UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`TELIT WIRELESS SOLUTIONS INC. &
`
`TELIT COMMUNICATIONS PLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Filed: Jul. 3, 2013
`
`Issued: Feb. 11, 2014
`
`Title: Programmable Communicator
`
`________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-00054
`
`________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,648,717
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. FORMALITIES ................................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`
`B. Related Matters ........................................................................................ 1
`
`C. Designation of Counsel and
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................... 3
`
`D. Proof of Service, Service Information,
`and Payment of Fees ................................................................................ 3
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ........................................ 4
`
`A. Grounds for Standing .............................................................................. 4
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged
`and Statement of Precise Relief Requested ............................................. 4
`
`C. Threshold for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)) ................... 5
`
`IV. THE ‘717 PATENT ........................................................................................... 5
`
`A. Overview of the ‘717 Patent and Claims ................................................ 5
`
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History ...................................................... 7
`
`C. Effective Filing Date of the ’717 Patent .................................................. 7
`
`D. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 7
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION............................................................................... 8
`
`A. “programmable” ...................................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`“numbers to which the programmable communicator
`device is configured to and permitted to send outgoing
`wireless transmissions” ........................................................................... 9
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`VI. CLAIMS 1-30 OF THE ‘717 PATENT ARE INVALID ............................... 11
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5-15, 18, 23-28
`Were Anticipated By Wandel ................................................................ 12
`
`1. Wandel Anticipated Claim 1 ........................................................... 16
`
`2. Wandel Anticipated Claim 2 ........................................................... 25
`
`3. Wandel Anticipated Claim 3 ........................................................... 26
`
`4. Wandel Anticipated Claim 5 ........................................................... 26
`
`5. Wandel Anticipated Claim 6 ........................................................... 27
`
`6. Wandel Anticipated Claim 7 ........................................................... 28
`
`7. Wandel Anticipated Claim 8 ........................................................... 29
`
`8. Wandel Anticipated Claim 9 ........................................................... 29
`
`9. Wandel Anticipated Claim 10 ......................................................... 30
`
`10. Wandel Anticipated Claim 11 ......................................................... 32
`
`11. Wandel Anticipated Claim 12 ......................................................... 32
`
`12. Wandel Anticipated Claim 13 ......................................................... 33
`
`13. Wandel Anticipated Claim 14 ......................................................... 33
`
`14. Wandel Anticipated Claim 15 ......................................................... 34
`
`15. Wandel Anticipated Claim 18 ......................................................... 35
`
`16. Wandel Anticipated Claim 23 ......................................................... 35
`
`17. Wandel Anticipated Claim 24 ......................................................... 35
`
`18. Wandel Anticipated Claim 25 ......................................................... 37
`
`19. Wandel Anticipated Claim 26 ......................................................... 37
`
`20. Wandel Anticipated Claim 27 ......................................................... 37
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`21. Wandel Anticipated Claim 28 ......................................................... 37
`
`B. Ground 2: Claim 4 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Wandel in View of Sonera ............................................. 38
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 16, 17, 19, 20 and 22 Would Have
`Been Obvious Over Wandel in View of Fernandez .............................. 41
`
`1. Claim 16 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Wandel in View Of Fernandez ............................................... 43
`
`2. Claim 17 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Wandel in View of Fernandez ............................................... 45
`
`3. Claim 19 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Wandel in View of Fernandez ............................................... 46
`
`4. Claim 20 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Wandel in View of Fernandez ............................................... 47
`
