`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00018
`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 CBM2014-00018
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00018
`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
`
`timely appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`(“CAFC”) from the Decision on Request for Rehearing entered on May 22, 2015
`
`(Paper 35), from the Final Written Decision entered on March 6, 2015 (Paper 33),
`
`and from all underlying orders, decisions, rulings and opinions, including without
`
`limitation the Decision on Institution of Covered Business Method Review (CBM)
`
`entered on March 7, 2014 (Paper 14).
`
`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 constructions, determination of unpatentability of
`
`claims 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,037,158 (“’158 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`and of claims 4–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, 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 for review, analysis of the alleged prior
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`art references, denial of constitutional rights and due process to PO by the Board,
`
`CBM2014-00018
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Judge’s violation of Canon 2 and conflicts of interest in Petitioner, Third
`
`Party Requester and litigants in PO’s cases in the District Courts and at the
`
`USPTO, failure by USPTO/PTAB to appoint an impartial tribunal and to remove
`
`Judge McNamara for violating U.S. laws and the U.S. Constitution, not limited to
`
`denying PO access to filing electronically in the PRPS system in response to PO’s
`
`Motion to Recuse Judge McNamara due to his direct stock in Third Party
`
`Requester and financial interests in SAP, JPMorgan and other litigants in PO’s
`
`cases with regard to the same ‘158 patent and other patents in the same priority
`
`chain, failure by the USPTO/PTAB to void ab initio all decisions and orders by
`
`Judge McNamara due to the aforementioned financial and other conflicts of
`
`interest, his bias in favor of Petitioner and against PO and fraud on the Court and
`
`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, SFCU, SNMP, CORBA1 or CORBA2, PTAB misled by fraud by
`
`Petitioner, Petitioner’s Counsel and Petitioner’s expert witness in falsely
`
`misleading the PTAB with false technical and other information, inability by the
`
`PTAB Judges to discern the falsehood in such false technical and other
`
`information, lack of knowledge by the PTAB Judges of the lack of technical
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`capabilities in the art-of-the day in 1995, the priority date of the ‘158 patent
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00018
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`deriving priority from PO’s provisional patent application with S/N 60/006, 634
`
`with a priority date of November 13, 1995; failure of the PTAB judges to consider
`
`the file histories of the ‘158 and parent patents and provisional application in the
`
`priority chain, 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 18, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM
`
`
`
`
`222 Stanford Avenue
`
`
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel/fax: 650.690.0995/650.854.3393
`Email: laks22002@yahoo.com
`
`
`Pro Se Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00018
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING
`
`I hereby certify that on June 18, 2015, the PTAB authorized the Patent Owner “to
`file and serve her Notice of Appeal by first class mail and e-mail to opposing
`counsel and the Board. Patent Owner must also comply with all other requirements
`for pursuing an appeal” and I certify that the original version of the foregoing,
`PATENT OWNER DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM’S NOTICE OF APPEAL,
`was filed by via Express Mail through the U.S. Post Office on this 18th day of
`June, 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
`Madison Building East, I0B20
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
`
`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 18th day of June, 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 18th day of June,
`2015, on the following counsel for the Petitioner:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00018
`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 AND U.S.
`FIRST CLASS 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 and via U.S. First Class Mail on this 18th day of June, 2015, to the
`PTAB, as per the PTAB’s request and authorization on June 17, 2015 to Patent
`Owner to do so.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 18, 2015
`222 Stanford Avenue
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`650.690.0995
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Lakshmi Arunachalam/
`Lakshmi Arunachalam
`Pro Se Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`