`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`U.S. Patent No. 6,781,325
`____________
`
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`OF INSTITUTION DECISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`I. INTRODUCTION.
`
`Patent Owner Ameranth, Inc., pursuant to 37 CFR §42.71, respectfully
`
`requests rehearing of the Board's Institution Decision in CBM2015-00099 (Paper
`
`9), in which the Board instituted a (CBM) review as to claims 11-13 and 15 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,781,325 (the '325 Patent), on grounds of 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`II. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board rehear and reconsider its
`
`Institution Decision and modify the Decision to hold that trial shall not be
`
`instituted on claims 11-13 and 15 of the '325 Patent.
`
`III. THE RELIEF REQUESTED SHOULD BE GRANTED.
`
`The Board's Institution Decision in CBM2015-00099 should be modified
`
`because the Board relied on an incomplete Petitioner exhibit (Exhibit 1035,
`
`comprising portions of the “Dittmer” reference), the incompleteness of which
`
`contributed to the Board misapprehending and overlooking key evidence
`
`(contradictory to Petitioner's assertions) found in the complete Dittmer book.
`
`As set forth and discussed below, Dittmer clearly confirms that "hospitality
`
`applications" do not include “car rentals” or other travel/transportation functions,
`
`and further confirms that the “ordering” in the `325 patent is “food ordering.”
`
`Because all of Petitioner’s and the Board’s §103 grounds rely on the Brandt "car
`
`rental" reference as purportedly disclosing “hospitality applications” in relation to
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`the “central database” limitation,1 and no references teach “food ordering”
`
`(pursuant to the correct construction for the “orders” limitation of claim 11, as
`
`discussed below), all §103 grounds fail.
`
`The complete Dittmer reference,2 recently obtained by Patent Owner3 on
`
`September 19, 20154 subsequent to the Institution Decision,5 clearly contradicts
`
`
`1 All §103 grounds (Pet. at 48-49; Inst. Dec. at 32) rely on Brandt’s “car rental"
`
`reference for the “hospitality applications” limitation as regards the “central
`
`database” limitation (which is pivotal to the claim as a whole–synchronization
`
`clearly involves the “central database”). All grounds thus fail because, as
`
`explained herein, the Brandt’s “car rental” is not a “hospitality application.”
`
`2 Clearly, the complete book (including the actual “Glossary” of terms), was long
`
`in the possession of Petitioner, yet Petitioner excluded this Glossary from its
`
`incomplete production, along with excluding the Table of Contents (which showed
`
`the Glossary’s existence).
`
`3 See Exhibit 2040, yet this is not new evidence, rather merely the complete
`
`version of Petitioner Exhibit 1035.
`
`4 Patent Owner was only able to first see the complete Dittmer book when it
`
`located and ordered a copy (which is long out of print) and received it on
`
`September 19, 2015, via Express Mail.
`
`5 Relying on the prohibitions against "incorporation by reference" and that all
`
`relied-on evidence must be cited to in the Petition itself, Patent Owner
`
`understandably anticipated that the Board would rely on the Petitioner-cited pages,
`
`pp. 11-14, 404 in Dittmer (Pet. at 48-49), which are for the broader and unclaimed
`
`term "travel and tourism" and not “hospitality.” Once apprised, in the Institution
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Petitioner’s purported Dittmer-based definitions of the critical terms as adopted by
`
`the Board, and confirms that the portions of Dittmer omitted by Petitioner are
`
`material to the outcome of the Institution Decision. If Petitioner had simply
`
`produced the full Dittmer book as an exhibit, including the Glossary, which
`
`actually defines all the disputed terms, it would have been clear to the Board that
`
`institution of trial was not warranted, because Dittmer precisely defined each
`
`disputed term to be consistent with Patent Owner's definitions of “hospitality” and
`
`"orders" and in direct contradiction to Petitioner's asserted definitions.
`
`
`
`A. Relevant applicable statutes and regulations.
`
`A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the party
`
`believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`
`addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. §42.71(d).
`
`
`
`B. Trial should not be instituted on claims 11-13 and 15 on the
`instituted grounds–all relying on "Brandt" to teach the ”hospitality
`application" – “central database” limitation of all claims, because the
`Board inadvertently overlooked and misapprehended critical
`evidence from the parsed "Dittmer" reference.
`
`
`
`The Board's constructions of "hospitality" and "orders"6 were founded on an
`
`
`Decision, of the Board’s expansive consideration of the excerpts of Dittmer as it
`
`related to the broader "travel and tourism" industry, Ameranth was then compelled
`
`to seek to obtain the complete book.
`
`6 Black letter law requires claims to be construed consistently within a patent and
`
`as a whole. Thus the "orders" term in claim 11 must be construed consistent with
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`inadvertent misapprehension of the evidence, exacerbated by Petitioner's selective
`
`production of the Dittmer reference. Because these erroneous findings are
`
`dispositive to all instituted grounds, trial should not be instituted.
`
`The Board held that "[o]n this record, we are persuaded that the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of hospitality is broad enough to encompass car rental
`
`activities," and "[o]ur construction of hospitality includes businesses such as car
`
`rental agencies, that provides services to travelers." (Inst. Dec. at 13; emphasis
`
`added.). This construction of "hospitality" is contrary to the plain meaning of the
`
`claims, disclosure and prosecution history, and relied on a materially incomplete
`
`exhibit, i.e., less than 25% of the complete Dittmer reference.
`
`1. The Board relied on Petitioner's parsed production of the
`Dittmer reference, believing it to be representative.
`
`The "record" that the Board relied on to reach its conclusions was based on a
`
`parsed and incomplete exhibit, with material portions excluded from Petitioner's
`
`selective and incomplete production. The Board reached the erroneous conclusion
`
`that the excerpted portions produced by Petitioner were the actual definitions of the
`
`critical hospitality terms as adopted by the authors of Dittmer:
`
`the proper construction of "hospitality." Both terms properly considered together
`
`with the actual Dittmer Glossary definitions, discussed below, compel the
`
`construction of "ordering" and "orders" in the `325 patent to be "food ordering"
`
`and not "car rental" or generic "goods and services" ordering, as the Board
`
`incorrectly concluded on page 32 of its Institution Decision.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Petitioner asserts that “[t]he car rental applications described in
`
`Brandt are hospitality applications.” Id. at 48. In support of its
`
`position, it cites a hospitality textbook, Paul R. Dittmer. Dimensions
`
`of the Hospitality Industry, Ex. 1035. This 1997 textbook includes a
`
`section titled “A Definition of Hospitality.”
`
`
`Inst. Dec. at 11. The Board was led by Petitioner to the erroneous belief that its
`
`cited section of the book established Dittmer's actual definitions of the key terms.
`
`
`
`2. The Board's construction erroneously broadens the patent
`disclosure, the prosecution history, and the plain language of
`the claims far beyond their actual meanings.
`
`First, the BRI construction standard used by the PTAB in CBM proceedings
`
`is to reflect the "ordinary and accustomed" meaning of a claim term as understood
`
`by a POSITA at the time of the invention, and that such meaning shall prevail
`
`unless the patentee indicated an intention to vary that meaning. See, e.g.,
`
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Second, as the Board itself noted, the "traditional" view of "hospitality"
`
`"refers to the act of providing food, beverages or lodging to travelers." Inst. Dec. at
`
`11. Patent Owner submits that the Dittmer author’s "traditional" view is consistent
`
`with the "ordinary and accustomed" definition of the pertinent terms as would be
`
`understood by a POSITA, and a correct reading of the complete Dittmer reference,
`
`including its Glossary of terms, confirms that fact.
`
`Further, the Board overlooked portions of Dittmer, directly preceding and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`following the selected Dittmer passage quoted by the Board and discussed above.
`
`Those portions of Dittmer confirm that the "traditional" view is, in fact, the
`
`Dittmer authors' actual view of the definition of "hospitality." This overlooked
`
`evidence includes the following: "The word hospitality has ancient roots, dating
`
`from the earliest days of Roman civilization. It is derived from the Latin word
`
`hospitare, meaning to "receive a guest." (Dittmer, p. 5.) Additionally, as Dittmer
`
`explains, "If the word hospitality refers to the act of providing food, beverages or
`
`lodging to travelers then the hospitality industry consists of businesses that do
`
`this." (Dittmer, pp. 5-6). Dittmer further states: "The hospitality industry provides
`
`food, beverages, lodging or some combination of the three that other businesses
`
`would provide only on the most incidental basis." (Dittmer, p. 6; emphasis added.)
`
`Thus, the "traditional" and "ordinary and accustomed" definition of
`
`hospitality was clearly adopted by the Dittmer authors as their understanding of the
`
`meaning of “hospitality.” It would be clear error to disregard the evidence from
`
`Dittmer identified above which contradicts Petitioner’s argument and the Board’s
`
`conclusion. Evidence in an extrinsic reference that supports a patentee's position
`
`cannot be overlooked. Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d
`
`1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[W]e conclude that the district court's analysis of the
`
`extrinsic evidence was flawed. In particular, the court disregarded several
`
`important portions of the extrinsic evidence that supported Bancorp's assertion that
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`the term [] would be understood by a person of skill in the pertinent art.").
`
`The Board then misapprehended two statements made by Dittmer as
`
`allegedly "redefining" the "traditional” and the "ordinary/customary" definition of
`
`hospitality, and the hospitality market clearly defined by the authors. The Board
`
`mistakenly concluded that "[t]he authors then discuss a broader view of
`
`hospitality." (Inst. Dec. at 11-12.) This mistaken conclusion was based on the
`
`Board’s misapprehension of the statement "services primarily to travelers in a
`
`broad sense of the term." (Inst. Dec. at 12.) The "term" that Dittmer refers to, in
`
`regard to a "broad sense," is not "hospitality" (which Dittmer had already clearly
`
`defined), rather it is "traveler" (the “broader definition" of "traveler" is referred to
`
`in Dittmer on page 402).7 Thus, the comment on page 6 of Dittmer did not expand
`
`or broaden the definition of "hospitality" that is set forth on page 5, nor would it
`
`have made any sense to have done so. The Glossary confirms this.
`
`As further evidence confirming that the hospitality market definition was
`
`defined by the authors to be "food/beverages and lodging" for guests and that
`
`hospitality is merely a subset of the larger superset "Travel and Tourism" (a
`
`different and unclaimed term), Dittmer stated:
`
`
`7 "The US Travel Data Center uses a broader definition: a traveler is ‘any
`
`resident of the United States regardless of nationality who travels to a place 100
`
`miles or more away from home within the United States….’" (Dittmer, p. 402;
`
`emphasis added.) (See also the actual definition of “traveler” in the Glossary.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`In this chapter and the two that follow, we will turn our attention from
`
`the specifics of food, beverage and lodging operations to the larger
`
`industry, of which hospitality operations are a part; travel and
`
`tourism.
`
`Dittmer at p. 396 (emphasis added).
`
`Thus the "hospitality industry" is not only different from the "travel and
`
`tourism" industry, it is only a "part," i.e., a subset of the larger "travel and tourism"
`
`industry superset. This is directly contrary to Petitioner’s argument that "[t]he car
`
`rental applications described in Brandt are hospitality applications. Car rental
`
`companies fall within the "Travel and Tourism" sector of the hospitality
`
`industry. Ex. 1035 at 11-14 and 403-404." (Pet. at 48-49; emphasis added.)
`
`The single-line "car rental" reference on page 404 of Dittmer, on which
`
`Petitioner erroneously relied to support its argument that car rentals are a part of
`
`the hospitality industry – and which was also mistakenly relied on by the Board
`
`(Inst. Dec. at 12) – was actually a listing of businesses of the broader "travel
`
`industry". (As confirmed by Dittmer itself, as discussed above, "car rentals" are
`
`part of the superset of "travel and tourism," not part of the "hospitality" subset.)
`
`The Board's construction of "hospitality" is erroneously overbroad, and
`
`eviscerates the meaning as defined by the intrinsic evidence. The word
`
`"hospitality" is key to the inventions and claims, but the words "travel" or
`
`"traveler" or "tourist" appear nowhere in the entirety of the specifications, claims,
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`or prosecution history. The inventors chose the term "hospitality" and not
`
`"travel/tourism" (terms that are materially different as known to a POSITA, as
`
`detailed above), because they invented "hospitality applications" innovations (not
`
`transportation innovations), and Ameranth has never asserted otherwise.
`
`The inventors did not claim or describe any embodiments that include "car
`
`rentals" and/or other "travel/tourism" functions outside the hospitality industry, nor
`
`would any POSITA have thought them to be hospitality functionality. This is not
`
`an instance of, as the Board mistakenly stated, whether there was "a clear intention
`
`on behalf of the patentee to narrow the meaning of this term." (Inst. Dec. at 12;
`
`emphasis added.) Rather, the error herein arises from improperly importing
`
`"travel/tourism" into the claims and replacing the actually claimed term
`
`"hospitality" with the unclaimed and broader term "travel/tourism."
`
`Broadening of claim terms inconsistent with the plain language of the claims
`
`and disclosure is prohibited, as the Federal Circuit held in Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted):
`
`A construction that is "unreasonably broad" and which does not
`
`"reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure" will not pass
`
`muster.
`
`The broadening of the "hospitality" claim term into "travel/tourism" was
`
`error because it was in contravention of the specification and the plain language of
`
`the claims and thus "will not pass muster" under Proxyconn. It is well established
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`that limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van
`
`Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Far worse is to read unclaimed
`
`limitations from an extrinsic reference into the claims, which is what importing
`
`“travel and tourism” into these claims would do.
`
`
`
`3. A full reading of Dittmer, including the excluded Glossary,
`compels the conclusion that Patent Owner's construction of
`"hospitality"(i.e., excluding "car rentals") is correct – and that
`“hospitality” “ordering” is for “food and drinks”.
`
`The complete Dittmer reference is not "new evidence." Petitioner submitted
`
`only excerpted portions as an exhibit, but those excerpts were not "representative",
`
`and excluded relevant and material portions of Dittmer that are inconsistent with
`
`the arguments made in the Petition. The Board misapprehended the selectively-
`
`produced portions of Dittmer, and relied on Petitioner's argument that the parsed
`
`exhibit supported its contentions, even though the entire (unproduced) Dittmer
`
`reference contradicts Petitioner’s contentions and supports Patent Owner's
`
`construction of "hospitality" that excludes car rentals.
`
`The Glossary (pp. 530-560 of Exhibit 2040, the complete Dittmer reference),
`
`i.e., the Dittmer authors' "dictionary of terms," includes the actual definitions
`
`below, which confirm that the Board misapprehended the selectively-produced
`
`portions of Petitioner’s Dittmer exhibit:
`
`Hospitality: "Hospitality is a term derived from the Latin word
`
`"hospitare", meaning “to receive as a guest.” “To receive as a guest”
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`is a phrase that implies a host prepared to meet a guest's basic
`
`requirements while that guest is away from home – food, beverages
`
`and lodging. (Dittmer, p. 543; emphasis added)
`
`Hospitality Industry: “The hospitality industry consists of businesses
`
`that provide food, beverages, or lodging to travelers. (Dittmer, p.
`
`543; emphasis added)
`
`Reservation: "The term reservation refers to an arrangement by
`
`which lodging operators hold accommodations for guests who will
`
`be arriving at some later time or foodservice operators hold tables
`
`for customers who will be coming later to dine. The guests or
`
`customers may make their reservation for the same day or for some
`
`date in the future. (Dittmer, p. 553; emphasis added)
`
`Traveler: As defined by the U.S. Data Travel Center, a traveler is any
`
`resident of the United States, regardless of nationality, who travels
`
`within the United States to a place one hundred or more miles away
`
`from home or who stays away from home one or more nights in paid
`
`accommodations and who returns home within twelve months, except
`
`for those commuting to and from work attending school. The terms
`
`traveler and tourist are commonly used interchangeably. ( p. 567)
`
`Travel and Tourism: The terms travel and tourism are commonly
`
`linked together to create this special term used to refer to those
`
`businesses providing primary service to travelers. These include the
`
`traditional hospitality businesses and a number of others closely
`
`linked to them in such fields as entertainment, recreation, and
`
`transportation, plus travel agencies and tour operators.” (Dittmer, p.
`
`561; emphasis added)
`
`Table Service: A type of service characterized by orders for food
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`and beverages taken from customers seated at tables. The servers
`
`taking the orders normally deliver the food and beverages to the
`
`customers at their tables. (Dittmer, p. 558; emphasis added)
`
`Drive-Through: A drive-through is an operation at which a customer
`
`can drive a vehicle to a window to obtain and pay for food without
`
`ever leaving the vehicle.” (Dittmer, p. 537; emphasis added)
`
`
`As confirmed by these Dittmer definitions, a "car rental" is not a "hospitality
`
`application," nor a hospitality "reservation," as those terms are understood in the
`
`hospitality market. Rather than supporting the argument that Brandt teaches
`
`"hospitality applications," Dittmer in fact disproves that argument, and Dittmer
`
`itself shows that it is erroneous to read Brandt, a car-rental reference, to meet the
`
`"hospitality applications" limitation or apply Brandt to the critical "central
`
`database" limitation of the '325 claims.
`
`The Board correctly recognized examples of hospitality applications as,
`
`“e.g., reservations, frequent customer ticketing, waitlists, etc." (Inst. Dec. at 12.)
`
`The Board’s established construction for "hospitality applications” is “applications
`
`used to perform services or tasks in the hospitality industry” (Inst. Dec. at 13;
`
`emphasis added.) Indisputably, Dittmer confirms that “auto rentals” are not in the
`
`“hospitality industry,”–they are in fact outside of it–in the unclaimed/broader
`
`“travel and tourism industry.” The Board’s own “hospitality” construction
`
`therefore actually compels a reversal of the Board’s conclusion that “car rentals”
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`meet the recited “hospitality” limitations.
`
`Hospitality reservations are defined by Dittmer as "lodging" or
`
`"foodservice" reservations and do not include “car reservations.” This is also
`
`consistent with the `325 prosecution history, as noted in the Preliminary Response:
`
`As known in the art, a hospitality software application is, for example,
`
`a piece of software used to provide operational solutions in hospitality
`
`industries such as restaurants and hotels concerning, for example,
`
`food ordering, menus, wait-lists and reservations.
`
`Prelim. Response at 32-33 (quoting Exh. 2039, Nov. 1, 2001 Amendment).
`
`Thus, the definitions from Dittmer are consistent with the `325 prosecution
`
`history both as to "reservations," as described and claimed, being in relation to
`
`restaurants and hotels and “hospitality ordering/orders” being orders for
`
`food/drink. The fact that “ordering” in the `325 patent means "food" ordering is
`
`confirmed again by the Dittmer definitions, quoted above, of the "table service"
`
`and "drive through" terms used in `325 claims 2 and 3.8 Dittmer evidences the fact
`
`that a POSITA would know that "orders" as claimed in the '325 patent are orders
`
`for food, because that is the only type of “ordering” within the hospitality industry.
`
`Dittmer also defines “reservations” in the '325 patent as only restaurant and hotel
`
`
`8 Other claims of the patent at issue, both challenged and unchallenged, can be
`
`valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term. See Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`reservations within the hospitality industry. The Institution Decision erred by not
`
`construing "orders" and "reservations" in the context of the well-established
`
`hospitality industry definitions as shown, e.g., by Dittmer itself.
`
`The Institution Decision likewise erred by not considering and construing
`
`the claims themselves as a whole–i.e., the different “data” types recited in claims
`
`11-13 must be construed in light of the “wherein the synchronized data relates
`
`to” limitation, and clearly the recited “synchronized” data is “hospitality data” per
`
`the “hospitality applications and data” limitation. The Board recognized that the
`
`claims include a wherein clause which restricts the synchronized data to orders,
`
`waitlists or reservations,9 but nonetheless inexplicably did not apply the wherein
`
`clause “relates to” limitation to yield the correct construction for “orders” as
`
`“relating to” the synchronized “hospitality data.” Moreover, “orders” in claim 11
`
`can only be food orders, as would have been understood by a POSITA.
`
`The Board also overlooked the applicability of claim differentiation to a
`
`proper construction of the claims (see Prelim. Response at 63-64). The “ordering”
`
`in claim 11 cannot be met with the same purported prior art functionality applied
`
`to “reservations” in claim 13, and also not by "car rentals" or generic "goods or
`
`
`9 “Finally, the claims recite a wherein clause for each of the three claims stating
`
`that the synchronized data relates to order, waitlists, or reservations.” (Inst.
`
`Dec. at 19; emphasis added.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`services" as the Board mistakenly concluded. (Inst. Dec. at 32). Patent Owner's
`
`proposed constructions of "hospitality", and "orders" as "food orders" (see Prelim.
`
`Response at 32-33), are the correct constructions pursuant to Dittmer and the
`
`prosecution history, the claims, the specification and the other `325 claims. The
`
`correct constructions compel the conclusion that Petitioner failed to put forth
`
`sufficient evidence to meet the “central database” limitation for any claims and the
`
`“orders” limitation for claim 11 and thus institution of trial was improper.
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION.
`
`This issue presents a unique situation requiring reconsideration by the
`
`Board. A review of the complete Dittmer reference confirms that the “orders” of
`
`claim 11 are “food orders” and that the Dittmer authors' "traditional" and "ordinary
`
`and accustomed" meaning of “hospitality” is consistent with the intrinsic evidence,
`
`which (as Patent Owner asserted in the Preliminary Response) excludes “travel and
`
`tourism” ("car rentals") and other travel/transportation functions. Further, in
`
`accordance with the Board’s own “hospitality” construction, if the “services/tasks”
`
`are not in the “hospitality industry,” – then they are not “hospitality applications.”
`
`For the reasons set forth herein, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board rehear and reconsider its Institution Decision, and hold that trial shall not be
`
`instituted on claims 11-13 and 15 of the '325 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
` /John W. Osborne/
`John W. Osborne
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`USPTO Reg. No. 36,231
`OSBORNE LAW LLC
`33 Habitat Lane
`Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
`josborne@osborneipl.com
`Tel.: 914-714-5936
`Fax: 914-734-7333
`
`Michael D. Fabiano
`Back-up Counsel for Patent Owner
`USPTO Reg. No. 44,675
`FABIANO LAW FIRM, P.C.
`12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`Tel.: 619-742-9631
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Dated: September 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.6, a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing PATENT OWNER'S REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF
`
`INSTITUTION DECISION was served on September 28, 2015 by causing said
`
`documents to be delivered via electronic mail, per agreement of the parties, to
`
`counsel for Petitioner at the following email addresses:
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`Bing Ai, Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Matthew C. Bernstein, MBernstein@perkinscoie.com
`
`Patrick N. McKeever, PMcKeever@perkinscoie.com
`
`Yun L. Lu, LLu@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 28, 2015
`
`/s/ Michael D. Fabiano
`Michael D. Fabiano
`Back-up Counsel for Patent Owner
`USPTO Reg. No. 44,675
`FABIANO LAW FIRM, P.C.
`12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`Tel.: 619-742-9631
`
`
`
`17