Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 52
`Entered: December 13, 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)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 24, 2023
`________________
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, GARTH D. BAER, and AARON W. MOORE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 52
`Entered: December 13, 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)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 24, 2023
`________________
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, GARTH D. BAER, and AARON W. MOORE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`W. KARL RENNER, ESQ.
`JEREMY J. MONALDO, ESQ.
`SANGI PARK, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`(202) 626-6447
`
`ANDREW S. EHMKE, ESQ.
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2801 N. Harwood Street
`Suite 2300
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 651-5116
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`KENNETH WEATHERWAX, ESQ.
`NATHAN LOWENSTEIN, ESQ.
`PARHAM HENDIFAR, ESQ.
`COLETTE WOO., ESQ.
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`1016 Pico Boulevard
`Santa Monica, California 90405
`(310) 307-4503
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`
`
`
`PHILIP J. GRAVES, ESQ.
`GREER N. SHAW, ESQ.
`Graves & Shaw LLP
`365 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 204-5101
`
`REX HWANG, ESQ.
`Skiermont Derby LLP
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 5800
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`(213) 788-4500
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, October
`24, 2023, commencing at 1:06 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE JUNG: This is the oral arguments for IPR2022-01248
`IPR2022-01249. In the 1248 proceeding, Petitioner Apple and Samsung
`challenge claims 1 through 21, and 23 through 30 of U.S. Patent number
`8,842,653 or the ’653 patent. In the 1249 proceeding, Petitioner challenges
`claims 1 through 21 and 26 through 30 of U.S. Patent Number 9,019,946 or
`the ’946 patent. Both the ’653 and the ’946 Patents are owned by Smart
`Mobile Technologies, LLC. Beginning with the Petitioner’s counsel,
`followed by Patent Owner’s counsel, please state your names for the record.
`MR. MONALDO: Thank you, Your Honor, this is Jeremy Monaldo.
`I’m arguing on behalf of Petitioner Samsung. I’m joined by Lead Counsel
`Karl Renner, in the conference room here, as well as my colleague Sangi
`Park, attending remotely. Also joining the hearing is Andy Ehmke, on
`behalf of Apple. And we have Phillip Lee from Samsung attending on the
`public line.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you, Mr. Monaldo.
`MR. HENDIFAR: Yes, Good Your Honor. Parham Hendifar. With
`me, my colleague Collette Woo. And we’ll be arguing portions of the 1248
`argument for Patent Owner would be my I will be arguing a portion of the
`IPR 1248. With me in the room is counsel Nathan Lowenstein, and we have
`also on the line Lead Counsel Kenneth Weatherwax.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you, Mr. Hendifar. And counsel for 1249?
`MR. GRAVES: Good morning, or good afternoon, Your Honor.
`Phillip Graves for the Patent Owner. And with me are my colleagues Greer
`Shaw and Rex Hwang. As well.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you Mr. Graves. Same reminders as before, if
`you encounter any technical difficulties, please let us know immediately,
`even if you have to interrupt. If you’re not speaking, please mute yourself.
`Please identify yourself each time you speak, so we can make the transcript
`clear. And please refer to demonstrative, papers, and exhibits by slide or
`page number.
`Lastly the panel is aware there are objections to the Petitioner’s slides
`80, 86 and 95 in the 1248 proceeding. And to, Patent Owner’s slides 19, 22,
`23, 27, 28, 51, 153 and 155. And in 1249, there are objections to Patent
`Owner’s slides 100 and 101, and Petitioner’s slides 80, 86 and 95.
`Petitioner has 120 minutes of total argument time, and Patent Owner
`has 2 hours plus 15 minutes for the LEAP practitioner.
`Both sides may reserve time for rebuttal. I’ll track time, and we will
`likely take a break before rebuttal arguments are heard.
`All that said, Mr. Monaldo, you may proceed when you’re ready.
`Mr. Monaldo, you’re still muted.
`MR. MONALDO: Apologies, Your Honor. I just have a
`housekeeping item to start off. I just want to make sure I clearly understand
`how the hearing’s going to progress with the rebuttal argument, given the
`multiple counsel on the Patent Owner’s side. I’m assuming I have to present
`all of my arguments for both proceedings in the first stanza. The counsel
`will take their turn, but I’m not sure if there will be alternating rebuttal
`periods. If I rebut one of their counsel arguments, or how do you envision
`this going?
`JUDGE JUNG: No, I imagine that you will present both arguments
`for 1248, 1249. Patent owner will then present its responsive arguments for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`both. And they might have to switch counsel between cases for that
`responsive argument.
`And then, if you reserve rebuttal time, you will present your rebuttals
`together for 1248 and 1249, and then we’ll hear from the Patent Owner
`about 1248 and 1249 for both of these proceedings.
`MR. MONALDO: Okay. Thank you for the clarification, Your
`Honor. In terms of rebuttal, I think I’m going to try to aim for about 45
`minutes. Then I’m not sure I’ll be completely done by then, but that would
`be great.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Monaldo.
`MR. MONALDO. All right. Well, thank you, Your Honor. And start
`with the demonstratives for the ’653 patent proceeding, the 1248 proceeding.
`As shown on slide 2, 5 general issues have been raised in this proceeding.
`I’m planning to move through these issues in order, but I certainly want to
`make sure I answer any questions Your Honors have about any of the
`arguments advanced in this proceeding, or the 1249 proceeding.
`So unless there are any questions at the outset, I’ll jump right into the
`first issue related to multiple IP addresses and the combination of the
`Yegoshin and Billström.
`Moving to slide 11, as shown on slide 11, you see that the multiple IP
`address issue relates to challenged claims 14 to 16.
`Moving to slide 12, as shown on slide 12, you see the relevant
`language from claim 14. The mobile device maintains multiple IP
`addresses, wherein the first wireless component is accessible on the first IP
`address, and the second wireless component is accessible on a second IP
`address. It’s very simple. Multiple IP addresses, or a first, an IP address
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`being used on a first network, and a second IP address being used on a
`second network. No details on how the IP addresses must be used, or how
`they are assigned.
`Moving to slide 13, as shown at the left side of slide 13, you see
`Yegoshin’s system depicted in Figure 2. As shown at the center for Figure
`2, you have a cellular phone 9, that serves as a dual mode device, that
`accesses 2 different types of networks.
`You have a cellular network 23 with a mobile switching center 30,
`still at the upper left of Figure 2. And a wireless LAN, shown at the lower
`portion of figure 2. Yegoshin’s phone interacts with both networks at the
`same time, and switches between them. As shown at the lower portion of
`Figure 2, Yegoshin’s wireless LAN is an IP network, has assigned an IP
`address to Yegoshin’s phone, for use on the wireless LAN. You can see a
`description of this at the right side of slide 13.
`As shown at the upper right of slide 13, when a user operating cell
`phone 9 logs onto either the wireless LAN 38, or the wired LAN 39, he or
`she is assigned a temporary IP address for purposes of device identification.
`As shown at the lower right of slide 13, when a user, via the dual
`mode device 9, logs onto network 27 via LAN 38 or 39 of Figure 2, he or
`she will, during configuration, obtain a new and temporary IP address.
`So when Yegoshin’s phone logs onto the wireless LAN, it receives an
`IP address for communication on the wireless LAN. During this disclosure,
`Yegoshin expressly described the use of a first IP address on a first type of
`network, the wireless LAN. Then, moving to slide 14, I’d like to discuss
`Yegoshin’s cellular network. As shown at the upper left of slide 14,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`Yegoshin describes taking all cellular calls in IP format, using the IP code of
`protocol on the cellular network.
`Moving to slide 15, Yegoshin reinforces its contemplation of using IP
`to communicate on its cellular network. You see this at the upper left of
`slide 15, where Yegoshin describes an IP Network, and mentions the well
`known cellular system as being an example of the same. In the upper right
`of slide 15, you see Yegoshin states that its invention didn’t practice with
`wide area networks, such as cellular networks, and may be implemented on
`an IP LAN.
`In this description, Yegoshin again confirms that its cellular network,
`like its wireless LAN, uses the IP Protocol. However, unlike its description
`of the wireless LAN, Yegoshin does not provide details on how the IP based
`cellular communication occurs.
`Now, moving back to slide 14, you’ll see at the upper right of slide
`14, that Yegoshin describes a process where a user selects a type of network
`for communication, selects a protocol for voice communication, and sets up
`a temporary IP address on a network for the purpose of identifying and
`registering the device for normal operation on the network.
`Now, in this section of Yegoshin it’s not specific for the type of
`network. It doesn’t say it’s wireless LAN, or it doesn’t say it’s cellular. But
`through this description, you see Yegoshin provides general disclosure of
`how IP addresses are assigned, and suggests that when a user selects the
`cellular network of IP communication, the cellular phone sets up an IP
`address on the cellular network.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`
`But Yegoshin is not explicit on this point, and that is why a person of
`skill would have been motivated to turn to other references that describe IP
`communication on a cellular network, such as Billström.
`You see this, and you can see Billström’s disclosure on slide 16.
`Billström has clear disclosure of using an IP address for cellular
`communication. As shown at the upper portion of slide 16, you see
`Billström’s description that the mobile station’s IP address identifies the
`mobile station as belonging to a particular public LAN mobile network, or
`group of mobile switching centers.
`The middle excerpt of slide 16, similarly describes how a mobile
`station’s IP address identifies the mobile station as belonging to a particular
`MSE (phonetic), and in particular Mobile Switching Center. The same type
`of MSE already describing Yegoshin’s cellular network.
`And, as shown on the lower excerpt on slide 16, you see that
`Billström’s techniques are based on a standard connectionless IP protocol,
`the IP standard, which Billstrom describes as the de facto standard IP
`protocol used in the TCP/IP protocol sweep. Very simply, you use the
`standard IP technology to assign an IP address to a mobile device for IP
`communication in a cellular network. Though the description in Billström,
`in the description we earlier discussed about Yegoshin’s mention of using IP
`for cellular communication, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`certainly found it obvious to implement IP based communication on
`Yegoshin’s cellular network by assigning Yegoshin’s phone an IP address
`for its cellular network.
`In this case, the IP address for the cellular network would be
`Yegoshin’s second IP address, because Yegoshin already has a first IP
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`address, the IP address that is specific and assigned to its separate wireless
`LAN network. In the combination, the second IP address would identify
`Yegoshin’s phone as belonging to a particular mobile switching center, a
`component that is already in, and part of, Yegoshin’s cellular network, and
`would be used for the purpose of identifying and registering Yegoshin’s
`phone on the cellular network. A very simple combination. You have a first
`IP address for the wireless LAN, and second IP for the cellular network,
`simply using well-known, standardized technology to communicate using
`the IP protocol over both of Yegoshin’s networks, its wireless LAN and its
`cellular network.
`I’ll pause there, and see if there are any questions on this first issue,
`related to the multiple IP addresses, and the combination of Yegoshin and
`Billström?
`Seeing no questions, I’ll move to the second issue in our
`demonstratives. And it starts at slide 30, to discuss, it starts at slide 30.
`So, as shown on slide 30, the second issue relates to the remote server
`limitations in challenge claims 27 to 30. Moving to slide 31, you can see the
`relevant language for claim 37, wherein the first wireless transmitter receiver
`unit operates on a first network path, to a remote server. And the second
`wireless transmitter receiver unit communicates to the remote server on the
`second network path. It’s very simple. Again, 2 paths to a remote server.
`Moving to slide 32, as shown at the upper left of slide 32, you see the
`mapping that we advanced in the Petition for claim 27. As shown, the
`Petition quite clearly referenced the discussion of elements 17J, mapped the
`claimed remote server to a PSTN switch, and provided extensive citations to
`the Yegoshin reference.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`
`Given that claim 27 was addressed at the end of the Petition, and the
`Petition had already presented its view on the PSTN switch, and how it
`mapped to a remote system or server, the reference to elements 17J, the
`citations to Yegoshin were informed by that earlier discussion, and
`adequately addressed the remote server limitation added in claim 27.
`At the bottom right of slide 32, you see our treatment of the
`referenced element 17J. As shown on slide 32, that treatment referenced
`figure 2 of Yegoshin, and explained how Figure 2 shows Yegoshin’s phone
`in communication with several remote systems or servers, specifically
`referencing the PSTN switch, shown in Figure 2. That treatment also
`referenced the earlier treatment of claims 4 and 15.
`Moving to slide 33, you can see the Petitioner’s treatment of claim 4,
`which provided an annotated version of Figure 2, in our mapping to the
`PSTN switch 31. As shown on this annotated version of Figure 2, the
`Petition quite clearly pointed to the PSTN switch as a routing server, with T-
`server software. That is clear from the annotated version of Figure 2,
`presented before, and referenced by the treatment of claim 27, which merely
`referred to the already described PSTN switch as the claim server.
`This mapping also is consistent with Yegoshin’s disclosure, which
`presents the PSTN switch 31 in Figure 2, as the only component in the
`PSTN network. It further aligns with Yegoshin’s repeated references to a
`PSTN connection routing server, which you’ll find in Yegoshin’s abstract,
`its summary and its claims.
`This consistent mapping of the PSTN switch as a routing server, or at
`least part of a routing server, continues with the Petition’s treatment of claim
`15, which is shown on slide 34. At the left side of slide 34, the Petition
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`again provided an annotated version of Figure 2, and pointed to the PSTN
`switch 31 at the PSTN connected routing server described in Yegoshin.
`At the lower right of slide 34 you have Dr. Jensen’s testimony,
`explaining as generally pointed out in the annotated version of Figure 2, the
`PSTN switch 31 is included in, or associated with the PSTN connected
`routing server, along with the server software, clear mapping to a server in
`Yegoshin’s PSTN network.
`As shown in the upper right of slide 34, you see a discussion of
`Yegoshin’s Figure 3, which presents additional details of the routing server
`shown in Figure 2. It explains how the PSTN connected routing server
`includes a switch, and a CTI processor that, collectively, performed the
`operations of the PSTN connected routing server, or PSTN switch, showed
`in Figure 2.
`After this description, the PSTN switch in Figure 2, and as repeatedly
`identified by the Petition, is the PSTN connected server that’s referenced
`throughout Yegoshin’s disclosure. There’s no other PSTN connected
`routing server shown in Figure 2, or otherwise.
`Now, at worst, the PSTN switch is a component of that PSTN
`connected routing server, in the Petition’s mapping to the PSTN switch,
`functions a surrogate to mapping to the server itself.
`Yegoshin clearly described the PSTN connected routing server, that is
`connected to both its wireless LAN, its cellular network paths, thereby
`satisfying claim 27’s requirement that the 2 network paths connect to a
`remote server.
`Unless there are any questions on the second issue related to the
`remote server limitations, I’ll move to slide 36, to discuss the 3rd issue in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`our Demonstratives. As shown on slide 36, the 3rd issue relates to the
`limitations directed to combining data paths found in challenged claims 6,
`17 through 21, and 23 to 26.
`Moving to slide 39, as shown on slide 39, you see the relevant
`language from claim 6, wherein the processor on the mobile device is
`configured to combine the data paths into a single transmission interface, to
`one or more applications on the mobile device. Importantly, the claim is
`directed to combining paths, not combining data.
`Patent owner conflates these conflicts, or concepts, and contends that
`simultaneous combination of data on both paths is needed to meet the
`limitation. But that is not what the claim says. The claim quite clearly
`focuses on a single interface, that results from combining paths. There’s no
`mention of simultaneous connections, or communications, much less
`combining data from the different paths. It simply requires a single interface
`that combines 2 data paths. And that is exactly what you Yegoshin
`discloses. You can see this on slide 40. As shown at the upper part of slide
`40, you see a version of Yegoshin’s Figure 2, annotated to illustrate the 2
`network paths, and how they combine to form a single interface in
`Yegoshin’s phone.
`The second, the first network path is highlighted in yellow, and
`represents a cellular network used by Yegoshin’s phone. The second
`network path is highlighted in green, and represents the wireless LAN.
`As you can see at the center of Figure 2, these 2 paths combine to
`form a single interface at Yegoshin’s phone. It couldn’t be clearer; the
`yellow paths combine and converge to a single interface, over which
`Yegoshin’s phone communicates.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`
`These claims do not require simultaneous communication,
`simultaneous connections, or a combination of data over these 2 different
`paths. The claims merely require a combination of the 2 paths, and that’s
`exactly what Yegoshin shows you in Figure 2.
`JUDGE MOORE: Counsel, this is Judge Moore. How are they
`combined? What is the combining?
`MR. MONALDO: They’re combined in that they arrive at the phone
`at the same time. Or at, using the same interface. So the 2 paths are
`combined, through the antenna, and processed by the phone in the same
`way. It doesn’t matter. The phone has a telephone application. It doesn’t
`matter which path it’s communicating over, because the paths are combined.
`They come together, and they reach the phone in the same way, over the
`same interface.
`JUDGE MOORE: They’re combined because they both reach the
`antenna?
`MR. MONALDO: They reach the antenna, and are processed inside
`the phone in the same way, using the same interface. That’s how these 2
`paths would be combined together, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. MONALDO: Thank you. So unless there are any other
`questions on Yegoshin, I was planning to turn to Bernard, and his disclosure
`of combining data paths. And you can see this on slide 43. So slide 43 is a
`Bernard reference. At the right side of slide 43, it discloses a serial
`interface that, quite clearly, combines multiple data paths, and presents them
`to the applications on Bernard’s mobile device.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`
`Now, although we contend that Yegoshin’s disclosure itself is
`sufficient as I just discussed, Bernard also is part of our combination, and the
`serial interface unquestionably combines multiple data paths into the single
`serial interface. You can see that on slide 43, where you have multiple paths
`from each of the communication circuits, the GPS, the phone modem, the
`serial port, the other communication options described by Bernard. They all
`combine and reach to a single serial interface as part of this combination as
`well.
`
`So, right here we quite clearly have multiple interfaces coming
`together, and combining to a single interface, that’s explicitly described in
`Bernard. So, while we think Yegoshin’s sufficient, this portion of the
`combination certainly addresses the issue. And certainly has multiple
`interfaces being combined together, into a single serial interface.
`Unless there are any questions on the third —- go ahead?
`JUDGE MOORE: I do have a question. These seem to me to be pretty
`different systems. Certainly where, on one hand, you’ve got PDA
`communicating with a cradle, and on the other hand, you’ve got a handset
`that’s communicating with 2 different networks. I’m not, like, I’m not sure
`you’ve put these together. I see that there’s a serial interface, and a server
`that combines, somehow these things (inaudible).
`I don’t understand this, necessarily, how this combination would
`
`work.
`
`MR. MONALDO: It’s a good question, Your Honor. And I think I
`should say that the combination would be, I think, pretty simple. So in
`Bernard, you have a global device PDA. So that’s equivalent to the phone
`that we point to in the Yegoshin reference. And what you do with that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`phone is very similar to what you do with the PDA in Bernard, you connect
`it to the cradle.
`So, while, the phone in the combination entering in the Yegoshin
`reference has the wireless LAN and photo network connectivity options, the
`cradle offers additional options that are not present in Yegoshin reference.
`So you can see that on the right side of Figure 10. And I’m looking, again,
`at our slide 43.
`In Bernard, where you have GPS, you have cellular, you have phone
`modem, you have the radio, external serial port. So there’s a number of
`different communication and connection options that are offered by the
`PDA, which expands the, offered by the cradle, which expands the
`functionality of PDA, and would similarly expand the functionality of
`Yegoshin’s phone when it’s attached to that cradle.
`So in the combination with a person of skill in the art would have
`realized that cradles are well known devices for charging, and housing
`mobile devices. In this case, you would apply Yegoshin’s phone. You’d
`connect it to the cradle. You’d expand its functionality to the various
`different communication options offered by Bernard’s cradle. And, with
`those communication options, they would be combined into a single, serial
`interface that is pathed to the phone when it is attached to the cradle.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. So basically, you’re saying you would
`make the handset of Yegoshin, and that would substitute the PDA in the
`other reference?
`MR. MONALDO: That’s correct. Exactly, Your Honor. And, while
`it does have some communication functionality, the Yegoshin phone does, it
`certainly does. But when you connect it to the cradle, it adds additional
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`functionality. It adds the additional communication the wireless transmitter
`receiver. I guess you can see them in Figure 10. There’s 5 of them listed
`there. I think Bernard adds additional disclosure that others could also be
`part of this. You could use different protocols, you could have different
`capabilities. But, at the end of the day, it would expand the wireless
`transmission communication capabilities through the connection of the, to
`the connection to the cradle. And that would allow Yegoshin’s phone to
`communicate using only these different technologies, over the single
`interface that’s described in the Bernard reference.
`JUDGE MOORE: So then the cradle would be receiving the 2
`wireless paths from Yegoshin and then giving it to the phone?
`MR. MONALDO: Well, I think I would say that the wireless paths in
`Bernard would be receiving, Bernard’s cradle would be receiving 2 different
`wireless paths, and pass them to the phone when it’s connected to the cradle.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. And then the phone wouldn’t be able to do
`that? Or the phone would also be able to do that, so you have kind of a
`redundant thing? Where the phone could get both paths, and also the cradle
`could get both paths?
`MR. MONALDO: That’s correct, we would have a redundant
`situation where when you plugged into the cradle, you’d use the cradle and
`its functionality. But when you’re detached from the cradle, you’d still have
`the functionality of Yegoshin. I think that’s how a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have conceived the systems. And that’s how we’ve been
`doing the combination, Your Honor. You wouldn’t remove functionality
`from Yegoshin. You’d actually add functionality by allowing the phone to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`plug into the cradle. And then use the wireless transmitter and receiver
`paths that are offered by that cradle.
`JUDGE MOORE: So you might say that the phone already can
`receive those 2 wireless transmissions, why does it, why do you want to get
`them to the cradle instead?
`MR. MONALDO: That’s a good question, Your Honor. I think my
`answer to that is the cradle offers the additional functionality. There’s
`additional paths there, as well. So you could use the paths from the phone
`itself. But I think what would be the most reasonable, the easiest of
`(inaudible) details is that once you plug in the cradle, you use the cradle.
`That’s what the phone knows to do, so that it’s getting all the
`communication to the different paths. It could include cellular, it could
`include wireless LAN.
`But, even if it doesn’t, you have all these other communication paths
`in the Bernard reference that satisfy these limitations of wireless transmitting
`and receive units, that combine through a single serial interface.
`So I think I’d answer your question in 2 parts. That when you’re
`connected to the cradle, you use the stuff of the cradle. That’s the easiest
`way to implement it. And the stuff in the cradle includes things that aren’t
`part of Yegoshin’s phone
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. MONALDO: Thank you, Your Honor.
`All right. So, at this point, unless there are any questions on the first 3
`issues, I’ll move to our slide 57, to start the discussion of the 4th issue,
`related to multiplexing?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`
`So, as shown on slide 57, the 4th issue relates to these multiplexing
`limitations found in challenged claims 1 through 13 and 27 to 30.
`Moving to slide 58. As shown on slide 58, you see the relevant
`language from claim 1. Starting from the 3rd line from the bottom, you can
`see that claim 1 recites, “A single interface comprised of multiplexed signals
`from the plurality of wireless transmitter received components.”
`So, as we just discussed, the Yegoshin and Bernard combinations
`render obvious a single interface, versus multiple wireless components.
`The only question, then, is whether it would have been obvious for
`that single interface to include multiplex signals.
`It seems like a simple enough question. But, as shown on slide 59, a
`significant amount of the (inaudible) on the multiplex terms, and there are a
`number of sub-issues related to this limitation.
`So, moving to slide 59, I’ll start with the first sub-issue related to the
`known use of the term, “Multiplexing.” And I’ll turn us to slide 61. So
`slide 61 —-
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Monaldo, before you go on, this is Judge Jung.
`Petitioner filed Exhibits 1099 in both of these proceedings, that is the
`District Court’s Claim instruction order. And the District Court adopted a
`plain and ordinary meeting for, “Multiplex,” or a variation of it. Are you
`adopting that construction in your arguments and reply? It seemed like you
`were using that interpretation in some of your arguments.
`MR. MONALDO: Absolutely, Your Honor. Our position, from the
`beginning, has been this term should be given its plain and ordinary
`meaning. That’s what we set forth in Petition, set forth in District Court’s
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01248 (Patent 8,842,653 B1)
`IPR2022-01249 (Patent 9,019,946 B1)
`
`construction. I think everything we said throughout the briefing is consistent
`with the claim’s plain and ordinary meaning interpretation.
`JUDGE JUNG: Just to clarify, but in the Petition for both of these
`proceedings, you did not actually propose an express interpretation for
`multiplexing. That’s correct, right?
`MR. MONALDO: That is correct, Your Honor. We applied the plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`JUDGE JUNG: And how are we supposed to know what the plain
`and ordinary meaning was? The one that you, or the one that the
`Defendant’s proposed in District Court? Were you, are you arguing that we
`should, in the event that the District Court adopted the Defendant’s proposed
`construction of Multiplexing, we should also adopt it here?
`MR. MONALDO: You know, I think what we set forth in the
`Petition was that we were applying the construction within the breadth the
`Patent Owner was applying in the District Court. And we did not offer a
`specific c
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
