Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
`Date: January 24, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, GARTH D. BAER, and
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1055
`Samsung v. Smart Mobile
`IPR2022-01249
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION...................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Background and Summary ................................................. 1
`
`Related Matters ................................................................. 1
`
`The ’653 Patent................................................................. 2
`
`Illustrative Claim .............................................................. 3
`
`E. Asserted Grounds .............................................................. 6
`
`II. ANALYSIS............................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................ 7
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................... 7
`
`C. Obviousness Analysis ........................................................ 8
`
`1.
`
`The Cited Prior Art................................................... 8
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Yegoshin........................................................ 8
`
`Johnston......................................................... 9
`
`Billström ........................................................ 9
`
`Bernard ........................................................ 10
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1–11, 17–21, and 23 in View of Yegoshin,
`Johnston, Billström, and Bernard (Ground 1B) ........... 13
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`Independent Claim 1...................................... 13
`
`Dependent Claim 2 ........................................ 26
`
`Dependent Claim 3 ........................................ 27
`
`Dependent Claim 4 ........................................ 28
`
`Dependent Claim 5 ........................................ 30
`
`Dependent Claim 6 ........................................ 30
`
`Dependent Claim 7 ........................................ 31
`
`Dependent Claim 8 ........................................ 31
`
`Dependent Claim 9 ........................................ 32
`
`Dependent Claim 10 ...................................... 33
`
`Dependent Claim 11 ...................................... 34
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`l.
`
`Independent Claim 17 .................................... 35
`
`m. Dependent Claims 18–21 and 23 ..................... 37
`
`3.
`
`Claims 14–16 in View of Yegoshin, Johnston,
`and Billström (Ground 1A) ...................................... 40
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Independent Claim 14 .................................... 40
`
`Dependent Claim 15 ...................................... 46
`
`Dependent Claim 16 ...................................... 47
`
`Adding Farber to Ground 1B for Dependent
`Claim 12 (Ground 1C) ............................................ 48
`
`Adding Sainton to Ground 1B for Dependent
`Claims 13 and 24–26 (Ground 1D) ........................... 49
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Dependent Claim 13 ...................................... 49
`
`Dependent Claims 24–26 ............................... 50
`
`6.
`
`Claims 27–30 in View of Yegoshin, Johnston,
`Billström, Bernard, and Preiss (Ground 1E) ............... 51
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Independent Claim 27 .................................... 52
`
`Dependent Claim 28 ...................................... 56
`
`Dependent Claims 29–30 ............................... 56
`
`D. District Court Claim Constructions .................................... 57
`
`E. Number of References and Hindsight Bias.......................... 60
`
`III. CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 63
`
`IV. ORDER .................................................................................. 63
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`A.
`
`Background and Summary
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`and Apple Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”)
`
`requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–21 and 23–30 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’653 patent”). Smart Mobile
`
`Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, the parties filed additional briefs
`
`directed solely to the issue of inconsistent claim constructions between this
`
`proceeding and related litigation. Papers 9, 10.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted
`
`“unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon
`
`consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons
`
`explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
`
`We accordingly institute an inter partes review of claims 1–21 and
`
`23–30 of the ’653 patent on all presented challenges. See SAS Inst. Inc. v.
`
`Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The parties identify Smart Mobile Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc., 6:21-cv-
`
`00603 (W.D. Tex.) and Smart Mobile Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`
`Ltd., 6:21-cv-00701 (W.D. Tex.) as related matters. Pet. 85–86; Paper 4, 1.
`
`We have instituted inter partes reviews of related patents. See
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC, IPR2022-00766,
`
`Paper 14 (PTAB Oct. 26, 2022); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Smart Mobile
`
`1
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`Techs. LLC, IPR2022-01004, Paper 13 (PTAB Dec. 5, 2022); Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC, IPR2022-01005, Paper 10
`
`(PTAB Dec. 5, 2022).
`
`IPR2022-01222, IPR2022-01223, and IPR2022-01249 are also
`
`pending and involve related patents.
`
`C.
`
`The ’653 Patent
`
`The ’653 patent describes an unfulfilled need for multiple transmitters
`
`and receivers (“T/R”) in a cellular telephone or mobile wireless device
`
`(“CT/MD”). See Ex. 1001, 1:48–51. Figure 5A of the patent is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`Figure 5A shows a “a dual antenna, dual T/R unit in a CT/MD
`interfacing with a dual processor.” Ex. 1001, 2:15–17.
`
`Dual antenna 508 and dual T/R unit 504 interface with dual processor
`
`506 in dual band system 500. See id. at 4:37–39. System 500 can
`
`communicate through outputs 510, which can be “fibre optic channel,
`
`ethernet, cable, telephone, or other.” Id. at 4:42–45.
`
`“The multiple processors 506 allow for parallel and custom
`
`processing of each signal or data stream to achieve higher speed and better
`
`quality of output.” Ex. 1001, 4:51–53. Processors 506 include “DSP, CPU,
`
`2
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`memory controller, and other elements essential to process various types of
`
`signals.” Id. at 4:55–58.
`
`“The processor contained within the CT/MD 502 is further capable of
`
`delivering the required outputs to a number of different ports such as optical,
`
`USB, cable and others” and “capable of taking different inputs, as well as
`
`wireless.” Id. at 4:60–64. “Thus the CT/MD 502 has universal connectivity
`
`in addition to having a wide range of functionality made possible through
`
`the features of multiple antennas, multiple T/R units 504 and processors
`
`506.” Id. at 4:67–5:3.
`
`“[T]he CT/MD may use one or more transmission protocols as
`
`deemed optimal and appropriate,” and “the CT/MD determines the required
`
`frequency spectrum, other wireless parameters such as power and signal to
`
`noise ratio to optimally transmit the data.” Ex. 1001, 11:5–11:11. The
`
`CT/MD has “the ability to multiplex between one or more transmission
`
`protocols such as CDMA, TDMA to ensure that the fast data rates of the
`
`optical network or matched closely in a wireless network to minimize the
`
`potential data transmission speed degradation of a wireless network.” Id. at
`
`11:12–17. “Thus it is possible that various optical and wireless protocols
`
`can co-exist in a network.” Id. at 11:29–30.
`
`D.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`The ’653 patent includes 30 claims, of which Petitioner challenges all
`
`but claim 22. Claims 1, 14, 17, and 27 are independent, and claim 1 is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`1. An Internet-enabled mobile communication device
`comprising:
`
`a memory;
`
`3
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`display electronics;
`
`at least two or more antennas;
`
`at least one or more processors; and
`
`a plurality of wireless transmit and receive components
`including a first wireless transmit and receive component
`and a second wireless transmit and receive component,
`wherein each wireless transmit receive component is
`configured to communicate using one or more protocols;
`
`wherein the device is configured for multi-band wireless
`communication;
`
`wherein the device is enabled for communication using
`Internet Protocol (IP);
`
`wherein the device is enabled for wireless communication
`on a wireless local area network;
`
`wherein the first wireless transmit and receive component is
`configured to communicate using a plurality of antennas;
`and
`
`wherein a transmission interface is created and wherein said
`transmission interface uses a plurality of IP enabled
`interfaces on the mobile device which utilize the plurality
`of wireless transmit and receive components on the
`mobile device to enable a single interface comprised of
`multiplexed signals from the plurality of wireless
`transmit and receive components.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:56–12:16.
`
`As seen above, claim 1 is directed to “an Internet-enabled mobile
`
`communication device” that includes memory, display electronics, at least
`
`two antennas, and a processor. There are a plurality of wireless transmit and
`
`receive components (TX/RX), including a first wireless transmit and receive
`
`component (TX/RX1) and a second wireless transmit and receive component
`
`(TX/RX2), each configured to communicate using one or more protocols.
`
`The device is configured for multi-band wireless communication, and
`
`4
`
`7
`
`

`

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

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`wireless communication unit and second wireless communication unit
`
`operate as complementary systems.” The device is capable of voice, data,
`
`and Internet connectivity. WCU12 operates on a first network path to a
`
`remote server and WCU2 communicates to the remote server on a second
`
`network path at the same time, where a plurality of signal[s] are
`
`“multiplexed” to increase throughput and enable simultaneous multi path
`
`communication.
`
`E.
`
`Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–21 and 23–30 are unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`
`35
`U.S.C. §
`
`References/Basis
`
`14–16
`
`103(a) Yegoshin,3 Johnston,4 Billström5
`
`1–11, 17–21, 23
`
`103(a) Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, Bernard6
`
`12
`
`103(a) Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, Bernard, Farber7
`
`13, 24–26
`
`103(a) Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, Bernard, Sainton8
`
`27–30
`
`103(a) Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, Bernard, Preiss9
`
`
`2 The last limitation of the claim recites “the first wireless transmit and
`receive unit” and “the second wireless transmit and receive unit,” which
`apparently are intended to refer to the earlier recited “first wireless
`communication unit” and “second wireless communication unit.”
`3 US 6,711,146 B2, filed Feb. 22, 1999, issued Mar. 23, 2004 (Ex. 1004).
`
`4 US 5,784,032, issued July 21, 1998 (Ex. 1005).
`
`5 US 5,590,133, issued Dec. 31, 1996 (Ex. 1006).
`
`6 US 5,497,339, issued Mar. 5, 1996 (Ex. 1007).
`
`7 WO 98/27748, published June 25, 1998 (Ex. 1008).
`
`8 US 5,854,985, issued Dec. 29, 1998 (Ex. 1009).
`
`9 US 6,031,503, filed Feb. 20, 1997, issued Feb. 29, 2000 (Ex. 1010).
`
`6
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`See Pet. 1. Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Dr. Michael Allen
`
`Jensen, filed as Exhibit 1003.
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had
`
`a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience
`
`related to the design or development of wireless communication systems, or
`
`the equivalent.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner also states that
`
`“[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional
`
`experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal
`
`education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner does not propose
`
`a level of ordinary skill and does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal.
`
`As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the
`
`level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the
`
`disclosures of the ’653 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of
`
`this analysis.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner states that “no formal claim constructions are necessary in
`
`this proceeding.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner does not propose an interpretation
`
`for any term but, as discussed below in Section II.D, argues that Petitioner
`
`should have disclosed and applied the claim constructions it has advanced in
`
`related litigation.
`
`At this preliminary stage, we determine that the record does not
`
`require use to resolve any claim construction dispute to decide whether or
`
`not to institute. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375
`
`7
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . .
`
`that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`C. Obviousness Analysis
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is
`
`resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed
`
`subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) where
`
`in evidence, so-called secondary considerations, including commercial
`
`success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected
`
`results. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`1.
`
`The Cited Prior Art
`
`We first summarize the pertinent aspects of the principal prior art
`
`cited in the Petition.
`
`a.
`
`Yegoshin
`
`Yegoshin describes a “dual-mode communication device,” one
`
`embodiment of which includes a “microphone and speaker apparatus
`
`including converters for rendering audio data as audible speech, and for
`
`rendering audible speech as audio data.” Ex. 1004, 3:18–21. The device
`
`includes “a first communication interface comprising circuitry for receiving
`
`and sending the audio data on a cell-phone network” and “a second
`
`8
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`communication interface comprising circuitry for connecting to a local area
`
`network (LAN), and for receiving and sending the audio data on the LAN.”
`
`Id. at 3:22–27. “In some embodiments the dual-mode communication
`
`device is implemented in the form of a cell phone.” Id. at 27–29.
`
`Yegoshin’s device “allow[s] a user to switch modes from cellular to
`
`IP communication, and perhaps to switch from differing types of networks
`
`using known protocols.” Ex. 1004, 5:33–54. Yegoshin states that the device
`
`is “capable of taking some calls via cellular path while receiving other calls
`
`via IP path,” and also that it is capable of “taking all cellular calls in IP
`
`format.” Id. at 5:55–65; 8:47–56.
`
`b.
`
`Johnston
`
`Johnston describes “diversity antennas” that can “simultaneously
`
`receive or transmit two or three components of electromagnetic energy.”
`
`Ex. 1005, 1:5–7. In the embodiment cited by Petitioner––shown in
`
`Johnson’s Figure 29B––there are three “[a]ntennas 300” connected to
`
`transceiver 309 “through feed circuit 302, tuning and matching circuit 304
`
`and combiner 306 or 307 respectively.” Id. at 11:9–23. Johnston states that
`
`diversity antenna arrangements have a number of advantages, including
`
`improved radio communication in a “multipath fading environment,”
`
`improved signal reliability, and reduced power requirements. See id. at
`
`1:11–29.
`
`c.
`
`Billström
`
`Billström “relates to digital TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access)
`
`cellular radio mobile telecommunications systems” and “is directed towards
`
`apparatuses and mobile stations for providing packet data communications
`
`services in current TDMA cellular systems.” Ex. 1006, 1:7–12.
`
`9
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`Billström states that “[p]roviding the packet data services on a cellular
`
`system platform offers potential advantages in terms of widespread
`
`availability, possibility of combined voice/data services, and comparatively
`
`low additional investments by capitalizing on the cellular infrastructure.”
`
`Ex. 1006, 1:54–58. According to Billström, “[o]f particular interest are
`
`current TDMA cellular systems,” and the reference identifies “GSM (Global
`
`System for Mobile communication)” as an example of a TDMA platform.
`
`Id. at 1:58–62.
`
`Billström provides “general purpose packet data communication
`
`services in current digital TDMA cellular systems, based on providing
`
`spectrum efficient shared packet data channels optimized for packet data and
`
`compatible with cellular requirements” with GSM as a target system and “a
`
`mobile station for packet data communication over digital TDMA cellular
`
`shared packet data channels.” Ex. 1006, 3:53–59, 4:59–61. Billström also
`
`provides “new packet data services in a closely integrated way, utilizing the
`
`current TDMA cellular infrastructure” and “with minimum impact on the
`
`current TDMA cellular infrastructure.” Id. at 3:63–65, 4:5–8. “The basic
`
`packet data network service provided is a standard connectionless network
`
`(datagram) service based on a standard connectionless IP protocol,” and “IP
`
`is here used to denote the Internet Protocol.” Id. at 7:58–61; see also id. at
`
`5:18 (“Internet Protocol IP”).
`
`d.
`
`Bernard
`
`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 . . .
`
`10
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`invention with a PDA can be used to place or receive a cellular telephone
`
`call or a land line telephone call, to transmit or receive packet radio data, to
`
`obtain three-dimensional location data from the Global Positioning System
`
`(GPS) and to send or receive data over a telephone cellular link or over a
`
`land line using a built in phone modem.” Id. at 1:43–50.
`
`As shown in Figure 4, reproduced below and described at column 5,
`
`lines 9–45, Bernard’s device includes a phone modem, a packet radio, and a
`
`cellular telephone, all of which communicate with a micro controller through
`
`a “decoder/multiplexer 112.”
`
`“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.
`
`
`
`11
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`Bernard also includes a second embodiment, shown in Figures 10 to
`
`15C, the first of which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`FIG. 10 is a functional block diagram of a second
`embodiment of [Bernard’s] communication device . . . connected
`to a palm computer.” Ex. 1007, 2:43–45.
`
`In this embodiment, “the program executed in the PDA 102B to
`
`interface with the communication device 100B is different in some respects
`
`from the program executed in the PDA 102 to interface with the
`
`communication device 100” of the first embodiment. Ex. 1007, 17:29–32.
`
`However, “the communication circuits 114, 120, 124, 126, as well as the
`
`external serial port 110 are utilized for the same purposes as in the first
`
`embodiment communication device 100,” such that “[e]ach application
`
`program 702, 704, 706 can generally utilize any of the functions of the
`
`communication circuits 114, 120, 124, 126.” Id. at 17:61–66.
`
`12
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`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.”
`
`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.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1–11, 17–21, and 23 in View of Yegoshin,
`Johnston, Billström, and Bernard (Ground 1B)
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–11, 17–21, and 23 would have been
`
`obvious in view of Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, and Bernard. See
`
`Pet. 28–59. Generally, Petitioner argues that Yegoshin discloses most of the
`
`features of these claims, but adds Johnston for multiple antennas, Billström
`
`for a second IP address, and Bernard for implementation details. We
`
`address Petitioner’s contentions and Patent Owner’s arguments for these
`
`claims below.
`
`a.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Preamble, Memory, Display, Antennas, Processor
`
`Petitioner relies on its claim 14 analysis for (a) “[a]n Internet-enabled
`
`mobile communication device,” (b) “a memory,” (c) “display electronics,”
`
`and (d) “at least one or more processors.” See Pet. 26–29. Specifically,
`
`Petitioner argues that Yegoshin discloses these claim elements in its
`
`(a) “[c]ellular telephone 9 . . . capable of communicating on an [Internet
`
`13
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`Protocol] data network,” (b) “suitable built-in memory,” (c) display, as
`
`shown in Yegoshin’s Figure 1, and (d) the processor that would execute the
`
`“client software suite.” See Pet. 8–9, 13.
`
`Patent Owner does not presently dispute Petitioner’s contentions for
`
`these limitations, and we find that Petitioner’s showings are sufficient to
`
`establish that they would be present in this combination.
`
`“a plurality of wireless transmit and receive components
`including a first wireless transmit and receive component and
`a second wireless transmit and receive component, wherein
`each wireless transmit receive component is configured to
`communicate using one or more protocols”
`
`Petitioner relies on its claim 14 analysis for this limitation.” See
`
`Pet. 30. Specifically, Petitioner argues that Yegoshin discloses “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, where the LAN may be a “wireless
`
`IP-LAN.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:17–34). Petitioner asserts that
`
`“[c]ellular and WLAN networks are considered as, or utilize, different
`
`protocols. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 74; Ex. 1004, 5:23–54, 6:5–14, 6:52–64,
`
`7:48–58, 9:19–29).
`
`Patent Owner does not presently dispute Petitioner’s contentions for
`
`this limitation, and we find that Petitioner’s showing is sufficient to establish
`
`that it would be met in this combination.
`
`14
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`“wherein the device is configured for
`multi-band wireless communication”
`
`Petitioner argues that “Yegoshin’s phone uses cellular and WLAN,
`
`which operate on different frequency bands (multi-band).” Pet. 30 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 114; Ex. 1004, 3:17–4:42, 4:59–7:25).
`
`Patent Owner does not presently dispute Petitioner’s contentions for
`
`this limitation, and we find that Petitioner’s showing is sufficient to establish
`
`that it would be present in this combination.
`
`“wherein the device is enabled for
`communication using Internet Protocol (IP)”
`
`Petitioner relies on its claim 14 analysis for this limitation.” See Pet.
`
`30. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “Yegoshin’s phone is capable of ‘IP
`
`communication’ over ‘a private IP network’ and thus enabled for
`
`communication using IP.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:59–5:3; Ex. 1003
`
`¶ 75).
`
`Patent Owner does not presently dispute Petitioner’s contentions for
`
`this limitation, and we find that Petitioner’s showing is sufficient to establish
`
`that it would be met in this combination.
`
`“wherein the device is enabled for wireless
`communication on a wireless local area network”
`
`Petitioner relies on its claim 14 analysis for this limitation.” See
`
`Pet. 30. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “Yegoshin’s ‘cell phone 9 may
`
`communicate in wireless mode on wireless IP-LAN 38.’” Pet. 15 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004, 6:62–7:14, 1:31–67, 2:21–4:14, 4:65–5:32, 8:28–34, Figure 2;
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 76).
`
`15
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner does not presently dispute Petitioner’s contentions for
`
`this limitation, and we find that Petitioner’s showing is sufficient to establish
`
`that it would be present in this combination.
`
`“wherein the first wireless transmit and receive component is
`configured to communicate using a plurality of antennas”
`
`Petitioner relies on its claim 14 analysis for this limitation.” See Pet.
`
`30. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “the combination modifies the phone
`
`to include multiple antennas for cellular communication as taught by
`
`Johnston,” that these antennas “simultaneously receive or transmit two or
`
`three components of electromagnetic energy,” and that “Johnston’s antennas
`
`are simultaneously used so that combiner 370 combines the signals received
`
`via these antennas.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 1005, 1:5–7, 6:5–15,
`
`11:9–23, 12:6–46, Figure 29B; Ex. 1028, 316–321).
`
`Patent Owner does not presently dispute Petitioner’s contentions for
`
`this limitation, and we find that Petitioner’s showing is sufficient to establish
`
`that it would be met in this combination.
`
`“wherein a transmission interface is created and wherein said
`transmission interface uses a plurality of IP enabled interfaces on
`the mobile device which utilize the plurality of wireless transmit
`and receive components on the mobile device to enable a single
`interface comprised of multiplexed signals from the plurality
`of wireless transmit and receive components”
`
`Petitioner’s Contentions
`
`Petitioner argues that Yegoshin’s device “creates a transmission
`
`interface” for voice communication from the two wireless transmit/receive
`
`components for cellular and WLAN. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118;
`
`Ex. 1004, 3:17–4:42, 4:59–7:25).
`
`16
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`
`Petitioner contends that Yegoshin’s “‘second communication
`
`interface’ is for IP-LAN and corresponds to or uses an IP enabled interface
`
`because it “compris[es] circuitry for connecting to a local area network
`
`(LAN), and for receiving and sending the audio data on the LAN.” Pet. 31
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, 3:17-34; Ex 1003 ¶ 119).
`
`Petitioner further contends that “Yegoshin’s ‘first communication
`
`interface’ . . . is for IP communication and corresponds to or uses an IP
`
`enabled interface to take ‘cellular calls in IP format.’” Pet. 31 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004, 3:17–34, 8:47–56; Ex. 1003 ¶ 120). Petitioner asserts that, in the
`
`combination, “Yegoshin’s ‘first communication interface’ corresponds to or
`
`uses an IP enabled interface for ‘providing packet data communication
`
`services’ using IP over cellular networks, as taught by Billström.” Pet. 31
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 121; Ex. 1006, 1:6:12, 1:54–60, 3:53–61).
`
`Petitioner next asserts that “Yegoshin’s phone enables a single
`
`interface comprised of multiplexed signals from its first and second
`
`communication interfaces for cellular and WLAN (first and second wireless
`
`transmit and receive components).” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 122). For
`
`“multiplexing,” Petitioner argues that “Yegoshin’s phone switches between
`
`cellular and IP-LAN modes, and [is] also ‘capable of taking some calls via
`
`cellular path while receiving other calls via IP path.’” Pet. 31–32 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004, 5:33–65). Petitioner asserts that the claimed “single interface”
`
`would be one that “includes or is coupled to the ‘speaker apparatus’ of the
`
`phone.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 122; Ex. 1004, 3:18–22).
`
`Petitioner asserts that the device of the combination “communicates
`
`on cellular and WLAN selectively or simultaneously (as taught by
`
`Yegoshin) using IP-enabled cellular and WLAN communication interfaces
`
`17
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653 B1
`
`(as taught by Yegoshin and Billström),” and that the artisan “would have
`
`found it obvious that, to receive calls on both cellular and WLAN
`
`simultaneously or to switch between two networks, the phone multiplexes
`
`the signals communicated on two network paths.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`¶ 123; Ex. 1004, 5:33–65; Ex. 1006, 1:6–12, 1:54–60, 3:53–61).
`
`In the alternative, Petitioner argues that “[t]he known multiplexing
`
`features are further confirmed by Bernard,” and that one of skill in the art
`
`“would have found it obvious to implement or modify Yegoshin-Johnston-
`
`Billström’s phone based on Bernard’s features in a way that further renders
`
`[this limitation] obvious.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 126).
`
`In this connection, Petitioner refers to Bernard’s Figure 10, which,
`
`Petitioner argues, discloses “‘communication server 750’ that handles each
`
`data packet coming into/from each of the multiple communication circuits