`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.; T-MOBILE US, INC.;
`SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P; SPRINTCOM, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`
`Case IPR2018-______
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................... 2 
`
`A. 
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 2 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Sprint Real Parties-In-Interest..................................................... 2 
`
`T-Mobile Real Parties-In-Interest ............................................... 2 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3 
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ............................ 3 
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ....................................... 2 
`
`Payment of Fees .................................................................................... 2 
`
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2 
`
`IV.  FIELD OF THE ’357 PATENT AND THE RELATED PRIOR ART........... 2 
`
`A.  Wireless Cellular Technology ............................................................... 2 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`Background of Cellular Paging ............................................................. 4 
`
`The Alleged Improvement of the ’357 Patent ....................................... 5 
`
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 8 
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’357 Patent ........................................ 11 
`
`V. 
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 12 
`
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13 
`
`VII.  REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................. 14 
`
`VIII.  IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ........................................................ 14 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`
`A. 
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge .......................................................... 14 
`
`1. 
`
`LG Patent is Prior Art Under § 102(e) as it Validly Claims
`Priority to the Filing Date of its Provisional Application ......... 15 
`
`2.  Montojo is Prior Art Under §102(e) as it Validly Claims
`Priority to the Filing Date of its Provisional Application. ........ 23 
`
`IX. 
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .... 30 
`
`A.  Ground 1: LG Patent in view of the Montojo Patent Renders
`Claims 11-14, 19, 30-33, 38, 47-50, and 54 Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). ................................................................... 30 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`Summary of the LG Patent ....................................................... 30 
`
`Summary of the Montojo Patent ............................................... 32 
`
`Reasons to Combine the LG Patent and the Montojo Patent ... 35 
`
`Claim 11 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 40 
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 53 
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 55 
`
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 57 
`
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 58 
`
`Claim 30 .................................................................................... 59 
`
`10.  Claim 31 .................................................................................... 62 
`
`11.  Claim 32 .................................................................................... 62 
`
`12.  Claim 33 .................................................................................... 62 
`
`13.  Claim 38 .................................................................................... 62 
`
`14.  Claim 47 .................................................................................... 62 
`
`15.  Claim 48 .................................................................................... 64 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`
`16.  Claim 49 .................................................................................... 65 
`
`17.  Claim 50 .................................................................................... 65 
`
`18.  Claim 54 .................................................................................... 65 
`
`X. 
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 65 
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases 
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................ 17
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) .................................................................................................................... 16
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ..................................................... 12
`
`In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................... 13
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................. 13
`
`KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................... 39
`
`Merck Sharp & Dohme, et al. v. Microspherix, IPR2018-00393, Paper 13 (PTAB
`
`July 9, 2018) ......................................................................................................... 17
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................... 14
`
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................. 14
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.78 ....................................................................................................... 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357 to Worrall (the “’357 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Dr. Martin G. Walker
`
`Ex. 1003 CV of Dr. Martin G. Walker
`
`Ex. 1004 Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/416,865
`(the “’865 Application”) issued as the ’357 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1005 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group
`Services and System Aspects; Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast
`Service (MBMS); Architecture and functional description (Release
`6) v6.9.0 (2005-12) (“3GPP UMTS”)
`
`Ex. 1006 3rd Generation Partnership Project TR 25.813; Technical
`Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal
`Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and Evolved Universal
`Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN); Radio interface
`protocol aspects (Release 7) v0.8.1 (2006-04) (“3GPP TR 25.813”)
`
`Ex. 1007 3rd Generation Partnership Project TS 25.304; Technical
`Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal
`Terrestrial Radio Access Network; User Equipment (UE) procedures
`in idle mode and procedures for cell reselection in connected mode
`(Release 7) v7.0.0 (2006-03) (“3GPP TS 25.304”)
`
`Ex. 1008 3GPP TS 25.211; Technical Specification Group Radio Access
`Network; Physical channels and mapping of transport channels onto
`physical channels (FDD) (Release 7) v7.0.0 (2006-03) (“3GPP TS
`25.11”)
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 8,914,048 to. Montojo et al. (the “Montojo Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent Application No. 60/795,675 (the “Montojo Provisional”)
`
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent No. 8,135,420 to Lee, et al. (the “LG Patent”)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent Application No. 60/757,063 (the “’063 Provisional”)
`
`Ex. 1013 U.S. Patent Application No. 60/783,250 (the “’250 Provisional”)
`
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent Application No. 60/784,680 (the “’680 Provisional”)
`
`Ex. 1015 Philips, “Evolved Paging for LTE,” published February [13], 2006,
`prior to 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #51, Denver, USA, 13th –
`17th February 2006 (“Philips”)
`
`Ex. 1016 Sharp, R1-061136, “UE Identity in L1/L2 Downlink Control
`Signalling,” April 28, 2006, (“Sharp”)
`
`Ex. 1017 Nokia, et al., “E-UTRA Transport Channels,” published prior to
`3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #48bis, Cannes, France, October 10-
`14th, 2005, R2-052438 (“Nokia”)
`
`Ex. 1018 Ericsson, “Paging for E-UTRA,” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 LTE
`AdHoc Meeting, Helsinki, Finland, January 23-25, 2006, R1-060092
`(“Ericsson”)
`
`Ex. 1019 Selected Pages from Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the
`related litigation Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`et al., No. 2:17-cv-00662 (E.D. Tex. 2017); consolidated with
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Sprint, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00661
`(E.D. Tex. 2017.)
`
`The following analysis cites to the page numbers provided in the above-listed
`
`exhibits, if available. The quotes, Tables, or Figures, from the above-listed exhibits
`
`may be annotated or emphasized as indicated in the applicable citation.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P. and
`
`SprintCom, Inc., as Petitioner, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 and 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq., respectfully request that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(the “Board”) institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357 (the “’357
`
`Patent”), currently assigned to Intellectual Ventures II LLC (the “Patent Owner”).
`
`This Petition, and in particular the analysis in Section IX, infra, demonstrates that
`
`claims 11-14, 19, 30-33, 38, 47-50, and 54 of the ’357 Patent (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) are unpatentable over the prior art, and that Petitioner has a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to the same.
`
`The ’357 Patent, titled “Paging in a Wireless Network,” was filed as
`
`Application 11/416,865 on May 2, 2006 which is the earliest effective filing date of
`
`the ’357 Patent. (Ex. 1001, Cover (22).) The ’357 Patent purports to disclose a novel
`
`and nonobvious improvement to existing methods of paging user equipment (“UE”)
`
`on wireless mobile networks such as a Long-Term Evolution (“LTE”) wireless
`
`network. But the purported invention of the Challenged Claims adds nothing to the
`
`wide body of art on paging in wireless networks that existed as of the ’357 Patent’s
`
`filing date. Thus, as set forth in this Petition, the Challenged Claims are unpatentable
`
`over that prior art.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`
`For these reasons and those set forth below, the Board should institute inter
`
`partes review of the Challenged Claims.
`
`II.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`1.
`
`Sprint Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest for Sprint are Sprint Spectrum L.P. and SprintCom,
`
`Inc. Out of an abundance of caution, Sprint also identifies Sprint Corporation as a
`
`real party in interest only for the purpose of this proceeding based on recent decisions
`
`at the PTAB, and only to the extent that Patent Owner contends that this separate
`
`legal entity should be named a real party in interest in this IPR. Sprint Corporation
`
`is and always has been a holding company that is a legally and factually distinct
`
`entity from its subsidiaries. Each of Sprint Corporation’s subsidiaries, including
`
`Sprint Spectrum L.P. and SprintCom, Inc., maintains its own independent status,
`
`identity, and structure. Sprint Corporation does not provide any of the products and
`
`services at issue in the underlying infringement lawsuit.
`
`2.
`
`T-Mobile Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest for T-Mobile are T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-
`
`Mobile US, Inc.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), the ’357 Patent is currently being asserted
`
`in a district court litigation captioned as Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. T-Mobile
`
`USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-661-JRG (E.D. Tex.) and Intellectual Ventures II
`
`LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-662-JRG (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`September 21, 2017.1
`
`The ’357 Patent is also the subject of a petition for inter partes review in No.
`
`IPR2018-01380 (the “’1380 IPR”), filed by Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget
`
`LM Ericsson (collectively, “Ericsson”). None of the grounds of invalidity in this
`
`Petition are asserted in the ’1380 IPR, and Ericsson was not involved in the
`
`preparation of this Petition, nor were Sprint or T-Mobile involved in the preparation
`
`of the petition in the ’1380 IPR.
`
`Petitioner is also concurrently filing a petition for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,532,330 (the “’330 Patent”). The ’330 Patent is a continuation of the
`
`’357 Patent.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`
`1 Nextel Operations, Inc. (“Nextel”) is a named defendant in the district court
`
`litigation. Nextel has merged with SprintCom, Inc., and no longer exists.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`George B. Davis
`(Reg. No. 68,205)
`
`Email: gdavis@mcguirewoods.com;
`Sprint-IV4-IPRs@mcguirewoods.com
`
`Postal/Hand Delivery Address:
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`Gateway Plaza
`800 East Canal Street
`Richmond, VA 23219
`
`Tel.: (804) 775-1000
`Fax.: (804) 775-2016
`
`
`
`Robert C. Hilton
`(Reg. No. 47,649)
`
`Email: rhilton@mcguirewoods.com;
`Sprint-IV4-IPRs@mcguirewoods.com
`
`Postal/Hand Delivery Address:
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`2000 McKinney Ave.
`Suite 1400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel.: (214) 932-6400
`Fax.: (214) 932-6499
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Service on Petitioner may be made by email, mail or hand delivery at the
`
`addresses shown above.
`
`E.
`
`Payment of Fees
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition for inter partes review to Deposit Account
`
`No. 23-1951. Any additional fees that might be due are also authorized.
`
`III.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’357 Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting such review on
`
`the grounds set forth in this petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`IV.
`
` FIELD OF THE ’357 PATENT AND THE RELATED PRIOR ART
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`
`A. Wireless Cellular Technology
`
`The field of the ’357 Patent is “wireless communication systems.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`at 1:5-7.) Modern cellular wireless communication systems include base stations,
`
`which may be referred to in the prior art as “Node Bs” or “eNodeBs” depending on
`
`the wireless system generation, and which will be referred to as Node Bs hereinafter.
`
`(Id. at 1:18-21; Ex. 1006, at 9, Fig. 5.1.) These Node Bs sit within “a cell,” or a
`
`geographical unit of coverage that the Node Bs provide. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, at Fig.
`
`2.)
`
`One component of the core network disclosed in the ’357 Patent is the access
`
`gateway or “aGW.” (Id. at 4:54-57; see also Ex. 1006, at 9)
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’357 Patent (annotated)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`
`The aGW can send messages and information to the Node B, which in turn
`
`can send radio signals to the UE, which would include a mobile handset device. (Ex.
`
`1001, at 4:54-62.)
`
`Wireless systems include a connection and registration process between the
`
`UE and the network. In 2006, a development under discussion was referred to as
`
`long-term-evolution or “LTE.” (Ex. 1006, at 1.) Figure 5.5.2 from 3GPP Technical
`
`Report (TR) 25.813 v0.8.1 (2006-04) (Ex. 1006), below depicts a proposed
`
`registration process for a UE in the LTE network. (Id. at 20.) In one embodiment of
`
`a wireless network that was known at the time of the ’357 Patent, when a UE was
`
`connected to a Node B and in active mode, it could be identified by its assigned c-
`
`RNTI, an identifier that “provides a unique UE identification at the cell level.” (Id.
`
`at 20-21.) This c-RNTI is only unique within the cell, whereas a UE identifier like
`
`an international mobile subscriber identity (“IMSI”) is unique to the device across
`
`the entire network. (Ex. 1002, at ¶¶39-42.)
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`Figure 5.5.2 from 3GPP TR 25.813 (annotated)
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Background of Cellular Paging
`
`
`
`The ’357 Patent admits that the prior art disclosed two different non-active
`
`modes for UEs: “idle” mode and “dormant” mode. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 2:36-52.)
`
`Unlike the “idle” mode, when the mobile terminal is “dormant” “[it] is connected to
`
`the RAN.” (Id.) Thus the Node B still contains the c-RNTI or short UE identifier for
`
`the UE and knows where to address a page. (See Ex. 1006, at 20, Fig. 5.5.2; Ex.
`
`1011, at 1 (noting that when a “paged UE” is in idle mode, “[it] has no short UE id
`
`(e.g., C-RNTI) allocated by a cell”).) As the ’357 Patent teaches, paging a UE in the
`
`dormant mode could be accomplished using DRX or discontinuous reception, a
`
`process where “the mobile terminal needs to monitor the first paging signal only at
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`one paging occasion per DRX cycle.” (Ex. 1001, at 2:6-8; see also Ex. 1006, at 34-
`
`35.) Because the “core network usually knows” the DRX cycle, and therefore when
`
`a UE will be monitoring for messages in the DRX cycle, it can page a UE by
`
`“send[ing] the first paging signal at the time when the mobile terminal will monitor
`
`the paging channel.” (Ex. 1001, at 2:13-15.) The use of DRX for paging, according
`
`to the ’357 Patent, was known and used in the prior art. (Id.)
`
`C. The Alleged Improvement of the ’357 Patent
`
`According to the ’357 Patent, the problem with prior art methods of paging
`
`was that the UE in idle mode “has no connection to the RAN; however it is connected
`
`to the core network.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:36-40; see also id. at 8:07-22.) This means that
`
`“the UE does not have c-RNTI, SCCH or radio resources allocated.” (Id. at 8:18-
`
`22.) In other words, the Node B will need to use a longer, unique UE identifier such
`
`as the IMSI in order to page the target device. (Id. at 8:38-62.)
`
`The ’357 Patent purports to disclose improvements to existing prior art paging
`
`methodologies by “provid[ing] a network-initiated connection establishment
`
`procedure which uses the information known at the network to speed up the
`
`connection between the mobile terminal and the RAN.” (Id. at 2:53-56.) One of the
`
`embodiments disclosed by the ’357 Patent is the use of “paging indicators mapped
`
`onto a shared control channel (SCCH) and the paging message mapped onto a
`
`downlink shared transport channel (SCH).” (Id. at 3:26-29.)
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`
`In this embodiment, the aGW, which is part of the core network, sends a
`
`paging message to the Node B. (See id. at Fig. 3, reproduced below.)
`
`Figure 3 of the ’357 Patent (annotated)
`
`The Node B then associates a c-RNTI and SCCH Index (shared channel index) to
`
`
`
`the original “paging message,” e.g., the “paging cause” and long UE identity such
`
`as “IMSI” or “TMSI” of the paged UE. (See id. at Fig. 4, reproduced below.)
`
`Figure 4 of the ’357 Patent (annotated)
`
`
`
`The ’357 Patent teaches that the Node B may use this new set of information to
`
`transmit the “paging indicators mapped onto a downlink shared control (SCCH)”
`6
`
`

`

`
`and “the paging message mapped onto a downlink shared transport channel.” (Id. at
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`3:26-30; Fig. 9, reproduced below.)
`
`Figure 9 of the ’357 Patent
`
`
`
`The first paging signal sent on the SCCH (shared control channel) comprises the
`
`“Group Id” and the “Resources for SCH.” (Id. at 6:58-65.) The second paging signal
`
`sent on the SCH (shared channel) comprises the paging message. (Id.)
`
`Use of this paging method, according to the ’357 Patent, enables a wireless
`
`system to page a UE through the existing DRX cycle. For example, Fig. 9 of the
`
`’357 Patent depicts the method by which the Node B is able to send both the paging
`
`indicators and the actual paging message from the core network in a single “paging
`
`occasion.” (Id. at 6:6-10; see also id. at 9:7-16.) However, the use of DRX to page
`
`a UE in sleep mode was known in the art prior to the filing of the ’357 Patent. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶41-44.) And the ’357 Patent teaches this as a known technique (Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:5-20 (“The mobile terminal uses Discontinuous Reception (DRX) in sleep mode
`
`in order to reduce power consumption. When DRX is used, the mobile terminal
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`needs to monitor the first paging signal only at one paging occasion per DRX
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`cycle.”) (emphasis added.))
`
`The ’357 Patent describes using the DRX cycle and having a UE in idle mode
`
`listen for paging indicators during a paging occasion. (See id. at 6:58-60 (“The UEs
`
`listen to the appropriate SCCH for paging indicators at their paging occasion
`
`calculated based on DRX cycle and IMSI.”)) But as set forth below, these methods
`
`were all known in the prior art. (See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 41, 43.)
`
`
`
`In certain embodiments, after obtaining the paging message, the UE “sends a
`
`paging acknowledgement message to the Node Bs in the RAN.” (Ex. 1001, 5:35-36;
`
`see also id. at Fig. 13). That message “may be combined with uplink synchronization
`
`information and transmitted over a contention-based uplink channel (such as a
`
`random access channel (RACH,))” or “an allocated, dedicated access channel.” (Id.
`
`at 5:36-39; 7:4-6.) The UE may also send a “UL synchronization request message”
`
`as part of the acknowledgement or separately thereafter. (Id. at 7:7-8.)
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art
`
`At the time the ’357 Patent was filed, i.e., May 2, 2006, a number of different
`
`paging methods had been proposed. In particular, much of the art around that time
`
`focused on how to efficiently page a UE in idle mode. For instance a number of
`
`industry participants had submitted proposals to a relevant standard-setting
`
`organization, the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”), to develop
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`“enhanced” or “evolved” paging methods for use on a proposed LTE network, such
`
`as that specified in 3GPP TR 25.813. (See, e.g., the publication titles of Ex. 1014, at
`
`13 (LG paper titled “Discussion on LTE Paging and DRX”), Ex. 1015, (“Evolved
`
`Paging for LTE”), Ex. 1018 (“Paging for E-UTRA”) and the submitted title of Ex.
`
`1010, the Montojo Provisional (“Method and Apparatus for Enhanced Paging.”))
`
`Some publications identified solutions that relied on the same general
`
`concepts, which were already known in the art. For example, the Nokia reference
`
`from October 2005 suggested using shared channels instead of dedicated channels
`
`to page a UE, which it argued would permit “both active and idle terminals” to “use
`
`the same power-saving mechanisms.” (Ex. 1017, at 1.)
`
`Other publications like those from LG and Sharp,2 and the 3GPP TR 25.813
`
`specification noted that in order to take advantage of paging using the methods of
`
`
`2 The Sharp publication (Ex. 1016) was emailed to a 3GPP working group e-mail
`
`distribution list on April 28, 2006. See, e.g., https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2
`
`=ind0604&L=3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1&P=145929; see also “How can I determine
`
`when a meeting contribution document (Tdoc) became publicly available?” 3GPP,
`
`accessed on Monday, September 17, 2018, available at http://www.3gpp.org/about-
`
`3gpp/3gpp-faqs#MI2 (noting that “distribution on the group’s email exploder is
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`the DRX cycle and reduce the overhead associated with the monitoring for pages,
`
`the Node B would need to reduce the number of bits in the long identity used for
`
`paging. (Ex. 1011, at 6:30-37; Ex. 1014, at 13 (noting that the full 32-bit IMSI is not
`
`able to fit into L1/2 control information whereas a short UE Identity of 16-bits such
`
`as the C-RNTI would fit); Ex. 1016 at 1 (“[a] reduction in UE Identity length …
`
`would have a significant reduction in the impact on the overhead of control
`
`signaling”); Ex. 1006 at 20-21 (noting that the “C-RNTI provides a unique UE
`
`identification at the cell level” but that one should only use it as an indicator “unless
`
`the cost would turn out to be too high.”))
`
`Another approach known as of May 2, 2006 was to utilize techniques to
`
`reduce the short UE ID that would be included in the indicator message. The
`
`Montojo Patent, for example, teaches using the least-significant-bits, or “LSBs” of
`
`a long, 32-bit radio network temporary identifier, thus permitting the Node B to send
`
`a shorter indication on a control channel to alert a UE that it should check the
`
`allocated resources on a shared channel for a paging message. (Ex. 1009 at 8:36-44
`
`(teaching two embodiments of the paging indicator, one with a “a complete RNTI”
`
`
`important, because once that happens, the document is effectively in the public
`
`domain, since the membership of the exploder is open to all and is (almost)
`
`unpoliced.”)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`and another using “a predetermined number of LSBs of a UE ID, e.g., RNTI.”); see
`
`also Ex. 1010, at 11 (using the LSBs of the UE RNTI in connection with a hashing
`
`function to ensure that the “full UE ID” fits “within the SDCCH.”).)
`
`Thus by May 2, 2006, methods of paging a UE in idle or dormant mode using
`
`the DRX cycle were well known. As the LG Patent notes, the industry was also
`
`aware that using a shortened ID to indicate a page to the UE of the DRX cycle would
`
`increase battery life, a key feature for consumers. (See e.g., Ex. 1011, at 6:48-56; Ex.
`
`1012, ’063 Provisional, at 13-14; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 26-31.)
`
`E.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’357 Patent
`
`The prosecution history of the ‘357 Patent can be separated into two segments.
`
`The first involved the attempts by IPWireless to overcome repeated rejections of its
`
`proposed claims by the PTO as obvious over the prior art. By April of 2011, the
`
`Examiner had rejected all of the proposed claims at least four times as obvious,
`
`including in light of earlier versions of 3GPP E-UTRAN specifications. (See Ex.
`
`1004, ’357 File History at 109 (06-22-09 Rejection), 180 (09-02-10 Final Rejection),
`
`263 (10-05-2010 Rejection), at 332 (05-06-2011 Final Rejection.))
`
`After receiving a second final rejection from the PTO in 2011, IPWireless sold
`
`its interest in the patents to Intellectual Ventures, and the assignment was recorded
`
`in the name of Intellectual Ventures Holding 81 LLC on July 18, 2012 (“IV
`
`Holdings.”) (Id. at 406.).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`
`In an amendment filed November 12, 2012, IV Holdings cancelled all pending
`
`claims and submitted fifty-three new ones, which are now the claims at issue. IV
`
`Holdings argued that the cited prior art did not teach or suggest “sending or receiving
`
`a message on a control channel having an allocation of resources for a shared
`
`channel and a radio network temporary identity (RNTI) associated with a plurality
`
`of UEs.” (Ex. 1004, ’357 File History at 435-436 (11-12-2012 Preliminary
`
`Amendment) (emphasis in original.)) IV Holdings further argued that the cited prior
`
`art did not teach or suggest “then sending a paging message having an
`
`International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) or a Temporary Mobile
`
`Subscriber Identity (TMSI).” (Id. (emphasis in original.))
`
`Without comment, the Examiner allowed all fifty-three new claims less than
`
`a year later. (Id. at 551 (11-12-2013 Notice of Allowance.)) None of the references
`
`used in the grounds for invalidity alleged herein were substantively discussed or
`
`cited by the Examiner in any rejection.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art. See In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board did not
`
`err in adopting the approach that the level of skill in the art was best determined by
`
`references of record). The prior art discussed herein, and in the declaration of Dr.
`
`Walker, demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`field of the ’357 Patent at the relevant time would have been someone with at least
`
`a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or an
`
`equivalent field as well as at least three to four years of experience in wireless
`
`communications technology, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, or other equivalent degree. (Ex. 1002, at ¶ 16). Additionally,
`
`someone with less or different technical education but more relevant practical
`
`experience, or more relevant education but less practical experience, could also be
`
`considered a person of ordinary skill in the art. (Id.)
`
`VI.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in view of the
`
`specification in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). In determining the
`
`BRI, claim terms receive their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`As required by these rules, this Petition applies the BRI of the claim terms,
`
`although BRI may be, and often is, different from a claim construction in district
`
`court. See, e.g., In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Thus, the claim interpretations applied in this Petition do not necessarily
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`
`reflect the claim constructions that Petitioner believes should be adopted by a district
`
`court under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Petitioner proposes, for purposes of this IPR only, that all claim terms of the
`
`’357 Patent are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meaning that the
`
`terms would have to POSITA, and there is no need to resolve any controversy with
`
`respect to these terms. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355,
`
`1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Petitioner reserves the right to offer, in the District Court
`
`litigations, specific constructions for any claim terms, consistent with their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning for the aid of the jury.
`
`VII.
`
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and analysis,
`
`institute a trial for IPR of claims 11-14, 19, 30-33, 38, 47-50 and 54 of the ’357
`
`Patent, and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`VIII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`This petition challenges claims 11-14, 19, 30-33, 38, 47-50, and 54 of the ’357
`
`Patent on the grounds set forth below.
`
`Grounds Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Ground 1 11-14, 19, 30-33,
`38, 47-50, and 54
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over the LG Patent in view of
`the Montojo Patent
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Revie