`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01341, Paper No. 45
`December 8, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`THE BOEING COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`SEYMOUR LEVINE,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`Technology Center 3600
`Oral Hearing Held: Wednesday, September 14, 2016
`
`BEFORE: MICHAEL W. KIM; TRENTON A. WARD; and
`DANIEL N. FISHMAN (via video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`September 14, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., Hearing Room B, 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 PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RYAN J. McBRAYER, ESQ.
`Perkins Coie
`Suite 4900
`1201 Third Avenue,
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`206-359-3073
`
`TED DANE, ESQ.
`PETER E. GRATZINGER, ESQ.
`Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
`355 South Grand Avenue,
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`213-683-9100
`
`35th Floor
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRUCE R. ZISSER, ESQ.
`FREDERICK A. LORIG, ESQ.
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`213-443-3000
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S.
`(1:30 p.m.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE WARD: Good afternoon. We are here this
`afternoon for oral arguments in Inter Partes Review matter
`number IPR2015-01341. The case in which Boeing Company
`is the Petitioner and Seymour Levine is the Patent Owner.
`The Panel for the hearing today is my colleague,
`Judge Kim, sitting here to my right; myself, Judge Ward; and
`Judge Fishman joining us on screen here from our regional
`office in Denver, Colorado.
`Good afternoon, Judge Fishman. Can you hear us
`and see as well?
`JUDGE FISHMAN: I can.
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you. So I would like to
`start by getting appearances of counsel. And, counsel, if you
`would, when you enter your appearance, if you could step to
`the microphone for us and do that, starting with the Petitioner.
`MR. McBRAYER: Good morning, Your Honor.
`Ryan McBrayer, lead counsel for The Boeing Company, the
`Petitioner.
`And with me today are Ted Dane and Peter
`Gratzinger of Munger Tolles, who are both admitted pro hac
`vice, and, with the permission of the Panel, Mr. Dane will be
`presenting our argument today.
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you, Mr. McBrayer.
`Thank you, Mr. Dane. And counsel for Patent Owner?
`MR. ZISSER: Your Honor, good afternoon. Bruce
`Zisser, lead counsel for Seymour Levine, the Patent Owner.
`And with me today is Frederick Lorig, who was
`admitted yesterday pro hac vice and, with the Panel's
`permission, will be presenting argument today.
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you, Mr. Zisser, Mr. Lorig.
`So I have got a few administrative details I want to go over
`before we get started on the hearing, primarily just to talk
`about the format.
`As was mentioned in the scheduling order for this
`case, each side will have 45 minutes to argue. Petitioner, you
`may reserve time for rebuttal if you wish to do so. Just
`inform me how much time you want to reserve when you
`begin.
`
`Also, I want to make sure that counsel are aware,
`our colleague, Judge Fishman, in Denver, isn't able to see the
`screen that we have here in the courtroom. Keep that in mind
`when you are referring to a demonstrative. Just make sure
`you mention that slide number so that Judge Fishman can
`follow along.
`Counsel for Petitioner, do you have any questions?
`MR. DANE: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WARD: Patent Owner, any questions?
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`MR. LORIG: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WARD: Petitioner, when you are ready
`you may begin.
`MR. DANE: Thank you, Your Honor. First let me
`thank the Board for allowing me the opportunity to argue in
`front of the Board.
`JUDGE WARD: Remind me of your name again,
`
`counsel.
`
`MR. DANE: Ted Dane, D-a-n-e.
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you, Mr. Dane.
`MR. DANE: By this stage of the proceeding there
`is not very much in dispute. The purported invention of the
`'618 patent was a maintenance system in which aircraft
`equipment is monitored onboard the aircraft while it is in
`flight, collected and gathered at an onboard transmitter, sent
`through a wireless communication downlink to a central
`ground- based station where it is analyzed and maintenance
`advice is generated through that analysis.
`And there is no dispute at this stage that what I
`have just described was not new as of the time that the '618
`application was filed. Onboard monitoring systems used to
`generate maintenance information for aircraft were in
`existence and were being used at the time of the filing of the
`application.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`In fact, there was a standard, the ARINC 618- 1
`standard, that described these onboard maintenance systems.
`And many airlines were, in fact, implementing these systems.
`I've put on the screen what is slide 2, and it shows
`figure 7 from Ward Exhibit 1015. And I just put this up as
`one example, but we can see similar disclosures in the
`Dowling reference and in the Dyson reference, which are
`major pieces of prior art, and for the Ward reference which is
`a reference upon which we rely for ground 1 and 4.
`We see here that there is an ACMS system, which
`is an Aircraft Condition Monitoring System, which gathers
`equipment information onboard the aircraft, produces periodic
`reports that it sends via data link to a ground-based software,
`man-based system, where analysis is performed, including
`analysis of the engine, and out of that comes maintenance
`information in the form of trends, alert messages and
`information regarding corrective action.
`And the Ward reference, to put this in the framing
`of what was happening in the real world, this is a Rolls-Royce
`employee who wrote this reference and he described this as a
`system that was being implemented at the time by British
`Airways, Lufthansa, Cathay Pacific, and Cyprus Airlines.
`Chetail, one of our other references, describes the
`system that is described in the Dyson reference which was
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`created by GE and called the GEM System, as being
`implemented at the time by Air France.
`And Dowling describes the same type of system
`being used by United States airlines, by TWA, by United and
`by Delta. So this was pervasive. This basic idea of this
`invention was nothing new.
`We have an onboard transmitter. We have data
`being sent relating to aircraft equipment to the ground, a
`ground station that analyzes this information, and creates
`maintenance alerts and corrective actions.
`So what remains in dispute? With regard to the
`independent claims, claims 4 and 14, the only limitation that
`the Patent Owner has disputed being present when our prior
`art references were disclosed is the portable positional
`limitation, portable for claim 4, positional for claim 14. And
`I will address those briefly.
`It is not clear based upon the demonstratives that
`we received from the Patent Owner whether he is still even
`maintaining this argument. He did not introduce any
`evidence. Once we provided the supplemental declaration of
`Dr. Helfrick and cited to testimony showing that this
`limitation was disclosed by ACARS transmitters, there was no
`response from the Patent Owner. So it may be that this is no
`longer a dispute, but I will address it briefly because I
`recognize we have the burden.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`Most of the briefing has concerned instead the
`position data claims, the dependent claims, claims 8 to 10.
`And there are several reasons why those claims are also
`invalid.
`
`There is a claim construction issue that affects
`which grounds apply to determine the unpatentability of those
`claims, and I will get to that in my discussion, but before I get
`to that there is one ground, or actually two grounds for which
`there is no claim construction issue and for which the claims
`are invalid under either our construction of the claims or the
`Patent Owner's construction of the claims.
`And those are grounds, we say here grounds 1 to 3.
`To be fair to the Patent Owner, the Patent Owner has argued a
`separate issue about what maintenance advice means for
`ground 2, so that really should say grounds 1 and 3, and here I
`am, I'm sorry, Judge Fishman, I am here referring to slide 3,
`our overview slide.
`And for grounds 1 and 3 the Patent Owner's only
`argument for how the claims can survive the grounds that we
`have asserted is that he can swear behind Monroe and show
`that Monroe does not qualify as prior art.
`And as I will show, the Patent Owner does not
`come anywhere close to being able to swear behind the
`Monroe reference. So for that reason alone, regardless of the
`claim construction issue, those claims are also invalid.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`The claim construction issue, which I will address
`subsequently, involves the question of whether this aircraft
`position data actually needs to be used in order to generate the
`maintenance advice. That is the position the Patent Owner
`has asserted. Our position is, looking at the way the claims
`are worded and looking at the support in the specification,
`that is not required.
`All that is required is that the position data be
`among the various categories of digital aircraft performance
`data that are collected on the plane and sent to the ground,
`some of which is used to generate maintenance advice, but
`there is neither a requirement in the claims that the location
`data be used to generate maintenance advice nor, importantly,
`because this is a claim construction issue, is there any
`disclosure in the specification of the use of location data for
`the purpose of generating maintenance advice.
`And if the Board accepts our claim construction,
`there are two additional grounds upon which these limitations
`are invalid. The first is the Printed Matter Doctrine, under
`which informational limitations that are not functionally
`related to the physical substrate, here to the maintenance
`advice that is produced by this claimed maintenance system,
`lack patentable weight and, therefore, do not distinguish an
`invention from prior art.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`And separately, in particular ground 4, which is
`based upon the disclosure of the ARINC standard for flight
`maintenance computers, that discloses the transmission over
`the same ACARS system which transmits maintenance
`information down to the ground for use in onboard
`maintenance systems, as disclosed in Ward and Dowling and
`Dyson. It discloses that same system being used to also
`transmit location data to the ground.
`JUDGE KIM: Counsel, if I can go back to what
`you said before about the specification doesn't have -- is not
`using the data to actually generate the information, and that
`seems to implicate a possible written description issue.
`But since that is outside our purview, how are we
`supposed to evaluate that? I mean, the claim says what it
`says, so how much relevance does the fact that the
`specification may be vague about it really inform the claim
`construction of the claim term itself?
`MR. DANE: Judge Kim, I think if -- I think you
`are correct that if your conclusion is that the claim
`unambiguously says that this data is being analyzed, including
`the location data, I would agree that I think then this turns
`into a written description issue.
`Our view, and as I will argue, we think the claim
`terms are ambiguous and could be interpreted either to require
`that or simply to require that the information be sent to the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`ground. And if the Board agrees that there is some ambiguity
`there, then it is proper to look at the specification for
`purposes of claim construction, not for purposes of
`determining whether claims that would read as the Patent
`Owner submits that they do are supported. We understand
`that that is not for the Board to determine.
`JUDGE KIM: Thank you.
`MR. DANE: And on that point, if the Board were
`to conclude that the Patent Owner's interpretation is correct
`that this location data must be used in order to generate
`maintenance advice, that provides yet an additional ground in
`addition to the others that I will review for why the Patent
`Owner cannot antedate the Monroe reference because, as we
`will see, the Patent Owner points to nothing in the October 9
`disclosure upon which he bases his conception argument that
`shows use of location data for the purpose of maintenance
`advice.
`
`The only disclosure he identifies is precisely what
`is disclosed in ARINC 702- 6, which is location data being
`sent to a transmitter onboard the plane and sent down to the
`ground. And so there is no evidence of conception of the
`claims as interpreted by the Patent Owner.
`So quickly with regard to the portable/positional
`limitation. It is important for the Board to appreciate that
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`these are not terms that appear anywhere in the specification.
`They were added during the reissue process.
`And the only support in the specification for the
`notion of some positionability or portability is at column 4.
`And, I'm sorry, Judge Fishman, I've turned to slide 4.
`In the patent at column 4, lines 57 through 60,
`there is a reference to SMART, which the patent describes as
`the transmitter for the inventive system, as being a line
`replaceable unit.
`Consistent with that being the only disclosure for
`portable or positionability, in the concurrent litigation the
`Patent Owner has accused the Boeing system of meeting this
`limitation because Boeing uses ACARS transmitters, either
`VHF, HF, or satellite transceivers, and the Patent Owner's
`position is that each of these transceivers is portable in the
`sense that it is a modular line replaceable unit.
`So everyone recognizes that this notion of
`portability or positionability is the notion of
`replaceability/removability.
`JUDGE WARD: Does the petition have a position
`as to what one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood an LRU, Line Replaceable Unit, to have been at
`the time of the invention?
`MR. DANE: Well, our understanding, Your
`Honor, is that line replaceable units typically, as they are
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`understood -- and I'm not sure if this is in the papers, I'm
`giving my own understanding -- is that line replaceable units
`tend to be modular systems.
`There are usually racks into which they are
`installed. There are places for them onboard the aircraft and
`they can easily be pulled out. There are connectors to which
`they can connect.
`And that's the idea. They are modular in the sense
`that, when they fail, when you need to replace them, it is easy
`to take them out. You don't have to tear apart the fuselage or
`do any major drilling or any type of engineering to get them
`out. They are very easy to take out.
`JUDGE WARD: And if the Panel were going to
`look to the record to try and find support for that
`understanding, where would we find it?
`MR. DANE: I believe, Your Honor, that our
`expert, Dr. Helfrick, did refer to the notion of line replaceable
`units in his declaration. And as I will show shortly, there is a
`specific reference in one of the standards for one of these
`types of transceivers, the satellite transceiver, which
`specifically says it is a line replaceable unit.
`So if we are equating line replaceable unit with
`replaceability/removability, it is in the record in regard to the
`standard for satellite data communication units.
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`And here we can clearly see that every one of our
`primary references discloses the use of an ACARS transmitter,
`an ACARS system. And, Judge Fishman, I'm now referring to
`slide 5. And in slide 5 we see in the lower right corner the
`reference to Ward Exhibit 1015 at 7 talks about the use of
`ACARS, data links using ACARS.
`Up above that the Dowling reference, Exhibit 1013
`at figure 1, shows the data link from the aircraft to the ground
`by an ACARS station. To the left of that, in the upper left,
`the Dyson reference, Exhibit 1019, also has a figure which
`shows that the reports are sent via ACARS from the plane
`down to the ground.
`And, lastly, ARINC 624-1, which is the reference
`for the onboard maintenance system, also specifically shows
`that the data link can be an ACARS system.
`JUDGE WARD: Mr. Dane, how do you respond to
`the Patent Owner's argument that none of these references that
`you have shown us here on slide 5 provide any express
`disclosure as to the physical configuration of their
`transmitter?
`MR. DANE: Well, Your Honor, I will get to that
`right now. So the Board granted our motion to supplement the
`record to specifically address this issue. And in the
`declaration provided by Dr. Helfrick he addressed this issue,
`the Helfrick declaration at paragraph 25.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`And specifically with regard to the disclosure of
`an ACARS system, that is, ARINC 618- 1 is the standard for
`that system, it tells you what an ACARS system consists of.
`And there are three parts of it. There is airborne system
`equipment, there is the communication network down to the
`ground, and there is a ground station.
`So here we're focused on the transmitter, the
`airborne system, and the ACARS specification standard itself
`says, just consistent with the Patent Owner's own infringement
`contentions in the concurrent litigation, there are three types.
`There is VHF, HF and satellite air/ground to network
`transmitters.
`And each of those involve a transceiver. And it
`references the specific standards that describe these particular
`types of transceivers.
`Dr. Helfrick testified in his declaration, that was
`provided following the Board's ruling allowing us to
`supplement the record, that he had never heard of a
`non- removable transmitter, and that the applicable industry
`standards make it clear that transmitters used in conjunction
`with ACARS are removable and frequently they are LRUs.
`And he testified that one of skill in the art would
`understand that the ACARS data links would necessarily
`include a transmitter that was portable or positional on an
`aircraft.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`Now, one point that is important here is, when the
`court permitted us the opportunity to provide this declaration
`for Dr. Helfrick, it indicated that the Patent Owner would
`have every opportunity to respond to that testimony, that they
`would have the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Helfrick, put
`in their own evidence.
`They did nothing. They did not put in a response
`to this evidence. They did not depose Dr. Helfrick. They did
`not depose a contrary -- they did not submit a contrary
`opinion from their own expert. So there is no contradictory
`evidence on this point. And, Judge Fishman, I was referring
`to slide 7 there with regard to the Helfrick testimony which is
`Helfrick supplemental declaration at paragraphs 4 and 5 which
`is Exhibit 1042.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: I'm reading the quote for
`paragraph 4: Second, the applicable industry standards make
`clear. Is he referring to standards that are of record?
`MR. DANE: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: Thank you.
`MR. DANE: And here is the standard that
`specifically is referring to the use of an LRU. This is the
`standard that is referenced in the general ACARS standard. It
`is listed at the very end of references that one could refer to
`to understand how to use these transceivers.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`And the standard for the satellite version of the
`transceiver specifically says that there are a bunch of
`different subsystems. The first uses an SDU, which is a
`Satellite Data Unit, that's the satellite transceiver, and the
`RFU, the Radio Frequency Unit.
`And it then says that the subsystems that are used
`in the satellite system constitute multiple line replaceable
`units. So there is an express disclosure of line replaceable
`units.
`
`The next two references, and this is slide 9, and in
`slide 9 we cite to Exhibit 1042 which is ACARS
`Characteristic 753, which is the standard for HF transceivers,
`as well as Exhibit 1042, Exhibit C, at Sections 1.4.2, which is
`the standard for VHF communication transceivers, which is
`ACARS Characteristic 716 -9.
`And both of these refer to the requirement that, for
`the HF transceiver and the VHF transceiver, they must be
`interchangeable, and, it says, regardless of manufacturing
`source, meaning that you have to be able to take them out and
`replace them. When you want to substitute, you find a better
`deal, you get a manufacturer you like better, you can pull
`them out, put them in, and, if there is an improvement in the
`technology, you are able to replace them.
`And, as I said, there has been no contrary evidence
`by the Patent Owner on this point. We put in all of this
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`evidence showing that these are removable, that they are
`necessarily removable. There is really no dispute about this.
`And the Patent Owner neither put in an expert
`opinion to say that that is not right, he did not cross-examine
`our expert on this point, or put in any contrary evidence.
`So unless there are further questions on this point,
`I will move to the dependent claims.
`And I should have mentioned at the beginning, I'm
`hoping to get through this as quickly as I can. I would like to
`reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal, if I can. So I'm hoping to be
`done in 35 minutes.
`JUDGE WARD: Noted.
`MR. DANE: With regard to the dependent claims,
`claims 8 through 10, as I mentioned, these each specify that
`the digital aircraft performance data includes locational data.
`8 generally says aircraft position data, and 9 and 10 specify
`either GPS data or information provided by an inertial
`navigation system, and that's shown in slide 10.
`If we look to slide 11, as I said, there is one
`argument with regard to these claims that does not depend
`upon claim construction, and that is the Patent Owner's
`inability to swear behind the Monroe reference.
`The Patent Owner's only argument for why the
`claims 8 through 10 can survive grounds 1 and 3, other than
`the portable/positional argument, if he is still alleging that, is
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`that he can show that Monroe is not prior art by antedating the
`Monroe reference. And the evidence clearly establishes that
`he has not been able to do so.
`There are three documents upon which the Patent
`Owner relies in order to show prior conception. Actually
`there are two. There are May 18th notebook pages. That is
`Exhibit 2002. And, Judge Fishman, I'm now looking at the
`time line on slide 11.
`There is the October 9 invention disclosure,
`Exhibit 2003. That is really the document upon which he
`bases his entire claim that he can show that there is prior
`conception of the invention.
`And there is an October 23rd disclosure, Exhibit
`2004, which the Patent Owner does not discuss and which is
`substantively identical to the October 9 disclosure. There are
`really no differences. So I'm going to focus on the October 9
`disclosure.
`But what is important is that all three suffer from
`the same defect. And that defect is that there is no
`independent corroboration of any of these documents.
`JUDGE WARD: Counsel, you say there is no
`independent corroboration, yet there is testimony from the
`patent attorney, Mr. Townsley, that he received and, indeed,
`reviewed this invention disclosure prior to the October 11th
`date of Monroe. Is that correct?
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`MR. DANE: He testified that he reviewed an
`invention disclosure. He does not testify that he reviewed
`either the October 9 or the October 23rd invention disclosure.
`And I will address why Mr. Townsley's testimony does not
`provide corroboration.
`If I can, I would very quickly like to just review.
`The Patent Owner has raised, in response to our motion to
`exclude these documents as uncorroborated, he has made the
`argument that he needs no corroboration because they are
`documents and we don't need to corroborate documents. And
`we believe that is a misreading, a misapplication of the law.
`So there is no dispute that the May 18 notebook
`pages, the October 9 disclosure, and the October 23
`disclosure, none of them are witnessed. And we have no
`independent witness who testifies that they saw any of those
`documents around the time that they were prepared and claim
`to be prepared.
`And we have cited a number of cases that hold that
`that is not adequate proof of conception, that you cannot rely
`simply on the inventor's own self-serving testimony or
`documents to show conception.
`Now, the Patent Owner in his response to our
`motion has attempted to reform his conception proof by now
`characterizing it as consisting entirely of these invention
`disclosures and no testimony whatsoever. But he can't do
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`that. And that's not actually the proof that he has submitted
`in this case.
`His invention disclosure is not a public document.
`It is not self-authenticating. It has no significance or meaning
`unless it is attached to his own testimony that I created this
`document, this document reflects my conception of the
`invention, and it was created on such and such a date.
`Necessarily, you must have inventor testimony coupled to the
`document in order to show conception.
`So the Patent Owner's attempt to distinguish this
`case from the myriad line of cases where this Board and the
`Federal Circuit has held that unwitnessed notebook pages like
`this cannot constitute proof of conception, even under the rule
`of reason analysis with other evidence, he is unable to
`distinguish those cases and his argument that they don't apply
`is incorrect.
`And I would refer to Exhibit 2009, and this is the
`Patent Owner's own declaration that he submitted in this case
`of record.
`There he stated: On or before May 18, 1996, I
`conceived in the United States of the inventions disclosed and
`claimed in U.S. Patent RE39,618. I recorded the details of my
`invention in contemporaneous handwritten notes, true and
`correct copies of which are contained in Exhibit 2002. These
`notes were recorded by me at or near the time I conceived of
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`my invention during the month of May 1996, and my signature
`appears on the first page of Exhibit 2002, above my printed
`name, and the first date on which the notes were recorded. As
`is my practice, each page of my notes is individually initialed
`by me and dated on the date the notes on that page were
`recorded.
`
`So this conception case clearly is based upon
`inventor testimony. It has to be. Every conception case is.
`That is the inventor testimony that was submitted here. And
`so all of the cases that we cited apply.
`We have the Neste case where the Board held that
`the rule requiring independent corroboration is to avoid the
`sort of circular situation where the inventor has his testimony
`that says I conceived of this, then says these are my
`documents that I prepared, and the two point to one another
`and are supposedly the corroboration, because, if you just
`think of it, makes perfect sense why that is inadequate.
`It's just as easy for an inventor -- frankly, it's
`easier for an inventor to fabricate a document that is
`supposedly an invention disclosure than it is to testify subject
`to cross-examination about conception. You could simply
`write the specification or change things from the
`specification, backdate it, and say that it was prepared earlier.
`That is why you need independent corroboration.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`And in the Neste case there were notebook pages
`bearing the inventor's initials, dated 2/20, and the inventor
`testified that he prepared them around February 20th, 2008.
`They were rejected on the ground that there must be
`authentication provided by a witness "other than the
`inventor," citing the Horton v. Stevens case.
`JUDGE WARD: Mr. Dane, can we talk about the
`testimony, or can we talk about Mr. Townsley's testimony? I
`want to ask you specifically about the statements that he has
`made where he tells us that: Mr. Levine provided me with the
`preliminary invention disclosure, which was similar in format
`and content to that contained in Exhibit 2003. I read Mr.
`Levine's preliminary invention disclosure and understood its
`contents.
`
`Do you have a case that you provided to this Panel
`in which a court found it insufficient for the corroborating
`evidence to have been to a document similar to the one
`submitted as a piece of evidence?
`MR. DANE: Well, let me address that, Your
`Honor. I'm not sure that we have a case that we have cited
`that specifically deals with -- I have reviewed many of the
`cases and I can confidently say, if the Board looks at the
`circumstances of those cases, it will conclude that that is not
`adequate corroboration because it is too vague. This is a
`requirement that has some rigor to it.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`And if I can skip ahead to our discussion of Mr.
`Townsley, I will show why this is insufficient evidence.
`In the Patent Owner's response, the Patent Owner
`said that Mr. Townsley made "a summary of an invention
`disclosure in his request for a patentability search, which
`could make it sound as if they are talking about the October 9
`disclosure. But they are not talking about the October 9
`disclosure because this is in a September 27th document.
`And if we look at what exactly did Mr. Townsley
`say on September 27th, 1996, he said the invention boils down
`to replacing current onboard flight data recorders with
`onboard sensors and radio transmitters. He is talking about a
`separate purpose of the invention, which is to have a remote
`flight data recorder instead of the one onboard the aircraft.
`Tha