`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 229-5 Filed 10/05/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 23227
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 71
` Filed: July 15, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02188
`Patent 9,656,530 B2
`____________
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 229-5 Filed 10/05/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 23228
`
`IPR2017-02188
`Patent 9,656,530 B2
`
`
`III. MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE
`
`A.
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`Petitioner moves to exclude Ex. 2023, 2024, 2027, and 2028. Pet.
`
`Mot. Exclude 1. These exhibits relate to Patent Owner’s contentions of
`
`copying. We did not rely on any of those exhibits in reaching our decision,
`
`so we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude as Moot.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1159, 1160, 1171, 1167,
`
`1168, portions of 1169, and 1170. PO Mot. Exclude 1. These exhibits
`
`consist of documents and deposition testimony relating to the Roadtec RX-
`
`500. We did not rely on any of these exhibits in reaching our Decision, so
`
`we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the reasons given, based on the arguments and evidence of record,
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that claims 1–7, 13–24, and 26 of the ’530 patent are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combinations of Swisher and Glasson,
`
`Swisher, Glasson, and Davis, and Swisher, Glasson, and Hosseini. See
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e). We dismiss Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s Motions to
`
`Exclude as moot.
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`V. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that claims 1–7, 13–24, and 26 of the ’530 patent have not
`
`
`
`
`
`been proven unpatentable;
`
`
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 229-5 Filed 10/05/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 23229
`
`IPR2017-02188
`Patent 9,656,530 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is
`
`dismissed as moot;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is
`
`dismissed as moot; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
`
`any party to the proceeding seeking judicial review of this Decision must
`
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`33
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 229-5 Filed 10/05/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 23230
`
`IPR2017-02188
`Patent 9,656,530 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joshua Goldberg
`James Barney
`David Mroz
`Craig Walter
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`james.barney@finnegan.com
`david.mroz@finnegan.com
`craig.walter@finnegan.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ralph Powers
`Jon Wright
`Kyle Conklin
`Stephen Merrill
`Daniel Yonan
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
`tpowers-ptab@sternekessler.com
`jwright-ptab@sternekessler.com
`kconklin-ptab@sternekessler.com
`smerrill-ptab@sternekessler.com
`dyonan-ptab@sternekessler.com
`
`Ryan Levy
`John Triggs
`Seth Ogden
`PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PC
`rdl@iplawgroup.com
`jft@iplawgroup.com
`sro@iplawgroup.com
`
`
`
`
`
`34
`
`
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
