`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: June 6, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`APPLE INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, and
`TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970 B2
`_______________________
`
`Before JUSTIN BUSCH, LYNN E. PETTIGREW, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,329,970
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`The Prior Art Renders Obvious Using the Microchip To Control the
`Connection of the Power Source to the Load and the Activation of the
`Indicator. .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`III. The Prior Art Discloses a Luminous Visible Location Indicator. ................... 5
`
`IV. The Prior Art Discloses “a Function.” ............................................................. 9
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Beard Discloses “Automatically Deactivating a Function.” ............... 10
`Global Touch’s Proposed Construction Should Be Rejected. ............ 12
`1.
`Activating a Visible Indication Is a “Function.” ...................... 12
`2.
`Repeated References to “Activation” Signals Do Not
`Require Different Signals. ........................................................ 14
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Global Touch Solutions, LLC’s opposition is noteworthy for
`
`what it does not say. Global Touch does not dispute that all the basic technical
`
`elements of its alleged invention were known and used by those skilled in the field
`
`of portable, battery-powered devices in the late 1990s: batteries, switches,
`
`microchips, touch sensors. Global Touch and its expert also nowhere dispute that
`
`there was ample motivation among those in the field to combine references with
`
`complementary disclosures to solve the familiar problem of how to readily
`
`determine and indicate to a user the remaining battery power in a portable device.
`
`Rather, Global Touch attempts to save its patent by arguing, contrary to
`
`Federal Circuit precedent, that it would not have been obvious to combine the
`
`functions of two general purpose microchips in a single microchip. This is
`
`incorrect, and Global Touch confuses the standard for anticipation with that for
`
`obviousness. Further, Global Touch attempts to narrowly construe “location
`
`indicator” to exclude the activation of such an indicator by a touch sensor—which
`
`contradicts the claims and specification, and would not save the claims from
`
`invalidity. Finally, Global Touch distorts the word “function” in an attempt to
`
`avoid the prior art, relying on a tortured reading of the claims that is factually and
`
`legally unsound. These flawed arguments should be rejected and the Board should
`
`invalidate all of the challenged claims of the ’970 patent.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`II. THE PRIOR ART RENDERS OBVIOUS USING THE MICROCHIP
`TO CONTROL THE CONNECTION OF THE POWER SOURCE TO
`THE LOAD AND THE ACTIVATION OF THE INDICATOR.
`
`Claim 52 of the ’970 patent recites “using the microchip to control the
`
`connection of the power source to the load and the activation of the indicator.”
`
`Global Touch does not dispute that the prior art Beard and Danielson patents,
`
`which have common inventors, were assigned to the same company, and which
`
`together describe the same Pen*Key device, disclose microchips that perform both
`
`functions: controlling the connection of the power source to the load and
`
`controlling the activation of the indicator. Instead, Global Touch argues that,
`
`because these references do not disclose the same microchip performing both
`
`functions, it would not have been obvious to implement both functions in the same
`
`microchip. (Id.) This argument is contrary to controlling law, misses the point,
`
`and should be rejected.
`
`Beard describes an intelligent battery pack with a general purpose
`
`microchip. (Paper No. 4, “Petition” at 11-12 (citing Ex. 1005, “Beard” at 1:18-
`
`21).) It discloses that this microchip controls activation of the visible indication.
`
`(Id. at 56 (citing Beard at 7:59-63, Fig. 7, 11:14-22 and Fig. 11).) Danielson
`
`describes a portable electronic device that also has a general purpose microchip
`
`and that is powered by an intelligent battery pack like the one disclosed in Beard.
`
`(Petition at 17 (citing Ex. 1007, “Danielson” at Fig. 2).) Danielson discloses that
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`the microchip can be programmed to control the connection of the power source to
`
`the load. (Petition at 54 (citing Danielson at 23:27-34, Fig. 22).) Thus, the prior
`
`art discloses microchips that perform both required functions, with the microchip
`
`in the battery pack performing one function and the microchip in the portable
`
`device performing the other.
`
`It would have been obvious to implement both functions on the same
`
`microchip. In MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company, the Federal
`
`Circuit addressed precisely this issue. 812 F.3d 1284, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The relevant claim limitation required implementing “different functionalities in[]
`
`a single chip.” Id. at 1293. The prior art disclosed implementing this functionality
`
`across two different chips. Id. The Board, in an Inter Partes Review, held that it
`
`would have been obvious to combine the functionality “on a single chip.” Id. The
`
`Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s conclusion. Id. at 1294.
`
`The same result follows here. Just like in MCM Portfolio, Beard and
`
`Danielson disclose the required functionality spread across two general purpose
`
`microchips. And just like in MCM Portfolio, it would have been obvious to
`
`implement this function in a single microchip—here, the microchip in the battery
`
`pack. See MCM Portfolio, 812 F.3d at 1294; see also In re Yufa, 452 F. App’x
`
`998, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (non-precedential) (affirming a conclusion by the
`
`B.P.A.I. in a reexamination that it would have been obvious to implement
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`functionality disclosed in a particular microchip in the prior art in a different
`
`microchip because “this 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”) (internal quotations omitted). As Mr. Beard
`
`explained in his initial declaration, the microchip of the battery pack would have
`
`been a natural choice to implement both functions. (Ex. 1003, “Beard Decl.” ¶¶
`
`254-58.) The prior art discloses “a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions,” and so choosing one of those predicable solutions would have been
`
`obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“When
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good
`
`reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads
`
`to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary
`
`skill and common sense.”).
`
`Global Touch cites no authority to the contrary. Instead, it argues that the
`
`fact that the prior art inventors chose to implement the two features in two different
`
`microchips “is the best evidence of what a PHOSITA would have done.” (Paper
`
`No. 19, “Response” at 11 (emphasis removed).) But this misses the point. The
`
`Board instituted review of claim 52 on the basis of obviousness, not anticipation.
`
`The issue is not, as Global Touch would have it, whether either prior art reference
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`alone discloses the claimed invention. The issue is whether it would have been
`
`obvious to combine the prior art references and implement both features in the
`
`same microchip. The answer to that, is yes. As discussed earlier, the law is clear
`
`that it would have been obvious to take features described in two general purpose
`
`microchips in the prior art and instead implement them in a single general purpose
`
`microchip. See MCM Portfolio, 812 F.3d at 1294; Yufa, 452 F. App’x at 1001.
`
`III. THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES A LUMINOUS VISIBLE LOCATION
`INDICATOR.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’970 patent requires “a luminous visible location indicator.”
`
`The claims and specification disclose that this indicator can be an “LED” on the
`
`portable device that activates in response to a touch sensor. (’970 patent at cls. 1,
`
`46; 9:60-67, Fig. 11.) The prior art Beard reference discloses exactly such an
`
`LED: “four light-emitting diodes which sequentially illuminate” in response to a
`
`touch. (Beard at 4:59-67.) This is sufficient to satisfy the claim.
`
`Global Touch argues that the LED in Beard does not qualify as a “location
`
`indicator” because it is activated using a touch sensor, and so, according to Global
`
`Touch, the location of the device “[is] necessarily known such that the location has
`
`no reason to be indicated because a user must touch the contacts to operate the
`
`indicator.” (Response at 13.) Global Touch essentially seeks to construe the term
`
`“location indicator” to depend on the state of mind of the “operator”—as Global
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`Touch’s expert put it: “[t]he nature of indicating a location is an indication, at least
`
`in part, of a thing unknown and not in contact with the operator.” (Ex. 2003,
`
`“Morley Decl.” ¶ 69.) This is contradicted by the claims and specification and
`
`should be rejected. But even if it were correct, Global Touch’s expert admitted
`
`that the LED in Beard would qualify as such a “location indicator.”
