Thank you ZPaul! SHOCK & AWE coming on Monday!!! I
Post# of 82686
(Total Views: 348)
Posted On: 06/01/2018 9:09:51 AM
Thank you ZPaul! SHOCK & AWE coming on Monday!!! It is June. Did you realize that the PTAB included 7 MORE CLAIMS on the SFOR 599 patent?
THIS IS OUR MONTH!!!!
Excerpt from Ropes & Gray March 26, 2018 Appeal Response:
In the IPR proceedings, the Petitioners were forced to combine at least three different references to try to cobble together a system that approximates the structure and functionality of the Asserted Claims. Even then, and under the PTAB’s “preponderance of the evidence” standard, the petitioners still could not demonstrate that there was a reasonable likelihood that their complicated combinations mirror the unique and novel architecture of the Asserted Patents and invalidate the challenged claims. As was apparent to the PTAB, the ordered combination of elements in the Asserted Claims is not so “conventional” as the district court assumed. The reexamination proceedings for the ’599 Patent also confirm that the Asserted Patents embody an inventive concept. During those proceedings, the Examiner found all claims patentable and allowed seven new claims, concluding that “the prior art cited by the Requesters fails to teach or suggest” all the limitations of the ’599 Patent claims.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, StrikeForce respectfully requests that this Court reverse the decision dismissing StrikeForce’s Complaint with prejudice find that the Asserted Claims are in fact patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101; and remand for trial. At the very least, this Court should vacate the district court’s ruling and remand for further factual findings as to whether the claimed combination of elements was well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Case: 18-1470 Document: 17 Page: 69 Filed: 03/26/2018
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas H. Hallward-DriemeierDouglas
THIS IS OUR MONTH!!!!
Excerpt from Ropes & Gray March 26, 2018 Appeal Response:
In the IPR proceedings, the Petitioners were forced to combine at least three different references to try to cobble together a system that approximates the structure and functionality of the Asserted Claims. Even then, and under the PTAB’s “preponderance of the evidence” standard, the petitioners still could not demonstrate that there was a reasonable likelihood that their complicated combinations mirror the unique and novel architecture of the Asserted Patents and invalidate the challenged claims. As was apparent to the PTAB, the ordered combination of elements in the Asserted Claims is not so “conventional” as the district court assumed. The reexamination proceedings for the ’599 Patent also confirm that the Asserted Patents embody an inventive concept. During those proceedings, the Examiner found all claims patentable and allowed seven new claims, concluding that “the prior art cited by the Requesters fails to teach or suggest” all the limitations of the ’599 Patent claims.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, StrikeForce respectfully requests that this Court reverse the decision dismissing StrikeForce’s Complaint with prejudice find that the Asserted Claims are in fact patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101; and remand for trial. At the very least, this Court should vacate the district court’s ruling and remand for further factual findings as to whether the claimed combination of elements was well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Case: 18-1470 Document: 17 Page: 69 Filed: 03/26/2018
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas H. Hallward-DriemeierDouglas
(12)
(0)