Petitioner Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`Apple Inc., LG Electronics Inc., Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., (Petitioners)
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`
`Before Hon. Sally C. Medley, Jeffrey S. Smith, and Garth D. Baer
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`1
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1023
`Apple et al. v. Uniloc
`IPR2019-00510
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., LG Electronics Inc., Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., (Petitioners)
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`
`Before Hon. Sally C. Medley, Jeffrey S. Smith, and Garth D. Baer
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`1
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1023
`Apple et al. v. Uniloc
`IPR2019-00510
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. Background __________________________________________________
`A. Overview Of The ’079 Patent __________________________________
`B. Instituted Grounds ___________________________________________
`Independent Claim 17 __________________________________________
`A. Combination of Wolfe and Bousquet (Grounds 1 and 2) ______________
`21
`B. Disputed Issue #1: “consecutive allocated time slots” _______________
`28
`C. Disputed Issue #2: “retransmit … until acknowledgment is received” ___
`35
`D. Addition of Everett (Ground 2) _________________________________
`E. Addition of Patsiokas (Grounds 1 and 2) _________________________
`44
`IV. Independent Claim 18 __________________________________________
`57
`59
`A. Obviousness of Indefinite Claims (Grounds 1 and 2) ________________
`
`34568
`
`II.
`
`2
`
`2
`
`
`
`Background
`
`Background
`
`FISH.
`
`3
`
`3
`
`
`
`Overview Of The ’079 Patent
`
`EX-1001 (‘079 Patent), FIG. 2 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 4]
`
`EX-1001 (‘079 Patent), 3:23-30, 3:55-59,
`3:61-65 [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 4-5]
`
`4
`
`EX-1001 (‘079 Patent), FIG. 3 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 5]
`
`4
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 1
`
`5
`
`5
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 17
`
`Independent Claim 17
`
`FISH.
`
`6
`
`6
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 17
`
`EX-1001 (’079 Patent), 8:12-33
`
`7
`
`7
`
`
`
`Combination of Wolfe and Bousquet
`(Grounds 1 and 2)
`
`8
`
`8
`
`
`
`Wolfe
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), p. 1
`
`
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), FIG. 1 (annotated) [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 42]EXEX---10100505 ((WoWolflfe)e),, FIFIG.G. 11 ((anannonotatateted)d) [[PaPapeperr 22 (P(Petet.).),, p.p. 4242]]
`
`9
`
`9
`
`
`
`Wolfe
`
`
`
`
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), Abstract [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 19]EX-1005 (Wolfe), Abstract [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 19]EX 1005 ((Wolfe)), Abstract [[Papep r 2 (P( et.)), p.p 19]]
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), 5:34-36 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 26]
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), FIG. 3 (annotated) [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 23]
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), FIG. 3 (annotated) [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 23]]
`
`10
`
`10
`
`
`
`Bousquet
`
`EX-1006 (Bousquet), Abstract [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 24-25]
`
`EX-1006 (Bousquet), 3:57-58 [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 26]
`
`
`
`EX-1006 (Bousquet), 3:31-32 [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 26-27]EX-1006 ((Bousquq et),), 3:31-32 [[Papep r 2 (P( et.)), , pppp. 26-27]]
`
`
`
`EX-1006 (Bousquet), p. 1EXEX-10100606 ((BoBoususququetet),), pp.. 11
`
`11
`
`11
`
`
`
`Wolfe-Bousquet Combination (Ground 1)
`
`
`
`Wolfe and Bousquet render obvious “retransmitting”and Bousquet render obvious retransm
`
`EX-1001 (’079 Patent), 8:12-33
`
`12
`
`12
`
`
`
`The Wolfe-Bousquet Combination
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [98]EX 1003 (Steffes D
`
`EX-1006 (Bousquet), Abstract
`
`13
`
`13
`
`
`
`Wolfe & Bousquet Combination
`
`Reasons to Combine:
`
`1. To improve time delay of communications.
`
`2. To improve “channel quality.”
`
`3. To simply apply a known technique to a known device ready for
`improvement to yield predictable results.
`
`See EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [63]-[46], [100]-[104] [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 27-35, 51-52]
`
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`First Reason to Combine Wolfe and Bousquet
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [103], [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 51-52]EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [103], [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 51-52]
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), 3:68-4:14 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 28]
`
`EX-1009 (Retnahdas), 1 [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 34-35]
`
`EX-1006 (Bousquet), 4:2-6 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 28]
`
`15
`
`15
`
`
`
`Second Reason to Combine Wolfe and Bousquet
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [104], [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 51]
`
`EX-1006 (Bousquet), 4:25-30 [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 34, 51]
`EX-1006 ((Bousquet),) 4:25-30 [Paper 2 (P( et.)), pp. 34, 51]
`
`EX-1009 (Retnadhas), 1 [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 34-35, 51]
`
`16
`
`16
`
`
`
`Third Reason to Combine Wolfe and Bousquet
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [75], [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 35]EXEX-10100303 ((StStefeffefess DeDec.c.),), [[7575],], [P[Papaperer 22 ((PePet.t.),), pp.. 3355]]
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, (2007)
`Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 35
`
`17
`
`17
`
`
`
`How a POSITA Would Combine Wolfe & Bousquet
`
`Maintain Wolfe’s Time Slots
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), 5:6-15 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 42]
`
`
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), FIG. 1 (annotated) [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 22]5 (WoWolflfe)),, FIG. 1 ((annotated)) [[Papep r 2 (P( et.)), , p.p 22]]
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), FIG. 3 (annotated) [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 44]
`EX-1005 ((Wolfe)), FIG. 3 ((annotated)) [[Paper 2 (P( et.)), p. 44]]
`
`18
`
`18
`
`
`
`How a POSITA Would Combine Wolfe & Bousquet
`
`Incorporate Bousquet’s Retransmissions in Wolfe’s Time Slots
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [98]
`
`EX-1006 (Bousquet), 2:10-21 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 26]
`
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`Disputes Related to the Combination of Wolfe & Bousquet
`
`Disputed Issues:
`
`1. Whether retransmission occurs in “consecutive allocated time
`slots.”
`2. Whether retransmission occurs “until acknowledgment is
`received.”
`
`Paper 11 (PO’s Sur-reply), p. 3
`
`20
`
`20
`
`
`
`Disputed Issue #1:
`“consecutive allocated time slots”
`
`21
`
`21
`
`
`
`The Combination renders obvious consecutive time slots
`
`
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), FIG. 1 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 22]EXEX-10100505 ((WoWolflfe)e), FIFIGG. 11 [[PaPapeperr 22 (P(Petet ).), pp. 2222]]
`
`EX-1006 (Bousquet), 3:53-56 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 25]
`
`22
`
`22
`
`
`
`The Combination renders obvious consecutive time slots
`
`Multiple Wolfe Frames in Round Trip Satellite Delay
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [66]
`
`23
`
`23
`
`
`
`The Combination renders obvious consecutive time slots
`
`Round Trip Satellite Delay
`
`EX-1008 (Everett), 317 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 30]
`
`EX-1006 (Bousquet), 4:6-11 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 30]
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), 3:68-4:4 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 30]
`
`24
`
`24
`
`
`
`The Combination renders obvious consecutive time slots
`
`Wolfe’s Frame Rate
`
`
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), 1:45-47 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 30]EX-1005 ((Wolfe)),, 1:45-47 [[Papep r 2 (P( et.)),, p.p 30]]
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [66]
`
`EX-1011 (ITU Standards), 5 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 30]
`EXEX-10101111 ((ITITUU StStanandadardrds)s), 55 [[PaPapeperr 22 (P(Petet ).), pp. 3030]]
`
`25
`
`25
`
`
`
`The Combination renders obvious consecutive time slots
`
`At Least Three Frames in Round Trip Satellite Delay
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [66]EX-1003 ((Steffes Dec.),), [[66]]
`
`26
`
`26
`
`
`
`The Combination renders obvious consecutive time slots
`
`Using Consecutive Frames Would Have Been Obvious
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [69]EXEX--10100303 ((StStefeffefess DeDecc.)), [[6969]]
`
`27
`
`27
`
`
`
`Disputed Issue #2:
`“retransmit … until acknowledgment is
`received”
`
`28
`
`28
`
`
`
`Knowledge of a POSITA
`
`Acknowledgement and Retransmission Was Well-Knowng
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [70]EX-1003 ((Steffes Dec.),) [[70]]
`
`29
`
`29
`
`
`
`Well-known Knowledge of a POSITA
`
`EX-1008 (Everett), 317 [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 32-34]
`
`3030
`
`30
`
`
`
`Re-transmission would have been obvious
`
`Retransmission Stops When Acknowledgment is Received
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [69]
`
`31
`
`31
`
`
`
`Re-transmission would have been obvious
`
`Retransmission Stops To Minimize Wasted Bandwidth
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [69]EX-1003 ((Steffes Dec.),) [[69]]
`
`32
`
`32
`
`
`
`Predefined time period does not preclude re-transmission
`
`EX-1006 (Bousquet), 3:53-56 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 25]
`
`EX-1018 (2nd Steffes Decl.), [16]]
`
`Paper 10 (Reply), p. 7
`
`33
`
`33
`
`
`
`Combination, not individual references, render obvious
`“consecutive allocated time slots” and “re-transmit” limitations
`
`
`
`Paper 10 (Reply), p. 3PaPapeperr 1010 ((ReReplply)y), pp. 33
`
`34
`
`34
`
`
`
`Addition of Everett (Ground 2)
`
`35
`
`35
`
`
`
`Everett (Ground 2)
`
`EX-1008 (Everett), 12 (FIG. 1.6(c)), [Paper 2 (Pet.), p.74]
`
`EX-1008 (Everett), 14 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p.74]
`
`36
`
`36
`
`
`
`Everett Discloses Acknowledgements
`
`EX-1008 (Everett), 14 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p.75]
`
`EX-1008 (Everett), 339 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p.75]
`
`37
`
`37
`
`
`
`Everett Discloses Retransmission Until Acknowledgement
`
`EX-1008 (Everett), 14 [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 76-77]
`
`38
`
`38
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine Wolfe, Bousquet, & Everett (Ground 2)
`
`Reasons to Combine:
`
`1. To achieve a suitable “channel utilisation efficiency.”
`
`2. To include a “major system integrity safeguard” in Wolfe’s system.
`
`3. To simply apply a known technique to a known device ready for
`improvement to yield predictable results.
`
`See Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 76-78
`
`39
`
`39
`
`
`
`First Reason to Combine - Everett (Ground 2)
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [145]EXEX-10100303 ((StSt fefffes DDec.)), [[14145]5]
`
`
`
`EX-1008 (Everett), 10 [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 76-77]EXEX-10100808 ((EEver tett)t), 1010 [[PPaper 22 (P(P tet ).), pp. 7676-7777]]
`
`40
`
`40
`
`
`
`Second Reason to Combine - Everett (Ground 2)
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [146]EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [146]
`
`EX-1008 (Everett), 207 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 77]
`
`41
`
`41
`
`
`
`Third Reason to Combine - Everett (Ground 2)
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [147]EX-1003 (Steffes Dec ) [147]
`
`42
`
`42
`
`
`
`Combination does not rely on Everett’s retransmission timing
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11 (PO’s Sur-reply), p. 9PaPapeperr 1111 ((POPO’ss SSurur-rereplply)y))),, p.p 99
`
`
`
`EX-1018 (2nd Steffes Decl.), [20]EX-1018 (2nd Steffes Decl.), [20]
`
`43
`
`43
`
`
`
`Addition of Patsiokas (Grounds 1 and 2)
`
`44
`
`44
`
`
`
`Patsiokas
`
`
`
`EX-1007 (Patsiokas), 2:11-21 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 53]EX-1007 ((Patsiokas)), 2:11-21 [[Papep r 2 (P( et.)), p.p 53]]
`
`
`
`EX-1007 (Patsiokas), p. 1EX-1007 ((Patsiokas)),, p.p 1
`
`45
`
`45
`
`
`
`Patsiokas
`
`“… Patsiokas’ primary station determines whether a request for services has
`been transmitted by a secondary station by determining whether a signal
`strength of the respective transmitted request exceeds a threshold value.”
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [110]
`
`EX-1007 (Patsiokas), 2:11-21 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 53]
`
`EX-1007 (Patsiokas), 4:27-30 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 54]
`
`EX-1007 (Patsiokas), FIG. 3 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 54]
`
`46
`
`46
`
`
`
`Grounds 1 & 2: Proposed Combinations
`
`Wolfe, Bousquet, (& Everett) & Patsiokas read on “signal strength”
`
`“Request-sent
`determination”
`limitation
`
`“Threshold value”
`limitation
`
`EX-1001 (’079 Patent), 8:12-33
`
`47
`
`47
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine – Patsiokas
`
`Reasons to Combine:
`
`1. The primary station’s maximum sensitivity level is applicable and
`relevant to establishing and maintaining a reliable call connection
`in a satellite system, like Wolfe’s system.
`
`2.
`
`It would have been advantageous to connect calls that maintain
`the connection for the necessary amount of time, and thus reduce
`the likelihood of occurrence of dropped calls.
`
`3. Use of Patsiokas’ signal threshold limit technique in the Wolfe-
`Bousquet system applies a known technique to a known device
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
`
`See Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 37-40, 55-57
`
`48
`
`48
`
`
`
`First Reason to Combine – Patsiokas
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [112] [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 55-56]EXEX-10100303 ((StStefeffefess DeDec.c.),), [[11112]2] [[PaPapeperr 22 (P(Petet.).),, pppp.. 5555-5656]]
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe), 5:10-14 [Paper 2 (Pet.), pp. 55-56]
`
`49
`
`49
`
`
`
`Second Reason to Combine – Patsiokas
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [113]EXEX-10100303 ((StStefeffefess DeDec.c.),), [[11113]3]
`
`EX-1007 (Patsiokas), 2:1-3 [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 56]
`EXEX-10100707 ((PaPatstsioiokakas)s),, 2:2:11-33 [[PaPapeperr 22 (P(Petet.).),, p.p. 556]6]
`
`50
`
`50
`
`
`
`Third Reason to Combine – Patsiokas
`
`
`
`EX-1003 (Steffes Dec.), [114], [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 57]EX-1003 (Steffes Dec ) [114] [Paper 2 (Pet ) p 57]
`
`51
`
`51
`
`
`
`Uniloc mischaracterizes the Petition
`
`Paper 9 (POR), p. 16
`
`Paper 9 (POR), p. 17
`
`Paper 10 (Reply), p. 17
`
`
`
`5252
`
`52
`
`
`
`Uniloc’s assertions are unsupported & factually incorrect
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9 (POR), p. 17PaPapeperr 99 (P(POROR),), pp.. 1717ape 9 ( O ), p
`
`Paper 9 (POR), p. 18
`
`EX-1005 (Wolfe) 5:20-21, [Paper 2 (Pet.), p. 37]
`
`53
`
`53
`
`
`
`Uniloc’s assertions are unsupported & factually incorrect
`
`EX-1018 (2nd Steffes Decl.), [32]-[33]
`
`54
`
`54
`
`
`
`Combination of terrestrial and satellite systems
`
`
`
`EX-1018 (2nd Steffes Decl.), [24]; see also [25]-[27], [Paper 10 (Reply), pp. 13-14]EXEX-10101818 ((22nd StStefeffefess DeDeclcl.).),, [2[24]4];; seseee alalsoso [2[25]5]-[2[277],], [[PaPapeperr 1010 ((ReReplply)y),, pppp.. 1313-1414]]
`
`EX-1022 (Winch), 3 [Paper 10 (Reply), p. 14]
`
`55
`
`55
`
`
`
`Combination of terrestrial and satellite systems
`
`EX-1019 (Iridium), 6 [Paper 10 (Reply), p. 14]
`
`EX-1019 (Iridium), 7-8 [Paper 10 (Reply), p. 14]
`
`EX-1019 (Iridium), 7-8 [Paper 10 (Reply), p. 15]
`
`EX-1019 (Iridium), 6-8 [Paper 10 (Reply), p. 14]
`
`56
`
`56
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 18
`
`Independent Claim 18
`
`FISH.
`
`57
`
`57
`
`57
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 18
`
`
`
`EX-1001 (’079 Patent), 8:34-53EX-1001 ((’079 Patent)),, 8:34-53
`
`58
`
`58
`
`
`
`Obviousness of Indefinite Claims
`(Grounds 1 and 2)
`
`59
`
`59
`
`
`
`Authority Exists to Determine Obviousness
`
`Paper 10 (Reply), p. 23
`
`60
`
`60
`
`
`
`USPTO Assesses Obviousness of Indefinite Claims
`
`
`
`Paper 10 (Reply), pp. 23-24 Paape
`
`61
`
`61
`
`
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
