`
`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 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
