Paper 6
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: November 17, 2016
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOCKEYE LICENSING TX, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: November 17, 2016
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOCKEYE LICENSING TX, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`RPX Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 6–9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,879,987
`B1 (Ex. 1201, “the ’987 patent”). Sockeye Licensing TX, LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) did not file a preliminary response to the Petition. An inter partes
`review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 6–9 of the
`’987 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 6–
`9 of the ’987 patent on the grounds specified below.
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`The parties indicate that the ’987 patent is the subject of several cases
`in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
`Pet. 1–2; Paper 5, 2–3. The parties also indicate that the following petitions
`for inter partes review are related to this case:
`Case No.
`Involved U.S. Patent No.
`IPR2016-00985
`U.S. Patent No. 8,879,987
`IPR2016-00989
`U.S. Patent No. 8,135,342
`IPR2016-01052
`U.S. Patent No. 8,135,342
`IPR2016-01053
`U.S. Patent No. 8,879,987
`Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2.
`The ’987 Patent
`B.
`The ’987 patent relates to establishing a connection between a
`wireless device and a peripheral device. Ex. 1201, col. 1, ll. 25–30. The
`’987 patent explains that, although previous products allowed a wireless
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`device to project images onto a wall or nearby surface, those products did
`not allow a wireless device to transmit browser-based content to a full-size
`digital display device, such as a computer monitor. Id. at col. 2, ll. 1–9. To
`address this deficiency, the ’987 patent describes connecting a wireless
`device to one or more peripheral devices, such as a desktop monitor or
`printer, using one or more wireline or wireless connections. Id. at col. 6,
`ll. 55–63. The wireless device uses a cell phone network and Transmission
`Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (“TCP/IP”) network to access one or
`more browser-based applications. Id. at col. 6, ll. 63–67. The data received
`by the wireless device from the browser-based applications is communicated
`through a peripheral communications interface to the one or more peripheral
`devices. Id. at col. 7, ll. 9–18.
`Illustrative Claim
`C.
`Claims 6 and 7 are independent and are reproduced below.
`6. A method for facilitating user connectivity,
`comprising:
`downloading, by a user on a wireless device in a
`communications network from a server in said communications
`network, user information to said wireless device;
`receiving said user information in a manner that uniquely
`associates the user information with one or more peripheral
`devices and uniquely associates each peripheral device with one
`or more users;
`transmitting, under control of each user accessing said
`wireless device, the downloaded user information from said
`wireless device to a peripheral device,
`wherein said peripheral device, controlled by said user
`from said wireless device, is connected to a separate system,
`wherein said peripheral device includes a display screen
`and at least one input peripheral device, thereby enabling
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`
`interactive and real time communications between peripheral
`devices and the server, and
`wherein two users interconnect to said peripheral device,
`said two users controlling said user information.
`Ex. 1201, col. 15, l. 50–col. 16, l. 2.
`7. A wireless device for facilitating user connectivity
`comprising:
`for each user accessing a wireless device, a means for
`connecting a user of said wireless device to user information
`stored for the respective wireless device on a server in a
`communications network;
`means for downloading said user information to said
`wireless device;
`means for relaying the downloaded user information, at
`the control of said user, to a peripheral device;
`means for operating said peripheral device from said
`wireless device; and
`wherein said peripheral device comprises a hub, whereby
`a plurality of components connected to said peripheral device
`are accessible therethrough,
`wherein each user accesses a respective peripheral
`device, said respective peripheral devices being selected from
`the group consisting of: a desktop monitor keyboard and
`mouse, a laptop computer, a laptop computer terminal device, a
`tablet computer, a tablet computer terminal device, a high-
`definition monitor and speaker system, and combinations
`thereof,
`wherein respective peripheral devices are used to access
`and operate software available on the wireless device or over
`the Internet.
`Id. at col. 16, ll. 3–28.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1202
`
`Ex. 1203
`
`Evidence of Record
`D.
`Petitioner relies on the following references and declarations (Pet. 3,
`11–12, 34–35, 44–45):
`Reference or Declaration
`Tee et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0203758
`A1 (published Sept. 14, 2006) (“Tee”)
`Acharya et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
`2005/0036509 A1 (published Feb. 17, 2005) (“Acharya”)
`Soin et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0091359
`A1 (published Apr. 28, 2005) (“Soin”)
`Wang et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
`2006/0077310 A1 (published Apr. 13, 2006) (“Wang”)
`Benco et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
`2005/0135393 A1 (published June 23, 2005) (“Benco”)
`Declaration of Peter Rysavy (“Rysavy Declaration”)
`Second Declaration of Peter Rysavy (“Second Rysavy
`Declaration”)
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`E.
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`following grounds (Pet. 3):
`Claim(s)
`Basis
`6–9
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`6
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`7–9
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Petitioner proposes construing several claim
`terms in the ’987 patent. Pet. 4–11. On this record and for purposes of this
`
`Reference(s)
`Soin and Wang
`Tee and Acharya
`Tee, Acharya, and Benco
`
`Ex. 1204
`
`Ex. 1205
`
`Ex. 1206
`
`Ex. 1208
`Ex. 1210
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`decision, we determine that only the means-plus-function limitations
`addressed below require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms
`need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy.”). Construing a means-plus-function limitation
`involves two steps: 1) identifying the claimed function; and 2) identifying in
`the specification the corresponding structure for the claimed function. Med.
`Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210
`(Fed. Cir. 2003). With respect to the second step, “structure disclosed in the
`specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or
`prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`recited in the claim.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327,
`1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
`means for connecting a user of said wireless device to
`1.
`user information stored for the respective wireless device
`on a server in a communications network
`Petitioner argues that this term is a means-plus-function limitation to
`be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Pet. 8. Petitioner
`argues that the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’987 patent is a
`digital baseband and TCP/IP services. Id. (citing Ex. 1201, col. 7, ll. 1–9,
`Figs. 1, 3A–3D). On this record, we agree with Petitioner. Thus, for
`purposes of this decision, we determine that the recited function is
`“connecting a user of said wireless device to user information stored for the
`respective wireless device on a server in a communications network,” and
`the corresponding structure is “a digital baseband and TCP/IP services, and
`equivalent structures.”
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`
`2.
`
`means for downloading said user information to said
`wireless device
`Petitioner argues that this term is a means-plus-function limitation to
`be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Pet. 9. Petitioner
`argues that the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’987 patent is a
`digital baseband, TCP/IP services, and a desktop browser. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1201, col. 7, ll. 9–18, Figs. 1, 3A–3D). On this record, we agree with
`Petitioner. Thus, for purposes of this decision, we determine that the recited
`function is “downloading said user information to said wireless device,” and
`the corresponding structure is “a digital baseband, TCP/IP services, and
`desktop browser, and equivalent structures.”
`means for relaying the downloaded user information, at
`3.
`the control of said user, to a peripheral device
`Petitioner argues that this term is a means-plus-function limitation to
`be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Pet. 9. Petitioner
`argues that the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’987 patent is a
`desktop browser, TCP/IP services, peripheral communications hardware and
`software configured to implement at least one of the Universal Serial Bus
`(“USB”), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) 1394, or
`IEEE 802.11 protocols, and a device driver for the peripheral
`communications hardware. Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1201, col. 3, ll. 54–57,
`col. 7, ll. 9–18, col. 8, l. 60–col. 9, l. 12, col. 9, ll. 59–67, col. 10, ll. 34–37,
`Figs. 1, 3A–3D). On this record, we agree with Petitioner. Thus, for
`purposes of this decision, we determine that the recited function is “relaying
`the downloaded user information, at the control of said user, to a peripheral
`device,” and the corresponding structure is “a desktop browser, TCP/IP
`services, peripheral communications hardware and software configured to
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`implement at least one of the USB, IEEE 1394, or IEEE 802.11 protocols,
`and a device driver for the peripheral communications hardware, and
`equivalent structures.”
`means for operating said peripheral device from said
`4.
`wireless device
`Petitioner argues that this term is a means-plus-function limitation to
`be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Pet. 10. Petitioner
`argues that the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’987 patent is: 1) a
`keypad, a keyboard, or a mouse connected to a wireless device; or 2) TCP/IP
`services, peripheral communications hardware and software configured to
`implement at least one of the USB, IEEE 1394, or IEEE 802.11 protocols,
`and a device driver for the peripheral communications hardware. Id. at 10–
`11 (citing Ex. 1201, col. 3, ll. 54–57, col. 6, ll. 31–33, col. 7, ll. 9–18, col. 8,
`l. 60–col. 9, l. 12, col. 9, ll. 59–67, col. 10, ll. 34–37, col. 11, ll. 59–60, col.
`13, ll. 58–62, Figs. 1, 3A–3D). On this record, we agree with Petitioner.
`Thus, for purposes of this decision, we determine that the recited function is
`“operating said peripheral device from said wireless device,” and the
`corresponding structure is: “1) a keypad, a keyboard, or a mouse connected
`to a wireless device, and equivalent structures; or 2) TCP/IP services,
`peripheral communications hardware and software configured to implement
`at least one of the USB, IEEE 1394, or IEEE 802.11 protocols, and a device
`driver for the peripheral communications hardware, and equivalent
`structures.”
`B.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Obviousness of Claims 6–9 Over Soin and Wang
`1.
`Petitioner argues that claims 6–9 would have been obvious over Soin
`and Wang. Pet. 3. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and supporting
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 6–
`9 would have been obvious over Soin and Wang.
`
`Claim 7 recites “for each user accessing a wireless device, a means for
`connecting a user of said wireless device to user information stored for the
`respective wireless device on a server in a communications network.” Ex.
`1201, col. 16, ll. 5–8. As discussed above, for purposes of this decision, we
`determine that the corresponding structure for this means-plus-function
`limitation is a digital baseband and TCP/IP services, and equivalent
`structures. See supra Section II.A.1. Petitioner identifies evidence
`indicating that Soin teaches a modem (i.e., a digital baseband) and TCP/IP
`connections for connecting a user of a wireless computing device to
`information stored on a server in a communications network. Pet. 22–24
`(citing Ex. 1204 ¶¶ 39, 42, 44–45, 56; Ex. 1210 ¶¶ 61–64). On this record,
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin and Wang
`teaches the above limitation of claim 7.
`Claim 7 recites “means for downloading said user information to said
`wireless device.” Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 9–10. As discussed above, for
`purposes of this decision, we determine that the corresponding structure for
`this means-plus-function limitation is a digital baseband, TCP/IP services,
`and a desktop browser, and equivalent structures. See supra Section II.A.2.
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Soin teaches a modem (i.e., a
`digital baseband), TCP/IP connections, and a web browser for downloading
`user information to the wireless computing device. Pet. 22–24 (citing
`Ex. 1204 ¶¶ 39, 42, 44–45, 56; Ex. 1210 ¶¶ 61–64); Pet. 24–25 (citing
`Ex. 1204 ¶¶ 44, 68–69; Ex. 1210 ¶¶ 65–66). On this record, Petitioner has
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin and Wang teaches the above
`limitation of claim 7.
`Claim 7 recites “means for relaying the downloaded user information,
`at the control of said user, to a peripheral device.” Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 11–
`12. As discussed above, for purposes of this decision, we determine that the
`corresponding structure for this means-plus-function limitation is a desktop
`browser, TCP/IP services, peripheral communications hardware and
`software configured to implement at least one of the USB, IEEE 1394, or
`IEEE 802.11 protocols, and a device driver for the peripheral
`communications hardware, and equivalent structures. See supra
`Section II.A.3. As discussed above, Petitioner identifies evidence indicating
`that Soin teaches that a modem (i.e., a digital baseband), TCP/IP
`connections, and a web browser for downloading user information to the
`wireless computing device. Pet. 22–24 (citing Ex. 1204 ¶¶ 39, 42, 44–45,
`56; Ex. 1210 ¶¶ 61–64); Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1204 ¶¶ 44, 68–69; Ex. 1210
`¶¶ 65–66). Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that Soin teaches
`hardware and software, including a device driver, that implements the IEEE
`802.11 protocol for transmitting the downloaded information to a peripheral
`device, such as a projector. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1204 ¶¶ 24, 99; Ex. 1210
`¶¶ 69–70). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Soin and Wang teaches the above limitation of claim 7.
`Claim 7 recites “means for operating said peripheral device from said
`wireless device.” Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 13–14. As discussed above, for
`purposes of this decision, we determine that the corresponding structure for
`this means-plus-function limitation is: 1) a keypad, a keyboard, or a mouse
`connected to a wireless device, and equivalent structures; or 2) TCP/IP
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`services, peripheral communications hardware and software configured to
`implement at least one of the USB, IEEE 1394, or IEEE 802.11 protocols,
`and a device driver for the peripheral communications hardware, and
`equivalent structures. See supra Section II.A.4. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that Soin teaches a keyboard and a point device for
`operating the peripheral device from the wireless computing device.
`Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1204 ¶ 54, 65, 102–104, 158; Ex. 1210 ¶¶ 71–73). On
`this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin
`and Wang teaches the above limitation of claim 7.
`Claim 7 recites “wherein said peripheral device comprises a hub,
`whereby a plurality of components connected to said peripheral device are
`accessible therethrough.” Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 16–18. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that Wang teaches a hub device, through which a
`plurality of components of the peripheral device can be accessed. Pet. 27–
`28 (citing Ex. 1205 ¶¶ 32, 34, 42, 44). Petitioner also identifies evidence
`indicating that it would have been obvious to use the hub device in Wang
`with the wireless computing device in Soin in order to provide the user with
`additional flexibility. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1205 ¶ 51; Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 120–
`122); Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 188–189). On this record, Petitioner
`has shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin and Wang teaches the
`above limitation of claim 7.
`Claim 7 recites “wherein each user accesses a respective peripheral
`device, said respective peripheral devices being selected from the group
`consisting of: a desktop monitor keyboard and mouse, a laptop computer, a
`laptop computer terminal device, a tablet computer, a tablet computer
`terminal device, a high-definition monitor and speaker system, and
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`combinations thereof.” Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 19–25. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that the peripheral device in Soin can be a laptop, a
`projector, or a high definition television. Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1204 ¶¶ 26,
`28, 58, 104). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Soin and Wang teaches the above limitation of claim 7.
`Claim 7 recites “wherein respective peripheral devices are used to
`access and operate software available on the wireless device or over the
`Internet.” Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 26–28. Petitioner identifies evidence
`indicating that, in Soin, the peripheral device can operate software available
`on the wireless computing device. Pet. 30–31 (citing Ex. 1204 ¶¶ 44, 54,
`68–69; Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 152–155; Ex. 1210 ¶ 78). On this record, Petitioner has
`shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin and Wang teaches the above
`limitation of claim 7.
`
`In sum, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Soin and Wang teaches the limitations in claim 7. Petitioner
`also identifies evidence indicating that the combination of Soin and Wang
`teaches the limitations in claims 6, 8, and 9. See Pet. 13–21, 31–34.
`Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Soin and Wang teaches the limitations in claims 6, 8, and 9.
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 6–9 would have
`been obvious over Soin and Wang.
`Obviousness of Claim 6 Over Tee and Acharya
`2.
`Petitioner argues that claim 6 would have been obvious over Tee and
`Acharya. Pet. 3. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and supporting
`evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 6
`would have been obvious over Tee and Acharya.
`
`Claim 6 recites “downloading, by a user on a wireless device in a
`communications network from a server in said communications network,
`user information to said wireless device.” Ex. 1201, col. 15, ll. 51–53.
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Tee teaches that a user of a
`mobile terminal can download video data from a server over an IP network.
`Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 15, 18, 19, 22; Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 58–59). On this
`record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Tee and
`Acharya teaches the above limitation of claim 6.
`Claim 6 recites “receiving said user information in a manner that
`uniquely associates the user information with one or more peripheral devices
`and uniquely associates each peripheral device with one or more users.”
`Ex. 1201, col. 15, ll. 54–57. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that
`Acharya teaches that a user of a wireless device can select one or more
`peripheral devices, and Tee teaches that a mobile terminal can transmit
`information to selected peripheral devices. Pet. 37–39 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶ 98;
`Ex. 1203 ¶ 54; Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 199–201; Ex. 1210 ¶¶ 36–38). Petitioner also
`identifies evidence indicating that it would have been obvious to use the
`selection mechanism in Acharya with the mobile terminal in Tee in order to
`allow users “to more easily choose from among many available external
`display devices.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 217–219). On this record,
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Tee and Acharya
`teaches the above limitation of claim 6.
`Claim 6 recites “transmitting, under control of each user accessing
`said wireless device, the downloaded user information from said wireless
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`device to a peripheral device.” Ex. 1201, col. 15, ll. 58–60. Petitioner
`identifies evidence indicating that, in Tee, the user of the mobile terminal
`can transmit downloaded information to a peripheral device, such as a
`computer or a projector. Pet. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 16, 23). On this
`record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Tee and
`Acharya teaches the above limitation of claim 6.
`Claim 6 recites “wherein said peripheral device, controlled by said
`user from said wireless device, is connected to a separate system.” Ex.
`1201, col. 15, ll. 61–63. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that, in
`Tee, the peripheral device may be the dashboard display of a car, which is
`connected to a separate automotive system. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶ 15;
`Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 64–66). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`the combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the above limitation of claim 6.
`Claim 6 recites “wherein said peripheral device includes a display
`screen and at least one input peripheral device, thereby enabling interactive
`and real time communications between peripheral devices and the server.”
`Ex. 1201, col. 15, ll. 64–67. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that, in
`Tee, the peripheral device includes an external display and keyboard.
`Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 15, 24; Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner also
`identifies evidence indicating that Tee teaches an interface that enables
`communications between the server, the mobile terminal, and the external
`display and keyboard. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 18, 24; Ex. 1208
`¶ 69). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination
`of Tee and Acharya teaches the above limitation of claim 6.
`
`Claim 6 recites “wherein two users interconnect to said peripheral
`device, said two users controlling said user information.” Ex. 1201, col. 16,
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`ll. 1–2. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that, in Acharya, one user
`can transfer control of the peripheral device to a second user. Pet. 42–43
`(citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 56, 94–95). Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that
`Acharya also teaches that two users can modify a presentation on the
`peripheral device simultaneously, such as by making edits or annotations to
`another user’s presentation. Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 94–95).
`Petitioner additionally identifies evidence indicating that it would have been
`obvious to use the multi-user feature in Acharya with the mobile terminal in
`Tee in order “to handle common user scenarios,” such as “a conference
`room meeting with many users taking the podium in sequence.” Ex. 1208
`¶ 90. On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination
`of Tee and Acharya teaches the above limitation of claim 6.
`In sum, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the limitations in claim 6. For the
`foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 6 would have been obvious
`over Tee and Acharya.
`Obviousness of Claims 7–9 Over Tee, Acharya, and
`3.
`Benco
`Petitioner argues that claims 7–9 would have been obvious over Tee,
`Acharya, and Benco. Pet. 3. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and
`supporting evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`claims 7–9 would have been obvious over Tee, Acharya, and Benco.
`Claim 7 recites “for each user accessing a wireless device, a means for
`connecting a user of said wireless device to user information stored for the
`respective wireless device on a server in a communications network.”
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 5–8. As discussed above, for purposes of this decision,
`we determine that the corresponding structure for this means-plus-function
`limitation is a digital baseband and TCP/IP services, and equivalent
`structures. See supra Section II.A.1. Petitioner identifies evidence
`indicating that Tee teaches a transceiver (i.e., a digital baseband) and IP
`network for connecting a mobile terminal to information stored on a server.
`Pet. 46–49 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 4, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27; Ex. 1210 ¶¶ 41–43). On
`this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Tee,
`Acharya, and Benco teaches the above limitation of claim 7.
`Claim 7 recites “means for downloading said user information to said
`wireless device.” Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 9–10. As discussed above, for
`purposes of this decision, we determine that the corresponding structure for
`this means-plus-function limitation is a digital baseband, TCP/IP services,
`and a desktop browser, and equivalent structures. See supra Section II.A.2.
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Tee teaches a transceiver (i.e., a
`digital baseband), IP network, and a web browser for downloading user
`information to the mobile terminal. Pet. 46–49 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 4, 18, 20,
`22, 25, 27; Ex. 1210 ¶¶ 41–43); Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 4, 18;
`Ex. 1210 ¶¶ 44–45). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`the combination of Tee, Acharya, and Benco teaches the above limitation of
`claim 7.
`Claim 7 recites “means for relaying the downloaded user information,
`at the control of said user, to a peripheral device.” Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 11–
`12. As discussed above, for purposes of this decision, we determine that the
`corresponding structure for this means-plus-function limitation is a desktop
`browser, TCP/IP services, peripheral communications hardware and
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`software configured to implement at least one of the USB, IEEE 1394, or
`IEEE 802.11 protocols, and a device driver for the peripheral
`communications hardware, and equivalent structures. See supra Section
`II.A.3. As discussed above, Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that
`Tee teaches that a transceiver (i.e., a digital baseband), IP network, and a
`web browser for downloading user information to the mobile terminal. Pet.
`46–49 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 4, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27; Ex. 1210 ¶¶ 41–43); Pet. 49–
`50 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 4, 18; Ex. 1210 ¶¶ 44–45). Petitioner also identifies
`evidence indicating that Tee teaches hardware and software that implements
`the IEEE 802.11 protocol for transmitting the downloaded information to a
`peripheral device. Pet. 50–52 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 21–22, 27; Ex. 1210
`¶¶ 46–49). Petitioner additionally identifies evidence indicating that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the hardware and
`software that implements the IEEE 802.11 protocol in Tee can include the
`IEEE 802.11 driver in Acharya. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶ 105; Ex. 1210
`¶¶ 48–49). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Tee, Acharya, and Benco teaches the above limitation of
`claim 7.
`Claim 7 recites “means for operating said peripheral device from said
`wireless device.” Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 13–14. As discussed above, for
`purposes of this decision, we determine that the corresponding structure for
`this means-plus-function limitation is: 1) a keypad, a keyboard, or a mouse
`connected to a wireless device, and equivalent structures; or 2) TCP/IP
`services, peripheral communications hardware and software configured to
`implement at least one of the USB, IEEE 1394, or IEEE 802.11 protocols,
`and a device driver for the peripheral communications hardware, and
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`equivalent structures. See supra Section II.A.4. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that Tee teaches a keypad for operating the peripheral
`device from the mobile terminal. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 25–26). On
`this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Tee,
`Acharya, and Benco teaches the above limitation of claim 7.
`Claim 7 recites “wherein said peripheral device comprises a hub,
`whereby a plurality of components connected to said peripheral device are
`accessible therethrough.” Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 16–18. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that Benco teaches a peripheral hub that connects a
`wireless device to a plurality of peripheral devices, such as a monitor, a
`printer, a keyboard, and a mouse. Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 19–20).
`Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that it would have been obvious
`to use the peripheral hub in Benco with the mobile terminal in Tee in order
`to allow “users to connect to a wider variety of peripheral devices.” Pet. 46
`(citing Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 55–56, 71, 73–74). On this record, Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that the combination of Tee, Acharya, and Benco teaches the
`above limitation of claim 7.
`Claim 7 recites “wherein each user accesses a respective peripheral
`device, said respective peripheral devices being selected from the group
`consisting of: a desktop monitor keyboard and mouse, a laptop computer, a
`laptop computer terminal device, a tablet computer, a tablet computer
`terminal device, a high-definition monitor and speaker system, and
`combinations thereof.” Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 19–25. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that the peripheral device in Tee can be a television, a
`computer monitor, a keyboard, a laptop, or a personal computer. Pet. 53–54
`(citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 15, 21). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01054
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`that the combination of Tee, Acharya, and Benco teaches the above
`limitation of claim 7.
`Claim 7 recites “wherein respective peripheral devices are used to
`access and operate software available on the wireless device or over the
`Internet.” Ex. 1201, col. 16, ll. 26–28. Petitioner identifies evidence
`indicating that Tee teaches that the peripheral devices can operate software
`available on the mobile terminal. Pet. 54–55 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 18, 22, 24;
`Ex. 1210 ¶¶ 53–55). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`the combination of Tee, Acharya, and Benco teaches the above limitation of
`claim 7.
`
`In sum, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Tee, Acharya, and
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
