Gatekeeper Systems, Inc.v.Dane Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2013

10947831 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 15
571-272-7822 Date: November 21, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

GATEKEEPER SYSTEMS, INC.
Petitioner

v.

DANE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Patent Owner
____________

Case IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836
____________

Before JAMESON LEE, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and JOSIAH C. COCKS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

2

I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, Gatekeeper Systems, Inc. (“Gatekeeper”), requests inter partes
review of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,389,836 (“the ’836 patent”) pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq.
1
Patent Owner, Dane Technologies, Inc. (“Dane”), has
filed a preliminary response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b).
2
We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
§ 314(a), which provides as follows:
THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes review
to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information
presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response
filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
challenged in the petition.

For the reasons set forth below, the Board has determined not to authorize
institution of an inter partes review.
A. The ’836 Patent (Ex. 1006)
The ’836 patent is directed to a power-assisted cart retriever with attenuated
power output. Ex. 1006, Abstract. The ’836 patent summarizes its disclosed
invention as “a motorized shopping cart retriever that includes an electronic
controller configured to attenuate the power output of the retriever’s drive system”
so as to reduce the risk that the retriever will be subjected to overload conditions.
Id. at col. 2, ll. 28-34. The ’836 patent explains that power attenuation is

1
See “Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,389,836 Pursuant to
35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.,” filed May 23, 2013 (“Pet.”)
(Paper 1).
2
See “Preliminary Response of Patent Owner,” filed August 29, 2013 (“Prelim.
Resp.”) (Paper 14).
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

3

accomplished through first and second power limits associated with the controller.
Id. at col. 2, ll. 55-61. In particular, the ’836 patent describes those power limits as
follows:
The first power limit is the controller’s normal power limit that results
when the controller self-limits its maximum power output through a
current or temperature sensing feature of the controller that exists to
prevent damage to the controller. The second power limit is selectable
and limits the control[ler]’s maximum power output to a level that is
less than that of the first power limit.

Id. Thus, the first power limit serves to limit maximum power output based on a
sensed condition, such as temperature, whereas the second power limit is selected
so as to limit the controller’s
maximum power output to a level “less
than” that of the first power limit.
Figure 2 of the ’836 patent is
reproduced to the left and illustrates a
sectional side elevation of a cart
retriever disclosed in the ’836 patent.
Ex. 1006, col. 4, ll. 9-11 (describing
Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2,
shopping cart retriever 2 includes seat
4, steering wheel 6, electric motor 8,
drive system 10, controller 12, and speed throttle control 14 in communication
with the controller. Id. at col. 4, ll. 27-34.
Figure 3 is reproduced below and is a graphical representation of the
“performance characteristics” of an electric motor of the retriever that operates in
various modes by the controller, id. at col. 4, ll. 12-14:
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

4

As illustrated in Figure 3 above, the controller includes a first power limit,
“internal limit” 20, which self-limits the maximum power output based on
temperature or current level sensing of the controller and is represented as a
horizontal dashed line extending from the y-axis, i.e. the axis labeled “Power
Level.” See Ex. 1006, col. 4, ll. 52-58. The controller also has a second power
limit, “selected limit” 24, which is in addition to, and less than, the internal limit
20, and is selected based on power levels that are optimal for the operating life of
the cart retriever. Id. at col. 4, ll. 59-66. Selected limit 24 also is represented as a
horizontal dashed line extending from the y-axis.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A shopping cart retriever comprising:

an electric motor;

IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

5

a drive system powered by the electric motor;

a controller that controls power to the electric motor and
includes a first power limit and a second power limit; and

a throttle control in communication with the controller, wherein
the first power limit is the controller’s normal power limit that results
when the controller self-limits its maximum power output through a
sensing feature of the controller that exists to prevent damage to the
controller,

wherein the second power limit is selectable and limits the
controller’s maximum power output to a level that is less than that of
the first power limit, and

wherein the sensing feature is a temperature sensing feature that
senses a temperature of the controller.

Ex. 1006, col. 8, ll. 22-36. Thus, according to claim 1, the sensing feature that
serves to limit the controller’s maximum power output as a part of the first power
limit is specifically a “temperature sensing feature.”
B. The Prior Art
Gatekeeper relies on the following prior art:
Konrad US 4,423,362 Dec. 27, 1983 Ex. 1012
Schugt US 6,220,379 B1 Apr. 24, 2001 Ex. 1015

Manual for Curtis PMC 1223/33, 1225/35, 1227/37 MultiMode™
Motor Controllers, p/n 16879, Rev. B: September 2000 (the “Curtis
1237 Manual”) (Ex. 1016);

Handbook of Electric Motors (Richard H. Engelmann &
William H. Middendorf eds., Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1
st
ed. 1995),
(the “Electric Motors Handbook”) (Ex. 1018);

“[A]pplicant-admitted prior art” appearing in the ’836 patent at
column 6, lines 33-41 (the “Admitted Prior Art”). Pet. 9, 34-35.
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

6

C. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
Gatekeeper contends that claims 1-12 of the ’836 patent are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the following grounds (Pet. 9):

References Claims challenged
Schugt and the Curtis 1237 Manual 1-4, 6, and 7
Schugt, the Curtis 1237 Manual, and the
Admitted Prior Art
5
Schugt, the Curtis 1237 Manual, and the
Electric Motors Handbook
8-12
Schugt and Konrad 1-4, 6, 7, 10, and 12
Schugt, Konrad, and the Admitted Prior
Art
5
Schugt, Konrad, and the Electric Motors
Handbook
8, 9, and 11
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
The Board construes a claim in an inter partes review using the “broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). That construction must be consistent with the
specification, and “the claim language should be read in light of the specification
as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Suitco Surface,
Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In other words, claim terms are given
their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

7

Here, both Gatekeeper and Dane contend that all claims of the ’836 patent
should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification. Pet. 16-17; Prelim. Resp. 5. In reviewing the record, we determine
that the patentee has not attempted to be its own lexicographer by defining special
meanings for certain terms. Accordingly, all terms of the involved claims of the
’836 patent take on their ordinary and customary meaning. We also determine
that, on this record, no particular term needs to be construed expressly. The parties
have no apparent dispute as to the meaning of any claim term.
B. Discussion
Gatekeeper proposes six grounds of unpatentability with respect to the
claims of the ’836 patent. All of those grounds are based on Schugt. Like the ’836
patent, Schugt is directed to a “vehicle for retrieving wheeled shopping carts in
parking lots.” Ex. 1015, Abstract.
Schugt’s Figure 3 is reproduced
on the left and illustrates a cross-
sectional view of a cart retriever
of Schugt’s invention. As shown
in the figure, the cart retriever
includes motor assembly 56, drive
assembly 52, controller 184, and
control console 22. Id. at col. 4,
ll. 22-52. Controller 184 is described as operating generally to process signals and
execute control functions to control the cart retriever. Id. at col. 8, ll. 27-30.
Schugt, however, provides little detail as to what those processing and control
operations entail.
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

8

Gatekeeper contends that Schugt discloses all the limitations of claim 1 of
the ’836 patent with the exception of the first and second power limits that are
associated with the controller. As discussed above, the first power limit is the limit
that “results when the controller self-limits its maximum power output through a
sensing feature of the controller,” where the sensing feature is a “temperature
sensing feature that senses a temperature of the controller.” The second power
limit “is selectable and limits the controller’s maximum power output to a level
that is less than that of the first power limit.” To account for the power limits, and
their interrelationship, Gatekeeper relies on the teachings of the Curtis 1237
Manual and, alternatively, on Konrad.
1. The Curtis 1237 Manual
The Curtis 1237 Manual describes a series of “MultiMode™ controllers”
designed for use in small electric vehicles. Ex. 1016, 1. Those controllers are
configured with a “thermal protection” feature. Id. at A-12. The nature of that
thermal protection feature is explained as follows:
Thermal protection
Because of their efficiency and thermal design, Curtis PMC
controllers should barely get warm in normal operation. Overheating
can occur, however, if the controller is undersized for its application
or otherwise overloaded. If the internal temperature of the controller
exceeds 90°C (194°F), the main current limit decreases steadily until
it is reduced to zero at 105°C (221°F). At the reduced performance
level, the vehicle can be maneuvered out of the way and parked.
NOTE: To prevent loss of braking effort, regenerative current limit is
not cut back in overtemperature conditions.
Full current limit and performance return automatically after the
controller cools down. Although this action is usually not damaging to
the controller[footnote omitted], it does suggest a mismatch. If
thermal cutback occurs often in normal vehicle operation, the
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

9

controller is probably undersized for the application and a higher
current model should be used.
The controller is similarly protected from undertemperature.
Should its internal temperature fall below -25°C (-13°F), the current
limit decreases to approximately one-half of the set current. When the
controller warms up, full current limit and performance return
automatically.

Id. Thus, the Curtis 1237 Manual describes that, in response to specific
temperature conditions of the controller, the main current limit is decreased to
prevent “overheating” and “undertemperature.” According to Gatekeeper, the
thermal protection aspect of the Curtis 1237 Manual meets the first power limit
feature of claim 1 of the ’836 patent. Pet. 23-25. Gatekeeper also points to the
declaration testimony of its expert witness, Dr. Kevin Craig (Ex. 1001), who
testifies that the particular above-noted limit imposed by thermal protection
constitutes the required first power limit of the claims. See Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 53-54.
In accounting for the second power limit of the claims, Gatekeeper relies on
a portion of the Curtis 1237 Manual setting forth a “main current limit.” Pet. 25-
26. The Curtis 1237 Manual describes the “main current limit” as a “parameter
[that] allows adjustment of the maximum current the controller will supply to the
motor during both drive and regen operation,” and that is “adjustable from 50% to
100% of the rated maximum controller current.” Ex. 1016, 40. In connection with
that “main current limit,” Dr. Craig gives the following testimony:
Claim 1 of the ’836 patent recites that the second power limit “limits
the controller’s maximum power output to a level that is less than that
of the first power limit.” Ex. 1006 at Claim 1. The Curtis 1237 motor
controller’s main current limit can be adjusted “from 50% to 100% of
the rated maximum controller current.” Ex. 1016 at 40. Therefore,
when adjusted to be less than 100% of the rated maximum current
(e.g., from 50% to 99%), the main current limit of the Curtis 1237
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

10

controller provides the functionality of the second power limit recited
in Claim 1.

Ex. 1001 ¶ 63. Thus, according to Dr. Craig, the “main current limit” “provides
the functionality of the second power limit” of claim 1 because the “maximum
controller current” may be reduced to less than 100% of the “rated maximum
controller current.”
Dane challenges the position of Gatekeeper and Dr. Craig’s testimony that
the Curtis 1237 Manual discloses the power limit features required by claim 1.
Prelim. Resp. 14-18. For the reasons that follow, Dane’s arguments are persuasive.
As stated above in the quoted portion of Dr. Craig’s testimony, the “main
current limit” of the Curtis 1237 may be adjusted to less than 100% of the “rated
maximum current.” Dr. Craig does not explain adequately why the main current
limit satisfies the second power limit requirement of the claims. As set forth in
claim 1, the second power limit must limit the controller’s maximum power output
to a level less than the first power limit. As discussed above, the first power limit
was urged by both Gatekeeper and Dr. Craig as the limit imposed by the Curtis
1237 Manual’s thermal protection feature. The claimed first power limit must be
based on a sensed temperature of the controller. Neither Gatekeeper nor Dr. Craig,
however, adequately articulates why the Curtis 1237 Manual’s “rated maximum
controller current” equates to the current limit presented by the thermal protection
feature. We are not persuaded that they are the same.
Petitioner has not established that the “rated maximum controller current” is
derived from any sensed condition of the controller, much less one based on
temperature. Indeed, it appears from the above-quoted description of the Curtis
1237 manual that the main current limit is, itself, the only power limit, albeit it can
vary over time, and that the “rated maximum controller current” is not an actual
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

11

operational limit, but a rating for informational purposes only in setting the initial
value of the main current limit.
Assuming Gatekeeper’s position is that the main current limit, itself, serves
as both first and second power limits, i.e., when initially it is set to 100% of the
maximum rated current, it serves as the first power limit, and when it is later
reduced to between 50% and 99% of the maximum rated current, it serves as the
second power limit, the contention does not meet the requirements of the claims.
First, even when the main current limit is set to 100% of the maximum rated
current, it is not a temperature based limit, because it is set to a value regardless of
the temperature. The main current limit in that circumstance cannot be the claimed
first power limit because it does not limit power as a result of a temperature
sensing feature.
Secondly, the claims require two distinct power limits, a first and a second,
which are co-existing. The second power limit must restrict power output to a
level that is less than that of the first power limit. A single adjustable power limit,
such as the main current limit, which is varied on different conditions, does not
meet that requirement.
Dane explains how thermal protection is described in the Curtis 1237
Manual. Prelim. Resp. 14-16. To that end, Dane explains how the thermal
protection operates such that below temperatures of -25ºC, the main current limit is
approximately halved, and above 90ºC, the main current limit decreases steadily
until it is reduced to zero at 105ºC. Dane provides a graphical representation
(reproduced below) of the disclosure of the Curtis 1237 Manual in connection with
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

12

its thermal protection and its main current limit.

As illustrated in the graphical depiction above, and in accord with the
disclosure of the Curtis 1237 Manual, a main current limit may be selected as
desired between 50% and 100% of the maximum rated current (arbitrarily selected
as 45 Amps in the depiction above). See Ex. 1016, p. A-12. Once selected, the
thermal protection aspect of the Curtis 1237 Manual functions such that the main
current limit maintains its set level between -25ºC and 90ºC. When the controller
temperature drops below -25ºC, the main current limit drops in half (22.5 Amps in
the graphical depiction above). Above 90ºC, the main current limit steadily
decreases from its selected level to zero. Dane submits that the main current limit,
i.e., the alleged second power limit, does not serve to limit a maximum power
output to a level that is less than any limit provided by thermal protection, i.e., the
alleged second power limit. Prelim. Resp. 15.
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

13

In reviewing the pertinent disclosure of the Curtis 1237 Manual, we are
persuaded by Dane’s assessment. Gatekeeper does not offer an explanation
tending to show that Dane’s assessment is incorrect. Gatekeeper has not
established that the Curtis 1237 Manual’s “main current limit” forms the second
power limit required by claim 1 of the ’836 patent.
Accordingly, on the record before us, and for the foregoing reasons, we are
not persuaded that Gatekeeper has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will
prevail in its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Schugt and the Curtis 1237
Manual. We also are not persuaded in connection with that ground of
unpatentability as applied to claims 2-4, 6, and 7, which ultimately depend from
claim 1.
The grounds of unpatentability that Gatekeeper proposes for claims 5 and
8-12 involve either the teachings of the Admitted Prior Art or the teachings of the
Electric Motors Handbook. Neither of those teachings is offered to make up for
the above-discussed deficiencies of the Curtis 1237 Manual with respect to the first
and second power limits. Accordingly, we also are not persuaded that Gatekeeper
has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in its assertion that
claims 5 and 8-12 are unpatentable over Schugt and the Curtis 1237 Manual,
combined with either the Admitted Prior Art or the Electric Motors Handbook.
2. Konrad
As an alternative to the Curtis 1237 Manual, Gatekeeper proposes grounds
of unpatentability relying on Konrad as disclosing the first and second power limits
that are absent from the disclosure of Schugt. Konrad’s teachings are similar to
those of the Curtis 1237 Manual. In that regard, Konrad is directed to an electric
vehicle current regulating system. Ex. 1012, Title. As a part of the regulating
system, Konrad implements various current limit functions. Id. at Abstract.
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

14

Gatekeeper contends that Konrad’s disclosure satisfies the first and second power
limits of claim 1 of the ’836 patent. Pet. 30-33. Dane challenges that contention.
Prelim. Resp. 23-26. For the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that
Gatekeeper’s Petition adequately accounts for the required power limits.
Konrad describes the following in connection with its system:
The system in one form also includes thermal sensors responsive to
the temperature of the power regulator main switch semiconductor for
forcing a reduction in the current limit value. If the temperature
exceeds a predetermined value, a thermal cutback circuit is activated
to force the current limit value to decrease towards zero at a rate
proportional to the increase in temperature above the predetermined
value.

Id. at col. 2, ll. 37-44. Thus, in Konrad, a “thermal cutback circuit” provides a
reduction in a current limit value in response to sensed temperature of a “power
regulator main switch semiconductor” of the controller. Gatekeeper contends that
the current limit imposed by Konrad’s thermal cutback circuit constitutes the
required “first power limit.” Pet. 48-49. In support of that contention, Gatekeeper
points to the declaration testimony of Dr. Craig, explaining that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood Konrad’s thermal cutback circuit as
providing the first power limit of claim 1 of the ’836 patent. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 65-66.
Konrad also discloses that, in connection with the functioning of its control
system, “under normal operation the peak current is limited to a maximum of 750
amps.” Ex. 1012, col. 5, ll. 53-54. Konrad further conveys that its control system
may incorporate a “manually adjustable current limit” that allows for adjustment of
the current limit to a range between 750 amps and 450 amps. Ex. 1012, col. 5,
ll. 50-59. Gatekeeper equates that “manually adjustable current limit” to the
selectable, second power limit required by claim 1. Pet. 49-50. In support of that
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

15

position, Gatekeeper also points to the testimony of Dr. Craig. Based on Konrad’s
disclosure, Dr. Craig reaches the following conclusion:
Therefore, as in the ’836 patent, Konrad discloses a current limit that
is selectable and can [be] selected to be below the first power limit
(i.e., the maximum normal peak current). Thus, the manually
adjustable current limit described in Konrad teaches the second power
limit as claimed in the ’836 patent.

Ex. 1001 ¶ 68. Thus, in concluding that Konrad accounts for the required second
power limit of claim 1 of the ’836 patent, Dr. Craig characterizes Konrad’s
disclosure of a “maximum normal peak current” as forming the required first
power limit. Previously, and as noted above, Dr. Craig explained that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood Konrad’s thermal cutback circuit as
providing the first power limit of claim 1 of the ’836 patent. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 65-66.
Lacking in Dr. Craig’s testimony, however, is an explanation on why Konrad’s
“maximum normal peak current” is the current limit derived from Konrad’s
thermal cutback circuit, or has any connection with a sensed temperature of a
controller. And it is not apparent from the record why that is so.
In conjunction with the above-noted inconsistency, Dane urges that
Konrad’s maximum “normal peak current” is not based on temperature sensing and
thus does not form the first power limit. Prelim. Resp. 26-27. Accordingly, Dane
contends that Konrad’s disclosure in connection with the adjustment of the peak
current does not convey a second power limit operating to limit power output of
Konrad’s controller to a level “less than that of the first power limit.” Id. at 27.
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded by Dane’s contention.
Konrad explains the temperature associated current limit in connection with
its Figure 3D. That explanation and figure are reproduced below:
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

16

FIG. 3D represents the current limit
as a function of temperature. As can
be seen this function is basically a
multiplier, i.e., for temperature less
than a predetermined value, such as
85 degrees Centigrade, the multiplier
is unity and the current limit does not
affect the other current limit functions
until the temperature exceeds the 85
degree mark. Above 85 degrees the
multiplier drops toward zero by an
amount proportional to the value by
which the temperature exceeds 85
degrees, for example, the value of the
multiplier may reach zero at 100
degrees C.

Ex. 1012, col. 6, ll. 14-25. Thus, in Konrad, the temperature associated current
limit acts as a “multiplier” that is “unity” and “does not affect the other current
limit functions until the temperature exceeds the 85 degree mark.” Thereafter, the
“multiplier drops toward zero.” At 85ºC and below, once the manually adjustable
current limit has been adjusted to a desired value, the temperature associated
“multiplier” has no impact on the manually adjusted current limit. At temperatures
above 85ºC, the multiplier drops toward zero thereby causing the manually
adjustable current limit also to drop toward zero along with the multiplier.
In light of Konrad’s disclosure, Dane contends that the adjustment of the
current limit does not form the required second power limit because the adjusted
current limit is at no time “less than any limit imposed by the temperature
multiplier.” Prelim. Resp. 25. The contention is persuasive, for reasons already
discussed above. Moreover, as in the case of Curtis 1237 Manual, the multiplier of
Konrad does not provide a second limit that coexists with the first limit, as is
IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

17

required by the claims. The multiplier merely adjusts or modifies the first limit by
lowering it on certain conditions.
Accordingly, on the record before us, and for the foregoing reasons, we are
not persuaded that Gatekeeper has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will
prevail in its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Schugt and Konrad. We
also are not persuaded in connection with that ground of unpatentability as applied
to claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, and 12, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
The grounds of unpatentability that Gatekeeper proposes for claims 5, 8, 9,
and 11 involve either the teachings of the Admitted Prior Art or the teachings of
the Electric Motors Handbook. Those disclosures, as presented by Gatekeeper, do
not make up for the above-discussed deficiencies of Konrad with respect to the
required first and second power limits. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that
Gatekeeper has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
showing that claims 5, 8, 9, or 11 are unpatentable over Schugt and Konrad taken
with either the Admitted Prior Art or the Electric Motors Handbook.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Gatekeeper’s Petition does not
establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Gatekeeper would prevail with
regard to any one of its unpatentability contentions as applied to claims 1-12 of the
’836 patent.
IV. ORDER
After due consideration of the record before us, it is:
ORDERED that Gatekeeper’s petition is denied as to all challenged
claims, and no trial based on Gatekeeper’s petition is instituted.

IPR2013-00305
Patent 7,389,836

18

For PETITIONER:
Brenton R. Babcock
Nicholas M. Zovko
Steven P. Ruden
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel.: (949) 760-0404
Fax: (949) 760-9502
Email: BoxGatekeeper@knobbe.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Brett A. Klein
WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P .A.
225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel. (612) 604-6400
e-mail: patent@winthrop.com
bklein@winthrop.com