trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00437, Paper No.30
`IPR2014-00438, Paper No.29
`July 1, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SKYHAWKE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`L&H CONCEPTS, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`____________
`
`Held: April 27, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: JAMES T. MOORE, PATRICK R. SCANLON and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, April 27,
`2015, commencing at 1:02 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00437, Paper No.30
`IPR2014-00438, Paper No.29
`July 1, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SKYHAWKE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`L&H CONCEPTS, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`____________
`
`Held: April 27, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: JAMES T. MOORE, PATRICK R. SCANLON and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, April 27,
`2015, commencing at 1:02 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`THOMAS J. FISHER, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.
`
`
`1940 Duke Street
`
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRIAN D. TUCKER, ESQ.
`
`
`Kirton McConkie
`
`
`World Trade Center
`
`
`60 East South Temple
`
`
`Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE MOORE: All right. We are here in the final
`
`hearing for Inter Partes Reviews 2014-00437 and 00438.
`
`Welcome. You may assume that the panel is intimately
`
`familiar with all the facts and all of the pleadings in this case, along
`
`with all of the evidence. As we proceed forward, you may tailor your
`
`arguments to the points which you think we need to direct
`
`particularized attention to. If you have an electronic device, kindly
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`mute it so it's not too disruptive of our proceedings.
`
`11
`
`The Petitioner is, of course, the person with the burden of
`
`12
`
`proof and persuasion in this instance, so they will go first. We will let
`
`13
`
`you reserve as much time as you might think you might need for
`
`14
`
`rebuttal. The Patent Owner, you're in the middle of all of that. So at
`
`15
`
`your leisure, Petitioner, feel free to approach and proceed.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`MR. FISHER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`Thomas Fisher on behalf of Petitioner Skyhawke
`
`18
`
`Technologies.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`May I approach with copies of demonstratives?
`
`JUDGE MOORE: You may, but we have them all
`
`21
`
`electronically, so it's not necessary.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, may I ask a quick question?
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Sure. Is your microphone on?
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: There wasn't a trial order that we saw.
`
`Do you know how long which I will have so we can plan accordingly?
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Well, we have reserved on the calendar
`
`here two hours. I don't think we'll need that much, but I -- you know,
`
`I would accord to each side an hour, but I fully expect we will take
`
`less that than.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, sir.
`
`MR. FISHER: Your Honor, we expect to take 20 minutes or
`
`so for opening and reserve the rest.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: That's where I thought we might be.
`
`MR. FISHER: The '566 patent describes a handheld
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`recording device for golf. As with all such devices, it includes a
`
`13
`
`microprocessor, a memory and an LCD display. Figure 4, which is
`
`14
`
`displayed over here, illustrates the keypad that is included to interact
`
`15
`
`with the device.
`
`16
`
`The keypad is a simplified keypad rather than a full
`
`17
`
`alphanumeric keypad. It includes an entry key, which allows the user
`
`18
`
`to navigate between the screens, and left and right and up and down
`
`19
`
`keys. The left and right arrows allow you to tab between fields to find
`
`20
`
`a selected field and the up and down keys allow you to scroll through
`
`21
`
`the acceptable values for that field.
`
`22
`
`This type of interface is what is referred to in the '566 patent
`
`23
`
`and by the parties and their experts as a screen-dependent input
`
`24
`
`mechanism. The screen-dependent input mechanisms were
`
`25
`
`well-known when the '566 patent was filed and were used in a wide
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`variety of devices, like pagers, personal computers, handheld games,
`
`like the Game Boy, T.V.s, VCRs, watches, handheld GPS devices and
`
`a host of others.
`
`Finally, as a person skilled in the art would expect, the '566
`
`patent describes the organization of the screens, of the interface in the
`
`temporal and logical fashion, another well-known and obvious
`
`concept.
`
`It does so by referring to the screens of the interface as
`
`pre-game screens where you can enter information that will be used
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`during the game. In other words, a pre-game screen is a well-known
`
`11
`
`game setup screen where you enter or modify data that will be used or
`
`12
`
`referred to during the game.
`
`13
`
`The '566 patent also describes game interactive screens that
`
`14
`
`would be used during the game to enter data as you play. Finally, the
`
`15
`
`'566 patent refers to post-game screens where you can review your
`
`16
`
`performance after the game.
`
`17
`
`These are the basic features of the device that are described
`
`18
`
`in the '566 patent and in the challenged claims. The claims of the '566
`
`19
`
`patent only require two main and simple features.
`
`20
`
`The first is that the device is able to set up a game, collect
`
`21
`
`data during the game and then review that data after the game. The
`
`22
`
`second is that the user can navigate through the screens using a
`
`23
`
`screen-dependent input mechanism, such as the four or five-key
`
`24
`
`interface shown here.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`There's nothing patentable about organizing known screens
`
`in a logical fashion, particularly when the claims recite the natural
`
`way that a sport or game device would be used. First, you would set
`
`up the game, then you would play the game based on how it was set
`
`up, then you would review the results of your game.
`
`The claims of the '566 patent are overly broad and
`
`unpatentable. The Patent Owner has argued that the '566 patent solves
`
`an alleged problem with LCD screen washout, but there's nothing in
`
`the claims or even the specification or prosecution history that is
`
`10
`
`remotely related to a device being for exclusive outdoor use or the
`
`11
`
`readability of the device in sunlight as Patent Owner has emphasized
`
`12
`
`in its response and its declaration evidence. Patent Owner's
`
`13
`
`arguments about LCD screen washout are nothing more than a red
`
`14
`
`herring, which should be ignored here.
`
`15
`
`Turning to the prior art -- Palmer is Exhibit 1005 -- Palmer
`
`16
`
`is directed to a handheld electronic device for golf as well. It includes
`
`17
`
`a microprocessor, memory, LCD display and a keypad. Palmer also
`
`18
`
`teaches pre-game game interactive and post-game screens in
`
`19
`
`particular. In particular, the pre-game screens, which is a disputed
`
`20
`
`issue here, are disclosed in the form of a personal database and a golf
`
`21
`
`course database. These personal database and the golf course
`
`22
`
`database are populated by the user before he plays his round of golf.
`
`23
`
`JUDGE MOORE: And that's why you think those are
`
`24
`
`pre-game screens.
`
`25
`
`MR. FISHER: That's correct.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`The personal database allows the user to enter the yardages
`
`he hits each of his club so that during the round of golf, when the
`
`golfer needs to hit a shot of a particular distance, the personal
`
`database can be accessed and the device will make a club selection
`
`tip.
`
`The golf course database similarly allows the user to define
`
`the golf course to the device before the game is played. The type of
`
`information that can be entered includes what you would typically
`
`find on a paper scorecard, the yardage for each hole, the par for each
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`hole and so forth. This information is also accessed the way the golfer
`
`11
`
`plays the round as he progresses hole by hole through the course.
`
`12
`
`Both of these examples are pre-game screens as that term is
`
`13
`
`used in the '566 patent. The pre-game screen is simply one that allows
`
`14
`
`the user to enter data defining an aspect of what is presented to the
`
`15
`
`user during the game. This is exactly what is described by Palmer's
`
`16
`
`personal database and the golf course database screens.
`
`17
`
`Palmer also discloses game interactive screens, including a
`
`18
`
`scorecard that accesses the golf course database and club selection tip
`
`19
`
`feature that accesses the personal database to suggest a club as the
`
`20
`
`golfer plays his round. Palmer's post-game screens include what it
`
`21
`
`refers to as a performance analysis where the golfer can review his
`
`22
`
`round after he has completed it.
`
`23
`
`Turning now to the Osamu reference. The Osamu reference
`
`24
`
`is Exhibit 1006 in the 437 IPR and Exhibit 1007 in the 438 IPR.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`The Osamu reference is also directed to a handheld
`
`electronic device for golf. It also includes a microprocessor, a
`
`memory and LCD display as well as a keypad. The Osamu reference
`
`teaches game interactive screens that have varying levels of detail.
`
`In particular, Osamu discloses that there's a scorecard which
`
`simply allows the golfer to check his score during his round and it
`
`also includes a shot tracker feature, which allows the golfer to enter
`
`his location for each shot as he takes it and which club he uses for that
`
`shot so that at the end of the round he can do a performance analysis
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`or playback of his round shot by shot. The Osamu reference also
`
`11
`
`teaches post-game screens referred to as performance analysis in
`
`12
`
`reports.
`
`13
`
`Turning now to the Vanden Heuvel reference. This is
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 1007 in the 437 IPR and Exhibit 1006 in the 438 IPR.
`
`15
`
`Vanden Heuvel is directed to a pager that teaches a
`
`16
`
`well-known screen-dependent data entry mechanism. It includes the
`
`17
`
`very same buttons described in the '566 patent, those being an entry
`
`18
`
`key and a set of up and down and left and right arrow keys. With this
`
`19
`
`limited keypad, the user can navigate through the screens of the pager
`
`20
`
`and enter data, again, using the left and right keys to select a field and
`
`21
`
`then using the up and down keys to change the value of the field.
`
`22
`
`JUDGE MOORE: How are these analogous art, these two
`
`23
`
`references?
`
`24
`
`MR. FISHER: That is explained by Dr. Gutwin. The
`
`25
`
`person of ordinary skill with respect to the '566 patent was a generalist
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`having an understanding of design principles for a handheld
`
`key-based system and Vanden Heuvel is analogous art to the '566
`
`patent because it is yet another example of a handheld key-based
`
`system, in particular, one that provides a detailed example to one
`
`skilled in the art of how a screen-dependent data entry mechanism
`
`would use or implemented in a device.
`
`Patent Owner's expert who claims that he was at least one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention had experience in
`
`designing handheld devices that include keypads and screens, much
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`like Dr. Gutwin, and notably his experience was with a wide range of
`
`11
`
`devices, VCRs, data terminals, medical devices and he opined or in
`
`12
`
`his deposition confirmed that those skilled in the art of human
`
`13
`
`computer interaction would take the teachings of the problems solved
`
`14
`
`in the various applications and rely on those to apply them to a
`
`15
`
`particular problem based on the user's needs.
`
`16
`
`And Vanden Heuvel, again, is a specific example of how to
`
`17
`
`implement a screen-dependent input mechanism to traverse through
`
`18
`
`the screens.
`
`19
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Human computer interaction, the Patent
`
`20
`
`Owner thinks that's a bit broad. What do you think?
`
`21
`
`MR. FISHER: I don't think that it's too broad and I think in
`
`22
`
`the context of Dr. Gutwin's testimony, he explained what he meant.
`
`23
`
`It's the way to interact with a device through a keypad. Again,
`
`24
`
`devices that have a keypad and an LCD present information to a user.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`You need to know how to traverse through that, navigate through the
`
`screens and interact with it via the keyboard.
`
`I think if you take a step back in the abstract, Patent Owner
`
`says that it's so broad it could cover an abacus. I think that's an absurd
`
`view of what Dr. Gutwin is saying. The fact that an abacus is a
`
`computer or arguably a computer is not really pertinent to what Dr.
`
`Gutwin is saying. He's saying that the field is interacting with
`
`electronic devices through a keypad and how to present information
`
`and get information out based on the presentation of that information
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`through the screens.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Is the field constrained to portable or
`
`12
`
`non-portable?
`
`13
`
`MR. FISHER: I don't think that the field would necessarily
`
`14
`
`be constrained. The fact that you have a handheld device, size is
`
`15
`
`certainly a concern and one of the things that Vanden Heuvel teaches
`
`16
`
`is that you could extend the size of the screen or expand the size of the
`
`17
`
`screen by limiting the keypad, present more information to the user
`
`18
`
`and allow him to interact with it.
