`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, and
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2014-010861
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,147,759
`____________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`Claims 1, 4, 10-12, 17, 18, and 44
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00981 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request For Oral Argument
`IPR2014-01086 (U.S. 7,147,759)
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), Petitioner respectfully requests oral
`
`argument on the issues set forth below at a place and time set by the Board. Oral
`
`argument is presently scheduled for June 8, 2015 (Paper No. 27, Decision on
`
`Motion to Designate Lead Petitioner and Amend Scheduling Order). To allow for
`
`a complete review of the issues presented in this proceeding, Petitioner requests the
`
`ability to use a computer, projector, and screen to display possible demonstratives
`
`and exhibits. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70, Petitioner specifies the following
`
`issues to be argued:
`
`I. Whether challenged claims 1, 4, 10 and 12 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wang and Kudryavtsev.
`
`II. Whether challenged claim 11 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Kudryavtsev and Li.
`
`III. Whether challenged claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Kudryavtsev and Müller-Horsche.
`
`IV. Whether challenged claim 18 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Kudryavtsev and Kobayashi.
`
`V. Whether challenged claim 44 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Kudryavtsev and the Mozgrin Thesis.
`
`VI. Reply to any arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request For Oral Argument
`IPR2014-01086 (U.S. 7,147,759)
`
`VII. Respond to any issues specified by Patent Owner in its request for oral
`
`
`
`argument.
`
`VIII. Respond to Patent Owner’s Presentation on all matters.
`
`
`Dated: May 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/David M. Tennant
`David M. Tennant
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`GlobalFoundries
`Registration No. 48,362
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request For Oral Argument
`IPR2014-01086 (U.S. 7,147,759)
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), this is to certify that I caused to be served a
`
`true and correct copy of the foregoing “PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL
`
`ARGUMENT” as detailed below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Date of service May 15, 2015
`
`Manner of service Email: bbarker@chsblaw.com;
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com; kurt@rauschenbach.com
`
`Documents served PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`Persons Served Bruce Barker
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Mail Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Anna Goodall
`Anna Goodall
`White & Case LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Tel: (650) 213-0367
`Email: agoodall@whitecase.com
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`