`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SMART MODULAR TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAMES B. GOODMAN,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2105-01675
`Patent No. 6,243,315 B1
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, AND
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`RESPONSE BY PATENT OWNER TO PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PATENT OWNER’S SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 2001-2003
`
`David Fink (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 25,972
`Fink & Johnson
`7519 Apache Plume
`Houston, TX 77071
`Tel.: 713-729-4991
`texascowboy6@gmail.com
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`The Petitioner has submitted objections on March 18, 2016 to Supplemental Exhibits
`
`2001-2003 filed by the Patent Owner’s on March 11, 2016.
`
`Basically, Petitioner is recycling most of its objections from its objections filed March
`
`11, 2016 with the same defects.
`
`Once again, it is respectfully pointed out that Petitioner has made no objection as to the
`
`content or evidentiary value of the Patent Owner’s Exhibits.
`
`1.
`
`As to the objection pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.63(a), Petitioner has failed again to
`
`comply with 37 CFR 42.64(b)(1) which states, “The objection must identify the
`
`grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the
`
`form of supplemental evidence.” Thus, Petitioner’s vague statement “failure to
`
`file in the form of an exhibit” does not satisfy 37 CFR 42.64(b)(1).
`
`2.
`
`As to the objection pursuant to F.R.E. 106, Petitioner has failed again to provide
`
`any basis for requiring the Exhibits to be complete copies of the document or
`
`webpage. F.R.E. 106 requires any other part of the document “that in fairness
`
`ought to be considered at the same time”. Petitioner has failed again to explain
`
`the need for the more than 3000 pages of JEDEC21-C to be submitted when a
`
`mere two pages show the information relevant to the Response. It is respectfully
`
`pointed out that the first page of the Exhibit identifies JEDEC21-C as having
`
`more than 3000 pages. Petitioner has failed to point to even a single page of the
`
`3000 pages, other than the pages before the PTAB, that is relevant to this
`
`proceedings.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’ characterization of Exhibits 2001-2003 at
`
`page 9 of the Patent Owner’s Response, under F.R.E. 702. Petitioner has not
`
`identified the specific language at page 9 again; however it is assumed that
`
`Petitioner is referring to the following paragraph:
`
`The fact that CKE is a control signal is
`evident from its function and the fact that the
`industry standard for memory configurations,
`JEDEC21-C, Section 3.12.3.1, ¶6. identifies CKE
`as a control signal along with WE, CAS, RAS, and
`CS. Attached are: copy of web page from
`www.jedec.org describing the importance of the
`JESD21-C, and copies of pages 3.12.3-1 and
`3.12.3-2 from the JESD21-C.
`
`The JEDEC web site identifies JEDEC21-C as the industry standard for memory
`
`configurations, and apparently, Petitioner believes that only an expert can read
`
`and report this fact to the PTAB. In addition, Petitioner believes that only an
`
`expert can read the Exhibits and report the specific pages and sections to the
`
`PTAB that address the facts. The Petitioner has not pointed to a single opinion
`
`being asserted as an expert. The Exhibits speak for themselves.
`
`March 18, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David Fink/
`
`David Fink (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 25,972
`Fink & Johnson
`7519 Apache Plume
`Houston, TX 77071
`Tel.: 713-729-4991
`texascowboy6@gmail.com
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(E)(4)
`
`The undersigned certifies that a complete copy of this RESPONSE BY PATENT OWNER
`
`TO PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 2001-
`
`2003 was served via email on Counsel for Petitioner in this proceeding on March 18, 2016:
`
`Michael F. Heafey
`King & Spalding
`601 South California Avenue, Suite 100
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`mheafey@kslaw.com
`
`Date: March 18, 2016
`
`/David Fink/
`David Fink (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 25,972
`Fink & Johnson
`7519 Apache Plume
`Houston, TX 77071
`Tel.: 713-729-4991
`texascowboy6@gmail.com
`
`-4-
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
