`571-272-7882
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 20
`Date: November 27, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”),
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 11 and 12 (the “challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’049 Patent”).
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the
`
`Petition (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and
`
`Preliminary Response, we instituted inter partes review of all challenged
`
`claims on all grounds raised. Paper 7 (“Dec. Inst.”).
`
`Patent Owner filed a Response to the Petition (Paper 9, “PO Resp.”)
`
`and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 10, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a
`
`Sur-Reply (Paper 12, “PO Sur-Reply”). An oral hearing was held on
`
`September 10, 2020, and the hearing transcript is included in the record. See
`
`Paper 19 (“Tr.”).
`
`In our Scheduling Order, we notified the parties that “any arguments
`
`not raised in the [Patent Owner] response may be deemed waived.” See
`
`Paper 8, 7; see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The patent owner response . . . should identify all
`
`the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for
`
`that belief.”). Patent Owner argues that it “does not concede, and
`
`specifically denies, that there is any legitimacy to any arguments in the
`
`instant Petition that are not specifically addressed” in its Patent Owner
`
`Response. PO Resp. 27 n.5. We decline to speculate as to what Patent
`
`Owner considers to be not legitimate in the Petition. Any arguments for
`
`patentability not raised in the Patent Owner Response are deemed waived.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This is a Final Written
`
`Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons
`
`set forth below, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
`
`evidence that claims 11 and 12 of the ’049 patent are unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`A. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The parties identify the following related matters:
`
`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-cv03063 (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; Apple Inc., et al. v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, PTAB IPR2019-00251. Pet. ix–x; Paper 3, 2.
`
`B. THE ’049 PATENT
`
`The ’049 patent is directed to a communication system comprising a
`
`primary station and one or more secondary stations. Ex. 1001, code (57).
`
`The primary station broadcasts a series of inquiry messages, and adds to the
`
`inquiry messages an additional data field for polling secondary stations. Id.
`
`This system is useful for communications between the stations without
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`requiring a permanently active link, such as is common with the Bluetooth
`
`communications protocol. Id.
`
`C. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 11 and 12 of the ’049 Patent. Claim 11 is
`
`the only independent challenged claim and is reproduced below:
`
`11. 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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:35–47.
`
`D. PRIOR ART AND ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability. Pet. 2.
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §1
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`11, 12
`
`103
`
`Larsson2, Bluetooth
`Specification3, RFC8264
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) amended 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`See Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011). As the application
`that issued as the ’049 patent was filed before the effective date of the
`relevant amendments, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,704,293 B1 (iss. Dec. 6, 1999) (Ex. 1004, “Larsson”).
`3 Bluetooth™ Core Specification Vol. 1, ver. 1.0 B (pub. Dec. 1, 1999)
`(Ex. 1005, “Bluetooth Specification”).
`4 David C. Plummer, An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol,
`IETF Request for Comments No. 826 (Pub. Nov. 1982) (Ex. 1006,
`“RFC826”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §1
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`11, 12
`
`§ 103
`
`802.115
`
`I. ANALYSIS
`
`A. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have had “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. In addition, according to Petitioner, “[a]dditional
`
`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.
`
`Patent Owner does not contest or offer its own formulation for a skilled
`
`artisan. PO Resp. 4. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s proposal because
`
`it is consistent with the ’049 patent, as well as the problems and solutions in
`
`the prior art of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 501
`
`F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In inter partes reviews, we interpret claims “using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this
`
`standard, we construe claims “in accordance with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Only claim
`
`
`5 ANSI/IEEE Std 802.11, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
`Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications
`(pub. Aug. 20, 1999) (Ex. 1007, “802.11”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
`
`Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Patent Owner proposes we construe “additional data field” as “an
`
`extra data field appended to the end of an inquiry message.” PO Resp. 6.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that the claimed “inquiry message” should be
`
`limited to “a specific type of message used, at least in part, to discover other
`
`devices in the vicinity which may request to join a piconet.” Id. at 8–9.
`
`Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s constructions are incorrect because they
`
`improperly import limitations from preferred embodiments in the
`
`Specification. See Pet. Reply 1–2, 3.
`
`The parties’ arguments related to these terms impact only Petitioner’s
`
`first unpatentability ground involving Larsson. See PO Resp. 11–12; 14–17;
`
`Pet. Reply 7–16. Because we do not address that ground for the reasons
`
`discussed below, see infra section I.D.2, we do not need to address the
`
`parties’ arguments related to construing “additional data field” and “inquiry
`
`message.”
`
`1. 802.11 (Ex. 1007)
`
`C. ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`802.11 is an IEEE standard that specifies “[t]he medium access
`
`control (MAC) and physical characteristics for wireless local area networks
`
`(LANs).” Ex. 1007, iii. The network includes a basic service set (BSS),
`
`which is “[a] set of stations controlled by a single coordination function.”
`
`Id. at 3. To communicate with other stations, a station uses a scan function
`
`to “determin[e] the characteristics of the available BSSs.” Id. at 101.
`
`“Active scanning involves the generation of Probe frames and the
`
`subsequent processing of received Probe Response frames.” Id. at 126. A
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`typical broadcast probe request message seeks a response from any BSS and
`
`does not include the address of a specific SSID. Ex. 1003 ¶ 43 (citing
`
`Ex. 1007, 126, Fig. 66). If a device wishes to probe a specific BSS,
`
`however, then it includes the SSID of the specifically-targeted BSS during
`
`the active scanning process. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 126).
`
`D. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS
`
`1. Obviousness over 802.11
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious in
`
`view of 802.11. Pet. 40. Based on Petitioner’s analysis and for the reasons
`
`explained below, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
`
`evidence that claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious over 802.11.
`
`a. “adding . . . an additional data field”
`
`Petitioner explains that 802.11 describes a local wireless network with
`
`different stations (STAs) communicating with one another according to a
`
`protocol. Id. at 40. “802.11 specifies that, as part of the active scanning
`
`process used to join a network, an STA broadcasts ‘Probe Requests,’” that
`
`include “predetermined data fields arranged according to the 802.11 wireless
`
`LAN protocol.” Id. at 46 (quoting Ex. 1007, 126); id. at 46–47 (citing
`
`Ex. 1007, 45, Fig. 23).
`
`Petitioner explains that 802.11 teaches the key “adding to an inquiry
`
`message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one
`
`secondary station” limitation because it teaches
`
`[a] Probe Request message is one of two types. A “broadcast”
`type seeks responses from all available access point stations, and
`is indicated by a “0 length” or null SSID. Another type of Probe
`Request, used when the station polls a specific access point, adds
`an additional data field, namely the SSID of that AP. In the latter
`type of probe request, which might be called a “targeted” probe
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`request, the added SSID of the targeted station is “an additional
`data field for polling” that station.
`
`Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–104).
`
`Patent Owner argues that 802.11 does not teach the claimed adding-
`
`an-additional-data-field step because a broadcast probe request’s zero-length
`
`SSID information field is still an existing, predetermined field, and thus the
`
`SSID information field in a targeted probe request cannot be an additional
`
`data field. PO Resp. 18–19. In addition, because 802.11’s zero-length SSID
`
`field “conveys information,” the targeted probe request’s non-zero-length
`
`field is not an additional data field. Id. at 20.
`
`We agree with Petitioner that 802.11’s targeted probe request includes
`
`an additional data field, as compared to a broadcast probe request. As
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Rysavy, explains, “[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; see Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 40–47 (explaining that a
`
`zero-length field means there is nothing coded for the field); Ex. 1029, 11
`
`(explaining that “[a] data field can be nonexistent (of zero length) in certain
`
`kinds of messages”). On the other side, Patent Owner presents no evidence
`
`beyond attorney argument that one skilled in the art would have understood
`
`that a zero-length SSID information field is an existing field. In short,
`
`802.11’s broadcast probe requests include nothing that corresponds to the
`
`SSID information field, whereas 802.11’s targeted probe requests have an
`
`SSID information field. Thus, the targeted probe requests have an additional
`
`data field, as claim 11 requires.
`
`Patent Owner’s second argument—that “a 0 length SSID information
`
`field conveys information,” PO Resp. 20—does not undermine our finding
`
`that 802.11’s targeted probe requests have an additional data field as
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`compared to its broadcast probe requests. As Petitioner explains, “even if
`
`the absence of a field of encoded data from a probe may communicate
`
`information to a station, the field is still absent.” Pet. Reply 22. We agree
`
`with Petitioner that communicating information via the nonexistence of a
`
`field is irrelevant to whether a nonexistent SSID information field is an
`
`existing field. Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we agree with
`
`Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that 802.11 discloses “adding to an inquiry message prior to transmission an
`
`additional data field for polling at least one secondary station,” as the
`
`challenged claims require. See Pet. 48–49; Pet. Reply 18–23.
`
`b. Undisputed Limitations in Claim 11
`
`Claim 11 recites “[a] method of operating a communication system
`
`comprising a primary station and at least one secondary station.” Petitioner
`
`asserts that 802.11 teaches this limitation because “it describes operating
`
`wireless local area networks that connect . . . stations within a local area”
`
`and “[t]he 802.11 stations, i.e. ‘STAs,’ are the claimed primary and
`
`secondary stations.” Pet. 43, 44 (citing Ex. 1007, 1, 5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. We have reviewed Petitioner’s
`
`arguments and the underlying evidence cited in support and are persuaded
`
`Petitioner sufficiently establishes that 802.11 teaches “[a] method of
`
`operating a communication system comprising a primary station and at least
`
`one secondary station.”
`
`Claim 11 further recites “the method comprising the primary station
`
`broadcasting a series of inquiry messages.” Petitioner asserts that 802.11
`
`teaches this limitation because it teaches “an STA broadcasts ‘Probe
`
`Requests’ . . . with the expectation of receiving a ‘Probe Response.’” Id.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1007, 126–27). Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. We have reviewed Petitioner’s
`
`arguments and the underlying evidence cited in support and are persuaded
`
`Petitioner sufficiently establishes 802.11 teaches “the method comprising the
`
`primary station broadcasting a series of inquiry messages.”
`
`Claim 11 requires that each broadcast message must be “in the form
`
`of a plurality of predetermined data fields arranged according to a first
`
`communications protocol.” Petitioner asserts that 802.11 teaches this
`
`limitation because it teaches that each Probe Request frame “has
`
`predetermined data fields arranged according to the 802.11 wireless LAN
`
`protocol, as specified in Figure 23.” Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1007, 22, 45).
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. We
`
`have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and the underlying evidence cited in
`
`support and are persuaded Petitioner sufficiently establishes 802.11 teaches
`
`“each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data fields arranged
`
`according to a first communications protocol.”
`
`Claim 11 recites “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.” Petitioner asserts that 802.11 teaches this limitation because
`
`“802.11 specifies that stations ‘receiving Probe Request frames shall
`
`respond with a probe response only if the SSID in the probe request . . .
`
`matches the specific SSID of the STA.’” Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1007, 126). In
`
`addition, Petitioner explains, “to determine if the SSID of the probe request
`
`‘matches the SSID of the STA,’ a receiving station necessarily must
`
`(i) determine that the SSID (‘additional data field’) has been added to the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`probe request’s data fields and (ii) determine that it has been polled from the
`
`additional data field, i.e., determine that the received SSID matches its
`
`own.” Id. (citing Ex. 103 ¶¶ 105–106). Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. We have reviewed Petitioner’s
`
`arguments and the underlying evidence cited in support and are persuaded
`
`Petitioner sufficiently establishes 802.11 teaches “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.”
`
`For the reasons explained above, Petitioner has proved by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 would have been obvious over
`
`802.11.
`
`c. Claim 12
`
`Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and additionally requires “wherein
`
`not all inquiry messages have an additional data field for polling a secondary
`
`station added to them.” Petitioner asserts that 802.11 discloses that “[p]robe
`
`requests of the broadcast type lack [the] additional data field . . . and thus not
`
`all inquiry messages have an additional data field for polling.” Id. at 52
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 108). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s
`
`assertions in this regard. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and the
`
`underlying evidence cited in support and are persuaded Petitioner
`
`sufficiently establishes 802.11 teaches “wherein not all inquiry messages
`
`have an additional data field for polling a secondary station added to them.”
`
`2. Other Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious over
`
`Larsson, Bluetooth Specification, and RFC826. Id. at 24–39. Because we
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`find that Petitioner has demonstrated claims 11 and 12 would have been
`
`obvious over 802.11, it is unnecessary for us to reach the remaining grounds
`
`of unpatentability proposed by Petitioner. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy,
`
`742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that once a dispositive issue
`
`is decided, there is no need to decide other potentially dispositive issues);
`
`Formlabs Inc. v. Envisiontec, Inc., IPR2017-01258, Paper 41 at 17 (PTAB
`
`Oct. 5, 2018).
`
`II. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Patent Owner argues that Administrative Patent Judges “are principal
`
`officers under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution” “but
`
`undisputably are not appointed through the constitutionally-mandated
`
`mechanism of appointment for principal officers.” PO Resp. 23. The
`
`Federal Circuit, however, addressed this issue and devised a remedy in
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert.
`
`granted sub nom. United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 2020 WL 6037206 (Oct. 13,
`
`2020). Patent Owner argues that the remedy devised by Federal Circuit
`
`“impermissibly rewrites the statutes governing APJs.” PO Resp. 24. We are
`
`bound by the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex. See 941 F.3d at 1337
`
`(“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation.”); see also
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 953 F.3d 760, 764 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`
`(Moore, J., concurring in denial of rehearing) (“Because the APJs were
`
`constitutionally appointed as of the implementation of the severance, inter
`
`partes review decisions going forward were no longer rendered by
`
`unconstitutional panels.”). Accordingly, we do not consider this issue any
`
`further.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`III. CONCLUSION6
`
`We have reviewed the Petition, Patent Owner Response, Petitioner
`
`Reply, and Patent Owner Sur-Reply. We have considered all of the
`
`evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, and have
`
`weighed and assessed the entirety of the evidence as a whole.
`
`We determine, on this record, that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`
`preponderance of evidence that claims 11 and 12 of the ’049 patent are
`
`unpatentable over 802.11.
`
`Claims
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`11, 12
`
`103
`
`103
`
`
`11, 12
`Overall
`Outcome
`
`
`Larsson, Bluetooth
`Specification,
`RFC8267
`802.11
`
`
`Claims
`Shown
`Unpatentable
`
`
`Claims
`Not Shown
`Unpatentable
`
`
`11, 12
`11, 12
`
`
`
`
`
`6 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
`in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
`Decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
`Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
`Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
`16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
`or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
`Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
`matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
`
`7 As explained above, we do not reach this ground because Petitioner has
`demonstrated that claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious over 802.11.
`See Beloit, 742 F.2d at 1423 (holding that once a dispositive issue is
`decided, there is no need to decide other potentially dispositive issues);
`Formlabs, Paper 41 at 17.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`It is hereby:
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that claims 11 and 12 of the ’049 patent are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over 802.11; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that this Decision is final, and a party to this
`
`proceeding seeking judicial review of the Decision must comply with the
`
`notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Andrew Mason
`Todd Siegel
`Joseph Jakubek
`John Lunsford
`Sarah Jelsema
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`joseph.jakubek@klarquist.com
`john.lunsford@klarquist.com
`sarah.jelsema@klarquist.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`