UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., APPLE INC., and MOTOROLA
`MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,836,654
`
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,654 (CLAIMS 10-20)
`
`WEST/289734589
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................. v
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................ vi
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest ........................................................................... vi
`2.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... vi
`3.
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information ................... viii
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING PER SECTION 42.104 (A) ........................... 2
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................................... 2
`A.
`Statement Of The Precise Relief Requested / Statutory Grounds ......... 2
`B.
`No Examiner Addressed These Unpatentability Grounds .................... 3
`C.
`Petitioner’s Petition Should Be Granted Despite Samsung’s
`Previous Petitions Challenging The Same Patent ................................. 5
`THE ’654 PATENT ......................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Admitted Prior Art................................................................................. 7
`B.
`The ’654 Patent’s Specification ............................................................ 8
`C.
`The Prosecution History ........................................................................ 9
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 10
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 10-20 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS OVER THE NOKIA MANUAL + BARVESTEN .................... 13
`A.
`Nokia ................................................................................................... 13
`B.
`Barvesten ............................................................................................. 13
`C. Motivation And Rationale To Combine Nokia and Barvesten ........... 15
`Page i
`
`IV.
`
`WEST/289734589
`
`

`

`D.
`
`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................. 16
`(1) a first blocking state for when the linked user identification
`module is not inserted, .............................................................. 29
`(2) a second blocking state for when the device is inactive for a
`certain period of time, and ........................................................ 29
`(3) a third blocking state for when an incorrect deblocking code
`is entered too many times. ........................................................ 29
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 31
`E.
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 34
`F.
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 35
`G.
`Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 36
`H.
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 38
`I.
`Claim 16 .............................................................................................. 42
`J.
`Claims 17-20 ....................................................................................... 44
`K.
`VIII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 10-20 ARE UNPATENABLE AS OBVIOUS
`OVER BARVESTEN IN VIEW OF SCHULTZ .......................................... 47
`A.
`Schultz ................................................................................................. 48
`B. Motivation And Rationales To Combine Barvesten And Schultz ...... 48
`C.
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................. 50
`D.
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 60
`E.
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 61
`F.
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 62
`G.
`Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 62
`H.
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 64
`I.
`Claim 16 .............................................................................................. 66
`
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page ii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`Claims 17-20 ....................................................................................... 67
`J.
`IX. NO OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .............................. 70
`X.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 71
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 72
`
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2018-00580, Paper 13 (Aug. 21, 2018) .......................................................... 6
`Celltrion, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 (Oct. 30, 2018) ........................................................... 6
`General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sept. 6, 2017) ............................................................ 5
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA,
`IPR2017-02090, Paper 9 (Mar. 6, 2018) .............................................................. 6
`Intex Recr. Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp.,
`IPR2018-00871, Paper 14 (PTAB Sept. 14, 2018)............................................... 4
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks,
`IPR2015-00486, Paper 10, 2015 WL 4760578 .................................................... 4
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 11
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b) ..................................................................................... 13, 48
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................. 3, 4
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340 .................................................................................................. 11
`
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page iv
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,654 (“the ’654 patent”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,654
`Nokia 9000i Owner’s Manual (“Nokia Manual”)
`Business Week names Nokia 9000i Communicator a “Best New
`Product”, Nokia Press Release, Published January 14, 1998,
`Nokia introduces the new Nokia 9000i Communicator for GSM
`Markets, Nokia Press Release, February 6, 1998
`U.S. Patent 5,940,773 (“Barvesten”)
`Declaration of Steven Harris (with Exhibit A)
`Communication Device Inactivity Password Lock, Charles P. Schultz,
`November 1996 (“Schultz”)
`French Application No. 9916136
`Declaration of Henry Houh, dated August 8, 2019 (“Houh Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,913,175 (“Pinault”)
`RESERVED
`Luca Benini et al., Policy Optimization for Dynamic Power
`Management, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of
`Integrated Circuits and Systems, Vol. 18, No. 6, June 1999
`Declaration of Timo Henttonen
`Docket Navigator List of Cases involving U.S. Patent 6,836,654
`Comparison between the Current Petition and Petition in
`IPR2019-01471
`
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page v
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner identifies Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Apple Inc., and Motorola Mobility
`
`LLC, as the real parties-in-interest. Motorola Mobility LLC is an indirect wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Lenovo Group Ltd.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), to the best knowledge of the Petitioner,
`
`the ’654 Patent is or was involved in the following cases:
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 8:19-cv-00781 (C.D.
`
`Cal.), filed April 29, 2019;
`
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 3:19-cv-01697 (N.D. Cal.), filed
`
`April 2, 2019;
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. HTC America, Inc., 2:18-cv-01732 (W.D. WA),
`
`filed November 30, 2018;
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, 1:18-cv-01844 (DED),
`
`filed November 20, 2018;
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. Google LLC, 2:18-cv-00493 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed November 17, 2018;
`
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page vi
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., 2:18-
`
`cv-00508 (E.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018;
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., 2:18-cv-00509
`
`(E.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018;
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. Google LLC, 2:18-cv-00422 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed October 1, 2018;
`
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-
`
`00357 (E.D. Tex.), filed August 14, 2018;
`
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, 1:18-cv-01230
`
`(DED), filed August 10, 2018;
`
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al.,
`
`2:18-cv-00309 (E.D. Tex.), filed July 23, 2018;
`
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-
`
`00310 (E.D. Tex.), filed July 23, 2018;
`
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 1:18-cv-00293 (W.D. Tex.), filed
`
`April 9, 2018.
`
`The ’654 Patent is involved in the following proceedings before the Board:
`
` Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01218 (Claims 1-9);
`
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page vii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`
` Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01219 (Claims 10-20).
`
` Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01470 (Claims
`
`1-9)
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a Motion for Joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with Microsoft Corporation
`
`v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01471 (“the Microsoft IPR Proceeding”), which the
`
`Board instituted on February 11, 2020. Petitioner has spoken with counsel of record
`
`for Microsoft, and Microsoft does not oppose joinder to the IPR2019-01471 petition.
`
`The following patent application alleges priority to the ’654 patent or its
`
`alleged priority application: French Appl. No. 9916136, priority date December 21,
`
`1999.
`
`3.
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information
`
`Petitioner designates lead and back-up counsel as noted below. Powers of
`
`attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) accompany this Petition.
`
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page viii
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`Tiffany C. Miller, Reg. 52,032
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B St., Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Phone: 619.699.2700
`Fax: 619.699.2701
`Email: Apple-Uniloc19-
`DLA@us.dlapiper.com
`
`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`Backup Counsel
`(for Apple and Motorola)
`James M. Heintz, Reg. No. 41,828
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Dr., Suite 300
`Reston VA 20190
`Phone: 703.773.4000
`Fax: 703.773.5000
`Email: Apple-Uniloc19-
`DLA@us.dlapiper.com
`(for Samsung)
`Naveen Modi, Reg. No. 46,224
`Joseph E. Palys, Reg. No. 46,508
`Phillip W. Citroën, Reg. No. 66,541
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: (202) 551-1700
`Fax: (202) 551-1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-Uniloc-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Please address all correspondence to counsel at the address above. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service by email at: Apple-Uniloc19-DLA@us.dlapiper.com
`
`and PH-Samsung-Uniloc-IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page ix
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), and
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”), (collectively “Petitioner”) respectfully
`
`requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 10-20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,654
`
`(“’654 patent”) (Ex. 1001), allegedly assigned to Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”). For the reasons set forth below, these claims should be found unpatentable
`
`and cancelled.
`
`As noted above, this Petition is being submitted concurrently with a Motion
`
`for Joinder. Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with the
`
`Microsoft IPR Proceeding, which the Board instituted on February 11, 2020.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’654 patent is directed at protecting against theft of a mobile
`
`radiotelephony device that is linked to a particular user identification module.
`
`Specifically, the ’654 patent disclosure aims at protecting mobile devices by
`
`preventing normal operation of the device upon expiration of a predefined period of
`
`inactivity. Normal operation of the device can be resumed only upon supplying a
`
`“debugging code” known only to the particular user linked to the device. But, as
`
`discussed herein, this functionality was known in the prior art more than a year
`
`before the priority date of the ’654 patent.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PER SECTION 42.104 (A)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’654 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the patent claims on
`
`the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`A.
`Statement Of The Precise Relief Requested / Statutory Grounds
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 10-20 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of the ’654 patent, on the following statutory grounds:
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims
`10-20
`
`Reference(s)
`Ground 1 Nokia 9000i Communicator
`Owner’s Manual (“Nokia
`Manual”) in view of U.S. Patent
`No. 5,940,773 (“Barvesten”)
`Ground 2 U.S. Patent No. 5,940,773
`(“Barvesten”) in view of
`“Communication Device Inactivity
`Password Lock” (“Schultz”)
`In Sections VII-VIII below, the petition presents evidence of unpatentability
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`10-20
`
`and establishes a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail in establishing
`
`that each Challenged Claim is unpatentable.
`
`With the filing of this petition an electronic payment of $30,500 for the
`
`requisite fees is being charged to deposit account no. 50-3266. 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a).
`
`Any fee adjustments may be debited/credited to the deposit account.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`No Examiner Addressed These Unpatentability Grounds
`B.
`This petition relies on the Nokia 9000i Communicator Owner’s Manual
`
`(Ex. 1003, “Nokia Manual”), as well as the combination of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,940,773 (Ex. 1006, “Barvesten”) with Motorola’s Communication Device
`
`Inactivity Password Lock” (Ex. 1008 1 , “Schultz”). Neither “the same [n]or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`The Nokia Manual is not cited by the ’654 patent, nor was it discussed during
`
`prosecution, and expressly discloses many of the limitations of the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`Prior art reference Barvesten is not cited by the ’654 patent, nor was it
`
`discussed during prosecution. As shown below, Barvesten provides express
`
`teachings on many of the claim limitations of the ’654 patent. These teachings,
`
`which show that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious, were not
`
`considered by the Examiner.
`
`Prior art reference Schultz is also not cited by the ’654 patent, nor was it
`
`discussed during prosecution. Schultz provides important details on the “timing”
`
`1 Ex. 1008 is a duplicate copy of the Schultz paper attached to the Declaration of
`
`Steven Harris (Ex. 1007). Ex. 1008 was obtained from www.ip.com.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`and “period of inactivity” claim limitations, which appears to be what the ’654 patent
`
`alleges to be the point of novelty over what is admitted prior art. Notably, both
`
`Barvesten and Schultz were, identified in an apparent prior art search report during
`
`prosecution of the ’654 patent’s counterpart French patent application. Ex. 1002,
`
`51-52/175. While these references were listed on an IDS, nothing suggests the U.S.
`
`Examiner was aware of, much less considered, their disclosures during prosecution.
`
`Indeed, the Examiner did not even initial that he had reviewed either Barvesten or
`
`Schultz, confirming that he lacked the benefit of their teachings. See Microsoft
`
`Corp. v. Parallel Networks, IPR2015-00486, Paper 10, 2015 WL 4760578, at *8
`
`(PTAB July 15, 2015 (rejecting argument that institution be denied under Section
`
`325(d), because, though listed on an IDS, “the references were not applied against
`
`the claims and there is no evidence that the Examiner considered the particular
`
`disclosures cited by … the Petition” and because “the ex parte nature of the
`
`reexaminations differs from the adversarial nature of an inter partes review”); see
`
`also e.g., Intex Recr. Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp., IPR2018-00871, Paper 14 at
`
`13 (PTAB Sept. 14, 2018) (references initialed in an IDS, but not discussed or used
`
`as basis for rejections, received only “[c]ursory consideration ... [that] weighs
`
`against exercising discretion to deny under § 325(d)”).
`
`Because these key teachings in the prior art were not previously considered
`
`by the Office, this petition should not be denied under § 325(d).
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`C.
`
`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`Petitioner’s Petition Should Be Granted Despite Samsung’s
`Previous Petitions Challenging The Same Patent
`Neither Apple nor Motorola have previously filed a petition for inter partes
`
`review of the ’654 patent. On July 23, 2018, Uniloc filed a complaint against
`
`Samsung, accusing it of infringing the ’654 patent. In response, Samsung filed two
`
`petitions challenging the claims of the ’654 patent: IPR2019-01218 (challenging
`
`claims 1-9) and IPR2019-01219 (challenging claims 10-20). The Board denied
`
`institution of both petitions. Despite these prior proceedings, this Petition should
`
`nonetheless be instituted because it does not implicate any of the discretionary
`
`institution factors set forth in the Board’s precedential decision in General Plastic
`
`Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sept. 6,
`
`2017).
`
`In General Plastic, the Board set forth seven non-exhaustive factors to
`
`consider in determining whether to deny institution under § 314(a) of a follow-on
`
`petition challenging the same patent. IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16. These factors
`
`take into account the AIA’s objective “to provide an effective and efficient
`
`alternative to district court litigation,” as well as “the potential for abuse of the
`
`review process by repeated attacks on patents.” Id. at 16-17. However, where a
`
`petitioner files a “me-too” or “copycat” petition in conjunction with a timely motion
`
`for joinder and agrees to assume a “passive understudy role,” the General Plastic
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`factors are “effectively neutraliz[ed].” Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-
`
`00580, Paper 13 at 10 (Aug. 21, 2018). This is because such a joinder “will not put
`
`a significant additional burden on the Board or jeopardize the Board’s ability to issue
`
`a final written decision” and “[it] is not a case in which a petitioner has used prior
`
`preliminary responses or decisions of the Board to tailor its substantive arguments.”
`
`Id. at 10-11. Additionally, by its very nature, a “copycat" petition “does not present
`
`any ground or matter not already at issue in [the original] IPR.” Thus, under these
`
`circumstances, a petitioner’s assumption of an understudy role “effectively obviates
`
`any concerns of serial harassment and unnecessary expenditure of resources.”
`
`Celltrion, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc., IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 at 10 (Oct. 30, 2018); see
`
`also Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-02090, Paper 9
`
`at 9 (Mar. 6, 2018) (“[J]oined cases avoid the multiplicity that Patent Owner
`
`criticizes.”).
`
`Here, Samsung merely seeks to join an already instituted proceedings as an
`
`“understudy.” As such, the present Petition and accompanying Motion for Joinder
`
`do not raise any fairness, timing, or efficiency concerns. See Apple, IPR2018-00580,
`
`Paper 13 at 10; Celltrion, IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 at 10. To the contrary,
`
`Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder promote the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of the patentability of the challenged claims. Accordingly,
`
`the present Petition should be granted.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`
`IV. THE ’654 PATENT
`The ’654 patent, titled “Anti-Theft Protection For A Radiotelephony Device”
`
`issued on December 28, 2004. The ’654 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/739,507 (the “’507 application”), filed on December 18, 2000.
`
`Admitted Prior Art
`A.
`As noted above, the ’654 patent is directed at protecting against theft of a
`
`mobile radiotelephony device (now more commonly referred to as merely a mobile
`
`device, mobile phone, or cell phone) by preventing normal operation of the device
`
`under certain circumstances. The technology relies on a user identification module
`
`that is linked to the device.
`
`The ’654 patent describes as prior art devices capable of linking a device with
`
`a “specific user identification module and blocking the normal operation of the
`
`device when the user identification module that is placed inside the device is not the
`
`one that is linked to the device.” Ex. 1001, 1:26-30. The ’654 patent cites U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,913,175 (“Pinault,” Ex. 1011) as an example of such admitted prior art.
`
`The ’654 patent specification goes on to explain that when the Pinault device is lost
`
`or stolen, the user must contact the operator to block use of the device at the network
`
`level. Id., 1:30-35. Of course, this means that the device can be used by anyone for
`
`as long as it takes for the operator to be contacted and subsequently prevent the
`
`device’s operation. Id., 1:35-37.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`
`The ’654 Patent’s Specification
`B.
`The ’654 patent aims to resolve the stated problem and improve device
`
`security by describing a device which
`
`(1) verifies a user identification module mounted inside
`
`the mobile radiotelephony device is linked to the mobile
`
`radiotelephony device, (2) detects a period of inactivity of
`
`the mobile radiotelephony device during a normal
`
`operation of the mobile radiotelephony [sic] device,
`
`wherein the normal operation includes a processing of all
`
`outgoing calls, and (3) prevents the normal operation of
`
`the mobile radiotelephony device in response to the
`
`verification of the user identification module and in
`
`response to the detection of the period of inactivity of the
`
`mobile radiotelephony device.
`
`Id., 1:39-51.
`
`More specifically, the ’654 patent discloses that the process begins when a
`
`user chooses to lock a device with a particular identification module. Id., 2:67-3:1.
`
`Upon making such a selection, the device reads the date in the identification module
`
`and automatically links the device to the identification module by storing the date
`
`(e.g., the international identification number IMSI) in the device’s random-access
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`memory. Id., 3:1-5. Once locked, the device remains available for normal operation
`
`when the proper identification module is inserted in the device. Id., 3:6-7. Since the
`
`identification module data is stored on the device, the device is able to check whether
`
`an unlinked identification module is subsequently inserted into the device. Id.,
`
`3:3:6-30.
`
`The ’654 patent additionally describes a time-based security mechanism.
`
`Specifically, once the device verifies that the identification module is linked to the
`
`device, the device determines “whether the device has remained in the state of
`
`availability for a certain period of time …” Id., 3:31-35. If the predetermined period
`
`of time has passed, the device becomes blocked for normal operation. Id., 3:35-40.
`
`At this point, the device can become available again for normal operation only with
`
`the user “supplying a deblocking code (for example, the Personal Identification
`
`Number) PIN.” Id., 3:40-43.
`
`The Prosecution History
`C.
`As noted above, the ’654 patent issued from the ’507 application filed on
`
`December 18, 2000. The ’654 patent purports to relate to a French patent application
`
`(No. 9916136, Ex. 1009) filed on December 21, 1999. Ex. 1001. In August 2003,
`
`the U.S. Patent Examiner rejected the original ten claims. Ex. 1002, 56-64/175. In
`
`December 2003, the Applicant amended the Abstract, Drawings, and Specification.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`Id., 67-84/175. The Applicant also canceled all original ten claims and submitted
`
`twenty new claims. Id.
`
`The Examiner issued multiple rejections over the prior art, relying on Pinault
`
`as a primary reference. Id., 60-64/175, 88-94/175. The Examiner acknowledged,
`
`however, that Pinault did not disclose the claimed “timing means” limitations. Id.,
`
`60/175. For this limitation, the Examiner relied on U.S. Patent No. 6,095,416
`
`(“Grant”), which discloses a credit card that “includes a PIN code and once the code
`
`is entered, the card is activated only for a predetermined period of time, after which
`
`it becomes disabled …” Id., 61/175. Ultimately, the Applicant persuaded the
`
`Examiner that the pending claims were not rendered obvious by this combination as
`
`Grant discloses system a where the device was disabled after a predetermined period
`
`of time, irrespective of any period of inactivity. Id., 112-113/175. Thus, the ’654
`
`patent issued on December 28, 2004.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`The person of ordinary skill in the art in December 2000 (“PHOSITA”) would
`
`have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and one year
`
`of general programming experience. Ex. 1010 (Declaration of Henry Houh),2 ¶ 43.
`
`2 Dr. Houh has agreed to cooperate with Petitioner.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`Additional experience may substitute for education, and addition education may
`
`substitute for experience. Id.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For inter partes review, claim terms should be given the ordinary meaning
`
`that the terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art on the earliest
`
`effective filing date, in view of the specification and file history. 83 Fed. Reg. 51340;
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Certain claim terms specifically identified below benefit from construction to
`
`clarify their ordinary meaning. In all events, Petitioner applies herein the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of all claim terms, whether or not Petitioner proposes a clarifying
`
`claim construction. Petitioner does not waive any argument in any litigation that
`
`claim terms in the ’654 patent are indefinite or otherwise invalid, nor does Petitioner
`
`waive its right to raise additional issues of claim construction in any litigation.
`
`Because Petitioner is seeking to join the Microsoft IPR Proceeding, this
`
`Petition presents the same claim constructions presented in the Microsoft IPR
`
`Proceeding for completeness and given it is essentially identical to the petition filed
`
`in the Microsoft IPR Proceeding.3
`
`3 Petitioner reserves all rights to raise different claim construction and other
`
`arguments in district court as relevant and necessary to those proceedings.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`
`Deblocking/Debugging Code
`
`Petitioner contends that two phrases that should be construed are “deblocking
`
`code” and “debugging code.” Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, and 19 each recites a “deblocking
`
`code.” Claim 15 recites a “debugging code.” The Abstract of the ’654 Patent recites
`
`a “debugging code,” but not a “deblocking code,” while the “Summary of the
`
`Invention” and “Description Of A Preferred Embodiment Of The Invention”
`
`sections recite a “deblocking code,” but not a “debugging code.” Notably, the
`
`prosecution history makes clear that these phrases are interchangeable. See Ex. 1002,
`
`104-117/175 (amending claims to recite “deblocking code” instead of “debugging
`
`code”; it appears as though the Examiner may have unintentionally failed to reject
`
`original claim 25 for reciting “debugging code” as all other claims were rejected for
`
`reciting “debugging code,” and then later amended to recite “deblocking code”
`
`instead). Id., 87-108/175.
`
`In any event, the specification describes “deblocking code” as being formed
`
`by a Pin Code, Personal Identity Number, that when entered, can return the device
`
`to normal operation. Ex. 1001, 2:11-14, 3:40-42. Thus, deblocking/debugging code
`
`should be interpreted to encompass a string of characters, such as a PIN code, that
`
`can be entered to return a device to normal operation.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 10-20 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`AS OBVIOUS OVER THE NOKIA MANUAL + BARVESTEN
`As detailed below, claims 10-20 are unpatentable as obvious over the Nokia
`
`Manual combined with Barvesten.
`
`Nokia
`A.
`As noted above, this petition relies on the Nokia Manual (Ex. 1003). More
`
`specifically, the Nokia Manual is the “Owner’s Manual” for Nokia’s 9000i
`
`Communicator, which was “a mobile phone, messaging device, Internet access
`
`terminal and palmtop organizer all in one compact unit.” Ex. 1003, 7/131. The
`
`9000i Communicator device was on sale in the United States by at least
`
`November 1997. Ex. 1014 (Timo Henttonen, former Nokia engineer, testifying
`
`about the commercialization of the 9000i Communicator and distribution of the
`
`Nokia Manual to customers). A copy of the Nokia Manual was provided to
`
`customers of the device with each sale of the device, and at least thousands of copies
`
`of the Nokia Manual were distributed to customers in the United States by
`
`December 1, 1998. Id.; see also Ex. 1004, Ex. 1005. Thus, the Nokia Manual
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b).
`
`Barvesten
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,773 is titled “Access Controlled Terminal And Method
`
`For Rendering Communication Services,” and names Mats Olof Barvesten
`
`(“Barvesten”) as inventor. Ex. 1006. Barvesten issued on August 17, 1999, and was
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 6,836,654 (Claims 10-20)
`WEST/289734589
`
`Page 13
`
`

`