Paper 51
`
` November 19, 2014
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RICOH AMERICAS CORPORATION
`AND XEROX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426
`____________
`
`Held: August 18, 2014
`____________
`
`
`
`Before: MICHAEL E. TIERNEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`H. KEETO SABHARWAL, ESQUIRE
`
`
`MICHAEL D. SPECHT, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
` November 19, 2014
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RICOH AMERICAS CORPORATION
`AND XEROX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426
`____________
`
`Held: August 18, 2014
`____________
`
`
`
`Before: MICHAEL E. TIERNEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`H. KEETO SABHARWAL, ESQUIRE
`
`
`MICHAEL D. SPECHT, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`STEVEN G. HILL, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Hill Kertscher & Wharton LLP
`
`
`3350 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 800
`
`
`Atlanta, Georgia 30339
`
`
`
`and
`
`
`VIVEK A. GANTI, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Thomas Hortsemeyer
`
`
`400 Interstate North Parkway, Suite
`
`
`Atlanta, Georgia 30339
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`August 18, 2014, commencing at 10:00 a.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 TIERNEY: Are the parties ready to begin
`today? Welcome, then. Before we begin today, I would like to just
`note we had offered the parties an opportunity to inform us how they
`would like to schedule the hearing today. We did have a default
`procedure in place, though. Have the parties come to any other
`arrangement other than the default?
`MR. SABHARWAL: No, Your Honor, I believe that
`we are going to adhere to the default procedure.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay.
`MR. HILL: That's acceptable.
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Well then, welcome today for Inter
`Partes review, IPR2013-00302. If the parties are ready to begin, are
`there any initial issues we need to take up before we begin the
`hearing, then, since we're going with the default?
`(No response.)
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Hearing no changes from the
`default, I believe we scheduled that the Petitioner would begin today.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: If you would approach the podium
`when you're ready.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Yes, Your Honor. Good
`morning, Your Honor. Keeto Sabharwal on behalf of the Petitioners,
`Ricoh Americas Corporation and Xerox Corporation. Just a couple
`of preliminary matters before I begin. We do have hard copies of the
`demo slides that we served in accordance with the Board's order.
`Would you like a hard copy?
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Yes, please.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Your Honors, with the Board's
`permission, we would like to allocate our time as follows: 25
`minutes for opening, and 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`Your Honors, on November 21st of 2013, the Board
`instituted trial of claims 1 through 11 of the '426 patent based on
`either the XNS reference, which is Exhibit 1002, or the Salgado
`reference, which is Exhibit 1005. Since that time, it is our position
`that Petitioner's case has been significantly strengthened and the
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`Board's decision should therefore stand based upon at least three
`factors.
`
`First, we have the explicit teachings of the XNS and
`Salgado references. Your Honors, it doesn't really matter what I say
`here today and it doesn't really matter what my opponents say here
`today. The teachings say what they say, there's no changing that, and
`this Board correctly found on November 21st, that all of the
`limitations on claim 1 through 11 are based on XNS alone or Salgado
`alone, and nothing we say changes that.
`Two other things to note, one is Patent Owner's claim
`construction positions. We believe those claim constructions are
`unsupportable based upon the governing standard here of the
`broadest reasonable interpretation, which is the plain and ordinary
`meaning. And, in fact, even their expert during cross examination
`admitted that the specific constructions of application and module are
`not supported and, in fact, they ended up agreeing with the Board,
`and we're going to talk about that.
`And then finally, as far as their expert is concerned, it is
`our position that Mr. Weadock, their sole person, allegedly a person
`of ordinary skill in the art, does not have either the academic or the
`experience to serve as an expert in this case, and we're going to talk
`about that as well.
`Your Honors, we've submitted hundreds of pages of
`documents and exhibits, and I'm not here to rehash every single
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`argument and I'm here really to just talk about the highlights and
`address any questions that Your Honors may have.
`But I think that the disputes really boil down to whether
`or not, for example, there's an interface protocol, and then whether or
`not there's a number of the modules that exist in the claim 5, for
`example. It's the Patent Owner's contention that neither the XNS nor
`the Salgado reference have any type of protocol. No memory, no
`input module, no output module, no server module, no client module,
`no process module. We believe that flies in the face of the specific
`teachings and figures of the prior reference and we're going to talk
`about that.
`
`But before I get to that, I think in order to frame the
`issue, it may help to talk about the two hotly disputed claim terms,
`application and module. On November 21st, the Board stated in its
`opinion that application is a program that may or may not be stored
`on a device, such as a printer or a scanner, and Petitioners expressly
`agree with that definition.
`The Patent Owner, in its Patent Owner response,
`proffered a different definition. They said, "The term application
`should be construed by the Board to be a discrete software program
`executable on an operating system for the purpose of accomplishing
`a task." One of the themes that came out during the course of
`Mr. Weadock's deposition is that they're trying very hard to have this
`Board require that these functionalities, that these pieces of software
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`be completely separate, discrete. They have no overlapping
`functionality whatsoever.
`But Mr. Weadock ended up disagreeing with that and
`actually agreeing with the Board. If we can go to slide 10,
`Mr. Bowman.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Maybe we should start with the
`specification. If there's a couple of points that you would like to
`bring to our attention today.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Sure. You mean with respect to
`application?
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Yes.
`MR. SABHARWAL: That's what I'm going to get to.
`So, Judge Tierney, to answer your question, on the left-hand side
`here is directly from the specification, the '426 patent, column 52,
`lines 50 to 53, if we could highlight that to make it easier to read. On
`the left side, the patentee himself talked about the word
`"applications" in a much broader sense than what Patent Owner is
`now endorsing. Applications were defined as, among other things,
`Microsoft's end user products, e.g. Microsoft Office, Word,
`PowerPoint, Access, and then it goes on, we're going to get to that,
`more from the specification.
`So, I asked Mr. Weadock during his deposition, "You've
`heard of Microsoft Office? He said, "Sure."
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`
`I asked, "Is that a single application?" He said, "I don't
`think most people would refer to it as a single application. It was
`typically referred to in the industry as a suite."
`I said, "Okay, a suite. Now, does the Microsoft Office
`in your opinion have separate and distinct applications?
`"Answer: Yes.
`"Question: Discrete applications?
`"Answer: I think so, yes."
`So, by his own admission, based on the teaching of the
`specification, their claim construction cannot be correct. It flies in
`the face of the claim language of the specification, and their expert
`actually admitted on cross examination that a discrete software
`program does not -- is not the term "application." But it goes on. Go
`to the next slide, Mr. Bowman.
`We also talked about the fact that the patentee very --
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Counsel, can you tell me what
`slide you're on, please?
`MR. SABHARWAL: I'm sorry, Your Honor, I'm on
`slide 11 and was previously on slide 10.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Thank you.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Again, on slide 11, we also talked
`about some of the other exemplars in the '426 patent for the term
`"application." There's an example of an electronic filing system,
`Lotus Notes or the Internet. And I said, "Looking again at the term
`"application," Mr. Weadock, if you could just look at the words" -- if
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`we could highlight that, please. "If you could look at the words
`'electronic filing system,' you would never call that a discrete
`program, would you? He said, "I would not be inclined to, no."
`And then I said, "Would you agree with me, sir, that the
`Internet includes hardware?" He said, "Sure, the Internet includes
`hardware."
`
`"Question: And the Internet includes firmare?
`"Answer: Okay. I don't see any reason to disagree with
`
`that."
`
`So, at the end of the day, Your Honors, Petitioners
`submit that there is no legal support, no factual support for the term
`"application," and based on the perspective of what the Board said
`and what we adopted, that application does fall within XNS and
`Salgado, and we will get to that shortly.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: How do we handle the argument
`that Mr. Weadock said that this was primarily in context and
`contextual and application, a skilled artisan might have thought that
`they were talking about a browser or the file manager of the file
`system?
`
`MR. SABHARWAL: Well, that was his opinion, Your
`Honor, but I pointed him to the specification itself, and at the end of
`the day, the specification is one of the factors that goes into the BRI,
`and the specification talks about a very broad terminology of the term
`"application." These weren't my words, these were the words of the
`patentee.
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`
`And, so, at the end of the day, we submit that the term
`"application" should be broadly construed by the Board and was
`correctly done so on November 21st.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: So, is this the -- when we're
`construing it, are we giving it the plain and ordinary meaning or are
`we giving it a meaning based on the specification which may be
`different from the plain and ordinary meaning?
`MR. SABHARWAL: I believe that the plain and
`ordinary meaning comports with what is in the specification, the term
`application is a very broad term, and the BRI is the plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`Let me now turn to the other hotly disputed claim
`construction term, "module."
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Let me ask you, do you consider
`software application to include hardware?
`MR. SABHARWAL: That's a great question. We
`debated this, actually, over the weekend, and the conclusion we came
`to is yes. I mean, you can't have software that resides in and of itself,
`it has to reside on a piece of hardware. It may be integrated with a
`piece of hardware. And, in fact, even Patent Owner has admitted that
`firmware, which is a hardware, is software. So, the answer is
`software application could be both.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: But I mean, I was understanding
`their argument to be -- well, even if you consider firmware, would
`that be -- could you consider firmware software that's residing on
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`hardware, but it's still separate, it's a separate -- it has separate -- the
`instructions themselves are distinguishable from the hardware. Is
`that --
`
`MR. SABHARWAL: I didn't see -- I don't think there's
`anything in the record that would require a distinction between the
`software that resides in the firmware and the hardware. I believe that
`they would be interrelated, that they would be working together.
`And, in fact, that's why I think the patentee talked about an electronic
`filing system or the Internet, because you do have software working
`with hardware. You do have an electronic filing system software and
`hardware components.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Well, I mean, they're talking
`about an application, per se there, not necessarily a software
`application in the portion that you've pointed out.
`MR. SABHARWAL: That's true, and, frankly, based
`upon our reading of the specification, it seemed that the patentee
`didn't clearly define the difference between an application -- software
`application or software. In fact, the words "application, software and
`software application" are used throughout the claims. And there's
`nothing in the specification where the patentee said, when I'm talking
`about software, I mean this; when I'm talking about a software
`application, I mean this; when I'm talking about software, I mean
`this. In fact, he used them interchangeably in the claims themselves.
`If there are no further questions, let me move on to the
`term "module." Now, module, according to the Board, and we agree
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`with the Board's construction, is a logically separable part of the
`recited software application and may include another module, and
`may overlap with another module in functionality. What did the
`Patent Owner say? Well, on page 7 of the Patent Owner response,
`they said, "The specification provides no support for one module that
`includes another or that overlaps with another module." Well, we
`submit that there's nothing in the specification that prohibits it.
`There's absolutely nothing in the specification that would preclude
`the ability of one module to interact with or overlap with another
`module.
`
`In fact, Mr. Weadock himself admitted that.
`Mr. Weadock, when I asked him about this, if we can go to the slide
`13, I specifically asked him, "Taking into account what the Patent
`Owner's attorney said, the specifications provide no support for one
`module that includes another or that overlaps with another module."
`And when I asked Mr. Weadock that, he said, "And normally when
`we talk about modules, we think of them as not overlapping, but
`there might be situations in which modules could share some code.
`There might be some common code between the two modules."
`And this is not on the slide, but let me read another
`portion of that transcript. I then said, "Okay, so then without putting
`words in your mouth, would you agree with me that even in your
`definition, the modules may overlap, but they don't have to?" He
`said, "I don't necessarily agree with that. If we mean overlap by
`possibly sharing some code modules, some other code, there might
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`be some shared procedures, for example, that are common, and that
`are included in two separate modules, so I wouldn't rule that out."
`There's nothing in the claims, which is the most
`important part of claim construction, that talks about or that
`precludes any type of overlap, or that one module could not include
`another. So, we submit that viewed from the governing standard of
`BRI, that the term "module" should be that which the Board stated on
`November 21st, a logically separable part of the recited software
`application and may include another module and may overlap with
`another module in functionality.
`For the record, by the way, I was on page 191 of
`Mr. Weadock's deposition transcript.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Counsel?
`MR. SABHARWAL: Yes?
`JUDGE TIERNEY: You mentioned BRI in the last two
`discussions of claim terminology.
`MR. SABHARWAL: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Does your interpretation of the
`claim differ whether you use the Phillips standard or use the BRI
`standard?
`
`MR. SABHARWAL: We don't think so, Your Honor.
`We believe that the BRI comports with the Phillips standard, even
`though theoretically the BRI is broader than the District Court
`governing intrinsic evidence. They're one and the same in this case,
`for both module and application.
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`
`So, Your Honor --
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Does Dr. Melen provide a
`reference to support his view of what a module means? He seems to
`be saying that it's functional -- it's defined in terms of -- whatever the
`function is, that defines the module. Am I misstating that?
`MR. SABHARWAL: I think that's generally correct. I
`mean, the patentee does not specifically define in the specification
`what the term "module" is, but looking at the claim language,
`Dr. Melen opined that they do have -- that they do connote some sort
`of functional aspect, like an input module, an output module, a
`processor module, a client module.
`All right. Now, what I'd like to do, we've been talking a
`lot about the claim construction, with the Board's permission, I want
`to briefly talk about the XNS and Salgado references. Your Honors,
`there are lots and lots and lots of words in these claims, but they
`really don't mean a whole lot if we look at this -- look at some simple
`figures. Can we go, Mr. Bowman, to slide 2.
`All right, now, again, we've submitted so much paper on
`this that I don't want to waste the Board's time, but I'm just going to
`show this one figure from the XNS reference. On the one hand --
`and let me just see if I can point some things out here.
`Patent Owner says that there is no -- there is no evidence
`of a protocol in the XNS. Let me just read the text here. "The
`scanner" -- right here, on slide 2, "The scanner is an XNS system
`element which uses XNS protocols to communicate with other
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`devices and services on the Internet." How can they argue that there
`are no interface protocols? The XNS has the seven-layer architecture
`of the OSI model. It talks about a printer protocol, a server protocol,
`a scanning protocol, all of the applications are identified. It's got an
`Ethernet protocol. But nevertheless, they bury their heads in the sand
`and say there's no protocols.
`They also say there's no input module. Well, what's this
`over here? Here we have what I will call a client module, a user
`interface, in which a user can designate that a document, an
`electronic document be sent either to a file server for storage or sent
`to a print server to ultimately be printed. We have an input module,
`we have an output module, we have a server module.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay, counsel, you need to tell
`me what slide you're on if you want me to see any of this.
`MR. SABHARWAL: I'm sorry, Judge Anderson, I'm
`again on slide 2, and tell me when you're there.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Two?
`MR. SABHARWAL: Yes, Your Honor. Are you
`
`there?
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Yes.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Okay. And again, just to repeat,
`Judge Anderson, we were talking about the text that is directly
`underneath the figure here. So, again, we have one of two options
`here. We can either -- there's a graphic input station, which, by the
`way, can be remote. It can be on a local access network, it could be
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`on a -- it can be on a wide area network. It can be on any type of
`network. That's what the XNS reference is talking about. That's the
`whole idea behind this reference. And this is 1985, by the way.
`So, we've got a number of the different modules that
`they claim don't exist. In fact, I'm hoping that Patent Owner can
`explain, when they stand up, what doesn't exist in XNS?
`Realistically, based upon the language and the figures, what does not
`exist in this thing? It's 192 pages, and it references another model
`which is another 200 pages. How can it not have this when this was
`the whole idea of a network architecture being able to scan in a
`document, and electronically transmit it to a destination.
`Now let's go to Salgado.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Just can I ask you a question
`about claims 9 and 11?
`MR. SABHARWAL: Please do. Sure.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: You're contending that these
`modules are functionally based, the way I see your argument, and my
`question is, why would you have a -- necessarily have a list of such
`modules if they're not a defined part of the software? In other words,
`they're some functional part?
`MR. SABHARWAL: A list of the modules or a list of
`the data list?
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Yeah, a list of the modules that
`you're contending are in XNS. For example, I could see maybe for
`the graphical interface there, maybe there would be a list of that, if
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`that's the input module, but what about some of the other -- what's the
`server module? What's -- in claim 5, for example? What's the list for
`that?
`
`MR. SABHARWAL: In claim 5? What's that?
`JUDGE EASTHOM: How -- why would you have a list
`if the server module is simply a functional aspect of one of the
`application programs?
`MR. SABHARWAL: Well, Your Honor, if we can go
`back to slide 2, please. The claim 5 talks about a series of modules,
`the input module, the output module, was there a specific limitation
`that you were talking about in that language?
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Well, I mean, I'm sorry, I
`misspoke, I might have had the wrong claim. How about -- how
`about claim 9? You have a list of input, output and process modules.
`MR. SABHARWAL: All right, let me just make sure
`we're talking about the same thing. And you said claim 9, Your
`Honor?
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Yes, please. That's one, and I
`think claim 11 also has a list. Yes, claim 11 also has a similar list.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Okay, all right, you're talking
`about -- let's see here, I want to make sure I'm answering your
`question properly. Let me just see if I can answer this way: One of
`the things that the XNS reference expressly talks about is a
`clearinghouse. The ability to maintain -- and I hope this -- I think
`this answers your question, that there is a clearinghouse so that when
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`the user ultimately is trying to effect a transmission electronically of
`an image, a clearinghouse will show the list of available destination
`devices that it can be sent to.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: That number is contending,
`though, that that's not necessarily a list of software application
`modules because devices are hardware.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Okay.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: How do we -- how do you
`address that argument?
`MR. SABHARWAL: Well, I would address the
`argument that all of the modules that are recited in claim 5 are
`present in the XNS reference, that claim 5 talks about five modules,
`input module, output module, processor module, server module and
`client module. And I'm happy to take you through where they are
`either here or in the text.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: That would be great if you could
`tell me just really briefly where the five modules are.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Sure, and I'll also just so that I'm
`thorough, I will go through the language, too, of this thing. So, let
`me start with the input module. So, the input module says at least
`one input module managing data comprising at least, and it go goes
`on from at least -- the last words are "from at least one third party
`software application." The Board noted that each printer and scanner
`device on the system employs input and output modules 36, which in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`turn are part of a video control module 16 and which we respectively
`show on the output and input modules.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: So, you agree with what the
`Board said for these modules, these five modules?
`MR. SABHARWAL: I absolutely do, and I just wanted
`to point out what we also said in our petition.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Because there's one thing that
`Patent Owner was talking about, which is that there's no evidence of
`any interface with third party software applications, but the XNS
`specifically talks about, for example, interaction with the Kurzweil
`intelligence scanning system, which allows you to combine text into
`the images.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: So, what would be the server
`module? Which one is that? Refresh me.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Which one would be the server
`
`module?
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Yes.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Well, it's our opinion that if you
`have a graphic input station and it is going to a print server or a file
`server, the file server has a relational database, which discloses how
`the data coordinates amongst each other, and therefore that would be
`evidence of a server module. That there would be no way that you
`could have a relational database on a file server that would
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`understand how the data coordinates amongst one of all the various
`devices without having some sort of a server module.
`The server module itself may sit on the graphic input
`station, but the -- in other words, like for a metaphor when Salgado
`talks about an icon, but at the end of the day, you can't have a
`relational database without have having some kind of a server
`module that coordinates among all the different modules.
`You have a client module which is, I think, the user
`interface. You have an input module, which is where the user would
`input what they want. In other words, where they scan in the
`document. And you have an output module, which could be the file
`server where the data is stored, or a print server, where it's printed
`out.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: So, the input module, you're
`relying on it's got to be firmware basically?
`MR. SABHARWAL: No, not necessarily. It could be a
`
`software.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Is there a disclosure of software
`on an input module there in XNS?
`MR. SABHARWAL: Is there a disclosure as opposed
`to firmware?
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Yes.
`MR. SABHARWAL: I would have to check on that and
`I could get back to you during the rebuttal, unless we know the
`answer right now. Could I have a moment?
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Sure. Or if you're relying on
`firmware -- you're not just relying on firmware you're saying?
`MR. SABHARWAL: No, I'm just saying the claims
`don't specify whether or not something needs to be software,
`firmware or hardware, the claim just says that you have to have a
`functional equivalent of an input module.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay, so the software would be
`what, then, it's either a firmware or some software you're
`representing?
`MR. SABHARWAL: Yes, that's correct.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: And what would be the name of
`the software?
`MR. SABHARWAL: What would be the name of the
`
`software?
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Right, that would be in a list,
`that's what I'm trying to get at, how would we have that in a list?
`MR. SABHARWAL: Yes, it would be in a list.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: And what name would that be?
`MR. SABHARWAL: If I could have a moment.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Thanks. I'm sorry.
`MR. SABHARWAL: Your Honor, I'm not sure if
`there's a specific proprietary name for the software that they call the
`input module. I will note that there is -- that they talk about the
`seven-layer architecture and they talk about various modules that you
`could use, but they don't call it a specific name. They call it, you
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`know, printer module, or scanner module, but they don't necessarily
`have a specific name. It does talk about the fact that you can interact
`with other non-Xerox software. I would assume that it would be
`some sort of proprietary Xerox software.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Counsel, you've used up 25
`
`minutes.
`
`MR. SABHARWAL: I have, already?
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Yes, would you like to extend a
`little bit into the rebuttal time you've reserved?
`MR. SABHARWAL: If I can take just five more
`minutes. The only other thing that I wanted to point out, and before I
`say this, let me just say that I don't mean to personally attack
`Mr. Weadock, he's a smart man. I just don't believe based upon --
`based upon the experience that he's a person of ordinary skill in the
`art, and certainly not an expert.
`I would like to go to slide 4. So, what we're talking
`about here is modules, software, hardware, the ability to
`electronically transmit documents to an output destination, and our
`expert, Dr. Melen, said that a person of ordinary skill in the art needs
`to have a degree in either computer science, electrical engineering or
`computer engineering.
`So, viewed from that background, and Mr. Weadock
`said, I meet Dr. Melen's definition. And I asked him, "Okay, well,
`what was your degree in?" He said it was a BS in general
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00302
`Patent No. 7,986,426
`
`engineering, majoring in energy technology. And I said, "How do
`you define energy technology?" And he said, oh, well, let's see, well,
`oil and gas, nuclear, wind, solar technologies that are used to
`generate energy sources. That was the focus of my major."
`So, I'm still trying to find out where he's got this
`experience. I said, "Okay, did you take any courses in circuit design
`or hardware? No, no hardware courses, no circuit design." So I kept
`going with him. Let's go to the next slide.
`I then said, "All right, let's try your experience, because
`you don't have anything -- you haven't done any software, you
`haven't done any program, you haven't done anything like that." He's
`an IT consultant. He configures networks. Great. But that doesn't
`mean that you're an expert in this field. He's never been employed by
`a scanner or copier company, he's never developed software for
`printing or scanning.
`And then I said, "Is it fair to say that you have not
`written any software that is primarily oriented for any commercial
`device? He said, "Well, again, to the extent that a display is a
`commercial device, I wrote a program, a pretty intensive program
`designed and oriented towards displaying information on a screen."
`I said, "Other than that?
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
