`
` IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511 B1
`
`
`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.
`
`1
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Honorable JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and JOHN A.
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`DECLARATION OF EDWARD F. BACHNER III IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00616 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0001
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`A. Personal Background
`
`1. My name is Edward F. Bachner III. I am the co-founder, Chief
`
`Executive Officer, and President of Rosetta-Wireless Corporation (“Rosetta”).
`
`Rosetta is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,511 (the “’511 Patent”), on which I
`
`am named as first inventor.
`
`2.
`
`I submit this declaration in connection with Rosetta’s response to the
`
`petitions for inter partes review of the ’511 Patent brought by Samsung Electronics
`
`Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”).
`
`3.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, the statements made herein are based on my
`
`personal knowledge and if called to testify with regards to this declaration I could
`
`and would do so competently and truthfully.
`
`B. Education and Experience
`
`4. My engineering degree, a Bachelor of Science With Distinction, is
`
`from Purdue University. Later I earned a Master of Business Administration from
`
`the University of Chicago. I have over thirty years’ experience in the engineering
`
`and design of wireless technology and systems, which I summarize below.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0002
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I worked as a Systems Engineer and Manager at Motorola, Inc. from
`
`1968
`
`to 1989, where I designed, developed and
`
`implemented critical
`
`communications systems including for the following entities, among others:
`
`a. White House Communications: A system for use by the United States
`
`Secret Service (e.g., Executive Protection);
`
`b. Pennsylvania State Police: A statewide 2-way radio and microwave
`
`system, including the first ever “vehicular-repeater” system, with over
`
`1,000 mobile and portable two-way radios providing blanket coverage
`
`for first responders over the entire Commonwealth;
`
`c. Chicago Police Department: The first operational mobile data terminal
`
`system in the country. Operated from within the police cruisers, the
`
`system supplied real-time data for law enforcement activities. In order
`
`to assure performance, these mission-critical systems needed to be
`
`extremely reliable and survivable.
`
`6.
`
`Thereafter, I joined Andrew Corporation in 1989 as a Group
`
`Marketing Manager (antennas, transmission lines, towers, and shelters) and was
`
`later promoted to Business Unit Manager. There, I was involved firsthand in the
`
`infrastructure side of cellular systems. I later assumed added responsibility for the
`
`System Service businesses in the United States and Latin America. I also
`
`
`
`2
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0003
`
`
`
`
`
`broadened my knowledge of radio propagation to include microwave frequencies
`
`and reliability enhancement though the use of diversity on those bands.
`
`7.
`
`Subsequently, I became Vice President of Engineering at The Antenna
`
`Company, an assembler of cellular subscriber products, where I was responsible
`
`for the design and development of all products. In addition, I was the Management
`
`Representative leading to ISO-9001 quality certification.
`
`8.
`
`I co-founded Double-Time Corporation, a company that developed
`
`aftermarket cellular phone accessories. As Vice Chairman and Chief Technology
`
`Officer, I co-authored three patents. The third patent was the ’511 Patent, which I
`
`co-authored with Xin Du and John E. Major, a former Motorola executive (and co-
`
`worker) whom we invited to Double-Time Corporation to work on some ideas for
`
`the next generation of wireless data to solve the needs of mobile people. Based on
`
`my long history of collaboration with him, I am aware that Mr. Major holds
`
`graduate degrees in engineering, business, and law. On the same basis, I am aware
`
`that he served as the Executive Vice President of Qualcomm and Chairman of the
`
`Board of Broadcom, which are two leading wireless chip manufacturers, and as the
`
`Chief Executive Officer of Novatel Wireless.
`
`II. Background of Rosetta and the ’511 Patent
`
`9.
`
`As discussed above, I have worked in the telecommunications
`
`industry for decades, with a particular focus on propagation constraints of cellular
`
`
`
`3
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0004
`
`
`
`
`
`phones, personal digital assistants (“PDAs”), and other portable wireless
`
`communications technology.
`
`10.
`
`In the mid-1990s, Mr. Major and I began discussing issues with
`
`cellular communications. We intended to develop accessories to overcome the
`
`short battery life and other problems that plagued cellular phones of that era.
`
`11. Our focus soon shifted to address the growing demand for remote data
`
`access. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, many employees arrived at their
`
`workplace in the morning and logged onto the office server, commonly called the
`
`“network” or the “network server.” This provided them with access to their
`
`company’s e-mail system, files, and other resources. As computers and computer
`
`systems became more and more essential to workplace activity, a user problem
`
`emerged—how to access their “network server” remotely so as to not be tied down
`
`to one’s desk.
`
`12. At the time, cellular networks were transitioning from analog to
`
`digital and had extremely limited bandwidth with poor transmission coverage.
`
`While technologies existed that permitted transmittal of e-mails and similar
`
`materials to a two-way pager, those technologies were cumbersome and slow.
`
`13. At its core, mobile data connections were simply too slow, and too
`
`intermittent to fulfill the needs of users on the move outside the enterprise network.
`
`If a user wanted to access remotely stored data, like an e-mail, he would request
`
`
`
`4
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0005
`
`
`
`
`
`that the remote server transmit the desired data to his device over the wireless
`
`connection. If a 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 was therefore more theoretical than
`
`practically useful. Even a short e-mail might require a significant amount of time
`
`to download. This meant that an employee could not reliably access his or her
`
`company’s computer resources while in the field.
`
`14. An illustrative example that comes to mind was in 1998 when
`
`Double-Time Corporation was working with a sales representative from General
`
`Electric’s plastics division on the correct resin for the housing of a new product.
`
`The sales representative had to go out to his car to check a sheet of specifications
`
`for the specific resin he thought would be best for the product. He then had to call
`
`his home office for what was in stock, i.e., the available colors, amount, prices,
`
`etc., because that information changed regularly. Here was a huge supplier—
`
`General Electric—with no better data access capabilities than a “mom & pop”
`
`store.
`
`15. At the time, most industry participants considered better infrastructure
`
`and software to be the answer to the problems with remote data access. They relied
`
`on improving data rates that would presumably result from the improved
`
`
`
`5
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0006
`
`
`
`
`
`infrastructure. For example, a Communication Systems Design article from April
`
`2000 details emerging wireless standards and contemplates how the improved data
`
`rates would enhance the ability for users to operate remotely. Ex. 2006 at 2 (“Now,
`
`however, as the Internet becomes more and more ubiquitous as a medium, access
`
`(preferably at reasonable speeds) to that medium has become necessary.”). I found
`
`those assumptions to be unrealistic, and Mr. Major and I sought a different
`
`approach to the problem.
`
`16. Ultimately, we believed the solution was one that did not rely on
`
`unpredictable and vague improvements in infrastructure. Rather, I conceived of a
`
`dedicated personal device to which a source server (such as an enterprise e-mail
`
`server) could transmit data such as e-mails or calendar appointments. In turn, that
`
`device could transmit the same information to another personal device, such as a
`
`PDA or cellular phone. This concept was refined and culminated in the August 31,
`
`2000 filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/652,734, which eventually issued as
`
`the ’511 Patent.
`
`17.
`
`In November 2000, Rosetta was spun off from Double-Time
`
`Corporation to develop and commercialize the technology, whereupon I was
`
`appointed Chief Executive Officer and President. Rosetta was also assigned the
`
`’511 Patent around this time.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0007
`
`
`
`
`
`18. The ’511 Patent 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 (or sourced from) a remote source server (e.g., the “network server” of an
`
`enterprise information technology system, or enterprise “IT” system) regardless of
`
`the user’s real-time connection to that remote source server. The wireless
`
`intelligent personal network server (“WIPS”) 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 WIPS device at an earlier time, when the WIPS
`
`device has a connection to a wireless network. For example, any new email or
`
`other updated file would be sent from the remote source server to the WIPS device,
`
`without an active request from the user. The WIPS device maintains data
`
`downloaded from the remote server and stands ready to provide access to the
`
`downloaded and updated files to an external PDA or other “display device” via an
`
`interface. The WIPS therefore leveraged the extant (but still poor, sporadic, and
`
`unreliable) wireless data infrastructure of the time to provide users mobile access
`
`to up-to-date files no matter where the user was located.
`
`19. The WIPS includes a wireless radio frequency receiver for receiving
`
`data from the source server and an interface for communicating with external
`
`display devices. Ex. 1001 at 2:52–61 (describing the principal features of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0008
`
`
`
`
`
`WIPS); see also id. at Fig. 2 (RF receiver 120 and Display Device Interface 130).
`
`The wireless radio allows the WIPS device to receive downstream data (i.e., data
`
`from the source server) containing updated information about the user’s files
`
`located on the source server. Id. at 5:41–44 (describing contents of downstream
`
`data transmissions). The WIPS device maintains this received downstream data as
`
`files in its local memory storage. The display interface allows the user to connect
`
`external display devices (such as a personal digital assistant, or “PDA”) to the
`
`WIPS so that the user can access the files stored on the WIPS. Id. at 4:55–56
`
`(describing display device).
`
`20. The WIPS addresses numerous problems in the art:
`
`a. Propagation and Interference: The WIPS overcomes the problem of
`
`intermittent and unreliable wireless network connections, allowing for
`
`user access to data even when a cellular or other wireless connection
`
`to the remote source server is unavailable or too slow to effectively
`
`transmit the needed files. By “pre-positioning” a user’s data on the
`
`local, mobile WIPS, the invention ensures that the needed information
`
`will be available to the user even when a robust wireless data
`
`connection is not.
`
`b. Latency: The WIPS overcomes the problem of very slow access to the
`
`user’s data, including access to larger files. The WIPS allows for
`
`
`
`8
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0009
`
`
`
`
`
`latency-free data access; that is, the data can be downloaded in
`
`advance from the remote source (even if there is a slow connection)
`
`and stored on the WIPS so that it is instantly accessible to the user.
`
`c. Currency of data: The WIPS communication system allows for the
`
`updating of data on the local WIPS device as changes to data on the
`
`source server occur. These updates (e.g., a revised calendar entry) are
`
`received by the WIPS device and processed to update the previous
`
`versions of the electronic files stored locally on the WIPS device.
`
`When the user seeks to view the file, it is current.
`
`21. The combined solutions of the WIPS together provide a mobile user
`
`who is away from home or the office with quick access to updated information.
`
`This represented a significant improvement over the PDAs in use prior to Rosetta’s
`
`invention, which required wired or local synchronization with the computer that
`
`was the original source of the data.
`
`22. Because it was counter to the mobile industry’s intuition to build out
`
`larger networks and improved software protocols, Rosetta’s approach was initially
`
`shunned as an unworkable solution.
`
`23. Nevertheless, once demonstrated, Rosetta’s
`
`invention received
`
`substantial praise. For example, Rosetta was awarded a highly-selective $2 million
`
`grant from the Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of
`
`
`
`9
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0010
`
`
`
`
`
`Standards and Technology to develop working prototypes of its WIPS technology.
`
`Ex. 2010. As we learned during the application process, NIST is a federal agency
`
`within the Department of Commerce designed “to promote U.S. innovation and
`
`industrial competitiveness,”2 and awards such grants only for technologies
`
`considered “revolutionary” and “pathbreaking” that “have a strong potential to
`
`generate substantial benefits to the nation.” Ex. 2002 at 10, 24.
`
`24. Rosetta’s application acknowledged that many in the industry
`
`considered their approach to be too risky. Ex. 2011 (“The ATP funding is required
`
`because this startup company has been unable to obtain private support for
`
`research involving such high technical risk.”). However, Motorola—a major
`
`industry player at the time—supported Rosetta’s grant application, and hailed
`
`Rosetta as a “leading-edge program[ ]” with a “very innovative approach.” Ex.
`
`2003.
`
`25. The invention received further praise from Crain’s Chicago Business
`
`in 2002, when a journal article described and praised Rosetta’s WIPS device:
`
`Edward F. Bachner III’s firm has developed a wallet-
`sized wireless computer that will enable workers to bring
`all of a company’s data files on the road. . . . The $300
`device, called a ‘wireless intelligent personal server’
`(Wips), would talk to the corporate server all day long,
`keeping
`files up-to-date,
`revising
`schedules and
`
`
`
`2 http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/general_information.cfm
`
`
`
`10
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0011
`
`
`
`
`
`downloading e-mails and attachments—all over existing
`cellular networks.
`
`Ex. 2012 at 1.
`
`26. Having
`
`seen
`
`industry
`
`press
`
`coverage, Sergio Fogel,
`
`a
`
`contemporaneous skilled artisan and high tech entrepreneur, described the WIPS
`
`solution as a “killer app.” Ex. 2013 at 1.
`
`27. Rosetta received further positive coverage, including:.
`
` The January 2002
`issue of InformationWeek
`Magazine and InformationWeek-Online ran articles
`about Rosetta-Wireless and the personal server. Ex.
`2018.
`
` In November 2003, a Government Computer News
`article discussed Rosetta’s program. Ex. 2019.
`
` In May 2004, Wireless Business & Technology
`Magazine article calls Rosetta's product “your new
`wireless workplace” and awards the magazine’s
`“World Class Product Award” to Rosetta. Ex. 2020.
`
` In May 2005, an article about Rosetta's “Secure
`Mobile Enterprise” appeared in the Mortgage
`Bankers Association newsletter. Ex. 2021.
`
`28. 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 by improved cellular speeds.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0012
`
`
`
`
`
`29. This was because for many years, the mobile industry adhered to their
`
`original 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 industry assumptions would prove overly optimistic. Improving
`
`the speed and availability of 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.
`
`30. 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.
`
`31. After my twenty years at Motorola and five years at Andrew
`
`Corporation architecting mission-critical wireless systems (such as first responder
`
`systems), I had an informed view that the cellular systems were many years from
`
`providing useful data reliability.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0013
`
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`It was not until 2005 that the industry embraced the solution invented
`
`by Rosetta, when Intel Research built a proof-of-concept of Rosetta’s personal
`
`server invention into a Motorola E680 (Linux) cellphone. Ex. 2004.
`
`III. Prosecution of the ’511 Patent
`
`33.
`
`I believe the prosecution history of the ’511 Patent provides clarity on
`
`the nature of Rosetta’s invention. In this section of my declaration, I highlight
`
`certain key exchanges between Rosetta and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(the “PTO”).
`
`34. As discussed above, Rosetta applied for what became the ’511 Patent
`
`on August 31, 2000. Ex. 1002 at 1. The application initially described Rosetta’s
`
`invention as a “wireless intelligent personal server.” Id. at 11. As discussed below,
`
`at the PTO’s own strong suggestion, this term was amended to “wireless intelligent
`
`network server” and finally by PTO decision to “wireless intelligent personal
`
`network server,” upon which the patent was granted.
`
`A. Criss and Wecker
`
`35. Following preliminary amendments, in April 2003, the PTO issued a
`
`nonfinal rejection in which it rejected certain claims as obvious in light of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 2001/0029178 A1 (“Criss”), which disclosed a system for
`
`wirelessly upgrading software on mobile devices. Ex. 1002 at 130.
`
`36.
`
`In July 2003, Rosetta requested reconsideration, noting:
`
`
`
`13
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0014
`
`
`
`
`
`To the contrary, Figure 2 and paragraph 0053 of Criss
`make clear that display 46 is not an external display
`device but is instead part of mobile terminal 36 (which
`the Examiner has alleged corresponds to the wireless
`intelligent portable server recited in claims 1 and 56).
`
`Ex. 1002 at 163.
`
`37. This underscored Rosetta’s invention as being a separate personal
`
`device that would make portions of files and other resources available to a personal
`
`device of a user’s choosing at the moment, such as a PDA, laptop, or cellular
`
`phone.
`
`38. Thereafter, in January 2004, the PTO issued a further nonfinal
`
`rejection in which it rejected certain claims as obvious in light of Criss and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,311,058 B1 (“Wecker”), which disclosed a system for transmitting
`
`information wirelessly to mobile devices:
`
`Regarding claims 1, 4, 33, 56, 59 and 70, Criss et al.
`discloses a wireless intelligent personal server (mobile
`terminal) (wireless display system) (fig. 2) . . . Criss et al.
`differs from claims 1, 56 and 70 of the present invention
`in that it does not explicit [sic] disclose a first interface
`for allowing an external (separate) display decive to
`access an electronic file. Wecker et al. teaches a first
`interface (sync. Component) (fig. 1 number 28) for
`allowing an external (separated) display (fig. 1 number
`16 and fig. 5 number 77) device to access an electronic
`file (col. 4 lines 6-34). Therefore, it would have been
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`invention was made to modify Criss et al. (mobile
`terminal) with a first interface for allowing an external
`(separated) display device to access an electronic file in
`order to synchronized [sic] a downloaded file of the
`
`
`
`14
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0015
`
`
`
`
`
`mobile terminal with a personal computer so that each
`can exchange information or share information with on
`[sic] another, as taught by Wecker et al.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 171-72.
`
`39.
`
`In
`
`its
`
`request
`
`for
`
`reconsideration, Rosetta argued
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Criss/Wecker combination did not render the claims obvious because they did not
`
`disclose the capacity of the portable device to act as a server on a network, but
`
`rather to simply receive automated updates over a wireless connection. As Rosetta
`
`pointed out:
`
`One flaw in the Examiner's argument, however, is that
`the downloaded file of the mobile terminal in Criss is the
`mobile terminal's operating software, not information
`that would normally be stored on or accessed by a
`personal computer. (Criss, ¶¶ 75, 76). It is simply not
`plausible that one of ordinary skill would have been
`motivated to provide an interface in the mobile terminal
`of Criss so that the mobile terminal's operating software
`could be synchronized with a personal computer. In any
`event, Applicants have amended independent claims 1,
`33, 46, 51, 56, and 70 to make clear that the external
`display device can selectively access the electronic file.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 205-206 (emphases in original).
`
`40. To clarify its invention, Rosetta amended its claims to “make clear
`
`that the external display device can selectively access the electronic file” and that it
`
`taught more than Wecker’s teaching of mere “file synchronization”. Ex. 1002 at
`
`206 (emphasis in original). Rather, it was intended to provide remote access to
`
`
`
`15
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0016
`
`
`
`
`
`personal computer files for any display device of the user’s choosing “in much the
`
`same way as it would access a server on a local area network”. Id.
`
`41. Subsequently, following a further nonfinal rejection in July 2014,
`
`Rosetta conducted an in-person interview with the PTO’s examiner on September
`
`21, 2004 to discuss Criss and Wecker. There, I demonstrated “an implementation
`
`of the invention, comprising (1) a wireless server that stored files received over a
`
`wireless communications channel and (2) a laptop computer, as display device,
`
`coupled to the wireless server via a wireless interface.” Ex. 1002 at 246.
`
`42. The live working demonstration was a revolutionary and insightful
`
`moment of understanding for the examiner and his supervisor. Sitting in the PTO
`
`office in Washington, D.C., the examiner and his supervisor could see the list of
`
`files on the WIPS prototype in front of them, knowing it was a mirror reflection of
`
`one user’s personal section of Rosetta’s enterprise server (the source server) in
`
`Chicago. They then realized this was analogous to what they saw each morning
`
`when they logged onto the PTO’s own “network server” at their office.
`
`43. Next, on a laptop “display device,” we selected their chosen movie
`
`trailer—from the list resident on the WIPS device—and it immediately started
`
`playing. To prove that the trailer was on the WIPS device (and not the Chicago
`
`source server), we removed the cellular WAN card from the WIPS device (thereby
`
`severing its connection to the cellular network) and nothing happened. The trailer
`
`
`
`16
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0017
`
`
`
`
`
`continued to play. To prove the trailer existed only on the WIPS device (and not
`
`the laptop display device) we then removed the Wi-Fi LAN card from the WIPS
`
`device (through which the laptop was connected to the WIPS device)—and the
`
`video immediately stopped.
`
`44. The “demonstration showed how the display device was able to
`
`selectively access files stored on the wireless server” and the PTO agreed that
`
`“replacing the terminology ‘wireless intelligent personal server’ with ‘wireless
`
`intelligent network server’ throughout the claims would more clearly define the
`
`invention and would overcome the prior art of record.” Ex. 1002 at 246-247; see
`
`also id. at 355 (“the language ‘network server’ was carefully chosen during the
`
`interview conducted on September 21, 2004 in order to more clearly define the
`
`invention.”).
`
`45.
`
`In particular, the demonstration showed the capacity of the WIPS to
`
`exchange files within an out-of-state IT network to which it was remotely
`
`connected, and the ability of the WIPS to provide selective access to the local user
`
`through a wirelessly-coupled display device even after the connection to the
`
`remote network was broken.
`
`46. Upon viewing
`
`the demonstration,
`
`the examiner understood
`
`immediately the purpose of the invention—that it provided remote access to data
`
`resident on an upstream network server, such as an enterprise server, much like one
`
`
`
`17
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0018
`
`
`
`
`
`the examiner himself would log into when he arrived at his workplace in the PTO.
`
`It was not merely file transfer or synchronization, but rather an extension of access
`
`to upstream files and resources. The examiner suggested the term “network
`
`server”; this defined, in the common language at the time, what kind of invention
`
`that Rosetta was patenting. Everyone at the time knew what their network server
`
`was at the office.
`
`B. Boals
`
`47. This construction is further supported by the prosecution submissions
`
`concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,108,727 (“Boals”), which taught a “system for
`
`compressing program files at a remote host computer and transmitting the
`
`compressed program files to one or more wireless interface devices using a
`
`wireless link,” whereby the “received compressed files are stored in an
`
`electronically programmable storage device on the wireless interface device.” Ex.
`
`1038 at Abstract.
`
`48.
`
`In February 2006, the PTO issued another nonfinal rejection. In it, the
`
`PTO rejected certain claims, including 1 and 56, as anticipated by Boals:
`
`Regarding claims 1 and 56, Boals et al. discloses a
`remote portable computer (wireless intelligent network
`server) (fig. 1 number 101 and col. 5 lines 22-31),
`comprising: a radio frequency (RF) receiver for receiving
`downstream data
`transmitted over a first wireless
`communications channel (fig. 1 number 115 and col. 6
`lines 51-54), a memory (fig. 1 number 117) a central
`processing unit (CPU) (fig. 1 number 116); a set of
`
`
`
`18
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0019
`
`
`
`
`
`embedded machine language instructions (col. 6 lines 51-
`54), said set of embedded machine language instructions
`being executable by said CPU (inherent, as taught in col.
`6 lines 51-54) for processing said downstream data to
`provide windows files or window programs (electronic
`file) in said memory (col. 6 lines 51 54); and a wireless
`interface (fig. 1) for allowing an external display (fig. 1
`number 113) device to selectively access windows files
`or window programs (electronic file) (col. 6 lines 51-54).
`
`Ex. 1002 at 333–34.
`
`49.
`
`In its request for reconsideration, Rosetta reminded the PTO that “the
`
`language ‘network server’ was carefully chosen during the interview conducted on
`
`September 21, 2004 in order to more clearly define the invention.” Ex. 1002 at
`
`355.
`
`50. Rosetta also noted that the invention disclosed in Boals was not a
`
`“network server” because of what and how it communicated with the analogous
`
`wireless interface device:
`
`Specifically, what wireless interface device 100 receives
`from host 101 is a video image to be displayed . . . Thus,
`when an application program running on host 101
`generates output data, host 101 transmits “video events”
`to wireless interface device 100 . . . Wireless interface
`device 100 receives
`the video events as display
`commands, and CPU 112 in wireless interface device 100
`executes the display commands to update the display . . .
`A better description of the communication . . . would be
`to say that host 101 is acting as a video display driver and
`wireless interface device 100 is acting as a video
`monitor.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 355-6.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0020
`
`
`
`
`
`51. Rosetta further emphasized that the data being transmitted was not
`
`network data received downstream over a wireless channel, noting that Boals
`
`“does not state that the files on host 101 are provided by processing downstream
`
`data (i.e., data that is transmitted over a wireless communications channel) from
`
`wireless interface device 100.” The files on 101 accessed by 100 are not “provided
`
`by downstream data from wireless interface device 100.” Ex. 1002 at 354, 56.
`
`52. On August 10, 2006, after consulting with his supervisor, the
`
`examiner wrote: “The Boals reference does not teach applicants’ invention.” Ex.
`
`1002 at 374.
`
`53. This argument underscored the personal nature of the invention—that
`
`it made network resources, received through downstream transmission, available to
`
`another personal device.
`
`54. The PTO agreed. Subsequently, in August 2006, the PTO conducted a
`
`telephonic interview with Rosetta, during which the PTO and Rosetta agreed
`
`changing “network server” back to “personal network server” more correctly
`
`defined the invention. Ex. 1002 at 372. As a result, the PTO allowed the ’511
`
`Patent to be issued in August 2006.
`
`55.
`
`In sum, the Criss patent was the idea of sending to your cellphone an
`
`updated version of the cellphone's operating software. No intermediate server or
`
`display device was involved, nor files of personal value to a user. The Wecker
`
`
`
`20
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0021
`
`
`
`
`
`patent addressed the idea of wirelessly sending a file to a PDA and then having the
`
`PDA “sync” with a similar nearby unit using a cable or IrDA. No intermediate
`
`server was involved, or ways to compensate for the real-world physics of wireless.
`
`The Boals patent was for a wireless entry device, a display pad and pen as might
`
`be used at a restaurant, supported by a nearby dedicated fixed-end modem. No
`
`intermediate server was involved. Rosetta’s distinction of the Criss/Wecker
`
`combination as well as the Boals reference demonstrate that a “network server”
`
`was not merely a device capable of receiving or transmitting data from a linked
`
`computer, but a computer in a network that exchanges data files with other devices
`
`in that network. The Criss/Wecker combination enabled the sharing of data
`
`between two connected devices; the addition (at the examiner’s suggestion) to add
`
`the word “network” to create the term “network server” to overcome that prior art
`
`simply cannot be squared with an understanding of “network server” as requires
`
`nothing more than two computers exchanging data over a direct point-to-point
`
`communications link.
`
`IV. Reexamination of the ’511 Patent
`
`56.
`
`In March 2011, Rosetta filed a request for ex parte reexamination of
`
`the ’511 Patent on the basis of certain prior art raised by a third party that was not
`
`addressed during prosecution. That prior art related to a Nokia product series
`
`
`
`21
`
`Rosetta-2017
`
`0022
`
`
`
`
`
`known as the “Communicator,” specifically model numbers 9110 and 9110i. Ex.
`
`1003 at 4.
`
`57.
`
`In June 2011, the PTO issued a nonfinal rejection in which it noted, as
`
`to claims 1 and 583, that:
`
`Nokia User's Guide describes a wireless intelligent
`personal network device (pp. 1-2, reads server as it
`downloads documents), comprising: a radio frequency
`(RF) receiver (GSM transceiver, pp. 11 and 13) for
`receiving downstream data transmitted over a first
`wireless communications channel . . . ; a central
`processing unit (CPU, inherent in the communicator); a
`set of embedded machine language instructions within
`said personal