Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0001
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`•
`
`IPR2019-01349:
`
`•
`
`IPR2019-01350:
`
`IPR2019-01349, Paper 2 (“Pet-1349”) at 4; IPR2019-01350, Paper 2 (“Pet-1350”) at 4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0002
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0003
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Remaining Disputes
`
`• Ground 1 – Sherman Obviousness
`• Whether Schulhauser applies to step (2)
`• Whether Sherman teaches step (2)
`• Whether Sherman teaches limitation 6[d] (regarding dummy signals)
`
`• Ground 3 – Shellhammer Obviousness
`• Whether Shellhammer teaches step (2)
`• Whether Shellhammer teaches limitation 7[d] (regarding “a further station”)
`
`Uniloc does not dispute whether any other claim limitations are met.
`
`IPR2019-01349, Paper 13 (“POR-1349”); IPR2019-01349, Paper 14 (“Reply-1349”) at 10-28;
`IPR2019-01350, Paper 13 (“POR-1350”); IPR2019-01350, Paper 14 (“Reply-1350”) at 10-31.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0004
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Uniloc’s arguments are unsupported
`
`• Uniloc did not submit an expert declaration
`
`• Uniloc declined to take Dr. Roy’s deposition
`
`• Uniloc submitted a single exhibit (Exhibit 2001)
`• Ex. 2001 relates to a priority date argument—it is not relevant to
`obviousness
`
`Reply-1349 at 3; Reply-1350 at 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0005
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Sherman Obviousness
`Sherman renders Claims 1, 2, 3, and 9 obvious.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0006
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`The ’676 patent purports to invent a coexistence technique
`for IEEE 802.11a and HIPERLAN/2
`
`’676 Patent col. 2:36-42:
`
`Ex. 1001 col. 2:36-42, 1:7-9, 2:18-22, 3:7-13, 5:20-30, FIG. 3; Pet-1349 at 1-4; Decl-1349 ¶¶71-81; Decl-1350
`¶¶71-81.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0007
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0008
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0009
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0010
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Sherman Obviousness
`Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to Step (2).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0011
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Schulhauser
`
`“[I]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the
`performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the
`claimed method to be performed.”
`
`Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013–007847 at 10 (PTAB April 28, 2016)
`(Precedential).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0012
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0013
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Under Schulhauser, Step (2) need not be performed by Sherman
`
`Institution Decision:
`
`ID-1349 at 29-30; Reply-1349 at 10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0014
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`The Board already rejected Uniloc’s attempts to distinguish Schulhauser
`
`• Uniloc raises the same arguments from Microsoft v. Uniloc (IPR2019-01116)
`
`•
`
`In IPR2019-01116, the Board rejected Uniloc’s arguments and held that Schulhauser
`applies to Step (2)
`
`IPR2019-01116, Paper 22 (“Microsoft Decision”) at 49-54 (PTAB Oct. 26, 2020).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0015
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Schulhauser Arguments
`The Board has the authority to apply Schulhauser
`
`Uniloc’s Argument 1
`“[T]he Board has improperly instituted an
`inter partes review outside the scope of 35
`U.S.C. 314(b), as, by instituting on a ground
`[Schulhauser] not advanced by the
`Petitioner . . .”
`
`Microsoft Decision
`“It is not beyond the scope of a petition for
`the Board to perform claim construction
`and apply applicable law, even if Petitioner
`does not.”
`
`“We have not changed the alleged ground
`of unpatentability, . . . , and we have not
`applied any disclosure of [the prior art] that
`was not relied on by Petitioner.”
`
`POR-1349 at 25-26; Microsoft Decision at 50-51.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0016
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Schulhauser Arguments
`Schulhauser is not limited to BRI
`
`Uniloc’s Argument 2
`“Schulhauser applied the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard to
`reading the claims at issue . . . The present
`claim is interpreted under the standard of
`ordinary and customary meaning of the
`claim as understood by one of ordinary skill
`in the art . . .”
`
`Microsoft Decision
`“Schulhauser, on its face, does not limit its
`application to circumstances where the
`broadest reasonable interpretation rule
`applies.”
`
`“[T]he word ‘if’ is conditional whether or
`not the broadest reasonable interpretation
`applies.”
`
`POR-1349 at 27-28; IPR2019-01349, Paper 15 (“POSR-1349) at 3; Microsoft Decision at 51.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0017
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Schulhauser Arguments
`Schulhauser does not require mutually exclusive steps
`
`Uniloc’s Argument 3
`“Schulhauser involves two conditions that
`are mutually exclusive to each other, that is
`not so in the context of claim 1.”
`
`Microsoft Decision
`“[C]onditions are conditions whether or not
`they are mutually exclusive to each other. It
`is the conditional nature of ‘if’ discussed in
`Schulhauser that matters, not the presence
`of two mutually exclusive conditions.”
`
`POR-1349 at 28-31; POSR-1349 at 3-4; Microsoft Decision at 51-52.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0018
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Schulhauser Arguments
`Uniloc asks the Board to rewrite the claims
`
`Uniloc’s Argument 4
`“[I]t is clear that claim 1 requires a step of
`rendering the frequency band available for
`access by the stations working in
`accordance with the second radio interface
`standard in response to the condition being
`fulfilled that stations working in accordance
`with the first radio interface standard do not
`request access to the frequency band.”
`
`Microsoft Decision
`“Patent Owner has rewritten the claim to be
`without the conditional term ‘if.’ That is
`inappropriate. We read the claims as they
`are written and are without power to
`rewrite them.”
`
`POR-1349 at 30-31; POSR-1349 at 2; Microsoft Decision at 52.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0019
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Schulhauser Arguments
`Uniloc’s characterization of the file history is inaccurate
`
`Uniloc’s Argument 5
`“The prosecution history is clear that this
`recitation [of the wherein clause], formerly
`in dependent claim 2, was added to claim 1
`in order to secure allowance of claim 1.”
`
`Microsoft Decision
`“[T]he Examiner allowed application claim 2 (Ex.
`1002, 28) which includes the limitation at issue
`… and the Applicant rewrote application claim 2
`in independent form as claim 1. That does not
`show disavowal of anything by the Applicant,
`much less conversion of a conditional step to a
`non-conditional step or effective deletion of the
`word ‘if.’”
`
`“[I]t cannot be said that only the second,
`conditional step, as opposed to the first step,
`was added to secure allowance.”
`
`POR-1349 at 31; POSR-1349 at 2-4; Microsoft Decision at 52-53.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0020
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Schulhauser Arguments
`The Board is not bound by Gopalan—a nonprecedential decision
`
`Microsoft Decision
`“We are not bound by [Gopalan] which has
`not been designated as a precedential
`decision of the Board.”
`
`Uniloc’s Argument 6
`“[T]he Board recognized that Schulhauser is
`not always applicable. For example, the
`Board has interpreted conditional language
`recited in a method claim ‘to be limited to
`the method described in which the recited
`conditions occur.’ Ex Parte Prem K. Gopalan
`& Bryan Thomas Elverson, IPR2017-007009,
`2018 WL 2386111, at *3-4 (P.T.A.B. May 21,
`2018).”
`
`POSR-1349 at 3-4; Microsoft Decision at 53.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0021
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Schulhauser Arguments
`Uniloc improperly raises a new argument in its Sur-Reply
`
`Uniloc’s Argument 7
`“There can be no question that claim 1
`affirmatively recites ‘a control station which
`controls the alternate use of the frequency
`band.’ The ‘wherein’ clause simply defines
`how this affirmatively recited control is to
`be effected ...”
`
`Microsoft Decision
`“[P]arties are not permitted to raise new
`arguments at oral hearing.”
`
`Regardless, “[a]ll physical steps necessarily
`are performed by one or more structural
`elements. … Patent Owner’s assertion, in
`effect, transforms all steps into a structural
`limitation, resulting in a lack of distinction
`therebetween and confusion of claim
`scope.”
`
`POSR-1349 at 2-3; Microsoft Decision at 53-54.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0022
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Sherman Obviousness
`Even if Schulhauser does not apply, Sherman renders Step (2) obvious.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0023
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`The CFP is variable length
`
`Sherman Fig. 5 (Annotated):
`
`Sherman col. 5:47-50:
`
`• CFP maximum length is set “very close to the
`full length of the superframe”
`• The CFP is not fixed to its maximum length
`• The CF_End frame marks the end of a CFP,
`which occurs at less than the maximum
`
`Ex. 1004 col. 6:1-8, 5:47-57, FIG. 5; Pet-1349 at 28-30; Decl-1349 ¶¶121, 156-157, 171-177; Decl-1350
`¶¶121, 156-157, 171-177; Reply-1349 at 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0024
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0025
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`But if no HIPERLAN/2 transmissions occur, it would have been obvious to
`send “CF_End” to open the channel for 802.11 devices
`Sherman col. 6:1-8, 3:62-66:
`
`• Otherwise, the frequency band would sit
`idle, with nearly the entire superframe
`reserved for non-existent HIPERLAN/2
`transmission requests
`IEEE 802.11 devices would not have a
`chance to contend for the band,
`defeating Sherman’s goal of sharing the
`channel.
`
`•
`
`Ex. 1004 col. 6:1-8, 5:50-57, 3:62-66; Pet-1349 at 32-33; Decl-1349 ¶¶173-177; Decl-1350 ¶¶173-177; Reply-
`1349 at 13-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0026
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Ground 1 –Sherman Obviousness (IPR2020-01350)
`Sherman renders Claim 6 obvious.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0027
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0028
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`The ’676 patent discloses sending “dummy information” to terminate the
`use of the channel by 802.11 systems
`
`’676 Patent:
`
`Ex. 1001 col. 4:55-64; IPR2019-01350, Paper 2 (“Pet-1350”) at 34-37; IPR2019-
`01350, Ex. 1003 (“Decl-1350”) ¶194.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0029
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Sherman teaches the same technique: sending dummy traffic
`to terminate the use of the medium by 802.11 devices
`Sherman Fig. 5 (Annotated):
`Sherman col. 6:26-28:
`
`Ex. 1004 col. 6:26-28, 6:13-28, FIG. 5; Pet-1350 at 35-37; Decl-1350 ¶¶193-199; Reply-1350 at 18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0030
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Dr. Roy explained that HIPERLAN/2 transmissions
`would have served as unintelligible dummy traffic to 802.11 devices
`
`Dr. Roy:
`
`Decl-1350 ¶200; Pet-1350 at 37.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0031
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0032
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0033
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Uniloc takes Sherman’s teachings out of context
`
`Uniloc’s POR
`“Sherman explicitly states that a disadvantage of the
`arrangement disclosed in Figure 3 is that the ‘802.11
`STA would view the HIPERLAN phase as a part of the
`802.11 Contention Period (CP), and would normally
`be free to transmit during the CP.’ Ex. 1004, 3:53-56.”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The Real Story
`The Petition does not rely on Figure 3, which
`shows how the “PRIOR ART” (before Sherman)
`lacked a mechanism to end the 802.11 phase and
`begin a HIPERLAN/2 phase.
`Sherman teaches that mobile terminals may be
`hidden from each other and attempt to transmit
`at the same time—the AP is not a hidden
`terminal.
`
`Sherman col. 2:47-51:
`
`POR-1350 at 32; Ex. 1004 col. 2:47-54, 3:48-66; Reply-1350 at 19-20.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0034
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`It would be improper to require proof that HIPERLAN/2 dummy signals
`are superior to 802.11 dummy signals
`
`“‘[O]ur case law does not require that a particular combination must be
`the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior
`art in order to provide motivation for the current invention.’ It is thus
`improper to require [the defendant] to prove that a person of ordinary
`skill would have selected everolimus over other prior art treatment
`methods.”
`
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. W.-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd., 923 F.3d 1051, 1059
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphasis added).
`
`See Reply-1350 at 21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0035
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`It would be improper to require proof that HIPERLAN/2 dummy signals
`are superior to 802.11 dummy signals
`
`“[T]hat better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an
`inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.”
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`See Reply-1350 at 21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0036
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Ground 3 – Shellhammer Obviousness
`Shellhammer renders Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9 obvious.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0037
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Shellhammer teaches an AP controlling alternate access
`for IEEE 802.11 and Bluetooth devices
`
`Shellhammer:
`
`Ex. 1005 at Abstract, 4:62-5:9; Pet-1349 at 7, 49; Decl-1349 ¶¶123, 228-231; Decl-1350
`¶¶123, 250-253.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0038
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0039
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`The Petition relies on an embodiment without the optional third interval
`
`Shellhammer Fig. 3 (Annotated):
`
`Shellhammer col. 9:19-23:
`
`The third interval is for devices that use
`Continuously Aware Mode (“CAM”) and is
`optional:
`
`Ex. 1005 col. 9:8-13, 9:19-23; Pet-1349 at 53-54; Decl-1349 ¶¶245-246;
`Decl-1350 ¶¶267-268; Reply-1349 at 26-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0040
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0041
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0042
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0043
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Shellhammer teaches, and Dr. Roy explains, how the 802.11 PSP interval
`duration depends on “traffic characteristics”
`
`Dr. Roy (quoting
`Shellhammer):
`
`If 802.11 PSP stations do not request access, it would have been obvious to end the
`802.11 PSP interval and begin the Bluetooth interval.
`
`Ex. 1005 col. 8:59-61; Decl-1349 ¶¶262-264; Decl-1350 ¶¶284-286; Pet-1349 at 59-60.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0044
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Uniloc raises a scattershot of 7 arguments against Shellhammer
`
`• Uniloc’s arguments are unsound and unsupported
`
`• Uniloc did not submit any exhibits
`
`• Uniloc did not submit an expert declaration
`
`• Uniloc declined to take Dr. Roy’s deposition
`
`POR-1349 at 40-44; POR-1350 at 45-49; Reply-1349 at 22-27; Reply-1350 at 23-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0045
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Seven Arguments
`
`• Nothing prohibits a patent from disclosing numerous embodiments
`• Uniloc admits the additional embodiments are “unrelated”:
`
`Uniloc POR:
`
`POR-1349 at 40; POR-1350 at 45; Reply-1349 at 22; Reply-1350 at 23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0046
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Seven Arguments
`
`• Shellhammer never mentions an “expected” completion of message transmission
`• Uniloc offers no evidence to believe this alternative is possible
`•
`It would be improper to require proof that a POSITA would have selected the prior art
`combination over other alternatives in the prior art
`• See Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. W.-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd., 923 F.3d 1051, 1059 (Fed.
`Cir. 2019); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Smith & Nephew, Inc.
`v. Rea, 721 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`POR-1349 at 40-41; POR-1350 at 45; Reply-1349 at 23-24; Reply-1350 at 23-24.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0047
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Seven Arguments
`
`• Uniloc’s hypothetical is
`contradicted by Shellhammer,
`which states the opposite.
`• The AP sends the global CTS signal,
`which stops 802.11
`communications.
`
`Shellhammer col. 8:67-9:3:
`
`POR-1349 at 41; POR-1350 at 45-46; Reply-1349 at 23-24; Reply-1350 at 23-24;
`Pet-1349 at 58-60; Decl-1349 ¶¶261-264; Decl-1350 ¶¶283-286; Ex. 1005 col. 8:67-9:8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0048
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Seven Arguments
`
`• Shellhammer teaches variable-
`length time intervals.
`• Uniloc applies the wrong legal
`standard—for obviousness,
`teachings do not have to be
`required or inherent.
`
`Shellhammer col. 8:67-9:3:
`
`POR-1349 at 41; POR-1350 at 45-46; Reply-1349 at 23-24; Reply-1350 at 23-24;
`Pet-1349 at 58-60; Decl-1349 ¶¶261-264; Decl-1350 ¶¶283-286; Ex. 1005, 8:67-9:8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0049
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Seven Arguments
`
`Dr. Roy:
`
`• “Starting the Bluetooth interval earlier [] allows Bluetooth stations to
`transmit for a longer period and transfer more data within the fixed
`beacon time period.”
`• Using idle bandwidth is more efficient than wasting it.
`
`Decl-1349 ¶¶262-264; Decl-1350 ¶¶284-286; POR-1349 at 42; POR-1350 at 46-47; Reply-1349 at 26;
`Reply-1350 at 26-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0050
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Seven Arguments
`
`• CAM is not required for the instituted
`grounds.
`• Dr. Roy explained the motivation to
`not use CAM.
`• Shellhammer teaches using 802.11
`PSP and Bluetooth without CAM.
`
`Shellhammer col. 9:19-23:
`
`Pet-1349 at 53-54; Decl-1349 ¶245; Decl-1350 ¶267; POR-1349 at 42-43; POR-1350 at 47-
`49; Reply-1349 at 26-27; Reply-1350 at 26-27; Ex. 1005 col. 9:19-23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0051
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Rebuttal to Uniloc’s Seven Arguments
`
`• Uniloc attempts to read an “only” limitation into claim 1, which recites no such
`language.
`• The claim says nothing about what happens if 802.11 PSP stations do request access. It
`neither requires nor prohibits any steps in that condition.
`
`POR-1349 at 43-44; POR-1350 at 46-47; Reply-1349 at 27; Reply-1350 at 27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0052
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Ground 3 – Shellhammer Obviousness (IPR2020-01350)
`Shellhammer renders Claim 7 obvious.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0053
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0054
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`The ’676 patent provides minimal explanation
`beyond the basic concept recited in claim 7
`
`’676 patent:
`
`Ex. 1001 col. 6:1-9; Reply-1350 at 29-30.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0055
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`The ’676 patent provides scant written description and relies on a POSITA’s
`knowledge for limitation 7[d]
`
`“The specification of the [patent-at-issue] is entirely silent on how to
`transmit user locations and maps from a server to a user’s mobile device,
`suggesting that a person of ordinary skill in the art was more than capable
`of selecting between the known methods of accomplishing this.”
`Uber Techn., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`“[T]he Board’s observation that appellant did not provide the type of detail
`in his specification that he now argues is necessary in prior art references
`supports the Board’s finding that one skilled in the art would have known
`how to implement the features of the references and would have
`concluded that the reference disclosures would have been enabling.”
`In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`Reply-1350 at 29-30.
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0056
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0057
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0058
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Grounds 2, 4, and 5
`Obviousness combinations for Claims 5 and 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0059
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`The Institution Decision held claim 5 has ambiguous claim scope
`
`Institution Decision:
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 5; ID-1349 at 46-47.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0060
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`The Institution Decision held claim 8 has ambiguous claim scope
`
`Institution Decision:
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 8; ID-1350 at 49.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0061
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0062
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0063
`IPR2019-01349 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
