UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`Polygroup Limited (MCO),
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Willis Electric Co., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01613
`
`Patent 9,044,056
`
`_________________________
`
`REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`Polygroup Limited (MCO),
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Willis Electric Co., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01613
`
`Patent 9,044,056
`
`_________________________
`
`REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`II. PO’S MOTION COMPLIES AND DEMONSTRATES
`
`PATENTABILITY .................................................................................... 1
`
`A. Duty of Candor: Does Not Require Addressing Every
`Reference Per Se, or Require Grouping All References ................ 1
`
`B. Duty of Candor: Sales of 2008 Trees Not Relevant ........................ 2
`
`C. Duty of Candor: No Additional Material Art in Child
`Applications ...................................................................................... 3
`
`D. PO’s Arguments Respond to Alleged Grounds and are
`Supported by the Literal Language of the Claims ......................... 4
`
`E. Claim Construction: Commonly Transmitted (Claim 24) ............. 5
`
`III. CLAIMS 23 AND 24 ARE NOT INDEFINITE UNDER 35 USC 112 ..... 6
`
`IV. CLAIM 21 IS PATENTABLE OVER THE PRIOR ART OF
`
`RECORD, INCLUDING OVER MILLER, OTTO, JUMO, AND
`
`MCLEISH/FALOSSI/DANIELS ................................................................ 6
`
`V. CLAIM 22 IS PATENTABLE OVER PRIOR ART OF RECORD,
`
`INCLUDING OVER HICKS IN VIEW OF OTTO AND FURTHER
`
`IN VIEW OF MCLEISH OR FALLOSI OR DANIELS........................... 9
`
`VI. CLAIM 23 IS PATENTABLE OVER ART OF RECORD,
`
`INCLUDING OVER MILLER IN VIEW OF SEGHERS AND
`
`FURTHER IN VIEW OF MCLEISH OR FALLOSI OR DANIELS ......11
`
`VII. CLAIM 24 IS PATENTABLE OVER ART OF RECORD,
`
`INCLUDING OVER MILLER IN VIEW OF LOOMIS .........................12
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................13
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2056
`
`Description
`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown in Support
`
`of Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to
`
`Motion to Amend U.S. Patent No. 9,044,056.
`
`2057
`
`US Patent Application Pub. No. US 2003/0198048 to
`
`Frederick (“Frederick”)
`
`2058
`
`US Patent Application Pub. No. US 2003/0206412 to
`
`Gordon (“Gordon”)
`
`2059
`
`US Patent Application Pub. No. US 2004/0090770 to
`
`Primeau (“Primeau”)
`
`2060
`
`US Patent Application Pub. No. US 2006/0164834 to Kao
`
`(“Kao”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner (PO) replies herein to Petitioner’s Opposition and asserts that
`
`PO has complied with relevant Board Rules, has met its duty of candor by raising
`
`and addressing relevant and material prior art references, and has demonstrated
`
`patentability of substitute claims 21-24.
`
`II. PO’S MOTION COMPLIES AND DEMONSTRATES PATENTABILITY
`
`A. Duty of Candor: Does Not Require Addressing Every Reference Per
`
`Se, or Require Grouping All References
`
`In its Motion to Amend (“Motion”), PO has shown patentability over the prior
`
`art that is relevant to the substitute claims, including the prior art of record, prior art
`
`known to PO, and prior art applied by Petitioner. (Paper 53, pp. 17-35.) Petitioner
`
`selects five references of the hundreds already of record, and asserts that PO’s failure
`
`to address these non-relevant references violates PO’s duty of candor, and forms the
`
`basis for denial of PO’s motion. (Paper 69, 3-7.) In doing so, Petitioner attempts to
`
`create a requirement for PO to group or categorize all the references of record in the
`
`prosecution of the ‘056 Patent. (Paper 101, 3-4.) However, PO is under no
`
`affirmative obligation to address each and every prior art reference of record, or to
`
`group all of the references. (see Shinn Fu Co. of Am., Inc. v. Tire Hanger Corp.,
`
`IPR2015-00208 Paper 24 at 24 (P.T.A.B. April 22, 2016) (describing that PO
`
`complied with its duty of candor by arguing patentability over substantially similar
`
`art, despite not addressing specific references, per se.) PO has sufficiently raised and
`
`addressed material references having similar subject matter and relating to elements
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`of the substitute claims, and particularly those relating to connectors. (Paper 53, pp.
