throbber
Filed on Behalf of Valencell, Inc.
`
`By: Sanford E. Warren Jr. (SWarren@wriplaw.com)
`
`R. Scott Rhoades (SRhoades@wriplaw.com)
`
`Warren Rhoades LLP
`
`1212 Corporate Drive, Suite 250
`
`Irving, Texas 75038
`
`Telephone: 972-550-2955
`
`Fax: 469-442-0091
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC. and FITBIT, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2017-003211
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S CONDITIONAL
`MOTION TO AMEND UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2017-01556 has been joined to this current proceeding.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
`
`II. PETITIONERS DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE CLAIM
`
`CONSTRUCTION FOR APPLICATION-SPECIFIC INTERFACE
`
`(API). .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`III. THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE
`
`CITED PRIOR ART................................................................................... 4
`
`IV. THE SPECIFICATION SUPPORTS THE NEW LIMITATIONS OF
`
`THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ................................................................. 10
`
`V. THE PATENT OWNER HAS DEMONSTRATED PROPER
`
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS ...................................................................... 11
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Google Inc. v. B.E. Tech. L.L.C., IPR2014-00038, Final Written
`Decision, Paper 36, at 27 (P.T.A.B. March 31, 2015) ....................... 11
`
`Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Final
`Written Decision, Paper 26 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013) ....................... 12
`
`Int’l Flavors & Fragrances Inc. v. U.S., IPR2013-00124, Final
`Written Decision, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. May 20, 2014) ....................... 10
`
`Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............... 1
`
`Respironics, Inc. v. Zoll Med. Corp., IPR2013-00322, Final Written
`Decision, Paper 46, (P.T.A.B September 17, 2014) ........................... 11
`
`Shinn Fu Co. of Am., Inc. and. Shinn Fu Corp. v. The Tire Hanger
`Corp., IPR2015-00208, Final Written Decision, Paper 24,
`(P.T.A.B. April 22, 2016) ................................................................... 10
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2) ................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/691,388, now U.S. Patent No.
`8,700,111, original specification, claims, and figures.
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/274,191, filed on August 14,
`2009, original specification, claims, and figures.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941 to LeBoeuf et al., issued December
`30, 2014
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/184,396, now U.S. Patent No.
`8,923,941, original specification, claims, and figures.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0200774 to Luo,
`published August 21, 2008
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0133699 to Craw
`et al., published June 5, 2008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,513,532 to Mault et al., issued February 4,
`2003
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0181798 to Al-
`Ali, published September 25, 2003
`
`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
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2108
`
`2109
`
`2115
`
`2116
`
`2126
`
`2127
`
`2136
`
`2137
`
`2138
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and FitBit, Inc. (“FitBit”) (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”) have chosen to ignore the claim construction of the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“the Board”) in their opposition to Patent Owner’s, Valencell, Inc.
`
`(“Valencell” or “Patent Owner”) Conditional Motion to Amend. Instead, the
`
`Petitioners developed their own construction and applied that construction to the
`
`prior art. Petitioners make no attempt and do not apply the Board’s construction for
`
`the claim term “application-specific interface (API)” in its opposition; instead
`
`Petitioners repeatedly disregarded or attempted to modify the construction set forth
`
`by the Board. Accordingly the references asserted in Petitioners’ opposition fail to
`
`anticipate or render the substitute claims obvious. See Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812
`
`F.3d 1326, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`PETITIONERS DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE CLAIM
`II.
`CONSTRUCTION FOR APPLICATION-SPECIFIC INTERFACE (API).
`
`Petitioners set forth a variety of arguments in their desperate attempt to change
`
`the construction for the claim term “application-specific interface (API).”
`
`Specifically, Petitioners set forth EACH of the following arguments:
`
`1.
`
`“PO did not present any specific construction for the term “application-
`
`specific interface (API).” See Petitioner’s Opposition (“Opp.”) at pgs. 2-3. Patent
`
`Owner discussed the Board’s construction of this term for the ‘941 patent at length
`
`in the Motion to Amend (see pgs. 7-10). As the Board has already construed this
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`term for the ‘941 patent, Patent Owner submits no further construction is necessary
`
`and asks the Board to take notice of the prior construction in co-pending IPR2017-
`
`00319, Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper 10 at p. 12 which references the
`
`plain meaning provided in the specification. Petitioners’ arguments based upon the
`
`presentation of the claim construction are not persuasive and should be dismissed.
`
`2.
`
`“PO now takes a position contrary to its previous position and the
`
`position of the Board.” Opp. at pg. 3. The only position taken by the Patent Owner
`
`in the Motion to Amend was a direct reference to the Board’s claim construction of
`
`the term in co-pending IPR2017-00319. Patent Owner has not taken claim
`
`construction positions contrary to this construction. Petitioners’ arguments based
`
`upon the contrary positions taken in the IPRs are not persuasive and should be
`
`dismissed.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioners maintain that its previously rejected claim construction is
`
`appropriate. Opp. at pgs. 8 – 9. Petitioners ultimately recognize that the Board has
`
`previously construed this term, but request reconsideration based upon expert
`
`testimony. In essence, Petitioners are requesting that the specific definition set forth
`
`in the specification be ignored in favor of extrinsic evidence in the form of expert
`
`testimony. However, this request is in direct contradiction to the rules for construing
`
`claims identified by this Board in its prior construction of this term. Specifically,
`
`the Board has stated:
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`“[W]hen construing a claim term under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard, we begin with the words of the term as it
`appears in the claims and, if the ordinary and customary meaning is not
`plain, we look to the specification to glean the meaning of the term. . .
`. We also may look to the prosecution history to try to discern a claim
`term’s meaning. . . . When we are unable to construe the claim term
`from such intrinsic evidence, we may turn to extrinsic evidence to aid
`in construing the claim term.”). See IPR2017-00319, Institution of Inter
`Partes Review, Paper 10 at pgs. 10-11.
`
`
` The Board did not need to “turn” to extrinsic evidence when the intrinsic evidence
`
`was sufficient to construe the term. Nothing has changed; there is still no need for
`
`extrinsic evidence to construe “application-specific interface (API).” Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner’s request should be denied as improper.
`
`4.
`
`“Because the asserted art in the grounds below teaches this specific
`
`example from the ’941 Patent, the precise scope of the term “application-specific
`
`interface” is irrelevant for the purposes of determining unpatentability based on
`
`obviousness.” Opp. at pg. 9. (Emphasis added). Petitioners are arguing that the
`
`construction of a claim term is “irrelevant” as the prior art teaches an example from
`
`the ‘941 patent. Patent Owner is not aware of any claim construction case law or
`
`statute stating a claim term is “irrelevant” if there are examples in the patent and is
`
`further unaware that a claim term can be ignored when determining patentability.
`
`Petitioners’ arguments are not persuasive and should be dismissed.
`
`5.
`
`“The phrase ‘wherein the output data is parsed out such that an
`
`application-specific interface (API) can utilize the physiological information and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`motion-related information for an application’ simply indicates that the data is
`
`delineated in some manner.” Opp. at 10. Petitioners have genericized the claim
`
`construction of application-specific interface (API) to mean “simply indicates that
`
`the data is delineated in some manner” while ignoring the Board’s construction
`
`stating that the “application-specific interface (API)” is directed to a “particular
`
`application.” Petitioners incorrectly use their claim construction in their analysis of
`
`the prior art instead of using the claim construction set forth by the Board. For this
`
`reason alone, Petitioners’ arguments regarding the obviousness of the substitute
`
`claims fail and their opposition to these claims should be denied.
`
`Petitioners various arguments and ultimately flawed and unsupported claim
`
`construction are not persuasive. The Board has already construed this claim stating
`
`the “‘application-specific interface (API)’ is directed to a ‘particular application.”
`
`The construction was based upon the specific definition set forth in the specification.
`
`III. THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF
`THE CITED PRIOR ART
`
`Petitioners have failed to show that any combination of art discloses the
`
`claimed invention as set forth in the substitute claims. Petitioners repeatedly applied
`
`the incorrect claim term construction of “simply indicates that the data is delineated
`
`in some manner” for “application-specific interface (API).” Petitioners have failed
`
`to identify any combination of prior art that discloses an “application-specific
`
`interface (API) directed to a particular application.”
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`Petitioners have stated that “parsing data for a particular application is not a
`
`meaningful limitation as one cannot prevent another different application from
`
`similarly decoding the output data.” Opp. at 8. Petitioners then choose to ignore
`
`this claim element in its evaluation of the prior art. Petitioners’ positions fail in two
`
`regards. First, a claim element cannot just be ignored as “not meaningful.” Second,
`
`the proposition is nonsensical. Data transmitted to a “particular application” is in a
`
`form only understandable by that application. When the data is parsed for a
`
`particular application, only that particular application can use the parsed data.
`
`In another example, the Petitioners apply their genericized construction to
`
`Figure 17 of the ‘941 Patent before applying this genericized construction to the
`
`prior art. Petitioners conveniently ignore the “directed to a particular application”
`
`limitation in their analysis. Petitioners compound their errors by claiming that
`
`Figure 17 embodies the “application-specific interface” element. Figure 17 may be
`
`a component of the “application-specific interface,” but it does not embody the
`
`entirety of the claim term. The ‘941 Patent provides as follows: “FIG. 17 is a block
`
`diagram that illustrates sensor signals being processed into a digital data string
`
`including activity data and physiological data using the method 500 of FIG. 16,
`
`according to some embodiments of the present invention” and “[t]he multiplexed
`
`data outputs 604 may be a serial data string of activity and physiological information
`
`700 (FIG.18) parsed out specifically such that an application-specific interface (API)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`can utilize the data as required for a particular application.” ‘941 Patent, Col. 25, ln.
`
`65 – Col. 26, ln. 1 and Col. 26, lns. 15-19. (Emphasis Added). Figure 17 discloses
`
`sensor signals being processed into a digital data string according to some
`
`embodiments of the present invention. The data output may be for a particular
`
`application or it may be for a generic application. Figure 17 does not make a
`
`distinction between general applications and particular applications which are a
`
`separate embodiment. The ‘941 Patent specification states these data outputs MAY
`
`be parsed out specifically such that an application-specific interface (API) can utilize
`
`the data as required for a particular application. Processing the data string may be
`
`accomplished without parsing out the data specifically for a particular application.
`
`To meet the substitute claims, the output data must be parsed out such that an
`
`application-specific interface (API) can utilize the physiological information and
`
`motion-related information for a particular application. It is this additional claim
`
`element limitation that Petitioners continually ignore and fail to address in their
`
`analysis. Practicing Figure 17 without parsing out data as required for a particular
`
`application does not meet the claim limitations of the substitute claims.
`
`Patent Owner submits that none of the cited prior art, alone or in combination,
`
`discloses ALL of the elements of the substitute claims, including “wherein the
`
`output data is parsed out such that an application-specific interface (API) can utilize
`
`the physiological information and motion-related information for an application”
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`and therefore Petitioners opposition should be denied and the substitute claims
`
`should be entered and allowed.
`
`A. The Combination of Kosuda2, Maekawa, and Gupta fail to render the
`Substitute Claims obvious.
`
`Substitute Claim 12 and its dependent claims are not obvious in view of
`
`Kosuda, Maekawa, and Gupta. In its Opposition, Petitioners admit that “Kosuda
`
`does not expressly disclose that the data includes motion-related information or that
`
`the output data is parsed out such that an application-specific interface (API) can
`
`utilize the physiological information and motion-related information for an
`
`application.” Opp. at pg. 13. To cure this defect, Petitioners attempt to rely upon
`
`Gupta. This attempt fails, however, as Gupta fails to disclose the application-
`
`specific interface (API) claim element. Petitioners, through their expert, Dr.
`
`Anthony, demonstrate the flawed application of Petitioners’ own construction,
`
`arguing as follows: “As discussed above, Gupta’s system receives the pulse signal
`
`and accelerometer data from the sensors in a time-division multiplexed manner, and
`
`processes the data to provide a data packet (serial data string) of heart rate and impact
`
`(motion) information. Ex. 1045, pp. 2-4, FIG. 5; Ex. 1072, ¶70. The data is output
`
`to a receiving unit. Ex. 1072, ¶70. The data is arranged such that an application
`
`
`
`2 Patent Owner acknowledges that if the Board is considering the Conditional
`Motion to Amend, the Board must have concluded that the original claims of ‘941
`were invalid under the asserted prior art. As such, Patent Owner will limit its
`arguments to the newly added elements in its analysis.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`specific interface can decode the packet and a particular application can display the
`
`information from the packet. Id.” Opp. at pg. 14. Dr. Anthony provides evidence
`
`of a data packet being disclosed in Gupta, with a direct reference to Gupta, and then
`
`makes the leap that the creation of this data packet arranges the data “such that an
`
`application specific interface can decode the packet and a particular application can
`
`display the information from the packet.” Opp. at 14. Dr. Anthony provides no
`
`citation to Gupta showing “the output data is parsed out such that an application-
`
`specific interface (API) can utilize the physiological information and motion-related
`
`information for an application.” Dr. Anthony and the Petitioners are just applying
`
`their “simply indicates that the data is delineated in some manner” construction to
`
`the application-specific interface (API) claim element. Accordingly, Gupta
`
`combined with Kosuda and Maekawa, fails to render the substitute claims obvious
`
`and therefore, Petitioners opposition based upon Gupta, Kosuda, and Maekawa
`
`should be denied and the substitute claims should be entered and allowed.
`
`B. The Combination of Aceti, Fricke, and Craw fail to render the Substitute
`Claims obvious.
`
`Substitute Claim 12 and its dependent claims are not obvious in view of Aceti,
`
`Fricke, and Craw. Similar to their Gupta arguments, Petitioners admit that “Aceti
`
`does not explicitly disclose that the data is parsed out such that an application-
`
`specific interface (API) can utilize the physiological information and motion-related
`
`information application.” Opp. at pg. 21. For this argument, Petitioners attempt to
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`rely upon Craw. But once again, this attempt fails as Craw fails to disclose the
`
`application-specific interface (API) element. Petitioners, relying upon the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Anthony, argue as follows: “Craw suggests a serial data format
`
`(e.g., “string data”) to enable extraction of multiple physiological parameters and
`
`motion-related information for display of the extracted information. Ex. 2127, ¶¶
`
`0200-0216; Ex. 1072, ¶123,” Opp. at 21, and “[i]n light of Aceti’s teaching of the
`
`desirability to output physiological and motion-related information to remote
`
`devices, and Craw’s teachings of a scheme to do just that, it would have been obvious
`
`to a POSA to modify Aceti’s processor based on Craw’s teachings, so that Aceti’s
`
`output data is parsed out such that an application-specific interface (API) can utilize
`
`the physiological information and motion-related information for an application. Id.
`
`at ¶¶124-126.” Opp. at pgs. 21 – 22. Once again, the Petitioners use evidence of a
`
`serial data packet being disclosed in the prior art, this time Craw, and then make the
`
`leap that the serial data packet meets the application-specific interface (API) claim
`
`element. The Petitioners and Dr. Anthony refer to no disclosure of Craw that shows
`
`“the output data is parsed out such that an application-specific interface (API) can
`
`utilize the physiological information and motion-related information for an
`
`application.” As repeated throughout this reply, Dr. Anthony and the Petitioners are
`
`just applying their “simply indicates that the data is delineated in some manner”
`
`construction to the claim term. Accordingly, Craw combined with Aceti and Fricke
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`fails to render the substitute claims obvious and therefore, Petitioners opposition
`
`should be denied and the substitute claims should be entered and allowed.
`
`As Dependent Claims 23 – 29 all depend from Substitute Claim 22,
`
`Dependent Claims 23 – 29 should also be entered and allowed.
`
`IV. THE SPECIFICATION SUPPORTS THE NEW LIMITATIONS OF
`
`THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS
`
`Vallencell’s listing of specification support for each individual claim
`
`limitation satisfies its burden under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b). See Shinn Fu Co. of Am.,
`
`Inc. and. Shinn Fu Corp. v. The Tire Hanger Corp., IPR2015-00208, Final Written
`
`Decision, Paper 24, (P.T.A.B. April 22, 2016) (granting patent owner’s motion to
`
`amend supported with a table listing each limitation and its corresponding
`
`specification citation); Int’l Flavors & Fragrances Inc. v. U.S., IPR2013-00124,
`
`Final Written Decision, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. May 20, 2014) (same).
`
`Petitioners, however, erroneously contend that string citations for each
`
`individual claim limitation are wholly insufficient to establish written description
`
`support. See Opp. at p. 2. Petitioners mischaracterize Valencell’s listing of
`
`specification support for each individual claim limitation by analogizing the instant
`
`matter to Respironics and Google, in which the patent owners merely provided a
`
`single list of string citations associated to an substitute claim in general, without
`
`providing any cites specifying where support for each and every individual
`
`limitation of the substitute claim could be found. See Respironics, Inc. v. Zoll Med.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`Corp., IPR2013-00322, Final Written Decision, Paper 46, (P.T.A.B September 17,
`
`2014) (concluding that patent owner’s extensive modification— adding hundreds of
`
`words to the amended claim, more than tripling its length of a claim—required a
`
`more detailed showing with respect to the individual claim limitations); See Google
`
`Inc. v. B.E. Tech. L.L.C., IPR2014-00038, Final Written Decision, Paper 36, at 27
`
`(P.T.A.B. March 31, 2015) (concluding the patent owner had not met its burden as
`
`the Board was unable to readily discern where support for specific limitations could
`
`be found from a single list of string citations associated to an amended claim in
`
`general). Petitioners’ reliance on Respironics and Google is unavailing.
`
`In stark contrast to Respironics and Google, Valencell did not seek to make
`
`extensive modifications nor did Valencell simply provide a single list of string
`
`citations associated to an substitute claim in general. Quite to the contrary,
`
`Valencell’s listing of specification support specified exactly where each and every
`
`individual limitation of each substitute claim is found within the original
`
`specifications. See Motion at pp. 4 - 7. Thus Respironics and Google are inapposite
`
`and Petitioners’ argument that Valencell failed to establish written description
`
`support for its substitute claims is without merit.
`
`THE PATENT OWNER HAS DEMONSTRATED PROPER
`V.
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS
`
`Petitioners argue that Vallencell’s Motion to Amend should be denied because
`
`it “does not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial.” Pet.’s Opp
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`at p. 7 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)). However, 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)
`
`explicitly provides “a motion to amend may be denied where the amendment does
`
`not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial.” The Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board in Idle Free clarified this requirement stating, “[a] proposed
`
`substitute claim is not responsive to an alleged ground of unpatentability of a
`
`challenged claim if it does not either include or narrow each feature of the challenged
`
`claim being replaced.” Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027,
`
`Final Written Decision, Paper 26 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013). As explained in the
`
`Motion to Amend, the proposed amendments set forth in substitute claim 22 serves
`
`to narrow original claim 14. Likewise, the proposed amendment set forth in
`
`substitute claim 26 narrows its scope beyond its dependence from substitute claim
`
`22. See Motion at pgs. 1 - 4. Accordingly, Valencell’s substitute claims are
`
`responsive to a ground of unpatentability because the substitute claims narrow the
`
`challenged claims being replaced.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
` In light of the foregoing, Valencell’s motion to amend should be granted.
`
`Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the references identified by Petitioners
`
`disclose the limitations of the substitute claims and therefore the references
`
`identified by Petitioners do not render the Substitute Claims 22-29 obvious.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Date: December 22, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`
`
`/s/ Sanford E. Warren, Jr.
`Sanford E. Warren, Jr.
`Reg. No. 33,219
`Warren Rhoades LLP
`1212 Corporate Drive, Suite 250
`Irving, Texas 75038
`Email: swarren@wriplaw.com
`Telephone: 972-550-2955
`
`R. Scott Rhoades
`Reg. No. 44,300
`Warren Rhoades LLP
`1212 Corporate Drive, Suite 250
`Irving, Texas 75038
`Email: srhoades@wriplaw.com
`Telephone: 972-550-2997
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00321
`U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify
`
`that
`
`the
`
`foregoing REPLY TO PATENT OWNERS
`
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 was
`
`served on the Petitioners by electronic mail on December 22, 2017:
`
`Michael D. Specht, Reg. No. 54,463 (mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com)
`Michelle K. Holoubek, Reg. No. 54,179 (holoubek-PTAB@skgf.com)
`Jason A. Fitzsimmons, Reg. No. 65,367 (jfitzsimmons-PTAB@skgf.com)
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C., (PTAB@skgf.com)
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
`Washington, D.C., 20005
`
`Harper Batts (harper.batts@bakerbotts.com)
`Jeremy Taylor (jeremy.taylor@bakerbotts.com)
`(dlfitbitvalencell@bakerbotts.com)
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1001 Page Mill Road, Bldg. One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`
`
`/s/ Sanford E. Warren, Jr.
`Sanford E. Warren, Jr.
`Reg. No. 33,219
`R. Scott Rhoades
`Reg. No. 44,300
`Warren Rhoades LLP
`1212 Corporate Drive, Suite 250
`Irving, Texas 75038
`Email: swarren@wriplaw.com
`Telephone: 972-550-2955
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

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