UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`SERVICENOW, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00707
`Patent 7,925,981
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d))
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner ServiceNow, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully submits this petition
`
`for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) of the August 26, 2015 Decision
`
`declining to institute inter partes review (IPR). An abuse of discretion may be
`
`established “by showing that the court made a clear error of judgment in weighing
`
`relevant factors or exercised its discretion based upon an error of law or clearly
`
`erroneous factual findings.” Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361,
`
`1364 (Fed.Cir. 1997). As shown below, rehearing is appropriate because the
`
`Board misapprehended or overlooked significant facts set forth in the Petition,
`
`misapplied the law on public accessibility, made clearly erroneous factual findings,
`
`and abused its discretion by sustaining the patent owner’s evidentiary objections
`
`without any response from the Petitioner.
`THE PETITION SHOWED A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`I.
`COLLABORATE REFERENCES WERE PRIOR ART PRINTED PUBLICATIONS
`The Board found that the Petition did not adequately show that the
`
`Collaborate References (Exhibits 1004-1006) qualified as printed publications.
`
`The Board based this finding on several erroneous factual findings and
`
`misapplications of the law of public accessibility, which are addressed in detail
`
`below. In broad overview, however, rehearing is appropriate the Board misapplied
`
`the standard for determining public accessibility.
`
`Federal Circuit law is clear that a determination of public accessibility must
`
`be based on “all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the disclosure.” In re
`
`Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This is particularly important in the
`
`context of Internet-based publications, such as the Collaborate References, that
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`will never see the shelves of a traditional brick-and-mortar library. Evidence of
`
`publication in the Internet context often comes from databases that are reliable, but
`
`by no means perfect. The public dissemination of a document over the Internet is
`
`invariably established through triangulation of multiple pieces of circumstantial
`
`evidence that, taken together, paint a picture of how and when the document was
`
`publicly accessible.
`
`In the present case, the Board appeared to have employed an analysis in
`
`which each individual piece of evidence was considered and rejected separately,
`
`eschewing the holistic approach required by Federal Circuit law. For example, the
`
`Decision discounted the July 2001 date on the face of Exhibits 1004-1006. The
`
`Board stated that it was “not persuaded that the presence of a copyright notice,
`
`without more, is sufficient evidence of public accessibility as of a particular date.”
`
`(Decision at 17 (italics added).) But the Petition relied on much more than just the
`
`copyright notice to show public accessibility of Exhibits 1004-1006 prior to May
`
`2003. As explained below, the copyright notice and July 2001 date on Exhibits
`
`1004-1006 were corroborated by multiple other pieces of evidence, including the
`
`Internet Archive affidavit that showed that documents with the exact same title,
`
`version, and table of contents were available for download by August 29, 2001.
`
`The evidence set forth in the Petition, considered as a whole, was more than
`sufficient to meet the threshold showing under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).1 The Internet
`
`
`1 “A ‘reasonable likelihood’ requirement is a lower threshold than a ‘more likely
`than not’ requirement.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48702.
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Archive affidavit (Ex. 1014) attached various web pages including an August 29,
`
`2001 download page with links to download PDF versions of the Collaborate
`
`References, and instructions on how to download those PDF documents. (Ex.
`
`1014, at 004; Decision at 10.) The Internet Archive affidavit also attached table of
`
`contents web pages for each of the three Collaborate References. (See Ex. 1014 at
`
`007 (Introducing Collaborate), Ex. 1014, at 008-010 (Administering Collaborate),
`
`Ex. 1014, at 011 (Programming Collaborate).) As the Board recognized, all of the
`
`documents attached to the Internet Archive affidavit predated the May 14, 2003
`
`filing date of the ’981 patent. (Decision at 10-11.)
`
`The August 29, 2001 download page that was reproduced in the Decision
`
`showed URL download links for “Introducing BEA WebLogic Collaborate,”
`
`“Administering BEA WebLogic Collaborate,” and “Programming BEA WebLogic
`
`Collaborate Management Applications,” all documents relating to version “2.0” of
`
`BEA WebLogic Collaborate. (Decision at 13 (quoting Ex. 1014, at 004).) The
`
`Decision correctly linked these URLs to Exhibits 1004, 1005, and 1006,
`
`respectively. (Id.) The document titles and version number on the download page
`
`exactly matched the titles and version number on Exhibits 1004-1006. The
`
`Internet Archive affidavit also included table of contents pages for each of the
`
`three above-mentioned Collaborate References (Ex. 1014, at 007-011), and the
`
`headings for those tables of contents matched the headings in the table of contents
`
`for Exhibits 1004-1006. (Compare, e.g., Ex. 1014, at 007 with Ex. 1004 at 003-
`
`004.) Exhibits 1004-1006 also bore a “July 2001” date in at least two places (the
`
`cover and copyright page), and stated that they were available for download from
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`the same BEA e-docs web site that contains the download page. (See Petition at
`
`23-24; Ex. 1004, at 006 (“The WebLogic Collaborate product documentation is
`
`available on the BEA Systems, Inc. corporate Web site. From the BEA Home
`
`page, click Product Documentation or go directly to the Product Documentation
`
`page at http://e-docs.bea.com.”).)
`
`All of this evidence, considered together, provided more than a threshold
`
`showing that Exhibits 1004-1006 were available from the BEA e-docs web site
`
`more than one year before May 14, 2003. (Petition at 22-24.) The Board gave
`
`several reasons for its finding that individual pieces of evidence did not show
`
`public accessibility of Exhibits 1004-1006, but none was legally sufficient.
`THE BOARD MISSTATED THE DATE OF EXHIBIT 1014
`A.
`With respect to the table of contents page for Introducing Collaborate (Ex.
`
`1014, at 007), the Board erroneously stated that it was “archived by the Internet
`
`Archive on November 1, 2002,” less than one year prior to the filing date. The
`
`Board then concluded that the document “fails to qualify as a prior-art, printed
`
`publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as argued by Petitioner.” (Decision at 11.)
`
`The Board’s finding was clearly erroneous and based on an apparent
`
`misreading of the URL for that document. The URL showed the document having
`
`been archived on January 11 (01/11) not on November 1, 2002 as indicated by the
`
`Board. (See Decision at 11 (quoting Internet Archive URL in Ex. 1014,
`
`<https://web.archive.org/web/20020111212156>).) Accordingly, all of the web
`
`pages attached to the Internet Archive affidavit, including the one identified by the
`
`Board, predated the filing date of the ’981 patent by more than one year.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`It is unclear why the Board made an issue out of this alleged date
`
`discrepancy. Even if the Board had correctly determined that the Internet Archive
`
`date was November 1, 2002, that date would still before the May 14, 2003 filing
`
`date and thus properly prior art under at least § 102(a) (pre-AIA), and accordingly,
`
`available for an obviousness combination under § 103. In any event, to the extent
`
`the Board relied on its erroneous finding as to the archival date of the Introducing
`
`Collaborate table of contents, rehearing is appropriate.
`THE BOARD CLEARLY ERRED IN PLACING DISPOSITIVE WEIGHT ON
`B.
`THE ARCHIVING DATE OF EXHIBITS 1004-1006.
`The Board appears to have based its decision in part on speculation that
`
`Exhibits 1004-1006 were somehow different from the documents available for
`
`download through the August 29, 2001 BEA e-docs download page. (Decision at
`
`14.) This speculation was fueled in large part by the patent owner’s argument (to
`
`which the Petitioner had no opportunity to respond) that Exhibits 1004-1006 were
`
`captured by the Internet Archive on June 11, 2003 and November 26, 2004.
`
`(Decision at 15.) But as Judge Crumbley observed in his dissenting opinion, this
`
`does not convincingly establish that the documents were not publicly accessible
`
`before the filing date. (See IPR2015-00707, Paper 12 at 23 (Crumbley, J.,
`
`dissenting).)
`
`The archive dates for Exhibits 1004-1006 merely establish that the Internet
`
`Archive captured those documents between June 11, 2003 and November 26,
`
`2004. This does not mean that those documents were not available through the e-
`
`docs “download page” prior to that date. That a book in a library may not have
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`been checked out by anyone until 2004 does not mean that that book was not on
`
`the library shelves in 2001.
`
`It is undisputed that the August 29, 2001 e-docs download page contained
`
`URLs that were labeled with the exact same title and version number as Exhibits
`
`1004-1006. The Board’s decision correctly linked the URLs to those exhibits.
`
`(Decision at 13.) If those URLs did not link to Exhibits 1004-1006, then what did
`
`they link to? The only possible answers, both implausible, are that (a) the URLs
`
`were broken in August 2001, and BEA, a company with more than 11,000
`
`customers (Ex. 1013 at 002), did not bother to fix the links until after the May 14,
`
`2003 filing date, or that (b) the URLs on the download page somehow linked to
`
`unidentified PDF documents other than Exhibits 1004-1006. Both of these
`
`scenarios would be pure speculation for which there is no evidentiary support.
`
`Neither the Board nor the patent owner identified anything in Exhibits 1004-1006
`
`suggesting any additions or modifications after 2001. For example, there are no
`
`2002, 2003 or 2004 dates, or any other indicia that would suggest addition of any
`
`content after 2001.
`
`As noted above, the web pages attached to the Internet Archive affidavit had
`
`the same document title, same version number, and matching tables of contents, as
`
`Exhibits 1004-1006 – which all bore a July 2001 date. The Board also
`
`acknowledged that Exhibits 1004-1006 were, in fact, captured by the Internet
`
`Archive and linked to the same “e-docs.bea.com” website URLs referenced on the
`
`August 29, 2001 download page. (Decision at 14-15.) In short, the Board had no
`
`evidentiary basis to infer that Exhibits 1004-1006 were anything other than the
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`documents URL-linked in the e-docs download page captured by the Internet
`
`Archive on August 29, 2001.
`
`As the Internet Archive affidavit made clear, even images linked within
`
`captured web pages “may not have been archived on the same date as the HTML
`
`file.” (Ex. 1014, ¶ 5.) The Board’s decision erroneously elevated a technical quirk
`
`about the Internet Archive’s method of capturing linked-to files into affirmative
`
`evidence that Exhibits 1004-1006 were not publicly accessible until after May
`
`2003. Because the archival date did not undermine the Petitioner’s claim of public
`
`accessibility, rehearing is warranted.
`THE BOARD’S RELIANCE ON THE “RESTRICTED RIGHTS LEGEND”
`C.
`WAS ERRONEOUS.
`The Board also relied on the “Restricted Rights Legend” appearing on the
`
`copyright page of Exhibits 1004-1006. (Decision at 16.) To the extent the Board
`
`used the “Restricted Rights Legend” to support its finding of a lack of public
`
`accessibility, it clearly erred. The “Restricted Rights Legend” is similar to the
`
`boilerplate copyright notice language, found in millions of publications, informing
`
`the reader that the documents may only be reproduced or used in a manner
`
`authorized by the publisher. An even more restrictive legend appears on J.K.
`
`Rowling’s best seller, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (1997), which states
`
`that “[n]o part of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, or stored
`
`in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any means electronic, mechanical,
`
`photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the
`
`publisher.” (Appendix A.) A similarly restrictive legend appears on the Webster’s
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`dictionary, and on the user manual for the popular Adobe Photoshop photo editing
`
`software package. (Id.)
`
`Like
`
`the copyright
`
`legends found
`
`in countless
`
`indisputably public
`
`documents, the Restricted Rights Legend simply notifies the reader that the
`
`publisher reserves its exclusive rights under copyright law. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 106,
`
`401(a). As the Board correctly noted, in fact, the Copyright Act specifically
`
`provides for copyright notices to be placed on “publicly distributed copies from
`
`which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a
`
`machine or device.” 17 U.S.C. § 401(a) (quoted in Decision, at 17 n.5) (italics
`
`added). The “Restricted Rights Legend” has little or no bearing on the public
`
`availability of Exhibits 1004-1006, and thus provided no support for a finding that
`
`those documents were not publicly accessible.
`
`Critically, nothing in the “Restricted Rights Legend” suggests that the
`
`Collaborate References were trade secret, confidential or otherwise unavailable to
`
`the public. Any such suggestion is refuted by the Collaborate References
`
`themselves, which expressly state that they could be downloaded from BEA’s e-
`docs web site.2 (Petition at 23-24.) The Board thus clearly erred in giving weight
`to boilerplate language in the “Restricted Rights Legend.” See Merial Ltd. v.
