`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`
`AND LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`
`PATENT 6,993,049
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`
`THE ’049 PATENT .................................................................................. 1
`
`THE PETITION IMPROPERLY REDUDANTLY
`CHALLENGES THE CLAIMS AT ISSUE ............................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS .................................................................... 5
`
`V.
`
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................. 6
`
`VI.
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM .......................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction ......................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“additional data field” .......................................................... 8
`
`“broadcast” ......................................................................... 11
`
`“inquiry “message[s]” ........................................................ 11
`
`B.
`
`Larsson Does Not Disclose “adding to an inquiry
`message prior to transmission an additional data field
`for polling at least one secondary station,” (Redundant
`Grounds 1 and 2) .......................................................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Larsson’s “piggybacked broadcast message” does
`not disclose the required “additional data field”
`(Ground 1) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Larsson and BT Core’s “Bluetooth polling
`packet” does not disclose the required “additional
`data field” (Ground 2) ........................................................ 13
`
`C.
`
`IrOBEX Does Not Disclose “the method comprising the
`primary station broadcasting a series of inquiry
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`messages” (Redundant Ground 3) ................................................ 15
`
`D.
`
`The Petition Fails As To The Challenged Dependent
`Claim 12 ........................................................................................ 17
`
`VII.
`
`THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`IS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL ..................................... 18
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition,
`
`1999
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC (the “Uniloc” or “Patent Owner”) submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to Petition IPR2019-00054 for Inter Partes Review (“Pet.” or
`
`“Petition”) of United States Patent No. 6,304,612 (“the ’612 Patent” or “EX1001”)
`
`filed by Apple, Inc., LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. and LG
`
`Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A. Inc. (“Petitioners”). The instant Petition is
`
`procedurally and substantively defective for at least the reasons set forth herein.
`
`II. THE ’049 PATENT
`
`The ’049 patent is titled “Communication system.” The ʼ049 patent issued
`
`January 31, 2006, from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/876,514 filed June 7, 2001.
`
`The inventors of the ’049 patent observed that at the time of the invention,
`
`there was an increasing interest in enabling devices to interact via wireless
`
`communication links, thereby avoiding the need for extensive cabling. An example
`
`of a communication system which may be used for such wireless links is a Bluetooth
`
`network, operating according to the specification defined by the Bluetooth Special
`
`Interest Group. EX1001, 1:9-15.
`
`One application for which use of Bluetooth was proposed was the connection
`
`of controller devices to host systems. A controller device, also known as a
`
`Human/machine Interface Device (HID), is an input device such as a keyboard,
`
`mouse, games controller, graphics pad or the like. Such HIDs did not typically
`
`require a link having high data throughput, but did require a very responsive link.
`
`A Bluetooth system was more than capable of supporting the throughput
`
`requirements of HIDs. However, the degree of responsiveness required could be
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`more difficult to achieve. An active Bluetooth link could offer a reasonably
`
`responsive service, but this required both the setting up of a link and its maintenance,
`
`even during periods of inactivity. EX1001, 1:27-39. Setting up a link required a HID
`
`to join, as a slave, the piconet including the host system (which would typically act
`
`as piconet master, i.e. a base station). Joining the piconet required two sets of
`
`procedures, namely ‘inquiry’ and ‘page’. Inquiry allowed a would-be slave to find a
`
`base station and issued a request to join the piconet. Page allowed a base station to
`
`invite slaves of its choice to join the net. Analysis of those procedures indicated that
`
`the time taken to join a piconet and then to be in a position to transfer user input to
`
`the master could be several tens of seconds. EX1001, 1:52-61.
`
`According to the invention of the ’049 Patent, there is provided a
`
`communications system comprising a primary station and at least one secondary
`
`station, wherein the primary station has means for broadcasting a series of inquiry
`
`messages, each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data fields arranged
`
`according to a first communications protocol, and means for adding to an inquiry
`
`message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one
`
`secondary station, and wherein the or each polled secondary station has means for
`
`determining when an additional data field has been added to the plurality of data
`
`fields, for determining whether it has been polled from the additional data field and
`
`for responding to a poll when it has data for transmission to the primary station.
`
`EX1001, 2:22-35.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`III. THE PETITION IMPROPERLY REDUDANTLY CHALLENGES
`THE CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`
`The Petition redundantly challenges claims 11 and 12 of the ’049 patent no
`
`less than three times, without providing any alleged justification for such inefficient
`
`redundancies. As the Board has previously explained, “multiple grounds, which are
`
`presented in a redundant manner by a petitioner who makes no meaningful
`
`distinction between them, are contrary to the regulatory and statutory mandates, and
`
`therefore are not all entitled to consideration.” See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
`
`Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012).
`
`Such redundancies place a significant burden on both the Board and the patent
`
`owner, causing unnecessary delay, compounding costs to all parties involved, and
`
`compromising the ability to complete review within the statutory deadline. Id.; 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. As such, analyzing the petition and
`
`eliminating redundant grounds streamlines the proceeding. Idle Free Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 at 4-5 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013); Liberty
`
`Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 2.
`
`The Petition presents grounds that are vertically redundant with respect to
`
`each other. Vertical redundancy “involves a plurality of prior art applied both in
`
`partial combination and in full combination. In the former case, fewer references
`
`than the entire combination are sufficient to render a claim obvious, and in the latter
`
`case the entire combination is relied on to render the same claim obvious.” Liberty
`
`Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 3. In such instances where reliance on a
`
`combination and separate reliance on a portion thereof are both alleged to
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`sufficiently present a prima facie case of invalidity, “[t]here must be an explanation
`
`of why the reliance in part may be the stronger assertion as applied in certain
`
`instances and why the reliance in whole may also be the stronger assertion in other
`
`instances.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`If one of the alternative grounds is better from all perspectives, then the Board
`
`should only consider the stronger ground and not burden the Patent Owner and the
`
`Board with the weaker ground. Further, if there is no difference in the grounds, the
`
`Petitioner should only assert one of the grounds. Id. at 12. “Only if the Petitioner
`
`reasonably articulates why each ground has strength and weakness relative to the
`
`other should both grounds be asserted for consideration.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner makes no effort to justify its vertically redundant theories by
`
`explaining why “the reliance in part [e.g., on the primary reference alone] may be
`
`the stronger assertion as applied in certain instances and why the reliance in whole
`
`[e.g., the full combination of identified references] may also be the stronger assertion
`
`in other instances.” Id. Indeed, the Petition does not even acknowledge the
`
`gamesmanship of hedging its bets through the redundancy of Grounds 1 and 3, and
`
`for Ground 2, Petitioner only posits that:
`
`“Rather, the analysis provided in Ground 2 is only
`
`needed should Patent Owner argue and the Board
`
`find a deficiency in Ground 1 for one of these claim
`
`features. In such a case, only the analysis of the deficient
`
`claim feature or features is needed from Ground 2.”
`
`Pet. 33, n. 5 (emphasis added).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`However, The Board in Eizo Corp. v. Barco N.V.1 flatly rejected a similar
`
`attempt to hedge bets and unnecessarily multiply the work of both the Board and the
`
`Patent Owner. The Board there found insufficient the petitioner’s “conclusory
`
`assertion” that “[t]o the extent [the first prior art reference] may not explicitly teach”
`
`the limitation, the second prior art reference “explicitly teaches this limitation.” The
`
`Board explained that “such an assertion fails to resolve the exact differences sought
`
`to be derived from” the second prior art reference. Id.
`
`The Board’s precedential authority on these procedural issues is clear. Here,
`
`Petitioner impermissibly seeks the benefit of different bites at the apple, without
`
`providing a bi-directional explanation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of
`
`each redundantly offered ground. If Petitioner believes the obviousness challenges
`
`are necessary to addresses certain weaknesses of the anticipation challenges based
`
`on Larssson, Petitioner is obligated to articulate those weaknesses in the Petition
`
`itself. Because Petitioner chose to not offer such concessions, presumably for
`
`strategic reasons, the Board need not and should not consider the merits of the
`
`redundant challenges based on obviousness.
`
`IV. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The following proceedings are currently pending cases concerning U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 6,993,049 (EX1001).
`
`
`
` 1
`
` IPR2014-00358, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. July 23, 2014).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`Case Name
`
`Case Number
`
`Court
`
`Filing Date
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. LG
`
`8:18-cv-02054
`
`CAFC Apr. 26, 2019
`
`Electronics USA, Inc. et al
`
`Apple Inc. et al v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2019-00251
`
`PTAB Nov. 12, 2018
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Huawei
`
`2-18-cv-00074
`
`EDTX Mar. 13, 2018
`
`Device USA, Inc. et al
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Samsung
`
`2-18-cv-00040
`
`EDTX Feb. 23, 2018
`
`Electronics America, Inc. et al
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple, Inc.
`
`5-19-cv-01695 NDCA Feb. 22, 2018
`
`V. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The Petition alleges that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`Critical Date of the ’049 Patent (“POSITA”) would have had a Master’s of Science
`
`Degree (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree) in an academic
`
`area emphasizing electrical engineering or computer engineering with a
`
`concentration in wireless communication systems or, alternatively, a Bachelors
`
`Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical or computer
`
`engineering and having two or more years of experience in wireless communication
`
`systems.” Pet. 5-6. Given that Petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in
`
`establishing prima facie anticipation or obviousness when applying its own
`
`definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), Patent Owner does
`
`not offer a competing definition for POSITA at this preliminary stage, though it
`
`reserves the right to do so in the event that trial is instituted.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`VI. PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to relief. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.108(c) (“review shall not be instituted for a ground of unpatentability unless
`
`. . . there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged . . . is
`
`unpatentable”). The Petition should be denied as failing to meet this burden.
`
`The raises the following obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`Ground
`Claims
`Reference(s)
`1
`11 and 12
`2
`11 and 12
`3
`11 and 12
`
`Larsson2
`Larsson and BT Core3
`IrOBEX4
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`As explained below, Petitioner bases its patentability challenges on
`
`erroneous constructions, which provide an independent and fully-dispositive basis
`
`to deny the Petition in its entirety. See Mentor Graphics Corp., v. Synopsys, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00287, 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) (finding Petitioner’s claim construction unreasonable in light of the
`
`specification, and therefore, denying Petition as tainted by reliance on an incorrect
`
`claim construction)
`
`
`
` 2
`
` EX1005, U.S. Patent No. 6,704,293
`3 EX1014, Specification of the Bluetooth System: Wireless connections made easy,
`Core, Vol. 1
`
`4 EX1006, IrDA Object Exchange Protocol
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`1.
`
`“additional data field”
`
`When construing claims, the patent specification must always be consulted,
`
`so that the claims are “construed so as to be consistent with the specification, of
`
`which they are a part.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally
`
`aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct
`
`construction.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`The ’049 patent makes clear that the term “additional data field” should be
`
`construed as “an extra data field appended to an inquiry message”.
`
`First, Figure 5 depicts the additional data field as element 504:
`
`
`
`EX1001, Fig. 5 (highlighting added).
`
`Next, the specification further makes clear the additional data field is an
`
`
`
`extra field that is appended to an inquiry message:
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, 4:59-5:11 (highlighting added).
`
`As shown in Fig. 5 and the passage above, the ’049 patent clearly defines the
`
`term “additional data field” to mean “an extra data field appended to an inquiry
`
`message”. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Furthermore, as also elaborated in the above,
`
`appending an extra data field to the inquiry message is essential to the invention.
`
`As shown in the second highlighted passage above, appending an extra field to the
`
`end of the inquiry message is essential because “non-HID receivers can ignore it
`
`without modification.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`While the Petition does not address this term under its claim construction
`
`section, the Petition nonetheless appears to propose to construe this term in spots
`
`throughout the Petition.
`
`As on example, the Petition merely concludes that “[u]nder BRI, the
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`piggybacked broadcast message is the additional data field added to the request for
`
`route message (inquiry message) prior to transmission.” Pet. 23 (emphasis added).
`
`For this proposition, the Petition cites only to the identical, conclusory statement of
`
`its declarant. Compare Pet. 23 with EX1003, ¶ 72. There are numerous problems
`
`with the Petition’s proposed construction – (1) the Petition’s proposed construction
`
`is not consistent with the intrinsic evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316; (2) “Expert
`
`testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion
`
`is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); and (3) even under
`
`BRI, the Petition’s proposed construction is unreasonable. 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).
`
`Next, in another instance, the Petition points to a “polling packet” argues
`
`that a POSITA would have replaced Larsson’s “piggybacked broadcast message”
`
`with BT Core’s “Bluetooth polling packet”. Pet. 40-41. While Patent Owner does
`
`not concede such an allegation (for example, there are no identified shortcomings
`
`of the “piggybacked broadcast message” by Larsson), regardless, the cited “polling
`
`packet” also cannot be within the proper scope of the term “additional data field”
`
`for the same reasons discussed above. See e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316; In re
`
`Smith Int'l, Inc., 871 F.3d at 1382.
`
`Therefore, the term “additional data field” should be construed as “an extra
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`data field appended to an inquiry message”.
`
`2.
`
`“broadcast”
`
`The term “broadcast” was a well-known term of art at the time of the
`
`invention. For example, the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition
`
`defines broadcast as the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2001, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition, at 5.
`
`As shown above, the term “broadcast”, was understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention, which means “one message that is
`
`distributed to all stations.” This is in direct contrast to the equally well-known
`
`term of art, “polling”, which the intrinsic evidence of the ’049 patent demonstrates
`
`by using the term “broadcast” to describe sending an inquiry message without
`
`specifying any particular stations (see e.g., EX1001, 2:22-28), and then by using
`
`the term “polling” to describe requesting data from a secondary station (see e.g.
`
`EX1001, 2:28-35).
`
`Therefore, the term “broadcast” is properly construed to mean “one message
`
`that is distributed to all stations.”
`
`3.
`
`“inquiry “message[s]”
`
`At this preliminary stage, Patent Owner submits that the Board need not
`
`construe the claim term “inquiry messages” in order to arrive at the conclusion that
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`the Petition is substantively deficient. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642
`
`F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“need only be construed to the extent necessary
`
`to resolve the controversy”). In the event that trial is instituted, however, Patent
`
`Owner reserves the right to object to Petitioner’s proposed construction and
`
`provide Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`B.
`
`Larsson Does Not Disclose “adding to an inquiry message prior to
`transmission an additional data field for polling at least one
`secondary station,” (Redundant Grounds 1 and 2)
`
`1.
`
`Larsson’s “piggybacked broadcast message” does not disclose
`the required “additional data field” (Ground 1)
`
`In redundant Ground 1, the Petition merely concludes 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. For this
`
`proposition, the Petition cites only to the identical conclusory statement of its
`
`declarant for support. Compare Pet. 23 with EX1003, ¶ 72. As an initial matter, the
`
`identical and conclusory testimony of Petitioner’s declarant should be given little
`
`to no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the
`
`underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no
`
`weight.”)
`
`Next, as more fully discussed in Section IV.A.1, above, the intrinsic
`
`evidence shows that the ’049 patent defines the term “additional data field” to
`
`mean “an extra data field appended to an inquiry message”. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1316. The required additional data field is illustrated by Figure 5, element 504 of
`
`the ’049 patent:
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`EX1001, Fig. 5 (highlighting added).
`
`As such, the required additional data field must be appended to the inquiry
`
`message. Furthermore, appending an extra data field to the inquiry message is
`
`essential to the invention because “[b]y adding the field to the end of the inquiry
`
`message, it will be appreciated that non-HID receivers can ignore it without
`
`modification.” EX1001, 5:6-9. (emphasis added).
`
`Redundant Ground 1 of the Petition fails because the Petition fails to show
`
`that Larsson’s “piggybacked broadcast message” is a data field that is appended to
`
`the “route message” prior to transmission. See Pet. 23-26. In fact, as made clear by
`
`the name itself, Larsson’s “piggybacked broadcast message” and Larsson’s “route
`
`message” are in fact, two separate messages, and Larsson’s “piggybacked
`
`broadcast message” cannot be an extra data field appended to an inquiry message,
`
`as required by the claim language.
`
`2.
`
`Larsson and BT Core’s “Bluetooth polling packet” does not
`disclose the required “additional data field” (Ground 2)
`
`In redundant Ground 2, Petitioner seeks to hedge its bets as shown by
`
`Petitioner’s statement: “To the extent Patent Owner argues that Larsson alone is
`
`deficient, a POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Larsson with BT
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`Core and would have found it obvious to implement Larsson’s piggybacked data
`
`field as a Bluetooth polling field, as defined by the BT Core.” Pet. 39.
`
`However, as immediately admitted by the Petition in the following
`
`paragraph, BT Core describes a “polling packet”. Pet. 40; see also e.g., EX1014 p.
`
`121 (“broadcast POLL packet”). And similarly, as with the Petition’s redundant
`
`Ground 1, the Petition again merely concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious
`
`to a POSITA that a Bluetooth polling packet is the type of additional data field
`
`contemplated for Larsson’s piggybacked data, i.e., a message for which the source
`
`node expects a reply.” Pet. 40. For this proposition, the Petition cites only to the
`
`identical conclusory statement of its declarant for support. Compare Pet. 40 with
`
`EX1003, ¶ 81. As an initial matter, the identical and conclusory testimony of
`
`Petitioner’s declarant should be given little to no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)
`
`(“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the
`
`opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).
`
`Next, as more fully discussed in Section IV.A.1, above, the intrinsic
`
`evidence shows that the ’049 patent defines the term “additional data field” to
`
`mean “an extra data field appended to an inquiry message”. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1316. The required additional data field is illustrated by Figure 5, element 504 of
`
`the ’049 patent:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`EX1001, Fig. 5 (highlighting added).
`
`As such, the required additional data field must be appended to the inquiry
`
`message. Furthermore, appending an extra data field to the inquiry message is
`
`essential to the invention because “[b]y adding the field to the end of the inquiry
`
`message, it will be appreciated that non-HID receivers can ignore it without
`
`modification.” EX1001, 5:6-9. (emphasis added).
`
`Redundant Ground 2 of the Petition fails because the Petition fails to show
`
`that BT Core’s “Bluetooth polling packet” is a data field that is appended to the
`
`“request for route message” prior to transmission. See Pet. 39-42. In fact, as made
`
`clear by the name itself, BT Core’s “Bluetooth polling packet” and Larsson’s
`
`“request for route message” are in fact, two separate messages or packets, and BT
`
`Core’s “Bluetooth polling packet” cannot be an extra data field appended to an
`
`inquiry message, as required by the claim language. Further, just like Larsson’s
`
`“piggybacked broadcast message” cannot be an extra data field appended to an
`
`inquiry message, as discussed above, even if a POSITA would have substituted
`
`one for the other (which Patent Owner does not concede), redundant Ground 2 still
`
`fails.
`
`C.
`
`IrOBEX Does Not Disclose “the method comprising the primary
`station broadcasting a series of inquiry messages” (Redundant
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`Ground 3)
`
`As more fully discussed in Section IV.A.2, above, the term “broadcast” was
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, which
`
`means “one message that is distributed to all stations.” See EX2001, Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition, at 5. This understanding is further supported
`
`by the intrinsic evidence of the ’049 patent, which uses the term “broadcast” to
`
`describe sending an inquiry message without specifying any particular stations (see
`
`e.g., EX1001, 2:22-28), and then by using the term “polling” to describe requesting
`
`data from a secondary station (see e.g. EX1001, 2:28-35).
`
`IrOBEX however, does not disclose the required “broadcasting”, and for
`
`good reason, because IrOBEX only discloses point-to-point communications
`
`between two entities, a client and a server. This confirmed throughout IrOBEX
`
`itself. For example:
`
`
`
`EX1006, at 9 (highlighting added).
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1006, at 10 (highlighting and underlining added).
`
`
`
`EX1006, at 11 (highlighting and underlining added).
`
`As seen above, IrOBEX discloses only a communication “between two
`
`devices”, the OBEX Client and OBEX server. See e.g., EX1006, at 10.
`
`Thus, showing that IrOBEX does not disclose the required “broadcasting”,
`
`both because the IrOBEX session protocol is structured to direct communication
`
`between two known devices, the OBEX Client and OBEX server, and because of
`
`the way the IrOBEX session protocol is structured, there is no reason to utilize
`
`broadcasting.
`
`D. The Petition Fails As To The Challenged Dependent Claim 12
`
`Because challenged dependent Claim 12 depends from the challenged
`
`independent claim 11, the Petition should be denied in its entirety.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`VII. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INTER PARTES REVIEW IS THE
`SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL
`
`In a pending appeal to the Federal Circuit, Polaris Innovations Ltd. v.
`
`Kingston Technology, No. 18-01768, Dkt. No. 27, the patent owner Polaris argued
`
`that the Board’s appointments of administrative patent judges violate the
`
`Appointments Clause of Article II, and that their decisions must be set aside,
`
`because administrative patent judges are “appointed by the Secretary of Commerce,
`
`in consultation with the Director” of the USPTO, but without appointment by the
`
`President and confirmation by the Senate in violation of Article II, Section 2, Clause
`
`2 of the Constitution. Out of an abundance of caution, Patent Owner hereby adopts
`
`this constitutional challenge now to ensure the issue is preserved pending the appeal.
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the reasons set forth above, Uniloc respectfully requests that the
`
`Board deny all challenges in the instant Petition.5
`
`Date: May 8, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
` 5
`
` Patent Owner does not concede, and specifically denies, that there is any legitimacy
`to any arguments in the instant Petition that are not specifically addressed herein.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), we certify that this Preliminary Response
`
`to Petition complies with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(1)
`
`because it contains fewer than the limit of 14,000 words, as determined by the
`
`word-processing program used to prepare the brief, excluding the parts of the
`
`brief exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1).
`
`Date: May 8, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`U.S. Patent 6,993,049
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), we certify that we served an electronic copy
`
`of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT
`
`TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) along with any accompanying exhibits via the Patent
`
`Review Processing System (PRPS) to Petitioner’s counsel at the following
`
`addresses identified in the Petition’s consent to electronic service:
`Lead Counsel: W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`IPR39521-0056IP1@fr.com
`
`Backup Counsel: Jeremy J. Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Roberto J. Devoto, Reg. No. 55,108
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`axfptab@fr.com
`renner@fr.com
`monaldo@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 8, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`ii
`
`