`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE UP REFERENCES AS
`PRIOR ART .............................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Procedural deficiencies of the BT Core document ......................... 1
`
`Procedural deficiencies of IrOBEX ................................................ 8
`
`THE ’049 PATENT ................................................................................ 10
`
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................... 12
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM ........................................................................ 12
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction ....................................................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“additional data field” ........................................................ 13
`
`“broadcasting” .................................................................... 15
`
`“inquiry message[s]” .......................................................... 17
`
`B.
`
`Claim 11: “adding to an inquiry message prior to
`transmission an additional data field for polling at least
`one secondary station” .................................................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`All mappings applied in the Petition fail to
`properly interpret the limitations directed to
`“adding an additional data field” ........................................ 18
`
`Petitioner’s mapping of Larsson’s “broadcast
`message for route discovery” onto the claimed
`“inquiry message” is tainted by an incorrect claim
`construction ........................................................................ 19
`
`ii
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`Petitioner fails to prove Larsson renders obvious
`limitations directed to “adding . . . an additional
`data field” ........................................................................... 20
`
`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” ........................................................ 23
`
`C.
`
`IrOBEX is not shown to disclose “the method
`comprising the primary station broadcasting a series of
`inquiry messages” ......................................................................... 25
`
`D. Dependent claim 12 ...................................................................... 27
`
`VI.
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS .................................................................. 27
`
`VII.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc” or “Patent Owner”) submits this Response to the
`
`Petition filed by Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) for inter partes review of United States
`
`Patent No. Patent 6,993,049 (“the ’049 patent” or “EX1001”).
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE UP REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART
`
`The Petition is procedurally defective at least because it fails to meet
`
`Petitioner’s burden to prove that the documents relied upon were indeed publicly
`
`available prior art. See, e.g., ServiceNow, Inc., v. Hewlett-Packard Co., IPR2015-
`
`00716, Paper No. 13 at 8, 15‒17 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015). All evidence, including
`
`evidence tending to show public availability, must satisfy the U.S. Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.62.
`
`In IPR2015-00716, the Board found that the petitioner had not met its burden
`
`to prove that references asserted in its petition were prior art. The Board explained
`
`its finding, in part, in that the declarants did not testify to having personal knowledge
`
`of the references being publicly accessible before the critical date. Id. at 18‒20. As
`
`a result, the petitioner’s only evidence of the alleged publication dates was the
`
`respective date appearing on the face of each exhibit. Id. at 8. The Board concluded
`
`the dates themselves were inadmissible hearsay and, consequently, petitioner had
`
`not proven the references qualify as prior art printed publications. Id. at 18‒20. The
`
`same reasoning and conclusion apply here.
`
`A.
`
`Procedural deficiencies of the BT Core document
`
`Petitioner asserts that the reference it identified as BT (Bluetooth) Core (Ex.
`
`1014) qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C § 102(a). Pet 3. Petitioner then
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`provides a few unexplained citations as alleged support for the conclusory statement
`
`that “the Bluetooth Core specification was released and available for download or
`
`order from Bluetooth’s website in December 1999 (at least by March 1, 2000).” Id.
`
`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, 2000. See Pet. 2. 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. This hearsay of BT Core cannot be cured by
`
`relying on more hearsay set forth in the additional references Petitioner cites.
`
`The present facts invoke a pair of final written decisions issued March 6, 2017
`
`and upholding the patentability of the patents challenged in IPR2015-01835 and
`
`IPR2015-01836.1 In each matter the PTAB instituted trial on the same two grounds.
`
`One obviousness ground relied on a webcast containing a slide presentation, as well
`
`as a purported record of the slide presentation evidenced by a link from an internet
`
`archive, Wayback Machine. The petitioner argued that the slide presentation was
`
`accessible on a website of the webcast’s host and was a printed publication. It offered
`
`as evidence a press release (which stated the webcast would be archived for “on-
`
`demand replay”), screenshots from Wayback Machine’s archive of the webcast
`
`host’s website showing a link to a pdf of the presentation, and the slides themselves.
`
`
`1 See Coalition for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC v. The Trustees of the University of
`Pennsylvania, IPR2015-01835, Paper 56 (P.T.A.B. March 6, 2017) and Coalition
`for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania,
`IPR2015-01836, Paper 58 (P.T.A.B. March 6, 2017).
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`The PTAB did not reach the merits of the obviousness argument, instead
`
`concluding that the petitioner had not met its initial burden of establishing that the
`
`webcast qualified as a printed publication.2 In concluding the petitioner failed to
`
`establish that the slide presentation itself was publicly accessible before the critical
`
`date, the PTAB found it significant that Wayback Machine displays an error when
`
`attempting to access the pdf allegedly containing the slide presentation, and that the
`
`petitioner had provided no evidence that the slides were obtained through that
`
`hyperlink and had not provided the actual source for the slides.
`
`The present facts are strikingly similar. First, Petitioner here also “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 impossible
`
`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).
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibits 1016-1019 are each examined in turn to underscore their
`
`respective deficiencies. Without any supportive affidavit by a person purporting to
`
`have personal knowledge, Petitioner first points to Exhibit 1016 as allegedly
`
`2 See note 1, infra.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`containing an archived capture of “Bluetooth’s website” as of March 1, 2000. Pet. 3
`
`(citing Ex. 1016). Petitioner fails to inform the Board, but almost certainly was
`
`aware, that clicking the link Petitioner identified from Exhibit 1016 does not provide
`
`access to BT Core. Rather, clinking the link results in an error because the linked-to
`
`file (whatever it may be) is “corrupted” and “damaged” beyond repair, as shown by
`
`the example screenshots that follow, and as the Board can confirm for itself.
`
`See https://web.archive.org/web/20000301081902/http://www.bluetooth.com/devel
`
`oper/specification/specification.asp (hand icon added); see also Ex. 1016; Ex. 2003.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`Thus, as was the case in IPR2015-01836 and IPR2015-01835, the link
`
`allegedly providing public access to the cited art (in this case the BT Core reference,
`
`Ex. 1014) in fact displays an error when selected. This makes it impossible to test
`
`the veracity of Petitioner’s assertion that the BT Core reference (Ex. 1014) was
`
`actually available to the public via this link as of the alleged date. Indeed, it is telling
`
`that the Petition identifies no archived webpage from the Wayback Machine
`
`allegedly containing the cited BT Core reference itself.
`
`In addition, Petitioner neglects to mention, though presumably was aware, that
`
`the link from Exhibit 1016 does not even attempt to access a file purportedly
`
`archived by Wayback Machine before the alleged “Critical Date” of June 26, 2000.
`
`See Pet. 2. Rather, it links to a webpage dated by Wayback Machine as purportedly
`
`archived no sooner than Aug. 18, 2000 (another inadmissible hearsay date), albeit
`
`the link results in the aforementioned error—i.e., the linked-to file (whatever it may
`
`be) is “corrupted” and “damaged” beyond repair. See https://web.archive.org/web/
`
`20000818173005/http://www.bluetooth.com/developer/specification/core_10_b.pd
`
`f; see also Ex. 2003.
`
`Petitioner also overlooks that the webpage marked as Exhibit 1016 provides
`
`a “Member Login” link at the top of the page, which suggests certain information
`
`was made available only to members—i.e., not generally available to the public.
`
`Ex. 1016 at 1.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`Petitioner’s alternative reliance on Exhibit 1017 fares no better. Clicking on
`
`the links identified on that page also consistently results in error, as shown by way
`
`of example in the two screen captures reproduced below:
`
`
`See https://web.archive.org/web/20000301011704/http://www.bluetooth.com/devel
`
`oper/specification/core.asp (hand icon added); see also Ex. 2003.
`
`
`Id. Contrary to what Petitioner suggests, the link Petitioner identified from Exhibit
`
`1018 (“Specification Intro”) is not a link to the source of cited BT Core reference
`
`itself (Ex. 1014), but rather it is a link to the unavailing webpage discussed above,
`
`which Petitioner filed as Exhibit 1016. Id. Finally, Petitioner does not even allege
`
`that Exhibit 1019 provides a link to the alleged source of BT Core.
`
`Yet another fatal procedural defect is that Petitioner makes no attempt to
`
`authenticate the webpages purportedly obtained from the Wayback Machine and
`
`filed as Exhibits 1016-1019. “When offering a printout of a webpage into evidence
`
`to prove the website’s contents, the proponent of the evidence must authenticate the
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`information from the website itself, not merely the printout.” See, e.g., Standard
`
`Innovation Corp. v. LeLo, Inc., Case IPR2014-00148, Paper 42 at 10 (P.T.A.B. Apr.
`
`23, 2015), rehearing denied, IPR2014-00148, Paper 44 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2015);
`
`Victaulic Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 236 (3d Cir. 2007), as amended (Nov. 20,
`
`2007) (citing United States v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 633, 638 (7th Cir. 2000)). The
`
`Board has required that “[t]o authenticate printouts from a website, the party
`
`proffering the evidence must produce some statement or affidavit from someone
`
`with knowledge of the website . . . for example a web master or someone else with
`
`personal knowledge would be sufficient.” EMC Corp. v. Personalweb Techs., LLC,
`
`Case IPR2013-00084, Paper 64 at 45-46 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2014) (quoting St.
`
`Luke’s Cataract & Laser Inst., P.A. v. Sanderson, 2006 WL 1320242, at *2 (M.D.
`
`Fla. May 12, 2006)), a’ffd, 612 Fed. Appx. 611 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The PTAB considered similar facts in Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels,
`
`LLC, IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 (P.T.A.B., March 12, 2015). There, the declarant
`
`purportedly used the Wayback Machine to obtain printouts of websites evidencing
`
`that the relied upon reference qualifies as prior art. The patent owner subsequently
`
`filed a motion to exclude the Wayback Machine printouts on the basis that they were
`
`not properly authenticated.
`
`In granting the motion to exclude, the Board noted that authentication of an
`
`item of evidence requires that “the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Id. (citing Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence 901(a)). The Board stated that “[w]hen offering a printout of a
`
`webpage into evidence to prove the website’s contents, the proponent of the
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`evidence must authenticate the information from the website itself, not merely the
`
`printout.” IPR2013-00578, Paper 53. The Board found that the declarant did not
`
`have the personal knowledge of the websites depicted in the Wayback Machine
`
`printouts. Thus, the Board concluded that the Wayback Machine printouts lacked
`
`authentication and granted a motion to exclude them.
`
`While Patent Owner has not yet filed a motion to exclude Exhibits 1016-1019
`
`as not properly authenticated, the same reasoning applies here should Patent Owner
`
`seek to do so. And even if those exhibits ultimately are not excluded, the fact that
`
`Petitioner failed to properly authenticate provides an additional and independent
`
`basis to give the evidence little if any weight.
`
`Long after filing its Petition, Petitioner at least tacitly acknowledged the
`
`Petition is procedurally deficient by moving the court to grant leave to file
`
`supplemental information. Paper 9. Uniloc timely opposed Petitioner’s motion and
`
`objected to admission of the evidence. 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 Response.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, the Petition fails to establish that BT Core
`
`(Ex. 1014) qualifies as a prior art printed publication under the statute cited.
`
`B.
`
`Procedural deficiencies of IrOBEX
`
`Petitioner’s alternative reliance on IrOBEX v. 1.2. specification (“IrOBEX,
`
`marked as Ex. 1006) suffers from analogous procedural deficiencies. At a minimum,
`
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`the alleged “Critical Date” of June 26, 2000. See Pet. 2.
`
`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). It is well established, however, that even if a petitioner
`
`includes an expert declaration, the petition, itself, must contain the analysis and
`
`arguments of the expert’s declaration in the Petition itself. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(a)(3); see also, e.g., InTempur Sealy International Inc. v. Select Comfort
`
`Corporation, IPR2014-01419, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Feb, 17, 2015). In any event, Dr.
`
`Knutson’s testimony and the citations included only in his declaration (and not
`
`included in the Petition itself) do not lend evidentiary support.
`
`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). Dr. Knutson’s tellingly opaque use of the phrase “after
`
`March 18, 1999” simply does not establish that he personally accessed IrOBEX
`
`through the www.irda.org website sometime before the alleged “Critical Date” of
`
`June 26, 2000. Pet 2.
`
`While Dr. Knutson cites to alleged archived pages from the Wayback Machine
`
`(id., ¶8), Dr. Knutson also does not purport to have personal knowledge as to how
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`the WayBack Machine (also referred to as “Internet Archive”) purportedly obtained
`
`and archived those pages. At best, Dr. Knutson cites those pages for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted concerning the dates the WayBack Machine added to the top of those
`
`pages. This is inadmissible hearsay offered from a document that is not properly
`
`authenticated. See § II.A, supra. Tellingly, Dr. Knutson also fails to identify any
`
`alleged archival of the IrOBEX document itself by the Wayback Machine.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, the Petition fails to establish that IrOBEX
`
`(Ex. 1006) qualifies as a prior art printed publication under the statute cited.
`
`III. 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. Ex. 1001, 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. Certain HIDs did not typically
`
`require a link having high data throughput, though they might require a very
`
`responsive link.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`A Bluetooth system may be capable of supporting the throughput
`
`requirements of certain HIDs. However, the degree of responsiveness required could
`
`be 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. Id., 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. Id., 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. Id.,
`
`2:22‒35.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`IV. 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 of
`
`unpatentability 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.
`
`V.
`
`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
`Larsson (U.S. Patent No. 6,705,293)
`2
`11 and 12
`Larsson and BT Core
`3
`11 and 12
`IrOBEX
`
`A. 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
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`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)
`
`(denying petition as tainted by reliance on unreasonable claim constructions).
`
`1.
`
`“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 & Co., 663 F. App’x 928, 932 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (quoting GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`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).
`
`As shown in the screenshot reproduced below, the corresponding description
`
`makes clear that the additional data field is an extra field that is appended to the end
`
`an inquiry message:
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:59‒5:11 (highlighting added).
`
`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. Specifically,
`
`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).
`
`None of the mappings applied in the Petition address this aspect of the claimed
`
`invention reflected in the recitation, “adding to an inquiry message prior to
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary station,” as
`
`recited in claim 11.
`
`In its Institution Decision, the Board preliminary held that “[i]ndependent
`
`claim 11 already has language that accounts for the language Patent Owner seeks to
`
`add through claim construction.” Paper 7 at 5. The Board clarified that “on this
`
`record and for purposes of this Decision, we do not view [appending and adding] as
`
`meaningfully distinct.” Id. Patent Owner has modified its proposed construction to
`
`clarify that “appended” in this context refers to “appended to the end” of the “inquiry
`
`message” referenced in the “additional data field” clause. This accurately reflects
`
`the thematic disclosure in the ’049 patent referenced above, which confirms there is
`
`meaningful and purposeful distinction between adding in the abstract and, instead,
`
`adding by appending the additional data field to the end of an inquiry message.
`
`Accordingly, the term “additional data field” should be construed to mean “an
`
`extra data field appended to the end of an inquiry message.”
`
`2.
`
`“broadcasting”
`
`The term “broadcasting” was a well-known term of art at the time of the
`
`invention. For example, a technical dictionary offered the following definition:
`
`Ex. 2001, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition, at 5; see also Ex. 2002
`
`(declaration of Jeff Huang). The Microsoft definition for “broadcasting” also reflects
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`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.
`
`In
`
`its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner proposed construing
`
`“broadcasting” to mean “one message that is distributed to all stations.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. (Paper 6) 11. The Board preliminary adopted this construction for the
`
`“broadcasting” term in its Institution Decision. See Paper 7 at 5.
`
`Elsewhere in its Institution Decision, however, 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. Id. at 9. Such an overbroad interpretation
`
`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.
`
`The ’049 patent recognizes a difference between the phrases “point-to-point”
`
`and “point-to-multipoint.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 3:44‒56. The ’049 patent also
`
`consistently distinguishes broadcasting from, instead, sending a point-to-point
`
`message that is intended for only one designated recipient. For example, the ’049
`
`patent demonstrates the point-to-multipoint nature of broadcasting in teaching that
`
`even if a broadcasted inquiry message has an additional polling field appended
`
`thereto, which is intended for a particular HID recipient, the transmission of that
`
`message may nevertheless be received by “non-HID receivers.” Id. 5:6‒9; see also
`
`Pet. 5 (emphasizing the same teaching). The ’049 patent also discloses broadcasting
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`in the blind on several frequencies and that a singular “broadcast channel can be used
`
`to poll HIDs [(in the plural)] at regular intervals.” Id. at 4:21‒48.
`
`The ’049 patent further teaches that any portable device within the vicinity
`
`“that wants to be discovered” (i.e., it has not yet been discovered by the broadcasting
`
`or “primary” device) listens for a broadcasting inquiry message. Id. Indeed, a
`
`fundamental purpose of broadcasting the inquiry message is to discover devices.
`
`Once a discovered device responds, “[t]he master 100 will then page the portable
`
`device, inviting it to join the piconet.” Id. This follow-up, point-to-point paging
`
`communication, which is sent from the master 100 and addressed specifically to the
`
`portable device, is expressly distinguished from the broadcasted inquiry message
`
`receivable by multiple devices at once. Id.
`
`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). To make certain the previously proposed
`
`construction (“one message that is distributed to all stations”) is not confused as
`
`broadly encompassing point-to-point communications, a more precise construction
`
`is warranted. Accordingly, consistent with the intrinsic evidence identified above,
`
`and to properly frame the dispute, Patent Owner proposes construing “broadcasting”
`
`to mean “a transmission that is receivable by multiple recipients.”
`
`3.
`
`“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
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`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 (“When
`
`a Bluetooth unit wants to discover other Bluetooth devices, it . . . issues an inquiry
`
`message . . . .”); 1:56‒57 (“Inquiry allows a would-be slave to find a base station
`
`and issue a request to join the piconet.”); 4:11‒13 (“The Bluetooth inquiry procedure
`
`allows a would-be slave to find a base station and issue a request to join its
`
`piconet.”). This refutes Petitioner’s overbroad interpretation that the claimed
`
`“inquiry message[s]” encompass virtually any message seeking literally any
`
`information or knowledge. Petitioner’s challenges are tainted by reliance on an
`
`unreasonably broad claim construction that is untethered to the intrinsic evidence.
`
`B. Claim 11: “adding to an inquiry message prior to transmission an
`additional data field for polling at least one secondary station”
`
`1.
`
`All mappings applied in the Petition fail to properly interpret
`the limitations directed to “adding an additional data field”
`
`As an independently dispositive deficiency applicable to all challenges in the
`
`Petition, Petitioner offers no obviousness theory that would satisfy the limitations
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`PO Response (Paper 11)
`
`directed to “additional data field” should this term be construed to mean “an extra
`
`data field appended to the end of an inquiry message.” See §VI.A.1, supra.
`
`Regardless whether the Board adopts a particular construction for this claim
`
`language, the Petition fails to address even a plain reading, as explained below.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s mapping of Larsson’s “broadcast message for
`route discovery” onto the claimed “inquiry message” is
`tainted by an incorrect claim construction
`
`Petitioner
`