`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: Grant K. Rowan, Reg. No. 41,278 (Lead Counsel)
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368 (Back-up Counsel)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6025
`Email: Grant.Rowan@wilmerhale.com
`
` Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.
`Patent Owner of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552
`IPR Trial No. IPR2016-00288
`
`Claims 8-12
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S CONDITIONAL REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2016-00288
`Petitioner’s Conditional Request for Oral Argument
`
`
`In its Decision on Institution, the Board recognized that, for the reasons
`
`described in the Petition and the accompanying declaration of Dr. John C.
`
`Bravman (Ex. 1102), there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims 8-
`
`12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 are unpatentable.
`
`In response, Patent Owner DSS Technology Management, Inc. (“DSS”)
`
`provided no basis for the assertion that the challenged claims are patentable. DSS
`
`did not depose Dr. Bravman, did not provide any contradictory testimony from any
`
`expert, and did not otherwise submit or identify any evidence rebutting Intel’s
`
`petition. Instead, DSS merely offered the unremarkable observation that the
`
`burden of proving unpatentability remains with Intel. DSS Resp. at 2. Intel has
`
`plainly met that burden.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner believes that the Board has sufficient unrebutted
`
`evidence to find that claims 8-12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 are unpatentable.
`
`However, if the Board wishes to further discuss and clarify any arguments and/or
`
`issues raised in the Petition, Petitioner respectfully requests oral argument.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70, Petitioner specifies the following issues to be
`
`argued:
`
`
`
`I. Whether challenged claims 8-12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) by Heath.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2016-00288
`Petitioner’s Conditional Request for Oral Argument
`
`
`Should the oral argument be confirmed, Petitioner requests the ability to use
`
`a computer, projector, and screen to display possible demonstratives and exhibits.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Yung-Hoon Ha/
`
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`Registration No. 56,368
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY10007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 7, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2016-00288
`Petitioner’s Conditional Request for Oral Argument
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 7, 2016, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Conditional Request for Oral Argument
`
`to be served via e-mail, as previously agreed by the parties, on the following
`
`attorneys of record:
`
`SMITH & HOPEN, P.A.
`180 Pine Avenue North
`Oldsmar, FL 34677
`Tel.: 813-925-8505
`
`
`Andriy Lytvyn, Lead Counsel
`USPTO Reg. No. 65,166
`andriy.lytvyn@smithhopen.com
`
`Anton J. Hopen, Backup Counsel
`USPTO Reg. No. 41,849
`anton.hopen@smithhopen.com
`
`Nicholas Pfeifer, Backup Counsel
`USPTO Reg. No. 70,568
`nicholas.pfeifer@smithhopen.com
`
`
`/Yung-Hoon Ha /
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`Registration No. 56,368
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`
`3