`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 SUR-REPLY
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Page
`THE REPLY CONFIRMS PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO PROVE
`ITS COMBINATION TEACHES A “REMOTE SERVER” (CLAIM 2,
`GROUND 1). ................................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Petitioner’s Construction Remains Unsupported. ................................. 2
`
`B. The Intrinsic And Extrinsic Evidence Confirms Patent Owner’s
`Construction And Is Inconsistent With Petitioner’s. ............................ 6
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s Attempt To Change Its Combination Is Improper And
`Would Still Fail Even If Permitted. ..................................................... 11
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW A POSITA WOULD BE
`MOTIVATED TO COMBINE SAINTON AND BAKER (ALL
`CLAIMS, ALL GROUNDS). ....................................................................14
`
`III. THE REPLY FAILS TO REBUT THE POR’S SHOWING THAT
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE ITS COMBINATIONS TEACH
`“USER” “PROFILE[S]” (ALL CLAIMS, ALL GROUNDS). ..............16
`
`A. The Reply Confirms That It Would Not Be Obvious To Store
`User Profiles At Sainton’s Alleged Server.......................................... 16
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Prove That Sainton And Baker In Combination
`Teach Storing “User” Profiles On The Server (Claims 2, 4). ............. 18
`
`IV.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE ITS COMBINATION TEACHES
`“AN INDICATOR OF A SOFTWARE APPLICATION TO BE
`DOWNLOADED FROM THE REMOTE SERVER.” (CLAIM 19,
`GROUND 4). ...............................................................................................21
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE BAKER IS ANALOGOUS ART
`(ALL CLAIMS, ALL GROUNDS). ..........................................................23
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................26
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`COURT DECISIONS
`
`AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Communs., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 7
`
`August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 8
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 3
`
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC,
`884 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................12
`
`Donner Tech. LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC,
`979 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................25
`
`In re Clay,
` 966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...........................................................................24
`
`In re Magnum Oil,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................22
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................11
`
`Littlefuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp.,
`29 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ...........................................................................20
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp.,
`401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 4
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.,
`2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13790,
`__ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2023) ...................................................................14
`
`PAR Pharm. v. TWi Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................12
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Polaris Indus. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................15
`
`PSN Ill., LLC v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc.,
`525 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Sci. Plastic Prods. v. Biotage AB,
`766 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................23
`
`Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.,
`587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 4
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................24
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................12
`
`
`
`AGENCY DECISIONS
`
`3Shape A/S v. Align Tech.,
`IPR2019-00163, Paper 37 (June 9, 2020) ............................................................. 2
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Coherus Biosciences, Inc. v. Hoffman-Larcoche Inc.,
`IPR2017-02066, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2018) ...............................................13
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01524, Paper 7 (PTAB Dec. 4, 2017) .................................................13
`
`Limelight Networks v. Akamai Techs.,
`IPR2016-01894, Paper 30 (Mar. 1, 2018) ............................................................ 3
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01350, Paper 24 (Feb. 1, 2021) ............................................................. 6
`
`Netflix Inc. v. DivX, LLC,
`IPR2020-00646, Paper 47 (Sept. 9, 2021) ..........................................................23
`
`RPX Corp. v. Vertical Connection Techs.,
`IPR2018-01388, Paper 31 (Jan. 17, 2020) ............................................................ 3
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. KAIST IP US LLC,
`IPR2017-01046, Paper 14 (Jan. 22, 2018) ................................................... 15, 22
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2016-00393, Paper 62 (June 23, 2017) ........................................................... 1
`
`Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Michigan Motor Techs.,
`IPR2019-01274, Paper 47 (Dec. 21, 2020) .......................................................... 3
`
`Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (Aug. 24, 2022)
`(precedential) ......................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide ...........................................................................12
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`The POR and Dr. Cooklev demonstrated that Petitioner’s grounds failed.
`
`The Reply neglects to even submit rebuttal testimony, leaving Dr. Cooklev’s
`
`testimony unrebutted. Petitioner’s reliance on attorney-argument is insufficient to
`
`cure the Petition’s flaws. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC,
`
`IPR2016-00393, Paper 62, 36-37 (June 23, 2017) (“We also note the absence of
`
`further declaration testimony by Dr. Franzon in support of Petitioner’s Reply to
`
`Patent Owner’s Response. … Such untethered references to conclusory attorney-
`
`argument are insufficient to establish [a motivation to combine].”).
`
`I.
`
`THE REPLY CONFIRMS PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO PROVE
`ITS COMBINATION TEACHES A “REMOTE SERVER” (CLAIM 2,
`GROUND 1).
`
`Petitioner’s “remote server” position hinged upon an implicit construction
`
`that a “remote server” was any server separate from the device. POR, 3-7.
`
`Petitioner’s construction, however, was unsupported and effectively erases
`
`“remote” from the claim. Id., 7-13. The Reply does not cure this deficiency.
`
`Petitioner does not submit any supporting rebuttal testimony, relying instead upon
`
`attorney-argument, and does not cite anything in the intrinsic record to support its
`
`construction.
`
`In lieu of defending its construction, Petitioner belatedly attempts to alter its
`
`combination, swapping its undeniable reliance upon Baker’s lookup service for
`
`some unnamed server in Sainton. But the Office’s rules and CAFC precedent
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`prohibit Petitioner from changing its combination now and even if that could be
`
`overlooked, its altered combination is not shown to satisfy the claim as a whole.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Construction Remains Unsupported.
`
`Petitioner relied upon an unsupported, implicit construction of “remote
`
`server” as simply encompassing any server separate from the requesting device.
`
`POR, 3-4; Pet., 28. The Reply does not dispute that its construction was
`
`unsupported but still fails to substantiate it. Instead, Petitioner attacks Patent
`
`Owner’s construction, proffering a section titled, “Patent Owner’s interpretation of
`
`‘remote server’ is not supported by the intrinsic evidence,” (Reply, 8), without a
`
`section defending its own construction.
`
`Petitioner contends “[t]he intrinsic record accordingly supports [its] plain
`
`reading.” Reply, 10. Petitioner, however, fails to identify anything in the intrinsic
`
`record that supports its construction. Petitioner argues that the prosecution history
`
`does not support Patent Owner’s construction (Reply, 9-10) but does not argue that
`
`the specification or prosecution history supports its construction.
`
`Dr. Kotzin too is silent. Consequently, Dr. Cooklev’s testimony concerning
`
`the “remote server” construction is unrebutted, a significant factor in resolving
`
`disputed issues, including claim constructions. 3Shape A/S v. Align Tech.,
`
`IPR2019-00163, Paper 37, 16-24 (June 9, 2020) (“Dr. Sonka’s testimony is
`
`unrebutted by Petitioner’s expert .… His reply declaration does not address the
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`meaning of the In Focus limitation … nor whether that limitation is taught or
`
`suggested by the prior art.”); Limelight Networks v. Akamai Techs., IPR2016-
`
`01894, Paper 30, 16 (Mar. 1, 2018) (similar); RPX Corp. v. Vertical Connection
`
`Techs., IPR2018-01388, Paper 31, 11 (Jan. 17, 2020) (similar); Volkswagen Grp.
`
`of Am., Inc. v. Michigan Motor Techs., IPR2019-01274, Paper 47, 64-65 (Dec. 21,
`
`2020) (similar).
`
`Moreover, Dr. Kotzin was not merely silent; his deposition testimony
`
`undermines Petitioner’s position. He acknowledged that each of the claims already
`
`requires the device to be separate from the server (Ex. 2011, 56:8-13, 57:4-11,
`
`58:5-12) and admitted that he effectively erased “remote” from the claim,
`
`testifying that “remote server” and “server” have the same meaning (id., 54:23-
`
`55:13; 62:5-11). By Dr. Kotzin’s own admissions, Petitioner’s implicit
`
`construction is contrary to basic claim construction principles. POR, 7-13.
`
`Rather than rely upon intrinsic evidence, Petitioner leans heavily upon
`
`cherry-picked dictionary definitions of “remote” and “local.” But “extrinsic
`
`evidence i[s] general[ly] [] less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history
`
`in determining how to read claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d
`
`858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (similar).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Petitioner’s definitions, supposedly demonstrating that “remote” means
`
`“accessed through a telecommunications line rather than direct link” (Reply, 12),
`
`are inapposite for multiple reasons. First, these definitions are inconsistent with
`
`Petitioner’s original position that a “remote server” is any server separate from the
`
`device. Second, Petitioner’s definitions are generic and do not even purport to
`
`define and distinguish “remote servers” from “local servers.” As Dr. Cooklev
`
`testified, and Petitioner does not dispute, “remote” is context-specific. Ex. 2010
`
`[Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 37; Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp., 587
`
`F.3d 1339, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“the court erroneously relied on … a single
`
`dictionary definition to the exclusion of other dictionary definitions and, most
`
`importantly, the context in which the term was used within the claim and the
`
`specification. … [term’s] proper construction requires consideration of the context
`
`of the rest of the term.”). Petitioner, quite simply, proffers no extrinsic evidence
`
`distinguishing a “remote server” from a “local server.” Third, Petitioner does not
`
`provide expert testimony suggesting that its definitions constitute a POSITA’s
`
`understanding of a “remote server” in the context of the intrinsic record. Medrad,
`
`Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“We cannot look
`
`at the ordinary meaning of the term ... in a vacuum. Rather, we must look at the
`
`ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and the prosecution
`
`history.”) (citation omitted). Fourth, Petitioner ignores the proof that POSITAs
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`(including both experts) distinguished “remote servers” from “local servers.” See
`
`POR, 23 (citing Exs. 2012-2016); Ex. 2010 [Cooklev Decl.] ¶ 56; Ex. 2011
`
`[Kotzin-Depo.] 51:24-52:5. Fatally, Petitioner presents no evidence that any
`
`POSITA ever considered a “remote server” to be any server separate from the
`
`device.
`
`Petitioner’s argument (Reply, 12-13) that its dictionary definitions defining
`
`“remote” as accessed through a telecommunications line or communication link
`
`are consistent with the Applicant’s prosecution arguments is wrong. The
`
`Applicant argued that a device downloading software from a local PC via a cable
`
`or wireless connection did not teach downloading software from a “remote” server.
`
`Ex. 1002 [Prosecution-History] 350-51; Section I.B, infra. This confirms that the
`
`Applicant did not consider a “local PC” to be “remote” merely because it is
`
`separate from the device. That the local PC is accessed through a
`
`telecommunications line or communications link also does not make it a remote
`
`server.
`
`Thus, Petitioner proffered an implicit construction but failed to support it
`
`with either intrinsic or extrinsic evidence, including expert testimony. The Board
`
`has rejected this conclusory, attorney-argument-driven approach to claim
`
`construction:
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`For each point addressed by Patent Owner, rather than to
`
`explain with reasons, references to embodiments in the Specification,
`
`and supporting testimony from a technical witness, Patent Owner
`
`simply concludes that it is clear the language at issue carries a certain
`
`meaning. Such conclusory disagreement, without analysis and factual
`
`underpinning, is not sufficient to persuade. Petitioner correctly notes
`
`that Patent Owner’s arguments are merely ‘raw attorney argument,
`
`citing no evidence or expert testimony.’ Reply 30. Argument of
`
`counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record.
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01350, Paper 24, 75-76
`
`(Feb. 1, 2021) (citation omitted).
`
`B.
`
`The Intrinsic And Extrinsic Evidence Confirms Patent Owner’s
`Construction And Is Inconsistent With Petitioner’s.
`
`The Reply also fails to rebut that the intrinsic and extrinsic record supports
`
`Patent Owner’s construction. POR, 13-23. As Dr. Cooklev explained, the ’168 is
`
`directed towards enabling a mobile device to work with a variety of servers in
`
`different locations. Ex. 2010 [Cooklev-Decl.] ¶¶ 51-54; Ex. 1001 [’168] 3:21-25.
`
`In accord, the ’168’s embodiments (including, e.g., Figures 2B-2C) distinguish
`
`between local and remote servers. Ex. 2010 [Cooklev-Decl.] ¶¶ 51-54; Ex. 2011
`
`[Kotzin-Depo.] 51:24-52:5.
`
`The claims similarly distinguish between a “server” (claim 1) without regard
`
`to location, and a “remote server” (claim 2), a “website server” (claim 19) and a
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`“home server” (claims 33-34). A “home server” plainly indicates a server located
`
`at home. Similarly, a “remote server” is located remotely, an understanding further
`
`underscored by claim 6, which requires “a server located at a remote location
`
`separate from the wireless device.” POR, 8-10.
`
`These different claim terms presumptively have different meanings. POR,
`
`7-8 (citing cases). Petitioner attempts to distinguish the POR’s cases on the basis
`
`that they “relate to construing different terms in the same claim, or the same term
`
`in different independent claims, neither of which applies here.” Reply, 10-11.
`
`This is a distinction without a difference; it is well-settled that different claim
`
`terms across claims presumptively have different meanings. Aspex Eyewear, Inc.
`
`v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The fact that
`
`the two adjacent claims use different terms in parallel settings supports the …
`
`conclusion that the two terms were not meant to have the same meaning”); Comark
`
`Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (similar);
`
`Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
`
`(“There is presumed to be a difference in meaning and scope when different words
`
`or phrases are used in separate claims.”); AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance
`
`Communs., Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (similar).
`
`Moreover, Petitioner and Dr. Kotzin do not dispute that claim 2 already
`
`requires the device be separate from the “remote server” and, thus, Petitioner’s
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`construction improperly renders “remote” superfluous. POR, 10-13 (citing cases);
`
`Ex. 2011 [Kotzin-Depo.] 56:8-13, 57:4-11, 58:5-12. Indeed, Dr. Kotzin admitted
`
`he did not think there was a difference between “server” (claim 4) and “remote
`
`server” (claim 2) (Ex. 2011 [Kotzin-Depo.] 54:23-55:2) and that the inclusion of
`
`the word “remote” did not “change in any way the existence of a server as …
`
`understood in Claim 2 and Claim 4” (id., 55:3-13). See also id., 62:5-12 (“not
`
`clear” “remote” would change claim meaning).
`
`Petitioner, moreover, provides no analysis of the preferred embodiments or
`
`the figures. Petitioner cherry-picks a single statement that, “server C 214 is located
`
`at home 260, office 230 or other location 200 …’” Reply, 9 (citing Ex. 1001
`
`[’168] 6:48-52). This is irrelevant. Petitioner does not demonstrate that server C
`
`would be a “remote server” regardless of its location. Petitioner argues that Patent
`
`Owner’s construction would “exclude an explicit embodiment.” Not so. Patent
`
`Owner’s construction applies only to claim 2 and its dependents. A server,
`
`regardless of where it is placed, would be covered by claim 1’s “server” and a
`
`server in a home is a “home server” (claims 33-34). A construction need not cover
`
`all embodiments, and this is “especially true where, as here, other unasserted
`
`claims in the parent patent cover the excluded embodiments.” August Tech. Corp.
`
`v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2011); PSN Ill., LLC v. Ivoclar
`
`Vivadent, Inc., 525 F.3d 1159, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[C]ourts must recognize
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`that disclosed embodiments may be within the scope of other allowed but
`
`unasserted claims.”).
`
`Furthermore, while server C need not be a “remote server” in all contexts,
`
`the ’168 describes server C as a “central” server located “on the internet.” Ex.
`
`1001 [’168] Fig. 2B (showing server C accessed via the web); 2:66-3:2 (“... a
`
`server C located on the Internet ...”); 6:65-67 (similar); 7:5-6 (similar); 3:49-52
`
`(similar); 5:60-62 (similar); 3:64-66 (“the CT/MD 202 may send a request to the
`
`Server C 214 for configuration as a cell phone because it is not in the home
`
`environment.”). Thus, even if the statement at 6:48-52 were relevant, the ’168 still
`
`indicates that server C is located on and accessed via the internet.
`
`Petitioner also argues that the prosecution history does not support Patent
`
`Owner’s construction because the Applicant “sought to distinguish the [Ondeck
`
`reference] [by adding “remote” to “server”] based on the [device’s] relationship to
`
`the server, not the distance from the server.” Reply, 9-10 (citing Ex. 1002
`
`[Prosecution-History] 350-51). This is wrong, and the prosecution history supports
`
`Patent Owner’s construction. Ondeck involved a system where software is
`
`downloaded from a “local PC.” Ex. 1002, 350. Under Petitioner’s construction,
`
`the local PC would be a “remote server” as it is separate from the device. But, as
`
`the Applicant explained, the limitation was not met because the software was
`
`9
`
`
`
`downloaded from a “local PC” and not directly from a server located at a “remote”
`
`location:
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Here, Ondeck requires a multistep system involving a local PC
`
`to access software content and fails to teach or suggest software being
`
`downloaded directly from a server. For instance, the present claims
`
`recite “wherein said server is at a remote location from the one or
`
`more mobile devices, and wherein the server is accessible over an
`
`Internet Protocol network” and further where the mobile devices use
`
`the [remote] server to download the software directly from the [remote]
`
`server.
`
`Id., 350-351. The examiner thereupon removed the Ondeck rejection. Id., 362.
`
`Petitioner additionally argues that the POR’s extrinsic evidence of actual
`
`POSITAs distinguishing “remote servers” from “local servers” (see Exs. 2012-
`
`2015) was “unhelpful” because Ex. 2012 was published after the ’168’s priority
`
`date. Reply, 13. But Ex. 2012 was filed just two months after the filing date.
`
`Petitioner presents no evidence that POSITAs began distinguishing “remote
`
`servers” from “local servers” in August 2000 (rather than June 2000), and
`
`Petitioner cannot dispute that Exs. 2013-2015 all pre-date the filing date. Nor does
`
`Petitioner dispute that this evidence demonstrates that “POSITAs frequently
`
`distinguished ‘remote servers’ from ‘local servers.’” POR, 23; Ex. 2010 [Cooklev-
`
`Decl.] ¶ 56 (citing Exs. 2012-2016).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`Consequently, Petitioner fails to rebut the POR’s showing that “remote
`
`server” requires a server that is physically remote from the device.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s Attempt To Change Its Combination Is Improper
`And Would Still Fail Even If Permitted.
`
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner misinterpreted its argument and that an
`
`alleged, unidentified server at Sainton’s carrier teaches the remote server. Reply,
`
`14. Petitioner’s account cannot be squared with the Petition, which relied on
`
`Baker’s lookup service as the alleged remote server in communication with
`
`Sainton’s device. Pet., 24 (“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) … to yield predictable
`
`results (Sainton’s third party application programs provided from Baker’s lookup
`
`service).”); 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.’”); ID, 36 (“Petitioner argues that … Baker teaches a server as a source
`
`of service objects.”).
`
`Petitioner cannot change its combination now. A petitioner must “make
`
`their case in their petition to institute.” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina
`
`Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Shifting arguments” in
`
`reply is “foreclosed by statute, our precedent, and Board guidelines.” Wasica Fin.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286‐1287 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b); CTPG, 45, 74. Indeed, the “Board [is] obligated to dismiss [an]
`
`untimely argument.” Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018).
`
`Even if, arguendo, Petitioner could change its combination, it would still
`
`fail. Petitioner provides no evidence to support its conclusory assertion that “it
`
`would have been obvious that Sainton’s wireless device communicates with a
`
`server.” Pet., 26. This statement is rooted in inherency, and there is no reason to
`
`believe a “well-known source” of updates from a carrier network would
`
`“necessarily” be a server. PAR Pharm. v. TWi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195-
`
`1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Indeed, Petitioner cites no evidence to support its
`
`contention beyond Dr. Kotzin’s equally conclusory assertion, let alone any
`
`example of a carrier-side server. Pet., 26; Reply, 7. Such conclusory testimony
`
`has little or no weight. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, 15
`
`(Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential); POR, 5-7.
`
`Moreover, the “remote server” must be “configured to store wireless device
`
`software for a plurality of different functions or applications for use by a plurality
`
`of wireless devices,” “store[] in memory software for a wireless device” which
`
`“controls a plurality of the hardware components on the wireless device,” and
`
`“send” “software” “to the wireless device.” Ex. 1001 [’168] cl. 2. The Petition
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`relied on Baker for these limitations and did not attempt to rely on Sainton’s now-
`
`alleged server. Pet., 29 (“Baker’s server stores software for multiple different
`
`functions. … Baker’s service objects are for use by a plurality of wireless
`
`devices.”); 30 (“Baker discloses sending the software to the requesting wireless
`
`device.”). Thus, even if Petitioner could switch servers now, its change would
`
`unravel Petitioner’s arguments as to these other limitations.
`
`That Petitioner seeks to switch servers is yet another indication of the
`
`improperly-shifting nature of Petitioner’s combination. See also Pet., 59-60
`
`(relying on another purported server, tellingly not disclosed in Sainton, that would
`
`be landline-side); Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01524, Paper 7, 19
`
`(Dec. 4, 2017) (“It is not our role to pick a theory for Petitioner ... between the
`
`conflicting options presented, without explanation, in the Petition and Dr. Lavian’s
`
`Declaration, and then to apply that selected theory consistently ... where Petitioner
`
`has failed to do so.”); Coherus Biosciences, Inc. v. Hoffman-Larcoche Inc.,
`
`IPR2017-02066, Paper 11, 14, 16 (Mar. 9, 2018) (“Petitioner cannot have it both
`
`ways, particularly without an explanation why.”).
`
`Petitioner also argues that its combination renders “remote server” under the
`
`POR’s construction obvious because “Baker’s server teachings demonstrate an
`
`example of a carrier-side server.” Reply, 14 (citing Ex.1006 [Baker] 7:37-38; 8:3-
`
`22; Ex.1003 [Kotzin-Decl.] ¶¶56, 71, 75; Pet., 24, 26, 28). This is incorrect. The
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168
`
`
`POR demonstrated—and both experts agreed—that Baker’s lookup service is a
`
`part of the local area network. POR, 13-17; Ex. 2010 [Cooklev-Decl.] ¶¶ 45-49;
`
`Ex. 1006 [Baker] 1:54-57; 7:43-44; 7:54-57; 8:36-38; 9:16-19; 9:26-28; see Ex.
`
`2011 [Kotzin-Depo.] 27:12-18. Petitioner did not present any rebuttal testimony
`
`suggesting Baker’s lookup service is physically remote from the device.
`
`Consequently, it is unrebutted that Baker’s alleged “server teachings” are of a local
`
`server, not a carrier-side server.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW A POSITA WOULD BE
`MOTIVATED TO COMBINE SAINTON AND BAKER (ALL
`CLAIMS, ALL GROUNDS).
`
`As demonstrated (POR, 23-35), a POSITA would not have been motivated
`
`to combine Sainton’s existing method of uploading third-party applications via the
`
`carrier with Baker’s method of delivery via the local lookup service because doing
`
`so would be at best redundant and, indeed, inferior and contrary to Sainton’s goals.
`
`The CAFC recently reaffirmed that ignoring the fact that a combination would
`
`undermine a reference’s stated purpose would be legal error. See Medtronic, Inc.
`
`v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13790 at *16, __ F.4th __
`
`(Fed. Cir. June 5, 2023) (rejecting argument that proposed mod
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
