding.” fee Patent Owner’s Notice of Objection to Evidence Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64, at 2-4. As I stated in my Rebuttal Declaration (Exhibit 1032), I
`
`testified in Exhibit 1032 solely to rebut issues actually raised by Patent Owner in its
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, including assertions and opinions of Michael l\-Iiller
`
`expressed in his declaration of June 12, 2013 (attached to the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response as Exhibit 2005) and certain assertions of Progressive in its Patent Ownefs
`
`Response ofJune 12, 2013. Contrary to Progressives evidentiary objection, my
`
`testimony was not offered to “raise new theories and invalidity arguments in an effort
`
`to make out a prz'27mLfczc2'e case of unpatentability of the claims,” which I understand the
`
`Board already found to exist in its Insdtution Decision.
`
`Executed this 5th day of September, 2013
`
`
`
`Pafie 00002
`
`Page 00002