throbber
Paper 8
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: December 10, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
`LLC, and SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00889
`Patent 8,457,228 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
`JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, and Samsung Austin
`
`
`
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2015
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00034
`Page 1 of 12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00889
`Patent 8,457,228 B2
`
`
`Semiconductor, LLC (collectively, “Petitioner”) request inter partes review
`
`
`
`of claims 1–3, 5, 10 and 11–21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,228 B2 (“the ’228
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 2 (Petition, or
`
`“Pet.”). Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP (Patent Owner) filed a
`
`preliminary response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) provided by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.107. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review
`
`as to any of the challenged claims of the ’228 patent.
`
`
`Related Proceeding
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’228 patent is involved in the following
`
`lawsuit: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics
`
`Company, No. 2:13-cv-00213 (E.D. Tex. 2013). Pet. 1. The ’228 patent has
`
`also been challenged in the following cases: IPR2014–00890; IPR2014–
`
`00891; IPR2014–00892; IPR2014–00893; and IPR2014–00895.
`
`
`
`The ’228 Patent
`
`The ’228 patent issued from an application filed August 4, 2011,
`
`which claimed priority, through a chain of intervening applications, under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 120 to an application filed December 4, 1998, and which claimed
`
`priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 to a provisional application filed December 5,
`
`1997.
`
`The technical field of the patent relates to data communications and
`
`modulators/demodulators (modems), and in particular to a data
`
`communications system in which a plurality of modems use different types
`
`2
`
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2015
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00034
`Page 2 of 12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00889
`Patent 8,457,228 B2
`
`
`
`of modulation in a network. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 21–25; col. 1, l. 58–col. 2, l.
`
`23.
`
`
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative.
`
`1. A master communication device configured to
`communicate with one or more slave transceivers according to
`a master/slave relationship in which a slave communication
`from a slave device to the master communication device occurs
`in response to a master communication from the master
`communication device to the slave device, the master
`communication device comprising:
`a master transceiver configured to transmit a first
`message over a communication medium from the master
`transceiver to the one or more slave transceivers, wherein the
`first message comprises:
`first information modulated according to a first
`modulation method,
`second information, including a payload portion,
`modulated according to the first modulation method, wherein
`the second information comprises data intended for one of the
`one or more slave transceivers and
`first message address information that is indicative
`of the one of the one or more slave transceivers being an
`intended destination of the second information; and
`said master transceiver configured to transmit a second
`message over the communication medium from the master
`transceiver to the one or more slave transceivers wherein the
`second message comprises:
`third information modulated according to the first
`modulation method, wherein the third information comprises
`information that is indicative of an impending change in
`modulation to a second modulation method, and
`fourth information, including a payload portion,
`transmitted after transmission of the third information, the
`fourth information being modulated according to the second
`
`3
`
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2015
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00034
`Page 3 of 12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00889
`Patent 8,457,228 B2
`
`modulation method, the second modulation method being of a
`different type than the first modulation method, wherein the
`fourth nformation comprises data intended fora single slave
`transceiver of the one or moreslave transceivers, and
`second message address informationthatis
`indicative of the single slave transceiver being an intended
`destination of the fourth nformation; and
`wherein the second modulation methodresults in a
`higher data rate than the first modulation method.
`
`PriorArt and Other Evidence Included with Petition
`
`Boeretal.
`(“Boer”)
`
`Siwiak
`
`US 5,706,428
`
`Jan. 6, 1998 (Ex. 1006)
`
`US 5,537,398
`
`July 16, 1996 (Ex. 1007)
`
`TEEE P802.11, Draft Standardfor Wireless LAN, Medium Access Control
`(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specification, P802.11D4.0, May 20,
`1996 (Ex. 1004) (“Draft Standard”)
`
`Declaration of Robert O’Hara, Mar. 11, 2014 (Ex. 1023).
`
`Asserted Grounds ofUnpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 2—3):
`
`Evidence
`
`Basis (35 U.S.C.)
`
`Claims
`
`11-20
`
`Draft Standard
`
`§ 102(b)/103(a)
`
`1-3, 5, 10, and
`11-20
`
`Draft Standard and Boer
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1-3, 5, 10, and
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2015
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00034
`Page 4 of 12
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00889
`Patent 8,457,228 B2
`
`Draft Standard and
`APA!or Siwiak
`Draft Standard and
`APA, Siwiak, or Boer
`
`
`
`§ 103(a
`
`21
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A. AssertedAnticipation and Obviousness Grounds Based on Draft
`Standard
`
`The dispositive issue in this proceeding is whether Draft Standard, on
`
`whichbothofPetitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability rely, is a
`
`printed publication.
