Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: January 30, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NATHAN ENGELS, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 1
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: January 30, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NATHAN ENGELS, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 1
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting institution of an
`inter partes review of claims 1–3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,319,075 B1
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’075 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Smart Mobile Technologies
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response opposing institution.
`Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). To address claim constructions issues, Petitioner
`filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 10, “Pet.
`Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-Reply (Paper 11, “PO
`Sur-Reply”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b)(4), 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have
`authority to institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in
`the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018).
`After considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and other
`evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of at least one of the
`challenged claims. Thus, we deny Petitioner’s request to institute an inter
`partes review.
`
`
`A.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), each party identifies the real
`party-in-interest. Petitioner identifies Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. as the real parties-in-interest.
`Pet. 61. Patent Owner identifies itself as a real party-in-interest. Paper 4, 1.
`
`2
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 2
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner and Patent Owner
`identify the judicial or administrative matters that would affect or be affected
`by a decision in this proceeding. Petitioner and Patent Owner state the ’075
`patent is involved in Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., 6-21-cv-
`00603 (W.D. Tex. June 11, 2021) (hereinafter “the Texas litigations”). Pet.
`61; Paper 4, 1.
`We have instituted inter partes reviews of related patents:
`(1) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC,
`IPR2022-00766, Paper 14 (PTAB Oct. 26, 2022);
`(2) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC,
`IPR2022-01004, Paper 13 (PTAB Dec. 5, 2022);
`(3) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC,
`IPR2022-01005, Paper 10 (PTAB Dec. 5, 2022);
`(4) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC,
`IPR2022-01248, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2023); and
`(5) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC,
`IPR2022-01249, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2023).
`The following proceeding involves a related patent:
`(1) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC,
`IPR2022-01222.
`
`C. Overview of the ’075 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’075 patent is titled “Wireless Devices with Transmission Control
`and Multiple Internet Protocol (IP) Based Paths of Communication.” Ex.
`1001, code (54). The ’075 patent states that an unfulfilled need exists for
`
`3
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 3
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`multiple transmitters and receivers (“T/R”) in a cellular telephone or mobile
`wireless device (“CT/MD”). Id. at 1:58–59. To address this need, the ’075
`patent describes “multiple Internet Protocol (IP) based wireless data
`transmissions” that “are simultaneously provided between a wireless device
`and a server, including providing multiple antennas, multiple T/R units,
`multiple processors and multiple [input/output] I/O ports on the wireless
`device.” Id. at code (57).
`Figure 5A of the ’075 patent, reproduced below, shows a dual band
`system. Ex. 1001, 2:25–27.
`
`
`Figure 5A shows a “a dual antenna, dual T/R unit in a CT/MD interfacing
`with a dual processor.” Id. at 2:25–26. Dual antenna 508 and dual T/R unit
`504 interface with dual processor 506 in dual band system 500. Id. at 4:46–
`47. System 500 can communicate through outputs 510, which can be “fibre
`optic channel, ethernet, cable, telephone, or other.” Id. at 4:51–54.
`“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, 4:60–62. Alternatively, there can be “a single
`processor that has the parallelism and pipeline capability built in for
`handling one or more data streams simultaneously.” Id. at 4:64–65.
`Processors 506 include “DSP, CPU, memory controller, and other elements
`essential to process various types of signals.” Id. at 4:66–67. “The
`processor contained within the CT/MD 502 is further capable of delivering
`
`4
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 4
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`the required outputs to a number of different ports such as optical, USB,
`cable and others” and “capable of taking different inputs, as well as
`wireless.” Id. at 5:2–7. “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 5:9–12.
`The “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, 11:12–18. 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
`11:19–24.
`Figure 10 of the ’075 patent, reproduced below, shows a system with
`three data streams. Ex. 1001, 2:44–45.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 5
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`Figure 10 describes that the wireless device includes “three wireless T/R
`units 1008, 1010, and 1012” that process “three data streams 1002, 1004,
`and 1006,” which are then “converted by converters 1014, 1016, and 1018,
`and presented to processors 1020, 1022, and 1024 under the control of
`controller 1026.” Id. at 7:30–37. “The data streams may be interfaced
`separately with server C 1030 or combined into data stream 1028 and
`interfaced to Server C 1030.” Id. at 7:37–39, 7:64–66. According to
`the’075 patent, these techniques achieve “improvement in speed by
`providing multiple data paths.” Id. at 7:39–42, 10:18–28.
`
`D.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`The ’075 patent has five claims. As mentioned above, Petitioner
`challenges claims 1–3 and 5. Claim 1, the only independent claim, is
`reproduced below. 1 Ex. 1001, 12:2–38.
`1.
`[1pre] An IP-enabled communication device for
`multiplexing signals comprising:
`[1a] a plurality of wireless communication units, wherein
`the device supports a plurality of transmit and receive
`frequencies and a plurality of wireless protocols;
`[1b] wherein a first wireless communication unit is
`coupled to a first set of antennas configured to transmit and
`receive on a first network and wherein a second wireless
`communication unit is coupled to a second set of antennas and
`configured to transmit and receive on a second network;
`[1c] wherein the at least one wireless communication unit
`is configured for radio frequency communication;
`
`
`1 For ease of reference, we use Petitioner’s claim numbering scheme as
`indicated by the bracketed numbers.
`
`6
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 6
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`
`[1d] wherein the first wireless communication unit is
`configured to operate at a lower frequency than the second
`wireless communication unit such that the first and second
`wireless communication units operate as complementary
`systems and reduce interference with each other; and
`[1e] wherein the first wireless transmit and receive unit
`operates on the first network path to a remote server and the
`second wireless transmit and receive unit communicates to the
`remote server on the second network path in response to a
`change in the signal strength and/or connectivity of the first
`wireless communication unit or second wireless communication
`unit; and
`[1f] wherein video or audio can be accessed
`simultaneously with performance optimized for each through
`dedicated or multiplexed paths; and
`[1g] further in communication with the remote server,
`wherein the mobile device is configured to receive multiple IP
`data packets on a plurality of ports at substantially the same
`time and send multiple data packets to the server, to allow
`multiple simultaneous communication paths over connections
`between the device and the server; [and]
`[1h] wherein the mobile device is configured to receive
`multiple IP data packets on a plurality of ports at substantially
`the same time and send multiple data packets to the server, to
`allow multiple simultaneous communication paths over
`connections between the device and the server.
`
`
`E.
`
`Evidence and Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner relies upon the following references in its grounds of
`unpatentability:
`
`7
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 7
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`
`Reference
`Name
`Yegoshin US 6,711,146 B2, issued Mar. 23, 2004
`Johnston US 5,784,032, issued July 21, 1998
`Bernard US 5,497,339, issued Mar. 5, 1996
`Preiss
`US 6,031,503, issued Feb. 29, 2000
`
`Exhibit
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`
`Petitioner submits a declaration from Dr. Michael Allen Jensen (Ex. 1003).
`Patent Owner submits a declaration from Professor Todor V. Cooklev
`(Ex. 2002).
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the ʼ075 patent claims on the
`following ground (Pet. 14):
`Ground Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §2 Reference(s)/Basis
`1
`1–3, 5
`103
`Yegoshin, Bernard,
`Johnston, Preiss
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standards
`Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability, by
`a preponderance of the evidence, of the claims challenged in the Petition.
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`2015). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that
`the information presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`
`2 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the ’075 patent claims priority to an application filed before
`this date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. § 103 in this Decision are to its pre-AIA
`version. Our decision is not impacted, however, by which version of the
`statute applies.
`
`8
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 8
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition.
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`As mentioned above, Petitioner’s challenge is based on obviousness.
`Pet. 14. A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed
`invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
`date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`which the claimed invention pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on
`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 ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in the record,
`objective evidence of nonobviousness. 3 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
`U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which
`we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a
`hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of
`the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain
`factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art
`solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
`B.
`
`
`3 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not directed us to any
`objective evidence of non-obviousness. See Prelim. Resp.
`
`9
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 9
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in
`the field.” Id.
`Petitioner states a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`a working knowledge of the wireless communication arts
`pertinent to the ’075 patent. That person would have 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. Lack of
`work experience can be remedied by additional education, and
`vice versa.
`Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28).
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proffered level of skill
`discussed by Petitioner’s declarant. See Prelim. Resp.
`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 ’075 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of
`this analysis.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the claims are construed using the same
`claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a
`civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021).
`This claim construction standard includes construing the claim in accordance
`with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.; see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In construing claims in accordance with
`their ordinary and customary meaning, we consider intrinsic evidence such
`as the specification and the prosecution history of the patent. Phillips, 415
`
`10
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 10
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`F.3d at 1315–17. Extrinsic evidence, including expert and inventor
`testimony, dictionaries, and treatises, may also be used but is less significant
`than the intrinsic record. Id. at 1315. Usually, the specification is
`dispositive, and it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.
`Id. Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`In its Petition, Petitioner states that “the terms of the challenged
`claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms
`require specific construction.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30); see Pet.
`Reply 1 (the “prior art reads on the claims in a manner that does not require
`construction”).
`Patent Owner strongly contests Petitioner’s position, arguing that
`Petitioner fails to apply or disclose its construction positions from the related
`Texas litigations. Prelim. Resp. 8–16. Patent Owner, however, does not
`identify what, if any, claim construction should be used for any term. See
`generally id.
`At this preliminary stage, we determine that no claim term requires
`express interpretation. 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.’”).
`
`D. Ground 1: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–3 and 5 Over Yegoshin,
`Bernard, Johnston, and Preiss
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3 and 5 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Yegoshin (Ex. 1005), Bernard
`
`11
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 11
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`(Ex. 1007), Johnston (Ex. 1006), and Preiss (Ex. 1008). Pet. 15–59. Patent
`Owner filed a Preliminary Response opposing Petitioner’s challenge.
`Prelim. Resp. 1–57. Based on the present record, and for the reasons below,
`we determine Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`on its obviousness challenge as to independent claim 1.
`Below, we present a brief overview of Yegoshin, Bernard, Johnston,
`and Preiss and then we address Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s contentions.
`
`
`Overview of Yegoshin (Ex. 1005)
`1.
`Yegoshin is a U.S. patent titled “Telecommunication System for
`Automatically Locating by Network Connection and Selectively Delivering
`Calls to Mobile Client Devices.” Ex. 1005, code (54). Yegoshin describes a
`communication system having a “dual-mode device capable of both cell
`phone communication and telephone communication on a local area network
`(LAN).” Id. at code (57). Yegoshin’s dual-mode device can be a “normal
`cellular phone” or “any type of wireless communication device . . . that may
`also be adapted for having at least one mode of [internet protocol] IP
`communication via wireless and or wired connection.” Id. at 5:6–9.
`Yegoshin’s client software suite “allow[s] a user to switch modes
`from cellular to [internet protocol] IP communication, and perhaps to switch
`from differing types of networks using known protocols that are made
`available via client software.” Ex. 1005, 5:37–44. “Alternatively, the
`program may be given a series of preferences by the user, and then may
`negotiate the best possible connection accordingly.” Id. at 5:49–51.
`Yegoshin’s phone is capable of “taking all cellular calls in IP format.” Id. at
`8:47–56.
`
`12
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 12
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`
`Yegoshin’s phone is “capable of taking some calls via cellular path
`while receiving other calls via [internet protocol] IP path.” Ex. 1005, 5:55–
`65.
`
`
`Overview of Bernard (Ex. 1007)
`2.
`Bernard is a U.S. patent titled “Portable Apparatus for Providing
`Multiple Integrated Communication Media.” Ex. 1007, code (54). Bernard
`describes a personal digital assistant (PDA) having a communication device
`which “provides the user of the PDA with access to multiple communication
`media, such as a telephone modem, a Global Positioning System engine, a
`packet radio and a cellular telephone.” Id. at code (57). “Data from the
`PDA is directed to a decoder that routes the data to the appropriate
`communication medium, while data from the communication media are
`multiplexed onto the single serial interface of the PDA.” Id.
`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.
`A first embodiment of Bernard’s communication devices is shown in
`Figure 4, reproduced below.
`
`
`13
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 13
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`
`
`
`“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. 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.” Id. at 5:9–45.
`
`A second embodiment of Bernard’s communication device is shown
`in Figures 10 to 15C, the first of which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 14
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`“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. Referring to Figure 10, Bernard’s cradle 100B includes
`multiple communication circuits for different network connections, such as
`“GPS engine 120,” “cellular telephone 126,” “phone modem 114” for “land
`phone 708,” “packet radio 124,” and “pass-thru or external serial port 110”
`for connecting external devices like “printers, phone modems or an
`Appletalk™ network.” Id. at 17:40–18:8, 4:37–40.
`
`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.
`Bernard explains that, in the second embodiment, “only one of the
`four . . . connections can be established at a time,” but that “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. “For 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.”
`
`15
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 15
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`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.
`
`
`Overview of Johnston (Ex. 1006)
`3.
`Johnston is a U.S. patent titled “Adaptive Omni-Modal Radio
`Apparatus and Methods.” Ex. 1006, code (54). Johnston generally relates to
`Johnston “relates to diversity antenna that can simultaneously receive or
`transmit two or three components of electromagnetic energy.” Id. at 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 and combiner 306 or 307
`respectively.” Id. at 11:9–22. 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.
`
`
`Overview of Preiss (Ex. 1008)
`4.
`Preiss is a U.S. patent titled “Polarization Diverse Antenna for
`Portable Communication Devices.” Ex. 1008, code (54). Preiss relates
`specifically to “a polarization diverse antenna assembly for use with small
`communication devices.” Id. at 1:5–56. Preiss describes and shows a
`portable laptop computer with antenna assembly 11 in wireless
`communication with a local area network. Id. at 2:50–65, Figs. 1, 2.
`Preiss’s antenna assembly 11 includes polarization diverse antennas encased
`in a communications card for implementation in a portable device. Id. at
`1:59–67, 2:50–65, Fig. 2.
`
`16
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 16
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`
`Claim 1
`5.
`Petitioner, relying on Dr. Jensen’s testimony, provides a limitation-
`by-limitation comparison of Yegoshin, Bernard, Johnston, and Preiss to
`independent claim 1. Pet. 32–56. Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have combined the teachings Yegoshin and Bernard to
`modify Yegoshin’s phone so that proposed combination would have
`Bernard’s “multiplexing features.” Id. at 19; see id. at 18–25. For the
`reasons below, we do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments.
`Claim 1 requires “multiplexing signals.” It recites, for example:
`[1pre] An IP-enabled communication device for multiplexing
`signals;
`[1f] wherein video or audio can be accessed simultaneously
`with performance optimized for each through dedicated or
`multiplexed paths;
`[1g] further in communication with the remote server, wherein
`the mobile device is configured to receive multiple IP data
`packets on a plurality of ports at substantially the same time
`and send multiple data packets to the server, to allow multiple
`simultaneous communication paths over connections between
`the device and the server; and
`[1h] wherein the mobile device is configured to receive multiple
`IP data packets on a plurality of ports at substantially the same
`time and send multiple data packets to the server, to allow
`multiple simultaneous communication paths over connections
`between the device and the server.
`Ex. 1001, 12:2–38 (brackets and emphasis added).
