`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ParkerVision, Inc.
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01265
`Patent No. 7,110,444
`____________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`Pursuant to the Board’s January 28, 2021 Scheduling Order (Paper No. 11),
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests oral argument, as currently scheduled on November
`
`1, 2021. Petitioner respectfully requests that the oral argument take place remotely
`
`pursuant to the USPTO update on in-person meetings of March 13, 2020
`
`(https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-update-person-meetings).
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests the ability to present possible demonstratives and
`
`exhibits.
`
`The parties met and conferred but did not agree on the amount of argument
`
`time to request. Because Petitioner does not believe this proceeding presents any
`
`special circumstances warranting more time than ordinarily required, Petitioner
`
`requests sixty (60) minutes of argument time for each side, consistent with the
`
`Board’s ordinary practice. See PTAB Trial Practice Guide (November 2019) at
`
`81-82 (“[t]he Board expects to ordinarily provide for an hour of argument per side
`
`for a single proceeding”). Patent Owner requests seventy-five (75) minutes of
`
`argument time for each side.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70, Petitioner specifies the following issues to be
`
`argued:
`
`
`
`
` Issues related to the Board’s Decision on Institution and the grounds
`
`instituted in the Decision.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
` Interpretation of the claim terms “frequency down-conversion
`
`module,” “subtraction module,” “storage element,” and “switch.”
`
` Interpretation of an “energy transfer system” under Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction of “storage element”
`
` The patentability of challenged claims 1, 3, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 over Tayloe in view of TI Datasheet.
`
` The patentability of challenged claims 1, 3, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 over Tayloe in view of Kawada.
`
` The secondary considerations of non-obviousness alleged in Patent
`
`Owner’s Response.
`
` Patent Owner’s intent to disclaim claims 1 and 5.
`
` Petitioner’s arguments raised in the Petition and Petitioner’s Reply.
`
` Petitioner’s response to any arguments raised in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response and Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply.
`
` Petitioner’s response to any issues specified by Patent Owner in its
`
`request for oral argument.
`
` Petitioner’s response to any issues raised in briefing pursuant to the
`
`schedule.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Brian J. Lambson/
`Brian J. Lambson
`Registration No. 72,570
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that, on September 23, 2021, I caused a true and correct
`
`copy of the foregoing materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`
`to be served via email, as consented to by Patent Owner, to:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jason S. Charkow (jcharkow@daignaultiyer.com)
`Chandran B. Iyer (cbiyer@daignaultiyer.com)
`Stephanie R. Mandir (smandir@daignaultiyer.com)
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Brian J. Lambson/
`Brian J. Lambson
`Registration No. 72,570
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`