`
`B. Overview ofDraft Standard (Ex. 1004)
`
`Draft Standard is an unapproved draft ofa proposed IEEE (Institute of
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Standard. Ex. 1004,i.7 The purpose
`
`of the proposed standard was“[t]o provide wireless connectivity to
`
`automatic machinery, equipment[, or] stations that require rapid
`
`deployment, which maybeportable, or hand-held or which may be mounted
`
`on moving vehicles within a local area” and “|[t]o offer a standard for use by
`
`regulatory bodies to standardize accessto one or more frequency bandsfor
`
`the purpose oflocal area communication.” Jd. at 1.
`
`' Admitted priorart.
`
`* In this Decision, we referto the original pagination of Draft Standard
`rather than the Exhibit page number.
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2015
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00034
`Page 5 of 12
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00889
`Patent 8,457,228 B2
`
`
`
`C. Declaration of Robert O’Hara (Ex. 1023)
`
`
`
`Mr. Robert O’Hara was an editor of the IEEE 802.11-1997 standard.
`
`Ex. 1023 ¶ 1; Ex. 1004, iii. Mr. O’Hara states that drafts of the 802.11-1997
`
`standard, including Draft Standard, were available to members of the 802.11
`
`Working Group for download from the 802.11 Working Group’s server. Ex.
`
`1023 ¶ 9. According to Mr. O’Hara, announcements were sent to the
`
`Working Group’s e-mail list when drafts became available, and a person
`
`could be added to the Working Group’s e-mail list by providing an e-mail
`
`address to the chair of the Working Group. Id. ¶¶ 9–10. Mr. O’Hara states
`
`that there “were no restrictions on who could attend the 802.11 Working
`
`Group’s meetings [or] on who could provide an e-mail address” and that,
`
`according to his “recollection,” anyone who made a request to be added to
`
`the e-mail list would be added. Id. ¶ 10.
`
`Mr. O’Hara states that the copies of the drafts of the Standard
`
`available on the Working Group’s servers were password-protected files,
`
`and that the members of the e-mail list were provided with passwords to
`
`access the documents, either as part of an announcement of a new draft or
`
`via “another way.” Id. ¶ 11. According to Mr. O’Hara, the passwords were
`
`intended to limit distribution to “interested individuals, as opposed to the
`
`entire [I]nternet.” Id. Mr. O’Hara also states that attending an 802.11
`
`Working Group meeting or asking for access prior to a meeting
`
`demonstrated sufficient interest such that that person would receive the
`
`password necessary to access the drafts on the Working Group’s server. Id.
`
`Further, according to Mr. O’Hara, each of the 802.11 standard drafts,
`
`including Draft Standard, would have been discussed at the Working Group
`
`meetings and made available to all attendees. Id. ¶ 12. Mr. O’Hara also
`
`6
`
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2015
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00034
`Page 6 of 12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00889
`Patent 8,457,228 B2
`
`
`states that the meetings were not limited to IEEE members but were open to
`
`
`
`the general public. Id.
`
`
`
`D. Analysis of Whether Draft Standard Is a Printed Publication
`
`We look to the underlying facts to make a legal determination as to
`
`whether a document is a printed publication. Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL
`
`Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The determination of whether a
`
`document is a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves a
`
`case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding its
`
`disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345,
`
`1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Public accessibility is a key question in determining
`
`whether a document is a printed publication and is determined on a case-by-
`
`case basis. Suffolk Techs., 752 F.3d at 1364. To qualify as a printed
`
`publication, a document “must have been sufficiently accessible to the
`
`public interested in the art.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009).
`
`The O’Hara Declaration is the only extrinsic evidence that Petitioner
`
`submits in support of its position that Draft Standard is a printed publication.
`
`See Pet. 14–15. Petitioner asserts that Draft Standard “was completed on
`
`May 20, 1996, and was available to anyone who wanted to view it on May
`
`23, 1996.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 4, 5, 10, and 12) (emphasis
`
`added). Petitioner indicates, initially, that this availability resulted in a
`
`publication date of May 23, 1996. Pet. 14. Petitioner also argues that Draft
`
`Standard “was available to any interested parties” no later than July 8, 1996,
`
`because it “was available to all members of the 802.11 Working Group’s
`
`email list” and discussed and distributed at an 802.11 Working Group
`
`7
`
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2015
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00034
`Page 7 of 12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00889
`Patent 8,457,228 B2
`
`
`
`meeting held July 8–12, 1996. Id. at 15. Thus, Petitioner concludes that this
`
`alleged distribution and availability to any interested parties by July 8, 1996
`
`renders Draft Standard a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Id. at 15–16.
`
`Notably absent, however, from the Petition and Mr. O’Hara’s
`
`declaration are any assertions or evidence in support of the availability of
`
`Draft Standard to the public interested in the art. We do not find sufficient
`
`argument or evidence to indicate that the July 8–12 meeting of the 802.11
`
`Working Group (or any other 802.11 Working Group meeting) was
`
`advertised or otherwise announced to the public. Nor do we find sufficient
`
`argument or evidence that any individual who was interested in the art
`
`would have known about Draft Standard such that he or she would have
`
`known to request a copy or ask to be added to an email list for access to the
`
`document.
