throbber
Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`CASE NO. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`______________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 35
`U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..................................................................... 2
`
`III. STANDARD FOR INSTITUTION ................................................................. 3
`
`IV. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT. NO. 6,973,698 ................................ 5
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER IMPROPERLY INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE THE
`DAVIS DECLARATION ................................................................................ 6
`
`VI. PETITIONER PUTS FORTH NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES IN GROUNDS 1–4 DISCLOSE “SAID CONTACT FORCE
`OF SAID WIPER STRIP BEING GREATER IN SAID CENTER SECTION
`THAN IN AT LEAST ONE OF SAID TWO END SECTIONS,” AS
`REQUIRED BY CLAIM 1 .............................................................................. 9
`
`VII. PETITIONER’S OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS FAILS FOR LACK OF A
`VALID REASON TO COMBINE ................................................................12
`
`VIII. PETITIONER’S ESTOPPEL ARGUMENT LACKS ANY FACTUAL OR
`LEGAL BASES .............................................................................................13
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................14
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 4
`
`August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 4
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas LLC,
`IPR2013-00016, Paper 32 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2014) ................................................ 7
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ........................................... 2, 6
`
`Fidelity National Info. Serv’s, Inc. v. Datatreasury Corp.,
`IPR2014-00489, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 13, 2014) ................................................. 7
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................ 4, 13
`
`PCT Int’l, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp.,
`IPR2013-00229, Paper 17 (PTAB Dec. 24, 2013) ............................................... 7
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2013) ............................................... 4
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. OliviStar, LLC,
`IPR2015-01216, Paper 15 (PTAB Nov. 20, 2015) ............................................... 7
`
`Vizio, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ............................................................................................... 3, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ............................................................................................ 2, 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i) ...................................................................................... 2, 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ...................................................................................... 4, 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14,
`2012) ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`Patent Owner, Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”), submits this preliminary
`
`response to the Petition filed by Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Petitioner” or
`
`“Costco”) as Paper No. 1 in this proceeding, requesting inter partes review of
`
`claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698 (“Petition”). This response is timely pursuant
`
`to the Board’s Notice in Paper No. 3.
`
`The following arguments are not intended to be an exhaustive with respect
`
`to the grounds asserted in the Petition. Bosch respectfully submits these
`
`streamlined arguments in response to the issue of institution and reserves the right
`
`to expand on these arguments with additional evidence, including testimonial
`
`evidence, or to provide new arguments, should the Board determine that institution
`
`is appropriate.
`
`Bosch submits that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that
`
`it would prevail with respect to at least one of challenged claim. Accordingly,
`
`Bosch respectfully requests that the Board decline to institute inter partes review
`
`for the reasons set forth below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
`
`The Petition fails for several reasons.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`First, Petitioner violates 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.24(a)(1)(i) and 42.6(a)(3) by
`
`improperly incorporating by reference numerous arguments from the Davis
`
`Declaration into the Petition. Under this Board’s prior decisions, the Declaration
`
`should be disregarded. See, e.g., Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014). Without this testimony,
`
`Bosch submits that the Petition is insufficient to carry Petitioner’s burden, and
`
`institution should be denied with respect to Grounds 1, 2, and 4.
`
`Second, Petitioner offers no evidence that the cited references relied on by
`
`Petitioner in Grounds 1–4 disclose the limitation “said contact force of said wiper
`
`strip being greater in said center section than in at least one of said two end
`
`sections,” as required by the sole challenged claim. Therefore, institution on
`
`Grounds 1–4 must be denied.
`
`Third, Petitioner fails to show that claim 1 is unpatentable because Petitioner
`
`fails to present a valid reason to combine references in its Petition. In applying its
`
`obviousness analysis with respect to the claims, Petitioner states that the reason to
`
`combine prior art teachings is to achieve a “uniform pressure distribution”;
`
`however, this proposed reasoning is not encompassed by the claim language—
`
`“said contact force of said wiper strip being greater in said center section than in at
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`least one of said two end sections .…” In fact, the ’698 patent identifies “uniform
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`pressure distribution over the entire wiper blade length” as a prior art problem.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:40–50 (emphasis added). Accordingly, institution should be denied
`
`for obviousness Grounds 1, 2, and 4.
`
`Last, Petitioner’s estoppel argument lacks any factual or legal bases.
`
`Petitioner admits that the BPAI was never presented with issued claim 1, and that
`
`the BPAI never issued any determination with respect to the validity of issued
`
`claim 1. Further, Petitioner cites no rules or case law concerning this issue.
`
`Estoppel only applies to petitioners under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1)–(2); however,
`
`these sub-sections apply only to a particular claim at issue, not to related claims.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should reject this estoppel argument and institution should
`
`be denied for Ground 1.
`
`For these reasons, the Board should deny institution on all grounds.
`
`III. STANDARD FOR INSTITUTION
`The Board, in considering whether to institute a trial, determines whether or
`
`not a party has met the statutory institution standard. A petition for inter partes
`
`review may be granted only when “the information presented in the petition …
`
`shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`
`see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). A petitioner bears the burden of showing that this
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`standard has been met. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`48,756, 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The Board … may institute a trial where the
`
`petitioner establishes that the standards for instituting the requested trial are met
`
`….”). A petitioner also bears the burden of proving unpatentability by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`A petitioner making an obviousness challenge must show where each
`
`claimed limitation is taught in the prior art. See, e.g., Vizio, Inc. v. Int’l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 605 F.3d 1330, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2010); August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek
`
`Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). If a
`
`petitioner asserts that a combination of prior art renders a claim unpatentable, it
`
`must “set forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to
`
`support its proposed obviousness ground.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft,
`
`LLC, IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2013) (citing KSR Int’l Co.
`
`v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)); accord ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v.
`
`Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Board
`
`may “deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the
`
`challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Thus, it is a petitioner’s duty to provide sufficient grounds for institution.
`
`Here, Petitioner has failed to live up to its duty. Bosch respectfully submits that
`
`institution should be denied as to all grounds.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IV. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT. NO. 6,973,698
`U.S. Patent Number 6,973,698 (“the ’698 patent”) issued on December 13,
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`2005, and resulted from the prosecution of a PCT application filed on December
`
`18, 1998, which claims priority back to a German application filed April 1, 1998.
`
`The ’698 patent is directed to a beam-type wiper blade that includes a
`
`support element that distributes pressure along the length of the wiper strip such
`
`that the contact force of the wiper strip with the window is greater in the center
`
`section of the wiper blade than in at least one of its ends. Ex. 1001 at 4:16–5:18.
`
`The reduced force in the end section or sections encourages the wiper lip to flip
`
`over sequentially from the end or ends to the center, avoiding a knocking noise that
`
`would otherwise occur if the entire lip flips over simultaneously. Id. The wiping
`
`quality at the ends of the wiper blade is maintained by having the curvature of the
`
`support element be greater than the greatest curvature of the windshield in the
`
`wiping region. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`
`
`A schematic representation of an unloaded wiper blade placed against the
`
`window is shown in Figure 2. Id. at 2:38–40. Figure 5 depicts the contact pressure
`
`distribution along the wiper blade length for an exemplary embodiment of the
`
`invention. Id. at 2:53–55.
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER IMPROPERLY INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE
`THE DAVIS DECLARATION
`
`Bosch respectfully submits that the Davis Declaration cannot be relied upon
`
`to support the Petition because it amounts to an improper incorporation by
`
`reference, which has the effect of circumventing the 60-page limit on petitions.
`
`A petition requesting inter partes review is limited to 60 pages, and
`
`incorporation by reference is not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.24(a)(1)(i),
`
`42.6(a)(3). The Board has consistently determined that declarations are not to be
`
`used as a tool for circumventing page limits, and the tactic of incorporating lengthy
`
`materials to circumvent the page limit has been determined to be improper. See,
`
`e.g., Cisco, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 10 (disregarding arguments made in
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`declaration that were improperly incorporated by reference; “Incorporation ‘by
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`reference amounts to a self-help increase in the length of the [] brief[,]’ and ‘is a
`
`pointless imposition on the court’s time. A brief must make all arguments
`
`accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the
`
`record.’” (alteration in original; citation omitted)); Unified Patents Inc. v.
`
`OliviStar, LLC, IPR2015-01216, Paper 15 at 12–13 n.7 (PTAB Nov. 20, 2015)
`
`(citing to a declaration to support conclusory statements in petition is improper
`
`incorporation by reference); Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00016, Paper 32 at 21 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2014); PCT Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`Amphenol Corp., IPR2013-00229, Paper 17 at 2 (PTAB Dec. 24, 2013); Fidelity
`
`National Info. Serv’s, Inc. v. Datatreasury Corp., IPR2014-00489, Paper 9 at 9–11
`
`(PTAB Aug. 13, 2014).
`
`Petitioner repeatedly cites to large sections of the Davis Declaration to
`
`support broad scope conclusions without any correspondence or particularity. For
`
`example, the chart below demonstrates that each citation allegedly supports a
`
`single sentence that combines all of the following: reasons to combine; prior art
`
`teachings; and multiple obviousness conclusions.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`Corresponding Citation
`See also Declaration of Dr. Gregory W.
`Davis (“Davis Decl.”) (Ex. 1013) at 11–
`19, 31–33. [12 pages]
`
`See also Declaration of Dr. Gregory W.
`Davis (“Davis Decl.”) (Ex. 1013) at 11–
`31, 33–35. [26 pages]
`
`See also Davis Decl. (Ex. 1013) at 11–
`31, 35–37.” [23 pages]
`
`Petitioner’s Obviousness Conclusion
`“One of ordinary skill in the art would
`have reason to combine these teachings
`of Appel ’770, along with the teachings
`of Arai that a ‘multiple number of
`mutually pivotally connected yoke
`elements’ are ‘complicated in
`construction” and ‘expensive,’ to obtain
`a wiper blade with an appropriately
`curved carrying element that maintains
`relatively uniform pressure distribution
`and results in good wiping quality.” See
`Petition at 40.
`“One of ordinary skill in the art would
`have reason to combine these teachings
`of Arai with those of Appel ’551, DE
`’939, or Swanepoel ’564 to obtain a
`wiper blade, in which the curvature of
`the carrying element is sharper than that
`of the window, in which the curvature is
`greater in the middle than at the ends,
`and in which the carrying element
`maintains relatively uniform pressure
`distribution and results in good wiping
`quality.” See Petition at 41–42.
`“Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in
`the art would have reason to combine
`the teachings of Swanepoel ’564 with
`those of Arai, Appel ’770, Appel ’551,
`or DE ’939 to obtain a wiper blade, in
`which the curvature of the carrying
`element is sharper than that of the
`window, in which the curvature is
`greater in the middle than at the ends,
`and which maintains relatively uniform
`pressure distribution and results in good
`wiping quality.” See Petition at 49–50.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`In total, this amounts to approximately 30 pages of improper incorporations
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`by reference. Other than the broad “see also” citations, Petitioner does not provide
`
`any connection to particular arguments, any explanation as to how or why it relies
`
`on these lengthy sections, or what particular portion of the declaration it relies
`
`upon. The Board is left to sift through the Davis Declaration and to create
`
`arguments for Petitioner.
`
`This tactic amounts to an improper incorporation by reference and shifts the
`
`burden to the Board to make arguments for Petitioner. Petitioner’s extensive
`
`reliance on the Davis Declaration lacks any specificity and fails to support any
`
`particular prior art teaching or argument of unpatentability. Accordingly, the
`
`Davis Declaration should be excluded from consideration, and Bosch respectfully
`
`submits that—without the declaration—Petitioner has failed to carry its burden
`
`with respect to the sole challenged claim (claim 1) for each of Grounds 1, 2, and 4.
`
`VI. PETITIONER PUTS FORTH NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CITED
`REFERENCES IN GROUNDS 1–4 DISCLOSE “SAID CONTACT
`FORCE OF SAID WIPER STRIP BEING GREATER IN SAID CENTER
`SECTION THAN IN AT LEAST ONE OF SAID TWO END
`SECTIONS,” AS REQUIRED BY CLAIM 1
`Claim 1 requires the following limitation: “said contact force of said wiper
`
`strip being greater in said center section than in at least one of said two end
`
`sections.” With respect to this limitation, for Grounds 1–4, Petitioner makes only
`
`unsupported statements of its presence in the cited prior art, and thus fails to meet
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s burden of specifying elements that demonstrate unpatentability with
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`sufficient explanation and relevant citations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (petition
`
`must “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or
`
`printed publications relied upon”).
`
`Regarding Ground 1, Petitioner asserts that claim 1 is unpatentable as
`
`obvious over Arai in view of Appel ’770 and the knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.1 As alleged evidence in support, Petitioner submits a
`
`claim chart that merely echoes the claim language. See Petition at 33–38. This
`
`echoed claim language is not supported by the Arai reference.
`
`In fact, Arai discloses the opposite: uniform pressure distribution along the
`
`length of the blade rubber. See Ex. 1004 at 1:30–34; 3: 34–36. This uniform
`
`pressure distribution is plainly not the same as “said contact force of said wiper
`
`strip being greater in said center section than in at least one of said two end
`
`sections.”
`
`In its claim chart, Petitioner also asserts that Appel ’770—as a secondary
`
`reference—discloses this limitation, by incorporating by reference Appel ’551.
`
`
`1 Bosch submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art has either an
`
`undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a similar discipline, or several
`
`years of experience in the field of wiper blade manufacture and design.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petitioner alleges that Appel ’551 “discloses a wiper strip that distributes a contact
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`force against the window over an entire length of a wiper strip and a wiper strip
`
`having a center section and end section.” Again, this describes uniform pressure
`
`loading, rather than the claimed limitation: “said contact force of said wiper strip
`
`being greater in said center section than in at least one of said two end sections.”
`
`Thus, Petitioner fails to meet its burden of specifying elements that
`
`demonstrate unpatentability because the Petition contains insufficient explanations
`
`and rests on irrelevant citations. Accordingly, Ground 1 should be denied
`
`institution.
`
`Ground 2 alleges the same obviousness argument as Ground 1, and further in
`
`view of Appel ’551, DE ’939, or Swanepoel ’564. To support Ground 2, Petitioner
`
`submits the same claim chart as provided for Ground 1. Bosch submits that the
`
`above arguments with respect to Ground 1, regarding Arai, Appel ’551, and Appel
`
`’770, also apply here to Ground 2. For Ground 2, Petitioner does not specify any
`
`additional prior art teachings, in DE ’939, or Swanepoel ’564, for the limitation
`
`“said contact force of said wiper strip being greater in said center section than in
`
`at least one of said two end sections.” Accordingly, Ground 2 should be denied.
`
`For Grounds 3 and 4, Petitioner alleges that claim 1 is unpatentable as
`
`anticipated by Swanepoel ’564 or obvious in view of Swanepoel ’564, alone or in
`
`view of DE ’939. With respect to the limitation “said contact force of said wiper
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`strip being greater in said center section than in at least one of said two end
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`sections,” Petitioner’s Grounds 3 and 4 are based on an unsupported inherency
`
`argument with insufficient explanation, irrelevant citations and conclusory
`
`statements. To support its inherency argument, Petitioner only cites to the Davis
`
`Declaration, with no explanation of how or why the Davis Declaration supports
`
`inherency. See Petition at 48. In other words, the Board must go to the Davis
`
`Declaration and develop its own arguments to import into the Petition on behalf of
`
`Petitioner. For the same reasons described in Section V, supra, this tactic amounts
`
`to an improper incorporation by reference, and the Davis Declaration should be
`
`excluded from consideration. Accordingly, Petitioner’s inherency arguments are
`
`unsupported and Petitioner fails to meet its burden of specifying elements that
`
`demonstrate unpatentability, and Grounds 3–4 should be denied.
`
`Thus, the Board should deny institution on all grounds.
`
`VII. PETITIONER’S OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS FAILS FOR LACK OF
`A VALID REASON TO COMBINE
`
`Petitioner fails to show that claim 1 is unpatentable because Petitioner fails
`
`to present a valid reason to combine the references in its Petition.
`
`Petitioner first notes that “‘[o]ne of the ways in which a patent’s subject
`
`matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the
`
`invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`by the patent’s claims.’” Petition at 27–28 (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`550 U.S. 398, 419–420 (2007)) (emphasis added). Petitioner then states that the
`
`reason to combine prior art teachings is to achieve a “uniform pressure
`
`distribution.” See Petition at 40, 42, and 50. However, this proposed reasoning is
`
`not encompassed by the claim language—“said contact force of said wiper strip
`
`being greater in said center section than in at least one of said two end sections …”
`
`In fact, the ’698 patent identifies “uniform pressure distribution over the entire
`
`wiper blade length” as a prior art problem. Id. at 1:40–50 (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, institution should be denied for obviousness Grounds 1, 2, and 4.
`
`VIII. PETITIONER’S ESTOPPEL ARGUMENT LACKS ANY FACTUAL
`OR LEGAL BASES
`
`As part of its Petition, Petitioner alleges that Bosch is estopped from
`
`contesting its alleged obviousness arguments in Ground 1. Petitioner argues that
`
`because a separate, distinct claim in the application of the ’698 patent was rejected
`
`as obvious, that decision should affect the unpatentability of the issued claim 1 and
`
`that Bosch should be estopped from contesting obviousness allegations of issued
`
`claim 1.
`
`Petitioner’s argument lacks any legal or factual bases. Petitioner cites no
`
`rules or case law concerning this issue. In fact, estoppel only applies to petitioners
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1)–(2); however, these sub-sections apply only to a
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`particular claim at issue, not to related claims. And, Petitioner admits that the
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`BPAI was never presented with issued claim 1, and that the BPAI never issued any
`
`determination with respect to the validity of issued claim 1. In particular,
`
`Petitioner states that the “BPAI was never asked to consider the obviousness of
`
`application claim 12 or issued claim 1.” Thus, the Board should reject Petitioner’s
`
`estoppel argument.
`
`IX. CONCLUSION
`For at least the reasons set forth above, the Board should decline to institute
`
`inter partes review of claim 1 of the ’698 patent on all grounds.
`
`DATED: January 28, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`
`/Enrique W. Iturralde/
`Enrique W. Iturralde (Reg. No. 72,883)
`599 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (212) 848-4000
`
`Agent for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC
`
`Mark A. Hannemann (pro hac vice)
`599 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (212) 848-4000
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.107 was served via electronic mail on January 28, 2016, on the following
`
`counsel for Petitioner:
`
`Richard M. Koehl (richard.koehl@hugheshubbard.com)
`James R. Klaiber (james.klaiber@hugheshubbard.com)
`David E. Lansky (david.lansky@ hugheshubbard.com)
`
`/Enrique W. Iturralde/
`Enrique W. Iturralde (Reg. No. 72,883)
`599 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (212) 848-4000
`
`Agent for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket