Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/203955684/Transport-Room
Timestamp: 2015-04-28 14:27:52
Document Index: 86199666

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103']

P. 1Transport RoomTransport RoomRatings: (0)|Views: 67|Likes: 0Published by sabatino123More info:Published by: sabatino123 on Feb 02, 2014Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/203955684/Transport-Room02/18/2014pdftextoriginal UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2013-1623 (Reexamination No. 95/001,169) IN RE RAMBUS, INC. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. APPELLANT RAMBUS, INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO USPTO DIRECTOR’S MOTION FOR REMAND Greg H. Gardella Scott A. McKeown Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. 1940 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 413-3000 ggardella@oblon.com smckeown@oblon.com
Case: 13-1623 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 01/28/2014
2 I. INTRODUCTION The Appellee/Intervener, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Appellee”), has not carried its burden of demonstrating that remand of this case is justified. The Appellee has proffered only a generalized allegation that the recent decision by this Court in Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 2013 WL 3242241 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“the 2012-1480 Rambus decision”) involved a prior art reference and patent which share the same or similar specifications. The Appellee does not confess error in the earlier Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision or explain what aspect of the 2012-1480 Rambus decision would be likely to influence the PTAB’s evaluation of the merits on remand. Indeed, the 2012-1480 Rambus decision relates to the ‘109 patent, the claims of which are directed to a different embodiment than the claims of the ‘353 patent. (See discussion infra) The motion to remand should be denied because the Appellee has not identified any potential benefit which would outweigh the substantial costs that would be borne by Appellant and the PTAB on remand. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS This appeal has been taken from a decision by the PTAB in an inter partes
reexamination of U.S. Patent 6,591,353. The PTAB maintained the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 19 and 23 under Hayes and reversed the Case: 13-1623 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 01/28/2014
3 Examiner’s decision not to reject claims 1 through 26. The PTAB Decision set forth the following new grounds of rejections: • New Ground #1- Claims 2, 6, 10, 17, 25 and 26 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), based on Hayes in view of Bennett. • New Ground #2 - Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 21 -13, 33 and 34 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Hayes, Bennett and Inagaki. • New Ground #3 - Claims 2-10, 12-14, 16, 17 and 20-26 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Hayes with Ohshima. • New Ground #4 - Claims 1-14, 16, 17 and 19-26 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kushiyama, Hayes and Lu. • New Ground #5 - Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-22 and 24-26 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Farmwald ‘755 and Lu. • New Ground #6 - Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-22 and 24-26 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Farmwald ‘755 and iRAM. (A136 et seq.) As can be appreciated from the foregoing, only two of the appealed grounds involve Farmwald ‘755. The remaining five are based on Hayes or other references. Case: 13-1623 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 01/28/2014
Similar to Transport RoomTransport Roomsabatino123PDFsabatino12337sabatino123Ptosabatino123Transport Roomsabatino123pto2sabatino123020sabatino12395001166sabatino12395001105sabatino123285 Replysabatino123
RecommendedTransport Roomsabatino123PDFsabatino12337sabatino123Ptosabatino123Transport Roomsabatino123pto2sabatino123020sabatino12395001166sabatino12395001105sabatino123285 Replysabatino123Previous|NextPage 1 of 3