UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 1, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 1, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`
`CARRIE BEYER, ESQUIRE
`NIKOLA COLIC, ESQUIRE
`BRIAN RUPP, ESQUIRE
`Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP
`191 N. Upper Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
`Chicago, Illinois 60606-1698
`312-569-1459
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`HERBERT FINN, ESQUIRE
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`PAUL HENKELMANN, ESQUIRE
`NICHOLAS PETERS, ESQUIRE
`Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery, LLP
`120 South LaSalle Street - 1600
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`312-577-7000
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`November 1, 2017, commencing at 10:02 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE BISK: We'll go on the record now. This is a hearing for
`IPR2016-01733, involving Patent Number 9,189,437. We’re doing the
`hearing telephonically today, and each side is going to have 20 minutes total.
`Petitioner, did you want to save any of your time for rebuttal?
`MS. BEYER: Yes, please. I’ll reserve five minutes.
`JUDGE BISK: Five minutes? Okay. I will try to -- I have a timer
`here, and I will try to remember to keep up with it, but somebody may want
`to remind me if I forget. All right. Well, with that, let's begin. Whenever
`you’re ready, Petitioner?
`MS. BEYER: The Board (inaudible) trial under (inaudible) Section
`103A obviousness grounds regarding the unpatentability of claims 1 through
`45 of the 437 patent. These grounds are shown on slide 3. Claims 139, 41,
`and 43 are the independent claims. The issues here are largely uncontested,
`leaving a single dispute relating to all independent claims, and a (inaudible)
`that affects only a few claims as shown on slide 4.
`I'll begin with disputed issue number 1. This issue which relates to
`the automatic file transfer process occurring without requiring loading or
`installing file (inaudible) software.
`JUDGE BISK: Excuse me. This is Judge Bisk. Can I interrupt you
`for a minute?
`MS. BEYER: Yeah.
`JUDGE BISK: Can we start instead with claim 41 issues, since they
`are different than -- there's no overlap between this and the other cases?
`MS. BEYER: Absolutely.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`
`REPORTER: And, Your Honor, I'm sorry.
`JUDGE BISK: Yes.
`REPORTER: I don't mean to interrupt. But if she has a receiver that
`she could speak into, it would greatly improve the recording.
`MS. BEYER: I will --
`JUDGE BISK: The Court Reporter -- did you hear that?
`MS. BEYER: No. I did not.
`JUDGE BISK: The Court Reporter asked if you could speak into a
`receiver because it's a little bit hard to hear you.
`MS. BEYER: Yes.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. Thank you.
`MS. BEYER: Thank you.
`JUDGE BISK: Oh, that's much better.
`MS. BEYER: Wait, let me get a little closer. So moving on then to
`slide number 55 is where I'll begin.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`MS. BEYER: So, slide 55 and following (inaudible) the disputed
`issue of simultaneous acquisition, and this is an issue in independent claim 1
`-- or 41, as Your Honor noted. So, the relevant language from claim 41 is
`shown on slide 56. The Petitioner's argument is that (inaudible) with
`multiple analog acquisition channels being simultaneously connected to the
`CAT box, and that the analog signals are digitized by A to D converters
`before the CAT box can process the data as shown on slide 57.
`First, a response on page 67 of the petition citing paragraph 196 of
`Dr. Reynolds' declaration, (inaudible) technology allows connecting
`multiple devices simultaneously and having independent communication.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`Additional seven devices, in addition to the (inaudible) scanner shown in
`Figure 1 on slide 58, could be connected --
`JUDGE BISK: Can I interrupt you? Can I interrupt you for a minute?
`MS. BEYER: Yes.
`JUDGE BISK: And can you just point to where in the petition your
`argument -- you’re relying on the arguments for the A to D converter
`limitation?
`MS. BEYER: For the A to D converter limitation in general or the
`simultaneous acquisition piece in particular?
`JUDGE BISK: The simultaneous acquisition piece.
`MS. BEYER: And there are places (inaudible) that we rely on for the
`final (inaudible) acquisition of data. It's discussed on pages 12 through 15,
`28 through 30, 52 and 53, 67 through 69, 71 and 77.
`JUDGE BISK: Can you tell me what -- so, I'm just trying to figure
`out which portions of the brief that is. So, pages 12 through 15, is that the
`background section?
`MS. BEYER: It is.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. And then what about -- and then go on to the
`others.
`MS. BEYER: Sure. So pages 12 through 15 deals with the
`background section. Pages 28 to 30 -- I'm sorry. Page 28 through 30 deal
`with what we’ve called the limitation 1E relating to the data generation
`process by which analog data is acquired from each respective analog
`acquisition channel.
`Pages 52 and 53 relate to dependent claims 13, 18 and 45. Pages 67
`through 69 relate to independent claim 37, as well as ground 2, with
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`independent claim 41 specifically discussed. Page 71 discusses dependent
`claim 40, and page 77 discusses the -- sorry, page 77 discusses the multiple
`analog signals arriving on analog inputs to the CAT box, you know, as part
`of this discussion about combinations of Aytac and the TI data sheet.
`JUDGE BISK: So, I think the other side will ask how they were
`supposed to know that all of these pages were supporting the limitation in
`claim 41. Can you talk to that?
`MS. BEYER: Sure, absolutely. So, at the very beginning of the
`petition, page 6 I believe it is, it discussed the overlapping nature of all of
`the independent claims, and many of the dependent claims within the 437
`patent. I noted that overlapping materials would be discussed together in
`places. We also have a chart in the appendix to the petition showing the
`significant overlap and correspondence between the various independent
`claims, and also has, you know, in some of the pages that are cited, you
`know, (inaudible).
`JUDGE BISK: So, can you talk about that appendix for a minute?
`MS. BEYER: Sure.
`JUDGE BISK: Do you refer to the appendix in your petition? Or
`how is that related to your arguments?
`MS. BEYER: So, we refer to the appendix in the petition on page 4.
`I believe we reference it in other places in the petition as well, but I don’t
`have a specific citation at my fingertips for you.
`JUDGE BISK: And on page 4, do you mean the exhibit list?
`MS. BEYER: No. On page 4 of the petition.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`MS. BEYER: In Section B (inaudible). In addition, Dr. Reynolds'
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`declaration discusses the correspondence between the various claims and
`includes charts and, for example, paragraphs 124 and 125which are cited in
`the petition as well.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`MS. BEYER: So, on page 67 of the petition, citing paragraph 196 of
`Dr. Reynolds' declaration where he described the benefits of using SCSI to
`connect multiple devices simultaneously. This way additional SCSI devices
`beyond the scanner shown in Figure 1 of the 437 patent could be connected
`to the SCSI bus for independent simultaneous acquisition of analog data.
`The benefits of SCSI technology are discussed in the section concerning
`claim 37, which the Board noted on -- in the institution decision on page 24.
`In addition, the ability to simultaneously connect numerous other
`personal devices to independent analog acquisition channels is discussed in
`many other places throughout the petition. The mentioned pages 12 to 15
`describe the disclosure of Aytac and show numerous peripherals for
`simultaneous acquisition of analog data. This can be seen on slide 58.
`Pages 28 through 30 describe the acquisition, digitization, and
`processing of data acquired from each respective analog acquisition channel.
`This is shown on slide 59. Also, on pages --
`JUDGE BISK: I'm sorry. I noticed that there were some objections to
`these particular slides.
`MS. BEYER: Yes.
`JUDGE BISK: Do you have a response to that?
`MS. BEYER: I do. So, the petition in Dr. Reynolds' declaration
`made clear that the independent claims significantly overlap. Now, this is
`shown at appendix to the petition and in Dr. Reynolds' declaration,
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`comparing claims 1, 41, and 39 at pages -- or paragraphs 124 and 125. Dr.
`Reynolds notes with regards to the A to D converter, the limitations in claim
`41 is the same as in claim 39. And states that with regard to the data
`generation process in which the A to D converter is configured to
`simultaneously acquire data, claim 41 is essentially the same as limitation
`(inaudible) of claim 1.
`Slide 58 excerpts pages 12 to 13 of the petition, which explains the
`various peripherals and analog signals disclosed in Aytac. This is the
`general description of Aytac, and it's not limited to any particular claim
`limitation analysis, so there's nothing new in this slide.
`Slide 59 excerpts page 29 of (inaudible). This provides an analysis of
`limitation 1-AI of claim 1, which is explicitly linked to claim 41. Again,
`there's nothing new in this slide.
`Slide 61 excerpts page 27 of the petition, which analyzes claim --
`limitation 1B of claim 1. This limitation concerns the internal connections
`to the processor and the attached peripherals (inaudible). Limitation 1B of
`claim 1 is linked to claim 41, for example, at paragraph 124, top of page 79
`of Dr. Reynolds' declaration. Again, there's nothing new in this slide. Also,
`I will note that paragraph 124 is cited on page 68 of the petition of as well.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. Thank you.
`MS. BEYER: So as shown on slide 59, Figures 20 to 30 describe the
`acquisition, digitization, and processing of data acquired from each
`respective analog acquisition channel. Figures 52 and 53 describe the
`independently programmable analog acquisition channel. That's indicating
`it can operate simultaneously a lot of times, and A to D converters for each
`analog input.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`
`Pages 68 to 69, cites the declaration paragraph 119, and 124, 125.
`This is shown on slide 60, as well appendix page 6. It's describing the
`overlap of claim 41 with claims 1 and 39, and the need to digitize each
`analog signal for processing by CAT box.
`Finally, as mentioned, page 77 discusses the multiple analog signals
`arriving at analog inputs to the CAT box that's indicating simultaneous
`acquisition.
`JUDGE BISK: What's your response to the argument that claim 37
`doesn’t talk about simultaneous analog acquisition because it's talking about
`SCSI technology which is digital not analog?
`MS. BEYER: So, while SCSI technology, the actual communication
`slot, is digital, the devices connected to it do obtain data from analog
`sources. For example, in Figure 1, the scanner is shown as a device that's
`connected to the SCSI bus. The scanner acquires analog data which is
`digitized and then passed along to the CAT box on the SCSI bus, which is
`something that, you know, as was mentioned page 57 of the petition,
`because you can allow multiple devices on SCSI, there could be multiple
`scanners acquiring data, analog data, and then it will be digitized and passed
`along the bus in what Dr. Reynolds described in his deposition as
`simultaneous due to multiplexing. Dr. Reynolds' testimony is included on
`slide 61.
`JUDGE BISK: And so, you have about one minute left before your
`rebuttal time starts.
`MS. BEYER: Okay. So, one other issue that I could briefly cover
`during my opening part is the disputed issue concerning the single A to D
`converter. This issue is listed as disputed issue number 2 and number 5, and
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`begins on slides 49 through 54. The relevant claim language is on slide 50.
`The issue here boils down to one of the claims on analog to digital
`converters, or wiring analog data from a plurality of analog acquisition
`channels, plus the single analog to digital converter. The claims are not so
`limited, and Aytac discloses A to D converter for each analog acquisition
`channel.
`Also on slide 52, Papst knew how to claim a component as a single
`component when it wanted to, and did so in claim 28, where it claims a
`single digital signal processor. Papst knows that A means at least one, or
`one more, as shown in slide 53. So, Aytac discloses that each analog signal
`would be digitized before a CAT box would process the data as shown on
`slide 54. And perhaps did not claim a single A to D converter, but instead
`claimed an analog to digital converter which would include one or more, and
`each analog signal is digitized before a CAT box processes the data. Thank
`you.
`
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`MS. BEYER: (Inaudible).
`JUDGE BISK: Judge Quinn, Judge Chang, do you have any
`questions?
`JUDGE CHANG: I’m good.
`JUDGE QUINN: No.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. Patent Owner, whenever you’re ready?
`MR. HINKELMAN: Yes, Your Honor. This is Paul Hinkelman for
`Papst Licensing. I'll just start with claim 39 and the A to D convertor
`limitation, if that's all right?
`JUDGE BISK: Yes, please.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`
`MR. HINKELMAN: With regard to the objection we made to their
`slides, that was simply just based on providing the new parts of the record
`that they never identified with respect to that claim, claim 39 or 41 in the A
`to D converter limitation. In the petition, their arguments with respect to --
`I'll shift to claim 41, I think that's really the only place they addressed it.
`They said that the A to D converter is necessarily present in Aytac because
`each analog signal would need to be digitized before the CAT box to process
`the data. They cited two passages of Aytac, one related to receiving
`voicemail and storing it on the CAT disc, and the other passage relates to
`viewing a fax.
`JUDGE BISK: So what about the rest of the places in the petition,
`though, where they tie the various independent claims together showing that
`they have similar limitations? Is that not enough notice?
`MR. HINKELMAN: Well, I think they’re required to explicitly point
`out where in the record, you know, each limitation is disclosed, and it's not
`clear to me that they’ve done that. Claims 41 and 39 have a limitation, the A
`to D converter, that's not present in claim 1, so relying on other parts of the
`record without actually identifying it in the petition I think is improper, but -
`-
`
`JUDGE BISK: But you’re not saying that the A to D converter itself
`is something that was not known at the time of the filing.
`MR. HINKELMAN: Well, what we’re arguing is that Aytac doesn’t
`disclose an A to D converter that meets the claim limitation.
`JUDGE BISK: Right. Is this your argument that it has to be a single
`A to D converter that meets this limitation?
`MR. HINKELMAN: Well, our argument is that there has to be one
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`that meets the limitation configured to acquire analog data from each
`respective analog acquisition channel of a plurality of analog acquisition
`channels. They haven't shown that there is an A to D converter that meets
`that limitation.
`JUDGE BISK: And so I have a question about that. How come -- is
`there anything in the prosecution history or anything that overcomes the
`Federal Circuit's rule that when you use the word "an" it means at least one,
`it could be multiple?
`MR. HINKELMAN: I'm not aware of that being discussed in the
`prosecution history, but it doesn’t matter whether it's construed to mean a
`single A to D converter or one or more A to D converters because each of
`those A to D converters would need to be configured to acquire analog data
`from each of the plurality of analog sources. All petitioners --
`JUDGE BISK: Right, well --
`MR. HINKELMAN: I'm sorry?
`JUDGE BISK: But doesn’t this claim also include when there's a
`single source?
`MR. HINKELMAN: No.
`JUDGE BISK: It also -- no? It only covers multiple analog data
`sources?
`MR. HINKELMAN: Correct.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`MR. HINKELMAN: You need to have a plurality of analog
`acquisition channels in claim 39. In claim 41 you need to simultaneously
`acquire analog data from each respective analog source of a plurality of
`analog sources. So, pointing to a fax machine or a modem that may have an
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`A to D converter doesn’t show an A to D converter that is requiring analog
`data from multiple sources. So, our position is, it doesn’t matter whether
`you interpret an analog to digital converter to mean a single one or one or
`more.
`JUDGE BISK: I see.
`MR. HINKELMAN: And with regard to the SCSI disclosure, I think
`the Board identified in another dependent claim limitation that SCSI
`discloses simultaneous acquisition of analog data. In response to that we
`submitted testimony of Mr. Gafford, saying that SCSI isn't really relevant to
`analog data acquisition from multiple sources because SCSI only transfers
`digital data, claims or prior acquisition of analog data. And the Petitioners
`also didn’t rely on anything other than receipt of a voicemail, doing a fax. I
`don't think those are disclosed as being connected via a SCSI bus. So, we
`argue that SCSI is really not relevant to that portion of the claim.
`If I may, I'd just like to go briefly over the automatic file transfer
`limitation that was our principal argument with respect to claim 1 and all the
`independent claims?
`JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`MR. HINKELMAN: I know there's definitely some overlap between
`the other proceedings which you’ve already heard. I think that the main
`point that needs to be addressed here is whether the Aytac discloses any
`specialized software that would be user loaded, and whether that software is
`user-loaded file transfer enabling software. We’ve submitted evidence by
`testimony by disclosure of -- explicit disclosure in Aytac that the CATSYNC
`driver in particular is required to transfer a file because it enables the transfer
`of the correct file that is requested.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BISK: So, is there any -- can you point to any evidence in
`this case that's different than in the other two cases that we heard? Or
`anything about the claims that would make this case different?
`MR. HINKELMAN: I think some of the arguments that were made
`by the Petitioner is very -- as far as evidence that was submitted by us, it's
`not coming to me what would be different there. I know we did make new
`arguments with respect to claim 41 that has some differences about using the
`customary device driver present in the BIOS. We pointed that out as being
`the distinction that could not be met by the disclosure in Aytac of using the
`ASPI disc drivers in combination with the CATSYNC driver because those
`drivers would not be present in the BIOS. We stated --
`JUDGE BISK: Is that only in claim 41?
`MR. HINKELMAN: That's only in claim 41.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. HINKELMAN: There's also a similar limitation in dependent
`claim 8 that we pointed out, just similar, it requires transferring files using a
`hard disc driver program matched to the host computer, and part of a
`manufacturer-installed BIOS with the host computer. We submitted
`testimony from Mr. Gafford which was not disputed. Petitioners actually
`didn’t submit a responsive expert declaration, and also chose not to depose
`Mr. Gafford in this proceeding. So, they didn’t respond to his testimony on
`those points, that a person of ordinary skill would not understand Aytac to
`disclose using a driver that is present in the BIOS because Aytac discloses
`using an ASPI disc and CATSYNC.
`We also pointed out, which I think is different to this proceeding, that
`the CATCAS driver is also required to acquire and transfer fax files. Now,
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`the claims don’t explicitly require transfer of the fax file, but that's evidence
`that Petitioners relied upon to meet the limitations -- allegedly meet the
`limitations of the claims, they relied on disclosure of the fax to meet the data
`generation process in claim 1. They also relied upon it to allegedly disclose
`the automatic file transfer process.
`We pointed out that CATCAS is user-loaded file transfer-enabling
`software when you are talking about faxes. The Petitioners in response
`merely argue that CATCAS is only used in the fax embodiment. However,
`we submit there really is only one preferred embodiment disclosed in Aytac,
`which includes being able to receive and send faxes, and Aytac discloses
`that you need the specialized software to make that happen.
`CATCAS, similar to CATSYNC, also prevents corruption of the hard
`disc, which we talk about in slide 15 in case you have that in front of you. It
`talks about that.
`JUDGE BISK: Yes, we have those slides.
`MR. HINKELMAN: Okay. This slide just points to the disclosure in
`Aytac, where, when you’re talking about viewing a fax, you need to make
`sure you’re not corrupting calls to the CAT disc that may be happening in
`the background. So, CATCAS is similar to CATSYNC in that way of not --
`of preventing this kind of overlap that may corrupt the hard disc.
`I'd like to briefly address that Petitioners' reliability arguments that
`they made in their reply on slide 16, they made the argument that the claims
`don't require reliable transfer of files or data, just the ability to transfer one
`file, citing this George M. Martin v. Alliance Machine Systems case. We
`didn’t argue that Aytac’s disclosed system is unreliable. We merely made
`the argument that if you do not use the CATSYNC driver and didn’t install it
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`on Aytac's system, the system would be unreliable, and this would teach
`away from or tell someone of ordinary skill that this is required software and
`that you should use it. And this also argues against making an obviousness
`modification to Aytac's disclosure to remove the CATSYNC driver.
`Petitioners also made the argument that they’re not actually arguing
`for modification, so I agree that they didn’t even address a potential
`modification to Aytac system. So we think that their reliability argument is
`misplaced, but we also present argument just in case why it would not be
`obvious to remove CATSYNC from the host, and that's outlined in slide 18
`and 19.
`Does the Board have any questions at this point?
`JUDGE BISK: No. It looks like we’re all satisfied.
`MR. HINKELMAN: Okay.
`JUDGE BISK: Is there anything else you wanted to discuss?
`MR. HINKELMAN: I think that's all I really needed to address today.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. Thank you. Petitioner, when you’re ready for
`your five-minute rebuttal.
`MS. BEYER: Thank you. A few points that I would like to make in
`rebuttal. I'll begin with Patent Owner's statement that the A to D converter
`is not present in claim 1 and, therefore, the correspondence between claims
`1, 39, and 41 shouldn’t be considered. While I agree that the words “A to D
`converter” are not explicitly in claim 1, claim 1 does claim converting
`analog data to digital data. And so, therefore, it is implicitly included in
`claim 1, and the correspondence between claims 39 and 41, you know,
`therefore, makes sense to consider.
`JUDGE BISK: What about the argument that even if the limitation
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`for the A to D converter, even if that includes multiple A to D converters, at
`least one of them needs to simultaneously acquire analog data? What's your
`response to that?
`MS. BEYER: Looking at the claim language, I disagree. I think the
`claim language requires an analog to digital converter, you know. While
`multiple analog inputs need to be simultaneously converted, they don't all
`have to happen on the same A to D converter. And we’ve shown in the
`petition that there are multiple different analog to digital -- analog inputs to
`the CAT box, and they would each have their own A to D converter.
`Moreover, Dr. Reynolds testified that it would have been obvious to
`someone of skill in the art to use a multiplexing A to D converter that could
`cover multiple phone lines at the same time.
