`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01282
`U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865
`
`______________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
` Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................3
`
`A.
`B.
`
`“Pattern” ......................................................................................3
`“Fixing … by Associating …” ...................................................6
`1. Qualcomm imports a dependent limitation into independent
`claims ..........................................................................................7
`2. Qualcomm’s construction lacks specification support .........8
`3. Qualcomm’s construction imports extraneous limitations .11
`4. Qualcomm’s proposed construction contradicts its
`litigation positions .....................................................................14
`5. Petitioner’s construction is fully supported by the intrinsic
`evidence and does not render any claim term superfluous .......15
`III. LOUCH-BASED GROUNDS INVALIDATE THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ........................................................................................................16
`
`Louch discloses “fixing…” under the correct construction .....17
`A.
`B.
`Louch discloses “fixing…” even under Qualcomm’s
`unreasonably narrow construction ......................................................17
`C.
`Louch discloses distinct first and second patterns in a single
`embodiment .........................................................................................19
`1. Louch’s first and second patterns are not the same ............19
`2. Louch also discloses two patterns in a single embodiment 21
`
`D.
`Louch discloses disputed features of dependent Claims 4 &
` ...................................................................................................23
`23
`E.
`Louch discloses taking “snapshots” in response to detection of
`conditions. ...........................................................................................27
`IV. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................29
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865 to Narayanan, et al. (“the ‘865
`patent”)
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ‘865 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. James Allen
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`
`
`APPLE-1007
`
`
`
`APPLE-1008
`
`
`APPLE-1009
`
`APPLE-1010
`
`Wang et al, “A Framework of Energy Efficient Mobile Sensing
`for Automatic User State Recognition”, Proceedings of the 7th
`international conference on Mobile systems, applications, and
`services, pp. 179-192 , Kraków, Poland — June 22 - 25, 2009
`(“Wang”)
`
`“Qualcomm Incorporated Compliant for Patent Infringement,”
`filed on November 29th, 2017, from Case No. 3:17-cv-02402-
`WQH-MDD filed in S.D. CA. (“Compliant”)
`
`Exhibit 865 of “Qualcomm Inc.’s Patent Initial Infringement
`Contentions,” filed on March 2nd, 2018, from Case No. 3:17-cv-
`02402-WQH-MDD filed in S.D. CA. (“Infringement
`Contentions”)
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0217533 to
`Nadkarni et al. (“Nadkarni”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0297513 to
`Greenhill et al. (“Greenhill”)
`
`Webpage of “Nokia N95 8GB - Full phone specifications”
`(Archive.org version dated 05/26/2009,
`http://web.archive.org/web/20090526054459/http://www.gsmar
`ena.com:80/nokia_n95_8gb-2088.php) (“Nokia N95”)
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`APPLE-1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 8,676,224 to Louch (“Louch”)
`
`APPLE-1012
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0066383 to
`Jangle et al. (“Jangle”)
`
`APPLE-1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9575776 to De Andrade Cajahyba et al. (“De
`Andrade Cajahyba”)
`
`APPLE-1014
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0081634 to
`Kurata (“Kurata”)
`
`APPLE-1015
`
`Declaration of Mr. Chris Butler for Nokia N95/APPLE-1010
`
`APPLE-1016
`
`Declaration of Mr. Scott Delman for Wang/APPLE-1005
`
`APPLE-1017
`
`APPLE-1018
`
`APPLE-1019
`
`Cohn, D., Caruana, R., & McCallum, A. Semi-supervised
`clustering with user feedback in Constrained Clustering:
`Advances in Algorithms, Theory, and Applications, 4(1), 17-32
`(2009). (“Cohn”)
`
`Ruzzelli, A., Nicolas, C. Schoofs, A., O;”Hare, G. Real-time
`recognition and profiling of appliances through a single
`electricity sensor, Proc. 7th Annual IEEE Conference on Sensor
`Mesh (SECON), Boston. MA 2010. (“Ruzzelli”)
`
`Cilla, R., Particio, M., Garcia, J., Berlanga, A., and Molina, J.
`Recognizing Human Activities from Sensors Using Hidden
`Markov Models Constructed by Feature Selection, Algorithms
`2009, 2: pp282-300. (“Cilla”)
`
`APPLE-1020
`
`The Seventh Edition of the Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standards Terms (2000)
`
`APPLE-1021
`
`Declaration of Dr. James Allen
`
`APPLE-1022
`
`Declaration of Noah C. Graubart
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`APPLE-1023
`
`APPLE-1024
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`Declaration of John Villasenor in Qualcomm, Incorporated vs.
`Apple, Incorporated, Document161-3
`
`Joint Claim Construction Hearing Statement Pursuant to Patent
`L.R 4.2. In Qualcomm Incorporated versus Apple Incorporated,
`Document 125
`
`APPLE-1025
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated's Amended Patent L.R. 3.1 and 3.2
`Disclosures
`
`APPLE-1026
`
`Deposition transcript of John Villasenor
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`Petitioner submits this Reply to Patent Owner’s (“Qualcomm’s”) Response
`
`(“POR”). Qualcomm alleges the ’865 Patent discloses and claims “a multi-stage
`
`approach to recognizing a claimed ‘second pattern’” and further alleges that
`
`challenged ‘865 patent claims are therefore distinguished from the instituted
`
`grounds. POR, p4. Qualcomm’s arguments fail. The independent claims recite only
`
`identifying a single pattern; an attempt to recognize a second pattern only appears
`
`in dependent claims. Once the Board rejects Qualcomm’s improper attempt to
`
`redefine the independent claims to cover features not recited by the independent
`
`claims, the unpatentability of the Challenged Claims is plain.1
`
`To illustrate the supposed “multi-stage approach,” Qualcomm annotates
`
`Claims 1 and 3-5, as reproduced below. POR, p14. As Qualcomm admits, only
`
`“Dependent Challenged Claims (e.g., Claims 3-5) recite aspects of the second stage
`
`of attempting to recognize a ‘second pattern’” (POR, p1):
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner challenges Claims 1-10, 12-30, 46-53 (“Challenged Claims”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`To shoehorn a “second stage”/“second pattern” into the independent claims,
`
`Qualcomm seeks to construe the “fixing” limitation as “setting the scope” of
`
`analysis for the second stage (POR, pp1, 14), despite a dearth of support in the
`
`intrinsic record. Next, because even adding a second stage is insufficient to save
`
`the independent claims, Qualcomm further construes the “fixing” phrase to require
`
`the recognized second pattern and the identified first pattern “co-occur[]” or
`
`“overlap in time.” POR, pp9, 22, 30-32. See Section II-B-3. Again, Qualcomm
`
`finds no support in the intrinsic record for this drastic re-definition of the “fixing”
`
`phrase.
`
`Qualcomm’s remaining arguments rest on a flawed understanding of the prior
`
`art and Petitioner’s arguments. For instance, even with respect to dependent claims
`
`requiring a “second pattern,” Louch adequately discloses such a feature.
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“Pattern”
`
`Despite previously agreeing with Petitioner as to this term’s meaning (see
`
`Ex.1024, p32 (p16 of Ex.A thereto); Ex.1026, 25:20-26:5; Ex.1023, ¶114),
`
`Qualcomm now insists this term requires a convoluted three-part construction: “a
`
`collection of one or more pairs of [(1)] varying parameters and [(2)] corresponding
`
`parameter values, as well as [(3)] the relationship between each pair (where the
`
`relationship may be implicit).” POR, p16.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`During litigation in the Southern District of California—applying the
`
`narrower, Phillips claim construction standard—Qualcomm argued that “no
`
`construction [was] necessary,” and the “term should be given its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.” Ex.1024, p33 (p16 of Ex.A thereto). Explaining his understanding of the
`
`term’s “plain and ordinary meaning,” Qualcomm’s expert, Dr. Villasenor, then
`
`offered almost precisely the same construction Petitioner urges in the instant
`
`proceeding: “a particular or distinct collection of parameter values that may
`
`correspond to the detected condition.” Ex.1026, 25:20-26:5; Ex.1023, ¶114.
`
`Nowhere did Qualcomm or Dr. Villasenor suggest “pattern’s” plain and ordinary
`
`meaning requires the convoluted three-part construction it urges now. That
`
`Qualcomm now seeks this narrower construction under the BRI standard, despite
`
`previously arguing no construction was necessary under Phillips, highlights
`
`Qualcomm’s attempt to rewrite the claims to avoid the prior art.
`
`Even ignoring Qualcomm’s past positions, Qualcomm’s construction is
`
`necessarily incorrect because it requires “pattern” to include components that its own
`
`expert admits are not present in an exemplary “pattern.” As Dr. Villasenor concedes,
`
`when a pattern includes “only one pair [of (1) varying parameter and (2)
`
`corresponding parameter value], then there can’t be a [(3)] relationship with another
`
`pair within that pattern.” Ex.1026, 15:3-5. Yet, Dr. Villasenor agrees that a “pattern”
`
`may have only one pair [...] of a parameter and value and identifies one such single-
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`pair “pattern” that he believes the patent discloses. Ex.1026, 14:10-15:5; 49:10-15
`
`(describing pattern in ’865 patent’s Fig.2 consisting solely of motion state
`
`(parameter) = driving (value)). Thus, Qualcomm’s construction of “pattern”
`
`impermissibly narrows its scope to exclude the patent’s embodiments.
`
`Qualcomm also incorrectly argues Petitioner’s construction of “pattern”
`
`renders the “identifying…” step indistinguishable from the later “fixing …” step,
`
`but Qualcomm’s argument fails for at least two reasons. POR, pp17-18. First, as
`
`the Board correctly appreciated and Petitioner’s expert explained, the “identifying”
`
`step can occur in “a training phase of a classification algorithm,” which
`
`distinguishes the “fixing” step that can occur later in a recognition/matching phase.
`
`Institution Decision (ID), p21; Petition, p24 ((describing training phase and noting
`
`that “the classification algorithm later performs condition detection by recognizing
`
`user states (i.e., conditions) if the sensor readings matches respective collection of
`
`parameter values (i.e., the patterns).”). See also id. p25; Ex.1003, ¶¶123-131, 24-31;
`
`Ex.2003, 148:7-18. Petitioner’s constructions of “pattern” and “fixing… by
`
`associating …” maintain distinction between the “identifying” and “fixing” steps.
`
`Second, even accepting arguendo Qualcomm’s (incorrect) argument that
`
`Petitioner’s construction of “pattern” would render it identical to the “fixing” step,
`
`the alleged overlap would be the result of Qualcomm’s proposed construction, not
`
`Petitioner’s. That is, Qualcomm uses its re-definition of “pattern” to manufacture
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`an alleged overlap with the “fixing” step, and thus to promote further re-definition
`
`of the “fixing” step. But, once the Board rejects Qualcomm’s redefinition of
`
`“pattern,” no alleged overlap with “fixing” exists. Any alleged overlap between the
`
`“identifying” and “fixing” steps counsels towards rejecting, not adopting,
`
`Qualcomm’s construction of “pattern.”
`
`B.
`
`“Fixing … by Associating …”
`
`Qualcomm urges the Board to materially alter the “fixing…by associating…”
`
`phrase as follows:
`
`fixing setting the scope of pattern recognition analysis to where a
`
`subset of varying parameters match parameter values associated with
`
`said first pattern by associating at least one parameter of said subset of
`
`varying parameters with said first pattern to represent said at least one
`
`detected condition.
`
`POR, p18.
`
`
`
`Qualcomm’s construction thus (1) changes the action of “fixing…” into
`
`“setting the scope of…,” (2) introduces a new concept of “the scope of pattern
`
`recognition analysis,” and (3) imposes extraneous limitations prescribing the scope
`
`to be “where a subset of varying parameters match parameter values associated
`
`with said first pattern.” Id. The Board should reject Qualcomm’s vast claim rewrite,
`
`as it contradicts the claim language, lacks support in intrinsic evidence, and
`
`improperly imports extraneous limitations.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Qualcomm imports a dependent limitation into independent claims
`
`Qualcomm seeks to augment the independent claims with a concept—
`
`recognizing a second pattern—that is not recited until dependent Claim 3. Among
`
`other problems, Qualcomm’s approach introduces antecedent basis error.
`
`Qualcomm insists the “fixing” steps “set[] the scope of pattern recognition
`
`analysis” even though “a pattern recognition analysis” is not part of Claim 1. The
`
`claims do not introduce “a recognition of a second pattern” until dependent Claim
`
`3. The Board keenly recognized this in the Institution Decision of co-pending IPR-
`
`01281, noting “the identification of a second pattern is recited in dependent claims
`
`and not in the challenged independent claims.” ID of co-pending IPR-01281, p22.
`
`While Qualcomm’s construction avoids expressly reciting “a second pattern,”
`
`Qualcomm’s POR makes plain that the “pattern recognition analysis” it seeks to
`
`import into the independent claims is for “a second pattern.” See, e.g., POR, p92.
`
`Thus, by construing “fixing” as “setting the scope of pattern recognition analysis [of
`
`a second pattern],” Qualcomm seeks improperly to import limitations from
`
`dependent claims into the independent claim. Ex.1001, Claims 1, 3.
`
`
`
`2 Bold and italic represent emphasis added by Petitioner, unless otherwise
`
`specified.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`Qualcomm’s construction also yields an indefinite claim with terms lacking
`
`antecedent basis. Because the “pattern recognition analysis” to which Qualcomm’s
`
`construction refers does not appear until claim 3, requiring the method of claim 1 to
`
`“set[] the scope of pattern recognition analysis” merely begs the question, “the scope
`
`of what pattern recognition analysis?” The answer is the recognition of a second
`
`pattern—which the Board correctly identified as only part of a subsequent
`
`dependent claim. Qualcomm’s construction would thus render the independent
`
`claims indefinite.
`
`2.
`
`Qualcomm’s construction lacks specification support
`
`The language at the crux of Qualcomm’s proposed construction—“setting the
`
`scope of pattern recognition analysis”—appears nowhere in the ’865 patent.
`
`Ex.1001; Ex.1026, 27:15-21. Consequently, Qualcomm’s proposed construction
`
`relies on the patent’s provisional application and an annotation of the patent’s Fig.2.
`
`Neither source supports Qualcomm’s position.
`
`Like the specification, the provisional application fails to mention “setting
`
`the scope.” Ex.2001. The provisional application describes attempting to identify
`
`a second pattern, i.e., the subject matter of claim 3, which Qualcomm is trying to
`
`import into claim 1. See POR at 9-10 (e.g., describing “identify[ing] patterns in a
`
`second subset of variables”). But, the passages nowhere suggest recognizing a
`
`second pattern or setting its scope is required to practice the independent claims. Id.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`Qualcomm’s reliance on its annotation of Fig.2 further illustrates the patent’s
`
`lack of support for Qualcomm’s construction. The red box Qualcomm
`
`superimposed on an arbitrary portion of Fig.2 supposedly depicts an example of the
`
`“scope” of subsequent pattern recognition that has been “set” in claim 1. POR, pp9-
`
`13; Ex.1026, 37:15-18, 46:23-47:5. But the ’865 Patent never describes Fig.2 in
`
`connection with “fixing,” let alone as “setting the scope.” Ex.1001, 7:22-57;
`
`Ex.1026, 58:25-64:12. Contrarily, Qualcomm arbitrarily created the allegedly set
`
`“scope,” the red box in Fig.2 (reproduced below), without citation to the patent.
`
`POR, pp11-13.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`
`
`Qualcomm’s annotated FIG.2 the ’865 Patent (highlighted)
`
`Qualcomm’s red box is so arbitrary that it results in perplexing and
`
`contradictory conclusions as to whether and why some parameters are included in
`
`the red box. Qualcomm’s red box plainly includes a portion devoted to the symbols
`
`for “driving” and “walking.” Yet, Qualcomm’s expert insisted that the “scope” set
`
`via the red box does not include both “walking” and “driving.” Compare Ex.1026,
`
`53:25-54:4 (testifying “Motion State” of “Driving” is within set “scope”), with id.,
`
`54:5-55:14 (“Q.…So does the scope of analysis include ‘Motion State’ equals
`
`‘Walking’? A. No, it doesn’t.”). But, at the same time, Dr. Villasenor maintains
`
`the symbol for “WiFi SSID” equals “SSID_3” is within the scope that has been set,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`even though less of that symbol is within the red box than is the symbol for
`
`“walking.” Id. at 53:9-12. Fig.2 Dr. Villasenor also claims the set scope does not
`
`include both “fidgeting” and “driving,” despite the red box’s obvious inclusion of
`
`both symbols. Id., 56:8-14, 58:13-17. These contortions underscore the
`
`specification’s lack of support for Qualcomm’s proposed construction.
`
`3.
`
`Qualcomm’s construction imports extraneous limitations
`
`Qualcomm’s proposed construction also imposes an unsupported temporal
`
`requirement on the second pattern—requiring the searched-for “second pattern” “co-
`
`occur[]” or “overlap in time” with the first pattern. POR, pp18-19, 22. No support
`
`exists for this drastic departure from the claim language.
`
`Perhaps recognizing a “co-occurrence” limitation would contradict the
`
`Board’s admonishment that “none of the challenged claims refer to a second pattern
`
`co-occurring with the first pattern,” ID, p22, Qualcomm avoids using temporal
`
`terms in its actual proposed construction. Instead, Qualcomm restricts the allegedly
`
`set scope to “where a subset of varying parameters match parameter values
`
`associated with said first pattern.” But, Qualcomm admits elsewhere that it intends
`
`for “where” to mean “when,” or more specifically, “co-occurring” or “overlapping
`
`in time”:
`
`[(1)] fixing is setting the scope of analysis such that, when a
`
`pattern recognition process is later initiated, recognition process
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`recognizes “patterns in a second subset of variables when there is a
`
`pattern in the fixed subset of variables.” POR, p19.
`
`[(2)] “fixing” parameters of the first pattern as enabling the
`
`system to identify other patterns that are present when there is a pattern
`
`in the fixed variables of the first pattern... This process of recognizing
`
`“what other” patterns co-occur along with the first pattern does not
`
`happen without first setting the scope of pattern recognition analysis to
`
`where that first pattern matches. POR, p22.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[(3)] In either case, the purported second pattern cannot overlap
`
`in time with the purported first pattern. POR, p30.
`
`Dr. Villasenor agrees. Ex.1026,38:18-22 (“Q. [W]hen you get to claim three,
`
`searching for the second pattern would have to be a second pattern that co-occurs
`
`with the first pattern? A. I think it had has to be….”).
`
`Lacking claim language support for its “co-occurring” requirement,
`
`Qualcomm argues the specification repeatedly and consistently supports it. POR,
`
`p9, 18-19, 21-22. Even if so, a repeated and consistent description is insufficient to
`
`create a clear disavowal of claim scope.
`
`Moreover, Qualcomm struggles to prove the alleged repeated and consistent
`
`description. Qualcomm does not cite a single passage of the as-issued ’865 patent
`
`describing a co-occurrence requirement. Instead, Qualcomm again relies on isolated
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`passages from the provisional application and the arbitrarily annotated version of the
`
`patent’s Fig.2 with open-ended, exemplary phrases . POR, pp9-13.
`
`POR, p10.
`
`
`
`As to the annotated Fig.2, the same contradictions described above (e.g.,
`
`“driving” and “fidgeting” supposedly do not co-occur within the red box, while
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`“driving” and “SSID_1” supposedly do) equally undermine any suggestions that
`
`Fig.2 supports a co-occurrence requirement.
`
`Qualcomm impermissibility seeks to alter the claim language to prescribe “the
`
`scope” to “where a subset of varying parameters match parameter values associated
`
`with said first pattern.” As Dr. Villasenor contends, Qualcomm’s construction
`
`requires all parameters associated with the first pattern be matched “because
`
`otherwise you would no longer have that first pattern.” Ex.1026, 42:14-43:13. But,
`
`claim 1’s plain language requires only “fixing a subset of varying parameters
`
`associated with said first pattern.” Qualcomm thus unjustifiably rewrites “subset”
`
`to “full set.” offering no explanation or support or even acknowledging the change.
`
`POR, pp18-19.
`
`4.
`
`Qualcomm’s proposed construction contradicts its litigation
`positions
`
`Qualcomm’s previous positions regarding “fixing” cast still further doubt on
`
`its current proposed construction. In district court, under the Phillips standard,
`
`Qualcomm argued no construction of “fixing” was necessary. Ex.1026, 70:18-71:5;
`
`Ex.1024, Ex.C, p6. Qualcomm does not explain how the BRI of “fixing” can require
`
`a lengthy construction that imports concepts from dependent claims, translates
`
`“fixing” to “setting the scope,” and imposes a new temporal requirement, while the
`
`limitation simultaneously needs no construction under Phillips. See also Ex.1025,
`
`Ex.865, pp53-54 (contradicting infringement allegations).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner’s construction is fully supported by the intrinsic
`evidence and does not render any claim term superfluous
`
`As acknowledged, “Petitioner’s proffered construction is expressly supported
`
`by the claim language per se[; and] is consistent with both the ’865 patent
`
`Specification and the prosecution history of the ’865 patent.” ID, p20.
