`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WI-FI ONE, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00636
`U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 138064913v.1
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s March 10, 2014 Scheduling Order (Paper No. 26)
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`Case No. IPR2013-00636/U.S. Pat. No. 6,424,625
`
`
`
`
`and the Notice of Stipulated Modification of Due Dates 4-5 (Paper No. 46),
`
`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 claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
`
`anticipated by Garrabrant.
`
`II. Whether challenged claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
`
`anticipated by Hettich.
`
`III. Whether challenged claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Walke.
`
`IV. Whether proposed substitute claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, first paragraph, as having no written description support.
`
`V. Whether proposed substitute claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 as anticipated by Vornefeld.
`
`VI. Reply to any arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`VII. Reply to any arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend.
`
`VIII. Reply to any arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s
`
`Opposition to Motion to Amend.
`1
`
`
`ActiveUS 138064913v.1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`Case No. IPR2013-00636/U.S. Pat. No. 6,424,625
`
`IX. Respond to any issues specified by Patent Owner in its request for oral
`
`argument.
`
`X. Respond to Patent Owner’s presentation on all matters.
`
`XI. 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.
`
`
`
`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 138064913v.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`Case No. IPR2013-00636/U.S. Pat. No. 6,424,625
`
`
`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:
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`J. Christopher Lynch, John Shumaker
`EricssonIPR2013-636@leehayes.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael A. Diener/
`Michael A. Diener
`Registration No. 37,122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 138064913v.1
`
`3