Unified Patents, LLC v. Pebble Tide LLC
`___
`
`Case PGR2020‐00011
`
`U.S. Patent 10,303,411
`___
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Hearing
`
`Oral Hearing – April 14, 2021
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`1
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`___
`
`Case PGR2020‐00011
`
`U.S. Patent 10,303,411
`___
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Hearing
`
`Oral Hearing – April 14, 2021
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`1
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Threshold Issue
`
`Whether the Board should deny the motion to
`amend because it was filed after the final federal
`court invalidation of the original claims
`
`(Paper 23 at 2‐4)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`2
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Procedural History
`
`12/23/2019
`01/31/2020
`
`04/06/2020
`04/13/2020
`04/30/2020
`05/08/2020
`07/07/2020
`
`Petition filed (claims 1‐20 challenged)
`Delaware District Court ruled that
`challenged claims are invalid under
`35 U.S.C. 101 – PO appealed
`PO disclaimed claims 4 and 12
`PO’s Preliminary Response filed
`Petitioner’s Reply filed
`PO’s Sur‐reply filed
`Board instituted PGR
`
`(Paper 1; Paper 14; EX1030; Exs. 2001, 2002; Paper 7; Paper 10; Paper 11; Paper 12)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`3
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Procedural History
`
`07/20/2020
`
`07/23/2020
`
`09/29/2020
`
`11/05/2020
`
`11/19/2020
`12/22/2020
`
`02/02/2021
`
`PO stipulated to dismissal of
`Federal Circuit appeal with prejudice
`Federal Circuit issued a mandate
`dismissing appeal
`PO’s Motion to Amend (substitute
`claims 21‐35) and PO Response filed
`Board issued Order to show cause that
`PO Response should not be expunged
`Board expunged PO Response
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to
`Amend filed
`PO’s Reply to Opposition or Revised
`Motion to Amend was due but not filed
`
`(Paper 14; EX1031; EX1032; Paper 18; Paper 20; Paper 21; Paper 23)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`4
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims Finally Judged to Be Invalid
`
`11/05/2020
`
`Board issued Order to show cause
`that POR should not be expunged
`
`Moreover, we see no meaningful discussion in the
`Patent Owner Response regarding the patentability of
`the claims challenged in the Petition. Nor would such
`argument be proper, as the challenged claims have
`been finally judged to be invalid in the Delaware
`court and the appeal of that decision has been
`dismissed with prejudice. Exs. 1030, 1032.
`
`(Paper 20 at 3‐4)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`5
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`PO’s Untimely Motion to Amend Should Be Denied
`
`(EX1032, 1, 2; Paper 18 at 1, 25)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 6
`6
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`PO’s Untimely Motion to Amend Should Be Denied
`
`Unlike in Hulu, PO’s Motion to Amend was not timely filed
`when the original claims did present a live dispute
`Similarly, Hulu has pointed to no statutory language that
`provides a basis for concluding that, once original
`claims no longer present a live dispute, the PTAB and
`the USPTO lose authority to consider proposed
`substitute claims that were presented in a contingent
`motion timely filed during the IPR when the original
`claims did present a live dispute.
`
`(Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 966 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Paper 23 at 4)
`
`PO’s Motion to Amend was filed more than two months
`after the final federal court invalidation and when the
`original claims no longer presented a live dispute
`
`(Paper 23 at 2‐4)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 7
`7
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Undisputed Deficiencies of Motion to Amend
`
`PO did not seek the Board’s preliminary guidance
`PO filed neither a Reply nor a revised Motion to
`respond to Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to
`Amend
`Hence, Petitioner’s contentions ‐‐ (1) PO’s Motion
`to Amend is untimely; (2) PO’s Motion to Amend
`fails to meet the statutory and regulatory
`requirements; and (3) all substitute claims are
`unpatentable ‐‐ remain undisputed by PO
`
`(Paper 13 at 4‐6; Paper 23)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 8
`8
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`PO’s Motion to Amend Fails to Comply with
`Content Requirement
`
`PO’s Motion to Amend fails to comply with the
`content requirement under 37 C.F.R. 42.221(b)
`– A motion to amend claims must … set forth:
`(1) The support in the original disclosure of the patent
`for each claim that is added or amended; and
`(2) The support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each
`claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier
`filed disclosure is sought.
`– PO’s Motion fails to ”set forth written description support
`for each proposed substitute claim as a whole, and not
`just the features added by the amendment.”
`
`(Paper 23 at 5; Paper 18 at 2‐5; 37 C.F.R. 42.221(b);
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018‐01129, Paper 15 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential))
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 9
`9
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`PO’s Motion to Amend Introduces New Matter
`
`PO’s Motion to Amend also seeks to add new matter in
`violation of 35 U.S.C. 326(d) and 37 C.F.R. 42.221(a)(2)(ii)
`– No written description support in the original and earlier filed
`disclosures for the following added claim features:
`• client device being separate and distinct device from the
`information apparatus and also being at least a pervasive
`computing device (Separate Pervasive Computing Client
`Device Limitation)
`• the one or more pervasive computing devices pervasively
`output the digital content at the one or more output devices
`without depending on synchronizing the digital content with
`a stationary computing device for output of the digital
`content (No Synchronization Limitation)
`
`(Paper 23 at 5‐8; EX1033, pars. 6‐11; Paper 18, Claims Appendix, ii‐iv, vi, viii; id., iii, vi, x)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 10
`10
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Separate Pervasive Computing Client Device Limitation
`Lacks Written Description Support
`
`All substitute claims require the Separate Pervasive Computing
`Client Device Limitation
`Claimed “client device” is a “pervasive computing device” that
`must:
`– “have limited memory space, processing capacity, and power”
`– “pervasively output the digital content at the one or more output
`devices without depending on synchronizing the digital content with a
`stationary computing device for output of the digital content”
`– ”[be] at least a mobile computing device”
`No written description support in the original and earlier filed
`disclosures for the Separate Pervasive Computing Client Device
`Limitation
`– PO fails to identify any support in the Motion to Amend
`
`(Paper 23 at 6; EX1033, pars. 7‐8; Paper 18, Claims Appendix, iii, vi, x; Paper 18 at 6)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 11
`11
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Separate Pervasive Computing Client Device Limitation
`Lacks Written Description Support
`The disclosure about “client device” does not describe the client device,
`separate and distinct from the information apparatus, being a pervasive
`computing device
`
`(Paper 23 at 6; EX1002, 136)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 12
`12
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`No Synchronization Limitation Lacks
`Written Description Support
`
`All substitute claims require the No Synchronization Limitation
`For support of the No Synchronization Limitation, PO could
`only point to the following disclosure:
`“People need to output directly and conveniently from their pervasive
`information apparatus, without depending on synchronizing with a
`stationary computer (e.g., desktop personal computer) for printing, as an
`example.”
`
`(Paper 23 at 6‐7; Paper 18 at 2‐3; EX1003, 3 (par. 4); EX1004, 3‐4 (1:31‐2:1); EX1002, 87 (par. 4))
`
`But mere statement of people’s need or desired result is not a
`description of a specific feature implemented in an invention
`– Test for written description compliance is “possession,” rather than the
`“presence or absence of literal support in the specification for the
`claim language”
`
`(Paper 23 at 6‐7; EX1033, pars. 9‐11; In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983))
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 13
`13
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Undisputed Deficiencies of Substitute Claims
`
`All substitute claims are unpatentable
`– All substitute claims are patent ineligible under 35
`U.S.C. 101
`– All substitute claims are indefinite
`– All substitute claims are obvious
`
`(Paper 23 at 8‐33; EX1033, pars. 15‐36)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 14
`14
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`All Substitute Claims Are Patent Ineligible
`
`PO is collaterally estopped from asserting eligibility
`• prior district court action presents an identical issue – patent
`eligibility of the substitute claims – in view of the substantial
`overlap between PO’s argument advanced in the Motion and
`that advanced in the district court action
`Delaware District Court Action
`PO in Motion to Amend
`“The inventive concept of a ‘pervasive
`“the plaintiff has at times said that the
`output process’ is a practical application
`inventive concept is the pervasive
`output process ....”
`that solves the technical problems ….”
`
`• the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue
`• the judgment in that prior action necessarily required
`determination of the identical issue
`• the prior action featured full representation of PO
`
`(Paper 23 at 8‐12; EX1030, 4; Paper 18 at 18; VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 909 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Restatement (2d) of Judgments
`Sec. 27, cmt. c (1982); EX1034, 1‐2, 9‐11 (doc. page #))
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 15
`15
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`All Substitute Claims Are Patent Ineligible
`
`The added features do not render the substitute claims eligible
`– Delaware District Court already found that those features do not
`confer eligibility
`
`(Paper 23 at 11‐13; EX1030, 4)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 16
`16
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Undisputed Deficiencies of Substitute Claims
`
`All substitute claims are unpatentable
`– All substitute claims are patent ineligible under 35
`U.S.C. 101
`– All substitute claims are indefinite
`– All substitute claims are obvious
`
`(Paper 23 at 8‐33; EX1033, pars. 15‐36)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 17
`17
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`All Substitute Claims Are Indefinite
`
`The term limited memory space, processing capacity, and
`power is ambiguous and unclear, and fails to inform, with
`reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art of the scope
`of the invention
`– It is a term of degree, but the ’411 patent provides no standard for
`measuring the scope of that degree
`– “[T]here is an indefiniteness problem if the claim language ‘might
`mean several different things and no informed and confident choice
`is available among the contending definitions.’”
`• Differs based on the degree of dependence/independence
`between “limited memory space,” “limited processing capacity,”
`and “limited power”
`• Differs based on the technologies available at different times
`
`(Paper 23 at 13‐15; EX1033, pars. 15‐17; Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014); In re Packard,
`751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370‐71 (Fed. Cir. 2014))
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 18
`18
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Undisputed Deficiencies of Substitute Claims
`
`All substitute claims are unpatentable
`– All substitute claims are patent ineligible under 35
`U.S.C. 101
`– All substitute claims are indefinite
`– All substitute claims are obvious
`
`(Paper 23 at 8‐33; EX1033, pars. 15‐36)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 19
`19
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`All Substitute Claims Are Obvious
`
`The newly added features relating to “pervasive
`computing devices” and “pervasive output” were
`known, conventional technologies
`– “Systems, methods and computer program products are
`provided for modifying Web content files, such as HTML files,
`for display via pervasive computing devices that have smaller
`displays and various performance limitations compared with
`desktop computing devices” (Adams, Abstract)
`All substitute claims are obvious over prior art
`– Substitute claims 21‐35 are obvious over Anderson and
`Chang
`– Substitute claims 21‐35 are obvious over Anderson, Kammer,
`Ichikawa, Moghadam, and Adams
`
`(Paper 23 at 15‐33; EX1033, pars. 18‐36; Adams, Abstract)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 20
`20
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`All Substitute Claims Are Obvious
`
`Exemplary Added Limitations
`[21.b] the at least one wireless communication module is
`compliant, at least in part, with at least one protocol
`within IEEE 802.11 standards …
`[21.i] wherein the one or more pervasive computing
`devices have limited memory space, processing capacity,
`and power;
`[21.j] wherein the one or more pervasive computing
`devices pervasively output the digital content at the one
`or more output devices without depending on
`synchronizing the digital content with a stationary
`computing device for output of the digital content;
`[21.k] wherein the client device is at least a pervasive
`computing device,
`[21.l] the pervasive computing device is at least a mobile
`computing device.
`
`Prior Art Disclosures
`Anderson and Chang; or
`Anderson, Kammer, and
`Moghadam
`Chang; or
`Adams
`
`Chang; or
`Adams
`
`Anderson and Chang; or
`Anderson and Adams
`Chang; or
`Adams
`
`(Paper 23 at 19‐28; EX1033, pars. 18‐36; Anderson (EX1010); Kammer (EX1011); Ichikawa (EX1012); Chang (EX1013);
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 21
`Moghadam (EX1035); Adams (EX1036))
`21
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Chang is Prior Art Since Substitute Claims Lack
`Written Description Support in Priority Documents
`
`(Paper 23 at 16‐19)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 22
`22
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`PO’s Claim of Effective Filing Date Is Incorrect
`
`Priority Documents
`
`60/252,682
`Filed 11/20/2020
`
`PO’s Incorrect
`Effective Filing Date
`
`09/992,413
`Filed 11/18/2001
`Now US 9,965,233
`
`CON
`
`15/924,077
`Filed 03/16/2018
`Now US 10,303,411
`(issued 05/28/2019)
`’411 PATENT (EX1001)
`
`Correct Effective
`Filing Date
`
`(Paper 1 at 17 & n.5; Paper 23 at 19; Paper 7 at 2‐3, 13‐14; Paper 18 at 11; EX1001‐EX1004)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 23
`23
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Server Output to Client Device Limitations Lack
`Written Description Support in Priority Documents
`
`Server Output to Client Device Limitations:
`generating, by the server software at the one or more servers, output data
`for providing to the client device,
`
`the client device being a separate and distinct device from the
`information apparatus and from the one or more servers; and
`
`providing, by the server software and via the at least one network
`communication interface of the one or more servers, at least part of the
`output data from the one or more servers to the client device for
`outputting or playing at least part of the digital content[[,]] that was
`captured by the digital camera of the information apparatus, at an output
`device associated with the client device, and
`
`(Paper 23 at 17; Paper 18, Claims Appendix, ii, iv‐vi, viii‐x)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 24
`24
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Server Output to Client Device Limitations Lack
`Written Description Support in Priority Documents
`
`As claimed:
`
`Client device separate and
`distinct from the information
`apparatus and the server
`Server generates output data
`and provides it to the client
`device for outputting at the
`output device, NOT back to
`the information apparatus
`
`(Paper 23 at 16‐19; EX1033, pars. 12‐14; Paper 1 at 10‐13; EX1005, par. 43; Paper 18, Claims Appendix, ii, iv‐vi, viii‐x)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 25
`25
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Server Output to Client Device Limitations Lack
`Written Description Support in Priority Documents
`
`But in the Priority Documents:
`Server generates output data
`and transmits it back to the
`information apparatus
`Information apparatus then
`transmits the output data to
`the output device
`
`(Paper 1 at 8‐9; Paper 23 at 17; EX1003, 71, 77, 55; EX1004, 50, 56, 44)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 26
`26
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Server Output to Client Device Limitations Lack
`Written Description Support in Priority Documents
`
`Priority Documents
`do not describe a
`client device receiving
`the generated output
`data from the servers
`if the client device is
`separate and distinct
`from the information
`apparatus
`
`(EX1003, 54; EX1004, 43‐44; Paper 23 at 18‐19)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 27
`27
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Server Output to Client Device Limitations Lack
`Written Description Support in Priority Documents
`
`All the limitations must be expressly disclosed to
`provide written description support
`– What is obvious is not sufficient for satisfying the
`written description requirement
`“While the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to
`be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the
`art, all the limitations must appear in the specification. The question is
`not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is
`disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must
`describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in
`the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed
`invention as of the filing date sought.”
