`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE ITS COMBINATION DISCLOSES
`OR RENDERS OBVIOUS A “REMOTE SERVER” (CLAIM 2,
`GROUND 1). ................................................................................................. 3
`
`A. Petitioner’s Implicit Construction Is Unsupported And Dr.
`Kotzin’s Conclusory Testimony Should Be Afforded Little Or No
`Weight. .................................................................................................. 3
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner And Dr. Kotzin Are Rendering The Term “Remote”
`Superfluous. ........................................................................................... 7
`
`C. Baker’s “Local” “Lookup Service” Is Not “Remote.” ........................ 13
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE THAT A POSITA WOULD BE
`MOTIVATED TO COMBINE SAINTON AND BAKER WITH A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS (ALL CLAIMS, ALL
`GROUNDS). ................................................................................................23
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE ITS COMBINATIONS DISCLOSE
`OR RENDER OBVIOUS “USER” “PROFILE[S]” (ALL CLAIMS,
`ALL GROUNDS). ......................................................................................36
`
`A. Petitioner Fails To Prove That It Would Be Obvious To Store
`User Profiles At Sainton’s Alleged Server (Claim 2). ........................ 37
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Prove That Sainton And Baker In Combination
`Teach Storing “User” Profiles On The Server (Claims 2 and 4). ....... 45
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE ITS COMBINATION TEACHES
`“AN INDICATOR OF A SOFTWARE APPLICATION TO BE
`DOWNLOADED FROM THE REMOTE SERVER.” (CLAIM 19,
`GROUND 4). ...............................................................................................48
`
`VI.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE BAKER IS ANALOGOUS ART
`(ALL CLAIMS, ALL GROUNDS). ..........................................................55
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`A. Petitioner Fails To Prove That Baker Is In The Same Field Of
`Endeavor As The ’168. ........................................................................ 56
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Does Not Contend Baker Is Reasonably Pertinent To
`The Problem The Inventors Of The ’168 Were Addressing. .............. 64
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................67
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`COURT DECISIONS
`
`Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..........................................................................11
`
`Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp.,
`941 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..........................................................................58
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................11
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Indus.,
`795 F. App’x 827 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .....................................................................30
`
`ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................42
`
`Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENO Am. Corp.,
`533 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Becton Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc.,
`528 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................11
`
`Cheese Sys. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys.,
`725 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................42
`
`Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC,
`979 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................65
`
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC,
`938 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..........................................................................30
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .................................................................... passim
`
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..........................................................................55
`
`In re Nat. Alts., LLC,
`659 Fed. App’x. 608 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................55
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ................................................................................30
`
`In re Wood,
`599 F.2d 1032 (CCPA 1979) ..............................................................................58
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..........................................................................28
`
`Penda Corp. v. U.S.,
`29 Fed. Cl. 533 (Fed. Cl. 1993) ..........................................................................55
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 F. App’x 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................30
`
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................30
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ..................................................................... 58, 61
`
`Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp.,
`316 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..........................................................................39
