throbber
DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Presentation
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`March 22, 2023
`IPR2022-00068 –U.S. Patent No. 9,549,426
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Outline of Arguments: IPR2022-00068 (’426 Patent)
`
`I. Overview of the ’426 Patent
`
`II. Procedural History
`
`III. Overview of the Disputes
`
`IV. Unpatentability of Substitute Claim Elements [20b], [21b], [22d],
`[23c], [25b]
`
`V. Unpatentability of Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute
`Claim 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`

`Outline of Arguments: IPR2022-00068 (’426 Patent)
`
`I. Overview of the ’426 Patent
`
`II. Procedural History
`
`III. Overview of the Disputes
`
`IV. Unpatentability of Substitute Claim Elements [20b], [21b], [22d],
`[23c], [25b]
`
`V. Unpatentability of Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute
`Claim 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`Overview of ’426 Patent
`
`- The ’426 Patent relates to a “method
`and a telecommunications node for
`transferring subscription data in a
`telecommunications system;”
`- During an attach procedure, a
`“subscriber database” transfers
`subscription data to an “attach control
`node” in two sets, rather than in one set
`as done in the prior art
`- After the first set of subscription data
`has been transferred, the user is said to
`be in a “partial attach state”
`
`EX1001 (‘426 Patent), Abstract; Petition
`(Paper 2), 8-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`

`Overview of ’426 Patent
`
`• During reexamination,
`Patent Owner identified
`the claims’ recitation of a
`“first set of subscription
`data” that “lacks
`completeness” as the
`novel component that is
`distinctive over the prior
`art, which “always
`return[s] a complete set
`of subscription data”
`
`Petition, 12-13; EX1017 (Response to
`Office Action), 28.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition
`
`5
`
`

`

`Overview of ’426 Patent
`
`’426 Patent
`
`EX1001, Figs. 2A, 4; Petition, 8-11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’426 Patent
`
`6
`
`

`

`Outline of Arguments: IPR2022-00068 (’426 Patent)
`
`I. Overview of the ’426 Patent
`
`II. Procedural History
`
`III. Overview of the Disputes
`
`IV. Unpatentability of Substitute Claim Elements [20b], [21b], [22d],
`[23c], [25b]
`
`V. Unpatentability of Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute
`Claim 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`

`

`Procedural History: ’426 Patent
`
`• On February 22, 2022, Patent Owner filed a Disclaimer Under 37 C.F.R § 1.321(a),
`disclaiming Claim 1 (Exhibit 2008)
`
`• On August 16, 2022, Patent Owner filed a Non-Contingent Motion to Amend
`(Paper 17)
`
`• On December 2, 2022, the Board issued Preliminary Guidance on Patent Owner’s
`Motion to Amend (Paper 21), which found that:
`– Patent Owner had not shown a reasonable likelihood that it had satisfied the statutory
`and regulatory requirements associated with filing a motion to amend
`• Patent Owner did not propose a reasonable number of claims
`• The amendments sought to add new subject matter
`
`– Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood that the proposed substitute claims are
`unpatentable
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`

`

`Procedural History: ’426 Patent
`
`• On August 16, 2022, Patent Owner filed a Non-Contingent Motion to Amend
`(Paper 17)
`
`Original MTA
`• On December 2, 2022, the Board issued Preliminary Guidance on Patent Owner’s
`Motion to Amend (Paper 21), which found that:
`– Patent Owner had not shown a reasonable likelihood that it had satisfied the statutory and
`regulatory requirements associated with filing a motion to amend
`• Patent Owner did not propose a reasonable number of claims
`• The amendments sought to add new subject matter
`
`– Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood that the proposed substitute claims are
`unpatentable
`Original MTA (Paper 17), 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`

`Procedural History: ’426 Patent
`
`• On December 21, 2022, Patent Owner filed a Revised Non-Contingent Motion
`to Amend (Paper 22) proposing to add Substitute Claims 20-25
`
`– Patent Owner abandoned the amendments in the original motion to amend
`
`– Only the RMTA is at issue in this proceeding
`
`• Patent Owner’s RMTA should be denied, because the substitute claims are
`unpatentable
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`

`

`’426 Patent: Overview of the Substitute Claims in RMTA –
`Substitute Claim Elements [20b], [21b], [22d], [23c], [25b]
`
`RMTA
`
`RMTA
`
`RMTA
`
`Revised MTA (“RMTA”, Paper 22), 25, 28,
`30, 32, 35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`RMTA
`
`RMTA
`
`11
`
`

`

`’426 Patent: Overview of the Substitute Claims in RMTA –
`Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute Claim 24
`
`RMTA
`
`RMTA, 27, 34-35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`RMTA
`
`12
`
`

`

`Outline of Arguments: IPR2022-00068 (’426 Patent)
`
`I. Overview of the ’426 Patent
`
`II. Procedural History
`
`III. Overview of the Disputes
`
`IV. Unpatentability of Substitute Claim Elements [20b], [21b], [22d],
`[23c], [25b]
`
`V. Unpatentability of Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute
`Claim 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`

`

`Overview of Disputed Issues
`
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute:
`
`1. The construction of the claim term “enabling establishing a
`communication session between the user equipment and
`the telecommunications system”
`2. References qualify as prior art
`3. References disclose all elements of the original claims
`4. That the prior art’s “Update Location” message results in the
`transmission of the first set of subscription data
`
`See generally RMTA (Paper 22); Reply to
`Opposition to Revised MTA (“Reply”,
`Paper 31)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`

`

`Overview of Disputed Issues
`
`Patent Owner Disputes:
`
`1. Whether the prior art renders obvious the “request containing a partial
`transfer indication for transferring only the first set of subscription
`data”
`
`•
`
`Substitute Claims 20-23, 25
`
`2. Whether the prior art renders obvious “deleting from the combination
`of the first set of subscription data and the second set of subscription
`data the second set of subscription data…the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node”
`
`•
`
`Substitute Claims 20, 24
`
`See generally RMTA; Reply
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`

`

`’426 Patent: The Substitute Claims are Unpatentable
`
`• Grounds 1-4 are found in the
`Petition
`
`• Grounds 5-12 are found in the
`Opposition to the Motion to Amend
`
`Opposition to RMTA
`
`• Grounds 13-18 are found in the
`Opposition to the RMTA
`
`– Grounds 13-15 rely on the original grounds
`from the Petition and additionally address
`the amended limitations
`
`– Grounds 16-18 rely on the original grounds
`from the Petition and add Palat
`
`Petition, 5-6; Opposition to MTA (Paper 18), 7;
`Opposition to RMTA (Paper 24), 2
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`

`

`Outline of Arguments: IPR2022-00068 (’426 Patent)
`
`I. Overview of the ’426 Patent
`
`II. Procedural History
`
`III. Overview of the Disputes
`
`IV. Unpatentability of Substitute Claim Elements [20b], [21b], [22d],
`[23c], [25b]
`
`V. Unpatentability of Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute
`Claim 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`

