2016‐2017,‐2026,‐2027
INTHE
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
CROSSROADSSYSTEMS,INC.,
Appellant,
v.
CISCOSYSTEMS,INC.,QUANTUMCORP.,ORACLECORPORATION,DOTHILLSYSTEMS
CORPORATION,
Appellees.
AppealsfromtheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOf ice,PatentTrialandAppeal
BoardinNos.IPR2014‐01226,IPR2015‐00825,IPR2015‐00854,IPR2014‐01463,and
IPR2014‐01544.
REPLYBRIEFOFAPPELLANTCROSSROADSSYSTEMS,INC.
JohnA.DragsethRobertCourtneyConradGosenFISH&RICHARDSONP.C.3200RBCPlaza,60South6thSt.Minneapolis,MN55402Telephone:612‐335‐5070
October5,2016 AttorneysforAppellant
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 10/05/2016
i
CERTIFICATEOFINTEREST
CounselfortheAppellantCrossroadsSystems,Inc.certi iesthefollowing:
Thefullnameofeverypartyoramicusrepresentedbymeis:
CrossroadsSystems,Inc.
Thenameoftherealpartyininterestrepresentedbymeis:
N/A
Allparentcorporationsandanypubliclyheldcompaniesthatown10percentormoreofthestockofthepartyoramicuscuriaerepresentedbymeare:
CrossroadsSystems,Inc.hasnoparentcompanyandnootherpubliclyheldcompanyowns10%ormoreofCrossroadsSystems,Inc.’sstock.
Thenamesofalllaw irmsandthepartnersorassociatesthatappearedforthepartyoramicusnowrepresentedbymeinthetrialcourtoragencyorareexpectedtoappearinthiscourtare:
Fish&RichardsonP.C.:JohnA.Dragseth,RobertCourtney,ConradGosen
BlankRomeLLP:RussellWong,JamesHall,KeithA.Rutherford,SteveEdwards,DomingoManuelLlagostera
SprinkleIPLawGroup:StevenR.Sprinkle,JohnL.Adair,ScottS.Crocker,ElizabethBrownFore
FloydWalkerLawFirm:R.FloydWalker
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 10/05/2016
ii
Date:October5,2016 /s/JohnA.Dragseth Signatureofcounsel JohnA.Dragseth Printednameofcounsel
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 10/05/2016
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Page
iii
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................2
I. ALLTHEINTRINSICEVIDENCEREQUIRESTHATTHEMAPITSELFBEDEVICE‐TO‐DEVICE....................................................................2
A. TheClaimsRequirethattheMapsBeDevice‐to‐Device.......................................................3
B. TheSpecificationDescribesOnlyMapsthatIdentifyBothDevices,WhichWasaDistinctionoverPriorArt..........................................................................................8
C. CiscoRaisedandRaisesNoDisputeAbout“Device‐to‐Device”MappingBeingintheArt.............................................................13
D. CiscoRaisesNoLegitimateDisputeontheDependentClaims..........................................18
II. ANYWAIVERHEREISCISCO’S...........................................23
A. CiscoProsecutedtheIPRonaSingleBasisofRejection,andThatishowtheBoardTreatedIt...................................................23
B. Cisco’sPassageDoesNotIdentifyaSeparateBasisforRejection....................................30
C. WaiverDoesNotApplytoaLesser‐IncludedPointLikeThatRaisedbyCisco...................................................................................35
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 4 Filed: 10/05/2016
TABLEOFCONTENTS(cont’d)
Page
iv
D. CiscoProvidesNoOtherBasistoFindWaiver....................................................................36
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................37
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 5 Filed: 10/05/2016
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES
Page(s)
v
Cases
ArendiS.A.R.L.v.AppleInc.,__F.3d__,2016WL4205964(Fed.Cir.Aug.10,2016).......................21
InreChu,66F.3d292(Fed.Cir.1995).............................................................................10
CurtisLumberCo.v.LouisianaPac.Corp.,618F.3d762(8thCir.2010)............................................................................29
DellInc.v.AcceleronLLC,818F.3d1293(Fed.Cir.2016)..........................................................................6
HarrisCorp.v.EricssonInc.,417F.3d1241(Fed.Cir.2005).......................................................................36
Indacon,Inc.v.Facebook,Inc.,824F.3d1352(Fed.Cir.2016).......................................................................11
Nystromv.TREXCo.,424F.3d1136(Fed.Cir.2005)................................................................10,11
Prietov.Quarterman,456F.3d511(5thCir.2006)............................................................................35
SASInst.,Inc.v.ComplementSoft,LLC,825F.3d1341(Fed.Cir.2016).......................................................................27
TrusteesofColumbiaUniv.v.SymantecCorp.,811F.3d1359(Fed.Cir.2016).......................................................................11
Wi‐LAN,Inc.v.KilpatrickTownsend&StocktonLLP,684F.3d1364(Fed.Cir.2012).......................................................................36
OtherAuthorities
37C.F.R.§42.23(b)(2015).....................................................................................27
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 6 Filed: 10/05/2016
1
INTRODUCTION
Ciscolargelyavoidsthemeritsofthisappealbecauseithasno
legitimateposition.Thereisnotruedisputeaboutwhatthepriorart
shows.ThequestionfortheCourtisthelegalquestionofwhatthe
patentclaimsdefine.
Theanswerisplainbecausetheclaimsrequirethatthemap
itselfreachfromdevice‐to‐device.Itisnotenoughsimplythatdata
reachadevicebyusingamapthatreferencesarouter’sport.The
requirementthatthedevicesberepresentedinthemapitselfis
explicit,itiswhatthedetaileddescriptiondescribes,itiscoretothe
invention,andimportantly,itisinconsistentwithallthepriorart.
Cisco’sleadissue(waiver)isasmuchanimproperattemptto
expandthisappealasitssubstantiveargumentisanimproperattempt
toexpandtheclaims.Ciscosaysthereweretwowhollyseparateand
distinctbasesofrejectionintheIPR—thoughCisco’sPetitionwasnot
soformed,andtheBoarddidnotinstituteontwobases(bothpoints
Cisconevermentions).Andthecontextoftheshortpassageonwhich
Ciscoreliessuggestsnosuchresult.TheBoard’sownrulesanddue
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 7 Filed: 10/05/2016
2
processwouldnotpermitrulingsontwodifferentbases;theBoard
neverusedheadingsorwordstosetofftwoissues;thepassagein
questionisexplicitlypremisedonaportionofCisco’spetitionthat
undoubtedlydidnotraisetwogrounds;Cisco’sexpertneverreliedon
theHPJournalforthemappinglimitations;andnoothercontext
suggestsexistenceoftwodistinctrejections.Rather,theBoardinthat
passagesimplyprovidedarationaleforitssinglemainpoint,which
itselfwaspremisedonerroneousexpansionoftheclaimconstruction.
Iftherewaswaiver,itwasbyCisco,whenitomittedthesegrounds
fromitsPetition.
ARGUMENT
I. ALLTHEINTRINSICEVIDENCEREQUIRESTHATTHEMAPITSELFBEDEVICE‐TO‐DEVICE
Thedisputeinthiscaseisaboutclaimconstruction—whether
theclaimsrequiredevice‐to‐devicemapping.Cisco’spositionisthat
theclaimsaresatisfiedwheneverdatamovesfromonedeviceto
another,howeverthatmightoccur.Butthe’035,’041,and’147
patentsarenotthatbroad.Rather,alltheintrinsicevidencerequires
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 8 Filed: 10/05/2016
3
thattheclaimed“map”itselfidentifytheenddevices(e.g.,byaname
orID).Thisdenovoissuecompelsreversal.
A. TheClaimsRequirethattheMapsBeDevice‐to‐Device
Asexplainedinouropening,theclaimsexplicitlyrequiredevice‐
to‐devicemapping,notjustthatdataflowbetweentwodevices:
anaccesscontroldevice...operableto:mapbetweentheatleastonedeviceandastoragespaceontheatleastonestoragedevice;...
’147patent,cl.21,Appx19703.Thisisnotarecitationthatthesystem
merelyneedstocauseadevice‐to‐deviceconnectiontobemade—
whichisCisco’sposition.Theclaimsontheirfacearemorespecific.
Theconnectionmustbeexpresslyrecitedwiththemap—i.e.,the“at
leastonedevice”andthe“storagespaceontheatleastonestorage
device”mustbeidentifiedinamap(e.g.,throughalogicalname).The
claimsdonotallowthemaptobesomethingotherthanthoseend
devices,suchasaport.
Byanalogy,arailroadmapdepictingonlyasetoftracks,butnot
arailroadswitchoradditionaltracksinstalledafterthemapwasmade,
isnota“map”tocitiesthatappearnowhereonthemap.Thatistrue
evenifthecitiesmaybereachedbythelater‐installedtracksandby
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 9 Filed: 10/05/2016
4
someonephysicallyconnectingthetracksproperlyviatheswitch.In
otherwords,justbecausetravelersorproductscangettocities
outsidethemapdoesnotmeanthatthoseothercitiesare“mapped”by
amapthatdoesnotshowthem.Or,usingtheexplicitlanguageof
claim21,suchamapdoesnotextend“betweenatleastone[city]and
...atleastone[othercity].”Andsuchamapcertainlydoesnotachieve
thegoalsoflettingamapmakercontrolpreciselywhatcanandcannot
befoundusingthemap(forflexibility,security,andbeingableto
controlwhichcityisreached)—theexplicitly‐identifiedgoalsofthe
claimeddevice‐to‐devicemapping.
Ciscorepeatedlyassertsthatthepatentsdonotstate“how”the
patenteddevicemustestablishthe“device‐to‐device”relationship,and
defendstheBoard’sDecisionswiththatassertion.E.g.,RedBr.7,12.
Butthatiswronginacriticalway.Theclaimsandthespecification
bothexplainthattheconnectionismadebyamapidentifyingthetwo
devices—i.e.,adeviceatoneendandadeviceattheother.Theclaims
andspecificationthusrecite“how”themapworks,andtheydon’tneed
tosaymore.
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 10 Filed: 10/05/2016
5
Inpractice,andasconceivedbytheinventors,recitingthatthe
mapitselfdefinethedevice‐to‐devicerelationshipisvitallyimportant.
Itallowsthemapmakertodefineandredefinetherelationshipsamong
particulardevices(e.g.,byIDssuchasLUNsforstorageorFCWWN
namesforhosts),andnotmerelyamong“ports,”wherethedetailsof
wherethoseportsmightleadissubjecttochangebysomeonefarfrom
themapmaker.Thisallowsforflexibility,security(abilitytolimit
accessonaper‐devicebasis),andtheabilitytohandlemultipledevices
onasingleconnection.E.g.,’147patent,at3:64–5:9,Appx19699–
19700;seealsoid.at2:16–19and43–53,Appx19698;id.at7:3–15,
Appx19701.
Moreover,thepatentsarenot“abstractandnon‐limiting”as
Ciscoasserts(RedBr.7).TheclaimsexplicitlyrecitedetailthatCisco
throughoutitsbrieftriestowipeaway—i.e.,thatthemapitselfdefines
whichdevicesmayconnecttowhichstorage.Ciscoconfuses“non‐
limiting”withunlimited,whichtheclaimscertainlyarenot.
Ciscoduckstheactualclaimlanguage.SeeRedBr.44–48.It
attemptstoconstruetheBoard’sconstruction,andthenshifts
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 11 Filed: 10/05/2016
6
immediatelytoitsover‐generalassertionthat“[n]othinginthe
specificationlimitshowtheclaimedmappingmustbeperformed”and
citesdisclaimercases.Id.at45–46.NoneofCisco’sargumentis
germanehere,becausetheclaimsatleastrequirethatthemapidentify
theenddevices,andthatissufficientrecitationof“how”therouter
operatestodistinguishthepriorart.
Cisco’sunderlyingapproachtoclaimconstructionis,intheend,
anefforttorevisit(andrevise)theterm“representation”inthe
Board’sclaimconstruction.ButCiscoimproperlyneglectstoreconcile
itsconstruction‐of‐the‐constructionwiththeactualclaimlanguage.
SeeRedBr.45–48.Thatapproachiswrong—onsubstanceand
procedure.Itiswrongonsubstancebecausetheconstructionis
correctaslongasitisnotexpandedinawaycontrarytotheentire
intrinsicrecord.Itiswrongonprocedurebecauseclaimconstruction
isrevieweddenovo,andthisCourthasrepeatedlyrequiredthatthe
applicationofaclaimconstructionbeconsistentwithclaims’proper
legalmeaning.E.g.,DellInc.v.AcceleronLLC,818F.3d1293,1300–01
(Fed.Cir.2016).Partiesshouldnotbeabletoassertthewrong
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 12 Filed: 10/05/2016
7
meaningfortheclaimsofapatent,whetheritisbywronglyconstruing
theclaimsinthefirstinstance,orbylaterpervertingtheproper
applicationofthoseconstructions.
Boileddown,Cisco’sargumentisthatifmappingtoaport
producesthesameresultinacertainsituationasmappingtoadevice,
thenitisequivalenttomappingtothedevice.Indeed,theBoard
admittedthatmappingtoahostchannelismerely“tantamountto
mappingtoaparticularhost”or“ineffect”mapping,Appx20—notthat
theyarethesamething.Thereisanactualandimportantdifference,
andCiscocannotusesleight‐of‐handtomakethemsynonyms,e.g.,by
constructinganinstanceinwhichmappingtoaportwereaproxyfor
mappingtoadevice.Evenif“tantamountto”or“equivalent”werethe
standard(itisnot),mappingtoaportisnotequivalenttomappingto
theactualdevicebecauseitdoesnotprovidethebenefitsofflexibility
andsecuritythatthepatentsexplicitlyidentifyfromtheclaimed
mapping—i.e.,thatmultipledevicesonthesametransportmedium
canhaveaccesscontrolledtodifferentstorage.E.g.,’147patent,at
2:43–53,4:41–66,5:5–9,Appx19698–19700.Mappingmerelytoa
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 13 Filed: 10/05/2016
8
portmayallowaconnectiontobemadeinasingleparticular
configuration—andso,totheBoard,itmaybe“tantamountto”actual
device‐to‐devicemapping—butthis“tantamount”configurationis
qualitativelydifferentfromthedevice‐to‐devicemaptheclaims
require,andlacksthebenefitsandcapabilitiesthatsuchmapping
provides.
B. TheSpecificationDescribesOnlyMapsthatIdentifyBothDevices,WhichWasaDistinctionoverPriorArt
Notonlydotheclaimsrecitethatthemapitselfpointfromone
devicetoanother,butthatistheonlythingthespecificationsdisclose.
The’147patentuniversallyderogatesthethesisofCisco’sresponse.
Crucially,thesoledisclosedembodiment,i.e.,Figure3,is
fundamentallyincompatiblewiththenotionofusing“channel
numbers”toorganizeanetwork.Inthefigure,any“channelnumber”
wouldbesharedbyalldevices,sincetheyareallconnectedonasingle
physicalcable.Butdespitealldevicessharingasinglecable/channel
number,Figure3depictsdevice‐specifictreatmentofthedevices’
accesstostorage:
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 14 Filed: 10/05/2016
9
’147patent,fig.3,Appx19696.Asthefigureshows,eachattached
“workstation”(ontheleft)isonone“channel,”yethasdevice‐specific
accesstostorage(ontheright)becauseofthedevice‐to‐devicemap.
Suchdevice‐specifictreatmentisimpossibleinachannel‐number
basedsystem.Again—forsystemsthatstructurepolicybasedon
“channelnumber,”itisimpossibletoachievethedevice‐specific
treatmentshowninfigure3.
Thisisnotreadingalimitationintotheclaims,asCiscosuggests.
SeeRedBr.48–51.Ciscodoesnotevenaddresstheclaimlanguage
itself,butonlytheBoard’sconstruction.Moreover,Cisco’scentral
argumentisthatCrossroadscannotrelyontheflexibilityandsecurity
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 15 Filed: 10/05/2016
10
benefitsoftheinventionwhenthosebenefitsarenotrecitedinthe
claims.RedBr.49.Butwheretheclaimsdoexplicitlyrecitedevice‐to‐
devicemapping(andnotdevice‐to‐portmapping),thebenefitsofsuch
mappingarerelevanttoexplainingthatcentralityofdevice‐to‐device
mappingtotheclaim.See,e.g.,Nystromv.TREXCo.,424F.3d1136,
1146(Fed.Cir.2005)(affirmingclaimconstructionthatreliedon
“advantagesoftheinvention”);seealsoInreChu,66F.3d292,298–99
(Fed.Cir.1995)(benefitsofinventionrelevantevenwhenspecification
doesnotmentionthem).
AsCrossroads’openingbriefdescribed(andCiscodoesnot
dispute),thereisnothinganywhereinthepatentsorfilehistoriesto
supportsuchexpansiveclaimscope.SeeBlueBr.24–28.Ciscotriesto
frametheissueasoneinwhichCrossroadshastheburdentoidentify
anexpressdisavowal,butCiscoignoresthattheclaimshereexplicitly
requirethemaptobedevice‐to‐device,soitisCiscothatwouldneed
showacleardeparturefromtheclaimlanguage.
Moreover,itisbeyondquestionthat,wherethespecification
uniformlyindicateshowtheclaimmustbeinterpreted,thereisno
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 16 Filed: 10/05/2016
11
needtofindexpressdisavowal.Nystromv.TREXCo.demonstratesthe
flawinOracle’sreasoning.Nystrom(likeCisco)urgedabroadclaim
interpretation,citingtheabsenceofanycleardisavowal.ThisCourt
rejectedNystrom’sreasoningas“misplaced.”424F.3dat1145.“[A]s
explainedinPhillips,”theCourtwrote,“Nystromisnotentitledtoa
claimconstructiondivorcedfromthecontextofthewritten
descriptionandprosecutionhistory.”Id.at1145–46.1Thus,evenif
theclaimsdidnotexplicitlyrequirethatthemapbedevice‐to‐device,
thatfeatureispartoftheinvention.
Ciscoalsomissesakeydistinctionwhenitreliesrepeatedlyon
thepatents’descriptionofsupposed“intermediateidentifiers.”The
pointthatCiscoducksisthatthethingsitpointstoasintermediate
identifiersinthepatentspecificationsarethingsthatactuallyidentify
thedevicesthemselves,ratherthanidentifyingsomethingelselikea
1Othercasesareequallysupportive.E.g.,Indacon,Inc.v.Facebook,Inc.,824F.3d1352,1358(Fed.Cir.2016)(“[W]eneednotfinddisclaimerwherethespecificationdoesnotpermitabroaderinterpretationoftheseclaimtermsandthetermsotherwiselackanordinarymeaningintheart.”);TrusteesofColumbiaUniv.v.SymantecCorp.,811F.3d1359,1367–68(Fed.Cir.2016)(rejectingargumentthattheabsenceofcleardisavowalrequiredbroadconstruction).
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 17 Filed: 10/05/2016
12
routerport.Theyareaddressinginformationforthedevices.E.g.,’147
patent,7:16–18,Appx19701(“[A]ddressinginformationisneededto
mapfrom[FibreChannel]addressingtoSCSIaddressingandvice
versa.”).Sotheissueisnotfinalversusintermediate,butwhetherthe
thinginthemapactuallyidentifiesandsignifiesthedeviceratherthan
someothercomponent,liketherouterport.Thereisnothing
inconsistentbetweentheclaims’requirementthatthemapidentifythe
enddevices,andthemannerinwhichthatidentificationisperformed
inthespecification(andnotperformedinthepriorart).
Intheend,theBoard’sfundamentalerrorwasinholdingthatthe
term“representationsofdevices”couldencompassrepresentationsof
thingsthatarenot“devices.”AndasCrossroadshasrepeatedly
pointedoutwithoutdispute,theCRD‐5500’s“channelnumbers”are
not“devices.”E.g.,BlueBr.52,67.Noraretheyaccuratestand‐ins,or
proxies,for“devices.”Inotherwords,Crossroadsisnottryingto
narrowtheclaimtorequire“immutability.”Crossroadsistryingto
requirethatthe“representationsofdevices”representdevices,and
notsomethingelse.Ifanything,Cisco(andtheBoard)areimproperly
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 18 Filed: 10/05/2016
13
expandingtheclaimtocoverstructureswhosecorrespondenceto
“devices”isunreliableandmutablewithoutrestriction.
C. CiscoRaisedandRaisesNoDisputeAbout“Device‐to‐Device”MappingBeingintheArt
Cisco’sbriefconfirmsthatthepartiesdonotdisputethecontent
ofthepriorart.Forexample,totheextenttheCRD‐5500User’sManual
teachesany“map,”itisamapthatassociatesaccessrights(e.g.,the
righttoaccessa“redundancygroup”)withchannelnumbers—i.e.,the
numberassociatedwithaphysicalcable,pluggedintothebackofthe
CRD‐5500device.See,e.g.,BlueBr.33–34.Indeed,bothparties
reproduceanddiscussthesamediagramofthisalleged“map”:
CRD‐5500User’sManualat4‐5,Appx481;seealsoBlueBr.14
(depicting,discussingsame);RedBr.12–13(same).Allpartieshave
thesameinterpretationofthereference—i.e.,usingthetableabove,
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 19 Filed: 10/05/2016
14
theCRD‐5500couldsetaccessrulesforwhatevercomputersareon
thatchannel.Itcoulduseother,similarly‐formedtablestosetrules
forotherchannels.CRD‐5500User’sManualat4‐5,Appx481
(describingusingaseparatetable“oneachhostchannel”).Butthe
CRD‐5500hadnoabilitytosetanysortofintra‐channelrules.Any
andallcomputersonone“channel,”beitone,ten,oronehundred,will
receivethesameaccessrightstothesame“redundancygroups.”Cisco
doesnotdisputethis.
Also,whenCisconotesthattheCRD‐5500allowsyouto“assign
redundancygroupstoparticularhost,”RedBr.54(citingAppx447)
(emphasisCisco’s),itignoresthattheCRD‐5500makesitsassignments
tochannels.Thequotedpassageis,withoutdispute,theresultofa
channelbeingassignedinamapandasinglehostbeingconnectedby
anadministratorseparatefromthemapandwithoutbeingreflectedin
themap.Butasnotedabove,mappingtoaportandhopingthatthe
portisconnectedtotherightdeviceissignificantlydifferentfrom
mappingtothedevice.
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 20 Filed: 10/05/2016
15
Similarly,thereisnodisputethattheHPJournaldoesnothingto
helpCiscoonthemerits.Significantly,notonceinitsbriefdoesCisco
saythatitoritsexpertarguedthattheHPJournalcanprovidethe
mapping—itinsteadsimplyrepeats,overandover,itsspinofthe
Board’sstatement.
ButasidefromthatstatementbytheBoardnotsettingfortha
separatebasisofrejection(seeinfra),thereisnoevidenceorargument
belowthatthemappingcouldcomefromtheHPJournal.WhatCisco
anditsexpertarguedbelowfortheHPJournalwasthataskilled
artisancouldswaptheFibreChannelcardsfromHPJournalforthe
RAIDcardsintheboxoftheCRD‐5500.ThatisallCiscosaidinits
petitions—itmadenomentionoftheHPJournalbeingrelevanttothe
mappinglimitation.E.g.,‐1226Pet.21–26,Appx158–163.Andwhenit
gottothe“map”limitation,itspokeonlyoftheCRD‐5500User’s
ManualandsaidnothingabouttheHPJournal.E.g.,id.at31,Appx168.
TheBoardcitedtoparagraphs55–61ofCisco’sdeclarationfrom
Dr.Hospodor(andtoCisco’sreplybrief),butthoseparagraphssay
absolutelynothingaboutusingadifferentmappingschemethanthat
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 21 Filed: 10/05/2016
16
intheCRD‐5500User’sManual.See‐1226Dec.22,Appx22.Rather,
theyareasgeneralasthePetitionandsimplysaythattheHPJournal
cardscouldbeswappedintotheCRD‐5000box—nothingabout
changinganymap,whichwasnotontheCRD‐5500cardsanyway.‐
1226HospodorDecl.34‐37,Appx339‐342;seealsoCRD‐5500User’s
Manualat4‐5,Appx481(confirmingthatthedeviceitselfmaintains
“HostLUNmappingtables”for“eachhostchannel”);BlueBr.14–15
(discussingsame).IftherewereanyquestionatallfromDr.
Hospodor’sgeneraldiscussionatparagraphs55–61,itisclearedupby
hisdetailedbasesforrejections,whichhesetforthinlengthyclaim
charts.Critically,forallthevarious“map”limitationsacrossthe
claims,hecitedonlytotheCRD‐5500User’sManual’smapping,and
madenomentionatalloftheHPJournal.‐1226HospodorDecl.at51‐
54,Appx356‐359(‘035claim1);seealso‐1463HospodorDecl.at48–
54,Appx9899–9902(’041claim1);‐1544HospodorDecl.at51–55,
Appx20209–20213(’147claim1).GiventhatCisconotablycitestono
actualevidencethatprovidesfactssupportingitsspecialreadingofthe
Board’sopinion,andtheonlylogicalsourceofthatevidencecontains
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 22 Filed: 10/05/2016
17
nothing,theBoard’sopinioncannotbeaffirmedevenifCisco’s
interpretationoftheBoard’sopinionisaccepted,becausethereisno
evidenceallforit,letalonesubstantialevidence.
Thereis,infact,goodreasonthatDr.HospodorneversaidtheHP
Journalwouldprovidethemapfortheclaims,thatCisconeverargued
itbelow,andthattheBoardneverheldit.Thatisbecause,asnoted
above,thecombinationCiscoproposedwasmerelytoswapHPJournal
FibreChannelcardsfortheRAIDcardsintheCRD‐5500.Butthemap
isnotlocatedonormanagedbythecards.Itisinsteadinthebox,
awayfromthecards,becausetheboxneedstomanagerouting
betweenthecards.CRD‐5500User’sManualat4‐5,Appx481
(confirmingthatthedeviceitselfmaintains“HostLUNmappingtables”
for“eachhostchannel”);BlueBr.14–15(discussingsame);seealso
‐1226LevyDecl.at32–46,Appx2459–2473(describinghowa
“channelsettings”menuontheCRD‐5500isusedtosetchannel‐
specificmappingdetailsandmaintainthemintheCRD‐5500,including
one“hostLUNmappingtable”foreachchannel).Thus,eveniftheHP
JournalcardswerebroughtintotheCRD‐5500boxandtheaddressing
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 23 Filed: 10/05/2016
18
foreachcard,managedbytheTachyonchip,camealong,thatwould
notresultinthemapintheboxbecomingadevice‐to‐devicemap
ratherthanacard‐to‐card/port‐to‐portmap.Ciscoanditsexpert
knewbelowthatsuchanapproachwasnotcrediblesotheydidnot
raiseit,andCiscocannotraiseitforthefirsttimeonappeal.
Withtruefactdisputesnonexistent,thebriefingconfirmsthat
thisappealisaboutanissueoflaw—thepropermeaningtogivetothe
explicitclaimrequirementthatthemapextendsdevice‐to‐device,and
notmerelythatdevicescanbeconnected.
D. CiscoRaisesNoLegitimateDisputeontheDependentClaims
Onthedependentclaims,Ciscorelieswhollyonitswaiver
argumentandtheBoard’sfaultyapplicationoftheclaims.BlueBr.41–
43and56–59.
Ciscoiswrongonwaiverforallclaims,forthereasonsdiscussed
below.
Onthemerits,CiscodoesnotdisputewhatwesayinourBlue
Briefat34–40,butinsteadrepeats,indifferentways,thatidentifyinga
portcountsasidentifyingadevice—orastheBoardsaid,is
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 24 Filed: 10/05/2016
19
“tantamountto”or“ineffect”identifyingthedevice.See‐1226Dec.20,
Appx20.Thatisnotenough,particularlywiththesemorespecific
claims.Cisco’stroubleisthatevenifoneexpandstheindependent
claimstoequateachannel‐basedmapwithadevice‐to‐devicemap,
thatexpansiondoesnotworkatallwiththedependentclaimsthat
plainlyrecitethingsthataportdoesnotmatch—i.e.,aunique
identifierforwhateverdevicesareconnectedtoit,anIDthatisa
uniquerepresentationofthedeviceeverywhere(worldwide),and
whereinthemapincludesa“hostdeviceID.”Indeed,ifthatexpansion
isallowedforthedependentclaims,Ciscohasnoexplanationforhow
thedependentclaimsdifferinscopefromtheindependentclaims.
Noneofthereferencesdoes,infact,disclosedevice‐to‐device
mappingwitha“uniqueidentifier,”“worldwidename,”or“hostdevice
ID”asthedependentclaimsrecite—whetherundertheproperreading
oftheclaimsortheBoard’sbroadenedreading.Forthe“unique
identifier”(’041claim14),theBlueBriefexplainsthattheCRD‐5500
channelidentifiersareidentifiersforachannel,andnotunique
identifierstorepresentadevice,astheclaimrequires.SeeBlueBr.35–
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 25 Filed: 10/05/2016
20
37.CiscosimplyreliesontheabilityoftheCRD‐5500to“assign
redundancygroupstoaparticularhost”andonthepresenceofAL_PA
identifiersinthepatentspecifications.RedBr.56–57.Thefirst
assertionmissesthepointbecauseitisundisputedthattheCRD‐5500
mapdoesnotassigntheredundancygroupstoauniquehost—rather,
themapassignsthemtoachannel,andtheythengotowhateverhost
orhostsareconnected,whichcouldbeanyhostormultiplehosts,and
notauniquehostidentifiedinthemap.Thesecondassertionmisses
thepointbecausetheAL_PAidentifierdiduniquelyidentifyanend
deviceratherthanjustaport,andCisco’sciteddepositiontestimonyis
nottothecontrary.SeeBlueBr.32‐33.
Forthe“WorldWideNames”requirement(’041claim15),the
CRD‐5500certainlydoesnotsuffice,andCiscotacitlyadmitsasmuch.
TheBoardhadreliedontheCRD‐5500User’sManualasshowingthe
basesystem,ontheHPJournalasshowingaswapforFibreChannel
cardsintothebasesystem,andtheFibreChannelStandardasshowing
howtheFibreChannelwouldwork(becausetheHPJournallackedthat
detail).‐1463Dec.29–31,Appx68–70.Importantly,theBoardnoted:
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 26 Filed: 10/05/2016
21
“PetitionersrelyontheFibreChannelStandardasteachinguseof
worldwidenamesinsystemsliketheonethatresultsfromcombining
theCRDManualwiththeteachingsoftheHPJournal.”Id.at30–31,
Appx69‐70.TheBlueBriefexplainsindetailwhytheFibreChannel
Standarddoesnothavesuchateaching,BlueBr.37–39,andCiscodoes
notdisputethattheFibreChannelStandardlackstheteaching.RedBr.
57–58.AllthatCiscoarguesisthatCrossroadsisattackingthe
referencesindividually,butthatiswrong.Crossroadsisinstead
pointingoutthatthereferenceonwhichtheBoardreliedforthe
teachingcontainsnosuchteaching,Ciscodoesnotdisputethatpoint,
andtheteachinghasnotbeenshowntoexistinanyotherreference.
Wherenoreferenceteachesafeature,theBoardoraPetitionercannot
builditoutofthinair.E.g.,ArendiS.A.R.L.v.AppleInc.,__F.3d__,2016
WL4205964,at*8(Fed.Cir.Aug.10,2016)(criticizingrelianceon
reasoningnotdocumentedintherecord).
Moreofthesameforthe“hostdeviceID”claims(’147claim24).
Here,CiscoseekstousetheCRD‐5500User’sManual,butevenifone
believesthatanIDforthechannelontherouterisafairequivalentfor
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 27 Filed: 10/05/2016
22
arepresentationofthedevice,itcertainlyisnottheIDofthehost
deviceitself.Inotherwords,thisclaimcannotbestretchedtheway
theBoardstretchedtheindependentclaims.Ciscosuggeststhatthe
userof“portidentifier”intheCrossroadspatentsequatestotheCRD‐
5500’sidentificationoftherouterchannels.Butthisisapplesand
oranges.Theportidentifiersinthepatentsareassignedtotheportsof
theparticularenddevicesandthusdoidentifythoseenddevices.The
CRD‐5500channelsarefixedidentifiersthatatmostrepresentthe
portsoftherouter,andnottheportsofenddevices,andtheydonot
otherwisetellauseranythingaboutanenddevicethatmightcurrently
beconnectedtotheportbecausesuchadevicecanbeswitchedatany
timewithouttheCRD‐5500systemknowingorcaring.Thesystem
doesnotknoworcarebecauseitonlyidentifiesouttotherouter’sown
channel,andnottotheenddevice.
Inshort,regardlesstheoutcomeoftheclaimconstructionissue,
Cisco’snewwaiverissue(discussedbelow),orthedecisiononthe
validityoftheindependentclaims,theCourtmustreversethe
rejectionsofthedependentclaimsbecauseCrossroadsaddressedthe
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 28 Filed: 10/05/2016
23
fundamentalproblemswiththeBoard’sreasoning,andCiscodidnot
counterthosepoints.
II. ANYWAIVERHEREISCISCO’S
CiscobroughtthisIPRandargueditonasinglebasis,andthe
Boarddecideditonasinglebasis.Ciscotriestoteaseoutawaiver
argumentwheretheBoardneversetoutseparateissues,wherethere
undoubtedlyarenotseparateissues,andwherethereisnoother
reasontoapplytheequitabledoctrineofwaiver.Cisco’stacticisan
attempttogainnewargumentsthatitdidnotmakeintimebelow,and
onwhichithaswaived.
A. CiscoProsecutedtheIPRonaSingleBasisofRejection,andThatishowtheBoardTreatedIt
Thereisnowaiverinthiscaseforthesimplefactthat,until
Cisco’sRedBrief,nooneinthiscaseidentifiedindependentbasesof
rejection—notCisco,notCrossroads,andnottheBoard.Cisco’sentire
waiverargumentbeginsatashortpassageintheBoard’sopinionsthat
startsinthemiddleofaparagraphneartheendoftheBoard’sanalysis
oftheindependentclaims—anoddplacetostartanewand
independentlineofreasoning.SeeRedBr.32(citing‐1226Dec.21–
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 29 Filed: 10/05/2016
24
22,Appx21–22).AnditbeginswithacriticalanchorthatCiscowholly
ignoresinitsbrieftothisCourt.
Specifically,thepassageonwhichCisco’sentirewaiver
argumentreliesstartsbynoting:
AsnotedinthePetition(Pet.20‐21),...
‐1226Dec.22,Appx22.TheBoardthenrepeats,initsownwords,
whatisonthosepages.Id.Thosepages—offeredbyCisco,recitedby
theBoard—arethediscussionofthephysicalstructureoftheCRD‐
5500andtheabilitytoputdifferentcards,otherthantheSCSIcards
explicitlydisclosedintheCRD‐5500User’sManual,intheslotsofthe
CRD‐5500:
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 30 Filed: 10/05/2016
25
‐1226Pet.20–21,Appx157–158.Suchwasnotaseparateanddistinct
argumentforcombinationbyCiscoatall.Itcertainlywasnota
separateanddistinctbasisofrejectionbytheBoard.Itwassimplya
baseline—recitedbyCisco,repeatedbytheBoard—forCisco’s
ultimateassertionthattheCRD‐5500User’sManualandtheHPJournal
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 31 Filed: 10/05/2016
26
werecombinable.Ciscohassimplymanufacturedthewhole
distinctionabouttwoseparateanddistinct“configurations”fortactical
advantageforthisappeal.
CiscosaysnothingtothisCourtaboutitsIPRPetitionwhen
arguingforwaiver.TheRedBriefdoesnotmentionpages20–21ofthe
Petition,whichtheBoardidentifiedasthestartingpointforits
reasoninginthesubjectpassage.AndCisco’somissionleadstoa
severelyimproperframingoftheBoard’sopinion.Properlyread,the
Boardwasnotadoptingaseparateandindependent,andnew,ground
ofrejection.Atbest,itwasrecitingCisco’sreasoning(astheBoard
understoodit).Andthesinglegrounditreferenced,asindicatedbyits
closingcitationtoDr.Hospodor’sdeclaration,wasoneinwhichonly
theCRD‐5500User’sManualwasbeingreliedonforthemapping
limitations,andnottheHPJournal.Seesupraat18‐19.Whenitcame
totheactualgroundofrejection,theBoard’soverallDecisionmakes
clearthattherewasonlyasinglesuchground—thegrounddiscussed
inCrossroads’Bluebrief.
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 32 Filed: 10/05/2016
27
NorcouldtheBoardhavedonedifferently.ThenarrativeCisco
promotes—thattheBoardventuredanentiresecondgroundof
rejection—isunsupportedbyeitherthePetitionortheInstitution
Decision.Assuch,theBoardislawfullyproscribedfromproceedingon
argumentsnotdescribedinoneofthosetwofilings.Suchisnecessary
becauseaPatentOwner’slastfilingoccursimmediatelyafterthe
institutiondecision;PatentOwnerhasnoopportunitytoanswernew
issuesinaPetitioner’sreply.TheBoarditselfappliesthisruletoreject
newargumentsraisedinreplybriefs.37C.F.R.§42.23(b)(2015)(“A
replymayonlyrespondtoargumentsraisedinthecorresponding
oppositionorpatentownerresponse.”).AndwhentheBoardfailsto
applyitsownrule,thisCourtpreventsexpansionofissuesbythe
BoardbecausetheAPArequiresnoticeandanopportunitytobeheard,
whichisdeniedtoaPatentOwnerwhenissueschangeafteritfilesits
PatentOwner’sResponse.SeeSASInst.,Inc.v.ComplementSoft,LLC,
825F.3d1341,1351(Fed.Cir.2016).2Thus,notonlydidtheBoard
2ThesituationhereisevenmoreextremebecausethepositionCiscosaystheBoardtookinitsFinalWrittenDecision(thatthemapping
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 33 Filed: 10/05/2016
28
notexpandthisIPRfromonebasisforrejectiontotwoafterit
instituted,butitcouldnothavedoneso—apointCiscowhollyignores.
Ifthisalonewasnotenough,everyotherpieceofcontext—again,
allignoredbyCisco—makeplainthattheBoarddidnotmaketwo
whollyseparateanddistinctrejections,nordidCiscoaskforthem.
First,thesentencesonwhichCiscoreliesincludenotransitionterms
(like“also”or“moreover”)toindicatetheBoardwasshiftingfromone
basisofrejectiontoanotherindependentbasis.Second,the
introductorysentencetotheparagraph—whichCiscorepeatedlycrops
fromitsquotesandneveraddresses—framestheissueaddressedby
theparagraphasadisputeaboutwhetherthereferencescanbe
combined,notasaddinganewbasisforrejectionpremisedon
differentdisclosure.Third,nowhereelseintheBoard’sopinionorin
Cisco’sreply(e.g.,intheintroductions,conclusions,orrequestsfor
relief)isthereanydiscussionorevenintimationabouttwobasesfor
rejection.Fourth,neithertheBoard’sopinionnorthereplybrief
limitationistaughtbytheHPJournal)wasnotevenapositionthatCiscooritsexperthadtaken.
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 34 Filed: 10/05/2016
29
includeanyheadingsorsubheadingsthatpurporttobreakthebases
forrejectionintotwoparts.Fifth,theconclusionsoftherelevant
sectionsaresingularinnature,andprovidenoindicationthatthere
weremultiplebasesforrejection.‐1226Dec.26,Appx26;id.at27,
Appx27.Ciscoignoresallthiscontextbecausenotasingleindication
inthesurroundingcontextsuggeststhatthereweretwobasesfor
rejectionhere.
Finally,evenif,despiteallthesepoints,thisCourtweretofind
someseparationbetweentwopointshere,itwouldnotbeabasisfora
waiver.Rather,whereatribunaltreatsissuestogetherandthe
argumenttothemis“virtuallythesame,”courtsofappealfindno
waiver.E.g.,CurtisLumberCo.v.LouisianaPac.Corp.,618F.3d762,
770n.2(8thCir.2010)(“Giventhatthedistrictcourt’sorderblended
theseissuesandthattheargumentsarecloselyintertwined,wedecline
toholdthatCurtisLumberwaivedthestandingissue.”).Thus,evenif
oneweretoagreewithCisco’sinterpretationofitsfavoritesentences,
theBoardandCisconevertreatedthiscaseasifthereweretwobases
ofrejection.Waiverisinapplicable.
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 35 Filed: 10/05/2016
30
B. Cisco’sPassageDoesNotIdentifyaSeparateBasisforRejection
GiventhatCiscodidnotaskforaseparategroundofrejection,
didnotputinanyevidenceonthegrounditnowsayswasan
alternativeground,andtheBoarddidnotinstituteontwogrounds,it
shouldbenosurprisethatthepassageonwhichCiscoreliesdoesnot
identifyseparateanddistinctgrounds.
ThepassageispartofaparagraphthatopenswiththeBoard
explainingitsviewthatthecombinationoftheCRD‐5500User’sManual
withtheHPJournalwouldbemorecompletethanCrossroadsargued.
TheBoarddidnotframeitsdiscussionwithanystatement,explicitor
implicit,aboutanewanddistinctbasisofrejection.See‐1226Dec.22,
Appx22.Uponsettingthatstage,theBoard’sopinionreferstopages
20‐21ofCisco’sPetitionasthebasisforitsfinding—butpages20‐21
(excerptedinanimageabove)don’tdiscussanycombinationofthe
references,sotheBoardcouldnothavebeenmakingtherethepoint
thatCiscoattributestotheBoardonappeal.3Id.(citingPet.20–21,
3Insomeofthedecisions,theBoardreferstopages20–21ofthePetition.Whilepage20hassomediscussionoftheHPJournal,itis
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 36 Filed: 10/05/2016
31
Appx157–158).Thus,whentheBoardreachesthelastsentenceofthe
paragraph,itstatesthecombinedsystem“mapsredundancygroupsto
particularhostsandimplementsaccesscontrolsastaughtbytheCRD
Manual[.]”‐1226Dec.22,Appx22.Sothemapping—thekeyfeature
here—isperformedaccordingtotheCRD‐5500User’sManual.4See
suprasec.I.C(discussingchannel‐basedapproach);seealsoCRD‐5500
User’sManualat4–5(depictingthechannel‐basedalleged“map”ofthe
Manual),Appx705.FurthermentionoftheHPJournalinthepassage
simplyrecognizesthatwhentheFibreChannelcardsareswappedin,
theywilluseFibreChanneladdressing,butthatdoesnotchangewhat
isinthemapwithintheCRD‐5500’smemory,andnotonthecards.
merelygeneraldiscussionaboutwhattheHPJournaldiscusses,andnothingaboutthecombinationofthetworeferences,ortheparticularcombinationthatCiscoarguesforonappeal.
4Asdiscussedabove,itisatthisstagebeyonddisputethatthealleged“map”intheCRD‐5500User’sManualisfoundinadatastructurecalleda“HostLUNMappingTable.”SeeCRD‐5500User’sManualat4‐5,Appx481.IntheCRD‐5500thereisonesuchtableforeach“channel”—i.e.,foreachphysicalcableattachedtotheCRD‐5500device.SeegenerallyBlueBr.13–15.Thereisnodiscussion,anywhereintheBoard’sdecisionortheIPRrecordgenerally,ofalteringthis“multiplemaps,oneperchannel,storedintheCRD‐5500”approach.
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 37 Filed: 10/05/2016
32
ThereisnohintintheBoard’sopinionofmodifyingtheCRD‐5500’s
intrinsicallychannel‐basedapproachtomapping.TheBoardnotes
thattheHPJournal’s“FCaddressingcapabilities”couldbeapplied,but
thatisnotaseparate,secondholdingbytheBoard.‐1226Dec.22,
Appx22.Itissimplyastatementthatsuchaddressingcouldbe
implementedonthenetworkinsteadoftheSCSIapproachwiththeold
cards,withtheCRD‐5500User’sManual’smap—withoutan
explanationofhowthatwouldoccur—andnotthatitwouldbea
separateapproachtomapping.
CiscoplacesgreatemphasisontheBoard’sstatementthattheHP
Journalteachingscanbeused“inlieuof”theCRD‐5500User’sManual’s
teachingsasasupposedindicationthattheBoardwastransitioningto
adifferentgroundofrejection.E.g.,RedBr.15,18,20,24,29,32,35,
41.Butthosewordssimplyindicatethefeatureswapfromonecard
typetoanotherthattheBoardwouldmakeaspartofitssingle
combination,notatransitiontoaseparaterejection.Again,contextis
important.CiscostripsitsargumentsofthecontextinwhichtheBoard
madeitsstatement.
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 38 Filed: 10/05/2016
33
CiscoplacesperhapsevenmoreweightontheBoard’scitationat
theendofthispassage,seeRedBr.25–27,butthatcitationcritically
hurtsCisco.See‐1226Dec.22(citingtoCisco’sPTABreplyandthe
declarationofitsexpert),Appx22.First,acitationis,atmost,a
synonymforthestatementthatprecedesthecitation;itismere
supportfortheprecedingstatement—i.e.,anassertionthat“hereis
supportforwhatwejustsaid.”Ciscocitesnoauthorityorlogictohold
thatacitationwouldberecognized,byitsnature,asasubstantive
expansionoftheexpresslystatedargument.Andnothinginthe
Board’sopinionwouldindicateitwasmeanttobeanexpansion.
Second,thecitationisnottheBoard’sactualreasoning.Itisatmost
supportforthereasoning,butCiscocannotuseittofillinwhatis
missingfromwhattheBoardhasexpresslystated.Third,Cisco’sbrief
effectivelytreatsthecitationasifitwereanincorporation‐by‐
reference,butthisCourthas,inmultiplesituations,requiredthatan
incorporation‐by‐referencebespecificwithrespecttowhatitpurports
toincorporatesoastoprovideadequatenoticetoareader.Fourth,
thecitationtothereplybriefistotheentiretyofCisco’sargument
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 39 Filed: 10/05/2016
34
concerningtheCRD‐5500User’sManual/HPJournalcombination.‐
1226Dec.22(citingeightpagesofCisco’sPTABReply(Appx5100–
5107).Fifth,Cisco’sPTABreplydoesnotitselfevenincludetwo
separateandindependentbasesfortherejection.Rather,that
discussionsimplyusestheHPJournalasallegedlyshowing“multiple
hostsonthesametransportmedium,”butsaysnothingaboutanymap
providedbytheHPJournalsystem.See,e.g.,Cisco‐1226Reply13–20,
Appx5100–5107.Sixth,andperhapsmostcritically,Dr.Hospodor,as
discussedsupraat18–19,saidabsolutelynothingaboutHPJournal
disclosingthemappinglimitation.CiscoignoresDr.Hospodorandthe
Board’srelianceonhisdeclarationnow(e.g.,RedBr.25–26).5Inshort,
Cisco’smanufacturedmeaningforthispassagebytheBoardis
contrarytoeverypieceofsurroundingcontextualevidence.
5CiscoquicklynotesthattheBoardreliedon“Appellees’expertdeclaration”butthenhighlightspointsaboutDr.Levy,whowasAppellant’sexpert,anddoesnothighlightordiscussDr.Hospodor’sdeclaration,whichiswhattheBoardcited.RedBr.25‐26.
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 40 Filed: 10/05/2016
35
NothinginanyoftheDecisionssetsforthaseparatebasisforthe
decision,asCiscoasserts.Andnothingrelies(becausereliancewould
beimproper)ontheHPJournalforthemappinglimitations.
C. WaiverDoesNotApplytoaLesser‐IncludedPointLikeThatRaisedbyCisco
TheissuetheBoarddecidedandthisappealraisesiswhether
theCRD‐5500User’sManual/HPJournalcombinationrenderedthe
claimsobvious.RegardlessofhowoneinterpretstheBoard’sopinion,
theissueCiscoraisesonisatmostalesserincludedquestionunderthe
centralappealedissue.SeeBlueBr.18&n.10(identifyingtheBoard’s
CRD‐5500“maps”analysisasthekeyissue).ApointthatCiscoleaves
unaddressedinitsbriefingisthatwaiverappliestodistinctissues,and
nottosuchlesserincludedquestions.SeePrietov.Quarterman,456
F.3d511,517(5thCir.2006)(“[W]eviewPrieto'sinitialbriefas
sufficientlypresenting—andthuspreserving—theentireissueof
proceduraldefault,including,withoutlimitation,thelesserincluded
questionwhetheritwasimproperforthedistrictcourttoraisethe
affirmativedefenseofproceduraldefaultsuasponte.”).WhileCisco
cancertainlypressitssubstantivepointabouthowtocombinethe
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 41 Filed: 10/05/2016
36
CRD‐5500User’sManualandtheHPJournal(thoughithasnoevidence
tosupportsuchacombinationanddoesnotciteany,asdiscussed
infra),itcannottakethefurtherstepofforeclosinganyreviewofthat
decision.
D. CiscoProvidesNoOtherBasistoFindWaiver
EvenifoneacceptseveryCiscocharacterization,waivershould
notbeapplied.Waiverisanequitabledoctrineappliedonlywhenthe
equitiesdictate.SeeHarrisCorp.v.EricssonInc.,417F.3d1241,1251
(Fed.Cir.2005);cf.Wi‐LAN,Inc.v.KilpatrickTownsend&StocktonLLP,
684F.3d1364,1369(Fed.Cir.2012).Ciscohasnotmetitsburdento
showthatthisissuchacase.Forexample,thereisnodisputethat
CiscodidnotPetitionontheallegedly‐separatebasisitraisesnow,the
Boarddidnotinstituteontwobases,andCisco’sevidence(fromDr.
Hospodor)didnotaddressatallthesupposedsecondbasis.Even
Cisco’sreplydidnotapplytheHPJournaltothemappinglimitations,
andwassubmittedafterCrossroadcouldfilearesponseinanyevent.
CiscothusaskstheCourttoapplyequitytoanissueitneverraisedand
onwhichCrossroadshadnonoticeandopportunitytobeheard.
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 42 Filed: 10/05/2016
37
Moreover,theBoard’sopinionsareunclearatbest—theyinclude
noindicatorsthattheBoardwasswitchinggearstoaseparate
rejection.Theydonotcontainanydiscussionabouttheparticular
differentpartsofthetworeferencestheyarerelyingoninthe
supposeddifferentrejections.Andtheyincludenootherreferencesto
theseparaterejectionsthatCiscobuiltinitsRedbrief.Moreover,
Cisco’snewrejectionfallsbecauseithasnoevidence.Finally,Ciscoas
originatorofthe“seconddistinctrejection”theory,hadfull
opportunitytoaddressthetheoryitwasthefirsttoidentify,sothere
canbenoclaimofprejudicehere.Nofactorcounselsforawaiverhere.
CONCLUSION
Fortheforegoingreasons,Crossroadsrespectfullyrequeststhat
theBoard’srejectionsoftheclaimsbereversed.
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 43 Filed: 10/05/2016
38
Dated:October5,2016 /s/JohnA.DragsethJohnA.DragsethRobertCourtneyConradGosenFISH&RICHARDSONP.C.3200RBCPlaza,60South6thSt.Minneapolis,MN55402612‐335‐5070AttorneysforAppellantCrossroadsSystems,Inc.
CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE
TheReplyBriefforAppellantcomplieswiththetype‐volume
limitationsetforthinFRAP32(a)(7)(B).Therelevantportionsofthe
Brief,includingallfootnotes,contain6,913words,asdeterminedby
MicrosoftWord2016.
/s/JohnA.Dragseth JohnA.Dragseth
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 44 Filed: 10/05/2016
39
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
IherebycertifythatIelectronicallyfiledtheforegoingwiththe
ClerkoftheCourtfortheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFederal
CircuitbyusingtheappellateCM/ECFsystemonOctober5,2016.
Ifurthercertifythatallparticipantsinthecaseareregistered
CM/ECFusersandthatservicewillbeaccomplishedbytheappellate
CM/ECFsystem,inadditiontoserviceviaemailtoAppelleebyserving
theemailaddressofrecordasfollows:
[email protected]@weil.comAndrewS.EhmkeAndy.Ehmke@haynesboone.comDavidL.McCombsDavid.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.comDebraJ.McComasDebbie.McComas@haynesboone.comScottT.JarrattScott.Jarratt@[email protected]@cooley.comMatthewC.GaudetMCGaudet@[email protected]
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 45 Filed: 10/05/2016
40
Dated:October5,2016 /s/JohnA.Dragseth JohnA.Dragseth
Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 46 Filed: 10/05/2016
Top Related