`V.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2019-00251 (Patent 6,993,049)
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`April 23, 2020
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`• BT Core is not shown to be prior art
`
`•
`
`IrOBEX is not shown to be prior art
`
`• Petitioner’s belated evidence should be given no
`weight
`
`• Claim construction: “additional data field,”
`“broadcasting,” “inquiry message[s]”
`
`• Claim 11: “adding to an inquiry message prior to
`transmission an additional data field for polling at
`least one secondary station”
`
`•
`
`IrOBEX is not shown to disclose “the method
`comprising the primary station broadcasting a
`series of inquiry messages”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`2
`
`
`
`BT Core is not shown to be prior art
`
`• Nothing in the Petition itself, its attached
`declarations, or in the unexplained citations,
`establishes that BT Core was publicly
`accessible before June 26, 2000.
`
`• All Petitioner is left with is asserting the date
`appearing on the face of the BT Core
`document for the truth of the matter
`asserted—i.e., inadmissible hearsay.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`3
`
`
`
`BT Core is not shown to be prior art
`
`• First, Petitioner here “relies on ‘Wayback Machine’
`screenshots to show what may have been posted in [March
`of 2000], but the screenshots do not show the [BT Core
`document], but only a hyperlink.” IPR2015-01835, Paper 56
`at 20; see also Exs. 1016‒1019.
`
`• Second, “[i]f a user attempts to access the hyperlink”
`allegedly linking to BT Core itself, “the Wayback Machine
`displays an error message” only. Id. This “makes it mpossible
`to test the veracity of [Petitioner’s] assertion that the [BT
`Core document] marked as Ex. 1014 actually appeared at
`this link.” Id.
`
`• Third, the Petition fails to establish that BT Core was
`obtained through any hyperlink of Exhibits 1016-1019.
`
`• Finally, the Petition also fails to provide the actual source for
`BT Core (Ex. 1014).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`4
`
`
`
`IrOBEX is not shown to be prior art
`• The Petition offers the conclusory statement
`that “the IrOBEX protocol was published on a
`website, www.irda.org, maintained by the
`Infrared Data Association and available to the
`general public through the website.” Pet. 2.
`
`• As alleged support, Petitioner cites, without
`explanation, to Dr. Knutson’s declaration. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1008 at ¶¶ 2‒11, 14‒20).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`5
`
`
`
`IrOBEX is not shown to be prior art
`• The Petition itself does not contain the
`required analysis of public accessibility.
`
`• Dr. Knutson does not purport to have
`personal knowledge of whether the specific
`document Petitioner identified as IrOBEX (Ex.
`1006) was itself publicly accessible via the
`www.irda.org website as of March 18, 1999
`(the date appearing on the face of the
`document). At most, Dr. Knutson alleges that
`he personally accessed IrOBEX “through the
`www.irda.org website after March 18, 1999.”
`Ex. 1008, ¶3 (emphasis added).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s belated evidence should be given no weight
`
`• Petitioner’s Reply disregards the principles
`of the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide and
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations in
`seeking to justify their reliance on BT Core
`and IrOBEX by submitting an additional over
`200 pages of new Declaration and documents
`(Exs. 1027-1029, Ex. 1034, Ex. 1008, and Ex.
`1033) in an effort to belatedly correct the
`deficient evidence in the Petition that BT Core
`and IrOBEX allegedly qualify as prior art.
`
`• Petitioner’s motion to file supplemental
`information should also be denied.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`7
`
`
`
`Claim construction: “additional data field”
`
`•
`
`“additional data field” should be construed to mean “an
`extra data field appended to the end of an inquiry message.”
`
`• The ’049 patent repeatedly and consistently characterizes
`the term “additional data field” to be “an extra data field
`appended to the end of an inquiry message.” Figure 5
`depicts the additional data field as element 504:
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 5 (highlighting added).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`8
`
`
`
`Claim construction: “broadcasting”
`
`Ex. 2001, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition, at 5.
`
`•
`
`“By adding the field to the end of the inquiry message, it
`will be appreciated that non-HID receivers can ignore it
`without modification.” Ex. 1001, 4:69.
`• Given at least the express distinction in the ’049 patent
`between broadcasting and paging, for example, it
`would be improper to adopt a construction of
`“broadcasting” that would conflate this term with
`distinguishable, point-to-point communications (e.g.,
`paging).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`9
`
`
`
`Claim construction: “inquiry message[s]”
`
`• Petitioner seeks to construe the “inquiry message[s]” term to
`mean virtually any “message seeking [literally any]
`information or knowledge.”
`
`• Such an unreasonably broad interpretation is untethered to
`the intrinsic evidence. See In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d
`1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he protocol of giving claims
`their broadest reasonable interpretation . . . does not include
`giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation” “divorced from
`the specification and the record evidence.”) (citing Microsoft
`Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`2015)).
`
`• The ’049 patent repeatedly and consistently describes its
`“inquiry messages” as a specific type of message used, at
`least in part, to discover other devices in the vicinity which
`may request to join a piconet. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:23‒26,
`1:56‒57, 4:11‒13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`10
`
`
`
`Claim 11: “adding to an inquiry message …”
`
`• All mappings applied in the Petition fail to properly
`interpret the limitations directed to “adding an
`additional data field,” construed to mean “an extra data
`field appended to the end of an inquiry message.”
`• Petitioner’s mapping of Larsson’s “broadcast message
`for route discovery” onto the claimed “inquiry message”
`is tainted by an incorrect claim construction.
`• Petitioner fails to prove Larsson renders obvious
`limitations directed to “adding . . . an additional data
`field.”
`• Petitioner at least fails to prove modifying Larsson to
`incorporate BT Core’s polling packet render obvious
`claim limitations directed to the “additional data field.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`11
`
`
`
`All mappings fail to properly interpret “adding an additional data field” to
`mean “an extra data field appended to the end of an inquiry message.”
`
`• Petitioner offers no obviousness theory that
`would satisfy the limitations” directed to
`“additional data field” should this term be
`construed to mean “an extra
`data field appended to the end of an inquiry
`message.”
`• Regardless whether the Board adopts a
`particular construction for this claim language,
`the Petition fails to address even a plain
`reading.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`12
`
`
`
`•
`
`Failed mapping of Larsson’s “broadcast message for route
`discovery” onto the claimed “inquiry message”
`•
`Larsson’s “broadcast message for route discovery” is aptly
`named because its purpose is to discover an optimal route to
`a known destination node which is already joined to a
`piconet. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at Abstract; 4:23‒25; 4:37‒47;
`5:36‒37; 5:44‒45.
`Larsson is not seeking to discover recipient devices that may
`seek to join.
`• The ’049 patent repeatedly and consistently describes its
`“inquiry messages” as a specific type of message used, at
`least in part, to discover other devices in the vicinity which
`may request to join a piconet. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:23‒26,
`1:56‒57, 4:11‒13.
`“When a Blue When a Bluetooth unit wants to
`discover other Bluetooth devices, it enters a so-called inquiry
`substate. In this mode, it issues an inquiry message . . . .”
`Ex. 2001, 4:23-26.
`
`•
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner fails to prove Larsson renders obvious limitations
`directed to “adding . . . an additional data field.”
`• Merely adding what Petitioner identifies as “piggybacked data” (Pet. 25)
`is plainly distinguishable from, instead, “adding to an inquiry message
`prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one
`secondary station,” as recited in claim 11.
`
`• The intrinsic evidence refutes Petitioner’s incorrect and undefended
`premise that the couplet “data field” and the word “data” (in isolation) are
`interchangeable terms of art.
`
`• For example, the ’049 patent expressly and repeatedly distinguishes the
`additional data field (e.g., data field 504) from the data that it carries. See,
`e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:60‒62 (“the inquiry messages issued by the base
`station have an extra field 504 appended to them, capable of carrying a
`HID poll message.”), 4:62‒63 (“The extended field 504 may carry a
`header that signifies a HID pol”), 5:2‒6 (the extended field 504 may also
`carry “the address of the HID being polled” and “a small amount of
`information”), 6:19‒21 (“The HID receives, at step 604, data from the
`extra field 504 then tests, at step 606, whether it has been polled by the
`host system.”).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioner at least fails to prove modifying Larsson to incorporate BT Core’s polling packet
`render obvious claim limitations directed to the “additional data field.”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioner’s alternative mapping based on BT Core fails to account for the fact
`that the Petition acknowledges Larrson only expressly refers to “piggybacked
`data,” as opposed to an additional data field. Larsson does not support what
`Petitioner erroneously characterized as swapping one field for another.
`Petitioner’s reliance on the “broadcast POLL packet” overlooks the
`distinguishable context set forth in the cited passage of BT Core. Pet. 40 (citing
`Ex. 1014 (BT Core) at p. 121). According to Petitioner, BT Core describes its
`“broadcast POLL packet” as being “broadcast from the master to slave devices
`in a piconet to control data traffic in the piconet.” The cited passage is
`expressly directed to “Slave-activated unparking,” in which a single slave
`device requests access by sending an access request to a single master
`device—i.e., a point-to-point, slave-to-master request. Ex. 1014 (BT Core) at
`pp. 120‒121.
`The cited passage of BT Core directed to a “POLL packet” defines the same as
`not having a payload. See Pet. 40 (citing BT Core at p. 55); see also BT Core
`p. 55 (“The POLL packet is very similar to the NULL packet. It does not have a
`payload either.”).
`The cited passage of BT Core directed to a “POLL packet” defines the same as
`polling in general, without being directed to any slave in particular. BT Core p.
`55.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`15
`
`
`
`IrOBEX is not shown to disclose “the primary station
`broadcasting a series of inquiry messages”
`
`•
`
`IrOBEX is directed to point-to-point communications
`between two entities, a client and a server, where the
`server addresses the client as the sole recipient and
`vice versa.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 9 (highlighting added).
`
`• At a minimum, therefore, Petitioner fails to prove
`obviousness of at least the “broadcasting” limitations
`under its alternative theory relying exclusively upon
`IrOBEX.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`16
`
`