throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Rosetta-Wireless Corporation,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent 7,149,511
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.107 TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,149,511
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibits
`Exhibit
`Description
`Ex. 1001
`U.S. Patent No. 7,149,511 to Bachner et al. (“the ’511 Patent”)
`Ex. 1002
`U.S. Patent No. 7,149,511 File History
`U.S. Patent No. 7,149,511 Ex Parte Reexamination
`Ex. 1003
`Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok In Support of the Petition for Inter
`Ex. 1004
`Partes Review of United States Patent No. 7,149,511
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,063 to Bodnar (“Bodnar”)
`Declaration of David Lobato and Exhibit A - HP Jornada 820/820e
`Handheld PC User’s Guide (“Jornada”)
`Declaration of David Lobato and Exhibit B - HP CapShare 920
`Portable E-Copier (“CapShare”)
`IEEE100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms,
`7th ed.
`Declaration of Rogelio Jose
`Declaration of Fred Peal
`Declaration of Sharon Lee
`Declaration of Christopher Butler and Exhibit A - “EarthmateTM
`GPS Receiver: The Smart Way to Navigate” & Exhibit D -
`“EarthmateTM Accessories” (“DeLorme”)
`Declaration of Christopher Butler and Exhibit B - “HP Jornada
`External Keyboard (Part HP F1275A) Impressions” to Todd
`Ogasawara (“Ogasawara”)
`Declaration of Christopher Butler and Exhibit C - “1.2.3
`Representing Programs” (“Representing Programs”)
`Certificate of Authenticity by Amy Klenke and “Proxim Delivering
`Industry’s Lowest Priced Commercial Frequency Hopping Wireless
`LAN PC Card,” Business Wire (Mar. 29, 1999) (“Proxim”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,446,137 to Vasudevan et al. (“Vasudevan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,805,804 to Laursen et al. (“Laursen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,052,735 to Ulrich et al. (“Ulrich”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,790,551 to Chan (“Chan”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2001/0029178 to Criss et al. (“Criss”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,311,058 to Wecker et al. (“Wecker”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,625,673 to Grewe et al. (“Grewe”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,403 to Ausems et al. (“Ausems”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0204041 to Fillebrown et al. (“Fillebrown”)
`U.S. Pat U.S. Patent No. 6,236,938 to Atkinson et al. ("Atkinson")
`MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 5th Ed (2002)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,192 (“Gerszberg”)
`Rosetta's Local Patent Rule 2.2 Initial Infringement Contentions,
`dated January 20, 2016
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`Ex. 1017
`Ex. 1018
`Ex. 1019
`Ex. 1020
`Ex. 1021
`Ex. 1022
`Ex. 1023
`Ex. 1024
`Ex. 1025
`Ex. 1026
`Ex. 1027
`Ex. 1028
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1029
`Ex. 1030
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`Ex. 1033
`Ex. 1034
`Ex. 1035
`Ex. 1036
`Ex. 1037
`Ex. 1038
`
`Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee
`Windows CE Developer’s Handbook by Terrence A. Goggin
`(“Goggin”)
`Essential Windows CE Application Programming to Robert
`Burdick (“Burdick”)
`Programming Microsoft Windows CE
`(“Boling”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,978,805 to Carson (“Carson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,845,293 to Veghte et al. (“Veghte”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,864,853 to Kimura et al. (“Kimura”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,797,089 to Nguyen (“Nguyen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,512,919 to Ogasawara (“Pat. Ogasawara”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,727 to Boals et al. (“Boals”)
`
`to Douglas Boling
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Ex. 2006
`
`Ex. 2007
`Ex. 2008
`
`at
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`Exhibit
`Description
`Ex. 2001
`Declaration of William H. Mangione-Smith, Ph.D.
`Ex. 2002
`ATP Proposal Preparation Kit
`Ex. 2003
`Email from David Nairn to Ed Bachner
`Ex. 2004
`“Moving Toward a Future of Ubiquitous Computing,”
`Technology@Intel Magazine
`“TECHNOLOGY; Verizon Plans Fast Internet for Cellphones,”
`New York Times, Jan. 9, 2004.
`“Data Over Cellular: A Look at GPRS,” Communication Systems
`Design, April 2000.
`Telecom & Networking Glossary, 1999.
`(available
`Member
`benefits
`https://www.oclc.org/membership/benefits.en.html)
`“Libraries Hope for Web 2.0 Shake-up with New Site,” Washington
`Internet Daily, Dec. 15, 2006.
`Email from Sharon Shaffer to Keith Campbell
`ATP Project Brief: Wireless Replication of Enterprise Data for
`Instant Access by Mobile Workers
`“Wireless biz aims to link road warriors to office,” Crain’s Chicago
`Business, Jan. 14, 2002.
`Email chain between Sergio Fogel and Ed Bachner
`
`Ex. 2009
`
`Ex. 2010
`Ex. 2011
`
`Ex. 2012
`
`Ex. 2013
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
`
`Authorization for Payment of Fees............................................................... 1
`
`Summary of the Argument ........................................................................... 2
`
`Background ................................................................................................... 7
`
`A. History of Rosetta-Wireless ......................................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`State of the Art .............................................................................................. 9
`
`The ’511 Patent Invention ..........................................................................11
`
`V.
`
`Argument ....................................................................................................15
`
`A. Legal Standards ..........................................................................................15
`
`B. Claim Construction .....................................................................................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`downstream data ......................................................................................18
`
`personal network server ...........................................................................20
`
`intelligent .................................................................................................24
`
`source electronic file ................................................................................26
`
`electronic file ...........................................................................................27
`
`card reader ................................................................................................28
`
`C.
`
`Petitioners Have Not Proven that Goggin Is Prior Art Under
`
`§ 102(b) .......................................................................................................28
`
`1. Copyright Registration of the Goggin Reference Alone Does
`
`Not Establish that It Was Disseminated to the Public on
`
`that Date ...........................................................................................29
`
`2. No Library Record Shows that the Goggin Reference Was
`
`Added to Its Collection Prior to the Critical Date ...........................30
`
`3.
`
`Indexing of the Goggin Reference Alone Does Not Show Public
`
`Accessibility .....................................................................................31
`
`D. The Petition Should Be Denied Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`Because Goggin Is “Substantially the Same” as Art Already
`
`Considered ..................................................................................................32
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`1. Overview of Nokia Communicator and Reexamination .........................33
`
`2. Overview of Goggin ................................................................................35
`
`3. Goggin Discloses the Same Capabilities Taught by the
`
`Communicator and PC Suite References .........................................36
`
`E.
`
`The Petition Does Not Demonstrate a Reasonable Likelihood of
`
`Prevailing on Any Proposed Ground ..........................................................40
`
`1. Goggin Does Not Disclose a “personal network server” ........................40
`
`2. Goggin Does Not Disclose that “at least one electronic file
`
`remains resident on said personal network server” .........................45
`
`3. Goggin Does Not Disclose “receiving downstream data” .......................46
`
`4. Goggin Does Not Disclose an “intelligent” Personal Network
`
`Server ...............................................................................................51
`
`5. Secondary Considerations Show that the Challenged Claims
`
`Would Not Have Been Obvious ......................................................52
`
`VI.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................54
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................... 20, 47
`
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .........................................................................29
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................25
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .........................................................................28
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .........................................................................17
`
`Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee,
`799 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .........................................................................52
`
`Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .........................................................................25
`
`IdeaVillage Products, Corp. v. Choon’s Design, LLC,
`Case IPR2015-01143 (PTAB Nov. 9, 2015) .....................................................29
`
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .........................................................................17
`
`In re Cornyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .........................................................................28
`
`In re Geisler,
`116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .........................................................................51
`
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ...........................................................................28
`
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .........................................................................29
`
`In re Ochiai,
`71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ...........................................................................16
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .........................................................................17
`
`Institut Pasteur v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .........................................................................17
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .........................................................................16
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...........................................................................................16
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 20, 47
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .........................................................................18
`
`Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG,
`812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .........................................................................16
`
`Nora Lighting, Inc. v. Juno Mfg., LLC,
`Case IPR2015-00601 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2015) ...................................................40
`
`Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/Totco of Varco, L.P.,
`Case IPR2013-00265 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) ....................................................52
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01999 (PTAB Mar. 29, 2016) ...................................................39
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .........................................................................52
`
`Source Search Techs., LLC v. LendingTree, LLC,
`588 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .........................................................................16
`
`Trane U.S., Inc. v. TAS Energy Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01665 (PTAB Feb. 4, 2016) ......................................................29
`
`TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .........................................................................16
`
`Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng’g Inc.,
`813 F.2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .........................................................................16
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .........................................................................27
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................................1, 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ........................................................................................................33
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ...................................................................................................17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 .....................................................................................................28
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 .................................................................................................5, 41
`
`vii
`
`

`
`
`
`I. Introduction
`
`Patent Owner Rosetta-Wireless Corporation (“Rosetta”) hereby respectfully
`
`submits this Preliminary Response to the Petition seeking Inter Partes review in this
`
`matter. This filing is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, as it is
`
`being filed within three months of the February 24, 2016 mailing date of the Notice
`
`granting the Petition a filing date.
