Petitioner’s Hearing Demonstratives
`PGR2022‐00052
`U.S. Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`January 18, 2024
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB v. Bright Data, Ltd.
`PGR2022-00052 | Oxylabs EX1026
`Page 1 of 36
`
`
`PGR2022‐00052
`U.S. Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`January 18, 2024
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB v. Bright Data, Ltd.
`PGR2022-00052 | Oxylabs EX1026
`Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`Agenda
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`Overview
`PO’s Burden to Provide Written Description Support
`New Matter – the “CSP” Limitations
`A. “Cellular Service Provider” (CSP)
`B. the “identifying, … a first CSP” limitations
`C. Selection based on both “CSP” and “geographical location”
`limitation
`D. ISP vs CSP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Original Claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Original Claim 1
`
`1. A method for use with a first content identified by a first content identifier and stored in a first web server, for
`use with a second content identified by a second content identifier and stored in a second web server, and for use
`with a third server, the method comprising:
`sending, by a first client device to the third server, the first content identifier;
`receiving, by a second client device from the third server, the first content identifier;
`sending, by the second client device to the first web server, the first content identifier;
`receiving, by the second client device from the first web server, the first content;
`sending, by the second client device to the third server, the first content;
`receiving, by the first client device from the third server, the first content;
`sending, by the first client device to the third server, the second content identifier;
`receiving, by the second client device from the third server, the second content identifier;
`sending, by the second client device to the second web server, the second content identifier;
`receiving, by the second client device from the second web server, the second content;
`sending, by the second client device to the third server, the second content; and
`receiving, by the first client device from the third server, the second content,
`wherein the second client device is a portable device that stores, operates, or uses, a mobile operating system.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’034 Patent (EX1001), claim 1
`
`5
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’034 Patent
`
`POPR (Paper 6)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1001 (’034 Patent), Fig. 13 (annotated); Paper 1 at 22; Paper 6 at 4.
`
`6
`
`
`
`First Proposed, Substitute Claim 28
`for Original Claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`First Proposed, Substitute Claim 28 for Original Claim 1
`
`28. (Proposed substitute for original claim 1) A method for use with a first content identified by a first
`content identifier and stored in a first web server, for use with a second content identified by a second
`content identifier and stored in a second web server, for use with a group of more than one intermediary
`client devices wherein each intermediary client device in the group is connected to the Internet using a
`Cellular Service Provider (“CSP”) and wherein there is more than one CSP used by the more than one
`intermediary client devices in the group and wherein each intermediary client device in the group is
`associated with a physical geographical location and wherein there is more than one physical geographical
`location associated with the more than one intermediary client devices in the group, and for use with a third
`server, the method comprising:
`determining, by each intermediary client device in the group, its status as not-congested or
`congested, wherein the status is determined to be not-congested if the intermediary client device detects a
`resource utilization is below a set threshold, wherein the status is determined to be congested if the
`intermediary client device detects a resource utilization is above a set threshold;
`
`Paper 15, Appendix A‐2, EX2009 at 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`First Proposed, Substitute Claim 28 for Original Claim 1
`
`in response to the determining, sending, by each intermediary client device in the group to the
`third server, a message identifying its status as not-congested or congested;
`identifying, by a first requesting client device, a first CSP that is used by at least one intermediary
`client device in the group;
`identifying, by the first requesting client device, a first geographical location that is associated
`with at least one intermediary client device in the group;
`selecting an intermediary client device from the group, in response to the identifying of the first
`CSP and the identifying of the first geographical location, based on its status, its use of the first CSP to
`connect to the Internet, and its association with the first geographical location;
`sending, by athe first requesting client device to the third server, the first content identifier;
`receiving, by a secondselected intermediary client device from the third server, the first content
`
`identifier;
`
`identifier;
`
`content;
`
`sending, by the secondselected intermediary client device to the first web server, the first content
`
`receiving, by the secondselected intermediary client device from the first web server, the first
`
`Paper 15, Appendix A‐2, EX2009 at 2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`First Proposed, Substitute Claim 28 for Original Claim 1
`
`sending, by the secondselected intermediary client device to the third server, the first content;
`receiving, by the first requesting client device from the third server, the first content;
`sending, by the first requesting client device to the third server, the second content identifier;
`receiving, by the secondselected intermediary client device from the third server, the second
`content identifier;
`sending, by the secondselected intermediary client device to the second web server, the second
`content identifier;
`receiving, by the secondselected intermediary client device from the second web server, the
`second content;
`sending, by the secondselected intermediary client device to the third server, the second content;
`
`receiving, by the secondselected intermediary client device from the third server, the second
`
`and
`
`content,
`
`wherein the second client deviceeach intermediary client device in the group is a portable cellular
`telephone device that stores, operates, or uses, a mobile operating system.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`Paper 15, Appendix A‐2, EX2009 at 3.
`
`
`
`Revised Proposed, Substitute Claim 28
`for Original Claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Revised Proposed, Substitute Claim 28 for Original Claim 1
`
`in response to the determining, sending, by each intermediary client device in the group to the
`third server, a message identifying its status as not-congested or congested;
`identifying, by a first requesting client device, a first CSP that is used by at least one intermediary
`client device in the group;
`identifying, by the first requesting client device, a first geographical location that is associated
`with at least one intermediary client device in the group;
`in response to the identifying of the first CSP and the identifying of the first geographical
`location, selecting, by the first requesting client or by the third server, an intermediary client device from
`the group based on its status, its use of the first CSP to connect to the Internet, and its association with the
`first geographical location;
`sending, by athe first requesting client device to the third server, the first content identifier;
`receiving, by a secondselected intermediary client device from the third server, the first content
`
`identifier;
`
`identifier;
`
`sending, by the secondselected intermediary client device to the first web server, the first content
`
`receiving, by the secondselected intermediary client device from the first web server, the first
`
`content;
`*Green color indicates a new addition to the proposed, substitute claim 28.
`
`Paper 19, Revised Appendix A‐2, EX2024 at 2‐3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`PO’s Burden to Show Adequate
`Written Description Support
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`An example of the string citations for
`elements 28 [pre], [a], [b] and [c] of claim
`28
`
`The Table of String Citations
`
` PO’s Revised MTA states “[s]upporting
`citations are provided below [ in a table
`of string citations]” in Section VII (Scope
`of the Claims).
`
` PO also states Revised Appendix A‐1
`(EX2023) is prepared with quoted
`language showing written description
`support.
`
`Revised MTA at 17‐24; Revised Appendix A‐1 (EX2023); Paper 25 at 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`The Table of String Citations
`
` The supporting citations in the Revised MTA is a table of string citations
`with 7 pages long without any explanation.
`
`Revised MTA at 18‐24.
`
` The Revised Appendix A‐1 (EX2023) is a 71‐page document including
`quoted language. The citations in the appendix (EX2023) are same as
`the citations in the Revised MTA without any explanation.
`
`Revised Appendix A‐1 (EX2023) at 1‐71.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`Revised MTA Fails to Show Adequate Written Description Support
`
`Facebook Inc. v. Everymd LLC
`
`“Patent Owner’s mere [string] citation in a table to various portions of the
`original disclosure, without any explanation why a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have recognized that the inventor possessed the claimed
`subject matter as a whole, is inadequate to satisfy the written description
`requirement” under 37 C.F.R.§42.121. (emphasis added).
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Everymd LLC, IPR2014-00242, Paper 31 at 13 (May 12, 2015)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Cited in Paper 26 at 2.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Revised MTA Fails to Show Adequate Written Description Support
`
`PO’s assertion
`(overview section II‐IV)
`
`“In response to the Preliminary Guidance
`(Paper 18), Patent Owner provided a detailed
`summary of the common specification,
`background information, and the proposed
`amendments [overview sections II-IV].
`Revised MTA at 2-10. Petitioner ignores this
`additional information and largely repeats its
`arguments from its prior opposition.”
`
`Paper 25 at 1.
`
`Petitioner’s Sur‐Reply
` The overview sections II‐IV do not satisfy
`the written description requirement.
`But these new sections do not explain the string cites in
`the table. And PO does not explain or discuss how the
`overview sections II-IV purportedly relate to section
`VII (“Scope of the Claims”) as written description
`support. … Second, even if PO now tries to rely on an
`implicit connection between these overview sections II-
`IV and the section VII, the overview sections II-IV are
`still insufficient. See RMTA, 2-10. First, the overview
`sections do not address each and every limitation of
`proposed independent claim 28 or the dependent claims
`thereof.…
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 26 at 4‐5.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Revised MTA Fails to Show Adequate Written Description Support
`
`PO’s assertion
`(“fully respond”)
`
`“Patent Owner has met its burden and, as
`addressed below, Petitioner was fully able to
`respond, raising arguments with respect to
`the “Cellular Service Provider (“CSP”)”
`limitations. As further explained below,
`Patent Owner’s citations directly address the
`limitations at issue.”
`
`Petitioner’s Sur‐Reply
` Filing an opposition does not mean Petitioner
`was able to “fully respond.”
`
`“But the fact that Petitioner filed an opposition does not
`mean it was able to fully respond. At best, PO invited
`Petitioner and the Board to play whack-a-mole with a
`table of unexplained citations. That there is one glaring
`deficiency—the cellular service provider (“CSP”)
`limitations—does not mean that there are no others.
`Fundamentally, PO still has not provided any
`explanation for Petitioner to address or for the Board to
`assess.”
`
`Paper 25 at 4.
`
`Paper 26 at 6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`New Matter
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`New Matter – the “CSP” Limitations
`
` PO seeks to add a series of claim limitations related to selecting a device based on its
`“cellular service provider (‘CSP’).”
`
`28. (Proposed substitute for original claim 1) A method for use with a first content identified by a first
`content identifier and stored in a first web server, for use with a second content identified by a second
`content identifier and stored in a second web server, for use with a group of more than one intermediary
`client devices wherein each intermediary client device in the group is connected to the Internet using a
`Cellular Service Provider (“CSP”) and wherein there is more than one CSP used by the more than one
`intermediary client devices in the group and wherein each intermediary client device in the group is
`associated with a physical geographical location and wherein there is more than one physical geographical
`location associated with the more than one intermediary client devices in the group, and for use with a third
`server, the method comprising:
`determining, by each intermediary client device in the group, its status as not-congested or
`congested, wherein the status is determined to be not-congested if the intermediary client device detects a
`resource utilization is below a set threshold, wherein the status is determined to be congested if the
`intermediary client device detects a resource utilization is above a set threshold;
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`Paper 19, Revised Appendix A‐2, EX2024 at 1‐2; Paper 21 at 6‐7.
`
`
`
`New Matter – the “CSP” Limitations
`
`in response to the determining, sending, by each intermediary client device in the group to the
`
`third server, a message identifying its status as not-congested or congested;
`identifying, by a first requesting client device, a first CSP that is used by at least one
`
`intermediary client device in the group;
`
`identifying, by the first requesting client device, a first geographical location that is associated
`with at least one intermediary client device in the group;
`in response to the identifying of the first CSP and the identifying of the first geographical
`
`location, selecting, by the first requesting client or by the third server, an intermediary client device from
`the group based on its status, its use of the first CSP to connect to the Internet, and its association with
`the first geographical location;
`
`sending, by athe first requesting client device to the third server, the first content identifier;
`
`receiving, by a secondselected intermediary client device from the third server, the first content
`identifier;
`
`identifier;
`
`content;
`
`sending, by the secondselected intermediary client device to the first web server, the first content
`
`receiving, by the secondselected intermediary client device from the first web server, the first
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`Paper 19, Revised Appendix A‐2, EX2024 at 2‐3; Paper 21 at 6‐7.
`
`
`
`New Matter – “cellular service provider” (CSP)
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Revised MTA (Paper 21)
` The term “cellular service provider” (CSP) is not used in the specification and is not
`interchangeable with “internet service provider” (ISP).
`
`“The Revised MTA does not provide any explanation of why these disparate cites provide support for
`a “cellular service provider” in the claims, let alone the multiple specific limitations the Revised MTA
`seeks to add. And even looking beyond these specific citations, neither the term “CSP” nor “cellular
`service provider” is found anywhere in the specification. …
`
`As one of skill in the art would have understood (and anyone who lived through the era of flip-phones
`will appreciate), cellular service (what a CSP provides) is distinct from internet service (what an ISP
`provides). A mobile network operator may own the cellular towers and frequency necessary to create
`a cellular network, but that network still requires interconnection with an ISP to allow cellular
`customers to connect to the Internet.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 21, Opp. at 7‐8.
`
`22
`
`
`
`New Matter – “cellular service provider” (CSP)
`
` Distinctions between ISP and CSP.
`•
`ISP provides Internet access to mobile network operator (CSP).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`EX1024 (Telektronikk–Personal Networks (2007)), Fig. 2
`(annotated); Paper 21, Opp. at 9‐10.
