"Our governing statute regarding service provides that a petition for inter

partes review may be considered only if “the petitioner provides copies of any of

the documents required under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) to the patent owner or, if

applicable, the designated representative of the patent owner.” 35 U.S.C.

§ 312(a)(5)."

RE: " to the patent owner or" for a prospective on OWNER, an owner can patent their IP on their own without representation by a patent attorney. That may seem un -fathomable, however individuals have that right....where I 'm aquatinted with an individual that has applied for and processed numerous patents on his own. He, in this instance, would be the entity to be notified, as his name is on the record as attorney to be notified.

RE: "if applicable, the designated representative of the patent owner.” if the OWNER has designated a representative to be in charge, that is the entity to be notified.

This type of statute law is a basic consideration in the State of Fl. The separation of citizens basic rights to perform on their own, ....or designate.

With that, how does Congress view the basic rights of individuals when it creates statue law? It gives an individual the right to manage its own affairs.

Apparently owners are viewed to have no rights in this matter, as e.Digital has designated a representative to manage its affairs and the PTAB does not recognize this consideration.

Laws are supposed to guide the chain of command, where it's not happening in this case.

Prior comments of the PTAB ... first denial...

37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) specifies that “[t]he petition and supporting evidence must be served on the patent owner at the correspondence address of record for the subject patent.” The correspondence address of record for a patent can be discovered simply by entering the number of the patent into the USPTO’s web-based Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) portal (http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair). Petitioner admits that, rather than serving the address of record for U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108, it served Patent Owner’s former counsel of record, as listed on inter partes review petitions filed by Intel Corp. Opp. 2

3. Relying on the notice of service attached to an earlier petition filed by another party in lieu of consulting the Patent Office database to determine the correspondence address of record is not a good faith attempt to comply with Rule 42.105(a). "

Micron has not proceed properly in a good faith attempt to comply with 35 U.S.C.§ 312(a)(5).

Where the PTAB fails on, from my prospective and experiences, basic statute law.