UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., LG ELECTRONICS INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`
`LTD., AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`
`PATENT 6,868,079
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., LG ELECTRONICS INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`
`LTD., AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`
`PATENT 6,868,079
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`
`THE ’079 PATENT .................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS .................................................................... 3
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`THE PETITION IMPROPERLY REDUDANTLY
`CHALLENGES THE CLAIMS AT ISSUE ............................................. 4
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM .......................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................ 7
`
`B.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“means for re-transmitting the same respective
`requests in consecutive allocated time slots
`without waiting for an acknowledgement until
`said acknowledgement is received from the
`primary station” .................................................................... 7
`
`“acknowledgment” ............................................................... 8
`
`“means for allocating respective time slots in an
`uplink channel to the plurality of respective
`secondary stations to transmit respective requests
`for services to the primary station to establish
`required services” ................................................................. 9
`
`C.
`
`The Petition and Cited References Does Not Disclose
`“wherein the [at least one of the plurality of] respective
`secondary stations [have means for] [retransmits/re-
`transmitting] the same respective request[s] in
`consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`received from the primary station” (Claims 17 and 18)
`(Grounds 1 and 2) ........................................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioners improperly speculate through its
`declarant regarding Wolfe, and regardless,
`Petitioners fail to even allege Wolfe discloses the
`required claim language ..................................................... 10
`
`Bousquet does not disclose the required claim
`language, instead Bousquet limits the
`retransmission to a “predefined time period” and
`“spaced in time, preferably at random” .............................. 11
`
`Everett does not disclose the required claim
`language, instead Everett retransmits “after a
`randomly selected time interval” ....................................... 12
`
`No combination of Wolfe, Bousquet, or Everett
`discloses “wherein the [at least one of the
`plurality of] respective secondary stations [have
`means for] [retransmits/re-transmitting] the same
`respective request[s] in consecutive allocated time
`slots without waiting for an acknowledgement
`until said acknowledgement is received from the
`primary station” .................................................................. 14
`
`D.
`
`The Petition Fails to Render Obvious “wherein the
`primary station determines whether a request for
`services has been transmitted by the at least one of the
`plurality of respective secondary stations by determining
`whether a signal strength of the respective transmitted
`request of the at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations exceeds a threshold value.” (Claims
`17 and 18) (Grounds 1 and 2) ....................................................... 16
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Combine Patsiokas with
`Wolfe and Bousquet, or with Wolfe, Bousquet,
`and Everett .......................................................................... 16
`
`VI.
`
`THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`IS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL ..................................... 21
`
`iii
`
`
`
`VII.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 21
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (the “Uniloc” or “Patent Owner”) submits this Preliminary
`
`Response to Petition IPR2019-00510 for Inter Partes Review (“Pet.” or “Petition”)
`
`of United States Patent No. 6,868,079 (“the ’079 patent” or “EX1001”) filed by
`
`Apple Inc., LG Electronics Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (“Petitioners”). The instant Petition is procedurally and
`
`substantively defective for at least the reasons set forth herein.
`
`II. THE ’079 PATENT
`
`The ’079 patent is titled “Radio communication system with request re-
`
`transmission until acknowledged.” The ʼ079 patent issued March 15, 2005, from
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 09/455,124 filed December 6, 1999, which claims
`
`priority to United Kingdom Patent Application No. GB9827182, filed December 10,
`
`1998.
`
`The inventors of the ’079 patent observed that in radio communication
`
`systems at the time, it was generally required to be able to exchange signaling
`
`messages between a Mobile Station (MS) and a Base Station (BS). Downlink
`
`signaling (from BS to MS) was usually realized by using a physical broadcast
`
`channel of the BS to address any MS in its coverage area. Since only one transmitter
`
`(the BS) uses this broadcast channel there is no access problem. EX1001, 1:17-23.
`
`However, uplink signaling (from MS to BS) required more detailed
`
`considerations. If the MS already had an uplink channel assigned to it, for voice or
`
`data services, this signaling could be achieved by piggybacking, in which the
`
`signaling messages are attached to data packets being sent from the MS to the BS.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`But if there was no uplink channel assigned to the MS piggybacking is not possible.
`
`In this case it would be desirable to have a fast uplink signaling mechanism be
`
`available for the establishment, or re-establishment, of a new uplink channel.
`
`EX1001, 24-33.
