throbber
Petitioner Demonstratives
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket