IPR2015-00740, Paper No. 60
`June 23, 2016
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WHATSAPP INC. and FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.,
` Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`____________
`
`Held: May 19, 2016
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: BENJAMIN D.M. WOOD, BRIAN J. McNAMARA,
`and FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, May
`19, 2016, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`June 23, 2016
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WHATSAPP INC. and FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.,
` Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`____________
`
`Held: May 19, 2016
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: BENJAMIN D.M. WOOD, BRIAN J. McNAMARA,
`and FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, May
`19, 2016, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HEIDI KEEFE, ESQUIRE
`Cooley, LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DOUGLAS R. WEIDER, ESQUIRE
`JAMIE RYERSON, ESQUIRE
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`500 Campus Drive
`Suite 400
`Florham Park, New Jersey 07932-0677
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: Good afternoon. This is the oral
`hearing in the case IPR2015-00740. This proceeding involves
`U.S. patent number 8,332,475. I'm Judge Ippolito. Participating
`with us today are Judges Wood and McNamara. As you can tell,
`some of us are participating remotely. So I would remind the
`parties to speak from the microphone at the podium to be sure
`that the remote judges can hear you and also to identify by slide
`number any demonstratives you are referring to. Could I please
`have, beginning with the petitioner, the parties introduce
`themselves.
`MS. KEEFE: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Heidi
`Keefe on behalf of WhatsApp and Facebook. And with me at
`counsel table is Yeong Leung (phonetic).
`MR. WEIDER: Doug Weider on behalf of the patent
`owner, and with me is Jamie Ryerson as well as I also have Steve
`Peterson from Triplay here.
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: Thank you. And as a minor
`housekeeping issue, it is our understanding that lead counsel for
`the patent owner is unable to attend the oral hearing due to travel
`arrangements abroad. That being the case, we permitted
`Mr. Weider to present at the oral hearing on the condition that
`patent owner is further represented by a registered practitioner.
`Can I confirm that that is the case today?
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`
`MR. WEIDER: Yes, it is. Mr. Ryerson is a registered
`patent attorney.
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: Thank you all and welcome to the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board. We will begin today with the
`petitioner, who will present its case regarding the challenged
`claims and grounds on which we've instituted trial. And then the
`patent owner will have an opportunity to respond to petitioner's
`argument. The petitioner is entitled to reserve some time to rebut
`the arguments presented by the patent owner. Is everyone ready
`today to begin?
`MS. KEEFE: Yes, Your Honors.
`MR. WEIDER: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: Let's do so.
`MS. KEEFE: Thank you very much, Your Honors. I
`was actually going to request reserving approximately
`20 minutes. That doesn't mean that I'll take the whole 25 if I
`don't need it.
`So with that said, the '475 patent which is at issue in this
`case is entitled the messaging -- a messaging system and method.
`Essentially the '475 patent deals with the notion that we need to
`have interoperability between devices so that messages sent from
`one device to the another can be easily read in a faster, more
`efficient manner even when the devices on two ends of a
`communication stream are different.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`
`We think back in the original days of messaging, it was
`pretty easy that there was a desktop computer with a square
`monitor on the sending end and there was a desktop computer
`with a square monitor on the receiving end. That didn't present
`too many problems because the monitors on both sides were the
`same and typically the information being sent was of the same
`caliber, the same type of information.
`However, as technology grew, there were more and
`more devices that were different in terms of the formats that they
`could receive, in terms of the networks they were connected to
`and even in terms of the size of the monitors themselves. So you
`would have messages being sent from a desktop computer with a
`square monitor to something more akin to a small handheld
`device like an iPhone or and Android phone. There became a
`need, therefore, to try to make it so that the message being sent
`looked as close as possible to the message being received even
`though the devices were completely different.
`The '475 was an essentially a subscription service
`whose registered users would register the specifications of their
`devices ahead of time so that a central server could alter the
`message to be optimized for the receiving device if needed. This
`is in Exhibit 1001 at column 16, lines 40 through 17, line 20, and
`embodied in Figure 6.
`The patent owner himself acknowledged that the idea of
`assisting with interoperability among devices was not new and it
`
` 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 IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`spent four columns of the patent, 1 through 4 of Exhibit 1001,
`talking about other options to accomplish interoperability or other
`options to accomplish changing the message so that it looked
`better on the receiving end.
`Despite acknowledging that this was a crowded field,
`though, in the patent itself, the entire specification of the '475
`demands breadth in all interpretations. It refuses to be limited to
`any particular embodiment. In fact, column 9, lines 44
`through 46 specifically says, quote, However, it will be
`understood by those skilled in the art that the present invention
`may be practiced without these specific details. In other
`instances, well-known methods, procedures, components and
`circuits have not been described in detail so as not to obscure the
`present invention.
`And then throughout columns 10 and 11 when defining
`terms for use with the patent, the patent owner continuously says
`that all terms shall be given the most expansive construction. For
`example, column 10, line 27, the term "communication device"
`used in this patent specification should be expansively construed
`to include any kind of customer premises equipment. The same
`is true for "message" being any type of message and broadly
`construed. The same is true for "message template," that it can,
`in fact, include any kind of predefined user interface.
`It's no surprise, then, that there is prior art that
`invalidates this patent. The main reference in our petition and for
`
` 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 IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`which this proceeding was granted is the Coulombe reference.
`And I guarantee I'm saying that wrong, but that's how I learned it.
`The Coulombe reference which is, in fact, an application filed
`May 31, 2002, and published December 25, 2003, therefore,
`qualifying as 102(b) art since the earliest filing date for the '475 is
`December 13, 2005, some two years after publication of
`Coulombe at Exhibit 1003.
`Coulombe is a system for adaptation of SIP messages
`which is a session, kind of the beginning of a session of
`communications. This is a message that sort of starts the
`communication protocol between the message sender and the
`message receiver. So the SIP message is a message that says it
`can and often does, everyone agrees, can and have HTML content
`included with it, can have text, can be rich messages, in fact, even
`including media.
`But what's important about that message is that it also
`includes information to kind of tease out how are we going to
`communicate from now on. The whole point of Coulombe was to
`say we want to make sure that when messages are going back and
`forth between A and B, they are getting the right information
`format at the receiving end so that it looks as close to the original
`as possible. And the way they do that is to have, just like the
`patent, a central server that has preregistered users telling the
`system what type of device they have on their end and what
`specifications they are so that when a message comes in to them,
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`the system can modify the message to look the way that it should.
`That's in paragraph 2 and paragraph 7 of Exhibit 1003.
`This afternoon I would like to focus on claims 1 and 6
`of the '475 patent because the parties have agreed that those are
`good representative claims. For claim 1, I'll start there, claim 1,
`even the patent owner's own expert, Dr. Surati, only quibbles with
`one of the elements of claim 1 not being taught by Coulombe and
`in fact, concedes that everything else is taught. In his deposition
`exhibit 1014 at page 18, which is the deposition page 70, lines 1
`through 20, we see that he admits that this is, in fact, there's only
`one element that he takes exception with, and that element is
`whether or not a selection is being made.
`So the only dispute for claim 1 is whether or not
`Coulombe teaches selecting a format and/or layout before
`transmission. So this is in the second element of the claim. The
`claim has A which says receive a message that you are going to
`look at and see what kind of layout it has and what kind of
`format. B says once you have done that, you are going to select a
`layout to apply to that information; and then C says and what you
`should be doing is choosing among these three things to modify
`your message either what can the receiving end do in terms of
`data, what can it do in terms of layout or what can it do in terms
`of the network.
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: Counsel, let me stop you there.
`Since we are talking about the media block in claim 1, and maybe
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`it can be a representative term for all of the other block terms,
`what is your position on Williamson's impact on claim
`construction of these block terms, if I can call them together as
`block terms?
`MS. KEEFE: I think it's fine to call them together as
`block terms. The parties in this case have stipulated that the
`broadest reasonable construction for purposes of this proceeding
`is, in fact, the software and/or hardware that performs those
`functions. So it performs the selecting function or the media
`function. So for the purpose of this proceeding so that we may
`most efficiently deal with all of the claims so that they rise and
`fall together, the parties have stipulated that, in fact, means plus
`function does not apply.
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: So let me ask, then, what is the
`structure in the claim language then that is, let's say the media
`block, where is the structure recited in the claim language?
`MS. KEEFE: So the claim language itself calls for a
`media block. And a block, using its broadest interpretation as
`stipulated by the parties for the purpose of this proceeding, is that
`it is software and/or hardware to accomplish the function of what
`the media block then needs to do. So it is the software and/or
`hardware in combination that does such. In fact, we've
`demonstrated in our petition that all of the pieces of prior art that
`we have at issue specifically call out both software and/or
`hardware for performing things like receiving the media and
`
` 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 IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`figuring out what's going to happen, selecting what's going to be
`used and transmitting as well.
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: And what is -- I guess in the
`specification can you point to somewhere that discusses what
`type of hardware or software you are referring to?
`MS. KEEFE: So for example, throughout columns 9
`and 10 of the '475 patent, the patent owner says that it is, in fact,
`using off-the-shelf hardware as its devices, CDs, CD ROMs, all
`throughout the bottom of column 9 up into column 10 and
`specifically talks about the fact that those would be programmed
`as one of ordinary skill in the art in order to accomplish the
`features of the rest of the patent.
`So for the purposes of this proceeding, the parties
`stipulated that, in fact, could be read as its broadest reasonable
`interpretation to include that hardware and software. Again, it's
`for efficiency as well to make sure that these claims can be
`determined together, rising and falling based on the prior art that's
`at issue here because otherwise we would have a situation where
`some claims, because they didn't use the word "block," would be
`before the Court here and other claims would not and would have
`to simply be sent back down to the District Court. So because of
`the stipulation, I think that the structure is, in fact, the block. The
`block refers back to the fact that there's hardware and/or software
`throughout columns 9 and 10 as well as, for example, columns 11
`and 12. We think there's enough for this proceeding.
`
`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
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: You mentioned the District Court
`proceeding. Has this issue come up in that court as well?
`MS. KEEFE: I don't represent the defendants in that
`proceeding. I understand, though, from the deposition taken of
`Mr. Surati that this issue has come up in some form because there
`was a discussion with Mr. Surati about whether or not Mr. Surati
`had an opinion in this case about what would happen if the claims
`were deemed to be means plus function. And he specifically said
`he did not in this case, but he did have an opinion in the District
`Court case. No one got into what that was or how it applied, but
`apparently at least some part of the issue has come up. I don't
`know exactly what the stage of that case is, though. I know
`there's a 101 motion and I know the case is going more slowly
`than they thought. That's all I know.
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: As another question, I know that
`you have mentioned the parties have stipulated to a particular
`claim construction, but as you are aware, the Board is not -- that
`is not a controlling claim construction on the Board's review of
`this proceeding. So in the event that we do find that the
`presumption is overcome and these block terms are means plus
`function limitations, how does that impact your position on your
`grounds?
`MS. KEEFE: I think it's complicated, Your Honor, in
`the sense that we put in our petition saying that they were, in fact,
`at their broadest reasonable construction, the software and/or
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`hardware that perform the functions. And patent owner stipulated
`to that. You asked us actually before the first telephone
`conference to decide that issue, and we worked it out amongst
`ourselves.
`If at this point the Board were to find differently, if the
`Board were to find, for example, that they were, in fact, means
`plus function claims, no one has put forward a proposal of what
`the structure would be based solely on those means or what the
`algorithm would be. That's why we actually asked the expert for
`patent owner whether or not there was an opinion in his
`declaration regarding what that definition would be. There
`actually is none in the record. So there would be none.
`If Your Honors, on the other hand, took it upon
`yourselves just as an issue of law to apply a definition that had
`never come up, it could be challenging because I think since there
`is no algorithm and none is put forward by patent owner, you
`would have to find those claims impossible to define and
`therefore, send it back in terms of the fact that you couldn't read
`the claims.
`And that's been done by many boards at the PTAB
`before where they find that it's means plus function but they don't
`know whether there's an algorithm and they say that therefore,
`they cannot apply because it's not indefinite per se, because that's
`not in your purview for this proceeding, but that it's something
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`that since there is no definition you can apply, you have to send it
`back down. Did I answer your question?
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: Yes, you did. And I also have a
`general question about, so we were talking about access block
`and media block, but you mentioned claim 6 which just recites
`block. And for that one, can you please discuss more, if you have
`any differences in argument about the structure for that as well.
`MS. KEEFE: So I think in claim 6 it describes a media
`block. Again, not just a block per se. So the same exact rationale
`would apply. So claim 6 calls for --
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: You are right. I misspoke. I
`meant claim 9.
`MS. KEEFE: Okay. So claim 9 talks about the block
`configured to obtain the message having the layout based on the
`template. Is that the one that Your Honor is referring to?
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: Correct.
`MS. KEEFE: I think in that case while I agree it seems
`like it may be a bit more amorphous, again, for the purpose of this
`proceeding, we are saying that it would equate to the software
`and/or hardware that would obtain the message. So it's
`essentially the same as the media block that brings the message
`in, in order to determine what to do with it. And read in context
`of the entire patent, I think that's the fairest reading of which
`block it is.
`JUDGE IPPOLITO: Thank you.
`
`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
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`
`MS. KEEFE: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Counsel, as a point of
`clarification, I think I heard you say that at the initial conference
`we asked you to work it out.
`MS. KEEFE: I apologize. I think you simply asked us
`to be prepared to discuss it. And we chose to take it upon
`ourselves to --
`JUDGE McNAMARA: I'll read you exactly what we
`asked. We said during the conference, the parties advised us that
`they had conferred and were prepared to stipulate that the claims
`do not recite the means plus function limitations. Noting that we
`may not agree with their conclusions, we asked the parties to
`address the constructions and the impact of Williamson in the
`patent owner response and the petitioner reply.
`MS. KEEFE: Understood, Your Honor.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: I recall seeing a footnote
`somewhere saying that we've stipulated. Is that issue addressed
`anywhere in the pleadings of either side?
`MS. KEEFE: Other than the footnote, no, Your Honor.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Thank you.
`MS. KEEFE: With respect to the only place within the
`claims where there seems to be a disagreement, it all revolves
`around the word "select" and what it means to select.
`The patent owner, let's not forget, absolutely asked for
`his patent not to be limited to any one or particular embodiment
`
` 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 IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`or to give any narrow interpretations and instead to give the
`broadest possible interpretations. Here the specification is
`absolutely clear that information which is used to make
`adaptation decisions or delivery decisions necessarily includes
`nonfixed information.
`Patent owner would have this Board construe the term
`"select" to mean choose from among a fixed set of alternatives.
`But the specification is absolutely clear that that is not what the
`patent owner intended his invention to cover. Instead, the Board
`looks on column 16, starting at the bottom of column 16 in
`Exhibit 1001 at line 65, the delivery instructions. In other words,
`how you are going to send the information to the person who is
`receiving it. The delivery instructions or parts thereof may be
`received with the message, e.g., contained in the metadata,
`extracted and provided accordingly and/or may be predefined in
`the system, e.g., in the form of a lookup table providing matching
`between the originating device and the destination device.
`Patent owner says they only ever intended to claim the
`second option here, which is the lookup table and therefore, select
`has to mean predetermined grouping. But that's not what select
`means. Here select is just making sure that you make a choice.
`You decide, you determine which of the types of layouts you are
`going to use. One of the options is to use layouts that come in the
`message that's incoming. That's the very first thing where we see
`it comes from the metadata and is extracted and then applied as
`
`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
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`the layout. That's not preset. That's not a fixed thing that
`happened before the message was received. And in fact, it's
`something that only happens after the message is received.
`Second, the option is to have something from the
`message combined with something in the template. That's what
`the and/or provides. In fact, we know this to be the case because
`in column 21, the patent specifically talks about having a layout
`which is predefined and then further predefined. In other words,
`manipulated by information that came in from the message.
`Therefore, not a fixed before the message is received set of
`instructions, as patent owner would argue.
`Even the table can be further modified according to the
`specification. And therefore, there's nothing in the specification
`or the claims that mandates that select read out embodiments of
`not using fixed alternatives before the arrival of the message.
`The Oatey and Canon cases, which are cited in our briefs,
`specifically talk about the fact that a proper definition will not
`read out a preferred embodiment. And here that's exactly what
`patent owners are trying to do.
`Even if a template-based system -- even if, for example,
`though, you decided that it had to be selecting between fixed or
`predefined notions, the Coulombe patent absolutely does disclose
`that. Coulombe discloses the notion in paragraph 83, and this is
`the Exhibit 1003, in Coulombe in paragraph 83, Coulombe says
`that upon receiving a message, if no capability has been identified
`
`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
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`in step 1, then it, meaning the system of Coulombe, may decide to
`adapt using default capabilities, i.e., preset, things that preexisted.
`And it says, e.g., a minimal set of capabilities normally supported
`by most or all terminals or may decide that no adaptation is
`possible except maybe for the network characteristics.
`So those would be set templates that are being chosen
`between for the Coulombe system. Both of those still use the
`layout that's received and the unique identifier because they are
`reviewing the CSS that's coming in. They are reviewing the
`layout information that's coming in and deciding whether or not
`they can send that on. If they can't, they use that CSS just as is.
`If they have other information, maybe they apply the default.
`For example, a default that I could easily understand
`from the time period would be one where the message comes in
`with rich text and pictures, and the default is if I don't know what
`the device is on the other side, I'm just going to strip out all of the
`pictures and send plain text only. That would be a preset default
`which could be chosen by the system. So therefore, even under
`patent owner's argument which we deem to be incorrect by virtue
`of the fact that it would read out preferred embodiments,
`Coulombe still discloses the notion of selecting in order to
`provide the layout.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: We don't have a description
`anywhere of an algorithm that the media block actually exercises
`to do the selecting, do we?
`
`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
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`
`MS. KEEFE: No, you do not. Instead what is said
`simply is that the decision is made after the message comes in. If
`you look through columns 16 and 17, the delivery decision
`comprises delivery instructions with regard to the destination
`device and/or content and/or format and/or layout of the message
`to be delivered. Those instructions may be received from the
`message that's coming in.
`So that actually in a way is a little bit of an algorithm
`because it specifically says grab the information from the
`message and use that to determine how you are going to send the
`message along. I would submit that that's as close as there is to
`an algorithm and that supports only the notion of selecting being
`determining or deciding. Not choosing from amongst a fixed set.
`If I may quickly turn --
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Quick question about fixed set.
`With respect to that media block, you are selecting at least one
`message format and message layout for each of the at least one
`message formats fitting to each of at least said one destination
`device. Doesn't that confine it to a finite set?
`MS. KEEFE: No. What it's saying simply is that you
`are going to apply a layout to a message going to a device. It
`uses extra verbiage --
`JUDGE McNAMARA: But it has to fit the format.
`The format has to fit the destination device. So that's why -- and
`given that there's a limited number of destination devices, is there
`
` 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 IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`a limited number, is there a fixed set of formats that we are
`talking about here?
`MS. KEEFE: No. And again, the reason no is because
`just because there may be -- by the way, I don't agree necessarily
`there is a fixed set of destination devices. Both the patent itself
`and its specification and Coulombe talk about the fact that you
`may not know what the receiving device is. It may be
`unregistered. You may have no concept of what that device is.
`And in Coulombe, the way that they deal with that is they say go
`with the default or go with no modification except modifying the
`network path. And so those are things that are happening but
`that's not a fixed set from which anything is being determined.
`Also, in the '475 patent, they harp over and over again
`on the fact that the metadata from the message can and should be
`used to further modify the layout or further modify anything.
`That's not a prefixed thing that can happen until you actually
`receive the message and look at it. So that's something that's
`being generated essentially on the fly. It's something they
`complain about. They say, well, Coulombe only ever looks at the
`information that's being brought in and generates something on
`the fly. So it can't meet their selection step.
`But that's exactly what the '475 patent is teaching. The
`'475 patent, no fewer than three times starting in column 10 going
`on to column 11 and finishing in column 16, specifically teaches
`using the metadata of the message in order to refine what the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`layout information is that's going to be applied and sent on to the
`device. So it's not just check with the specification of the devices
`and apply it across a fixed set. It also includes potentially
`preferences by the sender that it includes in its message. So there
`isn't a fixed set. There doesn't ever have to be one.
`The only place in the specification where a set is talked
`about is the lookup table. But even that doesn't have to be fixed.
`The lookup table can be added to, subtracted from, and according
`to the specification itself, is not itself limiting because the lookup
`table can be modified. As column 21 specifically points out, you
`have a predefined set that is further predefined by the information
`that comes from the message.
`The only arguments on claim 6 revolve essentially
`around the same idea, both with respect to template and with
`respect to predefined. In both instances, again, the patent owner
`is trying to say that it has to have come from a -- say there's a
`closet full of templates or a closet full of layouts and you have to
`pick a predefined one. In terms of the template, their argument
`seems to be that the only reason that Coulombe doesn't have a
`template is because it doesn't show a form that's being used in
`order to decide which layout. But that's not what template means
`in this instance. The user interface is not the form that you are
`using to fill in what you want it to look like. There would be no
`reason to have a unique identifier associated with that form,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`simply a blank form that someone fills in. There would be no
`reason to identify that for further use.
`Instead the logical interpretation of template there is the
`information that is used to create the end result. So the
`information, for example, in CSS of what the layout would be.
`Not the form used to obtain it. In that case, not only does Tittel
`absolutely describe it, but Druyan itself says that you can
`premake CSS forms that can be stored. There are also the experts
`both agree that you need to use a text editor which has boxes in
`order to originally fill in the CSS. So even if they were right, the
`references to one of ordinary skill in the art would show it, but
`that's not what a template should mean.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Counsel, just to call your
`attention, you are a minute and a half into your rebuttal time.
`MS. KEEFE: I do realize that, Your Honor. Absolutely
`I understand. I figured I would just use a little less time in
`rebuttal.
`Just to wrap up with the last distinction made between
`the prior art and claim 6, patent owner seems to be arguing that a
`predefined layout doesn't exist in Coulombe because Coulombe
`talks about receiving a master template and then making
`derivative templates off of those templates. Patent owner wants
`to say that the predefined layout has to exist before the message
`arrives.
`
`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 IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`
`As we've already talked about, the specification is very,
`very clear that the layout information does not have to preexist
`the message arriving at the server. In fact, it can be created. It
`has to preexist the transmission. So the predefined layout has to
`exist before it's transmitted so that you know what's being
`defined. As a result, Coulombe definitely does have predefined
`layouts that are applied.
`But even if you find that, in fact, the only layouts that
`are being applied with the derivative layouts, patent owner's own
`expert acknowledged in his deposition that, in fact, those
`derivative layouts can and in fact should be cached for future
`usage. And you can understand that in a system where you are
`trying to understand how the two parties should be talking to each
`other, you would send up a master template that would then be
`made into a derivative template an
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
