Filed: August 25, 2023
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BYRNE GROUNDS ....................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Obviousness Based on Byrne ........................ 1
`1.
`Petitioner’s New Arguments Fail to Prove that Byrne
`Renders Obvious the Processor Limitations (Grounds 1A-
`1C) ............................................................................................... 1
`a.
`Petitioner Fails to Prove that Byrne’s Microprocessor
`Processes the Alleged Data Streams. ................................ 1
`
`b.
`
`Byrne’s Microprocessor Does Not Process Data
`Streams In Parallel. ........................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Show the Byrne-WO748 Combination
`Renders Obvious Claims 3-4 (Ground 1B) ......................................... 13
`There Is No Reasonable Expectation of Success in Combining
`Byrne and WO748. .............................................................................. 14
`There is No Reasonable Expectation of Success in Combining
`Byrne-Johnston and Pillekamp (Ground 1C) ...................................... 15
`III. GROUND II FAILS TO RENDER THE CLAIMS OBVIOUS ...................16
`A.
`Raleigh-Byrne Fails to Render the Processor Limitations
`Obvious................................................................................................ 16
`1.
`Raleigh-Byrne Fails to Show Processing Data Streams in
`Parallel.......................................................................................16
`Raleigh’s Pre-Processor Fails to Meet the Claimed
`Processor Requirements. ...........................................................17
`Raleigh’s Signal Sequences Are Not Data Streams. ................20
`3.
`There Is No Motivation to Combine Raleigh and Byrne. ................... 20
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`There Is No Reasonable Expectation of Success in Combining
`Raleigh and Byrne ............................................................................... 22
`The Raleigh-Byrne Combination Fails to Render Obvious
`Claims 6-7 (Ground 2A) ..................................................................... 24
`There is No Reasonable Expectation of Success in Combining
`The Raleigh-Byrne-WO758 Combination .......................................... 25
`There is No Reasonable Expectation of Success in Combining
`The Raleigh-Byrne-Pillekamp Combination....................................... 25
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................26
`
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................22
`Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................24
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 8
`Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 42 (PTAB Sept. 22, 2021) ............................... 4, 9, 11, 16
`Eli Lilly v. Teva Pharms. Intn’l GmbH,
`8 F.4th 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2021)........................................................................ 23, 24
`Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co,
`925 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................................... 15, 24
`Intelligent BioSystems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................. 4, 9, 11, 16
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.a.r.l.,
`69 F.4th 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................22
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. Good Kaisha Ip Bridge 1,
`IPR2020-01009, Paper 34 (PTAB Dec. 2, 2021) ................................................25
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu,
`912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................19
`Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`64 F.4th 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................17
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019) .............................. 4, 9, 11, 16
`
`iii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner’s Reply attempts to rehabilitate the failures of its Petition with 31
`
`new exhibits and a host of new arguments. These arguments are largely untimely
`
`and, in any event, wrong.
`
`II. BYRNE GROUNDS
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Obviousness Based on Byrne
`A.
`Petitioner’s New Arguments Fail to Prove that Byrne
`1.
`Renders Obvious the Processor Limitations (Grounds
`1A-1C)
`Petitioner Fails to Prove that Byrne’s Microprocessor
`a.
`Processes the Alleged Data Streams.
`
`In the POR, Patent Owner showed that Byrne’s microprocessor 210 controls
`
`transceivers 220/230 and audio switch 260, but does not receive or process data
`
`streams that are received by the antennas.
`
`In its Reply, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have understood and
`
`found obvious that Byrne’s microprocessor receives and processes data streams.”
`
`Reply, 1-2. This general statement misses the point—according to Petitioner’s
`
`theory as articulated in the Petition, the processor must receive and process the data
`
`streams received by the antennas. Petitioner then claims that its annotated version
`
`of Figure 2 “clearly shows Byrne’s microprocessor receiving data from each of its
`
`cellular and cordless transceivers,” but cites to nothing more than its supplemental
`
`1
`
`
`
`expert declaration, which offers a handwaving “a POSITA would understand”
`
`reference.
`
`In the POR, Patent Owner showed that Figure 2 and the disclosures all indicate
`
`that the data received from the antennas are passed directly to the transceivers and
`
`the audio switch, and that Dr. Jensen also confirmed there is no disclosure in Byrne
`
`to the contrary. In Reply, Petitioner did not controvert any of those descriptions or
`
`arguments. Petitioner asserts that where Byrne states that the microprocessor
`
`“monitors signals from the cordless receiver 221 indicating received signal strength
`
`and for detecting receive data,” that those “signals that enable Byrne’s
`
`microprocessor to detect ‘signal strength’ and received ‘data’ are not ‘instructions;’
`
`they are data streams received by the receiver.” Reply, 3. This is wrong. The
`
`information received by the processor is not the information received by the
`
`receiver. Byrne says as much: the microprocessor does not receive the signal whose
`
`strength is being monitored; rather, it monitors control signals indicating received
`
`signal strength. Similarly, the microprocessor and it does not receive the “receive
`
`data,” but rather monitors control signals for detecting receive data. The
`
`microprocessor is receiving data from the receiver, but it isn’t the data that the
`
`receiver receives. It is separate, derived information from the receiver itself.
`
`Petitioner’s attempt to support its theory by pointing to alleged distinctions between
`
`signals from the receiver and from the transceiver falls flat. Specifically, Petitioner
`
`2
`
`
`
`cites to a portion of one sentence, while leaving out the relevant part (Petitioner’s
`
`omission in bold): “Additionally, the microprocessor 210 monitors control signals
`
`from the cordless transceiver 220 for detecting incoming calls (ringing), security
`
`codes and broadcast information relevant to the cordless system, and for
`
`sending dialing information.” Thus, Byrne describes exactly what signals the
`
`microprocessor is receiving, and Petitioner makes no effort to show that these signals
`
`are “data.” And Petitioner’s expert agreed:
`
`Q. But it never says the microprocessor receives that data, it says that
`-- only that it detects signal from the cordless receiver for detecting
`received data, correct?
`A. That is the language -- I will agree, that is the language from
`Byrne, yes.
`
`EX-2007, 33:11-34:4; EX-2004, ¶41. Finally, Petitioner asserts without any support
`
`that the control signals are necessarily received by the transceiver. Byrne never
`
`suggests this; instead, it says that the control signals are sent from the transceiver to
`
`the microprocessor. EX-1008, 8:23-28. There is no support for Petitioner’s
`
`argument.
`
`
`
`Petitioner next turns its attention to the cellular side of Byrne. Pointing to the
`
`portion that states that the microprocessor is handled in the same way as cordless
`
`“but appropriately modified for the signaling protocols and data encryption used in
`
`the cellular system,” Petitioner notes that Byrne explains “signaling protocols, data
`
`3
`
`
`
`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 system.” Reply, 4 (citing EX-1008, 8:29-38). Petitioner latches
`
`on to this disclosure to argue, for the first time, that a POSITA would have
`
`understood that Byrne’s microprocessor receives and processes the cellular data.
`
`This argument is both wrong and improper. First, Petitioner did not make this
`
`argument in the Petition, so it should be disregarded now. The Petition alleges that
`
`“a POSITA would have understood or found obvious that, when ‘both cellular and
`
`cordless operations are in progress at the same time,’ microprocessor 210 processes
`
`the cordless data stream (first data stream) and the cellular data stream (second data
`
`stream) in parallel.” Pet., 16-17 (emphasis in original). So Petitioner’s argument
`
`was that Byrne discloses that the microprocessor processes the data streams. But
`
`Patent Owner showed in the POR that in Byrne the audio signals received by the
`
`receivers via the antennas are passed directly to the audio switch without detouring
`
`through the microprocessor. EX-1008, Fig. 2, 8:39-43; EX-2004, ¶¶46-47. So now
`
`Petitioner changes course, adding new exhibits and arguing from those new exhibits
`
`that “a POSITA would have understood” from Byrne’s reference to encryption that
`
`the encryption could be performed in the microprocessor. This is a new theory—
`
`from disclosure to “POSITA knowledge”—that the Board should disregard.
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019) (“CTPG”) at 74; Axonics, Inc.
`
`4
`
`
`
`v. Medtronic, Inc., IPR2020-00712, Paper 42, 34-38 & n.10 (PTAB Sept. 22, 2021);
`
`Intelligent BioSystems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369-70
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Second, this argument fails on the merits, because Petitioner fails to even
`
`attempt to show that Byrne’s microprocessor would process encryption or
`
`decryption across multiple data streams in parallel. In fact, one of Petitioner’s new
`
`exhibits suggests that it would process data one stream at a time: EX-1075, 6:5-58
`
`(“The microprocessor 158 continues encrypting until all the data block has been
`
`encrypted.”). This sequential processing disclosure would preclude processing in
`
`parallel because it could not encrypt portions of one data stream while the other was
`
`incoming. Further, Petitioner’s suggestion that the microprocessor handle
`
`encryption and decryption is inconsistent with the specification, as admitted by Dr.
`
`Jensen: “I am not aware of any disclosure, I don’t recall any disclosure in Byrne
`
`that says that the microprocessor 210 sends audio data to the speaker.” EX-2007,
`
`26:17-28:2. So, according to Petitioner’s interpretation, the device would receive
`
`encrypted voice communications through the antenna, through the transceiver, and
`
`into the microprocessor to be decrypted into audio, but then never pass the audio to
`
`the speaker for the user to hear it. This is simply wrong. Likewise, the specification
`
`never discloses that audio from the microphone is ever given to the microprocessor
`
`5
`
`
`
`for encryption to then be sent to the transceiver. See EX-1008, Fig. 2, 8:39-43; EX-
`
`2004, ¶¶46-47.
`
`
`
`Next, Petitioner mischaracterizes Dr. Cooklev’s deposition testimony.
`
`Petitioner first claims that Dr. Cooklev testified that “data encryption requires a
`
`processor and embedded software, such as Byrne’s microprocessor.” Reply, 5. That
`
`is not what Dr. Cooklev said. In the portion immediately above Petitioner’s cited
`
`range, Dr. Cooklev testified that encryption could be performed by several types of
`
`components, such as a dedicated digital chip. EX-1049, 18:14-25. He then
`
`confirmed that encryption could be done in software, EX-1049, 19:12-13, and that a
`
`processor is not a form of a dedicated digital chip. EX-1049, 19:24-20:8. Next,
`
`while Dr. Cooklev testified that he was not aware of any transmitters or receivers
`
`that handled encryption, Petitioner leaves out that “[i]t’s just because I did not
`
`investigate, and so I cannot say right now whether the transmitter was doing
`
`encryption.” EX-1049, 26:14-23. And Dr. Cooklev indicated that it is possible that
`
`encryption could have been done by the transmitter or receiver, or components other
`
`than the transmitter or receiver. EX-1049, 26:14-28:15. Further, Dr. Cooklev
`
`confirmed that a POSITA reading Byrne would understand that the information
`
`received or sent by the transceivers routes directly to the audio block, and that this
`
`is the proper path of audio information, contrary to Petitioner’s claims. EX-1049,
`
`6
`
`
`
`46:2-53:13 (repeatedly testifying to the path of audio through the disclosure of
`
`Byrne).
`
`
`
`Petitioner next turns to the connection between the LCD and microprocessor
`
`as purported evidence that the microprocessor processes data streams received by
`
`the antennas. But the portion of Byrne cited by Petitioner, which describes what is
`
`occurring in Figure 3, only states that if the cordless and cellular system “are
`
`available, the microprocessor updates the display.” EX-1008, 8:54-56. That is, this
`
`update occurs before a connection is established, so no data stream is flowing. See
`
`id.; Fig. 3; see also EX-2006, 175:20-176:7 (Dr. Jensen admitting in prior deposition
`
`that Figure 3 relates to making a decision about which radio interface to use.) There
`
`is no disclosure in Byrne suggesting that a data stream is processed in order to update
`
`the display.
`
` Finally, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner takes a limited reading of the
`
`capabilities of Byrne’s microprocessor while taking an expansive view of the other
`
`components. But this is a strawman. Patent Owner never argues that a processor
`
`lacked the power to accomplish these functions. Instead, Patent Owner argues that
`
`the data streams received by the antennas and transceivers never pass through the
`
`microprocessor in Byrne. POR, 9-15. Petitioner next cites deposition testimony
`
`from Dr. Cooklev apparently to argue that he could not identify transceivers or other
`
`components as having the necessary function, but again, Dr. Cooklev merely stated
`
`7
`
`
`
`that he had not investigated the matter. Then, Petitioner adds two new exhibits for
`
`specific chipsets that did not perform data processing at the critical date and states
`
`that because two transceivers did not do digital processing, no transceivers could
`
`have done digital processing. But of course Petitioner’s exhibits prove no such
`
`thing.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s new “encryption processing” theory is untimely and
`
`fails on its own terms, and Petitioner offers nothing else to bolster its showing
`
`regarding limitation [e] of the independent claims. The Byrne grounds therefore fail.
`
`b.
`
`Byrne’s Microprocessor Does Not Process Data
`Streams In Parallel.
`
`In the POR, Patent Owner showed that Byrne’s microprocessor does not
`
`process cellular and cordless signals in parallel. In response, Petitioner first contends
`
`that a POSITA would have understood that Byrne’s cellular and cordless systems
`
`operate simultaneously and would have found obvious that, in doing so, Byrne’s
`
`microprocessor processes cellular and cordless data streams in parallel. Reply, 7-8.
`
`However, Petitioner does not even address the argument and evidence provided by
`
`Patent Owner in the POR showing that this is not true, all of which stands unrebutted.
`
`The ipse dixit of Dr. Jensen (“[b]ased on my experience and knowledge in this field,
`
`this disclosure alone is sufficient”) does not suffice. Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`832 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Next, Petitioner argues that Byrne’s monitoring of control signals indicating
`
`“signal characteristics” indicates parallel processing of data streams. But this
`
`argument is untimely. The Petition points only to Byrne’s purported disclosure of
`
`“cellular and cordless operations” being “in progress at the same time,” at EX-1008,
`
`8:2-15, to satisfy parallel processing of multiple data streams. Pet., 16-17. In the
`
`face of the POR, Petitioner now switches to an argument that the purported “open
`
`connections” for monitoring control signals are the relevant data streams that are
`
`processed in parallel. This is clearly a new argument, which the Board should
`
`disregard. CTPG at 74; Axonics, IPR2020-00712, Paper 42, at 34-38 & n.10;
`
`Intelligent BioSystems, 821 F.3d at 1369-70.
`
`In addition, this belated argument is wrong. In one example, Petitioner alleges
`
`that Byrne “describes simultaneously considering ‘received signal strength,’ ‘bit
`
`error rate, frame error rate or the like’ in assessing the cellular and cordless systems,
`
`citing to column four, lines 46 to 56. But these are merely “predetermined criteria”
`
`for a selected radio system. EX-1008, 4:46-56. Petitioner asserts that to compare
`
`signal strength or bit error rate, a POSITA would find obvious that the Byrne system
`
`maintains parallel open connections and processes signals received over the
`
`parallel open connections ....” Reply, 8. But Byrne disproves this. The monitoring
`
`of Byrne
`
`9
`
`
`
`means monitoring the signals intermittently. Thus less power is
`
`consumed by the radio telephone’s monitoring process which results in
`
`prolonged battery life.
`
`EX-1008, 5:9-12. So, Byrne does not disclose simultaneously process signals
`
`received over these purportedly open connections. In fact, Byrne also notes that
`
`“typically, the radio system in which the radio telephone is operating will be a
`
`TDMA system and it would be advantageous if the monitoring process were carried
`
`out during a period of TDMA inactivity.” EX-1008, 5:20-23. Byrne even notes that
`
`“there is the benefit that the same components may be utilized for more than one
`
`terminal mode and so cost/size savings can be made,” consistent with intermittent
`
`processing. EX-1008, 5:25-29. Byrne, therefore, teaches away from maintaining
`
`parallel open connections for monitoring things like signal strength and bit rate.
`
`Petitioner next seeks to add a new reference under the guise of incorporation,
`
`citing to Byrne’s discussion of Gillig along with several British applications. Reply,
`
`9-10. This argument is both wrong and untimely. As shown above, the Petition’s
`
`argument is that Byrne on its own discloses this element. Pet., 16-17. Nowhere does
`
`the Petition allege that Gillig’s three-way linking discloses or renders obvious
`
`parallel processing of data streams, or even mention Gillig. Similarly, there is no
`
`mention of Petitioner’s newly-submitted British patent applications (EX-1069,
`
`1070, 1071). Thus, Petitioner’s arguments on pages 9-10 related to these new
`
`10
`
`
`
`references, the references themselves (EXs-1052, 1069, 1070, 1071) and the relevant
`
`portions of the expert declaration (EX-1048, ¶¶24-25) should be disregarded. CTPG
`
`at 74; Axonics, IPR2020-00712, Paper 42, at 34-38 & n.10; Intelligent BioSystems,
`
`821 F.3d at 1369-70.
`
`The argument is also wrong. Petitioner argues that a POSITA would adopt
`
`Byrne and that Byrne included Gillig’s three way linking as a feature of Byrne, and
`
`do so “consistent with or in a manner similar to Gillig’s three-way linking.” Reply,
`
`9. Yet Byrne never references Gillig’s three-way linking, as confirmed by
`
`Petitioner’s own citations to Byrne (Reply, 9). Petitioner’s reference to Byrne 1:27-
`
`29 refers to Gillig’s disclosure of user-defined preference of systems to use in a
`
`multi-mode device, 2:42-3:11 refers to the same, but discusses the mechanism for
`
`starting a call on a preferred system and then handing the call over to another system
`
`through user selection (non-automatically), and 10:37-39, most notably, identifies a
`
`specific implementation of call forwarding in Gillig. Notably, despite specific
`
`identification of a call forwarding feature as incorporated into Byrne, Byrne fails to
`
`specifically incorporate three-way linking. Instead, Byrne actually disparages
`
`Gillig’s requirement of user selection. EX-1008, 2:58-3:11. Active user selection
`
`is an element of Gillig’s three-way linking. EX-1052, 6:58-65, Fig. 7 [item 614]. A
`
`POSITA would not look to implementations of a prior art system that is disparaged
`
`for not solving the very issue sought to be achieved by Byrne.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Finally, Petitioner argues that if the reference to simultaneous operations
`
`refers only to control operations (which it does, as has been shown and not
`
`substantively rebutted), then “Byrne’s microprocessor processes cellular/cordless
`
`data streams simultaneously in performing the control operations.” Reply, 10. But
`
`these control operations are not cellular or cordless data streams at all–they are
`
`control streams from the transceivers consisting of information different than what
`
`the transceivers received from the antenna. See Section II.A.1.a, supra. Petitioner
`
`also points to “broadcast information relevant to the cordless system,” but this
`
`“information” is part of the control signal, which as shown above are not the recited
`
`data streams. Moreover, Petitioner “assum[es]” that “this consideration is limited to
`
`assessment of control signals,” Reply, 10, but then points to cellular call data, which
`
`is not a control signal. Further, as addressed above, Byrne discloses sequential, not
`
`parallel, processing of control signals. EX-1008, 5:20-23. And Dr. Jensen
`
`recognized that Byrne’s “in progress at the same time” outcome could have been
`
`accomplished in a variety of ways, including “the signal processing, again, [Byrne]
`
`is not clear what the data is, but all the signal processing could be done in the other
`
`components still in parallel but by discrete components it could be that there is a
`
`nonparallel approach in the microprocessor to process the data, meaning kind of
`
`a timed multiplexed approach.” EX-2007, 103:16-104:4.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner still fails to show that Byrne discloses parallel
`
`processing of multiple data streams, as required by limitation [e] of each of the
`
`independent claims.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Show the Byrne-WO748 Combination Renders
`Obvious Claims 3-4 (Ground 1B)
`In the POR, Patent Owner showed that claim 3’s requirement that the device
`
`is in communication with a network switch box and configured to ... join a virtual
`
`network is not disclosed in WO748. In reply, Petitioner argues that a POSITA would
`
`have known to use a VPN, which implies that the network switch box, not the device,
`
`joins the virtual network. But that argument is nowhere in the Petition. In fact, Dr.
`
`Jensen testified that his interpretation of the combination was the device, not the
`
`network switch box, joining the virtual network: “In my declaration I treated this
`
`as the device joining a virtual network ....” EX-2007, 48:8-9. And Dr. Jensen
`
`confirmed that “WO748 does not disclose a virtual network or the remote unit or
`
`base unit joining a virtual network.” Id. 45:6-9. And Petitioner is not just
`
`responding to Patent Owner’s argument, as is obvious from its new annotation of
`
`WO748’s Figure 1, which expressly relies on the newly-submitted Paulsen reference
`
`(EX-1068) to provide multiple elements of the combination. Reply, 12. This new
`
`argument (on pages 11-13) and the relevant expert declaration paragraphs (EX-1048,
`
`¶¶27-30) and the new exhibits used to support it (EX-1068, 1072, 1074) should be
`
`excluded.
`
`13
`
`
`
`C. There Is No Reasonable Expectation of Success in Combining
`Byrne and WO748.
`Petitioner argues that, despite its expert’s own disclosure of the knowledge of
`
`a POSITA that is limited to having “a demonstrated capability in just designing
`
`some component of the [wireless] system and working on that,” EX-2006, 29:13-
`
`31:5, they would be able to make the specified modifications to WO748. They do
`
`so by simply claiming an understanding of architecture and overall functioning is
`
`sufficient to design and modify those pieces. This argument fails because Petitioner
`
`has still failed to show its identified POSITA would have been able to make the
`
`proposed combination. For example, Petitioner alleges that a POSITA would have
`
`understood and found it obvious to accommodate devices like Byrne’s CCT because
`
`she has an “understanding of the architecture [WO748’s microcell] into which their
`
`pieces [Byrne’s CCT] will fit and how their design is going to impact that
`
`architecture and the overall functioning of the system,” citing to Petitioner’s expert’s
`
`testimony as if the architecture disclosed is sufficient understanding. Reply, 14. It
`
`is not. The architecture that Dr. Jensen referred to isn’t the architecture of some
`
`building-wide network architecture; it is the architecture of the device they are
`
`designing. EX-2006, 29:13-31:5. This does nothing to address Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that the POSITA defined by Dr. Jensen lacks the capabilities to modify
`
`more than one aspect of a wireless communication system in a device, let alone
`
`14
`
`
`
`modify a building-wide networking infrastructure and a wireless device on their
`
`own. POR, 25-27.
`
`D. There is No Reasonable Expectation of Success in Combining
`Byrne-Johnston and Pillekamp (Ground 1C)
`In the POR, Patent Owner showed that Petitioner had failed to prove that Dr.
`
`Jensen’s POSITA would have reasonably expected success in making the Byrne-
`
`Johnston-Pillekamp combination because due to the complexity and scope of the
`
`required modifications. POR, 27-31. In response, Petitioner simply regurgitates its
`
`deficient showing from the Petition, adds a few more exhibits, and offers Dr.
`
`Jensen’s assertion that a POSITA would know how to design the combination. This
`
`ipse dixit statement is contrary to Dr. Jensen’s own testimony that a POSITA would
`
`be able design one aspect of a wireless system, but simply have the understanding
`
`with respect to others—not the ability to design each aspect of the system based on
`
`understanding of that aspect. EX-2006, 29:13-31:5. Petitioner also fails to address
`
`the need to modify what Dr. Jensen refers to as the “combining circuitry,” EX-2007,
`
`57:16-58:3, to perform the necessary functionality. This fails to show that the
`
`POSITA would have the ability to make the alleged combinations. Elm 3DS
`
`Innovations, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co, 925 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`15
`
`
`
`III. GROUND II FAILS TO RENDER THE CLAIMS OBVIOUS
`Raleigh-Byrne Fails to Render the Processor Limitations
`A.
`Obvious
`Raleigh-Byrne Fails to Show Processing Data Streams in
`1.
`Parallel
`Petitioner points to “a parallel set of digital time domain signal sequences”
`
`that are fed into “Modulation and RF System block 40” to satisfy the requirement
`
`that a multi-channel processor be “configured to process a first data stream and a
`
`second data stream in parallel.” Reply, 17. Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would
`
`have understood that “parallel processing of sequences is part of the generation of
`
`the parallel set of sequences for parallel transmission.” Id. First, this is a new
`
`argument, which should be disregarded for that reasons. CTPG at 74; Axonics,
`
`IPR2020-00712, Paper 42, at 34-38 & n.10; Intelligent BioSystems, 821 F.3d at
`
`1369-70. Second, this argument fails on the merits because Petitioner has still failed
`
`to show disclosure in Raleigh of parallel processing. Even in the argument provided
`
`exclusively in Dr. Jensen’s declaration at paragraphs 39-40, the most that Petitioner
`
`can say is that the processors are “arranged in parallel, meaning each Transmit SOP
`
`processor can perform its processing independently from and in parallel with the
`
`others.” EX-1048, ¶40. And in referring to Figure 11, Dr. Jensen argued that
`
`because the weight vectors applied to symbols are routed to summing junctions,
`
`there must necessarily be parallel processing. But Raleigh does not disclose that;
`
`16
`
`
`
`this is just Dr. Jensen’s ipse dixit and Raleigh does not expressly disclose
`
`whatsoever.
`
`2.
`
`Raleigh’s Pre-Processor Fails to Meet the Claimed Processor
`Requirements.
`Petitioner misconstrues Patent Owner’s argument with respect to the multiple
`
`ones of the channels, suggesting that it is construing processor as a single processor
`
`in all claim language. This is incorrect.
`
`Petitioner first contends that “a processor” as used in each of the independent
`
`claims here means “one or more.” This misses the point—Patent Owner
`
`acknowledges that general rule, but focuses on “the processor” of limitations 1[e],
`
`5[g], 8[f], and 12[f], which refer back to “a processor” recited earlier in the claims.
`
`The issue here is that “the processor” requires that a single processor be configured
`
`with the structure (“comprises multiple ones of the one or more channels”) recited
`
`in those limitations, regardless of the fact that the claimed device may include one
`
`or more processors. The Federal Circuit authority on this point is clear, Salazar v.
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC, 64 F.4th 1311, 1314-18 (Fed. Cir. 2023), and Petitioner does
`
`not address it.
`
`Petitioner next argues that Patent Owner makes an arbitrary distinction
`
`between Figure 1’s TSFP 30 and Figure 9’s SOP processors, with the first being a
`
`block diagram and the second not. Reply, 19. Figure 9’s SOP processors are not
`
`simply block diagrams because, unlike the TSFP 30 of Figure 1, Raleigh actually
`
`17
`
`
`
`describes the number of SOP processors that are needed. “For the MIMO system
`
`[of Figure 9], each transmitter antenna 51 is preceded by one of MT identical
`
`transmitter SOP processors. Likewise, each receiver antenna 111 precedes one of
`
`MR identical Receiver SOP processors.” EX-1005, 13:52-57. Contrast this with
`
`the functional, not structural description of the TSFP as it relates to Figure 1: “the
`
`data plus training symbol stream is then fed into a Transmitter Space-Frequency Pre-
`
`Processor (TSFP) block 30.” Patent Owner’s distinction between the structural
`
`description of the SPO processors and the functional block TSFP is not arbitrary; it
`
`is grounded in the specification of Raleigh. So Raleigh discloses a separate
`
`processor for each subchannel, not a single processor that processes multiple ones
`
`of the subchannels. EX-2004, ¶70.
`
`Petitioner also argues that even if the SOP processors were considered
`
`separate components (which they are), Raleigh describes the claimed processor
`
`through its combination of those processors. But Raleigh does not describe the
`
`claimed processor at all—and Petitioner may tellingly here be conflating the ’943
`
`patent with Raleigh. Raleigh describes there being a SOP processor for each
`
`antenna. EX-1005, 13:52-57. And, more importantly, this argument fails because its
`
`claim construction argument ignores the structural requirements of the limitation (as
`
`discussed above). Further, this argument is undermined by Dr. Jensen’s argument
`
`18
`
`
`
`presented in his declaration that each of the processors are processing independent
`
`of the other. EX-1048, ¶40.
`
`Petitioner next
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
