trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806, Paper No. 62
`IPR2015-00807, Paper No. 55
`June 20, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`Case IPR2015-00807
`Patent 8,612,515 B2
`____________
`
`Held: May 18, 2016
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE: HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, GEORGIANNA W.
`BRADEN, and KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`May 18, 2016, commencing at 1:02 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806, Paper No. 62
`IPR2015-00807, Paper No. 55
`June 20, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`Case IPR2015-00807
`Patent 8,612,515 B2
`____________
`
`Held: May 18, 2016
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE: HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, GEORGIANNA W.
`BRADEN, and KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`May 18, 2016, commencing at 1:02 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER GOOGLE INC.:
`
`
`JOHN C. ALEMANNI, ESQUIRE
`
`
`MICHAEL MORLOCK, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton, LLP
`
`
`1001 West Fourth Street
`
`
`Winston Salem, North Carolina 27101
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIAN K. ERICKSON, ESQUIRE
`DLA Piper, LLP
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, Texas 78701
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETER AYERS, ESQUIRE
`JOHN M. SHUMAKER, Ph.D., ESQUIRE
`Lee & Hayes
`11501 Alterra Parkway
`Suite 450
`Austin, Texas 78758
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE BLANKENSHIP: This is a hearing for
`IPR2015-00806 and 807, Google Inc. against Summit 6. Who do
`we have here for petitioner?
`MR. ALEMANNI: Good afternoon. My name is John
`Alemanni. I'm with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton here on
`behalf of petitioner, Google. With me at the table is Michael
`Morlock --
`JUDGE BRADEN: Can I ask you to please step up to
`the podium. I'm located remotely. So I can't hear you unless you
`are at the speaker.
`MR. ALEMANNI: Absolutely. Again, my name is
`John Alemanni. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner, Google, in
`this proceeding. With me at the table is Michael Morlock, also
`with Kilpatrick, also here on behalf of Google. Seated behind is
`Brian Erickson, DLA Piper, here on behalf of Samsung. The
`proceedings were merged or joined late in the proceeding. Also
`behind me is Nita Gray with our firm. She is going to be helping
`me today with the demonstratives and exhibits.
`JUDGE BLANKENSHIP: All right. Thank you. Who
`do we have for patent owner?
`MR. AYERS: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Peter
`Ayers and John Shumaker from Lee & Hayes on behalf of the
`patent owner, Summit 6.
`
` 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
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`JUDGE BEGLEY: Just for clarity of the transcript, I
`wanted to clarify that Samsung is only a petitioner in the 806
`case.
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: That's correct.
`JUDGE BLANKENSHIP: Petitioner, you have
`60 minutes, including your rebuttal time, if you want to reserve
`that. And you can begin whenever you are ready.
`MR. ALEMANNI: Thank you, Your Honor. I would
`like to reserve rebuttal time. I anticipate that our opening will run
`35 to 40 minutes. I would like to reserve whatever time we have
`left for rebuttal.
`JUDGE BLANKENSHIP: All right.
`MR. ALEMANNI: Whenever you are ready, I can
`
`begin.
`
`JUDGE BLANKENSHIP: When you are ready.
`MR. ALEMANNI: The patents at issue in this
`proceeding are invalid. They merely recite a known process.
`And that process is clearly disclosed and rendered obvious by the
`combinations that were instituted in these IPRs.
`Patent owner has proffered alleged evidence of
`secondary consideration, but there is no nexus between that
`evidence and the claim elements. Further, to the extent that any
`of that evidence is evidence of secondary considerations or might
`be considered such, it doesn't reach the level that it needs to, to
`qualify as secondary considerations. And finally, even if they
`
`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
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`were to be able to show secondary considerations, it's not enough
`to overcome the strong case of obviousness in this case.
`Let me move to slide 2, please. So these are the
`instituted grounds. The only thing I'll note about this, it's for the
`'482 and the '515 patents. I'll note that patent owner has not
`separately argued the patentability of any of the dependent
`claims.
`
`With that I'll move to the patent. Can you bring up
`Exhibit 1001, please. So there are two patents at issue, but they
`essentially share the specification. This is the '482 patent that's
`Exhibit 1001, 806 proceeding. Let's go to column 1, lines 48 to
`52. I want to give a little background of the patent. So this is the
`background of the patent. This gives a little context to what
`patent owner was trying to do, what the applicants were doing.
`Highlight the second paragraph or actually where it says A in the
`second paragraph around line 48, please, just through the next
`four lines. Thank you.
`So I'm starting at line 48 in column 1. What they said is
`there's a company out there named Caught in the Web. Again,
`this is the background of the patent. That company has attempted
`to create a broad-base media submission tool known as
`ActiveUpload. And what is it that they looked at and saw in
`ActiveUpload? They saw a tool where a file could be dragged
`and dropped into a web page on a client device, a web page, and
`it would automatically be uploaded to a web server. They saw
`
`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
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`that tool and they said, okay, well, that's really interesting. So
`they filed a patent application.
`Let's turn to -- actually, we can go back to the slides to
`slide 3, please -- or slide 7, actually. This is the abstract. This is
`what they claimed to come up with. So they had this
`drag-and-drop tool called Caught in the Web that someone else
`had developed that allowed automatic submission of images up to
`the web. They said, okay, we are going to create an improved
`web-based media submission tool. And what they claim or what
`they describe here is that the submission tool is configurable to
`perform a variable amount of intelligent preprocessing. And I'll
`explain that, but basically what it means is it does stuff to the
`media objects.
`And they give a couple of examples of what it can do to
`something like a digital image. They say the tool can perform
`sizing and formatting. So they saw this drag-and-drop tool for
`automatic submission to the web and said, well, we are going to
`add intelligent preprocessing. The tool can perform sizing and
`formatting. It can size and format a digital image.
`Let's go to claim 4 -- I'm sorry, slide 4. So these are the
`claims or this is one of the claims. This is actually claim 12 from
`the '482 patent. So again, Exhibit 1001. I'm at column 10 at
`line 40. So here is the claim. It's a computer-implemented
`method of preprocessing media objects. That's the preamble. It
`says it received parameters on the client device from a remote
`
`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
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`device. Once those parameters are on the local device, then it
`receives -- the client device receives some sort of identification of
`a media object, one or more of a media object like a digital
`image. So somebody picks a digital image. Then it processes,
`the client device processes the image based on those
`preprocessing parameters and then the client device transmits it
`up to the web or transmits it up to a host. So that's what the claim
`recites. That's the language in the claim. That's how they chose
`to write that.
`Let's go to slide 8. Everything I just showed you,
`everything in that claim, everything in the challenged claims was
`known. One example of the fact that it was known is patent
`owner's own evidence. And this is direct testimony of Mr. Scott
`Lewis. This is Exhibit 2050, paragraph 12. This is what he said.
`What was going on -- excuse me. This is how he described what
`the problem was. He says for the average user, he's talking about
`a realtor in this case, but for the average user with sufficient
`expertise it can take up to five minutes to reformat the picture.
`So people could do it. It would take five minutes or up to five
`minutes, as much as five minutes.
`Let's go to the next slide, please, slide 9. So we asked
`him in his deposition to clarify that. We said, well, what does
`that mean? What could they do? We said, So the realtor could
`go to a website from their client device before the invention,
`could go to the website from their client device and they could
`
`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
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`get an FAQ or a help file from the website, so presumably an
`HTML file, and they would download that FAQ or help file to
`their PC, just the way the web works, you get the parameters
`down.
`
`Yeah, that's what we do. We get that FAQ or help file.
`And then the realtors would manipulate the photograph. So they
`go into some sort of application on the client device. They would
`identify the digital images, whatever they were using, whichever
`the application was. They go into some sort of application. They
`would use those parameters that they downloaded from the
`website, enter them into that program somehow and the program
`would process the image, format it, resize it, whatever it needed
`to do. Then they would save it on their machine. And then at
`that point the user would be able to transmit the image up to the
`web server.
`JUDGE BEGLEY: Can you explain how this is helpful
`for this proceeding? We have certain asserted prior art references
`and we need to make our decision based on printed publications.
`So I'm not sure how this helps us reach our final decision.
`MR. ALEMANNI: Yes, I'm happy to do so. The
`reason this helps is because there were a lot of secondary
`considerations that were asserted. The way that they try to assert
`the secondary considerations is by claiming certain features were
`novel. So what I'm trying to do is set the context so that you
`understand that none of the features that they submit as being
`
`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
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`novel, whether they are ones that are actually recited in the claims
`or ones that aren't recited in the claims were novel, I just wanted
`to point out the context before I moved to the prior art, before I
`do that.
`
`JUDGE BEGLEY: Thank you.
`MR. ALEMANNI: So everything was known. A
`realtor could do everything already before the invention.
`Let's go to slide 10. So again, setting the context, they
`submitted eBay For Dummies as a treatise, and we disagree with
`the characterization. It doesn't really matter. So this is eBay For
`Dummies. It's not for an electrical engineer. It's not for an
`advanced user. It's an eBay For Dummies, a reference for the rest
`of us. It describes getting the resolution for the camera, setting
`properties on the image, and uploading the image. If we go to the
`next slide, slide 10, then it describes that you can put it up on a
`hosting device.
`Let's go back to slide 4. Actually, let me go to slide 12.
`So I showed you the claim. We talked about the claim. So what
`is new here? What do they claim that's new? Mr. Lewis, again,
`his direct testimony, Exhibit 2050 in a couple of these paragraphs
`he said: “We believed we could automate the process of
`reformatting the images to meet website requirements.”
`Automate the process. So this is an old process of
`formatting and submitting pictures to a publisher, and that's
`ancient. Literally ancient. Putting it on a general purpose
`
`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
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`computer adds nothing to that idea. We are not making a
`one-on-one argument here, but I mean, it sort of shouts at you.
`He says, we automated it. And then he adds to that in 17: And
`we took it from one general purpose computer server and we
`moved it to another general purpose computer, the client. And
`that's what we did. We automated it.
`Let's go back to slide 4. I just want to make clear -- I'm
`sorry. One more on this, slide is 13. So we present the argument
`that one moving processing from one general purpose computer
`to another, a server to a client is just a design choice.
`Dr. Kaliski, Exhibit 1017, testified that one of skill in
`the art looking at a system such as Summit 6's would consider
`whether or not they should put it on the client or the server. And
`if you look at all the prior art references and actually some of the
`evidence patent owner presented, you see that it's just a design
`choice. You put some processing on the server, some on the
`client. Prior art references talk about the fact that you could
`move it from one to the other. So we'll discuss that.
`Let's go back to slide 4. So I just want to point out as
`we are talking about the claim again, we are back to claim 12,
`that claim doesn't say any of that stuff is automatic. It doesn't say
`anything of that stuff is without user intervention. Those words,
`there are those words in the spec. "Without user intervention"
`appears a couple of times. "Automatic" appears a few times in
`relation to what they claim is the invention. That's exactly what
`
`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 IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`people were already doing. They were receiving parameters on
`their client device. They were identifying images at the client
`device. They were preprocessing images at the client device and
`they were uploading. There's nothing new.
`In addition to what patent owner provides, we've also
`put forth prior art that clearly renders these claims obvious, and
`I'm going to move to those now. Let's go to slide 14. So we
`introduced a couple of combinations. Both were instituted. The
`first is Creamer and Aihara. Creamer and Aihara clearly render
`the claims obvious.
`Let's go to slide 15. Creamer is a client device. It's a
`digital camera. It's an Internet-enabled digital camera. This is a
`picture of it. You see buttons, an LCD screen and you see a little
`tail off that's the Internet connection. This is Exhibit 1004, Figure
`2.
`
`Let's go to slide 16. Again, integrated Internet digital
`camera. It captures images and sends them to the Internet.
`Slide 17. What does it look like? This is a little tough to see.
`We are at Figure 3 in Exhibit 1004. If we look at it, though, at a
`high level, that's a computer. It's a CPU. It's got a bus. It's got a
`PCMCIA card to talk to the Internet. It's got memory, different
`kinds of memory that all communicate through the bus with the
`CPU. It's a computer. It's a client device.
`What is a little different about it, if you zoom in on one,
`it's got an image capture device. It's got a charge-coupled device.
`
`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
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`It's also described as possibly being a CMOS. But in this
`particular instance, it's a charge-coupled device. So the image
`comes in, it goes through the image pickup circuit, and because
`it's a charge couple device, it's got to go through an
`analog-to-digital conversion. So out of 246 that's up on the
`screen, you got to put the digital signal.
`Then if you could go out, please, where does that signal
`go? The signal goes through the compression engine and then in
`image memory. At that point, the specification at least for the
`embodiment relied on says that it's uncompressed. It goes
`through the compression engine. It's stored in image memory.
`Later on it's in general purpose, GP DRAM, general purpose
`dynamic random access memory, but GP DRAM. And then we
`could just highlight the bottom right corner. So it talks to the
`Internet, as I said, through a PCMCIA card and it also has an
`LCD display for viewing things.
`Let's go to slide 18. And so this is Figure 8. We rely on
`this figure to describe the process. The first couple of boxes on
`this are about how you take the picture, whether you take it on a
`periodic basis or whether you take a picture as you want to on
`demand. You get the exposure in S32. The CCD captures it,
`sends it through the compression engine to memory at S34. At
`S36, the local, the client device, the camera has downloaded
`parameters from a user directory, sounds like a UNIX server, on a
`host device, adjusts the image, in other words, preprocesses it,
`
`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
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`and then at some point during the process compresses it from
`image memory to general purpose dynamic random access
`memory. And eventually that image is sent to the Internet.
`JUDGE BRADEN: Step 28 and 30, are those steps that
`the petitioner is relying on to meet the limitation of a
`confirmation of an intent to associate one or more image files
`with a set account?
`MR. ALEMANNI: We rely on the fact that the user can
`step through like S28 and S30. If we look at Figure 5, can you
`bring up Exhibit 1001, Figure 5.
`JUDGE BRADEN: I would like to look at Exhibit 1001
`of the 807 proceeding, the '515 patent.
`MR. ALEMANNI: Okay.
`JUDGE BRADEN: Because it's actually claim 1 in the
`'515 patent that has this limitation. So I would like to look at the
`specification for that particular -- that supports that particular
`claim.
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: Are you asking me, to make sure
`I'm clear, you are asking what they describe as support for
`confirmation of an intent?
`JUDGE BRADEN: No. I'm asking what petitioner
`uses to meet that limitation, to confirm what petitioner uses.
`MR. ALEMANNI: So what we use as a confirmation
`of an intent at the first level is in the Aihara reference. The
`patent --
`
`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 IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`JUDGE BRADEN: Go ahead.
`MR. ALEMANNI: I'm sorry. Let me find the cite to it.
`So it's our slide --
`JUDGE BRADEN: So it's not Creamer? It's Aihara
`that you guys are initially using for meeting that limitation?
`MR. ALEMANNI: Yes, that's what we initially use.
`And then we also rely on Figure 5 in Creamer. And then we also
`rely on Dr. Clark's testimony. They are actually contained in our
`demonstratives at slides 35 and 24. So in Aihara, the patent
`specification is at issue, so Exhibit 1001 of the proceedings, they
`describe the identifying step as dragging and dropping an image
`into an image well and then viewing it. The confirmation of the
`intent is looking at it and then selecting it. So we rely on Aihara
`for that, the play mode that's described in the background and
`further on into the description in Aihara for that element.
`JUDGE BRADEN: Thank you.
`MR. ALEMANNI: Let's go back to slide 19. So this is
`Aihara. This is also an Internet-enabled digital camera. Slide 20.
`Well, I'll talk about this briefly. I think it's interesting, Aihara
`describes the exact same sort of embodiment as the patents at
`issue. So the patents at issue describe a real estate website. The
`testimony talks about real estate or realtors. Aihara is designed,
`at least one of the embodiments, for picking digital images for
`display on a real estate listing. And so what happens is the user
`takes pictures, there's pictures on the user's camera. They go
`
`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
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`through a script and they are able to pick the pictures that they
`want to put in the real estate listing. Then the camera itself
`actually can serve as the web server in Aihara. We are not
`relying on that. I just think it's interesting that it's the same
`embodiment.
`Let's go to the next slide. And then I would like to
`briefly point out that Aihara says what I said about Creamer. It
`looks similar, CPU, memory, an imaging device, an LCD screen,
`buttons and dials. And it lists the camera as a computer. If you
`read the Aihara description, it talks about the fact that it's a
`computer running a graphical user interface. That's one of the
`advantages they tout. It's just a computer or a client device.
`Slide 22, they would have been obvious to combine.
`They are both Internet-enabled digital cameras. They both
`disclose LCD screens. And what we relied on to combine the two
`was Dr. Clark's testimony in addition to what's stated in the two
`references. He says modifying Creamer to have the play mode of
`Aihara would allow the user to walk through the captured images
`on Creamer, to view the captured images.
`Then slide 24, one thing that came up while patent
`owner's counsel was asking Dr. Clark questions at his deposition
`was whether or not you can view images from that LCD. It was
`impossible in Creamer to view images from the LCD. He said,
`yeah, it certainly has the capability to do so. In fact, there's
`disclosure in there about the color adjust and other adjustments
`
`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 IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`that he believes, according to one of skill in the art, would require
`the display of the image. He says so to the extent we would need
`specific disclosure of that, I think it's clear from the figure, the
`figure is clear that everything is connected. It's just a computer.
`Dr. Clark explicitly supports that argument.
`Twenty-five, please. I'll briefly walk through the
`claims. Basically what I have done is just reproduced in the
`slides what's already in our petition, but I'll briefly go through it.
`So '482, claim 12, 26, the preamble, so Creamer is -- can upload
`image files. Twenty-seven, as I described, the user can put a
`setup file on the host. Periodically, the Creamer camera can
`download those files and use them for preprocessing.
`JUDGE BEGLEY: Can you go back to the last slide,
`please. For that limitation “including a specification of an
`amount of media data,” can you explain how Creamer's
`compression level teaches or suggests that portion of the
`limitation?
`MR. ALEMANNI: Yes. The Creamer talks about
`using different levels of compression, a number between 1 and 5,
`for instance. So by doing that, it's specifying an amount of media
`data. So the higher the compression level, the lower amount of
`data that would be uploaded to the server. So Dr. Clark has
`testified one of skill in the art would understand that by setting
`that compression level, you are decreasing the size. If you
`increase the compression level, it's inversely related. So 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
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`decrease the size of the image. So you are specifying an amount
`of media data.
`JUDGE BEGLEY: Can you explain in more detail how
`that works exactly? Is the compression level setting the specific
`amount of data that is output or is it a percentage? I guess, how
`exactly does the compression level relate to the actual output?
`MR. ALEMANNI: So it's not of record here and I don't
`know the specific details of JPEG compression. What is in
`evidence here is that JPEG has a standard way of compressing
`images. So there's a JPEG compression standard. If you set it at
`a level 1, for instance, there's less compression. So the image is
`bigger. So you set it at the level that you want to set it to
`decrease the size of the image. But it's not that you are setting a
`specific quantitative number coming out of the compression
`engine. It's a relative number that you are setting. So it's akin to
`formatting or resizing being preprocessing. So if you are resizing
`the image, the image could be smaller or bigger, you are still
`setting an amount of the data. I mean, depending on the
`resolution, the smaller the image, the less the data.
`Next slide, 28, again, we go to Aihara for identification
`of the image, the play mode. Twenty-nine, again, the
`preprocessing. So doing something to the images. There's all
`sorts of parameters about adjusting the color, adjusting the size,
`the compression that the user can put in the file in the server. The
`client downloads it, uses those, changes the image and then
`
`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 IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`before it sends it up to the server, 30, and then transmits it. It
`transmits.
`Let's go to 31. I'll briefly touch on the '515. I don't
`want to take too much time on this, but I want to cover at least the
`couple of elements that are different in the '515 from the '482. So
`32, again, preprocessing.
`Thirty-three, so this is a little different. Transmitting
`information that enables access to an account associated with a
`user. And it's conditioned on the receipt of the identifier at the
`host server. Creamer explicitly discloses it. It says a user ID and
`password are supplied by the camera to allow it to get access to
`the host so that it can upload images. So there's explicit
`disclosure in Creamer for that limitation.
`Thirty-four, receiving identification, we've talked about
`that. Thirty-five, receiving a confirmation of an intent. So again,
`what's in the specification is you look at the picture and then you
`click submit. And I argue looking at the pictures when you are
`designing or going through the script for creating the real estate
`listing, you say, yeah, that's what I want to do.
`Thirty-six, and then preprocessing, the files again,
`Creamer describes this. Thirty-seven, and transmitting the
`preprocessed files up, we've talked about that as well. In light of
`this set of prior art references, claims are rendered obvious. They
`are also rendered obvious in combination of Mayle and Narayen.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`Slide 38, so this combination also renders them obvious. I'm not
`going to go through all of it.
`But slide 43, the main point of contention here that we
`have is whether or not you combine the system. That's one. So
`Mayle, this is Exhibit 1006, column 13 says, In this embodiment,
`the system, the one or more related users can upload electronic
`images. Then further down in that same paragraph -- and it's
`titled Family Album, but further down in that paragraph, “Thus,
`an album could be created for an entire family, holding a variety
`of images.”
`Slide 44, similarly Narayen talks about creating a photo
`album. Forty-five, the other issue that you may hear that we may
`talk about today is whether one of skill in the art would take the
`Mayle system, which through a lot of the specification, in fact,
`probably it would be most of the specification talks about doing a
`bunch of things on the server. Whether or not one of skill in the
`art would put that or whether there's disclosure, well, this
`paragraph is explicit disclosure for doing it on the client.
`Embodiments can be further adapted for additional processing by
`the client computer of the electronic image data and/or the
`display. The result as produced as a result of this processing on
`the client computer could be at the same resolution as created by
`the server computer. So you could do the same thing on the
`server of the client.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`And that sentence continues. You know, you could do
`it a little bit differently or it could be a lower quality so as to
`minimize processing time. So it's just a design choice of where
`do you want things to sit. They say explicitly the result could be
`done on the client. Also a point on this paragraph that like the
`system that is alleged to practice the claims, the Mayle reference
`describes it as a client computer software implemented in the
`Java language so as to run any Java-enabled web browser.
`JUDGE BEGLEY: Can you respond to patent owner's
`arguments that that sentence regarding the Java browser is not
`enabling?
`MR. ALEMANNI: We had Dr. Clark testify that one of
`skill in the art would know how to enable, would know how to
`write a Java browser. So we have his testimony that supports that
`one of skill in the art at the time of the invention would know
`how to implement that in a Java browser.
`JUDGE BEGLEY: Is that his declaration testimony
`you're referring to?
`MR. ALEMANNI: I believe that's his declaration. Do
`you have a specific cite? I'm trying to see if I have a reference to
`it here.
`
`JUDGE BEGLEY: It might be paragraph 52 of his
`declaration.
`MR. ALEMANNI: Judge Begley, which paragraph did
`you refer 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
`25
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`JUDGE BEGLEY: Fifty-two.
`MR. ALEMANNI: “Based on my experience and
`knowledge, one of skill in the art would know how to combine”
`them. The browser may be augmented by Java programming.
`Based on his knowledge and experience, one of skill in the art
`would be able to write a Java program accessible by a Mayle
`browser-based system and would implement it that way. Again,
`it's just a design choice. You could put part of it or all of it on
`either place. I think Mayle makes that clear, as do the other
`references here.
`And unless there are further questions about the prior
`art, I'll turn it over to Mr. Morlock to discuss secondary
`considerations.
`JUDGE BEGLEY: I have another question about the
`combination. Can you just specify precisely from Mayle and
`Narayen which aspects of Narayen are you proposing be
`combined with Mayle and how and why a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would do that?
`MR. ALEMANNI: Let's go to slide 38 and slide 39. So
`we set out our claims here. This is the Mayle and the Narayen
`reference. Actually, probably better to go to where the claims
`are. So Mayle describes a postcard system and it describes other
`embodiments. So taking digital images and making a postcard
`system. Forty, it says a user provides image data to the system
`and then the system is able to create the display comprising a
`
`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
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806, Patent 7,765,482 B2
`Case IPR2015-00807, Patent 8,612,515 B2
`mixture of image and textual data. So it creates postcards or it
`creates a family album.
`Keep going, 41, and
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
