UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL MANUFACTURING INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION
`f/k/a SELECT COMFORT CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00500
`Patent No. 9,737,154 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL MANUFACTURING INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION
`f/k/a SELECT COMFORT CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00500
`Patent No. 9,737,154 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Proposed Amendments Meet the Statutory and Regulatory
`
`There Is No Motivation to Combine Gifft-Mittal-Pillsbury-
`
`A POSITA Would Understand Ebel Is Less
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT............................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Requirements ..................................................................................... 1
`B.
`ANM Improperly Incorporates by Reference ..................................... 2
`C.
`The Substitute Claims Are Not Obvious ............................................ 3
`
`Ebel ......................................................................................... 4
`a.
`Accurate......................................................................... 4
`b.
`Ebel Does Not Teach the Claimed Multiplicative .......... 5
`c.
`ANM Relies on Improper Hindsight .............................. 8
`
`The Remaining Substitute Claims Are Not Obvious ................ 9
`
`ANM Admits the References Are Not Analogous .................... 9
`D. ANM Is Wrong on Indefiniteness .................................................... 10
`ANM Is Also Wrong on Written Description and Enablement ......... 11
`E.
`PO Has Not Violated the Duty of Candor ........................................ 12
`F.
`III. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Alcohol Monitoring Sys., Inc. v. Soberlink, Inc.,
`No. IPR2015-00556, 2016 WL 2342118 (PTAB May 3, 2016) ......................... 2
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 3
`
`Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal,
`872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 3
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .................................................. 11, 12
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 11
`
`Cisco Sys. Inc. v. C-Cation Tech. LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ............................................. 2
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................... 3
`
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v Zaxcom, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) .......................................... 1, 3
`
`Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC,
`711 F. App’x 633 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 9
`
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 9
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 10
`
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
`403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................ 11
`
`Tillotson Ltd. v. Walbro Corp.,
`831 F.2d 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .......................................................................... 1
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Location Based Servs., LLC,
`No. IPR2017-01965, 2019 WL 650546 (PTAB Feb. 15, 2019) .......................... 2
`
`In re Wands,
`858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ............................................................................................. 2
`
`84 Fed. Reg. 33,925 (July 16, 2019) ....................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2079
`
`2080
`
`2081
`
`2082
`
`Declaration of Dr. William Messner
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Joshua Phinney
`
`PCT App. US 2008/059409 (“‘409 App.”)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Sleep Number Corporation (“PO”) provides this Reply in
`
`support of its Motion to Amend (Paper 42) (“MTA”) and in response to Petitioner
`
`American National Manufacturing’s (“ANM”) Opposition (Paper 68) (“Opp.”).
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Proposed Amendments Meet the Statutory and Regulatory
`Requirements.
`
`Contrary to ANM’s assertion, and as the Board stated in its Preliminary
`
`Guidance (“Guidance”), PO’s proposed substitute claims (1) are responsive to a
`
`ground of unpatentability, (2) do not enlarge the scope of the claims, and (3) have
`
`sufficient written description support. (See Paper 77 at 3-5 (finding “a reasonable
`
`likelihood that [PO] has satisfied the statutory and regulatory requirements”).)1 The
`
`substitute claims are responsive because they add new feature combinations that
`
`distinguish ANM’s prior art, see Lectrosonics, Inc. v Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129,
`
`Paper 15 at 6–7 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential), and are non-broadening
`
`because they do not cover any new infringing embodiments, see Tillotson Ltd. v.
`
`Walbro Corp., 831 F.2d 1033, 1037 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1987). As to written description,
`
`the conclusion in the Guidance is now further bolstered by Dr. Messner’s detailed
`
`
`1 Per the Guidance, (Paper 77 at 12), PO respectfully requests acknowledgment that
`
`claim 24 be read to depend from claim 23, or be withdrawn.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`mapping of the substitute claims to the original disclosure. (Exhibit 2079 ¶¶ 11-20.)
`
`B. ANM Improperly Incorporates by Reference.
`
`“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into
`
`another document.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Citing a declaration to support
`
`conclusory statements in a brief violates this rule. See Cisco Sys. Inc. v. C-Cation
`
`Tech. LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative);
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Location Based Servs., LLC, IPR2017-01965, Paper 31 at
`
`57–58 (PTAB Feb. 15, 2019) (after holding opposition did not comport with rule
`
`prohibiting incorporation by reference, concluding petitioner’s opposition to motion
`
`to amend failed to establish unpatentability of certain claims); Alcohol Monitoring
`
`Sys., Inc. v. Soberlink, Inc., IPR2015-00556, Paper 28 at 47 n.4 (PTAB May 3, 2016)
`
`(declining to consider additional reasons to combine references because opposition
`
`to motion to amend cited, without explanation, several paragraphs in expert’s
`
`declaration, which was improper incorporation by reference).
