`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Jennifer Bailey
`Ghavimi, Darlene F.
`Director_PTABDecision_Review; Bacchus, Raquel A.; Summerfield, George; Adam P. Seitz; Heemstra, Jonah B.;
`Jennifer Bailey
`Re: Patent Owner Request for Director Review, IPR2022-00602
`Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:45:43 PM
`2023.10.04 IPR2022-00602 - Patent Owner 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 the Director:
`
`The undersigned is lead counsel for Petitioner, Apple Inc. in the referenced IPR. Petitioner
`requests leave to file a Reply (not to exceed five pages) to Patent Owner’s Request for
`Director Review. Petitioner requested Patent Owner’s position on this request, and Patent
`Owner’s counsel indicated it opposes the Request.
`
`Should the Director need further information, please let me know.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Jennifer C. Bailey
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`Jennifer Bailey (she/her)
`shareholder
`P 913.777.5600 | D 913.777.5641
`erise IP
`7015 College Blvd., Ste. 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`
`On Oct 4, 2023, at 6:16 PM, Ghavimi, Darlene F. <Darlene.Ghavimi@klgates.com> wrote:
`
`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.
`34. 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
`
`IPR2022-00602
`Ex. 3101
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`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
`
`
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
