Trials@uspto.gov
`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
`
`
`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
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
