`EXHIBIT 2179
`CBM2013-00020 (APPLE v. SIGHTSOUND)
`PAGE 000001
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` ----------------
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ----------------
`
` APPLE, INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` V.
`
`PATENT MUCH SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` ---------------
`
` CASE CBM2013-00020 and 23
`
` Monday, May 5, 2014
`
` 10:59 a.m. to 11:16 a.m.
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUSTIN T. ARBES AND THE
`
`HONORABLE MICHAEL P. TIERNEY
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000002
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` (As introduced on teleconference)
`
`On behalf of the Patent Owner, SightSound
`
`Technologies, LLC:
`
` DAVID MARSH, ESQUIRE
`
` WILLIAM LOUDEN, ESQUIRE
`
` Arnold & Porter
`
` 555 Twelfth Street Northwest
`
` Washington, DC 20004
`
` (202) 942-5068
`
`On Behalf of the Petitioner, Apple, Inc.:
`
` J. STEVEN BAUGHMAN, ESQUIRE
`
` CHING-LEE FUKUDA, ESQUIRE
`
` Ropes & Gray
`
` Three Embarcadero Center
`
` San Francisco, California 9411-4006
`
` (415) 315-6300
`
` - - -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000003
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Good morning, Steve
`
`Baughman and Ching-Lee Fukuda for Petitioner.
`
` MR. MARSH: Good morning. David Marsh and
`
`William Louden for Patentee.
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: Good morning, this is
`
`the court reporter. My name is Sharon James. Could
`
`you please state your names again?
`
` MR. MARSH: David Marsh and William Louden
`
`for Patentee.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Steve Baughman and
`
`Ching-Lee Fukuda for Petitioner.
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Hello, everyone. This is
`
`Judge Arbes for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`This is a conference call in the case of CBM2013
`
`00020 and 23.
`
` Is Counsel for the Petitioner on the line?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Yes, your Honor. Steve
`
`Baughman and Ching-Lee Fukuda for Petitioner.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: And Counsel for the patent
`
`owner?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000004
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. MARSH: Yes, your Honor. David Marsh
`
`and William Louden for the Patentee.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. My understanding is
`
`we have a court reporter today?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: That's correct, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Thank you. Counsel, if you
`
`are kind enough, can you file a copy of the
`
`transcript and exhibits whenever it's available?
`
` MR. MARSH: Yes, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: The conference call was
`
`requested by the parties today to discuss issues
`
`with demonstrative exhibits to be used at the
`
`hearing tomorrow. So, we received an E-mail before
`
`the call with a number of slides that the parties
`
`object to so we can discuss, we can discuss those a
`
`bit with the parties.
`
` A couple of notes before we do. One, just
`
`that demonstrative exhibits are merely visual aids
`
`to assist the party's presentation. The Board has
`
`found it helpful in some cases to have
`
`demonstratives, for instance, showing figures or
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000005
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`annotated figures to aid in the party's explanation
`
`during the hearing. Something to keep in mind is
`
`that demonstrative exhibits are just visual aids.
`
`They are not evidence. And, so, I think this is, in
`
`the normal case, something that the parties should
`
`be able to agree on and should not have a large
`
`number of objections for demonstrative exhibits
`
`given the fact that they are merely visual aids.
`
` So, with that said, the panel does not
`
`intend to spend too much time on demonstrative
`
`exhibits before we reach the merits at this hearing.
`
`So, what we would ask the parties to do is to -- we
`
`can go through maybe one example from each party,
`
`ask the party why it objects to the slide and then
`
`hear from, hear from the other side.
`
` So, we understand that patent owner
`
`objects to five slides of the petitioner and that
`
`the petitioner objects to three of the patent
`
`owner's slides. So, why don't we start with the
`
`petitioner's slides and patent owner. Can you
`
`please point to what you believe is the best example
`
`of the slides at issue and explain the basis for
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000006
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`your objection?
`
` MR. MARSH: Your Honor, slide 7 is
`
`probably illustrative at least of one of the issues
`
`that applies to slide 6. And, your Honor, the issue
`
`that we have with slide 6 and with slide 7 is that
`
`the extent F1 tends to argue that SoftNet teaches
`
`transfer of money electronically with respect to
`
`103, obviously a rejection of such argument was
`
`never previously raised by Apple and cannot for the
`
`first time be raised at the oral hearing. And it
`
`ties back to the fact that it's not being tied back
`
`to any of their SoftNet electronic references, your
`
`Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Judge Arbes okay. This is
`
`on slide 7 referring to Exhibit 4109 in the 20
`
`proceeding?
`
` MR. MARSH: That's correct, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. Counsel for the
`
`Petitioner, would you like to respond?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Yes, your Honor. We are
`
`presenting slide 7 to show the background
`
`information that would have been known to a person
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000007
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. We did that in our
`
`petition, pages 2 to 9 in general, and we actually
`
`cited this reference in particular on pages 8 and 9
`
`of our petition and on page 22 footnote 16 of the
`
`petition. So, we really -- we don't see how this is
`
`in any way an inappropriate presentation of an
`
`argument that's been made in this proceeding.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. I take it, Counsel,
`
`that you are not arguing for a new, a new 103 ground
`
`based on this in combination with anything else?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Absolutely not, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. Counsel for the
`
`patent owner, would like to respond?
`
` MR. MARSH: Your Honor, to the extent that
`
`Apple intends to argue it solely as in the
`
`background section, it is certainly appropriate. We
`
`agree they want to apply it to any of the
`
`CompuSonics' references. We reiterate it's never
`
`been applied to any of the CompuSonics' references
`
`during any stage of this proceeding.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. Okay, anything else
`
`to discuss for slide 7 of Petitioner?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000008
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. MARSH: This is David Marsh for the
`
`patency. Not with respect to the patency, your
`
`Honor.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: No, I think we have
`
`addressed that objection.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. Why don't we go to
`
`the one example from the patent owner's slides and
`
`then the panel can confer briefly.
`
` Counsel for the Petitioner, would you like
`
`to give us an example of how the patent owner's
`
`slides -- explain the basis for your objection?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Yes, your Honor. Thank
`
`you.
`
` We determine not to press other objections
`
`to the Board and have limited our concerns to just
`
`this set of slides and we can use 20 and 21 together
`
`if that's okay as an example. These slides are a
`
`discussion of four cases, none of which were
`
`previously cited by the patent owner in submission
`
`to the Board and the Petitioner. They essentially
`
`appear to us to be sort of a sur reply brief that
`
`was not authorized. We're happy to address why each
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000009
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`of the four cases is not applicable, doesn't support
`
`the arguments that they're being cited for, but
`
`respectfully, we don't think that that should have
`
`to come out of our allotted time at tomorrow's
`
`hearing to address these late arguments.
`
` Understanding that the Board would rather
`
`not be dealing with procedural issues, if the Board
`
`prefers not to have these slides removed, as an
`
`alternative we just respectfully request maybe an
`
`additional ten minutes during tomorrow's hearing to
`
`address them just because they're not arguments
`
`we've had a chance to respond to previously.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. Counsel for the
`
`patent owner?
`
` MR. MARSH: Your Honor, we don't agree
`
`with that characterization. As your Honor is aware,
`
`the one case that was cited by petitioner with
`
`respect to these proceedings and the petition was
`
`Verdegaal Brothers vs. Union Oil which state -- and
`
`they spend -- the petitioner stated, "The claim is
`
`anticipated in each and every element as set forth
`
`and the claimant found, either expressly inherently
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000010
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`described in a prior reference." It's a 102 E case.
`
` The patency -- it wasn't until the reply
`
`did the petitioner state that the public use or
`
`known by others was the basis for the 102 rejection
`
`and these cases refer to the additional evidence and
`
`the like put forward in the reply that was not in
`
`the original petition. The original petition
`
`limited the 103 arguments to a single paragraph of
`
`the declaration of Mr. Kelly.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, these cases that
`
`are cited on pages 20 and 21, they don't appear in
`
`any of the briefs in this case?
`
` MR. MARSH: That's correct, your Honor.
`
`They were raised -- they had to be raised in light
`
`of the fact that new -- for the first time in our,
`
`in our evidence in chief we put forward on page 21
`
`of our evidence in chief that the CompuSonics'
`
`system and the petitioner never raised whether
`
`CompuSonic's system was known or used in section
`
`102. In its reply, your Honor, they put forward
`
`that it was known by others and in light of that,
`
`and without the ability to brief post reply, that's
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000011
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`why these are raised, your Honor.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Your Honor, if I might
`
`briefly respond for Petitioner.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Briefly.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: When we produced the
`
`challenge based on 102 for CompuSonics, we state
`
`specifically the technology and concepts embodied in
`
`CompuSonics' publicly disclosed system and we've
`
`been making our -- this public disclosure argument
`
`from the beginning. Every entry in our claim chart
`
`begins with the CompuSonics systems disclosures and
`
`it's supported in the Kelly declaration paragraph 32
`
`as well. So, that's our position, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay, the panel will confer.
`
`One note before we do. We have seen this situation
`
`before where one party will, will argue that the
`
`other side made an improper new argument in its
`
`reply, and it's -- certainly you're free to make
`
`that argument. I'm not sure we need slides to --
`
`that we can hear a party on that, on that issue, but
`
`that is something that the parties are free to
`
`argue, that a reply went beyond the bounds permitted
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000012
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`by rule.
`
` So, anything else from the parties before
`
`the panel confers and we can discuss these two
`
`examples?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: No thank you, your Honor.
`
` MR. MARSH: No thank you, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. We'll go on mute and
`
`the panel will be back in just a minute.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Thank you.
`
` (Pause in the proceedings.)
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay, this is Judge Arbes.
`
`The panel has had a chance to confer.
`
` Are the parties still on the line?
`
` MR. MARSH: Yes, your Honor.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Yes, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. The panel has
`
`conferred. We don't believe that any of the slides
`
`need to be struck or that the parties should be
`
`prevented from showing the slides. Again, much of
`
`the exhibits are merely visual aids. The parties
`
`are free to make the arguments that they want at the
`
`hearing. We're not sure that these -- the
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000013
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`demonstrative exhibits of this nature are really
`
`necessary at the hearing for things like case law
`
`and other things of this nature.
`
` The patent owner slides appear to be just
`
`general case law and the Board is well versed in
`
`that law. So, the parties can just make their
`
`arguments. But we're not prepared at this point to
`
`order that either party cannot present these slides
`
`in particular. So, both parties can go ahead and
`
`file their demonstrative exhibits. It would
`
`probably makes more sense to file one whole set
`
`rather than two sets. So, if the parties today can
`
`file a complete set of demonstratives exhibits in
`
`each case, that would be preferable.
`
` Any questions from either party?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Thanks, your Honor. Just
`
`to clarify for Petitioner, that's one set per party?
`
` JUDGE ARBES: That's correct, yes.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Thank you, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: I think, and correct me if
`
`I'm wrong, Counsel, but I believe that the
`
`demonstrative exhibits that were filed so far were
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000014
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`just the ones that were not objected to. Is that
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: I wanted to make sure you
`
`didn't want the parties to file in a single
`
`submission.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: No. I think both parties
`
`can file a full demonstrative set in each case as
`
`one exhibit each. But that should include both the
`
`ones that were filed already and the ones that we
`
`discussed today.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Understood, your Honor.
`
`Thank you.
`
` MR. MARSH: Understood, your Honor. Your
`
`Honor, would you want us to file a motion to expunge
`
`the partial set that was filed on Friday?
`
` JUDGE ARBES: No, that's fine. We can
`
`leave it in.
`
` MR. MARSH: Thank you, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. Thank you all for
`
`your time and we will see you at the hearing
`
`tomorrow.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Thank you, your Honor.
`
` MR. MARSH: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000015
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 15
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Bye.
`
` (The proceedings concluded at 11:16 a.m.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000016
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 16
`
` CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
`
` I, SHARON M. JAMES, hereby certify that I am
`
` the certified shorthand reporter who, on behalf
`
` of Alderson Reporting Company, stenographically
`
` reported the foregoing proceedings via
`
` telephone conference call to the best of my
`
` ability.
`
` /s/ Sharon M. James
`
` __________________________
`
` Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`