`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FÖRDERUNG DER
`ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG E.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`ALL GROUNDS FAIL BECAUSE CAMPANELLA AND
`SMALLCOMB ARE NOT PRIOR ART ..................................................... 1
`A.
`Campanella Is Not Prior Art ............................................................... 1
`B.
`Smallcomb Is Not Prior Art ............................................................... 9
`III. THE CITED ART DOES NOT RENDER THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE ..................................................................... 15
`A.
`Chen in View of Campanella ........................................................... 15
`B.
`Dependent Claims 7 and 24 ............................................................. 20
`C.
`Untimely New Grounds: Chen Alone And/Or In
`Combination With Various References ........................................... 23
`Smallcomb and Smallcomb in View of Campanella ....................... 25
`D.
`IV. FORMAL DEFICIENCIES AND CONSTITUTIONAL
`INFIRMITIES ............................................................................................. 26
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 27
`
`V.
`
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. e-Watch, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00412, Paper 50 (May 6, 2016) ................................................... 2, 7, 23
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01093, Paper 69 (Jan. 7, 2016) ........................................................ 8, 11
`Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) .............................................................................................. 4
`Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas,
`536 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 4
`Dynamic Drinkware LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................ 8, 9, 10, 11
`Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`2019 WL 831112 (D. Del. Feb 21, 2019) ....................................................... 8, 11
`In re Giacomini,
`612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 7
`Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 13
`Masterimage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc.,
`IPR2015-00035, Paper 79, at 10 (Apr. 20, 2016) ................................................. 9
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 21
`Murphy v. Smith,
`138 S. Ct. 784 (2018) ............................................................................................ 4
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 24
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Page(s)
`
`Plas-Plak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 Fed.Appx. 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 22
`Sanitec Indus. v. Micro-Waste Corp.,
`No. CIV.A. H-04-3066, 2006 WL 3455000 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 28,
`2006), aff'd sub nom. 296 F. App'x 44 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................... 6
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018) ..................................................................................... 7, 23
`Univ. of Maryland Biotech. Inst. v. Presens Precision Sensing GmbH,
`711 Fed.Appx. 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................. 22
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................... 12, 13
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 26
`Zeiss A.G. v. Nikon Corp.,
`2018 WL 5078256 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2018) .................................................. 8, 11
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 ........................................................................................ 8, 11, 12
`35 U.S.C. § 371(c) ............................................................................................passim
`Other Authorities
`83 Fed. Reg. 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018) ...................................................................... 10
`H.R. Rep. 94-592, § 5 (1975) ..................................................................................... 5
`MPEP § 706.02(f)(1).............................................................................................. 3, 4
`MPEP § 2136 ......................................................................................................... 3, 4
`MPEP § 2163.03 ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer
`Ex.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`2010
`
`2011
`2012
`
`2013
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`Executed Summons to Sirius XM Radio Inc., attaching
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Dated February 22,
`2017
`Fraunhofer Complaint for Patent Infringement against
`Defendant Sirius XM Radio Inc., Filed February 22, 2017
`PTAB E2E Search Result for AIA Review Number:
`IPR2016-00690, https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login (search
`“AIA Review #” for “IPR2016-00690”) (retrieved June 6,
`2018)
`PTAB E2E Search Result for AIA Review Number:
`IPR2016-00690, https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login (search
`“AIA Review #” for “IPR2016-00690”) (retrieved April 18,
`2018)
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., SEC Form 10-K for the year
`ended December 31, 2017, Filed January 31, 2018
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., SEC Form 8-K, November 14,
`2013
`Pandora Media, Inc., SEC Schedule 13D, September 22,
`2017
`Pandora Media, Inc., SEC Joint Filing Agreement (Exhibit
`A) to Schedule 13D, September 22, 2017
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., SEC Form 8-K, January 11, 2018
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., Exhibit 10.1 to SEC Form 8-K,
`January 10, 2018 (Meyer Employment Agreement)
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., SEC Form 8-K, January 14, 2014
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., Exhibit 10.1 to SEC Form 8-K,
`January 10, 2014 (Donnelly Employment Agreement)
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., SEC Form 10-K for the year
`ended December 31, 2016, Filed February 2, 2017
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Fraunhofer
`Ex.
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Exhibit Description
`Defendant Sirius XM Radio Inc.’s Corporate Disclosure
`Statement Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, April 25, 2017
`Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-
`AJB (S.D. Cal.), First Amended Class Action Complaint
`for Damages, Filed May 29, 2015
`Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3
`(E.D. Va.), Class Complaint, Filed January 4, 2013
`Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. and Career
`Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.), Second
`Amended Class Action Complaint, Filed April 1, 2015
`Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 8:15-cv-
`01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla), Class Action Complaint, Filed
`July 22, 2015
`Francis W. Hooker et al. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 4:13-
`cv-3 (E.D. Va.), Final Order Approving Settlement and
`Certifying the Settlement Class, Filed December 22, 2016
`Corporate Overview for Sirius XM Satellite Radio,
`retrieved from https://www.siriusxm.com/corporate?
`intcmp=GN_FOOTER_NEW_AboutSiriusXM_Corp on
`June 29, 2018
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc. Common Stock (SIRI) Real-Time
`Stock Quote, NASDAQ.com, retrieved from
`https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/siri/real-time on June 29,
`2018
`Sirius XM Holdings Wikipedia Page, retrieved from
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_XM_Holdings
`SIRI – Sirius XM Holdings Inc. Company Profile –
`CNNMoney.com, retrieved from https://money.cnn.com/
`quote/profile/profile.html?symb=SIRI on July 2, 2018
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc. (SIRI) Stock is Still Slipping,
`May 2, 2017, retrieved from https://investorplace.com
`/2017/05/sirius-xm-siri-stock-slipping/ on July 2, 2018
`Verizon to Buy Gogo? ‘Not so Fast,’ Macquarie Says,
`August 27, 2014, retrieved from
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Fraunhofer
`Ex.
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`2035
`
`2036
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Exhibit Description
`https://finance.yahoo.com/news/verizon-buy-gogo-not-fast-
`151154614.html on July 2, 2018
`Global Interactive Media, Inc. v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc.,
`1:16-cv-06379-JGK (N.D. of Ill.), Complaint Filed June 30,
`2016
`Aug. 31, 2016 Letter from Mark A. Baghdassarian to Court
`in Global Interactive Media, Inc. v. Sirius XM Holdings
`Inc., 1:16-cv-06379-JGK (N.D. of Ill.)
`December 8, 2016 Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice in
`Global Interactive Media, Inc. v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc.,
`1:16-cv-06379-JGK (N.D. of Ill.)
`Written Statement of David J. Frear, Chief Financial
`Officer, Sirius XM Holdings Inc. Before the U.S. House of
`Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee
`on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, Hearing
`on Music Licensing Under Title 17, June 25, 2014
`Patrick Donnelly Emails
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc. (SIRI) Company Profile, Reuters,
`retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/finance/
`stocks/company-profile/SIRI.OQ on July 5, 2018
`LinkedIn Profile for Sirius XM Holdings Inc., retrieved
`from https://www.linkedin.com/company/sirius-xm-radio-
`inc./ on July 5, 2018
`Revised Joint Claim Construction Chart, Fraunhofer-
`Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Angewandten Forschung
`E.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 17-cv-184-JFB-
`SRF, Dkt. 112 (D. Del. Feb. 9, 2018).
`Technology License Agreement, July 24, 1998.
`Email from Caplan to Fraunhofer counsel stating Sirius’
`intent to request permission from Board to file Replies to
`Patent Owner Preliminary Responses in IPR Nos. 2018-
`00681 and 2018-00682 (June 14, 2018).
`Email from Hedvat to Fraunhofer counsel stating Sirius’
`intent to request permission from Board to file Reply to
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Exhibit Description
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response in IPR Nos. 2018-
`00689 and 2018-00690 (July 13, 2018)
`Email from Caplan to Board requesting conference call to
`address issues in IPR Nos. 2018-00681 and 2018-00682
`(June 20, 2018)
`Email from Hedvat to Board requesting permission to file
`Replies to Patent Owner Preliminary Responses in IPR
`Nos. 2018-00689 and 2018-00690 (July 19, 2018)
`Email from Caplan to Board requesting authorization to
`submit a Notice of Supplemental Authority/argument
`regarding Google decision in IPR Nos. 2018-00681, 2018-
`00682, 2018-00689 and 2018-00690 (December 7, 2018)
`Email from Price to Board notifying Panel of Supplemental
`Authority-ZTE decision (February 7, 2019)
`Email from Caplan to Board notifying Panel of Proppant
`and Adello precedential decisions (April 22, 2019)
`Declaration of Wayne E. Stark, Ph.D.
`Pre-APIA Statute 35 U.S.C. § 102
`File History of Application No. 09/647,007
`MPEP – Chapter 2100 (Section 2136 excerpted), Revision
`08.2017, January 2018, available from (PDF version):
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-
`2100.pdf
`available from (web version):
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2136.html
`MPEP – Chapter 2100 (Section 2136 excerpted), Revision
`1, Feb. 2000, available from (PDF version):
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/old/E7R1_21
`00.pdf
`MPEP – Chapter 0700 (Section 706.02(f)(1) excerpted),
`Revision 08.2017, January 2018, available from (PDF
`version):
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-
`0700.pdf
`Pre-APIA Statute 35 U.S.C. § 371
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer
`Ex.
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`2043
`2044
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Fraunhofer
`Ex.
`2049
`
`2050
`2051
`
`2052
`
`2053
`
`2054
`
`2055
`
`Exhibit Description
`Wireless Multimedia Communications, Ellen Kayata
`Wesel, 1998 (Excerpted)
`Declaration of Ernst Eberlein
`“Diversity Combining Within Viterbi,” Ernst Eberlein
`(October 26, 1998).
`International Patent Application no. PCT/EP98/07850 (WO
`00/36783)
`“Proposal for Puncturing Pattern for 3/8 code,” Ernst
`Eberlein (November 23, 1998)
`“Simulation Plan, Work Package 21B,” Ernst Eberlein
`(November 9, 1998).
`File History of U.S. patent application no. 09/222,836
`(corresponding to Ex. 1003, U.S. patent no. 6,247,158 to
`Smallcomb).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Petition failed to set forth a prima facie showing of invalidity by relying
`
`on references that are not prior art to the ’289 patent and by failing to make the
`
`required showings of any entitlement to early effective prior art dates. For the first
`
`time in the Reply, Petitioner propounds new grounds of invalidity, seeks to rely on
`
`brand new effective prior art dates, and belatedly presents alleged evidence for its
`
`prima facie case. Petitioner’s untimely efforts are wholly insufficient to meet its
`
`burden of proving invalidity. Moreover, as discussed below, the cited references
`
`are not prior art, fail to teach key elements of the challenged claims, and expressly
`
`teach away from the Petitioner’s proposed modifications.
`
`II. ALL GROUNDS FAIL BECAUSE CAMPANELLA AND
`SMALLCOMB ARE NOT PRIOR ART
`A. Campanella Is Not Prior Art
`As an initial matter, Petitioner’s delayed efforts to rely on a novel
`
`interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) or an earlier effective prior art date for
`
`Campanella are untimely and should not be entertained by the Board. Reply at 9-
`
`20. Neither of these arguments was presented in the Petition. To the contrary, the
`
`Petition expressly relied on the July 10, 1998 filing date of Campanella’s parent
`
`international application, alleging that Campanella qualified as prior art under a
`
`flawed interpretation of § 102(e). Pet. at 19. The Petition thus relied on a facially
`
`inadequate allegation, and Petitioner should not now be permitted to belatedly
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`advance a brand new and unconventional interpretation of § 102(e), one that
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`contradicts the long-established interpretation reflected in U.S. Patent &
`
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”) policy as set forth in the MPEP, or advocate for a
`
`new and different effective prior art date for the first time in its Reply. Apple Inc. v.
`
`e-Watch, Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, at 44 (May 6, 2016) (“‘Respond,’ in the
`
`context of § 42.23(b), does not mean embark in a new direction with a new
`
`approach as compared to the position originally taken in the Petition. Accepting
`
`such belatedly presented new arguments would be unjust to the Patent Owner …”).
`
`Moreover, even if the Board were to overlook Petitioner’s late presentation,
`
`Campanella still fails to qualify as prior art. As acknowledged by the Petitioner,
`
`the following version of § 102(e) (pre-dating the amendments introduced by the
`
`1999 American Inventors Protection Act [“AIPA”]) applies to Campanella:
`
`(e) the invention was described in a patent granted
`
`[Clause 1] on an application for patent by another filed in
`
`the United States before the invention thereof by the
`
`applicant for patent, or
`
`[Clause 2] on an international application by another who
`
`has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and
`
`(4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention
`
`thereof by the applicant for patent.
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`The USPTO’s interpretation of this statute is clearly expressed in MPEP
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`§ 706.02(f)(1) and § 2136.03:
`
`For U.S. patents, apply the reference under [pre-AIA] 35
`
`U.S.C. 102(e) as in force on November 28, 2000 as of the
`
`earlier of the date of completion of the requirements of
`
`35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) or the filing date of the
`
`later-filed U.S. application that claimed the benefit of
`
`the international application.
`
`In other words, the MPEP plainly contemplates that international applications must
`
`satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) to provide a prior art date under the
`
`statute.
`
`The Petitioner asks the Board to reject the established USPTO interpretation
`
`and instead find for the first time that the effective prior art date for a U.S. patent
`
`claiming the benefit of an international application filed in the U.S. is the
`
`international application filing date, regardless of whether or not “the requirements
`
`of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4)” have been completed. Petitioner offers no
`
`justification for this unprecedented approach beyond the bald assertion that
`
`“[u]nder the plain language of these statutes … a patent granted on an IA filed in
`
`the U.S. … obtains a § 102(e) date as of the IA’s filing date.” Reply at 10.
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s argument fails on its merits for a number of reasons. First, to
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`the extent that the Board finds the statute to be ambiguous, deference must be
`
`given to the USPTO’s existing interpretation as reflected in the MPEP. Chevron,
`
`U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984);
`
`Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (giving
`
`Chevron deference to the USPTO’s interpretations of statutory provisions
`
`including as set forth in MPEP). Petitioner openly acknowledges that “MPEP
`
`§§ 706.02(f)(1), 2136 conflicts with” Petitioner’s reading of the statute. Reply at
`
`11. Therefore, the USPTO’s settled interpretation of the statute must prevail over
`
`any “conflicting” interpretation offered by Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner’s interpretation essentially inserts a new limitation in Clause 2:
`
`“an international application by another filed outside the U.S. who has fulfilled
`
`the requirements of paragraphs, (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c).” Petitioner’s
`
`attempt to essentially rewrite the statute offends the most basic principles of
`
`statutory interpretation. See, e.g., Murphy v. Smith, 138 S. Ct. 784, 788 (2018)
`
`(“[R]espect for Congress’s prerogatives as policymaker means carefully attending
`
`to the words it chose rather than replacing them with others of our own.”).
`
`Additionally, when Congress enacted legislation establishing the pre-AIPA
`
`version of § 102(e), it specifically stated its intent that the effective prior art date
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`for international applications filed in the U.S. would be governed by Clause 2, not
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Clause 1 as Petitioner proposes:
`
`Amended section 102(e) of title 35 would provide the date
`
`on which the prior art effect attaches to a patent granted on
`
`an international application designating the United States.
`
`The date would be that point of time at which the
`
`requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section
`
`371(c) of this bill have been complied with. . . . Applicants
`
`who filed international applications with the [U.S.] Patent
`
`Office in its capacity as Receiving Office, would only
`
`have to submit the national fee and the oath or declaration
`
`to comply with the conditions of section 102(e).
`
`H.R. Rep. 94-592, § 5 (1975). Thus, the legislative history confirms that Congress
`
`contemplated that compliance with paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) would be required
`
`even for international applications filed in the USPTO.
`
`Moreover, the PCT Declaration of the U.S. under Article 64(4)(a) (Ex. 1030)
`
`further supports the established interpretation of § 102(e). Petitioner points to the
`
`first paragraph to argue that, because the U.S. reserved its right not to recognize
`
`filing dates of international applications filed outside the U.S. as prior art dates,
`
`that (by exclusion) the prior art date for an international application filed in the
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`U.S. must be the filing date. Reply at 10-11. However, Petitioner omits discussion
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`of the second paragraph, which flatly contradicts Petitioner’s argument:
`
`If an international application designating the United
`
`States of America …. the prior art effect shall attach to
`
`it from the date on which a copy of such international
`
`application in the English language, together with the
`
`national filing fee and an oath or declaration of the
`
`inventor, was received by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office.
`
`Ex. 1030 (emphasis added). This confirms once more that, under pre-AIPA
`
`§ 102(e), the prior art date for a patent issuing from “an international application
`
`designating the United States of America” attaches when, and only when, the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) are fulfilled. See also Sanitec
`
`Indus. v. Micro-Waste Corp., No. CIV.A. H-04-3066, 2006 WL 3455000, at *4
`
`(S.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2006), aff'd sub nom. 296 F. App'x 44 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(“Because October 31, 1991 is the date on which the Applicants fully satisfied the
`
`last of the 35 U.S.C. § 371(c) requirements, October 31, 1991, is … the ‘102(e)
`
`Date’ ….”).
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Finally, Petitioner fails in its attempted reliance, for the first time in the
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`Reply, on the filing date of the ’591 provisional (Ex. 1026) to provide an effective
`
`prior art date for Campanella for at least three reasons.
`
`First, Petitioner’s argument is again untimely, having been raised for the first
`
`time in the Reply and never mentioned in the Petition. See Apple Inc. v. e-Watch,
`
`Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, at 44 (May 6, 2016); see also SAS Inst., Inc. v.
`
`Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1358 (2018) (noting the statute “makes the petition the
`
`center-piece of the proceeding both before and after institution”).
`
`Second, although Petitioner attempts to rely on In re Giacomini in support of
`
`its priority argument, that case is inapposite as it addresses a U.S. patent, filed after
`
`the November 28, 2000 effective date of the AIPA, which claimed direct priority to
`
`a provisional application, with no intermediating international application. 612
`
`F.3d 1380, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2010). By contrast, for Campanella, the pre-AIPA
`
`version of § 102(e) applies and specifically limits prior art effect to the fulfillment
`
`of the requirements of § 371(c) regardless of any earlier claimed priority. Indeed,
`
`the MPEP squarely rejects the Petitioner’s proposed approach, noting
`
`“international applications which (1) were filed prior to November 29, 2000 …
`
`may not be used to reach back (bridge) to an earlier filing date through a priority or
`
`benefit claim for prior art purposes.” MPEP § 2163.03. Despite this clear
`
`teaching, Petitioner again asks the Board to ignore the USPTO’s established
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`interpretation and adopt a new interpretation contradicting the MPEP nearly two
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`decades after the pre-AIPA version of § 102(e) was replaced.
`
`Third, Petitioner fails to fulfill its burden to show that the claims of
`
`Campanella are supported under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 in the ’591 provisional by
`
`only addressing a single claim. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
`
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he disclosure of the provisional
`
`application [must] provide[] support for the claims in the reference patent in
`
`compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.”); see also Zeiss A.G. v. Nikon Corp., 2018 WL
`
`5078256, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2018) (“The party challenging the patent bears
`
`the burden of … comparing the claims of the prior art to the disclosure in that
`
`patent’s provisional application.”); Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 2019 WL
`
`831112, at *4 (D. Del. Feb 21, 2019) (“A reference patent is only entitled to claim
`
`the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the
`
`provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent
`
`…”); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., IPR2014-01093, Paper 69, at 11
`
`(Jan. 7, 2016) (“Thus, as Dynamic Drinkware makes clear, the claims of the patent
`
`document must be supported by the earlier filed application …”) (all emphases
`
`added). In no case is reliance on the ‘591 provisional for prior art effect justified,
`
`and Campanella is not prior art to the challenged claims.
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`B.
`Smallcomb Is Not Prior Art
`With respect to the Smallcomb reference (Ex. 1003), Petitioner originally
`
`failed to set forth a prima facie showing of unpatentability as the Petition did not
`
`even attempt to fulfill its burden of production to show that Smallcomb was
`
`entitled to rely on the November 30, 1998 filing date of its parent provisional
`
`application (Ex. 1027) for prior art effect. See Pet. at 15-17; see also Institution
`
`Decision at 25-26 (finding that Petitioner failed to adequately address Smallcomb
`
`provisional in its Petition and thus failed to show that Smallcomb is prior art). As
`
`the Board found in Masterimage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., “the burden of production
`
`is initially on Petitioner” to show that asserted prior art “is entitled to the filing date
`
`of the [parent] provisional.” IPR2015-00035, Paper 79, at 10 (Apr. 20, 2016). The
`
`Petition in this case clearly failed to meet that burden.
`
`Petitioner now belatedly seeks to justify this failure, mistakenly asserting it
`
`has no initial burden of production at all, and that all it needed to do was “simply
`
`… assert[] that [Smallcomb] is prior art.” Reply at 21. Petitioner argues that this
`
`approach is permitted under a “burden-shifting framework” established in the
`
`Federal Circuit’s Dynamic Drinkware decision. Reply at 21. This is a clear
`
`misapplication of the holding of that case. Contrary to Petitioner’s suggestion,
`
`Dynamic Drinkware confirms that a petitioner has “the initial burden of
`
`production” to prove invalidity, which was satisfied in that case by a prior art
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`patent whose own filing date pre-dated the claimed priority date of the challenged
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`patent. 800 F.3d at 1379-80. This prima facie showing shifted the burden of
`
`production to patent owner, who then produced evidence of prior conception and
`
`reduction-to-practice, thus shifting the burden back to petitioner to produce
`
`evidence supporting reliance on an even earlier filing date of a parent provisional
`
`application. Id.
`
`By contrast, in this proceeding, Smallcomb’s December 30, 1998 filing date
`
`is clearly after the effective filing date of the ’289 patent (December 3, 1998). And
`
`although the Petition made a conclusory mention of the earlier November 30, 1998
`
`filing date of Smallcomb’s parent, the ’258 provisional (Ex. 1027), Petitioner made
`
`no attempt whatsoever to satisfy its burden of production and failed to present any
`
`supporting evidence or argument to justify reliance on it for prior art effect. See
`
`Pet. at 15-17. Thus, unlike in Dynamic Drinkware, a prima facie showing of
`
`invalidity over Smallcomb was never made in the Petition, and the burden of
`
`production never shifted to Patent Owner to disprove Smallcomb’s entitlement to
`
`the ’258 provisional filing date. Moreover, it is far too late for Petitioner to try to
`
`meet that burden for the first time in Reply. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 83 Fed. Reg. 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018), Trial Practice Guide Update (August
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`2018)1 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”).
`
`Even if Petitioner is permitted to submit such prima facie evidence for the
`
`first time in its Reply, it still fails to carry its burden. To be entitled to the
`
`provisional filing for prior art effect, “the disclosure of the provisional application
`
`[must] provide[] support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with
`
`§ 112, ¶ 1.” Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381. Petitioner only addresses a
`
`single claim of Smallcomb, and thus fails to show that “the claims in the reference
`
`patent” are supported by the ’258 provisional. Reply at 22-23; see also Zeiss, 2018
`
`WL 5078256, at *11; Evolved Wireless, 2019 WL 831112, at *4; Ariosa
`
`Diagnostics, IPR2014-01093, Paper 69, at 11.
`
`Moreover, while “support for the claims … in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1”
`
`requires a showing of both adequate written description and enablement,
`
`Petitioner’s purported evidence explicitly limits itself to written description only.
`
`See Ex. 1025 at ¶ 36 (“I have been informed that … the provisional application
`
`must (1) provide written description support for at least one claim …”). By not
`
`even acknowledging the separate enablement requirement, much less proving it is
`
`
`1 Available at <https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents
`/2018_Revised_Trial_Practice_Guide.pdf>.
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`satisfied, Petitioner’s showing is facially insufficient. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (noting that § 112, ¶ 1 includes “separate and
`
`distinct” written description and enablement requirements).
`
`Petitioner even fails to show adequate written description for claim 1 of
`
`Smallcomb. The ’258 provisional consists of less than two pages of hand-written
`
`notes, including its description of the “state of the art.” Ex. 1027. The totality of
`
`its description of alleged “[i]nventions” appears in two bulleted sentence
`
`fragments: “use different puncturing pattern on A and B (code diversity),” and
`
`“optimum weighting and combining of received signals.” Id. at 2. Petitioner
`
`argues that the former fragment establishes written description support for
`
`Smallcomb’s claimed “Critical Subsets” because “code diversity” implies that “the
`
`information communicated must be recoverable even where one of the two
`
`diversity channels is lost.” Reply at 23. This is incorrect: “code diversity” refers
`
`only to the use of different encoding on each channel, which may allow for
`
`reconstruction of an input bit if the occasional output bit on one of the channels is
`
`lost or corrupted, but not necessarily allowing for reconstruction of all input bits if
`
`an entire channel is lost. Indeed, the ’258 provisional expressly describes
`
`receiving signals over both channels so that they can be combined. Ex. 1027 at 2
`
`(“optimum weighting and combining of received signals”). This is in clear
`
`contrast to the passages that Petitioner cites from Smallcomb itself. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`10818553
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`1003 at 4:19-21 (“The Subsets are called critical, because even if the receiver
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`faithfully captures only one of the subsets, this is sufficient to regenerate the
`
`original source bits.”). Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the ’258
`
`provisional would clearly convey possession of the invention. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d
`
`at 1563-64; see also Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The question [of written description] is not whether a claimed
`
`invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification.”).
`
`Finally, Petitioner’s belated attempt to rely upon the ’258 provisional