IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Nirantar, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`9,516,127
`U.S. Patent No.:
`December 6, 2016
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 14/223,689
`Filing Date:
`March 24, 2014
`Title:
`INTELLIGENT ALARM MANIPULATOR
`AND RESOURCE TRACKER
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0046IP1
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 9,516,127 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2
`I.
`II. Requirements for IPR .......................................................................................... 2
`A. Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 2
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested ....................................................................... 2
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’127 PATENT ............................................................. 4
`Brief Description .............................................................................................. 4
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’127 Patent .................................. 7
`IV. Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 7
`V. Application of prior art to challenged claims ...................................................... 8
`GROUND 1: Claims 1-23 are obvious under § 103 over Giaretta in view of
`Backholm and Pathak. ............................................................................................ 8
`1. Claims 1, 10, and 17 .................................................................................... 14
`2. Claims 2, 11, and 18 .................................................................................... 31
`3. Claims 3 and 12 ........................................................................................... 32
`4. Claims 5, 6, and 13 ...................................................................................... 33
`5. Claims 4, 14, and 19 .................................................................................... 36
`6. Claims 8, 15, and 20 .................................................................................... 37
`7. Claims 7, 16, and 21 .................................................................................... 38
`8. Claims 9, 22, and 23 .................................................................................... 39
`B. GROUND 2a: Claims 24, 26, 28-33, 36-42, 44, and 46-50 are obvious under
`§ 103 over Backholm in view of Aleksic. ............................................................ 42
`1. Claims 24, 33, and 42 .................................................................................. 45
`2. Claims 26, 41, and 44 .................................................................................. 66
`3. Claims 28, 36, and 46 .................................................................................. 67
`
`ii
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`4. Claims 29, 37, and 47 .................................................................................. 68
`5. Claims 30, 38, and 48 .................................................................................. 69
`6. Claims 31, 39, and 49 .................................................................................. 69
`7. Claims 32, 40, and 50 .................................................................................. 70
`C. GROUND 2b: Claims 27, 35, and 45 are obvious under § 103 over
`Backholm in view of Aleksic and Hackborn ........................................................ 71
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 75
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ......................... 76
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ..................................... 76
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................... 76
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .......................... 76
`D. Service Information ........................................................................................ 77
`
`iii
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127 to Nirantar, et al. (“the ’127 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Prosecution History of the ’127 patent (Serial No. 14/223,689)
`
`Exhibit 1003 Declaration of Mark D. Corner, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Publication No. 2012/0185577 to Giaretta, et al.
`
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Publication No. 2012/0023236 to Backholm, et al.
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Pathak et al., What is keeping my phone awake? Characterizing
`
`and Detecting No-Sleep Energy Bugs in Smartphone Apps,
`
`ACM (2012)
`
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Publication No. 2008/0057894 to Aleksic, et al.
`
`Exhibit 1008 U.S. Patent No. 8,280,456 to Hackborn, et al.
`
`Exhibit 1009 Affidavit of Christopher Butler
`
`Exhibit 1010 Declaration of Jacob Robert Munford
`
`Exhibit 1011 Murphy, The Busy Coder’s Guide to Android Development,
`
`CommonsWare, LLC (Sept. 2012)
`
`i
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Samsung” or “Petitioner”) petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`of claims 1-24, 26-33, 35-42, and 44-50 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`9,516,127 (“the ’127 patent”). There exists a reasonable likelihood that Samsung
`
`will prevail on the Challenged Claims.
`
`II.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR
`A.
`Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’127 patent is available for IPR. Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting this review challenging the Challenged Claims
`
`on the below-identified grounds. Samsung was served with a complaint in 2-17-
`
`cv-00441 (E.D. Tex.) on 5/19/2017. 5/19/2018 was a Saturday, establishing a
`
`5/21/2018 deadline for this petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 21(b); IPR2016-00394, Paper
`
`14, 4.
`
`Challenge and Relief Requested
`B.
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds in the table
`
`below, as explained in this petition and in the Declaration of Dr. Mark Corner (Ex.
`
`1003).
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`Ground
`
`’127 Claims
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 1
`
`1-23
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Giaretta (US
`
`2012/0185577), Backholm (US
`
`2012/0023236), Pathak (What is keeping my
`
`phone awake?)
`
`Ground 2a
`
`24, 26, 28-33,
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Backholm,
`
`36-42, 44, 46-50
`
`Aleksic (US 2008/0057894)
`
`Ground 2b
`
`27, 35, 45
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Backholm,
`
`Aleksic, Hackborn (US 8,280,456)
`
`The ’127 patent is not entitled to its provisional application filing date
`
`because all claim features are not present within the provisional application. As
`
`such, the earliest effective filing date of the ’127 patent is March 24, 2014,
`
`although the same analysis holds as of March 25, 2013 (the “Critical Date”). Each
`
`reference pre-dates this and qualifies as prior art:
`
`Reference
`
`Date
`
`Section
`
`Giaretta
`
`7/19/2012 (published)
`
`102(a)(1)
`
`Backholm
`
`1/26/2012 (published)
`
`102(a)(1)
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`Reference
`
`Date
`
`Section
`
`Pathak
`
`Aleksic
`
`6/25/2012 (published)
`
`102(a)(1)
`
`3/6/2008 (published)
`
`102(a)(1)
`
`Hackborn
`
`10/2/2012 (issued)
`
`102(a)(1)
`
`Pathak is a self-authenticating publication from ACM that contains a
`
`copyright notice indicating publication on June 25, 2012. Ex. 1006, p. 267. Ford
`
`Motor Co. v. Cruise Control Techs. LLC, IPR2014-00291, Paper 44 at p. 8 (PTAB
`
`June 29, 2015). Additionally, the publication date of June 25, 2012 (or at least
`
`December 22, 2012) and authenticity of this publication is confirmed by an
`
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler and a Declaration of Jacob Robert Munford. See
`
`Ex. 1009, [5]-[6], pp. 67-81; Ex. 1010, [5]-[18].
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’127 PATENT
` Brief Description
`The ’127 patent relates to “systems and methods for intelligently
`
`manipulating alarms/timers to optimize resource usage on a mobile device.” Ex.
`
`1001, 3:18-20. FIG. 1A-1 (reproduced below) shows a system including an alarm
`
`manager that manages triggers across multiple applications on a mobile device.
`
`Id., 5:15-39.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`Id., FIG. 1A-1 (annotated), see also FIG. 2.
`
`The triggers include alarms (e.g., timers) that are used to perform scheduled
`
`tasks that use a network resource on the mobile device. Id., 4:3-5. An alarm
`
`brings the device out of sleep mode to perform a task. Id., 3:54-56, 17:12-14,
`
`18:27-35. As shown below in FIGS. 1A-2 and 1A-3 of the ’127 patent, the alarm
`
`manager adjusts (e.g., delays or accelerates) the timing of the triggers across
`
`multiple applications so that the triggers execute at the same time or at
`
`approximately the same time to optimize resource usage. Id., 3:38-43, 4:8-10,
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`4:42-44, 5:24-54, 6:8-12, 17:62-18:19, FIG. 1A-2, FIG. 1A-3. A user may turn on
`
`or off the alarm manager’s optimization of network resource usage and to select
`
`applications for resource usage optimization. Id., 18:58-19:3.
`
`Id., FIGS. 1A-2 and 1A-3 (annotated).
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’127 Patent
`B.
`The ’127 patent issued on December 6, 2016, and the issued claims
`
`significantly differ from the claims that were initially filed. Ex. 1002, pp. 155-165.
`
`Indeed, the last amendment submitted on April 26, 2016, replaced all of the
`
`limitations of claims 1, 10, and 17 with new limitations and added new claims 24,
`
`33, and 42. Id. The Office allowed these claims without rejection. Id., 43-56.
`
`However, as explained in Section V below, the Examiner had not considered the
`
`teachings of Giaretta, Backholm, Pathak, Aleksic, and Hackborn, which
`
`demonstrate that the features cited to justify allowance were known before the ’127
`
`patent.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The ’127 patent is unexpired. Petitioner submits that all terms should be
`
`given their plain meaning, but reserves the right to respond to any constructions
`
`that may later be offered by the Patent Owner or adopted by the Board.1
`
`1 Samsung’s comments on claim construction are for the sole purpose of
`
`determining whether the prior art renders obvious claims 1-24, 26-33, 35-42, and
`
`44-50 of the ’127 patent. Neither by providing comments on claim construction,
`
`nor by analyzing the cited art, does Samsung concede that any claim of the ’127
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
` 
`V. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`As detailed below, this petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on the Challenged Claims and these claims should be cancelled as
`
`unpatentable.
`
` GROUND 1: Claims 1-23 are obvious under § 103 over Giaretta
`in view of Backholm and Pathak.
`Similar to the ’127 patent, Giaretta is directed to aggregating and aligning
`
`triggers that wake up a mobile device to consume resources. Ex. 1004, [0038],
`
`[0043], [0061-0063], [0064]-[0065], [0067], [0081], FIG. 5. Specifically, Giaretta
`
`                                                            
` 
`patent meets statutory standards for patent claiming. Samsung recognizes that
`
`Inter Partes Review is not an appropriate forum to address certain issues, such as
`
`the patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or the failure to
`
`comply with § 112, and, therefore reserves all rights to contend that one or more of
`
`claims 1-24, 26-33, 35-42, and 44-50 are invalid for reasons out of scope for Inter
`
`Partes Review, including but not limited to the failure to claim patentable subject
`
`matter under § 101 and lack of definiteness or written description under § 112.
`
`The failure to claim patentable subject matter under § 101 or the presence of
`
`definiteness and description problems in claims 1-24, 26-33, 35-42, and 44-50 is
`
`no bar to Inter Partes Review.
`
` 
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

