Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RARITAN AMERICAS, INC. D/B/A RARITAN COMPUTER, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`SERVER TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01596
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,702,771
`Title: Electrical Power Distribution Device Having A Current Display
`Filed: October 11, 2006
`Issued: April 20, 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`V. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’771 PATENT .................................................... 4 
`II. 
`III.  THE BOARD SHOULD REJECT THE PETITION BECAUSE IT
`DOES NOT SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF
`PREVAILING BY FAILING TO ANALYZE THE PRIORITY
`DATE OF THE CLAIMS AND QUALIFY THE REFERENCES AS
`“PRIOR ART” ............................................................................................... 7 
`A. 
`Raritan’s Petition Fails to Allege A Credible Priority Date for
`the ’771 Patent Claims ......................................................................... 8 
`Raritan’s Petition Fails to Qualify the Cited References as Prior
`Art ...................................................................................................... 12 
`IV.  THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE PETITION IN ITS ENTIRETY
`BECAUSE EACH OF THE GROUNDS ARE DUPLICATIVE AND
`THE FACTS JUSTIFY EXERCISING DISCRETION UNDER §
`325(d) .......................................................................................................... 22 
`THE BOARD SHOULD REJECT THE INSTANT PETITION
`BECAUSE RARITAN FAILS TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CLAIMS CHALLENGED ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ...................................................................................... 35 
`A. 
`Petitioner’s Anticipation Rejection in Ground 3 and Proposed
`Obviousness Rejection in Ground 1 Is Based on Improper
`Interpretation of Claim Terms ........................................................... 35 
`Petitioner Does Not Provide A Proper Basis For Combining
`Lee With The MSVM Literature in Ground 2 ................................... 36 
`The Petition Does Not Provide A Proper Basis For Combining
`McNally With Liu ............................................................................. 41 
`The Petition Does Not Provide A Proper Basis For Combining
`Ewing ‘974 With Wiebe and Lee ...................................................... 42 
`The Petition Does Not Provide A Proper Basis For Combining
`the Baytech Literature with Lee ......................................................... 44 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 46 
`A. 
`Electrical Power Distribution Device ................................................ 46 
`B. 
`Current-related Information Display Does Not Encompass A
`Single Led .......................................................................................... 47 
`i
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`2. 
`
`1. 
`
`To construe an LED as a “current-related information
`display” is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the
`term “display” ......................................................................... 47 
`To construe an LED as a “current-related information
`display” is inconsistent with the specification of the ’771
`Patent ....................................................................................... 48 
`Intelligent power section/module ....................................................... 50 
`C. 
`VII.  THE BOARD SHOULD DENY AT LEAST SOME—IF NOT
`ALL—OF THE PETITION GROUNDS BECAUSE EACH IS
`HORIZONTALLY REDUNDANT AND MERELY CUMULATIVE ....... 51 
`VIII.  OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .................................... 58 
`IX.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 59 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`Actavis, Inc. v. Research Corp. Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2014-01126, Paper 22 (Jan. 9, 2015) .......................................................... 21
`
`Page(s)
`
`Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00242, Paper 37 (Oct. 11, 2013) ...................................... 52, 53, 55, 57
`
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01053, Paper 14 (Dec. 19, 2014) ................................................. 16, 19
`
`Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Millenium Biologix, LLC,
`IPR2013-00583, Paper 9 (Mar. 21, 2014) ................................................... 12, 13
`
`BLD Services LLC v. LMK Technologies LLC,
`IPR2015-00721, Paper 9 (Aug. 24, 2015) ......................................................... 25
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc., v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (Aug. 29, 2014) ........................................... 14, 15, 16
`
`Coalition for Affordable Drugs (ADROCA) LLC v. Acorda
`Therapeutics, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00720, Paper 15 (Aug. 24, 2015) ....................................................... 13
`
`Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2013-00510 Paper 9 (Feb. 12, 2014) .............................................. 14, 26, 33
`
`Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Procter & Gamble Company,
`IPR2014-00628, Paper 21 (Oct. 20, 2014) ........................................................ 23
`
`CoreLogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00219, Paper 6 (May 21, 2015) ............................................. 23, 24, 30
`
`Dell et al. v. Selene Commc’n,
`IPR2014-01411, Paper 23 (Feb. 26, 2015) ........................................................ 18
`
`Eiselstein v. Frank,
`52 F.3d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................... 11
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`Globus Medical Inc. v. Depuy Synthes Prods. LLC,
`IPR2015-00099, Paper 15 (May 1, 2015) ......................................................... 18
`
`Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.,
`IPR2012-00006, Paper 43 (May 10, 2013) ....................................................... 54
`
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................. 13, 18, 20
`
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ........................................................................... 13
`
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 13
`
`Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. Advanced Messaging
`Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01027, Paper 16 (Dec. 22, 2014) ................................................. 24, 33
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc., v. Illumina Cambridge Limited,
`IPR2013-00324, Paper 19 (Nov. 21, 2013) ....................................................... 26
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................ 37, 38, 43, 45
`
`L-3 Communication Holdings, Inc. v. Power Survey, LLC,
`IPR2014-00832, Paper 9 (Nov. 14, 2014) ......................................................... 13
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 8 (Oct. 25, 2012) ................................................ passim
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00487, Paper 8 (Sep. 11, 2014).......................................................... 25
`
`Medtronic, Inc. V. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00436, Paper 17 (June 19, 2014) ................................................. 25, 33
`
`Merial Ltd. v. Virbac,
`IPR2014-01279, Paper 13 (Jan. 22, 2015) .................................................. 24, 27
`
`Nexans, Inc. v. Belden Techs. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00057, Paper 11 (Apr. 16, 2013) ....................................................... 52
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2013-00075, Paper 8 (May 3, 2013) ........................................................... 52
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2013-00088, Paper 13 (June 13, 2013) ....................................................... 53
`
`Oxford Nanopore Techs. Ltd. v. Univ. of Washington,
`IPR2014-00512, Paper 12 (Sep. 15, 2014) .............................................. 8, 14, 15
`
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 37
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................... 48
`
`Prism Pharma Co. v. Choongwae Pharma Corp.,
`IPR2014-00315, Paper 14 (July 8, 2014) .................................................... 24, 27
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.,
`230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ......................................................................... 11
`
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 11
`
`Shaw Indus. Group Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00584, Paper 16 (Dec. 31, 2013) ....................................................... 53
`
`Square, Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC,
`CBM2014-00156, Paper 11 (Dec. 24, 2014) .................................................... 16
`
`Standard Innovation Corp. v LELO, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 (Apr. 23, 2015) ........................................... 16, 17, 19
`
`Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`752 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 13
`
`Temporal Power, Ltd. v. Beacon Power, LLC,
`IPR2015-00146, Paper 8 (Mar. 19, 2015) ......................................................... 12
`
`Tempur Sealy Int’l. Inc. v. Select Comfort Corp.,
`IPR2014-01419, Paper 7 (Feb. 17, 2015)................................................ 9, 14, 15
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Techs.,
`IPR2014-00702 , Paper 13 (July 24, 2014) ....................................................... 26
`
`Unilever, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Procter & Gamble Company,
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 17 (July 7, 2014) .......................................................... 25
`
`Unilever, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 17 (July 7, 2014) .......................................................... 23
`
`Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Indus. Co. v. Int’l Trade
`Comm’n,
`535 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 11
`
`Zetec, Inc., v. Westinghouse Elec. Co.,
`IPR2014-00384, Paper 10 (July 23, 2014) ........................................................ 22
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................... 29, 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................................................... 21, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .......................................................................................... passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.1(b) ..................................................................................... 22, 24, 54
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .......................................................................... 15, 41, 44, 46
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) .......................................................................................... 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................. 3, 46
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143(I) (A) .......................................... 43
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143(I) (B)..................................... 43, 45
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143(1) (B) ................................... .. 43, 45
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143(I) (G) .................................... 43, 45
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143(1) (G) .................................. .. 43, 45
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,949,974 ............................................................................ 4, 43, 44
`U.S. Patent No. 5,949,974 .......................................................................... .. 4, 43, 44
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,711,613 ........................................................................................ 4
`U.S. Patent No. 6,711,613 ...................................................................................... .. 4
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,543 ............................................................................... passim
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,543 ............................................................................. ..passim
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,099,934 .................................................................................. 4, 11
`U.S. Patent No. 7,099,934 ................................................................................ .. 4, 11
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,702,771 ............................................................................... passim
`U.S. Patent No. 7,702,771 ............................................................................. ..passim
`
`
`
`vii
`Vii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`
`Petitioner, Raritan Americas, Inc. d/b/a Raritan Computer, Inc., (“Raritan”),
`
`did not submit a statement of material facts in its Petition filed July 15, 2015
`
`(“Petition”) under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(c). Thus, no response is due under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(a), and Patent Owner Server Technology, Inc. (“Server Tech”) admits no
`
`facts.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Raritan’s Petition requesting inter partes review of Server Tech’s U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,702,771 (the ’771 Patent) suffers from procedural and substantive
`
`defects that each independently justify denying the Petition.
