Demonstratives of Petitioner
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`IPR2018-01552
`IPR2018-01553
`Oral Hearing: November 4, 2019
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1043
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Iron Oak Technologies, LLC
`IPR2018-01553
`
`Page 1 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`IPR2018-01552
`IPR2018-01553
`Oral Hearing: November 4, 2019
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1043
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Iron Oak Technologies, LLC
`IPR2018-01553
`
`Page 1 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`• IPR2018-01552:
`o Claim 1 as anticipated by Sugita
`o Claim 1 as obvious over Sugita and Wortham
`o Claim 1 as obvious over Ballard and Shimizu
`• IPR2018-01553:
`o Claim 1 as obvious over Hapka and Parrillo
`o Claim 1 as obvious over Hapka, Parrillo, and Wortham
`
`-01552 Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 26; -01553 Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 19
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The ’275 Patent: Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The ’275 Patent: Claim 14
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 14
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`• Petitioner’s Proposed Constructions:
`o “mobile unit”
`o “operating code”
`o “[manager host operable to] initiate transmission [through a wireless
`communication network of at least one discrete patch message defining
`at least one patch]”
`o “merging the at least one patch with current operating code”
`o “[manager host is further operable to] address [the at least one discrete
`patch message]”
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 8-16; -01553 Petition (Paper 1) at 9-16;
`-01552 Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 4; -01553 Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 4
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`•
`
`Institution Decision Constructions:
`o “merging the at least one patch with current operating code”
` Construction: “incorporating the at least one patch into the current
`operating code, without replacing the entire current operating code”
`
`o “[manager host is further operable to] address [the at least one
`discrete patch message]”
` Construction: “[manager host is further operable to] decide which
`specific mobile unit to send [the at least one discrete patch
`message] to before beginning transmission” of the message
`
`o No other terms were expressly construed by the Board
`
`-01552 Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 4-7; -01553 Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 4-7
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`• Patent Owner’s Implied Interpretations:
`o Second Mobile Unit
`“[A] mobile unit whose operating code has been updated by the patch
`
`message cannot be a ‘second mobile unit’because that unit no longer is
`‘operable to create patched operating code by merging the at least one
`patch with current operating code.’”
`
`
`
`
`
`“the Board failed to recognize that claim 1 requires that at the time of
`transmission of the patch message by the manager host both mobile units
`must be operable to create patched operating code from current operating
`code”
`
`“And, this same patch message is what the Second Mobile Unit must be
`operable to create ‘patched operating code’ from. If the alleged Second
`Mobile Unit cannot create patched operating code from that patch message
`(such as because the operating code is already patched) that unit cannot be
`the ‘Second Mobile Unit’ of claim 1 for purposes of that patch message.”
`
`-01552 PO Response (Paper 16) at 6-7; PO Sur-Reply (Paper 21) at 3
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`• The ’275 Patent Specification:
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:61-62, 5:14-25
`-01552 Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 7-8
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability Issues
`
`•
`
`•
`
`IPR2018-01552:
`o Sugita discloses the claimed “manager host” and “second mobile unit”
`features
`o Ballard in view of Shimizudisclosed the claimed “manager host” and
`“second mobile unit” features
`
`IPR2018-01553:
`o Hapka in view of Parrillo discloses the claimed “manager host” and
`“second mobile unit” features
`
`-01552 PO Response (Paper 16) at 7; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 9-18; PO Sur-Reply (Paper 21) at 2-9
`-01553 PO Response (Paper 18) at 3-9; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 3-16; PO Sur-Reply (Paper 21) at 2-9
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability Issues
`
`•
`
`•
`
`IPR2018-01552:
`o Sugita discloses the claimed “manager host” and “second mobile unit”
`features
`o Ballard in view of Shimizudisclosed the claimed “manager host” and
`“second mobile unit” features
`
`IPR2018-01553:
`o Hapka in view of Parrillo discloses the claimed “manager host” and
`“second mobile unit” features
`
`-01552 PO Response (Paper 16) at 7; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 9-18; PO Sur-Reply (Paper 21) at 2-9
`-01553 PO Response (Paper 18) at 3-9; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 3-16; PO Sur-Reply (Paper 21) at 2-9
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Sugita
`
`• Patent Owner:
`o Sugita’s group ID features do not disclose the claimed
`“manager host” and “second mobile unit” features
`o Sugita’s individual ID features do not disclose the claimed
`“manager host” and “second mobile unit”
`
`-01552 PO Response (Paper 16) at 4-19; PO Sur-Reply (Paper 21) at 2-12
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Sugita
`
`• Sugita:
`
`Sugita (Ex. 1005) at Fig. 2
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Sugita
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`Sugita
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:6-31
`
`Sugita (Ex. 1005) at ¶¶ 11, 36, 49
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Sugita
`
`• Sugita’s Group ID Features:
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 37-38; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 9-12
`Sugita (Ex. 1005) at ¶¶ 12, 13
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Sugita
`
`• Sugita’s Group ID Features:
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 37-38; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 9-12
`Sugita (Ex. 1005) at ¶¶ 14, 15
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Sugita
`
`• Sugita’s Individual ID Features:
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 38-39; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 13-16
`Sugita (Ex. 1005) at ¶¶ 12, 13
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Sugita
`
`• Sugita’s Individual ID Features:
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 38-39; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 13-16
`Sugita (Ex. 1005) at ¶¶ 14, 15, 41
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Sugita
`
`• Sugita’s Individual ID Features:
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 38-39; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 13-16
`Sugita (Ex. 1005) at ¶ 48, [Figure 4]
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Sugita
`
`• Petition: “first mobile unit”
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 30-35; Bederson Decl. (Ex. 1002) at ¶¶ 23-28, 31-32, 45-48, 91-97
`Sugita (Ex. 1005) at ¶¶ 13, 25, 28, 43-48
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Sugita
`
`• Petition: “second mobile unit”
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 36; Bederson Decl. (Ex. 1002) at ¶¶ 23-28, 31-32, 45-48, 99
`Sugita (Ex. 1005) at ¶¶ 11-15, 17, 43-47
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Sugita
`
`• Petition: “manager host”
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 37-38
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Sugita
`
`• Sugita:
`o Group ID
` Sugita discloses a “manager host” that sends a patch message to a
`“first mobile unit” (in one group), but not a “second mobile unit”
`(in a different group), where each unit is operable as claimed
`o Individual ID
` Sugita discloses a “manager host” that sends a patch message to a
`“first mobile unit” (individually, one at a time), but not a “second
`mobile unit” (unit subsequent in the list to be updated individually),
`where each unit is operable as claimed
`
`-01552 Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 9-18; Petition (Paper 1) at 30-38
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability Issues
`
`•
`
`•
`
`IPR2018-01552:
`o Sugita discloses the claimed “manager host” and “second mobile unit”
`features
`o Ballard in view of Shimizudisclosed the claimed “manager host” and
`“second mobile unit” features
`
`IPR2018-01553:
`o Hapka in view of Parrillo discloses the claimed “manager host” and
`“second mobile unit” features
`
`-01552 PO Response (Paper 16) at 7; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 9-18; PO Sur-Reply (Paper 21) at 2-9
`-01553 PO Response (Paper 18) at 3-9; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 3-16; PO Sur-Reply (Paper 21) at 2-9
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Ballard-Shimizu
`
`• Patent Owner:
`o Ballard-Shimizu combination does not disclose the claimed
`“manager host” and “second mobile unit” features
`o Patent Owner’s sur-reply did not address Petitioner’s reply
`arguments regarding Ballard-Shimizu
`
`-01552 PO Response (Paper 16) at 21-23; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 17-18; Patent Owner Sur-Reply (Paper 21)
`
`24
`
`Page 24 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Ballard-Shimizu
`
`• Patent Owner:
`
`-01552 PO Resp. (Paper 16) at 21-22
`
`25
`
`Page 25 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Ballard-Shimizu
`
`• Ballard:
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 45-70; Ballard (Ex. 1006), Fig. 1
`
`26
`
`Page 26 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Ballard-Shimizu
`
`• Ballard:
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 45-70; Ballard (Ex. 1006) at 2:1-5, 4:13-15
`
`27
`
`Page 27 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Ballard-Shimizu
`
`• Ballard-Shimizu: “manager host”
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 68; Ballard (Ex. 1006) at 4:14-18
`
`28
`
`Page 28 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Ballard-Shimizu
`
`• Petition: Ballard-Shimizu (“manager host”)
`
`• Ballard:
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 68; Ballard (Ex. 1006) at 4:24-27
`
`29
`
`Page 29 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Ballard-Shimizu
`
`• Petition: Ballard-Shimizu
`(“manager host”)
`
`• Ballard:
`
`-01552 Petition (Paper 1) at 69-70; Ballard (Ex. 1006) at 4:27-34
`
`30
`
`Page 30 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01552)
`Ballard-Shimizu
`
`• Petitioner’s Reply:
`
`-01552 Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 17-18
`
`31
`
`Page 31 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The ’275 Patent: Claim 1
`
`Ballard
`
`Claim 1
`
`Ballard (Ex. 1006) at 4:14-18, 4:27-34
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1
`
`32
`
`Page 32 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The ’275 Patent: Claim 1
`
`Ballard
`
`Claim 1
`
`Ballard (Ex. 1006) at Fig. 1 (excerpt)
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1
`
`33
`
`Page 33 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability Issues
`
`•
`
`•
`
`IPR2018-01552:
`o Sugita discloses the claimed “manager host” and “second mobile unit”
`features
`o Ballard in view of Shimizudisclosed the claimed “manager host” and
`“second mobile unit” features
`
`IPR2018-01553:
`o Hapka in view of Parrillo discloses the claimed “manager host” and
`“second mobile unit” features
`
`-01553 PO Response (Paper 18) at 3-9; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 3-16; PO Sur-Reply (Paper 21) at 2-9
`
`34
`
`Page 34 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01553)
`Hapka-Parrillo
`
`• Patent Owner:
`o “Petitioner’s Reply argues that the ‘operable to’ claim phrasing . . . means that
`any prior art that discloses a reasonable capability of updating software
`discloses this claim element.”
`
`o “A prior art reference that discloses a reasonable capability to create patched
`operating code without also disclosing that the patched operating code is created
`by merging the at least one patch with current operating code, without
`replacing the current operating code cannot disclose that it is ‘reasonably
`capable of operating so as to meet the claim limitations.’”
`
`o “[N]owhere does Hapka disclose that [its] ‘software’ or ‘firmware’ is modified,
`let alone ‘patched’ as required by Claim 1.”
`
`o “Neither Petitioner nor its expert separately argues how or where Hapka
`discloses that the alleged ‘second’ mobile unit was operable to be updated by
`the same patch (i.e., ‘the at least one discrete patch message’) that updated the
`first mobile unit, as required by claim 1.”
`
`-01553 PO Sur-Reply (Paper 21) at 4, 5, 7, 8
`
`35
`
`Page 35 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01553)
`Hapka-Parrillo
`
`• Hapka:
`
`-01553 Petition (Paper 1) at 48-55; Hapka (Ex. 1008), Figs. 1a, 1b
`
`36
`
`Page 36 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01553)
`Hapka-Parrillo
`
`• Hapka’s “first mobile unit” and “second mobile unit”:
`
`-01553 Petition (Paper 1) at 48-55; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 9-11; Hapka (Ex. 1008) at 4:5-37
`
`37
`
`Page 37 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01553)
`Hapka-Parrillo
`
`• Hapka’s “first mobile unit” and “second mobile unit”:
`
`-01553 Petition (Paper 1) at 48-55; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 9-11; Hapka (Ex. 1008) at 8:33-61
`
`38
`
`Page 38 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01553)
`Hapka-Parrillo
`
`• Parrillo:
`
`-01553 Petition (Paper 1) at 56-57; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 15-16
`-01553 Parrillo (Ex. 1009) at Fig. 1, 2:10-14, 4:60-5:2, 5:14-19
`
`39
`
`Page 39 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01553)
`Hapka-Parrillo
`
`• Petition: Parrillo
`
`-01553 Petition (Paper 1) at 56-57; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 15-16
`
`40
`
`Page 40 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01553)
`Hapka-Parrillo
`
`• Petition: Hapka-Parrillo
`
`-01553 Petition (Paper 1) at 54, 57-58; Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 15-16
`
`41
`
`Page 41 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01553)
`Hapka-Parrillo
`
`-01553 Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 13
`
`42
`
`Page 42 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Unpatentability (IPR2018-01553)
`Hapka-Parrillo
`
`•
`
`IPR2018-01553:
`
`o Hapka-Parrillo discloses a “manager host” (e.g., computer 12 operated
`by a fleet manager) that can selectively address a “first mobile unit”
`(system 36 on a first targeted vehicle in the fleet) to send a patch
`message, but not a “second mobile unit” (system 36 on a non-targeted
`vehicle in the fleet), where each unit is operable as claimed
`
`-01553 Petitioner Reply (Paper 20) at 3-16; Petition (Paper 1) at 17-61
`
`43
`
`Page 43 of 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
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
