EDIG was not specific enough.

IPR2015-00519

Patent 5,839,108

4

§ 312(a)(5).” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (“The request must specifically

identify . . . the place where each matter was previously addressed . . . .”).

We could not have misapprehended or overlooked an argument that was not

presented in the Motion. We remain persuaded that, based on the evidence

presented, Petitioner has provided Patent Owner with copies of the

documents, as required by the statute. Paper 14, 4.

ORDER

It is ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for rehearing is denied.