`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Apple Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01315
`Patent No. 8,063,674
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSIVE BRIEF ON REMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2018-01315
`
`Page
`
`
`I. APPLE’S NEW ARGUMENTS CANNOT BE SQUARED WITH ITS
`OWN STATEMENTS THAT MAJCHERCZAK IS NOT THE BASIS .......... 1
`II. APPLE’S ARGUMENTS FAIL TO APPLY THE STATUTORY
`TEXT AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S QUALCOMM DECISION ............ 5
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2018-01315
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC,
`948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 3
`Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`24 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ......................................................................... 1, 5
`Yeda Research & Dev. Co. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.,
`906 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 4
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .............................................................................................. 1, 3, 4, 5
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01315
`
`Ground 2 is impermissible. As Qualcomm showed, Apple’s repeated
`
`statements during this IPR and on appeal, the statutory text of § 311(b), and the
`
`Qualcomm decision uniformly establish that Majcherczak (and Matthews where
`
`applicable) is not the basis of Ground 2.
`
`Recognizing this, Apple now invites the Board to rewrite Ground 2 as the
`
`“Majcherczak grounds.” But well-settled precedent prohibits the rewriting of
`
`Apple’s grounds. Ground 2 is based on the AAPA, attempting to use the AAPA as
`
`combinable art. For this reason alone—not because, as Apple suggests, Qualcomm
`
`agrees with the merits of Ground 2, see Paper 31 (“Apple Br.”) at 1—it is improper
`
`to resolve Ground 2. The Board should enter judgment upholding the claims.
`
`I.
`
`APPLE’S NEW ARGUMENTS CANNOT BE SQUARED WITH ITS
`OWN STATEMENTS THAT MAJCHERCZAK IS NOT THE BASIS
`Apple both consistently styled, and substantively argued, Ground 2 as based
`
`on AAPA, not Majcherczak. Paper 32 (“QC Br.”) at 4-8. On remand, Apple asks
`
`the Board to rewrite Ground 2. The facts and law squarely contradict that request.
`
`First, Apple’s repeated reference to Ground 2 as “Majcherczak grounds” is a
`
`transparently improper attempt to rewrite its petition. Apple Br. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10.
`
`Ground 2’s “Basis for Rejection” was not Majcherczak; it was “[AAPA] in view of
`
`Majcherczak.” Paper 2 (“Pet.”) at 2. Indeed, in whole swaths of arguments, Ground
`
`2 does not mention Majcherczak. For instance, for claim 1, Apple exclusively
`
`invoked AAPA for elements 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7. Id. at 46-49, 52-56.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01315
`
`Likewise, when using its combined figure of “AAPA + Majcherczak POC System”
`
`for those elements, Apple pointed solely to components from AAPA, not anything
`
`from Majcherczak. E.g., id. at 48 (green and orange components from ’674 Patent
`
`Figure 1). To the extent Majcherczak is even mentioned on those pages—and often
`
`it is not—it is simply to label that figure and describe it likewise (e.g., “The
`
`following diagram[]
`
`illustrate[s]
`
`the combination of
`
`the AAPA with
`
`Majcherczak ….”). Id. at 48, 53-56. Apple’s new insistence that “Majcherczak is
`
`at the heart of the Petition’s relevant obviousness argument for every challenged
`
`claim,” that Ground 2 is “rooted in” Majcherczak, and that the petition went “further”
`
`than the AAPA for “many” or “most” elements “and argue[d]” they “are also present
`
`in Majcherczak,” Apple Br. 5-8, is thus demonstrably wrong (as Qualcomm’s
`
`opening brief showed). Apple argued based on Majcherczak for only one of eight
`
`limitations. Pet. 49-52. Strikingly, without Apple’s AAPA arguments, only
`
`conclusory, facially deficient assertions remain for most of Ground 2. E.g., id. at 46
`
`(the first, conclusory sentence for 1.0). Likewise for the Board’s analysis, which
`
`repeatedly rested on AAPA—e.g., for all but one element of claim 1. FWD 24-28.
`
`Also telling is that, in asserting Majcherczak is “at the heart” of its “argument
`
`for every challenged claim,” Apple can cite only its petition’s general description of
`
`Majcherczak and the few elements for which it did assert Majcherczak. Apple Br.
`
`6 (citing Pet. 5-6, 39-45, 49-51, 57-59 (one element for claim 1; dependent claim 2)).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01315
`
`That is because, except for those few elements, Apple’s obviousness arguments did
`
`not use Majcherczak. QC Br. 4-8.
`
`Second, the facts and law likewise preclude Apple’s invitation to rewrite its
`
`use of the AAPA. Apple Br. 6-9. Apple now says it used “Qualcomm’s admissions
`
`to show what was known to a skilled artisan.” E.g., id. at 6. Not so. Apple used the
`
`AAPA as an alleged prior-art patent, see QC Br. 4-8; FWD 22 (“the primary
`
`reference”), and it confirmed this on appeal, see QC Br. 5. Now claiming otherwise,
`
`Apple merely recites the patent’s statements. Apple Br. 6-8. But there is no dispute
`
`about that prose. Instead, the issue is whether Apple improperly used it as § 311(b)
`
`art. Ground 2’s styling and substance decisively show that Apple did just that.
