IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Robert J. Davies
`In re Patent of:
`6,993,049 Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0056IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`January 31, 2006
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 09/876,514
`
`Filing Date:
`June 7, 2001
`
`Title:
`COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 6,993,049 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert J. Davies
`In re Patent of:
`6,993,049 Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0056IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`January 31, 2006
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 09/876,514
`
`Filing Date:
`June 7, 2001
`
`Title:
`COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 6,993,049 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................ 1
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)................................. 1
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............... 1
`SUMMARY OF THE ’049 PATENT ............................................................. 3
`A. Brief Description ....................................................................................... 3
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date ........................ 5
`III. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ..................................... 6
`A. “inquiry message[s]” ................................................................................. 7
`IV. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ...... 11
`A. [GROUND 1] – Claims 11 and 12 are obvious in view of Larsson ....... 12
`B. [GROUND 2] – Claims 11 and 12 are obvious over Larsson in view of
`BT Core ................................................................................................... 32
`C. [GROUND 3] – Claims 11 and 12 are obvious over IrOBEX ............... 42
`V.
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................. 56
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 56
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ......................... 56
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................. 56
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................... 56
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 57
`D. Service Information ................................................................................ 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049 to Davies (“’049 Patent”)
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`Prosecution History of the ’049 Patent (“the Prosecution His-
`tory”)
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles Knutson
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Charles Knutson
`
`APPLE-1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,704,293 (“Larsson”)
`
`APPLE-1006 IrDA Object Exchange Protocol (“IrOBEX”)
`
`APPLE-1007 Prosecution History of the 7,587,207 Patent (“207 Prosecution
`History”)
`
`APPLE-1008 Second Declaration of Dr. Charles Knutson
`
`APPLE-1009 U.S. Patent No. 7,587,207 (“Davies” or the “’207 Patent”)
`
`APPLE-1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,570,857 (“Haartsen”)
`
`APPLE-1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,480,505 (“Johansson”)
`
`APPLE-1012
`
`APPLE-1013
`
`APPLE-1014
`
`
`
`Specification of the Bluetooth System: Wireless connections
`made easy, Profiles, Vol. 2, Bluetooth, Dec. 1, 1999 (“BT
`Profiles”)
`The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical
`Principles, Vol. 1, Clarendon Press, 1993 (“Oxford
`Dictionary”)
`Specification of the Bluetooth System: Wireless connections
`made easy, Core, Vol. 1, Bluetooth, Dec. 1, 1999 (“BT Core”)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`U.S. Patent No. 6,683,886 (“Tuijn”)
`APPLE-1015
`APPLE-1016 Internet Archive Capture of http://www.bluetooth.com:80/de-
`veloper/specification/specification.asp from March 1, 2000
`APPLE-1017 Internet Archive Capture of http://www.bluetooth.com:80/de-
`veloper/specification/core.asp from March 1, 2000
`APPLE-1018 Internet Archive Capture of http://www.bluetooth.com:80/de-
`veloper/specification/order.asp from March 1, 2000
`APPLE-1019 Internet Archive Capture of
`http://www.bluetooth.com:80/news/archive/archive.asp from
`March 4, 2000
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 11 and 12 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049 (“’049
`
`Patent”). As explained in this petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims.
`
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable based on teachings set forth in at
`
`least the references presented in this petition. Apple respectfully submits that an
`
`IPR should be instituted, and that the Challenged Claims should be canceled as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`I. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’049 Patent is available for IPR, and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the Challenged Claims
`
`on the grounds identified in this petition. Petitioner was first served with a
`
`complaint of infringement of the ’049 patent less than one year prior to the filing of
`
`this Petition.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Re-
`quested
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims based on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Grounds
`Ground 1
`Ground 2
`
`’049 Patent Claims
`11 and 12
`11 and 12
`
`Ground 3
`
`11 and 12
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`Grounds for Unpatentability
`§ 103 over Larsson
`§ 103 over Larsson in view of BT
`(Bluetooth) Core
`§ 103 over IrOBEX
`
`The ’049 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 09/876,514, filed June 7,
`
`2001, which claims priority from British Application No. 0015454, filed June 26,
`
`2000, and British Application No. 0020076, filed August 15, 2000. Petitioner
`
`takes no position on whether the ’049 Patent is entitled to an earlier priority date,
`
`but only applies prior art earlier than June 26, 2000 (the “Critical Date”).