`
`Petitioners have taken a scattershot approach to challenging Rosetta’s patent
`
`that is riddled with conclusory analysis. Each of the alleged twelve grounds of
`
`unpatentability is dependent on “Windows CE Developer’s Handbook” by Terence
`
`A. Goggin (“Goggin”). Petitioners, however, do not contend that the Goggin
`
`reference discloses any element or functionality beyond that already disclosed in the
`
`prior art references of record such as the Nokia Communicator and PC Suite
`
`literature. Finding a new reference with the same disclosures already considered by
`
`the Patent Office is not sufficient to warrant the expenditure of resources for yet
`
`another review. Further, Petitioners have not established that Goggin itself is prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Finally, Goggin is distinguishable from the claimed
`
`invention in many respects, as described below.
`
`A trial should not be instituted in this matter because the asserted grounds do
`
`not give rise to a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with respect to
`
`any challenged claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,511 (“the ’511 Patent”).
`
`II. Authorization for Payment of Fees
`
`The Board is authorized to charge any fees incurred by the Patent Owner in
`
`this Case IPR2016-00622 to Deposit Account No. 504592.
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`III. Summary of the Argument
`
`By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the workplace environment had become
`
`increasingly mobile. Workers had become accustomed to accessing large files stored
`
`on enterprise servers, and found themselves needing to access those files on mobile
`
`devices such as PDAs while outside of the office. But such remote access was
`
`problematic. Wireless connections were slow and often unavailable, leaving users
`
`unable to access server files in real time. Even when connected, latency and
`
`interruption made remote access impractical. Portable devices in common use, like
`
`PDAs, suffered from significant constraints on memory size, and data stored on them
`
`was typically updated only when connected physically or in close proximity to the
`
`office network.
`
`In response, the Rosetta team created a new type of mobile device that was
`
`different in its fundamental concept from those in use at the time. Led by former
`
`Motorola engineers Edward Bachner III and John Major (who had also served as
`
`Executive Vice President of Qualcomm, and would later serve as CEO of Novatel
`
`Wireless and Chairman of the Board of Broadcom), the Rosetta team invented the
`
`“wireless intelligent personal network server” (“WIPS”), a small wireless device that
`
`remains with the mobile user and is interposed between the source server and a third
`
`“external display device.” The claimed WIPS is a personal network device that acts
`
`as an intermediate server, receiving data wirelessly from a source server and storing
`
`that data locally to provide applications executing on a mobile device with remote
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`access to that data. Claim 1 of the ‘511 Patent1 is illustrative of both the components
`
`of the claimed WIPS and its arrangement within the overall WIPS-based
`
`communication system:
`
`1. A wireless intelligent personal network server, comprising:
`
`a radio frequency (RF) receiver for receiving downstream data
`
`transmitted over a first wireless communications channel;
`
`a memory;
`
`a central processing unit (CPU);
`
`a set of embedded machine language instructions within said personal
`
`network server, said set of embedded machine language
`
`instructions being executable by said CPU for processing said
`
`downstream data to provide at least one electronic file in said
`
`memory; and
`
`a first interface for allowing an application on an external display
`
`device to pick and open said at least one electronic file while said
`
`at least one electronic file remains resident on said personal
`
`network server,
`
`wherein said personal network server is hand-portable.
