`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`ALLSTEEL INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01691
`Patent No. 8,024,901
`Issue Date: September 27, 2011
`
`Title: INTEGRATED RECONFIGURABLE WALL SYSTEM
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a) and the Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper
`
`11) entered February 2, 2016, Patent Owner DIRTT Environmental Solutions Ltd.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) hereby requests an oral hearing on the issues set forth below at a
`
`time to be set by the Board. Oral argument is currently scheduled for October 13,
`
`2016. (Paper 11.)
`
`Patent Owner requests a two-hour hearing, with one hour allotted each to
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner. Patent Owner requests oral argument on the
`
`following issues raised in the parties’ filings:
`
`1. Whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove that claims 1, 6, 7, and
`
`15-18 are unpatentable for obviousness in view of Raith and EVH and that
`
`claim 14 is unpatentable for obviousness in view of Raith, EVH, and Dixon,
`
`and particularly (1) whether the motivations/reasons identified by Petitioner
`
`would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`to arrive at the combination recited in independent claim 1 and (2) whether, in
`
`light of all of the evidence including the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert
`
`and the objective evidence of non-obviousness, the subject matter of
`
`independent claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention.
`
`2. Whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove that claims 1, 4, 5, and
`
`9 are unpatentable for obviousness in view of Raith and Yu, and particularly (1)
`
`1
`
`
`
`whether the motivations/reasons identified by Petitioner would have led a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the
`
`combination recited in independent claim 1 and (2) whether, in light of all of
`
`the evidence including the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert and the objective
`
`evidence of non-obviousness, the subject matter of independent claim 1 would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`3. Whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove that claims 1, 4, 10,
`
`19, and 20 are unpatentable for obviousness in view of Raith and MacGregor,
`
`and that claim 25 is unpatentable for obviousness in view of Raith, MacGregor,
`
`and Rozier, particularly (1) whether the motivations/reasons identified by
`
`Petitioner would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to arrive at the combination recited in independent claim 1 and (2)
`
`whether, in light of all of the evidence including the testimony of Patent
`
`Owner’s expert and the objective evidence of non-obviousness, the subject
`
`matter of independent claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`4. The arguments and characterizations made by Petitioner in its Reply,
`
`including Petitioner’s mischaracterizations of the testimony of Patent Owner’s
`
`expert.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`5. The broadest reasonable construction of the term “horizontal stringer”
`
`in independent claim 1.
`
`6. The admissibility of any evidence that Patent Owner or Petitioner
`
`timely moves to exclude.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 6, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By /Chad E. Nydegger/
`Chad E. Nydegger, Reg. No. 61,020
`Michael J. Frodsham, Reg. No. 48,699
`David R. Todd, Reg. No. 41,348
`WORKMAN NYDEGGER
`60 East South Temple, Suite 1000
`Salt Lake City, UT 84111
`Telephone: 801-533-9800
`Facsimile: 801-328-1707
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6, I hereby certify that on this 6th day of
`
`September, 2016, I caused the foregoing Patent Owner’s Request for Oral
`
`Argument Pursuant to C.F.R. § 42.70(a) to be served by electronic mail on the
`
`following counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`Victor P. Jonas
`Nicholas M. Anderson
`Timothy Sullivan
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS
`2200 Wells Fargo Center
`90 S. Seventh St.
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`victor.jonas@faegrebd.com
`nick.anderson@faegrebd.com
`timothy.sullivan@faegrebd.com
`
`Trevor Carter
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS
`300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`trevor.carter@faegrebd.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Chad E. Nydegger/
`Chad E. Nydegger, Reg. No. 61,020
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
