UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01471
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,836,654
`Issued: Dec. 28, 2004
`Application No.: 09/739,507
`Filed: Dec. 18, 2000
`
`Title: ANTI-THEFT PROTECTION
`FOR A RADIOTELEPHONY DEVICE
`_________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,654 (CLAIMS 10-20)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`Page(s)
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................. vi
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .......................................... vii
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ......................................................................... vii
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................... vii
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information ...................... ix
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PER SECTION 42.104(A) ............................ 1
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Statement Of The Precise Relief Requested / Statutory Grounds ......... 2
`
`B. No Examiner Addressed These Unpatentability Grounds .................... 2
`
`C. Microsoft’s Petition Should Be Granted Despite Other
`Third-Party Petitions Challenging The Same Patent ............................ 4
`
`D. Microsoft’s Concurrent Petition Challenges Different Claims ............. 6
`
`IV. THE ’654 PATENT ......................................................................................... 7
`
`A. Admitted Prior Art................................................................................. 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The ’654 Patent’s Specification ............................................................ 8
`
`The Prosecution History ........................................................................ 9
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 10
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 10-20 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`AS OBVIOUS OVER THE NOKIA MANUAL + BARVESTEN .............. 12
`
`A. Nokia ................................................................................................... 12
`
`Page ii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`B.
`
`Barvesten ............................................................................................. 13
`
`C. Motivation And Rationale To Combine Nokia and Barvesten ........... 14
`
`D.
`
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................. 16
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 29
`
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 32
`
`G.
`
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 33
`
`H.
`
`Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 34
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 36
`
`Claim 16 .............................................................................................. 40
`
`K.
`
`Claims 17-20 ....................................................................................... 42
`
`VIII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 10-20 ARE UNPATENABLE
`AS OBVIOUS OVER BARVESTEN IN VIEW OF SCHULTZ ................. 44
`
`A.
`
`Schultz ................................................................................................. 44
`
`B. Motivation And Rationales To Combine Barvesten And Schultz ...... 45
`
`C.
`
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................. 47
`
`D.
`
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 55
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 56
`
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 57
`
`G.
`
`Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 57
`
`H.
`
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 59
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Claim 16 .............................................................................................. 61
`
`Claims 17-20 ....................................................................................... 62
`
`IX. NO OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .............................. 64
`
`Page iii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 65
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 66
`
`
`
`
`
`Page iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................11
`
`Board Decisions
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.,
`Case IPR2019-00224, -00225, -00226,
`-00227, -00228, -00229 (PTAB April 3, 2019) ..................................................6, 7
`
`Intex Recr. Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp.,
`IPR2018-00871, Paper 14 at 13 (PTAB Sept. 14, 2018) ....................................... 4
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks,
`IPR2015-00486, Paper 10, 2015 WL 4760578 (PTAB July 15, 2015 ................... 4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................. 13, 45
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ......................................................................................................3, 4
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340 ..................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page v
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,836,654 (“the ’654 patent”)
`
` File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,654
`
` Nokia 9000i Owner’s Manual (“Nokia Manual”)
`
` Business Week names Nokia 9000i Communicator a “Best New
`Product”, Nokia Press Release, Published January 14, 1998,
`
` Nokia introduces the new Nokia 9000i Communicator for GSM
`Markets, Nokia Press Release, February 6, 1998
`
` U.S. Patent 5,940,773 (“Barvesten”)
`
` Declaration of Steven Harris (with Exhibit A)
`
` Communication Device Inactivity Password Lock, Charles P.
`Schultz, November 1996 (“Schultz”)
`
` French Application No. 9916136
`
` Declaration of Henry Houh, dated August 8, 2019 (“Houh
`Decl.”)
`
`1011
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,913,175 (“Pinault”)
`
`1012
`
` Intentionally left blank
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
` Luca Benini et al., Policy Optimization for Dynamic Power
`Management, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of
`Integrated Circuits and Systems, Vol. 18, No. 6, June 1999
`
` Declaration of Timo Henttonen
`
` Docket Navigator List of Cases involving U.S. Patent 6,836,654
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page vi
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`1.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Microsoft Corporation is the sole real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The ’654 patent (Ex. 1001) is asserted in the following litigations:
`
`• Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 8:19-cv-00781 (C.D. Cal.),
`
`filed April 29, 2019;
`
`• Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 3:19-cv-01697 (C.D. Cal.), filed
`
`April 2, 2019;
`
`• Uniloc 2017 LLC v. HTC America, Inc., 2:18-cv-01732 (W.D. WA),
`
`filed November 30, 2018;
`
`• Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, 1:18-cv-01844 (DED),
`
`filed November 20, 2018;
`
`• Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. Google LLC, 2:18-cv-00493 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`November 17, 2018;
`
`• Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-
`
`00508 (E.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018;
`
`• Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., 2:18-cv-00509
`
`(E.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018;
`
`Page vii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`• Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. Google LLC, 2:18-cv-00422 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`October 1, 2018;
`
`• Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-
`
`00357 (E.D. Tex.), filed August 14, 2018;
`
`• Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, 1:18-cv-01230
`
`(DED), filed August 10, 2018;
`
`• Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al.,
`
`2:18-cv-00309 (E.D. Tex.), filed July 23, 2018;
`
`• Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-
`
`00310 (E.D. Tex.), filed July 23, 2018;
`
`• Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 1:18-cv-00293 (W.D. Tex.), filed
`
`April 9, 2018.
`
`The ’654 Patent is involved in the following proceedings before the Board:
`
`• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01218 (Claims 1-9);
`
`• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01219 (Claims 10-20).
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing another IPR petition challenging claims 1-9
`
`of the ’654 patent.
`
`Page viii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`The following patent application alleges priority to the ’654 patent or its
`
`alleged priority application: French Appl. No. 9916136, priority date December 21,
`
`1999.
`
`3.
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Todd M. Siegel, Reg. No. 73,232
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`(First Back-Up)
`Andrew M. Mason, Reg. No. 64,034
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`
`John M. Lunsford, Reg. No. 67,185
`john.lunsford@klarquist.com
`
`Joseph T. Jakubek, Reg. No. 34,190
`joseph.jakubek@klarquist.com
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon, 97204
`503-595-5300 (phone)
`503-595-5301 (fax)
`
`Petitioner consents to service via email at the above email addresses.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), concurrently filed with this petition is a
`
`Power of Attorney executed by Petitioner and appointing the above counsel.
`
`
`
`Page ix
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 10-20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,654 (“’654 patent”) (Ex. 1001),
`
`allegedly assigned to Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons set forth
`
`below, these claims should be found unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’654 patent is directed at protecting against theft of a mobile
`
`radiotelephony device that is linked to a particular user identification module.
`
`Specifically, the ’654 patent disclosure aims at protecting mobile devices by
`
`preventing normal operation of the device upon expiration of a predefined period of
`
`inactivity. Normal operation of the device can be resumed only upon supplying a
`
`“debugging code” known only to the particular user linked to the device. But, as
`
`discussed herein, this functionality was known in the prior art more than a year
`
`before the priority date of the ’654 patent.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PER SECTION 42.104(A)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’654 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the patent claims on
`
`the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A.
`
`Statement Of The Precise Relief Requested / Statutory Grounds
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 10-20 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of the ’654 patent, on the following statutory grounds:
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`Ground 1 Nokia 9000i Communicator
`Owner’s Manual (“Nokia Manual”)
`in view of U.S. Patent No.
`5,940,773 (“Barvesten”)
`
`Ground 2 U.S. Patent No. 5,940,773
`(“Barvesten”) in view of
`“Communication Device Inactivity
`Password Lock” (“Schultz”)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`10-20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`10-20
`
`In Sections VII-VIII below, the petition presents evidence of unpatentability
`
`and establishes a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail in establishing
`
`that each Challenged Claim is unpatentable.
`
`With the filing of this petition an electronic payment of $30,500 for the
`
`requisite fees is being charged to deposit account no. 02-4550. 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a).
`
`Any fee adjustments may be debited/credited to the deposit account.
`
`B. No Examiner Addressed These Unpatentability Grounds
`
`This petition relies on the Nokia 9000i Communicator Owner’s Manual (Ex.
`
`1003, “Nokia Manual”), as well as the combination of U.S. Patent No. 5,940,773
`
`(Ex. 1006, “Barvesten”) with Motorola’s Communication Device Inactivity
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`Password Lock” (Ex. 10081, “Schultz”). Neither “the same [n]or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d).
`
`The Nokia Manual is not cited by the ’654 patent, nor was it discussed during
`
`prosecution, and expressly discloses many of the limitations of the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`Prior art reference Barvesten is not cited by the ’654 patent, nor was it
`
`discussed during prosecution. As shown below, Barvesten provides express
`
`teachings on many of the claim limitations of the ’654 patent. These teachings, which
`
`show that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious, were not considered
`
`by the Examiner.
`
`Prior art reference Schultz is also not cited by the ’654 patent, nor was it
`
`discussed during prosecution. Schultz provides important details on the “timing” and
`
`“period of inactivity” claim limitations, which appears to be what the ’654 patent
`
`alleges to be the point of novelty over what is admitted prior art. Notably, both
`
`Barvesten and Schultz were, identified in an apparent prior art search report during
`
`prosecution of the ’654 patent’s counterpart French patent application. Ex. 1002, 51-
`
`52/175. While these references were listed on an IDS, nothing suggests the U.S.
`
`
`1 Ex. 1008 is a duplicate copy of the Schultz paper attached to the Declaration of
`Steven Harris (Ex. 1007). Ex. 1008 was obtained from www.ip.com.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`Examiner was aware of, much less considered, their disclosures during prosecution.
`
`Indeed, the Examiner did not even initial that he had reviewed either Barvesten or
`
`Schultz, confirming that he lacked the benefit of their teachings. See Microsoft Corp.
`
`v. Parallel Networks, IPR2015-00486, Paper 10, 2015 WL 4760578, at *8 (PTAB
`
`July 15, 2015 (rejecting argument that institution be denied under Section 325(d),
`
`because, though listed on an IDS, “the references were not applied against the claims
`
`and there is no evidence that the Examiner considered the particular disclosures cited
`
`by … the Petition” and because “the ex parte nature of the reexaminations differs
`
`from the adversarial nature of an inter partes review”); see also e.g., Intex Recr.
`
`Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp., IPR2018-00871, Paper 14 at 13 (PTAB Sept. 14,
`
`2018) (references initialed in an IDS, but not discussed or used as basis for
`
`rejections, received only “[c]ursory consideration ... [that] weighs against exercising
`
`discretion to deny under § 325(d)”).
`
`Because these key teachings in the prior art were not previously considered
`
`by the Office, this petition should not be denied under § 325(d).
`
`C. Microsoft’s Petition Should Be Granted Despite Other
`Third-Party Petitions Challenging The Same Patent
`
`On July 23, 2018, Uniloc filed a complaint against Samsung, accusing it of
`
`infringing the ’654 patent. Over nine months later, Uniloc filed suit against
`
`Microsoft, alleging infringement of the same patent. While Samsung already has
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`filed petitions challenging claims of the ’654 patent, Microsoft’s challenges are not
`
`redundant and should be separately considered and instituted for several reasons.
`
`First, Microsoft independently developed its grounds and petition, and
`
`promptly files this petition just over three months after first being sued. Second,
`
`Microsoft files this petition before any patent owner response to Samsung’s
`
`petitions. Third, while Microsoft relies on some of the same art applied in the
`
`Samsung petitions, the Nokia Manual, it presents that art in a different light and
`
`combines it with other art not cited in the Samsung petition. For example, the present
`
`petition combines the Nokia Manual with Barvesten, whereas Samsung combines it
`
`with two different references. Fourth, Microsoft presents a ground based on
`
`Barvesten and Schultz, neither of which were even cited in the Samsung petitions,
`
`much less relied on as part of a ground of unpatentability. Fifth, Patent Owner chose
`
`to assert this patent in a temporally staggered fashion against numerous defendants,
`
`and the staggered filing of these responsive IPR petitions results from the Patent
`
`Owner’s decision to assert its patent in serial, instead of simultaneous, lawsuits.2
`
`Finally, the Samsung IPR proceedings may settle or otherwise terminate for reasons
`
`outside of Microsoft’s control. If Microsoft were time-barred under § 315 at that
`
`
`2 According to Docket Navigator, the purported patent owner has asserted the ’654
`patent against at least 7 different defendants, in 6 different district courts, with
`complaint filing dates that span from April 9, 2018 to April 29, 2019. See Ex. 1015.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`point, it would have no recourse to challenge the patent via IPR, thus necessitating
`
`the filing of this petition now. While joinder theoretically is an option, it is too risky
`
`given that institution of the Samsung IPRs is not guaranteed and if Microsoft waited
`
`to file its own petition, Uniloc would no doubt accuse Microsoft of unwarranted
`
`delay and gamesmanship.
`
`D. Microsoft’s Concurrent Petition Challenges Different Claims
`
`As noted above, Petitioner is concurrently filing another IPR petition
`
`challenging different claims of
`
`the ’654 patent, namely IPR2019-01470.
`
`Specifically, this petition challenges claims 10-20 of the ’654 patent, several of
`
`which are being asserted against Petitioner in the underlying district court litigation.
`
`Concurrently filed IPR2019-1470 challenges only claims 1-9 of the ’654 patent.
`
`Notably, claims 1-9 recite means plus function language, which is not found in
`
`claims 10-20. It is possible that the Board will determine that corresponding
`
`structure is lacking in the specification for the functions recited by claims 1-9.
`
`Petitioner is mindful of the July 2019 Trial Practice Guide Update’s
`
`discussion of parallel petitions challenging the same patent. Importantly, the update
`
`cites Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., Case IPR2019-00224, -
`
`00225, -00226, -00227, -00228, -00229 (PTAB April 3, 2019) wherein the petitioner
`
`filed six separate petitions challenging claims 1-28 of the same patent. This is not
`
`that case. Although Petitioner here is filing two petitions against the same patent, no
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`claim is being challenged in both petitions, and Petitioner contends that the Board
`
`should give consideration to all challenged claims. Nonetheless, pursuant to the
`
`guidance in Comcast, Petitioner notes that it would prioritize this petition over
`
`IPR2019-01470, which challenges claims 1-9, none of which is presently asserted
`
`against Petitioner in the underlying district court litigation.
`
`IV. THE ’654 PATENT
`
`The ’654 patent, titled “Anti-Theft Protection For A Radiotelephony Device”
`
`issued on December 28, 2004. The ’654 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/739,507 (the “’507 application”), filed on December 18, 2000.
`
`A. Admitted Prior Art
`
`As noted above, the ’654 patent is directed at protecting against theft of a
`
`mobile radiotelephony device (now more commonly referred to as merely a mobile
`
`device, mobile phone, or cell phone) by preventing normal operation of the device
`
`under certain circumstances. The technology relies on a user identification module
`
`that is linked to the device.
`
`The ’654 patent describes as prior art devices capable of linking a device with
`
`a “specific user identification module and blocking the normal operation of the
`
`device when the user identification module that is placed inside the device is not the
`
`one that is linked to the device.” Ex. 1001, 1:26-30. The ’654 patent cites U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,913,175 (“Pinault,” Ex. 1011) as an example of such admitted prior art.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`The ’654 patent specification goes on to explain that when the Pinault device is lost
`
`or stolen, the user must contact the operator to block use of the device at the network
`
`level. Id., 1:30-35. Of course, this means that the device can be used by anyone for
`
`as long as it takes for the operator to be contacted and subsequently prevent the
`
`device’s operation. Id., 1:35-37.
`
`B.
`
`The ’654 Patent’s Specification
`
`The ’654 patent aims to resolve the stated problem and improve device
`
`security by describing a device which
`
`(1) verifies a user identification module mounted inside
`
`the mobile radiotelephony device is linked to the mobile
`
`radiotelephony device, (2) detects a period of inactivity of
`
`the mobile radiotelephony device during a normal
`
`operation of the mobile radiotelephony [sic] device,
`
`wherein the normal operation includes a processing of all
`
`outgoing calls, and (3) prevents the normal operation of
`
`the mobile radiotelephony device in response to the
`
`verification of the user identification module and in
`
`response to the detection of the period of inactivity of the
`
`mobile radiotelephony device.
`
`Id., 1:39-51.
`
`More specifically, the ’654 patent discloses that the process begins when a
`
`user chooses to lock a device with a particular identification module. Id., 2:67-3:1.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`Upon making such a selection, the device reads the date in the identification module
`
`and automatically links the device to the identification module by storing the date
`
`(e.g., the international identification number IMSI) in the device’s random-access
`
`memory. Id., 3:1-5. Once locked, the device remains available for normal operation
`
`when the proper identification module is inserted in the device. Id., 3:6-7. Since the
`
`identification module data is stored on the device, the device is able to check whether
`
`an unlinked identification module is subsequently inserted into the device. Id., 3:3:6-
`
`30.
`
`The ’654 patent additionally describes a time-based security mechanism.
`
`Specifically, once the device verifies that the identification module is linked to the
`
`device, the device determines “whether the device has remained in the state of
`
`availability for a certain period of time …” Id., 3:31-35. If the predetermined period
`
`of time has passed, the device becomes blocked for normal operation. Id., 3:35-40.
`
`At this point, the device can become available again for normal operation only with
`
`the user “supplying a deblocking code (for example, the Personal Identification
`
`Number) PIN.” Id., 3:40-43.
`
`C. The Prosecution History
`
`As noted above, the ’654 patent issued from the ’507 application filed on
`
`December 18, 2000. The ’654 patent purports to relate to a French patent application
`
`(No. 9916136, Ex. 1009) filed on December 21, 1999. Ex. 1001. In August 2003,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`the U.S. Patent Examiner rejected the original ten claims. Ex. 1002, 56-64/175. In
`
`December 2003, the Applicant amended the Abstract, Drawings, and Specification.
`
`Id., 67-84/175. The Applicant also canceled all original ten claims and submitted
`
`twenty new claims. Id.
`
`The Examiner issued multiple rejections over the prior art, relying on Pinault
`
`as a primary reference. Id., 60-64/175, 88-94/175. The Examiner acknowledged,
`
`however, that Pinault did not disclose the claimed “timing means” limitations. Id.,
`
`60/175. For this limitation, the Examiner relied on U.S. Patent No. 6,095,416
`
`(“Grant”), which discloses a credit card that “includes a PIN code and once the code
`
`is entered, the card is activated only for a predetermined period of time, after which
`
`it becomes disabled …” Id., 61/175. Ultimately, the Applicant persuaded the
`
`Examiner that the pending claims were not rendered obvious by this combination as
`
`Grant discloses system a where the device was disabled after a predetermined period
`
`of time, irrespective of any period of inactivity. Id., 112-113/175. Thus, the ’654
`
`patent issued on December 28, 2004.
`
`V. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The person of ordinary skill in the art in December 2000 (“PHOSITA”) would
`
`have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and one year
`
`of general programming experience. Ex. 1010 (Declaration of Henry Houh), ¶ 43.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Additional experience may substitute for education, and addition education may
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`substitute for experience. Id.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`For inter partes review, claim terms should be given the ordinary meaning that
`
`the terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art on the earliest effective
`
`filing date, in view of the specification and file history. 83 Fed. Reg. 51340; Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Certain claim terms specifically identified below benefit from construction to
`
`clarify their ordinary meaning. In all events, Petitioner applies herein the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of all claim terms, whether or not Petitioner proposes a clarifying
`
`claim construction. Petitioner does not waive any argument in any litigation that
`
`claim terms in the ’654 patent are indefinite or otherwise invalid, nor does Petitioner
`
`waive its right to raise additional issues of claim construction in any litigation.
`
`Deblocking/Debugging Code
`
`Petitioner contends that two phrases that should be construed are “deblocking
`
`code” and “debugging code.” Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, and 19 each recites a “deblocking
`
`code.” Claim 15 recites a “debugging code.” The Abstract of the ’654 Patent recites
`
`a “debugging code,” but not a “deblocking code,” while the “Summary of the
`
`Invention” and “Description Of A Preferred Embodiment Of The Invention”
`
`sections recite a “deblocking code,” but not a “debugging code.” Notably, the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`prosecution history makes clear that these phrases are interchangeable. See Ex. 1002,
`
`104-117/175 (amending claims to recite “deblocking code” instead of “debugging
`
`code”; it appears as though the Examiner may have unintentionally failed to reject
`
`original claim 25 for reciting “debugging code” as all other claims were rejected for
`
`reciting “debugging code,” and then later amended to recite “deblocking code”
`
`instead). Id., 87-108/175.
`
`In any event, the specification describes “deblocking code” as being formed
`
`by a Pin Code, Personal Identity Number, that when entered, can return the device
`
`to normal operation. Ex. 1001, 2:11-14, 3:40-42. Thus, deblocking/debugging code
`
`should be interpreted to encompass a string of characters, such as a PIN code, that
`
`can be entered to return a device to normal operation.
`
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 10-20 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`AS OBVIOUS OVER THE NOKIA MANUAL + BARVESTEN
`
`As detailed below, claims 10-20 are unpatentable as obvious over the Nokia
`
`Manual combined with Barvesten.
`
`A. Nokia
`
`As noted above, this petition relies on the Nokia Manual (Ex. 1003). More
`
`specifically, the Nokia Manual is the “Owner’s Manual” for Nokia’s 9000i
`
`Communicator, which was “a mobile phone, messaging device, Internet access
`
`terminal and palmtop organizer all in one compact unit.” Ex. 1003, 7/131. The 9000i
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`Communicator device was on sale in the United States by at least November 1997.
`
`Ex. 1014 (Timo Henttonen, former Nokia engineer, testifying about the
`
`commercialization of the 9000i Communicator and distribution of the Nokia Manual
`
`to customers). A copy of the Nokia Manual was provided to customers of the device
`
`with each sale of the device, and at least thousands of copies of the Nokia Manual
`
`were distributed to customers in the United States by December 1, 1998. Id.; see also
`
`Ex. 1004, Ex. 1005. Thus, the Nokia Manual qualifies as prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b).
`
`B.
`
`Barvesten
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,773 is titled “Access Controlled Terminal And Method
`
`For Rendering Communication Services,” and names Mats Olof Barvesten
`
`(“Barvesten”) as inventor. Ex. 1006. Barvesten issued on August 17, 1999, and was
`
`originally assigned to Ericsson, Inc. Ericsson is a multinational company that has
`
`been manufacturing and selling telephones and related equipment for over 100 years.
`
`The subject matter discussed in Barvesten relates generally to mobile
`
`telephone services, and more specifically, directed at improving security for mobile
`
`telephone subscribers. For example, Barvesten recognizes that unsecure mobile
`
`telephones are at risk of being stolen, including those that are not locked such that
`
`anybody can use the device other than just the particular subscriber for the device.
`
`Ex. 1006, 1:10-24. Barvesten noted that one way to protect the device is to lock the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`device, and to also lock the access unit card that is inserted into the device, such that
`
`a user has to both enter a code to unlock the device and then enter a different code
`
`to unlock the access unit card that is inserted into the device. Ex. 1006, 1:25-28.
`
`Barvesten provides a solution such that a user does not have to enter two
`
`different codes upon every activation of the device. Ex. 1006, 1:44-48. For example,
`
`Barvesten provides an arrangement wherein upon activating a device (mobile
`
`phone), the device and SIM-card (Subscriber Identity Module) communicate with
`
`each other. The IMSI-code (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) is stored in the
`
`device’s memory. Then, when the device is used, the device can verify whether the
`
`currently-inserted SIM-card is authorized by comparing the IMSI-code with the code
`
`in memory. Ex. 1006, 4:7-61.
`
`C. Motivation And Rationale To Combine Nokia and Barvesten
`
`A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`Nokia Manual with Barvesten, and would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in making the combinatio