`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WI-FI ONE, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 138065425v.1
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s March 10, 2014 Scheduling Order (Paper No. 28)
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`Case No. IPR2013-00602/U.S. Pat. No. 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`and the Notice of Stipulated Modification of Due Dates 4-5 (Paper No. 48),
`
`Petitioner Broadcom Corp. (“Broadcom”) respectfully requests oral argument
`
`currently scheduled on December 8, 2014.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70, Petitioner specifies the following issues to be
`
`argued (without intent to waive consideration of any issue not requested):
`
`I. Whether challenged claims 1-6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 as anticipated by Morley.
`
`II. Whether challenged claims 1-6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 as obvious over Adams.
`
`III. Whether proposed substitute claims 8-13 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as having no written description
`
`support.
`
`IV. Whether proposed substitute claims 8-13 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Morley.
`
`V. Whether proposed substitute claims 8-13 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Morley in view of Raith.
`
`VI. Whether proposed substitute claims 8-11 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Tiernan.
`
`
`ActiveUS 138065425v.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`VII. Whether proposed substitute claims 12-13 are unpatentable under 35
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`Case No. IPR2013-00602/U.S. Pat. No. 6,466,568
`
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tiernan.
`
`VIII. Reply to any arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`IX. Reply to any arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend.
`
`X. Reply to any arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s
`
`Opposition to Motion to Amend.
`
`XI. Respond to any issues specified by Patent Owner in its request for oral
`
`argument.
`
`XII. Respond to Patent Owner’s presentation on all matters.
`
`XIII. Any additional issues on which the Board seeks clarification.
`
`
`
`Broadcom requests one hour of total argument to address these issues.
`
`Because Broadcom bears the burden of proving the unpatentability of the existing
`
`claims, Broadcom requests the Board to permit it to argue first. 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`45756, 48768. Broadcom requests the ability to use a computer, projector, and
`
`screen to display possible demonstratives and exhibits. In accordance with the
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48768, Broadcom will also contact the Board
`
`Trial Division paralegal to discuss this request.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 138065425v.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`Case No. IPR2013-00602/U.S. Pat. No. 6,466,568
`
`
`Dated: November 12, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Michael A. Diener/
`
`Michael A. Diener, Reg. No. 37,122
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DORR LLP
`60 State St.
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 138065425v.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`Case No. IPR2013-00602/U.S. Pat. No. 6,466,568
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on November 12, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT to be
`
`served via email on the attorneys identified in Wi-Fi One’s Updated Mandatory
`
`Notice and Notice of Appearance for John Shumaker, whom consented to
`
`electronic service:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Back-up Counsel:
`Email Address:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 138065425v.1
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`J. Christopher Lynch, John Shumaker
`EricssonIPR2013-602@leehayes.com
`
`/Michael A. Diener/
`Michael A. Diener
`Registration No. 37,122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`