UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Tempur Sealy International, Inc.
`Petitioners,
`
`V.
`
`Select Comfort Corporation
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`Issued: May 18, 1999
`Filed: July 28, 1997
`Inventors: James Edwin Giffi and Paul James Mahoney
`
`Title: VALVE ENCLOSURE ASSElVIBLY
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014—01419
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Tempur Sealy International, Inc.
`Petitioners,
`
`V.
`
`Select Comfort Corporation
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`Issued: May 18, 1999
`Filed: July 28, 1997
`Inventors: James Edwin Giffi and Paul James Mahoney
`
`Title: VALVE ENCLOSURE ASSElVIBLY
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014—01419
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner hereby requests the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“the Board”) reconsider its February 17, 2015, Decision (“the
`
`Decision”) denying Petitioner’s August 29, 2014, Petition (“the Petition”) for an
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of US. Patent No. 5,904,172 (“the ‘ 172 patent”). For
`
`the reasons provided below, the Board’s refusal to consider the merits of the
`
`Petition was an abuse of discretion.
`
`First, the Decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law. The Board
`
`denied the Petition on the grounds that the Petition failed to cite to specific
`
`portions of the references themselves], but cited only to the Declaration of Mr.
`
`Bernard Kuchel (“the Declaration”). Decision at 6. However, the Board has
`
`already accepted petitions using the exact same format. Indeed, the PTO’s Rules
`
`and Regulations do not require that a petition cite to “specific portions of the
`
`references themselves.” Rather, the PTO’s Rules and Regulations m
`
`precisely what the Decision purports to prohibit: citation to evidence.
`
`Second, the Decision is not based on substantial evidence. The Petition
`
`explains how the challenged claims of the ‘ 172 patent are obvious in view of the
`
`1 In fact, the Petition does cite to specific portions of the references throughout.
`
`See 6. g. Petition at 12 (“Kery discloses distributor (88)” where 88 is the number
`
`used to identify the distributor throughout the drawings and specification of Kery).
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`three cited prior art references in accordance with the IPR rules. The Decision
`
`itself acknowledges that “the Kutchel Declaration (Ex. 1011) provides additional
`
`information regarding each of [the stated] shortcomings” but erroneously finds that
`
`“this information is not discussed adequately in the Petition and may not be
`
`incorporated by reference.” Decision at 7. The Board’s refusal to consider
`
`evidence cited in the Declaration is an abuse of discretion.
`
`1.
`
`Standard of Review
`
`When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for
`
`an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.7l(c). An abuse of discretion may be
`
`determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual
`
`finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an
`
`unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits SN. C. v. US,
`
`393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); ArnoldP’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338,
`
`1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A
`
`party requesting rehearing must identify specifically all matters the party believes
`
`the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`
`addressed previously in a motion.
`
`11.
`
`The Decision is an Abuse of Discretion
`
`A. The rejection of the Petition based on its format of presenting
`
`evidence, a format described in the PTO’s Rules and Regulations
`
`BOS 47621793V1
`
`Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`and that has been accepted by the Board in other Inter Partes Review
`
`(IPR) proceedings, is per se an abuse of discretion.
`
`The Board’s only reason for rejecting the Petition is based on the Petition’s
`
`evidentiary format. Specifically, the Board rejected the Petition because the
`
`Petition did not include “any citation to specific portions of the references
`
`themselves”. Decision at 6. However, the Petition does cite to specific portions of
`
`the references. For example, the Petition states that: “The distributor (88) of Kery
`
`is for use with an air inflatable mattress (air bed (10)) having at least one air
`
`bladder (the air springs (32) and elastic balls (56)) inflated by compressed air.
`
`[Id.
`
`at 1] 64]. Kery discloses a pump (compressor 92)), fluidly coupled to the at least
`
`one air bladder (the air springs (32) and elastic balls (56)) via distributor (88) and
`
`corresponding air line (94), and air tubes (66) for providing compressed air to the
`
`at least one air bladder.
`
`[Id. at 11 64]” Petition at 12. As shown, the Petition cites
`
`to the Kery reference and the specific reference numbers from Kery’s figures,
`
`which are citations to specific portions of the Kery reference itself.
`
`Further, the Board’s rejection overlooks and departs from the Board’s
`
`established practice of accepting petitions that cite to an expert declaration, which,
`
`in turn, cites to prior art to establish factual evidence for the petition. Indeed, the
`
`Board has accepted at least four other IPR petitions using the exact same format
`
`used in this Petition. Specifically, the petitions for all of IPR Nos. 2013-00292,
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`2013-00293, 2013-00294, and 2013—00295, cite to an expert declaration that, in
`
`turn, cites to specific portions of the references. For instance, pages 25-27 of the
`
`petition for IPR 2013-00292 cite to an expert declaration (EX. 1003), which, in
`
`turn, cites to specific portions of the references, to show various claims as being
`
`unpatentable. Microsoft Corp. v. Sufrcast Inc, IPR2013-00292, Paper 6, 25-27,
`
`(May 22, 2013). This same format is followed in the other above—noted IPRs, all
`
`of which were accepted by the Board, and all of which had trial instituted. Indeed,
`
`in the decision instituting trial in IPR2013—00292, the Board specifically refers to
`
`pages 25-27 of the IPR 2013-00292 petition, finding those pages sufficient to
`
`institute an IPR:
`
`Microsoft alleges that claims 1-13, 17—28, 30-33, 35-37, 39—43,
`and 46—50 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`anticipated by Duhault II. 292 Pet. 25-2 7; 293 Pet. 27-29; 294
`Pet. 20-21. Microsoft grovides detailed exglanations as to how
`each claim limitation is met by the cited Qrior art reference,
`and the exglanations are suggorted by the declaration of Dr.
`David R. Karger. EX. 1003. In light of the arguments and
`evidence submitted by both parties, Microsoft has established a
`reasonable likelihood that claims 1-13, 17—28, 30-33, 35-37, 39-
`43, and 46—50 are unpatentable as anticipated by Duhault 11.
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Sufrcast Inc, IPR2013—00292, Paper 19, 20 (NOV. 19, 2013)
`
`(emphasis added). The instant Petition’s format is the same as these other IPR
`
`petitions, so there is no basis on which to distinguish the circumstances of the
`
`present Petition from those the Board has already accepted. It is per se an abuse of
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`discretion to decline to institute an IPR based on its format when the Board has
`
`accepted other IPR petitions using the exact same format, and has instituted other
`
`IPR trials on those IPR petitions.
`
`The Board cites to 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and 37 CFR §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`
`42.104(b)(4) as including a requirement for a petition to cite “to specific portions
`
`of the references themselves”. However, neither the IPR statute nor the IPR rules
`
`require a petition to cite “to specific portions of the references themselves”. The
`
`statutory section cited by the Board, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), only requires that “the
`
`petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the
`
`grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that
`
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim” (emphasis added). The
`
`Petition complies with all requirements of § 312 as it includes the evidence that
`
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim. Indeed, the Petition’s
`
`evidentiary format was specifically used to comply with, inter alia, the evidentiary
`
`requirements set forth in by 35 U.S.C. § 312, the IPR Rules, the Board’s Trial
`
`Practice Guide, and prior Board decisions. For instance, the Board’s Trial Practice
`
`Guide states:
`
`The Board expects that most petitions and motions will rely
`upon affidavits of experts. Affidavits expressing an opinion of
`an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data upon which
`the opinion is based. See Fed. R. Evid. 705; and § 42.65.
`Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or
`data may be given little or no weight.
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`Federal Register 77:157 (August 14, 2012) p. 48763. What a reference discloses i_s
`
`a question of fact. In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Moreover,
`
`what a reference discloses is judged from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance
`
`Co., CBM2012—00002, Paper 66, 42 (Jan. 23, 2014) (“Progressive fails to consider
`
`Black Magic, as a whole, from the perspective ofone ofordinary skill in the art.”).
`
`Further, mere attorney argument may not be persuasive. BAE Systems Info. and
`
`Electronic Sys. Integration, Inc. v. Cheetah Omni, LLC, Case IPR2013-00175,
`
`Paper 45, 11 (June 19, 2014). The Board also expressly prohibits attorney
`
`argument in any claim charts. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures
`
`ILLC, IPR2014—00547, Paper 9, 3 (May 23, 2014). For at least these reasons, the
`
`Petition cited to the Declaration of its expert to establish Mmatter of fact, and not
`
`attorney argument, what the three cited references disclose to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`The Board cites to 37 CFR §§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4) as including a
`
`requirement for a petition to cite “specific portions of the references themselves”.
`
`Neither § 42.22 nor § 42.104 includes any such requirement. 37 CFR §
`
`42.22(a)(2) simply mirrors 35 U.S.C. § 312, requiring citation to evidence. (“Each
`
`petition .
`
`.
`
`. must include .
`
`.
