2nd Pacer--DECLARATION OF JAMES C. OTTESON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF FOR THE “TOP TEN” TERMS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF JAMES C. OTTESON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF FOR THE “TOP TEN” TERMS

Date: January 27, 2012
Judge: Hon. James Ware
HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
OTTESON REPLY DECLARATION CASE NOS. 3:08-CV-00877, 3:08-CV-0082
AND 3:08-CV-05398 JW
Defendants.
BARCO, N.V.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
I, James C. Otteson, declare:
1. I am licensed to practice law in California and appear before this Court, and I represent Technology Properties Ltd. and Alliacense Ltd. (“Defendants”). I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and if called to testify, I could and would competently testify to the facts set forth herein.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit EE is a true and correct copy of pages 1, 40 and 41 of the October 19, 2006 Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (the ’336 patent), which discusses the Talbot reference (U.S. Patent No. 4,689,581).
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit FF is a true and correct copy of the cover pages and table of contents for September 21, 2006 Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,598,148 (the ’148 patent), which asserts the Talbot reference.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit GG is a true and correct copy of an August 21, 1992 Office Action in the prosecution file history for U.S. Patent No. 5,440,749 (the ’749 patent), in which the Patent Office imposed a restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 121.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit HH is a true and correct copy of a June 30, 1993 Amendment in the prosecution file history for U.S. Patent No. 5,440,749 (the ’749 patent), in which applicants explained to the Examiner (at page 9) why a pushdown stack configured as a register file conveys the benefits of both stacks and registers while avoiding the limitations of either.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 17, 2012, at Menlo Park, California.
/s/ James C. Otteson