UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00229
`Patent 7,667,692
` ____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00229
`Patent 7,667,692
` ____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board consider the record, rather than
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S. Patent No. 7,667,692
`
`
`I.
`
`Patent Owner’s (“PO”) characterizations of the record, in determining patentability of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,667,692 (“the ‘692 Patent”). PO’s observations are misleading,
`
`because the observations either mischaracterize the record, or include assertions that
`
`are not supported by the record.
`
`II. RESPONSES TO OBSERVATIONS
`1.
`The testimony cited in this observation does not support PO’s assertion
`
`that Dr. Welch’s opinion is based upon a misunderstanding. See Ex. 2022, Welch Dec.
`
`17 Tr. at 6:10-10:25; Ex. 1041, Welch Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 2-10. To the contrary, the
`
`record shows, and Dr. Welch explained, that statements in Dr. Welch’s supplemental
`
`declaration are in direct response to specific opinions offered by Dr. MacLean. See id.
`
`Previously, Dr. MacLean opined that delineations must be defined at the application
`
`level, and therefore would change from application to application. See, e.g., Ex. 1040,
`
`MacLean Tr.at 137:5-13 (Liebenow is not sufficient because Dr. MacLean “just
`
`couldn’t find examples of where [Liebenow] ha[d] an application actually define
`
`where the delineations were.”) (emphasis added); Ex. 2003, MacLean Decl. at ¶ 66.
`
`Now, PO’s position is apparently that the delineations must be changeable from
`
`application to application, but do not actually have to change. This attempt to soften
`
`Dr. MacLean’s opinion is misplaced, and is different than PO’s position in its
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S. Patent No. 7,667,692
`
`Response. See id.; see also Paper 18, Response at 19 (citing MacLean as support for
`
`the proposition that in the ‘692 Patent “delineations themselves are defined, i.e.,
`
`drawn, at the application level.”). In any event, there is no more support in the ‘692
`
`Patent for the requirement that the delineations must be changeable than there is for
`
`the requirement that delineations must change. See, e.g., Ex. 1041, Welch Supp. Decl.
`
`at ¶¶ 2-10.
`
`2.
`
`The testimony cited in this observation does not support PO’s assertions.
`
`Dr. Welch testifies that the ‘692 Patent describes computational aspects broadly, and
`
`pointed to specific disclosure in the specification that supports his opinion. See Ex.
`
`2022, Welch Dec. 17 Tr. at 11:1-15:11; see also Ex. 1001, ‘692 Patent at 14:50-60.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The testimony cited in this observation does not support PO’s assertions.
`
`As Dr. Welch testified, just because the ‘692 Patent allowed that a game developer
`
`“could” set up configurations does not mean that the claims must be limited to
`
`application-defined delineations. See Ex. 2022, Welch Dec. 17 Tr. at 15:13-17:3; see
`
`also id. at 11:1-15:11; Ex. 1001, ‘692 Patent at 14:50-60.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The testimony cited in this observation does not support PO’s assertions,
`
`and PO mischaracterizes Dr. Welch’s testimony by omitting relevant testimony.
`
`Looking to the full testimony on this point, Dr. Welch explains that “the description of
`
`the invention is the entire patent. Everything from the claims down to the specification
`
`and the background is an important part of setting the context of, for example, the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S. Patent No. 7,667,692
`
`later sections….” Ex. 2022, Welch Dec. 17 Tr. at 24:5-19; see also generally id. at
`
`23:16-29:4. Dr. Welch also explains that a patent specification would be understood
`
`to be like a funnel, where the background sets the stage and context, and the detailed
`
`description provides specific examples. See id. at 28:11-29:4. PO’s assertion that
`
`paragraph [0002] is not part of Liebenow’s description of the invention is simply
`
`untrue, and no part of Dr. Welch’s testimony supports this faulty conclusion. See Ex.
`
`1003, Liebenow; see also Ex. 2022, Welch Dec. 17 Tr. at 23:16-29:4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Abran J. Kean/ _
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`Abran J. Kean, Reg. No. 58,540
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`P: (913) 777-5600
`F: (913) 777-5601
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`abran.kean@eriseip.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S. Patent No. 7,667,692
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on January 8, 2016 the
`foregoing Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation was served via
`electronic filing with the Board on the following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`Michael Mauriel, USPTO Reg. No. 44,226
`Sherman W. Kahn (pro hac vice)
`MAURIEL KAPOUYTIAN WOODS LLP
`15 West 26th Street, 7th Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: (212) 529-5131 Ex. 101
`Facsimile:
`(212) 529-5132
`E-mail:
`mmauriel@mkwllp.com
`
`
`skahn@mkwllp.com
`
`Robert J. Gilbertson (pro hac vice)
`Sybil L. Dunlop (pro hac vice)
`X. Kevin Zhao (pro hac vice)
`GREENE ESPEL PLLP
`222 South Ninth Street, Ste. 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 373-0830
`Facsimile:
`(612) 373-0929
`E-mail:
`bgilbertson@greeneespel.com
`
`
`sdunlop@greeneespel.com
`
`
`kzhao@greeneespel.com
`
`Dated: January 8, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Abran J. Kean/ _
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`Abran J. Kean, Reg. No. 58,540
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S. Patent No. 7,667,692
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
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
