UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`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 SUR-REPLY
`TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................... II
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................III
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Prosecution History Disclaimer Is “Clear and
`Unequivocal” ......................................................................................... 3
`Patent Owner’s Proposal Is Fully Supported By The Written
`Description ............................................................................................ 5
`III. PETITIONER HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING BY CLEAR
`AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE INVALID AS OBVIOUS. ..................................................... 8
`A. Adjusting Cycle Rates, as Purportedly Taught by Sakamoto, Does Not
`Disclose “an Updated Set of Network Communication Signaling
`Protocols Associated with at least one of a Request Rate … and a
`Listen Rate” and “the Updated Set of Network Communication
`Signaling Protocols Having a Value That is Responsive to a User
`Input Request” of Limitation 1(e). ........................................................ 8
`B. Adjusting Cycle Rates, as Purportedly Taught by Sakamoto, Does Not
`Disclose “Adjust Cycle Timing of at Least one of a Request Rate …
`and a Listen Rate” as recited in Limitation 8(c). ................................11
`C. Multiple Different Thresholds, as Purportedly Taught by Sakamoto,
`Does Not Disclose “the Power Level Comprising a Multitude of
`Threshold Values Determined by a User or System Administrator”
`Limitation 8(d). ...................................................................................12
`IV. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ......................................................................14
`V.
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................14
`
`
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`2002
`
`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. Appl. No. 13/356,614
`U.S. Appl. No. 11/969,905
`U.S. Appl. No. 13/356,599
`U.S. Appl. No. 12/419,451
`U.S. Appl. No. 13/356,643
`
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Brookhill-Wilk I, LLC v Intuitive Surgical Inc.,
`334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed.Cir.2003) ...................................................................... 2
`
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2008) ...................................................................... 2
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 2,3,5
`
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed.Cir.1998) ................................................................... 2,3
`
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996) ........................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 25, “Reply”) turns on two primary issues. First,
`
`Petitioner appears to contend that a proper interpretation for the claim term
`
`“multitude” should be “a number larger than four” by arguing that prosecution
`
`history disclaimer must be clear and unequivocal and that the ‘774 Patent lacks
`
`written description support for a number of thresholds less than five. See Reply at
`
`1-9. Second, Petitioner appears to acknowledge that Sakamoto fails to disclose
`
`limitations 1(e), 8(c), and 8(d) of the ‘774 Patent by 1) contending that each of
`
`Sakamoto’s positioning modes has a regular refresh rate which automatically
`
`changes with a change in mode responsive to the battery charge level, as opposed to
`
`“having a value that is responsive to a user input request”; and 2) contending that
`
`Sakamoto discloses four thresholds associated with signal level, as opposed to “the
`
`power level comprising a multitude of threshold values determined by a user or
`
`system administrator.” Id. at 15-17. As discussed below, Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that any of the challenged claims of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774 (“the ’774 Patent”) are invalid as obvious because the
`
`references on which it relies nonetheless fail to disclose required limitations from
`
`the challenged claims. Because the Petitioner has not met its burden, the challenged
`
`claims should be upheld.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`The primary source of evidence for claim construction is intrinsic evidence;
`
`that is, “the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence,
`
`the prosecution history.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`
`(Fed.Cir.1996). The words used in a claim are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.
`
` Phillips v AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313-14
`
`(Fed.Cir.2005)(en banc). However, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its
`
`meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Id. at 1321. The
`
`correct construction of a claim term is one “that stays true to the claim language and
`
`most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention.” Id. at 1316
`
`(quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250
`
`(Fed.Cir.1998)).
`
`The Board may also consider extrinsic evidence, such as dictionaries,
`
`treatises, and expert testimony to the extent it is consistent with the intrinsic
`
`evidence. Id. at 1319. However, extrinsic evidence may not contradict the language
`
`of the claims or the teachings of the specification. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick
`
`Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2008). “If more than one
`
`dictionary definition is consistent with the use of the words in the intrinsic record,
`
`the claim terms may be construed to encompass all consistent meanings.” Brookhill-
`
`Wilk I, LLC v Intuitive Surgical Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citing
`
`Tex. Digital Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1203 (Fed.Cir.2002)).
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`“Where there are several common meanings for a claim term, the patent disclosure
`
`serves to point away from the improper meanings and toward the proper meaning.”
`
`Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1250; see also Tex. Digital, 308 F.3d at 1203. If after
`
`applying the rules of construction a claim term remains susceptible to more than one
`
`reasonable interpretation, the term is to be construed in a way that preserves the
`
`validity of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that, in light of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence and
`
`consistent with claim construction rules in view of Phillips, a proper interpretation
`
`of “multitude” is “necessarily more than two”, which also encompasses “a number
`
`larger than four”.
`
`A. Patent Owner’s Prosecution History Disclaimer Is “Clear and
`Unequivocal”
`
`Petitioner contends:
`
`Given Applicant failed to provide any argument to distinguish the
`
`amended claims over the teachings of Huang, and given Huang teaches
`
`a ‘multitude’ of thresholds under Patent Owner’s construction, any
`
`alleged prosecution disclaimer is “ambiguous, or even amenable to
`
`multiple reasonable interpretations.”
`
`Reply at 6-7. However, rather than presenting any evidence that the amendment to
`
`incorporate as-filed claim 17 into claim 8 by the original applicant for the ‘774 Patent
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`(“Applicant”) does not provide a clear and unequivocal intent to define “multitude”
`
`as more than two, Petitioner theorizes that “Huang teaches more than two
`
`thresholds” and “Huang teaches a ‘multitude’ of thresholds under Patent Owner’s
`
`construction.” Id. at 5, 6. That is, Petitioner implicitly acknowledges that the only
`
`reasonable interpretation of Applicant’s intent is that “multitude” necessarily means
`
`more than two and argues that Huang teaches this reasonable interpretation.
`
`Patent Owner notes the Examiner stated:
`
`patentability resides in “wherein the power level comprises a multitude of
`
`threshold value[s] determined by a user or system administrator to intermittently
`
`activate or deactivate the location tracking circuitry to conserve power of the power
`
`charging unit in response to the estimated charge level of the power unit.”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 272. In response, Applicant argued “[a]pplicants respectfully submit
`
`that Huang fails to disclose at least these elements of claim 8, which were previously
`
`recited in canceled claims 16 and 17.” Id. at 298. That is, Applicant explicitly
`
`provided arguments that the proposed amendments distinguished over Huang.
`
`Although the amended limitations included more than “a multitude of threshold
`
`values”, the only unambiguous and reasonable interpretation is that the Applicant
`
`intended to further distinguish over the prior art by, in part, defining “multitude” as
`
`necessarily greater than two.
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`B. Patent Owner’s Proposal Is Fully Supported By The Written
`Description
`
`Petitioner contends “the Specification of the ‘774 Patent lacks written
`
`description for an embodiment with three thresholds.” Reply at 7. Petitioner further
`
`appears to contend that “a multitude of thresholds” represents a range and asserts
`
`that Patent Owner is somehow trying to limit that range to a single number or some
`
`smaller range (i.e., “pick a tree out of the forest”). Id. In contrast, Patent Owner
`
`maintains that “multitude” is a number and that such number is necessarily more
`
`than two. Furthermore, Patent Owner notes, as discussed above, that a term is to be
`
`construed in a way that preserves the validity of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1327. Although Patent Owner does not agree that the ‘774 Specification only
`
`provides written description support for 5-7 thresholds as argued by Petitioner,
`
`Patent Owner acknowledges that a number larger than four is encompassed by a
`
`multitude being more than two.
`
`Petitioner asserts that “FIG. 4 does not provide written description for an
`
`embodiment with three or four thresholds.” Reply at 8. However, Petitioner
`
`acknowledges that the ‘774 Specification provides written description support for 5-
`
`7 thresholds. Id. Petitioner also acknowledges that extrinsic evidence establishes
`
`that “multitude” is a number and that such number may be greater than four,
`
`asserting “[n]one of these definitions, however, is consistent with drawing a line
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`between two and three, or with drawing a line between two and ‘between five and
`
`seven’”. Id. at 9. Since a claim term must be construed in a way that preserves
`
`validity and Petitioner asserts that a construction of “multitude” as a number that is
`
`less than five lacks written description support, the only proper interpretation of
`
`“multitude” is “a number that is necessarily more than two”, which also
`
`encompasses a number larger than four.
`
`Patent Owner notes that Petitioner goes to great lengths to contend that a
`
`figure with only two explicit thresholds discloses a multitude of thresholds,
`
`including introduction of a supplemental expert declaration. See Reply at 5-6.
