Case Nos. IPR2015-01751
`and IPR2015-01752
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte Review
`Notice of Appeal
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01751
`Case IPR2015-01752
`US Patent No. 7,356,482
`Title: INTEGRATED CHANGE MANAGEMENT UNIT
`____________________
`
`________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`and IPR2015-01752
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte Review
`Notice of Appeal
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01751
`Case IPR2015-01752
`US Patent No. 7,356,482
`Title: INTEGRATED CHANGE MANAGEMENT UNIT
`____________________
`
`________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01751
`and IPR2015-01752
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte Review
`Notice of Appeal
`
`
`
`To the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office:
`Patent Owner, Applications in Internet Time LLC, hereby notices its appeals
`from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Final Written Decision dated December 28,
`2016 (Paper 82 in 01751 case, Paper 80 in 01752 case), and all adverse rulings or
`orders leading up to the Final Written Decision.
`In addition to other issues that may be raised on appeal, Patent Owner asks
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), that the appeal may raise one or more of the
`following legal issues:
`1. Whether the Board’s factual findings lacked substantial evidence because the
`Board did not explain why it relied upon one expert’s opinion of claim
`construction and not the opinions of four other experts.
`2. Whether the Board erred in its construction of claims 1, 7, 8, 10-13, 18-22, 27-
`33 and 38-40 of the subject ‘482 patent including “change management layer for
`automatically detecting changes that affect an application,” recited in claim 1,
`and “automatically detecting changes that affect a particular application,” recited
`in claim 21.
`3. Whether the Board erred in determining that Petitioner demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 7, 8, 10-13, 18-21, 27-33 and 38-40
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Patent No. 6,249,291
`(“Popp”).
`4. Whether the Board erred in determining that Petitioner demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 13-17 and 33-37 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious from Popp in view of Patent No. 5,710,900
`(“Anand”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01751
`and IPR2015-01752
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte Review
`Notice of Appeal
`
`
`
`5. Whether the Board erred in determining that Petitioner demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 8, 10, 19-21, 28, 30, 39 and 40 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Srdjan Kovacevic, Flexible,
`Dynamic User Interface for Web-Delivered Training, in AVI ’96 Proceedings of
`the Workshop on Advanced Visual Interfaces 108-18 (1996) (“Kovacevic”)
`6. Whether the Board erred in determining that Petitioner demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 7, 8, 10-12, 19-21, 27-32, 39 and 40
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Patent No.
`5,806,071 (“Balderrama”) and Java Complete!, 42 Datamation Magazine 5, 28-
`49 (Mar. 1, 1996) (“Java Complete”).
`7. Whether the Board erred in determining that Petitioner demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 22 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) as obvious from Popp.
`8. Whether the Board erred in determining that Petitioner demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 3-6 and 23-26 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious from Popp in view of E.F. Codd, Does Your DBMS
`Run by the Rules?, XIX ComputerWorld 42, 49-60 (Oct. 21, 1985) (“Codd”).
`9. Whether the Board exceeded its statutory and regulatory authority in making its
`factual findings supporting the ultimate conclusions of anticipation and
`obviousness.
`10. Whether the Board lacked authority to proceed in rendering the Final Written
`Decision because it misconstrued the law of privity and real party in interest.
`11. Whether the Board erred in holding that Salesforce.com, Inc. was not an unnamed
`real party in interest.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01751
`and IPR2015-01752
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte Review
`Notice of Appeal
`
`
`
`12. Whether the Inter Partes Review proceedings in general, and this case in
`particular, are unconstitutional and in violation of principles of administrative
`agency authority, including to the extent the Board is empowered (including
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 and 316) to invalidate, cancel, and/or render unpatentable
`an issued patent without affording any deference or presumption of validity to
`the issued claims.
`13. Any finding or determination supporting or related to those issues, as well as all
`other issues decided adversely to Patent Owner in any orders, decisions, rulings
`and opinions.
`
`Patent Owner has electronically filed this notice with the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(1) and Federal
`Circuit Rule 15(a)(1). Simultaneously herewith, Patent Owner is providing the
`Federal Circuit an electronic copy of the present Notice of Appeal (pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(2)(i) and 15(a)(1)) together with a $500 fee (pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 90.2(a)(2)(ii) and Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(3)(A)).
`
`Date: February 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Steven C. Sereboff/
`Steven C. Sereboff (Reg. No. 37,035)
`ssereboff@socalip.com
`Jonathan Pearce (Reg. No. 60,970)
`jpearce@socalip.com
`M. Kala Sarvaiya (Reg. No. 58,912)
`ksarvaiya@socalip.com
`SoCal IP Law Group LLP
`310 N. Westlake Boulevard, Suite 120
`Westlake Village, CA 91362
`Tele: (805) 230-1350 · Fax: (805) 230-1355
`Attorneys for Applications in Internet Time LLC
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01751
`and IPR2015-01752
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte Review
`Notice of Appeal
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND FILING
`
`I hereby certify that on the date set forth below, in addition to being filed and served
`electronically through the Board’s E2E System, a true and correct copy of the
`foregoing “PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL,” was served on the
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, via Express overnight
`delivery at the following address:
`
`Office of the General Counsel
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`I also hereby certify that on the date set forth below, a true and correct copy of the
`foregoing “PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL,” and the filing fee, were
`filed with the Clerk’s Office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit, via CM/ECF.
`
`I also hereby certify that on the date set forth below, a true and correct copy of the
`foregoing “PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL,” was served, by electronic
`mail, upon the following:
`
`Richard F. Giunta
`Elisabeth H. Hunt
`Randy J. Pritzker
`Michael N. Rader
`
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com;
`EHunt-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com;
`RPritzker-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com;
`MRader-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`Dated: February 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Anneliese Lomonaco/
`
`Anneliese Lomonaco
`
`SoCal IP Law Group LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`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
