`
`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 IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
` MODIFICATION OF YEGOSHIN BASED ON BILLSTRÖM’S IP
`ADDRESS FOR IP-BASED CELLULAR COMMUNICATION WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS (CLAIMS 14-16) ................................................... 1
`A. Modification of Yegoshin Based on Billström’s General Teachings of
`IP-Based Cellular Communication Would Have Been Within a
`POSITA’s Capabilities ............................................................................. 4
` YEGOSHIN-JOHNSTON-BILLSTRÖM-BERNARD-PREISS RENDERS
`OBVIOUS TWO “NETWORK PATHS” TO THE SAME “REMOTE
`SERVER” (CLAIMS 27-30) ........................................................................... 7
`A. Yegoshin Discloses or Renders Obvious a “Remote Server” .................. 7
` THE YEGOSHIN-BERNARD COMBINATION RENDERS OBVIOUS
`“COMBIN[ING] THE DATA PATHS INTO A SINGLE TRANSMISSION
`INTERFACE TO ONE OR MORE APPLICATIONS” (CLAIMS 6, 17-21,
`AND 23-26) ..................................................................................................... 8
` YEGOSHIN-BASED COMBINATIONS RENDER OBVIOUS THE
`“MULTIPLEX” LIMITATIONS (CLAIMS 1-13 AND 27-30) ................... 14
`A. The ’653 Patent Requires No More Than A Known Use of The Term
`“Multiplexed/Multiplexes” ..................................................................... 14
`1.
`The Petition Clarified The Term “Multiplex” ............................... 14
`2.
`Parties’ District Court Constructions Are Met .............................. 15
`3.
`The Intrinsic Record Supports Petitioner’s Understanding of
`“Multiplex” .................................................................................... 16
`B. Yegoshin, Alone or As Modified, Renders The “Multiplex” Limitations
`Obvious ................................................................................................... 17
`1. Yegoshin Teaches Both Simultaneous and Selective Cellular and
`WLAN Connections ...................................................................... 17
`The Yegoshin-Bernard Combination Renders Obvious
`“Multiplexed Signals” ................................................................... 18
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Do Not Impact Petitioner’s Prior Art
`Analysis ......................................................................................... 21
`Sufficient Motivations Existed To Modify Yegoshin-Johnston-
`Billström Based on Bernard To Satisfy The “Multiplex”
`Limitations ..................................................................................... 24
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`i
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
` GROUNDS 1B AND 1D RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 2, 9, 10, 21 AND
`26 ................................................................................................................... 27
`A. Claim 2 .................................................................................................... 27
`B. Claim 9 .................................................................................................... 27
`C. Claim 10 .................................................................................................. 27
`D. Claims 21 and 26 .................................................................................... 29
` CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 30 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653 to Sanjay K Rao, et al. (“the ’653
`patent”)
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’653 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Allen Jensen
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,711,146 to Leonid A. Yegoshin (“Yegoshin”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,784,032 to Ronald H. Johnston, et al.
`(“Johnston”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,590,133 to Lars Billström, et al. (“Billström”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,497,339 to Marc A. Bernard (“Bernard”)
`
`EX-1001
`
`EX-1002
`
`EX-1003
`
`EX-1004
`
`EX-1005
`
`EX-1006
`
`EX-1007
`
`EX-1008
`
`International Patent Publication No. WO 98/27748 (“WO748”)
`
`EX-1009
`
`EX-1010
`
`EX-1011
`
`EX-1012
`
`EX-1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,854,985 to Joseph B. Sainton, et al.
`(“Sainton”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,031,503 to Joseph A. Preiss, II, et al.
`(“Preiss”)
`
`Larry L. Peterson and Bruce S. Davie, Computer Networks: A
`Systems Approach, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San
`Francisco, CA, 1996
`
`Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, Third Edition,
`Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996
`
`Merilee Ford, H. Kim Lew, Steve Spanier, and Tim Stevenson,
`Internetworking Technologies Handbook, New Riders
`Publishing, Indianapolis, IN, 1997
`
`iii
`
`

`

`EX-1014
`
`EX-1015
`
`EX-1016
`
`EX-1017
`
`EX-1018
`
`EX-1019
`
`EX-1020
`
`EX-1021
`
`EX-1022
`
`EX-1023
`
`EX-1024
`
`EX-1025
`
`EX-1026
`
`EX-1027
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`William Stallings, Data and Computer Communications, 5th
`Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996
`
`Dictionary Definition of “time division multiplex” (Newton’s
`Telecom Dictionary, 1998)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,615 to Takeshi Ota, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,366,622 to Stephen Joseph Brown, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,560,443 to Ari Vaisanen, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,680,633 to Steven E. Koenck, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,047,322 to Aseem Vaid, et al.
`
`Excerpts from Theodore S. Rappaport, Wireless
`Communications Principles & Practice, Prentice Hall, 1996
`
`R. G. Vaughan, et al., Antenna diversity in mobile
`communications, in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
`Technology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 149-172, Nov. 1987
`
`S. M. Alamouti, A simple transmit diversity technique for
`wireless communications, in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
`Communications, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1451-1458, Oct. 1998
`
`Excerpts from Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP
`Volume One, Third Edition, 1995
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,768,691 to Jorma Matero, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,960,344 to Ronald L. Mahany
`
`European Patent Application 0 660 626 A2 to John Daniel
`Byrne
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`Excerpts from William C. Jakes, Microwave Mobile
`Communications, IEEE Press, 1974
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`Yi-Bing Lin, Cellular digital packet data, in IEEE Potentials,
`vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 11-13, Aug.-Sept. 1997
`
`A. K. Salkintzis, Packet data over cellular networks: the CDPD
`approach, in IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 37, no. 6,
`pp. 152-159, June 1999
`
`C. E. Perkins et al., A mobile networking system based on
`Internet protocol, in IEEE Personal Communications, vol. 1, no.
`1, pp. 32-41, 1st Qtr. 1994
`
`K. C. Budka, H. Jiang and S. E. Sommars, Cellular digital
`packet data networks, in Bell Labs Technical Journal, vol. 2,
`no. 3, pp. 164-181, Summer 1997
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,353,443 to Zhinong Ying
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,790,176 to Bernard Jeff Craig
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,230,194 to Jean-Marc Frailong et al.
`
`EX-1028
`
`EX-1029
`
`EX-1030
`
`EX-1031
`
`EX-1032
`
`EX-1033
`
`EX-1034
`
`EX-1035
`
`EX-1036
`
`EX-1037
`
`EX-1038
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,734 to Alex Gernert, et al.
`
`EX-1039
`
`EX-1040
`
`EX-1041
`
`Jon D. Brady, Virtual Private Networking – The Flexible
`Approach, Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1997
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,055,575 to Gaige B. Paulsen, et al.
`
`Complaint, Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-00701 (WDTX)
`
`v
`
`

`

`EX-1042
`
`EX-1043
`
`EX-1044
`
`EX-1045
`
`EX-1046
`
`EX-1047
`
`EX-1048
`
`EX-1049
`
`EX-1050
`
`EX-1051
`EX-1052
`
`EX-1053
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`Joint Agreed Scheduling Order, Smart Mobile Technologies
`LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-
`00701 (WDTX)
`
`Complaint, Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-00603 (WDTX)
`
`Joint Agreed Scheduling Order, Smart Mobile Technologies
`LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00603 (WDTX)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,989,230 to Steven F. Gillig, et al.
`
`Amended Joint Agreed Scheduling Order, Smart Mobile
`Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-00701 (WDTX)
`
`Amended Joint Agreed Scheduling Order, Smart Mobile
`Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00603
`(WDTX)
`
`Excerpts from Constantine A. Balanis, Antenna Theory
`Analysis and Design, Harper & Row, 1982
`
`Declaration of Aamir A. Kazi in Support of Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Michael Allen Jensen in
`Petitioner’s Motion To Submit Supplemental Information [Not
`Yet Filed – Pending Resolution of Motion]
`Second Declaration of Dr. Michael Allen Jensen
`U.S. Patent No. 6,169,789 to Sanjay K. Rao, et al. (“’789
`patent”)
`Certified Copy of Deposition Transcript of Patent Owner’s
`Expert, Dr. Todor V. Cooklev, July 24, 2023, in Case
`IPR2022-01249 for U.S. Patent No. 9,019,946
`
`vi
`
`

`

`EX-1054
`
`EX-1055
`
`EX-1056
`EX-1057
`EX-1058
`
`EX-1059
`
`EX-1060
`
`EX-1061
`
`EX-1062
`
`EX-1063
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`Certified Copy of Deposition Transcript of Patent Owner’s
`Expert, Dr. Todor V. Cooklev, August 4, 2023
`Institution Decision, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al v.
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, PTAB-IPR2022-01249,
`Paper 13, January 24, 2023
`U.S. Patent No. 6,477,164 to Michael F. Vargo, et al.
`[RESERVED]
`RS-485, Wikipedia, available at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-
`485#:~:text=RS%2D485%20supports%20inexpensive%20loca
`l,1%2C200%20m%20(4%2C000%20ft), retrieved on August
`31, 2023
`IEEE 802.11, Wikipedia, available at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11, retrieved on
`August 31, 2023
`General Packet Radio Service, Wikipedia, available at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Packet_Radio_Service,
`retrieved on August 31, 2023
`Copy of Ex. 49 cited in EX-2003 (Defendants’ Opening Claim
`Construction Brief, Smart Mobile Technologies, LLC v. Apple
`Inc., Smart Mobile Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd. et al., Nos. 6:21-cv-00603 and 6:21-cv-00701, June
`8, 2022) – dictionary definition of “multiplex,” “multiplexing,”
`and “multiplexer,” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standards Terms, 7th Ed., 2000
`Copy of Ex. 50 cited in EX-2003 (Defendants’ Opening Claim
`Construction Brief, Smart Mobile Technologies, LLC v. Apple
`Inc., Smart Mobile Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd. et al., Nos. 6:21-cv-00603 and 6:21-cv-00701, June
`8, 2022) – Hargrave’s Communications Dictionary, IEEE
`Press, 2001
`Dictionary definition of “while” (Encarta World English
`Dictionary, St. Martin’s Press, 1999)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`Dictionary definition of “while” (Collins English Dictionary,
`HarperCollins Publishers, 1998)
`Dictionary definition of “while” (Longman Dictionary of
`American English, 1997)
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent
`Application No. 08/764,903, filed by Sanjay K. Rao, et al. on
`December 16, 1996
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0037505 to
`Todor V. Cooklev
`U.S. Patent No. 6,359,998 to Todor Cooklev
`U.S. Patent No. 6,490,295 to Todor Cooklev, et al.
`Deposition Transcript of Michael Jensen, Ph.D. in Case
`IPR2022-01249 for U.S. Patent No. 9,019,946
`Petitioner’s Schematic Diagram Illustrating “Multiplexing” as
`noted in EX-1053 at page 5 as “Exhibit 6000”
`
`EX-1064
`
`EX-1065
`
`EX-1066
`
`EX-1067
`
`EX-1068
`EX-1069
`EX-1070
`
`EX-1071
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s arguments should be rejected.
`
` MODIFICATION OF YEGOSHIN BASED ON BILLSTRÖM’S IP
`ADDRESS FOR IP-BASED CELLULAR COMMUNICATION
`WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS (CLAIMS 14-16)
`While not disputing that Yegoshin and Billström describe using IP addresses
`
`for communication on WLAN and cellular networks, respectively, Patent Owner
`
`attempts to rebut Petitioner’s combination of Yegoshin and Billström by asserting
`
`that the combination fails to address how “Yegoshin’s phone decides and enforces
`
`which IP address to use to route each data packet.” POR, 50. In this argument,
`
`Patent Owner reads requirements into the actually claimed features (14[i]), and
`
`asks Petitioner to prove more than what the claims require. Notably, claim 14 does
`
`not state selecting between a first IP address or a second IP address, but, instead,
`
`simply recites that “the mobile device maintains multiple IP addresses, wherein
`
`the first wireless unit is accessible on a first IP address and the second wireless
`
`transmit and receive unit is accessible on a second IP address.” EX-1001, 13:27-
`
`31; POR, 50 (citing EX-2019, ¶111); EX-1051, ¶2. To the extent any selection is
`
`required (it is not), the selection would be simple and straightforward—use the first
`
`IP address when communicating over the cellular network and use the second IP
`
`address when communicating over the WLAN. EX-1051, ¶¶3-4 (citing EX-1016).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`As discussed in the Petition, a POSITA would have found it obvious to
`
`implement Yegoshin’s phone, which already describes IP-based communication
`
`over its cellular interface, to maintain and use an IP address dedicated for the
`
`cellular communication as described by Billström, so that the modified phone
`
`maintains two IP addresses, one accessible for WLAN communication (as taught
`
`by Yegoshin) and the other accessible for IP-based cellular communication (as
`
`taught by Billström). Pet., 17-19; EX-1004, 8:47-56 (“taking all cellular calls in IP
`
`format”), 5:33-37 (“to set-up a temporary IP address on a network for the purpose
`
`of identifying and registering the device for normal operation on the network”),
`
`5:49-54 (“set up IP addresses”), 7:7-14, 7:44-58, Figures 2-3; EX-1006, 1:6-12,
`
`1:54-60, 3:53-4:22, 4:63-5:3, 5:23-28, 5:60-6:2, 6:5-14, 21:26-24:28, Figures 2-3,
`
`14-15; EX-1051, ¶5. Indeed, Yegoshin expressly describes how cellular networks
`
`were known to use IP (EX-1004, 2:30-36, 5:6-9, 9:19-29) and known to include a
`
`mobile-switching-center (MSC) (EX-1004, 6:27-35), and Billström describes
`
`assigning a “MS’s IP address [to identify] the MS as belonging to a particular
`
`MSC” using “the de facto standard IP protocol” (EX-1006, 5:60-6:2, 7:40-8:3).
`
`EX-1051, ¶5.
`
`Again, as evidenced in Billström, a POSITA would have understood that, in
`
`addition to an IP address designed for WLAN communication as disclosed in
`
`Yegoshin, a separate IP address would be a useful and well-known option for
`
`2
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`implementing IP-based cellular communication in Yegoshin. EX-1051, ¶6; see,
`
`e.g., EX-1006, 5:63-6:2 (“an MS’s IP address identifies the MS”), 10:64-66. By
`
`referencing Billström’s disclosure of an IP address used in cellular communication,
`
`a POSITA would have found it predictable to use an IP address for IP-based
`
`cellular communication in Yegoshin. EX-1051, ¶6.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Yegoshin assigns an IP address based on a
`
`phone number, and argues that would be a reason that Yegoshin-Billström’s two IP
`
`addresses would not work. POR, 51-52 (citing EX-2019, ¶¶112, 114-115); POPR,
`
`48-49. However, Yegoshin’s description of the phone number does not disrupt the
`
`combination. EX-1051, ¶7. As acknowledged by Patent Owner (POPR, 48-49),
`
`Yegoshin describes the association between the IP address and the phone number
`
`as an example way to forward a regular cellular call (using a telephone number) to
`
`the WLAN when the phone is “not within the range of the local service area.” EX-
`
`1004, 8:16-27, 4:10-14. This forwarding mechanism does not disrupt the
`
`combination because the combination is not limited a call forwarding situation. As
`
`correctly found by the Board, Billström’s use of an IP address would not be
`
`redundant because it is for IP-based cellular data communication, which is
`
`independent from IP-based WLAN communication using another IP address. EX-
`
`1051, ¶7; EX-1055 (Institution Decision (ID) for IPR2022-01248), 22. For
`
`example, when a call is made using IP-based cellular communication, it is not
`
`3
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`“regular GSM voice/circuit data calls,” but in the form of data packets that would
`
`employ an IP address for the IP-based cellular communication (whether or not it is
`
`“add-on data capability,” POR, 52), as taught in Billström and acknowledged by
`
`Dr. Cooklev. EX-1051, ¶7; EX-1006, 9:41; EX-1053, 18-25 (Dr. Cooklev
`
`acknowledged VoIP “refer[s] to packet-based communications.”); EX-1054, 50:8-
`
`13, 58:4-9 (“Well, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that
`
`Internet Protocol relates to the transmission of data packets. I said if they had some
`
`knowledge of Internet Protocol and would have known that that relates to the
`
`transmission of data packets.”).
`
`A. Modification of Yegoshin Based on Billström’s General Teachings
`of IP-Based Cellular Communication Would Have Been Within a
`POSITA’s Capabilities
`Based solely on Dr. Cooklev’s unsubstantiated testimony, Patent Owner
`
`alleges that the modification would have been beyond a POSITA’s skill, and there
`
`would be no reasonable expectation of success. POR, 54-60 (citing EX-2019,
`
`¶¶120-123). Notably, Patent Owner requires Petitioner’s demonstration of how to
`
`modify Yegoshin’s system to incorporate Billström’s entire infrastructure for
`
`providing packet data communication services over cellular systems. Id. This
`
`represents an overly narrow view of the combination because, as discussed above,
`
`Petitioner’s combination simply modifies Yegoshin’s phone to use Billström’s IP
`
`address for IP-based cellular communication. EX-1051, ¶8. Patent Owner’s
`
`4
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`argument that Billström’s teachings would not be physically combinable with
`
`Yegoshin improperly requires bodily incorporation from Billström into Yegoshin,
`
`which is not the law. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (“The test for obviousness is
`
`not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into
`
`the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined
`
`teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.”); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550; In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968
`
`(“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine
`
`their specific structures.” (emphasis original)).
`
`Further, implementing IP-based cellular communication using an IP address
`
`(Billström’s or generally) was well-known and within the skill of a POSITA. EX-
`
`1051, ¶¶9-10; POR, 54-60. Not surprisingly, Dr. Cooklev expressly acknowledged
`
`that “the concept that a mobile device could access the Internet ... was known.”
`
`EX-1053, 28:14-16, 29:10-12. Even Yegoshin acknowledges that “such [IP]
`
`networks may also operate in various wireless technology modes such as a code-
`
`division-multiple-access CDMA or a time-division-multiple-access (TDMA)
`
`convention,” which is a “well-known cellular system.” EX-1004, 2:30-36. And,
`
`Billström references “standard” IP technology. EX-1006, 5:60-6:2.
`
`Further, the ’653 patent has limited disclosure of implementing IP, which
`
`indicates that a POSITA would have had the requisite skill needed to implement
`
`5
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`IP-based technologies. EX-1051, ¶11. Indeed, the ’653 patent is completely silent
`
`as to how to use IP addresses and only provides superficial discussion of Internet
`
`technology. EX-1001, 2:28-31, 4:44-48, 6:14-41, 10:48-11:8. Therefore, the ’653
`
`patent relies on the state of the art for its disclosure, which confirms that a POSITA
`
`would have understood that the ’653 patent does not teach anything new about
`
`implementing IP and a POSITA would have had sufficient knowledge and skill to
`
`implement IP-based cellular communication, for example Billström’s more
`
`detailed description of known IP communication. EX-1051, ¶11; EX-1053, 98:17-
`
`101:3 (“even if [the ’946 patent, which shares the same disclosure of the ’653
`
`patent] doesn’t expressly cite to these documents [i.e., documents describing
`
`Internet Protocol], it refers to Internet Protocol, and a person of skill given astute
`
`that it is referring to the set of documents describing Internet Protocol.”); KSR Int’l
`
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (criticizing a rigid approach to
`
`determining obviousness based on the disclosures of individual prior art references,
`
`with little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and experience of a POSITA);
`
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (emphasizing the
`
`importance of interpreting prior art in view of “the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art” and “the inferences and
`
`creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”); Koninklijke
`
`6
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020); CR Bard v.
`
`Medline Industries, No. 20-1900, 2021 WL 3574043 at *6 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
` YEGOSHIN-JOHNSTON-BILLSTRÖM-BERNARD-PREISS
`RENDERS OBVIOUS TWO “NETWORK PATHS” TO THE SAME
`“REMOTE SERVER” (CLAIMS 27-30)
`A. Yegoshin Discloses or Renders Obvious a “Remote Server”
`Patent Owner mischaracterizes Petitioner’s mapping for “remote server”
`
`(27[i]) by asserting that the Petition only considered “PSTN switch 31” to be the
`
`“remote server.” POR, 60-63. Patent Owner ignores the entirety of Petitioner’s
`
`analysis, which references the analysis of the same term in other claims (17[j] and
`
`claims 4 and 15). Pet., 23, 47, 55-56. The Petition explained that “Yegoshin’s
`
`phone is in communication with several remote systems” (citing claims 4 and 15),
`
`identifying “servers,” such as “PSTN-connected routing server” and “IP telephony
`
`server.” Pet., 23 (citing EX-1004, 3:35-4:34, 5:66-6:4, 6:38-64, 7:15-37, Figure 2),
`
`47, 55-56. As generally illustrated in annotated Figure 2 below and also
`
`recognized by Patent Owner (POR, 60-61), “PSTN switch 31” is included in or
`
`associated with the “PSTN-connected routing server” along with “T-server
`
`software.” EX-1004, 3:35-4:34, 7:26-37, 9:1-12; EX-1051, ¶12.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`
`
`
`Pet., 23, 47.
`
`Patent Owner’s interpretation of the Petition’s mapping is inconsistent with
`
`the schematic illustration of Yegoshin’s Figure 2. Figure 2 is “an overview of
`
`network connection” and does not disclose all elements constituting “PSTN
`
`network 25.” EX-1051, ¶13. As acknowledged by Patent Owner, Yegoshin’s
`
`“PSTN network 25” includes more than “PSTN switch 31.” EX-1004, 7:26-8:34.
`
`A POSITA would have understood that PSTN switch 31 does not operate alone in
`
`PSTN network 25, but works with other components to enable switching in PSTN
`
`network 25 and thus constitutes at least a part of a server system in the PSTN
`
`network (e.g., “PSTN-connected routing server”). EX-1051, ¶13.
`
` THE YEGOSHIN-BERNARD COMBINATION RENDERS OBVIOUS
`“COMBIN[ING] THE DATA PATHS INTO A SINGLE
`TRANSMISSION INTERFACE TO ONE OR MORE
`APPLICATIONS” (CLAIMS 6, 17-21, AND 23-26)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`Patent Owner argues that the Yegoshin-Bernard combination does not teach
`
`“combin[ing] the data paths into a single transmission interface to one or more
`
`applications on the mobile device,” as recited in claims 6 and 17, because
`
`Yegoshin and Bernard do not describe that their devices utilize two networks
`
`simultaneously. POR, 37-47. That is, Patent Owner assumes that “combin[ing]”
`
`in claims 6 and 17 requires simultaneous communication of data over two
`
`networks. Patent Owner’s assumption is incorrect because the actual language of
`
`the claims is not so narrow. EX-1051, ¶14
`
`Notably, the plain language of claims 6 and 17 requires “data paths” (not
`
`“data”) to be combined. EX-1051, ¶15. Simultaneous communication of “data”
`
`over different networks is not required. Id. As discussed in the Petition, Yegoshin
`
`includes multiple “data paths” from/to different networks (e.g., cellular and WLAN
`
`paths) that combine into a “single transmission interface” that is included in or
`
`defined by Yegoshin’s phone. Pet., 56; EX-1004, Figure 2 (below). Specifically,
`
`because Yegoshin’s cellular and WLAN paths combine into a single interface, an
`
`application on Yegoshin’s phone (e.g., a call handling application) operates in the
`
`same way, regardless of whether data is received by the cellular path or the WLAN
`
`path. EX-1004, 3:14-15 (“calls coming from any source network may be routed to
`
`the user’s device on the LAN”), 6:65-7:3, 7:15-25, 8:47-56; EX-1051, ¶15.
`
`Indeed, in Yegoshin, a cellular call can be handled by the cellular path (e.g., when
`
`9
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`not connected to the WLAN) or handled by the WLAN path (e.g., when connected
`
`to the WLAN) and it makes no difference to Yegoshin’s phone because the cellular
`
`and WLAN paths combine into a single interface to the application handling the
`
`cellular call. EX-1051, ¶16.
`
`The Petition also turned to the serial interface taught in Bernard, which
`
`combines multiple paths into a single interface to “one or more applications” (e.g.,
`
`Bernard’s applications 702, 704, 706) running on the mobile device. Pet., 55-56;
`
`EX-1004, Figure 2 (below); EX-1007, Figure 10 (below); EX-1051, ¶17. As noted
`
`in the Petition, the combined “data paths” in Yegoshin-Bernard would permit the
`
`signals received over cellular and WLAN paths to be combined through Bernard’s
`
`serial interface 701 (“single transmission interface”). Pet., 56; EX-1051, ¶17.
`
`Pet., 56.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`
`
`
`Pet., 34.
`
`Patent Owner attacks Bernard, contending that it fails to teach “combin[ing]
`
`the data paths into a single interface to one or more applications” because “the
`
`different data paths [which are already combined into a single transmission
`
`interface—Bernard’s serial interface] are separated upon arrival at the mobile
`
`device.” POR, 44-46. This argument presumes that “data” (not “data paths”) must
`
`be delivered to a single application in the combined form. EX-1051, ¶18. But the
`
`claims do not require “data paths” (much less “data”) to be directly delivered or
`
`connected “to one or more applications on the mobile device.” Id.; EX-1001, cls.
`
`6, 17; EX-1053, 93:1-13 (Dr. Cooklev acknowledged “there’s not a single way that
`
`it could be implemented.”). Even if Patent Owner’s interpretation were to be
`
`considered (it should not), Bernard clearly describes an instance where data from
`
`11
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`multiple networks are combined through Bernard’s serial interface 701 and then
`
`delivered to a single application. EX-1007, 17:66-18:1 (“For example, the first
`
`application 702 may utilize the GPS engine 120 and the packet radio 124[.]”). In
`
`this example, Patent Owner’s hypothetical (“the different data paths are separated
`
`upon arrival at the mobile device”) does not occur. EX-1051, ¶18.
`
`Further, as Dr. Cooklev acknowledged, “combining” of data is not
`
`necessarily distinct from “interleaving” of data, which employs no temporal
`
`limitation, as discussed below (§§V.A & V.B.2). EX-1053, 9:17-21, 11:12-13.
`
`“Interleaving” can be performed for data being communicated both simultaneously
`
`and sequentially. See infra §§V.A.1-2 & V.B.2. Therefore, “combining” can be
`
`similarly performed without requiring data to be transferred simultaneously. Id.;
`
`EX-1051, ¶19
`
`Lastly, even if Patent Owner’s assumption (that “combining” requires
`
`simultaneous data communications) is correct (it is not), a POSITA would have
`
`found it obvious to communicate simultaneously over Yegoshin’s cellular and
`
`WLAN paths. EX-1051, ¶20. The Petition provided why it would have been
`
`obvious to transmit data simultaneously using Yegoshin’s cellular and WLAN
`
`interfaces. Pet., 26, 31-32, 48-49, 80. Indeed, Yegoshin’s cellular and WLAN
`
`interfaces are separate, independent modes of communication and a POSITA
`
`would have found it obvious to use them simultaneously. EX-1051, ¶20. A
`
`12
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`POSITA would have considered only two options for the simultaneity of
`
`Yegoshin’s cellular and WLAN interfaces—simultaneous or non-simultaneous—
`
`and viewed the simultaneous option as an obvious option to consider, particularly
`
`in the combination with Billström where two IP addresses are maintained. Id. Dr.
`
`Cooklev even admitted that using two different networks simultaneously was well-
`
`known in various scenarios before the Critical Date. Id.; EX-1053, 64:2-15; EX-
`
`1007, 26:60-65; EX-1045, 6:35-7:16. As an example, the Petition referred to
`
`three-way calling and described how a POSITA would have found it obvious to
`
`employ three-way calling in Yegoshin. Pet., 47-48. The obviousness argument in
`
`the Petition contemplated adding three-way calling, not Gillig’s analog calling.
`
`EX-1051, ¶20. Even if “data” is limited to digital, the Yegoshin-Billström
`
`combination teaches digital data communication over both of the WLAN and
`
`cellular networks because both WLAN uses IP (which is digital) and Billström’s
`
`GSM is digital, whether the communication is routed over the standard GSM
`
`communication or over the added packet data capability. Id. Therefore, a POSITA
`
`would have employed three-way calling using these digital technologies, rather
`
`than turning back to Gillig’s older, analog functionality. Id.; EX-1051, ¶20.
`
`Further, as discussed in the Petition, the Yegoshin-Bernard combination also
`
`teaches simultaneous data communication through multiplexing. EX-1051, ¶21
`
`(citing EX-1007); Pet., 31-38; EX-1050, ¶¶34-41.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
` YEGOSHIN-BASED COMBINATIONS RENDER OBVIOUS THE
`“MULTIPLEX” LIMITATIONS (CLAIMS 1-13 AND 27-30)
`A. The ’653 Patent Requires No More Than A Known Use of The
`Term “Multiplexed/Multiplexes”
`As already discussed in the Petition and by Dr. Jensen in his Original
`
`Declaration (EX-1003) and Supplemental Declaration (EX-1050), multiplexing
`
`was widely known in packet switched networks long before the Critical Date, such
`
`as the IP-based cellular and WLAN systems utilized in the Yegoshin-Johnston-
`
`Billström and Yegoshin-Johnston-Billström-Bernard combinations. Pet., 31-38;
`
`EX-1003, ¶¶122-131; EX-1050, ¶¶6-33. No intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`
`indicates otherwise. EX-1051, ¶22.
`
`1.
`The Petition Clarified The Term “Multiplex”
`As elaborated in Dr. Jensen’s Supplement Declaration, several documents
`
`(e.g., EX-1011, EX-1012, EX-1013), discussed in the Petition, demonstrate how
`
`the term “multiplex” applies to different signals arriving either simultaneously or
`
`non-simultaneously. Pet., 31-38, 40-41, 48-49, 52-53; EX-1050, ¶¶6-33; EX-1051,
`
`¶23.
`
`For example, one of these documents (EX-1011) describes synchronous time
`
`division multiplexing (STDM) as a method “commonly used in the telephone
`
`network” among “several different methods for multiplexing multiple flows onto
`
`one physical link.” EX-1011, 15, Figure 1.7 (below); EX-1051, ¶24. In STDM,
`
`multiple data flows do not have to be simultaneously or continuously
`
`14
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2022-01248
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0125IP1
`communicated together for them to be multiplexed into a single output link. EX-
`
`1050, ¶¶7-8.
`
`Figure 1.7 of EX-1011
`
`
`
`As further discussed in the Supplemental Declaration, other evidentiary
`
`documents recited in the Petition are similarly supportive.