`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`_________________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INSUFFICIENT WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORT.............................. 1
`
`A. No Citations to the Original Disclosure ................................................ 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Erroneous Attempt to use Incorporation by Reference ......................... 1
`
`Insufficient Support in the Provisional Application ............................. 2
`
`II.
`
`IMPROPER BROADENING .......................................................................... 3
`
`III. BRADIUM’S PROPOSED CLAIMS ARE INDEFINITE ............................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Bradium Applies an Incorrect Indefiniteness Standard ........................ 4
`
`Proposed Element [20M] Remains Indefinite ....................................... 4
`
`IV. REWRITING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IS WRONG .................. 5
`
`V.
`
`THE PROPOSED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS ................................................ 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Bradium Wrongly Reads in Unrecited Limitations .............................. 7
`
`Bradium Has Waived Any Arguments With Respect to Yaron ........... 9
`
`Bradium’s Arguments Based on the Original Claims are Moot ......... 11
`
`Bradium’s Interpretation of “Determining Priority” Is Wrong ........... 11
`
`VI. NEW CLAIM 21 IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE CLAIM .................................. 12
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`Bradium’s motion to amend had several critical flaws any one of which should
`
`
`
`lead to denying its motion. Bradium’s reply did not cure these flaws; instead it
`
`highlighted them and introduced even more reasons to deny its motion.
`
`I.
`
`INSUFFICIENT WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORT
`Bradium must set forth support for its amendments in “the originally filed
`
`disclosure” and in the provisional application. 37 C.F.R § 42.121(b); Western
`
`Digital Corp. v. SPEX Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00082, Paper 13, 7 (PTAB Apr. 25,
`
`2018) (precedential). Bradium does not deny that it failed to cite the application of
`
`the ’239 Patent in its motion. Paper 48, 5-6. Remediating in the Reply is untimely
`
`and prejudicial. Unified must address these new arguments for the first time now
`
`with less time and pages than it would have in its Opposition. Thus, Bradium’s
`
`motion should be denied. Even if considered, the Reply does not meet the written
`
`description requirement as discussed below.
`
`A. No Citations to the Original Disclosure
`Bradium’s Reply merely cites to the issued patent—not the original disclosure
`
`as required. 37 CFR § 42.121(b)(1); Western Digital Corp., Paper 13, 8. And the
`
`patent citations do not address most of the claim limitations. Paper 48, 7. Thus,
`
`Bradium failed 37 CFR § 42.121(b)(1) for at least these two reasons.
`
`B.
`
`Erroneous Attempt to use Incorporation by Reference
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`To justify its failure to cite to the original application of the ’239 Patent,
`
`Bradium incorrectly argues that “it is well established law that when a provisional
`
`application is incorporated by reference it becomes a part of the patent specification
`
`itself.” Paper 48, 5. Written description support is “‘[e]ssential material’ that may be
`
`incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a
`
`U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application publication.” 37 C.F.R § 1.57(d) (emphasis
`
`added); see also Droplets Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank, 887 F.3d 1309, 1318-1319 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2018). A provisional application is neither a U.S. patent nor a U.S. patent
`
`application publication and, thus, cannot be incorporated by reference for the
`
`purposes of providing “essential material” satisfying § 112. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R §
`
`1.57(b) (requiring an application to be amended to incorporate inadvertently omitted
`
`material from a provisional application deemed to be incorporated by reference).
`
`Bradium’s failure is without excuse.
`
`Bradium relies on Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d
`
`1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000); but that case merely discusses that material
`
`incorporated by reference in a prior art document may be considered in an
`
`anticipation determination—not whether such material can be used to satisfy § 112.
`
`Insufficient Support in the Provisional Application
`C.
`The Opposition demonstrated that the provisional application failed to support
`
`the predetermined color or bit per pixel depth and factor of two limitations (both in
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`proposed claim 20) and the determining priority (proposed claim 21) limitation.
