`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GOPRO, INC., GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND GARMIN USA,
`INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`vs.
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01107
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`The undersigned, acting on behalf of the patent owner, Cellspin Soft, Inc.
`
`(“Cellspin”), and, pursuant to 37 U.S.C. § 42.107(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 313,
`
`respectfully requests the petition of GoPro, Inc., Garmin International, Inc. and
`
`Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”) for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) be
`
`denied, including because Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on any claim.
`
`
`Dated: August 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ John J. Edmonds
`John J. Edmonds, Reg. No. 56,184
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER, PLLC
`355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-973-7846
`Facsimile: 213-835-6996
`Email: pto-edmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`
`Stephen F. Schlather, Reg. No. 45,081
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER, PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, TX 77003
`P: 713-234-0044
`F: 713-224-6651
`E: sschlather@ip-lit.com
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 1 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST .......................................................................................................... 5
`I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 7
`II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ....................................................................... 10
`III. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ............................................................................. 10
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................... 11
`IV. THE ’698 PATENT .......................................................................................... 11
`V. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 15
`VI. ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 16
`A. Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 16
`B. Claim Construction Summary ....................................................................... 30
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon by Petitioner ............................................................. 31
`1. Hiroishi ..................................................................................................... 31
`2. Takahashi .................................................................................................. 34
`3. Nozaki ....................................................................................................... 35
`4. Hollstrom .................................................................................................. 37
`5. Ando.......................................................................................................... 39
`D. Non-Obviousness of Claims 1–20 over Hiroishi and
`Takahashi (Ground 1) ......................................................................................... 39
`1. Limitations 1(c)-(e) and (h)-(j) of Independent Claims 1,5,8 and 13 ...... 40
`2. Lack of Motivation to Combine ............................................................... 58
`E. Claim 5 and Claim 8 – No Single Application Performing Steps ................ 59
`F. Non-Obviousness of Claims 21 and 22 over Hiroishi, Takahashi,
`and Ando (Ground 2) ..................................................................................... 60
`G. Non-Obviousness of Claims 1–22 over Hiroishi, Takahashi,
`and Nozaki (Ground 3) .................................................................................. 63
`H. Non-Obviousness of Claims 21 and 22 over Hiroishi, Takahashi, Nozaki,
`and Ando (Ground 4). .................................................................................... 64
`I. Non-Obviousness of Claims 1,3–5,7,8,10–13, and 15–20
`over Hollstrom and Takahashi (Ground 5) ..................................................... 64
`J. Non-Obviousness of Claims 2,6,9,14,21 and 22 over
`Hollstrom, Takahashi, and Ando (Ground 6) ................................................. 66
`
`VII. PETITIONER’S PURPORTED EXPERT DECLARATION IS CLEARLY
`INSUFFICIENT AND IT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED OR GIVEN NO
`WEIGHT. ......................................................................................................... 67
`
`P a g e 2 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IX. THIS PROCEEDING AND ANY INVALIDITY RULINGS BASED
`THEREON ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, INCLUDING UNDER THE
`FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS ........................................... 69
`
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 70
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 3 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2015-
`01615, Paper 13 at p. 9 (Feb. 17, 2016) ............................................................... 36
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ......................................... 36
`Perreira v. Dep't of Health and Human Serv., 33 F.3d 1375, 1377 n.6
` (Fed.Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................................... 37
`Tre Milano, LLC v. TF3, Ltd., IPR2015-00649, Paper 37
`(P.T.A.B. May 2, 2016) ........................................................................................... 37
`American Key v. Cole National, 762 F.2d 1569,1580 (11thCir.1985) .................... 57
`Member Services v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins., 2010 WL 3907489,*27
`(N.D.N.Y.,Sep. 30,2010) ......................................................................................... 57
`Deutz v. City Light & Power, 2009 WL 2986415, at *6 (N.D.Ga.2009) ................57
`Bouygues Telecom v. Tekelec, 472 F.Supp.2d 722, 729 (E.D.N.C.2007) ...............57
`Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279,1284 (Fed.Cir.2010) .............................................. 58
`McClurg v. Kingsland, 42 U.S. 202, 206 (1843) ..................................................... 58
`Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 203,206 (2003) .................................................. 59
`Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Pens. Trust, 508 U.S.
`602, 617-18 (1993) ............................................................................................... 59
`In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955) .............................................................59
`Brown v. Duchesne, 60 U.S. 183, 197 (1857) ......................................................... 59
`Horne v. Dept’ of Ag., 135 S. Ct. 2419, 2427 (2015) .............................................. 59
`Celgene Corp. v. Peter, No. 18-1167 (Fed. Cir. July 30,2019) ............................... 59
`
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 2
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ..................................................................................................... 57
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 58
`
`
`
`P a g e 4 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`2008
`
`
`Short Name
`No.
`2001 AIRCable
`Manual
`2002
`‘891 Patent
`2003 RF4CA
`2004
`LR-WPANs
`2005 NIST
`Glossary
`2006
`--Skipped--
`2007
`--Skipped--
`Mobile
`Comm &
`Net.
`Foley
`Declaration
`Foley CV
`Techopedia
`definition for
`encryption
`
`2009
`
`2010
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`Science
`Dictionary
`definition of
`cryptographic
`Schneier
`Excerpt
`
`Stallings
`Excerpt
`
`2015 CNSSI
`Excerpt
`2016 NISTIR
`Excerpt
`
`2017
`
`Zigbee
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`AIRcable User Manual Rev 0.95 December 7, 2004
`U.S. Patent No. 9,398,891 to Bagha
`Silicon Labs UG103.10: RF4CA Fundamentals
`IEEE Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
`Networks (LR-WPANs)
`Glossary of Key Information Security Terms by
`NIST
`--Skipped--
`--Skipped--
`Mobile Communications and Networks by Prentice
`Hall
`Declaration of Michael Foley, Ph.D.
`
`CV of Michael Foley, Ph.D.
`Definition of “encryption” from the Techopedia
`dictionary from
`https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5507/encrypt
`ion
`Definition of “cryptographic” from Academic Press
`Dictionary of Science And Technology 556 (1992)
`(second edition)
`
`Excerpt from Bruce Schneier, Applied
`Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms and Source
`Code in C, 2nd Edition, 1996, pp. 1-2.
`Excerpt from W. Stallings, "Cryptography And
`Network Security", 2nd, Edition, Chapter 13, IP
`Security, Jun. 8, 1998, pp. 399-440.
`Excerpt from CNSSI No. 4009, which is a
`Committee on National Security Systems Glossary
`Excerpt from NISTIR 7298, Revision 2, entitled
`“Glossary of Key Information Security Terms,”
`which was published by the National Institute of
`Standards and Technology
`Security Analysis of Zigbee
`
`P a g e 5 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`No.
`
`Short Name
`Analysis
`2018 Bluetooth
`v2.1
`2019 Techopedia
`definition for
`authentication
`
`2021
`
`2020 Techopedia
`definition for
`GUI
`‘802
`Application
`2022 Webster
`Definition of
`“along with”
`2023 Bluetooth
`BIP Profile
`2024 Madisetti
`Depo
`2025 Supp Foley
`Declaration
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Bluetooth v2.1 + EDR Core Specification
`
`Definition of “authentication” from the Techopedia
`dictionary from
`https://www.techopedia.com/definition/342/Authent
`ication
`Definition of “authentication” from the Techopedia
`dictionary from https://www.techopedia.com/
`definition/5435/graphical-user-interface-gui
`U.S. Patent Application No. No. 11/901,802
`
`Definition of “along with” from the Merriam-
`Webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/along%20with
`Bluetooth Basic Imaging Profile, Interoperability
`Specification, dated July 30, 2003
`Excerpts from Madisetti Deposition
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Michael Foley, Ph.D.
