United States Patent and Trademark Office Before
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case IPR2015-00391 Petition for Inter Partes Review UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS AT&T MOBILITY LLC Petitioners v. SOLOCRON MEDIA, LLC Patent Owner Case IPR2015-00391 Patent No. 7,257,395 PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,257,395 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ. Mail Stop: Patent Board Patent Trial and Appeal Board United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Case IPR2015-00391 Petition for Inter Partes Review TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................ 1 II. NOTICES, STATEMENTS AND PAYMENT OF FEES ................................. 7 A. Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ..................................... 7 B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................. 7 C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .......................... 8 D. Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ....................................... 8 E. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................... 8 F. Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................... 9 III. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) .......... 9 IV. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIM IS TO BE CONSTRUED UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B) (3) ...................................................................................... 14 V. THE PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION HISTORY ................................... 18 A. Prosecution History of the ‘395 Patent ....................................................... 19 B. Prosecution History of the Related Child ‘866 Patent ................................ 20 C. The ‘395 Patent Suffers From the Same Deficiencies That the Inventor Identified in the Prior Art In The ‘866 Prosecution. ................................... 22 VI. THE EARLIEST PRIORITY DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS IS MARCH 2000. ................................................................................................... 23 VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(4) AND (B)(5) ................................................................. 26 A. “Polyphonic Audio Files” Cannot Form the Basis for Patentability .......... 27 B. Claims 22, 25, 30, 39, and 40 are Anticipated Or Rendered Obvious By the Nokia 9110 User’s Manual. ........................................................................ 30 C. Claims 22, 25, 30, 39, and 40 are Obvious In View Of 9110 UM And 9110 i Case IPR2015-00391 Petition for Inter Partes Review FAQ. ............................................................................................................ 36 D. Claims 22, 25, 30, 39, and 40 are Obvious Over 9110 UM, 9110 FAQ, and Perez. ........................................................................................................... 37 E. Claims 22, 25, 30, 39, and 40 Are Obvious Over 9110 UM, 9110 FAQ, Perez and Nikkei. ........................................................................................ 39 F. Claim 36 Is Obvious Over 9110 UM With The 9110 FAQ And Nokia Press Releases. ...................................................................................................... 42 G. Claim 36 Is Obvious Over 9110 UM With The 9110 FAQ, Nikkei and Nokia Press Releases. ................................................................................. 43 H. Claim 36 Is Obvious Over 9110 UM With The 9110 FAQ, Nikkei, Perez, and Nykanen. ............................................................................................... 44 I. Claims 22, 25, 30, 39, and 40 Are Obvious Over Rizet and Either Rolf or Fritsch. ......................................................................................................... 46 J. Claims 22, 25, 30, 39, and 40 are Obvious Over Rizet, Perez and one of Rolf or Fritsch. ............................................................................................ 55 K. Claims 22, 25, 30, 39, and 40 Are Obvious Over Rizet and Nikkei. .......... 56 L. The Asserted References Are Not Cumulative At This Point. ................... 58 VIII.CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 60 ii Case IPR2015-00391 Petition for Inter Partes Review TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology, 764 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 28, 29 Geo M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC, 618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir 2010) ..................................................................... 11, 26 In re Index Sys., 576 F. App’x 976 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 2, 29 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Co., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................ 2, 41 Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................... 5, 41 Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 26 In re Mulder, 716 F.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 26 New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 24 In re NTP Inc., 654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 24 Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 460 F. Supp. 2d 659 (D.N.J. 2006) ..................................................................... 27 PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 7, 20, 24 Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Techs. Inc., 499 F. App’x 5 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 9 iii Case IPR2015-00391 Petition for Inter Partes Review Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 17 Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc., 698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 10 iv Case IPR2015-00391 Petition for Inter Partes Review PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit No. Description Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,257,395 (the ‘395 patent) Exhibit 1002 Complaint filed in Solocron v. Cellco Partnership et al. (Case No. 2-13-cv-1059) (E.D. Tex.) Exhibit 1003 Copy of U.S. Provisional Patent App. 60/169,158, as filed Dec. 6, 1999 (downloaded from PAIR) Exhibit 1004 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1005 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1006 Copy of U.S. Patent App. 10/223,200, as filed Aug. 16, 2002 (now U.S. Patent No. 7,257,395) (downloaded from PAIR) Exhibit 1007 Copy of Prosecution History for the U.S. Patent No. 7,319,866 (downloaded from PAIR), including U.S. Patent App. 10/915,866 as filed Aug. 11, 2004 Exhibit 1008 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1009 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1010 Prosecution History for the U.S. Patent No. 7,257,395 (U.S. Patent App. 10/223,200) (downloaded from PAIR) Exhibit 1011 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1012 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1013 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1014 International Publication No. WO 98/25397, entitled “Telecommunication Device and a Method for Providing Ringing Information”, published June 11, 1998 (“Philips” or “Rizet”) Exhibit 1015 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1016 Exhibit Not Used v Case IPR2015-00391 Petition for Inter Partes Review Exhibit 1017 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1018 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1019 Declaration of Internet Archive and Copies of Various Websites Exhibit 1020 “Yamaha Sound Generator LSI ‘YMU757,’” Yamaha News Release Exhibit 1021 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1022 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1023 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1024 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1025 U.S. Patent No. 6,911,592, entitled “Portable Telephony Apparatus With Music Tone Generator,” filed July 26, 2000, issued June 28, 2005, to Futamase Exhibit 1026 European Patent Application EP1073034, entitled “Portable Telephony Apparatus With Music Tone Generator,” was published January 31, 2001 (“Futamase”) Exhibit 1027 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1028 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1029 U.S. Patent Application No. 2001/0045153 Exhibit 1030 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1031 Excerpt from Harvard Dictionary of Music, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, Willi Apel, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1975. Exhibit 1032 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1033 Exhibit Not Used vi Case IPR2015-00391 Petition for Inter Partes Review Exhibit 1034 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1035 Final Decision dated April 21, 2014 in IPR2013-00072 Exhibit 1036 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1037 Exhibit Not Used Exhibit 1038 Local Patent Rule 4-3 Statement filed in Solocron v. Cellco Partnership et al. (E.D. Tex.) (Case No. 2-13-cv-1059) Exhibit 1039 http://www.slideshare.net/JesseTeWeehi/elements-of-music-start Exhibit 1040 Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary Exhibit 1041 Encyclopedia Britannica Exhibit 1042 YM3812 Chip Manual Exhibit 1043 New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians