Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DELL, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`3G LICENSING S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REVISED MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via PTAB E2E
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ..................................................... 2
`
`III. THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF 37
`C.F.R. § 42.121 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`A. Reasonable Number of Substitute Claims ..................................................... 3
`
`B. The Proposed Claims Are Responsive to the Instituted Ground .................. 4
`
`C. The Proposed Claims Do Not Enlarge the Scope of the Original Claims .... 4
`
`IV. THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS DO NOT INTRODUCE NEW SUBJECT
`MATTER ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`A. Support for Substitute Claim 20 .................................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 21 .................................................................... 8
`
`C.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 22 .................................................................... 9
`
`D. Support for Substitute Claim 23 .................................................................... 9
`
`E.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 24 .................................................................... 9
`
`F.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 25 ..................................................................10
`
`G. Support for Substitute Claim 26 ..................................................................13
`
`H. Support for Substitute Claim 27 ..................................................................13
`
`I.
`
` Support for Substitute Claim 28 ..................................................................13
`
`J.
`
` Support for Substitute Claim 29 ..................................................................14
`
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 20-29 ARE NOT INDEFINITE PURSUANT TO
`V.
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................15
`
`VI. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 20-29 ARE NOT OF IMPROPER DEPENDENT
`FORM UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112 .............................................................................15
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`VII. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 20-29 HAVE SUFFICIENT WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION SUPPORT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112 ...........................................15
`
`VIII. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 20-29 ARE PATENTABLE OVER
`MCELWAIN, UCHIDA, HICKS, AND THE 3GPP REFERENCES ....................16
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aqua Prods. v. Matal,
`872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................2, 3
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................23
`
`Bosch Automotive Serv. Solutions LLC v. Matal,
`878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 2
`
`GE v. Raytheon Techs. Corp.,
`983 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................21
`
`Western Digital Corp. v. Spec Tech, Inc.,
`IPR 2018-00082, Paper 13 (PTAB April 25, 2018) ............................................... 3
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ......................................................................................................1, 3
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121 ........................................................................................ 1, 2, 4, 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Declaration of Stu Lipoff in Support of Patent Owner
`Affidavit of Stephanie Berger
`Affidavit of Neil Benchell
`Affidavit of Andrew DeMarco
`Second Declaration of Stu Lipoff in Support of Patent Owner
`3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group
`Core Network; NAS Functions related to Mobile Station (MS) in idle
`mode (Release 7) (3GPP TS 23.122 V7.0.0) (“TS 23.122 V7.0.0”)
`3rd Generation Partnership Project; Universal Mobile
`Telecommunications (UMTS); Characteristics of the USIM
`application (Release 6) (3GPP TS 31.102 V6.8.0) (“TS-31.102
`V6.8.0”)
`“The North American Official Cellular User’s Guide” Available to
`Help Cellular Telephone Users, Business Wire, December 18, 1990
`Amy Zuckerman, Those Black Holes in Your Mobile Phone Service,
`New York Times, December 24, 2000
`Nancy Gohring, Falling Short of Replacement: Wireless Carrier Plans
`Compete with Landline but Don’t Cut it Out of the Equation,
`Telephony, April 27, 2998
`Judy Strausbaugh, Oh, Give me a Cell Phone Where the Signals Won’t
`Roam, Sunday News (Lancaster, PA), May 19, 2002
`Settlement Agreement dated August 4, 2021
`Third Declaration of Stu Lipoff in Support of Patent Owner
`
`Exhibit
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`2013
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner, 3G Licensing S.A. (“Sisvel”) respectfully submits this
`
`Revised Motion to Amend under 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`contingent upon a finding of unpatentability with respect to the original challenged
`
`claims 1-10 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,274,933 (“the ’933
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`Patent Owner attaches the proposed substitute claims as Appendix A. Patent
`
`Owner proposes to substitute claims 1-10 with claims 20-29, respectively.
`
`Proposed substitute claims 20-29 include additional limitations not found in the
`
`prior art. The proposed substitute claims are presented on a contingent basis in the
`
`event the Board finds that the original claims are unpatentable.
`
`As this motion and the First, Second, and Third Declaration of Stuart Lipoff
`
`in Support of Patent Owner (Ex. 2001; Ex. 2005; Ex. 2013) demonstrate, the
`
`substitute claims meet all of the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Namely, each
`
`amendment is responsive to a ground of unpatentability involved in this
`
`proceeding, none of the amendments seek to enlarge the scope of the claims or to
`
`introduce new subject matter, and the motion shows the changes that are sought
`
`and the support in the original disclosure of the patent for each substitute claim.
`
`Moreover, although the burden of persuasion for any substitute claims is on
`
`the Petitioner to show that such claims are unpatentable, see Aqua Prods. v. Matal,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc); Bosch Automotive Serv. Solutions LLC
`
`v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017), this motion and the supporting
`
`declarations demonstrate that the substitute claims are patentable over the
`
`references in this trial involving the ’933 patent.
`
`In addition, Patent Owner responds to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
`
`(“Board”) preliminary guidance issued on September 1, 2021, in accordance with
`
`the pilot program. (Paper No. 32.)
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner hereby moves to amend the ’933 patent contingent upon
`
`whether the Challenged Claims are found unpatentable in the present IPR
`
`proceeding. See, 37 C.F.R. 42.121. If all Challenged Claims are found to be
`
`unpatentable, Patent Owner requests the Board order the following: (the
`
`replacement of claims 1-10 with claims 20-29, respectively.)
`
`• The replacement of independent claim 1 with substitute claim 20;
`
`• The replacement of dependent claim 2-5 with substitute claim 21-24;
`
`• The replacement of independent claim 6 with substitute claim 25; and
`
`• The replacement of dependent claims 7-10 with substitute claims 26-
`
`29, respectively.
`
`No other changes are proposed. See, 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1); see also, 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(d).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`III. THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS
`OF 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(B), a patent owner may propose a reasonable
`
`number of substitute claims for each challenged claim. A patent owner must show
`
`that the amendment in the proposed substitute claims is responsive to a ground of
`
`unpatentability involved in the trial, does not seek to broaden a challenged claim,
`
`and is supported by the filed or earlier-filed disclosures. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2).
`
`If a patent owner has met these statutory requirements, then the Board
`
`considers whether the substitute claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence. Western Digital Corp. v. Spec Tech, Inc., IPR 2018-00082, Paper 13 at 4
`
`(PTAB April 25, 2018). The petitioner has the burden to show that the amended
`
`claims are unpatentable over the prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); Aqua Prods. Inc.,
`
`872 F.3d 1324.
`
`A. Reasonable Number of Substitute Claims
`
`As shown in the Appendix A, Patent Owner proposes only one substitute
`
`claim for each conditionally canceled claim, and thus satisfies the general
`
`presumption that “only one substitute claim would be needed to replace each
`
`challenged claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3). The Board agreed in the Preliminary
`
`Guidance that the number of proposed substitute claims was reasonable. (Paper 32
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`at 3-4.) The same number of proposed substitute claims are included in this
`
`revised motion to amend.
`
`B.
`
`The Proposed Claims Are Responsive to the Instituted Ground
`
`The substitute claims 20-29 are responsive to one or more grounds of
`
`unpatentability at issue in this proceeding. See, 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i).
`
`Specifically, Petitioners have asserted that the prior art discloses the elements of
`
`original claims 1-10, which this motion conditionally seeks to amend. (See Paper 1
`
`at 2.) The Board agreed in the Preliminary Guidance that the original Motion to
`
`Amend responded to at least one ground of unpatentability from the Institution
`
`Decision. (Paper No. 32 at 4.)
`
`C.
`
`The Proposed Claims Do Not Enlarge the Scope of the Original
`Claims
`
`Proposed substitute claims 20-29 do not enlarge the scope of the
`
`’933patent’s claims. Each substitute claim follows the steps of independent claims
`
`1 and 6, but imposes additional limitations: (1) the requirement that the mobile
`
`station runs a test to determine whether the Home Public Land Mobile Network
`
`(“HPLMN”) list, containing a plurality of home network MCC and MNC pairs, is
`
`stored in the Subscriber Identity Module (“SIM”), or in the mobile station’s
`
`memory, and (2) that the aforementioned test is performed at explicitly noted
`
`times.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`These limitations impose a requirement that the user equipment (“UE”)
`
`carry out the methods of claims 20-29 when a specific test for an HPLMN list
`
`returns a confirmation of the HPLMN list’s presence on the UE’s SIM card or in
`
`its memory. Further, these limitations state that this test is to be carried out in
`
`response to certain stimuli.
`
`In its preliminary guidance, the Board found that proposed substitute claims
`
`20 and 21 enlarged the scope of the ’933 patent’s claims. (Paper No. 32 at 4-5.)
`
`Specifically, the Board noted that the “only if” language in original proposed
`
`substitute claims 20 and 21 enlarged the scope of the ’933 patent’s claims to cover
`
`a method that required not implementing the steps of claim 1. (Id. at 4-5.) The
`
`Board found that this language “cover[ing] at least two methods” brought the
`
`proposed substitute claims beyond the scope of the ’933 patent’s original claims.
`
`(Id. at 5.)
`
`In this revised motion to amend, the proposed substitute claims no longer
`
`contain this conditional language. Rather, proposed substitute claims 20-29
`
`instead cover only the scenario wherein a successful compatibility test is carried
`
`out, determining that the HPLMN list is either on the mobile station’s SIM or in
`
`the mobile station’s memory. Further, as discussed in more detail below, each of
`
`the newly added limitations has support in the specification as originally filed.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`IV. THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS DO NOT INTRODUCE NEW SUBJECT
`MATTER
`
`The originally-filed disclosure of the ’933 patent supports each proposed
`
`substitute claim. See, 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 (b)(1)-(2). The ’933 patent issued from
`
`U.S. App. Ser. No. 10/932,899, which claims priority to European Patent
`
`application 03255483. (Ex. 1001 at 1.) The charts below provide support for each
`
`of the proposed substitute claims 20-29 from the European and U.S. Applications.
`
`A.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 20
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Claim 20
`
`A network name displaying method in
`a mobile station, the method
`comprising:
`
`scanning to receive a plurality of
`Mobile Country Code (MCC) and
`Mobile Network Code (MNC) pairs
`corresponding to a plurality of wireless
`communication networks within a
`coverage area;
`
`conducting a test that determines
`whether a Home Public Land Mobile
`Network (HPLMN) list, containing a
`plurality of home network MCC and
`MNC pairs, is stored on the mobile
`station’s SIM or memory, said test
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 20 in the
`original disclosure of European
`application No. 03255483 / US
`Application No. 10/932,899
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 42:3 (Claim 1).
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex 1002 at 28:3.
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 42:5-7.
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex 1002 at 28:4-6.
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 116 (19:6-8), (19:21-22),
`
`(19:9-11), (19:14-17), (19:23-25).
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`Ex. 1002 at 19, 25-26.
`
`being run each time the mobile station
`is to display a roaming indicator;
`
`
`
`determining that a HPLMN list,
`containing a plurality of home network
`MCC and MNC pairs, is stored on the
`mobile station’s SIM or memory;
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 116 (19:6-8), (19:21-22),
`
`(19:9-11), (19:14-17), (19:23-25).
`
`
`
`selecting and registering with a
`wireless communication network
`associated with one of the received
`MCC and MNC pairs, giving a
`preference to home networks of a
`Home Public Land Mobile Network
`(HPLMN) list over non-home networks
`of a Preferred PLMN (PPLMN) list;
`
`comparing the MCC and MNC pair of
`the selected network with a plurality of
`home network MCC and MNC pairs
`corresponding to the home networks of
`the HPLMN list;
`
`for the step of comparing: using a
`plurality of home network MCC and
`MNC pairs from the HPLMN list
`stored on a Subscriber Identify Module
`(SIM) in the comparing step based on
`identifying that the plurality of home
`network MCC and MNC pairs are
`stored on the SIM, and otherwise using
`a plurality of home network MCC and
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 19, 25-26.
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 29:3-7, 7:18-20
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 24:18-21, 115:16-19
`
`
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 23:16-19, 114:14-17
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 178, 181, 21:31-32,
`112:29-30
`
`
`
`European Application
`
`Ex 1002 at 114:14-17, 23:16-19
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 23, 19-20, 30-21 (claim 15)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`
`MNC pairs stored in memory of the
`mobile station in the comparing step;
`
`causing a home network display name
`which is the same for all of the home
`network MCC and MNC pairs to be
`visually displayed in a visual display of
`the mobile station based on identifying
`a match between the MCC and MNC
`pair of the selected network and one of
`the home network MCC and MNC
`pairs; and
`
`otherwise causing an alternate display
`name to be visually displayed in the
`visual display based on identifying no
`match between the MCC and MNC
`pair of the selected network and the
`home network MCC and MNC pairs.
`
`European Application
`
`Ex 1002 at 114:14-17, 23:16-19
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 23, 19-20, 30-21 (claim 15)
`
`
`
`European Application
`
`Ex 1002 at 114:14-17, 23:16-19
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 23, 19-20, 30-21 (claim 15)
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 21
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 21 in the
`original disclosure of European
`application No. 03255483 / US
`Application No. 10/932,899
`
`Claim 21
`
`European Application
`
`The method of claim 120, wherein the
`plurality of home network MCC and
`MNC pairs are stored in the SIM.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 105:6-8, 106:25-32, 110:5-
`8 (claim 14).
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 38:19-39:4, 42:24-26
`(claim 13).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`Support for Substitute Claim 22
`
`C.
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 22 in the
`original disclosure of European
`application No. 03255483 / US
`Application No. 10/932,899
`
`Claim 22
`
`European Application
`
`The method of claim 120, wherein the
`plurality of home network MCC and
`MNC pairs are stored in the memory of
`the mobile station.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 89:13-16, 110:1-2 (claim
`12).
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 24:10-12, 110:19-23,
`123:13-14 (claim 19)
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 23
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 23 in the
`original disclosure of European
`application No. 03255483 / US
`Application No. 10/932,899
`
`Claim 23
`
`European Application
`
`The method of claim 120, wherein a
`Location Area Code (LAC) is used in
`addition to the MCC and the MNC in
`the acts of comparing and identifying.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 100:13-16, 1122:1-2 (claim
`12).
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 18-20, 24:10-12, 19:21-26,
`31:13-14 (claim 19).
`
`E.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 24
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 24 in the
`original disclosure of European
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`application No. 03255483 / US
`Application No. 10/932,899
`
`Claim 24
`
`European Application
`
`The method of claim 120, wherein the
`step of identifying that the plurality of
`home network MCC and MNC pairs
`are stored on the SIM comprises the
`further step of testing a predetermined
`designated area of memory on the SIM.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 116 (19:9-11), (19:14-16),
`(19:23-25).
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 25:8-10, 25:16-18, 25:24-
`27, 28:32-29:23 (claim 7), 30:10-16
`(claim 14).
`
`
`
`F.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 25
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 25 in the
`original disclosure of European
`application No. 03255483 / US
`Application No. 10/932,899
`
`Claim 25
`
`A mobile station, comprising:
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 42:3 (claim 1).
`
`a transceiver being operative to scan to
`receive a plurality of Mobile Country
`Code (MCC) and Mobile Network
`Code (MNC) pairs corresponding to a
`plurality of wireless communication
`networks within a coverage area;
`
`a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM)
`interface for receiving a SIM;
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex 1002 at 28:3.
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 121 (claim 8).
`
`
`
`US Application Ex.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 179 (claim 8).
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 9:13-18, 29:9-24 (claim 8)
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`Ex. 1002 at 101-102, 121:9-24 (claim
`8)
`
`a processor being operative to:
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 9:13-18, 29:9-24 (claim 8)
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 101-102, 121:9-24 (claim
`8)
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 9:13-18, 29:9-24 (claim 8)
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 101-102, 121:9-24 (claim
`8)
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 116:6-8, 116:21-22, 116:9-
`11, 116:14-17, 116:23-25
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 20, 25-26
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 116:6-8, 116:21-22, 116:9-
`11, 116:14-17, 116:23-25
`
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 20, 25-26
`
`European Application
`
`select and register with a wireless
`communication network associated
`with one of the received MCC and
`MNC pairs, giving a preference to
`home networks of a Home Public Land
`Mobile Network (HPLMN) list over
`non-home networks of Preferred
`PLMN (PPLMN) list;
`
`conduct a test that determines whether
`a Home Public Land Mobile Network
`(HPLMN) list, containing a plurality of
`home network MCC and MNC pairs, is
`stored on the mobile station’s SIM or
`memory, said test being run during or
`after a SIM initialization procedure is
`performed by the mobile station;
`
`
`
`determine that a HPLMN list,
`containing a plurality of home network
`MCC and MNC pairs, is stored on the
`mobile station’s SIM or memory;
`
`
`
`compare the MCC and MNC pair of
`the selected network with a plurality of
`
`11
`
`

`

`home network MCC and MNC pairs
`corresponding to the home networks of
`the HPLMN list and associated with a
`home network display name;
`
`for the comparison: using a plurality of
`home network MCC and MNC pairs
`from the HPLMN list stored on the
`SIM for the comparison based on
`identifying that the plurality of home
`network MCC and MNC pairs are
`stored on the SIM, and otherwise using
`a plurality of home network MCC and
`MNC pairs stored in memory of the
`mobile station for the comparison;
`
`cause the home network display name
`which is the same for all of the home
`network MCC and MNC pairs to be
`visually displayed in a visual of the
`mobile station based on identifying a
`match between the MCC and MNC
`pair of the selected network and one of
`the home network MCC and MNC
`pairs; and
`
`otherwise cause an alternate display
`name to be visually displayed in the
`visual display based on identifying no
`match between the MCC and MNC
`pair of the selected network and the
`home network MCC and MNC pairs.
`
`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`Ex 1002 at 114:14-17, 112:29-30
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex 1002 at 178 (claim 1), 112:29-30
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 180 (claim 8).
`
`
`
`US Application Ex.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 179 (claim 7).
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 9:1-19, 29:9-24 (claim8)
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 113, 116-117, 122:19-
`123:3 (claim 15)
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 9:1-19, 29:9-24 (claim8)
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 113, 116-117, 122:19-
`123:3 (claim 15)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`Support for Substitute Claim 26
`
`G.
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 26 in the
`original disclosure of European
`application No. 03255483 / US
`Application No. 10/932,899
`
`Claim 26
`
`European Application
`
`The mobile station of claim 625,
`wherein the plurality of home network
`MCC and MNC pairs are stored on the
`SIM.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 105:6-8, 106:25-32, 110:5-
`8 (claim 14).
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 38:19-39:4, 42:24-26
`(claim 13).
`
`H.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 27
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 27 in the
`original disclosure of European
`application No. 03255483 / US
`Application No. 10/932,899
`
`Claim 27
`
`The mobile station of claim 625,
`wherein the memory is separate and
`apart from the SIM in the mobile
`station.
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 121 (claim 10)
`
`
`
`US Application Ex.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 180 (claim 10)
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 28
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 28 in the
`original disclosure of European
`application No. 03255483 / US
`Application No. 10/932,899
`
`13
`
`

`

`Claim 28
`
`The mobile station of claim 625,
`wherein a Location Area Code (LAC)
`is used in addition to the MCC and the
`MNC in the acts of comparing and
`identifying.
`
`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 9:15-18, 28:24-25 (claim
`5)
`
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 108-110, 115:8-10, 110:18-
`23, 120:24-25 (claim 5)
`
`J.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 29
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Claim 29
`
`The mobile station of claim 625,
`wherein the processor is further
`operative to:
`
`identify that the plurality of home
`network MCC and MNC pairs are
`stored on the SIM by testing a
`predetermined designated area of
`memory on the SIM.
`
`Support for Substitute Claim 29 in the
`original disclosure of European
`application No. 03255483 / US
`Application No. 10/932,899
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 122 (claim 14)
`
`
`
`US Application Ex.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 181 (claim 14)
`
`European Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 116 (19:9-11), (19:14-16),
`(19:23-25).
`
`
`US Application
`
`Ex. 1002 at 25:8-10, 25:16-18, 25:24-
`27, 28:32-29:23 (claim 7), 30:10-16
`(claim 14).
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 20-29 ARE NOT INDEFINITE PURSUANT
`TO 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`V.
`
`In the preliminary guidance, the Board found a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`original proposed substitute claims 20 and 21 were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112 because the word “its” in the proposed language of “only if the HPLMN list is
`
`contained on the mobile station’s SIM or in its memory” was unclear if it referred
`
`to the memory of the mobile station or that of the SIM. (Paper No. 32 at 8.) In this
`
`revised motion to amend, this language has been omitted. Instead, the proposed
`
`substitute claims clearly indicate which device’s memory is at issue at any step.
`
`Therefore, proposed substitute claims 20-29 are not indefinite.
`
`VI.
`
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 20-29 ARE NOT OF IMPROPER
`DEPENDENT FORM UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`In the preliminary guidance, the Board found a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`proposed substitute claims 20 and 21 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4
`
`as being of improper dependent form. (Paper No. 32 at 8-9.) In this revised
`
`motion to amend, the proposed substitute claims have been rewritten as
`
`independent claims. Therefore, proposed substitute claims 20-29 are not of
`
`improper dependent form.
`
`VII. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 20-29 HAVE SUFFICIENT WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION SUPPORT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`In its preliminary guidance, the Board found that the proposed substitute
`
`claims lacked sufficient written support for covering the possibility that an
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`HPLMN list is stored in neither the SIM nor the mobile station memory, such that
`
`the steps of claim 1 are not performed[.]” (Paper No. 32 at 10) (emphasis original.)
`
`However, substitute claims 20-29 no longer recite the limitation that results in not
`
`implementing the claimed methods. Rather, substitute claims 20-29 instead
`
`contemplate only what actions a mobile station is to take when the mobile station
`
`runs a test and determines that the HPLMN list is present. Therefore, proposed
`
`substitute claims 20-29 do not lack sufficient written description support.
`
`VIII. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 20-29 ARE PATENTABLE OVER
`MCELWAIN, UCHIDA, HICKS, AND THE 3GPP REFERENCES
`
`No prior art of record known to Patent Owner anticipates or renders obvious
`
`proposed substitute claims 20-29. The proposed substitute claims limit claims 1
`
`and 6 by further (1) requiring the execution of a test by the user equipment (“UE”)
`
`to determine whether an HPLMN list is stored on the UE’s SIM or in its memory
`
`and (2) requiring the test to be performed either once in the event of a SIM
`
`initialization procedure (substitute claim 25) or every time the UE is to display a
`
`network name (substitute claim 20).
`
`Petitioners allege that McElwain (Grounds 1-5), Uchida (Grounds 2-3), Hicks
`
`(Grounds 3-4), and TS 23.122, TS 22.101, and TS 31.102 (collectively, the 3GPP
`
`Standards) (Ground 5), in various combinations, render obvious the Challenged
`
`Claims. (See, Paper No. 1 at 2.)
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`None of the asserted prior art references discloses the features of substitute
`
`claims 20-29, and so none of the references, either individually or in combination,
`
`may render any substitute claim anticipated or obvious. Specifically, the asserted
`
`references cannot invalidate substitute claims 20-29 as anticipated or obvious
`
`because no prior art reference discloses conducting a test—either once during or
`
`after SIM initialization (substitute claim 25), or every time the UE is to display a
`
`network name (substitute claim 20)—for a HPLMN list comprising a plurality of
`
`MCC/MNC pairs on a UE and implementing the methods of the ’933 patent when
`
`that UE’s test reveals that the HPLMN list resides on either the UE’s SIM or in the
`
`UE’s memory. (Ex. 2005 at ¶ 70.)
`
`The ’933 patent establishes that the purpose of the tests for an HPLMN list
`
`is to ensure that “compatibility is provided between previous, current, and future
`
`versions mobile stations and SIMS[.]” (Ex. 1001 at 14:46-49.) By implementing
`
`the methods of the ’933 patent when an HPLMN list is found either on a UE’s SIM
`
`or in the UE’s memory, the ’933 patent confirms that older phones with newer SIM
`
`cards, or newer phones with older SIM cards, are capable of operating without
`
`facing issues with compatibility between older and newer technology. (Ex. 2005 at
`
`¶ 71.)
`
`This focus on compatibility—or indeed, any explicit disclosure on the
`
`subject—is entirely absent from McElwain and Uchida. (Ex. 2005 at ¶ 72.) Both
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`references disclose systems wherein a file with multiple SID/NID pairs is
`
`presumed to be present in the system. (Ex. 2005 at ¶ 72; see, Ex. 1004 at claim 1;
`
`Ex. 1005 at abstract.) Similarly, Hicks and the 3GPP Standards make no
`
`references to compatibility testing and do not describe how such testing would
`
`ensure compatibility. (Ex. 2005 at ¶ 73.)
`
`Similarly, no POSITA would understand Hicks or the 3GPP Standards to
`
`disclose a test for an HPLMN list containing a plurality of MCC/MNC pairs, let
`
`alone disclose that such a test be conducted every time the UE is to display a
`
`network name or only once during or after a SIM initialization procedure. (Ex.
`
`2005 at ¶¶ 73, 74.) Indeed, no reference discloses the limitation that the test for an
`
`HPLMN list containing a plurality of home network MCC/MNC pairs is conducted
`
`(1) every time the UE is to display a home network name, or (2) only once during
`
`or after a SIM initialization procedure is performed by the UE. (Ex. 2005 at ¶ 74.)
`
`In its Preliminary Guidance, the Board acknowledges that it is persuaded by
`
`Petitioner’s arguments that, although no disclosures regarding compatibility are
`
`explicitly present in the prior art, a POSITA would have found it obvious to run a
`
`test to determine whether the HPLMN list is present in a UE’s SIM or memory
`
`because “it is a precursor to using the HPLMN list to locate it, if it exists.” (See,
`
`Paper No. 32 at 11.) Indeed, the Board credits Dr. Kakaes’ testimony that
`
`“attempting to read non-existing data would typically lead to unexpected and
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`Patent Owner’s Revised Moti