`571-272-7822 Entered: November 7, 2014
`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CARDIOCOM, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00468
`Case IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`____________
`
`Held: September 9, 2014
`____________
`
`
`Before: JUSTIN T. ARBES, BRYAN F. MOORE, and TRENTON A.
`WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`
`DANIEL W. McDONALD, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Merchant & Gould
`
`
`3200 IDS Drive
`
`
`80 South Eighth Street
`
`
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2215
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`DON DAYBELL, ESQUIRE
`
`
`BAS DE BLANK, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
`
`
`1000 Marsh Road
`
`
`Menlo Park, California 94025-1015
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`September 9, 2014, commencing at 3:14 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Thank you. Please be seated.
`
`This is the final hearing of the day in Case IPR2013-00468.
`
`19
`
`IPR2013-00469 has been joined with the 468 case. So, we will
`
`20
`
`proceed in the order we have for the other cases. Counsel for
`
`21
`
`Petitioner, you may proceed, and would you like to reserve time for
`
`22
`
`rebuttal?
`
`23
`
`MR. MCDONALD: I would like to reserve 15 minutes,
`
`24
`
`please. Thank you.
`
`25
`
`So, I will go ahead and turn to slide 2 here, and I know we
`
`26
`
`covered some of this ground before, but I also know that we have got
`
`27
`
`a new judge here, so please, especially Judge Ward, if you feel like
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`I'm going too fast for you, please interrupt me and let me know if you
`
`have any questions.
`
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you for that.
`
`MR. MCDONALD: So, we will briefly go through the '192
`
`patent and the claims, talk a little about the decision granting the IPRs
`
`and -- since they were merged, there's two of them -- then the cited
`
`grounds. Then we will go into a little more detail there as to how the
`
`cited art that are related to our grounds satisfy the claim elements, talk
`
`about why it would have been obvious for one of skill in the art to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`combine those things. And if I have a couple extra minutes at the end
`
`11
`
`there, I will try to address the secondary considerations.
`
`12
`
`Let's go to slide 3. For the merged proceedings here, claim
`
`13
`
`1 is representative, although this patent, all 37 claims are in the
`
`14
`
`merged proceeding, but we will use claim 1 has representative here.
`
`15
`
`Generally a monitoring system with a user interface that will display
`
`16
`
`messages, queries, or response choices in a data merge program that
`
`17
`
`customizes a generic script program and includes a display command
`
`18
`
`and an input command; and then also databases -- one or more
`
`19
`
`databases that store a generic program and then responses from the
`
`20
`
`user.
`
`21
`
`So, I would say at the core here that the issue being
`
`22
`
`addressed by the '192 patent is the efficiently customizing
`
`23
`
`communications with remote devices. This data merge program is a
`
`24
`
`way to customize these generic programs in a fairly efficient way, I
`
`25
`
`think is the concept at issue with the '192.
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, if we go to slide 4, this is just the basic representative
`
`figure of it, showing the remote apparatus that will get that
`
`customized script program loaded on it, and then coming from the
`
`server, which will have the script generator -- has generic scripts
`
`stored on it but also custom scripts that are created and derived from
`
`the generic scripts, script programs.
`
`So, we'll turn now to slide 5, with the decision to institute
`
`the IPR. Ground number one was just Wright Jr. by itself as an
`
`obviousness grounds under Section 103, where in the Board's decision
`
`10
`
`it found -- Wright talks about creating these forms that can be
`
`11
`
`modified and customized for various uses and found that those
`
`12
`
`executable forms can be considered a customized script program.
`
`13
`
`Wright talks about scripts.
`
`14
`
`And also, Wright discloses a data merge program. There
`
`15
`
`was some effort by Bosch before the IPR was instituted that argued
`
`16
`
`that that merged program had to require that data be entered
`
`17
`
`automatically, but that was rejected as inconsistent with the broadest
`
`18
`
`reasonable construction in the IPR decision. And so Wright was
`
`19
`
`found to bring two sets of data together into one, and so, therefore,
`
`20
`
`would satisfy that data merge program element.
`
`21
`
`And then, finally, the database element was found in the
`
`22
`
`Institution Decision on the basis that Wright teaches that the form can
`
`23
`
`be selected from a list of preexisting forms. You have the duplicate
`
`24
`
`form option, for example, where these forms would be stored, and so
`
`25
`
`that would -- that certainly would indicate a database.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, if we go to slide 6, this is kind of tiny print here, but I
`
`will just try to walk through, with Figure 1 of Wright, where you have
`
`got a central location, a person can create this form, representing the
`
`form. Then they send the form, in that second drawing here that's
`
`blown up, to a PDA device. Back then I think the patent talked about
`
`Newtons, which are not around anymore, but that's the sort of device
`
`that you could then transmit the form to where it would then be filled
`
`out. Somebody could tap on Newton to check off boxes or enter a
`
`number, et cetera. And then the answers, the form data would be sent
`
`10
`
`back to that central computer.
`
`11
`
`So, with slide number 7, these were some of the findings by
`
`12
`
`the Board that parallel how Wright matches up with the claim
`
`13
`
`elements here. It relates to queries and provides user responses, that's
`
`14
`
`the -- what's on that form that's sent out to those PDAs so the people
`
`15
`
`can respond. That's, I think, called a script in the Wright, Jr. patent,
`
`16
`
`and it was considered to be a script program. And it teaches the other
`
`17
`
`elements as well or at least they would be obvious in view of Wright.
`
`18
`
`And that obviousness, by the way, as we have in our other
`
`19
`
`proceedings here, our person of skill in the art we think is someone
`
`20
`
`with a bachelor's in the computer science or engineering field with a
`
`21
`
`couple of years of programming experience and one year of
`
`22
`
`networking experience. I heard Bosch's counsel indicate earlier that
`
`23
`
`they didn't think there was a dispute about that, and so I guess I don't
`
`24
`
`think there is, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page
`
`25
`
`there. So, that was ground number one.
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE WARD: Counsel, if I can, can I interrupt with a
`
`question? I want to ask about page 1 of your reply brief. You state
`
`that the '192 patent teaches "gathering data from remotely located
`
`devices." Which of the challenged claims include that limitation?
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Can we put up claim 1?
`
`So, the question was about which aspect of the statement on
`
`page 1?
`
`JUDGE WARD: The limitation you quoted at page 1 of
`
`your reply brief as "gathering data from remotely located devices." I
`
`10
`
`understand what you're telling me about the teachings of Wright. I'm
`
`11
`
`trying to line that up with the claim limitations. I'm asking you if that
`
`12
`
`particular limitation, "gathering data from remotely located devices,"
`
`13
`
`is recited in any of the challenged claims.
`
`14
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Well, by gathering data, I would refer,
`
`15
`
`for example, in the user interface element here, Your Honor, in
`
`16
`
`subpart 3, where it talks about "computer for entering, authoring,
`
`17
`
`selecting" -- whoops -- "any combination of at least one of things,
`
`18
`
`including response choices corresponding to queries" -- so, you have
`
`19
`
`these queries or response choices that are presented.
`
`20
`
`And then if we go a little farther down, you have a display
`
`21
`
`command and an input command -- it's the next page -- it says,
`
`22
`
`"Customized programs will include a display command and an input
`
`23
`
`command to receive responses when the script program includes
`
`24
`
`queries." And then you've got a database that "stores the responses
`
`25
`
`received from the remotely situated apparatuses."
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`That's what I had in mind, anyway, Your Honor. I don't
`
`know if there's further questions, but that was where I was -- those are
`
`the elements I was thinking of there.
`
`JUDGE WARD: Okay, thank you.
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Thank you.
`
`So, let's go to slide 8. This goes to the second decision
`
`instituting grounds with Wright, Jr., in combination with Goodman,
`
`under Section 103. So, we have, on slide 8, then, a couple of figures
`
`from the Goodman patent, Figure 1 and then also Figure 5. Figure 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`kind of gets to the first embodiment addressed in Goodman, which is
`
`11
`
`this three-part system, which has the middle section being that host
`
`12
`
`computer, that's a third-party facility, that interacts through that
`
`13
`
`interface 34 with the healthcare provider at 40, like a nurse or doctor,
`
`14
`
`and also that host interfaces through 31 with the patient node that will
`
`15
`
`include a microprocessor with a messaging device, in this
`
`16
`
`embodiment anyway. So, it's that three-part system for interactions
`
`17
`
`involving the healthcare provider and patients.
`
`18
`
`And then in the lower right, this has a variation on that,
`
`19
`
`where an additional element at that patient node is showing everything
`
`20
`
`that's in the patient node of Figure 1, but also adding now a medical
`
`21
`
`device, number 70 there, through the interface 71, that would be, for
`
`22
`
`example, a blood pressure monitor. So, that's the additional teachings
`
`23
`
`of this Goodman, which is a public health net -- I think, yeah, it's a
`
`24
`
`public health network, and I think it talks about even up to millions of
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`people could be used with this system to communicate with these
`
`patients.
`
`So, then, if we just go briefly to slide 9, we had obviously
`
`two decisions that came out, but essentially the grounds were very
`
`parallel. In the first one, that related to claims 1 through 19, and the
`
`second one going to claims 20 through 37, but it essentially found that
`
`there was no relevant disparity between the technology involved in
`
`Wahlquist, which is the next one we're citing now, and the '192
`
`subject matter.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`In Wahlquist, then, we have seen this a little bit before
`
`11
`
`today, but if we go to slide 10, I will just briefly recap Wahlquist here
`
`12
`
`as a system for a help desk professional, gets a phone call from a user
`
`13
`
`that has problems with their computer typically, contact the help desk,
`
`14
`
`who will then get some information over the phone briefly to design
`
`15
`
`some diagnostic tests that will be scripted through programs that are
`
`16
`
`downloaded to the user computer so they can run some tests. They
`
`17
`
`might be run automatically, but Wahlquist also teaches that it could be
`
`18
`
`used with user prompts to get that information to come back to the
`
`19
`
`central system associated with the help desk, so they can figure out
`
`20
`
`what's wrong with the computer and fix it.
`
`21
`
`So, we'll now turn to the elements of the claims with the data
`
`22
`
`merge program. Why don't we skip ahead a little bit here to slide 14.
`
`23
`
`This is just the constructions. The script program is a program that
`
`24
`
`contains a set of instructions that is capable of being executed and
`
`25
`
`interpreted. Our expert actually had a narrower construction of that in
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`his initial petition, but also, as he clarifies in his reply, all the prior art
`
`that satisfies the script program element with the narrower
`
`construction that he assumed certainly meets that construction with
`
`the broader construction that's been applied by the Board here.
`
`And then with the data merge program, that's a program that
`
`combines two or more sets of data into one, and it does not require
`
`that that happen automatically.
`
`So, now, if we go to slide 15, this kind of gets to the core of
`
`it now, because this was a dispute, and Bosch's expert, Dr. David,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`essentially conceded that Wright describes a system that has this data
`
`11
`
`merge as construed by the Board. In this, we have got this particular
`
`12
`
`question here, at page 533, and you can see that if you go to the
`
`13
`
`transcript, the questions leading up to that were basically I walk him
`
`14
`
`through a scenario that is contemplated by Wright, Jr., where it has
`
`15
`
`the Joe's Diner as the example.
`
`16
`
`And if we go briefly to slide 16 here, we can see that's a --
`
`17
`
`one of the figures from the patent. It has this Joe's Diner customer
`
`18
`
`comment card, and it actually, I think, goes on a little more than what
`
`19
`
`is shown here, but the concept is it's got some queries here that
`
`20
`
`somebody will answer about their visit to that restaurant. And then
`
`21
`
`you go through, for example, what if you're a different restaurant, you
`
`22
`
`like the Joe's Diner card as a starting point, but you want to add some
`
`23
`
`new questions, take some other questions off, whatever, but if you
`
`24
`
`have got the original set of questions on the Joe's Diner comment
`
`25
`
`card, but now you have got a new card because you added two new
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`questions, that would be a second set of data, the two new questions
`
`that you've now combined with the original set from Joe's Diner. And
`
`Dr. David agreed that that's what Wright teaches, is a system that will
`
`allow you to do that. So, in fact, Wright does combine two sets of
`
`data into one.
`
`And if we go to slide 16, then, and if you look at column 8
`
`of Wright, that will walk through some of the functionality in Wright
`
`that lets you do that. The duplicate form would be the starting point,
`
`in effect, pulling up that generic Joe's Diner form in the example I was
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`just using, but you can pull up from the database that's going to be in
`
`11
`
`Wright preexisting forms, like the Joe's Diner form. You can create
`
`12
`
`new fields then. You can add some new questions to it, and that goes
`
`13
`
`to the specific functions called out in column 8. You can also change
`
`14
`
`some existing fields. Maybe you want to change the question from
`
`15
`
`did you like the breakfast special to did you like the dinner special.
`
`16
`
`And you could also, if you wanted to, remove some fields from that
`
`17
`
`preexisting form as well.
`
`18
`
`So, on slide 17, I guess I'll just briefly hit that here with --
`
`19
`
`obviously, with the automated -- it's already been construed as not
`
`20
`
`automated, and Bosch has come forward with nothing in their
`
`21
`
`response now to show anything from the intrinsic record that would
`
`22
`
`indicate that a data merge program has to be automated in some
`
`23
`
`respect, number one.
`
`24
`
`And then number two, to the extent that they're suggesting
`
`25
`
`that automation would be akin to a mail merge sort of program, if that
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`would require automation, well, they acknowledge in the '192 patent
`
`that mail merge is the "standard way" to merge data at column 12,
`
`lines 60 to 61. So, to the extent they're suggesting data merge requires
`
`anything more than just merging data, their only discussion of it is by
`
`this offhand reference to a mail merge, which they acknowledge is old
`
`anyway. They didn't invent that concept, and they admit it.
`
`So, we'll go now to the generic script program, the idea that
`
`you have that preexisting form -- on slide 18 -- and that that's where it
`
`teaches it here with this duplicate form command at column 8, "to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`duplicate from a list of existing forms," and then you get a new form
`
`11
`
`as you modify this one. So, that's starting from this preexisting form
`
`12
`
`that you could use over and over again for different diners, for
`
`13
`
`example. There's no limitation in Wright as to how many times you
`
`14
`
`could use a form that you're duplicating from a list of forms.
`
`15
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, I understand that you have an
`
`16
`
`existing form and you want to change that in some way to add new
`
`17
`
`questions, things of that nature. What is the second data that you
`
`18
`
`merge with the first data, then?
`
`19
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Well, in the example that Dr. David
`
`20
`
`agreed to as being a merged program, we talked about just adding
`
`21
`
`three more questions or two more questions to the form. You have a
`
`22
`
`set of additional questions that you want to add to that existing -- that
`
`23
`
`generic or preexisting form. That would be the second set. So, I've
`
`24
`
`got a set of questions, 1 through 3, and now I'm going to add a second
`
`25
`
`set of questions, 4 through 6.
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Okay. So, you enter those into the
`
`system, and that becomes the second data that you merge.
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Right, and now you have got a new
`
`form that has all the questions, 1 through 6, in a single form, actually
`
`put together now.
`
`So, with respect to --
`
`JUDGE WARD: Counsel, can I ask about the claim term
`
`"script program"? I understand that you mapped the Wright forms
`
`engine to that claim limitation. Is that correct?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Yeah. We have got a slide -- why
`
`11
`
`don't we go to slide 21. I think it will be useful for this.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE WARD: So, I want to ask specifically about the --
`
`13
`
`specifically the forms engine in Wright. What is it that's capable of
`
`14
`
`being executed and interpreted in that forms engine?
`
`15
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Well, you have got the lines here. Can
`
`16
`
`we blow up the box to the right there? This field description record,
`
`17
`
`which is basically -- it's like a subroutine that is prepared as the forms
`
`18
`
`are created here, and if you have five questions, you might have five
`
`19
`
`of these boxes or five subroutines, and what is defined, then, as the
`
`20
`
`user or the creator of the form walks through, is they define their
`
`21
`
`fields as to what type is -- am I looking for a number or words or a yes
`
`22
`
`or no or what? So, it defines the parameters of the fields.
`
`23
`
`Then it's got this prompt for number of people in the party
`
`24
`
`and help, please enter -- so, it states what should be displayed. And
`
`25
`
`then we get down to this script, which is the second half, which runs
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`through, in effect, the program with program -- that's basically a script
`
`sort of language there, with the if/thens/elses. That's like a -- you'd
`
`see that in BASIC programming, which I learned when I was in junior
`
`high, for example.
`
`And together, these things get the inputs that are consistent
`
`with those parameters. I think Bosch is trying to draw a line, well, the
`
`script is just the second half, but when you program something and
`
`you want an input, the fact that you define the parameters of the input
`
`and you say I want the input to be ten characters long, and that's going
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`to be -- I'm going to call it input A, all right, now the command is get
`
`11
`
`that input A. That's all programming.
`
`12
`
`Even though the second one literally might be the verb or
`
`13
`
`the instruction in a sense, it is interpreted together with the parameters
`
`14
`
`that you have defined here. That's all part of a program, and I don't
`
`15
`
`think anybody of skill in the art would say that when somebody writes
`
`16
`
`code, which defines the parameters of what's going to be input, that
`
`17
`
`those -- those aren't instructions -- a part of the instruction set that
`
`18
`
`would be considered the script program as well. Those have to go
`
`19
`
`together, and that's just ordinary programming.
`
`20
`
`But for that box, there would be no input that shows up on
`
`21
`
`that personal display -- personal digital assistant device, like that
`
`22
`
`Newton, as taught in Wright. So, it's the cause and effect here, that
`
`23
`
`because you put in those words, those instructions, that input is sought
`
`24
`
`on the PDA, and then the response is gathered and sent back. So, that
`
`25
`
`covers the script program issue, and I also got into the input
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`command, I think, that kind of merged -- pardon the pun -- with that
`
`in answering your question, Your Honor. So, we've covered that.
`
`If we go back to slide 19, the issue in dispute on the generic
`
`script program that came up after the IPR decision, Bosch says that
`
`the generic script program is not usable in itself, but they've presented
`
`no reason to import that limitation into generic script program. It
`
`wasn't proffered in their original response, and actually, as you look at
`
`Dr. David's testimony, at page 538 and 544, he's asked:
`
`"QUESTION: When you say it's not usable, you are saying
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`it's not usable in the same way that the customized program is usable,
`
`11
`
`right?
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`"ANSWER: Correct."
`
`At page 544:
`
`"QUESTION: But the generic program is usable, it's just
`
`15
`
`not ideal, right?
`
`16
`
`"ANSWER: It's usable, and it's more than not ideal. It's
`
`17
`
`confusing."
`
`18
`
`So, he doesn't like it. He knows that he might want to
`
`19
`
`modify it, but he's acknowledging that it's not unusable, in itself.
`
`20
`
`So, I will go up to the database issue now to your -- and let's
`
`21
`
`go to -- let's go to 23. That's the claim element itself. So, this is the
`
`22
`
`claim element at issue, "databases accessible by the data merge
`
`23
`
`program for storing the generic script program," number one, and then
`
`24
`
`two, "and any responses received from the remotely situated
`
`25
`
`apparatus," such as the responses to the questions in writing.
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, if we go to slide 24, in the board decision, the Board
`
`found that Wright discloses those databases, gets the forms from the
`
`form list, and also would store responses. Dr. David, Bosch's expert,
`
`agreed in his deposition that one of ordinary skill would understand
`
`that when Wright teaches storing a list of forms that you can retrieve
`
`from, that one way to store that list would be to store them in a
`
`computer database accessible on the computer. So, this is an
`
`obviousness -- we're not talking anticipation. It's clearly obvious in
`
`view of Wright's teaching to have that database for storing these
`
`10
`
`generic script programs or the forms that would be duplicated.
`
`11
`
`And in 25, with respect to storing the responses, Wahlquist
`
`12
`
`calls out the database manager at -- slide 25, right? -- yep, at column
`
`13
`
`2, in Wahlquist, to associate the script files with the case files. Each
`
`14
`
`person, each user with a computer having problems, they get their
`
`15
`
`own case file set up, and it has associated script files and case files
`
`16
`
`through a database manager, certainly has a database in that, and it's
`
`17
`
`going to get back information that is going to be associated with that
`
`18
`
`person's case.
`
`19
`
`The whole point of Wright is to send out -- or of Wahlquist
`
`20
`
`is to set out that diagnostic set of script program subroutines, et cetera,
`
`21
`
`to get information from the remote user's computer, so it can be sent
`
`22
`
`back to the central database so that the professional there, the
`
`23
`
`computer professional typically, can access it and figure out what's
`
`24
`
`wrong with the computer.
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`And especially because they will be working with likely
`
`many people, the whole point is to efficiently use the help desk time
`
`with potentially multiple people having problems with their remote
`
`computers, you keep that information in an organized way. You have
`
`it associated with -- in these files, and one of ordinary skill would
`
`clearly understand that you're keeping databases for the responses as
`
`well.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, do we need to interpret the term
`
`"database" as it was argued in the previous case?
`
`10
`
`MR. MCDONALD: I think just the plain and ordinary
`
`11
`
`meaning applies here. The answer, as we saw in the earlier hearing
`
`12
`
`earlier this afternoon, Dr. David and Dr. Stone I think essentially
`
`13
`
`agree that it's an organized collection of data that would be on a
`
`14
`
`computer, and I think that's pretty much the ordinary meaning of it,
`
`15
`
`and it's certainly something that would be managed by a database
`
`16
`
`manager. Those were both, I think, ways to define it that both experts
`
`17
`
`agreed on. I think those are both consistent with the ordinary
`
`18
`
`meaning. So, I'm not sure that it's critical that it actually be construed.
`
`19
`
`And Goodman, then, as we show here, stores a record of
`
`20
`
`compliance data gathered from individuals. So, you're making sure,
`
`21
`
`for example, are they taking their medications? They indicate yes or
`
`22
`
`no, that they have taken their medication at the appropriate time, the
`
`23
`
`appropriate amount, and that that compliance data is generated for the
`
`24
`
`health professionals to get access to, to monitor them.
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`As we saw in the picture of Goodman, the health
`
`professionals access that information through that central third-party
`
`facility with the host computer. So, the information's downloaded
`
`from the patient node to that host computer. Again, Goodman talks
`
`about millions of people. You have to have it organized to get at it,
`
`and one of ordinary skill would understand that that responses would
`
`be stored in a database.
`
`So, okay, let's go to slide 26, then. So, that's the core issues
`
`here. I think there's one other issue that's specific to claim 37, so I just
`
`10
`
`wanted to hit that briefly here with the identification code associated
`
`11
`
`with the individual. That's really the core new element of claim 37,
`
`12
`
`and that's taught or suggested very clearly by Wahlquist, which, as I
`
`13
`
`just indicated, has that case file that will have user identification
`
`14
`
`information, as well as computer system information associated with
`
`15
`
`it, and that it's -- there's -- it's transmitting to the computer what the
`
`16
`
`claim requires.
`
`17
`
`And Wahlquist also, commensurate with that, discloses that
`
`18
`
`the user computer is interrogated -- so that's the remote computer --
`
`19
`
`interrogated for its computer identification code to match the case file,
`
`20
`
`which would be back at the central computer. So, it matches up that
`
`21
`
`particular limitation of claim 37 quite closely.
`
`22
`
`So, now we'll turn -- well, that's the core issues on the --
`
`23
`
`whether the prior art has these elements. Now we'll talk about the
`
`24
`
`combination of the art here, and Dr. Stone walks through that
`
`25
`
`especially in his original declaration of just what would have been
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`known in the field at the time the '192 patent was filed, including the
`
`knowledge that script programs, as discussed in Wahlquist, are very
`
`good as a programming language to use when you're going to be
`
`sending programs to remote devices to gather information, but he
`
`certainly talks about Wahlquist as expressly talking about that.
`
`The Board's decision indicates that Wahlquist is analogous.
`
`There was no dispute that Goodman and Wright, Jr. were both
`
`analogous, so on this analogous art issue, we're only talking about
`
`Wahlquist. We have talked about that a couple of times already
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`today, so I'll briefly go through that here, and, again, Judge Ward, if
`
`11
`
`you would like to spend more time on these issues, let me know.
`
`12
`
`But the Board's original decision found no relative disparity
`
`13
`
`between Wahlquist, dealing with remote personal computers and
`
`14
`
`communications and interrogations there, with the interrogations that
`
`15
`
`would happen in the gathering of information in the '192 patent. The
`
`16
`
`distinction isn't supported by the claims or specification of the '192 or
`
`17
`
`the original findings.
`
`18
`
`The core issue here, if we go to slide 29, is that Bosch keeps
`
`19
`
`contending that the field of endeavor has to be limited to the claimed
`
`20
`
`invention, but even the case law they cite, as well as the case law we
`
`21
`
`cite, makes it clear that the field is broader than that, and you have to
`
`22
`
`look at the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed
`
`23
`
`invention, including -- and the question is what's analogous to the
`
`24
`
`claimed invention, not just what is the claimed invention. That would
`
`25
`
`collapse the field of endeavor study down to an anticipation analysis.
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, you look at the patent, what it talks about, even if it's not
`
`exactly within the claims, and it's pretty powerful evidence of what
`
`would be analogous, because if it's in the very same patent that has
`
`those claims, there must be a reason, typically, that the inventor would
`
`put that in there. And so we see with slide 30, the '192 patent talks a
`
`lot about gathering data from remotely located devices. It's not just
`
`about patients.
`
`I think I'm going to skip ahead to slide 33 now, and we've
`
`got some other discussion in here about how Wahlquist teaches direct
`
`10
`
`communications with the users, not just the computers, as well, but
`
`11
`
`I'm going to skip ahead to 33 just to show the commonality here
`
`12
`
`between the three references that we rely on, Wright, Goodman, and
`
`13
`
`Wahlquist, that they all fundamentally have this core system with
`
`14
`
`essential server collecting information from remote devices, number
`
`15
`
`one.
`
`16
`
`Number two, they all customize the communications for the
`
`17
`
`users, and that, I think, is really the issue of what is the '192 patent
`
`18
`
`about? Well, that's what this data merge program is really about, is to
`
`19
`
`efficiently customize communications with users, the queries, the
`
`20
`
`messages, et cetera. All three of those references talk about that.
`
`21
`
`All three of them are directed to transmitting queries or
`
`22
`
`messages and displaying prompts and receiving responses back from
`
`23
`
`that remote location, and at least Goodman and Wahlquist talk the use
`
`24
`
`with various input devices. Wahlquist, in particular, that's important,
`
`25
`
`because Dr. David, in talking about Wahlquist, has a quote from
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00468 and IPR2013-00469
`Patent 7,516,192 B2
`
`Wahlquist where he specifically puts ellipses in where Wahlquist
`
`teaches that it should be used with various i