` 
`describes “systems and methods [that] hold and aggregate requests for network
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`access to reduce network signaling and conserve battery power.” Id., [0037].
`
`Giaretta’s FIG. 6 (reproduced below) shows a system architecture that is consistent
`
`with the architecture of the ’127 patent. As shown, Giaretta’s mobile device
`
`aggregates requests for network access from multiple applications. Id., [0064]-
`
`[0065]. Similar to the ’127 patent’s use of an alarm manager, Giaretta employs an
`
`aggregation module that resides between multiple applications on the mobile
`
`device and the operating system. Compare Ex. 1004, FIG. 6 (reproduced below)
`
`with Ex. 1001, FIG. 1A-1 (reproduced above).
`
`Ex. 1004, FIG. 6 (annotated).
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

` 
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 1A-1 (annotated).
`
`Giaretta discloses that the applications use timers to trigger connection
`
`requests. Ex. 1004, [0011], [0039], [0069]-[0071], [0090]-[0092], [0095]-[0101].
`
`In Giaretta, a timer indicates a time or time interval within which the application
`
`requires a connection and will wake up the mobile device to connect to the
`
`network and perform processing. Id., [0095]. To align timed requests, as shown in
`
`Giaretta’s FIG. 5 (reproduced below), Giaretta causes a timer to expire at a time
`
`earlier or later than it would otherwise expire to take advantage of a wake up and
`
` 
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

` 
`connection associated with another application. Id., [0011], [0038], [0043],
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`[0067], [0071], [0081], [0091], [0101].
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 5 (annotated). By adjusting (e.g., moving) the expiration time of the
`
`timers, Giaretta aligns requests from the applications and releases them to the
`
`operating system together at substantially the same time. Id., [0089]-[0102], FIGS.
`
`10, 11, 12. Additionally, Giaretta’s aggregation module aggregates requests from
`
`applications and releases them to the operating system together at substantially the
`
`same time. Id., [0061-0063], [0065]-[0066], FIG. 5.
`
`Further, Giaretta confirms that the aggregation and delaying of timers occurs
`
`when a mobile device is in a background mode to reduce the number of transitions
`
`from background mode and connected mode triggered by the requests. Id., [0005],
`
` 
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

` 
`[0033]-[0035], [0039], [0054], [0064], [0068]. As Giaretta explains, the mobile
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`device is in background mode when the device is powered down or in a sleep
`
`mode, or when certain components of the device are inactive. Id., [0036], [0064],
`
`[0067], [0080]. For instance, Giaretta’s mobile device determines that it is in
`
`background mode when the screen is off or when the device is stationary. Id.
`
`With this background, like the ’127 patent, Giaretta describes the
`
`functionality of delaying and aligning timed triggers to achieve the same purported
`
`benefits of the ’127 patent; namely, reducing network signaling and conserving
`
`battery power. Id., [0037], [0039], [0047], [0066], [0068], [0083], [0088], [0095],
`
`[0103]. Through this disclosure, Giaretta demonstrates that the subject matter of
`
`the ’127 patent was well-known and certainly obvious to POSITAs prior to its
`
`filing. Ex. 1003, [025]-[029]. And, as demonstrated below, the features missing
`
`from Giaretta – specific entry conditions for power save mode and wakelocks –
`
`were likewise well-known and obvious to POSITAs prior to the ’127 patent. Id.
`
`For example, Backholm provides disclosure of a mobile device entering a
`
`power save mode after detecting no user activity over a period of time. Ex. 1005,
`
`[0201]. Backholm’s mobile device monitors backlight status and device motion to
`
`detect that the user has been inactive or idle and enter power save mode. Id.,
`
`[0041], [0064], [0068], [0098], [0200]-[0201]. Through this disclosure, Backholm
`
`confirms that backlight status and device motion were well-known factors to
`
` 
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

` 
`consider in entering/exiting power save mode and would have been obvious to use
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`for entering/exiting Giaretta’s background or power save mode. Ex. 1003, [030]-
`
`[033], [045]-[054].
`
`Pathak confirms that wakelocks were conventionally acquired by
`
`applications seeking to communication data. Ex. 1006, pp. 267-269, 271-272.
`
`Indeed, Pathak confirms that, prior to the ’127 patent, wakelocks were known to be
`
`used with the same applications for the same types of operations described by
`
`Giaretta. Ex. 1004, [0034], [0070]; Ex. 1006, pp. 268, 271-272; Ex. 1003, [034],
`
`[072]-[079]. This is not surprising to the authors of the ’127 patent, as the ’127
`
`patent provides only one sentence describing wakelocks and quite clearly did not
`
`invent them. Ex. 1001, 18:27-30.
`
`As indicated above2 and discussed in more detail below, Giaretta, Backholm,
`
`and Pathak combine to render obvious all features of claims 1-23. Due to the
`
`significant similarity/overlap among the “method” claim set (claims 1-9), the
`
`corresponding “mobile device” claim set (claims 10-16), and the corresponding
`
`                                                            
`
`  2
`
` Petitioner hereby expressly incorporates the entirety of the discussion above
`
`regarding Giaretta, Backholm, and Pathak into the element-by-element analysis of
`
`Ground 1.
`
` 
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

` 
`“computer-readable storage medium” claim set (claims 17-23), the elements of
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`these claims are addressed together for efficiency of presentation. Each limitation
`
`of each claim has been addressed in full below.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1, 10, and 17
`
`[1p] A method for managing resources on a mobile device, comprising:
`
`[10p] A mobile device, comprising:
`a memory;
`a processor in communication with the memory and configured to execute
`instructions stored in the memory to:
`
`[17p] A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions
`that when executed by a processor causes the processor to:
`Giaretta describes “systems and methods [that] hold and aggregate requests
`
`for network access to reduce network signaling and conserve battery power.” Ex.
`
`1004, [0037], see also [0005], [0033], [0039], [0040], [0073]-[0092], FIGS. 7-10.
`
`By performing a method to hold and aggregate requests for network access to
`
`reduce network signaling and conserve battery power, Giaretta performs a method
`
`for managing resources on a mobile device. Ex. 1003, [042]-[043].
`
`Giaretta also describes a “mobile device configured for wireless
`
`communication.” Ex. 1004, [0005]-[0007], [0009], [0011], [0014]-[0015], [0044]-
`
`[0045], [0103]-[0108], FIGS. 2-4. Giaretta’s mobile device includes a processor
`
`and a memory in communication with the processor. Id., [0014], [0048]-[0049],
`
`FIG. 3. The processor in Giaretta’s mobile device executes computer-readable
`
` 
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

` 
`instructions stored in the memory to provide functionality for managing requests
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`for network access from applications on the mobile device. Id., [0016], [0044]-
`
`[0045], [0048]-[0049], [0053], [0055]-[0057], [0107]-[0108]. With this structure,
`
`Giaretta renders obvious a mobile device comprising a memory and a processor in
`
`communication with the memory and configured to execute instructions stored in
`
`the memory, as well as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing
`
`instructions that when executed by a processor causes the processor to perform
`
`operations. Ex. 1003, [044].
`
`[1a], [10a], [17a] entering (or enter) a power save mode based on a backlight
`status and sensed motion of a mobile device;
`Giaretta discloses that a “mobile device may be in background mode when
`
`certain inputs of the device are not operational or are in a sleep state.” Ex. 1004,
`
`[0036]. In background mode, Giaretta’s mobile device saves power because parts
`
`of the device are not operational or are asleep. Id. Thus, Giaretta’s background
`
`mode is a power save mode. Ex. 1003, [046].
`
`Giaretta’s mobile device determines that it is in background mode (i.e., a
`
`power save mode) when “a screen or display of the device 105-d is off” or when “a
`
`global positioning system (GPS) mechanism in the device 105-d determines the
`
`device 105-d is stationary.” Id., [0063], see also [0036], [0064], [0067], [0080].
`
`Although Giaretta describes the mobile device being in a power save mode as
`
` 
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

` 
`indicated by screen status (which may or may not be indicative of backlight status)
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`and sensed motion, Giaretta does not explicitly teach that the mobile device enters
`
`the power save mode based on backlight status and sensed motion.
`
`Backholm confirms that backlight status and sensed motion were well-
`
`known factors in causing a mobile device to enter a power save mode. Ex. 1003,
`
`[047]-[048]. For example, Backholm describes a mobile device that monitors the
`
`device for user activity. Ex. 1005, [0033], [0041], [0200]. Backholm’s mobile
`
`device determines user activity status by detecting signals indicative of user or
`
`device activity, including signals from the device backlight (i.e., backlight status)
`
`and a motion detector (i.e., sensed motion). Id., [0041], [0064]-[0065], [0068],
`
`[0098]. After the device detects that the user has been inactive or idle over a
`
`period of time as indicated by signals from the device backlight and the motion
`
`detector, Backholm’s mobile device enters a power save mode. Id., [0068],
`
`[0200]-[0201], FIG. 5.
`
`As indicated at the outset, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine
`
`Giaretta with Backholm to include, in Giaretta’s mobile device, Backholm’s
`
`conventional functionality for the mobile device to enter power save mode after
`
`detecting that the user has been inactive based on signals from the device backlight
`
`and the motion detector. Ex. 1003, [052]-[054]. Both Giaretta and Backholm are
`
`related to reducing network resource usage and battery consumption. Ex. 1004,
`
` 
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

` 
`[0034]-[0035], [0037], [0039], [0046]-[0047], [0066], [0083], [0088]; Ex. 1005,
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`[0067], [0102]. Both Giaretta and Backholm include mechanisms for detecting
`
`screen or backlight status and sensing motion of a mobile device. Ex. 1004,
`
`[0036], [0064], [0067], [0080]; Ex. 1005, [0041], [0064]-[0065], [0068], [0098].
`
`Both Giaretta and Backholm describe power save modes and desirability to use
`
`power save mode when the screen or backlight is off and the device is stationary.
`
`Ex. 1004, [0036], [0064], [0067], [0080]; Ex. 1005, [0068], [0200]-[0206], FIG. 5.
`
`Combining Giaretta with Backholm achieves the benefits of providing Backholm’s
`
`functionality for the mobile device to enter a power save mode based on signals
`
`from the device backlight and the motion detector to reduce network resource
`
`usage and battery consumption. Ex. 1003, [052]-[054]. As Dr. Corner explains, a
`
`POSITA would have recognized power saving benefits of Backholm’s automatic
`
`entry of power save mode based on backlight status and sensed motion and would
`
`have been motivated to achieve these benefits of Backholm in Giaretta. Id.
`
`Further, a POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Giaretta with
`
`Backholm because doing so entails the use of known solutions to improve similar
`
`systems and methods in the same way. Id. Indeed, “when a patent ‘simply
`
`arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known
`
`to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement,
`
`the combination is obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
`
` 
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

` 
`(2007). A POSITA would have recognized that applying Backholm’s teachings to
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`Giaretta’s mobile device would have led to predictable results without significantly
`
`altering or hindering the functions performed by the mobile device. Ex. 1003,
`
`[052]-[054]. In fact, as Dr. Corner explains, a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to use the well-known factors of backlight status and sensed motion to
`
`cause Giaretta’s mobile device to enter power save mode to achieve the predictable
`
`benefits offered by Backholm’s description of the same. Id.
`
`For these reasons, a POSITA would have found it obvious to combine
`
`Giaretta and Backholm and modify Giaretta’s mobile device to enter a power save
`
`mode based on a backlight status and sensed motion of a mobile device, as
`
`described by Backholm. Id.; Ex. 1004, [0034]-[0037], [0039], [0046]-[0047],
`
`[0064], [0066]-[0067], [0080], [0083], [0088]; Ex. 1005, [0033], [0041], [0064]-
`
`[0065], [0067]-[0068], [0098], [0102], [0200]-[0206], FIG. 5. Thus, Giaretta and
`
`Backholm render obvious features [1a], [10a], and [17a]. Ex. 1003, [045]-[048],
`
`[052]-[054].
`
`[1b], [10b], [17b] delaying (or delay) a timing of one or more triggers for
`multiple applications on the mobile device, wherein the timing is delayed such
`that the triggers execute within a window of time,
`Giaretta discloses using triggers, such as timers, to release connection
`
`requests from applications to the operating system to establish a data connection
`
`setup procedure. Ex. 1004, [0009], [0011], [0038]-[0039], [0048], [0068]-[0071],
`
` 
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

` 
`[0090]-[0092], [0095]-[0101]. In Giaretta, a timer indicates a time or time interval
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`within which the application requires a connection. Id., [0039], [0095]. Giaretta
`
`provides several examples of adjusting the expiration of timers to synchronize (i.e.,
`
`align) the timers of multiple applications. Id., [0093]-[0100], FIGS. 11-14. For
`
`instance, Giaretta’s FIG. 12 (reproduced below) shows the timer of App2 being
`
`adjusted from time 7 to time 6 to synchronize with the timer of App1. Id., [0097],
`
`FIG. 12. Similarly, the timers of App1 and App2 are adjusted from time 16 to time
`
`14 to synchronize with the timer of App3. Id.
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

` 
`Id., FIG. 12 (annotated). Giaretta also explains that adjusting expiration of a timer
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`can include delaying the expiration of the timer to force it to expire at a time later
`
`than its intended expiration time as permitted by its tolerance window to take
`
`advantage of a connection used by another application. Id., [0010]-[0011], [0067],
`
`[0070], [0101].
`
`Similar to the ’127 patent’s triggers, Giaretta’s connection requests include
`
`system calls to the operating system that establish a communication channel for the
`
`mobile device. Id., [0012], [0033], [0037], [0042], [0045], [0046]. Giaretta’s
`
`mobile device aggregates requests for network access from multiple applications
`
`and uses the timers as triggers to release the requests together at substantially the
`
`same time to the operating system. Id., [0005]-[0006], [0033], [0054], [0058]-
`
`[0059], [0061-0063], [0064]-[0066], [0078]-[0087], FIGS. 5, 8, 9. To aggregate
`
`the requests, one or more timers are delayed, which delays the execution of
`
`requests associated with the delayed timers. Id., [0038], [0043], [0054], [0067],
`
`[0081], [0086]-[0087].
`
`Giaretta’s FIG. 5 (reproduced below) illustrates an example of delaying
`
`timing of requests for multiple applications such that the requests are executed at
`
`the same time. Id., [0061]-[0063]. As shown, a first application triggers a
`
`connection request at time t0 and a second application triggers a connection request
`
`at time t1 after time t0. Id., [0061]-[0062]. The first request is delayed for a time
`
` 
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

` 
`H0 and the second request is delayed for a time H1. Id. Giaretta delays the timing
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`of the first and second requests to allow the first and second requests to be released
`
`together to the operating system at the same time t2. Id., [0062]-[0063].
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 5 (annotated). With this operation, Giaretta delays a timing of requests
`
`for multiple applications on the mobile device. Ex. 1003, [056], [060]-[062]. By
`
`delaying timers and requests associated with timers, Giaretta renders obvious
`
`delaying triggers. Id. In fact, the ’127 patent confirms that triggers include timers
`
`to perform scheduled tasks – the very same timers and associated requests delayed
`
`by Giaretta. Ex. 1001, 4:3-5, 4:37-39, 4:66-5:1, 17:1-3.
`
`Further, in Giaretta, the timing is delayed such that the triggers execute
`
`within a window of time. Ex. 1003, [063]-[064]. For example, Giaretta describes
`
` 
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

` 
`tolerances associated with connection requests and soft-timers. Ex. 1004, [0010]-
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`[0011], [0067], [0070]-[0071], [0091]-[0092], [0096]-[0097], [0099], [0101]. With
`
`respect to connect requests, Giaretta describes a delay tolerance within which the
`
`connection request may be released after it has been received. Id., [0067]. As to
`
`soft-timers, Giaretta describes a tolerance level within which the timer may be
`
`permitted to expire. Id., [0070]-[0071], [0091]-[0097], [0101]-[0102]. Giaretta
`
`further explains that a soft-timer’s expiration may “occur at the leading edge of
`
`communication windows,” or alternatively, “at the ‘trailing edge’” of the
`
`communication windows. Id., [0102]. As Dr. Corner explains, a POSITA would
`
`have recognized that Giaretta’s delay tolerance for connection requests and
`
`tolerance level and communication windows for soft-timers are windows of time
`
`for executing the triggers. Ex. 1003, [063]. Indeed, Giaretta’s connection requests
`
`(i.e., triggers) execute within the window of time (e.g., tolerance or communication
`
`window) needed to complete the communications associated with the aggregated
`
`connections. Id.
`
`Moreover, Giaretta’s mobile device aggregates requests for network access
`
`from multiple applications and uses the timers as triggers to release the requests
`
`together at substantially the same time to the operating system. Ex. 1004, [0005]-
`
`[0006], [0033], [0054], [0058]-[0059], [0061-0063], [0064]-[0066], [0078]-[0087],
`
`FIGS. 5, 8, 9. As described above, Giaretta’s FIG. 5 illustrates an example of
`
` 
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`

` 
`delaying timing of requests for multiple applications such that the requests are
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0046IP1
`
`executed at the same time. Id., [0061]-[0063]. As exemplary disclosure of
`
`triggers executing within a window of time, the ’127 patent similarly discloses
`
`delaying the timing of the triggers such that the triggers are triggered “at the same
`
`time or at approximately the same time.” Ex. 1001, 6:8-12, see also 3:30-41,
`
`12:29-33, 17:66-18:15, 18:30-37, 19:29-32, FIG. 3 (step 308). Thus, in view of
`
`Giaretta executing triggers within a window of time, and the similarity of this
`
`disclosure to the description of trigger execution found in the ’127 patent, it would
`
`have been obvious to a POSITA to delay timing of triggers to enable trigger
`
`execution in a manner similar to that contemplated by the ’127 patent. Ex. 1003,
`
`[063]-[064].
`
`For these reasons, Giaretta renders obvious a mobile device that delays a
`
`timing of one or more triggers for multiple applications on the mobile device,
`
`wherein the timing is delayed such that the triggers execute within a window of
`
`time. Ex. 1003, [056], [060]-[064].
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`

`IPR of U.S.