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 REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`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 -
`
`
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
