UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA et al.,
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONERS’ REPLY AND TO EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED WITH PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`1 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Including pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23 and 42.64, Patent Owner hereby objects to the
`following issues and matters, including theories, arguments and evidence included in and with
`Petitioners’ Reply filed on October 15, 2019. These objections are timely filed, including
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64.
`Page or
`Material objected to
`Exhibit
`Strawn1
`p. 4
`
`Objections
`
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/
`approach/issue for reply, including
`under 37 CFR § 42.23, including
`because it does not only or properly
`respond to arguments raised in
`Cellspin’s opposition, but rather it
`belatedly raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that could have
`been raised in the Petition and
`should not be considered in a reply.
`Without limitation, this attempt at a
`new, catch-all theory for
`obviousness (including that lacks
`any substance and is, at most,
`wholly conclusory), as well as the
`other new matters in the quoted text
`at left, is new and improper on reply.
`Cellspin further objects to those
`portions of the reply that rely upon
`these materials from the Second
`Strawn Declaration, including for
`the same reasons.
`
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/
`approach/issue for reply, including
`under 37 CFR § 42.23, including
`because it does not only or properly
`respond to arguments raised in
`Cellspin’s opposition, but rather it
`belatedly raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that could have
`been raised in the Petition and
`should not be considered in a reply.
`Without limitation, this new attempt
`to assert that the entering of the
`
`... Furthermore, it is my opinion
`10.
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have had many reasons to
`combine, supplement, and/or modify the
`teachings of Mashita, Onishi, and
`Hiraishi to create the systems claimed in
`the Challenged Claims. Additionally,
`because the combination of Mashita,
`Onishi, and Hiraishi to create the systems
`claimed in the Challenged Claims
`involves using well-known components
`and technologies, according to their
`established functions, with only minor
`modifications, a POSITA would have
`reasonably expected success.
`Accordingly, the Challenged Claims
`would have been obvious in view of
`Mashita, Onishi, and Hiraishi.
`
`Strawn
`pp. 5-8
`
`13. … Furthermore, I based my
`understanding on the definition of “paired
`device” in the Bluetooth Specification: “A
`Bluetooth device with which a link key has
`been exchanged (either before connection
`establishment was requested or during
`connecting phase.” [Exhibit 2018, p. 92].
`This definition, coupled with the overall
`description of pairing in the Bluetooth
`Specification, means that if a PIN has been
`successfully entered (for example by
`matching PIN codes), as Mashita discloses,
`then Bluetooth pairing occurs. I used this
`definition of “pairing” when I was analyzing
` 
`1 “Strawn” refers to the Second Strawn Declaration at Exh. 1024.
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`

`Page or
`Exhibit
`
`Material objected to
`
`Objections
`
`Mashita PIN results in Bluetooth
`pairing, that Mashita’s PIN
`exchange comprises Bluetooth
`pairing, that the Mashita PIN is a
`Bluetooth PIN, that the Bluetooth
`specification supports the Mashita
`PIN resulting in pairing and/or a link
`key; that a Mashita PIN is sufficient
`for pairing, and/or that the Mashita
`PIN is used for a link key, as well as
`the other new matters in the quoted
`text at left, is new, could have been
`raised in the Petition and is improper
`on reply. Further, without
`limitation, Dr. Strawn and
`Petitioners’ original theory was that
`Mashita’s PIN exchange resulted in
`pairing in and of itself and without
`parallels, analogies or other links
`being made to specific Bluetooth
`methods. Without limitation, the
`discussion of Bluetooth, PINs,
`pairing, keys, algorithms and/or
`encryption at left is a new and
`improper
`direction/theory/argument/approach/
`issue that is improper on reply.
`Cellspin further objects to those
`portions of the reply that rely upon
`these materials from the Second
`Strawn Declaration, including for
`the same reasons.
`
`
`Mashita.
`13. My understanding is confirmed for
`example in the Bluetooth Specification
`[Exhibit 2018, pp. 865-867; Figure 3.1,
`reproduced also Foley Declaration, ¶1011].
`According to the Bluetooth Specification, if a
`PIN has been input to both devices, and the
`connection is successful (by matching the
`PIN codes), pairing has happened.
`14. … The fact remains that Bluetooth
`pairing necessarily occurs in order for these
`subsequent steps to occur, contrary to the
`Foley Declaration.
`15.
`The PIN, entered by the user during
`Bluetooth pairing, is combined with the
`Bluetooth Device Address BD_ADDR
`during authentication, generating an
`“initialization key:” “When the initialization
`key is generated, the PIN is augmented with
`the BD_ADDR.” [Exhibit 2018, p. 1032].
`The initialization key is then used to create a
`link key: “When both devices have calculated
`Kinit [the initialization key] the link key shall
`be created, and a mutual authentication is
`performed.” [Exhibit 2018, p. 412 (emphasis
`added)]. The link key is generated using an
`algorithm called E22, with the PIN and
`BD_ADDR as inputs [ibid., p. 1032; pp.
`1055-1057]. The output of algorithm E22 is
`the 128-bit link key [ibid., p. 1055]. For
`authentication, the link key is involved: “The
`link key itself is used in the authentication
`routine.” [ibid., p. 1029]. As the Bluetooth
`Specification states, the “key generating
`algorithm” exploits a “cryptographic
`function.” [ibid., p. 1056].
`16.
`As I outlined in the Strawn
`Declaration [¶83], this is exactly what
`happens in Mashita. The BD_ADDR of the
`Bluetooth Specification is the “physical
`address” of Mashita cited in the Strawn
`Declaration. The PIN of the Bluetooth
`Specification is the PIN of Mashita, and that
`PIN is used during Bluetooth pairing.
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`

`Page or
`Exhibit
`
`Strawn
`pp. 9-10
`
` 
`
`Material objected to
`
`Objections
`
`Authentication in Bluetooth [e.g., Exhibit
`2018, p. 1048 et seq.] is the “connection
`authentication” of Mashita [Strawn
`Declaration, ¶85].
`17. … To clarify, pairing explicitly
`happens if a PIN is exchanged, as in Mashita,
`and the link key required for authentication is
`then calculated from the PIN. Furthermore, if
`pairing happened previously and a link key
`derived from the PIN already exists, then the
`link key is simply provided and pairing need
`not be repeated this time.
`18.
`The Bluetooth Specification further
`clarifies that the use of PIN input confirms
`that pairing has happened. As I noted above,
`Mashita discloses that “an identical Personal
`Identification Number (PIN) code is input to
`both the cellular phone 102 and the digital
`camera 101.” [Mashita, 0051]. Step 7a
`discussed above is shown in more detail in
`another illustration in the Bluetooth
`Specification, in which the PIN input step is
`shown explicitly for both devices as “User
`Inputs PIN Code” [Exhibit 2018, p. 866], as
`disclosed in Mashita. The expanded
`illustration makes it clear that if a PIN is
`input by a user, the devices are performing
`“Step 7a: Pairing during connection
`establishment” in the words of the caption to
`the illustration [ibid.,
`p. 866]. Although this discussion refers to
`Version 2.1 + EDR, earlier versions of the
`Bluetooth Specification documents also
`described using a PIN input to establish a
`paired connection. I discussed this in Strawn
`Declaration with reference to Version
`2.0 + EDR. [Ex. 1001, ¶87, citing Ex. 1017,
`p. 251]. In addition, the Bluetooth
`Specification notes that using a 4-digit PIN
`for pairing was common for devices
`compliant with both Version 2.0 + EDR “and
`earlier versions.” [Ex. 2018, p. 131].
`20. … Because Mashita discloses that a
`PIN is “input to both the cellular phone 102
`
`4 
`
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/approach/
`
`

`

`Page or
`Exhibit
`
`Material objected to
`
`Objections
`
`and the digital camera 101,” with both being
`Bluetooth devices, and because Mashita then
`discloses “an authentication process for local
`wireless connection,” a POSITA would
`understand that Mashita clearly discloses that
`Bluetooth pairing has in fact occurred, as I
`outlined above.
`21. … Mashita does not need to recite the
`details of every single step in the Bluetooth
`Specification in order for POSITA to
`understand that a link key is calculated,
`derived from the PIN…
`22.
`It is important to distinguish between
`what happens in Bluetooth with the PIN
`during pairing and authentication, and what
`happens later when data is to be encrypted.
`The user input of a PIN generates a link key,
`as described above, which can be further
`incorporated into a later step in which actual
`data transferred between the camera and
`cellular phone, such as image data, is
`encrypted. This is the separate step 8 in the
`illustration (Exhibit 2018, Figure 3.1)
`reproduced in the Foley Declaration [¶101].
`Encrypted communication in this sense can
`only follow authentication which, as I have
`shown, requires pairing: “If at least one
`authentication has been performed encryption
`may be used.” [Exhibit 2018, p. 418]. As I
`discussed, the PIN is used to derive the
`authentication key, which in turn is used to
`derive an encryption key for data exchange:
`“The encryption key is derived from the
`authentication key [i.e., link key] during the
`authentication process.” [Exhibit 2018, p.
`1025, see also p. 1026 (noting that the
`authentication key “is often referred to as the
`link key”), p. 1034]. The Challenged Claims
`do not require encryption of data passed
`between camera and cellular phone, such as
`image data. Even if there were such a data
`encryption requirement, a POSITA would
`understand that the PIN, device address,
`pairing, and authentication disclosed in
`
`issue for reply, including under 37
`CFR § 42.23, including because it
`does not only or properly respond to
`arguments raised in Cellspin’s
`opposition, but rather it belatedly
`raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that could have
`been raised in the Petition and
`should not be considered in a reply.
`Without limitation, this new attempt
`to assert that Mashita discloses
`Bluetooth pairing, a link key is
`calculated/derived from the Mashita
`PIN, that Mashita discloses
`encryption including encryption/link
`keys and/or that Mashita’s
`authentication results in encryption,
`that “the PIN, device address,
`pairing, and authentication disclosed
`in Mashita provide the prerequisites
`for such data encryption in
`Bluetooth as well as the other new
`matters in the quoted text at left, is
`new and improper on reply. Further,
`without limitation, Dr. Strawn and
`Petitioners’ original theory was that
`Mashita’s PIN exchange resulted in
`pairing in and of itself and without
`parallels, analogies or other links
`being made to specific Bluetooth
`methods, and that the alleged
`encryption of Mashita consisted of
`the PIN being secret. Without
`limitation, all of the discussion of
`Bluetooth, PINs, pairing, keys and
`encryption at left belatedly raises
`new directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that are improper
`on reply. Cellspin further objects to
`those portions of the reply that rely
`upon these materials from the
`Second Strawn Declaration,
`including for the same reasons.
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`

`Page or
`Exhibit
`
`Strawn
`p. 11
`
`Material objected to
`
`Mashita provide the prerequisites for such
`data encryption in Bluetooth.
`25. … Even leaving aside this rule, from
`a technical perspective I do not see a
`distinction between using a client application
`composed of multiple modules and the
`combination of Mashita and Hiraishi, which
`would render such an approach obvious.
`
`Strawn
`pp. 12-
`14
`
`The ’698 patent teaches that the
`27.
`“Client Application 203” of FIG. 2 consists
`of several modules, one of which can
`implement HTTP as one of several steps. My
`understanding of module is confirmed by the
`Foley Deposition [82:8- 83:18].
`28.
`In the ’698 patent one such “module”
`is the DATA TRANSFER PROTOCOL
`MODULE 203c [’698 patent, FIG. 2] which
`is responsible for “implementing the protocol
`for data transfer.” [Foley Deposition, 83:14-
`18]. The protocol in the ’698 patent can be
`HTTP: “The transport protocol that is used
`between the client application 203 and the
`publishing service 401 may be hypertext
`transfer protocol (HTTP)” [’698 patent, 10:9-
`13]. The HTTP protocol is one of the steps
`inside the DATA TRANSFER PROTOCOL
`MODULE 203c; and a module can perform
`several steps such as HTTP: “But let’s be
`clear. One module could perform multiple of
`
` 
`
`6 
`
`Objections
`
`
`
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/approach/
`issue for reply, including under 37
`CFR § 42.23, including because it
`does not only or properly respond to
`arguments raised in Cellspin’s
`opposition, but rather it belatedly
`raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that could have
`been raised in the Petition and
`should not be considered in a reply.
`Without limitation, this new
`discussion/theory of modules and
`this new obviousness theory are
`improper on reply. Cellspin further
`objects to those portions of the reply
`that rely upon these materials from
`the Second Strawn Declaration,
`including for the same reasons.
`
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/
`approach/issue for reply, including
`under 37 CFR § 42.23, including
`because it does not only or properly
`respond to arguments raised in
`Cellspin’s opposition, but rather it
`belatedly raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that could have
`been raised in the Petition and
`should not be considered in a reply.
`Without limitation, with the
`exception of Petitioners’ claim
`construction argument that an
`application allegedly refers to one or
`more applications, the entire
`discussion of applications and
`modules in the Reply and in the
`Strawn declaration, including at left,
`is new and improper on reply, and
`
`

`

`Page or
`Exhibit
`
`Material objected to
`
`Objections
`
`further the new obviousness theory
`is new and improper on reply.
`Cellspin further objects to those
`portions of the reply that rely upon
`these materials from the Second
`Strawn Declaration, including for
`the same reasons.
`
`the steps.” [Foley Deposition, 84:2-7]. Thus,
`the ’698 patent teaches that the client
`application consists of several modules, and
`each module can perform several steps, one
`of which can be HTTP.
`29.
`To a POSITA, this modular
`programming approach would have been
`obvious in view of Mashita combined with
`Hiraishi. Hiraishi teaches that software can
`consist of modules [Strawn Declaration ¶124,
`citing Exhibit 1009 “Hiraishi”, 0028
`(referring to “photo sharing module 105” of
`the photo site]. Hiraishi teaches that “the
`selected image data is automatically
`transferred by the dedicated image uploading
`software.” [Hiraishi, 0026, cited in the
`Strawn Declaration ¶124, see also Hiraishi,
`0023, cited ibid.]. A POSITA understands
`Hiraishi’s “dedicated image uploading
`software” is not necessarily referring to a
`separate application, but could be nothing
`more than a module in the overall “dedicated
`software installed in the PC” [Hiraishi 0017,
`cited in the Strawn Declaration ¶198]. In
`Hiraishi one part of the “dedicated image
`uploading software” is HTTP: “Then, the
`selected image data is automatically
`transferred by the dedicated image uploading
`software. In either case, transfer is executed
`based on a protocol available on the Internet
`104, such as HTTP or FTP.” [Hiraishi, 0026,
`cited in the Strawn Declaration ¶124]. A
`POSITA understands that an HTTP
`implementation as described here is not a
`separate program; a module implements
`HTTP, or invokes HTTP like any other
`subroutine.
`30.
`Thus, even if the claim language
`required a single application, Mashita with
`Hiraishi discloses this limitation [Strawn
`Declaration, ¶¶120-125]. In any event, this
`limitation would have been obvious in view
`of the combination of Mashita and Hiraishi.
`As I noted above, Hiraishi expressly
`
` 
`
`7 
`
`

`

`Page or
`Exhibit
`
`Strawn
`pp. 17-
`19
`
`Material objected to
`
`Objections
`
`discloses the use of modular programming.
`This approach to programming was very
`well-known to those skilled in the art as of
`2007. The benefits of this programming
`approach (versus implementing each
`different function in a separate application)
`were well- known to POSITAs, as
`exemplified by the use of modular
`programming dating back to Hiraishi (2002),
`years before the ’698 patent. A POSITA
`would have faced no particular difficulty in
`programming the Mashita and Hiraishi
`combination using a modular approach. To
`this end, I note that the ’698 patent
`specification discloses no details about how
`to program the client application 203a with
`different modules, implicitly indicating that
`the patent applicants considered such
`programming to be within the capabilities of
`a POSITA.
`40.
`HTTP and FTP are more closely
`related than might appear initially, and, as
`Hiraishi states, the choice is in many ways
`one of design, at the implementer’s
`discretion. As background, both are
`protocols, as indicated by “P” in the
`abbreviation: HTTP is the HyperText
`Transfer Protocol, and FTP is the File
`Transfer Protocol. Both are part of the larger
`set of protocols that form the Internet
`Protocol (“IP”) suite. The standards
`documents for the Internet Protocol suite are
`maintained by the IETF [www.ietf.org] and
`are known as “RFC” which stands for
`“request for comment.” The current
`“standard” for FTP is RFC 959. [FN 2:
`https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc959 [Exhibit
`1026]. HTTP is well known to users of
`Internet browsers such as Internet Explorer,
`Bing, and Safari; the current standard is RFC
`7230.[[FN 3:
`https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230 [Exhibit
`1030]]]
`41.
`The protocols in the Internet Protocol
`
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/
`approach/issue for reply, including
`under 37 CFR § 42.23, including
`because it does not only or properly
`respond to arguments raised in
`Cellspin’s opposition, but rather it
`belatedly raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that could have
`been raised in the Petition and
`should not be considered in a reply.
`Without limitation, the entire
`discussion of HTTP vs. FTP is new
`and an improper attempt to assert a
`theory equating and/or linking FTP
`and HTTP that is new and improper
`on reply. Further without limitation,
`the entire discussion of HTTP vs.
`FTP at left belatedly raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that are improper
`on reply. Cellspin further objects to
`those portions of the reply that rely
`
` 
`
`8 
`
`

`

`Page or
`Exhibit
`
`Exh.
`1026
`
` 
`
`Material objected to
`
`Objections
`
`suite are grouped into four layers, named
`(from the bottom) Link, Internet, Transport,
`and Application.[[FN 4: See, for example,
`https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122.[Exhibit
`1027]]] Grouping networking protocols into
`layers is a well-established practice in
`networking. The canonical division for
`network layers is given by the Open Systems
`Interconnection model (OSI) standardized by
`the International Standards Organization
`(ISO). [[FN 5:
`https://www.iso.org/standard/20269.html
`[Exhibit 1028]]] The Internet Protocol suite
`follows the example of the OSI in spirit. FTP
`is in the top- most, or application, layer of the
`Internet Protocol suite. HTTP is likewise at
`the top-most, or application, layer of the
`Internet Protocol suite. As such, both HTTP
`and FTP draw on the same lower transport
`layer, Internet layer, and link layer of the
`Internet Protocol suite. For example, both
`HTTP and FTP use TCP [[FN 6:
`https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc793 [Exhibit
`1031]]], the Transmission Control Protocol in
`the transport layer. Thus, it makes no sense to
`conclude that Mashita somehow drives a
`wedge between HTTP and FTP.
`42.
`HTTP is a well-established standard,
`going back to the very first implementation
`of the World Wide Web. FTP is even older; I
`first encountered the pre-Internet version
`when I arrived at Stanford in 1976, and used
`it extensively for my PhD. As such, both
`HTTP and FTP are widely understood by
`those who design and implement applications
`using the Internet. Again, it makes no sense
`to conclude that Mashita somehow drives a
`wedge between HTTP and FTP.
`https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc959
`
`
`9 
`
`upon these materials from the
`Second Strawn Declaration,
`including for the same reasons.
`
`This exhibit is referred to in the text
`at Strawn pp. 17-19 noted above,
`and it is objected to for the same
`reasons, including when referred to
`in the Strawn Declaration and in the
`Reply. Cellspin further objects to
`
`

`

`Page or
`Exhibit
`
`Material objected to
`
`Exh.
`1027
`
`Exh.
`1028
`
`https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122
`
`https://www.iso.org/standard/20269.html
`
`Exh.
`1030
`
`https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230
`
`
`Exh.
`1031
`
`https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc793
`
`Strawn
`p. 21
`
`I disagree further that the PIN of
`48.
`Mashita is significantly different from the
`passkey as described in the Bluetooth
`specification. The distinction is merely one of
`terminology in the Bluetooth Specification:
`
` 
`
`10 
`
`Objections
`
`those portions of the reply that rely
`upon this exhibit, including for the
`same reasons.
`This exhibit is referred to in the text
`at Strawn pp. 17-19 noted above,
`and it is objected to for the same
`reasons, including when referred to
`in the Strawn Declaration and in the
`Reply. Cellspin further objects to
`those portions of the reply that rely
`upon this exhibit, including for the
`same reasons.
`This exhibit is referred to in the text
`at Strawn pp. 17-19 noted above,
`and it is objected to for the same
`reasons, including when referred to
`in the Strawn Declaration and in the
`Reply. Cellspin further objects to
`those portions of the reply that rely
`upon this exhibit, including for the
`same reasons.
`This exhibit is referred to in the text
`at Strawn pp. 17-19 noted above,
`and it is objected to for the same
`reasons, including when referred to
`in the Strawn Declaration and in the
`Reply. Cellspin further objects to
`those portions of the reply that rely
`upon this exhibit, including for the
`same reasons.
`This exhibit is referred to in the text
`at Strawn pp. 17-19 noted above,
`and it is objected to for the same
`reasons, including when referred to
`in the Strawn Declaration and in the
`Reply. Cellspin further objects to
`those portions of the reply that rely
`upon this exhibit, including for the
`same reasons.
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/approach/
`issue for reply, including under 37
`CFR § 42.23, including because it
`does not only or properly respond to
`
`

`

`Material objected to
`
`Objections
`
`“The PIN may be entered on UI level but
`may also be stored in the device; ... When the
`Bluetooth PIN is referred to on UI level, the
`term ’Bluetooth Passkey’ should be used.”
`[Exhibit 2018, p. 1258].
`
`arguments raised in Cellspin’s
`opposition, but rather it belatedly
`raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/approa
`ches/issues that could have been
`raised in the Petition and should not
`be considered in a reply. Without
`limitation, the entire discussion of
`Mashita’s PIN being the same thing
`as a Bluetooth passkey at left
`belatedly raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that are improper
`on reply. Cellspin further objects to
`those portions of the reply that rely
`upon these materials from the
`Second Strawn Declaration,
`including for the same reasons.
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/approach/
`issue for reply, including under 37
`CFR § 42.23, including because it
`does not only or properly respond to
`arguments raised in Cellspin’s
`opposition, but rather it belatedly
`raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/approa
`ches/issues that could have been
`raised in the Petition and should not
`be considered in a reply. Without
`limitation, the discussion of Mashita
`showing a waiting state and/or any
`state consistent with Bluetooth,
`including at left belatedly raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that are improper
`on reply. Cellspin further objects to
`those portions of the reply that rely
`upon these materials from the
`Second Strawn Declaration,
`including for the same reasons.
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/approach/
`issue for reply, including under 37
`
`Page or
`Exhibit
`
`Strawn
`pp. 25
`
`53. …one could characterize Mashita
`Figure 6 “file reception mode (step S604)”
`[Mashita, [0071]
`as a waiting state,
`
`
`Strawn
`p. 27
`
`Generalizing, a POSITA would
`57.
`understand that Mashita’s cellular phone and
`camera are no different from any other paired
`
` 
`
`11 
`
`

`

`Material objected to
`
`Objections
`
`Bluetooth devices, because a user can
`terminate a local wireless link on a Bluetooth
`device, as shown in Mashita Figure 6 step
`S610 and Figure 7 step S705.
`
`CFR § 42.23, including because it
`does not only or properly respond to
`arguments raised in Cellspin’s
`opposition, but rather it belatedly
`raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/approa
`ches/issues that could have been
`raised in the Petition and should not
`be considered in a reply. Without
`limitation, this assertion that
`Mashita’s phone and camera are no
`different from other paired
`Bluetooth devices because a user
`can terminate the wireless link on a
`Bluetooth device raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that are improper
`on reply. Cellspin further objects to
`those portions of the reply that rely
`upon these materials from the
`Second Strawn Declaration,
`including for the same reasons.
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/approach/
`issue for reply, including under 37
`CFR § 42.23, including because it
`does not only or properly respond to
`arguments raised in Cellspin’s
`opposition, but rather it belatedly
`raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/approa
`ches/issues that could have been
`raised in the Petition and should not
`be considered in a reply. Without
`limitation, this attempt to rely upon
`the alleged GUI of the Sony Z520a
`for the GUI element being met is
`new and improper, as is the attempt
`to bolster the alleged Onishi GUI by
`analogizing it to the Sony Z520a.
`This entire discussion of the alleged
`Sony Z520a GUI raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that are improper
`
`Page or
`Exhibit
`
`Strawn
`p. 28
`
`This is no different from the Sony
`59.
`Z520a. I used the navigation key [Exhibit
`2014, p. 12] to navigate on the screen
`[Strawn Declaration, ¶131]. The navigation
`key can be pressed up, down, left, or right.
`[Exhibit 2014, p. 7], and can be pressed in
`the center to select [ibid.]. The navigation
`key can be used to scroll to an item on the
`screen [Exhibit 2014, p. 14], such as an
`image [ibid., p. 49, p. 50]. In addition to
`selecting images, pressing the navigation key
`can be used for example in the calendar to
`select days or weeks [ibid., p. 70], or to select
`news items [ibid., p. 19].
`
`
` 
`
`12 
`
`

`

`Objections
`
`on reply. Cellspin further objects to
`those portions of the reply that rely
`upon these materials from the
`Second Strawn Declaration,
`including for the same reasons.
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/approach/
`issue for reply, including under 37
`CFR § 42.23, including because it
`does not only or properly respond to
`arguments raised in Cellspin’s
`opposition, but rather it belatedly
`raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/approa
`ches/issues that could have been
`raised in the Petition and should not
`be considered in a reply. Without
`limitation, this attempt to rely upon
`the alleged GUIs of the Sony Z520a
`and the N73 for the GUI element
`being met is new and improper, as is
`the attempt to bolster the alleged
`Onishi GUI by analogizing it to the
`Sony Z520a and N73 This entire
`discussion of the alleged Sony
`Z520a and N73 GUIs raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that are improper
`on reply. Cellspin further objects to
`those portions of the reply that rely
`upon these materials from the
`Second Strawn Declaration,
`including for the same reasons.
`
`Page or
`Exhibit
`
`Material objected to
`
`Strawn
`pp. 28-
`29
`
`Likewise on the N73 there is a
`60.
`pointing device which is a scroll key that can
`be pressed up, down, left, or right and can be
`pressed in the center to select. [Strawn
`Declaration, ¶130]. The scroll key can be
`used to navigate among images: “The images
`and video clip files are in a loop, and ordered
`by date. The number of files is displayed. To
`browse the files one by one, scroll left or
`right.” [Exhibit 1016,
`p. 27]. The following figure shows that the
`N73 user can scroll to the trash (delete) icon
`at the bottom of the active toolbar:
`
`
`
`
` [Exhibit 1016, p. 10], and can select deletion
`by pressing the scroll key: “In the active
`toolbar, scroll to different items, and select
`them by pressing the scroll key.” [ibid.,
`p. 19]. In this manner the user can delete an
`
` to delete the selected image
`image: “
`or video clip.” [ibid., p. 19]. Thus, the
`pointing device and manipulation
`capability asserted in the Foley Declaration
`are also present in the N73.
`61.
`A POSITA would be familiar with the
`
`13 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Material objected to
`
`Objections
`
`Page or
`Exhibit
`
`Reply2
`p. 1
`
`type of cellular telephones widely available
`at the time, with the types of GUIs and inputs
`on such cellular phones (as noted in Strawn
`Declaration, ¶54), such as the types of GUIs
`and inputs in the Z520a and N73.
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have
`understood from Onishi’s disclosure that the
`cellular phone disclosed in Onishi included a
`GUI, even using the definition ascribed to
`“GUI” in the Foley Declaration.
`
`Cellspin never explains how pairing could
`possibly be a non- obvious implementation of
`Bluetooth. The facts are these: Bluetooth was
`in hundreds of millions of devices at the time
`of the alleged inventions—“pervasive” to use
`the ’698 patent’s word (see Ex. 1003 (“’698
`patent”), 9:42-45). All Bluetooth devices
`could implement a paired connection. The
`only two options for implementing Bluetooth
`connections were paired or not. Cellspin’s
`expert witness, Dr. Foley, agreed that a
`POSITA would have known how to
`implement paired connections and would
`have understood the many benefits of doing
`so. Indeed, the very Bluetooth specification
`document that Cellspin identifies as
`describing “the scenarios most in line with
`the ’698 patent” (Paper 19 (“Response”), 37-
`38) explicitly teaches that whether to use a
`paired connection or not is merely “left to the
`implementer’s discretion.” Ex. 1020, 16. This
`is textbook obviousness, not a patentable
`invention.
`
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/approach/
`issue for reply, including under 37
`CFR § 42.23, including because it
`does not only or properly respond to
`arguments raised in Cellspin’s
`opposition, but rather it belatedly
`raises new
`directions/theories/arguments/
`approaches/issues that could have
`been raised in the Petition and
`should not be considered in a reply.
`Without limitation, the new
`obviousness theory expressed at left,
`including the new theory that pairing
`is a non-obvious implementation of
`Bluetooth is improper on reply.
`Cellspin further objects any other
`portions of the reply that repeat
`these matters and any portion of the
`Second Strawn Declaration that
`supports these matters, including
`this new theory of obviousness,
`including for the same reasons.
`
`Improper new evidence, a new
`direction/theory/argument/approach/
`issue for reply, including under 37
`CFR § 42.23, including because it
`does not only or properly respond to
`arguments raised in Cellspin’s
`
`Reply p.
`4
`
`The prior art … at least would have rendered
`obvious) a paired Bluetooth connection (see
`infra Section IV).
`
` 
`2 “Reply” refers to Petitioner’s October 15, 2019 reply.
`
` 
`
`14 
`
`

`

`Page or
`Exh