Apple Inc. v. Mph Technologies Oy ( 2022 )

Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 03/09/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
APPLE INC.,
Appellant
v.
MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY,
Appellee
______________________
2021-1532, 2021-1533, 2021-1534
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019-
00823, IPR2019-00824, IPR2019-00826.
______________________
Decided: March 9, 2022
______________________
JOSEPH R. PALMORE, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by
SETH W. LLOYD, BRIAN ROBERT MATSUI; LENA HUGHES;
New York, NY; RICHARD HUNG, San Francisco, CA; BITA
RAHEBI, Los Angeles, CA.
BRIAN ERIK HAAN, Lee Sheikh Megley & Haan LLC,
Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by
ASHLEY E. LAVALLEY, CHRISTOPHER LEE, RICHARD BURNS
MEGLEY, JR.; JAMES CARMICHAEL, STEPHEN TERRY
SCHREINER, Carmichael IP, PLLC, Tysons Corner, VA.
______________________
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 03/09/2022
2 APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit
Judges.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
Apple appeals from three Patent Trial and Appeal
Board inter partes review final written decisions collec-
tively holding Apple failed to show claims 2, 4, 9, and 11 of
U.S. Patent No. 9,712,494; claims 7–9 of U.S. Patent No.
9,712,502; and claims 3, 5, 10, and 12–16 of U.S. Patent No.
9,838,362 would have been obvious. For the following rea-
sons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
I
The challenged patents share a written description and
purport to improve secure messaging between arbitrary
hosts (e.g., messaging across local area networks (LANs),
private and public wide area networks (WANs), or the in-
ternet) utilizing Internet Protocol (IP) security protocols.
’494 patent at 1:54–57; 7:38–45. 1 IP security protocols re-
quire establishing a security association, id. at 2:39–49,
that costs computation time and increases network la-
tency, id. at 4:44–45. They are purportedly designed for
static connections and, thus, not well suited for communi-
cations with mobile computers, leading to poor quality of
service for communication over wireless links. Id. at 4:39–
43; 5:7–14. To solve these problems, systems commonly
utilize an intermediate host that facilitates communication
between a mobile terminal and its communication target
(e.g., a security gateway). Id. at 5:15–6:14. These common
solutions, however, heavily rely on a concept known as tun-
neling. In tunneling, typically an entire data packet, in-
cluding its outer header, is encapsulated and a new outer
1 For simplicity, we cite to the ’494 patent.
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 03/09/2022
APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY 3
header is added. Id. at 3:21–49. The use of tunneling in
the known solutions can cause extra packet size overhead,
or require the intermediate computer to decrypt the packet,
which could cause potential security problems. Id. at 6:21–
24.
The patents disclose a method for secure forwarding of
a message from a first computer to a second computer via
an intermediate computer in a telecommunication network
that purportedly avoids these disadvantages. Id. at Ab-
stract; 6:28–31. Preferably, a first computer “processes [a]
formed message using a security protocol and encapsulates
the message at least in an outer IP header,” which is sent
to an intermediate computer. Id. at 6:54–59. The interme-
diate computer “matches the outer IP header address fields
together with a unique identifier used by the security pro-
tocol, and performs a translation of the outer addresses and
the unique identity used by the security profile.” Id. at
6:59–63. The translated packet is then sent to a second
computer, which processes it using a standard security pro-
tocol. This method does not use any “extra encapsulation
overhead” typical of prior-art solutions. Id. at 6:65–67.
The claims of the ’494 and ’362 patents cover the inter-
mediate computer. Claim 1 of the ’494 patent is a repre-
sentative independent claim for those patents:
1. An intermediate computer for secure forwarding
of messages in a telecommunication network, com-
prising:
an intermediate computer configured to
connect to a telecommunication network;
the intermediate computer configured to be
assigned with a first network address in
the telecommunication network;
the intermediate computer configured to re-
ceive from a mobile computer a secure mes-
sage sent to the first network address
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 03/09/2022
4 APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY
having an encrypted data payload of a mes-
sage and a unique identity, the data pay-
load encrypted with a cryptographic key
derived from a key exchange protocol;
the intermediate computer configured to
read the unique identity from the secure
message sent to the first network address;
and
the intermediate computer configured to
access a translation table, to find a destina-
tion address from the translation table us-
ing the unique identity, and
to securely forward the encrypted data pay-
load to the destination address using a net-
work address of the intermediate computer
as a source address of a forwarded message
containing the encrypted data payload
wherein the intermediate computer does
not have the cryptographic key to decrypt
the encrypted data payload.
(emphasis added).
The ’502 patent claims the mobile computer that sends
the secure message to the intermediate computer. Claim 1
is a representative independent claim:
1. A computer for sending secure messages, and for
enabling secure forwarding of messages in a tele-
communication network by an intermediate com-
puter to a recipient computer, comprising:
a computer configured to connect to a tele-
communication network;
the computer configured to be assigned
with a network address in the telecommu-
nication network, wherein the computer is
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 03/09/2022
APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY 5
a mobile computer in that the address of
the mobile computer changes;
the computer configured to form a secure
message by encrypting the data payload of
a message and giving the message a unique
identity and a destination address of an in-
termediate computer, wherein the unique
identity and the destination address are ca-
pable of being used by the intermediate
computer to find an address to a recipient
computer;
the computer configured to send the secure
message to the intermediate computer for
forwarding of the encrypted data payload
to the recipient computer; and
the computer configured to set up a secure
connection using a key exchange protocol.
II
MPH asserted claims of the challenged patents against
Apple in the Northern District of California. Apple peti-
tioned for inter partes review of each claim of the three pa-
tents, relying primarily on a combination of Request for
Comments 3104 (RFC3104) 2 and U.S. Patent No. 7,032,242(Grabelsky) (collectively, the combination). The Board held
that Apple failed to show that several dependent claims of
each patent would have been obvious in view of the combi-
nation. Apple challenges each of these determinations. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
2 G. Montenegro & M. Borella, RSIP Support for
End-to-end IPsec, Request for Comments 3104, The Inter-
net Society (Oct. 2001).
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 6 Filed: 03/09/2022
6 APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY
DISCUSSION
We review claim construction de novo and any subsid-
iary factual findings based on extrinsic evidence for sub-
stantial evidence. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
873 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Claim terms are gen-
erally given their plain and ordinary meaning, which is the
meaning one of ordinary skill in the art would ascribe to a
term when read in the context of the claim, specification,
and prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are
only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee
sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or
2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim
term either in the specification or during prosecution.”
Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
We also review the Board’s legal conclusions of obvious-
ness de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence.
Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 991
(Fed. Cir. 2017). “What a piece of prior art teaches presents
a question of fact.” Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health,
Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
I
Dependent claim 11 of the ’494 patent and dependent
claim 12 of the ’362 patent require that “the source address
of the forwarded message is the same as the first network
address.” The Board was not persuaded that RFC3104 dis-
closes this limitation.
RFC3104 discloses mechanisms for enabling IP secu-
rity protocol communications using Realm Specific IP
(RSIP). The document utilizes the following model topol-
ogy:
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 7 Filed: 03/09/2022
APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY 7
J.A. 1187. In this model, an RSIP server examines a packet
sent by Y destined for X. J.A. 1188. “X and Y belong to
different address spaces A and B, respectively, and N is an
[intermediate] RSIP server.” Id. N has two addresses: Na
on address space A and Nb on address space B, which are
different. Id. According to Apple, the message sent from Y
to X is received by RSIP server N on the Nb interface and
then must be sent to Na before being forwarded to X as
shown in the diagram below:
J.A. 249–50. In Apple’s view, because the intermediate
computer sends the message from Nb to Na before forward-
ing it to X, Na is both a first network address and the
source address of the forwarded message. That the mes-
sage was not sent directly to Na, Apple claims, is of no im-
port given the claim language. The Board disagreed and
found there was no record evidence that the mobile com-
puter sent the message directly to Na. Apple Inc. v. MPH
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 8 Filed: 03/09/2022
8 APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY
Techs. Oy, No. IPR2019-00823, 2020 WL 6494243, at *22
(P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2020). 3
Apple argues the Board misconstrued the claims to re-
quire that the mobile computer send the secure message
directly to the intermediate computer. According to Apple,
that construction is inconsistent with the phrase “interme-
diate computer configured to receive from a mobile com-
puter a secure message sent to the first network address”
in claim 1 of the ’494 patent, upon which claim 11 depends. 4
Under this passive language, Apple claims, the mobile com-
puter need not send the message to the first network ad-
dress so long as the message is sent there eventually.
Opening Br. 27–31; Oral Arg. at 2:27–3:16. 5 We do not
agree.
The plain meaning of “intermediate computer config-
ured to receive from a mobile computer a secure message
sent to the first network address” requires the mobile com-
puter to send the message to the first network address.
The phrase identifies the sender (i.e., the mobile computer)
and the destination (i.e., the first network address). The
proximity of the concepts links them together, such that a
natural reading of the phrase conveys the mobile computer
sends the secure message to the first network address.
That the claims use passive voice is of no import. The plain
language establishes direct sending.
3 The final written decision for the ’494 patent is
nearly identical in several respects to that of the ’362 pa-
tent. For simplicity, we cite to the final written decision of
the ’494 patent.
4 Claim 1 of the ’362 patent, upon which claim 12 de-
pends, contains the same phrase, except it refers to a “sec-
ond computer” instead of a “mobile computer.”
5 Available at https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.
gov/default.aspx?fl=21-1532_01142022.mp3.
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 9 Filed: 03/09/2022
APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY 9
The written description confirms this plain meaning.
It describes how the mobile computer forms the secure
message with “the destination address . . . of the interme-
diate computer.” ’494 patent at 6:56–58 (emphasis added);
accord id. at 11:32–33. The mobile computer then sends
the message to that address. Id. at 6:58–63. There is no
passthrough destination address in the intermediate com-
puter that the secure message is sent to before the first des-
tination address. Accordingly, like the claim language, the
written description describes the secure message as sent
from the mobile computer directly to the first destination
address.
Apple’s claim construction argument therefore fails.
And Apple does not challenge the Board’s finding that
RFC3104 does not disclose the limitation of claim 11 of the
’494 patent and claim 12 of the ’362 patent under the
Board’s construction. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s
holding that Apple failed to show those claims would have
been obvious.
II
Dependent claim 4 of the ’494 patent is similar to claim
5 of the ’362 patent and recites:
4. The intermediate computer of claim 1, wherein
the translation table includes two partitions, the
first partition containing information fields related
to the connection over which the secure message is
sent to the first network address, the second parti-
tion containing information fields related to the
connection over which the forwarded encrypted
data payload is sent to the destination address.
(emphasis added).
The Board interpreted “information fields” in this
claim to require “two or more fields.” Apple, 2020 WL
6494243, at *19. And because Apple’s obviousness argu-
ment relied on Figure 21 of Grabelsky, which disclosed a
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 10 Filed: 03/09/2022
10 APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY
partition with only a single field, the Board found Apple
failed to show the combination taught this limitation. Id.at *19–20. Moreover, the Board found Apple failed to show
a motivation to modify the combination to use multiple
fields. Id. at *20–21. Apple challenges this finding as well
as the Board’s construction of information fields.
A
On claim construction, Apple claims there is a pre-
sumption that a plural term covers one or more items.
Opening Br. 33. It suggests that patentees can overcome
that presumption by using a word, like plurality, that
clearly requires more than one item. Oral Arg. at 9:44–
10:20. Apple misstates the law.
In accordance with common English usage, we pre-
sume a plural term refers to two or more items. See Leggett
& Platt, Inc. v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Co., 285 F.3d 1353,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he claim recites ‘support wires’
in the plural, thus requiring more than one welded ‘support
wire.’”); cf. Dayco Prods. v. Total Containment, Inc., 258
F.3d 1317, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (plurality “when used
in a claim, refers to two or more items, absent some indica-
tion to the contrary”). That presumption can be overcome
when the broader context shows a different meaning ap-
plies. See Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Int’l. Ltd., 392 F.3d 1325,
1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding a plural term, in context, did
not require more than one item). This is simply an appli-
cation of the general rule that claim terms are usually
given their plain and ordinary meaning. See Thorner, 669
F.3d at 1365 (discussing exceptions to plain-and-ordinary
meaning rule). 6
6 Apple’s reliance on the statutory canon that “in the
absence of the contrary indication . . . the singular includes
the plural (and vice versa)” is misplaced. Opening Br. 33
(quoting Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, Reading
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 11 Filed: 03/09/2022
APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY 11
Here, the term “information fields” is plural and, thus,
presumably requires more than one field. Nothing in the
phrase “partition containing information fields related to
the connection” or surrounding claim language suggests
otherwise. There is no indication, for example, that the use
of the plural fields represents an effort to “achieve gram-
matical consistency” with another term. In re Omneprazole
Patent Lit., 84 F. App’x 76, 80 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (non-prece-
dential). Nor is the term used to describe a function (e.g.,
means for creating fields). See Versa Corp., 392 F.3d at
1330 (holding “means for creating air channels” did not re-
quire a supporting structure that made multiple channels).
The written description also does not persuade us to
depart from the presumption that “information fields” re-
fers to two or more fields. For example, we see no express
language indicating the plural should include the singular
or broadly describing the invention as containing one or
more fields. To be sure, there is nothing in the written de-
scription providing any significance to using a plurality of
information fields in a partition. However, absent any con-
trary intrinsic evidence, the Board correctly held that fields
referred to more than one field.
B
On motivation to modify the combination to use more
than one field, Apple faults the Board for rejecting its ex-
pert’s testimony. Apple argues the Board abused its dis-
cretion by applying the teaching, suggestion, or motivation
Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 129 (2012)). The
United States Code expressly states that “[i]n determining
the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context in-
dicates otherwise . . . words importing the plural include
the singular . . . .” 1 U.S.C. § 1. In short, Congress made
clear through statute that plural includes singular. There
is no similar definition in this patent.
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 12 Filed: 03/09/2022
12 APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY
test rejected in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398(2007). We see no such error in the Board’s analysis.
The Board examined both the initial and the supple-
mental declarations of Apple’s expert. It found that testi-
mony was conclusory and was, as a whole, improperly
guided by hindsight. Apple, 2020 WL 6494243, at *21. The
Board emphasized how Apple’s expert used the phrases
“would naturally have included”; “it would be logical”; and
“could be, and most logically would be.” Id. It also found
that there was no factual support underlying the expert
testimony. Id. The Board determined that the testimony
amounted to an argument about “what could be combined”
and a conclusory statement that the combination would
have been obvious. Apple, 2020 WL 6494243, at *21.
The Board was free to reject Apple’s expert’s testimony
based on a lack of factual support. See TQ Delta, LLC v.
CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (re-
versing obviousness determination when expert’s testi-
mony was “[u]ntethered to any supporting evidence” and,
thus, could not support the Board’s findings). Likewise, it
was free to disregard the testimony for failure to provide
“any meaningful explanation for why [a skilled artisan]
would be motivated to combine these references at the time
of this invention.” InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns,
Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We see no use
or endorsement of an erroneous obviousness standard in
the Board’s analysis. Nor can we reweigh evidence on ap-
peal. See In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327,
1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we decline to disturb
the Board’s findings, which are supported by substantial
evidence.
III
Claim 2 of the ’494 patent and claim 3 of the ’362 patent
recite:
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 13 Filed: 03/09/2022
APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY 13
The intermediate computer of claim 1, wherein the
intermediate computer is further configured to sub-
stitute the unique identity read from the secure
message with another unique identity prior to for-
warding the encrypted data payload.
(emphasis added).
The Board construed the word substitute to require
“changing or modifying, not merely adding to.” Apple, 2020
WL 6494243, at *10. Because it determined that
RFC3104—which Apple relied on for this limitation—
merely involved “adding to” the unique identity, the Board
found Apple had failed to show RFC3104 taught this limi-
tation. Id. at *18. It also found that Apple failed to show
a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the
combination to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at *19.
Apple argues the undisputed evidence shows the com-
bination taught an intermediate computer “configured to
substitute the unique identity” as required by claim 2 of
the ’494 patent and claim 3 of the ’362 patent. Opening Br.
43–46. The parties agree RFC3104 taught tunneling,
which involves adding a new outer IP header to an encap-
sulated data packet. To Apple, this means RFC3104 “sub-
stitute[s] the unique identity,” so the Board’s contrary
finding is unsupported by substantial evidence.
The Board’s uncontested claim construction of substi-
tute disposes of Apple’s challenge. The Board expressly ad-
dressed Apple’s nearly identical argument from the
hearing that “adding the header is the same as replacing
the header because at the end of the day you have a differ-
ent header than what you had before, a completely differ-
ent header.” J.A. 640. The Board disagreed with Apple
and construed substitute to mean “changing, replacing, or
modifying, not merely adding,” and observed that this con-
struction disposed of Apple’s position. Apple, 2020 WL
6494243, at *10. Apple did not appeal that construction,
and we also have no reason to doubt it, as the written
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 14 Filed: 03/09/2022
14 APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY
description disparages prior art solutions utilizing tunnel-
ing. See ’494 patent at 5:15–50; 6:21–34. In view of the
unchallenged construction, substantial evidence supports
the Board’s finding that RFC3104’s disclosure of adding a
new header does not satisfy the substitution required by
the claims.
Moreover, substantial evidence supports the Board’s
finding that Apple failed to show a motivation to modify the
prior art combination to include substitution. Apple, 2020
WL 6494243, at *19. Apple relied solely on its expert’s con-
trary testimony, which the Board properly disregarded as
conclusory. Id.IV
Claim 9 of the ’494 patent is similar to claim 10 of the
’362 patent and recites:
9. The intermediate computer of claim 1, wherein
the intermediate computer is configured to modify
the translation table entry address fields in re-
sponse to a signaling message sent from the mobile
computer when the mobile computer changes its
address such that the intermediate computer can
know that the address of the mobile computer is
changed.
(emphasis added).
Apple argued that establishing a secure authorization
in RFC3104 includes creating a new table entry address
field as required by the claim. Apple, 2020 WL 6494243, at
*21. The Board disagreed, reasoning that “modify[ing] the
translation table entry address fields” requires having ex-
isting address fields when the mobile computer changes its
address. J.A. 51. Accordingly, it found Apple failed to show
the combination taught this limitation.
Apple now argues the “configured to modify the trans-
lation table entry address fields” limitation is purely
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 15 Filed: 03/09/2022
APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY 15
functional and, thus, covers any embodiment that results
in a table with different address fields, including new ad-
dress fields. We do not agree.
As the Board held, the plain meaning of “modify[ing]
the translation table entry address fields” requires having
existing address fields in the translation table to modify.
The surrounding language showing the modification occurs
“when the mobile computer changes its address such that
the intermediate computer can know that the address of
the mobile computer is changed” further supports the ex-
istence of an address field prior to modification. Accord-
ingly, the limitation does not merely claim a result; it
recites an operation of the intermediate computer that re-
quires an existing address field. 7
V
Claim 13 of the ’362 patent, on which claims 14–16 de-
pend, recites:
13. The intermediate computer of claim 1, wherein
the intermediate computer is configured to receive
a request to update the mapping with a new ad-
dress of the first computer.
Apple relied on its reasoning as to claim 10 of the ’362
patent to show that the proposed combination taught this
limitation. The Board likewise relied on the deficiencies it
identified for claim 10 of the ’362 patent to find Apple failed
to show the combination taught this claim without any ad-
ditional analysis. Apple v. MPH Techs. Oy, No. IPR2019-
00826, 2020 WL 6494252, at *13 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2020).
Apple argues this explanation is inadequate because the
Board’s claim-10 analysis focuses on a different limitation:
7 Because we reject Apple’s claim construction, we
need not address its substantial evidence challenge that
depends on that construction.
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 16 Filed: 03/09/2022
16 APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY
the requirement to “modify the translation table entry ad-
dress fields.”
The Board’s analysis adequately disposed of Apple’s
challenge. Certainly, the Board’s analysis focused on the
plain meaning of “modify” and its implicit requirement that
the objects of modification (i.e., address fields) already ex-
ist. But the Board placed the same requirement on the
term update in its analysis: “the plain meaning of ‘updates,’
requires an existing entry and existing address fields.”
J.A. 129. Accordingly, the Board’s reliance on its analysis
of claim 10 explains its disposition of claim 13 and associ-
ated dependent claims; Apple failed to show the combina-
tion taught an intermediate computer that updates an
existing mapping. We, therefore, see no error in the
Board’s analysis.
VI
Claim 7 of the ’502 patent, on which claims 8 and 9 de-
pend, recites:
7. The computer of claim 1, wherein the computer
is configured to send a signaling message to the in-
termediate computer when the computer changes
its address such that the intermediate computer
can know that the address of the computer is
changed.
RFC3104 disclosed an ASSIGN_REQUEST_RSIPSEC
message that requests an IP address assignment. Apple
argued that, when a computer moves to a new address, the
computer uses this message as part of establishing a secure
connection and, in the process, the intermediate computer
knows the address has been changed. J.A. 5034–36. The
Board found that the message was not used to signal ad-
dress changes. Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, No. IPR2019-
00824, 2020 WL 6494246, at *16 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2020).
Accordingly, it found Apple failed to show that the
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 17 Filed: 03/09/2022
APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY 17
intermediate computer knows that the address is changed,
as required by the claim language.
Apple reprises its arguments, which the Board re-
jected. Claims 7–9 of the ’502 patent require a computer to
send a message to the intermediate computer “such that
the intermediate computer can know that the address of
the computer is changed.” Apple claims that RFC3104’s
use of an ASSIGN_REQUEST_RSIPSEC message in estab-
lishing a secure authorization necessarily satisfies this lim-
itation because the mobile computer must communicate
the new address. However, the Board’s contrary finding is
supported by substantial evidence, including MPH’s expert
testimony and RFC3104 itself. 8
MPH’s expert testified that a skilled artisan would not
have understood the relevant disclosure in RFC3104 to
teach any signal address changes. J.A. 8400. Indeed, as
the Board found, the relevant disclosure in RFC3104 re-
lates to establishing an RSIP-IPSec session, not to signal
address changes. Apple, 2020 WL 6494246, at *16–17.
And we see no reason why the Board was required to
equate communicating a new address and signaling an ad-
dress change. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports
the Board’s finding.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s final
written decisions holding that claims 2, 4, 9, and 11 of the
’494 patent; claims 7–9 of the ’502 patent; and claims 3, 5,
8 Though framed as a claim construction issue, Ap-
ple does not dispute that the limitation requires the inter-
mediate computer to know the address is changed, and we
see no error in that construction. The Board found
RFC3104 failed to meet this requirement. Accordingly, we
treat Apple’s argument as a substantial evidence chal-
lenge.
Case: 21-1532 Document: 46 Page: 18 Filed: 03/09/2022
18 APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY
10, and 12–16 of the ’362 patent would not have been obvi-
ous.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Costs to MPH.