IPR2014-01181
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD; SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC1.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`IPR2014-011812
`
`PATENT 8,532,641 B2
`
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER'S IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONERS’ IMPROPER
`REPLY ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE
`
`1 On January 1, 2015, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, an originally-
`named Petitioner in this case, was merged into Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`See IPR2014-01181, Paper 9.
`2 Case IPR2014-01182 and IPR2014-01184 were consolidated with IPR2014-
`01181. Paper 15 at 2.
`
`86143245.1
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioners’ Reply Brief and accompanying 46 new exhibits must be stricken
`
`or expunged from the record for improperly exceeding the scope on reply.
`
`“Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new
`
`evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for . . . unpatentability, and new
`
`evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing.” Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Petitioners’ Reply improperly supplements arguments that could and should
`
`have been presented in the Petition as they are based on evidence that was
`
`available at the time of filing the Petition and are necessary for Petitioners’ prima
`
`facie case. Petitioners did not offer any reason or explanation for their failure to
`
`provide such evidence with the Petition. Simply saying they are responding to
`
`Patent Owner does not provide Petitioners with carte blanche to introduce new
`
`arguments and evidence. Such proposition swallows the rule as any argument or
`
`evidence can be characterized as responding to Patent Owner’s argument.
`
`Petitioners must demonstrate that any argument or evidence was presented in the
`
`Petition or why it could not have been at that time. Failure to do so demonstrates
`
`that the arguments and evidence in the Reply are new and should be expunged.
`
`The following representative examples demonstrate how Petitioners have
`
`exceeded the proper scope for reply. A full depiction of the improper arguments
`
`86143245.1
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`and evidence included in Petitioners’ Reply is attached as Exhibit A—highlighted
`
`portions identify improper new arguments and evidence.
`
`I. New Claim Construction Arguments and Evidence
`
`First, Petitioners present new arguments regarding the construction of
`
`“means for recharging the internal battery.” Reply at 28-29, 39, 50-51. Petitioners
`
`did not offer in the Petition a construction under § 112 ¶6 or that this term was
`
`somehow not covered by § 112 ¶ 6. Rather, Petitioners bury a new claim
`
`construction argument in the body of its Reply of “the function is ‘recharging a
`
`rechargeable power supply’ and the corresponding structure is a ‘battery
`
`recharger.’” Reply at 29. Petitioners for the first time also offered the new
`
`argument that this claim term was not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Id.
`
`Second, Petitioners’ Reply includes new arguments and evidence in support
`
`of Petitioners’ construction of “communication rate that provides for a CD quality
`
`listening experience.” The Reply presents three pages of new arguments (Reply at
`
`6-9) and seven new exhibits (Exs. 1025, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, and 1035)
`
`to support the proposed construction. Indeed, Dr. Quackenbush provided seven
`
`pages of new arguments in support of Petitioners’ construction in his reply
`
`declaration while only providing a single sentence in his opening declaration,
`
`where he was told to assume the construction. Compare Ex. 1023 at ¶27 to Ex.
`
`1025 at ¶¶51-58. These new claim constructions arguments and the accompanying
`
`86143245.1
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`evidence were available at the time of the Petition and were needed for Petitioners
`
`prima facie case, and thus could have and should have been presented in the
`
`Petition.
`
`II. New Priority Arguments and Evidence
`
`Petitioners’ Reply includes new arguments and evidence regarding the’641
`
`patent’s priority date. See Reply at 41-46. The Petition only asserted three
`
`challenges to priority of certain claim limitations:
`
`(1) “that the portable
`
`device/wireless telephone can communicate information about media content to a
`
`recipient device”; (2) “that the recipient device can use the information to generate
`
`a graphical menu comprising a selectable menu item”; and (3) “that a streaming
`
`audio signal can be sent from the wireless telephone/portable device in response to
`
`a selection of a selectable menu item on a recipient device display.” IPR2014-
`
`01184 at 9-25. In the Reply, Petitioners present new, additional arguments related
`
`to priority, for example that a recipient device cannot be a portable electronic
`
`device. Reply at 43.
`
`Petitioners also make new arguments in the Reply based on USPTO
`
`decisions related to priority involving the ’812 application, the prosecution history
`
`of the ’641 patent, and related patents. The Petition only addressed proceedings on
`
`the ’228 and ’926 patents. Patent Owner’s response presented additional related
`
`proceedings, which Petitioners had left out of the Petition. Petitioners’ new Reply
`
`86143245.1
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`arguments and evidence regarding additional proceedings could have, and should
`
`have, been presented in the Petition. Indeed, these proceedings were publicly
`
`available prior to the filing of the Petition. Petitioners offer no reason or
`
`explanation as to why they chose to ignore these proceedings in the Petition.
`
`Petitioners supplement the new priority arguments with 20 pages of new
`
`expert testimony—notably, Dr. Quackenbush did not provide a single opinion on
`
`priority to support the Petition. See Ex. 1025 at 137-157. Petitioners’ expert
`
`opinions on priority could have and should have been presented in the Petition.
`
`Because Patent Owner must prove priority, at a minimum, it should be given the
`
`opportunity to file a sur-reply to address Petitioners’ arguments regarding priority.
`
`III. Additional Improper Arguments and Evidence in Petitioners’ Reply
`
`Petitioners present many improper new substantive arguments and evidence
`
`in the Reply. First, Petitioners make entirely new arguments to support their prima
`
`facie case. See e.g., Reply at 16-17 (using Ericsson Review 3, a new reference, for
`
`the first time to interpret Chennakeshu); Reply at 19 (making the new argument
`
`that “[a]t the very least, Bluetooth would have been ‘obvious to try.’”). Second,
`
`Petitioners frequently rely on broader citations from exhibits filed with the Petition
`
`than originally relied upon in the Petition. See e.g., Reply at 14, (adding new
`
`citations to Abecassis not provided in the Petition). Third, Petitioners supplement
`
`their new arguments with new exhibits. See e.g., Reply at 12 (citing new exhibits
`
`86143245.1
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`1025, 1037, 1038A, 1039A, 1059). The following is a list of the improper new
`
`arguments and evidence in Petitioner’s Reply, see also Exhibit A:
`
`Pg. 10, ll. 14-16
`
`Pg. 11, ll. 3-4, 12
`Pg. 12, ll. 4-8
`Pg. 14, ll. 2-3, 8-9, 15
`Pg. 15, ll. 5-7, 18-20
`Pg. 16, ll. 1
`Pg. 17, ll. 1-9
`Pg. 19, ll. 6-9, 11-18
`Pg. 20, ll. 11-19
`Pg. 21, ll. 3-5, 14-15
`Pg. 22, ll. 1-4, 8, 10-12
`Pg. 24, ll. 6-8, 17-18
`Pg. 25, ll. 1-2
`
`Pg. 26, ll. 18-20
`Pg. 27, ll. 1-2, 8-13
`Pg. 28, ll. 1-2, 8- 20
`Pg. 29, ll. 1, 3-13
`Pg. 30, ll. 6-15
`Pg. 31, ll. 2-6
`Pg. 32, ll. 12-16
`
`Pg. 34, ll. 11-12, 19
`
`Pg. 35, ll. 1, 7-16
`
`Pg. 36, ll. 6-10, 15-16
`
`Pg. 37, ll. 7-14
`
`Pg. 38, ll. 15-17
`
`Conclusion
`
`Pg. 39, ll. 7-13
`
`Pg. 41, ll. 12-20
`
`Pg. 42, ll. 1-19
`
`Pg. 43, ll. 1-12, 16-20
`
`Pg. 44, ll. 1-21
`
`Pg. 47, ll. 20
`
`Pg. 48, ll. 1-2, 18-20
`
`Pg. 49, ll. 1, 10-12
`
`Pg. 50, ll. 7-14
`
`Pg. 51, ll. 1, 19-21
`
`Pg. 52, ll. 1-6
`
`Petitioners improperly held back arguments and evidence that could have,
`
`and should have, been presented in the Petition. Attempting to circumvent the rules
`
`on the scope of reply prejudices the Patent Owner and undermines the efficacy of
`
`inter partes review proceedings.
`
`Respectfully submitted on this 21st day of September, 2015,
`/s/Ryan M. Schultz
`Registration No. 65,134
`Robins Kaplan LLP,
`800 LaSalle Avenue, 2800 LaSalle Plaza, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
`
`86143245.1
`
`5
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2014-01181
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`I hereby certify that on this 21st of September, 2015, a copy of this
`PATENT OWNER'S IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONERS’ IMPROPER
`REPLY ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE has been served in its entirety by e-
`mail on the Petitioners:
`
`For Samsung petitioners:
`
`Steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`
`Gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`SamsungIPRService@ropesgray.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Ryan M. Schultz
`Ryan M. Schultz
`
`86143245.1
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.
`
`IPR2014-01181
`110797-0004-655
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01181*
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`*Case Nos. IPR2014-01182 and IPR2014-01184 have been consolidated with the
`
`instant proceeding. See IPR2014-01181, Paper 15; IPR2014-01182, Paper 15; and
`
`IPR2014-01184, Paper 15. In view of this consolidation, Petitioners submit this
`
`single brief in reply to the Patent Owner’s Response filed in IPR2014-01181, Paper
`
`20.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`D.(cid:3)
`E.(cid:3)
`
`II.(cid:3)
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................... vii(cid:3)
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................... xv(cid:3)
`I.(cid:3)
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`“Wireless telephone device” (Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 12) .............................. 1(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)
`“Stream a signal” (Claim 1) /“streaming audio signal” (Claim
`8) ............................................................................................................ 3(cid:3)
`“A signal representing at least a portion of a song” (Claim 1)
`/“signal that represents a playing of the song” (Claim 8) ..................... 4(cid:3)
`“Portable electronic device” (Claim 8) ................................................. 5(cid:3)
`“Communication rate that provides for a CD quality listening
`experience” (Claim 11) ......................................................................... 6(cid:3)
`“While” (Claim 13) ............................................................................... 9(cid:3)
`F.(cid:3)
`ABECASSIS IN VIEW OF CHENNAKESHU, HERROD, AND/OR
`GALENSKY RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-3 AND 5-14 ..................... 10(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3) Abecassis in view of the knowledge of a POSA, or,
`Abecassis in view of Herrod, discloses a “rechargeable
`power supply” (Claims 1.D, 9.C) ........................................................ 10(cid:3)
`Abecassis in view of the knowledge of a POSA, or,
`Abecassis in view of Herrod discloses a “physical interface”
`(Claims 1.E, 9.D) ................................................................................. 11(cid:3)
`Abecassis discloses “a collection of instructions...” and “a
`selection of a selectable menu item…” (Claims 1.G, 8.C) ................. 13(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3) Abecassis in view of Chennakeshu, or, Abecassis in view of
`Chennakeshu and the knowledge of a POSA, discloses
`streaming an audio signal using an asynchronous channel
`(Claims 1.H, 8.E) ................................................................................. 16(cid:3)
`Abecassis in view of Chennakeshu discloses Bluetooth
`(Claims 2, 8.D) .................................................................................... 17(cid:3)
`Abecassis, or, Abecassis in view of Chennakeshu disclose
`operating in a hands-free mode (Claim 5) ........................................... 22(cid:3)
`G.(cid:3) Abecassis in view of Herrod discloses “a display that is more
`than half of the front surface” (Claim 6) ............................................. 23(cid:3)
`i
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`E.(cid:3)
`
`F.(cid:3)
`
`
`
`

`
`I.(cid:3)
`
`J.(cid:3)
`
`III.(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`D.(cid:3)
`
`E.(cid:3)
`
`F.(cid:3)
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`
`IPR2014-01181
`110797-0004-655
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`H.(cid:3) Abecassis discloses “a memory…configured to store a
`plurality of audio files” (Claim 8) ....................................................... 24(cid:3)
`Abecassis, or, Abecassis in view of Chennakeshu discloses
`“provid[ing] a CD quality listening experience” (Claim 11) .............. 25(cid:3)
`Abecassis in view of the knowledge of a POSA, or, Herrod
`discloses an internal battery and means for recharging (Claim
`14) ........................................................................................................ 28(cid:3)
`ITO IN VIEW OF HAARTSEN, NOKIA, RYDBECK, AND/OR
`GALENSKY RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 8 AND 11-14 ...................... 29(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Ito, Ito in view of Nokia, or Ito in view of Rydbeck discloses
`a “portable electronic device having a processor operable to
`play an audio file that represents a song” (Claim 8.A) ....................... 29(cid:3)
`Ito discloses “a selection of a selectable menu item…”
`(Claim 8.C) .......................................................................................... 32(cid:3)
`Ito in view of Haartsen discloses “a wireless communication
`module compliant with a Bluetooth standard” (Claim 8.D) ............... 32(cid:3)
`Ito, or, Ito in view of Haartsen discloses “provid[ing] a CD
`quality listening experience” (Claim 11) ............................................ 35(cid:3)
`Ito in view of Galensky discloses changing communication
`rates based upon an amount of data in a buffer memory
`(Claim 12.C) ........................................................................................ 38(cid:3)
`Ito in view of knowledge of POSA, or Nokia discloses an
`internal battery and means for recharging (Claim 14) ........................ 39(cid:3)
`IV.(cid:3) OHMURA IN VIEW OF AHN AND/OR NOKIA RENDER