`
`“A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory
`
`showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made
`
`available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the
`
`subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(quoting Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006)). Although Mr. O’Hara declares that “[t]here were no restrictions
`
`on who could attend the 802.11 Working Group’s meetings” (Ex. 1023 ¶ 10)
`
`and that the meetings “were open to the general public” (id. ¶ 12), Petitioner
`
`has not presented persuasive argument or evidence regarding how members
`
`of the potentially interested public would have been made aware of these
`
`meetings. Similarly, although Mr. O’Hara declares that an individual could
`
`8
`
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2015
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00034
`Page 8 of 12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00889
`Patent 8,457,228 B2
`
`
`
`provide the chair with an e-mail address to be added to the Working Group’s
`
`e-mail list (id. ¶ 10), the Petition has not established how an individual
`
`would have known to attend a meeting or contact the chair in order to be
`
`added to the e-mail list.
`
`Based on the evidence before us, we find that the purpose of the
`
`802.11 Working Group’s storage of drafts of the standard on a server is
`
`similar to the placement of a file on an “FTP server solely to facilitate peer
`
`review in preparation for later publication,” which the U.S. Court of Appeals
`
`for the Federal Circuit found weighed against public accessibility of the file.
`
`SRI Int’l, 511 F.3d at 1197. In SRI, even though the “paper was ‘posted’ on
`
`an open FTP server and might have been available to anyone with FTP
`
`know-how and knowledge of the” subdirectory in which it resided, the
`
`Federal Circuit found the fact that the paper was not publicized suggested an
`
`absence of public availability. Id. In this case, the submitted evidence does
`
`not show that the 802.11 Working Group’s server was an open server and, to
`
`the extent that it was, the evidence shows that the documents were password
`
`protected. Ex. 1023 ¶ 11.
`
`Moreover, notwithstanding Mr. O’Hara’s statement that passwords
`
`were distributed to the 802.11 Working Group e-mail list (id.), the fact that
`
`an interested individual needed to contact IEEE in order to obtain a
`
`password or other means of accessing Draft Standard (and needed to know
`
`who to contact in the first place) weighs against public accessibility. Cf.
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1351 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008) (finding facts weighed towards public accessibility because “[t]he
`
`specifications themselves were visible to any member of the interested
`
`public without requesting them from an ETSI member”). Mr. O’Hara states
`
`9
`
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2015
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00034
`Page 9 of 12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00889
`Patent 8,457,228 B2
`
`
`that the drafts of the 802.11 standards, including Draft Standard, were (and
`
`
`
`still are) protected by passwords in order to limit distribution to “interested
`
`individuals, as opposed to the entire [I]nternet.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 11. However,
`
`as previously discussed, the record does not contain persuasive evidence
`
`showing how an individual outside the 802.11 Working Group would have
`
`known of the existence of the Draft Standard, the 802.11 Working Group
`
`meetings, or the 802.11 Working Group itself. Therefore, we are not
`
`persuaded that such an individual, exercising reasonable diligence, would be
`
`able to change his status from an anonymous member of “the entire
`
`[I]nternet” to an “interested individual.” Moreover, the Working Group
`
`created Draft Standard. See Ex. 1023 ¶ 2. Provision of a document to co-
`
`authors of the document does not constitute dissemination, or availability, of
`
`the document to the public.
`
`Therefore, based on the evidence Petitioner provided, we conclude
`
`Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that Draft Standard was a
`
`printed publication as of July 1996 or earlier, as alleged, i.e., that Draft
`
`Standard was available as of July 1996 or earlier to an ordinarily skilled
`
`individual, exercising reasonable diligence, who might have been interested
`
`in the subject matter of Draft Standard.
`
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Because Petitioner has not met its burden in establishing that Draft
`
`Standard is a “printed publication” and, thus, prior art, Petitioner has not
`
`shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds asserted.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2015
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00034
`Page 10 of 12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00889
`Patent 8,457,228 B2
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`on the grounds that the challenged claims are anticipated by, or obvious
`
`over, Draft Standard or obvious over Draft Standard and prior art references.
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the petition is denied as to all challenged claims and
`
`no trial is instituted.
`
`11
`
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2015
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00034
`Page 11 of 12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00889
`Patent 8,457,228 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Jeffrey Miller
`millerj@dicksteinshapiro.com
`
`Daniel Cardy
`cardyd@dicksteinshapiro.com
`
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Thomas Engellenner
`engellennert@pepperlaw.com
`
`Reza Mollaaghababa
`mollaaghababar@pepperlaw.com
`
`Lana Gladstein
`gladsteinl@pepperlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2015
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00034
`Page 12 of 12
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket