Paper No. 34
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC;
`AND SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC;
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-00519
`Patent 8,023,580
`___________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`ITS PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,023,580
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC;
`AND SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC;
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-00519
`Patent 8,023,580
`___________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`ITS PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,023,580
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...................................................................... 1
`CLAIMS 38 AND 47 OF THE `580 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE 1
`
`III. PETITIONER HAS ESTABLISHED OBVIOUSNESS .......................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Upender Demonstrates Motivation For The Combination.................. 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Determinacy And Simplicity Are Important Factors To
`Consider When Choosing A MAC Protocol............................. 3
`
`Dr. Koopman Admits That Determinacy and Simplicity Are
`Reasons To Select A Master/Slave MAC Protocol................... 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Boer Uses A MAC Protocol Having Disadvantages When Compared
`To A Master/Slave Protocol............................................................... 4
`
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Weigh The
`Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Various MAC Protocols ............. 5
`
`D. When The Prior Art Discloses Many Embodiments, The Fact That
`Certain Alternatives Might Be Better Does Not Negate Motivation To
`Use The Lesser Embodiments............................................................ 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Alleged Benefits Provided By Boer’s CSMA/CA Do Not
`Relate To Any Claimed Feature............................................... 7
`
`Upender Does Not Teach Away............................................... 8
`
`E.
`
`Dr. Koopman’s Testimony Is Suspect................................................ 9
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 10
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)............................................................. 8
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................... 8
`Innovative Biometric Tech., LLC. v. Toshiba Am. Info. Systems, Inc. (S.D. Fla.
`2012) ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)................................................ 6
`
`Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881 (Fed. Cir. 1984)...................... 9
`
`Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)....................................................... 6
`Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc. v. Continental Auto. Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00014,
`Paper 32 (Mar. 12, 2014).................................................................................... 8
`
`Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................... 9
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`Exhibit No.
`1301
`1302
`
`1303
`
`1304
`1305
`
`1306
`
`1307
`1308
`
`1309
`
`1310
`
`1311
`
`1312
`1313
`
`1314
`1315
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`Complaint, Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung
`Electronics Co. Ltd, et al, No. 2:13-cv-00213 (E.D. Tex. 2013)
`(March 15, 2013)
`Proof of Service of Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC,
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics
`Co. Ltd, et al, No. 2:13-cv-00213 (E.D. Tex. 2013) (March 20,
`2013)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,428
`Infringement Contentions, Rembrandt Wireless Technologies,
`LP v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, et al, No. 2:13-cv-00213
`(E.D. Tex. 2013) (July 25, 2013)
`“The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics
`Terms,” 6th Ed., 1996, p. 661
`U.S. Application No. 12/543,910, as filed
`Office Action mailed on September 1, 2010 for U.S.
`Application No. 12/543,910
`Reply Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.111, dated March 1, 2011, for
`U.S. Application No. 12/543,910
`Reply Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.111, dated March 10, 2011, for
`U.S. Application No. 12/543,910
`Reply Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.111(a)(2), dated May 11, 2011,
`for U.S. Application No. 12/543,910
`Notice of Allowance and Issue Fee(s) Due, dated July 22, 2011
`Amendment After Allowance Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.312,
`dated July 26, 2011, for U.S. Application No. 12/543,910
`U.S. Patent No. 6,614,838
`Office Action mailed June 28, 2001 for U.S. Application No.
`09/205,205
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`Exhibit No.
`1316
`
`1317
`
`1318
`
`1319
`
`1320
`
`1321
`1322
`1323
`1324
`
`1325
`
`Description
`First Amendment and Response, dated October 5, 2001, in
`U.S. Application No. 09/205,205
`Declaration of Jon Mears; Exhibit A thereto (Upender,
`“Communication Protocols for Embedded Systems,”
`Embedded Systems Programming, Vol. 7, Issue 11, November
`1994.
`Declaration of Dr. David Goodman, including Curriculum
`Vitae
`Deposition Transcript of Philip J. Koopman, Jr., Ph.D., dated
`January 13, 2015
`Data Network Evaluation Criteria Handbook, DOT/FAA/AR-
`09/24 Final Report, dated June 2009
`U.S. Patent No. 5,450,404
`U.S. Patent No. 5,436,901
`U.S. Patent No. 5,535,212
`Order Granting Motion for Fees and Costs, Requesting
`Submission of Materials for in camera Review and Granting
`Motion to Strike, Innovative Biometric Tech., LLC v Toshiba
`Am. Info. Sys., No. 9:09-81046-CIV-KLR, dated August 29,
`2012.
`Order Granting Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.’s
`Motion to Unseal Court Orders (DE 340, 357, and 372),
`Innovative Biometric Tech., LLC v Lenovo (U.S.), Inc., No.
`9:09-81046-CIV-KLR, dated June 27, 2013.
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits this Reply in Support of its Petition seeking
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,023,580 (Ex. 1301), “the `580 patent.
`
`I.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`Petitioner filed its petition on March 20, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the
`
`Board instituted trial on claims 32, 34, 38, 40, 43, 44, and 47 or the `580 patent.
`
`On December 1, 2014, Patent Owner (“PO”) filed its response pursuant to 37 CFR
`
`§ 42.120. In its response, PO argued in support of patentability of claims 38 and
`
`47, and was silent regarding claims 32, 34, 40, 43 and 44. Then, on December 4,
`
`2014, PO filed a document entitled “Patent Owner’s Notice Of Filing Of
`
`Disclaimer Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a).” In this Notice, PO indicated that it had
`
`disclaimed instituted claims 32, 34, 40, 43, and 44 of the ’580 Patent. Thus, only
`
`claims 38 and 47 are at issue in this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`CLAIMS 38 AND 47 OF THE `580 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`Petitioner has shown that the instituted claims are rendered obvious by the
`
`subject matter Patent Owner (“PO”) admitted was prior art in the specification and
`
`prosecution history of the `580 patent (“APA”) in combination with U.S. Patent
`No. 5,706,428, Ex. 1304 (“Boer”). See e.g., Petition, Paper 1 & Ex. 1318. PO
`
`disagrees for two reasons. First, PO argues that a person having ordinary skill
`
`would not have been motivated to combine Boer and the APA. Second, PO argues
`
`that Boer does not teach “at least two types of modulation methods,” as required by
`
`each of the claims. Neither of these positions has any merit.
`
`III. PETITIONER HAS ESTABLISHED OBVIOUSNESS
`In the Institution Decision, the Board found that a person having ordinary
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Boer’s teachings with the
`
`APA because master/slave systems were well-known for simplicity and
`
`determinacy. The Board relied on Upender, Ex. 1317, which the Board noted was
`
`a 1994 publication that “compares various strengths and weaknesses for
`communication protocols for embedded systems.” Paper 16, p. 11.1 PO argues
`
`that Upender does not provide any motivation. PO also argues that there is a
`
`“teaching away,” asserting that a person having ordinary skill also would have
`
`been motivated to modify Boer in a different manner. PO’s arguments are wrong.
`
`Upender Demonstrates Motivation For The Combination
`A.
`Upender is a paper discussing various media access control (“MAC”)
`
`protocols that could be used in a local area network (LAN). Ex. 1317, p. 46. A
`
`MAC protocol, as its name suggests, determines how a network “picks the next
`
`transmitter for access to the shared network medium. . . .” Id. As evidenced by
`
`Upender, there were many different MAC protocols known before the priority date
`
`of the `580 patent. Examples of such protocols included (i) connection-oriented
`
`protocols, (ii) master/slave, also called polling, (iii) time division multiple access,
`
`(iv) token ring, (v) token bus, (vi) binary countdown, (vii) carrier sense multiple
`
`access with collision detection (CSMA/CD), and (viii) reservation carrier sense
`multiple access (RCSMA). See Ex. 1317. It is undisputed that prior to the filing
`
`1 PO asserts that Petitioner relied on Upender to argue that a motivation to combine
`the APA and Boer was flexibility and efficiency. Paper 25, p. 26. This is wrong.
`
`Upender was only cited regarding simplicity and determinacy. Paper 1, p. 40-41.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`date in 1997, the master/slave protocol was a popular protocol. See Ex. 1317, p. 50
`
`(“Polling is one of the more popular protocols for embedded systems…”). See
`
`also Ex. 1319, 73:4-20 (“I would say, you know, if you want to look at the entire
`
`world, there are probably more master/slave systems, but that's a reflection on the
`
`types of applications that had networks. . .”).
`
`1. Determinacy And Simplicity Are Important Factors To Consider
`When Choosing A MAC Protocol
`Upender teaches that each of the different MAC protocols have strengths
`
`and weaknesses vis-à-vis each other. Upender teaches that two important
`
`considerations for choosing a MAC protocol are determinacy and simplicity. Ex.
`
`1317, p. 47. Determinacy is “the ability to calculate worst-case response time,”
`
`which “is important for meeting the real-time constraints of many embedded
`
`control applications.” Id. See also Ex. 1319, 120:18-121:6. According to an FAA
`
`handbook coauthored by PO’s expert Dr. Koopman, a non-deterministic MAC
`
`protocol can result in “collisions” between transmitted messages, which is a
`
`“problem.” Ex. 1320, p. A-10.
`
`Regarding simplicity, Upender teaches that a “vital consideration is the cost
`
`per node.” Ex. 1317, p. 47. Upender further teaches that “[s]imple protocols
`
`require less hardware and software resources and are therefore likely to be less
`
`expensive. For extremely cost-sensitive high-volume applications, these protocols
`
`are good candidates.” Id. The article discusses each protocol in a progression
`
`from “very simple” to “complex.” Id. Master/slave is discussed second, indicating
`
`that it is one of the simplest, and thus least costly.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`2. Dr. Koopman Admits That Determinacy and Simplicity Are
`Reasons To Select A Master/Slave MAC Protocol
`PO asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be
`
`motivated to combine the master/slave protocol of the APA with Boer. Yet, in his
`
`deposition, PO’s expert Dr. Koopman admitted that determinacy and simplicity
`
`would lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to consider using a
`
`master/slave protocol. Ex. 1319, 119:14-120:3 (“. . . if you want determinacy that
`
`would -- that would keep master/slave on your list of candidates. . . .”). The same
`
`is true for simplicity, where Dr. Koopman admitted that if a person having ordinary
`
`skill valued simplicity, it would lead them to consider using a master/slave
`
`protocol. Id. at 115:12-116:20. (“The fact that [master/slave] was simple would
`
`lead them to consider it in applications where simple was important.”).
`
`B.
`
`Boer Uses A MAC Protocol Having Disadvantages When
`Compared To A Master/Slave Protocol.
`Boer MAC protocol is what it calls “carrier sense multiple access with
`
`collision avoidance,” or “CSMA/CA.” Ex. 1304, 4:25-27. Boer’s MAC protocol
`
`is neither simple nor deterministic. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`who wanted a multiple data rate communication system like that in Boer and the
`
`advantages of simplicity and determinacy would be motivated to make Petitioner’s
`
`combination. See Ex. 1318 (Goodman Decl.), ¶169.
`
`Petitioner notes that what Boer refers to as “CSMA/CA” corresponds to
`
`what Upender calls “CSMA/CD,” or “carrier sense multiple access with collision
`
`detection.” Ex. 2302, ¶¶75-78 & Ex. 1319, 123:20-124:3. Upender clearly states
`
`that CSMA/CD has poor determinacy. See Ex. 1218, p. 54 (“However, under
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`heavy traffic, the overhead is unbounded due to high probability of repeated
`
`collisions. Consequently, this protocol has poor determinacy.”). At his deposition,
`
`Dr. Koopman admitted that the CSMA/CA protocol used in Boer could experience
`collisions and thus lacked determinacy. See Ex. 1319, 128:19-129:7. Boer itself
`
`states that CSMA/CA can experience collisions. Ex. 1304, 4:25-40.
`
`As for simplicity, Upender states that its discussion of the various MAC
`
`protocols “progresses from very simple to complex, high-performance protocols.”
`
`Ex. 1317, p. 47. The master/slave protocol is discussed second, meaning it is one
`
`of the simplest, while CSMA/CD (i.e., the CSMA/CA of Boer), is discussed
`
`seventh, demonstrating that simplicity is not its strength.
