`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WI-FI ONE, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,215
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.120
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`BROADCOM’S PETITION IS NOT BARRED BY 35 U.S.C. §
`315(B) .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Broadcom is Not in Privity with the D-Link Defendants ..................... 1
`
`Broadcom, Not the D-Link Defendants, is the Real Party-in-
`Interest ................................................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 4
`
`III. SEO DISCLOSES A “TYPE IDENTIFIER FIELD” UNDER
`EITHER OWNER’S OR THE BOARD’S CONSTRUCTION ...................... 5
`
`A.
`
`Seo Discloses NAK_TYPE, a Type Identifier Field That
`Identifies Different Types of NAK Messages ....................................... 5
`
`B. Owner’s Attempt to Distinguish Seo Based on Whether Certain
`Fields are Within “Headers” or “Payloads” Has No Support in
`the ’215 Patent’s Specification or Claims ........................................... 10
`
`C. Owner’s Arguments and Alleged Distinctions Regarding Non-
`Existent Claim Limitations Should Be Disregarded ........................... 12
`
`IV. CLAIM 15 IS NOT PATENTABLE ............................................................. 13
`
`V. OWNER MAKES NO INDEPENDENT ARGUMENT FOR THE
`PATENTABILITY OF ANY OTHER CLAIM ............................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Goodman v. Super Mold Corp., 103 F.2d 474,482 (9th Cir. 1939) ............................ 2
`
`Bros, Inc. v. W.E. Grace Mfg. Co, 261 F.2d 428, 429 (5th Cir. 1958) ....................... 2
`
`Dentsply Intern., Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 42 F.Supp.2d 385, 398 (D. Del. 1999) ....... 3
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`BROADCOM’S PETITION IS NOT BARRED BY 35 U.S.C. § 315(B)
`
`Owner1 asserts that Broadcom’s Petition is barred because Broadcom is a
`
`“privy” of the D-Link Defendants, the alleged “real parties-in-interest to this
`
`Action.” (Resp. at 8; Paper No. 40). Owner has raised this identical argument
`
`twice, and has failed each time. This Board previously denied Owner’s Motion for
`
`Additional Discovery regarding privity and real party-in interest issues and the
`
`Federal Circuit subsequently denied Owner’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
`
`seeking to overturn this Board’s decision. This third attempt relies on exactly the
`
`same arguments Owner made to this Board and the Federal Circuit and should be
`
`rejected for the same reasons. Owner offers no new reason whatsoever for this
`
`Board to reverse its prior decision that Owner’s proffered “evidence” and legal
`
`authorities fail to amount to anything more than “speculation” or “a mere
`
`possibility” that Broadcom is in privity with the D-Link Defendants or that the D-
`
`Link Defendants are real parties-in-interest.
`
`A. Broadcom is Not in Privity with the D-Link Defendants
`Owner again relies on unsubstantiated allegations of Broadcom’s
`
`“substantive legal relationship” of indemnity with the D-Link Defendants,
`
`“multiple legal actions on behalf of the community of interest,” and Broadcom’s
`
`1
`After institution, Ericsson transferred the ’215 patent to Wi-Fi One, LLC.
`
`This Reply refers to the current and prior owners as “Owner”.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`“attendance” at the Texas trial to support its claim of privity. Id. Owner’s
`
`arguments, which rely on the same flawed and speculative “evidence” asserted
`
`previously, fail to establish Broadcom as a privy. As the Board correctly held,
`
`“indemnity payments and minor participation at trial are not sufficient to establish
`
`privity.” (Discovery Decision at 7 (citing Bros, Inc. v. W.E. Grace Mfg. Co, 261
`
`F.2d 428, 429 (5th Cir. 1958)); Paper No. 23). Instead, Owner must demonstrate
`
`that Broadcom actively controlled the Texas Litigation. (Id. at 7-8; Paper No. 23;
`
`see also Goodman v. Super Mold Corp., 103 F.2d 474,482 (9th Cir. 1939) (no
`
`privity where there was no evidence manufacturer of accused infringing device
`
`“had the right to control the defense of the suit.”)). Owner cannot, however satisfy
`
`this burden, because Broadcom did not control – actively or otherwise – the Texas
`
`Litigation. (December 20, 2013 Order Denying Ericsson’s Emergency Motion for
`
`Relief from the Protective Order in Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Corp. et al., Civil
`
`Action No. 10-cv-473 (E.D. Tex.); Exhibit 1011).2 Indeed, this Board has already
`
`
`2
`The Board should again reject Owner’s argument that if Broadcom had the
`
`“opportunity to control” the Texas Litigation, this is sufficient to establish it as a
`
`privy. First, Owner offers no evidence that Broadcom had any “opportunity” to
`
`control the Texas Litigation. Second, mere “opportunity” to control litigation
`
`cannot create privity; a party must have actual control of the related litigation. Id.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`found that “the totality of [the] evidence fails to amount to more than a ‘mere
`
`possibility’ that Broadcom controlled, or could have controlled, the Texas
`
`Litigation.” (Discovery Decision at 11; Paper No. 23). Such a mere possibility,
`
`insufficient even to warrant further discovery, cannot possibly rise to the level
`
`sufficient to bar this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Broadcom, Not the D-Link Defendants, is the Real Party-in-
`Interest
`
`Owner’s infringement allegations in the Texas Litigation (and its foreign
`
`litigation activities) accuse functionality found entirely within Broadcom’s Wi-Fi
`
`products, not within other components of the end-user products sold by the D-Link
`
`Defendants. As the manufacturer of the accused functionality, Broadcom has a
`
`very real interest in demonstrating that Owner’s patents are invalid. And, because
`
`Broadcom was not a party to – and did not control – the Texas Litigation, it has
`
`had no prior opportunity to raise the arguments in its Petition. That Broadcom’s
`
`Petition uses “some of the same evidence, including known prior art” as in the
`
`Texas Litigation, does not demonstrate that Broadcom controlled the Texas
`
`litigation or that the D-Link Defendants controlled Broadcom’s Petition. Again,
`
`at 9 (citing Dentsply Intern., Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 42 F.Supp.2d 385, 398 (D. Del.
`
`1999) (no privity where party’s role in a prior suit was “limited to observing the
`
`proceedings and filing amicus curiae briefs.”)
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`this Board has already found that the evidence proffered by Owner “does not
`
`amount to more than speculation that any of Broadcom’s activity constitutes
`
`evidence of collusion with the D-Link Defendants.” (Discovery Decision at 13;
`
`Paper No. 23). Again, such speculation, insufficient even to warrant further
`
`discovery, cannot possibly bar this Petition.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Owner disagrees with the Board’s broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“type identifier field” and advances the construction previously proffered by
`
`Petitioner. (Resp. at 22-31, Paper No. 40). Petitioner, however, accepts as
`
`reasonable the Board’s construction of type identifier field as a “field of a message
`
`that identifies the type of that message.” (Decision at 11; Paper No. 29).
`
`Owner concedes invalidity under the Board’s construction based on the
`
`admitted prior art. (Resp. at 26 (“[the] Board’s proposed construction of this term
`
`would cover a mere S-PDU in the prior art”); Paper No. 40). But invalidity of the
`
`claims in light of the prior art is not grounds for rejecting this Board’s well-
`
`reasoned claim construction. Owner’s further argument that its proposed
`
`construction is warranted because the ’215 patent “describes” the use of variable-
`
`length messages “to reduce a waste of bandwidth resources” must be rejected,
`
`because no such variable length or reduction in bandwidth is ever claimed. (See,
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`e.g., Resp. at 29, 35-37; Paper No. 40). Owner could have filed a motion to amend
`
`the claims to reflect these alleged benefits, but it chose not to do so.
`
`III. SEO DISCLOSES A “TYPE IDENTIFIER FIELD” UNDER EITHER
`OWNER’S OR THE BOARD’S CONSTRUCTION
`
`Seo’s NAK_TYPE field is a “type identifier field” under either construction.
`
`Seo discloses (1) identifying a type of NAK from multiple different types of NAK
`
`messages (list or bitmap), as indicated by a NAK_TYPE field (Owner’s
`
`construction); and (2) a NAK_TYPE field that is a field of a message that
`
`identifies the type of message (Board’s construction).
`
`A.
`
`Seo Discloses NAK_TYPE, a Type Identifier Field That Identifies
`Different Types of NAK Messages
`
`Owner advances an incredibly strained argument that “NAK_TYPE” does
`
`not identify a “type of NAK” because NAK messages have a similar format when
`
`NAK_TYPE is “00” or NAK_TYPE is “01”. (Resp. at 37-39; Paper No. 40).