`
`ANM violates this rule by repeatedly incorporating into its brief entire
`
`sections of its expert declaration—spanning dozens of pages or hundreds of
`
`paragraphs—without any discussion or explanation in its Opposition of its expert’s
`
`opinions on obviousness, motivation to combine, how the art reads on the claims,
`
`etc. (See, e.g., Opp. at 8 (citing 207 paragraphs), 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22.) ANM
`
`must be limited to only those arguments unambiguously explained in its Opposition.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`C. The Substitute Claims Are Not Obvious.
`
`ANM has failed to show the substitute claims are unpatentable. “[A] patent
`
`owner does not bear the burden of persuasion to demonstrate the patentability of
`
`substitute claims presented in a motion to amend.” Patent Trial Practice Guide, July
`
`2019 Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 33,925 (July 16, 2019). “Rather, the burden of persuasion
`
`ordinarily will lie with the petitioner to show that any substitute claims are
`
`unpatentable….” Id.; see Aqua Prods. Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017); Paper 77 at 4 (citing Lectrosonics, IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 at 4).
`
`ANM has not met its burden because ANM has failed to provide a “reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue” or to
`
`show how the proposed combinations meet all of the claimed limitations. See KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Indeed, ANM’s alleged
`
`motivation to combine argument relates to an original, not a substitute, claim and
`
`only relates to purported analogousness of Gifft, Mittal, and Pillsbury and the
`
`disclosure of relevant hardware and software limitations. (Opp. at 8-11.) This is
`
`insufficient. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1050 n.14 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (noting analogousness and motivation to combine are distinct inquiries).
`
`ANM does not argue, much less articulate, a motivation to combine Gifft-Mittal-
`
`Pillsbury with any other art. To the extent ANM’s obviousness arguments rely on
`
`additional art for each substitute claim, these arguments must be rejected.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`
`
`There Is No Motivation to Combine Gifft-Mittal-Pillsbury-Ebel.
`
`A POSITA would not be motivated to combine Gifft-Mittal-Pillsbury with
`
`Ebel. First, Ebel’s system is undesirably inaccurate at the necessary pressures for
`
`adjustable air beds. Second, the art does not teach using, much less modifying or
`
`updating, a multiplicative pressure adjustment factor. Third, ANM’s expert’s
`
`testimony confirms that such a combination is based in impermissible hindsight.
`
`a.
`
`A POSITA Would Understand Ebel Is Less Accurate.
`
`A POSITA would understand that Ebel’s method of estimating the actual
`
`pressure would result in less accurate pressure adjustments in an adjustable air bed
`
`system. (Ex. 2079 ¶¶28-32.) The point of Ebel is to derive an estimate of the actual
`
`pressure based upon the sensor pressure using the filling and emptying equations.
`
`(Id.; Ex. 2080 at 88:15-19.) In Ebel, FIG. 6 plots this estimation against the actual
`
`pressure to show how well the system works. (Ex. 2080 at 88:21-89:8.) However, as
`
`even Dr. Phinney admits, the deviations between the estimation and actual pressure
`
`are pressure dependent and some of the largest deviations occur below 100 hPa,
`
`where adjustable air beds operate. (Id. at 91:16-18, 100:4.) Indeed, a POSITA would
`
`recognize that, under 100 hPa, the discrepancy between the estimated pressure and
`
`the actual pressure was at least a few hPa, which would be equivalent to more than
`
`one pressure adjustment increment. (Ex. 2079 ¶¶30-31.) A POSITA would recognize
`
`that such a discrepancy would render an adjustable air bed system deficient. (Id.)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`b.
`
`Ebel Does Not Teach the Claimed Multiplicative.
`
`Substitute claims 23, 29, and 30 recite methods that use an additive and
`
`multiplicative pressure adjustment factor that (1) along with a desired pressure
`
`setpoint, calculate a pressure target, and (2) further require that the factors be
`
`modified (or updated) in a way not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art. (See
`
`MTA at 18-20, 22-25.) ANM relies solely on Ebel to teach these limitations; indeed,
`
`Dr. Phinney testified that he was not aware of any other references that disclose or
`
`suggest a “multiplicative offset” for deflation. (Ex. 2041 at 91:19-92:9.) Regardless,
`
`ANM does not suggest using any other offsets or references.
`
`ANM argues that “a1” and “a2” in Ebel’s equations, (Ex. 1007 ¶32), are
`
`multiplicative pressure adjustment factors. (See Opp. at 13-15.) Ebel purports to
`
`create a linear fit between the sensed and actual pressures, which are then used to
`
`estimate (Pcorr) the actual pressure (Pi) based on the sensed pressure (Ps), as follows:
`
`(1) filling equation: Pi = a1 x Ps + b1, which is used to estimate the pressure
`
`on inflation using equation: Pcorr = Ps - |a1 x Ps + b1|;
`
`(2) emptying equation: Pi = a2 x Ps + b2, which is used to estimate the pressure
`
`on deflation using equation: Pcorr = Ps + |a2 x Ps + b2|.
`
`(Ex. 1007 ¶¶30-32.) Dr. Phinney admits these variables modify a sensed pressure
`
`during an adjustment to calculate an estimate of the actual bladder pressure; they are
`
`not used with a pressure setpoint before an adjustment to calculate a pressure target,
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`as required by the claims. (Ex. 2080 at 81:23-86:7, 115:13-23, 129:13-18; see also
`
`id. at 123:4-8 (Phinney testifying equations do not include multiplicative offsets).)
`
`ANM also relies on circuit diagrams created by Dr. Phinney to generate
`
`another multiplicative, (Rv/R+Rv), but neither the circuit diagram nor multiplicative
`
`are taught by the prior art. (See Ex. 1007; Ex. 2041 at 76:10-11, 80:6-15, 81:24-82:6,
`
`91:19-92:9, 92:24-25 (Phinney admitting same); Ex. 2080 at 104:15-105:2 (same);
`
`Ex. 2026 ¶¶183-188 (describing changes and omissions made by Phinney).) In either
`
`case, Ebel never uses such a factor to create a target pressure nor does it teach
`
`modifying any factor, let alone a multiplicative one, based upon an adjustment factor
`
`error. (See Ex. 2079 ¶¶33-36.)
`
`ANM’s derivation of the equation, Pc=Rv/(R+Rv), suffers other deficiencies.
`
`Because Pc purportedly represents both the desired pressure setpoint and chamber
`
`pressure, ANM’s proposed updating of the pressure adjustment factors would be
`
`inoperable. (Ex. 2079 ¶37.) ANM also claims that R represents the “conduit
`
`impedance” and Rv represents the “vent impedance,” (Pet. at 61), but neither the
`
`symbol “Rv” nor the word “impedance” is used in Ebel. (Ex. 1007.) Indeed, the
`
`concept of vent impedance is not disclosed or discussed in any of the prior art. (Ex.
`
`2080 at 126:5-127:12.) Additionally, a POSITA would understand that the symbol
`
`“R” in Ebel does not represent “conduit impedance.” (Ex. 2026 ¶187.)
`
`ANM’s reliance on Pillsbury further demonstrates the non-obviousness of
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`these substitute claims. Pillsbury discloses modifying an additive pressure
`
`adjustment factor, only on deflation, stating “the new offset value (OVn) will be
`
`equal to the old offset value (OVo), plus the difference (or error) between the actual
`
`pressure (AP) and the target pressure (TP).” (Opp. at 9-10; Ex. 2079 ¶41.) Thus,
`
`even if it were obvious to combine the teachings of Pillsbury with those of Ebel
`
`(which is not conceded), such a combination would still only result in changing an
`
`additive pressure adjustment factor—not a multiplicative pressure adjustment factor.
`
`Moreover, substitute claims 23, 29, and 30 require different steps during
`
`inflation and deflation—having different requirements for inflate vs. deflate pressure
`
`targets. (See MTA at 18-20, 22-25.) When inflating, the claims require using an
`
`additive pressure adjustment factor and modifying that factor based upon the
`
`adjustment factor error. (Id.) When deflating, the claims require using a
`
`multiplicative pressure adjustment factor and modifying that factor based upon the
`
`adjustment factor error. (Id.) The cited references do not teach using and modifying
`
`an additive pressure adjustment factor in inflation and using and modifying a
`
`multiplicative pressure adjustment factor in deflation, as required.
`
`ANM also relies on Ebel’s equations of “Pi = a1 x PS + b1” and “Pi = a2 x Ps
`
`+ b2,” arguing that a1 and a2 are multiplicative pressure adjustment factors and that
`
`b1 and b2 are additive pressure adjustment factors. (Opp. at 13-15.) However, Ebel
`
`says nothing about modifying anything, much less modifying a1, a2, b1, or b2 based
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`upon an adjustment factor error. (See Ex. 1007.) Any reliance on Pillsbury or Mittal
`
`does not cure this defect. Both Pillsbury and Mittal only discuss modifying an
`
`additive pressure adjustment factor, never a multiplicative factor. (See Ex. 2026
`
`¶¶56, 82; Ex. 1005 at 22:12-22; Ex. 1006 at 5:62-6:7, 7:52-57.)
`
`ANM has presented no evidence from Ebel, Pillsbury, or otherwise that a
`
`POSITA would have known or found it obvious to use and modify an additive factor
`
`during inflation and then use and modify a multiplicative factor during deflation.
`
`Accordingly, ANM’s obviousness argument fails as to substitute claims 23, 29, 30.
`
`c.
`
`ANM Relies on Improper Hindsight.
`
`The Board should reject ANM’s improper hindsight. ANM relies upon
`
`Pillsbury, which teaches using and updating its additive “offset” only during
`
`deflation. (Ex. 1006 at 7:43-8:2.) However, the only thing a POSITA would have
`
`gleaned from Pillsbury is that using and updating an additive offset was appropriate
`
`during deflation. (Ex. 2079 ¶41.) There is simply no suggestion that updating a
`
`multiplicative offset would have been needed or even helpful during deflation. (Id.
`
`¶¶42-44.) None of the asserted art teaches modifying a multiplicative factor under
`
`any circumstance, let alone the circumstances of substitute claims 23, 29, and 30.
`
`Dr. Phinney admits his analysis takes Pillsbury’s teachings related solely to deflation
`
`but uses them solely for inflation of Gifft-Mittal-Pillsbury and seeks another
`
`reference disclosing the multiplicative adjustment factor for deflation of Gifft-
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`Mittal-Pillsbury. (Ex. 2080 at 138:5-140:15.) This manipulation of the references to
`
`meet the claimed limitations is classic hindsight reconstruction. See Metalcraft of
`
`Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Merck Sharp
`
`& Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC, 711 F. App’x 633, 637 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017). Accordingly, substitute claims 23, 29, 30, and those that depend therefrom
`
`should be held patentable.
`
`
`
`The Remaining Substitute Claims Are Not Obvious.
`
`As explained above in Section II(C), ANM has not articulated any motivation
`
`to combine the prior art references in a way that would render the substitute claims
`
`obvious. Nothing in the art teaches using a default pressure adjustment factor
`
`“configured to compensate for a user to be positioned upon the air bed,” as required
`
`by Claim 27, and ANM provides no evidence to the contrary. Similarly, nothing in
`
`the art teaches using multiple air bladders, each adjusted by using a unique desired
`
`pressure setpoint and corresponding target pressure, as required by Claim 32. Indeed,
`
`Dr. Phinney admits that Mittal teaches a single pressure setpoint that is used to inflate
`
`multiple tires to the same pressure. (Ex. 2080 at 156:2-157:8.) In addition, ANM has
`
`not provided any motivation to combine Finkelstein or Luff with Gifft-Mittal-
`
`Pillsbury-Ebel to render claims 30 or 31 obvious. (See Opp.) Finally, any attempt to
`
`incorporate additional unpatentability arguments is improper. (Supra Section II(B).)
`
`
`
`ANM Admits the References Are Not Analogous.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`ANM has not shown the asserted references are analogous, and tacitly admits
`
`they are not. (See Exhibit 2026 ¶¶11-12 (‘154 Patent is in field of adjustable air bed
`
`systems), 33, 118-123 (explaining Mittal and Ebel are in vehicular fields and
`
`Pillsbury is in field of blood pressure measuring devices), 124-130 (explaining
`
`Mittal and Ebel are not concerned with the same accuracy and precision
`
`requirements as ‘154 Patent and Pillsbury is directed to use of a filter not found in
`
`air beds); Ex. 2041 at 136:11-15, 160:11-22, 176:15-20 & Ex. 2042 at 271:24-272:20
`
`(Phinney admitting Mittal, Pillsbury, Ebel are not in same field); Paper 71 at 10
`
`(ANM admitting Mittal and Ebel are from automobile industry and Pillsbury is from
`
`medical industry), 16 (admitting Mittal’s field is truck tires).) This is dispositive.
`
`D. ANM Is Wrong on Indefiniteness.
`
`ANM bears the burden of proof on indefiniteness and has not carried it. For
`
`example, ANM wrongly complains that independent claim 23’s limitations for
`
`modifying pressure adjustment factors (MTA App’x at 23.15, 23.16) are “subject to
`
`multiple competing interpretations” through claim differentiation in view of
`
`dependent claims 24-26. (Opp. at 7 (cross-referencing argument at 5-6).) But ANM’s
`
`claim differentiation argument is about breadth,2 not about multiple interpretations.
`
`
`2 ANM is also wrong on broadening. Claim differentiation “does not serve to
`
`broaden claims beyond their meaning in light of the patent as a whole,” Poly-Am.,
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`(Id. at 6 (“Based on principles of claim differentiation, these proposed dependent
`
`claims may imply that the relevant limitations in the base claims are broad enough
`
`to cover ....”).) Moreover, “the inference of indefiniteness simply from [a] scope
`
`finding is legally incorrect: ‘breadth is not indefiniteness.’” BASF Corp. v. Johnson
`
`Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing SmithKline Beecham
`
`Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`
`E. ANM Is Also Wrong on Written Description and Enablement.
`
`“[Section] 112, first paragraph, contains a written description requirement
`
`separate from enablement.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336,
`
`1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). But ANM erroneously treats the two synonymously.
`
`(See Opp. at 5-6). Beyond conflating them, ANM fails to adequately address either.
`
`On written description, ANM’s contention that “[t]here is no written
`
`description support . . . for updating the PAF based on actual pressure” misquotes
`
`the substitute claims and ignores that the ’409 Application provides verbatim
`
`disclosure of the claimed feature at Paragraphs [0008] and [0009]. (See Ex. 2079
`
`¶¶15-20 (citing Ex. 2081 ¶¶[0008-0009] (“Furthermore, the pressure adjustment
`
`factor may be modified based upon the adjustment factor error determined by
`
`comparing the actual chamber pressure to the desired pressure setpoint.”) and
`
`
`L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1137 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`explaining a minor typographical error in the equations at [0065] and [0067]).)3 As
`
`for enablement, both ANM and its expert are silent as to the crux of the inquiry—
`
`whether the “specification teach[es] those in the art to make and use the invention
`
`without undue experimentation.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1367 (citing In re Wands, 858
`
`F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (emphasis added)). Indeed, beyond speculative expert
`
`testimony about “possible outcome[s],” ANM offers no evidence at all on the issue
`
`of experimentation, undue or otherwise. (See, e.g., Ex. 2080 at 67:25-72:3 (Wand
`
`factors not analyzed), 162:4-5 (invention operable as written).) This is not enough
`
`to prove unpatentability under the preponderance standard ANM is burdened with.
`
`F.
`
`PO Has Not Violated the Duty of Candor.
`
`PO is unaware of prior art material to substitute claims 23–41 that is not part
`
`of the record in this proceeding or listed on the face of the ’154 Patent. However,
`
`out of caution, PO provides Exhibit 2082, which includes two information disclosure
`
`statements that list related art of which PO is aware (though PO believes not all cited
`
`references qualify as prior art). PO’s understands that none of these references, alone
`
`or in combination, renders substitute claims 23–41 unpatentable.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`PO requests a finding of validity of the proposed substitute claims.
`
`
`
`
`3 In the MTA, the ‘409 Application is cited starting at page 32 of Exhibit 1002.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`Dated: February 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/Luke Toft
`Luke Toft (Reg. No. 75,311)
`Andrew S. Hansen (pro hac vice)
`Archana Nath (pro hac vice)
`Elizabeth A. Patton (pro hac vice)
`FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
`222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2000
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-3338
`Telephone: (612) 607-7000
`Facsimile: (612) 607-71000
`ltoft@foxrothschild.com
`ahansen@foxrothschild.com
`anath@foxrothschild.com
`epatton@foxrothschild.com
`
`Steven A. Moore (Reg. No. 55,462)
`ZHONG LUN
`1717 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: (323) 930-5690
`Facsimile: (323) 930-5693
`stevemoore@zhonglun.com
`
`Kecia J. Reynolds (Reg. No. 47,021)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`1200 Seventeenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 663-8000
`Facsimile: (202) 663-8007
`kecia.reynolds@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Sleep Number Corporation
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154 B2
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that on
`
`February 26, 2020, the foregoing Reply in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend was served via e-mail, as authorized by the Petitioner, at the following email
`
`correspondence address of record:
`
`Kyle L. Elliott
`kelliott@spencerfane.com
`
`Kevin S. Tuttle
`ktuttle@spencerfane.com
`
`Brian T. Bear
`bbear@spencerfane.com
`
`Lori J. Allee
`jallee@spencerfane.com
`SPENCER FANE LLP
`1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
`Kansas City, MO 64106
`
`Jaspal S. Hare
`jhare@spencerfane.com
`SPENCER FANE LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue
`Suite 4800 West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`Dated: February 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Luke Toft
`Luke Toft (Reg. No. 75, 311)
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
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
