`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Ghavimi, Darlene F.
`Director_PTABDecision_Review
`Jennifer Bailey; Bacchus, Raquel A.; Summerfield, George; Adam P. Seitz; Heemstra, Jonah B.
`Patent Owner Request for Director Review, IPR2022-00601
`Friday, October 27, 2023 5:41:34 PM
`Patent Owner"s Request for Director Review.pdf
`
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before
`responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments.
`
`To Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Katherine K.
`Vidal:
`
`Patent Owner in the afore-referenced inter partes review proceeding
`respectfully requests that the Final Written Decision in that proceeding receive
`Director Review pursuant to the interim rules governing such review. The
`Request has been filed and assigned Paper No. 32. A copy is attached.
`
`Ranked in order of importance are the following issues for which review is
`sought:
`
`1) After it adopted for institution purposes a construction of the limitation
`“accessibility attribute” previously urged by the Petitioner before the
`district court, the Panel changed that construction materially to capture
`the prior art without providing notice to the Patent Owner sufficient for
`due process under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), thereby
`prejudicing Patent Owner. See, e.g, Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., 6 F.4th
`1256, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2021). This is both an abuse of discretion and an
`important issue of law and policy.
`
`2) The proposed modification of the Mathiassen reference with the non-
`biometric teachings of Anderson does not result in a series of received
`biometric signal entries that are mapped into an instruction used to
`populate the database as part of an enrollment process, as required by
`the challenged claims. This was an abuse of discretion and an erroneous
`finding of material fact.
`
`IPR2022-00601
`Exhibit 3100
`
`
`
`3) The Panel misapplied the law regarding the motivation to combine
`references in recognizing the combination of the Mathiassen reference,
`on the one hand, and the McKeeth and Anderson references, on the
`other hand, as valid combinations. This was an abuse of discretion and a
`misapplication of the law.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Darlene Ghavimi
`
`
`Darlene F. Ghavimi
`Partner
`K&L Gates LLP
`2801 Via Fortuna
`Suite 650
`Austin, Texas 78746-7568
`Phone: 512-482-6919
`Fax: 512-482-6859
`darlene.ghavimi@klgates.com
`www.klgates.com
`
`
`
`This electronic message contains information from the law firm of K&L Gates LLP. The contents may be privileged and
`confidential and are intended for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that
`any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
`error, please contact me at Darlene.Ghavimi@klgates.com.-5
`
`