`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper 13
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE NO. IPR2020-00510
`
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`100730234.3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,023,580
`IPR2020-00510
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (“’580 Patent”)
`1002 Declaration of Dr. John Villasenor (“Villasenor Decl.”)
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,132,306 (“Trompower”)
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,029,183 (“Tymes”)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,491,832 (“Malkamaki”)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 8,457,228 (“’228 Patent”)
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,950,124
`1008
`Theodore S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications: Principles &
`Practice (“Rappaport”)
`Fuqin Xiong, Digital Modulation Techniques (“Xiong”)
`1009
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,381,449
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,909,469 (“Frodigh”)
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 5,533,004 (“Jasper”)
`1013
`Sanjay Udani et al., Power Management in Mobile Computing (a Survey)
`(“Udani”)
`1014 Huajing Fu et al., Experimental Test and Evaluation of a GMSK Chipset
`Compatible With the GSM and PCS Standards (“Fu”)
`1015 Amit Bodas et al., Low Complexity GSM Modulator for Integrated
`Circuit Implementations (“Bodas”)
`1016 Robert K. Morrow, Bluetooth: Operation and Use (“Morrow”)
`1017
`Jennifer Bray et al., Bluetooth: Connect Without Cables (“Bray”)
`1018 Kursat Tekbiyik, Robust and Fast Automatic Modulation Classification
`With CNN Under Multipath Fading Channels (“Tekbiyik”) and
`Declaration of Jason Guerrero Regarding Tekbiyik
`File Wrapper, U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (“’580 Patent”)
`IPR2014-00514, Briefing and Decisions
`IPR2014-00515, Briefing and Decisions
`
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`100730234.3
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,023,580
`IPR2020-00510
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`Description
`No.
`IPR2014-00518, Briefing and Decisions
`1022
`IPR2015-00519, Briefing and Decisions
`1023
`IPR2015-00114, Briefing and Decisions
`1024
`IPR2015-00118, Briefing and Decisions
`1025
`1026 OMITTED
`1027 Reexamination No. 90/013,808 File History
`1028
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co., Claim
`Construction Order
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Apple Inc., Claim Construction
`Order
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co., Trial
`Transcript
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Rembrandt’s Appeal Brief
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Broadcom Inc., Order Denying
`Motion to Dismiss
`1033 Affidavit of Christopher Butler regarding Exhibit 1013
`1034 Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier regarding Exhibit 1015
`1035 Declaration of William Johnson regarding Exhibits 1008, 1009, and 1017
`1036 Declaration of Mike Strawn regarding Exhibit 1015
`1037 Declaration of Stacy Troubh regarding Exhibits 1014 and 1016
`1038 OMITTED
`1039
`Specification of the Bluetooth System v2.1 (“Bluetooth Specification”)
`and Declaration of Jason Guerrero Regarding Bluetooth Specification
`1040 Reexamination No. 90/007,617 File History
`1041 OMITTED
`1042 OMITTED
`1043 OMITTED
`
`100730234.3
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,023,580
`IPR2020-00510
`
`Description
`No.
`1044 OMITTED
`1045 OMITTED
`1046 OMITTED
`1047 OMITTED
`1048 OMITTED
`1049 OMITTED
`1050 OMITTED
`1051
`IPR2020-00033, Petition
`1052
`IPR2020-00034, Petition
`1053 OMITTED
`1054 OMITTED
`1055 Curriculum vitae of Dr. John Villasenor
`1056
`ITU website for ITU-T Recommendation V.22
`1057
`ITU-T Recommendation V.22
`1058
`ITU website for ITU-T Recommendation V.34
`1059
`ITU-T Recommendation V.34
`1060
`ITU website for ITU-T Recommendation V.27bis
`1061
`ITU-T Recommendation V.27bis
`1062
`ITU website for ITU-T Recommendation V.110
`1063
`ITU-T Recommendation V.110
`1064
`ITU website for ITU-T Recommendation V.120
`1065
`ITU-T Recommendation V.120
`1066
`Second Declaration of John Villasenor, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`100730234.3
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,023,580
`IPR2020-00510
`Petitioner files this Reply to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response (POPR)
`
`to address construction of “addressed for an intended destination.” See Paper 10 at
`
`26-29, 56-61. Patent Owner (“PO”) seeks a construction that is far narrower than
`
`the plain language, but relies on specification examples rather than any redefinition
`
`or disclaimer. The limitation should instead be construed according to its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning, which is supported by both the intrinsic record—e.g., a distinctly
`
`narrower formulation of the feature in a related patent—and by extrinsic evidence—
`
`e.g., standards referenced in the ’580 Patent that are applicable to complex networks.
`
`I.
`
`The Plain Language Allows Various Types of Destinations
`Claims 1 and 58 recite “[a] communication device capable of communicating
`
`according to a master/slave relationship in which a slave communication from a
`
`slave to a master occurs in response to a master communication from the master to
`
`the slave” (emphasis added). “[A] transceiver, in the role of the master . . . [is] for
`
`sending at least transmissions [or “configured to transmit messages”] . . . [and] at
`
`least one group of transmission sequences [or “message”] is addressed for an
`
`intended destination . . . .” (emphasis added).
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner Seeks to Narrow “An Intended Destination” To One Trib
`Petitioner seeks to construe the phrase as “the address of the slave/trib
`
`transceiver that the master seeks to communicate with.” POPR at 26. On its face,
`
`this would seem to include communications with any trib. But Petitioner applies
`
`100730234.3
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,023,580
`IPR2020-00510
`this construction even more narrowly than PO’s proposed construction itself
`
`suggests. PO argues that not only must the message be addressed to a trib, but to a
`
`particular trib. POPR at 46 (not challenging that Trompower’s message includes
`
`an address for an intended destination, but instead arguing that “an intended
`
`destination” must be the particular base station to which Trompower’s mobile
`
`device is paired). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed construction—when applied by
`
`Petitioner—becomes even narrower than its wording might first suggest.
`
`III.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Requires a Plain Language Construction
`The “addressed” limitation should be construed according to its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning—i.e., addressed for an intended destination—and not limited to a
`
`trib destination, much less a particular trib destination.
`
`First, the plain language of the claim is not nearly as narrow as PO’s proposed
`
`construction, much less its application of that proposed constructions. Of note:
`
`(1) the device is capable of communicating according to a master/slave relationship;
`
`and (2) at least one message or group of transmission sequences is “addressed.” The
`
`claims are thus crafted to include devices that also communicate via non-
`
`master/slave relationships. Nor do the cited examples in the specification so limit
`
`the claims. See, e.g., Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[W]e do not read limitations from the embodiments in the
`
`specification into the claims.”). The ’580 Patent itself says “a specific embodiment
`
`100730234.3
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,023,580
`IPR2020-00510
`. . . is shown by way of example in the drawings,” but “there is no intent to limit the
`
`invention to the particular form disclosed . . . .” EX1001, 1:32-39 (emphasis added).
`
`A similar feature in a related patent also shows that PO knew how to limit the
`
`destination to a trib, but elected not to do so here. Claim 1 of the ’228 Patent, a
`
`continuation of the ’580 Patent, is of similar scope to claims 1 and 58 here. EX1006,
`
`8:18-60. Specifically, claim 1 of the ’228 Patent recites “first message address
`
`information that is indicative of the one of the one or more slave transceivers being
`
`an intended destination” and “second message address information that is indicative
`
`of the single slave transceiver being an intended destination.” EX1006, 8:36-38,
`
`8:56-58. Thus, when the destination was meant to be limited to a trib, PO did so
`
`explicitly. And it is improper to add limitations expressly claimed in related patents:
`
`[W]e see no basis to read a “hybridization” requirement into the claims
`of the ’928 patent. . . . The applicants knew how to claim . . . [that
`requirement], as they did in the ’824 and ’767 patents, but specifically
`omitted that language from the claims of the related ’928 patent.
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(emphasis added). It would be similarly improper here to accept PO’s invitation to
`
`limit “an intended destination” to a trib.
`
`Third, the ’580 Patent explains the asserted need for the invention exists
`
`“regardless of network topology,” and addresses “multipoint” networks or systems.
`
`EX1001, 1:45-65, 2:55-57. While the specification describes these multipoint
`
`100730234.3
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,023,580
`IPR2020-00510
`systems as including a master and a plurality of tribs, nowhere does the ’580 Patent
`
`limit such multipoint systems to only one master and tribs. Even if it had, the ’580
`
`Patent also does not preclude a master-tribs system from communicating with other
`
`master-tribs systems. It thus follows that PO expressly intended for the claims not
`
`to limit “an intended destination” to a single trib in a single master-tribs system.
`
`IV. Extrinsic Evidence Requires a Plain Language Construction
`The ’580 Patent relates to modem technology, and specifically identifies three
`
`examples of “industry standard[s]” to illustrate the compatibility problem the ’580
`
`Patent purports to solve. EX1001, 1:19-36. These standards are defined in the ITU’s
`
`Series V publications on “Data communication over the telephone network.”
`
`EX1057, EX1059, EX1061; see also EX1056, 1058, 1060, 1062, 1064, 1066..
`
`ITU’s Series V publications are not limited to the single master-tribs topology of
`
`PO’s construction, and instead contemplate communication between discrete
`
`multipoint systems. For example, as in the below “Reference configuration” of
`
`EX1063, [purple] terminal equipment (TE2) of a [blue] first ISDN can communicate
`
`with [red] terminal equipment (TE2) of a [orange] second ISDN through use of
`
`[green] terminal adaptors (TA). While the below “Reference configuration” from
`
`V.110 depicts a single TE2 connected to each TA, V.120 indicates multiple TE2
`
`may connect to a single TA, and provides an appropriate addressing structure.
`
`100730234.3
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,023,580
`IPR2020-00510
`EX1065, § 6.3.2.4.7 (a sub-address may be used “to select a specific TE2 or
`
`interface at the R reference point behind a terminal adapter”).
`
`
`Thus, extrinsic evidence referenced by the ’580 Patent itself confirms that the
`
`intended destination of a transceiver transmission need not be limited to a trib, even
`
`for a transceiver in the simplest master-tribs multipoint system.
`
`V. Conclusion
`Consistent with the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, PO elected to recite the
`
`“addressed” feature more broadly in the ’580 Patent than the ’228 Patent. PO should
`
`be held to that choice; “an intended destination” should not be narrowed to a trib.
`
`Dated: July 23, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Eagle H. Robinson/
`Eagle H. Robinson (Reg. No. 61,361)
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`100730234.3
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,023,580
`IPR2020-00510
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on July 23, 2020,
`
`a copy of this Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response was served
`
`on Patent Owner at the e-mail addresses listed below:
`
`
`
`
`jbrowning@gbpatent.com
`mfink@gbpatent.com
`rodonnell@vklaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Eagle H. Robinson/
`Eagle H. Robinson (Reg. No. 61,361)
`
`100730234.3
`
`- 6 -
`
`