`
`Robert J. Davies
`In re Patent of:
`6,993,049
`U.S. Patent No.:
`January 31, 2006
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 09/876,514
`Filing Date:
`June 7, 2001
`Title:
`COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 19688-0058IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`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 STATES PATENT
`NO. 6,993,049 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................ 1
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)................................. 1
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’049 PATENT ............................................................. 3
`A. Brief Description ....................................................................................... 3
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date ........................ 5
`
`III. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ..................................... 6
`A. “inquiry message[s]” ................................................................................. 8
`
`IV. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ...... 12
`A. [GROUND 1] – Claims 11 and 12 are obvious in view of Larsson ....... 13
`B. [GROUND 2] – Claims 11 and 12 are obvious over Larsson in view of
`BT Core ................................................................................................... 33
`C. [GROUND 3] – Claims 11 and 12 are obvious over IrOBEX ............... 43
`
`V.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................. 57
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 57
`
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ......................... 57
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................. 57
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................... 57
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 58
`D. Service Information ................................................................................ 59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049 to Davies (“’049 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’049 Patent (“the Prosecution His-
`tory”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles Knutson
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Charles Knutson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,704,293 (“Larsson”)
`
`IrDA Object Exchange Protocol (“IrOBEX”)
`
`Prosecution History of the 7,587,207 Patent (“207 Prosecution
`History”)
`
`Second Declaration of Dr. Charles Knutson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,587,207 (“Davies” or the “’207 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,570,857 (“Haartsen”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,480,505 (“Johansson”)
`
`Specification of the Bluetooth System: Wireless connections
`made easy, Profiles, Vol. 2, Bluetooth, Dec. 1, 1999 (“BT
`Profiles”)
`The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical
`Principles, Vol. 1, Clarendon Press, 1993 (“Oxford
`Dictionary”)
`Specification of the Bluetooth System: Wireless connections
`made easy, Core, Vol. 1, Bluetooth, Dec. 1, 1999 (“BT Core”)
`
`ii
`
`LG-1001
`
`LG-1002
`
`LG-1003
`
`LG-1004
`
`LG-1005
`
`LG-1006
`
`LG-1007
`
`LG-1008
`
`LG-1009
`
`LG-1010
`
`LG-1011
`
`LG-1012
`
`LG-1013
`
`LG-1014
`
`
`
`
`
`LG-1015
`LG-1016
`
`LG-1017
`
`LG-1018
`
`LG-1019
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`U.S. Patent No. 6,683,886 (“Tuijn”)
`Internet Archive Capture of http://www.bluetooth.com:80/de-
`veloper/specification/specification.asp from March 1, 2000
`Internet Archive Capture of http://www.bluetooth.com:80/de-
`veloper/specification/core.asp from March 1, 2000
`Internet Archive Capture of http://www.bluetooth.com:80/de-
`veloper/specification/order.asp from March 1, 2000
`Internet Archive Capture of
`http://www.bluetooth.com:80/news/archive/archive.asp from
`March 4, 2000
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG” or “Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) of claims 11 and 12 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,993,049 (“’049 Patent”). As explained in this petition, there exists a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable based on teachings set forth in at
`
`least the references presented in this petition. LG respectfully submits that an IPR
`
`should be instituted, and that the Challenged Claims should be canceled as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`I. 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 ’049 Patent is available for IPR, and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the Challenged Claims
`
`on the grounds identified in this petition. Petitioner was first served with a
`
`complaint of infringement of the ’049 patent less than one year prior to the filing of
`
`this Petition.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Re-
`quested
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims based on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Grounds
`Ground 1
`Ground 2
`
`’049 Patent Claims
`11 and 12
`11 and 12
`
`Ground 3
`
`11 and 12
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`Grounds for Unpatentability
`§ 103 over Larsson
`§ 103 over Larsson in view of BT
`(Bluetooth) Core
`§ 103 over IrOBEX
`
`The ’049 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 09/876,514, filed June 7,
`
`2001, which claims priority from British Application No. 0015454, filed June 26,
`
`2000, and British Application No. 0020076, filed August 15, 2000. Petitioner
`
`takes no position on whether the ’049 Patent is entitled to an earlier priority date,
`
`but only applies prior art earlier than June 26, 2000 (the “Critical Date”).
`
`Larsson (Ex. 1005) qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C § 102(e).
`
`Specifically, Larsson is a patent that was filed on Dec. 6, 1999, before the Critical
`
`Date. Ex. 1005, Cover.
`
`IrOBEX (Ex. 1006) qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C §§ 102(a)
`
`and 102(b). Specifically, IrOBEX is a technical publication that was published by
`
`the Infrared Data Association on March 18, 1999, more than one year before the
`
`Critical Date. Specifically, the IrOBEX protocol was published on a website,
`
`www.irda.org, maintained by the Infrared Data Association and available to the
`
`general public through the website. Ex. 1008, [2]-[11], [14]-[20]. The IrOBEX
`
`protocol also was distributed to IrDA members through IrDA’s email reflector
`
`list. Ex. 1008, [12]-[14], [21]-[23]. At the very least, IrOBEX was published on
`
`2
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`the Internet no later than October 11, 1999, before the Critical Date. Ex. 1008, [2]-
`
`[11], [14]-[20].
`
`BT (Bluetooth) Core (Ex. 1014) qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C
`
`§ 102(a). Specifically, BT Core is a technical publication that was published by
`
`the Bluetooth SIG on December 1, 1999, before the Critical Date. Ex. 1014, p 1;
`
`Ex. 1003, [64]. For example, the Bluetooth Core specification was released and
`
`available for download or order from Bluetooth’s website in December 1999 (at
`
`least by March 1, 2000). Ex. 1016, p 1 (“Download specification”); Ex. 1017, p 1
`
`(“Specification of the Bluetooth System - Core”); Ex. 1018, p 1 (“On this page you
`
`can order the printed version of the Bluetooth Specification 1.0. You can also
`
`download an Adobe Acrobat file of the complete specification free of charge
`
`(choose ‘Specification Intro’ in the menu to the right)”); Ex. 1019, p 1 (“New
`
`revision of the Bluetooth 1.0 Specification released”).
`
`
`
`Additional explanation and support for the positions explained herein are set
`
`forth in the Declaration of Dr. Charles Knutson (Ex. 1003), referenced throughout
`
`this petition.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’049 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`The ’049 Patent generally relates to a wireless communication system in
`
`which devices, such as Human/Machine Interface Devices (HIDs), are connected
`
`3
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`to a wireless network, such as Bluetooth. Ex. 1001, 1:3-7, 1:27-32. A HID “is an
`
`input device such as a keyboard, mouse, games controller, graphics pad or the like”
`
`that “do[es] not typically require a link having high data throughput, but do[es]
`
`require a very responsive link.” Ex. 1001, 1:29-33; Ex. 1003, [30]-[31].
`
`The ’049 Patent describes several potential problems related to setting up a
`
`link between a HID and a wireless communication network. For example, setting
`
`up the link involves executing connection procedures (e.g., inquiry and page
`
`procedures), which may result in several tens of seconds of delay for the HID to
`
`join the network. Ex. 1001, 1:34-61. Also, inefficiencies may occur if the HID is
`
`designed to connect to the network automatically when a host system is turned on,
`
`because the HID has “to be regularly waking up to look for … inquiry bursts,
`
`thereby consuming power, or it will need to be manually woken up by the user.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:62-2:3; Ex. 1003, [32].
`
`To address the above-noted problems, the ’049 Patent proposed use of an
`
`additional data field for polling HIDs. Ex. 1001, 2:18-35. Specifically, “[t]he
`
`applicants … recognized that it is possible to piggy-back a broadcast channel on
`
`the inquiry messages issued by the master,” where “[t]he broadcast channel can be
`
`used to poll HIDs at regular intervals.” Ex. 1001, 4:15-18; Ex. 1003, [33].1
`
`As shown in FIG. 5 (reproduced below), a “standard inquiry packet is an ID
`
`
`1 All emphasis added, unless otherwise noted.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`packet (ID PKT) 502.” Ex. 1001, 4:59-66. To enable faster polling, the “inquiry
`
`messages issued by [a] base station have an extra field 504 appended to them,
`
`capable of carrying a HID poll message.” Id.
`
`additional data
`field for polling
`
`
`’049 Patent, FIG. 5 (with annotations in red)
`
`“The extended field 504 may carry a header that signifies a HID poll to
`
`distinguish it from other applications of extended field information, such as
`
`context-aware services or broadcast audio.” Ex. 1001, 4:59-66. “By adding the
`
`field to the end of the inquiry message, … non-HID receivers can ignore it without
`
`modification” while the HID receiver being polled can respond. Ex. 1001, 5:6-9;
`
`Ex. 1003, [34]-[35].
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date
`B.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date of the ’049 Patent
`
`(“POSITA”) would have had a Master’s of Science Degree (or a similar technical
`
`Master’s Degree, or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical
`
`engineering or computer engineering with a concentration in wireless
`
`communication systems or, alternatively, a Bachelors Degree (or higher degree) in
`
`an academic area emphasizing electrical or computer engineering and having two
`
`5
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`or more years of experience in wireless communication systems. Ex. 1003, [36].
`
`Additional education in a relevant field, or industry experience may compensate
`
`for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above. Ex. 1003,
`
`[36]-[37]. Unless noted otherwise in this Petition, references to what would have
`
`been known or understood by a POSITA refer to the knowledge of a POSITA as of
`
`the Critical Date, or before.
`
`III. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`For IPR petitions filed prior to November 13, 2018, a claim subject to IPR is
`
`given its “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Because Petitioner requests to
`
`be joined as a party to an IPR proceeding (IPR2019-00251) where the petition was
`
`filed before November 13, 2018, the broadest reasonable interpretation standard
`
`should be applied in the joined proceeding and Petitioner has maintained, in this
`
`copycat petition, the broadest reasonable interpretation analysis set forth in the
`
`prior petition. See, e.g., LG Electronics Inc. v. Cywee Group LTD., IPR2019-
`
`00559, Paper 21 at pp. 34-35 (PTAB 2019); Priceline.com LLC et al. v. DDR
`
`Holdings, LLC, IPR2019-00439, Paper 9 at p. 10 (PTAB 2019); Pfizer Inc. v.
`
`Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH, IPR2019-00980, Paper 12 at p. 8 (PTAB
`
`2019). To the extent Patent Owner argues that the Phillips standard should be
`
`applied to the present IPR petition, Petitioner disagrees given the request for
`
`6
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`joinder and, yet, submits that the result of the analysis of the prior art, for the
`
`purposes of this proceeding only, will not change under the Phillips standard.
`
`For this proceeding only, Petitioner submits constructions for the following
`
`term.2
`
`
`2 Petitioner’s claim construction proposals are for the sole purpose of determining
`
`whether the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the Challenged Claims. Nei-
`
`ther by making these proposals, nor by analyzing the cited art, does Petitioner con-
`
`cede that any Challenged Claim meets statutory standards for patent claiming. Pe-
`
`titioner recognizes that IPR is not an appropriate forum to address certain issues,
`
`such as the patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or the fail-
`
`ure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, and, therefore reserves all rights to contend
`
`that one or more Challenged Claims are invalid for reasons out of scope for IPR,
`
`including but not limited to the failure to claim patentable subject matter under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101, and lack of definiteness or lack of written description under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112. The failure to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`or the presence of definiteness and description problems in the Challenged Claims
`
`is no bar to IPR in appropriate circumstances; the Board may set aside such issues
`
`when reviewing claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. E.g., Vibrant Media, Inc.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`All remaining terms should be given their broadest reasonable ordinary
`
`meaning.3
`
`A.
`“inquiry message[s]”
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), an “inquiry message”
`
`encompasses a “message seeking information or knowledge.” Ex. 1003, [38]-[39].
`
`The ’049 Patent describes the use of an inquiry message in communications
`
`between a primary station and a secondary station. Ex. 1001, 2:22-67, 4:25-30,
`
`claims 1-12. As an example, the ’049 Patent describes use of a Bluetooth inquiry
`
`message. Ex. 1001, 1:11-55, 4:11-28. In Bluetooth, an inquiry message “allows a
`
`would-be slave to find a base station and issue a request to join the piconet.” Ex.
`
`1001, 1:54-57, 4:11-13 (“The Bluetooth inquiry procedure allows a would-be slave
`
`101 to find a base station and issue a request to join its piconet”); see also Ex.
`
`1012, pp 37, 38. Specifically, in Bluetooth, a master device sends an inquiry
`
`
`v. Gen’l Elec. Co., IPR2013-00172, Final Written Decision, 6–11 (PTAB July 28,
`
`2014).
`
`3 Because the standards of claim interpretation applied in litigation differ from
`
`USPTO proceedings, any interpretation of claim terms in this IPR is not binding
`
`upon Petitioner in any litigation related to the subject patent. See In re Zletz, 13
`
`USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`message to seek one or more “inquiry response messages” from one or more
`
`nearby devices. Ex. 1001, 4:48-58; Ex. 1012, pp 29, 31, 37-39. The inquiry
`
`response messages include information needed by the master device to “page” and
`
`connect with the one or more nearby devices. Ex. 1001, 4:48-58; Ex. 1012, pp 29,
`
`31, 37-39, 89, 90, 185. In this way, a device sends a Bluetooth inquiry message to
`
`seek information or knowledge needed to communicate with another device. Ex.
`
`1003, [40]-[41].
`
`Further, the ’049 Patent is clear that its “inquiry message” is not limited to
`
`Bluetooth. Specifically, the ’049 Patent describes that “the inquiry procedure is
`
`not restricted to Bluetooth devices and is applicable to other communications
`
`arrangements.” Ex. 1001, 3:24-29, see also 1:6-8. In fact, claim 5 limits “the first
`
`communications protocol” to “Bluetooth messaging,” confirming through claim
`
`differentiation that the first communications protocol is broader than Bluetooth and
`
`that the claimed inquiry message is broader than a Bluetooth inquiry message. Ex.
`
`1001, 8:5-6; see SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp, 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1985)(“It is settled law that when a patent claim does not contain a certain
`
`limitation and another claim does, that limitation cannot be read into the former
`
`claim in determining either validity or infringement”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1324-27 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“the presence of a dependent claim that adds
`
`a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is
`
`9
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`not present in the independent claim.”) Although claim 5 depends from claim 1, it
`
`modifies the exact same term (first communications protocol) in claim 11, and
`
`informs the scope and meaning attributed to the “first communications protocol” in
`
`claims 1 and 11. With this background, the specification of the ’049 Patent
`
`contemplates inquiry messages as messages seeking information or knowledge.
`
`Ex. 1003, [42].
`
`Additionally, the Board has previously construed the term “inquiry
`
`message” in related U.S. Patent No. 7,587,207 (“’207 Patent”). Ex. 1007, pp 41,
`
`44. The ’207 Patent’s prosecution history is informative here because the ’207
`
`Patent and the ’049 Patent have similar claims, similar disclosure, share the same
`
`inventor and assignee, and were filed on the same day, i.e., June 7, 2001. See Ex.
`
`1001; Ex. 1009. For instance, FIGS. 3-5 of the ’049 Patent, which relate to inquiry
`
`messages, are the same as FIGS. 3-5 of the ’207 Patent. Ex. 1001, FIGS. 3-5; Ex.
`
`1009, FIGS. 3-5; Ex. 1003, [43]. Further, portions of the ’049 Patent specification
`
`related to describing inquiry messages in view of FIGS. 3-5 are identical to
`
`portions of the ’207 Patent specification related to FIGS. 3-5. Ex. 1001, 4:21-47;
`
`Ex. 1009, 6:60-7:23. Also, the independent claims in both patents identically recite
`
`“a series of inquiry messages, each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data
`
`fields arranged according to a first communications protocol.” Ex. 1001, 7:28-
`
`8:50; Ex. 1009, 11:52-12:50. Further, both the ’207 Patent and ’049 Patent claim
`
`10
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`priority to the same British application, GB 0015454. Because the ’207 Patent and
`
`the ’049 Patent are intrinsically linked by virtue of belonging to the same patent
`
`family and having a common inventor, owner, disclosure, and claims, the Board’s
`
`construction of “inquiry message” during prosecution of the ’207 Patent is
`
`instructive in construing the same term in the ’049 Patent. See Polygroup Limited
`
`v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd., IPR2016-01610, Paper 187 at 22 (PTAB Feb. 26,
`
`2018)(citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in
`
`the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”).
`
`Specifically, during an ex parte appeal in the prosecution of the ’207 Patent,
`
`the Board construed an “inquiry message” as “a message seeking information or
`
`knowledge.” Ex. 1007, 41, 44. The Board’s prior construction is consistent with a
`
`POSITA’s understanding of the terms “inquiry” and “message,” as evidenced by
`
`the Board’s citation to a dictionary definition in arriving at this construction. Ex.
`
`1007, 41, 44; Ex. 1003, [43]-[45]; see also Ex. 1013, p 1376 (defining “inquire” as
`
`“seek knowledge of (a thing) by asking a question” and an “inquiry” as “the
`
`putting of a question, asking, interrogation”). Furthermore, as mentioned above,
`
`the Board’s prior construction is consistent with the disclosure of an inquiry
`
`11
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`message in the specification of the ’049 Patent. Ex. 1001, 1:54-61; Ex. 1003, [45];
`
`see also Ex. 1012, pp 29, 31, 37-39, 89, 90, 185.4
`
`Thus, under the BRI standard, the Board should remain consistent with its
`
`prior, reasonable construction and construe an “inquiry message” as encompassing
`
`a “message seeking information or knowledge.” Ex. 1003, [46].
`
`IV. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS
`Larsson, Larsson and BT Core, and IrOBEX render obvious all limitations
`
`of the Challenged Claims, thereby invalidating the Challenged claims of the ’049
`
`Patent. As detailed below, this request shows a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to the Challenged Claims of the ’049 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 The prosecution history of the ’207 and ’049 Patents does not include a dis-
`
`claimer of the Board’s construction of “inquiry message.” In fact, the ’207 Patent
`
`assignee distinguishes “inquiry message” from advertising messages and a phone
`
`number in office action responses during prosecution of the ’207 Patent, but does
`
`not rebut the Board’s construction of “inquiry message.” Ex. 1007, 41, 44, 112;
`
`see also Ex. 1002.
`
`12
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`[GROUND 1] – Claims 11 and 12 are obvious in view of
`Larsson
`Overview of Larsson
`Larsson is related to updating and maintaining route information in wireless
`
`ad-hoc networks, such as Bluetooth networks. Ex. 1005, 1:14-40. In particular,
`
`Larsson discloses a method to: 1) speed up the signaling required to set up a route
`
`between a source and destination node, and 2) minimize the “number of broadcast
`
`messages required for setting up a route from [the] source node to [the] destination
`
`node when employing reactive protocols currently being used for transmitting in an
`
`ad-hoc network.” Ex. 1005, 2:25-50, 3:64-4:10, 4:32-36; Ex. 1003, [47].
`
`To accomplish its objective, Larsson implements a “route discovery
`
`technique for use in a Bluetooth scatternet” in which “broadcast messages [for]
`
`which the source node expects a reply message [are combined] with broadcast
`
`messages for route discovery. In so doing, the broadcast messages for which a
`
`source node expects a reply message can also be used to support route discovery.”
`
`Ex. 1005, 5:35-50; Ex. 1003, [48].
`
`According to Larsson’s route discovery technique, a source node in the
`
`Bluetooth scatternet generates a broadcast message and determines whether a reply
`
`is expected to the broadcast message. Ex. 1005, FIG. 6A (reproduced below),
`
`5:60-6:2. If the source node does expect a reply, “the source node piggybacks the
`
`broadcast message in a request for route broadcast message.” Ex. 1005, FIG. 6A,
`
`13
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`6:2-8. Next, the source node broadcasts the request for route message with the
`
`piggybacked broadcast message to its neighbor nodes. Ex. 1005, FIG. 6A, 6:10-
`
`15; Ex. 1003, [49].
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 6A (partly shown)
`
`“[B]roadcast messages [are] processed by some or all of the neighbor nodes
`
`at the same time or during similar time periods.” Ex. 1005, 10:32-38. In
`
`particular, a neighbor node receives the request for route message and determines
`
`whether the node has already processed the request for route message. Ex. 1005,
`
`FIG. 6A, 6:18-25; Ex. 1003, [50]. After “the node determines that the request for
`
`14
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`route message has not been previously processed,” “the node determines whether
`
`the piggybacked data indicates that the node is the destination node. If the
`
`piggybacked data does not indicate that the node is the destination node,” “the
`
`node replaces its address in the request for route message.” Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B
`
`(included below), 6:45-62. “If the piggybacked data indicates that the node is the
`
`destination node,” “the node will piggyback a reply message in the route response
`
`message.” Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B, 6:45-62.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B (partly shown)
`
`Larsson discloses a similar method for obtaining route information in IP networks
`
`by piggybacking DHCP, name resolution, or ARP broadcast messages onto request
`
`for route messages. Ex. 1005, FIGS. 7A, 7B, 7:37-10:31; Ex. 1003, [51].
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`Claim 11 - [11.1]: “A method of operating a communication system comprising
`a primary station and at least one secondary station”
`As noted in the Overview of Larsson above, Larsson discloses a route
`
`discovery technique for use in a communication system, such as a Bluetooth
`
`scatternet. Ex. 1005, 5:35-50; Ex. 1003, [52]. “A scatternet is formed by multiple
`
`independent and unsynchronized piconets.” Ex. 1005, 1:65-67. “A piconet is a
`
`collection of digital devices … connected using Bluetooth technology in an ad-hoc
`
`fashion.” Ex. 1005, 1:47-56. As shown in Larsson’s FIG. 3, piconets 1, 2, and 3
`
`may include master nodes 303, 305, 309 and slave nodes 301, 302, 304, 306, 307,
`
`308, 310, and 311. Ex. 1005, 1:66-2:7.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`Through this disclosure of Bluetooth piconets with master and slave devices,
`
`Larsson describes the same type of communication system with primary and
`
`secondary stations as described by the ’049 Patent. Ex. 1003, [53].
`
`Also, as noted in the Overview of Larsson above, Larsson discloses a
`
`method of operating the communication system by performing route discovery
`
`between a source node and a destination node, and transmitting broadcast
`
`messages from the source node (primary station) to neighboring nodes (at least one
`
`secondary station). Ex. 1005, Abstract, FIGS. 6A-7B, 5:35-67, 11:19-26. In
`
`describing a method for route discovery and message transmission in a wireless
`
`communication system that includes a source node and neighboring nodes, Larsson
`
`discloses “a method of operating a communication system comprising a primary
`
`station and at least one secondary station,” as recited in claim 11 of the ’049
`
`Patent. Ex. 1003, [54].
`
`[11.2]: “the method comprising the primary station broadcasting a series of
`inquiry messages,”
`As noted in the Overview of Larsson above, Larsson’s source node (primary
`
`station) broadcasts messages for route discovery to neighboring nodes (at least one
`
`secondary station) in the communication system. Ex. 1005, 5:35-65. Specifically,
`
`the source node broadcasts the request for route message with the piggybacked
`
`broadcast message (for which a source node expects a reply) to its neighboring
`
`nodes. Ex. 1005, FIG. 6A, 6:10-15; Ex. 1003, [55]. The combined messages are
`
`17
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`transmitted to 1) a destination node, which transmits a route response message in
`
`response to receiving the request for route message, and 2) non-destination nodes,
`
`which rebroadcast the request for route message to its own neighboring nodes in
`
`response to receiving the request for route message. Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B, 6:45-65.
`
`Through this process, a series of request for route messages are broadcast to
`
`multiple neighboring nodes including destination nodes and non-destination nodes.
`
`Ex. 1005, 10:32-38; Ex. 1003, [55]. By broadcasting request for route messages to
`
`multiple neighboring nodes, Larsson’s source node (primary station) broadcasts a
`
`series of request for route messages. Ex. 1003, [55].
`
`Moreover, Larsson’s source node broadcasts a series of request for route
`
`messages when it fails to receive a response to its initial request for route message.
`
`Specifically, in Larsson, “[i]f the source node does not receive a reply to the
`
`request for route message,” the source node “will issue the broadcast again and the
`
`method is repeated.” Ex. 1005, 8:50-55. In this situation, Larsson’s source node
`
`broadcasts a series of request for route messages by initially broadcasting the
`
`request for route message (first message in the series) and then broadcasting the
`
`request for route message again (second message in the series). Ex. 1003, [56].
`
`Furthermore, to the extent Patent Owner argues that Larsson fails to disclose
`
`a series of request for route messages, a POSITA would have found it obvious to
`
`broadcast a series of request for route messages in Larsson based on the dynamic,
`
`18
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`ad-hoc nature of Larsson’s network. Ex. 1003, [57]. As Dr. Knutson explains,
`
`Larsson is implemented in ad-hoc Bluetooth networks, which by their very nature
`
`are dynamic and have changing infrastructure, devices, and location of devices.
`
`Ex. 1005, 1:14-46; Ex. 1012, pp. 327, 331, 507; Ex. 1015, 4:25-5:5; Ex. 1003,
`
`[57]. For example, Tuijn explains that the “status of a single communication
`
`device as a slave unit, a master unit, or a slavemaster unit may dynamically change
`
`during operation of [a] communication system” “supported by the Bluetooth
`
`protocol” and that “[s]lave units can dynamically couple and decouple with a
`
`master unit during communications thereby changing the number of slave units
`
`coupled with the master unit.” Ex. 1015, 4:25-5:5. Consequently,
`
`“[c]ommunication links [ ] are dynamically established [with] intermediate
`
`communication devices” and “the master unit is configured to dynamically couple
`
`and decouple with communication links [ ] associated with dynamic slave units.”
`
`Ex. 1015, 4:48-50, 4:63-66. The “master unit is configured to analyze established
`
`communication links to determine priority of communications with the associated
`
`slave units initially upon communication start-up and following coupling or
`
`decoupling of an associated slave.” Ex. 1015, 4:65-5:5; Ex. 1003, [57].
`
`In view of the dynamic nature of an ad-hoc Bluetooth network and the
`
`“dynamically coupl[ing] and decoupl[ing]” nature of devices in such a network, as
`
`explained for contextual purposes by Tuijn, it would have been obvious to a
`
`19
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0058IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`POSITA that a source node in Larsson would broadcast a series of request for
`
`route messages so that the source node has up-to-date route information between
`
`itself and its neighboring nodes over time. Ex. 1003, [58]
`
`In this manner, communications over broken links with decoupled devices
`
`would be reduced, thereby improving network efficiency. Ex. 1003, [58]; Ex.
`
`1005, 3:12-33. A single request for route message would not be effective in such
`
`dynamic networks with multiple nodes coupling and decoupling to the network.
`
`Ex. 1003, [58]. Thus, to maintain routing information in this type of dynamic
`
`network, a POSITA would have found it obvious to use a series of Larsson’s
`
`request for route messages (e.g., one directed to each of multiple nodes) to initially
`
`establish routes with the various nodes in the network. Ex. 1003, [58]; Ex. 1005,
`
`3:12-33 (Larsson describing how a source node “will request a new route when the
`
`actual route being used is broken.”). Additionally, a POSITA would have found it
`
`obvious to continue sending a series of Larsson’s request for route messages as the
`
`network evolves to maintain current routing information as nodes couple,
`
`decouple, and move within the network. Ex. 1003, [58].