`
`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
`
`