`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
` Universal Remote Control, Inc.
`
` v.
`
` Universal Electronics, Inc.
`
` Case No. IPR2013-00127
`
` Trial Paralegal: Andrew Kellogg
`
`
`
`In re Application of: Darbee et al.
`
`Patent No.: 6,587,067
`
`Filed: February 23, 2001
`
`Issued: July 1, 2003
`
`Assignee: Universal Electronics, Inc.
`
`Title: METHOD FOR SELECTING A
`REMOTE CONTROL
`COMMAND SET
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER HAS NOT PROVED A DATE OF INVENTION
`EARLIER THAN THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES.............................. 1(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3) Patent Owner Has Offered No Independent Proof Beyond The Co-
`inventor’s Testimony To Corroborate Reduction To Practice ........ 1(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3) The Earliest Invention Date That Patent Owner Could Possibly Be
`Entitled To Is April 30, 1987 ............................................................... 6
`
`I.(cid:3)
`
`
`
`II.(cid:3)
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ATTACKS ON THE PRIOR ART FAIL .............. 7(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3) Magnavox .............................................................................................. 7(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3) Evans .................................................................................................... 12(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3) Wozniak and CORE ........................................................................... 13(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:3)- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ......... 2, 4
`
`
`Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 211 U.S.P.Q 936 (CCPA 1981) .............................. 2
`
`
`Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 13 U.S.P.Q.2d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ...................... 3
`
`
`In re Garner, 508 F.3d 1376, 85 U.S.P.Q.2d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................... 3
`
`
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ... 4
`
`
`Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`(cid:3)- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`I.
`
`PATENT OWNER HAS NOT PROVED A DATE OF INVENTION
`EARLIER THAN THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`Patent Owner spends the vast majority of its Response not in attacking the
`
`merits of Petitioner’s prior art references (for good reason), but rather in trying to
`
`convince the Board that the references do not qualify as prior art. Although the
`
`supporting declaration of Richard Ellis (one of the co-inventors of the ‘067 patent)
`
`makes passing reference to conception of the invention at some unspecified time in
`
`1986, there is no corroborating evidence to support such conception, and neither he
`
`nor Patent Owner has made any attempt to show diligence from such conception to
`
`a later reduction to practice. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s attempt to antedate
`
`Magnavox, Evans, Wozniak and CORE1 is based entirely on proving a reduction to
`
`practice date that predates those references. As shown below, Patent Owner has
`
`failed to prove such earlier reduction to practice.
`
`A. Patent Owner Has Offered No Independent Proof Beyond The Co-
`inventor’s Testimony To Corroborate Reduction To Practice
`
`
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner attempted to remove the
`
`Magnavox, Evans, Wozniak and CORE references by referring to a Rule 131
`
`declaration filed by co-inventor Darbee in connection with the prosecution of the
`
`great, great grandparent application to the ‘067 patent. In its Decision, the Board
`
`correctly refused to allow the use of the Darbee declaration in this inter partes
`
`
`1 Patent Owner is not attempting to antedate the Rumbolt reference.
`1
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`review proceeding. Nevertheless, the Board did examine the materials submitted
`
`with the Darbee declaration and found they were insufficient to show either
`
`conception, reduction to practice or diligence. Specifically, the Board found that
`
`the user manuals were not evidence of a prior reduction to practice and that
`
`“Neither the Darbee Declaration nor the Preliminary Response points to any
`
`evidence and alleges that a universal remote control corresponding to the claimed
`
`invention(s) of the ‘067 patent was tested and determined to work as intended.”
`
`(Decision at 11)
`
`
`
`In an effort to cure the deficiencies in its reduction to practice proof, Patent
`
`Owner has submitted a new declaration of co-inventor Ellis (Ex. 2005), attaching
`
`all of the same documents originally included with the Darbee declaration along
`
`with some additional ones. However, neither the Ellis declaration nor the new
`
`supporting materials establish that the invention was reduced to practice prior to
`
`Magnavox, Evans, Wozniak or CORE.
`
`
`
`In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, an inventor's testimony
`
`must be corroborated by independent evidence. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d
`
`1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A rule of reason analysis is applied to determine
`
`whether an inventor’s testimony has been sufficiently corroborated. Id.
