`
`‘
`
`05,313.!2017 12:53 FMI.’
`
`2138201358
`
`SI'I'IRH LBS .‘IIHGELES _I001I’003
`
`
`
`
`
`Shanna-ymmmlm
`
`‘-III_ Ric-hum 81 Hampton LLP
`
`F: Street. 43‘“ Floor
`ifomI’a QUOThMZ?
`
`213,52;
`
`
`
`FAX COVER SHEET
`
`_
`
`THIS FAX TRANSMISSION WILI. NOT BE MAILEI‘I
`
`Date:
`
`gamma: 19. 2017
`
`
`
`
`'
`
`3’
`
`'Iz'I'I'é; Nfirfisér: “$223440
`
`'
`
`i
`
`if all pages. are: net rammed, pie-me can
`i
`Total number m“ Images:
`3
`
`(including 1-paga mum sheet)
`1
`Kerry 3. Tuszynnké a. 313.817,:4188
`
`
`E
`Finance Services;
`
`Fax No.
`
`Teleehone No.
`'
`
`5}” 2343500
`....
`___....._...._-
`-
`HSE’TQ
`
`
`571 272—6500
`\_.
`“WWW
`
`From:
`Re:
`
`-1--'lI-N—M-wmv—I
`...._...—.—--...—---...—-..—.—.-.—
`Kenya? .ITIIDzynski
`DeposIt Amount 19-1353 Refund DI$14000 for REF TEXT: IF"???.é’)1-?—00712
`
`911179513"??? Code' 1414
`
`-.--.-—_—.I.-—---
`
`MESSAGE:
`
`Dear Sirs,
`
`Please provide II IIILand as it was ORDERED that our Petition was DEN. E“.“I and no inter Fades
`Review was insté tuted.
`
`Attached Is the “LIE-CM,SON denying the Inter Panes Review.
`
`Thank you.
`
`Kanyé‘. ."iuazynstn
`
`Sheppard‘tfiut .QI'I‘I
`f‘aI: IB‘II: ""
`'I..I
`
`
`
`
`'JDRLSBE'D, AND MAY EONTAIN
`
`
`f- iHi- RF.INJEH [JF- IHI$ MF‘JsAIDF
`I_-;,UNI'JFRMI?!__II;A
`
`
`0 THE INlFiNDEL‘I HEE('APIFENT
`i_-. NOT 'I'I-IE INTENDED RECIPI
`TF'IF EMFI(BYEEWOR A'EJENI IRICHIDONIIIDIF.-. Fun DEL IV'ERING THE
`
`
`
`
`$TR‘CTI..Y PROI'ilfiliTEE}.
`IF YOU
`YOU ARI-3 HEREBY NOTIrIED'I
`IIIW masEMINATIQN QISTRIBUTtON OR COPYING 0F Tl- us CDMMUNII
`
`N THE DRMINAL MESSAGE TO US
`HAVE RECEIVED THIS CDMMUNICF I '(ZN IN ERROR. F‘LIEASIE NDTWY U5 IMMEDIATEI..Y {W TELEPHONE AN
`AT THE. ABQVE AODRESEfi VIA THE.
`.
`'E-‘OS'ML EERVICE. TIIIANK YOU
`
`
`SMRHZ484124352. ‘IDMHHmaeI-Imaafi I
`
`PAGE 113 " RGVD AT 9I191201T 3:54:42 PM [Eastern Dayllght Tlme] " SVR:W-PTOFAX-UU1I39 " DNI5:2735500 " CSID:21352U1398 * DURATION (mm-33):0040
`
`
`
`
`
`é
`
`0331312011 12:53 F33 2133201333
`
`‘
`
`301311 L03 ANGELES
`
`I0023003
`
`Efialsgfilugmgmv
`Tel: 571-2'?E-«7822
`
`Entered:
`
`Paper 9
`.1311: 12, 2017
`
`11101131.“) STATES PA’I‘EN’IT AND TRADEMARK 11331110213
`___......1_.1-.1>.mm><u>14mvu1wmfinul-Ammmvm‘
`
`1313133113 THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL 131::‘31A121'3
`
`ZTE (USA) INC"
`Petitioner,
`
`.V.
`
`PAPST LICENSING G'MEH (Sic-CO. Kill?»
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPRZDI’T-«00712
`
`'I’3t3n19.189,437 BE
`1
`"WI'wlw-w-Iwn‘mw
`
`Before JO'NI V. CHANG._.IENNIFER S. BISK, and .IAMEES $552.
`Admin £333302133 Patent Judges.
`'
`
`.33: RPIIN,
`
`ARPIN, .Jédfmiizfsfmrfve Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`Dcnying Institution oi‘lntw' [Jar-[30‘ Iievicw.
`37‘ GER. § 42.108
`
`PAGE 21'?! ”‘ RCVD AT BI'IlIZO'I? 3:54:42 PM [Eastern Dayllght Tlme] " EVEW-PTOFAX-UMIfiQ " DNISIITSESUO " GEID:Z135291398 ” DURATION (mm-85):UU4U
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D
`
`;
`
`UEHSKZOH 12:53 FMl
`
`2136201333
`
`SI'IIRH LUS AHEELES
`
`‘
`
`7
`
`IGfiBXOfiS
`
`IPRlel 7430? i 2
`
`Patent 9, t 39.437 BE
`
`7
`
`Owner failed to submit a proper specific tet‘erenee under 35 3M2 § I20 to
`the ’002 eeptieation in the *778 application or that Patent: Owner exprmeh)
`abandoned the “778 applicatioo. As a: result, l5etitioner does not. ee‘tablish a '
`
`reasonable likelihood of showing that the PCT Publication it-z litltfil‘ art under
`35 U.S.(L‘-.
`it HJZGJ) against the challenged claims ofthe ’43? meet-at.
`L
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitionei- théts; to
`establish soflieiently that the olielleiiged claims are not entitled to the benefit
`ot'tho 0f}? application’s filing date. Consequently, Petitioner hills; to make
`
`a threshold demonstration that the PCT Publication, to which the "437 patent
`
`claims priority; is prior art againstthe challenged claims of" the “$37 patent
`in this proceeding. 35 11.3.6; § 3310:»);37 mine. .5 42..1o4{eit_2_i.
`-
`Accordingly, we eonelutie that Petitionet' has no-t-cstaleiiehetl at
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims it “all, 15, lo,
`
`18. 30, 43 anti 45 of the ’437- patent ere unpatentable, es enticioeted by the
`PCT Publication.
`
`iii; CONCLUSION
`
`For the 'toreg‘oing reasons. we determine that Petitioner hes: oot
`cetahlieh it reasonable likelihood of” prevailing on. its eeeertion that any of
`
`elaims l. 1,?” 1.5, 36, 18, 30, 43 end 45 ofthe ’437 patent are tittipetentable.
`
`For the i’tiregoing reasons. it is
`
`W. (mom
`
`OthZEERl-ED that the Petition is denied. and no trial is irzetimted.
`
`.10
`
`PAGE 31'3 * RGVDAT 91191201? 3:54:42 PM [Eastern Dayllgnt Tlme] * Ellfliw-PTOFAX-Oflflfifl * DNISETJESDO * GSID:2136_201398 l“ DURATION (mm-GSJEOU-Illil
`
`