`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2007, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 21, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ANDREW S. EHMKE, ESQ.
`SCOTT T. JARRATT, ESQ.
`Haynes Boone
`2323 Victory Avenue
`Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`214-651-5116
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRETT MANGRUM, ESQ.
`Etheridge Law Group
`2600 E Southlake Boulevard
`Suite 120-324
`Southlake, TX 76092
`817-470-7249
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, March
`21, 2019, commencing at 2:00 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`1:50 p.m.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. We are here for
`the oral argument in Apple Inc. v Uniloc 2017, LLC, Case No.
`IPR2018-00394 and Case No. IPR2018-00395, both concerning US Patent
`No. 6,622,018. With me are judges Garth Baer, presiding over the court
`hearing in a courtroom in Alexandria, and Judge Charles Boudreau,
`presiding from the courtroom in the Silicon Valley office. Yours truly, here
`in Dallas, Texas. Do we have, let's see, we have 40 minutes for each side,
`and Petitioner, you have the opportunity to reserve time for rebuttal and so
`will the Patent Owner.
`Before we start I'd like to give some instructions. We have noticed,
`there was an email filed letting us know of objections to demonstratives,
`those were Patent Owner's objections to Petitioner's demonstratives slides 12
`and 17, if I'm correct.
`MR. MANGRUM: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Those objections will be overruled since the
`demonstratives are not really in evidence today. To the extent that you want
`to address the substantive issue of those slides you may do so during your
`argument time. No speaking objections will be allowed from either party. Do
`you have any questions about that?
`MR. MANGRUM: None for Patent Owner, Your Honor.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. The other issue here, the court reporter is
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`present in the Alexandria courtroom, so please speak clearly, address
`exhibits by number, and to the extent that you always need to look for the
`mic to speak, please do so, so that they can have an accurate record. Also,
`my colleagues can't see the slides but we have copies of them, but we cannot
`see or show what you show on the wall here. All right, please state
`appearances for the record. Who do we have for Petitioner today?
`MR. EHMKE: My name is Andrew Ehmke, I am the B
`COURT REPORTER: I can't hear him.
`JUDGE BAER: Counselor, I think your microphone is muted.
`MR. EHMKE: Is that better now? Does that work?
`JUDGE BAER: Yes, thank you.
`MR. EHMKE: Again, my name is Andy Ehmke, and for the court
`reporter I'll spell that. It is E-H-M-K-E. I am lead counsel on behalf of
`Petitioner. With me today is Scott Jarratt, Bethany Hrischuk, and that's
`spelled H-R-I-S-C-H-U-K, as well as in-house counsel for Apple, Mr. Mark
`Breverman, B-R-E-V-E-R-M-A-N. Mr. Jarratt will be presenting on behalf
`of Petitioner today.
`JUDGE QUINN: Thank you. Before you, I guess I'll deal with you
`later. Who's on the record for Patent Owner today.
`MR. MANGRUM: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Brett Mangrum,
`last name spelled M-A-N-G-R-U-M. I'm with the Etheridge Law Group.
`With me is Ryan Loveless, also of the Etheridge Law Group. I will be
`speaking on behalf of Patent Owner today.
`JUDGE QUINN: Thank you. In case you were wondering, we are
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`giving the court reporter the demonstratives over there, so you don't have to
`worry about getting copies to anyone here today. Petitioner, are you ready to
`proceed?
`MR. JARRATT: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. How much time would you like to reserve
`for rebuttal?
`MR. JARRATT: 10 minutes, please. And I will not be projecting,
`because the, not the correct hookup.
`JUDGE QUINN: It's not the correct hookup?
`MR. JARRATT: I use HDMI, and --
`JUDGE QUINN: And we are outdated if we don't have HDMI?
`Okay. We'll deal with that.
`MR. JARRATT: I'll be sure to announce the slide number as I go
`through them.
`JUDGE QUINN: Yes. We’ll have them on our screens, that's
`actually very effective. All right, when you're ready to proceed.
`MR. JARRATT: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Like Andy said, my
`name's Scott Jarratt, also counselor for Petitioner Apple. Let's start with slide
`2.
`
`The subject of this proceeding is the '018 patent, which you see on
`the left. The two primary references are Ben-Ze'ev and Leichiner, shown in
`the middle and on the right side. All three describe the same thing. They
`describe a universal remote controller that's adaptable in that it can detect
`devices in the area and then display those detected devices on the screen as
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`icons.
`
`Very interestingly, all three give the same example of this
`adaptability. They give the example of the user holding the controller,
`walking into a room, the controller sending out a signal asking who's here,
`who's in the room, and then the devices responding back with their
`identification. So really, the only difference between all three is the word
`that they use to describe the signal that's sent out. The '018 patent calls it a
`broadcast message. Ben-Ze'ev calls it an interrogation signal and Leichiner
`calls it a polling signal. But functionally, all three are doing the same thing.
`So, moving to slide 3, there's two issues in this case in dispute. One
`is the broadcasting limitation, whether the prior art meets it, and also the
`combinations of the primary references in a reference called the Complete
`Idiots Guide to Palm Pilot.
`Let's look first at broadcasting. I'm turning to slide 5. This is claim 1
`of the '018 patent, where it cites the method of controlling a remote devices
`over a wireless connection. The limitation at issue in this proceeding is the
`broadcasting limitation, in which it cites broadcasting a message, said
`message for locating remote devices within range of said transceiver.
`Let's focus on the word broadcasting. Moving to slide 6, the parties
`were generally in agreement as to the plain and ordinary meaning of
`broadcasting, something along the lines of sending a singular message that's
`receivable by multiple devices. Sending a singular message that's receivable
`by multiple devices.
`JUDGE QUINN: So you do agree with Patent Owner that it must be
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`one message.
`MR. JARRATT: We do.
`JUDGE QUINN: That's transmitted.
`MR. JARRATT: Yes.
`JUDGE QUINN: And, where is the point of divergence between
`your view of broadcasting and Patent Owner's view of broadcasting?
`MR. JARRATT: I don't think there's really a dispute as to what
`broadcasting is in the context of the '018 patent. I think it's more a dispute of
`does the prior art show that plain and ordinary meaning? Let's get into that.
`Let's move to slide 8 and talk about Ben-Ze'ev, the first primary reference.
`JUDGE QUINN: Let me be clear. So your contention is that we don't
`need to construe the term because both parties agree to the construction.
`MR. JARRATT: Generally, yes. That's correct. All right, so looking
`at slide 8. As I mentioned before, Ben-Ze'ev describes a universal remote
`controller that's adaptable because it interrogates the existence of appliances
`within its vicinity. Once it finds those appliances, it shows them as icons.
`JUDGE QUINN: Let me ask you about that. There is a portion, and
`forgive me, because both of these references are kind of similar. The Ben-
`Ze'ev, this is as close as Bluetooth, right?
`MR. JARRATT: Yes. That's one of the hypotheses, correct.
`JUDGE QUINN: How does it know when to put the icons on the
`screen?
`MR. JARRATT: Ben-Ze'ev describes the situation where the
`controller is taken into a room, this interrogation signal is sent out, and then
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`whichever devices hear the signal or are listening for the signal and receive
`it, they then know to send back their identification. Once the device receives
`the identification of each device, I'm sorry, the controller receives
`identification from each device it then populates the icons on the screen. So
`it's kind of a call and response.
`So bring the controller in the room, the controller doesn't know what
`devices are in the room, sends out a signal asking who's here, who's in the
`room, and then the devices respond back with identification, and the
`controller then adapts to whatever devices are in the room and shows their
`icons.
`
`JUDGE QUINN: Can you explain to me then the context of Ben-
`Ze'ev’s disclosure on column 11, lines 4 through 7, and I'll read that to you.
`It says, if an identification signal from a device is not received within a pre-
`determined period, for example 5 minutes, the icon or text of that appliance
`is removed from the screen.
`MR. JARRATT: Yes, Your Honor. So, that is describing a situation
`after the device has been discovered. So if you look a little earlier, in
`column, that's at the top of column 11, if you look at the bottom of column
`10, it explains the entire process. That's just a portion of the process. So, Fig.
`6 states that the remote controller, upon receipt of an identification signal
`from an appliance, displays a description of the appliance on the screen.
`So, it originally sends out the signal, it gets back the identification
`and it puts the icon on the screen. Then it keeps going, it says, that said
`description may include a text or an icon. If an identification signal is not
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`received within a predetermined period, the icon is then removed from the
`screen. So after the device, when the device is first discovered, the icon is
`presented on the screen, then supposing, I guess, another interrogation signal
`is sent out and then if it doesn't, if the device doesn't later respond back, the
`device is removed from the screen.
`The point of Ben-Ze'ev is to be adaptable. If you go into one room
`and discover a device, then you take the controller into a different room, you
`may need to switch out which devices are populating the screen. So if it
`doesn't receive a response from a device, it knows to remove it from the
`screen.
`
`JUDGE BAER: Counsel, if I could go back to your claim
`construction. If you had the same message going out sequentially to
`appliances, would that constitute broadcasting in your view?
`MR. JARRATT: The same message going out sequentially? I do not
`think that would meet the plain and ordinary understanding as set forth in the
`specification. It has to be a single signal that's receivable by multiple
`devices.
`JUDGE BAER: Okay. So a single, I mean it seems to me there're
`two issues here. One is the content of the message and two is the timing of
`the message. I understand that we're all in agreement that the content must
`be the same, but as for the timing of the message, if the message were sent
`out sequentially, such that the timing was that only one device received that
`same message and then at a subsequent time another device received that
`same message and a subsequent such that it's sequential, you would agree
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`that that is not a broadcasting message, is that correct?
`MR. JARRATT: Under what is described in the specifications, I
`would agree with you.
`JUDGE BAER: Okay. So now if the Ben-Ze'ev reference were to
`disclose just an interrogation signal, would you agree that interrogation
`signals may be sequential and may be broadcast? We don't know just by the
`definition or by the disclosure of an interrogation signal whether that is
`sequential and doesn't meet the claim under both parties' claim construction,
`or is broadcast and does. Am I correct?
`MR. JARRATT: That is correct, yes. The word interrogation by
`itself does not tell us how the signal is sent.
`JUDGE BAER: So the fact that we have an interrogation signal
`doesn't tell us one way or the other. So tell us what in Ben-Ze'ev indicates
`that this isn't just an interrogation signal, but it's a special interrogation
`signal that's done in broadcast mode.
`MR. JARRATT: Sure. Let's move to slide 9. Ben-Ze'ev in, and this
`is column 10, line 49, shown in slide 9. Ben-Ze'ev teaches that the remote
`controller initiates a signal called the interrogation signal. That signal is then
`sent periodically to all appliances, and the appliances respond with their
`identification. So we have a singular signal sent generally to all appliances in
`the vicinity of the controller. This makes sense, because the point of the
`signal is to look for the existence of devices. And so it's logically, if a user
`walks in with a controller and it doesn't yet know what devices are in the
`room, so it can't signal B
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`
`JUDGE QUINN: But the problem with Ben-Ze'ev is that it doesn't
`tell you how it does that. You're reading into the fact that it tells all of the
`devices that it has reached, you're reading into it that it did so by
`broadcasting.
`MR. JARRATT: But there is other teachings within Ben-Ze'ev that
`would inform the sender that the signal is in fact broadcast. We look at slide
`10, Ben-Ze'ev actually tells us what's in the signal. It teaches that the signal
`contains the remote controller device code, that's the code of the controller
`sending the signal, and two, contains an interrogation code asking the device
`to identify itself. So any device that receives the signal, please identify
`yourself.
`This is confirmed by the next highlighted function, oh, sorry, excuse
`
`me.
`
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: What in that passage tells us that the
`interrogation code isn't sent sequentially?
`MR. JARRATT: Because to send a message sequentially, it needs a
`recipient address. And so, what Ben-Ze'ev tells us within the signal is the
`signal does not include a recipient address. And so that B
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: I'm not following that. Why does it require a
`recipient address to send sequentially? Why couldn't you just send out the
`same signal repeatedly and all the devices that are within range could
`respond in turn?
`MR. JARRATT: To be a broadcast message, in that meaning, is you
`send out a singular signal that's received by multiple devices. That means the
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`signal's not intended for a specific device. And so if the signal does not
`include an address of who the controller wants it to receive, then it has to be
`a broadcast signal because it's not directed to a particular device.
`JUDGE QUINN: You are saying in absence of a disclosure that it
`uses a specific address it means it was broadcast?
`MR. JARRATT: I think, so Ben-Ze'ev is specific about what the
`signal includes, and it doesn't include anything directed to a particular
`device.
`JUDGE QUINN: But I will tell you, if you have disclosures of many
`wireless protocols here such as Bluetooth, Home-RF, HomePNA, Wireless
`LAN, unless you would have come in with an addressing protocol for all of
`these that have some sort of broadcast sequence, I don’t think you can
`assume that the lack of disclosure in Ben-Ze'ev of saying “send an
`interrogation signal to all the devices” that it automatically means it was
`broadcast, if you can do all sorts of addressing in all of these protocols.
`MR. JARRATT: You're right. Different protocols use different
`addressing, correct. But the only context of Ben-Ze'ev is to look for the
`existence of devices. It doesn't know when you bring a controller in the
`room, it doesn't know what devices are in a room, so logically it can't send a
`signal directed to a specific device. It has to send a broadcast message
`asking who's here, who's in the room.
`That combined with the disclosure in the middle of slide 10, how it
`states that the interrogation signal, generally sent to all appliances, and the
`appliances, plural, respond with their identification. We have a single
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`interrogation signal sent out, multiple appliances respond. That's because the
`signal is broadcast to anybody who's listening. Ben-Ze'ev actually does
`recite the use of Bluetooth at the bottom and it states that the '018 patent also
`uses Bluetooth so it's disclosing discovery devices in the same way.
`JUDGE QUINN: Why, then, in your papers did you rely on your
`experts saying that you could do it with broadcast?
`MR. JARRATT: Could you repeat the question?
`JUDGE QUINN: In your expert declaration, there was a lot of
`discussion of it could be sequential, it could be broadcast but what matters is
`it could be broadcast.
`MR. JARRATT: Well, I think that, yes, is that it is important that
`interrogations can be broadcast but as we discussed earlier, the word
`interrogation doesn't mean a certain transmission method. But what Ben-
`Ze'ev is describing to POSITA is a process of device discovery, and thus it's
`not sending signals to every single device sequentially, because it doesn't
`know what device to send it to. It's adapted, it's looking for the devices, so it
`asks the question who's here, and responds back.
`JUDGE QUINN: What you're telling us is because Ben-Ze'ev doesn't
`say, I'm doing this sequentially, it must be broadcast.
`MR. JARRATT: I don't think that's quite right. I think it's the, all the
`teachings that tells a POSITA that this is broadcast.
`JUDGE QUINN: But it doesn't say broadcast, right?
`MR. JARRATT: It doesn't use the word broadcast.
`JUDGE QUINN: It doesn't say sequential either, right?
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`
`MR. JARRATT: It doesn't say sequential, but it's sending a singular
`interrogation signal to all appliances in the vicinity.
`JUDGE BAER: Am I correct that because it's checking for the
`existence of devices it doesn't know what the device is, what devices are
`there, already. If it were to be going sequentially, it would be like playing
`Go Fish with everybody in the room. It would have to check any device and
`say, are you a VCR? And if it said nope, I'm not a VCR, you would check
`the next person's, say are you a VCR? Nope, I'm not a VCR. Because it has
`no idea what each device in the room is. It would make no sense for the
`remote control to be playing Go Fish like that.
`MR. JARRATT: I think that's generally the right idea, yes.
`JUDGE QUINN: Have you considered the alternative that Ben-Ze'ev
`also has the devices themselves broadcasting their own ID and it's up to the
`controller to grab onto that transmission?
`MR. JARRATT: I think that is an alternative embodiment. That's
`like secondary. It's the interrogation signal looking for the existing devices is
`the main embodiment. That's what we relied upon in the petition.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: I'm also trying to understand from a practical
`perspective how, if there's only one signal that's being broadcast, and it's
`only broadcast once, what does the broadcasting device do in order to deal
`with collisions between the signals that are coming back from the individual
`devices that are being queried? Does it have some sort of a demultiplexer, or
`how does this work?
`MR. JARRATT: Ben-Ze'ev doesn't give the intricate details about
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`that, but it does state, looking at the middle of highlighted slide 10, the
`interrogation signal is generally sent to all appliances and the appliances
`respond with their identification. Then the sentence continues to say, in the
`fashion dictated by the networking protocol in use. The communication
`protocol carries out the management of the transmission of appliances, the
`priority, and the elimination of collisions. It says one of these protocols is
`Bluetooth.
`So Ben-Ze'ev's relying on Bluetooth to carry out the discovery
`process. And the '018 patent actually claims the use Bluetooth, in claim 10 it
`claims the use of Bluetooth to carry out the steps including 1. And so, claim
`1 encompasses the use of Bluetooth to discover devices that Ben-Ze'ev is
`describing using Bluetooth to discover devices.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: That's all handled by the protocol, then.
`MR. JARRATT: Yes, correct. Let's move to slide 11. Patent Owner
`in his response basically ignored much of the disclosure of Ben-Ze'ev and
`instead focused on a particular word, interrogation. They argued that
`because it says interrogation, it can't be broadcast. They relied on a
`definition from Dr. Easttom that states, interrogation in computer science is
`to communicate with individual machines, one at a time. The evidence that
`he cited in his declaration is that a number of definitions, but they merely
`define interrogation as initiating a response, not how it is transmitted.
`And so, we already know from evidence in the record, that
`interrogation in computer science is not always communicated one on one. If
`we move on the next slide, slide 12, Dr. Houh in his declaration put a
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`number of examples of interrogation signals that can be broadcast. In Houh,
`the second example in slide 12 it says an interrogation signal may be
`transmitted in sequential or broadcast manner. An anti-collision protocol
`may be used if at least two transponders respond to the same interrogation
`signal.
`
`That's again relating back to Ben-Ze'ev talking about the need of
`collision protocols because when you are broadcasting, two devices can
`respond simultaneously. Any other questions on Ben-Ze'ev?
`JUDGE QUINN: I have a question for you as far as what your
`contentions are here on obviousness. You're relying on Ben-Ze'ev as
`teaching the limitation.
`MR. JARRATT: On broadcasting, yes.
`JUDGE QUINN: The limitation of broadcasting.
`MR. JARRATT: That is correct.
`JUDGE QUINN: But what we're getting at now with your expert
`saying that it could be broadcast but it could be something else, it's starting
`to morph into it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art that it
`would be broadcast rather than Ben-Ze'ev actually teaches broadcasting.
`MR. JARRATT: Dr. Houh, in his declaration, in his statement that
`the word interrogation could mean either broadcast or unicast, one on one,
`the point of that was to rebut Patent Owner's contention that interrogation
`always means one on one communication. So Dr. Houh wasn't necessarily
`saying the broadcasting in, sorry the interrogation specifically in Ben-Ze'ev
`can be either sequential or broadcasting. He's simply rebutting Patent
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`Owner's allegation that interrogation is always one on one communication.
`JUDGE BAER: Counsel, could you clear up just one issue about
`how often the signal from Ben-Ze'ev is sent out? When you're saying it's
`broadcast and you say it's broadcast only once, am I correct that you mean
`only once per period? In other words, it says right there that it periodically
`broadcasts interrogation messages, so it does send out multiple messages. It's
`just that each one of those messages goes to every one of the devices. Do I
`have it correct?
`MR. JARRATT: Yes, that's our understanding. Yes.
`JUDGE BAER: You wouldn't dispute that Ben-Ze'ev sends out
`multiple messages, correct?
`MR. JARRATT: Correct.
`JUDGE BAER: It's just that each one of those messages is a
`broadcast, and you're relying on embodiment, a broadcast is just one of those
`multiple messages, is that correct?
`MR. JARRATT: That's correct.
`JUDGE BAER: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. JARRATT: Should I move on to Leichiner? All right. So
`moving to slide 14. Leichiner, like Ben-Ze'ev and our '018 patent, also
`discloses an adaptable, universal remote control that can detect the presence
`of new devices. How it does this, there is a poll button on the front of the
`controller, as shown in Fig. 2, and the user presses this poll button, the
`controller sends out a signal called a polling signal, asking who's here, who's
`in the room, and the devices respond back. Those devices are shown as icons
`17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`on the screen.
`How does Leichiner's polling process work? If we move to slide 15,
`Leichiner states that the polling message is generated periodically upon
`request of the user. So that's the user hitting the poll button and the polling
`message is broadcast. It goes on to say that any devices in the vicinity are
`capable of recognizing the polling message and responding with their
`identification. So Leichiner actually confirms that this polling message is
`broadcast because it states that, in paragraph 12, that it conducts polling to a
`number of the devices at the same time.
`So we have sending a single polling message to multiple devices at
`the same time. That meets the plain and ordinary meaning of broadcasting.
`JUDGE QUINN: But it also says to a number of devices, so it could
`be a group within the group. Not like a broadcast at all, but more like a
`group, like a multicast.
`MR. JARRATT: I think that sending to a group would also fit the
`definition point of broadcasting, because it's one message sent to multiple
`devices.
`JUDGE QUINN: Multicast is not a broadcast, is it?
`MR. JARRATT: In the context of Leichiner?
`JUDGE QUINN: To a person who's skilled in the art. It can mean
`different things.
`MR. JARRATT: We didn't have to actually analyze that issue, but I
`think, are you talking about grouping devices on a network and
`communicating with them all at the same time?
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`
`JUDGE QUINN: I'm talking about what
`MR. JARRATT: Which part
`JUDGE QUINN: Leichiner teaches about communicating with a
`number of control devices.
`MR. JARRATT: Right. Again, let me go back to the point of
`Leichiner is to discover new devices. So, devices it doesn't previously know
`about. It can bring the caller into a room, Leichiner doesn't know what
`devices are in there, so it sends a broadcast message. Then the way it does
`that is the user hits the poll button and the polling message is generated.
`I would like to address the top of paragraph 22. It actually states, this
`may address your question, Judge Quinn, it says in operation the controller
`generates polling messages, plural, to all the control devices. Patent Owner
`has attempted to spin this as Leichiner cannot be broadcasting because it
`recites a plural polling messages.
`But this refers to the next sentence, which states that the polling
`message is generated periodically upon request of the user. So every time the
`user hits the poll button, the polling message will be generated and over time
`the controller will generate multiple polling messages in operation.
`JUDGE BAER: Could you clarify that for me? Because I understood
`your argument to be a little different. I understood your argument to be
`about that paragraph 22, that that's the same as Fig. 6 in the patent at issue,
`where it's still just one broadcast, but it's multiple copies of the same
`message sent at the same time. Now I understand you to be saying no, this is
`multiple broadcasts. Could you clarify that for me?
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`
`MR. JARRATT: Sure. I think it could really be understood either
`
`way.
`
`JUDGE BAER: I understand that it could be understood either way
`but I think it's probably right, one way or the other, and I would like to know
`what your position is as far as how this is properly read. I understand you
`would win under either sort of reading here, and either one would work, but
`I'm guessing that the author of this paper meant it just one way and I would
`like to know what way you think the author meant it.
`MR. JARRATT: I think if I had to pick one, it would be the latter,
`the one I originally said at the beginning, is that it is generating polling
`messages, plural, because the user is hitting the button periodically, so
`multiple messages. So with reference to the '018 patent, it's Fig. 6 on slide
`18, that also addresses what occasionally might be used as the phrase,
`conduct polling to each of the devices.
`The '018 patent discloses that when a message is broadcast, for
`instance with broadcast message 640, a copy of the message is received by
`each device, A, B, and C. And so instead of saying each device is polled is
`was not inconsistent with broadcasting, it is actually consistent with how the
`'018 patent describes broadcasting itself.
`JUDGE QUINN: I think the biggest problem for me is that polling
`has a meaning to persons skilled in the art, that it has nothing to do with
`broadcasting, but yet Leichiner, which is a translation from Japanese,
`perhaps the polling word is unfortunate. But it does describe it as polling.
`Did you look into the protocol that is disclosed here to see whether indeed
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00394 (Patent 6,622,018)
`Case IPR2018-00395 (Patent 6,622,018)
`
`the polling that is described in this patent was meant to be a broadcasting?
`MR. JARRATT: We didn't look into that specific issue, but I will
`say that Leichiner describes in more detail how it's IR, signal work, and if
`we turn to slide B
`JUDGE QUINN: Sorry, you said IR?
`MR. JARRATT: Yeah, infrared. Leichiner discloses the use of both
`infrared and radio transmissions. We know there's no dispute that radio
`transmissions could broadcast a message. But Leichiner also describes, this
`is on slide 27, also paragraph 18 of Leichiner, Leichiner's description of use
`of IR to conduct this polling is actually consistent with broadcasting. So you
`look at the top of paragraph 18. Handheld-controller is equipped with
`window 18 for transmitting and receiving IR signals as part of the IR link
`between controller 10 and the controlled devices, plural, located in the
`immediate vicinity.
`So we have singular IR link between the
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