`
`"[A]doption of the 'rule of reason' has not altered the requirement that evidence of
`
`corroboration must not depend solely on the inventor himself." Reese v. Hurst,
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`661 F.2d 1222, 1225 (CCPA 1981); see also, Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1989). “Independent corroboration may consist of testimony of a
`
`witness, other than of the inventor, to the actual reduction to practice or it may
`
`consist of evidence of surrounding facts and circumstances independent of
`
`information received from the inventor.” In re Garner, 508 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007) (quoting Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d at 1225). Furthermore, corroboration
`
`of the existence of the device itself is not sufficient to establish reduction to
`
`practice. It is also necessary to corroborate that the device worked for its intended
`
`purpose. Id. at 1381.
`
`
`
`The only evidence that Patent Owner has offered to establish reduction to
`
`practice is the declaration of co-inventor Ellis and the attached exhibits. But, at
`
`most, all that those exhibits establish is that a remote control of some sort existed
`
`at various times throughout 1987. In his declaration, Mr. Ellis talks about no less
`
`than three different prototypes of the universal remote control: (1) a first prototype
`
`built sometime in the fall of 1986 (¶ 15), (2) a development prototype built
`
`sometime in the winter of 1986-87 (¶ 16), and (3) a pre-production model built
`
`sometime in March/April of 1987 (¶ 30). However, he provides no details of what
`
`the differences were between the various prototypes or whether those prototypes
`
`even incorporated the various features of the claims of the ‘067 patent. Instead, in
`
`each instance he merely summarily concludes that the respective prototypes were
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`found to be working and suitable for their intended purpose (without specifying the
`
`intended purpose or providing any documentation to substantiate his claim).
`
`Significantly, when asked about the two “key features” of the ‘067 patent –
`
`the capability for direct entry matching of a universal remote control to a plurality
`
`of different home appliances of different manufacturers and the capability for
`
`assigning a command macro to a macro pushbutton (¶ 7) – Mr. Ellis testified:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q. When was the first time that the direct entry method was incorporated
`
`into an actual working prototype?
`
`A.
`
`It had to be early on, but I don’t have a specific date.
`
`Q. And when was the assigning a command macro to a macro pushbutton
`
`first incorporated into a working prototype?
`
`A. Again, I don’t know for sure. (Ex. 1015 at 58:22-59:5)2
`
`Another reason that Patent Owner’s attempt at establishing a reduction to
`
`practice date must fail is that it has provided no evidence regarding any testing that
`
`was done on the various prototypes. Depending on the character of the invention
`
`and the problem it solves, determining that an invention will work for its intended
`
`purpose may require testing. When testing is necessary, the embodiment relied
`
`upon as evidence of priority must actually work for its intended purpose. Cooper
`
`v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d at 1327 (citing Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard Inc., 79 F.3d 1572,
`
`1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). However, in Mr. Ellis’ 17-page declaration there are only
`
`
`2 Although Patent Owner originally designated the Ellis’ deposition transcript as
`“Attorneys Eyes Only,” it has since withdrawn that designation.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`three sentences devoted to the subject of testing (¶¶ 15, 16 and 30). None of those
`
`sentences describes anything at all about the testing process, when it occurred,
`
`what the outcome was, etc. Instead, each merely concludes that the testing showed
`
`that the device worked for its intended purpose. No independent corroborating
`
`evidence of any kind (documentary or testimonial) is attached to substantiate these
`
`bald assertions.
`
`
`
`When asked about the subject of testing, Mr. Ellis could not recall any
`
`details. For example, with respect to exactly what was done to test the first
`
`prototype described in ¶ 15 of his declaration, Mr. Ellis stated “I can’t get real
`
`specific, but we pointed it at TVs, made it turn – and VCRs, and, you know, did
`
`direct entry and step and set and made it controlled with devices.” (Ex. 1015 at
`
`81:25-82:9) When asked about testing of the assigning of macro commands to a
`
`macro pushbutton (the other “key” feature of the claims), Mr. Ellis stated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`I don’t recall specific testing of it. I did testing of it when I wrote the
`
`code. But that code came a little later than the direct entry.
`
`Q. Do you know how much later?
`
`A. Not specifically, no. (Ex. 1015 at 82:24-83:11)
`
`Similarly, when asked about any specific problems he recalled with the pre-
`
`production prototypes, Mr. Ellis referred to “[j]ust the typical debugging process”
`
`without providing any explanation as to what features needed to be debugged or
`
`how long the process took. With respect to the production model of the remote,
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`however, he did recall a “big” software bug in late 1987 that required the reloading
`
`of 5,000 units. (Ex. 1015 at 125:25-126:15)
`
`To summarize, the mere fact that pictures, schematics and PCB layouts
`
`existed for various prototypes of the universal remote control does not thereby
`
`establish that those devices actually embodied the features of the ‘067 patent
`
`claims or that they worked for their intended purpose. Mr. Ellis testified that he
`
`does not know when the key patented features made their way into the prototypes
`
`and Patent Owner has offered absolutely no independent corroboration for Mr.
`
`Ellis’ conclusory statements that the various prototypes were tested and worked for
`
`their intended purpose. This showing is legally insufficient to establish any actual
`
`reduction to practice date for the alleged invention of the ‘067 patent.
`
`B. The Earliest Invention Date That Patent Owner Could Possibly Be
`Entitled To Is April 30, 1987
`
`
`As set forth above, Patent Owner’s attempt to antedate the prior art
`
`references must fail because its only evidence that the invention was tested and
`
`working for its intended purpose is the vague, conclusory, uncorroborated
`
`testimony of one of the co-inventors. This is legally insufficient. However, if the
`
`Board were to decide otherwise, then the earliest possible date of invention to
`
`which Patent Owner should be entitled is April 30, 1987. That date would remove
`
`Evans, Wozniak and CORE as references, but not Magnavox (which bears a date
`
`of April 9, 1987). Accordingly, at the very least, the finding of unpatentability of
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 on the basis of Rumbolt and Magnavox should stand.
`
`April 30, 1987 is the date of the software source code attached as Exhibit L
`
`to the Ellis declaration. Software was a critical part of the ‘067 patented universal
`
`remote control. Indeed, Mr. Ellis – the author of the source code – testified that
`
`without the source code of Exhibit L “the thing would do nothing, including those
`
`functions” (referring to the features of the patent claims as paraphrased in ¶¶ 10-12
`
`of his declaration). (Ex. 1015 at 69:12-13)
`
`Mr. Ellis further testified that there were “a lot” of different software
`
`prototypes of the invention and that during active development of the invention he
`
`was loading new code “several times a day.” When asked how long the active
`
`development period lasted, Mr. Ellis said it was “fuzzy” and “doesn’t have fixed
`
`starts and stops in it.” (Ex. 1015 at 74:23-76:16) Thus, the only thing that is
`
`known for sure about the software that provided all of the critical functionality
`
`(including the claimed direct entry and macro command functions) is that a version
`
`of it existed as of April 30, 1987. No other prior software versions have been
`
`provided and thus no reduction to practice earlier than that date can be supported.
`
`II. PATENT OWNER’S ATTACKS ON THE PRIOR ART FAIL
`
`A. Magnavox
`
`
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner seeks to antedate Magnavox as a reference.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Patent Owner cannot antedate Magnavox. With
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`respect to the merits of the Rumbolt/Magnavox combination, Patent Owner makes
`
`two arguments: (1) Magnavox is ambiguous as to how codes are entered into the
`
`remote control, and (2) it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to replace the DIP switches of Rumbolt with the pushbutton code entry of
`
`Magnavox. Neither argument has merit.
`
`Magnavox clearly and unambiguously describes a 36-button universal
`
`remote control in which a user matches the remote control to a particular VCR
`
`and/or cable brand by entering the appropriate numerical code such as 01 for GE,
`
`03 for RCA, 15 for Zenith, etc. However, Patent Owner argues that Magnavox
`
`never explicitly states that the pushbuttons are used to enter the numerical codes
`
`and that DIP switches or rotary switches could just as easily have been used for
`
`this function. This argument is specious. Even if it was theoretically possible to
`
`use something other than the disclosed pushbuttons to enter such codes, as the
`
`Board correctly observed in its Decision, there is no mention in Magnavox of “DIP
`
`switches, or any other means by which a user may enter the numeric codes into the
`
`universal remote, other than by using pushbuttons of the ‘36-button’ Universal
`
`Remote.” (Decision at 15)3
`
`
`3 Patent Owner’s alternate argument is that the source of the Magnavox press
`release (NAP Consumer Electronics Corp.) is the same as the assignee of the
`Rumbolt patent and therefore the Board should infer that the manner of code entry
`in Magnavox is the same as in Rumbolt (i.e., DIP switches). There is clearly no
`basis in law or fact for the Board to draw such an inference.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Patent Owner next argues that replacing the DIP switches of Rumbolt with
`
`the pushbuttons of Magnavox would not have been obvious since such a
`
`modification would have increased the cost of manufacture and required
`
`substantial hardware and software changes. These contentions are false.
`
`First, as the Federal Circuit has stated, it is appropriate to combine
`
`references when “the combination of references results in a product or process that
`
`is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster,
`
`lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance
`
`commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal – and
`
`even common sensical – we have held that there exists in these situations a
`
`motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in
`
`the references themselves.” Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v.
`
`C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`In this case, there is no question that replacing the DIP switches of Rumbolt
`
`with the pushbuttons of Magnavox would result in a product that is more desirable.
`
`User-friendly pushbuttons are ubiquitous in most all modern devices and are much
`
`easier to manipulate than tiny DIP switches. In addition, gaining access to DIP
`
`switches usually involves removing the cover of the remote control and employing
`
`the use of an object such as a pencil to manually manipulate the switches into the
`
`desired positions. Also, since DIP switches are binary, many such switches are
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`required to represent all but the smallest of numbers. A knowledge of binary
`
`arithmetic (or an accompanying index that shows which DIP switch configurations
`
`correspond to various numbers/functions) is also required.
`
`Second, Patent Owner asserts that in the mid-1980s the use of DIP switches
`
`was much more common than RAM (typically used with pushbutton devices) since
`
`DIP switches allowed for the preservation of the stored identities of appliances
`
`when the batteries were removed from the remote to allow them to be replaced.
`
`This assertion is belied by the prior art references themselves. For example, both
`
`Evans and Wozniak depict RAM memories for storing device codes (see 112 of
`
`Fig. 3C of Evans and U2 of Fig. 7b of Wozniak).
`
`Third, Patent Owner provides no credible evidence for the assertion that the
`
`use of RAM (associated with the use of pushbutton devices) would have been more
`
`expensive than the use of DIP switches. The only basis for such assertion is the
`
`declaration of Patrick Hayes. Mr. Hayes is not an independent expert. In fact, he
`
`is a former employee of Patent Owner UEI who was not even employed by UEI
`
`during the applicable period (i.e., mid-1980s). Mr. Hayes joined UEI in 1992 and
`
`prior to that had virtually no experience in the design or manufacture of remote
`
`controls. (Ex. 1016 at 13:11-16:6) Further, Mr. Hayes testified that he did not
`
`know the respective costs of DIP switches, RAM or ROM as of 1987. (Ex. 1016 at
`
`61:8-24) On the other hand, Petitioner’s independent expert, Dr. Herr, has
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`extensive experience in the design of remote controls (including during the
`
`relevant time frame) and testified at great length about the construction and cost of
`
`DIP switches and concluded that “every engineer, product manager, accountant,
`
`would be pushing me to cost reduce this. And they would not use DIP switches.
`
`They would use the switches already existing for selecting the channels.” (Ex.
`
`2007 at 65:18-21)
`
`Finally, Mr. Hayes’ assertion that replacing the DIP switches of Rumbolt
`
`with the pushbuttons of Magnavox would have required a “substantial” amount of
`
`new software is totally unsupported. As previously noted, Mr. Hayes had no
`
`experience with consumer remote controls prior to joining UEI in 1992 and even
`
`while there did not personally write any software. (Ex. 1016 at 22:19-21)
`
`Therefore, he is in no position to opine as to the level of software modifications
`
`necessary in order to change from DIP switches to pushbuttons. Indeed, Mr.
`
`Hayes provides absolutely no details about what software changes would be
`
`needed, how long they would take to implement, etc. He offers nothing more than
`
`a conclusory statement that the changes would be “substantial.” Dr. Herr, on the
`
`other hand, testified in detail about the required relatively simple software
`
`modifications:
`
`Q.
`
`-- nonvolatile read/write memory, would any additional programming
`
`be necessary in order to convert the remote of Rumbolt which used DIP
`
`switches to one that was matched via push buttons?
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`A.
`
`If they use a PIC microprocessor, it would be 10 or 12 instructions,
`
`it’s insignificant.
`
`Q. Okay. What would those instructions involve?
`
`A. Addressing – sending an address to the nonvolatile memory and
`
`bringing back the data that it – so there’d be four bits to select the address,
`
`one to execute the write command – I mean, the read or write command, and
`
`then if it’s coming back to read it out, two more instructions to read it.
`
`Q. Wouldn’t you require additional programming to make the remote
`
`aware of the fact that its buttons are now multi-function?
`
`A.
`
`It would take additional programming, probably equal to the
`
`programming of when you started it up or every time you use it, going out to
`
`read the switches. It wouldn’t be a significant difference. It would take
`
`additional programming, but we’re talking a few instructions, probably less
`
`than half an hour or maybe an hour’s of engineering time. (Ex. 2007 at
`
`72:14-73:11)
`
`B. Evans
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner seeks to antedate Evans as a reference. For
`
`the reasons set forth above, Patent Owner cannot antedate Evans. With respect to
`
`the Rumbolt/Magnavox/Evans combination, Patent Owner’s arguments as to the
`
`merits of Rumbolt and Magnavox have been addressed above. Patent Owner’s
`
`sole argument regarding Evans itself is that it does not disclose a “library of codes
`
`and data” because Evans describes a “learning” remote that must be taught the
`
`codes and data necessary to operate a particular appliance. But, as the Board has
`
`already correctly found, this distinction is irrelevant. There is no requirement in
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`the claims that the library of codes and data be pre-programmed into the remote or
`
`that they be “already stored in memory at the time of manufacture” as Patent
`
`Owner urges. Patent Owner seeks to do an end run on the claim language by
`
`asking the Board to construe “a library of codes and data” as “a table programmed
`
`into the remote control, the table comprising a variety of command codes
`
`corresponding to particular appliances of different manufacturers.” (Response at
`
`15) There is no basis for the Board to read such a limitation from the specification
`
`into the claims.
`
`Putting aside the red herring issue of Evans having a library of codes and
`
`data that is “learned” as opposed to pre-stored, Patent Owner does not dispute that
`
`Evans in fact discloses storing infrared codes and data in RAM 112 which are then
`
`retrieved and the proper infrared signals generated when the macro function is
`
`selected by operation of keys on the universal remote just as the claims require.
`
`C. Wozniak and CORE
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner seeks to antedate both Wozniak and CORE as
`
`references. For the reasons set forth above, Patent Owner cannot antedate either
`
`one. With respect to the merits of Wozniak and CORE, Patent Owner’s main
`
`argument is essentially a rehash of the argument made with respect to Evans:
`
`namely, that Wozniak and CORE allegedly disclose only a “learning” remote and
`
`therefore do not include a “library of codes and data” and also cannot “directly
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`identify” a plurality of different appliances to which the remote control is to be
`
`matched. Patent Owner’s characterization of Wozniak/CORE is both factually
`
`incorrect and legally irrelevant.
`
`Patent Owner begins its argument by claiming that Dr. Herr conceded that
`
`Wozniak/CORE cannot be matched to a particular appliance based on codes
`
`entered via pushbuttons. Dr. Herr said no such thing. His answers pertained to the
`
`process by which the manufacturers’ codes were stored into the remote initially. In
`
`particular, in an excerpt from the deposition not quoted in the Response, Dr. Herr
`
`stated that he was referring to page 9 of the CORE reference manual (which Patent
`
`Owner’s counsel clarified actually corresponds to Bates numbered page 10 on Ex.
`
`1005). (Ex. 2007 at 82:13-83:12) That page describes how the remote “learns”
`
`infrared commands by aligning the CORE remote with the appliance remote.
`
`However, upon redirect examination, Dr. Herr clarified that the CORE manual also
`
`describes (on the preceding Bates numbered page 9) that the remote does not have
`
`to rely solely on learning infrared codes but also comes preprogrammed with codes
`
`of certain manufacturers. (Ex. 2007 at 85:1-86:25) Thus, Dr. Herr’s testimony
`
`that pushbuttons are not used to directly enter codes when the remote is in learning
`
`mode is correct. But – just as with the Evans reference – how the codes find their
`
`way into the remote initially is ultimately irrelevant for purposes of the claims of
`
`the ‘067 patent. It is how the stored codes are matched with appliances of different
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`manufacturers that matters.4
`
`Lastly, Patent Owner once again makes the argument previously rejected by
`
`the Board that the fact that the CORE remote uses a page structure to store the
`
`commands of various manufacturers somehow means that the remote cannot
`
`“directly identify” the device to be controlled via pushbuttons. This is plainly
`
`incorrect. The CORE manual explains in detail that in order to access a particular
`
`device command (such as one associated with a Sony TV, for example) the user
`
`merely presses the Page key followed by the number of the page that contains the
`
`desired TV command. Once the selected page is accessed the user then presses the
`
`key corresponding to the desired TV command (such as power on, for example).
`
`By performing such a sequence of pushbutton operations, the user clearly has
`
`matched the remote to the Sony TV and has directly identified the power on
`
`function of the TV just as required by the ‘067 patent claims. (Ex. 1005 at 8-9)
`
`
`
`
`Digitally signed by Tom Reynolds
`
`Tom Reynolds
`DN: cn=Tom Reynolds, o=SLW, ou,
`
`email=treynolds@slwip.com, c=US
`Date: 2014.01.09 13:49:51 -08'00'
`Date: January 9, 2014 _____________________________________
`
`
`
`
`Tom Reynolds, Reg. No. 32,488
`
`
`
`
`SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
`
`4 Patent Owner also misleadingly implies that Judge Guilford construed “directly
`identify” to refer to device-specific codes being preprogrammed into the remote
`control. Judge Giulford made no mention of preprogramming in his claim
`construction. (See Ex. 2001 at 34) Furthermore, even if he had, it would not
`matter since the CORE remote came preprogrammed with various device codes.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Amended Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,587,067
`Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`U.S. Patent No.:
`
`Patent Issue Date:
`
`Patent Filing Date:
`
`Primary Examiner:
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6,587,067
`
`July 1, 2003
`
`February 23, 2001
`
`Michael Horabik
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL WITH MACRO
`COMMAND CAPABILITIES
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED WITH PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`Dear Sir/Madam:
`
`
`
`Petitioner in the above-identified Inter Partes Review proceeding
`
`respectfully submits this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE certifying as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that all of the below listed documents are being served via
`
`electronic mail on the counsel of record for United States Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`(hereinafter “Patent”), on the date set forth below and in envelopes addressed to
`
`the mailing address of counsel and current correspondence address of record
`
`related to the Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`Amended Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,587,067
`Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`
`Michael A. Nicodema
`200 Park Ave.
`P.O. Box 677
`Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
`
`Gary R. Jarosik
`Eric J. Maiers
`77 West Wacker Dr.
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`
`Via the following email addresses provided by Patent Owner’s Representatives:
`jarosikg@gtlaw.com; maierse@gtlaw.com; and chiipmail@gtlaw.com
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Exhibit 1015 – Deposition of Richard Ellis
`Exhibit 1016 – Deposition of Patrick H. Hayes
`This Certificate of Service
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`____________________________________________
`________________________________
`Chris Bartl, Paralegal
`Chris Bartl, Paralegal
`SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG
`SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
`1600 TCF Tower
`121 South Eighth Street
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`612-373-6900
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: January 9, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`