Filed: November 25, 2016
`
`Megan Lyman (Reg. No. 57,054)
`Lyman Patent Services
`1816 Silver Mist Ct.
`Raleigh, NC 27613
`Tel: (919) 341-4023
`Fax: (919) 341-0271
`melyman@lymanpatents.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER ONE-E-WAY’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 
`
`II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 3 
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’396 PATENT ................................................................. 4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`Embodiments described in the specification ......................................... 4 
`
`The claims ............................................................................................. 7 
`
`Preliminary Claim Construction.......................................................... 10 
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 10 
`
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims ................................. 11 
`
`IV. PETITIONER’S THEORIES ............................................................................ 11 
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE REFERENCES RELIED UPON ................................... 12 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The ’892 Patent ................................................................................... 12 
`
`The 1998 Paper .................................................................................... 12 
`
`Giannakis ............................................................................................. 13 
`
`VI. THE PETITION IS FUNDAMENTALLY DEFICIENT ................................. 13 
`
`VII. GROUND 1 FAILS .......................................................................................... 14 
`
`A. 
`
`The ’892 Patent Fails to Properly Incorporate Any
`Particular Material From the 1998 paper ............................................ 14 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The Legal Standard for Incorporation by
`Reference Requires Specific Identification of
`Material ..................................................................................... 14 
`
`The ’892 Patent Fails to Incorporate the 1998
`Paper in Its Entirety .................................................................. 16 
`i
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`B. 
`
`The Petition Attempts to Impermissibly Combine
`Disparate Embodiments for Anticipation ............................................ 18 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The Legal Standard for Anticipation ........................................ 19 
`
`The ’892 patent and the 1998 paper describe
`distinct systems ......................................................................... 20 
`
`Failure of Omission: Petitioner fails to show that the
`’892 patent discloses independent CDMA operation.
`Limitations 1(d) and (f). ...................................................................... 21 
`
`Failure of Confusion: Petitioner fails to show that the
`’892 patent discloses a digital demodulator.
`Limitation 1(f). .................................................................................... 23 
`
`Failure of Omission: Petitioner fails to show that the
`’892 patent discloses a transmitter coupled to a
`portable audio player or source. Limitation 1(b). .............................. 25 
`
`Failure of Disparate Disclosures and Insufficient
`Incorporation: Petitioner fails to show that the ’892
`patent discloses a transmitter comprising an encoder
`for reduced ISI coding. Limitations 1(b) and (c). .............................. 27 
`
`Failure of Technical Misunderstanding and Ignoring
`Context: Petitioner fails to show that the ’892 patent
`discloses a decoder operative to decode the applied
`reduced intersymbol interference coding. Limitation
`1(g). ..................................................................................................... 29 
`
`Failure of Disparate Disclosures and Insufficient
`Incorporation: Petitioner fails to show that the ’892
`patent discloses a headphone comprising a direct
`conversion module. Limitations 1(d) and (e). .................................... 32 
`
`Failure of Disparate Disclosures and Insufficient
`Incorporation: Petitioner fails to show that the ’892
`patent discloses a direct conversion module
`configured to capture packets corresponding to a
`unique user code. Limitation 1(e). ..................................................... 34 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`J. 
`
`Failure of Omission: Petitioner fails to show that the
`’892 patent discloses a system in which other signals
`are inaudible while operating in the spread spectrum.
`Limitation 1(j). .................................................................................... 36 
`
`VIII. GROUND 2 ALSO FAILS ............................................................................. 39 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`For All Limitations other than the Reduced ISI
`Limitations, Petitioner Offers No Additional
`Argument in Support of its Ground 2 Obviousness
`Theory and Thus, Ground 2 Fails for the Same
`Reasons as Ground 1 ........................................................................... 39 
`
`1. 
`
`Petitioner fails to apply critical aspects of the
`required Graham analysis ......................................................... 40 
`
`Petitioner Fails to Provide Any Argument or Analysis
`Addressing a Reason or Motivation to Combine
`Giannakis with the ’892 Patent, and this Failure is
`Fatal to Ground 2 ................................................................................. 43 
`
`Petitioner Misleadingly Omitted and Ignored
`Giannakis’ Express Statement Limiting the
`Applicability of its Approach and Thus Failed to
`Sustain its Burden to Demonstrate any Reason or
`Motivation to Combine Giannakis with the ’892
`Patent ................................................................................................... 45 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Petitioner’s Declarant, Mr. Moring,
`Inexcusably Used an Ellipsis to Omit and
`Ignore Giannakis’ Express Restriction On
`Applicability .............................................................................. 47 
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would
`Understand that Bluetooth is a Fast Hopping
`System, and Zhou Expressly States that Fast
`Hopping Systems are Beyond the Scope of the
`Disclosed ɸm-based Frequency Hopping
`Technique .................................................................................. 49 
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`3. 
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would
`Know that Giannakis’ ɸm-Based Frequency
`Hopping Approach is Not Possible in Bluetooth ...................... 51 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Would Understand that Frequency-
`Hopping Cannot be Implemented in
`Bluetooth using Zhou’s Subcarrier
`Selector Matrix ɸm .......................................................... 52 
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Would Understand that Redundant
`Simultaneous Transmissions on Multiple
`Frequencies is Incompatible with
`Bluetooth ......................................................................... 53 
`
`Petitioner has Failed to Demonstrate that
`a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Would Have Had Any Reason or
`Motivation to Combine Giannakis and
`the ’892 Patent ................................................................ 55 
`
`IX. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE ENTITLED TO THE
`FILING DATE OF PATENT OWNER’S 2001
`APPLICATION ............................................................................................. 56 
`
`X. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 60 
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ......................................................... 14, 17, 18
`
`Apple, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00358, Paper 9 (July 2, 2015) ........................................................ 44
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 15
`
`Ex parte Reiffin,
`App. No. 2007-2127, 2007 WL 2814119 (BPAI Sept. 25,
`2007) .............................................................................................................. 58
`
`In re Arkley,
`455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972) ........................................................................... 19
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule
`Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 45
`
`In re De Seversky,
`474 F.2d 671 (CCPA 1973) ........................................................................... 15
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959) ....................................................................... 55
`
`In re Reiffin,
`340 Fed. Appx. 651 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2009) ........................................passim
`
`Google, Inc. v. EVERYMD.COM LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 (May 22, 2014) ..................................................... 13
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................. 2, 40, 42
`
`Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co.,
`242 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................... 55
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)................................................................................. 40, 46
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................... 14-15
`
`Lake Cabe, LLC v. Windy City Wire Cable and Tech. Prod., LLC,
`IPR2013-00528, Paper 11 (Feb. 19, 2014) .............................................. 44-45
`
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co.,
`730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ..................................................................... 19
`
`Litton v. Whirlpool,
`728 F.2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ..................................................................... 59
`
`Motorola Mobility, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`737 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 40
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed.Cir.2008) ................................................................passim
`
`Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. Magna Elec., Inc.,
`IPR2014-01206, Paper 13 (Dec. 23, 2014) ................................................... 13
`
`Zenon Environmental, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................... 15, 17
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 132 ........................................................................................................ 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42 ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`Other
`
`MPEP 201.06 ........................................................................................................... 55
`
`MPEP 2143.01 ......................................................................................................... 55
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`S. Zhou, G. Giannakis, and A. Swami, “Frequency-Hopped
`Generalized MC-CDMA for Multipath and Interference
`Suppression,” MILCOM 2000 Proceedings
`
`A. Fredman, “Mechanisms of Interference Reduction for Bluetooth,”
`Burlington, VT, USA (2002)
`
`Y. Lee, R. Kapoor, and M. Gerla, “An Efficient and Fair Polling
`Scheme for Bluetooth,” MILCOM 2002, volume 2, pages 1062-
`1068, 2002.
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`The Petition presents two grounds, each directed at all 17 claims of the
`
`challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,282,396 (the ’396 patent). In Ground 1, Petitioner
`
`argues anticipation of all claims based on U.S. Patent No. 6,678,892 (the ’892
`
`patent). In Ground 2, Petitioner argues obviousness based on combining the ’892
`
`patent with the “Giannakis” paper. Both grounds fail for numerous reasons.
`
`Petitioner’s difficulties begin with the fact that its references disclose only
`
`narrowly-focused ideas for addressing signal disturbances. But the ’396 patent
`
`claims full audio systems and receivers that require a full complement of
`
`components. This dichotomy forces Petitioner to take insupportable positions to
`
`compensate for the disclosure missing from its references.
`
`For a number of claim limitations (found in all claims), Petitioner could not
`
`(and did not) offer any evidence of disclosure in its references:
`
` signals from other devices “inaudible while operating in the spread
`
`spectrum transmitter spectrum”
`
` “transmitter coupled to a portable audio player/source”
`
` “digital demodulator”
`
` “independent CDMA”
`
`For other claim limitations (again found in all claims), Petitioner argued
`
`disclosure by cherry-picking the elements in each limitation from disparate
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`embodiments. In doing so, Petitioner improperly overlooked the claimed
`
`arrangement and relationship of the elements within the limitation. But
`
`Petitioner’s cherry-picked elements were never disclosed as working together or
`
`having any relationship with each other as the claim limitations require, such as:
`
` “headphone comprising a direct conversion module”
`
` “direct
`
`conversion module
`
`configured
`
`to
`
`capture packets
`
`corresponding to the unique user code bit sequence”
`
` “transmitter comprising an encoder for reduced ISI coding”
`
`Petitioner’s Ground 1 anticipation argument fails because its reference does
`
`not disclose these and other limitations.
`
`With regard to Ground 2, Petitioner based its obviousness theory on
`
`combining the Giannakis paper with its anticipation reference from Ground 1. But
`
`Petitioner relied on Giannakis only as a fallback for the failure of its anticipation
`
`reference to disclose claim limitations relating to intersymbol interference (ISI).
`
`For all of the other claim limitations, including each limitation referenced in the
`
`above bullet points, Petitioner relied solely upon its Ground 1 anticipation
`
`arguments--many of which failed--to support Ground 2. Critically, Petitioner
`
`never offered any analysis or argument required under Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) to explain why, despite the substantial differences between the
`
`prior art and the claims, a person of ordinary skill in the art would nonetheless find
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`the claims obvious. Thus, Petitioner failed to meet its burden, failed to establish a
`
`prima facie case of obviousness, and Ground 2 falls with Ground 1.
`
`Still further, Petitioner ignored the express warning from Giannakis that
`
`combination with Petitioner’s anticipation reference was beyond the scope of the
`
`disclosed teaching. Incredibly, Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Moring, used an ellipsis
`
`when quoting from Giannakis to omit that warning from his analysis.
`
`For these and other reasons explained below, Petitioner has failed to
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of proving any claim unpatentable. Thus, the
`
`Board should deny the Petition.
`
`Earl Woolfork
`
`is
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`the named
`inventor on
`
`the challenged patent.
`
`Mr. Woolfork assigned his patent to his company, Patent Owner One-E-Way, Inc.,
`
`where he is the Founder and CEO. Today, One-E-Way manufactures and sells its
`
`own line of wireless audio headsets embodying Mr. Woolfork’s invention.
`
`Mr. Woolfork first conceived of his wireless audio headset inventions in the
`
`late 1990’s while exercising outdoors at the popular Santa Monica Steps in Los
`
`Angeles. Mr. Woolfork noticed that many people were having trouble with the
`
`wires connecting their audio players to their headsets, which interrupted their
`
`exercise routines. Mr. Woolfork set out to create a solution that allowed people to
`
`exercise free of wires, while still enjoying high quality music. Mr. Woolfork
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`conceived of a mobile audio transmitter and separate receiver that could
`
`communicate using radio signals and packet formats to communicate high quality
`
`audio data.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’396 PATENT
`A. Embodiments described in the specification
`The ’396 patent’s Summary of the Invention section explains that that the
`
`patent “is generally directed to a wireless digital audio system for coded digital
`
`transmission of an audio signal from any audio player with an analog headphone
`
`jack to a receiver headphone located away from the audio player.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:62-66. The patent’s focus on a total wireless audio system, including an audio
`
`player, a transmitter, and a headphone is represented in Figure 1, described as “a
`
`wireless digital audio system in accordance with the present invention:”
`
`Id. at Fig. 3 and 2:19-20.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`
`
`The ’396 patent discloses techniques to improve listening quality while
`
`reducing interference in order to provide private listening. The patent explains
`
`that, even when multiple such systems operate in a shared space, “[e]ach receiver
`
`headphone user may be able to listen (privately) to high fidelity audio music, using
`
`any of the audio devices listed previously, without the use of wires, and without
`
`interference from any other receiver headphone user, even when operated within a
`
`shared space.” Id. at 3:40-44. This is achieved through a series of components
`
`within the system’s transmitter and corresponding components within the system’s
`
`receiver, as shown in Figures 2 and 3:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`Although the ’396 patent describes a number of embodiments each including
`
`a number of components, this discussion will focus on the described embodiments
`
`and components most relevant to the deficiencies of the Petition.
`
`The patent explains that, after the audio received from the audio source is
`
`digitized using an analog-to-digital converter, “[t]he digitized signal may be
`
`processed downstream by an encoder 36.” Id. at 2:53-54.
`
`Next, “antenna 24” transmits a “spread spectrum modulated signal to a
`
`receiving antenna 52.” Id. The patent describes techniques at the receiver-side for
`
`improving detection of the signal. Id. at 3:14-17 (“[t]he battery powered receiver
`
`50 may utilize embedded fuzzy logic…to optimize the bit detection of the received
`
`user code.”)
`
`Further explaining receiver-side components, the patent states that “the
`
`received spread spectrum signal may be communicated to a 2.4 GHz direct
`
`conversion receiver or module 56.” Id. at 3:4-6.
`
`The receiver includes a demodulator as a later component in the series:
`
`“[t]he resulting summed digital signal from receiving summary element 58 and
`
`direct conversion receiver or module 56 may be processed by a 64-Ary
`
`demodulator to demodulate the signal elements modulated in the audio transmitter
`
`20.” Id. at 3:30-34. The receiver may also include, after the demodulator, a
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`Viterbi decoder (Fig. 3 at 66). Id. at 3:36-36. The receiver may also include, after
`
`the Viterbi decoder, a source decoder (Fig. 3 at 68) that decodes the coding applied
`
`by the transmitter’s encoder (Fig. 3 at 36). Id. at 3:38-39.
`
`One of the techniques that embodiments of the ’396 patent employ to
`
`achieve private listening is the use of a unique user code that is “specifically
`
`associated with one wireless digital audio system user, and it is the only code
`
`recognized by the battery powered headphone receiver 50 operated by a particular
`
`user.” Id. at 2:63-66.
`
`The receiver may use the user’s same unique user code as the transmitter,
`
`providing for private listening: “[t]he receiver code generator 60 may contain the
`
`same unique wireless transmission of a signal code word that was transmitted by
`
`audio transmitter 20 specific to a particular user. Other code words from wireless
`
`digital audio systems 10 may appear as noise to audio receiver 50. This may also
`
`be true for other device transmitted wireless signals operating in the wireless
`
`digital audio spectrum of digital audio system 10.” Id. at 3:21-25.
`
`B.
`
`The claims
`
`The ’396 patent has seventeen claims directed to specific embodiments of
`
`wireless digital audio systems or components within such a system. Of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`seventeen claims, claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, and 16 are independent. For ease of
`
`reference and illustration, claim 1 is reproduced below:1
`
`1. A portable wireless digital audio system for digital transmission
`of an original audio signal representation from a portable audio source
`to a digital audio headphone, said audio signal representation
`representative of audio from said portable audio source, said portable
`wireless digital audio system comprising:
`
`a portable digital audio spread spectrum transmitter configured to
`couple to said portable audio source and transmitting a unique
`user code bit sequence with said original audio signal
`representation in packet format, said digital audio spread
`spectrum transmitter comprising:
`
`an encoder operative to encode said original audio signal
`representation to reduce intersymbol interference and lowering
`signal detection error of said audio signal representation
`respective to said digital audio headphone and said digital audio
`spread spectrum transmitter; and
`
`a digital modulator configured for independent code division
`multiple access (CDMA) communication operation wherein
`said portable digital audio spread spectrum transmitter is in
`direct communication with said digital audio headphone, said
`digital audio headphone comprising:
`
`
`1 Patent Owner does not suggest that claim 1 is representative or that the
`patentability of the other claims rises or falls with claim 1.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`a direct conversion module configured to capture packets and the
`correct bit sequence embedded in the received spread spectrum
`signal and lowering signal detection error through reduced
`intersymbol interference coding respective of said digital audio
`headphone and said portable digital audio spread spectrum
`transmitter, the captured packets corresponding to the unique
`user code bit sequence;
`
`a digital demodulator configured
`communication operation;
`
`for
`
`independent CDMA
`
`a decoder operative to decode the applied reduced intersymbol
`interference coding of said original audio signal representation;
`
`a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) generating an audio output of
`said original audio signal representation; and
`
`a module adapted to reproduce said audio output, wherein each
`user has their headphone configured to communicate with their
`own separate digital audio spread spectrum transmitter, said
`audio having been wirelessly transmitted from said portable
`audio source through the digital audio spread spectrum
`transmitter configured to communicate with the headphone
`such that signals not originating from said portable digital audio
`spread spectrum transmitter are inaudible while operating in the
`portable wireless digital audio spread spectrum transmitter
`spectrum.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`C.
`
`Preliminary Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner requests
`
`that four
`
`terms be construed according
`
`to
`
`the
`
`constructions adopted in an ITC investigation concerning patents related to the
`
`’396 patent at issue here. Specifically, Petitioner requests the following
`
`constructions:
`
`Claim Term
`“reduced intersymbol interference
`coding”
`(cl. 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 16)
`“configured for independent code
`division multiple access (CDMA)
`communication operation”
`(cl. 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 16)
`“unique user code” / “unique user code
`bit sequence”
`(cl. 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 16)
`“direct conversion module”
`(cl. 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 16)
`
`Petitioner’s Requested Construction
`“coding that reduces intersymbol
`interference”
`
`“configured for code division multiple
`access (CDMA) communication
`operation performed independent of any
`central control”
`“fixed code (bit sequence) specifically
`associated with one user of a device(s)”
`
`“a module for converting radio
`frequency to baseband or very near
`baseband in a single frequency
`conversion without an intermediate
`frequency”
`
`Pet. 11-12.
`
`To assist the Board in reaching a preliminary claim construction, and for the
`
`purposes of responding to this Petition, Patent Owner does not dispute the
`
`proposed claim constructions.
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Patent Owner does not contest the level of skill proposed by Petitioner for a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 11.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`E.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims
`
`Though it appears to have no bearing on this Petition, Petitioner disputes the
`
`priority date of the ’396 patent. Pet. 12-19. But Petitioner overlooks settled law,
`
`and its position on the priority date is incorrect. Patent Owner addresses this issue
`
`below in the final section of this Response.
`
`IV. PETITIONER’S THEORIES
`Petitioner presents two grounds for inter partes review based on a total of
`
`three references:
`
`Exhibit Reference
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,563,892
`
`Shorthand Name
`
`‘892 patent
`
`1007
`
`1009
`
`J. Haartsen, “Bluetooth—The universal radio
`interface for ad hoc, wireless connectivity,” Ericsson
`Review, Oct. 1998
`
`1998 paper
`
`G.B. Giannakis, A.Stamoulis, Z.Wang, and
`P.A.Anghel, “Load-Adaptive MUI/ISI-Resilient
`Generalized Multi-Carrier CDMA with Linear and
`DF Receivers,” European Transactions on
`Telecommunications J., Vol. 11, No. 6, Nov.-Dec.
`2000
`
`Giannakis
`
`The two grounds are:
`
`Ground References
`
`1
`
`‘892 patent (Petitioner relies upon
`matter from a 1998 paper presuming
`such matter was
`identified with
`sufficient particularity
`for effective
`
`
`
`11
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102(b) or
`§ 102(e)
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`1-17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`Ground References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`incorporation by reference into the ’892
`patent)
`
`‘892 patent and Giannakis
`
`§ 103
`
`1-17
`
`2
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE REFERENCES RELIED UPON
`A. The ’892 Patent
`The ’892 patent is titled “Method and system for detection of binary
`
`information in the presence of slowly varying disturbances.” Ex. 1006 at 1. The
`
`’892 patent notes “drawbacks,
`
`limitations and problems associated with
`
`conventional techniques for compensating for slowly varying disturbances.” Id. at
`
`0014 3:6-8. To address these, the ’892 patent discloses a very narrow technique of
`
`including a filter in a receiver to suppress the disturbances, and then using a Viterbi
`
`algorithm to correct for interference introduced by the filter. Id. at 0014 3:11-28
`
`(summary), 0010 (Figs. 6, 7).
`
`B.
`
`The 1998 Paper
`
`The 1998 paper is titled, “Bluetooth—the universal radio interface for ad
`
`hoc, wireless connectivity.” Ex. 1007 at 1. The 1998 paper introduces and
`
`describes aspects of the Bluetooth communication protocol.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`C. Giannakis
`Giannakis is a paper titled, “Load-Adaptive MUI/ISI-Resilient Generalized
`
`Multi-Carrier CDMA with Linear and DF Receivers.” Ex. 1009 at 0004.
`
`Giannakis proposes a frequency hopping technique that uses a ɸm-based selector
`
`matrix to provide mutually orthogonal frequency hopping patterns for each of m
`
`users. Giannakis also proposes redundant transmissions, where each user’s data is
`
`transmitted redundantly by simultaneously transmitting the data on more than one
`
`frequency. Giannakis explains that the disclosed techniques could apply in other
`
`systems but only if frequency hopping is introduced via the disclosed “ɸm”
`
`technique. Id. at 0007-8.
`
`VI. THE PETITION IS FUNDAMENTALLY DEFICIENT
`A petition for inter partes review must provide a detailed explanation of the
`
`evidence and identify with specificity where each claim limitation is found in the
`
`asserted prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22,
`
`42.104(b)(4),(5). It is not enough to quote from alleged prior art without providing
`
`linking analysis that specifies how each limitation is allegedly satisfied by the
`
`quoted material. E.g., Google, Inc. v. EVERYMD.COM LLC, IPR2014-00347,
`
`Paper 9, at 19–20, 24–25 (May 22, 2014); see also Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. Magna
`
`Elec., Inc., IPR2014-01206, Paper 13, at 13–14 (Dec. 23, 2014). Petitioner’s claim
`
`chart lists each claim limitation, and for each limitation provides lengthy, page-
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`spanning block quotes from its references that rarely have any direct bearing on the
`
`associated claim limitation. And Petitioner’s arguments fail to explain how the
`
`lengthy block quotes disclose the particular requirements of the claim limitations.
`
`VII. GROUND 1 FAILS
`A. The ’892 Patent Fails to Properly Incorporate Any Particular Material
`From the 1998 paper
`
`Ground 1 is based on Petitioner’s argument that the ’892 patent incorporates
`
`matter from a 1998 paper. Pet. 9. To be clear, even if the alleged incorporation
`
`were proper, the combined disclosures of the ’892 patent and the 1998 paper still
`
`fail to disclose each and every limitation of any of the claims of the ’396 patent, as
`
`is explained in sections below. But the failure of the alleged incorporation is
`
`singularly fatal to Petitioner’s Ground 1 anticipation theory, because Petitioner
`
`relies solely upon the 1998 paper as providing alleged disclosure of many claim
`
`limitations.
`
`1.
`
`The Legal Standard for Incorporation by Reference Requires
`Specific Identification of Material
`
`Whether and to what extent material is incorporated by reference into a host
`
`document is a question of law. Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,
`
`212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “To incorporate material by reference, the
`
`host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it
`
`incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various
`
`documents.” Id. (collecting cases) (emphasis added); see also Kyocera Wireless
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). An
`
`incorporation by reference that specifically identifies multiple disclosures within
`
`the referenced document may successfully incorporate each of those disclosures.
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F. 3d 1331, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`However, a “mere reference to another application, or patent, or publication is not
`
`an incorporation of anything therein . . . .” Id. at 1346 (citing In re De Seversky,
`
`474 F.2d 671, 674 (CCPA 1973)).
`
`In Zenon Environmental, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007), the Federal Circuit concluded that the following language failed to properly
`
`incorporate the entirety of Zenon’s earlier ’373 patent:
`
`The vertical skein is not the subject matter of this invention and any
`prior art vertical skein may be used. Further details relating to the
`construction and deployment of a most preferred skein are found in
`the parent U.S. Pat. No. 5,639,373, and in Ser. No. 08/690,045, the
`relevant disclosures of each of which are included by reference thereto
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Id. at 1379. The Federal Circuit found that the plain language indicates that the
`
`subject matter “pertains to the details relati