`
`
`
`New Matter – “cellular service provider” (CSP)
`
` Distinctions between
`ISP and CSP.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Revised MTA (Paper 21)
`“Likewise, the figure [left] provides a
`more detailed example of what a POSITA
`would have understood about the
`complexities of cellular networks,
`including that while a mobile operator
`(CSP) may provide connectivity between
`mobile phones and its cellular network
`via a base transceiver station (BTS), the
`mobile operator must still connect to a
`distinct ISP (via a mobile virtual network
`operator (“MVNO”) and/or an IP
`backbone) in order to connect a cellular
`telephone to the Internet.”
`
`EX1025 (Telektronikk–Mobile Virtual Network Operators
`(2001)) Fig. 1 (annotated); Paper 21, Opp. at 10‐12.
`
`24
`
`
`
`New Matter – “cellular service provider” (CSP)
`
` Distinctions between ISP and CSP.
`“ A virtual ISP (VISP) is an operation
`that purchases services from another ISP,
`sometimes called a wholesale ISP in this
`context, which allow the VISP's
`customers to access the Internet using
`services and infrastructure owned and
`operated by the wholesale ISP. It is akin
`to mobile virtual network operators
`and competitive local exchange carriers
`for voice communications.” (emphasis
`added)
`
`EX1001 (’034 Patent) at 24:66‐25:6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Revised MTA (Paper 21)
`
`“Given the recognition in the art—and
`the ’034 Patent itself—of ISPs as
`distinct from CSPs, and the ’034
`Patent’s failure to disclose CSPs
`(much less identifying or taking
`action based on the identity of a CSP),
`the description of ISPs cannot provide
`written description support for the
`CSP limitations of the revised
`proposed substitute claims.”
`
`Paper 21, Opp. at 14‐15.
`
`25
`
`
`
`New Matter – “cellular service provider” (CSP)
`
`Patent Owner Reply:
`
`“The specification discloses that “[a]n Internet Service Provider (ISP) 12 is an organization
`that provides services for accessing, using, or participating in the Internet 113.” … Thus, it is
`clear is that the ISP provides access to the Internet. The CSP is the ISP because the CSP
`provides access to the Internet. The CSP (e.g., Verizon) provides access to the Internet via
`the cellular network.…
`
`The service provided by the CSP is access to the Internet.
`
`Petitioner’s entire argument related to MVNOs and VISPs is a red herring. Patent Owner is
`not suggesting that the CSP must literally provide the infrastructure that creates the cellular
`network or the Internet backbone. A POSA would understand that the CSP merely provides
`access to the Internet, not necessarily the Internet itself.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 25 at 6‐8.
`
`26
`
`
`
`New Matter – “cellular service provider” (CSP)
`
`Petitioner’s Sur‐Reply (Paper 26):
`“PO insinuates a false equivalence between a CSP and an ISP, to try to leverage the disclosures in the specification
`related to ISPs. But PO skips the foundational step of showing that a POSITA would understand the
`terms to be synonymous. PO provides no expert testimony to support its attorney argument on this point. And its
`extrinsic evidence neither states nor suggests that a CSP is an ISP.
`
`The crux of PO’s argument is that, because the ’034 Patent defines an ISP as “an organization that provides services
`for accessing, using, or participating in the Internet,” and PO has identified companies that may provide cellular and
`internet service, a CSP must therefore be an ISP. Reply at 7. That is misguided and incorrect. PO ignores an
`important link between the CSP and the ISP in terms of accessing the Internet. At best, a CSP communicates with an
`ISP, but it is the ISP (not the CSP) that provides Internet service. RMTA Opp., 9-12 (citing EX1024, EX1025).
`Thus, even if the internet is accessed via a CSP, that does not make the CSP an ISP.
`
`PO contends that “[t]he service provided by the CSP is access to the Internet,” and “[a] POSA would understand that
`the CSP merely provides access to the Internet.” (emphasis added). Reply at 8. But there is no evidentiary support
`for PO’s attorney argument. To the contrary, the record shows that the “service” provided by the CSP is access to a
`cellular network; but the cellular network is not the Internet. RMTA Opp., 9-12 (citing EX1024, EX1025).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 26 at 6‐7.
`
`27
`
`
`
`New Matter – “identifying, … a first CSP”
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Revised MTA:
` No support for the “identifying, … a first CSP/identifying of the first CSP” limitations as
`required by new claim elements 28[c] and 28[e], respectively.
`“claim limitations 28(c) and 28(e) respectively require “identifying, by a first requesting client
`device, a first CSP” used by at least one intermediate device and then “selecting” an
`intermediate device based on (among other factors) the CSP so identified. The claim language
`thus makes a distinction between the act of “identifying” a CSP and subsequently “selecting” a
`device based on its use of the identified CSP. But PO points to nothing in the nonprovisional
`applications indicating that a first requesting client device (a client device) can “identify[]” the
`“first CSP” used by an “intermediary client device.” In fact, PO points to nothing at all that
`discloses “identifying” a CSP (or even an ISP) by a requesting client device. At most, the cited
`specification excerpts disclose that an acceleration server, rather than the client device, may
`store “attributes” associated with available tunnel devices and that those attributes may be sent
`to the client device for use in the selection process.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 21, Opp. at 15‐16.
`
`28
`
`
`
`New Matter – “identifying, … a first CSP”
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Revised MTA (Paper 21)
` No support for the “identifying, … a first CSP/identifying of the first CSP” limitations as
`required by new claim elements 28[c] and 28[e], respectively.
`
`“Moreover, the claim limitation is significantly broader than
`what the specification discloses, which is selecting a device
`because it shares an ISP with another device, not selecting a
`device based merely on the identity of its ISP in the abstract.
`Again, PO makes no secret that its goal is to obtain a claim
`that captures its own contemporary system where “the
`requesting client may want to use a mobile proxy with a
`specific carrier (e.g., Verizon),” but nothing supports such a
`broad limitation.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 21, Opp. at 17.
`
`29
`
`
`
`New Matter – “identifying, … a first CSP”
`
`Patent Owner Reply:
`
`“Petitioner cites to EX1001 at 93:27-306 as allegedly discrediting Patent Owner’s
`position; however, this portion of the specification actually shows that the CSP is one
`of the attributes that would be provided by the intermediary client device and stored
`in the third server.
`
`Petitioner concedes that the specification discloses that the attributes associated with
`each intermediary client device may be sent to the first requesting client device. See
`Opp. at 17-18. Thus, the first requesting client device may identify a first CSP in
`limitation 28[c] and a first geographical location in limitation 28[c] based on the
`attributes associated with each intermediary client device. ”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 25 at 10.
`
`30
`
`
`
`New Matter – “identifying, … a first CSP”
`
`Petitioner Sur‐Reply:
`“PO ignores that the client device being provided with the identity (which Petitioner does not concede actually
`happens, as explained in the following paragraph) is not the same as the client device actually performing the
`“identifying” step as required by 28[c]. There is no disclosure or discussion anywhere in the record that the
`client device performs any identification of an ISP (let alone CSP).
`
`Furthermore, even assuming for purposes of argument that providing the identity of a CSP to a client device was
`sufficient to satisfy 28[c] and 28[e], the specification does not disclose doing so. PO argues that “the CSP is one
`of the attributes that would be provided by the intermediary client device and stored in the third server.”
`(emphasis added). Reply at 10. … However, the cited portion discloses only that “the tunnel device sends its
`physical geographical location (which may include country, state or province, city, street address, or ZIP code)
`as part of the sign-in process, and the location is stored in the acceleration server as part of the tunnels related
`database.” (emphasis added) See EX1001 at 92:63-93:3. Ultimately, nothing in the relied-upon parts of the
`nonprovisional applications discloses or even suggests that the identity of a CSP is one of the attributes that
`would be provided by the intermediary client device and stored in the third server.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 26 at 9.
`
`31
`
`
`
`New Matter – “identifying, … a first CSP”
`
`Petitioner Sur‐Reply:
`
`“PO further asserts the cited portion column 93, lines 27-30
`of the ’034 Patent “actually shows that the CSP is one of the
`attributes that would be provided by the intermediary client
`device and stored in the third server.” Reply at 10. But this
`cited passage, at best, shows using a device’s ISP to
`determine the “closeness” of devices: “Alternatively, or in
`addition, devices that share the same ISP are considered as
`‘close.’” EX1001, 93:27-30 (emphasis added). This does not
`state or imply that the identity of device’s ISP would be
`provided by the intermediary client device and stored in the
`third server (nor that an ISP is a CSP).”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`Paper 26 at 9.
`
`EX1001 (’034 Patent) at 93:27-30.
`
`
`
`New Matter – selecting based on both “CSP” and “geographical location”
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Revised MTA:
` No support for the “selecting an intermediary client device from the group” “based on” both
`“the identifying of the first CSP” and “the identifying of the first geographical location” limitation
`as required by claim element 28[e].
`
`“The cited ISP passages disclose selecting devices that share
`the same ISP because “devices that share the same ISP are
`considered as ‘close.’” See EX2023 at 4 (quoting
`Nonprovisional App. No. 14/468,836 at 124). Having
`already made this geographic determination of “close” based
`on ISP, it would make no sense to also separately consider
`“the first geographical location” as the claim requires (unless
`the identification of a common CSP does not indicate the
`inferred proximity for two devices that the specification does
`describe for two devices that use the same ISP). ”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 21, Opp. at 17‐18.
`
`33
`
`
`
`New Matter – selecting based on both “CSP” and “geographical location”
`
`Patent Owner Reply
`
`“Further, the Revised MTA
`explained that a requesting client
`device may select an intermediary
`client device based on its use of
`the CSP to connect to the
`Internet, as well as its
`geographical location. Revised
`MTA at 6-7. The specification
`discloses that the selection may
`use various attributes or
`characteristics. E.g., EX1001 at
`53:2-4; 64:11-42; 90:54-57;
`90:62-63. ”
`
`Paper 25 at 11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Sur‐Reply
` PO’s citations do not provide any explanation or
`support for this newly added limitation.
`
`“But the cited pages do not provide any explanation of the new
`limitation—selection based on “use of the CSP to connect to the
`Internet as well as its geographical location. In contrast, PO
`provides nothing but an explanation on an Exhibit 2029 where a
`comparison of iPhone carriers among different cities in the United
`States is discussed. Even if it is relevant (which Petitioner
`respectfully disagrees), nothing in Exhibit 2029 discloses or even
`suggests any selection is based on “use of the CSP to connect to
`the Internet as well as its geographical location. … PO points to
`nothing in these supporting citations that “CSP” is one of the
`attributes or characteristics.”
`
`Paper 26 at 10‐11.
`
`34
`
`
`
`New Matter – selecting based on both “CSP” and “geographical location”
`
`Patent Owner Reply
`
`Cited Passage of the ’034 Patent
`
`“Petitioner misinterprets the
`language in the specification.
`EX1001 at 93:22-30. For
`example, the CSP may be one
`indicator of geographical
`location. Verizon is a CSP in the
`US, while Rogers Wireless is a
`CSP outside the US.
`Additionally, ‘close’ (which
`importantly is in quotes in the
`specification) is not necessarily
`geographical ‘closeness’. ”
`
`IP Address: In one example, the IP address is used
`as a measure to determine ‘closeness’. For example,
`an IP address that is numerically close to another IP,
`may be considered as ‘geographically’ close. In this
`context, 192.166.3.103 is closer to 192.166.3.212
`than to 192.167.3.104. Alternatively or in addition,
`devices that share the same ISP are considered as
`‘close’, since it is likely that better and faster
`communication is provided, since the need to
`communicate via the Internet is obviated.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`Paper 25 at 12.
`
`EX1001 at 93:22‐30; see also Paper 26 at 11‐12
`
`
`
`New Matter – ISP vs CSP as genus vs species
`
`Patent Owner Reply
` PO asserts the genus/species (ISP vs
`CSP) argument is irrelevant.
`
`Petitioner’s Sur‐Reply
` The genus/species argument is relevant because
`the CSP is not equivalent to the ISP.
`
`“Finally, Petitioner makes a
`genus/species argument (Opp. at
`23) which is irrelevant at least
`because the CSP is the ISP. ”
`
`Paper 25 at 12.
`
`“If nothing else, Exhibits 1024 and 1025 show that
`the terms CSP and ISP are not coextensive. Despite
`the existence of ISPs, separate CSPs provide
`cellular service. Petitioner’s argument cannot
`survive this fundamental fact. Thus, among other
`reasons above, PO has failed to carry its burden
`because disclosure of a genus (e.g., ISP) is not
`sufficient written description support for a specific
`species (e.g., CSP).”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 26 at 12.
`
`36
`
`
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