`
`. full statement of the reasons for the relief requested,
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`including a detailed explanation of the significance ofthe evidence including
`
`material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” (emphasis added))
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) provides that the Petition “must specify where each
`
`element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied
`
`upon” (emphasis added). Notably, section 42.104(b)(4) uses the word “specify”,
`
`not “citation”. Further, the PTO’s Rules and Regulations discussing section
`
`42.104(b)(4) requires citation to the evidence, and not the references themselves:
`
`Section 42.104(b) requires that the petition identify the precise relief
`requested for the claims challenged. Specifically, the rule requires
`that the petition identify. . .the exhibit numbers of the evidence relied
`upon with a citation to the portion of the evidence that is relied upon
`to support the challenge.
`
`“Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review
`
`Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents
`
`(Final Rule)” Federal Register 77:157 (Aug. 14, 2012) p. 48688. Thus, rather than
`
`violating any stated rule, the Petition complies with the PTO’s own Rules and
`
`Regulations by presenting evidence by citing to an expert declaration, which, in
`
`turn, cites to specific portions of the references.
`
`Board decisions that are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
`
`otherwise not in accordance with law must be set aside. In re Bogese, 303 F.3d
`
`1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Where an agency departs from established precedent
`
`without a reasoned explanation, its decision will be vacated as arbitrary and
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`capriciousz. Fred Beverages, Inc. v. Fred’s Capital Management C0,, 605 F. 3d
`
`963 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Fred Beverages, the Federal Circuit reversed the
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision denying a Motion for Leave to
`
`Amend the Petition for Cancellation for failure to submit the cancellation fee,
`
`finding the decision arbitrary and capricious. The Court’s analysis is instructive:
`
`There is no stated rule of the TTAB that a motion for leave to amend a
`
`petition for cancellation must be accompanied by the statutory fee
`corresponding to the classes for which cancellation is sought by
`amendment. . .. The rules relied on by the TTAB in deciding this case,
`Trademark Rules 2.1 l l(c)(l) and 2.112(b) relate only the
`requirements for filing an initial petition for cancellation, and do not
`speak to subsequent motion practice.
`
`In the absence of a stated rule, the TTAB might still justify requiring a
`cancellation fee to accompany a motion for leave to amend if such
`requirement were consistent with established practice. There is,
`however, no such established practice at the TTAB. It appears, in
`
`2 Although the ‘abuse of discretion’ standard is perhaps broader and less
`
`deferential than the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard, ‘arbitrary and capricious’ is
`
`encompassed by ‘abuse of discretion."‘ Richards v. United Mine Workers ofAm.
`
`Health & Retirement Fund, 895 F.2d 133, 135—36 (4th Cir. 1990). Violation of a
`
`legal rule is an abuse of decision. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (which mentions abuse of
`
`discretion and arbitrary and capricious in parallel) makes it illegal for an agency to
`
`render a decision that is arbitrary and capricious. Thus, an arbitrary and capricious
`
`decision is an abuse of discretion.
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`fact, that the TTAB has previously, under similar circumstances,
`granted or deferred ruling on motions for leave to amend filings
`without concurrent payment of the statutory cancellation fee.
`
`Fred Beverages at 967.
`
`In conclusion, the Petition was compliant with all statutory and regulatory
`
`requirements. Furthermore, the Board has accepted at least four other petitions
`
`using the exact same format as the present Petition. Thus, the Board’s decision to
`
`deny the Petition based on its format was per se an abuse of discretion.
`
`B. The Decision is not based on substantial evidence because the
`
`Petition establishes a substantial likelihood that the challenged
`
`claims are obvious in View of the cited art.
`
`The Decision asserts that the Petition is deficient because it fails to identify
`
`(a) the differences between Kery and the subject matter claimed, (b) how the
`
`construed claims are unpatentable, and (c) reasons to combine the three cited
`
`references. However, the Decision itself acknowledges that all of the alleged
`
`deficiencies are addressed in the Declaration. See Decision at 7 (“We recognize
`
`that the Kuchel Declaration (EX. 1011) provides additional information regarding
`
`each of these shortcomings”)
`
`First, the Decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the
`
`Petition does identify the differences between Kery and the subject matter of claim
`
`16. As an initial matter, neither KSR Int ’1 Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 US. 398 (2007)
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`nor Graham v. John Deere C0,, 383 US. 1 (1966) require “explicit” identification
`
`of the differences between Kery and the subject matter of claim 16. Rather,
`
`“differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained.”
