`Paper 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 14, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`____________
`
`Held: October 15, 2013
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`J. STEVEN BAUGHMAN, ESQUIRE
`
`
`NICOLE M. JANTZI, ESQUIRE
`
`
`JAMES MYERS, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Ropes & Gray
`One Metro Center, Suite 900
`700 12th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005-3948
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`CALVIN P. GRIFFITH, ESQ.
`
`
`JAMES L. WAMSLEY, ESQUIRE
`
`
`JOHN V. BIERNACKI, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Jones Day
`
`
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, October
`15, 2013, commencing at 1:05 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE LEE: We can go on the record.
`
`We sent out an order outlining the procedure, who's
`
`21
`
`coming up first, who's second, and so on and so forth. By that
`
`22
`
`order, what we intended was, this is a combined oral hearing, so
`
`23
`
`the transcript of the hearing can be relied on by either party in
`
`24
`
`either case.
`
`25
`
`In other words, we're not going to segregate any portion
`
`26
`
`of this hearing and say only this half is usable in one and the
`
`27
`
`other half is usable in the other. So, with that understanding, is
`
`28
`
`there any objection from either side?
`
`29
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: No, Your Honor.
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Great. We've allocated only an hour of
`
`argument time for each party, total, but we understand this is
`
`really a session for two cases. So, if you do go over, we will be
`
`lenient on that. So, you don't really have to rush. We have all
`
`the way until 4:00, if nece ssary, if we ask you many questions.
`
`So, essentially, you have some extra time if you need to go -- use
`
`it.
`
`So, let me know who's representing the Petitioner and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`then the Patent Owner, please.
`
`11
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: Your Honor, for Petitioner, Steve
`
`12
`
`Baughman, from Ropes & Gray; and with me, my colleagues,
`
`13
`
`James Myers, and Nicole Jantzi, also from Ropes & Gray; and we
`
`14
`
`also have a representative of Liberty in the audience today,
`
`15
`
`Michael Johnson.
`
`16
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: Your Honor, Calvin Griffith on behalf
`
`17
`
`of the Patent Owner, Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. with
`
`18
`
`Jones Day; and with me is my partner James Wamsley, also of
`
`19
`
`Jones Day, and John Biernacki; and then Charles Jarrett, the
`
`20
`
`general counsel for Progressive, is here as well.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you very much.
`
`Any time you're ready, Mr. Baughman, you can proceed.
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: Thank you, Your Honor, and may it
`
`24
`
`please the Board.
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Again, my name is Steve Baughman. I'm counsel for
`
`Petitioner, and what I'd propose to do at the outset is to give the
`
`Board an overview of the suggested plan we have to address the
`
`issues in these two cases. We obviously are happy to address
`
`any questions the Board may have as well.
`
`The three topics we propose to discuss today are, first,
`
`Progressive's claimed priority date; seco nd, the grounds of
`
`rejection based on Toyota's patent application, Nakagawa; and
`
`third, the grounds of rejection based on the Geostar references
`
`10
`
`based on Kosaka. My plan is for my colleague James Myers to
`
`11
`
`address the first topic, and I'll address the seco nd topics.
`
`12
`
`There's one procedural point we would like to make at
`
`13
`
`the outset, in addition to reserving 30 minutes of our time, if I
`
`14
`
`could, for rebuttal. Progressive has submitted a 99 -page set of
`
`15
`
`demonstratives, which we understand are not evidence. So, we
`
`16
`
`just wish to confirm our understanding that while the whole
`
`17
`
`document has been filed with the Board in these proceedings,
`
`18
`
`again, we understand they are not evidence, and only the portions
`
`19
`
`actually discussed during the hearing today, it is our
`
`20
`
`understanding, would be considered by the Board. The rest are
`
`21
`
`not essentially demonstratives.
`
`22
`
`In other words, we're just trying to confirm it's not a
`
`23
`
`99-page surreply brief to which we don't get a chance to respond.
`
`24
`
`So, we just wanted to set forth for the record our understanding
`
`25
`
`of that submission.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`I'd also like to recap for the Board where we are in
`
`terms of open issues. It's our understanding that the only
`
`questions remaining here today involve the validity of Claim 1,
`
`because Progressive has not separately argued the validity of any
`
`of Claims 2 through 20. So, we understand that any dispute on
`
`those points was waived and that all of the claims rise or fall --
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Excuse me, Counsel.
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE CHANG: We have two pro ceedings. So, are
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`you -- are you saying that for both proceedings, the only issue is
`
`11
`
`Claim Number 1?
`
`12
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: That's our understanding, Judge
`
`13
`
`Chang, so -- but I'm happy to spell that out for each of the
`
`14
`
`proceedings. So, in 2012 -00003, the Board f ound a prima facie
`
`15
`
`case for invalidity of Claims 1, 19, and 20, based on the Toyota
`
`16
`
`Nakagawa reference, and all other dependent claims based on the
`
`17
`
`combination of Nakagawa and some additional art. Progressive
`
`18
`
`has disputed anticipation by Nakagawa only wit h respect to
`
`19
`
`Claim 1. They didn't raise issues with respect to Claims 2
`
`20
`
`through 20 separately from that Claim 1 argument.
`
`21
`
`The same is true for the other proceeding today,
`
`22
`
`CBM2013-00009, where the Board found a prima facie case of
`
`23
`
`invalidity for Claims 1 , 3, 5, 8, 9, 19, and 20, based on Section
`
`24
`
`103 combinations of the RDSS reference and the Geostar 10 -K in
`
`25
`
`light of Kosaka, with some additional references added for other
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`dependent claims. Again, it's our understanding that Progressive
`
`has responded only with respect to Claim 1, so that it has
`
`arguments for Claims 2 through 20, but they are identical with
`
`the arguments they're making for the first claim.
`
`And finally -- yes, Your Honor?
`
`JUDGE LEE: I hear what you're saying, but what I'd
`
`like to add is that you're telling us what your understanding is,
`
`and our not commenting on it does not necessarily mean we
`
`agree with your under -- agree with you that that is the case or
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`not.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: Understood, Judge Lee.
`
`JUDGE LEE: So, we could choose not to respond, but
`
`13
`
`at the end of the day, maybe the Board figures that it's still your
`
`14
`
`burden to demonstrate the unpatentability, and you haven't got a
`
`15
`
`prima facie case. I'm just thinking out loud. It's theoretically
`
`16
`
`possible --
`
`17
`
`18
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: Understood, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- that something might not work out the
`
`19
`
`way you like. You know, our not saying anything doesn't mean
`
`20
`
`we agree with you one way or the other. It's just we recognize
`
`21
`
`your understanding.
`
`22
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: And that understanding, j ust to be
`
`23
`
`clear, is based on the Institution Decision in which the Board
`
`24
`
`found a prima facie case for all of the claims, and Progressive
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`has not, in its response in either trial, argued with the analysis
`
`for any claim except for Claim 1.
`
`And regarding Nakagawa, Progressive also argues that
`
`certain claims are entitled to a priority date earlier than the
`
`reference, but that argument only affects four of the claims,
`
`Claims 1, 9, 19, and 20. And Mr. Myers will address that
`
`Progressive has not shown entitleme nt for an earlier priority date
`
`for those claims as well.
`
`So, with that, I will turn the podium over to my
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`colleague Mr. Myers.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`MR. MYERS: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`
`The priority date argument with respect to the '650
`
`13
`
`application is important beca use Progressive asserts that the
`
`14
`
`Nakagawa Toyota reference is not prior art, and so if the
`
`15
`
`Progressive application, '650, is not -- does not give priority to
`
`16
`
`the '358 claims, then Nakagawa is, in fact, prior art and is
`
`17
`
`available to invalidate the claims of the '358 patent.
`
`18
`
`What I'd like to do first is to take a look at the '358
`
`19
`
`Claim Number 1 and note that what we have here is a system that
`
`20
`
`monitors -- and there are one, two, three, four, five -- six
`
`21
`
`limitations. It's a very detailed system. And in our reply brief,
`
`22
`
`in pages 3 and in 10, we point to Federal Circuit precedent that
`
`23
`
`says Progressive's not entitled to selectively pluck, using
`
`24
`
`hindsight, elements. And we submit that that's exactly what
`
`25
`
`they've done.
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`They take a web server over here, they ta ke a database
`
`over there, they take a wireless transmitter that goes to an
`
`operations control center, they take the words "ratings
`
`algorithm" down here, and like the Frankenstein monster, they
`
`assemble it and they claim, lo and behold, that's Claim 1. But
`
`nowhere in the '650 application is the system itself described.
`
`Now, in addition to the -- to this plucking, this cobbling
`
`together of pieces, there are two things that are absolutely
`
`missing. They are, number one, the word "rating factor" never
`
`10
`
`appears, and there is no description not only of a rating factor,
`
`11
`
`but no description of a server configured to generate a rating
`
`12
`
`factor using a coupled, linked database. It's just not there.
`
`13
`
`Then, in addition, they point to a web server as a server,
`
`14
`
`but there is no language that shows how this server is configured
`
`15
`
`to generate a rating factor or to engage in insurance cost
`
`16
`
`computations.
`
`17
`
`Now, their answer to this is a simple one. Their answer
`
`18
`
`is it would be required, it is inherent, everyone would
`
`19
`
`understand. A POSITA would know that there was the
`
`20
`
`generation of a rating factor, that there was a server that was
`
`21
`
`doing these calculations.
`
`22
`
`You know what's wrong with that -- and it is completely
`
`23
`
`inconsistent with what happened in the original examination -- is
`
`24
`
`the reason for allowance. The original examiner -- and it is in
`
`25
`
`our Petition starting at page 2 and continuing at page 3. We
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`quote it, so it's been up front, it's from the beginning. But I
`
`think that it's worth showing the Board that particular -- it is
`
`Exhibit 1002 in the file history at pages 00026 and 27.
`
`And what does the examiner have to say?
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: Objection, Your Honor. I would like a
`
`clarification here. We received some demonstratives from them
`
`last week, and I believe they were file d with the Court, but I --
`
`we didn't get anything marked up like this. And I don't think
`
`that the Board's rules would properly allow for markups to be
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`made on the fly.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE LEE: Are you complaining about the
`
`12
`
`highlighting on the left and right margins?
`
`13
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: Well, I just don't know what -all
`
`14
`
`they're going to submit. I mean, if we're allowed to -- I couldn't
`
`15
`
`see the Post-It that they had put on there, so I'm not sure what
`
`16
`
`that said.
`
`17
`
`MR. MYERS: The Post-It is nothing more than the
`
`18
`
`exhibit number, 1002.
`
`19
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: That's fine. I couldn't see the Post -It.
`
`20
`
`I couldn't see what they were doing with this.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Do you have a copy for the opposing
`
`22
`
`counsel?
`
`23
`
`MR. MYERS: I can give him a copy of this, Your
`
`24
`
`Honor.
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Because he might not be able to see
`
`through the podium, so that way, he can see better.
`
`MR. MYERS: Now, what we, in the Petition --
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: And just -- this is fine, but this is my
`
`concern, was that I'm not going to have what they're using. So,
`
`if I want to go back to it or refer to in my remarks, I didn't have
`
`a copy. But if I can get a copy as we go, that's fine.
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`
`JUDGE LEE: But didn't they serve a copy to you? You
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`have a copy of their whole set.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`MR. MYERS: You have a wh ole set of the exhibits.
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: I have their demonstrative exhibits,
`
`13
`
`yes, but this -- these were not in the demonstratives.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE LEE: What do you mean? When you --
`
`15
`
`Counsel, Mr. Myers, when you refer to something on the screen,
`
`16
`
`could you refer to the demonstrative slide number, so the court
`
`17
`
`reporter will know and anyone reading the transcript will know
`
`18
`
`which slide we're talking about?
`
`19
`
`20
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: The demonstrative slide number.
`
`MR. MYERS: This is Demonstrative Exhibit Number 2,
`
`21
`
`Your Honor, and we provided demonstratives. In our email, we
`
`22
`
`also indicated to them that we intended to use exhibits.
`
`23
`
`JUDGE LEE: I think opposing counsel just didn't know
`
`24
`
`which slide that was in your set.
`
`25
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: This is slide 2?
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`MR. MYERS: 358 is d emonstrative slide 2.
`
`JUDGE LEE: It will help if you just identify the slide
`
`number.
`
`MR. MYERS: Okay.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. MYERS: And, Your Honor, what we're using is the
`
`exhibits. As we said in the email, we are using the actual
`
`exhibits, and, you know, we intend to refer to actual exhibits.
`
`JUDGE LEE: You may continue.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`MR. MYERS: So, in the Petition, the examiner believed
`
`11
`
`that the prior art of record fails to teach where the server is
`
`12
`
`configured to process the selected vehicle data that represents
`
`13
`
`one or more aspects of operating the vehicle, with data that
`
`14
`
`reflects how the selected vehicle data affects a premium of an
`
`15
`
`insurance policy, safety, or level of risk, and where the server is
`
`16
`
`further configured to generate a rating factor based on the
`
`17
`
`selected vehicle data stored in the database.
`
`18
`
`So, the very basis, the innovative concept, the reason
`
`19
`
`for allowance of the '358 Claim 1 and all of the claims is exactly
`
`20
`
`what's missing in the '650 application. And here, Progressive is
`
`21
`
`saying everyone knew about it. POSITAs would know about it.
`
`22
`
`We think that's inconsistent, and it is contrary to the arguments
`
`23
`
`they made to get this patent allowed.
`
`24
`
`Now --
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Can you tell us what "rating factor"
`
`means? I didn't see in your Petition t hat you've taken a clear
`
`view as to what that should mean, the term "rating factor."
`
`MR. MYERS: We are comfortable with the Board's
`
`definition, Your Honor, and we have not contested it.
`
`JUDGE LEE: I understand, but why haven't you offered
`
`your own view of what it is in your Petition?
`
`MR. MYERS: Well, it's not described at all, Your
`
`Honor, and so our view is that whatever it does mean, it is not
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`described or disclosed. And as I say, we are comfortable with
`
`11
`
`the Board's position with respect to "ratin g factor." We think
`
`12
`
`that it is a numerical factor. It's a number that is used to rate
`
`13
`
`either a driver's safety score or it is used --
`
`14
`
`JUDGE LEE: What do you mean, it's not described?
`
`15
`
`Are you saying the term is not used in their --
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`me.
`
`MR. MYERS: It is n ot used at all --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- in their specification?
`
`MR. MYERS: -- and there is no description -- excuse
`
`20
`
`There is no -- we -- we offered and we said, on this
`
`21
`
`record, we agree with that interpretation, but added in the
`
`22
`
`clarification that an insu rance risk value would be a value that
`
`23
`
`reflects an associated level of insurance risk and, therefore, also
`
`24
`
`a corresponding insurance premium.
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: I understand, but I would like to go back
`
`in time. When you first filed your Petition, you didn't o ffer a
`
`position on what "rating factor" means. Is that correct?
`
`MR. MYERS: We offered on page 15 of our original
`
`Petition a description of rating factor, and we said, "For review
`
`purposes, this term is construed to mean, under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction, based upon the disclosure in the '357
`
`patent specification, a calculated insurance risk value, such as a
`
`safety score or a usage discount."
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE LEE: Does that include the additional
`
`11
`
`constraints on the term that the Patent Owner would like us to
`
`12
`
`read in, such as the classification by actuarial classes and so on
`
`13
`
`and so forth?
`
`14
`
`MR. MYERS: We do not believe that, and, in fact, we
`
`15
`
`have contested that in the declarations of Ms. O'Neil. We
`
`16
`
`believe that they've added additional verbiage and con cepts
`
`17
`
`beyond what the Board had in its definition and also what
`
`18
`
`Liberty Mutual had in its.
`
`19
`
`JUDGE LEE: So, you do not read our articulation of
`
`20
`
`what the term means as including all of those additional
`
`21
`
`constraints, such as the requirement of actuarial clas s
`
`22
`
`categorizations?
`
`23
`
`MR. MYERS: That is correct, Your Honor. And, in
`
`24
`
`fact, we've argued that in the reply and we've argued it in our --
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`or it has been presented in expert declarations, particularly of
`
`Ms. O'Neil.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Are there other ways insura nce premiums
`
`can be calculated without using actuarial class categorizations
`
`and --
`
`MR. MYERS: Yes, Your --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- and such factors?
`
`MR. MYERS: Yes, Your Honor. As an example would
`
`be a multidriver discount, for example. It doesn't have a rating
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`factor. It's usually a promotional discount that's added on. And
`
`11
`
`some examples are provided in Ms. O'Neil's declarations and, in
`
`12
`
`particular, her reply declaration.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. MYERS: Would you like for me to continue?
`
`JUDGE LEE: Yes, please.
`
`MR. MYERS: Thank you.
`
`Your Honor, Demonstrative Number 2 -- excuse me --
`
`18
`
`yeah, I've labeled it Number 2. There was a cover page.
`
`19
`
`I would note, Your Honor, that this issue of '650
`
`20
`
`priority has been considered twice before by the Pa tent Office,
`
`21
`
`once in the original examination, and Progressive did not receive
`
`22
`
`priority for the '650 application, and that's in Exhibit 1002 at
`
`23
`
`000147 and at 000026; and then, of course, in the Institution
`
`24
`
`Decision of the Board. And we believe that the Pa tent Office
`
`25
`
`was right both times.
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`This is consistent with the decisions of the Patent Office
`
`with respect to the '598 patent, which is the parent of the '358.
`
`The '358 here is a double
`
`continuation-in-part. There is the '650 application; then there's a
`
`CIP application that resulted in the '598; and then there's a CIP
`
`application that resulted in the '358. And so both times that the
`
`Patent Office considered the parent '598 application, it decided
`
`that it did not deserve priority.
`
`And that's -- and this is in a different CBM. It is in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`2013-00004. The exhibit number is the same, 1002, and the
`
`11
`
`pages are 1166 through 84, 1568 through 83, 1226 and 74
`
`12
`
`through 76. And this Board's Institution Decision did not grant
`
`13
`
`priority, and that was at page -- paper 11 at pages 22 through 30.
`
`14
`
`Now, there is a very good explanation for why the
`
`15
`
`priority was not allowed. The application leading to the parent
`
`16
`
`'598 added 13 columns of text and 12 figures. And then the
`
`17
`
`application leading to the '358 added another 13 col umns of text
`
`18
`
`and 17 figures. So that the total added for the '650 application
`
`19
`
`was 26 columns of text and 29 figures, not at all surprising.
`
`20
`
`The missing parts of the '358 Claim 1 -- all claims fall
`
`21
`
`with Claim 1. If Claim 1 is the only independent claim, if there's
`
`22
`
`no priority to Claim 1, there's no priority for any of the
`
`23
`
`dependent claims. There's missing support in three areas. They
`
`24
`
`are identified in the Institution Decision. We support all of
`
`25
`
`them. The Institution Decision at 17 through 21.
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`Let's take a look at the next piece, which is the missing
`
`claimed server.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Can I bring your attention back to your
`
`original Petition?
`
`MR. MYERS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: It seems like the only item you complain
`
`about in the Petition on the topic of the priority date is the -- is
`
`the issue about a server to generate a rating factor. Other than
`
`that, there is no other specific item mentioned.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`MR. MYERS: I think that's -- I would beg to differ with
`
`11
`
`Your Honor. In particular, we also ident ify that the server is not
`
`12
`
`configured to do insurance cost computations, and we point that
`
`13
`
`out from the quotation from the original examiner's statements.
`
`14
`
`And so I would say both of those are identified in the Petition.
`
`15
`
`And I would note that if you take a look at the issue, the
`
`16
`
`'358 patent, that the question of wireless transmission, which
`
`17
`
`we're going to talk about, is a wireless transmission configured
`
`18
`
`to transfer the selected vehicle data to a distributed network and
`
`19
`
`a server. So, the wireless issue i s contained in the server issue,
`
`20
`
`we believe, as well.
`
`21
`
`And when we talk about the server being configured to
`
`22
`
`process selected vehicle data, it represents one or more aspects
`
`23
`
`of operating the vehicle with data that reflects that; that's the
`
`24
`
`insurance computations. And then the server is further
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`configured to generate a rating factor based on the selected
`
`vehicle data stored in the database; the database issue is there.
`
`I would also note that there is a requirement that the
`
`database be linked to the serve r to store selected vehicle data
`
`transmitted by the wireless transmitter.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Well, should you be limited to only the
`
`elements that you identify and argue as something without
`
`description in the '650 application?
`
`MR. MYERS: Your Honor, I think that we are entitled
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`to rely on all of the bases that are set forth in the Institution
`
`11
`
`Decision. I think, one -- procedurally, you'll have to tell me
`
`12
`
`whether you think that that's appropriate, but I believe that's
`
`13
`
`number one, that the -- we're entitled to rely on all of the bases
`
`14
`
`set forth in the decision.
`
`15
`
`The second is, as I say, the server -- the remote server
`
`16
`
`and how it is configured -- is the key issue here. There is a
`
`17
`
`complete absence, and it shows up, as I think the Board notes in
`
`18
`
`the Institution Decision, in a whole variety of different
`
`19
`
`limitations. And so if you are saying, as a decision, that we are
`
`20
`
`forced to rely only on the bottom two, then I believe that these
`
`21
`
`two limitations are not supported, no question about it, and they
`
`22
`
`are explicitly and clearly raised in the Petition.
`
`23
`
`I also believe that because of how the way the word
`
`24
`
`"server" is used, being operatively linked to the database, that it
`
`25
`
`is -- the wireless issue, and the fact that the database is
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`mentioned in relation to the rating fa ctor in the last limitation,
`
`that issue is also present as well. So, I believe that all -- once
`
`you unwrap it, that all three of these different items are, in fact,
`
`included in the original Petition.
`
`JUDGE LEE: If I could trouble you to point out to me
`
`where in the Petition -- I'm looking at page 12, right in the
`
`middle of the page, and that is the only place you're identifying
`
`features that are allegedly not described. Am I missing other
`
`portions?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`I mean, you can continue while your co -counsel is
`
`11
`
`looking for it. I'm basically looking for all the places that you're
`
`12
`
`attacking the lack of written description in the '650.
`
`13
`
`MR. MYERS: Right. And I believe it is also in -- in 12
`
`14
`
`we do that, and we also point out the absence in -- on pages 2
`
`15
`
`and 3 --
`
`16
`
`17
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. MYERS: -- with respect to the insurance
`
`18
`
`computations.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. MYERS: So, the explicit issue, Your Honor, I
`
`21
`
`agree with you, is raised in 2 and 3 and on page 12 in our
`
`22
`
`Petition, and for the reasons that I' ve stated, I believe that we're
`
`23
`
`entitled to rely on all three -- the ways in which the Board has
`
`24
`
`presented this issue, but the server issue is intertwined in a
`
`25
`
`whole set of claim limitations.
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`So, what about the server issue? The -- a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not find the server limitations are
`
`explicitly disclosed nor required, and Mr. Andrews' reply
`
`declaration, that's Exhibit 1034 at paragraph 43 says exactly that,
`
`page 24. And he also makes the point that Zatkovich does not
`
`have the qualifications to opine on the insurance aspect of the
`
`claimed server limitation.
`
`They're relying on a technical expert with no insurance
`
`background at all, and he's making a set of expert opinions,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`supposedly, about the presence of various insurance cos t
`
`11
`
`computations. That is in Mr. Andrews' reply declaration on
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 1034, paragraph 44, page 24.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Counsel, can I interrupt?
`
`MR. MYERS: Now -- of course.
`
`JUDGE CHANG: In the Patent Owner response, they
`
`16
`
`address to the presence of a ser ver. They point to Figure 2 and
`
`17
`
`also Figure 5 of that earlier application that you're talking about.
`
`18
`
`So, can you comment on that, why Figure 2 and Figure 5 --
`
`19
`
`because on the figure, there is a web server -- why that web
`
`20
`
`server cannot meet that claim limi tation?
`
`21
`
`MR. MYERS: The web server that's identified -- and
`
`22
`
`that's, again, in Mr. Andrews' reply declaration -- is designed to
`
`23
`
`present, over the Internet, informational content to the user.
`
`24
`
`There is no disclosure, if you go through Figures 5 and 2, of
`
`25
`
`insurance cost computations that are based on selected vehicle
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`data. There is nothing there that shows that the server is
`
`generating a rating factor. So, there is a server, but what is not
`
`present is any kind of description, either in the specification or
`
`in the figures themselves, of the creation of a server that is
`
`configured to do insurance cost computations and generate a
`
`rating factor.
`
`And it's at that point that Mr. Zatkovich says, well,
`
`there is a rating algorithm that's there, and I tell you that this
`
`rating algorithm would be required to have some kind of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`processing done to it, so there must be a server. Don't know
`
`11
`
`where it is exactly, because -- and the problem -- the one that's
`
`12
`
`identified is a web server, but the problem Mr. Andrews points
`
`13
`
`out is that Mr. Zatkovich is confusing the definition of a
`
`14
`
`processor and a server.
`
`15
`
`A server requires a client device to actually ask for and
`
`16
`
`make requests. A processor is different. It processes
`
`17
`
`calculations. Now, that distinction would seem to be pretty
`
`18
`
`technical until you look at the claims, and if you look at Claim 1
`
`19
`
`of the '358 patent, you will notice that the word "a processor" --
`
`20
`
`that's what happens on the vehicle -- is identified. And the '650
`
`21
`
`application itself tells you that it's the data proces s logic that is
`
`22
`
`performing the insurance cost calculations. They're being done
`
`23
`
`onboard. And later, the word "server" appears throughout the
`
`24
`
`'358 patent, and there is no description of a configured server
`
`25
`
`doing the insurance cost computations.
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Now, Mr. Andrews provides that expert testimony at
`
`paragraph 46, page 25, of Exhibit 1034, and he also points out at
`
`paragraph 48 that the algorithms are processed on the vehicle and
`
`not necessarily carried out at a remote server. Any reasonable
`
`reading of the '65 0 patent is that it is focused on sensors and
`
`insurance computations on the vehicle. The remote server and
`
`the remote system is not adequately described. There are a few
`
`links here or there, but there is no description of a server that is
`
`configured to do insurance cost computations and to generate a
`
`10
`
`rating factor back at the insurer.
`
`11
`
`All we see are a rating algorithm over here, the words
`
`12
`
`"web server" over there, and no indication about where those
`
`13
`
`cost computations are taking place at the insurer. Ins tead, we
`
`14
`
`are told in the application -- and a POSITA would recognize,
`
`15
`
`according to Mr. Andrews -- that the calculations with respect to
`
`16
`
`the premiums are being calculated on the vehicle itself. And
`
`17
`
`that's further confirmed by the description in the '650 ap plication
`
`18
`
`that the algorithm can be developed at the insurer, but it is
`
`19
`
`downloaded to the unit of risk. That's in Figure 6 of the patent.
`
`20
`
`There is no indication that the insurance cost
`
`21
`
`computations, rating factor, determinations of premium take
`
`22
`
`place at the insurer. So, there's a big difference between a server
`
`23
`
`and a processor as claimed in the '358. Our expert points this
`
`24
`
`out. Second, we don't know where the algorithms are being
`
`25
`
`performed. The only clue to that is that they're being performed
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`Case Nos. CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`on the vehicle with a data process logic in the processor on the
`
`vehicle.
`
`JUDGE LEE: So, my understanding is it's your
`
`position, then, you're not exactly sure where the rating factor is
`
`generated, but to the extent you can tell, it's only on the vehicle?
`
`MR. MYERS: Correct, Your Honor. What Mr. Andrews
`
`said, it's not necessarily performed at a remote server or on a
`
`distributed network. There is not a preclusion of computations
`
`there, but there is no descripti