throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 10
`
`
` Entered: June 20, 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WI-LAN USA INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00126 (JL)
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GLENN J. PERRY, and THOMAS L. GIANNETTI,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Research in Motion Corporation (“RIM”) filed a petition (Paper 1)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 19-21 of Patent 6,240,088 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’088 patent”). A corrected petition (Paper 5) was also filed. In this decision, we
`refer to the corrected petition as the petition (“Pet.”). The patent owner, Wi-Lan
`USA Inc. (“WI-LAN”), filed a preliminary response (Paper 9, “Prel. Resp.”). We
`have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`the claims challenged in the petition.
`Upon consideration of the petition1 and WI-LAN’s preliminary response, we
`determine that the information presented in the petition establishes that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that RIM would prevail on at least one alleged ground of
`unpatentability with respect to claims 19-21 of the ’088 patent. Accordingly,
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an inter partes review to be instituted on
`claims 19-21. The petition for instituting inter partes review is granted.
`
`
`1 The petition does not rely on the testimony of any technical expert.
`2
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 2
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`RIM indicates that the following litigation would affect or be affected by a
`decision in this proceeding: Wi-Lan USA Inc. et al. v. Research In Motion Ltd., et
`al., Case No. 12-cv-20232 (S.D. Fla.).
`
`B. The ’088 Patent
`
`The disclosed invention relates to sequential transmission of at least two
`portions of a data package. (Ex. 1001, 1:5-7.) In the background portion of its
`disclosure, the ‘088 patent describes that Narrow-band Personal Communications
`Systems (NPCS), or alternatively two-way paging, is an ideal platform for
`extending electronic mail to wireless devices such as pagers. (Ex. 1001, 1:10-13.)
`Specifically, an e-mail subscriber can designate, in his e-mail account, that e-mail
`communications be forwarded to the subscriber’s two-way pager, and the e-mail
`subscriber, upon receiving the e-mail forwarded to his two-way pager, can send a
`response back to the sender. (Ex. 1001, 1:16-22.)
`One of the problems encountered by the pre-existing interface between e-
`mail systems and two-way pagers is that the e-mail sender can transmit an
`excessively large message or other data to the two-way pager of the recipient. (Ex.
`1001, 1:33-36.) The receipt of such excessively large amount of data can be costly
`to the recipient and can cause RF channel delays and unpredictable RF statistics.
`(Ex. 1001, 1:36-38.)
`According to the specification of the ’088 patent, a need exists for a method
`of transmission of large amounts of data to a wireless device, such as a pager,
`where no large amounts of data are transmitted in a single occurrence on the RF
`3
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 3
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`channel. (Ex. 1001, 1:56-59.) Also according to the specification of the ‘088
`patent, a need exists for the two-way pager user to control the number of data-
`packages sent, and therefore the cost, if the charge for the data transmission is on a
`data-amount basis. (Ex. 1001, 2:5-8). Further according to the specification of the
`‘088 patent, a need exists for a user to determine, based on the data already sent
`and received, the importance of subsequent data which have not yet been sent.
`(Ex. 1001, 2:9-13.)
`The subject matter of claim 19 of the ’088 patent is directed to a method for
`wireless transmission of an alphanumeric message having at least a first portion, a
`second portion, and a third portion from an electronic communication transmitter
`to an electronic communication receiver. Claims 20 and 21 each depend on claim
`19. Claim 19 is reproduced below:
`19. A method for wireless transmission of an alphanumeric message
`having at least a first portion, a second portion, and a third
`portion from an electronic communication transmitter to an electronic
`communication receiver, the method comprising:
`
`transmitting from the electronic communication transmitter to
`the electronic communication receiver the first portion of the
`alphanumeric message, the first portion being an initial portion of the
`alphanumeric message;
`
`having the electronic communication receiver provide a user
`thereof with the first portion in a form comprehensible to the user;
`
`having the electronic communication receiver provide the user
`thereof with a choice of whether to receive the second portion;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 4
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`the electronic communication receiver
`from
`transmitting
`transmission instructions to the electronic communication transmitter
`in response to an affirmative selection by the user of the electronic
`communication receiver to the choice of whether to have the second
`portion;
`transmitting from the electronic communication transmitter
`
`the second portion in response to the transmission instructions
`from
`the electronic communication
`receiver,
`the electronic
`communication receiver providing the user thereof with the second
`portion in a form comprehensible to the user;
`
`having the electronic communication receiver provide the user
`thereof with a choice of whether to receive the third portion;
`transmitting from the electronic communication receiver
`
`transmission instructions to the electronic communication transmitter
`in response to an affirmative selection by the user of the electronic
`communication receiver to the choice of whether to have the third
`portion; and
`transmitting from the electronic communication transmitter
`the third portion in response to the transmission instructions from
`the electronic communication receiver, the electronic communication
`receiver providing the user thereof with the third portion in a form
`comprehensible to the user.
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`Thus, data transmission is divided into three sequential stages, through
`which the user recipient is provided successive opportunities to choose whether or
`not to receive a subsequent portion of the data not yet transmitted.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 5
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon by Petitioner
`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`
`
`RIM relies upon the following prior art references:
`Adler
`Patent 6,157,630 Filed 1/26/1998
`Kikinis
`Patent 5,838,252 Filed 9/9/1996
`
`RIM Inter@ctive Pager User’s Guide (1997)
`(Inter@ctive Pager Guide)
`HP 620LX/660LX Palmtop User Guide (1998)
`(HP Guide)
`Nokia User’s Manual (1998)
`(Nokia Manual)
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1003)
`(Ex. 1004)
`
`(Ex. 1002)
`
`(Ex. 1005)
`
`(Ex. 1006)
`
`
`
`D.
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`
`RIM alleges that claims 19-21are unpatentable based on the following
`grounds:
`1. Claims 19-21 as anticipated by Inter@ctive Pager Guide under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a);
`2. Claims 19-21 as unpatentable over Inter@ctive Pager Guide under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a);
`3. Claims 19-21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
`HP Guide and Nokia Manual.
`4. Claims 19-21 as anticipated by Adler under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); and
`5. Claims 19-21 as anticipated by Kikinis under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 6
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`In determining patentability over the prior art, the name of the game is the
`
`claim. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Consistent with
`the statute and the legislative history of the AIA, the Board interprets claim terms
`by applying the broadest reasonable construction in the context of the specification
`in which the claims reside. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under that construction, claim
`terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc).
`
`That ordinary and customary meaning applies unless the inventor, as his or
`her own lexicographer, has set forth in the specification a special meaning for a
`term. Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.
`1998); York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568,
`1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996). That special definition must be set forth with reasonable
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per
`Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). Neither RIM nor WI-LAN contends that any special definition
`has been provided in the specification for any claim term. We conclude the same.
`
`Also, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description should
`not be read into the claim if the claim language is broader than that embodiment.
`In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`7
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 7
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`alphanumeric message
`Claim 19 begins with the recitation: “A method for wireless transmission of
`
`an alphanumeric message . . . .” Under the rule of broadest reasonable
`interpretation in light of the specification, we construe an “alphanumeric message”
`as message containing one or more alphabets and/or one or more numerals, in any
`language. The specification does not require that both alphabets and numerals are
`present in the message or that the message must be any particular language. Also,
`the specification does not exclude other types of symbols within the message, such
`as special characters “@,” “#,” and “*,” emoticons, and punctuation marks.
`
`The term “alphanumeric message” is broad and has no special definition in
`the specification of the ’088 patent. In connection with e-mails, we determine that
`it can read on either (1) the substantive text portion in the body of the entire email
`data package, after the header portion including information such as sender
`address, recipient address, date, and the subject matter field, or (2) the entire e-mail
`data package including the header information.
`wireless transmission of an alphanumeric message having
`a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion
`
`Generally speaking, nothing precludes a portion from being a whole portion
`
`of the entire element. However, in the context of the specification of the ’088
`patent, the recitation of an alphanumeric message having a first portion, a second
`portion, and a third portion precludes any such “portion” from constituting the
`entirety of the message. That would be an unreasonable construction in light of the
`specification. The invention is about making more efficient data communication,
`by transmitting one message in separate portions. (Ex. 1001, Abstract:1-4; 2:7-10.)
`8
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 8
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`The first portion, the second portion, and the third portion of the message,
`
`possibly with additional portions, collectively would combine to yield the whole of
`the message. The claims do not require the absence of additional portions of the
`message, beyond the first, second, and third portions.
`the first portion being
`“an initial portion” of the alphanumeric message
`
`The term “initial portion” was not present in the specification of the ’088
`
`patent as originally filed. Rather, the limitation “the first portion being an initial
`portion of the alphanumeric message” was added by amendment during
`prosecution to overcome a rejection based on prior art. A copy of the amendment
`has been submitted by WI-LAN as Exhibit 2001. In that amendment, the
`Applicant stated:
`New Claims 24-27 are fully supported in the specification by
`originally filed Claim 1 and page 4, lines 17-19. Independent Claim
`24 recites in pertinent part, "the first portion being an initial portion of
`the alphanumeric message. . . ." In contrast, the cited reference
`(Foladare et al.) only discloses that an e-mail message summary is
`sent followed by the email message. It is clear that this summary is
`not a first portion of the message. Rather, according to the
`technique disclosed by the cited reference, the first portion (along
`with the rest of the message) would be transmitted in response to
`a selection signal sent by the user. Therefore, the cited reference
`fails to anticipate independent Claim 24 and dependent Claims 25-27.
`(Ex. 2001, 2:20-3-2.)
`
` (Emphasis added.)
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 9
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`We construe “initial portion” as a part of the original message for
`
`transmission, which precedes all remaining portions of the message. Thus, an
`initial portion has to include the very first or leading part of the message for
`transmission.
`RIM in its petition urges that the “initial portion” does not have to include
`any portion of “the body of the alphanumeric message.” (Pet. 4:14-16.) That
`characterization is unhelpful because it is uncertain just what RIM means by
`“body.” It suffices here to state only that if the alphanumeric message has nothing
`else preceding the “body,” then the “initial portion” of the alphanumeric message
`must include a portion of that body. On the other hand, if something precedes the
`“body,” then the “initial portion” does not have to include any part of that body.
`While it is true that in the e-mail message embodiment described in the
`specification of the ’088 patent, a portion of the data content in the body of the e-
`mail is transmitted as a part of the initial portion also including header information
`(Ex. 1001, 43:64 to 4:3), that is more limiting than what is required by the claims.
`No disclosure indicates that it is necessary to have at least some part of the body
`portion of an e-mail message also containing a header to be included in the first
`portion being transmitted. The rule of broadest reasonable interpretation precludes
`importation into the claims of an “extraneous limitation” from the specification. In
`re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. A limitation is extraneous if there is no need for its
`inclusion in the claim for the claim to have a reasonable meaning. See id.; E.I. du
`Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir.
`1988). In patent law, “the name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co.,
`150 F.3d at 1369.
`
`10
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 10
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`WI-LAN contends (Prel. Resp. 5:9-10) that it is contrary to the prosecution
`history of the ’088 patent to take the position that the body portion of an e-mail
`message need not be included in the “initial portion” that constitutes the first
`portion. WI-LAN cites to the following text from the amendment adding the term
`“initial portion” to a claim to overcome a rejection (Ex. 2001, 2:22 to 3:1):
`In contrast, the cited reference only discloses that an email-message
`summary is sent followed by the email message. It is clear that this
`summary is not a first portion of the message. Rather, according to
`the technique disclosed by the cited reference, the first portion (along
`with the rest of the message) would be transmitted in response to a
`selection signal sent by the user.
`
`The purported inconsistency is not explained adequately by WI-LAN. No
`
`such inconsistency is evident from the above-quoted text, which indicates only that
`the e-mail message summary transmitted prior to sending of the e-mail message is
`not a part of the first portion of the email message. We decline to speculate on
`how that translates to requiring an initial portion of an e-mail to include text from
`the body portion of an e-mail.
`
`WI-LAN further argues that construing “initial portion” as not necessarily
`including some text from the body portion of a message ignores the difference in
`language between claim 19 and other claims, i.e., claims 1, 10, 13. The argument
`is unpersuasive, as discussed below,
`
`WI-LAN does not explain adequately why claim 19 would have identical
`scope with claims 1, 10, and 13 with respect to what constitutes the first portion, if
`“initial portion” is construed such that it does not have to include some text from
`the body portion of a message. We recognize that claim 19 recites “the first
`
`11
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 11
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`portion being an initial portion of the alphanumeric message,” and that claims 1,
`10, and 13 each recites “the first portion of the data package including identifying
`information pertaining to a second portion of the data package.” The difference in
`language extends clearly beyond the question whether text from the substantive
`body of the message is included in the first portion. We have construed “initial
`portion” as that part of the message preceding all other portions. That requirement
`is absent from the language of the other claims. In any event, because claim 19 is
`unrelated to claims 1, 10, and 13 in dependency, nothing precludes use of
`alternative language in claim 19 to cover the same feature, even assuming that the
`different language sets forth identical limitation.
`
`WI-LAN further argues that the interpretation urged by RIM in its petition is
`drastically different from and inconsistent with that urged by RIM in the related
`civil litigation between the parties, i.e., Wi-Lan USA, Inc. et al. v. Research In
`Motion Ltd., et al., Case No. 12-cv-20232 (S.D. Fla.). WI-LAN produces the
`following table to illustrate the comparison (Prel. Resp. p.7):
`
`12
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 12
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPPR2013-00126
`
`
`
`
`Patent 66,240,088
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe allegatiion of drasstic differennce and incconsistenccy is not exxplained
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adequattely. For innstance, thhe discussioon in the riight colummn does nott require thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`first porrtion to incclude a porrtion of thee body of aan alphanummeric messsage. Nothhing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`appears inconsisteent. It is noot even cleear that thee discussionn in the rigght columnn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`concernns what muust be incluuded in thee first portioon of the mmessage.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inn any evennt, the contention is uunhelpful thhat RIM shhould be esstopped froom
`
`
`
`
`
`arguingg a claim innterpretatioon that is different froom what it
`
`
`has urgedd in parallell
`
`
`
`
`civil litiigation. WWhether or nnot estoppel applies t
`
`
`does not aapply to thee
`to RIM, it
`
`
`
`
`
`Board. Thus, the Board mayy itself inteerpret a claaim term a
`
`s a matter of law
`
`
`what is or inotwithhstanding w
`
`
`
`
`s not argueed by a parrty. The BBoard’s connclusion is
`not
`
`
`
`
`
`subject to any resttriction bassed on a paarty’s conteentions in
`
`
`another prroceeding oor
`
`
`ing. even thiis proceedi
`
`13
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 13
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`B. Claims 19-21 – Anticipated by Inter@ctive Pager Guide
`
`Claim 19 requires the sending of one alphanumeric message in three
`
`separate transmissions, each for a different portion of the same message.
`Specifically, after a first portion of the message is transmitted from a transmitter to
`a receiver, and after the receiver’s presenting of that first portion to a user, the
`receiver provides the user with a choice of whether to receive a second portion.
`The user’s affirmative selection is sent back to the transmitter as instruction. In
`response to that instruction, the transmitter transmits the second portion of the
`message to the receiver. After the receiver’s presenting that second portion to a
`user, the receiver provides the user a choice of whether to receive yet a third
`portion of the message. The user’s affirmative selection is sent back to the
`transmitter as an instruction. In response to that instruction, the transmitter
`transmits the third portion of the message to the receiver. And then the receiver
`presents the third portion to the user.
`
`Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that each and every element as
`set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single
`prior art reference. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
`Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We
`focus on the separate transmission requirement for multiple portions of the same
`message. It is insufficient to meet that requirement by having a single transmission
`of the entire message, followed by separate presentations of different portions of
`the received message to the user.
`
`The Inter@ctive Pager Guide describes wireless transmission of two-way
`messages, Internet E-mail, etc., over a messaging service to a pager. (Ex. 1002,
`14
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 14
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPPR2013-00126
`
`
`
`
`Patent 66,240,088
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`p.1) Acccording too RIM, the Inter@ctivve Pager GGuide disclloses (Ex.
`
`1002, p.344) a
`
`
`
`
`
`er, messagat the pagereceiving, “more eefficient manner” of r
`than 512
`es greater
`:10-11.)
`
`
`characteers in lengtth. (Pet. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe pertineent part of tthe cited paage is reprroduced beelow:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe above-rreproducedd material refers to a a more efficcient mannner of
`
`
`
`, not of “reeceiving” tthat
`
`
`
`
`s in length,“handlinng” a messsage that iss over 512 characters
`
`
`
`
`messagee. The meessage mayy have alreaady been r
`eceived at
`the pager
`
`prior to suuch
`
`handling.
`
`may be
`r than 512 RRIM states that a receeived message longer
`
`
`
`
`
`characters
`lly.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`nly generatrue, but on.) That is tet. 6:12-13.rtions. (Per more porbroken into two or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The devvil is in thee details. Itt is not at aall clear froom the Inteer@ctive PPager Guidde
`
`
`
`
`that a “llong” messsage is brooken up at tthe host se
`rver prior
`to transmi
`
`ssion for thhe
`ved at the
`
`
`
`
`
`purposee of separatte transmisssion as oppposed to bbeing receiv
`pager and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`then brooken into ppieces for sseparate prresentationn to the useer of the paager. It is aalso
`
`
`
`
`
`
`not cleaar whether “receive” means receeived remootely at thee host serv
`er of the
`15
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 15
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`hose t address thon does notitself. RIMM’s petitio
`
`Case IPPR2013-00126
`
`
`
`
`Patent 66,240,088
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pager, oor receivedd locally at the pager
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`uncertaiinties or prrovide adeqquately an explanatioon. The diisclosure oof the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter@cctive Pagerr Guide, ass applied byy RIM, is nnot sufficieently speciific. We arre
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`unpersuuaded that tthe Inter@@ctive Pageer Guide diiscloses a ““more efficcient mannner”
`
`
`
`
`of receiving, at thee pager, mmessages grreater than
`
`
`512 characcters in lenngth.
`
`
`RRIM correcctly notes (
`
`Pet. 6:14-116) that in
`
`
`a system ddescribed bby the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter@cctive Pagerr Guide, affter a user sscrolls throough a firstt portion oof a messagge,
`
`
`
`
`the userr may chooose to retrieeve a seconnd portion
`
`of the messsage by p
`ressing an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“M” keyy, and thenn upon scroolling throuugh the seccond portioon similarlly may
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`retrieve a third portion of thee message by again ppressing thhe “M” keyy. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pertinennt descriptiion relied oon by RIMM is reproduuced beloww (Ex. 10022, 35: ¶¶3--5):
`
`16
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 16
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`Based on the above-reproduced disclosure, RIM correctly states (Pet. 7-8,
`
`¶ 14) that the Inter@ctive Pager Guide describes that, each time the user presses
`the M key, the pager displays a dialog box that states “Retrieving More,”
`indicating that the pager is adding more of the message to the text that already was
`read.
`However, RIM makes the unsupported assumption that when the “M” key is
`
`pressed, the pager sends instruction back to the remote transmitter to send another
`portion of the message, and that when the pager thereafter displays “Retrieving
`More,” an additional portion is sent by the remote transmitter in response to that
`instruction. According to RIM, pressing the “M” key necessarily causes the pager
`to transmit instructions to the base station transmitter, which will not send another
`portion of the message until the “M” key is pressed. (Pet. 17:17 to 18:3; 20:20 to
`21:2.) Also according to RIM, when the “Retrieving More” dialog box is
`displayed, a subsequent portion requested by the user via pressing the “M” key is
`sent from the transmitter to the pager (Pet. 18:18-19; 21:15-17.) The portions of
`Inter@ctive Pager Guide cited by RIM do not support those contentions.
`
`WI-LAN correctly points out that RIM’s petition is deficient in not having
`pointed out a specific disclosure of successive transmission of different portions of
`one alphanumeric message. WI-LAN correctly notes that the disclosure identified
`by RIM is consistent with a single message being transmitted and received all in
`one session, without additional or subsequent transmissions, and only presented on
`display by the pager to the user in separate portions. In particular, WI-LAN notes
`that the Inter@ctive Pager Guide states (Ex. 1002, 34:13-15): “If you receive a
`message greater than 512 characters in length, the Inter@ctive Pager will
`17
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 17
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`handle the message in a more efficient manner.” (Emphasis added.) That
`description reasonably may be read as indicating not that the message is
`transmitted and received in multiple segments, upon request for each subsequent
`portion, but that the entire message already is received by the pager and then
`presented to the user more efficiently through the disclosed method.
`
`With respect to all of the foregoing, RIM has not presented the testimony of
`any technical expert, much less testimony with regard to how one with ordinary
`skill in the art would have read and understood the disclosure of the Inter@ctive
`Pager Guide. We note also that inherent disclosure may not be established by
`probabilities or possibilities. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). To
`establish inherency, the evidence must make clear that the missing description is
`necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so
`recognized by persons of ordinary skill. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999). The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
`circumstances is not sufficient. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir.
`1993).
`Because the material from Inter@ctive Pager Guide, relied on by RIM’s
`petition, is consistent with a message’s not being transmitted in multiple portions
`in successive and separate transmissions, in response to an indication from a user
`whether a subsequent portion should be transmitted, we determine that RIM has
`not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing anticipation
`of claim 19 by the Inter@ctive Pager Guide. Because each of claims 20 and 21
`depend on claim 19, we also determine that RIM has not shown a reasonable
`
`18
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 18
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in establishing anticipation of claims 20 and 21 by
`the Inter@ctive Pager Guide.
`C. Claims 19-21 – Obvious over Inter@ctive Pager Guide
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR
`Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is
`resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope
`and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter
`and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-
`called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`RIM, as discussed above, has contended that claims 19-21 are anticipated by
`the Inter@ctive Pager Guide. That means, according to RIM, the Inter@ctive
`Pager Guide discloses each and every element of claims 19-21, arranged precisely
`as claimed. Here, the obviousness contention is premised on one circumstance that
`the Board disagrees with RIM’s contention that at the end of the user’s having read
`the second portion of the message, the pager provides the user a choice of whether
`to retrieve a third portion of the message. (Pet. 23:3-6.) In its petition, RIM
`explains that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do
`the same, upon the user’s having finished reading the second portion, as is done at
`the end of the user’s having finished reading the first portion, for the same benefits.
`In other words, if the “M” key is available at the end of the presentation of the first
`19
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 19
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00126
`Patent 6,240,088
`
`
`
`portion, for the user to choose to have another portion presented, it would have
`been readily recognized by one with ordinary skill in the art that the key is equally
`available at the end of the user’s having reached the end of the second portion.
`We agree with RIM that the Inter@ctive Pager Guide discloses presenting
`the “M” key to the user at the end of the user’s reading of the second portion, for
`the user to press in order to have a third portion retrieved for display to the user.
`There is no need to resort to an obviousness analysis to account for that feature.
`However, the same deficiency that undermines RIM’s anticipation argument for
`claims 19-21 based on the Inter@ctive Pager Guide also undermines RIM’s
`obviousness argument. RIM assumes, without adequate support in the record, that
`wh

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket