`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251 Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ................................................................................................. IV
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY AND ITS ACCOMPANYING
`BELATED ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE UNDERSCORES
`DEFICIENCIES OF THE PETITION .................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner improperly raises a new argument to justify its
`failure to establish the dates of BT Core and IrOBEX. ................. 3
`
`Petitioner improperly relies on additional evidence that
`could have been earlier filed to establish the dates of BT
`Core and IrOBEX. ........................................................................ 4
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`“additional data field” .................................................................. 6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“broadcasting” ............................................................................ 10
`
`“inquiry message[s]” .................................................................. 13
`
`IV.
`
`GROUND 1 ARGUMENTS (PURPORTED OBVIOUSNESS
`OF CLAIMS 11 AND 12 BASED UPON LARSSON) ........................ 17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Larsson’s broadcast message for route discovery does not
`teach an inquiry message under a proper claim
`construction. ............................................................................... 17
`
`Petitioner fails to prove Larsson renders obvious
`limitations directed to “adding . . . an additional data
`field.” ......................................................................................... 18
`
`GROUND 2 ARGUMENTS (PURPORTED OBVIOUSNESS
`OF CLAIMS 11 AND 12 BASED UPON LARSSON AND BT
`CORE) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`ii
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`A.
`
`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.” ............. 21
`
`VI.
`
`GROUND 3 ARGUMENTS (PURPORTED OBVIOUSNESS
`OF CLAIMS 11 AND 12 BASED UPON IROBEX) ........................... 24
`
`A. Obviousness based upon IrOBEX is based upon an absurd
`construction under which point-to-point communications
`are considered “broadcasting.” ................................................... 24
`
`VII.
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS ............................................................... 25
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 27
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................ 28
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2001
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition,
`1999
`Declaration of Jeffrey Huang
`Declaration of Brett Mangrum
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, Uniloc
`USA, Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al, 2-18-
`cv-00040, Dkt. 81 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2019)
`Amended Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Uniloc USA Inc et
`al v. LG Electronics USA Inc et al, 5-18-cv-06738, Dkt. 109
`(N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2019)
`
`2005
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc” or “Patent Owner”) submits this Sur-Reply to the
`
`Petition IPR2019-00251 for Inter Partes Review (“Pet.” or “Petition”) of United
`
`States Patent No. 6,993,049 (“the ’049 patent” or “Ex. 1001”) filed by Apple Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”).
`
`For the reasons given in Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 11, “POR”) and
`
`herein, Petitioner fails to carry its burden of proving the challenged claims of the ’049
`
`patent unpatentable on the challenged grounds.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY AND ITS ACCOMPANYING BELATED
`ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE UNDERSCORES DEFICIENCIES OF
`THE PETITION
`
`The Board has reinforced, in both the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide issued
`
`in November 2019, and in a precedential opinion issued in December 2019, by a panel
`
`consisting of the Director, the Commissioner of Patents, and the Chief Administrative
`
`Patent Judge, that petitioners have limited opportunities to introduce evidence after
`
`the Petition, Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2018-01039, Paper
`
`20, p. 15-16 (Dec. 20, 2019) (Precedential), and may not use their Reply (Paper 12,
`
`“Reply”) to submit new evidence or arguments that could have been submitted earlier.
`
`As stated in Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, “Petitioner may not submit new
`
`evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier.” (Patent Trial and
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019, pp. 73-74)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`In Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, the Board made clear that the
`
`opportunities to submit additional evidence are limited, as stated in a heading:
`
`2. After filing a petition, a petitioner has limited opportunities
`
`to submit additional evidence
`
`Hulu v. Sound View Innovations, at 14. The Board further explained that petitioner
`
`may not use these limited opportunities to introduce new theories:
`
`The opportunity to submit additional evidence does not allow
`
`a petitioner to completely reopen the record, by, for example,
`
`changing theories after filing a petition. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc.
`
`v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (affirming Board discretion to deny entry of petitioner’s reply
`
`brief that contained an improper new unpatentability theory and
`
`evidence, citing, among other things, § 312(a)(3)); see also CTPG
`
`at 74 (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not
`
`mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared
`
`to the positions taken in a prior filing.”).
`
`Hulu v. Sound View Innovations, at 15-16.
`
`Here, the Petitioner flagrantly disregards the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`
`and Hulu by raising new argument and presenting new evidence in the present
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner improperly raises a new argument to justify its failure to
`establish the dates of BT Core and IrOBEX.
