NO: 429591US
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent U.S. 6,034,623
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent U.S. 6,034,623
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`I.
`
`
`II.
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
`A.
`The State of the Art of Radio Telemetry Devices as of 1997 .............. 2
`B.
`The Solution Described in the ‘623 Patent ........................................... 5
`III.
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`A. Applicable Law ..................................................................................... 8
`B. A radio configuration and control program that causes the
`radio modem to operate in one of two modes ...................................... 9
` MERITS OF PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS ............................................ 12
`Simionescu Fails To Disclose A Dual-Mode Radio Modem
`A.
`That Reconfigures A Serial Port Depending On A Mode Of
`Operation. ........................................................................................... 12
`B. No Reasonable Combination of Argyroudis and Reagle
`would result in a radio modem that includes a single
`microprocessor that both controls input/output devices over
`a serial interface and manages a radio frequency interface
`circuit .................................................................................................. 20
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 24
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board instituted inter partes review as to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,034,623 (“the ‘623 patent”) on the obviousness ground based on Simionescu
`
`(US 5,963,650, Ex. 1007) set forth in the Petition submitted by Petitioner,
`
`Cypress Semiconductor Corp. The Board also instituted inter partes review as
`
`to claim 4 of the ‘623 patent on the obviousness ground based on Argyroudis
`
`(US 5,748,104, Ex. 1008) and Reagle (US 5,386,518, Ex. 1011) set forth in the
`
`Petition. However, Petitioner’s adopted grounds for challenging claims 3 and 4
`
`of the ‘623 patent fail to account for each and every element of claims 3 and 4.
`
`The ‘623 patent discloses and claims (claim 3) a dual-mode radio modem
`
`that reconfigures a serial port depending on a mode of operation. Petitioner
`
`argues it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`view of the teachings of Simionescu (Ex. 1007) to create a dual-mode modem
`
`that could be used as a standard radio modem or a special purpose telemetry
`
`computer. However, as discussed in detail below, the ‘623 patent does not
`
`merely claim a dual-mode radio modem, but instead claims a dual-mode radio
`
`modem that reconfigures a serial port depending on the choice of mode of
`
`operation. Petitioner fails to identify where this feature can be found in any of
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`the references cited in the Petition, or why it would have been obvious to
`
`modify the systems disclosed by these references to include this feature.
`
`Claim 4 recites a radio modem that includes a microprocessor that is
`
`coupled to both a radio frequency interface circuit and a serial interface that is
`
`directly connected to a plurality of input/output devices. By way of a telemetry
`
`management program, the microprocessor controls and communicates with the
`
`input/output devices over the serial interface, and manages communication with
`
`the radio frequency interface circuit. Neither Argyroudis nor Reagle, either
`
`alone or in combination, disclose or render obvious a radio modem in which a
`
`single microprocessor controls both input/output devices over a serial interface
`
`and a radio frequency interface circuit.
`
` BACKGROUND II.
`
`
`A. The State of the Art of Radio Telemetry Devices as of 1997
`The ‘623 patent is directed toward the field of radio telemetry. In a
`
`telemetry system analog or digital metering data, such as an analog
`
`measurement of a process variable, or the digital state of a switch, is captured at
`
`a remote location by a telemetry computer and is then transmitted to a central
`
`computer facility via a telecommunication device. In radio telemetry the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`telecommunication device is a radio modem that transmits the metering data
`
`between the telemetry computer and the central computer facility via radio
`
`frequency waves, thus eliminating the need for land-line wiring, such as a
`
`telephone line.
`
`The ‘623 patent discloses that prior art radio telemetry systems include a
`
`separate telemetry computer and radio modem at a remote location for
`
`capturing and transmitting data to the central computer facility. (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:39-42.) The patent explains that implementors of these types of systems
`
`incorporate an embedded programmed microprocessor as the telemetry
`
`computer, and interface the telemetry computer to input/output devices such as
`
`a complex analog to digital converter board, or a simple switch. (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:42-46.) The telemetry computer is also connected to the radio modem,
`
`generally via a serial interface. (Ex. 1001, 1:46-48.) The telemetry computer
`
`controls and monitors the interface to the input/output devices and
`
`communicates with the central computer system using the radio modem. (Ex.
`
`1001, 1:48-50.) In these types of prior art telemetry systems, the radio modem
`
`is simply a module that performs only the communication function of the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`overall remote telemetry sub-system that is required for communication
`
`purposes. (Ex. 1001, 1:50-53.)
`
`For example, Figure 1 of the ‘623 patent, reproduced below, shows the
`
`traditional configuration of a prior art telemetry device, including separate
`
`modem 24 and telemetry computer 10. (Ex. 1001, 3:67-4:2.) Input/Output
`
`devices 16, 18, and 20 are connected to the telemetry computer 10, which
`
`controls and manipulates the I/O devices and transmits information via modem
`
`24 over a standard phone connection 26 to a central computer system (not
`
`shown). (Ex. 1001, 4:5-10.) The connection between the telemetry computer
`
`10 and modem 24 is typically a serial port connection, such as a standard RS-
`
`232 connection, and the protocol used is generally the AT-modem protocol that
`
`is standard with most general purpose telephone modems. (Ex. 1001, 4:5-10.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Figure 1 of the ‘623 Patent
`The ‘623 patent identifies several disadvantages with such prior art
`
`telemetry systems, including high cost, high power consumption, large physical
`
`size, and complex integration. (Ex. 1001, 1:54-60.) These disadvantages arise
`
`because the previous telemetry systems do not appreciate or utilize the power of
`
`the microprocessor or microcontroller that is built into the then-existing radio
`
`modems. (Ex. 1001, 1:61-64.) Instead, these systems use the radio device
`
`solely for communication, and employ a separate embedded microprocessor,
`
`the telemetry computer, as the interface to the input/output devices. (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:64-67.) These systems therefore “waste” the processing power available in
`
`the radio modem and therefore result in increased cost, power, and size of the
`
`telemetry device. (Ex. 1001, 1:67-2:3.)
`
`The Solution Described in the ‘623 Patent
`
`B.
`The ‘623 patent discloses an improved radio modem for use in an
`
`autonomous radio telemetry system, the radio modem including a programmed
`
`mode of operation that converts the general purpose radio modem into a special
`
`purpose radio telemetry computer system, thereby eliminating the need for a
`
`separate telemetry computer as taught by the prior art. (Ex. 1001, 1:4-11.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ‘623 Patent
`For example, Figure 3 of the ‘623 patent, reproduced above, shows a
`
`radio modem 60 includes antenna 64 and a stored autonomous radio telemetry
`
`(ART) program that converts the otherwise general purpose radio modem into a
`
`special purpose radio telemetry device. (Ex. 1001, 5:44-47.) By providing the
`
`radio modem 60 with special computer programming (ART), the telemetry
`
`computer 30 of the prior art systems can be discarded and the input/output
`
`devices 66, 68, 70 can be interfaced directly to the radio modem 60. (Ex. 1001,
`
`5:47-51.) The ART program reconfigures the serial port of the radio modem
`
`from a standard Mobitex MASC protocol to a general purpose input/output
`
`system that supports TTL logic, simple switches, and an I2C bus. (Ex. 1001,
`
`5:52-56.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ‘623 Patent
`For example, with reference to Figure 4, reproduced above, a
`
`reprogrammable memory 86 can store a program that provides for two different
`
`modes of operation of the radio modem 60. (Ex. 1001, 6:31-36.) When
`
`operating in the MASC mode, the radio modem operates like other standard
`
`Mobitex radio devices, with the serial port 90 being configured to connect to
`
`another computer system that communicates to the radio modem 60 using the
`
`MASC protocol. (Ex. 1001, 6:36-41.) The second mode of operation is the
`
`autonomous radio telemetry or ART mode. (Ex. 1001, 6:41-43.) ART takes
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`the place of the MASC data-link layer (i.e. can send, receive and interpret the
`
`MPAKs), remaps the radio modem serial port 90 to interface to the input/output
`
`devices 94, 96, 98 and provides the software state machine architecture for
`
`controlling the decisions of the microprocessor 80. (Ex. 1001, 6:43-48.) Figure
`
`4 shows the serial interface 90 mapped for the two modes of operation, MASC
`
`and ART. As seen in the table next to the pins of the serial port, when the radio
`
`modem is operating in MASC mode, the serial port is configured to transmit
`
`and receive serial data with another computer system that is using the radio
`
`modem simply as a communication element. (Ex. 1001, 6:50-59.) But, when
`
`the radio is switched into ART mode, the ART program causes the
`
`microprocessor 80 to remap the serial port so that there are four general purpose
`
`TTL inputs, four outputs, and an I2C data bus, with associated clock and data
`
`lines. (Ex. 1001, 6:59-64.)
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`III.
`A. Applicable Law
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), the
`
`Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012). In construing claims of an unexpired patent challenged at the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, the Board must give primacy to the language of
`
`the claims, followed by the specification. See Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli,
`
`LLC, 109 USPQ2d 1599, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`B. A radio configuration and control program that causes the
`radio modem to operate in one of two modes
`
`Claim 3 recites a radio configuration and control program that causes the
`
`radio modem to operate in one of two modes, a first mode that configures the
`
`radio modem to operate as a general-purpose radio device coupled to the host
`
`processing system via the serial port, and a second mode that configures the
`
`radio modem to operate as a special-purpose telemetry computer by
`
`configuring the serial port to directly interface with a plurality of input/output
`
`devices.
`
`As explained in paragraph 26 of the declaration of Dr. C. Douglass
`
`Locke (Ex. 2001), the language of claim 3 requires the presence of at least three
`
`specific structures associated with the dual mode capability recited therein.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`First, it requires that the software in the device must contain everything needed
`
`to operate as a general purpose radio modem that can communicate on a serial
`
`port (e.g., RS-232). (Ex. 2001, ¶ 26.) Second, it requires that the software in
`
`the device must contain everything needed to operate as a special purpose
`
`telemetry device. (Ex. 2001, ¶ 26.) Third, it requires that the software in the
`
`device must contain a radio configuration and control program that can switch
`
`the device’s operation from one of these modes of communication to the other.
`
`(Ex. 2001, ¶ 26.)
`
`The Petition fails to provide any claim interpretation for any limitation
`
`that appears in claim 3. This is surprising given that Petitioner’s own expert,
`
`Dr. Phinney, took the position that the question of whether one needs to modify
`
`the teachings of Simionescu in order to meet all of the elements of claim 3
`
`“could depend on how one interprets Claim 3.” (Ex. 2003, 6:10-21.)
`
`Although his declaration fails to include any claim interpretation
`
`discussion for claim 3, Dr. Phinney identified two possible interpretations for
`
`claim 3 during his deposition: (a) one interpretation which requires the presence
`
`simultaneously of software for operation in one mode and software for
`
`operation in a second mode, and requiring that both modes be executable on the
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`device on the same device at different times, or (b) another interpretation in
`
`which the memory of the device contains only software for operating one mode
`
`or may contain software only for operating in a second mode, but does not
`
`require that software for operation in both modes be simultaneously present on
`
`the device. (Ex. 2003, 41:10-23; 42:17-43:9.) Dr. Phinney took the position
`
`during his deposition that, when claim 3 is interpreted in light of the
`
`specification of the ‘623 patent, the first interpretation is the correct
`
`interpretation. (Ex. 2003, 6:23-7:8; 41:10-23.)
`
`Thus, both the Patent Owner and the Petitioner’s expert are in agreement
`
`that claim 3 requires that the device must simultaneously contain software for
`
`operating the device in a first mode and software for operating the device in a
`
`second mode. However, as noted above, this is only part of the picture – claim
`
`3 requires that the software in the device must also contain a radio
`
`configuration and control program that can switch the device’s operation from
`
`one of these modes of communication to the other. Both Petitioner and
`
`Petitioner’s expert fail to address this requirement in claim 3.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
` MERITS OF PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
`A.
`Simionescu Fails To Disclose A Dual-Mode Radio Modem That
`Reconfigures A Serial Port Depending On A Mode Of
`Operation.
`
`Claim 3 recites:
`
`3. A dual-mode radio modem capable of operating in a first mode
`as a general-purpose radio device in conjunction with a host
`processing system and in a second mode as a special-purpose
`stand-alone radio telemetry computer, comprising:
`an RF transceiver for sending and receiving data;
`a serial port; and
`a microprocessor coupled to the RF transceiver and to the
`serial port, wherein the microprocessor includes a reprogrammable
`memory for storing a radio configuration and control program that
`causes the radio modem to operate in one of two modes, a first
`mode that configures the radio modem to operate as a general-
`purpose radio device coupled to the host processing system via the
`serial port, and a second mode that configures the radio modem to
`operate as a special-purpose telemetry computer by configuring
`the serial port to directly interface with a plurality of input/output
`devices.
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Claim 3 requires, among other things, a radio configuration and control
`
`program that causes the radio modem to operate in one of two modes: (1) a first
`
`mode that configures the radio modem to operate as a general-purpose radio
`
`device coupled to the host processing system via the serial port, and (2) a
`
`second mode that configures the radio modem to operate as a special-purpose
`
`telemetry computer by configuring the serial port to directly interface with a
`
`plurality of input/output devices. Thus, claim 3 does not merely recite a dual-
`
`mode radio modem, but instead recites a dual-mode radio modem that
`
`reconfigures a serial port depending on a mode of operation. No reasonable
`
`combination of the references cited by the Petitioner discloses or renders
`
`obvious this feature.
`
`Petitioner asserts that claim 3 is obvious in view of Simionescu. (Pet. 3,
`
`4, 19, 20, and 39-52.) However, Simionescu fails to disclose or render obvious
`
`a dual-mode radio modem that includes a radio configuration and control
`
`program that reconfigures a serial port depending on a mode of operation. At
`
`best, Simionescu discloses a radio modem in which the serial port is pre-
`
`configured for only a single mode in advance based on what software is pre-
`
`loaded before attachment of an I/O device.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`Figure 7 of Simionescu
`Figure 7 of Simionescu, reproduced above, shows a data acquisition
`
`device (DA) 102. (Ex. 1007, 11:16.) There are three functional portions to DA
`
`102: the RF transceiver 210, the microprocessor 212, and the I/O interface 204,
`
`all encapsulated in an environmentally sealed enclosure. (Ex. 1007, 11:21-24.)
`
`The RF transceiver 210 consists of a transmitter and receiver (not shown). (Ex.
`
`1007, 11:24-26.) The I/O interface 204 is a 14-pin standard connector. (Ex.
`
`1007, 11:39-40.) Simionescu discloses that the I/O interface can be configured
`
`as Analog, Digital, Asynchronous Serial I/O or SPI-Bus (the SPI-Bus is a
`
`synchronous bus), and that the unit may be connected to RS-232, 485, or
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Optical I/O device interfaces. (Ex. 1007, 11:40-43.) Columns 14-15 of
`
`Simionescu include a table that describes the pin descriptions for the I/O
`
`interface connector 204. (Ex. 1007, 14:41-15:60.)
`
`Petitioner’s claim charts cite several portions of Simionescu that disclose
`
`that the I/O interface connector 204 can be configured, in advance, but fails to
`
`demonstrate that Simionescu in any way discloses reconfiguring the I/O
`
`interface connector 204 based on a mode of operation. (See Pet. 50-52.) Claim
`
`3 requires a radio configuration and control program to configure the serial
`
`port depending on a mode of operation. By contrast, Simionescu merely
`
`discloses alternative port mappings for alternative applications, with alternative
`
`applications requiring application specific software to be preloaded for the
`
`selected alternative before attachment of an I/O device. (See Ex. 1007, 11:17-
`
`18, noting “standard software applications can be pre-loaded before attachment
`
`to the I/O device 206.”) Simionescu does not disclose or suggest that the DA
`
`102 is preloaded with software that performs the serial port reconfiguration
`
`based on a mode of operation, as is recited in claim 3.
`
`Put another way, although Simionescu discloses alternative
`
`configurations where one type of functionality or another can be pre-loaded for
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`a single mode before attachment to an I/O device, claim 3 requires something
`
`more: radio configuration and control program that causes the radio modem to
`
`operate in one of two modes: (1) a first mode that configures the radio modem
`
`to operate as a general-purpose radio device coupled to the host processing
`
`system via the serial port, and (2) a second mode that configures the radio
`
`modem to operate as a special-purpose telemetry computer by configuring the
`
`serial port to directly interface with a plurality of input/output devices.
`
`Simionescu fails to disclose configuring the serial port depending on a mode of
`
`operation.
`
`In the Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review, the Board states that
`
`“Dr. Phinney testifies that, in view of the same pins that are used for serial
`
`communications being repurposed for general purpose digital I/O signals (Ex.
`
`1003 ¶ 124), it would have been obvious to configure Simionescu’s device as
`
`both a general-purpose radio modem for I/O devices with serial communication
`
`and a special-purpose telemetry module for devices such as passive sensors and
`
`computer-controllable equipment (id. ¶ 126).” (Paper No. 9, at 17.) During his
`
`deposition, Dr. Phinney clarified, with respect to his statement in paragraph 126
`
`of his declaration, that “when I say a module that could be configured as a
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`general purpose radio modem or configured in another mode, I mean that it
`
`could be switched between operation of those two modes with the software
`
`that's present in a radio modem for instance.” (Ex. 2004, 47:7-13.) However,
`
`as explained at paragraph 31 of the Locke declaration, the evidence of record
`
`fails to support Dr. Phinney’s contention that a radio modem would include
`
`software for switching the modes of operation of the radio modem in the
`
`manner recited in claim 3, as evidence of record fails to disclose any radio
`
`modems with the claimed dual-mode capabilities:
`
`While one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`I/O pins can always be “repurposed,” Simionescu makes no
`mention in any of Dr. Phinney’s cited references of actually
`repurposing these pins for a modem application, and never hints at
`providing the software that would be required to handle a modem
`application. Note that Simionescu consistently refers to the remote
`device as a DA or Data Acquisition device, never as a modem. In
`the text referenced by Dr. Phinney in this context, the Simionescu
`patent notes
`that: “In
`this embodiment, standard software
`applications can be pre-loaded before attachment to the I/O device
`206.” [Simionescu 11:17-19] Here, Simionescu confirms that no
`dual mode operation
`is contemplated;
`rather alternative
`applications are possible, one at a time, in which the required
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`software is replaced and reconfigured prior to the use of each
`alternative.
`(Ex. 2001, ¶ 31.)
`
`Dr. Locke further explains in paragraph 35 of his declaration that if a
`
`chosen mode can be selected and configured by a control program, the
`
`capability for both modes to be fully operational, including the required
`
`additional hardware (e.g., connectors, switches) must be present for supporting
`
`both modes, and that, in Simionescu, the structures needed for dual mode
`
`operation are not present. (Ex. 2001, ¶35.)
`
`As noted by the Board, Dr. Phinney states that “[m]otivated by cost
`
`savings and flexibility, a manufacturer of data acquisition modules would find
`
`it obvious to offer as a single product a module that could be configured as a
`
`general-purpose radio modem for I/O devices with serial communication, or as
`
`a special-purpose telemetry module for devices such as passive sensors and
`
`computer-controllable equipment.” (Ex. 1003, ¶126.) However, as explained
`
`by Dr. Locke, it would add significant cost to add both the additional
`
`configuration and control program software and the required additional
`
`hardware (e.g., switching circuits, connectors) that would be needed to support
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`a dual mode. (Ex. 2001, ¶33.) With respect to “flexibility,” Dr. Phinney fails
`
`to describe what kind of flexibility he means – manufacturing flexibility,
`
`connection flexibility, configuration flexibility, user flexibility, etc. (Ex. 2001,
`
`¶34.) Dr. Locke notes that, because of the added cost of adding dual mode
`
`capability, including the additional costs in manufacturing, connections,
`
`configuration, and user complexity, coupled with Dr. Phinney’s failure to cite
`
`any actual advantages to be derived from additional flexibility, his argument
`
`that adding the configuration and control program “would be obvious” is
`
`unsupported. (Ex. 2001, ¶34.)
`
`Accordingly, Simionescu fails to disclose or render obvious all of the
`
`features of claim 3.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`B. No Reasonable Combination of Argyroudis and Reagle would
`result in a radio modem that includes a single microprocessor
`that both controls input/output devices over a serial interface
`and manages a radio frequency interface circuit
`
`Claim 4 recites:
`
`4. A radio modem, comprising:
`a radio frequency interface circuit including a modulator and
`a demodulator;
`a microprocessor coupled to the radio frequency interface
`circuit;
`a serial interface coupled to the microprocessor, wherein the
`serial interface is directly connected to a plurality of input/output
`devices that generate telemetry data and respond to telemetry
`commands; and
`a programmable memory coupled to the microprocessor, the
`re-programmable memory encoded with a telemetry management
`program for directing the operations of the microprocessor in
`order to control and communicates with the input/output devices
`over the serial interface, and to manage communication with the
`radio frequency interface circuit,
`wherein the telemetry management program includes a
`
`plurality of configurable state machines that control the reception
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`of
`
`telemetry data from
`
`the
`
`input/output devices and
`
`the
`
`transmission of telemetry commands to the input/output devices.
`
`Claim 4 recites a radio modem that includes a microprocessor that is
`
`coupled to both a radio frequency interface circuit and a serial interface that is
`
`directly connected to a plurality of input/output devices. By way of a telemetry
`
`management program, the microprocessor controls and communicates with the
`
`input/output devices over the serial interface, and manages communication with
`
`the radio frequency interface circuit. Thus claim 4 recites a radio modem in
`
`which a single microprocessor controls both input/output devices over a serial
`
`interface and a radio frequency interface circuit.
`
`Petitioner asserts that claim 4 is obvious over Argyroudis in view of
`
`Reagle. (Ground 12 - Pet. 3, 4, 16-19, and 52-59.) However, neither
`
`Argyroudis nor Reagle, either alone or in combination, disclose or render
`
`obvious a radio modem in which a single microprocessor controls both
`
`input/output devices over a serial interface and a radio frequency interface
`
`circuit.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`The claim chart on page 54 of the Petition asserts that Figure 2 of
`
`Argyroudis discloses “a microprocessor in the remote metering unit connected
`
`to an RF transceiver.” Figure 2 of Argyroudis is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of Argyroudis does, as Petitioner asserts, include a
`
`microprocessor 214 that is connected to an RF transceiver. However, a careful
`
`review of Argyroudis reveals that the microprocessor 214 does not control the
`
`operation of the transceiver. Argyroudis discloses an RF transceiver that
`
`includes an RF transmitter 216, an RF receiver 218, a T/R switch 220, and an
`
`antenna 222. Argyroudis discloses that the microprocessor 214 will
`
`periodically generate a utility consumption message for transmission, and that
`
`the consumption message “is formatted by microprocessor 214 and then
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`upconverted, modulated, amplified, and transmitted by transmitter 216 over
`
`antenna 222.” (Ex. 1008, at 10:1-13.) Thus, it is readily apparent that
`
`microprocessor 214 does not perform all of the functions that must be
`
`performed by a processor that controls a radio modem. At most, Argyroudis
`
`discloses the microprocessor 214 configures switch 220 for transmission only
`
`during times other than the assigned paging slot on a paging channel to enable a
`
`remote metering unit to operate half-duplex without missing incoming
`
`messages from a central controller. (Ex. 1008, at 10:1-13.)
`
`In this regard, Dr. Locke notes that Argyroudis describes a system that
`
`corresponds exactly to the prior art telemetry systems described in the ‘623
`
`patent: “These disadvantages arise because the previous telemetry systems do
`
`not appreciate or utilize the power of the microprocessor or microcontroller that
`
`is built into present day radio modems. Instead, these systems use the radio
`
`device solely for communication, and employ a separate embedded
`
`microprocessor, the telemetry computer, as the interface to the input/output
`
`devices.” (Ex. 2001, ¶50, quoting Ex. 1001, 1:61-67.) In particular, Dr. Locke
`
`explains that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`
`have understood that the use of an existing wireless communication system
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`disclosed in Argyroudis, such as the cellular system or EIA/ANSI-600 devices,
`
`would require a processor capable of managing their complex protocols and
`
`functions including establishing a connection, authentication, security, CDMA
`
`(e.g., Verizon) and/or TDMA (e.g., AT&T, GSM) communications, EIA/ANSI-
`
`600 functions, handoffs, transmitter power control, error detection/correction,
`
`transmission retry, error reporting, etc. (Ex. 2001, ¶48.)
`
`Accordingly, no reasonable combination of Argyroudis and Reagle
`
`disclose all of the elements of claim 4.
`
`V.
`
` CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, claims 3 and 4 are patentable over the grounds
`
`of review instituted by the Board. As such, BlackBerry respectfully requests
`
`that the patententabiliy of claims 3 and 4 be confirmed.
`
`Date: October 2, 2014
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number: 22850
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Robert C. Mattson /
`Robert C. Mattson, Reg. # 42,850
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00400
`Patent 6,034,623
`Patent Owner Response
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on October 2, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing Patent Owner Response to be served via electronic mail (by prior
`
`agreement of the parties) on the following:
`
`
`
`James Hannah
`Aaron Frankel
`Paul Andre
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`afrankel@kramerlevin.com
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Robert C. Mattson /
`Robert C. Mattson, Reg. # 42,850
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
