`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Google LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 9,564,952
`Case No. IPR2020-00756
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,564,952
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Preliminary Statement ..................................................................................... 1
`The ’952 Patent ................................................................................................ 2
`A. Overview of the ’952 Patent .................................................................. 2
`B.
`The Challenged Claims ......................................................................... 5
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ............................................................ 6
`III.
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill .................................................................................... 8
`V.
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 9
`VI. Ground 1—Paulson and Surprenant Render Obvious Claims 9-12 .............10
`A. Overview of Paulson ...........................................................................10
`B.
`Overview of Surprenant ......................................................................11
`C.
`Rationale for Combining Paulson and Surprenant .............................15
`D.
`Paulson and Surprenant Render Obvious Claims 9-12 ......................20
`1.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................20
`2.
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................48
`3.
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................51
`4.
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................53
`VII. Ground 2—Paulson, Surprenant, and Beenau Render Obvious Claims
`9-12 ................................................................................................................54
`A. Overview of Beenau ............................................................................54
`B.
`Rationale to Combine Paulson and Surprenant with Beenau ............55
`C.
`Paulson, Surprenant, and Beenau Render Obvious Claims 9-12 .......58
`1.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................58
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`2.
`Claims 10-12 .............................................................................62
`VIII. Ground 3—Paulson, Surprenant, and McConnell Render Obvious
`Claim 11 .........................................................................................................62
`A. Overview of McConnell ......................................................................62
`B.
`Paulson, Surprenant, and McConnell Render Obvious Claim 11 ......64
`IX. Ground 4—Paulson, Surprenant, Beenau, and McConnell Render
`Obvious Claim 11 ..........................................................................................66
`The Record Does Not Support a Discretionary Denial .................................66
`X.
`XI. Mandatory Notices.........................................................................................68
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ........................................................................68
`B.
`Related Matters ....................................................................................68
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel .................................................................69
`D.
`Service Information .............................................................................70
`XII. Grounds for Standing .....................................................................................70
`XIII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................70
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Circuit Cases
`Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 15
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 15
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2019-126, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4588
`(Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020) ..................................................................................... 67
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 15
`In re Mouttett,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 19
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 9
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................................ 9
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Cases
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017)........................................... 66
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential) ................... 68
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ................................................................................................. 67
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 7, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 66
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`Other Authorities
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims
`in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) .................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952 (“the ’952 patent”)
`Ex. 1002 Excerpts of the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`Ex. 1004 Curriculum Vitae of Stuart J. Lipoff
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 8,514,662 (“Paulson”)
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 8,837,257 (“Surprenant”)
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0171851 (“Beenau”)
`Ex. 1008 PCT Publication No. WO 97/31437 (“McConnell”)
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 (“the ’216 patent”)
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0093920
`(“the ’920 publication”)
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0093701
`(“the ’701 publication”)
`Ex. 1012 Executed Summons in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-cv-
`00552-JRG (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2019)
`Ex. 1013 Docket in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00552-JRG-
`RSP (E.D. Tex.)
`Ex. 1014 Order in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00552-JRG-
`RSP (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2020)
`Joint Motion for Entry of Docket Control Order in Uniloc 2017 LLC v.
`Google LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00552-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. July 15, 2019)
`Joint Claim Construction Chart in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:18-cv-00552-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2020)
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1017 U.S. Patent No. 5,952,922 (“Shober”)
`Ex. 1018 Order in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00552-JRG-
`RSP (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2020)
`Ex. 1019 E-mail from Brett Mangrum, Counsel for Patent Owner, to Erika H.
`Arner, Counsel for Petitioner (Tuesday, March 24, 2020, 12:49:33
`PM) regarding Google IPR petitions
`Ex. 1020 E-mail from Andrew Kellogg, Supervisory Paralegal, Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, to Erika H. Arner, Counsel for Petitioner (Wednesday,
`March 25, 2020, 11:25:40 AM) regarding Electronic IPR Service
`Under 37 CFR 42.5(b) in view of COVID-19
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`Preliminary Statement
`Google LLC1 requests inter partes review of claims 9-12 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`I.
`
`9,564,952 (Ex. 1001). The ’952 patent claims an authentication method using
`
`“encoded sound waves” instead of radio waves as the communication medium. It
`
`explains that using encoded sound waves instead of radio waves avoids expensive
`
`hardware modifications because the hardware necessary for communicating using
`
`sound waves (speakers and microphones) is already included on many devices. But
`
`using sound waves to communicate information as a substitute for radio waves was
`
`disclosed in Paulson and Surprenant, which are related prior art references that
`
`disclose how to implement sonic communications.
`
`The combined Paulson/Surprenant system discloses every feature of
`
`challenged claims 9-12, thus rendering them obvious. The Paulson/Surprenant
`
`system alone renders these claims obvious, but the Beenau reference provides
`
`additional express disclosure of the types of data that would have been obvious to
`
`send using Paulson’s and Surprenant’s sonic communication system, and also
`
`teaches exemplary applications where this type of sonic communication system
`
`
`1 Google LLC is a subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., which is a subsidiary of
`
`Alphabet Inc. XXVI Holdings Inc. and Alphabet Inc. are not real parties-in-interest
`
`to this proceeding.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`would have been useful. Petitioner therefore relies on the Paulson/Surprenant
`
`system in Ground 1, and relies on that same system in conjunction with Beenau in
`
`Ground 2.
`
`Grounds 3 and 4 challenge only claim 11, which is directed to transmitting a
`
`modulated carrier wave until a stop indication is received from a user. While the
`
`Paulson/Surprenant system renders this feature obvious, the McConnell reference
`
`provides additional express disclosure of it. Accordingly, Ground 3 relies on
`
`Paulson/Surprenant with McConnell, and Ground 4 relies on these same references
`
`in addition to Beenau.
`
`Based on these references and grounds, Petitioner respectfully requests that
`
`the Board institute inter partes review and cancel claims 9-12 of the ’952 patent.
`
`II. The ’952 Patent
`A. Overview of the ’952 Patent
`The ’952 patent, titled “Near Field Authentication Through Communication
`
`of Enclosed Content Sound Waves,” discloses near-field authentication of sources
`
`using “encoded sound waves” rather than radio waves. (’952 patent at 1:10-16.) It
`
`explains that other methods of wireless communication, such as WiFi, Bluetooth,
`
`and conventional radio near-field communication, require upgrades or retrofitting
`
`with expensive equipment and software. (Id. at 1:18-60.) To solve this alleged
`
`problem, the ’952 patent discloses communicating using sound waves, which avoids
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`the need to have “physical components modified with expensive equipment”
`
`because the system “can use the speaker already included in the [device],” such as a
`
`mobile phone. (Id. at 11:42-59.)
`
`Before sending information using sound waves, the described invention first
`
`scans a plurality of audio frequencies for a free frequency, which can be “a frequency
`
`which has a noise level below a predetermined noise level threshold or a frequency
`
`that has an interference level below a predetermined interference level threshold.”
`
`(Id. at 5:7-21, Fig. 6.) The described invention then selects the free frequency. (Id.
`
`at 5:7-21, 11:18-24, Fig. 6.) The described invention then uses “known techniques
`
`for generating a device fingerprint,” which comprises a “bit array that includes or is
`
`derived from user-configurable and non-user-configurable data specific to the audio
`
`transceiver computing device,” which is included in the content of a periodic
`
`enclosed content message. (Id. at 5:22-51, 6:34-37.) The described invention next
`
`generates a modulated carrier wave representing the enclosed content message and
`
`transmits the modulated carrier at the free frequency. (Id. at 5:38-51.) The ’952
`
`patent depicts this process in the flowchart of Figure 6 (shown below).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 6.)
`
`The periodic enclosed content message includes “multiple periods with each
`
`period including an enclosed content message.” (Id. at 5:52-54.) Each enclosed
`
`content message includes a begin indication, message content, and an end indication.
