`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785, Paper No. 40
`June 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`____________
`
`Held: June 3, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: KEVIN F. TURNER, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`June 3, 2015, commencing at 1:01 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MICHAEL D. SPECHT, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JEFFREY R. BRAGALONE, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`
`
`Chase Tower
`
`
`2200 Ross Avenue
`
`
`Suite 4500 W
`
`
`Dallas, Texas 75201-7924
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm
`
`Judge Benoit and appearing on the video are Judges Turner and
`
`Braden. We are convened today for oral argument in
`
`IPR2014-00785, which challenges U.S. Patent 6,636,591.
`
`Each side has one hour to argue. The Petitioner has the
`
`ultimate burden of establishing unpatentability and will argue
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`first. Both parties may reserve rebuttal time.
`
`11
`
`Judge Turner and Judge Braden will not have the
`
`12
`
`benefit of visual cues in the room. So when you speak referring
`
`13
`
`to an exhibit or demonstrative, please identify it by page or slide
`
`14
`
`number before you start to speak. Also, when you begin your
`
`15
`
`argument, please identify yourself and the party you represent so
`
`16
`
`the record will be clear.
`
`17
`
`Briefly before we begin with your arguments, we would
`
`18
`
`like to address the panel's objections to each other's
`
`19
`
`demonstratives, which were filed by each party on May 30th. We
`
`20
`
`would like to remind the parties that demonstratives are not
`
`21
`
`evidence, but rather they are aids to facilitate our understanding
`
`22
`
`of your presentations today.
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The panel is capable of determining whether
`
`information in a demonstrative is improper and we will not rely
`
`on improper information in our final written decision. Also,
`
`there's no jury here and so that there's no jury that might be
`
`confused by such information. Therefore, we're not going to
`
`spend time this afternoon ruling on or discussing any of the
`
`objections.
`
`With that, Petitioner, you may begin when ready.
`
`MR. SPECHT: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My
`
`10
`
`name is Michael Specht. I'm a partner and head of the
`
`11
`
`Electronics Practice Group at Stern Kessler Goldstein & Fox. I'm
`
`12
`
`here today with Dr. Steven Peters, one of the backup counsel,
`
`13
`
`also of Sterne Kessler. I also have two of our other backup
`
`14
`
`counsel, Mr. Yonan and Mr. Ray, from our firm also in
`
`15
`
`attendance.
`
`16
`
`I am here on behalf of Global Tel*Link and we would
`
`17
`
`like to reserve 30 minutes of our time for rebuttal.
`
`18
`
`Your Honors, Petitioners have demonstrated that all
`
`19
`
`claims of the '591 patent are unpatentable. Patent Owner has
`
`20
`
`provided no credible evidence or arguments to rebut this. Today
`
`21
`
`we simply want to highlight our key arguments, discuss the flaws
`
`22
`
`in their positions and answer any questions that you may have.
`
`23
`
`I am putting up slide number 2. Just to remind us of the
`
`24
`
`instituted grounds, there's one instituted ground. It is an
`
`25
`
`obviousness based rejection. It rejects all Claims 1 through 10 of
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`the '591 patent. Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims. They
`
`are very similar and there are two references, the Karacki
`
`reference and Gainsboro '843 that are the references of interest
`
`today.
`
`Your Honors, in instituting this trial, the panel citing
`
`KSR commented, obviousness must be gauged in a view of
`
`common sense and the creativity of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. Obviousness can be established when the prior art itself
`
`suggests the claimed subject matter to the person of ordinary skill
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`in the art.
`
`11
`
`Your Honors, we believe that we have demonstrated
`
`12
`
`both under common sense as well as the art that the '591 patent
`
`13
`
`claims, all of the claims are obvious.
`
`14
`
`The '591 patent is directed towards affecting inmate
`
`15
`
`behavior -- and I'm on slide 3 -- affecting inmate conduct through
`
`16
`
`providing discounted telephone rates based on certain criteria.
`
`17
`
`There are two general concepts there. One is inmate programs,
`
`18
`
`inmate incentive programs to promote good behavior and
`
`19
`
`telephone discounts.
`
`20
`
`Inmate incentive programs have been around for
`
`21
`
`centuries. As the demonstrative states, the notion of good time
`
`22
`
`where inmates are rewarded for good behavior with early release
`
`23
`
`was first passed in the law in 1817. This notion of inmate
`
`24
`
`incentive programs, it's been around for centuries and, in fact, in
`
`25
`
`the Karacki reference it notes that it can hardly be said that there's
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`something new or revolutionary in a correctional method, which
`
`provides external rewards for positive behavior. On the contrary,
`
`such reward systems tend to be the very cornerstone upon which
`
`most institutional programs are built. This appeared in the
`
`Karacki reference, a reference that's 30 years prior to the
`
`application date of the '591 patent. So, clearly, inmate incentive
`
`programs are well-known and have been around for a long time.
`
`Likewise, telephone discounts based on behavior are
`
`well-known. As the declaration of our expert, Dr. Len Forys, as
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`he knows, Dr. Forys is an individual with 40 years of experience
`
`11
`
`in telecommunications, 30 of which he has been dealing with
`
`12
`
`prison communication systems.
`
`13
`
`He notes, telephone companies have been rewarding
`
`14
`
`and incentivizing subscribers with discounts since at least the
`
`15
`
`1920s. In the 1990s, increased competition and long distance
`
`16
`
`market led to a more creative discount rewards, discounts for
`
`17
`
`subscribers for a variety of reasons.
`
`18
`
`Your Honors, so that the key concepts here, inmate
`
`19
`
`incentive programs, discounts for telephone service, these have
`
`20
`
`been known for not -- not years, decades and even centuries. So
`
`21
`
`common sense tells us this patent, these claims are obvious.
`
`22
`
`Now, turning to the claims. If we look on the claim --
`
`23
`
`now I'm putting up slide 8. Slide 8 is of Independent Claim 1.
`
`24
`
`Independent Claim 1 simply has providing an ID for an inmate,
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`well known, establishing a discount telephone rate, well known as
`
`we've just discussed.
`
`As we go through this, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`without even looking at a reference, this claim is obvious. In fact,
`
`Your Honors, anyone who's used the telephone and received a
`
`discount would look at this claim and find that it's obvious.
`
`Essentially you behave in a certain way, you get a discount. If
`
`you don't behave in that way, you lose the discount. That's what
`
`this patent is claiming. It is obvious just looking at it from a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`common sense perspective.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Excuse me, counselor.
`
`MR. SPECHT: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: I know that you have a certain
`
`14
`
`order that you were probably going to go in.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`MR. SPECHT: Sure.
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: But I would like to go in the order I
`
`17
`
`would like to go in and so I would like for you to address your
`
`18
`
`argument number 4 first about claim construction. Because
`
`19
`
`looking here at the claim, there's both establishing a discount
`
`20
`
`telephone rate and reducing the telephone charge rate for inmates
`
`21
`
`that meet the measurement of conduct during incarceration for a
`
`22
`
`predetermined period of time.
`
`23
`
`I'd like you to address claim construction, what you
`
`24
`
`believe the claim construction should be, why it should be and
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`let's go from there, and then we can address, you know, your
`
`other arguments, but I'd like to go to that one first, please.
`
`MR. SPECHT: Sure. So I'm going to put up to help in
`
`that discussion our slide 20, which talks about the first element,
`
`establishing a discount telephone rate. And so, here, we
`
`presented a construction, Petitioner's construction establishing
`
`rate reductions for telephone calls originating from the
`
`correctional facility.
`
`The Board presented an initial construction in the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Institution Decision essentially the same, but for the fact that they
`
`11
`
`added or you added and the service provider limitation narrowing
`
`12
`
`this construction.
`
`13
`
`My first comment is that to a certain extent, the
`
`14
`
`construction is irrelevant. These claims are obvious under either
`
`15
`
`the Board's construction or our construction. With respect to our
`
`16
`
`differences in the construction and why we think the Board's
`
`17
`
`construction is overly narrow, it results from the fact if you look
`
`18
`
`at the specification, there's a single embodiment encompassing a
`
`19
`
`service provider is not enough.
`
`20
`
`If you look at Figure 1 and the discussion in the
`
`21
`
`specification, it refers back to the single figure of this patent, and
`
`22
`
`let me put that figure up.
`
`23
`
`Okay. So it's discussing this particular embodiment,
`
`24
`
`and this is on slide 9.
`
`25
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Which figure? Okay.
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. SPECHT: Figure 1 from the patent, slide 9 from
`
`our demonstratives. And in here the example, the embodiment --
`
`and they start off the discussion by saying Figure 1 is an
`
`embodiment, right, and this is what I call a non-premised based
`
`system. So what you see here in this embodiment is where these
`
`databases 18 in the service bureau, those are within the service
`
`provider, right?
`
`And that's the embodiment they're describing in the
`
`specification with respect to Figure 1, but the specification also
`
`10
`
`goes on to say that you can have a premise-based embodiment
`
`11
`
`and that premise, referring again back to slide 9, Figure 1, 12 is
`
`12
`
`the premise-based system.
`
`13
`
`So what happened in that scenario is simply these
`
`14
`
`databases 18 would essentially be off of 12, right, and so the
`
`15
`
`premise or the prison could provide those rate discounts before it
`
`16
`
`even gets to the central office, so you would have two ways of
`
`17
`
`establishing the discount rate, one within the network, within the
`
`18
`
`network of the service provider network, and also here within the
`
`19
`
`premises, and that's supported in the spec where you have the
`
`20
`
`notion of they're talking about an embodiment where they've
`
`21
`
`established rate reductions with the service provider, but those
`
`22
`
`same rate reductions could be established just within the premise
`
`23
`
`in a database that was here.
`
`24
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: I guess my question is, if you make
`
`25
`
`the argument about it being premise-based telecommunications
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`systems where they're on the premise, they establish a discounted
`
`rate, does that mean that if an inmate has good behavior and they
`
`get the discounted rate, does that mean that the prison then pays
`
`what the inmate -- the difference between their discounted rate
`
`and the rate that they get from the telecom provider? Does that
`
`mean that the prison is paying that difference?
`
`MR. SPECHT: It could be. It could be that the prison
`
`is actually profiting. The discount rate that -- and this has been
`
`part of the confusion I think. The discount rate -- there's two
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`ways of looking at the discount rate. One is a discount rate is
`
`11
`
`actually between the charge to the inmate and one is a rate that is
`
`12
`
`a negotiated rate between the prison and the service provider,
`
`13
`
`right?
`
`14
`
`And so that rate that exists between the prison and the
`
`15
`
`service provider, that doesn't need to necessarily be coupled with
`
`16
`
`the rate that you're providing to the inmate. Those could be two
`
`17
`
`different things. And in a context like this -- go ahead.
`
`18
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Isn't that the case in Claim 1? You
`
`19
`
`have those two different steps. You have establishing a
`
`20
`
`discounted telephone rate, i.e., between the prison and the
`
`21
`
`telecom provider and then reducing the telephone charge rate for
`
`22
`
`inmates, i.e., between the prison and the inmate.
`
`23
`
`MR. SPECHT: Yeah, so, again, I think we're sort of
`
`24
`
`conflating two different concepts. The patent itself, the
`
`25
`
`specification talks about establishing the discount rate and it talks
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`about the discount rate being applied to the calls from the end
`
`user, in this case the inmate, right? And that's not necessarily the
`
`same rate that has been negotiated between a prison and the
`
`service provider itself.
`
`When you get to the element of reducing the charge
`
`rate, again, what we're saying is what that reduction of the caller
`
`charge rate is now, element 1.4, that's simply where you have a
`
`standard telephone rate for the inmate and they get a discount off
`
`of that, and in Karacki that discount is going from some amount,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`a dollar per call to zero for the call.
`
`11
`
`So it's a discount. That doesn't necessarily have to be
`
`12
`
`tied to the underlying rate that's negotiated between a prison and a
`
`13
`
`service provider. Those could be different things. Typically in a
`
`14
`
`situation where you're looking to have a profit and that rate is
`
`15
`
`going to be higher than the rate that's negotiated between the
`
`16
`
`prison or a hotel, for example, a hotel and a service provider.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Does that answer your question?
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Okay. I think I understand your
`
`19
`
`position.
`
`20
`
`MR. SPECHT: Coming back to the issue of the
`
`21
`
`construction, either way the Karacki and Gainsboro reference
`
`22
`
`suggests this element. They suggest the --
`
`23
`
`JUDGE TURNER: A quick follow-up. You're talking
`
`24
`
`about Figure 1, but isn't there just a single figure in the patent?
`
`25
`
`MR. SPECHT: Oh, that's correct.
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Okay. And so I guess when you
`
`say that there's a single embodiment, you know, maybe this is
`
`basic, you know, patent law, but it seems like if you're going to
`
`say there are multiple embodiments, wouldn't you have to have
`
`them illustrated? So having the single figure would seem to
`
`indicate that there's a single embodiment and that's the reason
`
`why, you know, we've drawn the claim construction to include
`
`the service provider, because that's the only thing disclosed.
`
`MR. SPECHT: Yeah, well, actually to the first part of
`
`10
`
`your question, Your Honor, I don't believe you need a figure for
`
`11
`
`every embodiment. To the second part of your question, the
`
`12
`
`specification specifically does identify that there can be a
`
`13
`
`premise-based solution, a different embodiment to a service
`
`14
`
`provider embodiment.
`
`15
`
`JUDGE TURNER: And point that out to me directly,
`
`16
`
`because I'd like to know where you're pointing to.
`
`17
`
`MR. SPECHT: We'll get that in a second, that
`
`18
`
`particular cite. We address that in our reply, our Petitioner's
`
`19
`
`reply.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`JUDGE TURNER: I know. I'd like --
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Judge Turner, that would be at
`
`22
`
`column 3, lines 20 through 21, stating “Alternatively the
`
`23
`
`equipment can be premise-based, i.e. within the correctional
`
`24
`
`facility.”
`
`25
`
`MR. SPECHT: That's right.
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: I guess my question is with regards
`
`to that, if the equipment is premise-based, does that necessarily
`
`mean that everything is premise-based? I mean, the
`
`establishment of the discounted rate has to be within the
`
`correctional facility, just because the equipment is within the
`
`facility?
`
`MR. SPECHT: In this case, yes, because they're
`
`referring to this equipment, the equipment being 18, and that's the
`
`databases they talk about 18, so they're talking about having that
`
`10
`
`equipment be premise-based. In that case, those databases are
`
`11
`
`what supply the discounted rates.
`
`12
`
`So, yes, in fact, under that scenario and a premise-based
`
`13
`
`solution, one of ordinary skill in the art and certainly Dr. Forys
`
`14
`
`would agree that it's going to be provided. The discount rate will
`
`15
`
`be established by the institution in that case.
`
`16
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: So I guess I'm not so sure that it's
`
`17
`
`just the databases that are premise based, because it talks at --
`
`18
`
`starting at line 15, service bureau 16 includes necessary
`
`19
`
`equipment to facilitate the method of the present invention,
`
`20
`
`including a processor that can link to one or more databases and a
`
`21
`
`collection and detection device, such as a DTMF collection and
`
`22
`
`detection device, for receiving data entered or provided by the
`
`23
`
`inmate. Alternatively the equipment can be premise based.
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Does that not seem like it's the process, sir, in the
`
`DTMF collection and detection device? I don't necessarily read
`
`that to be database 18 is premise based.
`
`MR. SPECHT: Well, I think it goes on to say that, in
`
`fact, the processor at the service bureau or is at the institution in a
`
`premise-based system. That's one aspect that's there. The whole
`
`point of the processor or one point of the processor is to access
`
`those databases. So that would imply and it certainly implied to
`
`the expert here that you could either have the situation where it's
`
`10
`
`here in the network or back at the premise.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Go ahead.
`
`MR. SPECHT: The bottom line, though, from our
`
`13
`
`perspective is under either construction and what was
`
`14
`
`characterized or what you found in the Institution Decision that
`
`15
`
`the element is disclosed under either or disclosed and/or
`
`16
`
`suggested, right? And so you identified in the Institution
`
`17
`
`Decision the notion that Gainsboro, the Gainsboro reference,
`
`18
`
`provides the rates back from the service provider, right? And so
`
`19
`
`the rates are clearly established between the prisoner -- or the
`
`20
`
`prison facility and the service provider. That was one thing that
`
`21
`
`you identified in your Institution Decision.
`
`22
`
`And additionally in our initial petition, right, we talked
`
`23
`
`about Karacki, Karachi establishing the discount rate, and then
`
`24
`
`we also talked about Gainsboro, how Gainsboro has time of date
`
`25
`
`discounts, and Gainsboro talks about those discounts being within
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`a service provider and, therefore, the inmates are getting those
`
`discounts, which we clarified, and that was slide 21, sorry.
`
`In slide 22 Gainsboro discloses that rates are established
`
`between the correctional facility and the service provider and we
`
`supported that with the declaration of Dr. Forys and we go
`
`through the discussion here where it talks about how rates are
`
`charged about the middle of this excerpt where a rate charged to
`
`the BOP, the prison facility, by the telephone service for direct
`
`calls. So, clearly, there's a rate established between the two that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`discloses this element and certainly suggests it.
`
`11
`
`And the only other comment I would make with respect
`
`12
`
`to this element, this also came up in the deposition of our expert.
`
`13
`
`His answer here on this issue, you know, one of ordinary skill in
`
`14
`
`the art -- this is slide 23 -- would understand that there's a rate
`
`15
`
`there. In fact, Gainsboro talks about a rate for calls. It's
`
`16
`
`obviously a discount of that, that's occurring here based upon
`
`17
`
`time of day.
`
`18
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`19
`
`how it is that rate established, it's usually negotiated between a
`
`20
`
`business environment and the service provider, in fact, done in a
`
`21
`
`competitive manner. So people understand that that's what's
`
`22
`
`happening. This goes to the notion of the negotiation for rates,
`
`23
`
`right?
`
`24
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Thank you.
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. SPECHT: Thank you. So with respect to sort of
`
`the second part of your question, Your Honor, claim construction
`
`with respect to reducing a telephone call charge rate, so
`
`Petitioner's construction here was charging the discount telephone
`
`rate and the Board's construction was reducing the standard
`
`telephone charge rate.
`
`Here, the Board's construction is actually broader. It
`
`would encompass charging the discount telephone rate, as we
`
`understand it. So you're reducing the telephone charge rate. So
`
`10
`
`certainly going from a standard rate to the discount rate
`
`11
`
`establishing Karacki would meet that claim construction, the
`
`12
`
`Board's claim construction.
`
`13
`
`And with respect to that element -- well, as we said
`
`14
`
`earlier -- I'm now on slide 28 -- telephone discounts have been
`
`15
`
`known since at least the 1920s. This is nothing new, reducing a
`
`16
`
`telephone call charge rate, providing a discount.
`
`17
`
`As we've identified in Karacki, as I just indicated,
`
`18
`
`Karacki establishes a discount rate of zero for the caller, a
`
`19
`
`hundred percent dropping the call from, you know, a standard
`
`20
`
`rate to zero. Gainsboro also discloses applying discounts to
`
`21
`
`inmates. So individually they all teach or suggest this particular
`
`22
`
`element and certainly in combination they do.
`
`23
`
`Does that answer your questions on those two elements?
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Yes, it did. Thank you. And if you
`
`wouldn't mind going ahead and going to your discussion about
`
`motivation to combine Karacki and Gainsboro.
`
`MR. SPECHT: Sure.
`
`So now I'm going back to slide 12. Slide 12 -- first of
`
`all, Karacki is analogous art. In re Klein cites there a reference is
`
`analogous prior art, if the art is from the same field or endeavor
`
`regardless of the problem addressed.
`
`And then further clarification, In re Clay states that if a
`
`10
`
`reference relates to the same problem as the patent, that fact
`
`11
`
`supports the use of that reference in an obvious rejection. So
`
`12
`
`that's the standard we're working under.
`
`13
`
`And then turning to slide 13, what we have here is on
`
`14
`
`the left-hand side we have an excerpt from Karacki, Karacki page
`
`15
`
`22 where it clearly states is a method, Karacki provides a method
`
`16
`
`by which students, in this case the students are inmates in this
`
`17
`
`detention center, are, in effect, rewarded for appropriate behavior.
`
`18
`
`On the right-hand side is the excerpt from the '591
`
`19
`
`patent. And, again, I'm just looking at the claim. It's a method of
`
`20
`
`affecting inmate behavior within a correctional facility. So
`
`21
`
`clearly these are analogous. They are trying to save or solve the
`
`22
`
`same problem. So sort of that threshold question of is this
`
`23
`
`analogous art? Absolutely.
`
`24
`
`And with respect to the second part of the analysis, the
`
`25
`
`motivation to combine -- this is now slide 14 -- so we believe that
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`the motivation to combine was articulated very clearly in our
`
`petition and the supporting declaration of Dr. Forys where he
`
`identified a number of reasons why you would combine these
`
`references.
`
`Karacki talks about an incentive system that provides
`
`for discounted telephone service and Gainsboro is a system
`
`within a prison for providing phone services to inmates. You
`
`would combine those two naturally to automate the process in
`
`Karacki with the processes in Gainsboro. That automation, as he
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`says here, would be motivated to combine Karacki's inmate
`
`11
`
`reward system to provide automated control of inmates' points,
`
`12
`
`saving the correctional facility time and money.
`
`13
`
`So there's a clear motivation there to do this. It also
`
`14
`
`would enable, as he goes on to further say, enable a greater range
`
`15
`
`of privileges for inmates and prevent the transfer of points, other
`
`16
`
`benefits that you get from the automation. So we think there is a
`
`17
`
`very clear motivation why one would combine these two
`
`18
`
`references.
`
`19
`
`And the other comment we have with respect to this is
`
`20
`
`Patent Owner has made an argument. They state here -- I'm on
`
`21
`
`slide 15 and reading the portion that's highlighted in yellow.
`
`22
`
`Because both Karacki and Gainsboro are missing these
`
`23
`
`limitations, which is referring back to the limitation of providing
`
`24
`
`discount telephone rates, a skilled artisan would have no
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`reasonable expectation of success in so modifying the prior art
`
`and their combination is improper.
`
`There's no legal precedent presented there. They cite to
`
`the declaration of their alleged expert and this is not the test. In
`
`fact, what Dr. Forys identified is parties would -- a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would combine these with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success.
`
`This is a very simple combination and you would have
`
`predictable results. The Board recognized this in the Institution
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Decision, finding that there would -- that combining these two
`
`11
`
`references would not require any undue experimentation, which
`
`12
`
`we agree. This is a simple combination.
`
`13
`
`Your Honor, any other questions on motivation to
`
`14
`
`combine?
`
`15
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Real quick, though, because you
`
`16
`
`mentioned a person of ordinary skill in the art, in your petition I
`
`17
`
`believe that you talk about what you believe is a person of
`
`18
`
`ordinary skill in the art and I believe that your expert also
`
`19
`
`testified to this as being somebody with an associate degree in
`
`20
`
`electrical engineering, computer science or equivalent field with
`
`21
`
`one or two years of industry experience.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Is that still your position?
`
`MR. SPECHT: That is still the position. We're okay
`
`24
`
`with the position in the Institution Decision that there's not that
`
`25
`
`much difference between those two. The whole point is we don't
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`believe it requires a whole lot of experience to understand this
`
`patent. A person of ordinary skill in the art is only going to be
`
`required to have a fairly minimal amount of experience, so we did
`
`not provide any additional arguments on the construction. We've
`
`accepted the Board's -- or my construction, but for a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art accepted that and have no objections to
`
`that or arguments.
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Okay. Thank you.
`
`MR. SPECHT: Since I have about five minutes left
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`here, what I would like to do is jump to -- first, let me ask you,
`
`11
`
`Your Honor, if you have any other specific questions on our
`
`12
`
`positions that you'd like me to jump to or any of the --
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: I do not.
`
`MR. SPECHT: -- judges?
`
`So that being the case, what I'd like to do is jump to our
`
`16
`
`comments with respect to the alleged expert here of the Patent
`
`17
`
`Owner.
`
`18
`
`We do not believe that their expert, Dr. Akl, is credible.
`
`19
`
`This is slide 38 I believe. I'm sorry, 39.
`
`20
`
`So, first of all, on the record Dr. Akl admitted he had no
`
`21
`
`knowledge of institutional telephone rates, the first point. He also
`
`22
`
`testified under oath that he didn't know whether the general
`
`23
`
`concept of discounted telephone calls were known in 2000, the
`
`24
`
`application date of the patent, and he further stated on the record
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`that he has no expertise in the history of prison telephone
`
`systems. These are the core concepts of this patent.
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: But, counselor, didn't you just say
`
`that this was a fairly simple concept, in that you really just needed
`
`somebody who had kind of a EE degree with one year of
`
`experience? I mean, does he have to have knowledge of
`
`institutional phone rates to be a person of ordinary skill?
`
`MR. SPECHT: Well, he's holding himself out as an
`
`expert, not a person of ordinary skill in the art, so I don't believe
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`he even qualifies, frankly, as a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`11
`
`let alone the expert that he's holding himself out to be. So these
`
`12
`
`are -- I mean, these are statements he made.
`
`13
`
`Furthermore, during his deposition he repeatedly
`
`14
`
`indicated he had no opinion, no opinion, no opinion, wasn't
`
`15
`
`familiar with that, didn't look at this in the transcript.
`
`16
`
`Furthermore, if you look at an additional reason why no
`
`17
`
`weight should be given to his testimony -- I'm now on slide 40 --
`
`18
`
`all, and I'm going to say all, and I mean all substantive portions of
`
`19
`
`Dr. Akl's declaration are identical to the corresponding text of the
`
`20
`
`Patent Owner's response.
`
`21
`
`We cite there the mapping, right, between Akl's
`
`22
`
`declaration or Dr. Akl's declaration, paragraphs 34 through 37.
`
`23
`
`They match precisely to the arguments on page 7 through 9 and
`
`24
`
`we give the whole series of cites where it's exactly the same, but
`
`25
`
`for the fact that they switch out the word Securus with I, and the
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00785
`Patent 6,636,591
`
`Board, the PTAB, has said previously, merely repeating an
`
`argument from the brief in the declaration of a proposed expert
`
`does not give the argument enhanced probative value.
`
`As examples of this, if we turn to slide 42, slide 42 puts
`
`these side by side so you can see the comparison. This is one of
`
`the comparisons we identified in that previous -- in our reply.
`
`You know, paragraph 42 on the left-hand side of slide 42, you
`
`have excerpts from Dr. Akl's declaration. On the right-hand side
`
`you have the Patent Owner's response, exactly the same, that first
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`paragraph exactly.
`
`11
`
`The next paragraph, the only thing that changes, I take
`
`12
`
`no position versus Securus takes no position and so on. You can
`
`13
`
`see the highlights in red. It just -- and so when you combine that
`
`14
`
`with the fact that he has no experience in discount phone rates,
`
`15
`
`prisons, the inmate reward programs and it's exactly the same. It
`
`16
`
`really calls into question what information he's actually providing
`
`17
`
`and what expertise he offers to this proceeding.
`
`18
`
`And, lastly, the PTAB has already discredited Dr. Akl's
`
`19
`
`testimony in another matter that further goes to his credibility, a
`
`20
`
`matter that I believe, Your Honor, Judge Turner, was one of the
`
`21
`
`judges on. This is IPR2015-00153. This was an institution
`
`22
`
`decision also related to prison phone technology where the Board
`
`23
`
`indicated in that case, they gave little or no weight to Dr. Akl's
`
`24
`
`testimony. He neither explains his criteria that he applied in
`
`25
`
`making hi