throbber
trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-00314, Paper No. 38
`IPR2015-00315, Paper No. 40
`IPR2015-00316, Paper No. 38
`IPR2015-00531, Paper No. 38
`June 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`QUALCOMM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`BANDSPEED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316
`Patent 7,447,624 B2
`Case IPR2015-00531
`Patent 8,542,643 B2
`Technology Center 2600
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, May 26, 2016
`
`
`Before: BART A. GERSTENBLITH; DAVID C. McKONE
`(via video link); and PATRICK M. BOUCHER (via video link),
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`May 26, 2016, at 1:07 p.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`

`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GREGORY DONAHUE, ESQ.
`ADAM G. PRICE, ESQ.
`DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP
`7000 North MoPac Expressway
`Suite 350
`Austin, Texas 78731
`512-709-9243
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NATHAN REES, ESQ.
`Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue
`Suite 3600
`Dallas, Texas 75201-7932
`214-855-8000
`
`RICHARD S. ZEMBEK, ESQ.
`DANIEL SCOTT LEVENTHAL, ESQ.
`Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`Fulbright Tower
`1301 McKinney
`Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77010-3095
`713-651-5151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:07 p.m.)
`JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Please be seated. Good
`afternoon, everyone. We are here for an oral hearing in four
`related cases, IPR2015-00314, IPR2015-00315,
`IPR2015- 00316 and IPR2015-00531, Qualcomm, Incorporated
`vs. Bandspeed, Incorporated.
`I'm Judge Gerstenblith. To my left on the screen
`are Judges Boucher on the far left and McKone on the right.
`Judges McKone and Boucher are appearing remotely from
`Detroit and Denver, respectively.
`Because of limitations on the capabilities of our
`microphones, unless you are standing and speaking from the
`center podium, the Judges that are appearing remotely here
`will not be able to hear you very clearly. So we ask that when
`you are speaking and addressing the Board to please come up
`to the podium.
`Let's have each side enter their appearance. We
`will start with Petitioner. Please step up. Thank you. Sorry.
`I know it's a bit of an inconvenience. I'll remind you along
`the way.
`
`MR. REES: I am Nate Rees, representative for
`Petitioner, Qualcomm, Incorporated.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Thank you. And do
`you have anybody else with you? Feel free to introduce
`anybody with you.
`MR. REES: With me is Richard Zembek, backup
`counsel, and Daniel Leventhal who is also backup counsel.
`And for reference, this is Hao Wu. He is a summer associate
`with our firm.
`JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Excellent. Thank you
`very much. And for Patent Owner?
`MR. DONAHUE: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`My name is Greg Donahue. I am the lead counsel for
`Bandspeed in this matter. And with me is Adam Price, who is
`backup counsel.
`JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Excellent. Thank you
`very much.
`Welcome to the PTAB. It is good to have you
`here. If anybody brought along paper copies of their
`demonstratives, you can feel free to hand me a copy. I have
`your electronic versions so it is not required, and Judges
`McKone and Boucher have your electronic versions as well.
`Does anyone want to hand one up? Thank you
`very much.
`We set forth the procedure for today's hearing in
`the trial order, but just to remind everyone how it is going 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
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`work, each side will have 75 minutes to present their
`argument.
`We will first hear from Petitioner with respect to
`their case. Petitioner may reserve time for rebuttal. Then we
`will hear from Patent Owner. And then, to the extent
`Petitioner has reserved time for rebuttal, we will hear
`Petitioner's rebuttal.
`Because there are no motions in this case, Patent
`Owner does not have a rebuttal. They just have one time
`period to present their arguments.
`Additionally, what I see and what you all present
`on the screen here is not visible to Judges McKone and
`Boucher, but because they have your demonstratives, we ask
`that you please call out the slide numbers, both for their
`benefit and for the trial transcript.
`It is hard to remember that, too. I will try to
`remind you along the way, but I'm sure Judges Boucher and
`McKone will also chime in if it seems a little bit confusing
`where you are.
`But please try to say, you know, as we turn to
`slide 3, or something to that effect, or, for example, if you are
`looking at a figure from one of the patents, just call out the
`figure and the patent or reference name.
`I anticipate given the amount of time that we have
`for argument that we will be taking about a 10- minute recess.
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`Depending on how much time Petitioner decides to use in the
`opening arguments, my expectation is that we will take that
`recess after Petitioner finishes their opening and before Patent
`Owner begins its rebuttal case.
`Are there any questions on how we will proceed?
`Okay. With that, Mr. Rees, you have the floor.
`MR. REES: Thank you, Your Honor, and I would
`like to reserve 25 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay.
`MR. REES: May it please the Court. Again, my
`name is Nate Rees. I represent Qualcomm, Petitioner in this
`case.
`
`Before us are four IPRs. The 531 IPR is directed
`to the '643 patent. The 314, 15 and 16 IPRs are directed to
`the '624 patent.
`Now, while their records are relatively
`voluminous, the issues are actually fairly narrow for this case.
`For example, in the 531 IPR there are no claim construction
`issues that are presently contested. There are really only two
`independent claim limitations to discuss and two dependent
`claim limitations.
`For the 314 through 16 IPRs, four out of the seven
`claims have been admitted as being anticipated by the Gerten
`reference. There is one small claim construction issue, one
`independent claim limitation, and all of the claims have been
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`argued together, all of the independent claims have been
`argued together across the cases.
`There is two dependent claim limitations on one
`ground, and only one on another ground.
`MR. ZEMBEK: Your Honor, would you like to
`start the clock or can we have the clock started, please? Sorry
`to interrupt.
`JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: No problem. I can
`certainly try to do this. I will warn you, I haven't done this
`before, but I will give a reminder about 5 or 10 minutes
`before the end of the 50 minutes.
`MR. ZEMBEK: That's fine. Thank you. I just
`wanted to be sure we were on the clock as I am sure Patent
`Owners does.
`JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: No problem. Thank
`you for asking.
`MR. REES: Turning to slide 3, there are four
`grounds of rejection in the 531 case. Grounds 1 and 2 utilize
`Haartsen as a primary reference. Grounds 3 and 4 utilize
`Gerten as a primary reference. And grounds 2 and 4 include
`Dicker to fill in for some of the dependent claim limitations.
`Again, independent claim 1 is the only
`independent claim we will address, as Patent Owner has done
`as well, the arguments for claim 1 apply across the claim set.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`Turning to slide 4, as I stated, there are no claim
`construction terms being argued after the preliminary
`Institution Decision. This has been shown in the papers.
`Now, slides 5 through 10 -- I'm not going to read
`over these, we'll just skip over them -- but slides 5 through
`10, we recognize that we have the burden of proof. And while
`we are only discussing a few limitations at this hearing, I
`have provided for the PTAB's reference where in each of the
`papers each of the claim limitations have been discussed.
`If we turn to slide 11, please. By way of
`background, before we get into the grounds, I think a quick
`intro on what the '643 patent is about is useful.
`The '643 patent, the intent of the patent is to
`improve on existing Bluetooth communications. Bluetooth
`utilizes hopping sequences where a master and a slave will
`hop along a sequence of channels in order to communicate.
`Adaptive hopping, or sometimes we will refer to it
`as AFH, an adaptive hopping sequence, utilizes what
`Bluetooth does. As it hops through the channels it will check
`to see if there are channels with errors.
`If there are channels with excessive noise or any
`other reason that the channel should not be used, an adaptive
`hopping sequence can take out those channels and define the
`channel set to 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`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
`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`Like the '643 patent, the Haartsen reference
`teaches an improvement of Bluetooth by improving, by
`utilizing an adaptive hopping sequence. Shown here on the
`slide is claim 1. There are two issues to discuss. Claim 1
`requires loading a set of default channels into a default
`register and loading a set of good channels into a good
`channel register. And then the claim provides for replacing a
`bad channel stored in the default register with a good channel
`stored in the good channel register.
`If we turn to slide 12, like I said before, the
`Haartsen reference is an improvement on Bluetooth frequency
`hopping that provides for adaptive hopping sequence.
`Haartsen teaches a post-processing operation. And the
`post-processing operation is the mechanism that goes and
`measures the channels and makes the replacement.
`Haartsen teaches that channels are set in default
`registers as noted in the Institution Decision. The N1 register
`of Haartsen is a default channel register and the N2 register is
`the good channel register. And Haartsen discloses storing
`these channel sets in computer addressable medium.
`The question is, and actually the experts agree,
`would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to utilize
`registers instead of -- as a computer addressable medium. Let
`me clarify what the experts agree on. The experts agree that
`registers were known to be quicker. And we say that, I mean,
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`Dr. Ding has stated that the reason why one of skill in the art
`would find it obvious is because registers are well known.
`They provide well known benefits. Dr. Melendez has also
`been on record saying registers are quicker.
`So the question of would one of ordinary skill in
`the art find it obvious to utilize registers in view of the
`Haartsen reference is before us.
`If we turn to slide 13, what I have here
`side-by-side is the Haartsen figure with the standard
`Bluetooth specification. This Haartsen figure notes that the
`dotted line is the original hopping scheme. Now, the original
`hopping scheme refers to the default Bluetooth. All right.
`If we look at the Bluetooth specification, the
`Bluetooth specification states that a kernel addresses a
`register containing hop frequencies. So --
`JUDGE McKONE: Before you go any further here,
`before you go any further, is it your argument now that
`Haartsen because it discusses Bluetooth is actually disclosing
`registers as the Bluetooth specification discloses? Is that
`what your argument is?
`MR. REES: No, no, no. What our argument was
`and still is today, in the petition we stated that the use of
`registers, the Haartsen teaching of addressable
`computer-readable storage medium, would render the use of
`registers obvious. In the response, Bandspeed argued that,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`well, registers aren't obvious. Registers give you certain
`advantages.
`And in reply we stated, well, registers, not only
`are they obvious, they are the thing that everybody uses. So
`now the rejection is computer -- or, sorry, the ground, the
`asserted ground is whether computer-addressable medium
`renders the use of registers obvious.
`JUDGE McKONE: But it looked like the evidence
`that you were using to show that registers were well known is
`the Bluetooth specification. Is that right?
`MR. REES: Among other things. I mean, the
`testimony of Dr. Ding originally utilized -- Bluetooth has
`always been of evidence. We are not using it as a ground of
`rejection, though.
`JUDGE McKONE: But where was the Bluetooth
`specification referenced in the petition?
`MR. REES: You know, where we stated that
`registers were used is the petition at 16, but I believe that it
`was Dr. Ding that discussed the Bluetooth specification. I
`don't know that that was part of the IPR petition.
`JUDGE McKONE: It seems like the reply relied
`pretty heavily on the disclosure of the Bluetooth specification.
`And I'm concerned that that is a new argument that would be
`improper in the reply.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`Why should we even consider the arguments as to
`the Bluetooth specification?
`MR. REES: Well, I don't think it is necessary to
`consider it. First of all, you know, obviously they come back
`and say one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand
`that registers were an obvious choice. I think it is proper in
`the scope of a reply to state, well, yes, as we stated, it would
`be an obvious choice. Computer-addressable medium --
`registers are computer-addressable medium and, oh, by the
`way, this is what we're dealing with. We're dealing with
`Bluetooth.
`I think that's within a proper scope of a reply. It
`is not a new argument asserting a new ground of rejection.
`But, like I said, I don't believe it is necessary to consider the
`Bluetooth reference at all.
`Does that answer your question?
`JUDGE McKONE: I understand your position.
`Thank you.
`MR. REES: Thank you. Now, turning to slide 15,
`the second issue is the claims require that when a bad channel
`is addressed in a default register that we replace the bad
`channel with a good channel that's chosen from a good
`channel register.
`What we have here is a teaching of Haartsen that
`was relied on in the petition that states: In one embodiment,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`the set of allowable hop channels -- right, so these are the
`good channels -- are stored in computer-addressable medium.
`Whenever a preset phase -- so this is the phase in a
`hopping sequence going through the default register --
`whenever a preset phase is associated with a forbidden hop --
`so a bad channel -- an index to the table of allowable hop
`channels is generated.
`If we skip to the bottom highlight: The generated
`index is used to address an entry in the table 801, the good
`channel register, and retrieve a substitution hop channel.
`So this right here is a teaching of a good channel
`register. When we address a bad channel we are substituting
`the bad channel with the good channel from the good channel
`register.
`
`Turning to slide 16, in ground 2 there are a couple
`dependent claims at issue. The first one --
`JUDGE McKONE: Before we move on to that,
`what construction of register are you operating under? I know
`you proposed one construction in your petition. We gave a
`preliminary construction in our Institution Decision. And
`Patent Owner proposed something different. Yet you say
`there is no dispute as to the meaning of register.
`Can you tell me what construction you are
`operating under right now?
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`MR. REES: We are operating under the PTAB's
`construction. I don't believe, I mean, there was no response
`in the Patent Owner's response that had a specific new
`construction that was different than the PTAB's construction
`of register. We didn't feel the need to reply to any
`construction. What we were saying is that, I mean, a register
`is a well known memory in computer architecture. It is a
`fundamental building block in computer architecture.
`JUDGE McKONE: Now, you also mentioned in
`your reply that the parties had reached an agreement as to the
`construction of register in District Court. Is that the case?
`MR. REES: I am not in the District Court
`litigation.
`MR. ZEMBEK: Your Honor -- Richard Zembek --
`I don't believe it is a disputed term. I don't -- I apologize, I
`don't recall the construction that was entered in the District
`Court and I don't believe that that construction would result in
`a different analysis of the issues being presented.
`We are happy to supplement the record with an
`e-mail to the Board if you would like that presents the
`agreed-to constructions from the District Court litigation
`immediately after the hearing, if that would be of use.
`JUDGE McKONE: We have Exhibit 1013 that has
`been introduced into the record. And that looks to be,
`although we don't have the cover sheet for that, it is Exhibit
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`A, which I believe the reply says it is the agreed construction.
`And that has the construction of register to be an area of
`memory having a set of addressable slots.
`Is that the parties' agreed construction in District
`Court or not?
`MR. ZEMBEK: Yes, Your Honor. It is from our
`joint submission.
`MR. PRICE: Good afternoon. Adam Price for the
`Patent Owner. It was agreed but it was borne out of an earlier
`claim construction that the court assembled in a prior case
`that Bandspeed had against another Defendant. So when we
`filed this litigation and went to Markm an, we agreed to adopt
`what the court had previously done.
`So, yes, we did agree to it in this round but it
`seemed like it would be futile to dispute it a second time to
`the court.
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Okay. I will address that with
`you more completely during your time.
`Mr. Rees, is that construction, the agreed
`construction in the District Court, incorrect? It seems broader
`than the construction that we gave and that the parties
`proposed in this matter.
`Was the District Court construction unreasonably
`
`broad?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`MR. REES: Certainly I don't think it was
`unreasonably broad. I mean, they are actually construing
`under a narrower standard in the District Court. Really when
`it comes down to it, I don't think that the construction of
`register is really dispositive in this case. I mean, a register,
`as I said, is a very well known component in computer
`architecture.
`And whether -- and a register, as Dr. Ding states, a
`computer-addressable media is a register, right, includes a
`register. A register is, in fact, a computer-addressable media.
`So one of skill in the art reading the disclosure of Haartsen
`would understand that that could be a register and would find
`that to be an obvious design choice.
`I would also note in our -- in the alternative
`grounds it explicitly teaches registers, so in the grounds
`relying on Gerten as the primary reference, in grounds 3 and
`4.
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Okay.
`MR. REES: All right. I will continue. So slide
`16, I said there were two dependent claims at issue in this
`ground. Claim 4 requires removing a particularly good
`channel from a good channel register based at least in part on
`a good channel usage timeout. Claim 5 is rescanning default
`channels based at least in part on the number of good
`channels.
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`Turning to slide 17, there is very little teaching in
`the '643 patent about what a good channel usage timeout is.
`But one example states that in some embodiments a good
`channel usage timeout may be helpful. Because interference
`changes over time, communication systems stop and start and
`changes in location occur, it is useful to periodically change
`the set of channels being used.
`If we go to slide 18, the Dicker reference has a
`very similar teaching. The Dicker reference utilizes two
`different error counters. There is a short-term error counter,
`that if a certain number of errors happens on a channel, it will
`swap a channel. Then there is the long-term error counter.
`And what Dicker does is they have a five-second
`slot, that once we go over this five-second slot, which is the
`good channel usage time slot, it will go into a, I believe it was
`called a rescanning phase, and where a blocked subset may be
`substituted for an unblocked subset based on the long-term
`error counter. So this is a substitution of a channel that is
`done, based at least in part, on the good channel usage
`timeout.
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Okay. For my own
`clarification here, since there is a one-second timer and a
`five-second timer, the good channel usage timeout value is the
`five-second timer?
`MR. REES: Yes, that's what we have asserted.
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. REES: And then this is consistent, if we look
`at slide 19, it is also consistent with what the priority
`document, the '594 provisional stated. The '594 provisional
`just talks about a clear channel usage timeout. And then the
`clear channel, after a timeout, the system scans a frequency
`band and can replace channels.
`JUDGE McKONE: Is this an argument you made
`in the petition?
`MR. REES: This was in the reply. The reference
`to the priority document, as they came back and argued that a
`good channel usage timeout is not necessarily a periodic
`timeout, we pointed out that, I think, based on the
`specification and its priority document, it looks like a
`periodic timeout should be able to apply to this claim
`limitation.
`Turning to slide 20, we are going to claim 5.
`Remember, claim 5 rescans based on the number of good
`channels. What I would like to do here -- and this is in our
`reply, too -- is focus on what the actual grounds of rejection
`are because Bandspeed has been trying to argue -- has been
`arguing the references separately on this.
`Haartsen is relied on as teaching rescanning sets
`of channels. The Haartsen reference teaches that forbidden
`channels and allowed channels can be changed dynamically
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`and there is going to be reasons why you need to rescan the
`channels.
`
`Now what is utilized on slide 21, in the Dicker
`reference, Dicker teaches the specific trigger, rescanning
`based at least in part on the good -- on the number of good
`channels. And what we noted in the petition is that Gerten
`utilizes an ISM band. There is a requirement that Gerten
`separates out its channels into 12 segments. And 10 segments
`must always be used based on the requirements of the ISM
`band.
`
`So if the number of good channels in a use
`segment starts falling below, the Dicker reference can't just
`stop using those channels. They have to, based on the number
`of good channels, substitute in a segment in order to keep to
`that 10. Sorry, I skipped into slide 22 without announcing it.
`Again, as Dicker stated, if the error rate is high we
`rescan the channels. The rescan is based on the number of
`good channels because we have to have that. And as Dr. Ding
`pointed out, Bluetooth communications have a similar
`requirement, right, there always has to be 75 of the 79
`channels working. So if we have channels drop below, one of
`skill in the art would find it obvious in view of the teachings
`of Dicker.
`
`JUDGE McKONE: I'm sorry, which counter was
`triggering Dicker's rescan, to make sure I understand you?
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`MR. REES: Sorry, on this one it would be the
`short- term error counter. If the short-term error counter notes
`that -- well, actually it probably could be both. But we relied
`on the short-term error counter. If the short -term error
`counter shows that there is too many errors and a segment of
`good channels needs to be substituted out, because the number
`of good channels has to be a specific number, it will
`substitute the segment based on the number of good channels,
`as a short-term.
`JUDGE McKONE: Are you saying that Dicker
`does a rescan as part of that process?
`MR. REES: Sorry, sorry, no, Dicker rescans on
`the long-term error counter. On the short-term error counter,
`that's a constant scan of the active channels. The long-term
`error counter does a constant scan on all of the channels.
`And, in fact, Bandspeed has argued that only the
`subset of active channels are scanned, but there is -- the
`long- term error counter does scan constantly both the active
`and the inactive. That is one reason why they are able to
`substitute out for the unused subset and without having to
`rescan first.
`JUDGE McKONE: Well, I thought what Dicker
`disclosed as far as the channels that weren't being used, is it
`just essentially deprecates the number of error count that it is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`assumed to have rather than rescanning those channels
`themselves. Am I incorrect?
`MR. REES: Dicker teaches that the error counter
`is -- the error counter is tracking the unused channels, to my
`knowledge. I would have to refresh my memory.
`JUDGE McKONE: Could you show me where that
`is disclosed?
`MR. REES: We are talking about Dicker column
`
`5.
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Because what I was referring
`to is in column 5 starting at about line 22 or 23: In this
`scheme, every five seconds the error count for each of the
`blocked subsets is reduced by 2.5 percent.
`And I took this to mean that this was, instead of
`doing a rescan, is if we assume that the error goes down a
`little bit on the blocked channels, rather than having to rescan
`that.
`
`But if you can show me where it shows actually
`rescanning the blocked channels, that would be helpful.
`MR. REES: What I was looking at is in column 5
`Dicker states: Or, in a five second -- so this is starting at line
`20 -- a five second period of any long- term error counter for
`an active subset has a count greater than the count of one of
`the blocked subsets, we're changing out.
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`Yeah, okay. Now, that's where you are quoting:
`Every five seconds the error count in the blocked subsets is
`reduced by 2.5. This reduction is repeated up to six times
`until the error count is equal to 85 percent.
`I guess, can you give me your question again? I
`just want to make sure I'm addressing your question.
`JUDGE McKONE: The way that the Patent Owner
`reads it, and I think it is a reasonable reading, is that the
`blocked subset, they are not rescanned. Rather, we assume
`that whatever the last scan of that blocked subset the error
`count was, we're just going to reduce that by 2.5 percent, so
`I'm going to get better without having to rescan it. Why is
`that an improper reading?
`MR. REES: I think that, well, maybe not
`necessarily an improper reading of the reference, it is, first of
`all, it is Haartsen that's relied on for rescanning the channels.
`Haartsen does rescan all of the channels to change out what is
`in the forbidden channel or the allowed channel registers.
`The Gerten reference is the one that gives us that
`trigger based on the number of timeouts. Further -- sorry,
`Dicker says that.
`JUDGE McKONE: The reason why I was asking
`you to show me where the rescan was, and I was looking at
`your slide 22, and here you are saying that Dicker rescans the
`channels.
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`MR. REES: Right.
`JUDGE McKONE: So I'm confused. Now you're
`saying it's Haartsen actually instead of Dicker?
`MR. REES: Sorry, I apologize, I meant to say
`Dicker gives us the trigger based on a good channel timeout.
`That's probably just a miswording on the slide. We're
`utilizing Dicker as the trigger of changing out a set based on
`the number of good channels. The channel rescan, in the
`original grounds of rejection we've always utilized Haartsen
`as teaching the rescan.
`I would further note, though, that nothing in the
`claim requires that the rescan has to be done all at once.
`Nothing requires that, you know, so as Dicker is swapping out
`channels when it hits an inactive channel into an active
`subset, those channels will then be scanned. So as the process
`of Dicker goes forward, all of the channels are, in fact,
`scanned.
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Is that an argument you made
`in the petition, that a rescan can span multiple type and events
`--
`
`MR. REES: No, no, we utilized Haartsen -- I
`apologize. We utilized Haartsen for the rescan. We did not
`utilize Dicker.
`JUDGE McKONE: Okay.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`
`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
`
`Case IPR2015-00314, 00315, 00316 (Patent 7,447,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00531 (Patent No. 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`MR. REES: Moving on, ground 3, ground 3
`utilizes -- oh, sorry, if we look at slide 23 real quick, we have
`provided Dr. Ding saying why one of ordinary skill in the art
`would combine Haartsen in view of Dicker.
`In Patent Owner's response they stated that that
`would change

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket