`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`——————
`
`AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`——————
`
`Case IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`——————
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), Petitioner Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. hereby
`
`
`
`requests oral argument in Case IPR2016-00366, currently scheduled for February
`
`16, 2017. See Scheduling Orders, Paper 8 at p. 5.
`
`Petitioners specify the following issues to be argued, which are the only
`
`issues in controversy in this proceeding:
`
`1. Whether claims 17 and 21 of US 6,012,007 are patentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 over Schousek;
`
`2. Any issues raised in the Decision on Institution;
`
`3. Any issues addressed by Patent Owner during the IPR, including in its
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 6) and its Patent Owner Response (Paper
`
`12);
`
`4. Any issues addressed by Petitioner during the IPR, including in its
`
`Petition (Paper 1) and its Reply (Paper 13), and in the testimony of its
`
`expert, Stephen Rouhana;
`
`5. Any issues raised by the Board at the oral argument.
`
`Patent Owner has requested 30 minutes of argument time in this IPR2016-
`
`00292 and 30 minutes of argument time in IPR2016-00366, and has also requested
`
`that the oral arguments in the two IPRs be consolidated because they involve the
`
`same challenged claims and prior art. See Paper 22 in IPR2016-00292; Paper 14 in
`
`IPR2016-00366. Petitioner respectfully submits that Patent Owner and Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`should receive the same amount of argument time. Therefore, if the Board does
`
`not consolidate the hearings in the two IPRs, Petitioner respectfully requests 30
`
`minutes of argument time, including rebuttal. If the Board consolidates the
`
`hearings in the two IPRs, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`collectively provide Petitioner in this IPR and the petitioner in IPR2016-00292
`
`with the same amount of argument time as the Board provides Patent Owner, and
`
`Petitioner will coordinate with the petitioner in IPR2016-0366 regarding the
`
`consolidated argument.
`
`Petitioner requests the ability to use a laptop projector, Elmo projector, and
`
`screen for the purposes of displaying demonstrative exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /William H. Mandir/
`William H. Mandir
`Registration No. 32,156
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Dated: December 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the attached PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR
`
`
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT was sent via electronic mail on December 22, 2016 to the following:
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi (tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com)
`
`
`Holly J. Atkinson (holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com)
`Jason A. LaBerteaux (jason.laberteaux@ascendalaw.com)
`patents@ascendalaw.com
`
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, P.C.
`333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`
`Counsel of Record for the Patent Owner in this proceeding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
` /David P. Emery/
`David P. Emery
`Registration No. 55,154
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner
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
