PATENT OWNER’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`OCTOBER 24, 2023
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.
`
` v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,946 B1
`
`IPR2022-01249
`
`PHILIP J. GRAVES, COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 1 of 141
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`OCTOBER 24, 2023
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.
`
` v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,946 B1
`
`IPR2022-01249
`
`PHILIP J. GRAVES, COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 1 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner Has Inundated The Board and Patent Owner with
`New Evidence and Arguments
`
`41 pages of
`“supplemental”
`expert testimony
`
`56 pages of
`reply expert
`testimony
`
`21 new exhibits
`
`EX-1050; EX-1051; EX-1052-1071.
`
`2
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 2 of 141
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioner Fails to Prove its Combinations Disclose or Render Obvious “Multiplexed Signals”
`–
`Yegoshin Does Not Disclose “Multiplexed” Signals
`–
`Bernard Does Not Disclose “Multiplexed” Signals
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Add Bernard’s Serial Interface to Yegoshin-Johnston-Billström
`–
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Yegoshin Discloses “Combin[ing] Data Paths into a Single Transmission
`Interface to One or More Applications”
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Yegoshin-Billström Discloses or Renders Obvious Multiple IP Addresses or
`Interfaces
`–
`Petitioner Fails to Explain How Yegoshin’s Device Would Use Two IP Addresses
`– Modifying Yegoshin to Implement Billström’s Cellular Network Would Have Been Beyond the Skill of a POSITA
`Petitioner Fails to Show Simultaneous Use of Multiple Network Paths
`Petitioner Fails to Show “Two Network Paths” Connected to the Same Server, and Use of the Second
`Network Path “In Response to a Change in the Signal Strength and/or Connectivity”
`–
`Yegoshin’s Phone Does Not Operate or Communicate to any Server on First and Second Network Paths
`–
`The Second Wireless Transmit and Receive Unit Does Not Communicate to any Remote Server In Response to a
`Change in Signal Strength or Connectivity
`Petitioner Fails to Prove its Combinations Disclose or Render Obvious Several Dependent Claims
`–
`Claim 2
`–
`Claim 10
`
`3
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 3 of 141
`
`
`
`Claim 1:
`“A Single Interface Comprised of Multiplexed Signals”
`
`Pet., 33-34; EX-1001, cl. 1.
`
`4
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 4 of 141
`
`
`
`What is the Definition of “Multiplexed” Signals?
`
`Pet., 2; EX-2003, 37.
`
`5
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 5 of 141
`
`
`
`The Petition Argues Yegoshin’s Phone Communicates On
`Cellular and WLAN “Selectively or Simultaneously”
`
`POR, 6; Pet., 34; EX-1004, 5:33-65.
`
`6
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 6 of 141
`
`
`
`Yegoshin Does Not Disclose Simultaneous Calls Over Cellular
`and WLAN
`
`If Yegoshin’s phone is engaged
`with an IP (WLAN) call, an
`incoming cellular call gets a busy
`signal or is redirected to the
`WLAN path. It is not connected
`over the cellular path.
`
`POR, 7; Ex-1004, 5:55-65; EX-2019, ¶54.
`
`7
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 7 of 141
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s Calls are Serviced Over Either the Cellular or
`WLAN Networks, But Never Both
`
`POR, 7-9; EX-2019, ¶55.
`
`8
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 8 of 141
`
`
`
`Calls are Redirected at the Network Level, Not on the Phone
`
`Sur-Reply, 2-3; EX-1004, 8:16-27, Fig. 3.
`
`9
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 9 of 141
`
`
`
`None of Dr. Jensen’s Cites Support His Claim that Yegoshin
`Suggests Routing Calls Through Cellular and WLAN Networks
`Simultaneously
`
`Sur-Reply, 2-3; EX-1004, 8:47-56; EX-1051, ¶55.
`
`10
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 10 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s “Three-Way Linking” Argument is Meritless and
`Undeveloped
`
`What’s missing?
`
`No explanation of the modifications that would have been
`necessary to implement “three-way linking” of cellular and WLAN
`networks on Yegoshin’s phone.
`
`No testimony showing a motivation to combine.
`
`No testimony showing a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`No knowledge: Dr. Jensen does not even know whether the “well
`known” “three-way linking” was implemented on a phone or at the
`network level, in which case it could not even arguably indicate
`“simultaneous” multiplexing.
`
`Sur-Reply, 20; EX-1051, ¶55; EX-2035, 61:21-62:21.
`
`11
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 11 of 141
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s “Selective” Use of Cellular or WLAN Networks
`Does Not Teach Interleaving
`
`POR, 11-12; EX-2019, ¶58; EX-1004, 5:55-65.
`
`12
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 12 of 141
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s “Selective” Use of Cellular or WLAN Networks
`Does Not Teach Interleaving
`
`POR, 11-12; EX-2019, ¶59; EX-2023, 577.
`
`13
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 13 of 141
`
`
`
`Dr. Jensen’s Testimony in His First Deposition Eviscerates
`Petitioner’s “Selective” Use Argument
`
`Dr. Jensen: “Interleaving” is “one or a few packets from
`one, and then one or a few packets from another if they
`were, sort of, simultaneously in communication and
`transferring data.” Yegoshin’s purported “selective” use to
`make one completed call, and then another unrelated
`completed call, does not “interleave.”
`
`POR, 12; Sur-Reply, 19; EX-2020, 65:19-66:4; EX-2023, 577.
`
`14
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 14 of 141
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s “Selective” Use of Cellular or WLAN Networks
`Does Not Teach Multiplexing
`
`POR, 12; EX-2019, ¶61; EX-2023, 577.
`
`15
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 15 of 141
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s “Selective” Use of Cellular or WLAN Networks
`Does Not Teach Multiplexing
`
`POR, 12; EX-2019, ¶¶63-64; EX-2028, 40.
`
`16
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 16 of 141
`
`
`
`Dr. Jensen’s Self-Impeaching Testimony on the Meaning of
`“Multiplexing”
`
`Dr. Jensen: Two
`unrelated,
`completed calls
`one year apart are
`“multiplexed.”
`
`Dr. Jensen: Two
`unrelated,
`completed calls 50
`years apart are
`“multiplexed.”
`
`Dr. Jensen: I don’t
`have an opinion on
`the plain meaning
`of “multiplex.”
`
`Dr. Jensen: There
`is no time frame
`that would change
`the calls to being
`not “multiplexed.”
`
`Sur-Reply, 16; EX-2035, 55:5-56:11, 63:13-16.
`
`17
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 17 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Treatises Do Not Support Dr. Jensen’s
`Understanding of “Multiplexing”
`
`Dividing time into equal
`preassigned time slots
`contradicts Dr. Jensen’s “any
`time, any length” understanding
`of “multiplexing.”
`
`Sur-Reply, 17; EX-1010; EX-1012.
`
`18
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 18 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Dictionaries Do Not Support Dr. Jensen’s
`Understanding of “Multiplexing”
`
`Sur-Reply, 17-18; EX-1061; EX-1062.
`
`19
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 19 of 141
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Either Yegoshin or Bernard Discloses “Multiplexed Signals”
`–
`Yegoshin Does Not Disclose “Multiplexed” Signals
`–
`Bernard Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Multiplexed” Signals
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Add Bernard’s Serial Interface to Yegoshin-Johnston-Billström
`–
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Yegoshin Discloses “Combin[ing] Data Paths into a Single Transmission
`Interface to One or More Applications”
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Yegoshin-Billström Discloses or Renders Obvious Multiple IP Addresses or
`Interfaces
`–
`Petitioner Fails to Explain How Yegoshin’s Device Would Use Two IP Addresses
`– Modifying Yegoshin to Implement Billström’s Cellular Network Would Have Been Beyond the Skill of a POSITA
`Petitioner Fails to Show Simultaneous Use of Multiple Network Paths
`Petitioner Fails to Show “Two Network Paths” Connected to the Same Server, and Use of the Second
`Network Path “In Response to a Change in the Signal Strength and/or Connectivity”
`–
`Yegoshin’s Phone Does Not Operate or Communicate to any Server on First and Second Network Paths
`–
`The Second Wireless Transmit and Receive Unit Does Not Communicate to any Remote Server In Response to a
`Change in Signal Strength or Connectivity
`Petitioner Fails to Prove its Combinations Disclose or Render Obvious Several Dependent Claims
`–
`Claim 2
`–
`Claim 10
`
`20
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 20 of 141
`
`
`
`Petition: Bernard’s Packet Interface 752 Includes a
`Multiplexer, Which is “Decoder/Multiplexer 112”
`
`Pet., 38; POR, 15; EX-1007, Fig. 4.
`
`21
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 21 of 141
`
`
`
`“Decoder/Multiplexer 112” is Part of Bernard’s First
`Embodiment, Not its Second Embodiment
`
`POR, 15; EX-1004, Fig. 4; EX-2019, ¶67.
`
`22
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 22 of 141
`
`
`
`“Decoder/Multiplexer 112” Does Not Multiplex Signals
`
`POR, 15; EX-1007, Fig. 4; EX-2019, ¶68.
`
`23
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 23 of 141
`
`
`
`“Decoder/Multiplexer 112” Does Not Multiplex Signals
`
`POR, 15; EX-2019, ¶69; EX-2023, 716.
`
`24
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 24 of 141
`
`
`
`“Decoder/Multiplexer 112” is Merely a Data Selector
`
`POR, 15; EX-1007, Fig. 4; EX-2019, ¶70.
`
`25
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 25 of 141
`
`
`
`“Packet Interface 752” Does Not Multiplex
`
`Pet., 37; POR, 16-17; EX-2019, ¶73.
`
`26
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 26 of 141
`
`
`
`“Packet Interface 752” Services Application Requests
`One at a Time
`
`Ex. 1007, 26:56-66.
`
`POR, 16; EX-1007, 26:56-65; EX-2019, ¶74.
`
`27
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 27 of 141
`
`
`
`“Packet Interface 752” Services Application Requests
`One at a Time
`
`Ex. 1007, 18:36-51
`Incoming packets are identified by type, not by
`address, which means that there cannot be
`different requests pending for different data of
`the same type.
`
`POR, 16-17; EX-1007, 18:36-51; EX-2019, ¶75.
`
`28
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 28 of 141
`
`
`
`Bernard Does Not Disclose an Application Requesting Data
`from Different Communication Circuits
`
`Ex. 1007, 17:61-18:2
`
`Ex. 1007, 26:56-66.
`
`An “example” illustrating that each
`application can utilize any of the
`communication circuits. No suggestion that
`the application may utilize the exemplary
`circuits simultaneously.
`
`POR, 16, 36-37; Sur-Reply, 22; EX-1007, 17:61-18:2; EX-1051, ¶64.
`
`29
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 29 of 141
`
`
`
`“Packet Interface 752” Just Receives and Transfers Packets
`
`POR, 17; EX-1007, Fig. 12; EX-2020, 59:2-23.
`
`30
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 30 of 141
`
`
`
`“Communication Server 750” Does Not Simultaneously
`Transmit Signals
`
`POR, 17-18; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2019, ¶¶76-77.
`
`31
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 31 of 141
`
`
`
`“Communication Server 750” Sends Signals Over a Serial
`Interface
`
`POPR, 43-45; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2019, ¶48.
`
`32
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 32 of 141
`
`
`
`A Serial Interface Sends Data One Bit at a Time
`
`POPR, 45; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2019, ¶49.
`
`33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 33 of 141
`
`
`
`“Communication Server 750” Services Requests
`One at a Time
`
`POR, 18; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2019, ¶78.
`
`34
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 34 of 141
`
`
`
`“Communication Server 750” Does Not Multiplex Under
`Patent Owner’s District Court Construction
`
`POR, 18; EX-2019, ¶79; EX-2023, 577.
`
`35
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 35 of 141
`
`
`
`Bernard’s “Alternative Interconnection” Does Not Multiplex
`
`POR, 18-19; EX-1007, 26:56-65; EX-2019, ¶80.
`
`36
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 36 of 141
`
`
`
`Bernard’s “Alternative Interconnection” Would not Use a
`Serial Interface
`
`No testimony regarding:
`• What Dr. Jensen thinks the “alternative
`interconnection” might be;
`• Why or how it would necessarily multiplex
`signals; or
`Any reasonable expectation of success in doing
`so.
`
`•
`
`POR, 19; Sur-Reply, 21; EX-1007, 26:56-65; EX-2019, ¶81.
`
`37
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 37 of 141
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Either Yegoshin or Bernard Discloses “Multiplexed Signals”
`–
`Yegoshin Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Multiplexed” Signals
`•
`No Inherency or Single Reference Obviousness
`•
`Yegoshin Does Not Multiplex Cellular and WLAN Signals
`Bernard Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Multiplexed” Signals
`–
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Add Bernard’s Serial Interface to Yegoshin-Johnston-Billström
`–
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Yegoshin Discloses “Combin[ing] Data Paths into a Single Transmission
`Interface to One or More Applications”
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Yegoshin-Billström Discloses or Renders Obvious Multiple IP Addresses or
`Interfaces
`–
`Petitioner Fails to Explain How Yegoshin’s Device Would Use Two IP Addresses
`– Modifying Yegoshin to Implement Billström’s Cellular Network Would Have Been Beyond the Skill of a POSITA
`Petitioner Fails to Show Simultaneous Use of Multiple Network Paths
`Petitioner Fails to Show “Two Network Paths” Connected to the Same Server, and Use of the Second
`Network Path “In Response to a Change in the Signal Strength and/or Connectivity”
`–
`Yegoshin’s Phone Does Not Operate or Communicate to any Server on First and Second Network Paths
`–
`The Second Wireless Transmit and Receive Unit Does Not Communicate to any Remote Server In Response to a
`Change in Signal Strength or Connectivity
`Petitioner Fails to Prove its Combinations Disclose or Render Obvious Several Dependent Claims
`–
`Claim 2
`–
`Claim 10
`
`38
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 38 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Cradle (First) Scenario
`
`POR, 20-21; Pet., 39-40.
`
`39
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 39 of 141
`
`
`
`What Would Bernard’s Cradle Add to Yegoshin’s Phone?
`
`POPR, 40-41; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2019, ¶45.
`
`40
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 40 of 141
`
`
`
`Why Would Yegoshin’s Phone Use Cellular and WLAN
`Networks Through Bernard’s Cradle?
`
`Cellular
`and WLAN
`interfaces
`
`Yegoshin’s Phone
`
`Bernard’s Cradle
`
`POR, 21-22; EX-1004, Fig. 1; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2019, ¶86.
`
`41
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 41 of 141
`
`
`
`The Yegoshin-Cradle Combination Would Use Yegoshin’s
`Internal Cellular and WLAN Connections
`
`Cellular
`and WLAN signals generated
`and received within
`Yegoshin’s phone
`
`Yegoshin’s Phone
`
`Bernard’s Cradle
`
`POR, 21-22; EX-1004, Fig. 1; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2019, ¶87.
`
`42
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 42 of 141
`
`
`
`The Disadvantages Substantially Outweigh the Minimal
`Benefit of Combining Yegoshin’s Phone with Bernard’s
`Cradle
`
`Cellular
`and WLAN signals generated
`and received within
`Yegoshin’s phone
`
`Yegoshin’s Phone
`
`Bernard’s Cradle
`
`POR, 22-23; EX-1004, Fig. 1; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2019, ¶88.
`
`43
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 43 of 141
`
`
`
`Dr. Jensen: “There’d Be Some Redundancy There”
`
`Cellular
`and WLAN signals generated
`and received within
`Yegoshin’s phone
`
`Yegoshin’s Phone
`
`Bernard’s Cradle
`
`POR, 24; EX-1004, Fig. 1; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2029, 72:2-21.
`
`44
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 44 of 141
`
`
`
`Bernard’s Cradle Was Meant for PDAs, Not Phones Like
`Yegoshin’s
`
`Apple Newton
`
`Bernard’s Cradle
`
`POR, 23-24; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2019, ¶89.
`
`45
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 45 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s New “PDA, Not Phone” Combination is Tardy
`and Unsupported
`
`Reply:
`Okay, use a PDA instead of
`Yegoshin’s phone
`
`However:
`
`•
`
`The Petition’s combination was
`Bernard’s cradle with Yegoshin’s
`phone, not some unidentified
`hypothetical “PDA.”
`• No testimony showing a motivation
`to use this unidentified PDA.
`• No explanation supporting a
`reasonable likelihood of success.
`• No support in the record.
`
`Pet., 39; Sur-Reply, 24.
`
`46
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 46 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Integrated (Second) Scenario
`
`POR, 25; Pet., 40-42; EX-1007, Fig. 10.
`
`47
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 47 of 141
`
`
`
`Bernard’s Serial Interface is a Bottleneck
`
`POR, 25-26; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2019, ¶48.
`
`48
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 48 of 141
`
`
`
`Bernard’s Serial Interface Sends Data One Bit at a Time
`
`POR, 27; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2019, ¶49.
`
`49
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 49 of 141
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Recognize that Using Bernard’s Serial
`Interface Would be Detrimental and Unnecessary
`
`POR, 27-28; EX-1007, Fig. 10; EX-2019, ¶50.
`
`50
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 50 of 141
`
`
`
`A Serial Interface is “Very Disadvantageous” Compared to
`Other Interfacing Techniques
`
`POR, 27-28; EX-2012; EX-2019, ¶50.
`
`51
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 51 of 141
`
`
`
`A Serial Interface is “Very Disadvantageous” Compared to
`Other Interfacing Techniques
`
`POR, 27-28; EX-2013; EX-2019, ¶50.
`
`52
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 52 of 141
`
`
`
`A Serial Interface is “Very Disadvantageous” Compared to
`Other Interfacing Techniques
`
`POR, 27-28; EX-2010; EX-2019, ¶50.
`
`53
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 53 of 141
`
`
`
`A Serial Interface is “Very Disadvantageous” Compared to
`Other Interfacing Techniques
`
`POR, 27-28; EX-2009; EX-2019, ¶50.
`
`54
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 54 of 141
`
`
`
`A Serial Interface is “Very Disadvantageous” Compared to
`Other Interfacing Techniques
`
`POR, 28; EX-2009; EX-2019, ¶51.
`
`55
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 55 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s “Advantages” Don’t Result From the Serial
`Interface or “Multiplexing”
`
`Purported “advantages:”
`
`• Avoids the need for a separate cradle device and thus makes the device compact and
`easy to carry, improving the mobility of the device.
`• Would achieve the benefits of Bernard’s multi-network connectivity without requiring the
`mobile device to be connected to the cradle (same as above).
`The communication server 750 (including the packet interface 752 and packet distributor
`754) provides an interface that masks from particular applications the complexity of
`communicating directly with the cellular and WLAN communication components.
`• Connect to one or more different available network services.
`
`•
`
`None of these result from incorporating Bernard’s serial interface into
`Yegoshin’s phone, or from incorporating any purported “multiplexing”
`functionality into Yegoshin’s phone.
`
`Sur-Reply, 26; EX-1003, ¶¶137-38, 144.
`
`56
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 56 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s “Advantages” Lack a Rational Connection to
`the Claimed Invention
`
`Reversing the Board’s decision holding all challenged claims unpatentable because the
`petitioner’s expert declaration “‘fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed
`invention does.’” TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Systems, Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
`2019) (citing ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis in original).
`
`Reversing the examiner’s rejection of claims in an application. “[T]he Examiner cites a
`motivation to combine that is expressly tied to a teaching not used in the combination;
`thus the rejection lacks a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`obviousness. ‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
`conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
`rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Ex Parte Foster,
`Appeal No. 2019-002355, 2020 WL 2731806, *2 (PTAB May 20, 2020) (citing In re Kahn, 441
`F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`Sur-Reply, 26.
`
`57
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 57 of 141
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Either Yegoshin or Bernard Discloses “Multiplexed Signals”
`–
`Yegoshin Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Multiplexed” Signals
`•
`No Inherency or Single Reference Obviousness
`•
`Yegoshin Does Not Multiplex Cellular and WLAN Signals
`Bernard Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Multiplexed” Signals
`–
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Add Bernard’s Serial Interface to Yegoshin-Johnston-Billström
`–
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Yegoshin Discloses “Combin[ing] Data Paths into a Single Transmission
`Interface to One or More Applications”
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Yegoshin-Billström Discloses or Renders Obvious Multiple IP Addresses or
`Interfaces
`–
`Petitioner Fails to Explain How Yegoshin’s Device Would Use Two IP Addresses
`– Modifying Yegoshin to Implement Billström’s Cellular Network Would Have Been Beyond the Skill of a POSITA
`Petitioner Fails to Show Simultaneous Use of Multiple Network Paths
`Petitioner Fails to Show “Two Network Paths” Connected to the Same Server, and Use of the Second
`Network Path “In Response to a Change in the Signal Strength and/or Connectivity”
`–
`Yegoshin’s Phone Does Not Operate or Communicate to any Server on First and Second Network Paths
`–
`The Second Wireless Transmit and Receive Unit Does Not Communicate to any Remote Server In Response to a
`Change in Signal Strength or Connectivity
`Petitioner Fails to Prove its Combinations Disclose or Render Obvious Several Dependent Claims
`–
`Claim 2
`–
`Claim 10
`
`58
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 58 of 141
`
`
`
`Claims 6 and 17 Require a Processor Configured to Combine
`the Data Paths Into a Single Transmission Interface to One or
`More Applications
`
`POR, 9; EX-1001, cls. 6, 17; EX-2019, ¶93.
`
`59
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 59 of 141
`
`
`
`The Specification Provides Examples
`
`POR, 29-30; EX-1001, Fig. 9; EX-2019, ¶94.
`
`60
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 60 of 141
`
`
`
`The Petition’s Combinations Fail to Disclose Combining the
`Data Paths into a Single Transmission Interface
`
`Pet., 58; POR, 30-31; EX-2019, ¶96.
`
`61
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 61 of 141
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s Phone Does Not Combine the Cellular and WLAN
`Paths
`
`Ex. 1004, 5:33-44
`
`Ex. 1004, 8:15-27
`
`POR, 31-33; EX-1004, 5:33-44, 8:15-27; EX-2019, ¶97.
`
`62
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 62 of 141
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s Phone Does Not Combine the Cellular and WLAN
`Paths
`
`Ex. 1004, 5:55-65
`
`POR, 31-33; EX-1004, 5:55-56; EX-2019, ¶98.
`
`63
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 63 of 141
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s Phone Does Not Combine the Cellular and WLAN
`Paths
`
`POR, 31-33; EX-1004, Fig. 2; EX-2019, ¶98.
`
`64
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 64 of 141
`
`
`
`The Board Should Not Consider Petitioner’s New “Virtual
`Path” Theory
`
`What is “combined?”
`“The signals received
`over cellular and
`WLAN.” Not abstract
`“data paths” that exist
`independent of the
`signals sent or
`received by the phone.
`
`Pet., 58; Sur-Reply, 12.
`
`65
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 65 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s New “Virtual Path” Theory is Meritless
`
`How can “the
`processor” be
`configured to combine
`the data paths into a
`single transmission
`interface unless the
`data paths comprise
`actual data?
`
`Sur-Reply, 12; EX-1001, cls. 6, 17.
`
`66
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 66 of 141
`
`
`
`Dr. Jensen Conflates the “Single Transmission Interface” with
`“One or More Applications”
`
`The “single transmission interface” is a separate element
`from the “applications.” The processor combines the
`data paths into a single transmission interface “to” the
`applications, so the applications receive the already
`combined data paths and cannot themselves be the
`“transmission interface.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco
`Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir.
`2010). Dr. Jensen’s mapping makes a hash of the claims
`
`Sur-Reply, 12; EX-1001, cls. 6, 17; EX-2035, 64:9-17.
`
`67
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 67 of 141
`
`
`
`Neither of Yegoshin’s Networks is a “Virtual Path”
`
`Circuit-switched (Yegoshin’s
`cellular) network: the network
`provides a dedicated “path.”
`
`Packet-switched (WLAN)
`network: the “path” does not
`exist until the packets are sent.
`
`Sur-Reply, 12; EX-2035, 14:14-15:4, 15:12-21.
`
`68
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 68 of 141
`
`
`
`Dr. Jensen’s Effort to Defend His New “Virtual Path” Theory
`Ties Him In Knots
`
`The phone uses only
`one network for the
`entire duration of a
`call. Dr. Jensen:
`“that is a form of
`combining.”
`
`Two separate calls
`one year apart. Dr.
`Jensen: “those data
`paths are merged.”
`
`Sur-Reply, 12; EX-2035, 35:23-36:6, 38:3-13, 45:9-46:6.
`
`69
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 69 of 141
`
`
`
`Bernard Does Not Combine Data Paths Into a Single
`Transmission Interface to One or More Applications
`
`POR, 33-36; EX-2019, ¶¶99-100.
`
`70
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 70 of 141
`
`
`
`Bernard Does Not Combine Data Paths Into a Single
`Transmission Interface to One or More Applications
`
`POR, 34-35; EX-1007, 21:30-38, 55-59, 22:5-8; EX-2019, ¶101.
`
`71
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 71 of 141
`
`
`
`Bernard’s Data Paths are Separated Upon Arrival at the
`Mobile Device
`
`POR, 35-36; EX-1007, Fig. 11; EX-2019, ¶102.
`
`72
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 72 of 141
`
`
`
`Bernard Teaches that Only One Connection May Be
`Established at a Time
`
`POR, 37; EX-1007, 26:56-65; EX-2019, ¶104.
`
`73
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 73 of 141
`
`
`
`Bernard’s “Alternative Embodiment” Does Not Combine
`Data Paths into a Single Interface to an Application
`
`POR, 37; EX-1007, 26:56-65; EX-2019, ¶105.
`
`74
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 74 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Provide a Reason to Modify Yegoshin to
`Combine Cellular and WLAN Data Paths
`
`Ex. 1004, 2:55-65
`
`Ex. 1004, 3:11-15
`
`Ex. 1004, 8:15-27
`POR, 37-38; EX-1004, 2:55-65, 3:11-15, 8:15-27; EX-2019, ¶¶107-108.
`
`75
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 75 of 141
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioner Fails to Prove its Combinations Disclose or Render Obvious “Multiplexed Signals”
`–
`Yegoshin Does Not Disclose “Multiplexed” Signals
`–
`Bernard Does Not Disclose “Multiplexed” Signals
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Add Bernard’s Serial Interface to Yegoshin-Johnston-Billström
`–
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Yegoshin Discloses “Combin[ing] Data Paths into a Single Transmission
`Interface to One or More Applications”
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Yegoshin-Billström Discloses or Renders Obvious Multiple IP Addresses or
`Interfaces
`–
`Petitioner Fails to Explain How Yegoshin’s Device Would Use Two IP Addresses
`– Modifying Yegoshin to Implement Billström’s Cellular Network Would Have Been Beyond the Skill of a POSITA
`Petitioner Fails to Show Simultaneous Use of Multiple Network Paths
`Petitioner Fails to Show “Two Network Paths” Connected to the Same Server, and Use of the Second
`Network Path “In Response to a Change in the Signal Strength and/or Connectivity”
`–
`Yegoshin’s Phone Does Not Operate or Communicate to any Server on First and Second Network Paths
`–
`The Second Wireless Transmit and Receive Unit Does Not Communicate to any Remote Server In Response to a
`Change in Signal Strength or Connectivity
`Petitioner Fails to Prove its Combinations Disclose or Render Obvious Several Dependent Claims
`–
`Claim 2
`–
`Claim 10
`
`76
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 76 of 141
`
`
`
`Multiple IP Addresses or Interfaces
`
`Pet., 18-19; EX-1001, cls. 1, 14.
`
`77
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 77 of 141
`
`
`
`Yegoshin and Billström’s Phones Have Only One IP Address
`
`POR, 39; EX-1004, 8:15-34; EX-1006, 8:18-21; EX-2019, ¶113.
`
`78
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 78 of 141
`
`
`
`Yegoshin’s Phone Does Not Select Between Multiple
`IP Addresses
`
`Ex. 1004, 8:15-34
`
`Ex. 1004, 8:47-56
`
`POR, 39-40; EX-1004, 8:15-34; 47-56; EX-2019, ¶114.
`
`79
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 79 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Yegoshin-Billström Phone Cannot Determine
`Which IP Address to Use Based on Telephone Number
`
`1:54-58
`
`6:11-13
`
`8:47-49
`
`9:38-43
`
`10:62-64
`
`POR, 40-41; EX-1006, 1:54-58, 6:11-13, 8:47-49, 9:38-43, 10:62-64; EX-2019, ¶115.
`
`80
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 80 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Yegoshin-Billström Phone Cannot Determine
`Which IP Address to Use Based on Telephone Number
`
`14:1-30
`
`POR, 40-41; EX-1006, 14:1-30; EX-2019, ¶115.
`
`81
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 81 of 141
`
`
`
`Multiple IP Addresses or Interfaces
`
`Cellular
`number
`
`IP address
`
`POR, 41; EX-1004, Fig. 3; EX-2019, ¶117.
`
`82
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 82 of 141
`
`
`
`Multiple IP Addresses or Interfaces
`
`Cellular
`number
`
`IP address
`
`POR, 41; EX-1004, Fig. 3; EX-2019, ¶118.
`
`83
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 83 of 141
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Explain How its Yegoshin-Billström
`Combination Would Work
`
`Petitioner failed “to explain sufficiently how a POSA would have implemented Hieda’s
`source/drain contact areas in Inaba’s device,” where compatibility of references was
`neither “self-evident” nor explained. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. KAIST IP US LLC, IPR2017-
`01046, Papers 12 at 18-20 (Oct. 2, 2017) and 14 at 7 (Jan. 22, 2018).
`
`“[T]he evidence supports that it would have been no[t] simple or well-understood or
`obvious matter to make the combination” where, inter alia, “Petitioner never
`satisfactorily explains just how the combination would work . . . .” Alcon Inc. v. AMO
`Dev., LLC, IPR2021-00853, Paper 48, 50-56 (Dec. 2, 2022).
`
`POR, 42.
`
`84
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2038
`Page 84 of 141
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioner Fails to Prove its Combinations
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
