Uniloc 2017 LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 5, 2021

IPR2020-00102 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 30
571.272.7822 Date: May 5, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Petitioner,

v.

UNILOC 2017 LLC,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
____________

Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)

IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
2
I. INTRODUCTION
In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) challenges the patentability of claim 1
(“the challenged claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,498,541 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
’541 patent”), owned by Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision is entered
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
For the reasons discussed herein, we determine that Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
Petitioner filed its Petition requesting inter partes review of claim 1 of
the ’541 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). The Petition is supported by the
Declaration of Henry Houh (Ex. 1003). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary
Response. Paper 7.
We instituted inter partes review of the challenged claim of the ’541
patent on all of the grounds raised in the Petition. Paper 8 (“Dec. on Inst.”),
7, 32. Patent Owner filed a Response to the Petition. Paper 10 (“PO
Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. Paper 11
(“Pet. Reply”). The Reply is supported by the Reply Declaration of Henry
Houh (Ex. 1018). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply to Petitioners’ Reply.
Paper 18 (“PO Sur-Reply”).
An oral hearing was held on February 10, 2021. A transcript of the
oral hearing is included in the record. Paper 25 (“Tr.”). Based on arguments
presented at the oral hearing, we authorized the parties to file additional
briefing (opening briefs and responsive briefs) directed to the meaning of a
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
3
limitation and the effect of the meaning on the unpatentability issues before
us. Paper 24 (“Order Add. Br.”). In accordance with our authorization,
Petitioner filed its Opening Post-Hearing Brief (Paper 26, “Pet. Open. Br.”)
and Patent Owner filed its opening Additional Briefing (Paper 27, “PO
Open. Br.”). In response to the opening briefs, Petitioner filed its
Responsive Post-Hearing Brief (Paper 28, “Pet. Resp. Br.”) and Patent
Owner filed its Response to Petitioner’s Post-Hearing Brief (Paper 29, “PO
Resp. Br.”).
B. Related Matters
The parties identify the following as related matters that involve the
’541 patent: (1) Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 8-19-cv-00955 (C.D.
Cal.), filed May 20, 2019; and (2) Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
IPR2020-00103 (PTAB), which is directed to different claims of the ’541
patent, and was filed concurrently with this Petition. Pet. vii; Paper 5, 2.
We denied review in IPR2020-00103.
C. The Challenged Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’541 patent generally relates to “a communication bus system in
which a plurality of stations [are] connected by signal transmission lines to
enable communication between the stations.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–9. More
specifically, the ’541 patent relates to “reduc[ing] the time that the bus needs
to reserve to detect connection and/or disconnection” of stations to the bus
system. Id. at 1:63–65. To that end, the ’541 patent teaches that instead of
reserving a time slot for detection during which no transmission is possible,
using “wave reflection . . . to detect the presence or absence of stations
coupled to the bus system.” Id. at 1:52–55, 1:67–2:2.
Figure 1, shown below, “shows a topology of a bus communication
system,” in accordance with the ’541 patent. Id. at 2:45.
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
4

Figure 1, above, “shows a ‘flat’ topology, with only one master station 10
and a number of slave stations 14a–c.” Id. at 3:9–10. As shown, master
station 10 has connectors 12a–g. Id. at 2:52–53. Slave stations 14a–c are
shown as connected to master station 10’s connectors 12a–c, respectively,
via respective cables 16a–c. Id. at 2:54–55. Nothing is shown connected to
connectors 12d,e, and “connectors 12f,g are connected to cables 16d,e,
which, however, are not connected to any [slave] stations.” Id. at 2:55–58.
Figure 2, shown below, “shows a station . . . for use as [a] master
station in a bus system,” in accordance with the ’541 patent. Id. at 3:15–16.
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
5

Figure 2 shows station 10 for use as a master station in a bus system, such as
shown in Figure 1, in accordance with the ’541 patent. Id. at 3:15–16, Fig. 1
(showing like reference numeral 10). Master station 10 contains processor
20, and as shown for connector 12a, connector control circuit 22 and wave
splitter 24. Id. at 3:16–18. As shown, “processor [2]0 is coupled to . . .
connector control circuit 22 with an interface for sending information, for
receiving information[,] and for receiving a detection of connection or
disconnection of a slave station to . . . connector 12a.” Id. at 3:18–22,
Fig. 2. In turn, “connector control circuit 22 has an output coupled to an
input of wave splitter 24 and an input connected to an output of wave splitter
24.” Id. at 3:22–24. As shown, “[w]ave splitter 24 [also] has a transmission
line output coupled to . . . connector 12a.” Id. at 3:24–25.
The ’541 patent teaches that, in operation, “connector control circuit
22 transmits signals to . . . connector 12a via wave splitter 24.” Id. at 4:1–2.
“Wave splitter 24 sends data and/or commands [(i.e., the transmit signals)]
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
6
to . . . slave station 14a,” (i.e., an outgoing wave vector). Id. at 4:19–21,
4:42–44, code (57). The ’541 patent teaches that wave splitter 24 also may
receive, via connector 12a, an incoming wave vector that “is a result of
reflection by whatever is present at . . . connector 12a or the end of . . . cable
16a connected to . . . connector 12a, be it . . . slave station 14a or an open
end.” Id. at 4:44–48, code (57). In accordance with the ’541 patent, wave
splitter 24 splits off this reflected wave vector, “and it applies this wave
vector to connector control circuit 22.” Id. at 4:51–53. The ’541 patent
teaches that “[c]onnector control circuit 22 uses this reflected wave vector to
decide whether . . . slave station 14a is connected to . . . connector 12a via
. . . cable 16a.” Id. at 4:53–56.
For example, “connector control circuit 22 decides that . . . slave
station 14a is present if the ratio between amplitudes of the wave vectors . . .
of the reflected wave and the transmitted wave is equal to or below a
threshold value.” Id. at 4:63–67. Otherwise, “[c]onnector control circuit 22
decides that no slave station 14a is present if the ratio is above the
threshold” value. Id. at 4:67–5:2. The ’541 patent teaches that,
alternatively, “when the wave splitter applies an outgoing wave with a fixed
average amplitude to . . . cable 16a, it is not necessary to determine the ratio
between the wave vectors explicitly and the amplitude of the reflected wave
may be compared with a threshold value.” Id. at 5:8–13.
Notably, the ’541 patent teaches having slave station 14a’s
characteristic impedance be substantially the same as cable 16a’s
characteristic impedance so as to minimize any reflected wave vector. Id. at
2:6–15, 4:57–59; see also id. at 4:15–33 (teaching that reflection coefficient
equals 0 for matching impedances). In contrast, the ’541 patent teaches that
when slave station 14a is not present, cable 16a is terminated with infinite
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
7
impedance (i.e., open ended), which maximizes the reflected wave vector.
Id. at 4:30–31, 4:15–33 (teaching that reflection coefficient equals 1, when
“the cable is open ended at the point of termination”).
D. The Challenged Claim
Petitioner challenges independent claim 1 of the ’541 patent. Claim 1
is reproduced below:
1. A method of controlling a bus communication system,
wherein the connection of a station to the bus system via a
connector is detected by transmitting a transmitted wave signal
via the connector and splitting of a return wave received at the
connector, the bus system being operated in accordance with
presence or absence of the further station dependent on
non-detection and detection of a reflection of the transmitted
wave signal respectively.
Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5.
E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted trial based on the following grounds of unpatentability,
which are all the grounds of unpatentability raised in the Petition:

Claim Challenged 35 U.S.C. §1 References/Basis
1 103(a) Lee,2 802.3u3

1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’541
patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply the
pre-AIA version of the statutory basis for unpatentability.
2 U.S. Patent No. 5,737,316 (issued Apr. 7, 1998) (Ex. 1004).
3 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) Standards for
Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Supplement to Carrier Sense
Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and
Physical Layer Specifications (June 1995) (hereinafter “802.3u”) (Ex. 1005).
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
8
Claim Challenged 35 U.S.C. §1 References/Basis
1 103(a) USB 1.1,4 Morris5

Pet. 15–48; Dec. on Inst. 7, 32.
III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
To determine whether an invention would have been obvious at the
time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17 (1966). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d
955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id.
In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed
definition for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
of the ’541 patent as one who “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in
Electrical Engineering or a related subject, and at least one year experience
designing electronics devices for use in communications systems, including
both hardware and software components.” Dec. on Inst. 9 (quoting Pet. 13–
14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50)). We also adopted Petitioner’s additions that
“[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education,
such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa,” and that one of ordinary skill in

4 Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) Specification Rev. 1.1, (Sept. 1998)
(hereinafter “USB 1.1”) (Ex. 1006).
5 U.S. Patent No. 6,631,159 B1 (issued Oct. 7, 2003) (Ex. 1007).
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
9
the art “would have had working familiarity with known communications
bus technologies and related standards, including those specified by 802.3u
. . . and USB 1.1.” Id. (quoting Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50)).
Patent Owner does not dispute our adoption of Petitioner’s definition,
and does not provide its own definition for the level of ordinary skill at the
time of the invention of the ’541 patent. See PO Resp. 6.
Because Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the level of skill in the
art is consistent with the disclosures of the ’541 patent and the asserted prior
art references, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Final
Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
We apply Petitioner’s definition in our analysis below.
IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Because the Petition was filed after November 13, 2018, we construe
the challenged claims by applying “the standard used in federal courts, in
other words, the claim construction standard that would be used to construe
the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b), which is articulated in
Phillips [v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)].”6 Under
Phillips, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and
customary meaning,” which is the meaning they would have to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the
specification and prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13.

6 Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in
Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg.
51,340, 51,343–44 (Oct. 11, 2018) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42).
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
10
Petitioner argues in its Petition that all claim terms should have their
plain and ordinary meaning, and “that no claim terms require specific
construction to resolve the unpatentability issues presented” in the Petition.
Pet. 14 (citation omitted). Similarly, Patent Owner in its Response argues
for each claim term “that the Board [should] adopt the ordinary and
customary meaning of the claim term as understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art.” PO Resp. 7.
During the hearing, however, the parties acknowledged that a claim
construction dispute may exist, which relates to claim 1’s limitation of “the
bus system being operated in accordance with presence or absence of the
further station dependent on non-detection and detection of a reflection of
the transmitted wave signal respectively.” See Tr. 67:9–68:8, 68:20–69:12.
Accordingly, we authorized the parties to file post-hearing briefing to
address the construction of this limitation. Order Add. Br. 2–3.
From this additional briefing, we identify the following construction
disputes: (i) the meaning of “presence” and “absence,” (ii) the meaning of
“being operated in accordance with,” and (iii) whether “or” in the limitation
is disjunctive and requires having only one of either “presence” or
“absence.”
A. Presence and Absence
Petitioner argues that “‘[p]resence’ of a further station means that a
reflected wave signal either cannot be detected or falls below a specific
threshold,” and that “‘[a]bsence’ means the opposite: that a reflection of the
transmitted wave signal can be detected or exceeds a specific threshold.”
Pet. Open. Br. 5. Petitioner argues that “[t]he claim itself recites that
presence ‘depend[s]’ on ‘non-detection . . . of a reflection of the transmitted
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
11
wave signal,’” and that the “‘respectively’ language at the end of the claim
itself makes clear that ‘non-detection’ corresponds to ‘presence’ and
‘detection’ corresponds to ‘absence.’” Id. Petitioner quotes the following
portion of the Specification in support of the meanings of these terms:
[C]onnector control circuit 22 decides that a slave station 14a is
present if the ratio between amplitudes of the wave vectors Al,
A2 of the reflected wave and the transmitted wave is equal to or
below a threshold value between 1 and 0. Connector control
circuit 22 decides that no slave station 14a is present if the ratio
is above the threshold.
Id. at 5–6 (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:63–5:2); see also id. at 5 (quoting Ex. 1001,
4:57–60) (“The slave station 14a, if present, applies substantially the
characteristic impedance R of the cable 16a to the end of the cable 16a, so
that the reflection coefficient G substantially equals zero if the slave station
is connected to the cable 16a.”).
In addition, Petitioner argues that “[w]hile the ’541 patent often
describes connected devices as present, the two terms are not synonymous as
a ‘connected’ device can be present or absent.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1001,
2:66–3:8). In particular, Petitioner argues that the ’541 patent teaches “how
connected stations may have ‘dynamical impedances’ that create either a
matched impedance or an open circuit.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:8).
Petitioner argues that “[b]ecause impedance matching (and an absence of
wave reflection) is not necessarily created by ‘physical connection,’ a
device’s ‘presence’ / ‘absence’ is different from physical connection /
disconnection.” Pet. Resp. Br. 3. Thus, “[d]evice presence on a particular
connection (i.e., link) is best understood in terms of whether a reflected
wave signal is not detected on that connection,” according to Petitioner. Id.
(citing Pet. Open. Br. 5–7).
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
12
Patent Owner argues that claim 1’s “connection of a station to the bus
system” informs the meaning of “presence or absence of the further station,”
and both “relate specifically to connecting and disconnecting stations at will,
meaning connection and disconnection of the station using the connector at
the user level.” PO Open. Br. 1 (citing PO Resp. 19 (quoting Ex. 1001,
1:12–14 (“A USB system has connectors, which the user may use to connect
and disconnect stations at will, even when the system is running.”))). Put
differently, Patent Owner argues that “presence or absence in the claim
corresponds with connected or disconnected, which means physically
connected or disconnected at the connector (as in by a user).” PO Open. Br.
3–4; see also PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:16–36 (arguing “presence or
absence of the further station . . . refers to a complete connection or
disconnection rather than a ‘failure’ of a link”)).
In addition, Patent Owner argues that the portion of the Specification
(Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:8) that Petitioner cites to argue that a “connected” device
can be present or absent “does not refute a general correspondence between
being connected and present.” PO Resp. Br. 5. Rather, “[w]hat is described
is an exception whereby a slave station that is not powered up or not
prepared to operate as a slave station in the bus system can be deemed
disconnected and not present based on a supplied impedance,” according to
Patent Owner. Id.
Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we disagree with Patent
Owner that this limitation is limited to connecting and disconnecting stations
at will or physically. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that presence or
absence for a particular connection is best understood in terms of whether a
reflected wave signal is detected for that connection. This conclusion best
comports with the plain claim language, which recites that a connection is
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
13
detected by transmitting a transmitted wave signal, splitting a return wave,
and being operated dependent on whether there is a reflection of the
transmitted wave signal. Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5.
And this conclusion best comports with the Specification’s teachings.
We agree that the system of the ’541 patent can detect when a station is
physically connected to the bus system using reflected wave signals. E.g.,
Ex. 1001, 1:34–42. The Specification also teaches, however, that a station
can be physically connected yet appear as present or absent depending on
whether the station chooses to operate as a station in the bus system. Id. at
2:66–3:8. Specifically, the Specification teaches the following:
Preferably, in case of slave stations 14a–c that need their
own power supply independent of their connection to the bus
system, or slave stations that are able to choose whether or not to
operate as a slave station in the bus system, the termination
impedances are dynamical impedances, which take their
operational value only when power is supplied to the slave
station 14a–c, another impedance (like an open circuit) being
applied to the cable 16a–c when the slave station 14a–c is not
powered up or not prepared to operate as a slave station in the
bus system.
Id. (emphases added). In other words, even when a station is physically
connected to the bus system, the Specification teaches that the station can
appear as an open circuit (i.e., absent), using dynamical impedances, when
the station “is not powered up or not prepared to operate as a slave station in
the bus system.” Id. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
characterization of this teaching from the Specification as being an
“exception” to the “general correspondence between being connected and
present.” PO Resp. Br. 5. Patent Owner does not cite any evidence in
making this “exception” argument to support excluding this teaching from
the scope of claim 1.
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
14
Rather, we find that this portion of the Specification teaches
embodiments (i.e., where stations need their own power supply or can
choose whether to operate as a station in the bus system) that would be
excluded from the scope of the claim if we require a physical connection or
disconnection for presence or absence, as proposed by Patent Owner, which
we find would be improper here. See Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:8; SynQor, Inc. v.
Artesyn Techs., Inc., 709 F.3d 1365, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“A claim
construction that ‘excludes the preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever,
correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.’”).
Our discussion above sufficiently addresses the dispute between the
parties as to the meaning of “presence” and “absence” for us to address the
parties’ arguments concerning unpatentability. Accordingly, we do not
further address this portion of the limitation. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v.
Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
(Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy,
and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).
B. Being Operated
Petitioner argues that “[t]he plain meaning of ‘being operated’ is
broad, non-limiting, and does not require a specific type of operation,” but
rather, “only recites a general operation of the bus consistent with either
non-detection or detection of a reflected wave.” Pet. Open. Br. 3. To that
end, Petitioner argues that the ’541 patent’s Specification “provide[s] non-
limiting examples of how a system might be operated.” Id. at 4. First,
Petitioner argues that the Specification “explains how prior art systems
detected stations and ‘operate[d] accordingly: no messages commands etc.
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
15
are transmitted via connectors to which no downstream station is
connected.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:39–42). Second, Petitioner argues
that the Specification also teaches generally “operat[ing] in different control
modes, according to the presence or absence” of a further station. Id.
(quoting Ex. 1001, code (57)); Pet. Resp. Br. 4 (same). Third, Petitioner
argues that the Specification describes another example of being operated by
teaching “an ‘upstream station . . . remov[ing] the downstream station
logically from the system’ when a reflected wave is detected.” Pet. Open.
Br. 4 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:28–30; citing Ex. 1001, 2:35–36 (“describing
logical incorporation”)). According to Petitioner, “being operated” is met by
operating consistently with the non-detection or detection of a reflected
transmitted signal. Id.
Patent Owner argues that the ’541 patent’s Specification “provides a
definition with the use of a colon” for “being operated in accordance with
presence or absence.” PO Resp. Br. 4. Specifically, Patent Owner argues
that the Specification provides the following sentence: “The system detects
whether or not a downstream station is connected to or disconnected from
the connector and operates accordingly: no messages commands etc. are
transmitted via connectors to which no downstream station is connected.”
Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:38–42); PO Open. Br. 1 (same). Patent Owner also
argues that the Specification “explains elsewhere in the background the
importance of logically incorporating and disincorporating the station to
accomplish this operation.” PO Open. Br. 2; PO Resp. Br. 4 (same).
Namely, Patent Owner quotes the following from the Specification:
The system detects whether a station has been connected to a
connector and, if so, it logically incorporates the connected
station into the system, so that communication with the station
becomes possible. The system also detects when a station has
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
16
been disconnected and; if so, logically disincorporates the station
from the system, so that no more communication with the station
is performed or expected. This automatic incorporation and
disincorporation is an important feature to make the system easy
to use for non-specialist consumers.
PO Open. Br. 2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:14–23); PO Resp. Br. 4–5 (same); see
also PO Open. Br. 2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:67–2:2, 2:16–18, 2:25–34)
(providing, without further argument, quotes from the Specification). Patent
Owner argues that merely “[c]hanging some behavior of the system based on
particular relationships of multiple reflected waves fails to show operating in
accordance with the presence or absence dependent on the non-detection or
detection of the transmitted wave signal recited in the claim.” PO Resp. Br.
5.
Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we agree with Petitioner that
the plain and ordinary meaning of “being operated in accordance with
presence or absence” in the context of the limitation broadly covers
operating consistently with the non-detection (presence) or detection
(absence) of a reflection of a transmitted signal. The claim language does
not limit the scope of the claim to require a particular operation, other than
that it is in accordance with the further station’s presence or absence.
Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the
Specification provides examples of operations that each are in accordance
with presence or absence, but does not limit the operations to any specific
one. Id. at code (57) (“operate in different control modes”), 1:39–42 (“no
messages commands etc. are transmitted”), 2:28–30 (“the upstream station
takes the appropriate actions to remove the downstream station logically
from the system”), 2:35–36 (“the upstream station takes the appropriate
actions to incorporate the downstream station into the system”).
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
17
We disagree with Patent Owner (PO Resp. Br. 4.) that the
Specification defines “being operated in accordance with presence or
absence.” Rather, we determine that the sentence Patent Owner relies on as
a definition instead provides an example of a claimed operation. See
Ex. 1001, 1:38–42 (“The system detects whether or not a downstream station
is connected to or disconnected from the connector and operates
accordingly: no messages commands etc. are transmitted via connectors to
which no downstream station is connected.”). First, the sentence’s operation
(no messages commands etc. are transmitted) pertains only to when a station
is absent, and thus, would be an incomplete definition that does not account
for when a station is present. Id. Second, we are not persuaded that the use
of a colon in the sentence would have signified to an ordinarily skilled
artisan that what follows is a definition. Patent Owner does not point to any
evidence to support this argument, and thus, we afford it little weight. See In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that attorney
arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual
evidence are entitled to little probative value). Third, an inventor must
define specific terms with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”
in order to be his own lexicographer. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The patentee’s
lexicography must, of course, appear ‘with reasonable clarity,
deliberateness, and precision’ before it can affect the claim.”) (quoting In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We find that this sentence
lacks the necessary clarity, deliberateness, and precision to redefine the
broad recital of “being operated in accordance with” so as to limit the term
to a specific operation. Accordingly, we find that the cited sentence
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
18
provides an example of “being operated in accordance with presence or
absence,” rather than a definition. See Ex. 1001, 1:38–42.
In addition, we disagree with Patent Owner that logically
incorporating and disincorporating a further station is a necessary part of
“being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” As we discuss
above, although logical incorporation or disincorporation is an example
operation that falls within the scope of claim 1, there is no basis in the claim
language or Specification (which provides multiple example operations) to
require any particular operation, such as logically incorporating and
disincorporating a station. See supra; Ex. 1001, 1:39–42, 2:28–30, 2:35–36,
5:59–6:5. Nor are we persuaded that the Specification, by describing that
“automatic incorporation and disincorporation is an important feature to
make the system easy to use for non-specialist consumers,” acts to limit the
claim language. Ex. 1001, 1:14–23. First, this passage relates to the
background description of USB systems, and does not specifically address
the invention of the ’541 patent. See id. Second, we do not view describing
an operation as “an important feature” for a specific class of users (“non-
specialist consumers”) as a sufficient basis to limit claim language that has
broader effect. See Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d
1363, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[C]laims will not be read restrictively unless
the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope”); cf.
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111,
1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
(“[P]articular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be
used to limit claim language that has broader effect.”). Nor do we view the
Specification’s teaching that “[a]ccording to the invention this effect [of
wave reflection] is used to control the incorporation and especially
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
19
disincorporation of downstream stations into and from the system” as
sufficient to limit the broader claim language of “being operated in
accordance with presence or absence.” Ex. 1001, 2:16–18; Martek, 579 F.3d
at 1381. Again, this teaching of incorporation and disincorporation, instead
provides an example of an operation performed in accordance with the
presence or absence of a station, but the claim is not limited so as to require
this particular operation. Ex. 1001, 2:16–18.
In summary, we conclude that “being operated in accordance with
presence or absence” broadly covers being operated consistently with the
non-detection (presence) or detection (absence) of a reflection of a
transmitted signal, rather than requiring a specific operation.
C. Or
The parties dispute whether the “or” in the phrase “presence or
absence” means that both presence and absence need to be shown in the
prior art, or only one. Because we find below that Petitioner has
demonstrated that the prior art teaches being operated in accordance with
both presence and absence of the further station, we need not, and thus do
not, reach or resolve this dispute. See, e.g., Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
V. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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 of the invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved 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
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
20
prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
of non-obviousness, if present.7 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. When
evaluating a claim for obviousness, we also must “determine whether there
was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
VI. ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER LEE AND 802.3u
Petitioner argues that the combination of Lee and 802.3u renders
claim 1 of the ’541 patent obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 15–33.
We have reviewed the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record. For
the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner shows by a
preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found claim 1 obvious over the combination of Lee and 802.3u.
A. Summary of Lee
Lee relates to “detecting link status [of a link] in a computer network
where the link and the load at the end of the link have a matched
characteristic impedance.” Ex. 1004, code (57). Specifically, Lee teaches
that “[t]he first end of the link [(i.e., from where the signal is transmitted)] is
analyzed for a reflection signal caused by a mismatch of the characteristic
impedance of the link and the termination of the link.” Id. In furtherance of
this analysis, Lee teaches a link status means for “measur[ing] the amount of
signal reflected back from” a transmission line. Id. at 8:49–50.
Figure 7, shown below, is a schematic view of Lee’s link status
means. Id. at 8:9.

7 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of such objective
evidence of non-obviousness. See generally PO Resp.
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
21

Figure 7 shows a link status circuit for measuring the amount of a
transmitted signal that is reflected. Id. at 8:9, 8:49–50, 9:2. As shown, the
circuit “comprises first and second branches 15 and 16.” Id. at 8:55–56.
“[F]irst branch [15] includes first and second sensing loads 17, 18 connected
in series, and . . . second branch [16] includes sensing load 27 in series with
. . . transmission line [3] and load 19.” Id. at 8:56–59. Lee teaches that
“[e]ach of the sensing loads 17, 18, and 27 hav[e] an impedance which is
substantially equal to that of . . . load 19.” Id. at 8:59–61. As shown, “first
path 5 of . . . transmission line 3 is connected to one end of . . . sensing load
27 . . . and to . . . load 19” on the other end, while “second path 6 of . . .
transmission line 3 is connected to ground.” Id. at 8:61–65.
Lee teaches that “[a] measurement Vx is taken from . . . point 28
between . . . first and second sensing loads 17, 18, to . . . point 29 in between
. . . load 27 and . . . load 19.” Id. at 8:66–9:1. According to Lee, “[b]y
measuring the difference Vx, the transmitting driver’s voltage will cancel
out while any reflected signals will be seen coming from . . . load 19.” Id. at
9:9–11. Lee teaches that “[i]f the end of the line is . . . open, all of the
reflected signal will go back to the source,” and “[i]f the line is not open . . .,
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
22
a very small, if any, amount of signal is reflected back.” Id. at 9:5–9. In
accordance therewith, Lee teaches that “[t]he link is identified as satisfactory
if the reflection signal represents a substantial match between the
characteristic impedance of the link and the characteristic impedance of the
termination of the link” (i.e., only a very small, if any, amount of the
transmitted signal was reflected). Id. at code (57). Otherwise, “[t]he link is
identified as defective.” Id.
B. Summary of 802.3u
802.3u is an IEEE standard that “is part of a family of standards for
local and metropolitan area networks.” Ex. 1005, i, iii. “This family of
standards deals with the Physical and Data Link layers as defined by the
International Organization for Standardization . . . Open Systems
Interconnection Basic Reference Model.” Id. at iii. 802.3u recites that these
“standards define several types of medium access technologies and
associated physical media, each appropriate for particular applications or
system objectives.” Id.
C. Challenged Claim 1
1. Controlling a Bus Communication System
Petitioner argues that Lee teaches “[a] method of controlling a bus
communication system,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 18–21. More
specifically, Petitioner argues that Lee teaches “[a] process for detecting link
status in a computer network where the link and the load at the end of the
link have a matched characteristic impedance.” Id. at 18–19 (citing
Ex. 1004, code (57)). Petitioner adds that Lee discloses “control[ling] the
bus communication system based on that information.” Id. at 19 (citing
Ex. 1004, 10:35–45, 12:64–13:3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 60). Furthermore, Petitioner
argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Lee’s
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
23
bus system “allows communication between connected stations.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 60); see also id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:6–10, 1:14–21,
2:51–55, Fig. 1; Ex. 1004, 8:23–28, Fig. 4, code (57); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62– 64)
(arguing that Lee “disclose[s] a bus communication system akin to that in
the ’541 patent”).
After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and information, including
Dr. Houh’s Declaration, which are not addressed by Patent Owner (see
generally PO Resp.), we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates by a
preponderance of the evidence that Lee teaches claim 1’s preamble. In light
of this finding, we need not, and thus do not, reach whether claim 1’s
preamble is limiting.
2. Connection of a Station to the Bus System
Petitioner argues that Lee and the combination of Lee and 802.3u
teach “wherein the connection of a station to the bus system via a connector
is detected by transmitting a transmitted wave signal via the connector and
splitting of a return wave received at the connector,” as recited in claim 1.
Pet. 22–29. First, Petitioner argues that Lee teaches “connecting a station to
the bus system.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:23–28, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65).
Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that this connection occurs via a connector. Id. at 22–23 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 65). In support thereof, Petitioner argues that in light of the
physical requirements of Lee’s system, a connector necessarily exists “at the
point that the transmit line 3 leaves network module 2.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004,
Fig. 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65). Petitioner adds that Lee’s “disclos[ure] that its link
can sometimes be ‘open,’” would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in
the art that a station “can be connected and disconnected via a connector.”
Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 9:3–5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65).
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
24
In addition, Petitioner argues that 802.3u likewise teaches connecting
a station to a bus system via a connector. Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1005, 129;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had reason “to use the connectors specified and shown in [802.3u with
Lee’s system] . . . because Lee recites that ‘[t]he method and detection of the
present invention can also be used to fulfil[l] the link status requirement of
the IEEE 802 standard.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1004, 7:49–51; citing Ex. 1003
¶ 66).
Second, Petitioner argues that Lee teaches “transmitting a transmitted
wave signal via the connector.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68). According
to Petitioner, in Lee’s bus system, “the transmitted wave signal is
transmitted out through the transmission line 3, necessarily passing through
the connector in order to reach the transmission line.” Id. at 24–25 (citing
Ex. 1004, 8:30–36; Ex. 1003 ¶ 68).
Third, Petitioner argues that Lee’s “link status means” teaches
“splitting of a return wave received at the connector.” Id. at 25. More
specifically, Petitioner argues that Lee’s “transmitter 9 sends a signal into
. . . link status means 13.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:39–50). Petitioner
argues that “link status means 13 carries [the] transmitted signal in its
second branch 16 . . ., carries a reference signal in the first branch 15 . . .,
and measures the difference between the two at Vx.” Id. at 26–27 (citing
Ex. 1004, 8:55–9:15, Fig. 7). Lee “is able to distinguish between transmitted
and reflected signals because ‘[b]y measuring the difference Vx, the
transmitting driver’s voltage will cancel out while any reflected signals will
be seen coming from the load 19,’” according to Petitioner. Id. at 28
(quoting Ex. 1004, 9:9–11; citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 72); see also id. (quoting
Ex. 1004, 5:59–60) (“At the point Vx, it will not detect signals from the tx
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
25
driver while it will see the reflected signals.”). In other words, “Lee
discloses a wave splitter that splits a return wave received at the connector,”
Petitioner argues. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 7; Ex. 1003 ¶ 73).
Lastly, Petitioner argues that “Lee teaches that the return wave signal,
which was split by the wave splitter, can be used to determine whether the
transmission line is connected or open.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1004, 9:3–9).
More specifically, Petitioner argues that Lee’s “link status means 13 carries
a transmitted signal in its second branch 16 . . ., carries a reference signal in
the first branch 15 . . ., and measures the difference between the two at Vx
. . . to determine the presence or absence of a reflected wave.” Id. at 26–27
(citing Ex. 1004, 8:55–9:15, Fig. 7).
After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and information, including
Dr. Houh’s Declaration, which are not addressed by Patent Owner (see
generally PO Resp.), we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates by a
preponderance of the evidence that Lee, as well as the combination of Lee
and 802.3u, each teaches “wherein the connection of a station to the bus
system via a connector is detected by transmitting a transmitted wave signal
via the connector and splitting of a return wave received at the connector.”
3. Bus System Being Operated
We agree with Petitioner and find that Lee8 teaches “the bus system
being operated in accordance with presence or absence of the further station

8 Petitioner argues that the combination of Lee and 802.3u also teaches this
element. Pet. 32–33; see also Tr. 16:26–18:1 (Petitioner arguing that Lee
alone and the combination of Lee and 802.3u teaches this limitation).
Because we find that Lee teaches the limitation, we need not, and thus do
not, reach whether the combination of Lee and 802.3u teaches the limitation.
Likewise, we need not, and thus do not, reach Patent Owner’s argument (PO
Resp. 19–20) that Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning as to why
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
26
dependent on non-detection and detection of a reflection of the transmitted
wave signal respectively,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 30–33; Pet. Reply 7;
Pet. Open. Br. 4.
First, as we discuss above, we find that Lee’s link status means
evaluates the amount of reflection of a transmitted wave signal to detect
whether a load (station) is connected to the bus system via a connector. See
supra Section VI(C)(2); Ex. 1004, code (57), 8:49–54, 9:3–9, Fig. 8
(showing further station); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; Pet. 31. More specifically,
Lee teaches that:
The link status means 13 measures the amount of signal reflected
back from the transmission line 3. Ideally if the load is properly
matched to the transmission line, there will be no reflected signal.
If the reflected signal is greater than an acceptable limit, the link
status means 13 indicates that the link is defective, preferably
along a link status line 14.
Ex. 1004, 8:50–54; Pet. 31–32. In other words, Lee’s teaching that a link is
“defective” (which is dependent on detection of a reflected transmit signal
due to a mismatched load on the transmission line) teaches a station’s
“absence.” Compare Ex. 1004, 8:50–54, with Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5 (reciting
claim 1). Similarly, Lee’s teaching that a link is “satisfactory” (which is
dependent on non-detection of a reflected transmit signal due to a
substantially matched load on the transmission line) teaches a station’s
“presence.” See id. at code (57), 8:50–54; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79. Put
differently, Lee teaches that “[b]y measuring the reflected signal, the status
of the line as being satisfactory or defective can be determined.” Ex. 1004,
7:20–21.

one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Lee and 802.3u to teach
the limitation.
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
27
Second, we agree with Petitioner and find that Lee’s bus system
operates in accordance with whether the transmission line is satisfactory
(i.e., a station’s presence) or defective (i.e., a station’s absence). Pet. 30–33;
Pet. Reply 7; Pet. Open. Br. 4; Ex. 1004, 8:50–54, 10:35–45, Fig. 8, code
(57). More specifically, Lee’s Figure 8, shown below, illustrates an example
configuration of network modules, in accordance with Lee’s invention.
Ex. 1004, 8:10–12.

Figure 8 illustrates a “configuration example[] of network modules 2
with primary and redundant, or secondary, links.” Ex. 1004, 10:20–21. Lee
teaches that each link (i.e., primary and secondary) (i) includes a transmit
line and a receive line (i.e., the two directional lines between the physical
modules 20 of the network modules 2 for each link), and (ii) “has its own
physical module 20” which contains, inter alia, link status means 13. See
Ex. 1004, Fig. 8 (showing a transmit line and a receive line for each link),
8:31–33, 10:32–45; Pet. 32; Pet. Reply 7. Lee teaches that:
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
28
A link sense module 21 receives the link status line 14 from the
physical module 20 and in the preferred embodiment, P_link
equals 1 if the primary transmit line is satisfactory and the
primary receive line is satisfactory, S_link equals 1 if the
secondary transmit line is satisfactory and the secondary receive
line is satisfactory. The network module 2 selects the primary
link for communication if P_link equals 1 or if P_link equals 0
and S_link equals 0. The network module selects the secondary
link for communication if P_link equals 0 and S_link equals 1.
Ex. 1004, 10:35–45. In other words, Lee teaches performing different
operations (e.g., setting the value of P_link to 1 or setting the value of P_link
to 0) dependent on whether the transmit line and receive line for the link are
satisfactory or defective. Id.; see also id. at Fig. 8 (defining link values and
providing selection logic); Pet. 32; Pet. Reply 7. Moreover, when the
primary link’s receive line is satisfactory, whether the value of P_link is set
to 1 is dependent on whether the primary link’s transmit line is satisfactory
or defective (i.e., whether a station is present or absent on the transmit line
dependent on signal reflection). Ex. 1004, 10:35–45, Fig. 8. In other words,
when the primary link’s receive line is satisfactory, setting the value of
P_link to 1 when the primary link’s transmit line is satisfactory is an
operation dependent on the non-detection of a reflection of a transmit signal
(i.e., dependent on a station’s presence). Id. Similarly, when the primary
link’s receive line is satisfactory, setting the value of P_link to 0 when the
primary link’s transmit line is defective is an operation dependent on the
detection of a reflection of a transmit signal (i.e., dependent on a station’s
absence). Id. We find that these operations from Lee teach “being operated
in accordance with presence or absence” in the context of the limitation,
which broadly covers operating consistently with the non-detection
(presence) or detection (absence) of a reflection of a transmit signal. See
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
29
Ex. 1004, 10:35–45, Fig. 8; supra Section IV(B) (discussion regarding
construction of being operated); Pet. 32; Pet. Reply 7; Pet. Open Br. 6–7.
In addition, Lee teaches other operations that also are in accordance
with a station’s presence or absence. In particular, Lee teaches that “[t]he
network module 2 selects the primary link for communication if P_link
equals 1,” which corresponds to a station’s presence. Ex. 1004, 10:35–45,
Fig. 8; Pet. 32; Pet. Reply 7. On the other hand, Lee teaches not selecting
the primary link, and instead “select[ing] the secondary link for
communication if P _link equals 0 and S_link equals 1.” Ex. 1004, 10:35–
45, Fig. 8. In other words, Lee teaches being operated (i.e., not selecting the
primary link for communication, but instead selecting the secondary link) in
accordance with the further station’s absence on the primary link. Ex. 1004,
10:35–45, Fig. 8. This scenario would occur, for example, when (i) the
primary link’s transmit line is defective (regardless of the status of the
primary link’s receive line), and “the secondary transmit line is satisfactory
and the secondary receive line is satisfactory.” Id.; see also Ex. 1004,
12:64–13:3 (claiming similar operations on a link basis that are dependent
on a station’s presence or absence); Pet. 19.
We also credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that “Lee discloses the operation
within a bus system with presence or absence of the further station
dependent on non-detection and detection of a reflection.” See Ex. 1003
¶ 79 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:35–45, Fig. 8); Pet. 32. And we credit Dr. Houh’s
testimony that Lee describes that “the P_Link and S_Link variables are
determined based on whether reflective waves (or the lack thereof) indicate
satisfactory transmit and receive signals for a given link,” and “if both the
transmit and receive aspects of the primary link are satisfactory, then only
the primary link will be selected for communication.” Ex. 1018 ¶ 15 (citing
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
30
Ex. 1004, 10:35–41); Pet. Reply 7. We find this testimony consistent with
Lee’s teachings. Ex. 1004, 10:35–45, Fig. 8.
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Lee fails to
teach this limitation because Lee is directed to switching over to redundant
links, and has no other purpose for its fault detection scheme. PO Resp. 17–
18; PO Sur-Reply 1–2. We disagree that Lee’s purpose is so limited.
Rather, Lee teaches that “[i]t is an object of . . . [Lee’s] invention to
determine computer network link failure without having to transmit a test
signal and wait for a time out period in order to determine the status of the
link.” Ex. 1004, 3:64–67. Although our focus remains on the claim
language, we note that Lee’s objective shares similarities with an objective
of the ’541 patent, namely, “it is an object of the invention [of the ’541
patent] to reduce the time that the bus needs to reserve to detect connection
and/or disconnection.” Ex. 1001, 1:63–65. Regardless, even if Lee’s
purpose was as limited as Patent Owner purports, this does not negate Lee’s
teachings discussed above, which include detecting whether a transmit line
is satisfactory or defective via a reflected signal on the transmit line, and
selecting a satisfactory link for communication. See Ex. 1004, 8:50–54,
10:31–45, Fig. 8; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A
reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its
primary purpose.”); EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898,
907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A reference must be considered for everything it
teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it
is describing and attempting to protect.”).
Nor are we persuaded by Patent Owner’s characterization of Lee’s
teachings as being focused on “detecting a fault in a transmission line,” as
such a characterization does not negate Lee’s teachings of detecting a
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
31
station’s presence or absence dependent on measuring a reflected transmitted
signal. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 8:50–54, 10:35–45, Fig. 8; PO Resp. 17. Again,
in accordance with claim 1, a station’s presence or absence, just as in Lee’s
teachings of whether a line is satisfactory or defective, is dependent on
measuring a reflected transmitted signal. Compare Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5, with
Ex. 1004, 8:50–54, 10:31–45, and Fig. 8.
We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that in Lee
“where a connector of one of the redundant links is disconnected, the other
redundant link remains connected and thus, the station associated with the
one disconnected link is still clearly present on (connected to) the system via
the other connected link.” PO Resp. 17–18. Likewise, we are not persuaded
that “disconnection (absence) of one link in a redundant link topology does
not cause the station to be absent from the system.” Id. at 18. Simply put,
claim 1 is directed to detecting the status of an individual connection (i.e., is
the further station present or absent for that connector), and operating the
bus system in accordance with that determination. See Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5
(claim 1 recites, for example, that “the connection of a station to the bus
system via a connector is detected” and “transmitting a transmitted wave
signal via the connector and splitting of a return wave received at the
connector”), Fig. 1 (showing an individual cable and connector for each
station); see also In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(finding “the name of the game is the claim”); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982) (stating limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be
relied upon for patentability). Whether there is an additional connection
between stations is inapposite. See Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5.
We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments to the extent
that they are contrary to our conclusions regarding claim construction. For
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
32
example, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments relating to
whether Lee teaches a “physical,” “complete,” or “at will” connection or
disconnection. PO Resp. 19; PO Open Br. 1, 3–4. Nor are we persuaded by
Patent Owner’s arguments requiring Lee to teach logically incorporating or
disincorporating the further station to render claim 1 unpatentable. See PO
Open. Br. 2–3, 5; PO Resp. Br. 4–5. These arguments are contrary to our
conclusions regarding the construction of claim 1, and thus, are not
persuasive. See supra Section IV(A)–(B) (discussing construction of claim
1); Self, 671 F.2d at 1348.
We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument “[t]hat the
system of Lee treats a fault in just one of the transmit line or receive line as
being exactly the same as a fault in both the transmit and receive lines shows
that the system of Lee is indifferent to and unable to be aware about the
presence or absence of the further station.” PO Sur-Reply 5; see also id. at 3
(making a similar argument). As we discuss above, Lee teaches that “link
status means 13 is positioned in between the transmitter 9 and the transmit
line 3” and “measures the amount of signal reflected back from the
transmission line 3.” See Ex. 1004, 8:47–50, Fig. 6; Pet. 26. Lee also
teaches that link status means 13 indicates “that the link is defective,” “[i]f
the reflected signal is greater than an acceptable limit.” See Ex. 1004, 8:50–
54 (emphasis added), Fig. 6; Pet. 26. As such, Lee’s link status means 13 is
able to determine a station’s presence or absence, which depends on whether
there is a reflected transmitted wave signal. See Ex. 1004, 8:50–54, Fig. 6.
The fact that Lee’s embodiment illustrated in Figure 8 includes links having
both a transmit and receive line does not change how the claim defines
presence or absence (i.e., being based on measuring a reflection of a
“transmitted wave signal”), or Lee’s other teachings. See Ex. 1004, 10:35–
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
33
45, Fig. 8; Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5. Patent Owner incorrectly conflates Lee’s
teachings regarding detecting whether a line is satisfactory or defective with
Lee’s teachings of setting values for P_link and S_link, and selecting a link
for communication. Compare Ex. 1004, 8:50–54, with id. at 10:35–45 and
Fig. 8.
We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that
“[d]ependence on other variables such as reflection of a different transmitted
wave is simply not consistent with the repeated teaching in the
[S]pecification of presence or absence depending only on non-detection or
detection.” PO Resp. Br. 2; see also PO Open Br. 3–5 (arguing that Lee
does not teach “the claimed dependent relationship between P_link and non-
detection ‘of a reflection of the transmitted wave signal’”). As we discuss
above, when the primary link’s receive line is satisfactory, whether the value
of P_link is set to 1 or 0, and whether the primary link is selected for
communication, is dependent on whether the primary link’s transmit line is
satisfactory or defective (i.e., whether a station is present or absent
dependent on signal reflection on the transmit line). See Ex. 1004, 10:35–
45, Fig. 8. This scenario in Lee is sufficient to teach this limitation because
“combinations of prior art that sometimes meet the claim elements are
sufficient to show obviousness.” See Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
841 F.3d 995, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, Lee teaches being operated in
accordance with presence or absence of the further station. In addition, we
find inapposite Patent Owner’s argument that, “in the system of Lee, the
network module [also] will choose the primary communications link even
when P_link equals 0 and S_link equals 0.” PO Sur-Reply 5. This teaching
in Lee is an additional operation, which does not negate Lee’s teachings
discussed above regarding setting the value of P_link or selecting a link for
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
34
communication for scenarios where P_link and S_link do not both equal 0.
See Ex. 1004, 10:35–45, Fig. 8.
We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner
improperly relies on “new theories not presented in its Petition” regarding
Lee’s teachings for this limitation. PO Open. Br. 6–7. In making this
argument, Patent Owner overlooks Petitioner’s Reply which responds to
arguments made by Patent Owner in its Response and to issues in our
Decision on Institution about this limitation, which is allowed by our Rules.
See PO Resp. 16–19; Dec. on Inst. 19–20; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b);
Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019 (“CTPG”), 73 (“[T]he
Board will permit the petitioner, in its reply brief, to address issues discussed
in the institution decision.”), 74; see also Pet. 32 (making initial argument).
Moreover, we authorized additional briefing (opening and responsive briefs
from each party) directed to the meaning of this limitation and the effect of
the meaning on the unpatentability issues before us. See Order Add. Br. 2–
3. Notably, Patent Owner does not argue that Petitioner’s Responsive Post-
Hearing Brief raises new theories.
After reviewing the parties’ arguments, and Dr. Houh’s Declarations,
we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the
evidence that Lee teaches “the bus system being operated in accordance with
presence or absence of the further station dependent on non-detection and
detection of a reflection of the transmitted wave signal respectively.”
4. Summary
In summary, based on the arguments and evidence of record, we find
that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Lee and 802.3u.
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
35
VII. ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER USB 1.1 AND MORRIS
Petitioner argues that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of
USB 1.1 and Morris. Pet. 33–48. Thus, this ground of unpatentability
challenges the same claim we already determine is unpatentable over the
combination of Lee and 802.3u. See supra Section VI (determining
Petitioner shows that claim 1 is unpatentable). Under the circumstances of
this case, analyzing an additional ground challenging the same claim, which
we have determined to be unpatentable, is not necessary. See Bos. Sci.
Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We
agree that the Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the
resolution of the proceeding.”).
Accordingly, we do not reach this remaining obviousness ground.
Cf. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching other
grounds of unpatentability after affirming the anticipation ground); see also
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(determining once a dispositive issue is decided, there is no need to decide
other issues).
VIII. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
Patent Owner argues that Administrative Patent Judges are
unconstitutionally appointed principal officers, and that the decision in
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2019),
cert. granted sub nom. United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 2020 WL 6037206
(Oct. 13, 2020), was impermissible and insufficient to cure the
Constitutional violation. PO Resp. 27–30. We note that Patent Owner’s
constitutional challenge was addressed by the Federal Circuit’s Arthrex
decision. Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
36
the constitutional violation.”); see also Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew,
Inc., 953 F.3d 760, 764 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (en banc) (Moore, J., concurring in
denial of rehearing) (“Because the APJs were constitutionally appointed as
of the implementation of the severance, inter partes review decisions going
forward were no longer rendered by unconstitutional panels.”).
Accordingly, we do not consider this issue any further.
IX. CONCLUSION9
Based on the full record, we determine that Petitioner shows by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’541 patent is unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combination of Lee and 802.3u.
Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)
/Basis
Claims Shown
Unpatentable
Claims Not
Shown
Unpatentable
1 103(a) Lee, 802.3u 1
1 103(a) USB 1.1,
Morris10

Overall
Outcome
1

9 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
10 As we explain above, because we determine that claim 1 is unpatentable
over Lee and 802.3u, we decline to address this ground.
IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
37
X. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), Petitioner has shown
by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’541 patent is
unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that parties to the proceeding seeking judicial
review of this Final Written Decision must comply with the notice and
service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2020-00102
Patent 6,498,541 B2
38
PETITIONER:

Andrew M. Mason
Todd M. Siegel
John M. Lunsford
Ryan L. Frei
KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
andrew.mason@klarquist.com
todd.siegel@klarquist.com
john.lunsford@klarquist.com
ryan.frei@klarquist.com

PATENT OWNER:

Brian Koide
Ryan Loveless
Brett Mangrum
James Etheridge
Jeffrey Huang
Jeffrey A. Stephens
ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
brian@etheridgelaw.com
ryan@etheridgelaw.com
brett@etheridgelaw.com
jim@etheridgelaw.com
jeff@etheridgelaw.com
jstephens@etheridgelaw.com