Apple Inc.,
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2019-00702
`U.S. Patent No. 7,969,925
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`May 21, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2019-00702
`U.S. Patent No. 7,969,925
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`May 21, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`1. A method of establishing a direct data transfer session between mobile
`devices that support a data packet-based communications service over a
`digital mobile network system, the method comprising:
`opening a listening software port on an initiating mobile device to
`receive communications through the data packet-based
`communications service;
`transmitting an invitation message to a target mobile device through a
`page-mode messaging service, wherein the invitation message
`comprises a network address associated with the initiating mobile
`device, and wherein the target mobile device is located by providing a
`unique identifier to the page-mode messaging service;
`receiving a response from the target mobile device at the listening
`software port on the initiating mobile device; and
`establishing a data transfer session through the data packet-based
`communications service between the initiating mobile device and the
`target mobile device, wherein the data transfer session is established
`in a peer-to-peer fashion without a server intermediating
`communications through the established data transfer session
`between the initiating mobile device and the target mobile device.
`
`2
`
`
`
`The Petition is impermissibly keyed to an incorrect
`construction for the “opening” limitations
`
`Each one of the six grounds in the Petition is impermissibly keyed to
`an incorrect construction for the “opening” limitations. The Board
`declined to adopt Petitioners’ redrafting of the claim language to
`recite, instead, “associating a port identifier with a process.” The
`relevant briefing raise the following example points (among others):
` Petitioner’s attempt to replace the word “opening” with
`“associating” fails to give effect to the meaningful and limiting term
`chosen by the patentee.
` Petitioner redrafting of “opening” is inconsistent with the
`remainder of the limitation and the surrounding context.
` Petitioner’s fatal error is further underscored by its interpretation
`that the claimed “initiating mobile device” need not listen at its
`newly-opened and special-purpose “listening software port” for a
`“response from the target mobile device” in particular,
`notwithstanding the explicit claim language to the contrary.
`
`3
`
`
`
`The Petition is impermissibly keyed to an incorrect
`construction for the “opening” limitations
`
` The preamble of claim 1 affirmatively recites "a data packet-based
`communications service" that is the object of the act of "opening a listening
`software port" recited in the body of the claim.
` The ’925 patent offers the following description of a special purpose for
`which the listening port is configured: “the initiating mobile device opens a
`TCP port to listen for communications from the target mobile device210.”
`Ex. 1001 4:38‒40; see also id. at 4:58‒62 (describing an alternative
`embodiment with reference to Figure 3).
` During prosecution, when addressing this exact same claim language, the
`applicant explained that this claim language “requires opening a listening
`software port on an initiating mobile device every time the initiating mobile
`device desires to establish communications with a particular target mobile
`device.” Ex. 1004 at p. 316.
` The patentee further unambiguously distinguished the same claim language
`at issue here from, for example, (1) opening a port that indiscriminately
`“serves any and all mobile terminals that desire setting up a connection” and
`(2) “leav[ing] open one known connection to allow any number of devices to
`communicate with it.” Id. pp. 316‒317.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Other Dispositive Claim Construction Issues
`
`Petitioner fails to explain why the Board should find there is
`no claimed relationship between the timing of any of the steps
`in these independent claims vis-à-vis any step recited in a
`respective dependent claim:
` Absent from the Petition is any explanation of how
`“opening a second listening software port” should be
`understood in the abstract, without reference to the same
`initiating mobile device having first opened the listening
`software port recited in claim 1.
` For this additional and independent reason, claim 2 has not
`be shown to be obvious. Analogous reasoning also applies
`to claims 9 and 16, which depend from claims 8 and 15,
`respectively.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Deficiencies of “well-known” socket mapping
`
`Petition fails to prove the “opening” limitations encompass permanently-
`assigned ports which are technically classified as “well-known” because
`they are generally known by, and hence available to, any foreign
`computer. A referenced submitted by Petitioner (Ex. 1010) described
`“well-known sockets” as follows:
`
`Ex. 1010 at 20 (highlighting and underlining added). A port that is
`permanently assignedand made available a priorito all devices in
`general is not one that even available for “opening” as claimed.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Deficiencies of “well-known” socket mapping
`
`7
`
`
`
`Deficiencies of “TCP in RFC793”
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on the cited description of TCP in RFC793
`essentially rehashes the same argument persuasively addressed in
`an appeal brief of a parent application. See Ex. 1004 pp. 414‒416.
` The patentee successfully traversed an examiner rejection
`which “maintain[ed] that opening a listening software port is
`implicit [in the cited art] and that any mobile device necessarily
`has to open a listening software port just to operate and
`communicate with other devices.” Ex. 1004 pp. 414‒416.
` Applicant successfully argued conventional TCP ports of the
`time were opened on servers—not on mobile devices.
` Another point of distinction over opening conventional ports in
`general focused on the specific typeof port opening required by
`the claim language—i.e., a packet-based port (as opposed, for
`example to a circuit-switched port).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Deficiencies of “TCP in RFC793”
`
`9
`
`
`
`Deficiencies of combinations involving Alos
`
`Petitioner overlooks the fact that Alos’ station 1 receives communications on line 13 of the
`Switched Telephone Network or “STN”—i.e., not a packet-based communication service.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Deficiencies arising from assertion of Cordenier
`
`Petitioner relies on a paragraph in Cordenier
`that states information is sent over distinct
`channels 8, 10, 11 and 9 (in that order).
`
`Petitioner overlooks the disclosure in
`Cordenier that only two of those channels
`(10, 11) are part of a “data network” and that
`terminals 1 and 2 are not directly connected
`to those channels at least because distinct
`channels 8 and 9 are respectively interposed
`therebetween.
`
`Petitioner fails to explain how Cordnier’s
`disclosure of logging onto a server to
`establish a required communication channel
`renders the claim language obvious,
`especially given the Petition states the ’925
`patent claims to have invented “a technique
`for transferring data between mobile devices
`that does not require a server.”
`
`11
`
`
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
