UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`and HUAWEI DEVICE COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held August 30, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`and HUAWEI DEVICE COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held August 30, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 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, D.C. 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, California 94304-1130
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER HUAWEI DEVICE COMPANY,
`LTD.:
`
` DAVID GARR, ESQUIRE
` COVINGTON AND BURLING
` One CityCenter
` 850 Tenth Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20001-4956
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER APPLE, INC.:
`
` JASON D. EISENBERG, ESQUIRE
` TRENT W. MERRELL, ESQUIRE
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX, PLLC
` 1100 New York Ave, NW
` Suite 600
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` Washington DC 20005
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` BRETT MANGRUM, ESQUIRE
` RYAN LOVELESS, ESQUIRE
` MANGRUM LAW FIRM
` 2001 Ross Avenue
` Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on August 30, 2018,
`commencing at 12:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Texas
`Regional Office, 207 South Houston Street, #159, Dallas, Texas, 75202.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
` (Proceedings begin at 12:00 p.m.)
` THE COURT: Let's begin our second session of the
`day. This session is for IPR2017-1428, 2017-1667, and
`2017-1668.
` The IPR 2017-1428 deals with patent number 8,995,433,
`while the 1667 and 1668 cases deal with the '622 patent.
`Sorry. Let me give you that full number. Patent
`Number 8,724,622.
` With me, again, or joining me again, are Judges
` Charles Boudreau in the San Jose, California office, and
` Judge Jennifer Bisk joining us from the Alexandria campus at
` the USPTO headquarters.
` Here we have quite a few parties, so let me get
` everyone straight before we start.
` So we should have here Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp
` Inc., LG Electronics, Inc. and Huawei Device Company, Ltd.
` Are we missing anybody else from the description?
` MS. KEEFE: No, Your Honor, except for the joinder.
` JUDGE QUINN: And the joined party Apple, Inc. Thank
`you for that.
` And for patent owner we have again Uniloc USA and
` Uniloc Luxembourg, but as we understand, notices have been
` filed of updating the patent owner corporation.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` MR. MANGRUM: That's correct in these matters, as
`well, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you. All right.
` Let's start with appearances for Facebook and
`WhatsApp.
` MS. KEEFE: Good morning on the West Coast. Good
`afternoon everywhere else. My name is Heidi Keefe, and I'm
`lead counsel on behalf of Facebook, Inc. and WhatsApp Inc.,
`petitioners.
` During the oral argument today, Mr. Andrew Mase will
`be presenting in the 2017-1428 case, and Mr. Lowell Mead will
`be presenting in the 1667 and 1668 cases.
` Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. So who do we have next?
` MR. GARR: So for the petitioner Huawei Device
`Company, Ltd., I'm David Garr with Covington and Burling.
`Good morning, good afternoon.
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
` MR. BELL: Good morning and good afternoon. Cory
`Bell from Finnegan on behalf of LG.
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
` Do we have anybody else? Oh, yes.
` Apple, Inc., you can make your appearances for the
`record again, please.
` MR. EISENBERG: Good morning, good afternoon, 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
`Honors. This is Jason Eisenberg and Trent Merrell for Apple.
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
` Okay. We've got everybody. Okay.
` For patent owner, who do we have presenting today?
` MR. MANGRUM: Welcome back, all. This is Brett
`Mangrum. With me is Ryan Loveless, and I will be exclusively
`presenting today on behalf of patent owner.
` I'm also listed as the lead counsel in these matters,
`all of them.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. All right. For this session, we
`have a total of 45 minutes per side. And as I understand then
`Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., yes, they will be presenting
`for or on behalf of everybody, from the petitioners.
` You may reserve rebuttal time, and you can let me
`know what that time would be as you step up. Same for patent
`owner, you may reserve rebuttal time. If you want to reserve
`that, it's your choice.
` Same instructions from the last session. No speaking
`objections. If you have anything that you want to raise our
`attention to in regards to objections, you may state those
`during your argument time.
` In these cases, as well, I want to make that
`statement now rather than at the end, that pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 315(d), we, the panel, is considering consolidating the
`1427 and 1428 cases that deal with the '433 patent, and also
`
`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 IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
`consolidating the 1667 and 1668 cases together because those
`deal with the '622 patent.
` And this is exclusively for purposes of us rendering
`a final written decision. And the parties are given a week --
`calendar week to respond or otherwise object if you have any
`issues with our proceeding in that manner. You may send an
`email to the trial inbox and let us know whether we need to
`have a conference call on that.
` Do you have any questions on that instruction or
`notice?
` MS. KEEFE: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` MR. MANGRUM: None from patent owner, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: Perfect.
` MS. KEEFE: Just one quick housekeeping question,
`Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: Sure.
` MS. KEEFE: I know that there is a total amount of
`time for the oral argument on all three petitions. Would Your
`Honor prefer that we do all of the issues regarding the '433
`through? In other words, petitioner talks on the 1428 case,
`response, finish, and then move on to the 1667 and 1668, or do
`you prefer that Mr. Mase present on the issues of the '433
`patent, followed immediately by Mr. Mead on the '622, and then
`addressed by patent owner?
`
`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 IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` JUDGE QUINN: I think, because there are so many
`overlapping issues, it probably makes sense to just go
`straight through, and you tell us which patent you want to
`take up at any time. And then likewise, patent owner can
`address all of the issues during their 45 minutes. I think
`that's the most efficient thing.
` MS. KEEFE: Sounds --
` JUDGE QUINN: Because otherwise we're going to get confused as
`to which patent we're referring to at what time.
` MS. KEEFE: Sounds logical, Your Honor. Without
`further ado, I'll give you Mr. Mase.
` MR. MASE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Andrew Mase,
`again, for petitioner Facebook. And I'm going to -- I'm going
`to talk about the 1428 proceeding on the '433 patent.
` JUDGE QUINN: So how much time do you want for
`rebuttal?
` MR. MASE: So we'll collectively take 25 minutes to
`opening, and reserve 20 for rebuttal.
` JUDGE QUINN: So you -- you want to speak for 20
`minutes?
` MR. MASE: Mr. Mead and myself will collectively
`speak for 25 minutes.
` JUDGE QUINN: 25.
` MR. MASE: I'm planning to speak for about 10
`minutes.
`
`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 IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. So I'm going to put the timer
`for 25, and you stop when you need to stop. Okay.
` MR. MASE: Okay. Excellent.
` So I'm going to focus my presentation on the instant
`voice message term. That's because, even though the Board's
`Institution Decision rejected all of the patent owner's
`arguments, patent owner's response offers nearly nothing new.
`The main difference is that the patent owner has offered an
`express instruction of that term "instant voice message".
` The bottom line is that patent owner has not provided
`any reason for the Board to depart from its reasoning --
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, why don't you start with that,
`because we are concerned about the claim scope of that term.
`It permeates throughout all of the related patents, and we
`have some suggestions that we want to explore today.
` The main question I have for you is that I notice in
`your briefs, you take the position that the construction is
`plain and ordinary meaning, and I want to understand why you
`say that.
` MR. MASE: Sure. Sure. So two things, Your Honor.
`The first thing is that I think it's in column 2 of the '433
`patent, it acknowledges that voice messaging and instant voice
`messages are already known. And I think as ordinary users of
`the web and the internet, we all know what an instant text
`message is, we all know what voice messages are.
`
`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 IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` And so an instant voice message is like an instant
`text message except that it's voice. And particularly in view
`of Zydney's clear teachings about its system and how it uses
`voice containers to enable near realtime communication -- so
`I'm citing Zydney at page 16 lines 14 to 15 -- it talks about
`exchanging these voice containers to create an instant voice
`messaging session. That's Zydney page --
` JUDGE QUINN: Why are we talking about Zydney? Okay.
`I want to address claim construction first without really
`referring to what the prior art has.
` We understand that the patent has in the background,
`the '433 patent addresses instant text messaging and it
`says -- and addresses voice mail, and it says, "We now have
`instant voice messaging." So it's neither instant text
`messaging nor is it voice mail.
` The question is what is it? And what I'm hearing
`from you is that everybody knows what that is. And I think
`our problem is that this is a technical term at this point.
`So what is the definition of that, so we know at a minimum
`what are we looking for?
` MR. MASE: Okay, Your Honor. Our position that,
`again, known construction is necessary for that term exactly
`because the '433 patent acknowledges that voice messaging is
`known, voice mail is known, and instant text messaging is
`known.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` So an instant voice message is simply an instant text
`message, except that it's voice instead.
` If Your Honor would like a claim construction
`proposal from us, I'd ask that I can confer with my colleagues
`and address it in rebuttal.
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, that's what I don't understand,
`because we made it very clear that this is a claim
`construction issue, and it was on our decisions on Institution
`that we said you needed to brief that.
` So what I -- what came back from you is, "Patent
`owner's not correct. Leave it -- leave it plain and ordinary
`meaning," and that's just not very helpful because, you know,
`you know it when you see it is not a claim construction.
` I do have a proposal for you, if you can approach.
`And we have hadthis actually copied for all of your colleagues
`and everybody else in the courtroom, including one for the
`court reporter.
` I'm handing down to everyone involved a copy of a
`definition that appears in the Microsoft Computer Dictionary,
`copyrighted 2002, approximately, published at that time, and
`it is for the term "instant messaging".
` And this is not -- this is not an exhibit of record,
`so it is provided to you as information that the panel has
`considered and is looking at for purposes of starting a
`conversation about what this term really means.
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` (Pause in the proceedings)
` MR. MASE: Thank you for providing this reference.
` So this entry is describing instant messaging, and
`it's talking about a service that alerts users when their
`friends or colleagues are online and enable them to
`communicate with each other in real time through private online
`chat areas.
` So in view of this dictionary entry and the
`disclosures of the '433 patent, I think we'd be comfortable
`saying that an instant voice message, as used in the '433
`patent, is the near real-time communication of a voice. As
`I've been saying before, it's like an instant text message
`except it's voice.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. So your construction, you would
`say, is "Near real-time communication of voice," or at least as
`a minimum that, as opposed to instant text messaging.
` MR. MASE: Correct.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: This is Judge Boudreau. What form would
`that take? Would it be a file, or would it be a data
`structure, or what -- what would that be?
` MR. MASE: I think it would take the form of a data
`structure, Your Honor. I think using a file is too narrow.
`For example, the '433 patent.
` It does have an embodiment of using an audio file
`
`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
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
`and -- as a voice -- voice instant text, but it also talks
`about an intercom mode where the instant voice message is
`simply the use of transmission of audio using -- using message
`buffers. So it's not limited to a file.
` I think also I'd like to point out --
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Would you agree then there would be
`a -- a data structure including a representation of an
`audible message?
` MR. MASE: Yes, Your Honor. I think that's -- I
`think that's accurate. And that's -- addresses the narrowness
`that would be present if a file were used in the definition.
` JUDGE QUINN: I think my only concern with that -- I
`want your comments on this -- is that the patents refer to
`instant voice messages before even they're created, such as,
`you know, the system alerts the user when it is ready to
`record the instant voice message.
` At that point, there is no message, tangible -- you
`know -- yeah -- where it's in a tangible medium. At that point
`there's no data, there's no structure. It will become that,
`supposedly, eventually, but it's more like the communication
`is about to begin, or the speech is about to come forth, and
`that will become the medium by which you deliver that message,
`but it's not necessarily data at that point.
` MR. MASE: Right. I think that's talking about sort
`of the process of generating an instant voice message. So 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
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
`think Your Honor is right that at that point, one doesn't
`exist yet. As part of that process, the '433 patent talks
`about a user being able to press a start button, and speak
`into it, and then press a stop button, and then as a result of
`that, the instant voice message is generated to be sent to its
`recipient.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. And for the claims that say you
`have a potential recipient where, again, the instant voice
`message hasn't been generated yet.
` MR. MASE: I'm not sure that "potential recipient" is
`recited in the claims that I'm addressing, but I think it was
`covered in LG's presentation about what a potential recipient
`is. I don't think it requires that an instant voice message
`already exists before you select users who could be potential
`recipients of that message.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Does it have to be -- I mean,
`the patent discloses audio in general, even though it says
`"voice messaging". But should it be broader than voice if the
`disclosure is just audio files and audio being transmitted, or
`should it be just what it says, just voice?
` MR. MASE: I think it should be limited to the voice,
`Your Honor, as part of the -- as part of the claim term.
` JUDGE QUINN: Any other things you want to say about
`the term vis-à-vis the definition that we have provided to
`you -- which, by the way, we are going to enter this into 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
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
`record as probably Exhibit 3001, if we don't have one already
`taking that number.
` MR. MASE: Just two points, Your Honor. We already
`talked about the issue of whether it should be limited to a
`file; it should not. The '433 patent, as I already mentioned,
`discusses two embodiments, one of which just uses buffers
`and -- to create the instant voice message for transmission.
` The other issue is whether the instant voice message
`should be limited to only including voice data so it couldn't
`include any metadata such as the destination or (inaudible)
`any identifier.
` And I think it is broader than just being limited
`purely to raw voice data. And the reason for that is, if you
`look at claims at the '622 patent, at least Claims 6 and 8, it
`talks about an instant voice message that includes fields,
`like an identifier, and a destination field.
` JUDGE QUINN: So you would say the instant voice
`message would include data?
` MR. MASE: I'm saying that it could. It should not
`be limited to only those of raw audio data that's provided by
`some speaker.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Now, if we -- if we agree with
`you that it is a near realtime communication of voice
`comprising some data structure, or that represents voice, how
`does that -- how does that match with the embodiments in which
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
`the instant voice message gets delivered to a recipient over a
`telephone, and at that point, it's not data?
` MR. MASE: I think, Your Honor, the embodiment that
`you're talking about is media via a server; so a user calls
`up, and they generate their instant voice message in that
`manner.
` And so what happens is you do generate an instant
`voice message that includes a data structure that has no voice
`data, it may include other information, as well, and that
`instant voice message gets transmitted for the recipient to
`ultimately listen to or receive.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` MR. MASE: And I think I'll turn it over to Mr. Mead
`for the '622.
` MR. MEAD: Thank you, Your Honors.
` So with respect to the '622 patent, I have three
`quick points to make, but, of course, would be most happy to
`hear if there are particular issues regarding the patent that
`the Board would desire to raise. But unless there are any
`particular questions at the outset, I'll go ahead and address
`the points I plan to raise.
` First, with respect to Claim 3, the dispute over the
` object field in Claim 3 of the '622 patent, we have a
` demonstrative slide, which will be 2, which we can pull up
` 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
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` Judge Quinn, if you have the demonstrative slides
` handy, there may be an issue here, but it's the --
` So the claim language of the object field
` limitation -- so the issue -- the first issue to address here
` is the claim construction, or lack thereof, the breadth of
` the object field.
` So the '622 patent recites at 3, "Wherein the instant
` voice message includes an object field, including a digitized
` audio file."
` And Slide 42 shows the claim language. The patent
` itself broadly describes the object field as simply a block
` of data carried by message object, and that's actually in
` co-pending litigation that the patent owner's claim
` construction was simply a block of data carried by the
` message object. And that's consistent with kind of broad,
` plain, ordinary meanings reflected in technical dictionaries.
` So the Microsoft Dictionary, which is Exhibit 1012
` and 1112 at page 210, "field" is defined as simply a location
` in a record in which a particular type of data is stored.
` So the '622 patent itself, column 14, lines 37
` through 40, define a block of data, or extrinsic evidence
` confirms the field is broadly simply a location. And so
` under that broad understanding, the object field and the
` Zydney voice container is simply the voice data that's
` carried within the voice container.
`
`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
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` So if we look at Zydney itself, numerous instances --
` such as page 12, lines 6 through 8; page 12, lines 21 through
` 23; page 23, lines 1 through 11 -- where Zydney explicitly
` describes the voice data contained within the voice
` container, and as we know from Figure 3 of Zydney and other
` disclosures, the voice container can contain other data, such
` as identity fields. And so the disclosures that the block of
` data that's the voice data content, as opposed to other
` content, that's -- that discloses the object field.
` In addition, there's -- what we believe is a
` substantially unrebutted showing of obviousness. So in
` addition to the disclosure, the MIME formatting of the
` message described by Zydney -- so as Your Honors noted in the
` Institution Decision, Zydney, page 19, line 30 -- or 13
` through page 20, line 9, explicitly describes that the voice
` container can be formatted according to MIME. And we
` submitted the incorporated by reference standard of RFC 1521,
` which is Exhibit 1006, and pages 2 through 4 of that
` supported by extensive discussion by Dr. Lavian, that's at
` paragraphs 141 through 144 of his expert declaration.
` It would be obvious that in Zydney, when you have
` the -- the user at the client recording into an audio file,
` which is described at Zydney, page 16, lines 1 through 4, for
` example, page 21, lines 14 through 16, "When formatted
` according to MIME, as explicitly described by Zydney, 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
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` message body of the MIME formatted message discloses that
` object field and would contain that digitized audio file."
` And patent owner's expert declaration submitted
` before the Institution Decision didn't rebut or actually even
` address that showing of obviousness.
` Very quickly on the message database point.
` Substantially, the same claim language that I would just
` refer the Court to -- or the Board to the store message ID.
` So you have exactly the same thing. It's on demonstrative
` Slide 58, as well, and this is what we heard in the prior
` case.
` So there's a disclosure here, as we have the message
` store -- Message Database 23, we have the store message ID,
` which is a unique identifier representing the message, and
` the message data content is within the table, which writ
` large, the plain meaning of the record of this substantially
` similar claim language is satisfied by the Clark disclosure.
` And finally, on Claim 24, so this the connection
` objects. I just wanted to point out -- so this is one of the
` disputes that doesn't actually turn on instant voice message,
` or the claim language doesn't specifically address it, so we
` have -- on Slide 79, we've got the claim language of
` Claim 24.
` What we're talking about here is the messaging
` system, a server side system receiving connection object
`
`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
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` messages from the client systems.
` And what Zydney describes is clear disclosure on
` page 14, lines 2 through 9, that the client systems will log
` in and transmit their statuses to the central server, online,
` offline, and other statuses.
` So we have the disclosure of the messages being
` transmitted, but not -- Zydney doesn't get to the next level
` of detail what's the messaging protocol. And we've shown --
` I think it's -- I believe the disclosure is unrebutted, it's
` only a matter of motivation to combine that the -- when to
` use with http as top -- the Hethmon (phonetic) reference, in
` combination with Zydney, which also motivates the use of
` http, those status messages would be transmitted using http,
` which indisputably discloses the connection object messages.
` So unless there are further questions on the '622
` patent, we would reserve time for rebuttal.
` JUDGE QUINN: Any questions from my colleagues?
` JUDGE BISK: Nothing from me.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Not right now. Thank you.
` MR. MANGRUM: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I also
`would like to reserve the same amount of time. So --
` JUDGE QUINN: Which is what?
` MR. MANGRUM: Go for --
` JUDGE QUINN: They went for -- they asked for 25
`minutes upfront, 20 minutes on the back end.
`
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Let's do the same.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. MANGRUM: I'd like to start with the question of
`construction of instant voice message.
` Now, in the briefing, Uniloc did offer a construction
`for instant voice message. And the -- without countering
`Uniloc's construction with a counterproposal while all that
`was done in the briefing and reply was attacking that
`construction. I want to talk about specific intrinsic
`evidence that informs the construction of instant voice
`message, and also respond to the attack on the construction we
`supplied, and perhaps, in view of that attack, modify the
`construction, and in view of the discussion today, in a manner
`that we still --
` MS. BISK: May I just --
` MR. MANGRUM: Go ahead.
` MS. BISK: I'm sorry. I'm not clear what your
`construction is.
` MR. MANGRUM: Oh. It was in -- at least in the 14 --
` MS. BISK: I look -- yeah. I'm looking at the
`response, and in some places you say "an audio file recording
`voice data", and some places "an audio file that records voice
`data".
` And first of all, I don't understand what that means.
`I don't know -- I don't know of any files that can record
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
`things, so that confuses me.
` And then later you say it's "an audio file having
`recorded voice data".
` MR. MANGRUM: That -- that might be -- in view of
`your question, that might be a better articulation of what we
`were conveying. It is a --
` MS. BISK: So the -- "the audio file having recorded
`voice data"?
` MR. MANGRUM: Right. And I think that actually
`perhaps better even reflects what's in the specification.
` The specification used the words "recorded" and
`"recording", and so we were trying to incorporate that
`particular word inside the construction.
` But "recording" is not -- is not going to -- more
`than what it is, not how it was formed, and so to the extent
`that there could be some confusion in our original
`construction, then we would -- we would propose to say "it
`has".
` But I want to clarify a few things with respect to
` our construction and the attack on the construction in the
` papers.
` So I want to first draw Your Honors' attention to
` Slide 18. And in Slide 18, there is a series of quotations,
` these are all from Uniloc's briefing, but there are -- I just
` want to draw your attention to the fact -- and the citations
`
`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
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01668 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01667 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`
` are provided in the brief and I won't waste time repeating
` them here -- but there are a number of instances where
` "instant voice message" is referred to with the word --
` letters "i.e.", and it's in parenthesis coupled to another
` statement.
` And so while it is correct there are two
` embodiments -- two fundamental embodiments disclosed that are
` distinguished as the record embodiment and the intercom
` mode -- they're described as modes, actually. And here what
` we've shown is a number of descriptions of what the instant
` voice message is in the record mode.
` And so consistently, and I think it's over 12 times,
` the specification refers to the digitized audio file as b
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
