IPR2015-01039
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of
`Lindsay Corporation
`By:
`Scott R. Brown
`Matthew B. Walters
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`Tel: (913) 647-9050
`Fax: (913) 647-9057
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`LINDSAY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01039
`U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION
`FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS, CRAIG ROSENBERG, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of
`Lindsay Corporation
`By:
`Scott R. Brown
`Matthew B. Walters
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`Tel: (913) 647-9050
`Fax: (913) 647-9057
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`LINDSAY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01039
`U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION
`FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS, CRAIG ROSENBERG, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Lindsay Corporation (“Petitioner”) provides the following
`
`Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation on Cross-Examination of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Witness, Craig Rosenberg, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Response to Obsevation 1.
`
`The
`
`testimony cited by Valmont
`
`is
`
`incomplete and does not accurately reflect Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony. Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s answer continues from 15:25 through 16:6, so a complete and fair
`
`citation to Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony is 15:12-16:6. Moreover, Dr. Rosenberg
`
`testifies at 16:18-18:17 that he has experience using laptops in one hand and
`
`operating it with the other and provides examples of other smartphones that cannot
`
`be operated in a single hand which is relevant to the argument by Valmont that Dr.
`
`Rosenberg conceded the only support he provided was from a dictionary
`
`definition.
`
`
`
`Response to Obsevation 2.
`
`The
`
`testimony quoted by Valmont
`
`is
`
`incomplete and does not accurately reflect Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony. Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s answer continues from 18:1 through 18:17 in which Dr. Rosenberg
`
`explains his answer. A complete and fair citation to Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony is
`
`17:6-18:17.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Response to Obsevation 3.
`
`The
`
`testimony quoted by Valmont
`
`is
`
`incomplete and does not accurately reflect Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony. Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s answer continues from 27:24 through 28:10 in which Dr. Rosenberg
`
`explains how his testimony responds to Dr. Mercer’s testimony and is therefore
`
`appropriate reply testimony. A complete and fair citation to Dr. Rosenberg’s
`
`testimony is 27:15-28:10. Further, Dr. Rosenberg testifies at 51:21-53:9 why it is
`
`appropriate for him to reply to the evidence and argument of Valmont and its
`
`expert Dr. Mercer.
`
`
`
`Response to Obsevation 4.
`
`The
`
`testimony quoted by Valmont
`
`is
`
`incomplete and does not accurately reflect Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony. Valmont
`
`excises explanatory text from its quote in which Dr. Rosenberg explains how his
`
`testimony is appropriate reply and why a motivation to provide enhanced
`
`functionality in a smaller device exists. Moreover, Dr. Rosenberg’s answer
`
`continues from 30:1 through 30:04 in which Dr. Rosenberg explains how his
`
`testimony responds to Dr. Mercer’s testimony and is therefore appropriate reply
`
`testimony. A complete and fair citation to Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony is 28:13-
`
`30:4.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Response to Obsevation 5.
`
`The
`
`testimony quoted by Valmont
`
`is
`
`incomplete and does not accurately reflect Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony. Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s answer continues from 33:10 through 33:14 in which Dr. Rosenberg
`
`explains his answer. A complete and fair citation to Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony is
`
`33:6-33:14. Moreover, Dr. Rosenberg explains at 30:8-32:15 how and why he
`
`analyzed claims 1 and 17 together.
`
`
`
`Response to Obsevation 6.
`
`The
`
`testimony quoted by Valmont
`
`is
`
`incomplete and does not accurately reflect Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony. Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s answer continues from 38:4 through 38:13 in which Dr. Rosenberg
`
`explains how his testimony responds to Dr. Mercer’s testimony and is therefore
`
`appropriate reply testimony. A complete and fair citation to Dr. Rosenberg’s
`
`testimony is 37:16-38:13.
`
`
`
`Response to Obsevation 7.
`
`The
`
`testimony quoted by Valmont
`
`is
`
`incomplete and does not accurately reflect Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony. Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s answer continues from 46:14 through 46:23 in which Dr. Rosenberg
`
`explains how his testimony responds to Dr. Mercer’s testimony and is therefore
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`appropriate reply testimony. A complete and fair citation to Dr. Rosenberg’s
`
`testimony is 45:21-46:23
`
`
`
`Response to Obsevation 8.
`
`The
`
`testimony quoted by Valmont
`
`is
`
`incomplete and does not accurately reflect Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony. Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s answer continues from 59:5 through 60:6 in which Dr. Rosenberg
`
`explains how his testimony responds to Dr. Mercer’s testimony, is therefore
`
`appropriate reply testimony, and how the model-view-controller architecture
`
`supports Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion. A complete and fair citation to Dr. Rosenberg’s
`
`testimony is 58:6-60:6.
`
`
`
`Response to Obsevation 9.
`
`The
`
`testimony quoted by Valmont
`
`is
`
`incomplete and does not accurately reflect Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony. Valmont
`
`excises explanatory text from its quote in which Dr. Rosenberg explains how his
`
`testimony is appropriate reply and how OLE was used for inter-process
`
`communication on the same processor. A complete and fair citation to Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s testimony is 62:19-65:24.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Response to Obsevation 10.
`
`The
`
`testimony quoted by Valmont
`
`is
`
`incomplete and does not accurately reflect Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony. Valmont
`
`excises significant explanatory text from its quote and fails to acknowledge Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s explanation of his opinion with respect to claims 10 and 11 at 71:4-
`
`72:23, where he states:
`
`Q. Dr. Rosenberg, you were just being asked about claims 10 and 11, so I
`
`want to focus on those for a moment. Claim 10 requires that there be
`
`plurality of GUIs, are shaped to identify operating irrigation patterns for
`
`specific irrigation equipment. Do you see that?
`
`A. I do see that.
`
`Q. Okay. Then claim 11 says, "Wherein said software is further operative
`
`on said processor to change the shape of said plurality of GUIs change in
`
`response to the change of a status of the irrigation equipment." Do you see
`
`that?
`
`A. I see that, yes.
`
`Q. Okay. Does claim 11 require that the irrigation pattern shapes be
`
`changed?
`
`A. No, it doesn't.
`
`Q. Why do you say that?
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`A. Okay. Claim 10 says there's a plurality of GUIs that are shaped to
`
`identify operating irrigation patterns, so claim 10 doesn't require that the
`
`operating irrigation patterns be changed. And claim 11 says it's dependent
`
`on claim 10 wherein software is further operative on processor to change the
`
`shape of the plurality of GUIs of said plurality of GUIs change in response
`
`to a change in status to the irrigation equipment so a valve could be turned
`
`on or off and you may change the shape of the GUI, like, for example, put a
`
`line through it, change a -- I use the example, I think Abts put lines through
`
`it, but that discloses that.
`
` But nowhere does it require that the shape of the irrigation pattern be
`
`changed, and I'd like to clarify how I interpret that. Let's say you have a
`
`circular field in which three-quarters of the field is being irrigated because
`
`only three-quarters is being planted, so you have what might like a Packman
`
`shape, a circle with a 90-degree cut out. That would be the irrigation pattern
`
`as disclosed in claim 10.
`
` And in claim 11, if that is currently being watered, it may not have a line
`
`through it. If it's not currently being watered, it would have a line through it.
`
`So we're never -- there doesn't seem to be a requirement that we're changing
`
`the shape of the irrigation pattern itself.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 30, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`
`BY: /s/ Scott R. Brown
`
`
`
`
`
`Scott R. Brown, Reg. No. 40,535
`Matthew B. Walters, Reg. No. 65,343
`10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
`
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`
`
`P: (913) 647-9050; F: (913) 647-9057
`sbrown@hoveywilliams.com
`mwalters@hoveywilliams.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(A)
`
`
` The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 30th day of May, 2016, a true and
`
`accurate copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion
`
`for Observation on Cross-Examination of Petitioner’s Reply Witness, Craig
`
`Rosenberg, Ph.D. was filed through the Patent Review Processing System and
`
`served on the following counsel for Patent Owner via email:
`
`P. Weston Musselman, Jr.
`Ricardo J. Bonilla
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`
`
`
`musselman@fr.com
`rbonilla@fr.com
`IPR25199-0016IP1@fr.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
` /s/ Scott R. Brown
` Scott R. Brown
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
