U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`Motion for Rehearing
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. &
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v .
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01366 (Patent 6,108,704)
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`WEST\255630171.2
`347269-000084
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INNTRODUUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Pateent No. 6,1088,704
`aring
`
`Motiion for Rehe
`
`37 CFR §
`PPursuant to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42.71, Sammsung Elecctronics Coo., Ltd., Saamsung
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Electronnics Ameriica, Inc., annd Samsunng Telecommmunicatioons Ameri
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ca, LLC
`
`
`
`(“Petitiooner”) resppectfully reequests rehhearing of tthe Decisioon Institutiing Inter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Partes RReview isssued on Maarch 6, 20115 (Paper 112, “Decisiion”) denyying
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`authorizzation of innter partess review off any claimm of Unitedd States Pattent No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6,108,704 (“’704 patent”) baased upon any grounnd based in n part on U
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.S. Patent NNo.
`
`
`
`5,341,477 (“Pitkinn”). The bbasis for thiis denial wwas the Boaard’s concllusion that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`groundss based in ppart on Pitkin are reddundant to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`grounds reelying on MMicrosoft
`
`
`
`
`
`Manuall and NetBIOS.1 Deccision at 211-22.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PPetitioner reespectfullyy submits tthat the Booard misappprehendedd the non-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`redundaancy of groounds baseed in part on Pitkin beecause of tthe pendingg claim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construcction issuees identifiedd by the Board in its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Decision.
`
`
`
` While thee Board
`
`
`
`construeed certain claim limittations usinng the broaadest reasoonable inteerpretation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 “Microosoft Manuual” refers to MICROSOFT WINDDOWS NT 33.5, TCP/IPP User Gu
`
`
`
`
`
`(1994) ((Ex. 1012 to the Petittion), and ““NetBIOS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`” refers to
`
`
`
`THE OPENN GROUP,
`
`ide
`
`
`
`
`
`Techniccal Standarrd, Protocools for X/OOpen PC Innterworkingg: SMB, VVersion 2.0
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(1992) ((Ex. 1014 to the Petittion) (“NettBIOS”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\2556330171.2
`084
`347269-0000
`
`1
`
`

`
`(“BRI”) standard, the Decision indicates that these constructions are conditional
`
`and subject to change:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`Motion for Rehearing
`
`However, at the time of the final written decision, the
`’704 patent will have expired, most likely, and we will
`apply the district court standard for claim construction as
`outlined in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Petitioner and Patent Owner
`should address the differences, if any, between the
`broadest reasonable construction and the construction
`applied by a district court so that we can address them
`when we render a final written decision.
`
`Decision at 6 (emphasis added). Thus, while the Decision applies a BRI standard,
`
`the final decision may apply the Phillips standard, which may result in a
`
`construction other than that identified in the Decision.
`
`Petitioner asserted alternative grounds based in part of Pitkin in case the
`
`Board applied a more narrow construction. Because the Decision expressly stated
`
`it would consider more narrow constructions, instituting the grounds based in part
`
`on Pitkin will not result in any significant additional burden on the parties or on the
`
`Board. Further, no new argument or matter is introduced by instituting grounds
`
`WEST\255630171.2
`347269-000084
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`based inn part on PPitkin, as suuch groundds are identtified in thhe Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Pateent No. 6,1088,704
`aring
`
`Motiion for Rehe
`
` Petition2
`
`at
`
`53-55.
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SSTANDARRD OF REEVIEW
`
`
`
`on petitionn, a
`
`An abuse
`
`
`
`of discretiion
`
`
`
`PPursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)), [w]hen rrehearing aa decision
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`panel wwill review the decisioon for an abuse of disscretion.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`occurs wwhen a “deecision was based onn an erroneoous concluusion of laww or clearlly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`erroneous factual findings, oor … a cleaar error of jjudgment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`” PPG Inddus. Inc. v..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Celanesse Polymerr Specialtiees Co., Incc., 840 F.2dd 1565, 15667 (Fed. CCir. 1988).
`
`
`
`
`
`The
`
`
`
`request must specifically ideentify all mmatters the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`party belieeves the Booard
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.F.R. § 4“misappprehended or overloooked.” 37 42.71(d).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` AIII. ARGUME
`
`
`
`NT
`
`
`
`A. The ggrounds rrelying in ppart on Piitkin are nnot redunddant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The groundds based in part on Pitkin are noot redundannt of grounnds relyingg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A T
`
`
`
`NetBIOS
`upon MMicrosoft MManual and
`
`
`
`
`because thhe claim coonstructionns identifieed in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Deccision are cconditionall and subject to changge. In factt, the grounnds relyingg in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`part on Pitkin werre identified in part foor the posssibility thatt Patent Owwner’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proposeed more naarrow consttructions fofor “conneccted to the
`
`
`
`
`
`computer
`
`
`
`network” aand
`
`
`
`“on-linee status” wwould be addopted by tthe Board,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`either in aan institutioon decisionn or
`
`
`a final ddecision.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Petitioon for Interr Partes Reeview of thhe ’704 pattent (Paperr 1) (“Petittion”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\2556330171.2
`084
`347269-0000
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`Motion for Rehearing
`
`The Board provided constructions for certain claim limitations, including
`
`“connected to the computer network” and “on-line status”, Decision at 6-8, but left
`
`open the question as to the ultimate construction of this claim limitation and other
`
`claim limitations. Instead, the Board asked the parties to “address the differences,
`
`if any, between the broadest reasonable construction and the construction applied
`
`by a district court so that we can address them when we render a final written
`
`decision.” See, infra, at 2. Because the basis for denying institution of grounds
`
`based in part on Pitkin was that the Board construed “connected to the computer
`
`network” and “on-line status” broadly, the fact that these same constructions may
`
`change in a final decision renders grounds based in part on Pitkin non-redundant,
`
`as such grounds would become relevant in that situation.
`
`More specifically, for the claim limitation “connected to the computer
`
`network” and “on-line status”, the Board found that this limitation “encompasses a
`
`processing unit that is ‘active and on-line at registration’” under the BRI standard.
`
`Decision at 6-8. This is consistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction under
`
`both the BRI standard and the Phillips standard and with determinations made in
`
`Sipnet.3 Decision at 8. In contrast, Patent Owner argues that this limitation should
`
`
`3 Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., IPR 2013-00246 (PTAB)
`
`(“Sipnet”).
`
`WEST\255630171.2
`347269-000084
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`Motion for Rehearing
`
`be construed more narrowly as “connected to or accessible by means of a computer
`
`or computer network”, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention would understand that this limitation does not encompass registration
`
`with a server. Decision at 7 (citing Prelim. Resp. at 39-41). Patent Owner argues
`
`that its proposed construction is consistent with the standard outlined in Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (“Phillips”). Id.
`
`Under its construction for “connected to the computer network” and “on-line
`
`status,” Patent Owner contends that Microsoft Manual, in view of NetBIOS, does
`
`not disclose this limitation. Because the Board’s construction for “connected to the
`
`computer network” and “on-line status” is conditional and subject to change, if the
`
`Board (in its final decision) does construe this limitation consistent with Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction, then Pitkin, in combination with Microsoft
`
`Manual and NetBIOS, discloses this limitation, as explained in the Petition.
`
`Petition at 53-54. If the Board’s construction from the Decision for this claim
`
`limitation were final, then the grounds relying in part on Pitkin may indeed be
`
`redundant of other grounds. However, this Decision is different from most
`
`decisions, in that the claim constructions were expressly made provisional, making
`
`any judgment of redundancy on these claim construction grounds premature.
`
`The Board should further institute grounds based in part on Pitkin because
`
`instituting such grounds will have minimal effect on the parties and the Board in
`
`WEST\255630171.2
`347269-000084
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`Motion for Rehearing
`
`further proceedings necessary for the Board to render a final decision. The
`
`Decision expressly puts the claim construction of the terms at issue, so the parties
`
`and Board will have to consider those claim constructions. The grounds based in
`
`part on Pitkin were proposed for this very reason. To the extent the Board
`
`confirms its claim constructions in its final order, it could then deny these
`
`additional grounds as redundant (or moot), without any additional proceedings.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The grounds relying in part on Palmer are not redundant.
`
`For reasons similar to grounds relying in part on Pitkin, grounds relying in
`
`part on Palmer are not redundant. The Board instituted grounds relying in part on
`
`Palmer for claims 14, 16, 27, 30, and 31. For claims 11, 12, 22, and 23, the Board
`
`found that grounds relying in part on Palmer were redundant with grounds relying
`
`on Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS.
`
`While the Board does not construe the claim limitation “interface element
`
`representing a first callee process”, Patent Owner provides a construction for
`
`“representing” and contends that, under its construction, the Microsoft Manual in
`
`view of NetBIOS does not disclose this limitation. As mentioned above, claim
`
`constructions identified by the Board are conditional and subject to change, and
`
`thus Palmer may become relevant if this limitation is construed in such a manner
`
`that overcomes grounds based on Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS.
`
`WEST\255630171.2
`347269-000084
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S. Pateent No. 6,1088,704
`aring
`
`Motiion for Rehe
`
`
`
`C. The ggrounds rrelying in ppart on Piinard are nnot redunndant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C F
`
`
`
`For reasonss similar too grounds rrelying in ppart on Pitkkin and/or
`
`
`
`Palmer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`groundss relying inn part on P
`
`
`
`
`
`inard are nnot redundaant. The ggrounds rellying in parrt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on Pinaard are relieed upon forr narrow ppurposes, annd thus insstituting suuch groundds
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`will havve minimall effect on the partiess and the BBoard in furrther proceeedings
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`necessaary for the BBoard to reender a finnal decisionn. Specificcally, if “asssociating””,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“responnsive association”, or “manipulaating” are cconstrued
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in such a wway that thhat
`
`
`
`
`
`Palmer’’s disclosurre of a pussh button ddoes not dissclose thesse limitatioons, then
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`groundss relying inn part on P
`
`
`
`
`
`inard discllose these llimitationss because PPinard
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d embodimment
`
`
`
`disclosees the preciise drag-annd-drop cooncept desccribed in thhe preferre
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the ’7704 patent. ’704 Pat
`
`
`
`
`
`ent (Ex. 10001) at 9:334-42, FIG
`
`
`
`
`
`. 5. Petitiooner relies
`
`on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pinard ffor no otheer reason, aand becausse claim limmitations aare conditioonal and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`subject to change,, Petitionerr respectfullly requestts institutioon of grounnds relyingg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`upon Piinard.
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
` CCONCLUSSION
`
`
`
`
`
`FFor the reassons providded above,, Petitionerr requests tthat the Booard instituute
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`groundss relying inn part on P
`
`
`
`
`
`itkin becauuse the Boaard respecttfully misaapprehendeed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the non--redundanccy of grounnds relyingg in part onn Pitkin in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`light of itss claim
`
`
`
`construcctions that are condittional and subject to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`change. UUntil the claaim
`
`
`
`
`WEST\2556330171.2
`084
`347269-0000
`
`7
`
`

`
`construction issues identified by the Board are ultimately resolved, Petitioner
`
`respectfully asserts that grounds relying upon Pitkin are relevant and not redundant
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`Motion for Rehearing
`
`of other grounds identified in the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\255630171.2
`347269-000084
`
`8
`
`

`
`Dated: March 20, 2015
`
` Respectfully Submitted,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`Motion for Rehearing
`
`/s/ Brian Erickson
`Brian K. Erickson
`Registration No. 48,895
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701-3799
`Telephone: 512-457-7000
`Facsimile: 512-457-7001
`Email: Samsung-SP-
`IPR@dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`William Meunier
`WAMeunier@mintz.com
`
`Matthew Durell
`Mdurell@mintz.com
`
`WEST\255630171.2
`347269-000084
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`Motion for Rehearing
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies service of a copy of this document on the Patent
`
`Owner’s counsel of record pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(b) by
`
`electronic mail to StraightPathIPRs@mintz.com.
`
`Dated: March 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Brian Erickson
`Brian K. Erickson
`Registration No. 48,895
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701-3799
`Telephone: 512-457-7000
`Facsimile: 512-457-7001
`Email: Samsung-SP-
`IPR@dlapiper.com
`
`WEST\255630171.2
`347269-000084
`
`10