`
`
`
`
`
`Qualcomm incorrectly urges “Petitioner’s interpretation is contrary to the
`
`specification because merely ‘associating’ does not achieve what the specification
`
`repeatedly and consistently describes [-] ‘fixing’ parameters of the first pattern as
`
`having a particular result.” POR, p21. As discussed in Section-II-B, contrary to
`
`Qualcomm’s assertions, the specification does not “repeatedly and consistently”
`
`describe departure from the plain claim language, let alone mandate such departure.
`
`The claims expressly recite that fixing is done by associating. Id.; Ex.1001, claim
`
`1.
`
`Qualcomm further mistakenly argues Petitioner’s construction is duplicative
`
`of the separately-recited “identifying” step. POR, p22. Qualcomm ignores that the
`
`Board addressed similar arguments raised in Qualcomm’s POPR, acknowledging
`
`the “identifying” step can occur in a training phase of a classification algorithm,
`
`which distinguishes the “fixing” step that can occur later in a recognition phase. ID,
`
`p21; Petition, p24. Qualcomm tellingly fails to respond to the Board’s reasoning.
`
`ID, p21.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`For at least these reasons, the Board should reject Qualcomm’s construction.
`
`III. LOUCH-BASED
`GROUNDS
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`INVALIDATE
`
`THE
`
`Qualcomm’s arguments against Louch-based grounds rest primarily on a
`
`flawed understanding of Louch, the improper claim construction of the “fixing”
`
`limitation, and inapposite arguments divorced from the claim language. POR, pp25-
`
`39. As addressed below, Louch satisfies the disputed independent claims, not only
`
`under the correct claim constructions as proposed by Petitioner, but even under
`
`Qualcomm’s unreasonably narrow constructions. To this later point, Louch
`
`discloses recognizing a second pattern that “co-occurs” or “overlaps in time” with a
`
`first pattern. Section-III-A-B.
`
`Qualcomm’s arguments regarding the dependent claims fare no better. As to
`
`claims 3, 22, and 27, despite Qualcomm’s characterization otherwise, Louch
`
`discloses the claimed first and second patterns in a single embodiment. Moreover,
`
`Louch’s first and second patterns are not identical, although and even if they were,
`
`the patent does not require distinction among them. Section-III-C.
`
`Turning specifically to Claims 4 & 23, Qualcomm’s suggests the absence of
`
`a feature —limiting monitored sensors—that the claims fail to recite or otherwise
`
`require. Section-III-D. As to claims 5, 24, and 48, Louch discloses taking
`
`“snapshots” in response to detection of conditions at least because detecting a
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`second state based on snapshots of sensor signals involves detecting the duration of
`
`a first state, a step performed in response to detecting the first state. Section-III-E.
`
`For at least these reasons, Louch-based Grounds satisfy the all the Challenged
`
`Claims, and all the Challenged Claims should be canceled.
`
`A. Louch discloses “fixing…” under the correct construction
`
`As set forth in Section-II-B, the BRI of “fixing…” encompasses “associating
`
`at least one parameter of a subset of varying parameters with the first pattern to
`
`represent at least one detected condition” ID, pp13-17. Qualcomm does not dispute
`
`Louch’s satisfaction of this limitation under this, the correct construction. POR,
`
`pp25-39. Moreover, Qualcomm does not dispute satisfaction by Louch and Louch-
`
`based Grounds of the other features of the challenged independent claims and
`
`dependent claims except Claims 3-5, 22-24, and 48. POR, pp25-39. Therefore,
`
`applying the correct construction, as adopted in the institution decision for purposes
`
`of conducting the proceedings, there is no dispute that these undisputed claims are
`
`unpatentable in view of Louch-based Grounds and should be canceled. Petition,
`
`Grounds 2A-C. ID, pp20-24.
`
`B.
`
`Louch discloses “fixing…” even under Qualcomm’s
`unreasonably narrow construction
`
`Even under the unreasonably narrow construction of “fixing…” that
`
`Qualcomm maintains, Louch still satisfies the claims. Louch discloses setting the
`
`scope of pattern recognition analysis to where a first pattern is present and detecting
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`a co-occurring second pattern—i.e., the first pattern plus the time or distance over
`
`which the first pattern is present. Ex.1011, 5:7-32; Petition, pp33-34.
`
`As acknowledged in the institution decision, Louch satisfies the “fixing”
`
`limitation, at least through its disclosure of matching present parameter values “with
`
`previously identified patterns (previously learned states that may be stored).” ID,
`
`p21; Petition, p29; Ex.1011, 10:16–20. “Thus, when current parameter values match
`
`a stored state, the parameters are ‘associated’ with that state.” Id.
`
`Take as an example where the second pattern—defined as the first pattern
`
`(e.g., position of the device) plus a time duration—is used to determine a control
`
`action. Ex.1011, 5:6-32. When the current parameter values match a stored state
`
`corresponding to the first pattern, the parameters are “associated” with the first
`
`pattern. ID, pp21; Petition, p29. That association sets the scope of pattern
`
`recognition analysis to where the first pattern is found: e.g., the mobile device 100
`
`can detect the first pattern’s duration only when such first pattern is present. Ex.
`
`1011, 5:7-13; Ex.1026, 125:11-18 (acknowledging “as a technical matter, once you
`
`observe you’re in a position and if there -- if that state also includes the duration
`
`requirement, assuming that position remains the same, what you would then need
`
`to wait to establish is whether the duration of requirement is met or not”). That is,
`
`Louch discloses setting the scope of analysis to where the first pattern (here,
`
`“position”) “remains the same.” Id. Thus, the second pattern—the first pattern
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`existing for a set duration—necessarily co-occurs with the presence of the first
`
`pattern.
`
`Accordingly, Louch discloses “fixing… by associating…” even under
`
`Qualcomm’s unreasonably narrow construction because Louch discloses setting the
`
`scope of pattern recognition of a second pattern, where this second pattern is a first
`
`pattern plus a duration during which the first pattern is present. ID, p1; Petition, p29;
`
`Ex.1011, 5:6-32.
`
`C. Louch discloses distinct first and second patterns in a single
`embodiment
`
`As set forth in the Petition, Louch discloses at least two separate mappings of
`
`a “first” and “second” pattern, both satisfying the dependent claims that require
`
`recognizing a second pattern (i.e., claims 3, 22, and 27). Petition, pp32-35.
`
`1.
`
`Louch’s first and second patterns are not the same
`
`In a first mapping, Louch discloses first and second patterns at least by reciting
`
`“a first movement pattern” stored in “learning mode” and “a second movement
`
`pattern” detected during “automatic control mode.” See e.g., Ex.1011, Claim 1.3
`
`
`
`3 Qualcomm argues Claim 1 of Louch is not an originally filed claim, meaning
`
`its content cannot be relied on as a § 102(e) reference. POR, fn3. However,
`
`Petitioner relies on the subject matter recited in claim 1, i.e., “a first movement
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01282
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP2
`
`
`
`Qualcomm argues that Louch does not disclose two patterns, contending instead that
`
`the first movement pattern and the second movement pattern are the same pattern.
`
`POR, pp28-29. Not so. Louch discloses a first movement pattern different from a
`
`second movement pattern. See e.g., Ex.1011, Claims 1, 16. And, regardless, this
`
`argument fails.
`
`Qualcomm’s arguments unjustifiably impose that the first and second patterns
`
`must be different, a feature absent from Challenged Claims. Putting aside that
`
`Qualcomm’s proposed construction of “pattern” does not include such a
`
`requirement, the BRI of the two claim terms are broad enough to encompass
`
`instances where the first pattern and the second pattern are the same, and Qualcomm
`
`identifies no express definition or clear disavowal to the contrary. See Thorner at
`
`1366-7.
`
`
`
`pattern” and “a second movement pattern,” which are disclosed and supported by
`
`the originally filed Louch application. The issuance of claim 1 of Louch signifies
`
`the Patent Office agreed the features recited in the issued claims are supported by
`
`Louch’s specification as originally filed. Moreover, the relevant disclosures under
`
`§ 102(e)