Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board’s basis for denial as set forth in the Decision is misplaced because it misapprehends or overlooks Petitioner’s arguments regarding the prior art as a whole and the rationale for combining the teachings of Francis (EX1005) and Gilbert (EX1021).

Second, when introducing the detailed explanation for unpatentability, Petitioner presented several well-accepted rationales describing Case IPR2017-01600 Patent 6,910,069 B1 how and why a POSA would have modified Francis to utilize aspects of Gilbert’s joining techniques (see Pet. 40-41).

The Board reviews the prior decision for an abuse of discretion, id. § 42.71(c), such as an erroneous interpretation of law, a factual finding that is not supported by substantial evidence, or an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.

“In KSR, the Supreme Court criticized a rigid approach to determining obviousness based on the disclosures of individual prior-art references, with little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.” Randall Mfg.

v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding Board erred by “ignoring the additional record evidence [challenger] cited to demonstrate the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art” and “fail[ing] to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions”); see also Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (remanding and noting that background knowledge of a POSA “had to be considered by the Board” as the basis for obviousness).

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 and the attached certification, counsel moves the admission

pro hac vice of Kathleen B. Barry of WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, 35 W. Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601 to represent defendants Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc. and 2K Sports, Inc. in this matter.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel’s motion for admission pro hac vice of Kathleen B. Barry is granted.

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5, I certify that I am eligible for admission to this Court, am admitted, practicing and in good standing as a member of the Bars of the States of Michigan and Illinois and pursuant to Local Rule 83.6 submit to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court for any alleged misconduct which occurs in the preparation or course of this action.

In accordance with Standing Order for District Court Fund effective 3/25/14, I fiirther certify that the annual fee of $25.00 has been paid to the Clerk of Court, or, if not paid previously, the fee payment will be submitted I___l to the Clerk’s Office upon the filing of this motion.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(1), Defendants move to dismiss these actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The grounds for this motion are set forth in Defendants’ Opening Brief, submitted herewith.

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 and the attached certification, counsel moves the admission pro hac vice of Aaron M. Frankel, Esq., Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, 1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, to represent plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC in this matter.

IT IS HEIUEBY ORDERED counsel's motion for admission pro hac vice is granted.

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5, I certify that I am eligible for admission to this Court, am admitted, practicing and in good standing as a member of the Bar of the State of New York, and pursuant to Local Rule 83.6 submit to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court for any alleged misconduct which occurs in the preparation or course of this action.

I also certify I am generally familiar with this Court's Local Rules.

In accordance with Standing Order for District Court Fund effective 7/23/09, I further , certify that the annual fee of $25.00 has been paid to the Clerk of the Court; or if not paid previously, the fee payment El will be submitted to the Clerk’s Office upon the filing of this motion.

Patent Owner, Acceleration Bay, LLC, hereby appoints the Practitioners associated with KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP, USPTO Customer Number 31013, as its attorneys to prosecute and to transact all business in the Patent Trial & Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office connected with the above-identified Inter Partes Review matter.