IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`EQUIL IP HOLDINGS LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`THE ’745 PATENT ..................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Background........................................................................................ 2
`B.
`Summary ........................................................................................... 5
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) ................................... 8
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 9
`SAMANIEGO, THE PRIMARY REFERENCE IN FOUR OF SIX
`GROUNDS, IS NOT PRIOR ART TO THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS. ..................................................................................................... 9
`A.
`Patent Owner filed a petition to correct inventorship of the ’009
`patent, and as corrected the ’745 patent “share[s] at least one
`common inventor” with Samaniego’s application. ............................11
`The claims of the ’745 patent are supported by the ’904
`application and all intervening applications. .....................................13
`The other requirements of § 120 are also met. ...................................19
`C.
`Conclusion: Samaniego is not prior art. ............................................20
`D.
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`INSTITUTION. ......................................................................................... 20
`A. Applying Chevron and Deeper favors denying institution
`because four of the six Grounds rely on Samaniego, which is not
`prior art. ............................................................................................21
`Applying Advanced Bionics favors denying institution of
`Grounds 1-2 because the Examiner considered the teachings of
`Tso and Huang during prosecution. ...................................................24
`1.
`Part 1: Petitioner advances the same or substantially the
`same art that was previously presented to the Office. ............. 26
`Part 2: Petitioner fails to identify material error in the
`Office’s previous evaluation of the art and arguments............ 29
`
`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2.
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`V.
`
`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THE CLAIMS WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`OVER THE TSO-BASED COMBINATIONS (GROUNDS 1-2). ............. 32
`A. Overview of Tso ...............................................................................33
`B.
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Tso discloses Element [1.b]
`because it fails to show that Tso’s transcoding server receives,
`from Tso’s network client, a request indicating “first content
`generation operations.” .....................................................................35
`VI. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 41
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`Exhibit No. Description
`2001
`Declaration of Dr. Mark T. Jones in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Mark T. Jones
`
`Petition Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.324(a) to Correct Inventorship in a
`Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,381,110 to Barger et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,656,046 to Barger et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,964,009 to Samaniego et al.
`
`WO 98/43177 (International Publication of PCT/US98/05304) to
`Tso et al.
`
`Redline comparison of specifications of PCT/US98/05304 (Tso
`PCT) and U.S. Patent No. 6,421,733 (Tso)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,902,846 to Feret et al.
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, 22-677-RGA,
`Equil IP Holdings LLC v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
`
`2011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,483,851 to Neogi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board should deny institution of inter partes review of claims 1-7 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745 (“the ’745 patent”) because (1) Petitioner’s primary
`
`reference in four of the six asserted grounds is not prior art and (2) combined
`
`discretionary considerations under Sections 314(a) and 325(d) strongly favor
`
`denying institution. Instituting review when four of Petitioner’s six asserted
`
`grounds are facially deficient is a waste of the Board’s and the parties’ resources.
`
`Petitioner’s primary reference in four of its six grounds, Samaniego, is not
`
`prior art. Samaniego is the pre-issuance publication of an earlier application in the
`
`’745 patent’s priority chain. Petitioner’s argument that the ’745 patent is not
`
`entitled to the earlier priority date is premised on a lack of overlapping inventors.
`
`Patent Owner, however, has petitioned for correction of inventorship of the priority
`
`application, which eliminates Petitioner’s argument. Further, Patent Owner
`
`demonstrates herein that the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120, including that the
`
`priority applications provide the required § 112 support for the claims, are met.
`
`Under Section 314(a), the Board should apply its informative
`
`Chevron/Deeper decisions and deny institution because four of Petitioner’s six
`
`grounds are facially deficient, and Board precedent disfavors instituting review
`
`when the majority of the challenges fail to satisfy the threshold for institution.
`
`Section 325(d) and the precedential Advanced Bionics decision compound the case
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`for discretionary denial because the Office previously considered the primary
`
`reference, Tso, asserted in the only two remaining grounds. The Examiner also
`
`considered art with substantially the same teachings as the relevant teachings of
`
`Huang. The PCT Publication of Tso, which has the identical specification as Tso,
`
`was considered by the Examiner during prosecution. Petitioner does not address
`
`this PCT Publication in the Petition at all, let alone show material error in the
`
`Office’s prior consideration thereof, as required by Advance Bionics. Thus, the
`
`Board’s discretionary considerations strongly favor denial, and the Board should
`
`deny institution.
`
`On the merits, the Petition fails to meet the reasonable likelihood threshold
`
`required for institution. In particular, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Tso’s
`
`transcoding server 34 receives, from Tso’s network client 12, a “first request [that]
`
`contains information . . . indicating . . . first content generation operations,” as
`
`recited in Element [1.b]. The Petition’s deficiencies are not saved by Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s testimony, whose opinions for Element [1.b] largely repeat Petitioner’s
`
`conclusory arguments, and thus are not entitled to weight.
`
`II. THE ’745 PATENT
`A. Background
`The technology at issue in the ’745 patent traces its roots to the early 1990s
`
`when Sean Barger—an inventor on the ’745 patent—founded Equilibrium. Equil
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`IP is the successor-in-interest to Automated Media Processing Solutions, Inc. d/b/a
`
`Equilibrium, an industry pioneer and leader in developing patented automated
`
`media processing solutions to help its customers manage, modify, and efficiently
`
`deploy media-rich content such as images, video, and sound optimized for delivery
`
`over the Internet and customized for use on Internet-connected end-user devices
`
`such as desktop and laptop computers and mobile phones.
`
`With the growth of the Web in the late 1990s, Equilibrium set out to develop
`
`a new kind of Internet-based service that web developers could use to simplify the
`
`process of optimizing and maintaining rich media content automatically on
`
`websites. Equilibrium envisioned a system that would enable next-generation e-
`
`commerce and other applications. The ’745 patent is a result of that vision.
`
`The technology disclosed and claimed in the ’745 patent was released by
`
`Equilibrium in 2000 as the “MediaRich Server.” Since that time, Equilibrium has
`
`continuously offered MediaRich Server services in the business-to-business
`
`market. MediaRich solves technical problems associated with, for example,
`
`delivering rich media content over the Internet that arise from the fact that each
`
`type of user device has different parameters that can be used to optimize media for
`
`viewing.
`
`Equilibrium has partnered with Internet companies to enhance their services
`
`with Equilibrium technology—among them Akamai. In fact, Akamai stated on its
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`website that Equilibrium was a “recognized leader in automated imaging
`
`solutions” and that “Equilibrium’s MediaRich is server-based software that
`
`automates image production and enables dynamic delivery of images anywhere.
`
`MediaRich brings true state-of-the-art automation tools to the Enterprise, allowing
`
`companies to create more engaging customer experiences while reducing
`
`production time and costs.” EX2010, First Amended Complaint, 11-12 (citing
`
`December 9, 2004 Internet Archive captures, shown below) (emphasis added
`
`throughout).
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`
`
`Over the years, Akamai resisted Equilibrium’s offers to establish a more
`
`extensive partnership or more complete integration of Equilibrium’s technology
`
`into Akamai’s edge network. Instead, Akamai released an image management
`
`service that it called “Image Manager” (today called “Image and Video Manager”
`
`or “IVM”) at issue in the related district court action. See generally EX2010.
`
`Summary
`B.
`The ’745 patent describes an automatic graphics delivery method that
`
`“automat[es] the production of media through content generation procedures
`
`controlled by proprietary tags placed within URLs embedded within Web
`
`documents.” EX1001, 7:6-11; EX2001, ¶¶17-19. The method “automatically
`
`processes the URL encoded tags and automatically produces derivative media for
`
`the web site from the original media.” EX1001, 7:13-16.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`By way of example, Figure 22, reproduced below, is “a flowchart of the
`
`content generation procedure according to a preferred embodiment” of the ’745
`
`patent. EX1001, 20:3-4. A URL with proprietary tags 2200 is parsed at step 2210
`
`to “determine the content generation procedure to execute, any dynamic
`
`modifications to the media, user profile characteristics, and proxy-cache control.”
`
`Id., 20:5-8. At step 2220, a unique final lookup key is generated for the media. Id.,
`
`20:8-9. The media cache is checked at step 2230. Id., 20:9-10. If the indicated
`
`media exists, the media is delivered to the browser at step 2295. Id., 20:10-12.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`EX1001, FIG. 22.
`
`
`
`If the media does not exist, dynamic media system tags are separated from
`
`content generation control tags at step 2240. Id., 20:12-13. A unique intermediate
`
`image lookup key is generated at step 2250. Id., 20:14. The cache is checked for
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`this intermediate media at step 2251.1 Id., 20:15-16. If the intermediate media is
`
`found, it is retrieved at step 2260 and used directly for dynamic processing, if
`
`required. Id., 20:16-17, Fig. 22. If the intermediate media is not found, content is
`
`generated at step 22622 and cached at step 2263. Id., 20:17-18. The intermediate
`
`media is evaluated for dynamic processing at step 2270. Id., 20:18-19. If dynamic
`
`processing is required, the dynamic content generator operates on the media at step
`
`2271. Id., 20:19-21. The image is then customized by the user profiling system at
`
`step 2280 for specified browser or client attributes. Id., 20:23-25. Any cache-
`
`control directives specified are attached to the response at step 2290. Id., 20:25-27.
`
`The media is delivered to the browser at step 2295. Id., 20:27.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)
`C.
`Patent Owner applies Akamai’s definition of a POSITA for purposes of this
`
`Preliminary Response.
`
`
`1 The specification includes a typographical error. As seen in Figure 22, the
`
`cache checking step is 2251.
`
`2 There is a typographical error in Figure 22, where the “Content Generation”
`
`block is labeled as 2260 rather than 2262.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`D. Claim Construction
`For purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner construes the
`
`claims according to their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification,
`
`consistent with the standard established in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“Phillips”). See Pet., 10-11 (proposing the same).
`
`III. SAMANIEGO, THE PRIMARY REFERENCE IN FOUR OF SIX
`GROUNDS, IS NOT PRIOR ART TO THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS.
`The ’745 patent is entitled to priority to at least August 14, 2001—the filing
`
`date of the earlier-filed 09/929,904 application (“the ’904 application,” EX1035) in
`
`the priority chain. Petitioner’s primary reference in four of its six grounds,
`
`Samaniego—the pre-issuance publication of the ’904 application—is, therefore,
`
`not prior art.
`
`Under § 120, a patent is entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed
`
`application if (1) the written description of the earlier filed application discloses
`
`the invention claimed in the later filed application sufficient to satisfy the
`
`requirements of § 112; (2) the applications have at least one common inventor;
`
`(3) the later application is filed before the issuance or abandonment of the earlier
`
`filed application; and (4) the later application contains a reference to the earlier
`
`filed application. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Each of
`
`these requirements is met here.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`Indeed, regarding (1), Petitioner acknowledges that “Samaniego’s and the
`
`’745’s specifications are substantively identical,” Pet., 2, and admits there is
`
`written description support for the ’745 patent claims: “PO cannot dispute
`
`Samaniego’s disclosure of the Claims because the ’745’s and Samaniego’s
`
`specifications are substantively identical.” Id., 49. The Declaration of Dr. Mark T.
`
`Jones confirms that all elements of claims 1-7 of the ’745 patent are supported by
`
`the ’904 application, and all intervening applications, such that the requirements of
`
`§ 112 are satisfied. EX2001, Jones Declaration. And as shown in Section III.C
`
`below, filing chain and reference requirements of (3) and (4) are also met.
`
`Petitioner’s only argument relates to (2)—that “[t]he ’745 cannot claim priority to
`
`the earlier-filed purported priority applications,” including the ’904 application,
`
`because “none of the ’745’s named inventors is ‘name[d] … in the previously filed
`
`application[s].’” Pet., 5 (citing 35 U.S.C. §120). But that argument is moot because
`
`Patent Owner filed a petition to correct the inventorship of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,964,009 (“the ’009 patent,” which issued from the ’904 application), adding Sean
`
`Barger.3 EX2003. Thus, Sean Barger is an inventor of the ’904 application, the
`
`
`3 Correction of inventorship under Rule 1.324 is “pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 256.”
`
`The Federal Circuit has recognized that inventorship corrections under § 256 are “a
`
`matter of formality.” Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 972 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`’745 patent, and each intervening application in the priority chain, satisfying (2).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument is eliminated.
`
`As explained below, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120, including that the
`
`priority applications provide the required § 112 support for the claims, are met.
`
`The challenged claims are, thus, entitled at least to the filing date of the ’904
`
`application, and Samaniego is not prior art.
