IPR2016-00717, Paper No. 41
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`IPR2016-00718, Paper No. 43
`
`
`July 13, 2017
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`WHATSAPP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`______________
`
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: Monday, June 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`FRANCIS L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judge (Via videoconference)
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, June 12,
`2017, commencing at 1:05 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`IPR2016-00718, Paper No. 43
`
`
`July 13, 2017
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`WHATSAPP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`______________
`
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: Monday, June 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`FRANCIS L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judge (Via videoconference)
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, June 12,
`2017, commencing at 1:05 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS WHATSAPP INC. AND FACEBOOK,
`INC.:
`
`MARK WEINSTEIN, ESQUIRE
`HEIDE KEEFE, ESQUIRE
`Cooley LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1130
`650-843-5001
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER TRIPLAY, INC.:
`
`DOUGLAS WEIDER, ESQUIRE
`BARRY SCHINDLER, ESQUIRE
`GreenbergTraurig
`500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
`Florham Park, New Jersey 07932-0677
`973-360-7944
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` (The hearing began at 1:05 p.m.)
`
` JUDGE COCKS: Good afternoon. Welcome to the
`Board. Judge Ippolito will be presiding today. Please
`direct your attention to her.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Good afternoon. This is the
`consolidated oral hearing in the cases of IPR2016-00717 and
`IPR2016-00718. These proceedings both involve U.S. Patent
`Number 8,874,677.
` I'm Judge Ippolito, and with us today are Judges
`Cocks and McNamara. As you can tell, some of us are
`participating remotely today, so I will remind you all to
`speak from the podium. Just make sure that all the judges
`can hear you. And, also, please identify by slide number any
`demonstratives you are referring to. Per our order, each
`side will have 60 minutes of total time. Could I have,
`beginning with Petitioner, the parties introduce themselves.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: My name is Mark Weinstein with
`Cooley, LLP, and with me is Heide Keefe, who is lead counsel.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Thank you.
` MR. WEIDER: Doug Weider from Greenberg Traurig. I
`will arguing today. And with me is Barry Schindler, who is
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`lead counsel.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Thank you. We will begin today
`with the petitioner, who will present its case regarding the
`challenged claims and the grounds on which we've instituted
`trial. And then the patent owner will have an opportunity to
`respond to the petitioner's argument. The petitioner is
`entitled to reserve some time to rebut the argument presented
`by the patent owner. Is everybody ready to begin?
` MR. WEIDER: Yes, Your Honor.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Petitioner, go ahead.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Your Honor, can I request that we
`reserve half of our time for rebuttal?
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Yes.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
` Your Honors, we're here today to discuss --
`there's two grounds of obviousness with respect to the
`patent, and they all revolve around the prior references --
`Coulombe, Bellordre, and Friedman.
` To introduce the combinations and explain what
`secondary references are used for, I'm going to Demonstrative
`Number 4 of the petitioner, which I also happen to have a
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`foam board here if you can see it.
` Demonstrative Slide Number 4 shows a reproduction
`of Figure 1 of Coulombe, and it gives you a good summary of
`what Coulombe is about. Coulombe has a sender on the left
`side of Figure 1 and a recipient on the right side. And the
`sender in this case is sending the message to the registrar,
`which is in the middle, which is essentially equivalent of
`the server.
` The message in Figure 1 has an image, which in
`this case is a picture of a man, and the resolution is 480 by
`640. What happens in Coulombe is that the message goes
`through this box here, 20, called the "message adaptation
`engine," and the message adaptation engine system is really
`the key to the Coulombe system. What it does is it adapts
`the message that is received from the sender based on
`whatever the requirements are of the recipient device. For
`example, if the recipient device is too small of a screen, it
`can actually reduce the resolution of the image to
`accommodate that. That's actually what's shown in Figure 1.
`It's actually described from Paragraph 88 of Coulombe, this
`exact adaptation.
` So the question comes down to what's missing from
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Coulombe? Well, all the disputes in this proceeding revolve
`around two limitations, both the independent claims. The
`first is whether or not Coulombe discloses a message that
`includes a video. And it's our position that it doesn't, and
`that's why we brought in the Bellordre reference.
` Coulombe never says anywhere that this message
`that goes to the registrar from the sending device can
`include a video. It just doesn't say that. Now, certainly
`Coulombe doesn't preclude a video. It just doesn't expressly
`disclose that. For that reason, that's why we brought in the
`Bellordre reference.
` The Bellordre reference actually is a very similar
`reference to Coulombe. It's remarkably similar in that it
`actually specifically discloses the ability to adapt messages
`for the displaying targets of the device. The key difference
`is that unlike Coulombe, Bellordre actually discloses that
`the message can include a multimedia object that has both a
`video or an image object.
` So the combination is actually very simple. You
`take this Figure 1 of Coulombe, which shows an image; and
`standard KSR rationale, if you were combine that with a
`disclosure of Bellordre, you get this system in which,
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`instead of sending a still image, you send a video image.
`It's a standard KSR rationale. Mr. Klausner, in Paragraph 64
`of his declaration, which is Exhibit 1002, he articulated
`other motivations to combine. He complained that Coulombe
`and Bellordre are analogous references. In fact, they are in
`precisely the same field of adapting messages for the content
`of their receiving device.
` He went on to explain kind of the most obvious
`rationale you can imagine. Video is a great feature. It's
`obviously a better user experience than just still images.
`So clearly a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
`motivated to modify Coulombe in accordance with the teachings
`of Bellordre in order to achieve the beneficial use of video.
` JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, let me ask you, we're all
`familiar with KSR. But rather than refer simply to a KSR
`rationale, can you be a little more specific?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor. The KSR case
`articulates a number of rationales. In this case you can
`have -- when you combine known elements in the same way, it
`can achieve various roles, so that's one of the KSR
`rationales, and that's one of the rationales he relies on.
` He is also relies on the fact that you have an
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`express motivation to combine because video is so much better
`than still images. So he relies on both rationales as well
`as the overall similarity of the two references.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Can I stop you there?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Sure.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: I want to have a better
`understanding of what the combination is that you're
`proposing. Are you proposing that with Coulombe, the system, the only thing
`that's being added is the
`video; or are you proposing that the Coulombe system is
`modified by what is being used by the Bellordre reference in
`how it is adapting that video in a message?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: The later limitations actually
`call for that, Your Honor. In fact, we are relying on
`Bellordre in the later limitations for showing that, in fact,
`the video can be adapted. And that's in Paragraph 62 of
`Bellordre where it specifically discusses the fact that you
`can actually reduce the resolution of the video image based
`on the characteristics of the device.
` So this transformation we see in Figure 1 of
`Coulombe where you take the resolution of the image and you
`shrink it, Bellordre in Paragraph 62 discloses the exact same
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`transformation except with the video.
` Now, we're certainly not suggesting any kind of
`physical combinability between the two references that they
`have to be physically combinable. The law doesn't require
`that. But we are saying that the teachings of Bellordre
`regarding the ability to send video messages and the ability
`to adapt video messages based on the display characteristics
`of the device, we are saying that that's provided by
`Bellordre, and that's what we're using Bellordre for.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: To make sure I'm understanding
`it, then the Coulombe registrar or the message adaptation
`engine, is it your position that that would be modified to be
`able to adapt video images based on how Bellordre is doing
`it?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: If you were to physically combine
`the two systems, you would have in the message adaptation
`engine of Coulombe, which is Item 20 in Figure 12, that's
`what would be doing the adaptation. That's what does the
`adaptation of all kinds of media. So under the combination,
`that message adaptation engine would also have the ability to
`convert or adapt video based on the teachings of Bellordre.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Where is that in your petition for
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Claim 1?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: For Claim 1 -- let me get the
`petition, Your Honor. It's in a number of places. The
`claims break out the limitations into a number of different
`areas.
` With respect to where -- the simple proposition
`that a message can contain a video, that is contained in --
`that's contained on Pages 16 and 17 of the petition. This is
`the petition of the 717 case. That's where the motivation to
`combine and the rationale is just for the aspect of the claim
`where it says the message can include a video.
` With respect to the later parts of the claim where
`it requires that the message be adapted based on the display
`characteristics of the video being displayed that's on Pages
`21 -- it goes on to 25, basically through 25. And then 26,
`onward, goes into the issue of the applicable icon. But the
`combination of using the Bellordre system in order to -- in
`order to do it is specifically disclosed in this section.
` So ultimately the question comes down -- we have a
`simple combination where you replace the Coulombe; instead of
`sending the image, you send a video. Now, the patent owners
`obviously argue that this is not a proper combination, and
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`they have rested most of their argument on the proposition,
`as far as we can understand, that you would never look to
`Coulombe because -- I'm sorry; you'd never look to Bellordre
`because Coulombe already discloses video adaptation
`capabilities. The basic position is, because Coulombe
`already discloses video adaptation, you never need to consult
`a secondary reference like Bellordre to do that.
` Now, their basis for that is Paragraph 69 of
`Coulombe, and I have a foam board of it, and it's also
`Demonstrative Slide Number 5 of Petitioner's demonstratives.
`And here I have reproduced a copy of Paragraph 69.
` Now, before I go into 69, I want to sort of frame
`where this paragraph comes within the reference. 69, you can
`see it has a numeral 2 that says, "Proxy adapting message
`based on recipient terminal characteristics or user
`preferences."
` This is part of a list. The list begins in
`Paragraph 64 where Coulombe is saying the following
`features -- I'll actually just quote it. In 64 it's saying,
`"The following elements are novel compared to the present
`SIP-related specifications." This is part of a list where
`they are actually distinguishing Coulombe's message
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`adaptation technologies from the existing SIP techniques.
`And Coulombe, in 53, it says it presents a framework for SIP
`message adaptation. The framework allows for adaptation of
`messages between the sender and recipient. The key issue
`here is Coulombe is a messaging system.
` Now, what does the patent owner say? They say
`that, well, if you look at Paragraph 69, there's a reference
`here to SIP proxies that can transcode content and
`audio-video calls, and it goes on and says this claim is
`mainly for multimedia sessions, audio-video calls where
`codecs or the bandwidths between users don't match. And it
`goes on and says, "In that case, the proxy can use the
`information in SDP to 'fill the gap' between the two
`terminals." What that's talking about is the fact that the
`proxy in that case can reconcile the differences between the
`bandwidth, which is the speed of the network connection, and
`the codex, which is the encryption or encoding technique
`that's used to code the content.
` Now, the problem with the patent owner's argument
`is the very next sentence, which is actually highlighted in
`Demonstrative Slide Number 5. And it says here, "There is no
`mention" -- and they're talking again about the SIP
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`standards, which is in one the RFCs, RFC 2543. It says here,
`"There is no mention here that adaptation" -- that was the
`fill-in-the-gap that we just talked about a minute ago --
`"could take place for messaging applications" -- and I'll
`just stop right there.
` Coulombe flat out said that the existing
`transcoding for video or audio calls is not used for
`messaging applications. That's a critical problem with the
`patent owner's position because Coulombe is a messaging
`application; and actually, the 677 is a messaging
`application, and so is Bellordre.
` What this statement is telling a person of
`ordinary skill in the art is if you want to transcode or if
`you want to convert video content based on the
`characteristics of the device, look elsewhere. This is not
`going to help you because it's not used for messaging
`applications. And the reason, Your Honor, is actually very
`simple, and there's extensive testimony in the record about
`the difference between session-based and non-session-based
`communications. But the bottom line is that in a messaging
`context, you don't need what's called a "session" because the
`communications and interactions are episodic. You may have a
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`voice message or instant message that's sent one day, and
`another one may come five days later or may never come. Just
`the way instant message is on your phone, is there's no open
`session because you don't know when the next message is ever
`going to come, if at all.
` JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, I have a question. Let's
`say for argument's sake we were to conclude that the
`paragraph you're referring to does describe video adaptation
`as a part of the messaging application. Does the patent
`owner have it right in that case?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Well, we think that position is
`wrong. But even if you were to assume that, the other
`problem with their argument is the sentence continues, and it
`says, "There is no mention that such adaptation . . . should
`be based on recipient's terminal characteristics." That's
`another drawback of it.
` In fact, it's undisputed in the record, Your
`Honor, that the SIP technique will not adapt a video based on
`the display characteristics, meaning the size of the display.
`It will do the bandwidth; it will do the codec, but those are
`not relating to the size of the display. And Dr. Surati, in
`his deposition at Page 42, specifically admitted that. He
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`said, "Just because I know the bandwidth or the codec, that
`doesn't mean I know anything about the size of the screen."
` So the existing techniques that are in SIP could
`not do that transformation in Figure 1, the figure where we
`showed that the image was shrunk in half to make way for the
`smaller display. The existing SIP technique could not do
`that. So even if you were to assume that you could use SIP
`video streaming for transcoding for purposes of messaging,
`they'd still have to overcome the problem that it doesn't
`solve the problem Coulombe is describing, which is adapting
`the content for displaying characteristics. Bellordre does
`that, indisputably does that in Paragraph 62. So it provides
`a benefit and advantage that the existing SIP technologies
`does not provide.
` Now, as far as the messaging --
` JUDGE MCNAMARA: Let me interrupt you for just a
`second. I want to make sure I understand your argument.
` Your argument is basically that Coulombe, in these
`Paragraphs 64 through 69, is describing features or telling
`us the features that are not in the SIP-type system; is that
`right?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Well, the first part of this --
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`it's actually contrasting the features with the prior art.
`The first sentence of Paragraph 69 is actually the feature
`he's saying was new.
` JUDGE MCNAMARA: Right. The first sentence of
`Paragraph 64 says, "The following elements are novel compared
`to present SIP-related system -- or specification." So this
`particular feature that's being discussed in 69 is, in
`Coulombe's view, not -- there's -- where he says there's no
`mention this adaptation could take place for messaging
`applications, that's in SIP, in the SIP specifications,
`right?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: That's correct. He's basically
`saying the SIP specifications do not work with messaging
`systems; and his system, of course, does.
` JUDGE MCNAMARA: The claim here starts with
`messaging system, right?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MCNAMARA: So that's why you need to go to
`Bellordre, to get the other feature; is that right? Is that
`my understanding? Is that why one would be motivated to do
`that, because Coulombe is a messaging system, and you would
`look to other messaging systems?
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor. For the element
`of getting a video into a message, you would definitely look
`to a system like Coulombe. It fully discloses it.
` JUDGE MCNAMARA: I just wanted to make sure I
`understood the logic or the reasoning.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: I think you got it, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MCNAMARA: Thank you.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: In fact, had we done what the
`patent owner -- had we done what the patent owner suggested,
`which was to use this Paragraph 69 as a disclosure of sending
`video, they would have come back and very correctly attacked
`us and said there's no disclosure of this being used for
`the -- Paragraph 69, the existing transcoding being used for
`messaging. It would have been correct to say that, and they
`would have pointed to that statement as an argument against a
`single reference, obviously, if we had done that. That's why
`we went with Bellordre, because it's a very clear disclosure
`in a messaging context very similar that you can, in fact,
`include a video with a message.
` The last thing I'll mention is --
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: On a follow-up to that question,
`following Paragraph 69, in Paragraph 71 of Coulombe,
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`it contrasts what is described in Coulombe with what is
`described as a prior art. I'll give you a moment to get to
`that paragraph.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: I'm there, Your Honor.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: So how is it not a teaching in
`Coulombe that the Coulombe system can do what was described
`as not being able to be done in the prior art, SIP system?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: What Coulombe does is it does two
`things. It has a message adaptation engine, which is
`designed specifically in the context of a messaging system.