`
`However, in reference to FIG. 4 of the ‘774 patent, Petitioner argues that only
`
`explicitly shown threshold values (i.e., between 5-7) should constitute support for
`
`written description. See id. at 8. In contrast to Petitioner’s arguments, the ‘774
`
`Specification explicitly discloses:
`
`Advantageously as compared to conventional tracking devices, user
`
`input request 430 adjusts value 419 to select an appropriate update set
`
`of network communication signaling protocols to achieve a desired user
`
`defined battery operating environment, e.g., obtain optimal battery life,
`
`obtain optimal update rate, tradeoffs between them.
`
` In one
`
`embodiment, when user adjusts slider 432 to value 419, a message is
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`sent to target host 452, which communicates an updated set of network
`
`communication to portable location tracking device 402.
`
`In contrast to previous manufacturer tracking device power level
`
`settings, the present invention has the capability of power level (e.g.,
`
`battery power level 406) adjustments include multitude of threshold
`
`values (see active display 432 of FIG. 4) that is determined by user or
`
`system administrator to intermittently activate or deactivate location
`
`tracking circuitry (e.g., location tracking circuitry 114) to conserve
`
`power of the power charging unit (e.g., battery 118) responsive to
`
`estimated charge level (e.g., battery charge level 406).
`
`‘774 Patent at 11:58-67 and 13:58-67. That is, the ‘774 Specification clearly
`
`discloses that a threshold value may be any value along a line between two end
`
`points, including the end points (i.e., “obtain optimal battery life” as one end point,
`
`“obtain optimal update rate” as another end point, and “tradeoffs between them” as
`
`any value along the line). As such, the number of available values is at least three
`
`(i.e., each end point and the value depicted as 419). Based on this clear and explicit
`
`intrinsic evidence, a proper interpretation of “multitude” is “a number necessarily
`
`more than two”. Such interpretation of “multitude” is fully supported by the written
`
`description of the ‘774 Specification.
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`
`
`III. PETITIONER HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING BY
`CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID AS OBVIOUS.
`
`A. Adjusting Cycle Rates, as Purportedly Taught by Sakamoto,
`Does Not Disclose “an Updated Set of Network Communication
`Signaling Protocols Associated with at least one of a Request
`Rate … and a Listen Rate” and “the Updated Set of Network
`Communication Signaling Protocols Having a Value That is
`Responsive to a User Input Request” of Limitation 1(e).
`
`Petitioner contends that an interpretation that the request rate and the listen
`
`rate represent a schedule for when repeating activities occur impermissibly reads a
`
`limitation into the claims. Reply at 10-11. However, Petitioner then goes to great
`
`lengths to contend that, since a refresh rate is a schedule, each of Sakamoto’s three
`
`modes is a schedule by virtue of having a refresh rate and that switching positioning
`
`modes updates the communication signaling protocol. Id. at 12-15. As such,
`
`Petitioner apparently accepts Patent Owner’s assertion that limitation 1(e) is directed
`
`to updating a schedule of repeating events.
`
`Assuming, arguendo, that each of Sakamoto’s three positioning modes each
`
`has an associated refresh rate, Petitioner maintains:
`
`For example, the normal sensitivity positioning mode has a regular
`
`refresh rate associated with the “short cycle” tracking. Ex. 1003
`
`(Andrews Declaration), ¶¶ 91-93. The high sensitivity positioning
`
`mode has a regular refresh rate associated with the GPS refresh rate.
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`Id. at ¶ 90. And the stop-position searching mode has a 0 Hz refresh
`
`rate. Id. at ¶ 94.
`
`Reply at 12-13. Petitioner also asserts “switching the positioning mode updates the
`
`communication signaling protocol.” Id. at 15 (citing Petition at 31). That is,
`
`Petitioner asserts that each of Sakamoto’s three positioning modes has a fixed refresh
`
`rate and that a transition between positioning modes represents “the communication
`
`signaling protocol and therefore the listen rate is also adjusted.” Id.
`
`However, Sakamoto’s
`
`transitioning between positioning modes and
`
`corresponding different refresh rates, as maintained by Petitioner, does not disclose
`
`“an updated set of network communication signaling protocols associated with at
`
`least one of a request rate … and a listen rate” as recited in limitation 1(e). Of note,
`
`while the “updated set” is “associated with” “a request rate” and “a listen rate”, the
`
`“updated set” is a distinct element. Although Sakamoto may disclose three
`
`positioning modes and three associated refresh rates, Sakamoto does not disclose “an
`
`updated set” as a distinct element from the three fixed refresh rates. Rather,
`
`Sakamoto, as maintained by Petitioner, discloses three fixed refresh rates and any
`
`one fixed refresh rate may be replaced by another fixed refresh rate.
`
`To further clarify that the “updated set” is a distinct element, Patent Owner
`
`notes that limitation 1(e) further recites “the updated set of network communication
`
`signaling protocols having a value that is responsive to a user input request.”
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`Petitioner does not provide any explanation how a fixed refresh rate associated with
`
`a positioning mode might “hav[e] a value that is responsive to a user input request.”
`
`Although Sakamoto arguably discloses a variety of different threshold values, none
`
`of these threshold values correspond to a refresh rate as articulated by Petitioner.
`
`Since Sakamoto’s fixed refresh rates associated with positioning modes, as
`
`articulated by Petitioner, do not “hav[e] a value that is responsive to a user input
`
`request”, they cannot satisfy the “updated set” limitation requirement.
`
`Patent Owner also notes that limitation 1(e) requires that the “updated set” be
`
`“generate[d] in substantially real-time”. Petitioner clearly articulates that each
`
`positioning mode has an associated refresh rate. See Reply at 12-15. However,
`
`Petitioner does not show how any of these fixed refresh rates might be generated in
`
`substantially real-time. As such, the fixed refresh rates of Sakamoto, as articulated
`
`by Petitioner, cannot satisfy the “updated set” limitation requirement.
`
`Regardless of whether a request rate and a listen rate represent a schedule,
`
`Sakamoto fails to disclose “an updated set of network communication signaling
`
`protocols associated with at least one of a request rate … and a listen rate” as recited
`
`in limitation 1(e). At most, as asserted by Petitioner, Sakamoto discloses replacing
`
`one refresh rate with a different refresh rate by transitioning between positioning
`
`modes. As such, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of showing by clear and
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`convincing evidence that the prior art on which it relies discloses this limitation as
`
`recited in independent claim 1.
`
`Patent Owner further notes that Petitioner acknowledges “Sakamoto updates
`
`the positioning mode responsive to the battery charge level.” Reply at 15. However,
`
`limitation 1(e) requires that “the updated set of network communication signaling
`
`protocols having a value that is responsive to a user input request.” Sakamoto does
`
`not disclose such “value that is responsive to a user input request.” As such,
`
`Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that the prior art on which it relies discloses this limitation as recited in independent
`
`claim 1.
`
`B. Adjusting Cycle Rates, as Purportedly Taught by Sakamoto,
`Does Not Disclose “Adjust Cycle Timing of at Least one of a
`Request Rate … and a Listen Rate” as recited in Limitation 8(c).
`
`As discussed above, Petitioner maintains that each of Sakamoto’s three
`
`positioning modes each has an associated refresh rate and that “switching the
`
`positioning mode updates the communication signaling protocol.” Reply at 15
`
`(citing Petition at 31). That is, Petitioner asserts that each of Sakamoto’s three
`
`positioning modes has a fixed refresh rate and that a transition between positioning
`
`modes represents “the communication signaling protocol and therefore the listen rate
`
`is also adjusted.” Id.
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`However, Sakamoto’s
`
`transitioning between positioning modes and
`
`corresponding different refresh rates, as maintained by Petitioner, does not disclose
`
`“adjust cycle timing of at least one of a request rate … and a listen rate” as recited
`
`in limitation 8(c). That is, limitation 8(c) requires that, for a request rate or a listen
`
`rate, a cycle timing be adjusted. This is in contrast to changing from one refresh rate
`
`to a completely different refresh rate, as purportedly taught by Sakamoto.
`
`Sakamoto fails to disclose “adjust cycle timing of at least one of a request rate
`
`… and a listen rate” as recited in limitation 8(c). At most, as asserted by Petitioner,
`
`Sakamoto discloses replacing one refresh rate with a different refresh rate by
`
`transitioning between positioning modes. As such, Petitioner has failed to meet its
`
`burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the prior art on which it
`
`relies discloses this limitation as recited in independent claim 8.
`
`C. Multiple Different Thresholds, as Purportedly Taught by
`Sakamoto, Does Not Disclose “the Power Level Comprising a
`Multitude of Threshold Values Determined by a User or System
`Administrator” Limitation 8(d).
`
`As discussed above, a proper interpretation of “multitude”, based on the
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, is “a number necessarily more than two.” Petitioner
`
`asserts “Sakamoto teaches at least two battery level thresholds, and at least two GPS
`
`signal level thresholds for a total of four thresholds, all of which are used to transition
`
`positioning mode and therefore adjust the cycle timing.” Reply at 17. That is,
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that Sakamoto only discloses two thresholds of one type
`
`(i.e., battery level thresholds) and two thresholds of another type (i.e., GPS signal
`
`level thresholds) and that together these two types of thresholds only reach “a total
`
`of four thresholds.” Id. Even if, arguendo, Sakamoto discloses a combined total of
`
`four thresholds, Sakamoto does not disclose more than two thresholds of any one
`
`type. As such, Sakamoto fails to disclose “the power level comprising a multitude
`
`of threshold values” where a multitude is “a number necessarily more than two”.
`
`Patent Owner notes that the plain language of limitation 8(d) includes “the
`
`power level comprising a multitude of threshold values determined by a user or
`
`system administrator.” This language does not make any reference to a signal level.
`
`As such, it would be improper to combine thresholds unrelated to the power level,
`
`as Petitioner proposes, in order to satisfy “a multitude of threshold values”.
`
`Petitioner appears to conflate this language with other language in limitation 8(d)
`
`that includes “adjusts a power level … responsive to one or more signal levels”. See
`
`id. at 16. While adjustments to the power level are “responsive to one or more signal
`
`levels”, the power level itself has “a multitude of threshold values”. Petitioner
`
`acknowledges that Sakamoto discloses only two signal-related thresholds and only
`
`two power level-related thresholds.
`
`Sakamoto’s two power level-related thresholds, as acknowledged by
`
`Petitioner, are insufficient to disclose “the power level comprising a multitude of
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`threshold values determined by a user or system administrator”. Similarly, the
`
`combination of Sakamoto’s two power level-related thresholds and two signal-
`
`related thresholds to achieve four thresholds, as proposed by Petitioner, is
`
`insufficient to disclose this limitation. Since Sakamoto does not disclose “the power
`
`level comprising a multitude of threshold values determined by a user or system
`
`administrator”, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of showing by clear and
`
`convincing evidence that the prior art on which it relies discloses limitation 8(d) of
`
`independent claim 8.
`
`IV. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`Patent Owner does not concede or waive any omitted arguments and this
`
`response shall not be construed as an admission against interest in any manner. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner expressly reserves the right to raise an argument under
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. granted,
`
`141 S. Ct. 551 (2020).
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the grounds contained in the Petition fall far
`
`short of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of claims 1, 4-6,
`
`8, 10, 13, or 15 of the ’774 Patent are unpatentable. The abovementioned gaps in the
`
`proffered evidence and substantive content of the Petition and cited evidence prove
`
`fatal to the Petition. Those challenged claims should be upheld.
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-01189
`U.S. Patent No. 8,497,774
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 12, 2021
`
`1909 K Street, N.W.
`Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 454-2800
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BUTZEL LONG, PC
`
`/Shaun D. Gregory/
`
`Shaun D. Gregory
`USPTO Reg. No. 68,498
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`15
`
`

`

`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 SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY contains 3,167
`
`words, excluding the parts of the petition exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a), as
`
`measured by the word-processing system used to prepare this paper.
`
`BUTZEL LONG, PC
`
`/Shaun D. Gregory/
`
`Shaun D. Gregory
`USPTO Reg. No. 68,498
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`Date: October 12, 2021
`
`1909 K Street, N.W.
`Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 454-2800
`
`
`
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`

`

`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 SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY is
`
`being served electronically via e-mail on October 12, 2021, in its entirety on the
`
`following counsel of record for Petitioners:
`
`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
`
`BUTZEL LONG, PC
`
`/Shaun D. Gregory/
`
`Shaun D. Gregory
`USPTO Reg. No. 68,498
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 12, 2021
`
`1909 K Street, N.W.
`Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 454-2800
`
`IWASHINGTON\000150560\0001\585600.v1-6/1/21
`
`