`_____________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`CARDIOCOM, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`CASE IPR2013-00451
`Patent No. 7,587,469
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Dr. Stone’s Analysis of Analogous Art is Fundamentally Flawed.
`
`Cardiocom argues in its Response that Dr. Stone’s analysis of Wahlquist as
`
`analogous art should not be excluded because he was permitted to consider the
`
`specification of the ’469 patent. Resp., 1-2. Bosch does not dispute that one may
`
`consider the specification to determine the proper scope of the claimed invention.
`
`Dr. Stone, however, testified that, in considering the specification, he determined
`
`the field of endeavor of the ’469 patent to be even broader than what is actually
`
`claimed. Ex. 2024, 955:24-956:12; 1140:6-23. This of course violates Federal
`
`Circuit law. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Incorrect
`
`statements of law of this sort must be excluded. Hebert v. Lisle Corp., 99 F.3d
`
`1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`Dated: August 21, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/Don Daybell/
`Don Daybell, Reg. No. 50,877
`Attorney for Patent Owner Robert Bosch
`Healthcare Systems, Inc.
`
`-1 -
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned PATENT
`
`OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE was
`
`served in its entirety on August 21, 2014, upon the following parties via electronic
`
`mail:
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Daniel W. McDonald
`Andrew J. Lagatta
`Merchant & Gould
`80 South 8th St., Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`CardiocomIPR@merchantgould.com
`
`By:
`
`/Valerie Cloyd/
`Valerie Cloyd
`
`-2 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
