`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LBT IP I LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 6
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`Exhibit Numer Description
`2001
`Declaration of Brian S. Seal in support of Patent Owner’s
`Unopposed Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Revised Declaration of Brian S. Seal in support of Patent
`Owner’s Unopposed Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Transcript of deposition of Scott Andrews
`U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0174603 (Appl. No. 11/969,905)
`Sun, U.S. Patent Number 7,612,663
`Syrjarinne et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0113124
`Suprun et al., U.S. Patent Number 7,292,223
`Croyle et al., U.S. Patent Number 5,862,511
`Lau et al., U.S. Patent Number 5,592,173
`Tsai, U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0057068
`Huang et al., U.S. Patent Number 7,826,968
`File history of U.S. Patent Number 8,421,619
`U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0189807 (Appl. No. 12/419,451)
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 13/356,614
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/969,905
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 13/356,699
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 12/419,451
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 13/356,643
`File history of U.S. Patent Number 8,497,774
`
`2002
`
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`
`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As discussed in Patent Owner’s Opening Brief, the language of Claim 8 from
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774 (“the ’774 Patent”) clearly shows that the term “a
`
`multitude of threshold values” is limited to battery power level threshold values and
`
`does not include GPS signal strength values. Specifically, Claim 8 recites:
`
`wherein the battery power level monitor measures a power level of the
`
`charging unit and adjusts a power level applied to location tracking
`
`circuitry responsive to one or more signal levels, the power level
`
`comprising a multitude of threshold values determined by a user or
`
`system administrator to intermittently activate or deactivate the location
`
`tracking circuitry to conserve power of the charging unit in response to
`
`the estimated charge level of the charging unit.
`
`EX1001, 16:43-61 (emphasis added). That claim language shows that “the power
`
`level comprising a multitude of threshold values” refers back to the “power level of
`
`the charging unit” and the “power level applied to location tracking circuitry,” and
`
`thus decides the question.
`
`Petitioner’s opening brief, however, ignores that clear claim language.
`
`Instead, it relies on a single embodiment disclosed in the ’774 Patent that is separate
`
`and distinct from the embodiment covered by Claim 8’s “multitude of threshold
`
`levels” and thus cannot support Petitioner’s argument. See Paper 45, 1-6.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`Even if the Board focused solely on the embodiments disclosed in the
`
`specification, the claimed “power level comprising a multitude of threshold values”
`
`is limited to battery power level values. The ’774 Patent discloses two distinct and
`
`complimentary embodiments that are each separately encompassed in Claim 8.
`
`Petitioner correctly observed that the Federal Circuit has repeatedly admonished
`
`against a claim construction that would read out a specific embodiment disclosed in
`
`the specification by noting that “a claim construction excluding a preferred
`
`embodiment is rarely, if ever correct.” Sequoia Tech, LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th
`
`1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Kaufman v. Microsoft., 34 F.4th 1360, 1372 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2022)). However, Petitioner’s proposed construction would, in clear error,
`
`exclude the second embodiment. The proper construction of the term “a multitude
`
`of threshold values” recited in Claim 8 is limited to battery power level threshold
`
`values in accordance with the preferred embodiment shown in FIG. 4 and disclosed
`
`in the corresponding portion of the specification. See EX1001, 11:1-14:57.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`As discussed above, the claim language alone shows that Claim 8’s recitation
`
`of “the power level comprising a multitude of threshold values” refers back to “a
`
`power level of the charging unit” and “a power level applied to the location tracking
`
`circuitry” and is thus limited to battery power level threshold values. That
`
`conclusion is supported by the embodiments disclosed in the specification.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`Petitioner mischaracterizes the first embodiment shown in FIG. 3 as
`
`“includ[ing] GPS signal level as part of the multitude of threshold values.” Paper
`
`45, at 1 (emphasis added). Yet, the quoted portion of the ’774 Patent discloses only
`
`a single GPS signal level. EX1001, 7:55-59 (“detecting a first signal level, e.g., a
`
`low signal level or threshold value”) (emphases added). Even when the single GPS
`
`signal level is referred to as a threshold value, it is a singular value.
`
`More importantly, the embodiment of FIG. 3 upon which Petitioner relies
`
`relates to a different portion of the relevant limitation, specifically, “adjusts a power
`
`level applied to location tracking circuitry responsive to one or more signal levels.”
`
`EX1001, 16:54-56. Of note, this portion was, as originally filed, recited in a distinct
`
`dependent claim (claim 16). EX2019, at 372.
`
`While Petitioner notes that “[u]tilizing only battery levels as the multitude of
`
`threshold values simply would not work with the embodiment of Figure 3,” Paper
`
`45, at 5, “the power level comprising a multitude of threshold values” has nothing
`
`to do with the embodiment of FIG. 3. Instead, “the power level comprising a
`
`multitude of threshold values” corresponds to the embodiment of FIG. 4.
`
`Petitioner further identifies the ’774 Patent as “only us[ing] the phrase
`
`‘threshold value’ two times.” Id., at 6. Petitioner continues “[o]ne use of ‘threshold
`
`value’ appears in column 13 in a description of Figure 4.” Id. Of note, however, is
`
`that this distinct and complementary embodiment is the only disclosure that
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`explicitly uses the phrase “multitude of threshold values.” EX1001, 13:58-62 (“the
`
`present invention has the capability of power level (e.g., battery power level 406)
`
`adjustments include multitude of threshold values.”).
`
`Petitioner’s subsequent admission is both significant and dispositive – “[h]ere,
`
`the patentee is equating the battery power levels with the multitude of threshold
`
`values–a point that is not in dispute between the parties.” Paper 45, at 6-7. Petitioner
`
`admits, and acknowledges no dispute, that the multitude of threshold values
`
`disclosed in conjunction with the embodiment of FIG. 4 only refer to battery power
`
`levels. Since “the power level comprising a multitude of threshold values”
`
`corresponds to the embodiment of FIG. 4, there is no dispute that a proper
`
`construction of “a multitude of threshold values” is limited to battery power level
`
`threshold values.
`
`As Patent Owner stated in it’s Opening Brief on Remand “[a]s originally filed,
`
`the ‘multitude of threshold values’ limitation was recited in former dependent claim
`
`17.” Paper 44, at 3 (citing EX2019, at 372). Patent Owner further stated “[a]s clearly
`
`disclosed, the recited ‘multitude of threshold values’ corresponds to value 419,
`
`which is explicitly disclosed as defining a battery power level threshold that can be
`
`adjusted to a multitude of values.” Id., at 4 (citing EX1001, FIG. 4; 11:44-63 and
`
`13:58-67). To construe “multitude of threshold values” as suggested by Petitioner
`
`would erroneously read the preferred embodiment of FIG. 4 out of the claim.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`To be clear, Petitioner attempts to improperly conflate the distinct
`
`embodiments of FIGs. 3 and 4 of the ’774 Patent to suggest that GPS signal levels,
`
`as disclosed in reference to FIG. 3, may somehow be included in the multitude of
`
`power level threshold values, as disclosed in reference to FIG. 4. That the ’774
`
`Patent discloses a single GPS signal level threshold does not overcome the clear
`
`disclosure of two distinct types of threshold values (i.e., a GPS signal level threshold
`
`value and a multitude of power level threshold values), the clear disclosure of two
`
`distinct embodiments (i.e., FIGs. 3 and 4), and the recitation, as originally filed, of
`
`each embodiment in a distinct dependent claim (i.e., original claim 16 corresponding
`
`to the embodiment of FIG. 3 and original claim 17 corresponding to the embodiment
`
`of FIG. 4). Patent Owner identified this attempt not only as improper, but also as
`
`new and untimely, in Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply as well as in Patent Owner’s
`
`Opening Brief on Remand. See Paper 31, at 13-14 and Paper 44, at 5.
`
`As recited, “the battery power level monitor … adjusts a power level applied
`
`to location tracking circuitry responsive to one or more signal levels” encompasses
`
`the embodiment of FIG. 3, including any reference to a GPS signal level threshold.
`
`As separately recited, “the power level comprising a multitude of threshold values
`
`determined by a user or system administrator to intermittently activate or deactivate
`
`the location tracking circuitry…” distinctly encompasses the embodiment of FIG. 4,
`
`including any reference to battery power level threshold values. Petitioner agrees
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`that the embodiment of FIG. 4 “equat[es] the battery power levels with the multitude
`
`of threshold values.” Paper 45, at 7. As such, the only proper construction, as agreed
`
`by Petitioner, is that the “threshold values” in the recited “a multitude of threshold
`
`values” are limited to battery power level threshold values
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the proper construction of “multitude of
`
`threshold values” is such that the recited “threshold values” are limited to battery
`
`power level threshold values and claims 8, 10, 13, and 15 of the ’774 Patent are not
`
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 20, 2023
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
`
` /Shaun D. Gregory/
`Shaun D. Gregory, Reg. No. 68,498
`200 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20001
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), I hereby certify that the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OPENING BRIEF is six pages, excluding the parts of the petition
`
`exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a), as measured by the word-processing system used
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
` /Shaun D. Gregory/
`Shaun D. Gregory, Reg. No. 68,498
`200 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20001
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`to prepare this paper.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 20, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(2)
`
`the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S REPLY BRIEF is being served electronically
`
`via e-mail on September 20, 2023, in its entirety on the following counsel of record
`
`for Petitioners:
`
`Jennifer C. Bailey (Lead Counsel)
`USPTO Reg. No. 52,583
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`PTAB@eriseip.com
`Phone: (913) 777-5600
`Fax: (913) 777-5601
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 20, 2023
`
`
`
`Adam P. Seitz (Back-Up Counsel)
`USPTO Reg. No. 52,206
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`PTAB@eriseip.com
`Phone: (913) 777-5600
`Fax: (913) 777-5601
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
`
` /Shaun D. Gregory/
`Shaun D. Gregory, Reg. No. 68,498
`200 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20001
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`