IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`United States Patent No: 6,151,493
`Inventors: Toyoki Sasakura,
` Kenichi Miyamoto
`Formerly Application No.: 09/000,764
`Issue Date: November 21, 2000
`Filing Date: December 30, 1997
`Former Group Art Unit: 2749
`Former Examiner: Meless Zewdu
`Patent Owner: Ryujin Fujinomaki
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`108827-5007-651
`
`Customer No.: 28120
`Petitioners: Google Inc.,
`LG Electronics, Inc.,
`LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.,
`LG Electronics Mobilecomm
`U.S.A., Inc.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`For: DEVICE FOR PROHIBITING UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ELECTRONIC
`DEVICES
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,151,493
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V. 
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND IN THE ART ............................. 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8 .................................................... 4 
`III. 
`PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING .............................................................. 5 
`IV.  SUMMARY OF ’493 AND ITS FIELD ......................................................... 6 
`A.  Overview of ’493 ................................................................................... 6 
`B. 
`Overview of ’493 Prosecution History ................................................. 8 
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD PETITIONERs WILL
`PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM ....................... 10 
`C. 
`Claim Construction (§42.104(b)(3)) ................................................... 10 
`D. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill and State of the Art ....................................... 12 
`Grounds 1-8 (See EX1003¶¶50-110,173): .......................................... 13 
`E. 
`1. 
`U.S. Patent No. 5,327,482 (“Yamamoto”) ............................... 13 
`2. 
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,338 (“Mardirossian”) ............................ 15 
`3. 
`U.S. Patent No. 5,055,701 (“Takeuchi”) .................................. 17 
`4. 
`U.S. Patent No. 5,396,218 (“Olah”) ......................................... 18 
`5. 
`U.S. Patent No. 5,021,779 (“Bisak”) ........................................ 18 
`6.  Motivation to Combine Yamamoto and Mardirossian ............. 19 
`7.  Motivation to Combine Yamamoto and Takeuchi ................... 23 
`8.  Motivation to Combine Yamamoto and Olah........................... 23 
`9.  Motivation to Combine Yamamoto and Bisak ......................... 24 
`10.  Claim Charts for Grounds 1-8................................................... 25 
`Grounds 9-14 (See EX1003¶¶111-171,174): ...................................... 52 
`1. 
`JP Patent Pub. No. H7-87559 (“Sakakura”) ............................. 52 
`2.  Motivation to Combine Mardirossian and Sakakura ................ 53 
`3.  Motivation to Combine Mardirossian and Sakakura with
`Takeuchi .................................................................................... 57 
`4.  Motivation to Combine Mardirossian and Sakakura with
`Olah ........................................................................................... 58 
`Claim Charts for Grounds 9-14 ................................................ 59 
`5. 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 86 
`
`F. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Clearwire Corp. v. Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00306, Pap. 12 (Institution Decision) (PTAB Oct. 22, 2013) ............ 10
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 10
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Hagenbuch,
`IPR2013-00483, Pap. 37 (Final Decision) (PTAB Dec. 5, 2014) ...................... 10
`
`
`Toshiba Am. Info. Sys. v. Global Touch Solutions,
`IPR2015-01616, Pap. 10 (Institution Decision) (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016) ............. 11
`
`
`Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b) .............................................................................................. 13, 17, 18, 52
`§102(e) ................................................................................................................ 15
`§103 ......................................................................................................... 1, 4, 5, 10
`§112 ....................................................................................................................... 2
`§314(a) ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 CFR
`§1.33(c) ............................................................................................................... 85
`§42.1 ...................................................................................................................... 1
`§42.8 ...................................................................................................................... 4
`§42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................................ 4
`§42.8(b)(2) ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`§42.8(b)(3) ............................................................................................................ 4
`§42.8(b)(4) ............................................................................................................ 4
`§42.22 .................................................................................................................... 5
`§42.24(a) ............................................................................................................... 1
`§42.24(d) ............................................................................................................... 1
`§42.100 ................................................................................................................ 85
`§42.100(b) ........................................................................................................... 10
`§42.104(a) ............................................................................................................. 5
`§42.104(b) ............................................................................................................. 5
`§42.104(b)(3) ...................................................................................................... 10
`§42.105 ................................................................................................................ 85
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`EX1001
`EX1002
`EX1003
`
`EX1004
`EX1005
`EX1006
`EX1007
`EX1008
`EX1009
`
`EX1010
`EX1011
`EX1012
`EX1013
`EX1014
`EX1015
`EX1016
`EX1017
`EX1018
`EX1019
`EX1020
`
`EX1021
`
`EX1022
`
`EX1023
`
`EX1024
`EX1025
`EX1026
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,151,493 (“the ‘493”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,151,493 File History
`Declaration of Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush In Support of the Pe-
`tition for Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No.
`6,151,493
`U.S. Patent No. 5,327,482 (“Yamamoto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,338 (“Mardirossian”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,055,701 (“Takeuchi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,396,218 (“Olah”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,021,779 (“Bisak”)
`JP Patent Pub. No. H7-87559 (“Sakakura”)
`with certified translation
`U.S. Patent No. 5,552,773 (“Kuhnert”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,023,138 (“Ballin”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,315,290 (“Moreno”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,838,227 (“Murray”)
`EP 0708952 (“Buonavoglia”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,825,299 (“Fuentes”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,402,104 (“LaRosa”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,614,400 (“Cinnaminson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,939,766 (“Umemoto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,761,198 (“Kojima”)
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement in Fu-
`jinomaki v. Google Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-03137, D.I. 152
`(E.D.Tex. filed Apr. 15, 2016)
`Excerpts from the IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`Electronics Terms, 6th ed., 1996, Institute of Electrical and
`Electronics Engineers, Inc. (FUJINDFTS0000464-0000468)
`Excerpts from Webster’s American Dictionary, College ed.,
`1997, Random House, (FUJINDFTS0000469-0000473)
`Excerpts from Dictionary of Computing, 4th ed., 1996, Oxford
`University Press (FUJINDFTS0000474-0000477)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,553,314 (“Grube”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,871,997 (“Adriaenssens”)
`Declaration of Mary Oros In Support of the Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`Pursuant to §§311-319 and Rule §42.1,1 the undersigned, on behalf of and in
`
`
`
`a representative capacity for Google Inc. (“Google”), LG Electronics, Inc., LG
`
`Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collective-
`
`ly “LGE”) (all “Petitioners”), petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-
`
`6 and 8-10 (“Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,151,493 (“’493”), issued to Miyaken
`
`Co., Ltd. and, according to USPTO records, now assigned to Ryujin Fujinomaki
`
`(“Fujinomaki”/“PO”). Petitioners assert there is a reasonable likelihood that at
`
`least one of the Claims is unpatentable for the reasons herein and respectfully re-
`
`quest review of, and judgment against, these claims as unpatentable under §103.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND IN THE ART
`
`The ‘493 generally relates to a system for prohibiting unauthorized use of an
`
`electronic device by disabling the device and activating an alarm if a predeter-
`
`mined distance is exceeded between the device and an “identification code trans-
`
`mission unit.” EX1001, Abstract, 1:6-9, 2:19-24. As shown herein, the supposed
`
`“invention” in the Claims was well-known and obvious before the claimed Sep-
`
`tember 4, 1997 priority date.
`
`The Claims generally recite conventional features that were well-known
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Section cites are to 35 U.S.C. or 37 C.F.R. as the context indicates, and all em-
`
`phasis and annotations are added unless noted.
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`long before September 4, 1997.2 Indeed, the ‘493’s specification and prosecution
`
`
`
`make clear Applicants did not purport to invent, inter alia, an “identification code
`
`transmission unit” (id. 1:32-42), “use prohibition unit” (id. 1:20-22, 1:23-54),
`
`“transmitter,” (id. 3:59-60, 4:36), “receiver” (id. 3:60, 4:38), “cellular phone”
`
`(EX1001 1:11-13, 3:59-61), or the remaining limitations found in the Claims. E.g.,
`
`EX1002, 144 (Examiner noting “the individual components [in claims 1-10] are
`
`well suggested and taught in various arts.”).
