`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00013
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`By: Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, Pro Se
`
`
`222 Stanford Avenue
`
`
`
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`
`
`
`Tel: (650) 690-0995
`
`
`
`
`Fax: (650) 854-3393
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`SAP America, Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`CASE CBM2013-00013
`
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`_____________________
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and BRIAN J.
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00013
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`c/o Office of the General Counsel
`Madison Building East, 10B20
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
`
`
`
`Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a) and § 90.3(b)(1) that
`
`Patent Owner (“PO”), Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam (“Dr. Arunachalam”) hereby
`
`appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”)
`
`from the Decision on Request for Rehearing entered on November 21, 2014 (Paper
`
`63), from the Final Written Decision entered on September 18, 2014 (Paper 61),
`
`and from all underlying orders, decisions, rulings and opinions, including without
`
`limitation the Decision on Institution of Covered Business Method Review (CBM)
`
`entered on September 19, 2013 (Paper 15).
`
`
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), PO further indicates that the
`
`issues on appeal include, but are not limited to, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB” or “Board”) 's application and use of the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard, claim construction, determination of unpatentability of
`
`claims 1–6 and 11 of Dr. Arunachalam's U.S. Patent No. 8,037,158 (“’158 patent”)
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b),
`
`determination that the '158 patent is a covered business method patent and is not a
`
`technological invention, determination that 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a permissible basis
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for review, analysis of the alleged prior art references, denial of due process to PO
`
`CBM2013-00013
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`
`
`
`by the Board, PTAB Judge’s conflicts of interest in Petitioner and litigants in PO’s
`
`cases in the District Courts and at the USPTO, failure by USPTO/PTAB to
`
`appoint Judges technically competent to conduct a CBM review of the subject
`
`patent, PTAB not having technical understanding of the alleged prior art, Lawlor,
`
`Computerworld, Electronic Banking or SFCU, PTAB misled by Petitioner,
`
`Petitioner’s Counsel and Petitioner’s expert witness with false technical
`
`information, inability by the PTAB Judges to discern the falsehood in such false
`
`technical information, determination that SAP had standing to institute this
`
`proceeding, and any finding or determination supporting or related to those issues,
`
`as well as all other issues decided adversely to PO in any orders, decisions, rulings
`
`and opinions and the unconstitutionality of the proceedings.
`
`
`
`PO also hereby appeals the USPTO exceeding its statutory authority through
`
`rulemaking, including without limitation by adopting rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a)
`
`defining "covered business method" and 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) alleging unexpired
`
`claims should be given their "broadest reasonable construction."
`
`
`
`Simultaneous with this submission, a copy of this Notice of Appeal is being
`
`filed with the PTAB. In addition, three copies of this Notice of Appeal, along with
`
`the required docketing fees, are being filed with the Clerk's Office for the United
`
`States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`222 Stanford Avenue
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`Tel:650.690.0995
`
`Fax: 650.854.3393
`Email: laks22002@yahoo.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00013
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM
`
`
`
`
`
`/Lakshmi Arunachalam/_
`Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`
`
`Pro Se Patent Owner
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00013
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING
`
`I hereby certify that on January 16, 2015, the PTAB authorized the Patent Owner
`to file this “timely appropriate Notice of Appeal in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 90.2
`by U.S. mail and is instructed to send a copy to the Board by e-mail,” and I certify
`that the original version of the foregoing, PATENT OWNER DR. LAKSHMI
`ARUNACHALAM’S NOTICE OF APPEAL, was filed via Express Mail through
`the U.S. Post Office on this 20th day of January, 2015, with the Director of the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, at the following address:
`
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`c/o Office of the General Counsel
`P.O.Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING
`
`I hereby certify that three (3) true and correct copies of the foregoing, PATENT
`OWNER DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM’S NOTICE OF APPEAL, along
`with the filing fees, were filed by Express Mail through the U.S. Post Office on
`this 20th day of January, 2015, with the Clerk's Office of the United States Court
`of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, at the following address:
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`717 Madison Place, N.W., Suite 401
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, PATENT OWNER
`DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM’S NOTICE OF APPEAL, was served, by
`electronic mail and also by FIRST CLASS U.S. Mail on this 20th day of January,
`2015, on the following counsel for the Petitioner:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00013
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lori A. Gordon and Michael Q. Lee
`
`
`
`SAP, America, Inc
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN
`
`
`
`Attn: Samir N. Pandya
`& FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sr. IP Counsel
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`
`SAP Global Litigation Group
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`3999 West Chester Pike
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`Newtown Square, PA 19073
`mlee-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`610.661.9767
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`Samir.pandya@sap.com
`Petitioner’s correspondence address Of record at the USPTO PTAB
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SENDING COPY TO PTAB VIA E-MAIL
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, PATENT OWNER
`DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM’S NOTICE OF APPEAL, was sent, by
`electronic mail on this 20th day of January, 2015, to the PTAB, as per the PTAB’s
`request and authorization on January 16, 2015 via e-mail to Patent Owner to do so.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 20, 2015
`222 Stanford Avenue
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`650.690.0995
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Lakshmi Arunachalam/
`Lakshmi Arunachalam
`Pro Se Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
