`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 16
`Entered: February 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`REACTIVE SURFACES LTD., LLP,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ERRATA
`
`
`This Errata amends Paper 14, “Decision Institution of Inter Partes
`
`Review” (“Decision on Institution”), entered February 9, 2017, to correct an
`
`error. In Paper 14, although we determined that Petitioner had not
`
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the obviousness
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`of claim 21 (Paper 14, 23–24), claim 21 was mistakenly included among the
`
`claims on which review was instituted (id. at 28–29).
`
`The discussion on pages 23 and 24 of Paper 14 regarding claim 21 is
`
`correct.
`
`As a result, the statement on page 28 of the Decision on Institution
`
`that “Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail in showing that . . . claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 13–17, 19–22, 24, and 26 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of
`
`McDaniel ’853 and Fritzsche” is amended to read “Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`that . . . claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 13–17, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of McDaniel ’853
`
`and Fritzsche.”
`
`The statement on page 29 of the Decision on Institution that
`
`“Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail in showing that claims 10–12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`as obvious over the combination of McDaniel ’853 and Fritzsche” is
`
`amended to read “Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would prevail in showing that claims 10–12 and 21 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of McDaniel ’853
`
`and Fritzsche.”
`
`The statement on page 29 of the Decision on Institution that “an inter
`
`partes review is hereby instituted to determine whether . . . Claims 3, 5, 7, 8,
`
`13–17, 19–22, 24, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination
`
`of McDaniel ’853 and Fritzsche” is amended to read “an inter partes review
`
`is hereby instituted to determine whether . . . Claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 13–17, 19,
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`20, 22, 24, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of
`
`McDaniel ’853 and Fritzsche.”
`
`No changes are made to Paper 15, the Scheduling Order governing
`
`this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01462
`Patent 8,324,295 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David O. Simmons
`IVC PATENT AGENCY
`dsimmons@ivcpatentagency.com
`
`
`
`Jonathan D. Hurt
`MCDANIEL & ASSOCIATES, PC
`jhurt@technologylitigators.com
`
`
`
`Mark A.J. Fassold
`Jorge Mares
`WATTS GUERRA LLP
`mfassold@wattsguerra.com
`jmares@wattsguerra.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joshua A. Lorentz
`Richard Schabowsky
`John D. Luken
`Oleg Khariton
`DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
`joshua.lorentz@dinsmore.com
`richard.schabowsky@dinsmore.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