`
`(emphases added). Claim 1 sets forth a specific connection between the WIPS and
`
`other nodes within the communication system, thereby defining the flow of data
`
`from the “office” to the remote worker. In particular, the WIPS includes a receiver
`
`“for receiving downstream data” (i.e., data from an upstream source server is sent to
`
`the WIPS) via a wireless channel. That data is then stored on the WIPS for
`
`subsequent access by an external display device such as a PDA via an interface that
`
`
`
`1 The claim is presented as amended during reexamination.
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`provides a communication path between the WIPS and the external display device.
`
`Figure 1, annotated below, illustrates the claimed configuration:
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 17. In sum, the claimed invention describes a device (labeled “2” above)
`
`having two communication paths to two other nodes (the source server—labeled “1”
`
`above—and the external display device—labeled “3” above), such that the WIPS
`
`device is configured to operate within a three-node system.
`
`Petitioners present twelve different grounds of unpatentability under § 103
`
`involving seven purported prior art references. Despite the volume of their brief,
`
`which spans 18,000 words and 58 pages (18 of which are taken up by single-spaced
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`claim charts), Petitioners provide little substantive analysis of the cited material. In
`
`large part, the petition consists of nothing more than quotations and chain-citations
`
`to the alleged prior art. Merely throwing together references that happen to use
`
`terminology similar to the claim language is insufficient to establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood of success, and falls well short of Petitioners’ obligation to explain how
`
`the purported prior art discloses the elements of the claims at issue. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.22 (requiring that a petition include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the
`
`relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”
`
`(emphasis added)).
`
`Beyond that fatal deficiency, Petitioners have not and cannot demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged claims are obvious as alleged.2 First,
`
`Petitioners fail to establish that Goggin, their primary reference for all twelve
`
`grounds of obviousness, is in fact a § 102(b) reference. Petitioners’ declaration
`
`shows only that Goggin was publicly available by September 17, 1999, which is
`
`after the August 31, 1999 critical date.
`
`Second, Goggin provides no new disclosure beyond what the PTO has already
`
`considered. Goggin’s disclosures are—at best—a subset of the material disclosed in
`
`the Nokia Communicator references that the PTO considered in its ex parte
`
`
`
`2 In this preliminary response, Rosetta presents only some of its arguments
`
`distinguishing the claimed invention over Goggin and the other cited references.
`
`Should the petition be granted, Rosetta expressly reserves the right to present
`
`additional arguments distinguishing Goggin and supporting patentability.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Reexamination of the ‘511 Patent. Those references describe a Nokia Communicator
`
`device that is very similar in functionality to the CE devices Goggin describes, but
`
`include considerable additional detail that is not found in Goggin. In particular, the
`
`Nokia references considered during the Reexamination disclose specific computer
`
`software applications that perform file transfers between the device and a desktop
`
`PC, while Goggin is merely a developers’ handbook that describes the API toolkits
`
`available to software developers for the CE platform. To the extent that Goggin is
`
`even prior art, it does not provide an enabling disclosure as to the software
`
`applications which would have to be developed to implement file transfers. The
`
`significant reliance on the knowledge of one of skill in the art exceeds the boundaries
`
`of a proper obviousness analysis.
`
`Finally, Goggin and the supporting references do not render the challenged
`
`claims obvious for at least four reasons. First, Goggin does not disclose the claimed
`
`“personal network server” that is properly construed as “a device configured to be
`
`interposed between a source server and a display device that provides source server
`
`data locally to a user.” Rather, Goggin discloses a two-node communication system,
`
`and thus Goggin’s CE device cannot be interposed between a source server and a
`
`display device. Second, Goggin does not disclose the claimed “downstream data.”
`
`Petitioners’ argument that a two-node system can render the claimed invention
`
`obvious is plausible only if “downstream” is deprived of any meaning and
`
`“downstream data” is considered “any data.” Third, Goggin does not disclose an
`
`“intelligent” personal network server. Goggin merely discloses functions and
`
`capabilities that a software developer could potentially use to build a software
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`application for a CE device, but Goggin fails to sufficiently disclose the requisite
`
`“intelligent” software. Finally, secondary considerations weigh heavily in support of
`
`the non-obviousness of the claimed invention. In particular, Rosetta was awarded a
`
`large federal grant to develop its innovative invention, which also received
`
`contemporaneous industry media praise.
`
`Accordingly, Rosetta respectfully requests that the Petition be denied.
`
`IV. Background
`
`A. History of Rosetta-Wireless
`
`The named inventors include Mr. Bachner, an engineer with more than 35
`
`years of experience pioneering and designing wireless solutions. He worked as a
`
`systems engineer for Motorola, was deeply involved in the infrastructure side of
`
`cellular systems at Andrew Corporation, and served as Vice President of
`
`Engineering at The Antenna Company. Co-inventor John Major, who holds graduate
`
`degrees in engineering, business and law, served as the Executive Vice President of
`
`Qualcomm and the Chairman of the Board of Broadcom, two leading wireless chip
`
`manufacturers, and as the CEO of Novatel Wireless. In the mid-1990s, the two
`
`former co-workers started discussing issues with cellular communications, intending
`
`to develop accessories to overcome the short battery life and other problems that
`
`plagued cellular phones of that era.
`
`Their focus soon shifted to address the growing demand for remote data
`
`access. Specifically, they recognized the need for reliable mobile access to files
`
`maintained on remote corporate servers. Drawing from their extensive experience in
`
`the wireless industry, the inventors observed that the prevalent solutions assumed
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`unrealistic future improvements in the speed and capacity of cellular infrastructure,
`
`and sought out a different approach to the problem. During the late 1990s the
`
`inventors focused on a solution that would work despite the inherent limitations of
`
`the cellular system, the culmination of which was the August 31, 2000 filing of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 09/652,734, which eventually issued as the ‘511 Patent. In
`
`November of 2000, assignee Rosetta-Wireless Corporation (“Rosetta”) was created
`
`to commercialize the invention of the ’511 Patent—the Wireless Intelligent Personal
`
`Server (“WIPS”). Mr. Bachner assumed the role of CEO for Rosetta, a role that he
`
`maintains to this day.
`
`In 2002, Rosetta won a highly competitive $2 million grant to develop a
`
`working WIPS prototype from the Advanced Technology Program of the National
`
`Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST is a federal agency within the
`
`Department of Commerce designed “to promote U.S. innovation and industrial
`
`competitiveness,”3 and awards such grants only for technologies considered
`
`“revolutionary” and “path-breaking” that “have a strong potential to generate
`
`substantial benefits to the nation.” Ex. 2002 at 10, 24. Motorola supported Rosetta’s
`
`grant application, hailing Rosetta as a “leading-edge program[ ],” with a “very
`
`innovative approach.” Ex. 2003.
`
`Though Rosetta attempted to find partners to help bring its product to market,
`
`it was ultimately unsuccessful in its commercialization efforts, facing the resistance
`
`of an industry wedded to the idea that remote data access problems would be solved
`
`
`
`3 http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/general_information.cfm
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`by improved cellular speeds. It was not until 2005, when Intel Research built a proof-
`
`of-concept of Rosetta’s invention into a Motorola E680 cellphone, that the industry
`
`embraced the solution invented by Rosetta. See Ex. 2004 (describing the Intel
`
`Personal Server concept). Today, virtually every “smartphone” provides a WIPS
`
`allowing users to operate remotely from the office while still maintaining access to
`
`their up-to-date data and providing an interface with external display devices such
`
`as smart watches or automotive audio systems with displays.
`
`B. State of the Art
`
`By the relevant 1999–2000 timeframe, the use of personal computers and
`
`enterprise consumer networks was prevalent, with users increasingly dependent on
`
`access to personal information stored in digital form. Accessing that information on
`
`a mobile device, however, remained difficult. Most cellular telephones offered little,
`
`if any, wireless data capability at that time. Instead, users seeking mobile access to
`
`personal data relied primarily on personal digital assistants (“PDAs”). Those devices
`
`were synchronized with the user’s workstation or server locally, usually over a wired
`
`connection like a docking station. The user could then unplug the PDA and carry it
`
`with him, but any subsequently updated data would not be available until the device
`
`was reconnected and re-synced.
`
`To the extent that mobile devices included any wireless access to remote data
`
`via wireless connections, that capability was hampered by slow speeds and
`
`intermittent availability. If a user wanted to access remotely stored data, like an
`
`email, he would request that the remote server transmit the desired data to his device
`
`over the wireless connection. That “pull” configuration was inherently limited. If a
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`wireless connection was not available, then the user could not access the remote data
`
`at all. However, even if a connection was available, the user would need to wait for
`
`the file to be transmitted over the slow channel. Remote wireless data access on
`
`existing devices (e.g., the Nokia Communicator) was therefore more theoretical than
`
`practically useful.
`
`During prosecution and reexamination, the PTO considered other two-node
`
`systems similar to the CE system at issue here. See, e.g., Ex. 1020 at Fig. 1
`
`(illustrating communication paths between a host and mobile terminal); id. ¶ 0011
`
`(describing a two-node system for updating files on a mobile device); Ex. 1038 at
`
`Fig. 2 (illustrating a two-node system whereby a Host 101 communicates with a
`
`Wireless Interface Device 100); id. at 6:42–50 (describing the two-node
`
`communication path for sending data from wireless device to host); Ex. 1003 at 68
`
`(considering a two-node system involving a wireless Nokia device and a stationary
`
`computer). The PTO recognized that the claimed WIPS system is different than the
`
`typical two-node systems employed at the relevant time. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 168,
`
`171 (Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate) (acknowledging
`
`that the patent “describes the overall device, including data transfer between the
`
`server and the external display device and the intermediate network.”).
`
`For many years, however, the mobile industry adhered to this same basic
`
`design, assuming that new cellular infrastructure and protocols would eventually
`
`allow sufficient connection speed to overcome those limitations. See, e.g., Ex. 2005
`
`(describing Verizon’s $1 billion investment in its advanced data network). Those
`
`assumptions would prove overly optimistic. Improving the speed and availability of
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`wireless data transmission capacity required expensive physical infrastructure
`
`deployment and time-consuming software development, which was hampered by
`
`disagreement over standardization. See, e.g., Ex. 2006 at 3 (describing how
`
`“regulatory bodies have been struggling to gain consensus on the 3G system for
`
`several years”). Increasing demand also delayed realization of improved wireless
`
`bandwidth.
`
`The Rosetta team understood those challenges from the outset. With radio
`
`engineering expertise and
`
`real-world experience
`
`implementing wireless
`
`communication systems, they recognized both the practical difficulties of
`
`uninterrupted real-time data access, as well as limitations inherent to the physics of
`
`radio transmission itself. Mr. Bachner, for example, after his 20 years at Motorola
`
`and 5 years at Andrew Corporation architecting mission-critical wireless systems
`
`(e.g., first responder systems), had an informed view that the cellular systems were
`
`many years from providing useful data reliability. Rosetta therefore focused on
`
`development of a different type of device, one which would enhance remote data
`
`access but not depend on the immediate availability of a wireless link sufficiently
`
`fast to transmit files on demand. The result of those efforts was the WIPS claimed
`
`in Rosetta’s ’511 Patent.
`
`C. The ’511 Patent Invention
`
`The ’511 Patent, filed on August 31, 2000, describes a novel device for
`
`providing low-latency local access to a user’s personal files (e.g., email, contacts,
`
`and documents) that are stored on a remote source server (e.g., corporate network
`
`server), regardless of the user’s real-time connection to the source server. The WIPS
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`solution was a new type of device designed to work within the real-world constraints
`
`on mobile data access. Rather than waiting for a user to request that an updated email
`
`be sent to him, a copy of the email (or other files) are loaded on the device at an
`
`earlier time, when it has wireless network access. For example, any new email or
`
`other updat

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