`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`VENKAT KONDA,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-00261
`
`Patent 8,269,523 B2
`
`_________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 4
`
`A. The ‘523 Patent ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`III. PETITIONER’S EXPERT WITNESS DR. BAKER IS NOT
`QUALIFIED IN THE PERTINENT ART AND DR. BAKER’S
`DECLARATION CARRIES NO WEIGHT ............................................... 5
`
`IV. U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT APPLICATION SERIAL NO.
`60/940,394 (THE “ ‘394 PROVISIONAL APPLICATION”) WHICH
`WAS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN PCT PUBLICATION
`NO. WO 2018/109756 A1 (THE “KONDA ‘756 PCT”) IS NOT PRIOR
`ART TO THE ‘523 PATENT WHICH CLAIMS PRIORTITY TO THE
`‘394 PROVISIONAL APPLICATION ........................................................ 9
`
`A. The Effective Filing date of the ‘523 Patent is indeed its earliest claimed priority
`date, i.e. May 25, 2007....................................................................................................... 9
`
`B. The Konda ‘756 PCT Publication is Not Prior Art to the ‘523 Patent ...................... 13
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 21
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page ii of 26
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Patent Owner Venkat Konda (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) submits this Patent
`
`Owner’s Response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 in opposition to the petition for
`
`inter partes review (“IPR”) IPR2020-00261 filed by Flex Logix Technologies Inc.
`
`(“Flex Logix” or “Petitioner”) regarding claims 2-7, and 11 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523 (Ex. 1001, the “‘523 Patent”) on December
`
`16, 2019 Paper 1 (“Petition”). Patent Owner previously filed a Preliminary
`
`Response to the Petition on May 6, 2020 after the due date was extended by the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) due to the COVID-19 Pandemic in
`
`response to PO’s request. On August 3, 2020, the Board instituted this IPR1.
`
`In response to the Decision Granting Institution of IPR entered August 3,
`
`2020 (Paper 22) and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), on August 10, 2020 Patent
`
`Owner submitted a Request for Rehearing and Exhibits 2025-2027 for the Board to
`
`reconsider its decision granting institution of the IPR. On September 16, 2020, the
`
`Board denied Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing and ordered Patent Owner to
`
`
`1 In addition to this IPR, the Board instituted another IPR2020-00260 based
`
`on a petition concurrently filed by the same Petitioner on the ‘523 Patent. Patent
`
`Owner indicates to the Board that the same Patent Owner’s Response is submitted
`
`in both proceedings, i.e. IPR2020-00260 and IPR2020-00261.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`either withdraw or request the Board to consider Exhibits 2025-2027 in Patent
`
`Owner Responses.
`
`On September 23, 2020, Patent Owner sent an email to the Board stating that
`
`Patent Owner intended to file Patent Owner’s Response relying on Exhibits 2025-
`
`2027, as well as a Contingent Motion to Amend, and requesting the Board for the
`
`mandatory conference call. In response, the Board issued an order stating: “Based
`
`on the information provided by Patent Owner, we determine that a conference call
`
`is not necessary, and the conference requirement is deemed satisfied.” (Paper 33).
`
`Furthermore in an email response, the Board confirmed that Patent Owner satisfied
`
`the Board’s order to advise that Patent Owner intended to rely on Exhibits 2025–
`
`2027 in connection with Patent Owner’s Responses.
`
`This Patent Owner’s Response is supported by the Declaration of Professor
`
`Vipin Chaudhary, Ph.D., Endowed Kranzusch Professor and Inaugural Chair,
`
`Department of Computer and Data Sciences, Case School of Engineering, Case
`
`Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (“Dr. Chaudhary”) (Exhibit 2025)
`
`and Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Chaudhary (Exhibit 2026)2. Dr. Chaudhary’s
`
`
`2 Patent Owner submitted Exhibits 2025-2027 in support of PO’s Request for
`
`Rehearing. In the Board decision of denial of PO’s Request for Rehearing, the
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`declaration establishes that the Challenged Claims in the ‘523 Patent are entitled to
`
`the benefit of the May 25, 2007 filing date of the ‘394 Provisional application.
