UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`TELIT WIRELESS SOLUTIONS INC. &
`
`TELIT COMMUNICATIONS PLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2016-01081
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Issued: Feb. 11, 2014
`
`Title: Programmable Communicator
`
`________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,648,717
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..1
`
`
`
`II. FORMALITIES ………...………….…………………………………………...1
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest ............................................................................. 1
`
`B. Related Matters .......................................................................................... 1
`
`C. Designation of Counsel and Power of Attorney………………………...3
`
`D. Proof of Service, Service Information, and Payment of Fees ………….4
`
`
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW…………………………4
`
`A. Grounds for Standing ................................................................................ 4
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged and Statement of Precise
`Relief Requested ........................................................................................ 5
`
`C. Threshold for Inter Partes Review ........................................................... 5
`
`
`
`IV. THE ‘717 PATENT…………………………………………………………..6
`
`A. Overview of the ‘717 Patent and Claims .................................................. 6
`
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History ........................................................ 7
`
`C. Effective Filing Date of the ’717 Patent .................................................... 7
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. 8
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION……………………………………………………9
`
`A. Capability ...................…….....................……..................................…….9
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“the transmissions including the at least one telephone number or IP
`address and the coded number” ................................................................. 9
`
`“numbers to which the programmable communicator device is
`configured to and permitted to send outgoing wireless transmissions” .. 12
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`D. “programmable” ...................................................................................... 13
`
`E.
`
`“coded number” ....................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`VI. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………14
`
`VII. GROUND 1: Claims 25-28 and 30 of The ‘717 Patent Are Invalid Based On
`Van Bergen and Bettstetter………..………..………………..17
`
`
`1. Claim 25 Would Have Been Obvious Over Van Bergen In View Of
`Bettstetter……………………………………………………..….24
`
`2. Claim 26 Would Have Been Obvious Over Van Bergen In View Of
`Bettstetter ..................................................................................... 27
`
`3. Claim 27 Would Have Been Obvious Over Van Bergen In View Of
`Bettstetter ..................................................................................... 28
`
`4. Claim 28 Would Have Been Obvious Over Van Bergen In View Of
`Bettstetter ..................................................................................... 29
`
`5. Claim 30 Would Have Been Obvious Over Van Bergen In View Of
`Bettstetter ..................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`VIII. COMPARISON OF CLAIMS…………………………………….……….34
`
`
`
`IX. STATEMENT OF NON-REDUNDANCY…..……..………………………40
`
`
`
`X. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………….42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ex parte Scortecci, No. 2014-001781, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 1052 (Mar. 17, 2016)
`(emphasis added) .................................................................................................. 11
`Ex parte Vesto, No. 2013-009212, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 2105 (PTAB, Nov. 7,
`2014) ..................................................................................................................... 11
`Ex parte Cruz-Hernandez, No. 2014-000203, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 1627 (PTAB,
`Feb. 1, 2016) ......................................................................................................... 11
`Ex parte Takahashi, 2004-2192, 2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 9767 (BPAI, Sep. 30,
`2015) ...............................................................................................................11, 12
`Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 Fed. Appx. 864 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-
`precedential).......................................................................................................... 10
`Hitachi Koki Co. v. Doll, 620 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D. D.C., 2009) ................................. 33
`In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................ 10, 11, 12
`International Business Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-
`01385, Paper 64 (PTAB, Jan. 15, 2016) .............................................................. 10
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................. 17
`Soverain Software v. Newegg, Inc., 705 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................... 26
`Western Union Co. v. Moneygram Payment Sys. Inc., 626 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`2010) ..................................................................................................................... 26
`Yahoo! Inc. v. CreateAds LLC, IPR2014-00200, Paper 42 ..................................... 10
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 18
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................... 17
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 8
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 17
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 17
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. §103 ........................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. §112 ........................................................................................................... 7
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .............................................................................................. 3, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ..................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`Other Authorities
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2129 ...................................................... 33
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1201 U.S. Patent 8,648,717, “the ‘717 Patent”, issued Feb. 11, 2014, from
`U.S. App. 13/934,763 filed Jul. 3, 2013
`
`1202
`
`1203
`
`1204
`
`1205
`
`Expert Declaration of Kimmo Savolainen in support of Petition for IPR
`of the ‘717 Patent (Curriculum Vitae attached)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Infringement Contention Claim Chart
`against Petitioner in the ‘717 Patent litigation. (Exhibit improperly
`marked confidential, see appended Discovery Dispute Hearing
`transcript at 72:9-73:9, designating infringement contentions as non-
`confidential information.)
`
`File History for U.S. App. 13/328,095 issued as U.S. Patent 8,633,802
`(“the ‘802 Patent”) (excerpts)
`
`File History for U.S. App. 13/934,763 issued as the ‘717 Patent
`(excerpts)
`
`1206 U.S. Patent 8,094,010 (“the ‘010 Patent”), issued Jan. 10, 2012, from
`U.S. App. 12/538,603 filed Aug. 10, 2009
`
`1207 Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review, issued April 22, 2016, in
`IPR2016-00055 (Paper 9)
`
`1208
`
`International Publication No. WO 00/17021 to Van Bergen published
`Mar. 30, 2000 (“Van Bergen”)
`
`v
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1209 Bettstetter C., “General packet Radio Service GPRS: Architecture,
`Protocols, and Air Interface”, IEEE Communications Survey, 1999
`
`1210 Ames et al., “The Evolution of Third-Generation Cellular Standards,”
`Intel Technology Journal, Q2, 2000
`
`1211 District Court Claim Construction Order in the litigation of the ‘197 and
`‘010 Patents, Nov. 19, 2013, and Clarification, Jan. 24, 2014
`
`1212
`
`Joint Claim Construction Statement in ‘717 Patent Litigation
`
`1213 Redl et al. “GSM and Personal Communications Handbook,” 1998
`
`1214 Bhalla, “Generations of Mobile Wireless Technology: A Survey”
`International Journal of Computer Applications, August 2010
`
`1215
`
`1216
`
`1217
`
`1218
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Eveline Wesby-Van Swaay dated
`Jan. 21, 2014
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Eveline Wesby-Van Swaay dated Aug.
`14, 2012
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Alon Konchitsky, “Konchitsky Tr.”
`May 27, 2015
`
`Summary Judgement Memorandum Opinion (“Opinion”) issued in the
`litigation of the ‘010 Patent on January 6, 2016
`
`vi
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1219 District Court Memorandum Opinion on Claim Construction in the
`litigation of the ‘197 and ‘010 Patents, Nov. 12, 2013
`
`1220
`
`Ex parte Takahashi, No. 2004-2192, 2004 WL 2733658 (BPAI 2004)
`
`1221 Nokia 20 GSM Connectivity Terminal, 2001*
`
`1222 M2M Magazine, “Pioneers of Change,” 2009*
`
`1223
`
`1224
`
`Telital Automotive Manual, “SR11 Nettuno GSM Based GPS Location
`System,” Sept. 1999*
`
`Salkintzis A.K., “A Survey of Mobile Data Networks”, University of
`British Columbia, 1999*
`
`1225
`
`1G, 2G, 3G, 4G - The Evolution of Wireless Generations,” 2008*
`
`1226 Microsoft Computer Dictionary Fourth Edition, 1999 (excerpt)
`
`1227
`
`Joint Claim Construction Brief in ‘010 Patent Litigation
`
`1228
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Ray Nettleton, “Nettleton Tr.” May
`6, 2015
`
`1229 U.S. Patent 8,633,802, issued Jan. 21, 2014, from U.S. app. 13/328,095
`filed Dec.16, 2011*
`
`1230
`
`Telital, “Company Profile,” March 2000*
`
`vii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1231 Brief for Intervenor – Director of the USPTO in Yissum Research Dev.
`Corp. v. Sony Corp., Appeal No. 2015-1342, Request for Rehearing
`(United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), June 25, 2015
`**
`
`1232
`
`1233
`
`1234
`
`Ex parte Vesto, No. 2013-009212, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 2105 (PTAB,
`Nov. 7, 2014)
`
`Ex parte Scortecci, No. 2014-001781, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 1052
`(PTAB, Mar. 17, 2016)
`
`Ex parte Cruz-Hernandez, No. 2014-000203, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS
`1627 (PTAB, Feb. 1, 2016)
`
`* Exhibit discussed in Expert Declaration of Kimmo Savolainen (Ex. 1202)
`
`** Exhibit discussed in accompanying Motion for Joinder
`
`viii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC (“Petitioner”)
`
`petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 25-28 and 30 of U.S. Patent
`
`8,648,717 (“the ‘717 Patent,” Ex. 1201), assigned to M2M Solutions LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”).
`
`II.
`
`FORMALITIES
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real parties-in-interest are Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit
`
`Communications PLC.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ‘717 Patent (Ex. 1201) is a continuation of U.S. App. 13/801,773 filed
`
`Mar. 13, 2013 (now U.S. Patent 8,542,111, “the ‘111 Patent,” issued Sept. 24,
`
`2013), which is a continuation of U.S. App. 13/328,095 filed Dec. 16, 2011 (now
`
`U.S. Patent 8,633,802, “the ‘802 Patent,” issued Jan. 21, 2014), which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. App. 12/538,603 filed Aug. 10, 2009 (now U.S. Patent
`
`8,094,010, “the ‘010 Patent,” issued Jan. 10, 2012), which is a continuation of U.S.
`
`App. 11/329,212 filed Jan. 10, 2006 (now U.S. Patent 7,583,197, “the ‘197
`
`Patent,” issued Sept. 1, 2009), which is a continuation of U.S. App. 10/296,571,
`
`“the
`
`‘571 App.,”
`
`(now abandoned), which was a national phase of
`
`PCT/EP01/05738 published Nov. 29, 2001 as WO 01/91428, which claims priority
`
`to Finnish App. FI 20001239.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Ancestor ‘010 and ‘197 Patent Litigations: On January 18, 2012, Patent
`
`Owner served complaints alleging infringement of the ‘010 and ‘197 Patents in
`
`M2M Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless America Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2012-cv-
`
`00030-RGA (D. Del); M2M Solutions LLC v. Cinterion Wireless Modules GmbH
`
`et al., Case No. 1:2012-cv-00031-RGA (D. Del); M2M Solutions LLC v. Enfora,
`
`Inc., et al., Case No. 1:2012-cv-00032-RGA (D. Del); M2M Solutions Inc. v.
`
`Motorola Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:2012-cv-00033-RGA (D. Del); and
`
`M2M Solutions LLC v. SIMCom Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. et al., Case No.
`
`1:2012-cv-00034-RGA (D. Del). These cases are all closed.
`
`‘717 Patent Litigations: On October 24, 2014, Patent Owner served
`
`complaints alleging infringement of the ‘717 Patent in M2M Solutions LLC v.
`
`Enfora, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2014-cv-1101-RGA (D. Del.); M2M Solutions LLC
`
`v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc. et al., Case No 1:2014-cv-1102-RGA (D. Del.);
`
`and M2M Solutions LLC v. Telit Communications PLC et al., Case No. 1:2014-cv-
`
`1103-RGA (D. Del.). These cases are stayed pending IPRs (discussed below):
`
`‘717 Patent IPRs: The following IPRs of the ‘717 Patent have been
`
`instituted: (1) IPR2015-01823 (filed Aug. 26, 2015 by Sierra Wireless America,
`
`Inc., Sierra Wireless, Inc. and RPX Corp) and (2) IPR Petition IPR2016-00055
`
`(filed Oct. 21, 2015 by Petitioner); the following IPRs of the ‘717 Patent have been
`
`denied institution: (3) IPR2015-01670, (4) IPR2015-01672 (both filed Aug. 4,
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`2015 by Enfora, Inc., Novatel Wireless Solutions, Inc., and Novatel Wireless, Inc.),
`
`and (5) IPR2016-00054 (filed Oct. 21, 2015 by Petitioner); and the following IPR
`
`petitions are pending: (6) IPR2016-00853 and (7) IPR2016-01073 (filed Apr. 8 and
`
`May 19, 2016 by Sierra Wireless America, Inc., Sierra Wireless, Inc. and RPX
`
`Corp). In (7) IPR2016-01073, Sierra Wireless America, Inc. et al. filed a
`
`substantial copy of Petitioner’s instituted IPR2016-00055 Petition with a motion to
`
`join to IPR2016-00055.
`
`Petitioner is filing requests for rehearing in IPR2016-00054 to institute
`
`claims 1-30 of the ‘717 Patent based on Wandel (U.S. Patent No. 6,034,623) and in
`
`IPR2016-00055 to institute claims 25, 27, 28 and 30 of the ‘717 Patent based on
`
`Van Bergen (International Publication No. WO 00/17021). The present Petition is
`
`being filed together with a Motion for Joinder with IPR2016-00055.
`
`C. Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`and Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b))
`Lead Counsel: Caleb Pollack (Reg. No. 37,912); tel. 646-878-0807; fax
`
`646-878-0801; Addr.: Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP, 1500 Broadway, 12th
`
`Fl., New York, NY, 10036.
`
`Backup Counsel: Guy Yonay (Reg. No. 52,388); tel. 646-878-0808; fax
`
`646-878-0801; Addr.: Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP, 1500 Broadway, 12th
`
`Fl., New York, NY, 10036; David Loewenstein (Reg. No. 35,591); tel. 646-878-
`
`0806; fax 646-878-0801; Addr.: Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP, 1500
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Broadway, 12th Fl., New York, NY, 10036; Milo Eadan (Reg. No. 64,764); tel.
`
`646-878-0817; fax 646-878-0801; Addr.: Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP,
`
`1500 Broadway, 12th Fl., New York, NY, 10036.
`
`A Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`D.
`
`Proof of Service (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)),
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)), and
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`This Petition is being served simultaneously with its filing to the
`
`correspondence address for the counsel of record for the ’717 Patent as per the
`
`attached Certificate of Service. Please address all correspondence to Petitioner to
`
`lead counsel at the postal address, telephone and facsimile numbers shown above
`
`and via e-mail to: cpollack@pearlcohen.com; dloewenstein@pearlcohen.com;
`
`gyonay@pearlcohen.com; and meadan@pearlcohen.com; however service of
`
`papers may
`
`be made
`
`via
`
`e-mail
`
`to:
`
`cpollack@pearlcohen.com;
`
`dloewenstein@pearlcohen.com;
`
`gyonay@pearlcohen.com;
`
`and
`
`meadan@pearlcohen.com. The Director is authorized to charge the fee of $23,000
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and any additional fee required for this Petition to
`
`Deposit Account 50-3355.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.104)
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘717 Patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the identified
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. This petition is accompanied by a
`
`motion for joinder with IPR2016-00055 which is being timely filed within one
`
`month of the April 22, 2016 institution date of IPR2016-00055. Thus, the one-year
`
`bar set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) does not apply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`and Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board institute IPR of claims 25-28 and 30 of the
`
`‘717 Patent and find the claims unpatentable based on Ground 1 in view of Van
`
`Bergen (International Publication No. WO 00/17021, Ex. 1208) and Bettstetter
`
`(“General packet Radio Service GPRS: Architecture, Protocols, and Air Interface,”
`
`Ex. 1209):
`
`Ground
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Statute (Pre-AIA)
`
`1
`
`25-28 and 30
`
`Van Bergen and Bettstetter
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`C. Threshold for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c))
`This Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail in challenging the patentability of at least one of claims 25-28 and 30
`
`challenged in the Petition, as explained below. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`IV. THE ‘717 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ‘717 Patent and Claims
`The ‘717 Patent claims a “programmable communicator device,” which is at
`
`base a wireless modem that collects data from a “monitored technical device” (e.g.
`
`a sensor, door switch, security system, vending machine, or other input/output
`
`device) and relays the data to a “monitoring device” (e.g., a computer or mobile
`
`telephone that can remotely monitor the data). Ex. 1201, 2:1-8, 6:4-12, 7:65-8:7,
`
`9:2-6. Ex. 1202 ¶¶32-35. (Emphasis added by Petitioner here and throughout this
`
`Petition unless otherwise indicated.) The ‘717 Patent states that the programmable
`
`communicator is wirelessly programmable by a “programming transmitter,” which
`
`may be the monitoring device. Ex. 1201, 4:13-17.
`
`The programmable communicator is connected locally to the monitored
`
`technical device (e.g., a sensor in a vending machine) via a “programmable
`
`interface.” Id. at 6:4-7, 9:2-6, 10:1-4. The ‘717 Patent specification does not
`
`provide detail about the nature of the “programmable interface,” but Patent Owner
`
`has taken the position in the litigation of the ‘717 Patent that a wired serial
`
`interface or general-purpose input/output (I/O) interface satisfies this claim
`
`element. Ex. 1203 at 2 ¶¶3-4. The programmable communicator is also in
`
`communication with a monitoring device and programming transmitter (e.g., a
`
`computer) over well-known wireless networks (e.g., a short message service
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`(SMS) or packet-switched such as GPRS network). Ex. 1201, 4:18-23, 9:26-32.
`
`Ex. 1202 ¶¶47-49.
`
`The programming transmitter can remotely edit a list of outgoing numbers of
`
`“linked” monitoring devices that receive monitored data. Ex. 1201, 8:53-56, 9:22-
`
`25, 9:35-38. To provide security, these transmissions include a “coded number” to
`
`authenticate the incoming programming transmissions and the outgoing number
`
`(telephone number or IP address) that is added to memory. Id. at 10:12-37; Ex.
`
`1202 ¶36.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The application that issued as the ‘717 Patent was filed shortly after Patent
`
`Owner’s claims in a parent application were rejected for including “new matter.”
`
`Ex. 1204 at 3-4. Patent Owner cancelled those claims and refiled the same new
`
`matter in the application that issued as the ‘717 Patent, which is therefore not
`
`entitled to its May 2000 priority date. The application was rejected only under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶2 (pre-AIA) for lack of clarity. Ex. 1205 at 4. In the course of two
`
`months, Patent Owner conducted five Examiner interviews and filed three
`
`amendments. Id. at 8-45. The case was allowed on Dec. 16, 2013. Id. at 46-55.
`
`C. Effective Filing Date of the ’717 Patent
`The earliest filing date of the ‘717 Patent of May 23, 2000 is used for the
`
`purposes of this Petition. The ‘717 Patent claims however introduce new matter,
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Ex. 1202 ¶¶70-76, and are only entitled to their July 3, 2013 filing date, rendering
`
`the parent ‘010 Patent, Ex. 1206, prior art to the ‘717 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a)(1) (post-AIA). It would have been obvious to modify the ‘010 Patent to
`
`cover the new matter, Ex. 1202 ¶¶77-81, rendering the claims of the ‘717 Patent
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 (post-AIA).
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The Board concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`
`been at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering and three years of
`
`experience working the development of wireless subscriber terminal systems or
`
`components, or an equivalent combination of education and experience in related
`
`fields.” Ex. 1207 at 23, footnote.
`
`Petitioner’s expert stated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering, with
`
`a good understanding of principles of wireless telecommunications including the
`
`GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) standards, and would have had
`
`at least four years of experience designing and/or programming wireless
`
`communications systems utilizing GSM or other cellular networks. Ex. 1202 ¶42.
`
`The discussion of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in this
`
`Petition applies to both standards.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`During an IPR, a claim is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).1
`
`A. Capability
`A Summary Judgement Memorandum Opinion (“Opinion,” Ex. 1218)
`
`issued in the litigation of the ’010 Patent on January 6, 2016. The Opinion issued
`
`only after the year statutory bar date had passed for Petitioner to file an IPR, so
`
`Petitioner could not have submitted this Opinion in its previous Petitions. This
`
`Opinion establishes a broad capability claim interpretation:
`
`the claims at issue here only require capability of
`performing the recited function. Ex. 1218 at 14 lines 1-2,
`see also Id. at 7-13.
`
`This broad claim construction adopted by the Court was advocated by Patent
`
`Owner. See Id. at 10 lines 6-8, citing Petitioner.2
`
`1 The District Court construed claim terms in the ‘010 Patent litigation, Exs. 1211
`
`and 1219, and parties have proposed constructions in the ‘717 Patent litigation, Ex.
`
`1212.
`
`2 The Opinion was issued in the litigation of the parent ‘010 Patent. While
`
`Petitioner believes this ruling only applies to the ‘010 Patent’s “for” language,
`
`Patent Owner has served broad infringement contentions in the ‘717 patent case (as
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Although claim constructions standards differ between the Board and the
`
`courts, the Board is obligated to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”), which is broader than, and should include, a Court’s narrower
`
`interpretation. See International Business Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC, IPR2014-01385, Paper 64, at *9-11 (Jan. 15, 2016): “The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of a claim term may be the same as or broader than the
`
`construction of a term under the [Court’s] Phillips standard. But it cannot be
`
`narrower.” Id. (quoting Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 Fed. Appx.
`
`864, 868-869 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential)); see also Yahoo! Inc. v.
`
`CreateAds LLC, IPR2014-00200, Paper 42 at *8-9.
`
`A claim to an apparatus that has the capability of performing a function is
`
`invalid based on prior art that is capable of performing the claimed function. See
`
`In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (upholding the Board’s
`
`decision that the claims were invalid because “the structure disclosed by [the prior
`
`art] is inherently capable of [performing the function] in the manner set forth in the
`
`claims,” emphasis added); see also Ex parte Vesto, No. 2013-009212, 2016 Pat.
`
`
`it did in the ‘010 Patent case) proposing the same capability interpretation for both
`
`the “for” and “configured to” language in the ‘717 Patent. See Ex. 1203, p. 2 ¶2, p.
`
`3 ¶¶1, 3, p. 4 ¶3, p. 6 ¶3, etc.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`App. LEXIS 2105, at *12-13 (PTAB, Nov. 7, 2014), Exhibit 1038 (“In order to
`
`satisfy the functional limitations in an apparatus claim, however, the prior art
`
`apparatus as disclosed must be capable of performing the claimed function,” citing
`
`Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478. Ex. 1232. Ex parte Scortecci held “[i]f a prior art
`
`structure is capable of performing the claimed intended use, then it meets the
`
`claim. Ex parte Scortecci, No. 2014-001781, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 1052, at *5
`
`(PTAB, Mar. 17, 2016), citing Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477. Ex. 1233. Ex parte
`
`Cruz-Hernandez found “configured to” claim language, as in the ‘717 Patent,
`
`invalidated by prior art that was capable of performing the claimed function:
`
`Furthermore, we note that claim 1 recites, inter alia, “the first haptic
`output configured to vary a coefficient of friction of the touch
`surface” (see claim 1) (emphasis added). Thus, claim 1 does not
`positively recite varying a coefficient of friction. Rather, the claim
`calls for only a haptic output configured to (capable of) vary a
`coefficient of friction. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477
`(Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation found where prior art was found to be
`capable of performing the claimed function).
`
`Ex parte Cruz-Hernandez, No. 2014-000203, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 1627 at *17-
`
`19 (PTAB, Feb. 1, 2016). Ex. 1234. See also Ex parte Takahashi, 2004-2192, 2015
`
`Pat. App. LEXIS 9767, at *4 (BPAI, Sep. 30, 2015) (“the prior art structure meets
`
`the claims because the prior art is capable of performing the intended use”). Ex.
`
`1220.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`Schreiber clarified that in order for Patent Owner to overcome prior art
`
`invalidating capability claims, it is Patent Owner’s burden to “prove that the
`
`structure disclosed by [the prior art] is incapable of performing the claimed
`
`functions.” Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1476, emphasis added. See also Takahashi, 2015
`
`Pat. App. LEXIS 8767, at *4 (emphasis added) (“Appellants do not provide
`
`arguments showing that it is not capable of such.”). Ex. 1220. Patent Owner has
`
`the same burden here, i.e., to show that the combination of Van Bergen and
`
`Bettstetter would have been incapable of performing the claimed function.
`
`B.
`
` “the transmissions including the at least one
`telephone number or IP address and the coded
`number”:
`
`Under its broadest reasonable construction, this means that multiple
`
`“transmissions” include the at least one telephone number or IP address and the
`
`coded number. Ex. 1202 ¶61. In the related IPR2016-00055 IPR, the Board stated
`
`that there is no “‘single transmission’ requirement” and “the claims allow the
`
`telephone number or IP address to be in the same transmission or in a different
`
`transmission from the coded number.” Ex. 1207 at 9.
`
`C.
`
`“numbers to which the programmable communicator
`device is configured to and permitted to send outgoing
`wireless transmissions”:
`
`Under
`
`its broadest reasonable construction, numbers
`
`to which
`
`the
`
`programmable communicator device is “configured to and permitted to send
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`outgoing wireless transmissions” are numbers to which the programmable
`
`communicator device is “allowed to send outgoing wireless transmissions.” Ex.
`
`1202 ¶¶62-68. In the related IPR2016-00055 IPR, the Board stated that the phrase
`
`“configured to and permitted to” is not restrictive in nature and does not require a
`
`restrictive outbound calling list. Ex. 1207 at 12.
`
`“programmable”:
`
`D.
`Under its broadest reasonable construction, “programmable” means “capable
`
`of accepting instructions for performing a task or an operation.” Ex. 1226 p. 360;
`
`Ex. 1202 ¶55, definition proposed by Patent Owner in Ex. 1227, 36:2-8 and quoted
`
`by the District Court in Ex. 1219 p. 11:15-17. While “programmable” is not
`
`defined in the ‘717 Patent, Patent Owner’s expert defined a programming
`
`command broadly as “any command that makes the device do something.” Ex.
`
`1228, 221:6-10; see also Id. at 219:7-220:25, 224:6-13.
`
`“coded number”:
`
`E.
`Patent Owner stated: “The specification makes clear that the term ‘coded
`
`number’ is intended to broadly cover any type of coded number used for
`
`[authentication],” Ex. 1227, 76:8-9, Patent Owner’s emphasis, citing: “It is further
`
`to be understood that the invention may make use of all coding schemes for storing
`
`numbers to the programmable apparatus and the use of the PUK code was by way
`
`of exampl