`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729
`Patent 7,280,097
` ____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board consider the record, rather than
`
`IPR2015-00729
`U.S. Patent No. 7,280,097
`
`
`I.
`
`Patent Owner’s (“PO”) characterizations of the record, in determining patentability of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,280,097 (“the ‘097 Patent”). PO’s observations are misleading,
`
`because the observations either mischaracterize the record, or include assertions that
`
`are not supported by the record.
`
`II. RESPONSES TO OBSERVATIONS
`1.
`PO’s observation mischaracterizes the record and is not relevant. In his
`
`original declaration Dr. Welch provided a summary of his relevant experience and
`
`also attached his curriculum vitae. See Ex. 1009, Welch Decl.; Ex. 1010, Welch CV.
`
`PO ignored this evidence, and ignored the agreed-upon PHOSITA definition, and
`
`manufactured a new requirement of “hands-on experience,” suggesting that Dr. Welch
`
`had none. See Paper 21, Response at 7-8. Of course, Dr. Welch has plenty of relevant
`
`hands-on experience, as he explained in even more detail in his supplemental
`
`declaration. See Ex. 1039, Welch Supp. Decl. Now, PO again ignores the evidence
`
`and the agreed-upon PHOSITA definition, and implies that Dr. Welch’s experience is
`
`insufficient because some of it occurred during graduate school and with teams. See
`
`PO Motion. PO’s observation is troubling because PO again misrepresents the record
`
`and invents rules to fit its theories rather than crafting theories to fit the law and facts.
`
`The implication that Dr. Welch has no relevant post-graduate school experience is
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`U.S. Patent No. 7,280,097
`
`demonstrably false. See, e.g., Ex. 1039, Welch Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 11-13; see also
`
`generally Ex. 1009, Welch Decl.; Ex. 1010, Welch CV. But even more fundamentally,
`
`there is no support anywhere in the record for PO’s new rule that working knowledge
`
`must come from experience done in isolation and after graduate school.
`
`2.
`
`The testimony cited in this observation does not support PO’s assertion.
`
`Dr. Welch explained that this term, like many technology terms, have no “well-
`
`defined, absolute accepted meaning.” Ex. 2032, Welch Tr. at 18:21-22:19. A
`
`PHOSITA would look to the context, and what the inventors said, in order to
`
`understand what the term means in a patent. See id.; see also Ex. 1001, ‘097 Patent at
`
`14:36-42; Claim 38. Because the inventors explicitly included laptops as an example
`
`of a handheld host device, the patent speaks for itself and there is no “apparent
`
`inconsistency.”
`
`3.
`
`The testimony cited in this observation is not relevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding. See Ex. 2032, Welch Tr. at 22:20-23:12. There is no need for expert
`
`testimony to identify what the ‘097 Patent itself says, and the ‘097 Patent includes
`
`various embodiments of hand-held devices—some that explicitly include laptops. See
`
`id.; see also Ex. 1001, ‘097 Patent at 14:36-42; Claim 38. This is not construing “by
`
`implication,” but rather following the explicit teachings of the patent.
`
`4.
`
`The testimony cited in this observation does not support PO’s assertion.
`
`Dr. Welch explained that he had not opined on the automobile keyless entry, and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`U.S. Patent No. 7,280,097
`
`declined to speculate about that concept. See Ex. 2032, Welch Tr. at 24:1-29:17. Then,
`
`Dr. Welch explained that “[t]here could be many places I could imagine [the host]
`
`would be located.” See id. In any event, PO’s observation supports Petitioner’s point.
`
`Claim 38 limits the “plurality of hand-held host devices” first recited in independent
`
`Claim 27 to a specific set of devices, and that list includes laptops. See Ex. 1001, ‘097
`
`Patent at Claim 38. PO would apparently go further and include automobiles as
`
`within the scope of Claim 38. PO is wrong about this—the claim says “automobile
`
`keyless entry unit,” not just “automobile.” See id. But assume that PO is right. If so,
`
`observing that the claim can be broadly construed to include automobiles (something
`
`not recited) does not support the conclusion that the claim, and its antecedent, should
`
`be construed narrowly to exclude laptops (something that is recited).
`
`5.
`
`The testimony cited in this observation is not relevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding. See Ex. 2032, Welch Tr. at 55:22-6-:20; 63:1-70:3. The question is
`
`whether the mouse device in Shima is an input assembly on a surface, not how other
`
`commercial handheld devices such as
`
`the
`
`iPhone may have
`
`implemented
`
`accelerometers or gyroscopes. No part of the relevant analysis requires finding that a
`
`gyroscope or accelerometer would be on a surface.
`
`6.
`
`The testimony cited in this observation is not necessary. See Ex. 2032,
`
`Welch Tr. at 29:21-30:20. PO’s counsel just read a portion of Dr. Welch’s sworn
`
`supplemental declaration into the record and asked Dr. Welch to confirm it. See id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`U.S. Patent No. 7,280,097
`
`PO’s observation mischaracterizes Dr. Welch’s testimony. Dr. Welch
`
`7.
`
`explained that “raw” data is an ill-defined concept, and that he was attempting to
`
`convey that “Mollinari utilizes a communication transfer that’s something like a
`
`sender puts things into an envelope, packages them up, hands them off to somebody
`
`else, and somebody else opens the envelope and takes the things out and passes them
`
`on.” See Ex. 2032, Welch Tr. at 30:21-37:22. PO’s attorney was attempting to get Dr.
`
`Welch to state that his earlier testimony was wrong, and Dr. Welch explained that it
`
`was not, but that it “maybe could have been articulated better.” See id.
`
`8.
`
`PO’s observation mischaracterizes Dr. Welch’s testimony. Dr. Welch
`
`explained that he did not offer an opinion about the claim construction of input
`
`controller or input signal. See Ex. 2032, Welch Tr. at 45:12-48:21. Attempting to
`
`respond to an incomprehensible question that asked about the meaning of input signal
`
`under various standards, Dr. Welch explained that generally the term could apply to a
`
`“wide range of possible signaling mechanisms.” See id. This testimony has nothing to
`
`do with Petitioner’s construction, nothing to do with specific claim limitations, and
`
`nothing to do with claim vitiation of any kind.
`
`9.
`
`PO’s observation mischaracterizes Dr. Welch’s testimony, and this
`
`testimony is not relevant to any issue in this proceeding. There are at least two input
`
`controller embodiments described in the ‘097 Patent, and a PHOSITA would
`
`understand that the claims are drafted broadly to cover both. See Ex. 2032, Welch Tr.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`U.S. Patent No. 7,280,097
`
`at 48:22-53:25; see also id. at 77:16-78:21. Furthermore, there is no need to construe
`
`what it means for an input controller to “interpret” or “convert” signals because those
`
`concepts are not in the claims. The claims just require an input controller to “generate
`
`an input signal upon actuation of at least one of the plurality of input elements and …
`
`relay the input signal to the communication channel for transmission to the hand-held
`
`host device….” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ‘097 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`10.
`
`PO’s observation mischaracterizes Dr. Welch’s testimony. Dr. Welch
`
`explained that PHOSITA would understand that a processor stores instructions in
`
`order to execute them. See Ex. 2032, Welch Tr. at 72:20-77:3. All the testimony cited
`
`by PO is consistent with that opinion, which PO does not seriously deny. The
`
`attempted characterization of Processor 805 as “not a hardware processor” is
`
`irrelevant to the truth and accuracy of Dr. Welch’s opinion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Abran J. Kean/ _
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`Abran J. Kean, Reg. No. 58,540
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`P: (913) 777-5600
`F: (913) 777-5601
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`U.S. Patent No. 7,280,097
`
`
`abran.kean@eriseip.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`U.S. Patent No. 7,280,097
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on March 11, 2016 the
`foregoing Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation was served via
`electronic filing with the Board on the following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`Michael Mauriel, USPTO Reg. No. 44,226
`Sherman W. Kahn (pro hac vice)
`MAURIEL KAPOUYTIAN WOODS LLP
`15 West 26th Street, Floor 7
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: (212) 529-5131 Ex. 101
`Facsimile:
`(212) 529-5132
`E-mail:
`mmauriel@mkwllp.com
`
`
`skahn@mkwllp.com
`
`Robert J. Gilbertson (pro hac vice)
`Sybil L. Dunlop (pro hac vice)
`X. Kevin Zhao (pro hac vice)
`GREENE ESPEL PLLP
`222 South Ninth Street, Ste. 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 373-0830
`Facsimile:
`(612) 373-0929
`E-mail:
`bgilbertson@greeneespel.com
`
`
`sdunlop@greeneespel.com
`
`
`kzhao@greeneespel.com
`
`Jason Bartlett (pro hac vice)
`MAURIEL KAPOUYTIAN WOODS LLP
`1517 North Point Street, #454
`San Francisco, CA 94123
`Telephone: (415) 992-3420
`Facsimile: (415) 992-3421
`E-mail:
`JBartlett@mkwllp.com
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00729
`U.S. Patent No. 7,280,097
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY: /s/ Abran J. Kean
`
`
`
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`
`Abran J. Kean, Reg. No. 58,540
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`Dated: March 11, 2016