UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`WHATSAPP INC. and FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2015‐00740
`
`____________
`
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON THE APRIL 13,
`2016 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. KLAUSNER
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313- 1450
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`WHATSAPP INC. and FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2015‐00740
`
`____________
`
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON THE APRIL 13,
`2016 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. KLAUSNER
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313- 1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Observations
`
`The following are the Patent Owner’s observations on the April 13, 2016
`
`cross-examination of Petitioners’ expert, Mr. Klausner, contained in his deposition
`
`transcript (Ex. 2010)
`
`1.
`
`In Exhibit 2010, on page 23, line 15 to page 24, line 8, Mr. Klausner
`
`testified that the below statement from his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1013) was not
`
`made in his original declaration (Ex. 1002). The statement in Mr. Klausner’s
`
`Reply Declaration, Ex. 1013 at ¶ 29 is as follows: Mr. Klausner states that
`
`Coulombe discloses a template because a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that the content shown in Fig. 2 of Coloumbe can be created using
`
`the visually displayed interface of the sending terminal or could be formatted as an
`
`HTML document having a layout defined using CSS. This testimony is relevant
`
`because it supports Patent Owner’s position that the above statement in Mr.
`
`Klausner’s Reply Declaration presents new evidence that is beyond the proper
`
`scope of a reply declaration.
`
`2.
`
`In Exhibit 2010, on page 24, line 10 to page 25, line 18, Mr. Klausner
`
`testified that the below statement from his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1013) was not
`
`made in his original declaration (Ex. 1002). The statement in Mr. Klausner’s
`
`Reply Declaration, Ex. 1013 at ¶ 30 is as follows: Mr. Klausner states that it was
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`well-known that a software program commonly referred to as a text editor could
`
`have been used to create CSS files. This testimony is relevant because it supports
`
`Patent Owner’s position that the above statement in Mr. Klausner’s Reply
`
`Declaration presents new evidence that is beyond the proper scope of a reply
`
`declaration.
`
`3.
`
`In Exhibit 2010, on page 31, line 15 to page 32, line 16, Mr. Klausner
`
`testified that the below statement from his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1013) was not
`
`made in his original declaration (Ex. 1002). The statement in Mr. Klausner’s Reply
`
`Declaration, Ex. 1013 at ¶ 38 is as follows: Mr. Klausner states that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have found no significance in the timing of the
`
`creation of a derivative style sheet in Druyan because Druyan could “cache” a
`
`previously-created style sheet. This testimony is relevant because it supports
`
`Patent Owner’s position that the above statement in Mr. Klausner’s Reply
`
`Declaration presents new evidence that is beyond the proper scope of a reply
`
`declaration.
`
`4.
`
`In Exhibit 2010, on page 33, line 21 to page 35, line 5, Mr. Klausner
`
`testified that the below statement from his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1013) was not
`
`made in his original declaration (Ex. 1002) other than in ¶ 90. The statement in
`
`Mr. Klausner’s Reply Declaration, Ex. 1013 at ¶ 47 is as follows: Mr. Klausner
`
`states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`advantage of using a style sheet in light of the consistent formatting of input data.
`
`This testimony is relevant because it supports Patent Owner’s position that the
`
`above statement in Mr. Klausner’s Reply Declaration presents new evidence that is
`
`beyond the proper scope of a reply declaration because ¶ 90 does not support the
`
`statement.
`
`5.
`
`In Exhibit 2010, on page 35, line 14 to page 38, line 5, Mr. Klausner
`
`testified that that the below statement from his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1013) was
`
`not made in his original declaration (Ex. 1002). The statement in Mr. Klausner’s
`
`Reply Declaration, Ex. 1013 at ¶ 51 is as follows: Mr. Klausner states that the
`
`disclosure in Druyan is not limited to XML and XSLT and that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Druyan’s reference to “.jsp
`
`style sheet files” can be used to generate output HTML pages for display and can
`
`include code written in CSS and that .jsp style sheet files can also be referenced by
`
`an HTML document using the same <LINK> tag technique for external style sheet
`
`described in Tittel. This testimony is relevant because it supports Patent Owner’s
`
`position that the above statement in Mr. Klausner’s Reply Declaration presents
`
`new evidence that is beyond the proper scope of a reply declaration.
`
`6.
`
`In Exhibit 2010, on page 38, line 15 to page 40, line 14, Mr. Klausner
`
`testified that the that the below statement from his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1013)
`
`was not made in his original declaration (Ex. 1002) other than ¶¶ 109, 110 & 113.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`The statement in Mr. Klausner’s Reply Declaration, Ex. 1013 at ¶ 52 is as follows:
`
`Mr. Klausner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`Duryan’s style sheet formats are applicable in any context where a master style
`
`sheet could be used to create different HTML output and whether it uses
`
`XML/XSLT or HTML/CSS is a matter of design choice. This testimony is
`
`relevant because it supports Patent Owner’s position that the above statement in
`
`Mr. Klausner’s Reply Declaration presents new evidence that is beyond the proper
`
`scope of a reply declaration because ¶¶ 109, 110 & 113 do not support the
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Barry J. Schindler/
` By
`Barry J. Schindler (Reg. No. 32,938)
`Douglas Weider
`Lennie A. Bersh (Reg. No. 55,000)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`500 Campus Drive, Suite # 400
`Florham Park, NJ 07932
`Telephone: 973-360-7900
`Facsimile: 973-301-8410
`SchindlerB@gtlaw.com
`njdocket@gtlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner TriPlay Inc.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`statement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is certified that a copy of the PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`
`OBSERVATIONS ON THE APRIL 13, 2016 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR.
`
`KLAUSNER has been served on Petitioner as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) via
`
`electronic mail transmission addressed to the lead counsel and persons at the
`
`addresses below:
`
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`amace@cooley.com
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`rchen@cooley.com
`WhatsApp_PTAB_IPR@cooley.com
`Heidi L. Keefe
`COOLEY LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`Dated: April 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Barry J. Schindler/
` By
`Barry J. Schindler (Reg. No. 32,938)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`500 Campus Drive, Suite # 400
`Florham Park, NJ 07932
`Telephone: 973-360-7900
`Facsimile: 973-301-8410
`SchindlerB@gtlaw.com
`njdocket@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner TriPlay Inc.
`
`
`
`6
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
