`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. THE ’049 PATENT ........................................................................................... 1
`
`III. RELATED PROCEEDINGS ........................................................................... 2
`
`IV. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................... 4
`
`V. PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE THAT ANY CHALLENGED
`CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................ 4
`
`A. Claim Construction ................................................................................ 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“additional data field” ................................................................. 6
`
`“inquiry message[s]” .................................................................... 8
`
`Larsson Does Not Disclose “adding to an inquiry message prior to
`transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary
`station,” (Ground 1) .................................................................................. 9
`
`802.11 Does Not Disclose “adding to an inquiry message prior to
`transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary
`station,” (Ground 2) ................................................................................ 17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D. Dependent claim 12 .............................................................................. 23
`
`VI. APJS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPOINTED PRINCIPAL
`OFFICERS ........................................................................................................ 23
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 27
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc” or “Patent Owner”) submits this Response to
`
`the Petition filed by Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) for inter partes review of United
`
`States Patent No. Patent 6,993,049 (“the ’049 patent” or “EX1001”).
`
`II. THE ’049 PATENT
`
`The ’049 patent is titled “Communication system.” The ʼ049 patent
`
`issued January 31, 2006, from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/876,514 filed
`
`June 7, 2001. The inventors of the ’049 patent observed that at the time of the
`
`invention, there was an increasing interest in enabling devices to interact via
`
`wireless communication links, thereby avoiding the need for extensive cabling.
`
`An example of a communication system which may be used for such wireless
`
`links is a Bluetooth network. Ex. 1001, 1:9‒15.
`
`One application for which use of Bluetooth was proposed was the
`
`connection of controller devices to host systems. A controller device, also
`
`known as a Human/machine Interface Device (HID), is an input device such as
`
`a keyboard, mouse, games controller, graphics pad or the like. Certain HIDs did
`
`not typically require a link having high data throughput, though they might
`
`require a very responsive link.
`
`
`
`A Bluetooth system may be capable of supporting the throughput
`
`requirements of certain HIDs. However, the degree of responsiveness required
`
`could be more difficult to achieve. An active Bluetooth link could offer a
`
`reasonably responsive service, but this required both the setting up of a link and
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`its maintenance, even during periods of inactivity. Id., 1:27‒39. Setting up a link
`
`required a HID to join, as a slave, the piconet including the host system (which
`
`would typically act as piconet master, i.e. a base station). Joining the piconet
`
`required two sets of procedures, namely ‘inquiry’ and ‘page’. Inquiry allowed a
`
`would-be slave to find a base station and issued a request to join the piconet.
`
`Page allowed a base station to invite slaves of its choice to join the net. Analysis
`
`of those procedures indicated that the time taken to join a piconet and then to be
`
`in a position to transfer user input to the master could be several tens of
`
`seconds. Id., 1:52‒61.
`
`According to the invention of the ’049 Patent, there is provided a
`
`communications system comprising a primary station and at least one secondary
`
`station, wherein the primary station has means for broadcasting a series of
`
`inquiry messages, each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data fields
`
`arranged according to a first communications protocol, and means for adding to
`
`an inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at
`
`least one secondary station, and wherein the or each polled secondary station
`
`has means for determining when an additional data field has been added to the
`
`plurality of data fields, for determining whether it has been polled from the
`
`additional data field and for responding to a poll when it has data for
`
`transmission to the primary station. Id., 2:22‒35.
`
`III. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`Patent Owner identifies the following proceedings and district court
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`determinations involving the ’049 patent:
`
`Case
`
`Case Name
`
`Filing
`
`Date
`
`2/23/2018
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`
`Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc. et ol
`
`01530
`
` LG Electronics Inc. et al v.
`
`2/28/2018
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Logitech Inc. et al
`11/6/2018
`Uniloc USA Inc et al v. LG
`
`Electronics USA Inc et ol
`
`11/12/2018
`IPR2019-
`Apple Inc. et al v. Unt'loc 2017
`
`LLC 00251
`
`4/3/2019
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`
`A 3 :le, Inc.
`
`5-19-cv-
`
`01695
`
`IPR2019-
`5/6/2019
`Microsofl Corporation v.
`01026
`Uniloc 201 7 LLC
`
`8/22/2019
`
`IPR2019-
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`5/1/2019
`
`Uni/0c USA, Inc. 12. LG
`
`Electronics USA, Inc.
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, Uniloc USA, Inc.
`
`et al 12. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al, 2-18-cv-00040, Dkt. 82 (ED.
`
`Tex. Apr. 5, 2019) (construing Claims and determining claims 1 and 8 are
`
`indefinite) (submitted as EX. 1027).
`
`Amended Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Uni/0c USA Inc et al v. LG
`
`Electronics USA Inc er al, 5-18-cv-06738, Dkt. 109 (ND. Cal. Apr. 9, 2019)
`
`(determining ’049 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101) (submitted as Ex.
`
`1008).
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The Petition alleges that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art in 2000
`
`(“POSITA”) would have had at least a Master’s Degree in electrical or
`
`computer engineering with a focus in communication systems or, alternatively,
`
`a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical or computer engineering and at least two years
`
`of experience in wireless communication systems.” Pet. 10. The use of “at
`
`least,” with no upper limit, is improper, as Petitioner’s proposed definition
`
`could encompass an expert with any level of education and experience. Given
`
`that Petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in establishing anticipation or
`
`obviousness when applying its own definition, as best understood by Patent
`
`Owner as indicating no more than a Master’s Degree or two years of
`
`experience, of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), Patent Owner
`
`does not offer a competing definition for POSITA.
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE THAT ANY CHALLENGED
`CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`While the Board has instituted Inter Partes Review here, as the Court of
`
`Appeals has stated:
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`
`
`[T]here is a significant difference between a petitioner's burden to
`
`establish a “reasonable likelihood of success” at institution, and actually
`
`proving invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence at trial. Compare 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a) (standard for institution of inter partes review), with 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(e) (burden of proving invalidity during inter partes review).
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As
`
`demonstrated herein, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of proving any
`
`proposition of invalidity, as to any claim, by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`35 U.S.C. §316(e).
`
`Petitioner raises the following obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. §
`103:
`
`
`Groun
`d
`1
`2
`
`Claims
`11 and 12
`11 and 12
`
`Reference(s)
`Larsson1 and BT Core2 and RFC8263
`802.114 (obviousness)
`
`
`1 EX1004, U.S. Patent No. 6,704,293.
`
`2 EX1005, Specification of the Bluetooth System: Wireless connections made easy,
`
`Core, Vol. 1.
`
`3 EX1006, An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol, IETF Request For Comments
`
`No. 826.
`
`4 EX1007, ANSI/IEEE Std 802.11, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
`
`Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The claims, when properly construed, give rise to a number of
`
`independent and fully-dispositive bases to deny the relief requested in the
`
`Petition in its entirety.
`
`1.
`
`“additional datafield”
`
`“‘When a patent ‘repeatedly and consistently“ characterizes a claim term
`
`in a particular way, it is proper to construe the claim term in accordance with
`
`that characterization.” Profoot, Inc.
`
`12. Merck & C0,, 663 F. App’x 928, 932
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc, 830 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016)). The ”049 patent repeatedly and consistently characterizes the term
`
`“additional data field” to be “an extra data field appended to the end of an
`
`inquiry message.”
`
`Figure 5 depicts the additional data field as element 504:
`
`
`
`
`06
`
`
`
`502
`
`50
`
`HSB
`
`FIG. 5
`
`EX. 1001, Fig. 5 (highlighting added).
`
`As
`
`shown in the screenshot
`
`reproduced below,
`
`the corresponding
`
`description makes clear that the additional data field is an extra field that is
`
`appended to the end afar: inquiry message:
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`As mentioned above and shown in FIG. 5,I —.— may
`
`carry a header that signifies 3 ”ID poll to distinguish it from
`other applications of extended field information, such as
`context-aware services or broadcast audio (as disclosed in
`our
`co-pcnding United Kingdom patent
`applications
`00154542.
`(applicant‘s
`reference PllGB 000084)
`and
`
`00154534 (applicant’s reference PHGB 000085) respec-
`tively). It will also carry the address of the HI!) being polled,
`and may also earr).r a small amount ofintonnalion to the HID
`which might be used to provide supplementary information
`to a user (such as text on an LCD screen) or feedback (for
`
`example, motional feedback in games Controllers).
`
`In addition, by using a special DIAC to signify
`a Hll) poll, Hll) devices can be alerted to the presence of the
`forthcoming polL
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:59—5:11 (highlighting added).
