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 IPR2016-006221
`Patent 7,149,511 B1
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,149,511 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00616 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`

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

`

`
`
`Ex. 1040
`
`Ex. 1041
`
`Ex. 1025 U.S. Pat U.S. Patent No. 6,236,938 to Atkinson et al. ("Atkinson")
`Ex. 1026 MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 5th Ed (2002)
`Ex. 1027 U.S. Patent No. 5,297,192 (“Gerszberg”)
`Ex. 1028 Rosetta's Local Patent Rule 2.2 Initial Infringement Contentions, dated
`January 20, 2016
`Ex. 1029 Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee
`Ex. 1030 Windows CE Developer’s Handbook by Terrence A. Goggin
`(“Goggin”)
`Ex. 1031 Essential Windows CE Application Programming to Robert Burdick
`(“Burdick”)
`Ex. 1032 Programming Microsoft Windows CE to Douglas Boling (“Boling”)
`Ex. 1033 U.S. Patent No. 5,978,805 to Carson (“Carson”)
`Ex. 1034 U.S. Patent No. 5,845,293 to Veghte et al. (“Veghte”)
`Ex. 1035 U.S. Patent No. 5,864,853 to Kimura et al. (“Kimura”)
`Ex. 1036 U.S. Patent No. 5,797,089 to Nguyen (“Nguyen”)
`Ex. 1037 U.S. Patent No. 6,512,919 to Ogasawara (“Pat. Ogasawara”)
`Ex. 1038 U.S. Patent No. 6,108,727 to Boals et al. (“Boals”)
`Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit B to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit C to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit D to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit E to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit F to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit G to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit H to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit I to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit J to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit K to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit L to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit M to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`
`Ex. 1046
`
`Ex. 1042
`
`Ex. 1043
`
`Ex. 1044
`
`Ex. 1045
`
`Ex. 1047
`
`Ex. 1048
`
`Ex. 1049
`
`Ex. 1050
`
`Ex. 1051
`
`Ex. 1052
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1053
`
`Ex. 1054
`
`Ex. 1055
`
`Ex. 1056
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Ex. 2006
`
`Ex. 2007
`Ex. 2008
`
`Ex. 2009
`
`Ex. 2012
`
`Ex. 2013
`Ex. 2014
`
`Exhibit N to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Exhibit O to the Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Originally Part of
`Exhibit 1029)
`Certificate of Authenticity by Amy Klenke (Originally Part of Ex-hibit
`1015)
`Declaration of David Lobato (Originally Part of Exhibits 1006 and
`1007)
`Declaration of Chris Butler (Originally Part of Exhibits 1012, 1013,
`and 1014)
`Ex. 1057
`Ex. 1058 Declaration of Dr. Nathaniel Polish (Originally AP-1002)
`Patent Owner Rosetta’s Initial Infringement Contentions served in Co-
`Pending Litigation Dec. 14, 2015 (excerpts) (Originally AP-1007)
`Ex. 1059
`Ex. 1060 U.S. 6,222,726 to Cha (Originally AP-1011)
`Graham, THE
`FACTS ON
`FILE, DICTIONARY OF
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS (1983) (excerpts) (Originally AP-1012)
`Ex. 1061
`Ex. 1062 Declaration of David M. DesRosier
`Ex. 1063 Biography of David M. DesRosier
`
`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
`Declaration of Daniel A. Zaheer supporting motion for pro hac
`vice admission
`
`Ex. 2010
`Ex. 2011
`
`at
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 2015
`
`Ex. 2016
`
`Ex. 2017
`Ex. 2018
`Ex. 2019
`
`Ex. 2020
`Ex. 2021
`
`Ex. 2022
`Ex. 2023
`Ex. 2024
`Ex. 2025
`Ex. 2026
`Ex. 2027
`Ex. 2028
`Ex. 2029
`
`Declaration of Michael Ng supporting motion for pro hac vice
`admission
`Declaration of William H. Mangione-Smith, Ph.D. (originally
`filed as Ex. 2001 in IPR2016-616)
`Declaration of Edward F. Bachner III
`“Shrinking the Server,” InformationWeek, Jan. 21, 2002
`“NIST puts money where the risk is,” Government Computer
`News, Nov. 3, 2003
`“Welcome to WIPS,” Wireless Business & Technology, May 2004
`“New Technology Could Challenge Ubiquitous Blackberry,”
`MBA NewsLink, May 20, 2005
`Second Declaration of William H. Mangione-Smith, Ph.D.
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)
`IBM Dictionary of Computing (10th ed. 1993)
`Network Dictionary (May 15, 2007)
`Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms (10th ed., 2009)
`Microsoft Press Dictionary (3rd. ed. 2002)
`CeRapiInit (Windows CE 5.0), Microsoft Corporation, 2006
`“Remote API (RAPI),” eTutorial.org
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. 
`Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 
`Background ................................................................................................... 4 
`II. 
`State of the Art .............................................................................................. 4 
`A. 
`B.  History of Rosetta-Wireless ......................................................................... 6 
`C. 
`The ’511 Patent Invention ............................................................................ 9 
`III. 
`Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 13 
`A.  Legal Standards Governing Claim Construction in an Inter
`Partes Review ............................................................................................. 13 
`The Reasonable Construction of “Downstream Data” ............................... 15 
`B. 
`1.  Usage in the Specification ....................................................................... 15 
`2.  Usage in the Claims ................................................................................. 20 
`3.  Plain meaning ........................................................................................... 22 
`C. 
`Ex. 2022The Reasonable Construction of “Network Server” .................... 24 
`1.  The preambles of Claims 1 and 58 are limiting ....................................... 24 
`2.  Plain meaning and Rosetta’s proposed construction ............................... 25 
`3.  Use in the claims and specification .......................................................... 27 
`4.  Prosecution history ................................................................................... 31 
`D.  The Reasonable Construction of “Personal” .............................................. 34 
`E. 
`The Reasonable Construction of “Source Electronic File” ........................ 35 
`F. 
`The Reasonable Construction of “Electronic File” .................................... 36 
`IV. 
`Argument .................................................................................................... 36 
`A.  The Legal Standards Governing Obviousness Under § 103 ...................... 36 
`B. 
`Petitioners Have Not Met Their Burden of Proving That Goggin
`and the Other References Cited in the ’622 Petition Would Have
`Rendered the Rosetta Patent Obvious ........................................................ 38 
`1.  Overview of Goggin ................................................................................ 38 
`2.  Overview of Goggin in Combination With Proxim ................................ 39 
`3.  Goggin Is Not Invalidating Because It Only Discloses
`Programming Options—It Does Not Disclose Which Options
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`C. 
`
`to Select or How to Combine Them Into The Device Claimed
`by the ‘511 Patent .................................................................................... 40 
`4.  Goggin Does Not Disclose the Limitations of the ’511 Patent ............... 42 
`a) 
`Goggin Does Not Disclose a “Network Server” ............................. 42 
`b) 
`Goggin Does Not Disclose “Receiving Downstream Data” ........... 49 
`Petitioners Have Not Met Their Burden of Proving That Kimura
`and the Other References Cited in the ’616 Petition Would Have
`Rendered the Rosetta Patent Obvious ........................................................ 51 
`1.  Overview of Kimura ................................................................................ 51 
`2.  Kimura Does Not Disclose the Limitations of the ’511 Patent. .............. 55 
`a) 
`Kimura Does Not Disclose “Receiving Downstream Data” ........... 55 
`b) 
`Kimura Does Not Disclose a “Personal Network Server” .............. 59 
`c) 
`Kimura Does Not Disclose Both an “Electronic File” and a “Source
`Electronic File” ................................................................................ 62 
`3.  Kimura Teaches Away from the Patented Rosetta System ..................... 64 
`D. 
`Secondary Considerations Show that the Challenged Claims
`Would Not Have Been Obvious ................................................................. 65 
`Conclusion .................................................................................................. 68 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.,
`
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 41
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2015-1171, 2016 WL 5864573 (Fed. Cir.
`Oct. 7, 2016) ...................................................................................................... 66
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 48, 59
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 21
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................... 24
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ......................................................................... 38
`Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee,
`
`799 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 65
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 49
`In re Bell,
`
`991 F.2d 781 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ........................................................................... 41
`In re Cortright,
`
`165 F.3d 1353 (Fed.Cir. 1999) ................................................................... 14, 23
`In re Kotzab,
`
`217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ......................................................................... 41
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`
`822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 20
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed.Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 14, 23
`In re Ochiai,
`71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................... 37
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed.Cir.2010) ........................................................................... 14
`Institut Pasteur v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ......................................................................... 38
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 48, 59
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 37
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................... 37
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc.,
`
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 21, 50
`Microsoft v. Proxyconn,
`
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................. passim
`Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG,
`812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 20, 37
`Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/Totco of Varco, L.P.,
` Case IPR2013-00265 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) .................................................... 66
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ......................................................................... 65
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC,
`
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... passim
`Pride Mobility Prod. Corp. v. Permobil, Inc.,
`
`818 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................... 13, 16, 20, 29
`Source Search Techs., LLC v. LendingTree, LLC,
`588 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................................................................... 37
`Symantec Corp. v. Comput. Assoc. Int'l, Inc.,
`
`522 F.3d 1279 (Fed.Cir.2008) ........................................................................... 21
`TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 36
`Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng’g Inc.,
`813 F.2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ......................................................................... 38
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................................................................... 36
`
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 36
`37 CFR § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent Owner Rosetta-Wireless Corporation (“Rosetta”) respectfully submits
`
`its Patent Owner’s Response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 to the petitions by
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc.
`
`(collectively “Petitioners”) for inter partes review in this matter. Two petitions
`
`have been consolidated and are addressed here: Case IPR2016-00616 (the ’616
`
`Petition) and Case IPR2016-00622 (the ’622 Petition).
`
`Petitioners’ obviousness contentions in the ’622 Petition all rest on a single
`
`reference: a high level software developer’s handbook titled Windows CE
`
`Developer’s Handbook written by Terrence A. Goggin. Ex. 1030 (“Goggin”).
`
`Goggin provides general guidance on the Windows CE operating system and its
`
`use in connection with general purpose portable computing devices. It does not
`
`disclose the wireless intelligent personal network server claimed in the Rosetta
`
`patent. Petitioners admit that Goggin’s disclosure alone is insufficient, and would
`
`further require a software developer to write specific code to implement a
`
`particular combination of functionalities to be carried out by the Windows CE
`
`device. Goggin does not disclose any particular configuration of a Windows CE
`
`device, but merely a synopsis of potential options that software developers might
`
`use when designing applications for portable computers using that operating
`
`system.
`
`The ’622 Petition includes dense claim charts setting out, largely without
`
`any explanation, a hodgepodge of generic statements about the capabilities of
`
`Windows CE devices, public relations puffery, and descriptions of various
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Windows CE APIs. But Goggin does not teach a system using those parts with the
`
`functionality claimed in the ’511 patent, suggest that Windows CE features could
`
`be assembled in such a way, or provide instructions to a developer on how to do
`
`so. Petitioners’ analysis and expert evidence do nothing to overcome that
`
`deficiency, providing only conclusory contentions that the charted citations from
`
`Goggin correspond to the individual claim limitations without explaining why a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would understand and be motivated to write
`
`the code Petitioners claim allows Windows CE devices to practice the Rosetta
`
`invention.
`
`Beyond that foundational problem, Petitioners’ arguments suffer from
`
`several additional flaws. First, though they contend that the Windows CE devices
`
`are capable of meeting the “network server” limitation found in each of the claims
`
`at issue, Windows CE devices do not actually operate as network servers when
`
`exchanging files using the Remote API functions on which Petitioners rely.
`
`Goggin itself makes clear that before any data files can be exchanged using RAPI,
`
`a direct point-to-point communications link must be established between the
`
`Windows CE device and the Windows desktop computer with which it is
`
`exchanging files, precluding communication with other devices over that link. It is
`
`therefore impossible for the Windows CE device to act as a network server, as that
`
`specific term would have been understood then, and now, by one having ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Support is found by looking further at how it is used in the claims
`
`and the rest of the specification, as well as how it was used in the patent’s
`
`prosecution, during which the examiner strongly suggested adding “network
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`server” to clarify the distinction over certain prior art. Second, Goggin does not
`
`disclose that its Windows CE devices “receiv[e] downstream data,” a term that
`
`must be understood to mean data from a source server flowing in a direction
`
`toward the end user. Instead, it merely describes direct point-to-point data
`
`exchange with a personal computer running Microsoft Windows.
`
`Petitioners’ obviousness arguments in the ’616 Petition are likewise founded
`
`on a single reference: U.S. Patent No. 5,864,853 to Kimura et al., titled “Portable
`
`file system operable under various computer environments” (“Kimura”). Kimura
`
`discloses a portable storage device that mounts directly on a stationary computer or
`
`is otherwise configured to function “as if it is a part 8 of the file system 7 of the
`
`stationary computer 5 located nearby.” A user of the Kimura system saves data
`
`directly onto the portable device, which can then be unmounted, carried with the
`
`user, and re-mounted on another stationary computer. In other words, Kimura’s
`
`portable device is not part of a network such that it functions as a “network
`
`server,” and does not “receiv[e] downstream data” from an upstream server, only
`
`directly saved data that cannot be described as “downstream” under any reasonable
`
`construction of that term. Petitioner’s effort to contort Kimura’s disclosures leads
`
`to nonsensical conclusions, most notably the fact that the flow of data sent from the
`
`stationary computer to the Kimura portable device becomes both “downstream”
`
`and “upstream.” Because Petitioners have failed to identify key limitations of the
`
`’511 patent within Kimura, they cannot meet their burden of establishing
`
`obviousness.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Finally, though not necessary to uphold the validity of Rosetta’s claims,
`
`strong objective indicia of non-obviousness support such a finding, including
`
`contemporaneous praise (including by one of Rosetta’s current opposing parties),
`
`the reward of a highly competitive federal grant to commercially develop the
`
`invention, and the competitive response to same. In sum, Petitioners have failed to
`
`meet their burden of establishing the invalidity of the disputed claims of the ’511
`
`patent.
`II. Background
`A.
`State of the Art
`The invention of the ’511 patent relates to the field of wireless
`
`communications, and particularly the transfer of files wirelessly to a mobile device.
`
`In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the use of personal computers on enterprise and
`
`consumer networks was growing, with users increasingly dependent on access to
`
`personal information stored in digital form. Ex. 2022 ¶25.
`
`But accessing data while outside the IT network remained difficult. Id. ¶26.
`
`Cellular systems designed for voice lacked the capacity for high-speed, high-
`
`throughput data communications. Id. Higher throughput wired connections (e.g.,
`
`Ethernet) and wireless connections (e.g., Wi-Fi) offered a partial solution, but were
`
`not available everywhere, so users on the move often found themselves without
`
`access to them. Id. And so users faced a conundrum: while increasingly dependent
`
`on access to network data resources, they remained hampered by a mobile
`
`infrastructure inadequate to provide remote access to that data. Id.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Fundamentally, mobile data connections were simply too slow and too
`
`intermittent to fulfill the needs of users on the move outside the enterprise network.
`
`Id. ¶27. 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. Id. If a wireless connection was not available, then the user
`
`could not access the remote data at all. Id. 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. Id.
`
`The available “solutions” were little more than impractical work-arounds.
`
`Rather than rely on a remote connection to server data, a user would instead (1)
`
`locally connect a portable device with storage capacity in a direct, point-to-point
`
`communications link with a desktop computer, (2) store data files from the desktop
`
`computer on the portable device, (3) disconnect and carry said portable device with
`
`the user, and (4) in some cases, connect the device again directly (point-to-point) to
`
`a second computer to access the previously stored data files. Id. ¶28. Devices in
`
`use at the time included personal digital assistants, or PDAs, which were connected
`
`to a user’s office workstation or personal computer locally, usually over a wired
`
`connection like a docking station. Id. The user could then unplug the PDA and
`
`carry it with him, typically accessing the data directly on the PDA itself. Id. Other
`
`examples were portable computing devices like the Nokia Communicator, which
`
`could be plugged into or locally connected via a wireless connection to a user’s
`
`PC, allowing the user to download a data file onto the device’s memory. Id. The
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`user could then carry the Communicator, and at a different location plug the
`
`portable device into a second PC and copy over the data file. Id.
`
`In essence, such devices served as portable memory. Id. ¶29. They were of
`
`limited utility, especially with respect to data like an email inbox that would
`
`change constantly, as well as calendar entries and operational data that might be
`
`updated regularly during the day. Id. A user was limited to the data available
`
`during local synchronization; any subsequently updated data would not be
`
`available until the device was reconnected and re-synced. Id. Such devices were
`
`unpopular because they provided little of the real-time access to up-to-date
`
`network data that mobile users needed. Id.
`B. History of Rosetta-Wireless
`Rosetta was founded by inventor Edward 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. Ex. 2017 ¶¶4-10.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`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 unrealistic future improvements in the speed and capacity of cellular
`
`infrastructure. Accordingly, they 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. Ex. 2017
`
`¶¶11-17.
`
`In 2002, Rosetta won a highly competitive $2 million grant from the
`
`Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and
`
`Technology (“NIST”) to develop a working prototype of the wireless intelligent
`
`personal network server. 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
`
`
`2 http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/general_information.cfm; Ex. 2017 ¶23.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`nation.” Ex. 2002 at 10, 24; Ex. 2017 at ¶23. Motorola supported Rosetta’s grant
`
`application, hailing Rosetta as a “leading-edge program[ ],” with a “very
`
`innovative approach.” Ex. 2003; Ex. 2017 ¶23.
`
`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. Ex. 2017 ¶23. 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. See Ex. 2004 at 1; Ex. 2017 ¶¶28, 32.
`
`For many years, however, 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);
`
`Ex. 2017 ¶29. 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
`
`ga