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020), is
`
`directly on point. Philips distinguished a ground based on “SMIL 1.0 in light of the
`
`general knowledge” (including the Hua reference) from a ground based on “SMIL
`
`1.0 in combination with Hua.” Id. at 1334-37. Because the petition raised only the
`
`former, “the Board erred by instituting inter partes review based on” the latter. Id.
`
`at 1335. The Court emphasized that, even if a non-raised ground might rely on “the
`
`[same] arguments and evidence” as the petitioned grounds, it is improper because
`
`“the Board does not ‘enjoy[] a license to depart from the petition.’” Id. at 1336
`
`(brackets by Philips). Apple attempts precisely what Philips rejected. A ground of
`
`Majcherczak alone or in light of general knowledge was never raised in the petition.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01315
`
`Yeda Research & Development Co. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 906 F.3d
`
`1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018), is also instructive. Yeda made clear that the role of non-
`
`§ 311(b) evidence, like the AAPA here, is limited and distinct from § 311(b) art.
`
`The Court endorsed the Board’s “recogni[tion] that non-prior art evidence of what
`
`was known ‘cannot be applied, independently, as teachings separately combinable’
`
`with other prior art, but ‘can be relied on for their proper supporting roles, e.g.,
`
`indicating the level of ordinary skill in the art, what certain terms would mean to one
`
`with ordinary skill in the art, and how one with ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood a prior art disclosure.’” Id. at 1041. Here, Apple plainly used the AAPA
`
`“independently, as teachings separately combinable” with Majcherczak, not in a
`
`supporting role. See, e.g., Pet. 50 (arguing “the combination of the AAPA’s prior
`
`art POC system 10 with Majcherczak’s feedback transistor”); Paper 16 at 4, 7, 9, 24
`
`(e.g., the “combination of the AAPA and Majcherczak”); FWD 22 (same).
`
`Third, Apple cannot defend Ground 2 by saying Majcherczak teaches the ’674
`
`Patent’s purported “novel feature.” Apple Br. 9; see id. at 1-6. In fact, Apple
`
`previously argued the opposite. Paper 25 at 6-7 (rejecting the feedback network as
`
`“novel”; instead citing the Examiner’s reliance on the transistors’ configuration). In
`
`any event, the focus is on the claims as a whole, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 8:44-9:3, not a
`
`single claim element. The obviousness inquiry likewise examines the “claimed
`
`invention as a whole,” 35 U.S.C. § 103, not only certain features. Section 311(b) is
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01315
`
`also not directed to “novel features”; it applies to grounds, not novel features.
`
`The bottom line is this: Perhaps Apple could have attempted to “root” a
`
`ground in Majcherczak and use AAPA in a permissible role. But that is not what
`
`Apple did. Apple used AAPA as a purportedly prior-art patent. That was the theory
`
`Apple presented in the petition and on appeal, and it is impermissible under § 311(b).
`
`II. APPLE’S ARGUMENTS FAIL TO APPLY THE STATUTORY TEXT
`AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S QUALCOMM DECISION
`As shown, on any reasonable definition, Majcherczak was not “the basis” of
`
`Ground 2. QC Br. 5-8. Barely acknowledging § 311(b), Apple never purports to
`
`apply the statutory text or even attempts to define “the basis”—the key provision on
`
`remand. See Paper 28 at 2; Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., 24 F.4th 1367, 1377 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2022). As for the Qualcomm decision, Apple quotes it to say “[n]o claim is
`
`challenged ‘relying on solely AAPA,’” suggesting that resolves the question on
`
`remand. Apple Br. 6. But in noting that IPR grounds cannot “rely[] on solely
`
`AAPA,” Qualcomm, 24 F.4th at 1377, the Court was not defining § 311(b) in full.
`
`Besides not relying only on AAPA, a petition must “raise[] its § 103 challenge ‘on
`
`the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.’” Id. at 1369.
`
`Finally, as already shown, Apple’s arguments based on the Updated Guidance
`
`fail to address the narrow question directed for remand here, and also fail to apply
`
`the statute, the Qualcomm decision, and their application here—all of which compel
`
`the same answer: Majcherczak is not the basis. See QC Br. 9-10.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Date: September 28, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IPR2018-01315
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /David B. Cochran/
`
`
`David B. Cochran, Reg. No. 39,142
`David M. Maiorana, Reg. No. 41,449
`Joseph M. Sauer, Reg. No. 47,919
`JONES DAY
`North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`(216) 586-3939
`
`Matthew W. Johnson, Reg. No. 59,108
`Joshua R. Nightingale, Reg. No. 67,865
`JONES DAY
`500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`
`Jennifer L. Swize
`JONES DAY
`51 Louisiana Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Responsive Brief on Remand was served via email on the date below, upon the
`
`following:
`
`W. Karl Renner (IPR39521-0053IP2@fr.com)
`Thomas A. Rozylowicz (PTABInbound@fr.com)
`Whitney A. Reichel (wreichel@fr.com)
`riffe@fr.com
`holt2@fr.com
`
`
`September 28, 2022
`
`/David B. Cochran/
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
