NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Appellant

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., GOOGLE LLC,

Appellees

______________________

2020-1701, 2020-1706, 2020-1707

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-

01552, IPR2018-01553, IPR2019-00106.

______________________

Decided: May 24, 2021

______________________

ALBERT BERTON DEAVER, JR., McAughan Deaver 

PLLC, Houston, TX, for appellant. Also represented by 

ROBERT JAMES MCAUGHAN, JR. 

 RICHARD ALAN CEDEROTH, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, 

IL, for appellee Microsoft Corporation. Also represented by 

SCOTT BORDER, JOSEPH A. MICALLEF, Washington, DC. 

 JOSEPH PALYS, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC,

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 05/24/2021
2 IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

for appellee Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Also represented by PHILLIP W. CITROEN, STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD,

NAVEEN MODI, ANDERSON TO. 

 MATTHEW A. SMITH, Smith Baluch LLP, Menlo Park, 

CA, for appellee Google LLC. Also represented by ANDREW 

BALUCH, Washington, DC.

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Iron Oak Technologies, LLC appeals from three final 

written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 

(“Board”), each holding claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,699,275 (“the ’275 patent”) unpatentable over the prior 

art. Microsoft Corp. v. Iron Oak Techs., LLC, No. IPR2019-

00106, 2020 WL 633707 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2020); Samsung 

Elecs. Co. v. Iron Oak Techs., LLC (Samsung I), No. 

IPR2018-01552, 2020 WL 633816 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2020); 

Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Iron Oak Techs., LLC (Samsung II), 

No. IPR2018-01553, 2020 WL 633822 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 

2020). For the reasons explained below, we affirm as to all 

three decisions. 

I. BACKGROUND

The ’275 patent is entitled “System and Method for Remote Patching of Operating Code Located in a Mobile 

Unit.” ’275 patent, at [54]. According to its specification, 

software suppliers and other sellers of computer systems 

often need to correct or upgrade the existing software that 

their customers use. Id. at col. 1, ll. 13–15. But common 

methods of doing so in the prior art had several disadvantages. Id. at col. 1, ll. 15–23. Distributing floppy disks, 

for instance, was time-consuming and forced customers to 

use old software while waiting for updates. Id. at col. 1, 

ll. 17–20. Providing modem support to manually upgrade 

software was also time-consuming, as well as expensive 

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 05/24/2021
IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 3

and prone to human error. Id. at col. 1, ll. 20–23. And a

third prior art solution described in the specification provided patches only to remote systems at fixed locations over

a single, continuous, interactive, and bidirectional communication link. See id. at col. 1, ll. 29–42. 

To substantially reduce or eliminate the disadvantages 

of prior art systems and methods for updating software, the 

’275 patent provides a system for remote patching of operating code located in a mobile unit. Id. at col. 1, ll. 46–53. 

One embodiment of the system includes a communication 

network, a manager host, and several mobile units. Id. at 

col. 2, ll. 60–65; col. 3, ll. 10–11, 17–23. To enhance or correct a mobile unit’s current operating code, the manager 

host can transmit a patch file that defines one or more 

patches in a set of discrete patch messages that are suitably sized for transmission through the communication network. Id. at col. 3, ll. 42–44, 57–62. On receipt of the patch 

messages, a mobile unit can verify them, merge the defined 

patches with its current operating code, and switch execution to the patched operating code. Id. at col. 3, ll. 63–66. 

According to the ’275 patent, the manager host can address patch messages to mobile units as appropriate for the 

patch file, including “to one of the mobile units, to all of the 

mobile units, or to a group of mobile units.” Id. at col. 5, ll. 

15–19; see id. at col. 3, ll. 61–62; col. 4, ll. 12–20. For instance, one embodiment groups five mobile units into a pair 

and a trio, and the specification explains that the manager 

host can address a patch message to only the group of two 

mobile units. See id. at col. 3, ll. 17–23; col. 5, ll. 20–25. By 

doing so, the pair of mobile units can have a different version of operating code than the trio of mobile units. Id. at 

col. 4, ll. 11–20. 

The ’275 patent also provides a method for remote 

patching of operating code located in a mobile unit. Id. at 

col. 1, ll. 62–63. According to one embodiment of the 

method, as depicted by the flowchart of Figure 5, a mobile 

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 3 Filed: 05/24/2021
4 IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

unit receives an initial patch message that includes a software version. Id. at col. 10, ll. 22–24, 33–34. The mobile 

unit then compares the software version of the initial patch 

message to the software version of its current operating 

code. Id. at col. 10, ll. 36–40. If the operating code’s version 

is appropriate for the patch, the mobile unit proceeds to, 

inter alia, check the validity of the message, create patched 

operating code, and switch execution to the patched operating code. See id. at col. 10, l. 46–col. 11, l. 42. But, if the 

operating code’s version is not appropriate for the patch, 

the mobile unit transmits an error message, e.g., to the 

manager host. Id. at col. 10, ll. 42–45. 

The ’275 patent contains numerous system and method 

claims. Only independent claim 1 is at issue on appeal: 

A system for remote patching of operating code located in a mobile unit, comprising: 

a manager host operable to initiate transmission 

through a wireless communication network of at 

least one discrete patch message defining at least 

one patch;

a first mobile unit operable to receive the at least 

one discrete patch message, the first mobile unit 

further operable to create patched operating code 

by merging the at least one patch with current operating code located in the first mobile unit and to 

switch execution to the patched operating code; and

a second mobile unit operable to receive the at least 

one discrete patch message, the second mobile unit 

further operable to create patched operating code 

by merging the at least one patch with current operating code located in the second mobile unit and 

to switch execution to the patched operating code; 

and

wherein the manager host is further operable to address the at least one discrete patch message such 

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 4 Filed: 05/24/2021
IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 5

that the at least one discrete patch message is 

transmitted to the first mobile unit but not to the 

second mobile unit. 

Id. at col. 13, ll. 32–53. Although not directly at issue on 

appeal, dependent claim 14 recites: “[t]he system of claim 

1, wherein the manager host is further operable to address 

the at least one discrete patch message such that the at 

least one discrete patch message is transmitted to the first 

mobile unit and to the second mobile unit.” Id. at col. 14, 

ll. 22–26. 

Only one prior art reference is necessary to resolve 

these appeals: Japanese Patent Application No. 05-128022 

(“Sugita”).1 Sugita describes a method of updating software on multiple mobile communications terminals using 

wireless communication. See J.A. 390 (¶ 12). Sugita’s 

method has an initial stage and a final stage. See id. In 

the initial stage, updates of mobile communications terminals occur “in group units.” Id. Specifically, Sugita describes a base station that transmits update information to 

each mobile communications terminal “based on the group 

ID of the group unit (all units, or the unit addresses belonging to a specific group).” Id. (¶ 13); see J.A. 391 (¶ 26) (describing a one-to-many communication format using group 

IDs for updating terminals “in group units”); J.A. 393 

(¶ 49). In the final stage, updates occur “individually” and 

by individual ID, “one at a time.” J.A. 390 (¶¶ 12–13). In 

one embodiment with multiple mobile communications terminals, each terminal—m1, m2, m3, m4 . . . —“targeted for 

1 Consistent with MPEP § 901.05(a), both Microsoft’s and Samsung’s translations convert Sugita’s application number to No. 1993-128022. We note that the two 

translations are not entirely identical. But Iron Oak does 

not identify any substantive differences between the two 

translations. We refer to and quote from Microsoft’s version. 

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 5 Filed: 05/24/2021
6 IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

update[s]” is “listed up” prior to the initial stage of transmitting update information by group ID. J.A. 392 (¶¶ 34–

35). 

Microsoft petitioned for inter partes review of claim 1 

of the ’275 patent, and Samsung and Google each filed two 

additional petitions challenging that claim. The Board instituted review of Microsoft’s petition and Samsung’s two 

petitions and granted Google’s motions to join each of Samsung’s petitions. In instituting review of Microsoft’s petition, the Board construed “wherein the manager host is 

further operable to address the at least one discrete patch 

message such that the at least one discrete patch message 

is transmitted to the first mobile unit but not to the second 

mobile unit”—the “wherein” limitation—to require the 

manager host be “further operable to decide which specific 

mobile unit to send the at least one discrete patch message 

to before beginning transmission” of the message. Microsoft, 2020 WL 633707, at *3. The Board adopted a substantially similar construction of the limitation in 

Samsung I and Samsung II. Samsung I, 2020 WL 633816, 

at *4; Samsung II, 2020 WL 633822, at *3. 

The Board’s final written decisions found claim 1 of the 

’275 patent unpatentable over the prior art. In Microsoft, 

the Board found that Sugita anticipates claim 1 of the ’275 

patent. 2020 WL 633707, at *9. Two of its determinations 

are pertinent to this appeal. First, the Board maintained 

its construction of the wherein limitation. Id. at *3. It 

found no evidence supporting Iron Oak’s arguments that 

(1) at the time of transmission of the patch message to the 

first mobile unit, the second mobile unit must be in a condition that it could be updated by the transmitted patch 

message and (2) an already updated mobile unit cannot 

constitute the claimed second mobile unit. Id. at *4. Given 

the language of claim 1 and dependent claim 14, the Board 

concluded that “[t]here is nothing in claim 1 that excludes 

a second mobile unit that has already created patched 

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 6 Filed: 05/24/2021
IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 7

operating code from the at least one patch message from 

meeting the claim 1 wherein limitation.” Id. 

Second, the Board found that Sugita discloses the 

wherein limitation in two ways: transmitting update information by group ID and by individual ID. Id. at *7–8. 

As to transmitting by group ID, the Board found that 

Sugita describes sending update information to units belonging in a specific group. Id. at *7. Accordingly, terminals in a specified group receive the update, while 

terminals not in the specified group do not. Id. The Board 

gave substantial weight to the testimony of Microsoft’s expert, Dr. White, that “update information sent to the one 

or more mobile terminals using the group ID for the first 

group unit would not be meant for the one or more mobile 

terminals in the second group unit.” Id. As to transmitting 

by individual ID, the Board found that Sugita discloses 

transmitting update information one unit at a time, to a 

non-updated mobile terminal on its target list and not to 

an already updated terminal or a subsequently listed terminal. Id. at *8. 

In Samsung I, the Board reached the same conclusions, 

rejecting Iron Oak’s same arguments about the construction of the wherein limitation and finding that Sugita anticipates claim 1 of the ’275 patent. 2020 WL 633816, at 

*4, 7–9. The Board gave substantial weight to the testimony of Samsung’s expert, Dr. Bederson, which was substantively similar to that of Microsoft’s Dr. White. See id.

at *7. The Board additionally found that Sugita transmits 

patch messages to a group unit and not a different group 

unit “to avoid the problem identified by Sugita of overloading the network.” Id. at *8. Separately, the Board held 

that claim 1 was obvious over a combination of two other 

prior art references: Australian Patent Application No. 

77395/91 (“Ballard”) and Japanese Patent Application No. 

05-66937 (“Shimizu”). Id. at *12. 

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 7 Filed: 05/24/2021
8 IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

Finally, in Samsung II, the Board held that claim 1 of 

the ’275 patent was obvious over a combination of two further prior art references: U.S. Patent No. 5,619,412 

(“Hapka”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,442,553 (“Parrillo”). 

Iron Oak timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 

II. DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial 

evidence and its legal determinations de novo. In re Stepan 

Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2017). A finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might 

accept the evidence to support the finding. Nobel Biocare 

Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1374

(Fed. Cir. 2018).

Claim construction is a question of law with underlying 

questions of fact. Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental 

Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

Where the intrinsic record fully governs the proper construction of a term, we review the Board’s claim construction de novo. Id. Anticipation is a question of fact. Nobel 

Biocare, 903 F.3d at 1375. 

On appeal, Iron Oak argues that the Board erroneously 

construed the second mobile unit and wherein limitations 

to include a second mobile unit that has already created 

patched operating code from the patch message transmitted to the first mobile unit. Iron Oak also challenges the 

Board’s anticipation and obviousness determinations. To 

the extent necessary to a resolution of these appeals, we 

address each of Iron Oak’s arguments in turn. 

A. Claim Construction

The Board correctly construed the wherein limitation 

not to contain the temporal restriction that Iron Oak seeks. 

At institution, the Board construed the wherein limitation 

such that the “manager host is further operable to decide 

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 8 Filed: 05/24/2021
IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 9

which specific mobile unit to send the at least one discrete 

patch message to before beginning transmission” of the 

message. Microsoft, 2020 WL 633707, at *3. None of the 

parties argued that the Board’s interpretation was improper. Id. at *3; Samsung I, 2020 WL 633816, at *4; Samsung II, 2020 WL 633822, at *3. Instead, Iron Oak argued 

that the second mobile unit must be in a condition where 

its current operating code could be updated by the patch 

message sent to the first mobile unit. Conversely, a mobile 

unit whose operating code had already been updated by the 

patch message could not constitute the claimed second mobile unit. This is because, according to Iron Oak, at the 

time of transmission of the patch message, both mobile 

units must be operable to create patched operating code 

from their current operating code. 

The Board rejected Iron Oak’s argument as unsupported by the evidence. Microsoft, 2020 WL 633707, at *4. 

It explained, “[t]he claim language does not specify when 

the mobile units must be ‘operable to create patched operating code’ from current operating code, only that they are 

‘operable to’ do so.” Id. Moreover, the Board found nothing 

in claim 1 that excludes a second mobile unit that has already created patched operating code using the transmitted patch message from meeting the wherein limitation. 

Id. According to the Board, “[a] second mobile unit that is 

capable of creating patched operating code in some circumstances still satisfies the claim.” Id. 

We agree. Claim 1 recites a second mobile unit “operable to receive the at least one discrete patch message” and 

“further operable to create patched operating code by merging the at least one patch with current operating code located in the second mobile unit and to switch execution to 

the patched operating code.” ’275 patent, col. 13, ll. 44–49. 

Claim 1 also recites a manager host “further operable to 

address the at least one discrete patch message such that 

the at least one discrete patch message is transmitted to 

the first mobile unit but not to the second mobile unit.” Id.

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 9 Filed: 05/24/2021
10 IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

at col. 13, ll. 50–53. Neither of these limitations require 

the second mobile unit to be able to create patched operating code at the time the manager host addresses the patch 

message to the first mobile unit. Nor do these limitations 

exclude a second mobile unit that has already created 

patched operating code from the discrete patch message. 

In sum, there is no textual basis for Iron Oak’s reading of 

claim 1. 

Iron Oak’s arguments based on the claim language, the 

Board’s construction, dependent claims, and the specification are unpersuasive. 

First, Iron Oak argues that “the at least one discrete 

patch message” and “the at least one patch” in the second 

mobile unit and wherein limitations require the second mobile unit to be operable to create patched operating code 

when the manager host transmits the patch message to the 

first mobile unit. See id. at col. 13, ll. 44–53 (emphases 

added). Not so. The claim language plainly requires the 

second mobile unit to be operable to create patched operating code from the patch message that the manager host 

sends to the first mobile unit. But, critically, the second 

mobile unit and wherein limitations do not impose a time 

frame during which the second mobile unit must be operable to create patched operating code from the transmitted 

patch message. The second mobile unit simply must have 

the capability of creating patched operating code with the

patch message that the manager host transmits, and the 

manager host simply must have the capability of addressing the patch message to one mobile unit and not another. 

Second, Iron Oak argues that the Board’s construction 

renders meaningless the requirement that the second mobile unit be “further operable to create patched operating 

code by merging the at least one patch with current operating code located in the second mobile unit.” See id. at

col. 13, ll. 45–49. We disagree. This language requires the 

second mobile unit to have the capability of creating 

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 10 Filed: 05/24/2021
IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 11

patched operating code from the patch that is transmitted 

to the first mobile unit. It does not require the second mobile unit to have such capability after the manager host 

transmits the patch message to the first mobile unit. For 

this reason, it is irrelevant whether an already updated 

mobile unit can “thereafter” or “again” incorporate the 

transmitted patch into its operating code. See Appellant’s 

Br. 22–23. Indeed, we agree with the Board that a mobile 

unit that has created patched operating code from the 

patch message transmitted to the first mobile unit is 

clearly operable to create patched operating code from the 

transmitted message, as required by the second mobile 

unit limitation. See Microsoft, 2020 WL 633707, at *4. 

Third, Iron Oak argues that the Board’s construction of 

the wherein limitation recognizes the temporal requirements of claim 1. This argument also lacks merit. The 

Board’s construction recognizes only that the manager host 

decides to which mobile units to send the patch message 

before transmitting the message.2 But this sequence does 

not implicate whether the second mobile unit (to which the 

manager host did not send the message) must be able to 

create patched operating code after the manager host 

transmits the message to the first mobile unit. It simply 

requires the manager host to decide to which mobile units 

to send the at least one patch message, without constraining the reasons why the manager host does not send the 

patch message to the second mobile unit. 

2 We reject any attempt by Iron Oak to stretch the 

Board’s claim construction to require a decision to send update information to the first mobile unit and a separate decision not to send update information to the second mobile 

unit. The Board required the manager host only to decide 

to which mobile units to send the patch message. We see 

no basis in the Board’s construction or the claim language 

to require a separate decision not to send. 

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 11 Filed: 05/24/2021
12 IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

Fourth, Iron Oak argues that dependent claim 14 supports its construction of claim 1. According to Iron Oak, 

because dependent claim 14 requires the manager host to

be operable to address the patch message to both the first 

and second mobile units, claim 1 necessarily requires the 

second mobile unit to be operable to create patched operating code at the time the manager host transmits the patch 

message. We are unpersuaded. Claim 14’s narrower

scope—requiring both mobile units to be non-updated—

cannot serve to constrain claim 1’s broader scope—which 

only requires the first mobile unit to be non-updated. See 

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 

2005) (en banc) (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that 

adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption 

that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”). 

Fifth, Iron Oak argues that Figure 5 and its accompanying text requires the second mobile unit to be operable to 

create patched operating code from the transmitted patch 

message when the manager host transmits that message 

to the first mobile unit. This argument fails. Figure 5 and 

its accompanying text relate to a method of remote patching operating code and not a system. Moreover, even if Figure 5 contemplates checking a mobile unit’s operability to 

create patched operating code after receiving a patch message, the claim language of claim 1 does not. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 

(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the 

written description, it is important not to import into a 

claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”). 

Finally, Iron Oak argues that the Board erroneously 

relied on ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 903 F.3d 

1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We see no error. In ParkerVision, 

we held that “a prior art reference may anticipate or render 

obvious an apparatus claim—depending on the claim language—if the reference discloses an apparatus that is 

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 12 Filed: 05/24/2021
IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 13

reasonably capable of operating so as to meet the claim limitations, even if it does not meet the claim limitations in all 

modes of operation.” Id. at 1361. The Board correctly relied on ParkerVision to find that a second mobile unit that 

is capable of creating patched operating code in some circumstances—i.e., an already updated second mobile unit—

still satisfies claim 1 of the ’275 patent. See Microsoft, 2020 

WL 633707, at *4. We find no basis for Iron Oak’s contention that the second mobile unit’s operability to create 

patched code is a “structure” and are unpersuaded by its 

attempt to distinguish the case. See Appellant’s Br. 25. 

For these reasons, we hold that the Board correctly rejected 

the temporal restrictions that Iron Oak seeks. 

B. Invalidity

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion 

that Sugita anticipates claim 1 of the ’275 patent. A prior 

art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed 

invention, either explicitly or inherently, to anticipate. Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 

1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

Iron Oak’s sole challenge to the Board’s findings on 

Sugita is that Sugita does not disclose the wherein limitation. The Board found that Sugita discloses this limitation 

in two ways. First, Sugita transmits update information to 

units belonging to a specific group. Microsoft, 2020 WL 

633707, at *7. In this way, terminals in a specified group

(i.e., a first mobile unit) receive the update, while units not 

in the specified group (i.e., a second mobile unit) do not. Id. 

Second, Sugita describes performing updates one unit at a 

time. Id. at *8. In other words, Sugita’s base station transmits update information to an individual terminal on the 

list of update targets (i.e., a first mobile unit) and not to a 

successfully updated terminal or a terminal later on the list

(i.e., a second mobile unit). Id. 

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that 

Sugita’s use of group ID to transmit update information

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 13 Filed: 05/24/2021
14 IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

teaches the wherein limitation. Sugita explains that, in 

the initial stage, its base station transmits the update information to each mobile communications terminal “based 

on the group ID of the group unit (all units, or the unit addresses belonging to a specific group).” J.A. 390 (¶ 13) (emphasis added). Sugita reiterates that, “in the initial stage 

of updating, multiple communication terminals are updated in group units.” J.A. 391 (¶ 15) (emphasis added); 

accord J.A. 393 (¶ 49). According to Dr. White, a skilled 

artisan would recognize that this disclosure of multiple 

“group units” means that “one or more mobile terminals 

belong to different group units.” J.A. 384 (¶ 151). Dr. 

White further testified that “update information sent to the 

one or more mobile terminals using the group ID for the 

first group unit would not be meant for the one or more 

mobile terminals in the second group unit.” Id. He concluded that update information transmitted to the first 

group ID is “transmitted to the first mobile unit but not the 

second mobile unit,” as claimed. Id. In view of Sugita’s 

disclosures and Dr. White’s testimony, the Board reasonably found that Sugita teaches the wherein limitation.3 

We see no reversible error in the Board’s analysis. 

First, Iron Oak argues that “Sugita teaches an all or nothing system and method,” where “every mobile terminal capable of being updated will be sent the update.” 

Appellant’s Br. 26–27. But Iron Oak’s argument contradicts Sugita’s express disclosure that it sends update information to terminals “based on the group ID of the group 

unit (all units, or the unit addresses belonging to a specific 

group).” J.A. 390 (¶ 13) (emphasis added). Sugita plainly 

3 Substantial evidence similarly supports the 

Board’s finding in Samsung I that Sugita anticipates claim 

1 in view of Sugita’s disclosures and Dr. Bederson’s substantially similar testimony. 2020 WL 633816, at *7–9; see

J.A. 895 (¶ 101), 1163 (¶ 13). 

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 14 Filed: 05/24/2021
IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 15

contemplates updating mobile communications terminals 

“in group units.” J.A. 391, 393 (¶¶ 15, 49). It is therefore 

irrelevant that Sugita lists all mobile terminals targeted 

for update or that there is no terminal “mn” that is excluded 

from the list. See Appellant’s Br. 27. Iron Oak at most 

shows that all mobile terminals eventually receive update 

information in the initial stage. But such a showing does

not undercut the Board’s finding that Sugita can send update information to terminals on its target list in a specific

group and not to terminals on its target list in another 

group.4 See Microsoft, 2020 WL 633707, at *7–8. 

Second, Iron Oak misconstrues Dr. White’s testimony 

that update information sent to terminals in a first group 

unit “would not be meant for” terminals in a second group 

unit. See Appellant’s Br. 29–30, 29 n.5. According to Iron 

Oak, Sugita’s update information is meant for terminals in 

both group units because all of the terminals are on 

Sugita’s list of terminals to be updated. But the Board reasonably understood Dr. White’s testimony to mean “update 

information transmitted to the first group ID is ‘transmitted to the first mobile unit but not to the second mobile 

unit.’” Microsoft, 2020 WL 633707, at *7. In this way, the 

update information is “meant for”—i.e., transmitted to—

the first group unit and not the second group unit. 

For these reasons, we hold that substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s finding that Sugita’s use of group ID 

to update terminals teaches the claimed wherein 

4 Iron Oak contends that the Board confused the mobile units’ operability to receive updates with the manager 

host’s operability to decide to which units to send the updates. The Board did not misunderstand claim 1. Rather, 

the fact that terminals in a specific group (and not terminals in another group) receive the update demonstrates 

that Sugita’s base station decides to which mobile units to 

send the updates. 

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 15 Filed: 05/24/2021
16 IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

limitation. We therefore need not reach the Board’s finding 

on Sugita’s use of individual IDs. And because we hold that 

substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that 

Sugita anticipates claim 1 of the ’275 patent, we need not 

reach the Board’s conclusions on obviousness over Ballard 

and Shimizu in Samsung I or obviousness over Hapka and 

Parrillo in Samsung II. 

III. CONCLUSION

We have considered Iron Oak’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons discussed 

above, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1701 Document: 54 Page: 16 Filed: 05/24/2021