`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.65,59,59
`February 5, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WI-FI ONE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`Case IPR2013-00636
`Patent 6,424,625
`____________
`
`Held: December 8, 2014
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: KARL D. EASTHOM, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DOMINIC E. MASSA, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`
`60 State Street
`
`
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`PETER J. AYERS, ESQUIRE
`
`
`JOHN M. SHUMAKER, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Lee & Hayes
`
`
`13809 Research Boulevard
`
`
`Suite 405
`
`
`Austin, Texas 78750
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`December 8, 2014, commencing at 1:00 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
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Good afternoon.
`
`Judge Clements, are you with us? We couldn't hear you.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Do you hear me now?
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. Great. Welcome.
`
`Welcome, everybody. This is Broadcom versus Ericsson.
`
`We have three cases, IPR2013-601, 602 and 636; three patents
`
`involved, 6,772,215, 6,466,568, 6,424,625.
`
`10
`
`The way we set out the hearing order, Ericsson will go --
`
`11
`
`I'm sorry, Broadcom will go first. Petitioner will reserve however
`
`12
`
`much you want out of your 90 minutes, then Patent Owner has the
`
`13
`
`burden on the amendments.
`
`14
`
`I understand there's only two cases you have amendments
`
`15
`
`in, right? Okay. And then if you want to reserve rebuttal time to
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`respond to whatever Petitioner says on behalf -- or about your
`
`amendments, then we'll go from there.
`
`We'll probably take a short break after Patent Owner, a
`
`five-minute break, maybe give the stenographer a chance to rest and
`
`the rest of us take a breather.
`
`So with that, Petitioner introduce yourself, please.
`
`MR. MASSA: Yes, Your Honor. Dominic Massa from
`
`Wilmer Hale on behalf of Broadcom. And with me today from
`
`Wilmer Hale is Mike Diener and Zach Piccolomini and Kate Saxton.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`From Broadcom, Associate General Counsel Tony Drew, Associate
`
`11
`
`General Counsel Chris Perry and Managing Counsel Kris Dawes.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Welcome, everyone.
`
`Are you going to start the case, Mr. Massa?
`
`MR. MASSA: I will, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. Whenever you're ready.
`
`MR. MASSA: Your Honor, I have a copy of the
`
`17
`
`demonstratives. May I approach to hand those up?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Sure. Thank you.
`
`MR. MASSA: I have three copies.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Thanks.
`
`MR. MASSA: And, Your Honor, we propose to argue the
`
`22
`
`cases in the order of their filing numbers, starting with the 601 case.
`
`23
`
`If we can go to slide number 2 in the deck.
`
`24
`
`We'll start with the '215 patent, which was instituted on the
`
`25
`
`grounds of anticipation by the Seo reference. Now we're on slide
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`number 3. The '215 patent relates to a communication system in
`
`which feedback messages are exchanged to acknowledge either
`
`positively the acceptance of a packet or negatively to acknowledge
`
`that a packet was not received.
`
`Claim 1 is the one we'll discuss first. Slide 4 generally
`
`shows the sequence of communication from an entity on the left,
`
`communicating packets to the entity on the right and you'll see three
`
`arrows down, between the second and third arrow down on the right
`
`side, that S-PDU, ACK is an acknowledgment message, which is sent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`from the receiver back to the transmitter, and it's that's exchange of
`
`11
`
`messages that the '215 is directed to.
`
`12
`
`We turn to slide 5. The admitted prior art in the '215 patent
`
`13
`
`describes two types of feedback messages. One is a list feedback
`
`14
`
`that's shown in Figure 2, which provides for the length of the feedback
`
`15
`
`message and then lists the sequence numbers SN of those packets,
`
`16
`
`which have either been received affirmatively or also negative
`
`17
`
`received acknowledgements, so NAKs. Those could be either ACKs
`
`18
`
`or NAKs.
