throbber
Filed on behalf of Valencell, Inc.
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com)
`Nicholas C Kliewer (nkliewer@bcpc-law.com)
`Jonathan H. Rastegar (jrastegar@bcpc-law.com)
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00319
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(B)(1)
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Patent Owner Valencell, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “Valencell”) hereby files
`
`the following objections to evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.62 to the admissibility of the following evidence submitted by
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Apple”) in support of its Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review. Valencell files and serves Apple with these objections to provide notice that
`
`Valencell may move to exclude the challenged exhibits under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`These objections are made within 10 business days from the June 6, 2017
`
`filing of Institution Decision (Paper 10). Patent Owner objects to and intends to seek
`
`the denial of the admission and consideration of the following documents:
`
`1004
`1006
`
`1008
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1003
`Declaration of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh (“Sarrafzadeh
`Declaration”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0209516 to Fraden,
`published September 22, 2005 (“Fraden”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0081972 to
`Debreczeny, published April 3, 2008 (“Debreczeny”)
`Certified English-language translation of Japanese Patent
`Application Publication No. 2005/040261 A to Numaga et al.,
`published February 17, 2005 (“Numaga Translation”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0065269 to Vetter
`et al., published April 3, 2003 (“Vetter”)
`
`1010
`
`
`1011
`
`1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,548 to Pologe, issued March 29, 1994
`(“Pologe”)
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`Med. Sci. Series, Int’l Fed’n for Med. and Biological Eng’g and
`the Int’l Org. for Med. Physics, Design of Pulse Oximeters (J.G.
`Webster ed., Inst. of Physics Publ’g 1997) (“J.G. Webster”)
`John Allen, Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical
`physiological measurement, Physiological Measurement 28
`(2007) (“Allen”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0132798 to Hong et
`al., published June 5, 2008 (“Hong”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0177162 to Bae et
`al., published July 24, 2008 (“Bae”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,807,267 to Bryars et al. issued September 15,
`1998 (“Bryars”)
`
`Hyonyoung Han et al., Development of a wearable monitoring
`device with motion artifact reduced algorithm, International
`Conference on Control, Automation and Systems, IEEE (2007)
`(“Han”)
`
`G. Comtois & Y. Mendelson, A Comparative Evaluation of
`Adaptive Noise Cancellation Algorithms for Minimizing Motion
`Artifacts in a Forehead-Mounted Wearable Pulse Oximeter,
`IEEE (2007) (“Comtois”)
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier in support of G. Comtois & Y.
`Mendelson, A Comparative Evaluation of Adaptive Noise
`Cancellation Algorithms for Minimizing Motion Artifacts in a
`Forehead-Mounted Wearable Pulse Oximeter, IEEE (2007)
`(“Grenier Declaration 1”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0059236 to
`Margulies et al., published March 25, 2004 (“Margulies”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0016086 to Inukai
`et al., published January 18, 2007 (“Inukai”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0236647 to Yoon
`et al., published December 25, 2003 (“Yoon”)
`International Patent Application Publication No. 2007/013054
`to Schwartz, published February 1, 2007 (“Schwartz”)
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1041
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1052
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,575,284 to Athan et al., issued November
`19, 1996 (“Athan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,503,016 to Koen, issued April 2, 1996
`(“Koen”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0027367 to Oliver
`et al., published February 1, 2007 (“Oliver”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0075542 to
`Goldreich, published April 7, 2005 (“Goldreich”)
`
`International Patent Application Publication No.
`WO2007/004089 to Moroney et al., published January 11, 2007
`(“Moroney”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`G. Sen Gupta et al., Design of a Low-cost Physiological Parameter
`Measurement and Monitoring Device, Instrumentation and
`Measurement Technology Conference, IEEE (2007) (“Gupta”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0084879 to
`Nazarian et al., published April 20, 2006 (“Nazarian”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,243,992 to Eckerle et al., issued September
`14, 1993 (“Eckerle”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,955,379 to Hall, issued September 11, 1990
`(“Hall”)
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO
`2007/122375 to Crowe et al., published November 1, 2007
`(“Crowe”)
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier in support of G. Sen Gupta et al.,
`Design of a Low-cost Physiological Parameter Measurement and
`Monitoring Device, Instrumentation and Measurement Technology
`Conference, IEEE (2007) (Ex. 1045) and Hyonyoung Han et al.,
`Development of a wearable health monitoring device with motion
`artifact reduced algorithm, International Conference on Control,
`Automation and Systems, IEEE (2007) (“Grenier Declaration 2”)
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`R.G. Lee et al. “A Mobile Care System With Alert Mechanism”
`IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine,
`Vol. 11, Issue 5, September 2007 (“Lee”)
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier in support of R.G. Lee et al. “A
`Mobile Care System With Alert Mechanism” IEEE Transactions
`on Information Technology in Biomedicine, Vol. 11, Issue 5,
`September 2007 (“Grenier Declaration 3”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,396,893 to Oberg et al., issued March 14, 1995
`(“Oberg”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,721,584 to Baker, Jr. et al., issued April 13,
`2004 (“Baker”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0154098 to Morris
`et al., published June 26, 2008 (“Morris”)
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 00/44274
`to Pougatchev et al., published August 3, 2000 (“Pougatchev”)
`
`
`Patent Owner’s specific objections are provided below.
`
`Exhibit 1003 – Sarrafzadeh Declaration
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Sarrafzadeh Declaration as lacking foundation
`
`under FRE 702 and 705. For example, Dr. Sarrafzadeh’s testimony about
`
`obviousness, in paragraphs 87-88, 93, 105, 111, 117, 125, 128, 146, 153, 162, 167,
`
`and 184, which purportedly shows the disclosures and motivations to combine the
`
`various prior art references, is conclusory and therefore inadmissible. Patent Owner
`
`likewise objects to the Sarrafzadeh Declaration under FRE 703 and 705 for failure
`
`to disclose any underlying facts or data for his conclusory statements and there is no
`
`indication that the declarant based those opinions on facts or data upon which an
`
`expert in the relevant field would reasonably rely. Patent Owner further objects to
`
`conclusory paragraphs (e.g., ¶¶ 87-88, 93, 105, 111, 117, 125, 128, 146, 153, 162,
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`167, and 184) under FRE 403 because the conclusory nature of the statements makes
`
`their probative value substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, unduly delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1004 – Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh as
`
`inadmissible because it constitutes improper incorporation by reference under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under
`
`FRE 403 because it is not relied upon in the Petition and thus its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1006 – Fraden
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Fraden as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon
`
`in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Exhibit 1008 – Debreczeny
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Debreczeny as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon
`
`in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1010 – Numaga Translation
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Numaga Translation of JP2005040261A (Ex.
`
`1009) under FRE 602 because no evidence has been introduced to show the declarant
`
`had personal knowledge of the attested facts. Patent Owner further objects to the
`
`Numaga Translation under FRE 603 and 604 due to an improper oath in the
`
`certification.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Numaga Translation as inadmissible hearsay
`
`under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any hearsay exception, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Numaga Translation as not properly authenticated
`
`under FRE 901. There is no evidence that the Numaga Translation is authentic nor
`
`that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Numaga Translation under FRE 1002 because the
`
`certification is improper and does not comply with applicable rules and the Numaga
`
`Translation is thus not shown to be a true and correct translation. Absent a true and
`
`correct translation, Numaga (Exhibit 1009) is the best evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1011 – Vetter
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Vetter as inadmissible because it constitutes improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon in the Petition
`
`and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1019 – Pologe
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Pologe as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon
`
`in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Exhibit 1020 – J.G. Webster
`
`Patent Owner objects to J.G. Webster as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901. There is no evidence that J.G. Webster is authentic nor that the document is
`
`self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to J.G. Webster as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801
`
`and 802 that does not fall under any hearsay exception, including those of FRE 803,
`
`804, 805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to J.G. Webster under FRE 401-403 because its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, unduly delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence. For example, J.G. Webster is used to suggest the knowledge
`
`of one having ordinary skill in the art, yet it is clear that J.G. Webster represents
`
`knowledge of one having extraordinary skill in the art. For the same reasons, Patent
`
`Owner objects to J.G. Webster as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible
`
`under FRE 402. Patent Owner further objects to J.G. Webster as irrelevant under
`
`FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402 to the extent that J.G. Webster is
`
`used as prior art for any reason, because Petitioner has produced no evidence that
`
`J.G. Webster was publicly available before the priority date of the ’941 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Exhibit 1021 – Allen
`
`Patent Owner objects to Allen as not properly authenticated under FRE 901.
`
`There is no evidence that Allen is authentic nor that the document is self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Allen as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and
`
`802 that does not fall under any hearsay exception, including those of FRE 803, 804,
`
`805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Allen under FRE 401-403 because its probative value
`
`is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`unduly delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. For
`
`example, Allen is used to suggest the knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, yet it is clear that Allen represents knowledge of one having extraordinary skill
`
`in the art. For the same reasons, Patent Owner objects to Allen as irrelevant under
`
`FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402. Patent Owner further objects to
`
`Allen as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402 to the extent
`
`that Allen is used as prior art for any reason, because Petitioner has produced no
`
`evidence that Allen was publicly available before the priority date of the ’941 Patent.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Allen as inadmissible because it constitutes improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon in the Petition
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1022 – Hong
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Hong as inadmissible because it constitutes improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon in the Petition
`
`and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1023 – Bae
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Bae as inadmissible because it constitutes improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon in the Petition
`
`and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1024 – Bryars
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Bryars as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon
`
`in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1025 – Han
`Patent Owner objects to Han as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802
`
`that does not fall under any hearsay exception, including those of FRE 803, 804,
`
`805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Han as not properly authenticated under FRE 901.
`
`There only evidence purporting to authenticate Han is a Declaration (Exhibit 1052)
`
`that is not made on personal knowledge of the attested facts, and there is no evidence
`
`that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Han under FRE 401-403 because its probative value
`
`is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`unduly delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. For
`
`example, Han is used to suggest the knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, yet it is clear that Han represents knowledge of one having extraordinary skill in
`
`the art. For the same reasons, Patent Owner objects to Han as irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402. Patent Owner further objects to Han as
`
`irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402 to the extent that
`
`Han is used as prior art for any reason, because Petitioner has produced no evidence
`
`that Han was publicly available before the priority date of the ’941 Patent.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Exhibit 1032 – Comtois
`
`Patent Owner objects to Comtois as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and
`
`802 that does not fall under any hearsay exception, including those of FRE 803, 804,
`
`805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Comtois as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901. There only evidence purporting to authenticate Comtois is a Declaration
`
`(Exhibit 1033) that is not made on personal knowledge of the attested facts, and there
`
`is no evidence that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Comtois under FRE 401-403 because its probative
`
`value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, unduly delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`For example, Comtois is used to suggest the knowledge of one having ordinary skill
`
`in the art, yet it is clear that Comtois represents knowledge of one having
`
`extraordinary skill in the art. For the same reasons, Patent Owner objects to Comtois
`
`as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402. Patent Owner
`
`further objects to Comtois as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under
`
`FRE 402 to the extent that Comtois is used as prior art for any reason, because
`
`Petitioner has produced no evidence that Comtois was publicly available before the
`
`priority date of the ’941 Patent.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Exhibit 1033 – Grenier Declaration 1 (including attached exhibit)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration 1 under FRE 602 because no
`
`evidence has been introduced to show the declarant had personal knowledge of the
`
`attested facts.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration 1 as inadmissible hearsay
`
`under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any hearsay exception, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration 1 as not properly
`
`authenticated under FRE 901. There is no evidence that the Grenier Declaration 1 is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration 1 under 1002 because it is
`
`not the best evidence of the content of the article that it seeks to support (Comtois).
`
`Rather, the Comtois article itself (Ex. 1032) is the best evidence of its own content.
`
`Exhibit 1034 – Margulies
`
`Patent Owner objects to Margulies as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon
`
`in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Exhibit 1035 – Inukai
`
`Patent Owner objects to Inukai as inadmissible because it constitutes improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon in the Petition
`
`and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1036 – Yoon
`
`Patent Owner objects to Yoon as inadmissible because it constitutes improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon in the Petition
`
`and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1037 – Schwartz
`
`Patent Owner objects to Schwartz as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon
`
`in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Exhibit 1038 – Athan
`
`Patent Owner objects to Athan as inadmissible because it constitutes improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon in the Petition
`
`and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1039 – Koen
`
`Patent Owner objects to Koen as inadmissible because it constitutes improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon in the Petition
`
`and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1041 – Oliver
`
`Patent Owner objects to Oliver as inadmissible because it constitutes improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon in the Petition
`
`and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Exhibit 1043 – Goldreich
`
`Patent Owner objects to Goldreich as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon
`
`in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1044 – Moroney
`
`Patent Owner objects to Moroney as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon
`
`in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1045 – Gupta
`
`Patent Owner objects to Gupta as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and
`
`802 that does not fall under any hearsay exception, including those of FRE 803, 804,
`
`805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Gupta as not properly authenticated under FRE 901.
`
`There only evidence purporting to authenticate Gupta is a Declaration (Exhibit 1052)
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`that is not made on personal knowledge of the attested facts, and there is no evidence
`
`that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Gupta under FRE 401-403 because its probative value
`
`is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`unduly delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. For
`
`example, Gupta is used to suggest the knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, yet it is clear that Gupta represents knowledge of one having extraordinary skill
`
`in the art. For the same reasons, Patent Owner objects to Gupta as irrelevant under
`
`FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402. Patent Owner further objects to
`
`Gupta as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402 to the
`
`extent that Gupta is used as prior art for any reason, because Petitioner has produced
`
`no evidence that Gupta was publicly available before the priority date of the ’941
`
`Patent.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Gupta as inadmissible because it constitutes improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon in the Petition
`
`and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Exhibit 1046 – Nazarian
`
`Patent Owner objects to Nazarian as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon
`
`in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1047 – Eckerle
`
`Patent Owner objects to Eckerle as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon
`
`in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1048 – Hall
`
`Patent Owner objects to Hall as inadmissible because it constitutes improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon in the Petition
`
`and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Exhibit 1049 – Crowe
`
`Patent Owner objects to Crowe as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon
`
`in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1052 – Grenier Declaration 2 (including attached exhibits)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration 2 under FRE 602 because no
`
`evidence has been introduced to show the declarant had personal knowledge of the
`
`attested facts.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration 2 as inadmissible hearsay
`
`under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any hearsay exception, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration 2 as irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402; for example, documents referring to
`
`Wang are not relevant to this proceeding.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration as not properly authenticated
`
`under FRE 901. There is no evidence that the Grenier Declaration is authentic nor
`
`that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration under 1002 because it is not
`
`the best evidence of the content of the articles that it seeks to support (Gupta and
`
`Han). Rather, the Gupta article (Ex. 1045) and the Han article (Ex. 1025) themselves
`
`are the best evidence of each’s own content.
`
`Exhibit 1059 – Lee
`
`Patent Owner objects to Lee as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802
`
`that does not fall under any hearsay exception, including those of FRE 803, 804,
`
`805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Lee as not properly authenticated under FRE 901.
`
`There only evidence purporting to authenticate Lee is a Declaration (Exhibit 1060)
`
`that is not made on personal knowledge of the attested facts, and there is no evidence
`
`that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Lee under FRE 401-403 because its probative value
`
`is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`unduly delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. For
`
`example, Lee is used to suggest the knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, yet it is clear that Lee represents knowledge of one having extraordinary skill in
`
`the art. For the same reasons, Patent Owner objects to Lee as irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402. Patent Owner further objects to Lee as
`
`irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402 to the extent that
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Lee is used as prior art for any reason, because Petitioner has produced no evidence
`
`that Lee was publicly available before the priority date of the ’941 Patent.
`
`Exhibit 1060 – Grenier Declaration 3 (including attached exhibit)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration 3 under FRE 602 because no
`
`evidence has been introduced to show the declarant had personal knowledge of the
`
`attested facts.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration 3 as inadmissible hearsay
`
`under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any hearsay exception, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration 3 as not properly
`
`authenticated under FRE 901. There is no evidence that the Grenier Declaration 3 is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Grenier Declaration 3 under 1002 because it is
`
`not the best evidence of the content of the article that it seeks to support (Lee).
`
`Rather, the Lee article itself (Ex. 1059) is the best evidence of its own content.
`
`Exhibit 1062 – Oberg
`
`Patent Owner objects to Oberg as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402 but the Board did not institute trial based on the
`
`reference, and it is not appropriately relied upon for another reason. Furthermore,
`
`Oberg is irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`is not relied upon in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1063 – Baker
`
`Patent Owner objects to Baker as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402 but the Board did not institute trial based on the
`
`reference, and it is not appropriately relied upon for another reason Furthermore,
`
`Baker is irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it
`
`is not relied upon in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1065 – Morris
`
`Patent Owner objects to Morris as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 403 because it is not relied upon
`
`in the Petition and thus its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`23
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00319
`Patent 8,923,941
`
`Exhibit 1066 – Pougatchev
`
`Patent Owner objects to Pougatchev as inadmissible because it constitutes
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and is irrelevant
`
`un

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket