`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., MICROSOFT CORPORATION, MICROSOFT MOBILE OY,
`AND MICROSOFT MOBILE INC. (F/K/A/ NOKIA INC.),
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01229
`Patent 7,881,236
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR
`REHEARING
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01229
`Attorney Docket: 00035-0009IP2
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing (Paper 28, hereinafter the “Request”)
`
`should be denied because neither of the two bases for rehearing identified by the
`
`Request is sustainable
`
`First, contrary to Patent Owner’s allegations, the Board did not overlook
`
`Patent Owner’s hypothetical modification of Kitazoe’s disclosure, or that
`
`hypothetical’s introduction of an additional UL grant. Rather, the Decision
`
`directly addressed the hypothetical, noting expressly that the hypothetical’s
`
`addition of a UL grant contradicted disclosure from Kitazoe. See Decision, pp. 33-
`
`35.
`
`Second, while Patent Owner attempts to demonstrate that the Board
`
`misapprehended its flawed argument that Kitazoe “does not create the conditions
`
`that test the only when behavior” of the ’236 patent claims, the record also belies
`
`this argument. The Decision shows how the Board sagely embraced Kitazoe’s
`
`express definition of “message 3” (which the Request and, notably, the Patent
`
`Owner Response fails to even mention) as teaching the “only when behavior.” See
`
`Decision, pp. 33-35. In doing so, the Board demonstrated its understanding of the
`
`argument; it just simply, and correctly, found the argument uncompelling.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01229
`Attorney Docket: 00035-0009IP2
`The Request fails to show that the Decision overlooked or misapprehended
`
`any argument. Accordingly, the Board should deny Patent Owner’s Request for
`
`Rehearing in full.
`
`II.
`
`In arguing that the Board overlooked and misapprehended arguments
`about Kitazoe, Patent Owner conveniently ignores the Decision’s
`acknowledgement of Kitazoe’s express definition of “message 3”
`Without equivocation, the Decision expressly credits Kitazoe as defining, for
`
`the purposes of its disclosure, the term message 3 as a message that is “sent only
`
`when the random access response is received.” Decision, p. 33(emphasis added)
`
`(citing Kitazoe, 8:32-35 (“the term ‘message 3’ refers to the scheduled
`
`transmission sent by the access terminal to [the] base station [] as granted by the
`
`random access response message from [the] base station.”) (emphasis added)
`
`(cited at Petition, p. 40; Wells, ¶ 128). The Request for Rehearing simply ignores
`
`the Decision’s reliance on Kitazoe’s definition of “message 3” or the Decision’s
`
`discussion of the clear inconsistency between Kitazoe’s disclosure and Patent
`
`Owner’s hypothetical. As described below, these aspects of the decision make
`
`clear that the Board addressed both arguments identified in the Request and rightly
`
`found each wanting; it did not misapprehend or overlook anything about Kitazoe,
`
`as Patent Owner contends.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01229
`Attorney Docket: 00035-0009IP2
`III. The Board did not overlook Patent Owner’s argument that its
`hypothetical example of an additional PDCCH UL Grant is grounded in
`the ’236 patent’s specification
`Patent Owner argues that the “the Board overlooked the Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that the additional PDCCH UL Grant was ‘the very grant that was
`
`contemplated by the inventors of the ’236 [patent].’” Request, p. 10. The Board
`
`did not overlook this argument. To the contrary, the Decision plainly demonstrates
`
`that the Board clearly considered the argument in correctly holding Patent Owner’s
`
`hypothetical to be inconsistent with Kitazoe’s disclosure, and therefore contrived.
`
`See Decision, p. 35.
`
`The Decision addresses Patent Owner’s hypothetical modification of
`
`Kitazoe. In particular, the Decision acknowledges two specific contentions by
`
`Patent Owner: (1) that “Kitazoe takes a narrow view of what can occur during a
`
`random access procedure” and (2) that Kitazoe “‘does not consider the more
`
`complex case’ in which a ‘UL Grant is not in a random access response message
`
`but is instead contained in a PDCCH communication.’” Id. (emphasis added)
`
`(quoting POR, pp. 41-42). As to the second contention, the Decision remarks,
`
`“[i]n such a ‘more complex case,’ Patent Owner argues, ‘the Msg3 buffer data is
`
`sent responsive to a [different message], an UL Grant not in a random access
`
`response.’” Decision, p. 35 (emphasis added). Yet, Patent Owner contends that
`
`the Board overlooked inserting a “UL Grant… in a PDCCH communication” to
`
`3
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01229
`Attorney Docket: 00035-0009IP2
`yield an “additional PDCCH UL Grant.” See Request, p. 10. This position is
`
`unsupportable.
`
`The Board correctly found that Patent Owner’s hypothetical directly
`
`contradicts Kitazoe’s express definition of a “message 3” (discussed above).
`
`Decision, pp. 32, 34. Indeed, as the Board recognized in the Decision, sending
`
`Kitazoe’s message 3 using “an UL Grant not in a random access response,” as
`
`proposed in Patent Owner’s hypothetical, is contrary to the Kitazoe’s definition of
`
`“message 3,” as Kitazoe is clear that it sends its message 3 data only “as granted
`
`by the random access response message.” Decision, p. 33 (citing Petition, p. 40;
`
`Kitazoe, 8:32-35; Wells, ¶ 128). Thus, it is not sent using UL grants from other
`
`received messages. Id.
`
`The Decision also found that Patent Owner “hypothesize[d] a system that is
`
`more complex than Kitazoe.” Decision, p. 35. To this point, the Decision
`
`disapproved of Patent Owner’s conjuring of a hypothetical that mended together
`
`features of Kitazoe with those of a purported background system—rather than the
`
`claims—of the ’236 patent. Decision, p. 35 (citing to Patent Owner Response at
`
`pp. 40-41, which compare Fig. 7 of Kitazoe with the background system of Fig.8
`
`of the ‘236 Patent). The Decision noted that this contrived hypothetical was both
`
`contrary to Kitazoe’s express disclosure and ineffective at demonstrating Kitazoe’s
`
`lack of satisfaction of the claims of the ’236 patent. Decision, p. 35. To this later
`
`4
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01229
`Attorney Docket: 00035-0009IP2
`point, the Decision pointed out that a comparison between Patent Owner’s
`
`contrived hypothetical and the claims “does not negate the fact that the system
`
`described in Kitazoe does,” in fact, meet the claims. Id. Indeed, the Decision
`
`properly credited Dr. Wells’ testimony, the only credible expert testimony on the
`
`record, as supporting the inapplicability of Patent Owner’s hypothetical to the
`
`simpler system of Kitazoe. See Decision, p. 35.
`
`Thus, rather than overlooking the “additional PDCCH UL Grant” in Patent
`
`Owner’s hypothetical, the Decision directly addresses this aspect of the
`
`hypothetical and thoroughly denounces it as contradicting Kitazoe’s express
`
`disclosure. The Board’s conclusion is well supported by the testimonial evidence
`
`of record. The Decision does not contain the supposed oversights that Patent
`
`Owner identifies, and the Board should therefore deny the Request for Rehearing
`
`with respect to this point.
`
`IV. The Board did not misapprehend Patent Owner’s argument alleging
`that Kitazoe fails to show that it does not transmit the Msg3 buffer data
`when it received a PDCCH grant and has Msg3 buffer data to send
`Again ignoring the express definition of “message 3” from Kitazoe and the
`
`Decision’s reliance on it, Patent Owner argues that the Board misapprehended its
`
`argument “that Kitazoe does not address any transmission following the reception
`
`of a PDCCH UL Grant when there is data in the Msg 3 buffer.” Request, p. 12.
`
`Patent Owner is wrong. The Decision addressed this point directly, finding that
`
`5
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01229
`Attorney Docket: 00035-0009IP2
`“Kitazoe teaches that message 3 is sent only when the random access response is
`
`received,” and that Kitazoe’s message 3 is, therefore, not sent “following the
`
`reception of a PDCCH UL Grant.” Decision, p. 33; Request, p. 12. Indeed, this
`
`conclusion is supported by the only credible testimony on the record, that of Dr.
`
`Wells, who noted that Kitazoe’s processes are incongruent with the Patent Owner’s
`
`contrived hypothetical, which “does not relate[] to what is described in Kitazoe.”
`
`Decision, p. 35, citing to Ex. 2010, 60:21-22, 61:6-8.
`
`As described above, the Board correctly found that Patent Owner’s
`
`hypothetical, which calls for message 3 to be sent “following the reception of a
`
`PDCCH UL Grant,” directly contradicts Kitazoe’s express definition of a “message
`
`3.” See Decision, pp. 32, 34. Kitazoe states that, in its disclosure:
`
`the scheduled
`to
`term ‘message 3’ refers
`[T]he
`transmission sent by the access terminal to [the] base
`station [] as granted by the random access response
`message from [the] base station.
`
`Kitazoe, 8:32-35 (cited at Petition, p. 40 (emphasis in original)). The Decision
`
`credits this disclosure, which Dr. Wells’s supporting testimony corroborated, as
`
`teaching that “message 3 is sent only when the random access response is
`
`received.” Decision, p. 33 (emphasis added) (citing Kitazoe, 8:32-35; Wells, ¶
`
`128). Because Kitazoe’s “message 3 is sent only when the random access
`
`6
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01229
`Attorney Docket: 00035-0009IP2
`response is received,” it follows that Kitazoe teaches its message 3 is not sent
`
`“following the reception of a PDCCH UL Grant.” Decision, p. 33; Request, p. 12.
`
`The Board’s statement that Patent Owner’s hypothetical “does not ‘relate[]
`
`to what is described in Kitazoe’” does not misapprehend Patent Owner’s
`
`hypothetical. The hypothetical involves sending Kitazoe’s message 3 using “an
`
`UL Grant not in a random access response.” POR, p. 44. As the Board found,
`
`this directly contradicts Kitazoe's disclosure (which the Board credited) that its
`
`message 3 is transmitted “as granted by the random access response message,” and
`
`thus “only when the random access response is received.” Decision, p. 33
`
`(emphasis added) (quoting Kitazoe, 8:32-35). The Board clearly demonstrated that
`
`it understood Patent Owner’s argument, and correctly dismissed it as inconsistent
`
`with Kitazoe’s express disclosure, an inconsistency that Dr. Wells’ testimony
`
`directly supports. See Decision, pp. 33-35.
`
`Further, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, the following Board
`
`statement does not demonstrate misapprehension of Patent Owner’s hypothetical
`
`by the Board: “[t]he fact that Patent Owner can hypothesize a system that is more
`
`complex than Kitazoe that does not teach or suggest the claim limitation does not
`
`negate the fact that the system described in Kitazoe does.” Decision, p. 35. Patent
`
`Owner asserts that “to test the only when behavior, a prior art system must
`
`demonstrate both transmitting the Msg3 buffer data when it has the data and it
`
`7
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01229
`Attorney Docket: 00035-0009IP2
`receives a random access response UL Grant and also not transmitting the Msg3
`
`buffer data when it received a PDCCH UL Grant.” Request, pp. 13-14. Even if
`
`this is accepted as true (which it is not), the Board did in fact find that Kitazoe
`
`passes both these tests.
`
`As to the first of Patent Owner’s tests (transmitting message 3 when a
`
`random access response is received), the Board credited disclosure from Kitazoe
`
`(8:32-35) and the testimony of Dr. Wells (¶¶ 98-99) in finding that Kitazoe teaches
`
`the “only when” behavior. See Decision, p. 33 (citing Petition, p. 40; Wells, ¶¶
`
`128-129; Kitazoe, 8:32-35). Specifically, the Board found that “Kitazoe’s teaching
`
`that ‘the term ‘message 3’ refers to the scheduled transmission sent by the access
`
`terminal to [the] base station [] as granted by the random access response message
`
`from [the] base station’” indicates that Kitazoe’s “message 3 is only sent using the
`
`uplink grant included in the random access response.” Decision, p. 33 (citing
`
`Petition, p. 40; Wells, ¶¶ 128-129; Kitazoe, 8:32-35). Thus, Kitazoe satisfies
`
`Patent Owner’s first test.
`
`As to the second of Patent Owner’s tests (not transmitting the message 3
`
`when receiving a PDCCH UL Grant), the Board found that Kitazoe would only
`
`send its message 3 using the uplink grant included in a random access response
`
`based on its express definition of message 3. Decision, p. 33 (Kitazoe, 8:32-35;
`
`citing Petition, p. 40; Wells, ¶¶ 128-129). Because Kitazoe will only send its
`
`8
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01229
`Attorney Docket: 00035-0009IP2
`message 3 using an uplink grant included in a random access response, it will not
`
`send its message 3 using other uplink grants that are not included in a random
`
`access response. See Kitazoe, 8:32-35; Decision, p. 33; Wells, ¶¶ 128-129; citing
`
`Petition, p. 40. The PDCCH uplink grant in Patent Owner’s hypothetical “is not in
`
`a random access response message[.]” POR, pp. 41-42 (emphasis added).
`
`Therefore, based on its express definition of message 3, Kitazoe will not send its
`
`message 3 using the PDCCH uplink grant in Patent Owner’s hypothetical. See
`
`Kitazoe, 8:32-35; Decision, p. 33; Wells, ¶¶ 128-129; citing Petition, p. 40. Thus,
`
`Kitazoe satisfies Patent Owner’s second test.
`
`Accordingly, the Board did not misapprehend Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`that both of these tests must be satisfied under the adopted claim construction. The
`
`exact opposite is true: the Board acknowledged these supposed “tests” and found
`
`that Kitazoe nonetheless satisfies them.
`
`
`V. Conclusion
`Accordingly, for at least the reasons discussed above, the Board should deny
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing in its entirety.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated:1/19/2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Trial No. IPR2017-01229)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01229
`Attorney Docket: 00035-0009IP2
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Dan Smith/
`
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Lead Counsel
`Roberto J. Devoto, Reg. No. 55,108
`Back-up Counsel
`Dan Smith, Reg. No. 71,278
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`10
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01229
`Attorney Docket: 00035-0009IP2
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(1), the undersigned certifies that on January
`
`19, 2018, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`
`Owner’s Request for Rehearing was provided via email to the Patent Owner by
`
`serving the email correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cyrus A. Morton, Ryan M. Schultz
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle Ave
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`CMorton@robinskaplan.com
`RSchultz@robinskaplan.com
` Evolved_RK_Team@robinskaplan.com
`
`Email:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`11
`
`