`
`
`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.
`_____________________
`
`IPR2022-01248
`U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653 B1
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`via P-TACTS
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`via Hand Delivery
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`c/o Office of the General Counsel, 10B20
`Madison Building East
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`via CM/ECF
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal
`U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653
`Attorney Docket No. 52959.103R653
`
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A), 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 142, and 319,
`
`and 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.2(a), 90.3, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706, and Federal Circuit Rule
`
`15(a)(1), Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) provides notice that it appeals to the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Final Written
`
`Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) entered January 23, 2024
`
`(Paper 53) and from all underlying and related orders, decisions, rulings, and
`
`opinions regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653 (“the ʼ653 patent”) in Inter Partes
`
`Review IPR2022-01248.
`
`
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), the expected issues on appeal
`
`include, but are not limited to: the Board’s error(s) in determining that Petitioner has
`
`failed to demonstrate that challenged claims 1–13 and 27–30 of the ʼ653 patent are
`
`unpatentable, and any finding or determination supporting or related to that
`
`determination, as well as all other issues decided adversely to Petitioner in any
`
`orders, decisions, rulings, or opinions in Inter Partes Review IPR2022-01248.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 142 and 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), this Notice is being filed
`
`with the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and with the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, a copy of this Notice and the required
`
`docketing fees are being filed with the Clerk’s Office for the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit via CM/ECF.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal
`Attorney Docket No. 52959.103R653
`
`
`IPR2022-01248
`U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: March 26, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2801 N. Harwood Street
`Suite 2300
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (972) 739-6927
`Facsimile: (214) 200-0853
`clint.wilkins.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/Clint Wilkins/
`Clint Wilkins
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 62,448
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal
`U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653
`Attorney Docket No. 52959.103R653
`
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, in addition to being electronically filed
`
`through PTAB P-TACTS, a true and correct copy of the above-captioned
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES
`
`COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT is being filed by hand with
`
`the Director on March 26, 2024, at the following address:
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`c/o Office of the General Counsel, 10B20
`Madison Building East
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the
`
`above-captioned PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT and the
`
`filing fee is being filed via CM/ECF with the Clerk’s Office of the United States
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 26, 2024.
`
`Dated: March 26, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Clint Wilkins/
`Clint Wilkins
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 62,448
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal
`U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653
`Attorney Docket No. 52959.103R653
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, this is to certify that a true and correct copy of
`
`
`
`the foregoing “Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal to the United States Court
`
`of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” was served on counsel for Patent Owner Smart
`
`Mobile Technologies LLC and counsel for Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. as detailed below:
`
`Date of service
`
`March 26, 2024
`
`Manner of service Electronic Service by E-mail:
`− weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`− lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`− hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`− woo@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`− pgraves@gravesshaw.com
`− gshaw@gravesshaw.com
`− IPR39843-0125IP1@fr.com
`− PTABInbound@fr.com
`− axf-ptab@fr.com
`− jjm@fr.com
`− in@fr.com
`− spark@fr.com
`− kazi@fr.com
`− cgreen@fr.com
`
`Documents served Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal to the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`Counsel for Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`Kenneth Weatherwax
`(weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com)
`Nathan Lowenstein (lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.com)
`Parham Hendifar (hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com)
`Colette Woo (woo@lowensteinweatherwax.com)
`
`Persons served
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal
`Attorney Docket No. 52959.103R653
`
`
`IPR2022-01248
`U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653
`
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`1016 Pico Blvd.
`Santa Monica, CA 90405
`
`Philip J. Graves (pgraves@gravesshaw.com)
`Greer N. Shaw (gshaw@gravesshaw.com)
`GRAVES & SHAW LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc.
`W. Karl Renner (IPR39843-0125IP1@fr.com, axf-
`ptab@fr.com)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Jeremy J. Monaldo (jjm@fr.com)
`Hyun Jin In (in@fr.com)
`Sangki Park (spark@fr.com)
`Aamir A. Kazi (kazi@fr.com)
`Christopher O. Green (cgreen@fr.com)
`(PTABInbound@fr.com)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Clint Wilkins/
`Clint Wilkins
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 62,448
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 53
`Date: January 23, 2024
`
`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.
`
`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, GARTH D. BAER, and
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1
`A. Background and Summary ...................................................... 1
`B. Related Matters ..................................................................... 1
`C. The ’653 Patent ..................................................................... 2
`D.
`Illustrative Claim ................................................................... 3
`E. Asserted Grounds .................................................................. 6
`II. ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 7
`A. Motion to Submit Supplemental Information ............................. 7
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................ 7
`C. Claim Construction ................................................................ 8
`D. Obviousness Analysis ............................................................ 8
`1. The Cited Prior Art ......................................................... 9
`a. Yegoshin................................................................. 9
`b.
`Johnston.................................................................. 9
`c. Billström ............................................................... 10
`d. Bernard ................................................................. 11
`2. Claims 1–13 and 27–30: Multiplexing ............................. 14
`a. Petitioner’s “Multiplexing” Contentions .................... 14
`b. Multiplexing in Yegoshin Alone .............................. 18
`c. Multiplexing as Obvious in View of Yegoshin Alone.. 18
`d. Multiplexing Being “Well-Known” .......................... 20
`e. Obviousness in Combination with Bernard ................ 21
`3. Claims 14–16: Multiple IP Addresses or Interfaces............ 26
`4. Claims 17–21 and 23–26: Single Transmission Interface .... 30
`III. CONCLUSION.......................................................................... 38
`IV. ORDER .................................................................................... 39
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`A.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Background and Summary
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`and Apple Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”)
`requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–21 and 23–30 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’653 patent”). Smart Mobile
`Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8).
`On January 24, 2023, we instituted an inter partes review of all
`challenged claims. See Paper 13 (“Inst. Dec.”), 63.
`Patent Owner filed a Response on May 19, 2023 (Paper 29, “PO
`Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply on September 1, 2023 (Paper 37, “Reply”),
`and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply on October 13, 2023 (Paper 46, “Sur-
`reply”).
`An oral hearing was held on October 24, 2023, and a transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record, as are the demonstratives. See Paper 52
`(“Tr.”); Ex. 1100 (Petitioner Demonstratives); Ex. 2036 (Patent Owner
`Demonstratives).
` We issue this Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73 and, for the reasons that follow, determine that Petitioner
`has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 14–21 and 23–
`26 are unpatentable but has not shown that claims 1–13 and 27–30 are
`unpatentable.
`Related Matters
`B.
`The parties identify Smart Mobile Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc., 6:21-cv-
`00603 (W.D. Tex.) and Smart Mobile Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`Ltd., 6:21-cv-00701 (W.D. Tex.) as related. See Pet. 85–86; Paper 4, 1.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`IPR2022-01222, IPR2022-01223, and IPR2022-01249 involve related
`patents.
`The ’653 Patent
`C.
`The ’653 patent describes an unfulfilled need for multiple transmitters
`and receivers (“T/R”) in a cellular telephone or mobile wireless device
`(“CT/MD”). See Ex. 1001, 1:48–51. Figure 5A of the patent is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Figure 5A shows a “a dual antenna, dual T/R unit in a CT/MD
`interfacing with a dual processor.” Ex. 1001, 2:15–17.
`Dual antenna 508 and dual T/R unit 504 interface with dual processor
`506 in dual band system 500. See id. at 4:37–39. System 500 can
`communicate through outputs 510, which can be “fibre optic channel,
`ethernet, cable, telephone, or other.” Id. at 4:42–45.
`“The multiple processors 506 allow for parallel and custom
`processing of each signal or data stream to achieve higher speed and better
`quality of output.” Ex. 1001, 4:51–53. Processors 506 include “DSP, CPU,
`memory controller, and other elements essential to process various types of
`signals.” Id. at 4:55–58.
`“The processor contained within the CT/MD 502 is further capable of
`delivering the required outputs to a number of different ports such as optical,
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`USB, cable and others” and is “capable of taking different inputs, as well as
`wireless.” Id. at 4:60–64. “Thus the CT/MD 502 has universal connectivity
`in addition to having a wide range of functionality made possible through
`the features of multiple antennas, multiple T/R units 504 and processors
`506.” Id. at 4:67–5:3.
