Filed: March 23, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`PETITIONER,
`
`V.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00319
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`I. 
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’435 INVENTION ...................................................... 2 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`II. 
`III.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 4 
`IV.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 5 
`A. 
`“position to a communications tower” .................................................. 5 
`B. 
`Petitioner’s First Proposed Construction is Correct .............................. 5 
`1. 
`The Claim Language and the Specification Support
`Patent Owner’s Construction ...................................................... 5 
`The District Court’s Analysis Supports Patent Owner’s
`Construction ................................................................................ 9 
`Petitioner’s Alternative Construction is Inconsistent with
`the Claim Language and Specification ..................................... 12 
`PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’435 PATENT .................................. 15 
`
`V. 
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES ........................ 16 
`A. 
`Luxon ................................................................................................... 16 
`B. 
`Irvin ..................................................................................................... 20 
`C.  Myllymäki ............................................................................................ 21 
`D. 
`Steer ..................................................................................................... 22 
`VII.  STANDARD FOR GRANTING INTER PARTES REVIEW ....................... 22 
`VIII.  INTER PARTES REVIEW SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED ................... 23 
`A. 
`Institution Should Be Denied Because The District Court
`Litigation Is In Advanced Stages ........................................................ 23 
`The Board Should Deny the Petition Under General Plastic .............. 29 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IX. 
`
`Factor 1 ..................................................................................... 32 
`1. 
`Factor 2 ..................................................................................... 33 
`2. 
`Factor 3 ..................................................................................... 34 
`3. 
`Factor 4 ..................................................................................... 37 
`4. 
`Factor 5 ..................................................................................... 38 
`5. 
`Factors 6 and 7 .......................................................................... 39 
`6. 
`PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS FOR AT LEAST ON CHALLENGED
`CLAIM........................................................................................................... 41 
`A.  Ground 1A & 1B: Claims 1, 2, 3, 8 (Luxon and Irvin) and
`Claim 6 (Luxon, Irvin, and Myllymäki) ............................................... 43 
`1. 
`Petitioner Has Failed to Prove A Motivation to Combine
`Luxon and Irvin ......................................................................... 43 
`The Combination of Luxon and Irvin fails to Disclose the
`“function of a position to a communications tower”
`Sublimination ............................................................................ 45 
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 (Irvin and Myllymäki) ................. 47 
`1. 
`Hindsight Drives Petitioner’s Analysis ..................................... 47 
`2. 
`Irvin Fails to Disclose the Claimed “Power Circuit that
`Provides a Network Adjusted Transmit Power Level…”
`Limitation. ................................................................................. 50 
`Irvin Fails to Disclose “A Transmit Power…Based on
`[the] Network Adjusted Power Level and [the] Proximity
`Transmit Power Level.” ............................................................ 56 
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 (Steer and Irwin) .......................... 57 
`1. 
`There is No “Rational Underpinning” for Modifying
`Steer to Conform to Irvin .......................................................... 57 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Steer Teaches Power Calculations Based Solely On
`Location Relative to a Base Station .......................................... 59 
`The Combination of Steer and Irvin Do Not Disclose “a
`power governing subsystem…[that] determines a
`transmit power level for said portable cell phone based
`on said network adjusted transmit power level and said
`proximity transmit power level.” .............................................. 63 
`
` ................................................. 63 
`XI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 64 
`
`
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`Apple Inc. v. Luxembourg S.A.,
`IPR2017-02041, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2018) ................................................ 42
`Arkie Lures, Inc. V. Advanced Semiconducter Materials Am., Inc.,
`98 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................................. 63
`Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp.,
`533 F.3d 1362 (Fed.Cir.2008) .............................................................................. 14
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 57
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Group, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .............................................................................. 9
`Cisco Systems Inc. v. Egenera, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01342, Paper 10 (PTAB Nov. 10, 2017) .............................................. 57
`Cynosure, Inc. v. Cooltouch, Inc.,
`660 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Mass. 2009) ........................................................... 50, 57
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prod. Co.,
`No. 09-CV-261-WMC, 2014 WL 988755 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 13, 2014) ....... 51, 57
`Edge Endo, LLC v. Michael Scianamblo,
`IPR2018-01320, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2019) ................................................ 23
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp.,
`IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 (PTAB May 15, 2019) ............................................... 26
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ......................................... 28, 36
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................. 41
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 29
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2018-00246, Paper 8 (PTAB June 29, 2019) ................................................. 42
`Huawei Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC,
`IPR2019-01186, Paper 2 (PTAB June 11, 2019) ................................................... 1
`In re Kahn,
`441 F. 3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 58
`In re Rouffet,
`149 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 48
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 58
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 9