`
`17-35.)
`
`Further, Petitioner has failed to address why its selected references are not
`
`similar to, and not cumulative over, references addressed by PO. It is well
`
`established that information is “material” to patentability when it is “not cumulative
`
`to information already of record or being made of record in the application.” (37
`
`C.F.R. 1.65(b).) PO notes that all of the cited references are cumulative over various
`
`references that were addressed in the Motion.
`
`While Petitioner faults PO for not analyzing Frederick, Gordon, Primeau,
`
`Kao and Yao, a cursory glance at each of these references makes clear why neither
`
`PO nor Petitioner has presented substantive arguments regarding these references.
`
`Frederick is directed to a light string (Ex. 2057), Gordon to a lighting apparatus with
`
`lighted “arms” (Ex. 2058), and Primeau (Ex. 2059), Kao (Ex. 2060), and Yao (Ex.
`
`1143) to trees with connectors, wiring and lights, all external to the tree trunks. (Ex.
`
`2056, ¶¶31-33.) Consequently, these references are not material or relevant, and at
`
`most are cumulative over the references addressed in PO’s Motion. (Id.)
`
`B. Duty of Candor: Sales of 2008 Trees Not Relevant
`
`Petitioner, citing the Chen Declaration asserts that PO’s failure to identify or
`
`evaluate its own artificial Christmas trees sold in the US at least as early as 2008 is
`
`a breach of the duty of candor and good faith. (Paper 69, 7-8; Ex. 1212, ¶¶11-12.)
`
`First, 35 USC § 311(b) requires that petitioners in Inter Partes reviews must rely
`
`solely on prior art “consisting of patents or printed publications.” (35 USC §
`
`311(b).) Petitioners have the burden of establishing that the references relied upon
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`qualify as printed publications. In the Opposition, Petitioner offers no evidence that
`
`the trees sold as early as 2008 are the subject of a non-disclosed patent or printed
`
`publication.
`
`Second, the cited paragraphs from the Chen Declaration provide no basis for
`
`establishing that Willis trees sold before the critical date “contain[] many of the
`
`features that PO now attempts to claim in Substitute Claims 21-24.” To the extent
`
`that ¶¶11-12 of Ex. 1112 do disclose features of the trees sold as early as 2008 (e.g.,
`
`multiple trunk pieces, wires with lights strung throughout the trees), the information
`
`is cumulative. (See Ex. 1212, ¶¶11-12.)
`
`C. Duty of Candor: No Additional Material Art in Child Applications
`
`Petitioner also argues that PO has failed to put Petitioner and Board on notice
`
`as to “any material art of record in any other proceeding before the Office involving
`
`the patent.” (Paper 101, pp. 5-6.) In good faith, PO has disclosed this proceeding,
`
`the consolidated proceeding IPR2016-00802, and other PO “tree” proceedings
`
`currently pending before this Board, to the USPTO in child patent US 9,526,286 and
`
`pending child application 15/350,707. (Paper 69, pp. 5-6.) As such, and as Petitioner
`
`also points out, the records of the ‘286 Patent and ‘707 Application include the
`
`material prior art cited in the ‘056 Patent history. (Id.) Petitioner has not asserted
`
`that the records of these two child cases contain any additional material prior art, and
`
`PO confirms that any references cited in these two children and not addressed herein
`
`are cumulative to the art of record. Regarding the non-published child application,
`
`15/596,421, PO has not filed any information disclosure statements, and the
`
`examiner has only cited three patents as prior art, all of which are cited on the face
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`of the ‘056 Patent. Consequently, PO has determined that there are no additional
`
`material references relating to 14/725,972, 15/350,707 and 15/596,421 that need be
`
`raised or addressed, and hence has not raised or addressed any such references.