`
`Each of the elements in the Claims was unquestionably well-known before
`
`the claimed priority date. EX1003¶¶26-33. It was, for example, well-known to
`
`monitor the distance between an electronic device (such as a cellular phone) and
`
`another device, and to disable operation of the electronic device and/or sound an
`
`alarm upon exceeding a certain distance between the devices to prevent theft. E.g.,
`
`EX1004, 12:45-13:30; EX1005, 1:4-13, 4:15-35; EX1009¶¶8, 16-19; EX1011, Ab-
`
`stract, 1:4-2:15; EX1012, 2:8-34; EX1013, Abstract, 7:19-22; EX1014, Abstract,
`
`1:5-8, 2:5-19, 3:6-42; EX1016, 1:22-29, 2:18-3:7; EX1003¶27. Security systems
`
`that both disable operation and sound an alarm were also well-known long before
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Petitioners reserve the right to raise in an appropriate forum invalidity based on
`
`§112, as well as the right to argue that the Claims are not entitled to the September
`
`4, 1997 priority date, based on other grounds.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`September 1997. E.g., EX1004, 12:45-13:30; EX1011, Abstract, 1:4-2:15;
`
`
`
`EX1012, 2:8-34; EX1013, Abstract, 7:19-22; EX1008, Abstract, 7:17-40;
`
`EX1003¶28.
`
`It was also well-known to, e.g.:
`
` monitor the distance between two devices by transmitting a signal at a con-
`
`stant level, e.g., EX1005, 4:40-43, 4:15-24, Abstract; EX1009¶19, Abstract;
`
`EX1010, 6:26-30, 5:45-47, 6:47-51; EX1003¶29, and by comparing the lev-
`
`el of the received signal to a predetermined value. EX1004, 15:32-45;
`
`EX1005, 4:56-5:2; EX1010, 3:35-54; EX1011, Abstract, 1:19-27; EX1014,
`
`3:18-52; EX1016, 1:22-29, 2:18-3:7; EX1003¶30; see also, e.g., EX1011,
`
`1:50-56; EX1003¶26;
`
`
`
`transmit identification code signals between two devices for the purpose of
`
`preventing theft (e.g., EX1004, Abstract, 7:5-10; EX1009, Constitution;
`
`EX1006, Abstract, 3:21-32, 5:7-11, Fig. 2; EX1003¶31) and to transmit an
`
`identification code signal and confirmation signal comprising the same sig-
`
`nal between two devices (e.g., EX1007, Abstract, 3:51-4:2, 4:20-23, 4:56-
`
`59; EX1003¶31);
`
` employ an identification code or confirmation signal comprising a “bina-
`
`rized pseudo-irregular signal” and a “particular code signal” (e.g., EX1006,
`
`Abstract, 3:21-32, 5:7-11, Fig. 2; EX1015, 1:4-13, 4:63-5:33, Fig. 3;
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`EX1003¶31) and to generate a pseudo-irregular signal (e.g., M-sequence
`
`
`
`signal) (e.g., EX1017, 1:5-2:63, Figs. 4, 5; EX1003¶31);
`
`
`
`transmit identification code and confirmation signals as intermittent signals.
`
`EX1004, 14:1-20, Fig. 21; EX1005, 4:36-56, 5:43-48; EX1009¶13; EX1007,
`
`3:52-4:2; EX1018, 2:35-50; EX1003¶32; EX1019, 6:33-42; and
`
`
`
`transmit a signal to maintain an electronic device in an operational state and
`
`to stop transmitting the signal to disable the device. E.g., EX1009¶¶15-18;
`
`EX1008, 7:30-40; EX1003¶33.
`
`As shown herein, each and every element of the Claims had been disclosed
`
`in the prior art, and the Claims are at most nothing more than a routine and predict-
`
`able combination of these well-known elements. Petitioners respectfully request
`
`that the Board institute trial and find each Claim invalid under §103.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8
`Google Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and
`
`LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. are the Real Parties in Interest Un-
`
`der §42.8(b)(1).
`
`Related Matter Under Rule §42.8(b)(2). Fujinomaki asserted claims 1, 2,
`
`3, and 8 of the ’493 against Petitioners in Fujinomaki v. Google Inc., 3:16-cv-
`
`03137-JSC (N.D.Cal.), transferred from 2:15-cv-1381-RJG-RSP (E.D.Tex.).
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under §42.8(b)(3) and (4). J. Steven Baugh-
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`man (Lead Counsel), Reg. No. 47,414, steven.baughman@ropesgray.com, P:202-
`
`
`
`508-4606/F:202-383-8371; Gabrielle E. Higgins (Backup Counsel), Reg. No.
`
`38,916, gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com, P:650-617-4015/F:650-617-4090;
`
`Kathryn N.S. Hong (Backup Counsel), Reg. No. 63,693,
`
`kathryn.hong@ropesgray.com, P:650-617-4006/F:650-566-4124; Mailing address
`
`for all PTAB correspondence: ROPES & GRAY LLP, IPRM–Floor 43, Prudential
`
`Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199-3600.
`
`III. PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING
`Under §42.104(a), Petitioners certify that the ’493 is eligible for IPR and
`
`Petitioners are not barred/estopped from requesting IPR. Each of Petitioners was
`
`served with a Complaint asserting infringement of the ’493, or waived service, on
`
`or after August 3, 2015. Neither Petitioners nor any other real party-in-interest or
`
`privy of Petitioners was served with a complaint before that date, or has initiated a
`
`civil action challenging the ’493’s validity.
`
`Claims/Statutory Grounds Under §§42.22, 42.104(b): Petitioners request
`
`IPR of claims 1-6 and 8-10 and assert the Claims are unpatentable based on one or
`
`more grounds under §103: Ground 1: Yamamoto and Mardirossian render obvi-
`
`ous claims 1, 2, 3, 8; Ground 2:Yamamoto, Mardirossian, and the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA render obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 10; Ground 3: Yamamoto, Mardirossian,
`
`and Takeuchi render obvious claims 4-6; Ground 4: Yamamoto, Mardirossian,
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`Takeuchi, and the knowledge of a POSITA render obvious claims 4-6; Ground 5:
`
`
`
`Yamamoto, Mardirossian, and Olah render obvious claim 9; Ground 6: Yamamo-
`
`to, Mardirossian, Olah, and the knowledge of a POSITA render obvious claim 9;
`
`Ground 7: Yamamoto, Mardirossian, and Bisak render obvious claim 10; Ground
`
`8: Yamamoto, Mardirossian, Bisak, and the knowledge of a POSITA render obvi-
`
`ous claim 10; Ground 9: Mardirossian and Sakakura render obvious claims 1, 2, 3,
`
`8, 10; Ground 10: Mardirossian, Sakakura, and the knowledge of a POSITA ren-
`
`der obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 10; Ground 11: Mardirossian, Sakakura, and
`
`Takeuchi render obvious claims 4-6; Ground 12: Mardirossian, Sakakura,
`
`Takeuchi, and the knowledge of a POSITA render obvious claims 4-6; Ground 13:
`
`Mardirossian, Sakakura, and Olah render obvious claim 9; Ground 14:
`
`Mardirossian, Sakakura, Olah, and the knowledge of a POSITA render obvious
`
`claim 9. Sections V.E.10 and V.F.5 provide claim charts specifying how the re-
`
`lied-upon prior art renders obvious the Claims. In further support of the proposed
`
`grounds of rejection, the Declaration of technical expert, Dr. Schuyler
`
`Quackenbush, is attached (EX1003). See EX1003¶¶1-177.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF ’493 AND ITS FIELD
`A. Overview of ’493
`The ‘493 specification generally describes a “Device for Prohibiting Unau-
`
`thorized Use of Electronic Devices.” The ‘493’s supposed invention is described
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`as a “use prohibition system” for disabling an electronic device, such as a phone, if
`
`
`
`it separates more than a predetermined distance from the user, “and at the same
`
`time giv[ing] a warning to the user.” EX1001, 2:19-23; See generally
`
`EX1003¶¶34-39.
`
`The claimed device includes an “identification code transmission unit” that
`
`transmits an “identification code signal” “at a constant level” to a “use prohibition
`
`canceling unit.” The “use prohibition canceling unit” at least partially disables the
`
`device if the level of the received “identification code signal” is lower than a “pre-
`
`determined value” (corresponding to a certain distance that has been exceeded).
`
`The “use prohibition canceling unit” also transmits a “confirmation signal” “at a
`
`constant level” to the “identification code transmission unit.” The “identification
`
`code transmission unit” activates an alarm if the level of the received “confirma-
`
`tion signal” is lower than a “predetermined value.”
`
`The Claims also variously recite an electronic device that is a cellular phone;
`
`transmitting the identification code signal and confirmation signal intermittently;
`
`an identification code signal or confirmation signal that comprises a binarized
`
`pseudo-irregular signal and a particular signal; an identification code signal and
`
`confirmation signal that comprise the same signal; and transmitting a signal to the
`
`electronic device to maintain it in an operational state.
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, Fig. 1 (excerpt); see also, e.g., EX1001, 1:6-9, 2:26-3:13, 3:44-49, 6:1-3,
`
`7:7-8, 5:51-55, 9:8-18, Fig. 6.
`
`As detailed herein, Applicants did not invent anything beyond what was al-
`
`ready well-understood in the art at the time of the claimed priority date.
`
`B. Overview of ’493 Prosecution History
`On December 30, 1997, Applicants filed U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/000,764. The Examiner rejected prosecution claims 1-8 as obvious over the
`
`prior art. EX1002, 60-61. Applicants cancelled claims 1-8 and added new claims
`
`9-18 (now claims 1-10). Id. 118-125. In a final office action the Examiner reject-
`
`ed claims 9-18 as obvious (id. 126-134), finding U.S. Patent No. 5,553,314
`
`(“Grube”) (EX1024) taught a first transmitter for transmitting an identification
`
`code at a constant level, a first receiver for receiving a confirmation signal and a
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`second transmitter for transmitting the confirmation signal at a constant level, and
`
`
`
`concluding it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) to add what Applicants admitted was a known prior art “system hav-
`
`ing a call prohibition mode and a means for deactivating the prohibition mode,”
`
`taught in Japanese application 6-291835 (“JP ‘835”), to Grube’s telephone “to
`
`store and transmit or/and receive (ID) code signals to and from the telephone….”
`
`Id. 130. The Examiner further found U.S. Patent No. 4,871,997 (“Adriaenssens”)
`
`(EX1025) taught “a radio frequency ‘proximity sensor apparatus’, with an alarm
`
`system wherein when a receiver and a transmitter are separated by a distance ex-
`
`ceeding the effective RF signal range of the transmitter, an alarm is actuated in
`
`both the transmitter and receiver.” Id. The Examiner concluded it would have been
`
`obvious for a POSITA to add Adriaenssens’ alarm system to Grube’s device, as
`
`further modified by Applicants’ admitted prior art. Id. 131. The Examiner found
`
`this combination of Grube, Adriaenssens, and the admitted prior art (JP ‘835)
`
`taught the remaining limitations of dependent claims 10-18. Id. 131-134.
`
`Applicants responded with a Request for Reconsideration, arguing a POSI-
`
`TA would not have been motivated to combine Grube, Adriaenssens, and Appli-
`
`cants’ admitted prior art (JP ‘835) to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. 137-140.
`
`The Examiner found all “individual components used in the claims are well sug-
`
`gested and taught in various arts,” but issued a notice of allowance (id. 142-145),
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`and prosecution claims 9-18 issued as claims 1-10. EX1001; see also
`
`
`
`EX1003¶¶40-42.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD PETITIONERS WILL
`PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM
`
`Petitioners submit there is at least a reasonable likelihood Petitioners will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one of the Claims. §314(a). Indeed, as explained
`
`herein, all Claims are obvious under §103.
`
`C. Claim Construction (§42.104(b)(3))
`Because ’493 will likely expire during the requested IPR, to the extent there
`
`may be differences pertinent here Petitioners construe the ‘493 claims under both
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) for purposes of institution and under
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) for purposes of this
`
`review. See §42.100(b); IPR2013-00306, Pap. 12 at 11 (at institution the “patent…
`
`has not expired, and…we apply…construction consistent with the [BRI]”);
`
`IPR2013-00483, Pap. 37 at 5.
`
`In related court proceedings, (2:15-cv-1381-JRG-RSP (E.D.Tex.), trans-
`
`ferred to 3:16-cv-03137-JSC (N.D.Cal.)), PO and Petitioners submitted a Joint
`
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. EX1020. No claim construction
`
`briefs have been filed, and no Markman hearing has been held. As explained below,
`
`while Petitioners believe their litigation constructions are correct, construction of
`
`these terms’ outer boundaries is unnecessary here because the cited refer-
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`ences/combinations disclose them under both parties’ proposed constructions. E.g.,
`
`
`
`EX1020; EX1003¶¶43-44. Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, 200 F.3d 795, 803
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999); IPR2015-01616, Pap. 10, 5.
`
` No construction is necessary for “transmitting [a]…signal at a constant
`
`level” (claim 1). In litigation, Petitioners proposed: “transmitting
`
`each…signal at the same power” (see, e.g., EX1001, 2:26-38, 2:58-65, 4:42-
`
`47, 5:58-62, 6:16-22, Figs. 4-6, 9A-9B; EX1002, 32; EX1023, 3; EX1021,
`
`3-4; EX1020, 10-11, 18, 20), and PO proposed: transmitting a signal at a
`
`“fixed level.” EX1020, 10-11. The cited references/combinations disclose
`
`this limitation under both parties’ proposed constructions. E.g.,
`
`EX1003¶¶43-44.
`
` No construction is necessary for “predetermined value” (claim 1). In liti-
`
`gation, Petitioners proposed: “preset voltage threshold set to correspond to a
`
`preset distance” (see, e.g., EX1001, 2:38-44, 2:58-65, 2:66-3:6, 3:7-13, 5:8-
`
`15, 6:58-65, 7:29-50, 8:1-16, 8:39-54, 9:8-18, 9:25-29, Figs. 1-2, 7A-9B;
`
`EX1003, 137, 123-124; EX1022, 5; EX1021, 5; EX1020, 10, 19-20), and
`
`PO asserted this term should have its ordinary meaning, or, alternatively,
`
`should be construed as “value known beforehand.” EX1020, 10. The cited
`
`references/combinations disclose this limitation under both parties’ proposed
`
`constructions. E.g., EX1003¶¶43-44.
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`For the remaining terms proposed for construction in litigation (see EX1020,
`
`
`
`10-11, 17-29; EX1021, 1-5; EX1022, 1-5; EX1023, 1-4), while Petitioners believe
`
`their litigation constructions are correct, construction is likewise unnecessary here
`
`because they are disclosed under both parties’ proposed constructions.
`
`EX1003¶¶43-44.
`
`For review purposes Petitioners interpret any remaining terms according to
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the ‘493 specification. Petitioners
`
`expressly reserve the right to argue in litigation a different claim construction for
`
`any term, as appropriate to that proceeding.
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill and State of the Art
`The applicable person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have a
`
`minimum of a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer engineering, comput-
`
`er science, or a related field, and approximately two years of professional experi-
`
`ence with signal processing, wireless communications, or other relevant profes-
`
`sional experience. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional
`
`experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal educa-
`
`tion. A POSITA is presumed to have knowledge of all relevant prior art, and
`
`would thus have been familiar with each of the references cited herein, as well as
`
`the background knowledge in the art discussed in §I supra, and the full range of
`
`teachings they contain. EX1003¶¶21-23.
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`E. Grounds 1-8 (See EX1003¶¶50-110,173):
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,327,482 (“Yamamoto”)
`Yamamoto (EX1004, filed July 7, 1992), issued July 5, 1994, is prior art un-
`
`der at least §102(b). Yamamoto describes a system for preventing theft of a cord-
`
`less phone, including a base unit and branch unit (phone) of a cordless telephone
`
`system. E.g., EX1004, Abstract, 4:49-56. Yamamoto’s base unit (100) “compris-
`
`es…a transmitter 104,…a receiver 106, a controller 107…a received-field detect-
`
`ing circuit 109, an identification signal detecting circuit 110….” EX1004, 4:57-64,
`
`Fig. 2. Yamamoto’s branch unit (200) phone “comprises…an identification signal
`
`detecting circuit 203, a received-field detecting circuit 204, a receiver 205,…a
`
`transmitter 207, a controller 208…, a loudspeaker 211….” EX1004, 5:27-36, Fig.
`
`2. See also EX1003¶¶51-52.
`
`Transmitter 104 in Yamamoto’s base unit transmits an identification code
`
`signal to the phone. E.g., EX1004, 7:5-10, 12:33-40, Fig. 2. Receiver 204 of the
`
`phone receives the identification code signal from the base unit and determines
`
`whether a theft has occurred by assessing whether the received signal has “an in-
`
`tensity” “lower than a predetermined value.” E.g., EX1004, 15:32-38. If so,
`
`Yamamoto teaches that an “inhibition means” “inhibit[s] subsequent calling opera-
`
`tion of the branch unit [phone]” and sounds an alarm. EX1004, 15:46-50, 13:11-
`
`30. Yamamoto teaches that transmitter 207 (in phone) transmits a confirmation
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`signal from phone to base unit. E.g., EX1004, 5:3-13, 5:27-39, 7:5-10. The sig-
`
`
`
`nals between the base unit and phone include an ID and can be transmitted and re-
`
`ceived using time-division multiple access (TDMA). EX1004, 7:5-10, 14:1-20,
`
`Fig. 21. See also EX1003¶¶51-52.
`
`EX1004, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1004, Fig. 2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,338 (“Mardirossian”)
`
`2.
`Mardirossian (EX1005), filed February 3, 1997 and issued August 18, 1998,
`
`is prior art under at least §102(e). Mardirossian teaches a system for preventing
`
`cellular phone theft. EX1005, Abstract. Mardirossian’s system includes a pager
`
`(29) having transmitter (43) receiver (28), controller (41), and alert (42) and a cell
`
`phone (3) having transmitter (26), receiver (30), controller (20), and alarm (22).
`
`EX1005, 3:25-4:14, Fig. 2.
`
`Mardirossian teaches that pager and phone intermittently transmit/receive
`
`signals from each other. EX1005, 3:65-4:4, 4:36-45. The phone transmits a “sig-
`
`nal having a predetermined low strength” (“at a constant level”) to the pager.
`
`EX1005, 4:40-43; see also EX1001, 2:30-31 (‘493 describes transmitting a “signal
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`of a predetermined magnitude”); EX1003¶¶53-54,63,77,123,137. When the pager
`
`
`
`receives the signal and determines “an appropriate signal of sufficient power or
`
`amplitude has not been received from the cell phone for a predetermined period of
`
`time,” the pager sounds alarm 42, and also transmits a return signal to the phone to
`
`sound phone alarm 22. EX1005, 4:56-64, 5:12-18. Mardirossian teaches that the
`
`foregoing description with respect to the phone transmitter/pager receiver can be
`
`applied equally to the pager transmitter/phone receiver. EX1005, 5:43-48. See also
`
`EX1003¶¶53-54,112.
`
`EX1005, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`
`EX1005, Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,055,701 (“Takeuchi”)
`
`3.
`Takeuchi (EX1006, filed August 15, 1989), issued October 8, 1991, is prior
`
`art under at least §102(b). Takeuchi teaches transmitting identification code sig-
`
`nals between two devices (e.g, car and a user-carried portable transmitter) for a
`
`“keyless entry system.” EX1006, 3:12-20, 4:18-24. In particular, Takeuchi teach-
`
`es transmitting a “request code” comprising an “I.D. code” and a “random code.”
`
`EX1006, 3:20-43. The “I.D. code” is “a sequence of identification code signals for
`
`identifying a portable transmitter carried by an authorized person….” EX1006,
`
`3:29-32. The “random code” may be an “M series signal[].” EX1006, 3:25-29.
`
`See also EX1003¶¶55,114.
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`
`EX1006, Fig. 2 (excerpt).
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,396,218 (“Olah”)
`
`4.
`Olah (EX1007, filed July 23, 1993), issued March 7, 1995, is prior art under
`
`at least §102(b). Olah teaches a portable security system where “a first card inter-
`
`mittently transmits an identification code to a second card. The second card com-
`
`pares that code with a code in an internal register, and on matching those codes,
`
`transmits a return code to the first card. The first card compares the return code
`
`with a code in an internal register, and on matching those codes, resets a timer. If
`
`the timer is not reset during a defined number of transmissions by the first card, an
`
`alarm circuit is activated.” EX1007, Abstract. Olah discloses that the signals
`
`transmitted between the two cards use the same identification code, thus teaching
`
`that the “identification code signal” and “confirmation signal” comprise the same
`
`signal (and also are the same signal). EX1007, 4:20-23, 4:56-59. See also
`
`EX1003¶¶56,115.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,021,779 (“Bisak”)
`
`5.
`Bisak (EX1008), issued June 4, 1991, is prior art under at least §102(b). Bi-
`
`sak teaches a security device for an electrical appliance that “allow[s] the appliance
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,151,493
`
`
`to operate in its normal mode when the receiver-decoder receives a predetermined
`
`
`
`code carri