throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01026
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,993,049
`Issued: January 31, 2006
`Application No.: 09/876,514
`Filed: June 7, 2001
`Title: COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
`
`_________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,993,049
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`Page(s)
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................. vi
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................ ix
`
`1.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest...................................................................................... ix
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... ix
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information ....................... x
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PER SECTION 42.104(a) ............................. 2
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Statement Of The Precise Relief Requested / Statutory Grounds ......... 2
`
`The Office Has Not Addressed These Unpatentability Grounds .......... 3
`
`C. Microsoft’s Petition Should Be Granted Despite
`Other Third-Party Petitions Challenging The Same Patent .................. 4
`
`D.
`
`The Board Should Institute IPR Based On The Grounds
`Presented In This Petition Despite A District Court Order
`Finding The Challenged Claims Fail to Satisfy Section 101 ................ 6
`
`IV. THE ’049 PATENT ......................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims .................................................................................................... 9
`
`The Prosecution History ........................................................................ 9
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 10
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 11, 12 OBVIOUS OVER
`LARSSON, BLUETOOTH SPECIFICATION, AND RFC826 ................... 12
`
`Page ii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Larsson ................................................................................................ 12
`
`Bluetooth Specification ....................................................................... 15
`
`Combining Larsson With The Bluetooth Specification ...................... 17
`
`RFC826 (ARP) .................................................................................... 21
`
`Combining Larsson With RFC826 ...................................................... 22
`
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 24
`
`G.
`
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 39
`
`VIII. GROUND 2 – CLAIMS 11 AND 12 ARE OBVIOUS OVER 802.11 ....... 40
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`802.11 .................................................................................................. 40
`
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 43
`
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 52
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 52
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`
`
`Page iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Borad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................11
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................12
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................11
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 3
`
`Board Decisions
`
`Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. v. Andrx Corp. et al.,
`IPR2017-01648, Paper 34 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2018) ...............................................11
`
`LSI Corp. v. Regents Univ. Minn.,
`IPR2017-01068, Paper 26 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2018) ................................................... 7
`
`Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen’l Elec. Co.,
`IPR2013-00172, Paper 50 (PTAB Jul. 28, 2014) ................................................... 3
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................................... 12, 16, 21, 40
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ......................................................................................................4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`Page iv
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.5 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ...................................................................................................11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340 ..................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page v
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049 (“the ’049 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
` File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`
`1003
`
` Declaration of Peter B. Rysavy, signed and dated May 6, 2019
`(“Rysavy Decl.” or “Rysavy”).
`
`1004
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,704,293 to Larsson et al. (“Larsson”)
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
` Specification of the Bluetooth System, Vol. 1, Bluetooth, v1.0B
`(Dec. 1, 1999) (“Bluetooth Specification”)
`
` David C. Plummer, An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol,
`IETF Request For Comments No. 826 (Nov. 1982) (“RFC826”)
`
` ANSI/IEEE Std 802.11, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
`Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications
`(Aug. 20, 1999) (“802.11”)
`
` Uniloc USA Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics USA Inc., et al., Case
`18-cv-06738-LHK, Dkt. No. 109, Amended Order Granting
`Motion to Dismiss (“Section 101 Order”)
`
` Uniloc USA Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics USA Inc., et al., Case
`18-cv-06738-LHK, Dkt. No. 110, Amended Judgment
`
` Uniloc USA Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics USA Inc., et al., Case
`18-cv-06738-LHK, Dkt. No. 111, Notice of Appeal
`
` Case Timelines for U.S. Pat. No. 6,993,049, Docket Navigator
`(www.docketnavigator.com) (generated April 30, 2019)
`
`Page vi
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`1012
`
` Case List for U.S. Pat. No. 6,993,049, Docket Navigator
`(www.docketnavigator.com) (generated April 30, 2019)
`
`1013
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,255,800 to Bork
`
`1014
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,975,205 to French et al.
`
`1015
`
` Form PTO-1449 and Associated Documents from File History
`For U.S. Pat. No. 5,907,540 (date-stamped December 19, 1995).
`
`1016
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 5,907,540 to Hayashi
`
`1017
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,058,421 to Fijolek et al.
`
`1018
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,982,953 to Swales
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
` S. Cheshire, IPv4 Address Conflict Detection, IETF Request For
`Comments No. 5227 (July 2008) (“RFC5227”)
`
` Peter Rysavy, Wireless Wonders Coming Your Way, Network
`Magazine (May 2000).
`
` Peter Rysavy / Rysavy Research, Wireless Data Networks, Cover
`Material For Course Delivered at WEB2000 (October 2000)
`
` Peter Rysavy / Rysavy Research, Wireless Data Systems: Making
`Sense of Wireless, Cover Material For Course Taught at UCLA
`(2001)
`
`1023
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,683,886 to Tuijn
`
`1024
`
` Press Release, The Official Bluetooth SIG Website, New revision
`of the Bluetooth 1.0 Specification released (1999-12-06), Web
`Archive capture dated May 17, 2000, available at
`
`Page vii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000517192715/http://
`www.bluetooth.com/text/news/archive/archive.asp?news=2
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
` The Official Bluetooth SIG Website, News Archive, Web Archive
`capture
`dated May
`18,
`2000,
`available
`at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000518114920/http://www.
`bluetooth.com/text/news/archive/archive.asp?news=list
`
` IEEE Standards Products Catalog: Wireless (802.11), Web
`Archive
`capture dated May 18, 2000,
`available
`at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000324233339/http:/standards
`.ieee.org:80/catalog/IEEE802.11.html
`
`1027
`
` Uniloc USA Inc., et al. v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., et al., Case
`No. 2:18-cv-00040-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 82 (April 5, 2019)
`(“Markman Order”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page viii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`1.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Microsoft Corporation is the sole real party-in-interest.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The ’049 patent (Ex. 1001) is or was asserted in the following litigations:
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. HTC America, Inc., 2:18-cv-01727 (W.D. Wash.), filed
`
`November 30, 2018; Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, 1:18-cv-01840
`
`(D. Del.), filed November 20, 2018; Uniloc 2017 LLC v. ZTE, Inc. et al., 3:18-cv-
`
`03063 (N.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018; Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Blackberry
`
`Corporation, 3:18-cv-03068 (N.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018; Uniloc USA
`
`Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics USA Inc., et al., 5:18-cv-06738 (N.D. Cal.), filed
`
`November 6, 2018; Uniloc USA Inc., et al., v. ZTE (USA) Inc., et al., 3:18-cv-02839
`
`(N.D. Tex.) filed October 24, 2018; Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corporation,
`
`8:18-cv-01279 (C.D. Cal.), filed July 24, 2018; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ZTE (USA), Inc.,
`
`2:18-cv-00307 (E.D. Tex.), filed July 23, 2018; Uniloc USA Inc. v. Blackberry
`
`Corporation, 3:18-cv-01885 (N.D. Tex.), filed July 23, 2018; Uniloc USA, Inc., v.
`
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., 2:18-cv-00074 (E.D. Tex.), filed March 13, 2018; Uniloc
`
`USA Inc. v. LG Electronics USA Inc., 3:18-cv-00559 (N.D. Tex.), filed March 9,
`
`2018; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Logitech, Inc., 5:18-cv-01304 (N.D. Cal.), filed February
`
`28, 2018; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 2:18-cv-00040
`
`Page ix
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`(E.D. Tex.), filed February 23, 2018; and Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 1:18-cv-
`
`00164 (W.D. Tex.), filed February 22, 2018.
`
`A third party filed a petition for IPR of the ’049 patent on November 12, 2018,
`
`as Apple Inc., et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, PTAB IPR2019-00251.
`
`3.
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Andrew M. Mason, Reg. No. 64,034
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Todd M. Siegel, Reg. No. 73,232
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`
`Joseph T. Jakubek, Reg. No. 34,190
`joseph.jakubek@klarquist.com
`
`John M. Lunsford, Reg. No. 67,185
`john.lunsford@klarquist.com
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon, 97204
`503-595-5300 (phone)
`503-595-5301 (fax)
`
`Petitioner consents to service via email at the above email addresses.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), concurrently filed with this Petition is a
`
`Power of Attorney executed by Petitioner and appointing the above counsel.
`
`Page x
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent Number 6,993,049 (“’049
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001), allegedly assigned to Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`As explained in this petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’049 patent relates to networks, such as Bluetooth, that allow wireless
`
`linking of devices. ’049 patent, 1:1-18. One use of such networks is cable-free
`
`connections between a computer and peripheral devices, such as a keyboard and
`
`mouse. Id., 1:27-33. The alleged invention of the ’049 patent involves adding
`
`additional data onto certain broadcast messages, also called a “piggy-back” by the
`
`’049 patent, in order to poll devices for information. Id., 2:22-35, 4:15-20. Although
`
`described in the context of Bluetooth, the “invention” purportedly is “applicable to
`
`a range of other communication systems.” Id., 1:7-8.
`
`This was no invention. By 1999, Larsson (Ex. 1004) described adding
`
`additional data fields to broadcast messages in order to seek information from other
`
`devices; it even used the same “piggyback” language and underlying Bluetooth
`
`network as the ’049 patent. Infra Section VII.A. Larsson, in view of other prior art
`
`publications that describe well-known implementation details, renders all challenged
`
`claims unpatentable. Infra Section VII. And separately, 802.11 (Ex. 1007), which
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`published in 1999, specified a wireless network in which additional data was added
`
`to certain broadcast messages, called “probe requests,” in order to poll specifically
`
`targeted devices for information. The challenged claims are also obvious over
`
`802.11. Infra Section VIII.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PER SECTION 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’049 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the patent claims on
`
`the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A.
`
`Statement Of The Precise Relief Requested / Statutory Grounds
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 11-12 of the ’049 Patent
`
`based on the following statutory grounds:
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Ground 1 Larsson (Ex. 1004), Bluetooth Specification
`(Ex. 1005), and RFC826 (Ex. 1006).
`
`Basis Claims
`
`§ 103 11 and 12
`
`Ground 2 802.11 (Ex. 1007)
`
`§ 103 11 and 12
`
`For each ground, in Sections VII-VIII below, the petition presents evidence showing
`
`at least a reasonable likelihood that each Challenged Claim is unpatentable.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`With the filing of this Petition, an electronic payment in the amount of
`
`$30,500 is being charged to Deposit Account No. 02-4550. 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a).
`
`Any fee adjustments may be debited/credited to that deposit account.
`
`In presenting these grounds, petitioner does not concede that any claims
`
`satisfy other requirements for patentability that cannot be raised in IPR, such as
`
`Section 101 patentable subject matter or clear claiming under Section 112. For
`
`example, even if claims do not comply with Section 112 for infringement purposes,
`
`the Board may still “decide the patentability of those claims based on the grounds of
`
`unpatentability” presented. Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen’l Elec. Co., IPR2013-00172,
`
`Paper 50 at 9-11 (PTAB Jul. 28, 2014). Similarly, even if the boundaries of a claim
`
`are too uncertain to satisfy Section 112, the “center” of the claim may be
`
`ascertainable enough to show that the claim is satisfied by the prior art. Cf. Vas-Cath
`
`Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (prior art anticipates a claim
`
`if it describes even a single embodiment inside the scope of the claim.
`
`B.
`
`The Office Has Not Addressed These Unpatentability Grounds
`
`Neither “the same [n]or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously were presented to the Office,” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Neither the applicants
`
`nor any Examiner addressed whether either Larsson, Bluetooth Specification, or
`
`RFC826 (or any reference substantially identical to any of these three references)
`
`was prior art, nor attempted to distinguish the claims from any of these publications,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`much less the combination of these publications. Nor has 802.11 been previously
`
`considered. In fact, the ’049 patent lists only three cited references, all of them
`
`patents, none of which are relied on by this petition. Thus, no unpatentability ground
`
`asserted herein has been previously presented to the Patent Office.
`
`C. Microsoft’s Petition Should Be Granted Despite Other
`Third-Party Petitions Challenging The Same Patent
`
`In July 2018, Uniloc served a complaint on Microsoft, accusing it of infringing
`
`the ’049 patent and thus implicating the 1-year time bar of Section 315. Uniloc then
`
`withdrew the ’049 patent from that lawsuit without prejudice and without
`
`Microsoft’s consent. This leaves Microsoft facing a potential time bar against IPR,
`
`coupled with the risk of Patent Owner later re-asserting its infringement allegations.
`
`Accordingly, Microsoft now files this Petition.
`
`While another third-party petition1 challenges the claims challenged in this
`
`petition (see Case IPR2019-00251), Microsoft’s challenges are not redundant and
`
`should be separately considered and instituted for several reasons. First, Microsoft
`
`files this Petition before any patent owner response to the third-party petition.
`
`Second, while Microsoft relies on some of the same art applied in the other third-
`
`party petition, Larsson, it presents that art in a different light and relies on other art
`
`
`1 Patent Owner chose to file suit against that petitioner over five months before filing
`
`suit against Microsoft. Ex. 1012.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`not cited in that petition. For example, the present petition explains why the
`
`piggybacked Address Resolution Protocol (“ARP”) messages expressly disclosed
`
`by Larsson satisfy the claims, including the “additional data field” aspects of the
`
`claims, using RFC826 to show the format of those ARP messages. IPR2019-00251,
`
`by contrast, does not focus on ARP messages or explain their format, but instead
`
`focuses on Bluetooth “polling packets.” And the grounds presented by IPR2019-
`
`00251 do not rely on, or even cite to, RFC826. Third, Microsoft presents a ground
`
`based on 802.11, which is not cited in IPR2019-00251. Fourth, patent owner chose
`
`to assert this patent in a temporally staggered fashion against numerous defendants,
`
`and the staggered filing of these responsive IPR petitions results from the patent
`
`owner decision to assert its patent in serial, instead of simultaneous, lawsuits.2
`
`Finally, the third-party IPR proceedings may settle or otherwise terminate for
`
`reasons outside of Microsoft’s control. If Microsoft were time-barred under Section
`
`315 at that point, it would have no recourse to challenge the patent via IPR, thus
`
`necessitating the filing of this petition now.
`
`
`2 According to Docket Navigator, the purported patent owner has asserted the ’049
`
`patent in fifteen different district court litigations, against at least 10 different
`
`defendants, with complaint filing dates that span from February 21, 2018 to
`
`November 29, 2018. See Exs. 1011-1012.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`D. The Board Should Institute IPR Based On The Grounds
`Presented In This Petition Despite A District Court Order
`Finding The Challenged Claims Fail to Satisfy Section 101
`
`On April 9, 2019, a district court order found “that the ’049 Patent is directed
`
`to unpatentable subject matter and is thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Ex. 1008,
`
`34 (hereinafter, “Section 101 Order”); see also Ex. 1009 (order entering judgment).
`
`On April 26, 2019, Patent Owner filed its notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit. Ex.
`
`1010.
`
`Patent Owner may argue that, given the Section 101 Order, it would be
`
`inefficient for the Board to institute IPR based on this petition. Microsoft
`
`acknowledges the potential for inefficiency in reviewing claims of a patent that has
`
`already been found invalid—but only if the patent owner acquiesces to that
`
`judgment. So long as Patent Owner maintains its appeal of the Section 101 Order,
`
`there remains the potential of the Federal Circuit reviving the challenged claims.
`
`Unless the Federal Circuit affirms the Section 101 Order, Microsoft faces the risk of
`
`infringement allegations coupled with a looming statutory bar date that was triggered
`
`by Patent Owner’s own action of serving Microsoft with a complaint for
`
`infringement. The staggered state of the various proceedings involving this patent
`
`are the result of Patent Owner’s strategy to assert this patent in a temporally
`
`staggered nature against numerous different defendants. Supra n.2.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`Thus, despite the Section 101 Order (now on appeal), the Board should grant
`
`this petition and institute inter partes review. To the extent the Board finds it would
`
`be more efficient to stay or suspend these proceedings pending the outcome of Patent
`
`Owner’s Federal Circuit appeal from the Section 101 Order, Microsoft respectfully
`
`seeks leave to file a motion to stay/suspend pre-institution deadlines pending that
`
`appeal. Cf. LSI Corp. v. Regents Univ. Minn., IPR2017-01068, Paper 26 (PTAB Feb.