`
`(Id. at 5:55-60.) The begin indication can be “any type of signal that uniquely
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`indicates the beginning of the enclosed content message, for example, a specified
`
`sequence of binary bits.” (Id. at 5:60-63.) Similarly, the end indication can be “any
`
`type of signal that indicates the ending of the enclosed content message.” (Id. at
`
`5:63-65.) The ’952 patent depicts enclosed content messages 302a and 302n in
`
`Figure 3 (shown below).
`
`(Id. at Fig. 3.)
`
`The Challenged Claims
`B.
`Petitioner challenges claims 9-12 of the ’952 patent, of which claim 9 is
`
`
`
`independent:
`
`9. A method for near field authentication of a source, the source
`
`using an audio transceiver computing device, the method comprising:
`
`scanning a plurality of predetermined frequencies for a free
`frequency;
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`selecting the free frequency from the plurality of predetermined
`
`frequencies;
`
`generating a periodic enclosed content message;
`
`generating a modulated carrier wave representing the periodic
`enclosed content message; and
`
`transmitting the modulated carrier wave at the free frequency;
`
`wherein each period of the periodic enclosed content message
`includes a begin indication, a content, and an end indication;
`
`wherein the content includes device identification data including
`a bit array derived from user-configurable and non-user-configurable
`data specific to the audio transceiver computing device; and
`
`wherein the modulated carrier wave comprises a sound wave.
`
`(Id. at 14:53-15:5.)
`
`Claims 10-12 depend from claim 9 and recite additional features. Claim 10
`
`recites “transmitting the modulated carrier wave for [either] a predetermined number
`
`of periods, or a predetermined period of time.” (Id. at 15:6-9.) Claim 11 recites
`
`“transmitting the modulated carrier wave until a stop indication is received from a
`
`user.” (Id. at 15:10-12.) Finally, claim 12 recites that “the carrier wave is modulated
`
`by the periodic enclosed content message.” (Id. at 15:13-14.)
`
`III. Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`For the reasons discussed below, claims 9-12 are unpatentable and should be
`
`canceled in view of the following prior art references and grounds:
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`Prior Art References
`
`Ref. 1 Paulson, U.S. Patent No. 8,514,662 (Ex. 1005); filed on August 27,
`
`2010; prior art under pre-America Invents Act (“AIA”)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e).2
`
`Ref. 2
`
`Surprenant, U.S. Patent No. 8,837,257 (Ex. 1006); filed on June 2,
`
`2011; prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).3
`
`Ref. 3 Beenau, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0171851
`
`(Ex. 1007); published July 2, 2009; prior art under at least pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`2 The ’952 patent was filed on January 4, 2013, and claims priority to a
`
`provisional application filed on February 6, 2012. (Ex. 1002 at 3.) Petitioner takes
`
`no position on whether the claims are entitled to the provisional filing date because
`
`the cited references are prior art even if they are accorded the earlier date.
`
`3 Surprenant also claims priority to a provisional application filed on
`
`November 29, 2010.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`Prior Art References
`
`Ref. 4 McConnell, International Publication No. WO 97/31437 (Ex. 1008);
`
`published August 28, 1997, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`Ground
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`1
`
`Paulson and Surprenant render obvious claims 9-12 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`2
`
`Paulson, Surprenant, and Beenau render obvious claims 9-12 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`3
`
`Paulson and Surprenant in view of McConnell render obvious claim
`
`11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`4
`
`Paulson, Surprenant, and Beenau in view of McConnell render
`
`obvious claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill
`A person of ordinary skill at the time of the alleged invention of the ’952
`
`patent would have held at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`computer science and had one year of relevant experience in the field of wireless
`
`communications. (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33-35.) Less work experience may be compensated
`
`by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa. (Id. ¶ 34)
`
`V. Claim Construction
`The Board construes claims in accordance with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Changes to the Claim Construction Standard
`
`for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claims only
`
`need to be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve [a] controversy.” Nidec
`
`Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017) (citation omitted).
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, no terms need express construction because
`
`the claims encompass the prior art mappings provided below under any reasonable
`
`construction of the terms consistent with the Phillips standard. In the related district
`
`court litigation, the parties disputed the meaning of a number of claim terms, but the
`
`cited prior art renders the claims obvious under both parties’ proposed constructions.
`
`(See Ex. 1016.) To the extent further comments on claim construction are warranted,
`
`however, they are provided below in the relevant sections when addressing how the
`
`claims encompass the prior art.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`VI. Ground 1—Paulson and Surprenant Render Obvious Claims 9-12
`A. Overview of Paulson
`Paulson discloses a system for “wirelessly transmitting and receiving data
`
`through sonic communication.” (Paulson at Abstract; see generally Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38-
`
`40.) “A digital representation of . . . data is modulated consistent with a modulation
`
`protocol using one or more sonic transmission frequencies . . . .” (Paulson at
`
`Abstract.) Paulson explains that using sonic communications has “considerable
`
`economic advantages” because the “majority of the hardware required for sonic
`
`communication is already installed on the computers and mobile devices of interest.”
`
`(Id. at 3:51-67.)
`
`Figure 1, annotated below, shows an example communication system using
`
`sonic-enabled communication services. (Id. at 4:1-6.) Within the system, various
`
`mobile devices communicate with sonic stations by using sound components and
`
`capabilities already installed on the mobile devices. (See id. at 6:42-61, 3:51-67.)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 1 (annotated); Ex. 1003 ¶ 39.)
`
`Paulson carefully selects the sonic transmission frequencies and timing of the
`
`transmission. (Paulson at 11:13-35.) By using a combination of timing, frequency
`
`selection, and repeated transmissions, Paulson achieves robust communication even
`
`in noisier environments. (Id.) Paulson also discloses that its sonic communication
`
`system is a beneficial alternative to other wireless means of conveying information,
`
`such as infrared (id. at 1:49-57), Bluetooth (id. at 1:58-65), bar codes (id. at 1:66-
`
`2:7), and radio frequency identification (“RFID”) (id. at 2:8-14).
`
`B. Overview of Surprenant
`Complementary to Paulson, Surprenant details an “acoustic modulation
`
`protocol” that may be used in a broader acoustic system like Paulson’s. (Surprenant
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`at Title; see generally Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41-46.) Surprenant shares an inventor, Brett L.
`
`Paulson, with Paulson and refers to Paulson as a related application that is
`
`incorporated by reference. (Surprenant at 1:6-10 (identifying Paulson’s “patent
`
`application Ser. No. 12/870,767”).)
`
`Figure 3 of Surprenant (shown below) discloses a process for generating a
`
`modulated acoustic carrier signal.
`
`(Id. at Fig. 3.)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`As shown in Figure 3, “binary data is . . . used to modulate one or more
`
`selected frequencies for one or more [of] the acoustic carrier signals to generate one
`
`or more modulated acoustic carrier signals.” (Id. at 7:58-8:3.) Most of the
`
`components of the modulated acoustic carrier signal are shown below in Figure 4.
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 4.)
`
`As shown, the modulated acoustic carrier signal includes “a locking segment
`
`400, a mark segment 402, and a data segment 404.” (Id. at 8:54-58.) The locking
`
`segment “enables the acoustic communication demodulation component 124 or
`
`decoder in the receive device 102 to determine the receiving signal frequencies” and
`
`“to ignore irrelevant signals in the same audio band as well as equalize its frequency
`
`detection channels.” (Id. at 8:59-64.) The mark segment “may be used to reset data
`
`reception parameters . . . and prepare for the reception of the data, looking for a start-
`
`bit.” (Id. at 9:1-3.) “Data alignment may be adjusted to begin at the first start bit
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`after the mark segment 402.” (Id. at 9:6-7.) “The data segment 404 may comprise
`
`2 to N words of data followed by a cyclic redundancy check, CRC (not shown).”
`
`(Id. at 9:8-12.)
`
`Surprenant also discloses that “the message may include an AMP ID.”
`
`(Surprenant at 7:44.) It teaches that “the AMP ID is a unique identification string”
`
`that is specific to “the transmit device 101 and/or the user of the transmit device
`
`101.” (Id. at 7:45-49.) Surprenant explains that, in one embodiment, “the AMP ID
`
`may comprise credentials that enable the receive device 103 to access an account
`
`and perform various services such as financial transactions, file sharing, or
`
`information exchange, for example.” (Id. at 7:53-57.)
`
`Like Paulson, Surprenant discloses that its sonic communication system is a
`
`beneficial alternative to other wireless means of conveying information, including
`
`RFID. It explains that “[t]he acoustics modulation protocol of the exemplary
`
`embodiments enable two or more devices to communicate acoustically with one
`
`another without the need for specialized hardware (e.g., . . . RFID tags, dongles, and
`
`the like) other than microphones and speakers found on most computers and portable
`
`devices.” (Id. at 4:6-20.)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`C. Rationale for Combining Paulson and Surprenant
`It would have been obvious to combine Paulson with Surprenant to utilize
`
`Surprenant’s improved modulation protocol in Paulson’s sonic communication
`
`system. (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47-56.)
`
`Initially, both references are within the same field of endeavor, both being
`
`directed to sonic communication systems. (Paulson at Abstract (“sonic carrier”);
`
`Surprenant at Abstract (“acoustic carrier signals”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 48.) In addition,
`
`Paulson and Surprenant appear to be directed to parts of the same or at least similar
`
`inventions because they share an inventor, Brett Paulson, and are assigned to the
`
`same entity. In addition, Surprenant expressly cites to Paulson as a related patent
`
`application that is incorporated by reference into Surprenant.4 (Surprenant at 1:6-
`
`
`4 Courts have found incorporation by reference to support invalidity in
`
`appropriate circumstances, concluding that the incorporated documents constituted
`
`a single reference for purposes of invalidity. See, e.g., Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
`
`Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371, 1381 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Advanced Display
`
`Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); Callaway Golf
`
`Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (same). The Board may
`
`similarly treat Paulson and Surprenant as a single reference. Yet even considered
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`10 (identifying Paulson’s “patent application Ser. No. 12/870,767”).) Thus, a person
`
`of ordinary skill would naturally have been led to consider the teachings of Paulson
`
`and Surprenant together. (Ex. 1003 ¶ 48.)
`
`Paulson discloses a method and apparatus for wirelessly receiving data
`
`through sonic communications but does not provide details regarding the modulation
`
`protocol used. (Paulson at Abstract; Ex. 1003 ¶ 49.) Instead, Paulson provides an
`
`example of a potential modulation protocol (i.e., “a protocol based upon frequency
`
`shift key modulation”), and states that “alternate modulation protocols may also be
`
`used including minimum shift keying (MSK), quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK)
`
`and others.” (Paulson at 12:19-31.) Surprenant, however, is specifically directed
`
`to an “Acoustic Modulation Protocol” (Surprenant at Title), and provides additional
`
`details about generating “modulated acoustic carrier signals” (id. at Abstract,
`
`Figs. 3-4, 2:39-54).
`
`Surprenant provides details for ensuring reliable transmission of a modulated
`
`acoustic signal in a system like Paulson’s, including using binary data to modulate
`
`the signal along with providing the locking segment, mark segment, and CRC
`
`
`as two references, the incorporation by reference of Paulson in Surprenant here
`
`demonstrates why one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to consider their
`
`complementary disclosures together in an obviousness analysis. (Ex. 1003 ¶ 48.)
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`discussed above in Section VI.B, as well as ways to receive portions of data and
`
`assemble them into a completed message as discussed in Section VI.D.2. The
`
`locking segment beneficially “allows the receive device 103 to ignore irrelevant
`
`signals in the same audio band as well as equalize its frequency detection channels.”
`
`(Id. at 8:61-64.) The mark segment provides the advantage of “reset[ting] data
`
`reception parameters (buffers are cleared) and prepar[ing] for the reception of data,”
`
`allowing the start of the data to be identified with a “start-bit.” (Id. at 9:1-7.) The
`
`CRC beneficially “ensures data integrity” by enabling the receiver to determine if
`
`certain errors exist in the received data. (Id. at 9:9-11.) And the data assembly
`
`process beneficially allows the receiving device to overcome momentary noise in
`
`the environment by allowing it to receive segments of a message at one time and
`
`then receive other segments at another time. Once all segments have been received,
`
`it assembles the data into a complete message. (Id. at 16:23-29.)
`
`Surprenant also explains
`
`that an “[a]coustic
`
`transmissions strategy
`
`component 122 includes functions and datasets necessary for identifying the
`
`acoustic transmission frequencies and timing to transmit and receive data
`
`acoustically.” (Id. at 5:3-23.) Although it discloses one embodiment in which the
`
`system selects the highest frequency available (id. at 7:58-8:3), it does not provide
`
`the further details that Paulson discloses regarding the strategy for selecting
`
`frequencies and timing. In particular, Paulson discloses specific details regarding
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`algorithms for selecting an acoustic frequency and the timing for transmitting an
`
`audio signal. (See Paulson at Fig. 4 (flow chart), 11:13-35 (describing careful
`
`selection of the sonic transmission frequencies and timing of the transmission),
`
`12:49-14:18.) Paulson and Surprenant thus provide complementary disclosures
`
`regarding acoustic data transmission. (Ex. 1003 ¶ 51.)
`
`A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious either to implement
`
`Surprenant’s entire modulation protocol in Paulson’s sonic communication system
`
`or to add beneficial aspects of Surprenant’s transmission techniques (e.g., the
`
`locking, mark, and CRC to enable more reliable data transmissions) to Paulson’s
`
`transmission protocol. (Ex. 1003 ¶ 52.)
`
`Regarding substituting Surprenant’s modulation protocol for Paulson’s, this
`
`would have been obvious because it is a mere substitution of one known element (a
`
`modulation protocol) for another (a similar modulation protocol), with predictable
`
`results that provided a reasonable expectation of success. (Id. ¶ 53.) Paulson
`
`contemplates such a substitution, providing a teaching and suggestion to use other
`
`modulation protocols known in the art in its sonic communication system to replace
`
`its exemplary protocols. (Paulson at 12:28-31.) Likewise, Surprenant states that its
`
`modulation protocol is an alternative to and improvement upon certain prior art
`
`modulation protocols. (Surprenant at 2:29-35.) Thus, implementing Surprenant’s
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`modulation protocol in Paulson would have been an obvious substitution and, at a
`
`minimum, obvious to try. (Ex. 1003 ¶ 53.)
`
`Regarding incorporating aspects of Surprenant’s transmission protocol into
`
`Paulson, it would have been obvious to incorporate the marking, lock, and CRC
`
`features of Surprenant to improve the reliability of Paulson’s transmissions, as
`
`discussed above. (Ex. 1003 ¶ 54.) Doing so would not require any additional
`
`hardware, as Paulson already provides hardware for modulating and demodulating
`
`signals either locally or via a server. Updating the systems to use Surprenant’s
`
`additional reliability-enhancing features would require only a software update in the
`
`modulation and demodulation routines. (Id.) These changes are straightforward and
`
`would have been well within the capability of a person of ordinary skill. (Id.)
`
`Paulson and Surprenant render obvious the claims addressed below because
`
`a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement the combined
`
`sonic communication system, based on their combined teachings, regardless of
`
`which reference is considered the “primary reference.” See, e.g., In re Mouttett,
`
`686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[W]here the relevant factual inquiries
`
`underlying an obviousness determination are otherwise clear, characterization by the
`
`examiner of prior art as ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ is merely a matter of presentation
`
`with no legal significance.” (citations omitted)).
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`Although the above analysis characterizes Paulson as the primary reference
`
`or starting point, and explains why a person of skill would have been motivated to
`
`use Surprenant’s modulation protocol, changing the primary reference would not
`
`alter the conclusion of obviousness. (Ex. 1003 ¶ 56.) For example, if one of
`
`ordinary skill were to begin with Surprenant’s modulation technique, one would
`
`have recognized the benefits of incorporating Paulson’s additional teachings
`
`regarding scanning for a free frequency, among the other teachings discussed above,
`
`especially because Surprenant refers to and incorporates Paulson’s complementary
`
`teachings by reference. (Id.)
`
`D.
`
`Paulson and Surprenant Render Obvious Claims 9-12
`Clai