Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`Entered: June 4, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MICROGRAFX, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`____________
`
`Held: May 18, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY, RICHARD E. RICE and
`
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, May
`18, 2015, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`Entered: June 4, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MICROGRAFX, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`____________
`
`Held: May 18, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY, RICHARD E. RICE and
`
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, May
`18, 2015, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID ALMELING, ESQ.
`MICHAEL HAWKINS, ESQ.
`O'Melveny & Myers LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`
`DOUGLAS WILSON, ESQ.
`NATHAN DAVIS, ESQ.
`Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP
`9442 Capital of Texas Highway North
`Plaza 1, Suite 500-146
`Austin, Texas 78759
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good morning, please be seated. This
`
`is the hearing for IPR2014-00532, 533 and 534, between Petitioner
`
`Google and Samsung and Patent Owner Micrografx. Per our April 9th
`
`order, each party will have 60 minutes of total time to present
`
`arguments for the three proceedings.
`
`Petitioner, you will proceed first to present your case with
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`respect to the challenged claims and grounds for which we instituted
`
`11
`
`trial for all of the proceedings, and then, Patent Owner, you will have
`
`12
`
`an opportunity to respond to their presentation for the three
`
`13
`
`proceedings. Petitioner, you may reserve rebuttal time to respond to
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner's presentation with respect to their proceedings, and
`
`15
`
`then, Patent Owner, you can reserve rebuttal time, but only with
`
`16
`
`respect to the 532 motion to amend.
`
`17
`
`At this time, we would like the parties to please introduce
`
`18
`
`counsel, beginning with Petitioner.
`
`19
`
`MR. ALMELING: Good morning, Your Honors, David
`
`20
`
`Almeling for Petitioners.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`MR. HAWKINS: Michael Hawkins for Petitioners.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And who will be presenting today?
`
`MR. ALMELING: I will, Your Honor, and I would like to
`
`24
`
`reserve 20 minutes.
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`JUDGE: And just to let everyone know, I go by the clock on
`
`the wall, so if you want to keep track that way.
`
`MR. ALMELING: Thank you.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. And for Patent Owner?
`
`MR. WILSON: Douglas Wilson, Your Honor, for Patent
`
`Owner, Micrografx, LLC, and with me is Nathan Davis, and I will be
`
`presenting with respect to the 532 IPR, and Mr. Davis will be
`
`presenting for the 533 and 534 IPRs.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thank you very much.
`
`Petitioner, you may begin.
`
`MR. ALMELING: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please
`
`12
`
`the Board, this hearing covers three IPR proceedings, and the first, on
`
`13
`
`the '633 patent, the Board instituted IPR on two grounds, the Walton
`
`14
`
`reference and the combination of the Eick and Kruglinski references.
`
`15
`
`In the second and third IPRs on the '854 and '732 patents, the Board
`
`16
`
`instituted patents on one ground, the Pesce reference. There is no
`
`17
`
`substantive difference between the '854 and the '732 patent for
`
`18
`
`purposes of this hearing and thus I will discuss them together.
`
`19
`
`Let me begin by saying Petitioner's position here is simple.
`
`20
`
`For those claims on which the Board instituted IPR, the Board got it
`
`21
`
`right, that is Petitioner satisfied their prima facie case by submitting
`
`22
`
`the petition and the expert declaration of Dr. Anselmo Lastra.
`
`23
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Lastra now agree with the Board's decision on the
`
`24
`
`claim constructions analyses and the conclusions it reached.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`In short, if the Board maintains its claim construction
`
`analyses and conclusions, notwithstanding Micrografx's attacks to the
`
`contrary, the conclusions should be the same.
`
`So, today, I would like to direct my attention to the heart of
`
`the dispute, and focus on Micrografx's various attacks on the
`
`institution decision. I don't plan to address all attacks, as they'll reply,
`
`and a second declaration of Dr. Lastra already did that, instead I'll
`
`focus on the five key issues.
`
`The first two relate to the '854 and '732 patent. Number one,
`
`10
`
`whether the Board should change its construction of interactive vector
`
`11
`
`object and adopt Micrografx's narrow construction. Two, whether the
`
`12
`
`Board should reverse its decision that the VRML objects within Pesce
`
`13
`
`disclose an interactive vector object.
`
`14
`
`The final three relate to the '633 patent. Number 3, whether
`
`15
`
`the Board should change its construction of external shape and reverse
`
`16
`
`its decision that Walton discloses external shape. Four, whether the
`
`17
`
`Board should change its construction of delegate and reverse its
`
`18
`
`decision that the production of graphical images in Walton disclose
`
`19
`
`such delegation. And five, whether the Board properly combined Eick
`
`20
`
`with Kruglinski.
`
`21
`
`I frame these five issues as whether the Board should reverse
`
`22
`
`its decision because all of them involve the Board finding correctly the
`
`23
`
`first time and rejecting Micrografx's arguments to the contrary. I also
`
`24
`
`framed these decisions mostly in terms of claim construction because
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`most of Micrografx's arguments relate to trying to have the Board
`
`adopt a narrow construction and to reverse its broadest reasonable
`
`construction. The Board should maintain the constructions and the
`
`claim constructions it adopted in its institution decision.
`
`So, unless there are no preliminary questions, I will address
`
`the first issue.
`
`(No response.)
`
`MR. ALMELING: Moving to the first issue, which, as Your
`
`Honors will recall, is whether the Board should change its construction
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`of interactive vector object and adopt Micrografx's narrow
`
`11
`
`construction. So, let's begin by identifying exactly what was the
`
`12
`
`Board's construction. And I have placed on the ELMO page 6 from
`
`13
`
`the second Lastra declaration in the '854 patent, which is, for the
`
`14
`
`record, Exhibit 1012.
`
`15
`
`The Board's construction is, as you'll see, a computer
`
`16
`
`software object -- pardon me, Your Honors, it's the top one, a
`
`17
`
`computer software object that includes at least a mathematical
`
`18
`
`description of a graphical image and one definition so that the
`
`19
`
`graphical image responds to events. Now let's see how Micrografx
`
`20
`
`tries to change that broadest reasonable construction, and it does two
`
`21
`
`things.
`
`22
`
`First, as you'll notice here, it tries to graph the limitation
`
`23
`
`fields or methods, that is the mathematical description and the
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`definition must be contained within narrow software structures called
`
`fields and methods, but that's not all.
`
`I direct your attention to the bottom of the same page in the
`
`record, where Mr. Kitchens, who is Micrografx's expert, states that in
`
`addition to that limitation, computer software object also "is a
`
`self-contained software module that has the capability of including
`
`both data, in the form of fields, and code, in the form of methods, and
`
`which is compiled code that the class specifies at run-time." To be
`
`clear, these are not constructions, these are constructions of a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`construction. They are Micrografx's attempt to draft two limitations
`
`11
`
`on what it means to be a computer software object.
`
`12
`
`That fails for four reasons. The first of which is, the
`
`13
`
`computer software object in the Board's construction is not actually of
`
`14
`
`the Board's creation, it is of Petitioner's. We included that in our
`
`15
`
`petition. So, unless there's any doubt about what Petitioner's intended
`
`16
`
`by the phrase "computer software object," we do not mean it to be the
`
`17
`
`narrow limitations that Micrografx attempts to draft.
`
`18
`
`Second, this construction ignores the claims which don't
`
`19
`
`require an interactive vector object to have fields or methods, don't, as
`
`20
`
`the Board already found, preclude objects from containing other
`
`21
`
`objects, and which aren't limited to classes that are specific to run-time
`
`22
`
`code.
`
`23
`
`Next, Micrografx's proposed construction of a construction
`
`24
`
`ignores the specification. We cited numerous places in the reply, and I
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`will not detail them again here, but I'll note two ones very briefly. On
`
`column 9, there is a disclosure of a vector object being stored in a
`
`vector graphics file, and in column 10, there's an example of a
`
`property being stored elsewhere and later associated with the vector
`
`object, i.e., that property is not included in the vector object.
`
`But the final and perhaps most important reason why
`
`Micrografx's drafting of computer software object, and the limitations
`
`it imposed fails, is because it ignores the wide range of what qualifies
`
`as an object to a person of ordinary skill. Nothing in the '854 patent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`limits the construction of object. In fact, while it includes the word
`
`11
`
`"object" 310 times, it doesn't use the word "object-oriented" once.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: A question. The Microsoft dictionary,
`
`13
`
`computer dictionary that was submitted by Patent Owners, that's
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 2017, defines object -- one of the definitions is a variable
`
`15
`
`comprising both routines and data that is treated as a discrete entity.
`
`16
`
`Do you agree with that construction or not?
`
`17
`
`MR. ALMELING: I would have to look at the exact way in
`
`18
`
`which it's used in the particular programming languages in which it's
`
`19
`
`used. Computer software object is not as narrow as to a particular
`
`20
`
`example of a language that uses object-oriented programming, but the
`
`21
`
`general thrust behind that definition, that is an object has data, and an
`
`22
`
`object has functionality, Petitioners would agree with that.
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: So, what is the issue with the proposed
`
`change, and I'm talking about the first change, the one that I think is
`
`on page 10 of the Patent Owner response?
`
`MR. ALMELING: The one that adds fields or methods,
`
`Your Honor?
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Yes.
`
`MR. ALMELING: So, the problem with that is the object
`
`having data and the object having functionality, there are hundreds of
`
`object-oriented program languages and the syntax and semantics of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`those languages have data and methods in various places. They don't
`
`11
`
`necessarily have it in "fields or methods." Fields or methods is
`
`12
`
`terminology that comes out of the C++ language and it's particularly
`
`13
`
`how that language constructs an object, where you have public or
`
`14
`
`private fields and then you have public or private methods.
`
`15
`
`That is one type of object-oriented languages, and indeed it's
`
`16
`
`a very limited type because it refers to class-based, object-oriented
`
`17
`
`languages. There are some object-oriented languages such as
`
`18
`
`Javascript that aren't class based, they're prototyped, where you would
`
`19
`
`have no classes at all, objects are mere prototypes of other objects, so
`
`20
`
`you don't have fields or methods.
`
`21
`
`The problem with this construction is that it takes fields or
`
`22
`
`methods from one particular language, C++, and related languages,
`
`23
`
`and applies it to all object-based languages. There is no such
`
`24
`
`limitation. And then probably the clearest example of this are
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`paragraphs 11 through 21 of the second Anselmo Lastra declaration
`
`where he gives numerous examples of what would be an object that
`
`would be excluded by that definition. Example objects include
`
`collection objects, a narrow idea of the idea of inheritance, children
`
`and parent objects.
`
`And also, it's important to note that that relates to
`
`object-oriented languages, as opposed to object-based languages.
`
`Object-oriented languages have things like inheritance, polymorphism.
`
`Object-based languages don't, they just have an object, they just have
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`data and methods -- sorry, data and functionality. So, I guess that's a
`
`11
`
`long-winded answer to Your Honor's question of the problem with the
`
`12
`
`graphic fields or methods is that's a very narrow way to define data
`
`13
`
`and functionality, that is not commensurate with the broadest
`
`14
`
`reasonable construction, especially because the '854 patent never
`
`15
`
`limits it.
`
`16
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Does it matter for purposes of deciding
`
`17
`
`the case?
`
`18
`
`MR. ALMELING: It doesn't, Your Honor. So, to be clear
`
`19
`
`about Petitioner's position, Your Honor's construction of computer
`
`20
`
`software object needs no additional construction. To the extent it
`
`21
`
`does, the one posed by Judge Parvis limiting it to data and
`
`22
`
`functionality would still be broadest and would still apply exactly the
`
`23
`
`same to Pesce. In other words, your analysis wouldn't change whether
`
`24
`
`you kept your construction or adopted Judge Parvis'. The only way it
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`changed is if you adopted the narrow grafting that Micrografx
`
`proposes.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, that was my question, if we were to
`
`say fields or methods, it does matter, then?
`
`MR. ALMELING: It does, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, if we were to adopt their
`
`construction, fields or methods, then you're saying the prior art would
`
`not meet that construction?
`
`MR. ALMELING: So, the prior art would, depending upon,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`again, how fields or methods are construed. If fields or methods mean
`
`11
`
`C++ fields or methods, then, and of course, it would exclude it,
`
`12
`
`because we're reading interactive vector object on VRML objects, but
`
`13
`
`if it read on -- if fields or methods referred to VRML objects, then it
`
`14
`
`would disclose it, because VRML objects have data and the data is
`
`15
`
`contained in fields and they also have types, and the types define
`
`16
`
`methods. And that's the real problem with using the narrow term
`
`17
`
`"fields and methods" because there's all sorts of ways that you can
`
`18
`
`define behavior and data that aren't related to fields and methods.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thank you.
`
`MR. ALMELING: So, let's talk a little bit about Pesce,
`
`21
`
`which is more directed to Your Honor's question about whether or not
`
`22
`
`adopting this narrow construction would change things, and in brief,
`
`23
`
`so Pesce is a user manual that was written by a guy named Mark Pesce
`
`24
`
`in the mid-1990s. The reason why that's important is because Pesce
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`wrote computer programming languages in the mid-1990s, when
`
`object-oriented languages were all the rage. He knew what
`
`object-oriented languages, were he references them in the treatise. He
`
`also used the term "object" to refer to his software structure.
`
`Petitioners would submit that Pesce is a much better judge of
`
`what object meant in the mid-1990s than Micrografx's 2015 narrow
`
`construction for the purpose of salvaging its prior art. But to go to
`
`Your Honor's question about how Pesce operates and whether or not
`
`that would qualify as interactive vector objects, I would like to briefly
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`walk through an example of Pesce.
`
`11
`
`And in particular, I would like to direct Your Honor's
`
`12
`
`attention to Exhibit 1004, which I'll place under the ELMO. So, Pesce
`
`13
`
`begins first by saying VRML is a computer language, like all
`
`14
`
`computer languages, C++, Adelphi, Ruby, and others, it has its own
`
`15
`
`syntax and semantics. Part of the syntax and semantics of Pesce, and
`
`16
`
`I'm referring to the next page, page 139 of the record, says that a
`
`17
`
`VRML document consists of a list of objects known as nodes. In
`
`18
`
`Pesce's parlance, nodes equals objects. Pesce continues on the next
`
`19
`
`page.
`
`20
`
`Every node has a few basic qualities associated with it.
`
`21
`
`There's a node type, which determines its behavior, i.e., the methods
`
`22
`
`or the type is the behavior. The next paragraph reads, "The node may
`
`23
`
`have one or more fields." Fields are places that the node -- for the
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`node to store information specific to itself, and it gives the example of
`
`a radius.
`
`So, to answer Your Honor's question, Pesce's nodes have
`
`methods and they have data. They have fields where the data resides,
`
`and types where the methodology resides.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, the node is equivalent to object?
`
`MR. ALMELING: Yes, Your Honor, within Pesce, and
`
`Pesce makes that clear over and over again in the definition section.
`
`The only way that Pesce nodes were to qualify as objects is under
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Micrografx's narrow C++ reading.
`
`11
`
`But let's continue by talking about Pesce's objects, and I
`
`12
`
`specifically direct Your Honors' attention to the next page, page 141,
`
`13
`
`where it introduces the idea of group nodes. Some nodes are group
`
`14
`
`nodes, which can have other nodes within them. The most useful
`
`15
`
`group node is a separator. The separate node acts like a generic box, it
`
`16
`
`gathers everything in it within a single unit.
`
`17
`
`In Pesce, a node or an object can contain another node or an
`
`18
`
`object, just like in the numerous languages cited earlier in the
`
`19
`
`definition of -- in the discussion of the definition.
`
`20
`
`Another type of node, on page 151 of the same document, is
`
`21
`
`the WWWAnchor node, which Pesce describes as a node that is
`
`22
`
`anchored to the same URL within the web, and then Pesce gives an
`
`23
`
`example. And this is the example on which I would like to focus. At
`
`24
`
`the top line, in order to link our sun -- and just our sun -- into the web,
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`we'll create a WWWAnchor node that contains only the sphere node
`
`used to divide the sphere.
`
`And, so, let's take a look at what this looks like. And this
`
`code looks different from C++ code because it's not C++ code, it's
`
`VRML code. In VRML code, you have a WWWAnchor node with an
`
`open brace. Inside the open brace, as you'll see on the ELMO, is a
`
`URL, w3.org, which says if you click on it, it goes to that URL. But
`
`you'll notice there is no closing brace. Instead, on the next page, there
`
`is a sphere node with an open brace, which defines how big the sphere
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`is, in this case it's 10, it has a closing which encloses the sphere node,
`
`11
`
`and then finally it has another brace, that includes the WWWAnchor
`
`12
`
`node.
`
`13
`
`What this example shows is exactly what Pesce said, the
`
`14
`
`sphere node is inside the WWW node, which means when you click
`
`15
`
`on the sphere, which is defined by 10, you go to the URL. It's
`
`16
`
`interactive because you can click on it. It's a vector object because the
`
`17
`
`radius defines the shape. It's an interactive vector object.
`
`18
`
`The straw man of Micrografx's argument is thus laid bare.
`
`19
`
`We don't argue that the sphere argument alone is the interactive vector
`
`20
`
`object, nor do we argue that the WWWAnchor node is the vector
`
`21
`
`object, it's the combination of the two, which Pesce says can be
`
`22
`
`grouped together.
`
`23
`
`Micrografx's next tactic is not to focus on the VRML
`
`24
`
`objects, which Petitioners and the Board relied on at the institution
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`decision, rather, Micrografx focuses on the C++ objects created after
`
`the downloading of the VRML objects onto the client device. This
`
`argument fails for three reasons. One, it misreads our position. We
`
`read the VRML objects on the server as being the interactive vector
`
`object. Micrografx is attacking the post-downloaded, post-processed
`
`C++ objects on the client.
`
`The claims make it clear, and this is the second reason why
`
`this argument failed, that the claims say that the interactive vector
`
`object must be "operable to be downloaded over a network." The
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`claims require a server-based interactive vector object that is operable
`
`11
`
`to be downloaded to a client to be rendered. VRML objects reside in
`
`12
`
`the server, those are the interactive vector objects. C++ objects that
`
`13
`
`are created on the client, those are irrelevant to our analysis.
`
`14
`
`And the final reason why Micrografx's argument fails is it
`
`15
`
`reads out its own specification. I would like to direct Your Honor's
`
`16
`
`attention to the '854 patent, which for the record is Exhibit 1001, and
`
`17
`
`particularly, I would like to direct your attention to column 10, which
`
`18
`
`I'll place over the ELMO.
`
`19
`
`You'll notice at column 10, lines 45 through 49, the vector
`
`20
`
`graphics file contains a vector object containing mathematical
`
`21
`
`descriptions of lines, curves, fills and patterns. At this point, the
`
`22
`
`vector graphics file may be embedded in a network accessible file for
`
`23
`
`use in the web page of the server system 12. Now, what's interesting
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`to note here is that the network accessible file 50 is described all over
`
`the specification as being an HTML document.
`
`Now, what does that mean? HTML stands for hypertext
`
`markup language. VRML, virtual reality markup/modeling languages.
`
`The specification talks about embedding the vector graphics file with
`
`the vector objects in an HTML document. VRML talks about having
`
`vector objects included in a VRML file which is a markup file, both
`
`are markup files that reside on the server. Micrografx's attack on C++
`
`objects on the client simply don't match with what everyone is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`reading. What our expert is reading, what the Board relied on and
`
`11
`
`what the Petitioner's position is.
`
`12
`
`Unless there are any other questions on this one, I will move
`
`13
`
`on to the third issue regarding the '633 patent.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Patent Owner proposes clarification for
`
`15
`
`the phrase "a property defining a command to be performed in
`
`16
`
`response to an event," and the clarification is to our construction,
`
`17
`
`which is "in response to a user." The Patent Owner proposes to replace
`
`18
`
`"user" with "user action" for clarity. Does Petitioner dispute Patent
`
`19
`
`Owner's proposed clarification?
`
`20
`
`MR. ALMELING: And what proposed clarification are you
`
`21
`
`citing to, Your Honor?
`
`22
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: I'm looking at pages 16 and 17 of the
`
`23
`
`Patent Owner response, and it's a proposed clarification to the claim
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`phrase "a property defining a command to be performed in response to
`
`an event." I believe this is for the '854 patent only.
`
`MR. ALMELING: Okay. So, Petitioner's position is that
`
`that language was sufficiently clear when Your Honors construed it
`
`and there is no subsequent clarification that's needed. To the extent
`
`that that has any effect on the reading of VRML, I think the answer is
`
`no. This comes up in the context of a browser, which we fully address
`
`in the context of our reply and I'll stand on our papers there, but I think
`
`the short answer to Your Honor's question is there's no reason to add
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`that.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: But if the Board was to say, well, we
`
`12
`
`think that we might want to add it, would the Petitioner dispute it or
`
`13
`
`does Petitioner feel that that's an error?
`
`14
`
`MR. ALMELING: And I want to be very clear, because I
`
`15
`
`don't have the document with me right now, what is the proposed
`
`16
`
`addition that you're citing?
`
`17
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: And you don't have to answer the
`
`18
`
`question right now, but at some point, the term is "a property defining
`
`19
`
`a command to be performed in response to an event," and the
`
`20
`
`proposed clarification is on pages 16 and 17 of Patent Owner's
`
`21
`
`response.
`
`22
`
`MR. ALMELING: Okay. If Your Honor will allow me, I
`
`23
`
`will address that in the rebuttal.
`
`24
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you.
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. ALMELING: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`Any additional questions on the '854 or '732, Your Honors?
`
`(No response.)
`
`MR. ALMELING: Thank you.
`
`All right, so let's talk about the '633 patent, and here there
`
`are three issues, the first of which is whether the Board should change
`
`its construction of external shape and reverse its decision that Walton
`
`discloses such shapes. So, the Board's construction of external shape
`
`was "computer code stored outside the computer program that defines
`
`10
`
`a graphical image." Now, let's look at what Micrografx proposes to do
`
`11
`
`with that construction. And Micrografx proposes two things, an
`
`12
`
`addition and a deletion. Let's talk about the deletion first.
`
`13
`
`Micrografx proposes that the phrase could mean computer
`
`14
`
`code stored outside the computer program. What's missing from this
`
`15
`
`construction is the phrase that defines a graphical image. In other
`
`16
`
`words, Micrografx says, an external shape is just computer code stored
`
`17
`
`outside the program, no limitation to shapes or any graphical nature.
`
`18
`
`That's wrong. It was brought to Mr. Kitchens' attention in the
`
`19
`
`deposition, and he corrected it. To his credit, he added the phrase
`
`20
`
`"that defines a graphical image" back to the construction. Micrografx
`
`21
`
`was sitting in the deposition that day, and they have not notified the
`
`22
`
`Board that there either is a mistake, or what the correction will be.
`
`23
`
`Thus, Micrografx's construction fails for the reason that it excludes
`
`24
`
`shapes from the definition of shapes.
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The Micrografx definition also fails for a more fundamental
`
`reason, which is what is added and shown on the screen, that the
`
`external shape can be developed and provided for use by the computer
`
`program without modifying the computer program. Now, to be clear,
`
`this is not a person of ordinary skill's reading of the claims, nor is this
`
`a lexicographer's definition. This is simply an importation from the
`
`specification.
`
`So, let's look at the specification to see the basis for that
`
`importation. I direct Your Honors' attention to the '633 patent, column
`
`10
`
`2. At the top of column 2, you'll notice beginning on line 7 is the
`
`11
`
`sentence, "The invention also provides an architecture that allows for
`
`12
`
`the integration of additional shapes with an existing computer program
`
`13
`
`without modifying that existing program."
`
`14
`
`Micrografx's position is, well, because it talks about the
`
`15
`
`invention providing it, it must be part of the definition. This fails
`
`16
`
`because this is not purporting to define the invention in the context of
`
`17
`
`exactly what is an external shape, it's talking about the invention at
`
`18
`
`large. There's no reason to pick and choose one limitation.
`
`19
`
`But more fundamentally, if you look at the top of that
`
`20
`
`paragraph, the top of that column 2, it also talks about "the invention
`
`21
`
`provides for the modular production of additional shapes, and those
`
`22
`
`shapes may be grouped in different modules." The invention provides,
`
`23
`
`the invention also provides Micrografx picks the last one and says,
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`yes, that's part of my construction. Micrografx does not select the first
`
`one.
`
`I asked Mr. Kitchens about this in his deposition, I said, do
`
`you want the first sentence to be part of your construction? He gave
`
`the obvious answer, no. It's clear what Micrografx is doing here.
`
`There is a description of the advantages of the invention, Micrografx
`
`wants it to be part of the claim limitation "external shape," the Board
`
`should not so narrow its construction.
`
`Now, once this construction is applied to Walton, let's
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`discuss what happens, but first, Walton is a Hewlett Packard patent
`
`11
`
`that discloses a graphic system which it calls the VSE system, in
`
`12
`
`which user code, similar to the '633 patent, accesses and external
`
`13
`
`shape of external library of graphical shapes that can draw themselves.
`
`14
`
`Now, Micrografx's position is, no, they actually can't draw themselves,
`
`15
`
`because they need this system as a whole.
`
`16
`
`To begin, the Board has already considered and rejected this
`
`17
`
`argument, finding it, quote, on page 13 of the institution decision, "not
`
`18
`
`commensurate with our interpretation of the claim term external
`
`19
`
`shape." In other words, if Your Honors maintain the construction of
`
`20
`
`external shape, Micrografx's argument on this limitation goes away.
`
`21
`
`Micrografx's argument is also inconsistent with the claims,
`
`22
`
`which talk about the external shape being external to the computer
`
`23
`
`program, not external to the computer program and everything else
`
`24
`
`that the computer program operates with in a system.
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532 (Patent 5,959,633)
`Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
`Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Indeed, the specification of the '633 patent makes this clear,
`
`and I will direct Your Honors' attention to figure 1 of the '633 patent,
`
`which is placed under the ELMO. You have 122 of the computer
`
`program, and then you have the external shape library of 124, all
`
`within 110. 110 is referred to "the computer system." In other words,
`
`Walton, just like the '633 patent, discloses a computer graphics
`
`program that works in concert wit
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