`
`In conventional systems at the time, for example those operating to the Global
`
`System for Mobile communication (GSM) standard, fast uplink signaling was
`
`enabled by the provision of a random-access channel using a slotted ALOHA or
`
`similar protocol. However, such a scheme works satisfactorily only with a low traffic
`
`load and was not believed to be capable of handling the requirements imposed by
`
`third-generation telecommunications standards such as UMTS. EX1001, 1:34-41.
`
`According to the invention of the ’079 Patent, a system and method is
`
`provided to improve the efficiency of the method by which a MS requests resources
`
`from a BS. According to one aspect of the invention there is provided a method of
`
`operating a radio communication system, comprising a secondary station
`
`transmitting a request for resources to a primary station in a time slot allocated to
`
`the secondary station, characterized by the secondary station re-transmitting the
`
`request in at least a majority of its allocated time slots until an acknowledgement is
`
`received from the primary station. This scheme improves the typical time for a
`
`response by the primary station to a request by a secondary station. Because there is
`
`no possibility of requests from different secondary stations colliding, a secondary
`
`station can retransmit requests in each allocated time slot. In contrast, in prior art
`
`systems a secondary station has to wait at least long enough for the primary station
`
`to have received, processed and acknowledged a request before it is able to
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`retransmit. Further, the primary station can improve the accuracy with which it
`
`determines whether a request was sent by a particular secondary station if the
`
`received signal strength is close to the detection threshold by examining the received
`
`signals in multiple time slots allocated to the secondary station in question. EX1001,
`
`1:56-2:14.
`
`III. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The following proceedings concerning U.S. Pat. No. 6,868,079 (EX1001) are
`
`currently pending.
`
`Case Caption
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. et al
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Huawei Device USA, Inc. et
`al
`Uniloc USA Inc et al v.
`Blackberry Corporation
`Uniloc USA Inc et al v. LG
`Electronics USA Inc et al
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v.
`Blackberry Corporation
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. ZTE
`Inc et al
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v.
`Motorola Mobility, LLC
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. HTC
`America, Inc.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. AT&T
`Services, Inc. et al
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Apple Inc.
`
`Case
`Number
`2-18-cv-00042
`
`District
`
` Case Filed
`
`TXED
`
`Feb. 23, 2018
`
`2-18-cv-00075
`
`TXED
`
`Mar. 13, 2018
`
`
`
`3-18-cv-01883
`
`TXND
`
`Jul. 23, 2018
`
`3-18-cv-06737
`
`CAND
`
`Nov. 06, 2018
`
`3-18-cv-03065
`
`TXND
`
`Nov. 17, 2018
`
`3-18-cv-03064
`
`TXND
`
`Nov. 17, 2018
`
`1-18-cv-01841
`
`DED
`
`Nov. 20, 2018
`
`2-18-cv-01728 WAWD
`
`Nov. 30, 2018
`
`2-19-cv-00102
`
`TXED
`
`Mar. 26, 2019
`
`3-19-cv-01691
`
`CAND
`
`Apr. 02, 2019
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`IV. THE PETITION IMPROPERLY REDUNDANTLY CHALLENGES
`THE CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`
`The Petition redundantly challenges claims 17 and 18 of the ’079 Patent,
`
`without providing any alleged justification for such inefficient redundancies.
`
`As the Board has previously explained, “multiple grounds, which are
`
`presented in a redundant manner by a petitioner who makes no meaningful
`
`distinction between them, are contrary to the regulatory and statutory mandates, and
`
`therefore are not all entitled to consideration.” See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
`
`Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012).
`
`Such redundancies place a significant burden on both the Board and the patent
`
`owner, causing unnecessary delay, compounding costs to all parties involved, and
`
`compromising the ability to complete review within the statutory deadline. Id.; 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. As such, analyzing the petition and
`
`eliminating redundant grounds streamlines the proceeding. Idle Free Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 at 4-5 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013); Liberty
`
`Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 2.
`
`The Petition presents grounds that are horizontally redundant with respect to
`
`each other. Horizontal redundancy “involves a plurality of prior art applied not in
`
`combination to complement each other but as distinct and separate alternatives.”
`
`Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 3. In such instances where reliance on
`
`distinct and separate alternatives is alleged to sufficiently present a prima facie case
`
`of invalidity, such reliance fails where “the associated arguments do not explain why
`
`one reference more closely satisfies the claim limitation at issue in some respects
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`than another reference, and vice versa.” Id. (emphasis in original). “Because the
`
`references are not identical, each reference has to be better in some respect or else
`
`the references are collectively horizontally redundant.” Id.
`
`As the Board explained, the Petitioner in Liberty Mutual did “not articulate
`
`any relative weakness in any respect for any one of the …references.” Liberty Mut.,
`
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 6. Further, the Petitioner in Liberty Mutual did not
`
`“articulate any relative strength in any respect for any one of the… references.” Id.
`
`Here, Petitioner similarly makes no effort to justify its horizontally redundant
`
`theories by explaining the relative strength and relative weakness of the alternative
`
`references cited in Grounds 1 and 2. If one of the alternative grounds is better from
`
`all perspectives, then the Board should only consider the stronger ground and not
`
`burden the Patent Owner and the Board with the weaker ground. Further, if there is
`
`no difference in the grounds, the Petitioner should only assert one of the grounds.
`
`Id. at 12. “Only if the Petitioner reasonably articulates why each ground has strength
`
`and weakness relative to the other should both grounds be asserted for
`
`consideration.” Id. (emphasis added). Indeed, Ground 1 and Ground 2 are identical
`
`instead of the additional inclusion of the Everett reference in Ground 2. However,
`
`Petitioner will not even acknowledge that one ground is better or that there are any
`
`strengths and weaknesses of one ground over the other. Instead, the Petition only
`
`offers as justification: “to the extent that Uniloc argues that Wolfe does not render
`
`obvious the proposed construction of “acknowledgement” (Section III.D) and re-
`
`transmission until an acknowledgment is received, claims 17 and 18 would
`
`nonetheless have been obvious in view of Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett and Patsiokas.”
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`Pet. 75.
`
`The Board in Eizo Corp. v. Barco N.V.1 flatly rejected a similar attempt to
`
`hedge bets and unnecessarily multiply the work of both the Board and the Patent
`
`Owner. The Board there found insufficient the petitioner’s “conclusory assertion”
`
`that “[t]o the extent [the first prior art reference] may not explicitly teach” the
`
`limitation, the second prior art reference “explicitly teaches this limitation.” The
`
`Board explained that “such an assertion fails to resolve the exact differences sought
`
`to be derived from” the second prior art reference. Id.
`
`The Board’s precedential authority on these procedural issues is clear. Here,
`
`Petitioner impermissibly seeks the benefit of different bites at the apple, without
`
`providing a bi-directional explanation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of
`
`each redundantly offered ground. For example, the Petition makes no mention of
`
`the relative strengths and weaknesses of the multiple redundant grounds of rejection
`
`asserted by Petitioner in Grounds 1 and 2. If Petitioner believes its obviousness
`
`challenges in any of its grounds suffer from weaknesses, Petitioner is obligated to
`
`articulate those weaknesses in the Petition itself. Because Petitioner chose to not
`
`offer such concessions, presumably for strategic reasons, the Board need not and
`
`should not consider the merits of the redundant challenges based on obviousness.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` IPR2014-00358, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. July 23, 2014)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to relief. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.108(c) (“review shall not be instituted for a ground of unpatentability unless
`
`. . . there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged . . . is
`
`unpatentable”). The Petition should be denied as failing to meet this burden.
`
`The Petition raises the following obviousness challenges:
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`
`Claims
`17, 18
`17, 18
`
`Reference(s)
`Wolfe,2 Bousquet,3 and Patsiokas4
`Wolfe, Bosquet, Everett, 5 and Pastiokas
`
`
`
`A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Patent Owner does not offer a competing definition for POSITA at this
`
`preliminary stage but reserves the right to do so in the event that trial is instituted.
`
`B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`1.
`
`“means for re-transmitting the same respective requests in
`consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received
`from the primary station”
`
`In the Petition, Petitioners identify, attach as exhibits, and make various
`
`reference to, a joint claim construction chart from a district court proceeding
`
`
`
` 2
`
` EX1005, U.S. Patent 4,763,325.
`3 EX1006, U.S. Patent 6,298,052.
`4 EX1007, PCT Publication WO 1992/021214.
`5 EX1008, John L. Everett, Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSATs), Institution of
`Electrical Engineers (IEE), Telecommunication Series 28.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`involving Petitioner Samsung and Patent Owner. See Pet. 8-16; EX1012, EX1013.
`
`Further, Petitioners rely on Petitioner Samsung’s position in District Court for its
`
`proposed construction. Pet. 15-16 (“Petitioners’ construction is consistent with a
`
`construction offered by Samsung in District Court.”)
`
`For this claim term, the Petition, filed on January 10, 2019 argues that
`
`“Uniloc’s District Court construction includes unnecessary additional structure
`
`(“[m]icrocontroller 112, transceiver 114, connected to radio transmission 116, and
`
`power control 118”)”. Pet. 16 (emphasis in original). The Petition provides nothing
`
`in the way of support for its conclusory statement that the above-underlined
`
`structure is “unnecessary”.
`
`And to the contrary, a little over a month after the Petition was filed (February
`
`21, 2019), in the same district court proceedings identified by the Petition, Petitioner
`
`Samsung filed “Defendant’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief” (EX2001), in
`
`which Petitioner Samsung agreed to the structure proposed by Patent Owner – i.e.
`
`“Microcontroller 112, transceiver 114, connected to radio transmission 116, and
`
`power control 118, and the algorithms contained in 3:62-4:4; 4:8-12, 4:29-39; 5:34-
`
`45, 49-56”. EX2001 at 19.
`
`Therefore, the corresponding structure, as agreed upon by Petitioner
`
`Samsung, should be “Microcontroller 112, transceiver 114, connected to radio
`
`transmission 116, and power control 118, and the algorithms contained in 3:62-4:4;
`
`4:8-12, 4:29-39; 5:34-45, 49-56”.
`
`2.
`
`“acknowledgment”
`
`At this preliminary stage, Patent Owner does not offer a competing definition,
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`because as will be shown below, the Petition is deficient even under Petitioners’
`
`own proposed construction. In the event that trial is instituted, however, Patent
`
`Owner reserves the right to object to Petitioners’ proposed constructions and
`
`provide Patent Owner’s proposed constructions.
`
`3.
`
`“means for allocating respective time slots in an uplink
`channel to the plurality of respective secondary stations to
`transmit respective requests for services to the primary
`station to establish required services”
`
`At this preliminary stage, Patent Owner does not offer a competing definition,
`
`because as will be shown below, the Petition is deficient even under Petitioners’
`
`own proposed construction. In the event that trial is instituted, however, Patent
`
`Owner reserves the right to object to Petitioners’ proposed constructions and
`
`provide Patent Owner’s proposed constructions.
`
`C. The Petition and Cited References Does Not Disclose “wherein the [at
`least one of the plurality of] respective secondary stations [have means
`for] [retransmits/re-transmitting] the same respective request[s] in
`consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received from the
`primary station” (Claims 17 and 18) (Grounds 1 and 2)
`
`The Petition relies primarily on Bousquet (EX1006) and Everett (EX1008)6
`
`for this limitation,7 however, the Petition makes a half-hearted and conclusory
`
`
`
` 6
`
` The Petition appears to cite to Everett (EX1008, in two parts) by the internal page
`numbers of the photocopied pages rather than the page numbers printed by
`Petitioners at the bottom of each page. For the purposes of this brief, Patent Owner
`follows Petitioners’ convention and cites to the internal page numbers on the
`photocopied pages.
`
`7 See Pet. 46-53 (Claim 17) and Pet. 67-73 (Claim 18, and relying on “Element
`[17.3]”
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`argument through its declarant that a single, unrelated passage in Wolfe (EX1005)
`
`would have rendered this limitation obvious to a POSITA. See Pet. 47-48 citing
`
`EX1003, ¶ 95.
`
`As will be shown below, none of the references cited by Petitioners, Wolfe,
`
`Bousquet, or Everett, alone or in combination, discloses the required “retransmitting
`
`the same respective request in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting
`
`for an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received from the
`
`primary station.”
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Petitioners improperly speculate through its declarant
`regarding Wolfe, and regardless, Petitioners fail to even
`allege Wolfe discloses the required claim language
`
`Petitioners’ declarant’s testimony merely parrots the Petition’s conclusory
`
`and unsupported speculation (compare Pet. 47-48 with EX1003, ¶ 95) and should
`
`be given little to no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not
`
`disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little
`
`or no weight.”); see also Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`(Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from
`
`expert witness). Further, Petitioners’ declarant admits that the Petition’s sole cited
`
`passage to Wolfe (EX1005, 6:23-26) merely discloses that “Wofle’s primary station
`
`transmits an acknowledgement that the request has been received.” EX1003, ¶ 95.
`
`Nothing more is shown or even alleged. Instead, the Petition and Petitioners’
`
`declarant then merely concludes that “a POSITA would have found it obvious that
`
`Wolfe’s secondary station re-transmits the request until an acknowledgement is
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`received.” See Pet. 47; EX1003, ¶ 95. Not only does the Petition lack any evidence
`
`or analysis for its conclusory assertion, the conclusory assertion itself doesn’t even
`
`read upon the claim language, which requires retransmitting the same respective
`
`request “in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`
`acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received from the primary
`
`station.” Petitioners’ declarant’s conclusory and speculative testimony should be
`
`given little to no weight, but regardless, the testimony is silent as to at least one
`
`major claim limitation and is therefore unavailing.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Bousquet does not disclose the required claim language,
`instead Bousquet limits the retransmission to a “predefined
`time period” and “spaced in time, preferably at random”
`
`Bousquet (EX1006) also does not disclose the required retransmitting the
`
`same respective request “in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for
`
`an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received from the primary
`
`station.”
`
`Instead, as the Petition itself admits, Bousquet discloses “[t]he systematic
`
`repetition of the access packets in the predefined time period…” Pet. 49 citing
`
`EX1006, 3:53-56 (emphasis altered). This operation of Bousquet is further
`
`confirmed in an earlier passage:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`EX1006, 3:7-13 (highlighting and underlining added).
`
`Additionally, not only does Bousquet teach away from the required
`
`retransmitting “until said acknowledgement is received”, Bousquet also teaches
`
`away from the required retransmitting “in consecutive allocated time slots”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1006, 3:57-58 (highlighting and underlining added).
`
`Thus, by Petitioners’ own admission, at least because Bousquet limits its
`
`“repetition” to “in the predefined time period”, Bousquet cannot and does not
`
`disclose the required retransmitting the same respective request “in consecutive
`
`allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`
`acknowledgement is received from the primary station.” In other words,
`
`Bousquet teaches “n packets transmitted … spaced in time, preferably at random”
`
`and only “during a predetermined time period”, and therefore, by definition,
`
`Bousquet cannot and does not teach the required claim language.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Everett does not disclose the required claim language,
`instead Everett retransmits “after a randomly selected time
`interval”
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`Finally, Petitioners’ reliance on Everett (EX1008) 8 is equally unavailing.
`
`Petitioners merely argue that Everett provides the following:
`
`
`
`“Furthermore, under such a circumstance, the secondary
`
`station does not receive an acknowledgement from the
`
`primary station and the secondary station re-transmits the
`
`data. Id. Everett teaches to cease re-transmission once the
`
`secondary station has received an acknowledgement from
`
`the primary station. Id., 317-318, FIG. 17.7. As Everett
`
`demonstrates, a POSITA would have found use of
`
`acknowledgements and re-transmission, as discussed
`
`above, to have been obvious in light of Wolfe’s
`
`disclosure and a POSITA’s knowledge of satellite
`
`communication systems as of the Critical Date. EX-1003,
`
`[96].”
`
`Pet. 48; see also Pet. 75-76 (similar).
`
`All that the Petition argues, at best, is that Everett discloses only to “cease re-
`
`transmission once the secondary station has received an acknowledgement from the
`
`primary station.”
`
`However, what is missing from the Petition is any evidence that Everett
`
`
`
` 8
`
` The Petition appears to cite to Everett (EX1008, in two parts) by the internal page
`numbers of the photocopied pages rather than the page numbers printed by
`Petitioners at the bottom of each page. For the purposes of this brief, Patent Owner
`follows Petitioners’ convention and cites to the internal page numbers on the
`photocopied pages.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`discloses the required retransmitting the same respective request “in consecutive
`
`allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`
`acknowledgement is received from the primary station.”
`
`In fact, Everett expressly discloses the opposite – in the system of Everett, its
`
`retransmissions are done at randomly selected time intervals:
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1008 (part 2), at 317 (highlighting and underlining added).
`
`The above paragraph appears in the middle of page 317 of Everett, and the
`
`use of randomly selected time intervals is repeated again in the last paragraph of
`
`page 317 through the first paragraph of page 318 of Everett.
`
`As shown expressly by Everett itself, neither does Everett disclose the
`
`required retransmitting the same respective request “in consecutive allocated time
`
`slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is
`
`received from the primary station”, because instead of consecutive allocated time
`
`slots, Everett retransmits “after a randomly selected time interval”.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`No combination of Wolfe, Bousquet, or Everett discloses
`“wherein the [at least one of the plurality of] respective
`secondary stations [have means for] [retransmits/re-
`transmitting] the same respective request[s] in consecutive
`allocated time slots without waiting for an
`acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`from the primary station”
`
`As shown above, none of the cited references of Wolfe, Bousquet, or Everett
`
`discloses the required retransmitting the same respective request “in consecutive
`
`allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`
`acknowledgement is received from the primary station.”
`
`Specifically, as discussed above in Section V.C.1, Wolfe does not disclose
`
`any retransmission operation, and instead Petitioners merely speculates through its
`
`declarant conclusory statements regarding a POSITA’s understanding. Further, even
`
`Petitioners’ own conclusory statements is missing at least one claim limitation, and
`
`therefore fails to read upon the claim language.
`
`Next, as discussed above in Section V.C.2, Bousquet does not disclose either
`
`the required retransmitting in consecutive allocated time slots, neither does
`
`Bousquet disclose the required retransmitting until said acknowledgment is received
`
`from the primary station. Instead, Bousquet expressly teaches retransmitting only
`
`for a predetermined time period (as opposed to until said acknowledgement is
`
`received) and retransmitting the data “spaced in time” (as opposed to in consecutive
`
`allocated time slots).
`
`Finally, as discussed above in Section V.C.3, Everett does not disclose the
`
`required retransmitting in consecutive allocated time slots. Instead, Everett
`
`expressly teaches retransmitting only after a “randomly selected time interval” (as
`
`opposed to in consecutive allocated time slots).
`
`Therefore, at least because none of Petitioners’ cited references retransmitting
`
`in consecutive allocated time slots, as required by the claim language, no
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`combination of Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett could disclose “wherein the [at least
`
`one of the plurality of] respective secondary stations [have means for]
`
`[retransmits/re-transmitting]
`
`the same respective request[s]
`
`in consecutive
`
`allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`
`acknowledgement is received from the primary station.”
`
`
`
`D. The Petition Fails to Render Obvious “wherein the primary station
`determines whether a request for services has been transmitted by the
`at least one of the plurality of respective secondary stations by
`determining whether a signal strength of the respective transmitted
`request of the at least one of the plurality of respective secondary
`stations exceeds a threshold value.” (Claims 17 and 18) (Grounds 1 and
`2)
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Combine Patsiokas with Wolfe and
`Bousquet, or with Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett
`
`A POSITA would not have made any of the hypothetical combinations
`
`proposed by the Petition involving Patsiokas because unlike Wolfe, Bousquet, and
`
`Everett, which are with regards to satellite systems, Patsiokas is with regards to
`
`“second generation cordless telephone (CT2)” radio telephones. See EX1007, 1:15-
`
`2:8.9 More specifically, Patsiokas addresses a shortcoming in cordless radio
`
`telephone systems that is not identified or present in the satellite systems of Wolfe,
`
`Bousquet, and Everett, and therefore, a POSITA would not have been motivated to
`
`
`
` 9
`
` The Petition appears to cite to Patsiokas (EX1007) by the internal page numbers
`on top of the pages rather than the page numbers printed by Petitioners at the
`bottom of each page. For the purposes of this brief, Patent Owner follows
`Petitioners’ convention and cites to the page numbers on the top of the pages.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`make the proposed combinations with Patsiokas.
`
`To establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), it is petitioner’s “burden
`
`to demonstrate . . . that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.” In re
`
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotations
`
`omitted). ‘‘‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
`
`statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citation omitted). An obviousness
`
`determination cannot be reached where the record lacks “explanation as to how or
`
`why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.”
`
`TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Patsiokas describes the problem it solves in cordless radio telephones as such:
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`EX1007, 3:12-25 (highlighting and underlining added).10
`
`And the above scenario of concern relating to conventional cordless radio
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`telephones is illustrated by Patsiokas’ Figure 1:
`
`
`
`EX1007, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`As shown above, the shortcoming identified by Patsiokas is in the scenario
`
`where two different base stations (12, 14) could establish the communications link,
`
`but in the case where the base station that is farther from the user (10) is the one that
`
`gets the request first and establishes the communications link, there is a higher
`
`likelihood that the user will move out of the range of that farther base station and
`
`
`
`
`10 According t
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
