UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`U.S. Patent No. 5,754,946
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,754,946
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ vi 
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) ............................. 3 
`A.
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ............................................................ 3 
`B.
`RELATED MATTERS ........................................................................ 3 
`C. NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION ............. 3 
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ..................................... 5 
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING ............................................................... 5 
`FEE FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .................................................. 5 
`B.
`C.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ............................................... 6 
`1.
`Claims Challenged ..................................................................... 6 
`2.
`The Prior Art .............................................................................. 6 
`3.
`Supporting Evidence Relied upon for the Challenge ................ 6 
`4.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge and Legal Principles .............. 6 
`5.
`Claim Construction .................................................................... 7 
`6.
`How Claims Are Unpatentable Under Statutory Grounds ........ 7 
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’946 PATENT ........................................................... 8 
`A.
`STATE OF PRIOR ART TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE THE
`’946 PATENT ...................................................................................... 8 
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’946 PATENT ........................................ 9 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’946 PATENT .................................................. 9 
`SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY......................... 10 
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........................................................ 12 
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................... 15 
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ....................................... 16 
`1.
`“retransmission” ....................................................................... 16 
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`“means for receiving a radio frequency message from the
`network” ................................................................................... 18 
`“means for transmitting, only upon actuation of the
`switch, a signal to the communications network
`requesting retransmission of said specified portion of said
`message” .................................................................................. 20 
`“means for receiving said specified portion retransmitted
`from the communications network and for displaying the
`received specified portion on the display” ............................... 21 
`“means for detecting errors in the received message” ............. 21 
`“means for highlighting said errors when the message is
`displayed on said display ......................................................... 22 
`“means for transmitting radio frequency signals
`containing a message to the mobile unit” ................................ 22 
`“means for receiving, from the mobile unit, radio
`frequency signals representing a portion of the message
`that the user desires retransmission” ........................................ 23 
`“means for retransmitting radio frequency signals
`containing the portion of the message to the mobile unit” ...... 23 
`10. Limitations Regarding a “Portion Of” a Message ................... 24 
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ’946 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ................... 24 
`A.
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART ....... 24 
`B.
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS ................................... 25 
`C. DIFFERENT INVALIDITY POSITIONS AGAINST EACH
`CLAIM ARE INDEPENDENT, DISTINCTIVE, AND NOT
`REDUNDANT ................................................................................... 26 
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, AND 7-9 OF THE ’946
`PATENT ....................................................................................................... 30 
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`A. GROUNDS 3A & 3B: CLAIMS 1, 4, AND 7-8 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and § 103 AS
`BEING ANTICIPATED AND RENDERED OBVIOUS BY
`KREBS ............................................................................................... 30 
`1.
`Claim 1 Is Anticipated and Rendered Obvious by Krebs ........ 33 
`2.
`Claim 4 Is Anticipated and Rendered Obvious by Krebs ........ 42 
`3.
`Claim 7 Is Anticipated and Rendered Obvious by Krebs ........ 42 
`4.
`Claim 8 Is Anticipated and Rendered Obvious by Krebs ........ 46 
`B. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, AND 7-9 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING
`OBVIOUS OVER KREBS IN VIEW OF SCHWENDEMAN
`AND YOSHIDA ................................................................................ 53 
`1.
`Claim 1 Is Rendered Obvious by Krebs in View of
`Schwendeman and Yoshida ..................................................... 55 
`Claim 2 Is Rendered Obvious by Krebs in View of
`Schwendeman and Yoshida ..................................................... 60 
`Claim 4 Is Rendered Obvious by Krebs in View of
`Schwendeman and Yoshida ..................................................... 61 
`Claim 7 Is Rendered Obvious by Krebs in View of
`Schwendeman and Yoshida ..................................................... 62 
`Claim 8 Is Rendered Obvious by Krebs in View of
`Schwendeman and Yoshida ..................................................... 65 
`Claim 9 Is Rendered Obvious by Krebs in View of
`Schwendeman and Yoshida ..................................................... 69 
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 70 
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 72 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 73 
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Chi Mei Innolux v. SEL,
`IPR2013-00065 (PTAB April 30, 2013) .............................................................. 7
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Freeman,
`30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ...................................................................... 16, 17
`
`In re Rambus, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 7, 16
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 49
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`2-13-cv-00258, Case 2:12-cv-00832 (E.D. Tex., Nov. 7,
`2014) Dkt. 384 .................................................................................................... 17
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft,
`2-15-cv-02122 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2015) ........................................................ 1, 3
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 7, 16
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ...................................................................................................... 1, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ...................................................................................................... 3, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ...................................................................................................... 2, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ...................................................................................................... 5, 7
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ...................................................................................................... 5, 7
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ................................................................................................... 3, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(1) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.102 ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. 5, 6, 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 5,754,946 (filed Sept. 21, 1989) (“the ’946 Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Donald Gayton, dated August 8, 2016 (“Gayton
`Decl.”).
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application H2-213237 (published Aug.
`24, 2000) and Certified Translation (“Akiyama”).
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent No. 4,940,963 (filed Mar. 10, 1989) (“Gutman”).
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 4,644,351 (filed May 8, 1984) (“Zabarsky”).
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,311,516 (filed Nov. 23, 1992) (“Kuznicki”).
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,448,759 (filed Aug. 20, 1993) (“Krebs”).
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,396,537 (filed Oct. 19, 1992) (“Schwendeman”).
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,031,179 (filed Nov. 4, 1998) (“Yoshida”).
`
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 07/973,918, dated November 12,
`1992.
`
`Ex. 1011 Highlighted copy of Memorandum Order, Mobile Telecomms. Techs.,
`LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 2:12-cv-832-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.
`Nov. 7, 2014), Dkt. 384.
`
`Ex. 1012 Highlighted excerpt of Transcript of Jury Trial Before The Honorable
`Roy Payne U.S. Magistrate Judge, Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC v.
`Apple, Inc., No. 2:13-dv-00258-RSP (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2014), Dkt.
`75.
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Judgment, Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:13-
`dv-00258-RSP (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2014), Dkt. 79.
`
`Excerpt of Joint Pretrial Order, Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC v.
`Samsung Elecs. Co, No. 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29,
`2016), Dkt. 131.
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`Ex. 1015 Brad Murray, User Controlled Re-transmit Option, An IP.com Prior
`Art Database Technical Disclosure (Motorola 1991).
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Excerpt of the ’946 Patent File History (Jan. 11, 1996 Amendment
`and Arguments).
`
`Excerpt of the ’946 Patent File History (Nov. 12, 1996 Amendment
`and Arguments).
`
`Ex. 1018 U.S. Patent No. 4,156,867 (filed Sept. 6, 1977) (“Bench”).
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-9 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,754,946 (“the ’946 Patent” or “Ex. 1001”), originally assigned to
`
`Mobile Telecommunication Technologies. As a result of a series of assignments,
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“MTel” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`purports to be the current owner of the ’946 Patent.
`
`MTel has asserted that Microsoft infringes certain claims of the ’946 Patent
`
`in Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft, No. 2-15-cv-
`
`02122 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2015). In addition, MTel has filed suits against other
`
`parties involving the ’946 Patent (listed below).
`
`Name
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC v. Google Inc.
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC v. Microsoft Corporation
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC v. Apple Inc.
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al.
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC v. ZTE (USA), Inc.
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC v. LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA,
`
`Number District Filed
`2-16-cv-
`TXED January 4,
`00002
`2016
`2-15-cv-
`TXED December
`02122
`31, 2015
`2-15-cv-
`TXED February 9,
`00183
`2015
`2-14-cv-
`TXED November
`01057
`19, 2014
`2-14-cv-
`TXED September
`00897
`15, 2014
`2-13-cv-
`TXED November 7,
`00946
`2013
`2-13-cv-
`TXED November 7,
`00947
`2013
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`Name
`Inc.
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC v. HTC America, Inc.
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC v. Apple Inc.
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC v. Samsung Telecommunications
`America, LLC
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC v. Research In Motion Corporation
`
`Number District Filed
`
`2-13-cv-
`00948
`2-13-cv-
`00883
`2-13-cv-
`00258
`
`2-13-cv-
`00259
`
`TXED November 7,
`2013
`TXED October 29,
`2013
`
`TXED April 2, 2013
`
`TXED April 2, 2013
`
`3-12-cv-
`01652
`
`TXND May 29,
`2012
`
`This is the second of two petitions that are being filed contemporaneously.
`
`No other proceedings have been filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the
`
`Board”) on the ’946 Patent.
`
`This Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the claims challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Specifically, claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-9 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 and/or § 103 based on specific grounds listed below.
`
`Grounds
`Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) &
`103(a)
`Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`References
`U.S. Patent No. 5,448,759
`(“Krebs”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,448,759
`(“Krebs”) in view of U.S. Patent
`No. 5,396,537 (“Schwendeman”)
`and U.S. Patent No. 5,031,179
`(“Yoshida”).
`
`Challenged Claims
`Claims 1, 4, 7-8
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests the Board to institute a trial for IPR and to
`
`cancel claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-9.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)
`
`A. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), the only real
`
`party in interest for this IPR Petition is Microsoft Corporation.
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`
`The ’946 Patent (along with U.S. Patent Nos. 5,581,804, 5,809,428, and
`
`5,894,506) are being asserted against Petitioner in an ongoing patent infringement
`
`lawsuit brought by Patent Owner in Mobile Telecommunication Technologies, LLC
`
`v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2-15-cv-02122, filed in the Eastern District of Texas on
`
`December 31, 2015. MTel’s other litigation involving the ’946 Patent, identified
`
`in Section I, above, may be affected by action on this Petition.
`
`C. NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), Petitioner
`
`appoints the following lead and back-up counsel:
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Chun M. Ng, Reg. No. 36,878
`CNg@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Chad S. Campbell
`Pro Hac Vice to be requested upon
`grant of authorization
`CSCampbell@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 2000
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
`Phone: 602.351.8393
`Fax: 602.648.7193
`Theodore H. Wimsatt, Reg. No. 66,443
`TWimsatt@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
`Phone: 602.351.8000
`Fax: 602.648.7000
`Jared W. Crop, Reg. No. 62,459
`JCrop@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
`Phone: 602.351.8000
`Fax: 602.648.7000
`
`Petitioner hereby consents to electronic service under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) at
`
`the following email addresses:
`
`CNg@perkinscoie.com
`CSCampbell@perkinscoie.com
`TWimsatt@perkinscoie.com
`JCrop@perkinscoie.com
`Patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney executed by
`
`Microsoft Corporation appointing the above-designated counsel is concurrently
`
`filed.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This Petition complies with all statutory requirements and rule-based
`
`requirements under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104, 42.105, and 42.15 and thus should be
`
`accorded a filing date as the date of filing of this Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.106.
`
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’946
`
`Patent is available for review and the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting IPR challenging claims of the ’946 Patent on the grounds identified
`
`herein. Specifically, Petitioner has standing, or meets all requirements, to file this
`
`Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a)(1), 315(b), 315(e)(1), and 325(e)(1) and 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.73(d)(1), 42.101, and 42.102.
`
`FEE FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`B.
`The required fees are submitted under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.103(a), and 42.15(a).
`
`If any additional fees are due during this proceeding, the Office may charge such
`
`fees to Deposit Account No. 50-0665 with charge reference 041826-3093.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`C.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and 42.22, the precise relief requested by
`
`Petitioner is that the Board institute an IPR trial on claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-9 of
`
`the ’946 Patent and cancel claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-9 of the ’946 Patent because they
`
`are invalid on the grounds and evidence presented in this Petition.
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1.
`Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-9 of the ’946 Patent are challenged in this Petition.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`2.
`The prior art references relied upon are prior art discussed or referred to in
`
`the papers filed with this Petition. See the Exhibit List (supra at vi- vii) and Gayton
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1002). The prior art includes:
`
`Ex. 1007 (U.S. Patent No. 5,448,759 (“Krebs”));
`
`Ex. 1008 (U.S. Patent No. 5,396,537 (“Schwendeman”)); and
`
`Ex. 1009 (U.S. Patent No. 5,031,179 (“Yoshida”)).
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied upon for the Challenge
`
`3.
`The supporting evidence includes the Gayton Decl. (Ex. 1002) and other
`
`supporting evidence in the Exhibit List or referred to in the papers filed with this
`
`Petition.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge and Legal Principles
`
`4.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), the review of patentability of claims 1,
`
`2, 4, and 7-9 of the ’946 Patent as requested in this Petition is governed by 35
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103 that were in effect before March 16, 2013. Further,
`
`statutory provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 to 319 and 325 that took effect on
`
`September 16, 2012 govern this inter partes review.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`5.
`The ’946 Patent expired on May 19, 2015. “The Board’s review of the
`
`claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review. In re
`
`Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The principle set forth by the
`
`court in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (words
`
`of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’ as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`
`invention, construing to preserve validity in case of ambiguity), should be applied
`
`since the expired claims are not subject to amendment.” Chi Mei Innolux v. SEL,
`
`IPR2013-00065, Decision to Institute (Paper 11) at 10 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013).
`
`Where the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function or step-
`
`plus-function limitation, the construction of the claim must identify the specific
`
`portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts
`
`corresponding to each claimed function. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).
`
`6. How Claims Are Unpatentable Under Statutory Grounds
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), Section VI provides an explanation of
`
`how claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-9 of the ’946 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`§ 102 and/or § 103, including the identification of where each element of the claim
`
`is found in the cited prior art of patents or printed publications.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’946 PATENT
`The ’946 Patent was filed on September 21, 1993, issued on May 19, 1998,
`
`and was originally assigned to Mobile Telecommunication Technologies.
`
`The ’946 Patent has passed through a series of assignments, and it is currently
`
`listed as being assigned to Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC.
`
`A.
`
`STATE OF PRIOR ART TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE THE ’946
`PATENT
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-9 include various limitations related to manual requests
`
`for retransmission of a portion of a displayed message by a wireless
`
`communication device. In some cases, the request is made based on the detection
`
`and display of highlighted errors in the received message. These limitations relate
`
`to retransmission of a portion of a message and the claimed variants were well
`
`known before the priority date of the ’946 Patent. Early radio communications,
`
`like those used by the military, included phrases like “Roger” to indicate that the
`
`message was received, and “Say again” to indicate that a message should be resent.
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 48-49. Sending retransmission requests for portions of a message by
`
`mobile devices had been known long before the ’946 Patent was filed. Ex. 1002 ¶
`
`50. One-way paging networks were in place prior to the filing date of the ’946
`
`Patent, and early two-way messaging systems existed. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52-57. The use
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`of error detection and correction codes had also been known for decades preceding
`
`the filing date of the ’946 Patent. Ex. 1002 ¶ 56.
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’946 PATENT
`
`B.
`The ’946 Patent claims priority through a continuation-in-part (“CIP”)
`
`application to U.S. Patent No. 5,590,403, filed on November 12, 1992. Claims 1, 2,
`
`4, and 7-9 of the ’946 Patent are not entitled to the earlier filing date because they
`
`each include limitations related to retransmission of a portion of the received
`
`message, which was part of the new matter added in the CIP application. Ex. 1002
`
`¶¶ 41-47. In its trial against Samsung, Patent Owner stipulated to a priority date of
`
`September 21, 1993, the date of the CIP application. Ex. 1014 at 14.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’946 PATENT
`
`C.
`The ’946 Patent describes a two-way paging device and network that
`
`supports the ability for a user of the paging device to request retransmission of a
`
`portion of a message when errors are detected. Ex. 1001 Abstract. Figure 16 of
`
`the ’946 Patent depicts the preferred embodiment of the claimed pager device with
`
`retransmission request button 1622.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`
`The single button labeled 1622 “allows the user to request the base
`
`transmitters to retransmit received messages, or partial messages containing errors.
`
`When the mobile unit receives a message containing errors, it displays the message
`
`on display 1606 with the erroneous portions highlighted (e.g., underlined, placed in
`
`brackets, or printed in reverse video).” Ex. 1001 at 17:8-14. When the user
`
`presses the retransmit button, it “causes the transmit logic 1518 to transmit a signal
`
`to the base receivers indicating that the user wishes the message or a partial
`
`message to be retransmitted.” Id. at 17:18-21. Also, the request for retransmission
`
`can be interpreted by the network as an indication that the user has read the
`
`message. Id. at 17:28-30.
`
`SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY
`
`D.
`During prosecution of the ’946 Patent, the Examiner rejected each of the
`
`original nine claims in an Office Action dated May 5, 1994. The claims were
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 as indefinite for lack of antecedent basis on
`
`various claim elements. In that same Office Action, all nine claims were rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Tsurumi in view of O’Sullivan. In its November 1,
`
`1994 response, the applicant amended the claims to address the antecedent basis
`
`issues. The applicant also argued that neither Tsurumi nor O’Sullivan disclosed a
`
`mobile unit that requested retransmission of at least a portion of a message with
`
`errors.
`
`The Examiner again rejected all nine claims in its Office Action dated
`
`January 23, 1995 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using Tsurumi in view of Spragins, et al.
`
`(“Spragins”). Spragins was relied on by the Examiner to show that negative
`
`acknowledgement (“NAK”) signals were known to be sent from a mobile device to
`
`a communications network that would result in retransmission of a message frame.
`
`The Applicant responded on May 23, 1995, arguing that Spragins only taught
`
`automatic requests for retransmission, but that it did not teach user-generated
`
`requests for retransmission.
`
`The Examiner maintained the § 103 rejection of all claims in the Office
`
`Action dated August 8, 1995, taking the position that Tsurumi disclosed user-
`
`generated confirmation signals and Spragins taught requesting retransmission of
`
`message frames in response to NAK signals. The applicant responded to the
`
`Office Action by amending the claims to limit the retransmission requests to “a
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`portion of” rather than the broader “at least a portion of” a message, and argued
`
`that this overcame the Examiner’s rejections.
`
`The Examiner again rejected all pending claims, relying on Davis in view of
`
`Spragins in its Office Action dated May 17, 1996. Davis teaches that a user can
`
`push a button on a mobile unit to confirm that the user has read the received
`
`message. Spragins was again relied on to disclose requesting retransmission of a
`
`portion of the message. The Applicant again amended the claims in its response
`
`dated November 12, 1996, adding limitations that a switch be actuated by the user
`
`to indicate a desire to have a portion of the message retransmitted, and also the
`
`limitations of receiving and displaying the retransmitted message portion.
`
`It was only after the applicant added these limitations to the pending claims
`
`that the Examiner finally allowed the claims. The ’946 Patent issued on May 19,
`
`1998.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`E.
`For ease of reference, the limitations of the challenged claims are set forth
`
`and enumerated below:
`
`Limitation
`
`Claim Language
`
`Claim 1(P) A mobile unit for transmitting and receiving radio frequency signals
`
`to and from a communications network comprising:
`
`1(A)
`
`means for receiving a radio frequency message from the network;
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`Limitation
`
`Claim Language
`
`1(B)
`
`1(C)
`
`a display for displaying said message;
`
`a switch actuatable to specify a portion of the displayed message for
`
`which a user desires retransmission from the communications
`
`network;
`
`1(D)
`
`means for transmitting, only upon actuation of the switch, a signal to
`
`the communications network requesting retransmission of said
`
`specified portion of said message; and
`
`1(E)
`
`means for receiving said specified portion retransmitted from the
`
`communications network and for displaying the received specified
`
`portion on the display.
`
`
`2(A)
`
`
`The mobile unit of claim 1, further comprising:
`
`means for detecting errors in the received message,
`
`2(B)
`
`said display including means for highlighting said errors when the
`
`message is displayed on said display.
`
`
`The mobile unit of claim 1, wherein the signal transmitted by the
`
`transmitting means indicates to the network that the user has read the
`
`message.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`Limitation
`
`Claim Language
`
`7(P)
`
`A communications network for transmitting radio frequency signals
`
`to a mobile unit and for receiving radio frequency signals from the
`
`mobile unit, the mobile unit having a display and a switch actuatable
`
`to specify a portion of a displayed message for which a user desires
`
`retransmission after viewing the displayed message transmitted from
`
`the communications network, the network comprising:
`
`7(A)
`
`means for transmitting radio frequency signals containing a message
`
`to the mobile unit;
`
`7(B)
`
`means for receiving, from the mobile unit, radio frequency signals
`
`representing a portion of the message that the user desires
`
`retransmission;
`
`7(C)
`
`means for retransmitting radio frequency signals containing the
`
`portion of the message to the mobile unit.
`
`
`8(P)
`
`
`A method for receiving and transmitting messages at a mobile unit,
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving at the mobile unit a radio frequency message;
`
`displaying said message on the mobile unit;
`
`receiving an indication of a portion of the displayed message for
`
`-14-
`
`8(A)
`
`8(B)
`
`8(C)
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,946
`PTAB Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`Limitation
`
`Claim Language
`
`which a user desires retransmission;
`
`8(D)
`
`transmitting, only upon receipt of the indication, a signal requesting
`
`retransmission of said indicated portion of said message;
`
`receiving a retransmission of said indicated portion; and
`
`displaying the received retransmission of said indicated portion