`U.S. Patent No. 7,484,264
`
`
`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. IPR2016-00040
`U.S. Patent No. 7,484,264
`______________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF IMPROPER REPLY ARGUMENTS,
`PURSUANT TO THE BOARD’S DECEMBER 12 ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00040
`U.S. Patent No. 7,484,264
`Patent Owner recognizes the Board’s ruling on arguments concerning the
`
`Barth reference, but disagrees, and includes the following paragraph in its
`
`submission in an effort to explain why, and to illustrate the kinds of issues that are
`
`involved with the arguments listed below. Patent Owner joins with Petitioner in
`
`requesting briefing on these issues (see Ex. 1108 at 33–36).
`
`In the challenged section of its reply in IPR2016-00038, Petitioner argued
`
`that the Barth reference—which was not part of any proposed or instituted ground
`
`of unpatentability—taught that wind lift is caused by the rubber wiper strip
`
`“common to all wipers” and that Barth’s analysis “applies equally to all wipers . . .
`
`regardless of whether they have a flat-spring or conventional-style support
`
`structure” (Reply at 5–8). Before the reply was served, Patent Owner had no
`
`notice that the Barth reference was alleged to have taught that wind lift is a
`
`problem for beam blades. If notice had been given in the petition or in the
`
`institution decision, Patent Owner would have contested it in its responsive brief
`
`and responsive evidence (for example because Barth teaches only a conventional
`
`blade with pressure applied to the wiper strip at four discrete points along the
`
`length of the blade, and does not teach that wind lift caused by the wiper strip
`
`would be a problem also in beam blades, where the beam applies a nearly uniform
`
`pressure along the entire length of the wiper strip, and so the pressure of the wiper
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00040
`U.S. Patent No. 7,484,264
`arm, being evenly distributed, would resist wind lift along the entire length of the
`
`flexible wiper strip).
`
`Improper Reply Argument 1, found in the Reply at 7:3–6: improper because
`
`it presents a new argument that should have part of Petitioner’s prima facie case,
`
`e.g., because it goes to an artisan’s expectation of success in making the claimed
`
`combination. This argument also relies on new evidence, the declaration of David
`
`Peck (Ex. 1100 ¶ 9), who was retained in connection with the challenged patents
`
`before the Petition was filed, see Ex. 2029 at 10:13–12:11.
`
`Improper Reply Argument 2, found in the Reply at 20:11–14: improper
`
`because, purportedly responding to evidence of skepticism and unexpected results,
`
`it cites Mr. Peck (Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 7–8) to support a new position that it was
`
`conventional to add structures to a beam blade. The cited paragraphs are directed
`
`to the technical merits and not to skepticism or unexpected results.
`
`DATED: December 16, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`
`/Patrick R. Colsher/
`Patrick R. Colsher (Reg. No. 74,955)
`Mark A. Hannemann (pro hac vice)
`Joseph M. Purcell, Jr. (pro hac vice)
`599 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (212) 848-4000
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00040
`U.S. Patent No. 7,484,264
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`LIST OF IMPROPER REPLY ARGUMENTS, PURSUANT TO THE BOARD’S
`
`DECEMBER 12 ORDER was served via electronic mail on December 16, 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)
`Stefanie Lopatkin (stefanie.lopatkin@hugheshubbard.com)
`James Dabney (james.dabney@hugheshubbard.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`/Patrick R. Colsher/
`Patrick R. Colsher
`Reg. No. 74,955
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`599 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (212) 848-7708
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC