UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, and
`MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAGENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 13, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and CARL L.
`SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, and
`MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAGENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 13, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and CARL L.
`SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JAMES M. GLASS, ESQUIRE
`RICHARD LOWRY, ESQUIRE
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue
`22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`THOMAS H. KRAMER, ESQUIRE
`GEORGE PAZUNIAK, ESQUIRE
`O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC
`901 N. Market Street
`Suite 1000
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, March 13,
`
`2018, at 1 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Madison Building
`East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: This is a consolidated hearing for IPR2017-
`00457 and IPR2017-00458, Daimler North America Corporation v. Stragent,
`LLC. Judge Boucher is joining us by video from our Denver office and
`Judge Silverman is joining us by video from our Silicon Valley office. They
`won't have the benefit of visual cues in the room so please identify your
`slides as you move through your demonstratives.
`Each side will have 60 minutes to argue. Petitioner has the ultimate
`burden of unpatentability and will argue first, then Patent Owner will present
`its opposing argument and finally Petitioner may use any time it has
`reserved for rebuttal to respond to Patent Owner's arguments.
`Before we begin the arguments, we have a brief housekeeping item
`regarding the demonstratives. First, we remind counsel that the
`demonstratives are not evidence but instead are aids to facilitate the panel's
`understanding of the arguments presented at the hearing. Second, we
`received Petitioner's objections to Patent Owner's demonstratives and the
`revised objections renumbering the slides.
`The objections fall into two categories. First, those asserting that
`Patent Owner's slides refer to new arguments in reply made by Petitioner
`and I believe those are slides 17, 23, 24, 30 and 31. The second category of
`objections generally assert that Patent Owner's slides present new arguments
`on the merits that Patent Owner did not present in its papers.
`Regarding the first category, we overruled Petitioner's objections and
`we will allow Patent Owner to use the slides indicating that Petitioner's reply
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`contains new arguments. Regarding the second category, we defer ruling on
`the objections but we do caution the parties that in our final written decision
`we will not consider any arguments on the merits that were not presented in
`the written record.
`Counsel, when you begin your argument please identify yourself and
`the party you represent for the record.
`MR. GLASS: Your Honor, Jim Glass for Petitioner Mercedes. With
`me today is my colleague Rich Lowry. We have hard copies of our slides if
`Your Honor would like a copy.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: I would, thank you.
`MR. GLASS: And Your Honor, I would like to ambitiously reserve
`15 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: I'm sorry. How many?
`MR. GLASS: I'd like to reserve 15 minutes.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Fifteen. So we'll give you 45 to start. When
`you're ready.
`MR. GLASS: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I'm going to skip ahead
`a few slides. I'm going to start off with our slide 3. We all know we're here
`today discussing two patents, the 843 and the 705 patents. The patents are
`similar. They have identical specifications. The 843 is a continuation of the
`705. Very similar claims. The arguments raised in our petition, the
`arguments raised in the response are, for the most part, identical with the
`exception of some dependent claims which if I have time to I'll get to. But
`as I go through today's arguments they will apply to both the 705, both the
`843 in both proceedings.
`
`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
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`
`Just at a high level, we've all seen this figure, this figure 7. Both
`parties have cited this in their papers. I don't think there's much dispute over
`how the patents operate so I'll spend just a minute or two walking through it.
`Patents at a high level relate to a system where different networks can share
`the same data in real time. Figure 7 I've highlighted in red here the different
`networks. There are three shown here. In operation when a network desires
`to write information to the stored resource which I've highlighted in blue
`here, it notifies its operating system interface. In this embodiment there's an
`operating system interface for each of the networks.
`Now in terms of notification, the patent actually gives a very clear
`description of what that means. I'm going to highlight this on the screen
`here. I know Your Honors remotely can't see the notification but this is the
`upper right hand cite on slide 3, column 7, 4 through 23, the notification may
`be a flag, a call back routine, an event or any other operating signal. Now
`this is connection with the network requesting that the operating system
`interface write to the shared network drive, the real time network bulletin
`board, but it's what the patent means when it discusses notifications.
`Now in operation when the data is going to be written to the bulletin
`board, it is processed. There's a discussion on process. I'm not sure if
`there's any real dispute over what processing means at this point. I'm
`looking now at the bottom left hand quote I have, that snippet on column 6,
`43 through 49.
`"Processing is simply extracting the data and writing to it the shared
`storage."
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`
`And this is expressly described in the patent. Using this model each
`communicated message may be processed at each level to remove and use
`the associated header information at that level. So when the patent talks
`about conversion, when it talks about extracting, when it talks about
`processing, that's what it's getting at.
`In reverse, the patent -- I'm not going to walk through this -- but when
`reading from the stored network the exact opposite happens. It simply reads
`from the network drive. It adds that data into an appropriate data protocol
`and writes that data to the file layer, the physical layer, excuse me.
`I'm going to skip slide 4 and going to skip slide 5. We all know what
`the grounds are today. I'm going to walk through, unless Your Honors have
`any questions on the patent, I'll move into our prior art. Miesterfeld on slide
`6 is one of our primary references. Miesterfeld is just like the 843, just like
`the 705 patent. It discusses a topology and network system that allows two
`different networks to share the same memory resource, and here I've
`highlighted that memory resource in blue.
`There's no dispute here that there are two networks. There on the left
`hand side is the VDB bus. That's what we have mapped to the second
`network. On the right hand side is the ITS data bus. That stands for IDB.
`That's referred to -- I'll discuss that later -- but that's what ITS data bus
`stands for, IDB and, again, in operation the two different networks simply
`write to the same memory. They reserve the memory by asserting various
`hardware lines, and really the operation of Miesterfeld is not in dispute. I
`don't think there's really any issues with how it works. The only dispute
`here is whether it discloses a CAN protocol. I'll get to that later. The IDB,
`
`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
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`the ITS data bus, is an SAE protocol that identifies -- it's an SAE, I'm sorry,
`standard that identifies CAN as the protocol.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Actually can we go back --
`MR. GLASS: Sure.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: -- when you were describing the specification
`of the patents, I don't think you addressed specifically at what point
`information is shared according to the disclosure of the specification. Can
`you kind of point me to where in the specification it describes the actual
`sharing. The specification doesn't use the word shared a lot, but at what
`point is the information actually shared according to the specification?
`MR. GLASS: You know, I'd have to look at the citations. I do
`discuss that in the claim construction portion. There are portions of the
`specification that describe when it's stored and when it's made available --
`well it doesn't say when it's made available --- but when the information is
`stored it is shared. If it'll help I'll pull that portion up. On slide 15 this is
`column 6, 22 through 32,
`"By placing local information in a shared memory local bulletin board
`it can be used by multiple processes on this processing note."
`Now this is a citation that PO cites in support of their position on
`sharing. Our position is if you look at this, it says nothing about -- they say
`it has to be delivered and they cite to this portion in the specification that's
`showing it has to be delivered. That's not what the specification says. The
`specification says simply by placing the local information it can be used. A
`group bulletin board allows devices on a sub-network to share information
`with a minimum of network traffic.
`
`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
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`
`You're right, Your Honor. There's not a lot of direct disclosing of
`what it means to be sharing, but the few places that we both cite to I think
`supports the notion that it's shared simply by placing it in shared memory.
`Does that respond to your question, Your Honor?
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Yes, it does. Okay, thank you.
`MR. GLASS: Now I was discussing Miesterfeld. I was on slide 6,
`I'm going to skip slide 7. Slide 8 is one of our other primary references,
`Posadas, and I'm going to spend a few minutes on this because I think there
`is a disconnect in PO's papers as to what -- either what we're relying on for
`Posadas to what Posadas teaches.
`Posadas is an article written by the author while he was in Valencia,
`Spain with the Polytechnic University in Valencia on a project he did. He
`designed a robot. He calls it YAIR -- yet another intelligent robot -- YAIR, I
`guess there were others that he made. This paper, the structure describes a
`process and also describes importantly, which I'm going to get to, a testing
`procedure that he used to test the robot.
`On slide 8 I don't think there's much -- I don't want to put words in
`PO's mouth -- but I don't think there' s much dispute over how the first
`portion, how we've both mapped the first portion of the claims. In Posadas,
`the robot has a CAN network -- a C-A-N -- and it connects the various nodes
`and the various sensors within the robot. That data as CAN objects is then
`translated and processed by the ISCCAN bridge and stored in the SC. I
`forget what SC stands for but it's where that data that's extracted from the
`CAN objects is stored, and again I think up to this point I don't think there's
`much dispute over how Posadas operates.
`
`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
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`
`On slide 9 I think this is where the dispute comes in. Now figure 4 is
`a different perspective on the same system. Figure 4, and I'm going to blow
`that up a little bit, figure 4 shows the SC where I just showed you that the
`ISCCAN stores the data. Once that data is stored it is then transmitted by
`ethernet, a wireless ethernet, over IP to remote nodes that he designates as 2.
`Now I think the disconnect here, PO seems to be arguing in their slides, in
`their briefs, that these remote processes are simply extended storage and
`that's exactly what they're not.
`First off, let me back up for a second. Posadas in that quote I have on
`the bottom of the slide at page 11 expressly states that these remote nodes
`has access to the CAN information through the SC software. The mapped
`mode allows processes running in every node on the IP network. So every
`node on the IP network that receives a data over ethernet has access to the
`CAN information through the SC software and the defined notification
`scheme. So he's explaining here that those nodes have access to every
`portion of the CAN network.
`Now I just want to walk through one portion of Posadas.
`Unfortunately I need one minute to bring it up. Now on the question of
`whether Posadas shows whether those nodes -- whether those are simply
`extended storage -- I think Posadas is very clear. He ran a test. It's called
`the REC test and Your Honors, I'm on Exhibit 1007 at page 11 at the bottom
`right hand corner right above the testing bullets that we've cited extensively
`in our papers. He says during this test the REC process was running in a
`node outside the CAN network -- those nodes are outside the CAN network -
`- and communicated through a wireless IP network and the described SC
`
`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
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`ISCCAN facilities. We obtained good communication performance running
`these REC tests. So what he's explaining here is he ran this REC -- this
`reactive control test -- controlling the robot using these Windows NT
`computers and he gives you data right here. Obtain autometric information.
`He obtained that information at the computer from the CAN network. He
`sent control actions from the computer to the CAN network.
`So these nodes, I think this is the fundamental disconnect, these nodes
`are not simply part of the CAN network. These nodes are not simply
`extended storage. They're a completely separate network that shares the
`information deposited in the SC just like the 843 and the 705 patents. For
`now, that's my summary of Posadas unless Your Honors have any questions
`I'm going to move on to the remaining references.
`I'm willing to spend a few moments on Stewart. Stewart is a paper on
`intelligent robots, a direct fit for the main reference we cited. It relates to
`inter-process communications and just like Miesterfeld, just like Posadas,
`one issue you're always going to have when you have multiple processes
`trying to access the same memory is how do you allocate that memory and
`that's what we cited Stewart for. We cited Stewart for the very basic
`proposition of fundamental undergraduate level memory allocation
`techniques. He discusses spin-locks. He also discusses the notion of error
`handlers which I'll get to later which becomes important. But that's why we
`cited Stewart just for that basic proposition.
`On slide 11, Wense -- I don't think there's any dispute over what
`Wense discloses. Wense discloses a LIN network and its appropriate use
`and a CAN network in an automotive context. I believe the question really
`
`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 IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`is when one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to combine
`these two references and that's what we cited. We cited Wense purely for
`this notion of a LIN network.
`Now those are all the references we'll be walking through today. I'm
`just going to move on very briefly on claim construction. We have a claim
`construction for real time. The court, Your Honors, entered that decision.
`PO's accepted that decision. I raise this only because there was a footnote. I
`don't know how much of an issue that's going to be. They seem to be taking
`the position that it doesn't make sense to measure real time in milliseconds
`or microseconds. That footnote is from their briefs. To the extent they do I
`may address on rebuttal but clearly the court's construction is three parts;
`measured in milliseconds, measured in microseconds or less than one
`second, and that's consistent with the specification, and the dependent claims
`18, 19 and 20 which each specifically directed to each part of that claim
`construction.
`Slide 13 we talked about this briefly already, sharing. Again I don't
`know how much of a point this is going to be for PO's at this point. We
`argued in our petition that sharing should be simply given its broadest
`reasonable interpretation. We all know what sharing means. PO's argued in
`response that it requires completing delivery to a destination. We argued in
`response we're still happy with the BRI but we argued in our reply that if it's
`going to be attributed any meaning it just should mean making the
`information available. We've walked through this in our papers. They have
`an issue with claim differentiation but just on a common sense level, making
`the information available we've all shared files, we've all shared emails,
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`we've shared files on networks. If I share a file with 30 people in my group,
`under PO's construction that file is not shared until every single person
`opens it. It just doesn't make sense logically.
`So also on slide 14 inconsistent with the dependent claims.
`Dependent claim 16 expressly requires providing the information. So their
`construction would not only not make sense logically it would violate the
`rule of claim differentiation in comparison to claim 16. We've walked
`through this already. There's nothing in the specification on slides 15 that
`requires the information to be delivered. It doesn't say that.
`Okay. Those are the only issues we have for, I believe, on claim
`construction. There is a new issue that was raised. I'm going to address it
`because I don't know if it's going to be part of the record. They raised this
`notion of information and what information is. I'll walk through that in the
`context of the claims. I would just like to point out since I am discussing
`claim construction, information simply is described in the claim. It says
`information associated with a message. So when we're talking about
`sharing, we're not talking about every single bit of information and that's
`what they're arguing. What the claim says is information associated with a
`message. So information means any one or more bits of information that
`may be associated with a message. That's the simple plain meaning reading
`of the claim. We didn't have an opportunity to submit evidence in
`opposition to that. I'm raising that, I concede, for the first time today in
`response to their slides so I don't want to spend too much time on it.
`Moving on. I apologize if I'm rushing Your Honors. I have a lot of
`material to get through so if I'm going too fast, please slow me down. I'll
`
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`move on now. I'm going to start with Miesterfeld. Miesterfeld is our second
`ground. It is the easier of the two. There's really only one substantive issue
`that PO's raised in connection with Miesterfeld. I'll get right into it.
`On slide 17 PO's argue that Miesterfeld does not disclose a CAN
`network. Let me go through our affirmative proof first. Miesterfeld
`discloses -- we've walked through this already -- an IDB network. IDB
`stands for ITS data bus. IDB is a standard network topology promulgated by
`the SAE, Society for Automotive Engineers. It defines various aspects
`specifications for a network topology to be used in an automotive
`application. One of those things it defines is the protocol. It's not a protocol
`itself, it identifies what protocol should be used. So, so far I don't think
`there's any dispute over what I've just said. Maybe there is. I don't think
`there is. Now our position is at the time of the invention 2002 --
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Yes. I'm sorry to keep going back.
`MR. GLASS: Sure.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: But with respect to sharing and the Patent
`Owner's construction requiring delivery --
`MR. GLASS: Yes.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: -- is it your position that the Patent Owner's
`construction is unreasonable or that both your construction and the Patent
`Owner's constructions are reasonable but yours is broader and therefore it's
`the broadest reasonable construction?
`MR. GLASS: Your Honors, I think their construction is unreasonable
`and I think it's wrong. I think it's inconsistent with the specification and the
`claims. I'll also point out they filed -- I believe it's the 502, 503, 504
`
`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 IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`petitions which are petitions on this patent, they filed their post-Institution
`response yesterday -- they abandoned that position. They are no longer are
`arguing that sharing means delivery. So I think it's just wrong. It's an
`incorrect claim construction. It's not supported by the position and they can
`correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to misspeak, but I read through their
`papers this morning. It looks like even they have abandoned that position.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. GLASS: Okay. So getting back to Miesterfeld on slide 17, at
`the time of the invention 2002 Miesterfeld issued in 2001 our patents -- these
`patents at issue today claim priority to 2002 -- at the time of the invention
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have read IDB. They would have
`naturally gone to the most recent version, the most recent iteration of that
`standard. The most recent iteration of the standard at the time of the
`invention was J2366-2, the 2001 version. There is no dispute about what
`that version discloses. It discloses, it identifies CAN as the protocol of
`choice for IDB, in fact it's the only protocol identified in the J2366-2
`standard. There's no dispute on that issue.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Counsel, let me just remind you to speak into
`the microphone to ensure that the remote judges can hear you.
`MR. GLASS: I apologize, Your Honor. I thought yelling would be
`sufficient, but I'll lean closer to the microphone. On slide 18 I've identified
`some of the sections from our expert report that's in our brief. He's saying
`the same thing. He's one of ordinary skill in the art. He's worked in this
`field for years. Looking at Miesterfeld he would immediately have gone to
`the latest version of IDB. IDB is a very well known standard in this field.
`
`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 IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`It's like saying USB to a computer scientist. You see IDB you normally, and
`would just immediately, go to the latest version.
`PO's argue no, they would not. They would have looked at
`Miesterfeld at the time Miesterfeld issued, 2001, the latest version of the
`IDB standard was three years oldish and that was 1997, and that's the one
`that they would have looked at. Well first they're wrong on the law. They
`have cited no law to support their position. The statute is very clear, pre-
`AIA 103 that obviousness is determined at the time of the invention. We
`looked at the prior art through the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art at
`the time of the invention. That's just black letter law. One of ordinary skill
`in the art would not have ignored three years of prior art, period.
`Even if they would have -- I'm on slide 20 -- and this is not addressed
`by PO. Two points. The 1997 version of the IDB standard is a direct line to
`the 2001 standard. Even in 1997 they were developing this standard and in
`the section I cite below that's on page 3 it says,
`"Evolutionary changes to these requirements, the technical details of
`implementation, and performance specifications will be dealt with in SAE
`J2366."
`That's the 2001 version. So even if one of ordinary skill in the art in
`2002 had somehow forgotten that the 2001 version existed or somehow
`missed it, the 1997 version would have been a direct line to that 2001
`standard, and even taking PO's arguments at their face value that one of
`ordinary skill in the art under no circumstances would have looked to the
`2001 standard, the 1997 standard itself identifies CAN.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`
`Now they argue in their papers, I've seen it in their slides, they say
`that CAN didn't exist in '97. That's flat out wrong. I'll show you later, if I
`have time, Posadas cites to a 1991 version of CAN. The 1997 spec, the very
`one they rely on, states that the existing specification such as the SAE CAN
`task force specification. At that time the SAE, the very organization that
`promulgated the IDB, had developed a task force to investigate the existing
`CAN standard. So it doesn't matter what you look at with Miesterfeld. If
`you look at the 2002 standard, if you look at the 1997 standard, it identifies
`CAN as the protocol of choice for that standard.
`I'm going to move on to a new point unless Your Honors have any
`questions on that. Slide 21. This is an issue that straddles both Posadas and
`the Miesterfeld grounds. We argued in our petition, this addresses the
`limitation of sending a notification. We've identified a portion of Stewart
`that recognizes that when you use memory allocation techniques such as
`time out mechanisms (phonetic) error handlers should be installed, and what
`is an error handler? I'm going to go through proof on this but an error
`handler to one of ordinary skill in the art simply means code that handles an
`error. It's notified of when an error occurs. Remember I spoke earlier about
`the notifications in the specification. They're very broad. A change in
`program control is a notification, a flag, something in memory, any
`operating system operation could be a flag according to the specification.
`But here it's very simple. This is a piece of code that handles an error after it
`occurs. If it handles an error after it occurs, it must be notified that that error
`occurred.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Did you make that argument in your petition?
`
`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 IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`
`MR. GLASS: We cited that portion, Your Honor, we cited that
`portion of Stewart. Our expert said that that is a disclosure of sending a
`notification. We never changed that portion that we're citing to. In response
`to their positions in their response in our reply we gave further detail on that
`position but that has always been our position. This is not an inherency
`argument. We are not making an inherency argument. This is a
`interpretation issue.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: You said your expert said that that sentence
`in Stewart teaches the notification?
`MR. GLASS: Correct.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Can you point to your expert declaration
`which particular paragraph that is?
`MR. GLASS: In our opening paper I believe it was -- I'd have to look
`that up Your Honors. I read that last night and if you don't mind my
`associate will look that up and --
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: That's fine. Thank you.
`MR. GLASS: (To co-counsel) Rich, just give me the opening
`declaration where we deal with that limitation.
`And if he can't find it I'll find it while PO's are speaking. I cite here to
`the Institution decision. I only cite here because Your Honors said it
`characterized Stewart exactly the way we were intending to characterize it,
`that Stewart simply further describes known memory management
`techniques. That's exactly what Stewart describes and that's exactly what we
`were citing to Stewart for.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: All right. And you said you're not relying on
`inherency for this?
`MR. GLASS: We're not relying on inherency, Your Honor. This is
`purely a interpretative issue on how one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have interpreted this notion of an error handler and both experts here are in
`agreement as to what an error handler is. I'll get to that in one minute.
`There's no dispute here. The only dispute is legal argument from PO's and
`why don't I just get to that point. PO's start -- their first position -- they start
`from a mischaracterization of the claims. They argue, this is from their
`papers.
`"At no point does Stewart actually teach sending the notification back
`to the node requesting access to the storage resource."
`That's where they start. The claim requires sending notification. So
`the entire basis for their argument, they start -- I hate using euphemisms but
`this is a strawman -- they start from a loaded position on what the claim
`requires when not a single one of those words except for notification appears
`in the claim. It's just an incorrect starting point. It's a gross
`mischaracterization of what the claim requires. I said there's no dispute here
`over what an error handler is. They say in their paper an error handler is a
`mechanism that forestalls errors if possible, and that's an important point.
`This is a point that is critical to their position. Our expert said this is
`incorrect. Error handlers operate exactly as the name suggests. They handle
`errors after they occur. This was in his declaration. Their expert, we asked
`him at his deposition.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00457 (Patent 8,566,843 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00458 (Patent 8,209,705 B2)
`
`
`
`"Now any error handlers catches an error after it's already happened,
`right?
`He took issue with the word catch.
`"I would prefer to say that an error handler handles the error after it
`occurs."
`Now that isn't just a sound byte. We asked before we got to that, we
`asked him about this forestall business.
`"Now you used the word forestall here. Forestall means to prevent,
`right?
`That's not his response.
`"That's not the way I use the word. If that actually is what that means,
`that wasn't my intent."
`So now, and again, to the extent they're arguing that this is a new
`position, Your Honor, that quote I have on forestalling, that's from their
`response. That's their interpretation of our argument from our petition. So
`they knew exactly what we were saying. What we were saying was
`perfectly clear. They, and their own expert agreed with us, so there can be
`just no dispute here as to what an error handler means. It is something that
`handles an error after it occurs.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: What I'm not seeing on this slide, which is
`slide 25 by the way, is any reference to a notification which the claim
`requires.
`MR. GLASS: The notification is part of the
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