`
`C.
`
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Weigh The
`Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Various MAC Protocols
`The entire point of Upender is to discuss “strengths and weaknesses” of
`
`various MAC protocols. Ex. 1317, p. 46. Upender summarizes its conclusions by
`
`stating “this article’s discussion of the special considerations and media access
`
`protocol strengths and weaknesses should allow you to select the best protocol to
`
`match your needs.” Id. at 57. The authors of Upender do say that that they felt at
`
`RCSMA was “ good choice” for their systems. Id. at 56-57. However, at his
`
`deposition, Dr. Koopman admitted that even RSCMA had weaknesses, one of
`
`which was “scaling up for network with lots of nodes.” Ex. 1319, 64:2-16.
`
`D. When The Prior Art Discloses Many Embodiments, The Fact
`That Certain Alternatives Might Be Better Does Not Negate
`Motivation To Use The Lesser Embodiments
`As seen from the above, in 1997 persons having ordinary skill in the art
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`knew that there were many different types of MAC protocols available for use.
`
`According to KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007), “[w]hen
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good
`
`reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads
`
`to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary
`
`skill and common sense.” According to KSR, the fact that persons having ordinary
`
`skill in the art knew about the various MAC protocols, including master/slave, and
`
`knew that it could be used to create a simple and deterministic MAC protocol is all
`
`that is needed to establish obviousness. Indeed, KSR reiterated the Supreme
`
`Court’s long-standing principle that “‘when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements
`
`with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields
`
`no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is
`
`obvious.” Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
`
`That master/slave was an ‘old element’ is not in dispute. Indeed, the `580
`
`patent admits master/slave is prior art, Upender identifies master/slave as “one of
`
`the more popular protocols” and Dr. Koopman testified that master/slave systems
`
`were common in 1997. Ex. 1319, 73:4-20 (“I would say, you know, if you want to
`
`look at the entire world, there are probably more master/slave systems. . . .”). The
`
`only other claimed elements relate to the use of different modulation types, which
`
`is found in Boer (discussed below), meaning that all the claimed elements are “old
`
`elements” that perform the “same function” they did in the prior art, demonstrating
`
`that the claims are obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`PO’s argument against motivation to combine is that a master/slave protocol
`
`has certain disadvantages when compared to certain strengths of the CSMA/CA
`
`used in Boer. Paper 25, pp. 31-38. Boer’s CSMA/CA’s strengths include
`increased flexibility and efficiency. Id. at 32-34. PO argues that these strengths,
`
`when weighed against the weaknesses of master/slave, would teach away from
`
`using a master/slave protocol with Boer. Id. at 35-38. PO’s argument fails as a
`
`matter of fact and law.
`
`1. The Alleged Benefits Provided By Boer’s CSMA/CA Do Not
`Relate To Any Claimed Feature
`PO argues that Boer’s CSMA/CA provides benefits over master/slave, and
`
`because of these benefits, Boer teaches away from the combination. For example,
`
`Dr. Koopman asserts that CSMA more easily supports a large number of stations
`
`than does a master/slave protocol. Dr. Koopman, however, admitted at his
`
`deposition that none of the challenged claims contain any limitations directed to a
`
`large number of stations and that such a requirement was “not relevant.” Ex. 1319,
`
`156:2-11 (“I would say for this patent, the number of stations is not relevant.”).
`
`Dr. Koopman also argued that the master/slave protocol’s alleged inability to
`
`allow admission of new stations to a network would cause an ordinarily skilled
`
`person to avoid the combination. Ex. 2302, ¶81. Dr. Koopman, however, admitted
`
`that this requirement was also not found in the claims. Ex. 1319, 175:14-176:7. In
`
`fact, Dr. Koopman admitted that he was not aware of any requirement in the claims
`
`relating to flexibility, efficiency or overhead, all of which PO asserts lead to no
`
`motivation to combine. Id. at 177:13-178:11. Because these features are
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`unclaimed, they cannot be used to argue against motivation to combine. Schrader-
`
`Bridgeport Int’l, Inc. v. Continental Auto. Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00014, Paper 32, p.
`
`11 (Mar. 12, 2014) (Argument against motivation to combine not accepted when
`
`unclaimed feature is basis for the argument).
`
`According to the Federal Circuit, “a reference may be said to teach away
`
`when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
`
`from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
`
`divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,
`
`553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). PO argues that Boer discourages use of master/slave because of
`
`its alleged desire to reduce overhead. Paper 25, pp. 31-32 & Ex. 2302 (Koopman
`
`Decl.), ¶97. The portion in Boer cited by PO for support for this “teaching away”
`
`argument says nothing about CSMA/CA contributing to a reduction in overhead,
`
`saying instead that using short acknowledgment messages provides this benefit. Ex.
`
`1304, 8:29-30. Thus, Boer itself does not discourage use of master/slave.
`
`Regardless, as discussed, Dr. Koopman admitted that he did not see overhead as
`
`part of the claimed invention (Ex. 1319, 178:6-11).
`
`2. Upender Does Not Teach Away
`Even if Boer or Upender suggest that CSMA/CA is better than master/slave,
`
`that does not mean the references teach away from the combination. The Federal
`
`Circuit has held that “just because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not
`
`mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.” In re
`
`Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Board’s obviousness determination
`
`affirmed). Indeed, even though Dr. Koopman’s declaration asserts that Upender
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`would only motivate one to replace the CSMA/CA in Boer with the RCSMA in
`
`Upender, Dr. Koopman testified at his deposition that there were some applications
`
`where RCSMA was better and others where master/slave was better. Ex. 1319,
`
`39:2-20 (“Let me be more precise. There are some systems for which master/slave
`
`is clearly a better match for the design requirements. There are some systems
`
`which reservation CSMA/CA is a better match for requirements, and the
`
`requirements include technical factors.”). Upender itself states that readers can use
`
`its teachings to “select the best protocol to match your needs,” (Ex. 1317, pp. 56-
`
`57), which hardly amounts to a teaching that only RCSMA should be used.
`
`The fact that even Dr. Koopman admits that master/slave would be a “better
`
`match” in certain circumstances demonstrates PO is wrong, as a “teaching away”
`
`requires more than arguing that an alternative combination is better - the prior art
`has to provide “clear discouragement of that combination.” Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v.
`
`Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As Dr. Koopman’s cross-
`
`examination establishes, none of PO’s arguments establish that the APA, Boer or
`
`Upender provide any discouragement at all, let alone “clear discouragement.”
`
`Dr. Koopman’s Testimony Is Suspect
`E.
`Dr. Koopman is a co-author of Upender. His attempt to argue that Upender
`
`discourages use of master/slave is belied by its text and is an example of why the
`
`Federal Circuit has “serious reservations about the propriety” of clarifying the
`
`teachings of the prior art with expert testimony from the prior art’s inventor. Lear
`
`Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 888 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The problems
`
`with Dr. Koopman’s testimony are amplified by his admission that he did not
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`completely analyze the claims prior to testifying. Ex. 1319, 154:21-155:5.2
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the challenged claims be canceled.
`
`Dated: February 6, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`___/s/ Jeffrey A. Miller____________
`Jeffrey A. Miller
`Registration No. 35,287
`DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
`1841 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94305
`Tel.: (650) 690-9500
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`2 His testimony was previously found suspect in Innovative Biometric Tech. v.
`Toshiba Am. Info. Systems (S.D. Fla. 2012), Ex. 1324, p. 4 (“The record evidence
`
`contradicted Dr. Koopman’s opinions on every dispositive factual issue.”).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document is being
`
`served on counsel of record by filing this document through the Patent Review
`
`Processing System as well as delivering a copy via email to:
`
`Thomas Engellenner (engellet@pepperlaw.com)
`Reza Mollaaghababa (mollaagr@pepperlaw.com)
`Lana Gladstein (gladstel@pepperlaw.com)
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`Dated: February 6, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`:
`
`/s/ Jeffrey A. Miller
`Jeffrey A. Miller
`Registration No. 35,287
`DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
`1841 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94305
`Tel.: (650) 690-9500
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
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