`So right there it provides the adaptation functionality in a
`messaging context that SIP alone doesn't do. So that's the
`first thing it does.
` The second thing is it does that's contrasting
`from SIP -- it's in these paragraphs, including Paragraph 70.
`Paragraph 70 says -- one of the distinctions they cite is a
`full system supporting SIP messaging adaptation. This is
`lacking from SIP messaging.
` So what they're saying is even if they use SIP in
`a messaging context, there's no actual adaptation of the
`content, and that's another feature that Bellordre provides;
`admittedly doesn't explicitly say it for video, but it does
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`provide that functionality for all different types of media;
`and Bellordre comes in and says, "I can provide that same
`kind of adaptation for video objects as well."
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: What I'm asking is why doesn't
`that paragraph, Paragraph 71, essentially indicate the
`Coulombe system addresses these -- I guess the area that the
`prior art did not address, including the issue that you
`brought up in Paragraph 69?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: It does, Your Honor. It's a very
`good summary, in fact, of some of the things that it
`provides. It specifically says the framework permits
`adaptation of messages between the sender and recipient.
`You're right. That's something SIP alone didn't do. In the
`second one, it says it allows making the messages suitable
`for the recipient's terminal, user preferences network
`characteristics, which is another feature that in the
`messaging context, SIP clearly did not provide. But it does
`provide a nice summary of those two distinctions.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Doesn't that support the patent
`owner's position that what's described in Coulombe does
`provide for adaptation of video messages according to
`recipient terminal characteristics?
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Well, I think the main difference
`here is that there's -- the reason we used Bellordre here is
`because there is no example in Coulombe of actually using a
`video, lining a video to the message adaptation engine when
`it's not expressly disclosed that you could do that. So
`that's why we brought in Bellordre, because none of the
`examples actually disclosed that.
` So when we make the argument that the message
`proxy server gets a message, there's no disclosure that that
`message includes a video. That's why we need Bellordre.
`Otherwise, we would be basically taking too big of an
`inferential leap to say, well, it's somehow obvious even if
`there's no actual disclosure. That's why Bellordre comes in,
`because it's a very clear and simple disclosure that a
`multimedia message can include a video object, and it can be
`adapted using a technique that's remarkably similar to the
`technique in Coulombe.
` As far as the first question that Judge Cocks
`asked, which was about the messaging application, the --
`Dr. Surati himself admitted in his own declaration, which is
`Exhibit 2007, Paragraph 34, he says, "Existing SIP
`functionality for adapting content for session
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`communications" -- again, that's the kind of communications
`they're talking about here -- "could not be used for
`non-session communications." I end the quote there.
` And those non-session communications, those are
`the types of messaging applications that we're talking about
`here. Dr. Surati even admitted that in the context of SIP,
`messaging doesn't have any sessions. In fact, the later
`citation here, which is the SIP extensions for the RFC for
`messaging, doesn't actually have any disclosure of any kind
`of session. It says there is no session.
` And I would just emphasize before I move off of
`Coulombe that the very last sentence of Coulombe says, okay,
`there is an extension for using messaging in the context --
`this Rosenberg. But it goes even further. It says, okay, in
`the transcoding, you could do adaptation but not messaging.
`This says there is no -- there is no mention of adaptation
`functionality. In fact, it actually returns an error code to
`the receiving device if the format is unsupported.
` So in the messaging context with Coulombe, it's
`saying that SIP actually does not do any adaptation at all,
`whether it's for video or any other type of data. So that
`tells you, again, you would look to the Coulombe message
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`adaptation engine, and for the video you would look to
`Bellordre for that purpose.
` Now, the other element that they're describing is
`the clickable icon, and the clickable icon is where we
`brought in Friedman. And basically the claim requires that
`you provide a clickable icon that's clickable to an adapted
`version of the video.
` Now, the main issue -- before we get to Friedman,
`I want to go to Demonstrative Slide Number 9, which talks
`about Bellordre, because this is another area where Bellordre
`is relevant. In Slide 9 we have produced here Paragraph 63
`of Bellordre, and what they are talking about in 63 is that
`when you are processing a video, you can create what's called
`a representative image of the video. It says in Paragraph 63
`the representative image might be the first image of the
`video, or the most meaningful image of the video, and that
`actually gets embedded into the message. It gets embedded
`into the message sent to the recipient.
` So already from Bellordre, we already have a
`disclosure of an icon representing the video that comes down.
`What's missing from Bellordre, the reason it's not good
`enough, is Bellordre doesn't say it's clickable. Its
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`representative image comes down, and it actually discloses a
`hyperlink coming down in a separate -- it's in the same
`message, but another piece of information is the hyperlink
`that's described in Paragraph 71 and 98 of Bellordre. So it
`has a hyperlink coming down that you can use to access the
`video that's described in Paragraphs 108 and 109, and it
`discloses a representative image, but it never puts them
`together. It never says, okay, this representative image,
`we're going to make it clickable, and that's where we bring
`Friedman in. That's really the only purpose for which
`Friedman's cited, is to say we can make this representative
`image from Bellordre clickable.
` So what does Friedman disclose? It discloses a
`thumbnail drive. And here's an example from Demonstrative
`Slide Number 10. It's a quotation from Friedman and an
`excerpt from the figure, showing, in this case, a thumbnail
`graphic 525 for a file called "riddick.mov," which I assume
`is the representation of "The Chronicles of Riddick" movie.
` But beginning in Column 7, Line 19 of Friedman --
`Exhibit 1005 -- it describes creating the thumbnail graphic
`for a movie attachment, which it calls the "graphic
`representation," using language very similar to what's in
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Bellordre. At Column 9, Lines 22 to 26, of Friedman, it
`explains you can access the attachment by clicking on the
`thumbnail graphic. So it's a very straightforward
`combination. You simply adapt the thumbnail graphic of
`Friedman, consistent with Coulombe and Bellordre. All you
`need to do is take the representative image already in
`Bellordre and make it clickable under the technique in
`Friedman. This is actually spelled out in Pages 27 and 28 of
`the 717 petition.
` I'm going to quote where it's argued, "It would
`have been obvious to insert the clickable thumbnail graphic
`(clickable icon) taught by Friedman within the adapted
`message layout according to the method disclosed in
`Bellordre."
` And Mr. Klausner has explained it in both his
`opening declaration and his reply declaration, this would
`have been utterly trivial to do from an implementation
`standpoint. They argue that this is hindsight, but
`Mr. Klausner has testified without dispute that thumbnail
`graphics have existed since the 1990s, and creating graphics
`that were clickable was also a well-known technique. And
`from a motivation to combine, it's a very simple motivation.
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00717; IPR2016-00718
`Patent 8,874,677B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Again, we are talking about not a complex technique. We are
`talking about a very basic user interface technique for
`accessing something, using a known technology.
` He explains that it provides a simple technique of
`accessing the video. So beyond the fact that you could
`combine them to get results under KSR, Mr. Klausner explains
`that it would provide a very easy technique and a very
`intuitive technique for accessing the video.
` If Your Honors have no further questions, I'd like
`to reserve the rest of my time.
` JUDGE COCKS: Judge Ippolito, do you have any
`questions?
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Not at this time.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE COCKS: All right. You'll have 35 minutes.
` MR. SCHINDLER: Your Honor, may I give you a copy
`of the presentation?
` JUDGE COCKS: Yes, you may. Thank you.
` MR. WEIDER: Your Honor, we have a copy. Should
`we leave it for the bench? Thank you very much.
` Good afternoon, Your Honors. I'd like to start
`
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