`
`The “049 patent clearly defines,
`
`including in the example disclosure
`
`emphasized above, that the term “additional data field” refers to “an extra data
`
`fieid appended to the end of an inquiry message”. Indeed, the specification
`
`explains why appending an extra data field (i.e.,
`
`in addition to the
`
`“predetermined data fields arranged according to a first communications
`
`protocol”) to the end of the inquiry message is an essential and defining aspect
`
`of the claimed invention. Specifically, appending an extra field to the end of the
`
`inquiry message is essential at least because “non-HID receivers can ignore it
`
`without modification.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`None of the mappings applied in the Petition address this aspect of the
`
`claimed invention reflected in the recitation, “adding to an inquiry message
`
`prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary
`
`station,” as recited in claim 11.
`
`In its Institution Decision, the Board preliminary held that “[i]ndependent
`
`claim 11 already has language that accounts for the language Patent Owner
`
`seeks to add through claim construction.” Paper 7 at 4. The Board clarified that
`
`“on this record and for purposes of this Decision, we do not view these two
`
`terms [appending and adding] as meaningfully distinct.” Id. Patent Owner has
`
`modified its proposed construction to clarify that “appended” in this context
`
`refers to “appended to the end” of the “inquiry message” referenced in the
`
`“additional data field” clause. This accurately reflects the thematic disclosure in
`
`the ’049 patent referenced above, which confirms there is meaningful and
`
`purposeful distinction between adding in the abstract and, instead, adding by
`
`appending the additional data field to the end of an inquiry message.
`
`Accordingly, the term “additional data field” should be construed to mean
`
`“an extra data field appended to the end of an inquiry message.” Under an
`
`appropriate claim construction, Petitioner fails to carry its burden of showing
`
`obviousness.
`
`2.
`
`“inquiry message[s]”
`
`
`The ’049 patent repeatedly and consistently describes its “inquiry
`
`messages” as a specific type of message used, at least in part, to discover other
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`devices in the vicinity which may request to join a piconet. See, e.g., Ex. 1001
`
`at 4:23‒26 (“When a Bluetooth unit wants to discover other Bluetooth devices,
`
`it . . . issues an inquiry message . . . .”); 1:56‒57 (“Inquiry allows a would-be
`
`slave to find a base station and issue a request to join the piconet.”); 4:11‒13
`
`(“The Bluetooth inquiry procedure allows a would-be slave to find a base station
`
`and issue a request to join its piconet.”). Under an appropriate claim
`
`construction, Petitioner fails to carry its burden of showing obviousness.
`
`B.
`
`Larsson Does Not Disclose “adding to an inquiry message prior
`to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one
`secondary station,” (Ground 1)
`
`The Petition has failed to carry the Petitioner’s burden of proving that
`
`Larsson discloses the recitation of Claim 11 “adding to an inquiry message prior
`
`to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary station”
`
`(emphasis added). In the first instance, the Petition’s contention that Larsson’s
`
`disclosure of “piggybacking” meets the required limitation of “adding to an
`
`inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data field” (Pet. 32) is
`
`insufficient as a matter of law. Larsson discloses that a “source node piggybacks
`
`a broadcast message in a request for route broadcast message.” [Ex. 1004, Fig.
`
`6a, 6:3-7, 7a, 7:50-53]. However, the term “piggybacking” is simply not
`
`synonymous with the claim limitations of adding to an inquiry message “an
`
`additional data field” and Petitioner provides no evidence to support this
`
`contention (emphasis added). Instead, Petitioner merely asserts that the term
`
`“piggybacking” identified in Larsson in connection with broadcast messaging
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`used for route discovery equates to the claim limitation as supported in the ‘049
`
`Patent, but fails to provide any evidence showing how the inquiry message is
`
`altered – namely, with an additional data field (EX1001, 4:59-62). Such attempt
`
`to ascribe a detailed limitation to a completely different term points up the
`
`Petition’s effort at a false equivalence between a term used in a reference and a
`
`term that does not even appear in the claim language. Further still, the ‘049
`
`Patent’s solitary use of the term “piggy-back” (EX1001, 4:16) is not
`
`interchangeable with the claim limitation “additional data field”, but provided
`
`separate support and details for the claim term (EX1001, 4:59-62). Tellingly,
`
`Petitioner fails to point to any portion of Larsson as disclosing “an additional
`
`data field”, and Declarant’s statement that “a POSITA would have viewed the
`
`piggybacked broadcast message as an additional data field added to the request
`
`for route message (inquiry message) prior to transmission” because “[t]he ’049
`
`Patent describes the same method for adding an additional data field to an
`
`inquiry message” (EX1003, 80) is devoid of any analysis and conclusory.
`
`Indeed, the Declarant, without providing a line of reasoning, or consideration of
`
`possible arrangements that could be provided to fill in the technical details of
`
`Larsson’s broad and vague use of the term “piggybacking,” immediately leaps to
`
`the unsupported conclusion that a POSITA would have viewed Larsson’s vague
`
`mention of piggybacking as teaching specifically an additional data field added
`
`to the inquiry message. Id. The absence of any reasoning shown by the Declarant
`
`in leaping to this conclusion renders Declarant’s conclusion to be of little weight.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`
`
`While the above is sufficient, additional reasons exist for determining that
`
`Petitioner has failed to carry its burden of proving that Larsson teaches the
`
`recitation at issue. Unlike the ‘049 Patent, Larsson is directed to a route
`
`discovery technique (i.e., not a device discovery technique required by the recited
`
`“inquiry message”). Larsson’s “broadcast message for route discovery” is aptly
`
`named because its purpose is to discover an optimal route to a known
`
`destination node which is already joined to a piconet. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at
`
`Abstract; 4:23‒25; 4:37‒ 47; 5:36‒37; 5:44‒45. Referring to Figure 3, Larsson
`
`states that “if node 303 were the source node then the broadcast message [for
`
`route discovery] would be sent to nodes 301, 302 and 304.” Figure 3 and its
`
`corresponding description disclose that the recipient nodes 301, 302, and 304
`
`were previously joined to the same piconet 1 to which the source node 303 is
`
`joined. See, e.g., id. at Figure 3, 1:67‒2:1. Thus, Larsson is directed to
`
`discovering a route to a known recipient device already joined to a piconet, as
`
`opposed to discovering recipient devices that may seek to join.
`
`Larsson’s “broadcast message for route discovery” has not been proven by
`
`the Petitioner to teach an “inquiry message” as that term is used in the ’049 patent.
`
`As explained above, the ’049 patent repeatedly and consistently describes its
`
`“inquiry messages” as a specific type of message used, at least in part, to discover
`
`other devices in the vicinity which may request to join a piconet. See §VI.A.3,
`
`supra. The Petition thus relies on an incorrect construction of the term “inquiry
`
`message” as allegedly covering Larsson’s entirely distinct route discovery
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`messages. The Petition has not and cannot prove obviousness through reliance in
`
`an incorrect claim construction. See Synopsys, 669 Fed. Appx. at 569.
`
`Next, the Petition argues that Larsson “confirms” that its “piggybacked”
`
`messages require an additional data field purportedly because Larsson “teaches
`
`RfR messages ‘of a fixed length’ and when the message is ‘longer than the
`
`normal fixed length’ it indicates the presence of additional ‘piggybacked data.’”
`
`Pet. 33 citing EX1004, 7:58-61. The Petition’s reliance on this brief four-line
`
`passage of Larsson, described by Larsson as an alternative protocol in which a
`
`request for route message is of a fixed length, is also misplaced. Nothing in that
`
`brief passage of Larsson discloses or even indicates an additional data field
`
`added to the “RfR message”. All that is disclosed is that the “RfR message” is
`
`longer than the “fixed length,” and that a “length indicator” will indicate a length
`
`longer than the normal fixed length. The presence of the length indicator merely
`
`teaches that there is additional data in the message, but is utterly silent as to the
`
`presence of an additional data field as required by the claim language.
`
`Moreover, the Declarant provides no evidence of any weight to support
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on this four-line alternative embodiment. The Declarant
`
`merely makes the conclusory statement, repeating the language of the claim, that
`
`Larsson’s piggybacked RfR messages require an additional data field, followed
`
`by a slight rearrangement of the four-line passage of Larsson, with no line of
`
`reasoning to provide any evidence of how a POSITA, reading this passage of
`
`Larsson, would arrive the conclusion that Larsson had somehow disclosed the
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`precise language of the claim. EX1003, ¶75.
`
`Indeed, contrary to the Petition’s conclusory assertions, the passage of
`
`Larsson cited by the Petition itself indicates that it is merely additional data
`
`included in the “RfR message”: “in a protocol where the request for route
`
`message is of a fixed length, a length indicator which indicates a length longer
`
`than the normal fixed length will implicitly indicate that the request contains
`
`piggyback data.” EX1004, 7:58-61 (emphasis added). As expressly disclosed by
`
`Larsson itself, it is just data that accounts for the longer than “fixed length”
`
`message. There is no indication that Larsson’s “piggyback data” is anything
`
`other than merely more data, as opposed to the additional data field required by
`
`the claim language, and the Petition does not show otherwise.
`
`Finally, the Petition purports to rely on Petitioner’s declarant for support
`
`(Pet. 33), however, the Petitioner’s declarant merely parrots the exact conclusory
`
`(and unsupported) statements of the Petition. Compare Pet. 33 with EX1003, ¶
`
`75. 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 . . . .”). As
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`noted above, the Declarant does nothing more than announce the alleged
`
`equivalence of the claim language and the brief passage of Larsson, with no line
`
`of reasoning or technical basis to demonstrate why a POSITA would arrive at
`
`that conclusion of equivalence.
`
`In sum, the Petition should be denied because there is nothing in Larsson
`
`or the Petition that provides evidence that Larsson discloses “adding to an
`
`inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least
`
`one secondary station”, as the claim language requires.
`
`Indeed, while the ’049 patent has a solitary use of the term “piggy-back,”
`
`stating: “it is possible to piggy-back a broadcast channel on the inquiry
`
`messages” EX1001, 4:15-18, all this passage discloses that it is possible to use
`
`the broadcast channel for another purpose. What the passage doesn’t describe is
`
`how the inquiry message is altered – with an additional data field. That
`
`description happens later in the ’049 patent (see EX1001, 4:59-62); (3) As
`
`further made clear by the passage cited by the Petition, the patentees knew the
`
`difference between the term “piggy-back” and “additional data field”, and did
`
`not use them interchangeably; and (4) The Petition’s alleged (false) equivalence
`
`between a term used in a reference and a term that does not appear in the claim
`
`language at all is flawed. At the very least it is an impermissible ipsissimis verbis
`
`test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`However, Larsson does not disclose any such adding to an inquiry
`
`message an additional data field, and the Petition merely offers conclusory
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`statements and conjecture in a failed attempt to support its position. Further still,
`
`the Petition clearly fails to establish the recitation under a proper claim
`
`construction of “an extra data field appended to the end of an inquiry message”.
`
`What Petitioner identifies as “piggybacked data” (Pet. 25) is plainly
`
`deficient to prove Larsson’s alleged teaching of “adding to an inquiry message
`
`prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary
`
`station,” as recited in claim 11. This is at least because, as the intrinsic evidence
`
`itself confirms, the couplet “data field” and the word “data” (in isolation) are
`
`distinct terms of art. In addition, merely adding data to an already existing data
`
`field of a message clearly fails to demonstrate a disclosure of adding an
`
`additional data field to that message.
`
`The intrinsic evidence refutes Petitioner’s incorrect and undefended
`
`premise that the couplet “data field” and the word “data” (in isolation) are
`
`interchangeable terms of art. See In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017) (“[T]he protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. does not include giving claims a legally incorrect
`
`interpretation” “divorced from the specification and the record evidence.”)
`
`(citing Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015)).
`
`The teachings of the ’049 patent underscore the distinction. For example,
`
`the ’049 patent expressly and repeatedly distinguishes the additional data field
`
`(e.g., data field 504) from the data that it carries. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:60‒62
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`(“the inquiry messages issued by the base station have an extra field 504
`
`appended to them, capable of carrying a HID poll message.”), 4:62‒63 (“The
`
`extended field 504 may carry a header that signifies a HID pol”), 5:2‒6 (the
`
`extended field 504 may also carry “the address of the HID being polled” and “a
`
`small amount of information”), 6:19‒21 (“The HID receives, at step 604, data
`
`from the extra field 504 then tests, at step 606, whether it has been polled by the
`
`host system.”).
`
`In addition, the ’049 patent emphasizes that certain embodiments achieve
`
`a rapid response, in part, because secondary stations can efficiently determine the
`
`appropriate response to an inquiry message by first accessing whether an
`
`additional data field has been added (i.e., regardless of the specific data contained
`
`in that field). See, e.g., id. at Abstract, 2:31‒35; 2:53‒57; 2:67‒3:4. This inventive
`
`concept is also reflected throughout the claims. See id. at 7:29‒8:50. The ’049
`
`patent further emphasizes the significance of adding an additional data field (as
`
`opposed to just adding data) by teaching that “[b]y adding the field to the end of
`
`the inquiry message, it will be appreciated that non-HID receivers can ignore it
`
`without modification.” Id. at 5:6‒9. Petitioner has not and cannot meet its burden
`
`of proof through its conclusory assertions that conflate together what the ’049
`
`patent expressly and repeatedly distinguishes. Pet. 25 (“the piggybacked data . .
`
`. is a data field for polling.”) (emphasis added). Indeed, the Petition does not
`
`even assert that Larsson teaches adding the additional data field to the end of the
`
`inquiry message. Petitioner’s Declarant similarly never alleges that Larsson
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`discloses adding an additional data field at the end of an inquiry message.
`
`For at least the above reasons, the Petitioner has failed to meet its burden
`
`of demonstrating that Larsson teaches the recitations at issue.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`802.11 Does Not Disclose “adding to an inquiry message prior to
`transmission an additional data field for polling at least one
`secondary station,” (Ground 2)
`
`Here, the Petition points to 802.11’s so-called “targeted” probe request.
`
`Pet. 48. Initially, it is important to note that the Petition admits that 802.11’s
`
`probe request message comes in two varieties, a “broadcast” type, which seeks
`
`responses from all available access points, and a so-called “targeted” type, which
`
`only “polls a specific access point”. Pet. 48 (emphasis added). As such, by
`
`relying on the so-called “targeted” probe request type here, the Petition cannot
`
`coherently rely on the “broadcast” type to challenge the previous claim
`
`limitation “the method comprising the primary station broadcasting a series of
`
`inquiry messages” (the Petition’s [11.2]).
`
`Regardless, the Petition fails to show that 802.11 discloses this claim
`
`limitation, which requires “adding to an inquiry message prior to transmission an
`
`additional data field for polling at least one secondary station”. As noted above,
`
`the Petition here relies on 802.11’s “targeted” probe request type. And the
`
`Petition argues 802.11 discloses this limitation because in 802.11’s “broadcast”
`
`probe request type the “SSID information field” has a “zero length”, compared
`
`to the “targeted” probe request type where the “SSID information field” contains
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`data. See Pet. 48-49.
`
`However, Petitioner’s argument fails for at least two reasons, (1) the
`
`“SSID information field”, even when its length is zero, is nonetheless an existing
`
`field in 802.11’s probe request, therefore merely pointing to the times when the
`
`“SSID information field” is of non-zero length does not disclose adding “an
`
`additional data field” as required by the claim language; and (2) the Petition
`
`ignores the previous claim limitation which recites the inquiry messages having
`
`a plurality of predetermined data fields, upon which this claim limitation adds to.
`
`First, as noted by the Petition itself, the “SSID information field” is an
`
`existing field in 802.11’s probe request, regardless of type. That under the
`
`“broadcast” type the “SSID information field” has a “zero length” does not
`
`change the fact that it is still in fact an existing and predetermined field of the
`
`probe request. This is confirmed by the Petition’s own duplication of 802.11’s
`
`Figure 35:
`
`
`
`Pet. 45 citing EX1007, Fig. 35 (red box added).
`
`As shown by the Petition’s own reliance on 802.11’s Figure 35, the “SSID
`
`information field” can be length zero to thirty-two octets. In other words, a “zero
`
`length” is a valid length for the “SSID information field”, that the field can
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`sometimes be of zero length and other times be of non-zero length does not
`
`change the fact that the “SSID information field” is an existing and
`
`predetermined part of the probe request. Therefore, merely pointing to the times
`
`when the “SSID information field” is of non-zero length does not disclose
`
`“adding to an inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data field”, as
`
`the claim language requires.
`
`Second, and furthermore, 802.11’s “SSID information field” cannot be the
`
`“additional data field” required by this claim limitation because the Petition
`
`ignores the previous claim limitation which recites: “broadcasting a series of
`
`inquiry messages, each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data fields
`
`arranged according to a first communications protocol”.
`
`As the Petition itself confirms, the “SSID information field” is an existing
`
`and predetermined part of 802.11’s probe request because sometimes it has non-
`
`zero length (see e.g., Pet. 48), meaning the “SSID information field” is one of a
`
`“predetermined data fields”. And therefore, the “SSID information field” cannot
`
`be an “additional data field” to be added to the inquiry message, as this claim
`
`limitation requires.
`
`The Board, in the Institution Decision, determined that:
`
`We find that the parties’ competing positions creates a genuine issue of
`
`material fact—i.e., whether a zero-length SSID information field is an
`
`existing field. According to Petitioner’s declarant, “[a] POSITA would
`
`understand that ‘0 length’ means that nothing is included for this SSID
`
`field, i.e., there is no SSID field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 102. At this stage of the
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`proceeding, we view evidence in the light most favorable to Petitioner. See
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Although we encourage the parties to develop this
`
`issue further during trial, on this record, Petitioner provides adequate
`
`evidence that 802.11’s targeted request teaches the claim