Mt. Derm GmbH et al v. Connect, Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER granting 32 Stipulation to Stay Litigation pending the outcome of Ex Parte Reexamination of the patent-in-suit before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/2/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

2300 WEST SAHARA AVENUE, SUITE 1200 • LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89102
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

McDONALD • CARANO • WILSON LLP

8
9
10
11
12

KRISTEN T. GALLAGHER, ESQ. (NSBN 9561)
AMANDA C. YEN, ESQ. (NSBN 9726)
McDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP
2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
MICHAEL R. DZWONCZYK, ESQ. (admitted pro hac vice)
BRIAN K. SHELTON, ESQ. (admitted pro hac vice)
AZADEH S. KOKABI, ESQ. (admitted pro hac vice)
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037-3213
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs MT. DERM GmbH and
Nouveau Cosmetique USA, Inc.

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14
15
16

MT. DERM GmbH and
NOUVEAU COSMETIQUE USA,
Inc.,

17

Plaintiffs,
vs.

18

Case No.: 2:14-cv-00533-RFB-GWF
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY
LITIGATION PENDING THE OUTCOME OF
EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OF THE
PATENT-IN-SUIT BEFORE THE UNITED
STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

CONNECT, Inc. (d/b/a NPM USA)
19
Defendant.

(First Request)

20
21

Pursuant to LR 7-1 and 16.1-20, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and among

22

plaintiffs MT. DERM GmbH and NOUVEAU COSMETIQUE USA, Inc. (“Mt. Derm” or

23

“Plaintiff”) and defendant Connect, Inc., d/b/a NPM USA (“Connect” or “Defendant”) (for

24

purposes of this stipulation only, collectively the “Parties”), by and through their respective

25

counsel, that this litigation be stayed pending the outcome of ex parte reexamination Serial No.

26

90/013,371, which is currently pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office

27

(“USPTO”). That reexamination concerns the patent asserted in this litigation, United States

28

Patent No. 6,505,530 (“the ‘530 patent”). The USPTO ordered the reexamination on November

1

6, 2014 (attached as Exhibit A). The USPTO’s order granting reexamination applies to all

2

claims of the ‘530 patent that are asserted against Connect in this litigation.

clear tactical disadvantage to either of the Parties, and (2) that the stay will simplify the issues in

5

question and the trial of the case. See LR 16.1-20. Further, pursuant to LR 16.1-20, the Parties

6

stipulate and represent the following: (1) the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order was entered

7

on October 31, 2014; (2) fact discovery is ongoing, and is set to close on July 30, 2015; (3) the

8

Parties have exchanged initial disclosures, initial infringement contentions, and initial non-

9
2300 WEST SAHARA AVENUE, SUITE 1200 • LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89102
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

The Parties thus stipulate and agree that (1) the stay will not unduly prejudice or present a

4

McDONALD • CARANO • WILSON LLP

3

infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability contentions, but have not exchanged any other

10

written discovery (including interrogatories or requests for production), and no depositions have

11

been taken or scheduled; and (4) no trial date has been set. Id.

12

Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request the Court stay all proceedings in this

13

litigation pending the outcome of the above-referenced reexamination proceeding before the

14

USPTO. The Parties stipulate and agree to file a joint status report ten (10) judicial days after

15

the outcome of the reexamination to notify the Court of the status.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DATED this 30th day of January, 2015.
McDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP

GORDON SILVER

By: /s/ Azadeh S. Kokabi___
Kristen T. Gallagher, Esq. (NSBN 9561)
2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102

By: /s/ Douglas A. Robinson
Michael N. Feder, Esq.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, 9th Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89169

Michael R. Dzwonczyk, Esq. (pro hac vice)
Brian K. Shelton, Esq. (pro hac vice)
Azadeh S. Kokabi, Esq. (pro hac vice)
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037-3213

Douglas A. Robinson, Esq.
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
St. Louis, MO 63105
Attorneys for Defendant

Attorneys for Plaintiffs MT. DERM GmbH
and Nouveau Cosmetique USA, Inc.

IT IS SO ORDERED:
__________________________
UNITED STATES JUDGE
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge
DATED: _______________________
DATED: February 2, 2015.
Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT A 

EXHIBIT A 

a

II

1
$

3k

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office

'gj

Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Bo 1450
DX
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov

VVTOFCO

APPLICATION NO.

FILING DATE

FIRST NAMED INVENTOR

ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.

CONFIRMATION NO.

90/013,371

10/14/2014

6,505,530 B2

036012

8989

22893

7590

11/06/2014

SMITH PATENT OFFICE
1901 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N W
SUITE 901
WASHINGTON, DC 20006

EXAMINER
FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL
ART UNIT

PAPER NUMBER

3993

MAIL DATE

DELIVERY MODE

11/06/2014

PAPER

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.

PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

Control No.
90/013,371

6,505,530 B2 E

Examiner

Art Unit

BEVERLY M. FLANAGAN

Order Granting / Denying Request For
Ex Parte Reexamination

Patent Under Reexamination

3993

-The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address-

The request for ex parte reexamination filed 14 October 2014 has been considered and a determination has
been made. An identification of the claims, the references relied upon, and the rationale supporting the
determination are attached.
Attachments:
1.

a)|IH

PTO-892,

b)|EI

PTO/SB/08,

c)0

Other:

The request for ex parte reexamination is GRANTED.
RESPONSE TIMES ARE SET AS FOLLOWS:
For Patent Owner's Statement (Optional): TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication
(37 CFR 1.530 (b)). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
For Requester's Reply (optional): TWO MONTHS from the date of service of any timely filed
Patent Owner's Statement (37 CFR 1.535). NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME PERIOD IS PERMITTED.
If Patent Owner does not file a timely statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b), then no reply by requester
is permitted.

2. O The request for ex parte reexamination is DENIED.
This decision is not appealable (35 U.S.C. 303(c)). Requester may seek review by petition to the
Commissioner under 37 CFR 1.181 within ONE MONTH from the mailing date of this communication (37
CFR 1.515(c)). EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SUCH A PETITION UNDER 37 CFR 1.181 ARE
AVAILABLE ONLY BY PETITION TO SUSPEND OR WAIVE THE REGULATIONS UNDER
37 CFR 1.183.
In due course, a refund under 37 CFR 1.26 ( c) will be made to requester:
a) • by Treasury check or,
b) • by credit to Deposit Account No.

, or

c) • by credit to a credit card account, unless otherwise notified (35 U.S.C. 303(c)).

/Beverly M. Flanagan//

/JRJ/

/AK/

cc:Reauester (if third party requester)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

PTOL-471 (Rev. 08-06)

Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination

Part of Paper No. -

Application/Control Number: 90/013,371

Page 2

Art Unit: 3993
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION
A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 1-201 of United States
Patent Number 6,505,530 is raised by the request for ex parte reexamination.
Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these
proceedings because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and
not to parties in a reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that
ex parte reexamination proceedings "will be conducted with special dispatch" (37
CFR 1.550(a)). Extensions of time in ex parte reexamination proceedings are provided
for in 37 CFR 1.550(c).
Service of Papers
After the filing of a request for reexamination by a third party requester, any
document filed by either the patent owner or the third party requester must be served on
the other party (or parties where two or more third party requester proceedings are
merged) in the reexamination proceeding in the manner provided in 37 C.F.R. 1.248.
See 37 C.F.R. 1.550(f).

A preliminary amendment adding new claim 21 was filed with the request on October 14, 2014.
However, pursuant to MPEP 2243, the determination of whether or not a substantial new question of
patentability exists is with respect to the claims of the patent in effect at the time of the determination.
See also 37 CFR 1.515(a). Therefore, claims amended or added in a preliminary amendment filed at the
time of the request are not considered.

Application/Control Number: 90/013,371

Page 3

Art Unit: 3993
Amendment in Reexamination Proceedings
Patent owner is notified that any proposed amendment to the specification and/or
claims in this reexamination proceeding must comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.530(d)-(j), must
be formally presented pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.52(a) and (b), and must contain any fees
required by 37 C.F.R. 1.20(c).
Submissions
In order to ensure full consideration of any amendments, affidavits or
declarations or other documents as evidence of patentability, such documents must be
submitted in response to the first Office action on the merits (which does not result in a
close of prosecution). Submissions after the second Office action on the merits, which
is intended to be a final action, will be governed by the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.116,
after final rejection and by 37 C.F.R. 41.33 after appeal, which will be strictly enforced.

Notification of Concurrent Proceedings
The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 C.F.R.
1.565(a) to apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent
proceeding, involving U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530 throughout the course of this
reexamination proceeding. Likewise, if present, the third party requester is also
reminded of the ability to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or proceeding
throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP §§ 2207, 2282 and
2286.

Application/Control Number: 90/013,371

Page 4

Art Unit: 3993
Substantial New Question
A substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) is based on the following newly
cited printed publications:
Zhan, Taiwanese Patent No. TW326643B and its accompanying translation
(hereinafter "Zhan"); and
Bailey, U.S. Patent No. 4,582,060 (hereinafter "Bailey").

A substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) is also based on the following
previously-cited printed publications:
Theiss, U.S. Patent No. 6,033,421 (hereinafter "Theiss"); and
Beuchat, U.S. Patent No. 4,671,277 (hereinafter "Beuchat").

On November 2, 2002, Public Law 107-273 was enacted. Title III, Subtitle A,
Section 13105, part (a) of the Act revised the reexamination statute by adding the
following new last sentence to 35 U.S.C. 303(a) and 312(a):

"The existence of a substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the
fact that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the Office or
considered by the Office."

For any reexamination ordered on or after November 2, 2002, the effective date of the
statutory revision, reliance on previously cited/considered art, i.e., "old art," does not

Application/Control Number: 90/013,371

Page 5

Art Unit: 3993
necessarily preclude the existence of a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ)
that is based exclusively on that old art. Rather, determinations on whether a SNQ
exists in such an instance shall be based upon a fact-specific inquiry. In the instant
case, Theiss was cited, but not applied, in the previous examination. However, Theiss
is considered in a new light, as set forth at pages 17-18 of the request. Specifically,
Theiss' replaceable drive grip tube 12 and drive unit 10 constitute a "disposable module"
and "basic module", as recited in the claims. Furthermore, Theiss' discloses that "The
driven grip tube is designed to be easily insertable into the receiving bore of the drive
unit housing to position the needle bar for engagement by the cam, thus permitting the
ready substitution of different needles during use of the device. . . ." (see col. 2, lines
17-21 of Theiss). Beuchat was both considered and applied in the previous
examination, but was not considered in combination with either Zahn or Theiss, as is
proposed in the instant request. These proposed combinations with Zahn and Theiss
provide the new light under which the Beuchat reference is considered.

A discussion of the specifics follows:

The Zhan Reference
It is agreed that the Zhan reference raises a SNQ as to claims 1 -3 and 7-20 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530, as set forth at pages 8-13 of the request filed October 14,
2014.

Application/Control Number: 90/013,371

Page 6

Art Unit: 3993
In regard to claims 1-3 and 7-20, it is agreed that Zhan teaches an automatic
eyebrow tattooing machine comprised of a main body 30, a power supply device 32, a
motor 34, an eccentric transmission 36, a shaft 38 and a clamping needle holder 40
(see page 5, lines 9-11 of the translation). Zhan also teaches a dye cartridge 10 having
an intruding tube 11 at its bottom end and an opening on its top end where the bottom
end of the intruding tube 11 is pre-sealed with an enclosure 15 with a pre-cut line (see
page 5, lines 13-15 of the translation). Zhan also teaches that the motor 34, via the
eccentric transmission 36, the shaft 38 and the clamping needle holder 40, can drive a
tattoo needle 42 to make a linear reciprocating motion (see page 6, lines 11-13 of the
translation). Zhan also teaches that the dye cartridge 10 can be of any shape or
materials and can be pre-filled and sealed (see page 3 line 31 to page 4, line 1 of the
translation). Zhan also teaches attaching the dye cartridge 10 to the main body 30 by
clicking, screwing or other attachment means (see page 6, lines 3-4 of the translation).
The teachings identified above were not present in the prosecution of the
application which became U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530. Accordingly, there is a
substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teachings
important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable. Thus, Zhan raises a
substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1 -3 and 7-20 which question has
not been decided in a previous examination of U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530.

Application/Control Number: 90/013,371

Page 7

Art Unit: 3993
The Theiss Reference
It is agreed that the Theiss reference raises a SNQ as to claims 1-9, 19 and 20 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530, as set forth at pages 14-18 of the request filed October 14,
2014.
In regard to claims 1-9, 19 and 20, it is agreed that Theiss teaches a tattoo
machine comprised of a drive unit 10 including an electric motor 14 and a drive shaft 16
and a driven grip tube 12 (see col. 4, lines 11 -15). Theiss also teaches that tip section
52 is press fitted onto the distal end of section 44 so that a needle carried by connector
36 extends through the bore of tip section 52 (see col. 4, lines 62-64). Theiss also
teaches that rotation of drive shaft 16 and cam 18 causes cam follower 34 to ride along
cam face 20 (see col. 5, lines 1-2). Theiss also teaches that as the portion of cam face
20 closest to the distal end of the tattoo machine approaches cam follower 34, needle
connector 36 is pushed toward the distal end of the tattoo machine, pushing the tip of
the needle out of opening 54 (see col. 5, lines 2-6). Theiss also teaches that tip section
52 includes a pigment reservoir 52 for introducing pigment into the interior of tip section
52 and into contact with a needle attached to needle attachment surface 36 (see col. 4,
lines 45-48). Theiss also teaches that the driven grip tube is designed to be easily
insertable into the receiving bore of the drive unit housing to position the needle bar for
engagement by the cam, thus permitting the ready substitution of different needles
during use of the device (see col. 2, lines 17-21).
The teachings identified above were present in the prosecution of the application
which became U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530. However, they were not considered in the

Application/Control Number: 90/013,371

Page 8

Art Unit: 3993
new light (as discussed above) nor were they discussed in combination with either
Beuchat or Bailey. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would
consider these teachings important in deciding whether or not the claims are patentable.
Accordingly, Theiss raises a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1-9,
19 and 20 which question has not been decided in a previous examination of U.S.
Patent No. 6,505,530.

The Beuchat Reference
It is agreed that the Beuchat reference raises a SNQ as to claims 2, 4-6 and 1315 of U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530, as set forth at pages 18-24 of the request filed October
14, 2014.
In regard to claim 2, it is agreed that Beuchat teaches controlled dispensing [to
a needle] where the reservoir contains sufficient pigment to perform the entire
procedure without requiring the operator to stop and fill the reservoir (see col. 1, lines
41 -45, col. 6, lines 28-31 and Fig. 3). In regard to claims 4-6 and 13-15, Beuchat
teaches a disposable adapter for attachment to a head of a pigment-implanting unit,
wherein the adapter houses the pigment reservoir and transfer tube in an angled
relationship, to control the dispensing of pigment to the needle (see col. 1, lines 13-19
and Fig. 3).
The teachings identified above were present in the prosecution of the application
which became U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530. However, they were not discussed in
combination with either Zhan or Theiss. There is a substantial likelihood that a

Application/Control Number: 90/013,371

Page 9

Art Unit: 3993
reasonable examiner would consider these teachings important in deciding whether or
not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Beuchat raises a substantial new question
of patentability as to claims 2, 4-6 and 13-15 which question has not been decided in a
previous examination of U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530.

The Bailey Reference
It is agreed that the Bailey reference raises a SNQ as to claims 7-8 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,505,530, as set forth at page 22 of the request filed October 14, 2014.
In regard to claims 7-8, it is agreed that Bailey teaches cylindrical needle shaft
parts 65 including a tubular part 69, annular shoulder 71, neck 77, body 75, cap 79 and
rim 81, for holding and driving a needle that contacts different parts of needle drive 7,
including tube 41, in various placed (see Figs. 1-2).
The teachings identified above were not present in the prosecution of the
application which became U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530. Accordingly, there is a
substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teachings
important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable. Thus, Bailey raises a
substantial new question of patentability as to claims 7-8 which question has not been
decided in a previous examination of U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530.

Conclusion
Please mail any communications to:
Attn: Mail Stop "Ex Parte Reexam"
Central Reexamination Unit

Application/Control Number: 90/013,371

Page 10

Art Unit: 3993
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Please FAX any communications to:
[phone]
Central Reexamination Unit
Please hand-deliver any communications to:
Customer Service Window
Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
Randolph Building, Lobby Level
401 Dulaney Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
Examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to the Central
Reexamination Unit at telephone number [phone].

Signed:
/Beverly M. Flanagan/
Beverly M. Flanagan
CRU Examiner
GAU 3993
[phone]

Conferee: /JRJ/
Conferee: /AK/

Control No.
90/013,371

6,505,530 B2 E

Examiner

Art Unit

BEVERLY M. FLANAGAN

Order Granting / Denying Request For
Ex Parte Reexamination

Patent Under Reexamination

3993

-The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address-

The request for ex parte reexamination filed 14 October 2014 has been considered and a determination has
been made. An identification of the claims, the references relied upon, and the rationale supporting the
determination are attached.
Attachments:
1.

a)|IH

PTO-892,

b)|EI

PTO/SB/08,

c)0

Other:

The request for ex parte reexamination is GRANTED.
RESPONSE TIMES ARE SET AS FOLLOWS:
For Patent Owner's Statement (Optional): TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication
(37 CFR 1.530 (b)). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
For Requester's Reply (optional): TWO MONTHS from the date of service of any timely filed
Patent Owner's Statement (37 CFR 1.535). NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME PERIOD IS PERMITTED.
If Patent Owner does not file a timely statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b), then no reply by requester
is permitted.

2. O The request for ex parte reexamination is DENIED.
This decision is not appealable (35 U.S.C. 303(c)). Requester may seek review by petition to the
Commissioner under 37 CFR 1.181 within ONE MONTH from the mailing date of this communication (37
CFR 1.515(c)). EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SUCH A PETITION UNDER 37 CFR 1.181 ARE
AVAILABLE ONLY BY PETITION TO SUSPEND OR WAIVE THE REGULATIONS UNDER
37 CFR 1.183.
In due course, a refund under 37 CFR 1.26 ( c) will be made to requester:
a) • by Treasury check or,
b) • by credit to Deposit Account No.

, or

c) • by credit to a credit card account, unless otherwise notified (35 U.S.C. 303(c)).

/Beverly M. Flanagan//

/JRJ/

/AK/

cc:Reauester (if third party requester)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

PTOL-471 (Rev. 08-06)

Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination

Part of Paper No. -

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
In re application of

Docket No: 036012

Frank ADLER et al.

Issued: January 14, 2003

U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530

Application No. 10/072,991

Filing Date: February 12, 2002

Group Art Unit: TBD

Confirmation No.: TBD

Examiner: TBD

For:

INK APPLICATION DEVICE FOR TATTOOING OR FOR MAKING PERMANENT
MAKE-UP
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.510

MAIL STOP EX PARTE REEXAMINATION
ATTN: CENTRAL REEXAMINATION UNIT
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
As required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(3) and MPEP § 2214, Patent Owner submits
herewith a listing of the prior art patents or printed publications cited in the accompanying
Request for Ex Parte Reexamination.
The submission of the listed documents are not intended as an admission that any
such document constitutes prior art against the claims of the present application. Applicant does
not waive any right to take any action that would be appropriate to antedate or otherwise remove
any listed document as a competent reference against the claims of the present application.
The USPTO is directed and authorized to charge all required fees, except for the
Issue Fee and the Publication Fee, to Deposit Account No. 19-4880.

INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT UNDER 37 C.E.R. § 1.510
Please also credit any overpayments to said Deposit Account.
Respectfully submitted,
/ Travis B. Ribar /
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202.293.7860

Travis B. Ribar
Registration No. 61,446

WASHINGTON DC SUGHRUE/80928

23373
CUSTOMER NUMBER

Date: October 14, 2014

2

Application Number
Confirmation Number
Filing Date
First Named Inventor
Art Unit
Examiner Name
Attorney Docket Number

INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
(Not for submission under 37 CFR 1.99)

September 12, 2014
Frank ADLER

036012

U.S. PATENTS
Examiner
Initials

Cite No

Patent Number

Kind Code

Issue Date

Name of Patentee or
Applicant of cited Document

/B.F./

1

6,033,421

3/7/2000

Theiss et al.

/B.F./

2

4,671,277

6/9/1987

Beuchat, Charles

/B.F,/

3

4,582,060

4/15/1986

Pages, Columns, Lines,
Where Relevant Passages or
Relevant Figures Appear

Bailey, Ronald

U.S. PATENT APPLICATION PUBLICATIONS
Examiner
Initials

Cite No

Publication Number

Kind Code

Publication Date

Name of Patentee or
Applicant of cited Document

Pages, Columns, Lines,
Where Relevant Passages or
Relevant Figures Appear

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
Examiner
Initials

/B.F./

Cite No

Foreign
Document
Number

Country
Code
TW

Kind
Code

Publication
Date

B

Name of Patentee or
Applicant of cited
Document

Pages, Columns,
Lines, Where Relevant
Passages or Relevant
Figures Appear

4

326643

Zhan, Jiewen

Cite No

Include name of the author (in CAPITAL LETTERS), title of the article (when appropriate), title of the item
(book, magazine, journal, serial, symposium, catalog, etc.), date, page(s), volume-issue number(s),
publisher, city, and/or country where published.

5

T

Yes

Decision, Paper No. 8, Inter Partes Review 2014-00138 (April 22, 2014)

NON-PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS
Examiner
Initials

/B.F./

T

EXAMINER SIGNATURE
Examiner
Signature

Date
Considered

/Beverly Flanagan/

10/28/2014

10/28/2014

'EXAMINER: Initial if reference considered, whether or not citation is in conformance with MPEP 609. Draw line through a citation if not in conformance and not considered.
Include copy of this form with next communication to applicant.
1 See Kind Codes of USPTO Patent Documents at www.USPTO.GOV or MPEP 901.04. 2 Enter office that issued the document, by the two-letter code (WIPO Standard
ST.3). 3 For Japanese patent documents, the indication of the year of the reign of the Emperor must precede the serial number of the patent document. 4 Kind of document
by the appropriate symbols as indicated on the document under WIPO Standard ST.16 if possible. 5 Applicant is to place a check mark here if English language translation is
attached.

[Page 1 of 1]