IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
`OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2019-01365
`
`In re Patent of:
`
`Title:
`
`McDowell et al.
`7,039,435 Attorney
`U.S. Patent No.:
`Docket No.: 35548-0101IP1 Issue Date: May 2,
`2006 Appl. Serial No.:
`09/967,140 Filing
`Date:
`September 28, 2001 7,039,435
`PROXIMITY REGULATION SYSTEM FOR USE
`WITH A PORTABLE CELL PHONE AND A
`METHOD OF OPERATION THEREOF
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box
`1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF UNITED STATESU.S. PATENT NO.
`7,039,435 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§
`311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42Claims 1–3 and 6
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0001
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 35548-0101IP1 IPRPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent
`: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`23
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`....................................................................................................................... 2
`3
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................. 3
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`....................................................................................................................... 3
`4
`Service Information
`....................................................................................................................... 4
`5
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`45
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`45
`A.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`....................................................................................................................... 4
`5
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested.................... 5
`B.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’435 PATENT
`78
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Brief Description
`....................................................................................................................... 7
`8
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`....................................................................................................................... 8
`9
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`..................................................................................................................... 91
`0
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) 9 C.F.R............................ 10
`1. “position to a communications tower” (claim 1) ..................................... 10
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 3 ARE ANTICIPATED BY BAIKER.......... 13
`A.
`Overview of Baiker ..................................................................................... 13
`B.
`Application to Challenged Claims
`..................................................................................................................... 14
`i
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0002
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 35548-0101IP1 IPRPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`15
`Patent
`: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`VII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1, 2, 3, AND 6 ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF BAIKER
`AND WERLING
`2726
`A.
`
`Predictable Combination of Baiker and Werling
`..................................................................................................................... 27
`26
`Application to Challenged Claims
`..................................................................................................................... 30
`29
`VIII. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 3 ARE ANTICIPATED BY IRVIN
`3735
`A.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Irvin
`..................................................................................................................... 37
`35
`Application to Challenged Claims
`..................................................................................................................... 39
`38
`IX. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1, 2, 3, AND 6 ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF IRVIN AND
`MYLLYMÄKI
`4947
`A.
`
`Predictable Combination of Irvin and Myllymäki
`..................................................................................................................... 49
`47
`Application to Challenged Claims
`..................................................................................................................... 52
`49
`GROUND 5: CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 3 ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF BODIN AND
`IRVIN
`5956
`A.
`
`B.
`
`X.
`
`Predictable Combination of Bodin and Irvin
`..................................................................................................................... 59
`56
`Application to Challenged Claims
`..................................................................................................................... 60
`58
`XI. GROUND 6: CLAIM 6 IS OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF BODIN, IRVIN, AND
`
`B.
`
`MYLLYMÄKI .................................................................................................. 6764
`A.
`Predictable Combination of Bodin, Irvin, and Myllymäki ..................... 6764
`B.
`Application to Challenged Claims .......................................................... 6865
`ii
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0003
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 35548-0101IP1 IPRPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`XII. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................. 6966
`Patent
`: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`
`ii
`i
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0004
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 35548-0101IP1 IPRPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent
`: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`EXHIBITSEXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,039,435 to McDowell et al. (“the ’435 patent”)
`File History of the ’435 Patent
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`Certified English Translation of European Patent Publication EP 1091498
`by Baiker (“Baiker”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,456,856 to Werling (“Werling”)
`PCT Patent Publication WO 2002/05443 by Irvin (“Irvin”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,018,646 to Myllymäki (“Myllymäki”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,390,338 to Bodin (“Bodin”)
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, Worksheet, and Hearing Statement in Bell
`Northern Research, LLC, v. ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE
`(TX), Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-1786) (S.D. Cal.)
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 09/612,034 by Irvin (“Irvin
`Provisional”)
`Michael Barr, Programming Embedded Systems in C and C++
`(O’Reilly & Associates, 1999)
`Rudolf F. Graf, Modern Dictionary of Electronics (Butter- worth-
`Heinemann, 1999)
`Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (Miller Freeman, Inc.,
`1999)
`Webster’s II New College Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Co, 1999)
`Martin H. Weik, Fiber Optics Standard Dictionary (Chapman & Hall,
`1997)
`European Patent Publication EP 1091498 (“Baiker”)
`Webster’s New World College Dictionary (Simon & Schuster, 1997)
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`10031
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`
`EX1001 U.S. Pat. No. 7,039,435 to McDowell et al. (“the ’435 patent”) EX1002
`
`File History of the ’435 Patent EX1003
`
`1 Exhibit 1003 is a verbatim copy of
`
`the Declaration of Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. submitted on behalf of Petitioner Huawei in
`
`support of their Petition for Inter Partes Review of the 7,039,435 patent in
`iii
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0005
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 35548-0101IP1 IPRPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent
`: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`IPR2019-01186.
`
`EX1004
`
`EX1005
`EX1006
`
`Certified English Translation of European Patent Publication EP
`1091498 (“Baiker”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,456,856 (“Werling”)
`PCT Patent Publication WO 2002/05443 (“Irvin”) EX1007
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,018,646 (“Myllymäki”) EX1008 U.S.
`Pat. No. 5,390,338 (“Bodin”)
`
`EX1009
`
`EX1010
`
`EX1011
`
`EX1012
`
`EX1013
`
`EX1014
`EX1015
`
`EX1016
`EX1017
`EX1018
`EX1019
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, Worksheet, and Hearing State- ment in
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd.,
`Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc.
`(Case No. 3:18-cv-1784) (S.D.Cal., filed 4/19/19)
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 09/612,034 (“Irvin
`Provisional”)
`Michael Barr, Programming Embedded Systems in C and C++
`(O’Reilly & Associates, 1999)
`Rudolf F. Graf, Modern Dictionary of Electronics (Butter-
`worth-Heinemann, 1999)
`Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (Miller Freeman, Inc.,
`1999)
`Webster’s II New College Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Co, 1999)
`Martin H. Weik, Fiber Optics Standard Dictionary (Chapman & Hall,
`1997)
`European Patent Publication EP 1091498 (“Baiker”)
`Webster’s New World College Dictionary (Simon & Schuster, 1997)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,029,074 (“Irvin ’074”)
`Defendants’ Joint Opening Claim Construction Brief in Bell Northern
`Research, LLC, v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei
`Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Case No.
`iv
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0006
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 35548-0101IP1 IPRPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent
`: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`3:18-cv-1784) (S.D. Cal.)
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in Bell Northern
`Research, LLC, v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei
`Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Case No.
`3:18-cv-1784) (S.D. Cal.)
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,029,074 to Irvin (“Irvin ’074”)
`Defendants’ Joint Opening Claim Construction Brief in Bell Northern
`Research, LLC, v. ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE (TX), Inc.
`(Case No. 3:18-cv-1786) (S.D. Cal.)
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in Bell Northern Research,
`LLC, v. ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE (TX), Inc. (Case No.
`3:18-cv-1786) (S.D. Cal.)
`Supplemental Joint Claim Construction Hearing Statement Pursuant to
`P.L.R. 4.2 in Bell Northern Research, LLC, v. ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA)
`Inc., and ZTE (TX), Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-1786) (S.D. Cal.)
`Defendants’ Joint Responsive Claim Construction Brief in Bell Northern
`Research, LLC v. ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE (TX), Inc.
`(Case No. 3:18-cv-1786) (S.D. Cal.)
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief in Bell Northern
`Research, LLC v. ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE (TX), Inc.
`(Case No. 3:18-cv-1786) (S.D. Cal.)
`Redline Comparison of this Petition and Petition filed in IPR2019-01186
`(“Huawei IPR”)
`
`EX1020
`
`Exhibit
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`v
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0007
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 35548-0101IP1 IPRPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent
`: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
`INTRODUCTION
`ZTE (USA) Inc. (“HuaweiZTE” or “Petitioner”) petitions for In- terInter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”)Petition”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §42 of claims 1, 2,
`
`3, and 6 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435 (“the ’435 patent”)
`
`assigned to Bell Northern Research, LLC (“BNR” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`On June 11, 2019, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. filed a petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“Huawei IPR Petition”), PTAB Case No. IPR2019-1186, of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,039,435. This Petition and the Huawei IPR Petition are identical in their invalidity
`
`grounds, prior art, analyses, and evidence. Both request review of the same claim, based
`
`on the same references in the same combinations, rely on the same expert, and the same
`
`expert declaration. At this time, the Huawei IPR Petition is waiting for the Board’s
`
`decision on whether to institute an IPR trial.
`
`This Petition shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioners will prevail on claims 1–3 and 6 of the ’435 patent based on
`
`prior art that the U.S. Patent Office did not have before it or did not fully consider during
`
`prosecution, and that renders this claim anticipated or obvious. Accordingly, Petitioners
`
`request the Board institute inter partes review of claims 1–3 and 6.
`
`The ’435 patent generally relates to cellular devices that regulate transmis-
`
`siontransmission power based on proximity of the device to the user. The examiner
`
`allowed the ’435 patent after applicant argued the prior art failed to teach a power
`
`2
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0008
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 35548-0101IP1 IPRPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent
`: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`governing subsystem
`
`that determines a transmit power level for a portable cell phone based on both a network
`
`adjusted transmit power level (as a function of a position to a communications tower) and
`
`a proximity transmit power level. EX1002, 19-27; 73- 74; Infra, Section IV.B. The
`
`claims were improperly granted, however, because the examiner had an incomplete
`
`record of the prior art, and as detailed below, more pertinent prior art plainly disclosed
`
`these exact features. If these teachings had been fully analyzed during prosecution, the
`
`’435 patent never would have issued.
`
`HuaweiZTE therefore requests the Board to institute IPR of the Challenged Claims.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.; Huawei Device USA,ZTE Corporation, ZTE
`
`(USA) Inc.; Huawei Invest- ment & Holding Co., Ltd.; Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co.,
`
`Ltd.; Huawei Device Co., Ltd.; Huawei Tech. Investment Co., Ltd.; and Huawei Device
`
`(Hong Kong) Co., and ZTE (TX), LtdInc. are the real parties-in- interest. No other parties
`
`had access to or control over the present Petition prior to the filing of IPR2019-1186
`
`(“Huawei IPR”), and no other parties funded the present Petition.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`B.
`Bell Northern Research, LLC (“BNR”)—the alleged Patent Owner—filed a
`
`complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No.
`
`3:18-cv-1784) against Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device
`3
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0009
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 35548-0101IP1 IPRPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent
`: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA,1786) against ZTE Corporation, ZTE
`
`(USA) Inc., and ZTE (TX) Inc., asserting 6 patents. The ini- tialinitial complaint, which
`
`did not allege infringement of the ’435 patent,
`
`was served on August 3, 2018. BNR did not allege infringement of the ’435 patent until
`
`the sec- ondfirst amended complaint served on November 13,October 15, 2018.
`
`4
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0010
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`
`BNR also filed complaints in the Southern District of California alleging in-
`
`fringementinfringement of the ’435 patent by other parties: ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA)
`
`Inc., and ZTE (TX)Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co.,
`
`Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (3:18-cv-17861784); and LG Electronics Mobile
`
`Research U.S.A., LLC, LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc., LG Electronics, Inc. (3:18-cv-2864).
`
`HuaweiZTE is not a real party-in-interest to any of these
`
`above-listed district court proceedings. Also, none of the parties in these district court
`
`proceedings is a real party-in-inter- estinterest in the proceedings involving HuaweiZTE
`
`or in privity with HuaweiZTE.
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`C.
`Petitioners providesprovide the following designation of counsel.
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Amol A. Parikh
`Michael T. Hawkins,USPTO Reg. No.
`57,867 3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South
`Sixth Street60,671
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
`444 West Lake Street
`Chicago, IL 60606-0029
`Phone: 312-984-6477
`Fax: 312-984-7700
`amparikh@mwe.com
`jrbaker@mwe.com
`
`BackupBack-Up
`counselCounsel
`Charles M. McMahon
`Craig Deutsch,USPTO Reg. No. 69,264
`Tel: 612-278-4514 /
`deutsch@fr.com44,926
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
`444 West Lake Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60606-0029
`Phone: 312-984-7641
`Fax: 312-984-7700
`cmcmahon@mwe.com
`
`Thomas M. DaMario
`USPTO Reg. No. 77,142
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
`444 West Lake Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60606-0029
`5
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0011
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`Phone: 312-984-7527
`Fax: 312-984-7700
`tdamario@mwe.com
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 612-337-2569 / Fax 612-288-9696
`hawkins@fr.com
`IPR35548-0101IP1@fr.com
`
`Sangki Park, Reg. No. 77,261
`Tel: 612-638-5763 / spark@fr.com
`
`Christopher Hoff, Reg. No. 67,738
`Tel: 612-766-2066 / hoff@fr.com
`
`Jason W. Wolff, Reg. No. 43,281
`Tel: 858-678-4719 / wolff@fr.com
`
`Kim Leung, Reg. No. 64,399
`Tel: 858-678-4713 / leung@fr.com
`
`Jennifer Huang, Reg. No. 64,297
`Tel: 612-766-2094 / jjh@fr.com
`
`Jiaxiao Zhang USPTO Reg. No. 63,235
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
`18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 250 Irvine,
`California 92612-2565 Phone:
`949-757-6398 Fax: 949-851-9348
`jiazhang@mwe.com
`
`Service Information
`D.
`Please address all correspondence and service to the address listed above.
`
`Petitioner consentsPetitioners consent to electronic service by email at
`
`IPR35548-0101IP1@fr.comZTEBNR-PTAB@mwe.com (referencing No.
`
`35548-0101IP1 and cc’ing hawkins@fr.com andPTABInbound@fr.com).IPR2019-
`6
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0012
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`
`01365)
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The Patent and Trademark Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account No.
`
`06-105050- 0417 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and any addi-
`
`tionaladditional fees.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A.
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’435 Patent is available for IPR and that Peti-
`
`tionerPetitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`B.
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds listed be-
`
`lowbelow. In support, this petition includes a declaration of Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
`
`(EX1003).
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Claims
`1, 2, 3
`
`§102 - Baiker
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`7
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0013
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Claims
`1, 2, 3
`
`§102 - Baiker
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`1, 2, 3, 6
`
`§103 - Baiker and Werling
`
`1, 2, 3
`
`§102 - Irvin
`
`1, 2, 3, 6
`
`§103 - Irvin and Myllymäki
`
`1, 2, 3
`
`§103 - Bodin and Irvin
`
`6
`
`§103 - Bodin, Irvin, and Myllymäki
`
`Baiker (published April 11, 2001) and is prior art under at least § 102(a). Bodin
`
`(issued Feb. 14, 1995) and Myllymäki (issued Jan 25. 2000) were published over a year
`
`before the earliest possible priority date (Sep. 28, 2001), and are prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Werling (filed July 26, 1999) is prior art under at least § 102(e).
`
`Irvin (filed June 20, 2001) is prior art under at least § 102(e) based on its PCT filing
`
`date of June 20, 2001. Although only relevant to the extent Patent Owner attempts to
`
`establish a conception date prior to June 20, 2001, Irvin claims priority to U.S. Provisional
`
`Application 09/612,034 (“Irvin Provisional”) filed July 7, 2000. Irvin thus has a § 102(e)
`
`prior art date of July 7, 2000, because the Irvin Provisional supports at least one claim of
`
`Irvin. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d, 1375, 1381-82 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015); Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc., Case IPR2016- 01713, Paper 9, at 13
`
`(PTAB Feb. 27, 2017) (“only one claim”). As demonstrated below and confirmed by Dr.
`
`8
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0014
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`Wells (EX1003, ¶81), the Irvin Provisional provides support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for at
`
`least claim 1 of Irvin:
`
`9
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0015
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`
`Irvin Claim 1
`
`communication
`portable
`1. A
`device op- erableoperable to limit
`transmitter power
`if proximate a
`human body, comprising:
`
`an antenna;
`
`Exemplary Support in Irvin
`Provi- sionalProvisional
`(EX1010)
`Cl. 1: “A portable communication
`de- vicedevice operable to limit
`transmitter power if proximate a
`human body, compris-
`ingcomprising:”; 4: “This
`invention relates to a mobile
`terminal used in a wireless
`communica- tioncommunication
`system and, more particularly, to a
`mobile terminal operable to limit
`trans-
`mittertransmitter power if
`proximate a human body.”
`Cl. 1: “an antenna”; 8: “antenna 12”;
`FIG. 1.
`
`a transmitter connected to the antenna; Cl. 1: “a transmitter connected to the
`antenna”; 8: “transmitter 18”; FIG. 1.
`
`a detector for detecting if the antenna is
`proximate a human body; and
`
`Cl. 1: “a detector for detecting if the
`antenna is proximate a human body;
`and” 10: “proximity detector 38”;
`FIG. 1.
`
`10
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0016
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`a control operatively connected to the
`Cl. 1: “a control operatively connected to
`transmitter and to the detector, the
`the transmitter and to the detector, the
`control controlling transmitter power an
`control controlling transmitter power
`limiting transmitter power if the detector
`and limiting transmitter power if the
`detects that the antenna is proximate a
`detector detects that the antenna is
`human body.
`proximate a human body.” 10: “The
`processor 22 operates in accordance with
`a control program, as described more
`specifically below, to limit or cap
`transmitter power output if the antenna
`12 is proximate a human body.”
`
`11
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0017
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`a control operatively connected to the
`transmitter and to the detector, the con-
`Cl. 1: “a control operatively connected
`trol controlling transmitter power an
`to the transmitter and to the detector,
`limiting transmitter power if the detec-
`the control controlling transmitter
`tor detects that the antenna is proxi-
`power and limiting transmitter power if
`mate a human body.
`the detector detects that the antenna is
`proximate a human body.” 10: “The
`processor 22 operates in ac- cordance
`with a control program, as de- scribed
`more specifically below, to limit or cap
`transmitter power output if the antenna
`12 is proximate a human body.”
`
`Notably, all references but Irvin and Werling were never before the exam-
`
`inerexaminer during prosecution. Irvin was not addressed in an office action and is not cu-
`
`mulativecumulative to art applied in prosecution of the ’435 patent. Werling is applied
`
`here in a manner similar to that by the Office during prosecution, which was not chal-
`
`lengedchallenged by Patent Owner. For at least these reasons, there is no basis for a
`
`determi- nationdetermination under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) that “substantially the same prior
`
`art or argu- mentsarguments” were presented to the Office. To be sure, none of the six
`
`factors identified in the PTAB’s Becton, Dickinson and Company decision weigh in favor
`
`of such a finding. See IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17-28 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017).
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’435 PATENT
`A.
`Brief Description
`The ’435 patent generally describes techniques for reducing the transmit power
`
`level of a portable cell phone when located near a human body. EX1001, 1:63-67;
`
`EX1003, ¶¶28-29. For example, the ’435 patent describes cell phone de- vicesdevices
`
`12
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0018
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`including a “typical power circuit” that provides a transmit power level. EX1001,
`
`3:31-34; 4:31-61. A “proximity regulation system” is coupled with the “power circuit”
`
`and determines a “proximity transmit power level” based on “its location proximate the
`
`portable cell phone user.” EX1001, 3:43-4:4. A “network adjusted transmit power level
`
`may be reduced to a value determined by the prox- imityproximity transmit power level
`
`when the location
`
`of the portable cell phone 200 is within the vicinity of the user's head,” and “just within
`
`the vicinity of a user’s body.” EX1001, 5:24-36.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`B.
`During prosecution of the ’435 patent, the first office action rejected original claim
`
`19 (corresponding to issued claim 1) based upon a combination of Werling (EX1005) and
`
`Vogel (a secondary reference). EX1002, 84-85. In response, the applicant amended the
`
`claim (Id., 69) and then argued that the cited combination did not teach a power circuit that
`
`provides a network adjusted transmit power level “as a function of a position to a
`
`communications tower.” Id., 73 (repeating this phrase three times). The applicant then
`
`contended that, due to this alleged short- comingshortcoming, it followed that Werling and
`
`Vogel failed to teach a power governing sub- systemsubsystem that determines “a transmit
`
`power level for a portable cell phone based on a network adjusted transmit power level and
`
`a proximity transmit power level as re- citedrecited in Claim 19.” Id., 73-74.
`
`In response, claims 19-27 were allowed, but claims 1-18 remained rejected. Id. at
`
`13
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0019
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`20-27. The applicant canceled rejected claims 1-18, and a notice of allow- anceallowance
`
`followed. EX1002, 4-7; 15-18. Notably, the examiner provided reasons for their
`
`conclusion that claims 19-27 were allowable, which emphasized the final ele-
`
`mentelement of issued claim 1.
`
`EX1002, 27. As explained below, the Baiker, Irvin, and Bodin references—which were
`
`never considered by the examiner—plainly dis- closedisclose these elements of issued
`
`claim 1,
`
`14
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0020
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`
`including the features emphasized in the ex- aminerexaminer’s reasons for allowance.
`
`EX1003,
`
`¶¶30-32.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`C.
`The ’435 patent was filed September 28, 2001, and no claim of priority was made.
`
`The evidence shows a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of inven-
`
`tioninvention (“POSITA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engi- neeringengineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related
`
`technical field, and at least 1-2 years of experience in the field of wireless
`
`communication devices, or an equivalent advanced education in the field of wireless
`
`communication devices. EX1003, ¶¶23-24.
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) C.F.R.
`Petitioner submits that all claim terms should be construed according to the
`
`Phillips standard. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005); 37C.F.R.
`
`§42.100. Although both parties have submitted briefing on claim construc- tion in
`
`copendingconstruction in co-pending district court litigation (EX1009, EX1019,
`
`1019–EX10201023), the litiga- tionlitigation is in an early stage, and the Court has not
`
`issued a claim construction order.
`
`“position to a communications tower” (claim 1)
`1.
`For the phrase “position to a communications tower,” this Petition sets forth a first
`
`claim construction and a second, alternative claim construction. The Board has previously
`
`10
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0021
`
`

`

`authorized the use of alternative constructions in IPR petitions, and Petitioner should be
`
`treated no differently here. General Electric Co. v Vestas Wind Systems A/S,
`
`IPR2018-00928, Paper No. 9, 12-16 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2018) (“the rule does not prohibit a
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365) petitioner from
`submitting more than one construction”); Intel Corp. v Qualcomm Inc., IPR2018-01340,
`Paper No. 8, 11-13 (PTAB Jan. 15, 2019) (“the petitioner may offer alternative
`constructions and demonstrate un- patentabilityunpatentability under each construction.”);
`Hologic, Inc. v Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., IPR2018-00019, Paper No. 21, 7 (PTAB Nov.
`28, 2018). As explained in detail below, the Petition sets forth alternative constructions
`
`along with an ample demon- strationdemonstration of the unpatentability of the
`
`Challenged Claims under each alternative in- terpretationinterpretation, which is
`
`sufficient for institution of review.
`
`General Electric, Paper 9, 12-16; Intel, Paper 8, 11-13.
`
`According to a first construction, the phrase “position to a communications
`
`tower” means “transmit signal strength of a communications path between the
`
`communications tower and the portable cell phone.” EX1020, 63-71; EX1009, 63, 129
`
`(citing ’435 patent, 3:39-42 and “Mobile Communications Engineering: The- oryTheory
`
`and Applications”). Under this construction, the term “position” does not take on its
`
`ordinary meaning and is instead equated with a “signal strength”—namely, a transmit
`
`signal strength of a communications path. Based on this interpretation, the claim language
`
`incorporates the embodiment described in column 3 of the ’435 patent in which the
`
`“network adjusted transmit power level is based on a transmit signal strength of a
`
`communications path between the communications tower 110 and the portable cell phone
`
`120.” EX1001, 3:39-42 (emphasis added); EX1003, ¶¶33-34. As detailed below, Baiker
`
`11
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0022
`
`

`

`and Irvin each disclose a network adjusted transmit power level based on a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`
`transmit signal strength of a communications path between a communications tower and
`
`mobile device. Infra, Section VI-IX. Thus, if the Board adopts this first construction of
`
`“position to a communications tower,” Grounds 1-4 demonstrate that the Challenged
`
`Claims are unpatentable.
`
`This Petition presents a second, alternative construction based upon the
`
`straightforward and literal language of “position to a communications tower.” In this
`
`alternative, no formal construction is necessary because plain language of the claim
`
`recites “position,” which does not carry any specialized meaning in the art and is not
`
`lexicographically defined in the ’435 patent specification. EX1003, ¶35.35 In particular,
`
`the commonly recognized meaning of a “position” is simply a loca- tionlocation or
`
`distance relative another object, and thus the phrase “position to a commu-
`
`nicationscommunications tower” plainly and ordinarily describes a location or distance to
`
`a com- municationscommunications tower. Id. This interpretation is consistent with the
`
`intrinsic evidence, as the ’435 patent includes use of this phrase in the specification,
`
`without any lexi- cographiclexicographic definition or disclaimer that equates the term
`
`“position” to “a transmit signal strength.” See, e.g., EX1001, 2:18-21 (“the present
`
`invention provides a portable cell phone that includes a power circuit as a function of a
`
`position to a communications tower and a proximity regulation system” (emphasis
`
`added)).
`
`12
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0023
`
`

`

`Indeed, the specification uses the term “position” in several instances that are
`
`con- sistentconsistent with its ordinary meaning, none of which are tethered to a
`
`“transmit signal
`
`13
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0024
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`
`strength.” Id., 3:4-6 (“positioned”); 6:33-37 (“position indicator” and “posi-
`
`tionedpositioned”); EX1019, 46-51. Also, this ordinary meaning of “position” is
`
`confirmed by the extrinsic evidence. EX1003, ¶35 (citing to EX1014 (“a place or
`
`location”); EX1017 (“the place where a person or thing is, esp. in relation to others”).
`
`Alter- nativelyAlternatively, to the extent the Board deems an explicit construction of this
`
`term to be required, this term should be construed to mean “position of the portable cell
`
`phone relative to a communications tower,” consistent with how this term would have
`
`been plainly and ordinarily understood by a POSITA. EX1003, ¶35. The Bodin reference
`
`describes adjusting transmit power based on distance to a base sta-
`
`tionstation/communication tower. Infra, Section X-XI. Thus, if the Board adopts this al-
`
`ternativealternative interpretation, Grounds 5-6 demonstrate that the Challenged Claims
`
`are unpatentable.
`
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 3 ARE ANTICIPATED BY BAIKER
`A.
`Overview of Baiker
`Baiker (EX1004) describes a “hand-held mobile telephone” in which “the damage
`
`potential of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the device can be ef-
`
`ficientlyefficiently reduced for the user.” EX1004, Abstract, [0006]-[0007]. Baiker de-
`
`scribesdescribes this can be accomplished by controlling “the power of the RF
`
`transmitter… on the basis of a distance measured (e.g., to the user’s head).” Id. Baiker
`
`pro- videsprovides a block diagram of the “hand-held mobile telephone” in Figure 3
`
`14
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1024-0025
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent: 7,039,435 (IPR2019-01365)
`(annotated below on p. 16). EX1003, ¶39.
`
`As shown in Figure 3, the hand-held mobile telephone 1 includes an “RF
`
`transmitter (10/6)” that includes an “antenna 6” and “RF amplifier 10,” “