`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC; and
`Nokia Solutions and Networks OY,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00658
`Patent 8,537,779
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES’
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Pages
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’779 PATENT ............................................................. 3 
`SUMMARY OF CITED REFERENCES ....................................................... 5 
`A. 
`’779 APA ............................................................................................... 5 
`B.  Motorola Submission ............................................................................ 6 
`C. 
`Soderbacka ............................................................................................ 7 
`D.  Nokia Submission.................................................................................. 9 
`  STANDARD FOR GRANTING INTER PARTES REVIEW ....................... 10 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11 
`A. 
`“obtaining unit,” “identifying unit,” and “processing unit” (Claim 11)
` ............................................................................................................. 11 
`“Create Bearer Request message” (Claim 4) ...................................... 12 
`B. 
`  GROUNDS 1-4 FAIL BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS NOT MET ITS
`BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE NOKIA SUBMISSION, THE
`MOTOROLA SUBMISSION, AND THE ’779 APA ARE PRIOR ART
`PRINTED PUBLICATIONS ........................................................................ 13 
`A. 
`Petitioner Has Failed to Show That the Nokia Submission and the
`Motorola Submission Satisfy All Requisite Characteristics of a Prior
`Art “Printed Publication” .................................................................... 13 
`1.  Petitioner Failed to Show Public Accessibility/Dissemination from
`the 3GPP FTP Server before May 11, 2007 .................................... 14 
`2.  Petitioner Failed to Show Indexing/Searchability of the ZIP Files
`Containing the Nokia Submission and Motorola Submission Via a
`“search engine” Before May 11, 2007 ............................................ 24 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`B. 
`
`3.  Petitioner Failed to Show Evidence of Actual and Sufficient
`Dissemination of the Nokia Submission and Motorola Submission
`to Members of the Public ................................................................ 26 
`Petitioner Has Failed to Show That the ’779 APA is a Prior Art
`Printed Publication .............................................................................. 28 
`1.  Petitioner Has Failed to Show that the ’779 APA Qualifies Under
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 ................................................................. 28 
`2.  Petitioner Has Failed to Show that the ’779 APA Qualifies as a
`Prior Art Patent or Printed Publication ........................................... 32 
`  GROUND 1 FAILS BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS NOT MET ITS
`BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE ’779 APA IN VIEW OF
`SODERBACKA RENDERS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS . 38 
`A. 
`The ’779 APA in View of Soderbacka Fails to Disclose “the attach
`request message comprises an information element (IE) indicating
`handover” and identifying that “the attach request message is due to
`the handover according to the IE indicating handover” (Claim
`Elements 1b, 11b, 11c) ........................................................................ 38 
`The ’779 APA in View of Soderbacka Fails to Disclose the Claimed
`Units (“obtaining unit” “identifying unit” and “processing unit” of
`Claim 11) ............................................................................................. 45 
`  GROUND 2 FAILS BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS NOT MET ITS
`BURDEN OF SHOWING THE ’779 APA IN VIEW OF THE NOKIA
`SUBMISSION RENDERS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS .... 50 
`A. 
`The ’779 APA in View of the Nokia Submission Fails to Disclose
`“the attach request message comprises an information element (IE)
`indicating handover” and identifying that “the attach request message
`is due to the handover according to the IE indicating handover”
`(Claim Elements 1b, 11b, 11c) ............................................................ 50 
`The ’779 APA in View of the Nokia Submission Fails to Disclose the
`Claimed Units (“obtaining unit” “identifying unit” and “processing
`unit” of Claim 11) ................................................................................ 55 
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Pages
`
`
`  GROUND 3 FAILS BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS NOT MET ITS
`BURDEN OF SHOWING THE MOTOROLA SUBMISSION IN VIEW OF
`THE NOKIA SUBMISSION RENDERS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`OBVIOUS ...................................................................................................... 55 
`A. 
`The Motorola Submission in View of the Nokia Submission Fails to
`Disclose “the attach request message comprises an information
`element (IE) indicating handover” and identifying that “the attach
`request message is due to the handover according to the IE indicating
`handover” (Claim Elements 1b, 11b, 11c) .......................................... 56 
`The Motorola Submission in View of the Nokia Submission Fails to
`Disclose the Claimed Units (“obtaining unit” “identifying unit” and
`“processing unit” of Claim 11)............................................................ 57 
`The Motorola Submission in View of the Nokia Submission Fails to
`Disclose “sending, by the MME, a Create Bearer Request message to
`the PDN GW” (Claim 4) ...................................................................... 58 
`  GROUND 4 FAILS BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS NOT MET ITS
`BURDEN OF SHOWING THE MOTOROLA SUBMISSION IN VIEW OF
`SODERBACKA RENDERS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS . 62 
`A. 
`The Motorola Submission in View of Soderbacka Fails to Disclose
`“the attach request message comprises an information element (IE)
`indicating handover” and identifying that “the attach request message
`is due to the handover according to the IE indicating handover”
`(Claim Elements 1b, 11b, 11c) ............................................................ 62 
`The Motorola Submission in View of Soderbacka Fails to Disclose the
`Claimed Units (“obtaining unit” “identifying unit” and “processing
`unit” of Claim 11) ................................................................................ 63 
`The Motorola Submission in View of Soderbacka Fails to Disclose
`“sending, by the MME, a Create Bearer Request message to the PDN
`GW” (Claim 4) ..................................................................................... 63 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`Pages
`
`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 64 
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`PAGES
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................................. 41
`
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......... 48, 49
`
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................. 17-19, 27
`
`Finnigan Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 180 F.3d 1354, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...... 49
`
`Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC, CBM2013-00035, Paper 45
`
`(PTAB December 17, 2014) .............................................................. 21, 22, 26
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................... 50
`
`In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ......................................... 19-22
`
`In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897 (Fed.Cir.1986) .................................................................. 16
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................... 10
`
`In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ...................................................... 50
`
`In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .......................................................... 49
`
`Kamada, ITD. V. Grigols Therapeutics Inc., IPR2014-00899,
`
`Paper 43 (PTAB December 15, 2015) ........................................................... 41
`
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v. Cree, Inc., IPR2015-00741,
`
`Paper 8 (PTAB August 20, 2015) ...................................................... 33, 34, 35
`
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v. Cree, Inc., IPR2015-00743,
`
`Paper 8 (PTAB September 9, 2015) .............................................................. 33
`
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v. Cree, Inc., IPR2015-00744,
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`
`Paper 8 (PTAB September 9, 2015) ............................................................. 33
`
`
`
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v. Cree, Inc., IPR2015-00746,
`
`Paper 8 (PTAB August 20, 2015) ........................................................... 33, 34
`
`KSR Intn’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................. 10, 53, 55
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., IPR2015-01987,
`
`Paper 7 (PTAB March 24, 2016) ............................................................. 33, 34
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`
`CBM2013-00009, Paper 68 (PTAB February 11, 2014) .............................. 22
`
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......... 48, 49
`
`Riverwood Intern. Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., Inc., 324 F.3d 1346
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................. 30
`
`SRI Intern., Inc. v. Internet Sec. Systems, Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1196-98
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................ 18, 19
`
`Tate & Lyle Americas LLC v. Cargill, Inc., IPR2014-00084,
`
`Paper 12 (PTAB April 1, 2014) ..................................................................... 40
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................. 51, 52
`
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................. 12
`
`STATUTES
`
`PAGES
`
`35 U.S.C. §102 ............................................................................. 1, 16, 18, 28-32, 36
`
`35 U.S.C. §282 ......................................................................................................... 36
`
`35 U.S.C. §301 ......................................................................................................... 37
`
`35 U.S.C. §302 ................................................................................................... 36, 37
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`
`35 U.S.C. §311 ......................................................................................... 1, 28, 32-38
`
`35 U.S.C. §314 .............................................................. 10, 14, 16, 17, 21, 26, 27, 48
`
`35 U.S.C. §321 ......................................................................................................... 36
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`PAGES
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.65 ...................................................................................................... 41
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104 ........................................................................................ 32, 34-36
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.108(c) ................................................................................................ 10
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,756
`(Aug. 14, 2012) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`HUAWEI-2001 Declaration of Scott Denning
`
`HUAWEI-2002 PDF Printout of Internet Archive Wayback Machine Listing of
`the Webpage
`http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_57_Beijing
`/Docs/, available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150325002443/http://www.3gpp
`.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_57_Beijing/Docs/ (accessed
`3/26/2017)
`
`
`HUAWEI-2003 English Version of the August 25, 2000 Version of the Patent
`Law of the People's Republic of China available at
`http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=860 (accessed
`4/4/2017).
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a), patent owner Huawei Technologies Co.
`
`LTD. (“Patent Owner”) submits this Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,537,779 (“the ’779 patent”) filed by
`
`Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC, and Nokia Solutions and Networks OY
`
`(“Petitioner”). The Petition (IPR2017-00658) challenges claims 1, 4, and 9-11 of
`
`the ’779 patent, which include independent claims 1 and 11. All grounds for the
`
`Petition fail for the reasons described below.
`
`As a threshold issue, Grounds 1-4 fail because Petitioner has not met its
`
`burden of showing that the Motorola Submission, the Nokia Submission, and the
`
`’779 APA are prior art printed publications. For the Motorola Submission and the
`
`Nokia Submission, Petitioner failed to present evidence to show that these
`
`documents were indexed and publicly accessible such that a person exercising
`
`reasonable diligence could have located them. For the ’779 APA, Petitioner failed
`
`to show how so-called “admitted prior art” qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102 or as a prior art patent or printed publication under 35 U.S.C. §311(b).
`
`Moreover, for both Grounds 1 and 4, Petitioner has not met its burden of
`
`showing that Soderbacka—the secondary reference advanced for both Grounds—
`
`discloses the attach request message comprises “an information element indicating
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`handover” and the identifying unit identifies that “the attach request message is
`
`due to the handover.”
`
`Grounds 2 and 3 fail for a similar reason. Namely, Petitioner has not met its
`
`burden of showing that the Nokia Submission—the secondary reference for these
`
`Grounds—discloses an attach request message that comprises “an information
`
`element indicating handover” and the identifying unit identifies that “the attach
`
`request message is due to the handover.”
`
`Furthermore, all Grounds fail for claim 11 because Petitioner has not met its
`
`burden of showing that the cited references taught the “obtaining unit,”
`
`“identifying unit,” and “processing unit” required in claim 11. Petitioner
`
`essentially argues that these units are inherent—that each unit “must” be present—
`
`but without providing underling facts or data to make the requisite showing of
`
`inherency.
`
`Lastly, Grounds 3 and 4 fail because Petitioner has not met its burden of
`
`showing that the Motorola Submission discloses “sending, by the MME, a Create
`
`Bearer Request message to the PDN GW.” Instead, Motorola teaches only that the
`
`MME sends a Create Bearer Request to the Serving GW, not the PDN GW.
`
`For at least these reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deny institution of Grounds 1-4 of the Petition on the merits, and decline to
`
`institute inter partes review of the ʼ779 patent.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`SUMMARY OF THE ’779 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ’779 patent relates to handover between a 3rd Generation Partnership
`
`Project (3GPP) network and a non-3GPP network. See, e.g., NSN779-1001, 1:25-
`
`28. A handover attach process differs significantly from a normal attach process.
`
`Id., 1:32-35. In a normal attach process for attaching a user equipment (UE) to a
`
`3GPP network, the network creates a default bearer between the UE and a packet
`
`data network gateway (PDN GW). In contrast, when a UE hands over from a non-
`
`3GPP network to a 3GPP network, the 3GPP network needs to re-create bearers
`
`previously created between the UE and a PDN GW in the non-3GPP network. Id.,
`
`1:40-42.
`
`The challenged claims of the ’779 patent relate to handover processing
`
`during a handover from a non-3GPP network to a 3GPP network. The claims
`
`recite specific limitations for an attach request message. For example, claims 1
`
`and 11—the challenged independent claims—include limitations describing an
`
`attach request message that includes “an information element indicating
`
`handover.” The independent claims also specify that a network entity receives the
`
`attach request message including the information element indicating handover
`
`from the UE (see, e.g., step 3 in FIG. 7 below), identifies a PDN GW which was
`
`used by the UE in the non-3GPP network, and requests the PDN GW to initiate a
`
`bearer creation procedure (see, e.g., step 8 in FIG. 7). Claim 4 requires that the
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`network entity sends a Create Bearer Request message to the PDN GW (see, e.g.,
`
`step 8 in FIG. 7) and the PDN GW to initiate the bearer creation procedure (see,
`
`e.g., step 10 in FIG. 7).
`
`
`
`The “information element indicating handover” described in the ’779 patent
`
`provides useful information for the mobility management entity (MME) to
`
`distinguish between an initial attach and a handover attach. Id., 6:37-54, 8:8-9. If
`
`the attach request message indicates an initial attach, the MME performs the
`
`normal registration and attach procedures. Id., 8:9-11. If the attach request
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`message indicates a handover attach, the MME performs operations to re-create the
`
`service used by the UE in the non-3GPP network in the 3GPP network. Id., 8:12-
`
`17.
`
` SUMMARY OF CITED REFERENCES
`A.
`’779 APA
`The so-called “’779 APA” that Petitioner relies on in Grounds 1-2 is actually
`
`found in text of a Chinese patent application—not a U.S. filing—to which the ’779
`
`patent claims priority. See Petition, 37. The ’779 APA describes a handover
`
`procedure from a non-3GPP network to a 3GPP network. NSN779-1002, 1026:12-
`
`13. The handover process is depicted in FIG. 2 of the ’779 APA shown below:
`
`
`
`Id., 1036.
`
`In the ’779 APA handover process, the UE sends an Attach Request message
`
`to the MME (step 3 in FIG. 2 above). Id., 1026:17-18. The MME sends a Create
`
`Bearer Request message to the PDN GW to request the PDN GW to initiate bearer
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`creation procedure (step 5 of FIG. 2). Id., 1026:21-23. The PDN GW then
`
`initiates a network-side bearer creation procedure to create the bearers (step 7 of
`
`FIG. 2). Id., 1026:28-29. While the ’779 APA describes a handover process in
`
`which the UE sends an Attach Request message to the MME, the ’779 APA does
`
`not disclose or suggest that the Attach Request message includes an information
`
`element indicating handover.
`
`B. Motorola Submission
`The Motorola Submission describes a procedure for handover from a non-
`
`3GPP access to a LTE access. NSN779-1009, 1. The handover procedure is
`
`depicted in Figure 5.x (reproduced below) of the Motorola Submission.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`Id., 3. In the Motorola Submission handover procedure, the UE sends an Attach
`
`Request to an MME (step 3 of Figure 5.x). Id., 3. The MME sends a Create
`
`Default Bearer Request message to a Serving GW (step 6 of Figure 5.x), and the
`
`Serving GW sends a Proxy Binding Update (BU) message to the PDN GW (step 7
`
`of Figure 5.x). Id., 4. The PMIP tunnel is switched from the non-3GPP network to
`
`the Serving GW, and bearers are setup in the 3GPP network. Id.
`
`While the Motorola Submission describes a handover process in which the
`
`UE sends an Attach Request message to the MME, the Motorola Submission does
`
`not disclose or suggest that the Attach Request message includes an information
`
`element indicating handover. Additionally, the Motorola Submission does not
`
`disclose or suggest that the MME sends a Create Bearer Request message to the
`
`PDN GW. HUAWEI-2001, ¶¶49-51, 56-57.
`
`C.
`Soderbacka
`Soderbacka describes a mobile terminal initiating a handover to a required or
`
`desired type of radio access network. NSN779-1007, ¶[0013]. When a mobile
`
`terminal desires to use a service which is not available in the system with which
`
`the mobile terminal is registered, the mobile terminal initiates a handover by
`
`transmitting information indicating that an intersystem handover from the current
`
`network to another network should be performed. Id., ¶¶[0012], [0014]. Examples
`
`of the information indicating that a handover should be performed include
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`information specifying a preferred radio access technology, a desired content or
`
`service, a type of content or service, an access point name (APN), a uniform
`
`resource location (URL), and a target Internet Protocol (IP) address. Id., ¶¶[0022]-
`
`[0024], [0030], [0031], [0033]. The current network determines the need for a
`
`handover from the received information and either grants a handover or blocks the
`
`requested content or service. Id., ¶[0026]. One example of the messages
`
`exchanged during Soderbacka’s procedure is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 6.
`
`Soderbacka plainly focuses on providing mechanisms for determining
`
`whether a handover should be performed when a mobile terminal requests a
`
`content or service. Id., ¶¶[0012], [0014], [0026], [0056], [106]-[108], [0115]-
`
`[0117]. Soderbacka does not disclose or suggest an attach request message that is
`
`sent by a UE during a handover and that includes an information element
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`indicating handover. HUAWEI-2001, ¶¶28-31. Additionally, Soderbacka does not
`
`disclose or suggest identifying that the attach request message is due to the
`
`handover according to the IE indicating handover. Id., ¶¶32-33. Petitioner’s
`
`reliance on Soderbacka does not overcome the shortcomings of the ’779 APA or
`
`the shortcomings of the Motorola Submission, as discussed below. Id., ¶¶28-34,
`
`53-55.
`
`D. Nokia Submission
`The Nokia Submission describes GPRS (General Packet Radio Service)
`
`functionality for IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) emergency services support.
`
`NSN779-1008, 1. The described GPRS functionality includes a Combined
`
`GPRS/IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) Attach procedure. Id., 2. A
`
`mobile station (MS) initiates the attach procedure by transmitting an Attach
`
`Request message that includes “Attach Type” information. Id., 4. In the Nokia
`
`Submission Attach procedure, “Attach type indicates which type of attach is to be
`
`performed, i.e., GPRS attach only, GPRS Attach while already IMSI attached, or
`
`combined GPRS/IMSI attach.” Id.
`
`The Nokia Submission is focused on an initial/normal attach procedure for
`
`supporting IMS emergency services. While the Nokia Submission describes an
`
`Attach Request that includes an Attach Type, the Nokia Submission does not
`
`disclose or suggest that the Attach Type indicates handover. HUAWEI-2001,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`¶¶37-40, 45-46. Additionally, the Nokia Submission does not disclose or suggest
`
`identifying that the Attach Request message is due to the handover according to the
`
`Attach Type. Id., ¶41, 47. Petitioner’s reliance on the Nokia Submission does not
`
`overcome the shortcomings of the ’779 APA or the shortcomings of the Motorola
`
`Submission, as discussed below. Id., ¶¶37-42, 45-48.
`
` STANDARD FOR GRANTING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`The Board may grant a petition for inter partes review only where “the
`
`information presented in the petition … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged
`
`in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. §314(a); 37 C.F.R. §42.108(c). Petitioner bears the
`
`burden of showing that this statutory threshold has been met. See Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Moreover, Petitioner must establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
`
`regard to its proposed combinations of references. It is well settled that “rejections
`
`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 Intn’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). As shown
`
`below, Petitioner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`respect to Grounds 1-4. The Board should decline to institute review of the ’779
`
`patent.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`For the purposes of IPR, each claim of the ’779 patent is to be “given its
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.” 37 CFR §§42.100(b).
`
`A.
`
`“obtaining unit,” “identifying unit,” and “processing unit” (Claim
`11)
`Petitioner contends the claim constructions for these terms should rewrite
`
`the elements as follows: “for purposes of this Petition and consistent with the BRI
`
`standard, Petitioners believe that the terms should be construed to mean ‘hardware
`
`or software obtaining unit,’ ‘hardware or software identifying unit,’ and ‘hardware
`
`or software processing unit.’” Petition, 32-33. While Petitioner mentions that it
`
`previously argued the terms to be means-plus-function terms in litigation,
`
`Petitioner makes no such argument in this proceeding. See Petition, 31-33.
`
`Consistent with Petitioner’s argument in this proceeding, Patent Owner also makes
`
`no argument that these terms are means-plus-function terms. Accordingly, there is
`
`no dispute in this IPR proceeding that “obtaining unit,” “identifying unit,” and
`
`“processing unit” are not means-plus-function terms.
`
`Regarding Petitioner’s specifically proposed constructions, Patent Owner
`
`submits there is no need for an express construction of the terms “obtaining unit,”
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`“identifying unit,” and “processing unit” at this preliminary stage because “claim
`
`terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”
`
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The
`
`constructions proposed by Petitioner do not resolve any controversy, and
`
`consequently, need not be adopted. However, and as explained further below,
`
`Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of showing that the prior art discloses the
`
`claimed units even under its own proposed constructions.
`
`B.
`“Create Bearer Request message” (Claim 4)
`It is not clear whether Petitioner is proposing any specific construction for
`
`the term “Create Bearer Request message” in this proceeding. Petitioner states that
`
`it argued during litigation that the term should be construed as “a message titled
`
`Create Bearer Request,” but does not state whether it takes the same position in
`
`this proceeding. See Petition, 33. Indeed, Petitioner admits that the claim
`
`construction for this term is essentially irrelevant, stating that the prior art meets
`
`“either construction.” Petition, 35. Accordingly, Petitioner offers no reason that
`
`the Board should construe this claim term. Wellman, 642 F.3d at 1361 (“claim
`
`terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`
`If, however, Petitioner is understood to be proposing that this term be
`
`construed as “a message titled Create Bearer Request,” that position is without
`
`support. Petitioner offers no evidence, caselaw, or analysis as to why the claim
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`element covers only Create Bearer Requests that are “titled” Create Bearer
`
`Request. See Petition, 33-35. Petitioner’s argument and caselaw that capitalizing a
`
`term can give that term particular meaning is not relevant to what a particular
`
`message must be titled. Under Petitioner’s construction, infringement could be
`
`avoided by a method that includes all claimed steps, including sending a Create
`
`Bearer Request message, so long as the infringer merely renames the Create Bearer
`
`Request message. This litigation-posturing argument is illogical, unsupported, and
`
`is not relevant to deciding the issues in this proceeding. No construction is
`
`necessary based upon the straightforward shortcomings of the cited references, as
`
`described below.
`
` GROUNDS 1-4 FAIL BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS NOT MET ITS
`BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE NOKIA SUBMISSION, THE
`MOTOROLA SUBMISSION, AND THE ’779 APA ARE PRIOR ART
`PRINTED PUBLICATIONS
`A.
`Petitioner Has Failed to Show That the Nokia Submission and the
`Motorola Submission Satisfy All Requisite Characteristics of a
`Prior Art “Printed Publication”
`Petitioner alleges that the Nokia and Motorola Submissions were prior art
`
`printed publications based upon time stamps indicating ZIP files were uploaded to
`
`an FTP server—with no evidence that the particular ZIP files were actually
`
`disseminated to members of the public or indexed in a manner to provide sufficient
`
`accessibility prior to the May 11, 2007 priority date of the ’779 patent. Petitioner
`
`relies on a declaration by Mr. Balazs Bertenyi in an effort to prove that various
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`documents relating to the Third Generation Partnership project (“3GPP”) were
`
`publicly available. See Petition, 39-40; NSN779-1004, ¶29-30. However,
`
`regardless of whether some 3GPP documents were publicly available, neither
`
`Petitioner nor Mr. Bertenyi show that the specific Nokia and Motorola Submissions
`
`were publicly accessible prior to May 11, 2007.1 The law mandates that an IPR
`
`can only be instituted based upon “information presented in the Petition,” but here
`
`the Petition’s shortcomings are glaring and require the Board to assume details
`
`absent from the Petition. 35 U.S.C. §314(a).
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Failed to Show Public Accessibility/Dissemination
`from the 3GPP FTP Server before May 11, 2007
`The Bertenyi Declaration makes the generic allegation that some 3GPP
`
`documents were distributed in up to three different ways: “(1) 3GPP ftp server, (2)
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner is not disputing whether some 3GPP documents were made
`
`available in a way that constitutes printed publication, nor is Patent Owner stating
`
`that some 3GPP documents were never made available to the public. Instead,
`
`Patent Owner disputes whether Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to
`
`show that these two specific documents (the Nokia and Motorola Submissions)
`
`satisfied all requisite characteristics of a “printed publication” prior to May 11,
`
`2007 (the ’779 patent’s priority date).
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00658
`Attorney Docket No: 35548-0059IP1
`3GPP Specifications Page, and (3) email exploder’s online archive.” NSN779-
`
`1004, ¶24. But here, Petitioner does not allege that the Nokia and Motorola
`
`Submissions were available on the Specifications Page or distributed via the email
`
`exploder. Rather, regarding the Nokia and Motorola Submissions specifically, the
`
`Petition cites only to a single, terse paragraph in the Bertenyi Declaration for each
`
`document. For the Nokia Submission, the Bertenyi Declaration states:
`
`Based on my personal knowledge and my review of 3GPP’s business
`records, I recognize Exhibit NSN779-1008 as a true and correct copy
`of 3GPP TSG-SA WG2 Meeting #57, Tdoc S2-072255, GPRS
`functionality for IMS emergency services support (April 23-27, 2007),
`available as “S2-072255.zip” at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/
`WG2_Arch/TSGS2_57_Beijing/Docs/. This document was published
`and freely available on 3GPP’s public ftp server as of A