`
`
`
`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 REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`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. CLAIMS 1-6 ARE INVALID OVER MORLEY ........................................... 6
`
`A. Morley Anticipates All Claims Under the Board’s Construction ......... 6
`
`B. Morley Anticipates All Claims Under Owner’s Proposed
`Construction .......................................................................................... 9
`
`IV. CLAIMS 1-6 ARE INVALID OVER ADAMS ............................................ 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Adams Renders the Claims Obvious Under the Board’s
`Construction ........................................................................................ 12
`
`Adams Discloses an Identifier that Identifies (i) the Type of
`Information and (ii) a Transmission Characteristic of the
`Service ................................................................................................. 12
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Provide a Transmitter in
`Adams to Transmit Data ..................................................................... 13
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Provide a Base Station or a
`Mobile Station ..................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(B) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Cases
`
`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) ....... 2
`Goodman v. Super Mold Corp., 103 F.2d 474,482 (9th Cir. 1939) ........................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`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.” (Response at 8; Paper 20). 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 ‘625 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 (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`“attendance” at the Texas trial to support its claim of privity. (Id.; Paper 20).
`
`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 20). Instead, Owner must
`
`demonstrate that Broadcom actively controlled the Texas Litigation. (Id. at 7-8;
`
`Paper 20; 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. (Exhibit 1021.2) Indeed, this Board has already found that “the
`
`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.
`
`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.”)); Paper No. 20).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`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. 20). 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,
`
`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;
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`Paper No. 20). Again, such speculation, insufficient even to warrant further
`
`discovery, cannot possibly bar this Petition.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Board properly construed the term “service type identifier” to mean “an
`
`identifier that identifies the type of information conveyed in the payload, including
`
`but not limited to video, voice, data, and multimedia.” This construction is
`
`consistent with numerous statements in the specification and even a definition:
`
`Other types of information transmission, e.g., video or
`
`hybrid voice, data and video to support internet
`
`connections, will likely be supported in the future. These
`
`various types of information communication (also
`
`referred to herein as different “services”) will likely
`
`have different optimal transmission characteristics.
`
`(‘568 patent at 2:25-30; Ex. 1001.3)
`
`Despite this, Owner argues that the term means (as compared to the Board’s
`
`construction): “an identifier that identifies a transmission characteristic of the
`
`service and the type of information conveyed in the payload, including but not
`
`limited to video, voice, data, and multimedia.” Owner’s construction should be
`
`
`3
`All emphasis is added unless otherwise stated.
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`rejected because it is inconsistent with the claims, the specification, and statements
`
`made by Owner during prosecution of the ‘568 patent.
`
`First, the phrase “of the service” in Owner’s proposed construction lacks
`
`antecedent basis. The only other recitation of “service” in claim 1 is the term
`
`“service type identifier,” which does not provide antecedent basis for a “service.”
`
`Indeed, the dependent claims never refer to a “service,” rather they refer back to
`
`“said service type identifier.” (’568, claims 2 and 7; Ex. 1001).
`
`Second, the term “service type identifier” appears twice in the detailed
`
`description, and neither such occurrence supports Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`The first occurrence states that the:
`
`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.
`
`(‘568 at 3:11-19; Ex. 1001). This excerpt supports the Board’s construction,
`
`because it discloses identifying just the “type of information.” The second
`
`occurrence also fails to support Owner’s proposed construction. (See ‘568 at 9:27-
`
`38; Ex. 1001). Instead, it makes clear that a service type identifier can identify one
`
`or more of (a) the type of service in the payload, (b) the channel coding, “and/or”
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`(c) interleaving, not that the service type identifier must identify “transmission
`
`characteristics” as proposed by Owner. According to the ’568 patent – and
`
`Owner’s expert – a service type identifier can identify just the type of information
`
`and the receiver can infer the channel coding and/or interleaving based on the type
`
`of information. (‘568 patent at 9:32-38; Ex. 1001; Akl Tr. at 39:12-19; Ex. 1022).
`
`
`
`The only other mention of “service type identifier” is in the Abstract, which
`
`states, consistent with the Board’s construction, that the service type identifier
`
`“informs the mobile or base station of the type of information (e.g., voice, video
`
`or data) being conveyed in the payload.” (See, e.g., id. 60:6-15 and 61:5-14).
`
`
`
`Third, Owner’s construction is inconsistent with statements Owner made
`
`during prosecution. Specifically, Owner represented that it was “claiming the use
`
`of a field to identify the type of payload information and not the type of channel
`
`coding.” (See, May 10, 2002 Amd. at p. 5; Exhibit 1016). Petitioner identified this
`
`very statement in its Petition (Paper No. 2 at 8), yet Owner failed to address this
`
`specific disclaimer other than to provide a blanket assertion that the prosecution
`
`history does not undermine its construction. (See Resp. at 24, Paper No. 36).
`
`III. CLAIMS 1-6 ARE INVALID OVER MORLEY
`A. Morley Anticipates All Claims Under the Board’s Construction
`Under the Board’s proper construction of “service type identifier,” Morley
`
`
`
`anticipates claims 1-6. To distinguish Morley from the Board’s construction,
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`Owner argues that Morley “teaches away from transmission characteristics.” (Id.
`
`at 37, Paper No. 36). However, identifying “transmission characteristics” is only
`
`required by Owner’s construction, not the Board’s, and thus is no distinction at all.
`
`
`
`Owner’s “first” argument is that “the header [in Morley] is not a ‘service
`
`type identifier’ because Morley only communicates a composite frame of voice
`
`and data.” (Resp. at 32; Paper 36). It is unclear whether this argument is under the
`
`Board’s construction or Owner’s, but it reads in extraneous limitations to the term
`
`“service type identifier.” Claim 1 only requires that the identifier be in a separate
`
`field from the payload, and “identif[y] a type of payload information.” (‘568 at
`
`claim 1; Ex. 1001). Owner agrees that “the header identifies the ‘frame type,’” and
`
`that the “header value can be used to indicate which of a voice channel, one of
`
`three different data channels, or a combination of these channels is included in the
`
`multiplex frame.” (Resp. at 29, 31-32; Paper 36). Morley thus discloses the
`
`“service type identifier.” Owner’s discussion about multiplexing and frame types
`
`is irrelevant.
`
`
`
`Owner argues that Morley “does not disclose the “identifier identifying a
`
`type of information conveyed in the payload.” (Resp. at 35-37, Paper No. 36).
`
`Again it is unclear whether this is under the Board’s construction or Owner’s,
`
`because this section of Owner’s Response refers to transmission characteristics,
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`and again tries to read in additional characteristics of what a service is with
`
`irrelevant discussion.
`
`Owner argues that “[t]he header in Morley defines the format (or structure)
`
`of the information transmitted, rather than identify the payload data itself.” (Id. at
`
`36). Owner therefore argues that Morley’s header serves only two purposes: (1) to
`
`identify the frame type; and (2) to provide error correction. (Id. at 29-30) Owner’s
`
`argument that identifying a video frame is different from identifying video data in
`
`a frame is already incorrect, but it is further undercut by Morley’s disclosure that
`
`the header is used “to identify the contents of the frame.” (Morley at 6:22-25;
`
`1002). Morley discloses thirteen different types of frames, each including types of
`
`information: voice data, non-voice data (multiple types), or a combination of both.
`
`(Id. at 6:64-7:17; 1002).
`
`
`
`Owner attempts to draw a distinction between the claimed “service type
`
`identifier” and a header value that “specifies which portions of the payload data are
`
`to be sent to the voice buffers and which portions are sent to the data buffers.”
`
`(Resp. at 36, Paper 36). This distinction is without merit – identifying that data
`
`should be provided to voice or data processing is the same as identifying the type
`
`of data. The ’568 patent itself explains that the identifier is used to “inform[] the
`
`mobile or base station of the type of information (e.g., voice, video, or data) being
`
`conveyed in the payload,” which “can be used by the receiving equipment to aid in
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`processing the information conveyed in the payload, e.g., by knowing the channel
`
`coding rate.” (See, e.g., ‘568 at 3:16-18; Ex. 1001). So too in Morley, where the
`
`identifier identifies a type of information to allow the receiver to provide the
`
`identified data to the appropriate processing function.
`
`B. Morley Anticipates All Claims Under Owner’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`
`
`Owner argues that under its proposed construction (which is incorrect),
`
`Morley’s header that identifies voice, data, and/or a combination (i.e., “service”)
`
`does not identify any transmission characteristics. (Resp. at 33-35; Paper No. 36).
`
`This is incorrect because Morley discloses using the header to determine how to
`
`process the received data. (See Bims Reply Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. 1023). In Morley, the
`
`receiver operates at different rates for different types of information, e.g., the
`
`modem data rate is 14,400 bps and the voice coder operates at 6,800 bps. (Morley
`
`at 52:45-47; Ex. 1002), and uses the header to process data (voice or non-voice) at
`
`the proper rate. For example, Figure 8 shows received data going to the
`
`appropriate voice or data buffer: “[f]rames 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.” (Id. at 10:23-25; 1002) Thus, identifying the type of
`
`payload information also identifies the data rate (a transmission characteristic).
`
`(Bims Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. 1023). Owner’s expert, Dr. Akl, agreed with the Board’s
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`explanation that voice and data transmissions can be different services. (Akl Tr. at
`
`12:14-13:1; Ex. 1022).
`
`Morley also 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),
`
`and that the structure of the multiplexer frames can be optimized “according to
`
`‘long term’ requirements of the application and protocol layers,” such as voice
`
`coder data rate and frame rate, and data bandwidth requirements. (Id. at 5:60-64;
`
`Ex. 1002). For example, in addition to the various voice and data frames, Morley
`
`includes a “Not Defined” frame type 3 that is “reserved for future expansion where
`
`more frame types may be required.” (Id. at 7:23-25; Ex. 1002). Therefore, Morley
`
`discloses that a receiver can use the header to determine the associated voice
`
`and/or data channels and the rate at which to process the received data, all of which
`
`would be transmission characteristics. (Bims Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. 1023).
`
`Owner argues Morley does not disclose a service type identifier for two
`
`flawed reasons. First, Owner argues that the ‘568 patent requires “a separate
`
`service type identifier for each service rather than redundant service type
`
`identifiers for a single service.” (Resp. at 32; Paper No. 36). Owner therefore
`
`argues that Morley only discloses one “service” – a composite frame of voice and
`
`data. This argument is without merit. Owner’s construction does not require
`
`separate service type identifiers for a plurality of services, and the claims do not
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`require it. Rather, Owner’s construction requires an identifier that identifies a
`
`transmission characteristic “of the service.”
`
`Even if Owner’s construction required separate service type identifiers for
`
`separate types of data, Morley discloses a header that identifies frames with voice
`
`data and separate frames with just data 0, data 1, or data 2 (where data 0, data 1
`
`and data 2 are from different data channels), so Morley could have frames with
`
`voice only and other frames with data only. (Morley at 6:64-7:17; Ex. 1002).
`
`Morley’s disclosure of transmitting voice, data, and hybrid voice/data therefore
`
`discloses transmitting data for different types of services. (See Akl Tr. at 12:14-
`
`13:1; Ex. 1022).
`
`Second, Owner argues that the header in Morley does not identify
`
`transmission characteristics of the service because it does not identify any
`
`transmission characteristics of the composite mux frame. But Owner ignores
`
`Morley’s disclosure that the header provides information that the receiver uses to
`
`decode the data (voice or non-voice data) in the payload by providing it to the
`
`appropriate decoder operating under an appropriate data rate for the type of
`
`information.
`
`Owner provides no separate basis for validity of challenged claims 2-6 under
`
`any construction with respect to Morley, and therefore these claims should be
`
`cancelled for the reasons in the Petition, and for the same reasons as claim 1.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`IV. CLAIMS 1-6 ARE INVALID OVER ADAMS
`
`Owner argues that Adams does not disclose identifying transmission
`
`characteristics. But this is not part of the Board’s construction. And Adams
`
`discloses a service type identifier under Owner’s construction, because Adams
`
`discloses using the type of data to derive transmission characteristics to determine
`
`how to process the data.
`
`A. Adams Renders the Challenged Claims Obvious Under the
`Board’s Construction
`
`
`
`In an attempt to avoid the Board’s construction, Owner argues that merely
`
`classifying received data packets as video, audio or data “says nothing about the
`
`transmission characteristics of the received packet.” (Resp. at 43; Paper No. 36).
`
`However, the Board’s construction does not require identifying transmission
`
`characteristics, rather just identifying “the type of information conveyed in the
`
`payload.” Owner admits that Adams classifies packets as containing video, audio,
`
`or data. (Resp. at 42; Paper No. 36). Therefore Owner cannot distinguish the
`
`claimed service type identifier from the identifiers disclosed in Adams under the
`
`Board’s construction.
`
`B. Adams Discloses an Identifier that Identifies (i) the Type of
`Information and (ii) a Transmission Characteristic of the Service
`
`
`
`Adams discloses the type of information conveyed in the payload and a
`
`transmission characteristic of the service, because Adams discloses using the
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`header to determine the proper driver to process the received data, and this driver
`
`indicates transmission characteristics. (Bims Reply Decl. at ¶ 7, Ex. 1023).
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 7, if Adams receives a video packet, it uses the video
`
`driver routines 108 to update the video display window. (Adams at FIG. 7 and
`
`9:18-21; Ex. 1006). This includes using MPEG decoding. (Id. at 4:6-9; Ex. 1006).
`
`If Adams receives an audio packet, it uses the audio driver routines 104 to play the
`
`audio packet using the audio subsystem. (Id. at FIG. 7 and 9:24-32). Owner
`
`makes the leap that since only MPEG is disclosed, that all data types would use
`
`MPEG, even though MPEG is a video standard (i.e., Motion Picture Experts
`
`Group) for encoding video data. Audio data can be encoded using any number of
`
`encodings different from MPEG and requires different transmission characteristics.
`
`If Adams receives a data packet, it reads the associated data and performs certain
`
`functions by sending it to the appropriate processing. (Id. at FIG. 7 and 9:41-48;
`
`Ex. 1006). Other types of data typically have transmission characteristics different
`
`from audio; e.g., a higher data rate and more robust channel coding. (Bims Reply
`
`Decl. at ¶ 8; Ex. 1023).
`
`C.
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Provide a Transmitter in Adams
`to Transmit Data
`
`
`
`Owner argues it would not have been obvious to provide a transmitter for
`
`sending data in Adams. In particular, Owner argues Adams does not disclose how
`
`data is transmitted. (Resp. at 44; Paper No. 36). However, Adams discloses a
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`
`satellite receiver and the format of the data received. Therefore it would have been
`
`obvious to provide a transmitter to send data in the format Adams uses to receive
`
`data, and this would need to be generated by some processor along with a
`
`transmitter. (Bims Reply Decl. at ¶ 9; Ex. 1023).
`
`D.
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Provide a Base Station or a
`Mobile Station
`
`
`
`Owner argues that Adams does not disclose a “base station” as required by
`
`claim 5. Adams discloses transmissions over satellite systems and coaxial lines.
`
`Owner fails to refute that transmission over a coaxial transmission line is by a
`
`head-end, or base station. (See Pet. at 50; Paper No. 3). It therefore would have
`
`been obvious for a “base station” to have a processor and transmitter for
`
`transmitting the data to a receiver in Adams. (Bims Reply Decl. ¶ 11; Ex. 1023).
`
`
`
`Owner further argues that satellite communication does not include a base
`
`station, but instead uses an “earth station.” This is nothing but a lawyer’s
`
`argument; calling the equipment an “earth station” as opposed to a “base station” is
`
`simply a distinction with no difference. Indeed, the ’568 patent states that the
`
`“invention relates generally to radio communication systems, e.g., cellular or
`
`satellite systems.” (‘568 at 1:13-14 (emphasis added); Ex. 1001). The ’568 patent
`
`expressly contemplated base stations and mobile stations in satellite systems. And
`
`Owner’s expert, Dr. Akl, admits that the claims read on either cellular or satellite
`
`systems. (Akl Tr. 29:23-30:10; Ex. 1022).
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`Owner also argues that there is no disclosure that any satellite system in
`
`Adams could include a mobile station (or laptop), because Adams only discloses
`
`using a PC connected to a satellite receiver. (Resp. at 45-46; Paper No. 36).
`
`Petitioner does not argue that Adams discloses using a laptop, but rather that it was
`
`known and would have been obvious to use a mobile system, such as a laptop
`
`computer, to process content with a processor to provides the claimed payload and
`
`service type identifier, and to transmit that content with a transmitter to a receiver
`
`like the one in Adams. Owner has failed to address the fact that it was known for
`
`satellite systems to include a mobile station with the claimed processor and
`
`transmitter for transmitting information (see, e.g., Menand FIG. 1; Ex. 1005; Bims
`
`Reply Decl. at ¶ 10; Ex. 1023).
`
`For these reasons, claims 1-6 should be cancelled as invalid over Morley
`
`and/or separately in view of Adams.
`
`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 (IPR2013-00602)
`
`Table of Exhibits for U. S. Patent 6,466,568
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001.
`
`1002.
`
`1003.
`
`1004.
`
`1005.
`
`1006.
`
`1007.
`
`1008.
`
`1009.
`
`1010.
`
`1011.
`
`1012.
`
`1013.
`
`1014.
`
`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
`
`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
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00602)
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Nov. 21, 2001
`
`1015.
`
`1016.
`
`1017.
`
`1018.
`
`1019.
`
`1020.
`
`1021.
`
`1022.
`
`1023.
`
`1024.
`
`1025.
`
`1026.
`
`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., Sept. 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 Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (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 Reply to Patent Owner’s Response Under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.120 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 to electronic service:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Back-up Counsel:
`Email Address:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`J. Christopher Lynch, John Shumaker
`EricssonIPR2013-602@leehayes.com
`
`
`/Michael A. Diener/
`Michael A. Diener
`Registration No. 37,122
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`