`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ARNOUSE DIGITAL DEVICE CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00010
`
`Patent No. 7,516,484
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`65566979V.8
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Background ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Statement of Material Facts ............................................................................. 1
`
`III.
`
`Statement of Relief Requested ........................................................................ 2
`
`IV. Response to Patent Owner’s Arguments ......................................................... 2
`
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Kobayashi discloses the “security protocol” that the
`Patent Owner argues is novel under its improperly
`narrow construction. .............................................................................. 4
`
`The Patent Owner’s proposed construction does not
`comply with the broadest reasonable construction rule. ....................... 6
`
`Both claim limitations can refer to the same component. ................... 10
`
`Claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 should be cancelled
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Nelson. ................................................... 13
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`65566979V.8
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`On October 2, 2012, Motorola Mobility LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`
`for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,516,484 (the “’484 patent”). (Paper 2.)
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted the inter partes review on
`
`February 12, 2013, finding that the Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood
`
`that claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’484 patent are anticipated by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,463,742 to Kobayashi (“Kobayashi,” Ex. 1003) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,436,857 to Nelson (“Nelson,” Ex. 1004). (See Paper 21.)
`
`The Scheduling Order provided, inter alia, that the Patent Owner could file a
`
`Response to the Petition on or before May 13, 2013 and that Petitioner can reply
`
`on or before August 12, 2013. (Paper 22.) On May 6, 2013, the Patent Owner filed
`
`a Response to the Petition. (Paper 33.) Accordingly, Petitioner files this Reply.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Material Facts
`
`The Patent Owner argues that Petitioner did not submit a statement of
`
`material facts and, thus, the Patent Owner could not properly submit a statement of
`
`material facts in dispute. (Paper 33, p. 6.) There is no requirement that Petitioner
`
`submit a statement of material facts in a petition for inter partes review. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.22(c) states that “[e]ach petition or motion may include a statement of
`
`material fact.” (emphasis added.) “A party is not required to submit a statement of
`
`material fact in its briefing.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48763 (August 14, 2012)
`
`65566979V.8
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`(emphasis added.) Thus, Petitioner did not include a statement of material facts in
`
`its Petition.
`
`III. Statement of Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 3,
`
`7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Kobayashi
`
`and/or Nelson.1
`
`IV. Response to Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`A. Overview
`
`The Patent Owner first addresses the Board’s construction of “the portable
`
`computer excludes means for a user to interact directly with the portable
`
`computer,” stating that the Patent Owner objects “to any inference or conclusion
`
`that this phrase limits the capabilities/configuration of the reader of claim 1.”
`
`(Paper 33, p. 7, fn. 2.) (emphasis added.) Petitioner respectfully notes that this is a
`
`claim limitation which, by definition, limits the claim. Moreover, the Board relied
`
`on this claim limitation to exclude the Warren prior art reference. (Paper 21, pp.
`
`
`1 Petitioner also asserted that claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 should be canceled as anticipated
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by U.S. Patent No. 6,029,183 to Jenkins (“Jenkins”) and/or, under Patent
`Owner’s interpretation of the ’484 patent in parallel litigation and U.S. Patent No. 6,999,792 to
`Warren (“Warren”). Petitioner further asserted that claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 should be
`canceled as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Kobayashi, Nelson, or
`Warren in view of Jenkins. The PTAB did not reach the issue of whether Jenkins or the
`referenced combination invalidated the claims at issue because it found them cumulative of the
`Kobayashi and Nelson references. However, in the event that either Kobayashi or Nelson are not
`found to anticipate the claims at issue, Petitioner reserves the right to rely on each ground of
`rejection detailed in its petition for inter partes review. (Paper 2.)
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`10-11.) Thus, this limitation means that the ’484 Patent does not cover systems
`
`involving a portable computer that includes means for a user to interact directly
`
`with the portable computer.2
`
`The Patent Owner then alleges that the phrase “connector for connecting” as
`
`recited by independent claims 1 and 15 is not limited by the phrase “wherein the
`
`readers are configured so that they will not operate with a computer other than a
`
`portable computer of the system.” (Paper 33, pp. 14-17.) The Patent Owner argues
`
`that “connector” is broadly described in the specification and at the same time
`
`argues that the broadest reasonable construction of “connector for connecting”
`
`requires an independent component, e.g., a USB dongle. (Paper 33, pp. 14, 16.)
`
`Moreover, the Patent Owner asserts that “wherein the readers are configured
`
`so that they will not operate with a computer other than a portable computer of the
`
`system” requires that the “portable computers and readers are matched via security
`
`protocols so as to eliminate the possibility of access to the portable computers by
`
`just any reader.” (Paper 33, p. 22.) Such a construction is far narrower than the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim limitation. Even the Patent Owner
`
`advocated for a broader construction in the litigation, where narrower construction
`
`2 Petitioner notes that in the co-pending litigation, Arnouse Digital Devices Corp. v. Motorola
`Mobility, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-00155-cr (D. Vt.), the Patent Owner has alleged that this element is
`infringed by Motorola smartphones coupled to a Motorola Lapdock. These smartphones clearly
`include the same type of input/output means found in the device disclosed by Warren, and
`excluded by the plain language of the claims of the ’484 Patent. (See, e.g., Ex. 1009, pp. 22-23.)
`Patent Owner’s transparent attempt to preserve its meritless infringement claim against these
`devices should be rejected.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`rules apply. (See “Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement,” Ex. 1013,
`
`p. 5) (proposing that the “wherein” clause be construed to mean “that the reader
`
`has a non-universal design that limits the types of portable computers that may be
`
`used with the reader.”) Based on this narrow construction, the Patent Owner argues
`
`that neither Nelson nor Kobayashi anticipate the “wherein” clause.
`
`The Patent Owner is incorrect for multiple reasons. First, Kobayashi
`
`discloses the same type of “security protocol” that the Patent Owner argues is
`
`novel under its erroneous construction. Second, the Patent Owner’s improper
`
`construction does not comport with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`language at issue. Third, contrary to the Patent Owner’s assertion, “a connector for
`
`connecting” and “wherein the readers are configured so that they will not operate
`
`with a computer other than a portable computer of the system” can refer to the
`
`same component, as the Patent Owner acknowledged during prosecution of the
`
`’484 Patent. For at least these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`PTAB reject the Patent Owner’s arguments and find claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and
`
`20 of the ’484 patent invalid as anticipated by Kobayashi and/or Nelson.
`
`B. Kobayashi discloses the “security protocol” that the Patent Owner
`
`argues is novel under its improperly narrow construction.
`
`As discussed in the Petition for inter partes review and in the decision
`
`instituting inter partes review of the ’484 patent, Kobayashi discloses a docking
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`station that has a multi-connector that connects to a Personal Processor Module
`
`(“PPM”) with a mating multi-connector. (See, e.g., Paper 2, pp. 8, 10; Paper 21,
`
`pp. 12-13; Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll. 55-58.) At a minimum, this multi-connector meets
`
`the “connector for connecting” limitation.
`
`With regard to “wherein the readers are configured so that they will not
`
`operate with a computer other than a portable computer of the system,” the Patent
`
`Owner urges the Board to find that this element requires that the “portable
`
`computers and readers are matched via security protocols so as to eliminate the
`
`possibility of access to the portable computers by just any reader.” (Paper 33, p.
`
`22.) As detailed further below, such a construction is error. However, even if the
`
`Board follows the Patent Owner’s erroneous construction, Kobayashi still
`
`anticipates this limitation. Koybashi states that the PPM “includes control software
`
`that reads and recognizes a type code provided by each docking station and
`
`configures the PPM accordingly.” (Ex. 1003, Abstract.) This “control software” –
`
`which recognizes “a type code” – is the exact type of “security protocol” that the
`
`Patent Owner alleges renders its claim novel. (See Paper 33, p. 22.)
`
`Kobayashi further describes the control software, stating that “[w]hen the
`
`PPM is connected to a docking station . . . an ID number of the docking station is
`
`read as well as a configuration revision number for that docking station” and that
`
`“these parameters define access to two of the basic subroutines which must be
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`setup under MS-DOS for every docking station to which connection is to be
`
`made.” (Ex. 1003, col. 13, ll. 57-65.) Again, these parameters and subroutines
`
`perform the function of a “security protocol” to prevent every reader from being
`
`able to access every portable computer. Kobayashi’s Figure 30 makes clear that
`
`each docking station includes its own ID#, which is stored in memory, and is
`
`unique to each docking station.
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully submits that, even under
`
`Patent Owner’s improperly narrow construction, Kobayashi discloses a docking
`
`station (i.e., a reader) with a non-universal design that limits access to portable
`
`computers by a reader, and discloses security protocols to eliminate the possibility
`
`of access to the portable computers by just any reader. Thus, Kobayashi anticipates
`
`the claims at issue regardless of how the claims are construed.
`
`C. The Patent Owner’s proposed construction does not comply with the
`
`broadest reasonable construction rule.
`
`In inter partes review claim terms are interpreted under a “broadest
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`reasonable construction” standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The “broadest
`
`reasonable construction” of the claims is determined “in light of the specification
`
`as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of
`
`Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In determining the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claims, the interpretation must be consistent with
`
`the interpretation that one of skill in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d
`
`1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Therefore, in determining the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of a claim, the focus should be what would be reasonable from the
`
`perspective of one or ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
`
`1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`The Patent Owner asserts that “wherein the readers are configured so that
`
`they will not operate with a computer other than a portable computer of the
`
`system” should be construed to mean that the “portable computers and readers are
`
`matched via security protocols so as to eliminate the possibility of access to the
`
`portable computers by just any reader.” (See Paper 33, pp. 19-22.) Such a
`
`construction is far narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation of this
`
`limitation. After all, security protocols are just one possible way to configure a
`
`reader to not operate with a computer other than a portable computer of the system.
`
`Other ways to provide such a limitation could be the design of the interface
`
`between the portable computer and the reader, the software configuration of the
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`devices, or a specific communication protocol between the devices.
`
`Indeed, the Patent Owner advocated for a broader construction in the
`
`litigation, even though narrower construction rules apply there. (See Ex. 1013, p.
`
`5.) During the litigation, the Patent Owner asserted that the “wherein” clause at
`
`issue should be construed to mean “that the reader has a non-universal design that
`
`limits the types of portable computers that may be used with the reader.” (Ex.
`
`1013, p. 5.) A non-universal design that limits the types of portable computers that
`
`may be used with the reader is consistent with the claim language, and is certainly
`
`broader than the “security protocols” meaning now being proffered by the Patent
`
`Owner. Thus, the Patent Owner’s proposed construction in this proceeding – where
`
`claims are interpreted under a broader standard than during litigation – cannot
`
`possibly comply with the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`In addition, this limitation encompasses a hardware configuration, such as a
`
`port configured to receive a portable computer of the system but no other portable
`
`computer. Such a port is shown in Figure 6 of the ’484 patent.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The “broadest reasonable construction” of the claims is determined “in light
`
`of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In
`
`re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art reading the specification, and viewing Figure 6, would not find this limitation to
`
`require “security protocols” as Patent Owner now suggests.
`
`Moreover, it is improper to incorporate new, unrecited, limitations into the
`
`claims, particularly under the broadest reasonable construction standard. When
`
`claim language is broader than a particular embodiment in the specification, the
`
`limitations of that particular embodiment should not be read into the language of
`
`the claim. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
`
`explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into
`
`a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular
`
`embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim
`
`when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v.
`
`3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The problem is to interpret
`
`claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations
`
`from the specification into the claims.”).
`
`Indeed, even in cases where a patent describes only a single embodiment,
`
`courts have rejected the contention that the claims of the patent must be construed
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`as being limited to that embodiment. Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d
`
`1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single
`
`embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps
`
`into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the
`
`method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method
`
`steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order).
`
`Finally, the Patent Owner was afforded an opportunity in this proceeding to
`
`amend the claims to require “security protocols” but chose not to do so. Instead,
`
`the Patent Owner makes the tortured argument that “security protocols” are
`
`required by the present claims.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, such a construction is improper and fails
`
`to comply with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
`
`D. Both claim limitations can refer to the same component.
`
`The Patent Owner further argues that both of the phrases “a connector for
`
`connecting” and “wherein the readers are configured so that they will not operate
`
`with a computer other than a portable computer of the system” cannot refer to the
`
`same component. (Paper 33, pp. 14-17.) The Patent Owner’s argument appears to
`
`be a form of claim differentiation, stating that all connectors are “specially
`
`designed” so as to allow the connection of two devices to each other. (Paper 33, p.
`
`16.) This argument both is plainly incorrect and is contrary to positions the Patent
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Owner took during prosecution of the application that led to the ’484 patent. (See
`
`Ex. 1018, p. 6.)
`
`First, contrary to the Patent Owner’s current assertion, multiple different
`
`devices may be able to connect to each other using a “universal” connector, such as
`
`a “Universal Serial Bus” (USB). It is well known that the same USB cable may be
`
`used to connect a computer to a multitude of different devices such as keyboards,
`
`pointing devices, digital cameras, printers, portable media players, disk drives,
`
`smart phones, and network adapters. Thus, a device with USB port does not
`
`necessarily preclude connection to another device that also has a USB port.
`
`The key here is that the claim recites that “the readers are configured so that
`
`they will not operate with a computer other than a portable computer of the
`
`system.” This narrows the claim because it requires something that restricts access
`
`to other types of devices. This may be, as the Patent Owner suggests, some type of
`
`security protocol. Alternatively, as shown in Figure 6 of the ’484 patent, it may be
`
`a specialized port that excludes devices that were not specially designed to connect
`
`to the port. The broadest reasonable interpretation and the plain meaning of the
`
`claim language do not exclude such embodiments. Rather, under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction, if the reader is configured such that it will not operate
`
`with a computer other than the claimed portable computer, the “wherein”
`
`limitation is met.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Second, the Patent Owner admitted that the same component may satisfy
`
`both claim elements at issue during prosecution. Specifically, in the Third Revised
`
`Accelerated Examination Support Document,
`
`the Patent Owner explicitly
`
`acknowledged that Jenkins discloses a connector for connecting to a portable
`
`computer. (See Ex. 1018, p. 6) (referencing Jenkins, element 4.) Element 4 of
`
`Jenkins discloses a connector means 4 in the enclosure that can be configured in
`
`any design as long as it is compatible with the connector means 3 of the core unit.
`
`(See Ex. 1005, col. 8, ll. 17-20.)
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner went on to state that “Jenkins appears to disclose that the
`
`readers are configured so that they will not operate with a computer other than a
`
`portable computer of the system.” (Ex. 1018, p. 6) (citing Jenkins, col. 5, ll. 25-35.)
`
`The cited section of Jenkins discloses, inter alia, “[n]aturally, the enclosures need
`
`to have special uniquely structured connector means so as to accept the core unit
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`with a mating connector.” (Ex. 1005, col. 5, ll. 29-31.) (emphasis added.) Thus, the
`
`Patent Owner admitted that the same component in Jenkins, the connector means
`
`4, discloses both of the claim elements at issue here. The Patent Owner cannot
`
`ignore its previous statements and now argue that these two elements cannot be
`
`disclosed by the same component.
`
`Moreover, the Patent Owner cannot now argue that these two claim
`
`elements, which it admitted were disclosed by Jenkins, somehow render the claim
`
`novel. Jenkins makes clear that “[f]or security reasons, the more unique mating
`
`connector means 3 and 4 are configured, the higher degree of security to the
`
`contents of core unit 1 will be afforded.” (Ex. 1005, col. 8, ll. 20-23.) In other
`
`words, as required by the Patent Owner’s construction, Jenkins discloses that
`
`connector means 4 “has a non-universal design that limits access to portable
`
`computers by a reader.” (Paper 33, pp. 19-20.) Thus, aside from the Patent
`
`Owner’s own admission, it is clear that these limitations are anticipated by Jenkins.
`
`E. Claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 should be cancelled under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102 over Nelson.
`
`The Patent Owner erroneously alleges that Nelson fails to disclose “wherein
`
`the readers are configured so that they will not operate with a computer other than
`
`a portable computer of the system” as recited in claims 1 and 15 of the ’484 patent.
`
`(See, e.g., Paper 33, pp. 13, 22-23.) Nelson discloses this and all other elements of
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`the claims at issue.
`
`As discussed in the petition for inter partes review and in the decision
`
`instituting inter partes review of the ’484 patent, Nelson discloses a base unit (i.e.,
`
`a reader) that contains an interface to enable a module (i.e., a portable computer) to
`
`be coupled to the base unit. (See, e.g., Paper 2, pp. 14-16; Paper 21, pp. 14-16; Ex.
`
`1004, Figure 1 and associated disclosure.) In addition, Nelson describes an
`
`embodiment in which “the module is packaged in a case which provides
`
`mechanical modulatory which enables it to be installed and optionally locked into
`
`a host device which may be, for example, a portable PC [base unit] . . .” (See, e.g.,
`
`Paper 2, pp. 17-18; Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 30-34.) For the module (i.e., a portable
`
`computer) to be locked into a portable PC base unit (i.e., a reader), the base unit
`
`must have a design that is compatible with the module. (Id.)
`
`Thus, both the portable computer and the portable base unit of Nelson have a
`
`specialized design. That is, the portable base unit is “configured so that [it] will not
`
`operate with a computer other than a portable computer of the system.” (Paper 33,
`
`pp. 19-20.)
`
`Nelson further describes several embodiments in which the portable module
`
`is inserted into the base unit. (See, e.g., Paper 2, pp. 17-18; Ex. 1004 at col. 2, ll.
`
`57-63.) For example, Nelson describes that “[a]s represented by the double-headed
`
`arrow 44 in Fig. 2, the module 10 may readily be moved in and out of the housing
`
`14
`
`
`
`of the portable PC [base unit] 36, with the interface 22 of the module 10 moving
`
`into and out of the operative coupling with the interface 26 of the base unit 12
`
`which is included in the portable PC [base unit] 36.” (Ex. 1004 at col. 2, 11. 57—63.)
`
`The embodiments shown in Figures 2 and 3 of Nelson require a module that is
`
`specifically designed for at least a specific type of base unit (and vice versa)
`
`because the module must fit into the slot of the base unit. For example, a module of
`
`the wrong size would not fit into the slots 42 and 52 shown in Figures 2 and 3
`
`respectively. Thus, contrary to the Patent Owner’s assertion, Nelson discloses both
`
`“a connector for connecting” and that “the readers are configured so that they will
`
`not operate with a computer other than a portable computer of the system.”
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Petitioner respectfiilly requests that the PTAB find claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18,
`
`and 20 of the ’484 patent invalid and unenforceable as being anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) by Kobayashi and/or Nelson.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`Ko—Fan Chang
`Registration No. 50,829
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Steven D. Moore
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`15
`
`