`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 20
`
`
`
` Entered: June 18, 2019
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00395
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`____________
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioner Apple Inc., filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting inter
`partes review of claims 1–27 of U.S. Patent No. 6,622,018 B1 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’018 patent”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we determined Petitioner
`showed a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of all challenged claims and instituted an inter partes review.
`Paper 7, 26–27. Patent Owner Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. filed a Response
`(Paper 10, “Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Response (Paper 13, “Reply”). An oral hearing was held before the Board.
`Paper 19.
`We issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. Having considered the record before us and as
`explained below, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
`the evidence that claims 1–27 of the ’018 patent are unpatentable. See 35
`U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`A. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`The parties assert that the ’018 patent is involved in Uniloc USA, Inc.
`v. Logitech, Inc., 3:17-cv-06733-JSC (N.D. Cal. 2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
`Wink Labs Inc., 1:17-cv-01656-GMS (D. Del. 2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
`Motorola Mobility, LLC, 1:17-cv-01657-GMS (D. Del. 2017); Uniloc USA,
`Inc. v. Peel Technologies, Inc., 1:17-cv-01552-UNA (D. Del. 2017); Uniloc
`USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., 2:17-cv-00707-JRG (E.D. Tex.
`2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 2:17-cv-01558-JLR (W.D.
`Wash. 2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. 4:17-cv-
`00825-O (N.D. Tex. 2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 2:17-cv-00470-
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`JRG (E.D. Tex. 2017); and concurrently filed IPR2018-00395. Pet. 2–3;
`Paper 4, 2.
`
`B. THE ’018 PATENT
`The ’018 patent is titled “Portable Device Control Console with
`Wireless Connection” and describes a system for controlling a remote device
`over a wireless connection. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:27–28. The ’018 patent
`teaches that a portable computer system can control a variety of remote
`devices, including newly introduced devices. Id. at 3:2–4. To discover new
`devices, the portable computer system transmits a broadcast message to
`discover compliant devices within range. Id. at 8:33–41. Compliant devices
`receiving the broadcast message then reply to the portable computer system
`with a response. Id. at 8:42–44. After one or more devices are discovered,
`the portable computer system can transmit a command to a selected remote
`device based on the type of device and its capabilities. Id. at 8:56–61.
`The ’018 patent explains that a user can control a remote device by either
`touching a rendering on the computer system’s display or by using an input
`device such as a stroke or character recognition pad that can register stylus
`movements on the portable computer system. Id. at 6:20–22, 6:67–7:9,
`9:25–50.
`
`C. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent.
`Independent claim 1 (reproduced below) is representative.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`8
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`1. A method for controlling a remote devices over a wireless
`connection, said method comprising:
`a) establishing said wireless connection between a transceiver
`and said remote device by:
`broadcasting a message, said message for locating remote
`devices within range of said transceiver; and
`receiving a response from said remote device;
`b) manifesting said remote device on a display device;
`c) registering a position where contact is made with a surface of
`an input device, wherein a particular position on said input
`device is translated into a particular command for controlling
`said remote device; and
`d) transmitting a command to said remote device over said
`wireless connection.
`Ex. 1001, 12:7–20.
`D. ASSERTED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`References
`Basis
`Challenged Claim(s)
`Leichiner1 and Idiot’s
`§ 103(a)
`1–7 and 9
`Guide2
`Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide, and
`Dara-Abrams3
`Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide, and
`Bell4
`Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide, and
`Osterhout5
`
`1 Japanese Pub. No. JPH06319177 (Nov. 15, 1994) (certified English
`translation) (Ex. 1027, “Leichiner”).
`2 Preston Gralla, THE COMPLETE IDIOT’S GUIDE TO PALMPILOT AND PALM III
`(1999) (Ex. 1008, “Idiot’s Guide”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,456,892 B1 (Sept. 24, 2002) (Ex. 1010, “Dara-Abrams”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 7,894, 474 B1 (Feb. 22, 2011) (Ex. 1029, “Bell”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 7,149,506 B2 (Dec. 12, 2006) (Ex. 1011, “Osterhout”).
