UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD., AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD., AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CLAIM 17 IS OBVIOUS (GROUNDS 1 & 2) ................................................ 2
`
`I.
`
`A.
`
`THE COMBINATION OF WOLFE AND BOUSQUET (GROUND 1)
`AND WOLFE, BOUSQUET, AND EVERETT (GROUND 2)
`RENDERS OBVIOUS THE RETRANSMISSION LIMITATION .......... 3
`
`THE PETITION PRESENTS AN EVIDENCE-BASED
`1.
`COMBINATION ANALYSIS BASED ON WOLFE AS A PRIMARY
`REFERENCE ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`A POSITA WOULD HAVE FOUND IT OBVIOUS TO USE
`2.
`BOUSQUET'S METHOD OF RE-TRANSMISSION IN THE PROPOSED
`COMBINATION. ................................................................................................ 6
`
`3. UNILOC'S ARGUMENTS RELATED TO THE “USE OF
`RANDOMLY SELECTED TIME INTERVALS” OF EVERETT ARE
`UNPERSUASIVE (GROUND 2) ....................................................................... 8
`
`THE PROPOSED COMBINATIONS RENDER OBVIOUS THE
`4.
`RETRANSMISSION LIMITATION ................................................................ 10
`
`B.
`
`THE COMBINATIONS WITH PATSIOKAS ARE PROPER ............... 11
`
`1. A POSITA WOULD HAVE FOUND IT OBVIOUS TO COMBINE
`PATSIOKAS WITH WOLFE AND BOUSQUET OR WITH WOLFE,
`BOUSQUET, AND EVERETT. ....................................................................... 12
`
`2. UNILOC’S ARGUMENT THAT SATELLITE SYSTEMS DO NOT
`HAVE RANGE ISSUES IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND BASED
`SOLELY ON ATTORNEY ARGUMENT ....................................................... 16
`
`II. THE BOARD SHOULD FIND CLAIM 18 UNPATENTABLE .................. 20
`
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079 to Hunt (“the ’079 Patent”)
`
`Excerpts of Prosecution History of the ’079 Patent (Serial No.
`09/455,124)
`
`Exhibit-1001
`
`Exhibit-1002
`
`Exhibit-1003
`
`Declaration of Paul G. Steffes, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit-1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Paul G. Steffes, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit-1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,763,325 to Wolfe et al. (“Wolfe”)
`
`Exhibit-1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,298,052 to Bousquet et al. (“Bousquet”)
`
`Exhibit-1007
`
`PCT Publication WO 1992/021214 to Patsiokas et al.
`(“Patsiokas”)
`
`Exhibit-1008
`
`John L. Everett, Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSATs),
`Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE), Telecommunication
`Series 28, First Edition (1992) (“Everett”) (select portions)
`
`
`
`Exhibit-1009
`
`C. Retnadhas, Satellite Multiple Access Protocol, IEEE
`Communications Magazine, 1980 (“Retnadhas”)
`
`Exhibit-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,212,360 to Fleming, III et al. (“Fleming”)
`
`Exhibit-1011
`
`ITU-T G.114, Transmission Systems and Media. General
`Recommendations on the Transmission Quality for an Entire
`International Telephone Connection. One-Way Transmission
`Time, Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU, 1994
`(“ITU Standards”)
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Exhibit-1012
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, District
`Court Case No. 2-18-cv-00042, (“Joint CC”)
`
`Exhibit-1013
`
`Exhibit A of Joint CC (“Exh-A of Joint CC”)
`
`Exhibit-1014
`
`Fredrick J. Hill & Gerald R. Peterson, Introduction to
`Switching Theory and Logical Design, Second Edition (1968)
`(select portions) (“Hill”)
`
`Exhibit-1015
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 12th Edition (1997) (select
`portions)
`
`Exhibit-1016
`
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronic
`Terms, Sixth Edition (1996) (select portions)
`
`Exhibit-1017
`
`Munford Declaration
`
`Exhibit-1018
`
`Second Declaration of Paul G. Steffes, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit-1019
`
`Exhibit-1020
`
`Exhibit-1021
`
`Exhibit-1022
`
`Joe Flower, Iridium, Wired (November 1993) (“Iridium”)
`(select portions)
`
`Honey Berman, LEOs and MEOs, Via Satellite (March 1998)
`(“Via Satellite”)
`John L. Everett, Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSATs),
`Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE), Telecommunication
`Series 28, First Edition (1992) (“Everett-2”) (Supplemental set
`of select portions)
`Robert G. Winch, Telecommunication Transmission Systems,
`McGraw-Hill Telecommunications, Second Edition (1998)
`(“Winch”) (select portions)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`Apple Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Petitioners”) submit this Reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (“Response”) to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079 (“the ’079 Patent”) filed by Patent Owner, Uniloc 2017,
`
`LLC (“Uniloc”).
