United States Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Received On November 29, 2017 The Response Brief of Appellant Patrick Zuili To Response Brief of Appellee Google

Case: 17-2161 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 11/29/2017
2017-2161,-2258,-2267
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
PATRICK ZUlLI,
Appellant
RECEtVED
v. NOV 2g1.017
United States Court of.AppealS
ALPHABET Inc., R>r llle Federal Ctrcuit
(Google LLC formerly known as Google Inc.)
Appellee
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and
Appeal Board in
Case: CBM2016-00008- U.S. Patent No. 8,671,057 Bl

Case: CBM2016-00021 -U.S. Patent No. 7,953,667 Bl
Case: CBM2016-00022- U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
RESPONSE BRIEF OF APPELLANT PATRICK ZUlLI
TO RESPONSE BRIEF FOR APPELLEE GOOGLE
Patrick Zuili
Inventor & Patent Owner,
Appellant, pro se
20777 Palm Island Drive
Boca Raton, Florida, 33498
Patrick@tenderbox.tv
1
Contents
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................. 4
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS ......................................................... 7
ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 9
A. "rigged" .......................................................................................... 9
B. Google attorneys backtracking today on the 2004 evidence,

evidence they have themselves introduced to Zuili is purely an act of
bad faith and such "flip-flopping" should be denied ............................ 9
C. Mr. Zuili has quoted an ample number of incidences which

shows bias towards Google ................................................................. 11
I. The Patents Are NOT Eligible for CBM Review ............................ 12
A. The patents do not satisfy the financial prong.......................... 12
B. The patents provide a technological solution to a technological

problem and therefore technological invention exception applies .... l4
II. The Claims Are Eligible for Patenting ......................................... 15
A. Mter getting six patents from USPTO on the same subject

matter, PTAB decided that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea.16
III. The Challenged Claims-of the '057 Patent Are unobvious over
different prior arts provided by Google and therefore patents are
valid. ........................................................................................................ 17
Conclusion ................................................................................................ . 18
2
Table of Authorities
Cases
Unwired Planet LCC vs Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................... 8, 12,
Statutes
ALA. 18(d)................................................................................................. 20
3
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Google dedicated several paragraphs in their response trying to persuade

the Federal Circuit that Google Inc. then Alphabet Inc., then Google LLC
is not a master in conspiracy. Why Google changing entities from Google
Inc., to Alphabet Inc. and then to Google LLC., if it is not for sheltering
the way Google finance organizations, its assets and/or potential
lawsuits? In any event Google attorneys have preferred to start in their
response with North Korea instead. Bizarre that Google did not attempt
to defend Google's Catherine Lacavera or even Brian Rosenthal who
worked for Mayer Brown after abruptly leaving "ship" failing to follow
the proper procedure and ask to PTAB authorization before changing law
firms.
Bizarre that Google attorneys are underlining that Michelle Lee is not
the only mastermind of the process of selecting APJs, and the USPTO
Chief Judge is also liable for that task. Is it a way to divert attention
away from Michelle Lee or an attempt from Google attorneys to let the
Chief Judge taking the blame?
Google attorneys have also commented that Brite Smart v. Google was
dismissed for failure to prosecute. Google created this failure because it
was Google who requested a change of venue to California. The failure to
prosecute came mainly from the impossibility to find a Californian
contingency attorney willing to risk its own money without facing large
out-of-pocket expenses probably in the millions of dollars in a protracted
battle in a California Court home turf of Google which receives daily
4
$200 million revenue in pay-per-click. The Brite Smart case was

dismissed by the District Court Judge from California and without
prejudice to neither Brite Smart or Patrick Zulli.
Yes, Google was accused of misdeeds including lying to U.S. authorities
on illegal advertising or duplicating Overture patented technology and
then flatly denied before a California District Court any patent
infringement involvement against Overture to finally settle a stock deal
with Overture couple of years later.
"We've recently become aware that (Google is) infringing on our patent,
and it's our policy to protect our intellectual property," said Overture
spokesman Al Duncan.
Google denied that it infringes on the patent.
https://www.cnet.com/news/overture-sues-google-over-search-patent/
Michelle Lee did not protect inventors and patents owners, she was there
just for Google and a handful of cronies "tech big boys of Silicon Valley".
USPTO shall not be the U.S. governmental agency that grants Appellant
patents in March 2014 and invalidate the same patent in April 2017.
Would not be fair the patent owner to have the USPTO to freeze any
maintenance fee requests until the patent invalidation is overturned by
an appellate proceeding?
Fed. Cir. should have in mind the fact that Mr. Zuili has never been
trained as an attorney. Zulli is primarily an inventor. The
implementation of AlA thanks to President Obama and a majority of
senators who probably did not really understood or envisioned the real
5
damages they did to innovation by voting Yes they could have very well
voted instead for a law dubbed "How to make American Inventors Poor"
(HMAIP), but congressmen voted for "America Invents Act" (AlA).
Appearance is safe at least for them.
Google attorneys are mentioning that many people involved who gave
testimony or declarations in support of Google for instance at lAB. It is
difficult not to give a declaration when someone works for an
organization directly or indirectly financed by Google and when Google
asks for such declaration. Has Google financed lAB? Was lAB financed
directly or indirectly by Google and what amount and under what form
had such financing? Was the URL "IAB.com" previously owned by Google
before to be assigned to lAB? Why a representative of Google has a board
seat at lAB is it to influence any decision?
Why Michelle Lee has never been subjected to submit information about
her and her family financial interest in Google shares, such lack of
transparency in 2017 is wrong and should be rectified as soon as possible.
It is very touching to see Google attorneys attempting to defend any

characterization of Michelle Lee. We have now new evidence, thanks to
the Madison Blog that PTAB trials are rigged.
PTAB's behavior was unlawful right from the beginning of proceedings

with Michelle Lee at the helm of PTO. The odds were in favor of Google
and were stacked against Appellant, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE CBM
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST APPELLANT SHOULD BE HELD VOID
AND BE DISMISSED.
6
More than 400 meetings between the Obama Administration and the
Google Team have lead a dire situation for patent owners.
If it is impossible not to admit a parentage link established between

Team Obama, Google Team, and Michelle Lee a member of the Google
Team. it is not possible anymore to establish otherwise.
Michelle Lee, a former Google executive, served as USPTO/PTAB

Director until June 2017.
No, it is not Zuili who invented the nickname "Googirl". Googirl was
the name that was given to Marissa Mayer, (a former Google
executive, served as CEO and President ofYahoo until June 2017) by
a press article but not by Patrick Zuili. Shortly after it was mentioned
in Appellant corrected appeal brief, the "Googirl" article vanishes from
the Web. http://gawker.com/362143/googirl-article-vanishes-from-web
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS
Both of the Board decisions should be overturned and Google's arguments

should not hold any water due to misleading facts and baseless
arguments and fraud.
1. Mr. Zuili has presented facts related to proceedings visible on the surface
which even a layman can find out and therefore no theories conspire.
The challenged patents describe pay-per-click system only as an

environment (See Unwired Planet LCC vs Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Also, a patent for a novelty worm detector apparatus, screening apples

for the presence of worms, will work particularly well in the "context" of
a working environment of merchants producing and selling
7
organic apples online. A patent for worm(s) detection does not become
a CBM patent because of its incidental or complementary use in the
online apple merchant selling healthy fruit to clients". A similar
approach for a patented detection system identifying users and invalid
clicks does not become a CBM patent because of its incidental or
complementary use by search engine advertising platform at selling
legitimate clicks to clients.
"Invalid clicks" are like "apples with worm(s)" both need to be

detected, both have respectively no financial value unless the
provider is [caught] cheating clients.
An expert, appointed by an Arkansas Court, Dr. Alexander

Tuzhilin confirmed the nature of the click fraud problem as a
technological problem requiring a technical infrastructure to
fight it, therefore, dismissing totally any business notion wrongly
raised by the Google attorneys.
2. The claims are eligible as they are not abstract. Why after granting six
patents, now USPTO said the three granted patents are abstract. PTAB
backing up such flawed pharmacist example to justify the invalidation of
the 057 is a mockery of intelligence of USPTO patent examiners.
Moreover, the claims cannot be practiced mentally. Claims disclose use
of encoded codes along with timestamps to detect click frauds.
3. Claims are valid over Laurent and lAB references due to the inability of
both of these references to teach the method claimed by Mr. Zulli's
patents.
8
ARGUMENTS
A large number of meetings between Former US President Mr. Obama's

team and Google team inside White House was a part of a vicious and
complex strategy to pass a bad law AlA.
A. "rigged".
PTAB was designed to free Google from long pending litigations to which
former USPTO director Michelle Lee vowed for. PTAB is being governed
by American Tax Payer's money so a citizen should have right to enquire
about the correct usages of its fund and moreover it should be diverted to
such an organization such as PTAB which mostly invalidates the patent
and is a huge advantage for BIG TECH BOYS such as Google. Jameson
Lee did threaten Mr. Zulli of going to jail if found lying but Jameson Lee
did not give such threats to Google who submitted misleading exhibits at
PTAB. Mr. Zulli has asked several times why two boards were assigned
to three patents of same family members wherein the past, this has not
happened. Also, the PTAB and Google has been avoiding this question
for long and Mr. Zulli has not any clarification on this. Selecting the
second set of judges is clearly meaning an act of interference in the
proceedings and court should not disregard these and other similar facts.
B. Google attorneys backtracking today on the 2004 evidence,
evidence they have themselves introduced to Zuili is purely an
act of bad faith and such "flip-flopping', should be denied.
The interesting part here that the 2004 evidence have been presented to
the knowledge of Zulli by Google and not the reverse. The 2004 evidence
9
is forming an integral part of those three CBM proceedings that has far
reaching implications that Google wants to erase. The 2004 evidence
should remain active because without the lawsuit Brite Smart v Google,
Google would not have been able to launch three CBM petitions
proceedings against Zulli therefore Google can't use such lawsuit to
launch three CBM petitions against Zulli and refuse essential part from
that lawsuit to be presented which lawsuit precisely has enabled Google
to launch those CBM petitions. One year later, suddenly out of nowhere,
Google filed those "2002 exhibits" a trick for claiming obviousness of
Zulli's patents and when Mr. Zulli went on to IAB.net website, it was
found that at the same time, lAB deployed robots.txt on its citing
migration reasons and thereby deleting any chance of proving the
authenticity of 2002 exhibits. This fact is no coincidence but more likely
a premeditated deletion at the lAB (what a coincidence just after the paid
witness Grey wrote his first paid report on the 057 patent lAB all of
sudden erased the so-called evidence). lAB erasing evidence of so-called
prior art when Google having a seat on the board of lAB is a sign of faulty
behavior.
Moreover, during oral hearing of'057 patent, Mr. Zulli did not have 2004
lAB documents so Mr. Zulli could not produce evidence to prove that the
declarants authenticating that date of availability committed perjury
and this dramatic turn of event is proving us that the lAB 2002
documents are false and the complete mishandling of the 2002 file at lAB
finds today its natural explanation. Mr. Zulli did not have in mind during
oral hearing of the 2004 evidence, the 2004 evidence cancels any
10
hypothesis that Mr. Zuili had made during oral hearing. Therefore,
appellant in view of 2004 evidence believes that only the 2004 is real.
C. Mr. Zuili has quoted an ample number of incidences which shows

bias towards Google.
1. Google's counsel did not bother to intimate PTAB about job change of
Brian A. Rosenthal. It was only after Mr. Zuili informed the board of
such an incident, PTAB casually asked Google to file a paper and no
actions for failing to inform PTAB. Moreover, Mr. Rosenthal was a
backup counsel who was supposed to act if the lead counsel is not
available. But it was Mr. Rosenthal who took the proceedings forward
in spite of the availability of lead counsel Mr. Siddiqui. Fed. Cir.
should note that Mr. Rosenthal was admitted as backup counsel pro
hac vice.
2. A governmental agency such as the PTAB has aberrantly selected two
different boards for the same patent family and has issued two
opinions being so diametrically opposed regarding a fundamental
aspect of admissibility of evidence over lAB references. lAB references
were accepted by the board headed by APJ Stacey White but were
denied by the board headed by APJ Jameson Lee. Then, after
considering a motion to exclude evidence filed by Patrick Zuili, the
board headed by Stacey White did exclude lAB references which
consists of two documents but then creepily broke that document into
two separate documents in order to circumvent the motion to exclude
decision.
11
3. Mr. Siddiqui's email attempted to make Zulli swallow links of 2002 as

being uploaded in 2002 was unequivocal but when Patrick Zulli found
that the links of 2002 have been actually uploaded in the lAB server
in 2007 then the Siddiqui scheme was discovered. Siddiqui has never
disclosed that the 2002 links were uploaded in 2007. In sum, Zulli has
shown misleading activities of Google but the support it enjoys at
PTAB was unfailing.
I. The Patents Are NOT Eligible for CBM Review
The Board incorrectly correctly concluded that the patents are eligible for
CBM review. Neither of the two conditions is met i.e. patents neither
claims a method ... for performing data processing or other operations
used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
product or service. (or vaults" {for a novel bulb]
(See Unwired Planet LCC vs Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)) Moreover,
patent claims technological invention by providing a technological
solution to the technical problem.
A. The patents do not satisfy the financial prong.
Patents neither claim any financial activity nor depicts any transaction
i.e. flow of money between two parties. Also, patents neither claim any
kind of advertisement method nor claim a method of determining prices
for any financial product. In simple words, patents claim a method of
identifying users before a user clicks on a link and finding invalid clicks
12
which are taking place in an online environment over a communication

network and not at the gym.
Patents do not claim any pay-per-click system and therefore do not claim
a method "used in the practice, administration, or management of' a pay-
per-click system. The Board's reasoning in each review based on above
two premises are ultimately flawed as stated above. Zulli did mention
different usages of the patented technology inside its POR to CBM
petitions filed by Google. The recitation of a "pay-per-click system" here
"disclose 0 fundamental characteristics of the claimed invention which is
related to the operating environment only.
Google's argument is flawed when it said that if the requirement of a pay-

per-click system were removed, "it would become unclear what, if
anything, the particular steps recited in the body of claim 1 have to do
with detecting fraudulent activity." Fraudulent activity related to clicks
can occur anywhere which could be understood easily. If somebody wants
to detect if a click is invalid or fraudulent, it can do so without needing a
pay-per-click system.
Since the patents do not claim pay-per-click system and can be used in
any alternative clickable environment, patents are not CBM eligible.
13
B. The patents provide a technological solution to a technological

problem and therefore technological invention exception
applies.
Moreover, the challenged patents fall inside the technological invention

exception and satisfy both the two prongs as discussed below.
Prong 1: The technical components recited in the claim of the challenged

patents when combined and seen as a whole presents a novel method and
system for detecting invalid clicks. Board and Google broke down the
claims elements and its components into individual parts and then say
that these components are already known. Every invention in the domain
of computer science, requrre the computer, server, memory,
communication network. Using these components in the patent does not
result in losing novelty of the patent. Codes recited are encoded as
claimed in dependent claim. Mr. Gray can identify click fraud using
mental process. If it is so true, why don't Google hire Mr. Gray instead of
the paid witness as the only Quality Team employee to detect click fraud?
The claim recites various codes being exchanged, it does use the encoded
code in detecting invalid clicks during examination as claimed in the
patents. Codes are encoded with different information such as
timestamps, identity information like MAC address of the device, other
MAC addresses in the subnet of the device or any changes made to the
MAC addresses as mentioned in the specifications. Google as per its
convenience jumps back and forth to specifications and claims.
14
Prong 2: The claims provides a long pending problem of the invalid

problem of detecting invalid clicks inside an online environment such as
a pay-per-click system for which Google was fined previously. Also,
according to, to Dr. Tuzhilin's report, invalid clicks poses a
technological problem. Fraud is a technical problem as there is a
technical impediment to doing so. There was no such technology
known prior to Zulli's patents. Moreover, recently Scott Spencer, director
of product management (product management is not business
management and products are developed using technology) for Google,
acknowledged that Google is issuing refunds to advertisers over fake
traffic and plans new safeguard1 Lack of technology to detect invalid
clicks poses a technological roadblock due to which Google has to issue
refunds again and again. So, clearly, fake or invalid click detection is a
technological problem and not a business problem.
II. The Claims Are Eligible for Patenting
The claims are not directed to an abstract idea but to a process or method
of identifying invalid clicks by examining codes and website information.
Claims contain a combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that
the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon
the ineligible concept itself.
1
https :1/www.wsj .com/articles/google-issuing-refu nds-to-advertisers-over-take-traffic-plans-new-safeguard-
1503675395
15
A. Mter getting six patents from USPTO on the same subject

matter, PTAB decided that the claims are directed to an
abstract idea.
Mr. Zuili got six patents from USPTO which never raised or rejected
patent due to abstract idea issue. The three patents are drawn
specifically towards the concept of tracking user entities and thereafter
detecting invalid clicks based on the time between two requests by the
same device by examining codes and website information." Board, as well
as Google, has forgotten to add an examination of codes and website
information in its abstract idea analysis. The claims neither present a
method of hedging risk nor a mental process. The three patents in
question ('057, '663, '763) relates to a technological solution of the
technical problem of identifying fraudulent clicks in a web-based
environment. Clicks occur over a communication network and not at a
pharmacy store or at the gym. Both Pharmacist/gym examples are totally
flawed since neither discloses an online environment where clicking
activity is taking place over communication network nor the pharmacist
examines codes and website information. Thus, comparison of detecting
invalid clicks with a pharmacist is totally irrational and misleading and
should hold no water before the Federal Circuit. The abstract is
something which is done in the air but here the claims require different
components such as a computer, server, communication network, codes
and an analyzer which will examine timestamps, codes and website
information to detect invalid clicks. The specification does mention about
observing a number of clicks over a period of time which does not limit it
16
to two clicks. Google's learned attorneys should realize themselves that

indeed claims talk about two clicks but it is applied to large number of
clicks and therefore is not abstract in any manner. Detecting invalid
clicks is not any conventional business practice and therefore, Alice
inquiry does not hold. Google and Board has been forcefully pushing the
analogy between Zulli's patents and pharmacist/gym example which is
totally incorrect.
Detecting fake click is total reality. Would clients use a pay-per-click
provider knowing that he is not implementing such technological
infrastructure on detection technology tools for that provider. The Zuili
patents are rooted in the reality of people and definitely this technology
is far more reaching us on our daily life than wrongly assumed that it
could ever be an abstract idea.
Moreover, the claims recite an inventive concept as shown in Section
II(B) above.
III. The Challenged Claims of the '057 Patent Are unobvious

over different prior arts provided by Google and therefore
patents are valid.
Board-White considered lAB exhibits as potential prior arts while

second Board-Lee completely thrashed the use lAB exhibits as potential
prior arts citing other reasons. Same court different stances.
Codes mentioned in the Patents are encoded in nature and they are
not just the website URLs which user clicks but rather contain more
information as stated above. Indeed, the second and third code is
17
different from first code. Petitioner cannot overly simplify by saying first
code to be same as second and third code.
Appellant argues that there is a huge difference between Target site

URL and second or third code. Second and third codes are encoded in
nature and at least includes network cartography, timestamps, and a
number of previous clicks." The board disagreed with Patent Owner's
assertions because they are not supported by the claims or the
specification. Patent Owner argues that board can clearly see the
specification and claims. Claim 11 recites that the second and third codes
are encoded. Also, specification recites "When the user clicks on a link
within the browser 210, the code 240 with information like network
cartography, timestamps and number of previous clicks, ... user or
device, the interval between clicks etc." Therefore, illegal IABl and IAB2,
in combination with Laurent fails to teach technology of '057 patent.
Conclusion
No comments from the attorneys in relation of the Google's Director of
Litigation Catherine Lacavera who must have supervised in her capacity
of Chief of Litigation, every exhibit including the false 2002 exhibit before
they were submitted by Counsel Rosenthal and Siddiqui before PTAB.
The Federal Circuit has the moral reserve left to save the integrity of
justice and overturn those biased PTAB decisions.
Respectfully submitted,
/Patrick Zuilil
November 28th, 2017
18
Certificate of Interest
Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.4(a) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
26.1, Patent Owner Patrick Zuili certifies the following:
1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me: Patrick Zuili
2. There are no other real parties in interest represented by the undersigned.

3. There are no parent corporations nor publicly held companies that own I 0
percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by the
undersigned.
4. The names of person that appeared for the party or amicus now represented
by me in the trial court or are expected to appear in this court are:
5. I, Patrick Zuili, Patent owner will represent myself for the party or amicus
during the trial court.
Patrick Zuili
Patent Owner, pro se
Dated: November 28, 2017
/Patrick Zuili/
Patrick Zuili
prose
Patrick@tenderbox. tv
19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned also certifies that three (3) true and correct copies of the
foregoing RESPONSE BRIEF OF APPELLANT PATRICK ZUlLI TO
RESPONSE BRIEF FOR APPELLEE GOOGLE were mailed on November 28,
2017, to the Clerk's Office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit at the following address:
Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W., Suite 401
Washington, DC 20005
The undersigned further hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing corrected
Appellant's (Patent Owner) Brief was served on November 28, 2017, via email to
attorneys for
Google Inc.
Robert G. Pluta /Patrick Zuili/
Saqib Siddiqui Patrick Zuili
Paul Whitfield Hughes prose
Andrew John Pincus
Jonathan Weinberg
MAYER BROWN, LLP
rpl uta@mayerbrown.com
ssiddigui@mayerbrown.com
phughes@mayerbrown.com
api ncus@mayerbrown.com
jweinberg@mayerbrown.com
20
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.11
Pursuant 37 CFR 42.11, the undersigned certifies that this paper is not being
presented for an improper purpose and that all legal contentions, allegations, and
denials are warranted and have evidentiary support.
Respectfully submitted November 28, 2017
/Patrick Zuili/
Patrick Zuili
prose
21
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.24(d)
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that this Reply complies
with the type-volume limitation of37 C.F.R. 42.24(c). The page count application
of the word processing program used to prepare this paper indicates that the
RESPONSE BRIEF OF APPELLANT PATRICK ZUlLI TO RESPONSE BRIEF
FOR APPELLEE GOOGLE contains 15 Pages, excluding the Addendums, Fron.t
Page, Table of Contents and Certificates exempted by 37 C.F.R. 42.24(c).
Respectfully submitted November 28, 2017
/Patrick Zuili/
Patrick Zuili
prose
Patrick@tenderbox.tv
22
Case: 17-2161 Document:
cw
34 Page: 23 Filed: 11/29/2017
- 2 LBS 1 of 1
1BBe&958740
S!APUS
8300 GUllFORO RO
I COLUI.ISI-' 21046
UNITED STATES COURT Of APPEAlS

SHIP FOft THE FEDERAl CIRCUIT
TO: 717 MADISON PlACE N.W.
------. 20439
BILUNG: PIP
rtGL 11.1 neu t w.n otrau
Staples Order it:2120369712

United States Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Received On November 29, 2017 The Response Brief of Appellant Patrick Zuili To Response Brief of Appellee Google

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

United States Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Received On November 29, 2017 The Response Brief of Appellant Patrick Zuili To Response Brief of Appellee Google

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case: 17-2161 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 11/29/2017

Case: 17-2161 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 11/28/2017

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

(Google LLC formerly known as Google Inc.)

Case: CBM2016-00008- U.S. Patent No. 8,671,057 Bl

RESPONSE BRIEF OF APPELLANT PATRICK ZUlLI

TO RESPONSE BRIEF FOR APPELLEE GOOGLE

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS ......................................................... 7

B. Google attorneys backtracking today on the 2004 evidence,

C. Mr. Zuili has quoted an ample number of incidences which

I. The Patents Are NOT Eligible for CBM Review ............................ 12

A. The patents do not satisfy the financial prong.......................... 12

B. The patents provide a technological solution to a technological

II. The Claims Are Eligible for Patenting ......................................... 15

A. Mter getting six patents from USPTO on the same subject

Google dedicated several paragraphs in their response trying to persuade

$200 million revenue in pay-per-click. The Brite Smart case was

It is very touching to see Google attorneys attempting to defend any

PTAB's behavior was unlawful right from the beginning of proceedings

If it is impossible not to admit a parentage link established between

Michelle Lee, a former Google executive, served as USPTO/PTAB

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

Both of the Board decisions should be overturned and Google's arguments

The challenged patents describe pay-per-click system only as an

Also, a patent for a novelty worm detector apparatus, screening apples

"Invalid clicks" are like "apples with worm(s)" both need to be

An expert, appointed by an Arkansas Court, Dr. Alexander

A large number of meetings between Former US President Mr. Obama's

C. Mr. Zuili has quoted an ample number of incidences which shows

3. Mr. Siddiqui's email attempted to make Zulli swallow links of 2002 as

I. The Patents Are NOT Eligible for CBM Review

A. The patents do not satisfy the financial prong.

which are taking place in an online environment over a communication

Google's argument is flawed when it said that if the requirement of a pay-

B. The patents provide a technological solution to a technological

Moreover, the challenged patents fall inside the technological invention

Prong 1: The technical components recited in the claim of the challenged

Prong 2: The claims provides a long pending problem of the invalid

II. The Claims Are Eligible for Patenting

A. Mter getting six patents from USPTO on the same subject

to two clicks. Google's learned attorneys should realize themselves that

III. The Challenged Claims of the '057 Patent Are unobvious

Board-White considered lAB exhibits as potential prior arts while

Appellant argues that there is a huge difference between Target site

2. There are no other real parties in interest represented by the undersigned.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W., Suite 401

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.11

denials are warranted and have evidentiary support.

Respectfully submitted November 28, 2017

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.24(d)

RESPONSE BRIEF OF APPELLANT PATRICK ZUlLI TO RESPONSE BRIEF

FOR APPELLEE GOOGLE contains 15 Pages, excluding the Addendums, Fron.t

Page, Table of Contents and Certificates exempted by 37 C.F.R. 42.24(c).

Respectfully submitted November 28, 2017

UNITED STATES COURT Of APPEAlS

rtGL 11.1 neu t w.n otrau

Staples Order it:2120369712

S-ar putea să vă placă și