`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`VOLUSION, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT
`GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`AND
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.
`Real Party-In-Interest
`___________________
`
`Case CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`The Order Entered in this Proceeding Conflicts with the Statutes and
`Regulations ...................................................................................................... 2 
`A.  Neither the Statutory Authorization for Motions to Amend Nor the
`Regulations Adopted by the Director Contemplate Introduction of
`Invalidity Grounds not Involved in Trial ...................................................... 3 
`B.  Order in this Proceeding Imposes an Additional Substantive
`Requirement that is both Extra-Statutory and Extra-Regulatory .................. 5 
`C.  Order in this Proceeding Conflicts with the Statutory and Regulatory
`Scheme .......................................................................................................... 7 
`1.  Order in this Proceeding Could Effectively Destroy the Statute’s
`Delicately Crafted Balance between Estoppels and Grounds Actually
`Raised ................................................................................................................. 8 
`2.  Order in this Proceeding Effectively Obviates Specific Statutory
`Limitations on the Kinds of Prior Art upon which a Petitioner may Rely to
`Support Invalidity Grounds Raised in a Transitional Proceeding under
`§§ 102, 103 ......................................................................................................... 9 
`D.  No Unfair Prejudice is Created by Limiting Requirements for Entry of
`Motion to Amend to Responsiveness to a Grounds of Unpatentability
`Actually Involved in the Trial ..................................................................... 10 
`III.  The Order Conflicts with Previous PTAB Guidance ..................................... 11 
`A.  The Orders Entered in Proceedings Involving Prior Art Grounds
`Authorized for Trial are Inapposite ............................................................. 11 
`B.  The LinkedIn Order (entered in a proceeding that involves only § 101
`grounds authorized for trial) Conflicts with the Order Entered in this
`Proceeding ................................................................................................... 12 
`IV.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 15 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................ 16 
`
`
`
`–ii–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Patent Owner, pursuant to an automatic grant of authorization for motions
`
`seeking rehearing, hereby moves for reconsideration of the Order – Conduct of the
`
`Proceeding, entered December 20, 2013, Paper No. 19 (the “Order”).
`
`The Order, which details the Board’s requirements for Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Amend in the instant proceeding, conflicts with the statutory framework
`
`insofar as it imports prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 into a covered
`
`business method (CBM) review instituted solely on § 101 grounds and thereby:
`
`(1) upsets the delicately crafted balance between estoppels and grounds
`
`actually raised by a petitioner during a transitional proceeding under
`
`Section 18, and
`
`(2) effectively obviates specific statutory limitations on the kinds of prior art
`
`upon which a petitioner may rely to support invalidity grounds raised in a
`
`transitional proceeding under §§ 102, 103.
`
`The Order’s importation of prior art issues into a CBM review instituted solely on
`
`§ 101 grounds is not dictated by the statute (35 U.S.C. § 326(d)) or by any actual
`
`regulation prescribed by the Director consistent with the statutory grant of
`
`authority under 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(9). Moreover, given the conflict with the
`
`statutory framework, no such regulation could be reasonably prescribed by the
`
`Director and no general provision (e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.20 establishing a movant’s
`
`
`
`–1–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`burden to establish that it is entitled to requested relief) could reasonably be
`
`interpreted by a reviewing court to establish an extra-statutory requirement for a
`
`Patent Owner in a § 101-only CBM review to sua sponte develop a §§ 102/103-
`
`based invalidity straw man (on grounds that Petitioner itself chose not to develop)
`
`as a precondition for entry of its statutorily authorized motion to amend, and then
`
`rebut its own straw man.
`
`Finally, notwithstanding the Board’s ostensible reliance on an order entered
`
`in CBM2013-00025 (LinkedIn Corp. v. AvMarkets Inc., paper 18, Dec. 2, 2013),
`
`which appears to be the only other order establishing motion to amend
`
`requirements in a § 101-only CBM review, the Order in the present proceeding is
`
`flatly inconsistent with the LinkedIn order.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully seeks withdrawal of the Order and
`
`entry of a substitute order that, consistent with the statutes, regulations and, indeed,
`
`the Board’s own order in LinkedIn, clarifies that Patent Owner’s page-limited
`
`motion to amend need only address invalidity grounds actually involved in the
`
`trial.
`
`II. The Order Entered in this Proceeding Conflicts with the Statutes and
`Regulations
`
`As the Board correctly notes, the only issue in the instant proceeding is
`
`whether the claims of the ’282 patent qualify as statutory subject matter under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101. Order at 2. Patent Owner seeks to file a motion to amend certain
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`original claims of the ’282 Patent, by way of one-for-one substitute claims
`
`respectively contingent on an adverse final written decision that the substituted-for
`
`original claim is unpatentable under § 101.
`
`A. Neither the Statutory Authorization for Motions to Amend Nor
`the Regulations Adopted by the Director Contemplate
`Introduction of Invalidity Grounds not Involved in Trial
`
`Motions to amend are specifically authorized by § 326(d) of the statute,
`
`which states that:
`
`(d) AMENDMENT OF THE PATENT.—
`
`(1) IN GENERAL.—During a post-grant review instituted under this
`
`chapter, the patent owner may file 1 motion to amend the patent in 1 or
`
`more of the following ways:
`
`(A) Cancel any challenged patent claim.
`
`(B) For each challenged claim, propose a reasonable number of
`
`substitute claims.
`
`(2)ADDITIONAL MOTIONS.—Additional motions to amend may be
`
`permitted upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner to
`
`materially advance the settlement of a proceeding under section 327, or
`
`upon the request of the patent owner for good cause shown.
`
`(3) SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—An amendment under this subsection may
`
`not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter.
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`35 U.S.C. § 326(d). Indeed, in furtherance of a § 326(a)(9) statutory mandate that
`
`“[t]he Director shall prescribe regulations setting forth standards and procedures
`
`for allowing the patent owner to move to amend the patent under subsection (d)
`
`…,” the Office has adopted § 42.221, which provides (in pertinent part):
`
`(a) Motion to amend. A patent owner may file one motion to amend a patent,
`
`but only after conferring with the Board.
`
`…
`
`(2) Scope. A motion to amend may be denied where:
`
`(i) The amendment does not respond to a ground of unpatentability
`
`involved in the trial; or
`
`(ii) The amendment seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the
`
`patent or introduce new subject matter.
`
`(3) A reasonable number of substitute claims. …
`
`(b) Content. A motion to amend claims must include a claim listing, show
`
`the changes clearly, and set forth:
`
`(1) The support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that
`
`is added or amended; and
`
`(2) The support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which
`
`benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.221.
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`Notably, the regulations adopted in furtherance of the § 326(a)(9) statutory
`
`mandate enumerate two (and only two) conditions under which a motion to amend
`
`may be denied. Specifically, a motion to amend may be denied if the specific
`
`amendment “does not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the
`
`trial” or if it “seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce
`
`new subject matter.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide confirms these requirements. 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Notably, the regulations do not state that a motion to amend may be denied
`
`where amendment does not respond to a ground of unpatentability that is not
`
`involved in the trial. Indeed, any requirement that a motion to amend respond to a
`
`ground of unpatentability not involved in trial may be fairly characterized as both
`
`extra-statutory and extra-regulatory.
`
`Accordingly, based on the statute and regulations, a grantable motion to
`
`amend the claims in the instant proceeding must, along with the requirements in §
`
`42.221(b) and § 42.221(a)(2), carry the burden of establishing the patentability of
`
`the proposed amendment only under § 101, as § 101 is the only “ground of
`
`unpatentability involved in the trial.”
`
`B. Order in this Proceeding Imposes an Additional Substantive
`Requirement that is both Extra-Statutory and Extra-Regulatory
`
`The Order in this proceeding imposes an additional requirement on Patent
`
`Owner outside the bounds of, and indeed in conflict with, applicable statutes and
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`regulations. Specifically, citing an order from Idle Free Systems, Inc. v.
`
`Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (June 11, 2013) (“Idle Free”), the
`
`Order asserts that:
`
`Patent Owner’s focus on 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i) as the only
`
`requirement for a motion to amend is myopic and misplaced. Patent
`
`Owner fails to take into consideration all of the other statutory and
`
`regulatory requirements. For a patent owner’s motion to amend, 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.20 places the burden on the patent owner to show that it is
`
`entitled to its proposed claims, and thus show a patentable distinction
`
`of each proposed substitute claim over the prior art known to the
`
`patent owner. This is regardless of the basis upon which the trial was
`
`instituted.
`
`Order at 4-5 (internal citation to Idle Free omitted).
`
`The Order alleges that this requirement arises from 37 C.F.R. § 42.20, but
`
`the only citation the Order provides as support for this statement is the Idle Free
`
`order, and not any specific statutory or regulatory requirements that discuss
`
`patentable distinctions over prior art. Order at 4. Indeed, the Idle Free order itself
`
`does not cite any statutory or regulatory authority that specifically requires a patent
`
`owner to show a patentable distinction over the prior art, aside from referring to the
`
`movant’s burden in 37 CFR § 42.20(c). Idle Free at 7-8. Patent Owner further
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`notes that the Idle Free order, though referred to as a “Representative Order” on
`
`the Board’s website, has not been designated “Precedential” according to the
`
`Board’s Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Revision 7), such that it is binding upon
`
`the Board.
`
`C. Order in this Proceeding Conflicts with the Statutory and
`Regulatory Scheme
`None of AIA § 18, 35 USC § 321 et seq., 37 CFR § 42.1 et seq., 37 CFR §
`
`42.200 et seq., and 37 CFR § 42.300 et seq. require a patent owner to compare its
`
`claims against prior art for a motion to amend. Simply stated, there is no specific
`
`statutory or regulatory authority requiring Patent Owner to address prior art in a
`
`Motion to Amend, where trial was not requested nor instituted on prior art grounds.
`
`Any introduction of prior art into this trial is in direct conflict with the
`
`regulations and the Board’s Decision on Institution. The regulations provide that
`
`“the Board may authorize the review to proceed on…all or some of the grounds of
`
`unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.208. The regulations do
`
`not allow the Board to conduct trial on additional non-asserted grounds.
`
`Consistent with the regulations, the Board’s Decision on Institution stated that “the
`
`trial is limited to § 101 and no other grounds are authorized” as the only ground
`
`of unpatentability asserted was § 101. Decision – Institution of Covered Business
`
`Method Patent Review at 17 (emphasis added). In contrast, the Order indicates
`
`that the introduction of prior art and the requirement to show a patentable
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`distinction exists “regardless of the basis upon which trial was instituted,” again
`
`only citing the Idle Free order as authority, which does not make such a statement.
`
`Order at 4-5. If Patent Owner is forced to discuss prior art in its Motion to Amend,
`
`such prior art will undoubtedly be argued at the oral hearing and discussed in the
`
`Board’s final decision (see 35 U.S.C. § 328(a)), and thus, trial will be effectively
`
`conducted on § 101 and the unauthorized grounds of §§ 102/103, which the
`
`regulations do not allow.
`
`1. Order in this Proceeding Could Effectively Destroy the
`Statute’s Delicately Crafted Balance between Estoppels and
`Grounds Actually Raised
`
`Other statutory conflicts also exist if prior art is introduced into this trial, and
`
`if such prior art is discussed in the Board’s final decision. For example, the Order
`
`does not address whether Petitioner in this case would be prevented by 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(e)(1) and AIA § 18(a)(1)(D) from later asserting invalidity of the amended
`
`claims over the prior art that would be brought into trial. Assuming that one of
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed claims is entered, would Petitioner be barred from later
`
`arguing that the claim is invalid over prior art discussed in Patent Owner’s motion
`
`to amend and any Petitioner’s reply? That is, can Petitioner harass Patent Owner
`
`by filing a subsequent post-grant review proceeding or civil action on prior art that
`
`would be now introduced into the trial? Such safeguards against duplication and
`
`harassment were a key improvement of the America Invents Act, but the Order
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`does not address this situation. If Petitioner is not estopped from later raising
`
`invalidity on prior art discussed in the motion to amend, then the Order is
`
`constructively authorizing a violation of 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) and AIA §
`
`18(a)(1)(D).
`
`2. Order in this Proceeding Effectively Obviates Specific
`Statutory Limitations on the Kinds of Prior Art upon which
`a Petitioner may Rely to Support Invalidity Grounds Raised
`in a Transitional Proceeding under §§ 102, 103
`
`Furthermore, the Order does not circumscribe whether the “prior art known
`
`to the patent owner” includes only prior art authorized by AIA § 18(a)(C), or
`
`whether “prior art known to the patent owner” includes prior art outside of the
`
`statutory bounds. As Petitioner noted on the conference call prior to the Order,
`
`Patent Owner’s litigation counsel has been served with invalidity contentions
`
`related to certain claims at issue in the litigation. Some of the allegedly
`
`invalidating prior art in the invalidity contentions may be, for example, prior art
`
`systems which would not qualify as prior art under AIA § 18(a)(C). Forcing Patent
`
`Owner to introduce such prior art into the proceeding would be outside the bounds
`
`of the statutory authority provided by AIA § 18, and would unfairly allow
`
`Petitioner an end-around the statutory requirements of AIA § 18 and the
`
`introduction of non-statutory prior art.
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`D. No Unfair Prejudice is Created by Limiting Requirements for
`Entry of Motion to Amend to Responsiveness to a Grounds of
`Unpatentability Actually Involved in the Trial
`
`Limiting Patent Owner’s motion to amend to the sole § 101 grounds of
`
`unpatentability on which trial has actually been instituted would not unfairly
`
`prejudice Petitioner in any way. Petitioner could have asserted authorized prior art
`
`grounds in the opening Petition, but it did not, presumably as a tactical gambit to
`
`avoid estoppel. Regardless, both now and in the future, Petitioner has the ability to
`
`assert prior art grounds in a subsequent petition for post-grant review, whether on
`
`the original claims or the proposed claims if the motion to amend is granted.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner can challenge the validity of either set of claims over prior art
`
`in district court when the stay (that it requested) is lifted. Thus, eliminating the
`
`erroneous requirement to show the proposed claims’ patentability over prior art in
`
`this proceeding does not affect Petitioner in any prejudicial way.
`
`Accordingly, because the Order’s requirement to show patentability of the
`
`proposed claims over prior art is not rooted in any statutory or regulatory authority,
`
`and effectively authorizes violation of various statutes, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`requests withdrawal of the Order and entry of a substitute order.
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`III. The Order Conflicts with Previous PTAB Guidance
`Setting aside the statutory and regulatory conflict, the Order is not dictated
`
`by orders entered in proceedings that involve prior art and, more significantly, is in
`
`conflict with previous PTAB guidance in § 101-only CBM proceedings.
`
`A. The Orders Entered in Proceedings Involving Prior Art Grounds
`Authorized for Trial are Inapposite
`
`The Board points to three previous orders issued in inter partes reviews to
`
`provide “guidance…regarding motions to amend”: Nichia Corporation v. Emcore
`
`Corporation, IPR2012-00005, Paper 27 (June 3, 2013; Idle Free; and ZTE
`
`Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings Inc., IPR2013-00136,
`
`Paper 33 (November 7, 2013). Order at 2. Only one of these previous orders, Idle
`
`Free, discusses the requirement to compare the proposed claims against prior art.
`
`Order at 2. The Nichia order confirms that a patent owner must identify written
`
`description support for its proposed claims. The ZTE order confirms the patent
`
`owner’s requirement to “show patentability of the proposed substitute claims”
`
`(though it does not address under what sections of Title 35) and the procedures for
`
`claim substitutions. Neither Nichia nor ZTE specifically discuss a patent owner’s
`
`requirement to show patentability over prior art.
`
`The Order also refers to orders in three CBM proceedings “where the Board
`
`directed the parties to IPR decisions like Idle Free for guidance regarding motions
`
`to amend.” Order at 3. Two of those proceedings (SAP America, Inc. v. Pi-Net
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`International, Inc. and Salesforce.com, Inc. v. VirtualAgility, Inc.) involve prior art
`
`grounds authorized for trial, so the reference to Idle Free’s requirements regarding
`
`a showing of patentability over prior art is understandable. The other is discussed
`
`below.
`
`B.