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................58
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`AGENCY DECISIONS
`
`Apple Inc. v. Cellular Comm’ns Equipment, LLC,
`IPR2015-00576, Paper 7 (June 12, 2015) ...........................................................28
`
`Coherus Biosciences, Inc. v. Hoffman-Larcoche Inc.,
`IPR2017-02066, Paper 11 (Mar. 9, 2018) ..........................................................39
`
`F5 Networks, Inc. v. Radware, Ltd.,
`IPR2017-00124, Paper 48 (Apr. 23, 2018) .........................................................28
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01524, Paper 7 (Dec. 4, 2017).............................................................39
`
`Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.,
`IPR2016-01623, Paper 33 (Feb. 9, 2018) ...........................................................55
`
`Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC,
`IPR2020-00646, Paper 47 (Sept. 9, 2021) ..........................................................55
`
`Parsons Xtreme Golf, LLC v. Taylor Made Golf Co., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00518, Paper 14 (July 18, 2018) .........................................................45
`
`Polygroup Ltd. v. Willis Elec. Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2016-01610, Paper 187 (Feb. 26, 2018) .......................................................65
`
`RPX Corp. et al. v. Parity Networks, LLC,
`IPR2018-00097, Paper 7 (Apr. 24, 2018) ...........................................................45
`
`SCHOTT Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00358, Paper 106 (Aug. 20, 2014) ......................................................55
`
`Victoria's Secret Stores LLC v. Andra Grp., LP,
`IPR2020-00853, Paper 14 (Dec. 11, 2020) ........................................................55
`
`Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (Aug. 24, 2022)
`(precedential) ....................................................................................................6, 7
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Techopedia – Jini (available at
`https://www.techopedia.com/definition/1304/jini) [Techopedia Jini]
`
`Excerpts from The JiniTM Specification, Ken Arnold et al., [Jini
`Specification]
`
`Excerpts from A Collection of JiniTM Technology Helper Utilities
`and Services Specifications, Sun Microsystems, Inc. (2000) [A
`Collection of JINI Specifications]
`
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition (2002)
`[Microsoft Computer Dictionary]
`
`Excerpts from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 16th Edition (2000)
`[Newton’s Telecom Dictionary]
`
`Declaration of Nathan Lowenstein in Support of Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission
`
`Declaration of Colette Woo in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`Declaration of Philip J. Graves in support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission
`
`Declaration of Greer N. Shaw in support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission
`
`2010
`
`Declaration of Professor Todor V. Cooklev, Ph.D.
`
`2011
`
`Deposition Transcript of Michael Kotzin, Ph.D.
`
`2012
`
`Marko Mattila et al., Remote Operations Support System for On-
`Line Analyzer, IFAC WORKSHOP ON FUTURE TRENDS IN
`AUTOMATION OF THE MINERAL AND METAL PROCESSING, August
`2000, at 419-423 [Mattila]
`
`vi
`
`

`

`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Paul Robichaux, Managing Microsoft Exchange Server (1st Ed.
`1999) [Robichaux]
`
`Rick Strahl, Internet Applications with Visual FoxPro® 6.0 (1999)
`[Strahl]
`
`Liu Kwong Ip, Creating a Client-Server Database System with
`Windows 95 and Linux, LINUX JOURNAL (Oct. 31, 1999) [Kwong-Ip]
`
`Local, Remote, BARRON’S DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER AND INTERNET
`TERMS, (12th ed. 2017) [Barron’s]
`
`Sam Martin, Cell Phones of the 90s, MOTHER EARTH NEWS (Aug. 1,
`1999), https://www.motherearthnews.com/sustainable-living/nature-
`and-environment/cell-phones-of-the-90s-zmaz99aszsto/ [Martin]
`
`F. John Dian & Reza Vahidnia, IoT Use Cases and Technologies
`(2020), https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/iotbook/chapter/iot-
`technologies/ [Dian]
`
`Joel B. Wood, The Wireless LANs Page (Last modified Aug. 24,
`1995), https://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cis788-95/ftp/wireless_lan/
`[Wood]
`
`Al Leitch, Local area networks – enhancing microcomputer
`productivity, THE CPA JOURNAL ONLINE (Aug. 1989),
`http://archives.cpajournal.com/old/07734688.htm [Leitch]
`
`Christopher Stern, Verizon Buys Cellular One, THE WASHINGTON
`POST (Nov. 16, 2000),
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2000/11/16/veriz
`on-buys-cellular-one/532ab192-6d65-4b3e-b868-d4862d9dc93d/
`[Washington-Post]
`
`Stephen McCann, Official IEEE 802.11 Working Group Project
`Timelines, THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS
`ENGINEERS, INC. (IEEE) (Last updated Jan. 27, 2023)
`https://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/802.11_Timelines.htm [IEEE-
`802.11]
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`2023
`
`Federal Trade Commission, Privacy Online: A Report to Congress
`(1998)
`https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/privacy-
`online-report-congress/priv-23a.pdf [FTC]
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner has failed to prove its case for multiple reasons.
`
`First, Petitioner fails to prove its combination teaches claim 2’s “remote
`
`server.” Petitioner alleges that Baker’s “lookup service 136” is the “remote
`
`server,” implicitly construing “remote” to merely require the server be separate
`
`from the claimed wireless device. Pet., 28. This implicit construction, however, is
`
`unsupported and renders the term “remote” superfluous. Moreover, Baker’s
`
`“lookup service” is on a local network, and thus is a “local server” not a “remote”
`
`one. See Section II.
`
`A POSITA also would not be motivated to combine Sainton and Baker such
`
`that Sainton’s third-party applications would be delivered to Sainton’s device via
`
`Baker’s lookup service. Sainton, as Petitioner concedes, already teaches that its
`
`third-party applications can be delivered over radio frequencies by the carrier.
`
`Pet., 22. This best facilitates Sainton’s goal of creating an “omni-modal” device
`
`that can receive information from any carrier. Providing third-party applications
`
`via Baker’s local server would be redundant of and inferior to Sainton’s existing
`
`methodology. See Section III.
`
`Petitioner also fails to prove its combinations teach storing user “profile[s]”
`
`at the “server.” Petitioner argues this limitation is rendered obvious by Sainton
`
`alone or in combination with Baker because a POSITA would have found it
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`obvious to modify Sainton to store the “user criteria” stored on Sainton’s device at
`
`the carrier, or, alternatively, because Baker teaches “register[ing]” “the requestor
`
`module…as a user.” Pet., 30-31. Sainton’s carrier, however, has no need for the
`
`“user criteria” stored on the devices (Section IV.A), and Baker’s registration
`
`process is for the device, not the user (Section IV.B).
`
`Petitioner further fails to prove its combination teaches claim 19’s “indicator
`
`of a software application to be downloaded from the remote server.” Petitioner
`
`fails to prove that Hsu’s server, which delivers the alleged “indicator,” is even
`
`aware of Baker’s server, let alone software to be downloaded from that server.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s combination hinges on the premise that it was “known” that
`
`Baker’s Jini network would communicate via IP or URL, but Petitioner fails to
`
`substantiate its foundational premise. See Section V.
`
`Finally, all grounds rely upon Baker, but Petitioner fails to prove Baker is
`
`analogous art. Petitioner contends Baker shares the same field of endeavor as the
`
`’168 but ignores that Baker makes clear that its field is directed toward a
`
`lightweight framework for services in resource-constrained, small-footprint
`
`devices while the ’168 is directed toward wireless communication between
`
`wireless mobile devices and networks in various environments. See Section VI.A.
`
`Further, Petitioner does not contend Baker is “reasonably pertinent” to the problem
`
`the ’168 addresses. See Section VI.B.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE ITS COMBINATION DISCLOSES
`OR RENDERS OBVIOUS A “REMOTE SERVER” (CLAIM 2,
`GROUND 1).
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Implicit Construction Is Unsupported And Dr.
`Kotzin’s Conclusory Testimony Should Be Afforded Little Or No
`Weight.
`
`Claim 2 requires “a remote server configured to store wireless device
`
`software for a plurality of different functions or applications for use by a plurality
`
`of wireless devices.” Ex. 1001 [’168] cl. 2. Petitioner relies on Baker’s “lookup
`
`service 136” as the claimed “remote server” in its combination:
`
`The combination is nothing more than the combination of known
`
`elements (Baker’s server providing service objects and Sainton’s
`
`cellular phone executing third party applications) according to known
`
`methods (Baker’s transmitting service objects and Sainton’s over-the-
`
`air updating), to yield predictable results (Sainton’s third party
`
`application programs provided from Baker’s
`
`lookup service).
`
`Ex.1003, ¶¶55-56.
`
`Pet., 24.
`
`Petitioner contends Baker’s “lookup service 136” is a remote server as
`
`follows:
`
`Baker’s “lookup service 136 may reside on a separate device” from the
`
`requesting device (i.e., Sainton’s wireless device), and is therefore
`
`“remote.” Ex. 1006, 7:37-38; Ex. 1003, ¶¶75-77.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Pet., 28 (emphasis in original). Thus, Petitioner’s argument rests upon the premise
`
`that because the “lookup service 136” “‘may reside on a separate device’ from the
`
`requesting device (i.e., Sainton’s wireless device) [it] is therefore ‘remote.’” Pet.,
`
`28 (emphasis in original).
`
`This premise is unsubstantiated. Petitioner and Dr. Kotzin provide no
`
`construction of “remote server,” insisting that “no terms require specific
`
`construction.” Pet., 11; Ex. 1003 [Kotzin-Decl.] ¶ 35. Petitioner implicitly
`
`construes “remote server” as encompassing any server separate from the
`
`requesting device but never sets forth or defends its construction and, indeed,
`
`presents no intrinsic or extrinsic evidence in support of the conclusory, de facto
`
`construction its case hinges upon.
`
`Petitioner cites paragraphs 75-77 of Dr. Kotzin’s declaration, but those do
`
`not say that Baker discloses a “remote server.” Indeed, a comparison of the
`
`Petition and Dr. Kotzin’s declaration reveals that the Petition’s conclusion that
`
`Baker’s lookup service 1361 “is therefore ‘remote’” is missing:
`
`
`1 The Institution Decision did not accept “Patent Owner’s argument that
`
`Baker’s lookup service 136 residing on a network server fails to teach a server.”
`
`ID, 21. Patent Owner respectfully disagrees but assumes, arguendo, that Baker’s
`
`lookup service is, in fact, on a server for the purposes of this POR.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Ex. 1003 [Kotzin-Decl.] ¶ 77
`Baker teaches that “[t]he lookup
`service 136 may reside on
`a separate device such as a network
`server.” Baker, 7:37-38.
`
`Pet., 28
`Baker’s “lookup service 136 may
`reside on a separate device” from the
`requesting device (i.e., Sainton’s
`wireless device), and is therefore
`“remote.” Ex.1006, 7:37-38; Ex.1003,
`¶¶75-77.
`
`
`
`While Dr. Kotzin elsewhere in his declaration asserts that Baker’s lookup
`
`service is a “remote server,” those conclusions lack explanation. See Ex. 1003
`
`[Kotzin-Decl.] ¶¶ 54 (“it was well known to transmit third party applications from
`
`a remote server to a mobile device.”) (citing Ex. 1006 [Baker] 8:18-22), 89 (“it was
`
`well-known for a remote server, such as Baker’s lookup service, to maintain
`
`profiles of users….”) (citing nothing).
`
`As Dr. Cooklev explains:
`
`…Dr. Kotzin says that Baker’s lookup service is a “remote server” but
`
`I do not see any explanation of how he reaches this conclusion. There
`
`is no indication of what Dr. Kotzin believes constitutes a “remote
`
`server” or explanation for why Baker’s lookup service would so
`
`qualify.
`
`Ex. 2010 [Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 34. Dr. Kotzin’s conclusory testimony should be
`
`afforded little or no weight as it is precisely the sort of conclusory testimony
`
`rejected in Xerox:
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Petitioner’s only evidence in support of its assertion that blocking the
`
`purchaser would require recording the blocking in a record in the user’s
`
`account is the opinion of its Declarant, Dr. Jones. We have reviewed
`
`this excerpt from Dr. Jones’ declaration and note that it merely repeats,
`
`verbatim, the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support. …
`
`Dr. Jones does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide
`
`any technical reasoning to support his statement. Thus, the cited
`
`declaration testimony is conclusory and unsupported, adds little to the
`
`conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to
`
`little weight.
`
`Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, 15 (Aug. 24, 2022)
`
`(precedential) (emphasis in original, citations omitted). Xerox similarly found
`
`expert testimony unconvincing where, as here, it was conclusory and failed to
`
`construe the limitation-in-question:
`
`Again, however, Dr. Jones offers only a verbatim restatement of the
`
`assertion being supported, without any supporting evidence or technical
`
`reasoning. Neither Petitioner nor [the expert] offers a construction for
`
`the terms “data value” or “data record,” for example.
`
`This is particularly problematic in cases where, like here, expert
`
`testimony is offered … to supply a limitation missing from the prior art.
`
`Id., 16 (emphasis in original, citations omitted).
`
`Similar to Xerox, Petitioner and Dr. Kotzin argue Baker’s lookup service is
`
`on a “remote server,” but do not explain the basis for that conclusion. Neither
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Petitioner nor Dr. Kotzin provides a construction of “remote server” nor does
`
`Petitioner defend its implicit construction that a “remote server” is any server
`
`separate from the device. Under Xerox, Petitioner may not show a missing
`
`limitation in this fashion. Nor can the reply cure this deficiency. Xerox denied
`
`institution (id., 18) and the Federal Circuit has long made clear that a petitioner
`
`must prove its case in the petition. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina
`
`Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the expedited nature of
`
`IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition
`
`to institute.”).
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner And Dr. Kotzin Are Rendering The Term “Remote”
`Superfluous.
`
`If more is needed, Petitioner’s position is contrary to the intrinsic record.
`
`The claims distinguish between a “server,” a “remote server,” a “website server,”
`
`and a “home server.” Compare, e.g., Ex. 1001, cl. 1 (“enabling the server to be in
`
`communication with the mobile device”); cl. 2 (“a remote server configured to
`
`store wireless device software …”); cl. 19 (“wherein responsive to a request … to a
`
`website or URL associated with a website server or a network environment, … an
`
`indicator of a software application to be downloaded from the remote server.”); cl.
`
`33 (“a home server functions to control[] a plurality of home intelligent
`
`appliances.”); cl. 34 (similar). A “server,” a “remote server,” and a “home server,”
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`under rudimentary claim construction principles, are presumptively different
`
`things. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENO Am. Corp., 533 F.3d
`
`1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Different claims terms are presumed to have
`
`different meanings.”); Becton Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Claims must be interpreted with an eye towards
`
`giving effect to all terms in the claim.”); Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water
`
`Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A]ll claim terms are
`
`presumed to have meaning in a claim.”).
`
`Different claims, thus, require various types of servers. As Dr. Cooklev
`
`testifies:
`
`Claim 1 merely requires a “server,” claim 2 requires a “remote
`
`server,” claim 6, similar to claim 2, requires a “server located at a
`
`remote location separate from the wireless device,” claim 19 references
`
`a “website server,” and claim 33 requires a “home server.” I believe
`
`that the “remote server” of claim 2, like the “server located at a remote
`
`location” of claim 6, requires a “remote server,” meaning one at a
`
`“remote location.” Whereas claim 1 requires a mere “server,” claims 6
`
`and 33 concern a server stored in a particular location, e.g., a “home”
`
`server (claim 33), and a “server located at a remote location” (claim
`
`6). A POSITA would understand that “remote server,” thus, means a
`
`server at a “remote location” relative to the wireless device. This is
`
`consistent with usages of the term “remote” as connoting “far away,”
`
`like a “remote island.”
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`In some contexts, such as for a remote control, a POSITA would
`
`expect the control to simply be separate from the device, e.g., a
`
`television. A “remote server,” however, is an entirely different context
`
`and, unlike a TV remote control, does not suggest mere separation. I
`
`do not believe a “remote server” would be any server separate from the
`
`wireless device as Petitioner contends. The claims already require a
`
`server that is separate from the wireless device. This is particularly
`
`clear in claims 6 and 2. Claim 6 requires a “server located at a remote
`
`location separate from the wireless device.” To give effect to every
`
`limitation, claim 6’s server must be “located at a remote location” and
`
`“separate from the wireless device.” To understand a “server located
`
`at a remote location” to merely mean “separate from the wireless
`
`device” would be to erase the phrase “located at a remote location”
`
`from the claim:
`
`“a server located at a remote location separate from the
`
`wireless device”
`
`Similarly, Claim 2 makes clear the “remote server” is separate
`
`from the device without the modifier “remote.” Claim 2’s server must,
`
`e.g., store data for a “plurality of different wireless devices” and
`
`“send[]” “software” “to the wireless device.” If the wireless device
`
`were a part of the “remote server,” as Dr. Kotzin agreed, it would not
`
`be “sending” software to itself. Ex. 2011 [Kotzin-Depo.] 57:8-11.
`
`Claim 19 depends from claim 2 and further requires that the “wireless
`
`device receives an indicator of… software … to be downloaded from
`
`the remote server.”
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`This pre-existing requirement that the “server” be separate from
`
`device is also present in other claims without the term “remote.” In
`
`claim 1, the “server” and the “mobile device” are recited separately,
`
`and the “server” is in “communication with the mobile device” and
`
`“use[d]” by the “mobile device.” In claim 10, dependent from claim 1,
`
`the “server” further “provides software for the configuration of the
`
`mobile or wireless device...” Likewise, in claim 4, the “server”
`
`“connects” to the device and in dependent claim 29, “provides software
`
`for the configuration of the mobile or wireless device...”
`
`Notably, claims 15 and 17, which depend from claim 1, require
`
`the server be “colocated” “with a wireless carrier” or “with an office
`
`network,” respectively. See also Ex. 1001 [’168] cls. 24, 26 (dependent
`
`from claim 2) (similar). These dependent claims similarly demonstrate
`
`that the “server” is already separate from the “mobile” or “wireless”
`
`device. By virtue of the device being “mobile” or “wireless,” the device
`
`is not tied down to any location and cannot be “colocated” “with a
`
`wireless carrier” or “with an office network.”
`
`Thus, independently of the word “remote,” the claims already
`
`require the server be separate from the device.
`
`Ex. 2010 [Cooklev-Decl.] ¶¶ 36-41.
`
`Construing “remote” to require that the server be on a separate device when
`
`claim 2 already requires this separation would be redundant. As the Federal
`
`Circuit has found:
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`The Board was correct to not include in its construction of “menu”
`
`features of menus that are expressly recited in the claims. Ideally,
`
`claim constructions give meaning to all of a claim’s terms. Merck &
`
`Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Construing a claim term to include features of that term already
`
`recited in the claims would make those expressly recited features
`
`redundant.
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Cobalt Boats,
`
`LLC v. Brunswick Corp., 773 Fed. App’x 611, 616 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (similar); see
`
`also Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1141 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (“We find no error in that interpretation, especially because Stealth’s
`
`proposed construction would render the word ‘terms’ meaningless.”) (citing Cat
`
`Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 885 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Kotzin’s construction of “remote” as merely requiring the
`
`server be separate from the device is, thus, wrong because it effectively renders
`
`“remote” meaningless or superfluous. As Dr. Kotzin conceded in deposition, and
`
`discussed above, each of the claims already requires that the device be separate
`
`from the server. Ex. 2011 [Kotzin-Depo.] 56:8-13 (agreeing that “wherein the
`
`device connects to a server” “implies that the device is separate from a server”),
`
`57:4-11 (similar for claim 2), 58:5-12 (similar for claim 1).
`
`Significantly, and in conflict with rudimentary claim construction principles,
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Dr. Kotzin admitted that under his understanding of “remote server,” “remote
`
`server” and “server” have the same meaning:
`
`Q. … what is the difference between the remote server in Claim 2
`
`and the server in Claim 4?
`
`A.
`
`I don’t know that there necessarily is one.
`
`Ex. 2011 [Kotzin-Depo.] 54:23-55:2. Indeed, Dr. Kotzin testified that “the
`
`inclusion of the word ‘remote’ in Claim 2” does not “change[] in any way the
`
`understanding of a POSITA with respect to the existence of a server as
`
`…understood in Claim 2 and Claim 4.” Id., 55:3-13. Similarly, Dr. Kotzin
`
`testified that the term “remote,” in his opinion, is superfluous in claim 6’s
`
`limitation requiring “a server located at a remote location separate from the
`
`wireless device.”
`
`Q. …So the limitation as is says, “a server located at a remote
`
`location separate from the wireless device.” If we took out
`
`“remote location” so that the limitation reads, “a server
`
`separate from the wireless device,” does that change the
`
`meaning of the claim?
`
`A. Not clear to me that it does.
`
`Id., 62:5-12. Thus, not only was Dr. Kotzin’s statement that Baker’s lookup
`
`service is a “remote server” conclusory, his deposition also made clear that he
`
`believes the term “remote” has no meaning. Consequently, Dr. Kotzin did not give
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`meaning or effect to all terms in the claim.
`
`C. Baker’s “Local” “Lookup Service” Is Not “Remote.”
`
`Moreover, Baker confirms that “lookup service 136” is on a “local network”
`
`and is not “remote” as required. As Dr. Cooklev explains:
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Kotzin allege Baker’s “lookup service” is a
`
`remote server because it “may reside on a separate device such as a
`
`network server.” Pet., 28-29 (“Baker’s server stores software for
`
`multiple different functions.”). But Baker’s “lookup service 136” is a
`
`“local” server not a “remote” one. Baker is clear that its “lookup service
`
`136” is not remote but, rather, part of a “local network” for, e.g., a local
`
`office or home, that a printer, internet television, and smart phone
`
`connect to:
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006 [Baker] Fig. 3; see Ex. 2011 [Kotzin-Depo.] 17:1-6. These
`
`are precisely the sorts of devices on, e.g., a home network. Ex. 1006
`
`[Baker] Fig. 3, see also 7:27-34 (“Also shown attached to the network
`
`are a printer 130 and an internet-enabled television 132.”).
`
`Leaving no doubt, Baker makes repeatedly clear that Figure 3—
`
`which includes the “lookup service”—depicts a “local network.” Id.,
`
`3:54-57 (“FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary network in which a small
`
`footprint device running applications/services in the containment
`
`framework is connected to a local service-based network.”); 7:43-44
`
`(“In one embodiment, the local network shown in Fig. 3 may be a
`
`JiniTM network”); 8:36-38 (Fig. 3’s lookup service 136 is “for a local
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`network [which] may also act as a gateway to an outside network such
`
`as the Internet 154.”); 9:26-28 (“The containment framework 144 may
`
`integrate its own lookup service 146 with an off-device lookup service
`
`such as the local network lookup service 136 shown in Fig. 3.”); 7:54-
`
`57 (the devices “may broadcast a request on the local network for any
`
`lookup services to identify themselves.”); 9:16-19. Thus, Baker makes
`
`consistently clear that Baker’s “lookup service” is on and for a local
`
`network, e.g., a “local area network,” the type typically found in homes
`
`or offices.
`
`In deposition, Dr. Kotzin first asserted that in Baker, “local”
`
`means “within a machine or device.” Ex. 2011 [Kotzin-Depo.] 20:9-
`
`13. As an initial matter, I note that this does not meet the implicit
`
`construction of “remote server” as requiring the server to be on a
`
`separate device. Id., 55:1