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 IPR2013-00636
`U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625
`
`
`
`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 IPR2013-00636
`U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Contents
`
`I. BROADCOM’S PETITION IS NOT BARRED BY 35 U.S.C. § 315(B) .......... 1
`
`A. Broadcom is Not in Privity with the D-Link Defendants................................. 1
`
`B. Broadcom, Not the D-Link Defendants, is the Real Party-in-Interest ............. 3
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 4
`
`III. CLAIM 1 IS INVALID OVER GARRABRANT .............................................. 5
`
`A. Claim 1 Does Not Require a Receiver to Receive Packets Outside a Receive
`Window – It Allows or Even Requires Receivers to Reject Packets Outside the
`Window .................................................................................................................. 5
`
`B. The “Lost” Message in Garrabrant is a Command to Receive ........................ 7
`
`C. The Transmitter in Garrabrant Discards Unacknowledged Packets ................ 9
`
`D. SABM is a Command to Receive and Release Expectations ........................ 10
`
`IV. CLAIM 1 IS INVALID OVER HETTICH ....................................................... 11
`
`A. Hettich Discloses Commanding To Receive .................................................. 11
`
`B. Hettich Discloses Releasing Expectations ..................................................... 11
`
`C. Hettich Discloses Discarding Packets ............................................................ 12
`
`V. CLAIM 1 IS INVALID OVER WALKE .......................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Bell Commc’n Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’n Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622–23
`(Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................. 12, 14
`Bros, Inc. v. W.E. Grace Mfg. Co, 261 F.2d 428, 429 (5th Cir. 1958) ....................... 2
`Dentsply Intern., Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 42 F.Supp.2d 385, 398 (D. Del. 1999) ....... 3
`Goodman v. Super Mold Corp., 103 F.2d 474,482 (9th Cir. 1939) ............................ 2
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`BROADCOM’S PETITION IS NOT BARRED BY 35 U.S.C. § 315(B)
`Owner1 asserts that Broadcom’s Petition is barred because Broadcom is a
`
`“privy” of the D-Link Defendants, the alleged “real parties-in-interest to this
`
`Action.” (Resp. at 8; Paper No. 34). 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 (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`“attendance” at the Texas trial to support its claim of privity. (Id.; Paper No. 34).
`
`Owner’s arguments, which rely on the same flawed and speculative “evidence”
`
`asserted previously, fail to establish Broadcom as a privy. As the Board correctly
`
`held, “indemnity payments and minor participation at trial are not sufficient to
`
`establish privity.” (Discovery Decision at 7 (citing Bros, Inc. v. W.E. Grace Mfg.
`
`Co, 261 F.2d 428, 429 (5th Cir. 1958)); Paper No. 20). Instead, Owner must
`
`demonstrate that Broadcom actively controlled the Texas Litigation. (Id. at 7-8;
`
`Paper No. 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
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`Texas Litigation. (Ex. 1020.2) Indeed, this Board has already found that “the
`
`totality of [the] evidence fails to amount to more than a ‘mere possibility’ that
`
`Broadcom controlled, or could have controlled, the Texas Litigation.” (Discovery
`
`Decision at 11; Paper No. 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
`
`
`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).
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`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;
`
`Paper No. 20). Again, such speculation, insufficient even to warrant further
`
`discovery, cannot possibly bar this Petition.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Owner disputes the Board’s broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“commanding” and questions the use of an IEEE dictionary; instead, Owner relies
`
`on a non-technical dictionary that proposes a definition of “commanding”
`
`(“exercising a dominating influence over; has command of”) seemingly more
`
`appropriate in a military context than in a technical one. (Resp. at 18-20; Paper
`
`No. 34). This “dominating influence” interpretation is not based on the ’625 patent
`
`specification, and is not appropriate for claim 1, which is directed to a method
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`performed by a telecommunications transmitter. The Board should reaffirm its
`
`construction and reject Owner’s proposal.
`
`III. CLAIM 1 IS INVALID OVER GARRABRANT
`A. Claim 1 Allows or Even Requires Receivers to Reject Packets
`Outside the Window
`Owner incorrectly interprets claim 1 as requiring the receiver to accept
`
`packets outside a receive window, and tries to differentiate prior art on this basis.
`
`(See e.g., Resp. at 17, 24, 29, 35, 39, et al.; Paper No. 343). Claim 1 does not
`
`require a receiver to accept packets outside a receive window. First, claim 1 is
`
`directed to method steps performed by a transmitter, not by a receiver. Claim 1
`
`does not recite any method steps actually performed by a receiver, although a
`
`receiver’s actions are recited in other claims, such as dependent claim 6. (‘625
`
`patent, 11:23-48; Ex. 1001).
`
`Second, claim 1 encompasses embodiments in which all packets outside a
`
`receive window are rejected. In dependent claim 6, the transmitter commands the
`
`receiver to move its receive window, not to receive a packet it otherwise would not
`
`receive. If the received packet is outside the receive window, i.e., if N(S) (the
`
`sequence number of the received packet) minus ESN (the expected sequence
`
`
`3
`As shown in Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion to Amend, the ‘625
`
`patent does not even support this limitation.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`number) is greater than 2k-1 (the receive window size), the packet is rejected. This
`
`is true even when the transmitter sends the “command,” a packet containing the
`
`RBEP bit set to “TRUE” that Owner alleges forces the receiver to receive a packet
`
`outside a receive window. Claim 4 is similar for the Go-Back-N embodiment.
`
`Setting the RBEP bit to “TRUE” only instructs the receiver to move its
`
`window; in other cases RBEP=FALSE. (‘625 patent 5:54-56; Ex. 1001).
`
`According to claim 6, a packet with a sequence number within the receive window
`
`will be accepted, and a packet with a sequence number outside the receive window
`
`will be rejected, regardless of whether RBEP is “FALSE” or RBEP is “TRUE”.
`
`Petitioner addressed this topic in its Petition at 14-15, 21-23, 32-33, and 39-40
`
`(Paper No. 3), yet Owner’s Response does not rebut this analysis and never once
`
`even mentions claim 6. At a minimum, claim 6 demonstrates that claim 1
`
`encompasses systems that always reject packets outside a receive window.
`
`Garrabrant works in the same way. Applying the terminology of the ‘625 patent to
`
`Garrabrant’s example, after the receiver receives packet #1, the expected sequence
`
`number (ESN) of the receiver is 2. The window size (2k-1) is 16. If the next
`
`sequence number N(S) – ESN (2) >= 16, the packet is rejected. So in Garrabrant
`
`Figure 8A, packet 18 would be rejected for being outside the receive window,
`
`exactly as it would be in the ‘625 patent.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`The “Lost” Message in Garrabrant is a Command to Receive
`
`B.
`Owner disputes whether Garrabrant discloses a command called “lost.”
`
`(Resp. at 25-30; Paper No. 34). The Board correctly understood that the “lost”
`
`message refers to a control message named “lost,” which indicates that packets
`
`have been lost: “Garrabrant discloses sending a ‘lost’ message that instructs the
`
`receiver to move its window forward.” (Decision at 12-13; Paper No. 25).
`
`Owner contends that a “lost” message is no different from any other
`
`message and “that is why Garrabrant puts that term in quote.” (Resp. at 26; Paper
`
`No. 34). But Owner’s argument is without merit. Garrabrant purposefully uses the
`
`term “lost” in two different ways: (1) when referring to a message that was lost,
`
`Garrabrant refers to a “lost message,” without “lost” in quotes (e.g., at 9:59, 10:17,
`
`10:29 and 10:34); but (2) when referring to a control message named “lost,”
`
`Garrabrant refers to a “‘lost’ message” with “lost” in quotes (e.g., at 10:23 and
`
`10:27). “Lost” is thus the name of a command that tells the receiver that messages
`
`have been lost; it commands that “the rejection window [be] updated in response
`
`to the receipt of a ‘lost’ message.” (Garrabrant at 10:23-24; Ex. 1002).
`
`In the example illustrated in Figures 8A and 8B, packets #0 and #1 were
`
`received, but packets #2 - #6 were lost. (Garrabrant at 10:29; Ex. 1002). Owner
`
`argues that the receive window is moved merely in response to receiving packet
`
`#7. (Resp. at 29; Paper No. 34). But Garrabrant states that “the rejection window
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`[is] updated in response to the receipt of a ‘lost’ message.” (Garrabrant at 10:22-
`
`23; Ex. 1002). Packets #2 - #6 are the lost messages; packet #7 is received, not
`
`lost. (Id. at 10:29; Ex. 1002). Thus, Owner’s interpretation of Garrabrant cannot
`
`be correct – the receive window is not moved merely in response to receiving
`
`packet #7, because packet #7 is not a message that has been lost. The receive
`
`window is moved, as Garrabrant says, by receiving a command named “lost.”
`
`In Garrabrant, the transmitter thus sends the “lost” message to command the
`
`receiver (1) to receive the next packet sent (packet #7), which is not consecutive
`
`with a previously received packet (packet #1) and (2) to move its receive window
`
`and therefore release expectations of receiving packets #2-#6. (Garrabrant at
`
`10:36-41; Ex. 1002). The transmitter further discards packets #2 - #6 by not
`
`resending them. The “lost” message thus operates exactly like setting RBEP to
`
`“TRUE” in the ‘625 patent. This anticipates claim 1.
`
`Owner argues that tables of messages in Garrabrant do not expressly include
`
`a “lost” message. (Resp. at 25; Paper No. 34). Owner argues that Garrabrant
`
`“explicitly” states that the “only” commands allowed by Garrabrant are those
`
`contained in these tables. (Id.; Paper No. 34). However, Garrabrant never states
`
`that the messages in the tables are the “only” commands allowed – Owner
`
`conveniently adds that word outside of the “explicit” quote from Garrabrant.
`
`Garrabrant never excludes other commands from being present.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`Garrabrant sets forth categories of messages, e.g., an “RR” message for
`
`“flow” or an “RNR” message for “control”. (Garrabrant at 6:20-33; Ex. 1002).
`
`Owner’s argument does not preclude either of these types of command messages
`
`from transmitting the “lost” message. (Bims Reply Decl. at ¶ 4; Ex. 1022).
`
`Although the precise structure of the “lost” message may not be defined, a person
`
`of ordinary skill would understand it could take many forms, e.g., a bit, or some
`
`other type of control message. Neither Owner nor its expert disputes this.
`
`The ‘625 patent itself refers to sending a “shorter message” (e.g., ‘625 patent
`
`at 8:10, 8:21, and 8:41; Ex. 1001) without providing details of how such messages
`
`are constructed, because a person of ordinary skill knows how to create control
`
`messages. The ‘625 patent further says that “a shorter message than the packet
`
`(i.e., a packet with RBEP) can be used instead to inform the receiver that packets
`
`have been discarded; thereby conserving bandwidth.” (Id. at 8:21-23; Ex. 1001).
`
`Similarly, Garrabrant’s “lost” message can be a shorter message that informs the
`
`receiver that packets have been discarded.
`
`C. The Transmitter in Garrabrant Discards Unacknowledged
`Packets
`
`Owner disputes that Garrabrant discards unacknowledged packets, arguing
`
`that Garrabrant would continue to send such packets. (Resp. at 31-33; Paper No.
`
`34). This makes no sense. Owner is referring to the situation where there are
`
`repeaters that can re-send packets until a counter counts down; but this is
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`irrelevant to whether the transmitter (as claimed in the ’625 patent) has discarded
`
`packets when it sends the “lost” message. Garrabrant discloses that when “packets
`
`2 through 6 were lost” the transmitter sends a “lost” message and a packet (#7) to
`
`cause the receiver to accept packet #7 and to move the receive window beyond lost
`
`packets #2 - #6 to position #8, thereby releasing expectations of receiving packets
`
`#2-#6 (just like claim 1 of the ‘625 patent). Owner contends that Petitioner is
`
`“speculat[ing]” about the discarding. But Owner cannot offer any logical
`
`explanation for why the transmitter would continue to send packets when it has
`
`moved on to packets #7 and #8. Owner speculates that a repeater could keep
`
`sending packets #2 - #6, but this possibility does not rebut the fact that the
`
`transmitter in Garrabrant is giving up on re-sending those packets and thereby
`
`discarding.
`
`SABM is a Command to Receive and Release Expectations
`
`D.
`Unlike its incorrect lost message interpretation, Owner does not dispute that
`
`SABM is a command (Resp. at 34; Paper No. 34), but repeats its flawed
`
`assumption that claim 1 requires rejection of packets outside the receive window.
`
`(Id. at 35; Paper No. 34). As shown above, this is not true and is contrary to the
`
`claims that depend from claim 1. Owner also presses its flawed “dominating
`
`influence” claim construction argument, addressed above. (Resp. at 35-36; Paper
`
`No. 34). But Owner does not dispute that in the SABM command scenario, the
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`transmitter commands the receiver to “release expectations” or that the transmitter
`
`discards. (Resp. at 34-37; Paper No. 34). By resetting, the SABM command
`
`causes a release of packets below the next sequence number, and the transmitter
`
`discards those packets.
`
`IV. CLAIM 1 IS INVALID OVER HETTICH
`A. Hettich Discloses Commanding To Receive
`Owner says that Hettich’s DELAY command causes the receiver to “ignore”
`
`and to “stop waiting,” and thus is not a command to receive. (Resp. at 39-40;
`
`Paper No. 34). This semantic twist does not differentiate Hettich from claim 1 of
`
`the ‘625 patent. DELAY N causes a receiver to “release expectations,” as required
`
`in claim 1, and to be ready to receive packets starting with N+1.
`
`Apparently, Owner believes that “commanding” requires identifying a
`
`specific sequence number, and that the sequence number must be the “at least one
`
`packet” received by the receiver that is not consecutive with a previously received
`
`packet. But claim 1 does not require identifying a specific sequence number. Nor
`
`does it require that the next received packet have that specific sequence number.
`
`Claim 1 only requires that there be a command to receive “at least one packet,”
`
`which in Hettich are sequence numbers to N+1, N+2, N+3, etc.
`
`B. Hettich Discloses Releasing Expectations
`The DELAY N command tells the receiver to release any expectation of
`
`receiving unacknowledged packet N (and any of N-1, N-2, etc.), and to start
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`receiving packets beginning with N+1. Owner argues that it would be possible for
`
`the transmitter to send a packet other than N+1 as the next packet. (Resp. at 40-42;
`
`Paper No. 34). However, transmitter would be able to send the DELAY N
`
`command and then send packet N+1 next, and this would be readily understood.
`
`At a minimum, Hettich implicitly discloses (and certainly does not exclude)
`
`sending N+1 as the next packet. (Bims Reply Decl. at ¶ 6; Ex. 1022).
`
`Even if it were possible for Hettich to send some packet other than N+1 as
`
`the next packet, claim 1 does not require the next packet actually sent to have any
`
`particular sequence number, only that the receiver be ready to receive “at least one
`
`packet” not consecutive with a previously received packet (such as N+1) and
`
`release expectations of receiving prior packets (such as N, N-1, etc.). Claim 1 is
`
`not an apparatus claim that requires the next packet sent to always be just after the
`
`discarded ones – it is a method claim that is met whenever the method is
`
`performed, regardless of frequency. (Bell Commc’n Research, Inc. v. Vitalink
`
`Commc’n Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622–23 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“an accused product that
`
`sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless infringes”)).
`
`C. Hettich Discloses Discarding Packets
`Owner contends Hettich does not disclose “discarding” as claimed. (Resp.
`
`at 42-46; Paper 34). This is not true. Owner suggests, comparing Hettich to
`
`Figure 12 of the ‘625 patent, that Hettich would send DELAY ESN1; but in that
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`scenario of the ‘625 patent, all packets between DSN and BSN are being discarded.
`
`(‘625, Fig. 10B; Ex. 1001). So Hettich would logically send DELAY BSN (or
`
`BSN-1), meeting claim 1 of the ‘625 patent, as described in the Petition. (Bims
`
`Reply Decl. at ¶ 7; Ex. 1022).
`
`Owner also seems to argue that Hettich does not disclose the discarding step
`
`because it is possible that the transmitter may contain non-discarded cells having
`
`sequence numbers between the DELAY PDU and the next received packet.
`
`(Resp. at 43; Paper No. 34). While possible, it is understood that the transmitter
`
`could send DELAY N and then send packet N+1. Furthermore, as long as the
`
`transmitter discards packets meeting the conditions of claim 1, claim 1 is met
`
`whether or not the transmitter discards other packets. (Bims Reply Decl. at ¶ 8;
`
`1022).
`
`V. CLAIM 1 IS INVALID OVER WALKE
`Owner contends that Walke’s delay command is not a command to receive,
`
`but a command to “ignore.” (Resp. at 48-49; Paper 34). But this is not true.
`
`Delay (n, m) commands the receiver to receive packet #n and to ignore packet #m
`
`(i.e., “release expectations” of receiving #m). (Walke at 13; Ex. 1008; Bims Reply
`
`Decl. at ¶ 10; Ex. 1022).
`
`Owner contends Petitioner admits Walke does not disclose the claimed
`
`“releasing” limitation. (Resp. at 50; Paper No. 34). This is true only as it relates to
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`the specific consecutive numbers in the specific example in Walke. Walke does
`
`release expectations, where the release causes the next packet to be sent to be non-
`
`consecutive with a previously received packet. (Bims Reply Decl. at ¶ 11; Ex.
`
`1022).
`
`Owner contends that the Delay command does not release expectations of
`
`receiving “all” outstanding packets, but just one packet. Owner again fails to
`
`understand that a method claim is anticipated whenever the method is performed,
`
`no matter how frequently. (Bell Commc’n, 55 F.3d at 622–23). For example,
`
`when Delay (4, 3) is sent and only packet #3 is outstanding, the method of
`
`releasing expectation of receiving “all” outstanding packets below #4 (i.e., #3) is
`
`met.
`
`Owner seems to suggest that to meet the claim under the Delay (4, 3) type of
`
`scenario, Walke would always have to be just one packet behind and, then Owner
`
`argues that this would be inefficient. However, Petitioner has pointed out that such
`
`circumstances could arise, and the Board has agreed. (Pet. at 44-45; Paper 1003;
`
`Decision at 18-19; Paper 25). Further, dependent claim 8 envisions scenarios
`
`where no packets are waiting to be sent. Given scenarios where multiple packets,
`
`or zero packets, are waiting to be sent, it is implicit to a person of ordinary skill
`
`that Walke discloses scenarios where only no packets, or one packet, or many
`
`packets are waiting to be sent. (Bims Reply Decl. at ¶ 12; Ex. 1022).
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`Even if Walke always operated as Owner proposes, it would be comparable
`
`to applying discarding to a Stop-and-Wait system. Although perhaps not efficient,
`
`such systems were well-known in the art, as indicated in the background of the
`
`‘625 patent, in Hettich, and in Bertsekas. (Bims Reply Decl. at ¶ 13; Ex. 1022).
`
`Even the ‘625 patent acknowledges this at 9:64-67 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Those skilled in the art will also recognize that the
`
`principles described above with respect to the various
`
`embodiments of the invention can be applied to Stop-
`
`and-Wait ARQ schemes.
`
`Thus, just as the ‘625 patent says that by disclosing discard in an ARQ system, a
`
`person skilled in the art would recognize it can be applied to Stop-and-Wait, so too
`
`would it have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, given the
`
`teaching of discard in Walke, to apply that teaching to a Stop-and-Wait system.
`
`(Bims Reply Decl. at ¶ 13; Ex. 1022). Owner’s argument (Resp. at 52) that a
`
`person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to apply discard in a Stop-and-
`
`Wait scheme is therefore contradicted by the ‘625 patent itself. Challenged claim
`
`1 should be cancelled in view of Garrabrant, or Hettich, or Walke.
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 1, 2014
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Michael A. Diener/
`
`
`
`Michael A. Diener, Reg. No. 37,122
`
`60 State St.
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001.
`
`1002.
`
`1003.
`
`1004.
`
`1005.
`
`1006.
`
`1007.
`
`1008.
`
`1009.
`
`1010.
`
`1011.
`
`1012.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`Table of Exhibits for U. S. Patent 6,424,625
`
`
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625
`
`Garrabrant et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,610,595, entitled “Packet
`Radio Communication System Protocol” (“Garrabrant”)
`
`Hettich Thesis, entitled “Development and performance
`evaluation of a Selective Repeat – Automatic Repeat Request
`(SR-ARQ) protocol for transparent, mobile ATM access,”
`(1996) (“Hettich”) (Certified Translation at Ex. 1007)
`
`Walke et. al., German Patent No. DE 19543280, entitled
`“Process and Cellular Mobile Communication System for
`Wireless Broadband Connection of Mobile Stations with ATM
`Interfaces to Error Protection of an ATM Network” (“Walke”)
`(Certified Translation at Ex. 1008)
`
`Kemp, U.S. Patent No. 6,621,799, entitled “Semi-Reliable Data
`Transport” (“Kemp”)
`
`Declaration of Harry Bims, Ph.D.
`
`Certified Translation of Hettich (Ex. 1003)
`
`Certified Translation of Walke (Ex. 1004)
`
`German to English Translations of the German word
`“weitergeschoben”
`
`REDACTED Rebuttal Expert Report of Scott Nettles, Ph.D.
`
`IEEE Dictionary Definition of “Command”
`
`Bertsekas, et al., DATA NETWORKS, Prentice-Hall, pp. 58-73
`(1987) (“Bertsekas”)
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1013.
`
`1014.
`
`1015.
`
`1016.
`
`1017.
`
`1018.
`
`1019.
`
`1020.
`
`1021.
`
`1022.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625 Patent Prosecution History,
`Amendment of October 31, 2001
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Corp., Case No. 6:10-cv-473 (E.D. Tx.),
`Trial Transcript, Morning of June 5, 2013
`Docket for Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Corp., Case No. 6:10-cv-473
`(E.D. Tx.)
`Docket No. 415 from Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Corp., Case No.
`6:10-cv-473 (E.D. Tx., 2013)
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (IPR2013-00636)
`
`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
`EricssonIPR2013-636@leehayes.com
`
`
`/Michael A. Diener/
`Michael A. Diener
`Registration No. 37,122
`
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
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
