IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2014-011811
`
`Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-01182 and IPR2014-01184 have been consolidated with the instant
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,532,641 ...................................................... 2
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................ 4
`
`A. “Wireless telephone device” should be construed as “telephone with
`access to a cellular radio system so it can be used over a wide area,
`without a physical connection to a network or external power source.” ........... 5
`
`B. “Stream a signal”/“streaming audio signal” should be construed as
`“signal/audio signal that is played as it arrives at a recipient device, not
`requiring that an entire file be transferred to and stored at a recipient
`device prior to initiating playback.” ......................................................................... 6
`
`C. “A signal representing at least a portion of a song”/“signal that
`represents a playing of the song” should be accorded the plain and
`ordinary meaning. ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`D. “Portable electronic device” should be construed as “an electronic
`device that can be easily moved by a user from one location to
`another and that can be operated in a mobile environment
`independent of, or untethered to, another system.” ............................................. 9
`
`E. “Communication rate that provides for a CD quality listening
`experience” should be construed as “data transfer rate sufficient to
`obtain 1.4 megabits per second.” ........................................................................... 10
`
`F. “While” should be construed as “at substantially or the same time.” ............. 11
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 12
`
`A. References Cited In the Petition ............................................................................. 12
`
`1. Abecassis ................................................................................................................... 12
`
`2. Chennakeshu ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`3. Herrod ....................................................................................................................... 13
`
`4. Galensky ................................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`5. Ito............................................................................................................................... 15
`
`6. Haartsen .................................................................................................................... 15
`
`7. Nokia ......................................................................................................................... 16
`
`8. Rydbeck .................................................................................................................... 16
`
`9. Ohmura ..................................................................................................................... 17
`
`10. Ahn ............................................................................................................................ 17
`
`B. Petitioners have not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate by a
`preponderance of the evidence that all claim elements of the
`challenged claims are disclosed in the references relied upon by
`Petitioners in the Petition or that there is a motivation to combine the
`referenced as proposed by Petitioners................................................................... 18
`
`C. Legal standard for obviousness............................................................................... 19
`
`D. Grounds 1 and 2 of IPR2014-01181 do not render Claims 8, 11, 13-14
`of the ’641 patent obvious. ...................................................................................... 23
`
`1. GROUND 1: Obviousness over Ito, Haartsen, Nokia, and Rydbeck ........... 23
`
`a. The cited references do not render Claim 8 obvious. ..................................... 23
`
`i. Ito does not disclose a “wireless communications module”
`compliant with Bluetooth and the proposed combination of Ito
`with Haartsen is the result of improper hindsight bias. ............................. 23
`
`(A) Ito discloses an analog local wireless network and does not
`disclose a Bluetooth-enabled system. ............................................................ 24
`
`(B) A POSITA would not be motivated to add Bluetooth to Ito. ............ 26
`
`ii. Ito does not disclose a “portable electronic device …operable to
`play an audio file that represents a song” or a “recipient device”
`able to make a “selection of a selectable menu item.” ............................... 31
`
`b. The cited references do not render dependent claims 11, 13, and 14
`obvious. .................................................................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`i. For claim 11, the cited references do not disclose a “wireless
`communications module” that is operable to communicate
`streaming audio as a communication rate “that provides for a CD
`quality listening experience.” .......................................................................... 37
`
`ii. The cited references do not disclose a “portable electronic device”
`with “an internal battery and means for recharging the internal
`battery.” ............................................................................................................. 39
`
`2. GROUND 2: Obviousness over Ito, Haartsen, Nokia, Rydbeck, and
`Galensky ................................................................................................................... 42
`
`a. Ito does not disclose buffer memory. ................................................................ 43
`
`b. A POSITA would not be motivated to combine Ito and Galensky. ............ 44
`
`E. Grounds 1, 2, 5, and 6 of IPR2014-01182 do not render Claims 1-3
`and 5-14 of the ’641 patent obvious. ..................................................................... 46
`
`1. GROUND 1: Obviousness over Abecassis and Chennakeshu ....................... 46
`
`a. Abecassis does not disclose “a memory … configured to store a
`plurality of audio files.” ....................................................................................... 46
`
`b. Abecassis does not disclose “a wireless communication module
`compliant with a Bluetooth standard,” and there would have been
`no motivation to combine Abecassis with Chennakeshu. ............................. 49
`
`c. Abecassis does not disclose “a selection of a selectable menu item
`presented on a recipient device display.” .......................................................... 51
`
`d. Abecassis and Chennakeshu do not disclose “wireless
`communication module is configured to communicate at least a
`portion of the streaming audio signal to recipient device using an
`asynchronous channel.”....................................................................................... 51
`
`e. The cited references do not render claims 11 and 13 obvious. ..................... 52
`
`f. For claim 11, Abecassis does not disclose “streaming an audio signal
`at a communication rate that provides for a CD quality listening
`experience.” ........................................................................................................... 52
`
`2. GROUND 2: Obviousness over Abecassis, Chennakeshu, and
`Herrod ....................................................................................................................... 54
`iii
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`a. For claim 1, Abecassis does not disclose a rechargeable power
`supply. .................................................................................................................... 54
`
`b. Abecassis does not disclose a physical interface having a first and a
`second conductive path, the physical interface operable to
`communicate data via the first conductive path and to receive a
`recharging power for the rechargeable power supply via the second
`conductive path. ................................................................................................... 58
`
`c. Abecassis does not disclose a “collection of instructions” that are
`“operable when executed to communicate a collection of
`information about media content available from the wireless
`telephone device to a recipient device such that the recipient device
`can use the collection of information to generate a graphical menu
`comprising a selectable menu item associated with the available
`media content.” ..................................................................................................... 61
`
`d. Abecassis and Chennakeshu do not disclose “stream[ing] a signal
`representing at least a portion of a song to the recipient device
`using a given asynchronous wireless channel of a localized
`communications signaling network.” ................................................................ 64
`
`e. For claim 2, the proposed combination does not disclose “the
`wireless communication module is compliant with a Bluetooth
`standard.” ............................................................................................................... 66
`
`f. For claim 5, Abecassis and Chennakeshu do not inherently disclose
`“the collection of instructions comprises a set of hands-free
`telephone instructions operable when executed to allow the wireless
`telephone device to operate in a hands-free mode when the wireless
`telephone device is wirelessly coupled with a wireless component of
`an automobile.”..................................................................................................... 67
`
`g. For claim 9, Abecassis and Herrod do not disclose “a rechargeable
`power source located within the enclosure.” ................................................... 68
`
`h. For claim 9, Abecassis and Herrod do not disclose “a non-circular
`physical interface having a first and a second conductive path, the
`non-circular physical interface operable to communicate data via
`the first conductive path and to receive a recharging power for the
`rechargeable power supply via the second conductive path.” ....................... 68
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`i. For claim 14, Abecassis and Herrod do not disclose “an internal
`battery and means for recharging the internal battery.” ................................. 69
`
`3. GROUND 5: Obviousness over Abecassis, Chennakeshu, and
`Galensky ................................................................................................................... 70
`
`4. GROUND 6: Obviousness over Abecassis, Chennakeshu, Herrod
`and Galensky ............................................................................................................ 71
`
`a. Abecassis and Herrod do not disclose “the display is more than half
`of the front surface.” ........................................................................................... 71
`
`F. The instituted challenges in IPR2014-01184 do not render Claims 8,
`11, 13, and 14 of the ’641 patent obvious. ............................................................ 73
`
`1. The Board is precluded from making a determination on priority as
`issues related to 35 U.S.C. § 112 cannot be determined in an inter
`partes review. ............................................................................................................. 73
`
`2. Claims 8, 11, 13, and 14 of the ’641 patent are entitled to the priority
`date of March 28, 2000 because the claims are properly supported by
`subject matter disclosed in the ’812 application. ................................................ 75
`
`a. The Examiner properly allowed claims 8, 11, 13, and 14 to issue
`because the claims are fully supported by the original parent
`specification of the ’812 application. ................................................................. 77
`
`b. As confirmed during prosecution, claims 8, 11, 13, and 14 of
`the ’641 patent are fully supported by disclosures in the
`specification of the ’812 application. ................................................................. 79
`
`i. Priority is established through fulfillment of the written
`description requirement .................................................................................. 79
`
`ii. Claims 8, 11, 13, and 14 are fully supported by the specification of
`the ’812 application. ......................................................................................... 81
`
`c. Petitioners’ argue that the ’641 patent is at least entitled to the
`priority date for the ’595 patent, which indicates that the ’812
`specification provides adequate support. ........................................................ 100
`
`d. Petitioners misrepresent the extensive history of proceedings before
`the PTO and district courts finding that similar claim limitations are
`supported and described in the ’812 application. .......................................... 101
`v
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`i. During prosecution of the ’833 patent, the Patent Office found
`written support for transmitting a representation of information
`for display on a different portable device. ................................................. 102
`
`ii. The PTAB found written description support for a displaying a
`selectable representation on a different electronic device in
`association with review of the ’926 patent and determined that
`the claims were entitled to a priority date of March 28, 2000. ................ 103
`
`iii. The PTAB also found written description support for “soft
`button” limitation in the ’228 patent and determined that the
`claims were entitled to a priority date of March 28, 2000. ...................... 106
`
`3. Ohmura and Ahn are not prior art references because claims 8, 11,
`13, and 14 are entitled to a priority date of March 28, 2000. ......................... 110
`
`4. Even if Ohmura and Ahn qualified as prior art, Ohmura in view of
`Ahn does not render claims 8, 11, 13 and 14. ................................................... 110
`
`a. There is no motivation, teaching, or suggestion to combine Ohmura
`and Ahn. .............................................................................................................. 110
`
`b. Ohmura and Ahn do not disclose “streaming audio signal at a
`communication rate that provides for a CD quality listening
`experience,” as required by Claim 11. ............................................................. 112
`
`c. Claim 13 is nonobvious because Ohmura and Ahn do not disclose
`the ability to simultaneously communicate and receive data. ...................... 116
`
`d. Claim 14 is nonobvious because Petitioners failed to set forth
`adequate evidence that the structure of the means-plus-function
`element is disclosed or rendered obvious by Ohmura. ................................ 118
`
`G. The Inter Partes Review Initiated in Relation to U.S. Patent No.
`8,532,641 Deprives Patent Owner of Its Right to A Jury Trial
`Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the United States
`Constitution ............................................................................................................. 122
`
`V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 126
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`
`Cases
`
`Adobe Sys. Inc, v. Level 3 Commc'ns, LLC.,
`IPR2014-00154 (April 29, 2014) .................................................................................... 119
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................... 80
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................... 80
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ......................................................................................... 22
`
`Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor,
`478 U.S. 833 (1986) ......................................................................................................... 123
`
`Continential Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir 1991) .......................................................................................... 55
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................................................................... 80
`
`Fujikawa v. Wattanasin,
`93 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................................................................... 81
`
`Go Medical Industries Pty., Ltd. v. Inmed Corp.,
`471 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 71, 74, 76
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................................. 19
`
`Greene’s Energy Group, LLC v. Oil States Energy Services, LLC,
`IPR2014-00364 ............................................................................................................. 71, 72
`
`In re Beigel,
`7 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................... 39, 69, 119
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`778 F.3d 1271 (Fed, Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................... 20
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................... 80
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbot Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................. 20, 57
`
`Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................... 118
`
`Joy Techs., Inc. v. Manbeck,
`959 F.2d 226 (Fed. Cir. 1992),
`cert. denied, 506 U.S. 829 (1992) ....................................................................................... 124
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) ................................................................................................. 20, 21
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................................ 19
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................... 122
`
`LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, PTY, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................... 81
`
`Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ......................................................................................... 80
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (S.D. Cal. 2008)....................................................... 40, 69, 70, 120
`
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................... 80
`
`McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Aultman,
`169 U.S. 606 (1898) ......................................................................................................... 124
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`NHK Seating of Am. Inc, v. Lear Corp.,
`IPR2014-01200 (February 3, 2015) .................................................................................. 75
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................. 20, 21
`
`Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff,
`758 F.2d 594, 603 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ........................................................................ 124, 125
`
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................... 21
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................... 80
`
`SAP Am. Inc v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2014-00299 (July 9, 2014) ........................................................................................ 120
`
`SAS Institute, INC., v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00226 (August 12, 2013) ................................................................................ 119
`
`ScentAir Tech., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc.,
`IPR 2013-00179(Apr. 16, 2013) ..................................................................................... 125
`
`Space Exploration Techs. Corp., v. Blue Origin LLC,
`IPR2014-01378 (March 3, 2015) ...................................................................................... 74
`
`Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd,
`492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................... 21
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ......................................................................................... 80
`
`Statutes
`
`25 U.S.C. § 112(f) .................................................................................................................... 69
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................................. 73, 74
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................................ 73, 75, 77
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................... 46, 73, 75, 110
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................................. 19, 20
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 .......................................................................................................... 74, 76, 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b .............................................................................................................. 73, 75
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(8) ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) .................................................................................................................... 18
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ......................................................................................................... 73
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .............................................................................................. 118, 120
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ...................................................................................................... 119
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121 ................................................................................................................ 126
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.220 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`MPEP § 2.10.01 .................................................................................................................... 100
`
`x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description of Documents Submitted in IPR2014-01181
`
`Exhibit
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`Ex. 2002
`
`Ex. 2001 Non-Fee Amendment in U.S. Application 09/537,812, dated Feb.
`18, 2003
`Claim Construction Order in Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. BMW
`North America, LLC, dated Dec. 18, 2009
`Cooper v. Lee, USPTO's Motion for Summary Judgment, dated July
`23, 2014
`Ex. 2004 Declaration of Cindy D. Kucheska
`
`Ex. 2003
`
`Ex. 2004A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Cindy D. Kucheska - Comparison
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,947 and U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`Ex. 2004B Exhibit B to the Declaration of Cindy D. Kucheska - Comparison
`of U.S. Patent No.7,778,595 and U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`Ex. 2005 Declaration of Dr. Marilyn Wolf
`
`Ex. 2006
`Pohlmann, Ken C. “Principles of Digital Audio” pp. 243-252 (4th
`
`ed. 2000)
`Ex. 2007 Deposition of Schuyler Quackenbush, PhD, April 17, 2015
`
`Ex. 2009
`
`Ex. 2010
`
`Ex. 2011
`
`Ex. 2008 Merriam-Webster, “Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary”
`(1987)
`Hewlett Packard, “The Personal Handy Phone System in Japan’s
`Wireless Communication Market” (1996)
`Newcomb, Doug, “From Eight­Track to Bluetooth: In­Car
`Entertainment's Bumpy Ride” Wired Magazine (July 19, 2012)
`Freed, Les, “The First Bluetooth” at PCMag.com,
`http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,34229,00.asp (Jan. 2,
`2001)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,521,140 (“the ’140 patent”)
`
`Ex. 2012
`
`Ex. 2013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,953,390 (“the ’390 patent”)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`Description of Documents Submitted in IPR2014-01181
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,778,595 (“the ’595 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,324,833 (“the’833 patent”)
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 2014
`
`Ex. 2015
`
`Ex. 2016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,521,140 File History
`
`Ex. 2017 October 5, 2012 Action Closing Prosecution in Reexamination
`Control Nos. 90/010,333, 95/001,223, 95/001,264 (Ex Parte and
`Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,324,833)
`Jury Verdict Form, Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am.
`Inc., et al., DI 520, 9-08-cv-00164 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2010).
`U.S. Patent No. 7,486,926 (“the ’926 patent”)
`
`Ex. 2018
`
`Ex. 2019
`
`Ex. 2020
`
`Ex. 2021
`
`February 15, 2013 Decision on Request for Rehearing in
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,263 (Inter Partes
`Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,486,926)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,634,228 (“the ’228 patent”)
`
`Ex. 2022
`
`Ex. 2023
`
`Ex. 2025
`
`Ex. 2026
`
`February 14, 2013 Office Action in Reexamination Control No.
`90/011,982 (Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`7,634,228)
`July 10, 2013 Advisory Action in Reexamination Control No.
`90/011,982 (Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,634,228)
`Ex. 2024 October 14, 2013 Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief in Reexamination
`Control No. 90/011,982 (Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,634,228)
`February 6, 2014 Examiner's Answer to Appeal Brief in
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,982 (Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,634,228)
`July 29, 2014 Request for Rehearing in Reexamination Control No.
`90/001,281 (Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`7,634,228)
`Battery Charging Specification, Revision 1.1, April 15, 2009, USB
`Implementers Forum, Inc.
`
`Ex.2027
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`Description of Documents Submitted in IPR2014-01181
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 2029
`
`Ex. 2028 Wolf, Marilyn, “Computers as Components” pp. 213-306, 3d ed.
`(2012)
`“Bluetooth Basics: A Look at the Basics of Bluetooth Technology”
`at http://www.bluetooth.com/Pages/Basics.aspx (accessed April
`20, 2015)
`Specification of the Bluetooth System v1.0B (December 1, 1999)
`
`Ex. 2030
`
`Ex. 2031
`
`Ex. 2032
`
`Ex. 2033
`
`Ex. 2034
`
`Ex. 2035
`
`Yoshida, Junko, “Interoperability Issues Dog Bluetooth’s Rise”
`EE Times at
`http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1141774 (June
`16, 2000)
`Holtby, Troy, “Bluetooth 1.1 Addresses Earlier Flaws” at
`http://edition.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/08/14/bluetooth.1.i
`dg
`“History of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group” at
`http://www.bluetooth.com/Pages/History-of-Bluetooth.aspx
`(accessed May 13, 2015)
`Sherman, Len, “The Basics of USB Battery Charging: A Survival
`Guide” at http://www.maximintegrated.com/en/app-
`notes/index.mvp/id/4803 (accessed on May 13, 2015)
`Lendino, James, “How USB Charging Works, or How to Avoid
`Blowing Up Your Smartphone” at
`http://www.extremetech.com/computing/115251-how-usb-
`charging-works-or-how-to-avoid-blowing-up-your-smartphone
`(March 25, 2015)
`The DRAM Market, at
`(http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/ice/cd/MEMORY97/SEC02.PD
`F)
`Ex. 2037 Declaration of Thomas R. DeSimone
`
`Ex. 2036
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`
`Description of Documents Submitted in IPR2014-01182
`
`Ex. 2101 Non-Fee Amendment in U.S. Application 09/537,812, dated Feb.
`18, 2003
`
`3
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 2102
`
`Ex. 2103
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`Description of Documents Submitted in IPR2014-01182
`
`Claim Construction Order in Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. BMW
`North America, LLC et al, dated Dec. 18, 2009
`Cooper v. Lee, USPTO's Motion for Summary Judgment, dated July
`23, 2014
`
`Exhibit
`
`
`Description of Documents Submitted in IPR2014-01184
`
`Ex. 2201 Non-Fee Amendment in U.S. Application 09/537,812, dated Feb.
`18, 2003
`U.S. Patent No. 7,187,947
`
`Ex. 2202
`
`Ex. 2203
`
`Ex. 2204
`
`Claim Construction Order in Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. BMW
`North America, LLC, dated Dec. 18, 2009
`Cooper v. Lee, USPTO's Motion for Summary Judgment, dated July
`23, 2014
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC (“Affinity” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`provides this response under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(8) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.220. The Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has instituted this inter partes review to consider
`
`whether claims 1-3 and 5-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 (“the ’641 patent”) are
`
`obvious based on various combinations of prior art references. See IPR2014-01181,
`
`Paper 10 at 19; IPR2014-01182, Paper 10 at 20-21; IPR2014-01184, Paper 10 at 15.
`
`Petitioners have not set forth sufficient evidence to prove unpatentability by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. First, Petitioners assert references that do not disclose
`
`numerous claim limitations of the ’641 patent. Second, Petitioners have failed to set
`
`forth any evidence of teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the asserted
`
`references, beyond conclusory assertions. Third, Petitioners have not provided
`
`sufficient evidence that one of skill would have a reasonable expectation of success
`
`that the proposed combinations would work. Fourth, two of the asserted references
`
`do not even qualify as prior art, which further indicates that Petitioners could not
`
`identify references before the time of the invention that would render the ’641 patent
`
`obvious. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-14 of the ’641 patent are nonobvious over the
`
`asserted references and should be confirmed as valid.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,532,641
`In 1999, inventors Russell W. White and Kevin R. Imes invented a new media
`
`ecosystem that utilized a portable media device as a media hub. They filed a
`
`comprehensive patent application in early 2000 that disclosed, among other things,
`
`the ability to download media, playlists, and applications from an online store, the
`
`ability to stream Internet radio, and the ability to