Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`GOOGLE LLC1,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`IPR2018-01552
`Patent 5,699,275
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`1 Google LLC, who filed a petition in IPR2019-00111, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`GOOGLE LLC1,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`IPR2018-01552
`Patent 5,699,275
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`1 Google LLC, who filed a petition in IPR2019-00111, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
`
`THE PETITION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE INVALIDITY
`OF CLAIM 1 BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.............. 1
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown That Sugita Anticipated Or
`Rendered Obvious Claim 1 ............................................................. 4
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Failed To Prove That Sugita Disclosed
`Selective Updating Of First And Second Mobile Units
`When Both Are Capable Of Being Updated........................... 8
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Petitioner’s “Group Unit” Argument Is Not
`Adequately Supported By Sugita’s Disclosure............. 9
`
`Petitioner’s “Target List” Argument Also Is
`Not Adequately Supported By Sugita’s Disclosure .... 16
`
`2.
`
`Conclusion Concerning Disclosure Of Sugita ...................... 19
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown That Wortham Disclosed
`The Selective Updating Required By Claim1................................. 20
`
`Petitioner Samsung Has Not Shown That Claim 1 Was
`Rendered Obvious By Ballard And Shimizu.................................. 21
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 23
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board instituted review of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,699,275 (“the
`
`’275 patent”) based on two petitions, one filed by petitioner Samsung (IPR2018-
`
`1552) and the other filed by petitioner Microsoft (IPR2019-106). Both petitions are
`
`based primarily on the Petitioner’s characterizations of the Japanese Sugita reference
`
`(Ex. 1005 in both proceedings, but different translations). Petitioner Samsung also
`
`based its petition on Ballard as a primary reference. Petitioner Microsoft uses
`
`Ballard as a secondary reference (Ex. 1006 in both petitions).
`
`Patent Owner presents herein only those arguments necessary to defeat the
`
`petition. Patent Owner does not accede to those arguments and evidence set forth in
`
`the petition, or to the conclusions drawn by the Board in the Institution Decision,
`
`that are not directly addressed herein. Patent Owner incorporates herein those
`
`arguments presented in its Preliminary Response for all purposes.
`
`II.
`
`THE PETITION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE INVALIDITY OF
`CLAIM 1 BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
`
`After institution, Petitioner has the burden of persuasion to establish by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is invalid as alleged in the petition. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(e); Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“[T]he burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove unpatentable those issued claims
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`that were actually challenged in the petition for review and for which the Board
`
`instituted review."). The burden of persuasion never shifts to the Patent Owner.
`
`Dynamic Drinkware LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) ("In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to
`
`prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and
`
`that burden never shifts to the patentee." ).
`
`Additionally, the burden of production never shifts to the Patent Owner. In
`
`re Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We thus
`
`disagree with the PTO's position that the burden of production shifts to the patentee
`
`upon the Board's conclusion in an institution decision that "there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail.").
`
`In other words, to prevail on its allegation that claim 1 is anticipated by Sugita,
`
`Petitioner must have produced a preponderance of evidence in its petition showing
`
`that “each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
`
`inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union
`
`Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). As shown below, when the
`
`content of Sugita is properly characterized the Petitioner has not met this burden.
`
`To prevail on showing obviousness over Sugita or Ballard, Petitioner must
`
`have produced in its petition a preponderance of evidence showing that
`
`the
`
`differences between the subject matter of claim 1 and the properly characterized
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`prior art are such that the claimed subject matter, as a whole, would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 406 (2007). The determination of obviousness involves multiple fact questions,
`
`for which Petitioner continually bears the burden of persuasion. Graham v. John
`
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). A fundamental factual inquiry in the obvious
`
`analysis is the “content” of the prior art. Id.
`
`In other words, Petitioner has the un-
`
`shifting burden to prove what a person of skill in the art would have understood each
`
`prior art reference disclosed at the time the ’275 patent application was filed. As
`
`shown below, the petition goes well beyond the literal disclosure of the prior art and
`
`base arguments of invalidity on conjecture about things not expressly or inherently
`
`disclosed. This error that cannot support invalidity of claim 1. See In re Magnum
`
`Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1380 (conclusory statements, whether by attorney or expert,
`
`cannot satisfy the burden of demonstrating obviousness).
`
`To establish obviousness of claim 1, all of the claim limitations must be
`
`disclosed or suggested by the legitimately combined prior art. See CFMT, Inc. v.
`
`Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Royka, 490 F.2d
`
`981, 985 (CCPA 1974). Thus, the petition “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); see also Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., 832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`
`3
`
`
`
`2016) (reversing Board obviousness determination based on “common sense” that
`
`was conclusory and unsupported by substantial evidence).
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown That Sugita Anticipated Or Rendered
`Obvious Claim 1
`
`Among many other things, claim 1 requires that “the manager host is further
`
`operable to address the at least one discrete patch message such that the at least one
`
`discrete patch message is transmitted to the first mobile unit but not the second
`
`mobile unit.” Ex. 1001 at claim 1 (emphasis added).
`
`In the Institution Decisions, the Board concluded that this claim phrase needed
`
`further construction and rewrote the claim phrase to require that
`
`the manager host is further operable to decide which specific mobile
`unit to send address the at least one discrete patch message to before
`beginning transmission such that
`the at
`least one discrete patch
`message is transmitted to the first mobile unit but not the second mobile
`unit.
`
`Decision at 6. With this construction, the Board concluded that the present record
`
`supports that a person of skill would have understood Sugita to disclose that the
`
`software updating system sends software updates to less than all of Sugita’s
`
`“telecommunication units” when the group unit addressing protocol
`
`is used.
`
`Decision at ¶¶ 12-14. As shown below, this is error.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`Also with this construction, the Board concluded the present record supports
`
`that a person of skill would have understood Sugita to disclose that even if all mobile
`
`terminals are sent the group unit update, the second individual ID transmission is
`
`sent to less than all the mobile units that had been sent the group unit update. Id.
`
`The Board concluded that “[a]s long as the host addresses the at least one discrete
`
`patch message such that the message is transmitted to one mobile unit but not another
`
`mobile unit, the claim language is satisfied.” Decision at 14. As shown below, this
`
`too is error.
`
`As a first threshold issue, a correct characterization or understanding of the
`
`“content” of the prior art is fundamental to a proper validity analysis. As the
`
`Supreme Court established in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), “the
`
`scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior
`
`art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness
`
`of the subject matter is determined.” Id. at 17. Not surprisingly, Board decisions
`
`are reversed when the “content” of the prior art is not correctly determined. See,
`
`e.g., In Re McNeil-PPC, Inc., 574 F.3d 1393, 1401 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (reversing
`
`Board’s determination of obviousness because of error in understanding prior art);
`
`In Re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (vacating obviousness
`
`determination by Board so that it can “revisit its conclusion of obviousness in light
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`of a correct understanding of Gonzalez.”) A correct understanding of the content of
`
`a reference cannot be obtained by cherry-picking some statements and ignoring
`
`others. The reference as a whole must be considered and properly understood.
`
`As a second threshold issue, it must be appreciated that the universe of first
`
`and second mobile units described by claim 1 are only those mobile units that: 1)
`
`are “operable to receive the at least one discrete patch message;” 2) that are
`
`“operable to create patched operating code” by merging the patch with current
`
`operating code; and 3) that are operable to switch execution to the patched operating
`
`code. Thus, the second mobile unit of claim 1 must be in a condition that its current
`
`operating code could be updated by the patch message sent to the first mobile unit.
`
`A mobile unit whose current operating code cannot be updated with the patch
`
`message cannot be the “second mobile unit” required by claim 1. For example, a
`
`mobile unit whose operating code has been updated by the patch message cannot be
`
`a “second mobile unit” because that unit no longer is “operable to create patched
`
`operating code by merging the at least one patch with current operating code.” See
`
`Ex. 1001 at claim 1.
`
`On this point, the Board opined that
`
`Claim 1 does not foreclose sending an update to both mobile units,
`followed by sending an update to only one mobile unit. As long as the
`host addresses the at least one discrete patch message such that the
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`message is transmitted to one mobile unit but not another mobile unit,
`the claim language is satisfied.
`
`Decision at 14. But the Board failed to recognize that claim 1 requires that at the
`
`time of transmission of the patch message by the manager host both mobile units
`
`must be operable to create patched operating code from current operating code, and
`
`that the host transmit the patch to one mobile unit and not the other even though both
`
`units are capable of updating current operating code.2 As shown below, this is one
`
`element of claim 1 that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Failed To Prove That Sugita Disclosed Selective
`Updating Of First And Second Mobile Units When Both Are
`Capable Of Being Updated
`
`A person of skill would understand that Sugita does not disclose transmitting
`
`a patch message to a first mobile terminal but not a second mobile terminal capable
`
`of being updated by the same patch message, as required by the entirety of claim 1.
`
`2 Patent Owner sometimes refers to this claim requirement with the shorthand
`“selective updating.” The Patent Office recognized the patentability of claim 1 by
`specifically noting the “selective updating” requirement of claim 1. See Ex. 1004 at
`110.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`Sugita discloses only transmitting a patch message to all mobile terminals that are
`
`capable of being updated.
`
`Sugita notes as background that replacing read-only-memory (ROM) in each
`
`of the mobile terminals in a fleet (e.g., cargo trucks) is time consuming, as you
`
`typically must wait for the vehicle to return to the yard. Ex. 1005 at [0004 -0007].
`
`Rather than physically replacing ROM, Sugita discloses a method where the
`
`random-access-memory (RAM) in all of the terminals in a fleet of mobile terminals
`
`needing an update are updated in groups, followed by individual updates for those
`
`terminals that failed to update as part of the group(s). Ex. 1005 at [0012]. For
`
`example, a group update may be sent by the base station to all mobile terminals.
`
`Those terminals in the yard likely will receive the update and likely complete the
`
`update. Those terminals not in the yard either may not receive the group update or
`
`not complete the update, but regardless, according to Sugita all terminals are sent
`
`the group update. Based on responses from the mobile terminals, which includes a
`
`failure to respond, the base station then resends the update individually to a smaller
`
`subset of mobile terminals that were sent the group update but failed to update. Ex.
`
`1005 at [0026] (mobile terminals receive both one-to-one and one-to-multiple
`
`communication formats). Sugita does not disclose sending an update to a terminal
`
`that has successfully updated. Thus, every mobile terminal in Sugita that is capable
`
`of being updated is sent the update. Sugita never discloses an instance when a
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`mobile terminal that is capable of being updated (e.g, not already updated) is not
`
`sent an update. A proper understanding of Sugita as a whole shows that its group
`
`unit addressing protocol results in transmitting the patch to all of Sugita’s mobile
`
`terminals that are capable of updating current software.
`
`a.
`
`“Group Unit” Argument
`Petitioner’s
`Adequately Supported By Sugita’s Disclosure
`
`Is Not
`
`Petitioner and its expert makes two basic arguments concerning the group unit
`
`transmission protocol described by Sugita. First, Petitioner argues that Sugita’s
`
`disclosure of “group units” necessarily discloses that there are mobile terminals
`
`excluded from the group units. See Pet. at 37-38; Ex. 1002 (Bederson) at ¶ 101-102.
`
`Second, Petitioner argues that Sugita’s disclosure of “Create list of update
`
`target terminals” in [Figure 1] necessarily discloses that some terminals are excluded
`
`from that list. See Pet. at 38-39; Ex. 1002 (Bederson) at ¶ 103-105.
`
`Petitioner’s arguments highlight the need to distinguish between the literal
`
`express “content” of Sugita (e.g.,
`
`transmitting updates via group units) and
`
`Petitioner’s conclusions of what a person of skill would have understood from that
`
`content (e.g., what units may be excluded from group unit(s)). As shown below,
`
`Petitioner’s conclusions are not supported by the express or inherent content of
`
`Sugita but rather are the result of impermissible hindsight.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`Turning to Petitioner’s first group unit argument, it cannot be disputed that
`
`Sugita does not expressly disclose that “group units” do not account for all of the
`
`mobile terminals that could be updated by transmission of a patch. Instead, there is
`
`more than substantial evidence that Sugita’s group units account for all mobile
`
`terminals that could be updated with the transmitted patch.3
`
`Petitioner points to paragraph 13 to support its argument. Paragraph 13,
`
`however, is part of Sugita’s [Procedure for Resolving the Issue] discussion that spans
`
`paragraphs 12 to 15. Considering this entire section of Sugita, it is clear that the
`
`universe of mobile terminals that could be updated by the patch is labeled by Sugita
`
`as “a plurality of mobile communication terminals.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ [0012]. Sugita
`
`then discloses that each of the plurality may be updated in “group units” followed
`
`by updating individually the un-updated terminals remaining in the plurality. See
`
`paragraphs 12 -15 below, emphasis added.
`
`3 It is irrelevant for claim 1 whether Sugita discloses not sending mobile terminals
`the software patch when that mobile terminal is not operable, for whatever reason,
`to create patched operating code with the patch. See Ex. 1001 at claim 1.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`It should be noted that Sugita’s [claim 1], and [Field of Industrial Application]
`
`discussions are consistent with this understanding that “group units” account for
`
`every one of the plurality of mobile terminals that could be updated by the patch. Id.
`
`at ¶¶ [Claim 1] & [0001]. Further, Sugita’s background discussion, labeled [Issues
`
`to be Resolved], discusses updating every one of the identified 1,000 cargo transport
`
`vehicles, which is consistent with Patent Owner’s characterization of Sugita on this
`
`point. Id. at ¶¶ [0003] – [0011]. See, also, Id. at ¶ [Abstract] (“update each mobile
`
`communications
`
`terminal…”).
`
`Thus,
`
`to understand his
`
`invention Sugita
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`intentionally set the stage as transmitting an update to each mobile terminal that
`
`could be updated with the transmitted information, whether by individual ID or as
`
`part of a group unit.4 However, it is not Patent Owner’s burden to prove why Sugita
`
`fails to disclose the claim limitation—it was and remains at all times Petitioner’s
`
`burden to show how and where Sugita discloses this claim requirement.
`
`In re
`
`Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1376-77 (“[I]it is inappropriate to shift the burden
`
`to the patentee after institution to prove that the patent is patentable.
`
`Instead, the
`
`petitioner continues to bear the burden of proving unpatentability after institution,
`
`and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence at trial.”).
`
`Petitioner’s argument to the contrary is based on the unsupported conjecture
`
`that the only reason for Sugita to organize mobile terminals into groups is for
`
`exclusion of certain unidentified and uncharacterized mobile terminals from the
`
`group units. Sugita, however, is silent on why the mobile terminals were organized
`
`into group units. Sugita does not explain whether such group organization was an
`
`artifact of his software update process or was an artifact of some factor unrelated to
`
`the software update process, such as vehicle type, geographic area, or customer
`
`4 When describing examples of his invention, Sugita refers to “each mobile terminal
`(m1, m2, m3, m4, …).” Sugita never deviates from this description of all mobile
`terminals as “m1, m2, m3, m4, …”, such as by expressly excluding a terminal, such
`as terminal mn. See Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ [0016] – [Description of symbols].
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`served. It is more likely, based on the whole disclosure of Sugita, that group units
`
`simply were an accounting or tracking expedient for dealing with the likely
`
`thousands of mobile terminals (e.g., 1,000 cargo transport vehicles described by
`
`Sugita) that needed updating. In other words, rather than starting by transmitting an
`
`update to 1,000 individual terminal IDs, Sugita’s process could start with, for
`
`example, 20 group units representing the 1,000 terminals.
`
`Regardless of why Sugita’s inventions used “group units,” Petitioner’s’
`
`unsupported speculation of what a person of skill would have understood on this
`
`point is not evidence of the “content” of Sugita required under the validity analysis.
`
`Sugita does not disclose or adequately suggest that at least one discrete patch
`
`message is transmitted to one mobile unit capable of being updated but not to another
`
`mobile unit also capable of being updated.
`
`In paragraph 13, Sugita discloses that (emphasis added)
`
`Meanwhile, the base station side (sending side) forwards the update
`information (all or part of the software) to each of the mobile
`communication terminals, first performing the forwarding based on
`the group ID of each group unit (addressed to all units or units residing
`in specified groups) …
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶ [0013]. The emphasized portion above is consistent with the disclosure
`
`that all mobile terminals capable of being updated are sent the update information.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`Petitioner relies primarily on the parenthetical to support its argument that some
`
`unidentified and uncharacterized mobile terminals are excluded from the group unit
`
`transmission. Notably, the parenthetical has been translated differently from the
`
`original Japanese by Petitioner Samsung and by Petitioner Microsoft, as shown
`
`below.
`
`Samsung
`Translation of
`Sugita,
`IPR2018-1552,
`Ex. 1005 at ¶
`[0013]
`
`Microsoft
`Translation of
`Sugita,
`IPR2019-106,
`Ex. 1005 at ¶
`[0013]
`
`Indeed, Petitioner Samsung’s expert Bederson appears to quote from Petitioner
`
`Microsoft’s translation of Sugita when opining about
`
`the meaning of
`
`the
`
`parenthetical. See Ex. 1002 (Bederson) at ¶ 101.
`
`In other words, the Sugita
`
`translation provided by Samsung and to which Bederson cites does not say what he
`
`testifies it says. Further, Bederson’s declaration (Ex. 1002) is dated August 16,
`
`2018, which is two months before the Microsoft translation of Sugita (Ex. 2001) was
`
`obtained (i.e., October 9, 2018). So, Bederson’s testimony is incompetent on this
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`point at least because it does not identify the evidence upon which it relies to support
`
`his opinions.
`
`The incompetence of
`
`the Bederson testimony notwithstanding,
`
`this
`
`parenthetical simply means that Sugita forwards the update information to all mobile
`
`terminals by first forwarding to “all [mobile communication terminals] or the
`
`[mobile communication terminals] addresses belonging to a specific group.” This
`
`understanding is clear from considering Sugita as a whole and especially paragraphs
`
`13 and 14, which, as shown below, clearly equate “unit” with “mobile
`
`communications terminal.”
`
`When considered as a whole for all of its teachings, Sugita discloses sending update
`
`information to all mobile communication terminals that are operable to update
`
`current operating software with the update information. Sugita never discloses,
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`whether by group unit or by individual ID, not sending update information to a
`
`mobile communications terminal that is operable to update current operating
`
`software with the update information.
`
`To the extent Sugita discloses not sending update information to a mobile
`
`communication terminal (a characterization to which Patent Owner does not
`
`accede), Petitioner failed to show that such “excluded” terminal was operable to
`
`update current operating software with the update information, as required by
`
`claim 1, and that the Sugita base station “decided” (as required by the Board), to not
`
`send the update information to that operable terminal.
`
`Thus, there is no plausible basis for the Board to conclude that Petitioner has
`
`carried their burden to demonstrate that Sugita’s group unit addressing protocol
`
`disclosed transmitting update information to one mobile terminal but not to a second
`
`mobile terminal when both terminals were “operable to create patched operating
`
`code by merging the at least one patch with current operating code located in the
`
`[] mobile unit.”
`
`b.
`
`Petitioner’s “Target List” Argument Also Is Not
`Adequately Supported By Sugita’s Disclosure
`
`Petitioner also argues that Sugita’s [Figure 1] disclosed to a person of skill
`
`that Sugita transmitted update information to one mobile terminal but not to a second
`
`16
`
`
`
`mobile terminal. The relevant portion of [Figure 1] and the associated text are
`
`reproduced below.
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`Ex. 1005 at [Figure 1] & [0034].
`
`Petitioner improperly reads Sugita with one eye focused on invalidating claim
`
`1. There is nothing in [Figure 1] or the associated text that explains how or which
`
`mobile communication terminals are “targeted for updates.” In contrast, a proper
`
`reading of Sugita is that only those mobile communication terminals that are capable
`
`of being updated are targeted. For example, it is logical that recently deployed
`
`mobile communications terminals already have up-to-date software, and therefore
`
`those terminals would not be “listed up” as a targeted terminal. Such up-to-date
`
`terminals would not qualify as a “second mobile unit” under claim 1 at least because
`
`the current operating code could not be updated with the patch. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`claim 1. See In re Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1376-77 (“[I]it is inappropriate
`
`to shift the burden to the patentee after institution to prove that the patent is
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`patentable.
`
`Instead,
`
`the petitioner continues to bear the burden of proving
`
`unpatentability after institution, and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`at trial.”).
`
`Regardless, Petitioner bore the burden of proving that Sugita disclosed to a person
`
`of skill that the manager host was operable to “decide” which specific mobile unit
`
`to send the at least one discrete patch message to before beginning transmission
`
`such that the at least one discrete patch message is transmitted to the first mobile
`
`unit but not the second mobile unit, when the second mobile unit was “operable to
`
`create patched operating code by merging the at least one patch with current
`
`operating code located in the second mobile unit.” Petitioner has wholly failed to
`
`carry this burden.
`
`Thus, there is no plausible basis for the Board to conclude that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated that Sugita’s “target list” addressing protocol disclosed transmitting
`
`update information to one mobile terminal but not to a second mobile terminal when
`
`both terminals are operable to update current operating software with the update
`
`information.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`2.
`
`Conclusion Concerning Disclosure Of Sugita
`
`It cannot be legitimately disputed that the second mobile unit of claim 1 of the
`
`‘275 patent must be “operable to create patched operating code by merging the at
`
`least one patch message with current operating code.” Ex. 1001 at claim 1.
`
`It also cannot be legitimately disputed that a mobile unit that has been updated
`
`with “the at least one patch message” is not a mobile unit that is “operable to create
`
`patched operating code by merging the at least one patch message with current
`
`operating code.”
`
`Petitioner has failed to establish that Sugita discloses updating less than all
`
`mobile terminals that are capable of being updated with the update information. For
`
`at least this reason, Petitioner has failed to establish that claim 1 is anticipated by
`
`Sugita.
`
`Because Petitioner has not accurately characterized the disclosure or content
`
`of Sugita, Petitioner’s obviousness allegations over Sugita must be rejected as well.
`
`Further, Petitioner has provided no evidence or argument why a person of skill
`
`would be motivated to modify Sugita to not send update information to a mobile
`
`terminal that is operable to update the current operating code. For this reason also,
`
`Petitioner’s obviousness allegations over Sugita must be rejected as well.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown That Wortham Disclosed The Selective
`Updating Required By Claim 1
`
`Petitioner relies on Wortham (Ex. 1014) to conclude that “a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Sugita such that its terminals
`
`are portable, battery-powered device [sic] for use while in motion.” Pet. at 39-45;
`
`Ex. 1002 (Bederson) at ¶ 110. Because the mobile units of claim 1 are not limited
`
`to a battery-powered-devices, Petitioner’s reliance on Wortham is irrelevant.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner failed to show that Wortham disclosed the claim element
`
`missing from Sugita’s disclosure; that is, selective updating.
`
`In other words,
`
`Petitioner provided no evidence or argument that Wortham disclosed transmitting
`
`update information to one mobile terminal but not to a second mobile terminal when
`
`both terminals were operable to update current operating software with the update
`
`information. See Pet. at 39-45; Ex. 1002 (Bederson) at ¶¶ 109 – 113.
`
`For at least this reason, Petitioner Samsung’s proposed combination of Sugita
`
`and Wortham fails to disclose or adequately suggest the combination of all elements
`
`in claim 1.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown That Claim 1 Was Rendered Obvious
`By Ballard And Shimizu
`
`Petitioner had the burden of establishing in its Petition that a person of skill
`
`would have understood that the content of Ballard and the content of Shimizu, when
`
`combined, would have disclosed or suggested each element of claim 1 as ordered
`
`and related in claim 1. For at least the same reasons that the petition failed to
`
`establish invalidity over Sugita, Petitioner Samsung has failed to prove invalidity
`
`over Ballard and Shimizu.
`
`Samsung and its expert Bederson argue that Ballard (Ex. 1006) discloses
`
`updating a first mobile unit, but not a second mobile unit in at least two ways.
`
`IPR2018-1552 Pet. at 68-70; IPR2018-1552 Ex. 1002 (Bederson) at ¶ 181-189.
`
`However, Samsung again ignores the literal requirement of claim 1 that the second
`
`mobile unit be “operable to create patched operating code by merging the at least
`
`one patch with current operating code.” Ex. 1001 at claim 1. As established above,
`
`and by the literal wording of claim 1, a mobile unit that has already created patched
`
`code (because it has already received “the at least one patch”) is not “operable to
`
`create patched operating code by merging the at least one patch with current
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`operating code.” In other words, such mobile unit cannot be the “second mobile
`
`unit” required by claim 1.5
`
`Samsung argues that Ballard’s statement that “part or all of the terminals in
`
`the radio telephone network to be updated in a single operation” discloses the
`
`selective updating element of claim 1. However, as demonstrated above with Sugita,
`
`it is not enough to show that less than all mobile terminals are updated. Samsung’s
`
`burden was to show that at least one mobile terminal that was “operable to create
`
`patched operating code by merging the at least one patch with current operating
`
`code” was not sent the update information by the manger host. Samsung offers no
`
`argument or evidence on how Ballard disclosed this claim element to a person of
`
`skill. See Pet. at 68-70; Ex. 1002 (Bederson) at ¶¶ 182-186.
`
`What Ballard does disclose is that its system is directed to updating software
`
`in radiophones that do not yet have the updated software. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 4,
`
`reprinted below.
`
`5 Samsung’s expert Bederson appears to argue that a Ballard terminal that has
`already been updated can be still be the “second mobile unit” of claim 1. See Ex.
`1002 (Bederson) at ¶ 186. However, Bederson fails to explain how such a terminal
`that has already been updated is “operable to create patched operating code by
`merging the at least one patch with current operating code.” Id.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01552
`Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`Ballard does not discuss the desirability of the manager host “deciding” (as required
`
`by the Board) not to transmit a software update to a mobile terminal that is “operable
`
`to create patched operating code by merging the at least one patch with current
`
`operating code”
`
`Samsung’s presentation of Shimizu is similarly deficient. Neither
`
`Samsung nor its expert Bederson point to any disclosure in Shimizu that would
`
`satisfy the requirement of claim 1 that the manager host not transmit a patch to a
`
`second mobile unit that is operable to receive the patch and operable to create
`
`patched operating code from the patch. See Pet. at 68-70; Ex. 1002 (Bederson) at
`
`¶¶ 182-186.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner had the burden to demonstrate in its petition that each element of
`
`claim 1 of the ’275 patent was disclosed in a single prior art reference or in a
`
`legitimate combination of prior art references. Among other failures, Petitioner
`
`failed to demonstrate in its petition that the prior art disclosed a manager host that
`
`“decides” not to send an operating code patch to a second
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
