`
`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 CBM2013-00009
`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 16, 2013 as Exhibit 1031. (My information regarding
`
`experience, qualifications, and compensation has been provided along with my
`
`Rebuttal Declaration, Exhibit 1031, and CV, Exhibit 1032.)
`
`
`
`
`
`Liberty Mutual Exhibit 1041
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive
`CBM2013-00009
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Response to Evidentiary Objections
`
`2.
`
`I understand an evidentiary objection has been made to Exhibit 1031,
`
`asserting that it is hearsay, but in fact it is my sworn expert testimony in the matter.
`
`See Patent Owner’s Notice of Objection to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, at
`
`13.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that a further evidentiary objection has been made to
`
`Exhibit 1031, asserting that it has “no relevant bearing on any issue properly raised in
`
`this proceeding.” See Patent Owner’s Notice of Objection to Evidence Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64, at 10-11. As I stated in my Rebuttal Declaration (Exhibit 1031), I
`
`testified in Exhibit 1031 solely to rebut issues actually raised by Patent Owner in its
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, including assertions and opinions of Michael Miller
`
`expressed in his declaration of June 13, 2013 (attached to the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response as Exhibit 2013) and certain assertions of Progressive in its Patent Owner’s
`
`Response of June 13, 2013. Contrary to Progressive’s evidentiary objection, my
`
`testimony was not offered to “raise new theories and invalidity arguments in an effort
`
`to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability of the claims,” which I understand the
`
`Board already found to exist in its Institution Decision.
`
`4.
`
`In Exhibit 1031, my Rebuttal Declaration, I indicated that Exhibit 1033
`
`was downloaded from the web site of the publisher, the Actuarial Standards Board,
`
`http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.org/pdf/superseded/intopinion.PDF, which
`
`notes that the document was adopted 1970-1982 by the American Academy of
`
`
`
`Page 00002
`
`
`
`Sep 06 13 06:33p
`
`O'Neil Consulting Service
`
`4128842402
`
`p.2
`
`Actuaries and republished in 1992 by the Actuarial Standards Board. I have been in
`
`possession of a hard copy of Interpretive Opinion 4: Actuarial Principles and
`
`Practices since its initial publication in 1982 (and as revised in 1990). For purposes of
`
`my declaration and ease of provision to counsel, I downloaded Exhibit 1033 (which
`
`contains the same substance as the hard copy I have had in my possession) onjuly 30,
`
`2013. I was faIniliar with and have used Interpretive Opinion 4 found in Exhibit 1033
`
`on numerous occasions in my work during the period in which it was in force.
`
`Executed this 6th day of September, 2013
`
`‘
`
`At:
`
`Page 00003
`
`Page 00003
`
`