`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 30
`Entered: February 23, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DELL INC.; EMC CORPORATION; HEWLETT-PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO.; HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; TERADATA
`OPERATIONS, INC.; and VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00176
`Patent 7,161,506 C21
`____________
`
`Before JASON J. CHUNG, SCOTT C. MOORE,
`and SHEILA F. MCSHANE Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`The Board authorizes Teradata Operations, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and
`Realtime Data LLC (“Patent Owner”) to submit additional briefing
`
`1 Case IPR2017-00806 has been consolidated with IPR2017-00176. Case
`IPR2017-01688 has been joined with IPR2017-00176. For purposes of this
`order, we refer to paper numbers from IPR2017-00176. The parties are not
`permitted to use this caption.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00176
`Patent 7,161,506 C2
`
`pertaining to whether Ex Parte Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, No. 2013-
`007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) (hereinafter, “Schulhauser”) applies to
`conditional limitations recited in independent method claims 104 and 105 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506 C2 (“the 506 patent”). The authorized briefing
`should include, inter alia, discussion of any cases the parties allege
`contradict or support application of Schulhauser, as well as discussion of
`whether Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, if any, pertaining
`to conditional limitations recited in claims 104 and 105 exceed the proper
`scope of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 34, “Reply”). For example, Petitioner’s
`Reply cites Schulhauser to support its argument that:
`even under Patent Owner’s view of the facts, it matters not
`whether the second ‘performing step’ of the claim would have
`been performed when the POSA combined teachings of
`Franaszek, Hsu, and Sebastian. The limitation is conditional; it
`is performed only ‘if a data type of the data block is not
`identified.’ If a data type is identified (as Patent Owner says it
`always would be), the claimed method is still met.
`Reply 20–22 (Section III) (internal citations omitted).
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that the parties may submit additional briefing of 5 pages
`on or before 5:00 PM EST March 5, 2018, addressing only the specific
`issues raised in this Order.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00176
`Patent 7,161,506 C2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Garth A. Winn
`Lisa Nguyen
`Bob Steinberg
`asommer@winston.com
`tdunham@winston.com
`garth.winn@klarquist.com
`lisa.nguyen@lw.com
`bob.steinberg@lw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`William Rothwell
`Kayvan Noroozi
`william@noroozipc.com
`kayvan@noroozipc.com
`
`
`3
`
`