Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00283
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`Issue Date: March 6, 2012
`
`Title: WIRELESS DIGITAL AUDIO MUSIC SYSTEM
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,131,391 B2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
` I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8(A)(1) ......................................... 1 
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under §42.8.(b)(1) ............................................. 1 
`B.
`Related Matters under §42.8(b)(2) ....................................................... 1 
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3) .................................... 2 
`D.
`Service Information .............................................................................. 4 
`FEE PAYMENT ............................................................................................. 4 
`II.
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER §§ 42.104 AND 42.108 AND
`CONSIDERATIONS UNDER §§ 314(A) AND 325(D) ............................... 4 
`A. Grounds for Standing ........................................................................... 4 
`B.
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Precise Relief
`Requested ............................................................................................. 4 
`§314(a) .................................................................................................. 5 
`C.
`§325(d) ................................................................................................. 7 
`D.
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................... 7 
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 7 
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE. .......................... 9 
`A.
`Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art ............................. 10 
`
`Ham [EX 1010] ........................................................................ 10 
`
`Sklar [EX1003] ........................................................................ 13 
`
`Xia [EX1011] ........................................................................... 14 
`
`Groe [EX1009] ......................................................................... 15 
`
`Haartsen [EX1005] .................................................................. 15 
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................... 16 
`
`Ground 1 (Ham, Sklar, Xia, Groe) ........................................... 17 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-i-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`4(pre): “A portable wireless digital audio system
`for digital transmission of an original audio signal
`representation from a portable audio player to a
`digital audio receiver, said portable wireless digital
`audio system comprising:” ............................................ 17 
`4(a): “a digital audio transmitter operatively
`coupled to said audio player and transmitting a
`unique user code with said original audio signal
`representation in packet format, wherein said
`digital audio transmitter coupled to said audio
`player is capable of being moved in any direction
`during operation, said digital audio transmitter
`comprising:” .................................................................. 19 
`4(b): “an encoder operative to encode said original
`audio signal representation to reduce intersymbol
`interference;” ................................................................. 35 
`4(c): “a digital modulator module configured for
`independent code division multiple access
`(CDMA) communication operation and utilizing
`differential phase shift keying (DPSK) to modulate
`said original audio signal representation;” .................... 42 
`4(d): “said digital audio receiver capable of being
`moved in any direction during operation and in
`direct wireless communication with said digital
`audio transmitter, said digital audio receiver
`comprising:” .................................................................. 46 
`
`-ii-
`
` 
`
`
`
`  
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`4(e): “a direct conversion module configured to
`capture packets and the correct bit sequence within
`the packets aided by lowering signal detection
`error through reduced intersymbol interference
`coding of said audio representation signal
`respective to said mobile digital audio receiver and
`mobile said digital audio transmitter operatively
`coupled to said audio player, said packets
`embedded in the received spread spectrum signal,
`the captured packets corresponding to the unique
`user code;” ..................................................................... 47 
`4(f): “a digital demodulator configured for
`independent CDMA communication operation;” .......... 54 
`4(g): “a decoder operative to decode the applied
`reduced inter-symbol interference coding of said
`original audio signal representation;” ............................ 55 
`4(h): “a digital-to-analog converter generating an
`audio output of said original audio signal
`representation; and” ....................................................... 56 
`4(i): “a module adapted to reproduce said
`generated audio output, said audio having been
`wirelessly transmitted from said audio player
`virtually free from interference from device
`transmitted signals operating in the wireless digital
`audio system spectrum.” ................................................ 57 
`Ground 2 (Ham, Sklar, Xia, Groe, Haartsen) .......................... 60 
`
`Claim 1 (Grounds 1-2) ....................................................................... 68 
`(a)
`1(pre): “A wireless digital audio headphone
`comprising:” .................................................................. 68 
`1(a): “a portable digital audio headphone
`receiver…;” .................................................................... 68 
`1(b): “a direct conversion module…;” .......................... 69 
`1(c): “a digital demodulator…;” .................................... 69 
`-iii-
` 
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`(d)
`
`
`
`  
`
`
`
`C.
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(e)
`(f)
`(g)
`
`(b)
`(c)
`(d)
`(e)
`(f)
`
`1(d) “a decoder…;” ....................................................... 69 
`1(e): “a digital-to-analog converter…; and”.................. 70 
`1(f): “a module adapted to reproduce said
`generated audio output….” ............................................ 70 
`Claim 3 (Grounds 1-2) ....................................................................... 70 
`Claim 5 (Grounds 1-2) ....................................................................... 70 
`(a)
`5(pre): “A wireless digital audio receiver…
`comprising:” .................................................................. 70 
`5(a): “a direct conversion module…;” .......................... 71 
`5(b): “a digital demodulator…;” ................................... 71 
`5(c): “a decoder…;” ....................................................... 71 
`5(d): “a digital-to-analog converter…; and” ................. 71 
`5(e): “a module adapted to reproduce said
`generated audio output…..” ........................................... 71 
`Claim 6 (Grounds 1-2) ....................................................................... 72 
`(a)
`6(pre): “A wireless digital audio headphone…
`comprising:” .................................................................. 72 
`6(a): “a mobile digital audio receiver….;” .................... 72 
`6(b): “a direct conversion module….;” ......................... 72 
`6(c): “a digital demodulator module….;” ...................... 72 
`6(d): “a decoder….; and” ............................................... 73 
`6(e): “a digital-to-analog converter….; and”................. 73 
`6(f): “a module adapted to reproduce said
`generated audio output….” ............................................ 73 
`Claim 10 (Grounds 1-2) ..................................................................... 73 
`(a)
`10(pre): “A wireless digital audio headphone…
`comprising:” .................................................................. 73 
`10(a): “a mobile digital audio receiver….;” .................. 73 
`
`(b)
`(c)
`(d)
`(e)
`(f)
`(g)
`
`(b)
`
`-iv-
`
` 
`
`D.
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`
`
`  
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`(c)
`(d)
`(e)
`(f)
`(g)
`
`10(b): “a direct conversion module….;” ....................... 74 
`10(c): “a digital demodulator module….;” .................... 74 
`10(d): “a decoder….; and” ............................................. 74 
`10(e): “a digital-to-analog converter….; and” .............. 74 
`10(f): “a module adapted to reproduce said
`generated audio output….” ............................................ 74 
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 74 
`
`
`  
`
`
`
`-v-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Description of Document
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2 to C. Earl Woolfork (filed Nov. 5,
`2010, issued Mar. 6, 2012) (“’391” or “’391 patent”)
`Declaration of Regis J. Bates Jr.
`Bernard Sklar, Digital Communications: Fundamentals and
`Applications (1988)
`Jean Walrand, and Pravin Varaiya, High Performance
`Communication Networks (2d ed. 2000)
`Jaap C. Haartsen “The Bluetooth Radio System,” IEEE Personal
`Communications, Volume 7, Issue No. 1, February 2000 (Excerpt)
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2003/0118196 A1 to C. Earl Woolfork
`(pub. June 26, 2003) (the ’196 Publication” or “’196 Pub”)
`Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 78, 17731 (April 25, 1989)
`Ron Schneiderman, Wireless Personal Communications: The Future
`of Talk (1994)
`John B. Groe and Lawrence E. Larson, CDMA Mobile Radio Design
`(2000)
`Certified English Translation of KR Application No. 20-1998-
`0018161 (“Ham”)
`Xiang-Gen Xia, “New Precoding for Intersymbol Interference
`Cancellation Using Nonmaximally Decimated Multirate Filterbanks
`with Ideal FIR Equalizers,” IEEE Transactions on Signal
`Processing, Volume 45, Issue No. 10 (October 1997)
`Scott R. Bullock, Transceiver and System Design for Digital
`Communications (2d. Ed. 2000)
`1013 William C.Y. Lee, Mobile Communications Engineering (1982)
`(Excerpt)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,865,258 Prosecution History, 02/20/2015
`Response to Office Action
`Theodore S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications Principles &
`Practice Prentice Hall (1996)
`One-E-Way’s First Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims And
`Infringement Contentions And Accompanying Documents and
`Exhibits A-E, dated October 27, 2020
`Bluetooth Core Specification, Version 5.0
`
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`‐vi‐ 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
` 
`
`
`
`Description of Document
`
`Onder Kara, A Direct Sequence-Code Division Multiple Access /
`Differential Phase-Shift Keying (DS-CDMA/DPSK) Modem Design
`(1997)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,865,258 Prosecution History, 08/04/2010 Request
`for Reexamination and Response to the Final Rejection
`Bernard Sklar, Digital Communications: Fundamentals and
`Applications (2d. Ed. 2001) Webpage Printout
`Bernard Sklar, Digital Communications: Fundamentals and
`Applications (3rd. Ed. 2020) Webpage Printout
`Complaint for Patent Infringement from One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple
`Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-06339, dated July 16, 2020
`Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement from One-E-
`Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-06339, dated September
`15, 2020
`Order to Dismiss without Prejudice from One-E-Way, Inc v. JayBird
`Gear, LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-00601, dated March 14, 2013
`Order to Dismiss without Prejudice from One-E-Way, Inc v. JayBird
`Gear, LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-06135, dated March 14, 2013
`Complainant’s Motion for Termination as to Respondents Beats
`Electronics, LLC and Beats Electronics International from In re
`Certain Wireless Headsets, Investigation No. 337-TA-943, dated
`March 31, 2015
`Initial Determination Granting Complainant’s Motion for
`Termination as to Respondents Beats Electronics, LLC and Beats
`Electronics International from In re Certain Wireless Headsets,
`Investigation No. 337-TA-943, dated April 7, 2015
`Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial
`Determination Granting A Motion to Terminate the Investigation as
`to Respondents Beats Electronics, LLC and Beats Electronics
`International Ltd. Based on Withdrawal of Allegations from In re
`Certain Wireless Headsets, Investigation No. 337-TA-943, dated
`April 29, 2015
`Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial
`Determination Granting a Joint Motion to Terminate the
`Investigation as to Respondents GN Netcom A/S Based on a
`Settlement Agreement; Termination of the Investigation from In re
`‐vii‐ 
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Description of Document
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`Certain Wireless Headsets, Investigation No. 337-TA-943, dated
`August 17, 2018
`Order No. 12: Construing Terms of the Asserted Patents from In re
`Certain Wireless Headsets, Investigation No. 337-TA-943, dated
`July 25, 2015
`Decision Granting Joint Motion to Terminate from IPR2018-00218
`and IPR2018-00219, dated February 26, 2018
`One-E-Way’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions and Accompanying Documents, dated September 15,
`2020
`“Details” Page for Ham, retrieved from
`<engpat.kipris.or.kr/engpat/biblio/biblioViewAll.jsp>
`1034
`Korean Intellectual Property Office Annual Report 2000
`1035 WIPO Standing Committee on Information Technologies, “Annual
`Technical Report 2001 on Patent Information Activities Submitted
`by the Republic of Korea”
`1036 WIPO Standing Committee on Information Technologies, “Annual
`Technical Report 1999 on Patent Information Activities Submitted
`by the Republic of Korea”
`NOT USED
`NOT USED
`Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.
`
`1037
`1038
`1039
`
`‐viii‐ 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under §42.8.(b)(1)
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary Beats Electronics, LLC
`
`(“Beats”) are the real parties-in-interest to this inter partes review (“IPR”) petition.
`
`For ease of reference, this Petition will refer to Apple and Beats collectively as
`
`“Petitioner” (singular).
`
`B. Related Matters under §42.8(b)(2)
`The ’391 patent is the subject of pending district court litigation involving
`
`Petitioner: One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc, Case No. 2:20-cv-06339 (C.D. Cal. filed
`
`July 16, 2020). (EX1022; EX1023.) As of this filing, the Court has issued no
`
`substantive or claim construction rulings.
`
`Petitioner is aware of two prior district court actions in which infringement of
`
`the ’391 patent was alleged by One-E-Way against JayBird Gear, LLC: One-E-Way,
`
`Inc v. JayBird Gear, LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-00601 (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 23, 2012);
`
`and One-E-Way, Inc v. JayBird Gear, LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-06135 (C.D. Cal. filed
`
`July 16, 2012). Both actions were terminated in 2013. (EX1024; EX1025.)
`
`Petitioner is aware of one prior ITC investigation in which infringement of
`
`the ’391 patent was alleged by One-E-Way against a number of respondents: In re
`
`Certain Wireless Headsets, Investigation No. 337-TA-943 (the “ITC investigation”),
`
`filed December 4, 2014. One-E-Way’s original complaint named Beats as one of the
`
` 
`
`
`
`-1-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`respondents, but One-E-Way subsequently moved to withdraw its allegations
`
`against Beats on March 31, 2015. (EX1026.) One-E-Way’s motion was
`
`subsequently granted, and the ITC investigation was terminated as to Beats on April
`
`29, 2015. (EX1027; EX1028.) The ITC investigation was terminated as to the last-
`
`remaining respondent in 2018. (EX1029.) During the course of this investigation, on
`
`July 24, 2015, the ITC issued a claim construction ruling (“ITC Claim Construction
`
`Order”). (EX1030.)
`
`Petitioner is further aware that the ITC investigation led to a Federal Circuit
`
`opinion in One-E-Way, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 859 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(the “One-E-Way Federal Circuit opinion”). This Federal Circuit opinion reversed
`
`the ITC’s finding of indefiniteness with respect to claim term “virtual free from
`
`interference.”
`
`Petitioner is aware of two prior IPR proceedings in which the ’391 patent was
`
`challenged, each filed by Sony Corporation: IPR2018-00218 and IPR2018-00219.
`
`Both proceedings were terminated prior to any institution decision being issued.
`
`(EX1031.)
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`-2-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`Erik Milch (Reg. No. 42,887)
`emilch@cooley.com
`
`Cooley LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8573
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`Phillip Morton (Reg. No. 57,835)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`
`Cooley LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (202) 728-7055
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`Alexandra Leeper
`(Admission pro hac vice to be requested)
`aleeper@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843 5376
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`-3-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`D.
`Service Information
`This Petition is being served by Federal Express to the attorney of record for
`
`the ’391 patent, Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, 2040 Main Street, Fourteenth
`
`Floor, Irvine CA 92614. Petitioner consents to electronic service at the addresses
`
`provided above for lead and back-up counsel.
`
`II.
`
`FEE PAYMENT
`Petitioner requests review of 6 claims, with a $41,500 payment.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER
`42.104 AND
`§§
`CONSIDERATIONS UNDER §§ 314(A) AND 325(D)
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’391 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`42.108 AND
`
`is not barred or otherwise estopped.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Precise Relief
`Requested
`Petitioner requests IPR institution based on:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1, 3-6, 10
`
`1, 3-6, 10
`
`Challenge Under §103
`Ham (EX1010), Sklar (EX1003),
`Xia (EX1011), Groe (EX1009)
`
`Ham (EX1010), Sklar (EX1003),
`Xia (EX1011), Groe (EX1009),
`Haartsen (EX1005)
`
`
`Submitted with this Petition is the Declaration of Regis J. Bates, Jr. (EX1002)
`
`(“Bates”), a qualified technical expert. (EX1002, ¶¶1-7, Ex.A.) To assist the Board,
` 
`-4-
`
` 
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`Mr. Bates has provided a summary of the ’391 patent and the relevant technology
`
`background. (EX1002, ¶¶23-39, 46-56.)
`
`C.
`§314(a)
`Petitioner has shown diligence in filing this Petition. Patent Owner
`
`commenced district court litigation against Petitioner on July 16, 2020 (EX1022),
`
`and served Infringement Contentions initially identifying the asserted claims of the
`
`’391 patent on September 15, 2020. (EX1032.)1 This Petition is being filed more
`
`than seven months before expiration of the one-year bar, and within three months of
`
`receiving Infringement Contentions. As of this Petition’s filing, the Court has not
`
`conducted an Initial Scheduling Conference, and no trial date has been set. The Court
`
`also has not issued any claim construction or other substantive ruling.
