`Microsoft Corporation,
`v.
`Petitioner
`Iron Oak Technologies, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`IPR2019-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`Petitioner Microsoft, Ex.1012
`Microsoft Co. v. Iron Oak Technologies, LLC, IPR2019-00106
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability Addressing Claim 1
`Anticipation
`1.Sugita
`Obviousness
`2. Sugita
`3.Sugita in view of Burson
`4.Sugita in view of Kirouac(with or without
`Burson)
`5.Sugita in view of Ballard (with or without
`Bursonand Kirouac)
`
`Pet. at 5-6
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`1.The ’275 Patent
`2.Microsoft’s Petition
`3.Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`1.The ’275 Patent
`2.Microsoft’s Petition
`3.Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,699,275
`General Overview
`
`US8868705_Page_001.png
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), Abstract
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), Fig. 1
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,699,275
`General Overview
`US8868705_Page_001.png
`US8868705_Page_001.png
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), 5:7-9
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), 5:14-21
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), Fig. 1
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,699,275
`Claim 1
`
`US8868705_Page_001.png
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), Claim 1
`7
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`1.The ’275 Patent
`2.Microsoft’s Petition
`3.Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Sugita -Mobile Communications Terminal Update Method
`
`Sugita (Ex. 1005), Fig. 2 (Pet. at 28)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Sugita Anticipates Claim 1
`A System for Remote Patching
`
`Sugita (Ex. 1005), Fig. 2 (Pet. at 28)
`***
`
`’275 Patent at Claim 1
`
`Sugita (Ex. 1005), [0013] (Pet. at 27, 30)
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), Claim 1
`10
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Sugita Anticipates Claim 1
`A Manager Host
`
`Sugita (Ex. 1005), Fig. 2 (Pet. at 28)
`
`’275 Patent at Claim 1
`Sugita (Ex. 1005), [0035] (Pet. at 31)
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), Claim 1
`11
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Sugita Anticipates Claim 1
`A First and Second Mobile Unit That are Operable to Receive a Patch message
`
`Sugita (Ex. 1005), Fig. 2 (Pet. at 36)
`
`Sugita (Ex. 1005), [0044] (Pet. at 37)
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), Claim 1
`12
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Sugita Anticipates Claim 1
`Each Mobile Unit is Operable to Create and Execute Patched Operating Code
`’275 Patent at Claim 1
`Sugita (Ex. 1005), [0035] (Pet. at 39)
`
`Sugita (Ex. 1005), [0046] (Pet. at 39)
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), Claim 1
`13
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Sugita Anticipates Claim 1
`A Manager Host Addressing a Patch Message –Group ID
`
`Ex. 1005 (Sugita), [0013] (Pet. at 44-45)
`
`***
`Ex. 1003 (Dr. White), ¶151 (Pet. at 44-45)
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), Claim 1
`14
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Sugita Anticipates Claim 1
`A Manager Host Addressing a Patch Message –Individual ID
`
`Ex. 1003 (Dr. White’s Decl.), ¶¶153-154 (Pet. at 45-46)
`
`Ex. 1005 (Sugita), [0028] (Pet. at 45-46)
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), Claim 1
`15
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`1.The ’275 Patent
`2.Microsoft’s Petition
`3.Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Response
`Claim 1 Does Not Require The Temporal Limitation Patent Owner Argues
`
`PO Resp. at 7
`
`PO Resp. at 7
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), Claim 1
`17
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,699,275
`Claim 1
`
`US8868705_Page_001.png
`
`’275 Patent (Ex. 1001), Claim 1
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`Patent Owner Does Not Address ParkerVisionv. Qualcomm
`
`PO Sur-Reply at 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`Claim 1 Does Not Require Operability in Any Particular
`Circumstance or Time
`Similarly, a prior art reference may anticipate or render obvious an apparatus
`claim—depending on the claim language—if the reference discloses an
`apparatus that is reasonably capable of operating so as to meet the claim
`limitations, even if it does not meet the claim limitations in all modes of
`operation.
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, 903 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`cited by Pet. Reply at 4, 5-6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Response
`PO Mischaracterizes Sugita
`* * *
`
`PO Resp. at 8-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Petition
`Sugita’s Base Station Sends Patch Message to
`a Specific Group of Mobile Units and Not Others
`
`Ex. 1005 (Sugita), [0013] (Pet. at 44-45)
`
`’275 Patent (Ex.1001), Claim 1
`
`***
`
`Ex. 1003 (Dr. White), ¶151 (Pet 44-45) (Pet. Reply 10-11)
`22
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Petition
`Sugita’s Base Station Sends Patch Message to
`a Specific Group of Mobile Units and Not Others
`
`Ex. 1005 (Sugita), [0013] (Pet. at 44-45)
`
`’275 Patent (Ex.1001), Claim 1
`
`***
`
`Ex. 1003 (Dr. White), ¶151 (Pet 44-45) (Pet. Reply 10-11)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`Petition
`Sugita’s Base Station Sends Patch Message to
`an Individual Mobile Unit and Not Others
`
`Ex. 1005 (Sugita), [0028] (Pet. at 45-46)
`
`Pet. Reply at 2-3
`
`’275 Patent (Ex.1001), Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1003 (Dr. White’s Decl.), ¶¶153-154 (Pet. at 45-46)
`24
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admits
`
`PO Sur-Reply at 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`Patent Owner Mischaracterizes Petitioner’s “Meant For” Statement
`
`PO Sur-Reply at 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Petition Argued Group Transmissions Were Addressed
`to Different Groups
`
`Pet. at 45
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s “Meant For” Argument Ignores
`Alternative Individual Transmission of Sugita
`
`Ex. 1003 (Dr. White Decl.), ¶156 (Pet. at 46-47)
`
`Ex. 1003 (Dr. White’s Decl.), ¶¶153-154 (Pet. at 45-46)
`
`Ex. 1005 (Sugita), [0039] (Pet. at 45-46)
`
`Ex. 1005 (Sugita), [0028] (Pet. at 45-46)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Response
`PO Mischaracterized Petitioner’s Alternative Argument That Meets PO’s Claim Interpretation
`
`PO Resp. at 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`Alternative Argument in Petition
`Sugita discloses sending update information to multiple non-updated terminals using individual IDs
`
`Ex. 1005 (Sugita), [0028] (Pet. at 46-47)
`
`Pet. at 45-46 (Pet. Reply at 12)
`
`Ex. 1005 (Sugita), [0039] (Pet. at 46-47)
`
`Ex. 1003 (Dr. White Decl.), ¶156 (Pet. at 46-47)
`30
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Obviousness Grounds
`• Anticipation
`1.Sugita
`• Obviousness
`2. Sugita
`3.Sugita in view of Burson
`4.Sugita in view of Kirouac(with or without Burson)
`5.Sugita in view of Ballard (with or without Burson
`and Kirouac)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Sugita Alone
`
`* * *
`
`Sugita (Ex. 1005), [0046] (Pet. at 39, 47-48)
`
`Ex. 1003 (Dr. White Decl.), ¶¶129, 131-132 (Pet. at 47-48)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Sugita and Burson
`
`Burson(Ex. 1008), 5:4-7 (Pet. at 48)
`
`Ex. 1003 (Dr. White Decl.), ¶¶106-107 (Pet. at 49-50)
`
`Burson(Ex. 1008), Fig. 3 (Pet. at 48)
`33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Sugita and Kirouac
`
`Ex. 1003 (Dr. White Decl.), ¶126 (Pet. at 53-54)
`
`Kirouac(Ex. 1007), 4:25-29, (Pet. at 51)
`
`* * *
`Kirouac(Ex. 1007), 13:13-28 (Pet. at 52-53)
`34
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Sugita and Ballard
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1003 (Dr. White Decl.), ¶¶137, 142 (Pet. at 58-59)
`
`Ballard (Ex. 1006), 7:16-25 (Pet. at 57)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`