`
`First, Global Touch’s argument is contradicted by the claims. Claim 1 is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. An electronic module for use with a product comprising an energy
`consuming load and a power source or a connection to a power
`source, said module comprising a microchip, and a switch;
`
`said switch being a user interface and does not form a serial link in a
`circuit that transfers power from the power source to power the load,
`and said microchip controlling a luminous visible location indicator
`that is not the load according to at least one configuration selected
`from the following group:
`
`a) wherein the visible indicator at least indicates a condition of the
`product upon receiving a signal from the user interface switch, and
`wherein the switch is a touch sensor type switch;
`
`b) wherein the visible indicator is activated at least to indicate an
`activation signal from the switch when the load is not activated; and
`
`c) wherein the visible indicator is also used to indicate a power level
`of the power source when the load is switched off and the product is
`not connected to a mains supply.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`(’970 patent at cl. 1.) The claim first recites “a luminous visible location
`
`indicator.” It then requires that the indicator must be configured according to one
`
`of three options. In the first option, the indicator “indicates a condition of the
`
`product upon receiving a signal from the user interface switch” where “the switch
`
`is a touch sensor type switch.” In other words, rather than barring activation of the
`
`location indicator by a touch sensor, as Global Touch contends, the claims
`
`expressly contemplate that the luminous visible location indicator activates upon
`
`receiving a signal from a touch sensor. This is precisely what is disclosed in the
`
`prior art. (Petition at 32-34.) Beard discloses a luminous LED, activated by a
`
`touch sensor, that both indicates location and battery charge status. (Id.)
`
`Second, Global Touch’s argument is contradicted by the specification. The
`
`specification’s only description of a location indicator contemplates that the
`
`indicator can be an LED activated by a user switch, like a touch sensor. Figure 11
`
`of the ’970 patent is reproduced below:
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`
`
`Element 1111 is a “switch” that can be “closed by the user.” (’970 patent at 9:56-
`
`57.) Element 1104 is an “LED.” (Id. at 9:54-55.) This LED can be used to
`
`indicate location. (Id. at 9:49-50 (The LED output “may also be suitable to assist
`
`in locating a device.”).) As one can see from the diagram, the LED is connected to
`
`the switch and “may [] shine when switch 1111 is closed by the user.” (Id. at 9:56-
`
`59.) This, again, is precisely what is disclosed by Beard: an LED that is activated
`
`by closing a switch. (Petition at 32-34.)
`
`Finally, even if Global Touch were correct that the claimed “location
`
`indicator” should be construed to require “an indication, at least in part, of a thing
`
`unknown and not in contact with the operator” (and as discussed above this is not
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`correct), Global Touch’s expert testified that the LED disclosed in Beard meets this
`
`construction:
`
`Q. Let me give you a hypothetical. Let’s suppose you and I were in
`this room and it was totally dark and we couldn’t see each other. And
`in your hand was a battery pack as described in the Beard prior art
`reference. And in the dark, you touched the contacts and illuminated
`the LEDs. Are you with me so far?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And let’s say they stayed on for a period of ten seconds. If I
`looked at you in the dark and my view was unobstructed, wouldn’t it
`tell me the location of the battery pack that was in your hand?
`
`A. It would.
`
`Q. And I didn’t need to touch it for that to happen, did I?
`
`A. No, you didn’t.
`
`Q. Or to know where the device was beforehand, right?
`
`A. Correct.
`
`(Ex. 1036, Morley Tr. at 160:15-161:12.) Even under Global Touch’s strained
`
`construction of “location indicator,” Dr. Morley admitted that Beard discloses this
`
`limitation.
`
`IV. THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES “A FUNCTION.”
`Global Touch argues that the prior art does not disclose a “function” that is
`
`“automatically shut off” after period of time, as required by dependent claims 12
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`and 19. But Global Touch does not dispute that Beard discloses the activation, and
`
`automatic deactivation 10 seconds later, of at least two features: the display of
`
`battery capacity information and the display of remaining time in response to a
`
`user pressing the touch sensor. (Response at 21.) This disclosure is more than
`
`sufficient to establish the claims’ obviousness.
`
`A. Beard Discloses “Automatically Deactivating a Function.”
`Global Touch argues that “a function” must be construed to exclude the
`
`function of activating a visible indication, and therefore this limitation requires
`
`activation and deactivation of a second function, different from activating of a
`
`visible indication. (Response at 22.) Even if Global Touch’s construction were
`
`correct (and, as explained below, it is not), Beard discloses this limitation because
`
`it discloses activation and deactivation of two functions: (1) calculation and
`
`display of battery capacity (the claimed activation of a visible indication) and
`
`(2) calculation and display of a remaining time estimate (the second function
`
`required under Global Touch’s construction).
`
`Global Touch concedes that Beard discloses these two features. (Response
`
`at 21.) And Global Touch’s expert admits that each are “functions.” (Morley Tr.
`
`at 124:6-9, 126:2-14.) Global Touch’s expert also concedes that the two are
`
`different, separate functions:
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`Q. Determining remaining time in a battery is a different
`function than just determining battery capacity, right?
`
`A. Correct. The -- determining the time, you would
`need to know what the draw is, and if you know the
`capacity and the draw, you can estimate the time until it’s
`discharged.
`
`(Morley Tr. at 126:16-22.) The expert’s conclusion is not surprising, since the
`
`Beard reference describes calculating and displaying battery capacity as a different
`
`feature from calculating and displaying a remaining time estimate. (See Beard at
`
`Abstract, 10:37-40, 11:45-48, 12:59-65.) Even under Global Touch’s construction,
`
`this is all that is necessary to demonstrate that Beard discloses the claimed
`
`“function” of claims 12 and 19.
`
`In addition, Beard discloses “automatically deactivating a function” under
`
`Global Touch’s proposed construction because it discloses the activation and
`
`deactivation of a “timing circuit.” Beard discloses that “a timing circuit prevents
`
`the contact 155 from holding the display 157 and associated circuitry in an active
`
`state for more than a ten (10) second interval.” (Beard at 10:51-54.) This meets
`
`each of the claims’ requirements. First, using the timing circuit to prevent the
`
`display from being held in an active state for more than ten seconds is a “function”
`
`even under Global Touch’s proposed construction, because it is not activation of
`
`the visible indication. (Morley Tr. at 125:4-18 (confirming that the “timing”
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`disclosed in Beard is a function according to the Global Touch patents).) Second,
`
`the timing function is activated in response to an activation signal received from
`
`the user interface because the circuit is activated when the user presses touch
`
`sensor contact 155, thereby sending an activation signal. (Beard at 10:51-54;
`
`Beard Suppl. Decl. ¶ 9.) Third, the timing function is automatically deactivated a
`
`predetermined period of time (10 seconds) after it was activated. (Beard at 10:54-
`
`56; Beard Suppl. Decl. ¶ 10.) Thus, under Global Touch’s incorrect construction,
`
`this limitation is still satisfied by Beard.
`
`B. Global Touch’s Proposed Construction Should Be Rejected.
`Further, Global Touch’s construction is incorrect. Global Touch makes two
`
`flawed arguments: (1) because the claims use two different terms, “function” and
`
`activation of a “visible indicator,” the term “function” must exclude the function of
`
`activation of a “visible indicator” and (2) because the claims recite an “activation
`
`signal,” a “user interface activation signal” and a “switch activation signal,” these
`
`three signals cannot be met by Beard’s activation signal from a touch sensor
`
`switch. Neither argument is persuasive.
`
`Activating a Visible Indication Is a “Function.”
`
`1.
`First, Global Touch is correct that two different claim terms should normally
`
`be construed to have different meanings. (Response at 21-22.) Petitioners agree
`
`that “function” and activation of a “visible indicator” mean different things:
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`“function” is a broad term that encompasses any kind of function, while activation
`
`of a “visible indicator” is a specific type of function. But that does not mean that
`
`“function” should be construed to exclude activation of a “visible indicator.” The
`
`words “car” and “sedan” have different meanings. That does not mean that a
`
`“sedan” cannot be a type of “car.”
`
`Global Touch’s own expert candidly admitted that activation of a “visible
`
`indicator” is a “function”:
`
`Q. So indicating a condition of the battery, whether it’s good or bad,
`is another example of a function according to the Global Touch
`patents, right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`(Morley Tr. at 118:21-119:3.) And in his declaration supporting case IPR2015-
`
`01172, relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,498,749 which is a continuation-in-part sibling
`
`of the ’970 patent and shares effectively the same specification, Global Touch’s
`
`expert states: “Claim 21 recites two separate function activations in response to an
`
`activation signal received via the user interface switch. One is recited as the
`
`activation of the visible indicator.” (Ex. 1037, IPR2015-01172 Morley Decl. ¶ 50.)
`
`That activating an indicator is an example of a “function” is also supported
`
`by the specification. The specification uses the term “function” broadly, and
`
`expressly states that “battery strength monitoring” is one example of a function.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`(’970 patent at 8:54-59; see also, e.g., id. at 1:31-33.) Nothing in the specification
`
`suggests that the broad term “function” excludes any specific function of the
`
`invention. Global Touch’s contrary construction of “function” should be rejected.
`
`2.
`
`Repeated References to “Activation” Signals Do Not
`Require Different Signals.
`
`Second, in addition to arguing that the term “function” cannot include
`
`activation of a visible indicator, Global Touch also argues that because the claims
`
`refer to an “activation signal,” a “user interface activation signal,” and a “switch
`
`activation signal,” these must correspond to different signals. (Response at 22-23.)
`
`This is wrong. Independent claim 1 recites “an activation signal.” (’970 patent at
`
`cl. 1.) Dependent claim 12 recites “a user interface activation signal.” (Id. at cl.
`
`12.) Dependent claim 19 recites “a switch activation signal.” (Id. at cl. 19.) The
`
`claims are simply defining the signal in a more specific way in each claim: an
`
`“activation signal” is the broadest term, and could encompass a signal from a user
`
`interface or from some other component. A “user interface activation signal” is a
`
`specific type of “activation signal,” one that comes from the user interface. A
`
`“switch activation signal” is a specific type of “user interface activation signal,”
`
`one that comes from a switch component of the user interface. The activation
`
`signal from the touch sensor switch in Beard qualifies as all three: it is an
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`activation signal, from the user interface, and specifically from a switch component
`
`of the user interface. (Petition at 42-44.)
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons set forth above and in the Petition, Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests that the instituted claims be cancelled.
`
`Dated: June 6, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Robert Steinberg/
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert Steinberg (Reg. No. 33,144)
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`355 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`213.485.1234; 213.891.8763 (Fax)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`Phillip E. Morton (Reg. No. 57,835)
`Cooley LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`703.456.8668; 703.456.8100 (Fax)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Motorola
`Mobility LLC
`
`Doris Johnson Hines
`(Reg. No. 34,629)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`202.408.4250; 202.408.4400 (Fax)
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Toshiba
`America Information Systems, Inc.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on this 6th day of June,
`
`2016, true and correct copies of the foregoing Petitioners’ Reply In Support Of
`
`Their Petition For Inter Partes Review Of U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970 and
`
`Exhibits 1035-1037 were served by electronic mail upon the following counsel of
`
`record for Patent Owner Global Touch Solutions, LLC:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Steven B. Kelber (Reg. No. 30,073)
`skelber@labgoldlaw.com
`Law Offices of Marc R. Labgold, P.C.
`12005 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 203
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`Tel: (240) 506-6702
`Fax: (877) 401-8855
`Backup Counsel
`William H. Mandir (Reg. No. 32,156)
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave NW
`Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20037
`Tel: (202) 663-7458
`Fax: (202) 293-7860
`Backup Counsel
`Brian K. Shelton (Reg. No. 50,245)
`bshelton@sughrue.com
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave NW
`Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20037
`Tel: (202) 663-7957
`Fax: (202) 293-7860
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Nathan Cristler (Reg. No. 61,736)
`ncristler@cristlerip.com
`Cristler IP, PLLC
`1801 21st Road North
`Arlington, VA 22209
`Tel: (512) 576-5166
`Fax: (877) 401-8855
`Backup Counsel
`Peter S. Park (Reg. No. 60,719)
`pspark@sughrue.com
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave NW
`Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20037
`Tel: (202) 857-3358
`Fax: (202) 293-7860
`Backup Counsel
`Fadi N. Kiblawi (Reg. No. 61,973)
`fkiblawi@sughrue.com
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave NW
`Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20037
`Tel: (202) 663-7386
`Fax: (202) 293-7860
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Robert Steinberg/
`
`
`
`
`Robert Steinberg (Reg. No. 33,144)
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01173
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`
`I hereby certify that this Reply complies with the word count limitation of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.24(c)(1) because the Reply contains 3,131 words, excluding the cover
`
`page, signature block, and the parts of the Reply exempted by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Robert Steinberg/
`
`Robert Steinberg (Reg. No. 33,144)
`bob.steinberg@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`355 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`213.485.1234; 213.891.8763 (Fax)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42.24(c).