UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC LLC
`Patent Owner
`Case IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, 7, AND 19-22
`
`Patentee’s Demonstrative Exhibits for use
`in conjunction with Oral Argument
`April 28, 2020
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`1
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC LLC
`Patent Owner
`Case IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, 7, AND 19-22
`
`Patentee’s Demonstrative Exhibits for use
`in conjunction with Oral Argument
`April 28, 2020
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`1
`
`
`
`The ‘748 Patent
`
`¤ The ‘748 patent teaches a questionnaire that comprises a
`plurality of device independent tokens (”tokenized
`questionnaire) that can run without modification on multiple
`different devices / operating systems.
`
`EX 1001, col. 6, lines 12-16
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`EX 1001, col. 4, lines 16-19
`
`2
`
`
`
`The ‘748 Patent
`
`¤ Claims 1, 20 (via claim 19), and 21 (cancelled / on-appeal)
`require transmission and receipt of a “tokenized
`questionnaire”.
`¤ 1(c) tokenizing said questionnaire, thereby producing a plurality
`of device indifferent tokens representing said questionnaire;
`¤ 19 (b) receiving within said handheld computing device a
`transmission of a tokenized questionnaire from said originating
`computer …
`¤ 21(a)(2) receiving within said handheld computing device a
`transmission of a tokenized questionnaire,…
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`3
`
`
`
`The ‘748 Patent
`
`¤ The tokenized questionnaire is comprised of a plurality of
`device independent tokens, at least some of which must be
`executable
`¤ 1(e) when said remote computing device is at said location,
`executing at least a portion of said plurality of tokens
`representing said questionnaire at within said remote
`computing device to collect a response from a user;
`¤ 20(19 (b)) receiving within said handheld computing device a
`transmission of a tokenized questionnaire from said originating
`computer … said tokenized questionnaire comprising a plurality
`of device independent tokens;
`¤ 21(a)(2) receiving within said handheld computing device a
`transmission of a tokenized questionnaire,… said tokenized
`questionnaire comprising a plurality of device independent
`tokens;
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`4
`
`
`
`The ‘748 Patent
`
`¤ The tokenized questionnaire must be able to automatically
`read a GPS receiver integral to a handheld device.
`¤ Claim 20 (19),
`¤ (a) “… wherein said handheld computing device has a GPS
`integral thereto;”
`¤ (d)(d3) “using said GPS to automatically obtain said
`location identifying information in response to said at least
`one question that requests location information;”
`¤ Claim 21
`¤ (a)(1) “… wherein said handheld computing device has a
`GPS integral thereto;”
`¤ (a)(4)(ii)” automatically entering the GPS coordinates into
`said questionnaire;”
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`5
`
`
`
`The ‘748 Patent
`
`¤ Claim 7 requires (summary):
`¤ Designing a questionnaire on a first computer for a particular
`location with branching logic and at least one question that
`requests location information (7(a))
`¤ Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a loosely
`networked computer having an integral GPS (receiver) (7(b))
`¤ Executing the questionnaire and automatically obtaining
`location information from the GPS. (7(d))
`¤ Automatically transferring an responses in real time to a central
`computer (7(e))
`¤ Making available on the Internet any responses transferred to
`the central computer (7(f))
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`6
`
`
`
`Grounds 1-3
`
`¤ Ground 1 of the petition asserts
`Barbosa renders obvious claims 1 and
`19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 2 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Bandera renders obvious claims 1, 19-
`22.
`
`¤ Ground 3 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Falls renders obvious claim 7.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`7
`
`
`
`Barbosa (Ground 1)
`
`¤ Barbosa:
`
`¤ “The template may operate in combination with
`programs resident in the handheld computer or
`may be accompanied by a computer program
`transmitted from the server (e.g., in the form of a
`JAVA applet).” 12:14-18.