`

`Overview of Disputed Issues
`
`Patent Owner Disputes:
`
`1. Whether the prior art renders obvious the “request containing a
`partial transfer indication for transferring only the first set of
`subscription data”
`
`•
`
`Substitute Claims 20-23, 25
`
`2. Whether the prior art renders obvious “deleting from the combination
`of the first set of subscription data and the second set of subscription
`data the second set of subscription data…the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node”
`
`•
`
`Substitute Claims 20, 24
`
`See generally RMTA; Reply
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20b] (and its Variations)
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`• Aerts discloses a two-stage location update procedure wherein subscription
`data is transmitted from an HLR (i.e., “subscriber database”) to an MSC/VLR (i.e.,
`“attach control node”) in two sets
`
`Petition, 14-17; EX1007, code 57, [0025]-
`[0028], Figs. 1-2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Aerts
`
`19
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20b] (and its Variations)
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`• Aerts describes that the first set of information is sent in response to a location
`update “LU” message from the UE
`
`Aerts
`
`Petition, 15-16; EX1007, [0026]-[0027],
`Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition
`
`20
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20b] (and its Variations)
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`• Eberspächer provides a detailed
`signal flow diagram of the location
`updating procedure, and shows that
`subscriber data is sent from an HLR
`to a VLR in response to the VLR
`sending an “Update Location”
`message to the HLR
`
`Petition, 17-19; Opposition to RMTA, 5-6;
`EX1008, 184-186, Figure 6.2 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Opposition to RMTA
`
`21
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20b] (and its Variations)
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`• Palat also provides a detailed signal
`flow diagram of the location updating
`procedure, and shows that subscriber
`data is sent from an HLR to a VLR in
`response to the VLR sending a
`“MAP_UPDATE_LOCATION”
`message to the HLR
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 19-20; EX1043,
`Figure 5.2 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20b] (and its Variations)
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`•
`
`In light of Palat and Eberspächer, a POSITA would have understood that an
`“Update Location” message triggers the HLR in Aerts to transmit the first
`set of subscription data to the MSC/VLR
`
`• Patent Owner does not dispute this
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 7, 21-22; EX1047
`(Third Olivier Decl.), ¶¶ 51, 87; Reply, 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`Reply
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20b] (and its Variations)
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`•
`
`In light of Palat and Eberspächer, a POSITA would have understood that an
`“Update Location” message triggers the HLR in Aerts to transmit the first
`set of subscription data to the MSC/VLR
`
`• Dr. Pachamanov acknowledges this as well
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 7, 21-22; EX1047,
`¶¶ 51, 87; EX1050 (Pachamanov Depo.),
`48:1-5; Sur-reply (Paper 31), 2-3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`EX1050
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20b] (and its Variations)
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`• Aerts describes that the second set of information is sent in response to a
`“REQ” message from the MSC/VLR
`
`Petition, 15-16; EX1007, [0026]-[0027],
`Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Aerts
`
`Petition
`25
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20b] (and its Variations)
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`• A POSITA would have understood that the Update Location message includes
`information identifying it as an Update Location message (as opposed to
`an REQ message)
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 8, 22; EX1047, ¶¶ 44,
`46-50, 80, 82-86
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`Third Olivier Decl.
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20b] (and its Variations)
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`• Dr. Pachamanov agrees that the Update Location message could include
`“message type” information that differentiates the Update Location
`message from the “REQ” message
`
`Sur-reply, 8; EX1050, 42:5-11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pachamanov Depo.
`
`27
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20b] (and its Variations)
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`• A POSITA would have
`understood because the
`Update Location message,
`which includes the identity
`information, triggers the HLR
`to transmit only the first set
`of subscription data, this
`message discloses or at least
`renders obvious Substitute
`Claim Element [20b]
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 9-10, 23-24;
`EX1047, ¶¶ 48, 50, 84, 86
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Third Olivier Decl.
`
`28
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20b] (and its Variations)
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`• This “triggering” functionality is consistent with the ’426 Patent’s description of
`the “partial transfer indication”
`
`’426 Patent
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 9-10, 23-24;
`EX1001, 11:60-63
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Argument Inserts Unrecited, Unsupported
`Claim Language
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`• Patent Owner argues that the claimed “request” must have additional
`functionality in addition to “containing a partial transfer indication”
`
`Reply, 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply
`
`30
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Argument Inserts Unrecited, Unsupported
`Claim Language
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`• Dr. Pachamanov, Patent Owner’s expert, also interprets the claims in an overly-narrow
`fashion
`
`Pachamanov Depo.
`
`Sur-reply, 4-5; EX1050, 38:12-39:15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pachamanov Depo.
`31
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Argument Inserts Unrecited, Unsupported
`Claim Language
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`(cont.)
`
`Pachamanov Depo.
`
`Sur-reply, 4-5; EX1050, 38:12-39:15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pachamanov Depo.
`32
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Argument Inserts Unrecited, Unsupported
`Claim Language
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`• Patent Owner’s argument conflicts
`with the actual claim language,
`which does not recite any
`requesting of a full set of
`subscription data
`
`• Dr. Pachamanov agrees that this
`feature is not explicitly recited in
`the claims
`
`Pachamanov Depo.
`
`Sur-reply, 6; EX1050, 36:20-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Argument Inserts Unrecited, Unsupported
`Claim Language
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`• Patent Owner argues that
`the “partial transfer
`indication” must be
`formatted as a “dedicated
`field”
`
`Reply, 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply
`
`34
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Argument Inserts Unrecited, Unsupported
`Claim Language
`
`[20b]: transmitting a request from the attach control node to the subscriber
`database, the request containing a partial transfer indication for transferring only
`the first set of subscription data;
`
`• The 426 Patent describes the “partial transfer indication” only in relation to its
`function
`• The Substitute Claims do not describe the format of the “partial transfer
`indication” or that it is a “dedicated field”
`
`EX1001, 11:60-63
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`’426 Patent
`
`

`

`Outline of Arguments: IPR2022-00068 (’426 Patent)
`
`I. Overview of the ’426 Patent
`
`II. Procedural History
`
`III. Overview of the Disputes
`
`IV. Unpatentability of Substitute Claim Elements [20b], [21b], [22d],
`[23c], [25b]
`
`V. Unpatentability of Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute
`Claim 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`

