Presentation of Petitioners
`Google Inc. and Apple Inc.
`
`CBM2015-00040
`CBM2015-00160
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,774,280
`
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`1
`
`
`Google Inc. and Apple Inc.
`
`CBM2015-00040
`CBM2015-00160
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,774,280
`
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`1
`
`
`
`THE ’280 PATENT IS
`CBM-ELIGIBLE
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. –
`Ex. 1034
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility
`Financial product or service
`
`Inst. Dec. at 6
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility
`Claim language recites a “financial product or service”
`
`“A computer-implemented method for
`transferring rights adapted to be
`associated with items from a rights
`supplier to a rights consumer, the
`method comprising:”
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 15:7-9;
`Pet. at 10; Inst. Dec. at 9
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility
`Institution Decision
`
`Inst. Dec. at 9
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`5
`
`
`
`Institution Decision
`Incidental or complementary to a financial activity
`
`Inst. Dec. at 8
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`6
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility
`Incidental or complementary to a financial activity
`
`• The claim language need not explicitly recite or
`necessarily cover only the practice of financial
`activity.
`Reply at 4; Inst. Dec. at 8-9
`– Compass Bank v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., CBM2015-
`00102, Paper 16 at 12 (PTAB Oct. 7, 2015)
`– Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC v. ADC Tech. Inc., CBM2015-
`00026, Paper 10 at 12-13 (PTAB July 3, 2015)
`– Photoshelter, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., CBM2015-00023, Paper
`24 at 12-13 (PTAB May 21, 2015) (Wood, J.);
`– Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Securus Techs., Inc., CBM2015-00145,
`Paper 20 at 10-14 (PTAB Nov. 25, 2015) (Braden, J.)
`
`
`
`Reply at 4-5
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility
`Specification describes financial activity as the payment of fees
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 4:3-14;
`Inst. Dec. at 9; Pet. at 11
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`8
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility
`Specification describes financial activity as the payment of fees
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 4:39-43, 5:3-11,
` 5:35-36; Inst. Dec. at 9; Pet. at 11-12
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility
` Not a “technological invention”
`
`Inst. Dec. at 6
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility
`Subject matter as a whole not novel or unobvious
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 14:50-67; Pet. at 17
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`11
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility
`Repository fully disclosed in ’012 patent
`
`The ’280 Patent
`
`The ’012 Patent
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:37-42;
`’012 Patent (Ex. 1002) at 12:41-17:45; Inst. Dec. at 11; Pet. at 18
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`12
`
`
`
`CLAIMS 1, 5, AND 11 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. –
`Ex. 1034
`
`13
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00040, -00160
`
`Grounds for Unpatentability
`1. Claims 1, 5, and 11 of the ’280 patent are
`anticipated by Stefik (Ex. 1002)
`
`2. Claims 1, 5, and 11 of the ’280 patent are obvious
`over the combination of Stefik and the knowledge
`of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`14
`
`
`
`The ’280 Patent
`Purports to extend Stefik ’012 patent “usage rights” to include “meta-rights”
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 5:39-51;
`Pet. at 12, 27; Inst. Dec. at 15; Reply at 6
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`15
`
`
`
`The ’280 Patent, Claim 1
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`16
`
`
`
`The ’280 Patent, Claims 5 and 11
`
`Claims 5 and 11 rise or fall with Claim 1
`
`Reply at 2
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 5
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 11
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`17
`
`
`
`ANTICIPATION
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. –
`Ex. 1034
`
`18
`
`
`
`The ’280 Patent, Claim 1
`Preamble: “method for transferring rights…”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 6:18-20; Pet. 63
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1; Pet. 63-69
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`19
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`
`
`’280 Claim 1
`
`Stefik Fig. 1
`
`See Pet. 63
`
`See Pet. 65-66
`
`See Pet. 68-69
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1
`
`Pet. 63-69; Inst. Dec. at 32, 34-35
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`20
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` “obtaining a set of rights associated with an item”
`
`’280 Claim 1
`
`Stefik Fig. 1
`
`See Pet. 63
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1
`
`Pet. 63-69; Inst. Dec. at 32, 34-35
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`21
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`“a set of rights associated with an item”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 27:15-33;
`Pet. at 66; Ex. 1014 at ¶74, 76
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`22
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` “the set of rights including a meta-right specifying a right that can be created
`when the meta-right is exercised”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 27:15-33;
`Pet. at 66; Ex. 1014 at ¶74, 76
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`23
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` “the set of rights including a meta-right specifying a right that can be created
`when the meta-right is exercised”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 11:53-56;
`Inst. Dec. at 36
`
`Ex. 1002 at 27:15-33;
`Pet. at 66; Ex. 1014 at p74, 76
`Ex. 1002 at 21:47-59;
`Pet. at 58-59, 64; Ex. 1014 at ¶64;
`Reply at 10
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`24
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`“provided in digital form and enforceable by a repository”
`
`’280 Patent:
`
`Stefik ’012 Patent:
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:36-39;
`Inst. Dec. at 15; PO Resp. at 23; Reply at 21
`
`Ex. 1002 at 6:56-60
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`25
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` “determining, by a repository, whether the rights consumer is entitled…”
`
`’280 Claim 1
`
`Stefik Fig. 1
`
`See Pet. 65-66
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1
`
`Pet. 63-69; Inst. Dec. at 32, 34-35
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`26
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`“determining, by a repository, whether the rights consumer is entitled…”
`
`Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1; Pet. 65-67
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`27
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` “determining, by a repository, whether the rights consumer is entitled…”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 7:23-31;
`Pet. at 66-67; Reply at 19
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`28
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` “determining, by a repository, whether the rights consumer is entitled…”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 32:51-60;
`Pet. at 66-67
`
`29
`
`Ex. 1002 at 26:16-28;
`Reply at 19; Ex. 1032 at ¶19
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` “exercising the meta-right…”
`
`’280 Claim 1
`
`Stefik Fig. 1
`
`See Pet. 68-69
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1
`
`Pet. 63-69; Inst. Dec. at 32, 34-35
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`30
`
`
`
`The ’280 Patent
`“exercising the meta-right…”
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:23-24;
`Inst. Dec. at 15; PO Resp. at 23; Reply at 21
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:36-39;
`Inst. Dec. at 15; PO Resp. at 23; Reply at 21
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`31
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`“wherein the created right includes at least one state variable based on the set of
`rights and used for determining a state of the created right”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 10:45-67;
`Pet. at 61, 69
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`32
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`“wherein the created right includes at least one state variable based on the set of
`rights and used for determining a state of the created right”
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1002 at 36:54-59, 37:5-11;
`Pet. at 57-58, 68
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`33
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`Most points are undisputed
`
`• Preamble
`• Usage rights
`• In digital form
`• Enforcement by repositories
`• State variables
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`34
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`Only limited aspects of the claim are in dispute
`
`• Existence & exercising of “meta-right”
`– Whether the Next-Set-of-Rights is “a right that one
`has to generate, manipulate, modify, dispose of or
`otherwise derive another right” (Board’s construction)
`– Whether it “does not result in action to content”
`(Patent Owner’s construction)
`
`• “Determining” step
`– Whether checking conditions on rights fulfills the
`“determining” step
`
`See Reply at 9
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`35
`
`
`
`Institution Decision
`Construction of “meta-right”
`
`The Board’s construction:
`A “meta-right” is “a right that one has to generate,
`manipulate, modify, dispose of or otherwise derive
`another right.”
`
`Inst. Dec. at 17
`
`’280 Patent:
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 5:39-51;
`Pet. at 27-28; Inst. Dec. at 15-16
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`36
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`Stefik’s Next-Set-of-Rights is a right to generate another right
`
`Ex. 1002 at 27:15-33;
`Pet. at 66; Ex. 1014 at p74, 76
`Ex. 1002 at 21:47-59;
`Pet. at 58-59, 64; Ex. 1014 at ¶64;
`Reply at 10
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`37
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Assertion
`The Next-Set-of-Rights is not separately, “optionally” exercisable
`
`“Stefik does not disclose a meta-right that can be exercised
`independently of the exercise of a usage right.”
`
`“As the Martin declaration explains more fully, an NSOR parameter
`cannot even be interpreted as a separate right all by itself.”
`PO Resp. at 54
`
`“Instead, the rights identified by processing the NSOR parameter
`automatically propagate with the transferred copy when all the
`conditions of a usage right are met and the usage right is exercised.”
`PO Resp. at 57
`
`69. A right is an optionally exercisable ability to perform an action. An
`unconditionally performed action does not fit: the action is just an
`action, not a right. By analogy, a basketball player does sometimes
`have the right to dribble the ball. The fact that a player may exercise a
`right to dribble does not mean that the ball consequently exercises a
`“right” to obey the laws of gravity. The laws of gravity are unconditional.
`
`Ex. 2009 at ¶69
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`38
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`No requirement that meta-right is “separately” or “optionally” exercisable
`
`• Not in Board’s construction
`• Not in Claim 1
`• Not in ’280 patent specification
`
`
`See Reply at 9-10
`
`And, even if it were required, Stefik discloses
`choice whether to use Next-Set-of-Rights by
`selecting between versions of a right
`
`See Reply at 13-14
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`39
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` User can choose to exercise a version of a right with or without NSOR
`
`Ex. 1002 at 27:15-33;
`Pet. at 66; Reply at 13-14
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`40
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` User can choose to exercise a version of a right with or without NSOR
`
`Ex. 1002 at 27:15-33;
`Pet. at 66; Reply 13-14; Ex. 1032 at ¶13
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`41
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` User can choose to exercise a version of a right with or without NSOR
`
`First Loan Right: Cost: $10/day
`Original Copy:
`
`Loaned Copy:
`
`Second Loan Right: Cost: Free
`
`Original Copy:
`
`Loaned Copy:
`
`Reply at 13-14
`Ex. 1032 at ¶13
`
`Ex. 1002 at 27:15-33;
`Pet. at 66; Ex. 1014 at ¶74, 76
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`42
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Assertion
`Proposed construction of “meta-right”
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction:
`A “meta-right” is a right that, when exercised, creates
`or disposes of usage rights (or other meta-rights) but
`that is not itself a usage right because exercising a
`meta-right does not result in action to content.
`
`PO Resp. at 18
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`43
`
`
`
`Institution Decision
`The ’280 patent expressly defines “meta-right”
`
`The ’280 patent “provides an explicit definition for the claim term
`‘meta-rights.’”
`
`“By using the verb ‘are’ following ‘meta-rights,’ the specification
`sets forth an explicit definition for this claim term with reasonable
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision.”
`Inst. Dec. at 16
`
`’280 Patent:
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 5:47-49;
`Inst. Dec. at 16
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`44
`
`
`
`Institution Decision
`Patent Owner’s proposed limitations should not be read into the claim
`
`“ContentGuard’s proposed construction … would
`render the claim phrase ‘a meta-right specifying a right
`than can be created when the meta-right is exercised,’
`explicitly recited in independent claims 1 and 12,
`superfluous.”
`
`Inst. Dec. at 16
`
`“ContentGuard’s proposed construction … would
`import extraneous limitations into the claims.”
`
`Inst. Dec. at 17
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`45
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`Even under Patent Owner’s construction, Stefik discloses “meta-right”
`
`• NSOR is not “itself” a usage right
`
`• Construction does not prohibit exercising
`usage right and meta-right simultaneously
`
`• NSOR does not “result in” (i.e., cause)
`action to content
`
`
`See Reply at 15-18
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`46
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` Next-Set-of-Rights is not “itself” a usage right
`
`Usage right
`
`Meta-right
`
`Ex. 1032 at ¶9-11;
`Reply at 10-12
`Ex. 1033 at ___
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`47
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admission
`No construction prohibits exercising usage right and meta-right simultaneously
`
`Dr. Martin:
`
`Ex. 1033 at 20:1-13;
`Reply at 21
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`48
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admission
`Next-Set-of-Rights does not cause action to content
`
`Dr. Martin:
`
`Ex. 1033 at 149:22-150:6;
`Reply at 16
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`49
`
`
`
`Institution Decision
`Stefik’s repository determines whether access should be granted
`
`Inst. Dec. at 37
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`50
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` Checking conditions determines whether user is entitled to the right
`
`Ex. 1002 at 7:23-26;
`Pet. at 65-66; Reply at 19
`
`Examples of conditions:
`• number of copies allowed
`• amount of time for a right to be exercised
`•
`required securities levels met and authorizations included
`• payment of fees
`
`51
`
`Ex. 1002 at 22:7-17, 22:41-56, 32:34-33:9, 33:34-42;
`Pet. at 66; Inst. Dec. at 34-35, 37
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`Example: Security level used to determine user repository’s entitlement
`
`Ex. 1002 at 26:16-28;
`Reply at 19
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`Example: Additional conditions - user authorization and digital tickets
`
`Ex. 1002 at 32:52-60;
`Pet. at 67-68
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Assertion
`“Determining” step must be dependent on the contents of the meta-right
`
`PO Resp. at 60
`
`PO Resp. at 61
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`54
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
`“Determining” entitlement to a right is not restricted to a specific method
`
`Claim language:
`
`• No requirement that the “determining” step is
`dependent on the contents of the meta-right
`• Checking conditions – including user security
`level, user fee payment, and authorization –
`determines whether the user is entitled to the
`right
`
`See Pet. at 65-68; Reply at 18-19
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`55
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Assertion
`Stefik does not disclose user paying the fee
`
`PO Resp. at 59
`
`PO Resp. at 60
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`56
`
`
`
`Stefik Anticipates Claim 1
` Stefik claim 7 discloses requiring the user to pay the fee
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1002 at 54:39-55:16;
`Reply at 20
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`57
`
`
`
`Institution Decision
`Stefik’s repository exercises the meta-right if access is granted
`
`Inst. Dec. at 37
`
`“exercising … if the rights consumer is
`entitled” is satisfied because NSOR is
`exercised if conditions are satisfied
`
`Pet. at 68
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`58
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. –
`Ex. 1034
`
`59
`
`
`
`Stefik Renders Claim 1 Obvious
`POSA would find it obvious to modify Stefik to exercise NSOR separately
`
`Dr. Goldberg:
`
`Ex. 1014 at ¶98;
`Pet. at 75-76; Reply at 22
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`60
`
`
`
`Stefik Renders Claim 1 Obvious
`Separating NSOR from Copy or Transfer would have been a known option
`
`Dr. Goldberg:
`
`Ex. 1032 at ¶22;
`Reply at 23
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`61
`
`
`
`Stefik Renders Claim 1 Obvious
` Stefik suggests desirability of downstream control of content distribution
`
`Ex. 1002 at 45:19-24;
`Reply at 23, 24
`
`Ex. 1002 at 52:1-6;
`Reply at 24-25
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`62
`
`
`
`Stefik Renders Claim 1 Obvious
` Stefik describes downstream control of usage rights and fees
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1002 at 46:1-44;
`Reply at 23
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`63
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admission
` Stefik describes downstream control of usage rights and fees
`
`Dr. Martin:
`
`Ex. 1033 at 126:16-23;
`Reply at 23-24
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`64
`
`
`
`Stefik Renders Claim 1 Obvious
` Stefik describes modifying usage rights and fees without acting on content
`
`Dr. Goldberg:
`
`Ex. 1032 at ¶25;
`Reply at 25
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`65
`
`
`
`Stefik Renders Claim 1 Obvious
` Stefik describes modifying usage rights and fees without acting on content
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1002 at 46:1-44;
`Reply at 23, 24
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`66
`
`
`
`Stefik Renders Claim 1 Obvious
`No secondary considerations suggest nonobviousness
`
`• Patent Owner has not advanced any
`secondary considerations evidence
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`67
`
`
`
`Institution Decision
`Even if a “meta-right” must be separately exercisable, the claims are obvious
`
`Inst. Dec. at 41-42
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`68
`
`
`
`MOTION TO AMEND
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. –
`Ex. 1034
`
`69
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Substitute Claim
`
`Motion to Amend at 2
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`70
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admission
`Scope is the same as the original claim under Patent Owner’s construction
`
`Motion to Amend at 23
`
`Motion to Amend at 24
`
`No new issues of patentability
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`71
`
`
`
`The Substitute Claim Is Not Patentable
`Same issues as original claim under Patent Owner’s construction
`
`Motion to Amend at 2
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`72
`
`
`
`The Substitute Claim Is Not Patentable
`Even as amended, Stefik discloses the claimed “meta-right”
`
`• Next-Set-of-Rights is not “itself” a usage
`right
`• Amended claim does not prohibit
`exercising usage right and meta-right
`simultaneously
`• Next-Set-of-Rights does not “result in”
`(i.e., cause) action to content
`
`
`See Opp. Mot. Am. at 10-12
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`73
`
`
`
`Institution Decision
`Even if a “meta-right” must be separately exercisable, the claims are obvious
`
`Inst. Dec. at 41-42
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`74
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admission
`Expert had no opinion whether the amendment narrows the claim
`
`Dr. Martin:
`
`Ex. 1033 at 78:20-79:7; Opp. Mot. Am. at 25
`
`Fails to address a ground of
`unpatentability
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`75
`
`
`
`The Substitute Claim Is Not Patentable
`Other amendments are insignificant
`
`Motion to Amend at 2
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`76
`
`
`
`Written Description
` ’280 patent does not disclose a new method of “exercising” meta-rights
`
`’280 Patent:
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:36-39;
`Opp. Mot. Am. at 22
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:23-31;
`Opp. Mot. Am. at 22
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 9:38-40;
`Opp. Mot. Am. at 22
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`77
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admission
`Stefik does not disclose “exercising the meta-right”
`
`Mot. at 10-11
`
`If Stefik does not disclose “exercising the
`meta-right,” there is no written description
`in the ’280 patent to cure that deficiency
`
`See Opp. Mot. Am. at 21-22
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`78
`
`
`
`Intervening Rights
`Either the amendment fails, or it must have changed the scope
`
`• Board relied on an express definition
`• Express definition controls under BRI
`•
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
`• Express definition controls in district court
`• Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`
`
`
`The Board should not pre-emptively excuse
`Patent Owner from intervening rights
`
`See Opp. Mot. Am. at 23-25
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`79
`
`
`
`FIGURES
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. –
`Ex. 1034
`
`80
`
`
`
`The ’280 Patent
`Figure 1
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 1;
`Pet. at 16; Inst. Dec. at 11
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`81
`
`
`
`The ’280 Patent
`Figure 2
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 2;
`PO Resp. at 10
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`82
`
`
`
`The ’280 Patent
`Figure 12
`
`’280 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 12; Pet. at 4
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`83
`
`
`
`The Stefik ’012 Patent
`Figure 15
`
`Ex. 1002 at Fig. 15;
`Pet. at 58, 64
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`84
`
`
`
`The Stefik ’012 Patent
`Figure 18
`
`Ex. 1002 at Fig. 18; Pet. at 18, 58
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`85
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. –
`Ex. 1034
`
`86
`
`
`
`Institution Decision
`Construction of “meta-right”
`
`“a right that one has to generate, manipulate, modify,
`dispose of or otherwise derive another right.”
`
`Inst. Dec. at 17
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`87
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Assertion
`Google “endorsed the essence of the district court’s ruling”
`
`But note: “actions to content…” was disputed
`
`PO Resp. at 26
`
`Ex. 2001 at 102
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`88
`
`
`
`Institution Decision
`Construction of “repository”
`
`“repository”: “a trusted system which maintains physical,
`communications, and behavioral integrity, and supports usage rights.”
`
`“physical integrity”: “preventing access to information by a non-trusted
`system”
`
`“communications integrity”: “only communicates
`with other devices that are able to present proof that they are trusted
`systems, e.g., by using security measures such an encryption, exchange
`of digital certificates, and nonces”
`
`“behavioral integrity”: “requiring software to include a digital certificate in
`order to be installed in the repository.”
`
`Inst. Dec. at 21
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`89
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Assertion
`Qualifiers on agreement to Board’s constructions
`
`PO Resp. at 17-18
`
` Patent Owner’s unnecessary gloss on settled
`claim constructions should not be adopted
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`90
`
`
`
`Institution Decision
`Construction of “state variable”
`
`“a variable having a value that represents status of
`rights, or other dynamic conditions.”
`
`Inst. Dec. at 19
`
`Petitioners Google Inc. and Apple Inc. – Ex. 1034
`
`91
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
