`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC.,
`and LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held August 30, 2018
`___________
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER LG ELECTRONICS, INC.:
`
`
`ANAND K. SHARMA, ESQUIRE
`CORY BELL, ESQUIRE
`JOSHUA GOLDBERG, ESQUIRE
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER FACEBOOK, INC. and WHATSAPP,
`INC.:
`
`
`HEIDI KEEFE, ESQUIRE
`LOWELL MEAD, ESQUIRE
`ANDREW MASE, ESQUIRE
`Cooley, LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRETT MANGRUM, ESQUIRE
`RYAN LOVELESS, ESQUIRE
`Mangrum Law Firm
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, August
`
`30, 2018, commencing at 11:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, Texas Regional Office, 207 South Houston Street, #159, Dallas,
`Texas, 75202.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE QUINN: We're here for the first session of the
`day in IPR2017-1427 concerning Patent Number 8,995,433.
` The parties on the petitioner's side are Facebook,
`Inc., WhatsApp, Inc., and LG Electronics, Inc.
` And on the patent owner's side we have Uniloc USA
`and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. Has that changed to Uniloc 2017 LLC
`yet? Do you know?
` MR. MANGRUM: Yes, Your Honor. I believe there's
`been an updated notice to that effect.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. So we'll state that for the
`record, that there is an update in the entity of patent owner.
` Okay. With me are Judges Charles Boudreau
` appearing -- or presiding in San Jose, California, and Judge
` Jennifer Bisk who joins us from the Madison Building in the
` USPTO Alexandria complex.
` Can you both hear us today?
` JUDGE BISK: Yes.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Yes.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Have the exhibits -- not
`exhibits -- demonstratives been provided to the court
`reporter?
` COURT REPORTER: Yes, ma'am.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. All right. So we -- first, some
`instructions before we start.
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` Demonstratives are not in evidence. As you know,
` they're just visual aids for us to conduct the oral hearing
` and understand your positions better.
` I didn't see any objections filed by either party on
` this case so -- but I will still state this instruction.
` That there are no speaking objections during either side's
` presentation. If you have any reason to object to either a
` slide or the content of your opponent's argument, you state
` that contention during your time.
` Is petitioner aware of that ruling? Yes.
` MR. SHARMA: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Patent owner?
` MR. MANGRUM: Yes, Your Honor -- yes, Your Honor.
`Although there was an objection filed, but we can address that
`when we speak.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. You can address that when you
`speak.
` MR. MANGRUM: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. At this hearing, we have -- LG
`Electronics will be presenting. So at that -- at this time,
`we would like LG Electronics to make an appearance for the
`record.
` MR. SHARMA: Thank you, Your Honor. Anand Sharma
`from the Finnegan Law Firm. Also with me from Finnegan are
`Mr. Cory Bell, and then Mr. Josh Goldberg, all on behalf of
`petitioner LG Electronics.
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. And Facebook, Inc. and WhatsApp,
`Inc., who are in this proceeding with respect to Claim 7 only,
`can you make appearance for the record, please?
` MS. KEEFE: Good morning, Your Honor. Heidi Keefe on
`behalf of Facebook from Cooley. And with me in the courtroom
`are Misters Lowell Mead and Andrew Mase.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. For patent owner, who do we have
`here presenting today?
` MR. MANGRUM: Brett Mangrum for the patent owner
`entities. I will be presenting today exclusively. With me is
`Ryan Loveless, also representing patent owner entities.
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
` All right. We set this first session for 15 minutes
`of argument per side. Petitioner, who bears the ultimate
`burden of proof, will go first. You may reserve some rebuttal
`time. After that, patent owner will respond to petitioner's
`case, and, per the new guidance that we have in our trial
`practice guide, you may also reserve some rebuttal time if you
`wish to do so, but when you get up, if you'd let me know that
`you want that -- to take advantage of that.
` And with that, petitioners have the floor.
