Apple Inc.v.DSS Technology Management, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

08949999 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 40
571-272-7822 Entered: June 17, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

APPLE INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290
____________

Before JAMESON LEE, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to
institute inter partes review of claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290 to
Carvey (Ex. 1001, “the ’290 patent”). Patent Owner DSS Technology
Management, Inc. (“DSS”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim.
Resp.”). On June 25, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–
4 on one of two grounds of unpatentability presented in the Petition
(Paper 9, “Dec.”).
After institution of trial, DSS filed a Patent Owner Response
(Paper 17, “PO Resp.”), and Apple filed a Reply thereto (Paper 24,
“Reply”). An oral hearing was held on March 15, 2016, and a transcript of
the hearing is included in the record (Paper 39, “Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
Based on the record before us, and for the reasons that follow, we
determine that Apple has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that each of claims 1–4 of the ’290 patent is unpatentable.

B. Related Matters
The ’290 patent has been the subject of two district court actions:
DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 5:14-cv-05330-LHK
(N.D. Cal.), and DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Lenovo (United
States), Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00525-JDL (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 3–4; Paper 4, 2.
IPR2015-00373 also involves claims of the ’290 patent and was argued
together with this proceeding at the March 15, 2016, oral argument.
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

3

C. The Instituted Ground
We instituted a trial as to claims 1–4 of the ’290 patent under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,241,542 to
Natarajan et al. (Ex. 1003, “Natarajan”) and U.S. Patent No. 4,887,266 to
Neve et al. (Ex. 1004, “Neve”). Dec. 13–21.

II. ANALYSIS
A. The ’290 Patent
The ’290 patent, titled “Personal Data Network,” issued October 3,
2000, from U.S. Patent Application No. 08/949,999 (Ex. 1005, 22–62,
“the ’999 application”). The ’999 application was filed October 14, 1997, as
a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/611,695 (Ex. 1006,
21–61, “the ’695 application”), filed March 6, 1996, which matured into
U.S. Patent No. 5,699,357 (Ex. 2001, “the ’357 patent”). See Ex. 1001, 1:6–
8.
The ’290 patent relates to a data network for bidirectional wireless
data communications between a host or server microcomputer unit and a
plurality of peripheral units referred to as personal electronic accessories
(PEAs). Ex. 1001, 1:11–14, 2:15–18. Among the objects of the invention is
the provision of a data network that requires extremely low power
consumption, “particularly for the peripheral units,” avoids interference
from nearby similar systems, and is relatively simple and inexpensive to
construct. Id. at 1:33–34, 1:39–45. Figure 1 of the ’290 patent, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the described wireless data network system.
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

4

Figure 1 is a block diagram of a wireless data network system linking
a server microcomputer, referred to as personal digital assistant (PDA) 11,
with a plurality of peripheral units, or PEAs, 21–29. Id. at 2:42–44, 2:66–
3:15.
According to the ’290 patent, “the server microcomputer unit and the
several peripheral units which are to be linked are all in close physical
proximity, e.g., within twenty meters, to establish, with very high accuracy,
a common time base or synchronization.” Id. at 1:50–54. “Using the
common time base, code sequences are generated which control the
operation of the several transmitters in a low duty cycle pulsed mode of
operation.” Id. at 1:57–59. “The server and peripheral unit transmitters are
energized in low duty cycle pulses at intervals which are determined by a
code sequence which is timed in relation to the synchronizing information
initially transmitted from the server microcomputer.” Id. at 2:35–39. “The
low duty cycle pulsed operation both substantially reduces power
consumption and facilitates the rejection of interfering signals.” Id. at 1:59–
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

5
61. “In the intervals between slots in which a PEA is to transmit or receive,
all receive and transmit circuits are powered down.” Id. at 4:6–8.

B. Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, the sole independent claim among the challenged claims, is
reproduced below. Challenged claims 2–4 depend directly or indirectly
from claim 1.
1. A data network system for effecting coordinated operation of a
plurality of electronic devices, said system comprising:
a server microcomputer unit;
a plurality of peripheral units which are battery powered and portable,
which provide either input information from the user or output
information to the user, and which are adapted to operate within short
range of said server unit;
said server microcomputer incorporating an RF transmitter for
sending commands and synchronizing information to said peripheral
units;
said peripheral units each including an RF receiver for detecting said
commands and synchronizing information and including also an RF
transmitter for sending input information from the user to said server
microcomputer;
said server microcomputer including a receiver for receiving input
information transmitted from said peripheral units;
said server and peripheral transmitters being energized in low duty
cycle RF bursts at intervals determined by a code sequence which is
timed in relation to said synchronizing information.
Ex. 1001, 11:61–12:18.

C. Claim Construction
The ’290 patent expired on March 6, 2016, twenty years from the
filing date of the ’695 application from which the ’290 patent claims
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

6
priority. 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2). We construe expired patent claims
according to the standard applied by the district courts. See In re Rambus
Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Specifically, we apply the principles
set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we
look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim
language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in
evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d
1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). Only
those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the
extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
meaning, and that is the meaning the term would have to a person of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent
including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Claims are
not interpreted in a vacuum but are a part of and read in light of the
specification. See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113,
1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Although it is improper to read a limitation from the
specification into the claims (In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993)), the claims still must be read in view of the specification of
which they are a part. See Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d
1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
If the applicant for patent desires to be its own lexicographer, the
purported definition must be set forth in either the specification or
prosecution history. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

7
1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). And such a definition must be set forth with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Apple asked us in its Petition to construe two phrases: “within short
range of said server unit,” as recited in claim 1, and “code sequence,” as
recited in claims 1 and 3. Pet. 9–11. DSS responded to Apple’s proposed
construction of only the first of these phrases in its Preliminary Response,
and additionally asked us to construe “energized in low duty cycle RF
bursts,” also recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 18–21. DSS proposed, in
particular, that the phrase “energized in low duty cycle RF bursts” be given
its plain and ordinary meaning, or alternatively, in the event of any
ambiguity, that it should be construed as “a pulsed operation that
substantially reduces power consumption and facilitates the rejection of
interfering signals.” Id. at 20 (boldface and italics omitted).
In our Decision on Institution, we construed the phrase “within short
range” to mean “within a range in which the accuracy of synchronization is
not appreciably affected by transit time delays, including at least the range of
within 20 meters,” but concluded that it was not necessary for our
determination of whether to institute inter partes review of claims 1–4 of the
’290 patent to construe expressly the phrases “code sequence” and
“energized in low duty cycle RF bursts.” Dec. 7–10. Because the
’290 patent had not yet expired at the time of our Decision on Institution, we
interpreted the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
Dec. 6–7; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

8
LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1278–81 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom.
Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016).
Notwithstanding that we now apply the Phillips standard, our
construction now for “within short range” is the same as our construction in
the Decision on Institution. Neither party now challenges that construction
or our determination in the Decision on Institution that “code sequence”
does not require express construction. Based on DSS’s Patent Owner
Response, Apple’s Reply, and the arguments presented at oral argument,
however, the construction of the phrase “energized in low duty cycle RF
bursts” is a central issue in this proceeding.
“energized in low duty cycle RF bursts”
Outside of the claims, the ’290 patent recites the phrase “low duty
cycle” four times, as emphasized below:
The data network disclosed herein utilizes low duty cycle pulsed
radio frequency energy to effect bidirectional wireless data
communication between a server microcomputer unit and a
plurality of peripheral units . . . . By establishing a tightly
synchronized common time base between the units and by the
use of sparse codes, timed in relation to the common time base,
low power consumption and avoidance of interference between
nearby similar systems is obtained.
Ex. 1001, Abst.
Using the common time base, code sequences are generated
which control the operation of the several transmitters in a low
duty cycle pulsed mode of operation. The low duty cycle pulsed
operation both substantially reduces power consumption and
facilitates the rejection of interfering signals.”
Id. at 1:57–61.
The server and peripheral unit transmitters are energized in low
duty cycle pulses at intervals which are determined by a code
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

9
sequence which is timed in relation to the synchronizing
information initially transmitted from the server microcomputer.
Id. at 2:35–39.
In its Patent Owner Response, DSS contends that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood the “duty cycle” of the server
transmitter as “the ratio of actual duration during which the server
transmitter is energized to the total duration designated for outbound
transmissions.” Id. at 10 (emphasis omitted). DSS contends that
understanding is consistent with deposition testimony provided by Apple’s
expert, Dr. Jack Duane Grimes (Id. at 10–11 (citing Ex. 2015 (“Grimes
Depo. Tr.”), 41:7–9 (“The low-duty cycle refers to the ratio of the time spent
transmitting versus the time spent nontransmitting.”), 31:10–12 (“Low-duty
cycle tells you that most of the time there’s nothing being sent. And when
there is something being sent, that’s what’s called a burst.”), 46:12–15
(“[T]he key thing is that the burst is small—the time it takes is small relative
to the overall time that the transmitter could have been transmitting.”))).
Citing both Dr. Grimes’s deposition testimony and the declaration of its own
expert, Robert Dezmelyk, DSS further contends that “the duty cycle of the
server transmitter must be calculated over the total duration designated
for the outbound transmissions,” and that “[t]ime slots designated for the
inbound data traffic are not taken into account because the server transmitter
could not have been transmitting during these time slots.” Id. at 11 (citing
Ex. 2015, 60:19–22; Ex. 2016 (“Dezmelyk Decl.”) ¶¶ 23, 27). DSS
concludes, “[u]nder the broadest reasonable interpretation, a [person of
ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that a server transmitter is
energized in a low duty cycle when the server transmitter is energized for
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

10
less than ten percent (10%) of the total duration designated for outbound
transmissions.” Id.1
DSS contends the “less than ten percent” range is consistent with the
Specification of the ’290 patent, including an example in which “a
maximum of three RF bursts can occur” for outbound transmissions in
sections that each include sixty-four slots, and another example in which
transmitted synchronization beacons are described as consisting of eight RF
bursts spread out over 252 slots. PO Resp. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:22–
33). According to DSS, the first example results in the server transmitter
being energized for 4.688% (i.e., 3/64) of the transmission period, while in
the second example, the server transmitter is energized in a duty cycle of
3.175% (i.e., 8/252). Id. at 12. DSS also cites five patents (Exs. 2004–
2008) that it contends to be the first five “relevant” results “obtained on
Google Patents through the query: ‘low duty cycle e.g.’ & network &
percent” (id. at 12–13, 12 n.1, Table 1).2 Those patents include exemplary
“low duty cycle” ranges from “e.g., 0.5 percent” (Ex. 2006, 8:3) to “e.g., at
an about 10 percent . . . duty cycle” (Ex. 2008, 10:5–6).
As to the phrase “RF bursts,” DSS contends that “a [person of
ordinary skill in the art] would have understood the phrase ‘RF bursts’ to
mean ‘a short period of intense activity on an otherwise quiet data
channel.’” PO Resp. 13 (citing definition of “burst” from CHAMBERS
DICTIONARY OF SCI. & TECH. 155 (1999) (Ex. 2009)). DSS asserts that this

1 DSS and Apple both confirmed during the oral hearing that their respective
claim construction proposals for “low duty cycle” would be no different
under the Phillips standard, as opposed to the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard. Tr. 28:23–29:1, 39:7–11.
2 DSS does not explain its criteria for determining “relevance.”
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

11
construction is consistent with Dr. Grimes’s deposition testimony that “the
key thing is that the burst is small—the time it takes is small relative to the
overall time that the transmitter could have been transmitting” and with the
’290 patent’s illustration of 2 µsec burst slots. Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 2015,
34:2–8, 46:12–15; Ex. 1001, Fig. 6).
In its Reply, Apple responds that a “low duty cycle” of a transmitter
should simply be interpreted as the transmitter being designed to be on only
to satisfy the data communication needs over the communication cycle of
the system. Reply 22. According to Apple, “DSS’s proposed claim
construction that ‘low duty cycle’ is less than 10% is arbitrary and unduly
narrow.” Id. at 20 (emphasis omitted). Apple contends that “[t]he
‘examples’ that DSS cites in Table 1 are cherry-picked results from a search
premised on finding examples by including ‘e.g.’ in the search string,” that
“none of these references are contemporaneous with the ’290 patent’s filing
date,” and that one of those examples even “contradicts the proposed
construction of ‘less than ten percent,’ providing a ‘low duty cycle, e.g., at
an about 10 percent (10%) duty cycle.” Id. at 21 (quoting Ex. 2008, 10:5–
6). Apple also contends that the deposition testimony of DSS’s expert
undermines DSS’s proposed construction, as “Mr. Dezmelyk admits that the
term ‘low duty cycle’ itself does not require an upper bound at 10%.”
Id. (citing Ex. 1011 (“Dezmelyk Depo. Tr.”), 78:2–6).
Apple also points out that claim 8 of the ’357 patent (i.e., the parent of
the ’290 patent), which was cited by Mr. Dezmelyk during his deposition as
further support for the “10% limit,” recites “said low duty cycle pulses
comprise chips within the respective code sequences such that a transmitter
is enerrgized [sic] less than 10% of the time during an allocated time slot.”
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

12
Reply 22. According to Apple, “[b]ecause claim 8 depends ultimately from
independent claim 6, it is narrower than the independent claim, meaning
that the ’357 patent contemplates a ‘low duty cycle’ greater than 10%.” Id.
In the oral hearing, DSS retreated from insisting that “low duty cycle”
should be limited to a duty cycle of “less than ten percent.” While
maintaining that “[l]ow duty cycle is a term of art” and that “[i]n the context
of wireless communications, 10 percent is a reasonable number,” DSS
conceded, “there is no hard value for the numbers.” Tr. 48:6–7, 48:22,
49:16–17. DSS asserted: “Anything below 10 percent is low duty cycle.
Anything over 10 percent would be considered high duty cycle and—or at
least it would not be considered a low duty cycle in the context of wireless
communications technology.” Id. at 50:22–25. DSS additionally suggested
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, if there were
more data than could be transmitted in three of sixty-four slots, the
transmission of the data would be held by the transmitter for future frames,
and that “low duty cycle” operation requires “kicking off mobile units” and
introducing “additional complexity and additional inefficiency,” merely so
that a server transmitter can be depowered for the majority of a duty cycle
regardless of whether there is more data waiting to be transmitted (see id. at
61:13–62:2, 71:9–72:5).
As an initial matter, we understand an “RF burst” to be “a short period
of intense RF transmission activity on an otherwise quiet data channel,”
consistent with DSS’s proposal (see PO Resp. 13). That understanding is
supported by the ’290 patent and other evidence of record (see Ex. 1001,
Fig. 1; Ex. 2009; Ex. 2015, 34:2–8, 46:12–15), and Apple does not provide
any contrary argument.
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

13
Nonetheless, we are unpersuaded by DSS’s arguments concerning the
proper interpretation of “low duty cycle.” First, we agree with Apple that
the term “duty cycle” should be calculated based on the total time it takes a
system to go through a cycle of communication (see Reply 22–23), and is
not limited to “the total duration designated for outbound transmissions,” as
asserted by DSS (see PO Resp. 10) (emphasis omitted). This interpretation
is consistent with the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 11:46–51 (“Further, the
utilization of low duty cycle pulse mode transmission particularly with the
employment of uncorrelated codes in a TDMA context, leads to very low
power consumption since the transmitters and receivers in each PEA are
powered for only a small percentage of the total time.”). We also agree with
Apple that “the data requirements for the master station to broadcast to the
peripherals change[], and the data requirements for the peripherals to
transmit back to the master station change over time.” Tr. 9:4–8.
Accordingly, we understand the “duty cycle” of a transmitter to be the
average ratio of the durations during which the transmitter is energized to
the duration of communication cycles over the course of network operation.
We also agree with Apple that “low duty cycle” should not be limited
to a duty cycle of less than 10% or to any other hard limit (Reply 20–22),
and instead conclude, on this record, that “energized in low duty cycle RF
bursts” simply means that a transmitter is not energized continuously over
the course of network operation, but is depowered during at least two time
periods of each communication cycle: first, in time slots in which the unit
that includes the transmitter is assigned to receive data; and second, in time
slots, if any, when the unit is assigned to transmit data but has no data to
transmit.
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

14
As DSS conceded at the oral hearing, there is “no hard value” recited
in the ’290 patent or elsewhere on the record (Tr. 49:16–17), and we are not
persuaded on this record that we should infer from the examples in the
’290 patent that Applicant intended thereby to limit the meaning of “low
duty cycle” to transmitting in just three of sixty-four or eight of 252 time
slots reserved for transmission, or anything on that order (see PO Resp. 12).
We also find that DSS’s suggestions regarding “kicking off” of mobile units
and introduction of “complexity and “inefficiency” (see Tr. 61:13–62:2,
71:9–72:5) are inappropriate because they are new arguments raised for the
first time at oral argument. Thus, those new arguments are not considered.
See Apple Inc. v. e-Watch, Inc., Case IPR2015-00412, slip op. at 40–41
(PTAB May 6, 2016) (Paper 50) (declining to consider arguments raised for
the first time at oral argument).
We also are not persuaded by DSS’s sampling in its Patent Owner
Response of five unrelated patents (i.e., Exs. 2004–2008) that, by virtue of
their use of the abbreviation “e.g.,” explicitly provide only examples of low
duty cycles (see Ex. 2002 (Black’s Law Dictionary, definition of “e.g.”)).
PO Resp. 12–13. Indeed, although there may not be any evidence of record
that the definition of “duty cycle” changed in the years between the filing
date of the application for the ’290 patent and the filing dates of the
applications that issued as Exhibits 2004–2008 (see Tr. 50:5–7), the fact that
none of those references predates the ’290 patent casts doubt upon the
weight to which that evidence is entitled in showing how a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood low duty cycle in the context
of the ’290 patent (see Reply 21).
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

15
In view of the foregoing, on the record before us, we conclude that the
phrase “energized in low duty cycle RF bursts” means “energized, in short
periods of intense RF transmission activity on an otherwise quiet data
channel, only to the extent required to satisfy the data transmission needs
over the course of a communication cycle.”

D. Obviousness of Claims 1–4 over Natarajan and Neve
Apple contends that claims 1–4 of the ’290 patent are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Natarajan and
Neve.
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.” We resolve the question of obviousness on the basis of
underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.3 See Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
In an obviousness analysis, some reason must be shown as to why a
person of ordinary skill would have combined or modified the prior art to
achieve the patented invention. See Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
512 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A reason to combine or modify the
prior art may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces, design

3 The record does not contain any evidence of secondary considerations.
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

16
incentives, the “interrelated teachings of multiple patents,” “any need or
problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent,” or the background knowledge, creativity, and
common sense of the person of ordinary skill. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v.
InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–21 (2007)).
1. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
a. Overview of Natarajan
Natarajan is directed to power conservation in wireless
communication, particularly battery efficient operation of wireless link
adapters of mobile computers (also referred to, inter alia, as battery powered
computers, hand held or laptop computers, mobile units, and mobile
stations) as controlled by multiaccess protocols used in wireless
communication. Ex. 1003, Abst., 1:7–13, 2:32. Figure 2 of Natarajan is
reproduced below.

IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

17
Figure 2 is a block diagram of a digital data communication system of the
type in which Natarajan’s invention is implemented, illustrating the basic
components of a mobile station and a base station. Id. at 1:67–2:3. As
depicted in Figure 2, mobile stations 10, 12, 14, and 16 communicate with
gateways (i.e., base stations 26, 28) connected with server 18, via wireless
transceivers adapters 36, 44. Id. at 2:32–39, 2:51–52, 2:58–59, 2:65–67.
According to Natarajan:
The scheduled access multiaccess protocol is implemented to
effectively conserve battery power by suitable control of the
state of the controller, the transmitter and receiver units at the
wireless link adapter by scheduling when the adapter is in a
normal running mode, or a standby mode in which power is
conserved.
Id. at Abst.; see also id. at 3:66–4:1.
Natarajan discloses that “[a] desirable solution is one in which the
transmitter (or receiver) consumes power only when it is actively
transmitting a message (or actively receiving a message).” Id. at 4:3–6.
Natarajan further discloses that the scheduled multiaccess protocol divides
time into “fixed-length frames, and frames are divided into slots.” Id. at
4:20–23. The frames are divided into subframes for transmission of data
from the base station to mobile units (outbound traffic) as well as
transmission of data from mobile units to the base station (inbound traffic).
Id. at 4:27–38. According to Natarajan, at least one slot is assigned to each
mobile computer designated to communicate with the base station. Id. at
10:26–29. The battery power of the wireless link adapter for a given mobile
computer is turned on to full power during the at least one assigned slot, and
the battery power of the wireless link adapter is substantially reduced during
the remaining time slots. Id. at 10:29–37.
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

18
With respect to outbound traffic, Natarajan discloses that the base
station broadcasts a header that includes a list of mobile users that will be
receiving data packets from the base station in the current frame, the order in
which the mobile users will receive the data packets, and the bandwidth
allocated to each user. Id. at 4:45–53. According to Natarajan, a mobile
unit that is not included in the header from the base station can turn its
receiver “OFF” for the duration of the current subframe. Id. at 4:64–67.
Additionally, the adapter of each receiving mobile unit can compute exactly
when it should be ready to receive packets from the base station by adding
up the slots allocated to all receiving units that precede it, power “ON”
during that time slot to receive its data, and go back to sleep for the
remainder of the subframe. Id. at 4:67–5:6.
For inbound traffic, Natarajan similarly discloses that the base station
broadcasts a header that includes an ordered list of users that will be allowed
to transmit packets to the base station in the current frame and the bandwidth
allocated to each. Id. at 5:9–19. Using the information regarding the
number of packets that each user can transmit, each mobile unit can compute
exactly when it should begin its transmission. Id. at 5:20–22. Once each
mobile station computes its exact time for transmission, it can shut both its
transmitter and receiver “OFF” until the designated time, and then turn
“ON” and transmit for a fixed period of time whose duration depends on the
number of slots allocated to it. Id. at 5:23–29.
b. Overview of Neve
Neve is directed to a communication system able to provide multiple
path communication between a plurality of stations operating on a single
channel. Ex. 1004, Abst. Neve discloses that one station, which is
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

19
physically similar to the others but operates a different stored program, may
be designated the “master” station and provides synchronization signals for
all of the other stations (referred to as “‘slave’ stations”) and controls access
of the stations to the single radio channel. Id. at 4:10–15.
According to Neve, the stations are synchronized and a cyclically
repeating series of time slots is defined. Id. at Abst. One time slot in each
cycle is reserved for the transmission of synchronization information by the
master station for reception by the slave stations and for maintaining
synchronization therein. Id. Another time slot is reserved for any slave
station to transmit a message indicating that it needs to communicate to
another station, such indication preferably being by transmitting its own pre-
assigned address code. Id. The remaining time slots are used for
transmitting address information and data. Id.
Neve discloses that when data transfer is not taking place, the
described devices can enter a lower power consumption state. Id. at 2:13–
16. The system is designed automatically to re-enter the data transfer
condition when either a signal is received from the device indicative of the
need to transmit data or a predetermined code signal is received by the
receiver circuit indicative of the need to receive data. Id. at 2:19–24. Neve
discloses that the receiver has very low power consumption because only the
internal timing circuitry is energized continuously, whereas the rest of the
receiving circuit is energized only when its assigned time slot occurs. Id. at
2:39–41. More particularly, the receiver circuit includes a low power timing
circuit that operates to energize the rest of the receiver circuit only for the
time slot in which its address may occur and for the synchronization time
slot, thereby enabling it to maintain synchronization with low power
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

20
consumption. Id. at 4:43–48. Neve similarly discloses that the interface
circuit is arranged to energize the transmitter circuit only when transmission
is required. Id. at 2:45–47.
2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
We determine that no express finding with regard to the level of
ordinary skill in the art is necessary in this proceeding, as the level of
ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v.
Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d
1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
3. Differences Between the Prior Art and Claims 1–4;
Reasons to Combine
a. Uncontested Claim Limitations
The features of Natarajan and Neve are summarized above.
Regarding claim 1, we have considered Apple’s evidence, including
Dr. Grimes’s testimony (Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 89–126), presented at pages 39–59 of
the Petition, and make the following findings regarding matters not disputed
in DSS’s Patent Owner Response:
i. Natarajan and Neve are from the same field of
endeavor—wireless network communication systems
(see Ex. 1003, Abst.; Ex. 1004, Abst.);
ii. Both Natarajan and Neve disclose a data network system
for effecting coordinated operation of a plurality of
electronic devices, as recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1003,
1:67–68, 6:48–54, Fig. 1; Ex. 1004, 4:6–9, Fig. 9);
iii. Both Natarajan and Neve are concerned with conserving
battery power of battery powered, portable, wireless
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

21
devices (see Ex. 1003, Abst., 1:16–21; Ex. 1004, 1:29–
34, 2:48–59);
iv. Both Natarajan and Neve disclose a server that
communicates with a plurality of “peripheral units,”
where each device has an RF transmitter and receiver
(see Ex. 1003, Abst., 2:40–45, Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 1004, Abst.,
3:64–66, 4:10–15, Figs. 1, 4, 5, 9);
v. Natarajan’s “base station” and Neve’s “master station”
are “server microcomputer[s] incorporating an RF
transmitter for sending commands . . . to . . . peripheral
units,” as recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1003, 2:51–58,
3:18–21, 4:20–5:19, 6:48–54, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 1004, 3:26–
28, 3:59–63, 7:46–49, Figs. 1, 3);
vi. Neve discloses that the server unit (“master station”)
sends “synchronizing information” to peripheral units, as
recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1004, Abst., 4:10–13, Fig. 2);
vii. Natarajan’s “mobile units” and Neve’s “slave units” are
“peripheral units which are battery powered and portable,
which provide either input information from the user or
output information to the user, . . . which are adapted to
operate within short range of said server unit,” and which
“each includ[e] an RF receiver for detecting said
commands and synchronizing information and including
also an RF transmitter for sending input information from
the user to said server microcomputer,” as recited in
claim 1 (see Ex. 1003, Abst., 1:39–43, 2:1–3, 2:48–60,
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

22
2:65–67, 3:28–30, 3:50–51, 4:30–38, 4:67–5:2, 5:20–26,
6:17–21, 6:32–34, 6:41–44, Figs. 1–3; Ex. 1004, Abst.,
1:10–15, 1:34–40, 3:59–63, 7:46–49);
viii. Neve discloses that the server (“master unit”) is
physically similar to the peripheral units (“slave units”)
but operates a different stored program (see Ex. 1004,
2:49–55, 4:10–15);
ix. Natarajan and Neve reduce power consumption in similar
ways, by scheduling transmission time slots and having
devices operate in a low power mode when they are not
transmitting or receiving data (see Ex. 1003, Abst., 3:66–
4:7; Ex, 1004, Abst., 2:35–41);
x. Natarajan and Neve each disclose “peripheral
transmitters being energized in low duty cycle RF bursts
at intervals determined by a code sequence,” as recited in
claim 1; in particular, Natarajan discloses that
“[s]cheduled access multiaccess protocols can be
implemented to effectively conserve battery power by
suitable control of the state of transmitter and receiver
units at the portable units (i.e., by scheduling when they
should be turned ON or OFF),” that “the transmitter (or
receiver) consumes power only when it is actively
transmitting a message (or actively receiving a
message),” and that transmission intervals are determined
by a code sequence (Ex. 1003, 3:59–4:6; 6:15–33, 6:59–
68, Figs. 4, 5); and Neve discloses that “[t]he slave
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

23
stations operate in a low power condition except during
one of the other time slots when they may receive their
own address, or except when they need to transmit data”
(Ex. 1004, Abst.), and that the interface circuit of each
device is “arranged to energise the transmitter circuit
only when transmission is required” (id. at 2:42–47); see
also id. at 5:60–61 (disclosing “low power duty cycle”).
xi. Neve discloses that the master station provides
synchronization signals for all of the other stations (id. at
4:10–13, Fig. 2).

b. “said server . . . transmitter[] being energized in low
duty cycle RF bursts”
As reproduced in Section II.B. supra, claim 1 recites, inter alia, “said
server and peripheral transmitters being energized in low duty cycle RF
bursts at intervals determined by a code sequence which is timed in relation
to . . . synchronizing information.” The single substantive dispute in this
proceeding is whether the combination of Natarajan and Neve teaches or
suggests that the recited server transmitter is energized in low duty cycle RF
bursts. See Pet. 52–54; PO Resp. 15–33; Reply 2–18.
In its Petition, Apple cited Natarajan’s disclosure that “[s]cheduled
access multiaccess protocols can be implemented to effectively conserve
battery power by suitable control of the state of transmitter and receiver
units at the portable units (i.e., by scheduling when they should be turned
ON or OFF)” and that “the transmitter (or receiver) consumes power only
when it is actively transmitting a message (or actively receiving a message)”
as evidence of Natarajan’s disclosure of “low duty cycle RF bursts.”
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

24
Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:59–4:6; Ex. 1008 ¶ 115). Apple additionally
cited Natarajan’s disclosure of a period “for the transfer of all bursty data
traffic in a contention mode from mobile units to base station (inbound
traffic)” and Neve’s disclosure that “[t]he slave stations operate in a low
power condition except during one of the other time slots when they may
receive their own address, or except when they need to transmit data” and
that the interface circuit of each device is “arranged to energise the
transmitter circuit only when transmission is required,” in support of its
assertion that “Natarajan and Neve each disclose that the transmitters are
‘energized in low duty cycle RF bursts.’” Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:36–
38; Ex. 1004, Abst., 2:42–47; Ex. 1008 ¶ 115). Apple pointed further to
Figures 4 and 5 and corresponding text of Natarajan, as disclosing
transmission “intervals determined by a code sequence” as recited by claim
1. Id. at 53–54 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:20–23, 5:9–11, 5:20–29, 8:54–62, 6:15–
33, 6:59–68, Figs. 4, 5).
In response to Apple’s contentions, DSS argues that Natarajan does
not teach or suggest that the server transmitter is energized in low duty cycle
RF bursts. PO Resp. 15. According to DSS, “[a]lthough Natarajan teaches a
system for reducing power consumption in mobile units, Natarajan is silent
regarding the operation of the base unit’s transmitter.” Id. at 16. “Natarajan
discloses that its objective is to provide energy savings for the mobile units,
but does not teach or suggest that there are any energy savings associated
with operation of the base unit’s transmitter,” and “[f]or this reason, the base
unit’s transmitter could operate continuously during the time slots
designated for outbound traffic without undermining the objectives of
Natarajan.” Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:59–61, 10:14–37; Ex. 2016
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

25
¶¶ 32, 38). Moreover, according to DSS, “[i]t is well understood in the art
that although the base unit and mobile units may be structured similarly, the
base and mobile units operate under different schemes,” and accordingly, a
person of ordinary skill in the art “would not have concluded that base
transmitters operate the same way as the mobile units.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex.
1004, 4:10–12; Ex. 2016 ¶ 31). DSS concludes, “Natarajan does not
disclose that the server transmitter is energized in a low duty cycle,” and
“[t]he logical conclusion is that in the data network system disclosed in
Natarajan, the base transmitter is continuously energized during the time
periods designated for outbound transmissions.” Id. at 18–19.
In further support of its arguments, DSS points to disclosure in
Natarajan that serial channels in the base unit’s transmitter “encapsulate data
and control information in an HDLC (high-level data link control) packet
structure and provide the packet in serial form to the RF transceiver 54,” and
contends that “HDLC involves continuous transmissions in which special bit
sequences—i.e. idle words—are transmitted when no data transmission is
required.” PO Resp. 20–21 (quoting Ex. 1003, 3:34–37) (emphasis omitted).
According to DSS, “[t]he HDLC packet structure disclosed in Natarajan is
inconsistent with a server transmitter being energized in low duty cycle RF
bursts,” and “[i]t is well-known in the art that HDLC is an example of a
bit-oriented framing that involves a continuous outbound transmission rather
than operation in low duty cycle RF bursts.” Id. at 20 (emphasis omitted).
In support of that assertion, DSS quotes the following excerpt from the
McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Networking & Telecommunications:
“Bit-oriented framing . . . allows the sender to transmit a long string of bits
at one time. . . . The beginning and end of a frame is signaled with a special
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

26
bit sequence (01111110 for HDLC). If no data is being transmitted, this
same sequence is continuously transmitted so the end systems remain
synchronized.” Ex. 2010, 549 (quoted at PO Resp. 20–21). According to
DSS, “Natarajan’s disclosure of HDLC, which is used for transmitting ‘long
strings of data [sic] at one time,’ directly contradicts the requirement of
claim 1 of the ’290 Patent that server transmitters be energized in RF
bursts.” PO Resp. 21. DSS concludes, “a continuous transmission is an
antithesis of RF bursts” and “protocols involving transmission of idle words
in an absence of active transmissions are inconsistent with server transmitter
operating in a low-duty cycle.” Id. at 21–22.
DSS further contends that Neve does not cure the alleged deficiencies
of Natarajan. PO Resp. 27–33. In particular, according to DSS, Neve does
not teach or suggest that server transmitter is energized in low duty cycle RF
bursts. Id. at 30. DSS acknowledges our finding in the Decision on
Institution that Neve does not suggest continuous transmission from the
master station and, accordingly, does not teach away from the server
transmitter being energized in low duty cycle RF bursts. Id. (citing Dec. 19–
20). DSS contends, however, that “during the time slots designated for
outbound transmissions, ‘[i]f no data is currently required to be transmitted,
the master station transmits idle words’” (id. (quoting Ex. 1004, 4:48–50)),
and argues, “[i]dle words are inconsistent with server transmitter being
energized in low duty cycle RF bursts” (id.). Again citing Natarajan’s
disclosure that data is encapsulated into an HDLC packet structure for the
RF transceiver and Neve’s disclosure of idle word transmission, DSS
concludes, “[w]hen Natarajan is considered in view of Neve, it becomes
even more apparent that these references, either individually or in
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

27
combination, do not teach or suggest that server transmitter is energized in
low duty cycle RF bursts.” Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:33–37;
Ex. 1004, 4:48–50; Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 34, 35, 45).
In reply, Apple argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood from Natarajan that, when Natarajan’s base station is not
transmitting, its transmitter is powered off. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003,
6:41–44; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 27, 115–116; Ex. 1014 (“Hu Decl.”) ¶¶ 44–45;
Ex. 2015, 68:5–12, 74:7–19, 75:21–76:3). Apple contends, “DSS
acknowledges that Natarajan explicitly discloses that the mobile unit
transmitters operate in ‘low duty cycle RF bursts’” (id. at 3 (citing PO Resp.
16; Ex. 2016 ¶ 31)), “[s]o even if not expressly taught by Natarajan, it would
have been plainly obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to have
the base station operate in an analogous manner” (id. (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 45)).
In particular, according to Apple, “[t]he ‘low duty cycle RF bursts’
limitation of claim 1 is not novel,” and “[b]ecause the base and mobile
stations have the same physical structure, this would have been no more than
using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” Id.
(citing Ex. 1003, 3:7–8; Ex. 1014 ¶ 45).
Apple further points out that, not only is HDLC consistent with low
duty cycle RF bursts, contrary to DSS’s assertions, but the preferred
embodiment in the ’290 patent itself utilizes the HDLC protocol. Reply 3–4.
According to Apple:
The “basic scheme” of the ’290 patent’s frame structure is
“a form of time division multiple access (TDMA).” ([Ex. 1001],
5:45-50.) The ’290 patent states that “[a]s will be understood by
those skilled in the art, the TDMA system is greatly facilitated
by the establishment of a common frame time base between PEA
and PDA.” (Id. at 7:63-65 (emphasis added).) This is
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

28
accomplished using synchronization beacons (SBs). (Id. at 7:65-
67.) Before receiving the SBs, a PEA is associated with the PDA
using a succession of Attachment Beacons (ABs), which are
“composed of RF bursts,” broadcast from the PDA to the PEAs.
(Id. at 9:8-16, 9:66-10:2.) “This succession of ABs forms an
HDLC channel using bit-stuffing to delineate the beginning and
end of a packet.” (Id. at 10:2-4 (emphasis added).)
So, the ’290 patent uses HDLC to transmit and receive RF
bursts. ([Ex. 1014] ¶¶ 48-49.) Thus, the ’290 patent itself shows
that DSS’s argument is fallacious.
Id. at 4.
Apple additionally contends that DSS’s evidence and reliance on
Mr. Dezmelyk’s testimony regarding HDLC should be disregarded for at
least the following four reasons:
First, Mr. Dezmelyk admitted in his deposition that he would not say
that he is an expert in the HDLC protocol, he is not inventor on any patents
related to the HDLC protocol, he has not received any industry awards,
related to the HDLC protocol, he has never lectured on the HDLC protocol,
and this and the related district court litigation are the only matters he
recollects working on that are even related more generally to wireless
communication. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1011, 19:10–20:4, 21:1–22, 26:15–16).
Second, Mr. Dezmelyk did not consider the most logical reference for
information on Natarajan’s HDLC protocol when forming his opinions.
Reply 6. In particular, Apple points out that Natarajan—indeed, in the very
next sentence after the one quoted by DSS as evidence of Natarajan’s use of
the HDLC protocol—states as follows: “For more information on the HDLC
packet structure, see, for example, Mischa Schwartz, Telecommunication
Networks: Protocols, Modeling and Analysis, Addison-Wesley (1988).”
Id. (quoting Ex. 1004, 3:37–40). Apple contends that “the Schwartz book
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

29
([Ex.] 1012) is the most logical resource for a [person of ordinary skill in the
the art] to consult for information on Natarajan’s HDLC packet structure,”
and “Mr. Dezmelyk acknowledged that a [person of ordinary skill] in the art
would have access to Schwartz,” and “[y]et Mr. Dezmelyk never looked at
Schwartz when considering how Natarajan’s HDLC packet structure
operates.” Id. (citing Ex. 1011, 71:11–13; Ex. 1014 ¶ 51).
Third, Schwartz not only demonstrates that Natarajan’s HDLC
protocol is consistent with low duty cycle communication, but also
illustrates that RF transmissions occur in “bursts.” Reply 7–9 (citing
Ex. 1012, 135–36 (“When the transmitter reaches its maximum sequence
number it is forced to stop transmitting until a frame in the reverse direction
is received, acknowledging an outstanding packet.”), Figs. 4–9, 4–13
(showing periods where the transmitter is idle between frames); Ex. 1015
¶¶ 53, 54).
Fourth, the references that DSS and Mr. Dezmelyk “piece[d]
together” in support of the argument that Natarajan does not teach low duty
cycle RF bursts “do not support the asserted premise.” Reply 9–15. Apple
argues, for example, that DSS’s reliance on the cited excerpt from the
Encyclopedia of Networking & Telecommunications is misplaced. Id. at 10.
According to Apple, whereas “DSS asserts that the cited definition of ‘bit-
oriented framing’ shows that HDLC ‘involves continuous outbound
transmission,’” DSS neglects to acknowledge the very first sentence of the
cited section, which indicates that the excerpt “refers to point-to-point wired
communication, not to a point-to-multipoint wireless system as taught in
Natarajan.” Id. (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 56; Ex. 2010, 549). Relying on Dr. Hu’s
testimony, Apple contends “[t]here are fundamental differences and unique
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

30
challenges between point-to-point wired systems and point-to-multipoint
wireless systems,” and “the features are not simply interchangeable.” Id.
(citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 57–60). For example, Apple asserts, “continuous
transmission of so-called ‘idle words’ to maintain synchronization when
there is no data to transmit” may be “suitable for an isolated point-to-point
wired connection,” but “would be detrimental to a point-to-multipoint
wireless connection because it would interfere with the carefully designed
scheduling, waste power, decrease the system data rate, and pollute the
wireless channel potentially shared by many devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 1014
¶ 59). Apple also points out, for example, that DSS significantly misquotes
the cited portion of the Encyclopedia of Networking & Telecommunications
(id. at 11 (citing PO Resp. 21; Ex. 2010, 549)); that other portions of that
same Encyclopedia—not provided by DSS either to the Board or to Mr.
Dezmelyk—corroborate Schwartz’s description (id. at 11–12 (citing Ex.
1011, 101:4–102:7; Ex. 1012, 135; Ex. 1013, 582, Fig. H-2; Ex. 1014 ¶ 62));
and that other evidence relied upon by Mr. Dezmelyk similarly fails to show
that Natarajan teaches continuous transmission and underscores his
misunderstanding of HDLC (id. at 12–15 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1011, 69:17–71:1,
99:12–20; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 57–60, 64–68; Ex. Ex. 2013, 2; Ex. 2014 § 2.5.6, 4;
Ex. 2016 ¶ 35)).
Lastly, Apple contends that “DSS’s ‘idle words’ argument is a red
herring.” Reply 15 (emphasis omitted). According to Apple, Neve was
included in combination with Natarajan to show that synchronizing a base
station and peripheral units was well-known to those of ordinary skill in the
art, not to suggest that Natarajan operates identically to Neve with respect to
the latter’s use of idle words. Id. at 15–16.
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

31
We are persuaded by each of Apple’s arguments presented above, and
conclude that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to energize Natarajan’s server transmitter in low duty cycle RF bursts, as
recited in claim 1. We find that Natarajan is expressly concerned with
“power conservation due to wireless communication,” and specifically, with
“battery efficient operation of wireless link adapters of mobile computers as
controlled by multiaccess protocols used in wireless communication.”
Ex. 1003, 1:7–13. Although Natarajan describes explicitly only mobile
stations as battery-powered devices such as laptop computers, Natarajan also
discloses that the base units may be “conventional microcomputer[s]” (id. at
2:40–41) and that the mobile units are similarly provided with the same
components—e.g., RF transceiver adapter 36, including “a spread spectrum
transceiver of convention design” and antenna 38, in the base station; and
transceiver adapter 44, including “a spread spectrum transceiver of similar
design” and antenna 42, in each mobile unit (id. at 2:51–3:2). We are
persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated by Natarajan to apply the same power-conserving techniques to
base units as it is disclosed with respect to mobile units, as well as that it
would have been within the skill of the ordinarily skilled artisan to do so.
There is no persuasive evidence of record that it would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” to do so.
See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Indeed, as the Court
explained in KSR, the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.” 550 U.S. at 420–21.
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

32
We also find that Natarajan’s disclosure of the HDLC protocol is
consistent with Natarajan’s base units being energized in low duty cycle RF
bursts, as that term is properly construed. See supra Section II.C. In that
regard, the Schwartz reference (Ex. 1012), which was cited by Natarajan
(see Ex. 1003, 3:37–40), is significantly more probative of how a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood Natarajan’s reference to
HDLC than the Encyclopedia of Networking & Telecommunications excerpt
(Ex. 2010) cited by DSS, which, by its own terms, describes HDLC within
the context of a point-to-point network. Mr. Dezmelyk’s failure to consider
Schwartz or other portions of the Encyclopedia of Networking &
Telecommunications beyond those specifically provided to him by DSS
(see Ex. 1011, 71:11–73:13, 101:4–102:7, 104:9–11), as well as his admitted
lack of expertise regarding the HDLC protocol (see id. at 19:13–20:22,
26:15–16), call into question the credibility of his opinion on HDLC.
Accordingly, we do not find persuasive the testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk on
that subject. Additionally, the employment of an HDLC channel in the
preferred embodiment of the ’290 patent (Ex. 1001, 10:2–4) contradicts
DSS’s assertion that “[t]he HDLC packet structure is inconsistent with a
server transmitter being energized in low duty cycle RF bursts” (PO Resp.
20–22).
Finally, because we are not persuaded by DSS’s arguments that
Natarajan is deficient, we are not persuaded by DSS’s arguments that Neve
does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Natarajan or that the combination of
Neve and Natarajan does not teach or suggest that the server transmitter is
energized in low duty cycle RF bursts. PO Resp. 27–33. In this proceeding,
Apple relies on Neve only as evidence that it was well-known and would
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

33
have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art for a base station
transmitter to send “synchronizing information” to mobile units, as recited in
claim 1, which feature Apple contends is suggested but not explicitly
described by Natarajan. Pet. 55–56; Reply 15–16. In contrast, Apple relies
on Natarajan alone—not Neve—for the suggestion of “said server . . .
transmitter[] being energized in low duty cycle RF bursts.” See Pet. 52–54;
Reply 1–15. Accordingly, DSS’s contentions that Neve does not separately
teach or suggest “said server . . . transmitter[] being energized in low duty
cycle RF bursts” are unavailing. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.”). Moreover, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; . . . [r]ather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” Id. at 425 (citations omitted). We are not persuaded that
combination of Neve’s teachings on synchronizing information with
Natarajan’s disclosure would necessitate incorporation of Neve’s use of
“idle words,” let alone that it would require “continuous transmission” or be
“inconsistent with server transmitter being energized in low duty cycle RF
bursts.” PO Resp. 30–33. As we explained in our Decision on Institution,
we do not find Neve to suggest continuous transmission from its master
station, but instead only transmission of idle words in the event that that
there is no data required to be transmitted in the time slots specifically
allocated for transmission by the server. Dec. 19–20.
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

34
4. Conclusion of Obviousness
As explained above, we find, based on Apple’s evidence, that the
combination of Natarajan and Neve teaches each limitation of claim 1. We
also find, based on Apple’s evidence, that a skilled artisan would have had
reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine these teachings to arrive at
the invention of claim 1. We have considered DSS’s arguments to the
contrary and find them unpersuasive. The parties do not introduce or rely on
objective indicia of nonobviousness. After weighing the evidence, we
conclude that Apple has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
claim 1 would have been obvious over Natarajan and Neve.
Claims 2–4 depend from claim 1. Apple introduced evidence and
argument as to the obviousness of each of these claims. Pet. 56–59. We
have considered the evidence in the Petition and are persuaded, for the
reasons presented by Apple, that Apple has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 2–4 would have been obvious over Natarajan and Neve.
DSS does not present separate arguments for claims 2–4. Rather, DSS
argues that these claims are patentable for the reasons given for claim 1. PO
Resp. 36. As explained above, these reasons are not persuasive. By not
raising them in its Patent Owner Response, DSS has waived any additional
argument regarding claims 2–4. Scheduling Order, Paper 10, 3 (“The patent
owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the
response will be deemed waived.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a)
(“Oppositions and replies . . . must include a statement identifying material
facts in dispute. Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered
admitted.”).

IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

35
III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE
Apple filed a Motion to Exclude DSS’s Exhibits 2003–2008, 2011–
2014, and 2017. Paper 27 (“Mot. Excl.”). DSS filed an Opposition to
Apple’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 32, “Opp. Mot. Excl.”)), and Apple filed
a Reply to DSS’s Opposition (Paper 33, “Reply Mot. Excl.”).
In inter partes review proceedings, documents are admitted into
evidence subject to an opposing party asserting objections to the evidence
and moving to exclude the evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. As movant, Apple
has the burden of showing that an objected-to exhibit is not admissible.
37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
For the reasons discussed below, we deny Apple’s Motion to Exclude
as to all objected-to exhibits.

A. Relevance
Apple seeks to exclude Exhibits 2003–2008, 2012–2014, and 2017
under Fed. R. Evid. 401 as irrelevant. Mot. Excl. 1–10. First, Apple argues,
Exhibits 2003–2008, 2012, and 2013 all bear copyright or filing dates well
after the priority date of the ’290 patent and, accordingly, are not remotely or
sufficiently contemporaneous with the ’290 patent to be relevant for the
purposes for which they are proffered. Id. at 2, 4, 6, 7. Similarly, according
to Apple, “Exhibit 2017 is undated, so its relevance also cannot be
established because DSS cannot show that Exhibit 2014 is sufficiently
contemporaneous with the ’290 patent to be relevant.” Id. at 10. Second,
Apple argues, DSS does not cite Exhibits 2003 and 2012–2014 in its Patent
Owner Response or identify with any particularity how those exhibits are
relevant to this proceeding. Id. at 3, 6–9.
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

36
DSS responds that Petitioner’s allegations are unavailing. Opp. Mot.
Excl. 4. DSS points out Fed. R. Evid. 401 provides that evidence is relevant
if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be
without the evidence” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the
action,” and that “[b]oth the Federal Circuit and the Board have recognized
that there is a ‘low threshold for relevancy.’” Id. (citing OddzOn Prods.,
Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Laird Techs.,
Inc. v. GrafTech Int’l Holdings, Inc., Case IPR2014-00025, slip op. at 44
(PTAB Mar. 25, 2015) (Paper 45)). DSS also contends that Mr.
Dezmelyk—who DSS proffers as an expert witness in this matter—relies on
each of the objected-to exhibits in his declaration, and therefore, this
evidence is relevant for the assessment of his credibility and for establishing
the context for his testimony. Id. at 6.
We agree with DSS on this issue. In this case, we determine that
Apple’s arguments concerning the relevance of Exhibits 2003–2008, 2012–
2013, and 2017 in view of their late or uncertain dates concern the weight
that we should accord to those exhibits, rather than their admissibility. As
explained in Laird Technologies, “[a] motion to exclude . . . is not an
appropriate mechanism for challenging the sufficiency of evidence or the
proper weight that should be afforded an argument.” Case IPR2014-00025,
slip op. at 42 (Paper 45). Moreover, “[o]ur general approach for considering
challenges to the admissibility of evidence was outlined in Corning Inc. v.
DSM IP Assets B.V., Case IPR2013-00053, slip op. at 19 (PTAB May 1,
2014),” which stated that, “similar to a district court in a bench trial, the
Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-
positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

37
presented.” Id. (citing Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224
(8th Cir. 1941) (“One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the
admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it
has been received . . . .”)). Further, although DSS does not appear to cite
Exhibits 2003 and 2012–2014 in its Patent Owner Response, we agree with
DSS that those exhibits are relevant for the assessment of Mr. Dezmelyk’s
credibility to the extent that he has cited them in support of his opinions.

B. Hearsay
Apple additionally seeks to exclude each of Exhibits 2003–2008,
2011–2014, and 2017 as inadmissible hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801 not
subject to any exception. Mot. Excl. 1–2, 4–8, 10.
DSS responds that each of Exhibits 2003–2008, 2011–2014, and 2017
is admissible because they are offered for what they describe to a person of
ordinary skill in the art, rather than for the truth of the matters asserted in
them, and “[t]he law is well established that the Board will not exclude
evidence that is proffered to show what a [person of ordinary skill in the art]
would have known about the relevant field of art.” Opp. Mot. Excl. 2 (citing
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins., Case CBM2012-00010
(PTAB Feb. 24, 2014) (Paper 59)).
In its Reply to DSS’s Opposition, Apple argues that DSS and
Mr. Dezmelyk simply provide quotations from the objected-to exhibits,
rather than offering them “for what they describe to a person of ordinary
skill in the art,” and, thus, offer them “exactly for the impermissible purpose
of proving the truth of the matter asserted therein.” Reply Mot. Excl. 1.
Moreover, according to Apple, because Exhibits 2003–2008, 2012–2014,
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

38
and 2017 all post-date the ’290 patent or are undated, those exhibits
“therefore cannot ‘show what one with ordinary skill in the art would have
known about technical features and developments in the pertinent art’” at the
time the invention was made. Id. (quoting Liberty Mut., slip op. at 37
(emphasis added by Apple)) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)).
We agree with DSS on this issue, as well. Although DSS has quoted
certain phrases from the references, we understand DSS to have offered each
of the objected-to exhibits for the effect that they would have had on the
understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art, rather than for the truth
of the matters asserted. The portion of Exhibit 2004 cited by DSS, for
example, states:
[FIG. 2(a) is a flow chart of the steps performed by the adaptive
duty cycle management system shown in FIG. 1] whereby a
relatively high duty cycle, e.g. 25%, is applied and FIG. 2(b) is a
flow chart showing the special case steps performed by the
adaptive duty cycle management system whereby a relatively
low duty cycle, e.g. 2%, is applied . . . .
Ex. 2004, 4:13–16 (cited at PO Resp. 12). We understand DSS to have cited
this text only for the alleged effect that the statements “high duty cycle,
e.g. 25%” and “low duty cycle, e.g. 2%” would have on the ordinarily
skilled reader, in support of DSS’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill
in the art “would have understood that a server transmitter is energized in a
low duty cycle when the server transmitter is energized for less than ten
percent (10%) of the total duration designated for outbound transmissions.”
PO Resp. 11. Whether or not it is “true” that Figures 2(b) and 2(b) of
Exhibit 2004 are flow charts of systems whereby relatively high (e.g., 25%)
and low (e.g., 2%) duty cycles are applied, respectively, has no discernable
bearing on DSS’s conclusion. We find that a similar analysis applies with
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

39
respect to each of the other objected-to exhibits, with respect to which DSS’s
conclusions do not turn on whether the described systems truly operated
according to the specified duty cycles (Exs. 2003, 2005–2008) or truly
transmitted data in the manner specified (Exs. 2011–2014, 2017).

C. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Apple’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2003–
2008, 2011–2014, and 2017 is denied.

IV. MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
DSS filed a Motion for Observation regarding Dr. Hu’s cross-
examination. Paper 29 (“Obs.”). Apple, in turn, filed a Response. Paper 31
(“Obs. Resp.”). To the extent DSS’s Motion for Observation pertains to
testimony purportedly impacting Dr. Hu’s credibility, we have considered
DSS’s observations and Apple’s responses in rendering this Final Written
Decision, and accorded Dr. Hu’s testimony appropriate weight where
necessary. See Obs. 2–6; Obs. Resp. 1–5.

V. CONCLUSION
Apple has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 1–4 of the ’290 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Natarajan and Neve.

VI. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–
4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290 are held unpatentable;
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

40
FURTHER ORDERED that Apple’s Motion to Exclude is DENIED;
and
FURTHER ORDERED, because this is a final written decision, that
the parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of our Decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
IPR2015-00369
Patent 6,128,290

41
For PETITIONER:

David K.S. Cornwell
Jason A. Fitzsimmons
Mark W. Rygiel
Robert Greene Sterne
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
davidc-PTAB@skgf.com
jfitzsimmons-PTAB@skgf.com
mrygiel-PTAB@skgf.com
rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Andriy Lytvyn
Anton J. Hopen
Nicholas Pfeifer
SMITH HOPEN PA
andriy.lytvyn@smithhopen.com
anton.hopen@smithhopen.com
nicholas.pfeifer@smithhopen.com