`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation, Dell Technologies Inc., and Dell Inc.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Ozmo Licensing LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814
`Filing Date: July 27, 2012
`Issue Date: December 3, 2013
`Title: Apparatus and Method for Integrating Short-Range Wireless Personal Area
`Networks for a Wireless Local Area Network Infrastructure
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2023-01060
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§42.1-100, ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Compliance with Formal Requirements .......................................................... 1
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §§42.8(b)(1)-(4) ......................... 1
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest .................................................................. 1
`2.
`Related Matters ........................................................................... 1
`3.
`Lead and Backup Counsel .......................................................... 1
`4.
`Service Information..................................................................... 2
`Proof of Service on the Patent Owner ................................................... 2
`B.
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................. 2
`C.
`Standing ................................................................................................. 2
`D.
`Fees ........................................................................................................ 3
`E.
`III. Statement of Precise Relief Requested ............................................................ 3
`A.
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 3
`B. Grounds ................................................................................................. 5
`IV. The 814 Patent ................................................................................................. 6
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 6
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 7
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3) ....................................... 8
`A.
`“wireless personal area network (WPAN)” .......................................... 8
`B.
`“802.11x” .............................................................................................. 8
`C.
`“overlay protocol” ................................................................................. 8
`D.
`“logic for processing data received via the wireless radio circuit” ....... 9
`E.
`“logic for generating data to be transmitted by the wireless radio
`circuit” ................................................................................................... 9
`“logic for initiating and maintaining…” ............................................... 9
`“logic to coordinate a mutually agreeable inactivity period” ............. 10
`
`F.
`G.
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`“routing module for…” ....................................................................... 10
`H.
`“logic for uniquely identifying…” ...................................................... 10
`I.
`VI. Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13 Are Obvious Over Sugar, Shin and
`Bluetooth ........................................................................................................ 11
`A.
`Sugar (EX1004) ................................................................................... 11
`B.
`Shin (EX1005) ..................................................................................... 11
`C.
`Bluetooth Specification (EX1006) ...................................................... 12
`D.
`Combination Rationale ........................................................................ 12
`E. Analysis ............................................................................................... 14
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 14
`a.
`1.pre ................................................................................ 14
`b.
`1.a .................................................................................... 16
`c.
`1.b ................................................................................... 19
`d.
`1.c .................................................................................... 20
`e.
`1.d ................................................................................... 21
`f.
`1.e .................................................................................... 25
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 26
`2.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 27
`3.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 29
`4.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 29
`5.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 30
`6.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 30
`7.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 30
`8.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 31
`9.
`10. Claim 13 .................................................................................... 31
`VII. Ground 2: Claim 2 is Obvious over Sugar, Bluetooth, Shin and Cromer ..... 31
`A.
`Cromer (EX1022) ................................................................................ 31
`B.
`Combination Rationale ........................................................................ 32
`C.
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................ 34
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`VIII. Ground 3: Claims 1, 4, 7-8 Are Obvious Over The Combination of
`Giaimo and Sinivaara .................................................................................... 35
`A. Giaimo ................................................................................................. 35
`B.
`Sinivaara .............................................................................................. 36
`C.
`Combination Rationale ........................................................................ 36
`D. Analysis ............................................................................................... 39
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 39
`a.
`1.pre ................................................................................ 39
`b.
`1.a .................................................................................... 41
`c.
`1.b ................................................................................... 43
`d.
`1.c .................................................................................... 44
`e.
`1.d ................................................................................... 45
`f.
`1.e .................................................................................... 51
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 53
`2.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 54
`3.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 54
`4.
`IX. Ground 4: Claim 1 is Obvious Over Gurevich, Hansen, and 802.11/b/g. .... 55
`A. Gurevich (EX1010) ............................................................................. 55
`B. Hansen (EX1009) ................................................................................ 55
`C.
`IEEE 802.11/b/g Overview ................................................................. 56
`1.
`IEEE 802.11-1999 (EX1017) Overview ................................... 56
`2.
`IEEE 802.11b-1999 (EX1018) Overview ................................. 56
`3.
`IEEE 802.11g-2003 (EX1019) Overview ................................. 57
`Rationale for Combining Hansen, Gurevich, and 802.11-1999,
`802.11b and 802.11g. .......................................................................... 57
`1.
`Rationale for Combining 802.11-1999, 802.11b and
`802.11g (collectively, 802.11/b/g). ........................................... 57
`Rationale for Combining Hansen, Gurevich, and
`802.11/b/g. ................................................................................ 58
`E. Analysis ............................................................................................... 61
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 61
`
`D.
`
`2.
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`X.
`
`1.pre ................................................................................ 61
`a.
`1.a .................................................................................... 62
`b.
`1.b ................................................................................... 64
`c.
`1.c .................................................................................... 65
`d.
`1.d ................................................................................... 67
`e.
`1.e .................................................................................... 74
`f.
`This Petition is Proper Under 35 U.S.C. §§314(A) and 325(D) ................... 75
`A.
`The Fintiv Factors Favor Institution under §314(A) ........................... 75
`B.
`Stay ...................................................................................................... 75
`C.
`Trial Date ............................................................................................. 75
`D.
`Parallel Proceeding .............................................................................. 76
`E.
`Same Party ........................................................................................... 76
`F.
`Issue Overlap ....................................................................................... 77
`G. Other Considerations ........................................................................... 77
`H. Compelling Merits ............................................................................... 78
`I.
`The Becton Dickinson Factors Favor Institution Under §325(d) ........ 78
`XI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 78
`
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814 (“the 814 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Zhi Ding
`
`Prosecution history of the 814 patent
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0061031 A1 (“Sugar”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2004/0071123 A1 (“Shin”)
`
`Specification of the Bluetooth System, Version 1.1, February 22,
`2001 (“Bluetooth Specification”)
`
`WO2005/006659 (“Sinivaara”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2004/0090924 (“Giaimo”)
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0180368 (“Hansen”)
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0174962 (“Gurevich”)
`
`WDTX District Court Trial Times
`
`US2006/0227753 (“Vleugels I”)
`
`Joint Claim Construction Statement
`
`Excerpts from the File History of 14/990,203
`
`Markman Order (Dkt. 36), Ozmo Licensing LLC v. Acer Inc.,
`6:21-cv-1225-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2022)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,045,290
`
`IEEE 802.11-1999
`
`IEEE 802.11b-1999
`
`IEEE 802.11g-2003
`
`DMI 2.0s Specification
`
`IEEE 802.15.1-2002
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0165909 (“Cromer”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,340,015
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`2023.06.28 Markman Hearing Transcript, Ozmo Licensing v.
`Dell Technologies Inc., 6:22-cv-642-ADA
`U.S. Patent No. 6,255,800
`
`April 1, 2002 WaybackMachine Archive of www.Bluetooth.com
`(visited June 20, 2023)
`April 7, 2002 WaybackMachine Archive of
`http://Bluetooth.com/dev/specifications.asp (visited June 20,
`2023)
`IEEE Xplore, 802.11-1999 (reaffirmed 2003) Specification,
`https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1389197 (visited June 13,
`2023)
`IEEE Xplore, 802.11b-1999 Specification,
`https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/817038 (visited June 13,
`2023)
`IEEE Xplore, 802.11g-2003 Specification,
`https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1210624 (visited June 12,
`2023)
`Feb. 12, 2004 WaybackMachine Archive of
`http://standards.ieee.org/getiee802/802.11.html
`Declaration of James Proctor (“Proctor Decl.”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,990,904
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 38),
`Ozmo Licensing v. Dell Technologies Inc., 6:22-cv-642-ADA
`Email Correspondence in Dell Litigation re the Court’s
`Preliminary Constructions
`Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 60), Ozmo Licensing v. Dell
`Technologies Inc., 6:22-cv-642-ADA
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners seek inter partes review of claims 1-13 of the 814 patent.
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §§42.8(b)(1)-(4)
`
`1.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Each of the Petitioners is a real party-in-interest (“RPI”).
`
`According to the USPTO’s assignment records, the 814 patent is currently
`
`owned by Ozmo Licensing LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO”).
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The 814 patent is currently asserted in Ozmo Licensing LLC v. Dell
`
`Technologies Inc., W.D. Tex. Case No. 6:22-cv-00642 (W.D. Tex.) (the “Dell
`
`Litigation”) and Ozmo Licensing LLC v. TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd., W.D. Tex.
`
`Case No. 6:23-cv-00249) (W.D. Tex.) (the “TCL Litigation”).
`
`The 814 patent was previously asserted in the now dismissed litigations
`
`Ozmo Licensing LLC v. Acer Inc., W.D. Tex. Case No. 6:21-cv-01225) (W.D.
`
`Tex.) (the “Acer Litigation”) and Ozmo Licensing LLC v. HP Inc., W.D. Tex. Case
`
`No. 6:21-cv-00383) (W.D. Tex.) (the “HP Litigation”).
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`Lead counsel is Brian Erickson, Reg. No. 48,895, of DLA Piper LLP (US),
`
`303 Colorado St., Suite 3000, Austin, TX 78701; brian.erickson@dlapiper.com,
`
`512-457-7059 (phone), 512-457-7001 (fax).
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Backup counsel is Chris Katsantonis, Reg. No. 78,388, of DLA Piper LLP
`
`(US), 444 West Lake Street, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60606-0089;
`
`chris.katsantonis@us.dlapiper.com, 312-368-2184 (phone), 312-251-2884 (fax).
`
`4.
`
`Service Information
`
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel above. Petitioner consents to electronic
`
`service to lead and back-up counsel and to:
`
`Ozmo-IPR@us.dlapiper.com
`
`B.
`
`Proof of Service on the Patent Owner
`
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of this Petition
`
`and supporting evidence is being served electronically by agreement of the parties
`
`and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§42.6 & 42.105(b).
`
`C.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`Powers of attorney are being filed, with designation of counsel, in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b).
`
`D.
`
`Standing
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the 814
`
`patent is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on
`
`the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`E.
`
`Fees
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Director to charge the fee specified by 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.15(a) and any additional fees that might be due in connection with this
`
`Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-3266.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`The Petition relies on the following references under pre-AIA law, even if
`
`the claims are entitled to the earliest listed priority date, which is not conceded:
`
`Under Section 102(b):
`
` U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0061031 to Sugar et al. (“Sugar”),
`
`published May 23, 2002.
`
` Specification of the Bluetooth System (“Bluetooth Specification”),
`
`Version 1.1, published February 22, 2001.
`
` IEEE 802.11-1999 (reaffirmed 2003) (“802.11-1999”), published in
`
`2003
`
` IEEE 802.11b-1999 (“802.11b”), published on January 20, 2000.
`
` IEEE 802.11g-2003 (“802.11g”), published on June 27, 2003.
`
`Under Sections 102(a) and (e)(2):
`
` U.S. Patent Pub. 2004/0071123 (“Shin”), filed June 10, 2003,
`
`published April 15, 2004.
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
` International Patent Publication WO2005/006659 to Sinivaara et al.
`
`(“Sinivaara”), filed July 11, 2003 in English and designating the U.S.
`
`and published January 20, 2005.
`
` U.S. Patent Pub. 2004/0090924 to Giaimo et al. (“Giaimo”), filed
`
`November 4, 2003, published May 13, 2004.
`
`Under Section 102(e)(2):
`
` U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0180368 to Hansen et al. (“Hansen”), filed
`
`May 28, 2004, published August 18, 2005.
`
` U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0174962 to Gurevich (“Gurevich”), filed
`
`December 16, 2004, published August 11, 2005.
`
` U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0165909 to Cromer et al. (“Cromer”), filed
`
`December 19, 2003, published July 28, 2005.
`
`The Bluetooth Specification is admitted prior art. EX1001, 2:25-27. The
`
`Bluetooth Specification was published on February 22, 2001, was indexed and
`
`available on the Bluetooth website, and was well-known to a POSITA by early
`
`2002. EX1032, ¶¶25-28. The 802.11-1999, 802.11b and 802.11g standards
`
`(“802.11/b/g”) are admitted prior art. EX1001, 2:23-27. 802.11/b/g were published
`
`by the IEEE, were indexed and available on the IEEE website, and were well-
`
`known to a POSITA more than a year before March 14, 2005. EX1032, ¶¶29-35.
`
`Further, each of these standards has a copyright and/or publication date. EX1006,
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`pp. 3, EX1017-19 (at ii, Cover, ii, respectively); EX1028-30; Ford Motor Co. v.
`
`Cruise Control Techs. LLC, IPR2014-00291, Paper 44 at 7-8 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2014)
`
`(using copyright notice for publication); Ericsson, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC, IPR2014-00527, Paper 41 at 11 (PTAB May 18, 2015) (Official Notice that
`
`POSITAs rely on the copyright line of IEEE publications). The public availability
`
`of these printed publications is also confirmed by contemporaneous prior art and
`
`the timestamps of pre-March 14, 2004 versions of the IEEE and Bluetooth website
`
`provided by the WaybackMachine. Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8
`
`F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021); EX1010, [0076] (URL to 802.11 standards);
`
`EX1031 (same); EX1025, 6:28-29 (same re Bluetooth); EX1028-30; EX1032,
`
`¶¶25-35.
`
`B. Grounds
`
`This Petition, which relies on and copies substantial portions of the
`
`declaration of Dr. Zhi Ding (EX1002), requests cancellation of the Challenged
`
`Claims on the following grounds:
`
` Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13 are obvious over the combination
`
`of Sugar, Bluetooth and Shin.
`
` Ground 2: Claim 2 is obvious over the combination of Sugar,
`
`Bluetooth, Shin and Cromer.
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
` Ground 3: Claims 1, 4, 7-8 are obvious over the combination of
`
`Giaimo and Sinivaara.
`
` Ground 4: Claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Gurevich,
`
`Hansen, 802.11-1999, 802.11b and 802.11g.
`
`IV. THE 814 PATENT
`
`A. Overview
`
`The 814 patent describes a computing device that communicates over a
`
`primary wireless network (“PWN,” e.g., a WLAN) and a secondary wireless
`
`network (“SWN,” e.g., a WPAN). EX1001, 9:60-65. The computing device
`
`purportedly “coordinates the usage of the wireless medium” to “reduce
`
`interference.” Id., 9:65-10:1. The 814 patent states that coordination may be
`
`achieved by using a secondary network protocol that is an “overlay protocol” that
`
`is “partially” compliant with the first network protocol. Id., 10:1-7. The only
`
`“coordination” disclosed in the 814 patent is a signal sent to the devices using the
`
`first network to “defer” to devices using the secondary network. Id., 10:8-10.
`
`EX1002, ¶23.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The 814 patent was filed on January 27, 2012 with an incorporation by
`
`reference of application 11/376,753, which published as US2006/0227753
`
`(“Vleugels I”). EX1012.
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`On December 6, 2012, the examiner rejected certain claims over Eng
`
`(6,771,933) and Quinn (2006/0015621), finding that Bluetooth was an overlay
`
`protocol of, and is partially consistent with, 802.11. EX1003, 180-182.
`
`On May 7, 2013, the applicant amended the claims to additionally require
`
`that “at least some of the communications using the second wireless network
`
`protocol impinge on at least some antennae used for the first wireless network.”
`
`EX1003, 100-108. Applicant argued that the art did not disclose this limitation
`
`because the networks in the art could be in “separate spaces not in common.” Id.,
`
`110. Applicant argued that the references did not discuss any interference issues,
`
`implying the networks were in different spaces. Id. The Examiner then allowed the
`
`amended claims. EX1003, 49-51. EX1002, ¶¶24-26.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of March 14, 2005
`
`(earliest listed filing date) or July 27, 2012 (actual filing date), would have had a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`science, or a related field, with at least two years of experience in the field of
`
`wireless communication systems and protocols, with an allowance for additional
`
`education or experience that might substitute for those requirements. A POSITA
`
`would have been skilled at working with the Bluetooth Specification and
`
`802.11/a/b/g standards. EX1001, 1:25-3:33; EX1002, ¶¶27-28.
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104(B)(3)
`
`The Challenged Claims are interpreted using the same claim construction
`
`standard used to construe the claim in a civil action in federal district court. 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.100(b). See, e.g., 83 FR 51340 at 47-48, 55, 65-71. “[O]nly those terms
`
`need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`
`resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`The Court in the Dell Litigation construed certain terms, which constructions
`
`are also applied. EX1035.
`
`A.
`
`“wireless personal area network (WPAN)”
`
`This term means “a wireless network with a typical coverage range on the
`
`order of 30 feet” based on the express definition in the intrinsic record and
`
`ordinary meaning in the context of this patent. EX1001, Fig. 1, 1:33-39, 9:36-37;
`
`EX1012 (Vleugels I), [0007]-[0009]; EX1002, ¶¶29-32.
`
`B.
`
`“802.11x”
`
`This term encompasses each of 802.11a, 802.11b and 802.11g. EX1001,
`
`1:41 (“802.11x (x=a, b, g, n, etc.)”).
`
`C.
`
`“overlay protocol”
`
`This term means “a protocol governing a second network, which protocol
`
`has aspects in common with a first network protocol to provide one or more
`
`advantages” based on the express definition in the intrinsic record. EX1012
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`(Vleugels I), [0057]. An “overlay protocol” allows, for example, “the ability to use
`
`some common hardware components for both networks.” Id.
`
`Petitioners’ construction properly encompasses disclosed embodiments. Id.,
`
`[0119] (802.11g is an overlay protocol that is partially compliant with 802.11b);
`
`EX1016 (290 patent), claims 1, 12 (claiming 802.15/Bluetooth is an overlay
`
`protocol that is partially compliant with 802.11).
`
`Petitioners’ construction is consistent with the file history of the 814 patent.
`
`See Section IV.B. And with the file history of related application 14/990/203.
`
`EX1014, 86-87 (rejection over Bluetooth/802.11), 1-4 (abandoning the rejected
`
`claims after briefing of appeal to the Board was complete).
`
`D.
`
`“logic for processing data received via the wireless radio circuit”
`
`The parties agree this term is subject to Section 112f, the function is as
`
`recited in the limitation, and the structure is “processing unit 28.” EX1013, 2.
`
`E.
`
`“logic for generating data to be transmitted by the wireless radio
`circuit”
`
`The parties agree this term is subject to Section 112f, the function is as
`
`recited in the limitation, and the structure is “processing unit 28.” EX1013, 2.
`
`F.
`
`“logic for initiating and maintaining…”
`
`The parties agree this term is subject to Section 112f, the function is as
`
`recited in the limitation, and the structure is “wireless circuit 27, processing unit
`
`28, and software platform 36.” EX1013, 2-3. The 814 patent states that software
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`platform 36 enables the circuit to connect to both networks simultaneously as
`
`described in Vleugels I. EX1001, 7:3-10. Vleugels I discloses software supports
`
`this capability by simultaneously managing the PHY, MAC, and Networking
`
`layers. EX1012, [0070]-[0074], [0098]-[0101].
`
`G.
`
`“logic to coordinate a mutually agreeable inactivity period”
`
`PO asserts and the Court in the Dell Litigation held this limitation subject to
`
`Section 112f, the function is as recited in the claim, and the structure is processing
`
`unit 28 executing algorithms at 12:13-13:14 and equivalents. EX1013, 5.
`
`H.
`
`“routing module for…”
`
`The parties agree that this term is subject to Section 112f, the function is as
`
`recited in the limitation, and the structure is “processing unit 28 executing the
`
`algorithm at 7:66-8:7 and 8:11-14.” EX1013, 3.
`
`I.
`
`“logic for uniquely identifying…”
`
`The parties agree this limitation is subject to Section 112f, the function is as
`
`recited in the limitation, and the structure encompasses processing unit 28 routing
`
`based on IP addresses. EX1032 (PO Sur-Reply Brief), 10 (agreeing and including
`
`additional algorithms).
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13 ARE OBVIOUS OVER SUGAR,
`SHIN AND BLUETOOTH
`
`A.
`
`Sugar (EX1004)
`
`Sugar discloses “systems and methods for preventing the collisions or
`
`interference” between an 802.11/WLAN and Bluetooth/WPAN. EX1004, [0002],
`
`[0066]-[0067]. Sugar discloses modifications to the protocols, e.g., new rules
`
`related to CTS/RTS and DIFS, to promote coexistence. Id., [0084]-[0107]. Sugar’s
`
`disclosure that the multi-protocol device is a “hub” that distributes and receives
`
`information from the terminals on two networks renders obvious that the device
`
`would include “data forwarding logic” to serve as a “hub” between those networks.
`
`Id., [0038]-[0039]; EX1002, ¶33.
`
`B.
`
`Shin (EX1005)
`
`Shin discloses an apparatus and method for forwarding data between
`
`802.11/WLAN and Bluetooth/WPAN networks. EX1005, Title, Abstract.
`
`Specifically, Shin discloses that devices on one network communicate with devices
`
`on the other network indirectly through a hub using IP addresses, and the hub
`
`includes data forwarding logic to route those messages based on those IP
`
`addresses. Id., Fig. 3, [0007]-[0011], [0050]; EX1002, ¶34.
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Bluetooth Specification (EX1006)
`
`The Bluetooth Specification discloses the details of the Bluetooth protocol,
`
`which Sugar explicitly teaches should be used. EX1004, [0078]-[0083]; EX1002,
`
`¶35.
`
`D. Combination Rationale
`
`It would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine Sugar’s techniques
`
`for co-existence of WLAN and WPAN networks with Shin’s techniques for IP
`
`addressing and routing between WLAN and WPAN networks. And it would have
`
`been obvious to implement the details in the Bluetooth Specification in the
`
`combination based on the explicit teachings in Sugar and Shin. EX1004, [0078]-
`
`[0083]; EX1005, [0022]-[0032]; EX1002, ¶¶36-42.
`
`These references are analogous art because each is directed to the field of
`
`wireless networks. Additionally, Sugar is reasonably pertinent to the co-existence
`
`problems (EX1001, 2:39-44; EX1004, Abstract), Shin is reasonably pertinent to
`
`IP-addressability and data forwarding problems (EX1001, 4:1-15; EX1005,
`
`Abstract), and the Bluetooth Specification is reasonably pertinent to power
`
`management problems addressed by the inventor. EX1001, 12:19-13:15; EX1006,
`
`§§10.8-10.10.; EX1002, ¶38.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Sugar,
`
`Bluetooth and Shin to have an improved WLAN/WPAN hub. A POSITA
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`implementing the hub disclosed in Shin would have been motivated by the express
`
`teaching of Sugar to use Sugar’s techniques to improve the co-existence of those
`
`networks. Similarly, a POSITA implementing the hub disclosed in Sugar would
`
`have been motivated by the express teaching of Shin to use Shin’s techniques to
`
`provide the ability to address and route data between the networks. Thus, it would
`
`have been obvious to combine the teachings of Sugar, Bluetooth and Shin, with
`
`either serving as the base reference. EX1002, ¶39.
`
`A POSITA would have combined the references using known methods to
`
`yield predictable results. Shin discloses that IP addressing and routing techniques
`
`may be implemented in the OSI software stack stored on a computer readable
`
`medium, which would have been executed on a processor. EX1005, [0077]-[0078].
`
`Shin teaches a POSITA how to implement the stack. Id., Figs. 1-3, [0022]-[0051].
`
`Thus, Shin’s techniques can be implemented in any hub with a processor running
`
`networking software, like the processor in Sugar, using known programming
`
`methods to yield predictable results. Similarly, Sugar discloses its protocol
`
`modifications are implemented in software executed on a processor. EX1004, Fig.
`
`2, [0046], [0148], claims 68-73. Thus, Sugar’s techniques can also be implemented
`
`in Shin’s hub, using known programming methods to yield predictable results. In
`
`the combination, Sugar/Bluetooth’s co-existence techniques, and Shin’s IP routing
`
`techniques, execute on the same processor and perform the same functions as they
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`do separately. A hub running software is ready for improvement through additional
`
`programming using the combination of the techniques taught by these references to
`
`yield the predictable results taught by them. EX1002, ¶40.
`
`Design incentives and market forces would have motivated a POSITA to
`
`combine the references to support IP routing, which was a basic networking
`
`functionality at the time, and to improve co-existence, which was a known goal in
`
`the art. EX1002, ¶41.
`
`A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making
`
`the combination of Sugar, Bluetooth and Shin through the use of known
`
`programming techniques, because a POSITA would have been skilled in working
`
`with the standard wireless technologies and implementing them as executable
`
`software running on a processor, and for the reasons given above. EX1002, ¶42.
`
`E. Analysis
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`a.
`
`1.pre
`
`The combination discloses 1.pre “A network-enabled hub [laptop], usable
`
`for facilitating data communications between two or more wireless devices
`
`[WLAN device and WPAN device] that are configured to communicate indirectly
`
`with each other via the network-enabled hub [using IP addresses routed through
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`the hub], comprising [see subsequent limitations].”1 See Section VI.D; EX1002,
`
`¶¶43-46.
`
`Sugar discloses a network enabled “hub” that it refers to as a multi-protocol
`
`device (“MPD”), with an example being a laptop. EX1004, [0039]. Sugar discloses
`
`the hub facilitates data communications with 802.11/WLAN wireless terminals and
`
`Bluetooth/WPAN wireless terminals. EX1004, Figs. 1-2, [0038]-[0047]; EX1002,
`
`¶44.
`
`
`
`
`1 The analysis of each limitation begins with a synopsis that includes the text of the
`
`limitation and in [brackets] provides a non-limiting example of disclosure in the
`
`prior art. The example in the synopsis is not limiting and Petitioner relies on all of
`
`the evidence and argument in the discussion of a limitation.
`
`
`ACTIVE\600588001
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`EX1004, Fig. 1 (hub 12, 802.11 nodes 14, 22, Bluetooth nodes 16, 20), [0042].
`
`Sugar discloses that the MPD is a “hub