`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VAPORSTREAM, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW
`PURSUANT TO UNITED STATES V. ARTHREX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10159604v1/016503
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`
` 
`I. 
`
`II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 1
`
`A. The ’885 Patent ........................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Relevant Procedural History ........................................................................ 2
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`A. Only A Principal Officer May Conduct Director Review Pursuant to
`Arthrex ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`B. The Director Should Grant Vacatur to Allow Termination By the Board .... 6
`
`C. In the Alternative, the Director Should Vacate the FWD On the Merits .... 11
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 13
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................. 14 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`A.L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States,
`368 U.S. 324 (1961) ........................................................................................... 8
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................... 2-3
`Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. AT&T Intellectual Prop. II, L.P.,
`IPR2015-01536, Paper 65 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016) ........................................... 9
`Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................. 6
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`953 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 6
`Fidelity Info. Servs., LLC v. Mirror Imaging, LLC,
`CBM2017-00064, CBM2017-00065, CBM2017-00066,
`CBM2017-00067, Paper 70 (P.T.A.B. July 21, 2020) ..................................... 10
`Kaken Pharm. Co., Ltd., v. Iancu, 952 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ...................... 12
`LM-M v. Cuccinelli, 442 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020) ....................................... 5, 6
`In re MTD Prods. Inc.,
`IPR2016-00194, Paper 44 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2020) ........................................... 9
`Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC,
`IPR2016-00407, IPR2016-00499, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B. July 5,
`2017) ................................................................................................................... 9
`Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.,
`148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................ 10
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Image Processing Techs. LLC,
`IPR2017-00353, IPR2017-01218, Paper 45 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9,
`2020) ................................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC,
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799, IPR2017-
`01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802, Paper 39 (P.T.A.B. July
`21, 2020) ........................................................................................................... 10
`SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ................................................. 9
`United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021) .................................. Passim
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.,
`No. 19-2231, Dkt. 49 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 23, 2020) .................................................. 3
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.,
`No. 2019-2231, Dkt. 67 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 22, 2021) ................................... 1, 3, 10
`Statutes
`5 U.S.C. §§ 3345(a)(3), 3348(a)-(b), 3347 .............................................................. 4
`35 U.S.C. § 3(b)(2)(A) ............................................................................................. 4
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)(4) .............................................................................................. 6
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a) ............................................................................................... 7, 8
`Other Authorities
`Arthrex Q&As, U.S.P.T.O., available at https://uspto.gov/
`patents/patent-trial-and-appealboard/procedures/arthrex-qas ............................ 7
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72 ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Vaporstream, Inc. (“Vaporstream”) respectfully requests
`
`Director review of the Board’s June 14, 2019 FWD. Paper 43. Vaporstream timely
`
`filed this request within 30 days of the Federal Circuit’s remand order.
`
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc., No. 2019-2231, Dkt. 67 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 22, 2021).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’885 Patent
`
`The ’885 Patent discloses systems and methods for reducing traceability of
`
`electronic messages so as to enhance the privacy and security of modern electronic
`
`messaging. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract. As the specification explains, the claimed
`
`invention allows “users of [] computers 315 and 320 to have a private conversation
`
`over [a] network 325” via “electronic messages 330.” Id. at 17:47-49. The
`
`specification identifies numerous problems existing in prior art electronic messaging
`
`systems because electronic messages: (1) “travel[ed] along a public network, such as
`
`the Internet, and [were] susceptible to interception by unintended third parties,” id. at
`
`1:53-56; (2) were easily “logged and archived” by the prior art systems themselves,
`
`and may be “copied, cut, pasted, printed, forwarded, blind copied, . . . manipulated”
`
`or disseminated by either the sender or the recipient, giving the messages longevity
`
`or a “shelf-life” that was “uncontrollable” and often unintended, id. at 1:56-59; and
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`(3) typically “include[d] the message content itself coupled to identifying information
`
`regarding the sender, the recipient, the location of the message, times and dates
`
`associated with the message, etc.” which exposed them to potential “misuse” by
`
`“third parties that have gained unauthorized access,” id. at 1:61-2:6.
`
`To alleviate these problems, the patent claims methods implemented on
`
`sending user devices, which generally require:
`
` separated displays of recipient information and the message content at the
`sender’s device to prevent screenshots (of both recipient information and the
`message content) from being taken and archived by the sender for later use;
`
` separate transmission of the associated recipient information and the message
`content from the sender’s device to a server computer so that if intercepted by
`a third party, the message does not also identify the recipient; and
`
` restrictions on message content access by the sender after transmission to the
`server computer, so that further manipulation of the message content by the
`sender (or an intercepting third party) is prevented.
`
`B. Relevant Procedural History
`
`Petitioner filed a petition for IPR of the ’885 Patent on December 14, 2017.
`
`Paper 2. The Board instituted review on June 18, 2018. Paper 13. A FWD finding all
`
`challenged claims unpatentable issued on June 14, 2019. Paper 43.
`
`Vaporstream appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit on August 5, 2019. Paper
`
`47. On October 31, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), finding that the June 14, 2019 FWD not to have
`
`been constitutionally issued. On January 23, 2020, on Vaporstream’s motion to vacate
`
`and remand, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for further
`
`proceedings in light of its decision. Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc., No. 19-2231, Dkt.
`
`49 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 23, 2020). On April 23, 2020, the parties had settled their dispute
`
`and the underlying district court litigation. However, before they had the opportunity
`
`to jointly move for termination of the IPR proceeding by the Board, on May 1, 2020,
`
`the Board issued a General Order holding all Arthrex-affected cases in administrative
`
`abeyance until the Supreme Court acts on a petition for certiorari. Paper 45.
`
` On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v.
`
`Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), vacating the Federal Circuit’s decision and
`
`remanding the case. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Arthrex, the Federal
`
`Circuit remanded this case “for further proceedings.” Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.,
`No. 2019-2231, Dkt. 67 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 22, 2021).
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Only A Principal Officer May Conduct Director Review Pursuant to
`Arthrex
`
`
`Vaporstream’s request for Director review cannot be decided until a new PTO
`
`Director is appointed and confirmed, because there is currently no principal officer at
`
`the PTO who can issue a FWD under Arthrex. Under Arthrex, the Supreme Court held
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`that the Appointments Clause violation may be remedied only when “the Director” of
`
`the PTO—that is, a President-appointed, Senate-confirmed “principal officer”—has
`
`an opportunity “to review decisions rendered by APJs” who are inferior officers.
`
`Arthrex, 141 S. Ct. at 1988. The PTO currently lacks such “an officer properly
`
`appointed to a principal office [able to] issue a final decision binding the Executive
`
`Branch.” Id. at 1985. Mr. Andrew H. Hirschfeld, the Commissioner for Patents
`
`currently and temporarily “performing the functions and duties” of the PTO Director,
`
`is unable to fulfill Arthrex’s mandate because he was neither named by the President
`
`nor confirmed by the Senate to his role. See 35 U.S.C. § 3(b)(2)(A) (“The Secretary
`
`of Commerce shall appoint a Commissioner for Patents. . . .”).
`
`Nor has Mr. Hirschfeld been conferred the Director’s review authority as the
`
`“Acting Director” within the meaning of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Under
`
`the FVRA, when a principal office is vacant, any functions or duties “required by
`
`statute to be performed by the [principal] officer (and only that officer)” may only be
`
`performed by “the first assistant to the office” or a person directed by “the President
`
`(and only the President).” 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345(a)(3), 3348(a)-(b), 3347. Mr. Hischfeld,
`
`having never served as the first assistant to the previous Director, and not having been
`
`named “Acting Director” by “the President (and only the President),” falls short of
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`satisfying the requirements of the FVRA to be an “Acting Director.”1
`
`Nor can it be said that Mr. Hirschfeld is currently exercising authority delegated
`
`by a principal officer, the PTO Director. See 37 CF.R. § 1.181(g). To wit, the
`
`Director’s post is currently vacant; accordingly, there is no person charged with
`
`delegating his duties, no person who could revoke the delegation of authority, or who
`
`could supervise Mr. Hirschfeld’s exercise of delegated authority. “The fact that an
`
`officer holds a PAS [Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed] office does not
`
`mean, however, that one who performs the duties of that office in an acting capacity
`
`is also a PAS officer.” LM-M v. Cuccinelli, 442 F. Supp. 3d 1, 23-24 (D.D.C. 2020).
`
`Actions that are committed exclusively to a principal officer, but performed “without
`
`lawful authority” by a non-PAS officeholder, such as Mr. Hirschfeld as Commissioner
`
`
`1 Indeed, the Supreme Court’s passing reference to a “remand to the Acting Director”
`in Arthrex is not at odds with this proposition. Arthrex, 141 S. Ct. at 1987. In Arthrex,
`neither the Court nor the parties addressed Mr. Hirshfeld’s official status or
`appointment, whether he qualifies as an “Acting Director,” or whether a non-
`President-appointed and non-Senate-confirmed officer could fill that role. Arguably,
`the Court seemingly had in mind the appointment of an “Acting Director” until a
`Director can be appointed, confirmed, and sworn in. To the contrary, permitting an
`inferior officer to issue a FWD upon “Director review” which binds the Executive
`Branch would fly in the face of the Court’s express holding that “[o]nly an officer
`properly appointed to a principal office may issue a final decision.” Id. at 1985
`(emphasis added) (reasoning that inferior officers “lack[] the power under the
`Constitution to finally resolve [patentability questions]” and therefore “must be
`directed and supervised . . . by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination
`with the advice and consent of the Senate.”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`for Patents, “must be set aside.” Id. at 35-37.
`
`In addition, the Administrative Procedure Act subjects the PTO’s proposed
`
`procedures for implementing Arthrex to a formal rulemaking process. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a)(4); Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Until
`
`the PTO has undergone that process, the PTO cannot provide the Director review
`
`required by Arthrex and any “review” that is the result of an interim procedure it does
`
`provide is in violation of the APA. Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`
`953 F.3d 1313, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (procedural requirements of the APA apply
`
`in cases involving formal adjudication).
`
`Consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Arthrex, Mr. Hirschfeld cannot
`
`decide this request for Director review, and any decision on Vaporstream’s request
`
`must await the appointment of an Acting Director by the President, be the result of a
`
`formal rule promulgation process under the APA, and/or occur after the appointment
`
`and confirmation of a new PTO Director. Arthrex, 141 S. Ct. at 1980, 1985, 1988.
`
`B. The Director Should Grant Vacatur to Allow Termination By the
`Board
`
`Given the parties’ settlement in April 2020, the Director should vacate the FWD
`
`and remand to the Board with instructions to terminate the IPR proceeding. Under the
`
`interim procedures for Arthrex-mandated Director review, the Director is vested with
`
`wide discretion to “decide any issue . . . de novo,” “to conduct a sua sponte Director
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`review,” and to grant review based on “novel issues of law or policy, . . . issues of
`
`particular importance to the Office or patent community, or inconsistencies with
`
`Office procedures, guidance, or decisions.” Arthrex Q&As, U.S.P.T.O., available at
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appealboard/procedures/arthrex-qas.
`
`The Director should exercise his discretion here for at least six reasons.
`
`First, under Arthrex, the June 14, 2019 FWD was constitutionally unsound and
`
`the PTO “has not finally decided the merits of the proceeding” within the meaning of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a) until the Director has had an opportunity to enter a rehearing
`
`decision. Arthrex, 141 S. Ct. at 1980, 1985, 1988. Given the lack of a constitutionally
`
`sound FWD thus far, the Director has the authority to vacate the FWD and terminate
`
`the proceeding as expressly contemplated by 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Director should
`
`seize this opportunity and grant vacatur in order to acknowledge that a decision issued
`
`by a panel of APJs appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause is
`
`constitutionally unsound and therefore not “finally decided” under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
`
`Arthrex, 141 S. Ct. at 1985 (“Only an officer properly appointed to a principal office
`
`may issue a final decision binding the Executive Branch in the proceeding before us.”).
`
`Second, vacatur is warranted pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,
`
`which held that it is “established practice” for a court reviewing “a civil case from a
`
`court in the federal system which has become moot while on its way [t]here or pending
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`[a review] decision” to “reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a
`
`direction to dismiss.” 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950). Munsingwear-type vacatur is proper
`
`where a case has become moot pending appeal, and is “at least equally applicable to
`
`unreviewed administrative orders.” A.L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States,
`
`368 U.S. 324, 329 (1961). The Director should vacate under Munsingwear because of
`
`the parties’ settlement 19 months ago while the case was being appealed to the Federal
`
`Circuit (and later remanded because of Arthrex).
`
`Third, the absence of an adverse party due to settlement also compels the
`
`Director to vacate the FWD so as to allow the Board to terminate the proceeding. The
`
`posture of this proceeding has fundamentally changed since April 2020, when it was
`
`being appealed to the Federal Circuit and when the sole Petitioner and Appellee, Snap
`
`Inc., withdrew from the case due to settlement. Accordingly, because the Petitioner
`
`will no longer participate in the proceeding, there is no basis for the Director to
`
`proceed to re-issue a FWD. Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[i]f no petitioner remains in
`
`the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final
`
`written decision under section 318(a).” See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (“The Board may
`
`terminate a trial without rendering a final written decision, where appropriate . . . .”).
`
`Here, with no adverse party participating in the proceedings, the principles of
`
`efficiency, judicial and administrative economy, and conservation of resources
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`counsel vacatur by the Director, rather than issuance of a new FWD. See, e.g., Cox
`
`Commc’ns, Inc. v. AT&T Intellectual Prop. II, L.P., IPR2015-01536, Paper 65 at 3
`
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016) (“[T]ermination of the proceedings would save significant
`
`additional expenditures of resources by the Board and the parties, and would further
`
`serve the purpose of inter partes review proceedings to provide an efficient and less
`
`costly alternative forum for patent disputes.”); Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v.
`
`WesternGeco LLC, IPR2016-00407, IPR2016-00499, Paper 29 at 3 (P.T.A.B. July 5,
`
`2017) (terminating the IPR “because it promotes efficiency and minimizes
`
`unnecessary costs”). Indeed, the Board has terminated proceedings where the only
`
`petitioner withdrew during appeal and the patent owner requested termination at the
`
`outset of the post-appeal remand. See, e.g., In re MTD Prods. Inc., IPR2016-00194,
`
`Paper 44 at 3-4 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2020). The same should apply here, where vacatur
`
`would be the best course of action because no adversary remains, and IPRs are “a
`
`party directed, adversarial process.” SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355
`
`(2018) (Congress designed IPRs to be “adversarial” rather than an “agency-led,
`
`inquisitorial process.”).
`
`Fourth, vacatur would not be inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s broad
`
`remand instructions in the case, which ordered a remand “for further proceedings” and
`
`directed “the parties to inform th[e] court within 14 days of any action by the [PTO.]”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc., No. 2019-2231, Dkt. 67 at 1-2 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 22,
`
`2021) (emphasis added). Indeed, “any action” does not preclude a vacatur and remand
`
`to the Board to terminate the proceeding.
`
`Fifth, vacatur and termination by the Board would also be consistent with the
`
`strong public and judicial “policy favoring settlement.” Red Wing Shoe Co. v.
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Not vacating will
`
`cause Vaporstream, the Office, the Director, and eventually the Federal Circuit to
`
`waste their resources wrestling with an appeal that can be avoided entirely by simply
`
`terminating the proceeding. Termination due to the parties’ settlement and before a
`
`constitutionally issued FWD was reached is in the interests of justice and both
`
`administrative and judicial economy.
`
`Sixth and finally, the Director should vacate and remand to the Board, so the
`
`Board may terminate as it had done in several cases in the same or similar posture as
`
`the present case—i.e., settlement by the parties before the issuance of a
`
`constitutionally sound FWD. See, e.g., Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC,
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799, IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801,
`
`IPR2017-01802, Paper 39 (P.T.A.B. July 21, 2020) (granting motion to terminate six
`
`IPRs after the Federal Circuit vacated the FWDs and remanded the cases); Fidelity
`
`Info. Servs., LLC v. Mirror Imaging, LLC, CBM2017-00064, CBM2017-00065,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`CBM2017-00066, CBM2017-00067, Paper 70 (P.T.A.B. July 21, 2020) (same for
`
`four CBMs upon remand by the Federal Circuit); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Image
`
`Processing Techs. LLC, IPR2017-00353, IPR2017-01218, Paper 45 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9,
`
`2020) (same, for two cases remanded by the Federal Circuit). The PTO’s practice of
`
`granting requests for termination pursuant to settlement but before a constitutionally
`
`issued FWD remains appropriate under the Supreme Court’s decision in Arthrex, and
`
`the Director should endorse that procedure by affording the Board an opportunity to
`
`do so upon vacating and remanding the instant proceeding.
`
`C. In the Alternative, the Director Should Vacate the FWD On the Merits
`
`In the alternative, Vaporstream respectfully requests that the FWD be vacated
`
`on the merits. The Board committed legal error by misinterpreting the scope of
`
`“message content including a media component,” which in turn infected its
`
`obviousness analysis concerning at least Saffer. FWD at 12-16, 22-35, 36-44.
`
`The Board arrived at the wrong claim construction of “message content
`
`including a media component” by ignoring the specification, which explicitly teaches
`
`that “a message content of an electronic message may include an attached and/or
`
`linked file,” as well as expert testimony concerning the same. POR at 22-24.
`
`The Board’s construction had the effect of excluding from the scope of a
`
`“message content including a media component” any URL-linked file or content,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`despite Dr. Almeroth’s explanation that in view of the patent’s “separate
`
`transmissions” limitation, the treatment of a message content including a URL link
`
`and a message content without such a link remains the same. Ex. 2009 at ¶¶48, 108-
`
`12. This misinterpretation by the Board caused it to conclude, erroneously, that Saffer
`
`disclosed the “separate transmission” limitation of the challenged claims, even though
`
`Saffer’s system sends a single email that provides both the identity of the recipient
`
`and the linked message content/media component, which runs contrary to the “reduced
`
`traceability” purpose of the invention. FWD at 33-35; PO Sur-reply at 10-16. Because
`
`that construction is in error, the conclusion in the FWD must be vacated. See, e.g.,
`
`Kaken Pharm. Co., Ltd., v. Iancu, 952 F.3d 1346, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Because the
`
`Board’s obviousness analysis materially relied on its erroneous claim construction, we
`
`cannot affirm the Board’s unpatentability determination.”).
`
`The Board also erroneously concluded that the combination of Namias and
`
`Saffer would teach or suggest separate displays—another important limitation of the
`
`challenged claims. FWD at 22-28. Indeed, Saffer would not have motivated, but would
`
`have actually discouraged, a POSITA from choosing a sequence of screens to
`
`compose a single email, given its express depiction (in Figure 6) of a single, integrated
`
`interface to accomplish the same task. POPR at 37-42; PO Sur-reply at 18-19. The
`
`Board fails to explain why a POSITA would have ignored the teaching-away by Saffer
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00312
`U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885
`
`to adopt the protracted multiscreen interface disclosed in Namias.
`
`Given the Board’s errors, Director review and vacatur is the appropriate remedy
`
`in this case. Vaporstream respectfully requests reversal of the Board’s finding that the
`
`challenged claims are obvious over Namias, Saffer, and Smith.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Director or Mr. Hirschfeld, to the extent he has
`
`such authority, should vacate the FWD and remand to the Board for it to terminate
`
`the IPR proceeding, or to find claims 1 and 6 of the ’885 patent not unpatentable.
`
`Dated: November 22, 2021
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Michael F. Heim/
`Michael F. Heim (Reg. No. 32,702)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Vaporstream, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW PURSUANT TO UNITED
`
`STATES V. ARTHREX was served on November 22, 2021 to the following lead
`
`and back-up counsel for petitioner via e- mail:
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`zSnapVaporstream@cooley.com
`
`Cooley LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: 650-843-5001
`Fax: 650-849-7400
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342)
`amace@cooley.com
`Mark R. Weinstein (pro hac vice)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`Reuben Chen (pro hac vice)
`rchen@cooley.com
`Yuan Liang (pro hac vice)
`yliang(cooley.com)
`zSnapVaporstream@cooley.com
`
`Cooley LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: 650-843-5001
`Fax: 650-849-7400
`
`
`By: /Michael F. Heim/
`Michael F. Heim (Reg. No. 32,702)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Vaporstream, Inc.
`
`
`
`14
`
`