`
`Graham, 383 US. at 17. The Petition establishes these differences by identifying
`
`on an element by element basis the specific limitations disclosed by Kery including
`
`citations to the figures of Kery. See e. g. Petition at 12 (“Kery discloses a pump
`
`(compressor (92)).”) Where Kery does not include a particular limitation, the
`
`Petition describes the “automated system of Kery + Guthrie.” See e. g. Petition at
`
`14 (“The automated system of Kery+Guthrie would have pressure sensor tubing in
`
`combination with the electronic pressure sensor (170-5) of Guthrie to communicate
`
`Via the already existing manometer port with the interior of the distributor (88), as
`
`taught by Kery”) By identifying which limitations are found only in the
`
`combination of Kery and Guthrie (as opposed to Kery itself), the Petition
`
`establishes the differences between Kery and the subject matter of claim 16.
`
`The Declaration further illustrates these differences in the specific
`
`paragraphs cited in the Petition in accordance with the PTO’s Rules and
`
`Regulations. For example, paragraph 69 of the Declaration explicitly states that
`
`“Kery does not specifically disclose ‘a processorfor providing commands to the
`
`improved valve enclosure assembly during an inflate/deflate cycle’”. Paragraph 69
`
`then proceeds to identify where the limitation is found in Guthrie: at 12:57—13 :7
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`and FIG. 21. Paragraph 69 further cites Attachment A, which contains claim
`
`charts for each of the challenged claims citing the specific portions of each
`
`reference where a limitation is found. Accordingly, while differences between
`
`Kery and claim 16 can be ascertained from the Petition itself per Graham, the cited
`
`evidence (the Declaration) explicitly identifies these differences.
`
`Second, the Decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the
`
`Petition explains cogently how the construed claims are unpatentable as required
`
`by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The evidence cited in the Petition, in accordance
`
`with the PTO’s express Rules and Regulations, explains how the construed claims
`
`are unpatentable. Indeed, Petitioner describes on a limitation by limitation basis
`
`where each element is found in the prior art. See e.g. Petition at 12-15 relative to
`
`challenged claim 16. Although the Decision states that the Petition fails to identify
`
`which reference is relied upon as disclosing a processor, the Petition makes clear
`
`that the Guthrie reference is the reference disclosing the microprocessor. The
`
`Petition states that “the skilled person would find it obvious to automate Kery in
`
`view of Guthrie.” Petition at 12. The Petition also makes clear that Guthrie
`
`discloses a processor by explaining that “[t]he automated system of Kery+Guth1ie
`
`would replace the table valve assembly ofKery with the solenoid valve
`
`arrangement of Guthrie to automate the system of Kery.” Petition at 14. The
`
`Petition also cites to the Declaration at 1] 69 as evidence. Petition at 14. Paragraph
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`69 of the Declaration states that “the skilled person would find it obvious to
`
`automate the system of Kery with a microprocessor and electronic pressure
`
`sensors” and cites to Guthrie 12:57-13:7, FIG. 21, and the claim charts found in
`
`Attachment A. Paragraph 69 of the Declaration also refers to its Sections IX(B)—
`
`(C), which are part of the Expert’s explanation of obvious modifications to Kery.
`
`Indeed, Section IX(C) of the Declaration is completely dedicated to explaining
`
`why it would be obvious to update the system of Kery with a microprocessor, such
`
`as the microprocessor of Guthrie. Declaration W 61—62. For these reasons, the
`
`Petition explains “why the claims as construed are unpatentable under the
`
`identified grounds, and the exhibit numbers of the evidence relied upon with a
`
`citation to the portion of the evidence that is relied upon to support the challenge.”
`
`Federal Register 771157 at 48688.
`
`Third, the Decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the
`
`Petition does articulate a reason for combining Kery and Guthrie. Pages 11-12 of
`
`the Petition specifically explain that all of the claimed elements were well known
`
`to those skilled in the art. Whether a modification is obvious is a question of fact.
`
`Graham, 383 US at 17. Thus, Section IX of the Declaration is entirely dedicated
`
`to explaining “Obvious Modifications to the Air Mattress System of Kery” to
`
`establish as a matter of fact obvious modifications to Kery. This Section IX
`
`includes 13 pages of discussion establishing, as a matter of fact, several obvious
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`modifications to the system of Kery. Indeed, Section IX(C) is dedicated to
`
`establishing why it would be obvious, as a matter of fact, to update the system of
`
`Kery with a microprocessor (e. g., as per Guthrie). Section IX is included in the
`
`Petition by referring to specific portions of the Declaration. For instance,
`
`regarding the modification of Kery with a microprocessor (relative to claim 16),
`
`the Petition cites 11 69 and 112 of the Declaration as evidence. Petition at 14.
`
`Paragraph 69 of the Declaration, in turn, refers back to Sections IX(B)—(C) of the
`
`Declaration, which provide detailed arguments as to why it is obvious to update the
`
`system of Kery with the microprocessor of Guthrie. For these reasons, the Petition
`
`does adequately articulate a reason for combining the three cited references, and in
`
`compliance with all statutes and regulations.
`
`For these reasons, each of the deficiencies identified by the Board is
`
`described in the Petition in accordance with the requirements of Section 42.104(b).
`
`Accordingly, the Decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is an abuse
`
`of discretion.
`
`III. The Board should reconsider its denial of the Petition on grounds of
`
`formatting because had the Decision been issued only eleven days earlier, the
`
`Petitioner could have cured the stated deficiencies.
`
`As noted in the Petition, Petitioner was served with a complaint for patent
`
`infringement relative to the ‘ 172 patent on February 7, 2014. On September 4,
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`2014, the Board accorded the Petition an August 29, 2014 filing date. Presumably,
`
`at this time, the Board’s paralegal(s) reviewed the Petition to determine
`
`compliance with formal requirements. (“Once a petition is submitted via PRPS, a
`
`Board paralegal will review the petition for statutory and regulatory compliance”;
`
`PTO website: http://www.uspto.gov/patents—applioation-process/appealing-patent—
`
`decisions/Ilials/patent-review-processing-system-prps—O). The Patent Owner filed
`
`a response on December 4, 2014. The one-year deadline for Petitioner to file
`
`another (or updated) petition against the ‘172 patent was February 7, 2015. The
`
`Board, thus, had more than two months from December 4, 2014, to notify
`
`Petitioner that its Petition was allegedly defective on formal grounds. Instead, the
`
`Board issued its Decision on February 17, 2015 — nine days after the statutory
`
`deadline.
`
`By waiting until after February 7, 2015, to issue its Decision, the Board has
`
`denied the Petitioner any ability to cure and precluded the Petitioner from filing a
`
`reformatted inter partes review petition against the ‘ 172 patent. Petitioner easily
`
`could have reformatted its Petition to comply with the Board’s requests. Indeed,
`
`the circumstance of this case are completely different than those of Cisco Systems,
`
`Inc., v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, slip op. at 9—10 (PTAB Aug.
`
`29, 2014) cited by the Board, where the petition was the maximum length of 60
`
`pages, cited eleven references, proposed 20 different grounds of rejection, and
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`included numerous footnotes to achieve the 60 page limit. (Notably, the Cisco
`
`decision was issued the same day the instant petition was filed, so Petitioner was
`
`not aware of Cisco at the time of filing.) In Cisco, the Board found the purpose of
`
`the petition’s format was “to circumvent the page limits imposed on petitions for
`
`inter partes review”. Cisco at 10. Here, the instant Petition was only 39 pages,
`
`which is 21 pages under the 60 page limit. Moreover, the instant Petition only
`
`cites three prior art references and could easily have been reformatted had
`
`Petitioner been advised early on it would be rejected on formal grounds. Under
`
`these circumstances, the Board should grant this Request for Reconsideration.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`As shown above, the Board’s rejection of the Petition based on its format
`
`was an abuse of discretion. The Petition was legally compliant and explains how
`
`the challenged claims of the ‘ 172 patent are obvious in view of the three cited prior
`
`art references. Notwithstanding, had the Board issued its Decision eleven days
`
`earlier, Petitioner could have cured the stated defects. It is therefore requested that
`
`the Board reconsider the Petition, and issue a decision on the merits of the Petition.
`
`Date: March 5 2015
`
`
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`(14%;?)\ :5
`
`HeathJ. Briggs(briggshshfiQ-g—tl—aw.com)
`Registration No. 54,919
`1200 17th Street, Suite 2400
`Denver, CO 80202
`
`BOS 47621793v1
`
`Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01419
`
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 5th day of March, 2015, a copy of this Request
`
`for Reconsideration has been electronically served in its entirety by email to each
`
`of the following e-mail addresses:
`
`bwriglengoppenheimercom; and
`
`ipdocket@oppenheimer.com.
`
`Date: March 5 2015
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`
`\f
`
`Heath J. Briggs
`Registration No. 54,919
`1200 17th Street, Suite 2400
`Denver, CO 80202
`Phone: (303) 572-6500
`Fax: (303) 572-6540
`
`
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