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner filed a petition to correct inventorship of the ’009
`patent, and as corrected the ’745 patent “share[s] at least one
`common inventor” with Samaniego’s application.
`Petitioner’s contention that Samaniego is available as prior art is based on
`
`the assertion that “Samaniego shares no common inventors with the ’745 [patent].”
`
`Pet., 2, 5-6, 50-51. Patent Owner filed a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.324(a) to
`
`correct inventorship of the ’009 patent. EX2003. In particular, the petition and
`
`supporting documents, request a correction to include Sean Barger as an inventor
`
`of the ’009 patent. Id., 1-3. Every single inventor that was already named on the
`
`’009 patent executed a declaration that they “agree and/or have no disagreement to
`
`the change of inventorship to add Sean Barger as a co-inventor” of the ’009 patent.
`
`Id., 6-11. Upon correction, Sean Barger is an inventor named on the ’904
`
`
`Cir. 2020). “[T]he PTO examines a request only for the presence of supporting
`
`statements and the required fee.” Id. at 1380.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`application, the ’745 patent, and each intervening application in the priority chain.
`
`See EX2003; EX1010, 1090; EX1026, 914; EX1027, 839; EX1002, 278. This
`
`meets the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 120 that the later-filed application must
`
`“name[] an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application.”4
`
`Pointing to changes of inventorship during prosecution of the various
`
`applications in the priority chain, Petitioner emphasizes that “Equilibrium …
`
`intentionally identified different inventors in Samaniego and the ’745 [patent]”
`
`“despite maintaining the same specification.” Pet., 50-51. However, proper
`
`inventorship is not determined by the specification of a patent, but by the claims.
`
`Egenera, Inc., 972 F.3d at 1376 (“[I]nventorship is a claim-by-claim question.”
`
`(citing Trovan, Ltd. v. Sokymat SA, Irori, 299 F.3d 1292, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002))).
`
`
`4 As noted, inventorship corrections under § 256 are “a matter of formality.”
`
`Egenera, Inc., 972 F.3d at 1379. If the Office has not issued a correction prior to
`
`institution, the Board should exercise its discretion under § 314(a) and decline
`
`institution of the Samaniego grounds. To institute on these grounds pending a
`
`ministerial order from the Office that will render them facially deficient would be a
`
`waste of Board and party resources. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (instructing that the
`
`rules “shall be construed to secure the just, speed, and inexpensive resolution of
`
`every proceeding”).
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`Thus, it is entirely proper for inventorship to differ among patents with the same
`
`specification, based on each patent’s respective claims. This is consistent with the
`
`requirements necessary to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date, which include
`
`that the later-filed application must “name[] an inventor or joint inventor in the
`
`previously filed application,” and not that all inventors must be the same.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120. Additionally, Sean Barger’s declaration accompanying the
`
`request to correct inventorship states that “[t]he inventorship error of failing to
`
`include [himself]” as an inventor on the ’009 patent “occurred without any
`
`deceptive intent on [his] part.” EX2003, 4.
`
`As noted, correction of the inventorship on the ’009 patent means the
`
`inventorship requirement of § 120 is met here.
`
`B.
`
`The claims of the ’745 patent are supported by the ’904
`application and all intervening applications.
`The applications included in the priority chain of the ’745 patent back to the
`
`’904 application are below.
`
`Appl. No.
`
`Filing Date
`
`January 28, 2013
`13/752,110
`September 26, 2008
`12/238,842
`July 15, 2008
`12/173,747
`11/269,916 November 7, 2005
`09/929,904 August 14, 2001
`
`Corresponding US
`Patent/Pub. No.
`9,158,745
`8,381,110
`8,656,046
`2006/0265476
`6,964,009
`
`File History:
`
`EX1002
`EX1027
`EX1026
`EX1010
`EX1035
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`
`
`As evidenced by Petitioner’s redline comparisons, the specification of each
`
`application in the priority chain is the same. See EX1013, EX1021, EX1028,
`
`EX1029. Also, each subsequent application incorporates the ’904 application (and
`
`all intervening applications) by reference. EX1002, 2; EX1027, 2; EX1026, 2;
`
`EX1010, 4.