`
`First, the Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing because
`
`it does not provide any evidence of the priority date of the ’771 Patent claims or
`
`qualify the cited references as “prior art.” Specifically, Raritan simply pulls the
`
`priority date of the claims out of thin air without citing any supporting evidence or
`
`analysis. Even the duplicative evidence from the Reexamination proceedings
`
`impermissibly incorporated into the Petition, plainly and unequivocally contradicts
`
`Raritan’s priority date theory. The Board should not engage in sua sponte analysis
`
`and review of facts absent from or merely referenced in the Petition. Because the
`
`Petition does not correctly analyze priority or the prior art, it fails to carry its
`
`burden and the Petition should be denied.
`
`Second, the Patent Office has already heard and weighed the evidence and
`
`the arguments in Raritan’s Petition. Section 325(d) provides an easy mechanism
`
`for the Board to exercise its discretion and deny the Petition in its entirety. The
`
`Petition merely alleges Grounds based on references already considered by the
`
`Office during original prosecution, other references that are merely duplicative of
`
`those the Examiner weighed during original prosecution, and identical or nearly-
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`identical Grounds previously raised in a well-advanced inter partes reexamination
`
`of the parent patent—U.S. Patent No. 7,043,543.1 The Petition admits this fact
`
`relating to the reexamination by plainly stating—many times—“This is the same
`
`evidence and reasoning that the Patent Office Examiner relied on to reject [insert
`
`claim number]….” Instituting a Petition based on redundant Grounds, evidence,
`
`and arguments based on original prosecution or other proceedings does not ensure
`
`“the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of IPR proceedings. Because the
`
`Petition admittedly repackages the same information already presented to the
`
`Office during prosecution and reexamination, it should be denied.
`
`Third, the Petition fails to provide any reason or fact-based analysis to
`
`combine the teachings of the prior art references identified in the obviousness
`
`grounds. Instead, the Petition provides unsupported reasons and conclusory
`
`statements asserting that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention
`
`would be further motivated to combine references. Such conclusory statements in
`
`the Petition have no evidentiary support in the teachings of the cited references or
`
`in the knowledge of one of skill in the art, and cannot provide a sufficient reason to
`
`1 See Control No. 95/001,485. The Petition essentially treats the ‘543 Patent and
`
`the ’771 Patent as interchangeable based on the claims of each incorporating many
`
`similar features. Without any admission, Server Tech accepts the Petition’s
`
`similarities and related analysis for the purpose of this Preliminary Response.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`combine these references. Furthermore, to the extent that Raritan’s expert
`
`declaration provides a more reasoned or fact-based analysis (which it does not),
`
`incorporation of such arguments into the Petition by reference is improper.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition has not met its burden of showing a reason to combine
`
`any of the alleged prior art combinations, and the Petition should be denied.
`
`Fourth, Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions do not provide any clarity
`
`to the relevant terms, and are further improper under the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction” standard defined in 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. The Petition either provides
`
`a proposed claim construction that lacks any more clarity than the claim term itself,
`
`or proposes that a term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning only to go
`
`on to provide a limitation on such a plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Fifth, even if the Board does not reject the Petition under § 325(d), the
`
`Petition only presents cumulative and horizontally-redundant Grounds. The
`
`Petition alleges multiple Grounds for each set of claims (1-14 and 15-23) without
`
`any meaningful distinction as to the references themselves, the related arguments,
`
`or how each is applied to the claims. The Petition itself must explain why any
`
`alleged differences in the references justify institution, and references have been
`
`determined redundant even if their teachings are not identical. Here, Raritan does
`
`not articulate any relative strength or weakness of any proposed Ground, and the
`
`horizontally redundant Grounds should be denied.
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`For these reasons, the Board should deny the Petition in its entirety. If the
`
`Board institutes an inter partes review proceeding, Server Tech does not admit or
`
`otherwise concede the legitimacy of any Petition argument. Server Tech expressly
`
`reserves the right to rebut these arguments in its Patent Owner Response.
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ’771 PATENT
`The ’771 Patent was filed on October 11, 2006, and claims priority to a non-
`
`provisional application that matured into the ’543 patent.2 Further, the ’771 Patent
`
`claims priority as a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application Ser. No.
`
`09/732,557, filed Dec. 8, 2000, issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,099,934 (the ’934
`
`patent) on Aug. 29, 2006, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent
`
`Application Ser. No. 09/375,471, filed Aug. 16, 1999, issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,711,613 on Mar. 23, 2004, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent
`
`Application Ser. No. 08/685,436, filed on Jul. 23, 1996, issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,949,974 on Sep. 7, 1999.
`
`The ’771 Patent is directed to an electrical power distribution device,
`
`commonly referred to as a power distribution unit (PDU), connectable to one or
`
`more electrical loads in an electrical equipment rack. Figure 1 of the ’771 Patent,
`
`2 As the Board is aware, the ’543 patent is also subject to a Petition for inter partes
`
`review filed by Petitioner. IPR2015-01597. Patent Owner has already filed a
`
`preliminary response to that Petition.
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`filed as Petitioner’s Ex. 1001 (IPR page 4), reproduced below, is exemplary of the
`
`claimed features.
`
`
`
`In particular, the ’771 Patent discloses and claims an electrical power
`
`distribution device with the following five features: (1) a one-piece vertical
`
`enclosure; (2) power inputs and outputs; (3) power control relays to provide
`
`switching capability; (4) a current information display for local current monitoring,
`
`and (5) a current reporting system for remote management. Ex. 1001, ’771 Patent,
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`claims 1, 15. This combination of features provides significant benefits and
`
`advantages over prior art
`
`For example, the ’771 Patent describes a benefit that was not previously
`
`provided by PDUs. That is, “[t]he total input current display 104 can be used to
`
`advantage by a technician when installing or troubleshooting a RETMA equipment
`
`rack by watching how much current change is observed when each network
`
`appliance is plugged in and turned on. Unusually high or low currents can indicate
`
`particular kinds of faults to experienced technicians.” Ex. 1001, 3:31-35. This is a
`
`separate and distinct benefit from an overcurrent alarm, such as disclosed in certain
`
`of the primary references relied upon by the Petitioner. Simply having an LED
`
`does not allow a technician to observe the actual current drawn by a PDU, provide
`
`information of unusually high or low currents, or provide detailed information on
`
`the actual amount of headroom still available on the PDU, even if it is an effective
`
`alarm for indicating overcurrent thresholds being exceeded. In a data center having
`
`many equipment racks, loading equipment racks and PDUs to their capacity
`
`provides significant advantages, which can maximize the amount of equipment on
`
`a rack and reduce the number of PDUs needed to provide power to the equipment
`
`in the data center.
`
`The prior art PDUs of the Petitioner’s references simply do not contemplate
`
`using PDUs to help data centers maximize space or power efficiency on a rack-by-
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`rack basis, much less by using a digital display. As to power management, the prior
`
`art references were singularly focused on setting off an alarm to warn of potential
`
`current overload. The documents of the MasterSwitch Vertical Mount (MSVM)
`
`Literature are illustrative. Nothing in the MSVM Literature reflects that APC
`
`recognized the benefit of digitally displaying current information to help data
`
`centers identify faults based on low or high currents, or to maximize rack capacity.
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD REJECT THE PETITION BECAUSE IT
`DOES NOT SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF
`PREVAILING BY FAILING TO ANALYZE THE PRIORITY DATE
`OF THE CLAIMS AND QUALIFY THE REFERENCES AS “PRIOR
`ART”
`
`Raritan fails to carry its burden to provide substantive analysis regarding the
`
`actual priority date of the ’771 Patent claims and how this date relates to any
`
`alleged “prior art” references relied on in the six asserted Grounds. Instead, Raritan
`
`picks a priority date out of thin air, attempts to incorporate argument from
`
`declarations into the Petition, relies on conclusory allegations contradicted by its
`
`own “evidence,” and asks Server Tech—and by extension the Board—to hunt for
`
`the facts. The Board should not—sua sponte—engage in analysis and review of
`
`facts outside the Petition when the Petition itself fails to carry the required burden.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition fails to meet the reasonable likelihood of success
`
`standard under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and should be denied.
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`A. Raritan’s Petition Fails to Allege A Credible Priority Date for the
`’771 Patent Claims
`
`In less than a page, Raritan summarily alleges that—despite the claims’
`
`proper priority claim—the ’771 Patent “cannot claim priority before August 15,
`
`2001, the filing date of the parent ‘543 patent.” Petition at 10. The Petition fails to
`
`provide any substantive evidence to support this date, and even the supporting
`
`declarations and the related inter partes reexamination on which Raritan relies
`
`contradict its priority-date theory. Even a cursory review of the Petition shows that
`
`it should be denied.
`
`Raritan’s only argument in the Petition states that some ’771 Patent claim
`
`terms were “first disclosed in the ‘543 patent, in particular, in connection with the
`
`enclosure shown in Figure 1.” See Petition at 11. Raritan highlights that
`
`independent claims 1 and 15 “recite an ‘enclosure’ for a power distribution device
`
`as well as the physical configuration of several components within the
`
`enclosure….” Petition at 10. Based on this one sentence description referencing
`
`Figure 1, Raritan divines the priority date for claims 1 and 15 as August 15, 2001
`
`without analysis, completely disregarding any earlier filed Server Tech application
`
`in the priority chain and Server Tech’s claim to priority.
`
`The Board should not weigh extrinsic evidence about the claims’ priority
`
`that is absent from the Petition. Oxford Nanopore Techs. Ltd. v. Univ. of
`
`Washington, IPR2014-00512, Paper 12, pages 15-16 (Sep. 15, 2014) (rejecting
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`declaration information merely referenced in petition); Tempur Sealy Int’l. Inc.
`
`v. Select Comfort Corp., IPR2014-01419, Paper 7, pages 7-8 (Feb. 17, 2015)
`
`(proclaiming petition itself must contain arguments and evidence serving as the
`
`basis for institution). The burden falls on Raritan to make arguments demonstrating
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the Petition. The absence of these
`
`arguments—including an analysis of priority—means that Raritan failed to satisfy
`
`its burden. The Board should not analyze the priority claims based on merely
`
`referenced or incorporated matter or other facts that could have been presented in
`
`the Petition.
`
`The inter partes reexamination declarations and evidence cited by Raritan
`
`contradict the Petition’s sole priority-date theory. In the parent ’543 Patent
`
`reexamination, Mr. Johnson declared December 8, 2000 as the “filing” or priority
`
`date of the ’543 Patent that—according to the Petition—has nearly identical
`
`claims. Ex. 1016 at 2; Petition at 19 n.2. Mr. North similarly declared December 8,
`
`2000 as the “filing” or priority date of the ’543 Patent. Ex. 1021 at 1; Petition at 22
`
`n. 4. The PTO Examiner in the reexamination determined Server Tech had priority
`
`back to December 8, 2000. See Ex. 1005 at 15.3
`
`3 During initial prosecution of the parent ’543 Patent, the original Examiner also
`
`found the patent had priority to December 8, 2000. See Exhibit 2002, Non-final
`
`Office Action dated 10/22/2004 in Application No. 09/930,780. Server Tech does
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Server Tech asserts that it at least has priority for the claims of the ’771
`
`Patent to December 8, 2000—if not before. The Petition does not challenge the
`
`chain of priority, and fails to provide any substantive analysis on this point.
`
`Although Server Tech cannot submit new testimony evidence establishing its
`
`earlier priority date with this response,4 the fact remains: the Petition failed to
`
`carry Raritan’s burden to analyze the priority date of the claims and detail why any
`
`cited “prior art” reference antedates the claims. The Board should not—sua
`
`sponte—carry Raritan’s burden by assembling proposed Grounds, evaluating the
`
`arguments, and essentially compiling and patching together cited and uncited facts.
`
`The burden falls squarely on Raritan and its Petition, and each failed here.
`
`Further, Raritan’s unsupported 2001 priority date theory contradicts Federal
`
`Circuit case law and relies on inaccurate per se rules. For example, Raritan
`
`seemingly relies on Figure 1 of the ’543 Patent as the only support for priority. But
`
`the Federal Circuit has found that continuation-in-part applications do not
`
`not concede the accuracy of the Examiners’ determinations or the declarant’s
`
`testimony, but cites this date to show that Raritan’s theory is unsupported and fails.
`
`4 If the Board decides not to deny the Petition by exercising its discretion under
`
`§ 325(d) and/or based on Server Tech’s other arguments, Server Tech will provide
`
`new testimony evidence in its Patent Owner Response analyzing a priority date
`
`even before December 8, 2000.
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`automatically break the chain of priority, but instead require a case-by-case
`
`analysis. E.g., Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (reversing district court’s finding of lacking written description for some
`
`claims). In addition, the law does not require verbatim support for the later claims
`
`in earlier applications. See e.g., Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995) (“[T]he prior application need not describe the claimed subject matter in
`
`exactly the same terms as used in the [later-filed] claims; it must simply indicate to
`
`persons skilled in the art that as of the earlier date the applicant had invented what
`
`is now claimed.”); Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Indus. Co. v. Int’l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 535 F.3d 1322, 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Purdue Pharma
`
`L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (stating “In order to
`
`satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does
`
`not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.”).
`
`The specific facts and determinations surrounding the ’771 Patent’s parent
`
`(the ’543 Patent) are even more telling. As highlighted above, the inter partes
`
`reexamination Examiner determined the priority date of the claims as December 8,
`
`2000—the filing date of Server Tech’s earlier U.S. Patent No. 7,099,934. This
`
`earlier patent, however, did not include Figure 1 of the ’543 Patent. Despite this
`
`difference, the Examiner determined that the written disclosure adequately
`
`supported claims 1-23 at least as of this date. Thus, even in this particular case,
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Raritan’s exclusive reliance on “Figure 1” cannot save its priority-date theory.
`
`Because Raritan fails to provide any substantive evidence of the priority date of the
`
`’771 Patent, the priority chain remains intact. Baxter Healthcare Corp. v.
`
`Millenium Biologix, LLC, IPR2013-00583, Paper 9, pages 8-9 (Mar. 21, 2014)
`
`(denying petition because the claims were entitled to earlier date and the reference
`
`was not shown to be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102).5 Thus, the Board should
`
`deny Raritan’s petition because it fails to adequately allege any credible priority
`
`theory—meaning it failed to carry its burden to show a reasonable likelihood of
`
`success.
`
`B. Raritan’s Petition Fails to Qualify the Cited References as Prior
`Art
`
`The Petition also failed to show that the “prior art” references actually pre-
`
`date the claims’ priority date. The Petition cannot demonstrate that the Grounds it
`
`alleges are based on actual prior art, because of its flawed priority theory and
`
`inadequate supporting evidence. Raritan fails to carry the petitioner’s burden of
`
`establishing the references’ prior art status and fails to show a reasonable
`
`
`5 Even if Raritan could provide this information in supplemental briefing, the
`
`Board should reject any request to file additional papers on prior art and printed
`
`publication issues before its institution decision. See Temporal Power, Ltd. v.
`
`Beacon Power, LLC, IPR2015-00146, Paper 8, pages 2-3 (Mar. 19, 2015).
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`likelihood of success. See, e.g., Coalition for Affordable Drugs (ADROCA) LLC v.
`
`Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., IPR2015-00720, Paper 15, pages 2-4 (Aug. 24, 2015)
`
`(denying institution because posters not shown to be prior art); Baxte