UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and MICROSOFT MOBILE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01151
`Patent 8,288,952
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and MICROSOFT MOBILE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01151
`Patent 8,288,952
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and MICROSOFT MOBILE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015‐01147 / Patent 7,994,726
`Case IPR2015‐01148 / Patent 7,498,749
`Case IPR2015‐01149 / Patent 7,329,970
`Case IPR2015‐01150 / Patent 7,781,980
`Case IPR2015‐01151 / Patent 8,288,952
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`1
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`I. Overview of Obviousness (Jahagirdar + Schultz) and Patent
`Owner Arguments
`II. Patent Owner Arguments Affecting All Patents
`III. Patent Owner Arguments Affecting Particular Patents
`
`2
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`I. Overview of Obviousness (Jahagirdar + Schultz) and Patent
`Owner Arguments
`II. Patent Owner Arguments Affecting All Patents
`III. Patent Owner Arguments Affecting Particular Patents
`
`3
`
`
`
`Overview – Challenged Claims
`
`• Case IPR2015‐01147 / Patent 7,994,726
`• Claims 1, 3‐10, 19‐21, 25‐30
`• Case IPR2015‐01148 / Patent 7,498,749
`• Claims 1, 2, 5‐7, 14, 15, 21, 23
`• Case IPR2015‐01149 / Patent 7,329,970
`• Claims 1, 3‐5, 10‐14, 19, 48, 49, 51, 52
`• Case IPR2015‐01150 / Patent 7,781,980
`• Claims 1, 3‐5, 32
`• Case IPR2015‐01151 / Patent 8,288,952
`• Claims 1‐4, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22‐24, 26, 27, 38‐40
`
`4
`
`
`
`Overview – Obviousness
`(Jahagirdar + Schultz)
`
`E.g., IPR2015‐01147, Exhibit 1001 (’726 Patent) at 12:28‐36
`E.g., IPR2015‐01147, Exhibit 1004 (Jahagirdar) Figs. 1‐2, 5
`
`5
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Involving All Patents
`
`1. Whether Jahagirdar would have been modified to include a
`touch sensor
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`
`1. IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 1‐10; IPR2015‐01148, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 1‐8; IPR2015‐
`01149, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 4‐11; IPR2015‐01150, Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 1‐10; IPR2015‐01151,
`Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 1‐10
`2. IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 11‐16; IPR2015‐01148, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 8‐13; IPR2015‐
`01149, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 11‐17; IPR2015‐01150, Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 11‐14; IPR2015‐01151,
`Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 11‐15
`NOTE: Claim 1 of the ’970 patent does not require the “activation” Patent Owner contends Jahagirdar lacks
`
`6
`
`
`
`No Additional PO
`Arguments Specific to
`’749 & ’980 Patents
`
`7
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Specific to ’726 Patent
`
`3. Whether Jahagirdar taught activation or deactivation of a
`product through commands received from the user interface
`(’726 Claim 4)
`4. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed “automatically deactivating the
`visible indication a predetermined period of time after it was
`activated” (’726 Claims 5‐10)
`
`3. IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply) at pp. 17‐19
`4. Id. at p. 19
`
`8
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Specific to ’970 Patent
`
`5. Whether Jahagirdar taught a “luminous visible location
`indicator” (’970 Claims 1, 3‐5, 10‐14, 19, 48, 49, and 51)
`6. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed activation for only a period of
`time (’970 Claim 5)
`
`5. IPR2015‐01149, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply) at pp. 1‐3
`6. Id. at p. 17
`
`9
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Specific to ’952 Patent
`
`7. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed automatic deactivation of its
`visible indication (’952 Claim 23)
`
`7. IPR2015‐01151, Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply) at pp. 15‐16
`
`10
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`I. Overview of Obviousness (Jahagirdar + Schultz) and Patent
`Owner Arguments
`II. Patent Owner Arguments Affecting All Patents
`III. Patent Owner Arguments Affecting Particular Patents
`
`11
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Involving All Patents
`
`1. Whether Jahagirdar would have been modified to include a
`touch sensor
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`
`1. IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 1‐10; IPR2015‐01148, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 1‐8; IPR2015‐
`01149, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 4‐11; IPR2015‐01150, Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 1‐10; IPR2015‐01151,
`Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 1‐10
`2. IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 11‐16; IPR2015‐01148, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 8‐13; IPR2015‐
`01149, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 11‐17; IPR2015‐01150, Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 11‐14; IPR2015‐01151,
`Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 11‐15
`NOTE: Claim 1 of the ’970 patent does not require the “activation” Patent Owner contends Jahagirdar lacks
`
`12
`
`
`
`Basic Obviousness Law
`
`Supreme Court
`
`[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each
`performing the same function it had been known to
`perform and yields no more than one would expect from
`such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
`(2007) (internal citations omitted).
`
`[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device,
`and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
`that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`using the technique is obvious unless its actual
`application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`Id.
`
`13
`
`
`
`1. Motivation to Modify Jahagirdar to include a touch sensor
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply) at p. 1
`
`14
`
`
`
`1. Motivation to Modify Jahagirdar to include a touch sensor
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply) at p. 2
`
`15
`
`
`
`1. Motivation: Minimize Accidental Actuation
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert’s Declaration
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Ex. 2002 (Morley Dec.), ¶60
`
`16
`
`
`
`1. Motivation: Minimize Accidental Actuation
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert’s Testimony
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Ex. 1017 (Morley Tr.), 157:22‐158:4
`
`17
`
`
`
`1. Motivation: Minimize Accidental Actuation
`The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`Board properly found that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to [T]he Board properly found that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`pursue the desirable properties taught by [the secondary reference], even at the
`expense of foregoing the benefit taught by [the primary reference].
`
`In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`This argument fails because our case law does not require that a particular
`combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in
`the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current invention.
`
`In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`Indeed, we have found a reference to not teach away when, for example, it
`described a particular composition “as somewhat inferior to some other product for
`the same use.”
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 816 F.3d 788, 801 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`18
`
`
`
`1. Motivation: Minimize Accidental Actuation
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert’s Testimony
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Ex. 1017 (Morley Tr.) at 164:3‐8
`
`19
`
`
`
`1. Motivation: Reduce Contamination and Mechanical Failures
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Ex. 1017 (Morley Tr.) at 171:12‐21
`
`20
`
`
`
`1. Motivation: Reduce Contamination and Mechanical Failures
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert’s Declaration
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Ex. 2002 (Morley Dec.) at ¶63
`
`21
`
`
`
`1. Motivation: Reduce Contamination and Mechanical Failures
`The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`Board properly found that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to [T]he Board properly found that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`pursue the desirable properties taught by [the secondary reference], even at the
`expense of foregoing the benefit taught by [the primary reference].
`
`In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`This argument fails because our case law does not require that a particular
`combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in
`the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current invention.
`
`In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`Indeed, we have found a reference to not teach away when, for example, it
`described a particular composition “as somewhat inferior to some other product for
`the same use.”
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 816 F.3d 788, 801 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`22
`
`
`
`1. Motivation: Enhance Aesthetics
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Ex. 1017 (Morley Tr.) at 180:17‐24
`
`23
`
`
`
`1. Motivation: Enhance Aesthetics
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Ex. 1017 (Morley Tr.) at 171:24‐172:3
`
`24
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Involving All Patents
`
`1. Whether Jahagirdar would have been modified to include a
`touch sensor
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`
`1. IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 1‐10; IPR2015‐01148, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 1‐8; IPR2015‐
`01149, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 4‐11; IPR2015‐01150, Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 1‐10; IPR2015‐01151,
`Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 1‐10
`2. IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 11‐16; IPR2015‐01148, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 8‐13; IPR2015‐
`01149, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 11‐17; IPR2015‐01150, Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 11‐14; IPR2015‐01151,
`Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply), pp. 11‐15
`NOTE: Claim 1 of the ’970 patent does not require the “activation” Patent Owner contends Jahagirdar lacks
`
`25
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`
`’726 Patent: Both independent claims require
`“activation of a visible indication” in response to the user interface
`while the “load is unaffected”
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Ex. 1001 (’726 Patent), Claims 1 & 27
`
`26
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`
`’749 Patent: Both independent claims require
`activating a “visible indicator” in response to the user interface
`when the “load is not activated”
`
`. . .
`
`. . .
`
`IPR2015‐01148, Ex. 1001 (’749 Patent), Claims 1 & 21
`
`27
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`
`’970 Patent: Second independent claim and dependent claims require
`activating a “visible indicator” with a switch
`when the “load is not activated”
`
`. . .
`
`IPR2015‐01149, Ex. 1001 (’970 Patent), Claims 1, 3, & 52
`
`28
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`
`’980 Patent: Only independent claim requires
`activating the “visible indicator” with the user interface
`while the “load is not activated”
`
`IPR2015‐01150, Ex. 1001 (’980 Patent), Claim 1
`
`29
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`
`’952 Patent: Both independent claims require
`activating a “visible indication” in response to the user interface
`
`. . .
`
`. . .
`
`IPR2015‐01151, Ex. 1001 (’952 Patent), Claims 1 & 26
`
`30
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Paper 1 (Petition), p. 16; Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar) at col. 5, ll. 54‐57
`
`31
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`Does “displaying new visual information in display area 130”
`activate Jahagirdar’s first display 516?
`
`Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar) at col. 5, ll. 23‐44; IPR2015‐01147, Paper 1 (Petition) at p. 18
`
`32
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Paper 1 (Petition) at p. 17
`
`33
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert’s Testimony
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Ex. 1017 (Morley Tr.) at 148:4‐7 & 149:3‐8
`
`34
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Ex. 1017 (Morley Tr.) at 215:12‐216:5
`
`35
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`Patent Owner admits “a touching” turned on Jahagirdar’s LED
`
`So does Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`IPR2015‐01149, Paper No. 17 (Patent Owner Response), p. 12; Ex. 1017 (Morley Tr.) at 199:12‐17
`
`36
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`Claim Construction of “activation”
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Paper No. 15 (Petitioner’s Reply) at p. 11, ftnt. 1; p. 15
`
`37
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar’s keys 144 activated first display 516
`Does activation of display 516 occurs when display 520 is off?
`
`Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar) at col. 5, ll. 23‐36; IPR2015‐01147, Paper 1 (Petition) at p. 18
`
`38
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`I. Overview of Obviousness (Jahagirdar + Schultz) and Patent
`Owner Arguments
`II. Patent Owner Arguments Affecting All Patents
`III. Patent Owner Arguments Affecting Particular Patents
`
`39
`
`
`
`No Additional PO
`Arguments Specific to
`’749 & ’980 Patents
`
`40
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Specific to ’726 Patent
`
`3. Whether Jahagirdar taught activation or deactivation of a
`product through commands received from the user interface
`(’726 Claim 4)
`4. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed “automatically deactivating the
`visible indication a predetermined period of time after it was
`activated” (’726 Claims 5‐10)
`
`3. IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply) at pp. 17‐19
`4. Id. at p. 19
`
`41
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Specific to ’726 Patent
`
`3. Whether Jahagirdar taught activation or deactivation of a
`product through commands received from the user interface
`(’726 Claim 4)
`4. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed “automatically deactivating the
`visible indication a predetermined period of time after it was
`activated” (’726 Claims 5‐10)
`
`3. IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply) at pp. 17‐19
`4. Id. at p. 19
`
`42
`
`
`
`3. Whether Jahagirdar taught activation or deactivation of a product through
`commands received from the user interface (’726 Claim 4)
`
`Ex. 1001 (’726 Patent) at claim 1 & 4
`
`43
`
`
`
`3. Whether Jahagirdar taught activation or deactivation of a product through
`commands received from the user interface (’726 Claim 4)
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply) at p. 17; Ex. 1001 (’726 Patent) at claim 1
`
`44
`
`
`
`3. Whether Jahagirdar taught activation or deactivation of a product through
`commands received from the user interface (’726 Claim 4)
`Jahagirdar’s “PWR” Button
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply) at p. 17; Ex. 1001 (’726 Patent) at claim 1
`
`45
`
`
`
`3. Whether Jahagirdar taught activation or deactivation of a product through
`commands received from the user interface (’726 Claim 4)
`
`IPR2015‐01147, Ex. 1017 (Morley Tr.) at 152:4‐20
`
`46
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Specific to ’726 Patent
`
`3. Whether Jahagirdar taught activation or deactivation of a
`product through commands received from the user interface
`(’726 Claim 4)
`4. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed “automatically deactivating the
`visible indication a predetermined period of time after it was
`activated” (’726 Claims 5‐10)
`
`3. IPR2015‐01147, Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Reply) at pp. 17‐19
`4. Id. at p. 19
`
`47
`
`
`
`4. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed “automatically deactivating the visible
`indication a predetermined period of time after it was activated”
`(’726 Claims 5‐10)
`
`Ex. 1001 (’726 Patent) at claim 1 & 5
`
`48
`
`
`
`4. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed “automatically deactivating the visible
`indication a predetermined period of time after it was activated”
`(’726 Claims 5‐10)
`
`Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar) at col. 5, ll. 55‐65; IPR2015‐01147, Paper 1 (Petition) at p. 18
`
`49
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Specific to ’970 Patent
`
`5. Whether Jahagirdar taught a “luminous visible location
`indicator” (’970 Claims 1, 3‐5, 10‐14, 19, 48, 49, and 51)
`6. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed activation for only a period of
`time (’970 Claim 5)
`
`5. IPR2015‐01149, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply) at pp. 1‐3
`6. Id. at p. 17
`
`50
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Specific to ’970 Patent
`
`5. Whether Jahagirdar taught a “luminous visible location
`indicator” (’970 Claims 1, 3‐5, 10‐14, 19, 48, 49, and 51)
`6. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed activation for only a period of
`time (’970 Claim 5)
`
`5. IPR2015‐01149, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply) at pp. 1‐3
`6. Id. at p. 17
`
`51
`
`
`
`5. Whether Jahagirdar a “luminous visible location indicator” (’970 Claims 1,
`3‐5, 10‐14, 19, 48, 49, and 51)
`
`. . .
`
`IPR2015‐01149, Ex. 1001 (’970 Patent ) at claim 1
`
`52
`
`
`
`5. Whether Jahagirdar a “luminous visible location indicator” (’970 Claims 1,
`3‐5, 10‐14, 19, 48, 49, and 51)
`
`Jahagirdar disclosed that its display element 516 could be an LED
`
`. . .
`
`IPR2015‐01149, Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar) at col. 4, ll. 41‐48; col. 7, l. 61‐col. 8, l. 4
`
`53
`
`
`
`5. Whether Jahagirdar a “luminous visible location indicator” (’970 Claims 1,
`3‐5, 10‐14, 19, 48, 49, and 51)
`Patent Owner’s Expert’s Testimony
`
`IPR2015‐01149, Ex. 1004 (Morley Tr.) at 195:7‐20
`
`54
`
`
`
`5. Whether Jahagirdar a “luminous visible location indicator” (’970 Claims 1,
`3‐5, 10‐14, 19, 48, 49, and 51)
`Patent Owner’s Expert’s Testimony
`
`IPR2015‐01149, Ex. 1004 (Morley Tr.) at 198:10‐21
`
`55
`
`
`
`5. Whether Jahagirdar a “luminous visible location indicator” (’970 Claims 1,
`3‐5, 10‐14, 19, 48, 49, and 51)
`Patent Owner’s Expert’s Testimony
`
`IPR2015‐01149, Ex. 1004 (Morley Tr.) at 198:22‐199:11
`
`56
`
`
`
`5. Whether Jahagirdar a “luminous visible location indicator” (’970 Claims 1,
`3‐5, 10‐14, 19, 48, 49, and 51)
`
`IPR2015‐01149, Paper No. 20 (Petitioner’s Reply) at p. 3
`
`57
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Specific to ’970 Patent
`
`5. Whether Jahagirdar taught a “luminous visible location
`indicator” (’970 Claims 1, 3‐5, 10‐14, 19, 48, 49, and 51)
`6. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed activation for only a period of
`time (’970 Claim 5)
`
`5. IPR2015‐01149, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply) at pp. 1‐3
`6. Id. at p. 17
`
`58
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed activation for only a period of time
`(’970 Claim 5)
`
`IPR 2015‐01149 Ex. 1001 (‘970 Patent) at claims 1 & 5
`
`59
`
`
`
`2. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed activation for only a period of time
`(’970 Claim 5)
`
`Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar) at col. 5, ll. 55‐65; IPR2015‐01149, Paper 1 (Petition) at p. 38
`
`60
`
`
`
`PO Arguments Specific to ’970 Patent
`
`7. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed automatic deactivation of its
`visible indication (’952 Claim 23)
`
`7. IPR2015‐01151, Paper 16 (Petitioner’s Reply) at pp. 15‐16
`
`61
`
`
`
`7. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed automatic deactivation of its visible
`indication (’952 Claim 23)
`
`IPR 2015‐01151 Ex. 1001 (‘952 Patent) at claims 1 & 23
`
`62
`
`
`
`7. Whether Jahagirdar disclosed automatic deactivation of its visible
`indication (’952 Claim 23)
`
`Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar) at col. 5, ll. 55‐65; IPR2015‐01151, Paper 1 (Petition) at p. 35
`
`63
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`I. Overview of Obviousness (Jahagirdar + Schultz) and Patent
`Owner Arguments
`II. Patent Owner Arguments Affecting All Patents
`III. Patent Owner Arguments Affecting Particular Patents
`
`64
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01151
`U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`was served via email this 1st day of August, 2016, on the following:
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Daniel J. Goettle/
`Daniel J. Goettle
`Registration No. 50,983
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`2929 Arch Street
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`Telephone: 215.568.3100
`Facsimile: 215.568.3439
`dgoettle@bakerlaw.com
`
`Attorney 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