`
`D. PO’s Arguments Respond to Alleged Grounds and are Supported by
`
`the Literal Language of the Claims
`
`In reply to Petitioner’s assertions that the substitute claims are not responsive
`
`to Petitioner’s grounds, PO asserts that: 1) PO has raised arguments as to how each
`
`substitute claim would overcome the art raised by Petitioner (See Paper 53, pp. 17-
`
`35 arguing patentability of substitute claims 21-24 over relevant prior art, including
`
`references relied upon by Petitioner); 2) PO has also included every feature, and in
`
`some cases narrowed features, for each and every substitute claim (See Id., pp. A1-
`
`A7 showing added limitations underlined); and 3) PO does in fact present arguments
`
`as to how the applied references fail to teach or suggest the narrowed features,
`
`thereby addressing the obviousness grounds raised by Petitioner. (Id., 17-35.)
`
`Petitioner further argues that PO attempts to introduce limitations into claims
`
`21-24 via arguments, and therefore PO’s arguments are improper and the Board
`
`should not construe PO’s arguments as being limiting in any way. (Paper 69, pp. 8-
`
`9.) PO disagrees that it is introducing limitations via argument, or making arguments
`
`not supported by the claims. Petitioner raises the issue of intended use (id., p. 10),
`
`and effectively imposes upon claims 21-23 the overarching rule that any recitation
`
`of “power” whether used as an adjective to a structural element, e.g., “power wire”,
`
`or whether used in the “configured to” functional claiming format, e.g., “configured
`
`to transmit power”, is non-limiting and should be ignored. (Id.) Under such a non-
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`limiting interpretation, for example, a ground wire could disclose a power wire
`
`simply because it is electrically conductive. (Id.)
`
`Such a wholesale conclusion not only ignores the merits of each individual
`
`claim, but also contradicts the disclosure of the specification of the ‘056 Patent.
`
`Petitioner argues, for example, that the specification supports a finding that a “first
`
`polarity” terminal could be connected to earth ground. (Id.) However, the
`
`specification consistently refers to “first polarity” power wires and terminals, and
`
`“second polarity” power wires and terminals, to describe the conduction of electrical
`
`power, e.g., neutral and positive/live/hot polarities necessary for providing power.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 7:37-44, 8:29-33, 15:61-65.) The specification also discloses multiple
`
`terminals and wires that can be used for each polarity. (Ex. 1001, 14:13-21.) Further,
`
`the use of ground or earth ground wires or terminals is not disclosed in the
`
`specification. Consequently, a POSA would understand that the specification does
`
`not support an interpretation that would allow substitution of grounding elements for
`
`claimed power elements as described in PO’s Motion.
`
`E. Claim Construction: Commonly Transmitted (Claim 24)
`
`Petitioner asserts that PO has not provided claim constructions for the term
`
`“commonly transmitted,” and therefore fails to demonstrate patentability. (Paper
`
`107, p. 11.) Guidance provided by this Panel provides that: “If a new term is used in
`
`a proposed substitute claim, the meaning of which reasonably can be anticipated as
`
`subject to dispute, Patent Owner should provide a proposed claim construction in
`
`the motion to amend.” (Paper 52, p. 4.) PO submits that the term “commonly
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`transmitted” is not a term anticipated to be subject to dispute, nor has Petitioner
`
`alleged same. (See Paper 101, 11-12, arguing Petitioner’s construction of the term.)
`
`III. CLAIMS 23 AND 24 ARE NOT INDEFINITE UNDER 35 USC 112
`
`PO agrees with Petitioner that PO claim element 23.13, relating to wire
`
`connections, was not a subject of challenge in this proceeding, and that PO has not
`
`“attempted to explain the meaning of this term or argue for its definiteness.” This is
`
`because element 23.13 is fully supported by the specification of the ‘056 Patent,
`
`including the figures, as described in PO’s Motion, and the meaning is definite and
`
`unambiguous. (Paper 53, p. 15.) Notably, Petitioner fails to provide any evidence to
`
`the contrary as to why a POSA would not be informed as to the scope of the invention
`
`within reasonable certainty. (Paper 69, pp. 13-15.)
`
`Regarding element 24.4 of claim 24, another term not challenged in this
`
`proceeding, Petitioner again fails to provide any evidence to support the finding that
`
`a POSA would not be informed as to the meaning of element 24.4 within reasonable
`
`certainty. (Id., pp. 15-16.) To the contrary, and consistent with the baseline
`
`understanding provided by Petitioner’s expert, a POSA would understand with
`
`reasonable certainty the meaning of this term. (Ex. 2056, ¶34; Ex. 1011, ¶161.)
`
`IV. CLAIM 21 IS PATENTABLE OVER THE PRIOR ART OF RECORD,
`
`INCLUDING OVER MILLER, OTTO, JUMO, AND
`
`MCLEISH/FALOSSI/DANIELS
`
`It would not have been obvious to modify the tree of Miller-Otto-Jumo with
`
`the connector teachings of McLeish, Falossi or Daniels and Petitioner has failed to
`
`demonstrate same.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`First, all three of McLeish, Falossi and Daniels are non-analogous art.
`
`McLeish is non-analogous art for the reasons described in PO’s Motion. (Paper 53,
`
`pp. 23-26.) Both Falossi and Daniels are in the field of swiveling connectors for
`
`cables, and not in the field of lighted trees. (Ex. 1035, 6-9, 48-59; Ex. 1147, 1:10-
`
`20; Ex. 2056, ¶35, 38.) Further, Falossi and Daniels solve problems very different
`
`from the problem of making trees more convenient to put together and power. (Ex.
`
`1001, 2:4-5; Paper 53, p. 24.) Falossi solves the problem of connector failure in
`
`swiveling connectors after alignment and connection (Ex. 1035, 1:10-27; Ex. 2056,
`
`¶36-37), while Daniels solves the “problem () of preventing an unintentional
`
`breakage of the electrical contact by forces applied to the cables or to the connector
`
`directly” by providing interlocking contact elements. (Ex. 1147, 1:29-32, 2:3-10; Ex.
`
`2056, ¶39-40.) Consequently, neither reference is pertinent to the problem faced by
`
`the inventor.
`
`Secondly, Petitioner repeatedly relies on the achievement of multi-alignment
`
`capability as the motivation to add a third terminal to the already-coaxial connector
`
`of Miller-Otto-Jumo. (Paper 69, p. 19) Petitioner on the one hand argues multi-
`
`alignment motivation with respect to modifying the tree of Miller, and on the other
`
`hand, argues a substitution of elements of the Otto-Jumo connector with elements of
`
`McLeish (or Falossi or Daniels) (Id., p. 19.) In light of the claimed feature of an
`
`electrical connection of the so-called “third” terminal to a power cord, Petitioner
`
`cannot reasonably argue, and therefore has not argued, that the motivation to
`
`combine any of McLeish/Falossi/Daniels lies in the desire to connect a third terminal
`
`to earth ground as is sometimes done in appliances for safety reasons, and as taught
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`by McLeish. Consequently, Petitioner focuses on how a POSA would know how to
`
`add a third terminal to Otto-Jumo, thereby neglecting to provide a credible reason as
`
`to why a POSA would do so. (See id., pp. 20-23.) Adding a third terminal does not
`
`enable multiple alignment connections, coaxial connectors do, such that the
`
`purported motivation presented by Petitioner must fail. (Ex. 2056, ¶41.)
`
`Further, Petitioner fails to support its “simple substitution” arguments for each
`
`of McLeish, Falossi and Daniels by not sufficiently identifying the known elements
`
`being substituted, nor their functions, and failing to support that such a substitution
`
`would yield predictable results. (Paper 69, pp. 21-22 (concluding on p. 22 with:
`
`“Thus, a POSA would have found it obvious that this simple substitution of known
`
`elements would create a lighted artificial tree that connects mechanically and
`
`electrically via coupling Jumo’s and McLeish’s or Falossi’s or Daniels’ male/female
`
`assemblies.”); see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, providing
`
`requirements for a substitution of elements finding of obviousness.) For example, if
`
`Miller, Otto and Jumo each include two terminals, how is a third terminal a
`
`substitution? If exchanging two terminals for three terminals is the substitution, what
`
`are the functions of the respective terminals, and is the result predictable if two
`
`terminals function as live terminals (rather than only one terminal) and one terminal
`
`functions as a neutral terminal, or vice versa?
`
`Petitioner fails to show that the asserted references in combination disclose
`
`element 21.6. (Paper 69, pp. 28-29.) Petitioner asserts that the teachings of McLeish,
`
`Falossi and Daniels would suggest to a POSA “any” electrical configuration,
`
`including the electrical connections of element 21.6, such that element 21.6 is
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`disclosed. (Id.) However, none of the “benefits” accomplished by having a third
`
`terminal suggest the specific connections as recited, e.g., McLeish is argued to teach
`
`a benefit of avoiding electrocution (Ex. 1010, 6:38-50, 3:4-7), Falossi, the benefit of
`
`improved electrical contact area (Ex. 1035, 4:30-34), and Daniels the benefit of
`
`interlocking terminals (Ex. 1147, 1:29-32 , 2:3-10). Again, Petitioner focuses on how
`
`connections might be made by a POSA, but does not provide a reason why beyond
`
`the conclusory statement that the collective “teachings” would have suggested “any”
`
`possible configuration so as to disclose element 21.6.
`
`V. CLAIM 22 IS PATENTABLE OVER PRIOR ART OF RECORD,
`
`INCLUDING OVER HICKS IN VIEW OF OTTO AND FURTHER IN
`
`VIEW OF MCLEISH OR FALLOSI OR DANIELS
`
`First, each of McLeish, Falossi and Daniels is a non-analogous reference for
`
`the reasons described above, such that a POSA would not have been motivated to
`
`make this combination. (See Sec. IV.).
`
`Second, there would have been no motivation to combine any of McLeish,
`
`Falossi or Daniels, with Hicks-Otto to arrive at the unique three-terminal tree of
`
`claim 22 based on achieving multiple rotational alignments. Petitioner argues that
`
`the collective teachings of the references would have motivated a POSA to “enhance
`
`Hicks with McLeish’s coaxial connector” to allow electrical connection in multiple
`
`rotational alignments and for ease of assembly, and that it would have been a simple
`
`substitution to “swap out” the various connectors. (Paper 69, p. 32.) Such reasoning
`
`fails to consider that not only would such a connector “swap” need to occur, but that
`
`each of the third earth-ground/electrocution-prevention terminals of Hicks and
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`McLeish would have to be re-purposed by being connected to the power cord
`
`configured to receive and transmit power. (Paper 53, p. A3, element 22.5; Ex. 2056,
`
`¶42.) Not only do the “collective teachings” of the references fail to teach this
`
`terminal and connection configuration of claim 22, but rather, they collectively and
`
`impliedly teach away from such a configuration.
`
`A reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
`
`reference would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
`
`would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken” in the claim.1
`
`Further, even if references do not expressly teach away, the references may teach
`
`away impliedly if the combination would have left one of the references “inoperable
`
`for its intended purpose.”2 Each of Hicks and McLeish teaches a third terminal that
`
`is an earth-ground terminal, and McLeish teaches that the third terminal functioning
`
`as an earth-ground terminal “reduces the possibility of electrocution” and further
`
`that disengagement of the earth terminal after disengagement of live and neutral
`
`power terminals reduces the possibility of sparking and arcing. (Ex. 2052, ¶32,
`
`referring to Hicks, FIG. 7; Ex.1010, 6:38-50, 3:4-7.) Consequently, a Hicks-Otto-
`
`McLeish/Falossi/Daniels tree having three-terminal connectors wherein none of the
`
`terminals is an earth-ground, would render the intended purpose of the three-terminal
`
`connector of McLeish, and the three-terminal-connector trees of Hicks, and Hicks-
`
`Otto-McLeish/Falossi/Daniels inoperable. (Ex. 2056, ¶42-43.)
`
`
`
`1 Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013.)
`
`2 In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`The combination of Hicks, Otto, and McLeish/Falossi/Daniels fails to teach
`
`element 22.5. As described above, Hicks teaches a tree with three-terminal
`
`connectors, with one being an earth ground terminal. Hicks also discloses a power
`
`cord system, but Hicks is silent as to any particular connection of terminals to the
`
`power cords, and for the reasons above, impliedly teaches away from connecting a
`
`third terminal to a power cord.