`“[T]he CT/MD may use one or more transmission protocols as
`deemed optimal and appropriate,” and “the CT/MD determines the required
`frequency spectrum, other wireless parameters such as power and signal to
`noise ratio to optimally transmit the data.” Ex. 1001, 11:5–11. The CT/MD
`has “the ability to multiplex between one or more transmission protocols
`such as CDMA, TDMA to ensure that the fast data rates of the optical
`network or matched closely in a wireless network to minimize the potential
`data transmission speed degradation of a wireless network.” Id. at 11:12–17.
`“Thus it is possible that various optical and wireless protocols can co-exist
`in a network.” Id. at 11:29–30.
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`The ’653 patent includes 30 claims, of which Petitioner challenges all
`but claim 22. Claims 1, 14, 17, and 27 are independent, and claim 1 is
`reproduced below.
`1. An Internet-enabled mobile communication device
`comprising:
`a memory;
`display electronics;
`at least two or more antennas;
`at least one or more processors; and
`a plurality of wireless transmit and receive components
`including a first wireless transmit and receive component
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`and a second wireless transmit and receive component,
`wherein each wireless transmit receive component is
`configured to communicate using one or more protocols;
`wherein the device is configured for multi-band wireless
`communication;
`wherein the device is enabled for communication using
`Internet Protocol (IP);
`wherein the device is enabled for wireless communication
`on a wireless local area network;
`wherein the first wireless transmit and receive component is
`configured to communicate using a plurality of antennas;
`and
`wherein a transmission interface is created and wherein said
`transmission interface uses a plurality of IP enabled
`interfaces on the mobile device which utilize the plurality
`of wireless transmit and receive components on the
`mobile device to enable a single interface comprised of
`multiplexed signals from the plurality of wireless
`transmit and receive components.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:56–12:16.
`As seen above, claim 1 is directed to “an Internet-enabled mobile
`communication device” that includes memory, display electronics, at least
`two antennas, and a processor. There are a plurality of wireless transmit and
`receive components (TX/RX), including a first wireless transmit and receive
`component (TX/RX1) and a second wireless transmit and receive component
`(TX/RX2), each configured to communicate using one or more protocols.
`The device is configured for multi-band wireless communication, and
`enabled for communication using both Internet Protocol (IP) and wireless
`communication. TX/RX1 is configured to communicate using a plurality of
`antennas. There is a “transmission interface” that is created using “a
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`plurality of IP enabled interfaces,” which, in turn, use TX/RX1 and TX/RX2
`to enable a single interface comprised of “multiplexed” signals from TX/RX.
`Claim 14 is similar to claim 1, but does not require multiplexing. It
`adds that the mobile device maintains multiple IP addresses, where TX/RX1
`is accessible on a first IP address and TX/RX2 is accessible on a second IP
`address. The device operates using a plurality of ports.
`Claim 17 is also similar claim 1, but also omits “multiplexing.”
`TX/RX1 is configured to communicate over IP with a remote system over a
`first network path, TX/RX2 is configured to communicate with a remote
`system using a second network path, and the processor is configured to
`combine the data paths into a single transmission interface to one or more
`applications on the mobile device.
`Finally, claim 27 includes the “multiplexing” of claim 1. It recites a
`plurality of wireless communication units and that the device supports
`multiple frequencies and wireless protocols. A first wireless communication
`unit (WCU1) is coupled to a first set of antennas on a first network, and a
`second wireless communication unit (WCU2) is coupled to a second set of
`antennas on a second network. The “at least one” wireless communication
`unit1 is configured for radio frequency communication. WCU1 is
`configured to operate at a lower frequency than WCU2, “such that the first
`wireless communication unit and second wireless communication unit
`operate as complementary systems.” The device is capable of voice, data,
`
`
`1 The claim does not specify whether this is WCU1 or WCU2, or both.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`and Internet connectivity. WCU12 operates on a first network path to a
`remote server and WCU2 communicates to the remote server on a second
`network path at the same time, where a plurality of signal[s] are
`“multiplexed” to increase throughput and enable simultaneous multi path
`communication.
`Asserted Grounds
`E.
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–21 and 23–30 are unpatentable on the
`following grounds:
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`14–16
`1–11, 17–21, 23
`12
`13, 24–26
`27–30
`
`References/Basis
`
`35
`U.S.C. §
`103(a) Yegoshin,3 Johnston,4 Billström5
`103(a) Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, Bernard 6
`103(a) Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, Bernard, Farber7
`103(a) Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, Bernard, Sainton8
`103(a) Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, Bernard, Preiss9
`
`
`2 The last limitation of the claim recites “the first wireless transmit and
`receive unit” and “the second wireless transmit and receive unit,” which
`apparently are intended to refer to the earlier recited “first wireless
`communication unit” and “second wireless communication unit.”
`3 US 6,711,146 B2, issued Mar. 23, 2004 (Ex. 1004).
`4 US 5,784,032, issued July 21, 1998 (Ex. 1005).
`5 US 5,590,133, issued Dec. 31, 1996 (Ex. 1006).
`6 US 5,497,339, issued Mar. 5, 1996 (Ex. 1007).
`7 WO 98/27748, published June 25, 1998 (Ex. 1008).
`8 US 5,854,985, issued Dec. 29, 1998 (Ex. 1009).
`9 US 6,031,503, issued Feb. 29, 2000 (Ex. 1010).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`See Pet. 1. Petitioner also relies on Declarations of Dr. Michael Allen
`Jensen, filed as Exhibits 1003 and 1051. Patent Owner relies on
`Declarations of Todor V. Cooklev, filed as Exhibits 2002 and 2019.
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Motion to Submit Supplemental Information
`Petitioner moves to submit a Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Michael
`A. Jensen. See Paper 23. Petitioner contends that the motion is timely, that
`the declaration is relevant to the challenged claims, and cites Board cases
`support granting the motion. See id. at 3–8.
`Patent Owner filed an opposition to the motion. See Paper 24. Patent
`Owner contends that the declaration is untimely and unfairly prejudicial
`because it circumvents our word count limitations and amounts to an
`additional brief because it analyzes claim construction and includes new
`cites to the record. See id. at 2–10.
`Having reviewed the parties’ positions, we grant the Motion. We
`note, however, that in view of the full record, and for the reasons below, our
`determination would not change even if we denied the motion.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had
`a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience
`related to the design or development of wireless communication systems, or
`the equivalent.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner also states that
`“[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional
`experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner does not propose
`a level of ordinary skill and does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal.
`As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the
`level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the
`disclosures of the ’653 patent and the cited prior art, we adopt it.
`C. Claim Construction
`Petitioner states that “no formal claim constructions are necessary in
`this proceeding.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner does seek an express construction of
`any claim term, and we thus conclude that we need not expressly construe
`any terms to resolve the issues before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu,
`912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe
`‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`D. Obviousness Analysis
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is
`resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed
`subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) where
`in evidence, so-called secondary considerations, including commercial
`success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected
`results. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`The Cited Prior Art
`1.
`We first summarize the pertinent aspects of the principal prior art
`cited in the Petition.
`Yegoshin
`a.
`Yegoshin describes a “dual-mode communication device,” one
`embodiment of which includes a “microphone and speaker apparatus
`including converters for rendering audio data as audible speech, and for
`rendering audible speech as audio data.” Ex. 1004, 3:18–21. The device
`includes “a first communication interface comprising circuitry for receiving
`and sending the audio data on a cell-phone network” and “a second
`communication interface comprising circuitry for connecting to a local area
`network (LAN), and for receiving and sending the audio data on the LAN.”
`Id. at 3:22–27. “In some embodiments the dual-mode communication
`device is implemented in the form of a cell phone.” Id. at 27–29.
`Yegoshin’s device “allow[s] a user to switch modes from cellular to
`IP communication, and perhaps to switch from differing types of networks
`using known protocols.” Ex. 1004, 5:33–54. Yegoshin states that the device
`is “capable of taking some calls via cellular path while receiving other calls
`via IP path,” and also that it is capable of “taking all cellular calls in IP
`format.” Id. at 5:55–65; 8:47–56.
`Johnston
`b.
`Johnston describes “diversity antennas” that can “simultaneously
`receive or transmit two or three components of electromagnetic energy.”
`Ex. 1005, 1:5–7. In the embodiment cited by Petitioner––shown in
`Johnson’s Figure 29B––there are three “[a]ntennas 300” connected to
`transceiver 309 “through feed circuit 302, tuning and matching circuit 304
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`and combiner 306 or 307 respectively.” Id. at 11:9–23. Johnston states that
`diversity antenna arrangements have a number of advantages, including
`improved radio communication in a “multipath fading environment,”
`improved signal reliability, and reduced power requirements. See id. at
`1:11–29.
`
`Billström
`c.
`Billström “relates to digital TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access)
`cellular radio mobile telecommunications systems” and “is directed towards
`apparatuses and mobile stations for providing packet data communications
`services in current TDMA cellular systems.” Ex. 1006, 1:7–12.
`Billström states that “[p]roviding the packet data services on a cellular
`system platform offers potential advantages in terms of widespread
`availability, possibility of combined voice/data services, and comparatively
`low additional investments by capitalizing on the cellular infrastructure.”
`Ex. 1006, 1:54–58. According to Billström, “[o]f particular interest are
`current TDMA cellular systems,” and the reference identifies “GSM (Global
`System for Mobile communication)” as an example of a TDMA platform.
`Id. at 1:58–62.
`Billström provides “general purpose packet data communication
`services in current digital TDMA cellular systems, based on providing
`spectrum efficient shared packet data channels optimized for packet data and
`compatible with cellular requirements” with GSM as a target system and “a
`mobile station for packet data communication over digital TDMA cellular
`shared packet data channels.” Ex. 1006, 3:53–59, 4:59–61. Billström also
`provides “new packet data services in a closely integrated way, utilizing the
`current TDMA cellular infrastructure” and “with minimum impact on the
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`current TDMA cellular infrastructure.” Id. at 3:63–65, 4:5–8. “The basic
`packet data network service provided is a standard connectionless network
`(datagram) service based on a standard connectionless IP protocol.” Id. at
`7:58–61.
`
`Bernard
`d.
`Bernard describes a device that “connects to and interfaces with a
`PDA to dramatically increase the functional capabilities of the PDA,” adding
`“multiple integrated communication media to the resources currently
`available to the PDA.” Ex. 1007, 1:39–43. “[T]he combination of the . . .
`invention with a PDA can be used to place or receive a cellular telephone
`call or a land line telephone call, to transmit or receive packet radio data, to
`obtain three-dimensional location data from the Global Positioning System
`(GPS) and to send or receive data over a telephone cellular link or over a
`land line using a built in phone modem.” Id. at 1:43–50.
`As shown in Figure 4, reproduced below and described at column 5,
`lines 9–45, Bernard’s device includes a phone modem, a packet radio, and a
`cellular telephone, all of which communicate with a micro controller through
`a “decoder/multiplexer 112.”
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`“FIG. 4 is a general functional block diagram of a first
`embodiment of [Bernard’s] communication device . . . connected
`to a palm computer.” Ex. 1007, 2:27–29.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`Bernard also includes a second embodiment, shown in Figures 10 to
`15C, the first of which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`FIG. 10 is a functional block diagram of a second
`embodiment of [Bernard’s] communication device . . . connected
`to a palm computer.” Ex. 1007, 2:43–45.
`In this embodiment, “the program executed in the PDA 102B to
`interface with the communication device 100B is different in some respects
`from the program executed in the PDA 102 to interface with the
`communication device 100” of the first embodiment. Ex. 1007, 17:29–32.
`However, “the communication circuits 114, 120, 124, 126, as well as the
`external serial port 110 are utilized for the same purposes as in the first
`embodiment communication device 100,” such that “[e]ach application
`program 702, 704, 706 can generally utilize any of the functions of the
`communication circuits 114, 120, 124, 126.” Id. at 17:61–66.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`Petitioner cites Bernard’s explanation that, although the second
`embodiment allows “only one of the four . . . connections [to] be established
`at a time,” “a person of skill in the art will understand that an alternative
`interconnection could be used that would allow multiple connections to be
`established simultaneously.” Ex. 1007, 26:56–60. The reference states that
`“[f]or example, an alternative embodiment can allow data to be transferred
`over a cellular system using the phone modem 114 and the cellular
`telephone 126, while a user talks over a land-based telephone line using an
`attached microphone and earphone and the land phone 708.” Id. at 26:60–
`65. This is accomplished by use of “arbitrator 716,” as described in
`connection with Figures 15A–C. See id. at 26:67–29:13.
`Claims 1–13 and 27–30: Multiplexing
`2.
`Petitioner argues that independent claim 1 would have been obvious
`in view of Yegoshin, Johnston, and Billström, and that independent claim 27
`would have been obvious in view of Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström,
`Bernard, and Preiss. Essentially, Petitioner relies on Yegoshin for most of
`the limitations of these claims, but adds Johnston for the use of multiple
`antennas, Billström for the use of a processor, Bernard for multiplexing, and
`Preiss for an antenna for a different network. See Pet. 26–45, 72–81.
`Petitioner’s “Multiplexing” Contentions
`a.
`Claim 1 recites “enabl[ing] a single interface comprised of
`multiplexed signals from the plurality of wireless transmit and receive
`components,” and claim 27 recites that “a plurality of signal[s] are
`multiplexed to increase throughput and enable simultaneous multi path
`communication.”
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that “Yegoshin’s phone enables a single interface
`comprised of multiplexed signals from its first and second communication
`interfaces for cellular and WLAN (first and second wireless transmit and
`receive components).” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 122). For “multiplexing”
`specifically, Petitioner argues that “Yegoshin’s phone switches between
`cellular and IP-LAN modes, and [is] also ‘capable of taking some calls via
`cellular path while receiving other calls via IP path.’” Pet. 31–32 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 5:33–65).
`Petitioner asserts that the device of the combination “communicates
`on cellular and WLAN selectively or simultaneously (as taught by
`Yegoshin) using IP-enabled cellular and WLAN communication interfaces
`(as taught by Yegoshin and Billström),” and that the artisan “would have
`found it obvious that, to receive calls on both cellular and WLAN
`simultaneously or to switch between two networks, the phone multiplexes
`the signals communicated on two network paths.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 123; Ex. 1004, 5:33–65; Ex. 1006, 1:6–12, 1:54–60, 3:53–61).
`In the alternative, Petitioner argues that “[t]he known multiplexing
`features are further confirmed by Bernard,” and that one of ordinary skill in
`the art “would have found it obvious to implement or modify Yegoshin-
`Johnston-Billström’s phone based on Bernard’s features in a way that further
`renders [this limitation] obvious.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 126).
`In this connection, Petitioner refers to Bernard’s Figure 10, which,
`Petitioner argues, discloses “‘communication server 750’ that handles each
`data packet coming into/from each of the multiple communication circuits
`based on the packet’s destination address.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex 1007, 18:9–
`19:2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 127). Petitioner asserts that “[a] POSITA would have
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`understood or found obvious that, in Bernard, each individual data packet
`can be communicated on any of the multiple communication networks
`accessible by cradle 100B, and that packet interface 752 in cradle 100B
`includes or operates as a multiplexer for combining the data packets coming
`from such different networks.” Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 129; Ex. 1007,
`3:59–4:15; Figure 4, 17:10–25).
`Petitioner argues that “[a] POSITA would have found it obvious to
`modify Yegoshin-Johnston-Billström’s phone based on Bernard’s teachings
`in at least two alternative ways.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 132). “In a first
`scenario, the phone in the combination would have been modified to be used
`with Bernard’s cradle to provide multiple network connections,” and, “[i]n a
`second scenario, it would have been obvious to implement or modify the
`internal circuitry of Yegoshin-Johnston-Billström’s phone to include the
`multiplexing features of Bernard, so that the phone integrally contains the
`functionality executed in Bernard’s cradle.” Id. at 38–39.
`Petitioner contends that “when the phone communicates with both
`cellular and WLAN simultaneously (as taught in Ye