`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`GOOGLE, LLC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 16, 2018
`
`__________
`
`
`Before KEN BARRETT, JEFFREY S. SMITH, MINN CHUNG,
` Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`ERIKA H. ARNER, ESQUIRE
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner LLP
`
`Two Freedom Square
`
`11955 Freedom Drive
`
`Reston, VA 20190
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`BRETT A. MANGRUM, ESQUIRE
`
`Etheridge Law Group, PLLC
`
`1515 N. Town East Boulevard, Suite 138
`
`Mesquite, TX 75150
`
`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`David Seastrunk, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner LLP
`
`Dan Cooley, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner LLP
`
`Kai Rajan, Google
`
`Sydney Kestle, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner LLP
`
`Jim Sherwood, Google
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing Tuesday, October 16, 2018, commencing
`at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`2
`
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: You may be seated. Good afternoon, everyone. We are here
`
`3
`
`for three cases. Final hearings in three cases. IPR2017-01683, 1684, and 1685, Google
`
`4
`
`v. Uniloc. I am Judge Ken Barrett. At the bench with me is Judge Jeffrey S. Smith.
`
`5
`
`Appearing by video is Judge Minn Chung in California. And Judge Easthom, something
`
`6
`
`came up and he's unavailable today. He will not be joining us. Likely, a panel change
`
`7
`
`order shall issue later today. So I'd like to start with parties' appearances. Who do we
`
`8
`
`have for Petitioner?
`
`9
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: Hi, this is Erika Arner from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
`10
`
`Garrett and Dunner. I'm the lead counsel for Petitioner, Google. I'm joined at the table
`
`11
`
`by back up counsel, David Seastrunk. Also in the room are back up counsel, Dan Cooley
`
`12
`
`and Kai Rajan, together with Cara -- or Sydney, excuse me, Sydney Kestle from
`
`13
`
`Finnegan, and from Google, their representative is Jim Sherwood.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: Thank you. And for Patent Owner?
`
`MR. MANGRUM: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name is Brett Mangrum. I
`
`16
`
`am the lead counsel for Patent Owner. I'm representing the Uniloc entities today and I
`
`17
`
`will be presenting all arguments on behalf of Patent Owner.
`
`18
`
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: Thank you, counsel. Our trial order set forth the procedure
`
`19
`
`for today's hearings. I'll go over it just very quickly. For each case, each party will have
`
`20
`
`45 minutes total -- I'm sorry. Each party will have 45 minutes total for all three cases.
`
`21
`
`We will have one continuous transcript for all the three proceedings so there's no need to
`
`22
`
`go back and repeat anything you said for any of the other cases. My understanding is the
`
`23
`
`parties plan to address all three cases more or less concurrently rather than sequentially,
`
`24
`
`but if there are arguments directed to any specific case or cases, if you'd please identify
`
`25
`
`those that will help us all later in the transcript. Also for clarity and the transcript, and to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`assist Judge Chung, any time you are referring to an exhibit on the screen or an exhibit in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`the record, please identify that by the exhibit and page number, or for the demonstratives,
`
`3
`
`the slide number. Petitioner shall go first and may reserve time for rebuttal. Patent
`
`4
`
`Owner will then have the opportunity to respond, and Petitioner may present the rebuttal
`
`5
`
`argument with any time remaining. I'm not going to use the timer. I will be keeping
`
`6
`
`track of time and give you warnings when you're approaching the end. Any questions?
`
`7
`
`
`
`MR. MANGRUM: Yes, Your Honor. Quick question from Patent Owner. Will
`
`8
`
`there be surrebuttal time for Patent Owner in this matter?
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: Would you like some?
`
`MR. MANGRUM: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: You may reserve time when you approach. Understand
`
`12
`
`though, I will probably give Petitioner the option to another minute or two at the very
`
`13
`
`end, if necessary.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. MANGRUM: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: And with that, Petitioner you may begin.
