`
`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 -
`
`