`
`Accordingly, since the ‘523 Patent is entitled to the priority date of May 25, 2007,
`
`the publication of Konda ‘756 PCT on September 12, 2008, i.e. more than 15
`
`months after May 25, 2007 is irrelevant. For this reason alone, the Grounds 1 and 2
`
`in the Petition are not valid.
`
`Furthermore, the ‘394 Provisional application incorporated by reference in
`
`the Konda ‘756 PCT was not open to the public for inspection on September 12,
`
`2008 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(c) without a
`
`power to inspect granted by Patent Owner. Therefore, the Konda ‘756 PCT does
`
`not qualify as prior art to the ‘523 Patent. Also, for this reason alone, the instituted
`
`grounds 1 and 2 in the Petition are not valid. Therefore, Patent Owner requests that
`
`the Board deny Grounds 1 and 2 in the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`Board ordered that “Patent Owner shall advise the Board whether it intends to rely
`
`on Exhibits 2025–2027 in connection with its Patent Owner Responses.” Patent
`
`Owner satisfied this requirement that he intends to rely on Exhibits 2025–2027 in
`
`connection with its Patent Owner Responses, as approved by the Board’s email
`
`(Exhibit 2028).
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`The ‘523 Patent along with several other families of patents and patent
`
`applications incorporated by reference in their entirety in the ‘523 Patent disclose
`
`layouts for integrated circuits including Field Programmable Gate Arrays
`
`(“FPGAs”) comprising 2D-Mesh-like 2D layouts for multi-stage networks such as
`
`Benes Networks, Butterfly Fat Tree networks and various other multi-stage
`
`networks with isomorphic transformations, having 2D-layouts as simple as those of
`
`2D-Mesh networks so that all the wires are horizontal or vertical. This layout is
`
`based on alternate vertical and horizontal wires and replicability of the partial
`
`multi-stage network corresponding to each computational block of an FPGA
`
`regardless of the size of the FPGA.
`
`A. The ‘523 Patent
`
`Petitioner sought inter partes review of claims 2-7, and 11 of the ‘523
`
`Patent. The ‘523 Patent (Ex. 1001) issued from patent application No. 12/601,275
`
`(the “‘275 application”) (Ex. 1004) filed on November 22, 2009. (The ‘523 Patent
`
`has only one independent claim, i.e. Claim 1.) The ‘523 Patent is a national stage
`
`application of international application PCT Application No. PCT/US2008/064605
`
`(the “‘605 PCT application”) (Ex. 1007), filed May 22, 2008 which in turn is a
`
`continuation-in-part and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`
`Serial No. 60/940,394, filed May 25, 2007 (the “‘394 provisional application”)
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(Ex. 1026). No new subject matter was added to the specification of the ‘275
`
`application which issued as the ‘523 Patent. Thus, the effective filing date of the
`
`‘523 Patent is the earliest application for which priority was claimed, namely, May
`
`25, 2007.
`
`III. PETITIONER’S EXPERT WITNESS DR. BAKER IS NOT
`QUALIFIED IN THE PERTINENT ART AND DR. BAKER’S
`DECLARATION CARRIES NO WEIGHT
`
`In Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argued, based on
`
`support in Patent Owner Venkat Konda’s Declaration under the penalty of perjury
`
`(Exhibit 2001), that Dr. Baker’s Declaration in support of the Petition presented a
`
`flawed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (Paper 8 at 6 – 15).
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response pointed out that
`
`Petitioner defined “networks” as a relevant field for a POSITA, whereas Dr. Baker
`
`in his declaration stated his expertise is in “memory devices” (Paper 8 at 6).
`
`Therefore, Dr. Baker does not qualify as a POSITA, and his declaration is
`
`incompetent and should be accorded no weight.
`
`In its opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Baker’s testimony
`
`in PGR proceedings with respect to a related patent (Exhibit 2018), Petitioner
`
`further misrepresented Dr. Baker’s qualifications in the “pertinent art” (Exhibit
`
`2021 at 6-8). In Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Motion to Exclude Dr. Baker’s testimony, Patent Owner outlined the
`
`misrepresentations in Dr. Baker’s Declaration in those PGR Proceedings (Exhibit
`
`2022 at 4-5).
`
`On August 10, 2020, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude Dr. Baker’s
`
`testimony in the present IPR in view of the misrepresentations in Dr. Baker’s
`
`Declaration in support of the Petition in this case (Paper 25). Notably, Petitioner
`
`did not, and evidently cannot, redeem itself as it did not submit supplemental
`
`evidence pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) by the due date of August 24, 2020.
`
`Patent Owner submits that “interconnection networks” is the relevant field
`
`as to the ‘523 Patent and not memory devices. Dr. Baker represented that he has
`
`expertise in “networks” in his declaration (Exhibit 1002). Importantly, however,
`
`Dr. Baker has no qualifications in the “pertinent field” since he has no expertise in
`
`interconnection networks (Paper 25). Moreover, Patent Owner respectfully submits
`
`that there is no such field as “integrated networks” as stated in the Board’s
`
`Decision (Paper 22 at 7). To the contrary, “integrated circuits” and
`
`“interconnection networks” are the relevant fields. This Patent Owner’s Response
`
`is supported by Dr. Chaudhary’s Declaration (Exhibit 2025) which establishes that
`
`“integrated networks” is not a relevant field, whereas “integrated circuits”
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`comprising “interconnection networks” is the “pertinent art” and, in fact, there is
`
`no such field as “integrated networks”.
`
`In summary, Petitioner filed its Petition with the support of
`
`misrepresentations and errors in Dr. Baker’s testimony under the penalty of
`
`perjury, with disregard of the following:
`
`a. Dr. Baker ignored the straightforward fact that the USPTO Examiner
`
`allowed Claim 1 as amended after the first Office Action in patent
`
`application No. 12/601,275, which issued as the ‘523 patent, on May 8,
`
`2012, particularly with respect to “said routing network comprising a
`
`plurality of stages y, in each said sub-integrated circuit block, starting
`
`from the lowest stage of 1 to the highest stage of y, where y≧1”.
`
`b. Dr. Baker ignored the straightforward fact that: “A POSITA would
`
`understand that the first stage of a butterfly fat tree network has no
`
`preceding stage, and so no backward connecting links are connected from
`
`the first stage. A POSITA would also understand that the last stage of a
`
`butterfly fat tree network has no succeeding stage, and so no forward
`
`connecting links are connected from the last stage. Therefore, a
`
`POSITA would understand that when there is one stage in a butterfly fat
`
`tree network as illustrated in FIG. 2A1-3 of the priority applications, it is
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`the first stage as well as the last stage. Furthermore, the one stage has
`
`neither a preceding stage nor a succeeding stage, and so no forward
`
`connecting links are connected from the stage and no backward
`
`connecting links are connected from the stage. Such an understanding
`
`for a POSITA is straight forward. Accordingly no experimentation is
`
`needed to understand, let alone undue experimentation. (Exhibit 2025 at
`
`¶¶35-37)”.
`
`c. As a consequence, Dr. Baker ignored the straightforward fact that “a
`
`POSITA reviewing the ‘605 PCT and the ‘394 Provisional would
`
`have understood that the named inventor was in possession of the
`
`subject matter recited in claim 1, particularly with respect to “said
`
`routing network comprising a plurality of stages y, in each said sub-
`
`integrated circuit block, starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the highest
`
`stage of y, where y≧1” and that the ‘523 patent is entitled to the benefit
`
`of the May 25, 2007 filing date of the ‘394 Provisional (Exhibit 2025 at
`
`¶¶38-39).”
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner submits that Dr. Baker does not qualify as an
`
`expert in the pertinent art and his declaration carries no weight.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IV. U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT APPLICATION SERIAL NO.
`60/940,394 (THE “ ‘394 PROVISIONAL APPLICATION”) WHICH
`WAS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN PCT PUBLICATION
`NO. WO 2018/109756 A1 (THE “KONDA ‘756 PCT”) IS NOT PRIOR
`ART TO THE ‘523 PATENT WHICH CLAIMS PRIORTITY TO THE
`‘394 PROVISIONAL APPLICATION
`
`
`
`A. The Effective Filing date of the ‘523 Patent is indeed its earliest claimed
`priority date, i.e. May 25, 2007
`
`Petitioner alleges that the amendment made after the first Office Action in
`
`the ‘275 application on May 8, 2012 (Ex. 1004, 39) 1) lacks written description
`
`support in priority applications (Paper 1, 6) and broadened with the respective the
`
`number of stages (Paper 1, 8) and 2) lacks enablement in priority applications
`
`(Paper 1, 17). Petitioner and Dr. Bakers’ arguments are flawed.
`
`Patent Owner submits that the named inventor was in possession of the
`
`subject matter recited in claim 1 of the ‘523 Patent, particularly with respect
`
`to “said routing network comprising a plurality of stages y, in each said sub-
`
`integrated circuit block, starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the highest stage of
`
`y, where y≧1”, for the following reasons which are also supported by Dr.
`
`Chaudhary’s Declaration (Exhibit 2025 at ¶¶30-39).
`
`Since the ’523 Patent discloses VLSI layouts of fully connected generalized
`
`multi-stage networks, including a butterfly fat tree network, for broadcast, unicast,
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`and multicast connections using only horizontal and vertical links, a POSITA
`
`would have had an understanding at the time of the invention claimed in the ‘523
`
`Patent of a fully connected butterfly fat tree network, as disclosed in the ‘523
`
`Patent, having
`
` stages in a row (or block), where N is the number of inputs
`
`or outputs. Accordingly, for example, there will be one stage when there is one
`
`block as illustrated in FIG. 2A1-3 of the priority applications. (Ex. 1007, 7:10-21;
`
`Ex. 1026, 4:4-15.) A POSITA would have understood that when there is one
`
`block there are no forward connecting links and no backward connecting links as
`
`illustrated in FIG. 2A3 of the ‘523 Patent, which is the smallest butterfly fat tree
`
`network (Exhibit 2025 at ¶31).
`
`Since Claim 1 first recites stages and switches and subsequently recites
`
`forward connecting links and backward connecting links, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that a plurality of forward connecting links are connected from a stage
`
`when there is an immediate succeeding stage and a plurality of backward
`
`connecting links are connected from a stage when there is an immediate preceding
`
`stage. A POSITA would also have understood that a plurality of forward
`
`connecting links are not connected from a stage when there is no immediate
`
`succeeding stage, and a plurality of backward connecting links are not connected
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`log
`
`N2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`from a stage when there is no immediate preceding stage. (Exhibit 2025 at ¶¶32-
`
`34.)
`
`A POSITA would understand that the first stage of a butterfly fat tree
`
`network has no preceding stage, and so no backward connecting links are
`
`connected from the first stage. A POSITA would also understand that the last
`
`stage of a butterfly fat tree network has no succeeding stage, and so no forward
`
`connecting links are connected from the last stage. Therefore, a POSITA would
`
`understand that when there is one stage in a butterfly fat tree network as illustrated
`
`in FIG. 2A1-3 of the priority applications, it is the first stage as well as the last
`
`stage. Furthermore, the one stage has neither a preceding stage nor a succeeding
`
`stage, and so no forward connecting links are connected from the stage and no
`
`backward connecting links are connected from the stage. Such an understanding
`
`for a POSITA is straightforward. Accordingly, no experimentation is needed to
`
`understand, let alone undue experimentation. (Exhibit 2025 at ¶¶35-37.)
`
`Therefore, a POSITA reviewing the ‘605 PCT and the ‘394 Provisional
`
`Application would have understood that the named inventor was in
`
`possession of the subject matter recited in Claim 1, particularly with respect to
`
`“said routing network comprising a plurality of stages y, in each said sub-
`
`integrated circuit block, starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the highest stage of
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`y, where y≧1” and that the ‘523 Patent is entitled to the benefit of the May 25,
`
`2007 filing date of the ‘394 Provisional Application (Exhibit 2025 at ¶¶38-39).
`
`Secondly, in accord with Dr. Chaudhary’s declaration, the USPTO
`
`Examiner, after the interview between the Examiner and Venkat Konda on April
`
`30, 2012 in the ‘275 application filed on May 8, 2012 (Ex. 1004, 39), allowed
`
`Claim 1 particularly including “said routing network comprising a plurality of
`
`stages y, in each said sub-integrated circuit block, starting from the lowest stage of
`
`1 to the highest stage of y, where y≧1.” (Ex. 1004 at 57). Thus, the Examiner
`
`clearly examined and allowed Claim 1 with the limitation y=1.
`
`Also, since Claim1 is the only independent claim in the ‘523 Patent, and
`
`because Petitioner’s arguments as to Claim 1are flawed as described in the
`
`foregoing discussion, Petitioner’s arguments as to all dependent claims which
`
`depend from Claim 1, namely, the remaining Challenged Claims 15-18, 20-22, 32,
`
`and 47, are also flawed.
`
`In summary, as supported by Dr. Chaudhary’s Declaration (Exhibit 2025),
`
`Petitioner’s arguments that the amendment in reply to the first Office Action in the
`
`‘275 application filed on May 8, 2012 (Ex. 1004, 39) 1) lacks written description
`
`support in claimed priority applications (Paper 1, 6) and broadened the number of
`
`stages (Paper 1, 8) and 2) lack enablement in the claimed priority applications
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(Paper 1, 17) are absolutely flawed. Accordingly, the effective filing date of the
`
`‘523 Patent is the filing date of earliest priority application, which is the ‘394
`
`Provisional Application, which is May 25, 2007.
`
`Therefore, the Konda ‘756 PCT which was published on September 12,
`
`2008, i.e. more than 15 months after May 25, 2007, is not prior art to the ‘523
`
`patent. For this reason alone, the instituted Grounds 1 and 2 are not valid and do
`
`not render unpatentable claims 1-48 of the ’523 patent. Accordingly, Patent Owner
`
`requests that the Board deny Grounds 1 and 2 in the Petition.
`
`B. The Konda ‘756 PCT Publication is Not Prior Art to the ‘523 Patent
`
`Petitioner incorrectly contends that the Konda ‘756 PCT is prior art with
`
`respect to the ‘523 Patent. To the contrary, the Konda ‘756 PCT is not prior art
`
`with respect to the ‘523 Patent. Although the Konda ‘756 PCT incorporated by
`
`reference the ‘394 Provisional Application and was published on September 12,
`
`2008 as Petitioner points out in its Petition, the ‘394 Provisional Application did
`
`not become available to the public as of the publication date as Petitioner contends.
`
`The pertinent Patent Rules effective at the time are as follows:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) reads, in pertinent part:
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(vi) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications)
`
`that are incorporated by reference or otherwise identified. A copy of the
`
`application as originally filed of an unpublished pending application may be
`
`provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee
`
`(§ 1.19(b)), if the application is incorporated by reference or otherwise identified in
`
`a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application
`
`publication, or an international patent application publication that was published in
`
`accordance with PCT Article 21(2). The Office will not provide access to the
`
`paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i)
`
`of this section. (Emphasis added.)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.14(c) reads:
`
`(c) Power to inspect a pending or abandoned application. Access to an
`
`application may be provided to any person if the application file is available,
`
`and the application contains written authority (e.g., a power to inspect)
`
`granting access to such person. The written authority must be signed by:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) An applicant;
`
`(2) An attorney or agent of record;
`
`Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`(3) An authorized official of an assignee of record (made of record
`
`pursuant to § 3.71 of this chapter); or
`
`
`
`(4) A registered attorney or agent named in the papers
`
`accompanying the application papers filed under § 1.53 or the national stage
`
`documents filed under § 1.495, if an executed oath or declaration pursuant to
`
`§ 1.63 or § 1.497 has not been filed. (Emphasis added.)
`
`Additionally, 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(i) reads:
`
`(i) Access or copies in other circumstances. The Office, either sua sponte or
`
`on petition, may also provide access or copies of all or part of an application if
`
`necessary to carry out an Act of Congress or if warranted by other special
`
`circumstances. Any petition by a member of the public seeking access to, or copies
`
`of, all or part of any pending or abandoned application preserved in confidence
`
`pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, or any related papers, must include:
`
`(1) The fee set forth in § 1.17(g); and
`
`(2) A showing that access to the application is necessary to carry out an
`
`Act of Congress or that special circumstances exist which warrant Petitioner
`
`being granted access to all or part of the application. (Emphasis added.)
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Thus, in accordance with the applicable Patent Rules, the ‘394 Provisional
`
`Application was not available to the public under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) and
`
`(c) for any period after the Konda ‘756 PCT was published on September 12, 2008,
`
`because the ‘394 Provisional Application was pending, and Patent Owner never
`
`gave permission to anyone and no access was granted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(i).
`
`Petitioner’s argument is fatally flawed: the ‘394 Provisional Application
`
`was not in fact available to the public as of September 12, 2008 as Petitioner
`
`contends. Petitioner failed to consider the last sentence of the Patent Rule which
`
`refers to 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(c):
`
`(c) Power to inspect a pending or abandoned application. Access to an
`
`application may be provided to any person if the application file is available,
`
`and the application contains written authority (e.g., a power to inspect)
`
`granting access to such person.
`
`Patent Owner never gave such permission to anyone. Therefore, the Konda
`
`‘756 PCT is not prior art to the ‘523 Patent. The ‘394 Provisional Application was
`
`not referenced in the USPTO Public PAIR Database until the ‘275 application was
`
`published on February 17, 2011.
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`In addition, 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(iii) (Published pending applications), 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(v) (Unpublished pending applications (including provisional
`
`applications) whose benefit is claimed), and 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi)
`
`(Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) that are
`
`incorporated by reference or otherwise identified) all apply to pending
`
`applications and all of these Patent Rules contain as the last line the following
`
`language:
`
`The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending
`
`application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`In contrast, 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(iv) (Unpublished abandoned applications
`
`(including provisional applications) that are identified or relied upon.) does not
`
`have such a clause. Accordingly, only abandoned applications which are
`
`identified can be accessed by the public without written permission of the
`
`applicant. However, the ‘394 Provisional Application was pending, i.e., not
`
`abandoned. Therefore, the ‘394 Provisional Application is not prior art to the ‘523
`
`Patent. In fact, the ‘523 Patent claims priority to the then pending ‘394 Provisional
`
`Application as identified by the Office on the face of the issued ‘523 Patent.
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Since Patent Owner never gave permission to anyone to inspect the ‘394
`
`Provisional Application and since the ‘394 Provisional Application was not
`
`referenced in the USPTO Public PAIR Database until the ‘275 application was
`
`published on February 17, 2011, the ‘394 Provisional Application is not prior art to
`
`the ‘523 Patent.
`
`Furthermore, on December 26, 2018, Patent Owner visited the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) File Information Unit, Suite 3A20, 2800,
`
`South Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22206 (“FIU”). The officials at the FIU
`
`confirmed that without a power to inspect under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(c), the public
`
`cannot obtain access a pending application under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1). The
`
`officials at the FIU provided the following information:
`
`1) Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(iv), (Unpublished abandoned applications
`
`(including provisional applications) that are identified or relied upon.),
`
`abandoned applications can be accessed by the public without written
`
`permission of the applicant using USPTO form PTO/SB/68 (Exhibit
`
`20273).
`
`
`3 Exhibit 2027 contains a copy of PTO/SB/68 available at the time
`
`(December 26, 2018) and also a copy available as of the filing of this Response.
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`2) Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(iii) (Published pending applications), 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(v) (Unpublished pending applications (including
`
`provisional applications) whose benefit is claimed), and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`1.14(a)(1)(vi) (Unpublished pending applications (including provisional
`
`applications) that are incorporated by reference or otherwise identified)
`
`all apply to pending applications4 and are available to the public only
`
`with a power to inspect, specifically:
`
`a) Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(iii) Published pending applications: a
`
`copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or
`
`a specific document in the file of a pending published application may
`
`be provided if the applicant grants a power to inspect.
`
`b) Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(v) (Unpublished pending applications
`
`(including provisional applications) whose benefit is claimed): A copy
`
`of file contents of an unpublished pending application, the
`
`application-as-filed or a specific document in the file of the pending
`
`application may be provided if the applicant grants a power to
`
`inspect.
`
`
`4 For all these three scenarios, the USPTO does not provide a form like
`PTO/SB/68.
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`c) Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) (Unpublished pending applications
`
`(including provisional applications) that are incorporated by
`
`reference or otherwise identified): a copy of the application as
`
`originally filed of an unpublished pending application may be
`
`provided if the applicant grants a power to inspect. (Only this
`
`section is applicable to the current IPR).
`
`3) Furthermore, the middle box of the page 1 form PTO/SB/68 (Exhibit
`
`2027) also mentions the same language in 2), above, about pending
`
`applications that are identified and also clearly states: “A member of the
`
`public, acting without a power to inspect, cannot order applications
`
`maintained in the IFW system through the FIU.” (Emphasis added.)
`
`In summary, Patent Owner confirmed with the FIU that access to the pending
`
`‘394 Provisional Application was not available to the public under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`1.14(a)(1)(vi) and (c) for any period after the Konda ‘756 PCT was published on
`
`September 12, 2008, because Patent Owner never gave permission to anyone, and
`
`no access was granted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(i). Accordingly, Patent Owner
`
`respectfully submits that the disclosure of the ’394 Provisional Application was
`
`not prior art as of September 12, 2008 when the Konda ’756 PCT was published.
`
`Therefore, the Konda ‘756 PCT does not qualify as prior art to the ‘523 Patent.
`
`For this reason alone, the instituted Grounds 1 and 2 are not valid and do not
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`render unpatentable claims 1-48 of the ‘523 Patent. Accordingly, Patent Owner
`
`requests that the Board deny Grounds 1 and 2 in the Petition.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Since Petitioner submitted that for purposes of this proceeding, no term requires
`
`construction, Patent Owner reserves his rights at this time to contest any claim
`
`construction position that may be asserted by Petitioner at a later time.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`Dr. Chaudhary’s Declaration establishes that the Challenged Claims in the
`
`‘523 Patent are entitled to the benefit of the May 25, 2007 filing date of the ‘394
`
`Provisional Application. The Konda ‘756 PCT published on September 12, 2008
`
`which incorporated by reference the pending ‘394 Provisional Application is not
`
`prior art to the ‘523 Patent. Accordingly, Patent Owner submits that the instituted
`
`Grounds 1 and 2 are not valid and do not render unpatentable Claims 1-48 of the
`
`’523 Patent. Therefore, Patent Owner requests confirmation of the patentability of
`
`the claims.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 26, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`6278 Grand Oak Way
`San Jose, CA 95135
`
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.24, Patent Owner certifies that Patent Owner’s
`
`Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, filed October 26, 2020, contains 21 pages
`
`(excluding Appendix) and 4,623 words, per computer generated information.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venk