I hereby certi fy tt'~l thi~ I~',p.:r (~l"n~ with ~ny paper rcrctl'i:d It> as being
`~ 1Ia<.'h;;:;l ... r c"cl~) i~ boling 1J' ••• nsmiuuj (ooa)' ,'i~ tbe Offic.:: .:Iccu'(lni~.
`li ling ~y~l..,m (I:FS-Web) in ~.nrd~nc.., wilh.l7 CFR §L6 (a)(4).
`
`J)<~",: l);Io!>e, 9. 2li l3
`
`Sign,lI,n:, ISlsa,han je f"bmirll:WtJ
`Printed Nanl<:' Stephani.: Dornjn,;uc'l.
`
`IN THE UNITED STA TES PA TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`R EQUEST FOR REEXAMINATlO'J UNDER
`35 U.S.c. §§ 302-307 AND 37 C.F.R. §
`1.5 I 0
`
`In re Application of:
`
`Inventors: Baliarda ef al.
`
`Patent No.: 7,397,431
`
`Filed: July 12,2005
`
`For: MULITTLEVEL ANTENNA
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Rccxarrunation
`AlTN: Central Reexamination Un it
`Commissioner for P<iIClliS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, V A 223 J 3-1450
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OF U.S. PATENT 7,397,431
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027.0001
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OF U.S. PATDIT 7,397,431.. ................ I
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`A
`
`B.
`C
`D.
`
`PR IOR ART (PA) ..... ....... ... .... ...... .... ........ ....... ..... .. ...... .. ......... ....... ..... .. ...... .. ......... .. 4
`
`REL L.:V/\NT P AT l:NT M ATEIUALS (PAT) ...... .
`CLAIM 0 JARTS (CC)
`OHlER D OCUMI -.NTS (OTH) ... ............... ............... ........................ .
`
`. ........ ..4
`............. 5
`
`. ....... ..... 5
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OF U.S. PATENT 7,397,431.. ................ 6
`
`11 .
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`1.510 .................................................................................................................................... 7
`
`III . OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 8
`. .............. x
`. ................ .............. .. 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`DL.:SCI{lrTION Of TilL.: ' 431 PAH:-JT ..... .. .... .. .. .......... .. ...... .... .. .... .. .. .... .
`
`T I rE '43 1 PATI·:NT ArrLlCATIOl'\ PROSFC'UT IOl\ HI STORY ..
`
`C
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`O V ERv n ·:w OF Tf-IL Cl A I~S .. ..... . ..... ............. ....... ..... .
`
`R1 LATI2 l) lNTER P ARTES REEXAMINATIONS OF Ti lE '431 P l\TCNT ... .
`
`.. ... 11
`
`. ... ....... .... 11
`
`RJ LATr.:ulNTERPA RTES REv IEW OFTllE '431 PATENT ........................................... 13
`
`RH.ATRD CO-PENDING LITIGATION REQUlRES T Rf·:ATMI ·N T WITH SPF.CIAL
`DISP/\ TO t ANU PIUOIUTY O VER ALL On U:~R CASf. S ............................................... 13
`
`CLA IM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................... 13
`
`IV.
`
`BASIS FOR DECLARA nON EVI DENCE AND UNDERLYING FACTUAL
`SUPPORT OF TESTING .PERFORMED .................................................................... 19
`
`A.
`
`SUM\1 ARY OF DR. LONG'S ']NfR[NOf.:MENT M rm'IOOOLOGY TO Dr.Tr. RMf."p
`IF A N ANTENNA INFRING ES A uM ULTILEVEL STRUCTURE" ................................... [9
`
`B.
`
`CNJ )ERLY1NG SUPPORT FOR DR. BODNAR'S TESTING METHODOLOGy ..... . ..... .... ... 20
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF EAC H SlI8STANT1AL NEW Qt.:ESTIONS OF
`PATENTABI LlTY UN DER 37 C.F.R. § 1.51 0 (8)(2) ................................................. 21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`' 064 PRESENTS AN S).lQ W ITII R.J ; SPI ~CT TO CLA.ltvlS 1, 12-
`Y ANAGASAWA
`14, AND 30 OF THE ' 431 PATENT ............................................................................... 21
`
`GRANGEAT P RTISENTS AN SNQ WITI I R ESPECT TO CLAIM S J , .I2- J 4. /\NLJ 30
`Of; THE ' 431 P ..... TENT ................................................................................................ 23
`
`Y ANG PIU':SENTS AN SNQ W IT II R£SPECT TO CLAIMS I , 12- 14, AN I) 30 OF
`TilE '43 1 PATENT .................. ..... ...... .... ................. ..... ...... .... ................. ..... ...... .... .... 29
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`2
`
`ZTE
`Ex hibit 1027.0002
`
`

`

`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`MI SRA PRESENTS AN SNQ WITt'1 RESPECT T O C LAIMS I, 12- 14, AND 30 OF
`THE ' 4 3 J PATENT ..................................................................................................... 33
`
`GuO PR ESE NTS AN SNQ WITH R ESPECT T O CLA I'\r1S I, 12- 14, ANO 30 (H'
`THE '43 1 PATENT ................................................................................................... .36
`
`JOHNSON PRESENTS AN SNQ WITI .. RESPL( T TO CLAI:vIS 1 AN D 12- 14 OF
`THE '43 J PATENT .. ............................... ............................... ............................... .. 39
`
`VI. MANNER OF APPLYING THE CLAIMS AS REQUIRED BY 37 C.F.R. § 1.510
`(8)(2) ................................................................................................................................. 44
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F .
`
`C LA IMS I . 12-14, 30 AR F: REN I1ERED OIlVIOUS flY YA"'I!\UISAWA ' 064
`eND!!R 35 V. S.C § 103 ..... ................................................................................. .44
`C LArMS I, 12- 14, AND 30 ARE A N TICIPATED fiV GRANGEAT UNDER 35
`G.S.c. § 102 ........................................................................................................... 54
`CLAIMS I, 12- 14, AND 30 ARr ANTlClPATFJ) HV Y A ... U UNDI ~K 35 U .S.C
`j 102 ....................................................................................................................... 59
`
`CLA IMS 1, 12- 14, AND 30 ARI'. RF.NDERED OFlVIOUS BY M ISRA U~DF.R 35
`
`V .S.C * 103 .......... .... ................ ........... .... ................ ........... .... ................ ........ .... 65
`
`CLAIMS I, 12- 14, AND 30 ARE RENDERED OBVIoUS flY Guo U~ I>ER 35
`C.S.C § 1 03 ........................................................................................................... 73
`C LArMS I ;\~D 12-1 4 AR E RF:NDF.RF.O OBV IOUS flY JOHNSON UNDER 35
`V .S.C § J 03 ...................................................................................................... 80
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 89
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`3
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027.0003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS '
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Th e ex hibits to the present Request lirc arranged in four groups: prior art (" PA"), relevant patent
`prosecution file history, patents, and claim dependency relationships ("PAT"), claim chal1S
`("eC"), and other ("OTH").
`
`A. PRJORART(PA)
`
`PA -S B08AIB USPTO Form SB/08AIB
`
`PA-A
`
`PA- B
`
`PA-C
`
`PA- D
`
`PA-E
`
`PA-F
`
`U.S. Palent No. 5,995,004 to Yanagisawa et al. issued on November 30,
`1999 ("Yanagisawa ' 064,,)2
`
`U.S. Palent ~o. 6,133,879 to Grangeat et al. isslied on October 17,2000
`("Grangcat")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,300,914 to Yan g issued on October 9, 200 I
`("Yang")
`Misra, .Ita ef (II., " Expcl;mcntallnvcst igations on the Impedance and
`Rad iation Properties of a Three-E lement Concentri c Microstrip
`Antenna," Microwave and Optical Tec hnology Letters. Vol. II , No.
`2. February 5, 1996 ("Misra")
`
`V.X. Guo, el al .. , Double U-S lot rectangular patch antenna,
`Electronic Letters VoL 34, No. 19 publ ished September 17, J99~
`("Guo")
`
`U.S. Patent "!\Io. 6,239.765 to Johnson el al. issued on May 29, 200 I
`("Johnson")
`
`6. RF.I ,I;:VA:'\ T PATf..'\T MATF:RHI ,S (PA T)
`u.s. Pate nt No. 7,397,431 ("the '43 1 patent")
`
`PAT-A
`
`I Any ex hibits marked confidential are no longer confidential or haw been redacted 10 remove
`confidential information . Thus, all exhibits submitted herei n may be posted publically.
`
`2 Another patent by the same inventor, Yanagisawa, is at issue in related inter parte,\
`r~cxam ination proceedings. Th erefore, the ' 004 identifier is used for tb e YanagiSU\\"d patcot at
`issue in thi s request.
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`4
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027.0004
`
`

`

`C. CLAIM C HARTS (ee)
`Claim Chart com paring Claims 1. 12-1 4, and 30 of the '43 1 patent to the
`CC-A
`disc losure of Yanagis<lwa '064
`
`CC-B
`
`CC-c
`
`CC-D
`
`CC-E
`
`CC-F
`
`Claim Chart comparing Claims J, J 2- 14, and 30 of the' 431 patent 10 the
`di sclosure of Grangcat
`
`Claim Chart compali.ng Claims I, 12-1 4, and 30 of the '43\ paten! to the
`disc losure of Yang
`
`Claim Chart comparing Claims I, 12-1 4, and 30 of the '431 patent 10 the
`disclosure of Misra
`
`Claim Chart comparing Claims L 12-1 4, and 30 of the '431 patent to the
`di sclosure of Guo
`Claim Chart comparing C laims J and 12-\ 4 of the '431 patent to the
`disclosure of Johnson
`
`D. Onu:R DOCL"\1.E\TS (OTH)
`
`OTH-A
`
`OTH-B
`
`OTH-C
`
`OTH-D
`
`OTH-E
`
`OTH-F
`
`OTH-G
`
`OTH-H
`
`Complaints fil ed by Fracrus against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd alleging
`patent infringement
`
`Prel iminary Infri ngement Conten tions for the '43 1 patent in the case of
`,
`FrucfuS S.A. v. SU/l/sung Eleelronics Co. Lld. EI al., Case No. 6:09cv203
`(E.D. Tex .)
`
`In fringement Trial Demonstrati ve presented by Patent Owner's ex pert. Dr.
`Long, in the case of Froctll.~ S.A . v. SlUt/Sling Electronics Co. Ltd. £1 aI.,
`Case No. 6:09cv203 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Ri ght of Appea l Notice of co-pend in g reexamination of the '43 1 pat¢llt
`mail ed August 9, 201 2.
`
`the case of FracflIs SA. v. SUlIIsling
`in
`Court Cla im Construction
`Eled/'onics Co. Ltd. El aI., Case No. 6 :09cv203 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Declamtion of Owller's expert, Dr. Jaggard, on In fri ngement subm itted on
`in Froc/Us S.A . I'. Sall/sung E/i:clrnnics Co. Ltd. £ 1 01.,
`A U&,1USt 16,2010
`Case No. 6:09cv203 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`P<ltent Owoer's Expert report by Dr. Lon g
`Declaration of Dr. Bodnar4
`
`J Only a subset of the Preliminary Infringement Contentions is provided to avoid overloading the
`Patent Office with material in this Requc.<;;t for Reexamination.
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`5
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027.0005
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PA TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`REQCEST fOR REE)0'WtNAT10~ UNDER
`35 U.S.c. §§ 302-307 AND 37 C.F.R. §
`1.510
`
`In re Application of:
`
`In ve ntors: Baliarda et al.
`
`Patent No.: 7,397,43 1
`
`Filed: Jul y 12,2005
`
`For: MULTILEVEL ANTENNA
`
`Mail SlOP Ex Parle Rce;'<amination
`ATT~: Cent ral Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box J450
`Alexandria, VA 22313- 1450
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTER EEXAMtNATtON OF U.S. PATENT 7,397,43t
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Pu rsuant to 37 C.F.R . § 1. 51 0, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (hereinafter "Requester")
`
`hereby respectfully requests reexamination pursu ant to 35 eSc. *~ 30 1 et seq. and 37 C. F.R. **
`
`1.5 10 et seq., of Ori ginal Claims), 12-14 and 30 5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,397,43 J ("the '43 1 patent")
`
`filed July 12,2005 and issued July 8, 200X to Baliarda el al. See Exhibit PAT-A.
`
`4 For consistency and cOllven ience of the office, the ident ical dec laration of Dr. Bodnar is bein g
`submitted by requester in fou r related ex parte rcexatn.ination requests incl udi ng tbis request. As
`such, only pOl1ions of the subm itted declaration are explicitly relied on for purposes of th is
`requcst as indicated in the arguments below.
`
`5 Paten t Owner filed stat utory disc laimer of cla ims 1, 12, and 13 on September 10, 2013. 1ftbe
`Office detennines reexamination of those claims is no longer penniss ible, claim 14 de pends on
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`6
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027.0006
`
`

`

`This Request is bw>ed on the ci ted prior al1 documents set forth herei n and on the
`
`accom panyi ng Form PTO-S B/08A/ B. Sef: Exhibit PA-SB/08AfB. All of the cited prior an
`
`patents and publication s const itute effective prior art as to the claims of the '431 patent under
`
`35 U.S.c. ~ 102 and 35 U.S.c. § 103.
`Pu rsuant to 37 C.F.R. S 1.5 10 Requester hereby respectfully requests reexamination
`pursuant to 35 U.S.c. ~~ 301 f:t seq. and 37 C.F.R. ~* 1.510 f:t. seq., of Original Claims I , 12-14
`
`and 30 of th e '43 1 patent Reexamination is requested in view of the substantial new questions of
`
`patentability ("SNQs") sct fonh in detail be low and in the accompanying claim ehans. Requester
`
`reserves all rights and defenses ava ilable including, without limitation, defenses as to invalid ity and
`
`unenforceabi lity. By simply fi ling thi8 Request in compliance with app licable statutes, ruks, and
`
`regulations. Requester does not represcnt, agree or concur that the '431 pa lent is enforceable . As
`
`all eged by Patent Owner in the be low-definccl Underlyin g Litigation, and as requ ired by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.51 0, the '43 1 patent is stiU witlun its period of enfo rceability fo r reexa mination purposes (to the
`
`extent that the ' 431 patent has not lapsed for failu re to pay maintenance fces, has not been the
`
`subj ect of any Terminal Disclaimer, and has not yet bccn held unenforceabl e in a court of compete nt
`
`jurisdiction). By asserting the SNQs herein, Requester specifically asserts that Original Cla im s I,
`
`12- 14 and 30 of the '43 1 patent arc in fact not patentable.
`
`Accordingly, the U.S. Patent and Tradem:uk Office ("the Office") should reexamine and
`
`find Claims I, 12-14 and 30 of the '43 1 patent unpatentable and cancel these claims, rendering
`
`them null, void, and otherwise unenforceab le.
`
`U.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`1.510
`
`Rcque.stcr satis fies each requ irement for Ex Parle reex amination of the '431 patent
`
`pmsuant to 37 CF.R. § 1.5 10. A full copy of the '43 1 patent i.s submitted herei n as Ex hibit PAT(cid:173)
`
`A in accordance with 37 C F.R. § 1.51 0(b)(4).
`Pursuant to 37 CF.R. * 1.5 10(b)(3), a copy or every patent or printed publication relied
`
`upon to present an SI\iQ is submitted hereio at Exhibits PA-A through PA-F. citation of which
`
`claim 13 wh.ich depends on cl aim 12 which depends on claim 1. and claim 30 depends on claim
`1. As such, the anal ysis of claims I, 12, and 13 are neecssary to prov ide an explanation of the
`pCl1inency and manner of applying Ihe ci led prior art to claims 14 and 30.
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`7
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027.0007
`
`

`

`may be fQund Qn the accQmpanyin g FQnn PTO-SB/08A as Exhibit PTO-SBJ08A in accQ rdance
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 1.5JO. E<l ch o f th e ci ted priQr art publications constihltc effecti ve priQr art as to
`
`the claims Qf the '43 J patent under 35 USC. R 102 and 35 USC. § 103. FurthennQre, each
`
`piece of prior art s ubmitted was either not cons idered by the Office dUling the prosecution of the
`'431 patent or is being presented in a new light under MPEP S 2242 as sc t forth in the detailed
`explanation belQw and in the attached claim Chat1s.
`
`A sl<ltemcnt pointin g out each SNQ based on the cited patents <l nd printed publ icatio.ns,
`
`and a dctailed explanatiQn o.f the pcrtinency and manner Qf appl ying the patents and printed
`
`publicatio.ns to. C la ims I , 12- 14 and 30 o.f th e '43 1 patent , is presented bclo.w and in attached
`
`claim ch arts in accordance wi th 37 C.F.R. * 1.5 I 0 (b)(2).
`
`A copy cf this request has been served in its entirety o.n the pat ent cwner in acccrdance
`
`witb 37 C.F.R. § 1.5 I 0(b )(5) at th e follc wing address:
`
`EDELL, SHAPIRO & Fn-.~ AN, LLC
`9ROI WASHINGTONIAN BOULEVARD
`S LITE 750
`GAITHERSBURG MD 20878
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1,5 10(a), a fcc o.f $1 2,000.00 is required to. fi le an ex
`
`parte reex aminatio.n request. Pl ease charge this fcc and any additicnal fees that may be mi ssin g
`
`o.r defective to. the Nc vak Dru ce Deposit Acccunt No.. 14- 1437.
`
`fit OVERVIEW
`
`A. DESCRIPT10N OF THE '431 PATE:\T
`
`Th e ' 43 1 Patent is directed to' a multilevel stru cture formed by ".sets cf simil ar gecmetric
`
`c1 ementg" to. create "a specific geo.metri cal design." '431 patent at 1:16-24. A s the spec ificatio.n
`
`ex plains, "the essence of the invention is fo.und in the gecmetry used in the multi level stlUcture."
`
`/d. at 5:66-67. The inventcrs cla im ed th e "difference between multilevel antennae and o.ther
`
`exist ing antennae lies in th e particular gecmetry." Id. at 5:42- 44.
`
`A multil eve l antenna is characterized by a plu ra lity o.f pclygo.ns/polyhed ral s ha ving the
`
`same Ilumbe r of sides and Qf the same ty pe, the pc lygomJ polyhedral s are electrica lly cc upled via
`
`direct co.ntact or by c1o.se pro.ximity, at least 75% of the PQl ygonsJpolybedra ls have mQre than
`
`50% of their perimeter nQt in contact w ith c ther PQl ygQns/PQl yhcdral s. the po.l ygons/pc lyhedrals
`
`arc clearly visible and ind ividuall y distingui shable, and tbat the pcl ygo.ns/polyhedral s form two.
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027,0008
`
`

`

`levels of dctail : that of thc overall grnleru re and that of th e individual polygons/polyhedrals that
`
`fOim the overa ll st ructure. rd. at 4:47-5: 10.
`
`B. Trrr. ' 431 I'ATE.\T ApP[.ICATION PROSfC UTIO,\, I~ISTORY
`
`On July 12, 2005, the Patent Owner filed Application No. 11 1179,257 {"th e '257
`
`Application"} Ihat issued as Ihe '431 patent.
`
`In ils application, the Patent Owner filed a
`
`preliminary amendment adding a paragraph to the specification entitled "Cross-Reference to
`
`Related Applications," canceling Claims 1-39, and adding Claims 40-R7. On August 23, 2006
`
`there was a Req uirement of Restrict ion/E lection issued by the Examiner, to which the Patent
`
`Owner elected to pursue Claims 40-74 and 78-79 on September 12, 2006.
`
`During the prosecution, the Examiner did not apply a single prior art reject ion. There
`
`was an Ex Parte Quayle action wherein the Examiner noted that the "Claims 75-77 and 80-87 are
`
`withdra wn from consideration by the Examiner," in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.1 42(b). The
`
`'257 Application at Ex Pa.ie Quayle Action dated September 26,2006 p. 2. In response thereto,
`
`the Patent Owner canceled unedited C la ims 75-77 and so-no The '257 Application at Response
`
`to Ex pal1c Quayle Action dated October 9, 2006.
`
`In view of tbe above, the Examiner allowed tb e claims of the '257 Appl ication and
`
`provided the fo lLowing reason for allowance:
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`9
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027.0009
`
`

`

`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`I.
`
`The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
`
`matter: Claim 40 is allowable over the art of record because the prior art does not
`
`teach a multi-band antenna comprising the plurality of geometric elements including at
`
`least two portions, a first portion being associated with a first selected frequency band
`
`and a second portion being associated with a second selected frequency band, the second
`
`portion being located substantially within the first portion, the first and second portions
`
`defining empty spaces in an overall structure of the conductive radiating element to
`
`provide a circuitous current path within the first portion and within the second portion,
`
`the current within the first portion providing the first selected frequency band with radio
`
`electric behavior substantially similar to the radio electric behavior of the second selected
`
`frequency band and in combination with the remaining claimed limitations.
`
`The '257 Notice of Allowance dated October 19, 2006, p. 2.
`
`Subsequently, a Petitio n to Withdraw from Issuc and two subsequcnt Infonnation
`
`Disclosure Statcments wcre filed by the Patent Owner on November 28, 2007 and December 19,
`2007, after whieh a non-final rejection was issued on February 4, 2008, Wllich as.serted a
`
`provisional obvioLisness-type double patenting rejection of Claims 40, 42-44, 4R, and 50-51 as
`
`"unpatentable over claims ~ 3 and 88-92 of copend ing Apptication No. 11 /550.256." Noo-Final
`
`Rejection dated February 4, 2008 p. 4.
`
`In res[,!onse, the Patent Owner filed a Terminal Disclaimer tied to "tbe expiration date of
`
`the full statutory term of any patent granted on pending reference Application Number
`
`J 1/550,256, fil ed on October 17, 2006." The '257 Terminal Disclaimer Filed dated February 28,
`
`2008 p. I.
`
`In view of the above, the Examiner again allowed the claims of the ' 257 Application
`
`providing no add itional reasons for allowance than previously noted. p. 2.
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`10
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027.0010
`
`

`

`C. O VE RVIEW OF THE CLAIMS
`
`In dependent Claim I reads as fo llows:
`
`I. A multi-band antenna comprisi ng: a conduct ive radiating element
`ineluding at lea.st one mu ltil evel stnlChlre, sa id at le<lst one multi level struchlre
`comprising a plurality of el ectromag neti cally coupled geometri c clements, said
`pilirali ty of gl!ometric clements incl udin g at least two pOt1ions, a fir~;t portion
`being assoc iated with a first selected frequency band and a second portion being
`associated with a second selected frequency band, said second portion bein g
`located substantially within the first portion, said first and .sl!cond portions
`defining empty spaces in an overall struct ure of tbe conductive radiatin g element
`to provide a circuitous currl!nt path within the first portion and within the ~eco nd
`port ion, and the CUtTen t with in sa id first rort,ion provid ing sa id first selected
`frequency band with radio el cctric behavior substantially simi lar to the radio
`elect ric behavior of said second sel ected frequency band and the current w ithin
`the second portion provid ing said second se lected freq uency band with radio
`electric behavior substantia ll y sim ilar to the rad io e lectric bdlavior of said first
`selected frequ l!ncy band.
`
`Dependent claims 12- 14, and 30 read as follows:
`
`12. The multi-band antenna sct forth in claim I, wherein said antenna is
`illcluded in a portable comm unicat ions device.
`
`13. The mu lti-band antenna set forth in claim 12, wherein said portab le
`communication device is a handset.
`
`14. The mu lti-band an tenn a set fOli h in claim 13, wherein said antenna
`operates at mult ipl e frequency band", and where in at ka<;t one of said frequ ency
`bands is operating within the 800 MHz-3600 MHz frequency range.
`
`30. A multi-band antenna according 10 c1a lm 1, where in the anteOJla
`operates at three or more frequency bands and the aulerIDa is sha r~d by tb ree or
`morc ce llular services.
`
`D. R F: LAITD INTF.R PARTF:S RF.F:XAmNAno~s OFTRF: '43l PATENT
`
`On November 11 ,20 10, Requestl!r filed an inter purtes reexamination request against
`
`claims I, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12-14, 17, 21, 22, 24-27, and 29-3 I of the '43 I paten t w hich was granled a..'>
`
`Control No. 95100 I ,482 ("the' 14R2 reexamination "). Subsequently, HTC' cllld Kyocera also filed
`
`inter patte!) reexamination aga inst the
`
`' 43 1 patent which were merged wi th
`
`the
`
`'14R2
`
`reexamination. See Cont ro l Nos. 951000,586 and 95/00 I ,497. In the' 1482 reexamination, the
`
`exa miner iss ued a Ri ght of Appeal Notice rejecting all reexamined c1aim..<;. See Right of Appeal
`
`Notice of co- pending reexamination of the '431 patent mailed June 1, 201 2. Patent Owner then
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`II
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027.0011
`
`

`

`appealed and all briefing by both parties is completed. See Patent Owner Appeal Brief to the
`
`' 1482 reexamination, filed February 22, 20 13; Requester's Respondent Brief to the' 1482
`
`reexamination, filed April 16, 2013; and Patent Owner Rebuttal Brief to
`
`th e
`
`'1482
`
`reexamination, filed August J6, 2013.
`
`The major point of dispute raised by the Patent Owner in its appeal is whether the
`
`claimed "multi level structu re" excl udes groupings of single band aotennas and/or antennas that
`
`incorporate reactive clemen ts that force the apparition of ncw freqllencies. SI.!f! Patent Owner
`
`Appcal Bricf to thc '14R2 rccxamination, fj Icd Fcbruary 22, 2013 at 3- 11 . I n addition, the Patent
`
`Owner cont ested what types of antenna should be excl uded from "multilevel" stating that
`
`antennas arc excluded unless they had cerlain operational chantcteri stics inc lud in g "reusing
`portions of the antenna for different freq uency bands." Id. at J J; see also Patent Owner Rebuttal
`
`Brief to the ' J4R2 reexamination, filed August Jf), 2013 at 5 (arguing that an accused infringing
`
`branch antenna is a multilevel structure because "the I ROO MH z structure is reused for the
`
`1900MHz structure").
`
`In its respondent brief. Requester identified why Owner's interpretation of "multil evel
`
`structure" is not supported by the specification , and how eac h reference still discloses a
`
`"multilevcl structu re" evcn under Owner's narrow defin ition. Requester's Respondent Brief to
`
`the' 1482 reexami nation, filed April 16,20 13 at 2-~). However, given Patent Owner"s reliance on
`
`operational cha racteristi cs to distinguiSh th e prior art, Requester is submitt ing an ex pcrt
`
`declaration with th is req uest TO provide technical ana lysis of the operational characteristi cs of the
`
`prior a li antennas, including measurements that confiml P011ioilS of the r1ior art antenna are
`
`reused for different frequency bands.
`
`Secont/lntel' Partes Reexamination
`
`On Septembcr 14,20 12. Requester fil ed a second inter partl!.~ reexamination requestin g
`
`reexamination of claims 1, 12- 14, and 30 of th e '43 1 pa tcnt. The Office a~igned the request
`Con trol l\io. 95i002,346 (hereinafter the '346 proceeding). Conc urrently, on September 14,20 12,
`
`Requester filed a petition seeking Director authorization for the filing of the second inter parlftS
`
`reexamination request prior to the issuance and publication of the inter partes reexamination
`
`ce11ificate in the first reexamina tion proceedin g.
`
`On November 23, 20 12, the Office ma iled a Decision deny ing Requester's Petition to
`
`authorize a second inter parltfS reexamination. Th e Office determined that Req uester may seek
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`12
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027.0012
`
`

`

`relief via ex parle reexam ination, and/or the district court , and was therefore barred from filing a
`
`second inter partes reexam ination. See Nov. 23, 2012 Decision 00 Petition For Authorization To
`
`File Second Request For lnter Partes Reexamination.
`
`E. REI.AT.ED lNTERPARTESREvlEW OF THE '431 PATENT
`
`On October 4, 20 13 Requester filed a petition for inter partes rev iew of th e '43 1 patent
`
`whieh was as...;;igned to ea.;;e number of JPR 20 14-000 11. The Offiee issued a notice that the filing
`
`date was grallled but no other act ivity has occurred in the ]PR as of the filing of th is ex parte
`
`reexamination requcst
`
`F. R.F.LATEO CO-PENDING LITI(;ATlO:\" R.F.QUIRES TI{f.A.TMFNT WITH SPECIAL
`DISPATCH AND PRtORITY OVER Au. OTHF:R CASES
`
`The ' 43 1 patent is presently the subject of the following co-pending liti gation :
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`FracllIs, S.A. v. Sall/sllng Electronics Co., Ltd. et 01.. "No. 6:09-cv-00203
`(E.D. Tcx).
`Fracllls, SA. v. SWI/sling Electronics Co., Ltd. el al., l\Jo. 6: J 2-cv-0042I
`(£.D. Tex) which was severed from Case No. 6:09-cv-00203 on June 28,
`201 2.
`
`See e.g., Exhibit OTH-A. Pursuant to 35 USc. § 314, the Requester respectfull y urges that this
`
`Request be granted and reexamination conduc ted not only with "s pecial dispatch," but also with
`
`"priority over all other cases" in accordance with MPEP § 266 1, due to the ongoing nature of
`
`the Underlying Litigation.
`
`G, Cl .A IMCO:"\SmUC1l0N
`For purposes of this Request, th e daim tenns arc presented by the Requester in accordance
`
`wi th the Patent Owner's broad infringement contentions and daim constlUction positions from
`
`litigation and in accordance wi th 37 C.F.R. § 1.555(b) and MPEP § 2 L I L. Specifically, Patent
`
`Owner hft.;;; asserted an extremely broad scope for the dailll,'; of the '43 J patent. See OTH-8, Patents
`
`Owner's 1nfringemenl Contentions and OTH-C, Patent Owner's infringement demonstrative
`
`presented during trial. While Requester does not agree with the reaso nableness of the Patent
`
`Owner's Infringement Contentioos, the Infringement Contentions provide admissiol1.<; by the Patent
`
`Owner regarding its belief on the scope of the claims. See OTH-B and OTH-C. Furthennore, each
`
`telm of the claims in the' 431 patent is to be given its "broadest reasonabl e construction" consistent
`
`with thc specifi cation . \r1PEP ~ 2 11 1; In re Swanson, 540 F. 3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Trans
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`13
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027.0013
`
`

`

`Texas Holding COIp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Yamamolo, 740 F.2d 1569,
`
`1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
`
`Multilevel Structure
`
`For purposes of this request, Requester accepts the exa miner's broadest rC<twllabl e
`interpretation of multilevel struc ture. 6 According to the exa miner, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation ofa multilevel structure is th e following;
`
`•
`
`"1\ plurality of polygons of the same type (i .e., same number of sides)
`
`• The polygons arc electromagnetically coupled, via direct contact or by clo~e
`
`proximity
`
`• At least 75% of the elemcnts (polygon~) have more than 50% of their perimeter
`
`not in co ntact with other c lements of the structure
`
`• Due to the above, one can in dividua lly distinguish most of the component
`
`polygons, presenting at least two levels of detaiL that of the overall structure, and
`
`that of the polygons that form it. To the extent this feature is not cla imed. it
`
`appears essential to the defini tion as it is the very reason behind the name
`
`multi leveL Col. 2 lines 34-38, 55-59.
`
`• The construction materials and the confi gurat ion in an antenna (i.e., monopole,
`
`dipole, patch, etc.) do not attcct the definition; the geometry of the struc ture is
`
`what matters. Col. 5 line 6~ - col. 61ine 22."
`
`Set! Right of Appeal Notic e of co-pending reexamination of the '4,) I patent, cntr!'
`
`#95/001 ,4g2, mailed August 9, 2012 at 5 (citing ' 431 patent at 4:51 el seq .). For comparison, the
`
`district COUl1 's construction reproduccd below:
`
`"a structure for an antenna useable at mUltiple frequency bands with at least two
`leve ls of detaiL, wherein one level of deta il makes up another level. These levels
`of detail are composed of polygons (polyhedrons) of the same type with the same
`number of sides (faccs) where in most of the polygons (polyhedrons) arc clearly
`
`6 Requester does oot dispute th e exa miner's construction based upon the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard given Patent Ovmer's admis.'iions regarding broadly assclled claim scope.
`However, Requester has asserted a more narrow construction ill the underlying litiga tion based
`on th e sta ndard of eonsf11Jc tion used in litigat ion . See in re Trans Texas Holding Corp., 498 F.3d
`1290, 129g (Fed. Cir. 2007) (eitirlgin re YamQmol(), 740 F.2d 1569, 157 1 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`ZTE v Fractus
`[PR2018-01461
`
`14
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1027.0014
`
`

`

`visibl e and individuall y distinguis hable and most of th e pol ygons (polyhedrons)
`hav ing an arca of contact, in terscction or interconnection with other ekments
`(po lygons or polyhedrons) that i.s Ics$ than 50% of the pelimcler or area."
`
`See, OTH-E, Claim Construction Order at 18- 19.
`
`In
`
`its appel11 of the' 1482 IPX, Owner conte:sted the ex aminer's interpretation of
`
`multil eve l structu re and argued it should instead be interpreted much more narrowly to cxclude
`
`cCl1ain antenna typcs and require cCl1ain functional characteristics. Thc ex ami ncr in revicwin g
`
`thc spccification did not agree that the specification supported thc narrowing language Owner
`
`proposes. See e.g., R ight of Appeal Notice of co-pending reexamination of tne '431 patent, cotr!.
`
`#95/001 ,41<.2, mai led August 9, 201 2 at 12. Notabl y, not even the natTo\.\/cr district court
`
`construction contains the excl usions Owner proposed. OTH-E, Claim Const ruct ion Order at I X-
`
`19. For the rcasons given below, the Patent Owner's nal1'Owing constructions should not be
`
`adopted.
`
`Patcnt Owncr's Proposed Exclusions arc Improper
`
`Patent Owner argued that "multilevel st ructu re" is a coined term and is defined to CJ(clude
`
`antennas incorporatillg reacti ve elements that force the apparition of new frequencies as we ll as
`
`antclUlas grouping scveral single band antClUlas. Patent Owner Appeal Brief to the '1482
`
`Reexa mination, fil ed February 22, 2013 at 3- 11. Patent Owner's support for this narrow
`
`definition is the statement in the spcci fication that purports to distinguish those types of antenna
`
`bccause " Mul til cve l antenna on the contrary base their behHv ior on Ih~ir particular geomefl),"
`
`'431 patent at 3:48-5 1.
`
`Th e pal1icLiIar geometry of a multilevel antenna as determined by the e.xamincr and the
`
`district COU11 is notcd above. Thus, if an antenna has the same geometry as. a multilevel strucnlre,
`
`it is not clear how it cou ld be excl uded even if the antenna incorporates reacti ve cle ments or is a
`
`group ing of severa l single band antennas. As s uch, the '431 patent fails t