`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`
`PATENT 7,587,207
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`
`THE ’207 PATENT .................................................................................. 1
`
`III.
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS .................................................................... 3
`
`IV.
`
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................. 3
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`THE PETITION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH 35 U.S.C. §
`312(A)(3) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(A)(2) AND 42.104(B)(4) ............... 4
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM .......................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction ......................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Fails to Show That The Conclusory And
`Hypothetical “MBLH System” Discloses “wherein the
`beacon is further arranged to add to each inquiry
`message prior to transmission an additional data field”
`(Independent Claim 1) .................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Legal standard ...................................................................... 9
`
`The Petition’s conclusory and hypothetical
`“MBLH system” does not disclose “add[ing] to
`each inquiry message … an additional data field.”
`(Independent Claim 1) ........................................................ 11
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Fails to Show That The Conclusory And
`Hypothetical “MBLH System” Discloses “wherein the
`beacon adds to each inquiry message prior to
`transmission an additional data field carrying broadcast
`message data including location information”
`(Independent Claim 9) .................................................................. 15
`
`D.
`
`The Petition fails to Prove Obviousness of Any
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`Dependent Claim .......................................................................... 16
`
`VII.
`
`THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`IS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL ..................................... 16
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC (the “Uniloc” or “Patent Owner”) submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to Petition IPR2019-00753 for Inter Partes Review (“Pet.” or
`
`“Petition”) of United States Patent No. 7,587,207 (“the ’207 Patent” or “EX1001”)
`
`filed by Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”). The instant Petition is procedurally and
`
`substantively defective for at least the reasons set forth herein.
`
`II. THE ’207 PATENT
`
`The ’207 patent is titled “Data delivery through beacons.” The ʼ207 patent
`
`issued September 8, 2009, from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/876,515 filed June
`
`7, 2001, which claims priority to United Kingdom Patent Application No.
`
`GB0015454 filed June 26, 2000 and United Kingdom Patent Application No.
`
`GB0020073 filed August 15, 2000. The inventors of the ’207 patent observed that
`
`at the time of the invention, as a result of the increased use and prevalence of mobile
`
`phones there was greater utility to Context Aware (“CA”) mobile phones and
`
`applications. Such “Context Aware” mobile phones and applications were used with
`
`low power, short range base stations in places like shopping malls to provide, for
`
`example, location-specific information. An important requirement of “Context
`
`Aware” devices was that they quickly and efficiently gather data from beacons such
`
`that the user is not required to undertake actions such as staying close to a beacon
`
`whilst contact is established between portable device and beacon, nor having to
`
`specifically initiate interaction. A further requirement is that the portable device
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`should able to be kept relatively simple insofar as the data gathering from beacons
`
`is concerned. It is therefore advantageous to have a system for the delivery of data
`
`via beacons whereby the amount of dedicated circuitry and operating procedure are
`
`kept to a minimum. EX1001, 1:9-2:13.
`
`According to the invention of the ’207 Patent, there is provided a
`
`communications system and method comprising at least one beacon device capable
`
`of wireless message transmission and at least one portable device capable of
`
`receiving such a message transmission, wherein the beacon is arranged to broadcast
`
`a series of inquiry messages each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data
`
`fields arranged according to a first communications protocol, wherein the beacon is
`
`further arranged to add to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional
`
`data field, and wherein the at least one portable device is arranged to receive the
`
`transmitted inquiry messages and read data from said additional data field, the
`
`additional data field including location information. By adding the additional field
`
`(suitably at the end of a respective inquiry message), data broadcast may be carried
`
`on top of an existing inquiry process, such that the usual delays while such a process
`
`is carried out prior to data transfer are avoided. Furthermore, by placing the
`
`additional field at the end of those sent according to the communications protocol
`
`(preferably but not essentially Bluetooth), those protocol-compatible devices not
`
`intended for reception of beacon signals can simply ignore the additional data
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`without compromising operation according to protocol. EX1001, 2:14-36.
`
`III. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The following proceedings are currently pending cases concerning U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 7,587,207 (EX1001).
`
`Case Name
`
`Case Number
`
`Court
`
`Filing Date
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc.
`
`5-19-cv-01692 CAND Apr. 02, 2019
`
`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 ’207 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. 6. Given that Petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in establishing
`
`prima facie anticipation or obviousness when applying its own definition of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), Patent Owner does not offer a competing
`
`definition for POSITA at this preliminary stage, though it reserves the right to do so
`
`in the event that trial is instituted.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`V. THE PETITION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH 35 U.S.C. § 312(A)(3)
`AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(A)(2) AND 42.104(B)(4)
`
`Apple’s contentions are conclusory and fail to satisfy the requirements of the
`
`rules that a petition contain a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence
`
`and identify where each element of each challenged claim is found in the prior art.
`
`A petition must identify “in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged,
`
`the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that
`
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim[.]” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). It
`
`must also “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents
`
`or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Similarly, 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.22(a)(2) requires that each petition include “a detailed explanation of the
`
`significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules,
`
`and precedent.” The 2018 Revised Trail Practice Guide cautions that petitioners
`
`should “avoid submitting a repository of all the information that a judge could
`
`possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well organized, easy-to-follow
`
`arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.” 2018 Revised Trial
`
`Practice Guide, at 7. The Petition fails these requirements in many respects.
`
`Apple’s Petition is virtually impenetrable because it fails to clearly identify
`
`where each element of the claim is found in the prior art contrary to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(4). It presents a summary of the McCall reference, the BT Core reference,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`the Larsson reference, and the Hancock reference, and then a conjured up and
`
`entirely hypothetical “MBLH system” consisting of conclusory statements allegedly
`
`supported by vaguely identified citations to the aforementioned four references, and
`
`unexplained testimony from its expert declaration. (Pet. at 9-28.) This combination
`
`of the references is done without any reference to the claims.
`
`Then, rather than pointing out precisely where the claim limitations are
`
`disclosed in the references, the Petition presents conclusory assertions that mimic
`
`the language of each claim limitation and refers the reader through overly broad
`
`citations to its prior summary and argument and to its expert declaration. (Pet. at 28-
`
`45.) The Petition only rarely explains the significance of these citations. They often
`
`do not actually support Apple’s representations regarding the relevant teachings.
`
`Where the Petition does cite the references for support, the citations are overly
`
`vague, often citing multiple pages without further guidance. (See, e.g., Pet. at 31-
`
`32: “A standard inquiry message only includes predetermined access code fields,
`
`but McCall, BT Core, and Larsson in view of Hancock discloses additionally
`
`sending location information to asset 120, 122. Ex. 1007, p 48; Ex. 1005, 3:63-4:67,
`
`FIG. 3; Ex. 1006, 7:5-8:3, 3:57-4:34.”)
`
`Further, rather than articulating what is lacking in each of McCall, BT Core,
`
`Larsson, and Hancock, and a specific rationale for why each would have been
`
`modified and built upon one another to incorporate the missing elements, the Petition
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`merely asserts that it would be obvious to implement the resulting so-called “MBLH
`
`system”, without stating that any of the modifications are necessary to rectify any
`
`alleged shortcomings of any of the four cited references or intermediate modified
`
`systems. From the rambling ensuing discussion, the Board and Patent Owner can
`
`only speculate regarding exactly which claim limitations are being addressed,
`
`whether Apple contends which ones, if any, of the four cited references discloses the
`
`limitation, why the allegedly disclosed elements would nevertheless require
`
`modification to arrive at the claimed subject matter, what specific teachings are
`
`being combined, Apple’s specific rationale for why a person of ordinary skill would
`
`have made the combination, and numerous other aspects of a proper obviousness
`
`analysis.
`
`Apple’s above described approach, which compares the challenged claims to
`
`a hypothetical integrated system that allegedly implements four separate references
`
`as well as the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, improperly shifts the
`
`burden to the Board and Patent Owner to discern which particular portions of each
`
`reference are being relied upon as meeting the pertinent claim limitations and
`
`thereby obscures the actual teachings of the prior art and obscures any comparison
`
`of the individual references to the claim limitations. See Google Inc. v. Everymd.com
`
`LLC, IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 at 24-25 (May 22, 2014) (denying petition where
`
`petition failed to meaningfully address “the scope and content of the prior art and
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art”); Liberty Mut.
`
`Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 3 (Oct. 25, 2012)
`
`(“A petitioner who does not state the differences between a challenged claim and the
`
`prior art, and relies instead on the patent owner and the Board to determine those
`
`differences based on the rest of the submission in the petition risks having the
`
`corresponding ground of obviousness not included for trial for failing to adequately
`
`state a claim for relief.”)
`
`Because the Petition itself fails in numerous respects to adequately identify
`
`the supporting evidence and rationale it relies on to challenge specific claim
`
`elements, it is deficient and does not support instituting a trial.
`
`VI. PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to relief. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.108(c) (“review shall not be instituted for a ground of unpatentability unless
`
`. . . there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged . . . is
`
`unpatentable”). The Petition should be denied as failing to meet this burden.
`
`The raises the following obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1
`
`1-3, 5, 6, and 9-11 McCall1, BT Core2, Larsson3, and Hancock4
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Patent Owner submits that the Board need not construe any claim term in a
`
`particular manner in order to arrive at the conclusion that the Petition is substantively
`
`deficient. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (“need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`
`However, in the event that trial is instituted, Patent Owner reserves the right to object
`
`to any proposed constructions and provide Patent Owner’s proposed constructions.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Fails to Show That The Conclusory And
`Hypothetical “MBLH System” Discloses “wherein the beacon is
`further arranged to add to each inquiry message prior to
`transmission an additional data field” (Independent Claim 1)
`
`As discussed in Section V, supra, Petitioner fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. §
`
`312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4), and for that reason alone
`
`the Petition should be denied. Moreover, the Petition’s reliance on the conclusory
`
`and hypothetical “MBLH system” is nothing more than impermissible hindsight
`
`
`
` 1
`
` EX1005, U.S. Patent No. 6,738,628
`2 EX1007, Specification of the Bluetooth System: Wireless connections made easy,
`Core, Vol. 1
`3 EX1014, U.S. Patent No. 6,704,293
`4 EX1006, U.S. Patent No. 5,806,017
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`reconstruction.
`
`The Petition argues that the conclusory and hypothetical “MBLH system”
`
`would meet this claim limitation which requires “add[ing] to each inquiry message
`
`… an additional data field.” Pet. 31-32. However, the Petition fails to “specify where
`
`each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications
`
`relied upon”. Instead, the Petition picks out an element from McCall and another
`
`element from Hancock, throws the two isolated elements into a black box, and
`
`merely concludes that what comes out the other end is a magical “MBLH system”
`
`that meets each element of the claim limitation is met. Not only does the Petition fail
`
`to provide any evidence or analysis for how or why a POSITA would have made the
`
`specific modifications and combinations to supposedly arrive at the hypothetical
`
`“MBLH system”, the Petition does not even disclose the details and structure of the
`
`alleged completed “MBLH system”. Instead, the Petition relies solely on conclusory
`
`statements and nearly identical conclusory testimony from its declarant. Petitioner
`
`takes disparate elements from four different references and concludes, without any
`
`evidence or explanation, that a POSITA would have arrived at the claimed invention.
`
`The Petition is the very definition of hindsight reconstruction.
`
`1.
`
`Legal standard
`
`“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705
`
`(2007). To establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), it is petitioner’s “burden
`
`to demonstrate . . . that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.” In re Magnum
`
`Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotations omitted). The
`
`petitioner must “articulate[] reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
`
`the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`418 (2007) (citation omitted). In a case of obviousness, there must be an explanation
`
`of why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the prior art references to
`
`create the claimed invention. Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., 636 Fed. Appx.
`
`575, 577–78 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`An obviousness determination cannot be reached where the record lacks
`
`“explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the
`
`claimed invention.” TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). This
`
`requisite explanation avoids an
`
`impermissible “hindsight
`
`reconstruction,” using “the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art
`
`references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve . . . The
`
`claims in suit.” .” In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In
`
`re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`The Petition’s conclusory and hypothetical “MBLH system”
`does not disclose “add[ing] to each inquiry message … an
`additional data field.” (Independent Claim 1)
`
`2.
`
`For this limitation, and to the extent the structure of Petitioner’s hypothetical
`
`“MBLH system” is divulged or discernable, the Petition argues that (1) a non-
`
`preferred embodiment of McCall discloses a beacon without a receiver, (2) BT Core
`
`discloses the Bluetooth specification which includes a standard inquiry message that
`
`does not include a header or payload field, and (3) Hancock discloses providing
`
`information regarding the location of its beacons. See Pet. 31-32; 9-28. And yet,
`
`without explanation or evidence, the Petition merely concludes that it would have
`
`been obvious for a POSITA to make unstated intermediate steps and modifications
`
`to arrive at Petitioner’s hypothetical “MBLH system”, which allegedly reads on this
`
`claim limitation. Id. In addition to Petitioner’s improper hindsight reconstruction,
`
`the Petition further fails to provide the required evidence or analysis to support even
`
`the narrow combination of the distinct and separate elements of McCall, BT Core,
`
`and Hancock as described above, and therefore the conclusory and hypothetical
`
`“MBLH system” does not disclose the claim limitation requiring “add[ing] to each
`
`inquiry message … an additional data field.”
`
`First, the Petition’s “MBLH system” relies entirely on a POSITA choosing to
`
`start with a non-preferred embodiment of McCall’s system where the beacons do not
`
`include a receiver. See Pet. 9-11; 31. However, Petitioner provides no evidence or
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`explanation as to why a POSITA would choose the non-preferred embodiment of
`
`McCall’s system, when the full-featured, preferred embodiment is available. As the
`
`Petition itself admits, Petitioner’s reliance on McCall’s beacon without a receiver is
`
`just one of various embodiments. Pet. 10 (“McCall discloses a particular
`
`embodiment…”); see also EX1003, ¶ 42
`
`(“McCall discloses various
`
`embodiments…”). And in fact, the embodiment cherry-picked by Petitioner is
`
`merely an “alternative embodiment” and not the preferred embodiment of McCall.
`
`EX1005, 4:10-16. Furthermore, nowhere in the Petition is there any explanation or
`
`evidence as to why a POSITA would choose this particular, non-preferred
`
`embodiment of McCall over any of the others, including the full-featured preferred
`
`embodiment where the beacons can both send and receive. Both the Petition and
`
`Petitioner’s declarant merely assumes, without evidence, that a POSITA would
`
`choose the cherry-picked non-preferred embodiment instead of any of the other
`
`embodiments. See Pet. 9-11; EX1003, ¶¶ 42-43. Indeed, nothing in the Petition or
`
`by Petitioner’s declarant even addresses this particular choice. For this reason alone,
`
`the conclusory and hypothetical “MBLH system” fails and the Petition should be
`
`denied. TriVascular, 812 F.3d at 1066.
`
`Second, the Petition further fails because the Petition also merely concludes
`
`that a POSITA would have modified BT Core’s standard inquiry message by adding
`
`an additional field to BT Core’s standard inquiry message. Pet. 13-17. And here, the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`Petition fails for at least two reasons. As the Petition itself states, according to BT
`
`Core, the inquiry protocol is used when one device wants to discover other devices
`
`but does not know the addresses for the other devices. Pet. 12. However, the Petition
`
`is: (a) completely silent as to why a POSITA would choose or need inquiry messages
`
`in the hypothetical “MBLH system”, and (b) the Petition is also silent as to why a
`
`POSITA would nonetheless choose to add an additional data field to the inquiry
`
`message and not any of a number of other alternatives, ones which do not require
`
`modification of the standard Bluetooth inquiry message.
`
`As an initial matter, the Petition fails because the Petition does not explain
`
`why a POSITA would choose or need to use inquiry messages at all in the non-
`
`preferred embodiment of McCall where the beacons cannot receive and can only
`
`transmit. In other words, in a system where the beacons cannot receive, the Petition
`
`completely fails to explain or discuss why would a POSITA would care for the
`
`beacon to discover other devices by sending inquiry messages when the beacons
`
`don’t have the capability to receive a response to such a discovery inquiry in the first
`
`place. In a system where the beacons cannot receive, the beacons would most likely
`
`just transmit data without any care or regard for whether anything was around to
`
`receive that data. The Petition itself admits that “[a] standard inquiry message only
`
`includes predetermined access code fields”. Pet. 31. However, the Petition merely
`
`cites to Petitioner’s declarant for the conclusion that “it would have been obvious to
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`a POSITA that an inquiry message is transmitted by a beacon…”. Pet. 14-15. But
`
`Petitioner’s declarant merely parrots the same speculative and conclusory statements
`
`of the Petition. Compare Pet. 13-17 with EX1003, ¶¶ 48-58. That is insufficient. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or
`
`data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Alza Corp. v.
`
`Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“legal determinations of
`
`obviousness, as with such determinations generally, should be based on evidence
`
`rather than on mere speculation or conjecture.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd.,
`
`829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] petitioner cannot employ mere
`
`conclusory statements” and “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on
`
`evidence of record . . . .”).
`
`Next, the Petition also fails because the Petition also does not provide any
`
`explanation or evidence of why a POSITA would add an additional data field to the
`
`inquiry message instead of any number of other options, such as sending the beacon
`
`ID information itself instead of the inquiry message, or even if an inquiry message
`
`is used, following it with a separate message with the beacon ID instead of adding
`
`an additional field to the inquiry message. The Petition does not address any other
`
`possibilities, and instead, again, merely concludes that “a POSITA would have
`
`appreciated the need to add an additional data field to the standard inquiry
`
`message…” Pet. 16. And again, for support the Petition relies solely on the nearly
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`identical conclusory statements of Petitioner’s declarant. Compare Pet. 13-17 with
`
`EX1003, ¶¶ 48-58. That is insufficient. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that
`
`does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled
`
`to little or no weight.”); Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006) (“legal determinations of obviousness, as with such determinations
`
`generally, should be based on evidence rather than on mere speculation or
`
`conjecture.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (“[A] petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements” and “must
`
`instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record . . . .”).
`
`Therefore, for at least the reasons above, the Petition fails because Petitioner
`
`engages in impermissible hindsight reconstruction and because the Petition’s
`
`conclusory and hypothetical “MBLH system” does not disclose “add[ing] to each
`
`inquiry message … an additional data field.”
`
`C. The Petition Fails to Show That The Conclusory And
`Hypothetical “MBLH System” Discloses “wherein the beacon
`adds to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional
`data field carrying broadcast message data including location
`information” (Independent Claim 9)
`
`For this limitation of independent Claim 9, the Petition relies solely on its
`
`discussion of the corresponding limitation of independent Claim 1. Pet. 42. (“For at
`
`least the reasons noted above with respect to claim features [1.5] and [1.8], MBLH
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`renders claim feature [9.3] obvious.”) Therefore, the Petition fails here for the same
`
`reasons as discussed above in Section VI.B.
`
`D. The Petition fails to Prove Obviousness of Any Dependent Claim
`
`The deficiencies of the Petition articulated above concerning the challenged
`
`independent claims also taint the analysis of the challenged dependent claims.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition should be denied in its entirety.
`
`VII. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INTER PARTES REVIEW IS THE
`SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL
`
`In a pending appeal to the Federal Circuit, Polaris Innovations Ltd. v.
`
`Kingston Technology, No. 18-1768, Dkt. No. 27, the patent owner Polaris argued
`
`that the Board’s appointment of administrative patent judges violates the
`
`Appointments Clause of Article II, and that their decisions must be set aside,
`
`because administrative patent judges are “appointed by the Secretary of Commerce,
`
`in consultation with the Director” of the USPTO, but without appointment by the
`
`President and confirmation by the Senate in violation of Article II, Section 2, Clause
`
`2 of the Constitution. Out of an abundance of caution, Patent Owner hereby adopts
`
`this constitutional challenge now to ensure the issue is preserved pending the appeal.
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the reasons set forth above, Uniloc respectfully requests that the
`
`16
`
`
`
`Board deny all challenges in the instant Petition.5
`
`Date: June 21, 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
` 5
`
` Patent Owner does not concede, and specifically denies, that there is any legitimacy
`to any arguments in the instant Petition that are not specifically addressed herein.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), we certify that this Preliminary Response to
`
`Petition complies with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(1)
`
`because it contains fewer than the limit of 14,000 words, as determined by the word-
`
`processing program used to prepare the brief, excluding the parts of the brief
`
`exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1).
`
`Date: June 21, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), we certify that we served an electronic
`
`copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) along with any accompanying exhibits via
`
`the Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) to Petitioner’s counsel at the
`
`following addresses identified in the Petition’s consent to electronic service:
`
`Lead Counsel: W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`IPR39521-0058IP1@fr.com
`
`Backup Counsel: Jeremy J. Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Roberto J. Devoto, Reg. No. 55,108
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`devoto@fr.com
`monaldo@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 21, 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`ii
`
`