`
`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 IPR2013-00602
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`AMEND
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED AND FACTS IN DISPUTE ....... 1
`I.
`II. OWNER HAS FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF .................... 1
`A. There is No Written Description Support for the Amendments ................... 1
`B. Owner’s Proposed Claims Are Invalid.......................................................... 5
`i. Claims 8-13 are Anticipated by Morley ........................................................ 5
`ii. Claims 8-13 Would Have Been Obvious Over Morley in view of Raith .. 7
`iii. The Amended Claims are Unpatentable Over Tiernan ............................ 11
`a. Claims 8-11 are Anticipated by Tiernan .................................................. 11
`
`b. Claims 12-13 Would Have Been Obvious in view of Tiernan ................ 14
`
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 136303617v.7
`
`- i -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......... 2
`
`Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F. 3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......... 2
`
`Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179
`(Fed. Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`Vas Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991), ......................... 2
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................... 7, 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 136303617v.7
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED AND FACTS IN DISPUTE
`Owner’s Motion to Amend should be denied because Owner1 has failed to
`
`
`I.
`
`
`meet its burden of proving that it is entitled to have the substitute claims entered
`
`into the ‘568 patent for at least two reasons: (1) Owner’s proposed amendments are
`
`not supported by the ‘568 patent, and (2) even if supported, the proposed
`
`amendments are not patentably distinct from the prior art.
`
`II. OWNER HAS FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF
`
`Owner has not met its burden of showing that there is support for the subject
`
`matter of the substitute claims. (37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)). Claims 8-13
`
`impermissibly include subject matter that is not supported in the ‘568 patent. In
`
`particular, there is no support for a service type identifier which identifies
`
`“transmission characteristics of a service” and a type of payload information. In
`
`addition, Owner must demonstrate that claims 8-13 include a patentable distinction
`
`over the prior art. As described below, Owner has not met its burden because the
`
`facts demonstrate that claims 8-13 are not patentably distinct from the prior art.
`
`A. There is No Written Description Support for the Amendments
`
`
`1 After institution, Ericsson transferred the ‘568 patent to Wi-Fi One, LLC. This
`
`Reply refers to the current and prior owners as “Owner”.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`Claims 8-13 are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, due to
`
`
`
`
`a lack of written description support for the claimed service type identifier. “[T]he
`
`test for sufficiency of support in a [patent] application is whether the disclosure of
`
`the application relied upon ‘reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had
`
`possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.’” Vas Cath Inc. v.
`
`Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991), quoting Ralston Purina Co. v.
`
`Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
`
`(quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1983)). “A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier
`
`filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.
`
`3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`
`
`Claim 8 includes the following unsupported limitation: “service type
`
`identifier which identifies [a] transmission characteristics of a service and [b] a
`
`type of payload information.” Owner interprets “transmission characteristics of a
`
`service” to require identifying different transmission characteristics for different
`
`services. (Paper No. 38 at 12 (“Menand does not disclose a ‘service type
`
`identifier’ because the transmission of only one service does not teach or suggest a
`
`service type identifier to a person of ordinary skill in the art.”)). However, the
`
`‘568 patent does not provide written support for such an amendment.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`Owner identifies two specification sections in support of its proposed
`
`
`
`
`amendment; neither mentions the term “transmission characteristic.” First:
`
`FOC may provide information relating to the same
`connection as the payload or data field in that time slot,
`e.g., a service type identifier which informs the mobile or
`base station of the type of information (e.g., voice, video
`or data) being conveyed in the payload. This information
`can be used by the receiving equipment to aid in
`processing the information conveyed in the payload, e.g.,
`by knowing the channel coding rate. (’568 at 3:11-19;
`Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`This section does not state that the service type identifier identifies both
`
`transmission characteristics of different services and the type of payload
`
`information. Indeed, Owner’s expert, Dr. Akl, confirmed that this section does not
`
`mention “transmission characteristics.” (Akl Tr. at 42:24-43:1; Ex. 1022). Rather
`
`this passage discloses identifying just the “type of information,” which the receiver
`
`can use to process the information (e.g., knowing that each type of information has
`
`an associated channel coding rate). Second:
`
`[T]he FOC fields may also serve the purpose of service
`type identifier. In this embodiment, the FOC can provide
`information regarding the type of service which the
`associated payload is currently supporting, the channel
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`
`coding and/or interleaving associated therewith. (‘568 at
`9:27-32; Ex. 1001).
`
`Contrary to Owner’s proposed construction, this second passage does not
`
`state that the service type identifier identifies different transmission characteristics
`
`for different services in addition to the type of information in the payload. The
`
`sentences that follow the quoted passage make clear that the service type identifier
`
`just identifies the type of information and the receiver infers how to process the
`
`information:
`
`For example, in a multimedia connection information
`transfer may rapidly vary between voice, data and video
`information. In such a case, a change in the FOC can
`inform the mobile station of the type of information
`being transmitted, so that the mobile station will know
`how to process the received information, e.g., how to
`decode the received bits. (‘568 at 9:32-38 (emphasis
`added); Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`Therefore, Owner’s identified support merely supports identifying the type
`
`of information being transmitted, which the receiver can use to determine how to
`
`process the received data. Even if the ‘568 patent disclosed a service type
`
`identifier that identifies more than just the “type of information,” at best it only
`
`discloses channel coding. During prosecution, Owner cited to the second passage
`
`discussed above (’568 at 9:27-32), and argued that “it is clear that the FOC field
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`can provide information regarding three different aspects of the transmission,
`
`namely, 1) type of service, 2) channel coding, and 3) interleaving. These different
`
`aspects can be alternatives or they can all be indicated by the FOC field.”
`
`(emphasis added)). Because interleaving is not a transmission characteristic, but
`
`just a way of rearranging data prior to transmission (Bims Opp. Decl. at ¶ 4; Ex.
`
`1026), the ‘568 patent at best supports identifying channel coding in addition to the
`
`contents of the payload.
`
`B. Owner’s Proposed Claims Are Invalid
`Owner contends that proposed claims 8-13 are patentably distinct over the
`
`
`
`prior art and identifies Menand, Ex. 1005, as the closest prior art. However, the
`
`alleged distinctions relied upon by Owner are disclosed in at least the following
`
`prior art references:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) U.S. Patent No. 5,488,610 (“Morley,” Ex. 1002);
`
`(2) U.S. Patent No. 5,757,813 (“Raith,” Ex. 1024); and
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 6,172,988 to Tiernan et al. (“Tiernan,” Ex. 1025).
`
`The understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art of these references is
`
`supported by Dr. Bims’s Opposition Declaration attached as Exhibit 1026.
`
`Claims 8-13 are Anticipated by Morley
`
`i.
`Morley discloses an identifier that identifies both a type of data in the
`
`
`
`payload and a transmission characteristic of the data, as set forth in the Petition.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`(Paper No. 2 at 18-29). In addition, Morley discloses identifying a “transmission
`
`characteristic” because Morley discloses using the header to determine the data
`
`rate at which to process the received data. (Bims Opp. Decl. at ¶ 6; Ex. 1026).
`
`
`
`In particular, Morley describes that different buffers are processed at
`
`different rates based on the type of data -- the modem data rate is 14400 bps and
`
`the voice coder operates at 6800 bps. (Morley at 52:45-47; Ex. 1002). Morley’s
`
`receiver uses the frame type, which is the type of information, to process voice
`
`data at a first rate, and other data at a second rate. Morley explains in conjunction
`
`with FIG. 8 that “Frames of voice [data] are supplied to the voice decoder from the
`
`receive voice buffer 70. These can be read at a rate derived from the voice decoder
`
`clock.” (Morley at 10:23-25; Ex. 1002).
`
`Owner argues that Morley only discloses a single service, and therefore does
`
`not disclose “a service type identifier which identifies transmission characteristics
`
`of a service” as claimed in claim 8:
`
`Morley discloses a multiplexer that supports one voice
`channel and up to three data channels (Morley, 6:31-32)
`and creates a composite signal for transmission and
`reception on a single communications channel (Id. at 1:3-
`5).
`
`(Paper No. 38 at 10; see also Akl. Dec. at ¶ 44). But claim 8 only recites
`
`identifying “transmission characteristics of a service,” not different transmission
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`characteristics for different services. Morley’s frame structure can support one
`
`voice channel and up to three separate data channels. (Morley at 6:31-32, 7:1-17;
`
`Ex. 1002). The ‘568 patent uses the term “services” to refer to types of
`
`information, which include voice and data. (‘568 at 2:17-30; Ex. 1001). Therefore
`
`Morley’s different voice and data channels constitute different services.
`
`Other limitations and dependent claims are disclosed by Morley as discussed
`
`in the Petition, and are not disputed by Owner.
`
`ii.
`
`Claims 8-13 Would Have Been Obvious Over Morley in
`view of Raith
`
`Even if the ‘568 patent includes written support for an identifier that
`
`identifies different transmission characteristics for different services as well as the
`
`type of information in the payload (which it does not), and to the extent the claims
`
`could be so construed without explicitly reciting separate fields or information,
`
`claims 8-13 would have been obvious over Morley in view of Raith. Raith
`
`qualifies as prior art to the ‘568 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Morley discloses that the “format of the mux frame may need to change
`
`according to the particular characteristics of a call.” (Morley at 7:27-29; Ex. 1002).
`
`Morley optimizes the structure of the mux frames “according to ‘long term’
`
`requirements of the application and protocol layers,” such as voice coder data rate
`
`and frame rate, and data bandwidth requirements (i.e., transmission
`
`characteristics). (Morley at 5:60-64; Ex. 1002). A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`art would understand that Morley contemplates changing the format of the mux
`
`frame based on transmission characteristics. (Bims Opp. Decl. at ¶ 7; Ex. 1026).
`
`Owner argues:
`
`Because the “protocol negotiates which data channels (if
`any) use error correction,” (Morley, 8:37-38), rather than
`the alleged header determining the error correction, the
`error correction disclosed in Morley is not associated
`with any alleged service type identifier (e.g., the header
`type). (Paper No. 38 at 11).
`
`
`
`Morley discloses using error correction for voice and data channels, and that
`
`for voice, different methods can be used. (Morley at 8:24-25; Ex. 1002). Morley
`
`also discloses that the mux may perform error correction on the different data
`
`channels, (id. at 8:34-35), and that “[f]rame headers carry their own error
`
`protection.” (Id. at 8:18) Therefore, Morley does not expressly disclose using the
`
`header to separately indicate the type of error correction other than error protection
`
`information for the header itself.
`
`
`
`Raith discloses using a field to identify the type of channel coding to support
`
`a variable channel coding rate (Raith at 12:15-20; Ex. 1024). If errors are detected
`
`for a transmission rate and the detected errors exceed a predetermined threshold
`
`level, the degree of channel coding can be changed to achieve optimal channel
`
`coding. (Id. at 11:54-59). To synchronize base and mobile stations to changes in
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`the type of channel coding, Raith provides an indication of the type of channel
`
`coding. (Id. at 12:6-16; Bims Opp. Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. 1026).
`
`Therefore, Morley discloses using the header to identify the contents of a
`
`frame (voice and/or different types of data), and using different types of error
`
`protection for voice and data channels. In view of Raith’s disclosure of supporting
`
`variable channel coding for different transmission rates, it would have been
`
`obvious to modify the header in Morley to indicate different types of channel
`
`coding for the different voice and data channels. (Bims Opp. Decl. at ¶ 9; Ex.
`
`1026). Raith discloses using a variable channel coding rate (Raith at 12:15-20) to
`
`transmit different services, such as voice channels, traffic channels, paging/access
`
`channels and control channels. (Id. at 2:28-31). Morley discloses using frame
`
`types to indicate whether the contents of a frame include data from voice and/or
`
`different data channels. Morley also discloses a “Not Defined” frame type 3 that is
`
`“reserved for future expansion where more frame types may be required” (Morley
`
`at 7:23-25; Ex. 1002), and discloses optimizing the structure of the multiplexer
`
`frames “according to ‘long term’ requirements of the application and protocol
`
`layers” (Morley at 5:60-64; Ex. 1002; Bims Opp. Decl. at ¶ 10; Ex. 1026). It
`
`would have therefore been obvious to a person of skill in the art to use the frame
`
`types in Morley to indicate different channel coding rates in addition to the
`
`contents of the frame. (Bims Opp. Decl. at ¶ 11; Ex. 1026).
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`
`Morley discloses using error protection to “ensure error free data to the
`
`protocol and application layers.” (Morley at 8:34-36; Ex. 1002). A person of skill
`
`in the art would have combined Morley with Raith to achieve the predictable result
`
`of improving error protection for Morley’s packet transmissions. Raith discloses
`
`that its variable channel coding technique “is useful in obtaining an optimal degree
`
`of channel coding by weighing the trade-offs between the amount of channel
`
`coding and the number of retransmissions to achieve the highest throughput.”
`
`(Raith at 11:60-65; Ex. 1024). And that “while the amount of information data is
`
`decreased, there is a higher probability that the information data is being correctly
`
`received.” (Id. at 12:1-5; Ex. 1024). Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have used Raith’s variable channel coding to improve error correction in
`
`Morley. (Bims Opp. Decl. at ¶ 11; Ex. 1026).
`
`
`
`Further, to the extent that the language “of a service” in claim 8 is
`
`interpreted to require identifying different transmission characteristics for different
`
`services, and Morley’s voice and data channels are not considered to be separate
`
`services, Raith discloses using a variable channel coding rate for different services.
`
`Raith discloses using a variable channel coding rate for services such as circuit-
`
`switched systems (e.g., TIA/EIA/IS-54-B and TIA/EIA/IS-136 systems),
`
`connection-oriented packet-switched systems (e.g., X.25 systems) and
`
`connectionless packet-switched systems (e.g., Internet Protocol systems). (Raith at
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`6:44-45 and 55-58; Ex. 1024). Raith further discloses using a variable channel
`
`coding rate for a number of different types of cellular systems such as TDMA
`
`cellular systems (e.g., GSM and Cellular Digital Packet Data (CDPD)), including
`
`those that route voice and/or data packets to a mobile station. (Raith 8:10-12; see
`
`also 7:55-58, 8:32-42 and 8:57-64; Ex. 1024; see also, Bims Opp. Decl. at ¶ 12;
`
`Ex. 1026).
`
`Owner has not argued any other distinctions over Morley, which discloses
`
`the remaining limitations of claims 8-13 as set forth in the Petition.
`
`iii. The Amended Claims are Unpatentable Over Tiernan
`a.
`Claims 8-11 are Anticipated by Tiernan
`Tiernan was filed on Jul. 3, 1996 and qualifies as prior art to the ‘568 patent
`
`
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
`
`Tiernan discloses a packet-based communication system that includes an
`
`encoder (a processor) that generates an output stream and transmits it over the
`
`transmission path to a decoder. (Id. at 5:58-59 and 5:62-64; Ex. 1025). Tiernan
`
`discloses that the syntax of messages in the stream can vary depending on the type
`
`of elementary stream (e.g., video or audio). (Id. at 5:42-43; Ex. 1025). Tiernan
`
`therefore discloses a Message Type that identifies the type of message in a table at
`
`13:39-58 (Ex. 1025). The Message Type “acts as a selector for the Presentation
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`Layer Entity needed to process the message (e.g., video, audio, VBI).” (Tiernan at
`
`5:45-47; see also 13:29-32; Ex. 1025).
`
`
`
`In addition to indicating the contents of the message (e.g., video, audio), the
`
`Message Type indicates presentation layer processing required for the message:
`
`To the extent that a message type is present in a Message,
`the Message is self-descriptive regarding the presentation
`layer processing that is required. Since it is possible in
`the future that PESs may be processed by transport
`services having a non-MPEG2 structure, such as ATM,
`and may even be processed in isolation from other
`elementary streams, Messages should be self-descriptive
`With respect to presentation layer parameters, Where
`possible. (Tiernan at 5:48-55 (emphasis added); Ex.
`1025).
`
`
`
`Tiernan thus discloses an encoder that uses a Message Type to identify the
`
`type of information (e.g., video or audio) in addition to using such information to
`
`identify the transport service, such as MPEG2 or ATM, and/or other transmission
`
`characteristics. (Bims Opp. Decl. at ¶ 15; Ex. 1026).
`
`
`
`Different Message Types are used for different services. Generally, Tiernan
`
`defines “a universal messaging syntax applicable to all types of information,
`
`including Internet data streams, VBI data streams, other types of data streams, as
`
`well as MPEG2 video, audio, and control.” (Tiernan, Abstract; Ex. 1025). Tiernan
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`discloses that the contents of a Message depend on the type of elementary stream,
`
`and that each message is therefore assigned a Message Type identifying the
`
`message syntax. (Tiernan at 5:42-45; Ex. 1025) Tiernan discloses that each
`
`elementary stream can consist of “video and audio, as well as other data.” (Id. at
`
`1:22-24) Tiernan discloses that each of the elementary streams may belong to “a
`
`single ‘Program’” or “many programs.” (Id. at 1:47-59) Tiernan further discloses
`
`that each element stream is associated with a unique Data Channel that identifies
`
`an association between the source and a decoder. (Id. at 5:24-31; Ex. 1025; Bims
`
`Opp. Dec. ¶ 16; Ex. 1026).
`
`
`
`Tiernan anticipates claim 8 because Tiernan discloses an encoder (a
`
`processor) that generates and transmits messages that include an identifier to
`
`identify different transmission characteristics (the transport service, such as
`
`MPEG2 or ATM, and/or other processing required for the message) for different
`
`services (for different elementary streams associated with different Data Channels)
`
`as well as the type of data in the payload (e.g., data, video, audio).
`
`
`
`Tiernan also anticipates claims 9-11. Tiernan discloses that the “The syntax
`
`applying to the contents of a Message depends on the type of elementary stream.
`
`Each Message therefore is assigned a Message Type identifying the message
`
`syntax. The message type acts as a selector for the Presentation Layer Entity
`
`needed to process the message (e.g., video, audio, VBI),” and therefore anticipates
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`dependent claim 9. (Tiernan at 5:42-47; Ex. 1025). Tiernan further discloses
`
`transmitting video, audio, data, and data for other elementary streams, and
`
`therefore anticipates claim 10 because a frame can go from audio to data or vice
`
`versa. Tiernan also anticipates claim 11 to “multimedia information” including
`
`transmitting video, audio, and data streams, as claimed in dependent claim 11.
`
`(Tiernan, Abstract; Ex. 1025).
`
`Claims 12-13 Would Have Been Obvious in view of Tiernan
`
`b.
`Dependent claim 12 recites that the communication station is a base station,
`
`
`
`and claim 13 recites that the communication station is a mobile station. (‘568 at
`
`14:13-16; Ex. 1001). Tiernan discloses that the transmission path between the
`
`encoder and decoder shown in FIG. 1 “can be any transmission facility, such as a
`
`fiber optic link or a satellite transmission uplink/downlink.” As set forth in
`
`Petitioner’s Petition -- and agreed to by the Board -- it is well-known in the art that
`
`such satellite communications devices include base stations. (Id.; Ex. 1006; see
`
`also Bims Decl. at ¶ 76; Ex. 1009). It was known for computer systems to send
`
`audio, video, and data, and known that such systems could be mobile. (Bims Decl.
`
`at ¶ 77; Ex. 1009; Bims Opp. Decl. at ¶ 17; Ex. 1026).
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to provide a protocol for sending voice, video,
`
`and data to a mobile station, as a mobile station could create multiple types of
`
`content to be sent, and therefore it would have been obvious to provide the ability
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`to identify what type of data was included in a packet to allow the packet to be
`
`processed appropriately. This would be the use of a known technique (of
`
`providing payloads and identifiers) applied to a known type of device (mobile) to
`
`yield the predictable result of allowing the mobile to send content and identify the
`
`packets that make up the content. (Bims Decl. at ¶ 77; Ex. 1009; Bims Opp. Decl.
`
`at ¶ 18; Ex.1026).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons described above, Owner’s motion to amend should be
`
`denied.
`
`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 Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`Table of Exhibits for IPR2013-00602 for U. S. Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001.
`
`1002.
`
`1003.
`
`1004.
`
`1005.
`
`1006.
`
`1007.
`
`1008.
`
`1009.
`
`1010.
`
`1011.
`
`1012.
`
`Raith, U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568
`
`Morley, U.S. Patent No. 5,488,610, entitled “Communication
`System” (“Morley”)
`
`Morley Priority European Patent Application No. 93306797,
`published on March 1, 1995 as EP 0641098 A1 (“Morley EP”)
`
`Sharma, U.S. Patent No. 5,500,859, entitled “Voice and Data
`Transmission System” (“Sharma”)
`
`Menand et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,548,532, entitled “Apparatus
`and Method for Formulating an Interactive TV Signal”
`(“Menand”)
`
`Adams et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,541,662, entitled “Content
`Programmer Control of Video and Data Display Using
`Associated Data” (“Adams”)
`
`Padovani, U.S. Patent No. 5,659,569, entitled “Data Burst
`Randomizer” (“Padovani”)
`
`Mouly and Pautet, “The GSM System for Mobile
`Communications,” 1992 (selected pages) (“GSM”)
`
`Declaration of Harry Bims, Ph.D.
`
`REDACTED Rebuttal Expert Report of Scott Nettles, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 6:10-CV-473, March 8, 2013 Claim Construction
`Order
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 Prosecution History, Application as
`filed on September 21, 1999
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1013.
`
`1014.
`
`1015.
`
`1016.
`
`1017.
`
`1018.
`
`1019.
`
`1020.
`
`1021.
`
`1022.
`
`1023.
`
`1024.
`
`1025.
`
`1026.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 Prosecution History, Office Action of
`July 23, 2001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 Prosecution History, Amendment of
`Nov. 21, 2001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 Prosecution History, Office Action of
`Feb. 11, 2002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 Prosecution History, Amendment of
`May 10, 2002
`
`Zehavi et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,581,575, entitled “Method and
`Apparatus for Transmission of Variable Rate Digital Data”
`(“Zehavi”)
`
`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
`
`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.)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Robert Akl, D.Sc., September 16,
`2014.
`
`Reply Declaration of Harry Bims, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,757,813 (“Raith”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,172,988 (“Tiernan”)
`
`Opposition Declaration of Harry Bims, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on October 1, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend and
`
`Exhibits to be served via email on the attorneys identified in Owner’s Updated
`
`Mandatory Notice and Notice of Appearance for John Shumaker, whom consented
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`J. Christopher Lynch, John Shumaker
`EricssonIPR2013-602@leehayes.com
`
`
`/Michael A. Diener/
`Michael A. Diener
`Registration No. 37,122
`
`
`
`to electronic service:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Back-up Counsel:
`Email Address:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 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
