UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342
`
`PETITIONER'S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER'S
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342
`
`PETITIONER'S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER'S
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`TOYOTA'S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2016-00418
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`CLAIMS 49-57, 62-64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73-80, 94, 95, 97, 99-103, 106, 109-
`111, 113, 115, AND 120 ARE INVALID BY THE INSTITUTED
`GROUNDS ............................................................................................................................... 1
`
`1.
`
`Clayton Discloses "Audio Generated By The Portable
`Device" .........................................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`CLAYTON IS PRIOR ART TO THE '342 PATENT ............................................................ 8
`
`1.
`
`Blitzsafe's Priority Documents and Drafts Do Not Support
`The "Audio Generated By The Portable Device" Limitation
`of The '342 Patent Claims ............................................................................8
`
`CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 16
`
`IV.
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TOYOTA'S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2016-00418
`
`
`UPDATED PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 ("the '342 patent")
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0181963 ("Clayton")
`U.S. Provisional Application No.
`60/651,963
`("Clayton
`Provisional")
`U.S. Patent No. 6,559,773 ("Berry")
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0215102 ("Marlowe")
`U.S. Patent No. 6,421,305 ("Gioscia")
`Claim Construction Ruling in Marlowe Patent Holdings LLC v.
`DICE Electronics, LLC et al., 3:10-cv-01199 (D. NJ) and Marlowe
`Patent Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Company, 3:10-cv-07044 (D.
`NJ)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/475,847 ("the '847 application")
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/071,667 ("the '667 application")
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/732,909 ("the '909 application")
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/316,961 ("the '961 application")
`Highlighted '342 Patent (Showing the New Matter)
`Infringement
`Plaintiff's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Contentions, served in Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.
`et al., 2-15-cv-01277 (E.D. TX)
`File History of the '342 Patent
`1999 ID3v2.3 Metadata Standard (1999)
`Declaration of Dr. Thomas Matheson
`Canadian Patent Application Publication No. CA 2347648
`("Kandler")
`International Publication No. WO 01/67266 A1 ("Lau")
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0028717 ("Ohmura")
`Bluetooth ESDP for UPnP (2001)
`Universal Plug and Play Device Architecture (2000)
`Petition (Paper 1) of IPR2016-01476
`A2DP 1.0 Protocol
`Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Paper 9) in IPR2016-00419
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`
`
`TOYOTA'S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2016-00418
`
`1025
`1026
`1027
`
`Decision on Request for Rehearing (Paper 15) in IPR2016-00419
`Deposition Transcript of Ira Marlowe
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Thomas Matheson
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Toyota Motor Corporation (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”) timely
`
`submits this “Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response” (“Reply”) in response
`
`to the “Patent Owner’s Response” (Paper 20) filed by Blitzsafe Texas, LLC
`
`(“Blitzsafe” or "Patent Owner") on September 30, 2016. Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests entry and consideration of this Reply, and a final determination that
`
`claims 49-57, 62-64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73-80, 94, 95, 97, 99-103, 106, 109-111, 113,
`
`115, and 120 ("Challenged Claims") are invalid and canceled.
`
`II. CLAIMS 49-57, 62-64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73-80, 94, 95, 97, 99-103, 106, 109-
`111, 113, 115, AND 120 ARE INVALID BY THE INSTITUTED
`GROUNDS
`1. Clayton Discloses "Audio Generated By The Portable
`Device"
`
`In its Patent Owner's Response (Paper 20), Blitzsafe alleges only one
`
`distinction over the prior art: "Clayton does not teach or disclose an integration
`
`subsystem that receives 'audio generated by the portable device.'" Paper 20 at 1.
`
`In a related IPR applying the Ohmura reference (US2001/0028717), the Board
`
`interpreted this "audio generated" claim limitation to require that the audio be
`
`decoded on the portable device, and denied institution on this basis. Decision on
`
`Request for Rehearing (Paper 15) in IPR2016-00419 (Ex. 1026) at 5 (August 31,
`
`2016). Citing to this construction, Blitzsafe argues that "Clayton does not teach or
`
`
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`disclose decoding audio on a portable device for subsequent wireless transfer to a
`
`car audio video system as required by the claims." Paper 20 at 2. However, as will
`
`be set forth below, Clayton plainly discloses an embodiment whereby the
`
`"streaming audio" is "unencoded," i.e., decoded. Ex. 1002 ("Clayton") at ¶55
`
`(cited by Institution Decision (Paper 13) at 31). As the sole distinction argued by
`
`Blitzsafe over the art is plainly contradicted by the explicit disclosure of Clayton,
`
`all of the Challenged Claims are invalid.
`
`a. Clayton Discloses an Embodiment in Which
`Audio Is Streamed as Decoded Audio
`
`In the Institution Decision, the Board cites to paragraph 55 (among others)
`
`of Clayton and concludes that "Clayton's wireless interface 173 (i.e., the claimed
`
`'integration subsystem') also receives the 'audio generated by the portable device,'
`
`via a wireless communication link, for playing on car audio/video system 143, as
`
`recited in each of independent claims 49, 73, 97, and 120." Paper 13 at 31.
`
`Blitzsafe disagrees and argues that paragraph 55 of Clayton does not disclose
`
`decoding in the portable device but instead "explicitly states that the decoding is
`
`performed in the interface." Paper 20 at 15. Blitzsafe's characteriztion of
`
`paragraph 55 is belied by its plain language:
`
`2
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`
`
`In one embodiment, the cellular telephone 142 is suitably-
`
`enabled to wirelessly transmit content and command/control
`
`signals, encoded or unencoded, via the aforementioned wireless
`
`proximity network to the wireless adaptor 173. In turn, the
`
`wireless adaptor 173 provides any needed signal conversion or
`
`decoding of such content and command/controls for forwarding
`
`to the car audio system 143. Thus, the wireless adaptor 173
`
`provides an interface that allows the cellular telephone 142 to
`
`transmit stored content to the car audio system 143 for content
`
`playback by the car radio component.
`
`Ex. 1002 at ¶55.
`
`As can be seen above, Clayton expressly discloses that the streaming audio
`
`may be encoded or unencoded (i.e., decoded). Here, unencoded is synonymous
`
`with decoded and, from the perspective of the claimed "integration subsystem,"
`
`there is no difference whatsoever between unencoded and decoded content.
`
`Matheson Reply Decl. (Ex. 1027) at 4. Despite this, Blitzsafe misinterprets
`
`paragraph 55 to require that decoding take place in the wireless adaptor 173,
`
`thereby implying that the streaming audio is encoded. Blitzsafe's strained reading
`
`3
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`ignores the express language of the paragraph, namely, that the wirelessly
`
`transmitted content may be unencoded. While Clayton also states that the wireless
`
`adaptor 173 provides "any needed" signal conversion or decoding of the content,
`
`that certainly does not mandate decoding by the wireless adaptor 173 in every
`
`embodiment or in every instance. Rather, decoding is only performed when
`
`needed. If the audio is streamed as unencoded/decoded content, there would be no
`
`needed audio decoding and the wireless adaptor 173 would only have to perform a
`
`digital-to-analog signal conversion/decoding. Id. at 4.
`
`Moreover, the unencoded audio streamed by the portable device according
`
`to Clayton is decoded by the portable device itself. In particular, Clayton discloses
`
`that the streaming audio may be audio from MP3 files, e.g., received from a
`
`content providing server. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶14, 18, 36, 45, and 50. If "unencoded"
`
`audio is wirelessly transmitted from an MP3 file as taught by Clayton, a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the portable device must
`
`necessarily decode the MP3 file (e.g., to a digitally-encoded waveform) before
`
`wirelessly transmitting it as "unencoded" audio. Ex. 1027 at 5.
`
`4
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`b. The Clayton Provisional Confirms That The
`"Streaming Audio" Can Be in a Decoded
`Format
`
`Blitzsafe argues that "the Clayton provisional application does not support
`
`the teaching or disclosure of the 'audio generated by the portable device'
`
`limitation." Paper 20 at 17. However, the Clayton Provisional does in fact provide
`
`support for at least one claim of Clayton and does in fact disclose the transmission
`
`of audio in a .WAV format, i.e., a digitally-encoded waveform. Ex. 1003 at 171,
`
`526, 546, 602, and 605; Ex. 1027 at 8-9. Blitzsafe itself has specifically admitted
`
`that a digitally-encoded waveform (which is decoded at the car stereo to the analog
`
`waveform) is "audio generated by the portable device":
`
`5
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`
`
` Paper 20 at 13 (citing Ex. 2001 at Fig. 2).
`
`According to Blitzsafe, Case 2 above falls within the scope of the claims
`
`because audio is transmitted in a decoded format (i.e., as a "digitally-encoded
`
`waveform" such as a .WAV format). Paper 20 at 12 and Ex. 2001 at ¶55.
`
`6
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`c. Clayton Discloses Another Embodiment in
`Which Audio is Streamed via the Bluetooth
`A2DP Protocol
`
`In another embodiment, Clayton discloses audio streaming via any of the
`
`Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP), the Serial Port Profile (SPP), or the
`
`Personal Area Network (PAN) profile of the Bluetooth standard. Ex. 1002 at ¶62.
`
`Blitzsafe argues that none of these profiles streams "audio generated by the
`
`portable device" because the portable device does not perform any decoding.
`
`Paper 20 at 13-15. Blitzsafe specifically singles out the A2DP profile, and argues
`
`that the portable device implementing this profile does not decode the audio. Id.
`
`However, as Blitzsafe was made fully aware in a related IPR, the A2DP profile
`
`does in fact require the ability to decode in the portable device prior to streaming
`
`audio, in order to ensure interoperability. Petition (Paper 1) of IPR2016-01476
`
`(Ex. 1022) at 70 (citing A2DP 1.0 Protocol (Ex. 1023) at 18-19):
`
`7
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`
`A2DP 1.0 Protocol (Ex. 1023) at 19 (cited by Petition (Paper 1) of IPR2016-01476
`(Ex. 1022) at 70)
`
`Since in order to comply with the A2DP standard, the A2DP embodiment of
`
`Clayton necessarily includes a decoder for wireless streaming, this embodiment is
`
`structurally indistinct from Blitzsafe's interpretation of the '342 Patent claims
`
`whereby a decoder is required in the portable device. Ex. 1027 at 6-7.
`
`III. CLAYTON IS PRIOR ART TO THE '342 PATENT
`
`1. Blitzsafe's Priority Documents and Drafts Do Not Support
`The "Audio Generated By The Portable Device" Limitation
`of The '342 Patent Claims
`
`Blitzsafe argues that its 2005 continuation-in-part Application No.
`
`11/071,667 ("the '667 Application") (Ex. 2003) provides a constructive reduction
`
`to practice of the Challenged Claims and therefore antedates Clayton. Paper 20 at
`
`8
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`19-42. Blitzsafe further argues that drafts of the '667 Application evidence
`
`conception of the claimed subject matter prior to the dates of the Clayton
`
`provisional applications. Id. at 42-44. However, Blitzsafe is incorrect on both
`
`accounts as the '667 Application and its drafts fail to describe the "audio generated
`
`by the portable device over said wireless communication link" claim limitation.
`
`Thus, the priority date of the Challenged Claims cannot be before June 27, 2006,
`
`i.e., the '342 Patent's filing date, and certainly not before December 8, 2005, i.e.,
`
`Clayton's non-provisional filing date.
`
`a.
`
`Blitzsafe's Prior Inventorship Evidence
`Discloses No More Than the Prior Art Ohmura
`Reference
`As support for the "audio generated" claim limitation, Blitzsafe and its
`
`expert point to one paragraph of the '667 Application:
`
`The device 635 can be controlled using the control
`[0128]
`panel buttons 620 of the car stereo or video system 610, and
`information from the device 635 is formatted by the interface 630
`and displayed in the display 615 of the car stereo or video system
`610. Additionally, control commands generated at the car stereo
`or car video device 610 are converted by the interface 630 into a
`format (protocol) compatible with the multimedia device 635,
`and are dispatched thereto for execution. A plurality of
`
`9
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`multimedia devices could be intergrated using the interface 630,
`as well as one or more auxiliary input sources 640. The after-
`market device 635 could comprise any audio, video, or
`telecommunications device, including, but not limited to, a CD
`player, CD changer, digital media player (e.g., MP3 player, MP4
`player, WMV player, Apple iPod, or any other player), satellite
`radio (e.g., XM, Sirius, Delphi, etc.), video device (e.g., DVD
`player), cellular telephone, or any other type of device or
`combinations thereof. Additionally, one or more interfaces could
`be connected to the interface 630 (“daisy-chained”) to allow
`multiple products to be integrated. The device 600 could include
`one or more of the circuits disclosed in FIGS. 3 a-3 d and
`modified depending upon the type of the after-market device 635.
`Ex. 2003 at ¶128 (cited by Paper 20 at 25-26 and Ex. 2001 at 38).
`
`As an initial matter, missing is any suggestion that the communicated audio
`
`is "audio generated by the portable device." The "audio generated" language first
`
`appears in the '342 Patent, and not before.
`
`The absence of any disclosure in the '667 Application of a wireless
`
`transmission of "audio generated by the portable device" is notable. Blitzsafe has
`
`emphatically argued and analyzed this limitation as the basis for distinguishing
`
`over the prior art across multiple different IPRs of the '342 Patent. See, e.g., Paper
`
`10
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`20 at 2; Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Paper 9) in IPR2016-00419 (Ex.
`
`1024) at p. 21; Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Paper 11) in IPR2016-01476
`
`at pp. 2-3 and 22. Indeed, Blitzsafe argued to this Board that Ohmura's disclosure
`
`of audio streaming over Bluetooth from a portable device (such as a CD player, an
`
`MP3 player, etc.) to a car stereo in response to a play instruction (Ex. 1019 at FIG.
`
`2 and ¶¶ 85-88 and 205) does not meet the "audio generated" claim requirement
`
`because the reference lacks an explicit disclosure of decoding in the portable
`
`device for wireless streaming. Ex. 1024 at p. 21. The Board agreed with Blitzsafe
`
`and denied rehearing on this basis. Ex. 1025 at pp. 5-6.
`
`Tellingly, Blitzsafe and its expert decline to offer any explanation or
`
`analysis of this claim limitation with reference to the '667 Application. This is
`
`because the '667 Application discloses no more than Ohmura as relates to audio
`
`over a wireless link, and in fact provides much less detail than Ohmura. For
`
`example, while Ohmura specifies that the car stereo plays the Bluetooth-
`
`transmitted audio immediately without storing it (Ex. 1019 at ¶205), the '667
`
`Application makes only a sparse mention of Bluetooth as a possible
`
`communication means. Ex. 2003 at ¶126. Certainly, there is no mention
`
`11
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`whatsoever in the '667 Application of any decoding in the portable device prior to
`
`Bluetooth transmission. Ex. 1027 at 10-12.
`
`For the same reason that this Board found Ohmura lacking in showing the
`
`"audio generated… over said wireless communication link" claim limitation, so too
`
`must the Board find with respect to the '667 Application. Ex. 1027 at 10-12; see,
`
`e.g., MPEP 2138.05(I) ("[t]he written description must be sufficient, when the
`
`entire specification is considered, such that the 'necessary and only reasonable
`
`construction' that would be given it by a person skilled in the art is one that clearly
`
`supports each positive limitation"), quoting Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d at 1354-55,
`
`47 USPQ2d at 1130-1132 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also MPEP 715.07.
`
`b. Blitzsafe's Reduction to Practice Evidence Does
`Not Show Possession of the Claimed Invention
`
`Evidence of a constructive reduction to practice must comply with the
`
`written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph. MPEP
`
`2138.05(I). To satisfy this requirement, an application of which benefit is sought
`
`"must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art
`
`can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed
`
`12
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`invention." MPEP 2163(I), citing Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325
`
`F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`However, the '667 Application fails to convey to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art that Ira Marlowe had possession in 2005 of "audio generated… over said
`
`wireless communication link." Ex. 1027 at 10-12. As noted above, the '667
`
`Application and its drafts do not describe "audio generated… over said wireless
`
`communication link," and the "audio generated" language was later added in the
`
`'342 Patent. Indeed, Mr. Marlowe could not explain during his deposition what is
`
`meant by "audio generated," could not answer whether "any of those inventions [in
`
`the '667 Application] include the feature of audio generated by the portable
`
`device," and could not point to any particular support for this feature in the '667
`
`Application. Ex. 1026 (103:23-104:19). For example:
`
`Q.
`
`Do any of the inventions that you just referred to that
`
`are described… or claimed in the '667 application, do any of
`
`those inventions include the feature of audio generated by the
`
`portable device?
`
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Objection, relevancy and calls for
`
`a legal conclusion.
`
`13
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`Q.
`
`He's not instructing you not to answer, he made his
`
`objection.
`
`A.
`
`I'm not an attorney, I can't make a legal conclusion.
`
`Id. at 103:23-104:10.1
`
`If the inventor himself cannot explain or point to any disclosure in the '667
`
`Application of "audio generated… over said wireless communication link," then it
`
`goes without saying that this earlier application fails to convey that he had
`
`possession of this critical claim limitation.
`
`Furthermore, to comply with the written description requirement when an
`
`explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose
`
`benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description
`
`requires that limitation” (emphasis added). Hyatt, 146 F.3d at 1353, 47 USPQ2d
`
`at 1131, quoted by MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(b). Despite this requirement, Blitzsafe
`
`and both of its Declarants (the inventor Ira Marlowe and Blitzsafe's expert Dr.
`
`
`1 Mr. Marlowe's inability to answer basic questions on conception and reduction to
`practice was particularly exacerbated by excessive speaking objections raised by
`Blitzsafe's counsel throughout his deposition, as evidenced by the cited testimony.
`See, e.g., Ex. 1026 at 35:7-13, 33:9-13, 51:2-4, 52:17-53:18, 103:23-104:19.
`14
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`Richard Stern) have provided no showing whatsoever that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood that the '667 Application requires "audio
`
`generated… over said wireless communication link." Ex. 1027 at 10-12. Instead,
`
`Dr. Stern points only to the aforementioned single paragraph in the '667
`
`Application that is unrelated to "audio generated" by a portable device, let alone
`
`over a wireless communication link. Ex. 2003 at ¶128 (cited by Paper 20 at 25-26
`
`and Ex. 2001 at 38). Thus, Blitzsafe has failed to meet its evidentiary burden to
`
`antedate the Clayton reference.
`
`c.
`
`Blitzsafe's Prior Conception Evidence Does Not
`Show Conception of "Audio Generated… Over
`Said Wireless Communication Link"
`"[E]stablishing conception requires evidence that the inventor actually made
`
`the invention and understood the invention to have the features that comprise the
`
`inventive subject matter at issue." MPEP 2138.04(III), citing Invitrogen,Corp. v.
`
`Clontech Laboratories, Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1064, 77 USPQ2d 1161, 1169 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005). In other words, "[t]here must be a contemporaneous recognition and
`
`appreciation of the invention for there to be conception." Id., citing Silvestri v.
`
`Grant, 496 F.2d 593, 596, 181 USPQ 706, 708 (CCPA 1974); see also MPEP
`
`715.07.
`
`15
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`Blitzsafe's prior conception evidence, i.e., drafts of the '667 Application,
`
`plainly lacks any appreciation or understanding by Mr. Marlowe of decoded or
`
`generated audio over a wireless communication link. Ex. 1027 at 12. Rather,
`
`these drafts - like the '667 Application - have only a single passing reference to
`
`Bluetooth as a possible communication means, with no suggestion of any decoding
`
`in the portable device prior to Bluetooth transmission. See, e.g., Ex. 2005 at p. 56.
`
`Notably, Mr. Marlowe admitted that he apparently does not even understand this
`
`claim feature during his deposition:
`
`Q. Do you understand the concept of audio generated as used in
`
`this [Inter Partes] Review?
`
`A. I can't say I do.
`
`Ex. 1026 at 33:5-8.
`
`Rather than prove prior conception, the evidence of record only
`
`demonstrates that the inventor did not and apparently does not to this day
`
`appreciate the "audio generated" claim limitation.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons set forth above and in the Petition, Toyota respectfully
`
`requests that the Challenged Claims be invalidated.
`
`16
`
`
`
`TOYOTA ET AL.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Case IPR2014-00280
`
`
`
`
`Sughrue Mion, PLLC
`CUSTOMER NUMBER: 23373
`Date: December 29, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/William H. Mandir /
`William H. Mandir
`Registration No. 32,156
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d)
`
`Under the provisions of 37 CFR §42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies
`
`that the word count for the foregoing Petitioner Reply to Patent Owner Response
`
`totals 2,818, which is less than the 5,600 allowed under 37 CFR §42.24(c)(2). The
`
`word count was prepared using Microsoft Word 2016.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Fadi N. Kiblawi/
`Fadi N. Kiblawi
`Registration No. 61,973
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the attached PETITIONER'S
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE in Case IPR2016-00418 and this
`
`Certificate of Service are being served on December 29, 2016 by electronic mail
`
`upon the following:
`
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Alfred Fabricant
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`
`Date: December 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
` /Fadi N. Kiblawi/
`Fadi N. Kiblawi
`Registration No. 61,973
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
