The answer to this question may be a bit of a work in progress at the PTAB. For example, in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00010, Paper 33 (Jul. 18, 2013) and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2013-00002, Paper 35 (Jul. 18, 2013), the Board indicated that an objection to the scope of the reply and evidence submitted can be raised as part of a motion to exclude under 37 C.F.R. 42.64. In a series of cases decided after the Liberty Mutual decision, the Board seems to have changed direction. For example, inCBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033, Paper 79 (Aug. 9, 2013), the Board explained that the Board will determine whether information outside the scope of a proper reply will be made when the Board issues its final written decision. Instead of suggesting this issue can be raised in a motion to exclude, the Board indicated that “[b]riefing from the parties as to whether an argument or evidence is submitted outside the scope of a proper reply is rarely authorized.” See also Blackberry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, IPR2013-00036, Paper 43 (Aug. 6, 2013) (stating briefing on the issue of whether reply is proper under Rule 42.23 is “not necessary” and noting that patent owner can raise the issue “at the oral hearing”).