`
`Owner’s argument is illogical and factually wrong. And, in any event,
`
`NAK_TYPE is a “type identifier field” even under Owner’s flawed argument.
`
`Owner argues that “NAK_TYPE” is not a “type of NAK” because (1) Seo’s
`
`Figure 4 allegedly shows a fixed-length NAK message with padding; and (2)
`
`therefore every NAK message in Seo must always include all of the fields shown
`
`in Figure 4; and (3) therefore there is only one message type. (See Resp. at 35-39;
`
`Paper No. 40). Owner is wrong on all counts.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`
`The existence of padding does not mean messages have a fixed length.
`
`Messages could have variable length, but use padding to align the messages to an
`
`integer number of octets. Seo never limits the NAK message to a fixed length.
`
`Moreover, as Owner admits, Seo is based on the IS-707 communication standard,
`
`which has messages of multiple different lengths. (See Akl Tr. at 191:7-192:4 and
`
`194:6-195:8, Ex. 1012; see also IS-707 at 4-3 (different number of “occurrences”
`
`of bitmaps); Ex. 1010; see also Bims Reply Decl. at ¶ 2; Ex. 1013).
`
`Even if all the NAK messages in Seo had the same fixed length, it would not
`
`prove that the NAK messages all have the same fields. Owner offers no cogent
`
`argument for why the length of a message necessarily determines its type. Because
`
`it does not. For example, a message could use 32 bits to contain an alphanumeric
`
`string identifying a person’s eye color, while a different message could use 32 bits
`
`to contain an integer representing the balance in a person’s bank account. These
`
`two messages may be the same length, but they are unquestionably not the same
`
`type. (Bims Reply Decl. ¶3; Ex. 1013).
`
`Seo’s Figure 4 shows the fields that it uses to create the different types of
`
`NAKs, but Seo does not require that all the fields shown in Figure 4 be used with
`
`all types of NAKs. In fact, the disclosure of Seo directly contradicts Owner’s
`
`argument. As stated in the Pet. at 34-37 and as recognized by this Board in its
`
`Decision at 18-19 (Paper No. 29), Seo describes how different fields “exist” in
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`different types of NAKs, as indicated by the value of NAK_TYPE. As this Board
`
`stated in its Decision, fields relating to NAK_MAP exist when the NAK message
`
`is a bitmap type (NAK_TYPE = 01), and different fields (e.g., FIRST, LAST) exist
`
`for the First/Last type of NAK message (NAK_TYPE = 00). (Seo claims 10-11;
`
`(Ex. 1002). When a field exists, it is present in the NAK message; when a field
`
`does not exist, it is not present. This is what “exist” means. It would make no
`
`sense to include unnecessary fields in a NAK message, such as FIRST and LAST
`
`fields in bitmap NAK_TYPE. (Bims Reply Decl. ¶¶ 4-6; Ex. 1013).
`
`To obfuscate this plain disclosure, Owner presses a further strained
`
`argument that a field “exists” when it contains “data,” and does “not exist” if the
`
`field contains all zeroes – although Owner fails to explain how a numerical value
`
`of zero is somehow not data. (Resp. at 39; Paper No. 40).
`
`Following these incorrect assumptions, Owner then asserts that Seo
`
`discloses a “redundant” NAK control frame that always contains bitmap fields and
`
`first/last fields, regardless of the NAK_TYPE. (Resp. at 37-38; Paper No. 40).
`
`But Owner’s cited “proof” for these assertions – Seo 5:28-30, Figure 4, and claim
`
`10 (Ex. 1002) – say nothing of the sort. Owner baldly asserts that “the only
`
`change” between a first/last NAK message and a bitmap NAK message is that
`
`“certain fields contain non-zero values, depending on the value of the
`
`NAK_TYPE.” (Resp. at 38-39; Paper No. 40). But Owner cites only to the
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`declaration of its expert, which does nothing more than repeat verbatim this same
`
`bald assertion. Seo, however, never once says that the only change between a
`
`first/last NAK message and a bitmap NAK message is having zero or non-zero
`
`data values in certain fields. To the contrary, Seo plainly states that these fields’
`
`existence – not their data values – depend upon the NAK_TYPE. (Seo claim 11
`
`(“said (g), (h), (i) and (j) fields exist when a value of said (d) field is ‘00’, said (k)
`
`field exists when the value of said (d) field is ‘01’”) (emphasis added); Ex. 1002)).
`
`A common sense understanding of what it means for a field to “exist,” and
`
`the lack of any evidence that any of the NAK_TYPE-related fields are filled with
`
`zeroes, more than disprove Owner’s argument. But if there were any doubt, the
`
`contemporaneous IS-707 standard from April 1999 (Ex. 1010) further confirms the
`
`common sense understanding of Seo. As Owner admits, Seo discloses an
`
`improvement on the IS-707 standard. (Resp. at 32; Paper No. 40). This
`
`improvement appears to have been adopted as part of the IS-707 standard as of
`
`April 1999. As shown at page 4-3 of Ex. 1010, when NAK_TYPE is “00”, the
`
`FIRST and LAST fields follow the L_SEQ_HI field, exactly as shown in Seo
`
`Figure 4, and when NAK_TYPE is “01”, the NAK_MAP_Count field follows the
`
`L_SEQ_HI field (and the FIRST and LAST fields do not exist), just as in Seo.
`
`Owner’s expert, Dr. Akl, and Dr. Bims agree that IS-707 indicates that the type-
`
`specific fields are present or not present depending on the NAK_TYPE, thus
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`rebutting Owner’s attempt to distinguish Seo. (Akl Tr. at 194:6-195:8; Ex. 1012;
`
`Bims Reply Decl. ¶7; Ex. 1013).3 Because the type-specific fields only exist for
`
`their particular type of NAK message, Seo discloses a type identifier field that
`
`identifies different types of NAK messages, even under Patent Owner’s
`
`unsupported claim construction.
`
`Finally, even if the Board were to agree with Owner on all these dubious
`
`arguments leading to a conclusion that Seo always uses the same fields for
`
`different NAK_TYPEs, Seo would still disclose two types of NAK messages
`
`identified by the NAK_TYPE field, because there would be: (1) a first type that
`
`has all zeroes in the bitmap-related fields and non-zero data in the list-related
`
`fields; and (2) a second type that has all zeroes in the list-related fields and non-
`
`zero data in the bitmap-related fields.
`
`Owner has not proposed, nor does the ’215 patent support, any special
`
`construction of the term “type” that would preclude two messages from being two
`
`
`3
`Although the April 1999 IS-707 standard may not be prior art itself, in light
`
`of the ’215 patent’s April 9, 1999 provisional application, it is contemporaneous
`
`evidence of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Seo’s
`
`disclosure of the circumstances in which certain fields exist and those
`
`circumstances in which they do not exist.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`different “types” where the messages are constrained by a consistently applied set
`
`of rules, such that some fields are always zeroes in some circumstances, and other
`
`fields are always zeroes in other circumstances. (Bims Reply Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. 1013).
`
`B. Owner’s Attempt to Distinguish Seo Based on Whether Certain
`Fields are Within “Headers” or “Payloads” Has No Support in
`the ’215 Patent’s Specification or Claims
`
`Owner also argues that Seo does not anticipate the challenged claims of the
`
`’215 patent because the NAK_TYPE identifier is allegedly part of a “header” and
`
`not part of a “payload” of a “message.” (Resp. at 39-40; Paper No. 40). But
`
`neither the claims nor the specification of the ’215 patent make a distinction
`
`between providing information in a “header” versus in a “payload” or in any other
`
`portion of a message. Owner has not proposed any construction for the terms
`
`“message,” “header,” or “payload,” perhaps because the term “message” is broad,
`
`and the terms “header” and “payload” are not even found in the ’215 patent.
`
`Owner repeatedly refers to a benefit of the ’215 patent as having something
`
`to do with putting information in a payload versus a header, but the unclaimed,
`
`alleged benefit of the ’215 patent is that one type of feedback response might use
`
`fewer bits in some cases, and another type of feedback response might use fewer
`
`bits in other cases. For example, Table 1 of the ’215 patent shows that a series of
`
`consecutive missing sequence numbers (example 1) is more efficiently identified
`
`as a list; while a non-consecutive set of sequence numbers (example 4) might be
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`more efficiently identified in a bitmap.4 (’215 Patent at 4:19-29; Ex. 1001; Bims
`
`Reply Decl. ¶ 9; Ex. 1013).
`
`The ’215 patent refers to its Figures 4-7 as “messages” without
`
`differentiating any parts of those messages, such as those fields that include control
`
`information (type) and those fields that contain data content. (Bims Reply Decl.
`
`¶10; Ex. 1013). Owner arbitrarily contends that the PDU type in Seo is located in
`
`a header (Resp. at 16; Paper No. 40), but that the type field in Figures 4-7 of the
`
`’215 patent is not (Resp. at 18-19; Paper No. 40). But both fields contain bits that
`
`tell a receiver how to process the substance of the data, despite Owner’s arbitrary
`
`and unsupported labels of “header” and “payload.”
`
`Owner incorrectly argues that the claims of the ’215 patent were amended
`
`“to distinguish, among other things, fields that were included in the header of the
`
`PDU.” (Resp. at 22 and 39-40; Paper No. 40). This erroneously suggests that
`
`Owner amended the claims to require the type identifier field to be in a “payload”
`
`field distinct from a “header” field, and that before the amendment, the location of
`
`the type identifier field was not specified. In fact, the claim before amendment
`
`
`4 Seo uses very similar examples: in one case, SNs 4-13 are missing, so a first/last
`
`indication is more efficient; when SNs 4, 6, 7, 10, and 12 are missing, a bitmap is
`
`more efficient. (Seo at 6:26-49; Ex. 1002).
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`required there to be a message field with a type identifier field or one of three
`
`other fields, and was amended to require a message field with a type identifier field
`
`and one of the three other fields. The amendment did not add any requirement that
`
`a type identifier field be in a particular portion of the message (header, payload, or
`
`elsewhere).
`
`Owner did not show how the claim was amended in its Response, but as
`
`indicated below, the amendment to claim 1, and similar amendments to other
`
`independent claims, make no distinction between a header or a payload:
`
`said message field including a type identifier field, and at
`least one a type identifier field, [A] a sequence number
`field, [B] a length field, and [C] a content field.
`
`(Ex. 2021 at 2). Thus, the type identifier field was always part of the “message
`
`field” – the amendment just made clear that the type identifier field was a
`
`necessary element, and not just one of several optional fields within the message
`
`field.
`
`C. Owner’s Arguments and Alleged Distinctions Regarding Non-
`Existent Claim Limitations Should Be Disregarded
`Owner hints, but never explicitly says, that the claims of the ’215 patent
`
`relate to variable-length responses, and require that the feedback response must
`
`minimize the length of the responses. Owner then comments that Seo does not
`
`disclose those features. (See, e.g., Resp. at 33; Paper No. 40).
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`
`These comments by Owner regarding non-existent claim limitations are
`
`irrelevant and should be ignored by the Board as extraneous. Owner could have
`
`filed a motion to amend the claims to require calculating the number of bits needed
`
`for different types of feedback, and selecting the type of feedback containing the
`
`fewest bits. But Owner has chosen not to do so. Furthermore, Owner contradicts
`
`its argument to the Federal Circuit that minimization was just “one of a number of
`
`advantages” of the ’215 patent, and that the ’215 patent specification “uses
`
`language carefully chosen so as not to [so] limit the ’215 invention.” (CAFC Brief
`
`at 39 (emphasis in original); Ex. 1014).
`
`In any event, Petitioner had shown that even if minimizing feedback
`
`responses were considered a claim element, it is disclosed by Seo. (Pet. at 33;
`
`Paper No. 3). Petitioner identified Seo’s disclosures at 3:58-4:2, 5:28-41, 6:26-59,
`
`and 7:44-53, including Seo’s goal of “reducing the number of the total NAK
`
`control frames and increasing a throughput per unit time.” (See Pet. at 33-34;
`
`Paper No. 3). Owner generally denies that Seo discloses minimizing feedback
`
`responses (Resp. at 33; Paper No. 40), but provides no argument and no evidence
`
`to rebut Petitioner’s arguments and citations.
`
`IV. CLAIM 15 IS NOT PATENTABLE
`Owner argues that claim 15 requires a length field, and then disputes that
`
`Seo discloses one. (Resp. at 40-41; Paper No. 40). But claim 15 does not require
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`any such length field. Claim 15 requires a type identifier field and “at least one of”
`
`three optional fields. More specifically, it reads:
`
`said message field including [1] a type identifier field and [2] at least
`one of, [a] a length field, [b] a plurality of erroneous sequence
`number-fields, and [c] a plurality of erroneous sequence number
`length fields, each of said plurality of erroneous sequence number
`fields associated with a respective one of said plurality of erroneous
`sequence number length fields.
`
`(’215 patent at 10:65-11:5; Ex. 1001). (Emphasis added)
`
`Owner offers no construction of claim 15, but simply contends that “[a]ny
`
`prior art reference that does not teach or disclose a message field having a length
`
`field cannot anticipate claim 15.” (Resp. at 41; Paper No. 40). Owner’s argument
`
`gives no meaning to the phrase “at least one of,” and contradicts the claim
`
`language to apparently require all of elements 2[a], 2[b], and 2[c] above.
`
`Petitioner contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 15
`
`requires only one of the following: (i) a length field, (ii) a plurality of erroneous
`
`sequence number fields, or (iii) a plurality of erroneous sequence number length
`
`fields. This broadest reasonable interpretation gives meaning to “at least one of”
`
`and is consistent with the Board’s apparent understanding that claim 15 would
`
`cover a type identifier field and a plurality of erroneous sequence number fields.
`
`(Decision at 21; Paper No. 29).
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`V. OWNER MAKES NO INDEPENDENT ARGUMENT FOR THE
`PATENTABILITY OF ANY OTHER CLAIM
`
`As indicated at pages 41-42 of the Response (Paper No. 40), Owner
`
`contends that all the remaining claims (2, 4, 6, 8, 22, 25, 26, 29, 32, 34, 45, 46, 49,
`
`52, and 54) rise or fall based on whether Seo discloses a “message field including a
`
`type identifier field,” and provides no independent basis of patentability. As
`
`shown above, Seo does disclose a “message field including a type identifier field,”
`
`and therefore these claims are anticipated as well. All challenged claims in the
`
`’215 should be cancelled.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 1, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Michael A. Diener/
`
`Michael A. Diener, Reg. No. 37,122
`
`60 State St.
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`Table of Exhibits for U. S. Patent 6,772,215 Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit
`1001.
`
`1002.
`
`1003.
`
`1004.
`
`1005.
`
`1006.
`
`1007.
`
`1008.
`
`1009.
`
`1010.
`
`1011.
`
`Description
`Rathonyi, U.S. Patent No. 6,772,215
`
`Seo, U.S. Patent No. 6,581,176 (“Seo”)
`
`Fengmin Gong et al., “An Application-Oriented Error Control
`Scheme for High-Speed Networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions
`on Networking, Vol. 4, No. 5 (1996) (“Gong”)
`
`Declaration of Harry Bims, Ph.D.
`
`Memorandum Opinion And Order Construing Claim Terms of
`United States Patent Nos. 6,772,215, 6,330,435, 5,987,019,
`6,466,568, and 5,790,516, Case 6:10-CV-473 (LED/KFG),
`March 8, 2013.
`
`REDACTED February 12, 2013 Rebuttal Expert Report of Scott
`Nettles, Ph.D. Regarding Validity of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,424,625; 6,330,435; 6,519,223; 6,772,215; 6,466,568; and
`5,987,019 (“Report”).
`
`Declaration of David Djavaherian
`
`Ericsson’s Emergency Motion for Relief from the Protective
`Order, Case 6:10-CV-473 (LED/KFG), March 8, 2013
`
`Docket for Case 6:10-CV-473 (LED/KFG), printed December
`20, 2013
`
`Excerpts from TIA/EIA/ IS-707-A
`
`December 20, 2013 Order Denying Ericsson’s Emergency
`Motion for Relief from the Protective Order in Ericsson Inc. v.
`D-Link Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 10-cv-473 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`1012.
`
`Deposition Transcript of Robert Akl, D.Sc., Sept. 16, 2014
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`1013.
`
`1014.
`
`Reply Declaration of Harry Bims, Ph.D.
`
`Non-Confidential Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees, Ericsson Inc.
`and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson; Feb. 20, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00601)
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on October 1, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response and Exhibits to be
`
`served via email on the attorneys identified in Owner’s Updated Mandatory Notice
`
`and Notice of Appearance for John Shumaker, who have consented to electronic
`
`service:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Back-up Counsel:
`Email Address:
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`J. Christopher Lynch, John Shumaker
`EricssonIPR2013-601@leehayes.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael A. Diener/
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael A. Diener
`Registration No. 37,122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
