trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01443, Paper No. 26
`IPR2015-01444, Paper No. 26
`October 20, 2016
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`IXI IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`Technology Center 2600
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, September 15, 2016
`
`BEFORE: TRENTON A. WARD; KRISTINA M. KALAN
`(via video link); and JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`September 15, 2016, at 11:00 a.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01443, Paper No. 26
`IPR2015-01444, Paper No. 26
`October 20, 2016
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`IXI IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`Technology Center 2600
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, September 15, 2016
`
`BEFORE: TRENTON A. WARD; KRISTINA M. KALAN
`(via video link); and JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`September 15, 2016, at 11:00 a.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`W. KARL RENNER, ESQ.
`JEREMY J. MONALDO, ESQ.
`USMAN KHAN, ESQ.
`WON S. YOON, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W.
`11th Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`202-783-3070
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDY H. CHAN, ESQ.
`CHARLES F. KOCH, ESQ.
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive
`Suite 400
`Redwood City, California 94065
`650-802-3600
`
`GRIFFIN MESMER, ESQ.
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`125 High Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110
`617-204-5100
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` (11:00 a.m.)
`JUDGE WARD: You may be seated. Good
`morning. Welcome to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`We are here today for oral arguments in four Inter
`Partes Review cases. They are matters Number
`IPR2015- 1443, 1444, 1445 and 1446, cases in which Samsung
`and Apple are the Petitioner and IXI IP is the Patent Owner.
`The Panel for this hearing today is my colleague,
`Judge Hudalla, who is sitting here to my left; myself, Judge
`Ward; and my other colleague, Judge Kalan, who is joining us
`from our office in Denver, Colorado.
`Good morning to you, Judge Kalan. Can you see
`and hear us clearly?
`JUDGE KALAN: I can. Good morning to you.
`JUDGE WARD: Excellent. Thank you. I would
`like to start by getting appearances of counsel. And, counsel,
`when you make your appearance, if you could please step to
`the podium and speak into the microphone so Judge Kalan can
`hear you.
`
`Starting with Petitioner, who do we have on behalf
`of Petitioner?
`MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor. This is
`Karl Renner from Fish & Richardson. And I'm joined by
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`Jeremy Monaldo, as well as Usman Khan and Won Yoon. And
`Erica Apple is here, and Jessica Hannah is here from Apple.
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you. Welcome. Who do
`we have on behalf of Patent Owner?
`MR. CHAN: I'm Andy Chan, Pepper Hamilton
`LLP, on behalf of Patent Owner, IXI IP LLC.
`With me are my colleagues, Griffin Mesmer,
`Chuck Koch, and we have from our client Steve Pedersen and
`Tom Biemer.
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you. A few administrative
`details I would like to go over before we get started with the
`arguments, primarily to talk about the format of the hearings
`today since we have multiple cases.
`The hearing order for this case instructed that the
`parties would have 30 minutes each for each case. The Panel
`would propose that we address the first two cases, the lowest
`numbered cases, 1443 and 1444, in the morning session. We
`will take a lunch break. We will come back and we will
`address the 1445 case and the 1446 case.
`We will, with respect to the 1443 and 1444, I
`imagine that the parties will want to argue those separately as
`they are different patents so we will essentially close the
`transcript for 1443 before we move on to 1444.
`I would make a suggestion to the parties, for the
`afternoon session for 1445 and 1446, since those both relate
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`to the '648 patent, you could consider consolidating the
`arguments for those, otherwise I will leave it to your
`preference. You can argue them individually if you so choose
`to do so.
`
`We're following the normal format. Petitioner,
`you will present your arguments first. Patent Owner, you will
`then be given a chance to respond to Petitioner's arguments.
`And, Petitioner, you may reserve time for rebuttal.
`One additional issue that I want to mention, I
`notice that both parties inquired in their request for oral
`hearing the possibility of addressing the motions to exclude
`here at the arguments today.
`The focus of the Panel is, of course, on the merits
`of the case and the instituted grounds. But we will authorize
`the Patent Owner to speak as to the motion to exclude to the
`extent that time permits at the end of your arguments as to the
`instituted grounds.
`You are the movant, so if you raise the issue, and
`then, Petitioner, you will have the opportunity to respond
`during your rebuttal. Let me look through my notes here, any
`other administrative notes.
`Oh, one important thing, and we will probably
`remind you of this during the hearing, but Judge Kalan is
`unable to see this nice fancy screen that we have here in the
`hearing room. So just make sure when you are going through
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`demonstratives, mention the slide that you are referencing so
`that Judge Kalan can follow along.
`Any questions from Petitioner?
`MR. RENNER: None, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you. Patent Owner, any
`questions?
`MR. CHAN: No questions, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WARD: Okay. Petitioner, when you are
`ready to begin you may get started.
`MR. MONALDO: May it please the Board. My
`name is Jeremy Monaldo of Fish & Richardson representing
`API and Samsung as Petitioners. Today, as mentioned, we are
`scheduled to discuss four proceedings involving three patents.
`JUDGE WARD: Mr. Monaldo, let me just ask you
`quickly, do you want to reserve any time for rebuttal?
`MR. MONALDO: Yes, Your Honor. I would like
`to reserve about 10 minutes.
`JUDGE WARD: 10 minutes for rebuttal?
`MR. MONALDO: That's correct.
`JUDGE WARD: And you're speaking to the 1443
`case, is that correct?
`MR. MONALDO: That's correct.
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you.
`MR. MONALDO: So this first session involves
`IXI's '532 patent. The record in this proceeding is substantial
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`and our time limited so I will plan to focus on the few issues
`that remain in dispute.
`Moving to slide 2, here we have provided a table
`of contents for our demonstratives. This is really here for
`convenient reference to the various sections of the
`demonstratives.
`As you can see, the first section and the second
`section relate to an overview of the '532 patent and then a full
`application of the prior art to claim 1 of the '532. These
`slides here are really for reference and on an as-needed basis.
`I don't really intend to walk through all of these slides.
`Rather, our goal is to focus on sections 3 and 4 and a narrow
`set of disputed issues.
`That said, our primary objective really is to
`address any questions Your Honors may have, so please feel
`free to steer the discussion any way deemed helpful.
`With that background I would like to move to slide
`4 for a brief overview of the '532 patent. So all of IXI's
`patents that we will discuss today involve cellular hotspot
`technology, where a cellular device provides a local area
`network with access to a wide area cellular network.
`You can see figure 1 on slide 4 of the '532 patent,
`where you have a cellular device 106, it's a cellular telephone
`circled here in red, that provides a group of terminals, 107,
`access to a cellular network. To provide access, the cellular
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`device 106 communicates with the terminal devices on the
`local area network using short-range radio signals, and then
`also communicates with the cellular network using cellular
`signals.
`
`You can see this in figure 1. You have a
`short- range wireless network on the right- hand side and then a
`cellular network on the left-hand side. With this structure,
`the cellular device 106 serves as a bridge or a gateway
`between these two networks, allowing the local devices to
`communicate with the cellular devices.
`Now, the cellular hotspot technology was known
`prior to the IXI patents. The IXI patents do not intend to
`claim cellular hotspot technology alone. Instead each of these
`patents focuses on hotspot technology plus one or more
`additional features. And it is these plus features that are
`relied on for novelty. The plus feature for the '532 patent is
`use of software plug- ins in the cellular device.
`Moving to slide 6, you will see that the cellular
`device in the '532 patent includes a router, 404, uses hooks to
`enable plug-ins 406 to be added to the router, the plus feature.
`So what are these plug-ins? They are merely
`software components that are downloaded to the cellular
`device to modify routing or network functionality offered by
`that cellular device. As shown in our slide 6, you have
`labeled in red a variety of public plug- ins that can be added to
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`the cellular device. You can see there is a wide variety.
`Really anything related to a networking or routing feature can
`serve as a plug- in.
`So now, as mentioned earlier, cellular hotspot
`technology was known prior to the '532 patent. And the
`Marchand reference confirms this.
`Moving to slide 12, slide 12 shows you that
`Marchand describes a network setup that is very similar to the
`'532 patent. As illustrated, you have a cellular telephone 33
`circled in red that serves as a gateway that connects devices
`on a short-range Bluetooth network, you can see the laptop
`31, the printer 32, to a 3G wireless IP network, a cellular
`network.
`
`The cellular telephones use IP technology to route
`communications between devices on that short -range
`Bluetooth network to devices on the cellular network. This is
`the very same type of cellular hotspot technology described by
`the '532 patent. As you can see here, you have the short-range
`wireless on the left-hand side and the cellular network on the
`right-hand side.
`The only difference between that and the '532
`patent's figure 1 that we just discussed is that the sides of the
`networks are depicted on opposite sides of the page.
`Moving to slide 23, you will see also that it was
`well known to use software plug- ins for routers. Indeed, the
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`prior art reference is titled "Router Plug-Ins" and describes
`flexible software architecture where plug-ins are dynamically
`added to a router to enhance IP routing or network
`functionality.
`Importantly, IXI does not dispute that Marchand
`discloses cellular hotspot technology or that Router Plug-Ins
`discloses software plug-ins for routing.
`Moving to slide 36, you will see that IXI's only
`dispute regarding Marchand and Router Plug-Ins is whether a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these
`two references in the manner set forth in the petition.
`First, IXI contends that Marchand performs
`routing at different layers of the protocol stack than Router
`Plug-Ins and this prevents the combination.
`Moving to slide 40, you will see that this
`contention is just simply incorrect. Without question
`Marchand routes IP packets and it does so at the network
`transport IP layer 17. At the upper left portion of slide 40
`you will see what IXI's own expert acknowledges during
`deposition.
`"Question: Are IP packets routed at the network
`
`layer?
`
`"Answer: Yes."
`Further, illustrated in the upper right portion of
`slide 40 you will see that IXI -- you will see that Marchand
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`itself explicitly describes routing IP packets and shows you a
`network transport IP layer 17.
`In the middle of slide 40 --
`JUDGE KALAN: Counsel, does Marchand's
`routing of calls using an API nevertheless pose some kind of
`architectural problem, or can we just limit our focus to the
`routing of IP packets?
`MR. MONALDO: That's a great question, Your
`Honor, and, no, the routing of calls is something that is
`different than routing of IP packets. With your question,
`maybe I will move us to slide 43.
`So as you mentioned, IXI contends that Router
`Plug-Ins is incompatible with Marchand's description of an
`API that routes calls. Importantly, Marchand describes that
`API routes calls, not IP packets. This is an important
`distinction.
`Although Marchand's API performs a higher level
`function of routing calls, Marchand's network layer still is
`needed to perform that lower layer functionality of routing IP
`packets. So if you are looking at slide 43, let's take a step
`back, and at the lower right- hand portion you see the protocol
`stack used in Marchand.
`So what is this protocol stack? It is really just a
`hierarchical representation of operations that are performed in
`a computer system, extracting away details as you move
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`between the different layers of the protocol stack. So from
`top to bottom the operations go from higher level user-facing
`operation down to lower level hardware operations.
`For instance, at the bottom layer, the physical
`layer, you see that that defines the physical signals used in
`device-to-device communication. So in Marchand calls are
`routed to the application layer by the API. This is illustrated
`in our figure showing you the application layer at the top
`portion of the protocol stack.
`This is simply caller-to- recipient routing. I'm a
`caller. I want to place a call to a particular recipient. The
`API is not concerned with the underlying operations or
`hardware used to route data in the call between that caller and
`the recipient.
`The API might not even know what that underlying
`technology is and may work with different types of
`technologies. That's the whole point of using a protocol
`stack. Higher level layers do not need to concern themselves
`with the lower level details.
`However, those lower level details are still vitally
`important and required to achieve the higher level
`functionality. So as a call occurs in Marchand, it is the API
`at that application layer that performs the higher level
`function of call routing, caller to recipient. It is the network
`layer that performs the lower level functionality of routing the
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`IP packets between the caller and the recipient, the data that
`constitutes the call.
`Thus, Marchand's network layer is still involved in
`call routing, in addition to the call routing performed by the
`API, it performs the critical function of IP packet routing.
`JUDGE WARD: Mr. Monaldo, can you help me
`understand how the Patent Owner's arguments match up with
`what you are telling me about the OSI layers here?
`Patent Owner argues that Marchand teaches its
`routing and addressed functionality is implemented in the JINI
`technology layer, while the Router Plug-Ins is implemented in
`the kernel of the operating system layer.
`MR. MONALDO: So to speak to that, you know,
`as I mentioned, the application layer, what it is doing is
`routing calls. That's this higher level function. You can see
`that's the top layer of the protocol stack.
`JUDGE WARD: Yes.
`MR. MONALDO: You mentioned operating
`system layer, and I'm going to disagree with Patent Owner
`that that is where Router P lug-Ins operates. Instead, what
`Router Plug-Ins does is it routes IP packets. We know, IXI's
`expert even told you, that where does routing IP packets
`occur? It occurs at the network layer. Router Plug-Ins itself
`tells you it has an IP core and it tells you it performs level 3
`routing, level 3 being the network layer.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`
`So while both Marchand and Router Plug-Ins route
`IP packets, they both do so at the network layer and come
`together right at that layer. Now, the API is still involved in
`the call process but that's the higher level process, the
`application layer process. That's not concerned with the
`details of the specific IP routing.
`So perhaps an analogy might be helpful. You
`know, how I thought about this in the past is a vehicle
`navigation system. All right. So in a navigation system you
`have this higher level user-facing operation, where a user is
`entering addresses, a starting location and an end location,
`what addresses are involved in a route.
`After that occurs, the lower level process of
`direction routing occurs where the navigation system goes in
`and figures out how to get from starting location A to
`destination B, considering a variety of factors, maps, traffic,
`speed limits, road types, a variety of things that just aren't
`concerned with the higher level details of point A to point B.
`And so this exactly aligns with what Marchand is
`telling you. The routing of calls is that higher level facing
`operation. I'm a caller. I want to get to a recipient. And IP
`packet routing is the lower level direction routing, how do I
`get these packets from that caller to the recipient once I have
`that higher level routing set up.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`
`So continuing with this analogy, the combination
`of Marchand and Router Plug- Ins would be akin to Marchand
`providing the entire navigation system. It provides both the
`higher level user facing operation and that lower level
`routing, with Router Plug-Ins coming in just at that lower
`level piece to improve the IP routing functionality of
`Marchand.
`Again, remember, Router Plug-Ins is directed to
`routing IP packets, and it tells you that its software is useful
`in creating flexibility, modularity and gives a person of
`ordinary skill in the art several reasons why you would want
`to use its software to supplement or replace Marchand's.
`And for those reasons, Marchand's call routing is
`perfectly compatible with Router Plug-Ins, with the Router
`Plug-Ins performing the IP layer lower level software to
`support Marchand's higher level API routing calls.
`With that I would like to pause for some questions
`on anything we have discussed about Marchand or Router
`Plug-Ins. And if there are no questions, I think I would like
`to move on.
`So hearing no questions I would like to move to
`slide 50. So this brings us to the third reference used in our
`challenge to claim 1, Hoffman. So what does Hoffman bring
`to the table? It's very simple. Express disclosure of
`over-the-air cellular downloaded plug- ins.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`
`So as we discussed, the person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have been motivated to route Router Plug- Ins
`into Marchand's cellular gateway. In doing so, a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that you need some
`sort of communication channel to get these plug-ins into
`Marchand.
`A very logical choice is Marchand's cellular
`connection. It already exists in Marchand and Marchand itself
`discloses that it downloads software over that channel.
`Software, not plug-ins, but software.
`And we found that disclosure in and of itself fairly
`obvious that these plug-ins would come over that channel, but
`to remove all doubt we simply cited to you Hoffman for
`explicit disclosure of the same, explicit disclosure of
`downloading software plug-ins over a cellular network to a
`mobile device.
`That's it. That's really all Hoffman is adding to
`the picture. And we think it is just reinforcing what is
`already there in Marchand and Router Plug-Ins.
`JUDGE KALAN: So there is nothing about
`Hoffman that would require the incorporation or the
`superimposition of its architecture on the already-proposed
`system?
`
`MR. MONALDO: Absolutely not. Right now
`Marchand and Router Plug-Ins would have all of the pieces
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`that would be needed to achieve the cellular communication
`channel, achieve the integration of plug- ins into Marchand's
`cellular device using Router Plug -Ins' own software.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art looking at that
`would understand that all of those pieces are already in place
`and you are simply reinforcing the concept that these plug- ins
`can be downloaded over the air through that cellular
`connection. That's it.
`So if there aren't any other questions on Hoffman,
`I would like to move forward to claim 8 and the network
`address translator features.
`So moving to slide 59, claim 8 is reproduced at the
`left portion of slide 59 and recites that the hand-held device
`includes a network address translator software component that
`translates between cellular and Local Area Network addresses.
`Marchand expressly describes a mobile phone 33,
`you can see circled in red, the gateway, as translating between
`public cellular IP addresses and private local area IP
`addresses. The depiction on slide 59 shows you this. Again,
`you have the cellular gateway 33 circled in red. You have the
`cellular public network identified in green. And then the
`private IP network, the Bluetooth network circled in blue.
`The red circle cellular mobile phone gateway sits between
`those networks and, of course, it's the device that is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`performing the address translation that allows communication
`between those two networks.
`Just look at what Marchand discloses at page 7,
`reproduced on slide 59. The mobile phone receives IP packets
`from the GPRS network through its public IP address, and
`forwards the received packets to the private IP address of the
`destination device in the piconet. It also translates in the
`other direction, for data going out of the piconet to the GPRS
`network. Very simple. Address translation performed at
`Marchand's mobile phone.
`Moving to slide 63, you will see that in the middle
`text box, IXI's own expert admitted this during deposition,
`and I quote: "The address translation is done at the gateway."
`Again, very simple. Marchand's mobile phone gateway
`includes software that performs address translation.
`If there are any questions on address translation or
`our position on the same, I'm happy to field them. Otherwise
`I would like to move finally to claim 7 and its introduction of
`an 802.11 network.
`So moving to slide 68, claim 7 merely adds the
`concept that the wireless local area network includes an
`802.11 network. Without question, Bluetooth and 802.11 are
`two well-known standards for implementing ad hoc wireless
`networks.
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`
`As illustrated in slide 68, Bluetooth and 802.11
`operate the same layers of the protocol stack with, as you can
`see at the left-hand side, Marchand showing you that
`Bluetooth operates the link layer and physical layer, and at
`the right- hand side you see 802.11. Again, same layers, data
`link layer and physical layer.
`Very simply, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would find it obvious to interchange these two well-known
`physical layer technologies for implementing ad hoc wireless
`networks. As set forth in the petition, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have seen and been motivated by the
`benefits offered by 802.11, higher data rates and greater
`range.
`
`Now, IXI argues that Marchand is somehow
`relying on Bluetooth and that could not function with 802.11.
`However, this is contradicted by Marchand's own disclosure
`which states that the "ad hoc network may be a Bluetooth
`piconet." Again, it may be a Bluetooth piconet, so not
`required.
`
`Moving to slide 71, you also see that in the lower
`left text box on slide 71, IXI's own expert admitted during
`deposition that the JINI/JAVA technology in Marchand "can
`be any network." Marchand is simply not relying on
`Bluetooth. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`found it obvious to implement Marchand's ad hoc wireless
`network using the well- known ad hoc standard of 802.11.
`As a final point, you will hear IXI attempt to
`contradict the ability of Marchand to use 802.11 by explaining
`a sub-piconet theory. This sub-piconet theory, however, has
`no basis in Marchand's disclosure. IXI's theory attempts to
`rely on one statement in Marchand's background that mentions
`a scatternet.
`This theory fails, however, because it requires you
`to believe a convoluted series of facts that are just simply not
`present in Marchand.
`Specifically, IXI's theory requires you to believe
`that when Marchand mentions a scatternet of independent
`piconets, Marchand is referring to an independent piconet
`within a set of devices that are already arranged in a piconet.
`And when Marchand mentioned a scatternet in its
`background at page 2, that scatternet was applied to the
`three-device piconet shown in Marchand figure 3, described
`five pages later at page 7. And when Marchand mentioned
`that a scatternet includes multiple independent piconets, those
`independent piconets were somehow necessary for the purpose
`of setting up a call.
`These facts simply have no basis in Marchand.
`Marchand does not use the term sub-piconet anywhere.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`Marchand does not include the marked- up version of figure 3
`that IXI created.
`A more reasonable interpretation is that
`Marchand's figure 3 depicts three nearby devices that are
`connected in a single piconet.
`This interpretation aligns with the '532 patent
`which also uses Bluetooth and provides no mention of
`sub- piconets, but also aligns with IXI's evidence on Bluetooth
`piconets, which shows you and contrasts a single multi -state
`piconet that includes four devices -- this will be example B in
`IXI's slides -- with a scatternet that includes nine devices that
`are spread out over a greater distance.
`For these reasons IXI's sub-piconet theory fails
`and does not prevent 802.11 from being used to implement
`Marchand's ad hoc network.
`So with that I would like to field any questions,
`but otherwise we will reserve the remainder of my time for
`rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE WARD: Thank you, Mr. Monaldo.
`MR. MONALDO: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WARD: You will have 10 minutes left for
`
`rebuttal.
`
`MR. CHAN: Good morning, Your Honors. I'm
`Andy Chan. I'm representing the Patent Owner IXI IP LLC.
`And I want to turn to slide 2. The '532 patent is directed to a
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`system device and computer readable medium that allows a
`Wide Area Network or WAN operator to monitor and
`reconfigure a Local Area Network or a LAN at run time
`without user intervention.
`The mobile phone is especially equipped with,
`among other features, a microrouter 404 as depicted in figure
`5 on slide 2. The microrouter allows for the use of plug- ins
`and provides network services. The terminals connected to
`the mobile phone on the LAN are able to use and benefit from
`these plug- ins and the features provided by the hand-held
`device number 106.
`I will turn to slide 3. This introduces Marchand,
`the primary reference that Petitioner uses in its asserted
`grounds. Marchand is directed to a Bluetooth piconet that has
`been extended into an Internet Protocol or IP wireless local
`area network, implementing JINI/JAVA technology, in order
`to utilize JINI technology for sharing services between
`devices in the piconet.
`Additionally, Marchand describes a gateway
`mobile phone 33, and that mobile phone 33 is configured to
`act as a gateway to provide a call control interface between
`the IP wireless network and other devices in the Bluetooth
`piconet. And you can see in the abstract there it mentions
`Bluetooth piconet and the implementation of Bluetooth
`piconet with JINI/JAVA technology built on top of it.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01443 (Patent 7,295,532)
`Case IPR2015-01444 (Patent 7,039,033)
`
`
`Now, I would like to turn to slide 4. Slide 4
`represents Petitioner's asserted combination of Marchand with
`Router Plug-Ins, and Hoffman.
`Turning to slide 5, we can see that the protocol
`stack that Marchand requires for all of the devices in the
`Bluetooth piconet. Each device described in Marchand must
`have this protocol stack in figure 2 of Marchand. This
`includes the Bluetooth layers, the network transport layer, the
`operating system layer, and the JINI/JAVA technology layers
`depicted as boxes 20 and 19.
`The layers of the protocol stack are responsible for
`different functions of the system and they interact with the
`layers above and below in the hierarchy.
`Now, Petitioner alleges that a person of skill in the
`art would have modified this routing and add this translation
`functionality in Marchand's mobile gateway 33 by utilizing
`routing software technology described in Router Plug-Ins.
`But neither Petitioner nor its expert, Dr. Kiaei,
`offer any explanation as to how one of skill in the art would
`implement the plug- in based software architecture of Router
`Plug-Ins into the architecture described in Marchand. Under
`KSR, their conclusory statements are not sufficient.
`In particular, the routing software technologies are
`fundamentally different in that they are implemented in
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
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