`
`In complete disregard for the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide and recent
`
`PTAB Decisions, the Petitioner raises a new argument in the Reply, contending that
`
`the Patent Owner has “untimely” argued that BT Core and IrOBEX are inadmissible.
`
`Reply, p. 23. Petitioner’s contention is not only hypocritical in view of its untimely
`
`attempt to raise a new argument and enter new documents at this late stage, it
`
`misrepresents Patent Owner’s position.
`
`In fact, nowhere in the 28 pages of the POR does Patent Owner argue that BT
`
`Core and IrOBEX are inadmissible. Rather, the Patent Owner correctly contends that
`
`Petitioner has not established the references are prior art, because the Petitioner has
`
`not established the dates on which the references were published. As noted in the
`
`POR, “nothing in the Petition itself, its attached declarations, or in the unexplained
`
`citations, establishes that BT Core was publicly accessible before the alleged ‘Critical
`
`Date’ of June 26, 2006.” POR, p. 2. Likewise, “nothing in the Petition itself, or in
`
`the cited paragraphs from the declaration of Dr. Charles Knutson (Ex. 1008),
`
`establishes that IrOBEX was publicly accessible before the alleged “Critical Date” of
`
`June 26, 2000.” POR, pp. 8-9.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`Still further, because the Patent Owner is contesting the dates of the alleged
`
`prior art and is not seeking, at this time, to exclude the references at issue, the
`
`Petitioner is wrong to assert that the time restrictions of 37 C.F.R. 42.64 apply.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner improperly relies on additional evidence that could have
`been earlier filed to establish the dates of BT Core and IrOBEX.
`
`The Petitioner here has also flagrantly disregarded 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.
`
`This is not the first time that Petitioner has attempted to improperly inject
`
`additional evidence into the proceeding well after the filing of the Petition. Petitioner
`
`filed, more than nine months after the filing of the Petition, a Motion to File
`
`Supplemental Information (Paper 9) to enter into the record the Declaration of Dr.
`
`Michael Foley (Ex. 1020). Patent Owner timely filed a response opposing the filing
`
`of the Supplemental Information (Paper 10). Because the Board has not yet ruled on
`
`Petitioner’s motion, the supplemental information Petitioner seeks to introduce is not
`
`of record and hence not addressed in this Sur-Reply. Further, because Petitioner has
`
`untimely and improperly submitted 200+ pages of declaration and documents with
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, without even the pretense of filing a Motion to File Supplemental
`
`Information, Patent Owner will not address the declarations and documents filed in
`
`this improper manner.
`
`The deficiency of Petitioner’s proof is evident in view of Petitioner’s belated
`
`attempt to introduce new argument and new evidence at this late date. As the
`
`Petitioner seeks to disregard the limits on introduction of new evidence and legal
`
`theories after filing of the Petition, the Board should deny consideration of
`
`Petitioner’s new arguments and evidence relating to the alleged prior art status of BT
`
`Core and IrOBEX, and the Board should rule that Petitioner has failed to establish
`
`that BT Core and IrOBEX are prior art. As clearly detailed on pages 1-8 of the POR
`
`(Paper 11), the Petitioner has failed to establish the date of the BT Core reference. As
`
`detailed on pages of 8-10 of the POR (Paper 11), the Petitioner has failed to establish
`
`the date of the IrOBEX reference. Indeed, Petitioner can hardly argue that that the
`
`patent references listed on page 26 of the Petitioner’s Reply were not readily available
`
`at the time of filing of the Petition, or that the additional Declarants were unavailable
`
`at the time of filing of the Petition.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Petition is tainted by a reliance on erroneous claim constructions. This
`
`gives rise to a number of an independent and fully dispositive bases to deny the
`
`Petition in its entirety. See Mentor Graphics Corp., v. Synopsys, Inc., IPR2014-
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`
`U. S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`00287, 2015 WL 3637569, (Paper 31) at *11 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2015), aff‘d sub
`
`nom., Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp, 669 Fed. Appx. 569 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(denying petition as tainted by reliance on unreasonable claim constructions).
`
`A.
`
`“additional data field”
`
`“When a patent “repeatedly and consistently’ characterizes a claim term in a
`
`particular way,
`
`it is proper to construe the claim term in accordance with that
`
`characterization.” Profoot, Inc. v. Merck &. C0,, 663 F. App”): 928, 932 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (quoting GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc, 830 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016))”
`
`FOR, p. 13.
`
`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:
`
`
` 06
`
`502
`
`50
`
`H88
`
`FIG. 5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 5 (highlighting added). The Specification discloses that the
`
`additional data field is appended to the end of the inquiry message: “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, 5:6-9.
`
`Thus, the ’049 patent clearly defines, including in the example disclosure
`
`emphasized above, that the term “additional data field” refers to “an extra data field
`
`appended to the end of an inquiry message”. Indeed, the specification explains why
`
`appending an extra data field (i.e., in addition to the “predetermined data fields
`
`arranged according to a first communications protocol”) to the end of the inquiry
`
`message is an essential and defining aspect of the claimed invention: appending an
`
`extra field to the end of the inquiry message is essential at least because “non-HID
`
`receivers can ignore it without modification.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`Despite this clear intrinsic evidence, the Petitioner attempts to assert a faulty
`
`construction based on extrinsic evidence and the doctrine of claim differentiation.
`
`Petitioner’s position is without merit.
`
`In Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 450 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006), the Federal Circuit made clear that the primary consideration in construction
`
`of the claims is intrinsic evidence in the Specification concerning important features.
`
`In Inpro II, the patent at issue involved a personal digital assistant (PDA) that
`
`included improvements such as a thumbwheel controller with a host interface. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`1352. The District Court construed the claim term “host interface” as a “direct
`
`parallel bus interface.” Id. at 1353. The District Court rejected T-Mobile’s claim
`
`differentiation based argument that the construction was improper because a parallel
`
`bus interface and a direct parallel bus were recited in other claims. Id.
`
`The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s construction of “host
`
`interface” and rejected T-Mobile’s claim differentiation argument. Id. The Federal
`
`Circuit recognized that the claims must be construed in view of the disclosure in the
`
`specification of the patent at issue that stressed the importance of the direct parallel
`
`interface in solving problems with serial interfaces. Id. at 1354-55.
`
`Similarly, here, the Specification discusses the importance of the additional
`
`data field being appended to the end of the inquiry message. The inventors of the
`
`’049 patent observed that, at the time of the invention, that there was an increasing
`
`interest in wireless communications links, but that existing wireless networks did not
`
`provide sufficient responsiveness for certain Human/machine Interface Devices
`
`(HIDs), such as a keyboard. Ex. 1001, 1:9-18. Here, the appending of the additional
`
`data field to the end of the inquiry message addresses the responsiveness issues
`
`because it permits non-HID receivers to ignore the inquiry message. Ex. 1001, 5:6-
`
`9. Further, the Specification notes that “The presence of the extra data field 504
`
`means that the guard space conventionally allowed at the end of a Bluetooth inquiry
`
`packet is reduced. However, this space is provided to give a frequency synthesiser
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`[sic] time to change to a new hop frequency and will be generally unused otherwise.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:11-17 (emphasis added).
`
`As in Inpro II, a construction that would ignore necessary functionality because
`
`of application of the doctrine of claim differentiation is improper. Rather, as in Inpro
`
`II, the claims must be construed in a manner which follows the intrinsic evidence of
`
`the Specification and includes in the construction essential features. Thus, because
`
`here the intrinsic evidence of the ‘049 Patent Specification makes clear that appending
`
`of the additional data field to the end of the inquiry message is an important feature,
`
`the claims must be construed so that the additional data field is appended to the end
`
`of the inquiry message.
`
`Patent Owner further notes that in Inpro II, the Federal Circuit held that it was
`
`within the District Court’s discretion to refuse to consider expert testimony and
`
`extrinsic evidence in its claim construction. Inpro, 450 F.3d at 1357. Here, the
`
`irrelevant extrinsic evidence of a claim construction in an unrelated and unidentified
`
`litigation, and the extrinsic evidence of a definition of the term “additional” in a non-
`
`technical dictionary completely removed from the context in which the term is used,
`
`Reply, pp. 4-5, are irrelevant and do not provide a basis for disregarding the clear
`
`teaching of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`Accordingly, the term “additional data field” should be construed to mean “an
`
`extra data field appended to the end of an inquiry message.”
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`B.
`
`“broadcasting”
`
`In the POR, the Patent Owner noted that the Board preliminary adopted the
`
`construction “one message that is distributed to all stations” for the term
`
`“broadcasting” in its Institution Decision. POR, p. 16 (citing Paper 7 at 5). The Patent
`
`Owner also noted that elsewhere in its Institution Decision, the Board suggested
`
`that it understood, based on the limited record developed at the time, that the
`
`“broadcasting” limitations of claim 11 broadly encompass what the Board referred to
`
`as “point-to-point” communications. POR, p. 16 (citing Paper 7 at 9).
`
`Patent Owner recognized the inconsistency in the Board’s construction,
`
`because
`
`the
`
`interpretation of “broadcasting”
`
`to mean a “point-to-point”
`
`communication cannot be squared with the intrinsic evidence and the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of broadcasting, as that term was understood by persons of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. To address this inconsistency, Patent Owner proposed construing
`
`“broadcasting” to mean “a transmission that is receivable by multiple recipients.”
`
`POR, p. 17. As explained in the POR, this definition is consistent with both the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning of “broadcasting,” as the term is understood by persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and the meaning of the term in view of the intrinsic evidence,
`
`particularly with regard to the intrinsic evidence of how the terms “broadcasting” and
`
`“paging” are used in the ‘049 Specification. POR, p. 17.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`
`U. S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`In contrast, Petitioner attempts to construe “broadcasting” as a point-to-point
`
`communication, which is at complete odds with the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`the term and the intrinsic evidence. First, the Petitioner cites its Declarant in support
`
`of the contention that
`
`the construction of broadcast as “a transmission that
`
`is
`
`receivable by multiple recipients” is “inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of
`
`broadcasting.” Reply p. 6. However,
`
`the Declarant’s conclusory statement
`
`is
`
`contradicted by extrinsic evidence such as the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, which
`
`is a technical dictionary that defines a broadcast in terms of recipients:
`
`broadcast' adj. Sent to more than one recipient. In
`Communications and on networks. a broadcast mes-
`sage is one distributed to all stations. See aim c-mail'
`(definition 1).
`
`Ex. 2001, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition, at 5; see also Ex. 2002
`
`(declaration of Jeff Huang). By way of further example, as noted in the POR, the
`
`Patent Owner’s construction is consistent with how that term is generally understood,
`
`for example, in the context of radio broadcasting. Clearly, a radio tower does not
`
`broadcast a given FM radio station to only one FM receiver at a time. Rather, the
`
`broadcasted signal is potentially receivable by multiple FM receivers at once.
`
`The Petitioner raises the contention that the Patent Owner’s construction is
`
`inconsistent with claim I 1 because claim 1 1 recites “at least one secondary station.”
`
`Reply, p. 6. However,
`
`the construction of broadcast as “a transmission that is
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`receivable by multiple recipients” is entirely consistent with the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of such term and the recitation of claim 11 itself. The limitation of at least
`
`one secondary station merely establishes that the network includes both a master and
`
`a slave. Even assuming arguendo that a particular network has only a single slave,
`
`that does not prevent the transmission from being receivable by multiple recipients.
`
`For example, it would be inaccurate to describe a transmitter that broadcasts a radio
`
`signal as a “point-to-point” transmitter if only a single radio is tuned to receive the
`
`signal. The signal would still be considered a broadcast, because it is receivable by
`
`multiple recipients, even if, in one particular instance, only a single radio was tuned
`
`to the station broadcasting the signal. The modified construction of “broadcast” as
`
`“a transmission that is receivable by multiple recipients” more accurately captures
`
`this situation, which is more likely to occur with Bluetooth networks that frequently
`
`have new devices joining and leaving the network.
`
`Thus, Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply are an unsupportable conclusion by
`
`its Declarant that contradicts the proven plain and ordinary meaning of the term
`
`broadcast and contends that the construction is inconsistent with other claim
`
`elements, when it is not. 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
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`specification and the record evidence.”) (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
`
`C.
`
`“inquiry message[s]”
`
`In the Reply, the Petitioner continues its campaign to interpret “inquiry
`
`message” in a manner completely untethered from the Specification of the ‘049
`
`Patent.
`
`As noted above, the inventors of the ’049 patent observed that existing
`
`wireless networks did not provide sufficient
`
`responsiveness
`
`for certain
`
`Human/machine Interface Devices (HIDs). Ex. 1001, 1:9-18. The ‘049 patent
`
`specification discloses a particular inquiry system to address the responsiveness
`
`issues:
`
`The Bluetooth inquiry procedure allows a would-be slave 101 to find a
`
`base station and issue a request to join its piconet. It has been proposed
`
`specifically to overcome problems caused by the frequency-hopping
`
`nature of Bluetooth and similar systems. The applicants have recognised
`
`that it is possible to piggy-back a broadcast channel on the inquiry
`
`messages issued by the master 100. The broadcast channel can be used
`
`to poll HIDs at regular intervals.
`
`* * *
`
`To illustrate how this is implemented, we first consider how the Inquiry
`
`procedures themselves operate, with reference to FIGS. 3 and 4. When
`
`a Bluetooth unit wants to discover other Bluetooth devices, it enters a
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`so-called inquiry substate. In this mode, it issues an inquiry message
`
`containing a General Inquiry Access Code (GIAC) or a number of
`
`optional Dedicated Inquiry Access Codes (DIAC).
`
`* * *
`
`In order to achieve the desired responsiveness, and because the HID has
`
`been specifically addressed, the HID is allowed to respond, if desired, in
`
`the next-but-one half-slot with a packet of similar format, containing
`
`information corresponding to the user's input. As described above, the
`
`inquiry procedure involves the transmission of two sets of sixteen
`
`frequencies in trains of inquiry transmissions.
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:11-5:43.
`
`Despite this clear description of the implementation and role of inquiry
`
`messages in the ‘049 Specification, Petitioner seeks to construe the “inquiry
`
`message[s]” term to mean virtually any “message seeking [literally any] information
`
`or knowledge.” Reply, p. 12. Petitioner’s construction is divorced from the ‘049
`
`Specification, and instead relies on a dictionary definition that conflicts with the
`
`meaning of “inquiry message” in the ‘049 Specification. Reply, pp. 9-10. Such an
`
`unreasonably broad interpretation is untethered to the intrinsic evidence and
`
`improper. Smith Int’l, 871 F.3d at 1382 (“[T]he protocol of giving claims their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation . . . does not include giving claims a legally
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`incorrect interpretation” “divorced from the specification and the record evidence.”)
`
`(citing Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
`
`Petitioner continues to press this overbroad construction in the Reply by relying
`
`on baseless accusations of mischaracterization and purposefully obtuse readings of
`
`the ‘049 Specification. Reply, p. 9-12. In response to Petitioner’s absurd
`
`construction, the POR explains why the Petitioner’s construction is overbroad and
`
`divorced from the intrinsic evidence. However, at no point in the Patent Owner
`
`Response does the Patent Owner expressly state a particular construction to be used
`
`by the Board.
`
`In fact, it is the Petitioner who mischaracterizes the record, by claiming that
`
`Patent Owner suggested a specific claim construction for “inquiry message,” when
`
`the record clearly shows that it did not. In the Preliminary Response, the Patent
`
`Owner retains the right to provide a claim construction (Paper 6, pp. 11-12), and in
`
`the POR the Patent Owner explains why Petitioner’s construction is improper,
`
`without expressly adopting a particular construction. (POR, pp. 17-18). Patent
`
`Owner contends that Petitioner’s construction is overbroad and identifies specific
`
`passages in the Specification demonstrating overbreadth of the Petitioner’s
`
`construction. For example, the POR states:
`
`The ’049 patent repeatedly and consistently describes its “inquiry
`
`messages” as a specific type of message used, at least in part, to discover
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`other devices in the vicinity which may request to join a piconet. . . . This
`
`refutes Petitioner’s overbroad interpretation that the claimed “inquiry
`
`message[s]” encompass virtually any message seeking literally any
`
`information or knowledge.
`
`POR, p. 18 (emphasis added). The Petitioner mischaracterizes this explanation as a
`
`proposed construction. The Petitioner states that “Uniloc construes an ‘inquiry
`
`message’ 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.” Reply, p. 9. However, the
`
`Petitioner takes this quotation out of context, when in truth this quotation was
`
`provided in relation to a refutation of Petitioner’s construction. The Reply then
`
`presents additional arguments that rely on a claim construction that the Patent Owner
`
`did not expressly adopt.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner submits that the Petitioner’s construction of
`
`“inquiry message” is overbroad and completely divorced from the intrinsic evidence
`
`of the ‘049 patent.
`
`As Petitioner notes, the ‘049 Specification notes that “the general invention
`
`concept of polling HIDs via a broadcast channel used as part of the inquiry procedure
`
`is not restricted to Bluetooth devices and is applicable to other communications
`
`arrangements.” Ex. 1001, 3:24-29. However, this statement is entirely consistent
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`with use in device discovery using protocols other than Bluetooth, and in no way
`
`justifies Petitioner’s excessively broad construction.
`
`IV. GROUND 1 ARGUMENTS (PURPORTED OBVIOUSNESS OF
`CLAIMS 11 AND 12 BASED UPON LARSSON)
`
`A. Larsson’s broadcast message for route discovery does not teach an
`inquiry message under a proper claim construction.
`
`Petitioner fails to prove its assertion that Larsson’s “broadcast message for
`
`route discovery” maps onto the claimed “inquiry message” and Larsson’s
`
`“piggybacked data” maps onto “an additional data field for polling at least one
`
`secondary station.” POR, p. 19. As explained in detail in the POR, the purpose of
`
`Larsson’s “broadcast message for route discovery” is to discover an optimal route to
`
`a known destination node which is already joined to a network; thus, it does not
`
`comprise “a specific type of message used to discover other devices in the vicinity of
`
`a network.” POR, pp. 19-20.
`
`In the Reply, the Petitioner repeats its argument that Larsson’s “broadcast
`
`message for route discovery” teaches the claimed “inquiry message,” based upon a
`
`clearly overbroad claim construction under which “inquiry message” essentially
`
`comprises any message that seeks information. As discussed in detail in Section III.C,
`
`supra, this construction is completely divorced from the intrinsic evidence of the ‘049
`
`patent. In view of the intrinsic evidence of the ‘049 patent, an inquiry message should
`
`be not be construed so broadly construed as a “a specific type of message used to
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`discover other devices in the vicinity of a network,” which is used to implement the
`
`recited method for increasing the responsiveness of HID devices in a network.
`
`Petitioner seeks to rely on a belated further Declaration, in which the Declarant
`
`alleges a completely unsupported and strained interpretation of “inquiry message” in
`
`which “seeking route information” is similar to seeking a device’s address. Reply at
`
`pp. 12-13 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶39-46). In fact, seeking route information for a path
`
`through various existing nodes of the network has no similarity to broadcasting a
`
`series of inquiry messages for discovering devices in the vicinity of the network for
`
`the purpose of increasing the responsiveness of the network.
`
`The Petition has not and cannot prove obviousness through reliance in an
`
`incorrect claim construction. See Synopsys, 669 Fed. Appx. at 569.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner fails to prove Larsson renders obvious limitations
`directed to “adding . . . an additional data field.”
`
`Petitioner fails to prove its assertion that Larsson’s “piggybacked broadcast
`
`message is the additional data field added to the request for route message (inquiry
`
`message) prior to transmission.” Pet. 23. As noted in Section III.A, supra, an
`
`additional data field should be construed as “an extra data field appended to the end
`
`of an inquiry message.” Larsson is completely devoid of any disclosure of such an
`
`additional data field.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`Petitioner devotes many paragraphs of the Reply to attempting to find support
`
`in Larsson for an alleged teaching of an extra data field appended to the end of an
`
`inquiry message, which extensive commentary merely points out that Larsson does
`
`not provide a definition of “piggybacking” that meets Petitioner’s desired
`
`interpretation. While portions of Larsson refer to piggybacking data (e.g., Ex. 1005,
`
`6:45-50; 8:8-9; 10:3-13), other portions of Larsson refer to piggybacking a message
`
`onto another message (e.g., Ex. 1005, 6:5-6; 6:60-61). Larsson provides no
`
`explanation of the data structure of either, and certainly provides no express
`
`disclosure that “an extra data field” is appended to the end of the message.
`
`In fact, in networking, piggybacking involves the addition of a message (such
`
`as an acknowledgement message) to an already existing data field in an outgoing
`
`message:
`
`Why Piggybacking?
`
`Communications are mostly full – duplex in nature, i.e. data
`
`transmission occurs in both directions. A method to achieve full –
`
`duplex communication is to consider both the communication as a pair
`
`of simplex communication. Each link comprises a forward channel for
`
`sending data and a reverse channel for sending acknowledgments.
`
`However, in the above arrangement, traffic load doubles for each data
`
`unit that is transmitted. Half of all data transmission comprise of
`
`transmission of acknowledgments.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019