Paper No. 20
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEXOS MEDIA IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 6, 2020
`____________
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFMAN, J. JOHN LEE, and
`SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEXOS MEDIA IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 6, 2020
`____________
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFMAN, J. JOHN LEE, and
`SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JAMES F. VALENTINE, ESQUIRE
`VICTORIA SMITH, ESQUIRE
`Perkins Coie
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`TAREK N. FAHMI, ESQUIRE
`Ascenda Law Group
`333 West San Carlos Street
`Suite 200
`San Jose, California 95110-2730
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, January 6,
`2020, commencing at 10:01 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`MR. EASTON: All rise.
`JUDGE FENICK: Good morning. Please be seated. Just bear with
`us one moment.
`JUDGE LEE: Judge Kaufman, can you hear us okay?
`JUDGE KAUFMAN: I can hear you fine, thank you.
`JUDGE LEE: All right, great. Just give us one moment, I think we
`are having some technical issues. I thought the patent office wasn’t allowed
`to have technical issues, right. Technology agency, isn’t it always supposed
`to work for us?
`OFF THE RECORD
`ON THE RECORD
`JUDGE LEE: Back up?
`JUDGE FENICK: Yeah, thank you. Sorry for the delay. Thank you.
`Good morning. We will hear argument now in case number IPR 2018-1749,
`Ralph Lauren Corporation v. Lexos Media IP, LLC, concerning Patent
`Number 5,995,102. And case number IPR 2018-01755, Ralph Lauren
`Corporation v. Lexos Media IP LLC, concerning Patent Number 6,118,449.
`Counsel for the parties please introduce yourselves starting with
`petitioner.
`MR. VALENTINE: Good morning, Your Honor. James Valentine
`from the law firm of Perkins Coie on behalf of petitioner Ralph Lauren and
`real parties and interests.
`JUDGE FENICK: Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`
`MS. SMITH: Victoria Smith for Ralph Lauren.
`MR. FAHMI: Good morning, Your Honors. Tarek Fahmi on behalf
`of patent owner.
`JUDGE FENICK: Thank you. Welcome to the Board. Per our order
`dated December 18, 2019, each side will have one hour to argue. Petitioner
`will argue first and may reserve rebuttal time. Patent owner will respond
`and may reserve time for sur rebuttal.
`I remind the parties that the petitioner bears the burden of providing
`any proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. I
`also remind the parties that this hearing is open to the public and a full
`transcript will become part of the record.
`Please bear in mind also that Judge Kaufman is attending this hearing
`by video and if you refer to slides, please remember also to mention each
`slide number as you refer to it so that it is reflected in the record. This is
`especially important in order to ensure that Judge Kauffman can follow the
`proceedings even if the video link is interrupted. With that, I invite Mr.
`Valentine to begin.
`MR. VALENTINE: Thank you, Your Honors.
`JUDGE FENICK: Good morning. Would you like to reserve time for
`rebuttal?
`MR. VALENTINE: Yes, please. I’d like to reserve 10 minutes for
`rebuttal. I'm turning to Demonstrative Number 2. In our presentation
`today we're going to cover five issues. I've enumerated them in
`Demonstratives Number 2 and 3. I’ll just briefly preview them now.
`The first issue and most important from the vantage point of petitioner
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`is whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the combination of Malamud
`plus Anthias discloses limitations 1 [c.][iv] and 1[c.][iii].
`Preliminarily in its institution decision, the panel found that petitioner
`had not shown the prior art discloses limitation 1 [c.][iv]. We respectfully
`submit that that was based on a misapprehension of patent owners or
`petitioners argument. And so we hope to prove today that under the
`argument that petitioner actually made, that limitation 1 [c.][iv] is shown in
`the prior art.
`The reason why for the misapprehension was with respect to
`limitation 1 [c.][iii]. So the Board did not actually consider the correct
`argument for 1 [c.][iii] either. So after we get through 1 [c.][iv] we are going
`to backtrack to 1 [c.][iii] even though the Board preliminarily found that was
`satisfied.
`We believe the Board may not have clearly understood the argument
`we were making so we want to make sure that the Board has an opportunity
`to address that argument with respect to that limitation.
`Turning to Demonstrative Number 3, these are the remaining four
`issues to be addressed. The second is whether petitioner has demonstrated
`that Baker plus Anthias disclosed transmitting specified content information
`to said remote terminal as claimed in limitations 1 [c.][i] through 1 [c.][iii].
`And the limitations we are referring to exemplary Claim 1 of the 449
`patent. So by way of convention today when we cite to the patents we are
`probably, we're going to cite primarily to the 102 because that was a
`convention the parties employed in the papers.
`However, when we talk about institution decisions, we are going to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`lead with the 449 institution decision because that was the first issued
`decision and all of the 102 issues are subsumed by the 449 issues. I won’t
`read through the rest of the issues on Demonstrative Number 3. We will lay
`them out when we get to them.
`Turning to Demonstrative Number 4, the challenged patents. I want
`to say just a brief introduction of what these patents do. The concept here is
`to modify a cursor image to reflect advertising content in a client server
`architecture.
`The background of this is that advertising material was typically
`delivered via pop up ads or banner ads across the top of a screen or panel ads
`on the side and those could be easily ignored by the user.
`So what this inventor came up was to, let’s modify the cursor which is
`where the user has focused his or her attention and do that depending upon
`where the cursor is to reflect advertising content.
`Turning to Demonstrative Number 5. This is just the summary of the
`499 patent. It says there is a simple means -- a need for a simple means to
`deliver advertising elements without the annoyance of totally interrupting an
`intrusive content delivery and without the passiveness of ordinary banner
`and frame advertisements.
`Turning to Demonstrative Number 6. This is an example of one of the
`embodiments in the patent. The patents teach the use of the computer cursor
`as an advertisement and they rely on a set of software components to modify
`the standard cursor and replace it with a pre-determined specific image
`designed to advertise.
`So if you look at the right hand side at Demonstrative Number 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
`25
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`which is an excerpt, Figure 7 and 8 of the patent, you see when the cursor,
`there is a Fizzy Cola banner displayed and the cursor will change shape from
`the standard arrow depicted in element 44 to the bottle of Fizzy Cola in
`element 44A.
`Turning to Demonstrative Number 7, the patents concede that
`modification of the cursor isn’t new. And this is an excerpt on Exhibit 7
`where it states that the point is to put advertisements for the users focus at
`the cursor and change the supply cursor so that it corresponds to displayed
`content.
`But the alleged, the point of novelty that the patent itself alleges is not
`changing the cursor and modifying the cursor, it is modifying the cursor and
`I’ll read from the lower highlighted excerpt on Demonstrative Number 7.
`While it is not new for pointers and cursors to change shape, pointers
`are not presently used to convey advertising in conventional systems. The
`appearance of the cursor or pointers has not changed to correspond with
`online content being displayed on the screen. So that’s the novelty.
`Changing the cursor to reflect what the patent calls advertising material and
`to be reflective of the underlying display over which it is hovering.
`Now, Demonstrative Number 8 is simply for the Board's use and these
`demonstratives are obviously not evidence but we did include some
`checklists and things to aid the Board in reaching its final determination.
`Demonstrative Number 8 just lists the challenged claims and the
`combination of references that form the basis for the challenge.
`Demonstrative Number 9 is another score card meant to aid the Board.
`It has the challenged claims in the left most column, the prior art in 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`center column and where we stand after the -- preliminarily after the
`institution decision.
`So the Y means that the Board has preliminarily found the patents are
`not, are unpatentable and the N means that the Board has preliminarily found
`the patents not unpatentable.
`And similarly, Demonstrative Number 10, this is a convention we are
`going to use as we go through each of the issues. The highlighted claims
`here have preliminarily been found to be not patentable.
`The claims that are not highlighted are preliminarily found to not be
`unpatentable but as we go through each issue we will then mark off the
`claims that would be affected and deemed unpatentable should the Board
`accept petitioners argument and today and in our reply.
`So one more preliminary issue. All of the combinations asserted
`against the challenged claims are based on four references. Malamud,
`Anthias, Nielsen and Baker and I am referring to Demonstrative Number 11.
`There has been -- there is no dispute over whether the showing,
`preliminary showing of motivation to combine is adequate. Petitioner made
`that showing in its petition. The Board preliminary deemed the showing of a
`motivation to combine to be adequate and I do not believe that patent owner
`has challenged that conclusion, preliminary conclusion that there is a
`motivation to combine.
`So now Demonstrative Number 12, let’s turn to the first issue to be
`addressed. I briefly explained it but it’s whether the petitioners
`demonstrated the Malamud plus Anthias limitation discloses limitations
`[c.][iv], 1 [c.][iv] and 1 [c.][iii].
`
`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 IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`
`Let’s turn to Demonstrative Number 13. Now I have given you plain
`language of sort of what the patent does and the concept but now let's tie that
`to this exemplary claim. The preamble states a server system from
`modifying a cursor image to a specific image. That specific image is the
`modified cursor.
`Looking at and I'm going to paraphrase the claims here so I'm not
`intending any claim construction argument, I just want to sort of lay the
`groundwork for the future argument.
`Limitation 1 A cursor image data correspond to said specific image.
`That is the data that specifies what the modified cursor should look like.
`Limitation 1 B, cursor display code says cursor display code operable to
`modify said cursor image. The cursor display code is what actually changes
`the cursor. It’s the code that changes the cursor.
`A first server computer for transmitting specified content information
`to said remote user terminal. This is a client server architecture. The patent
`originates in that architecture and the concept basically is the server upon
`request from the client will send a web page for example, like a vendor
`webpage, for example Amazon and along with that in the preferred
`embodiment it will send instructions on how to modify that cursor
`depending upon the cursors location on the underlying webpage.
`So all that is sent in one embodiment that’s preferred and I believe its
`column -- well, I -- yeah, column 4 of the 449 patent says that the preferred
`embodiments is that the server initially sends everything. The website, the
`underlying display information, how to modify the cursor, how and when to
`modify it.
`
`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 IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`
`I don’t think the claims are restricted to a single transmission of that
`information because it does describe that embodiment as a preferred
`embodiment. So that’s limitation 1 [c.].
`Limitations 1 [c.][i], the specified content information that is
`transferred from the server to the client includes many things. For example
`in limitation 1 [c.][i], it specified 1 [c.][ii] when a cursor displays
`instruction. That is sort of the instruction that works with the cursor display
`or a cursor display code to modify the cursor. And that indicates a location
`of the cursor image data, tells it where to find the data for the cursor.
`Limitation 1 [c.][iii] see the claims are somewhat repetitive a little bit.
`I don’t think they're, they're somewhat in artfully grafted. But responsive to
`a request from said user terminal for the specified content information and
`the specified content information further comprises information to be
`displayed on the display of the user’s terminal. That is again requesting the
`webpage.
`And in limitation [c.][iv] which is the one we are going to start with,
`the key part of limitation [c.][iv] that we are going to talk about is, I don’t
`know if we have a demonstrative that highlights it.
`I'm reading in response it’s what triggers the modification of the
`cursor. So it must be in response to movement of said cursor image over a
`display of said at least a part of said information to be displayed.
`So that’s the key issue here is what triggers the modification of the
`cursor and the patent it is the cursors positioning over part of the display
`where it has been instructed to modify the cursor when the cursor is in that
`position. And we believe that the panel misapprehended the argument that
`
`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 IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`petitioner was making there.
`Let’s go to the next demonstrative and then we will like I said we will
`circle back to limitation 1 [c.][iii]. So let’s go to -- let’s explain what the
`institute, what the misapprehension was and I first now I would like to go to
`the ELMO if I may. So I want to discuss right now a little bit about how
`Malamud operates. So I’m now showing, Judge Kaufman, Figure 4 of the
`Malamud patent on the ELMO.
`JUDGE KAUFMAN: Thank you.
`MR. VALENTINE: Oh, yes and it's, I'm now showing it sideways.
`Okay. So what Malamud is where is where I think some of the confusion
`may arise? Malamud is a single server embodiment and so we didn’t
`challenge the patent, the asserted patents with that.
`We combined it with Anthias which is a client server architecture that
`controls a display, it's a server control the display including modifying
`cursors. So we combined it.
`So but Malamud’s is a single cursor embodiment that says when you
`modify -- when the cursor is over a certain position of the screen, you can
`modify it. And there are four embodiments in Malamud.
`And one of these embodiments is called the combined name and
`preview cursor and under that embodiment when the cursor hovers over a
`given location, it may be instructed to provide a combined name and
`preview cursor which changes the cursor as depicted in Figure 4.
`You see the underlying display information book icon 32. The cursor
`changes to 36, elements 36 which is it previews it because it shows the book
`cover. It also names it because it has the text book cover and here it 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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`changes there is these flying chess pieces around. So that’s the embodiment
`of Malamud.
`And throughout the petition, we were -- when it’s a client server
`transformation in the Malamud system, that doesn’t exist. So we were
`arguing by analogy that those communications we were showing how they
`occur on the single computer embodiment but saying by analogy it would
`have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to extend those to the client
`server architecture.
`And we make that argument earlier in the petition as I'll show with
`respect to some of the transmissions. But one way to prove that that
`information exists on the client is to explain how it’s used on the client and
`that's how we did that. So I think our analogies may have led to the
`confusion.
`But now let’s turn to element [c.] [iv] on Demonstrative Number 17.
`And this is what -- and again, the --
`JUDGE FENICK: Can you tell her we need the slide up.
`MR. VALENTINE: Oh, can we go back to the presentation please.
`JUDGE FENICK: Thank you.
`MR. VALENTINE: So looking at Demonstrative 17. Oh no, this is --
`so 16. This is what the petition found with respect to element [c.][iv] and
`this says the petition does not explain for this limitation how a cursor image
`can be moved over a display of any portion of the name of the object
`displayed in the modified cursor.
`The Board preliminarily found that we were mapping the information
`to be displayed to the name of the cursor in the modified cursor. So a cursor
`
`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 IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`can't hover over its modified self and so with the misunderstanding that we
`were analogizing and it's the portion I didn’t read, argues that said
`information to be displayed on said display of said users terminal is the
`name of the objet to be displayed in the combined name a preview cursor.
`Given that misapprehension, the Board correctly found that [c.][iv]
`isn’t shown because a cursor can't hover over its modified self.
`JUDGE KAUFMAN: (inaudible)
`MR. VALENTINE: We take responsibility for that and I’ll show you
`what sentence led to the confusion. Yes, there was a question?
`JUDGE KAUFMAN: I'm curious. So the Board has a procedure for
`if there has been a misapprehension and that would be a request for a
`rehearing. You did not do a request for rehearing here.
`And particularly what concerns me about that is the lack of the ability
`for the patent owner to address that should we modify our institution
`decision in some way. Can you talk about why you didn’t do a request for a
`rehearing?
`MR. VALENTINE: Yes, Your Honor. We looked at that issue and
`were not sure of the correct procedure but we concluded that because the
`Board has instituted the decision that it would have been improper to ask the
`Board to reconsider that.
`However we did take corrective measures if I may find the
`demonstrative, immediately upon receiving the institution decision, actually
`I can’t say immediately, it was a couple weeks. But we did send a letter to
`the patent owner explaining this and I have this.
`JUDGE KAUFMAN: And I think you addressed that in 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
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`petitioners reply at pages 25 and 26 if you have that.
`MR. VALENTINE: We did. So we did recognize -- its exhibit,
`Demonstrative 42. So what we did is we didn’t want to, I mean, according
`to our research this was sort of new ground so we didn’t feel like it was
`proper to ask for reconsideration of the institution in which is what we were
`requesting.
`But we did want to afford patent owner all the opportunities, a fair
`opportunity to respond to this so in exhibit, Demonstrative 42 we sent a
`letter and we said a trial petitioner intends to maintain and rely on its
`argument that the information to be displayed is disclosed by the object in
`Malamud and we are bringing this issue to your attention so that you may
`address it as you deem appropriate in discovery and in response briefs.
`Thereafter patent owner, this was before the close of discovery, before
`the time the notice depositions, before the patent owner response was due.
`And then in the sur reply we again explained this in our reply, excuse me.
`We explained this and then patent owner had an opportunity in the sur reply
`to address it.
`JUDGE KAUFMAN: I have a -- that leads me to a couple other
`questions. First of all, are you aware of any Board cases or Federal Circuit
`case that suggests that you could not have done a request for rehearing?
`What is your -- why did you think that?
`MR. VALENTINE: We did the research and, I mean, we consulted
`with people and have got colleagues. I can't recall the legal research that we
`did.
`
`JUDGE KAUFMAN: Okay.
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`
`MR. VALENTINE: We saw the issue and I thought we took as a
`practical matter, we did seek steps to remedy it and so as not to prejudice
`patent owner. But I think the law that we found was inconclusive.
`JUDGE KAUFMAN: You do cite two Board cases for the
`proposition that an argument that hasn’t been made is waived but I think that
`both of those cases involved an argument that could have been made in
`patent owners response and which I think did not involve some kind of
`notification letter like you were doing. So for me, those cases are fairly easy
`to distinguish.
`Are you aware of any authority for a notification to the other party
`like you’ve done outside of the briefing in the proceedings?
`MR. VALENTINE: Not that I recall. There may have been one that
`led us to this, I just frankly can't remember the details of that decision.
`JUDGE KAUFMAN: Okay. And maybe for me maybe even more
`important than whether or not there has been a waiver by the patent owner --
`don’t you still have the burden of proof? So even if we think it was waived
`by the patent owner, you still have to have made a showing on that element?
`MR. VALENTINE: Yes. I agree. The burden remains on us
`regardless. Even if patent owner files nothing, we still have the burden to
`show everything. And I do, I was handed a note.
`In order to request rehearing us though that we had to object to non-
`institution based on some statutory language. So we did look at this issue
`vey carefully and I just, we chose the path we thought was the best.
`JUDGE KAUFMAN: Okay. I understand that. I am aware of Board
`cases where there have been requests for a rehearing by petitioners for things
`
`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 IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`other than changing institution. There’s some point of clarification they
`want to make. I think that the Board has done that in the past. But I think
`when I interrupted you, you were on Slide 16.
`MR. VALENTINE: Thank you. So that was limitations with the
`institution decision said with respect to limitation [c.][iv].
`So on Demonstrative Number 17, this is the argument the petitioner
`actually made in the portion of the petition dealing with limitation 1 [c.][iv]
`and it says when the preview cursor points to an object displayed on the
`screen, the cursor is modified so that indicates what triggers the modification
`is the position of the cursor on the screen.
`Similarly, we also similarly discussing on the next slide
`Demonstrative Number 18 we cite back to element 1 [c.][ii] in the petition
`and we did cite back to the petition on a number of instances.
`So Demonstrative Number 19 is the discussion we cited back to. It
`says when the preview cursor points to an icon for a book about chess that is
`displayed on the screen, the preview portion displays a graphic of chess
`pieces. Again, the trigger is positioned at the cursor over the underlying
`displayed information.
`On -- and there were other times in the petition we think the whole
`petition was consistent that this was our argument and this was our intended
`read and so the next five slides I'm just going to show you the examples in
`the petition where we argued the same thing.
`This is on Demonstrative Number 20, it’s in the overview of Malamud
`we cited to determining whether the cursor is pointing to an object and if so,
`displaying in the cursors information portion information. So that again
`
`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 IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`modified based on cursor over display.
`Slide 21. This is discussing the element one preamble. When it’s
`pointing portion points to an onscreen object, the information cursor is
`modified.
`Demonstrative 22. This is in element 1A in our Malamud plus
`Anthias discussion. Each time that an information cursors pointing portion
`points at an object, the bitmap and other information are retrieved to check if
`the cursor needs to be modified.
`Demonstrative Number 23. This is element 1B. Whether it checks
`whether the cursor is pointing to an object and if so, it passes a message to
`the operating system that tells the operating system what kind of cursor to
`display.
`And then finally on Demonstrative Number 24, this is for Claim 53
`which is the method analog to Claim 1. In the preamble we say when the
`information cursors pointing portion points at an onscreen object, the
`information cursor is modified.
`So I just cite those examples to just be up front that is it not a newly
`crafted argument. This is what we intended to make all along. So that’s
`soon that we -- that was the argument that we had made. Let’s take a look at
`the authority we cite in Malamud.
`Let’s go to Demonstrative Number 25. So here is the portion in
`Malamud. This is discussed at the petition at the page 37. But if you look at
`the highlights, it says that het message specifies the position of the cursor in
`the window as described above. The window procedure then determines
`what’s displayed within the window.
`
`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 IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`
`For instance, in an object which may be at a specified position and
`then skipping a few lines, if a name entity is present at the specified cursor
`position, the information regarding the object of the specified cursor position
`is displayed in the information cursor.
`So again, these are examples and one more on the next Demonstrative
`26, walking through Figure 7 of Malamud. What is at the specified cursor
`position? The procedure after that's determined the procedure passes a
`message to the operating system that tells the operating system what type of
`cursors to display.
`So this is, we do believe that our argument that Malamud discloses
`modifying the cursor in response to the cursors position over the displayed
`object is steeped in the disclosure of that reference.
`JUDGE FENICK: Can you stay here for one second?
`MR. VALENTINE: Sure.
`JUDGE FENICK: The first underlining in this page 26, talks about
`the message -- the procedure passes a message to the operating system that
`tells the operating system what type of cursor to display.
`Is that the message that you’re referring to in the petition with respect
`to the transmission of the specified content information being responsive to a
`request that -- responsive to that request this is the message?
`MR. VALENTINE: Are you on limitation 1 [c.][iii]
`JUDGE FENICK: 1 [c.][iii], yes. So in the petition on -- at pages 35
`and 36, there is a description of modifying an information cursor to display
`its information portion initiates, I'm sorry.
`There’s a quote that says when the cursor position is moved by 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 IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`mouse and then it goes on to say the operating system generates and sends a
`message to the program which forwards the message with new cursor
`position to the programs and window procedure.
`So this is the message that gets, that is sent responsive to the request
`for the specified content information.
`MR. VALENTINE: So this is the -- part of the confusion is that yes,
`it's either that or its analogues to it. So we're showing Malamud’s doesn’t
`have a server. So this would be analogous to that because the operating
`system ultimately controls the cursor so there is a message that tells the
`operating system what to do.
`In the single computer architecture, it -- all of that stuff exists on a
`single computer. But we argue and I think we will get to this, but we argue
`in other limitations that it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the
`art to combine that in those communications can come over a server to
`control it.
`JUDGE FENICK: But this message deals only with – the description
`here in Malamud talks about telling the operating system what type of cursor
`to display and sets forth the content sand type of information to be displayed
`in the cursor and it doesn’t talk about the underlying display that the cursor
`is moving over.
`MR. VALENTINE: So that is again information to be displayed is
`everything sent initially by the server but it were also include, we didn’t do a
`claim construction information to be displayed.
`I think information to be displayed is fairly read to mean anything on
`the computer including the modified cursor information as well. But over
`
`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 IPR2018-01749 (Patent 5,995,102)
`Case IPR2018-01755 (Patent 6,118,449)
`
`
`
`the information to be displayed that triggers the cursor modification is the
`underlying website.
`For example, the -- I don’t know if I've responded to your question but
`that’s the request to modify the cursor in response to that the position of that
`cursor.
`JUDGE FENICK: Right. The claim doesn’t talk about a request to
`modify a cursor, it talks about transmission of specified content information
`responsive to a request from said user terminal for a said specified content
`information.
`And is, it sounds like this message is the, is what you pointed to for
`the transmission of said specified content information.
`MR. VALENTINE: I think we point to this message for -- I think that
`in limitation 1 [c.] the specified content information is the request, it's the
`same request that is alluded to in limitations 1 [c.][i], I think that’s the initial
`one.
`
`We were showing here that specified content information -- and I
`think we were just demonstrating here why the cursor is modified and
`maybe that discussion goes bett
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
