`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01114
`Patent No. 7,777,753
`
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS
`ON THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ROBERT COLWELL, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations U.S. Patent No. 7,777,753
`
`
`
`This response is submitted in view of the Scheduling Order (Paper 8) and the
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767–68 (Aug. 14, 2012). This paper
`
`responds to Patent Owner’s Observations on the Cross-Examination of Robert
`
`Colwell, Ph.D. (Paper 39) filed on August 9, 2017, in the present inter partes
`
`review. Patent Owner presented two observations on the August 2, 2017,
`
`deposition testimony of Dr. Colwell (Ex. 2012). Petitioner responds to Patent
`
`Owner’s observations below.
`
`Response to Observation #1:
`
`Patent Owner misrepresents the record. Dr. Colwell did not make any
`
`changes to his testimony. A careful comparison of Exhibit 1003 (Colwell
`
`Declaration), ¶¶ 141-144, and Exhibit 1028 (Colwell Reply Declaration), ¶¶ 9-15,
`
`will confirm that there is no change in testimony. Dr. Colwell did not answer in
`
`the affirmative that he made any changes to his testimony. See Ex. 2012, 39:13-
`
`40:5. Moreover, paragraph 25 of Exhibit 1028 does not contradict or contain any
`
`changes to testimony.
`
`Response to Observation #2:
`
`
`
`Patent Owner misrepresents the testimony in Exhibit 2012 from page 29,
`
`line 5 to page 36, line 6. In particular, Patent Owner misdirects by seeking to
`
`apply Dr. Colwell’s testimony as to factors considered when “taking some internal
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations U.S. Patent No. 7,777,753
`
`
`function of [a] CPU and removing it and putting it somewhere else in the system”
`
`(Ex. 2012, 30:13-15 (emphasis added)) to a question never actually posed, namely
`
`whether “a POSITA would have understood that the DSP of Bowes is a suitable
`
`location for the arbiter.” Ex. 1028, ¶ 24. In fact, as Dr. Colwell testified, a
`
`POSITA would have considered co-locating an arbiter with a DSP. See Ex.1003,
`
`¶¶ 145-147, pp. 107-108; Ex. 1028, ¶¶ 16-24.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 15, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David W. OBrien/
`David W. O’Brien
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 40,107
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Telephone: 512/867-8457
`Facsimile: 214/200-0853
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations U.S. Patent No. 7,777,753
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), that
`
`service was made on Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service August 15, 2017
`
`Manner of service Electronic Mail to: manjom@azalaw.com;
`aalavi@azalaw.com; sclark@azalaw.com;
`mmcbride@azalaw.com; jchen@azalaw.com;
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Documents served Petitioners’ Response to Patent Owner’s Observations On
`the Cross-Examination of Robert Colwell, Ph.D.
`
`Masood Anjom
`Amir Alavi
`Scott Clark
`Michael McBride
`Justin Chen
`Gregory Gonsalves
`
`
`Dated: August 15, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David W. OBrien/
`David W. O’Brien
`Registration No. 40,107
`
`
`
`Persons served
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
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
