trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01760, Paper No. 24
`IPR2015-01762, Paper No. 22
`December 7, 2016
`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`COXCOM, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01760
` (Patent 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762
`(Patent 7,397,363)
`Technology Center 2600
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, November 17, 2016
`Before: STACEY G. WHITE, JASON J. CHUNG, and BETH
`Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`November 17, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01760, Paper No. 24
`IPR2015-01762, Paper No. 22
`December 7, 2016
`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`COXCOM, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01760
` (Patent 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762
`(Patent 7,397,363)
`Technology Center 2600
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, November 17, 2016
`Before: STACEY G. WHITE, JASON J. CHUNG, and BETH
`Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`November 17, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MITCHELL G. STOCKWELL, ESQ.
`SHAYNE E. O'REILLY, ESQ.
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`Suite 2800
`1100 Peachtree Street NE
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4528
`404-815-6500
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RAYMOND JOAO, President
`Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC
`Yonkers, New York
`rayjoao@optonline.net
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:00 p.m.)
`JUDGE CHUNG: Please be seated. This hearing
`is for IPR2015- 01760 and IPR2015- 01762, Coxcom LLC
`versus Joao Control & Monitoring Systems.
`Who do we have for Petitioner?
`MR. STOCKWELL: Your Honor, Mitch Stockwell,
`lead counsel for Petitioner, but my colleague Shayne O'Reilly
`will be arguing today.
`JUDGE CHUNG: Who do we have for Patent
`
`Owner?
`
`MR. JOAO: For Patent Owner we have Raymond
`Joao, and I have George Proios with me.
`JUDGE CHUNG: Petitioner can reserve some
`rebuttal time. Each party will have 60 minutes to present their
`argument. Would the Petitioner like to reserve any rebuttal
`time?
`
`MR. O'REILLY: We would like to reserve 15
`minutes for rebuttal time.
`JUDGE CHUNG: 15, 1- 5?
`MR. O'REILLY: Yes, sir.
`JUDGE CHUNG: Okay. Thanks. With me on the
`panel are Judges Beth Shaw, and Stacey White who is sitting
`remote in Dallas.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`
`So I would like to add that when the parties are
`presenting their arguments from the slides, please refer to the
`slide number clearly and speak into the microphone so that
`Judge White can follow along.
`At this time Petitioner may present their case.
`MR. O'REILLY: Your Honors, we have hard
`copies of the slides. May I approach?
`JUDGE CHUNG: You may.
`MR. O'REILLY: Unfortunately, Judge White, I
`can't ship this to you. It wouldn't get to you quickly enough.
`JUDGE WHITE: No worries. I have them
`electronically.
`MR. O'REILLY: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`As we mentioned earlier, my name is Shayne O'Reilly and this
`is my colleague Mitch Stockwell.
`We are here to talk about two different IPRs. One
`involves U.S. Patent Number 7,397,363, which we will refer to
`as the '363 patent. The other one involves U.S. Patent Number
`6,549,130, which we will refer to as the '130 patent. These
`patents are related. The '363 patent is a grandchild of the '130
`patent.
`
`Go to slide 2. So this, slide 2, just for some
`background, Petitioner submitted a petition, provided some
`evidence from a person of ordinary skill in the art through our
`expert, Richard Bennett, and the Board instituted these IPRs
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`on these grounds listed right here. As you can see, what is
`bolded are the independent claims.
`So in the '130, the IPR related to the '130 patent,
`the claims are 1, 98, 145. And the '363 patent, the
`independent claims are 1, 84 and 42. So if you look at claim
`44 it has an asterisk next to it. It is a dependent claim that
`depends from independent claim 42. So we also address claim
`42 in our analysis of the '363 patent as well.
`What you will see also is that the current
`references that are common to both IPRs are the Koether and
`Crater references.
`Slide 3. So one of the procedural disputes common
`to both IPRs is whether Koether and Crater qualify as prior
`art. We believe that they do. The Patent Owner differs.
`Slide 4. So the only real disputed issue related to
`that is whether the challenged claims are entitled to a priority
`date prior to July 18, 1996. We do not believe that they are.
`Patent Owner differs.
`Slide 5. Slides 5 through 7 just provide some basic
`legal principles on the law. But slide 5, there is no
`presumption that the challenged claims of the '130 and '363
`are entitled to a priority date prior to July 18, 1996.
`Slide 6. The burden rests with the Patent Owner to
`prove that it is entitled to a filing date earlier than -- priority
`date earlier than the actual filing date.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`
`Slide 7. Patent Owner must show there is written
`description support for the challenged claims in an application
`from March 1996. And also for purposes of written
`description, as you know, possession is -- showing that the
`inventor possessed the invention at the time is critical. And
`we've got a quote from PowerOasis that just shows the subject
`matter must be disclosed to establish possession.
`On to slide 6 -- I'm sorry, slide 8, our position is
`that the Patent Owner failed to provide -- meet their burden.
`To claim written description support we feel that the Patent
`Owner needed to provide written description support for the
`full disclosure of premises as construed for purposes of this
`case.
`
`Looking at what the Patent Owner has pointed to,
`they have only pointed to a single mention of a home security
`system in the March 1996 application. And then they point to
`figure 11B from the March 1996 application which they admit
`is directed to a vehicle basis.
`Just for context let's just look at what they point
`to. As you can see here, the 1996 application which we will
`discuss as well is directed to a vehicle anti- theft system. And
`there is this one throwaway sentence right before the end of
`the patent where it says: "For example, the present invention
`may also find application in home, boat and/or other security
`systems."
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`
`The other portion of the March 1996 application
`Patent Owner points to, that's on slide 19, and that's figure
`11B, right here, which as I mentioned the Patent Owner
`acknowledges is limited to a vehicle system, not a premises
`system.
`
`So going back to slide 11, here is the term
`premises as defined for purposes of this IPR. You've got a
`premises which is a genus, and then within that you've got all
`of these species. You've got a building or a structure, and the
`grounds or parcel of land associated with it. You've got a
`commercial building. You've got a machine or a rig, an
`assembly line or an edifice.
`So let's go back to slide 10. And I apologize,
`Judge White, I will try to give you time to get to the slide
`because we are jumping around a little bit.
`JUDGE WHITE: I can keep up.
`MR. O'REILLY: Okay. Perfect. Looking at the
`March 1996 application. As I mentioned, there is only a
`single mention of a vehicle, a home and a boat. If you go back
`to slide 11, at best, I mean, as you probably saw on that last
`slide, we highlighted home yellow, vehicle and boat were
`highlighted purple.
`On slide 10, if you look at this slide at best home,
`from the March 1996 application, may provide, potentially
`provide for home and mobile home, whereas vehicle and boat
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`on the prior slide which were highlighted in purple may
`provide support for a mobile structure. Let's go to slide 12.
`Everything, all of these species that are
`highlighted here in orange would not be supported by that
`disclosure of a home, vehicle or boat. So we don't believe that
`there would be adequate written description support. So let's
`look at some case law.
`We will go to slide 9. We set out this chart. In
`Tronzo v. Biomet, the Federal Circuit held that disclosure of
`the species of a conical- shaped cup in an early application was
`not adequate written description support for later claims in an
`earlier application to all cup shapes.
`In the Anascape case, the Federal Circuit held that
`disclosure of the species of a controller having a single input
`member was not adequate written description support for
`claims in a later application that included a controller having
`multiple input members.
`So if we line that up -- and we will go to slide
`12 -- if we line that up with what we are doing here, you've
`got the genus of the premises and then you've got all of these
`species in here, and we don't believe that the disclosure of a
`home security system, a vehicle or boat, is adequate written
`description support for all of these species that are captured
`within this genus of premises.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`
`So let's move on to slide 13. Additionally, the
`single mention of a home security system, and figure 11B in
`the March 1996 application, we don't believe is adequate
`written description support for the control functions of the
`claims. And we're going to dig into that a little more deeply.
`So let's look at slide 14.
`You've got a first control device that performs,
`generates and transmits a first signal that performs all of these
`control functions. You've got activating, disabling, reenabling
`and deactivating of premises system, equipment, appliance or
`some variant thereof.
`So slide 15, this is us taking the species of the
`premises and putting that into the control functions of that
`claim that we just looked at. And we don't believe that a
`single mention of a home security system finding an
`application encompasses all of these control functions that
`must happen with the premises as construed, which includes
`disabling an assembly line, activating a mobile building
`system, disabling a drilling rig, reenabling an edifice, or
`activating a parcel of land system.
`We just don't believe there is adequate written
`description support for all of those control functions based off
`of a single mention of a home security system and figure 11B.
`Let's jump to slide 16. This is the March 1996
`application. The March 1996 application is directed to
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`nothing but vehicles. It says the present invention provides an
`apparatus and method for overcoming the disadvantages and
`drawbacks which are associated with known prior art anti-theft
`and vehicle recovery devices and systems.
`Patent Owner's argument is that a skilled artisan
`would have looked at the March 1996 application and thought
`it would have been obvious that the inventor possessed the
`premises. However, looking at this full context of the March
`1996 application, as I mentioned, it is directed to motor
`vehicle systems. It is directed to motor vehicle anti-theft
`systems. It is directed to tracking motor vehicle systems using
`GPS. And at the very end it just has that throwaway mention
`of home and boat security systems.
`So a skilled artisan would not have read the March
`1996 application and thought that a premises was covered.
`Slide 17. Patent Owner's response, which we
`expect is them to say, hey, it would have been obviousness.
`But based off of this quote from Power Oasis, obviousness is
`not enough. The subject matter must be disclosed to establish
`possession.
`Moving on to slide 18. Let's look just generally at
`the specification of the March 1996 application. The term
`premises appears nowhere. You can search the March 1996
`application, type in premises, it appears nowhere within the
`specification. You look at the July 1996 application, the term
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`premises appears over 500 times. There is over nine columns
`of disclosure and at least two figures that are strictly directed
`to premises or premises system.
`Slide 19. Again, as we covered before, Patent
`Owner already admits that in its responsive brief that figure
`11B and its accompanying disclosure is related to a vehicle.
`Slide 20. Another point, the file history does not
`even support premises having any disclosure back to the
`March 1996 application. So -- I think it is on slide 11. Go to
`slide 11. Right here where you see this asterisk and it says
`originally filed specification. It provides all of these page
`numbers and lines. None of that is to the March 1996
`application.
`So at the time of prosecution, when Patentee
`decided to define premises this way, they pointed to no
`support from the March 1996 application. All of it comes
`from the July 1996 application.
`Slide 21. Now, Patentee may get up there and say,
`hey, well, it is just, you know, it is just a mistake, you know,
`we made a mistake. We could have found some citations in
`the March 1996 application, but we've got to look at the full
`scope of the prosecution history.
`So when the Patentee actually decided to include a
`claim amendment that a premises is a home, all of the support
`that they point to is from the July 1996 application. None of
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`it is from the March 1996 application. Again, when the
`Patentee decided to add a claim amendment that says premises
`is a mobile home, all of the citations, again, are from the July
`1996 application.
`So any one, particularly a skilled artisan looking at
`the file history, which is public, would have thought like they
`weren't in possession of a premises based off of that, looking
`at that -- based on the citations, that they only have the July
`1996 application.
`So, again, there were lots of opportunities for the
`Patent Owner to cite to the March 1996 application, but they
`opted not to.
`Unless there is any questions I would like to move
`on to my discussion of the prior art arguments with respect to
`the specific patent references. Okay? So let's start. We're
`looking at the '130 patent. We believe that Koether renders
`obvious independent claims 1, 98 and 145.
`Slide 25. These are all of the instituted grounds
`which we've discussed earlier. Again, independent claims are
`1, 98 and 145.
`Slide 26. This is just a slide to establish some of
`the key terminology that we're dealing with in these claims.
`You've got a first, second, third control device and you've got
`a first, second and third signal.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`
`Slide 27. And this illustrates how Koether maps to
`the claim limitations of the independent claims. So since we
`are looking at claim 1, for example, the first control device is
`the microprocessor -- is equivalent to the microprocessor
`controller of the appliance of Koether. The second control
`device is equivalent to the base station. And the third control
`device is equivalent to the control center. And that's just
`discussed in claim 1.
`So the system of Koether, just to provide some
`perspective, Koether describes a smart kitchen network where
`you could in real-time monitor and control the maintenance or
`repair of kitchen appliances.
`Koether, actually a really interesting invention,
`actually describes that a restaurant, like a McDonald's or a
`Burger King could remotely update the cooking profiles for all
`of their kitchen appliances. And that would be extremely
`beneficial because instead of having to go to each appliance
`and update in the cooking profiles, you are doing it remotely.
`Slide 28 really just illustrates how the signals, the
`key terminology that we mentioned before, mapped to the
`disclosure of Koether. Again, none of that, none of what we
`discussed, whether the first control device, whether the control
`devices or equivalent to those devices or the signals are
`equivalent to the other signals, none of that is disputed.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`
`Here are the disputes: First, should the
`construction of premises be interpreted to remove "a portion of
`or in the building or structure" and, second, is the second
`control device located at a location remote from the premises.
`Again, this is, you know, looking at this discussion
`on the left, if you look at the bottom, in the Patent Owner's
`response on page 11, it says: "JCMS" -- the Patent Owner --
`"respectfully submits that this construction should be adopted
`for the remainder of this IPR." And this is the construction of
`premises that they had in their remarks and that was the sole
`basis for the Board's construction of premises in this case.
`Patentee being his own lexicographer.
`However, on page 47 of that same Patent Owner
`Response, the Patent Owner asked for an interpretation of
`premises that removes a portion, room or office of or in the
`building or structure from the premises. So we agree with the
`Board's construction. We're just not really sure what position
`the Patent Owner is taking here, because within the same
`document they are taking two contradictory positions.
`Further, regardless of the construction, the second
`control device, it would have been obvious, based on Koether,
`that the second control device is at a location remote from the
`premises.
`
`Let's go to slide 2. And this kind of ties into that
`second issue. I mean, Koether specifically states that you
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`could have 40 different appliances that can communicate with
`the base station, including, and we highlighted here, HVAC
`systems.
`
`And HVAC systems, as, you know, are pretty well
`known, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art as something that could be outside. It does not have
`to be in the same room or location as the base station. So it
`could be remote from the premises.
`Additionally, as reflected in the Institution
`Decision and the unrebutted expert testimony that we have
`from Mr. Bennett, our expert, the premises could also be a --
`based off of the construction -- the premises could also be a
`portion of the kitchen in which the appliance is located.
`Slide 34. So even if the Patent Owner's
`construction of premises is -- or interpretation of premises is
`accepted, Koether, Koether would still render the independent
`claims obvious because premises, the definition of premises,
`even if you remove from what Patent Owner wants you to
`remove, includes equipment or machine.
`So each kitchen appliance, which includes ovens
`and cooling systems and refrigerators and HVAC, could
`actually be its own premises based off of the construction of
`premises for purposes of this case.
`On to slide 35. And this deals with claim 8. We
`apologize in advance. The slide actually has a typo on it. It
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`should just say "Koether renders obvious claim 8." It should
`not say Koether plus Crater. So I do apologize for that. Claim
`8 requires that the first signal transmitted from the first
`control device to the premises system, equipment or other
`variant is via wireless device.
`Slide 36. Koether discloses that the first signal
`transmitted from the microprocessor controller, first control
`device, to the -- that there is a first signal transmitted from the
`microprocessor controller, first control device, to the kitchen
`appliance. It would have been obvious that the microprocessor
`controller could talk to the kitchen appliance wirelessly.
`Figure 2, which is illustrated right here, and figure
`8, which we don't have illustrated, of Koether, describe a
`generic connection between the microprocessor controller and
`the kitchen appliance. It reflects that the microprocessor
`controller could be integrated in the kitchen appliance or
`connected to the kitchen appliance wirelessly.
`If we go to slide 39, Koether encourages the use of
`wireless communications. Significantly, it actually says wired
`interconnections are not desirable, because there is a strong
`likelihood that wires could be inadvertently cut by culinary
`instruments and it actually suggests having communication via
`satellite, microwave or infrared, all different types of wireless
`communications.
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`
`Going back to slide 36, given that you have 40
`different kitchen appliances that could communicate with a
`base station, it would have been beneficial to have wireless
`communication between the kitchen appliance and the
`microprocessor controller.
`Slide 37. Patent Owner's rebuttal is that the
`microprocessor and the appliance have to be integrated and
`can't communicate wirelessly. But that is wrong on two
`points.
`
`If you look at slide 38, our expert, who is a skilled
`artisan, Mr. Bennett, provides testimony in his deposition that
`says that the microprocessor could be connected to the kitchen
`appliance. In addition, in his declaration that he provided, in
`paragraphs 27 and 38, he explains that there could have been
`wireless communication between the microprocessor controller
`and the kitchen devices.
`And this would have been obvious because it
`would have been easier to deploy a system where you had one
`microprocessor controller communicating both 40 different
`kitchen appliances as opposed to 40 different kitchen
`appliances having 40 different -- each having its own
`microprocessor controller, which is 40 different
`microprocessor controllers. So we think that is, you know,
`obvious and ample motivation to connect one kitchen
`appliance to a microprocessor controller.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`
`Again, we're looking at slide 40. These are
`additional dependent claims. The Patent Owner does not
`independently dispute any of these dependent claims.
`So unless there are any questions I would like to
`move on to my discussion of the '363 patent.
`Slide 41. Our position is that the independent
`claims are obvious in view of Koether and Crater. As I
`mentioned before, claims 1, 84, and we also address claim 42
`since dependent claim 44 depends from it.
`These are the instituted grounds based off of
`Koether and Crater. This is slide 42.
`Slide 43. We're just establishing some of the key
`terminology. So you have a first, second and third processing
`device and a first, second and third signal.
`Slide 44. Similar to what we did with the '130
`patent, this just illustrates how the -- how Koether's disclosure
`maps to the claims of the '363 patent. So here the third
`processing device is the microprocessor controller. The
`second processing device is the base station.
`(Interruption)
`JUDGE CHUNG: Off the record.
`(Discussion off the record.)
`JUDGE CHUNG: We will go back on the record.
`JUDGE WHITE: Sorry about the interruption.
`JUDGE CHUNG: You may proceed.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`
`MR. O'REILLY: So we're on slide 44, which just
`illustrates how the Koether system maps to some of the key
`terminology that we discussed earlier.
`So claim 1, with respect to claim 1, the third
`processing device is the microprocessor controller. The
`second processing device is the base station. And the first
`processing device is the control center.
`Slide 45, similarly, it just shows how the
`disclosure of Koether maps to the claimed first, second and
`third signals of claim 1 of the independent claims of the '363
`patent.
`
`Slide 46. So this introduces the Crater reference,
`which we use to disclose the features of the Internet and the
`World Wide Web and the limitation of -- associated with the
`website in the independent claims.
`Koether, as I mentioned, is a smart kitchen control
`network. So you could remotely control the operation of
`kitchen devices. What Crater adds, Crater is actually very
`similar. It is related to monitoring, managing and controlling
`operations and detecting malfunctions.
`So one of the benefits of a Koether system is
`Koether adds the Internet. So, as I mentioned, remotely
`updating the cooking profiles of all McDonald's appliances
`within a particular restaurant. So with Crater you add the
`Internet and you are updating them via the web.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`
`Koether -- Crater also adds some security
`functionality as well that would be important in that kind of
`situation, too, because you could actually remotely control the
`temperature of these appliances, and if, you know, turn the
`temperature up too high you could unfortunately burn down
`the restaurant. So Crater adds some benefits there as well.
`Again, none of that discussion is disputed. The
`first, second or third processing device and its mapping to
`Koether or the first, second or third signals and how that maps
`to -- I'm sorry, how that maps to -- yeah, how that maps to
`Koether.
`
`The disputed issues, are Crater and Koether
`combinable, and then, two, does Crater and Koether disclose
`the first step of claim 1 of determining whether an action or
`operation is an authorized or an allowed action or operation?
`And, sorry, I didn't mention the slide. We are on
`slide 47. Sorry, Judge White.
`Slide 48. So the Patent Owner's argument -- the
`Patent Owner says that Koether and Crater can't be combined
`because Koether's disclosure of ISDN using the X.25 protocol
`teaches away from the use of the Internet and the World Wide
`Web.
`
`Slide 49. First, Patent Owner's argument fails
`because Koether is not just limited to an ISDN network using
`X.25. That's one embodiment. Koether broadly discusses the
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`use of ISDN networks which, you know, would also -- which
`would include using protocols like X.25 and the Internet.
`And then if we jump to slide 51, prior to the
`purported invention, ISDN networks used both the Internet and
`X.25.
`
`JUDGE SHAW: Isn't the ISDN network just an
`example of the data network 180, of the general idea of a data
`network in Koether?
`MR. O'REILLY: That's right.
`JUDGE SHAW: Is that right?
`MR. O'REILLY: That's correct. Exactly. It is the
`general idea of a data network which could have been -- could
`have used the TCP/IP protocol or it could have used the X.25
`protocol or, as we see right here in the slide, could have used
`both.
`
`Slide 52. This is just some additional, additional
`unrebutted expert testimony from our expert Mr. Bennett. And
`he says, you know, Mr. Bennett, as a networking person seeing
`Koether in the mid 1990s, if you saw that it used an ISDN
`network with X.25 on it, you would have immediately thought
`that it could have also used TCP/IP as well, so we think that's
`some strong unrebutted testimony.
`And in our reply we provide quite a bit of case law
`that talks about the high bar that must be met for teaching
`away. And, quite frankly, the Patent Owner does not meet that
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`bar. And in light of this strong evidence that we pointed out,
`you know, it is not close.
`Slide 53. And the issue is do Koether and Crater
`disclose this determining step, which we discussed. As I
`mentioned before, Koether, where you are remotely updating
`kitchen profiles, security will be very important to a system
`like that. And that's what Crater adds.
`Crater specifically talks about how an authorized
`client can directly modify the operating parameters of a
`control device which, in that situation, would be the kitchen
`appliance, like an oven. And for this to occur there would
`have to be at least some determination whether that operation
`is allowed.
`So we have two cites here to Crater. One deals
`with the situation I just discussed. The other one also talks
`about authorization via password. And if we look at the '363
`patent, the '363 patent just talks about just an authorized user.
`I mean, that's it. They don't provide any specific details about
`the authorized user. They just continuously use the term
`authorized user. So a password we think would cover this
`limitation.
`In addition, we've got unrebutted expert testimony
`from Mr. Bennett who said that a password -- who says that a
`password is a form of authorization. So, again, we feel like
`
`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 IPR2015-01760 (Patent No. 6,549,130)
`Case IPR2015-01762 (Patent No. 7,397,363)
`
`this limitation is disclosed by the combination of both Koether
`and Crater.
`Slide 55. This is claim 44 that we talked about. It
`is the only claim that depends from independent claim 42. It
`just says the second processing device is associated with the
`website. We feel like Koether discloses this feature. In the
`'363 patent it talks about the second processing device being a
`web server.
`And if you have the combination of the base
`station of Koether, and you add the web server, and you have
`the communication over the web, we feel that the base station
`could serve as the web server. So we feel that this limitation
`is disclosed. Slide 57. Patent Owner does not independently
`dispute these dependent claims that are listed here.
`Unless you have any additional questions, I would
`just like to move on to just hit on really quickly two other
`issues.
`
`One, Patent Owner does not address this in their
`slides but they do make an argument in the briefs. They say
`that the petition does not name, properly name all the real
`parties- in- interest. We believe that it does.
`Again, looking at slide 60, the prior art references
`that were relied on in the present IPR
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