`OBVIOUS CLAIMS 8, 11, 13 AND 14 ........................................................ 41(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`The priority date of the ‘641 patent is Nov. 9, 2012 ........................... 41(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)
`The Examiner did not decide the priority date during
`prosecution of the ‘641 patent ................................................... 41(cid:3)
`PO has failed to establish that the earlier applications
`disclose the subject matter of ‘641 claims 8, 11, 13 and
`14 ............................................................................................... 42(cid:3)
`PTO decisions demonstrate that Applicants were not in
`possession of the claimed invention by March 28,
`2000 ........................................................................................... 44(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.
`
`IPR2014-01181
`110797-0004-655
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`B.(cid:3)
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Ohmura
`with Ahn .............................................................................................. 47(cid:3)
`Ohmura, or, Ohmura in view of the knowledge of a POSA
`discloses “provid[ing] for a CD quality listening experience”
`(Claim 11) ............................................................................................ 49(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3) Ohmura, or, Ohmura in view of Ahn, discloses
`communicating a signal representing the media “while”
`receiving media (Claim 13) ................................................................. 51(cid:3)
`Ohmura in view of the knowledge of a POSA, or, Ahn
`discloses an internal battery and means for recharging (Claim
`14) ........................................................................................................ 51(cid:3)
`PO’S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE SHOULD BE
`REJECTED .................................................................................................... 53(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`E.(cid:3)
`
`V.(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 42
`
`Page(s)
`
`Comtech EF Data Corp. v. Radyne Corp.,
`No. CV-06-1132-PHXMHM, 2007 WL 5041159 (D. Ariz. Oct. 12,
`2007), adopted in relevant part, No. CV06-1132-PHX-MHM,
`2008 WL 906532 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2008) ........................................................ 28
`
`Cooper v. Lee,
`1:14-cv-00672 (E. D. Va. Feb. 18, 2015) ........................................................... 53
`
`Ex Parte Almberg,
`No. 2010-005008, 2012 WL 1067617 (BPAI Mar. 23, 2012) ........................... 23
`
`Ex Parte Matsunaga,
`No. 2009-014954, 2012 WL 260128 (BPAI Jan. 25, 2012) ............................... 23
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 45
`
`In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC,
`550 Fed. Appx. 884 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2014) .................................................. 5, 46
`
`In re Antor Media Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 24
`
`In re Baxter Int'l, Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 44
`
`In re Cuozzo,
`No. 2014-1301, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11714 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2015) ............. 6
`
`In re Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2014-1798, 2015 WL 2110525 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2015) ................. 22, 40, 48
`
`In re NTP,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 41, 43
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`In re O’Farrell,
`853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ...................................................................... 20, 34
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`
`
`
`In re Oswald,
`83 F.2d 827 (C.C.P.A. 1936) .............................................................................. 46
`
`In re Thomas,
`151 Fed. Appx. 930 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 48
`
`Joy Techs., Inc. v. Manbeck,
`959 F.2d 226 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 53
`
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N.A.,
`790 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 28, 29
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................... 42, 43
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Moleculon Res. Corp. v. CBS, Inc.,
`793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................... 42
`
`Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff,
`758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 53
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 11, 40, 52
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`
` v
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`STATUTES
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§102 ..................................................................................................................... 41
`§103 ..................................................................................................................... 41
`§112 ......................................................................................................... 41, 42, 46
`§112¶6 ............................................................................................... 28, 29, 39, 52
`§112(f) ................................................................................................................. 28
`§120 ..................................................................................................................... 46
`§311(b) ................................................................................................................ 41
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(a)(3) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
` vi
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`Exhibits filed in IPR2014-011812
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 (“the ‘641 patent”)
`Ex. 1002 U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 File History
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,990,334 (“Ito”)
`Ex. 1004 Declaration of Harri Valio
`Ex. 1005 Declaration of Jari Toivanen
`Ex. 1005A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jari Toivanen - User’s Manual for the
`Nokia 9000 Communicator, dated 1995, published by Nokia Mobile
`Phones.
`Ex. 1005B Exhibit B to the Declaration of Jari Toivanen - Owner’s Manual for
`the Nokia 9000i Communicator (“Nokia”),
`dated 1995-1997, published by Nokia Mobile Phones Ltd.
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,973,067 (“Haartsen”)
`Ex. 1007 Declaration of Todd Michael Fenton
`Ex. 1007A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Todd Michael Fenton - “Bluetooth –
`the universal radio interface for ad hoc wireless connectivity”, J.
`Haartsen, Ericsson Review, The Telecommunications Technology
`Journal, No. 3, 1998 (“Haartsen Article” or “Ericsson Review 3”)
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 7,123,936 (“Rydbeck”)
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,845,398 (“Galensky”)
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,728,531 (“Lee”)
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/155,500 (“Lee Provisional
`Application”)
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,772,212 (“Lau”)
`Ex. 1013 Declaration of Paul E. Berg
`
`2 In view of the consolidation, where the same exhibit has been filed in both
`
`IPR2014-01181, IPR2014-01182 and/or IPR2014-01184, Petitioners reference the
`
`exhibit in the Reply Brief by its number in IPR2014-01181.
`
`
`
`
` vii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1013A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Paul E. Berg - Universal Serial Bus
`Specification, Revision 1.1, September 23, 1998, Compaq Computer
`Corporation, Intel Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, and NEC
`Corporation.
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent No. 7,953,390 File History
`Ex. 1015 May 20, 2014 Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review in
`IPR2014-00209 (Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,953,390)
`Ex. 1016 May 20, 2014 Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review in
`IPR2014-00212 (Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,953,390)
`June 12, 2014 Action Closing Prosecution in Reexamination Control
`Nos. 95/001,262 and 90/011,254 (Inter Partes and Ex Parte
`Reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,947)
`June 30, 2014 Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision, Appeal No.
`2014-002024 in Reexamination Control No. 95/001,281 (Inter
`Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,634,228)
`Ex. 1019 Specification of the Bluetooth System v1.0 B, Vols. 1 & 2, 1999,
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, International Business Machines
`Corporation, Intel Corporation, Nokia Corporation, Toshiba
`Corporation.
`Ex. 1020 December 6, 2011 Right of Appeal Notice in Reexamination Control
`No. 95/001,263 (Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`7,486,926)
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Patent No. 7,187,947 File History
`Ex. 1022
`IBM Dictionary of Computing, Edited by George McDaniel,
`McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994
`Ex. 1023 Declaration of Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush
`Ex. 1024 Declaration of Hayan Yoon in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`Ex. 1025 Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush
`Ex. 1026 Microsoft Computer Dictionary 4th Ed., Microsoft Press, 1999
`Ex. 1027 European Patent Publication EP1675309 (“Gorman”)
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`
`
`
` viii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`Ex. 1035
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1028 Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin Company,
`1995, definition of “portable”
`Ex. 1029 Dictionary of Computing, 4th Ed., Oxford University Press, 1997,
`definition of “portable”
`“Compatibility of FM Hybrid In-Band On-Channel (IBOC) System
`for Digital Audio Broadcasting,” Brian Kroeger and Paul Peyla,
`IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, December 1997
`Ex. 1031 Excerpted pages from “Audio Recording- Compact Disc Digital
`Audio System (ICE 60908:1999),” British Standard, 1999 (“Red
`Book”)
`Ex. 1032 Excerpted pages from “Principles of Digital Audio,” 4th Ed., Ken C.
`Pohlmann, 2000
`Ex. 1033 Definition of “CD-quality” from the Oxford English Dictionary
`(http://www.oed.com)
`“A DSP Powered Solid State Audio System,” Jason Kridner et al.,
`IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
`Processing, 1999
`“Intellectual Property Protection Systems and Digital
`Watermarking,” Jack Lacy et al., Optics Express, 1998
`Ex. 1036 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., Merriam-
`Webster, Inc., 1997, definition of “while”
`Ex. 1037 U.S. Pat. No. 6,633,932 (“Bork”)
`Ex. 1038 Declaration of Michael Cohen
`Ex. 1038A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Michael Cohen – “New Technology
`Batteries Guide,” NIJ Guide 200-98, 1998
`Ex. 1039 Declaration of Walter Kester
`Ex. 1039A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Walter Kester – “Section 5 Battery
`Chargers,” Walt Kester, and Joe Buxton, Practical Design
`Techniques for Power and Thermal Management, Analog Devices,
`1998
`“BluetoothTM Whitepaper,” AU-System, January 2000
`Ex. 1040
`Ex. 1041 Declaration of Susan Rambo
`Ex. 1041A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Susan Rambo – “Philips shows
`central gateway for the home,” Electronic Engineering Times,
`December 20, 1999
`“Ericsson Demonstrates Bluetooth at CeBIT ’99,” available at
`http://www.mobic.com/oldnews/9903/ericsson_demonstrates_blueto
`
`ix
`
`Ex. 1042
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`Ex. 1044
`
`Ex. 1047
`
`oth_.htm, March 1999
`Ex. 1043 Certificate of Authenticity by Jett King and “Ericsson Received
`Innovations Award for Driving Bluetooth Development, Cebit
`2000,” Business Wire (February 29, 2000)
`“CTIA Wireless 2000 View From The Floor - Day 2,” Wireless
`Developer Network (available at
`http://www.wirelessdevnet.com/channels/wireless/features/ctia_2.ht
`ml)
`Ex. 1045 Letter from Maria Lampert and “Ericsson’s Bluetooth Modules,”
`Henrik Arfwedson and Rob Snedden, Ericsson Review No. 4, 1999
`Ex. 1046 Declaration of Christopher Butler
`Ex. 1046A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Christopher Butler – “White papers,”
`The Official Bluetooth Website (March 1, 2000 archive of
`http://web.archive.org)
`“Bluetooth Protocol Architecture Version 1.0,” Bluetooth SIG
`(1999)
`Ex. 1048 Declaration of Christopher Butler
`Ex. 1048A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Christopher Butler – “Casio
`Introduces New Cassiopeia Model E-10 A New Palm PC Powered
`by Windows® CE,” Press Release, Casio, January 8, 1998,
`(February 8, 1998 archive of http://web.archive.org)
`Ex. 1049 Declaration of Christopher Butler
`Ex. 1049A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Christopher Butler – “Shorten,”
`SoftSound (March 3, 2000 archive of http://web.archive.org)
`Ex. 1050 U.S. Patent No. 5,884,269 (“Cellier”)
`Ex. 1051 Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering, CRC Press and
`IEEE Press, 1999
`“NTT DoCoMo To Offer Mobile Music Downloads,” William
`Auckerman, InternetNews.com (available at
`http://www.internetnews.com/ec-
`news/article.php/214471/NTT+DoCoMo+To+Offer+Mo) (October
`8, 1999)
`“Sony and Liquid Audio Integrate Internet Music Delivery Systems,”
`Press Release (available at
`http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200001/00-
`0111B/) (January 6, 2000)
`Ex. 1054 Declaration of Christopher Butler
` x
`
`Ex. 1052
`
`Ex. 1053
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1054A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Christopher Butler – “Toshiba to
`Market ‘Genio,’ a Pocket Size Mobile Communicator with WWW
`and High-Speed PHS Communication Capabilities,” Toshiba
`Corporation (February 18, 1999 archive of http://web.archive.org)
`Ex. 1054B Exhibit B to the Declaration of Christopher Butler – “Genio PCV
`100,” Geoworks Corp. (February 10, 1999 archive of
`http://web.archive.org)
`Ex. 1055 Control No. 90/011,982 Reexamination History from February 14,
`2013 until June 10, 2014 (Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,634,228)
`June 14, 2010 Non-Final Action in Reexamination Control Nos.
`90/010,333, 95/001,223 and 95/001,264 (Ex Parte and Inter Partes
`Reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 7,324,833)
`Ex. 1057 Declaration of Christopher Butler
`Ex. 1057A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Christopher Butler –“Samsung builds
`TV function into cell phones,” CNN.com, December 2, 1999 (March
`1, 2000 archive of http://web.archive.org)
`Ex. 1058 U.S. Patent No. 6,928,468 (“Leermakers”)
`Ex. 1059 Exhibit 2008 in IPR2014-00209 – Universal Serial Bus
`Specification, Revision 2.0, April 27, 2000, Compaq, Hewlett-
`Packard, Intel, Lucent, Microsoft, NEC, Philips
`Ex. 1060 Declaration of Richard Moncrief
`Ex. 1061 Declaration of Hayan Yoon
`Exhibits filed in IPR2014-01182 (prior to consolidation)
`Ex. 1101 U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 (“the ‘641 patent”)
`Ex. 1102 U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 File History
`Ex. 1103 U.S. Patent No. 6,192,340 (“Abecassis”)
`Ex. 1104 U.S. Patent No. 6,772,212 (“Lau”)
`Ex. 1105 U.S. Patent No. 6,542,758 (“Chennakeshu”)
`Ex. 1106 U.S. Patent No. 6,405,049 (“Herrod”)
`Ex. 1107 U.S. Patent No. 6,845,398 (“Galensky”)
`Ex. 1108 Declaration of Todd Michael Fenton
`Ex. 1108A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Todd Michael Fenton - “Bluetooth-
`The universal radio interface for ad hoc, wireless connectivity”, J.
`Haartsen, Ericsson Review, The Telecommunications Technology
`
`Ex. 1056
`
`
`
`
` xi
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`Description
`Journal, No. 3, 1998 (“Haartsen Article” or “Ericsson Review 3”)
`Ex. 1109 U.S. Patent No. 6,526,335 (“Treyz”)
`Ex. 1110 U.S. Patent No. 6,879,865 (“Gladwin”)
`Ex. 1111 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/151,714 (“Gladwin Provisional
`Application”)
`Ex. 1112 U.S. Patent No. 7,123,936 (“Rydbeck”)
`Ex. 1113 Declaration of Paul E. Berg
`Ex. 1113A Exhibit A to the Declaration of Paul E. Berg - Universal Serial Bus
`Specification, Revision 1.1, September 23, 1998, Compaq Computer
`Corporation, Intel Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, and NEC
`Corporation
`Ex. 1114 U.S. Patent No. 7,953,390 File History
`Ex. 1115 May 20, 2014 Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review in
`IPR2014-00209 (Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,953,390)
`Ex. 1116 May 20, 2014 Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review in
`IPR2014-00212 (Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,953,390)
`June 12, 2014 Action Closing Prosecution in Reexamination Control
`Nos. 95/001,262 and 90/011,254 (Inter Partes and Ex Parte
`Reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,947)
`June 30, 2014 Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision, Appeal No.
`2014-002024 in Reexamination Control No. 95/001,281 (Inter
`Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,634,228)
`Ex. 1119 Specification of the Bluetooth System v1.0 B, Vols. 1 & 2, 1999,
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, International Business Machines
`Corporation, Intel Corporation, Nokia Corporation, Toshiba
`Corporation.
`Ex. 1120 December 6, 2011