`
`19
`
`So those types of problems you wouldn't have in a PC, for
`
`20
`
`example, where you have a full screen, so I think it's pertinent that it
`
`21
`
`would be how to best design a device given the constraints of the fact
`
`22
`
`that it needs to be a handheld portable, but certainly the field of
`
`23
`
`human computer interaction could be broader than that, but I would
`
`24
`
`point to Dr. Gutwin's testimony to show that he was referring to a
`
`25
`
`keypad type interface as VCRs where you have a limited screen,
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`watches limited screen, limited buttons, handheld devices limited size,
`
`limited buttons. Screen size is a concern.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you.
`
`MR. FISHER: I would just note that even if the broad -- if
`
`the field were considered to be as broad as Patent Owner suggested,
`
`all the teachings in Palmer and Vanden Heuvel and Osamu apply here
`
`and the claims don't set forth anything that is patentable.
`
`So turning to the rejections here, the combination of the golf
`
`device of Palmer, including the screen-dependent data entry
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`mechanism of Vanden Heuvel teaches all of the limitations of the
`
`11
`
`challenged claims. The golf device of Osamu is included in some of
`
`12
`
`the rejections for its teaching of game-interactive screens having
`
`13
`
`varying levels of detail, which is a limitation in some of the
`
`14
`
`challenged claims.
`
`15
`
`The figure that we provided in our reply brief at page 11
`
`16
`
`illustrates that the combined device includes the features set forth in
`
`17
`
`the claims. As is apparent from these figures, replacing the larger
`
`18
`
`keyboard of Palmer with the screen-dependent input mechanism of
`
`19
`
`Vanden Heuvel having the same limited keypad as described in the
`
`20
`
`'566 patent, the screen size could be increased to present more
`
`21
`
`information to the user without increasing the overall footprint of the
`
`22
`
`device.
`
`23
`
`Further, as Dr. Gutwin explained, when you have a
`
`24
`
`key-based system there are two well-known ways that you can design
`
`25
`
`the interface to interact with the system, a free-input technique or a
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`constraint-input technique. With the free-input technique, you would
`
`allow the user to type data into the field freely, whereas with a
`
`constraint-input technique you would present to the user available
`
`fields -- available values for that field and that's what we have here.
`
`The elements set forth in the challenged claims merely
`
`substitute these old elements for one another with Vanden Heuvel's
`
`screen-dependent input mechanism performing the exact function it
`
`had been known to perform.
`
`In its responses, Patent Owner only disputes whether the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`combined prior art devices disclose pre-game screens and the
`
`11
`
`sequencing of the screens. The Patent Owner concedes that the
`
`12
`
`remaining limitations of the challenged claims are taught by the
`
`13
`
`asserted prior art.
`
`14
`
`With respect to the pre-game screens, Palmer describes
`
`15
`
`multiple examples. For example, as I mentioned before, Palmer's golf
`
`16
`
`course database, which allows the user to enter data describing the
`
`17
`
`golf course prior to playing a round teaches a pre-game screen.
`
`18
`
`If you look at Figure 4, which we have displayed here, this
`
`19
`
`is described in the '566 patent as a pre-game screen and it includes the
`
`20
`
`exact same information that would be provided in Palmer's golf course
`
`21
`
`database. For each hole you would identify the par and the yardage
`
`22
`
`for the hole and that information could be accessed during the round
`
`23
`
`as the user traverses the course hole by hole.
`
`24
`
`Patent Owner's expert, Mr. Ball, agreed that the golf course
`
`25
`
`database in Palmer would have to be populated for the round of golf,
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`conceding that it would be a pre-game screen. Palmer's personal
`
`database is another example of a pre-game screen in which the golfer
`
`can enter data about how far he typically hits each club in his bag so
`
`that the device can give him club selection tips as he plays his round.
`
`Mr. Ball also agreed that the personal database of Palmer
`
`would have been populated -- would have to be populated before the
`
`round of golf in order for the club selection tip feature to work.
`
`During the examination of the '566 patent, the Examiner
`
`correctly noted that any computer-implemented game must have
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`pre-game screens that define parameters of the game to be played in
`
`11
`
`order to be run as an interactive program. This is in our petition at
`
`12
`
`page 11 in Exhibit 1002, which is the prosecution history on page 23.
`
`13
`
`With respect to the sequencing of the screens, Palmer
`
`14
`
`describes pre-game screens, game-interactive screens and post-game
`
`15
`
`screens that are presented temporally to the user. As explained by
`
`16
`
`Petitioner's expert, Dr. Gutwin, there are two ways to navigate
`
`17
`
`through an interface, sequentially or non-sequentially, and the
`
`18
`
`common way of organizing information in the interface is temporally.
`
`19
`
`Vanden Heuvel also describes specific examples of
`
`20
`
`sequential and non-sequential navigation using the same button
`
`21
`
`interface that is described in the '566 patent. In their depositions both
`
`22
`
`the inventor of the '566 patent, Mr. Wilens, and Patent Owner's expert
`
`23
`
`admitted that it was a well-known goal when designing an interface to
`
`24
`
`present information to the user in a logical manner such as temporally.
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner's expert also specifically admitted in his
`
`declaration that the Palmer reference teaches both sequential and
`
`non-sequential navigation. This is in Exhibit 2014 at paragraph 29.
`
`The claim limitations as set forth, the screen sequence and
`
`the organization of data of the screens are nothing more than common
`
`sense and reflect nothing more than a natural way a sports device or a
`
`game device would be used.
`
`First, you set up the game and then based on how the game
`
`is set up, you play the game. And then after you play the game, you
`
`10
`
`can review your results. There's simply nothing patentable here. The
`
`11
`
`prior art clearly teaches the well-known and obvious features,
`
`12
`
`including pre-game screens and sequential and non-sequential
`
`13
`
`navigation through an interface.
`
`14
`
`To avoid a discussion of the prior art, Patent Owner
`
`15
`
`attempted to redefine the '566 patent in its responses and through its
`
`16
`
`declaration evidence as somehow solving a problem with LCD
`
`17
`
`readability in direct sunlight. They refer to this as washout, but this
`
`18
`
`purported problem isn't even mentioned in the '566 patent or the prior
`
`19
`
`art.
`
`20
`
`Remarkably, the declarations of both the inventor of the '566
`
`21
`
`patent and the expert emphasize the '566 patent as solving this
`
`22
`
`washout problem. We inquired about how they both arrived at the
`
`23
`
`same conclusion during the depositions, but both declarants testified
`
`24
`
`that they have never spoken to one another and neither has read the
`
`25
`
`other's declaration prior to preparing their own, but neither Mr. Wilens
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`nor Mr. Ball could identify a single instance in the '566 patent where
`
`this LCD readability problem was addressed nor where it was
`
`addressed in the prior art.
`
`Most importantly, though, there is nothing in the challenged
`
`claims requiring the device be an exclusive outdoor device or
`
`otherwise that relates to the readability of the device in sunlight.
`
`During the prosecution history of the '566 patent, no mention was
`
`made of readability with a device outdoors in distinguishing the
`
`asserted prior art.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Petitioner's view on this entire line of Patent Owner's
`
`11
`
`argument is that it is a desperate attempt at providing attorney
`
`12
`
`argument to salvage the unpatentable and overly broad claims of the
`
`13
`
`'566 patent and should be given no weight.
`
`14
`
`During Mr. Ball's deposition, we showed him a 1991 prior
`
`15
`
`art GPS device -- this is Exhibit 1031 -- that is indisputably an
`
`16
`
`exclusive outdoor device. It includes an LCD and it includes the very
`
`17
`
`same screen-dependent input mechanism as described in Vanden
`
`18
`
`Heuvel and the '566 patent.
`
`19
`
`The user manual for this device, which is Exhibit 1030,
`
`20
`
`clearly shows that the left and right and up and down keys are used to
`
`21
`
`select fields and change values of those fields, just as it is done in
`
`22
`
`Vanden Heuvel and in the '566 patent. So even this LCD readability
`
`23
`
`argument, which has nothing to do with what is disclosed or claimed
`
`24
`
`in the '566 patent, fails.
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`Again, we believe the Patent Owner's argument is nothing
`
`more than unsupported attorney argument, it is irrelevant and should
`
`be given no weight here.
`
`The claims of the '566 patent set forth nothing new.
`
`Electronic devices having the types of interface described in the
`
`claims were ubiquitous in the prior art. As kids, we all learned to tab
`
`through fields and scroll through values on programming a VCR or
`
`setting our digital watches.
`
`And when you step back and look at what is being claimed
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`in the '566 claims here with respect to sequential pre-game,
`
`11
`
`game-interactive and post-game information, they claim nothing more
`
`12
`
`than what has always been done in golf in other games. You arrive at
`
`13
`
`the golf course and you pick up your paper scorecard, which includes
`
`14
`
`the yardage and par for each of the holes. You then play your round
`
`15
`
`keeping track of your score as you go. And then after the round, you
`
`16
`
`add up your scores to see how you did.
`
`17
`
`The combinations of the prior art, golf devices of Palmer
`
`18
`
`and Osamu, the screen-dependent input mechanism of Vanden Heuvel
`
`19
`
`clearly render the claims of the '566 patent unpatentable.
`
`Unless there are questions, I will reserve.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Any questions?
`
`JUDGE SCANLON: No questions.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you.
`
`MR. FISHER: Thank you.
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: If we could have a moment, Your
`
`Honors.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Absolutely. Take your time.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: I will certainly, Judge Scanlon, be
`
`referring to what slides I'm referring to and I also plan to use the Elmo
`
`a little bit and I will identify exactly what exhibit I'm looking at. It
`
`will just be the petition and one of the exhibits so that you can locate
`
`it.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: I believe if you look at Judge Scanlon
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`here on the monitor, you will actually be looking at Judge Scanlon,
`
`11
`
`because that's what he will be looking at you through. So it's changed
`
`12
`
`from back there.
`
`13
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Perfect. Now, could we bring up slide 2,
`
`14
`
`please?
`
`15
`
`So to sort off, Your Honors, my name is David Hoffman.
`
`16
`
`I'm from Fish & Richardson and I'm here today on behalf of the Patent
`
`17
`
`Owner.
`
`18
`
`As you know, Judge Moore, at beginning in an IPR the
`
`19
`
`Petitioner has the burden to establish all parts of its case. While this
`
`20
`
`course the standard is preponderance, the Petitioner has to establish by
`
`21
`
`the preponderance, it's their burden that all of the patent claims are
`
`22
`
`unpatentable.
`
`23
`
`At one point during the argument the Petitioner said that we
`
`24
`
`conceded every limitation except for certain ones that were
`
`25
`
`anticipated or obvious over what I said. It's not the case. So just for
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`the record I want to make it clear that we have, as per the Board's
`
`guidance, focused our argument on certain aspects, but we certainly
`
`are not conceding other aspects that are present in the claims and their
`
`burden remains for every aspect of the claims in establishing they're
`
`unpatentable.
`
`And I also just want to note that I think the burden here is
`
`especially compelling given the fact that we have here as a patent that
`
`wasn't examined just once originally, but it was also, you know,
`
`examined by the CRU a few years ago and so these claims have now
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`been examined twice by the Patent Office and so the burden is
`
`11
`
`especially I think significant in that the Patent Owner is now asking --
`
`12
`
`the Petitioner is now asking that that twice examination be overturned
`
`13
`
`by the PTAB.
`
`14
`
`So I'd like to go a little out of order in presenting my slides.
`
`15
`
`If we can go to slide 12, please, because I think that this is significant.
`
`16
`
`You heard Petitioner's counsel fight his argument, but you never heard
`
`17
`
`in what he just said and what you really don't hear much of in the
`
`18
`
`reply argument is what is the reason why someone would have
`
`19
`
`combined these things.
`
`20
`
`And I think it's important to note that while KSR certainly
`
`21
`
`removed the requirement that there be a teaching or a suggestion or a
`
`22
`
`motivation in the reference, KSR specifically reaffirmed that there
`
`23
`
`must -- seeking to overturn a patent must provide a reason why one of
`
`24
`
`skill in the art at the time would have done it. It's not enough merely
`
`25
`
`that it could have been done.
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Of course, if the technology existed in some sense for the
`
`Patent Owner to do it, of course, it could have been done. The Patent
`
`Owner put it in his patent. The real question that -- the threshold
`
`question to proceed on obviousness is a cogent supportable reason
`
`why at that time one of skill in the art would have actually done it, and
`
`this is an important concept that was recently reaffirmed by the
`
`Federal Circuit in the In Touch case, but merely being possible, could
`
`have is simply not enough.
`
`And so I think that when it comes to determining whether or
`
`10
`
`not the claims here, the combination is proper, the place that the
`
`11
`
`Board that we should all start is with the argument that the Petitioner
`
`12
`
`made in their petition as to why one would combine the teachings of
`
`13
`
`Palmer with the teachings of the Vanden Heuvel reference. This is
`
`14
`
`the pager.
`
`15
`
`And this is where I'm going to go to the Elmo and, Your
`
`16
`
`Honors, this is in the petition for the 437 patent and it is specifically
`
`17
`
`page 20 of the petition.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`The digital camera ones are so nice.
`
`And so what we see here on page 20 of the petition of the
`
`20
`
`437, and there's a similar passage in the 438, is the reasons why the
`
`21
`
`Petitioner argues that one of skill in the art at the time would have
`
`22
`
`combined the Palmer and the Vanden Heuvel references and you can
`
`23
`
`see it's one long paragraph, but the beginning of this paragraph -- in
`
`24
`
`fact, everything up until the last three lines is simply noting that it is
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`within the technical possibility of one of skill in the art, that a person
`
`could have done this, that it was possible.
`
`The reasons why they believe somebody would have done
`
`this, they're set forth in the last three sentences and, in particular, this
`
`section that starts, would have been motivated to do so. And, really,
`
`it's just one argument, but I broke it into three so we can be sure we
`
`examine it in detail. They say, it would have been motivated to do so
`
`in order to simplify the device's design -- that's one -- while at the
`
`same time increasing the device's display size. Truly one thing will
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`break that into two and then, lastly, thereby rendering the device more
`
`11
`
`easily usable on the golf course.
`
`12
`
`And you'll note that there is a single reference in the
`
`13
`
`evidence supported -- provided to support this argument and that is
`
`14
`
`paragraphs 78 through 82 of their expert, Dr. Gutwin's declaration.
`
`15
`
`And so if we look to their expert's declaration, and that is
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 1012, and in particular it's pages 47 through 49, but I'm going
`
`17
`
`to put up page 48. So if you look at page 48 and specifically
`
`18
`
`paragraph 80 of Dr. Gutwin's Exhibit 1012. The other paragraphs of
`
`19
`
`Dr. Gutwin's declaration -- you can look at them -- essentially just
`
`20
`
`address the could have aspects.
`
`21
`
`The arguments that the Petitioner makes in those last three
`
`22
`
`lines simplify to increase the display size to render a more usable
`
`23
`
`device. They're addressed in paragraph 80.
`
`24
`
`And so if we look at paragraph 80, this is really the heart of
`
`25
`
`their argument for why it's proper to combine these things. This is the
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`expert testimony that's relied on to support the one section of the brief
`
`that argues for a reason to combine.
`
`So, first, we see the argument regarding simplifying the
`
`device's design. That's the first few sentences. And that -- there's
`
`really one sentence of reason. It says, when it comes to interface
`
`design and user acceptance of the device, less is often more. So
`
`actually I was curious about that. It's a cliche. And I looked it up and
`
`less is often more is actually from an 1800s Robert Browning poem.
`
`And while it is a well popularly used cliche, what it is, is not
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`a technical argument. Less is often more as our expert testified in
`
`11
`
`deposition, as I think everyone would agree, sometimes less is not
`
`12
`
`more. Often in the design of a product you want something with --
`
`13
`
`you know, it's easier to hold larger. The mere fact that in some
`
`14
`
`situations somewhere that less can be more is not a technical reason
`
`15
`
`that one of skill in the a
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
