`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ZTE (USA) INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO., KG,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00712
`Patent 9,189,437
`_______________
`___________________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO., KG’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`___________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
` I. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE ................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................ 2
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘437 PATENT ................................................ 2
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................. 6
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................ 7
`
`SUMMARY OF PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS .................... 8
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
`INSTITUTING AN INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................................... 10
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Currently Filed – Patent Owner
`
`Ex. No.
`2001
`
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`Description
`USPTO Decision on Petition to Accept an Unintentionally Delayed
`Claim for the Benefit of Priority, dated February 9, 2017
`
`
`Previously Filed – Petitioner
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent 9,189,437 to Tasler
`Intentionally Omitted
`File History for Application Serial No. 11/078,778
`Certified English Translation of PCT No. WO 98/39710
`Patent Owner’s Petition for Delayed Claim of Priority, November 10,
`2016
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0160199 A1 to Tasler
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399 to Tasler
`PCT No. WO 98/39710
`Petition to Revive Unintentionally Abandoned Application Pursuant
`to 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b) and (c), and Renewed Petition to Revive
`Unintentionally Abandoned Application Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`1.137(b) and (c)
`Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D.
`Curriculum vitae of Kevin C. Almeroth
`Waiver of Service of Summons
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`
`Petitioner ZTE (USA) Inc. (“Petitioner”) did not submit a statement of
`
`material facts in its Petition for inter partes review. Paper 1 (Petition).
`
`Accordingly, no response to a statement of material facts is due pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(a), and no facts are admitted.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner Papst Licensing GMBH & Co., KG (“Patent Owner”)
`
`respectfully submits this Patent Owner Preliminary Response under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a). It is being timely filed on or before May 1, 2017
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b).
`
`“The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted
`
`unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed
`
`under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`
`the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Here, institution
`
`should be denied because Petitioner has failed to establish that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it will prevail on its propositions of unpatentability.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board deny institution of a trial with respect to all claims of the ‘437 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘437 PATENT
`The ’437 Patent involves a unique method for achieving high data transfer
`
`rates for data acquisition systems (e.g., still pictures, videos, voice recordings) to a
`
`general-purpose computer, without requiring a user to purchase, install, and/or run
`
`specialized software for each system. Exhibit 1001 (’437 Patent) at 3:33-37. At the
`
`time of the invention, there were an increasing number and variety of data
`
`acquisition systems with the ability to capture high volumes of information. Id. at
`
`1:42-57. As such, there was an increasing demand to transfer that information to
`
`commercially-available, general purpose computers. Id. at 1:29-41. But at that
`
`time—and today—performing that data transfer operation required either loading
`
`specialized, sophisticated software onto a general purpose computer, which
`
`increases the risk of error and the level of complexity for the operator, or
`
`specifically matching interface devices for a data acquisition system to a host
`
`system that may maximize data transfer rates but lacks the flexibility to operate
`
`with different devices. Id. at 1:26-3:25.
`
`The ‘437 Patent recognizes that the existing options were wasteful and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`inefficient and presents a solution that would achieve high data transfer rates,
`
`without specialized software, while being sufficiently flexible
`
`to operate
`
`independent of device or host manufacturers. Id. at 2:20-41 and 3:29-32. The
`
`resulting invention would allow a data acquisition system to identify itself as a type
`
`of common device so as to leverage the inherent capabilities of general-purpose,
`
`commercially-available computers. Id. at 4:16-30. Accordingly, users could avoid
`
`loading specific software; improve data transfer efficiency; save time, processing
`
`power, and memory space; and avoid the waste associated with purchasing
`
`specialized computers or loading specific software for each device. Id. at 3:29-32,
`
`7:38-9:3, 9:18-23 and 11:38-55. The ’437 Patent claims variations of this concept
`
`and provides a crucial, yet seemingly simple, method and apparatus for a high data
`
`rate, device-independent information transfer. Id. at 3:29-32.
`
`The interface device disclosed in the ‘437 Patent can leverage “drivers for
`
`input/output device[s] customary in a host device which reside in the BIOS system
`
`of the host device . . . .” Id. at 10:23-29; see also id. at 4:23-27 (“The interface
`
`device according to the present invention therefore no longer communicates with
`
`the host device or computer by means of a specially designed driver but the means
`
`of a program which is present in the BIOS system . . .”), 5:15-25 (describing the use
`
`of “usual BIOS routines” to issue INQUIRY instructions to the interface), and 7:57-
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`64 (describing use of BIOS routines). Similarly, the written description describes
`
`also using drivers
`
`included
`
`in
`
`the operating system.
`
`
`
`Id. at 5:11-17
`
`(“Communication between the host system or host device and the interface device is
`
`based on known standard access commands as supported by all known operating
`
`systems (e.g., DOS®, Windows®, Unix®).”). Alternatively, if the required
`
`specific driver or drivers for a multi-purpose interface (such as a SCSI interface) is
`
`already present in a host device, such drivers could be used with the ‘437 Patent’s
`
`interface device instead of, or in addition to, customary drivers which reside in the
`
`BIOS. Id. at 10:23-26. Accordingly, the ’437 Patent contemplated a universal
`
`interface device that could operate independent of the manufacturer of the
`
`computer. Id. at 11:38-55. Indeed, the preferred embodiment discloses that the
`
`interface device includes three different connectors, a 50 pin SCSI connector 1240,
`
`a 25 pin D-shell connector 1280, and a 25 pin connector 1282, to allow the ‘437
`
`Patent’s interface device to connect to a variety of different standard interfaces that
`
`could be present in a host computer. Id. at 8:42-59 and FIG. 2.
`
`As is apparent from the title of the ’437 Patent, the interface device disclosed
`
`is capable of acquiring and processing analog data. As shown in FIG. 2 reproduced
`
`below, the ’437 Patent discloses that the interface device 10 has an analog input at
`
`connection 16 for receiving analog data from a data transmit/receive device on a
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`plurality of analog input channels 1505 and simultaneously digitizing the received
`
`analog data using, inter alia, a sample and hold amplifier 1515 and an analog to
`
`digital converter 1530 that converts analog data received from the plurality of
`
`channels 1505 into digital data that may then be processed by the processor 1300.
`
`Id. at 8:60-9:8 and 9:41-56.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`C.
`“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
`
`
`
`
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention.” Manual of
`
`Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) 2141.II.C. Factors that may be considered
`
`in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) type of
`
`problems encountered in the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3)
`
`rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) sophistication of the technology; and
`
`(5) educational level of active workers in the field. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573,
`
`1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`
`
`Petitioner has not proposed a definition of the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. Paper 1 (Petition). Patent Owner contends that the field of the invention relates
`
`to “the transfer of data and in particular to interface devices for communication
`
`between a computer or host device and a data transmit/receive device from which
`
`data is to be acquired or with which two-way communication is to take place.”
`
`Exhibit 1001 (‘437 Patent) at 1:9-13. A POSITA would have at least a bachelor’s
`
`degree in a related field such as computer engineering or electrical engineering and at
`
`least three years of experience in the design, development, and/or testing of hardware
`
`and software components involved with data transfer or in embedded devices and
`
`their interfaces with host systems. Alternatively, a POSITA may have five or more
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`years of experience in these technologies, without a bachelor’s degree.
`
`
`
`D. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Board construes claim terms in an
`
`unexpired patent using their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The claim
`
`language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, 136
`
`S. Ct. 2131, 2146 (June 20, 2016). The broadest reasonable meaning given to claim
`
`language must take into account any definitions presented in the specification. In re
`
`Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re
`
`Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Under this standard, claim terms are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
`
`Petitioner has not proposed constructions for any term in the ‘437 Patent.
`
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 6. For the purposes of the Institution Decision, Patent Owner
`
`also does not believe it is necessary for the Board to construe any terms in the ‘437
`
`Patent. Patent Owner reserves the right to propose constructions for terms in the
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘437 Patent should trial be instituted.
`
`
`
`E. SUMMARY OF PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS
`The Board has discretion to “deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for
`
`some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b). Petitioner bears the
`
`burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability on the grounds asserted in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`While it is not required to file a preliminary response, Patent Owner takes this
`
`limited opportunity to explain the reasons the Board should not institute trial. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.107(a).
`
`The Board should reject the Petition because Petitioner has not shown that
`
`the PCT Application to which the ‘437 Patent claims priority is prior art to the ‘437
`
`Patent. Petitioner argues the PCT Application is prior art to the ‘437 Patent
`
`because “the patentee failed to perfect its claim of priority though [sic] all of the
`
`intervening applications. In particular, while U.S. application 11/078,778 was filed
`
`as a continuation of U.S. application 10/219,105, it failed to claim priority to the
`
`earlier-filed U.S. application 09/331,002.” Paper 1 (Petition) at 7. Petitioner
`
`further asserts that “Applicant’s failure to comply with at least 35 U.S.C. § 120,
`
`and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.78(a)(2)(i), 1.78(a)(2)(iii) and 1.76, severed the chain of
`
`priority for the ’778 Application and all the later applications in the chain.” Id. at
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`However, as Petitioner acknowledges, Patent Owner filed a “Petition under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.55 and § 1.78 for Delayed Claim of Priority” on November 10, 2016.
`
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 11; Exhibit 1005 (Petition for Delayed Claim of Priority). In
`
`that Petition, Patent Owner submitted to the USPTO that the filing documents of
`
`“the ’778 Application mistakenly omit a specific reference to U.S. Application No.
`
`09/331,002, the National Stage of PCT Application No. PCT/EP98/01187.”
`
`Exhibit 1005 (Petition for Delayed Claim of Priority) at 6. “Applicant intended to
`
`claim priority…and take advantage of the earliest effective filing date,” and that
`
`omission was “simply an administrative error.” Id. at 6-7. Patent Owner
`
`submitted with the Petition for Delayed Claim of Priority an Amendment that
`
`properly recites the priority chain. Id. at 43/54. Additionally, Patent Owner also
`
`submitted with the Petition an updated Application Data Sheet with the same
`
`priority information. Id. at 46/54. On February 9, 2017, the Patent Office granted
`
`both Patent Owner’s Petition under 37 CFR 1.78(e) and Petition under 37 CFR
`
`1.55(e). Exhibit 2001 (Decision on Petition). Through the now granted Petition,
`
`Patent Owner has cured any unintentionally omitted priority claim to the ’002
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Application.1 As such, the ‘437 Patent now undeniably correctly claims priority to
`
`U.S. application 09/331,002 filed June 14, 1999, the corresponding PCT
`
`Application EP98/01187, and the German application DE 19708755, and Petitioner
`
`has not shown that the PCT Application to which the ’437 Patent claims priority is
`
`prior art to the ’437 Patent. For this reason, the Petition should be denied.
`
`Patent Owner does not attempt to fully address the myriad of other
`
`deficiencies of the underdeveloped grounds asserted in the Petition. See
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. et al. v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM 2014-00082, Paper
`
`12 at 10 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (“nothing may be gleaned from the Patent Owner’s
`
`challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of unpatentability for any particular
`
`reason”). However, the deficiencies addressed herein are dispositive and preclude
`
`trial on any asserted ground.
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
`INSTITUTING AN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`Trial should not be instituted because the Petition applies art that does not
`
`qualify as prior art under any section of 35 U.S.C. § 102. The sole ground
`
`advanced in the Petition applies PCT Application PCT/EP98/01187, to which the
`
`
`1 By filing a Petition for a Delayed Claim of Priority, Patent Owner does not
`concede that the originally submitted forms and papers in the prosecution histories
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’437 Patent claims priority, as prior art against the ’437 Patent. Paper 1 (Petition)
`
`at 1. The PCT Application however is not prior art because the ‘437 Patent
`
`correctly claims priority to it. As Petitioner acknowledges, “[t]he ’437 Patent is
`
`part of a long chain of continuing applications, which purport to claim priority
`
`back to PCT/EP98/01187 (filed March 3, 1998) and German application DE 197
`
`08 755 (filed March 4, 1997).” Id. at 7. Specifically, the ’437 Patent states that it
`
`“is a continuation of application Ser. No. 11/078,778, filed Mar. 11, 2005, now
`
`expressly abandoned, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 10/219,105,
`
`filed Aug. 15, 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,895,449, which is a divisional of
`
`application Ser. No. 09/331,002, filed Jun. 14, 1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,470,399
`
`[the national stage of the PCT Application].” Exhibit 1001 (’437 Patent) at 1:8-
`
`13.
`
`Nevertheless, Petitioner alleges the PCT Application is prior art because
`
`“there is a critical break in the priority chain.” Paper 1 (Petition) at 1. Petitioner
`
`argues that “[a]n intervening U.S. patent application (on which the ’437 Patent
`
`seeks to rely, as a bridge to the PCT) [U.S. application 11/078,778] failed to
`
`identify each of the earlier applications in the chain, as is required to perfect such
`
`
`of the various patents and applications in the chain of priority of the ‘437 Patent
`were legally inadequate for claiming priority.
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a priority claim.” Id. Petitioner reasons that “[w]hile U.S. application 11/078,778
`
`was filed as a continuation of U.S. application 10/219,105, it failed to claim
`
`priority to the earlier-filed U.S. application 09/331,002.” Id. at 7. “Thus, under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120, the ’437 Patent cannot claim priority back to the PCT.” Id. at 1.
`
`Petitioner is incorrect.
`
`As Petitioner acknowledges, Patent Owner filed a “Petition under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.55 and § 1.78 for Delayed Claim of Priority” on November 10, 2016. Paper 1
`
`(Petition) at 11; Exhibit 1005 (Petition for Delayed Claim of Priority). In that
`
`Petition, Patent Owner submitted to the USPTO that the filing documents of “the
`
`’778 Application mistakenly omit a specific reference to U.S. Application No.
`
`09/331,002, the National Stage of PCT Application No. PCT/EP98/01187.”
`
`Exhibit 1005 (Petition for Delayed Claim of Priority) at 6. “Applicant intended to
`
`claim priority…and take advantage of the earliest effective filing date,” and that
`
`omission was “simply an administrative error.” Id. at 6-7. Patent Owner
`
`submitted with the Petition for Delayed Claim of Priority an amendment to the
`
`specification that states “[t]his Application is a continuation application of U.S.
`
`Application No. 10/219,105, filed August 15, 2002, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,895,449, which is a divisional of U.S. Application No. 09/331,002, filed June
`
`14, 1999, now U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399, which is the National Stage application
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of PCT Application No. PCT/EP98/01187, filed March 3, 1998, which claims
`
`priority to German Patent Application No. 19708755.8 filed March 4, 1997.” Id.
`
`at 43/54. Additionally, Patent Owner also submitted with the Petition an updated
`
`Application Data Sheet (“ADS”) with the same priority information. Id. at 46/54.
`
`The Patent Office granted both Patent Owner’s Petition under 37 CFR 1.78(e) and
`
`Petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) on February 9, 2017. Exhibit 2001 (Decision on
`
`Petition).
`
`As the Petitioner has already conceded, “[a] claim to benefit of priority
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to the earliest of a chain of patent applications must make
`
`specific reference to ‘each application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior
`
`applications.’” (emphasis in original). Paper 1 (Petition) at 8. “Such a ‘specific
`
`reference’ to an application in a priority claim requires precise details, including
`
`those details recited in the implementing regulation for § 120, that is, 37 C.F.R. §
`
`1.78(a)(2)(i).” Id. Pre-AIA § 120 states, in relevant part: “An application for
`
`patent for an invention [is] entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first
`
`application...if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the
`
`earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an
`
`earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the
`
`specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the pendency of the application as required by the Director.” 35 U.S.C. § 120;
`
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 9. There is no question that Patent Owner’s amendment to
`
`the specification of the ’778 Application as accepted by the Patent Office contains
`
`the specific references to the earlier filed applications as required by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`120. See Exhibit 1005 (Petition for Delayed Claim of Priority) at 43/54. Thus,
`
`with the USPTO’s granting of Patent Owner’s Petition and entry of Patent
`
`Owner’s specification amendment and ADS, Patent Owner has now cured any
`
`alleged defects in the ’778 Application’s original claim of priority. As such, the
`
`‘437 Patent now undeniably has a valid claim of priority through the ’778
`
`Application to the PCT Application and, based on this claim of priority, the PCT
`
`Application is not prior art to the ’437 Patent.
`
`Petitioner also argues that because the ’778 Application was expressly
`
`abandoned, Patent Owner cannot seek to retrospectively cure the alleged break in
`
`the chain of priority. Paper 1 (Petition) at 9. Petitioner alleges that the Patent
`
`Owner’s petition to correct the priority claim in the ’778 Application should not
`
`be able to retroactively plug the gap in the priority chain because the ’778
`
`Application was expressly (i.e., intentionally) abandoned and that any petition to
`
`revive should be rejected. Id. at 9, 13-15. The Office of Petitions however has
`
`already granted Patent Owner’s Petition for Delayed Claim of Priority and thus
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has already cured any alleged defect in the chain of priority,
`
`making Petitioner’s argument moot. Exhibit 2001 (Decision on Petition). In
`
`addition, “PTO revival actions are not subject to third party challenge” and
`
`Petitioner is expressly prohibited from advancing any argument that a revival was
`
`inappropriate. Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC v. Lee, 781 F.3d 1349, 1353 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015).
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner’s argument amounts to an improper collateral attack
`
`on a decision by the Office of Petitions. Petitioner does not identify proper
`
`jurisdiction or authority of the Board to either review and overturn the February 9,
`
`2017 decision of the USPTO on the Petition for Delayed Claim of Priority or
`
`ignore it. See Apple Inc. v. E-watch, Inc., IPR2015-00411, Paper 12 at 7-8
`
`(P.T.A.B. May 7, 2015) (holding “[n]ot all issues having an impact on
`
`determination of patentability are the same. Where the issue is the status of an
`
`applied reference as prior art, viewed in light of a patent owner’s effort to
`
`antedate the date of the reference…we can review the evidence submitted to show
`
`a date of invention prior to the date of the reference. That issue is substantive and
`
`central to the merit of the patentability determination. On the other hand, where
`
`the issue is the status of an application…the matter is procedural and not central
`
`to the substantive merit of a patentability determination. We have jurisdiction to
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`review and determine the former, not the latter.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that the PCT Application is prior art
`
`to the ’437 Patent and the Petition must be denied.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Patent Owner has shown
`
`that Petitioner’s proposed ground of
`
`unpatentability fails because the PCT Application is not prior art to the ’437
`
`Patent. For at least the foregoing reason, the Petition’s ground for unpatentability
`
`is legally deficient and trial should not be instituted under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Gregory S. Donahue
`Gregory S. Donahue
`Reg. No. 47,531
`DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP
`7000 North MoPac Expressway
`Suite 350
`Austin, TX 78731
`Telephone: (512) 539-2625
`Facsimile: (512) 539-2627
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner Papst
`Licensing GMBH & Co., KG
`
`Minghui Yang
`Reg. No. 71,989
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP
`7000 North MoPac Expressway
`Suite 350
`Austin, Texas 78731
`Telephone: (512) 539-2626
`Facsimile: (512) 539-2627
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`Papst Licensing GMBH & Co., KG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(1)
`
`I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the foregoing Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response, including footnotes, contains 3,759 words, as measured by the
`Word Count function of Word 2007. This is less than the limit of 14,000 words as
`specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(1).
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Gregory S. Donahue
`Gregory S. Donahue
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 27th day of April 2017, a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing PATENT OWNER PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG’S
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 was served by electronic
`
`mail upon the following counsel of record for ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Scott R. Miller
`Darren M. Franklin
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
`333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
`smiller@sheppardmullin.com
`dfranklin@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`/s/ Gregory S. Donahue
`
`Gregory S. Donahue
`Reg. No. 47,531
`DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP
`7000 North MoPac Expressway
`Suite 350
`Austin, Texas 78731
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
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
