Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 24
`Entered: August 9, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., AND LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00361
`Patent 6,216,158 B1
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before, JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`ON PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 24
`Entered: August 9, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., AND LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00361
`Patent 6,216,158 B1
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before, JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`ON PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00361
`Patent 6,216,158 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On June 19, 2019, the Board issued a Final Written Decision in this
`proceeding. Paper 22 (“Final Dec.”). In that Final Written Decision, we
`determined that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence
`that claims 1, 2, 6−9, 12, 14, and 15 of the ’158 patent are unpatentable as
`obvious over Riggins1 and Devarakonda.2 Id. at 48. We determined that
`Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 20
`of the ’158 is unpatentable. On March 4, 2019, Patent Owner filed a
`Request for Rehearing. Paper 22 (Req. Reh’g). Patent Owner argues a
`single issue: that, in the claims shown to be unpatentable, we
`misapprehended or overlooked that the limitation “description of the
`service” is not met by Riggins. Id. at 2.
`According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he burden of showing a
`decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,”
`and the “request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the
`Board misapprehended or overlooked.” The burden here, therefore, lies with
`Patent Owner to show we misapprehended or overlooked the matter it
`requests that we review. We are not persuaded that Patent Owner has shown
`that we misapprehended or overlooked the matter raised in the Request for
`Rehearing.
`We construed the limitation “description of the service,” recited in
`claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 8 and 20, as “information that
`describes the service.” Final Dec. 16. We also determined that that the
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,131,116 (Exhibit 1008).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,757,729 B1 (Exhibit 1009).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00361
`Patent 6,216,158 B1
`
`“plain meaning of the surrounding claim language specifies that the
`description of the service is in a directory of services and that the description
`includes the recited reference to program code.” Id.
`Patent Owner argues that we misapprehended that accessing a
`“description of the service” cannot be access to “a mere list of services.” Id.
`at 2. The “description of the service” must “itself include ‘a reference to the
`program code.’” Id. at 3. But, according to Patent Owner, Riggins merely
`lists the “name” of a service, with no reference to program code. Id. Patent
`Owner’s arguments do not point out something we misapprehended or
`overlooked. Rather, the arguments reflect a disagreement with our
`determination that Riggins teaches accessing a directory of the service.
`We found that Riggins maintains configuration data at the master
`server. Final Dec. 32. The configuration data teaches the “directory of
`services.” That configuration data comprises a “list” of services available
`for a roaming user. Id. The “list” contains the information regarding the
`services and describes the services. Id. The Roam Page accesses the
`configuration data that is stored in the server to display the service options to
`the user, such as “e-mail.” Id. Thus, Riggins teaches accessing the
`information (“description of the service”) in the configuration data
`(“directory of services”) from the master server. Patent Owner appears to
`argue on rehearing that we pointed to the Roam Page alone as itself being
`the “description of the service.” Req. Reh’g 2 (arguing that “the Board
`pointed to the assertion that Riggins’ ‘Roam Page’, copied below, displays
`the name of the service that is available.”). But our Decision points to the
`“list” of services and the information in the configuration data that is used
`by the Roam Page to display the service options. For instance, our Decision
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00361
`Patent 6,216,158 B1
`
`states that the “information that is displayed on the ‘Roam Page’ is derived
`from the configuration data, which includes not only the identification of the
`service, i.e., that e-mail is an available service, but also a service prompt
`corresponding to an applet.” Final Dec. 32. Thus, Patent Owner’s
`arguments are unpersuasive.
`Patent Owner further argues that Riggins’s Roam Page causes a
`particular “result,” but the claim is directed to a “specifically-defined
`description itself.” Req. Reh’g 3. Again, Patent Owner misses the point.
`We stated in our Decision that “the configuration data, which is further
`displayed on the Roam page, includes at a minimum, the name of the service
`that is available and the selectable service prompt.” Final Dec. 32
`(emphasis added). Our Decision points to the Roam Page as displaying the
`name of the service, but reiterated that the configuration data accessed by the
`Roam Page also specifies a service address and identifies the service prompt
`corresponding to an applet. Id. Patent Owner’s arguments do not address
`our determination that the information contained in the configuration data of
`Riggins teaches the “description of the service” including the reference to
`the program code, which is the selectable service prompt. Thus, Patent
`Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive.
`Lastly, Patent Owner alleges that Riggins’s client does not access “a
`directory of services.” Req. Reh’g 4. This argument by Patent Owner could
`not have been overlooked or misapprehended because it was not presented
`during trial, and has been presented for the first time in the rehearing
`request. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Riggins uses “locally”
`stored information to assemble the Roam Page to display the name of the
`service and the service prompt corresponding to the applet. This
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00361
`Patent 6,216,158 B1
`
`information is obtained from the configuration data located at the master
`server. Arguments to the contrary mischaracterize Riggins and our
`Decision. The reference in Riggins to generating the Roam Page at the
`remote client refers to where the Roam Page is eventually displayed and has
`no bearing on the fact that Riggins’s client must access the configuration
`data from the server in order to generate the Roam Page for the client. See
`Ex. 1008, 6:52−55.
`In conclusion, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has shown that
`we misapprehended or overlooked the matters raised on rehearing and we
`see no reason to disturb our Final Written Decision in this proceeding.
`II. ORDER
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00361
`Patent 6,216,158 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Scott J. Jarratt
`Jamie McDole
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`Ryan Loveless
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@eheridgelaw.com
`
`
`Sean D. Burdick
`UNILOC USA, INC.
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`
`6
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