`
`19
`
`In Figure 3 of the '215 shows a bitmap format. So instead
`
`20
`
`of providing the sequence number of the received packets, it provides
`
`21
`
`a starting sequence number and then a bitmap, which goes
`
`22
`
`sequentially to show which sequence number packets have been
`
`23
`
`received and which have not. Both the list format and the bitmap
`
`24
`
`format were acknowledged prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`
`Going to slide 6, the alleged invention of the '215 is
`
`providing a type field to identify the type of feedback, and in Figure 4
`
`the type equals bitmap and that's the same bitmap in the prior art and
`
`Figure 5 shows the list, and, again, that's the same type of list we saw
`
`in the admitted prior art. And the '215 patent claims as its invention
`
`this provision of a type identifier to distinguish among different types
`
`of feedback responses.
`
`And that's what's claimed on slide 7, the constructing of a
`
`message field for a second data unit. That's the data unit sent from the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`receiver back to the transmitter, said message field including a type
`
`11
`
`identifier field.
`
`12
`
`Moving on to slide 8, the type identifier is the claim
`
`13
`
`element at issue here. The construction by the Board is on the screen
`
`14
`
`at slide 8. The type identifier field is, as construed by the Board in the
`
`15
`
`institution, a field of a message that identifies the type of that
`
`16
`
`message, as well as an alternative construction, but, first, I'll focus on
`
`17
`
`the narrower construction on which there was institution.
`
`18
`
`And slide 9 just shows the Board's decision in institution
`
`19
`
`and the claims on which the IPR has been instituted.
`
`20
`
`So let's get to the heart of the matter. The Seo patent
`
`21
`
`discloses exactly what is claimed in the '215 as the type identifier
`
`22
`
`field. It is highlighted on slide 10 in yellow. It's called NAK
`
`23
`
`underscore type. The specification at column 5, lines 54 through 57,
`
`24
`
`describes exactly what that field does. A field NAK type with a
`
`25
`
`length of two bits indicates a NAK type. That's precisely what the
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`type identifier field needs to do under the Board's construction and
`
`that's why Seo anticipates.
`
`Seo describes further what occurs in the message in Figure
`
`4. Seo says in column 6, starting at line 18, that if the value of NAK
`
`type is zero, the field's first, last, FC and padding exist, and those are
`
`the fields highlighted in red in Figure 4. Alternatively, if the value of
`
`the field NAK type is 01, the following fields exist, the NAK map
`
`count and then the NAK map sequence number, NAK map SEQ and
`
`the NAK map itself. For that reason, Seo is directly anticipatory.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`So what are Patent Owner's responses? Patent Owner
`
`11
`
`responds in two ways, first, alleging that Seo only describes a single
`
`12
`
`message type and the second argument is that the NAK type field is
`
`13
`
`not included in the message field according to the claim. Both
`
`14
`
`responses fail.
`
`15
`
`We go back -- this is now on slide 12 for Judge Clements.
`
`16
`
`The Figure 4 of Seo shows how there are differing formats of the
`
`17
`
`NAK message according to the value of NAK type and the
`
`18
`
`specification is clear. NAK type in this instance is either zero or it's
`
`19
`
`one. It's not both. And when it's zero, the fields that exist are first,
`
`20
`
`last, FCS and padding. Alternatively, if the field is 01, then the NAK
`
`21
`
`map fields exist.
`
`22
`
`Seo couldn't be clearer. Patent Owner's argument is
`
`23
`
`incredibly strained. Patent Owner says that all of those fields exist
`
`24
`
`regardless of what the NAK type is, and that's directly contrary to
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`disclosure of the specification, the disclosure setting up a conditional
`
`circumstance.
`
`The value of NAK type is either zero or it's one. It's never
`
`both. And when it's zero, the fields relating to first and last exist and,
`
`alternatively, when it's one, the fields relating to the NAK map exist.
`
`Those are two different type of messages and, therefore, the NAK
`
`type identifies alternatively those two types of message. NAK type
`
`identifies out of the first/last type message or the bitmap type
`
`message.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Going to slide 13, Patent Owner's response to disclosure of
`
`11
`
`Seo is that this is all one type of message and that it asserts that in Seo
`
`12
`
`what the word "exists" means is not that the field is present or not
`
`13
`
`present. It says despite the disclosure that in certain circumstances
`
`14
`
`some fields exist and in other circumstances other fields exist, it says
`
`15
`
`no. Without any support in Seo, it says all of those fields exist all the
`
`16
`
`time and all that happens in Seo is that the fields that are not being
`
`17
`
`used are all filled with zeros, but that's just a bald assertion by Patent
`
`18
`
`Owner. There is no disclosure at all in Seo of filling the fields that are
`
`19
`
`not being used with zero.
`
`20
`
`So we go back to slide 12. There is no disclosure in Seo
`
`21
`
`that when the NAK type is zero, first, last, FC and padding are filled
`
`22
`
`with relevant data and NAK map, NAK map SEQ are present but
`
`23
`
`filled with zeros. It doesn't say that anywhere in Seo. What Seo says
`
`24
`
`is in one circumstance those fields exist and in the other circumstance
`
`25
`
`another set of fields exist. There's simply no disclosure to support
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`Patent Owner's argument on slide 13 that somehow those fields that
`
`are not being used are filled with zeros.
`
`But even if the Board were to accept this completely
`
`unsupported interpretation of Seo, those are still two different
`
`message types. What the '215 says is the type identifier field has to
`
`distinguish between two types of messages. There's no definition,
`
`further definition of what a type of message must be. Patent Owner
`
`did not seek any special interpretation of a type of message.
`
`Petitioner submits that a type of message in which some
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`fields contain relevant data and other fields are filled with zeros are
`
`11
`
`two different types of messages. One is a message in which the
`
`12
`
`receiver needs to look at the first and last fields and determine what to
`
`13
`
`do with the data in those fields.
`
`14
`
`The other type of message is a message in which the
`
`15
`
`receiver must look at the bitmaps and determine what to do with the
`
`16
`
`data in those bitmap fields. Those are two different types of messages
`
`17
`
`and the NAK underscore type differentiates between those two
`
`18
`
`different types.
`
`19
`
`I'll just jump back to slide 10, Judge Clements, and at the
`
`20
`
`top of slide 10 there's the quote from the specification. It couldn't be
`
`21
`
`clearer, a field NAK type with a length of two bits indicates a NAK
`
`22
`
`type. That's what the field does, that's what Seo says it does and that's
`
`23
`
`all that's required of the '215 patent. For that reason, Seo anticipates.
`
`24
`
`Patent Owner's second response is to overlay a construction
`
`25
`
`onto the '215 patent making a distinction between data in a header
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`versus data in a payload, and Patent Owner argues that there's a
`
`distinction between this. However, you could search the entirety of
`
`the '215 patent for the word "header" or the word "payload" and you
`
`won't find it. It's simply not disclosed and it is certainly not claimed
`
`anywhere in the '215 that the type identifier field has to be in a certain
`
`portion of the message.
`
`So this distinction that Patent Owner makes is completely
`
`unsupported by the spec or by the claims of the '215.
`
`Patent Owner says that there was an amendment made to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the claims to require the type identifier field to be within the message
`
`11
`
`field. But looking at the prosecution history, which Patent Owner
`
`12
`
`didn't supply making this argument, you can see that no such
`
`13
`
`amendment was made.
`
`14
`
`Petitioner in its reply brief supplied the text of that
`
`15
`
`amendment, and this is on slide 15. The amendment simply moved
`
`16
`
`the type identifier field, which was already there. The claim already
`
`17
`
`required a type identifier field to be within a message and, again, the
`
`18
`
`message there, Patent Owner has not asked for any particular meaning
`
`19
`
`of that term "message." That term "message" encompasses the
`
`20
`
`entirety of the message, whether it's classified as a header or a payload
`
`21
`
`or something else.
`
`22
`
`The type identifier field always had to be part of the
`
`23
`
`message. It was simply moved to precede the at least one. So prior to
`
`24
`
`the amendment, the claim could be met by having at least one of the
`
`25
`
`following, a type identifier field, a sequence number, length and
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`content. The amendment has simply made a type identifier field
`
`always to be required and in the alternatives A, B or C, having at least
`
`one of those would meet the claims.
`
`So there was no amendment to the claims to distinguish
`
`systems from which a type identifier field was in a header or in a
`
`message body or in a payload. And, again, the terms "header" and
`
`"payload" appear nowhere in either the prosecution or the
`
`specification or the claims of the '215.
`
`So moving on to Claim 15 of Seo -- I'm sorry, of the '215,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner makes an argument related just to Claim 15.
`
`11
`
`Claim 15 is a little difficult to parse, but Petitioner contends
`
`12
`
`it is clear. To meet that claim, you must have at least one of the
`
`13
`
`following, and we did put in -- those are inserted, the I, little I, little
`
`14
`
`two I, little three, but the claim is met with at least one of those fields
`
`15
`
`existing.
`
`16
`
`The claim is met if there is a length field, the claim is met if
`
`17
`
`there is a plurality of erroneous sequence number fields and the claim
`
`18
`
`is met if there is a plurality of erroneous sequence number length
`
`19
`
`fields, which is further limited to require an association between the
`
`20
`
`erroneous sequence number length fields and the erroneous sequence
`
`21
`
`number fields.
`
`22
`
`Patent Owner in its argument, and we'll see in their slides,
`
`23
`
`Patent Owner claims that the end of that sentence, each of a plurality
`
`24
`
`of said erroneous sequence number fields associated with respective
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`one of said plurality of erroneous sequence number length fields, that
`
`all of that belongs with element number 2.
`
`In other words, Patent Owner's argument is that the claim is
`
`met by having a length field or having a plurality of erroneous
`
`sequence number length fields at number 3 or having as its element
`
`number 2 a plurality of erroneous sequence number fields aligning
`
`over element 3 and jumping down to the end of the claim and saying
`
`all that belongs up with element 2.
`
`It's simply unsupported. It is a strained reading of that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`claim. Seo meets Claim 15, because it has at least element 2, a
`
`11
`
`plurality of erroneous sequence number fields, and that's all that's
`
`12
`
`required to meet Claim 15 of the '215.
`
`13
`
`And if there were any doubt, the '215 is clear in its figures.
`
`14
`
`The '215 describes in its list of figures, and it's listed at column 5 at
`
`15
`
`around line 28, it says, Figures 9 through 13 all relate to what it
`
`16
`
`describes as a second embodiment of the invention, and that all of
`
`17
`
`those figures, 9 through 13, are part of that embodiment.
`
`18
`
`You can see in Figure 10, for example, an embodiment in
`
`19
`
`which there is a length field present and in which there is also a
`
`20
`
`plurality of erroneous sequence number fields present. It is the case in
`
`21
`
`the '215 patent that you can have a sequence number field without a
`
`22
`
`sequence number length field. In other words, Petitioner's
`
`23
`
`interpretation of Claim 15 is correct and supported by the figures.
`
`24
`
`The element 2, a plurality of erroneous sequence number
`
`25
`
`fields, that is an independent element. You can have that without also
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`having a plurality of erroneous sequence number length fields. Where
`
`do those come into play? If you look at Figure 11, the situation in
`
`Figure 11 is when you have a sequence number SN1 and you have
`
`associated with it a sequence number length field, L1, as well as
`
`having an SN1-2, although I think that's a typo. That should be SN2
`
`and a length field L2.
`
`So there's support for Petitioner's interpretation of this,
`
`which is that you can have a sequence number field by itself without
`
`having an associated sequence number length field. That is an
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`independent element. But when you have a sequence number length
`
`11
`
`field, when you have element number 3, it must be associated with a
`
`12
`
`sequence number, because it is the length of the sequence number
`
`13
`
`field, so -- of the erroneous sequence number field.
`
`14
`
`So you'll look in Figures 9 through 13, which describe this
`
`15
`
`sole embodiment. You will not find any disclosure of an erroneous
`
`16
`
`sequence number length field. You will not find element 3 without an
`
`17
`
`associated sequence number. That is Patent Owner's construction.
`
`18
`
`They would have you read element 2 as requiring both a
`
`19
`
`sequence number and a sequence number length field, but element 3
`
`20
`
`independent, an independent plurality of erroneous sequence number
`
`21
`
`length fields, that circumstance simply does not exist. Nowhere in the
`
`22
`
`'215 does it describe it. And if you look at the Figures 9 through 13,
`
`23
`
`you will never see an erroneous sequence number length field without
`
`24
`
`the associated erroneous sequence number.
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`
`So Petitioner's interpretation of this is correct. Claim 15 is
`
`met by Seo, because it has at least a plurality of erroneous sequence
`
`number fields and that could be shown -- we'll jump back, Judge
`
`Clements. I'll find the slide. We'll jump back to slide 10, for
`
`example, where there is a first and last field when it's NAK type zero.
`
`The first is an erroneous sequence number. It's a field identifying an
`
`erroneous sequence number and last is a field identifying erroneous
`
`sequence number. So there are a plurality of erroneous sequence
`
`numbers identified in Seo for the NAK type of 00, and jumping back
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`then to Claim 15 on slide 16 Seo meets that claim as well.
`
`11
`
`And, again, slide 17 just quotes from our brief where we
`
`12
`
`made that argument, that first and last are the plurality of erroneous
`
`13
`
`sequence number fields.
`
`14
`
`Unless there's any questions on the '215, I'll proceed to the
`
`15
`
`'568.
`
`16
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Just a general -- I realize the case
`
`17
`
`from the Federal Circuit just came yesterday, I think Patent Owner
`
`18
`
`might have filed. Does that have any bearing on what we're doing
`
`19
`
`here or how does that play out?
`
`20
`
`MR. MASSA: As far as Petitioners contend -- Petitioner
`
`21
`
`contends, all of the grounds for invalidity upon which the Board
`
`22
`
`instituted, all of those arguments are the same regardless of what
`
`23
`
`happened in the Federal Circuit. There is no portion of the Federal
`
`24
`
`Circuit's opinion which directly affects the arguments that were made
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`here. I don't know if Patent Owner will have a different point of view
`
`and I reserve to respond on that.
`
`I would note that the '568, which we're about to get into,
`
`Patent Owner in this proceeding contends that the claim should be
`
`construed more narrowly than Patent Owner contended in the
`
`litigation and at the Federal Circuit. It was not -- analysis of that
`
`claim element was not part of the Federal Circuit's brief -- opinion and
`
`it wasn't briefed to the Federal Circuit, but the only way in which the
`
`opinion is of interest is that the Federal Circuit has applied a broader
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`claim construction than Patent Owner contends applies here.
`
`11
`
`In other words, Patent Owner is saying that the broadest
`
`12
`
`reasonable claim construction is narrower in this proceeding than even
`
`13
`
`that applied by the Federal Circuit's litigation and that can't be. If
`
`14
`
`anything, this Board applies an even broader construction than would
`
`15
`
`apply in the District Court or the Federal Circuit.
`
`16
`
`So Petitioner would contend that if Patent Owner really is
`
`17
`
`pursuing that -- because Patent Owner also is seeking to amend the
`
`18
`
`claim to add that limitation and I'm not sure what they're going to
`
`19
`
`argue, if they're going to argue that as a matter of claim construction,
`
`20
`
`if the claim is that narrower or if they're going to skip over that and
`
`21
`
`get to that they want to amend it to say that. But regardless, the
`
`22
`
`Federal Circuit applied a construction that is broader than what Patent
`
`23
`
`Owner contends here.
`
`24
`
`So with that, we can get to the specifics of that construction
`
`25
`
`and how it's at issue. And we're at slide 18 for those remote.
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`
`The '568 patent, we'll talk about the prior art and I'll address
`
`the issues raised by the Patent Owner. So the '568 patent -- this is
`
`slide 19 -- relates to a communications system in which there are
`
`different types of information being communicated and the
`
`highlighted term "service type identifier," which identifies a type of
`
`payload information.
`
`The alleged invention of the '568 is to have a field, a service
`
`type identifier field, which identifies the type of payload information.
`
`It's shown in Figure 6, not very clear, but if you look in these slots in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`which there is data communicated, like in slot 6, there's a data field,
`
`11
`
`but preceding that is the FOC field. Patent Owner claims this is an
`
`12
`
`invention adding a type identifier field in the FOC channel to identify
`
`13
`
`the type of data that follows.
`
`14
`
`Going to slide 21, the Board in instituting construed service
`
`15
`
`type identifier consistent with how it was applied in litigation as an
`
`16
`
`identifier that identifies the type of information conveyed in the
`
`17
`
`payload, including but not limited to video, voice, data and
`
`18
`
`multimedia, and that's simply what a service type identifier is, it
`
`19
`
`identifies the type of information conveyed in the payload.
`
`20
`
`Moving to slide 22, that's supported by the specification at
`
`21
`
`column 2 and quoted on that slide.
`
`22
`
`Going to slide 23, the IPR was instituted on both Morley as
`
`23
`
`anticipatory and on Adams on one of three grounds.
`
`24
`
`Moving to slide 24, Morley describes a type identifier field.
`
`25
`
`It's the header and it's listed in the figure from column 7 as the header
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`type and from the Figures 5a and 5c it's the field H. It is a two-bit
`
`field -- sorry, it's a two-byte field and it identifies the type of
`
`information that follows.
`
`So if you see, for example, header type 2, which is
`
`highlighted, is voice only. That corresponds to Figure 5b in which the
`
`header is followed by V, voice only data. And if you look at -- down
`
`to header type 4, data of zero, data stream zero, and that corresponds
`
`to Figure 5c where you have header type and then the following data
`
`is of a data stream in contrast to a voice stream.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`So Morley has precisely what was claimed as the invention
`
`11
`
`of the '568, a type identifier field, which identifies the type of
`
`12
`
`information in the payload.
`
`13
`
`We'll move on to slide 25. Adams, which was instituted
`
`14
`
`under 103 -- and we'll talk about that in a minute. Adams also
`
`15
`
`describes information type identifier field, which distinguishes among
`
`16
`
`different types of data streams, video, audio and data, and this is on
`
`17
`
`slide 25 and it's Figure 5 from Adams. So, again, there's the addition
`
`18
`
`of a type identifier and it describes what follows in the payload,
`
`19
`
`Adams even using the terms "video payload," "audio payload" and
`
`20
`
`"data payload."
`
`21
`
`The Adams patent, as the Board is aware, describes a
`
`22
`
`receiver, whereas the claims of the '568 are directed to a transmitter
`
`23
`
`and so we're on slide 26. We see that Adams has receivers. However,
`
`24
`
`as the Board found in instituting, it would be obvious in a system in
`
`25
`
`which there are transmitters and receivers and the transmitter can --
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`I'm sorry, and the receiver can receive different data streams, audio,
`
`video, data, that that there must be a transmitter or it would be
`
`obvious to include a transmitter, which can also transmit data in those
`
`various streams, either video, voice or other data.
`
`And if there are no other questions on the '568, we'll
`
`proceed to the '625. Thank you.
`
`We're now on slide 27, the '625. I'll describe the
`
`technology of the prior art as applied to the claims and address Patent
`
`Owner's arguments.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`The '625 relates to a communication system in which in this
`
`11
`
`circumstance the data being transmitted is of a time-sensitive nature or
`
`12
`
`this is where this patent has application.
`
`13
`
`When you are transmitting an E-mail over a communication
`
`14
`
`system, the various parts of the E-mail message could arrive at
`
`15
`
`different times and be put back together at the receiver. And if there's
`
`16
`
`a delay in the transmission of one portion of the E-mail, it's of not
`
`17
`
`much significance.
`
`18
`
`But if Judge Clements was moving around or speaking in a
`
`19
`
`streaming video circumstance, we wouldn't be able to see him smile.
`
`20
`
`What we need to know is we need to get that immediate feedback that
`
`21
`
`he's smiling now and so this is time-sensitive information. The
`
`22
`
`system is not going to wait for those delayed data packets.
`
`23
`
`Particularly if someone is speaking, it would cause a lot of confusion
`
`24
`
`and error to then transmit and broadcast one of the packets relating to
`
`25
`
`speech that happened a minute ago.
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`
`So this is where the '625 comes into play. The concept is
`
`that there are certain packets that are simply going to time out and
`
`they're going to need to be skipped.
`
`So we look at slide 29. The patent describes these ARQ
`
`systems, which we've seen in the other patents, these systems in which
`
`packets are acknowledged. There's different types. There's
`
`Stop-and-Wait, Go-Back-N, Selective Reject, all sorts of types of
`
`ARQ systems.
`
`Slide 30, the applicants for the '625 believed that at the time
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`ARQ systems did not have the ability to discard or ignore packets that
`
`11
`
`were significantly delayed or outdated. So what the inventors of the
`
`12
`
`'625, the applicants said, was that these ARQ systems simply didn't
`
`13
`
`have this ability, that the ARQ system based on how they believed
`
`14
`
`they were designed would wait, would get hung up and wouldn't
`
`15
`
`continue, because it would be waiting for those old data packets. And
`
`16
`
`as we know, that wouldn't work. It would be inefficient and couldn't
`
`17
`
`be used in a circumstance where you have streaming voice and video,
`
`18
`
`etcetera.
`
`19
`
`But the applicants were wrong. That was disclosed in many
`
`20
`
`references and the Board has instituted on three of those and there
`
`21
`
`were many more raised in the petition and below at the District Court.
`
`22
`
`If we go to slide 31, Garrabrant was one such system.
`
`23
`
`Garrabrant was an ARQ system in which there was a counter and the
`
`24
`
`counter is decremented. And when that counter reaches zero, the
`
`25
`
`packet would be discarded. There simply wasn't the problem in the
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`prior art that the applicants for the '625 thought there was and to
`
`which they directed their system. It already existed.
`
`In slide 32 we see that Hettich and Walke also disclose such
`
`a system. They are both ARQ systems, Go-Back-N, Selective Reject,
`
`the systems that the '625 patent claims there was no provision for
`
`rejecting delayed or outdated packets. You have those exact words in
`
`Walke that Walke was a system in which the greatly delayed or
`
`outdated cells or packets -- they call it cells in the terminology of
`
`Walke -- could be rejected, ignored, skipped over so that the data
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`transmission could proceed.
`
`11
`
`Slide 33 shows the exemplary Claim 1, the instituted Claim
`
`12
`
`1. So this is directed -- our arguments are directed just to Claim 1.
`
`13
`
`Claim 2 adds this enforcement bit and there are claims that depend
`
`14
`
`from Claim 2 and talk about the enforcement bit. That's not what
`
`15
`
`we're talking about here. We're talking about Claim 1, which is
`
`16
`
`overbroad, because of the applicant's misunderstanding that such a
`
`17
`
`system didn't exist, such a system where simply the only real
`
`18
`
`limitation is the ability to skip over packets that are outdated or
`
`19
`
`delayed, but that did exist.
`
`20
`
`Now we're on slide 34. So slide 34 could be a helpful
`
`21
`
`visual when trying to understand the various windows and various
`
`22
`
`packets and where they line up, and you can refer back to that and
`
`23
`
`Your Honors can look at that Figure 10B and you did address that in
`
`24
`
`the Institution Decision.
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601 Patent 6,772,215; Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568; Case IPR2013-00636 Patent 6,424,625
`
`
`What we have here are packets lined up ready to be
`
`transmitted, and in this case also tr