Trials
`Friday, August 3, 2018 3:39 PM
`chad@ti-law.com; Trials
`Dentons Docket; Jeremy C. Doerre, Esq.; Kevin Greenleaf; Peter Yim; Russell Tonkovich;
`Scott W. Cummings
`RE: PGR2018-00063: Clarifications Sought by Petitioner
`
`Follow up
`Flagged
`
`. F
`
`rom:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Follow Up Flag:
`Flag Status:
`
`Counsel,
`
`The parties may consider the Order modified as to the filing of a reply (and sur reply), and may reference yesterday’s email
`correspondence, if they wish. In light of Patent Owner’s Motion, the Panel will not count Petitioner’s signature block
`against the page limit.
`
`Regards,
`
`Andrew Kellogg,
`Supervisory Paralegal
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`USPTO
`andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov
`Direct: 571-272-5366
`
`From: Chad D. Tillman <chad@ti‐law.com>  
`Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 11:19 AM 
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV> 
`Cc: Dentons Docket <ipt.docketchi@dentons.com>; Jeremy C. Doerre, Esq. <jdoerre@ti‐law.com>; Kevin Greenleaf 
`<kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com>; Peter Yim <peter.yim@dentons.com>; Russell Tonkovich 
`<russell.tonkovich@dentons.com>; Scott W. Cummings <scott.cummings@dentons.com> 
`Subject: PGR2018‐00063: Clarifications Sought by Petitioner 
`
`Dear Board,
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests two clarifications regarding the Order issued July 20, 2018 (Paper No. 8),
`in which the Board “ORDERED that Patent Owner’s authorized motion for additional discovery…is limited to
`four pages…and FURTHER ORDERED that no reply is authorized.”
`
`Yesterday, Patent Owner requested authorization to file a 4-page reply. The Order and its explicit ruling that
`“no reply is authorized” were not referenced in the request. About forty-nine minutes later, an email was
`sent from the Detailee Supervisory Paralegal Specialist authorizing the filing of the 4-page reply, seemingly
`in contradiction to the Order. Given the lack of reference to the Order and the near immediate response to
`the request, Petitioner is uncertain whether the Order was considered and modified. Accordingly, Petitioner
`requests a first clarification as to whether the Order was modified so as to authorize the filing of a reply.
`
`Second, Patent Owner filed its motion (Paper No. 9) with arguments extending to the end of page 4 and
`with the signature section beginning on page 5. Petitioner filed its opposition with the signature section
`ending on page 4. The signature section is not an identified exception under 37 CFR 42.24(a)(1) for the
`
`1
`
`

`

`purpose of determining a page count. Petitioner seeks a second clarification of whether the signature
`section is included when determining the page count for compliance.
`
`Thank you.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
`
`/Chad D. Tillman/
`
`Chad D. Tillman
`U.S.Reg. No. 38,634
`
`704.248.6292 (desk)
`704.458.2423 (mobile)
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`2
`
`