throbber
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. IPR2016-00055
`
`________________
`
`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 ............................................................ 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 ........................................................... 8
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION............................................................................... 8
`
`A. “programmable”: ....................................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`“coded number”: ........................................................................................ 9
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`C.
`
`“the transmissions including the at least
`one telephone number or IP address and
`the coded number”: .................................................................................... 9
`
`D. “numbers to which the programmable
`communicator device is configured to and
`permitted to send outgoing wireless transmissions”: .............................. 10
`
`E. Remark On Capability ............................................................................. 12
`
`VI. ‘717 PATENT CLAIMS 1-30 ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................... 13
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5-18, 22, 23, 29 and 30
`Would Have Been Obvious Over Van Bergen
`in View of Bettstetter ............................................................................. 13
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 24-28 Were
`Anticipated by Van Bergen .................................................................... 46
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 25-27 Would Have
`Been Obvious Over Van Bergen in
`View of Applicant Admitted Prior Art ................................................... 48
`
`d. Ground 4: Claims 29-30 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Van Bergen And Bettstetter
`in View of Applicant Admitted Prior Art ............................................... 49
`
`e. Ground 5: Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Van Bergen And Bettstetter in View of Sonera ............................. 50
`
`f. Ground 6: Claims 19 And 20 Would Have
`Been Obvious Over Van Bergen And
`Bettstetter in View of Kuusela ............................................................... 53
`
`g. Ground 7: Claim 21 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Van Bergen And Bettstetter in View of Eldredge ......................... 55
`
`H. GROUNDS 8-14: ................................................................................... 56
`
`1. Ground 8: Claims 1-3, 5-18, 22, 23, 29, and 30
`Would Have Been Obvious Over Van Bergen
`And Bettstetter in View of Falcom ........................................................ 56
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`2. Ground 9: Claims 24-28 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Van Bergen In View Of Falcom .............................................. 56
`
`3. Ground 10: Claims 25-27 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Van Bergen, Bettstetter And AAPA In View Of Falcom ...................... 56
`
`4. Ground 11: Claims 29 And 30 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Van Bergen, Bettstetter And AAPA In View Of Falcom ...................... 56
`
`5. Ground 12: Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter And Sonera In View Of Falcom ............................... 56
`
`6. Ground 13: Claims 19 And 20 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Van Bergen, Bettstetter And Kuusela In View Of Falcom .................... 56
`
`7. Ground 14: Claim 21 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter And Eldredge In View Of Falcom ............................ 56
`
`VII. STATEMENT OF NON-REDUNDANCY .................................................... 58
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 60
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Ex parte Mark L. Hitchin,
`2013 Pat. App. LEXIS 7038 (PTAB 2013)
`Ex parte Takahashi,
`No. 2004-2192, 2004 WL 2733658 (BPAI 2004)
`In re Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`611 Fed. Appx. 969,
`2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7521 (Fed. Cir., May 7, 2015)
`IpLearn v. K12 Inc.,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 525 (D. Del. 2014)
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398,
`82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S.,
`702 F.2d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
`Peters v. Active Mfg,
`129 U.S. 530 (1889)
`Soverain Software v. Newegg, Inc.,
`705 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`Western Union Co. v. Moneygram Payment Sys. Inc.,
`626 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`Page(s)Cases 
`
`53
`
`13, 23, 24
`
`40
`
`52
`
`17
`
`39, 40
`
`13, 22
`
`21
`
`21
`
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ............................................................................................. 7, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ........................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................ 14, 50, 53, 55
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................... 7
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Other Authorities 
`MPEP § 2129 .....................................................................................................45, 49
`
`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
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1101 U.S. Patent 8,648,717, “the ‘717 Patent”, issued Feb. 11, 2014, from
`U.S. App. 13/934,763 filed Jul. 3, 2013
`
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Infringement Contention Claim Chart
`against Petitioner in the ‘717 Patent litigation (excerpts). (Exhibit
`improperly marked confidential, see appended Discovery Dispute
`Hearing transcript at 72:9-73:9, designating infringement contentions as
`non-confidential information.)
`
`File History for U.S. App. 13/328,095 issued as the ‘802 Patent
`(excerpt)
`
`File History for U.S. App. 13/934,763 issued as the ‘717 Patent
`(excerpt)
`
`Expert Declaration of Kimmo Savolainen in support of Petition for IPR
`of the ‘717 Patent based on Van Bergen (Curriculum Vitae attached)
`
`1106 U.S. Patent 8,094,010, issued Jan. 10, 2012, from U.S. App. 12/538,603
`filed Aug. 10, 2009
`
`1107 Microsoft Computer Dictionary Fourth Edition, 1999 (excerpt)
`
`1108
`
`Joint Claim Construction Statement in ‘717 Patent Litigation
`
`1109 District Court Memorandum Opinion on Claim Construction in the
`litigation of the ‘197 and ‘010 Patents, Nov. 12, 2013
`
`vi
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Ex. No.
`
`1110
`
`Description
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Ray Nettleton, “Nettleton Tr.” May
`6, 2015
`
`1111 District Court Claim Construction Order in the litigation of the ‘197 and
`‘010 Patents, Nov. 19, 2013, and Clarification, Jan. 24, 2014
`
`1112
`
`Ex parte Takahashi, No. 2004-2192, 2004 WL 2733658 (BPAI 2004)
`
`1113
`
`International Publication No. WO 00/17021 to Van Bergen. published
`Mar. 30, 2000 (“Van Bergen”)
`
`1114 Bettstetter C., “GSM Phase 2+ General Packet Radio Service GPRS:
`Architecture, Protocols, and Air Interface”, IEEE Communications
`Survey, 1999
`
`1115 Ames et al., “The Evolution of Third-Generation Cellular Standards”,
`Intel Technology Journal, Q2, 2000
`
`1116
`
`1G, 2G, 3G, 4G - The Evolution of Wireless Generations,” 2008
`(Referenced in Expert Declaration of Kimmo Savolainen, Ex. 1105)
`
`1117 Bhalla, “Generations of Mobile Wireless Technology: A Survey”
`International Journal of Computer, August 2010
`
`1118
`
`1119
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Eveline Wesby-Van Swaay, “Wesby
`Tr.” Jan. 21, 2014
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Eveline Wesby-Van Swaay, “Wesby
`Tr.” Aug. 14, 2012
`
`vii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1120
`
`Joint Claim Construction Brief in ‘010 Patent Litigation
`
`1121
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Alon Konchitsky, “Konchitsky Tr.”
`May 27, 2015
`
`1122 Redl et al. “GSM and Personal Communications Handbook,” 1998
`
`1123
`
`1124
`
`1125
`
`In re Magna Electronics, Inc. v. United States No. 2014-1801 (Fed. Cir.
`2015)
`
`Telital Automotive Manual, “SR11 Nettuno GSM Based GPS Location
`System,” Sept. 1999
`
`International Publication WO 00/14984 to Sonera et al., published Mar.
`16, 2000 (“Sonera”)
`
`1126
`
`Popular Mechanics, February 2000 (excerpt).
`
`1127
`
`Ex parte Mark L. Hitchin, 2013 Pat. App. LEXIS 7038 (PTAB 2013)
`
`1128
`
`1129
`
`International Publication WO 97/49077 to Kuusela et al., published
`Dec. 24, 1997 (“Kuusela”)
`
`International Publication WO 95/05609 to Eldredge et al., published
`Feb. 23, 1995 (“Eldredge”)
`
`1130
`
`Falcom A2 user manual/ command list, October 4, 1999
`
`1131 Nokia 20 GSM Connectivity Terminal, 2001 (Referenced in Expert
`Declaration of Kimmo Savolainen, Ex. 1105)
`
`viii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1132 M2M Magazine, “Pioneers of Change,” 2009 (Referenced in Expert
`Declaration of Kimmo Savolainen, Ex. 1105)
`
`1133
`
`Salkintzis A.K., “A Survey of Mobile Data Networks”, University of
`British Columbia, 1999 (Referenced in Expert Declaration of Kimmo
`Savolainen, Ex. 1105)
`
`1134 U.S. Patent 8,633,802, issued Jan. 21, 2014, from U.S. app. 13/328,095
`filed Dec.16, 2011 (Referenced in Expert Declaration of Kimmo
`Savolainen, Ex. 1105)
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`

`
`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
`
`Wireless, Inc. and RPX Corp). In addition, Petitioner is simultaneously filing this
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`IPR Petition IPR2016-00055 and another IPR Petition IPR2016-00054.
`
`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
`
`authorized to charge the fee of $31,000 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and any
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`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 1-7:
`
`Ground
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Statute (Pre-AIA)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`1-3, 5-18, 22, 23, 29
`and 30
`
`Van Bergen and
`Bettstetter
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claims 24-28
`
`Van Bergen
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`25-27
`
`29, 30
`
`4
`
`19, 20
`
`21
`
`Van Bergen and AAPA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter
`and AAPA
`
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter
`and Sonera
`
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter
`and Kuusela
`
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter
`and Eldredge
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`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 8-14:
`
`Ground
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Statute (Pre-AIA)
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`1-3, 5-18, 22, 23, 29
`and 30
`
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter
`and Falcom
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claims 24-28
`
`Van Bergen and Falcom
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`25-27
`
`29, 30
`
`4
`
`19, 20
`
`21
`
`Van Bergen, AAPA and
`Falcom
`
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter,
`AAPA and Falcom
`
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter,
`Sonera and Falcom
`
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter,
`Kuusela and Falcom
`
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter,
`Eldredge and Falcom
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`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
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`“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.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 (post-AIA).
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) 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 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
`
`A. “programmable”:
`
`Under its broadest reasonable construction, “programmable” means “capable
`
`of accepting instructions for performing a task or an operation.” Ex. 1107 p. 360,
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶55, definition proposed by Patent Owner in Ex. 1120, 36:2-8 and quoted
`
`by the District Court in Ex. 1109 p. 11:15-17. While “programmable” is not
`
`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
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`defined in the ‘717 Patent, Patent Owner’s expert defined a programming
`
`command broadly as “any command that makes the device do something.” Ex.
`
`1110, 221:6-10; see also Id. at 219:7-220:25, 224:6-13.
`
`B. “coded number”:
`
`Patent Owner stated: “The specification makes clear that the term ‘coded
`
`number’ is intended to broadly cover any type of coded number used for
`
`[authentication]” (Ex. 1120, 76:8-9, Patent Owner’s emphasis), citing: “It is further
`
`to be understood that the invention may make use of all coding schemes for storing
`
`numbers to the programmable apparatus and the use of the PUK code was by way
`
`of example only.” (Ex. 1101, 12:25-28, Patent Owner’s emphasis) Under its
`
`broadest reasonable construction, Petitioner agrees that a “coded number” is “any
`
`code used for authentication.”
`
`For completeness, Petitioner also addresses
`
`the Court’s narrower
`
`construction: “a designated, unique sequence of characters.” Ex. 1111 p. 3, ¶2.
`
`C. “the transmissions including the at least one telephone
`number or IP address and the coded number”:
`
`Under its broadest reasonable construction, this means that multiple
`
`“transmissions” include the at least one telephone number or IP address and the
`
`coded number. This limitation does not require that the telephone number or IP
`
`address and the coded number are in the same transmission. This means that the
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioon for Interr Partes Reeview of UU.S. Patentt No. 8,6488,717
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`telephonne numbeer or IP aaddress annd the codded numbber can bee in the ssame
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transmission or seeparated intto multiplee different
`
`
`
`
`
`transmissiions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. ““numbers to which tthe prograammable ccommuniccator
`
`
`
`
`
`device is coonfigured to and perrmitted too send outggoing
`
`
`wireless traansmissionns”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reasonabble constrruction, nnumbers
`
`dw U
`
`Under
`
`its
`
`broadest
`
`
`
`programmmable coommunicattor devicee is “conffigured to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`outgoinng wirelesss transmiissions” aare numbeers to whhich the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and permmitted to
`
`send
`
`
`
`tto which
`
`the
`
`
`
`programmmable
`
`
`
`communnicator devvice is “alllowed to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`send outgooing wirelless transmmissions.”
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex.
`
`
`
`1005 ¶¶¶62-67. Thhere is no ddisclosure iin the ‘7177 Patent to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`support ann interpretaation
`
`
`
`
`
`that this is an exxclusive sett of permiitted numbbers (i.e.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that transmmissions too all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`other nuumbers are not permmitted but
`
`screened,
`
`
`
`blocked oor filtered)). Rather
`
`
`
`, the
`
`
`
`’717 Paatent only ddisclosed ccall screeniing for inccoming callls, not for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`outgoing ccalls,
`
`
`
`as claimmed. For eexample, inn Fig. 2, wwhich showws how inccoming callls are handdled,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`non-
`
`
`
`
`
`at 8:29-311, no
`
`
`
`Ex. 11001, 8:26-28, the proogrammable communnicator termrminates caalls from
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stored nnumbers, Idd. at Fig. 22 #4, highliighted heree, see also
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9:61-63:
`
`
`
`Inn Fig. 3, wwhich showws how ouutgoing caalls are hanndled, Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such scrreening is uused – thesse numbers are simplly called, IId. at Fig. 33, excerpteed:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`address.” EEx. 1111,
`p. 7:12-
`
`
`
`
`innformationn to a “linkked telephoone or IP
`
`
`8, emphasis in originnal.
`
`1 T
`
`
`
`The only mmention of
`
`
`
`utgoing cacall screenning for ou
`
`
`
`
`
`lls is in thhe Backgroound,
`
`
`
`
`
`which ddescribes ““a need too provide mmeans to pprevent thhe child diialing overrseas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`numberrs.” Ex. 1101, 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`
`
`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. 1104 p. 31.
`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.
`
`E. Remark On Capability
`Patent Owner construed the ‘717 Patent claims to describe the mere
`
`capability or intended use of the programmable communicator device to perform
`
`functions. See e.g., Ex. 1102, 4:13-17, 5:1-3, etc.; “we're not talking about
`
`infringing uses; we're talking about infringing capability,” Ex. 1110, 136:21-23.
`
`The same interpretation of capability must apply equally for patentability and
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`infringement: “That which infringes if later, would anticipate if earlier” (Peters v.
`
`Active Mfg, 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889)). Ex parte Takahashi explained to invalidate
`
`intended use claims: “the prior art structure meets the claims because the prior art
`
`is capable of performing the intended use” Ex parte Takahashi, No. 2004-2192,
`
`2004 WL 2733658 at *4 (BPAI 2004), Ex. 1112. Conversely, an intended use
`
`claim can only be distinguished from the prior art upon a showing that the prior art
`
`is not capable of performing the intended use. Id.
`
`VI.
`
`‘717 PATENT CLAIMS 1-30 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`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. 1101, 9:16-21.
`
`The ‘717 Patent is in the “predictable arts” of electrical engineering, and
`
`combining the claimed elements (e.g., wireless modem, microprocessor, memory,
`
`serial interface, sensors, etc.) was commonplace and a matt

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket