IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Paper No. 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent No. 6,771,290
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Paper No. 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent No. 6,771,290
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Kikinis Anticipates Claim 1-2 of the ’290 Patent ....................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner Advances Constructions Inconsistent with Rule
`42.100(b) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Kikinis Discloses a “File Associated with [a] Selected User Link”
`Within the Meaning of the Claims ..................................................... 6
`
`C.
`
`The Home Page in Kikinis is a User Profile ...................................... 9
`
`D. Kikinis Discloses “An Application Window Separated Into a
`Number of Regions” Where the “First One of Said Regions” and
`the “Second one of said Regions” Meet the Elements of Claim 1 . 10
`
`E. Kikinis Discloses that a User Profile is Received From the Server
`Following Execution of a Login Module ......................................... 13
`
`II. Kikinis Anticipates Claim 3 of the ’290 Patent ......................................... 15
`
`III. The PTO Acted Within Its Rule-Making Authority ................................ 15
`
`IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`I.
`
`Kikinis Anticipates Claim 1-2 of the ’290 Patent
`
`The Board found the evidence presented with the Petition sufficient to show
`
`that claims 1-2 of the ’290 patent are anticipated by Kikinis. Decision at 11-19. In
`
`response, Patent Owner proposes strained descriptions of Kikinis unsupported by
`
`any credible evidence, and tries to improperly import limitations from the ’290
`
`patent specification. For the reasons below, the Board should maintain its
`
`determination that claims 1-2 are unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner Advances Constructions Inconsistent with Rule
`42.100(b)
`
`Patent Owner criticizes Kikinis as not describing a “direct” or “one-click”
`
`method of accessing remote files. Response at 1-5, 10-18, 34-35. This theory rests
`
`on Patent Owner’s confusion about the Board’s policy, articulated in Rule
`
`42.100(b), of giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
`
`with the specification. Vibrant Media, Inc. v. G.E. Co., IPR2013-00170, Paper 56
`
`at 5 (PTAB June 26, 2014). In particular, as explained below, Patent Owner
`
`advances a meaning of "program" that would improperly import material
`
`limitations into the claims that is inconsistent with the plain language of the claims
`
`and the specification.
`
`In proceedings before the Board, if a patent owner wishes a claim to exclude
`
`subject matter encompassed by its literal terms, the patent owner must amend the
`
`claims to expressly exclude that subject matter. The policy underlying this rule is
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`sound – it functions to ensure that the actual claim language is clear and precisely
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`defines the bounds of the subject matter over which rights are granted. See, e.g.,
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc., CBM2012-00001, Paper 70 at 7-8 (PTAB
`
`June 11, 2013) (“Through the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard, the Office is able to encourage inventors to amend their claims to remove
`
`uncertainties and over breadth of claim scope.”). Patent Owner’s arguments in this
`
`case vividly demonstrate why this rule exists – here, Patent Owner is seeking to
`
`import significant unclaimed limitations into the claims to avoid subject matter
`
`disclosed in Kikinis, which the claims, by their actual language, encompass.
`
`Here, the Board found that Kikinis discloses a “program” of claims 1 and 2
`
`of the ’290 patent. Decision at 14-18. Patent Owner does not dispute that the web
`
`browser of Kikinis is a program, is stored on the client computer or is used to
`
`access remotely stored documents. Response at 11-15. Instead, Patent Owner
`
`contends that Kikinis does not disclose a “program” within the meaning of the
`
`claims because it believes the claims should be read – contrary to their plain
`
`language and the specification of the ’290 patent – as encompassing only programs
`
`that provide “direct” access to electronic documents. Response at 2,11-15; see
`
`also Ex. 2003 at 24:3-23. Thus, Patent Owner contends that Kikinis does not
`
`disclose “a program stored on [a] non-volatile data storage device” that performs
`
`the specified functions of claims 1 and 2. Response at 10-18.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s attempt to distinguish Kikinis using its contorted reading of
`
`the claim term “program” should be rejected. Specifically, Patent Owner contends
`
`Kikinis does not describe a “program” per the claims because the web browser in
`
`Kikinis “requires remotely stored programs to access the remotely stored electronic
`
`documents.” Response at 11. That construction rests on its incorrect and
`
`unsupported assertion that the claimed process cannot “utilize programs stored on
`
`servers to perform” the functions specified in claims 1 and 2. Response at 2; see
`
`also Response at 11. Patent Owner also asserts the browser in Kikinis “does not
`
`access the electronic document data base without additional software programs
`
`stored on remote servers,” Response at 17, and “cannot access data sets or files in
`
`response to the selection of associated user-selectable items without initiating
`
`additional server-based programs.” Response at 2. To support its contentions,
`
`Patent Owner asserts a person skilled in the art “understands that a system utilizing
`
`server-side CGI and remote server programs teaches a different system than the
`
`one disclosed in the ’290 patent.” Response at 13.
`
`Patent Owner’s distinctions are illusory as they are in conflict with the plain
`
`language of the claims, are contrary to the ’290 specification and are contrary to
`
`the testimony of its own expert. Notably, the specification of the ’290 patent
`
`defines a “server” as “[a] computer on a network that stores information and that
`
`answers requests for information.” Ex. 1001 at 4:65-66 (emphasis added). For
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`client-server systems (such as those described in the ’290 patent and in Kikinis) to
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`function, software on the server is necessarily required. This cannot be disputed,
`
`as Patent Owner’s expert agrees:
`
`Q. [] Is it correct that there is no way for a web server to
`serve a file in response to a request without having some
`software that resides on that web server?
`
`A. Yes, yes. On a server, software would be required in
`order to do that.
`
`Ex. 2004 at 54:13-18.
`
`Kikinis describes systems that use this conventional client-server scheme.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 115-123. Like the “server” of the ’290 patent claims, the application
`
`programs (79, 81, 85, 87) disclosed in Kikinis answer requests for information—
`
`i.e., they retrieve user-specific documents stored in each the various databases (89,
`
`91, 93, 95). Petition at 10-12, 14-17. The web server in Kikinis thus runs routines
`
`that support a set of data bases comprising user-specific documents, where each
`
`data base is associated with a software program (e.g., e-mail, fax, etc.) and further
`
`“each data base belongs to (or is assigned to or associated with) a different client.”
`
`Ex. 1005 (Kikinis) at 6:32-7:10; Petition at 10-12, 14-17; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 120-122.
`
`Kikinis explains that, after a user selects a link on the user’s homepage, the
`
`web browser (65), common gateway interface modules (77, 78, 80, 82), and the
`
`various programs (79, 81, 85, 87), provide the user with access to the files stored in
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`the various databases (89, 91, 93, 95). Ex. 1005 (Kikinis) at Fig. 2; 6:32-7:10;
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Petition at 9-12, 14-17. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 124-128. Thus, like the client-server system
`
`shown in the ’290 patent, the various programs and modules described in Kikinis
`
`function to provide the user with access to the user’s remotely stored document.
`
`Petition at 9-12, 14-17. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 120-122, 124-128.
`
`Apart from reading the claims in a manner that would render its own
`
`claimed invention inoperable, Patent Owner’s attempts to distinguish Kikinis on
`
`the ground are little more than a transparent attempt to read unclaimed limitations
`
`into the claims—i.e., requiring that the “program” of claims 1-2 “directly access” a
`
`user’s remotely stored files without any “intermediary programs” helping to
`
`facilitate that access. See, e.g., Ex. 2003 at 24:3-23 (Dr. Plock testifying that the
`
`browser disclosed in Kikinis cannot correspond to the claimed “program” because
`
`it does not “directly access” the data bases). But claim 1 (“wherein said program
`
`is operable in response to selection of at least one of said items to provide the user
`
`with access to its associated data set”) and claim 2 (“said program further being
`
`operable in response to selection by a user of one of the user links to access the file
`
`associated with the selected user link from the user library associated with the
`
`received user profile”) are, by their plain language, not confined to “direct” access,
`
`particularly under the broadest understanding of the claims. Patent Owner’s
`
`unsupported contentions as to how the claimed “access” is to be achieved thus
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`contrary to the broadest reasonable construction of the claims based on their actual
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`claim language and when considered in view of the client-server schemes disclosed
`
`in the ’290 patent disclosure.
`
`The browser disclosed in Kikinis plainly satisfies the claimed “program”
`
`element of the claims. Petition at 9-12, 14-17; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 115-123. Kikinis
`
`explains that the browser is launched to provide access to the user’s individualized
`
`homepage, which provides graphical interface including with links to “specifically-
`
`addressed documents” and other destinations on the Web. Ex. 1005 (Kikinis) at
`
`Abstract, 3:1-6, 6:24-31, 6:35- 7:7; Petition at 11-12, 14; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 115, 125-
`
`127. Thus, after the browser is launched, the user can access an individualized
`
`homepage “having on-screen links to electronic documents reserved for the home
`
`page ‘owner’.” Ex. 1005(Kikinis) at 7:35-36. Petition at 11-12, 14; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶
`
`117, 124. The user can select links to view, edit, save, compose or deliver
`
`electronic documents, or otherwise access the Internet. Ex. 1005 (Kikinis) at Fig.
`
`4; 8:2-13; 9:3-36; Petition at 13-14, 16-17; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 131. Accordingly, the
`
`evidence plainly establishes that the browser in Kikinis is a “program” that
`
`performs the functions recited in claims 1 and 2. Petition at 9-12, 15-17.
`
`B. Kikinis Discloses a “File Associated with [a] Selected User Link”
`Within the Meaning of the Claims
`
`Patent Owner contends claim 2 of the ’290 patent “specifically claims an
`
`association [a ‘one-to-one relationship’] between user-selectable links and specific
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`files,” and argues that Kikinis does not show this relationship. Response at 34-35.
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s reading again attempts to import unclaimed limitations from the
`
`specification into the claims, contrary to the requirement of reading the claims with
`
`their broadest interpretation in view of the specification. Patent Owner also is
`
`simply incorrect—Kikinis clearly does disclose a “file associated with [a] selected
`
`user link.”
`
`The relevant language of claim 2 reads “to access the file associated with
`
`the selected user link from user library.’” As the Board found, Decision at 15-17,
`
`Kikinis discloses a “[h]ome page 73 … having on-screen links to electronic
`
`documents reserved for the home page ‘owner’, such as e-mail and faxes.” Ex.
`
`1005 (Kikinis) at 7:34-8:1(emphasis added); Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 117, 124. Patent
`
`Owner’s expert does not dispute this. Ex. 2004 at 66:6-20. This disclosure alone
`
`demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Kikinis discloses a “file
`
`associated with [a] selected user link” as required by claim 1 of the ’290 Patent.
`
`Patent Owner next attempts to improperly incorporate unclaimed concepts
`
`such as “direct link,” “one-to-one association” or a “one-click system” into its
`
`claims and to thereby distinguish Kikinis. This is improper not only because it
`
`would read unclaimed limitations into the claims, it is actually inconsistent with
`
`what is shown in the ’290 patent disclosure. For example, the ’290 patent specifies
`
`that links to files can require the user to open windows or navigate drop down lists
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`prior to accessing the associated file. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 15:12-15. Figures 5b
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`and 5c of the ’290 patent are exemplary of this type of access:
`
`
`
`Like the system described in Kikinis, see Ex. 1005 (Kikinis) at Fig. 4; 7:34-
`
`36; 8:2-13; 9:11-20, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 125-127, Figures 5b and 5c of the ’290 patent
`
`show windows “including icons that represent various files and links to
`
`information resources,” Ex. 1001 at 15:46-50, that, upon selection, enable the user
`
`to “access any of the files contained in his or her user library.” Id. at 15:56-57. If
`
`Patent Owner desired to exclude subject matter clearly encompassed by the claim
`
`language—such as access to files through the indirect links (i.e., windows or drop-
`
`down links) described above—it should have amended the claims to remove that
`
`subject matter. Nevertheless, even under Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation,
`
`Patent Owner cannot dispute that the various programs that are shown as links on
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`the user’s homepage (e.g., 79, 81, 85, 87 of Fig. 2 of Ex. 1005 (Kikinis)) may be
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`“directly” accessed, nor can it dispute that such programs fall within the Board’s
`
`construction of “information resource” or “file” of claims 1 and 2. Petition at 10-
`
`12, 13-14, 16. Kikinis thus discloses a specific file or information source is
`
`associated with a user link within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims. Decision at 14-15, 17.
`
`C. The Home Page in Kikinis is a User Profile
`
`The Board found that Kikinis discloses the “user profile” of claims 1 and 2
`
`based on its description of a “home page” displaying user-selectable links to files
`
`associated with the user’s library. Decision at 14-15, 17. In response, Patent Owner
`
`contends that the individual user home pages disclosed in Kikinis are not the
`
`claimed “user profile” because “there is no mention of any ‘user-specific
`
`information relating to an individual using a computer’ contained within the home
`
`page.” Response at 41. Patent Owner is again incorrect.
`
`The ’290 patent defines a “profile” (as found by the Board) to mean “[u]ser-
`
`specific information relating to an individual using a computer.” Ex. 1001 at 4:52-
`
`53; Decision at 10. Kikinis discloses that “[a] home page is a graphical interface
`
`unique to an individual user, and [] functions in part as a table of contents,” Ex.
`
`1005 (Kikinis) at 2:3-5, Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 126, and further explains that its home page
`
`interface comprises “indicia identifying the home page owner.” Id. at 3:1-6, Ex.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`1003 at ¶ 115-117. These indicia—which are “unique to an individual user”—
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`plainly correspond to “user-specific information relating to an individual using a
`
`computer.” Id. Patent Owner’s expert could not refute that statement, but instead
`
`illogically asserts that the user accessing a home page in Kikinis is not necessarily
`
`the home page’s owner. Ex. 2003 at 41:15-42:1.
`
` Patent Owner contends the links contained with the home page in Kikinis
`
`are not “user-specific” but rather are “software links” common to every user of the
`
`Kikinis system. Response at 42. This is both irrelevant and incorrect. For example,
`
`whether the links use common software to provide a user with access to their own
`
`electronic documents is immaterial – Patent Owner and its expert cannot dispute
`
`that links provide access to the user’s own electronic documents. Ex. 1005
`
`(Kikinis) at 7:34-8:1; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 125-127. Kikinis thus discloses a “user-profile”
`
`within the meaning of the claims. Petition at 12, 14, 16-17.
`
`D. Kikinis Discloses “An Application Window Separated Into a
`Number of Regions” Where the “First One of Said Regions” and
`the “Second one of said Regions” Meet the Elements of Claim 1
`
`Patent Owner contends that Kikinis does not anticipate claim 1 because
`
`Kikinis “discloses only one relevant region.” Response at 23-30. Patent Owner’s
`
`assertion rests, however, on an improperly constrained interpretation of the word
`
`“region”; namely, a “non-overlapping part of an application window that is
`
`distinct or separate from other parts of the application window wherein each part
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`is characterized by the presence of related functions or features that are different
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`from the functions or features of another part.” Response at 20. Patent Owner’s
`
`contorted construction of “region” is a textbook example of an effort to improperly
`
`incorporate material limitations from the specification into the claims. Vibrant
`
`Media, Paper 56 at 5. Indeed, if Patent Owner wished to have term “region” have
`
`this particular meaning, it should have sought to amend its claims. SAP Am., Paper
`
`No. 70 at 7-8. This construction is also contrary to the evidence. For example,
`
`Microsoft’s expert, Dr. Houh, testified that a person of ordinary skill would
`
`understand “region” as it is used in the ’290 patent claims to simply be “an area of
`
`the screen.” Ex. 1017 at 136:13-22. That testimony was not disputed. In addition,
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Plock, testified that “regions” need not be visually
`
`demarcated in any way. See Ex. 2004 at 84:14-23. Thus, based on the evidence of
`
`record, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is unreasonable and inconsistent
`
`with how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “region.”
`
`Despite this, even under Patent Owner’s narrow construction, Kikinis meets
`
`this claim element because it discloses at least three “regions.” As shown in Figure
`
`3 (annotated below), Kikinis discloses a vertical row of graphical objects, each of
`
`which can be selected to provide access to an information resource.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`
`
`The red-shaded region in Figure 3, for example, includes “related features and
`
`functions” which are links to user’s remotely stored documents through various
`
`programs. These are features and functions that are “different from the functions
`
`or features” of the blue-shaded region, which are shortcuts to web destinations on
`
`the Internet. See Ex. 2004 at 79:10-25.
`
`
`
`Kikinis also discloses a third “region” within Patent Owner’s narrow
`
`construction of that term. Specifically, Kikinis shows a user’s individualized home
`
`page will contain links “to other data bases, such as a personal multi-lingual
`
`dictionary featuring pronunciation, a spelling checker, or a thesaurus; or indeed,
`
`almost any other sort of digital data or control routines.” Ex. 1005 (Kikinis) at
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`8:14-18; Petition at 11; Ex. 1003 at 125-128. Kikinis explains that a person of
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`ordinary skill would understand this to be indicating that including these additional
`
`links would be one way of configuring the user’s homepage. See, e.g., Ex. 1005
`
`(Kikinis) at 9:25-30 (“There are, for example, many designs one might use for a
`
`home page interface, and many known methods of affording a user selection to
`
`alternative control pathways.”). Patent Owner’s expert agreed this passage in
`
`Kikinis indicates it is “simple to add the links” to the home page to the “other data
`
`bases, such as a personal multi-lingual dictionary featuring pronunciation, a
`
`spelling checker, or a thesaurus” disclosed in Kikinis. Ex. 2004 at 85:17-87:14. A
`
`person or ordinary skill would thus have understood Kikinis to be describing a
`
`home page containing links to “other data bases,” which would make that a third
`
`“region” of the home page even under Patent Owner’s narrow construction. When
`
`considering what a reference discloses, “it is proper to take into account not only
`
`specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the
`
`art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Denso Corp. and Clarion
`
`Co. v. Beacon Navigation, IPR2013-00026, Paper 34 at 19-20 (PTAB March 14,
`
`2014) (emphasis added)(citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342,
`
`344 (CCPA 1968)).
`
`E. Kikinis Discloses that a User Profile is Received From the Server
`Following Execution of a Login Module
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Kikinis explains that access to a user’s home page may be “protected
`
`through a security protocol that requires a username and password.” Ex. 1005
`
`(Kikinis) at 8:21-24; Petition at 12; Ex. 1003 at 129-131. In response, Patent
`
`Owner contends that Kikinis fails to teach the claimed “login module” because
`
`“the security protocol disclosed in Kikinis is initiated after the user accesses the
`
`home page and before the user accesses the electronic document data base.” Patent
`
`owner is incorrect. As Kikinis explains:
`
`There are well known methods implemented in the art to
`restrict access to home pages and data bases. The same
`methods may be used to protect electronic document data
`bases from unwanted access. For example, access to
`electronic document data bases may be restricted by
`requiring a user to provide a password and user name
`before access to a home page or a specific electronic
`document data base is granted
`
`Ex. 1005 (Kikinis) at 8:19-24 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003 at 129-131. Patent
`
`Owner suggests this is “a passing reference to restricting access to the home page.”
`
`The literal text of Kikinis refutes Patent Owner’s contention. As Kikinis explains,
`
`the “same methods” that are described in detail for restricting access to electronic
`
`document data bases” may be used “to restrict access to home pages.” Far from
`
`being a passing reference, Kikinis describes in detail how the login module would
`
`be executed prior to the user accessing the home page.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`II. Kikinis Anticipates Claim 3 of the ’290 Patent
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`The Board found the evidence presented by the Petition sufficient to show
`
`claim 3 of the ’290 patent anticipated by Kikinis. Decision at 16-18. For example,
`
`the browser in Kikinis is used to access the associated information resource over
`
`the network. Petition at 17-18. Patent Owner does not provide any additional
`
`arguments for claim 3, but instead relies on its contentions addressed above. For
`
`the same reasons that Kikinis anticipates claim 2, it also anticipates claim 3.
`
`III. The PTO Acted Within Its Rule-Making Authority
`
`Patent Owner contends the Board’s use of the “‘broadest reasonable
`
`construction’ rule exceeds the PTO’s limited rule-making authority.” Response at
`
`43-44. Patent Owner is not only legally incorrect, it fails to identify any
`
`consequence of this supposed error. See SAP Am , Paper 70 at 6-19. Patent
`
`Owner’s assertions should therefore be ignored.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For at least the above reasons, the Board should maintain its determination
`
`that claims 1-3 of the ’290 Patent are unpatentable as being anticipated by Kikinis.
`
`Dated: Sept 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Jeffrey P. Kushan/
`Jeffrey P. Kushan (Reg. No. 43,401)
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`jkushan@sidley.com
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00040 (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290)
`
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 24th day of September, 2014, a copy of the
`
`foregoing has been served in its entirety by e-mail on the following counsel of
`
`record for Patent Owner:
`
`Jason S. Angell
`Robert E. Freitas
`Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP
`jangell@ftklaw.com
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`
`
`Dated:
`
`September 24, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Jeffrey P. Kushan/
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Reg. No. 43,401
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`jkushan@sidley.com
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
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
