`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`GROUND I RENDERS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS ........... 1 
`A.  Byrne Renders Obvious The “Processor” Limitations (Grounds 1A-1C)1 
`1. 
`Byrne’s “Microprocessor” Receives and Processes Data Streams . 1 
`2. 
`Byrne’s “Microprocessor” Processes Data Streams “In Parallel” .. 7 
`B.  The Byrne-WO748 Combination Renders Obvious Claims 3-4 (Ground
`1B) 11 
`C.  A Reasonable Expectation of Success Exists For The Byrne-WO748
`Combination (Ground 1B) ...................................................................... 13 
`D.  A Reasonable Expectation of Success Exists For The Byrne-Johnston-
`Pillekamp Combination (Ground 1C) ..................................................... 16 
`  GROUND II RENDERS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS ....... 17 
`A.  The Raleigh-Byrne Combination Renders Obvious The “Processor”
`Limitations (Ground 2A-2C) .................................................................. 17 
`1. 
`The Raleigh-Byrne Combination Provides An Additional Way
`That A Processor Processes Data Streams In Parallel .................. 17 
`2.  Abundant Evidence Shows That A POSITA Would Have Been
`Motivated To Combine Raleigh and Byrne .................................. 22 
`3.  A Reasonable Expectation of Success Exists For The Raleigh-
`Byrne Combination ....................................................................... 25 
`B.  The Raleigh-Byrne Combination Renders Obvious Claims 6-7 (Ground
`2A) 27 
`C.  The Raleigh-Byrne-WO748 Combination Renders Obvious Claims 3-4
`(Ground 2B) ............................................................................................ 27 
`D.  The Raleigh-Byrne-Pillekamp Combination Renders Obvious Claims
`12, 15, and 18-20 (Grounds 2C and 2E) ................................................. 28 
`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 28 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`EX-1001
`
`EX-1002
`
`EX-1003
`
`EX-1004
`
`EX-1005
`
`EX-1006
`
`EX-1007
`
`EX-1008
`
`EX-1009
`
`EX-1010
`
`EX-1011
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,614,943 to Sunil K Rao, et al. (“the ’943
`patent”)
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’943 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Allen Jensen
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,144,711 to Gregory G. Raleigh, et al.
`(“Raleigh”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,784,032 to Ronald H. Johnston, et al.
`(“Johnston”)
`
`International Publication No. WO 98/27748 (“WO748”)
`
`European Patent Application 0 660 626 A2 to John Daniel
`Byrne (“Byrne”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,594,737 to Klaus-Dieter Pillekamp
`(“Pillekamp”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,590,133 to Lars Billström, et al. (“Billström”)
`
`P.W. Wolniansky, et al., V-BLAST: An Architecture for
`Realizing Very High Data Rates Over the Rich-Scattering
`Wireless Channel, published in 1998 URSI International
`Symposium on Signals, Systems, and Electronics. Conference
`Proceedings (Cat. No.98EX167) (October 1998)
`(“Wolniansky”)
`
`EX-1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,005,876 to Leonard Joseph Cimini, Jr., et al.
`(“Cimini”)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`EX-1013
`
`EX-1014
`
`EX-1015
`
`EX-1016
`
`EX-1017
`
`EX-1018
`
`EX-1019
`
`EX-1020
`
`EX-1021
`
`EX-1022
`
`EX-1023
`
`EX-1024
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`ETSI EN 301 344 V6.7.1, Digital cellular telecommunications
`system (Phase 2+); General Packet Radio Service (GPRS);
`Service description; Stage 2 (GSM 03.60 version 6.7.1 Release
`1997)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,425,050 to William F. Schreiber, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,726,978 to Carl Magnus Frodigh, et al.
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`J. J. Spicer, et al., Wireless office data communications using
`CT2 and DECT, IEE Colloquium on Personal
`Communications: Circuits, Systems and Technology, 1993, pp.
`9/1-9/4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,243,581 to Jastinder Jawanda
`
`Excerpts from Alan V. Oppenheim, et al., Signals and Systems,
`Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1983
`
`Excerpts from Theodore S. Rappaport, Wireless
`Communications Principles & Practice, Prentice Hall, 1996
`
`R. G. Vaughan, et al., Antenna diversity in mobile
`communications, in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
`Technology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 149-172, Nov. 1987
`
`S. M. Alamouti, A simple transmit diversity technique for
`wireless communications, in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
`Communications, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1451-1458, Oct. 1998
`
`A. A. Abidi, Direct-conversion radio transceivers for digital
`communications, in IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol.
`30, no. 12, pp. 1399-1410, Dec. 1995
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`EX-1025
`
`EX-1026
`
`EX-1027
`
`EX-1028
`
`EX-1029
`
`EX-1030
`
`EX-1031
`
`EX-1032
`
`EX-1033
`
`EX-1034
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`Yonghong Gao, et al., Low-Power Implementation of a Fifth-
`Order Comb Decimation Filter for Multi-Standard Transceiver
`Applications, Electronic System Design Laboratory, Royal
`Institute of Technology, Nov. 1999
`
`Reza Karimi, et al., Wideband Digital Receivers for Multi-
`Standard Software Radios, Motorola GSM Products Division,
`Oct. 1997
`
`Dictionary Definitions of “communication port,” “I/O port,”
`and “port” (IBM Dictionary of Computing, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
`August 1993)
`
`Jon D. Brady, Virtual Private Networking – The Flexible
`Approach, Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1997
`
`Excerpts from Ziemer and Tranter, Principles of
`Communications: Systems, Modulation, and Noise, Fourth
`Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1995
`
`Dictionary Definition of “Nyquist Theorem” (Newton’s
`Telecom Dictionary, Flatiron Publishing, 1998)
`
`Complaint, Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-00701 (WDTX)
`
`Joint Agreed Scheduling Order, Smart Mobile Technologies
`LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-
`00701 (WDTX)
`
`Complaint, Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-00603 (WDTX)
`
`Joint Agreed Scheduling Order, Smart Mobile Technologies
`LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00603 (WDTX)
`
`EX-1035
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,175,737 to Chiiming Kao
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`EX-1036
`
`EX-1037
`
`EX-1038
`
`EX-1039
`
`EX-1040
`
`EX-1041
`
`EX-1042
`
`EX-1043
`
`EX-1044
`
`EX-1045
`
`EX-1046
`
`EX-1047
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,016,311 to Sheldon L. Gilbert et al.
`
`Excerpts from Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP
`Volume One, Third Edition, 1995
`
`S. Segars, The ARM9 family-high performance
`microprocessors for embedded applications, in Proceedings of
`the International Conference on Computer Design. VLSI in
`Computers and Processors, 5-7 Oct. 1998
`
`Chaucer Kuo, John Wong, Multi-Standard DSP based wireless
`systems, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
`on Signal Processing, pp. 1712-1728, 12-16 Oct. 1998
`
`J.-P. van Deursen, et al., Switched antenna diversity within a
`DECT system, IEEE Second Symposium on Communications
`and Vehicular Technology in the Benelux, 1994, pp. 141-148
`
`P. E. Mogensen, et al., Practical considerations of using antenna
`diversity in DECT, Proceedings of IEEE Vehicular Technology
`Conference (VTC), 1994, pp. 1532-1536 vol.3
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,819,041 to Murat I. Bilgic
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,324 to Antonio Juan Ransom et. al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,983,366 to Michael Roy King
`
`Kunle Olukotun, et al., The Case for a Single-Chip
`Multiprocessor, Computer Systems Laboratory Stanford
`University, 1996
`
`Basem A. Nayfeh, et al., Evaluation of Design Alternatives for
`a Multiprocessor Microprocessor, Computer Systems
`Laboratory Stanford University, 1996
`
`Declaration of Aamir A. Kazi in Support of Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`EX-1048
`
`EX-1049
`
`EX-1050
`
`EX-1051
`
`EX-1052
`
`EX-1053
`
`EX-1054
`
`EX-1055
`
`EX-1056
`
`EX-1057
`
`EX-1058
`
`EX-1059
`
`EX-1060
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`Second Declaration of Dr. Michael Allen Jensen
`
`Certified Copy of Deposition Transcript of Patent Owner’s
`Expert, Dr. Todor V. Cooklev, June 12, 2023
`
`Dan Fague, Othello™: A New Direct-Conversion Radio Chip
`Set Eliminates IF Stages, Analog Dialogue 33-10, 1999
`
`Matthias Bopp, et al, MP 4.2 A DECT Transceiver Chip Set
`Using SiGe Technology, IEEE International Solid-state Circuits
`Conference, Feb. 15, 1999
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,989,230 to Steven F. Gillig, et al. (“Gillig”)
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
`v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, IPR2022-00766 for U.S.
`Patent No. 8,824,434
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,584,330 to Arthur C. McKinney, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,895,587 to Boris A. Babaian, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,587,581 to William N. Joy, et al.
`
`Dictionary definition of “block diagram” (A Dictionary of
`Computing, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, 1997)
`Dictionary definition of “block diagram” (Newton’s Telecom
`Dictionary, Telecom Books, 14th Updated & Expanded
`Edition, 1998)
`Dictionary definition of “block diagram” (Modern Dictionary
`of Electronics, Seventh Edition, 1999)
`Dictionary definition of “block diagram” (IEEE 100 The
`Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh
`Edition, 2000)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`EX-1061
`
`EX-1062
`
`EX-1063
`
`EX-1064
`
`EX-1065
`
`EX-1066
`EX-1067
`EX-1068
`
`EX-1069
`
`EX-1070
`
`EX-1071
`
`EX-1072
`
`EX-1073
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`Robert Landry, et al., Multiple Processors vs. A Single
`Processor In Attribute Measurement Systems, Los Alamos
`National Laboratory, available at
`https://www.nti.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/09/Landry_Gratt
`on_MacArthur_2002_Multiple_processors_vs_single_processe
`r_in_AMSs.pdf (retrieved June 30, 2023)
`Single Processor Systems, tutorialspoint, available at
`https://www.tutorialspoint.com/Single-Processor-Systems
`(retrieved June 30, 2023)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,734 to Alex Gernert, et al. (“Gernert”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,479,479 to Michael F. Braitberg, et al.
`
`Certified Copy of Deposition Transcript of Patent Owner’s
`Expert, Dr. Todor V. Cooklev, June 1, 2023 in Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. et al v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC,
`PTAB-IPR2022-01005 for U.S. Patent No. 9,084,291
`U.S. Patent No. 6,728,520 to Phil Coan
`U.S. Patent No. 5,649,316 to Dennis C. Prudhomme
`U.S. Patent No. 6,055,575 to Gaige B. Paulsen, et al.
`(“Paulsen”)
`British Patent Application Publication No. GB2282730A
`(App. No. 9320814.8) to John Byrne, et al. (“Byrne-730”)
`British Patent Application Publication No. GB2282731A
`(App. No. 9320815.5) to John Byrne, et al. (“Byrne-731”)
`British Patent Application Publication No. GB2285198A
`(App. No. 9326169.1) to John Daniel Byrne (“Byrne-198”)
`Paul Ferguson, et al., What is a VPN?, April 1998, available at
`https://www.potaroo.net/papers/1998-3-vpn/vpn.pdf (retrieved
`on July 6, 2023)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,897,874 to William P. Lidinsky, et al.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,633,571 to Kenichi Sakamoto, et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,352,952 to Charles A. Boone, et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,144,848 to Joseph F. Walsh, et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,771,022 to Rodney Vaughan, et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,886 to Christopher J. Hansen, et al.
`Chun-Ning Zhang, et al., A Low Complexity Antenna
`Diversity Receiver Suitable for TDMA Handset
`Implementation, 1997 IEEE 47th Vehicular Technology
`Conference, Phoenix, AZ, USA, pp. 1753-1757, vol. 3, 4-7,
`May 1997
`
`
`EX-1074
`EX-1075
`EX-1076
`EX-1077
`EX-1078
`EX-1079
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s response (POR) attempts
`
`to disparage Petitioner’s
`
`obviousness analysis based on an erroneous interpretation of the references and each
`
`reference’s disclosure of a “processor … configured to process a first data stream
`
`and a second data stream in parallel.” Patent Owner also contends that a reasonable
`
`expectation of success would not exist for the proposed combinations, but Patent
`
`Owner’s contentions fail against record evidence that demonstrates how each
`
`combination would be viewed by a POSITA when properly applying her/his general
`
`knowledge and capabilities.
`
`For these reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments fail.
`
` GROUND I RENDERS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS
`A. Byrne Renders Obvious The “Processor” Limitations (Grounds
`1A-1C)
`1.
`Byrne’s “Microprocessor” Receives and Processes Data Streams
`Patent Owner asserts that Byrne’s “microprocessor 210” merely controls
`
`transceivers 220/230 and audio switch 260, and does not receive or process data
`
`streams. POR, 7-13. Although Byrne’s microprocessor performs control operations
`
`(EX-1008, 8:16-28), it is not so limited. Id. As Dr. Jensen explains, based on
`
`Byrne’s disclosure and a POSITA’s knowledge of processors by the Critical Date, a
`
`POSITA would have understood and found obvious that Byrne’s microprocessor
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`receives and processes data streams. EX-1048, ¶¶1-2; EX-1049, 20:13-21:4 (Dr.
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`Cooklev even recognized that processors in 1999 were multitask capable).
`
`First, FIG. 2 clearly shows Byrne’s microprocessor receiving data from each
`
`of its cellular and cordless transceivers:
`
`EX-1008, Figure 21
`
`
`
`As Dr. Jensen explains, a POSITA reviewing Byrne’s FIG. 2 would consider
`
`the arrows from Byrne’s transceivers to its microprocessor as depicting a flow of
`
`
`1 All annotations/emphasis are added unless indicated otherwise.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`data received by the transceivers to the microprocessor. EX-1048, ¶¶3-4. Patent
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`Owner contends that these arrows depict a flow of “instructions,” not data, but it
`
`remains unclear what type of “instructions” Byrne’s transceivers would be sending
`
`to its microprocessor and Patent Owner has provided no corroborating evidence to
`
`support its argument that transceivers, such as those described by Byrne, send
`
`instructions to microprocessors. As Dr. Jensen explains, a POSITA would not have
`
`understood transceivers as sending instructions to a microprocessor, but instead as
`
`sending data to a microprocessor for processing. Id.
`
`Byrne’s specification supports this understanding. Specifically, Byrne’s
`
`microprocessor 210 “monitors signals from the cordless receiver 221 indicating
`
`received signal strength and for detecting receive data.” EX-1008, 8:19-21. Signals
`
`that enable Byrne’s microprocessor to detect “signal strength” and received “data”
`
`are not “instructions;” they are data streams received by the receiver. Id.; EX-1048,
`
`¶5. This is confirmed by Byrne’s disclosure that, “[a]dditionally, the microprocessor
`
`210 monitors control signals from the cordless transceiver 220.” EX-1008, 8:23-
`
`24. By distinguishing “control signals” as additional to the “signals” used to detect
`
`signal strength and received data, Byrne confirms that the first-mentioned “signals”
`
`are not limited to “control” signals. EX-1048, ¶5. Regardless, Byrne’s “control
`
`signals” (which include “security codes and broadcast information relevant to the
`
`cordless system”) are not simply “instructions,” but, instead, represent data (e.g.,
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`security codes, broadcast information) that is received by Byrne’s transceiver and
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`passed to its microprocessor for processing. Id.; EX-1008, 8:23-28. Furthermore,
`
`Byrne nowhere limits transceiver output to instructions, but instead suggests
`
`otherwise through reference to the above-noted output of signals (e.g., data such as
`
`security codes, broadcast information, signals that enable microprocessor detection
`
`of signal strength and receive data, etc.). Id.
`
`Byrne’s description of its cellular operation similarly confirms that its
`
`microprocessor receives and processes data streams. For example, Byrne describes
`
`that “microprocessor 210 controls the CCT 200 in a similar way when operating as
`
`a cellular telephone, but appropriately modified for the signaling protocols and data
`
`encryption used in the cellular system.” EX-1008, 8:29-33. As Byrne explains, the
`
`“signalling protocols, data encryption techniques and the like … are well known in
`
`the art, and the microprocessor can be arranged to operate in a known manner to
`
`effect control of the signals in such systems.” Id., 8:33-38. As Dr. Jensen explains,
`
`to perform known cellular signalling and data encryption operations, a POSITA
`
`would have understood that Byrne’s microprocessor receives and processes the
`
`cellular data. EX-1048, ¶6. Indeed, to perform data encryption/decryption, the
`
`microprocessor necessarily accesses the data. Id.; EX-1075, 6:5-58 (“The
`
`microprocessor 158 continues encrypting until all the data block has been
`
`encrypted.”); EX-1076, 18:10-15 (“In applications where voice security is desired,
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`the voice signal from microphone 129 is converted to a digital signal and encrypted
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`by microprocessor 122.”).
`
`Dr. Cooklev confirmed that data encryption requires a processor and
`
`embedded software, such as Byrne’s microprocessor. EX-1049, 19:5-23:10. He
`
`also recognized that types of processors (e.g., “general-purpose processors” or
`
`“application-specific integrated circuits”) for implementing data encryption and
`
`other security software were known before the Critical Date, and that such
`
`processors and their operations were well within a POSITA’s knowledge and skill.
`
`EX-1049, 24:5-25:8, 31:19-32:3. Further, as of the Critical Date, Dr. Cooklev was
`
`not aware of any transmitters and receivers capable of performing encryption, nor
`
`was he aware of components other than a processor being leveraged for data
`
`encryption. EX-1049, 26:18-28:15. Notably, in Byrne, no additional processor or
`
`other components for encryption or other data processing are provided, particularly
`
`between the microprocessor and transceivers. EX-1048, ¶¶7-8; EX-1049, 36:4-12.
`
`From Byrne’s description and a POSITA’s general knowledge, a POSITA would
`
`have understood and found obvious that, in Byrne, the microprocessor processes
`
`cordless and cellular data streams. Id. Byrne does not teach otherwise, as it does
`
`not name any other components responsible for any type of data processing. Id.;
`
`EX-1008, 7:25-55, 8:39-43; EX-1049, 46:1-47:4.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`Additionally, Byrne describes that its microprocessor communicates data with
`
`
`
`“display 205” (illustrated as “LCD” in Figure 2), as confirmed by Dr. Cooklev. EX-
`
`1008, 8:54-56; EX-1049, 32:4-24 (“I think in Figure 2, the microprocessor supplies
`
`the LCD with data.”). A POSITA would have understood and found obvious that
`
`the data for updating the display are transmitted from the respective transceivers 220,
`
`230 to the microprocessor 210, which then processes the received data streams and
`
`supplies data to the display, as clearly illustrated in Byrne’s Figure 2. EX-1048, ¶9.
`
`Patent Owner’s limited reading of Byrne’s microprocessor is contrary its
`
`expansive reading that Byrne’s other components, such as transceivers 220/230 and
`
`audio switch 260, would have processing capability that the microprocessor
`
`allegedly lacks. EX-1048, ¶10. Particularly, while admitting that he was not aware
`
`of any transceivers designed for processing data streams before the Critical Date,
`
`Dr. Cooklev hypothesizes, without support, that the processing in Byrne occurs in
`
`the transceivers, instead of the microprocessor. EX-1049, 39:14-20. In doing so,
`
`Dr. Cooklev references only the illustration of Byrne’s Figure 2 and its description
`
`that “conventional”
`
`transceivers can
`
`implement Byrne’s cordless/cellular
`
`transceivers. EX-1049, 40:2-41:6; EX-1008, 7:39-41, 7:48-49. Tellingly, Dr.
`
`Cooklev identifies no evidence of a “conventional” transceiver capable of
`
`performing data stream processing in cordless/cellular telephone networks as of
`
`1999. EX-1049, 43:16-44:1. Nor, as Dr. Cooklev acknowledged, does Byrne
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`describe that the transceivers 220/230, “audio channel” 240/250, or “audio switch
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`260” have data processing capability. EX-1049, 46:1-47:4. On the contrary,
`
`numerous pieces of evidence confirm that transceivers did not perform data
`
`processing around the Critical Date. EX-1048, ¶¶11-18 (citing EX-1050, EX-1051).
`
`The evidence confirms that a microprocessor, not a transceiver, processes
`
`cordless/cellular data streams, and that a POSITA would have understood or found
`
`obvious that, in a system where a microprocessor receives input from a transceiver,
`
`the microprocessor, not the transceiver, processes data streams received by the
`
`transceiver. Id.
`
`For these reasons, a POSITA would have understood and found obvious that
`
`Byrne’s microprocessor processes data, such as the data streams from the cordless
`
`and cellular transceivers, in addition to controlling the transceivers and audio switch.
`
`EX-1048, ¶¶19-21; EX-1008, 8:16-31, 8:39-43.
`
`2.
`Byrne’s “Microprocessor” Processes Data Streams “In Parallel”
`Patent Owner argues that Byrne’s microprocessor does not process first and
`
`second data streams in parallel because Byrne’s description of the “operation(s)”
`
`does not cover “actual open connections.” POR, 20-22. This narrow view does not
`
`accord with Byrne’s disclosure, which repeatedly discusses simultaneous/parallel
`
`operation of its cellular/cordless systems—“the CCT 200 may operate ...
`
`simultaneously as a cellular telephone and a cordless telephone” and “can be so
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`arranged such that both cellular and cordless operations are in progress at the same
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`time.” EX-1008, 8:6-9; 8:1-2 (identifying “cellular cordless telephone” as a mode
`
`of operation). From this disclosure alone, a POSITA would have understood and
`
`found obvious
`
`that Byrne’s system operates as Byrne describes
`
`it—
`
`simultaneously—and
`
`further
`
`found obvious
`
`that,
`
`in doing so, Byrne’s
`
`microprocessor processes cellular and cordless data streams in parallel. EX-1048,
`
`¶22.
`
`Byrne also describes parallel monitoring of signal characteristics that indicate
`
`parallel connections to its cellular and cordless systems. EX-1048, ¶23. For
`
`instance, Byrne describes simultaneously considering “received signal strength,”
`
`“bit error rate, frame error rate or the like” in assessing the cellular and cordless
`
`systems. EX-1008, 4:46-56. To compare signal strength and bit/frame error rate, a
`
`POSITA would have understood and found obvious that Byrne’s system maintains
`
`parallel open connections and processes signals received over the parallel open
`
`connections to assess signal strength and error rate of data (e.g., bits/frames)
`
`conveyed in those signals. EX-1048, ¶23. As Dr. Jensen explains, Byrne’s parallel
`
`assessment of
`
`these data
`
`transfer characteristics confirms
`
`that Byrne’s
`
`microprocessor processes data from multiple connections simultaneously. Id. Based
`
`on Byrne’s disclosure, a POSITA would have understood that parallel open
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`connections would have been an obvious way to receive and process signals for the
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`assessment described in Byrne.
`
`Indeed, simultaneous cellular/cordless operation, which involves processing
`
`two data streams in parallel, was well-known as evidenced in Gillig, which is
`
`referenced in Byrne and describes three-way linking that uses parallel cellular and
`
`cordless connections. EX-1008, 1:27-29, 2:42-3:11, 10:37-39; EX-1052, 1:62-66,
`
`3:26-31, 6:35-7:16. From Byrne’s express disclosure of simultaneous operation
`
`(EX-1008, 8:1-15) and Byrne’s reference to Gillig including its three-way linking, a
`
`POSITA would have understood and found obvious that Byrne’s phone (i.e., its
`
`microprocessor) performs parallel processing of cellular/cordless data streams while
`
`Byrne is in simultaneous cellular/cordless operation, consistent with or in a manner
`
`similar to Gillig’s three-way linking. EX-1048, ¶24.
`
`Byrne’s handover, as illustrated in Figures 3-4, further supports that its
`
`microprocessor processes cellular and cordless data streams in parallel. Byrne’s
`
`device is designed to “automatically handover to a system having a good service
`
`(e.g. cordless to cellular)” so that it does not lose an ongoing call (“actual open
`
`connection”). EX-1008, 4:9-14. Therefore, it would have been understood and
`
`obvious that Byrne’s phone processes both cordless and cellular data streams in
`
`parallel during the handover process, which transitions a call from one service to
`
`another without losing it. EX-1048, ¶25. The British applications referenced in
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Byrne confirm this. Id.; EX-1069 (“Byrne-730”), 5-6; EX-1070, 7-9; EX-1071, 4,
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`10-12. For example, Byrne-730’s dual-mode terminal performs a handover from
`
`cordless to cellular (“mobile”) where, “[a]fter the establishment of the connection
`
`[to cellular/mobile] is completed the mobile station part informs the cordless
`
`telephone part about the matter and the latter releases the radio path of the cordless
`
`telephone system.” EX-1069, 5-6. During the handover, therefore, an existing call
`
`connection over one service is released only after a new connection over the other
`
`service is established; prior to such release, overlap and processing are both
`
`necessary and obvious. EX-1048, ¶25.
`
`Even if Byrne’s discussion of simultaneous “cellular and cordless operations”
`
`refers only to control operations and “not actual open connections” (which it is not,
`
`as apparent from the temporal description referenced above), a POSITA would have
`
`found it obvious that Byrne’s microprocessor processes cellular/cordless data
`
`streams simultaneously in performing the control operations. EX-1048, ¶26. As
`
`mentioned above, Byrne’s microprocessor describes parallel consideration of signal
`
`strength and bit/frame error rate. EX-1008, 4:46-56.
`
`Even assuming this consideration is limited to assessment of control signals,
`
`it still involves parallel processing of data streams. In fact, Byrne describes control
`
`signals with “broadcast information relevant to the cordless system.” EX-1008,
`
`8:23-28. Processing this “information” while a cellular call is in progress involves
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`processing a first data stream (e.g., the broadcast information) in parallel with a
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`second data stream (e.g., the cellular call data). EX-1048, ¶26. Neither the claims,
`
`nor the ’943 patent’s specification, requires audio from two networks to be
`
`simultaneously processed. Id. Thus, even assuming that Patent Owner is correct in
`
`asserting that Byrne’s simultaneous operation is limited to simultaneous processing
`
`of control information (it is not), that simultaneous processing still satisfies the
`
`claims. Id.
`
`B.
`
`The Byrne-WO748 Combination Renders Obvious Claims 3-4
`(Ground 1B)
`The Petition articulated how the Byrne-WO748 combination renders obvious
`
`the well-known use of a “virtual network,” which was commonly used in systems
`
`like those described in the Byrne-WO748 combination. Petition, 30; EX-1003,
`
`¶120. Patent Owner criticizes Petitioner’s reasoned analysis, contending that neither
`
`Byrne nor WO748 expressly discloses connection to a virtual network. POR, 22-
`
`25. This rigid approach contradicts established case law and does not properly
`
`account for the knowledge, creativity, and experience of a POSITA. KSR Int’l Co.
`
`v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1363
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Indeed, implementing a VPN for a network like Byrne-WO748’s network was
`
`well-known and would have been obvious to a POSITA. EX-1048, ¶¶27-28; EX-
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`1068 (“Paulsen”), 1:13-43, 4:64-5:35. For example, it would have been obvious to
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`use a VPN as evidenced in Paulsen such that the WO748 network is used or modified
`
`by known methods to “establish a secure communications path 56, referred to as a
`
`tunnel, through the public network 44 with the remote client 46.” EX-1068, 4:16-
`
`26. This known VPN system would have been obviously applicable to the building
`
`and network components described in WO748, as shown below. EX-1048, ¶28.
`
`
`
`EX-1007, Figure 1
`
`12
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`Notably, virtual networks and VPNs were well-known and regularly
`
`
`
`implemented such that a POSITA would have found it obvious to consider use of
`
`VPNs in WO748’s network given their “strong demand,” prevalent use, and known
`
`benefits, such as “taking advantage of the efficiencies of a common communications
`
`infrastructure” and “communications privacy.” EX-1048, ¶29; EX-1072, 3; EX-
`
`1073, 2:3-21 (“to provide adequate protection from unauthorized access to virtual
`
`networks served by a common data network”), EX-1074, 1:48-54 (“there have
`
`appeared strong demands for forming virtual private networks on the Internet”).
`
`Given the popularity and prevalent use, a POSITA would have found it obvious to
`
`implement VPNs in the WO748’s system without explicit instructions or detailed
`
`guidance in WO748. EX-1048, ¶¶29-30.
`
`Therefore, a POSITA would have understood and found obvious that the
`
`Byrne-WO748 combination renders obvious the “virtual network” features in claim
`
`3.
`
`C. A Reasonable Expectation of Success Exists For The Byrne-WO748
`Combination (Ground 1B)
`Patent Owner contends that “Dr. Jensen’s POSITA could not design a wired
`
`and wireless infrastructure communication system to be used with the Byrne
`
`telephone or to modify Byrne’s telephone to communicate in WO748’s
`
`microcells.” POR, 26. This is incorrect. EX-1048, ¶31.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`The Petition demonstrated how the infrastructure (“microcells”), as taught in
`
`
`
`WO748, would fit for portable devices like Byrne’s CCTs. Petition, 25-27. With
`
`this disclosure, a POSITA would have understood and found it obvious to modify
`
`WO748’s infrastructure to accommodate devices like Byrne’s CCTs (which are
`
`similar to WO748’s subscriber units) because she has an “understanding [of] the
`
`architecture [WO748’s microcell] into which their pieces [Byrne’s CCTs] will fit
`
`and how their design is going to impact that architecture and the overall
`
`functioning of the system.” EX-1048, ¶32; EX-2006, 29:13-31:5. Similarly, based
`
`on the understanding of WO748’s “architecture” and “overall functioning,” a
`
`POSITA would have understood how Byrne’s CCTs would be modified to be
`
`operable in WO748’s architecture. Id.
`
`Indeed, a POSITA would have understood that the Byrne-WO748
`
`combination would be predictable and well within her capabilities. As discussed in
`
`the Petition, WO748 already describes subscriber units that are similar to Byrne’s
`
`phones and that similarly communicate over multiple networks. EX-1007, 5
`
`(“subscriber units such as cellular telephones 32 operating on one or more
`
`networks”); EX-1008, 13:4-7 (“a multi-system radio telephone”). Based on the
`
`technical similarities between the references, a POSITA would have found it
`
`routine and predictable to add Byrne’s standard-based networks (e.g., GSM,
`
`DECT) to the WO748 network, which already describes how to accommodate
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`multiple networks for multiple devices that resemble Byrne’s phones. EX-1048,
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-01004
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0128IP1
`
`¶33.
`
`Notably, the ’943 patent offers very limited di