`
`Larsson (Ex. 1005) qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C § 102(e).
`
`Specifically, Larsson is a patent that was filed on Dec. 6, 1999, before the Critical
`
`Date. Ex. 1005, Cover.
`
`IrOBEX (Ex. 1006) qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C §§ 102(a)
`
`and 102(b). Specifically, IrOBEX is a technical publication that was published by
`
`the Infrared Data Association on March 18, 1999, more than one year before the
`
`Critical Date. Specifically, the IrOBEX protocol was published on a website,
`
`www.irda.org, maintained by the Infrared Data Association and available to the
`
`general public through the website. Ex. 1008, [2]-[11], [14]-[20]. The IrOBEX
`
`protocol also was distributed to IrDA members through IrDA’s email reflector
`
`list. Ex. 1008, [12]-[14], [21]-[23]. At the very least, IrOBEX was published on
`
`2
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`the Internet no later than October 11, 1999, before the Critical Date. Ex. 1008, [2]-
`
`[11], [14]-[20].
`
`BT (Bluetooth) Core (Ex. 1014) qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C
`
`§ 102(a). Specifically, BT Core is a technical publication that was published by
`
`the Bluetooth SIG on December 1, 1999, before the Critical Date. Ex. 1014, p 1;
`
`Ex. 1003, [64]. For example, the Bluetooth Core specification was released and
`
`available for download or order from Bluetooth’s website in December 1999 (at
`
`least by March 1, 2000). Ex. 1016, p 1 (“Download specification”); Ex. 1017, p 1
`
`(“Specification of the Bluetooth System - Core”); Ex. 1018, p 1 (“On this page you
`
`can order the printed version of the Bluetooth Specification 1.0. You can also
`
`download an Adobe Acrobat file of the complete specification free of charge
`
`(choose ‘Specification Intro’ in the menu to the right)”); Ex. 1019, p 1 (“New
`
`revision of the Bluetooth 1.0 Specification released”).
`
`
`
`Additional explanation and support for the positions explained herein are set
`
`forth in the Declaration of Dr. Charles Knutson (Ex. 1003), referenced throughout
`
`this petition.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’049 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`The ’049 Patent generally relates to a wireless communication system in
`
`which devices, such as Human/Machine Interface Devices (HIDs), are connected
`
`3
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`to a wireless network, such as Bluetooth. Ex. 1001, 1:3-7, 1:27-32. A HID “is an
`
`input device such as a keyboard, mouse, games controller, graphics pad or the like”
`
`that “do[es] not typically require a link having high data throughput, but do[es]
`
`require a very responsive link.” Ex. 1001, 1:29-33; Ex. 1003, [30]-[31].
`
`The ’049 Patent describes several potential problems related to setting up a
`
`link between a HID and a wireless communication network. For example, setting
`
`up the link involves executing connection procedures (e.g., inquiry and page
`
`procedures), which may result in several tens of seconds of delay for the HID to
`
`join the network. Ex. 1001, 1:34-61. Also, inefficiencies may occur if the HID is
`
`designed to connect to the network automatically when a host system is turned on,
`
`because the HID has “to be regularly waking up to look for … inquiry bursts,
`
`thereby consuming power, or it will need to be manually woken up by the user.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:62-2:3; Ex. 1003, [32].
`
`To address the above-noted problems, the ’049 Patent proposed use of an
`
`additional data field for polling HIDs. Ex. 1001, 2:18-35. Specifically, “[t]he
`
`applicants … recognized that it is possible to piggy-back a broadcast channel on
`
`the inquiry messages issued by the master,” where “[t]he broadcast channel can be
`
`used to poll HIDs at regular intervals.” Ex. 1001, 4:15-18; Ex. 1003, [33].1
`
`As shown in FIG. 5 (reproduced below), a “standard inquiry packet is an ID
`
`
`1 All emphasis added, unless otherwise noted.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`packet (ID PKT) 502.” Ex. 1001, 4:59-66. To enable faster polling, the “inquiry
`
`messages issued by [a] base station have an extra field 504 appended to them,
`
`capable of carrying a HID poll message.” Id.
`
`additional data
`field for polling
`
`
`’049 Patent, FIG. 5 (with annotations in red)
`
`“The extended field 504 may carry a header that signifies a HID poll to
`
`distinguish it from other applications of extended field information, such as
`
`context-aware services or broadcast audio.” Ex. 1001, 4:59-66. “By adding the
`
`field to the end of the inquiry message, … non-HID receivers can ignore it without
`
`modification” while the HID receiver being polled can respond. Ex. 1001, 5:6-9;
`
`Ex. 1003, [34]-[35].
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date
`B.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date of the ’049 Patent
`
`(“POSITA”) would have had a Master’s of Science Degree (or a similar technical
`
`Master’s Degree, or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical
`
`engineering or computer engineering with a concentration in wireless
`
`communication systems or, alternatively, a Bachelors Degree (or higher degree) in
`
`an academic area emphasizing electrical or computer engineering and having two
`
`5
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`or more years of experience in wireless communication systems. Ex. 1003, [36].
`
`Additional education in a relevant field, or industry experience may compensate
`
`for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above. Ex. 1003,
`
`[36]-[37]. Unless noted otherwise in this Petition, references to what would have
`
`been known or understood by a POSITA refer to the knowledge of a POSITA as of
`
`the Critical Date, or before.
`
`III. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`A claim subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For
`
`this proceeding only, Petitioner submits constructions for the following term.2
`
`
`2 Petitioner’s claim construction proposals are for the sole purpose of determining
`
`whether the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the Challenged Claims. Nei-
`
`ther by making these proposals, nor by analyzing the cited art, does Petitioner con-
`
`cede that any Challenged Claim meets statutory standards for patent claiming. Pe-
`
`titioner recognizes that IPR is not an appropriate forum to address certain issues,
`
`such as the patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or the fail-
`
`ure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, and, therefore reserves all rights to contend
`
`that one or more Challenged Claims are invalid for reasons out of scope for IPR,
`
`including but not limited to the failure to claim patentable subject matter under 35
`
`6
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`All remaining terms should be given their broadest reasonable ordinary
`
`meaning.3
`
`A.
`“inquiry message[s]”
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), an “inquiry message”
`
`encompasses a “message seeking information or knowledge.” Ex. 1003, [38]-[39].
`
`The ’049 Patent describes the use of an inquiry message in communications
`
`between a primary station and a secondary station. Ex. 1001, 2:22-67, 4:25-30,
`
`claims 1-12. As an example, the ’049 Patent describes use of a Bluetooth inquiry
`
`
`U.S.C. § 101, and lack of definiteness or lack of written description under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112. The failure to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`or the presence of definiteness and description problems in the Challenged Claims
`
`is no bar to IPR in appropriate circumstances; the Board may set aside such issues
`
`when reviewing claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. E.g., Vibrant Media, Inc.
`
`v. Gen’l Elec. Co., IPR2013-00172, Final Written Decision, 6–11 (PTAB July 28,
`
`2014).
`
`3 Because the standards of claim interpretation applied in litigation differ from
`
`USPTO proceedings, any interpretation of claim terms in this IPR is not binding
`
`upon Petitioner in any litigation related to the subject patent. See In re Zletz, 13
`
`USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`message. Ex. 1001, 1:11-55, 4:11-28. In Bluetooth, an inquiry message “allows a
`
`would-be slave to find a base station and issue a request to join the piconet.” Ex.
`
`1001, 1:54-57, 4:11-13 (“The Bluetooth inquiry procedure allows a would-be slave
`
`101 to find a base station and issue a request to join its piconet”); see also Ex.
`
`1012, pp 37, 38. Specifically, in Bluetooth, a master device sends an inquiry
`
`message to seek one or more “inquiry response messages” from one or more
`
`nearby devices. Ex. 1001, 4:48-58; Ex. 1012, pp 29, 31, 37-39. The inquiry
`
`response messages include information needed by the master device to “page” and
`
`connect with the one or more nearby devices. Ex. 1001, 4:48-58; Ex. 1012, pp 29,
`
`31, 37-39, 89, 90, 185. In this way, a device sends a Bluetooth inquiry message to
`
`seek information or knowledge needed to communicate with another device. Ex.
`
`1003, [40]-[41].
`
`Further, the ’049 Patent is clear that its “inquiry message” is not limited to
`
`Bluetooth. Specifically, the ’049 Patent describes that “the inquiry procedure is
`
`not restricted to Bluetooth devices and is applicable to other communications
`
`arrangements.” Ex. 1001, 3:24-29, see also 1:6-8. In fact, claim 5 limits “the first
`
`communications protocol” to “Bluetooth messaging,” confirming through claim
`
`differentiation that the first communications protocol is broader than Bluetooth and
`
`that the claimed inquiry message is broader than a Bluetooth inquiry message. Ex.
`
`1001, 8:5-6; see SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp, 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`1985)(“It is settled law that when a patent claim does not contain a certain
`
`limitation and another claim does, that limitation cannot be read into the former
`
`claim in determining either validity or infringement”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1324-27 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“the presence of a dependent claim that adds
`
`a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is
`
`not present in the independent claim.”) Although claim 5 depends from claim 1, it
`
`modifies the exact same term (first communications protocol) in claim 11, and
`
`informs the scope and meaning attributed to the “first communications protocol” in
`
`claims 1 and 11. With this background, the specification of the ’049 Patent
`
`contemplates inquiry messages as messages seeking information or knowledge.
`
`Ex. 1003, [42].
`
`Additionally, the Board has previously construed the term “inquiry
`
`message” in related U.S. Patent No. 7,587,207 (“’207 Patent”). Ex. 1007, pp 41,
`
`44. The ’207 Patent’s prosecution history is informative here because the ’207
`
`Patent and the ’049 Patent have similar claims, similar disclosure, share the same
`
`inventor and assignee, and were filed on the same day, i.e., June 7, 2001. See Ex.
`
`1001; Ex. 1009. For instance, FIGS. 3-5 of the ’049 Patent, which relate to inquiry
`
`messages, are the same as FIGS. 3-5 of the ’207 Patent. Ex. 1001, FIGS. 3-5; Ex.
`
`1009, FIGS. 3-5; Ex. 1003, [43]. Further, portions of the ’049 Patent specification
`
`related to describing inquiry messages in view of FIGS. 3-5 are identical to
`
`9
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`portions of the ’207 Patent specification related to FIGS. 3-5. Ex. 1001, 4:21-47;
`
`Ex. 1009, 6:60-7:23. Also, the independent claims in both patents identically recite
`
`“a series of inquiry messages, each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data
`
`fields arranged according to a first communications protocol.” Ex. 1001, 7:28-
`
`8:50; Ex. 1009, 11:52-12:50. Further, both the ’207 Patent and ’049 Patent claim
`
`priority to the same British application, GB 0015454. Because the ’207 Patent and
`
`the ’049 Patent are intrinsically linked by virtue of belonging to the same patent
`
`family and having a common inventor, owner, disclosure, and claims, the Board’s
`
`construction of “inquiry message” during prosecution of the ’207 Patent is
`
`instructive in construing the same term in the ’049 Patent. See Polygroup Limited
`
`v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd., IPR2016-01610, Paper 187 at 22 (PTAB Feb. 26,
`
`2018)(citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in
`
`the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”).
`
`Specifically, during an ex parte appeal in the prosecution of the ’207 Patent,
`
`the Board construed an “inquiry message” as “a message seeking information or
`
`knowledge.” Ex. 1007, 41, 44. The Board’s prior construction is consistent with a
`
`POSITA’s understanding of the terms “inquiry” and “message,” as evidenced by
`
`the Board’s citation to a dictionary definition in arriving at this construction. Ex.
`
`1007, 41, 44; Ex. 1003, [43]-[45]; see also Ex. 1013, p 1376 (defining “inquire” as
`
`10
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`“seek knowledge of (a thing) by asking a question” and an “inquiry” as “the
`
`putting of a question, asking, interrogation”). Furthermore, as mentioned above,
`
`the Board’s prior construction is consistent with the disclosure of an inquiry
`
`message in the specification of the ’049 Patent. Ex. 1001, 1:54-61; Ex. 1003, [45];
`
`see also Ex. 1012, pp 29, 31, 37-39, 89, 90, 185.4
`
`Thus, under the BRI standard, the Board should remain consistent with its
`
`prior, reasonable construction and construe an “inquiry message” as encompassing
`
`a “message seeking information or knowledge.” Ex. 1003, [46].
`
`IV. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS
`Larsson, Larsson and BT Core, and IrOBEX render obvious all limitations
`
`of the Challenged Claims, thereby invalidating the Challenged claims of the ’049
`
`Patent. As detailed below, this request shows a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to the Challenged Claims of the ’049 Patent.
`
`
`4 The prosecution history of the ’207 and ’049 Patents does not include a dis-
`
`claimer of the Board’s construction of “inquiry message.” In fact, the ’207 Patent
`
`assignee distinguishes “inquiry message” from advertising messages and a phone
`
`number in office action responses during prosecution of the ’207 Patent, but does
`
`not rebut the Board’s construction of “inquiry message.” Ex. 1007, 41, 44, 112;
`
`see also Ex. 1002.
`
`11
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`[GROUND 1] – Claims 11 and 12 are obvious in view of
`Larsson
`Overview of Larsson
`Larsson is related to updating and maintaining route information in wireless
`
`ad-hoc networks, such as Bluetooth networks. Ex. 1005, 1:14-40. In particular,
`
`Larsson discloses a method to: 1) speed up the signaling required to set up a route
`
`between a source and destination node, and 2) minimize the “number of broadcast
`
`messages required for setting up a route from [the] source node to [the] destination
`
`node when employing reactive protocols currently being used for transmitting in an
`
`ad-hoc network.” Ex. 1005, 2:25-50, 3:64-4:10, 4:32-36; Ex. 1003, [47].
`
`To accomplish its objective, Larsson implements a “route discovery
`
`technique for use in a Bluetooth scatternet” in which “broadcast messages [for]
`
`which the source node expects a reply message [are combined] with broadcast
`
`messages for route discovery. In so doing, the broadcast messages for which a
`
`source node expects a reply message can also be used to support route discovery.”
`
`Ex. 1005, 5:35-50; Ex. 1003, [48].
`
`According to Larsson’s route discovery technique, a source node in the
`
`Bluetooth scatternet generates a broadcast message and determines whether a reply
`
`is expected to the broadcast message. Ex. 1005, FIG. 6A (reproduced below),
`
`5:60-6:2. If the source node does expect a reply, “the source node piggybacks the
`
`broadcast message in a request for route broadcast message.” Ex. 1005, FIG. 6A,
`
`12
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`6:2-8. Next, the source node broadcasts the request for route message with the
`
`piggybacked broadcast message to its neighbor nodes. Ex. 1005, FIG. 6A, 6:10-
`
`15; Ex. 1003, [49].
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 6A (partly shown)
`
`“[B]roadcast messages [are] processed by some or all of the neighbor nodes
`
`at the same time or during similar time periods.” Ex. 1005, 10:32-38. In
`
`particular, a neighbor node receives the request for route message and determines
`
`whether the node has already processed the request for route message. Ex. 1005,
`
`FIG. 6A, 6:18-25; Ex. 1003, [50]. After “the node determines that the request for
`
`13
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`route message has not been previously processed,” “the node determines whether
`
`the piggybacked data indicates that the node is the destination node. If the
`
`piggybacked data does not indicate that the node is the destination node,” “the
`
`node replaces its address in the request for route message.” Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B
`
`(included below), 6:45-62. “If the piggybacked data indicates that the node is the
`
`destination node,” “the node will piggyback a reply message in the route response
`
`message.” Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B, 6:45-62.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B (partly shown)
`
`Larsson discloses a similar method for obtaining route information in IP networks
`
`by piggybacking DHCP, name resolution, or ARP broadcast messages onto request
`
`for route messages. Ex. 1005, FIGS. 7A, 7B, 7:37-10:31; Ex. 1003, [51].
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`Claim 11 - [11.1]: “A method of operating a communication system comprising
`a primary station and at least one secondary station”
`As noted in the Overview of Larsson above, Larsson discloses a route
`
`discovery technique for use in a communication system, such as a Bluetooth
`
`scatternet. Ex. 1005, 5:35-50; Ex. 1003, [52]. “A scatternet is formed by multiple
`
`independent and unsynchronized piconets.” Ex. 1005, 1:65-67. “A piconet is a
`
`collection of digital devices … connected using Bluetooth technology in an ad-hoc
`
`fashion.” Ex. 1005, 1:47-56. As shown in Larsson’s FIG. 3, piconets 1, 2, and 3
`
`may include master nodes 303, 305, 309 and slave nodes 301, 302, 304, 306, 307,
`
`308, 310, and 311. Ex. 1005, 1:66-2:7.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`Through this disclosure of Bluetooth piconets with master and slave devices,
`
`Larsson describes the same type of communication system with primary and
`
`secondary stations as described by the ’049 Patent. Ex. 1003, [53].
`
`Also, as noted in the Overview of Larsson above, Larsson discloses a
`
`method of operating the communication system by performing route discovery
`
`between a source node and a destination node, and transmitting broadcast
`
`messages from the source node (primary station) to neighboring nodes (at least one
`
`secondary station). Ex. 1005, Abstract, FIGS. 6A-7B, 5:35-67, 11:19-26. In
`
`describing a method for route discovery and message transmission in a wireless
`
`communication system that includes a source node and neighboring nodes, Larsson
`
`discloses “a method of operating a communication system comprising a primary
`
`station and at least one secondary station,” as recited in claim 11 of the ’049
`
`Patent. Ex. 1003, [54].
`
`[11.2]: “the method comprising the primary station broadcasting a series of
`inquiry messages,”
`As noted in the Overview of Larsson above, Larsson’s source node (primary
`
`station) broadcasts messages for route discovery to neighboring nodes (at least one
`
`secondary station) in the communication system. Ex. 1005, 5:35-65. Specifically,
`
`the source node broadcasts the request for route message with the piggybacked
`
`broadcast message (for which a source node expects a reply) to its neighboring
`
`nodes. Ex. 1005, FIG. 6A, 6:10-15; Ex. 1003, [55]. The combined messages are
`
`16
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`transmitted to 1) a destination node, which transmits a route response message in
`
`response to receiving the request for route message, and 2) non-destination nodes,
`
`which rebroadcast the request for route message to its own neighboring nodes in
`
`response to receiving the request for route message. Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B, 6:45-65.
`
`Through this process, a series of request for route messages are broadcast to
`
`multiple neighboring nodes including destination nodes and non-destination nodes.
`
`Ex. 1005, 10:32-38; Ex. 1003, [55]. By broadcasting request for route messages to
`
`multiple neighboring nodes, Larsson’s source node (primary station) broadcasts a
`
`series of request for route messages. Ex. 1003, [55].
`
`Moreover, Larsson’s source node broadcasts a series of request for route
`
`messages when it fails to receive a response to its initial request for route message.
`
`Specifically, in Larsson, “[i]f the source node does not receive a reply to the
`
`request for route message,” the source node “will issue the broadcast again and the
`
`method is repeated.” Ex. 1005, 8:50-55. In this situation, Larsson’s source node
`
`broadcasts a series of request for route messages by initially broadcasting the
`
`request for route message (first message in the series) and then broadcasting the
`
`request for route message again (second message in the series). Ex. 1003, [56].
`
`Furthermore, to the extent Patent Owner argues that Larsson fails to disclose
`
`a series of request for route messages, a POSITA would have found it obvious to
`
`broadcast a series of request for route messages in Larsson based on the dynamic,
`
`17
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`ad-hoc nature of Larsson’s network. Ex. 1003, [57]. As Dr. Knutson explains,
`
`Larsson is implemented in ad-hoc Bluetooth networks, which by their very nature
`
`are dynamic and have changing infrastructure, devices, and location of devices.
`
`Ex. 1005, 1:14-46; Ex. 1012, pp. 327, 331, 507; Ex. 1015, 4:25-5:5; Ex. 1003,
`
`[57]. For example, Tuijn explains that the “status of a single communication
`
`device as a slave unit, a master unit, or a slavemaster unit may dynamically change
`
`during operation of [a] communication system” “supported by the Bluetooth
`
`protocol” and that “[s]lave units can dynamically couple and decouple with a
`
`master unit during communications thereby changing the number of slave units
`
`coupled with the master unit.” Ex. 1015, 4:25-5:5. Consequently,
`
`“[c]ommunication links [ ] are dynamically established [with] intermediate
`
`communication devices” and “the master unit is configured to dynamically couple
`
`and decouple with communication links [ ] associated with dynamic slave units.”
`
`Ex. 1015, 4:48-50, 4:63-66. The “master unit is configured to analyze established
`
`communication links to determine priority of communications with the associated
`
`slave units initially upon communication start-up and following coupling or
`
`decoupling of an associated slave.” Ex. 1015, 4:65-5:5; Ex. 1003, [57].
`
`In view of the dynamic nature of an ad-hoc Bluetooth network and the
`
`“dynamically coupl[ing] and decoupl[ing]” nature of devices in such a network, as
`
`explained for contextual purposes by Tuijn, it would have been obvious to a
`
`18
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`POSITA that a source node in Larsson would broadcast a series of request for
`
`route messages so that the source node has up-to-date route information between
`
`itself and its neighboring nodes over time. Ex. 1003, [58]
`
`In this manner, communications over broken links with decoupled devices
`
`would be reduced, thereby improving network efficiency. Ex. 1003, [58]; Ex.
`
`1005, 3:12-33. A single request for route message would not be effective in such
`
`dynamic networks with multiple nodes coupling and decoupling to the network.
`
`Ex. 1003, [58]. Thus, to maintain routing information in this type of dynamic
`
`network, a POSITA would have found it obvious to use a series of Larsson’s
`
`request for route messages (e.g., one directed to each of multiple nodes) to initially
`
`establish routes with the various nodes in the network. Ex. 1003, [58]; Ex. 1005,
`
`3:12-33 (Larsson describing how a source node “will request a new route when the
`
`actual route being used is broken.”). Additionally, a POSITA would have found it
`
`obvious to continue sending a series of Larsson’s request for route messages as the
`
`network evolves to maintain current routing information as nodes couple,
`
`decouple, and move within the network. Ex. 1003, [58].
`
`For these reasons, Larsson discloses or renders obvious the broadcasting of a
`
`series of request for route messages. Ex. 1003, [58].
`
`Further, as noted above, an inquiry message is a message seeking
`
`information or knowledge. See supra Section III.A. Bluetooth inquiry messages
`
`19
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0056IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`are used by a device in a piconet to seek information or knowledge needed to
`
`communicate with other devices in the piconet. Ex. 1001, 1:11-57, 4:11-28, 4:48-
`
`58; Ex. 1012, pp 29, 31, 37-39. This information allows the device transmitting
`
`the inquiry message to connect with the others device in the piconet. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:11-57, 4:11-28, 4:48-58. Likewise, in Larsson, the request for route broadcast
`
`message is an inquiry message because the message is seeking route information
`
`from a destination node. See supra Section III.A; Ex. 1005, 2:66-3:2; Ex. 1003,
`
`[59]. The route information “pro
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
