Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,756,168
`
`Apple Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Tech. LLC, Case IPR2022-00807
`
`Andrew Ehmke and Adam Fowles,
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 1 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,756,168
`
`Apple Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Tech. LLC, Case IPR2022-00807
`
`Andrew Ehmke and Adam Fowles,
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 1 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`The ’168 Patent
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 2A; Petition, 9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`2
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 2 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Sainton and Baker
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`3
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 3 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Sainton Teaches Providing Third Party Application Programs
`to a Library on a Mobile Device
`
`Ex.1005, 5:52-57; Petition, 22.
`Sainton’s library is supplemented from the carrier:
`
`Ex.1005, 5:57-65; Petition, 22.
`Sainton’s library can include third party programs:
`
`Ex.1005, 16:17-27; Petition, 22.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`4
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 4 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Baker Teaches An Implementation Approach to Store, Transmit, and Install
`Third Party Application Programs
`Baker teaches a server storing service objects:
`
`Ex.1006, 7:61-67; Petition, 20.
`The service objects are transmitted to clients:
`
`Ex.1006, 8:18-22; Petition, 23.
`The service objects are installed on the clients:
`
`Ex.1006, 8:30-35; Petition, 20.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`5
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 5 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Dr. Kotzin Agrees That Combining Sainton-Baker Makes Sense
`
`The combination was predictable:
`
`Ex.1003, ¶52; Petition, 22-23.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶54; Petition, 23.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`6
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 6 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`PO ignores the actual combination of Sainton-Baker
`
`PO assertion
`
`Actual
`combination
`
`PO Response, 27-28.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶56; Petition, 23-24.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶71; Petition, 26-27.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`7
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 7 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Baker is
`Analogous Art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`8
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 8 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Baker is in the Same Field of Endeavor to the ’168 Patent
`
`’168 Field of Endeavor: Wireless Networking
`
`Dr. Kotzin testifies that the field is wireless networking:
`
`Ex.1001, 1:41-43; Petition, 21.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶47; Petition, 21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`9
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 9 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Baker is in the Wireless Networking Field
`
`Baker applies to wireless networking:
`
`Baker is designed for wireless networking devices:
`
`Ex.1006, 8:44-61; Pet. Reply, 24.
`
`Ex.1006, 9:9-13; Petition, 21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`10
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 10 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Baker is in PO’s Asserted Field for the ’168 Patent
`
`PO’s asserted field:
`
`Baker is in this field, with wireless communication between
`wireless mobile devices and networks:
`
`PO Response, 59.
`
`Ex.1006, Abstract; Petition, 21.
`
`Ex.1006, 8:44-61; Pet. Reply, 24.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`11
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 11 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Baker is Reasonably Pertinent to the ’168 Patent’s Problem
`
`’168 Pertinent Problem: Proliferation of mobile devices
`
`Ex.1001, 1:23-28; Pet. Reply, 26-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`12
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 12 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Baker is Reasonably Pertinent to the ’168 Patent’s Problem
`
`Baker reduces proliferation of mobile devices by
`integrating off-device services:
`
`Ex.1006, 1:24-27; Pet. Reply, 26.
`
`Ex.1006, 1:55-60; Pet. Reply, 26.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`13
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 13 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Sainton and Baker Render Obvious
`Claim 2’s “remote server”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`14
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 14 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`’168 Patent, Claim 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 2.
`
`15
`
`15
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 15 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`It was Obvious to a POSITA that Sainton’s Carriers Include
`a “remote server”
`
`Ex.1005, 5:57-61; Petition, 26; Pet. Reply, 7.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶69; Petition, 26; Pet. Reply, 7.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`16
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 16 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Sainton in view of Baker also Renders Obvious a “remote server”
`
`Ex.1006, 7:37-38; Petition, 26; Pet. Reply, 7.
`
`Ex.1006, Figure 3; Ex.1003, ¶71; Petition, 27.
`
`Ex.1006, 8:3-22; Petition, 26.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`17
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 17 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Patent Owner: “remote server” is “physically ‘remote’”
`
`PO Response, 8.
`
`PO Response, 22.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`18
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 18 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Understanding Excludes an Embodiment
`
`The specification describes “Server C” at home or office:
`
`PO’s expert agrees “Server C” is a “remote server”:
`
`Ex.1001, 6:48-52; Pet. Reply, 9.
`
`PO’s argument excludes Server C from the office:
`
`Ex.1041, 58:8-10; Pet. Reply, 8.
`
`PO Response, 21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`19
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 19 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Sainton-Baker Renders Obvious PO’s Understanding of “remote server”
`
`Sainton’s library updates come from the carrier:
`
`Baker teaches a server:
`
`Ex.1005, 5:57-61; Petition, 26; Pet. Reply, 14.
`
`Ex.1006, 7:37-38; Petition, 26; Pet. Reply, 14.
`PO describes carriers as covering vast areas:
`
`PO Response, 28; Pet. Reply, 14.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`20
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 20 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Sainton and Baker Render Obvious
`Claim 2’s “profiles of user specific information” and
`Claim 4’s “profile”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`21
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 21 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`’168 Patent, Claims 2, 4: “profile[s]”
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 2.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 4.
`
`22
`
`22
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 22 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`“profiles” Obvious in View of Sainton Alone
`Sainton teaches it was known to store profiles of users:
`
`Ex.1005, 17:49-57; Petition, 30; Pet. Reply, 15.
`Sainton teaches the desirability of price competition load level maintenance:
`
`Ex.1005, 19:59-64; Petition, 30-31; Pet. Reply, 17.
`
`Ex.1005, 19:45-59; Petition, 30-31; Pet. Reply, 17.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`23
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 23 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`“profiles” Obvious in View of Sainton Alone
`
`Dr. Kotzin testified that it was obvious to store user preferences at a
`server for multiple users, supported by tertiary evidence:
`
`Ex.1003, ¶88; Petition, 31; Pet. Reply, 17.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`24
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 24 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`“profiles” Obvious in View of Sainton Alone – Tertiary Evidence
`
`It was known to maintain profiles at a centralized location (SYM in Ex.1031):
`
`Ex.1031, Abstract; Petition, 31.
`
`Ex.1031, 5:55-65; Petition, 31.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`25
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 25 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Sainton-Baker Further Renders Obvious “profiles”
`
`Sainton’s library is supplemented from the carrier:
`
`Sainton’s library can include third party programs:
`
`Ex.1005, 5:57-61; Petition, 22, 31.
`
`Ex.1005, 16:17-27; Petition, 22, 31.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`26
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 26 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Sainton-Baker Further Renders Obvious “profiles”
`
`Baker teaches registering a requestor as a “user” of a requested
`program (“module”):
`
`Ex.1006, 14:12-16; Petition, 31.
`
`Baker’s requestor is a “requestor module,” and its reference is
`added as the registration:
`
`Ex.1006, 13:18-25; Petition, 31.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`27
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 27 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`PO’s Arguments Focus on Baker’s Device, Not Baker’s Modules
`
`PO assertion
`
`Actual teaching
`
`PO Response, 46-47.
`
`Ex.1006, 13:18-25; Petition, 31.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`28
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 28 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Sainton-Baker, and Sainton-Baker-Hsu, Render Obvious
`Dependent Claim 19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`29
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 29 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`’168 Patent, Claim 19
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`30
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 30 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Baker Includes an Indicator for Downloading Software
`Responsive to a URL Request
`
`Baker teaches requesting a service object:
`
`The requested service object is transmitted:
`
`Ex.1006, 8:11-14; Petition, 75.
`
`Ex.1006, 8:18-22; Petition, 75.
`
`Baker’s framework was known to use IP:
`
`Ex.1028, p.4; Petition, 34; Pet. Reply, 29-30.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`31
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 31 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`PO’s own evidence demonstrates using URLs
`in Jini networks (like Baker’s)
`
`Ex.2002 (part 1), p.38; Pet. Reply, 30.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`32
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 32 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Hsu further renders obvious providing an indicator
`responsive to a URL request
`Hsu teaches a wireless device using a URL to access a server:
`
`Ex.1010, 13:25-30; Petition, 75-76.
`Hsu teaches the server providing a URL (indicator) for a software
`update:
`
`Ex.1010, 16:53-63; Petition, 75-76.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`33
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 33 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`PO ignores the actual combination with Hsu
`PO’s argument still presumes bodily incorporation:
`
`This was not Petitioners’ actual combination:
`
`PO Sur-Reply, 21.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶292; Petition, 71-72; Pet. Reply, 28.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`34
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 34 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,756,168
`
`Apple Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Tech. LLC, Case IPR2022-00807
`
`Andrew Ehmke and Adam Fowles,
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`Ex.1042 / IPR2022-00807 / Page 35 of 35
`Apple Inc. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
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
