`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`FREEBIT AS,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BOSE CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01308
`
`Patent 8,254,621
`
`__________________
`
`PETITIONER REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`The Documents on Which Inventor Annunziato Relies Lack
`Corroboration
`
`Corroboration is a requirement seldom considered in IPRs but frequently
`
`considered in interferences. See generally Gholz and Harrison, Antedating Prior
`
`Art in PTAB Patentability Trials, 90 PTCJ 2571 (July 10, 2015). Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner invites the panel’s attention to Nickles v. Montgomery, 78 USPQ2d
`
`1410, 1413 (B.P.A.I. 2005):
`
`The cited pages of Hawthorne’s notebook have not been witnessed by
`any non-inventor and whatever activity is reflected by the entries lacks
`independent corroboration. It is well established that an inventor’s own
`testimony [and documents authored by an inventor] requires independent
`corroboration. See e.g., Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1329, 47
`USPQ2d 1896, 1903 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`Since the documents on which Mr. Annunziato relies (Exhibits A-G) lack
`
`independent corroboration, and Mr. Annunziato has not even been subject to cross-
`
`examination, Mr. Annunziato’s declaration, Ex. 2001, is insufficient to establish an
`
`actual reduction to practice (“ARP”).
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Had an Opportunity to Cross-Examine Patent
`Owner’s Sole Declarant
`
`The panel in Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V. (IPR2013-00053, paper 66)
`
`
`
`concluded that Rule 131 practice does not control an antedating effort in an inter
`
`partes review, at least in part, because “in examination and reexamination (both ex
`
`
`
`
`
`parte and inter partes), no discovery is allowed.” Due to the lack of discovery in
`
`examination and reexamination, the Corning panel explained that it was prudent to
`
`require testimony from all inventors under Rule 131 practice in order to safeguard
`
`against, for example, a single inventor’s inaccurate memory.
`
`Here, prior to institution and the opportunity to conduct discovery, it would
`
`be premature to conclude that Patent Owner has met its burden of production. That
`
`is, absent a complete record including the safeguards of cross-examination, this
`
`panel is unable to determine the sufficiency of Patent Owner’s antedating effort.
`
`III. The Annunziato Declaration Fails to Show a Physical Embodiment
`Which Responded to All of the Claim Limitations at Issue
`
`The challenged claims are directed to an earpiece comprising, among other
`
`things, an electronics module including communication electronics coupled to an
`
`acoustic driver and an ear interface comprising a body and a positioning and
`
`retaining structure. It is well settled that “[t]here cannot be a reduction to practice
`
`of the invention . . . without a physical embodiment which includes all limitations
`
`of the claim.” UMC Elecs. Co. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 652 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
`
`(emphasis added). “It is equally well established that every limitation of the [claim]
`
`must exist in the embodiment and be shown to have performed as intended.”
`
`Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added).
`
`Moreover, an equivalent of a physical embodiment does not satisfy the first
`
`requirement of an ARP. Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097-98 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`2
`
`
`
`(holding that a party cannot obviate the first requirement of constructing a physical
`
`embodiment through evidence of testing an equivalent).
`
`Notably, the claim chart attached to Exhibit 2001 substantially relies upon a
`
`combination of a “non-working” prototype, CAD drawings, and a “working”
`
`prototype in a failed effort to establish that Patent Owner had a physical
`
`embodiment that includes all of the challenged claims’ limitations at issue.
`
`IV.
`
`If Patent Owner Had an ARP in March 2009, It Forfeited Its Right
`to Rely On that ARP
`
`If the panel rules that Patent Owner had an ARP as early as March 2009 as
`
`
`
`asserted on page 8 of the Patent Owner Preliminary Response,1 then Patent Owner
`
`forfeited its right to rely on that ARP by waiting over seventeen months to file its
`
`patent application. See generally Paulik v. Rizkalla, 760 F.2d 1270, 1275, 226
`
`USPQ 224, 228 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc) (“Paulik I”):
`
`We affirm the long-standing rule that too long a delay [in filing a patent
`application] may bar the first inventor from reliance on an early reduction
`to practice in a priority contest.
`
`
`
`1 Other passages of the Preliminary Response indicate that the claims of the ‘621
`
`patent were reduced to practice no later than May 26, 2009. See e.g., page 1, line
`
`14.
`
`3
`
`
`
`While Paulik I was an interference, it was based the 35 USC § 102(g) language
`
`concerning “suppression or concealment” of an invention, which is of course
`
`equally applicable to this IPR. Similarly, although Paulik II, 796 F.2d 456, 230
`
`USPQ 434 (Fed. Cir. 1986), makes it clear that if, after a party such as Patent
`
`Owner temporarily suppresses or conceals the invention, it later resumes work on
`
`the invention, it can rely on the work that it did after its resumption of work on the
`
`invention, Patent Owner offered no evidence of resumed work on the invention.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Annunziato’s testimony (¶ 6) that his team put in hundreds
`
`(if not thousands) of hours trying out and testing different designs for ear interfaces
`
`is not credible. As pointed out in the petition (pages 23-24), aside from the
`
`earpiece having some type of positioning and retaining structure extending from
`
`the body and ending in an extremity, which was well-known in the art at the time
`
`of filing of the ’621 patent, the earpiece disclosed in Patent Owner’s prior art
`
`reference, Sapiejewski, is nearly identical to that disclosed in the ’621 patent. (See
`
`Ex. 1005, 1006; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 62-64).
`
`
`Dated: September 1, 2017
`
`Customer Number
`
`22850
`
`Tel. (703) 413-3000
`Fax (703) 413-2220
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/W. Todd Baker/
`W. Todd Baker
`Reg. No. 45,265
`
`John F. Presper
`Reg. No. 53,483
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies service of
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response on the counsel of
`
`record for the Petitioner by filing this document through the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board E2E System as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail to the
`
`following addresses:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`W. Karl Renner
`David Holt
`Andrew R. Kopsidas
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`IPR02103-1036IP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/W. Todd Baker/
`W. Todd Baker
`Reg. No. 45,265
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`