`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`IPR2018-00395
`PATENT 6,622,018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR
`REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(D)
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00395
`U.S. Patent 6,622,018
`
`In response to the Final Written Decision entered June 18, 2019 (Paper 20)
`
`and pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.71(d), Patent Owner hereby respectfully request a
`
`rehearing and reconsideration by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of its Final
`
`Written Decision.
`
`I.
`
`APPLICABLE STANDARDS
`
`“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without
`
`prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. §42.71(d). “The request must
`
`specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or
`
`overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion,
`
`an opposition, or a reply.” Id. The Board reviews a decision for an abuse of
`
`discretion. 37 C.F.R. §42.71(c).
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`The Board appears to have overlooked or misunderstood argument and
`
`evidence presented during trial explaining why Petitioner failed to meet its burden
`
`to prove the conventional polling mentioned in Leichiner discloses “broadcasting a
`
`message, said message for locating remote devices within range of said transceiver”,
`
`as recited in independent claims 1 and 11.
`
`It was undisputed at trial that broadcasting is a term of art and that Leichiner
`
`does not expressly disclose this term. The obviousness theory adopted by the Board
`
`was essentially that the reference to polling in Leichiner inherently discloses the
`
`broadcasting limitations, even without using word broadcasting. Paper 20 at 6-9.
`
`The record evidence, including the Broadcasting Standard itself, which the Board
`
`does not mention in its Final Written Decision, reveals that a person of ordinary skill
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00395
`U.S. Patent 6,622,018
`
`in the art at the time of the invention would have readily recognized that
`
`broadcasting has a distinct technical meaning that is different from the conventional
`
`polling disclosed in Leichiner.
`
`The parties essentially agreed that “broadcasting” in the context of the ’018
`
`patent refers to a single transmission of a message that is itself receivable at once by
`
`multiple devices. See, e.g., Paper 10 at 6 (“It is significant that the broadcast message
`
`640 is referenced here (and elsewhere in the specification) in the singular, yet it is
`
`receivable by multiple devices”) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:33-36); id. at 6-7 (citing
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary definitions submitted by Petitioner); Ex. 2001 at
`
`¶¶ 45-52; see also Paper 13 at 3 (“the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘broadcasting
`
`a message’ in the context of the ’018 Patent is generally understood as transmitting
`
`a singular message to multiple devices”); Paper 20 at 5 (concluding the parties
`
`appear “to adopt the same general understanding for ‘broadcasting’”). The Board
`
`appears to have overlooked argument and evidence confirming there is a meaningful
`
`distinction between broadcasting and polling.
`
`The Board’s Final Written Decision appears to have overlooked certain
`
`testimony and supportive evidence offered through Uniloc’s expert, Dr. Eastom. For
`
`example, Dr. Easttom, testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily
`
`recognize polling and broadcasting are distinguishable terms of art at least in that
`
`polling refers to communicating with an individual machine, one at a time. Ex. 2001
`
`at ¶¶ 48-52; see also Paper 10 at 7-8 (citing the same). Dr. Easttom offered the
`
`following technical dictionary definitions, which are not mentioned in the Final
`
`Written Decision, to support his testimony concerning the distinct meaning of
`
`2
`
`
`
`polling from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`IPR2018-00395
`U.S. Patent 6,622,018
`
`Id. at ¶ 48 (quoting PC Magazine).
`
`
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 49-50.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00395
`U.S. Patent 6,622,018
`
`The technical dictionaries quoted by Dr. Easttom consistently refer to polling
`
`in the context of generating multiple discreet polling messages that are each
`
`individually sent to a respective receiving device, on a one-to-one basis. Paper 10 at
`
`7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 49-52). Petitioner offered no controverting technical dictionary
`
`definition in its Reply.
`
`To further support his conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would readily recognize a meaningful distinction between broadcasting and polling,
`
`Dr. Easttom quoted a passage from the RFC 919 Broadcasting Standard, which he
`
`summarized as describing certain disadvantages of polling relative to broadcasting.
`
`Id. ¶ 51; see also Paper 10 at 7-8 (citing the same).1 As Dr. Easttom observed, the
`
`Broadcasting Standard differentiates broadcasting from polling, including in the
`
`context of polling all possible neighbors until one responds. Id. When devices are
`
`grouped together on a network, for example, individually polling all possible
`
`neighbors is achievable, even if polling in the blind, because there is a finite number
`
`of possible addresses to which a message might be sent. Id. The Broadcasting
`
`Standard expressly disparages polling and distinguishes it from the broadcasting
`
`defined in the Broadcasting Standard. Id. Rather than contacting devices
`
`individually, broadcasting “provides a fast and simple way for a host to reach all of
`
`its neighbors.” Id.
`
`
`1 As Dr. Easttom correctly noted, a complete copy of RFC 919 Broadcasting
`Standard is publicly available at: J. Mogul, Broadcasting Internet Datagrams, RFC
`919, SRI Network Information Center, Oct. 1984, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc919.
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 50 n.3.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00395
`U.S. Patent 6,622,018
`
`The Board also appears to overlook the distinction arising from Leichiner’s
`
`explicit reference to implementing its one-to-one polling using “a two-way infrared-
`
`ray link.” Ex. 1027 ¶ 10; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 36-38, 56. Dr. Easttom explained that
`
`“[i]nfrared communication works by sending a signal in a straight line and requires
`
`a direct line to the target, and can be interrupted by objects between the two devices.”
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 36-38. Dr. Easttom pointed to Leichiner’s disclosure that its polling is
`
`achievable through a two-way infrared link as additional evidence that there is a
`
`meaningful distinction between the two-way (i.e., one-to-one) polling in Leichiner
`
`and the claimed broadcasting. Id. This evidence also independently refutes the
`
`notion that Leichiner’s polling inherently discloses the claimed “broadcasting”.
`
`The Board’s Final Written Decision appears to have overlooked at least the
`
`above-referenced testimony of Dr. Easttom and the ample evidence he cited in
`
`support of his opinions.
`
`The Board also appears to have misunderstood the significance of the
`
`statement Leichiner, emphasized in both parties’ respective briefings, that
`
`“controller 10 generates polling messages [in the plural] to all of the controlled
`
`devices in the immediate vicinity.” Paper 10 at 8 (quoting Pet 26 and Ex. 1027 ¶ 22
`
`and citing ¶¶ 48-52). Leichner also states its “remote control system . . . conducts
`
`polling to each of the controlled devices located in the immediate vicinity.” Id. at 9
`
`(quoting Ex. 1027 ¶ 11) (Uniloc’s emphasis). Uniloc cited these passages as
`
`evidence that Leichiner relies on transmitting multiple polling messages in order to
`
`communicate with multiple devices on an individual, one-to-one basis. Id. This is
`
`consistent with how polling is defined in the cited dictionaries and disparaged and
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00395
`U.S. Patent 6,622,018
`
`distinguished in the Broadcasting Standard. Id. ¶ 51; see also Paper 10 at 7-8 (citing
`
`the same). It is also distinguishable on its face from the claim language “broadcasting
`
`a message [in the singular], said message for locating remote devices [in the plural]
`
`within range of said transceiver”.
`
`The Final Written Decision concludes these particular passages in Leichiner
`
`do not suggest “polling is a targeted, one-to-one transmission.” Paper 20 at 8. The
`
`Board does not explain its conclusion in terms of what Leichiner discloses, however,
`
`but rather by referencing Figure 6 of the ’018 patent. The Final Written Decision
`
`provides no explanation for how the disclosure in the ’018 patent is in any way
`
`relevant to the proper interpretation of how Leichiner conducts its polling. When the
`
`polling in Leichiner is properly understood as simply reflecting conventional
`
`polling, as the cited passages confirm, the distinction between polling and
`
`broadcasting, as emphasized in the Broadcasting Standard, is clearly manifest.
`
`It appears that the Board’s conclusion of obviousness is based on interpreting
`
`the claim language at issue (i.e., “broadcasting a message [in the singular], said
`
`message for locating remote devices [in the plural] within range of said transceiver”)
`
`as encompassing polling multiple devices individually by transmitting multiple
`
`messages that are each copies of one another (i.e., a respective transmission for each
`
`receiving device). See Paper 20 at 8. Such sua sponte interpretation of claim scope
`
`would itself warrant rehearing and reconsideration, particularly given that it was not
`
`advanced in the Petition itself and Uniloc was not given an opportunity to respond.
`
`Uniloc submits such an interpretation of claim scope is unreasonable, particularly
`
`when considering the use of the singular and plural in the claim language itself.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00395
`U.S. Patent 6,622,018
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`In view of the foregoing, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`grant a rehearing and reconsider its Final Written Decision.
`
`
`
`Date: July 18, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00395
`U.S. Patent 6,622,018
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing was served electronically on
`
`counsel of record for Petitioner.
`
`Date: July 18, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`i
`
`
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
