`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0003
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0008
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0009
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0010
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0013
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0025
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0028
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0032
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0033
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0039
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0041
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0042
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0043
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0054
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0057
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0058
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (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
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0062
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1017, Page 0063
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`