`
`Paper 42, 4-5. Rather than contesting this, Bradium improperly turns to the
`
`specification of the ’239 Patent for each of these limitations—indeed, Bradium
`
`appears to admit that the provisional application teaches away from the determining
`
`priority limitation. Paper 48, 7. Because Bradium seeks to obtain an earlier priority
`
`date (Paper 39, 5) but its provisional application does not support all of the elements
`
`of its amendment, its motion to amend fails 37 CFR § 42.121(b)(2). Bradium also
`
`fails 37 CFR § 42.121(b)(1) by only citing to the ’239 Patent itself rather than its
`
`original application. Supra Section I.A.
`
`The Opposition also demonstrated that the displaying the second portion
`
`using the third update data parcel (proposed claim 20) limitation was unsupported.
`
`Paper 42, 3-4. Neither Bradium nor its expert contests this. Paper 48, 6; Ex. 2059,
`
`¶49. Bradium’s only argument is that this limitation contains a “typographical error”
`
`and should be rewritten. Paper 48, 2, 6. Thus, as written, the parties agree that it is
`
`unsupported. And Bradium should not be allowed to rewrite its amendment. Infra
`
`Section IV.
`
`II.
`
`IMPROPER BROADENING
`Bradium does not attempt to justify its proposed claims. Paper 48, 8-9. Thus,
`
`the motion to amend should be denied. Bradium desires to substantively rewrite the
`
`claims to remediate this. Id., 2, 6. That is wrong as well. Infra Section IV.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`Element [20M] remains improperly broadened even if Bradium were allowed
`
`to rewrite it. Original claim 20 required a step of displaying the discrete portion
`
`associated with the second viewpoint. Ex. 1001, 12:49-67. Bradium’s expert’s
`
`asserted correction lacks a step of displaying the discrete portion associated with the
`
`second viewpoint (numbered the “second” portion in the original claim and the
`
`“third” portion in the proposed claim). Ex. 2059, ¶44.
`
`III. BRADIUM’S PROPOSED CLAIMS ARE INDEFINITE
`A. Bradium Applies an Incorrect Indefiniteness Standard
`Bradium asserts that the Nautilus standard applies because it “issued later in
`
`time” (Paper 48, 1), but the Board has held that the Packard standard applies when
`
`using the BRI claim construction standard (which applies to this IPR). Telebrands
`
`Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, 2016 WL 7985419, at *6-7 (PTAB Dec. 30,
`
`2016), rev’d on other grounds, 733 F. App’x 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see Ex parte
`
`McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 6, n.3. (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential). All
`
`of Bradium’s definiteness arguments rely on Nautilus and not Packard being
`
`applied. Thus, they should be rejected for this reason alone.
`
`Proposed Element [20M] Remains Indefinite
`B.
`Bradium admits this element contains an error. Paper 48, 1-2. Bradium alleges
`
`that “the proper interpretation of the claims is readily apparent,” (Paper 48, 3), but
`
`Bradium and its expert disagree on how the corrected element [20M] should read—
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`this results in very different claims. Compare Paper 48, 1-2 with Ex. 2059, ¶44.
`
`Bradium alleges that a POSA would have understood that the word “second” in this
`
`element should be rewritten as “third” (Paper 48, 1-3), but Bradium’s expert alleges
`
`that a POSA would have understood that “the first recitation of third update data
`
`parcel . . . should in fact be the second update date parcel.” Ex. 2059, ¶ 44 (emphasis
`
`in original).
`
`
`
`This shows that the proper interpretation of the claims is not readily apparent;
`
`rather, there are three distinct options: (1) “displaying the second discrete portion . .
`
`. using the third update data parcel” (as amended); (2) “displaying the third discrete
`
`portion . . . using the third update data parcel” (Bradium); and (3) “displaying the
`
`second discrete portion . . . using the second update data parcel” (Bradium’s expert).
`
`IV. REWRITING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IS WRONG
`
`Bradium’s cure-all is to allege that its amendments include “typographical
`
`errors” correctable via a certificate of correction after the claims issue. Paper 48, 4
`
`n.1. But it would violate § 112 to knowingly issue a patent with such an error, despite
`
`promises to correct it later. And no certificate of correction can be granted because
`
`Bradium cannot possibly show the mistake “occurred in good faith” when it sought
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`for the claims to issue with the mistake. 35 U.S.C. § 255. Finally, to correct these
`
`alleged “typographical errors,” Bradium should have sought “authorization from the
`
`Board to revise its motion to amend as soon as possible.” Amendments to the Rules
`
`and Practice for Trials Before the PTAB, 80 Fed. Reg. 50719, 50724 (Aug. 20, 2015)
`
`(Response to Comment 7). Bradium waited for its Reply to argue for correction
`
`rather than notifying the Board as soon as it learned of these “typographical errors”
`
`which could have been no later than the Opposition.
`
`The alleged errors are not merely “typographical.” For example, Bradium and
`
`its expert cannot even agree on the correct reading of element [20M]. Supra Section
`
`III.B.
`
`As another example, for element [20P], Bradium wrongly asserts that Unified
`
`argued indefiniteness for this element so that Bradium could misuse the Nautilus
`
`standard as authority to rewrite the element. Compare Paper 42, 6-7 with Paper 48,
`
`1-4. Regardless, there is no evidence that a POSA would have been reasonably
`
`certain that element [20P] contains a typographical error. Paper 48, 1-4. Bradium
`
`only provides a conclusory statement that “it is clear that since the second request
`
`was incremented to the third request, the ‘second derivative image’ in the ‘wherein’
`
`clause should also be incremented to the ‘third derivative image.’” Id., 2. Bradium’s
`
`expert similarly provides a conclusory statement that “any other interpretation would
`
`read out the preferred embodiment of the invention and render it inoperable” without
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`identifying which embodiment is allegedly read out or citing any evidence in
`
`support. Ex. 2059, ¶50. The expert’s sole citation to the provisional specification
`
`(Id., ¶48 (citing Ex. 1019, 6:25-7:1)) provides no guidance regarding whether the
`
`derivative images of element 20[P] are from the same viewpoint (i.e., the first and
`
`second derivative images) or different viewpoints (i.e., the first and third derivative
`
`images). This element describes the division of the original image into sub images
`
`based on spatial coverage (i.e. proposed “corrected” claim 20) or resolution (i.e.,
`
`original proposed claim 20). Ex. 1001, 6:3-18, Fig. 2. Paper 2, 33-34; Ex. 1005,
`
`¶¶154-172.1, Paper 42, 21-22; Ex. 1027, ¶87. Objectively, both options are equally
`
`feasible—Bradium’s subjective intent does not transform one feasible option into a
`
`“typographical error.”
`
`V. THE PROPOSED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS
`A. Bradium Wrongly Reads in Unrecited Limitations
`Bradium’s main argument that the proposed claims (with Bradium’s
`
`corrections) are patentable is based on reading in unwritten limitations (that are not
`
`even recited in Bradium’s corrections). Specifically, requiring that the claimed first
`
`and second image parcels have different resolutions and different viewpoints. Paper
`
`48, 9; Ex. 2059, ¶60. Bradium argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest “any
`
`prioritization which involved both image parcels involving different resolutions
`
`with respect to different viewpoints as required by the claims.” Paper 48, 9
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`(emphasis added). Yet, the claims recite first and second image parcels having
`
`different resolutions but the same viewpoint. Ex. 2055, ¶45 [20C], [20G]. The
`
`claimed third image parcel is based on a different viewpoint, but the claim is silent
`
`with respect to its resolution. Id., [20J]-[20K]. Thus, the claims require (1) first and
`
`second image parcels with different resolutions but the same viewpoint; and (2) a
`
`third image parcel with a different viewpoint but not specifying resolution.
`
`The prior art in the Opposition renders the claims (as written) obvious.
`
`Bradium’s expert admits that Yaron discloses the claim elements added by the
`
`proposed amendment, quoting and agreeing with Unified’s description that Yaron
`
`discloses “multiple requests for the same viewpoint such that the second request is
`
`a higher resolution, is displayed after the first request, and is overlapping the first
`
`request.” Id., ¶45.
`
`If the claims are interpreted to include Bradium’s unwritten limitation, this
`
`feature is still rendered obvious. Paper 42, 18-21. Yaron discloses multiple requests
`
`at a single viewpoint with varying resolutions and then requesting an image parcel
`
`at a new viewpoint. Id., 20-21. Yaron’s teachings indicate that the request at the new
`
`viewpoint would have a different resolution than at least one of the multiple requests
`
`at the original viewpoint. Id. Yaron discloses prioritizing these requests within the
`
`same viewpoint with the requests from different viewpoints. Id.
`
`Also, Reddy operates in this same manner with respect to this feature. Id., 18-
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`19. Bradium’s characterizations of Reddy are pure attorney argument and should be
`
`rejected. Paper 48, 10-12. And Bradium is wrong that Unified’s expert’s analysis of
`
`Reddy is “hindsight reconstruction”—they are based on prior art documents. Ex.
`
`1027, ¶¶72, 77 (citing Ex. 1004, ¶7; Ex. 1028, 3:65-4:9).
`
`Bradium Has Waived Any Arguments With Respect to Yaron
`B.
`Bradium failed to substantively address Yaron at all (Paper 48, 9-12)—as a
`
`result, the Opposition’s arguments that Yaron discloses the features added in the
`
`proposed substitute claims are unrebutted. Bradium merely cites to paragraphs 61-
`
`74 of its expert’s report to support a single conclusory sentence. Id., 9. Without any
`
`arguments supporting its conclusion, Bradium has essentially acceded to Unified’s
`
`position.1 Bradium cannot rely on its expert’s report to include arguments that
`
`should be in its brief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`If the Board considers the improperly presented expert arguments, it should
`
`find them unpersuasive. Bradium’s expert relies on an improper reading of the
`
`claimed prioritization limitation. Ex. 2059, ¶71. By omitting a portion of the claim
`
`limitation, Bradium’s expert misleadingly alleges that the claim requires that the first
`
`
`1 Bradium’s initial Reply (Paper 44), which was 7 pages over the page limit, included
`
`these arguments at pages 16-19. But, when Bradium filed its Corrected Reply,
`
`Bradium cut these arguments—thus, waiving them.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`request be given a greater priority than both the second request and the third request.
`
`Id. But, the claim only requires that the first data parcel (based on the first request)
`
`have a greater priority than the second data parcel (based on the second request). Ex.
`
`2055, ¶45 [20N]-[20O]. While the claim requires a prioritization between the first
`
`and third requests, the claim does not specify which request has a greater priority.
`
`Id. Nor does Bradium’s proffered written description support discuss a preferred
`
`priority order. Paper 39, 13-14 (citing Ex. 1019, 5:20-25).
`
`Even if this feature is read into the claims, it is rendered obvious by Yaron.
`
`The claims do not specify that the first request must be issued before third request.
`
`The use of the terms “first,” “second,” and “third” should not necessarily be
`
`interpreted to impose ordering on a claim. 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery
`
`Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003). It is clear in these claims
`
`that the use of these terms does not necessitate a sequential order because this would
`
`render at least portions of the “determining priority” step redundant. Ex. 2055, ¶45
`
`[20N]. As Bradium’s expert acknowledges, Yaron discloses higher priorities for
`
`lower resolution requests within each viewpoint; and that requests for a later
`
`viewpoint are given a higher priority than requests for an earlier viewpoint. Ex. 2059,
`
`¶¶62, 64, 72-73. Thus: (1) the claims do not specify a particular order first request
`
`and third request, (2) Yaron discloses low to high resolution prioritization at various
`
`viewpoints, and (3) Yaron discloses requests for a later viewpoint are given a higher
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`priority than requests for an earlier viewpoint. Yaron’s request at the original
`
`viewpoint discloses the claimed third request, and Yaron’s later requests at a later
`
`viewpoint discloses the claimed first and second requests.
`
`Finally, if this feature is read into the claims, it is also rendered obvious by
`
`Reddy. Reddy’s prefetching feature provides for determining priority between two
`
`different viewpoints in a manner that the earlier viewpoint is prioritized higher than
`
`the later viewpoint. Paper 41, 21-24; Paper 2, 13-17, 22-41, 68-69.
`
`C. Bradium’s Arguments Based on the Original Claims are Moot
`Bradium argues that “Reddy does not teach or suggest prioritization of two
`
`different viewpoints as required by the claims.” Paper 48, 11. But, original claim 20
`
`recited this. Ex. 1001, 12:29-39, 12:49-60, 14:41-43. Because the motion to amend
`
`is contingent on the original claim being found unpatentable over the prior art (Paper
`
`39, 1) if the Board finds the original claims unpatentable, these arguments are moot.
`
`D. Bradium’s Interpretation of “Determining Priority” Is Wrong
`Bradium attempts to distinguish the prior art by arguing that a system that uses
`
`“strict ordering”2 is not “determining priority.” Paper 48, 11. Bradium excludes what
`
`they call “strict ordering” from the scope of “determining priority.” But there is no
`
`disclaimer that justifies narrowing the term. To the contrary, using a predefined order
`
`
`2 Unified is unclear what Bradium means by “strict ordering.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`based on resolution and/or viewpoint is a way to determine priority according to the
`
`patent. Ex. 1001, 6:55-57, 10:56-57, 11:5-7. Similar to the original claim, the
`
`proposed claim “broadly requires prioritizing requests for update data parcels.”
`
`Paper 31, 40. Bradium has not argued that original claim 20 excludes “strict
`
`ordering.” Thus, Bradium should have proposed an amendment to recite this
`
`restriction.
`
`Besides, the prioritization in Yaron does not require strict ordering. As a user’s
`
`viewpoint changes, Yaron’s system continuously analyzes whether pending requests
`
`are still within the user’s field of view and should be retained. Ex. 1028, 15:19-32.
`
`VI. NEW CLAIM 21 IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE CLAIM
`There is a rebuttable presumption that a single substitute claim is sufficient
`
`(Western Digital Corp., Paper 13, 4-5), which Bradium has not overcome. A “desire
`
`to obtain a new set of claims having a hierarchy of different scope typically would
`
`not constitute a sufficient special circumstance.” Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom,
`
`Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26, 6 (PTAB Jun. 11, 2013) (emphasis in original)
`
`(motions to amend do not allow “a complete remodeling of [the] claim structure
`
`according to a different strategy.”). This is exactly what Bradium is seeking to do.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Roshan Suresh Mansinghani/
`Roshan Suresh Mansinghani
`Reg. No. 62,429
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`
`I hereby certify that on September 3, 2019 a copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S CONTINGENT
`
`MOTION TO AMEND was served via electronic mail, as agreed to by counsel, upon
`
`the following counsel for Patent Owner:
`
`Chris J. Coulson
`Michael N. Zachary
`Bunsow De Mory LLP
`701 El Camino Real Redwood City, CA 94063
`Email: ccoulson@bdiplaw.com
`Email: mzachary@bdiplaw.com
`
`
`Michael E. Shanahan
`Email: mshanahan@generalpatent.com
`
`
`/Roshan Suresh Mansinghani/
`Roshan Suresh Mansinghani
`Reg. No. 62,429
`
`
`
` i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`