`So, you know, under obviousness grounds that can be considered as
`well, but really we don't think you need to reach that point because the claim
`explicitly refers to an A to D converter, which means one or more. In doing
`the multiple (inaudible) channels, Figure 1 shows us while the numerous
`peripherals are connected to the CAT box and analog inputs, so while two
`scanners are useful, that's not only the source of multiple analog inputs. I
`think maybe you had a question?
`JUDGE BISK: No.
`MS. BEYER: No? Okay. I'll go ahead. Now, converting the
`automatic file transfer limitations that Patent Owner addressed, you asked
`whether there was anything new from the Patent Owner on this, and the
`answer is no. Their arguments here are the same arguments that they made
`in the other two proceedings. They’ve argued that the CATSYNC software
`is required when it's not, and the experts agree that a file can be transferred
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`without using the CATSYNC software.
`Concerning the reliability arguments and the George Martin case
`cited, in our reply, at page 5, I think that the Patent Owner misunderstands
`the point of this. It's not -- they argue that reliability is only a concern of
`Aytac in modifying the CATSYNC which we don’t argue for. But George
`Martin also says that if a patent owner wants to claim a certain level of
`reliability, the place to do that is in the claims. You know, here they are
`arguing to import reliability standards into the claims when they did not
`claim that. But that's the applicability of the George Martin case.
`Also, I'm dealing with the customary driver and the BIOS, and this is
`on slide 63 through 66 of our (inaudible). The 437 patent is (inaudible), so
`the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that computers
`(inaudible) the manufacturer and (inaudible) BIOS, including hard disk
`drivers. And the 437 patent also says that ASPI drivers can be in the BIOS.
`This is discussed in our reply at page 17.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. You are just about out of time. Do you have
`anything else to add?
`MS. BEYER: One final point. The commentary from the Patent
`Owner on the reliance on faxes, you know, while it’s true that faxes are one
`type of file that can be obtained by the CAT box, saved into this CAT disc,
`and later transferred to the host to PC, there are other file types that are
`discussed in our petition as well. For example, files from -- data from the
`microphones as well from the receiver and voicemail -- voicemails from the
`receiver and from the microphone. So there are multiple types of files
`beyond faxes and scans that are disclosed.
`JUDGE QUINN: So, I have a question on that.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`
`MS. BEYER: Yes. Yes.
`JUDGE QUINN: Just a quick question. Your petition does rely on
`faxes, but Aytac discloses two types of faxes. One in which the box is
`connected to a remote fax machine, and the other one is where the box itself
`is the fax, emulating a fax, if you will. Are you relying on the former rather
`-- what I’m thinking about is you’re relying on the remote fax machine
`receiving a fax rather than the CAT box itself being the fax machine?
`MS. BEYER: I think the answer to your question is that we’re relying
`on the faxes coming in from other locations into the CAT box that are then
`stored as files on the CAT box, to be transferred to the PC, not the operation
`of the fax and the CAT box as a remote fax for the PC through which the PC
`would conduct its own faxing operations if it did not have its own fax
`capability. So, we’re were talking about faxes coming in to the CAT box
`from elsewhere that can then be transferred to the PC, not the capability, the
`separate advanced capability, of the CAT box to provide faxing capability
`for a PC which does not have its own.
`JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
`JUDGE BISK: Okay. It looks like we’re done with our questions,
`and you’re out of time, so we’re going to adjourn. Thank you very much for
`--
`
`REPORTER: Excuse me, Your Honor?
`JUDGE BISK: What?
`REPORTER: I am sorry, Your Honor?
`JUDGE BISK: Yes?
`REPORTER: If I may question the Counsel for spellings afterward?
`JUDGE BISK: Yes. The Court Reporter’s going to ask for spellings
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`after we’re done, so stay on the line if you can.
`MS. BEYER: Okay.
`JUDGE BISK: Thank you.
`(Whereupon, the proceedings at 10:38 a.m. were concluded.)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Brian Rupp
`Carrie Beyer
`Nikola Colic
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
`brian.rupp@dbr.com
`carrie.beyer@dbr.com
`nick.colic@dbr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Nicholas T. Peters
`Paul Henkelmann
`FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
`ntpete@fitcheven.com
`phenkelmann@fitcheven.com
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
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