`Petitioner contends that Yegoshin or Yegoshin-Bernard discloses
`“multiplexing signals.” Pet. 32. According to Petitioner, Yegoshin’s “dual-
`mode” phone includes at least two wireless transmit/receive components for
`cellular and WLAN networks. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 76–77; Ex. 1005,
`
`17
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 17
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`3:17–4:42, 4:59–7:25). Petitioner explains that Yegoshin’s phone includes a
`first communication interface comprising circuitry for receiving and sending
`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 data on the LAN. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 3:17–34).
`As to the requirement for “multiplexing signals,” Petitioner first
`contends:
`Yegoshin’s phone is enabled for multiplexing signals from its
`first and second communication interfaces for cellular and
`WLAN. For example, Yegoshin’s phone switches between
`cellular and IP LAN modes, and also “capable of taking some
`calls via cellular path while receiving other calls via IP path.”
`Further, Yegoshin’s phone includes “microphone and speaker
`apparatus including converters for rendering audio data as
`audible speech, and for rendering audible speech as audio data.”
`It would have been obvious that Yegoshin’s phone selectively
`or simultaneously uses its first/cellular and second/WLAN
`communication interfaces to receive signals for calls (voice
`data) and then output the signals through a single interface that
`includes or is coupled to the “speaker apparatus” of the phone.
`Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 79; Ex. 1005, 5:33–65, 3:18–22) (emphasis added)
`Petitioner further contends:
`Yegoshin’s phone communicates on the cellular network and
`the WLAN selectively or simultaneously (as taught by
`Yegoshin) using IP-enabled cellular and WLAN
`communication interfaces (as taught by Yegoshin). A POSITA
`would have found it obvious that, in order to receive calls on
`both the cellular network and WLAN simultaneously or to
`switch between two networks, the phone multiplexes the
`signals communicated on two network paths.
`Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 80; Ex. 1005, 5:33–65) (second emphasis
`added).
`
`18
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 18
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`
`Second, Petitioner argues that “multiplexing techniques were well-
`known in packet switched networks, such as the IP-based cellular and
`WLAN systems utilized in Yegoshin.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 81;
`Ex. 1005, 1:40–51, 2:1–15, 9:23–26; Ex. 1010, 14–17; Ex. 1012, 32–33,
`382).
`Third, Petitioner argues that these “known multiplexing features are
`further confirmed by Bernard.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Petitioner
`relies on its annotated Figures 10 and 12 of Bernard, reproduced below, to
`explain its position. Id. at 34–38.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2021
`Page 2021 - 19
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01223
`Patent 9,319,075 Bl
`
`Id. at 38. Figure 10 is a functional block diagram of a second embodiment
`of Bernard’s communication device connected to a palm computer and
`Figure 12 is a functional block diagram of the application server of
`Figure 10. Ex. 1007, 2:43–52.
`Referring to Figure 10, Petitioner explains that
`Bernard’s cradle 100B includes multiple communication
`circuits 114, 120, 124, 126 for different network connections
`(thus corresponding to wireless communication units like
`Yegoshin’s first/cellular and second/WLAN communication
`interfaces), such as a GPS network, a cellular phone network, a
`landline network through a phone modem, and a packet radio
`network. Further, Bernard’s cradle includes “communication
`server 750” that handles each data packet coming into/from
`each of the multiple communication circuits based on the
`packet’s destination address. For example, when applications
`702, 704, 706 running on the PDA “cause one or more data
`packets to be generated and communicated to the
`communication circuits 114, 120, 124, 126,” “communication
`server 750” on cradle 100B “modifies the data packets before
`distributing the data packets to the appropriate communication
`circuits 114, 120, 124, 126.” Further, “communication circuits
`114, 120, 124, 126 . . . also generate data packets for
`transmission to one or more of the applications 702, 704, 706”
`that “have requested data of the type contained in [the] data
`packet.”
`Pet. 34 –35 (citing Ex. 1007, 17:40–19:2, 18:9–19:2; Ex. 10
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