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00060, Paper 7 (PTAB April 29, 2019) ............................................... 39
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 41, 58
`
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 41
`NetApp Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC,
`IPR2017-01195, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 12, 2017) ................................................. 37
`Next Caller, Inc. v. TrustID, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00691, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019), ................................. 27, 28, 29
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs. Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ................................................ 25
`Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v. Genuine Enabling Technology LLC,
`IPR2018-00542, Paper 7 (PTAB Aug. 6, 2018) .................................................. 59
`Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`No. CV 04-754 (JCL), 2006 WL 8457598 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2006) ..................... 63
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ....................................................................... 9, 53
`
`Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP, v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`IPR2018-01194, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 10, 2018) .............................................. 54
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`357 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 48
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2017-01305, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 17, 2017) ............................................... 32
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01219, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2020) .................................................... 26
`SAS Inst. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ......................................................................................... 23
`Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech. v. iRobot Corp.,
`IPR2018-00761, Paper 15 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2018) ......................................... 32, 34
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB,
`820 F.3d 419 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 14
`SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp.,
`859 F.2d 878 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 48
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 47
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 51
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 48
`United Fire Protection Corp. v. Engineered Corrosion Solutions, LLC,
`IPR2018-00991, Paper 10 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2018) ................................. 31, 32, 34
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 47
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC,
`IPR2019-01365, Paper 1 (PTAB July 24, 2019) ................................................... 1
`ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC,
`IPR2019-01365, Paper 13 (PTAB Feb. 11, 2020) ........................................ 51, 54
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.,
`IPR2018-01461, Paper 10 (PTAB Feb. 28, 2019) ............................................... 26
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 41
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ........................................................................................................ 65
`35 U.S.C. § 314 (a) .................................................................................................. 22
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................... 23
`Regulations 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ................................................................................................... 65
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................................... 22
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner submits this Preliminary Response, which is timely filed on
`
`March 23, 2020. The Board should deny institution of the Petition for at least three
`
`reasons.
`
`First, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a) because it would not be an efficient use of the Board’s resources in
`
`view of the advanced stage of the district court litigation. The district court has set
`
`trial for December 14, 2020. (Ex. 2001, 8.) If IPR is instituted, the Board’s
`
`statutory deadline for its Final Written Decision would be sometime in June 2021,
`
`five months after the district court trial. Petitioner relies on each prior art reference
`
`used in this Petition in the district court case. (Ex. 2002, 26-28.) The Board should
`
`deny institution to avoid inefficient and duplicative parallel proceedings.
`
`Second, the Board should deny institution under Section 314(a) and the
`
`Board’s General Plastic decision because the Petition is a follow-on Petition in
`
`which LG garners the unfair advantage of having the opportunity to review and
`
`study Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses in previously filed proceedings
`
`challenging the same claims and using the same primary reference, Irvin. (See
`
`Huawei Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC, IPR2019-01186, Paper 2
`
`(PTAB June 11, 2019) (“IPR2019-01186”); ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Bell Northern
`
`Research, LLC, IPR2019-01365, Paper 1 (PTAB July 24, 2019) (“IPR2019-
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`01365”).) This case presents a textbook example of the injustice and inefficiencies
`
`that result from follow-on petitions, particularly as LG had knowledge of the
`
`asserted prior art at least eight months before it filed its Petition.
`
`Third, even if the Board considers the substance of the references, Petitioner
`
`fails to show a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one
`
`challenged claim because it fails to meet its burden to prove that a person of
`
`ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the asserted references, and
`
`that the asserted combinations disclose key claim limitations of all challenged
`
`claims.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny institution of a trial
`
`on all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8) of the ’435 Patent.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’435 INVENTION
`The ’435 Patent is entitled “Proximity Regulation System for Use with a
`
`Portable Cell Phone and a Method of Operation Thereof,” and issued from an
`
`application filed on September 28, 2001.
`
`The ’435 Patent generally relates to a system or method that regulates a cell
`
`phone’s transmission power to reduce potentially harmful radiation when the
`
`phone is proximate to a cell phone user. The specification states:
`
`Typically, the quality of service of a cell phone is proportional to the
`transmit power level of the cell phone. Though no definite proof has
`been determined, health concerns have arisen due to the power used to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`transmit the radio frequency of cell phones when operated close to the
`body of a cell phone user. For example, when held close to the ear,
`many users have health concerns about the high levels of radio
`frequency energy causing damage to brain cells.
`….
`Cell phone users still want the best possible quality of service from
`their cell phone. However, health concerns regarding the transmit
`power of cell phones are now beginning to affect some users.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:33-50.) The background section of the ’435 Patent describes
`
`shortcomings of the prior art:
`
`Manufacturers have tried several options to relieve the fears of
`consumers. One such option involves permanently reducing the power
`of the transmitter in cellphones… [U]nfortunately, this also reduces
`the quality of service of the cell phone. Another option for consumers
`is the use of cell phones with a base that typically allows a higher
`transmit power level of up to three watts…. These type of cell phones,
`however, do not allow the flexibility demanded by consumers that is
`found in the use of a portable cell phone.
`(Id., 1:51-62.)
`
`One aspect of the invention is “a proximity regulation system for use with a
`
`portable cell phone.” (Id., 2:3-5.) This proximity regulation system “includes a
`
`location sensing subsystem and a power governing subsystem, which cooperate to
`
`determine both the proximity transmit power level and when it may be employed.”
`
`(Id., 3:47-51.) The location sensing subsystem determines the location of the cell
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`phone relative to the user, and based on this information, the power governing
`
`subsystem, which is coupled to the location sensing subsystem, determines a
`
`“proximity transmit power level” of the phone. (Id.)
`
`Another aspect is a “power circuit” that produces one level of device’s
`
`transmission power as a function of its position to the cell tower. (Id., 3:31-34.)
`
`The ’435 Patent refers to its Figure 1 and elaborates on the power circuit’s
`
`function, disclosing that “[t]hrough communications with the communications
`
`tower 110 employing the antenna 125, the power circuit,” provides a “network
`
`adjusted transmit power level….” (Id., 3:34-37.) This “network adjusted transmit
`
`power level is based on a transmit signal strength of a communications path
`
`between the communications tower 110 and the portable cell phone 120.” (Id.,
`
`3:39-42.)
`
`According to the invention of the ’435 Patent, the ultimate transmit power
`
`level of the device is determined based on, for example, considering, adjusting, or
`
`modifying the network adjusted transmit power level and the proximity transmit
`
`power level. (See Ex. 1001, 5:24-36; 7:9-40.)
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`For purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner does not
`
`dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. (Pet., 7.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“position to a communications tower”
`Petitioner provided two alternate constructions of “position to a
`
`communications tower.” (Pet., 9-11.) Petitioner’s first construction mirrors the
`
`construction proposed by Patent Owner in related litigation; “transmit signal
`
`strength of a communications path between the communications tower and the
`
`portable cell phone.” (Pet., 9; Ex. 1010, 63-71.) Petitioner’s alternative proposed
`
`construction calls for plain and ordinary meaning, which is restated in the
`
`alternative to mean; “location to a communications tower.” (Pet., 10.)
`
`B.
`Petitioner’s First Proposed Construction is Correct
`Petitioner’s first construction, i.e., that “position to a communications tower”
`
`means “transmit signal strength of a communications path between the
`
`communications tower and the portable cell phone,” is the correct one, as all
`
`pertinent evidence establishes.
`
`1.
`
`The Claim Language and the Specification Support Patent
`Owner’s Construction
`Claim 1 of the ’435 Patent states:
`
`
`
`1. A portable cell phone, comprising:
`
`a power circuit that provides a network adjusted
`transmit power level as a function of a position to a
`communications tower; and
`a proximity regulation system, including:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`a location sensing subsystem that determines a
`
`location of said portable cell phone proximate a user;
`and
`a power governing subsystem, coupled to said
`
`location sensing subsystem,
`that determines a
`proximity transmit power level of said portable cell
`phone based on said location and determines a
`transmit power level for said portable cell phone based
`on said network adjusted transmit power level and said
`proximity transmit power level.
`In this claim, the “network adjusted transmit power level” is described as a
`
`function of a “position to a communications tower.” Accordingly, any elaboration
`
`within the specification on the function that determines the network adjusted
`
`transmit power level is important to construing this term. The specification
`
`contains at least three such instances.
`
`The first instance states:
`
`The network adjusted transmit power level is based on
`a transmit signal strength of a communications path
`between the communications tower 110 and the
`portable cell phone 120.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 3:39-42.) This statement parallels the term from claim 1; namely:
`
`“network adjusted transmit power level as a function of a position to a
`
`communications tower.” Both phrases reference the same term: “network adjusted
`
`transmit power level.” The specification’s statement that this term is “based on a
`
`transmit signal strength of a communications path between the communications
`
`tower 110 and the portable cell phone 120,” would cause a POSITA to understand
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`that claim 1’s “network adjusted transmit power level as a function of a position to
`
`a communications tower,” means “network adjusted transmit power level as a
`
`function of a transmit signal strength of a communications path between the
`
`communications tower and the portable cell phone.” (See Ex. 2003, ¶¶38-42.)
`
`The second instance in the specification also confirms that “network
`
`adjusted transmit power level” is determined by the communications path between
`
`the portable cell phone and the communications tower:
`
`After adjusting the transmit power level, the portable
`cell phone then transmits at a reduced level in a step
`350. In one embodiment, the adjusted transmit power
`level may not exceed the network adjusted transmit
`power level as determined by the communications
`path between the portable cell phone and the
`communications tower. In other embodiments, the
`adjusted transmit power level may be reduced to the
`proximity transmit power level.
`
`(Ex. 1001 7:21-26) (emphasis added).
`
`Although the excerpt above includes language referring to a particular
`
`embodiment, this language refers to the relative power of the ultimately adjusted
`
`transmit power level of the cell phone, and not the statement that the network
`
`adjusted transmit power level is determined by the communications path between
`
`the portable cell phone and communications tower. The transmission signal
`
`strength necessary for a signal to travel between a tower and cell phone is
`
`determined by the communications path along which these signals must travel
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`(taking into account, for example, whether there are natural or man-made
`
`obstructions in the communications path). (See, e.g., Ex. 2005 (William Lee,
`
`Mobile Communications Engineering – Theory and Applications 21-22, McGraw
`
`Hill (2d ed. 1997) (“Terrestrial losses are greatly affected by the general
`
`topography of the terrain….In general the texture and roughness of the terrain tend
`
`to dissipate propagated energy, reducing the received signal strength at the mobile
`
`unit and also at the base station….However, even under the most optimal siting
`
`conditions, there are often hills, trees, and various man-made structure and vehicles
`
`that can adversely affect the propagation of mobile-radio signals.”).)1
`
`The third instance in the specification describing the network adjusted
`
`transmit power level function also supports Petitioner’s first proposed construction:
`
`In one embodiment, the network adjusted transmit
`power level may equal the maximum transmit power
`level of a portable cell phone. In other embodiments,
`the network adjusted transmit power level may be
`a reduction from the maximum transmit power level
`due to the communications path between the
`communications tower and the portable cell
`phone.
`
`
`
`1 This book by William Lee is identified and incorporated by reference into the
`
`specification. (See Ex. 1001, 3:9-13.) Accordingly, this reference constitutes
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`(Ex. 1001 at 7:34-40) (emphasis added). Again, the language in this excerpt
`
`referring to embodiments pertains to the particular value of a network adjusted
`
`transmit power level relative to a cell phone’s maximum transmit power level, and
`
`not the statement that the “network adjusted transmit power level” is “due to the
`
`communications path between the communications tower and the portable cell
`
`phone.”
`
`Accordingly, each of these three instances support the first construction
`
`proposed by Petitioner. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1320-21 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (“[A] claim term may be clearly redefined without an explicit statement
`
`of redefinition” and “[e]ven when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional
`
`format, the specification may define claim terms by implication such that the
`
`meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.”)
`
`(citing and quoting Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Group, Inc.,
`
`262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite
`
`Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (establishing specification as single
`
`best guide to the meaning of a disputed term, and rejecting notion that any
`
`definition of claim language in the specification be express).
`
`2.
`
`The District Court’s Analysis Supports Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`Notably, at the claim construction hearing in the district court litigation, both
`
`the defendant presenting Petitioner’s construction and the Court confirmed that
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s interpretation is correct. Although the Court ultimately determined
`
`that the phrase “position to a communications tower” should be interpreted by its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning, such meaning was understood both by the Court and
`
`defendant’s representative as consistent with Patent Owner’s proposal:
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`….
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`Then to the extent that this
`
`needs any further clarification,
`
`the Court will adopt the
`
`construction that:
`
`The position to the communications tower is
`
`the equivalent of the communications path between the
`
`communications tower and the portable cell phone device.
`
`MS. ZHANG: Your Honor, if we can just clarify? When
`
`you say "communications path," how much are you sort of going
`
`into the air and everything?
`
`THE COURT: What you just showed me. There is a
`
`signal that‘s coming from this tower or going to this tower
`
`that has a path to the device. That path and the strength of
`
`the signal is determined by how that gets there, and whether
`
`that has to go around a mountain or through a building or a
`
`distance, that's the path. And the strength of the phone
`
`requiring to read that signal is going to be determined as to
`
`what's obstructing getting the signal from the tower.
`
`MS. ZHANG: Right.
`
`THE COURT: Regardless of i_ it's not just a question
`
`of distance. There are other things that determine that and I
`
`think that was known in the art at the time.
`
`MS. ZHANG: Right.
`
`
`
`….
`
`
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex. 2007, 51-53, 57; Ex. 1011, 5-6).
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner’s Alternative Construction2 is Inconsistent with the
`Claim Language and Specification
`By proposing that “position to a communications tower” means “location to
`
`a communications tower,” Petitioner’s alternative construction eradicates any
`
`
`2 Petitioner linked Grounds 1A, 1B, and 2 solely to the first proposed
`
`construction. (Pet., 10) (“.…Grounds 1A-2 demonstrate that the Challenged
`
`Claims are unpatentable under the first interpretation.) As Grounds 1A, AB, and 2
`
`do not make arguments that contemplate or account for the alternative construction
`
`(as evidenced by Petitioner’s use of additional art to accommodate the alternative
`
`construction that is absent from Grounds 1A, 1B, and 2), if the Board adopts the
`
`alternative construction then Grounds 1A, AB, and 2 should be ultimately
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`difference in meaning between the terms “position” and “location.” Yet such a
`
`construction is inconsistent with the ’435 Patent’s different uses of these terms.
`
`The term “location” in the ’435 Patent is used when referring to the (i) proximity
`
`of the mobile phone to its user, and (ii) elements of the phone’s location sensing
`
`subsystem and/or proximity regulation system. See, for example, Claim 1’s
`
`reference to “a location sensing Subsystem that determines a location of said
`
`portable cell phone proximate a user,” and references throughout the specification
`
`regarding same. (Ex. 1001, 8:5-7, passim). On the other hand, the ’435 Patent uses
`
`the term “position” in a much broader fashion, including, for example, the
`
`communication relationship between a cell tower and a mobile cell phone. (“The
`
`communication tower is a conventional communications tower that is positioned to
`
`communicate with the portable cell phone.”) (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:4-6, 8:1-5.)
`
`Accordingly, the ’435 Patent attributes different meanings to the terms
`
`“location” and “position”—and for Petitioner’s alternative construction to
`
`effectively elimiate any such difference indicates this alternative construction is
`
`incorrect. At a minimum, it contradicts a fundamental tenant of claim construction
`
`that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. SimpleAir, Inc.
`
`
`disregarded and denied. For the same reason, if the Board adopts the first
`
`construction, Ground 3 should be ultimately disregarded and denied. (Pet., 11.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, 820 F.3d 419, 431 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“The choice to use “data channel” in claim 1 rather than “data feed,”
`
`notwithstanding use of the latter elsewhere in the patent, lends further support to
`
`our conclusion that “data feed” does not carry the same meaning as “data
`
`channel.”); Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d
`
`1362, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2008) (“Different claim terms are presumed to have different
`
`meanings.” (citation omitted)).
`
`The scope or meaning of Petitioner’s alternative construction is additionally
`
`unclear, because Petitioner indicates that the plain meaning of “position to a
`
`communications tower” can mean (i) “location to a communications tower” (Pet.,
`
`10); (ii) “at least location to a communications tower” (Pet., 11); and (iii) “a
`
`position of the portable cell phone relative to a communications tower.” (Ex. 1003
`
`¶50). Such lack of clarity and/or undue fluidity in Petitioner’s alternative
`
`construction alone constitutes sufficient grounds to reject Petitioner’s alternative
`
`construction in favor of Petitioner’s first construction.
`
`Finally, Petitioner’s argument that its alternative construction does not
`
`require location to be the sole parameter affecting network adjusted power level is
`
`unavailing. (Pet., 11.) Petitioner’s alternative construction (whether framed as
`
`“location” or “at least location”) would nonetheless allow this portion of the claim
`
`limitation to be satisfied even if location were the sole parameter affecting network
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`adjusted power levels. The intrinsic record described above with respect to the
`
`first proposed construction in section B.1., firmly establishes that a claim
`
`construction contemplating such a scenario is over-simplified and unsupported,
`
`particularly in view of the fact that the Applicant overcame prior art precisely
`
`because the invention’s “position” entails more than distance as defined by
`
`location of the cell phone. (See Ex. 1002 at 0027, 0073-74, 0084-85.)
`
`For at least all of the above reasons, the Board should adopt Petitioner’s first
`
`proposed claim construction and reject Petitioner’s alternative (second) proposed
`
`construction.
`
`V.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’435 PATENT
`The ‘435 Patent matured from application 09/967,140, filed on September
`
`28, 2001.
`
`During prosecution, Applicant submitted an Information Disclosure
`
`Statement (IDS) that the Patent Office received May 24, 2005 (Ex. 1002, 30). This
`
`IDS disclosed and provided only a single reference, namely Published
`
`International Ap