`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2018-01553
`U.S. Patent No. 5,699,275
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`II. PO’S ARGUMENTS IN ITS PRELIMINARY RESPONSE NOT
`RAISED IN ITS RESPONSE ARE WAIVED ........................................... 2
`III. PO’S INTERPRETATION OF THE “WHEREIN” CLAUSE
`SHOULD BE REJECTED ........................................................................... 3
`IV. CLAIM 1 IS UNPATENTABLE BASED ON ALL INSTITUTED
`GROUNDS .................................................................................................... 9
`A. Ground 1: The Combination of Hapka and Parrillo Discloses
`or Suggests the “Wherein” Clause ....................................................... 9
`Ground 2: The Combination of Hapka, Parrillo, and Wortham
`Discloses the “Wherein” Clause ........................................................ 16
`V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 16
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC,
`IPR2017-02125, Paper 62 (Mar. 26, 2019) .......................................................... 2
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 5
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ 5
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`903 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 5
`RPX Corp. v. Collision Avoidance Techs. Inc.,
`IPR2017-01337, Paper 35 (Nov. 13, 2018) .......................................................... 2
`Trane U.S. Inc. v. SEMCO, LLC,
`IPR2018-00514, Paper 36 (April 17, 2019) ......................................................... 2
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`ii
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner submits this Reply to Patent Owner’s (“PO”) Response (Paper 18,
`
`“Resp.”) concerning claim 1 of the ’275 patent.
`
`PO makes similar arguments against each of the two grounds, 1) Hapka and
`
`Parrillo and 2) Hapka, Parrillo, and Wortham. PO’s arguments fail because they
`
`are based on an incorrect interpretation of the “wherein” clause1 recited in claim 1.
`
`Moreover, even under PO’s interpretation, the prior art in the instituted grounds
`
`discloses or suggests the system recited in claim 1. Thus, none of PO’s positions
`
`warrant disruption of the Board’s initial findings and analysis as to why claim 1 is
`
`unpatentable in view of the prior art asserted in each of the instituted grounds.
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) and further
`
`explained below, claim 1 should be found unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`
`1 Petitioner refers to claim element 1(e) as the “wherein” clause, which recites
`
`“wherein 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 to the second mobile unit.” (Ex. 1001, 13:50-53.)
`
`1
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`II.
`
`PO’S ARGUMENTS IN ITS PRELIMINARY RESPONSE NOT
`RAISED IN ITS RESPONSE ARE WAIVED
`As a preliminary matter, PO’s attempt to incorporate by reference all of its
`
`arguments from its Preliminary Response is improper. (Resp., 1 (“Patent Owner
`
`incorporates herein for all purposes those arguments presented in its Preliminary
`
`Response.”).) By rule, “[a]rguments must not be incorporated by reference from one
`
`document into another document.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also RPX Corp. v.
`
`Collision Avoidance Techs. Inc., IPR2017-01337, Paper 35 at 20 (Nov. 13, 2018)
`
`(“Incorporation by reference is a direct violation of our rules, which prohibit
`
`incorporation by reference from other documents.”). Additionally, “[a]rguments
`
`that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not
`
`entitled to consideration.” Id. at 20-21 (citations and internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). In fact, the Board’s scheduling order explicitly cautions PO “that any
`
`arguments for patentability not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”
`
`(Paper 10, 5.) Therefore, PO’s arguments raised in its Preliminary Response but not
`
`raised in its Response are waived and not addressed herein. See Trane U.S. Inc. v.
`
`SEMCO, LLC, IPR2018-00514, Paper 36 at 4-6 (April 17, 2019) (finding “waiver
`
`of any argument” in patent owner’s “post-institution response due to improper
`
`incorporation by reference” of arguments “from [patent owner’s] “pre-institution
`
`response”); Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC, IPR2017-02125, Paper 62
`
`2
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`at 7 (Mar. 26, 2019) (“Patent Owner waived this argument by not substantively
`
`addressing it in the Response.”).
`
`III. PO’S INTERPRETATION OF THE “WHEREIN” CLAUSE SHOULD
`BE REJECTED
`PO does not expressly propose any constructions.2 PO does, however, imply
`
`that the “wherein” clause recited in claim 1 should be read to require that the
`
`manager host address the at least one discrete patch message when both the first and
`
`second mobile units are capable of being updated by the same message:
`
`Neither the Board’s Decision nor the petition expressly
`addresses these requirements of claim 1 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
`manager host transmit the patch to one mobile unit and not
`the other even though both units are capable of updating
`current operating code.
`
`
`2 PO does not expressly dispute any of Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions,
`
`including the constructions of the phrases “merging the at least one patch with
`
`current operating code” and “manager host is further operable to address the at least
`
`one discrete patch message,” which were adopted by the Board. (Pet., 8-16; Paper
`
`9 (“Decision” or “Dec.”), 4-7.)
`
`3
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`(Resp., 6.) According to PO, “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” and that a “mobile unit whose operating code has been
`
`updated by the patch message cannot be a ‘second mobile unit.’” (Id., 5.) PO’s
`
`interpretations are confusing and not dispositive because the prior art at-issue
`
`discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 even under PO’s interpretations.
`
`First, there is no dispute that the language of claim 1 recites a “second mobile
`
`unit” that is “operable to receive the at least one discrete patch message” and
`
`“operable to create patched operating code by merging the at least one patch with
`
`current operating code.” (Ex. 1001, 13:44-49.) Also, there is no dispute that the
`
`claim language recites a “manager host” that is “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 to the second mobile unit.” (Id., 13:50-
`
`53.) To be sure, however, this claim language only means that the manager host is
`
`capable of addressing the message such that it is transmitted to the first mobile unit
`
`but not the second mobile unit. The claim language does not preclude the manager
`
`host from also being capable of addressing the message so that it is transmitted to
`
`the second mobile unit. This understanding of the claim language is confirmed by
`
`dependent claim 14, which recites that the claimed manager host is “further operable
`
`to address the at least one discrete patch message such that the at least one discrete
`
`4
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`patch message is transmitted to the first mobile unit and to the second mobile unit.”
`
`(Id., 14:22-26.) Based on this understanding, as explained in the Petition and below,
`
`the prior art discloses the features recited in claim 1.
`
`Second, PO’s argument that “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,” (Resp., 5 (emphasis omitted)), is inconsistent with the
`
`language of claim 1. Claim 1 recites a “system” comprising a “second mobile unit”
`
`that is “operable to” receive the message and create patched operating code. (Ex.
`
`1001, 13:44-49.) System claims “cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`Therefore, prior art may anticipate or render obvious a system claim “if the reference
`
`discloses [a system] that is reasonably capable of operating so as to meet the claim
`
`limitations, even if it does not meet the claim limitations in all modes of operation.”
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 903 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also id. at
`
`1362 (“In contrast, where claim language recites ‘capability, as opposed to actual
`
`operation,’ an apparatus that is ‘reasonably capable’ of performing the claimed
`
`functions ‘without significant alterations’ can infringe those claims.” (citing
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 2014))). That
`
`means a mobile device whose operating code has been updated by the patch message
`
`5
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`can be a “second mobile device” because, for it to have been updated, it must be
`
`“operable to” receive the message and create patched operating code.
`
`PO does not point to any evidence that would compel a different result or, for
`
`that matter, any evidence at all. (See Resp., 3-6.) Nor could it. None of the claims
`
`of the ’275 patent exclude a mobile unit whose operating code has been updated by
`
`the patch message from the scope of the claimed “second mobile unit.” (See Ex.
`
`1001, 13:33-16:65.) Likewise, the specification of the ’275 patent does not disclose
`
`that such a mobile unit cannot be a “second mobile unit,” as claimed. (See generally
`
`id.)
`
`Again, as explained in the Petition and below, the prior art discloses the
`
`features recited in claim 1.
`
`Third, even if PO were correct that a mobile unit whose operating code has
`
`been updated by the patch message cannot be the claimed “second mobile unit,”
`
`claim 1 is still unpatentable because, as explained in the Petition and below, the prior
`
`art discloses addressing a message such that it is transmitted to a first mobile unit
`
`but not to a second mobile unit that is operable to receive the message and create
`
`patched operating code by merging the message with current operating code. In fact,
`
`the prior art is similar to the embodiments described in the specification of the ’275
`
`patent and covered by the claims.
`
`The specification of the ’275 patent alleges that the advantages of its invention
`
`6
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`include allowing remote patching of operating code in a mobile unit, where the
`
`“mobile units [are] operable to interpret patch messages and create patched operating
`
`code therefrom.” (Ex. 1001, 5:52-55.) The specification explains that a central
`
`location can “broadcast [the patches] to a number of mobile units” or “can also tailor
`
`the broadcasts of patches to different mobile units.” (Id., 2:18-23.) According to
`
`the specification, the “manager host 16” may “desire to enhance, correct, or replace
`
`current operating code located in one or more of the mobile units” (id., 3:39-41) and
`
`that patch messages are transmitted to “appropriate mobile units” and “each” of the
`
`units. (Id., 3:61-4:1 (emphasis added).)
`
`The specification discloses three ways that the “[m]anager host 16 can address
`
`a patch message”: the manager host can address a patch message (1) “to one of the
`
`mobile units,” (2) “to all of the mobile units,” or (3) “to a group of mobile units.”
`
`(Id., 5:14-24; see also id., 5:37-48.) Thus, consistent with the “wherein” clause of
`
`claim 1, the specification discloses a manager host that is capable of addressing a
`
`patch such that it is only transmitted to one mobile unit and not others and capable
`
`of addressing a message such that it is transmitted to a group of mobile units (e.g.,
`
`units 22, 24 in FIG. 1) but not to a different group of mobile units (e.g., units 26, 28,
`
`30 in FIG. 1), even though the mobile units that do not receive the message are
`
`operable to receive the message and create patched operating code. (Id., 4:9-17,
`
`5:49-56, 13:18-21 (“The mobile units are capable of receiving the patch messages,
`
`7
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`creating patched operating code, and switching execution to the patched operating
`
`code without interrupting normal functions.”).) The “wherein” clause in claim 1
`
`covers at least both of these possibilities.3 And, as explained in the Petition and
`
`below, the prior art’s disclosure is similar, in that it discloses a “manager host” that
`
`is operable to address a patch message such that it is transmitted to a first mobile
`
`unit (alone or in a group of mobile units that includes the first mobile unit) but not a
`
`second mobile unit (alone or in a group of different mobile units that includes the
`
`second mobile unit), where both the first and second mobile units are “operable to”
`
`receive the message and create patched operating code, like recited in claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, PO’s arguments regarding the “wherein” clause are not only
`
`wrong but also irrelevant because, as explained below, the prior art in the instituted
`
`grounds discloses this clause under all proposed interpretations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Claim 1 recites that the manager host is “operable to” address the patch message
`
`such that it is transmitted “to the first mobile unit but not to the second mobile unit,”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 13:50-53), and dependent claim 14 recites that the manager host is
`
`“further operable to” address the patch message such that it is transmitted “to the
`
`first mobile unit and to the second mobile unit,” (id., 14:21-25).
`
`8
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`IV. CLAIM 1 IS UNPATENTABLE BASED ON ALL INSTITUTED
`GROUNDS
`A. Ground 1: The Combination of Hapka and Parrillo Discloses or
`Suggests the “Wherein” Clause
`All of PO’s arguments regarding the Hapka combinations in its Response are
`
`based on PO’s interpretations discussed above. (See Resp., 6-9 (PO asserting that
`
`“[n]either Petitioner nor its expert separately argues how or where Hapka discloses
`
`that the alleged ‘second’ mobile unit could be updated by the same patch (i.e., ‘the
`
`at least one discrete patch message’) that updated the first mobile unit, as required
`
`by claim 1”).) Whether under the Board’s interpretation and the plain meaning of
`
`the terms in claim 1, or under PO’s interpretation, Hapka in view of Parrillo
`
`discloses these and the other limitations of claim 1.
`
`Petitioner has presented ample evidence demonstrating how Hapka in view of
`
`Parrillo discloses first and second mobile units that are each “operable to” perform
`
`the respective functions as recited in claim 1. (See, e.g., Pet., 22-25 (explaining how
`
`Hapka discloses the ability of a fleet manager “to modify and control an engine
`
`algorithm, such as engine idling, of one or more vehicles in her fleet” (citing Ex.
`
`1008, 8:34-36)); id., 25-27 (explaining how in Hapka each vehicle in the fleet
`
`includes a “mobile unit”); id., 27-28 (explaining how Hapka discloses operating
`
`code and remote patching); id., 30-39; Ex. 1002, ¶¶202-03, 208-222 (explaining
`
`how a POSITA would have had reasons to modify the features of Hapka in view of
`
`9
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Parrillo to allow the computer 12 (fixed site 37 or site 10) to perform remote
`
`patching of operating code in one or more “mobile unit(s)” of Hapka’s vehicle fleet);
`
`Ex. 1008, 4:5-53, 6:9-29, FIGS. 1a-1b).)
`
`Indeed, the Petition goes to great lengths to reference specific teachings and
`
`suggestions in Hapka and Parrillo (supported by the unrebutted testimony of
`
`Petitioner’s expert) to demonstrate how the combination discloses “first” and
`
`“second” mobile units in Hapka’s fleet that are each operable to function as recited
`
`in claim 1. (Pet., 48-53 (“first mobile unit”), 53-55 (“second mobile unit”).) For
`
`example, as explained in the Petition and by Dr. Bederson, all vehicles in a fleet
`
`include mobile units:
`
`Given each of the “mobile units” (e.g., engine control
`system 36 and its components) mounted to each vehicle of
`the fleet operate just like that explained above for the
`claimed “first mobile unit” for claim element 1(c), any
`other mobile unit (e.g., engine control system 36) mounted
`to a vehicle (other than one that corresponds to the claimed
`“first mobile unit” in a different vehicle of the fleet)
`disclosed by Hapka, and implemented and configured as
`discussed above for the combined Hapka-Parrillo system
`(as discussed for claim element 1(c)) is a “second mobile
`unit operable to receive the at least one discrete patch
`message…,” as claimed. (Ex. 1002, ¶245.)
`
`(Pet., 54.) Thus, each of the identified “mobile units” in the combined Hapka-
`
`10
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Parrillo system is operable in the same way to receive the patch message so that
`
`operating code in the respective unit can be updated in a manner consistent with the
`
`features of claim 1. (See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 245.)
`
`There can thus be no question that the described combination of Hapka and
`
`Parrillo discloses or suggests a “first mobile unit” and a “second mobile unit” that
`
`are each “operable to” receive the at least one discrete patch message, create patched
`
`operating code by merging the at least one patch with current operating code, and to
`
`switch execution to the patched operating code, like that required in claim 1.
`
`PO’s primary argument appears to relate to the “manager host” being
`
`“operable to” address the patch message such that it is transmitted to the first mobile
`
`unit but not to the second mobile unit that is operable to perform the features noted
`
`above and recited in claim 1. (Ex. 1001, 13:50-53.) Namely, PO argues that the
`
`combined Hapka-Parrillo system does not disclose a “‘second mobile unit’ that is
`
`operable to receive the same communication (algorithm modification) as the first
`
`mobile unit” and “create patched operating code using the same communication
`
`(algorithm modification) as used by the first mobile unit.” (Resp., 7.) PO’s
`
`argument is based on an unsupportable interpretation of claim 1 and also ignores the
`
`teachings and suggestions of Hapka in view of Parrillo as demonstrated in the
`
`Petition.
`
`To begin, nothing in claim 1 requires any particular mobile unit to be
`
`11
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`identified as the “first” or “second” mobile unit. Claim 1 only requires that the
`
`system comprise a “first mobile unit” and “second mobile unit” that are each
`
`operable to function as recited in claim 1. In the Hapka-Parrillo system, a fleet of
`
`vehicles is disclosed, each vehicle including a “mobile unit” like that recited in claim
`
`1. (Pet., 48-55; Ex. 1002, ¶¶54-58, 62, 237-45.) That the “manager host” in the
`
`Hapka-Parrillo system is operable to decide which specific mobile unit to send the
`
`patch message to before beginning transmission does not mean no other mobile unit
`
`in the fleet is operable to receive the same patch message, create patched operating
`
`code by merging the message with current operating code located in that mobile unit,
`
`and switch execution to the patched operating code. Indeed, in the combined Hapka-
`
`Parrillo system, the fleet manager can choose to modify software in one or more
`
`particular vehicles in the fleet. (See e.g., Ex. 1008, 8:33-41, FIGS. 1a, 1b, FIG. 5
`
`(step 501) (Hapka disclosing that when “the fleet manager chooses to modify and
`
`control an engine algorithm, such as engine idling, of one or more vehicles in her
`
`fleet,” data signals may be transmitted from her fixed base computer 12 to a vehicle
`
`at a distant location over the communications network); Pet., 40-42.) And by using,
`
`for example, computer 12 included in fixed base site 37 or site 10 (“manager host”)
`
`to determine a “first mobile unit” to receive an update as opposed to another unit,
`
`the combined Hapka-Parrillo system discloses a “second mobile unit” that is
`
`“operable” in the same way the “first mobile unit” would be. As such, the “second
`
`12
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`mobile unit” in the fleet of the combined system is operable to receive the same
`
`patch message and create patched operating code just like the first mobile unit before
`
`any transmission of the patch message, even though computer 12 (“manager host”)
`
`is operable to send the patch message to the first unit and not the second unit (at least
`
`at first). (Pet., 55-61; Ex. 1002, ¶¶246-56.)
`
`Contrary to PO’s suggestions, the Hapka-Parrillo combined system discloses
`
`a second mobile unit that is operable to “receive the same communication
`
`(algorithm modification) as the first mobile unit” and “create patched operating code
`
`using the same communication (algorithm modification) as used by the first mobile
`
`unit.” (Resp., 7.) This is because, in the Hapka-Parrillo combined system, the fleet
`
`manager, via the identified “manager host,” can choose not to address the second
`
`mobile unit to receive that communication, but instead address another “first mobile
`
`unit” to receive that communication. It does not mean that the second mobile unit
`
`will not later be updated with the same patch message. Nothing in claim 1 requires
`
`that the manager host be operable to not transmit a patch to a second mobile unit at
`
`any time or precludes the manager host from addressing the patch message such that
`
`the patch message is transmitted to that other unit at another time. Indeed, dependent
`
`claim 14 contradicts such an interpretation, because it requires the “manager host”
`
`to be “further operable to” address the patch message such that it is transmitted to
`
`both the first and second mobile units. (Ex. 1001, 14:21-25.)
`
`13
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Also, contrary to PO’s suggestion, Petitioner never admitted that the Hapka-
`
`Parrillo combination provides no disclosure of a second mobile unit being operable
`
`to receive the same patch message as another unit. (Resp., 8.) That the “manager
`
`host” in the Hapka-Parrillo system may be operable to skip certain vehicles from
`
`receiving a patch update does not mean that those other vehicles (and their mobile
`
`units) are not “operable to” to receive the same message. As explained above, the
`
`fleet manager via the “manager host” in the combined system can decide which
`
`vehicle(s) (and corresponding mobile unit(s)) is to receive that update. The
`
`described teachings and suggestions of Hapka and Parrillo in the Petition
`
`demonstrate that more than one mobile unit in the fleet is operable to receive the
`
`same patch update message and that individual units can be addressed.4
`
`
`4 In addition, as explained in the Petition, a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`configure computer 12 (included in site 37 or site 10) to be operable to “address” the
`
`at least one discrete patch message such that a specific target vehicle and its targeted
`
`components (e.g., engine control system 36) would receive the fleet manager’s
`
`intended software update. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶253-54; Pet., 59.) Indeed, the Hapka-
`
`Parrillo combined system’s ability to address specific mobile unit(s) is similar to
`
`one of the ways that the ’275 patent discloses how “[m]anager host 16 can address
`
`14
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Finally, as described in the Petition, it would have been obvious to combine
`
`the teachings of Hapka with the teachings of Parrillo to arrive at a “manager host”
`
`that is “operable to address the at least one discrete patch message,” as claimed.
`
`(Pet., 56.) As explained in the Petition, Parrillo discloses a remote station that
`
`“interrogates vehicle 15” and, based on the interrogation, “remote station 12 may
`
`send a message to any vehicle 15 to change operating code, as needed.” (Id., 56-57
`
`(citing Ex. 1009, 2:10-14, 2:22-31, 4:65-5:2, 5:14-30, 5:31-46).) Petitioner went on
`
`to explain that such a combination “would have allowed individual vehicle[s] (and
`
`
`a patch message.” (Ex. 1001, 5:14-24 (explaining that a message can be addressed
`
`(1) “to one of the mobile units,” (2) “to all of the mobile units, or” (3) “to a group of
`
`mobile units”).) While the patent discloses updating mobile units having
`
`“appropriate version of operating code suitable to receive the defined patch or
`
`patches” but not updating others (Ex. 1001, 6:63-67; see also id., 4:9-20, 10:33-45),
`
`that is irrelevant to the combination of Hapka and Parrillo, which discloses targeting
`
`individual vehicles and their components (e.g., system 36) that require the software
`
`modification. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶253-54.) That does not mean that other vehicles (and
`
`corresponding mobile units) are not “operable to” to receive such patch updates.
`
`Indeed, as explained above and in the Petition, those units are so operable.
`
`15
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`its components) in Hapka’s system to be modified, as needed.” (Id., 57-58.) Thus,
`
`the combined system also discloses interrogating and updating individual vehicles,
`
`such that multiple vehicles may be updatable but each vehicle is only updated at a
`
`time when the interrogation process determines to do so, (id., 57-61), which also
`
`discloses this limitation under PO’s interpretation.
`
`B. Ground 2: The Combination of Hapka, Parrillo, and Wortham
`Discloses the “Wherein” Clause
`PO’s argument against the Hapka-Parrillo-Wortham combination is the same
`
`argument made against Ground 1. (Resp., 9.) As such, for the same reasons
`
`discussed above and in the Petition, the combination of Hapka, Parrillo, and
`
`Wortham discloses and suggests each limitation of claim 1, including the “wherein”
`
`limitation. (Pet., 61-64.)
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons set forth above, in the Petition and accompanying exhibits,
`
`and the Board’s Decision, claim 1 of the ’275 patent should be found unpatentable
`
`and cancelled.
`
`Dated: August 23, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys /
` Joseph E. Palys, Reg. No. 46,508
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response contains, as measured by the
`
`word-processing system used to prepare this paper, 3,827 words. This word count
`
`does not include the items excluded by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a).
`
`Dated: August 23, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
` Joseph E. Palys, Reg. No. 46,508
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01553 – Petitioner’s Reply
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Patent Owner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply
`
`to Patent Owner’s Response by electronic means on August 23, 2019, at the
`
`following address of record:
`
`Albert B. Deaver
`Robert J. McAughan, Jr.
`Christopher M. Lonvick
`McAughan Deaver PLLC
`550 Westcott St., Suite 375
`Houston, Texas 77007
`Tel: (713) 280-0604
`adeaver@md-iplaw.com
`bmcaughan@md-iplaw.com
`clonvick@md-iplaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
` Joseph E. Palys, Reg. No. 46,508
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 23, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
