`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 16
`Entered: October 14, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TLI COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00566
`Patent 6,038,295
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00566
`Patent 6,038,295
`
`
`On September 29, 2014, Facebook, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Request for
`Rehearing (Paper 15, “Req. Reh’g”) of our Decision Denying Institution of Inter
`Partes Review (Paper 14, “Decision”). According to Petitioner, the Decision
`misapprehended arguments and evidence demonstrating that claims 17 and 21-24
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,038,295 (“the ’295 patent,” Ex. 1001) are unpatentable over
`the cited prior art. Req. Reh’g 1-2.
`Petitioner’s basis for requesting rehearing is its contention that we
`misapprehended Petitioner’s argument with respect to the prior art’s disclosure of
`the claimed “server.” Req. Reh’g 1-2. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the
`Petition establishes that the claimed “server” is found in Witek’s disclosure of
`computer 12 and other destination storage devices. Id. at 3-7. However, we
`considered the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition and deemed them
`insufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged
`claims of the ’295 patent is unpatentable. Dec. 15-18. Disagreement with the
`Board’s analysis and conclusions is not a sufficient basis on which to request
`rehearing. It is not an abuse of discretion to have made an analysis or conclusion
`with which a party disagrees.
`Petitioner further asserts that including remote destination storage devices,
`in addition to storage within computer 12, as part of the “server” is consistent with
`accepted principles of claim construction. Req. Reh’g 8-10. Petitioner points to
`no evidence relied on in its Petition in that regard, and also does not indicate where
`in its Petition it initially made this claim construction argument. Per 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.71(d), Petitioner must point out where the matter previously was addressed in
`its Petition. We could not have misapprehended argument or evidence that was not
`presented. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to supplement a petition.
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00566
`Patent 6,038,295
`
`PETITIONER:
`Heidi Keefe
`Mark R. Weinstein
`Andrew Mace
`COOLEY LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`amace@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalawla.com
`
`Robert A. Whitman
`MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK LLP
`robert.whitman@mishcon.com
`
`
`
`3
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
