`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`———————
`
`IPR2022-00807
`U.S. Patent No. 9,756,168
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. 6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 8
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 8
`
`III. NOTE ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’168 PATENT ............................................................. 8
`
`V.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY .........................................................................10
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................10
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................11
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF .................................................................................12
`
`IX. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE .................12
`
`A. Discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not appropriate .... 12
`
`B.
`
`Discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is not appropriate ........ 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`No evidence regarding a stay ................................................... 12
`
`Parallel proceeding trial date ................................................... 13
`
`Investment in the parallel proceeding ...................................... 13
`
`Overlapping issues with the parallel proceeding ..................... 14
`
`Petitioner is a defendant ........................................................... 14
`
`Other circumstances ................................................................. 15
`
`C.
`
`Discretionary denial under General Plastic is not appropriate .......... 15
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`X.
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................. 15
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ...................................................... 16
`
`Ground 1: Claims 2-5, 23, and 28 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Sainton in view of Baker and Mueller ......................... 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Summary of Sainton ................................................................ 17
`
`Summary of Baker ................................................................... 19
`
`Summary of Mueller ................................................................ 20
`
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, and Mueller .................. 21
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 25
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 45
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 47
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 57
`
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 58
`
`10. Claim 28 ................................................................................... 59
`
`D. Ground 2: Claims 25 and 34 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller, and Humpleman. ............... 61
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Summary of Humpleman ......................................................... 61
`
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, Mueller, and
`Humpleman .............................................................................. 61
`
`Claim 25 ................................................................................... 64
`
`Claim 34 ................................................................................... 66
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`E.
`
`Ground 3: Claim 22 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller, and Grube. ................................. 68
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of Grube ................................................................... 68
`
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, Mueller, and
`Grube ........................................................................................ 68
`
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 70
`
`F.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 19-20 and 32 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller, and Hsu. .............. 71
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Summary of Hsu ...................................................................... 71
`
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, Mueller, and Hsu.......... 71
`
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 75
`
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 76
`
`G. Ground 5: Claim 21 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller, and Camp. .................................. 77
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of Camp ................................................................... 77
`
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, Mueller, and
`Camp ........................................................................................ 77
`
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 78
`
`H. Ground 6: Claim 29 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller, and Petty. ................................... 80
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Summary of Petty..................................................................... 80
`
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, Mueller, and Petty ........ 81
`
`Claim 29 ................................................................................... 83
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................85
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`XII. MANDATORY NOTICES ...........................................................................86
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest ....................................................................... 86
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................... 86
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................ 86
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................................88
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................89
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`Ex.1006
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`Ex.1009
`
`Ex.1010
`
`Ex.1011
`Ex.1012
`
`Ex.1013
`
`Ex.1014
`Ex.1015
`
`Ex.1016
`
`Ex.1017
`Ex.1018
`
`Ex.1019
`
`Ex.1020
`Ex.1021
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. 9,756,168 (“the ’168 patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Kotzin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Michael Kotzin
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,854,985 to Sainton et al. (“Sainton”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,430,599 to Baker et al. (“Baker”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,185,413 to Mueller et al. (“Mueller”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,532 to Humpleman et al. (“Humpleman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,201,067 to Grube et al. (“Grube”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,587,684 to Hsu et al. (“Hsu”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,252,543 to Camp (“Camp”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,337,858 to Petty et al. (“Petty”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,097,707 to Hodzic et al. (“Hodzic”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,590,943 to Ali (“Ali”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,577,855 to Moore et al. (“Moore”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,356,771 to Dent (“Dent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,545,990 to Amalfitano et al. (“Amalfitano”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,764,704 to Shenoi (“Shenoi”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,734 to Gernert et al. (“Gernert”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,963,852 to Schlang et al. (“Schlang”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,295,448 to Hayes et al. (“Hayes”)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Ex.1022
`
`Ex.1023
`
`Ex.1024
`Ex.1025
`
`Ex.1026
`
`Ex.1027
`
`Ex.1028
`
`Ex.1029
`
`Ex.1030
`
`Ex.1031
`
`Ex.1032
`
`Ex.1033
`
`Ex.1034
`Ex.1035
`Ex.1036
`
`Ex.1037
`
`Ex.1038
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2001/0056502 to Hollstrom et al.
`(“Hollstrom”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,886,017 to Jackson et al. (“Jackson”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,574,693 to Kemink (“Kemink”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,446,192 to Narasimhan et al. (“Narasimhan”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,237,024 to Wollrath et al. (“Wollrath”)
`David Clark, “Network Nirvana and the Intelligent Device,” IEEE
`Concurrency, vol. 7, issue 2, April-June 1999, pp. 16-19 (“Clark”)
`Olstad et al., “Jini Technology: Impromptu Networking and its
`Impact on Telecommunications,” Proceedings of Capstone 1999,
`University of Colorado at Boulder (Fall 1999) (“Olstad”)
`Budka et al., “Cellular Digital Packet Data Networks,” Bell Labs
`Technical Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 3, Summer 1997 (“Budka”)
`Michel Mouly and Marie-Bernadette Pautet, The GSM System for
`Mobile Communications (1992) (“Mouly”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,275,695 to Obhan (“Obhan”)
`Joint Agreed Scheduling Order; Dkt. 30, Smart Mobile
`Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-21-cv-00603 (WDTX)
`Complaint; Dkt. 1, Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6-21-cv-00603 (WDTX)
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`Complaint; Dkt. 1, Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Samsung
`Elecs. Co., Case No. 6-21-cv-00701 (WDTX)
`Joint Agreed Scheduling Order; Dkt. 43, Smart Mobile
`Technologies LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 6-21-cv-00701
`(WDTX)
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,756,168 (the “’168 patent”) claims concepts related to
`
`tuning a wireless device for various networks’ requirements, as well as obtaining
`
`software for the wireless device to remotely control network-connected appliances.
`
`But these were already well-known concepts in the art as demonstrated below.
`
`Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) respectfully request that the Board cancel
`
`as unpatentable under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. §103(a) claims 2-5, 19-23, 25, 28-29,
`
`and 34 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’168 patent.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’168 patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the patent claims. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`III. NOTE
`Petitioner cites to exhibits’ original page numbers. Emphasis in quoted
`
`material has been added. Claim terms are presented in italics.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’168 PATENT
`
`The ’168 patent describes a wireless device that is “software reconfigurable
`
`for the various environments…such as the public networks in one or more
`
`countries…office locations operating at different frequencies, or in the home.”
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Ex.1001, 2:32-36. The wireless device is in communication with a “Server C,”
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`accessed via a wireless carrier 204 for content and for performing functions.
`
`Ex.1001, 3:39-61; Fig. 2A:
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 2A.
`
`
`
`The wireless device “serves as a remote controller” for intelligent appliances
`
`like copiers and faxes in office networks, or TVs/other household items in home
`
`networks. Ex.1001, 4:50-52, 56-60. This is achieved via functional instruction sets
`
`(FIS) written for the wireless device to control/command intelligent equipment.
`
`Ex.1001, 5:34-38. The wireless device also reconfigures between public, local
`
`office, or home networks. Ex.1001, 2:26-30. The wireless device sends a request to
`
`the Server C to reconfigure to a mode and changes to that mode upon receiving
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`relevant FIS. Ex.1001, 3:61-4:2, 5:64-6:5; see also 5:51-56; 4:13-14. Each mode
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`includes a primary value and a subsidiary value for transmit/receive frequencies.
`
`Ex.1001, 6:12-14; Ex.1003, ¶¶29-34.
`
`V.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`The ’168 patent was filed October 13, 2004 as a division of 09/591,381
`
`(June 9, 2000). Ex.1002, 1, 31-51. The specification attempted to identify the
`
`application as a continuation-in-part (CIP) of 09/281,739, filed June 4, 1999, but
`
`because it did not mention 09/591,381, the Office did not recognize the CIP claim.
`
`Ex.1002, 53, 57. Though the Office later granted a request to add a priority claim
`
`for 09/591,381 as a CIP of 09/281,739, the Applicant never identified support for
`
`all claim limitations in the CIP application as the Examiner requested. Ex.1002,
`
`452-53, 461, 473-80, 500-01, 507-19, 535-46. In a Rule 312 amendment, the
`
`Applicant removed the CIP claim, stating that “the claim to priority has been
`
`truncated to the immediate parent of the present application, which was filed on
`
`June 9, 2000.” Ex.1002, 573-92. The ’168 patent issued on September 5, 2017,
`
`listing June 9, 2000 as the priority date. Ex.1002, 610.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (“POSITA”) in June of 2000 would
`
`have had a working knowledge of the wireless communication arts pertinent to the
`
`’168 patent. That person would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`field of networking and wireless devices. Lack of work experience can be
`
`remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶¶20-22.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In an inter partes review, claims “shall be construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). The Board only construes the claims to the extent necessary to resolve
`
`the underlying controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor
`
`Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner submits that for the purposes
`
`of this proceeding, the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain
`
`and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.1
`
`
`1 Petitioner is not conceding that each claim satisfies all statutory requirements,
`
`such as §§101 and 112, nor is Petitioner waiving any arguments concerning claim
`
`scope or grounds that can only be raised in district court. For this petition,
`
`Petitioner applies prior art in a manner consistent with Patent Owner’s allegations
`
`of infringement before the district court.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board institute a trial for inter partes review and
`
`cancel the Challenged Claims in view of the analysis below.
`
`IX. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE
`A. Discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not appropriate
`
`Denial under § 325(d) is not warranted because the challenges presented in
`
`this petition are neither cumulative nor redundant to the prosecution of the ’168
`
`patent. The Examiner did not consider any of the references relied upon in this
`
`petition. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced
`
`Bionics”). Therefore, discretionary denial under § 325(d) is not appropriate.
`
`B. Discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is not appropriate
`
`The six factors considered for § 314 denial strongly favor institution. See
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020).
`
`1. No evidence regarding a stay
`
`No motion to stay has been filed, so the Board should not infer the outcome
`
`of such a motion. Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group –
`
`Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020)
`
`(informative); see also Dish Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`01359, Paper 15 (Feb. 12, 2021) (“It would be improper to speculate, at this stage,
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`what the Texas court might do regarding a motion to stay…”). Thus, this factor is
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`neutral on discretionary denial.
`
`2. Parallel proceeding trial date
`
`As of the filing of this petition, the district court has issued its first docket
`
`control order setting jury selection for trial to begin on October 23, 2023. Ex.1032,
`
`4; Ex.1038, 4. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for August 31, 2022.
`
`Ex.1032, 2; Ex.1038, 2. The expected date for a Final Written Decision in this case
`
`is October 5, 2023, prior to trial.
`
`As trial is scheduled to begin after a Final Written Decision is expected, and
`
`because Petitioner has worked expeditiously to prepare this petition within
`
`approximately 2-3 months after receiving infringement contentions, this factor
`
`weighs against discretionary denial. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 11–12. And the Board
`
`should not rely excessively on court dates that, as of this filing, are nearly a year
`
`away. In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“a court’s general
`
`ability to set a fast-paced schedule is not particularly relevant… where, like here,
`
`the forum itself has not historically resolved cases so quickly.”).
`
`3. Investment in the parallel proceeding
`
`The co-pending litigation is in its early stages, and the investment in it has
`
`been minimal. Claim construction has not yet occurred; fact discovery has not yet
`
`begun and will not close until March 29, 2023, and expert discovery has not yet
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`begun and will not close until June 21, 2023. Ex.1032, 3-4; Ex.1038, 3-4; see
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`PEAG LLC v. Varta Microbattery GmbH, IPR2020-01214, Paper 8 at 17 (Jan. 6,
`
`2021) (finding that since no claim construction hearing had yet been held and
`
`discovery was not completed, the little investment in the parallel proceeding
`
`weighed against discretionary denial).
`
`4. Overlapping issues with the parallel proceeding
`
`The prior art addressed in the Petition will also be a part of Petitioner’s
`
`invalidity contentions in the litigation. Instituting a proceeding will allow the
`
`Board to address the art, and the issues will be narrowed in the litigation due to the
`
`estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).
`
`If the Board institutes trial, Petitioner will cease asserting in the district court
`
`litigation any invalidity contention based on the grounds presented in this petition.
`
`Institution will not result in any overlapping consideration of invalidity arguments.
`
`This factor weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`5. Petitioner is a defendant
`
`Petitioner is a defendant in the litigation. Ex.1033, 1; Ex.1037, 1. That is true
`
`of most Petitioners in IPR proceedings. Accordingly, this factor should not be a
`
`basis for denying institution.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`6. Other circumstances
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`The prior art presented in this Petition renders the Challenged Claims
`
`unpatentable as obvious. The merits of Petitioner’s arguments are strong, and this
`
`factor weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`Because the Fintiv factors are either neutral or weigh against discretionary
`
`denial, and because this Petition was filed more than two months before the
`
`statutory bar date, institution should not be denied on discretionary factors.
`
`C. Discretionary denial under General Plastic is not appropriate
`
`The ’168 patent has not been challenged in any prior IPR petition, so none of
`
`the General Plastic discretionary institution factors apply to this Petition. See
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357,
`
`Paper 19 at 16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2016) (Section II.B.4.i. precedential).
`
`X.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 2-5, 19-23, 25, 28-29, and 34, corresponding to
`
`the claims asserted in the plaintiff’s infringement contentions in the co-pending
`
`litigation.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Grounds
`#1
`#2
`
`Claims
`2-5, 23, 28
`25, 34
`
`#3
`
`#4
`
`#5
`
`#6
`
`22
`
`19-20
`
`21
`
`29
`
`Basis
`§ 103 (Pre-AIA) Sainton in view of Baker and Mueller
`§ 103 (Pre-AIA) Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller,
`and Humpleman
`§ 103 (Pre-AIA) Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller,
`and Grube
`§ 103 (Pre-AIA) Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller,
`and Hsu
`§ 103 (Pre-AIA) Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller,
`and Camp
`§ 103 (Pre-AIA) Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller,
`and Petty
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,854,985 to Sainton (“Sainton”) issued December 29,
`
`
`
`
`
`1998. U.S. Patent No. 5,201,067 to Grube (“Grube”) issued April 6, 1993. Sainton
`
`and Grube are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,430,599 to Baker (“Baker”) was filed June 15, 1999,
`
`issuing August 6, 2002. U.S. Patent No. 6,185,413 to Mueller (“Mueller”) was
`
`filed June 17, 1997, issuing February 6, 2001. U.S. Patent No. 7,043,532 to
`
`Humpleman (“Humpleman”) was filed May 7, 1999, with a benefit claim to a
`
`provisional application filed May 7, 1998. It issued May 9, 2006. U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,587,684 to Hsu (“Hsu”) was filed July 28, 1998, issuing July 1, 2003. U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,252,543 to Camp (“Camp”) was filed on May 19, 1999, claiming the
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`benefit of a provisional application filed May 28, 1998. It issued June 26, 2001.
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,337,858 to Petty (“Petty”) was filed on October 10, 1997,
`
`issuing January 8, 2002. Baker, Mueller, Humpleman, Hsu, Camp, and Petty are
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Petitioner’s analysis also cites additional prior art to demonstrate the
`
`background knowledge of a POSITA and to provide contemporaneous context to
`
`support Petitioner’s assertions regarding what a POSITA would have understood
`
`from the prior art. See Yeda Research v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1041-
`
`1042 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (affirming the use of “supporting evidence relied upon to
`
`support the challenge”); Ex.1003, ¶¶36-38.
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 2-5, 23, and 28 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Sainton in view of Baker and Mueller
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Sainton
`
`Sainton describes “frequency and protocol agile, wireless communication
`
`devices…using a variety of different radio frequencies, transmission protocols and
`
`radio infrastructures.” Ex.1005, 1:8-12. This is accomplished with an “omni-modal
`
`circuit” in “a variety of devices” including “a communication device 402…having
`
`an integrated display device.” Ex.1005, 4:55-5:4, 5:30-31, 12:65-13:1. Device 402
`
`switches between voice and data modes, designed for a variety of radio networks
`
`including the “European standard,” TDMA, CDMA, personal cellular systems, and
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`“wireless LAN systems.” Ex.1005, 13:21-33, 5:13-29; FIGs. 4A-4B:
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`Ex.1005, FIGs. 4A, 4B.
`
`
`The circuit 1 includes “a library of command, control and data transmission
`
`
`
`protocols” for each network, consulted to “implement the correct protocols” for the
`
`selected network. Ex.1005, 5:52-57. This library “may be replaced, or
`
`supplemented, by information transmitted over the radio frequencies to the device
`
`by the carrier.” Ex.1005, 5:57-61. The library “desirably include[s] other
`
`functions” for desirable computing features ranging up to “substantial operating
`
`system functions” that result in wireless devices “capable of running third party
`
`applications programs.” Ex.1005, 16:17-27; Ex.1003, ¶¶39-42.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Baker
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`Baker discloses “a lightweight framework supporting shareable services in
`
`small footprint devices” such as handheld computers and smart cellular phones.
`
`Ex.1006, 1:10-12, 5:1-10. The lightweight framework, a containment framework,
`
`hosts “service objects” for shareable services. Ex.1006, 7:61-63, 7:8-17.
`
`Service provider devices (e.g., printers and internet-enabled televisions,
`
`Ex.1006, 7:28-35) make their services available on one or more networks.
`
`Ex.1006, 7:29-31, 7:51-53. Registered services are kept by a “lookup service”
`
`resident on “a network server.” Ex.1006, 7:35-38, 7:58-60. Clients and service
`
`providers can be in a local network and on the Internet generally. Ex.1006, 8:36-
`
`40. FIG. 3 illustrates a smart cellular phone 134 (client), television service provider
`
`132, printer service provider 130, and lookup service 136:
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`Ex.1006, FIG. 3.
`
`
`To register a service, service providers load “service objects” into the lookup
`
`
`
`service. Ex.1006, 7:61-67. Service objects are “applications located and executable
`
`within a local machine or device.” Ex.1006, 1:41-48; see also 8:18-22. Clients
`
`request service objects from the lookup service, which responds with the matching
`
`service object. Ex.1006, 8:11-14, 18-20. A service object executes local code on a
`
`client to obtain a service, or executes a call back from the client to code located at
`
`the service provider. Ex.1006, 8:30-35; Ex.1003, ¶¶43-45.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of Mueller
`
`Mueller discloses a mobile device that selects a carrier from multiple
`
`available. See Ex.1007, Abstract; 5:63-6:22. Mueller provides details about several
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`different known carrier types, including the “Global System for Mobile
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`Communication” (“GSM”), a “pan-European digital system,” the Digital Cellular
`
`System (DCS 1800), the American Digital Advanced Mobile Phone System (D-
`
`AMPS), the IS-95 system (CDMA), and Digital Enhanced Cordless
`
`Telecommunications (DECT). Ex.1007, 1:15-23, 2:52-59, 3:23-26, 3:30-36, 3:40-
`
`47. Mueller describes the frequency bands, channel spacing, and other details for
`
`these carrier types. See generally Ex.1007, FIG. 2; Ex.1003, ¶46.
`
`4.
`
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, and Mueller
`
`A POSITA considering the teachings of Sainton would have also considered
`
`the teachings of Baker and Mueller, as they are analogous prior art pertaining to
`
`wireless networking. See Ex.1005, Abstract; Ex.1006, Abstract; Ex.1007, Abstract;
`
`Ex.1003, ¶47.
`
`a) Sainton and Baker
`
`A POSITA considering the teachings of Sainton would have also considered
`
`the teachings of Baker. Sainton and Baker are analogous art to the ’168 patent,
`
`pertaining to wireless communications devices and adding functions to them.
`
`Ex.1001, 1:41-54 (provide functions to device), 6:15-18 (download to device);
`
`Ex.1005, 1:8-12 (wireless devices), 16:17-27 (third party applications); Ex.1006,
`
`9:9-13 (providing services to devices), 1:41-48 (services include applications).
`
`There are several reasons why a POSITA would have been motivated to make the
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`combination. Ex.1003, ¶48.
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`First, Sainton discloses a wireless device (e.g., cellular phone) including a
`
`library of protocols and third party applications. Ex.1005, 5:52-57, 16:17-27; see
`
`also 5:57-65 (library can be updated). Baker, in turn, teaches a server that provides
`
`“service objects” that work on the processors of small footprint devices (such as
`
`Sainton’s cellular phone). Ex.1006, 2:20-29. Sainton teaches using sufficiently
`
`powerful processors in wireless devices for additional functions. Ex.1005, 16:22-
`
`27. In combination, the wireless devices would have Sainton’s sufficient
`
`processing power for added functions to implement Baker’s “service object”
`
`teachings, by minimizing the processing burden of Baker’s framework and service
`
`objects. A POSITA would have thus had a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`applying Baker’s teachings of service objects (third party applications) to Sainton’s
`
`wireless device. Ex.1003, ¶¶49-50.
`
`Second, a POSITA would have been motivated to turn to Baker to add
`
`service objects to Sainton’s library because Sainton already contemplated the
`
`addition of third party application programs. See Ex.1005, 16:17-27. Sainton’s
`
`library at the wireless device can be updated with third party application programs
`
`over the air via the carrier. Ex.1005, 5:57-65. Sainton leaves implementation
`
`details up to the POSITA, providing express motivation to turn to Baker for details
`
`about adding third party application programs, and types of third party application
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`programs. Ex.1003, ¶¶51-52.
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`Baker further discloses how to share service objects (examples of third party
`
`applications) with requesting client devices. See Ex.1006, 1:10-12. Baker provides
`
`a framework for hosting service objects, “applications located and executable
`
`within a local machine or device.” Ex.1006, 1:41-48; see also 8:18-22. Like
`
`Sainton, Baker recognizes that “smarter” client devices make it desirable “to
`
`expand the scope of applications used” on them. Ex.1006, 6:54-61. Thus, a
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to turn to Baker for Baker’s approach and
`
`framework for adding functionality to a smart device. Ex.1003, ¶53.
`
`Third, the combination would have been predictable and within a POSITA’s
`
`skillset. It was already known for mobile devices to implement third party
`
`applications, and to transmit such applications from a server to a mobile device.
`
`See Ex.1005, 16:22-27; Ex.1006, 8:18-22. Both Sainton and Baker contemplated
`
`smart wireless devices suitable for Baker’s service objects. See Ex.1005, 12:65-
`
`13:20 (cellular phone, data device), 16:22-27; Ex.1006, 4:61-5:10 (smart devices),
`
`7:23-28 (framework for service objects); Ex.1003, ¶54.
`
`Fourth, implementing Baker’s teachings of providing service objects to
`
`cellular phones would have provided “desirable computing features” as Sainton
`
`envisioned. See Ex.1005, 16:17-27. Baker’s framework beneficially is lightweight
`
`and extendable to “any types of services and applications” on small footprint
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`devices. See Ex.1006, 1:49-63. The combination is nothing more than the
`
`IPR2022-00807 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`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.
`
`b) Sainton and Mueller
`
`Sainton’s frequency-and-protocol-agile devices can communicate via
`
`different radio communication networks, including cellular standards like the
`
`“European standard,” CDMA, AMPS, and wireless LAN systems. Ex.1005, 5:14-
`
`29. Sainton does not provide technical details on the “European standard,” which
`
`POSITAs would have recognized refers to GSM. See Ex.1013, 3:33-36. A
`
`POSITA would have therefore been motivated to turn to Mueller, which
`
`demonstrates what a POSITA knew about GSM. Ex.1003, ¶¶57-58.
`
`Mueller provides details about GSM, as well as D-AMPS and CDMA
`
`operation, including frequencies, channel bandwidths, and other operational
`
`details. GSM operated between 890-915 MHz (uplink), and 935-960 MHz
`
`(downlink) with a 200 kHz channel spacing. Ex.1007, 1:36-48, 2:1-4. D-AMPS
`
`operated between 824-849 MHz (uplink) and 869-894 MHz (downlink), with a 30
`
`kHz channel spacing. Ex.1007, 3:23-28; FIG. 2. D-AMPS operated