`
`In the Response, Uniloc raises just two arguments against the substantive
`
`combinations presented in Grounds 1 and 2. Both of these substantive arguments
`
`were raised in Uniloc’s preliminary response and rejected in the Institution
`
`Decision. See Institution Decision, 21-23. Because Uniloc has not presented any
`
`evidence in rebuttal to Petitioners’ evidence or in support of Uniloc’s arguments,
`
`Uniloc has not advanced the evidentiary record beyond the record already
`
`considered at the time of institution. Thus, Uniloc has done nothing that warrants
`
`reconsideration of the reasonable likelihood of success found at institution and
`
`Uniloc’s two arguments should be rejected.
`
`First, Uniloc argues that each of the applied references individually fails to
`
`disclose that “the at least one respective secondary station re-transmits the same
`
`respective request in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`
`acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received from the primary
`
`station” (“retransmission limitation”). Uniloc’s argument, however, never
`
`addresses the combinations presented in the Petition. Instead, Uniloc improperly
`
`1
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`attacks the references individually and offers no evidence rebutting Dr. Steffes’
`
`well-reasoned explanation of how the combinations presented in the Petition
`
`render obvious the retransmission limitation.
`
`Second, Uniloc argues that a POSITA would not have found it obvious to
`
`combine Patsiokas with Wolfe and Bousquet (or Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett)
`
`because Patsiokas is not directed to satellite technology. Uniloc’s argument,
`
`however, is premised on a flawed understanding of satellite communications. And,
`
`Uniloc provides no evidence to support its rigid contention that a POSITA would
`
`look only to satellite systems in considering modifications to Wolfe and Bousquet
`
`(or Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett).
`
`Finally, Uniloc argues that the Petition failed to identify sufficient structure
`
`for the “means for allocating” limitation of claim 18. However, indefiniteness
`
`issues do not bar cancellation of claim 18 as obvious. Accordingly, the Board can
`
`and should find claims 17 and 18 (“Challenged Claims”) of the ’079 Patent
`
`unpatentable under §103.
`
`I.
`CLAIM 17 IS OBVIOUS (GROUNDS 1 & 2)
`As demonstrated in the Petition, claim 17 is rendered obvious by the
`
`combinations of Wolfe, Bousquet, and Patsiokas (Ground 1) and Wolfe, Bousquet,
`
`Everett, and Patsiokas (Ground 2). See Petition, 16-57. Without any evidence,
`
`Uniloc attacks the proposed combinations presented in the Petition based solely on
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`attorney arguments that are legally irrelevant and that ignore the explanation in the
`
`Petition detailing how the proposed combinations render obvious all limitations of
`
`claim 17. Indeed, instead of properly addressing the combinations set forth in the
`
`Petition, Uniloc attacks the references individually, concluding that the
`
`combinations fail because the retransmission limitation is not fully taught by any
`
`single reference. Such an approach has been deemed impermissible. Bradium
`
`Tech. v. Iancu, Case Nos. 2017-2579, 2017-2580 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“A finding of
`
`obviousness, however, cannot be overcome by attacking references individually
`
`where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”)
`
`(quoting In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
`
`As explained below, the Response fails to rebut the arguments presented in
`
`the Petition. See also EX-1018, [1]-[35]. Thus, the Board should find the
`
`Challenged Claims unpatentable.
`
`A. The combination of Wolfe and Bousquet (Ground 1) and Wolfe,
`Bousquet, and Everett (Ground 2) renders obvious the
`retransmission limitation
`Uniloc alleges that the combinations of (1) Wolfe and Bousquet and (2)
`
`Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett do not teach the retransmission limitation. As
`
`explained in the sections below, Uniloc’s attack of the references individually fails
`
`to adequately address the obviousness arguments presented in the Petition. EX-
`
`1018, [12]-[33].
`
`3
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`1. The Petition presents an evidence-based combination analysis
`based on Wolfe as a primary reference
`As to Wolfe, Uniloc alleges that Petitioner’s declarant relies on “conclusory
`
`and unsupported speculation,” but provides no evidence, not even any expert
`
`testimony, to rebut the opinions and evidence provided with the Petition. See
`
`Response, 7-13. Uniloc starts by mischaracterizing the combination analysis in the
`
`Petition, attacking the Wolfe reference in isolation and arguing that Wolfe fails to
`
`fully disclose the retransmission limitation. Response, 7-8 (“Petitioners
`
`improperly speculate through their declarant regarding Wolfe”); EX-1018, [13]-
`
`[15]. But, Uniloc’s argument misses the point – the Petition recognized that Wolfe
`
`did not fully disclose the retransmission limitation. Rather, as set forth in the
`
`Petition, Wolfe provides the framework of a contention-free communication
`
`system with allocated time slots. EX-1018, [14]. Within this framework,
`
`Bousquet (or Bousquet and Everett) suggest modification of Wolfe to perform
`
`retransmission in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`
`acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received. Id. Instead of
`
`addressing these obviousness arguments, Uniloc chooses to ignore them,
`
`reiterating deficiencies of Wolfe that were identified in the Petition and that were
`
`addressed through combination with Bousquet or Bousquet and Everett.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`In fact, Uniloc’s arguments ignore and fail to address the Petition’s nearly
`
`twelve page explanation of how a POSITA would have combined Wolfe and
`
`Bousquet “to modify Wolfe’s ground station 10 to re-transmit the same respective
`
`request in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`
`acknowledgement until the acknowledgement is received from the primary station”
`
`(see section titled “Combination of Wolfe and Bousquet”), and why a POSITA
`
`would have been motivated to perform the combination (see section titled
`
`“Motivation to Combine Wolfe and Bousquet”). Petition, 25-35.
`
`As explained, “a POSITA would have found it obvious to continue re-
`
`transmissions in consecutive time slots until an acknowledgement from the
`
`reference station is received by the requesting ground station in Wolfe’s
`
`communication system.” Petition, 50 (citing to EX-1005, 1:13-31, 1:45-47, 3:68-
`
`4:4; EX-1006, 1:58-64, 2:48-59, 4:1-31; EX-1008, 14, 317-318; EX-1011, 1 (ITU
`
`Standards); EX-1003, [100]); EX-1018, [14]-[15]. The Petition also explained
`
`that, “since time slots in Wolfe are allocated at time intervals shorter than the
`
`round-trip delay, sending multiple requests would increase the probability that at
`
`least one request will be received and reduce the time for call set-up.” Id. (citing to
`
`EX-1005, 3:68-4:4, 1:45-47); EX-1018, [14]-[15].
`
`Because Uniloc’s attack of Wolfe alone fails to address the combination
`
`arguments in the Petition, Uniloc’s arguments against Wolfe are legally flawed and
`
`5
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`irrelevant to the obviousness analysis. See, e.g., Bradium Tech. v. Iancu, Case
`
`Nos. 2017-2579, 2017-2580.
`
`2. A POSITA would have found it obvious to use Bousquet's method
`of re-transmission in the proposed combination
`Uniloc contends that “Bousquet (EX1006) does not disclose the required
`
`retransmitting the same respective request ‘in consecutive allocated time slots
`
`without waiting for an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received
`
`from the primary station.’” Response, 8. But Uniloc’s arguments fail for several
`
`reasons. EX-1018, [16]-[18].
`
`First, Uniloc again erroneously addresses the references individually,
`
`concluding that, if a claim limitation is not fully taught by any single reference in
`
`the combination, it cannot be rendered obvious by the combination. See Response,
`
`8 (“Bousquet (EX1006) also does not disclose the required retransmitting[.]”).
`
`Second, Uniloc erroneously argues, without support, that, because Bousquet
`
`discloses “[t]he systematic repetition of the access packets in the predefined time
`
`period,” Bousquet teaches away from retransmitting in consecutive time slots as
`
`recited in claim 17. Response, 8. But Uniloc’s argument that Bousquet teaches
`
`away from the combination is not only unsupported, but it is incorrect. EX-1018,
`
`[16]-[18].
`
`Indeed, Uniloc fails to demonstrate that Bousquet teaches away from the
`
`6
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`proposed combination. No evidence, not even any expert testimony, has been
`
`provided to support Uniloc’s position that Bousquet’s teaching of a “predefined
`
`time period” teaches away from the proposed combination. Further, Uniloc fails to
`
`provide any explanation of why a “predefined time period” would prohibit
`
`retransmission of the same respective request in consecutive allocated time slots
`
`without waiting for an acknowledgement. EX-1018, [16]. As Dr. Steffes explains,
`
`nothing in claim 17 requires that the retransmission occur indefinitely. Id. Thus,
`
`retransmission of the same respective request in consecutive allocated time slots
`
`could occur, during a predefined period, without waiting for an acknowledgement
`
`until the acknowledgement was received from the primary station. Id. Claim 17
`
`does not preclude use of a predefined period in performing retransmission.
`
`Finally, Uniloc alleges that Bousquet teaches away from re-transmitting the
`
`same respective request in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`
`acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received from the primary station
`
`because “Bousquet teaches ‘n packets transmitted . . . spaced in time, preferably at
`
`random.’” Response, 9. Uniloc’s argument, however, fails to address arguments
`
`and evidence provided in the Petition and adopted by the Board in the Institution
`
`Decision explaining how Bousquet’s teachings in a contention-based
`
`communication system would have been applied in Wolfe’s contention-free
`
`communication system.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`Specifically, the Petition explained that “Bousquet describes that ‘[o]ther
`
`implementations are possible’ including transmission of packets with ‘temporal
`
`spacing’ thus, a POSITA would have found Bousquet’s techniques to be applicable
`
`systems where packet transmission is ‘spaced in time,’ like transmissions of a
`
`TDMA system, such as Wolfe’s.” Petition, 50-51 (citing to EX-1005, 1:1-15; EX-
`
`1006, 2:25-28, 3:57-64; EX-1003, [99]); EX-1018, [17]-[18]. Further, the
`
`language of Bousquet which states that the “n packets transmitted . . . spaced in
`
`time, preferably at random,” implies that random transmission is one option, not
`
`the only option for transmitting packets. EX1006, 3:57-58 (emphasis added); EX-
`
`1018, [17]-[18]. Accordingly, as set forth by the Petition, “a POSITA would have
`
`found it obvious to apply Bousquet’s approach to reduce call setup time even
`
`though Bousquet applies a contention-based approach to uplink signaling as
`
`compared to Wolfe’s contention-free system.” Petition, 49-50; EX-1018, [17]-
`
`[18].
`
`3. Uniloc's arguments related to the “use of randomly selected time
`intervals” of Everett are unpersuasive (Ground 2)
`Uniloc argues in its Response that the proposed combination presented in
`
`Ground 2 of the Petition fails because Everett does not “disclose the required
`
`retransmitting the same respective request” and, instead, describes the “use of
`
`randomly selected time intervals.” Response, 9-11. Again, Uniloc’s argument
`
`8
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`misinterprets and ignores Petitioner’s proposed combination of Wolfe, Bousquet,
`
`Everett, and Patsiokas (Ground 2). EX-1018, [19]-[20].
`
`The Petition proposes a combination that relies primarily on Everett for
`
`teaching the use of “acknowledgement[s] to acknowledge, separate from an
`
`allocation, a secondary station’s request to the primary station for additional
`
`capacity and to retransmit the request until Everett’s acknowledgement is
`
`received” and to “cease re-transmission once the secondary station has received an
`
`acknowledgement from the primary station.” Petition, 48 (citing to EX-1008, 317-
`
`318, FIG. 17, 7), 75-76 (citing to EX-1008, 207). That Everett discusses the “use
`
`of randomly selected time intervals” is beside the point because the proposed
`
`combination relies only on Everett’s concept of using acknowledgements and
`
`ceasing re-transmissions. EX-1018, [19]-[20].
`
`Further, as explained above, Uniloc’s attack of Everett alone is irrelevant to
`
`the obviousness analysis. See Response, 10-11 (“There is, however, no evidence
`
`that Everett discloses the required retransmitting the same respective request”).
`
`Again, Uniloc’s attack of Everett alone ignores and fails to address the Petition’s
`
`explanation of how a POSITA would have combined Everett with Wolfe and
`
`Bousquet and why a POSITA would have been motivated to perform the
`
`combination. See Petition, 25-35. In fact, as Dr. Steffes explains, Everett’s use of
`
`random time intervals, like Bousquet’s, is inapplicable in Wolfe’s contention-free
`
`9
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`communication system where time slots are allocated and random transmissions
`
`are not performed. EX-1018, [19]-[20].
`
`4. The proposed combinations render obvious the retransmission
`limitation
`Uniloc alleges that “none of the cited references of Wolfe, Bousquet, or
`
`Everett discloses the required retransmitting the same respective request ‘in
`
`consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`
`acknowledgement is received from the primary station.’” Response, 11-12.
`
`Despite acknowledging the Board’s criticism of Uniloc’s attack of the references
`
`individually in the Preliminary Response, rather than change course, Uniloc once
`
`again attacks the references individually. Id. (“Wolfe does not disclose any
`
`retransmission operation,” “Bousquet does not disclose either the required
`
`retransmitting in consecutive allocated time slots,” “Everett does not disclose the
`
`required retransmitting in consecutive allocated time slots”).
`
`Further, Uniloc erroneously asserts that “none of the reasoning provided by
`
`the Petition for combining teachings of any of the references addresses why they
`
`would have been combined specifically in a manner to re-transmit in even two
`
`“consecutive allocated time slots.” EX-1018, [21]-[22]. As discussed above,
`
`Uniloc fails to address reasoning provided in the Petition’s nearly twelve page
`
`explanation of how a POSITA would have combined the cited references and why
`
`10
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`a POSITA would have been motivated to perform the combination, as well as the
`
`cited supporting expert testimony. See Petition, 25-35. For instance, as stated in
`
`the original Petition, “to maximize the speed of call setup while minimizing wasted
`
`bandwidth, a POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Wolfe to use all
`
`opportunities available for a successful request.” Petition, 32; EX-1018, [21]-[22].
`
`The Petition further explained that, “[t]o achieve that result, a POSITA would have
`
`modified Wolfe to re-transmit requests in consecutive frames until a point in time
`
`when an acknowledgement of the first request would have been expected.” Id.
`
`(emphasis added); EX-1018, [21]-[22].
`
`Accordingly, the Petition demonstrates that the proposed combination of
`
`Wolfe and Bousquet (Ground 1) or Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett (Ground 2)
`
`renders obvious that “the at least one of the plurality of respective secondary
`
`stations retransmits the same respective request in consecutive allocated time slots
`
`without waiting for an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received
`
`from the primary station,” as recited by claim 17. EX-1018, [21]-[22].
`
`B. The Combinations with Patsiokas are Proper
`Uniloc argues, without any evidentiary support, that “[a] POSITA would not
`
`have made any of the hypothetical combinations proposed by the Petition
`
`involving Patsiokas because, unlike Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett, which are
`
`satellite systems, Patsiokas relates to 'second generation cordless telephone (CT2)’
`
`11
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`radio telephones.” Response, 13-14. As discussed below, not only does Uniloc
`
`fail to address the multiple pages provided in the Petition detailing supporting
`
`arguments and evidence for the combination (see Petition, 36-40, 53-57), Uniloc
`
`fails to provide any evidence itself and relies on a flawed understanding of satellite
`
`communication systems to support its attorney arguments. EX-1018, [23]-[33].
`
`1. A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Patsiokas with
`Wolfe and Bousquet or with Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett
`Uniloc argues, without any evidentiary support, that “[a] POSITA would not
`
`have made any of the hypothetical combinations proposed by the Petition
`
`involving Patsiokas because, unlike Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett, which are
`
`satellite systems, Patsiokas relates to ‘second generation cordless telephone (CT2)’
`
`radio telephones.” Response, 13-14. Uniloc’s arguments are unpersuasive for
`
`several reasons.
`
`First, Uniloc ignores the combination analysis presented in the Petition,
`
`despite the lengthy, evidence-based analysis supporting the proposed combination.