`
`¤ “Computer program code for carrying out
`operations of the present invention can be written
`in an object oriented programming language such
`as Java., Smalltalk or C++.” 12:45-47.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`8
`
`
`
`The State of the Art in 2002
`
`¤ “If you need to write a program that …
`manipulate[s] some hardware directly, you
`can write native methods. A native method
`lets you implement a method that can be
`invoked from the Java programming
`language but is written in a "native" language,
`usually C or C++. ... If you use a native
`method, all portability and safety of the code
`are lost. You cannot, for instance, use a native
`method in almost any code you expect to
`download and run from across a network
`connection (an applet, for example )” Ex
`2001, p.6 (p. 63 in the original). emphasis
`added
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`9
`
`
`
`The State of the Art in 2002
`
`¤ “Due to strict memory constraints and the
`requirement to support application interaction
`and data sharing within related applications,
`the Mobile Information Device Profile does not
`support the familiar Applet model introduced
`by Java™ 2 Platform, Standard Edition
`(J2SE™). Rather, MIDP introduces a new
`application model that was designed to
`augment the CLDC [Connected, Limited
`Device Configuration] application model and
`to allow multiple Java applications to share
`data and run concurrently on the KVM.” Ex
`2002 at p 43, emphasis added.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`10
`
`
`
`The State of the Art in 2002
`
`¤ Earliest claimed priority date of the ‘748 Patent was
`at least as early as January 1, 2002.
`¤ The available handheld devices in 2002 had very
`limited capabilities (EX 2002, p. 17):
`
`¤ Java for handheld devices was
`was designed to
`accommodate the “lowest
`common denominator” among
`supported devices. EX 2002, p
`22, EX 2006 ¶32.
`¤ Java 2 Platform, Micro Edition
`(J2ME) was supported on
`multiple handheld platforms.
`EX 2002, p. 22, EX 2006 ¶¶31-32
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`11
`
`
`
`Barbosa (Ground 1)
`
`¤ “The template may operate in combination with
`programs resident in the handheld computer or may
`be accompanied by a computer program
`transmitted from the sever (e.g., in the form of a JAVA
`applet).” EX 1002, 12:14-18, emphasis added.
`
`¤ “You cannot, for instance, use a native method in
`almost any code you expect to download and run
`from across a network connection (an applet, for
`example ).” Ex 2001, p.63, emphasis added.
`
`¤ “[T]he Mobile Information Device Profile does not
`support the familiar Applet model introduced by
`Java™ 2 Platform, Standard Edition (J2SE™). Ex 2002
`at p 43, emphasis added.
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`12
`
`
`
`Barbosa (Ground 1)
`
`¤ Reply Declaration (EX 1018, emphasis added)
`¤ 11. Thus, rather than being limited solely to the
`disclosures of Java 2 Platform, Micro Edition (J2ME), it
`is my opinion that it would have been obvious to a
`POSITA at the time of Barbosa to apply known
`techniques used by Java (Version 1), Java 2 Standard
`Edition, and Java 2 Enterprise Edition to wireless
`devices once those devices’ then-limited computing
`power improved.
`
`¤ EX 1019 Java Specification Request (JSR-179),
`©2003 (Id, p. 3).
`
`¤ EX 1021 Bluetooth Application Programming with
`Java APIs, ©2004 (Id., p. 5).
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`13
`
`
`
`Barbosa (Ground 1)
`¤ Claims 1, 19 and 21 of the ‘748 Patent are not
`obvious in view of Barbosa at least because
`Barbosa does not teach a tokenized questionnaire
`that can read a GPS unit and using device
`independent tokens.
`
`¤ Claims 20 and 22 depend from independent
`claims that are not obvious in view of Barbosa, so
`they are similarly not obvious.
`
`¤ Ground 1 must be rejected with respect to claims
`1, and 19-22.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`14
`
`
`
`Device Independent Tokens
`
`¤ “The instant limitation [device independent tokens]
`does not require that a program obtain
`information from a GPS receiver in a device
`independent manner. Instead, it requires that the
`tokens in the questionnaire be device
`independent.” Decision Instituting IPR, p. 27.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`15
`
`
`
`Device Independent Tokens
`
`¤ “As a part of the inventive system each remote
`device, preferably a handheld computer, is
`provided with an operating instruction system
`("OIS") which overlays its native operating system.
`Once equipped with the OIS, a remote device can
`be programmed according to methods described
`hereinafter. Any program developed under the
`inventive system will run on any handheld
`computer equipped with the OIS and files on one
`such handheld will transfer freely to any other
`handheld or any computer connected to the
`inventive system.” EX 1001, 7:48-59.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`16
`
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera (Ground 2)
`
`¤ Ground 1 of the petition asserts
`Barbosa renders obvious claims 1 and
`19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 2 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Bandera renders obvious claims 1, 19-
`22.
`
`¤ Ground 3 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Falls renders obvious obvious claim 7.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`17
`
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera (Ground 2)
`
`¤ Bandera teaches systems and methods for
`“selecting an advertising object to be displayed
`within a Web page requested by a user based on
`the geographic location of the user and/or on the
`time of day.” EX 1004, Abstract.
`
`¤ Bandera utilizes the Java Virtual Machine of Sun
`Microsystems (JVM) Id. 5:50-54 and an “applet
`configured to communicate with a GPS”. Id., 8:63-
`66.
`
`¤ Bandera’s program is not device independent. EX
`2006, ¶91.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`18
`
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera (Ground 2)
`
`¤ Claims 1, 19 and 21 all require a tokenized
`questionnaire comprising a plurality of device
`independent tokens.
`
`¤ Neither Barbosa nor Bandera teach a tokenized
`questionnaire that accesses a GPS module in a
`device independent manner.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`19
`
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera (Ground 2)
`
`¤ Claims 1, and 19 and 21 are not
`obvious over Barbosa in view of
`Bandera at least because neither
`Barbosa nor Bandera teach a
`tokenized questionnaire with device
`independent tokens.
`
`¤ Claims 20 and 22 depend
`independent claims that are not
`obvious and are similarly
`nonobvious.
`
`¤ Ground 2 must be rejected with
`respect to claims 1 and 19-22.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`20
`
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls (Ground 3)
`
`¤ Ground 1 of the petition asserts
`Barbosa renders obvious claims 1 and
`19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 2 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Bandera renders obvious claims 1, 19-
`22.
`
`¤ Ground 3 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Falls renders obvious obvious claim 7.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`21
`
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls (Ground 3)
`
`¤ Falls teaches “A method and apparatus are
`disclosed for synchronizing transactions in a
`disconnectable network.” EX 1017, Abstract.
`
`¤ Falls is relied upon for its teaching of
`synchronization in a disconnectable network.
`
`¤ Barbosa is alleged to teach claim steps 7(b) and
`7(e), “automatically transferring”.
`
`¤ Barbosa is alleged to teach step 7(f), i.e., “making
`available via the Internet any responses transferred
`to said central computer in step (e)”.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`22
`
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls (Ground 3)
`
`¤ “Automatic transfer to” (the user)
`
`¤ “The assessor may start an inventory program 1101,
`identify a service schedule 1102, and synchronize
`the schedule 1103 with an inventory manager. The
`inventory manager assesses the schedule
`requirements and provides the technician with an
`inventory availability status 1104. The technician
`may coordinate inventory needs with the
`company automatically using this method so that
`no more inventory than is needed is taken to the
`field.” Barbosa 11:33-40.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`23
`
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls (Ground 3)
`
`¤ “A worker’s handheld device (or device assigned
`to the worker for the shift) may be synchronized
`901 with a server to receive an updated template
`containing tasks for the worker at the beginning of
`of every work shift.” Barbosa 10:32-42.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`24
`
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls (Ground 3)
`
`¤ “Making available via the Internet any responses
`transferred…”
`
`¤ In its Reply (Paper 19, pp. 15-17), Petitioner cites
`numerous passages in Barbosa that mention use of
`the Internet.
`
`¤ None of the quotations ever actually meet the
`limitation of claim step 7(f), i.e., “making available
`via the Internet any responses so collected in real
`time to a central computer;”
`
`¤ Petitioner still lacks support for this limitation.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`25
`
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls (Ground 3)
`
`¤ So based on the foregoing,
`claim 7 of the ‘748 Patent is not
`obvious over Barbosa in view
`of Bandera at least because
`Barbosa does not disclose
`“automatic transfer” nor does
`he disclose “making available
`on the Internet”.
