`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CHESTNUT HILL SOUND INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00794
`Patent 8,090,309
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00794
`Attorney Docket No: 39521-0016IP2
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a) and the Scheduling Order (Paper 10),
`
`Petitioner submits this Request for Oral Argument on all of the instituted grounds
`
`of unpatentability of U.S. Patent No. 8,090,309. Petitioner requests that each party
`
`receives 30 minutes to present its arguments.
`
`With regard to this particular proceeding, Petitioner requests (without
`
`waiving consideration of any issue not listed below) to address the following
`
`issues:
`
`1. Claims 1-14 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Baumgartner
`
`and AbiEzzi;
`
`2. Reply and rebuttal to Patent Owner’s presentation on all matters,
`
`including any motions Patent Owner may bring; and
`
`3. Any issues on which the Board seeks clarification, including the briefing
`
`on Motions to Exclude.
`
`
`
`Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s request to reserve a portion of its time for
`
`after Petitioner’s presentation, as well as Patent Owner’s request to argue, for the
`
`first time at the Oral Argument, Patent Owner’s belief that Petitioner’s reply
`
`exceeds the proper scope of a reply. Patent Owner has made no attempt to address
`
`any alleged impropriety of Petitioner’s reply in the papers, for example by
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00794
`Attorney Docket No: 39521-0016IP2
`
`requesting a sur-reply. To argue such for the first time at Oral Argument would,
`
`itself, be prohibited new argument. It is well established that at the Oral
`
`Argument, a party “may only present arguments relied upon in the papers
`
`previously submitted.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,
`
`48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Moreover, Patent Owner has made no attempt to confer
`
`with Petitioner about its request to reserve time, nor has Patent Owner attempted to
`
`resolve, with Petitioner, any issues Patent Owner believes are new argument or
`
`new evidence. Thus, Patent Owner’s request should be denied.
`
`The Board has already scheduled Oral Argument for April 20, 2017. See
`
`Scheduling Order of September 23, 2016, Paper No. 10.
`
`Petitioner also requests that visual projector equipment, such as an ELMO-
`
`type projector, be made available for use during the Oral Argument, and Petitioner
`
`will separately contact trials@uspto.gov to request the equipment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 16, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Joshua A. Griswold/
`Joshua A. Griswold
`Reg. No. 46,310
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00794
`Attorney Docket No: 39521-0016IP2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(1) and 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on March 16, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Request for Oral Argument was provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving
`
`the email correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`Hamad M. Hamad
`Alexis (Steinberg) Mosser
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY, P.C.
`2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`Email: hhamad@caldwellcc.com
` acurry@caldwellcc.com
` amosser@caldwellcc.com
` chillsound@caldwellcc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
