Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 71
`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
`
`
`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
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