`
`The previously IPRs challenging
`
`the ’391 patent (IPR2018-00218;
`
`IPR2018-00219) and other related patents in the same family (IPR2016-01638;
`
`IPR2016-01639; IPR2018-00216; IPR2018-00217) do not favor discretionary
`
`denial. All were filed by Sony, an unrelated party. The two IPRs on the ’391 patent,
`
`along with two additional IPRs on a related patent, were terminated prior to any
`
`
`1 Patent Owner served its most recent amended Infringement Contentions on
`
`October 27, 2020. (EX1016.) This set of Infringement Contentions will be discussed
`
`further throughout the Petition.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-5-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`institution decision. (EX1031.) Two other IPRs on another related patent proceeded
`
`past the institution phase (IPR2016-01638; IPR2016-01639), but these were
`
`terminated prior to final written decision. While Sony’s IPRs were available to
`
`Petitioner during the preparation of the instant Petition, that is a “direct result” of
`
`Patent Owner’s own decision to initiate suit against Petitioner after all of Sony’s
`
`IPRs had been filed and terminated. Alphatec Holdings, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.,
`
`IPR2019-00361 (Paper 19) at 10 (P.T.A.B. July 9, 2019). Petitioner gained no unfair
`
`tactical advantage from any of these prior related IPRs, as it relies on art that is
`
`different from the references cited in Sony’s IPR grounds.2
`
`The prior ITC investigation (in which Beats was involved) likewise does not
`
`favor discretionary denial, “because it [did] not resolve the unpatentability issues
`
`raised in this Petition or the issues in dispute between the parties in [district court].”
`
`Intel Corp. v. Tela Innovations, Inc., IPR2019-01636 (Paper 16) at 23-24 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Mar. 31, 2020) (collecting cases). Beats also had a limited role in the ITC
`
`investigation, as Patent Owner withdrew its allegations against Beats less than four
`
`months after the initial complaint. (EX1026; EX1028.) See also Robert Bosch Tool
`
`Corp. v SD3, LLC, IPR2016-01753 (Paper 15) at 9-12 (P.T.A.B, Mar. 22, 2017).
`
`
`2 Haartsen (EX1005) was cited by Sony in IPR2016-01639 and IPR2018-00219, but
`
`not as a reference that forms the basis for any particular ground of challenge.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-6-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`D.
`§325(d)
`None of the references cited in Petitioner’s Grounds were substantively
`
`considered by the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’391 patent, or the chain
`
`of parent applications leading up to it. Moreover, as noted, none of these references
`
`formed the basis of Sony’s IPR grounds that previously challenged the ’391 patent
`
`(IPR2018-00218; IPR2018-00219) and other related patents in the same family
`
`(IPR2016-01638; IPR2016-01639; IPR2018-00216; IPR2018-00217).
`
`Petitioner’s Grounds are also not cumulative of any of Sony’s challenges. As
`
`noted, all of Sony’s IPRs were terminated prior to final decision.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of December 2001 would have
`
`possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, and two years of
`
`experience in the design or implementation of wireless communications systems (or
`
`equivalent degree or experience). (EX1002, ¶11.)
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For claim terms previously construed in the ITC investigation, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests that the Board adopt the constructions rendered by the ITC
`
`(EX1030), as identified below:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Construction from ITC Investigation
`
`“reduced intersymbol
`interference coding”
` 
`
`
`
`“coding that reduces intersymbol (inter-
`symbol) interference”
`
`-7-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`Claim Term
`
`Construction from ITC Investigation
`
`“configured for independent
`CDMA communication
`operation”
`
`“unique user code”
`
`“direct conversion module”
`
`“configured for code division multiple access
`(CDMA) communication operation performed
`independent of any central control”
`
`“fixed code (bit sequence) specifically
`associated with one user of a device(s)”
`
`“module for converting radio frequency to
`baseband or very near baseband in a single
`frequency conversion without an intermediate
`frequency”
`
`
`
`
`In an earlier IPR involving a related patent reciting the same terms identified above,
`
`Patent Owner did not dispute these constructions. (IPR2016-01639, Paper 7 at 10;
`
`Paper 8 at 5-6.)
`
`
`
`With respect to “direct conversion module,” the ITC Claim Construction
`
`Order (issued shortly after Williamson) did not perform explicit means-plus-function
`
`analysis in rendering its construction. (EX1030, pp.39-44.) In a prior related IPR
`
`(IPR2016-01639), as noted, Patent Owner did not dispute the ITC’s construction,
`
`nor did it challenge the rebuttable presumption that §112, ¶6 does not apply to claim
`
`terms devoid of the word “means.” Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003,
`
`1007 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Silicon Labs., Inc., v. Cresta Tech. Corp., IPR2014-
`
`00809 (Paper 56) at 12, n.11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2015); Elbit Sys. of Am., LLC, v.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-8-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`Thales Visionix, Inc., IPR2015-01095 (Paper 10) at 8, n.8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2015).
`
`But even if “direct conversion module” were construed by Patent Owner or the
`
`Board as a means-plus-function limitation, it would still be satisfied by the prior art
`
`because the ’391 specification discloses at least one corresponding structure in the
`
`form of a “spread spectrum direct conversion receiver or module 56.” (’391, 3:2,
`
`3:11, Fig. 3.) And the cited art in Petitioner’s Grounds, as detailed below, renders
`
`obvious both a “spread spectrum direct conversion receiver or module 56” as
`
`described in the ’391 specification, and equivalent structures thereof.
`
`In addition to the terms identified above, Petitioner proposes that “virtually
`
`free from
`
`interference” be construed as “preventing one user from
`
`eavesdropping on another,” consistent with the Federal Circuit’s findings in
`
`One-E-Way, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 859 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Id. at 1064
`
`(“One-E-Way proposes that ‘virtually free from interference’ prevents one user from
`
`eavesdropping on another. We agree.”); id. at 1065 (“[I]nterference, virtually
`
`eliminated, results in listening without eavesdropping.”).)
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE.
`This Petition presents two Grounds of obviousness. Ground 1 relies on the
`
`combination of Ham, Sklar, Xia, and Groe. Ground 2 builds upon that combination
`
`by adding Haartsen.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-9-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`A.
`Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art
` Ham [EX 1010]
`Ham is a Korean patent application publication entitled “Code division type
`
`transmission circuit and wireless headphone reception circuit.” Much like the ’391
`
`patent, Ham teaches a wireless headphone system that addresses the issues of “noise
`
`and interference” to provide “high-quality” audio by incorporating the use of
`
`CDMA. (Ham, pp.2, 3; EX1002, ¶¶66-68.)
`
`Ham qualifies as prior art under both §102(a) and §102(b). Ham identifies its
`
`“Publication Date” as April 25, 2000, which is more than one year before the ’391
`
`patent’s earliest possible effective filing date of December 21, 2001.3 Ham’s
`
`
`3 Petitioner is not conceding that the ’391 patent is in fact entitled to the December
`
`2001 priority date. In IPR2016-01638, which involved a continuation of the
`
`presently challenged ’391 patent, the Board preliminarily found that the second
`
`application in the family chain, a CIP filed in August 2003, “failed to maintain
`
`continuity of disclosure” with the very first application filed in December 2001.
`
`(Paper 12 at 7.) Additionally, the original December 2001 application provides
`
`inadequate written description support for at least the transmission or receipt of data
`
`in the specific form of “packets,” a recited feature of every challenged claim.
`
`Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting, IPR2020-00208 (Paper 10) at 8-9 (P.T.A.B.
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`“Publication Date” is also presented under INID code (43), which provides the
`
`“[d]ate of making available to the public by printing or similar process of an
`
`unexamined patent document….” MPEP §901.05(b). Accordingly, Ham itself
`
`provides strong evidence of its public availability under §102(a) and §102(b). Cooler
`
`Masters Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLC, IPR2019-00144 (Paper 55) at 28-29,
`
`32, 36 (P.T.A.B. June 4, 2020) (citing date indicated on face of a Japanese patent
`
`publication); id. at 37-38 (citing INID codes); accord MPEP §901.05.III. Ham’s
`
`April 2000 publication date is further confirmed by the present-day record for Ham
`
`maintained by the Korean Intellectual Property Office (“KIPO”), which shows
`
`“Unex. Pub. No.” and “Date” as “2020000006888” and “2000.04.25,” respectively,
`
`under INID code (65). (EX1033.4)
`
`Ham’s public accessibility is further supported by contemporaneous evidence
`
`of Korean patent examination procedure. KIPO’s “Annual Report 2000” describes
`
`“Laying Open of Application” as a step that occurs “18 months after the filing date
`
`
`June 4, 2020). In the event Patent Owner disputes that any of Petitioner’s cited
`
`references qualify as prior art, therefore, Petitioner reserves the right to show that
`
`the ’391 claims are entitled to an effective filing date no earlier than August 2003.
`
`4 Obtained via <https://www.kipo.go.kr/en/MainApp>.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-11-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`or priority date” (EX1034,5 p.60), which is consistent with the application
`
`(September 23, 1998) and publication (April 25, 2000) dates indicated on the face
`
`of Ham. A skilled artisan exercising reasonable diligence would thus have been able
`
`to locate Ham more than one year before December 21, 2001.
`
`Ham’s status as prior art is additionally confirmed by contemporaneous
`
`evidence of its actual dissemination. The “Annual Technical Reports” from 1999
`
`and 2001, submitted by Korea and issued by WIPO, demonstrate that in the relevant
`
`2000 timeframe, Ham would have been distributed shortly after its publication
`
`(within
`
`three months)
`
`together with other published unexamined patents
`
`(“Unexamined Patents and Utility Models Gazette”) in a CD-ROM. (EX1035,6 p.3;
`
`EX1036,7 pp.2-3.) Actual distribution would have occurred “to the general public,”
`
`both “inside and outside” Korea (EX1035, p.3), including the US. (EX1036, pp.6-
`
`7.)8
`
`
`5 <https://www.kipo.go.kr/en/HtmlApp?c=96009&catmenu=ek07_01_01_09>.
`
`6 Obtained via <https://www3.wipo.int/confluence/display/ATR/2001>.
`
`7 Obtained via <https://www3.wipo.int/confluence/display/ATR/2000>.
`
`8 The corroborating evidence cited above (EX1033, EX1034, EX1035, EX1036) are
`
`admissible at least because each qualifies as statements of a public office under FRE
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`
`Sklar [EX1003]
`Sklar is a textbook entitled “Digital Communications: Fundamentals and
`
`Applications,” and “presents the ideas and techniques fundamental to digital
`
`communication systems.” (Sklar, p.2; EX1002, ¶¶71-76.) Sklar qualifies under both
`
`§102(a) and §102(b). (EX1039, ¶¶57-64.)
`
`Petitioner cites Sklar for implementation details that would have been known
`
`or at least obvious to a skilled artisan in the context of Ham’s digital audio system.
`
`For example, Sklar provides block diagrams of “typical” transmitter and receiver
`
`devices that bear striking resemblance to the transmitter and receiver used in the
`
`alleged invention of the ’391 patent:
`
`
`803(8). See United States v. Prevezon Holdings, 319 F.R.D. 459, 465 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`2017). In the event Patent Owner raises a challenge with respect to Petitioner’s
`
`evidence or Ham’s prior art status, Petitioner reserves the right to show admissibility
`
`under additional hearsay exceptions, including FRE 803(6) and 807. Petitioner
`
`further reserves the right to submit additional evidence, including expert testimony.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-13-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 B2
`
`
`
`
`(Sklar, p.5 (Fig. 1.2); compare ’391, Figs. 2, 3.)
`
`
`Xia [EX1011]
`Xia is an article