`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOGAIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`
`IPR2023-00720
`U.S. Patent No. 10,791,502
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. 7
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................12
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ......................................................................13
`
`III. NOTE .............................................................................................................13
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’502 PATENT ...........................................................13
`
`V.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY .........................................................................15
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................16
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................16
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF .................................................................................18
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................. 18
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ...................................................... 19
`
`Ground 1: Claim 1 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Oppo ..... 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Oppo .................................................................... 21
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 21
`
`D. Ground 2: Claims 5-6 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Oppo in view of Vivo ......................................................................... 27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of Vivo ..................................................................... 27
`
`Reasons to Combine Oppo and Vivo ....................................... 28
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 31
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`4.
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 33
`
`E.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 11, 15-16 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Oppo in view of Vivo and Deenoo ............................................ 34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Summary of Deenoo ................................................................ 35
`
`Reasons to Combine Oppo and Vivo with Deenoo ................. 36
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 39
`
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 44
`
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 44
`
`F.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1-2, 5-6, 11-12, and 15-16 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 over Deenoo .................................................................. 44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Summary of Deenoo ................................................................ 44
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 44
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 49
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 51
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 51
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 54
`
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 54
`
`G. Ground 5: Claims 3 and 13 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Deenoo in view of Futaki ........................................................... 54
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Futaki................................................................... 54
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Reasons to Combine Deenoo with Futaki................................ 55
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 57
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 58
`
`H. Ground 6: Claims 4, 7, 14, and 17 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 over Deenoo in view of Asustek ................................................. 58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Summary of Asustek ................................................................ 59
`
`Reasons to Combine Deenoo with Asustek ............................. 59
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 61
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 62
`
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 63
`
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 64
`
`I.
`
`Ground 7: Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 over Deenoo in view of Huawei .................................................. 64
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Summary of Huawei ................................................................ 64
`
`Reasons to Combine Deenoo with Huawei ............................. 64
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 69
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 70
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 71
`
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 74
`
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 74
`
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 74
`
`X.
`
`PTAB DISCRETION SHOULD NOT PRECLUDE INSTITUTION ..........74
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`A.
`
`The Fintiv Factors Favor Institution Under § 314 ............................. 74
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`No evidence regarding a stay ................................................... 75
`
`Parallel proceeding trial date ................................................... 75
`
`Investment in the parallel proceeding ...................................... 76
`
`Overlapping issues with the parallel proceeding ..................... 77
`
`Petitioner is a defendant ........................................................... 77
`
`Other circumstances ................................................................. 77
`
`The Fintiv Framework Should Be Overturned................................... 78
`
`The Advanced Bionics Test Favors Institution Under § 325(d) ......... 78
`
`The General Plastic Test Favors Institution Under § 314(a)............. 78
`
`1. Whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition
`directed to the same claims of the same patent. ....................... 79
`
`2. Whether at the time of filing of the first petition the
`petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second
`petition. .................................................................................... 79
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Patent owner’s preliminary response and the Board’s
`institution decision of the first petition. ................................... 80
`
`Time elapsed between the first and second petitions. .............. 80
`
`Petitioner’s explanation for the time elapsed between
`the filings of multiple petitions. ............................................... 80
`
`The finite resources of the Board. ............................................ 80
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................82
`
`XII. MANDATORY NOTICES ...........................................................................83
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ......................................................................... 83
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................... 83
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................ 84
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................................85
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................86
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`Ex.1006
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`Ex.1010
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Ex.1012
`
`Ex.1013
`
`Ex.1014
`
`Ex.1015
`
`Ex.1016
`
`Ex.1017
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,791,502
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,791,502
`
`Declaration of Dr. Zhi Ding under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Zhi Ding
`
`Declaration of Mr. Craig Bishop under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`Curriculum Vitae of Mr. Craig Bishop
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #101 R2-1801795, “Discussion on
`SI Request Prohibit Timer,” Source: Oppo
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #101 R2-1802094, “Remaining
`issues of on demand SI,” Source: Vivo
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,357,059 to Deenoo et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 11,051,235 to Sharma et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,252,643 to Futaki et al.
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #Ad-hoc1801 R2-1800041,
`“Discussion on On-demand system information request in NR,”
`Source: ASUSTek
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #99 R2-1708072, “On demand SI
`acquisition and failure handling,” Source: Huawei, HiSilicon
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0113011 to Peisa et al.
`
`U.S. Provisional Pat. App. No. 62/502,037 to Peisa et al.
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #101 R2-1802093, “Failure
`Handling for On Demand SI Acquisition Procedure,” Source: Vivo
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #100 R2-1713697, “Remaining
`issues on on-demand SI request procedure,” Source: LG
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1018
`
`Ex.1019
`
`Ex.1020
`Ex.1021
`
`Ex.1022
`
`Ex.1023
`
`Ex.1024
`
`Ex.1025
`
`Ex.1026
`
`Ex.1027
`
`Ex.1028
`
`Ex.1029
`
`Ex.1030
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #101 R2-1803366, “Failure
`handling for on-demand SI acquisition,” Source: Huawei
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #101 R2-1802960, “Remaining
`issues on on-demand System Information,” Source: Intel
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0029376 to Fukuta et al.
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0174571 to Deenoo et al.
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #Ad-hoc1801 R2-1800453,
`“Upper layer actions for the Random Access problem,” Source:
`ZTE
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #101 R2-1801831, “Remaining
`issues of on-demand SI,” Source: CATT
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0078911 to Jeong et al.
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #Ad-hoc1801 R2-1800874,
`“Failure Handling for On Demand SI Acquisition Procedure,”
`Source: Vivo
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting NR AH#3 R2-1800288, “Open
`issues on On-demand SI,” Source: Ericsson
`WDTX case 622-cv-00326, Plaintiff’s Preliminary Disclosure of
`Infringement Contentions, served Oct. 3, 2022
`WDTX case 622-cv-00326, Dkt. 33, Scheduling Order, filed Oct.
`24, 2022
`WDTX case 622-cv-00326, Dkt. 53, Defendant’s Reply re Motion
`to Transfer Venue, filed Feb. 9, 2023
`U.S. District Courts Combined Civil and Criminal Federal Court
`Management Statistics (Sept. 30, 2022), available at
`https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-court-
`management-statistics/2022/09/30-1
`
`Ex.1031
`
`WDTX case 622-cv-00326, Dkt. 49, Apple’s Opening Markman
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`Brief, filed Jan. 26, 2023
`WDTX case 622-cv-00326, Dkt. 54, Togail’s Responsive Markman
`Brief, filed Feb. 16, 2023
`WDTX case 622-cv-00326, Dkt. 55, Apple’s Reply Markman
`Brief, filed Mar. 2, 2023
`Excerpts from F. Hillebrand, GSM and UMTS: The Creation of
`Global Mobile Communication, Wiley 2002
`Excerpts from H. Myung et al., Single Carrier FDMA: A New Air
`Interface for Long Term Evolution, Wiley 2008
`Excerpts from H. Holma et al., WCDMA for UMTS: Radio Access
`for Third Generation Mobile Communications, Revised Edition,
`Wiley 2001
`Email dated Dec. 1998 from 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Archives,
`available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9812&L=3GPP_TSG_R
`AN_WG2&O=D&P=65
`Wayback Machine capture of 3GPP-IETF Standardization
`Collaboration, RFC 3113 (as of Nov. 24, 2001), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20011124104400/http://www.ietf.org/r
`fc/rfc3113.txt (combined PDF of seven individual screenshots due
`to formatting)
`Third Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP Working Procedures
`(July 2000)
`F. Harrison & K.A. Holley, The development of mobile is critically
`dependent on standards, 19 BT Tech. J. 32 (Jan. 2001)
`3GPP FAQs - July 2017 webpage archive
`
`Specifications Groups Home - June 2017 webpage archive
`
`GSMA Mobile Technology - About Us webpage archive
`
`
`
`Ex.1032
`
`Ex.1033
`
`Ex.1101
`
`Ex.1102
`
`Ex.1103
`
`Ex.1104
`
`Ex.1105
`
`Ex.1106
`
`Ex.1107
`
`Ex.1108
`Ex.1109
`Ex.1110
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1111
`
`Ex.1112
`
`Ex.1113
`Ex.1114
`Ex.1115
`Ex.1116
`
`Ex.1117
`
`Ex.1118
`Ex.1119
`Ex.1120
`Ex.1121
`Ex.1122
`Ex.1123
`Ex.1124
`
`Ex.1125
`
`Ex.1126
`Ex.1127
`Ex.1128
`Ex.1129
`Ex.1130
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`GSMA Number of Mobile Subscribers Worldwide Hits 5 Billion –
`Newsroom webpage archive
`3GPP PCG#39 Vienna, Austria – MCC Activity Report, Sept. 28,
`2017
`
`3GPP Working Procedures - October 2016
`
`3GPP Calendar Home June 2017
`Participant List from 3GPPRAN2#101
`
`RAN2 - Radio layer 2 and Radio layer 3 RR - June 2017
`
`Directory Listing, FTP TSG RAN WG2 RL2 TSGR2 AHs 2018 01
`NR Report
`Report from RAN2 #99
`
`R2 #99 tdocList
`
`R2-1708072 word document properties
`Directory Listing, FTP TSG RAN WG2 RL2 TSGR2 99 Report
`
`Directory Listing, FTP TSG RAN WG2 RL2 TSGR2 99 Docs
`
`RAN2#AH-1801 Meeting Report Final
`R2 AH 1801 TdocList
`
`Directory Listing, FTP TSG RAN WG2 RL2 TSGR2 AHs 2018 01
`NR, Tdoclists
`
`R2-1800041 word document properties
`R2-1802094 word document properties
`
`R2-1801795 word document properties
`
`3GPP Specification Groups page June 2017
`Draft RAN2-101-Athens-Meeting Report-v1
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`Directory Listing, FTP TSG RAN WG2 RL2 TSGR2 AHs 2018 01
`NR Docs
`R2 #101 TdocList (excerpt left columns)
`
`TSG RAN WG2 RL2 TSGR2 101, FTP Tdoclists
`Directory Listing, FTP TSG RAN WG2 RL2 TSGR2 101 Docs
`
`Directory Listing, FTP TSG RAN WG2 RL2 TSGR2 101
`
`R2-18xxxxx-RAN2-101-Athens-Proposed-Agenda-v1.0
`www.3gpp.org, FTP TSG RAN January 2018
`
`3GPP FTP - January 2018
`
`3GPP FTP TSG RAN WG2 RL2 - January 2018
`RAN WG2 #101 draft report email
`
`Draft agenda RAN WG2 #101 email
`
`Invitation email to RAN WG2 #101
`LISTSERV Archives at LIST.ETSI.ORG - Jan 2021
`
`List archives at LIST.ETSI.ORG - Dec 2012
`
`3GPP email lists link - June 2017
`E-mail lists - July 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1131
`
`Ex.1132
`Ex.1133
`Ex.1134
`Ex.1135
`Ex.1136
`Ex.1137
`Ex.1138
`Ex.1139
`Ex.1140
`Ex.1141
`Ex.1142
`Ex.1143
`Ex.1144
`Ex.1145
`Ex.1146
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,791,502 (the “’502 patent,” Ex.1001) is directed to on-
`
`demand system information (SI) requests in the context of 5G. The alleged
`
`invention of the ’502 patent merely uses a timer to prohibit a UE from
`
`retransmitting an SI request too quickly. Ex.1001, 17:24-34.
`
`Prohibit timers, however, were already ubiquitous in the prior art:
`
`• “SI prohibit timer … At expiry: Trigger another SI request if the SI
`is still needed … for RRC_Connected UEs.” Ex.1007, 2.
`
`• “Upon expiry of timer B, a [UE] may retransmit the other-SI request
`message.” Ex.1009, 41:9-10.
`
`• “[W]ith a terminal being in [] RRC_Connected mode … UE can
`request the ‘Other SI’ again after the expiry of this backoff timer.”
`Ex.1010, 9:56-63.
`
`• “[The UE] transmits the second request for the second portion of
`system information upon expiry of the second timer.” Ex.1014,
`[0060]; Ex.1015, 11-12.
`
`Thus, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311, 314(a), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Apple
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that the Board cancel as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 claims 1-20 (“Challenged Claims”) of the ’502 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’502 patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the patent claims. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`III. NOTE
`Petitioner cites to exhibits’ original page numbers. Emphasis in quoted
`
`material has been added. Claim terms are presented in italics.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’502 PATENT
`
`The ’502 patent generally relates to “an on-demand system information (SI)
`
`request procedure.” Ex.1001, Abstract. The ’502 patent explains that “[w]hen a UE
`
`finds that a required SI message(s) is not broadcasted … the UE may perform an
`
`on-demand SI request procedure to ask the network [] to broadcast the required
`
`SIB(s)” (i.e., system information blocks). Ex.1001, 1:27-33.
`
`Fig. 6 illustrates an “on-demand SI request procedure” performed by a UE.
`
`Ex.1001, 15:33-38. The method includes step 602 a UE’s “on-demand SI request,”
`
`step 604 determining if the “SI request procedure is successful,” and step 606
`
`“perform an error handling procedure” with optional step 610 “store the SI request
`
`failure information.” Ex.1001, Fig. 6.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 6
`
`
`
`The ’502 patent alleges that “the next generation wireless network lacks an
`
`efficient mechanism for error handling associated with the on-demand SI request
`
`procedure.” Ex.1001, 1:33-36. The ’502 patent proposes that “when the UE
`
`considers that the required SIB(s) and/or SI message(s) are not available … the UE
`
`may activate a prohibit timer.” Ex.1001, 7:4-8. Then, “the UE may avoid initiating
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`another on-demand SI request procedure until the prohibit timer expires.” Ex.1001,
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`7:9-11.
`
`However, as discussed in detail below, it was well known in the prior art for
`
`a UE in a 5G network to avoid initiating another on-demand SI request until a
`
`prohibit timer expires (Ex.1007, 1-2; Ex.1009, 41:5-10) and store SI request failure
`
`information (Ex.1013, 3, 7). Ex.1003, ¶¶30-33.
`
`V.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`The ’502 patent was filed in the U.S. on April 1, 2019 as application no.
`
`16/372,389 and claims priority to provisional application no. 62/651,312 filed on
`
`April 2, 2018. It is unnecessary to determine whether the ’502 patent is entitled to
`
`its earliest alleged priority date of April 2, 2018 because the prior art relied upon
`
`herein pre-dates this date.
`
`During a brief prosecution, the Patent Office issued a single office action
`
`rejecting as obvious the independent claims, which originally recited “performing
`
`an error handling procedure if the on demand SI request [] is unsuccessful [which]
`
`comprises: storing SI request failure information.” Ex.1002, 187, 320.
`
`To overcome the office action, Applicant amended the independent claims to
`
`delete all existing limitations and add all new limitations that now included
`
`“activating a prohibit timer,” “transmitting a second SI request message to the BS
`
`only when … the prohibit timer expires,” and “determining that the UE is in a
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`connected state.” Ex.1002, 175. These new claims were never rejected. The Patent
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`Office issued a notice of allowance and the ’502 patent issued on September 29,
`
`2020. Ex.1002, 167-168, 145, 137; Ex.1003, ¶¶34-36.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’502
`
`patent, as of April 2, 2018, would have been someone knowledgeable and familiar
`
`with the cellular telecommunications arts that are pertinent to the ’502 patent. That
`
`person would have at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, computer science, or a related field from an accredited program and
`
`one year of relevant experience in mobile communications or wireless networks. A
`
`Ph.D. degree in a relevant field may substitute for some work experience. Ex.1003,
`
`¶¶20-22.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In an inter partes review, claims “shall be construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b).
`
`However, only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017); see also Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Smart Mobile Technologies,
`
`Inc., IPR2022-01248, Paper 13, at 58-60 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2023) (explaining that it
`
`is “not uncommon” for a petitioner to advance different constructions in district
`
`court and before the Board; for example, a petition may “present[] an
`
`unpatentability argument based on a broader construction, such as one advanced by
`
`a patent owner that is seeking to broadly construe the claims to prove
`
`infringement”).1 For example, although there is a dispute in the district court that
`
`the preamble of claim 1 is limiting (see Exs. 1031-1033), the dispute is irrelevant
`
`for this proceeding because that dispute is not in controversy in light of the prior
`
`art relied upon in this instant Petition, which discloses or renders the preamble
`
`obvious. Petitioner submits that for the purposes of this proceeding, the terms of
`
`the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no
`
`terms require specific construction in this proceeding. Ex.1003, ¶37.
`
`
`1 The parties have filed claim construction briefs in district court (see Exs. 1031-
`
`1033) but there has been no claim construction decision to date nor is there likely
`
`to be one as of the time of institution due to the parties’ agreement that the district
`
`court case should be transferred (see Ex.1029, 3).
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`Petitioner does not concede that any term in the challenged claims meets the
`
`
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 or that the challenged claims recite patentable
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The prior art renders obvious the claims
`
`under their plain and ordinary meaning, which is Patent Owner’s construction of
`
`all disputed claim terms of the ’502 patent in the district court. See e.g., Ex.1031,
`
`14-20.
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board institute a trial for inter partes review and
`
`cancel the Challenged Claims.
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges all claims 1-20 of the ’502 patent.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Grounds
`#1
`#2
`#3
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1
`5-6
`11, 15-16
`
`#4
`
`#5
`
`#6
`
`#7
`
`1-2, 5-6, 11-
`12, 15-16
`3, 13
`
`4, 7, 14, 17
`
`8-10, 18-20
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. 103 obvious over Oppo
`35 U.S.C. 103 obvious over Oppo in view of Vivo
`35 U.S.C. 103 obvious over Oppo in view of Vivo
`and Deenoo
`35 U.S.C. 103 obvious over Deenoo
`
`35 U.S.C. 103 obvious over Deenoo in view of
`Futaki
`35 U.S.C. 103 obvious over Deenoo in view of
`Asustek
`35 U.S.C. 103 obvious over Deenoo in view of
`Huawei
`
`Oppo: 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #101 R2-1801795, “Discussion on
`
`
`
`
`
`SI Request Prohibit Timer,” Source: OPPO (“Oppo,” Ex.1007). Oppo was
`
`uploaded to the 3GPP FTP site and available to the public by Feb. 13, 2018.
`
`Ex.1005, ¶¶46-53. Oppo is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).2
`
`Vivo: 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #101 R2-1802094, “Remaining issues
`
`of on demand SI,” Source: Vivo (“Vivo,” Ex.1008). Vivo was uploaded to the
`
`
`2 Apple does not concede that any aspect of a 3GPP document was actually
`
`implemented in any version of the 5G NR Standard.
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`3GPP FTP site and available to the public by Feb. 14, 2018. Ex.1005, ¶¶54-61.
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`Vivo is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
`
`Deenoo: U.S. Patent No. 11,357,059 to Deenoo et al. (“Deenoo,” Ex.1009).
`
`Deenoo issued from a PCT filed May 11, 2017; Deenoo issued Jun. 7, 2022.
`
`Deenoo is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
`
`Futaki: U.S. Patent No. 11,252,643 to Futaki et al. (“Futaki,” Ex.1011).
`
`Futaki issued from a foreign application filed Jan. 5, 2017 and a PCT filed Nov.
`
`21, 2017; Futaki issued Feb. 15, 2022. Futaki is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a)(2).
`
`Asustek: 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #Ad-hoc1891 R2-1800041,
`
`“Discussion on On-demand system information request in NR,” Source: ASUSTek
`
`(“Asustek,” Ex.1012). Asustek was uploaded to the 3GPP FTP site and available to
`
`the public by Jan. 12, 2018. Ex.1005, ¶¶62-69. Asustek is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a)(1).
`
`Huawei: 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #99 R2-1708072, “On demand SI
`
`acquisition and failure handling,” Source: Huawei, HiSilicon (“Huawei,” Ex.1013).
`
`Huawei was uploaded to the 3GPP FTP site and available to the public by Aug. 12,
`
`2017. Ex.1005, ¶¶70-77. Huawei is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
`
`Petitioner’s analysis also cites additional prior art to demonstrate the
`
`background knowledge of a POSITA and to provide contemporaneous context to
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`support Petitioner’s assertions regarding what a POSITA would have understood
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`from the prior art. See Yeda Research v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1041-
`
`1042 (Fed. Cir. 2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`C. Ground 1: Claim 1 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Oppo
`Summary of Oppo
`1.
`
`Oppo describes methods for an “on-demand SI request” by a UE in the
`
`context of the 3GPP 5G standard. Ex.1007, 1. Oppo’s methods are for “RRC_Idle
`
`and RRC_Connected UEs”—i.e., UEs in either idle or connected mode. Ex.1007,
`
`1.
`
`Oppo describes a UE using a “prohibit timer” so that after an on-demand SI
`
`request, the “UE refrains from retrying until a certain time.” Ex.1007, 1. Oppo
`
`illustrates this prohibit timer in the table below. Ex.1007, 2.
`
`UE starts SI prohibit timer upon
`transmitting initial SI request
`
`UE resends request only after timer
`expires and SI is not yet received
`
`Ex.1007, 2 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶¶41-42.
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`2.
`[1.0] A method of an on-demand system information (SI) request procedure
`performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`Oppo teaches the preamble, as it describes methods for “on-demand SI
`
`
`
`request” (“on-demand [] SI request procedure”). Ex.1007, 1. Oppo describes its
`
`on-demand SI request procedure in the context of the 3GPP 5G standard. Ex.1007,
`
`1.
`
`Oppo describes a method where a UE uses a “prohibit timer” so that after an
`
`on-demand SI request, the “UE refrains from retrying until a certain time” (“[a]
`
`method … performed by a [] UE”). Ex.1007, 1; Ex.1003, ¶¶43-45.
`
`[1.1] transmitting a first SI request message to a base station (BS) after
`determining that the UE is in a connected state,
`
`Oppo teaches sending an “SI request for RRC_Connected UEs.” Ex.1007,
`
`1. Oppo explains that “RRC_Connected UEs” have an “RRC connection.”
`
`Ex.1007, 1. A POSITA would have understood that such UEs having completed
`
`RRC establishment and having an “RRC connection” are determined at the UE to
`
`be in connected mode and capable of increased network functionality, e.g.,
`
`compared to “idle mode” (“determining that the UE is in a connected state”).
`
`Ex.1003, ¶46.
`
`Oppo further describes using each of an “RRC-based SI request,” a
`
`“MSG1-based SI request,” and a “MSG3-based SI request … for
`
`“RRC_Connected UEs” (“transmitting a first SI request message … after
`
`determining that the UE is in a connected state”). Ex.1007, 1; Ex.1003, ¶47.
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`Oppo describes the SI request as being sent to a “cell” or “gNB” (i.e., g-
`
`
`
`Node B), which a POSITA knew were each also known as “a base station (BS).”
`
`Ex.1007, 1; Ex.1009, 4:53-56 (“the base station … may be referred to as a cell”),
`
`6:40-41 (“base station[] may represent … a Node-B”); Ex.1003, ¶48.
`
`Oppo illustrates the “first SI request” in the table below. Ex.1007, 2.
`
`UE transmits a first SI request
`message to a cell (base station)
`
`Ex.1007, 2 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶49.
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, Oppo teaches a UE sending an initial SI request message to a cell after
`
`determining it is in RRC_Connected mode, which renders obvious “transmitting a
`
`first SI request message to a base station (BS) after determining that the UE is in a
`
`connected state.” Ex.1003, ¶50.
`
`[1.2] the first SI request message including at least one requested system
`information block (SIB);
`
`
`
`As discussed at [1.1], Oppo teaches that the UE sends a message to the
`
`network for an “SI request” (“first SI request”). Ex.1007, 1. Oppo further describes
`
`the UE using a “SI prohibit timer,” which “[d]epends on the SI/SIBs being
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`requested.” Ex.1007, 1. For instance, “after UE send one SI request to gNB, it
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`should not send another one before check[ing] the latest SIB1 to know if the
`
`request[ed] SIB has been available.” Ex.1007, 1.
`
`Therefore, Oppo describes the initial SI request message as specifying “SIBs
`
`being requested” (“the first SI request message including at least one requested []
`
`SIB”). Indeed, a POSITA would have understood, as evidenced by Vivo, that it
`
`was well known that for “on demand SI” in 5G, “[f]or SI request sent from the
`
`RRC_CONNECTED UE, the minimum granularity of requested SI is one
`
`SIB.” Ex.1008, 2-3; Ex.1003, ¶¶51-53.
`
`Thus, Oppo’s teaching of a UE requesting SI/SIBs via an SI request
`
`message, in view of a POSITA’s understanding that the minimum granularity of
`
`requested SI is one SIB, renders obvious “the first SI request message including at
`
`least one requested system information block.”
`
`[1.3] activating a prohibit timer; and
`
`Oppo teaches that an “SI prohibit timer is started when SI request is
`
`initiated” (“activating a prohibit timer”). Ex.1007, 2.
`
`In more detail, Oppo teaches that for an “on-demand SI request,” the “UE
`
`refrains from trying until a certain time. The prohibit timer [] might be specified
`
`or be configurable etc.” Ex.1007, 1; Ex.1003, ¶¶54-55. For instance, the “SI
`
`prohibit timer is introduced for MSG1, MSG3 and dedicated RRC signalling to
`
`24
`
`

`

`
`suppress UE to generate frequent SI request signalling.” Ex.1007, 1-2.
`
`IPR2023-00720 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,791,502
`
`Oppo therefore teaches that the UE starts the SI prohibit timer (“activating”)
`
`upon transmitting the initial SI request to the network as the table below illustrates.
`
`Ex.1007, 2.
`
`UE starts SI prohibit timer upon transmitting
`initial SI request (activating a prohibit timer)
`
`Ex.1007, 2 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶56.
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, Oppo teaches a UE starts a prohibit timer upon sending an initial SI
`
`request message, to refrain from resending an SI request message until a certain
`
`time, which renders obv