UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`
`PATENT 7,587,207
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`
`PATENT 7,587,207
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`
`THE ’207 PATENT .................................................................................. 1
`
`III.
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS .................................................................... 3
`
`IV.
`
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................. 3
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`THE PETITION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH 35 U.S.C. §
`312(A)(3) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(A)(2) AND 42.104(B)(4) ............... 4
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM .......................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction ......................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Fails to Show That The Conclusory And
`Hypothetical “MBLH System” Discloses “wherein the
`beacon is further arranged to add to each inquiry
`message prior to transmission an additional data field”
`(Independent Claim 1) .................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Legal standard ...................................................................... 9
`
`The Petition’s conclusory and hypothetical
`“MBLH system” does not disclose “add[ing] to
`each inquiry message … an additional data field.”
`(Independent Claim 1) ........................................................ 11
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Fails to Show That The Conclusory And
`Hypothetical “MBLH System” Discloses “wherein the
`beacon adds to each inquiry message prior to
`transmission an additional data field carrying broadcast
`message data including location information”
`(Independent Claim 9) .................................................................. 15
`
`D.
`
`The Petition fails to Prove Obviousness of Any
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`Dependent Claim .......................................................................... 16
`
`VII.
`
`THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`IS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL ..................................... 16
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC (the “Uniloc” or “Patent Owner”) submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to Petition IPR2019-00753 for Inter Partes Review (“Pet.” or
`
`“Petition”) of United States Patent No. 7,587,207 (“the ’207 Patent” or “EX1001”)
`
`filed by Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”). The instant Petition is procedurally and
`
`substantively defective for at least the reasons set forth herein.
`
`II. THE ’207 PATENT
`
`The ’207 patent is titled “Data delivery through beacons.” The ʼ207 patent
`
`issued September 8, 2009, from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/876,515 filed June
`
`7, 2001, which claims priority to United Kingdom Patent Application No.
`
`GB0015454 filed June 26, 2000 and United Kingdom Patent Application No.
`
`GB0020073 filed August 15, 2000. The inventors of the ’207 patent observed that
`
`at the time of the invention, as a result of the increased use and prevalence of mobile
`
`phones there was greater utility to Context Aware (“CA”) mobile phones and
`
`applications. Such “Context Aware” mobile phones and applications were used with
`
`low power, short range base stations in places like shopping malls to provide, for
`
`example, location-specific information. An important requirement of “Context
`
`Aware” devices was that they quickly and efficiently gather data from beacons such
`
`that the user is not required to undertake actions such as staying close to a beacon
`
`whilst contact is established between portable device and beacon, nor having to
`
`specifically initiate interaction. A further requirement is that the portable device
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`should able to be kept relatively simple insofar as the data gathering from beacons
`
`is concerned. It is therefore advantageous to have a system for the delivery of data
`
`via beacons whereby the amount of dedicated circuitry and operating procedure are
`
`kept to a minimum. EX1001, 1:9-2:13.
`
`According to the invention of the ’207 Patent, there is provided a
`
`communications system and method comprising at least one beacon device capable
`
`of wireless message transmission and at least one portable device capable of
`
`receiving such a message transmission, wherein the beacon is arranged to broadcast
`
`a series of inquiry messages each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data
`
`fields arranged according to a first communications protocol, wherein the beacon is
`
`further arranged to add to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional
`
`data field, and wherein the at least one portable device is arranged to receive the
`
`transmitted inquiry messages and read data from said additional data field, the
`
`additional data field including location information. By adding the additional field
`
`(suitably at the end of a respective inquiry message), data broadcast may be carried
`
`on top of an existing inquiry process, such that the usual delays while such a process
`
`is carried out prior to data transfer are avoided. Furthermore, by placing the
`
`additional field at the end of those sent according to the communications protocol
`
`(preferably but not essentially Bluetooth), those protocol-compatible devices not
`
`intended for reception of beacon signals can simply ignore the additional data
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`without compromising operation according to protocol. EX1001, 2:14-36.
`
`III. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The following proceedings are currently pending cases concerning U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 7,587,207 (EX1001).
`
`Case Name
`
`Case Number
`
`Court
`
`Filing Date
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc.
`
`5-19-cv-01692 CAND Apr. 02, 2019
`
`IV. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The Petition alleges that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`Critical Date of the ’207 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 or more years of experience in wireless communication
`
`systems.” Pet. 6. Given that Petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in establishing
`
`prima facie anticipation or obviousness when applying its own definition of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), Patent Owner does not offer a competing
`
`definition for POSITA at this preliminary stage, though it reserves the right to do so
`
`in the event that trial is instituted.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`V. THE PETITION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH 35 U.S.C. § 312(A)(3)
`AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(A)(2) AND 42.104(B)(4)
`
`Apple’s contentions are conclusory and fail to satisfy the requirements of the
`
`rules that a petition contain a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence
`
`and identify where each element of each challenged claim is found in the prior art.
`
`A petition must identify “in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged,
`
`the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that
`
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim[.]” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). It
`
`must also “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents
`
`or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Similarly, 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.22(a)(2) requires that each petition include “a detailed explanation of the
`
`significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules,
`
`and precedent.” The 2018 Revised Trail Practice Guide cautions that petitioners
`
`should “avoid submitting a repository of all the information that a judge could
`
`possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well organized, easy-to-follow
`
`arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.” 2018 Revised Trial
`
`Practice Guide, at 7. The Petition fails these requirements in many respects.
`
`Apple’s Petition is virtually impenetrable because it fails to clearly identify
`
`where each element of the claim is found in the prior art contrary to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(4). It presents a summary of the McCall reference, the BT Core reference,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`the Larsson reference, and the Hancock reference, and then a conjured up and
`
`entirely hypothetical “MBLH system” consisting of conclusory statements allegedly
`
`supported by vaguely identified citations to the aforementioned four references, and
`
`unexplained testimony from its expert declaration. (Pet. at 9-28.) This combination
`
`of the references is done without any reference to the claims.
`
`Then, rather than pointing out precisely where the claim limitations are
`
`disclosed in the references, the Petition presents conclusory assertions that mimic
`
`the language of each claim limitation and refers the reader through overly broad
`
`citations to its prior summary and argument and to its expert declaration. (Pet. at 28-
`
`45.) The Petition only rarely explains the significance of these citations. They often
`
`do not actually support Apple’s representations regarding the relevant teachings.
`
`Where the Petition does cite the references for support, the citations are overly
`
`vague, often citing multiple pages without further guidance. (See, e.g., Pet. at 31-
`
`32: “A standard inquiry message only includes predetermined access code fields,
`
`but McCall, BT Core, and Larsson in view of Hancock discloses additionally
`
`sending location information to asset 120, 122. Ex. 1007, p 48; Ex. 1005, 3:63-4:67,
`
`FIG. 3; Ex. 1006, 7:5-8:3, 3:57-4:34.”)
`
`Further, rather than articulating what is lacking in each of McCall, BT Core,
`
`Larsson, and Hancock, and a specific rationale for why each would have been
`
`modified and built upon one another to incorporate the missing elements, the Petition
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`merely asserts that it would be obvious to implement the resulting so-called “MBLH
`
`system”, without stating that any of the modifications are necessary to rectify any
`
`alleged shortcomings of any of the four cited references or intermediate modified
`
`systems. From the rambling ensuing discussion, the Board and Patent Owner can
`
`only speculate regarding exactly which claim limitations are being addressed,
`
`whether Apple contends which ones, if any, of the four cited references discloses the
`
`limitation, why the allegedly disclosed elements would nevertheless require
`
`modification to arrive at the claimed subject matter, what specific teachings are
`
`being combined, Apple’s specific rationale for why a person of ordinary skill would
`
`have made the combination, and numerous other aspects of a proper obviousness
`
`analysis.
`
`Apple’s above described approach, which compares the challenged claims to
`
`a hypothetical integrated system that allegedly implements four separate references
`
`as well as the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, improperly shifts the
`
`burden to the Board and Patent Owner to discern which particular portions of each
`
`reference are being relied upon as meeting the pertinent claim limitations and
`
`thereby obscures the actual teachings of the prior art and obscures any comparison
`
`of the individual references to the claim limitations. See Google Inc. v. Everymd.com
`
`LLC, IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 at 24-25 (May 22, 2014) (denying petition where
`
`petition failed to meaningfully address “the scope and content of the prior art and
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art”); Liberty Mut.
`
`Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 3 (Oct. 25, 2012)
`
`(“A petitioner who does not state the differences between a challenged claim and the
`
`prior art, and relies instead on the patent owner and the Board to determine those
`
`differences based on the rest of the submission in the petition risks having the
`
`corresponding ground of obviousness not included for trial for failing to adequately
`
`state a claim for relief.”)
`
`Because the Petition itself fails in numerous respects to adequately identify
`
`the supporting evidence and rationale it relies on to challenge specific claim
`
`elements, it is deficient and does not support instituting a trial.
`
`VI. 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 raises the following obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1
`
`1-3, 5, 6, and 9-11 McCall1, BT Core2, Larsson3, and Hancock4
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Patent Owner submits that the Board need not construe any claim term in a
`
`particular manner in order to arrive at the conclusion that the Petition is substantively
`
`deficient. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (“need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`
`However, in the event that trial is instituted, Patent Owner reserves the right to object
`
`to any proposed constructions and provide Patent Owner’s proposed constructions.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Fails to Show That The Conclusory And
`Hypothetical “MBLH System” Discloses “wherein the beacon is
`further arranged to add to each inquiry message prior to
`transmission an additional data field” (Independent Claim 1)
`
`As discussed in Section V, supra, Petitioner fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. §
`
`312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4), and for that reason alone
`
`the Petition should be denied. Moreover, the Petition’s reliance on the conclusory
`
`and hypothetical “MBLH system” is nothing more than impermissible hindsight
`
`
`
` 1
`
` EX1005, U.S. Patent No. 6,738,628
`2 EX1007, Specification of the Bluetooth System: Wireless connections made easy,
`Core, Vol. 1
`3 EX1014, U.S. Patent No. 6,704,293
`4 EX1006, U.S. Patent No. 5,806,017
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`reconstruction.
`
`The Petition argues that the conclusory and hypothetical “MBLH system”
`
`would meet this claim limitation which requires “add[ing] to each inquiry message
`
`… an additional data field.” Pet. 31-32. However, the Petition fails to “specify where
`
`each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications
`
`relied upon”. Instead, the Petition picks out an element from McCall and another
`
`element from Hancock, throws the two isolated elements into a black box, and
`
`merely concludes that what comes out the other end is a magical “MBLH system”
`
`that meets each element of the claim limitation is met. Not only does the Petition fail
`
`to provide any evidence or analysis for how or why a POSITA would have made the
`
`specific modifications and combinations to supposedly arrive at the hypothetical
`
`“MBLH system”, the Petition does not even disclose the details and structure of the
`
`alleged completed “MBLH system”. Instead, the Petition relies solely on conclusory
`
`statements and nearly identical conclusory testimony from its declarant. Petitioner
`
`takes disparate elements from four different references and concludes, without any
`
`evidence or explanation, that a POSITA would have arrived at the claimed invention.
`
`The Petition is the very definition of hindsight reconstruction.
`
`1.
`
`Legal standard
`
`“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705
`
`(2007). 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). The
`
`petitioner must “articulate[] 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). In a case of obviousness, there must be an explanation
`
`of why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the prior art references to
`
`create the claimed invention. Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., 636 Fed. Appx.
`
`575, 577–78 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`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). This
`
`requisite explanation avoids an
`
`impermissible “hindsight
`
`reconstruction,” using “the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art
`
`references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve . . . The
`
`claims in suit.” .” In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In
`
`re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`The Petition’s conclusory and hypothetical “MBLH system”
`does not disclose “add[ing] to each inquiry message … an
`additional data field.” (Independent Claim 1)
`
`2.
`
`For this limitation, and to the extent the structure of Petitioner’s hypothetical
`
`“MBLH system” is divulged or discernable, the Petition argues that (1) a non-
`
`preferred embodiment of McCall discloses a beacon without a receiver, (2) BT Core
`
`discloses the Bluetooth specification which includes a standard inquiry message that
`
`does not include a header or payload field, and (3) Hancock discloses providing
`
`information regarding the location of its beacons. See Pet. 31-32; 9-28. And yet,
`
`without explanation or evidence, the Petition merely concludes that it would have
`
`been obvious for a POSITA to make unstated intermediate steps and modifications
`
`to arrive at Petitioner’s hypothetical “MBLH system”, which allegedly reads on this
`
`claim limitation. Id. In addition to Petitioner’s improper hindsight reconstruction,
`
`the Petition further fails to provide the required evidence or analysis to support even
`
`the narrow combination of the distinct and separate elements of McCall, BT Core,
`
`and Hancock as described above, and therefore the conclusory and hypothetical
`
`“MBLH system” does not disclose the claim limitation requiring “add[ing] to each
`
`inquiry message … an additional data field.”
`
`First, the Petition’s “MBLH system” relies entirely on a POSITA choosing to
`
`start with a non-preferred embodiment of McCall’s system where the beacons do not
`
`include a receiver. See Pet. 9-11; 31. However, Petitioner provides no evidence or
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`explanation as to why a POSITA would choose the non-preferred embodiment of
`
`McCall’s system, when the full-featured, preferred embodiment is available. As the
`
`Petition itself admits, Petitioner’s reliance on McCall’s beacon without a receiver is
`
`just one of various embodiments. Pet. 10 (“McCall discloses a particular
`
`embodiment…”); see also EX1003, ¶ 42
`
`(“McCall discloses various
`
`embodiments…”). And in fact, the embodiment cherry-picked by Petitioner is
`
`merely an “alternative embodiment” and not the preferred embodiment of McCall.
`
`EX1005, 4:10-16. Furthermore, nowhere in the Petition is there any explanation or
`
`evidence as to why a POSITA would choose this particular, non-preferred
`
`embodiment of McCall over any of the others, including the full-featured preferred
`
`embodiment where the beacons can both send and receive. Both the Petition and
`
`Petitioner’s declarant merely assumes, without evidence, that a POSITA would
`
`choose the cherry-picked non-preferred embodiment instead of any of the other
`
`embodiments. See Pet. 9-11; EX1003, ¶¶ 42-43. Indeed, nothing in the Petition or
`
`by Petitioner’s declarant even addresses this particular choice. For this reason alone,
`
`the conclusory and hypothetical “MBLH system” fails and the Petition should be
`
`denied. TriVascular, 812 F.3d at 1066.
`
`Second, the Petition further fails because the Petition also merely concludes
`
`that a POSITA would have modified BT Core’s standard inquiry message by adding
`
`an additional field to BT Core’s standard inquiry message. Pet. 13-17. And here, the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`Petition fails for at least two reasons. As the Petition itself states, according to BT
`
`Core, the inquiry protocol is used when one device wants to discover other devices
`
`but does not know the addresses for the other devices. Pet. 12. However, the Petition
`
`is: (a) completely silent as to why a POSITA would choose or need inquiry messages
`
`in the hypothetical “MBLH system”, and (b) the Petition is also silent as to why a
`
`POSITA would nonetheless choose to add an additional data field to the inquiry
`
`message and not any of a number of other alternatives, ones which do not require
`
`modification of the standard Bluetooth inquiry message.
`
`As an initial matter, the Petition fails because the Petition does not explain
`
`why a POSITA would choose or need to use inquiry messages at all in the non-
`
`preferred embodiment of McCall where the beacons cannot receive and can only
`
`transmit. In other words, in a system where the beacons cannot receive, the Petition
`
`completely fails to explain or discuss why would a POSITA would care for the
`
`beacon to discover other devices by sending inquiry messages when the beacons
`
`don’t have the capability to receive a response to such a discovery inquiry in the first
`
`place. In a system where the beacons cannot receive, the beacons would most likely
`
`just transmit data without any care or regard for whether anything was around to
`
`receive that data. The Petition itself admits that “[a] standard inquiry message only
`
`includes predetermined access code fields”. Pet. 31. However, the Petition merely
`
`cites to Petitioner’s declarant for the conclusion that “it would have been obvious to
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`a POSITA that an inquiry message is transmitted by a beacon…”. Pet. 14-15. But
`
`Petitioner’s declarant merely parrots the same speculative and conclusory statements
`
`of the Petition. Compare Pet. 13-17 with EX1003, ¶¶ 48-58. That is insufficient. 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.”); Alza Corp. v.
`
`Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“legal determinations of
`
`obviousness, as with such determinations generally, should be based on evidence
`
`rather than on mere speculation or conjecture.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd.,
`
`829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] petitioner cannot employ mere
`
`conclusory statements” and “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on
`
`evidence of record . . . .”).
`
`Next, the Petition also fails because the Petition also does not provide any
`
`explanation or evidence of why a POSITA would add an additional data field to the
`
`inquiry message instead of any number of other options, such as sending the beacon
`
`ID information itself instead of the inquiry message, or even if an inquiry message
`
`is used, following it with a separate message with the beacon ID instead of adding
`
`an additional field to the inquiry message. The Petition does not address any other
`
`possibilities, and instead, again, merely concludes that “a POSITA would have
`
`appreciated the need to add an additional data field to the standard inquiry
`
`message…” Pet. 16. And again, for support the Petition relies solely on the nearly
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`identical conclusory statements of Petitioner’s declarant. Compare Pet. 13-17 with
`
`EX1003, ¶¶ 48-58. That is insufficient. 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.”); Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006) (“legal determinations of obviousness, as with such determinations
`
`generally, should be based on evidence rather than on mere speculation or
`
`conjecture.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (“[A] petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements” and “must
`
`instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record . . . .”).
`
`Therefore, for at least the reasons above, the Petition fails because Petitioner
`
`engages in impermissible hindsight reconstruction and because the Petition’s
`
`conclusory and hypothetical “MBLH system” does not disclose “add[ing] to each
`
`inquiry message … an additional data field.”
`
`C. The Petition Fails to Show That The Conclusory And
`Hypothetical “MBLH System” Discloses “wherein the beacon
`adds to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional
`data field carrying broadcast message data including location
`information” (Independent Claim 9)
`
`For this limitation of independent Claim 9, the Petition relies solely on its
`
`discussion of the corresponding limitation of independent Claim 1. Pet. 42. (“For at
`
`least the reasons noted above with respect to claim features [1.5] and [1.8], MBLH
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`renders claim feature [9.3] obvious.”) Therefore, the Petition fails here for the same
`
`reasons as discussed above in Section VI.B.
`
`D. The Petition fails to Prove Obviousness of Any Dependent Claim
`
`The deficiencies of the Petition articulated above concerning the challenged
`
`independent claims also taint the analysis of the challenged dependent claims.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition should be denied in its entirety.
`
`VII. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INTER PARTES REVIEW IS THE
`SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL
`
`In a pending appeal to the Federal Circuit, Polaris Innovations Ltd. v.
`
`Kingston Technology, No. 18-1768, Dkt. No. 27, the patent owner Polaris argued
`
`that the Board’s appointment of administrative patent judges violates the
`
`Appointments Clause of Article II, and that their decisions must be set aside,
`
`because administrative patent judges are “appointed by the Secretary of Commerce,
`
`in consultation with the Director” of the USPTO, but without appointment by the
`
`President and confirmation by the Senate in violation of Article II, Section 2, Clause
`
`2 of the Constitution. Out of an abundance of caution, Patent Owner hereby adopts
`
`this constitutional challenge now to ensure the issue is preserved pending the appeal.
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the reasons set forth above, Uniloc respectfully requests that the
`
`16
`
`
`
`Board deny all challenges in the instant Petition.5
`
`Date: June 21, 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
` 5
`
` Patent Owner does not concede, and specifically denies, that there is any legitimacy
`to any arguments in the instant Petition that are not specifically addressed herein.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), we certify that this Preliminary Response to
`
`Petition complies with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(1)
`
`because it contains fewer than the limit of 14,000 words, as determined by the word-
`
`processing program used to prepare the brief, excluding the parts of the brief
`
`exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1).
`
`Date: June 21, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00753
`U.S. Patent 7,587,207
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), we certify that we served an electronic
`
`copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) along with any accompanying exhibits via
`
`the Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) to Petitioner’s counsel at the
`
`following addresses identified in the Petition’s consent to electronic service:
`
`Lead Counsel: W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`IPR39521-0058IP1@fr.com
`
`Backup Counsel: Jeremy J. Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Roberto J. Devoto, Reg. No. 55,108
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`devoto@fr.com
`monaldo@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 21, 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
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