`
`MS. ARNER: Thank you. We have paper copies of our demonstratives for Your
`
`17
`
`Honors. If you'd like them, we can hand them up.
`
`18
`
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: We're fine. We have them pulled up on the screen, but thank
`
`19
`
`you.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Pause.)
`
`MS. ARNER: I'd like to reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal, please.
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: All right. 15 minutes.
`
`MS. ARNER: May it please the Board, today we are talking about three IPR
`
`24
`
`proceedings involving three patents. The patents are related by a continuation chain
`
`25
`
`that's shown on Side 2. The -- while there are three patents and many claims between the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`three, there are fairly few issues that need to be resolved. Most of the questions have
`
`1
`
`2
`
`already been answered over the course of the IPRs. So turning to Slide 3, you see the
`
`3
`
`claims that have already been challenged in previous IPRs. There's a chart here to help
`
`4
`
`keep track of the claims in each of the three patents, and those in red have been found
`
`5
`
`unpatentable over other prior art, other combinations in prior IPRs. Google has, in these
`
`6
`
`petitions, challenged additional claims, and those are boxed there in the yellow or gold.
`
`7
`
`And while those are newly challenged in these IPRs, the Patent Owner has not separately
`
`8
`
`argued the patentability of those claims other than to argue the underlying independent
`
`9
`
`claims or for Claim 16 of the 194, the corresponding Claim 1. The instituted grounds of
`
`10
`
`unpatentability are shown on Slide 4 and there are -- there is one combination,
`
`11
`
`obviousness grounds instituted for all of the challenged claims per patent.
`
`12
`
`Over Tanigawa and Liversidge for the triple 0 and 948 patents and over Liversidge
`
`13
`
`in combination with Beyda in the 194 patent proceeding. Slide 5 is a figure from the
`
`14
`
`common specification to the extent there are any minor differences between the
`
`15
`
`specifications, they're not relevant to the proceedings here. And Figure 4 was used by
`
`16
`
`the parties in the Board as an example of the system of the patents. And as shown in
`
`17
`
`Figure 4 on Slide 5, there are multiple users called here users A through D, who are using
`
`18
`
`either phones and computers or NAD network access devices to take advantage of what
`
`19
`
`the patents describe as the real focus of the patents, which is the ability to convert from
`
`20
`
`an IM chatting session into a voice call.
`
`21
`
`And so you'll see in Figure 4 there's an IM communications processor as part of
`
`22
`
`Element 402 which is the conference call server. And the conference call server has that
`
`23
`
`IM communications processor for the IM communications going on the instant
`
`24
`
`messaging communications between users. There is also a database in the conference
`
`25
`
`call server that stores account information, user information, history, providers, et cetera.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`And then there was also in the figure, the connections over to telephone networks so to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`start a conference call as part of the converting. Conference call bridges shown in 410
`
`3
`
`and then over to the telephone networks there in 408.
`
`4
`
`So turning to the first set of patents, I'll discuss the triple 0 and 948 together
`
`5
`
`because the issues for these two patents are the same for the purposes of these
`
`6
`
`proceedings. So the claims between these two patents are almost identical. Not quite,
`
`7
`
`but they do share mostly common elements and this chart on Slide 7 summarizes the
`
`8
`
`elements in the claims and shows those check boxes are to show that those elements are
`
`9
`
`in both of the patents. And you can see there's just the one that the -- establishing a
`
`10
`
`connection from those network access devices to the conference call server. That
`
`11
`
`express limitation is not present in the claims in the triple 0. So for the claims in the
`
`12
`
`triple 0 and the 948 patent, most of the teachings are undisputed in the instituted grounds
`
`13
`
`of Tanigawa plus Liversidge.
`
`14
`
`So in the columns on Slide 8, you'll see 'no' in all of the lines where there's no
`
`15
`
`dispute that Tanigawa discloses all of those elements, and so I'm going to focus my time
`
`16
`
`on the elements that are in dispute. And those are the ones that are boxed in red there.
`
`17
`
`And the disputed element is the generating of a conference call request, and there are sort
`
`18
`
`of two things about that generating. The first is that it's responsive to a single request by
`
`19
`
`the conference call requester and the second is that the conference call request identifies
`
`20
`
`the targets who are to be part of the call. And so that's really the focus of the dispute
`
`21
`
`with respect to the triple 0 and 948 patents, and whether or not Tanigawa discloses that
`
`22
`
`feature is really the dispositive question before the Board for these two IPRs.
`
`23
`
`Turning to Tanigawa, there's no dispute that Tanigawa discloses what is described
`
`24
`
`in the specification in the triple 0 and 948 patent. It describes an IM -- conversion from
`
`25
`
`an IM session to a voice over IP, VOIP call, and in the Figure 1 which is reproduced on
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`Slide 9, the users are there down in the right hand -- bottom right hand corner at different
`
`1
`
`2
`
`terminals. Some of them have a computer and a phone that's like IP terminal and phone
`
`3
`
`at 7-1 and 8. There's an IP terminal with a headset attached as a user. There's an IP
`
`4
`
`terminal with a radio communications device. So the users, it's very similar to the triple
`
`5
`
`0 and 948 Figure. There are also multiple servers here and the ones that really matter are
`
`6
`
`the IM server which processes the IM communications here in Tanigawa and then the AP
`
`7
`
`server which is, according to the patent -- or to the reference, what manages the
`
`8
`
`connection for the voice chat using the voice over IP.
`
`9
`
`Turning to Slide 10, Tanigawa describes functionality to switch from an IM
`
`10
`
`session to a call, and it's using what is called in Tanigawa a request voice chat command.
`
`11
`
`And in Figure 11, you can see in the upper left-hand corner there is one of those client
`
`12
`
`terminals that we just looked at in the system diagram. Taro is one of the users that's
`
`13
`
`involved in an IM session that's ongoing. The other two are on the right-hand side of
`
`14
`
`Figure 11, you see there's Hanoko, Hanoko and Yoshi are the other users.
`
`15
`
`And these are the three users who are involved in an IM session in Figure 11 described in
`
`16
`
`Tanigawa.
`
`17
`
`And the question is, this switching from the IM session to a voice call that's shown
`
`18
`
`here, is this the generating that is described in the claims. Generating, again, it's a
`
`19
`
`conference call request responsive to a single request and the request identifying each
`
`20
`
`target for the call. So the switching between IM and voice call happens by Taro in this
`
`21
`
`example in Figure 11. Taro determines that the parties are all able to voice chat using
`
`22
`
`this buddy list step and then issues a request to voice chat command. And that's shown at
`
`23
`
`Step 1016 there on the left-hand side of Figure 11. Once that command is issued, then
`
`24
`
`the system, and you see the different servers there are performing the functionality to
`
`25
`
`disconnect the IM and then to establish voice chatting for all of those three.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`So Taro, Hanoko, and Yoshi are all added to a voice chat, so the IM users are
`
`2
`
`converted over. And this functionality in Tanigawa provides both a single request that
`
`3
`
`requests voice chat that Taro sends as a single request that's the responsive to a single
`
`4
`
`request and the request identifies each of the targets. There's really no dispute that that
`
`5
`
`request voice chat command includes either names or identifiers for the parties that
`
`6
`
`should be moved into the call and it results, as this figure shows in the accompanying
`
`7
`
`language and the specification, the three people from the IM are moved into a three-
`
`8
`
`person call. So there's really no dispute. The Tanigawa discloses what's described in the
`
`9
`
`patent. The real dispute is that Patent Owner argues that the claim no longer covers
`
`10
`
`everything that's described in the patent by way of a prosecution disclaimer argument.
`
`11
`
`So turning to Slide 11, this summarizes in graphical form the prosecution disclaimer
`
`12
`
`argument that at the top of the figure you'll see this sort of blue circle is the full claim
`
`13
`
`scope, everything that's in the claim, and that's described in the specification.
`
`14
`
`There's no dispute that if for -- under that full claim scope of everything that's
`
`15
`
`described in the specification, then Tanigawa discloses the generating both the single
`
`16
`
`request and the identification of the call targets. And so that's kind of the left-hand side
`
`17
`
`of this chart. If there is no disclaimer, then it's undisputed Tanigawa discloses the
`
`18
`
`generating step. The question is Patent Owner argues that there's been disclaimer, that
`
`19
`
`the claim does not cover everything in the specification anymore. And so if that's the
`
`20
`
`case, then we go off on that right branch. The question is if they disclaimed, and the
`
`21
`
`little red pie piece is designed to indicate the disclaimer argument, the piece that they say
`
`22
`
`that they disclaimed, if they disclaimed it, then even in that situation, the claims -- or
`
`23
`
`Tanigawa still discloses what's left in the claims.
`
`24
`
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: You've been talking about claim scope and specification as if
`
`25
`
`they're the same. Is that Petitioner's position that the claims -- if you don't think about
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`the disclaimer for a moment -- that the claims as issued cover the entirety of the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`specification?
`
`3
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: Well, I think under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`
`4
`
`which is what applies here, that the claims -- that proper construction is the broadest
`
`5
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: Right. In light of.
`
`MS. ARNER: Yes.
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: But not necessarily coextensive with the specification.
`
`MS. ARNER: No, there could be unclaimed embodiments, you're right.
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: Okay.
`
`MS. ARNER: Yes. But that's not the case here.
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: Okay.
`
`MS. ARNER: Just to clarify. So I can show you on the next slide which is Slide
`
`14
`
`12, kind of, the genesis of this prosecution disclaimer argument and sort of to answer
`
`15
`
`your question, Judge Barrett, as far as what the claim scope -- whether it covers
`
`16
`
`everything in the specification. Here the Patent Owner kind of agrees or implicitly
`
`17
`
`admits that the claim scope covers at least this part of the specification because if it
`
`18
`
`didn't, they wouldn't need to argue disclaimer.
`
`19
`
`And so the Patent Owner's position in, by invoking the disclaimer, is that this part
`
`20
`
`of the specification, and I've kind of blown up the paragraph here on Slide 12, this is
`
`21
`
`where they distinguish and disclaimed part of this paragraph. That the generating step in
`
`22
`
`the claims no longer covers what's there in the red box. So like that red pie piece we just
`
`23
`
`saw carved out. What they argue is -- and in the two boxes they're talking about in
`
`24
`
`Figure 3 in the patent, the generating step. There are two alternatives described here.
`
`25
`
`The first is that User A could request a conference call with one step such as through
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`actuation of a call now button or icon associated with the users IM service.
`
`Alternative -- or alternately, says the specification, User A could be provided with
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`a list of participants in the ongoing IM session and be provided with the opportunity to
`
`4
`
`add or remove the potential participants of the call. That is the part that, in the red box,
`
`5
`
`that 'alternately,' that Patent Owner says was in the scope of the claims but is no longer in
`
`6
`
`the scope of the claims by virtue of this disclaimer that they argue happened during
`
`7
`
`prosecution.
`
`8
`
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: So the specification uses the word "alternately," and before
`
`9
`
`that, there's a reference to requesting a conference call with one step, which to me sounds
`
`10
`
`very similar to the claimed single request, wouldn't that suggest that what follows
`
`11
`
`alternately is a different embodiment thus may have not been covered by the claims
`
`12
`
`initially?
`
`13
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: It might but for the fact that the Patent Owner's arguing that it did --
`
`14
`
`that the claims did cover that until they made red marks in the fourth office action
`
`15
`
`response distinguishing from Haines. And so they have essentially admitted that the
`
`16
`
`claim scope included both of these --
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: And when you say --
`
`MS. ARNER: -- in the generating step.
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: -- when you say they admitted, or conceded, or took the
`
`20
`
`position that that was covered, where was that? Was that in the prosecution, or?
`
`21
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: That's here. That's by making this disclaimer argument by saying
`
`22
`
`that it wouldn't be necessary to say they disclaimed it if it wasn't in the claim scope in the
`
`23
`
`first place.
`
`24
`
`
`
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Is this something that we need to consider if, you know,
`
`25
`
`given your Slide 11, you're saying that no matter which side we come down on this issue,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`kind of goes and meets the claim, why are you -- well, what's the point of us considering
`
`1
`
`2
`
`this issue?
`
`3
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: I would say you don't need to and that either way Tanigawa
`
`4
`
`describes what is in the claims, whether it's that first paragraph or that second paragraph,
`
`5
`
`Tanigawa has it. And I can summarize that for you and then move on to --
`
`6
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE SMITH: (Indiscernible.) Okay.
`
`MS. ARNER: Okay. Good. So we already -- I already mentioned, and we'll
`
`8
`
`repeat just to make sure we're all on the same page, that there is no dispute that if that --
`
`9
`
`those paragraphs are included in the claim scope, which is what the Patent Owner says is
`
`10
`
`the starting point, then Tanigawa discloses it. In Tanigawa, we have -- I'll go back to
`
`11
`
`Slide 10 for Judge Chung -- the -- we have the request voice chat command is the
`
`12
`
`generating in either of those two options that they are alternatives whether it is a single
`
`13
`
`request that is a single request by Taro to convert to a -- to convert from IM to voice
`
`14
`
`chat, and it identifies -- it's undisputed that it identifies either names or identifiers for all
`
`15
`
`of the individuals who should be converted. So that's in that first branch on Slide 11.
`
`16
`
`And the second branch, if the list embodiment that's in the first paragraph is disclaimed,
`
`17
`
`then the second paragraph still talks about the single request and we have that there.
`
`18
`
`So to recap on the triple 0, 948, Tanigawa discloses generating the conference call
`
`19
`
`request as required by the claims. The only disputed claim element that request voice
`
`20
`
`chat command is a single -- is responsive to a single request from Taro and it does
`
`21
`
`identify each of the targets. There's no dispute if there's no disclaimer. If there is
`
`22
`
`disclaimer, Taro still covers what is covered -- is described in the specification because
`
`23
`
`unlike the disclaimer argument, there's no selection involved of individual people; that,
`
`24
`
`instead, Taro is a single request and everyone who is in the -- everyone who is in the IM
`
`25
`
`is moved to the voice chat.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`
`
`JUDGE SMITH: So Taro -- let me make sure I understand your point on this.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`You're saying in Tanigawa, Taro asks for a buddy list, Taro gets a buddy list, and then
`
`3
`
`Taro sends a request voice chat, and that voice chat request goes out to everybody in the
`
`4
`
`buddy list?
`
`5
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: It actually goes out to the servers. So if you follow the arrow from
`
`6
`
`the request voice chat, then it goes to the AP server which is the conference call server,
`
`7
`
`and the processing that follows in Figure 11, the servers are -- you can see it farther
`
`8
`
`down. There's a call initiated by the AP server out to the other users to connect them to
`
`9
`
`the voice chats that are down in the bottom right.
`
`10
`
`
`
`JUDGE SMITH: But I guess my point is when Taro presses request voice chat,
`
`11
`
`ultimately everybody in that buddy list gets the request for voice chat?
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: Everybody who's on the IM session.
`
`JUDGE SMITH: Everybody who's in the IM session?
`
`MS. ARNER: Is converted over. That's right.
`
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay. And then when you say it goes out to every target in the
`
`16
`
`IM session, you're calling the individual people targets?
`
`17
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: Yes. And that's the same as what's described in the patent that
`
`18
`
`we're talking about the users. The users may have a phone and a computer. It's
`
`19
`
`described in that spicket that we looked at from the patents where they might have that
`
`20
`
`network access device and a phone just like here. If you look at -- Hanoko has a
`
`21
`
`computer and a telephone and so --
`
`22
`
`
`
`JUDGE SMITH: You wouldn't consider the computers targets if they don't have
`
`23
`
`voice capability?
`
`24
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: No, that wouldn't be -- that wouldn't be consistent with the way the
`
`25
`
`patent talks about the targets. The targets are the people that are going to be
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`communicating, and it's the same exact people who are in the IM session they want in the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`voice chat.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
`
`(Pause.)
`
`MS. ARNER: We also include in the -- real quick through the disclaimer slides --
`
`6
`
`I'm happy to return to those if you have questions about them. But the Board found them
`
`7
`
`-- maybe this is what you were remembering, Judge Smith, that institution, kind of the
`
`8
`
`conversion of those clients --
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE SMITH: Could you say what slide you're on?
`
`MS. ARNER: I'm sorry. You're right. That's Slide 20. The numbers are cut off
`
`11
`
`on the screen so -- but thank you for the reminder. Please do that so I can remember --
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
`
`MS. ARNER: -- for Judge Chung. Yes. So it was on Slide 20 regarding the
`
`14
`
`switching of the users that the Board noted that the clients in the figure correspond to the
`
`15
`
`users Hanoko and Yoshi were the only clients that were there and that the instruction
`
`16
`
`appears to be a single instruction for a requesting voice chat for each of those
`
`17
`
`participants. So the patent and the reference and -- the patent and the reference are both
`
`18
`
`user centric or person centric, not device centric. That's consistent with the language in
`
`19
`
`the specification and the claims of the challenged patents.
`
`20
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: On that point, I believe Patent Owner may have pointed out
`
`21
`
`that we may have been a little loose in our use of the term "client," so actually we may
`
`22
`
`have caused some of that confusion.
`
`23
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: Well, and I think there, if there is any confusion, which I don't
`
`24
`
`think it is necessarily confusing, I think that looking at the claim language and the use of
`
`25
`
`the word targets. I mean, they're really talking about we're in an IM chat and we want to
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`switch to a voice chat. It's with the people. It's not as if I'm IM'ing you on my phone and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`I want to talk, you know, talk to the different device. I want to talk to you is really what
`
`3
`
`matters.
`
`4
`
`I'll mention on Slide 21, we also have a fallback position in the petition that if the
`
`5
`
`Board does find that there was disclaimer -- and so we're on the right-hand side of that
`
`6
`
`diagram we talked about earlier. And if for some reason the Board finds that there is not
`
`7
`
`the single action request that the generating the conference call request is not responsive
`
`8
`
`to a single request, we have the conversation -- or the combination with Liversidge, that
`
`9
`
`reference, which is undisputed that it discloses this limitation of via its ConvertSession
`
`10
`
`button that is a single button on a GUI, graphical user interface, that allows for the
`
`11
`
`conversion. And again, it's the same thing. A conversion of the people in the existing
`
`12
`
`instant message system into a voice communication session with those same team
`
`13
`
`members.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: You have about 10 minutes left of your initial time.
`
`MS. ARNER: Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. So I'll -- are there any other
`
`16
`
`questions on the triple 0 --
`
`17
`
`
`
`JUDGE SMITH: I do have a question. Is it -- so this is -- the challenge is under
`
`18
`
`obviousness. It seemed like under the obviousness challenge, you're presenting what was
`
`19
`
`seems to me is a 102 analysis and you're saying, well, if the 102 analysis doesn't work,
`
`20
`
`here's the 103 analysis; is that accurate?
`
`21
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: So it's an obviousness -- the Tanigawa argument is an obviousness
`
`22
`
`in that the Tanigawa does not specifically say that the request that we talked about, the
`
`23
`
`request voice chat, although it appears to be and by all -- we can understand it is a single
`
`24
`
`action by the -- by Taro, it doesn't describe explicitly how that is implemented and so
`
`25
`
`that's the place where the obviousness, it would be obvious that that was a single action
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`and we have our expert Lipoff, who talked about that. But that's how one of skill
`
`1
`
`2
`
`would've understood that to be a single request and that what's generated is responsive to
`
`3
`
`a single request, so there is obviousness even with Tanigawa.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE SMITH: It's a single reference 103 theory.
`
`MS. ARNER: For Tanigawa or a fallback of --
`
`JUDGE SMITH: But the grounds presented was --
`
`MS. ARNER: 103.
`
`JUDGE SMITH: -- 103 based on two references.
`
`MS. ARNER: Yeah.
`
`JUDGE SMITH: I guess what I'm getting at is going forward, the petition says it's
`
`11
`
`103 based on two references, and now it sounds like you're saying, well, it's really 103
`
`12
`
`based on one reference or in the alternative 103 (indiscernible) reference.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: We think it's both. That's right. We do think it's both.
`
`JUDGE SMITH: But, you know, I guess from our point of view looking at it in
`
`15
`
`view of the petition where the petition presents it 103, page 7, two references, what
`
`16
`
`reason would we have doing anything other than addressing the 103 --
`
`17
`
`
`
`MS. ARNER: And there's no need to if that's the straightest path towards
`
`18
`
`confirming what was found in the Institution Decision. We certainly think that's a
`
`19
`
`correct path as well.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
`
`MS. ARNER: Anything else on the triple 0, 948 patents? And I'll move onto the
`
`22
`
`'194. So, Judge Chung, I'm going to Slide 25, which is the -- for substantive slide for the
`
`23
`
`'194 patent, and here, like in the others we just talked about, the issues have been
`
`24
`
`narrowed significantly. Most of the claim elements there, again, are marked in no
`
`25
`
`dispute. And so we're going to focus on the red claim element that is in dispute, and that
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`it the display of an option to automatically initiate voice communication between the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`current participants of the IM session and then really what we're disputing is the without
`
`3
`
`-- there are two without phrases here in that claim limitation. Without requiring
`
`4
`
`individual selection of the potential targets for that call and then without requiring
`
`5
`
`registration with the conference call server for establishing the voice communication by
`
`6
`
`the potential members, by the targets for that call. This, without requiring limitations,
`
`7
`
`the one that's disputed in the '194 patent.
`
`8
`
`Instituted for this, it is a ground -- it's two-reference obviousness grounds. The
`
`9
`
`Liversidge is the primary reference with Beyda and those are listed on Slide 24. The
`
`10
`
`combination with Beyda has not been disputed, the teachings of Beyda have not been
`
`11
`
`disputed, and so I'll focus my comments on Liversidge with the understanding that that
`
`12
`
`combination is there in the petition. That is the ground that was instituted, but it hasn't
`
`13
`
`been disputed. And Liversidge is just really relied upon for the primary claim elements
`
`14
`
`including the one that's in dispute.
`
`15
`
`So Liversidge is similar to the patent in that it has this series of clients. They've
`
`16
`
`even placed them in the bottom right-hand again, and here we have a PC client, a web
`
`17
`
`client, a PVA. That VTE acronym is Virtual Team Environment and that's what
`
`18
`
`Liversidge is about, is creating virtual teams for collaboration. And so the users that
`
`19
`
`those devices use, a VTE client to communicate with the VTE server, and that's in the
`
`20
`
`center of this figure on Slide 26. The VTE server coordinates between all of the other
`
`21
`
`elements in the system, and that includes a call server which connects to the PSTN, the
`
`22
`
`telephone network for establishing the conference calls and also to what's called a
`
`23
`
`presence server. The presence server maintains information about the clients, about the
`
`24
`
`users, their presence, their information.
`
`25
`
`And so turning to Slide 27, the Liversidge describes creating the teams, as I
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`mentioned the VTE, Virtual Team Environment, and it shows that the clients, they are on
`
`1
`
`2
`
`the upper left-hand side, they are -- they can request to create a team or to join a team.
`
`3
`
`The messages are sent along to -- in the center there is the VTE server, which then passes
`
`4
`
`them along to the PS's, the presence server, and the presence server creates the team or
`
`5
`
`adds people to the team.