`
`P a g e 6 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pending before the Board is Petitioner’s motion for joinder with IPR2019-
`
`00127 filed by Canon. As noted in the motion, this Petition “does not present any
`
`new grounds of unpatentability, “it is substantively identical to the Canon IPR
`
`Petition… [e]xcept for the identified expert,” and it is a “copycat” petition.”Paper
`
`4,p4. Further, Petitioner asserts no constructions under Phillips, instead arguing that
`
`“any proposed constructions in the Canon IPR are at least included within the scope”
`
`of BRI (‘127-IPR) or Phillips (this IPR).Id.
`
`Although the Board has already instituted IPR proceedings in the ‘127-IPR,
`
`even if joinder is allowed,1 proceedings should not be instituted on this Petition. This
`
`Preliminary Response is substantially different from, and more detailed than, Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response in the ‘127-IPR. This Preliminary Response
`
`primarily tracks the substance of Cellspin’s actual, detailed Response filed in the
`
`‘127-IPR. Further, this Preliminary Response is supported by the Foley Declaration
`
`at Ex.2009. Further, the Phillips standard for claim construction applies in this
`
`proceeding, while BRI applies in the ‘127-IPR.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s purported expert declaration of Dr. Christensen,
`
`Ex.1033 is insufficient, incompetent evidence and it should be excluded or given no
`
`
`1 Petitioner concedes that its Petition would be untimely unless joinder is allowed. Paper 4,p.3. As
`noted by Petitioner, its May 2019 Petition was filed over seventeen months after Cellspin’s
`Complaints for patent infringement were filed against Petitioners in October 2017 in N.D.
`California.Id.,p.2.
`
`P a g e 7 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`weight. Accordingly, this Petition, unlike Canon’s, lacks expert or declaration
`
`support.
`
`Petitioner (in copycatting Canon’s positions) fails to demonstrate a reasonable
`
`likelihood that any of the challenged claims of the ‘698 patent are invalid or
`
`otherwise unpatentable. Petitioner fails to appreciate the ‘698 patent’s specific
`
`approach to, inter alia, media transfer comprising, inter alia, the use of an already
`
`paired wireless connection, wherein establishing the short- range paired wireless
`
`connection comprises the digital camera cryptographically authenticating identity of
`
`the cellular phone, wherein the cellular phone is configured to use HTTP to upload
`
`the received new-media file along with user information to a user media publishing
`
`website, provides a graphical user interface (GUI) for the received new-media
`
`file and to delete the created new media file. None of Petitioner’s references
`
`practice or render obvious the claimed approaches, which of course have other
`
`meaningful limitations when properly considered as a whole.
`
`
`
` Petitioner erroneously implies the ‘698 patent was only allowed due to adding
`
`language requiring the cellular phone to include “a user interface to delete an image
`
`file created by the digital camera.” Petition at 1, 8-9. Petitioner only cites to a single
`
`addition even though multiple additions were made. See Exhibit 1002 at 394.
`
`Notably, the two substantial other additions were made in the same Examiner
`
`Amendment.Id.,395-396. Similar edits were made elsewhere in the Examiner’s
`
`Amendment. Petitioner misstates the prosecution history. See Exhibit 1002. Further,
`P a g e 8 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioner merely assumes that the rejections that prompted certain amendments
`
`were well-founded, which is not the case. SeeId.,327-366.
`
`Petitioner’s argument fails to render any claim obvious due to, inter alia, at
`
`least five essential claimed requirements noted in the Summary of Arguments below.
`
`Moreover, the Madisetti declaration with which Petitioner’s purported expert
`
`allegedly agrees impermissibly uses hindsight to arrive at alleged obviousness, it
`
`fails to provide a logical nexus between alleged motivations to combine and the
`
`specific features being combined, and it fails to support rendering any of the
`
`challenged claims obvious.
`
`Petitioner fails to show, including with any competent evidence, a reasonable
`
`likelihood that any challenged claim is invalid or otherwise unpatentable, and Patent
`
`Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny institution confirm the validity of
`
`claims 1-22.
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 9 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.
`
`1.
`
`The references and combination of refences do not disclose many of the
`
`teachings of the ‘698 patent. Indeed, these key points are not shown or rendered
`
`obvious any of the prior art asserted by Petitioner:
`
` Paired wireless connection between a digital camera and a mobile
`
`device;
`
` Cryptographic authentication of the mobile device by the camera;
`
` Using HTTP to upload received media file and additional data;
`
` GUI’s in general and specifically not for image deletion on the
`
`wirelessly connected digital camera; and
`
` For claims 5 and 8, a single mobile application performing all the
`required functions (e.g., request, store, HTTP media upload, delete
`using GUI).
`
`
`
`III. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
`
`
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon and the relevance
`
`of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided herein. An Exhibit List
`
`identifying the exhibits is included supra. In support of the proposed grounds, this
`
`Petition is accompanied by the declarations of Michael, Ph.D. (Exhs. 2009 & 2025),
`
`an expert in the fields of electrical and computer engineering, with extensive
`
`experience with wireless communications including Bluetooth.Id.
`
`
`
`P a g e 10 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable as obvious if the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains (“POSITA”).
`
`In satisfying its burden of proving obviousness, Petitioner cannot employ
`
`mere conclusory statements. Petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning,
`
`based on evidence of record, to support the conclusion of obviousness.
`
`In assessing the prior art, one must consider whether a POSITA would have
`
`been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. I
`
`understand that it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a
`
`POSITA in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way of the claimed
`
`invention at the relevant time of the priority date.
`
`A POSITA may consider whether the prior art teaches away from combining
`
`elements in the prior art. Proving obviousness cannot involve hindsight
`
`reconstruction. Modifications that render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended
`
`purpose may not be obvious.
`
`IV. THE ’698 PATENT
`
`
`The ’698 patent is directed to certain specific claimed methods and
`
`apparatuses comprising “distribution of multimedia content” and also comprising
`
`other claim limitations.Ex.1001, 1:40–41: 11:54-16:36. Such methods and
`P a g e 11 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`apparatuses comprise, among other things, sending or transferring data from an
`
`Internet-incapable capture device to an Internet-capable mobile device over a
`
`previously-established paired wireless connection through a request/response,
`
`cryptographically authenticating a mobile device identity, and translating captured
`
`data into HTTP format in transit to the publishing web site. See, e.g.,Ex.1001,claim
`
`1.
`
`The ‘698 patent states that, prior to the ‘698 invention, capture methods were
`
`crude.Ex.1003, 1:46–55. The ‘698 specification describes embodiments comprising
`
`digital data capture device 201, e.g., a digital camera, paired with a physically
`
`separate mobile device 202, e.g., a Bluetooth enabled cellular phone with client
`
`application 203. See Ex.1001,3:39-46. Figure 2 “illustrates a system for utilizing a
`
`digital data capture device in conjunction with a Bluetooth enabled mobile
`
`device.”Id.,3:14–18. As stated in the specification, Bluetooth “pairing occurs when
`
`the BT communication device 201a agrees to communicate with the mobile device
`
`202 in order to establish a connection.”Id.,4:1-3. As noted hereinbelow, a POSITA
`
`understands that Bluetooth pairing involves other aspects as well.
`
`In one embodiment, “[i]n order to initiate the pairing process between the BT
`
`communication device 201a and the mobile device 202, a common password known
`
`as a passkey is exchanged between the BT communication device 201a and the
`
`mobile device 202.Id.,4:5-7.
`
`In request/response mode, client application 203 on the cellular phone (i.e.,
`P a g e 12 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`mobile device 202) detects the captured image on the digital camera (i.e., digital data
`
`capture device 201), and, over the established, paired Bluetooth connection, initiates
`
`transfer of the captured image and associated files.Id.,Abstract,2:35-37,6:36-40 &
`
`8:37-40. Digital data capture device 201 responds by transferring the captured image
`
`and associated files to client application 203 on mobile device 202.Id.,8:40-42.
`
`User information and translation to HTTP are applied in transit and on mobile
`
`device 202. See Id.,‘794/8:52-55 & 9:61-10:9. The captured data is then transferred
`
`via HTTP from client application 203 of mobile device 202 to publishing service
`
`401 via network 402, including as illustrated in FIG. 4.Id.,5:9-11 & 8:43-50.
`
`A Bluetooth device that wants to communicate only with a trusted device can
`
`cryptographically authenticate the identity of another Bluetooth device.Id.,3:59-61.
`
`In a preferred embodiment communication is authenticated cryptographically using
`
`a passkey.Id.,4:3-7.
`
`The claims of
`
`the ’698 patent are broken down
`
`in
`
`the Foley
`
`Declaration.Ex.2009,¶30. A diagram showing the inventive way of claim 5 is as
`
`follows:
`
`P a g e 13 | 74
`
`

`

`Ill\\ User Media
`
`m punishing
`
`
`
`w
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Digital Camera
`
`W“
`
`’698 Claim 5
`Device Claim
`
`Cellular Phone
`wireless
`
`“W“
`“mm“!
`
`
`
`NONQIM
`‘uoouo- I. wirelesslnternet an non-0*
`connection
`
`
`Establish amen-tangle filmd wireless connection
`
`Wogwfikwlb'fiumeuflmflng
`
`
`
`
`
`Receive a. Store
`
`New-Media File
`
`Use H1TPto up . .
`-'
`
`
`WNW-Media
`File
`
`1.
`User lnfonnation
`
`
`Media File
`
`P a g e 14 | 74
`Page 14|74
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`31. Petitioner, in adopting Canon’s positions, asserts that a POSITA would
`
`have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`or computer science, and two years of experience in the field consumer electronics,
`
`with exposure to digital camera technology and wireless communications. ‘127 IPR,
`
`Pet. 9.
`
`33. For purposes of instituting the ‘127 IPR, the Board determined that a
`
`POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science, or an equivalent degree, and two years of industry experience with software
`
`development, electronic system design, digital camera technology, and/or wireless
`
`communications. ‘127 Institution Decision,14. Cellspin and Dr. Foley agree that
`
`either the Board’s determination of a POSITA’s qualifications is correct, and that
`
`Canon’s formulation of a POSITA’s qualifications is also correct.Ex.2009,¶33. In
`
`this Preliminary Response, Cellspin applies the Board’s determination of a
`
`POSITA’s qualifications and it has viewed the relevant matters, including the patent
`
`and prior art, from that perspective of a POSITA.Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 15 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner does not propose any constructions, nor did Canon in the ‘127-IPR
`
`for which joinder is sought. Rather, Petitioner argues, cryptically, that “any
`
`proposed constructions are at least included within the scope of either [the BRI or
`
`Phillips] standard.” Paper 4,4.
`
`Including since Petitioner is merely parroting the ‘127-IPR petition, which
`
`will be decided under BRI, Cellspin is primarily addressing the proper BRI
`
`constructions for “paired,” “cryptographically authenticating”, “graphical user
`
`interface” and “along with,” including subsidiary and related terms where
`
`applicable, from the perspective of a POSITA and in view of the specification, prior
`
`art and relevant knowledge of a POSITA.Ex.2009,¶41. For purposes of this
`
`Preliminary Response, Cellspin does not need to brief the proper Phillips
`
`constructions since no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability has been shown
`
`under BRI constructions. The Board should decline institution due to the noted
`
`claimed combinations not being met (or rendered obvious) because the Phillips
`
`constructions could not possibly be broader than the correct BRI constructions noted
`
`by Cellspin. References herein to BRI constructions should be understood in the
`
`foregoing light. Cellspin will fully brief the issue of Phillips constructions if
`
`institution is granted.
`
`Claim 1 is directed a method comprising: “…performing in the digital camera
`P a g e 16 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`device: establishing a short-range paired wireless connection between the digital
`
`camera device and the cellular phone, wherein establishing the short-range paired
`
`wireless connection comprises, the digital camera device cryptographically
`
`authenticating identity of the cellular phone…” Claim 5 is directed to a “…digital
`
`camera device, comprising: … a short-range wireless communication device
`
`configured to control the first processor to establish a short-range paired wireless
`
`connection between the short-range wireless enabled digital camera device and a
`
`short-range wireless enabled cellular phone, wherein establishing the short-range
`
`paired wireless connection comprises, the digital camera device cryptographically
`
`authenticating identity of the cellular phone…” Claim 8 is directed to a system
`
`comprising: a digital camera device, comprising: … a short-range wireless
`
`communication device configured to establish a short-range paired wireless
`
`connection with an internet connected cellular phone, wherein establishing the short-
`
`range paired wireless connection comprises,
`
`the digital camera device
`
`cryptographically authenticating identity of the cellular phone…” Claim 13 is
`
`directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing machine
`
`executable instructions that… cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
`
`acquiring new-media, wherein the new-media is acquired after establishing a short-
`
`range paired wireless connection between the digital camera device and a cellular
`
`phone, wherein establishing the short-range paired wireless connection comprises,
`
`the digital camera device cryptographically authenticating identity of the cellular
`P a g e 17 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`phone…” Each of these claims thus has in common, among other things, a “short-
`
`range paired wireless connection” and also a clause stating, “wherein establishing
`
`the short-range paired wireless connection comprises, the digital camera device
`
`cryptographically authenticating identity of the cellular phone.”
`
`Figure 1 of the ‘698 patent illustrates a method of utilizing a digital data
`
`capture device 201 in conjunction with a physically separate Bluetooth enabled
`
`mobile device 202.Ex.1003,3:34-41. “The digital data capture device 201 may, for
`
`example, be a digital camera, a video camera, digital modular camera systems, or
`
`other digital data capturing systems.”Id.,3:41-44. In this method,
`
`The BT communication device 201a on the digital data capture
`device 201 is paired 103 with the mobile device 202 to establish a
`connection between the digital data capture device 201 and the mobile
`device 202. BT pairing involves establishing a connection between two
`BT devices that mutually agree to communicate with each other. A BT
`device that wants to communicate only with a trusted device can
`cryptographically authenticate the identity of another BT device. BT
`pairing occurs when the BT communication device 201a agrees to
`communicate with the mobile device 202 in order to establish a
`connection. In order to initiate the pairing process between the BT
`communication device 201a and the mobile device 202, a common
`password known as a passkey is exchanged between the BT
`communication device 201a and the mobile device 202. A passkey is a
`code shared by the BT communication device 201a and the mobile
`device 202.
`A user sets a discoverable mode for the mobile device 202… the
`entered passkey is matched with the passkey of the BT communication
`device 201a. If a match is found, a trusted pair is automatically
`established.
`
`Ex.1003,3:60-4:25 (emphasis added).
`
`
`As noted above, the ‘698 specification states that Bluetooth pairing involves
`P a g e 18 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`establishing a connection between two Bluetooth devices that mutually agree to
`
`communicate with each other.Id. 4:1-3. Further, the specification states that:
`
`The BT communication device 201a comprises a BT association
`protocol module 201b and a data transfer protocol module 201c. The
`client application 203 on the mobile device 202 comprises a BT
`association protocol module 203a, a data and file monitoring and
`detection module 203b, a data transfer protocol module 203c, a data
`storage module 203d, a graphical user interface (GUI) 203e, and a
`media publishing module 203f. The BT association protocol module
`201b of the digital data capture device 201and the BT association
`protocol module 203a of the client application 203 enable the pairing
`between the BT communication device 201a and the mobile device 202.
`The pairing of the BT communication device 201a and the mobile
`device 202is explained in the detailed description of FIG. 1. The data
`capture module 201d captures the data and the multimedia content on
`the digital data capture device 201.
`
`Id.,6:23-39 (emphasis added).
`
`As noted above, the ‘698 specification states that Bluetooth pairing involves
`
`association and establishing a connection between two Bluetooth devices that
`
`mutually agree to communicate with each other.Id.,4:1-3. To a POSITA, this points
`
`out that pairing involves association and an exchange of credentials to fulfilling the
`
`agreement in addition to merely communicating back and forth.Ex.2009,¶45.
`
`On this issue the Bluetooth specification includes the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 19 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`BLUETOOTH SPECIFICATION Version 2.1 + EDR [vol 1]
`
`page 6 0196
`
`4
`
`5
`
`9 Bluetooth'
`
`3.5.6
`
`Extended synchronous comedian—oriented (eSCO)....44
`
`3.5.7 Active slave broadcast (ASB) ........................................ 45
`
`3.5.8
`
`3.5.9
`
`Parked slave broadcast (PSB) ...................................... 46
`
`Logical links .................................................................. 47
`
`3.5.10 User Asynchronousllsochronous Logical Link (ACL-U)48
`
`3.5.11 User SynchronouyExtended Synchronous Logimi Links
`(SCO-S/eSCO—S) .......................................................... 48
`LZCAP Channels ....................................................................... 49
`
`3.6
`
`Communication Topology ................................................................. 50
`4.1
`Piconet Topology ....................................................................... 50
`4.2 Operational Procedures and Modes .......................................... 52
`
`4.2.1
`
`Inquiry (Discovering) Procedure .................................... 52
`
`Paging (Connecting) Procedure .................................... 53
`4.2.2
`4.2.3 Connected mode...
`..53
`
`4.2.4 Holdmode54
`
`4.2.5
`
`Snifimode54
`
`4.2.6
`
`Parked state .................................................................. 55
`
`4.2.? Role switch procedure................................................... 55
`4.2.8
`Enhanced Data Rate ..................................................... 56
`
`Secure Simple Pairing Overview ...................................................... 57
`5.1
`Security Goals. 57
`5.2
`Passive Eavesdropping ProtectIon ............................................ 57
`5.3 Man-ln—The—Middle Protection ................................................... 58
`
`5.4 -\nodeIs .................................................................... 59
`54.1
`Numeric Comparison" 59
`5.4.2
`Just Works .................................................................... 59
`
`5.4.3 Out of Band ................................................................... 60
`
`Passkey Entry ............................................................... 60
`5.4.4
`5.4.5 Association Model Overview ......................................... 61
`
`
`
`and
`
`and
`
`P a g e 20 | 74
`Page 20|74
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Ex.2018, 80, 135. As noted above, the Bluetooth specification refers to a passkey
`as being one of the association models.Ex.2009,¶46.xxx
`To a POSITA, in the context of the ‘698 patent and in other contexts as well,
`the BRI of a “paired connection” is a “bidirectional communications link
`between devices which provides encrypted data exchange between the devices,
`and the communication link can be disconnected and reconnected without
`having to repeat pairing or authentication.”Ex.2009, 46-47. This is consistent
`with how paired connections were defined while creating the Bluetooth
`specifications as well as other technologies, such as Zigbee, which have
`implemented the paired connection concept.Id. To a POSITA under BRI, pairing
`
`P a g e 21 | 74
`
`

`

`
`
`is the steps taken which result in a paired connection.Id.
`
`To a POSITA, in the context of the ‘698 patent but in other contexts as well,
`
`the BRI of a paired connection must be distinguished from mere authentication
`
`and from other methods of communications that involve exchanges of
`
`credentials but not pairing.Id.,¶48. This is a critical point, because according to
`
`the Madisetti Declaration relied upon by Petitioner, all two-way communications
`
`are somehow paired, which improperly nullifies the “paired” limitation. See,e.g.,Ex
`
`1003,98&228
`
`(“The connection
`
`is paired because
`
`it allows
`
`two-way
`
`communication...”).
`
`For purposes of determining whether to institute this proceeding, the Board
`
`determined that “cryptographically authenticating identity of the cellular phone”
`
`encompasses “authenticating the identity of the cellular phone using some form of
`
`security or encryption, including by use of a shared passkey on the digital camera
`
`device and the c