`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 24
`
`
`
` Entered: February 18, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2018-002891
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`____________
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics America, Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2018-
`01383, has been joined as a party to this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Patent Owner, Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., filed a Request for
`Rehearing (Paper 23, “Req. Reh’g”) of our Final Written Decision
`(Paper 22, “Decision” or “Dec.”) addressing the patentability of claims 1, 3,
`5–11, 13–18, and 20 of U.S. Patent 8,872,646 (Ex. 1001, “the ’646 patent”).
`In its Request, Patent Owner seeks reconsideration of our Final Written
`Decision. Req. Reh’g 1. For the reasons provided below, Patent Owner’s
`Request is denied.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the
`party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where
`each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party
`challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be
`modified. Id.
`In our Decision, we concluded Petitioner had met its burden of
`showing that claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, and 20 would have been
`obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, and Mizell and that claims 8,
`16, and 18 would have been obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan,
`Mizell, and Park. Dec. 20–21.
`Patent Owner’s sole argument raised in contesting our determination
`is that we “overlooked, certain positions presented in Patent Owner’s
`Response directed to the claim language ‘remov[ing] the one or more
`glitches from the motion data.’” Req. Reh’g 1. We disagree.
`Patent Owner asserts that we “misunderst[ood] Patent Owner’s
`argument concerning certain deficiencies in the Petition,” because “Patent
`Owner’s position is [not] entirely dependent upon the construction it had
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`offered for the ‘glitches’ term, which the Board rejected.” Req. Reh’g 2.
`Patent Owner asserts that additional arguments were presented at pages 12–
`15 of the Patent Owner Response (Paper 11), which the “Final Written
`Decision does not expressly address, and thus appears to have overlooked.”
`Id. at 2–4.
`We disagree with Patent Owner because there is no substantive
`difference between Patent Owner’s glitch claim-construction argument and
`its argument distinguishing McMahan’s error removal from the claimed
`glitch removal. Both arguments seek to distinguish the claimed glitch
`removal over McMahan’s error correction because McMahan’s errors do not
`reflect actual motion. Compare Paper 11, 6 (claim-construction argument
`that a glitch must “refer to actual motion data”), with id. at 14 (arguing that
`the claimed glitch removal is distinguishable over McMahan’s “processing
`an erroneous output which, due to its impossible value, is never included as
`part of anything that can be considered motion data (and thus it cannot be
`removed from such data)”); see also id. at 12 (asserting that “Petitioner’s
`theory fails at the outset because . . . the ‘error’ described in McMahan is an
`impossible value that is never included as part of the motion data” and
`“[t]hus the ‘error’ described in McMahan (1) is not a ‘glitch’ as claimed . . .
`and (2) cannot be removed from ‘the motion data’ if it was never part of ‘the
`motion data’ in the first place”).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Having considered Patent Owner’s Request, Patent Owner has not
`persuaded us, for the reasons discussed, that we misapprehended or
`overlooked any matter. Thus, Patent Owner has not demonstrated we should
`modify our Decision with respect to any of claims 1, 3, 5–11, 13–18, and 20.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Thomas W. Kelton
`Thomas.kelton.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Calmann Clements
`Calmann.clements.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Jamie McDole
`Jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan Loveless
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Sean Burdick
`Sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`Brett Mangrum
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`
`James Etheridge
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Jeffrey Huang
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`5
`
`