`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAPER NO. 26
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`RIMFROST AS
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AKER BIOMARINE ANTARCTIC AS
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`IPR2018-01178
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453 B1
`
`_______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S
`
`REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01178
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453 B1
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.70, the Scheduling Order dated January 14, 2019
`
`(Paper 8), and the email from Trials dated September 6, 2019, Petitioner Rimfrost
`
`AS respectfully requests oral argument in connection with IPR2018-01178 and
`
`IPR-01179, currently scheduled for October 16, 2019, in the Silicon Valley
`
`USPTO, 26 S. Fourth Street, San Jose, CA 95113, (408) 918-9900. Petitioner
`
`requests sixty (60) minutes in which to present its arguments regarding its Petition
`
`(Paper 2) and its Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 11).
`
`Petitioner also requests that the court reporter be present in the hearing room.
`
`
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R § 42.70 and without intending to waive any
`
`issue not specifically identified, Petitioner specifies the following issues to be
`
`argued:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`That the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453 B1 are not patentable
`
`over the applied art on the grounds presented in the Petition as summarized in
`
`Table I below.
`
`References
`
`TABLE 1
`Basis
`
`Breivik II, Catchpole,
`Bottino II, and
`Sampalis I
`Breivik II, Catchpole,
`Bottino II, Sampalis I,
`and Sampalis II
`Breivik II, Catchpole,
`Bottino II, Sampalis I,
`and Fricke
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`2
`
`9,375,453 B1
`Claims Challenged
`1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-17, 19-
`20, 23-26, 28, 30-32
`
`4
`
`11, 18, 21, 27
`
`Ground
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453 B1
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`13, 22, 29
`
`2.
`
`That Patent Owner’s (“PO’s”) Motion to Amend the Claims (“MTA”)
`
`(Paper 11) be denied as the proposed substitute claims are not patentable over the
`
`applied art on the grounds presented in the Petition and in Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`to PO’s MTA (Paper 19) and Petitioner’s Sur-Reply to PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s
`
`Opposition to PO’s MTA (Paper TBD) and as summarized in Table II below.
`
`(The proposed substitute claim is followed by the claim, in italics, it
`
`TABLE II
`Basis
`
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a)
`
`9,375,453 B1
`Amended Claims Challenged
`Amended Claim (Original No.)
`
`62(1), 63(2), 64(3), 66(5), 67(6),
`68(7), 69(8), 70(9), 71(10),
`73(12)
`
`
`
`65(4)
`
`
`
`72(11)
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a)
`3
`
`amends/substitutes.)
`
`Ground
`
`
`References
`
`Yoshitomi, Catchpole,
`Bottino II, Sampalis I,
`Sampalis II, Randolph
`and NKO (Applicant
`Admitted Prior Art)
`
`Yoshitimi, Catchpole,
`Bottino II, Sampalis I,
`Sampalis II, Randolph
`and NKO (Applicant
`Admitted Prior Art)
`
`
`Yoshitomi, Catchpole,
`Bottino II, Sampalis I,
`Sampalis II, Fricke,
`
` 5
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01178
`
`
`Breivik II, Catchpole,
`Bottino II, Sampalis I,
`and Randolph
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01178
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453 B1
`
`Randolph and NKO
`(Applicant Admitted
`Prior Art)
`
`Yoshitomi, Catchpole,
`Bottino II, Sampalis I,
`Sampalis II, Randolph
`and NKO (Applicant
`Admitted Prior Art)
`
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a)
`
`74(13)
`
`
`
`3.
`
`That a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the applied
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`references and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.
`
`Any issues raised by Patent Owner in its Request for Oral Argument.
`
`Rebuttal to Patent Owner’s oral argument and presentation on all
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`matters.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Any objections to evidence, and any motions to exclude and
`
`oppositions thereto.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Any other issues that the Board deems necessary for issuing a final
`
`written decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board make available audio-visual
`
`equipment, including a projector to be connected to a laptop, an ELMO and an
`
`easel, to display demonstrative exhibits and documents of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01178
`
`Dated: September 10, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453 B1
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/james f. harrington/
`James F. Harrington (Reg. No. 44,741)
`
`Hoffmann & Baron, LLP
`6900 Jericho Turnpike
`Syosset, New York 11791
`jfhdocket@hbiplaw.com
`Tel: 516.822.3550
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Michael I. Chakansky (Reg. No. 31,600)
`Hoffmann & Baron, LLP
`6 Campus Drive
`
`Parsippany, N.J. 07054
`mchakansky@hbiplaw.com
`Tel: 973.331.1700
`First Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01178
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453 B1
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on this the 10th day of September, 2019, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT was served in its entirety
`
`on the following counsel of record by electronic service by email at the email
`
`addresses as set forth below in accordance with the consent set forth in Patent
`
`Owner’s Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (Paper No. 4, p. 2).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David A. Casimir
`
`J. Mitchell Jones
`CASIMIR JONES S.C.
`2275 Deming Way, Suite 310
`Middleton, WI 53562
`
`
`
`
`
`docketing@casimirjones.com
`dacasimir@casimirjones.com
`jmjones@casimirjones.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael I. Chakansky/
`Michael I. Chakansky (Reg. No. 31,600)
`Hoffmann & Baron, LLP
`4 Century Drive
`
`Parsippany, N.J. 07054
`mchakansky@hbiplaw.com
`Tel: 973.331.1700
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`