`Patent 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”)
`Intentionally left blankRESERVED
`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
`
`Page i
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1016
`
`Page 1 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Microsoft Corporation is the sole 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
`
`ThePursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), to the best knowledge of the Petitioner,
`
`the ’654 patent (Ex. Patent1001) is assertedor was involved in the following
`
`litigationscases:
`
` 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 (CN.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;
`
`Page ii
`
`Page 2 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. Google LLC, 2:18-cv-00493 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed November 17, 2018;
`
` 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:
`
`Page iii
`
`Page 3 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
` Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01218 (Claims 1-9);
`
` Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01219 (Claims 10-20).
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing another IPR petition challenging claims 1-9
`
`of the ’654 patent.
`
` 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.
`
`Page iv
`
`Page 4 of 80
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Todd M. SiegelTiffany C. Miller, Reg.
`52,032No. 73,232
`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
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`Back-upBackup Counsel
`(First Back-Up)
`Andrew(for Apple and Motorola)
`James M. MasonHeintz, Reg. No.
`64,03441,828
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`
`John M. Lunsford, Reg. 11911 Freedom
`Dr., Suite 300
`Reston VA 20190
`Phone: 703.773.4000
`Fax: 703.773.5000
`Apple-Uniloc19-
`Email:
`
`DLA@us.dlapiper.comNo. 67,185
`
`Joseph T. Jakubek, Reg. No. 34,190
`
`(for Samsung)
`Naveen Modi, Reg. No. 46,224
`Joseph E. Palys, Reg. No. 46,508
`Phillip W. Citroën, Reg. No.
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN,66,541
`Paul Hastings LLP
`121 SW Salmon875 15th Street, Suite
`1600 NW
`Portland, Oregon, 97204
`503-595-5300 (phone)
`503-595-5301 (fax)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 viaby email at the above email addresses.
`
`Page v
`
`Page 5 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), concurrently filed with this petition is a
`
`Power of Attorney executed by Petitioner: Apple-Uniloc19-DLA@us.dlapiper.com
`
`and appointing the above counselPH-Samsung-Uniloc-IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`Page vi
`
`Page 6 of 80
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“
`
`IPR2019-01471
`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`
`Page iii
`
`Page 7 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 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.
`
`Page 1
`
`Page 8 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 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. 02-455050-3266. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15(a). Any fee adjustments may be debited/credited to the deposit account.
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 9 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 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.
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 10 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 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).
`
`Page 4
`
`Page 11 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`C. Microsoft’sPetitioner’s Petition Should Be Granted Despite Other
`Third-PartySamsung’s Previous Petitions Challenging The Same
`Patent
`On July 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. Over nine months later, Uniloc
`
`filed suit against Microsoft, alleging infringement of the same patent. While In
`
`response, Samsung already has filed two petitions challenging the claims of the ’654
`
`patent, Microsoft’s challenges are not redundant and should be separately considered
`
`and instituted for several reasons.
`
`First, Microsoft independently developed its grounds and petition, and
`
`promptly files this petition just over three months after first being sued. Second,
`
`Microsoft files this petition before any patent owner response to Samsung’s petitions.
`
`Third, while Microsoft relies on some of the same art applied in the Samsung
`
`petitions, the Nokia Manual, it presents that art in a different light and combines it
`
`with other art not cited in the Samsung petition. For example, the present petition
`
`combines the Nokia Manual with Barvesten, whereas Samsung combines it with two
`
`different references. Fourth, Microsoft presents a ground based on Barvesten and
`
`Schultz, neither of which were even cited in the Samsung petitions, much less relied
`
`on as part of a ground of unpatentability. Fifth, Patent Owner chose to assert this
`
`patent in a temporally staggered fashion against numerous defendants, and the
`
`Page 5
`
`Page 12 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`staggered filing of these responsive IPR petitions results from the Patent Owner’s
`
`decision to assert its patent in serial, instead of simultaneous, lawsuits.2 Finally, the
`
`Samsung IPR proceedings may settle or otherwise terminate for reasons outside of
`
`Microsoft’s control. If Microsoft were time-barred under § 315 at that point, it would
`
`have no recourse to challenge the patent via IPR, thus necessitating the filing of this
`
`petition now. While joinder theoretically is an option, it is too risky given that
`
`institution of the Samsung IPRs is not guaranteed and if Microsoft waited to file its
`
`own petition, Uniloc would no doubt accuse Microsoft of unwarranted delay and
`
`gamesmanship.
`
`A. Microsoft’s Concurrent Petition Challenges Different Claims
`As noted above, Petitioner is concurrently filing another IPR petition :
`
`IPR2019-01218 (challenging different claims of the ’654 patent, namely IPR2019-
`
`01470. Specifically, this petition challenges claims 10-20 of the ’654 patent, several
`
`of which are being asserted against Petitioner in the underlying district court
`
`litigation. Concurrently filed IPR2019-1470 challenges only claims 1-9 of the ’654
`
`patent. Notably, claims 1-9 recite means plus function language, which is not found
`
`in claims 10-20. It is possible that the Board will determine that corresponding
`
`structure is lacking in the specification for the functions recited by claims 1-9.
`
`2 According to Docket Navigator, the purported patent owner has asserted the ’654 patent against
`at least 7 different defendants, in 6 different district courts, with complaint filing dates that span
`from April 9, 2018 to April 29, 2019. See Ex. 1015.
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 13 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`Petitioner is mindful of the July 2019 Trial Practice Guide Update’s
`
`discussion of parallel petitions ) and IPR2019-01219 (challenging the same patent.
`
`Importantly, the update cites Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2019-00224, -00225, -00226, -00227, -00228, -00229 (PTAB April 3,
`
`2019) wherein the petitioner filed six separate petitions challenging claims 1-28 of
`
`the same patent. This is not that case. Although Petitioner here is filing two petitions
`
`against the same patent, no claim is being challenged in claims 10-20). The Board
`
`denied institution of both petitions, and Petitioner contends that the Board should
`
`give consideration to all challenged claims. Nonetheless, pursuant to the guidance
`
`in Comcast, Petitioner notes that it would prioritize this petition over IPR2019-
`
`01470, which challenges claims 1-9, none of which is presently asserted against
`
`Petitioner in the underlying district court litigation. 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
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 14 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`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
`
`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,
`
`Page 8
`
`Page 15 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`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.
`
`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
`
`Page 9
`
`Page 16 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`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.
`
`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.
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 17 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`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
`
`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.
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 18 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`Page 12
`
`Page 19 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`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), ¶ 3 ¶ 43.
`
`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
`
`3 Dr. Houh has agreed to cooperate with Petitioner.
`
`Page 13
`
`Page 20 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`Proceeding for completeness and given it is essentially identical to the petition filed
`
`in the Microsoft IPR Proceeding.4
`
`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
`
`4 Petitioner reserves all rights to raise different claim construction and other
`
`arguments in district court as relevant and necessary to those proceedings.
`
`Page 14
`
`Page 21 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`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.
`
`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).
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 22 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`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
`
`originally assigned to Ericsson, Inc. Ericsson is a multinational company that has
`
`been manufacturing and selling telephones and related equipment for over 100 years.
`
`The subject matter discussed in Barvesten relates generally to mobile
`
`telephone services, and more specifically, directed at improving security for mobile
`
`telephone subscribers. For example, Barvesten recognizes that unsecure mobile
`
`telephones are at risk of being stolen, including those that are not locked such that
`
`anybody can use the device other than just the particular subscriber for the device.
`
`Ex. 1006, 1:10-24. Barvesten noted that one way to protect the device is to lock the
`
`device, and to also lock the access unit card that is inserted into the device, such that
`
`a user has to both enter a code to unlock the device and then enter a different code
`
`to unlock the access unit card that is inserted into the device. Ex. 1006, 1:25-28.
`
`Barvesten provides a solution such that a user does not have to enter two
`
`different codes upon every activation of the device. Ex. 1006, 1:44-48. For example,
`
`Barvesten provides an arrangement wherein upon activating a device (mobile phone),
`
`the device and SIM-card (Subscriber Identity Module) communicate with each other.
`
`The IMSI-code (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) is stored in the device’s
`
`Page 16
`
`Page 23 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`memory. Then, when the device is used, the device can verify whether the currently-
`
`inserted SIM-card is authorized by comparing the IMSI-code with the code in
`
`memory. Ex. 1006, 4:7-61.
`
`C. Motivation And Rationale To Combine Nokia and Barvesten
`A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`Nokia Manual with Barvesten, and would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in making the combination to implement a device that integrated the mobile
`
`device and security measures of Barvesten with the device inactivity lock security
`
`measure of Nokia. For at least the following reasons, a PHOSITA in December 2000
`
`would have been motivated to make this natural and straightforward combination.
`
`Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 55-58.
`
`First, each of the Nokia Manual and Barvesten is expressly aimed at
`
`improving security for mobile telephone devices; thus, the teachings in these
`
`references complement one another. Id., ¶ 56.
`
`Second, since the goal in the Nokia Manual, as well as in Barvesten, is to
`
`improve security, a PHOSITA reading the Nokia Manual would understand that
`
`implementing the teachings of Barvesten into Nokia would have improved the
`
`security taught by Nokia. For example, the Nokia Manual discloses the ability to
`
`detect SIM card changes, locking the phone if the SIM is not recognized. Id., ¶ 57.
`
`Barvesten provides additional detail regarding how devices might ensure that
`
`Page 17
`
`Page 24 of 80
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`installed SIM cards are indeed authorized and appropriately link the device and the
`
`user. Thus, incorporating Barvesten’s teachings into the Nokia Manual would
`
`inform a PHOSITA as to an improved sense of security. Id.
`
`Third, the particular teachings of the Nokia Manual rely on much of the same
`
`principles and disclosures of Barvesten, such as a mobile telephone having a
`
`subscriber identification module. Id., ¶ 58. Therefore, a PHOSITA seeking to
`
`improve the security of mobile telephones would naturally seek out and incorporate
`
`the teachings of Nokia, which is aimed at a discrete improvement to the overall goal
`
`of Barvesten. Id.
`
`Finally, a PHOSITA would have had no issues integrating the Barvesten and
`
`Nokia device security technologies