Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 46
`Entered: July 20, 2015
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`- - - - - -
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`- - - - - -
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., et al.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`Technology Center 2600
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`Oral Hearing Held on Friday, April 24, 2015
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`
`
`Before: JAMESON LEE, HOWARD BLANKENSHIP, and JUSTIN
`BUSCH (via video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, April 24,
`2015, at 1:00 p.m., in Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 46
`Entered: July 20, 2015
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`- - - - - -
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`- - - - - -
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., et al.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`Technology Center 2600
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`Oral Hearing Held on Friday, April 24, 2015
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`
`
`Before: JAMESON LEE, HOWARD BLANKENSHIP, and JUSTIN
`BUSCH (via video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, April 24,
`2015, at 1:00 p.m., in Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`J. STEVEN BAUGHMAN, ESQ.
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`One Metro Center
`700 12th Street, N.W., Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3948
`202-508-4600
`
`BRIAN P. BIDDINGER, ESQ.
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10036-8704
`212-596-9000
`
`DANIEL G. CARDY, ESQ.
`Dickstein Shapiro LLP
`1825 Eye Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-5403
`202-420-3033
`
`MICHELLE YANG
`Samsung Representative
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THOMAS J. ENGELLENNER, ESQ.
`REZA MOLLAAGHABABA, ESQ.
`GEORGE S. HAIGHT, IV, ESQ.
`ANDREW W. SCHULTZ, ESQ.
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`125 High Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2736
`617-204-5100
`
`MICHAEL JOHNSON
`Rembrandt Representative
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:00 p.m.)
`
`JUDGE LEE: Go od afternoon. Please be seated.
`
`Welcome to the Board. This is the consolidated oral argument
`
`for two Inter Partes Reviews, IPR2014 -00518 and
`
`IPR2014 -00519.
`
`The Petitioner is a collection of four different
`
`companies, and the Patent Owner is Re mbrand t Wireless
`
`Technologies LP.
`
`I would like to begin with introduction of counsel,
`
`starting with Petitioner, followed by Patent Owner, please.
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. Steve
`
`Baughman from R opes & Gray for the Samsung Petitioners.
`
`With me is Brian Biddinger and Dan Cardy. And we have with
`
`us a representative of Samsung, Michelle Yang.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Th ank you.
`
`MR. ENGELLENNER: Good afternoon, Your
`
`Honor. Tom Engellenner for the Patent Owner. With me is
`
`Reza Mollaaghababa, George Haight, And rew Schultz, and we
`
`have a representative of Rembrandt as well, Mike Johnson.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Th ank you very much. We have
`
`allocated each party up to 90 minutes of argument time, but
`
`don't feel that you have to use up every single minute. Just use
`
`as much a s you need to.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`The Petitioner will present first. You can reserve
`
`any a mount of your time for rebuttal, and the Patent Owner
`
`essentially will have only one opportunity at the podium, so
`
`there is no opportunity to reserve anything. You spend all or
`
`just part of your time in the one session that you are up.
`
`Are there any preliminary questions before we
`
`begin?
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: No, Your Honor.
`
`MR. ENGELLENNER: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: All right. You ma y begin any time,
`
`Mr. Baughman.
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: May it please the Board. We
`
`would like to reserve at the outset 40 minutes of our time for
`
`rebuttal.
`
`The Petitioners have provided our positions and
`
`evidence in the briefing. We rely o n that material to support
`
`our arguments in this consolidated pair of trials. But to assist
`
`the Board in considering that record we plan to address in our
`
`opening discussion this afternoon two topics along with any
`
`questions the Board ma y have.
`
`And the two live issues before the Board are the
`
`two topics we would like to discuss. After some brief opening
`
`comments, first my colleague, Mr. Biddinger, will address the
`
`obviousness of two different types of modulation me thods
`
`based on Boer, and then I will address the motivations to
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`combine Boer's multiple modulation method s with a
`
`master/slave arrangement disclosed in the admitted prior art.
`
`To begin with, there is a relatively narrow list of
`
`issues that remains in dispute before the Board. So apart from
`
`arguing those two points that I just raised, Patent Owner makes
`
`no other arguments about why its claims are not obvious.
`
`It concedes the limitations of his claims are
`
`otherwise covered by the prior art we presented in the petition.
`
`So, as confirmed by the Board's scheduling orders in these two
`
`matters, that is Paper 17 in both ma tters at page 3, any such
`
`argument has been waived.
`
`There are also no secondary consideration
`
`arguments here. Instead, the Patent Owner is raising only two
`
`points to try to save the '580 patent. Turning to slide 6, we put
`
`those two issues be fore the Board.
`
`First Patent Owner argues Boer does not disclose
`
`different types of modulation methods, but this relies both on a
`
`contorted claim c onstruction that's erroneous, and even under
`
`that construction an argument that modulation is not
`
`modulatio n.
`
`And, second, while Patent Owner never disputes
`
`that the master/slave protocol, which was well known in the
`
`admitted prior art, offers the benefits of simplicity and
`
`determinacy over the protocol described in Boer, Patent Owner
`
`argues that certain bene fits under certain specified conditions
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`of other modulation methods, among other things, constitute a
`
`teach -away from master/slave.
`
`But this flies in the face of the very table in the
`
`Upender article that Patent Owner points to. It is called a
`
`tradeoff table. It's provided in an article that repeatedly talks
`
`about choosing a protocol that's right for you. It is not a
`
`teach -away and, respectfully, the position has no me rit.
`
`Basically both arguments boil down to an attempt
`
`to obscure or ignore what a p erson of ordinary skill would
`
`understand. But the combination of the APA and Boer and the
`
`obviousness of the claims in light of that combination would
`
`have been obvious to any person of ordinary co mmon sense, let
`
`alone a person of ordinary skill in this t echnical art.
`
`So with that I will pass the podium to
`
`Mr. Biddinger to discuss types of modulation methods.
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: Good afternoon. M y na me is
`
`Brian Biddinger. As Mr. Bachman mentioned, I'm going to be
`
`addressing the first of the two issues, wh ich is the question of
`
`whether the Boer patent discloses the limitation in the claims
`
`of at least two types of modulation methods.
`
`My discussion is going to entail really two aspects.
`
`First the question of the proper construction of this limitation
`
`in t he claims and then, second, Petitioner's views about the
`
`teachings of Boer to a person of ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to this limitation.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`Turn to slide 8, please. The phrase "at least two
`
`types of modulation methods" appears in a number of th e
`
`challenged claims, including independent claim 1 of the '580
`
`patent. And in the institution decision the Board did not
`
`construe this phrase, instead concluding that the elements in
`
`the prior art are within the scope of the relevant terms under
`
`any reasonable construction. That was in Paper 16 at page 6.
`
`Petitioners agree with that view and I will address
`
`the reasons why P etitioners believe that the Boer patent
`
`discloses this element under any re asonable construction. But
`
`first, because the Patent Own er's response continued to raise
`
`issues of claim construction with respect to this term, I would
`
`like to discuss our views about the proper construction of the
`
`phrase.
`
`If you turn to slide 9, please. Slide 9 shows at the
`
`top of the slide the two propose d constructions from t he parties
`
`with respect to this term. And Petitioners submit that their
`
`construction is the broadest reasonable construction because it
`
`is consistent with the specification and the stated problem in
`
`the specification that is addresse d by the '580 patent, which is
`
`the problem of incompatible modulation methods. And also it
`
`is consistent with the description and usage of the word "types"
`
`in the specification.
`
`So if we look first at the problem discussed in the
`
`'580 patent, and actual ly just to me ntion quickly, Petitioner's
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`proposed construction is "at least two incompatible processes
`
`of varying characteristics of a carrier wave."
`
`JUDGE LEE: Wh at does incompatible mean in
`
`your proposed me aning?
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: Yes, Your Honor. So as we
`
`have actually put forth and explained in Dr. Goodma n's
`
`declaration, incompatible modulation methods would be a
`
`modulation method that could not be understood by a modem.
`
`So, for example, let me just turn quickly to the
`
`quote from Dr. Goodman's decl aration. If we go to slide 16.
`
`What Dr. Goodman has said is that different types of
`
`modulation methods are incompatible. "A modem designed to
`
`demodulate one transmission would be incapable of
`
`demodulating the other.
`
`And that's talked about in the spec ification of the
`
`'580 patent, in the context of this problem -- going back to
`
`slide 9, please, I'm sorry, slide -- yes, slide 9 -- and the
`
`problem is described and the patent states that if one or more
`
`of the trib modems are not compatible with the modulat ion
`
`method used by the master, those tribs will be unable to
`
`receive communications from the master.
`
`And the patent goes on to state that what is not
`
`believed to be provided by the prior art is a system and method
`
`of communication in which multiple modul ation methods are
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`used to facilitate communication among the plurality of
`
`mode ms in a network which have heretofore been incompatible.
`
`And, furthermore, the patent states what the
`
`advantages provided by the invention in the '580 patent are,
`
`which is that a master transceiver can communicate seamlessly
`
`with tributary transceivers or modems using incompatible
`
`modulation methods.
`
`And in the context of the specification, if we turn
`
`to slide 10, those incompatible modulation methods are
`
`described by the '580 patent as types of modulation.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Counsel, I'm beginning to lose you.
`
`That is a very, very long answer to my question.
`
`So can your answer be a little shorter on what
`
`exactly you mean by incompatible modulation?
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: Yes, I apolog ize, but I thought
`
`I had answered it and I apologize if I didn't.
`
`JUDGE LEE: I u nderstand a part of what you said.
`
`You said if a device is capable of de modulating some thing that
`
`it is in communication with, then it is compatible. But that
`
`definition is problematic because I could come up with an
`
`invention where I can understand 100 different languages, 100
`
`different modulation methods.
`
`Does that mean all of a sudden all 100 modulation
`
`methods are now compatible and, therefore, they are of the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`same t yp e? Your definition would change depending on the
`
`scenario.
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: No, I understand your question,
`
`Your Honor, and if I can go back to slide 16 to try to answer it.
`
`I don't think we need to focus on the capability of a
`
`particular modem. So, fo r example, what you just discussed, if
`
`a modem is capable of demodulating multiple types of
`
`modulation methods, such as DBPSK or DQPSK, then it has
`
`those capabilities and that particular modem might be
`
`compatible with both of those modulation methods.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Right, if they all become co mpatible
`
`then they are all the same t ype.
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: Right.
`
`JUDGE LEE: But that would be different if you
`
`had a different device.
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: Right, but what we are saying
`
`is you look at the modulation meth od itself, not the capabilities
`
`of the modem. S o if your modulation method is DBPSK
`
`modulation, and the modem commu nicates that signal out, a
`
`mode m with the capabilities of understanding DBPSK would be
`
`compatible with that modulation method. A modem that is
`
`capable of understanding DQPSK only and not DBPSK would
`
`not be compatible with that modulation method. That signal
`
`would not be able to be understood by that device that didn't
`
`understand that particular modulation method.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Ye s, but you ju st changed my
`
`question to a different focus. You are focusing on
`
`compatibility of the modem with another modem. B ut we are
`
`talking about in the context of the claim co mpatibility of
`
`different modulation methods.
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: Right, I think, Your Hono r,
`
`that's how we understand whether a particular signal, a
`
`particular modulated signal is compatible with another
`
`modulated signal.
`
`You might say, for example, FSK modulation and
`
`that could be understood by a variety of different modems,
`
`right, because i t might encompass a bunch of different types of
`
`modulation, but the key here is that you have two different
`
`mode ms with two different capabilities, and the question, the
`
`problem that the patent seeks to solve is that those two
`
`mode ms would be incapable of communicating with each other
`
`because they understand that they don't understand the same
`
`modulation method.
`
`So I have this incompatibility problem, right,
`
`because my two modulation methods are incompatible with
`
`each other, because if I send out a signal using one modulation
`
`method, that signal is different than a mode m sending out
`
`another modulation method. Those mode ms cannot understand
`
`those two different modulation methods, which makes them
`
`incompatible.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: I' m still lost because if you spe ak
`
`English and I speak Korean and there is a translator in between
`
`us, and he can translate between us and we can't communicate,
`
`then suddenly the English and Korean become the same t ype of
`
`language.
`
`But that isn't so, and if we had a different
`
`translato r that isn't able to translate between us, then suddenly
`
`we are speaking a different type of language. So that's the
`
`concept I'm having trouble with.
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: Right, I think that that is what
`
`the solution that's offered by the '580 patent purports to be, is
`
`that translator. Those languages don't become comp atible just
`
`because you created a scenario where you have a translator
`
`who can translate one language into another. They are still
`
`incompatible languages.
`
`What you have done is come up with a way to solve
`
`that incompatibility problem, which is what the '580 patent
`
`purports to do. It says I have a problem. I have one language
`
`of English and one language of Korean and I can't understand
`
`when you speak Korean to me and you can't understand when I
`
`speak English.
`
`So what the patent purports to solve to address that
`
`problem is to create a master that can understand both English
`
`and Korean and, therefore, can translate effectively and speak
`
`to both of us.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Ye ah, but that means the lang uages
`
`themselves are simpl y incompatible no matter what the device
`
`is doing.
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: That's right. The languages
`
`stay incompatible. We don't think that the patent changes
`
`these modulation methods into being compatible modulation
`
`methods standing alone. You need what is described in the
`
`patent to take those incompatible modulation methods and
`
`apply them to the system in a wa y that modems, that otherwise
`
`would be unable to understand those modulations, can speak to
`
`each other.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Wo uldn' t that mean every different
`
`modulation method would be incompatible because as long as
`
`there is a slightly little difference we wouldn't be in sync and
`
`we can't communicate?
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: I don't believe that that is
`
`necessarily true, Your Honor. I th ink that there is situations
`
`where the signal, the modulated signal that's ultimately
`
`produced, could be understood by a modem despite the fact
`
`that different modulation methods were used to generate that
`
`signal. So I don't think that that is true that ev ery single
`
`modulation method has to be a different type.
`
`JUDGE LEE: I' m not sure, but what in the patent
`
`tells us about that? I see that it says that the mode m must use
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`compatible modulation methods. I understand that in the
`
`background.
`
`And then it s ays that, as discussed in the foregoing,
`
`communication between mode ms is generally unsuccessful
`
`unless a common modulation method is used.
`
`That's a little vague. So it is saying if you use
`
`common, if you use the same one, you can't have
`
`communication bu t it leaves open the possibility that, if you
`
`use something slightly different, you still can have
`
`compatibility. B ut where is the line drawn?
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: I think that's right, Your
`
`Honor. I think this is the point of types in the claim, is to
`
`make clear that these are modulation methods that don't fall
`
`into that situation where generally, even though they might be
`
`slightly different methods, they are understood by two mode ms
`
`because they generate a modulated signal that's the sa me.
`
`Types means th at they have to be incompatible.
`
`They are two distinct modulation methods, and a modem that
`
`modulates one could not modulate the other, absent what this
`
`patent describes as the invention.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Th ank you. That answer is
`
`understandable. Let me tak e up a little more of your time.
`
`In column 2 of the patent where it talks about,
`
`where it says that, accordingly, what is sought and what is not
`
`believed to be provided by the prior art is a system and method
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`of communication in which multiple modulation methods are
`
`used to facilitate communication among the plurality of
`
`mode ms in a network which have heretofore been incompatible.
`
`I understand that now in light of your explanation.
`
`It is the invention that is making the m talk to each other, and
`
`these t wo methods used to be incompatible but they are now
`
`sort of not incompatible by use of the invention?
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: Correct, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: But technically they are still not
`
`compatible modulation methods?
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: That's right, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Th ank you.
`
`JUDGE BUSCH: Looking at slide 16, your position
`
`is that DBPSK and DQPSK are different types of modulation
`
`methods, correct?
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: That's correct, Your Honor,
`
`under Petitioner's proposed construction, which would be that
`
`the modulation methods need to be incompatible with each
`
`other, that is Petitioner's view, that DBPSK and DQPSK are
`
`different types of modulation methods because, as stated at the
`
`bottom of the slide by Dr. Goodma n, a mode m designed to
`
`demodulate, for example, DBPSK would be incapable of
`
`demodulating DQPSK absent obviously adding that capability
`
`to the modem, but there would be a difference in those because
`
`they are incompatible modulation methods.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`JUDGE BUSCH: Looking at Patent Owner's
`
`response, they see m to argue that the only difference -- sorry,
`
`not the only difference but that a degraded, I believe, DQPSK
`
`modulated signal could essentially be demodulated by the
`
`DBPSK algorithm, or whatever, demodulator.
`
`Do you disagree with that statement by Patent
`
`Owner or do you believe I misstated what Patent Owner was
`
`arguing?
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: So, Your Honor, my
`
`understanding with respect to that portion of Patent Owner's
`
`response, assuming I have the right part of it in mind, is that
`
`they were referenci ng the provisional application and a
`
`discussion there about the inability of degraded modulation
`
`methods to provide the same benefits that they believed their
`
`invention provided.
`
`And I don't think that that provisional application,
`
`if you look at it, is saying that a degraded modulation method
`
`is necessarily compatible, that the particular modems that were
`
`being looked at by the inventor there I think ma y have had that
`
`capability, so that ma y be true that they were able to utilize
`
`different, what we would view to be different modulation
`
`types.
`
`But our view of what that provisional application is
`
`actually saying is simply that you can't get the same cost
`
`benefits by forcing all of the modems in the system t o use the
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`lowest common denominator and, thereby, use the same
`
`modulation method across all of those modems.
`
`It is not saying that a degraded modulation method
`
`is not a different type of modulation method in the context of
`
`these claims. It is simply sa ying that forcing everything to go
`
`down to this de graded level, and all communicate using that
`
`same level, is not going to provide the same advantages than
`
`providing this master device that can actually facilitate using
`
`both the lower degraded modulation rate as well as some
`
`higher rate.
`
`JUDGE BUSCH: I guess let me ask a follow -up to
`
`see if I understood what you're saying. Is it your
`
`understanding that the discussion of this degraded modulation
`
`method is that the modem was capable of demodulating either a
`
`DBPSK or a DQPSK signal but that it wasn't actu ally a DQPSK
`
`demodulation method that is demodulating the DBPSK?
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: I think I followed that and I
`
`think that's correct, Your Honor. I'm not sure that there is
`
`enough that I have seen in this record to really -- for me to
`
`really understand f or sure what those capabilities of the
`
`mode ms that were talked about in that provisional application
`
`had, but I do think that that is a reasonable conclusion to reach
`
`from reading it, that there was a capability built into those
`
`mode ms to utilize two diffe rent modulation types. It would be
`
`the higher modulation type as well as the degraded type.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`JUDGE BUSCH: Okay. That's all for now. I
`
`guess if I have a follow -up after I talk to the Patent Owner I
`
`will get back to you.
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: Thank you, Your Honor. So
`
`I' m going to pick up with slide 10, please. So when the
`
`specification is talking about the invention, here in describing
`
`the invention, it describes the incompatible modulation
`
`methods as types of modulation.
`
`And as shown in figure 4, there i s a system where
`
`there is a master transceiver 64 that is capable of transmitting
`
`and receiving data using either type A modulation or type B
`
`modulation.
`
`And the patent explains in the text on the right, and
`
`there is a reference here to a control program , this portion that
`
`is excerpted there is actually talking about a control program
`
`on one of the tributary devices, so with respect to that tributary
`
`device the patent says: Control program 92 includes logic for
`
`imple menting a particular modulation method .
`
`So the trib can implement a particular modulation
`
`method. And for purposes of illustration the patent calls that
`
`type X.
`
`The patent goes on and says: Inasmuch as the
`
`master transceiver 64 is capable of running either type A or
`
`type B modulation meth od, type X refers to one of those two
`
`modulation methods.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`So what the patent is saying is that the master
`
`transceiver can speak either type A or type B, which are
`
`particular types of modulation methods that are used by a
`
`tributary A, for example, or a tr ibutary B.
`
`Putting together the discussion we just had about
`
`the purpose of the invention and the incompatibility that the
`
`patent was trying to solve, and the ability to allow a master to
`
`communicate seamlessly with tribs using incompatible
`
`modulation me thods, you put that together with this disclosure
`
`that the master can use either type A or type B modulation
`
`methods, it is clear that the distinguishing factor between type
`
`A and type B modulation methods is that they are
`
`incompatible.
`
`And, thus, Petiti oners submit that the broadest
`
`reasonable construction requires only that each of the at least
`
`two types of modulation methods be incompatible.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Counsel, what you are saying makes
`
`sense, but --
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: I'm happy to hear that, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- i n the summar y portion, though,
`
`there is a sentence that seems contrary to what you are saying.
`
`It is in column 2, line 33 to 34, in the summar y section. The
`
`line says: The first modulation method ma y be of a different
`
`type than the sec ond modulation me thod.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`That strikes me as odd if I were to adopt your
`
`position because, following along with your logic, it would
`
`seem the first modulation method would have to be of a
`
`different type than the second modulation method for all of
`
`this to make sense the way you describe it.
`
`Then why does this line in the summar y si mply say
`
`the first method ma y be of a different type? It wouldn't make
`
`any sense for it to be not of a different type.
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: I just wanted to make sure I'm
`
`at the ri ght place in the patent. I know we have it on the
`
`screen. Is this in column 2?
`
`JUDGE LEE: Ye s.
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: Thank you. I was looking at
`
`the wrong column.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Yo u already have it highlighted.
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: Yeah, he's quicker than I am .
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: This is on paper.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Th at language seems to suggest it is
`
`not the main thrust to be of a different type. It says it ma y be
`
`of a different type. So that suggests to me that ordinarily it
`
`might not be different.
`
`(Pause)
`
`JUDGE LEE: An d what is worse for you is that it
`
`is in the summar y portion of the invention.
`
`(Pause)
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: So I think, Your Honor, that --
`
`well, I guess one point is that this was a paraphrase of the
`
`claims that was added to the specification in connection with
`
`the prosecution of this particular application. So I think it is
`
`not specifically a detailed description of the invention, but is
`
`simply paraphrasing what is found in the claims.
`
`I guess the other --
`
`JUDGE LEE: So you agree it is odd, right, tha t
`
`language is odd compared to the rest?
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: Certainly it is not something
`
`that I can say that I have thought through but I can understand
`
`Your Honor's point with respect to that. I'm not sure I have
`
`right now an answer to the question of wha t exactly that
`
`means.
`
`issue.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Mr . Baughman seems to have an
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: I apologize, Your Honor. I
`
`can certainly stand corrected. I think you will notice that I
`
`believe all of the sentences here, or a number of them are
`
`saying ma y, ma y, m a y, ma y. I believe it is a stylistic form
`
`that's being used to paraphrase the claims here.
`
`The transmissions ma y have a group of
`
`transmission sequences. The group ma y be structured. First
`
`information ma y i ndicate -- these are claim ele ments that I
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`believe for whatever reason the author of this paraphrase
`
`decided to be conditional about.
`
`JUDGE LEE: I s ee. So you are essentially saying
`
`don't pay too much attention to those two lines and read the
`
`whole spec as a whole.
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: I think, Your Hon or, and we
`
`can certainly take a closer look at this, but this does appear to
`
`be simply a stylistic way of summa rizing the claim.
`
`MR. BIDDINGER: I think I would like to ma ybe
`
`add to that. I think that there is, as we ma ybe talked about a
`
`mo ment ago, a po ssibility of two modulation methods
`
`producing a signal, a modulated signal that would not be
`
`incompatible, right, it would be essentially the same modulated
`
`signal but two different modulation methods were used to
`
`produce that signal.
`
`So I think ma ybe th e distinction also here could be
`
`that, when you emphasize this, that it ma y be a different type,
`
`that's a further distinction in that it ma y be actually
`
`incompatible. It is of a different kind. The modulation method
`
`is of a different kind.
`
`And this I t hink ties into our point that the
`
`distinction that was being sought -- and I'm going to talk in a
`
`mo ment about the a mendments to the claims that Patent Owner
`
`relies on to introduce the word type -- I think that those
`
`a mendments were intended to emphasize t his distinction that,
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00518 and -00519
`U.S. Patent 8,023,580
`
`when you talk about a different type of modulation method, it
`
`is a modulation method that ultimately produces a signal that is
`
`incompatible with another modulation method.
`
`MR. BAUGHMAN: If I ma y just add for the record
`
`so we can ma ybe put this in the same place as this discussion,
`
`Your Honor, our Exhibit 1209 at page 2 of that exhibit is an
`
`a mendment that adds this paragraph. And it is a substitute for
`
`paragraph 0008.
`
`I believe the date of this amendment ma y have been
`
`March of 2011.
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
