`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00755
`U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE
`PETITIONER WITH ITS OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Personalized Media Communications LLC (“PMC”) hereby
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`
`objects pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”) to the admissibility of certain purported evidence served by Petitioner
`
`Apple Inc. on March 13, 2017 in connection with its Petitioner’s Opposition to
`
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend. The exhibits objected to, and
`
`grounds for PMC’s objections, are listed below. PMC also objects to Petitioner’s
`
`reliance on or citations to any objected evidence in its papers.
`
`PMC objects to the Petitioner’s exhibits as follows:
`
`Exhibit
`1055
`
`Basis of Objection
`FRE 401-403 (Relevance, No probative value) – PMC objects to
`
`this exhibit to the extent it includes or relies on irrelevant or
`
`inadmissible information and to the extent that it includes or relies
`
`on information the probative value of which is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, wasting time, or
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`1057
`
`FRE 401-403 (Relevance, No probative value) – This exhibit is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of wasting time in this proceeding.
`
`1058
`
`FRE 401-403 (Relevance, No probative value) – This exhibit is
`
`1
`
`
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of wasting time in this proceeding. This exhibit was
`
`allegedly published in 1988 and, therefore, bears no relevance to
`
`what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known by
`
`the relevant date. Furthermore, this exhibit at best purports to
`
`reflect a layperson’s understanding of “processor” rather than what
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand.
`
`Therefore, Exhibit 1057 should be excluded.
`
`1059
`
`FRE 401-403 (Relevance, No probative value) – This exhibit is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of wasting time in this proceeding. This exhibit was
`
`allegedly published in 1979 and, therefore, bears no relevance to
`
`what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known by
`
`the relevant date. Furthermore, this exhibit at best purports to
`
`reflect a layperson’s understanding of “processor” rather than what
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand. Therefore,
`
`Exhibit 1059 should be excluded.
`
`1062
`
`FRE 401-403 (Relevance, No probative value) – This exhibit is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of wasting time in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`1063
`
`FRE 401-403 (Relevance, No probative value) – This exhibit is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of wasting time in this proceeding.
`
`
`In addition to the above objections regarding Mr. Wechselberger’s Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1055), PMC further objects to specific paragraphs, as set forth
`
`below:
`
`Paragraph(s) Basis of Objection
`
`4, 6
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702/703 (Bases/Reliability of an Expert’s Opinion
`
`Testimony); Fed. R. Evid. 705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (Failure to
`
`Disclose Facts or Underlying Data).
`
`9-12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48612, 48620
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702/703 (Bases/Reliability of an Expert’s Opinion
`
`Testimony); Fed. R. Evid. 705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (Failure to
`
`Disclose Facts or Underlying Data).
`
`36
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702/703 (Bases/Reliability of an Expert’s Opinion
`
`Testimony); Fed. R. Evid. 705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (Failure to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Disclose Facts or Underlying Data).
`
`Construes “central processing unit” without support. Equates the
`
`un-construed “central processing unit” to the term “processor”,
`
`which has been construed by the Board. States, without support,
`
`inherency arguments of what a “central processing unit” would
`
`interact with, and not stated by the instant reference.
`
`57
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702/703 (Bases/Reliability of an Expert’s Opinion
`
`Testimony); Fed. R. Evid. 705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (Failure to
`
`Disclose Facts or Underlying Data).
`
`60-61
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702/703 (Bases/Reliability of an Expert’s Opinion
`
`Testimony); Fed. R. Evid. 705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (Failure to
`
`Disclose Facts or Underlying Data).
`
`Contradicts the reference’s explicit teachings. Seth-Smith
`
`discloses, “Conventional communications facilities such as the
`
`telephone system or the mails are suited for this function, as
`
`indicated schematically at 8. In this way, no uplink facility at the
`
`user's station need be provided.” (Ex. 1064 at 10:24-27, emphasis
`
`added).
`
`72
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702/703 (Bases/Reliability of an Expert’s Opinion
`
`Testimony); Fed. R. Evid. 705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (Failure to
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Disclose Facts or Underlying Data).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 20, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Thomas J. Scott, Jr. /
`By
`Thomas J. Scott, Jr.
`Registration No.: 27,836
`Senior Vice President & General Counsel
`
`Personalized Media
`Communications, LLC
`
`11491 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 340
`Reston, Virginia 20190
`Telephone: (281) 201-2213
`tscott@pmcip.com
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the:
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
` PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY
`THE PETITIONER WITH ITS OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO
`AMEND
`
`
`
`was served, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.6(e)(1) and the consent found in Section
`III.D of the Petition (Paper No. 1), by electronic mail on counsel for Petitioner at
`the electronic mail addresses set forth below:
`
`
`Marcus E. Sernel, Joel R. Merkin, and Eugene Goryunov
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`P: (312) 862-2000; F: (312) 862-2200
`marc.sernel@kirkland.com
`joel.merkin@kirkland.com
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`Apple-PMC-PTAB@kirkland.com
`
`Gregory S. Arovas
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`P: (212) 446-4800; F: (212) 446-4900
`greg.arovas@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 20, 2017
`
`
`
`By:
`
` / Thomas J. Scott, Jr. /
`
`
`
`
`
`