`
`See Petition, 36-40, 53-57. Indeed, the Petition explained, with supporting
`
`evidence, that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Patsiokas with
`
`Wolfe and Bousquet, or Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett for several reasons. Id. The
`
`Petition stated that a POSITA would have looked at other communication systems
`
`having similar functions. Petition, 37. For example, “like Wolfe’s system,
`
`12
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`Patsiokas’ system employs a channel acquisition method and includes a primary
`
`station with an ability to independently detect a request for a service as well as
`
`allocate a channel to a plurality of secondary stations.” Petition, 37 (citing to EX-
`
`1007, 1:36-1:33-2:1, FIG. 3; EX-1005, 5:20-21).
`
`Further, the Petition stated that “a POSITA also would have been motivated
`
`to implement Patsiokas’ signal threshold method in the Wolfe-Bousquet
`
`communication system because the primary station’s maximum sensitivity level is
`
`applicable and relevant to establishing and maintaining a reliable call
`
`connection in a satellite system, such as Wolfe’s system.” Petition, 55-56 (citing
`
`to EX-1005, 5:10-14; EX-1003, [112]). The Petition also identified yet another
`
`motivation for implementing Patsiokas’ signal threshold method in the Wolfe-
`
`Bousquet communication system, that is, “it would have been advantageous to
`
`connect calls . . . and [ ] reduce the likelihood of occurrence of dropped calls”
`
`because “the signal detectability in a satellite system can fluctuate due to weather
`
`and interference issues.” Petition, 55-56 (citing to EX-1008, 303-4, 424-428, 1-19,
`
`125-154, 162, 300-301, 410-414; EX-1003, [113]). But Uniloc’s Response fails to
`
`address any of the above reasons or evidence presented in the Petition.
`
`Second, as Dr. Steffes explains, ample evidence shows that a POSITA
`
`would have compared and contrasted satellite systems, such as those described by
`
`Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett, with terrestrial systems, such as second generation
`
`13
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`cordless telephone (CT2) radio telephones, as described by Patsiokas. EX-1018,
`
`[23]-[33]. Indeed, the implementation of technical aspects associated with a
`
`terrestrial phone system, such as Patsiokas’s system, in a satellite system would
`
`have been well-known in the art before the Critical Date. EX-1018, [23]-[24].
`
`As one example, Winch, titled “Telecommunication Transmission Systems,”
`
`discloses that “[t]he technology used by satellite communications overlaps
`
`terrestrial microwave radio technology to a large extent.” EX-1022, 3 (emphasis
`
`added); EX-1018, [25]. Winch explains that “[t]he radio nature and operating
`
`frequencies are the same” and “[t]he main differences lie in the scale of the
`
`components.” Id.
`
`As another example, Iridium discloses that technological parallels existed
`
`between satellite and terrestrial systems (e.g., terrestrial second generation cellular
`
`wireless) prior to the Critical Date. See EX-1019, 6 (“satellite-based phone
`
`system” contemplated in 1993); see also 7-9; EX-1018, [26]. Indeed, Iridium
`
`discloses “competition [is] already three years into a ferocious, public, many-sided
`
`corporate brawl” to develop “a cellular system with very tall towers called
`
`satellites.” EX-1019, 6-7; EX-1018, [26]. Iridium also discloses that “Iridium
`
`satellites will not only talk to handsets and ground stations, they will also talk to
`
`each other, forming a network aloft, passing on conversations, and handing them
`
`off when they drift out of range.” EX-1019, 7-8; see also (“The signal goes from
`
`14
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`your handset straight to an Iridium satellite, which sends a query through the
`
`network of satellites to one that is over Iridium system headquarters . . . and sends
`
`the query back aloft through the network of satellites, until one satellite gets a
`
`response from the ground”), id (some systems include satellites that “send[ ] the
`
`handset’s signal back down to a ground station that feeds into land lines”), id.
`
`(“handsets are dual-mode” having both cellular phones and satellite phones
`
`capabilities); EX-1018, [26].
`
`Further, Dr. Steffes explains that numerous satellite telecommunications
`
`systems were available or being developed before the Critical Date, in which the
`
`developing satellite technologies were completing or supplementing terrestrial
`
`systems, or vice versa. EX-1018, [27]. Evidence establishing an overlapping
`
`knowledge exchange between satellite and terrestrial technologies is evidenced by
`
`Via Satellite, which describes numerous satellite telecommunications systems that
`
`were available in 1998. EX-1020, passim; see, e.g., 46 (“1998 will be a banner
`
`year for the mobile satellite industry”), 47 (“Orbcomm closer to its goal of
`
`providing affordable, portable, real-time communications everywhere on the
`
`planet, via a 28 satellite constellation”), 40 (“Globalstart with its planned 48-
`
`satellite LEO constellation . . . will provide low-cost, high-quality telephony and
`
`other digital telecommunications services”); EX-1018, [27]. Via Satellite provides
`
`examples and descriptions demonstrating that similarities existed in both satellite-
`
`15
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`based and ground-based telephones. EX-1020, 40 (“Using their Iridium phone,
`
`customers will be able to place and receive calls (or pages) virtually anywhere in
`
`the world”); EX-1018, [27].
`
`Thus, based on these reasons and contrary to Uniloc’s argument, record
`
`evidence demonstrates that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply
`
`techniques found in terrestrial systems, such as those found in Patsiokas, in
`
`satellite systems, such as those disclosed by Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett. EX-
`
`1018, [28].
`
`2. Uniloc’s argument that satellite systems do not have range issues is
`factually incorrect and based solely on attorney argument
`Uniloc contends in its Response that “Patsiokas addresses a shortcoming in
`
`cordless radio telephone systems that is not identified or present in the satellite
`
`systems of Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett, and therefore, a POSITA would not have
`
`been motivated to make the proposed combinations with Patsiokas.” Response,
`
`14. Uniloc’s arguments, however, fail because they misrepresent Petitioner’s
`
`arguments and are factually incorrect. EX-1018, [29]-[33].
`
`For example, Uniloc mischaracterizes the arguments provided in the
`
`Petition, stating that “Petitioners expressly admit that what differentiates terrestrial
`
`wireless systems and satellite systems is that satellite systems do not suffer from
`
`the same range problems as terrestrial systems (such as the system of Patsiokas).”
`
`16
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`Response, 17 (emphasis added); EX-1018, [30]-[31]. The excerpt (reproduced
`
`below) relied upon by Uniloc provides no statement regarding range issues (or lack
`
`thereof) associated with satellite systems.
`
`
`
`
`
`Response, 16-17 (emphasis in original). This cited portion of the Petition merely
`
`points out that a difference between terrestrial and satellite systems is the presence
`
`of a satellite. While it is true that a satellite allows the range covered by the base
`
`station to be extended, this does not negate the fact that range associated with a
`
`satellite system also has limits. EX-1018, [25]. Contrary to Uniloc’s contention,
`
`17
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`nothing in the Petition suggests that “satellite systems do not suffer from the same
`
`range problems as terrestrial systems.” Response, 17. To the contrary, as
`
`discussed above, it was well-known prior to the Critical Date that satellites systems
`
`were capable of “handing [calls] off when [the satellites] drift out of range.” EX-
`
`1019, 5; EX-1018, [26].
`
`Uniloc also alleges that the proposed combinations presented in the Petition
`
`are non-obvious because, “[s]imilar to Everett, . . . Wolfe shows a single reference
`
`station (base station) because of the lack of range issues in satellite systems.”
`
`Response, 18 (emphasis added); see also Response, 17 (“as shown . . . all of the
`
`VSATs communicate with a single hub (base station) because there are no range
`
`issues.”). This argument fails because it is factually incorrect. EX-1018, [30]-
`
`[31].
`
`Uniloc’s premise that satellite systems, such as the system disclosed by
`
`Wolfe, use only a single base station and do not suffer from the problems
`
`addressed by Patsiokas is wrong. Id. Wolfe itself discloses a system that includes
`
`multiple base stations (e.g., reference stations). EX-1005, 5:20-21; EX-1018, [31].
`
`As explained in the Petition under the section titled “Combination of Wolfe,
`
`Bouquet, and Patsiokas, “Wolfe’s system . . . includes at least two primary
`
`stations, where each primary station can independently allocate a channel to a
`
`secondary station.” Petition, 37 (citing to EX-1005, 5:20-21) (emphasis added).
`
`18
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00510
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0060IP1
`
`Indeed, Wolfe explains that “[t]wo independent reference stations” provide
`
`“additional reliability.” EX-1005, 5:20-21; EX-1018, [31].
`
`Furthermore, as Dr. Steffes explains, satellite systems having multiple
`
`primary sta
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
