Apple Inc.
`
`v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`lPR2019-00251 (Patent 6,993,049)
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`April 23, 2020
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`lPR2019-00251 (Patent 6,993,049)
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. 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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
