`571-272-7822 Entered: 6 May 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00127
`Patent 6,587,067
`____________
`
`
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
`WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`TIMOTHY E. BIANCHI, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner
`1600 TCF Tower, 121 South 8th Street
`
`
`
`
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`THOMAS C. REYNOLDS, ESQUIRE
`Schwegman Lundberg, Woessner
`150 Alamaden Boulevard, Suite 750
`San Jose, California 95113
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MICHAEL NICODEMA, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`
`
`200 Park Avenue
`
`
`Florham Park, New Jersey 07932-0677
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`ERIC J. MAIERS, ESQUIRE
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`April 8, 2014, commencing at 12:59 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon. This is the hearing
`
`for the IPR2013-00127 between Petitioner Universal Remote Control
`
`and Patent Owner Universal Electronics, Incorporated.
`
`At this time we would like the parties to please introduce
`
`counsel starting with the Petitioner.
`
`MR. BIANCHI: Your Honor, I'm Timothy Bianchi for
`
`Universal Remote Control and this is my co-counsel, Thomas
`
`10
`
`Reynolds.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Mr. Bianchi, will you be
`
`12
`
`arguing today?
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Owner?
`
`MR. BIANCHI: Yes.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. And then for Patent
`
`16
`
`MR. NICODEMA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael
`
`17
`
`Nicodema for UEI, along with my partner, Eric Maiers.
`
`18
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Mr. Nicodema, will you be arguing
`
`19
`
`today?
`
`20
`
`MR. NICODEMA: Yes, Your Honor. I will be presenting
`
`21
`
`UEI's main argument. Mr. Maiers will be arguing our pending motion
`
`22
`
`to exclude a portion of Dr. Herr's testimony.
`
`23
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. Each party will
`
`24
`
`have 30 minutes total time to present their arguments. Petitioner will
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`begin with the presentation of its case with regard to challenged
`
`claims on which basis the Board instituted trial.
`
`Thereafter, Patent Owner, you will respond to Petitioner's
`
`presentation and then, Petitioner, you may reserve rebuttal time to
`
`respond to Patent Owner's presentation.
`
`Petitioner, you may begin and how much time would you
`
`like to reserve, if any?
`
`MR. BIANCHI: Your Honor, would you like paper copies
`
`of the presentation for today?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes, please, if you -- you may
`
`11
`
`approach the bench. Thank you.
`
`12
`
`MR. BIANCHI: Your Honor, we would like to reserve 15
`
`13
`
`minutes for rebuttal. I'd also like to leave open the option that Mr.
`
`14
`
`Reynolds be allowed to argue on rebuttal, if necessary.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: That's fine.
`
`MR. BIANCHI: Okay.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: You may proceed.
`
`MR. BIANCHI: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate that.
`
`19
`
`In our case today we would like to drive home two major points about
`
`20
`
`the IPR. The first point that we'd like to make is that all through -- all
`
`21
`
`of the testimony that's been developed and all of the documents of
`
`22
`
`record, to this date Patent Owner still has not proved a date of
`
`23
`
`invention earlier than the prior art references, and we'll talk a little bit
`
`24
`
`more about those prior art references in the upcoming slides.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`I'm referring now to slide/page number 2 of your materials.
`
`So, in brief, what we're arguing is that the Patent Owner has not
`
`produced evidence of the invention working for its intended purposes.
`
`There are some very phaseal statements to that effect in the record,
`
`but there is no evidence of testing.
`
`The second point we would like to make is that the prior art
`
`does show all of the key features as characterized by Patent Owner,
`
`for example, the direct entry method of matching remote -- the remote
`
`to appliances of different manufacturers and also the assigning a
`
`10
`
`command macro to a macro pushbutton.
`
`11
`
`I refer now to page 3 of the materials. What we put on this
`
`12
`
`page are some of the dates of interest, including the priority date for
`
`13
`
`the '067 patent, which was filed on October 14, 1987. There are also
`
`14
`
`relevant dates to the prior art that we have used in our petition and as
`
`15
`
`is instituted in this proceeding for trial.
`
`16
`
`And of those different references, I would just like to note
`
`17
`
`that at no time has the Patent Owner attempted to antedate the
`
`18
`
`Rumbolt reference, which is the last one listed there back to
`
`19
`
`November 20, 1985. I want to make that perfectly clear. We also
`
`20
`
`want to remind the Board that in its Institution Order that it attributed
`
`21
`
`to the CORE user manual, which is the first prior art reference listed
`
`22
`
`there, September 1, 1987 based on some additional publications in the
`
`23
`
`record.
`
`24
`
`At no time did Patent Owner also show -- attempt to show
`
`25
`
`conception and then diligence, so this is strictly a case of where Patent
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`Owner is asserting an actual reduction of practice prior to our prior art
`
`references.
`
`Moving on to page 4. So perhaps the most important
`
`argument points are that in general what we are saying to the Board is
`
`that the Patent Owner's reduction to practice proof fails for several
`
`reasons. The first reason, all evidence essentially comes from
`
`co-inventors. There's no independent corroboration of the evidence
`
`asserted.
`
`The second reason is that specific dates are lacking. We're
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`given very ambiguous ranges of dates in all of the materials. So the
`
`11
`
`dates are lacking and indication of features and differences between
`
`12
`
`the three prototypes referenced by Co-Inventor Ellis are lacking a
`
`13
`
`description of the differences.
`
`14
`
`As we stated earlier, there's also no evidence of testing,
`
`15
`
`which the Board expressly noted in its order instituting trial. And,
`
`16
`
`finally, we want to point out that the patented invention was
`
`17
`
`admittedly software-based, yet the vast majority of the exhibits
`
`18
`
`attached to Patent Owner's response include printed circuit board
`
`19
`
`information, things relating to the circuits that don't necessarily affect
`
`20
`
`the software.
`
`21
`
`In general, what happened here is that Patent Owner was
`
`22
`
`asked to provide evidence of testing and that it worked -- that the
`
`23
`
`design that was claimed worked for its intended purpose, but all we
`
`24
`
`have are some bald statements made by the Patent Owner -- their
`
`25
`
`expert, I'm sorry, by Patent Owner's expert in testimony by Ellis.
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`I'm referring now to page 5 of the slide deck. So let's talk
`
`about independent corroborating evidence. All the evidence relied on
`
`in this -- in Patent Owner's response relates to proving reduction to
`
`practice based on Exhibits A through T, which are again largely
`
`directed to the hardware, and then there's a declaration by Mr. Ellis,
`
`Co-Inventor Ellis.
`
`Much of that evidence the Board had already seen when it
`
`instituted trial. For example, Patent Owner attempted to swear behind
`
`the prior art references using a 131 declaration that was included in a
`
`10
`
`different related application. The Board expressly rejected that
`
`11
`
`approach because of the adjudicatorial nature of these proceedings
`
`12
`
`vis-à-vis examinatorial nature.
`
`13
`
`We believe the Board was correct to do that. Many of the
`
`14
`
`exhibits that are added after that were either prepared by co-inventors
`
`15
`
`or have a questionable origin based on the fact that the Co-Inventor
`
`16
`
`Ellis, who was deposed, did not have those documents in his
`
`17
`
`possession.
`
`18
`
`In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, an
`
`19
`
`inventor's testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence.
`
`20
`
`That independent evidence is largely lacking in this evidence
`
`21
`
`proffered by Patent Owner.
`
`22
`
`Moving on to slide number 6. The dates that Co-Inventor
`
`23
`
`Ellis provided in deposition and in his declaration are ambiguous.
`
`24
`
`The allegations regarding reduction to practice in his declaration are
`
`25
`
`vague as to time. For example, the first prototype built sometime in
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`the fall of 1986, the development prototype built sometime in the
`
`winter of '86 to '87, pre-production model built sometime in March to
`
`April 1987. Very little detail was given about these different
`
`prototypes.
`
`Now, Co-Inventor Ellis identified two key features of the
`
`patent relating to direct entry method of matching a remote to
`
`appliances of different manufacturers and assigning a command
`
`macro to a macro pushbutton. As to when the direct entry was first
`
`incorporated into the prototype, Ellis testified, It had to be early on,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`but I don't have a specific date. As to when assigning a macro to
`
`11
`
`macro pushbutton was first incorporated to the working prototype,
`
`12
`
`Ellis testified, again, I don't know for sure.
`
`13
`
`Moving on to page number 7. So UEI failed to provide
`
`14
`
`evidence that the prototypes were tested and worked for their intended
`
`15
`
`purpose. Corroboration of an existence of a device itself is not
`
`16
`
`sufficient to establish reduction to practice. It is also necessary to
`
`17
`
`corroborate that the device worked for its intended purpose. And as a
`
`18
`
`result, UEI failed to prove that their software invention, which is what
`
`19
`
`Ellis testified to, is the nature of the subject matter to claims in the
`
`20
`
`patent challenge. The software invention was not shown to be tested
`
`21
`
`or that it worked for its intended purpose.
`
`22
`
`The only thing that Ellis stated is that it was suitable for its
`
`23
`
`intended purpose, but there was no corroborating other evidence other
`
`24
`
`than what he presented as Exhibits A through T, which as we said
`
`25
`
`earlier was generated largely by the inventors themselves.
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Moving on to page number 8. Really, as we said earlier,
`
`Co-Inventor Ellis admitted that the invention largely relates to
`
`software. The only piece of evidence relating to software of detailed
`
`nature is the software code listed in the exhibit. The patented
`
`invention being software-based, it's very important for that exhibit to
`
`show that the software was indeed whole and working.
`
`Even if all the evidence regarding the hardware was found
`
`to be credible and the Board ignored our request to consider the lack
`
`of proof of testing, reduction to practice could not possibly be
`
`10
`
`attributed to a date earlier than April 30, 1987, which is the date of the
`
`11
`
`source code printout.
`
`12
`
`And in that case, if that were to be the case, we strongly
`
`13
`
`advocate that the Board consider our arguments that there is not
`
`14
`
`testing provided, which should that be the case, the unpatentability of
`
`15
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 based on the combination of Rumbolt and
`
`16
`
`Magnavox would still stand.
`
`17
`
`I think it's important to note that the mere fact that software
`
`18
`
`existed on a certain date did not mean that the invention worked for its
`
`19
`
`intended purpose, so there may have been a revision of code, but that
`
`20
`
`the code was not complete, and hardware without software that has a
`
`21
`
`completed code is inoperable. The mere fact that modules were edited
`
`22
`
`on certain dates do not indicate that they were suitable for the
`
`23
`
`intended purpose or that they were complete.
`
`24
`
`Moving on to page number 9. So now turning to the second
`
`25
`
`part of the discussion today, Claim 1, what we did is we highlighted
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`the different portions of what Patent Owner attributed to be key
`
`features. Firstly, the directly identified aspect and then the assigning
`
`macro pushbutton aspect. I'm going to page 10 of the materials.
`
`Just as a preliminary note, the patent has expired, so
`
`amendments are not even possible in this situation and basically what
`
`we have in claim construction is a Markman decision by the Court,
`
`the parallel concurrent litigation. That Markman decision occurred
`
`days after we submitted our original petition and we submitted a
`
`supplemental petition per the request of the Board and under -- having
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`contacted the Board to indicate the situation, we were given the option
`
`11
`
`of either submitting the original petition as is with the indicated
`
`12
`
`changes or getting a new filing date and we opted for the former.
`
`13
`
`So in its response, Patent Owner advocates for a special
`
`14
`
`definition of library of codes and data to mean a table programmed
`
`15
`
`into the remote control, the table comprising a variety of command
`
`16
`
`codes corresponding to a particular appliance of different
`
`17
`
`manufacturers.
`
`18
`
`This was raised for the first time after the Board's
`
`19
`
`institution. We believe that this was an attempt to differentiate from
`
`20
`
`the prior art, because the Board had already decided in its order to
`
`21
`
`institute that the number of times that whether the codes were
`
`22
`
`pre-programmed or not was not required by the claim language itself.
`
`23
`
`It should not matter how the codes were programmed into the remote,
`
`24
`
`because the claims do not require a certain pre-programming step per
`
`25
`
`se.
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`I believe I'm coming close to the end of my 15 minutes,
`
`Your Honor. Do you have the time remaining?
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yeah, one minute.
`
`MR. BIANCHI: One minute. So just to summarize and
`
`finish up the last few slides, we believe that the prior art was correctly
`
`noted as -- by the Board as concluding the key features of the alleged
`
`invention as deemed by Patent Owner. We believe that the prior art
`
`references show obviousness of the claimed invention and we ask that
`
`the Board cancel Claims 1 through 6 for obviousness under the
`
`10
`
`proffered grounds, and I will reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you.
`
`Okay. Patent Owner.
`
`MR. NICODEMA: Your Honor, does our 30 minutes
`
`14
`
`include the argument on our motion?
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes.
`
`MR. NICODEMA: It does?
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes.
`
`MR. MAIERS: May I approach?
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes. Thank you.
`
`Okay. So you have till 1:47.
`
`MR. NICODEMA: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`Your Honor, there are three reasons why the Petitioner has
`
`23
`
`failed to carry its burden of proving Claims 1 through 6 of the '067
`
`24
`
`patent to be obvious. One is that we've shown through at least the
`
`25
`
`software code, which I will discuss, that the date of invention for
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`Claims 1 to 6 precedes all of Petitioner's prior art except Rumbolt.
`
`And because of that, all of their combinations must fail.
`
`Secondly, with respect to the combinations of prior art that
`
`include Rumbolt and Magnavox, the disclosures of those references in
`
`addition to the testimony of UEI's expert, Mr. Hayes, show that
`
`Rumbolt teaches away from a combination where pushbuttons would
`
`be used in place of the DIP switches that are disclosed in Rumbolt,
`
`and, third, even though there was motivation in the art to combine the
`
`references as proposed by the Petitioner, there would still be at least
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`one and sometimes two claim elements lacking.
`
`11
`
`Now, I'd like -- on the prior invention we submitted lots of
`
`12
`
`slides and I'm going to try to cut to the chase here, Your Honor.
`
`13
`
`Petitioner's own brief, and I believe Petitioner repeated this in his
`
`14
`
`argument just now, Petitioner's reply brief of page 7 says, if the Board
`
`15
`
`is inclined to consider the software code as evidence, then CORE,
`
`16
`
`Wozniak and Evans would be eliminated as prior art references.
`
`17
`
`Now, in making that statement, Petitioner relies upon the
`
`18
`
`date on the face of the software code, the April 30, 1987 date, but the
`
`19
`
`code itself shows that all the critical functions to the claims were
`
`20
`
`reduced to practice by March 24, 1987, which also would eliminate
`
`21
`
`Magnavox as prior art. And if that's the case, then all of the
`
`22
`
`Petitioner's combinations must fail, because we have demonstrated a
`
`23
`
`prior invention.
`
`24
`
`Now, on the issue of corroboration, Your Honor, it's UEI's
`
`25
`
`position that the Petitioner is attempting to hold us to an artificially
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`high standard, and if we look at slide 11 in our presentation, we have a
`
`quotation from the Federal Circuit's decision in Price v. Symsek, and
`
`that decision basically says, corroboration is not necessary to establish
`
`what a physical exhibit before the Board includes, and in that case
`
`documentary evidence was at issue.
`
`Now, the Petitioner concedes that the software code
`
`discloses all the critical limitations of the claims. They did not file
`
`any objections, which I believe they were compelled to do, file
`
`evidentiary objections on the admissibility of the software code.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Can you direct us to where they
`
`11
`
`concede that all the elements are shown in the source code?
`
`12
`
`MR. NICODEMA: Yes. We can look at -- we can go
`
`13
`
`through them slide by slide. Slide 18, we can begin with that.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: No. I'm talking about in the record, in
`
`15
`
`the written record. I'm not so concerned about what your slides say.
`
`16
`
`I'm looking at where in their reply did they say we concede that they
`
`17
`
`--
`
`18
`
`19
`
`MR. NICODEMA: Oh, yes.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: That the source code includes every
`
`20
`
`element that's being claimed.
`
`21
`
`MR. NICODEMA: Page 7 of their reply. I'll read it to you,
`
`22
`
`Your Honor, and I think we have a slide on that, but I'll read it. Page
`
`23
`
`7 of their reply, the last full paragraph before II. It says, thus, the only
`
`24
`
`thing that is known for sure about the software that provided -- that
`
`25
`
`provided all the critical functionality, including the claimed direct
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`entry and macro command functions, is that a version of it existed as
`
`of April 30, 1987, and they go on to say that if the Board were to
`
`credit that source code, then three of the five prior art references
`
`would be removed.
`
`Now, when they make that statement, they can't just rely on
`
`the April 30th date, because the document itself which includes many
`
`comments describing what's going on there and which we have
`
`indicated in our slides show that the critical functionality that the
`
`Petitioner speaks of was actually reduced to practice by March 24,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`1987. That would also eliminate Magnavox as prior art.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Could you focus on the evidence that
`
`12
`
`establishes that the source code worked for its intended purpose at end
`
`13
`
`of March of 1987?
`
`14
`
`MR. NICODEMA: I believe that the source code itself by
`
`15
`
`having all of those functionalities in there and all of the comments
`
`16
`
`indicating what the source code did and what the source code was that
`
`17
`
`shows that it worked for its intended purpose, I don't believe the
`
`18
`
`Petitioner has cited any cases to the effect that a source code is
`
`19
`
`insufficient to show that an invention worked for its intended purpose.
`
`20
`
`The source code is the thing that -- it wouldn't have come up with the
`
`21
`
`source code if they didn't have all the other things that we show in the
`
`22
`
`documentary evidence that preceded it, like the circuit boards and
`
`23
`
`things of that nature, the user manual.
`
`24
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I mean, I can have source code, but
`
`25
`
`unless I run it, I don't know that it's actually going to do what it says
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`it's going to do. So where is the proof in the record that the source
`
`code did what it was supposed to do with respect to the claimed
`
`invention?
`
`MR. NICODEMA: I think the proof in the record, Your
`
`Honor, if we go to the slides, if we go to slide 18 maybe, that's where
`
`we start showing that.
`
`JUDGE BLANKENSHIP: Where is this in the record?
`
`MR. NICODEMA: The source code?
`
`JUDGE BLANKENSHIP: Mapping the claim language to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the source code.
`
`11
`
`MR. NICODEMA: That is -- that comes from the inventor,
`
`12
`
`Mr. Ellis, but our position is that under the Price case the Board can
`
`13
`
`consider --
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`JUDGE BLANKENSHIP: So it's in Mr. Ellis' declaration?
`
`MR. NICODEMA: Yes.
`
`JUDGE BLANKENSHIP: What paragraph?
`
`MR. NICODEMA: Oh, it's throughout his declaration,
`
`18
`
`Your Honor. The source code is Exhibit F to Mr. Ellis' declaration --
`
`19
`
`L, I'm sorry, and beginning at paragraph 34 of Mr. Ellis' declaration,
`
`20
`
`he begins his discussion of the source code, Exhibit L, and in that
`
`21
`
`paragraph -- in the preceding paragraphs he talks about the critical
`
`22
`
`functionality of the claims, the macro pushbutton and the direct entry
`
`23
`
`claim limitations.
`
`24
`
`The point is, Your Honor, that we're trying to make is that
`
`25
`
`even putting Mr. Ellis' declaration aside, under the Price case the
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`Board is entitled to consider the source code evidence for what it is
`
`and what it discloses.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: But we won't do that independently.
`
`You have to have some kind of testimony to explain to the Board,
`
`hey, this source code, this part of the source code equates with this
`
`particular step in the claim. You can't just -- and we're not going to
`
`independently look at the source code and try to figure it out on our
`
`own, so that's what I think Judge Blankenship was trying to get at,
`
`where is that explanation?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`MR. NICODEMA: Well, the explanation is
`
`11
`
`Mr. Ellis' declaration.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So we need to look at that.
`
`MR. NICODEMA: Now, Your Honor, if I may move on to
`
`14
`
`the substance of the prior art combinations themselves, first, the
`
`15
`
`combination of Rumbolt and Magnavox. When we look at the
`
`16
`
`combinations, I think we need to look at the declaration of Dr. Herr,
`
`17
`
`the Petitioner's expert. Because under KSR -- I mean, I think we all
`
`18
`
`agree here, because we both submitted expert testimony, that this is
`
`19
`
`not one of these simple inventions, the rare case where expert
`
`20
`
`testimony is not helpful or useful.
`
`21
`
`Now, if we look at Dr. Herr's declaration and we have this
`
`22
`
`in our slides, but I'll just summarize to save time, he makes conclusory
`
`23
`
`statements about why you could combine prior art references. He
`
`24
`
`doesn't say why you can combine them. He doesn't say that the
`
`25
`
`combination would work for the intended purpose of the claims. He
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`doesn't say -- he doesn't actually -- he doesn't use the California courts
`
`claim construction, which is the construction that I believe both
`
`parties agree that has to be used.
`
`He says that he read the prosecution history in the patent
`
`and he came up with some ordinary meaning construction, but he
`
`doesn't tell us what it is, and actually on that point -- I think it's
`
`paragraph 22 of his declaration -- he says that he studied the
`
`prosecution history, but at his deposition he admitted that he'd never
`
`seen it. He'd never read it. So when you have that kind of testimony
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`from an expert, it's our position that it's really unreliable to
`
`11
`
`demonstrate that the prior art reads on the claims.
`
`12
`
`Now, if we look at in contrast Mr. Hayes, UEI's expert, let's
`
`13
`
`take, for example, the combination of Rumbolt and Magnavox, he
`
`14
`
`gave detailed testimony on why Rumbolt would teach away. For
`
`15
`
`example, he says that, okay, Rumbolt uses DIP switches, inexpensive
`
`16
`
`DIP switches, to perform the direct identification step, but Rumbolt
`
`17
`
`also has pushbuttons on a keypad, but he uses them for a conventional
`
`18
`
`purpose, just to operate the remote, not to directly identify the
`
`19
`
`appliance itself, which is what the claim requires.
`
`20
`
`The Petitioner's expert, Mr. Herr, Dr. Herr, says that, well,
`
`21
`
`the person of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine Rumbolt
`
`22
`
`with Magnavox, which he says discloses the pushbuttons to decrease
`
`23
`
`cost. Well, Mr. Hayes disagrees and I believe his testimony is more
`
`24
`
`robust and authoritative on this issue.
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`For example, Mr. Hayes testified that DIP switches for
`
`directly identifying an appliance, the memory use of that is primarily a
`
`low cost ROM, whereas as if you use pushbuttons it would require a
`
`more expensive RAM, and at the time of the '067 patent, most
`
`microprocessors included a small amount of scratchpad RAM,
`
`meaning a small amount of RAM and this was volatile, and any data
`
`would be lost when you lose the power. So a key reason, Your
`
`Honor, for using DIP switches was they're manually set and they
`
`would preserve the stored identities of the appliances if the batteries
`
`10
`
`were removed or if they had gone bad.
`
`11
`
`Now, to address the problem with using pushbuttons, the
`
`12
`
`'067 patent discloses a large amount of RAM capable of storing all the
`
`13
`
`device identification codes. I believe, Your Honor, in the patent it
`
`14
`
`says that the device is infinitely upgradable because of this, and this
`
`15
`
`RAM is directly connected to a lithium backup battery, so that if the
`
`16
`
`regular batteries in the remote go bad or removed, the lithium backup
`
`17
`
`battery prevents the loss of all the data and the instructions in the
`
`18
`
`RAM memory. And the patent also discloses a backup capacitor. So
`
`19
`
`if you're going to remove the lithium battery for whatever reason,
`
`20
`
`you're not going to lose the instructions and the data stored in RAM.
`
`21
`
`Now, these additional features require coding. They require
`
`22
`
`electronic circuity. The lithium battery and the backup capacitor itself
`
`23
`
`costs money. It's going to increase the cost, not as Dr. Herr says
`
`24
`
`decrease the cost. So somebody skilled in the art would not be
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`motivated to put pushbuttons in place of the DIP switches in Rumbolt,
`
`because you'd only increase the cost.
`
`And it's interesting, Your Honor, that the Rumbolt patent
`
`itself at column 1, lines 43 to 44 says that his remote control is simple
`
`to operate, reliable and relatively inexpensive. So Rumbolt himself
`
`shows the state of the art, what people in the art at the time of the
`
`invention were thinking in terms of what was simple and easy to
`
`operate and less expensive. He thought his DIP switch invention fit
`
`that category, so why would anybody skilled in the art try to replace
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the DIP switches with pushbuttons that would only increase the cost?
`
`11
`
`Now, if we turn to Magnavox, again, Mr. Hayes' testimony
`
`12
`
`shows that that disclosure in Magnavox, that one paragraph
`
`13
`
`disclosure, is conclusory and vague. It doesn't necessarily and
`
`14
`
`inevitably disclose the use of pushbuttons. It could be DIP switches.
`
`15
`
`Indeed, Rumbolt discloses pushbuttons for a different
`
`16
`
`purpose, not direct entry, and uses DIP switches for direct entry, and
`
`17
`
`there's no disclosure in Magnavox of the backup lithium battery or the
`
`18
`
`capacitor or any of the software and electronics needed to
`
`19
`
`accommodate pushbuttons used for direct identification of appliances,
`
`20
`
`and Dr. Herr admits that Magnavox does not expressly disclose
`
`21
`
`pushbuttons for entering codes. He admitted that at his deposition.
`
`22
`
`And nowhere in his declaration does he say that it's
`
`23
`
`inherently disclosed, meaning that it would necessarily and inevitably
`
`24
`
`be disclosed. He doesn't do that. So, again, we're talking about a
`
`25
`
`failure of proof from their own expert. So even if one skilled in the
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`art did combine Rumbolt and Magnavox, you still wouldn't meet the
`
`direct entry of the direct identity element of the claim. So it's our
`
`position, Your Honor, that on the combination of Magnavox and
`
`Rumbolt, Petitioner has not met its burden of proof of proving the
`
`claims of the '067 patent obvious.
`
`The second combination that they rely upon is Rumbolt,
`
`Magnavox and Evans, and that is directed only to Claims 2 and 5.
`
`Now, for the reasons that we set out in our brief and I just discussed,
`
`it's our position that even if you combine Magnavox and Rumbolt,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`they do not disclose direct entry via pushbuttons and there would be
`
`11
`
`no motivation to combine them anyway.
`
`12
`
`And in the Board's decision, Your Honor, the July 16, 2013
`
`13
`
`decision at pages 15 and 16, the Board acknowledged that Rumbolt
`
`14
`
`and Magnavox each failed to teach the additional limitation of Claims
`
`15
`
`2 and 5, and I'll read it to Your Honor, "using activation of one or
`
`16
`
`more pushbuttons of the keyboard to assist the subset of the selected
`
`17
`
`codes and data from the library to the macro pushbutton."
`
`18
`
`So the Board has already found that Rumbolt and
`
`19
`
`Magnavox failed to teach or disclose these limitations, so where does
`
`20
`
`the Petitioner find them? They try to find them in the Evans
`
`21
`
`reference. Now, Evans does not disclose this additional limitation of
`
`22
`
`Claims 2 and 5 because it doesn't disclose a library of codes and data.
`
`23
`
`Counsel for Petitioner mentioned Mr. Hayes' testimony where he
`
`24
`
`construed the term "library codes and data" and that it requires a
`
`25
`
`certain amount of pre-programming, and counsel seemed to suggest
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00127
`Patent No. 6,587,067
`
`that we came up with that definition after the Board's decision
`
`instituting this IPR for some nefarious purpose or to get around the
`
`Board's decision. Not so.
`
`We weren't permitted to submit expert testimony in the
`
`preliminary Patent Owner's response and it's perfectly proper to have
`
`expert testimony on claim terms that were never construed. And
`
`interestingly Dr. Herr does not attempt to construe library of codes
`
`and data at all. He doesn't say what he means by it, so how can he
`
`possibly apply a construction which he hasn't given us to the prior art?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Another important point, Your Honor, is in the Board's
`
`11
`
`decision, July decision, Footnote 6. The Board recognized that in the
`
`12
`
`re-examination proceeding on the '0