`
`¤ Ground 3 must be rejected
`with respect to claim 7.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`26
`
`
`
`Grounds 4-6
`
`¤ Ground 4 of the petition asserts
`Hancock in view of a POSITA’s
`knowledge renders obvious claims 1,
`2, 5, and 19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 5 asserts Hancock in view of
`Bandera renders obvious claims 1, 2,
`5, and 19-22).
`
`¤ Ground 6 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Falls renders obvious obvious claim 7
`(Ground 6).
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`27
`
`
`
`Hancock (Ground 4)
`
`¤ Hancock teaches a system and method of providing
`users with information that is specific to the user’s
`geographic location. EX 1003, 2:64-67.
`
`¤ No mention of Java or device independence.
`
`¤ Petitioner:
`¤ “However, Hancock is silent regarding a programming
`language used to create the Go2 Application.”
`Petition, p. 51.
`¤ … [A] POSITA would have understood that the Java
`programming language is a programming language
`that provides device independency. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 132-33,
`195. As such, it would have been an obvious design
`choice to a POSITA that the Go2 Application could
`have been implemented using Java.” Id.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`28
`
`
`
`Hancock (Ground 4)
`
`¤ The only programming language disclosed in
`Hancock is C++. EX 1003, col. 20, lines 39-44.
`
`¤ C++ is a language that is device and operating
`system dependent. EX 2006, ¶82.
`
`¤ Accord: EX 2001, p. 6.
`¤ “A native method lets you implement a method that
`can be invoked from the Java programming
`language but is written in a "native" language, usually
`C or C++. If you use a native method, all portability
`and safety of the code are lost.”
`
`¤ C++ is object oriented but not device
`independent.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`29
`
`
`
`Hancock (Ground 4)
`
`¤ “Ex. 1003, Fig. 17 (annotated).
`Accordingly, Hancock’s
`questionnaire is “tokenized” when
`applying the proper construction of
`the term “token,” as explained in VI.
`B.ii.”. Petition p. 49, emphasis in
`original.
`
`¤ “Petitioners, however, do not assert
`that Hancock discloses device
`independent tokens – Petitioners
`assert only that Hancock renders
`obvious the use of device
`independent tokens.” Petitioner’s
`Reply at p. 17.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`30
`
`
`
`Hancock (Ground 4)
`
`¤ Claims 1, 19, and 21 all require the creation of a
`tokenized questionnaire comprised of device
`independent tokens which can access a GPS
`device.
`
`¤ Hancock teaches a system coded in the C++
`language which would produce a device
`dependent questionnaire.
`
`¤ Hancock is familiar with web browsers and created
`a web browser component to use along with his
`Go2 Application in C++.
`
`¤ “The Go2 Application program 1500 is provided
`with a web browser component 1502.” 26:30-31
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`31
`
`
`
`Hancock (Ground 4)
`
`¤ Claims 1, 19, and 21 are not obvious in
`view of Hancock at least because
`Hancock does not teach or suggest a
`tokenized questionnaire.
`
`¤ Claims 2, 5, 20, and 22 depend from
`nonobvious claims so they must also be
`nonobvious with respect to Hancock.
`
`¤ Ground 4 must be rejected with respect
`to claims 1, 2, 5, and 19-22.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`32
`
`
`
`Hancock in view of Bandera
`(Ground 5)
`¤ Ground 4 of the petition asserts
`Hancock in view of a POSITA’s
`knowledge renders obvious claims 1,
`2, 5, and 19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 5 asserts Hancock in view of
`Bandera renders obvious claims 1, 2,
`5, and 19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 6 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Falls renders obvious obvious claim 7
`(Ground 6).
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`33
`
`
`
`Hancock in view of Bandera
`(Ground 5)
`¤ Petitioner: “Further, while Hancock is silent as to
`the programming language used to implement its
`Go2 Application, Bandera discloses that the Java
`programming language may be used to provide
`programs on mobile devices and that Java is
`machine and operating-system independent.”
`Petition at 69. See also, Ex 1005 at ¶232.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`34
`
`
`
`Hancock in view of Bandera
`(Ground 5)
`¤ Claims 1, 19, and 21 all require the creation of a
`tokenized questionnaire comprised of device
`independent tokens which can access a GPS
`device.
`
`¤ Hancock teaches a system coded in the C++
`language which would produce a device
`dependent questionnaire.
`
`¤ Hancock is familiar with web browsers and created
`a web browser component to use along with his
`Go2 Application in C++.
`
`¤ No teaching or suggestion to convert Go2 to Java
`or reasonable expectation of success.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`35
`
`
`
`Hancock in view of Bandera
`(Ground 5)
`¤ Claims 1, 19, and 21 are not obvious
`in view of Hancock at least because
`Hancock does not teach or suggest a
`tokenized questionnaire.
`
`¤ Claims 2, 5, 20, and 22 depend from
`nonobvious claims so they must also
`be nonobvious with respect to
`Hancock.
`
`¤ Ground 5 must be rejected with
`respect to claims 1, 2, 5, and 19-22.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`36
`
`
`
`Hancock in view of Falls (Ground 6)
`
`¤ Ground 4 of the petition asserts
`Hancock in view of a POSITA’s
`knowledge renders obvious claims 1,
`2, 5, and 19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 5 asserts Hancock in view of
`Bandera renders obvious claims 1, 2,
`5, and 19-22).
`
`¤ Ground 6 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Falls renders obvious obvious claim 7
`(Ground 6).
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`37
`
`
`
`Hancock in view of Falls (Ground 6)
`
`¤ Claim 7 limitations at issue:
`
`¤ Claim 7(b): automatically transferring the
`questionnaire to the loosely networked computer
`having a GPS integral thereto.
`
`¤ Claim 7(e): automatically transferring via the loose
`network any responses collected in real time to a
`central computer.
`
`¤ Claim 7(f): making available via the Internet any
`responses transferred in step 7(e).
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`38
`
`
`
`Hancock in view of Falls (Ground 6)
`
`¤ “Automatic transfer to” (7(b))
`
`¤ Fig. 18 indicates that the Go2 program and its
`graphic interface / questionnaire are only
`transferred to the user’s device if the offer to
`download it is accepted. Fig. 18, boxes 1806 and
`1808. EX 2006, ¶94.
`
`¤ Hancock does not teach automatic transfer of the
`Go2 questionnaire to a loosely networked
`computer having a GPS integral thereto.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`39
`
`
`
`Hancock in view of Falls (Ground 6)
`
`¤ “Automatic transfer from”
`
`¤ Hancock teaches a device dependent program
`that allows a user to make location-based queries
`of a central server. EX 2006, ¶100.
`
`¤ “For example, the user may wish to formulate a
`database query for finding all fast-food restaurants
`within a five-mile radius”. EX 1017, 27:38-43.
`
`¤ A user-based query is not an automatic transfer of
`a response from the user device, but a user
`initiated transfer.
`
`¤ Hancock does not teach “automatic transfer
`from”
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`40
`
`
`
`Hancock in view of Falls (Ground 6)
`
`¤ “Making available via the Internet” (7(f))
`
`¤ Hancock teaches transferring queries from the user
`to a central server.
`
`¤ Hancock transmission receipt of the database
`search back to the user from the central server.
`
`¤ Hancock teaches transmission to/from a user but
`does not teach making the user information
`available via the Internet.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`41
`
`
`
`Hancock in view of Falls (Ground 6)
`
`¤ Claim 7 is not rendered obvious by
`Hancock in view of Falls at least
`because Hancock does not teach or
`suggest claim steps 7(b), 7(e), and
`7(f).
`
`¤ Ground 6 must be rejected with
`respect to claims 7.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`42
`
`
`
`Administrative Patent Judges are
`Principal Officers of the United States
`¤ Patent Owner objects to the use of inter partes review because
`it is carried out by a final order issued by Administrative Patent
`Judges who have not been nominated by the President and
`confirmed by the Senate.
`¤ Members of the Board qualify as Officers of the United States.
`And they are not merely "inferior Officers," but "principal
`Officer[s]" under the Appointments Clause.
`¤ Accordingly, the members of the Board are Principal Officers,
`and to constitutionally exercise such authority they must be
`appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir.
`2019)
`¤ Patent Owner reasserts this defense which was originally
`presented in its Response to preserve this argument for appeal.
`43
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`
`
`THE END
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`44
`
`
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
