`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01443
`Patent RE40,927
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandra, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`WEST\265552621.1
`351912-000023
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,927
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.70(a), Petitioner requests oral argument on the
`
`issues set forth below at a place and time set by the Board. Oral argument is
`
`presently scheduled for December 11, 2015 (originally set for December 7, 2015
`
`(Paper No. 10) (Scheduling Order), but modified by e-mail notice of October 9,
`
`2015 from the Interference Trial Section).
`
`
`
`Issues to be Presented by Petitioner at Oral Argument:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Proper constructions of the relevant claims of the ’927 patent;
`
`Arguments and evidence that claims 37-38, 48-49, 51-53, 55, 57-58,
`
`60-61, 63-64, 67–69, and 71 are anticipated by Ando;
`
`3.
`
`Arguments and evidence that Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to
`
`Amend should be denied because:
`
`a. Substitute claims 72-89 lack adequate written description support for
`
`newly added limitations, and impermissibly add new subject matter;
`
`b. Substitute claims 72, 74-76 and 79-83, 85-89 are obvious over
`
`Stephany in view of Wilkenson, Sauer or Hickok;
`
`c. Substitute claims 72, 82 and 89 are obvious over Stephany in view of
`
`Wilkenson, Sauer or Hickok, and further in view of Froome, Stroke or
`
`Taylor;
`
`WEST\265552621.1
`351912-000023
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,927
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`
`d. Substitute claims 73 is obvious over Stephany in view of Wilkenson,
`
`Sauer or Hickok, further in view of Froome, Stroke or Taylor, and in
`
`further view of Ando;
`
`e. Substitute claims 73, 77-78 and 84 are obvious over Stephany in view
`
`of Wilkenson, Sauer or Hickok, and in further view of Ando;
`
`4.
`
`Rebuttal to Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence on all issues,
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /Alan A. Limbach/
`Alan A. Limbach
`Registration No. 39,749
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
`Telephone:650.833.2433
`Facsimile: 650.687.1182
`
`including the issues listed above.
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`November 2, 2015
`
`WEST\265552621.1
`351912-000023
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,927
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT was served electronically via e-mail on
`
`November 2, 2015, in its entirety on the following:
`
`
`Theodosios Thomas, Reg. No. 45,159
`Stephen Tytran, Reg. No. 45,846
`Optical Devices, LLC
`5400 Trinity Rd. Suite 303
`Raleigh, NC 27607
`(919) 233-1942 (telephone)
`(919) 233-9907 (facsimile)
`tedt@optical-devices.com
`sjt@optical-devices.com
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`November 2, 2015
`
` /Alan A. Limbach/
`Alan A. Limbach
`Registration No. 39,749
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
`Telephone:650.833.2433
`Facsimile: 650.687.1182
`
`
`
`WEST\265552621.1
`351912-000023
`
`
`
`3
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