`
`(Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Paper 23 at 18‐19)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 28
`28
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Server Output to Client Device Limitations Lack
`Written Description Support in Priority Documents
`
`Since the Server Output
`to Client Device
`Limitations lack written
`description support in
`the Priority Documents,
`the effective filing date
`of the substitute claims
`is March 16, 2018, the
`filing date of the ’077
`Application
`
`Priority Documents Lack
`Written Description
`Support
`
`Effective Filing Date
`
`60/252,682
`Filed 11/20/2020
`
`09/992,413
`Filed 11/18/2001
`Now US 9,965,233
`
`CON
`
`15/924,077
`Filed 03/16/2018
`Now US 10,303,411
`(issued 05/28/2019)
`’411 PATENT (EX1001)
`
`(Paper 23 at 16‐19; Paper 1 at 17 & n.5; EX1001‐EX1004)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 29
`29
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Prior Art Status of Chang
`
`60/252,682
`Filed 11/20/2020
`
`Priority Documents
`Lack Written
`Description Support
`
`Effective Filing Date
`
`09/992,413
`Filed 11/18/2001
`Now US 9,965,233
`
`CON
`
`DIV
`
`12/204,695
`Filed 09/04/2008
`Now US 9,389,822
`(issued 07/12/2016)
`CHANG (EX1013)
`
`15/924,077
`Filed 03/16/2018
`Now US 10,303,411
`(issued 05/28/2019)
`’411 PATENT (EX1001)
`(Paper 23 at 16‐19; Paper 1 at 17 & n.5; EX1001‐EX1004; EX1013)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 30
`30
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Prior Art Status of Chang
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
`NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—the
`claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in
`public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective
`filing date of the claimed invention
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)
`EXCEPTIONS.—(1)DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE
`OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the
`effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed
`invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
`(A)the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another
`who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the
`inventor or a joint inventor; or
`(B)the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly
`disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the
`subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint
`inventor.
`
`(Paper 23 at 19; Paper 1 at 7; Paper 7 at 15)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 31
`31
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Pebble Tide LLC
`___
`
`Case No. PGR2020‐00011
`
`U.S. Patent 10,303,411
`___
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Hearing
`
`Oral Hearing – April 14, 2021
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 32
`32
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Additional Slides
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 33
`33
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`PO’s Proposed Substitute Claims
`(Claims 21‐35)
`
`(Paper 18, Claims Appendix)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 34
`34
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Illustrative Substitute Claim – Claim 21
`
`[21.a] A method for one or more pervasive computing devices to pervasively and
`directly output outputting digital content at one or more output devices, the method
`comprising:
`
`establishing, via at least one wireless communication module included in an
`information apparatus, a wireless communication connection with one or more
`servers over a network that includes the Internet,
`
`[21.b] the at least one wireless communication module is compliant, at least in part,
`with at least one protocol within IEEE 802.11 standards for establishing the wireless
`communication connection, and
`
`the one or more servers being separate and distinct devices from the information
`apparatus;
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 35
`35
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Illustrative Substitute Claim – Claim 21
`
`transmitting, via the at least one wireless communication module included in the
`information apparatus, a device object that includes device information related to
`the information apparatus, from the information apparatus to the one or more
`servers over the established wireless communication connection;
`
`capturing, using a digital camera included in the information apparatus, digital
`content;
`
`providing, via the at least one wireless communication module of the information
`apparatus, the digital content that is captured by the digital camera of the
`information apparatus, from the information apparatus to the one or more servers,
`
`wherein the one or more servers include at least one network communication
`interface, memory or storage for storing at least part of the digital content received
`from the information apparatus, and server software executable at the one or more
`servers; and wherein upon execution of the server software, the method further
`comprises:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 36
`36
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Illustrative Substitute Claim – Claim 21
`
`receiving, by the server software at the one or more servers and via the at least
`one network communication interface, at least part of the digital content from the
`information apparatus;
`
`storing, by the server software at the one or more servers, the at least part of the
`digital content, received by the server software, in the memory or storage of the
`one or more servers;
`
`receiving, by the server software at the one or more servers, security information
`or authentication information from a client device for enabling the client device
`to access the at least part of the digital content that is stored by the server
`software in the memory or storage of the one or more servers,
`
`[21.c] the security information or authentication information being related to a
`user of the client device, and
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 37
`37
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Illustrative Substitute Claim – Claim 21
`
`the at least part of the digital content stored in the memory or storage of the one
`or more servers being captured by the digital camera of the information
`apparatus and received from the information apparatus, and
`
`the client device being a separate and distinct device from the one or more
`servers and from the information apparatus;
`
`generating, by the server software at the one or more servers, output data for
`providing to the client device,
`
`the output data is related to at least part of the digital content received by the one
`or more servers from the information apparatus, and
`
`the generating of the output data is related, at least in part, to at least a portion of
`the device object received by the one or more servers from the information
`apparatus, and
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 38
`38
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Illustrative Substitute Claim – Claim 21
`
`the generating of the output data is subsequent to having received the security
`information or the authentication information from the client device for enabling
`the client device to access the at least part of the digital content stored in the
`memory or storage of the one or more servers,
`
`the client device being a separate and distinct device from the information
`apparatus and from the one or more servers; and
`
`providing, by the server software and via the at least one network communication
`interface of the one or more servers, at least part of the output data from the one
`or more servers to the client device for outputting or playing at least part of the
`digital content[[,]] that was captured by the digital camera of the information
`apparatus, at an output device associated with the client device, and
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 39
`39
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Illustrative Substitute Claim – Claim 21
`
`[21.i] wherein the one or more pervasive computing devices have limited
`memory space, processing capacity, and power; and
`
`[21.j] wherein the one or more pervasive computing devices pervasively
`output the digital content at the one or more output devices without depending
`on synchronizing the digital content with a stationary computing device for
`output of the digital content; and
`
`[21.k] wherein the client device is at least a pervasive computing device, and
`
`[21.l] the pervasive computing device is at least a mobile computing device.
`
`(Paper 18, Claims Appendix, i‐iii; Paper 23 at 5‐7, 17‐19, 21‐24)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 40
`40
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Claimed Subject Matters Differ from
`Disclosed Embodiments
`
`(Paper 1 at 8‐14)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 41
`41
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Disclosed Embodiments
`
`Information apparatus linked
`with output device
`Information apparatus obtains
`an output device object from
`the output device
`Information apparatus
`transmits a composite
`message, including the output
`device object, to a server
`Server generates output data
`and transmits it back to the
`information apparatus
`Information apparatus
`transmits the output data to
`the output device
`
`(Paper 1 at 8‐9; EX1005, pars. 36‐41; EX1001, Figure 1, 8:34‐42, 16:65‐17:10, 21:62‐22:13, 5:64‐67, 22:14‐30, 31:57‐32:8,
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 42
`11:20‐46; see also EX1004, 50; EX1003, 71; EX1002, 148)
`42
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Client Device – Disclosed Embodiments
`
`E.g., no mention of a
`client device,
`separate
`and distinct
`from an
`information
`apparatus
`100,
`receiving output
`data from a server 110
`for outputting
`at
`an
`output device
`
`(EX1001, 31:11‐34; Paper 1 at 11 n.4)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 43
`43
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`’411 Claims
`
`[1.2] transmitting … a device object that includes device information
`related to the information apparatus, from the information apparatus
`to the one or more servers …;
`
`[1.4] providing … the digital content … from the information
`apparatus to the one or more servers,
`
`[1.11] generating, by the server software at the one or more servers,
`output data for providing to the client device,
`
`[1.15] the client device being a separate and distinct device from the
`information apparatus and from the one or more servers; and
`
`[1.16] providing … at least part of the output data from the one or more
`servers to the client device for outputting or playing at least part of the digital
`content … at an output device associated with the client device.
`
`(Paper 1 at 10‐14, 107‐109; EX1001, 35:53‐58, 35:61‐65, 36:23‐27, 36:38‐49; see also Paper 18, Claims Appendix, i‐iii)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 44
`44
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`’411 Claims
`
`Client device separate and
`distinct from the information
`apparatus and the server
`Output device associated with
`the client device, not with the
`information apparatus
`Information apparatus
`transmits a device object and
`digital content to the server
`Server generates output data
`and provides it to the client
`device for outputting at the
`output device, NOT back to
`the information apparatus
`
`(Paper 1 at 13; EX1005, par. 43)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 45
`45
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
`
`Disclosed Embodiments v. ’411 Claims
`
`(Paper 1 at 8‐13; EX1001, Figure 1; EX1005, par. 43; see also EX1004, 50; EX1003, 71; EX1002, 148)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 46
`46
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1038
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. PEBBLE TIDE LLC
`PGR2020-00011
`
`
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
