Samsung, Apple v. Smart Mobile Technologies
`
`IPR2022-01248
`U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies
`October 24, 2023
`
`Parham Hendifar
`Colette Woo
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Exhibit 2036
`IPR2022-01248
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248
`U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies
`October 24, 2023
`
`Parham Hendifar
`Colette Woo
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Exhibit 2036
`IPR2022-01248
`
`
`
`All Five Grounds Rely On Yegoshin And/Or Bernard
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Pet., 1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“Multiplexed” “Signals” (Claims 1, 27, and Dependents)
`a) Petitioner’s Interpretation of “Multiplexed”
`b) Yegoshin
`c) Yegoshin and Bernard in Combination
`
`“Combin[ing] Data Paths Into A Single Transmission Interface To
`One Or More Applications” (Claim 17 and Dependents)
`
`Two “Network Paths” Connected To The Same “Server” (Claims 27
`and Dependents)
`
`4. Multiple IP Addresses Or Interfaces (Claims 1, 14, and Dependents)
`
`5. Dependent Claims (claims 2, 9, 10, 21, 26)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`3
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 27 and Dependents Require “Multiplexed” Signals
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner Proposes To Use Plain Meaning Of “Multiplexed” In
`Both IPR And District Court
`
`Pet., 2
`
`Ex. 1051 [2nd-Jensen-Decl.] ¶ 31
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 1-2
`
`5
`
`Ex. 2003 [Defendants-District-Court-Claim Construction] 37
`
`
`
`Petitioner Argues That It Is Allowed To Advance Different Plain
`Meanings For ”Multiplexed” In IPR And District Court
`
`Why?
`
`Reply, 15
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 1-2
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Petitioner’s IPR Plain Meaning Of
`“Multiplexed” Is Broader Than Its District Court Plain Meaning
`
`Ex. 2032 [2nd-Jensen-Depo.] 52:6-12
`
`Ex. 2032 [2nd-Jensen-Depo.] 54:4-14
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 2
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Attempt To Stretch The Plain Meaning Of
`“Multiplexed” Should Be Rejected
`
`1
`
`2
`
`”Multiplexed” Signals Does Not Encompass Merely Selecting
`WLAN Or Cellular Networks For The Entire Duration Of A Call
`
`Independent, Non-Overlapping Streams Sequentially
`Transmitted At Different Times Are Not “Multiplexed” Just
`Because they Pass Through The Same Channel
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 2, 5, 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`No Dictionary Of Record In Either IPR Or District Court Defines
`“Multiplexing” As Merely “Selecting” A Signal
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 3
`
`9
`
`Ex. 2003 [Defendants’-Opening-Claim-Construction-Brief] 40
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s IPR Plain Meaning Of “Multiplexed” Contradicts Its
`District Court Plain Meaning, Which Did Not Include “Selecting”
`
`Ex. 2003 [Defendants-District-Court-Claim Construction] 37
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 3-4
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner Conflates “Multiplexed” Signals With A “Multiplexer
`Device”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`11
`
`Reply, 16
`
`
`
`A “Multiplexer” Is A “Device” That “Selects” In Addition To
`Multiplexing
`
`A ”multiplexer” is a device
`
`A ”multiplexer” may be a device that “select[s]” in addition to multiplexing
`
`A “multiplexer” may be a device that performs
`“multiplexing” as defined by the dictionary
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2023 [IEEE-Dictionary] 716; Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶¶67-69; Sur-Reply, 4
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner Cannot Point To Any Part Of The Patent’s Specification
`That Discloses “Selecting” As “Multiplexing”
`
`Improperly Incorporated Expert Declaration That Must Be Disregarded,
`But Also Does Not Change The Conclusion
`
`Reply, 16
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 7
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance On The Patent’s Priority Application Should
`Be Rejected Both Procedurally And On The Merits
`
`Improperly Incorporated Portions That Must Be Disregarded, But Also
`Do Not Change The Conclusion
`
`Reply, 17
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 8
`
`14
`
`
`
`The Patent’s Priority Application Discloses A Multiplexer
`“Device,” Which May Select In Addition To Multiplexing
`
`The Patent’s Priority Application
`
`Ex. 1052, 11:30-33
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 8
`
`15
`
`Ex. 2023 [IEEE-Dictionary] 716
`
`
`
`The Patent’s Priority Application Confirms That A Multiplexer
`That Selects May Not Multiplex
`
`The Patent’s Priority Application
`
`Ex. 1052, 14:27-31
`
`Even Though The Multiplexer Selects A Channel, It Still May Not
`Be Able To Multiplex
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 8
`
`16
`
`
`
`The Patent’s Priority Application Provides A Buffer To Potentially
`Store And Multiplex Sequentially Received Streams
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1052, Fig. 3
`
`Sur-Reply, 9
`
`17
`
`
`
`Plain And Ordinary Meaning Of “Multiplexed” Signals Does Not Encompass
`Selecting One Of Cellular Or WLAN For The Entire Duration Of A Call
`
`The Patent’s Priority
`Application
`
`Petitioner’s District Court ”Plain
`And Ordinary” Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`District Court Dictionary Definitions
`
`IPR Dictionary Definitions
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 2-4
`
`18
`
`
`
`Independent, Non-Overlapping Streams Transmitted Sequentially At Different
`Times Are Not “Multiplexed” Just Because They Pass Through The Same Channel
`
`Independent Stream 1
`
`Independent Stream 2
`
`time
`
`ultiple x e d
`
`N ot M
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 5
`
`19
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Interpretation Creates Absurd Results: Two Separate
`Calls Completed 50 Years Apart Are “Multiplexed”
`
`Ex. 2032 [2nd-Jensen-Depo.] 56:1-7
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 5
`
`20
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s IPR Plain Meaning Of ”Multiplexed” Contradicts Its District
`Court Plain Meaning, Which Does Not Include Non-Overlapping Streams
`
`Ex. 2003 [Defendants-District-Court-Claim Construction] 37
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 5-6
`
`21
`
`
`
`Streams Transmitted At Non-Overlapping Times Are Not “Simultaneously”
`Transmitted Under Petitioner’s District Court Plain Meaning
`
`time = t1
`
`Simultaneous
`
`Independent Stream 1
`
`Independent Stream 2
`
`time = t1
`
`NOT Simultaneous
`
`time = t2
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 5-6
`
`22
`
`
`
`Two Streams Transmitted At Different, Non-Overlapping Times Cannot
`Be “Interleaved” Under Petitioner’s District Court Plain Meaning
`
`Alternating
`
`NOT Alternating
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 5-6
`
`23
`
`Ex. 2023 [IEEE-Dictionary] 577
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Assertion That Sequentially Transmitted Data Can Be
`“Interleaved” Defies Common Sense
`
`Reply, 12
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2023 [IEEE-Dictionary] 577
`
`Sur-Reply, 9
`
`24
`
`
`
`Petitioner: STDM Shows Sequentially Transmitted Independent
`Streams Are “Multiplexed”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 14-15
`
`25
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1011 Introduces STDM As A Solution For Several Streams
`To Use The Same Channel “At The Same Time,” Not Sequentially
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 6
`
`26
`
`Ex. 1011, 14
`
`
`
`STDM: Divide Time Into Equal Slots, Send A Piece Of Each
`Stream In Its Slot In A Round Robin Fashion, i.e., Interleave
`
`multiplexer
`
`Stream 1
`Stream 2
`Stream 3
`Stream 4
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 6
`
`27
`
`
`
`In STDM, It Is Possible That One Stream Does Not Send A Packet
`In A Given Timeslot
`
`multiplexer
`
`One Missing Packet Does Not Change The Fact That The
`Streams Are Still Interleaved And Multiplexed
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 6-7
`
`28
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance On An Embodiment For “Combining …
`Data Paths” To Interpret “Multiplexed” Is Misplaced
`
`Ex. 1001 [’653 Patent] 5:52-54
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 7
`
`29
`
`
`
`Claims 2 & 3 Do Not Address Whether Or When Sequential
`Signals Can Be Multiplexed
`
`transmitting
`
`Receiving (multiplexed)
`
`Transmitting And Receiving Can Be “Simultaneous[]” (cl. 2) Or
`“Sequential[]” (cl. 3), But Only Receiving Signals Are Multiplexed
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 8
`
`30
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“Multiplexed” “Signals” (Claims 1, 27, and Dependents)
`a) Petitioner’s Interpretation of “Multiplexed”
`b) Yegoshin
`c) Yegoshin and Bernard in Combination
`
`“Combin[ing] Data Paths Into A Single Transmission Interface To
`One Or More Applications” (Claim 17 and Dependents)
`
`Two “Network Paths” Connected To The Same “Server” (Claims 27
`and Dependents)
`
`4. Multiple IP Addresses Or Interfaces (Claims 1, 14, and Dependents)
`
`5. Dependent Claims (claims 2, 9, 10, 21, 26)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`31
`
`
`
`Petitioner Argues Yegoshin “Selectively Or Simultaneously”
`Uses Either Cellular Or WLAN For The Entire Duration Of A Call
`
`Pet., 32
`
`Reply, 18
`
`Sur-Reply, 2-3
`
`32
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`
`
`Plain And Ordinary Meaning Of “Multiplexed” Signals Does Not Encompass
`Selecting One Of Cellular Or WLAN For The Entire Duration Of A Call
`
`The Patent’s Priority
`Application
`
`Petitioner’s District Court ”Plain
`And Ordinary” Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`District Court Dictionary Definitions
`
`IPR Dictionary Definitions
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 2-4
`
`33
`
`
`
`Institution Decision Agreed: Yegoshin Does Not
`“Simultaneously” Use Cellular And WLAN Networks
`
`Paper 13 [Institution Decision] 21
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 9
`
`34
`
`
`
`Yegoshin Sets Out To Solve A Well-Defined Problem: Avoiding
`Roaming Charges For Organizations With Many Roaming Users
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 97
`
`35
`
`Ex. 1004 [Yegoshin] 2:55-65
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s Solution: User Can Choose To Have Calls Forwarded
`To A WLAN Network Instead Of The Cellular Network
`
`Ex. 1004 [Yegoshin] 2:55-65
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 97
`
`36
`
`
`
`Yegoshin Connects Its Network Switch 31 To ”CTI processor 49”
`To “Intelligent[ly]” Route Calls Through Either WLAN Or Cellular
`
`Ex. 1004 [Yegoshin] 7:30-32
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 127
`
`37
`
`
`
`The User Selects In Advance Whether To Use Cellular Or WLAN
`Networks For All Or Specific Phone Numbers
`
`Ex. 1004 [Yegoshin] 5:33-37
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 10-11
`
`38
`
`
`
`The Network Then Forwards Calls To The User Through WLAN Or
`Cellular Networks Depending On The User’s Selection
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 10-11
`
`39
`
`Ex. 1004 [Yegoshin] 8:16-27
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s Phone Calls Are Serviced Either Entirely Through The
`Cellular Network Or Entirely Through The WLAN Network
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 56
`
`40
`
`
`
`As The Board Found, There Is No Reason Shown To Multiplex
`Signals On Different Networks For Different Calls In Yegoshin
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 13 [Institution Decision] 22
`
`41
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Yegoshin Discloses Simultaneous Use Of Cellular And
`WLAN Calls As An “Alternative” To “Busy Signal”
`
`Reply, 17-18
`
`L S E
`
`A
`
`F
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 10
`
`42
`
`
`
`Yegoshin: User May “Switch From One Network Capability To
`Another” Without Any Disclosure Of Simultaneous Use
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1004 [Yegoshin] 5:55-65
`
`POR, 9-10; Sur-Reply, 10
`
`43
`
`
`
`In Yegoshin’s System, A User Cannot Even Select Two Networks
`For Simultaneous Communication
`
`Ex. 1004 [Yegoshin] 5:33-37
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 10-11
`
`44
`
`
`
`Institution Decision: Petitioner Disregards Yegoshin’s Disclosure
`To A POSITA As A Whole, Takes One Sentence Out Of Context
`
`Paper 13 [Institution Decision] 21
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 9
`
`45
`
`
`
`Consistent With The Institution Decision, Any Single-Reference
`Obviousness Modification Of Yegoshin Is Both Untimely And Unsupported
`
`Unsubstantiated: “[E]ven if multiplexing techniques were well known,”
`Yegoshin does not disclose “multiplexed” signals. I.D., 22
`
`Untimely: The Petition did not “provide a
`reason why [a POSITA] would have been
`motivated to modify Yegoshin’s system to use
`multiplexing.” I.D., 22
`
`This Argument was not made in the Petition
`
`Reply, 18
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 10-11
`
`46
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“Multiplexed” “Signals” (Claims 1, 27, and Dependents)
`a) Petitioner’s Interpretation of “Multiplexed”
`b) Yegoshin
`c) Yegoshin and Bernard in Combination
`
`“Combin[ing] Data Paths Into A Single Transmission Interface To
`One Or More Applications” (Claim 17 and Dependents)
`
`Two “Network Paths” Connected To The Same “Server” (Claims 27
`and Dependents)
`
`4. Multiple IP Addresses Or Interfaces (Claims 1, 14, and Dependents)
`
`5. Dependent Claims (claims 2, 9, 10, 21, 26)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`47
`
`
`
`Petitioner Alternatively Relied On Modifying Yegoshin’s Phone
`In View Of Bernard
`
`Pet., 33
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`48
`
`
`
`Institution Decision Correctly Found That Bernard Does Not
`Disclose “Multiplexed” Signals
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`49
`
`Paper 13 [Institution Decision] 25
`
`
`
`Petitioner Alleges That Data From Bernard’s Networks Are
`“Multiplexed” By Virtue Of Passing Through Serial Interface 701
`
`PDA
`
`Cradle
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Pet., 34
`
`50
`
`
`
`Independent, Non-Overlapping Streams Transmitted Sequentially At Different
`Times Are Not “Multiplexed” Just Because They Pass Through The Same Channel
`
`Independent Stream 1
`
`Independent Stream 2
`
`time
`
`ultiple x e d
`
`N ot M
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 5
`
`51
`
`
`
`Interpreting Two Independent Streams Sequentially Transmitted
`At Different, Non-Overlapping Times Creates Absurd Results
`
`Ex. 2032 [2nd-Jensen-Depo.] 56:1-7
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 5
`
`52
`
`
`
`Bernard Completes Servicing An Application Request From
`One Network Before Moving To Other Requests (If Any)
`
`PDA
`
`Cradle
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 72
`
`53
`
`
`
`Bernard’s Second Embodiment (Relied Upon By The Petition)
`Only Allows One Network To Be Established At A Time
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 26:56-57
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 21:55-59
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 22:5-7
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 72
`
`54
`
`
`
`Bernard’s First Embodiment Similarly Allows Only “Select[ing]”
`One Of The Networks For Connection And Processing
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 6:9-11
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 72
`
`55
`
`
`
`Bernard’s System Routes Packets Based On Which Application
`Has A Pending Request For That Data Type
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 18:46-51
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 73
`
`56
`
`
`
`Bernard Cannot Even Multiplex Packets For Different
`Applications From The Same Network Connection
`
`PDA
`
`Cradle
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 73
`
`57
`
`
`
`Petitioner Misapprehends Bernard
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 12-13
`
`58
`
`Reply, 22
`
`
`
`Bernard’s Packet “Address” Identifies Network For Outgoing
`Packets, Not Destination Application Of Incoming Packets
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 18:9-22
`Sur-Reply, 12-13
`
`59
`
`
`
`Petitioner Incorrectly States That Bernard “Describes”
`”Simultaneous Connections”
`
`No Disclosure That Different Data Types Are Used “Simultaneous[ly]”
`
`Reply, 22
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 13
`
`60
`
`
`
`Bernard’s Modified, Undisclosed Embodiment That Would Allow
`Multiple Simultaneous Connections Does Not Help Petitioner
`
`The Petition (at 33-38) Relied On Bernard’s
`Unmodified Second Embodiment
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 26:56-60
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 25-26
`
`61
`
`
`
`A Modified Bernard Would Not Use Serial Interface 701, Which
`Petitioner Requires For Alleged Multiplexing
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 26:56-60
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 25-26
`
`62
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 79
`
`
`
`Bernard’s “Multiplexer” Devices Operate To “Select,” Not
`“Multiplex” Signal Lines
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶¶ 67-69
`
`63
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 5:17-21
`
`
`
`Bernard’s “Multiplexer” Devices Operate To “Select,” Not
`“Multiplex” Signal Lines
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶¶ 67-69
`
`64
`
`Ex. 2007 [74HC153-Data-Sheet] 1
`
`
`
`Bernard Confirms That Its Multiplexer Devices Merely Select
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 5:30-35
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 5:41-44
`
`65
`
`
`
`Any Multiplexer Implemented In Bernard’s Second
`Embodiment Also Necessarily Only Selects One Of The Inputs
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 26:56-60
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 72
`
`66
`
`
`
`A “Multiplexer” Device That Only “Selects” Does Not Multiplex
`
`The Patent’s Priority
`Application
`Petitioner’s District Court ”Plain
`And Ordinary” Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`District Court Dictionary
`Definitions
`
`IPR Dictionary Definitions
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2023 [IEEE-Dictionary] 716; Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶¶67-69; Sur-Reply, 4
`
`67
`
`
`
`Petitioner Also Fails To Prove A Motivation For Either Of Its Two
`Alternative Combinations Of Yegoshin And Bernard
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Pet., 37-38
`
`68
`
`
`
`The Yegoshin Signals Relied Upon By Petitioner For Other
`Limitations Do Not Pass Through Bernard’s Serial Interface 701
`
`The Petition (at 30) relied on
`Yegoshin’s internal cellular and
`WLAN for the “first” and “second”
`transmit and receive components
`
`Signals from Yegoshin’s internal
`cellular and WLAN networks would
`not pass through serial interface 701
`to Bernard’s cradle, and no
`motivation shown why they should
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶¶ 84-85
`
`69
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s Phone With Bernard’s Cradle Would Still Use
`Yegoshin’s Own Internal Cellular And WLAN Networks
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶¶ 84-85
`
`70
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s Internal Cellular And WLAN Signals (Relied Upon By Petition)
`Would Not Pass Through Serial Interface 701 From Bernard’s Cradle
`
`Cradle
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶¶ 84-85
`
`71
`
`
`
`The Reply Changes Its Mapping To Instead Rely On Cellular
`And WLAN Networks In Bernard’s Cradle
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 15-16
`
`72
`
`Reply, 25
`
`
`
`The Reply’s Untimely Modification Of Its Combination Also Fails
`On The Merits To Show A Motivation
`
`Ex. 1004 [Yegoshin] 7:30-32
`
`Yegoshin’s cellular and WLAN are built in
`the network with added “CTI processor 49”
`for routing. Unincorporated cellular/WLAN
`from Bernard’s cradle is not shown to have
`any benefit.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 15-16
`
`73
`
`
`
`Bernard’s Cradle Is Not Intended For A Mobile Device Like
`Yegoshin With Built-In Cellular And WLAN Capabilities
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 87
`
`74
`
`
`
`No Motivation To Add Bernard’s Cradle To Yegoshin’s Phone
`With Built-In Cellular And WLAN Capabilities
`
`Added Cost
`
`Battery Consumption
`
`Weight
`
`Size
`
`Added Cost
`
`GPS
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 86
`
`75
`
`
`
`Reply: Changes The Combination From Yegoshin’s Phone To A
`PDA That Does Not Have Cellular And WLAN
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 24
`
`76
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Attempt To Rely On An Unspecified PDA Instead Of
`Yegoshin’s Phone Is Untimely
`
`“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or
`argument in reply that it could have presented
`earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of
`unpatentability.”
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 73 (Nov. 2019)
`
`“Shifting arguments in this fashion is foreclosed by
`statute, our precedent, and Board guidelines.”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 15
`
`77
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`
`
`The Petition Expressly Relied On Yegoshin’s Phone (Not Some PDA),
`And Precisely Because It Had Cellular And WLAN Capabilities
`
`Pet., 8
`
`Pet., 18
`
`Pet., 18
`
`Pet., 18
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 15
`
`78
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails To Prove A Motivation For Modifying Yegoshin’s
`Internal Circuitry To Include A Serial Interface 701
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Pet., 37-38
`
`79
`
`
`
`Bernard Uses Serial Interface 701 Because It Is A Physical
`Connection Between Two Devices
`
`PDA
`
`Cradle
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2002 [1st-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 49
`
`80
`
`
`
`There Is No Reason To Create A Serial Interface Bottleneck
`Inside Yegoshin When There Is No External Or Peripheral Device
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 51
`
`81
`
`
`
`There Is No Reason To Create A Serial Interface Bottleneck
`Inside Yegoshin When There Is No External Or Peripheral Device
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex 2013 [Goldband] 253
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 51
`
`82
`
`
`
`Reply: Detrimental Disadvantage Of An Internal Serial Interface
`Is Not Sufficient to Defeat Obviousness
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 16-17
`
`83
`
`Reply, 26
`
`
`
`Petitioner Has Failed To Raise Any Advantage For An Internal
`Bottleneck, Or Any Weighing Of Benefits And Drawbacks
`
`“[t]he Board must weigh the benefits and
`drawbacks of the modification against each
`other, to determine whether there would be a
`motivation to combine.”
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Indus., 795 Fed. App’x. 827, 833 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 16-17
`
`84
`
`
`
`Petitioner Has Failed To Raise Any Advantage For An Internal
`Bottleneck, Or Any Weighing Of Benefits And Drawbacks
`
`“Coupled with testimony confirming the potential problems of
`automatic throttle reapplication and suggesting an
`alternative approach might reduce those same problems,
`J.A. 2230-32, a jury could find a skilled artisan would not have
`been motivated to combine the Challenger system with a
`PWC to arrive at the claimed combination.”
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods., 876 F.3d 1350, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`“Though each of the battery's elements was well known in
`the prior art, to combine them as Adams did required that a
`person reasonably skilled in that art ignore that open-circuit
`batteries which heated in normal use were not practical ….”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`U.S. v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 51-52 (1966)
`
`Sur-Reply, 16-17
`
`85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance On Serial Connections Inside Bernard Is Misplaced
`Because They Are One Input-One Output Connections And Do Not
`Create A Bottleneck
`
`1:1
`
`1:1
`
`1:1
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 17
`
`86
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“Multiplexed” “Signals” (Claims 1, 27, and Dependents)
`a) Petitioner’s Interpretation of “Multiplexed”
`b) Yegoshin
`c) Yegoshin and Bernard in Combination
`
`“Combin[ing] Data Paths Into A Single Transmission Interface To
`One Or More Applications” (Claim 17 and Dependents)
`
`Two “Network Paths” Connected To The Same “Server” (Claims 27
`and Dependents)
`
`4. Multiple IP Addresses Or Interfaces (Claims 1, 14, and Dependents)
`
`5. Dependent Claims (claims 2, 9, 10, 21, 26)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`87
`
`
`
`Claim 17: The Processor Be Configured To Combine The Data
`Paths “Into A Single Transmission Interface To” The Application
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 37-38
`
`88
`
`
`
`Exemplary Embodiment: Data Rate Is Improved By Partitioning Data
`And Transmitting It Across Multiple Paths, Combining At Destination
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶¶ 90-92
`
`89
`
`
`
`Yegoshin Expressly “Coordinates Activity Between The Two
`Paths” By Rejecting One Path, Not Combining Them
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1004 [Yegoshin] 5:55-65
`
`POR, 40
`
`90
`
`
`
`In Yegoshin, The Second Path Is Always Rejected, And Never
`Combined
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 41
`
`91
`
`
`
`Reply: Yegoshin Necessarily Combines Data Paths Simply
`Because The Application Can Use Two Networks
`
`Where Is The Interface Into Which The Paths Are Combined?
`
`Reply, 9-10
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 19
`
`92
`
`
`
`Pressed At Deposition, Petitioner’s Expert Opined That The Phone
`Application Itself Is The “Transmission Interface” Into Which The Data
`Paths Are Combined
`
`Ex. 2032 [2nd-Jensen-Depo.] 64:9-17
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 19
`
`93
`
`
`
`The Application Cannot Itself Be The “Transmission Interface To”
`The Application
`
`Ex. 1001 [’653 Pat.] cl. 17
`
`“The district court erred, however, when it later
`held that its claim construction did not require a
`spring means that was a distinct structural
`element from the hinged arm.”
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 37-38
`
`94
`
`
`
`The Reply’s Alternate Argument Fails
`
`Patent Owner does not assert that “combining” requires simultaneous
`communication and this argument should therefore be disregarded.
`
`An argument to modify Yegoshin to simultaneously use cellular and
`WLAN is both untimely and incorrect on the merits
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 19-20
`
`95
`
`
`
`Bernard Does Not Disclose The Concept Of Combining Two
`Data Paths
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 43-46
`
`96
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 100
`
`
`
`Bernard Expressly Discloses That A Phone Application May Only
`Use One Data Path For Each Call
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 21:55-59
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 22:5-7
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 101
`
`97
`
`
`
`Petitioner Relies On Data From Different Networks Going
`Through Serial Interface 701
`
`PDA
`
`Cradle
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 100
`
`98
`
`
`
`At The Phone, Data From Serial Interface 701 Is Separated Into
`Different Paths, One For Each Network Interface
`
`No “Single Transmission Interface To” An Application
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019 [2nd-Cooklev-Decl.] ¶ 103
`
`99
`
`
`
`Even If An Application Utilizes Two Networks, Their Data Paths Are Separated
`Based On Network Type Upon Arrival From Serial Interface 701
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 17:66-18:1
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 22
`
`100
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“Multiplexed” “Signals” (Claims 1, 27, and Dependents)
`a) Petitioner’s Interpretation of “Multiplexed”
`b) Yegoshin
`c) Yegoshin and Bernard in Combination
`
`“Combin[ing] Data Paths Into A Single Transmission Interface To
`One Or More Applications” (Claim 17 and Dependents)
`
`Two “Network Paths” Connected To The Same “Server” (Claims 27
`and Dependents)
`
`4. Multiple IP Addresses Or Interfaces (Claims 1, 14, and Dependents)
`
`5. Dependent Claims (claims 2, 9, 10, 21, 26)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`101
`
`
`
`Claim 27 Requires Two “Network Paths” To A “Remote Server”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1001, cl. 27
`
`102
`
`
`
`Petition And Dr. Jensen: Yegoshin’s “PSTN Switch” Is The
`“Remote Server”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Pet., 79-80; Ex. 1003, ¶¶241, 247
`
`103
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Yegoshin’s “PSTN Switch” Is Not The Server
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 60-61; Ex. 2019, 127; Ex. 1004, Fig. 3, 3:43
`
`104
`
`
`
`Undisputed: A “Switch” Is Not A “Server”
`
`Switch
`
`Server
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`POR, 61-63; Sur-Reply, 26; Ex. 2027, 757, 815; Ex. 2028, 24
`
`105
`
`
`
`Reply Newly Maps “Remote Server” To The “PSTN-connected
`Routing Server” And The “IP Telephony Server”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 7
`
`106
`
`
`
`But, The Petition And Dr. Jenson Plainly, And Incorrectly,
`Identified The PSTN Switch As The “Remote Server”
`Reply
`Petition and Dr. Jensen
`Petition: Yegoshin’s interfaces “communicate
`with the PSTN Switch (remote server)”
`
`“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.’”
`
`Reply, 7
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Pet., 79-80
`
`Expert Decl.: Yegoshin’s first interface operates
`on the cellular network “to the PSTN switch
`(corresponding to the remote server)” and
`Yegoshin’s second interface “communicates to
`the same PSTN switch (corresponding to the
`remote server)”
`
`Expert Decl.: Yegoshin’s phone “is in
`communication with the PSTN switch, which
`corresponds to the remote server.”
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶241
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶247
`
`Sur-Reply, 26-27
`
`107
`
`
`
`Reply: Patent Owner Ignores Petitioner’s Analysis For Claims
`17[j], 4, And 15
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 7
`
`108
`
`
`
`Claim 17[j] Discusses A “System” Which Petitioner Maps To
`“PSTN Switch 31”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Pet., 55; Sur-Reply, 26-28
`
`109
`
`
`
`Similarly, Claims 4 And 15 Are Cited In Connection With
`“Remote Systems”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Pet., 55; Sur-Reply, 26-28
`
`110
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“Multiplexed” “Signals” (Claims 1, 27, and Dependents)
`a) Petitioner’s Interpretation of “Multiplexed”
`b) Yegoshin
`c) Yegoshin and Bernard in Combination
`
`“Combin[ing] Data Paths Into A Single Transmission Interface To
`One Or More Applications” (Claim 17 and Dependents)
`
`Two “Network Paths” Connected To The Same “Server” (Claims 27
`and Dependents)
`
`4. Multiple IP Addresses Or Interfaces (Claims 1, 14, and Dependents)
`
`5. Dependent Claims (claims 2, 9, 10, 21, 26)
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`111
`
`
`
`Claims 1 And 14 Require Multiple IP Addresses
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1001, cl. 1, 14
`
`112
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Yegoshin And Billström Each Provide One IP Address
`On Yegoshin’s Phone
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Pet., 18-19
`
`113
`
`
`
`Petition’s Combination Relies On Implementing Billström’s
`Network
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Pet., 20-21
`
`114
`
`
`
`Dr. Jensen Confirms That Yegoshin’s Phone Operates On
`Billström’s Network
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 23; Ex. 2032, 33:23-34:5, 34:13-24
`
`115
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Combination Requires Billström’s Network Because The
`Mobile Device Would Not Be “Accessible” Or “Enabled For Wireless
`Communication” Without An Operational Network
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1001, cl. 14; Sur-Reply, 23
`
`116
`
`
`
`Petitioner: “A POSITA Would Have Understood How To
`Implement Billström’s Network Employing IP”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Pet., 20-21
`
`117
`
`
`
`Undisputed: A POSITA Has A Bachelor’s Degree And Two Years
`Of Experience
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 27; POR, 54-55
`
`118
`
`
`
`Dr. Jensen: “It Would Take A Fairly Extraordinary Person” To
`Implement Billström’s Network
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2020, 102:12-103:2; POR, 54-60
`
`119
`
`
`
`Experts Agree: Implementing Billström’s Network Would Have
`Been Beyond The Skills Of A POSITA
`
`Dr. Todor Cooklev
`Purdue University
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019, ¶ 123; POR, 59
`
`120
`
`
`
`Reply: Patent Owner’s Argument Is “Based Solely On Dr.
`Cooklev’s Unsubstantiated Testimony”
`
`W ro n g
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 4; Sur-Reply, 22
`
`121
`
`
`
`Petitioner Attempts To Erase Dr. Jensen’s Deposition Admissions
`
`“It would take
`a fairly
`extraordinary
`person”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 22; Ex. 2020, 102:12-103:2
`
`122
`
`
`
`Reply: Combination Only Modified Yegoshin’s Phone To Use
`Billström’s IP Address
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 4
`
`123
`
`
`
`Reply’s Argument Contradicts Petition And Dr. Jensen’s
`Testimony
`
`Reply
`
`Petition and Dr. Jensen
`
`“Petitioner’s combination simply modifies
`Yegoshin’s phone to use Billström’s IP
`address for IP-based cellular
`communication.”
`
`Petition: POSITA would have understood how
`to “implement Billström’s cellular network
`employing IP with a reasonable expectation
`of success”
`
`Pet., 21
`
`Petition: Billström’s teaches “‘separated’
`system ... that provides the new packet data
`services with minimum impact on the current
`TDMA cellular infrastructure.”
`
`Pet., 20-21
`
`Expert Depo.: Yegoshin’s phone modified “to
`communicate on Billstrom’s network”
`Ex. 2032, 33:23-34:5, 34:13-24
`
`Reply, 4
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Sur-Reply, 23
`
`124
`
`
`
`Petitioner Also Failed To Explain How The Combination Routes
`Data Packets Using Two IP Addresses
`
`Dr. Todor Cooklev
`Purdue University
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019, ¶ 110; POR, 50-53; Sur-Reply, 24-25
`
`125
`
`
`
`Yegoshin Routes Voice Calls On A Call-By-Call Basis Based On
`The Originating Phone Number
`
`Ex. 1004 [Yegoshin] 8:51-56
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019, ¶ 111-112; POR, 50-51; Sur-Reply, 24-25
`
`126
`
`
`
`Billström Routes Packet Data Through Its Single IP Address
`
`Ex. 1006, 10:62-64
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2019, ¶ 112; POR, 51-52; Sur-Reply, 24-25
`
`127
`
`Ex. 2019, ¶ 112
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails To Account For The Difference Between
`Yegoshin and Bern
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