` Before you start, neither of my colleagues can see
` what you present here, so you need to identify the slide that
` you are presenting or the exhibit number that you're
` referring to so that they can follow along.
` MR. SHARMA: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` MR. SHARMA: So, Your Honors, Anand Sharma again from
`Finnegan on behalf of the LG petitioners. With Your Honors'
`permission, I would like to reserve about five minutes for
`rebuttal.
` And there is an issue of estoppel. If it's deemed
`properly raised at this late stage, my colleague, Mr. Bell,
`will address that as part of our rebuttal.
` Our general view on estoppel is, as to LG, that issue
` has already been raised and addressed by the Board in Paper
` Number 30. Patent owner Uniloc has either raised its
` arguments then and lost, or it's failed to raise its argument
` soon thereafter as the Board requested in Paper Number 30 and
` waived those arguments. So in your view, for either reason,
` we believe the estoppel issue is a closed matter.
` But with respect to the patentability, the
` patentability of the '433 patent, that patent is generally
` claiming as its invention a system for transmitting instant
` voice messages over an IP network; for example, the internet.
` Now years earlier, there were already systems known
` for transmitting instant voice messages over the internet.
` The Zydney, Clark, and Appelman prior art references are
` examples of that earlier knowledge. And the combination of
` this prior art has been provided for in the petition, and has
` also been recognized in the Institution Decision that that
` prior art teaches all elements of Claims 1 through 8.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` Now, the patent owner has raised disputes as to
` certain elements, and I'd like to address those briefly.
` If we could please turn to Slide 5 of the
` demonstratives. On Slide 5, Claims 1 through 6 are
` presented. And there is some highlighted language. And
` based on that highlighted language on Slide 5, the patent
` owner is incorrectly arguing that the prior art does not
` disclose a message database that stores, deletes, or
` retrieves an instant voice message in response to a user
` request.
` We respectfully disagree. We believe the combination
` of Zydney and Clark discloses these very features.
` And moving to Slide 6. At Slide 6, the Zydney
` reference is shown on the left side of Slide 6. The Zydney
` reference discloses an instant voice messaging app, as shown
` in Figure 1A on Slide 6, as the Software Agent 22 for storing
` and sending instant voice messages, which is also referred to
` as -- on Figure 1A as Voice Container 26.
` JUDGE QUINN: I think the -- to short circuit this,
`because you don't have a lot of time -- the main issue here is
`claim scope, and the arguments that we have from patent owner
`are that the instant voice message must be stored in the
`database record. All of it also is stored within the same
`database where Clark, at left, discloses a merging of two
`different tables into a database.
` So your -- what is your best argument as to why the
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` claims do not require storing the instant voice message
` within the record?
` MR. SHARMA: Thank you, Your Honor. This is
`addressed, if we could move to Slide 7 of the presentation.
`And this is the claim language we've highlighted here where it
`seems that the patent owner is trying to make this argument
`that the -- the claims are limited in the way you described.
` And the patent owner, when it tries to make this
` argument to limit the scope of the claims, points to the
` specification, particularly points to column 12, lines 36 and
` 40 of the specification. That's provided on the top portion
` of the right side in the blue box.
` And the patent owner is using that language to make
` the argument that the database record needs to be in the
` message database, and that same database record needs to
` include both the message identifier and the instant voice
` message.
` We disagree with that rewrite of the claims. We
` believe there's no basis to rewrite the claims in that
` fashion.
` When you look at the '433 patent specification, if
` you were to look at the same paragraph that patent owner
` cites to for reliance for its position, that paragraph begins
` at column 12, lines 6 through 8, with a description of what
` patent owner relies on as an exemplary illustration of the
` architecture.
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` The same specification ends at column 23, lines 58 to
` 63, with a recognition that the described embodiments are not
` limiting.
` So if anything, what the patent owner cites to --
` JUDGE QUINN: Are you talking about the usual
`boilerplate language that says, "These things could be broader
`than described?"
` MR. SHARMA: That language is in some patents, it's
`not in others. But here, what I'm pointing to is that, as
`well as the very paragraph that the patent owner cites to
`which describes the reference that patent owner relies on as
`an exemplary embodiment.
` There's no language of disclaimer, there's no
`language of lexicography that would require a limitation of
`claim scope in the way that patent owner presents.
` And furthermore, if you look at the language in the
` specification that patent owner relies upon, it shows that
` the applicant knew how to narrowly draft the language, but
` when you look at the claims, there is a decision not to
` include that language in the claims.
` When you look at the claims, there is no language of
` a record of the message database, there's no language of a
` record, including a unique identifier and an instant voice
` message, nor is there any language, like appears in the
` specification, of each record comprising a message identifier
` and the instant voice message.
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` So our view is the plain language should control.
` But Your Honors, moving to Slide 8, regardless of whether the
` plain meaning controls or patent owner's narrowed
` construction controls, the Clark system still meets the claim
` range.
` Clark includes two embodiments; there's an embodiment
` in Figure 5A and there's an embodiment in Figure 5B. Both
` of those embodiments disclose a record and a message database
` that includes message data and a unique identifier.
` If we were to move to Slide 9, Your Honors, Slide 9
` shows the first embodiment.
` JUDGE BISK: Mr. Sharma, if I could just interrupt
`for a second?
` Is message data an instant voice message?
` MR. SHARMA: The message data, when you have the
`combination of the references of Zydney and Clark, the
`electronic message, when you take the system of Clark and
`apply it to the instant voice messaging application of the
`Zydney reference, the electronic message is an instant voice
`message.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Are you relying on Zydney's voice
`container then to be the instant voice message in this
`context?
` MR. SHARMA: Yes, Your Honor.
` So the Clark reference provides just a general
`disclosure and understanding as to different systems 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
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
`storing using a database structure. The Clark reference
`refers to electronic messages, provides examples of electronic
`messages, and also talks about how it could be used with any
`other present or future types of messaging. And the Zydney
`reference provides as its example of electronic message
`instant voice messaging through the voice container.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: So is it your position then that the
`combination of Zydney and Clark would result in storage of
`Zydney's voice container within the database?
` MR. SHARMA: Yes, Your Honor. So --
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: All right. Thank you.
` MR. SHARMA: -- in looking at Figure 5A, this is an
`example of how it would work. The Clark reference, in
`Figure 5A, this is a situation where there is a catalog
`separate from a message stored in Figure 5A. And if you look
`at the lower portion of Figure 5A, when it refers to the
`message store, the Message Store 23 includes a Record 54.
`That Record 54 includes message data, as well as a unique
`identifier: Store message ID.
` If you look at the Clark reference at column 11,
`lines 50 through 54, when describing Figure 5A, it explains,
`for example, "When a message is added to a Message Store 23,
`the message storage server assigns a unique store message ID
`to the message and generates an event which informs the
`catalog server of the newly added message.
` That this unique identifier, store message ID, is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
`also communicated to the catalog, doesn't change the fact that
`the Record 54 in the message store includes both message data
`and a unique store message ID. So that's the Figure 5A
`embodiment.
` If we were to move to Clark's Figure 5B embodiment on
` Slide 10. Here in Figure 5B the -- there's a combined
` catalog and message store. But if you look at the lower
` portion of Figure 5B, there is again a record, the record is
` 54 Prime, and that Record 54 Prime contains message data and
` a unique identifier referred to as message ID.
` Clark, at column 17, lines 1 through 23, includes a
` chart. This chart shows Message Summary Table 52. And on
` column 17, line 3 of that chart, there is a definition for
` message ID. That definition reads, "A non-zero value that
` uniquely identifies a row in Message Summary Table 52." So
` again here, we have in the same record message data and a
` unique identifier.
` So Clark, either under the plain language of the
` claims or patent owner's narrow construction, meets the
` limitation, and not just one embodiment, but two embodiments.
` Now, moving to Slide 11. The patent owner, in its
` response, has raised several arguments attacking the
` combination of Zydney and Clark references, but these
` arguments in patent owner's response are a repeat of the same
` arguments already rejected by the Board. I'm sorry.
` JUDGE QUINN: That's time.
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` MR. SHARMA: Okay. If I could just make one point,
`and then I'll maybe shorten my rebuttal time? It has to do
`with Claim 7, and it's on Slide 18.
` Now, Claim 7 -- now these were the dependent claims,
` Claims 7 and 8. Again, here, the patent owner is repeating
` the same arguments that it presented in its preliminary
` papers, again in the response. They've already been
` considered and rejected by the Board, and we agree with the
` Board's bases.
` Now, in Claim 7, the patent owner here seems to be
` trying to change the language of the claim to require some
` ability to select and message an unavailable recipient.
` We view this as a complete rewrite of the claim
` language. But regardless of whether it's the plain meaning
` that controls or this narrowed construction being offered by
` the patent owner, the prior art meets the limitations.
` On Slide 20, the Appelman prior art reference -- I'm
` sorry -- on Slide 19, the Appelman prior art reference meets
` the claim language plainly. It shows a display of a buddy
` list that provides the availability of potential recipients.
` And then on Slide 20, the combination of Zydney and
` Appelman address patent owner's narrowed construction.
` Patent owner, in its response brief, at page 39 to 40,
` recognizes the two distinct modes of communication of the
` Zydney reference based on the status of the recipient.
` Zydney's software agent offers alternative ways to
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` communicate to recipients, whether they're off or online.
` And the Appelman reference simply provides a visual display.
` JUDGE QUINN: The way I see the patent owner's
`argument on this is more specific as to whether you can use
`the Appelman display to select anything other than a currently
`online user. And the understand -- understanding, though, that
`Zydney does disclose that you can select both available and
`unavailable, but the display sort of limits that combination.
` So what is your -- what is your argument about what
` does Figure 3 really show to us?
` MR. SHARMA: Figure 3 is showing availability of
`users, whether they're logged in or logged out.
` Now, the Zydney reference, like Appelman, is an
`online communication system. The Zydney reference, like
`Appelman, includes lists as to whether an individual recipient
`is on or offline. They both include that.
` The Zydney reference even discloses ways of
`communicating -- alternative ways of communicating to
`recipient whether they are offline or online.
` What the Appelman reference is simply providing is
`that display feature. It's just providing that display that
`shows whether the recipient is on or offline, but the Zydney
`reference itself provides the teaching as to how to
`communicate with that the recipient, whether they're offline
`or online.
` JUDGE QUINN: Because there are two things here. I
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
`don't know that you answered my question. There is the issue
`that the claims themselves may or may not encompass the
`display of both online and offline, and that you have to be
`able to select intended recipients that have either of those
`indicia. Right?
` And then there is the second issue that if the claims
`do cover -- do require that the indication of who is the
`potential recipient -- that the potential recipients could be
`unavailable at the time, whether the combination with Appelman
`supports that theory.
` So what you just said responds to the second issue is
` that if the claim cover that you say Appelman would do it,
` because Figure 3 shows some people are in or out, but do you
` have any disclosures in Appelman that actually say you can
` select -- select Jane Roe, which is shown as out, to send her
` an instant voice message at any point?
` MR. SHARMA: The first argument, or point, Your
`Honor, is, first of all, the claim language doesn't require
`what the patent owner's stating. As far as when you look at
`the plain language of the claims, it doesn't require that.
` But if we were to take the assumption that the claim
`language does require that, the Zydney reference provides the
`full teachings on how to select unavailable recipients. And
`the Appelman reference, this is providing the visual
`display -- the visual display of selecting. And the selection
`is already provided for in the Zydney reference, as far as
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
`teachings on how to communicate whether the recipient is
`online or offline.
` JUDGE QUINN: No. I'm not understanding that. So
`you're relying on Zydney for the selecting part, but on
`Appelman for the display part.
` MR. SHARMA: It's the combination of both. You're
`taking a display system in Appelman, it's a display system,
`and you're providing that display system -- the person of
`ordinary skill in the art would use that display system in the
`teachings of Zydney. And in using the teachings of Sidney, it
`would use that display system to do what Zydney refers to as
`alternative ways to communicate with the recipient. So
`whether the recipient is online or offline, they can still be
`selected.
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, how do -- where in Appelman do
`you have selection of a recipient that is out? I mean, it may
`be displaying it, but you don't have anything else, from what
`I hear, just that you can select that person.
` MR. SHARMA: Can I address this in rebuttal so that I
`can get the Appelman reference and review it, Your Honor? But
`my view is that the combination of the two address the
`limitation, if that's even a proper limitation of the claim,
`which we believe it's not.
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, I would like for you to address
`it now because you're over your rebuttal time.
` MR. SHARMA: If I can grab the Appelman reference?
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Sure.
` (Pause in the proceedings)
` MR. SHARMA: Your Honor, our view would be, we would
`return to that same position, that Appelman provides the list
`as to whether a user is online or offline, and the
`communications with the users are based on whether they are
`online or offline. And the Zydney reference provides
`alternative ways of communicating with that user as to whether
`they are offline or online.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Is that it?
` MR. SHARMA: Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Thank you.
` (Pause in the proceedings)
` JUDGE QUINN: You can reserve whatever time you want,
`if you're going to take advantage of that, but now time is 21
`minutes to match you with the time that
`petitioner went over.
` MR. MANGRUM: To be clear, Your Honor, the petitioner
`is going to have five additional minutes and so --
` JUDGE QUINN: Actually, let me -- two additional
`minutes.
` MR. MANGRUM: Okay. I'd like to reserve five of my
`minutes, which would put me at --
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` MR. MANGRUM: Did you say 21 minutes?
` JUDGE QUINN: So you'll have 12 minutes for your
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
`argument now, and five minutes for rebuttal.
` MR. MANGRUM: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
` In view of Your Honors' questions, I'd like to
` actually do my presentation a little in reverse and begin
` with Claim 7 to address some of the points that were just
` raised.
` And I want to first start with just the claim
` language. The limitation question is the instant voice
` messaging application displays an indicia for each of the one
` of our potential recipients indicating whether the potential
` recipients -- or potential recipient is currently available
` to receive an instant voice message.
` The reason why I want to emphasize that is you heard
` the petitioner repeatedly referring to a user in general.
` That in Appelman, what you see is a display of users. What
` the claim requires is a display of potential recipients. And
` that term comes from Claim 1. And it's clear from the
` specification and from Claim 1 that when we're talking about
` potential recipients, we're talking people who -- to whom
` someone -- or sorry -- we're talking about a recipient that
` can receive a message -- or they can be messaged.
` And the specification uses the term "potential
` recipient" in a manner that's independent of whether or not
` the recipient currently has an online or offline status.
` This is an advantage -- a technical advantage of the
` invention. The reason why is a user could generate and send
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` an instant voice message even if the intended recipient has
` an offline status. So the system would then store the
` message and subsequently complete its transmission
` automatically when it is detected that the recipient is
` online.
` And I would direct Your Honors' attention to
` column 8, line 39 through 43 of the specification. This is
` disclosed there.
` Incidentally, it's also part of the claims. There's
` a -- Claim 26 references this concept of being able to
` message someone who is offline.
` And again, an advantage of this is, even if you know
` someone's offline, a user could send a message and know that
` the system automatically would track and maintain the
` connectivity status, and then for that sending user, make the
` message complete or be delivered to the person who is already
` identified as a potential recipient at the -- at the time
` that they connect online.
` JUDGE QUINN: So it looks like you're putting a lot
`of emphasis on the word "potential" in the phrase "potential
`recipient" as opposed to "intended recipient" that some of the
`claims have.
` MR. MANGRUM: Well, but also, it's not just potential
`recipient, it's the fact that there is a -- an instant voice
`message term at the end of that claim, if you notice. So what
`we're talking about here --
`
`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 IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` JUDGE QUINN: What is the significance of that?
` MR. MANGRUM: That it's a -- it's a message that's
`already been created. So we're talking -- we're not talking
`about --
` In Appelman, it's -- let me distinguish it by talking
`about what goes on in Appelman. In Appelman's there's just an
`online status display. And if you -- if you see someone
`that's offline, what Appelman does not allow anyone to do is
`to create an instant voice message. It's called a -- there
`could be no existing instant voice message created and put
`into the system, sent to someone who has an offline status.
` JUDGE QUINN: But it says, "Whether the potential
`recipient is currently available to receive an instant voice
`message" -- it doesn't say "the instant voice message" -- and
`it could be that at that point it hasn't even been recorded
`yet.
` MR. MANGRUM: Well, our answer to that would simply
`be, if it says "an instant voice message", that that's a term.
`It's -- there is an -- it doesn't say "a hypothetical or even
`the potential instant voice message," it says, "an instant
`voice message."
` So we would say that there is an instant voice
`message called out in the claim. There are certain people
`that are potential recipients.
` And the reason why -- I think "potential" is an
`important word. Reason why "potential" is used here it is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
`evocative of the teachings in the specification that a user
`advantageously can send a message. Can message people who are
`offline.
` And again, the advantage of that is you don't have to
`sit -- this is not a wait-and-see approach like Appelman. I
`want -- I want to create a message and send it, oh, but I see
`you're offline. I'm going to have to come back before I could
`do anything. I'm going to have to come back to my computer
`and wait -- personally wait until someone's online to message.
`Whereas the invention uses the word "potential" to distinguish
`this from the affirmed prior art in that the recipients, even
`if offline, are potential recipients. And that's important.
` So again, in this claim language, it's explicitly
`called out. It's reflecting the teaching that you could have
`someone that's offline, it doesn't say "thereby becoming a
`non-potential recipient."
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, assuming that -- assuming that --
`assuming that you're right -- and I'm not saying you are --
`that the Claims -- the Claim 7 does require there be some sort
`of option there to send to someone a message when they're not
`available. Okay?
` Why isn't just the disclosure of Appelman of giving
`you a list of the users and their status, in combination with
`Zydney, which does allow you to send a message to a recipient
`that is not available, why isn't that also the same thing that
`you're just talking about?
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Well, for one, I don't remember seeing
`that particular argument in the petition. But to respond to
`the question, the -- it's interesting that you also, and the
`petitioner, used the word "user" in describing what's shown in
`Appelman, and I think that's a correct characterization, I
`think it is a user.
` Those people, the people that are displayed, are
`not -- certainly, in the instance of offline users, they're
`not potential recipients. And the missing limitation that's
`conceded, at a minimum, is a display of potential recipients,
`including potentially potential recipients who are offline.
` And so when they point to a user, and then point to
`the status next to them and say, "That is -- that's an offline
`user, and that's our potential recipient that's displayed,"
`our answer to that is it's not a potential recipient.
` JUDGE QUINN: Why not?
` MR. MANGRUM: Because those offline users, according
`to the teachings of Appelman, cannot -- they cannot receive --
`they cannot potentially receive a message, they're in an
`offline status. You can't even message them, is the problem.
`Therefore, because --
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, you may not be able to message
`them using Appelman's system, but you're using Zydney's
`messaging engine and everything else that Zydney discloses.
`You're not using Appelman's transmission protocol, you're
`using Zydney's.
`
`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
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01427
`Patent 8,995,433 B2
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Well, I guess our emphasis again there
`is the -- what needs to be shown, the missing limitation, is a
`display of potential recipients. And an offline recipient --
`or an offline user is not a potential recipient.
` So when you -- when you look
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