`4
`
`11–17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`10
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`
`
`
`References
`Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide,
`Osterhout, and Dara-Abrams
`Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide,
`Osterhout, and Bell
`Pet. 12.
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`18 and 26
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`20 and 23
`
`II. ANALYSIS
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The ’018 patent has not expired, and the Petition was filed before
`November 13, 2018. Therefore, we interpret terms of the challenged claims
`according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017).6 Unless the record shows
`otherwise, we presume a claim term carries its “ordinary and customary
`meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of the invention. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Petitioner asserts that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of
`‘broadcasting a message’ . . . is transmitting the message to all recipients in
`range.” Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1030, 51). Patent Owner does not set forth a
`different construction and appears to adopt the same general understanding
`for “broadcasting.” See Resp. 9 (asserting that “[a] ‘broadcast message’ as
`required by the claims is a singular message sent to every device at once”).
`
`6 See also Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting
`Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83
`Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,344 (Oct. 11, 2018) (“The Office will continue to apply
`the BRI standard for construing unexpired patent claims . . . in AIA
`proceedings where a petition was filed before the [November 13, 2018]
`effective date of the rule.”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`We agree with Petitioner that in the context of the ’018 patent, “broadcasting
`a message” means transmitting a message to all recipients in range.
` OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1–7 AND 9 BASED ON LEICHINER AND
`IDIOT’S GUIDE
`As outlined below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of evidence that claims 1–7 and 9 would have been obvious
`over Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide.
`1. Overview of Leichiner
`Leichiner is a Japanese patent publication titled “Adaptive Remote
`Control System.” It teaches “an adaptive intelligent controller similar to a
`handheld remote controller for interacting with a responding controlled
`device.” Ex. 1027, Abstract. Leichiner teaches “[t]he controlled device,
`which is positioned close to the controller, is polled by the controller with
`regards to availability.” Id. Then, “[t]he controlled device responds to the
`controller” and “the controller provides appropriate user interface . . . based
`on information received from the controlled device.” Id.
`2. Overview of Idiot’s Guide
`Idiot’s Guide describes the features and functionality of a PalmPilot
`PDA. Ex. 1008, 2. According to Idiot’s Guide, the PalmPilot can be used as
`a “universal remote-control device” to “control your TV, your CD player,
`and other items in your home.” Id. at 81. In addition, Idiot’s Guide teaches
`the PalmPilot includes a touch-sensitive display area called the “Graffiti
`area,” in which a user can enter information using a stylus. Id. at 32.
`3. “broadcasting a message” in Leichiner
`Independent claims 1 and 11 recite “broadcasting a message, said
`message for locating remote devices within range of said transceiver.”
`Independent claim 21 similarly requires a transceiver “adapted to broadcast
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`a message for locating remote devices within range of said transceiver.”
`Petitioner asserts that Leichiner teaches these broadcasting limitations
`because it “teaches that the controller ‘generates polling messages to all of
`the controlled devices in the immediate vicinity,’ making it ‘possible to
`conduct polling to a number of the controlled devices at the same time.’”
`Pet. 26 (quoting Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 12, 22, 65). Petitioner explains, with support
`from its expert, Dr. Houh, that “[a] POSITA would understand that
`Leichiner’s adaptive remote controller broadcasts the polling message
`because the message is not transmitted to any one particular recipient—it is
`transmitted to all devices in the vicinity for the purpose of detecting their
`presence.” Id. (citing Ex. 1030, 51). We agree.
`Leichiner describes its polling signal as follows:
`In operation, controller 10 generates polling messages to
`all of the controlled devices in the immediate vicinity thereof.
`The polling message is generated periodically upon request of
`the user, or in response to an external signal received from the
`controller environment. The controlled device available in the
`vicinity of the controller is capable of recognizing the polling
`message, and is capable of responding with the information
`regarding the identification thereof. In response to a further
`request message from the controller, or by itself, the controlled
`device supplies additional information to the controller.
`Ex. 1027 ¶ 22.
`Leichiner’s teaching that “[t]he polling message is generated
`periodically upon request of the user,” id. (emphasis added), and that the
`controller “conduct[s] polling to a number of the controlled devices at the
`same time,” id. ¶ 9 (emphasis added), supports Petitioner’s assertion that
`Leichiner’s polling involves transmitting the same message to all recipients
`in range. In addition, just like the broadcast message in the ’018 patent,
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`Leichiner uses its polling signal to “detect the presence of a new device.”
`Ex. 1027, ¶ 65; see Ex. 1001, 8:39–40 (describing “transmit[ting] broadcast
`message 640 for the purpose of discovering compliant devices in the room”).
`That Leichiner’s polling signal is broadcast makes sense—both Leichiner’s
`polling message and the ’018 patent’s broadcast message avoid individual,
`targeted transmissions for discovering devices, which would require
`transmitting multiple unique messages, one for each possible undiscovered
`device. Based on Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence, we
`agree that Leichiner teaches the independent claims’ broadcasting limitation.
`Patent Owner, citing support from its expert, Mr. Easttom, argues that
`“[t]he polling in Leichiner is distinct from ‘broadcasting a message’
`because . . . ‘polling’ in the context of Leichiner involves individually
`communicating a targeted message with each ‘controlled device.’” Resp. 9
`(citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–52). As support, Patent Owner notes two passages in
`Leichiner—one describing that the controller “generates polling messages
`[in the plural] to all of the controlled devices in the immediate vicinity,”
`Resp. 8 (alteration Patent Owner’s) (quoting Ex. 1027 ¶ 22) (brackets in
`original), and another describing a “remote control system which conducts
`polling to each of the controlled devices located in the immediate vicinity,”
`id. at 9 (emphases Patent Owner’s) (quoting Ex. 1027 ¶ 11). We disagree
`with Patent Owner that Leichiner’s polling is a targeted, one-to-one
`transmission.
`Leichiner’s description of plural “polling messages” and “polling to
`each of the controlled devices” (Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 11, 22) does not undermine that
`its polling message is broadcast to multiple devices. Rather, as Petitioner
`explains, “when a singular message is broadcast, each receiving device gets
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`a copy—i.e., multiple messages are received as a result of the broadcast.”
`Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1042 ¶ 5). As Petitioner further notes, and we agree, this
`concept is illustrated in Figure 6 of the ’018 patent, which depicts three
`remote devices each receiving a copy of a single broadcast message.
`4. Combining Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide
`Petitioner relies on Leichiner for disclosing the adaptive remote
`controller limitations recited by the challenged independent claims, and
`Idiot’s Guide for disclosing “registering a position where contact is made
`with a surface of an input device, wherein a particular position on said input
`device is translated into a particular command for controlling said remote
`device.” See Pet. 24–39. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that it would have
`been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Leichiner’s adaptive remote
`controller to include the Graffiti writing area input device, as disclosed in
`Idiot’s Guide, so that “a user could remotely control appliances with stylus
`command strokes.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 67–76). Petitioner goes on
`to explain that “by giving the user the choice of inputting commands into
`Leichiner’s adaptive remote controller via the touchscreen or Graffiti writing
`area, the user can select the more efficient option in order to ‘save time.’”
`Id. at 22–23 (quoting Ex. 1008, 78).
`Based on its assertions, we conclude Petitioner has articulated
`sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`conclusion that its proffered combination of Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l
`Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In particular, we agree with
`Petitioner that its proffered combination “amounts to combining prior art
`elements according to known methods to yield the predictable and beneficial
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`result of Leichiner’s adaptive remote controller having an input device
`through which a user could remotely control appliances with stylus
`command strokes.” Pet. 23; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination of
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
`it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
`We also agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art would have
`the technical skills to successfully combine Leichiner’s adaptive remote
`controller to include the PalmPilot’s Graffiti writing area. See Pet. 23 (citing
`Ex. 1030 ¶ 75). As Petitioner explains, “[t]he Idiot’s Guide and PalmPilot
`for Dummies . . . provide ample evidence that POSITAs . . . could
`‘customize the PalmPilot in about a zillion different ways,’ for example, to
`‘add features or to make your PalmPilot behave differently than a normal
`PalmPilot.’” Reply 18 (quoting Ex. 1008, 96; Ex. 1009, 19–20); see Pet. 23
`(citing Ex. 1030 ¶ 75 (explaining that “[t]o the extent any modifications
`would have been needed to the teachings of Leichiner in order to
`accommodate the teachings of the Idiot’s Guide regarding the PalmPilot’s
`Graffiti writing area, such modifications would have been within the level of
`ordinary skill in the art”)).
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s rationale is insufficient for
`several reasons. First, Patent Owner argues that the PalmRemote software
`illustrated in Exhibit 1020 does not support that a skilled artisan would have
`been motivated to modify Leichiner’s adaptive remote controller to include
`the Graffiti writing area. Resp. 13–16. According to Patent Owner a “mere
`illustration” of the PalmRemote software does not establish that the software
`actually existed or that a POSITA possessed the “technical ability and know-
`how” to make the proposed combination. Id. at 13–14. Petitioner, however,
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`does not rely on the PalmRemote screenshot to show a skilled artisan’s
`technical ability. See Reply 14–15. Rather, Petitioner references
`PalmRemote software as implicit support for its reason to combine.
`Petitioner’s evidence supports its contention that “artisans in the field had
`already contemplated (and most likely implemented) the very combination
`proposed in the Petition.” Id. at 16 (citing Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Can. Pac.
`Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that an
`engineer’s drawing of a rail car, even if it was never built, can “be used to
`demonstrate a motivation to combine implicit in the knowledge of one of
`skill in the art”)).
`Patent Owner also argues the Petition is deficient because it fails to
`disclose the necessary modifications to Leichiner to arrive at the proposed
`combination. Resp. 17. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument. “The
`test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may
`be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference,” In re
`Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981), but whether “a skilled artisan
`would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art
`references to achieve the claimed invention,” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480
`F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Although an obviousness challenge needs
`to account for all claim limitations, we are not aware of any requirement
`(and Patent Owner cites to none) that a challenge must show all of the
`unclaimed implementation and design details for an asserted combination.
`Here, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficient detail regarding
`the asserted motivation to combine the teachings of Leichiner and the Idiot’s
`Guide.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`Finally, Patent Owner asserts “Petitioner’s declarant merely parrots
`the same conclusory statements as in the Petition, without providing the
`required ‘explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to
`produce the claimed invention.’” Resp. 12 (quoting TriVascular, Inc. v.
`Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Again, we disagree.
`Petitioner explains, with relevant support from its expert, the reasons one
`skilled in the art would have combined the asserted prior-art teachings—i.e.,
`why the proffered combination would have been obvious. See, e.g., Pet. 21
`(asserting that “a POSITA would have found it predictable and
`advantageous to utilize the PalmPilot’s Graffiti writing area to control the
`devices as described in Leichiner”) (citing Ex. 1030 ¶ 70) (emphasis added);
`id. at 23 (asserting that “executing a command with the Command stroke in
`the Graffiti writing area can be ‘much faster’ than tapping on the touch
`screen”) (citing Ex. 1008, 68, 78; Ex. 1030 ¶ 74). We are persuaded that,
`here, Dr. Houh’s testimony on this issue is more than mere conclusory
`statements, and we credit it accordingly. See KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 418
`(distinguishing between “mere conclusory statements” and “some articulated
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`obviousness”).
`5. Undisputed Elements
`As outlined below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the combination of Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide teaches the
`remaining limitations of claims 1–7 and 9. Beyond the arguments addressed
`above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertions in this regard.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`
`
`
`a. Claim 1
`Petitioner has shown that Leichiner teaches “[a] method for
`controlling a remote devices over a wireless connection,” as claim 1
`requires. See Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 9, 10, 12, 17–19, 38, 41, 61;
`Ex. 1030, 42–46). Petitioner has shown that Leichiner teaches “establishing
`said wireless connection between a transceiver and said remote device,” as
`claim 1 requires. See id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 10, 12, 18–19, 61–62,
`Fig. 10; Ex. 1030, 46–49). Petitioner has shown that Leichiner teaches
`“broadcasting a message, said message for locating remote devices within
`range of said transceiver,” as claim 1 requires. See supra; id. at 26 (citing
`Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 10, 12, 17–18, 22, 65; Ex. 1030, 49–52). Petitioner has shown
`that Leichiner teaches “receiving a response from said remote device,” as
`claim 1 requires. See id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 11, 20–21, 23; Ex.
`1030, 52–53). Petitioner has shown that Leichiner teaches “manifesting said
`remote device on a display device,” as claim 1 requires. See id. at 27(citing
`Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 11, 20–21, 23, 32–33, Fig.2; Ex. 1030, 53–56). Petitioner has
`shown that the combination of Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide teaches
`“registering a position where contact is made with a surface of an input
`device,” as claim 1 requires. See id. at 28–31 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 12, 45, 61,
`65; Ex. 1008, 26, 32, 33, 64, 66; Ex. 1030, 56–61). Petitioner has shown
`that the combination of Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide teaches “wherein a
`particular position on said input device is translated into a particular
`command for controlling said remote device,” as claim 1 requires. See id.
`at 31–37 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 10, 12, 34, 45, 65, Fig. 3; Ex. 1008, 4, 32–33,
`64, 68, 69, 78; Ex. 1030, 64–67. Petitioner has shown that Leichiner teaches
`“transmitting a command to said remote device over said wireless
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`connection,” as claim 1 requires. See id. at 37–39 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 9, 10,
`34, 36, 63, Fig. 11; Ex. 1030, 67–71).
`b. Claim 2
`Petitioner has shown that the combination of Leichiner and Idiot’s
`Guide teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 2: “wherein said
`step c) comprises the step of: registering a position where a stylus element
`makes contact with said surface of said input device.” See id. at 39 (citing
`Ex. 1008, 64–65; Ex. 1030, 71–72 ).
`c. Claim 3
`Petitioner has shown that Idiot’s Guide teaches “wherein said step c)
`further comprises the step of: recognizing a movement of said stylus element
`over said surface of said input device,” as dependent claim 3 requires. See
`id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1008, 25, 32, 64–65; Ex. 1030, 71–73). Petitioner has
`shown that the combination of Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide also teaches
`“wherein a particular movement of said stylus element is translated into a
`particular command for controlling said remote device,” as claim 3 requires.
`See id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1008, 25, 64, 66, 68; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 12, 34, 65;
`Ex. 1030, 67–76).
`d. Claim 4
`Petitioner has shown that the combination of Leichiner and Idiot’s
`Guide teaches “registering a position where said stylus element makes
`contact with a screen of said display device,” as dependent claim 4 requires.
`See id. at 41–42 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 12, 21, 38, 45; Ex. 1008, 16, 27, 42–43;
`Ex. 1030, 75–78). Petitioner has shown that the combination of Leichiner
`and Idiot’s Guide also teaches “wherein a particular position on said screen
`is translated into a particular command for controlling said remote device,”
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`as claim 4 requires. See id. at 42–44 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 10, 12, 34, 45, 65,
`Fig. 3; Ex. 1008, 42, 51, 74–75, 77; Ex. 1030, 78–82).
`e. Claim 5
`Petitioner has shown that Leichiner teaches “receiving responses from
`a plurality of remote devices,” as dependent claim 5 requires. See id. at 44
`(citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 10–12, 17, 65; Ex. 1030, 82–86). Petitioner has shown
`that the combination of Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide also teaches
`“manifesting each of said plurality of remote devices on said display device”
`and “selecting one of said plurality of remote devices” as claim 5 requires.
`See id. at 45–46 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 33, 41–42, Fig. 2; Ex. 1030, 86–87, 88–
`89).
`
`f. Claim 6
`Petitioner has shown that Leichiner teaches the additional limitation in
`dependent claim 6: “displaying on said display device a rendering of a
`mechanism for controlling said remote device.” See id. at 46–47 (citing
`Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 21, 34, 65, Fig. 3,; Ex. 1030, 89–91).
`g. Claim 7
`Petitioner has shown that the combination of Leichiner and Idiot’s
`Guide teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 7: “contacting a
`particular position in said rendering, wherein said contacting is translated
`into a particular command corresponding to said particular position.” See id.
`at 47–50 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 12, 21, 27, 34, 65, Abstract, Fig. 3; Ex. 1008,
`74, 75, 76–77; Ex. 1030, 91–96).
`h. Claim 9
`Petitioner has shown that the combination of Leichiner and Idiot’s
`Guide teaches the additional limitations in dependent claim 9: “displaying
`on said display device a menu of commands for controlling said remote
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`device” and “contacting a particular position in said menu, wherein said
`contacting is translated into a particular command corresponding to said
`particular position.” See id. at 50–53 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 25–28, 34, 42–43;
`Ex. 1008, 42, 68, 76–77; Ex. 1030, 96–102).
` OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIM 8 BASED ON LEICHINER, IDIOT’S GUIDE, AND
`DARA-ABRAMS
`As outlined below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of evidence that claim 8 would have been obvious over
`Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide, and Dara-Abrams.
`1. Combining Dara-Abrams with Leichiner/Idiot’s Guide
`Petitioner relies on Dara-Abrams for teaching dependent claim 8’s
`user-interactive GUI element. See Pet. 59–61. Petitioner explains, with
`support from the prior art references, that “like Leichiner, Dara-Abrams is
`concerned with developing a ‘mechanism for interfacing with electronic
`devices that is flexible and can adapt to new devices and device types within
`the consumer electronics market.’” Pet. 55 (quoting Ex. 1010, 4:8–11 and
`citing Ex. 1027 ¶ 65). We agree with Petitioner that including Dara-
`Abrams’ animated GUI control elements in Leichiner’s GUI “would
`advance Leichiner’s stated goal of ‘provid[ing] to the user a single hand-held
`remote controller which constitutes a suitable user interface relative to each
`of the available devices’ in order to ‘control a number of devices located in
`the vicinity thereof, which are possibly very different from each other, at the
`same time.’” Pet. 55 (quoting Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 9–10; Ex. 1030 ¶ 85). Patent
`Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertion in this regard. We conclude
`Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with some rational
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion that its proffered combination
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`of Dara-Abrams with Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide would have been obvious
`to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`2. Claim Elements
`As noted above, Petitioner has shown that the combination of
`Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide teaches each limitation in claim 6. Petitioner
`also has shown that Dara-Abrams accounts for the additional limitation in
`claim 8, which depends from claim 6 and further requires “imparting motion
`to said rendering in response to movement of a stylus element over said
`surface of said input device.” See id. at 59–61 (citing Ex. 1010, Abstract,
`5:2–19, 9:30–36, 10:3–14, 19:5–6, 19:53–67, 20:1–12, 20:23–43; Ex. 1030,
`111–115). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion in this
`regard.
`
` OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIM 10 BASED ON LEICHINER, IDIOT’S GUIDE,
`AND BELL
`As outlined below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of evidence that claim 10 would have been obvious over
`Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide, and Bell.
`1. Combining Bell with Leichiner/Idiot’s Guide
`Petitioner relies on Bell for teaching dependent claim 10’s
`requirement for Bluetooth-enabled-devices. See Pet. 64–66. Petitioner
`explains, with support from its expert and the prior art references, that “a
`POSITA would have found it advantageous for Leichiner’s controller to
`utilize Bluetooth radio transmissions to control the devices in its vicinity
`because doing so would advance Leichiner’s stated goal of controlling ‘a
`number of devices . . . which are possibly very different from each other.’”
`Id. at 63 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶ 9; Ex. 1030 ¶ 100). Petitioner goes on to explain
`“a POSITA would be motivated to select Bluetooth over other RF protocols
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`because Bluetooth ‘features low energy consumption for use in battery
`operated devices,’ and it was well known that the ‘batteries don’t last very
`long on a PalmPilot.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 3; Ex. 1008, 41; Ex. 1030
`¶ 100). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertion in this
`regard. We conclude Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with
`some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that its proffered
`combination of Bell with Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide would have been
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
` OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 11–17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, AND 27 BASED ON
`LEICHINER, IDIOT’S GUIDE, AND OSTERHOUT
`As outlined below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of evidence that claims 11–17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27
`would have been obvious over Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide, and Osterhout.
`1. Combining Osterhout with Leichiner/Idiot’s Guide
`Petitioner relies on Osterhout for teaching internal structural elements
`of a PDA, including the screen, pen-type input, wireless transceiver, and
`processor, each coupled together via bus. See Pet. 67–69. Petitioner
`explains, with support from the prior art references and its expert, that
`although Idiot’s Guide “teaches that its PalmPilot includes standard
`components such as a ‘microprocessor,’ ‘touch-screen,’ and ‘Graffiti writing
`area,’” it “does not, however, provide explicit details with respect to how the
`PalmPilot components are coupled together.” Id. at 68 (citing Ex. 1008, 25,
`27; Ex. 1030 ¶ 108). We agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art
`“would have been motivated to look to the teachings of Osterhout because it
`describes the internal structural elements of a typical ‘PDA’ such as a ‘Palm
`VII, a product of 3Com Corporation.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1011, 8:6–10;
`Ex. 1030 ¶ 108). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertion in
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`this regard. We conclude Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with
`some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that its proffered
`combination of Osterhout with Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide would have been
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`2. Undisputed Elements
`As outlined below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the combination of Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide, and Osterhout
`teaches the limitations of claims 11–17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27. Beyond
`the arguments addressed above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s
`assertions in this regard.
`a. Claim 11
`Petitioner has shown that the combination of Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide,
`and Osterhout teaches “[a] computer system comprising: a bus,” “a
`processor coupled to said bus,” “a transceiver coupled to said bus,” and “a
`display device coupled to said bus,” as claim 11 requires. See Pet. 69–76
`(citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 9–10, 41, 61, Fig. 10; Ex. 1008, 25–27, 38, Fig. 10;
`Ex. 1011, 8:3–25, Fig. 3; Ex. 1030, 129–142). Petitioner has shown that the
`combination of Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide, and Osterhout teaches “an input
`device coupled to said bus,” as claim 11 requires. See id. at 76–78 (citing
`Ex. 1008, 25, 26, 32, 64); Ex. 1011, 8:3–25, Fig. 3; Ex. 1030, 142–145).
`Petitioner has shown that the combination of Leichiner and Idiot’s Guide
`teaches “said processor for performing a method for controlling a remote
`device over a wireless connection, said method comprising the computer-
`implemented steps of:” as claim 11 requires. See id. at 78–79 (citing
`Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 9–10, 12, 18–1
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
