`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`PATENT 7,016,676
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SUR REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS............................................................................................................ III
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`II.
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE THAT ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE .................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`The Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Sherman renders
`Claim 3 obvious. (Ground 1) .......................................................... 1
`
`1.
`
`As the Board properly determined in the
`Institution Decision, Sherman fails to teach or
`suggest a control station that renders the
`frequency band available for access by the
`stations working in accordance with the second
`radio interface standard if stations working in
`accordance with the first radio interface standard
`do not request access to the frequency band. ....................... 1
`
`2.
`
`Ex parte Schulhauser is not applicable to Claim 1
`(or its dependents). ............................................................... 2
`
`3.
`
`Ex parte Schulhauser is inapplicable to claim 9 .................. 4
`
`B.
`
`The Petitioner has failed to carry its burden of proving
`that Shellhammer renders Claims 3 or 9 obvious, as
`Petitioner fails to show that Shellhammer teaches or
`renders obvious “wherein the control station … renders
`the frequency band available for access by the stations
`working in accordance with the second radio interface
`standard if stations working in accordance with the first
`radio interface standard do not request access to the
`frequency band” as recited in Claim 1. (Ground 3). ...................... 4
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 7
`
`III.
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`International Patent Publication No.
`WO/02 13457 A2
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc” or “Patent Owner”) submits this Sur Reply in
`
`response to the Reply (Paper 14) filed by Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (“Petitioner”).
`
`Petitioner has failed to carry its burden of showing that any challenged claim of the
`
`‘676 is unpatentable for at least the reasons set forth herein and in the Patent Owner
`
`Response (“Resp.”).
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE THAT ANY CHALLENGED
`CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. The Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Sherman renders Claim 3
`obvious. (Ground 1)
`
`For the reasons given in Patent Owner’s Response and herein, the Petitioner
`
`has failed to meet its burden of establishing that Sherman renders Claim 3 obvious,
`
`and thus Ground 1 fails.
`
`1.
`
`As the Board properly determined in the Institution Decision,
`Sherman fails to teach or suggest a control station that
`renders the frequency band available for access by the
`stations working in accordance with the second radio
`interface standard if stations working in accordance with the
`first radio interface standard do not request access to the
`frequency band.
`
`As explained in Patent Owner’s Response, the Petition fails to establish prima
`
`facie obviousness of at least the following recitation: “wherein the control station …
`
`renders the frequency band available for access by the stations working in accordance
`
`with the second radio interface standard if stations working in accordance with the
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`first radio interface standard do not request access to the frequency band” as recited
`
`in Independent Claim 1. In particular, and as agreed by the Board in the Institution
`
`Decision, Paper No. 9, 26-29, Sherman does not teach or suggest any control station
`
`that renders a frequency band available for access by the stations associated with a
`
`second radio interface standard when other stations associated with a first radio
`
`interface do not request access to the frequency band as would be required to render
`
`Claim 1 obvious.
`
`2.
`
`Ex parte Schulhauser is not applicable to Claim 1 (or its
`dependents).
`
`For the reasons given in Uniloc’s Response, Ex parte Schulhauser is not
`
`applicable here. Petitioner’s Reply focuses on non-binding decisions by other panels
`
`of the Board without regard to specific claim language at issue. Petitioner does not
`
`address that the limitations referred to by the Board as “step 2” were formerly recited
`
`in dependent claim 2, were then added to claim 1, and a notice of allowance
`
`subsequently issued. EX1002, 14. Thus, considering claim 1 in light of the
`
`prosecution history, one of ordinary skill would understand that the two steps are
`
`performed successively, and are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, the specification
`
`clearly describes the situation where the control station is provided for releasing the
`
`common frequency band if stations operating in accordance with the first radio
`
`interface standard do not request access. EX1001, 3:7-13.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`In addition, the proper construction is readily ascertained by considering the
`
`claim language as whole. 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—i.e., “wherein the control station controls the access to the common
`
`frequency band for stations working in accordance with the first radio interface
`
`standard and renders the frequency band available for access by the stations working
`
`in accordance with the second radio interface standard if stations working in
`
`accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request access to the
`
`frequency band.” Under this informative context, it would be erroneous to not give
`
`patentable weight to a wherein clause that meaningfully limits and further defines
`
`an expressly recited “controls” limitation in terms of how it must be effected.
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that Ex parte Schulhauser was decided under a
`
`different claim construction standard, the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”), which is not applicable here. Even when applying the former BRI standard,
`
`the 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). There, the Board also found that “Schulhauser is not
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`controlling because it is factually distinguishable.” Id. “Unlike the method claim in
`
`Schulhauser, the steps of method claim 1 are not mutually exclusive and the claim,
`
`as written, covers only one method.” Id. The “if” statement of the wherein clause is
`
`“integrated into one method or path and do[es] not cause the claim to diverge into
`
`two methods or paths.” IPR2017-007009, at *3‒4.
`
`Accordingly, as Schulhauser is not applicable, the Petitioner’s failure to show
`
`that Sherman discloses the recitation “renders the frequency band available for
`
`access by the stations working in accordance with the second radio interface standard
`
`if stations working in accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request
`
`access to the frequency band” fails to carry Petitioner’s burden to show
`
`unpatentability of dependent claim 3.
`
`3.
`
`Ex parte Schulhauser is inapplicable to claim 9
`
`Even if Schulhauser could negate the recited limitations of claim 1, which it
`
`does not, the Board acknowledged in its institution decision that it has no application
`
`in the context of apparatus claim 9. Paper 9, 36. Thus, for at least this reason, the
`
`Board correctly determined that Petitioner has failed to prove obviousness of claim
`
`9 over Sherman. See id.
`
`B.
`
`The Petitioner has failed to carry its burden of proving that
`Shellhammer renders Claims 3 or 9 obvious, as Petitioner fails to
`show that Shellhammer teaches or renders obvious “wherein the
`control station … renders the frequency band available for access
`by the stations working in accordance with the second radio
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`
`interface standard if stations working in accordance with the first
`radio interface standard do not request access to the frequency
`band” as recited in Claim 1. (Ground 3).
`
`For the reasons given in Patent Owner’s Response, the Petition has failed to
`
`show that Shellhammer renders Claims 3 or 9 obvious, at least because Petitioner
`
`fails to show that Shellhammer teaches or renders obvious the Claim 1 recitation
`
`“wherein the control station … renders the frequency band available for access by
`
`the stations working in accordance with the second radio interface standard if
`
`stations working in accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request
`
`access to the frequency band.”.
`
`Petitioner suggests that Patent Owner must introduce additional evidence to
`
`overcome some burden imposed by the decision on institution. See Reply 23. But
`
`it is Petitioner that carries the burden throughout the proceeding, and Uniloc has
`
`relied on evidence of record to show why one of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`have made the modifications alleged by Petitioner. See Resp. 39-49.
`
`Petitioner also incorrectly suggests that Patent Owner argued Petitioner must
`
`show the alleged modification was the most desirable among alternatives. See Reply
`
`24. This is not so. Uniloc’s Response shows how Petitioner’s alleged motivation is
`
`not sufficient and fails to take into account counter-motivations plainly evident from
`
`the reference itself. See Resp. 43-47.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`As noted in Uniloc’s Response, in asserting that Shellhammer teaches the
`
`aforecited limitation of Claim 1, the Petition, and the testimony of Roy (Ex. 1003),
`
`key in on the statement in Shellhammer that: “Once all the PSP MU’s 120, 140
`
`receive their packets, the AP 20, may optionally send a global Clear to Send (CTS)
`
`signal 430 to shut down all the 802.11 communications for a NAV (Network
`
`Allocation Vector) period.” Pet. 58, quoting Ex. 1005, 8:65-9:8. Petitioner’s
`
`Declarant quotes this same sentence of Shellhammer. Ex. 1003, ¶261. The Petition
`
`and Petitioner’s Declarant also point to Shellhammer’s statement that the duration
`
`of time intervals (e.g., 802.11 power saving (PSP) interval t802.11PSP, Bluetooth
`
`communications interval tNAV, and 802.11 communications active mode (CAM)
`
`interval t802.11CAM) may depend on traffic characteristics and application needs (e.g.,
`
`time critical services). Ex. 1005, column 8, lines 59-62. From these two sentences
`
`of the brief description of Shellhammer, Petitioner’s Declarant provides the
`
`unsupported speculation that “If no IEEE 802.11 stations request access to the
`
`frequency band during the first interval (t802.11PSP), there would be no transmissions
`
`during that interval, and it would have been obvious to a POSITA for the AP to send
`
`the CTS signal, thereby rendering the frequency band available for access by
`
`Bluetooth stations.” Ex. 1003, ¶262. However, this speculation is not sufficient to
`
`support Petitioner’s burden to show that Shellhammer renders obvious a setting of
`
`the 802.11 PSP interval if and when no PSP MU’s are transmitting.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the reasons set forth above and in Uniloc’s Response, Uniloc
`
`respectfully requests that the Board deny all challenges in the instant Petition.1
`
`
`
`Date: August 31, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Ryan Loveless/
`Ryan Loveless
`Reg. No. 51,970
`Brett A. Mangrum
`Reg. No. 64,783
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
` Patent Owner does not concede, and specifically denies, that there is any legitimacy
`
`
`
` 1
`
`to any arguments in the instant Petition that are not specifically addressed herein.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
`
`complies with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c)(1) because it
`
`contains fewer than the limit of 5,600 words, as determined by the word- processing
`
`program used to prepare the brief, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1).
`
`Date: August 31, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Ryan Loveless/
`Ryan Loveless
`Reg. No. 51,970
`Brett A. Mangrum
`Reg. No. 64,783
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that an electronic
`
`copy of the foregoing was served via email to Petitioner’s counsel at the following
`
`addresses identified in the Petition’s consent to electronic service:
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Harper Batts, Reg. No. 56,160
`HBatts@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Backup Counsel:
`Jeffrey Liang, Reg. No. 69,043
`Chris Ponder, Reg. No. 77,167
`CPonder@sheppardmullin.com
`JLiang@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 31, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Ryan Loveless/
`Ryan Loveless
`Reg. No. 51,970
`Brett A. Mangrum
`Reg. No. 64,783
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`ii
`
`