`
`9, 2018) (per curiam) (suspending pre-institution deadlines pending Federal Circuit
`
`appeal of patent owner’s motion to dismiss); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.5(a) (permitting
`
`the Board to “determine a proper course of conduct in a proceeding for any situation
`
`not specifically covered” and to “set times by order”). Such a stay would serve the
`
`dual purpose of preserving Microsoft’s right to seek inter partes review of this patent
`
`(given the filing of this petition before any statutory bar) while preserving Board and
`
`party resources if the Federal Circuit affirms the invalidity finding.
`
`IV. THE ’049 PATENT
`
`The ’049 Patent (Ex. 1001), titled “Communication System,” issued January
`
`31, 2006, from a U.S. Patent Application filed June 7, 2001. It alleges priority to two
`
`U.K. patent applications filed June 26, 2000 and August 15, 2000, respectively.
`
`It generally relates to wireless networks, such as Bluetooth, that allow
`
`connectivity to keyboards, mice, and other Human/Machine Interface Devices
`
`(“HIDs”). Ex. 1001, 1:3-7, 1:27-33; Rysavy, ¶¶ 21-22. The alleged invention
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`involves what the patent calls a “piggy-back,” in which a sending device adds “an
`
`additional data field” to the predetermined data fields of a message. Ex. 1001, 2:18-
`
`35. When such messages are received at another device, or “station,” the receiving
`
`station (i) determines the presence of the additional data field and (ii) if that field
`
`indicates the receiving station, generates a response to the message. Ex. 1001, 4:15-
`
`18, 4:59-5:11, 6:16-24, Fig. 6; Rysavy, ¶ 23-24.
`
`For example, as shown in Fig. 5 (reproduced below, with annotation), a
`
`“standard inquiry packet is an ID packet (ID PKT) 502.” Ex. 1001, 5:19-20. Using
`
`the alleged invention, the “inquiry messages issued by [a] base station have an extra
`
`field 504 appended to them, capable of carrying a HID poll message.” Ex. 1001,
`
`4:59-62.
`
`
`
`
`
`additional data
`field for polling
`
`’049 Patent, Fig. 5 (annotations in red)
`
`“The extended field 504 may carry a header that signifies a HID poll to distinguish
`
`it from other applications of extended field information, such as context-aware
`
`services or broadcast audio.” Ex. 1001, 4:62-65. “By adding the field to the end of
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`the inquiry message, … non-HID receivers can ignore it without modification” while
`
`the HID receiver being polled can respond. Ex. 1001, 5:6-9; Rysavy, ¶¶ 24-25.
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`A. Claims
`
`Exemplary claim 11 recites:
`
`A method of operating a communication system
`
`comprising a primary station and at least one secondary
`
`station, the method comprising
`
`the primary station 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 adding to an inquiry message prior to
`
`transmission an additional data field for polling at least
`
`one secondary station, and
`
`further comprising the at least one polled secondary
`
`station determining when an additional data field has been
`
`added to the plurality of data fields, determining whether
`
`it has been polled from the additional data field and
`
`responding to a poll when it has data for transmission to
`
`the primary station.
`
`B.
`
`The Prosecution History
`
`Prosecution was relatively short. A first Office action rejected claims 1-11 as
`
`anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 6,574,266, or obvious over that patent and U.S. Pat. No.
`
`4,766,434. Ex. 1002, 77-82. Applicants argued inter alia that these references failed
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`to satisfy the claimed “additional data field,” “inquiry message,” and “determining
`
`whether it has been polled” elements. Id., 69-70. Applicants also amended the claims
`
`“to replace European-style claim phraseology with American-style claim language
`
`and to fix minor typographical errors.” Id., 69.
`
`The next Office action found applicants arguments moot and rejected claims
`
`1-5, 7-9, and 11-12 for double-patenting over claims of U.S. Pat. No. 6,664,891. Id.,
`
`52-54. In response, the applicants filed a terminal disclaimer (id., 45) and the
`
`examiner then allowed all claims (id., 29).
`
`V. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`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. Rysavy, ¶ 26. Additional education in a relevant field, or
`
`industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the
`
`requirements stated above. Id. The POSITA would have had working knowledge of
`
`at least the more well-known wireless protocols, especially shorter-range protocols
`
`such as Bluetooth and the wireless LAN specified by the IEEE 802.11 working
`
`group. Id. Moreover, the POSITA would have followed the activities of the
`
`organizations developing these protocols, including the Bluetooth SIG and the IEEE
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`802 Working Groups, and been aware of the protocol/standards documents
`
`published by these organizations, such as the Bluetooth Specification (Ex. 1005) and
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`802.11 (Ex. 1007). Rysavy, ¶ 26.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`For inter partes review, claim terms should be given the ordinary meaning
`
`that the terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art on the earliest
`
`effective filing date, in view of the specification and file history. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b) (“83 Fed. Reg. 51340; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`For this IPR, Petitioner applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim
`
`terms and contends that no claim terms require specific construction to resolve the
`
`unpatentability issues presented herein. See, e.g., Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. v.
`
`Andrx Corp. et al., IPR2017-01648, Paper 34 at 11 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2018) (“We
`
`address the construction of only certain claim terms raised by the parties, and we do
`
`so only to the extent necessary to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”) (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`
`Zhongshan Borad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). If Patent
`
`Owner reasserts the patent then construction of claim terms may be relevant to issues
`
`in district court litigation, e.g., as part of resolving non-infringement disputes or to
`
`“clarify and when necessary to explain” terms for “determination of infringement”
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`by the factfinder—typically non-technologist judges and/or jurors. O2 Micro Int’l
`
`Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation
`
`omitted). Therefore, Microsoft does not waive its right to raise additional issues of
`
`claim construction in any litigation, nor does it waive any argument in any litigation
`
`that claim terms are indefinite or otherwise invalid. Microsoft intends to advise the
`
`Board of any pertinent claim construction positions it takes in any district court
`
`filings relating to the ’049 patent, although it does not intend to file every exchange
`
`related to any district court claim construction process.
`
`Petitioner notes that several terms in the challenged claims were construed in
`
`district court litigation between Patent Owner and a third party unrelated to
`
`petitioner. See Exhibit 1027. Similarly, another unrelated petitioner has proposed
`
`constructions for certain terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”)
`
`in IPR2019-00251. Without conceding the correctness of the constructions issued
`
`by the district court or proposed by the other petitioner, Petitioner notes that the prior
`
`art presented herein satisfies the claim elements under those other constructions.
`
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 11, 12 OBVIOUS OVER
`LARSSON, BLUETOOTH SPECIFICATION, AND RFC826
`
`A. Larsson
`
`Larsson (Larsson) issued from a U.S. Patent application filed December 6,
`
`1999, and thus qualifies as prior art under at least Section 102(e).
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`Larsson relates to updating and maintaining route information in wireless ad-
`
`hoc networks, such as Bluetooth networks. Larsson, 1:14-45. Specifically, Larsson
`
`discloses a method that it describes as used to: 1) speed up the signaling required to
`
`set up a route between a source and destination node, and 2) minimize the “number
`
`of broadcast messages required for setting up a route from [the] source node to [the]
`
`destination node when employing reactive protocols currently being used for
`
`transmitting in an ad-hoc network.” Larsson, 2:26-50, 3:64-4:8, 4:32-36; Rysavy,
`
`¶ 28.
`
`Larsson implements a “route discovery technique” that piggybacks certain
`
`types of “broadcast messages” onto a “route discovery” broadcast messages. This
`
`piggyback approach efficiently allows a single broadcast message to support two
`
`functions, namely route discovery and functions related to other types of messages,
`
`such as Address Resolution Protocol (“ARP”) messages. Larsson, 5:35-50; Rysavy,
`
`¶ 29. Larsson prescribes that, on determining that piggybacking is appropriate, the
`
`source node piggybacks the broadcast message onto a route discovery message and
`
`broadcasts the message to its neighbor nodes. Larsson, Fig. 6A, 5:60-6:2, 6:11-15;
`
`Rysavy, ¶ 30. This is shown, e.g., in Larson Fig. 6A at steps 608 and 615:
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,993,049 (Claims 11-12)
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`
`
`Larsson, Fig. 6A (excerpted).
`
`
`
`Other nodes receive these piggyback

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket