(r) Obviousness Ground 18. Claim 3 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as set forth in Obviousness Grounds 14-17. For those grounds that include Winarta (‘229), Winarta (‘229) further teaches that the substance to be measured is glucose.

Counterclaim Plaintiff inMusic repeats and incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full, all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Counterclaim. 23. The ‘626 Patent fails to meet statutory requirements for patentability and all of the limitations of the purported invention claimed in the ‘626 Patent are present in prior art references, including, without limitation, Japanese Application No. 08- 183588 (published April 8, 1997) to Roland alone or in combination with Japanese Application No. 08-146797 (published December 2, 1997) to Roland that were available sufficiently prior so as to render each asserted claim of the ‘626 Patent invalid anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, inMusic Brands, Inc., prays that this Court grant the following relief: Case 2:16-cv-06256-CBM-AJW Document 44 Filed 02/03/17 Page 17 of 20 Page ID #:618 EXHIBIT 1 Page 29 Case 2:16-cv-06256-CBM-AJW Document 46-1 Filed 02/17/17 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:664 18 INMUSIC BRANDS, INC.’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF CASE NO. 2:16-CV-06256-CBM-AJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Dismissal with prejudice of Roland’s Complaint and all claims for relief therein and entry of an order denying Roland any relief in this action; B. Entry of declaratory judgment in favor of inMusic that each claim that Roland asserts against inMusic of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,135; U.S. Patent No. 6,921,857; U.S. Patent No. 6,756,535; U.S. Patent No. 6,271,458; U.S. Patent No. 6,121,538; U.S. Patent No. 6,881,885; U.S. Patent No. 6,632,989; an

Accordingly, to the extent Nichia fails to prove such facts by a preponderance of the evidence, VIZIO has established its defense of non-infringement. Furthermore, as set forth above in Section I.(C)(3), VIZIO has identified and will present to the jury multiple reasons why Nichia’s infringement allegations must fail. 4. Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375 VIZIO has shown and will show at trial that claim 4 of the ‘375 patent is invalid under at least 35 U.S.C. § 103 and 35 U.S.C. § 112. As set forth above in Section I.(C)(4), VIZIO has identified and will present to the jury multiple reasons why the ‘375 patent is invalid.

Accordingly, to the extent Nichia fails to prove such facts by a preponderance of the evidence, VIZIO has established its defense of non-infringement. Furthermore, as set forth above in Section I.(C)(3), VIZIO has identified and will present to the jury multiple reasons why Nichia’s infringement allegations must fail. 4. Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375 VIZIO has shown and will show at trial that claim 4 of the ‘375 patent is invalid under at least 35 U.S.C. § 103 and 35 U.S.C. § 112. As set forth above in Section I.(C)(4), VIZIO has identified and will present to the jury multiple reasons why the ‘375 patent is invalid.

82. The Board found all rejected claims to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as “obvious over Schenk in view of Velasquez.” (Admin.

57. The Board held that in view of the prior art shown in Hitachi’s accompanying specification and drawings, as well as the patents of Johnson, Langworthy, and Ambrosio, Hitachi’s claim 1 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because “[p]ersons having ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have expected to be able to inexpensively eliminate the prior art-recognized requirement to turn the workpiece in order to cut angles + 45 degrees with respect to the zero-tilt angle position using a desk-top cutting machine by applying the design, materials, and construction taught by Johnson, Langworthy, and Ambrosio and altering the conventional desk-top cutting machines depicted in Figures 6 and 7 of appellant’s specification and described by Ito in accordance therewith.” Id.

V. CONCLUSION For the reasons given above, Polaris respectfully requests this Court dismiss: • NVIDIA’s First through Sixth Counterclaims (Non-infringement); • NVIDIA’s Seventh Counterclaim (Invalidity) with regard to allegations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112; • NVIDIA’s Eighth through Twelfth Counterclaims (Invalidity) with regard to allegations under 35 U.S.C. § 112; and • Dell’s First, Third, and Fifth Counterclaims (Non-infringment). Dated: October 18, 2016 Respectfully submitted by, GONZALEZ, CHISCANO, ANGULO & KASSON

n the automotive air vent and converging toward one another each extending at an angle away from bottom surface of the rest of the device Fig and thereby forming mounting slot between the pair of mounting arms Fig para 0014 slot also formed when in use on an air vent It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Bulsinks mounting arms in place of KEN 000630 Case 3:15-cv-01429-JD Document 73-7 Filed 05/18/17 Page 10 of 12 Application/Control Number 13/897062 Page Art Unit 3782 Hos single mounting arm because doing so only involves simple substitution of one known equivalent vent mounting element for another to obtain predictable results Further using Bulsinks arms would allow for mounting to horizontal and/or vertical vanes as taught by Bulsink para 0014 In the combination the rotatable mounting element is capable of being rotated to position the mounting slot in various orientations relative to the adjustable clamping element 10 Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Wadsworth OConnell and Bulsink as evidenced by US Patent 5338252 to Bowler The combination from claim 17 discloses wherein the rotatable mounting element is attached with ratchet device OConnell corresponding dimples 26b 6j form ratchet to the adjustable clamping element Although OConnell does not use the term ratchet to describe the dimpled connection Bowler evidences that this type of corresponding dimple arrangement is commonly referred to as ratchet Col line 66 Col line Response to Arguments 11 Applicants arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds ot rejection Conclusion 12 Applicants amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action Accordingly THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL See MPEP 706.07a Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.

at 417. In view of Levin and Sewall, Plaintiffs in this case must show by clear and convincing evidence that they made a contribution that made the ‘962 Patent claims novel (as required by 35 U.S.C. § 102) and non-obvious (as required by 35 U.S.C. § 103), and hence patentable. Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this burden as a matter of law.

Here, Plaintiff requested an oral hearing before the Board on the Examiner’s rejection of the patentability of his claims to giving gamblers massages while they gambled. One of the grounds of that rejection was 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), obviousness. Not surprisingly, at the hearing the Board asked Plaintiff questions about whether that subject matter was known in the art.