Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`
` Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Sony Corporation,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`One-E-Way, Inc.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00216
`
`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Issue Date: January 4, 2011
`
`Title: Wireless Digital Audio System
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,865,258 UNDER
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ v
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ....................................................................................................... vii
`I.
`COMPLIANCE WITH PETITION REQUIREMENTS ................................... 1
`A. Notice of Real Parties in Interest ................................................................... 1
`B. Notice of Related Matters................................................................................ 1
`C. Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ................. 2
`D. Grounds for Standing ...................................................................................... 2
`E.
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested .......................................................... 2
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Brief Description of the ’258 Patent .............................................................. 3
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’258 Patent ......................................................... 6
`III. THE CHALLENGED ’258 PATENT .................................................................... 7
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 7
`B.
`Claim Constructions. ........................................................................................ 8
`IV. EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ............... 9
`A.
`Legal Standard .................................................................................................10
`B.
`The 2001 Application .....................................................................................11
`C.
`The 2003 Application .....................................................................................13
`D.
`The 2003 Application As Filed Does Not Support the ’258 Patent
`Claims. ..............................................................................................................15
`Applicant’s Amendments to the 2003 Application Cannot
`Establish a 2001 or 2003 Priority Date........................................................16
`July 12, 2008 is the Earliest Priority Date to Which the ’258 Patent
`Claims Are Entitled. .......................................................................................19
`G.
`Patent Owner’s Arguments in the Related IPR Are Without Merit .......19
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...........................................................23
`
`II.
`
`V.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`B.
`
`b.
`
`The ’196 Publication Is Prior Art to the ’258 Patent. ...............................23
`The ’196 Publication Renders Obvious Claims 3, 4, 8, 10, and 11
`of the ’258 Patent ............................................................................................23
`1.
`Claims 3, 8, 11 ......................................................................................24
`Claim 3: A portable wireless digital audio transmitter
`a.
`system for digital transmission of an original audio signal
`representation from a portable audio source to a portable
`digital audio headphone receiver, said portable wireless
`digital audio system comprising: ................................................. 24
`Claim 3: a digital audio transmitter operatively coupled to
`said portable audio source and transmitting a unique user
`code bit sequence with said original audio signal
`representation in packet format, wherein said digital audio
`transmitter operatively coupled to said audio source is
`capable of mobile operation, said digital audio transmitter
`comprising: .................................................................................. 24
`Claim 3: an encoder operative to encode said original audio
`signal representation to reduce intersymbol interference ............ 26
`Claim 3: a digital modulator module configured for
`independent CDMA communication operation ........................... 26
`Claim 3: said digital audio transmitter configured for direct
`digital wireless communication with said portable digital
`audio headphone receiver, said portable digital audio
`headphone receiver comprising: .................................................. 26
`Claim 3: a direct conversion module configured to capture
`packets embedded in the received spread spectrum signal,
`the captured packets corresponding to the unique user code
`bit sequence;................................................................................. 27
`Claim 3: a digital demodulator configured for independent
`CDMA communication operation ................................................ 27
`Claim 3: a decoder operative to decode the applied reduced
`intersymbol interference coding of said original audio
`signal representation .................................................................... 28
`Claim 3: a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) generating an
`audio output of said original audio signal representation;
`and ................................................................................................ 28
`Claim 3: a module adapted to reproduce said generated
`audio output, said audio having been wirelessly transmitted
`from said portable audio source and reproduced virtually
`free from interference .................................................................. 28
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`2.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Claims 4 and 10 ...................................................................................29
`Claim 4: A portable wireless digital audio system for
`a.
`digital transmission of an original audio signal
`representation from a portable audio source to a portable
`digital audio headphone receiver, said portable wireless
`digital audio system comprising: ................................................. 30
`Claim 4: a digital audio transmitter operatively coupled to
`said portable audio source and transmitting a unique user
`code bit sequence with said original audio signal
`representation in packet format, wherein said digital audio
`transmitter operatively coupled to said audio source is
`capable of mobile operation, said digital audio transmitter
`comprising: .................................................................................. 30
`Claim 4: an encoder operative to encode said original audio
`signal representation to reduce intersymbol interference ............ 31
`Claim 4: a channel encoder and interleaver to reduce
`transmission errors ....................................................................... 31
`Claim 4: a differential phase shift keying (DPSK)
`modulator being configured for independent code division
`multiple access (CDMA) communication operation ................... 32
`Claim 4: said digital audio transmitter configured for direct
`digital wireless communication with said portable digital
`audio headphone receiver, said portable digital audio
`headphone receiver comprising: .................................................. 32
`Claim 4: a direct conversion module configured to capture
`packets embedded in the received spread spectrum signal,
`the captured packets corresponding to the unique user code
`bit sequence .................................................................................. 32
`Claim 4: a digital demodulator configured for independent
`CDMA communication operation ................................................ 33
`Claim 4: a viterbi decoder and de-interleaver generating a
`corresponding digital output ........................................................ 33
`Claim 4: a decoder operative to decode the applied reduced
`intersymbol interference coding of said original audio
`signal representation .................................................................... 34
`Claim 4: a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) generating an
`audio output of said original audio signal representation ............ 34
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`l.
`
`Claim 4: a module adapted to reproduce said generated
`audio output, said audio having been wirelessly transmitted
`from said portable audio source virtually free from
`interference from device transmitted signals operating in
`the portable wireless digital audio system spectrum .................... 34
`VI. CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................35
`VII. APPENDIX: ABRIDGED CLAIM CHARTS ....................................................37
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...........................................................................................51
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................. 10, 15, 17
`
`Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc.,
`460 F.3d 1365 (Fed.Cir.2006) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`579 U.S. __ (2016) ................................................................................................................. 8
`
`Ex Parte MacLeod,
`2003 WL 25277951 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interf. 2003) ................................................ 11, 19
`
`Harari v. Hollmer,
`602 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................. 20, 22, 23
`
`In re De Seversky,
`474 F.2d 671 (CCPA 1973) ......................................................................................... 11, 17
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`In re Reiffin,
`340 Fed. Appx. 651 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2009) .................................................................. 20
`
`Litton v. Whirlpool,
`728 F.2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................................... 20, 22
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................... 10, 11, 15, 19
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc.,
`230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................... 16
`
`Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................ 10
`
`Zenon Environmental, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................... 10, 11
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).................................................................................................................... 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................................ 2, 6, 7, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................................. 10, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ............................................................................................................ 10, 16, 22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 132 .................................................................................................................. 11, 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(b).................................................................................................................... 35
`
`35 U.S.C. 119 ............................................................................................................................ 16
`
`35 U.S.C. 365(c) ....................................................................................................................... 16
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 201.06(c)(IV) ..................................................................................................... 11, 17
`
`MPEP § 2163.05 ............................................................................................................... 15, 17
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.08 .................................................................................................................. 1, 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................................ 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`Fed. Cir. R. 32.1 ....................................................................................................................... 21
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,865,258, Wireless Digital Audio System (“the ’258
`patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`File history of U.S. Application No. 12/570,343, filed Sept. 30, 2009
`(“the 2009 application”)
`
`File history of U.S. Application No. 10/027,391, filed December 21,
`2001 (“the 2001 application”)
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2003/0118196 (“the ’196 publication”)
`
`File history of U.S. Application No. 10/648,012, filed August 26, 2003
`(“the 2003 application”)
`
`US Patent No. 7,412,294 (“the ’294 patent”)
`
`Excerpts from file history of U.S. Application No. 12/144,729, filed
`July 12, 2008 (“the 2008 application”)
`
`Comparison of the 2003 application as-filed with the 2001 application
`as-filed
`
`Comparison of figures from the 2003 and 2001 applications as filed
`
`Comparison of the ’294 patent with the as-filed 2003 application
`
`Comparison of the 2009 application as-filed with the 2008 application
`as-filed
`
`Declaration of J. Moring re: ’258 patent
`
`Order No. 12 from In re Certain Consumer Elecs. and Display Devices with
`Graphics Processing and Graphics Processing Units Therein [sic, proper title of
`the Investigation is In re Certain Wireless Headsets], Inv. No. 337-TA-943
`(July 24, 2015)
`
`1014
`
`One-E-Way v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 859 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
` Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner Sony Corporation hereby seeks inter partes review of claims 3, 4, 8, 10,
`
`and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,865,258 (“the ’258 patent”). (Ex. 1001).
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH PETITION REQUIREMENTS
`A. Notice of Real Parties in Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), notice is hereby given that the above-
`
`identified Petitioner, together with Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics
`
`Inc., Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Mobile Communications Inc.,
`
`Sony Mobile Communications AB, and Sony Video & Sound Products Inc., are the
`
`real parties-in-interest (“RPI”) in this petition.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters
`
`In re Certain Wireless Headsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-943 (“the ITC action”), pending
`
`before the U.S. International Trade Commission, may affect or be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding. The ’258 patent and U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 (the “’391
`
`patent”) are asserted by Patent Owner One-E-Way, Inc. against Petitioner’s Bluetooth
`
`headsets in the ITC action. Another petition for inter partes review of the ’258 patent
`
`on different grounds has been filed simultaneously herewith as IPR2018-00217.
`
`Petitions for inter partes review of the ’391 patent on similar grounds are being filed
`
`simultaneously herewith as IPR2018-00218 and IPR2018-00219.
`
`Two petitions for review of U.S. Patent No. 9,282,396 (the “’396 patent”),
`
`IPR2016-01638 and IPR2016-01639, filed by Sony, have been instituted on February
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`22, 2017, and are currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”). The ’396 patent claims priority to the ’258 and ’391 patents.
`
`C. Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), (b)(4), and 42.10(a), Petitioner designates
`
`the following lead and backup counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`John Flock (Reg. No. 39,670)
`Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway,
`New York, NY 10004
`Telephone: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`Email: jflock@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`
`D. Grounds for Standing
`
`Backup Counsel:
`Paul T. Qualey (Reg. No. 45,027)
`Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
`1350 I Street NW, Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 662-2700
`Fax: (202) 662-2739
`Email: pqualey@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`Petitioner certifies under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the ’258 patent is available
`
`for inter partes review, and that Petitioner and the RPIs are not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this petition.
`
`E.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 3, 4, 8, 10, and 11 of the ’258 patent
`
`be cancelled based on the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 3, 4, 8, 10, and 11 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S.
`
`Publication No. US 2003/0118196 A1 (“the ’196 publication”) (Ex.
`
`1004) and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A. Brief Description of the ’258 Patent
`
`The ’258 patent issued on January 4, 2011 from U.S. Patent Application Serial
`
`No. 12/570,343 filed on September 30, 2009, and is assigned to Patent Owner. It
`
`generally relates to a wireless digital audio system having a portable audio source with
`
`a digital audio transmitter and an audio receiver operatively coupled to a headphone
`
`set, which is configured for digital wireless communication with the audio transmitter.
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below, depicts an exemplary embodiment of the
`
`invention. The music audio source 80 is connected to a battery powered wireless
`
`transmitter 20, which transmits audio wirelessly using an antenna 24 to a receiving
`
`antenna 52 of a battery powered headphone receiver 50. The receiver 50 may utilize
`
`fuzzy logic detection to optimize reception of the received user code; the speakers 75
`
`in headphones 55 are used for listening to the spread spectrum-demodulated and
`
`decoded communication signal. Ex. 1001 at 2:26-59.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Figures 2 and 3, reproduced below, depict block diagrams of an audio
`
`transmitter portion and an audio receiver portion of the wireless digital audio system
`
`of Figure 1. The transmitter portion shown in Figure 2 digitizes the audio signal from
`
`the audio source 80 using an analog to digital converter (ADC) 32. The digitized
`
`signal is further processed downstream by an encoder 36, then by a digital low pass
`
`filter, and a modulator 42 modulates the signal to be transmitted. To reduce the
`
`effects of channel noise, a channel encoder 38 is used. For further noise immunity, a
`
`spread spectrum differential phase shift key (DPSK) module 48 is utilized. The unique
`
`user code generated by the code generator 44 is specifically associated with one
`
`wireless digital audio system user. The spread spectrum modulated signal transmitted
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`by the antenna 24 is received by the antenna 52 shown in Figure 3, and then
`
`processed by spread spectrum direct conversion receiver or module 56 with a receiver
`
`code generator 60 that contains the same transmitted unique code. A block de-
`
`interleaver 64 decodes the bits of the digital signal encoded in the block interleaver 40,
`
`a Viterbi decoder 66 is used to decode the bits encoded by the channel encoder 38,
`
`and a source decoder 68 further decodes the coding applied by the encoder 36.
`
`Finally, a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) 70 is used to transform the digital signal
`
`to an analog audio signal, which is then processed by a power amplifier 74 optimized
`
`for powering the headphone speakers 75. Ex. 1001 at 2:41-3:27, 4:13-24.
`
`The ’258 patent issued from the fourth application in a chain as shown below.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’258 Patent
`
`As filed, the 2009 application that issued as the ’258 patent had twelve claims.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 0018-25. Except for the claims, the originally filed specification is
`
`substantially identical to the originally filed specification of U.S. Application No.
`
`12/144,729, filed July 12, 2008 (“the 2008 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,684,885. Compare Ex. 1002 at 0006-12 with Ex. 1007 at 0006-12. On January 13,
`
`2010, in a non-final office action, the PTO rejected claims 1-11 as obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a), and rejected claims 1-12 for non-statutory double patenting. Ex. 1002
`
`at 0036-43. On February 4, 2010, in a response to this office action, the applicant
`
`added new claims 13-26, traversed the obviousness rejection, and filed terminal
`
`disclaimers with respect to the co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 12/144,729
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 7,412,294. Id. at 0071-92. On June 7, 2010, the PTO issued a final
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`office action, allowing claim 12 and rejecting all other pending claims 1-11 and 13-26
`
`as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ex. 1002 at 0096-109. On August 4, 2010, the
`
`applicant filed a request for continued examination, amended allowed claim 12,
`
`amended claims 1-11, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23, 25, 26 and traversed the obviousness
`
`rejections for these claims, and cancelled the remaining pending claims 14, 16, 18-20,
`
`22, 24. Id. at 0123-169. On November 1, 2010, the PTO issued an Examiner’s
`
`Amendment cancelling claims 4, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 23, and a Notice of Allowance for
`
`the remaining claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, 13, 21, 25, 26. Id. at 0263-68. On November 5,
`
`2010, the applicant filed a Request for Amendment after Allowance, requesting that
`
`the cancellation of claims 4, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 23 should read that they have been
`
`cancelled without prejudice. Id. at 0286. This amendment was entered by the examiner
`
`on November 19, 2010. Id. at 0289-90. The ’258 patent issued on January 4, 2011.
`
`III. THE CHALLENGED ’258 PATENT
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’258 patent has a Bachelor of Science
`
`degree in electrical engineering or a related field, and approximately two years of
`
`experience in the design or implementation of wireless communications systems, or
`
`the equivalent. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art has approximately six
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`years of experience in the design or implementation of wireless communications
`
`systems, or the equivalent.1
`
`B.
`
`Claim Constructions.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), in inter partes review, claims receive the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” See Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. __ (2016). Petitioner requests that, for purposes of this
`
`proceeding, each claim term here be given its ordinary meaning, except for several
`
`terms construed by the ALJ in the ITC action and one term construed by the Federal
`
`Circuit, largely as advocated by Patent Owner. Ex. 1013 at 13, 19, 29, 34, 39; Ex.
`
`1014, One-E-Way v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 859 F.3d 1059, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also
`
`Ex. 1012 ¶¶12-13.
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`“reduced intersymbol interference
`coding”
`(cl. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11)
`“configured for independent code
`division multiple access (CDMA)
`communication operation”
`(cl. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11)
`“unique user code” / “unique user
`code bit sequence”
`(cl. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11)
`
`“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)”
`
`
`1 This is the level of skill proposed by Petitioner and adopted by the Administrative
`Law Judge (“ALJ”) in the ITC action. Ex. 1013 at 7-9; see also, Ex. 1012 ¶11.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`“direct conversion module”
`(cl. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11)
`
`“a module for converting radio frequency to
`baseband or very near baseband in a single
`frequency conversion without an intermediate
`frequency”
`interference
`from
`free
`“virtually
`“free from interference such that eavesdropping
`transmitted
`signals
`from device
`[on device transmitted signals operating in the
`operating in the [portable wireless
`portable wireless digital audio system/ wireless
`digital
`audio
`system/ wireless
`headphone/wireless digital audio system/digital
`headphone/wireless digital audio
`wireless audio receiver spectrum] cannot occur.”
`system/digital
`wireless
`audio
`receiver]
`spectrum.”
`(cl. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11)
`
`IV. EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Each application in the family preceding the ’258 patent claims priority to the
`
`prior applications in the chain. Merely claiming priority, however, is not sufficient for
`
`a claim to obtain the benefit of an earlier filing date for purposes of, e.g., overcoming
`
`prior art. For the ’258 patent claims to be entitled to the priority date of the earliest
`
`application in the chain, i.e., the 2001 application, every application between the ‘258
`
`patent and that application must maintain disclosure that supports the claims.
`
`In this case, the applicant broke the chain of disclosure in 2003 by filing a
`
`continuation-in-part (“CIP”) application, Ex. 1005, directed to a different invention
`
`than that of the ’258 claims. The 2003 application did not include or incorporate by
`
`reference the disclosure of the earlier 2001 application, and the applicant’s subsequent
`
`amendments to the 2003 application’s specification and figures cannot cure the break
`
`in the chain because the amendments were not supported by the 2003 application’s
`
`disclosure as filed, and thus improperly introduced new matter.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`The patent owner bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating entitlement to an
`
`earlier application’s filing date. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276-77 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011). This burden is not satisfied simply because the later application is a
`
`“continuation” or a “continuation-in-part” of the earlier one. See Research Corp. Techs. v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 865, 869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2010). If the earlier application is
`
`not an immediate parent, “in order to gain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier
`
`application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to the
`
`earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112,” maintaining continuity of disclosure throughout the chain. Zenon Environmental,
`
`Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378–82 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted)
`
`(reversing district court’s finding that the patent-in-suit was entitled to the priority
`
`date of an earlier filed patent because an intervening application did not meet the
`
`written description requirement, and holding the patent-in-suit anticipated by the
`
`earlier patent); see also Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`The patent owner must show that the claimed invention was disclosed in the
`
`earlier applications as originally filed. 35 U.S.C. § 120 (2012); see Anascape, Ltd. v.
`
`Nintendo of Am., Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding a parent application
`
`failed to provide written description support to entitle later claims to the benefit of
`
`the specification’s filing date because the later claims included text not present in the
`
`specification as originally filed). Regardless of whether the claim limitations of the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`later invention may be obvious from the prior disclosure, they must appear in the
`
`specification of the earlier application to get the earlier priority date. See Lockwood, 107
`
`F.3d at 1571-72 (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which
`
`is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends
`
`only to that which is disclosed. While the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a
`
`disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in
`
`the art, all the limitations must appear in the specification.”).
`
`Incorporation by reference can maintain continuity of disclosure. It “provides a
`
`method for integrating material from various documents into a host document … by
`
`citing such material in a manner that makes clear that the material is effectively part of
`
`the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein.” Zenon, 506 F.3d at 1378
`
`(citing Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc., 460 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). However,
`
`claiming priority as a CIP (or continuation or divisional) of a parent application is not
`
`an incorporation by reference of a prior application. See Ex Parte MacLeod, 2003 WL
`
`25277951, *7-*8 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interf. 2003); In re De Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674
`
`(CCPA 1973); MPEP 201.06(c)(IV). Further, an incorporation-by-reference statement
`
`cannot be added after the application’s filing date. 35 U.S.C. § 132; MPEP
`
`201.06(c)(IV).
`
`B.
`
`The 2001 Application
`
`On December 21, 2001, the earliest application to which the ’258 patent claims
`
`priority, entitled “Wireless Digital Audio System,” was filed and assigned U.S.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Application No. 10/027,391 (“the 2001 application”). Ex. 1003 at 0003. As filed, the
`
`2001 application included a 5-page specification, 7 claims, an abstract, and 3 figures
`
`(shown below). Id. at 0004-22.
`
`
`
`
`
`The 2001 application states that “[t]he present invention is directed to wireless
`
`digital audio systems for transmission of a signal from an audio player device to a
`
`headphone.” Id. at 0006. The 2001 application describes various details of the wireless
`
`digital audio system, including that “encoder 36 may be used to reduce intersymbol
`
`interference (ISI) by using a transform code to encode the digital signal”; “differential
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,865,258
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`phase shift key (DPSK) transmitter 48 [] modulates the digital signal to be
`
`transmitted”; and “direct conversion receiver 56 may provide a method for down
`
`converting the received signal.” Id. at 0008-09. Figures 2 and 3 include functional
`
`block diagrams showing the components, including the encoder 36, DPSK transmitter
`
`48, and direct conversion receiver 56, and operational flow of the audio transmitter
`
`and audio rece