`5. Claim 22 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Wandel in View of Fernandez ............................................... 48
`
`D. Ground 4: Claim 21 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Wandel in View of McGarry ......................................... 49
`
`E. Ground 5: Claims 29 and 30 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Wandel in View of Whitely ........................................... 51
`
`1. Claim 29 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Wandel in View of Whitely ................................................... 52
`
`2. Claim 30 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Wandel in View of Whitely ................................................... 54
`
`F. Grounds 6-10: ........................................................................................ 55
`
`1. Ground 6: Claims 1-3, 5-15, 18, and 23-28 Would
`Have Been Obvious Over Wandel in View of Boden .................... 55
`
`2. Ground 7: Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Wandel and Boden in View of Sonera ................................... 55
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`3. Ground 8: Claims 16-17, 19-20, 22 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Wandel and Boden in View of Fernandez .............. 55
`
`4. Ground 9: Claim 21 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Wandel and Boden in View of McGarry ............................... 55
`
`5. Ground 10: Claim 29 and 30 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Wandel and Boden in View of Whitely .................. 55
`
`VII. STATEMENT OF NON-REDUNDANCY .................................................... 58
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases 
`Ex parte Ikonen, Heinonen, and Okkonen,
`No. 2008-3693, 2008 LEXIS 7439 (BPAI 2008) ...........................................39, 40
`Ex parte Mark L. Hitchin,
`2013 Pat. App. LEXIS 7038 (PTAB 2013) ....................................................43, 48
`IpLearn v. K12 Inc.,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 525 (D. Del. 2014) .......................................................... 38, 41, 42
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398,
`82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ......................................................................... 38, 44, 46
`
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) ............................................................................... 12, 39, 49, 51
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 7
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ........................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................... 4, 5, 39, 51
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ............................................................................................ passim
`U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................... 7
`
`Other Authorities 
`MPEP § 2129 ........................................................................................................... 51
`
`Rules 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`v
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ..................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent 8,648,717, “the ‘717 Patent”, issued Feb. 11, 2014, from
`U.S. App. 13/934,763 filed Jul. 3, 2013
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Infringement Contention Claim Chart
`against Petitioner in the ‘717 Patent litigation (excerpts). (Exhibit
`improperly marked confidential, see Discovery Dispute Hearing
`transcript at 72:9-73:9, appended to exhibit, designating infringement
`contentions as non-confidential information.)
`
`File History for U.S. App. 13/328,095 issued as the ‘802 Patent
`(excerpts)
`
`File History for U.S. App. 13/934,763 issued as the ‘717 Patent
`(excerpts)
`
`Expert Declaration of Kimmo Savolainen in support of Petition for IPR
`of the ‘717 Patent based on Wandel (Curriculum Vitae attached)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent 8,094,010, issued Jan. 10, 2012, from U.S. App. 12/538,603
`filed Aug. 10, 2009
`
`1007 District Court Memorandum Opinion on Claim Construction in the
`litigation of the ‘197 and ‘010 Patents, Nov. 12, 2013
`
`1008 District Court Claim Construction Order in the litigation of the ‘197 and
`‘010 Patents, Nov. 19, 2013, and Clarification, Jan. 24, 2014
`
`vii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1009
`
`Joint Claim Construction Statement in ‘717 Patent Litigation
`
`1010 Microsoft Computer Dictionary Fourth Edition, 1999 (excerpt)
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Ray Nettleton, “Nettleton Tr.” May
`6, 2015
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Eveline Wesby-Van Swaay, “Wesby
`Tr.” Jan. 21, 2014
`
`1013 U.S. Patent 6,034,623 to Wandel issued Mar. 7, 2000 (“Wandel”)
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`Salkintzis A.K., “A Survey of Mobile Data Networks”, University of
`British Columbia, 1999
`
`“Broadband Networking,” ed. Truelove, James, Auerbach (excerpts),
`published Oct. 1, 1999 (date certified by United States Copyright Office
`Public Catalog, record appended to exhibit)
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Alon Konchitsky, “Konchitsky Tr.”
`May 27, 2015
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Ray Nettleton, “Nettleton Tr.” May
`8, 2015
`
`1018 DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification, Sept. 1981
`
`1019
`
`International Application Publication No. WO 00/14984 to Sonera et al.
`published Mar. 16, 2000 (“Sonera”)
`
`viii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1020
`
`Popular Mechanics, February 2000 (excerpt).
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Ex parte Ikonen, Heinonen, and Okkonen, No. 2008-3693, 2008 LEXIS
`7439 (BPAI 2008).
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Eveline Wesby-Van Swaay, “Wesby
`Tr.” Aug. 14, 2012
`
`1023 U.S. Patent No. 6,697,103 to Fernandez et al. filed Mar. 19, 1998
`(“Fernandez”)
`
`1024
`
`Ex parte Mark L. Hitchin, 2013 Pat. App. LEXIS 7038 (PTAB 2013)
`
`1025 U.S. Patent No. 6,038,491 to McGarry et al. published Mar. 14, 2000
`(“McGarry”)
`
`1026
`
`International Publication WO 99/49680 to Whitely et al. published
`Sept. 30, 1999 (“Whitely”)
`
`1027 U.S. Patent No. 6,182,228 to Boden et al. published Aug. 17, 1998
`(“Boden”)
`
`1028 Nokia 20 GSM Connectivity Terminal, 2001 (Referenced in Expert
`Declaration of Kimmo Savolainen, Ex. 1005)
`
`1029 M2M Magazine, “Pioneers of Change,” 2009 (Referenced in Expert
`Declaration of Kimmo Savolainen, Ex. 1005)
`
`ix
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Ex. No.
`
`1030
`
`Description
`
`Telital Automotive Manual, “SR11 Nettuno GSM Based GPS Location
`System,” Sept. 1999 (Referenced in Expert Declaration of Kimmo
`Savolainen, Ex. 1005)
`
`1031 Ames et al., “The Evolution of Third-Generation Cellular Standards”,
`Intel Technology Journal, Q2, 2000 (Referenced in Expert Declaration
`of Kimmo Savolainen, Ex. 1005)
`
`1032 Redl et al., “GSM and Personal Communications Handbook,” 1998
`(Referenced in Expert Declaration of Kimmo Savolainen, Ex. 1005)
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`Telital, “Company Profile,” March 2000 (Referenced in Expert
`Declaration of Kimmo Savolainen, Ex. 1005)
`
`1G, 2G, 3G, 4G - The Evolution of Wireless Generations, 2008
`(Referenced in Expert Declaration of Kimmo Savolainen, Ex. 1005)
`
`1035 U.S. Patent 8,633,802 to Wesby-van Swaay issued Jan. 21, 2014
`(“Wesby-van Swaay”) (Referenced in Expert Declaration of Kimmo
`Savolainen, Ex. 1005)
`
`1036
`
`Joint Claim Construction Brief in ‘010 Patent Litigation
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC (“Petitioner”)
`
`petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent 8,648,717
`
`(“the ‘717 Patent,” Ex. 1001), assigned to M2M Solutions LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`II.
`
`FORMALITIES
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real parties-in-interest are Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit
`
`Communications PLC.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ‘717 Patent (Ex. 1001) is a continuation of U.S. App. 13/801,773 filed
`
`Mar. 13, 2013 (now U.S. Patent 8,542,111, “the ‘111 Patent,” issued Sept. 24,
`
`2013), which is a continuation of U.S. App. 13/328,095 filed Dec. 16, 2011 (now
`
`U.S. Patent 8,633,802, “the ‘802 Patent,” issued Jan. 21, 2014), which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. App. 12/538,603 filed Aug. 10, 2009 (now U.S. Patent
`
`8,094,010, “the ‘010 Patent,” issued Jan. 10, 2012), which is a continuation of U.S.
`
`App. 11/329,212 filed Jan. 10, 2006 (now U.S. Patent 7,583,197, “the ‘197
`
`Patent,” issued Sept. 1, 2009), which is a continuation of U.S. App. 10/296,571,
`
`“the
`
`‘571 App.,”
`
`(now abandoned), which was a national phase of
`
`PCT/EP01/05738 published Nov. 29, 2001 as WO 01/91428, which claims priority
`
`to Finnish App. FI 20001239.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Ancestor ‘010 and ‘197 Patent Litigations: On January 18, 2012, Patent
`
`Owner served complaints alleging infringement of the ‘010 and ‘197 Patents in
`
`M2M Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless America Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2012-cv-
`
`00030-RGA (D. Del) (pending); M2M Solutions LLC v. Cinterion Wireless
`
`Modules GmbH et al., Case No. 1:2012-cv-00031-RGA (D. Del) (closed); M2M
`
`Solutions LLC v. Enfora, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:2012-cv-00032-RGA (D. Del)
`
`(pending); M2M Solutions Inc. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:2012-
`
`cv-00033-RGA (D. Del) (pending); and M2M Solutions LLC v. SIMCom Wireless
`
`Solutions Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:2012-cv-00034-RGA (D. Del) (stayed).
`
`‘717 Patent Litigations: On October 24, 2014, Patent Owner served
`
`complaints alleging infringement of the ‘717 Patent in M2M Solutions LLC v.
`
`Enfora, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2014-cv-1101-RGA (D. Del.); M2M Solutions LLC
`
`v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc. et al., Case No 1:2014-cv-1102-RGA (D. Del.);
`
`and M2M Solutions LLC v. Telit Communications PLC et al., Case No. 1:2014-cv-
`
`1103-RGA (D. Del.). These cases are stayed pending IPRs (discussed below):
`
`‘717 Patent IPRs: The following IPR petitions of the ‘717 Patent are
`
`pending: (1) IPR2015-01670 and (2) IPR2015-01672 (both filed Aug. 4, 2015 by
`
`Enfora, Inc., Novatel Wireless Solutions, Inc., and Novatel Wireless, Inc.); and
`
`(3) IPR2015-01823 (filed Aug. 26, 2015 by Sierra Wireless America, Inc., Sierra
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Wireless, Inc. and RPX Corp). In addition, Petitioner is simultaneously filing this
`
`IPR Petition IPR2016-00054 and another IPR Petition IPR2016-00055.
`
`C. Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`and Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b))
`Lead Counsel: Caleb Pollack (Reg. No. 37,912); tel. 646-878-0807; fax
`
`646-878-0801; Addr.: Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP, 1500 Broadway, 12th
`
`Fl., New York, NY, 10036.
`
`Backup Counsel: Guy Yonay (Reg. No. 52,388); tel. 646-878-0808; fax
`
`646-878-0801; Addr.: Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP, 1500 Broadway, 12th
`
`Fl., New York, NY, 10036; Milo Eadan (Reg. No. 64,764); tel. 646-878-0817; fax
`
`646-878-0801; Addr.: Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP, 1500 Broadway, 12th
`
`Fl., New York, NY, 10036.
`
`A Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`D.
`
`Proof of Service (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)),
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)), and
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`This Petition is being served simultaneously with its filing to the
`
`correspondence address for the counsel of record for the ’717 Patent and for the
`
`related litigations as per the attached Certificate of Service. Please address all
`
`correspondence to Petitioner to lead counsel at the postal address, telephone and
`
`facsimile numbers shown above and via e-mail to: cpollack@pearlcohen.com;
`
`gyonay@pearlcohen.com; and meadan@pearlcohen.com. The Director
`
`is
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`authorized to charge the fee of $31,000 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and any
`
`additional fee required for this Petition to Deposit Account 50-3355.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.104)
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘717 Patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the identified
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`and Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board institute IPR of claims 1-30 of the ‘717
`
`Patent and find the claims unpatentable based on Grounds 1-5:
`
`Ground
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Statute (Pre-AIA)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`1-3, 5-15, 18, 23-28
`
`Wandel
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b)
`
`4
`
`Wandel and Sonera
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`16-17, 19-20, 22
`
`Wandel and Fernandez
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`21
`
`29, 30
`
`Wandel and McGarry
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`Wandel and Whitely
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`Petitioner requests that if the Board accepts a narrower construction of claim
`
`element 1[e] as discussed in section V.B. below, the Board institute IPR of claims
`
`1-30 of the ‘717 Patent and find the claims unpatentable based on Grounds 6-10:
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`
`
`Ground
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Statute (Pre-AIA)
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1-3, 5-15, 18,
`23-28
`
`Wandel and Boden
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`4
`
`Wandel, Boden and Sonera
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`16-17, 19-20,
`22
`
`Wandel, Boden and Fernandez
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`21
`
`Wandel, Boden and McGarry
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`10
`
`29, 30
`
`Wandel, Boden and Whitely
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`C. Threshold for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c))
`This Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail in challenging the patentability of at least one of claims 1-30 challenged in
`
`the Petition, as explained below. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. THE ‘717 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ‘717 Patent and Claims
`The ‘717 Patent claims a “programmable communicator device,” which is at
`
`base a wireless modem that collects data from a “monitored technical device” (e.g.
`
`a sensor, door switch, security system, vending machine, or other input/output
`
`device) and relays the data to a “monitoring device” (e.g., a computer or mobile
`
`phone that can remotely monitor the data). Ex. 1001, 2:1-8, 6:4-12, 7:65-8:7, 9:2-6.
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶32-35 (Emphasis added by Petitioner here and throughout this Petition
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`unless otherwise indicated.) The ‘717 Patent states that the programmable
`
`communicator is wirelessly programmable by a “programming transmitter,” which
`
`may be the monitoring device. Ex. 1001, 4:13-17.
`
`The programmable communicator is connected locally to the monitored
`
`technical device (e.g., a sensor in a vending machine) via a “programmable
`
`interface.” Id. at 6:4-7, 9:2-6, 10:1-4. The ‘717 Patent specification does not
`
`provide detail about the nature of the “programmable interface,” but Patent Owner
`
`has taken the position in the litigation of the ‘717 Patent that a wired serial
`
`interface or general-purpose input/output (I/O) interface satisfies this claim
`
`element. Ex. 1002 p.4. The programmable communicator is also in communication
`
`with a monitoring device and programming transmitter (e.g., a computer) over
`
`well-known wireless networks (e.g., a short message service (SMS) or packet-
`
`switched such as GPRS network). Ex. 1001, 4:18-23, 9:26-32. Ex. 1005 ¶¶47-49.
`
`The programming transmitter can remotely edit a list of outgoing numbers of
`
`“linked” monitoring devices that receive monitored data. Ex. 1001, 8:53-56, 9:22-
`
`25, 9:35-38. To provide security, these transmissions include a “coded number” to
`
`authenticate the incoming programming transmissions and the outgoing number
`
`(telephone number or IP address) that is added to memory. Id. at 10:12-37.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The application that issued as the ‘717 Patent was filed shortly after Patent
`
`Owner’s claims in a parent application were rejected for including “new matter.”
`
`Ex. 1003 p. 3-4. Patent Owner cancelled those claims and refiled the same new
`
`matter in the application that issued as the ‘717 Patent, which is therefore not
`
`entitled to its May 2000 priority date. The application was rejected only under 35
`
`U.S.C. §112, ¶2 (pre-AIA) for lack of clarity. Ex. 1004 p. 4. In the course of two
`
`months, Patent Owner conducted five Examiner interviews and filed three
`
`amendments. Ex. 1004. The case was allowed on Dec. 16, 2013. Id.
`
`C. Effective Filing Date of the ’717 Patent
`The earliest filing date of the ‘717 Patent of May 23, 2000 is used for the
`
`purposes of this Petition. The ‘717 Patent claims however introduce new matter
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶70-76, and are only entitled to their Jul. 3, 2013 filing date, rendering
`
`the parent ‘010 Patent, Ex. 1006, prior art to the ‘717 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(a)(1) (post-AIA). It would have been obvious to modify the ‘010 Patent to
`
`cover the new matter, Ex. 1005 ¶¶77-81, rendering claims 1-30 of the ‘717 Patent
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 (post-AIA).
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`D.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s
`
`degree in computer science or electrical engineering, with a good understanding of
`
`principles of wireless telecommunications including the GSM (Global System for
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Mobile Communications) standards, and would have had at least four years of
`
`experience designing and/or programming wireless communications systems
`
`utilizing GSM or other cellular networks. Id. at ¶42.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`During an IPR, a claim is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).1
`
`“programmable”
`
`A.
`Under its broadest reasonable construction, “programmable” means “capable
`
`of accepting instructions for performing a task or an operation.” Ex. 1010 p. 360,
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶55, definition proposed by Patent Owner in Ex. 1036, 36:2-8, and
`
`quoted by the District Court in Ex. 1007 p. 11:15-17. While “programmable” is not
`
`defined in the ‘717 Patent, Patent Owner’s expert defined a programming
`
`command broadly as “any command that makes the device do something.” Ex.
`
`1011, 221:6-10. See also Id. at 219:7-220:25, 224:6-13.
`
`
`1 The District Court construed some claim terms in the ‘010 Patent litigation, Exs.
`
`1007-08, and parties have proposed constructions in the ‘717 Patent litigation, Ex.
`
`1009. Because claim construction standards differ between IPR and the courts, the
`
`constructions proposed in the litigations are not binding on the IPR, and vice versa.
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitioon for Interr Partes Reeview of UU.S. Patentt No. 8,6488,717
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BB.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“nummbers to wwhich the pprogrammmable commmunicatoor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`devicce is configgured to aand permittted to sennd outgoinng
`
`
`wirelless transmmissions”
`
`
`
`UUnder its
`
`broadest
`
`reasonab
`
`
`
`
`le interprretation, nnumbers tto which
`
`
`
`the
`
`
`
`programmmable coommunicattor devicee is “conffigured to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and permmitted to
`
`send
`
`
`
`programmmable
`
`
`
`outgoinng wirelesss transmiissions” aare numbeers to whhich the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communnicator device is “aallowed to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`send outggoing wireeless transmmissions.”” Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1005 ¶¶¶62-67. Thhere is no ddisclosure iin the ‘7177 Patent to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that this is an exxclusive sett of permiitted numbbers (i.e.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`support ann interpretaation
`
`
`
`
`
`that transmmissions too all
`
`
`
`, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`other nuumbers are not permmitted but
`
`screened,
`
`
`
`blocked oor filtered)). Rather
`
`
`
`
`
`’717 Paatent only ddisclosed ccall screeniing for inccoming callls, not for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`outgoing ccalls,
`
`
`
`as claimmed.
`
`
`
`FFor examplle, in Fig.
`
`
`
`2, which
`
`
`
`shows howw incominng calls ar
`
`
`
`
`
`e handled,, Ex.
`
`
`
`1001, 88:26-28, the programmmable commmunicatoor terminattes calls frrom non-sttored
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`numberrs, Id. at Figg. 2 #4, higghlighted hhere, see allso 9:61-633:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inn Fig. 3, wwhich showws how ouutgoing caalls are hanndled, Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 8:29-311, no
`
`
`
`such scrreening is uused – thesse numbers are simplly called, IId. at Fig. 33, excerpteed:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitioon for Interr Partes Reeview of UU.S. Patentt No. 8,6488,717
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe Districct Court exxplained thhat call sccreening aapplies onlly to incomming
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(not outtgoing) trannsmissionss:
`
`
`
`
`
`F c s
`
`c t
`
`o I
`
`
`
`depicts
`Figure 2
`
`
`tthe actionn performmed by
`
`thhe prograammable
`
`
`ommunicaator in respponse to aan incominng call or
`
`
`In each
`message.
`that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ccenario, thhe programmmable commmunicatoor attemptss to verify
`3 shows
`
`
`
`
`
`aller is onn the “permmitted callers list.” BBy contrasst, Figure
`
`hhe action
`
`performedd by the
`
`
`
`programmmable commmunicatorr for an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`outgoing caall or messsage. Theree is no menntion of a ““permittedd caller.”
`
`nnstead, it
`displays
`
`the progrrammable
`communi
`
`cator trannsmitting
`7:12-18,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`innformationn to a “linkked telephoone or IP aaddress.” EEx. 1007,
`
`mphasis inn original.
`
`e T
`
`
`
`The only mmention of
`
`
`
`call screenning for ouutgoing ca
`
`
`
`
`
`lls is in thhe Backgroound,
`
`
`
`
`
`which ddescribes ““a need too provide mmeans to pprevent thhe child diialing overrseas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`numberrs.” Ex. 1001, 2:20-223. However, this reffers to inteernational
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`call barrinng en
`
`
`
`gross, ii.e., restriccting calls
`
`
`
`
`
`based onn country
`
`
`
`codes, nott restrictinng calls too the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`individuual stored nnumbers inn the claimms.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`During the prosecution of the ‘717 Patent, Patent Owner expressly defined
`
`that “in the context of the claim,” “permitted to” meant the same thing as
`
`“configured to,” i.e., built to make calls, not to restrict calls:
`
`Although Applicants believe that “configured to,” in the context of the
`claim, meant the device was capable of and permitted to send
`outgoing wireless transmissions, to expedite prosecution, Applicants
`have amended independent claims [] to read “…configured to and
`permitted to.” Ex. 1004 pg. 31, emphasis in original.
`
`Therefore, numbers to which the programmable communicator device is
`
`“configured to and permitted to send outgoing wireless transmissions” are (non-
`
`exclusive) numbers to which the programmable communicator device is allowed to
`
`send outgoing wireless transmissions.
`
`Nevertheless, for completeness, Petitioner also addresses a narrower
`
`construction in Grounds 6-10, in which these are the exclusive numbers to which
`
`the programmable communicator device is allowed to send outgoing wireless
`
`transmissions and blocking outgoing transmissions to all other numbers.
`
`VI. CLAIMS 1-30 OF THE ‘717 PATENT ARE INVALID
`The specification of the ‘717 Patent admitted that the claimed programmable
`
`communicator device was composed of prior art elements:
`
`The device comprises a novel combination of existing technologies
`and features, which make possible the existence of a new and
`improved communication device. Ex. 1001, 9:16-21.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Moreover, the claimed wireless communication standards were all well-
`
`known by May 2000: GPRS or wireless packet switched (claims 1-23, 25-27, 29-
`
`30), SMS (claims 25-27, 29-30) and wireless (claims 24, 28) were not innovative.
`
`Ex. 1012, 9:25-10:7, 14:2-5; Ex. 1005 ¶47-49, 83.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5-15, 18, 23-28 Were Anticipated By Wandel
`Claims 1-3, 5-15, 18, and 23-28 were anticipated by Wandel, Ex. 1013,
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA). Wandel is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102 (a), (b)2 and (e) (pre-AIA). Wandel was not considered during the
`
`prosecution of the ‘717 Patent.
`
`Overview of Wandel
`
`Wandel disclosed a radio modem with an autonomous radio telemetry
`
`(“ART”) program. Ex. 1013, title, 5:44-47. The ART program provides the radio
`
`modem with “additional intelligence” to operate as a special purpose telemetry
`
`computer. Id., 6:65-7:7, 1:4-11. Radio telemetry refers to wireless (radio) remote
`
`monitoring (telemetry, derived from the Greek words tele = remote and metry =
`
`
`2 Wandel is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because it was published on Mar. 7,
`
`2000, more than a year before the earliest U.S. filing date o