Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7882
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 20
`Date: November 27, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7882
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 20
`Date: November 27, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”),
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 11 and 12 (the “challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’049 Patent”).
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the
`
`Petition (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and
`
`Preliminary Response, we instituted inter partes review of all challenged
`
`claims on all grounds raised. Paper 7 (“Dec. Inst.”).
`
`Patent Owner filed a Response to the Petition (Paper 9, “PO Resp.”)
`
`and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 10, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a
`
`Sur-Reply (Paper 12, “PO Sur-Reply”). An oral hearing was held on
`
`September 10, 2020, and the hearing transcript is included in the record. See
`
`Paper 19 (“Tr.”).
`
`In our Scheduling Order, we notified the parties that “any arguments
`
`not raised in the [Patent Owner] response may be deemed waived.” See
`
`Paper 8, 7; see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The patent owner response . . . should identify all
`
`the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for
`
`that belief.”). Patent Owner argues that it “does not concede, and
`
`specifically denies, that there is any legitimacy to any arguments in the
`
`instant Petition that are not specifically addressed” in its Patent Owner
`
`Response. PO Resp. 27 n.5. We decline to speculate as to what Patent
`
`Owner considers to be not legitimate in the Petition. Any arguments for
`
`patentability not raised in the Patent Owner Response are deemed waived.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This is a Final Written
`
`Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons
`
`set forth below, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
`
`evidence that claims 11 and 12 of the ’049 patent are unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`A. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The parties identify the following related matters:
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. HTC America, Inc., 2:18-cv-01727 (W.D.
`
`Wash.), filed November 30, 2018; Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Motorola Mobility,
`
`LLC, 1:18-cv-01840 (D. Del.), filed November 20, 2018; Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`v. ZTE, Inc. et al., 3:18-cv03063 (N.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018;
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Blackberry Corporation, 3:18-cv-03068 (N.D. Tex.),
`
`filed November 17, 2018; Uniloc USA Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics USA
`
`Inc., et al., 5:18-cv-06738 (N.D. Cal.), filed November 6, 2018; Uniloc USA
`
`Inc., et al., v. ZTE (USA) Inc., et al., 3:18-cv-02839 (N.D. Tex.) filed
`
`October 24, 2018; Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 8:18-cv-
`
`01279 (C.D. Cal.), filed July 24, 2018; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ZTE (USA), Inc.,
`
`2:18-cv-00307 (E.D. Tex.), filed July 23, 2018; Uniloc USA Inc. v.
`
`Blackberry Corporation, 3:18-cv-01885 (N.D. Tex.), filed July 23, 2018;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc., v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., 2:18-cv-00074 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed March 13, 2018; Uniloc USA Inc. v. LG Electronics USA Inc., 3:18-cv-
`
`00559 (N.D. Tex.), filed March 9, 2018; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Logitech, Inc.,
`
`5:18-cv-01304 (N.D. Cal.), filed February 28, 2018; Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 2:18-cv-00040; Apple Inc., et al. v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, PTAB IPR2019-00251. Pet. ix–x; Paper 3, 2.
`
`B. THE ’049 PATENT
`
`The ’049 patent is directed to a communication system comprising a
`
`primary station and one or more secondary stations. Ex. 1001, code (57).
`
`The primary station broadcasts a series of inquiry messages, and adds to the
`
`inquiry messages an additional data field for polling secondary stations. Id.
`
`This system is useful for communications between the stations without
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`requiring a permanently active link, such as is common with the Bluetooth
`
`communications protocol. Id.
`
`C. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 11 and 12 of the ’049 Patent. Claim 11 is
`
`the only independent challenged claim and is reproduced below:
`
`11. A method of operating a communication system comprising
`a primary station and at least one secondary station, the method
`comprising the primary station broadcasting a series of inquiry
`messages, each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data
`fields arranged according to a first communications protocol,
`and adding to an inquiry message prior to transmission an
`additional data field for polling at least one secondary station,
`and further comprising the at least one polled secondary station
`determining when an additional data field has been added to the
`plurality of data fields, determining whether it has been polled
`from the additional data field and responding to a poll when it
`has data for transmission to the primary station.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:35–47.
`
`D. PRIOR ART AND ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability. Pet. 2.
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §1
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`11, 12
`
`103
`
`Larsson2, Bluetooth
`Specification3, RFC8264
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) amended 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`See Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011). As the application
`that issued as the ’049 patent was filed before the effective date of the
`relevant amendments, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,704,293 B1 (iss. Dec. 6, 1999) (Ex. 1004, “Larsson”).
`3 Bluetooth™ Core Specification Vol. 1, ver. 1.0 B (pub. Dec. 1, 1999)
`(Ex. 1005, “Bluetooth Specification”).
`4 David C. Plummer, An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol,
`IETF Request for Comments No. 826 (Pub. Nov. 1982) (Ex. 1006,
`“RFC826”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §1
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`11, 12
`
`§ 103
`
`802.115
`
`I. ANALYSIS
`
`A. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have had “a Master’s
`
`Degree in electrical or computer engineering with a focus in communication
`
`systems or, alternatively, a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical or computer
`
`engineering and at least two years of experience in wireless communication
`
`systems.” Pet. 10. In addition, according to Petitioner, “[a]dditional
`
`education in a relevant field, or industry experience may compensate for a
`
`deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner does not contest or offer its own formulation for a skilled
`
`artisan. PO Resp. 4. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s proposal because
`
`it is consistent with the ’049 patent, as well as the problems and solutions in
`
`the prior art of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 501
`
`F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In inter partes reviews, we interpret claims “using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this
`
`standard, we construe claims “in accordance with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Only claim
`
`
`5 ANSI/IEEE Std 802.11, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
`Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications
`(pub. Aug. 20, 1999) (Ex. 1007, “802.11”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
`
`Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Patent Owner proposes we construe “additional data field” as “an
`
`extra data field appended to the end of an inquiry message.” PO Resp. 6.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that the claimed “inquiry message” should be
`
`limited to “a specific type of message used, at least in part, to discover other
`
`devices in the vicinity which may request to join a piconet.” Id. at 8–9.
`
`Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s constructions are incorrect because they
`
`improperly import limitations from preferred embodiments in the
`
`Specification. See Pet. Reply 1–2, 3.
`
`The parties’ arguments related to these terms impact only Petitioner’s
`
`first unpatentability ground involving Larsson. See PO Resp. 11–12; 14–17;
`
`Pet. Reply 7–16. Because we do not address that ground for the reasons
`
`discussed below, see infra section I.D.2, we do not need to address the
`
`parties’ arguments related to construing “additional data field” and “inquiry
`
`message.”
`
`1. 802.11 (Ex. 1007)
`
`C. ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`802.11 is an IEEE standard that specifies “[t]he medium access
`
`control (MAC) and physical characteristics for wireless local area networks
`
`(LANs).” Ex. 1007, iii. The network includes a basic service set (BSS),
`
`which is “[a] set of stations controlled by a single coordination function.”
`
`Id. at 3. To communicate with other stations, a station uses a scan function
`
`to “determin[e] the characteristics of the available BSSs.” Id. at 101.
`
`“Active scanning involves the generation of Probe frames and the
`
`subsequent processing of received Probe Response frames.” Id. at 126. A
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`typical broadcast probe request message seeks a response from any BSS and
`
`does not include the address of a specific SSID. Ex. 1003 ¶ 43 (citing
`
`Ex. 1007, 126, Fig. 66). If a device wishes to probe a specific BSS,
`
`however, then it includes the SSID of the specifically-targeted BSS during
`
`the active scanning process. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 126).
`
`D. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS
`
`1. Obviousness over 802.11
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious in
`
`view of 802.11. Pet. 40. Based on Petitioner’s analysis and for the reasons
`
`explained below, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
`
`evidence that claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious over 802.11.
`
`a. “adding . . . an additional data field”
`
`Petitioner explains that 802.11 describes a local wireless network with
`
`different stations (STAs) communicating with one another according to a
`
`protocol. Id. at 40. “802.11 specifies that, as part of the active scanning
`
`process used to join a network, an STA broadcasts ‘Probe Requests,’” that
`
`include “predetermined data fields arranged according to the 802.11 wireless
`
`LAN protocol.” Id. at 46 (quoting Ex. 1007, 126); id. at 46–47 (citing
`
`Ex. 1007, 45, Fig. 23).
`
`Petitioner explains that 802.11 teaches the key “adding to an inquiry
`
`message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one
`
`secondary station” limitation because it teaches
`
`[a] Probe Request message is one of two types. A “broadcast”
`type seeks responses from all available access point stations, and
`is indicated by a “0 length” or null SSID. Another type of Probe
`Request, used when the station polls a specific access point, adds
`an additional data field, namely the SSID of that AP. In the latter
`type of probe request, which might be called a “targeted” probe
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`request, the added SSID of the targeted station is “an additional
`data field for polling” that station.
`
`Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–104).
`
`Patent Owner argues that 802.11 does not teach the claimed adding-
`
`an-additional-data-field step because a broadcast probe request’s zero-length
`
`SSID information field is still an existing, predetermined field, and thus the
`
`SSID information field in a targeted probe request cannot be an additional
`
`data field. PO Resp. 18–19. In addition, because 802.11’s zero-length SSID
`
`field “conveys information,” the targeted probe request’s non-zero-length
`
`field is not an additional data field. Id. at 20.
`
`We agree with Petitioner that 802.11’s targeted probe request includes
`
`an additional data field, as compared to a broadcast probe request. As
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Rysavy, explains, “[a] POSITA would understand
`
`that ‘0 length’ means that nothing is included for this SSID field, i.e., there
`
`is no SSID field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 102; see Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 40–47 (explaining that a
`
`zero-length field means there is nothing coded for the field); Ex. 1029, 11
`
`(explaining that “[a] data field can be nonexistent (of zero length) in certain
`
`kinds of messages”). On the other side, Patent Owner presents no evidence
`
`beyond attorney argument that one skilled in the art would have understood
`
`that a zero-length SSID information field is an existing field. In short,
`
`802.11’s broadcast probe requests include nothing that corresponds to the
`
`SSID information field, whereas 802.11’s targeted probe requests have an
`
`SSID information field. Thus, the targeted probe requests have an additional
`
`data field, as claim 11 requires.
`
`Patent Owner’s second argument—that “a 0 length SSID information
`
`field conveys information,” PO Resp. 20—does not undermine our finding
`
`that 802.11’s targeted probe requests have an additional data field as
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`compared to its broadcast probe requests. As Petitioner explains, “even if
`
`the absence of a field of encoded data from a probe may communicate
`
`information to a station, the field is still absent.” Pet. Reply 22. We agree
`
`with Petitioner that communicating information via the nonexistence of a
`
`field is irrelevant to whether a nonexistent SSID information field is an
`
`existing field. Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we agree with
`
`Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that 802.11 discloses “adding to an inquiry message prior to transmission an
`
`additional data field for polling at least one secondary station,” as the
`
`challenged claims require. See Pet. 48–49; Pet. Reply 18–23.
`
`b. Undisputed Limitations in Claim 11
`
`Claim 11 recites “[a] method of operating a communication system
`
`comprising a primary station and at least one secondary station.” Petitioner
`
`asserts that 802.11 teaches this limitation because “it describes operating
`
`wireless local area networks that connect . . . stations within a local area”
`
`and “[t]he 802.11 stations, i.e. ‘STAs,’ are the claimed primary and
`
`secondary stations.” Pet. 43, 44 (citing Ex. 1007, 1, 5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. We have reviewed Petitioner’s
`
`arguments and the underlying evidence cited in support and are persuaded
`
`Petitioner sufficiently establishes that 802.11 teaches “[a] method of
`
`operating a communication system comprising a primary station and at least
`
`one secondary station.”
`
`Claim 11 further recites “the method comprising the primary station
`
`broadcasting a series of inquiry messages.” Petitioner asserts that 802.11
`
`teaches this limitation because it teaches “an STA broadcasts ‘Probe
`
`Requests’ . . . with the expectation of receiving a ‘Probe Response.’” Id.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1007, 126–27). Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. We have reviewed Petitioner’s
`
`arguments and the underlying evidence cited in support and are persuaded
`
`Petitioner sufficiently establishes 802.11 teaches “the method comprising the
`
`primary station broadcasting a series of inquiry messages.”
`
`Claim 11 requires that each broadcast message must be “in the form
`
`of a plurality of predetermined data fields arranged according to a first
`
`communications protocol.” Petitioner asserts that 802.11 teaches this
`
`limitation because it teaches that each Probe Request frame “has
`
`predetermined data fields arranged according to the 802.11 wireless LAN
`
`protocol, as specified in Figure 23.” Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1007, 22, 45).
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. We
`
`have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and the underlying evidence cited in
`
`support and are persuaded Petitioner sufficiently establishes 802.11 teaches
`
`“each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data fields arranged
`
`according to a first communications protocol.”
`
`Claim 11 recites “the at least one polled secondary station determining
`
`when an additional data field has been added to the plurality of data fields,
`
`determining whether it has been polled from the additional data field and
`
`responding to a poll when it has data for transmission to the primary
`
`station.” Petitioner asserts that 802.11 teaches this limitation because
`
`“802.11 specifies that stations ‘receiving Probe Request frames shall
`
`respond with a probe response only if the SSID in the probe request . . .
`
`matches the specific SSID of the STA.’” Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1007, 126). In
`
`addition, Petitioner explains, “to determine if the SSID of the probe request
`
`‘matches the SSID of the STA,’ a receiving station necessarily must
`
`(i) determine that the SSID (‘additional data field’) has been added to the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`probe request’s data fields and (ii) determine that it has been polled from the
`
`additional data field, i.e., determine that the received SSID matches its
`
`own.” Id. (citing Ex. 103 ¶¶ 105–106). Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. We have reviewed Petitioner’s
`
`arguments and the underlying evidence cited in support and are persuaded
`
`Petitioner sufficiently establishes 802.11 teaches “the at least one polled
`
`secondary station determining when an additional data field has been added
`
`to the plurality of data fields, determining whether it has been polled from
`
`the additional data field and responding to a poll when it has data for
`
`transmission to the primary station.”
`
`For the reasons explained above, Petitioner has proved by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 would have been obvious over
`
`802.11.
`
`c. Claim 12
`
`Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and additionally requires “wherein
`
`not all inquiry messages have an additional data field for polling a secondary
`
`station added to them.” Petitioner asserts that 802.11 discloses that “[p]robe
`
`requests of the broadcast type lack [the] additional data field . . . and thus not
`
`all inquiry messages have an additional data field for polling.” Id. at 52
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 108). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s
`
`assertions in this regard. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and the
`
`underlying evidence cited in support and are persuaded Petitioner
`
`sufficiently establishes 802.11 teaches “wherein not all inquiry messages
`
`have an additional data field for polling a secondary station added to them.”
`
`2. Other Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious over
`
`Larsson, Bluetooth Specification, and RFC826. Id. at 24–39. Because we
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`find that Petitioner has demonstrated claims 11 and 12 would have been
`
`obvious over 802.11, it is unnecessary for us to reach the remaining grounds
`
`of unpatentability proposed by Petitioner. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy,
`
`742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that once a dispositive issue
`
`is decided, there is no need to decide other potentially dispositive issues);
`
`Formlabs Inc. v. Envisiontec, Inc., IPR2017-01258, Paper 41 at 17 (PTAB
`
`Oct. 5, 2018).
`
`II. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Patent Owner argues that Administrative Patent Judges “are principal
`
`officers under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution” “but
`
`undisputably are not appointed through the constitutionally-mandated
`
`mechanism of appointment for principal officers.” PO Resp. 23. The
`
`Federal Circuit, however, addressed this issue and devised a remedy in
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert.
`
`granted sub nom. United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 2020 WL 6037206 (Oct. 13,
`
`2020). Patent Owner argues that the remedy devised by Federal Circuit
`
`“impermissibly rewrites the statutes governing APJs.” PO Resp. 24. We are
`
`bound by the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex. See 941 F.3d at 1337
`
`(“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation.”); see also
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 953 F.3d 760, 764 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`
`(Moore, J., concurring in denial of rehearing) (“Because the APJs were
`
`constitutionally appointed as of the implementation of the severance, inter
`
`partes review decisions going forward were no longer rendered by
`
`unconstitutional panels.”). Accordingly, we do not consider this issue any
`
`further.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`III. CONCLUSION6
`
`We have reviewed the Petition, Patent Owner Response, Petitioner
`
`Reply, and Patent Owner Sur-Reply. We have considered all of the
`
`evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, and have
`
`weighed and assessed the entirety of the evidence as a whole.
`
`We determine, on this record, that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`
`preponderance of evidence that claims 11 and 12 of the ’049 patent are
`
`unpatentable over 802.11.
`
`Claims
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`11, 12
`
`103
`
`103
`
`
`11, 12
`Overall
`Outcome
`
`
`Larsson, Bluetooth
`Specification,
`RFC8267
`802.11
`
`
`Claims
`Shown
`Unpatentable
`
`
`Claims
`Not Shown
`Unpatentable
`
`
`11, 12
`11, 12
`
`
`
`
`
`6 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
`in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
`Decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
`Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
`Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
`16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
`or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
`Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
`matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
`
`7 As explained above, we do not reach this ground because Petitioner has
`demonstrated that claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious over 802.11.
`See Beloit, 742 F.2d at 1423 (holding that once a dispositive issue is
`decided, there is no need to decide other potentially dispositive issues);
`Formlabs, Paper 41 at 17.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`It is hereby:
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that claims 11 and 12 of the ’049 patent are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over 802.11; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that this Decision is final, and a party to this
`
`proceeding seeking judicial review of the Decision must comply with the
`
`notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Andrew Mason
`Todd Siegel
`Joseph Jakubek
`John Lunsford
`Sarah Jelsema
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`joseph.jakubek@klarquist.com
`john.lunsford@klarquist.com
`sarah.jelsema@klarquist.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
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
