`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879
`
`____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC’S
`REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 and the Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper 20),
`
`Neonode Smartphone LLC (“Patent Owner”) respectfully requests oral argument,
`
`as currently scheduled for October 17, 2022. Patent Owner respectfully requests
`
`that said oral argument be held at the PTAB’s regional office in San Jose,
`
`California. Paper 20, 6. If the Board determines that a hearing in San Jose,
`
`California is not feasible, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the hearing be
`
`conducted remotely via video conference.
`
`Reservation of Time: Patent Owner requests an opportunity to reserve sur-
`
`rebuttal time to respond to rebuttal arguments by Petitioner, and an opportunity to
`
`provide a closing statement. Compare, e.g., Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.
`
`et al. v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2015-01046/01047, Paper 60, 2 (PTAB Jun. 2, 2016)
`
`(“Both parties may reserve some of their argument time for rebuttal, and Patent
`
`Owner will be afforded an opportunity to provide a closing statement along with
`
`any rebuttal.”). Patent Owner requests sixty minutes of total time for each side.
`
`Issues for Argument: Without waiving any issue not specifically identified,
`
`Patent Owner specifies at least the following issues it may discuss at argument:
`
`• Issues related to the instituted grounds (i.e., that claims 1-5, 13, 15-17 are
`
`not obvious over Robertson in view of Maddalozzo, that claims 6, 7, 9 are
`
`not obvious over Robertson in view of Maddalozzo and Vayda, that claim 12
`
`is not obvious over Robertson in view of Maddalozzo and Bedford-Roberts,
`
`
`
`that claims 1, 4-6, 13, 15-17 are not obvious over Tarpenning, that claims 2,
`
`3, 7, 9 are not obvious over Tarpenning in view of Vayda, and that claim 12
`
`is not obvious over Tarpenning in view of Bedford-Roberts), including, for
`
`example, claim construction, anticipation, obviousness, motivation to
`
`combine, and reasonable expectation of success;
`
`• The timeliness of the arguments raised by Petitioner in the proceedings;
`
`• Any motion to exclude filed by the parties;
`
`• Any other relevant issues raised in papers filed in this proceeding, including
`
`issues raised in papers yet to be filed; and
`
`• Any other issues that the Board deems necessary for issuing a Final Written
`
`Decision, including any questions, rebuttals, or arguments that may arise
`
`during the oral argument.
`
`The Board’s advance guidance is respectfully solicited as to any questions
`
`the Board specifically wishes to be addressed.
`
`Equipment: Patent Owner requests the ability to use a computer, projector,
`
`and screen to display possible demonstratives and exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Kenneth J. Weatherwax /
`
`
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax, Reg. No. 54,528
`Nathan Lowenstein, Pro hac vice
`Parham Hendifar, Reg. No. 71,470
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`Date: August 31, 2022
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the following documents were served
`
`by electronic service, by agreement between the parties, on the date below:
`
`PATENT OWNER NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC’S
`REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`The names and address of the parties being served are as follows:
`
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`yi.yu@finnegan.com
`Google-Neonode-IPR@finnegan.com
`
`
`Erika Harmon Arner
`Kevin D. Rodkey
`Yi Yu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Vinson Lin/
`
`
`
`Date: August 31, 2022
`
`
`
`