throbber
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`E-Watch, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00411
`Patent 7,365,871
`_____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(A) ..................................................................................................... 6
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘871 PATENT ........................................................... 6
`IV.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(B) ..................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims For Which Inter Partes
`Review Is Requested ............................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art And Specific Grounds
`On Which The Challenge To The Claims Is Based ............................. 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction .................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How The Construed Claims Are
`Unpatentable ......................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence .................................. 9
`E.
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ‘871 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ..................... 9
`A.
`Claims 1-15 Are Anticipated By WO 1999/035818 ............................ 9
`1.
`The Effective Filing Date For The ‘871 Patent Is January
`3, 2003 ...................................................................................... 10
`‘073 Prosecution History ......................................................... 11
`The Public Record Demonstrates Deliberate
`Abandonment of the ‘073 Application. ................................... 14
`No Record Evidence of “Unintentional” Delay ....................... 17
`The PTO “Assumed” Unintentional Delay -- It Did Not
`Decide The Merits Of The Issue. ............................................. 19
`The Effective Filing Date Of The ‘871 Patent Is January
`3, 2003. ..................................................................................... 20
`The ‘818 Publication Has The Same Disclosure As The ‘871
`Patent, Rendering Claims 1-15 Of The ‘871 Patent Anticipated ....... 21
`1.
`Independent claim 1 is disclosed by the ‘818 publication ....... 22
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`Independent claim 6 is disclosed by the ‘818 publication ....... 29
`Independent claim 9 is disclosed by the ‘818 publication ....... 34
`Independent claim 12 is disclosed by the ‘818 publication ..... 41
`Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-15 are
`disclosed by the ‘818 publication ............................................ 44
`Summary -- Claims 1-15 Of The ‘871 Patent Are Invalid As
`Anticipated By The ‘818 publication ................................................. 48
`D. Different Bases of Unpatentability in Petitioner’s Three
`Petitions Regarding the ‘871 Patent are Independent, Distinct
`and not Redundant .............................................................................. 49
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........ 51
`A.
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(a): Real Party-In-Interest ........................................ 51
`B.
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ................................................. 51
`C.
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and
`Service Information ............................................................................ 52
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 52
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`E-Watch, Inc. and E-Watch Corporation v. Apple Inc.,
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Civil Action
`No. 2:13-CV-1061 .............................................................................................. 51
`
`In re Am. Acad. Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir., 2004) ........................................................................... 7
`
`In re Application G,
`11 USPQ2d 1378 (Comm’r, 1989) ..................................................................... 15
`
`In re Maldague,
`10 USPQ2d 1477 (Comm’r 1988) ...................................................................... 15
`
`Lawman Armor Corp. v. Simon,
`2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10843 (E.D. Mich., March 29, 2005) .............................. 14
`
`Lumenyte Int’l Corp. v. Cable Lite Corp.,
`Nos. 96-1011, 96-1077, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 16400, 1996 WL
`383927 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 1996)(unpublished) .................................................... 14
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(b) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................... 7, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 5, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 .................................................................................................. 10, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 133 ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`35 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................. 50
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ......................................................................................................... 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b) .........................................................................................passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.137(c) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.737(b) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 41.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 51
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................. 51
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................ 52
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`37 CFR 1.137(b) ...................................................................................................... 14
`
`37 CFR 11.18 ........................................................................................................... 14
`
`IPR2014-00439, Paper 16, pp. 5-8 ............................................................................. 5
`
`MPEP 711.03(c)(II)(C) ............................................................................................ 13
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`
`MPEP 711.03(c)(II)(C)(1) ....................................................................................... 15
`
`MPEP § 2111 ............................................................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,365,871 (“the ‘871 patent”)
`WO 1999/035818 (“the ‘818 publication”)
`File History for Application Serial No. 09/006,073
`File History for Application Serial No. 09/780,381
`Declaration of Steven Sasson (“Sasson Dec.”)
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`I.
`
`The ‘871 patent (Ex. 1001) is currently being asserted against Apple by its
`
`alleged assignee, e-Watch, Inc. (“e-Watch”), in a patent infringement lawsuit (See
`
`also, e-Watch, Inc. v. Apple Inc. 2:13-cv-1061 (E.D. Tx.)) to recover alleged
`
`damages for camera cell phones -- products well known in the art before the filing
`
`date of the ‘871 patent. E-Watch has filed separate related lawsuits concerning the
`
`same patent against a variety of manufacturers of camera cell phones including,
`
`Kyocera, Samsung, HTC Corp., LG Electronics, ZTE Corp., Sony, Sharp, Nokia,
`
`Huawei Technologies, Inc. and Blackberry Limited. See also, Case Nos. 2:13-cv-
`
`1062-1064, 1069-1078.
`
`The ‘871 patent is allegedly related to a family of patent applications filed
`
`by Mr. Monroe. The relevant portion of the family includes at least:
`
` U.S. Application No. 09/006,073 (“the ‘073 application” -
`
`abandoned), filed January 12, 1998;
`
` PCT/US99/00664 (published in 1999 as WO1999/035818 (“the ‘818
`
`publication”)), claimed benefit of the ’073 application;
`
` U.S. Application No. 09/790,381 (“the ‘381 application” -
`
`abandoned), claimed priority as a divisional to the ’073 application;
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
` U.S. Application No. 10/366,470 (“the ‘470 application”) issued as
`
`the ‘871 patent and improperly claimed priority as a divisional to the
`
`’073 application.
`
`This is illustrated in Figure A below.
`
`
`
`FIGURE A
`
`The sole basis for the ‘871 patent priority claim to the ‘073 application is an
`
`improper petition for revival under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b) of the deliberately
`
`abandoned ‘073 application. The deliberate, i.e., intentional abandonment, is
`
`shown through the public record1 of the ’073, ’381, and ’470 applications for two
`
`
`1 The public record is clarified and amplified by deposition testimony of the
`
`prosecuting attorneys, Mr. Robert Curfiss and Mr. Richard Ruble, which was
`
`obtained pursuant to subpoena in the matter of e-Watch et al. v. Apple, 2:13-cv-
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`
`reasons. First, it was not until 22 months after the ’073 application abandonment
`
`and after a mistake was made by the prosecuting attorneys in the ’381 child
`
`application, which caused them to lose its filing date and priority claim, did the
`
`abandonment of the ’073 parent application suddenly become “unintentional.”
`
`Second, there is absolutely no evidence that shows the prosecuting attorneys
`
`performed the required due diligence needed to claim unintentional abandonment
`
`of the ’073 application in the §137 petition – rather only evidence to the contrary
`
`exists.
`
`
`(continued…)
`
`
`1061 (E.D. Tex. 2013). However, that testimony is currently marked confidential,
`
`and counsel for e-Watch has refused to provide consent for Petitioner to use the
`
`deposition transcripts for Mr. Curfiss and Mr. Ruble in the instant Petition. In
`
`particular, counsel for Petitioner requested e-Watch’s consent in an e-mail dated
`
`November 5, 2014 to file redacted transcripts of the Curfiss and Ruble depositions
`
`under seal in connection with the instant Petition. Counsel for e-Watch replied on
`
`November 14, 2014 that e-Watch would not consent and that the applicable
`
`protective order precluded such use. Counsel for Petitioner replied on November
`
`17, 2014, explaining that the protective order would, in fact, permit such use with
`
`e-Watch’s consent. Counsel for e-Watch then replied on November 18, 2014 that
`
`e-Watch would not consent.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`The basic timeline of events in the prosecution is as follows:
`
`1. On February 21, 2001, the Patent Owner filed a three-month extension
`
`of time in the ‘073 application, but without a substantive reply to the
`
`final Office action of August 29, 2000.
`
`2. On February 21, 2001, the Patent Owner also filed the ‘381 divisional
`
`application in lieu of continuing prosecution of the ‘073 application.
`
`3. The Patent Owner was informed, based on a filing error, the ‘381
`
`divisional application would receive a filing date of April 11, 2002, so
`
`that it no longer was co-pending with the ‘073 application and could
`
`not claim priority. The ‘381 application went abandoned for failure to
`
`file a response to the October 3, 2002 Office action.
`
`4. On January 3, 2003, “coincidentally” the three-month due date for the
`
`Office action in the ‘381 application, the Patent Owner filed the §137
`
`Petition to revive the ‘073 application 22-months after it was
`
`abandoned so that the concurrently filed ‘470 application could claim
`
`priority to the ‘073 application the Patent Owner claimed was
`
`“unintentionally” abandoned.
`
`Based on these facts, the abandonment of the ’073 application should have
`
`been ruled intentional by the USPTO, and the ’073 application should have
`
`remained abandoned. If abandoned, the ’073 application and ’470 application
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`
`could never be co-pending, such that the ’470 application could not have properly
`
`claimed priority to the ’073 application. As such, the ‘871 patent is not entitled to
`
`the 1998 effective filing date of the ‘073 application and, if anything, can claim no
`
`more than its date of filing, i.e., January 3, 2003.
`
`Finally, as shown in Figure A above and most important to the invalidity of
`
`the ‘871 patent claims, the ’664 PCT application was filed claiming priority back
`
`to the ‘073 Application. The ’664 PCT application published in 1999 as
`
`WO1999/035818 (“the ‘818 publication”). The ‘818 publication has a substantially
`
`identical specification as the ‘871 patent, i.e., it includes all the limitations of the
`
`claims 1-15. Because the ‘818 application was published more than one year prior
`
`(i.e., 1999) to the earliest effective filing date of the ‘871 patent (i.e., 2003), and
`
`disclosed all the claimed subject matter of the ‘871 patent, all the claims of the
`
`‘871 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) either explicitly or inherently.
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board has the authority to evaluate
`
`evidence and render decisions on factual and legal issues involving priority claims
`
`and the status of a reference as prior art in instituting the instant Petition. See, e.g.,
`
`IPR2014-00439, Paper 16, pp. 5-8 (where the Board rendered a decision on the
`
`insufficiency of an inventor affidavit as to diligence in reduction to practice during
`
`prosecution (which impacted the alleged invention date) and made an associated
`
`determination as to the availability of a reference as prior art).
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner Apple certifies that the ‘871 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘871 PATENT
`The ‘871 patent contains approximately 14 columns of specification in
`
`which figures 1-9 are described and in which various embodiments are described
`
`that provide:
`
`“an image capture, compression and transmission system that is
`specifically designed to permit reliable visual image transmission over
`land line or wireless communications using commercially available
`techniques. Embodiments
`incorporate a
`facsimile
`transmission
`camera and signal converter into an integrated unit wherein the
`converted signal may be transmitted on a real time basis or may be
`stored in memory for later recall and transmission.” Ex. 1001, 1:25-
`32.2
`
`As issued, the ‘871 patent has 15 claims.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims For Which Inter Partes Review Is
`Requested
`Inter partes review is requested for claims 1-15 of the ‘871 patent.
`
`
`2 In this Petition, all emphasis is added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art And Specific Grounds On
`Which The Challenge To The Claims Is Based
`
`Inter partes review is requested in view of the following prior art reference:
`
` WO 1999/035818 (Ex. 1002, “the ‘818 publication”).
`
`The specific statutory grounds under which 35 U.S.C. § 102 on which the
`
`challenge to the claims are based and the references relied upon for each ground
`
`are as follows:
`
`
`
`Claims 1-15 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by WO
`
`1999/035818.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`C.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.100(b), solely for the purposes of this review,
`
`Petitioner construes the claim language such that the claims are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure of the ‘871 patent.
`
`Petitioner submits that, for the purposes of this review, each claim should be
`
`construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, which for the avoidance of doubt for one term is
`
`presented below. Because the standard for claim construction at the Patent Office
`
`is different than that used during a litigation in a United States District Court (See
`
`also, In re Am. Acad. Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir., 2004);
`
`MPEP § 2111, Petitioner expressly reserves the right to assert a different claim
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`
`construction in litigation for any term of the ‘871 patent as appropriate in any such
`
`proceeding.)
`
`Framing an image: This term appears in different variations: “an image
`
`framed by the camera” (claim 1); “framing [the/an] image to be captured” (claims
`
`2 and 12); “visually framing a visual image to be captured” (claim 6); “framing the
`
`visual image” (claim 7). The ‘871 patent does not explicitly describe these terms in
`
`the context of the claimed language. The specification provides the following
`
`references that describe a frame: “an image capture and transmission system
`
`captures either one or more single frame analog images or digital images or image
`
`data or visual data or visual images….” Ex.1001, ‘871 patent, 4:58-61. “The
`
`display unit 96 … provides … a visual read-out of the status of the collection and
`
`transmission of a selected frame.” Id. at 8:39-42. “[T]he processor accesses the
`
`RAM and manipulates the data representing each frame image.… [T]he processor
`
`executes a code for performing a bi-level compression of the data and the signal
`
`representing the frame data is output….” Id. at 10:9-19.
`
`Based on the above, the proposed BRI construction for this term is
`
`“obtaining data representing an image as shown on a display.”
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How The Construed Claims Are
`Unpatentable
`
`A detailed explanation of how claims 1-15 are unpatentable, including the
`
`identification of how each claim element is found in the prior art, is set forth below
`
`at Section V.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`E.
`An Appendix of Exhibits supporting this petition is attached. Included at Ex.
`
`1005 is a Declaration of Steven Sasson (“Sasson Decl.”), an expert with over 35
`
`years of experience in this technology space, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 further
`
`supporting the petition. In addition, the relevance of the evidence to the challenged
`
`claims, including an identification of the specific portions of the evidence
`
`supporting the challenge, is included in Section V.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ‘871 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`A. Claims 1-15 Are Anticipated By WO 1999/035818
`Claims 1-15 are anticipated, either explicitly or inherently, under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 by the disclosure of the ‘818 publication. See, Ex. 1002. The ‘818
`
`publication was published on July 15, 1999 -- more than one year prior to the
`
`earliest effective filing date for the ‘871 patent, January 3, 2003. The ‘818
`
`publication also has substantially the same disclosure as the ‘871 patent. Ex. 1005,
`
`Sasson Decl., ¶ 19. The ‘818 publication anticipates all the claims (1-15) of the
`
`‘871 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) either explicitly or inherently.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`1.
`
`The Effective Filing Date For The ‘871 Patent Is January 3,
`2003
`The earliest effective date for the ‘871 patent is January 3, 20033 because the
`
`claim for priority in the ‘470 application (which matured into the ‘871 patent),
`
`back to the filing date of the ‘073 application (January 12, 1998), is defective. The
`
`basis for the priority claim in the ‘470 application is co-pendency with the ‘073
`
`application.4 However, because the ‘073 application was purposefully abandoned
`
`on March 1, 2001 -- twenty-two (22) months prior to the January 3, 2003 filing
`
`date for the ‘470 application –the ‘073 application should not have been revived as
`
`“unintentionally” abandoned to provide co-pendency with the ‘470 application.
`
`Since there was no proper basis for co-pendency between the ‘073 and ‘470
`
`applications, the ‘470 application is not entitled to the benefit of the January 12,
`
`1998 priority date of the ‘073 application. The legally correct effective date for the
`
`‘470 application is January 3, 2003.
`
`
`3 The ‘470 application was filed January 3, 2003.
`
`4 Under 35 U.S.C. § 120, “An application for patent for an invention
`
`disclosed… in an application previously filed in the United States… shall have the
`
`same effect… as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the
`
`patenting or abandonment of… the first application…” This temporal overlap of
`
`two applications pending before the PTO is referred herein as co-pendency.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`‘073 Prosecution History
`
`2.
`The prosecution history of the ‘073 application begins with its initial filing
`
`on January 12, 1998. The initial application contained 266 claims. Ex. 1003, p. EW
`
`005 (“Patent Application Transmittal Letter”). On December 7, 1999, the PTO
`
`mailed an office action requiring a restriction to one of nine groups of claims. Id.,
`
`p. EW 299-302. The Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-28, 181 and 190). Id., p.
`
`EW 304. Those claims were rejected. Id., pp. EW 307-317. After an amendment in
`
`which claims 5-8, 181 and 190 were canceled (Id. at EW 524-527), all of the then
`
`pending claims were subject to a final office action mailed August 29, 2000. Id., p.
`
`EW 529-530.
`
`From August 29, 2000, the six (6) month statutory period for response to the
`
`final office action would have ended Wednesday, February 28, 2001.5 On February
`
`21, 2001 -- one week prior to running of the statutory bar -- the applicant filed a
`
`three month extension of time (“EOT”). Ex. 1003, p. EW 593. That EOT was not
`
`accompanied by any amendment or other substantive response. On April 10, 2001,
`
`the PTO mailed a notice of abandonment (“NOA”) of the ‘073 application to the
`
`
`5 See, 35 U.S.C. § 133; “Upon failure of the applicant to prosecute the
`
`application within six months after any action therein,… the application shall be
`
`regarded as abandoned by the parties thereto.”
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`
`Applicant. Id., p. EW 595. The NOA recited the fact that the Applicant failed “to
`
`timely file a proper reply to the Office letter mailed on 29 August 2000.” Id.
`
`On the same day that the EOT in the ‘073 application was filed -- February
`
`21, 2001 -- a separate application serial number 09/790,381 (“the ‘381
`
`application”), was filed at the PTO. Ex. 1004 (“Utility Patent Application
`
`Transmittal,” see, barcoded date stamp). This application claimed priority as a
`
`divisional of the ‘073 application. Id. This application included 42 claims, which
`
`were an exact copy of the unelected Group III claims of the ‘073 application. Id.
`
`Notwithstanding its February 21, 2001 date stamp, the ‘381 application was
`
`not complete as filed. See, Ex. 1004, Notice of Incomplete Nonprovisional
`
`Application, mailed January 28, 2002. On March 26, 2002, the Applicant provided
`
`the missing parts of the incomplete application. Ex. 1004, Response to Notice of
`
`Incomplete Nonprovisional Application, filed March 26, 2002. Thereafter, the PTO
`
`recorded the filing date of the ‘381 application as April 11, 2002. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1004, Office Action mailed October 3, 2003. However, because the ‘381
`
`application received a filing date of April 11, 2002, it was not co-pending with the
`
`‘073 application. Under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the claim for priority in the ‘381
`
`application back to ‘073 application filing date of January 12, 1993 became
`
`ineffective. The Applicant subsequently permitted the ‘381 application to go
`
`abandoned.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`After the PTO determined that the ‘381 application had a filing date of
`
`April 11, 2002, and was not co-pending with the ‘073 application, Applicant
`
`improperly returned to prosecuting the previously deliberately and intentionally
`
`abandoned ‘073 application. On January 3, 2003, Applicant filed a petition to
`
`revive the ‘073 application based on unintentional abandonment under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.137(b). Ex. 1002, p. EW 598-599.6 This petition contains the form statement
`
`that “The entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the required
`
`reply until the filing of the grantable petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b) was
`
`unintentional.” Id., EW 599, ¶ 4. This statement was signed by Richard Ruble
`
`(Reg. No. 45,720). Id.
`
`The PTO subsequently granted the petition. Ex. 1002, p. EW 603. However,
`
`in so doing, the PTO explained: “It is not apparent whether the person signing the
`
`statement of unintentional delay was in a position to have firsthand or direct
`
`knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the delay at issue.” Id. The PTO
`
`assumed that both a proper inquiry had been made and that the proper standard had
`
`been met.7 The record evidence now shows that both assumptions were incorrect.
`
`6 This petition was accompanied by a continuing application as required by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.137(c). That application was assigned Serial No. 10/336,470 -- the
`
`‘470 application eventually matured into the ‘871 patent.
`
`7 See MPEP 711.03(c)(II)(C):
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`3.
`
`The Public Record Demonstrates Deliberate Abandonment
`of the ‘073 Application.
`
`The law is clear that “the failure of a patent applicant, acting through his or
`
`her representative, to file a required response to a patent office action is a
`
`deliberate decision to allow an application to become abandoned, and is not
`
`subject to revival under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b).” Lawman Armor Corp. v. Simon,
`
`2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10843, *15 (E.D. Mich., March 29, 2005). A “change in
`
`circumstances that occurred subsequent to the abandonment of an application does
`
`not render ‘unintentional’ the delay resulting from a previous deliberate decision to
`
`permit an application to be abandoned. These matters simply confuse the question
`
`of whether there was a deliberate decision not to continue the prosecution of an
`
`(continued…)
`
`
`
`[T]he Office relies upon the applicant’s duty of candor and
`good faith…without requiring further information in the vast majority
`of petitions…because the applicant is obligated under 37 CFR 11.18
`to inquire into the underlying facts and circumstances when a
`practitioner provides this statement to the Office…[P]roviding an
`inappropriate statement in a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(b)…may
`have an adverse effect when attempting to enforce any patent resulting
`from the application. See Lumenyte Int’l Corp. v. Cable Lite Corp.,
`Nos. 96-1011, 96-1077, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 16400, 1996 WL
`383927
`(Fed. Cir.
`July 9, 1996)(unpublished)(patents held
`unenforceable due to a finding of inequitable conduct in submitting an
`inappropriate statement that the abandonment was unintentional).
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`
`application with why there was a deliberate decision not to continue the
`
`prosecution of an application.” MPEP 711.03(c)(II)(C)(1). “An intentional act is
`
`not rendered unintentional when an applicant reviewing the same facts changes his
`
`mind as to the appropriate course of action to pursue.” In re Maldague, 10
`
`USPQ2d 1477 (Comm’r 1988). See also, In re Application G, 11 USPQ2d 1378
`
`(Comm’r, 1989) (where applicant deliberately chooses not to file a response to an
`
`office action, that course of conduct cannot amount to unintentional abandonment
`
`under § 1.137(b)).
`
`There is no dispute concerning the public record facts. They show that the
`
`‘073 application was subject to a final office action rejection mailed August 29,
`
`2000, nor that a three (3) month EOT was filed on February 21, 2001. That 3
`
`month EOT was not accompanied by a proper response to the final office action.
`
`On that same day -- February 21, 2001 -- the ‘381 application (claiming priority
`
`back to the ‘073 application and copying claims therefrom) was filed. Thereafter, a
`
`PTO notice of abandonment of the ‘073 application was mailed on April 10, 2001.
`
`No further action was taken in the ‘073 application until the ’381 application
`
`failed, and the petition to revive was filed on January 3, 2003.
`
`The Petitioner submits that the deposition testimony in related litigation of
`
`Mr. Robert Curfiss, an attorney of record for the ‘073 application according to
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,871
`
`
`USPTO records,8 is consistent with these deliberate acts regarding abandonment of
`
`the parent ‘073 application and use of the divisional ’381 application to continue
`
`prosecution described above, and it is the intention of the Petitioner to make the
`
`corresponding transcript of Mr. Curfiss’s testimony (which has been designated as
`
`confidential by eWatch’s counsel) available for the Board’s consideration through
`
`discovery in the trial before the PTAB associated with this petition.9 Mr. Curfiss
`
`was a well seasoned attorney, having been registered since 1973 (Registration No.
`
`26540) according to USPTO records. He no doubt knew the consequences of
`
`failing to substantively respond to an office action for a (parent) patent application
`
`and how to preserve a client’s rights in the associated invention by filing a
`
`continuation or divisional patent application during pendency of the parent
`
`application.
`
`8 Mr. Curfiss signed the Submission of Missing Parts dated July 8, 1998, for
`
`the ‘073 application, which forwarded the Declaration of Patent Application of the
`
`inventor and which li

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket