`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................. VIII
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 3
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642 (“the ’642 Patent”) ..................................... 3
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6
`
`D. Denial of IPR2014-01082 ..................................................................... 9
`
`E.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) ................................10
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“key code” ...........................................................................................11
`
`“keystroke indicator signal” ................................................................11
`
`“key code signal” .................................................................................12
`
`“key code generator device” ...............................................................13
`
`“generating a key code within a key code generator device
`using the keystroke indicator signal” ..................................................15
`
`IV. THE CITED GROUNDS DO NOT RENDER ANY CLAIMS
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................16
`
`A. Ground 1: Mishra in View of Dubil Does Not Render Obvious
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, or 9 ......................................................................16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of Mishra ..................................................................16
`
`Overview of Dubil ....................................................................17
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Combined Mishra and
`Dubil ..........................................................................................18
`
`4. Mishra in view of Dubil does not render obvious Claim 1 ......22
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`a. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose “receiving a
`keystroke indicator signal from a remote control
`device, wherein the keystroke indicator signal
`indicates a key on said remote control device that a
`user has selected” ............................................................22
`
`b. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose “generating a
`key code within a key code generator device using
`the keystroke indicator signal” .......................................24
`
`c. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose “modulating said
`key code onto a carrier signal, thereby generating a
`key code signal” ..............................................................25
`
`d. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose “transmitting
`said key code signal from said key code generator
`device to said remote control device” ............................27
`
`5. Mishra in view of Dubil does not render obvious Claim
`3: “The method of claim 1, wherein said key code
`consists of a binary number”.....................................................28
`
`6. Mishra in view of Dubil does not render obvious Claim
`4: “The method of claim 1, wherein said key code
`comprises a binary number and timing information, and
`wherein said timing information defines how said binary
`number is modulated in (c) onto said carrier signal” ................28
`
`7. Mishra in view of Dubil does not render obvious Claim 6 ......29
`
`a. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose “The method of
`claim 1, wherein said carrier frequency is in a
`radio frequency band, wherein said key code signal
`is received by said remote control device, and
`wherein said method further comprises:” .......................29
`
`b. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose “modulating said
`key code onto a second carrier signal, thereby
`generating a second key code signal, said
`modulating being performed on said remote
`control device wherein said second carrier signal is
`in an infrared frequency band” .......................................30
`
`c. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose “transmitting
`said second key code signal from said remote
`control device to an electronic consumer device” ..........31
`
`8. Mishra in view of Dubil does not render obvious claim 8:
`“The method of claim 1, wherein said key code generated
`in (b) is part of a codeset, and wherein said remote
`control device does not store said codeset” ..............................31
`
`9. Mishra in view of Dubil does not render obvious claim 9:
`“The method of claim 8, wherein said codeset comprises
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`timing information and a plurality of key codes, and
`wherein said timing information describes a digital one
`and a digital zero” .....................................................................32
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Rye in View of Dubil Does Not Render Obvious
`Claims 2 or 22-25 ................................................................................34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Overview of Rye .......................................................................34
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Combined Rye and Dubil ..........35
`
`Rye in view of Dubil does not render obvious Claim 2 ...........38
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Rye and Dubil do not disclose “receiving a
`keystroke indicator signal from a remote control
`device, wherein the keystroke indicator signal
`indicates a key on said remote control device that
`user has selected” ............................................................38
`
`Rye and Dubil do not disclose “generating a key
`code within a key code generator device using the
`keystroke indictor signal” ...............................................39
`
`Rye and Dubil do not disclose “modulating said
`key code onto a carrier signal, thereby generating a
`key code signal” ..............................................................40
`
`Rye and Dubil do not disclose “transmitting said
`key code signal from said key code generator
`device to an electronic consumer device” ......................43
`
`Rye in view of Dubil does not render obvious Claim 22:
`“The method of claim 2, wherein said key code consists
`of a binary number” ..................................................................43
`
`Rye in view of Dubil does not render obvious Claim 23:
`“The method of claim 2, wherein said key code
`comprises a binary number and timing information, and
`wherein said timing information defines how said binary
`number is modulated in (c) onto said carrier signal” ................44
`
`Rye in view of Dubil does not render obvious Claim 24:
`“The method of claim 2, wherein said key code generated
`in (b) is part of a codeset, and wherein said remote
`control device does not store said codeset” ..............................44
`
`Rye in view of Dubil does not render obvious Claim 25:
`“The method of claim 24, wherein said codeset
`comprises timing information and a plurality of key
`codes, and wherein said timing information describes a
`digital one and a digital zero” ...................................................45
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Caris in View of Skerlos Does Not Render Obvious
`Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, and 22-25 .............................................................46
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Overview of Caris .....................................................................46
`
`Overview of Skerlos .................................................................47
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Combined Caris and
`Skerlos .......................................................................................47
`
`Caris in View of Skerlos Does Not Render Obvious
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................50
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose “generating a
`key code within a key code generator device using
`the keystroke indicator signal” .......................................50
`
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose “modulating said
`key code onto a carrier signal, thereby generating a
`key code signal” ..............................................................51
`
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose “transmitting
`said key code signal from said key code generator
`device to said remote control device” ............................53
`
`Caris in view of Skerlos does not render obvious Claim 3 ......53
`
`Caris in view of Skerlos does not render obvious Claim 4 ......53
`
`Caris in view of Skerlos does not render obvious Claim 6 ......54
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose “The method of
`claim 1, wherein said carrier frequency is in a
`radio frequency band, wherein said key code signal
`is received by said remote control device, and
`wherein said method further comprises:” .......................54
`
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose “modulating said
`key code onto a second carrier signal, thereby
`generating a second key code signal, said
`modulating being performed on said remote
`control device wherein said second carrier signal is
`in an infrared frequency band” .......................................55
`
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose “transmitting
`said second key code signal from said remote
`control device to an electronic consumer device” ..........56
`
`Caris in view of Skerlos does not render obvious claim 8 .......56
`
`Caris in view of Skerlos does not render obvious claim 9 .......57
`
`10. Caris in view of Skerlos does not render obvious Claim 2 ......58
`
`a.
`
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose “generating a
`key code within a key code generator device using
`the keystroke indictor signal” .........................................58
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose “modulating said
`key code onto a carrier signal, thereby generating a
`key code signal” ..............................................................59
`
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose “transmitting
`said key code signal from said key code generator
`device to an electronic consumer device” ......................59
`
`11. Caris in view of Skerlos does not render obvious Claim
`22 ...............................................................................................59
`
`12. Caris in view of Skerlos does not render obvious Claim
`23 ...............................................................................................59
`
`13. Caris in view of Skerlos does not render obvious Claim
`24 ...............................................................................................60
`
`14. Caris in view of Skerlos does not render obvious Claim
`25 ...............................................................................................60
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................60
`
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .......................................................61
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`No. 2018-2140, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32613 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31,
`2019) ................................................................................................................... 60
`
`Ex Parte Creed Taylor,
`No. 2017-009744, 2018 Pat. App. LEXIS 6083, at *7-9 (P.T.A.B.
`Aug. 1, 2018) ...................................................................................................... 23
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bodrick Washroom Equip.,
`Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................ 12
`
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwool Int'l A/S,
`788 F. App’x 728 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................... 23, 39
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 19, 36, 48
`
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v Toro,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 23
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC,
`662 F. App’x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 20
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................... 6, 8, 11, 12, 24
`
`Personal Web Techs. v. Apple Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................ 19, 36, 48
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 11, 24
`
`Polaris Indus. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 23, 39
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`Puma NA, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.,
`IPR2019-01042, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019) .................................... 20, 21
`
`Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.,
`No. 2019-1368, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34328 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19,
`2019) ................................................................................................................... 60
`
`SpaceCo Business Solutions, Inc. v. Moscovitch,
`IPR2015-00127, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2015) ......................................... 49
`
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................... 20, 36
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`EX2001
`
`EX2002
`
`
`EX2003
`
`EX2004
`
`EX2005
`
`EX2006
`
`EX2007
`
`EX2008
`
`EX2009
`
`EX2010
`
`EX2011
`
`Roku’s Proposed Constructions in the District Court
`Claim Construction Order, UEI, Inc. v. Peel Techs., Inc., Case No.
`8:13-cv-01484 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 17, 2017) (Dkt. 66).
`Declaration of Dr. Michael D. Sprenger in support of Patent
`Owner’s Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,589,642 (“Sprenger Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent. No. 5,963,624 to Pope (“Pope”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,004,389 (“the ’389 Patent”)
`
`IPR2019-01613, Paper 12 (Decision), dated April 1, 2020
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/068,820
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Russ, dated June 17, 2020 (“Russ
`Depo Tr. (June 17, 2020)”)
`IPR2019-01613, Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Russ, dated June
`18, 2020 (“Russ Depo Tr. (June 18, 2020)”)
`IPR2019-01614, Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Russ, dated June
`19, 2020 (“Russ Depo Tr. (June 19, 2020)”)
`IPR2019-01613, EX1003, Declaration of Dr. Samuel H. Russ
`(“Russ Decl. 389 Patent”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`Patent Owner Universal Electronics Inc. (“UEI”) submits this Response
`
`regarding Inter Partes Review of Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, and 22-25 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,589,642 (“the ’642 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`UEI is a leading manufacturer of universal remote controls for electronic
`
`appliances, and as conceded by Petitioner’s expert Dr. Russ during his deposition,
`
`UEI was a major manufacturer of remote controls in the mid-2000s when it
`
`invented the technology described in the ’642 Patent (EX2008 at 11:11-12:8). As
`
`also conceded by Dr. Russ, at the time of the invention of the ’642 Patent, there
`
`were no other commercial remote control devices that included all the
`
`advancements described in the claims (EX2008 at 111:4-118:17). As a result, and
`
`rather than provide multiple references that together describe the relevant
`
`invention, Petitioner improperly relies on the claims of the ’642 Patent as a
`
`roadmap to cobble together unrelated and inadequate prior art references. Dr. Russ
`
`admitted that was his strategy (see EX2009 at 40:6-12). In so doing, Petitioner
`
`repeats inadequate arguments that were rejected in prior IPRs, ignores the
`
`extensive prosecution history, and ultimately fails to even assert that certain
`
`limitations are met, relying either on conclusory statements or ignoring the
`
`limitation all together.
`
`In addition to an appeal to the Board during prosecution, the ’642 Patent was
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`previously the subject of a petition for inter partes review, IPR2014-01082, which
`
`challenged some of the same claims at issue here. As a part of both of those
`
`reviews, the Board specifically assessed the limitation appearing in all of the
`
`independent claims that the key code is modulated on to a carrier signal. In so
`
`doing, the Board rejected the notion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`simply know to employ the modulation described in the claims. The prosecution
`
`history also clarified that the key code is generated by the key code generator
`
`device, as opposed to being merely forwarded by the remote control device.
`
`Neither the petition nor Dr. Russ addressed the substance of the prior IPR or the
`
`prosecution history, and these fundamental flaws cannot be resolved by the prior
`
`art identified in the grounds.
`
`Although the Board instituted review on three grounds, the Board
`
`preliminarily found that Ground 3 (Caris and Skerlos) was not reasonably likely to
`
`prevail (Paper 7 at 33-34).
`
`In this Response, UEI submits additional evidence, including the declaration
`
`of Dr. Sprenger and deposition testimony of Dr. Russ, to show that each of the
`
`references in the instituted grounds fails to disclose, either alone or in combination,
`
`every element of the challenged claims.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`II. Background
`
`A. Technology Background
`
`The ’642 Patent relates to UEI’s system and methods for relaying key code
`
`signals through a remote control device to operate an electronic consumer device
`
`(EX1001 at 1:6-9). A traditional remote control device controls only one
`
`electronic consumer device because it is programmed with specific key codes from
`
`a codeset associated with that particular device (id. at 1:21-28). Each key code
`
`corresponds to a function (e.g., power on, volume up, etc.) of the selected
`
`electronic consumer device (id.). Manufacturers sometimes use distinct codesets
`
`for different electronic devices, so that one remote control device does not
`
`unintentionally operate multiple or other electronic consumer devices (id. at 1:28-
`
`34; EX2003 at ¶ 48).
`
`Rather than having multiple remote control devices, consumers may prefer
`
`to have a single remote control device that can operate multiple, different
`
`electronic consumer devices when desired (id. at 1:39-42). The ’642 Patent
`
`presents such a single remote control device but without needing to store multiple
`
`codesets in its memory (see id. at 1:42-55).
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642 (“the ’642 Patent”)
`
`On December 16, 2003, U.S. Patent Application No. 10/737,029 (“the ’029
`
`Application”) was filed and eventually issued as the ’642 Patent (EX1001 at Cover
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`Page).
`
`The ’642 Patent enables a single remote control device to operate multiple
`
`electronic consumer devices without requiring the remote control to store multiple
`
`codesets (EX1001 at 1:59-2:36). In the’642 Patent, a key code generator device
`
`generates a key code from a codeset and transmits that key code on a carrier signal
`
`to a remote control device in a first embodiment or an electronic consumer device
`
`in a second embodiment (see, e.g., id. at 1:59-2:21, 3:27-35, 5:37-40, 6:35-42.)
`
`Claim 1 relates to the first embodiment. In this embodiment, a user selects a
`
`key on a remote control device, which creates a keystroke indicator signal
`
`(EX1001 at 3:36-48). The keystroke indicator signal is transmitted to a key code
`
`generator device (id. at 3:48-50). The key code generator device uses the
`
`keystroke indicator signal to generate a key code (id. at 4:24-34), which is then
`
`modulated onto a carrier signal to generate a key code signal (id. at 4:35-5:36).
`
`The key code generator device transmits that key code signal back to the remote
`
`control (id. at 5:37-40). The remote control receives the key code from the key
`
`code signal (e.g., in a radio-frequency) and then modulates the key code onto a
`
`second carrier signal resulting in a second key code signal (e.g., in an infrared
`
`frequency), which the remote control transmits to an appliance to control that
`
`appliance (id. at 5:41-6:6).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`
`
`(EX2003 at ¶ 68).
`
`Claim 2 relates to a second embodiment, which works similarly to the first
`
`embodiment except that instead of transmitting the key code signal from the key
`
`code generator device back to the remote control, it is transmitted directly to an
`
`appliance to control that appliance (EX1001 at 6:7-42.)1
`
`
`1 The claims of the ’642 Patent are related to but not limited to these described
`
`embodiments.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`
`
`(EX2003 at ¶ 70).
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The prosecution history was extensive, and Petitioner’s cursory review
`
`ignores the Applicant’s numerous statements defining the scope of his invention
`
`(Petition at 9-11). Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003).
`
`First, the Applicant repeatedly differentiated the claimed invention from
`
`references that merely disclose translating or converting a signal that already
`
`includes the control code into another format. In particular, in response to
`
`rejection in view of U.S Patent No. 5,963,624 (“Pope”), the Applicant argued that
`
`“Pope does not receive a keystroke indicator and then generate a key code”
`
`because the “appliance control codes are not generated within the base unit 12 of
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`Pope. Instead, the appliance control codes are transmitted from the handset 10/50
`
`to the base unit 12, where they are translated into control signals” (EX1002 at 72
`
`(emphasis added); EX2004 at 3:36-38).
`
`Therefore, the Applicant made clear that a device that “receives the
`
`appliance control codes and then translates them into infrared control signals”
`
`cannot satisfy the claim limitation “generating a key code within a key code
`
`generator” because the key code is received rather than generated (EX1002 at 74).
`
`And because the key code is received, there is also no “receiving a keystroke
`
`indicator signal,” which must be distinct from the key code signal (id. at 72-73).
`
`The Applicant repeatedly made these distinctions (id. at 117-118, 120, 237-238).
`
`The Appeal Board disagreed with Applicant’s distinctions under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, but that is no longer the claim construction
`
`standard for IPRs (id. at 311). In response, the Applicant amended the claim to
`
`add “wherein the keystroke indicator signal indicates a key on said remote control
`
`device that a user has selected” and “using the keystroke indicator signal,”
`
`“explicitly to limit the scope of the term ‘keystroke indicator signal’” to exclude
`
`the broader interpretation and to narrow “the term ‘keystroke indicator signal’ to
`
`mean an indication of a selected key while precluding a control code” (id. at 323).
`
`Thus, the Applicant expressly disclaimed from the scope of “keystroke
`
`indicator signal,” “generates a key code within a key code generator device using
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`the keystroke indicator signal,” and “wherein the keystroke indicator signal
`
`indicates a key on said remote control device that a user has selected,” a device
`
`that receives a control code and merely translates or converts the code into another
`
`format, such as an infrared signal. Omega Eng’g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1327.
`
`Second, the Applicant repeatedly differentiated the claims from transmitting
`
`an entire codeset rather than a key code. In response to rejection in view of U.S
`
`Patent No. 5,410,326 (“Goldstein”), the Applicant repeatedly argued that Goldstein
`
`did not teach “a key code generator because the cable television converter box of
`
`Goldstein receives complete codesets from a remote database and is loaded with
`
`complete codesets” (EX1002 at 121, 75). The Applicant explained that “Claim 2
`
`recites transmitting a key code signal to the remote control device and does not
`
`recite transmitting a codeset to the remote control device” (id. at 75-76 (emphasis
`
`added), 241-242). Although the Appeal Board reversed the Examiner’s rejection
`
`on other grounds (id. at 308), the Applicant expressly disclaimed that a key code
`
`signal can be satisfied by an entire codeset.
`
`Third, during Appeal, the Examiner argued that it would have been obvious
`
`to modulate the key code onto a carrier signal in view of a reference describing
`
`modulation because it “represents a conventional practice of providing means for
`
`wireless transmission from a remote control” (EX1002 at 263). However, the
`
`Board rejected that merely describing modulation techniques was enough to
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`disclose modulating a key code onto a carrier signal (id. at 308).
`
`Petitioner ignores these material statements and relies on the very
`
`disclosures in its asserted art that the Applicant made clear are outside the claim
`
`scope. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Russ, also fails to consider the prosecution history
`
`(EX1003 at ¶ 11; EX2008 at 91:1-21).
`
`D. Denial of IPR2014-01082
`
`Claims 2, 5, 22, and 23 of the ’642 Patent were previously challenged and
`
`denied institution.
`
`In that petition, “Petitioner argue[d] that [prior art] inherently discloses
`
`modulating the key code onto a carrier signal because it discloses transmission of
`
`the key code via an infrared link” (EX1002 at 374). That petitioner and its expert
`
`asserted that “an IR signal necessarily requires modulation of the code data on a
`
`carrier signal” (id.). But, the Board found that there was “no support for [the
`
`expert’s] broad statements that transmission of codes requires modulation onto a
`
`carrier signal” (id. at 376). The expert provided only “conclusory statements” that
`
`were insufficient to satisfy petitioner’s burden (id.).
`
`The current Petition mischaracterizes that Board’s decision, stating that
`
`“While a POSITA would have understood that modulation of a key code onto a
`
`carrier signal was well-known, due to deficiencies in the Petition in adequately
`
`providing proof, the Board denied institution” (Petition at 12). That Board did not
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`find that modulation of a key code onto a carrier signal was well-known. The issue
`
`was whether modulation of the key code was inherently required. And to that
`
`issue, that Board found that “Petitioner’s argument and evidence do not show
`
`sufficiently that transmission of a key code via an infrared link necessarily requires
`
`modulation of the key code” (EX1002 at 374). The current Petition misses that the
`
`deficiency in the previous IPR (and during prosecution) was why a POSITA would
`
`modulate onto a carrier signal, not how to modulate onto a carrier signal. The
`
`Petition fails to remedy this deficiency because it only provides the latter and not
`
`the former.
`
`E.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`
`A POSITA, at the time of filing, would have had a bachelor’s degree which
`
`involved computer programming coursework, for example, electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science, cognitive science, mechanical
`
`engineering, industrial engineering, or a similar degree, and at least one year of
`
`work experience in software programming, user interfaces, or human factors.
`
`Additional education might substitute for some of the experience, and substantial
`
`experience might substitute for some of the educational background (POPR at 4-5).
`
`Petitioner proposes that a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering or an equivalent degree with two years of work experience
`
`relating to communications and consumer electronics (Petition at 12-13).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`UEI’s expert, Dr. Sprenger, analyzed the prior art under both definitions, and
`
`the differences in definitions did not affect the outcome of his analysis (EX2003 at
`
`¶¶ 34-40).
`
`III. Claim Construction
`
`Claims are interpreted under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Terms are generally given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as understood by a POSITA in light of the specification
`
`and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. A term will not receive its
`
`ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as her own lexicographer and clearly set
`
`forth a definition of the term in the specification or prosecution history. Id. at
`
`1316. Similarly, if the intrinsic evidence reveals an intentional disclaimer, or
`
`disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor, the inventor has dictated the correct
`
`claim scope, and the inventor's intention is dispositive. See id.; Omega Eng’g, Inc.,
`
`334 F.3d at 1327.
`
`A.
`
`“key code”
`
`The parties agree that “key code” means “a code corresponding to the
`
`function of an electronic device, optionally including timing information” (Paper 7
`
`at 11). UEI agrees with the Board’s preliminary adoption of this construction.
`
`B.
`
`“keystroke indicator signal”
`
`The parties agree that “keystroke indicator signal” means “a signal, distinct
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`from a key code, corresponding to a pressed key [on a remote control]” (Paper 7 at
`
`11). UEI agrees with the Board’s preliminary adoption of this construction.
`
`Additionally, UEI clarifies that “distinct from a key code” means that the
`
`keystroke indicator signal cannot contain the claimed key code, as expressly
`
`disclaimed during prosecution (see II.C; EX1002 at 323 (“the term ‘keystroke
`
`indicator signal’ to mean an indication of a selected key while precluding a control
`
`code . . . amending claim 1 explicitly to limit the scope of the term”). Omega
`
`Eng’g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1327. This is consistent with the ordinary meaning of
`
`“distinct from a key code” and the specification (e.g., EX1001 at 7:67-8:3).
`
`Moreover, the claims require a “keystroke indicator signal” distinct from a “key
`
`code signal,” so the terms cannot be defined the same (e.g., EX1001 at 10:16-19).
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bodrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008).
`
`C.
`
`“key code signal”
`
`UEI agrees with the Board’s preliminary finding that “key code signal” is “a
`
`signal containing a modulated key code” (Paper 7 at 12).
`
`UEI additionally clarifies that “a signal containing a modulated key code”
`
`excludes a codeset from the same signal. Not only is that the plain meaning, the
`
`claim language supports this understanding (e.g., EX2008 at 57:2-17; EX1001 at
`
`10:18-19 (“modulating said key code onto a carrier signal, thereby generating a key
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`code signal” (emphasis added)), 10:65-66 (“wherein said key code generated in (b)
`
`is part of a codeset”)). Key code is singular and distinct from a codeset in the
`
`specification (e.g., EX1001 at 2:27-28; 4:25). And the Applicant repeatedly
`
`argued during prosecution that “Claim 2 recites transmitting a key code signal to
`
`the remote