`
`
`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By:
`Michelle K. Holoubek
`
`Michael D. Specht
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`Tel: (202) 371-2600
`
`
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01702
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01702
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`In its Patent Owner’s Response filed April 16, 2018, Valencell fails to raise
`
`any substantive arguments or evidence to rebut Petitioner’s showing of
`
`unpatentability for any one of challenged claims 1–3, 11–21, 23–25, 27, 29–32, 34–
`
`40, 43–46, and 48–53 of U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040 (“the ’040 Patent”). Further,
`
`Valencell waives any arguments raised in its preliminary response by not reiterating
`
`or otherwise relying upon those arguments in the Patent Owner’s Response. The
`
`Scheduling Order issued by the Board clearly states that “[t]he patent owner is
`
`cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be
`
`deemed waived.” (Scheduling Order, Paper 8, p. 3.)
`
`Since Valencell does not put forth an attempt to rebut Petitioner’s showing of
`
`unpatentability of any one of challenged claims 1–3, 11–21, 23–25, 27, 29–32, 34–
`
`40, 43–46, and 48–53 after the institution of trial, and does not address the Board’s
`
`comments in the Decision instituting trial, Valencell has abandoned the contest. The
`
`Board should thus consider Valencell’s Response to be a request for adverse
`
`judgment under 37 C.F.R. 42.73(b)(4).
`
`In the event the Board does not consider Valencell’s response to be a request
`
`for adverse judgment, Apple takes this opportunity to submit a reply as prescribed
`
`by 35 U.S.C § 316(a)(13). Accordingly, Apple should not be denied this
`
`opportunity to respond even though there are no substantive arguments raised by
`
`Valencell in its Response.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01702
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`As indicated above, Valencell does not provide any substantive arguments
`
`specific to the individual claims or instituted grounds of unpatentability. Rather,
`
`Valencell makes a generalized argument that the Board should make its own
`
`determination, and not shift the burden of patentability to the Patent Owner.
`
`Valencell states that “[t]he Petition should be rejected because it does not establish
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence that [the challenged claims] are obvious” and
`
`also that “Petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the instituted
`
`claims of the ’040 Patent are unpatentable.” (POR, Paper 9, p. 1.) The Board has
`
`already determined that Apple has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing in proving unpatentability of the challenged claims. (Institution decision,
`
`Paper 7, pp. 17, 19.) Apple’s Petition also establishes by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. The evidence presented by
`
`Apple is the only evidence before the Board, as Valencell has chosen to provide no
`
`arguments or evidence in support of patentability for any of the challenged claims.
`
`As such, the only evidence available in the trial supports unpatentability of the
`
`challenged claims, and thus constitutes a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`Further, there was no improper burden shifting. Apple’s Petition details
`
`where each and every limitation of the challenged claims is taught by either Aceti,
`
`Dettling, or Stivoric. Apple’s Petition further provides reasoned arguments for why
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the ’040 Patent was filed would
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01702
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`have combined the teachings of Aceti, Dettling, and Stivoric, and all arguments are
`
`supported by the expert testimony of Dr. Sarrafzadeh. Apple’s Petition and
`
`accompanying Declaration of Dr. Sarrafzadeh, which collectively cite to 21
`
`different references, provide a preponderance of evidence to support the fact that
`
`the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`For the same reasons as discussed in the Petition, claims 1–3, 11–21, 23–25,
`
`27, 29–32, 34–40, 43–46, and 48–53 are unpatentable over the instituted grounds.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Michelle K. Holoubek, Reg. # 54,179/
`
`Michelle K. Holoubek (Reg. No. 54,179)
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`Date: July 6, 2018
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01702
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`
`
`REPLY was served electronically via e-mail on July 6, 2018, in its entirety on the
`
`following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`Justin B. Kimble (Lead Counsel)
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (Back-up Counsel)
`Nicholas C. Kliewer (Back-up Counsel)
`T. William Kennedy (Back-up Counsel)
`Jonathan H. Rastegar (Back-up Counsel)
`
`Jkimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com
`jbragalone@bcpc-law.com
`nkliewer@bcpc-law.com
`bkennedy@bcpc-law.com
`jrastegar@bcpc-law.com
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Michelle K. Holoubek, Reg. # 54,179/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michelle K. Holoubek (Reg. No. 54,179)
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`Date: July 6, 2018
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C.20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01702
`U.S. Patent No. 8,652,040
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION,
`TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`This Petitioner’s Reply complies with the type-volume limitation of
`
`5,600 words, comprising 574 words, excluding the parts exempted by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.24(c).
`
`
`
`2.
`
`This Petitioner’s Reply complies with the general format requirements
`
`of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a) and has been prepared using Microsoft® Word 2010 in 14
`
`point Times New Roman.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
` /Michelle K. Holoubek, Reg. # 54,179/
`
` Michelle K. Holoubek (Reg. No. 54,179)
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`Date: July 6, 2018
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C.20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`