681 pages of defendant's GENERAL spaghetti splotch.
Just throw everything defendants found (that's general and not specific) against the wall.
Subject to and notwithstanding the foregoing objections, ChanBond responds as follows:
Defendants bear the burden of establishing that any alleged invalidity reference is prior
art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Defendants’ contentions make no attempt to meet this burden.
Instead, for each reference, Defendants state only that the references are prior art “under at least”
a number of various paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Defendants, however, have failed to identify
or explain why any reference is prior art under any specific paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In addition, certain of the alleged prior art references identified by Defendants are
academic and commercial articles. Defendants provide no explanation concerning the manner in
which those articles enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use without undue
experimentation each claimed invention recited in the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
For their contentions regarding obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, with very limited
exception, Defendants have provided “exemplary obviousness cross-references in the alternative
to [the] anticipation contentions” with no explanation of how the “cross-references” satisfy the
limitations of any claim. As such, ChanBond’s response hereto is limited to those combinations
of references for which Defendants have elected to provide a claim chart.
With respect to the “motivations to combine” identified in Defendants’ invalidity
contentions, ChanBond notes that Defendants have not identified specific reasons to combine
any specific prior art references in the manner of the asserted claims. Instead, Defendants
conclusorily assert, without specific citation, that such motivation exist as a general manner.
Defendants fail to explain why one of skill in the art would pick and choose specific elements
from any particular reference to combine with any other particular reference in the manner of the
claimed invention. Defendants’ assertion that “the prior art references are broadly directed to
telecommunications and more specifically to providing higher bandwidth data transmission
through the use of channel aggregation or bonding” is largely unsupported and gives no insight
into how or why any identified references would be combined in the manner of the claimed invention.
LONG & STRONG UOIP, Scruffer-Splotch
AI