`
`VI. CLAIM 23 IS PATENTABLE OVER ART OF RECORD,
`
`INCLUDING OVER MILLER IN VIEW OF SEGHERS AND
`
`FURTHER IN VIEW OF MCLEISH OR FALLOSI OR DANIELS
`
`First, each of McLeish, Falossi and Daniels is a non-analogous reference as
`
`described above with respect to claim 21, resulting in a lack of motivation to
`
`combine. (See Sec. IV.).
`
`Second, the result of achieving mechanical advantages of multiple rotational
`
`alignments between tree sections would not have provided a motivation to change
`
`the number of electrical terminals in the connector of Miller, let alone specifically
`
`adding a third terminal followed by connecting that third terminal to a power wire
`
`of a power cord, rather than an earth ground as taught by McLeish. (Ex. 2056, ¶44-
`
`45.) As pointed out by Petitioner, the tree of Miller can be modified by two-terminal
`
`connectors, such as Otto-Jumo to yield a tree capable of multiple alignments. (Paper
`
`2, p. 32 (describing how Otto allows for connection independent of rotational
`
`orientation, and Jumo teaches a multi-position electrical connector); Paper 69, p. 40.)
`
`Further, even if a POSA were to consider adding a third terminal to the connector of
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`Miller, McLeish impliedly teaches away from such a combination, as described
`
`above with respect to claim 22. (See Sec. V.)
`
`For these same reasons, the cited combination cannot teach element 23.7
`
`relating to the three terminals, two terminals configured to transmit power the light
`
`string and a third in electrical connection with one of the power wires of the power
`
`cord. The references individually do not teach this element, and Petitioner relies on
`
`the “teachings” of Miller’s two terminals connected to a light string, in combination
`
`with McLeish’s (or Falossi’s or Daniels’) teaching of three terminals to suggest
`
`“any” electrical connection configuration, thereby concluding that element 23.7 is
`
`disclosed. (Paper 69, p. 44.) This argument is supported by a hindsight-suggestive
`
`description of how a POSA would construct the tree of claim 23. (See, e.g., Ex. 1101,
`
`¶¶118, 126 and 132, cited to support the conclusion that “These teachings would
`
`have suggested to a POSA any variety of configurations involving electrical
`
`connections between any pair of electrical terminals, especially to power light strings
`
`on an artificial tree.”)
`
`VII. CLAIM 24 IS PATENTABLE OVER ART OF RECORD,
`
`INCLUDING OVER MILLER IN VIEW OF LOOMIS
`
`Miller in view of Loomis at least fails to teach or suggest element 24.6. As
`
`described in PO’s Motion, and as disclosed by Miller, each connector 13 (alleged
`
`hub) provides power to only one light string 20 such that this element is neither
`
`taught nor suggested by Miller-Loomis. (Paper 53, pp. 30-32.)
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated herein, Willis Electric respectfully requests its Motion
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`to Amend be granted.
`
`
`Dated: September 25, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By /s/ Douglas J. Christensen
`Douglas J. Christensen
`Reg. No. 35,480
`Christensen Fonder Dardi
`33 South Sixth Street, Suite 3950
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 315-4100
`
`
`Larina A. Alton
`Reg. No. 72,750
`Luke D. Toft
`Reg. No. 75,311
`FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
`Campbell Mithun Tower
`222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2000
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 607-7067
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056
`(IPR2016-01613)
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned certifies service of Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to
`
`Patent Owners Motion to Amend pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) on the Petitioner
`
`by email as authorized by the Petitioner in the Petition at the following:
`
`
`Anup M. Shah
`anup.shah@troutmansanders.com
`Alexis N. Simpson
`alexis.simpson@troutmansanders.com
`Christopher J. Forstner
`chris.forstner@troutmansanders.com
`Robert Angle
`robert.angle@troutmansanders.com
`Dabney Carr
`dabney.carr@troutmansanders.com
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`jasone-ptab@skgf.com
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
`
`
`Dated: September 25, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Julie Ann Anderson
`Legal Administrative Assistant to
`Larina Alton
`FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
`Campbell Mithun Tower
`222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2000
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 607-7545
`
`
`
`
`51090295.v1-9/25/17
`
`1
`
`
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