`
`As detailed in the expert Declaration of Dr. Mark T. Jones, all elements of
`
`claims 1-7 of the ’745 patent are supported by the ’904 application, and all
`
`intervening applications, such that the requirements of § 112 are satisfied. EX2001.
`
`Dr. Jones, in particular, provided a chart demonstrating support for each limitation
`
`of these claims in the ’904 application, and in all intervening applications,
`
`including the ’110 application that issued as the ’745 patent. Id., ¶25, Appendix A.
`
`The Federal Circuit has recognized that “written description and enablement often
`
`rise and fall together.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010). That is the case here. As Dr. Jones testified, “[t]he cited portions
`
`demonstrate that the inventors had possession of the claimed subject matter and
`
`also enable a POSITA to make and use the invention without undue
`
`experimentation.” EX2001, ¶25; see also id., Appendix A.
`
`Furthermore, in the Notice of Allowance of the ’110 application (which
`
`issued as the ’745 patent), the Examiner made an express finding: “support for the
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`claimed subject matter has been found in 12238842, 12173747, 11269916 and
`
`09929904. Thus, 13752110 receives the priority date of App. 09929904.” EX1002,
`
`165.
`
`Citations pointing to the § 112 support for the challenged claims in each of
`
`the priority applications is included in the chart below. See also EX2001,
`
`Appendix A.
`
`Support5 for Claim Features in:
`Claim
`Element
`110 Appl.
`842 Appl.
`747 Appl.
`[1.P]/[1.pre] 1:7-14,
`1:8-14,
`1:8-13,
`1:19-21,
`1:19-21,
`1:18-20,
`5:28-30,
`5:28-30,
`5:27-29,
`9:30-10:3
`9:30-10:3
`9:30-10:3
`(12:22-29,
`(12:23-29,
`(12:23-29,
`27:19-25),
`27:19-25),
`27:19-25),
`10:5-7
`10:5-7
`10:5-7
`(12:31-33,
`(12:31-33,
`(12:31-33,
`27:27-29),
`27:27-29),
`27:27-29),
`12:10-11
`12:10-11
`12:10-11
`(27:18-20),
`(30:18-20),
`(30:18-20),
`12:13-14
`12:13-14
`12:13-14
`(28:29-30),
`(31:29-30),
`(31:29-30),
`13:15-17,
`13:15-17,
`13:15-17,
`21:27-28
`21:27-28
`21:27-28
`(Table B),
`(Table B),
`(Table B),
`26:23,
`26:23,
`26:23,
`30:21-22,
`30:21-22,
`30:21-22,
`FIG. 21,
`FIG. 21,
`FIG. 21,
`
`906 Appl.
`1:8-12,
`1:17-19,
`5:27-29,
`9:30-10:3
`(12:23-29,
`27:5-11),
`10:5-7
`(12:31-33,
`27:13-15),
`12:10-11
`(30:4-6),
`12:13-14
`(31:15-16),
`13:15-17,
`21:22-23
`(Table B),
`26:10,
`30:7-8,
`FIG. 21,
`
`904 Appl.
`1:7-9,
`4:31-33,
`8:13-18
`(10:28-33,
`23:25-30),
`8:20-22
`(10:35-37,
`23:32-34),
`10:15-16
`(26:9-10),
`10:18-19
`(27:14-15),
`11:14-16,
`18:23-24
`(Table B),
`22:34,
`26:12-13,
`33:13-33,
`FIG. 21,
`
`
`5 The quotations corresponding to the citations in this chart are included in
`
`Appendix A of Dr. Jones’ declaration.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`Claim
`Element
`
`[1.1]/[1.a]
`
`[1.2]/[1.b]
`
`[1.3]/[1.c]
`
`[1.4]/[1.d]
`
`[1.5]/[1.e]
`
`[1.6]/[1.f]
`
`[2]/
`[2.pre, a-g]
`
`Support5 for Claim Features in:
`110 Appl.
`842 Appl.
`747 Appl.
`FIG. 22
`FIG. 22
`FIG. 22
`8:7-10,
`8:7-10,
`8:7-10,
`14:2-3,
`14:2-3,
`14:2-3,
`28:33-29:1,
`28:33-29:1,
`28:33-29:1,
`29:12-13,
`29:12-13,
`29:12-13,
`30:22-28
`30:22-28
`30:22-28
`28:14-19,
`28:14-19,
`28:14-19,
`29:1-6,
`29:1-6,
`29:1-6,
`29:12-16,
`29:12-16,
`29:12-16,
`30:26-34,
`30:26-34,
`30:26-34,
`31:30-33
`31:30-33
`31:30-33
`29:17-21,
`29:17-21,
`29:17-21,
`29:23-25,
`29:23-25,
`29:23-25,
`29:29-32,
`29:29-32,
`29:29-32,
`31:5-11,
`31:5-11,
`31:5-11,
`31:34-32:4
`31:34-32:4
`31:34-32:4
`29:32-34,
`29:32-34,
`29:32-34,
`30:7-10,
`30:7-10,
`30:7-10,
`30:10-11,
`30:10-11,
`30:10-11,
`31:7-11,
`31:7-11,
`31:7-11,
`32:3-5,
`32:3-5,
`32:3-5,
`32:7-9
`32:7-9
`32:7-9
`29:17-19,
`29:17-19,
`29:17-19,
`29:29-34,
`29:29-34,
`29:29-34,
`31:12-17,
`31:12-17,
`31:12-17,
`32:5-7,
`32:5-7,
`32:5-7,
`32:7-9,
`32:7-9,
`32:7-9,
`33:1-3,
`33:1-3,
`33:1-3,
`Table D
`Table D
`Table D
`30:2-5,
`30:2-5,
`30:2-5,
`31:26-27,
`31:26-27,
`31:26-27,
`32:11-13
`32:11-13
`32:11-13
`8:16-18,
`8:16-18,
`8:16-18,
`8:27-28,
`8:27-28,
`8:27-28,
`10:7-9,
`10:7-9,
`10:7-9,
`
`906 Appl.
`FIG. 22
`8:7-10,
`14:2-3,
`28:18-20,
`28:31-32,
`30:8-14
`27:33-28:4,
`28:20-25,
`28:31-29:1,
`30:12-20,
`31:16-19
`29:2-6,
`29:8-10,
`29:14-17,
`30:25-31,
`31:20-24
`29:17-19,
`29:26-29,
`29:29-30,
`30:27-31,
`31:23-25,
`31:27-29
`29:2-4,
`29:14-19,
`30:32-31:3,
`31:25-27,
`31:27-29,
`32:19-21,
`Table D
`29:21-24,
`31:12-13,
`31:31-33
`8:16-18,
`8:27-28,
`10:7-9,
`
`904 Appl.
`FIG. 22
`6:34-37,
`11:34-35,
`24:33-35,
`25:8-9,
`26:13-19
`24:14-19,
`24:35-30:2,
`25:8-12,
`26:17-24,
`27:15-17
`25:13-16,
`25:18-20,
`25:24-27,
`26:29-34,
`27:19-23
`25:27-29,
`25:35-31:1,
`26:1-2,
`26:31-34,
`27:22-24,
`27:25-27
`25:13-15,
`25:24-29,
`26:36-27:2,
`27:24-25,
`27:25-27,
`28:12-14,
`Table D
`25:31-33,
`27:10-12,
`27:30-31
`7:5-6,
`7:15-16,
`8:22-23,
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Claim
`Element
`
`[3]
`
`[4]
`
`[5]/
`
`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`Support5 for Claim Features in:
`110 Appl.
`842 Appl.
`747 Appl.
`13:2-3
`13:2-3
`13:2-3
`(30:31-32),
`(27:31-32),
`(27:31-32),
`13:14-17,
`13:14-17,
`13:14-17,
`28:10-11,
`28:10-11,
`28:10-11,
`28:19-21,
`28:19-21,
`28:19-21,
`28:34-29:1,
`28:34-29:1,
`28:34-29:1,
`29:19-21,
`29:19-21,
`29:19-21,
`30:2-5,
`30:2-5,
`30:2-5,
`30:10-11,
`30:10-11,
`30:10-11,
`32:26-31,
`32:26-31,
`32:26-31,
`FIG. 20
`FIG. 20
`FIG. 20
`8:27-28,
`8:27-28,
`8:27-28,
`10:12-15
`10:12-15
`10:12-15
`(13:5-8,
`(13:5-8,
`(13:5-8,
`28:1-4),
`28:1-4),
`28:1-4),
`24:13-16,
`24:13-16,
`24:13-16,
`24:25-26
`24:25-26
`24:25-26
`(35:32-33),
`(35:32-33),
`(35:32-22),
`29:23-27,
`29:23-27,
`29:23-27,
`29:32-30:2,
`29:32-30:2,
`29:32-30:2,
`30:7-10,
`30:7-10,
`30:7-10,
`30:13-16,
`30:13-16,
`30:13-16,
`31:7-11,
`31:7-11,
`31:7-11,
`31:23-25,
`31:23-25,
`31:23-25,
`31:30-32:7,
`31:30-32:7,
`31:30-32:7,
`32:10-11,
`32:10-11,
`32:10-11,
`33:1-3,
`33:1-3,
`33:1-3,
`Tables C, F
`Tables C, F
`Tables C, F
`10:12-15
`10:12-15
`10:12-15
`(13:5-8,
`(13:5-8,
`(13:5-8,
`28:1-4),
`28:1-4),
`28:1-4),
`29:23-27,
`29:23-27,
`29:23-27,
`31:30-32:7,
`31:30-32:7,
`31:30-32:7,
`33:1-3
`33:1-3
`33:1-3
`13:2-3
`13:2-3
`13:2-3
`(27:31-32),
`(27:31-32),
`(27:31-32),
`
`906 Appl.
`13:2-3
`(27:17-18),
`13:14-17,
`27:29-30,
`28:4-6,
`28:19-20 ,
`29:4-6,
`29:21-24,
`29:29-30,
`32:12-17,
`FIG. 20
`8:27-28,
`10:12-15
`(13:5-8,
`27:20-23),
`24:7-10,
`24:19-20
`(35:18-19),
`29:8-12,
`29:17-31,
`29:26-29,
`29:32-30:2,
`30:27-31,
`31:9-11,
`31:16-27,
`31:30-31,
`32:19-21,
`Tables C, F
`10:12-15
`(13:5-8,
`27:20-23),
`29:8-12,
`31:16-27,
`32:19-21
`13:2-3
`(27:17-18),
`
`904 Appl.
`11:2-3
`(23:36-37),
`11:13-16,
`24:10-11,
`24:19-21,
`24:34-35,
`25:15-16,
`25:31-33,
`26:1-2,
`28:5-10,
`FIG. 20
`7:15-16,
`8:27-30
`(11:5-8,
`24:1-4),
`20:44-21:2,
`21:11-12
`(31:6-7),
`25:18-22,
`25:27-31,
`25:35-26:1,
`26:4-7,
`26:31-34,
`27:8-10,
`27:15-25,
`27:28-29,
`28:12-14,
`Tables C, F
`8:27-30
`(11:5-8,
`24:1-4),
`25:18-22,
`27:15-25,
`28:12-14
`11:2-3
`(23:36-37),
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`[6]/
`[6.pre, a-c]
`
`Support5 for Claim Features in:
`Claim
`Element
`110 Appl.
`842 Appl.
`747 Appl.
`[5.pre, a-b] 29:1-3,
`29:1-3,
`29:1-3,
`29:16-17,
`29:16-17,
`29:16-17,
`29:19-21,
`29:19-21,
`29:19-21,
`31:1-5,
`31:1-5,
`31:1-5,
`31:5-11,
`31:5-11,
`31:5-11,
`31:34-32:3
`31:34-32:3
`31:34-32:3
`FIG. 20,
`FIG. 20,
`FIG. 20,
`8:16-18,
`8:16-18,
`8:16-18,
`10:5-7
`10:5-7
`10:5-7
`(12:31-33,
`(12:31-33,
`(12:31-33,
`27:27-29),
`27:27-29),
`27:27-29),
`17:9-22,
`17:9-22,
`17:9-22,
`24:25-26
`24:25-26
`24:25-26
`(35:32-33),
`(35:32-33),
`(35:32-33),
`25:5
`25:5
`25:5
`(36:10),
`(36:10),
`(36:10),
`24:7-10,
`24:7-10,
`24:7-10,
`25:16-19,
`25:16-19,
`25:16-19,
`29:1-3,
`29:1-3,
`29:1-3,
`34:14-15,
`34:14-15,
`34:14-15,
`Tables B,
`Tables B,
`Tables B,
`C, E, F
`C, E, F
`C, E, F
`6:1-3,
`6:1-3,
`6:1-3,
`8:20-22,
`8:20-22,
`8:20-22,
`23:4-6,
`23:4-6,
`23:4-6,
`24:20-21,
`24:20-21,
`24:20-21,
`25:6-7,
`25:6-7,
`25:6-7,
`Tables B, C
`Tables B, C
`Tables B, C
`
`[7]/
`[7.pre, a]
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`906 Appl.
`28:20-22,
`29:1-2,
`29:4-6,
`30:22-25,
`30:25-31,
`31:20-23
`FIG. 20,
`8:16-18,
`10:5-7
`(12:31-33,
`27:13-15),
`17:8-21,
`24:19-20
`(35:18-19),
`24:30
`(35:30),
`24:1-4,
`25:4-7,
`28:20-22,
`33:31-32,
`Tables B,
`C, E, F
`6:1-3,
`8:20-22,
`22:27-23:1,
`24:14-15,
`24:31-32,
`Tables B, C
`
`904 Appl.
`24:35-37,
`25:12-13,
`25:15-16,
`26:26-29,
`26:29-34,
`27:19-22
`FIG. 20,
`7:5-6,
`8:20-22
`(10:35-37,
`23:32-34),
`14:25-37,
`21:11-12
`(31:6-7),
`21:22
`(31:18),
`20:38-41,
`21:33-36,
`24:35-37,
`29:32-33,
`Tables B,
`C, E, F
`5:1-3,
`7:8-10,
`19:44-46,
`21:6-7,
`21:23-24,
`Tables B, C
`
`Moreover, Petitioner does not dispute that the ’904 application provides
`
`support for the ’745 patent claims. In fact, Petitioner admits that the “specifications
`
`are substantively identical” and that “[t]he Examiner considered and expressly
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`found that ‘support for the claimed subject matter has be found in’ Samaniego’s
`
`[’904] application.” Pet., 49 (citing EX1002, 165); EX1013. Petitioner’s priority
`
`dispute is based solely on inventorship. Pet. 8, 49-51. But this issue is now moot.
`
`See Section III.A.
`
`Thus, Petitioner, the Examiner, and Patent Owner’s expert all agree that, as
`
`required by § 120, the written descriptions of the earlier filed applications disclose
`
`claims 1-7 of the ’745 patent sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 112.
`
`C. The other requirements of § 120 are also met.
`As shown below, each application in the priority chain was filed before the
`
`issuance or abandonment of the earlier filed application.
`
`Appl. No.
`
`Filing Date
`
`Issue Date/
`Abandonment Date
`October 13, 2015
`January 28, 2013
`13/752,110
`September 26, 2008 February 19, 2013
`12/238,842
`July 15, 2008
`February 18, 2014
`12/173,747
`11/269,916 November 7, 2005 October 15, 20096
`09/929,904 August 14, 2001
`November 8, 2005
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`(Issued Patent)
`EX1001
`EX2004
`EX2005
`(abandoned)
`EX2006
`
`
`6 Notice of Abandonment. EX1010, 1091-92.
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`Finally, each subsequent application “contains … a specific reference to the
`
`earlier filed application[s],” as required by § 120. See EX1002, 2, 81-87, 119;
`
`EX1027, 2; EX1026, 2; EX1010, 4.
`
`D. Conclusion: Samaniego is not prior art.
`The ’745 patent properly claims priority to the ’904 application and all of the
`
`requirements of § 120 are met. Samaniego, therefore, is not prior art to the
`
`challenged claims. Accordingly, Petitioner cannot show a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on Grounds 3-6, which rely on Samaniego as the primary reference.
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`INSTITUTION.
`The combined discretionary considerations under Sections 314(a) and
`
`325(d) strongly favor denying institution. Under Section 314(a), the Board should
`
`apply its informative Chevron/Deeper decisions because four of Petitioner’s six
`
`grounds are facially deficient: Grounds 3-6 rely on Samaniego, which is not prior
`
`art. Section III. This means only Grounds 1 and 2 are eligible for consideration on
`
`the merits, but Board precedent disfavors instituting review when the majority of
`
`the challenges fail to satisfy the threshold for institution.
`
`Section 325(d) and the precedential Advanced Bionics decision compound
`
`t