UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00973
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`THE ‘917 PATENT ......................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the ‘917 Patent ............................................... 2
`
`Overview of the ‘917 Patent .................................................................. 2
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘917 Patent ............................................... 11
`
`III. RELATED PROCEEDINGS ........................................................................ 13
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 14
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO CARRY ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING
`THAT ANY CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE BY A
`PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. ................................................ 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction Standard .............................................................. 15
`
`The Petition fails to establish that TR25.835 constitutes prior
`art as to the ‘917 Patent. ...................................................................... 16
`
`No prima facie obviousness for “storing abbreviated sequence
`numbers whose length depends on the maximum number of
`coded transport blocks to be stored and which can be shown
`unambiguously in a packet data unit sequence number” .................... 31
`
`The Petition does not establish that TR25.835 teaches or
`renders obvious “a physical layer of a receiving side is provided
`for testing the correct reception of the coded transport block” as
`recited in Claim 1. ............................................................................... 38
`
`VI. APJS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPOINTED PRINCIPAL
`OFFICERS ..................................................................................................... 43
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 47
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §313 and 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a), Uniloc 2017 LLC (the
`
`“Patent Owner” or “Uniloc”) submits its Patent Owner Response to the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review (“Pet.” or “Petition”) of United States Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`(“the ‘917 patent” or “Ex. 1001”) filed by Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) in
`
`IPR2019-00973.
`
`In view of the reasons presented herein, the Petition should be denied in its
`
`entirety as failing to meet the Petitioner’s burden of proving by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence that any challenged claim is unpatentable.
`
`Uniloc addresses each ground and provides specific examples of how
`
`Petitioner failed to establish that any of the challenged claims is unpatentable. As a
`
`non-limiting example described in more detail below, the Petition has failed to
`
`establish that the primary reference on the sole ground is prior art, and the Petition
`
`fails the all-elements-rule in not addressing every feature of any of the challenged
`
`claims. While the Board has instituted Inter Partes Review here, as the Court of
`
`Appeals has stated:
`
`[T]here is a significant difference between a petitioner's burden to
`
`establish a “reasonable likelihood of success” at institution, and
`
`actually proving invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence at trial.
`
`Compare 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (standard for institution of inter partes
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`review), with 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (burden of proving invalidity during
`
`inter partes review).
`
`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As demonstrated
`
`herein, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of proving any proposition of
`
`invalidity, as to any claim, by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. §316(e).
`
`II. THE ‘917 PATENT
`
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ‘917 Patent
`
`The ‘917 patent is titled “Wireless Network with a Data Exchange According
`
`to the ARQ Method.” The ‘917 Patent issued on July 11, 2006, from United States
`
`Patent Application No. 09/973,312, filed October 9, 2001, which claims priority to
`
`German Patent Application No. 100 50 117, filed October 11, 2000. The Petition
`
`does not dispute that the effective filing date of the ‘917 Patent is October 11, 2000.
`
`B. Overview of the ‘917 Patent
`
`The ‘917 Patent discloses various embodiments of a communication network
`
`intended for use in wireless communications. In general terms, the ‘917 Patent
`
`addresses challenges with wireless networks having a radio network controller, and
`
`terminals in communication with the radio network controller. (Ex. 1001; 1:5-7).
`
`Data transmitted between the radio network controller and the terminals is
`
`transmitted through channels predefined by the radio network controller. (Ex. 1001;
`
`3: 57-60). The radio link from the radio network controller to the terminals is referred
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`to as the downlink, and the radio link from the terminals to the radio network
`
`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`controller is referred to as the uplink. (Ex. 1001; 3:62-67).
`
`
`
`
`
`The network may be operated using a layer model, or protocol architecture, in
`
`accordance with a set of standards, known as the 3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`(3GPP); Technical Specification Group (TSG) RAN; Working Group 2 (WG2):
`
`Radio Interface Protocol Architecture: TS25.301 V3.6.0). (Ex. 1001; 6:9-16).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`As explained with reference to Fig. 2 of the ‘917 Patent, the layer model has
`
`three protocol layers: the physical layer PHY, a data connection layer including sub-
`
`layers MAC, for Medium Access Control, and RLC, for Radio Link Control, and the
`
`layer RRC for radio resource control. (Ex. 1001, 4:43-48). The RRC layer is
`
`responsible for signaling between the radio network controller and the mobile
`
`terminals. (Ex. 1001, 4:49-51). The sub-layer RLC controls radio links between
`
`remote terminals and radio network controllers. (Ex. 1001; 4:51-53). The layer RRC
`
`controls layers MAC and PHY via control lines 10 and 11. The layer RRC can thus
`
`control the configuration of the MAC and PHY layers. (Ex. 1001, 4:53-56). The
`
`physical layer PHY makes transport links 12 available to the MAC layer (Ex. 1001,
`
`4:56-57). The MAC layer makes logic channels 13 available to the RLC layer. (Ex.
`
`1001, 4:57-58). The RLC layer is available to applications via access points 14. (Ex.
`
`1001, 4:58-59).
`
`Packet data units for transmission are formed in the RLC layer, are packed in
`
`transport blocks in the MAC layer, and provided to the physical layer. The transport
`
`blocks are transmitted between the radio network controller and terminals by the
`
`physical layer. (Ex. 1001, 5:).
`
`Identification of error-affected packets and retransmission of error-affected
`
`packet data units is accomplished in multiple manners. Using the hybrid Automatic
`
`Repeat Request (ARQ) method Type II or Type II, a received packet data unit
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`affected by an error is buffered and, after additional incremental redundancy, is
`
`decoded together with the received packet data unit affected by error. In the ARQ
`
`method Type II, the incremental redundancy is useless without the buffered, and
`
`error-affected, packet. In the ARQ method Type II the incremental redundancy can
`
`be decoded without the buffered, error-affected, packet. A message as to error-free
`
`reception is sent by the receiving device only when the receiving RLC layer
`
`establishes on the basis of an RLC sequence number that packet data units are
`
`lacking. (Ex. 1001; 1:40-43). The RLC sequence number, or packet data unit
`
`sequence number, is transmitted in parallel with the coded transport block or the
`
`incremental redundancy required afterwards, as side information, thereby permitting
`
`the receiving side to detect which coded transport block is concerned or which
`
`buffered coded transport block the additionally transmitted redundance refers to
`
`when a coded transport block is retransmitted (Ex. 1001; 5: As a result, the packet
`
`data unit must be buffered over a long time period until an incremental redundancy
`
`is requested, and then, after successful decoding, the reception may be
`
`acknowledged as correct. (Ex. 1001; 1:43-45). The period of time that the packet
`
`data unit must be buffered is particularly long on the network side, as the physical
`
`layer and the RLC layer are usually located on different hardware components on
`
`the network side. (Ex. 1001; 1:48-50).
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`The ‘917 Patent addresses the challenge of buffering the error-affected data
`
`for a long period of time by having the receiving physical layer check whether the
`
`coded transport block has been transmitted correctly. (Ex. 1001; 6:9-11). The ‘917
`
`Patent further provides for transmission of an acknowledge command over a back
`
`channel between a physical layer of a transmitting device and the physical layer of
`
`a receiving device. (Ex. 1001; 2:30-33). This transmission of the acknowledge
`
`command provides that a correct or error-affected transmission of a transport block
`
`is provided to the transmitting side much more rapidly than previously known. (Ex.
`
`1001; 2:33-36). As a result, a repetition of transmission with incremental redundancy
`
`may be effected rapidly. This enables the receiving side to buffer the received coded
`
`transport block affected by error for a shorter time period. (Ex. 1001;2:38-40). The
`
`memory capacity needed on average for buffering received coded transport blocks
`
`affected by error is reduced. (Ex. 1001; 2:42-44).
`
`Referring to Fig. 3 of the ‘917 Patent, an example is provided.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`Here, transport blocks TB0 to TB4, to be transmitted for a time period of two
`
`radio frames RF, each having a duration of one Transmission Time Interval (TTI)
`
`are shown. (Ex. 1001; 6:44-48). Multiple channels, including the physical channel
`
`PHC, which carries the transport blocks, the side information channel SI, which
`
`carries information about the redundancy version and the abbreviated sequence
`
`number of a transport block, and the back channel BC are shown. (See Ex. 1001;
`
`6:27 – 7:16). As the ‘917 Patent explains, the correct or error-affected reception is
`
`checked in the physical layer in the radio frame RF which comes after the
`
`transmission time interval. (Ex. 1001; 6:56-58). Thus, for transport block TB1,
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`which is transmitted during the first radio frame of Fig. 3, error-checking is
`
`performed during the second of the four radio frames shown in Fig. 3, and the
`
`positive acknowledge command ACK is transmitted via back channel BC during the
`
`third radio frame. (Ex. 1001; 6:60-61). The transmission of transport blocks TB2,
`
`TB3 and TB4 is completed during the second of the four radio frames, and error
`
`checking is performed during the third radio frame. During the fourth radio frame,
`
`the positive acknowledgment command ACK for the transport blocks TB4 and TB2,
`
`and the negative acknowledgment command NACK for transport block TB3, are
`
`transmitted via back channel BC (Ex. 1001; 6:62-65).
`
`Further, the ‘917 Patent teaches the use of abbreviated sequence numbers to
`
`reduce the extent of information that is required to be additionally transmitted for
`
`managing the transport blocks and packet data units. (Ex. 1001; 2:45-49). The ‘917
`
`Patent teaches that “abbreviated sequence number is determined by the number of
`
`M coded transport blocks which, on the receiving side, can at most be buffered
`
`simultaneously.” (Ex. 1001, 5:41-44). The ‘917 Patent goes on to state that the
`
`number of M coded transport blocks is the logarithm to the base of 2, rounded to the
`
`next higher natural number. (Ex. 1001, 5:44-44) Thus, the maximum number of
`
`coded transport blocks to be stored is the same as the maximum number of coded
`
`transport blocks that can be buffered simultaneously.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`The ‘917 Patent issued with three independent claims, namely claims 1, 9 and
`
`10. The text of those three independent claims is copied herein for the convenience
`
`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`of the Board:
`
`1. A wireless network comprising a radio network controller and
`
`a plurality of assigned to signals, which are each provided for
`
`exchanging data according to the hybrid ARQ method an which form a
`
`receiving and/or transmitting side, in which a physical layer of a
`
`transmitting side is arranged for
`
`storing coded transport blocks in a memory, which blocks
`
`contain at least a packet data unit which is delivered by an assigned
`
`radio link control layer and can be identified by a packet data unit
`
`sequence number,
`
`storing abbreviated sequence numbers whose length depends on
`
`the maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored and which
`
`can be shown unambiguously in a packet data unit sequence number,
`
`and for
`
`transmitting coded transport blocks having at least an assigned
`
`abbreviated sequence number and
`
`a physical layer of a receiving side is provided for testing the
`
`correct reception of the coded transport block and for sending a positive
`
`acknowledge command to the transmitting side over a back channel
`
`when there is correct reception and a negative acknowledge command
`
`when there is error-affected reception.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`9. A radio network controller in a wireless network comprising a
`
`plurality of terminals, which radio network controller is provided for
`
`exchanging data with the terminals and which forms a receiving and/or
`
`transmitting side, in which a physical layer of the radio network
`
`controller arranged as a transmitting side for
`
`storing coded transport blocks in a memory, which blocks
`
`contain at least a packet data unit which is delivered by an assigned
`
`radio link control layer and can be identified by a packet data unit
`
`sequence number,
`
`storing abbreviated sequence numbers whose length depends on
`
`the maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored and which
`
`can be shown unambiguously in a packet data unit a sequence number,
`
`and for
`
`transmitting coded transport blocks having at least an assigned
`
`abbreviated sequence number and
`
`a physical layer of the radio network controller is arranged as a
`
`receiving side for testing the correct reception of a coded transport
`
`block from a terminal and for sending a positive acknowledge
`
`command to a terminal over a back channel when there is correct
`
`reception and a negative knowledge command when there is error-
`
`affected reception.
`
`10. A terminal in a wireless network comprising further terminals
`
`and a radio network controller, which terminal is provided for
`
`exchanging data with the terminals and which forms a receiving and/or
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`transmitting side, in which a physical layer of the terminal is arranged
`
`as a transmitting side for
`
`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`storing coded transport blocks in a memory, which blocks
`
`contain at least a packet data unit which is delivered by an assigned
`
`radio link control layer and can be identified by a packet data unit
`
`sequence number,
`
`storing abbreviated sequence numbers whose length depends on
`
`the maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored and which
`
`can be shown unambiguously in a packet data unit a sequence number,
`
`and for
`
`transmitting coded transport blocks to the radio network
`
`controller having at least an assigned abbreviated sequence number and
`
`A physical layer of the terminal is arranged as a receiving side
`
`for testing the correct reception of a coded transport block from the
`
`radio network controller and for sending a positive acknowledge
`
`command to the radio network controller over a back channel when
`
`there is correct reception and a negative acknowledge command when
`
`there is error-affected reception.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘917 Patent
`
`The ‘917 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/973,312,
`
`filed October 9, 2001 (the ‘312 Application), which claims priority to German
`
`Application No. 10050117.6, filed October 11, 2000. The ‘312 Application was filed
`
`with 10 claims, including 3 independent claims (Ex. 1002, pp. 13-15). Information
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`Disclosure Statements were filed in the ‘312 Application on January 8, 2002 and
`
`September 22, 2003, identifying: 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical
`
`Specification Group Radio Access Network, Report on Hybrid ARQ Type II/III
`
`(Release 2000), 3G TR 25.835 v0.0.0, TS-RAN Working Group 2 (Radio L2 and
`
`Radio L3, France, August 15-21, 2000).
`
`In a first Office Action, mailed September 21, 2005, independent claims 1 and
`
`9-10, were objected to for various informalities and dependent claims 4-8 were
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. (Ex. 1002, p. 59-61). The Office
`
`Action confirmed that the Examiner considered the references cited in the
`
`Information Disclosure Statements. (Ex. 1002, pp. 63-64). The Office Action further
`
`included a list of references considered by the Examiner, namely U.S. Patent
`
`Publication No. 2001/0036169 (Ratzel), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0157927
`
`(Yi, et al.) and U. S. Patent Publication No. 204/0246917 (Cheng, et al.). (Ex. 1002,
`
`p. 65). The Ratzel reference discloses, in a digital packet radio receiver network, an
`
`automatic repeat request, or ARQ, in which a very short sequence number is utilized
`
`for space efficiency. (Ex. 1002, p. 99).
`
`An Amendment and Response was filed on January 23, 2006. (Ex. 1002, pp.
`
`68-75). In the Amendment, independent claims 1, 9 and 10 were amended to correct
`
`minor informalities. (Ex. 1002, pp. 69-71). Dependent claims 4, 5, 7 and 8 were
`
`amended to clarify that the recited physical layer may be of the sending side or the
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`transmitting side, and that an acknowledge command may be transmitted form either
`
`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`the sending side or the transmitting side. (Ex. 1002; p. 70).
`
`The USPTO issued a Notice of Allowance on February 27, 2006. (Ex. 1002,
`
`p. 78). The issue fee was paid on May 24, 2006. (Ex. 1002; p.85). The application
`
`issued as the ‘917 Patent on July 1, 2006.
`
`III. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The ’917 patent is involved in the following proceedings:
`
`Case Caption
`
`Number
`
`District
`
`Filed
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Microsoft
`Corporation
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Verizon
`Communications Inc. et al
`
`8-18-cv-01279
`
`CDCA
`
`7/24/2018
`
`2-18-cv-00380
`
`EDTX
`
`8/29/2018
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2019-00259
`
`PTAB
`
`11/12/2018
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft
`Corporation
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Verizon
`Communications Inc. et al
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. AT&T Services,
`Inc. et al
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc
`2017 LLC
`
`8-18-cv-02053
`
`CDCA
`
`11/17/2018
`
`2-18-cv-00513
`
`EDTX
`
`11/17/2018
`
`2-19-cv-00102
`
`EDTX
`
`3/26/2019
`
`IPR2019-00973
`
`PTAB
`
`4/19/2019
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2020-00224
`
`PTAB
`
`12/18/2019
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2020-00315
`
`PTAB
`
`12/18/2019
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The Petition proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art of a person having a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or the equivalent and
`
`three years of experience working with wireless digital communication systems
`
`including the physical layer of such systems. (Petition, p. 27). The Petition
`
`alternatively proposes that the skilled person would have had a master’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or the equivalent with an emphasis on
`
`wireless digital communication systems. (Petition, pp. 27-28).
`
`Patent Owner also does not provide its own definition because, even applying
`
`the multiple and varying alternative definitions proposed by Petitioner, Petitioner
`
`has not met its burden. Moreover, the Petition cites to the hybrid ARQ methods
`
`described in the ‘917 Patent itself as support for the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`but completely fails to link these particularized subject matter areas to the identified
`
`levels of education and industry experience proposed by Petitioner.
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO CARRY ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING
`THAT ANY CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE BY A PREPONDERANCE
`OF THE EVIDENCE.
`
`Patent Owner demonstrates that Petitioner has failed to carry its burden of
`
`showing that any of the challenged ‘917 Patent claims is unpatentable by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. §316(e). By not addressing additional
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`arguments, Patent Owner in no way concedes that any argument by Petitioner is
`
`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`correct.
`
`Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to relief. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(c). Because the Petition only presents a theory of obviousness, Petitioner
`
`must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each challenged patent
`
`claim would have been obvious in view of the references cited in the Petition.
`
`Petitioner “must 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). The Board
`
`should reject the Petition because Petitioner fails to meet this burden for the sole
`
`ground.
`
`The Petition is stylized as presenting the following ground:
`
`Ground Claim(s)
`
`Statute Reference(s)
`
`1-3 and 9-10
`
`103
`
`3G TR25.835 (Ex. 1005) and U.S. Patent
`No.6,507,582 (Abrol) (Ex. 1007)
`
`1
`
`
`
`A. Claim Construction Standard
`
`As of the filing date of the Petition, the standard for claim construction in Inter
`
`Partes Review is the standard of “ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining
`
`to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) (effective November 13, 2018). For all claim
`
`terms, Uniloc requests that the Board adopt the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`the claim term as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`The proposed construction of “back channel” on page 29 of the Petition as a
`
`“channel which is inserted directly between the receiving physical layer and the
`
`sending (or transmitting) physical layer (and not between the RLC layers) for
`
`informing the transmitting side (transmitting terminal or radio network controller)
`
`of the fact that a transport block has not been transmitted error-free”, has not been
`
`shown to constitute the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition fails to establish that TR25.835 constitutes prior art
`as to the ‘917 Patent.
`
`The Petition fails to establish that TR25.835 constitutes prior art. First, the
`
`Petition fails to meet the Petitioner’s burden of explaining how TR25.832 allegedly
`
`qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or 102 (b). Second, even if the
`
`Board were to treat the Petitioner here in the manner an Examiner treats a pro se
`
`applicant and conduct a legal analysis on Petitioner’s behalf, the evidence provided
`
`by the Petitioner, namely the Rodermund Declaration (Ex. 1004), does not meet the
`
`Petitioner’s burden here. The Rodermund Declaration makes clear that the version
`
`of TR25.835 that was allegedly available on the 3GPP ftp server was not publicly
`
`accessible by virtue of indexing or cataloging, as the document bore an arbitrary title
`
`that had no information regarding its subject matter. Ex. 1004 ¶25. The Rodermund
`
`Declaration does not state that TR25.835, or a notification as to the uploading of
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`TR25.835 to the 3GPP server, was distributed by email. See id. Even if a notification
`
`of the uploading of the TR25.835 had been emailed, there was no way for the person
`
`of ordinary skill to subscribe to such emails, as the Rodermund Declaration states
`
`that those notification emails were provided to selected representatives of 3GPP
`
`member companies, not the general public. Id.¶19. Finally, the Petition does not rely
`
`on any presentation or distribution of TR25.835 at a meeting, and Petitioner provides
`
`no documentary evidence whatever to corroborate Rodermund’s unsupported
`
`statement that TR 25.835 was presented at a meeting, or even to corroborate that the
`
`meeting took place. See Ex. 1004, ¶25.
`
`The Petition’s rationale, on page 10 of the Petition, for the alleged status of
`
`TR25.835 as prior art, fails on multiple grounds. The Petition merely states that
`
`TR25.835 was published by 3GPP in 2000 and publicly available on the 3GPP file
`
`server no later than September 13, 2000. Pet. 10. The Petition does not recite any
`
`applicable standard that TR25.832 must meet to qualify as a printed publication
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a) or 102(b), or explain how the supporting evidence
`
`allegedly demonstrates that the applicable standard is met, thus failing to meet the
`
`minimum standards required to explain the significance of evidence, both under
`
`applicable regulations and under applicable case law.
`
`The Petition fails to meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 42.22(a), which states:
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Each petition or motion must be filed as a separate paper and must
`
`include:
`
`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) A statement of the precise relief requested; and
`
`(2) A full statement of reasons for the relief requested, including
`
`a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including
`
`material facts, and the governing law, rules and precedent.
`
`Here, the required “detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence
`
`including material facts” is completely absent from the Petition.
`
`The regulations relating to requirements for petitions provide further detail as
`
`to the nature of the burden on the Petitioner to explain the significance of the
`
`evidence. The Petition must include:
`
`(5) The exhibit number of the supporting evidence relied upon to
`
`support the challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge
`
`raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that
`
`support the challenge. The Board may exclude or give no weight to the
`
`evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify
`
`specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (emphasis added). Here, the Petitioner merely refers generally to
`
`fourteen paragraphs of the Rodermund Declaration, Ex. 1004, without identifying
`
`either a specific portion, i.e., a specific paragraph, or any particular factual statement
`
`in the Rodermund Declaration. See Pet. 10.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`The Petition thus utterly lacks the required “detailed explanation of the
`
`significance of the evidence including material facts,” required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`42.22(a), in support of Petitioner’s burden to show that TR25.835 constitutes prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) or 102(b). Rather, the Petition merely alleges that the
`
`document was available on a file server as of a certain date. Pet. 10. Petitioner
`
`provides neither a recitation of an applicable legal standard, nor an analysis of how
`
`the availability of the document on a file server might satisfy that applicable legal
`
`standard. Thus, the Petition, on its face, fails to meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`42.22(a).
`
`The Petition similarly fails to meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §42.104, as
`
`the Petition fails to identify the specific portions of the Rodermund Declaration that
`
`allegedly support Petitioner’s contention that TR25.835 constitutes prior art. The
`
`Petition merely points generally to Paragraphs 12-24 and 25 of the Rodermund
`
`Declaration, not to specific portions of the Declaration. Pet. 10. In accordance with
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104, as the Petition fails to identify the specific portions of the
`
`evidence that support Petitioner’s contention that TR25.835 constitutes prior art, the
`
`Board should “exclude or give no weight to” the Rodermund Declaration, and thus
`
`the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that TR25.835 constitutes prior art.
`
`The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, like the applicable regulations,
`
`stresses the importance of the requirement that the Petition identify the particular
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`portions of the evidence that support the Petition’s contentions, and explain the
`
`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`significance of that evidence:
`
`It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings
`
`adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify “with
`
`particularity” the “evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge
`
`to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016). Here, the Petitioner fails to identify with particularity either the portions
`
`of the Rodermund Declaration on which it relies, or the particular facts supported by
`
`the Rodermund Declaration, that support its contention that TR25.385 constitutes
`
`prior art.
`
`The Board’s case law as to the obligation of the Petitioner to explain the
`
`significance of submitted evidence reinforces that the Petition here fails to prove that
`
`TR25.385 is prior art. The failure of the Petition here to provide an explanation as
`
`to why a document allegedly constitutes prior art is on all fours with the following
`
`statement by the Board in Dynaenergetics US, Inc v. Geodynamics, Inc., PGR2018-
`
`00065, Paper 8 (2018) (Routine), at 25-26 (emphasis added):
`
`There is simply nothing in the Petition itself regarding the significance
`
`of the representations made in the Honcia declaration concerning the
`
`lecture notes presented by Dr. Honcia at the CCG workshop, nor does
`
`Petitioner explain how these representations demonstrate that Battelle
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`was "otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and
`
`ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable
`
`diligence, can locate it." Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348 (citation
`
`omitted). Moreover, Petitioner does not explain how one of skill in the
`
`art, exercising reasonable diligence, would access Battelle. We view
`
`Petitioner's naked assertion that Battelle is publicly available, and
`
`blanket citation to paragraphs 1 and 12 of the Honcia declaration, as
`
`an invitation to be an archeologist of the record in search of pertinent
`
`facts to satisfy the criteria for public accessibility described above.
`
`That, however, is not our role.
`
`Petitioner's mere statement that Battelle is publicly available,
`
`backed by a citation to the Honcia declaration, is insufficient to support
`
`a finding that it is more likely than not that Battelle was publicly
`
`accessible as of the critical date. Absent sufficient arguments and
`
`credible evidence, we determine that Battelle does not qualify as a prior
`
`art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.
`
`In Dynaenergetics US, as in the present case, the Petition provided no more
`
`than a blanket citation to a portion of a declaration, with no explanation as to how
`
`the facts set forth in the accompanying declaration met the applicable standard. The
`
`mere invitation to be an archaeologist of the Declaration accompanying the Petition
`
`in search of pertinent facts does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden. As in Dynaenergetics
`
`US, the Petition here has failed to provide support for a finding that TR25.835
`
`qualifies as prior art.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00973
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`The Board’s Informative Decision in Spalding v. Hartsell, Interference No.
`
`104,699, Paper No. 92 (2002), further demonstrates that the Petition has failed to
`
`meet the minimum standard to show that TR25.835 qualifies as prior art. T