1
`
`Before Hon. Daniel N. Fishman, Michelle N. Wormmeester, and
`
`Case Nos. IPR2018-01281 & IPR2018-01282
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`Amanda F. Wieker
`
`Petitioner Demonstratives
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated (Patent Owner)
`
`Apple Inc. (Petitioner)
`
`v.
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1027
`Apple v. Qualcomm
`IPR2018-01281
`
`
`
`Before Hon. Daniel N. Fishman, Michelle N. Wormmeester, and
`
`Case Nos. IPR2018-01281 & IPR2018-01282
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`Amanda F. Wieker
`
`Petitioner Demonstratives
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated (Patent Owner)
`
`Apple Inc. (Petitioner)
`
`v.
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1027
`Apple v. Qualcomm
`IPR2018-01281
`
`
`
`5C. [Claims 5,24&48] Louchdiscloses taking “snapshots” in response to detecting condition
`5B. [Claims 4&23] Louchdiscloses recognizing 2ndpattern in a reduced set of parameters
`5A. [Claims 4&23] Wang discloses alleged causation
`
`5. Dependent claims are addressed by both Wang and Louch
`
`2
`
`4C. Louchdiscloses setting the scope of analysis for confirming a “duration”
`4B. A POSITA would appreciate Louch’s“duration” pattern includes a “first pattern”
`4A. Louch’s1stmapping under the learning mode theory satisfies the claims
`
`4. Louch-based grounds prevail even under PO’s narrow construction
`
`3. Wang-based grounds prevail even under PO’s narrow construction
`
`3B. Petitioner’s reliance on additional mappings are timely and complete
`3A. Wang discloses additional mappings satisfying the claims
`
`2C. PO’s construction imports extraneous limitations
`2B. Petitioner’s construction of fixing is distinct of identifying
`2A. Fixing is construed by Petitioner, not removed
`
`2. Petitioner correctly construes “fixing” limitations
`
`1: Wang-based grounds prevail under correct claim construction
`
`1B. Wang discloses using both Table 1 and XML file to identify states
`1A. Wang discloses using Table 1 to identify states
`
`Table of Contents
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`HSId
`
`eyemereceMEFCOMCCIVISN@
`
`Overview of the ’865 Patent
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`APPLE-1001, 1:21–23; 01281Pet., 4;01282Pet., 4.
`
`Patent’s claims 1-10, 12-30, 46-53.
`IPR2018-01282 challenges the ’865
`51-53.
`Patent’s claims 1-6, 8-25, 27-30, 46-49,
`IPR2018-01281 challenges the ’865
`
`•
`
`•
`
`communication devices.
`recognition for use in or with mobile
`situations via pattern matching or
`generally toward machine learning of
`•The ’865 Patent’s claims are directed
`
`•The ’865 Patent includes 53 claims, of
`
`independent.
`which claims 1, 21, 31 and 46 are
`
`of 01/19/2011.
`Patent”) claims an earliest priority date
`
`•U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865(the “’865
`
`APPLE-1001 (’865 Patent).
`
`’865 Patent Overview
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Oo)Wayedisi]ples(iiaslajaueiedSULAIeA[oOjasqns
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-AIBAPIES“UOMIPUOSpajjajepaU[sro]peplesjllasaidoau
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“TOUTPresTOT]‘yedUlJSBa]Je“PeAlapsiyatmeedUl
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`“HSIa
`
`
`
`‘SJPURISIndupalo
`
`
`
`
`
`ples[OoJajateredatojseaypeAuelsosseAgWayed1s14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ples[ILMPAleiaossesiajalletedBULAIEA[Oojasqns&AUTN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-njd&WO)S[RUTISJNU“ASLAapayqoule&7e“ATOUUOU
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` [aaLAapa1GOLPLES[ILMPAYBISOSSeSAQINLOSUONEULIOTUTJOApTpes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JEUO"pedU1jseS][EPasegUOTIIPUOSaiosea]JeDuysajap
`
`
`
`
`
`'STEURIS(GUTPAlOpTOTpresTOatepsa]
`
`
`
`JEplesUO“pedUFsea]JePesegWoyedjsiyebTULALSpl
`
`
`
`PUECTOTIPUIOSDPajIaepa0SEAT
`
`
`
`TAOSLosPOULYr°|
`
`jUd}EdG98.
`
`’865 Patent
`
`
`
`|WIE|D-JUS}JEdG98.
`
`’865 Patent: Claim 1
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`Nadkarniand Greenhill
`§103-Louch in view of
`
`Grounds
`based
`Louch-
`
`Louchin view of Nadkarni
`§103-Louch alone or
`
`Grounds
`based
`Wang-
`
`Referred
`
`to as:
`
`§102: Louch
`Nadkarniand Greenhill
`§103-Wang in view of
`
`in view of Nadkarni
`§103-Wang alone or Wang
`
`§102: Wang
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Claims 12-14
`53
`20, 24-27, 30, 48-
`Claims 5-10, 18-
`46, 47
`17, 21-23, 28, 29,
`Claims 1-4, 15-
`
`Claims 12-14
`30, 48, 49, 51-53
`18-20, 24, 25, 27,
`Claims 5, 6, 8-11,
`46, 47
`17, 21-23, 28, 29,
`Claims 1-4, 15-
`
`’865 Patent
`
`Claims
`
`Ground 2C
`
`Ground 2B
`
`IPR2018-
`
`01282
`
`Ground 2A
`
`Ground 1C
`
`Ground 1B
`
`IPR2018-
`
`01281
`
`Ground 1A
`
`Ground
`
`Petition
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`6
`
`
`
`5C. [Claims 5,24&48] Louchdiscloses taking “snapshots” in response to detecting condition
`5B. [Claims 4&23] Louchdiscloses recognizing 2ndpattern in a reduced set of parameters
`5A. [Claims 4&23] Wang discloses alleged causation
`
`5. Dependent claims are addressed by both Wang and Louch
`
`7
`
`4C. Louchdiscloses setting the scope of analysis for confirming a “duration”
`4B. A POSITA would appreciate Louch’s“duration” pattern includes a “first pattern”
`4A. Louch’s1st mapping under the learning mode theory satisfies the claims
`
`4. Louch-based grounds prevail even under PO’s narrow construction
`
`3. Wang-based grounds prevail even under PO’s narrow construction
`
`3B. Petitioner’s reliance on additional mappings are timing and complete
`3A. Wang discloses additional mappings satisfying the claims
`
`2C. PO’s construction imports extraneous limitations
`2B. Petitioner’s construction of fixing is distinct of identifying
`2A. Fixing is construed by Petitioner, not removed
`
`2. Petitioner correctly construes “fixing” limitations
`
`1: Wang-based grounds prevail under correct claim construction
`
`1B. Wang discloses using both Table 1 and XML file to identify patterns
`1A. Wang discloses using Table 1 to identify patterns
`
`Table of Contents
`
`7
`
`
`
`8
`
`POR, 27
`
`POSR, 20
`
`Under correct construction, PO’s only dispute onWang’s satisfaction of indep. claims rests on PO’s
`
`ignoring Wang’s disclosure of using Table 1 to identify patterns/detect states
`
`“Petitioner Therefore Fails to Demonstrate Both “Identifying a First Pattern
`
`…” and “Fixing … by Associating” Under Any Construction.” POSR, 20.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`1: Wang-based grounds prevail under correct claim construction
`
`8
`
`
`
`9
`
`Pet. Reply, 22; also Pet., 16-18
`
`“Petitioner [] fails to identify a single quotation from Wang that ever
`
`states that EEMSS uses Table 1 to detect states.” POSR, 16.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`1A. Wang discloses using Table 1 to identify patterns
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`Pet. Reply, 19
`
`Pet. Reply, 19
`
`PO’s own expert acknowledges and PO does not dispute:
`
`“Petitioner [] fails to identify a single quotation from Wang that ever
`
`states that EEMSS uses Table 1 to detect states.” POSR, 16.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`1A: Wang discloses using Table 1 to identify patterns
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`Pet. Reply, 24
`
`Pet. Reply, 23; Ex.1005, p6c1.
`
`shows EEMSS use both the XML file and Table 1
`Petitioner offers Wang’s Fig. 3 that explicitly
`
`EEMSS could even use “both” the XML file and Table 1.” POSR, 16.
`“Petitioner offers no explanation—let alone citation to Wang—on how
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`1B: Wang discloses using both Table 1 and XML file to identify patterns
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`12
`
`Pet. Reply, 21-22
`
`POSR, 20
`
`Wang would not repeatedly describes Table 1 if it
`
`is not used in EEMSS
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`state file and Table 1 to perform the same task of detecting states is
`“Petitioner’s assertion that Wang teaches EEMSS using “both” the XML
`
`inconsistent with the nature of Wang.” POSR, 15.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`1B: Wang discloses using both the XML State File and Table 1 to identify patterns
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`13
`Pet., 25
`
`Pet., 31
`
`POSR, 17
`
`Petition shows EEMSS does use the pattern in
`
`Table 1 to recognize the Vehicle pattern
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`“Petitioner’s proposed inference that EEMSS used the patterns in Table 1 to
`
`detect states… is not true.” POSR, 17.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`1B: Wang discloses using both Table 1 and XML file to identify patterns
`
`13
`
`
`
`1414
`
`POSR, 18
`
`Pet. Reply, 22; Pet., 21, 24, 26, 46, etc.
`
`and corresponding terms actually disclosed by
`The insertions show mapping of claim elements
`
`Wang
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`“Petitioner modifies the text of Wang to insert references to Table 1 not
`
`actually in Wang.” POSR, 17.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`1B: Wang discloses using both Table 1 and XML file to identify states
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`5C. [Claims 5,24&48] Louchdiscloses taking “snapshots” in response to detecting condition
`5B. [Claims 4&23] Louchdiscloses recognizing 2ndpattern in a reduced set of parameters
`5A. [Claims 4&23] Wang discloses alleged causation
`
`5. Dependent claims are addressed by both Wang and Louch
`
`4C. Louchdiscloses setting the scope of analysis for confirming a “duration”
`4B. A POSITA would appreciate Louch’s“duration” pattern includes a “first pattern”
`4A. Louch’s1st mapping under the learning mode theory satisfies the claims
`
`4. Louch-based grounds prevail even under PO’s narrow construction
`
`3. Wang-based grounds prevail even under PO’s narrow construction
`
`3B. Petitioner’s reliance on additional mappings are timing and complete
`3A. Wang discloses additional mappings satisfying the claims
`
`2C. PO’s construction imports extraneous limitations
`2B. Petitioner’s construction of fixing is distinct of identifying
`2A. Fixing is construed by Petitioner, not removed
`
`2. Petitioner correctly construes “fixing” limitations
`
`1: Wang-based grounds prevail under correct claim construction
`
`1B. Wang discloses using both Table 1 and XML file to identify patterns
`1A. Wang discloses using Table 1 to identify patterns
`
`Table of Contents
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`Pet., 13
`
`APPLE-1001, claim 1
`
`•Petitioner’s Proposed Construction:
`
`•“fixing…by associating” limitation:
`
`2. Petitioner correctly construes “fixing…by associating”
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`Pet., 10, 13; APPLE-1002, pp29-58
`
`Petitioner’s construction is explicitly support by PO’s amendments & arguments
`2. Petitioner correctly construes “fixing…by associating”
`
`made during prosecution:
`
`17
`
`
`
`18
`
`Pet., 13
`
`analysis” stands as the only construction that actually assigns to
`
`“Qualcomm’s construction of “fixing” as “setting the scope of
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`Petitioner’s construction is explicitly supported by the Specification
`
`“fixing.”” POSR, 7.
`
`2. Petitioner correctly construes “fixing…by associating”
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`“[Petitioner’s] construction of “fixing …” is so broad that it is indistinguishable from
`
`the separately-recited “identifying a pattern.””POSR, 5.
`
`the scope of analysis would not assist subsequent pattern recognition” POSR, 8.
`“again, merely performing the “associating” without using the “associating” to set
`
`“describe what “fixing” enables.” POSR, 7.
`as the only construction that actually assigns meaning to “fixing””….because it
`““Qualcomm’s construction of “fixing” as “setting the scope of analysis” stands
`
`Petitioner’s construction removed “fixing” because “associating” is a substepof
`
`“fixing” and “associating need not result in “fixing.” POSR, 5-6.
`
`Qualcomm challenges Petition’s Construction:
`
`2. Petitioner correctly construes “fixing” limitations
`
`19
`
`
`
`20
`
`Pet., 13
`
`Petitioner’s construction includes more than mere association
`
`“Petitioner’s construction removed “fixing” because “ “associating
`
`need not result in “fixing.” POSR, 5-6.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`2A. “Fixing” is construed by Petitioner, not removed
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`Pet., 10; APPLE-1002, pp29-58
`
`…
`
`indistinguishable from the separately-recited “identifying a pattern.””
`
`POSR, 5.
`
`“[Petitioner’s] construction of “fixing …” is so broad that it is
`2B: Petitioner’s construction of fixing is distinct of identifying
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`21
`
`
`
`22
`
`Pet. Reply, 16
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`indistinguishable from the separately-recited “identifying a pattern.””
`
`“[Petitioner’s] construction of “fixing …” is so broad that it is
`
`POSR, 5.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`2B: Petitioner’s construction of fixing is distinct of identifying
`
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`Pet. Reply, 11
`
`PO’s construction imposes a “co-occuring” limitation
`
`POR, 18
`
`2C. PO’s construction imports extraneous limitations
`
`Patent Owner’s Rewrite of “fixing” limitation
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`POSR, 12
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (POSR) confirms PO’s attempt to insert such a limitation
`
`2C. PO’s construction imports extraneous limitations
`
`24
`
`
`
`25
`
`POSR, 12
`
`POSR further evidences PO’s attempt to construe the claim to evade prior art
`
`2C. PO’s construction imports extraneous limitations
`
`25
`
`
`
`26
`
`ID, 22; cited in Pet. Reply, 11
`
`Institution Decision cautions against such an imposition
`
`2C. PO’s construction imports extraneous limitations
`
`26
`
`
`
`27
`5C. [Claims 5,24&48] Louchdiscloses taking “snapshots” in response to detecting condition
`5B. [Claims 4&23] Louchdiscloses recognizing 2ndpattern in a reduced set of parameters
`5A. [Claims 4&23] Wang discloses alleged causation
`
`5. Dependent claims are addressed by both Wang and Louch
`
`4C. Louchdiscloses setting the scope of analysis for confirming a “duration”
`4B. A POSITA would appreciate Louch’s“duration” pattern includes a “first pattern”
`4A. Louch’s1stmapping under the learning mode theory satisfies the claims
`
`4. Louch-based grounds prevail even under PO’s narrow construction
`
`3. Wang-based grounds prevail even under PO’s narrow construction
`
`3B. Petitioner’s reliance on additional mappings are timely and complete
`3A. Wang discloses additional mappings satisfying the claims
`
`2C. PO’s construction imports extraneous limitations
`2B. Petitioner’s construction of fixing is distinct of identifying
`2A. Fixing is construed by Petitioner, not removed
`
`2. Petitioner correctly construes “fixing” limitations
`
`1: Wang-based grounds prevail under correct claim construction
`
`1B. Wang discloses using both Table 1 and XML file to identify states
`1A. Wang discloses using Table 1 to identify states
`
`Table of Contents
`
`27
`
`
`
`28282828
`
`APPLE-1005, Table 1
`
`Pet., 30, 22
`
`1stmapping: Wang’s “state features” mapped to claimed “condition”
`
`Even under QC’s narrow construction, Wang discloses 2 additional
`
`“
`
`mappings of a 2ndpattern co-occurring with a 1stpattern
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`3A. Wang discloses additional mappings satisfying the claims
`
`28
`
`
`
`29292929
`
`Pet. Reply, 30, citing to Apple-1005, Ex.1005, Table 1, p11c1-2
`
`•1stmapping: Wang’s “state features” mapped to claimed “condition”
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`“
`
`3A. Wang discloses additional mappings satisfying the claims
`
`29
`
`
`
`30303030
`
`Pet. Reply, 31
`
`•2ndmapping: based on Wang’s XML file
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`3A. Wang discloses additional mappings satisfying the claims
`
`30
`
`
`
`3131
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶104
`Pet. Reply, 28;
`
`Pet., 22
`
`Petition & Dr. Allen’s declaration disclose additional mappings and put PO on sufficient notice
`
`“Petitioner offers two new mappings of “first pattern” and “second pattern” as
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`purportedly meeting Qualcomm’s construction of “fixing..” []
`
`Neither mapping is found in the Petition” POSR,20
`
`3B. Petitioner’s reliance on additional mappings are timely
`
`31
`
`
`
`3232
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶104
`
`Dr. Allen’s declaration disclose additional mappings and puts PO on sufficient notice
`
`“Petitioner offers two new mappings of “first pattern” and “second pattern” as
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`purportedly meeting Qualcomm’s construction of “fixing..” []
`
`Neither mapping is found in the Petition” POSR,20
`
`3A. Wang discloses additional mappings satisfying the claims
`
`32
`
`
`
`3333
`
`Pet. Reply, 27
`
`Both mappings are in response to PO’s narrow claim construction
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶104
`
`Dr. Allen’s declaration disclose additional mappings and puts PO on sufficient notice
`
`“Petitioner offers two new mappings of “first pattern” and “second pattern” as
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`These untimely mappings should be rejected.” POSR,20
`purportedly meeting Qualcomm’s construction of “fixing..” []
`
`3B. Petitioner’s reliance on additional mappings are timely
`
`33
`
`
`
`3434
`
`Pet. Reply, 28-29
`
`…
`
`pattern” represents a “condition,” the identity of any such “condition,” or proof
`“Petitioner has no longer presented any mapping as to how that new “first
`
`that EEMSS “detects” that new “condition.”” POSR, 21
`
`Petitioner sets forth a complete 1stmapping
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`3B. Petitioner’s reliance on additional mappings are complete
`
`34
`
`
`
`35
`
`Pet. Reply, 32
`
`POSR, 20
`
`Petitioner sets forth a complete 2nd mapping
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`“Petitioner’s New Reliance on the EEMSS XML File [] Fails to
`
`Present a Complete Mapping.” POSR, 19.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`3B. Petitioner’s reliance on additional mappings are complete
`
`35
`
`
`
`36
`5C. [Claims 5,24&48] Louchdiscloses taking “snapshots” in response to detecting condition
`5B. [Claims 4&23] Louchdiscloses recognizing 2ndpattern in a reduced set of parameters
`5A. [Claims 4&23] Wang discloses alleged causation
`
`5. Dependent claims are addressed by both Wang and Louch
`
`4C. Louchdiscloses setting the scope of analysis for confirming a “duration”
`4B. A POSITA would appreciate Louch’s“duration” pattern includes a “first pattern”
`4A. Louch’s1stmapping under learning mode theory satisfies the claims
`
`4. Louch-based grounds prevail even under PO’s narrow construction
`
`3. Wang-based grounds prevail even under PO’s narrow construction
`
`3B. Petitioner’s reliance on additional mappings are timely and complete
`3A. Wang discloses additional mappings satisfying the claims
`
`2C. PO’s construction imports extraneous limitations
`2B. Petitioner’s construction of fixing is distinct of identifying
`2A. Fixing is construed by Petitioner, not removed
`
`2. Petitioner correctly construes “fixing” limitations
`
`1: Wang-based grounds prevail under correct claim construction
`
`1B. Wang discloses using both Table 1 and XML file to identify states
`1A. Wang discloses using Table 1 to identify states
`
`Table of Contents
`
`36
`
`
`
`37
`Pet.,17
`
`Pet.,16
`
`Louch-based grounds
`
`37
`
`
`
`38
`
`Pet. Reply, 17
`
`•PO does not dispute that Louch’ssatisfaction of indep. claims &
`
`undisputed dep. claims under any construction
`
`•PO’s arguments against Louchall involve a “second pattern” which does
`
`not occur until dependent claim 3.
`
`Louch-based grounds satisfies indep. claims &undisputed
`
`dep. claims under any construction
`
`38
`
`
`
`39
`
`Pet.,17, citing to APPLE-1011, claim 1
`
`pattern”
`“second
`
`“first pattern”
`
`1stmapping: referred by QC as the mapping under the learning mode theory
`
`Pet.,17
`
`Louch-based grounds: 1stmapping
`
`39
`
`
`
`40
`
`Pet.,18
`
`2ndmapping: the “second pattern” mapped to a “duration” pattern
`Pet.,17
`
`Louch-based grounds: 2ndmapping
`
`40
`
`
`
`41
`
`Pet. Reply, 21
`
`Pet. Reply, 20
`
`POSR, 15
`
`Even so, Louchmeets this limitation:
`
`PO attempts to impose that the first and second
`
`patterns must be different
`
`“Petitioner’s “Learning Mode” Theory is Contrary to Dr. Allen’s Testimony
`
`and the Plain Language of the Challenged Claims.” POSR, 20
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`5A: Louch’s1st mapping satisfying the claims even under QC’s construction
`
`41
`
`
`
`42
`
`Pet., 27-28
`
`These position relying on Louch also were cited in original Petition:
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`5A: Louch’s1st mapping satisfies the claims even under QC’s construction
`
`42
`
`
`
`43
`
`POSR, 16
`
`arguments
`pure attorney
`Unsupported,
`
`Irrelevant
`
`PO’s attempt to distinguish Louch’sfirst mapping fails
`
`“Petitioner’s “Learning Mode” Theory is Contrary to Dr. Allen’s Testimony
`
`and the Plain Language of the Challenged Claims.” POSR, 20
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`5A: Louch’s1stmapping satisfies the claims even under QC’s construction
`
`43
`
`
`
`44
`
`Pet. Reply, 22
`
`POSR, 18
`
`POSR, 17
`
`Louch’s“duration” pattern includes a “first
`
`pattern”:
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`“LouchDoes Not Define, Nor Would a POSITA Understand There to Be, Any
`
`Portion of a “Duration” Pattern as a Separate Pattern.” POSR, 17.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`5B: A POSITA would appreciate Louch’s“duration” pattern includes a “first pattern”
`
`44
`
`
`
`45
`
`Pet. Reply, 18
`
`Pet. Reply, 20
`
`Pet. Reply, 24-25
`
`POSR, 17
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`Pattern, LouchDoes Not Disclose Setting a Scope of Analysis in Any Way.”
`
`“Even if a Portion of a “Duration” Pattern Were Deemed a First
`
`POSR, 18.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`5C: Louchdiscloses setting the scope of analysis for confirming a “duration”
`
`45
`
`
`
`46
`
`APPLE-1026, 125:11-18
`
`not” “once you observe you’re in a position” :
`“[waiting] to establish the duration [] is met or
`of analysis for detecting a duration pattern by
`Dr. Villasenor recognizes that setting the scope
`POSR, 18.
`
`APPLE-1011, 5:7-10
`
`for recognizing a duration pattern by focusing
`Louchdiscloses setting the scope of analysis
`
`on detecting a duration of a state :
`
`Pattern, LouchDoes Not Disclose Setting a Scope of Analysis in Any Way.”
`
`“Even if a Portion of a “Duration” Pattern Were Deemed a First
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`5C: Louchdiscloses setting the scope of analysis for confirming a “duration”
`
`46
`
`
`
`47
`5C. [Claims 5,24&48] Louchdiscloses taking “snapshots” in response to detecting condition
`5B. [Claims 4&23] Louchdiscloses recognizing 2ndpattern in a reduced set of parameters
`5A. [Claims 4&23] Wang discloses alleged causation
`
`5. Dependent claims are addressed by both Wang and Louch
`
`4C. Louchdiscloses setting the scope of analysis for confirming a “duration”
`4B. Louch’s“duration” pattern inherently includes a “first pattern”
`4A. Louchdiscloses two patterns under the learning mode theory satisfying the claims
`
`4. Louch-based grounds prevail even under PO’s narrow construction
`
`3. Wang-based grounds prevail even under PO’s narrow construction
`
`3B. Petitioner’s reliance on additional mappings are timely and complete
`3A. Wang discloses additional mappings satisfying the claims
`
`2C. PO’s construction imports extraneous limitations
`2B. Petitioner’s construction of fixing is distinct of identifying
`2A. Fixing is construed by Petitioner, not removed
`
`2. Petitioner correctly construes “fixing” limitations
`
`1: Wang-based grounds prevail under correct claim construction
`
`1B. Wang discloses using both Table 1 and XML file to identify states
`1A. Wang discloses using Table 1 to identify states
`
`Table of Contents
`
`47
`
`
`
`48
`
`Pet. 38
`
`Pet. Reply, 35-36; Pet. 37-38
`
`POSR, 26
`
`POSR, 26
`
`between a reduced set of parameters and “fixing”
`Petitioner shows Wang satisfies alleged causation
`
`actual claim term “varying parameters” to
`PO still focuses on “sensors,” rather than
`
`discredit Petitioner’s explanation
`
`“said fixing,” as opposed to “detecting” or “identifying.”” POSR, 27.
`“Petitioner cannot identify any action EEMSS takes in response to
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`5A: Wang discloses alleged causation between alleged fixing and reduction
`
`of varying parameters of claims 4&23
`
`48
`
`
`
`49
`Pet. Reply, 25-26 (citing to Pet., 37)
`
`Pet., 37
`
`POSR, 21-22
`
`recognizing a second pattern in a reduced set
`Petitioner shows Louchexplicitly discloses
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`of varying parameters relies on functionality Louchdoes not actually
`“Petitioner’s theory of recognizing a second pattern in a reduced set
`varying parameters as recited in claims 4&23
`
`discloses.” POSR, 21.
`
`5B: Louchdiscloses recognizing a second pattern in a reduced set of
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`49
`
`
`
`50
`
`APPLE-1003, 5:7-10
`
`Pet. Reply, 26-27 (citing to Pet. 37)
`
`(cid:3407) All varying parameters
`
`APPLE-1003, 2:62-67
`
`(cid:3397)
`
`Petitioner shows Louchexplicitly discloses recognizing a second pattern in a reduced set
`
`of varying parameters relies on functionality Louchdoes not actually
`“Petitioner’s theory of recognizing a second pattern in a reduced set
`varying parameters as recited in claims 4&23
`
`discloses.” POSR, 21.
`
`5B: Louchdiscloses recognizing a second pattern in a reduced set of
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`50
`
`
`
`51
`
`Pet. Reply, 27, citing to Ex.2003
`
`POSR, 24-25
`
`Pet., 45
`
`POSR, 25
`
`Louchdiscloses capturing snapshots:
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`“Petitioner’s theory of capturing snapshots … is not in response to
`
`detecting a condition.” POSR, 23.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`5C: Louchdiscloses taking “snapshots” in response to detection of
`
`conditions of dep. claims 5, 24, and 48
`
`51
`
`
`
`52
`
`Pet.-1282, 45-46
`
`Pet.-1281, 47-48
`
`…
`
`Louch’smapping
`
`Wang’s mapping
`
`“Petitioner’s theory of capturing snapshots … is not in response to
`
`detecting a condition.” POSR, 23.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`5C: Louchdiscloses taking “snapshots” in response to detection of
`
`conditions of dep. claims 5, 24, and 48
`
`52
`
`
`
`53
`
`APPLE-1011, 5:25-32
`
`Pet. Reply, 28
`
`Pet.,53
`
`POSR, 25
`
`Louchshares similar disclose to ‘865 Patent:
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`“Petitioner’s theory of capturing snapshots … is not in response to
`
`detecting a condition.” POSR, 23.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`5C: Louchdiscloses taking “snapshots” in response to detection of
`
`conditions of dep. claims 5, 24, and 48
`
`53
`
`
`
`54
`
`Pet. Reply, 27
`
`Pet., 47
`
`POSR, 24-25
`
`Louchdiscloses capturing snapshots in
`
`response to detecting a condition:
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`“Petitioner’s theory of capturing snapshots … is not in response to
`
`detecting a condition.” POSR, 23.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`5C: Louchdiscloses taking “snapshots” in response to detection of
`
`conditions of dep. claims 5, 24, and 48
`
`54
`
`
`
`55
`
`HSId
`
`xlpueddy
`
`Appendix
`
`55
`
`
`
`56
`
`Pet., 13
`
`Pet., 10; APPLE-1002, pp29-58
`
`…
`
`Petitioner’s construction is explicitly supported by prosecution history:
`
`“Petitioner … seeks to remove the term from the claim.” POSR, 10.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`Issue: Petitioner does not remove “fixing” limitation
`
`56
`
`
`
`57
`
`ID, 21; Pet. Reply, 15
`
`Board already rejects PO’s false allegation:
`
`“Petitioner … seeks to remove the term from the claim.” POSR, 10.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`Issue: Petitioner does not remove “fixing” limitation
`
`57
`
`
`
`58
`
`Pet., 13
`
`… condition.”
`by “associating… to represent
`the goal of the alleged invention
`in “fixing..” and also achieves
`Petitioner’s construction results
`
`Apple-1001, 8:45-60 (also cited in Pet., 32)
`
`POSR, 6
`
`Rebuttal to:“Petitioner … seeks to remove the term from the claim.” POSR, 10.
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`Issue: Petitioner does not remove “fixing” limitation
`
`58
`
`
`
`59
`
`APPLE-1003, [0060] [0061]; Pet., 13-14
`
`“merely performing the “associating” without using the “associating”
`
`to set the scope of analysis would not assist subsequent pattern
`
`recognition” POSR, 8.
`
`Rebuttal to:
`
`Issue: Petitioner does not remove “fixing” limitation
`
`59
`
`
`
`60
`
`APPLE-1003, [0046]
`
`’865 Patent
`
`’865 Patent: Claims 1 & 3 & FIG. 4
`
`60
`
`
`
`61
`
`Pet., 10, 13; APPLE-1002, pp29-58
`
`QC’s characterization of the amendments:
`
`QC’s amendments and arguments made during prosecution
`
`61
`
`
`
`62c
`
`9
`
`“HSIa
`
`UIAIaA“¢WIE]DJOPOSSIL]PF ECPUB7SUIE[D
`PAALIapTULAIBAJO1a8paonpalBUlpavidnosalMaaUeIed
`
`
`
`
`“LedU1[sealle‘asuodsalUTS[EUSTS[NOTparoyWOUpresUOT]
`
`
`NAIOPsIoumIndFULAIRAJO12sPAMNPal2YANPAIBLOOSseSI
`
`
`
`
`SIWiayedpuooasPIes
`
`wayedpuosaspresUla‘77Welsposnyeseddeayy"Ez
`
`
`‘WedUL(Seay12SanpspeUsrsndUlpeJoOyTOUpresWor
`
`
`
`-JUSJEdG98.
`‘sIojaureredBULAIBAJOJasqnsPresJOBUIMITpresoO
`
`
`
`
`
`‘siaqjotinwedTULAIEAJOJasqnsplesFUTXY
`
`’865 Patent: Claims 4 and 23
`
`62
`
`62
`
`
`
`63€9
`
`‘aseq
`
`
`
`
`
`pueSuIeansUVONPUIOFUTpayepar-1Xx9}
`
`
`
`
`
`pue‘WivesTONPUIOJUpayeyai-1x9q
`
`‘OSeq
`
`
`
`
`
`:0]pamByuosJaypany
`
`
`
`Sppue"PZ“GSUUIE|DJUS}G98,
`JayssacoidpresUla“¢WETSJOPoaayy.“Ss
`
`ULsjeumisindurparoymowpresto1oysdeusweSuumidero
`
`
`
`eULWayedpuosespresqmjoysdeuspresSulefauos
`
`
`
`*TOLIPUOSdO1SBayJEPIESJOUOLSa}appresoO]asuodsar
`
`-1109AUDSEA]IESULUapspeustsjndurpasoywowpres
`
`
`
`
`O}SUOTOMLISULpresUOyaA‘ZpWeldJOapeSIL],“SF
`
`
`ULsjeudisindurpaszolmouwpresJojoysdeuseamydes
`
`
`-RJEPBULWayjedpuosaspresYIMJoysdeuspresayepaos
`
`
`
`Uls[eusisjndurparoyuouwpresJojoysdeuseamyjdes
`
`
`-EJEpBUlWayedpttosaspresWLMloysdeuspresayeypatios
`
`
`
`sIJossaooidpresUlaleta‘7zUNepofosnyeseddeayy,“pz
`
`
`
`
`“UOTIPUODdU0]SBaT1presJOUOTDAIAappresoO]asuOdsaz
`
`
`
`
`“UOLIpUODSUO]sBa]1BplesJOUOTSa\appreso]asuodsal
`
`
`-W09ao\svalyeBuruyepspeusisyndurposzoyrumourpres
`
`
`
`
`“09dT[SEATJeBuruyapspeustsyndurparzoyuourpres
`
`
`
`
`:O]SUOTIINIISULasLIdtiosJaynyssasodpresayer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PURSUASWONRULIOFUTpalepar-1Ka1
`
`‘asEqEyEp
`
`sastiduros
`
`’865 Patent: Claims 5, 24, and 48
`
`“HSIa
`
`63
`
`63
`
`
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