`
`Virbac, IPR2014-01279, Paper 18 (PTAB April 15, 2015) at 8 (“In our view, when
`
`
`2 Moreover, the fact that the Collaborate References were archived from BEA’s
`own e-docs website by the Internet Archive in the first place refutes any suggestion
`
`that they were unavailable to the public.
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`we recognize that we have misapprehended or overlooked a significant fact, the
`
`necessary abuse of discretion required by Rule 42.71(c) has been established.”).
`II. THE BOARD VIOLATED THE PETITIONER’S RIGHTS BY SUSTAINING
`EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS WITH NO RESPONSE FROM THE PETITIONER
`Rehearing should also be granted because the Board sustained evidentiary
`
`objections raised by the patent owner in its Preliminary Response, without
`
`affording any opportunity for response or comment by the Petitioner. For
`
`example, the Board ruled that the July 2001 date on Exhibits 1004-1006, and the
`
`statements in those exhibits that they are available for download from the BEA e-
`
`docs website, were hearsay and that the Petitioner “has not established that any
`
`hearsay exception or exclusion applies.” (Decision at 16.) The Board appears to
`
`have used these evidentiary exclusions – including the exclusion of the copyright
`
`date on Exhibits 1004-1006 – to find that the Petition’s showing of public
`
`accessibility was substantively deficient. (Id. at 16-17.)
`
`The Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board abused its discretion in
`
`sustaining evidentiary objections at the institution phase, without comment or
`
`response from the Petitioner. As Judge Crumbley noted in his dissenting opinion,
`
`the rules governing IPR allow introduction of supplemental evidence to confirm
`
`public accessibility or to address evidentiary objections specifically raised by the
`
`patent owner. (See IPR2015-00707, Paper 12 at 23-25 (Crumbley, J., dissenting).)
`
`Judge Crumbley correctly observed that “Patent Owner has asserted in its
`
`Preliminary Response that the dates are inadmissible hearsay; Petitioner has not
`
`had the opportunity to respond to these challenges and explain, for instance,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`whether a hearsay exception applies.” (Id. at 25.)
`
`Judge Crumbley’s observations are consistent with trial practice in federal
`
`courts. When a party objects to the introduction evidence, the party offering the
`
`evidence is permitted to explain why the evidence is admissible. And if there is no
`
`objection, of course, the evidence is admissible even if it qualifies as hearsay. See
`
`Diaz v. United States, 233 U.S. 422, 450 (1912) (“So, of the fact that it was
`
`hearsay, it suffices to observe that when evidence of that character is admitted
`
`without objection, it is to be considered and given its natural probative effect as if
`
`it were in law admissible.”); United States v. Speqtrum, Inc., 47 F.Supp.3d 81, 89
`
`(D.D.C. 2014) (“Unobjected to hearsay is admissible and of probative value in the
`
`district courts.”) (quoting NLRB v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 413 F.2d 705,
`
`707 (9th Cir. 1969)). Federal trial practice does not require a party to preemptively
`
`submit evidence to counter a hearsay objection that its opponent may, or may not,
`
`make.
`
`In fact, the similarities between federal trial practice and Patent Office trial
`
`practice, including providing an opportunity to cure the basis of an objection, are
`
`expressly acknowledged in the PTO’s published Rules of Practice:
`
`Section 42.64 provides procedures for challenging the admissibility of
`evidence. In a district court trial, an opponent may object to evidence,
`and the proponent may have an opportunity to cure the basis of the
`objection. The rule offers a similar, albeit limited, process for
`objecting and curing in a trial at the Board. . . . The Board will not
`ordinarily address an objection, unless the objecting party filed a
`motion to exclude under § 42.64(c), because the objection might have
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`been cured or might prove unimportant in light of subsequent
`developments.
`77 Fed. Reg. 48624 (emphasis added).
`
`The Board noted in its ending footnote that the Petition “presents
`
`Petitioner’s case in chief.” (Decision at 20 n.6.) But there is a difference between
`
`the substantive weight of the evidence presented in the Petition, and the
`
`admissibility of that evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. As Judge
`
`Crumbley suggested, the Board should have separated evidentiary issues from the
`
`substantive issue of public accessibility, and considered issues of evidentiary
`
`admissibility only after and in the event of institution, as contemplated by § 42.64.
`
`The Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board abused its discretion by failing
`
`to do so.
`
`For example, the Board stated that it was “speculative” that the Petitioner
`
`could come forward with evidence to support public accessibility of Exhibits 1004-
`
`1006. (Decision at 20 n.6.) But it was only “speculative” because the Petitioner
`
`had no opportunity to address the evidentiary objections raised in the Preliminary
`
`Response prior to the institution decision. In fact, following receipt of the
`
`Preliminary Response, the Petitioner obtained a declaration from an employee who
`
`worked at BEA in 2001, who was able to specifically respond to the authentication
`and hearsay objections raised by the patent owner. (Appendix B.3) This
`declaration was prepared and signed prior to the institution decision so as to be
`
`3 The declaration would have attached Exhibits A-C, the same documents in
`Exhibits 1004-1006, respectively.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`ready, in the event of institution, as supplemental evidence to address the patent
`
`owner’s evidentiary objections. In fact, it is likely that the patent owner would
`
`have withdrawn its evidentiary objections to Exhibits 1004-1006 in response to this
`
`supplemental evidence, obviating the need for the Board to consider those
`
`evidentiary issues at all. But that declaration was never considered, as
`
`contemplated by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, because the Board abused its discretion and
`
`shortcut the process by prematurely ruling on the patent owner’s evidentiary
`
`objections. Rehearing is therefore appropriate.
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s request for rehearing should be
`
`granted, and the Board should consider the merits of the invalidity grounds set
`
`forth in the Petition.
`
`
`DATED: September 9, 2015
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Docketing
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`T: 650-843-5001
`F: 650-849-7400
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Heidi L. Keefe/
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Reg. No. 40,673
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`J.K. Rowling, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” (1997):
`
`
`
`Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1999):
`
`
`
`Adobe Photoshop Tutorial manual (1991):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`APPENDIX B
`
`APPENDIX B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF KARA MOSCOE
`
`I, Kara Moscoe, declare as follows:
`
`I am currently employed as a Staff Technical Writer at Google, Inc. I am over 18
`1.
`years of age. Except where specifically noted, the statements below are from my own personal
`
`knowledge, and if called upon as a witness, I could testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`I was employed at BEA Systems, Inc. (“BEA”) as a Staff information Engineer
`
`beginning in March 2001 until October 2001. BEA was a technology company based in San
`
`Jose, California that specialized in developing enterprise infrastructure software products. One
`
`of the products that was developed and sold by BEA was known as WebLogic Collaborate 2.0,
`which was part of a larger product called WebLogic Integration 2.0. BEA was acquired by
`
`Oracle Corporation in 2008.
`
`3.
`
`In my role as a Staff Information Engineer, I drafted and reviewed documentation
`
`for various BEA products, including the Business Process Management (“BPM”) component of
`
`WebLogic Integration 2.0. I am familiar with practices at BEA in the 2001 time frame for
`
`creating and distributing documentation for BEA products.
`
`4.
`
`Creating and disseminating accurate product documentation was an important
`
`activity during my time at BEA. The product documentation would not only assist existing
`
`customers in using BEA products, but was also helpful for educating others (including those who
`
`may be interested in potentially purchasing BEA products) about the capabilities of BEA’s
`
`products. BEA drafted and disseminated product documentation for a variety of products,
`
`including BEA WebLogic Collaborate, as a regular part of BEA’s business. BEA’s practice was
`
`to publicly disseminate documentation about BEA products at the time the underlying product
`
`was released (or shortly thereafter).
`
`5.
`
`BEA employed individuals who were responsible for drafting and reviewing this
`
`documentation. The documentation was drafted based on direct use of the product, and was
`
`reviewed by a product manager or engineering manager responsible for the product to ensure its
`
`

`
`accuracy. The documentation for a particular product could include several documents, each
`
`document describing different aspects of the product or potentially intended for a different
`
`audience (e. g. developers, administrators, introductory material, etc.).
`
`6.
`
`During the 2001 timefrarne, BEA frequently made product documentation
`
`available online through its web. site. In fact, BEA operated an “e-docs” website, available at
`
`<http://e-docs.bea.corn>, in which PDF (and HTML) versions of BEA product documentation
`
`were available to the public for free. Anyone having a computer with a web browser and
`
`software for viewing PDF files could access <http://e—docs.bea.com> to download and view such
`
`documentation. During my employment, it was BEA’s practice to make PDF (and HTML)
`
`documentation for a particular‘ product available on <http://e-docs.bea.com> shortly after that
`
`product’s public release.
`
`7.
`
`When a particular document was finalized for public release, it was regular
`
`practice at BEA for the documentation team to add a date to the cover page of the documentation
`reflecting when the document was finalized and released. The documentation team would then
`
`create a PDF Version of the document for public release, which couid be made available on
`
`BEA’s website.
`
`8.
`
`Like most software companies, BEA was continuously improving and enhancing
`
`the capabilities of its products and releasing new versions of the software to incorporate those
`
`improvements. If a new version of the software was to be released, however, BEA would assign
`
`a different version number. This version number would appear on the product itself and on the
`
`BEA documentation. The date on the front page of the BEA documentation would also be
`
`updated to reflect the date the documentation was finalized. It was important that the
`
`documentation reflect the correct date in order to distinguish it fi'om earlier versions of the
`
`product documentation, and to be able to link it up with the correct product.
`
`9.
`
`Attached to this Declaration as Exhibits A-C are documents that I reviewed that
`
`purport to be -PDF documentation for “BEA WebLogic Collaborate Release 2.0.” Exhibit A is
`
`titled “Introducing BEA WebLogic Collaborate.” Exhibit B is titled “Administering BEA
`
`2
`
`

`
`WebLogic Collaborate.” Exhibit C is titled “Programrning BEA WebLogic Collaborate
`
`Management Applications.” Each bears a date of “July 2001” on its cover page. Thus, consistent
`
`with BEA’s practices at that time, this documentation would have been available for downioad
`
`from <http://e~docs.bea.co1n> in July 2001 or shortly thereafter.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that it has been suggested that although these documents show a July
`
`2001 date, they may reflect content that was added or modified after that date. Based on my
`
`experience, this would have been entirely inconsistent with the documentation practices at BEA.
`
`It was veiy important to have documentation that was accurate, which included the identifying
`
`information describing the product and documentation date. It was the practice to update the
`
`date on the front page in the event changes to the documentation were made. Among other
`
`reasons, it was important to include an accurate date for the documentation because, as I noted
`
`above, BEA often released versions of the software with differing capabilities, and it is important
`
`to be able to match the documentation with the correct product Version to which the
`
`documentation referred.
`
`11.
`
`Based on my knowiedge of BEA’s practices for dating product documentation, as
`
`well as my familiarity with the general form and content that documentation, I have no reason to
`
`doubt that Exhibits A-C are true and correct copies of PDF documentation for version 2.0 of
`
`WebLogic Collaborate that would have been available to download from <http://e-
`
`docs.bea.com> in July 2001 or shortly thereafter.
`
`12.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true
`
`and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and further that
`
`these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so
`
`made are punishable by fine or irnprisonrnent, or both, under 28 U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`Dated: Junem, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`53/ WKara Moscoe
`
`Palo Alto, California
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, that a complete copy of the
`
`attached PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`(37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.71(d)) and related documents, are being electronically served on the 9th day
`of September, 2015, the same day as the filing of the above-identified document in
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office/Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`upon the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence address of record with the
`USPTO as follows:
`
`
`Joseph F. Haag
`Evelyn C. Mak
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Joseph.Haag@wilmerhale.com
`Evelyn.Mak@wilmerhale.com
`WHIPDocketStaff@wilmerhale.com
`
`/ Heidi L. Keefe /
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Reg. No. 40,673
`
`
`
`DATED: September 9, 2015
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Heidi L. Keefe
`Patent Docketing
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400