`
`The LinkedIn Order (entered in a proceeding that involves only
`§ 101 grounds authorized for trial) Conflicts with the Order
`Entered in this Proceeding
`As the Board noted, LinkedIn Corp. v. AvMarkets Inc., CBM2013-00025,
`
`like the instant trial, involved trial on only § 101 grounds. Notably, the Board
`
`there did not require the patent owner to compare its proposed claims against any
`
`prior art. Instead, in the LinkedIn Order (Paper 18 of CBM2013-00025), Judge
`
`Tierney, speaking for a panel of the Board, instructed the patent owner to explain
`
`in detail how the proposed substitute claims obviated “the grounds of
`
`unpatentability authorized in this proceeding” (i.e., the invalidity grounds under
`
`§ 101) and further to identify the written description support for the proposed
`
`claims. LinkedIn Order at 3 (emphasis added). These requirements are consistent
`
`with the statutes and regulations described above. Indeed, viewing the LinkedIn
`
`order from the perspective of this proceeding, it could be said that Judge Tierney
`
`was judicious, and indeed prescient, as to the legal quagmire presented by the
`
`Order in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`Notably, the panel in LinkedIn only referred to the Idle Free decision to
`
`provide “further guidance regarding these requirements,” and did not refer to Idle
`
`Free to provide any indication that the patent owner was to compare the claims to
`
`any prior art in order to satisfy its burden on its motion to amend. Nor did the
`
`LinkedIn panel separately set forth such a requirement. This is in direct contrast to
`
`the panel's requirement set forth in the instant Order, which requires Patent Owner
`
`to “show a patentable distinction of each proposed substitute claim over the prior
`
`art known to the patent owner.” Order at 4.
`
`As summarized in the following table, there is a marked disconnect between
`
`the facts and requirements set forth in LinkedIn, Idle Free, and the present Order.
`
`Essentially, the Board’s present Order imposes the requirements of both Idle Free
`
`and LinkedIn, though the facts of the proceeding only align with LinkedIn.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`

`

`
`
`Trial Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`Idle Free LinkedIn
`Order
`
`§ 101
`
`§ 101
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`Requirements of Motion to Amend
`
`Identify Written Description Support
`
`No Enlargement of Claim Scope
`
`Respond to § 101 grounds
`
`Respond to prior art involved in trial
`
`Respond to prior art known to patent owner
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`N/A
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`N/A
`
`Yes
`
`
`Just as the patent owner in Idle Free was not required to establish statutory
`
`subject matter eligibility of its claims under § 101 under penalty of denial or
`
`dismissal of its motion to amend, the patent owner in LinkedIn was not required to
`
`establish patentability over prior art in its motion to amend. In both cases, the
`
`requirements for the motion to amend were limited (consistent with the express
`
`language of 37 CFR § 42.221(a)(2)(i) or § 42.121(a)(2)(i)) to the grounds involved
`
`in the respective trial. The present Order departs from previous guidance and
`
`requires Patent Owner to respond to grounds not authorized for trial. Accordingly,
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests withdrawal of the Order and entry of a
`
`substitute corrected order.
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For at least the reasons set forth herein, Patent Owner respectfully submits
`
`that the Order should be withdrawn, and a substitute order be entered, correcting
`
`the Patent Owner’s requirements for a motion to amend and specifically excising
`
`the current, legally errant, requirement that Patent Owner must, in this § 101-only
`
`proceeding, show a patentable distinction of each proposed substitute claim over
`
`prior art.
`
`Dated:__3-Jan-2014_______
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/David W. OBrien/______________
`David W. O’Brien
`Registration No. 40,107
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`–15–
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`CBM2013-00017 (Patent 6,834,282)
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`VOLUSION, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT
`GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`AND
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.
`Real Party-In-Interest
`_________________
`Case CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282
`Title: LOGICAL AND CONSTRAINT BASED BROWSE HIERARCHY WITH
`PROPAGATION FEATURES
`_____________________
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.205, that
`
`service was made on the Petitioner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service January 3, 2014
`Manner of service Federal Express
`Documents served Patent Owner’s Motion for Reconsideration
`Persons served Keith E. Broyles, David S. Frist, Jason Cooper
`Alston & Bird LLP
`One Atlantic Center
`1201 West Peachtree Street
`Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
`
`
`
`/David W. OBrien/
`David W. O’Brien
`Registration No. 40,107
`
`
`
`
`
`–16–
`
`