UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CRADLEPOINT, INC., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`SIERRA WIRELESS, INC., TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY
`HOLDINGS LIMITED, TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, TCT
`MOBILE, INC., TCT MOBILE (US) INC., TCT MOBILE (US)
`HOLDINGS INC., AND THALES DIS AIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`3G LICENSING S.A.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01141
`Patent No. 7,215,653
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CRADLEPOINT, INC., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`SIERRA WIRELESS, INC., TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY
`HOLDINGS LIMITED, TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, TCT
`MOBILE, INC., TCT MOBILE (US) INC., TCT MOBILE (US)
`HOLDINGS INC., AND THALES DIS AIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`3G LICENSING S.A.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01141
`Patent No. 7,215,653
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01141
`Patent No. 7,215,653
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`October 20, 2022
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`Ground Basis
`I
`§103
`
`II
`
`III
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`Reference(s)
`Samsung & C.S0002-0
`
`Samsung, Airvana, & C.S0002-0
`
`Samsung, Chung, & C.S0002-0
`
`Claims
`34-40
`
`34-40
`
`34-40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 4; Paper 13 at 18
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`1) ’653 Patent Overview
`2) Priority of the Challenged Claims
`3) Unpatentability Based on Cited Art
`4) PO’s Arguments Regarding 37 CFR § 42.23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,215,653
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`’653 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:36-43, 5:4-15, Fig. 5 (annotated); Paper 1 at 16-17
`
`5
`
`
`
`’653 Patent Describes An Increase Available Bit (IAB) Signaling
`MS Has Enough Power And Data To Increase Reverse Data Rate
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:3-18, Fig. 7 (annotated); Paper 1 at 18-19
`
`6
`
`
`
`Claims 34 And 37 Require An IAB
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 at 20:5-22, 20:32-48; Paper 1 at 19-21
`
`7
`
`
`
`Examiner Allowed Claims Because Applicant Added “a
`bit…indicates whether the mobile station has enough
`power and data to increase its data transmission rate….”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1007 at 490-91; Paper 1 at 24-27;
`
`8
`
`
`
`Sisvel’s Priority Claim: Korean App. Nos.
`2001-0006839, 2001-0041363, & 2001-0057600
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Korean Application No. 2001-0006839
`(“The ’6839 Application,” Feb. 12, 2001)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1007 at 66 (certified copy); Ex. 1011 at 1 (certified English translation)
`
`10
`
`
`
`Korean Application No. 2001-0041363
`(July 10, 2001)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1007 at 86 (certified copy); Ex. 1013 at 1 (certified English translation)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Korean Application No. 2001-0057600
`(“The ’57600 Application,” Sept. 18, 2001)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1007 at 105 (certified copy); Ex. 1015 at 1 (certified English translation)
`
`12
`
`
`
`Only The ’6839 Application Predates Samsung
`And Airvana
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 32 at 2-3; Paper 1 at 8-11, 22-24;
`Ex. 1002 at ¶¶97, 113-119; Ex. 1019 at ¶¶18-20, 35-36
`
`13
`
`
`
`Only The ’6839 Application Predates Samsung
`And Airvana
`
`Attended by LG
`(Original Applicant)
`
`Filed by LG
`(Original Applicant)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 1 at 22-24; Paper 32 at 2-3
`
`14
`
`
`
`Key Concept First Disclosed By Patentee In ’57600
`Application (After Samsung)
`
`’653 Claims
`“wherein a bit is sent on a reverse packet
`data control channel to indicate whether
`the mobile station has enough power and
`data to increase its data transmission rate
`on a reverse packet data channel.”
`(Ex. 1001, 20:18-22, 20:44-48 (color
`added))
`
`’6839 Application
`[T]he mobile station that has
`received its RAB information
`changes the transmission data rate
`one step at a time according to the
`RAB command and transmits it,
`and informs a base station of its
`transmission data rate through an
`RRI (Reverse Rate Indicator).
`(Ex. 1011, ¶¶7, 22, 48 (color
`added))
`
`’57600 Application
`<63> 3) MS_IAB (MS Rate Increase Available Bit)
`<64> The MS_IAB is a parameter for providing effective data
`rate information for which transmission of a next frame of a
`terminal is possible and has two statuses, “increase” and
`“decrease,” according to the following conditions.
`<65> When the following conditions are all satisfied, the
`MS_IAB is set to “increase,” and if any one of the conditions is
`not satisfied, it is set to “maintain.”
`<66> I. When transmission power margin (reserve of
`transmission power that can be transmitted) is higher than or
`equal to the reference level,
`<67> II. When bit(s) that must be transmitted to a transmission
`buffer are higher than or equal to the reference level,
`<68> III. When the data rate (Current_Assigned_Data_Rate) that
`is currently transmitted is lower than or equal to the maximum
`data rate (MAX_data_Rate) established in a system,
`(Ex. 1015, ¶¶63-68 (color added))
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 32 at 9-11
`
`15
`
`
`
`’653 Patent Discloses That IABs (Not RRIs) Are A Bit To
`Indicate Sufficient Power & Data To Increase Data Rate
`
`
`
`X
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:56-63
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:3-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:3-19, 9:56-63; Paper 1 at 18-19
`
`16
`
`
`
`The ’6839 Application Does Not Disclose IABs
`
`RAB 1
`
`RAB 2
`
`RAB 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1011 at 2, 4; Paper 1 at 22-23; Paper 32 at 8-9
`17
`
`
`
`The ’6839 Application Describes Generic RRIs — Not The
`Claimed Bit Indicating Enough Power/Data To Increase Rate
`
`X
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1011 at ¶¶7, 22, 48; Paper 32 at 4-17; Paper 1 at 8-9;
`Ex. 1002 at ¶¶112-119; Ex. 1019 at ¶¶5-21, 29-36
`
`18
`
`
`
`The ’6839 Application Describes Generic RRIs — Not The
`Claimed Bit Indicating Enough Power/Data To Increase Rate
`
`X
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1011 at ¶¶7, 22, 48; Paper 32 at 4-17; Paper 1 at 8-9;
`Ex. 1002 at ¶¶112-119; Ex. 1019 at ¶¶5-21, 29-36
`
`19
`
`
`
`The ’6839 Application Describes Generic RRIs — Not The
`Claimed Bit Indicating Enough Power/Data To Increase Rate
`
`X
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1011 at ¶¶7, 22, 48; Paper 32 at 4-17; Paper 1 at 8-9;
`Ex. 1002 at ¶¶112-119; Ex. 1019 at ¶¶5-21, 29-36
`
`20
`
`
`
`The ’6839 Application Describes Generic RRIs Not The
`Claimed Bit Indicating Enough Power/Data To Increase Rate
`
`X
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1011 at ¶¶31-33; Paper 32 at 4-17; Paper 1 at 8-9;
`Ex. 1002 at ¶¶112-119; Ex. 1019 at ¶¶5-21, 29-36
`
`21
`
`
`
`The ’6839 Application Describes Generic RRIs Not The
`Claimed Bit Indicating Enough Power/Data To Increase Rate
`
`X
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1011 at ¶¶31-33; Paper 32 at 4-17; Paper 1 at 8-9;
`Ex. 1002 at ¶¶112-119; Ex. 1019 at ¶¶5-21, 29-36
`
`22
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Does Dispute Whether RRIs
`Convey a Future/“Intended” Data Rate
`
`X
`
`Paper 35 (PO Sur-Reply) at 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 32 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 8-9
`
`23
`
`
`
`The ’6839 Application’s RRIs Are Conventional
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1018 at 9-35; see also Paper 32 at 17-19; Ex. 1019 at ¶¶6-11, 25
`
`24
`
`
`
`Samsung Proposes A Novel Redefinition Of RRIs Not
`Disclosed By The ’6839 Application
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 at 8; see also Paper 32 at 12-13; Ex. 1019 at ¶¶21-28
`
`25
`
`
`
`Ground I: Samsung And C.S0002-0;
`Ground II: Samsung, Airvana, And C.S0002-0
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Sisvel Only Challenges Obviousness For
`Elements 34[b]/37[b]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• No explanation of what is missing from the combination of Samsung with C.S0002-0
`and/or Samsung with Airvana and C.S0002-0 – only focuses on “C.S0002-0”
`Paper 30 at 46-47; Paper 35 at 22-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Sisvel’s 34[b]/37[b] Analysis Is Conclusory And
`Without Basis
`
`• No explanation of alleged lack of motivation to combine
`• No explanation of what is missing from the combination of Samsung with
`C.S0002-0 and/or Samsung with Airvana and C.S0002-0
`• Patent Owners instead focuses on alleged “opinion regarding C.S0002-0” alone
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 30 (PO Response) at 47
`
`28
`
`
`
`Sisvel’s Expert Dr. Cooklev Admitted His Opinions
`Addressed C.S0002-0 Alone, Not The Combinations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1020 at 79-80
`
`29
`
`
`
`The Petition Includes Pages Describing The Motivation
`To Combine C.S0002-0 With Samsung And/Or Airvana
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Motivations to combine include:
`• All three references relate to 3GPP2 standards; (Pet. at 41)
`•
`Samsung and Airvana sought to improve CDMA2000 (e.g.
`C.S0002-0); (id. at 41)
`POSITA would look to previous cellular standards when looking
`to improve standard under development such as minimizing
`bits required for a command; (id. at 41-42)
`C.S0002-0 provides control data over the air interface as was
`being proposed for data rate control in Samsung and Airvana;
`(id. at 42)
`POSITA would have been aware of advantages of ternary
`mapping to increase efficiency and save bits; (id. at 42, 47-48)
`Signal point mapping technique in C.S0002-0 known, proven,
`and reliable method for control information; (id. at 42-43, 49)
`Combination yields a predictable result; (id. at 42-43)
`POSITA knew how to implement signal point mapping;
`(id.at 43)
`Expectation of success given this knowledge and ability;
`(id. at 43)
`‘653 patent admits that signal point mapping is “conventional”
`and characterizes signal point mapper as prior art (id. at 43, 48)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Paper 1 at 41-43, 47-49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`
`
`Mapping 2bit Rate Control To Ternary Signals
`(0 +1, 1 -1, No Symbol 0) Was Obvious
`
`Ex. 1003 at 5
`
`Ex. 1006 at 3-8
`
`Ex. 1004 at 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 1 at 41-43, 47-49; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶173-180, 192-198; Ex.
`1003 at 4-5; Ex. 1004 at 5-6, Ex. 1006 at 3-8, 3-21
`
`31
`
`
`
`Ground III: Samsung, Chung, And C.S0002-0
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Sisvel Only Challenges Obviousness For
`Elements 34[b]/37[b]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 30 at 47-49; Paper 35 at 23-24
`
`33
`
`
`
`Sisvel Provides Only Conclusion With No Analysis
`Regarding Ground III
`
`Sisvel cites no evidentiary support for its one-sentence analysis for ground 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 30 at 47-48
`
`34
`
`
`
`Mapping Rate Control To Ternary Signals
`(0 +1, 1 -1, No Symbol 0) Was Obvious
`
`Ex. 1003 at 5
`
`Ex. 1006 at 3-8
`
`Ex. 1005 at 12:60-64
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 1 at 41-43, 47-49, 59-60, 62-63; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶250-256, 264-266;
`Ex. 1003 at 4-5; Ex. 1005 at12:60-64, Ex. 1006 at 3-8, 3-21
`
`35
`
`
`
`Sisvel’s Arguments Based On
`37 CFR §42.23(b) Are Waived And Wrong
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Sisvel Waived The §42.23(b) Argument
`
`• PO never moved to strike or to
`exclude related evidence
`despite requirements of 37 CFR
`§42.64 and the Scheduling
`Order (Paper 24)
`
`Paper 24 (Scheduling Order) at 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`Sisvel Waived These Arguments
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`37 CFR §42.64; see also Paper 17 at 6 (citing Ex. 1018); Ex. 1019 (filed June 30, 2022);
`Paper 18 (order striking Ex. 1017)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply And Exhibits 1018-1019 Are Proper
`
`• Petition argued the ’6839
`Application failed to support
`priority for challenged claims
`
`• PO’s Response argued RRIs in
`’6839 Application support priority
`
`• Then Petitioner’s Reply properly
`responded to these arguments
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 1 at 8-9; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶112-119; Paper 30 at 15-46; Ex.
`2012; Paper 32 at 1-19; Ex. 1019
`
`39
`
`
`
`Petitioner Was Granted Explicit Permission To Respond
`To Similar RRI Arguments Made In The POPR
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 3001
`
`40
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Regarding RRIs Is Not New
`
`• Petitioner explained in Paper 17
`(filed Nov. 2021) why conventional
`RRIs in the ’6839 Application were
`known and did not disclose the
`contested element(s)
`
`• Paper 17 (filed Nov. 2021) cites and
`relies on Exhibit 1018 (C.S0024)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 17 (Reply to POPR) at 6
`
`41
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies service on the Patent Owner, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(e), by electronic (e-mail) delivery of a true copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, to lead and
`
`back-up counsel of record for Patent Owner as follows:
`
`TD-PTAB@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`nbenchell@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`sberger@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`ademarco@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`dlflitparas@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`
`
`Dated: October 19, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Meghan Bright/
`Meghan Bright
`Patent Paralegal
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