`

`Overview of Disputed Issues
`
`Patent Owner Disputes:
`1. Whether the prior art renders obvious the “request containing a partial
`transfer indication for transferring only the first set of subscription
`data”
`
`•
`
`Substitute Claims 20-23, 25
`
`2. Whether the prior art renders obvious “deleting from the
`combination of the first set of subscription data and the second set
`of subscription data the second set of subscription data…the first
`set of subscription data remaining in the attach control node”
`
`•
`
`Substitute Claims 20, 24
`
`See generally RMTA (Paper 22); Reply
`(Paper 31)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute Claim 24
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`• Feng discloses a communications system wherein a local database
`“regularly deletes useless user data”
`
`Petition, 70-71, EX1021 (Feng), 4-5;
`Opposition to RMTA, 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Feng
`
`Feng
`
`38
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute Claim 24
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`• Aerts explains that its second set of subscription data is used only to handle an
`incoming or outgoing call
`
`Aerts
`
`Aerts
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 11-12; EX1007,
`[0008], [0010], [0012]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Aerts
`
`39
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute Claim 24
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`
`• Thus, Aerts describes the second
`set of subscription data as being
`“uselessly” transferred to and
`stored in a VLR if no call is made
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 11-12; EX1007,
`[0002]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Aerts
`
`40
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute Claim 24
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`• On the other hand, Aerts explains that subscription data belonging to the first
`set has uses outside of handling a call
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 12-13; EX1007,
`[0016]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`Aerts
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute Claim 24
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`• The subscriber identity information (SII), roaming restriction information
`(RRI), and regional subscription information (RSI) belong to the first set of
`subscription data
`
`Petition 28-29; EX1007, Fig. 1 (annotated),
`[0025]-[0026]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Aerts
`
`42
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute Claim 24
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`• Dr. Pachamanov agrees that roaming restriction information is useful after a
`call
`
`EX1050, 17:24-18:4; Sur-reply, 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`Pachamanov Deposition
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute Claim 24
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`• Dr. Pachamanov agrees that regional subscription information and subscriber
`identification information are useful after a call
`
`Pachamanov Depo.
`
`EX1050, 19:10-18, 20:10-16; Sur-reply, 11-
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pachamanov Depo.
`
`44
`
`

`

`The Aerts-Eberspächer-Feng and Aerts-Palat-Feng Combinations Render
`Obvious Substitute Claim Element [20e] and Substitute Claim 24
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`In light of Feng’s teachings, a POSITA would have found it obvious to delete
`Aerts’ second set of subscription data after a call is completed, while retaining
`the first set of subscription data
`
`•
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 13; EX1047, ¶ 59;
`Petition, 71
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Third Olivier Decl.
`
`45
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Does Not Apply Feng’s Teachings to the Conditions Taught
`by Aerts
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`• Patent Owner argues that Feng teaches deleting all of a user’s data, so that
`applying Feng to Aerts’ system would result in deleting all subscription data
`
`Reply, 7-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply
`
`46
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Does Not Apply Feng’s Teachings to the Conditions Taught
`by Aerts
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`• Patent Owner’s analysis does not consider how Feng would be applied in
`Aerts’ system, wherein users are not fully detached and instead infrequently
`make calls
`
`Sur-reply, 9-10; EX1007, [0005].
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`Aerts
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Does Not Apply Feng’s Teachings to the Conditions Taught
`by Aerts
`
`•
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`In settings where users do not
`frequently make calls, as in Aerts, a
`POSITA would have found it
`obvious to delete only the second
`set of subscription data after a call
`is made to save memory resources
`in the network nodes
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 13; EX1007, [0002],
`[0005]; EX1047, ¶ 59.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Third Olivier Decl.
`48
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Does Not Consider Obvious Rationales for Deleting Only the
`Second Set of Subscription Data After a Call is Made
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`• Patent Owner ignores one obvious rationale that Aerts itself provides: to save
`storage resources in the network
`
`Sur-reply,__; EX1007, [0005]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`Aerts
`
`

`

`Aerts Contemplates and Accepts the “Drawbacks” Identified by Patent
`Owner
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`• Patent Owner argues that the delays that would arise from having to re-transmit
`the second set of subscription data after it has been deleted would teach away
`deleting only the second set of subscription data after a call has been made
`
`Reply, 9-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply
`
`50
`
`

`

`Aerts Contemplates and Accepts the “Drawbacks” Identified by Patent
`Owner
`
`[20e]: deleting from the combination of the first set of subscription data and the
`second set of subscription data the second set of subscription data at the attach
`control node after a precondition has been fulfilled, the first set of subscription
`data remaining in the attach control node
`• But Aerts already contemplates such delay and considers it a “small price paid
`for a significant gain in memory space”
`
`EX1007, [0005]; EX1047, ¶ 62.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Aerts
`
`

`

`Overview of Disputed Issues
`
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute:
`
`1. The construction of the claim term “enabling establishing a
`communication session between the user equipment and
`the telecommunications system”
`2. References qualify as prior art
`3. References disclose all elements of the original claims
`4. That the prior art’s “Update Location” message results in the
`transmission of the first set of subscription data
`
`See generally RMTA (Paper 22); Reply
`(Paper 31)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`

`

`Claim Construction: “enabling establishing a communication session
`between the user equipment and the telecommunications system”
`
`• The Board agreed with the district court’s construction of this claim term
`
`• The district court construed this claim term as follows:
`
`Institution Decision
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 13), 14;
`EX1041 (Claim Construction Order), 82
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claim Construction Order
`
`53
`
`

`

`Aerts discloses [20a]
`
`[20a]: A method for controlling an attach state of a user equipment in an attach
`control node of a telecommunications system further comprising a subscriber
`database containing subscription data of the user equipment, the method
`comprising:
`• Claim Element [20a] incorporates the subject matter of original Claim Element
`[1p]
`
`Claim Listing
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 3; EX1008 (Claim
`Listing); RMTA, 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`RMTA
`
`54
`
`

`

`Aerts discloses [20a]
`
`[20a]: A method for controlling an attach state of a user equipment in an attach
`control node of a telecommunications system further comprising a subscriber
`database containing subscription data of the user equipment, the method
`comprising:
`• Aerts discloses a
`“telecommunications system”
`
`Aerts
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 3; Petition, 23-25;
`EX1007, [0022], [0029].
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition
`
`55
`
`

`

`Aerts discloses [20a]
`
`[20a]: A method for controlling an attach state of a user equipment in an attach
`control node of a telecommunications system further comprising a subscriber
`database containing subscription data of the user equipment, the method
`comprising:
`• Aerts’ mobile station (MS) discloses a “user equipment”
`
`Aerts
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 3; Petition, 25;
`EX1007, [0027]-[0028]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition
`
`56
`
`

`

`Aerts discloses [20a]
`
`[20a]: A method for controlling an attach state of a user equipment in an attach
`control node of a telecommunications system further comprising a subscriber
`database containing subscription data of the user equipment, the method
`comprising:
`• Aerts’ MSC discloses an “attach control node”
`
`Aerts
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 3; Petition, 25;
`EX1007, [0023]; EX1001, 9:16-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘426 Patent
`
`57
`
`

`

`Aerts discloses [20a]
`
`[20a]: A method for controlling an attach state of a user equipment in an attach
`control node of a telecommunications system further comprising a subscriber
`database containing subscription data of the user equipment, the method
`comprising:
`• Aerts’ HLR discloses an “a subscriber database containing subscription data of
`the user equipment”
`
`Aerts
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 3; Petition, 26-27;
`EX1007, [0025]; EX1001, 9:21-26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘426 Patent
`
`58
`
`

`

`Aerts discloses [20a]
`
`[20a]: A method for controlling an attach state of a user equipment in an attach
`control node of a telecommunications system further comprising a subscriber
`database containing subscription data of the user equipment, the method
`comprising:
`• Aerts discloses a “method for controlling an attach state of a user equipment”
`
`• Aerts describes a multi-step procedure that controls whether a mobile station is
`registered in a particular area and able to make or receive calls
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 3; Petition, 27-28;
`EX1007, code (57)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Aerts
`
`59
`
`

`

`Aerts discloses [20a]
`
`[20a]: A method for controlling an attach state of a user equipment in an attach
`control node of a telecommunications system further comprising a subscriber
`database containing subscription data of the user equipment, the method
`comprising:
`• Aerts’ disclosure is consistent with the 426 Patent’s “method for controlling an
`attach state,” which is described as sending subscription data in two sets so as
`to place the user equipment in a “partial attach state” after only the first set has
`been received
`
`Opposition to RMTA, 3; Petition, 27-28;
`EX1001, 3:46-50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`‘426 Patent
`
`

`

`Aerts discloses [21a], [22a], [23a], and [25a]
`
`[20a]: A method for controlling an attach state of a user equipment in an attach
`control node of a

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket