Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 58
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION, PANASONIC CORPORATION OF
`NORTH AMERICA, GOPRO, INC.,
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND GARMIN USA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2019--00131
` Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`__________
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`Oral Hearing Held January 28, 2020
`__________
`
`Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and STACY B.
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 58
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION, PANASONIC CORPORATION OF
`NORTH AMERICA, GOPRO, INC.,
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND GARMIN USA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2019--00131
` Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`__________
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`Oral Hearing Held January 28, 2020
`__________
`
`Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and STACY B.
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`T. VANN PEARCE, JR ESQ
`of: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`1152 15th St, NW
`Washington D.C. 20005-1706
`(202) 339-8696
`vpearce@orrick.com
`
`DAVID R. MEDINA, ESQ
`of: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`1000 Marsh Rd
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`(650) 289-7139
`dmedina@orrick.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOHN J. EDMONDS, ESQ
`of: Edmonds & Schlather PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, Texas 77003
`(713) 364-5291
`jedmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`RENE VAZQUEZ, ESQ.
`of: Garteiser Honea
`18296 St. Georges Ct.
`Leesburg, VA 20176
`(703) 989-2244
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`
`January 28, 2020, commencing at 3:40 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`
`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
`25
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`3:40 p.m.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: We are here for a final hearing in
`IPR2019-00131, captioned Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic
`Corporation of North America, GoPro, Inc, Garmin International, Inc.
`and Garmin USA, Inc. v., Cellspin Soft, Inc.
`We'll introduce the panel. I am Judge Margolies, here in
`Alexandria. Judge Anderson is appearing via video from California,
`and Judge Galligan is appearing via video from our Dallas Regional
`Office.
`
`Let's get the parties' appearances. Who do we have appearing
`on behalf of Petitioner?
`MR. PEARCE: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Vann Pearce
`from Orrick, on behalf of the Petitioners, and with me is my colleague
`David Medina.
`
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Good afternoon, Counsel.
`MR. MEDINA: Good afternoon.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Who do we have appearing on
`behalf of Patent Owner?
`MR. EDMONDS: Good afternoon, Your Honors. John
`Edmonds on behalf of the Patent Owner, Cellspin Soft, and to my left
`is my co-counsel, Mr. Rene Vazquez.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Thank you. Welcome.
`We set forth the procedure for today's hearing in our trial
`hearing order. And as a reminder, Petitioner Panasonic and Patent
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`Owner each will have one hour of total time to present arguments,
`including arguments regarding the parties' Motions to Strike.
`Petitioner has the burden of proof and will go first. Patent Owner
`will, then, present opposition arguments. Then, to the extent Petitioner
`has reserved his time, Petitioner will present rebuttal arguments. And
`then, to the extent Patent Owner has reserved time, Patent Owner will
`present surrebuttal arguments.
`As per the prior hearing, for clarity in the transcript and for the
`benefit of Judges Anderson and Galligan who are participating
`remotely, when you refer to an exhibit on the screen, please identify
`the exhibit number and page number. And when you refer to the
`demonstrative slides, please identify the slide number.
`In Paper 51, Patent Owner objected to some Petitioner's
`demonstrative exhibits. Yesterday, we held a prehearing conference
`and we ruled that Petitioner may use that demonstrative exhibits
`during today's hearing.
`
`Are there any questions on behalf of Patent Owner at this
`
`time?
`
`MR. EDMONDS: Yes, Your Honor. Just a similar issue that
`I raised at the ’127 proceeding we just finished. Just so the record is
`clear, because I don't think that the telephonic hearing yesterday was
`transcribed, it was our understanding that the Board has said that the
`objections in the Motions to Strike -- in our case, it was also styled as
`a Motion to Exclude -- are preserved and that the parties need not
`object to each other's argument and, in fact, they should not be
`
`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 IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`interrupting each other to argue. And that we can comment on those
`motions, but that those issues are preserved. Can I just confirm that?
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Yes, correct.
`MR. EDMONDS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Petitioner, do you have any
`questions?
`MR. PEARCE: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Okay. Petitioner, would you like to
`reserve some time for rebuttal?
`MR. PEARCE: Yes, 20 minutes, please.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Twenty minutes? Okay.
`You may begin when you're ready.
`MR. PEARCE: Thank you, and good afternoon, Your
`Honors. Again, Vann Pearce on behalf of the Panasonic parties. I
`mentioned that my co-counsel, David Medina, is with me. I'd also like
`to introduce in the audience Mr. Ekaita (phonetic) and Mr. Dono
`(phonetic) who have come here from Japan, and also Mr. Hasaka
`(phonetic). All three of them are representatives of Panasonic.
`If I may, before going into the demonstrative exhibits, I'd like
`to begin with just a brief overview of the reasons why the challenged
`claims in this IPR are unpatentable.
`As in the ’ IPR involving Canon, the main contention that
`Cellspin is making here is that the prior art, while it expressly
`discloses a Bluetooth connection between a digital camera and a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`cellular phone, according to Cellspin does not disclose or render
`obvious a paired or cryptographically-authenticated connection.
`One point that I would like to focus on today is the particular
`disclosure of the Bluetooth connection in the Mashita prior art
`reference, which is Exhibit 1006, which is unique to this IPR.
`Mashita's disclosure matches the disclosure in the ’698 patent itself,
`establishing a paired and cryptographically-authenticated Bluetooth
`connection in the ’698 patent's exemplary embodiment. And it also
`acknowledged, as it of course must, the challenged claims are
`practiced by that exemplary embodiment in the ’698 patent. So,
`accordingly, this match between Mashita and the ’698 patent alone is
`convincing proof that the limitation is met here.
`Because Mashita's disclosure is dispositive on this point, the
`arguments that Cellspin is making in response are, by and large, moot.
`The claim construction issues, the disputes about claim construction
`of paired and cryptographically-authenticating are not relevant. It also
`doesn't matter if pairing is optional or not in the Bluetooth
`specifications because Mashita discloses parent.
`Now we've also shown in our petition, and also further
`confirmed in the reply, that the Bluetooth specification documents
`provide further support for our arguments that the description in
`Mashita also matches the description of pairing in the Bluetooth
`specifications. And we have, furthermore, shown why, at minimum,
`this limitation would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`in the art. Those are additional bases for why the claims are
`unpatentable here.
`Besides the dispute about pairing and cryptographic
`authentication, Cellspin has raised four other arguments that we
`submit can be disposed of relatively quickly. They all rely on either
`plain misreadings of the prior art or incorrect claim constructions for
`that.
`
`So, that is an overview of the issues here. And with that, I will
`turn to the demonstrative exhibits, going to Slide 2, to begin with.
`Slide 2, again, lists the five issues that we understand to be
`contested by Cellspin here. I plan to focus my remarks on those
`issues. Of course, I am happy to answer any questions the Board has
`about any aspect of our proof of unpatentability.
`If I could go to Slide 5, please. Slide 5 just indicates what the
`challenged claims are in this proceeding and, also, that there is one
`ground of unpatentability which is obviousness based on the
`combination of three references: Mashita, Onishi, and Hiraishi,
`which are Exhibits 1006, 1008, and 1010.
`If we go to Slide 6, this is just an overview of Mashita which
`discloses most of the limitations of the challenged claims. This is an
`obviousness case because there are a few limitations in which we are
`combining the disclosure of Mashita with the other two references.
`Going to Slide 7, what Slide 7 depicts is the basic system in
`both Mashita and the ’698 patent. There is a connection between a
`camera and a cellular phone. It's a Bluetooth connection that's used 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`transfer an image from the camera to the phone, and then, the phone
`transfers that image to the internet. These aspects, as best we can
`understand, are not contested.
`Going to Slide 8, please, Slide 8 just is an overview of the
`Onishi reference which, again, also has a connection between a
`cellular phone and a digital camera that's a Bluetooth connection. And
`primarily what we cite the Onishi reference for is the disclosure of
`using the phone to delete a file on the digital camera.
`And finally, Slide 9 is an overview of the Hiraishi reference.
`Hiraishi, again, is very similar to Mashita. It's talking about a
`connection between a camera and a phone to transfer an image. The
`phone then transfers the image to the internet. Hiraishi expressly says
`that that transfer from a phone to the internet is done, or can be done,
`using HTTP, which meets that particular limitation of the challenged
`claims. And it also provides some additional details with respect to
`what we've called Limitation G.
`So, with that, let me turn to the first disputed issue, which I'll
`go to Slide 10, please. The first issue that I want to address, again, is
`this issue of the paired connection and cryptographically authenticate.
`The claim language is shown on Slide 11, and obviously, there is a
`lengthy discussion of these issues in the proceeding that just occurred
`before this one. I'll try not to retread that ground and just focus on
`some of the key issues that are unique to this proceeding.
`If we could go to Slide 25, Slide 25 shows the issue regarding
`claim construction, and we have proposed a construction for paired;
`
`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 IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`Cellspin has. The point that I want to focus on here that we've
`highlighted on the slide is -- and I think this was discussed quite a bit
`in the last proceeding as well -- at minimum, a Bluetooth paired
`connection would meet Patent Owner's construction. I don't think
`that's a disputed question. And as we'll show in a moment, that's what
`the prior art here expressly discloses.
`Going to Slide 13, in the next few slides I'll go through a
`comparison of the ’698 patent, which will be shown on the left-hand
`side. And that's Exhibit 1003, and then, on the right-hand side, the
`disclosure of Mashita, which is Exhibit 1006.
`The first slide here, Slide 13, just shows that both references
`are disclosing a Bluetooth connection between the camera and the
`cellular phone, but that, again, I think is not a point that anyone is
`disputing. And we could, essentially, just pause here. As we discuss in
`the petition, and also as there was some discussion earlier today, there
`is ample evidence that this alone would meet Limitation C, because,
`for example, all Bluetooth devices must support pairing, as we've
`indicated and shown in Exhibit 1020. This is the Basic Imaging
`Profile, or BIP.
`And I will just comment here. It does seem like what the
`Patent Owner has done to some degree in its response to this is kind of
`used Bluetooth as both a sword and a shield. When it's been
`convenient for Patent Owner, they have taken the position that a
`person skilled in the art would understand the Bluetooth specifications
`and at times would read aspects of the Bluetooth specifications into
`
`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 IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`the claims. And then, again, at the same time, they're saying that, well,
`just disclosing Bluetooth in the prior art is not enough. But Mashita
`goes well beyond just disclosing Bluetooth.
`This go to Slide 14, please. So, I want to spend some time
`looking at the disclosure in the ’698 patent's specification of
`establishing a paired, encryptographically-authenticated connection,
`and the, compare that to the disclosure in Mashita. So, what we see
`here on Slide 14 on the left-hand side is from column 4 of the ’698
`patent. What we see on the right-hand side is from paragraph 51 of
`Mashita.
`So, looking here at the ’698 patent, it talks about, if you go on
`Slide 3, "In order to initiate the pairing process between the two
`devices," the two BT or Bluetooth devices, a common password
`known as passkey is exchanged between the devices." And then, it
`goes on to say, "A passkey is a code shared by the two devices."
`Well, let's compare that to Mashita.
`In Mashita, it says that "An Identical Personal Identification
`number, PIN, code is input into both devices." So, again, in both
`disclosures we have an identical code that's being input into both
`devices.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Isn't there a difference between
`passkey and PIN?
`MR. PEARCE: No, Your Honor there's not. And let me
`actually jump to that because that's one of the main points that 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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`Patent Owner has made to try to distinguish and try to create some
`daylight between Mashita and the ’698 patent.
`Let's go to Slide 19. So, this is from the version of the
`specification that Patent Owner put forward in its response. And as
`you allude to, Your Honor, Patent Owner is saying there is a
`difference between passkey and PIN and that difference somehow
`matters here.
`Well, this is from the Bluetooth specification that Patent
`Owner has cited. It's a section discussing Bluetooth passkey. And
`as you can see in the heading -- and this is on page 1258 of Exhibit
`2018 -- the heading for this section says, "Bluetooth Passkey
`(Bluetooth PIN)". Then, at the bottom of the slide here, it says, "When
`the Bluetooth PIN is referred to on the UI" -- or User Interface
`level -- "the term Bluetooth passkey should be used."
`So, it's telling us that these two terms can be, and, in fact,
`should be, used synonymously in a particular context. I'll also point
`out here that it says, "The PIN is used in the pairing procedure." As
`we just looked at a moment ago with Mashita, Mashita expressly
`discloses using a PIN in both devices. What we see from looking at
`the Bluetooth specifications -- and there are a number of other
`examples -- is that descriptions of entering a PIN in both devices
`inevitably lead to a paired connection. That's further evidence
`supporting our position that what Mashita is disclosing is a process of
`pairing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`If we go to the next slide, Slide 20, this is testimony from Dr.
`Foley, Cellspin's expert witness, which just confirms that when we're
`reading the ’698 patent, it's talking about the User Interface and what's
`happening at the User Interface. So, the user is inputting his passkey
`into the User Interface. So, it's not surprising that the ’698 patent is
`following the nomenclature of the Bluetooth specification at that time
`and using the word "passkey". But, as we just saw, there's no relative
`distinction between passkey and patent.
`If I could go back to Slide 14, going down on the ’698 patent,
`again, to the bottom of the slide, as it says here, "Upon entering" -- or
`excuse me -- "On entering the passkey by the user of the mobile
`device, there's a matching that's done between the passkey on both
`devices." And then, that last sentence is important. "If a match is
`found, a trusted pair is automatically established.
`Automatically -- there's nothing else that needs to happen here. The
`user just has to input the passkey. Everything else is done behind the
`scenes by the operation of Bluetooth.
`Again, likewise, on Mashita, on the right-hand side, paragraph
`51, the user inputs the PIN code into both devices, and then, the
`cellular, thus, establishes a link with the digital camera, a local
`wireless connection. Again, the PIN code in both descriptions is
`entered, and that's all that happens.
`Going to Slide 15, the ’698 patent also describes that there is a
`transmission of the BT address. You see that on Slide --
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`
`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
`
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Can we just actually stop for a
`minute and go back to the prior slide? I mean, I feel like you're
`supplementing what's in Mashita by ’698. I know what you're trying
`to do here, but it seems like you're adding words to Mashita. Mashita
`doesn't say "pairing". So, I just want you to do it divorced. I mean,
`you can do what you want to do, but how do I know that this is
`pairing, I guess, looking just at the reference, or whatever it is that you
`have?
`
`MR. PEARCE: Sure. There are a few different ways that we
`know that what Mashita is describing is pairing. The first way, which
`is what I was going through here, is comparing the disclosure of the
`’698 patent in Mashita. So, that's one aspect of it.
`Another aspect of it, though, is looking to the Bluetooth
`specification documents. So, if we go to Slide 17, in our petition we
`cited pages from the Bluetooth specification documents, and Dr.
`Strawn, our expert witness, also discussed these documents in order to
`explain why a person skilled in the art reading Mashita would
`understand that Mashita is describing a pairing process. This is one
`portion of the specification. This is, again, from the specification. It's
`describing pairing, as it says here.
`And it says, "But when two devices do not have a common
`link key, an initialization key shall be created based on a PIN, a
`random number, and BD_ADDR," which is a reference to a Bluetooth
`address. And we just saw a discussion of Bluetooth address. That's
`also discussed in Mashita itself, and I could go back and show that.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`
`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
`
`But, again, when we have this PIN that is input into both
`devices, that is what is initiating this pairing process, according to the
`specifications. This is one example from the Bluetooth specifications,
`but there are a number of others.
`But other point that I'll make here on this slide before moving
`on, as you can see if we go down the page -- and this is, just for
`reference, page 29 of Exhibit 1017 -- as it says here, "This pairing
`involves a mutual authentication." So, the two mains in which
`Cellspin has tried to distinguish Mashita from the ’698 patent is, one,
`to say there's a distinction between passkey and PIN. And I addressed
`that a moment ago. The other is to say, well, Mashita calls this an
`authentication process and doesn't use the word "pairing". But what
`we see in the Bluetooth specifications, and what a person skilled in
`the art would know, is that pairing is an authentication process.
`Pairing does have this mutual authentication, as it says here. So, it's
`entirely accurate for Mashita to describe pairing as authentication, as
`it does.
`If I could turn then to Slide 18, this is a portion of the Version
`2.1 Bluetooth specification that Cellspin has cited in its response.
`And this is something that Cellspin has cited for the notion that
`pairing is optional. And Your Honors have heard about that earlier
`today.
`
`But, even if you look at just this, quote-unquote, "optional
`pairing step," Step 7A, the way that the specifications describe that
`happening, as shown here on the right-hand side of the slide, is by the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`user inputting a PIN code into both devices, which, again, is exactly
`matching the description in Mashita.
`So, according to the specifications -- and there's no dispute
`that a person skilled in the art would know and understand how to
`look at the Bluetooth specifications to understand Bluetooth -- the
`entry of a PIN code, again, is part of this pairing process. This step
`also says -- and it's a little bit hard to read here, but it's in what we've
`got highlighted on the top -- that, "As part of this process, the PIN
`code is requested on both sides of the connection and authentication is
`performed based on the PIN code." So, again, when Mashita describes
`its process as authentication, that's exactly right, that that is part of the
`pairing process here.
`I'll also go to Slide 29. This is from Exhibit 1001, which is Dr.
`Strawn's opening declaration in paragraph 87. We cited this in our
`petition at 41. He's again discussing some of the same Bluetooth
`specification documents that we've looked at already. And it's
`explaining from these documents how the authentication happens
`based on a PIN and, again, points out that this closely matches the
`description given in both the ’698 patent and Mashita.
`One point that I want to emphasize here is there's no
`disclosure in the Bluetooth specifications that Cellspin has pointed to
`at any point of a user entering a PIN code into the two devices and
`having that lead to something other than pairing. So, it's consistent on
`this point. A PIN entry leads to pairing, and that's what Mashita
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`discloses. Now we would submit that that alone is sufficient
`evidence on this point.
`I'll address briefly the cryptographically-authenticating portion
`of the limitation. If we can go back to Slide 14, looking at the right-
`hand side -- again, this is Mashita at paragraph 51 -- it says here
`explicitly that Mashita is executing an authentication process for a
`local wireless connection. And it also says here, either here or maybe
`it's on the next slide, Slide 15 -- there it is.
`So, at the top right of Slide 15, paragraph 30, as it says here,
`"Mashita is using a physical address for identification of the portable
`device in Bluetooth communication." So, Mashita is expressly
`disclosing authentication. It's expressly disclosing identification.
`And the question is, if there is a question, is that cryptographic
`authentication? And the answer is yes.
`If we go to Slide 26, Slide 26 shows the two competing
`constructions of cryptographically-authenticating, and we've
`highlighted, or bolded, rather, here what we think are really some of
`the key issues. Panasonic's construction points out that this
`authentication happens, or can happen at least, by use of a shared
`passkey on the two devices. That's what's disclosed in the ’698 patent
`itself.
`
`Going to Slide 28, as I think one of Your Honors pointed out
`earlier today, this is from column 3 and column 4 of the ’698 patent.
`It's the only disclosure in the patent of cryptographic authentication.
`As it says here, starting at column 3, line 65, about halfway down 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
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`slide on the left, "A BT device that wants to communicate only with a
`trusted device can cryptographically-authenticate the identity of
`another BT device." And then, it immediately goes on to talk about
`Bluetooth pairing. So, that way that it teaches how to do that is
`throughput pairing and through using this common password known
`as a passkey, which we've talked about earlier.
`And then, if I go back to Slide 14, again, this is what we
`looked at earlier. This is at the end of that discussion in the ’698
`patent, going down to the bottom of column 4 that's shown here on the
`left. "If a match is found, a trusted pair is automatically established."
`So, again, it's not just a pair; it's a trusted pair. And we just saw the
`other excerpt saying that, if you want to establish a trusted
`communication, you cryptographically authenticate, and the way you
`do that is through a shared passkey.
`Again, looking at Mashita, which is here on the right, there is
`a shared passkey. It's this PIN code which is identical in both devices.
`And it's using the same procedure to cryptographically authenticate.
`So, again, regardless of how you construe this term, the term at least is
`covering what the ’698 patent is talking about, and that's also what
`Mashita is disclosing.
`Now we don't agree with Cellspin's -- if we go back to Slide
`26 -- we don't agree with Cellspin's construction to the extent it's
`saying you have to have encryption or decryption involving an
`algorithm. That's not supported by anything in the patent. It's not
`supported by any other evidence of record. It's a narrow construction
`
`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 IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`that lacks support here, even though under that construction, it's
`certainly met by the Bluetooth process which Mashita is disclosing.
`We also explained in our reply brief and in our petition how
`that Bluetooth process does, in fact, involve an algorithm in order to
`cryptographically authenticate. So, again, we're meeting even
`Cellspin's construction.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: I think one of the arguments is that
`cryptographic has I think a meaning to that term, and that's, I think,
`where the encryption algorithm comes in. Do you have a response to
`that?
`
`MR. PEARCE: Sure. I understand that to be Cellspin's
`argument. As we've pointed out in our construction, cryptographic, if
`you want to look at that term in isolation -- and we're not suggesting
`that that's appropriate because, again, it's part of a longer phrase -- but
`if you do look at that in isolation, cryptographic is invoking some sort
`of secrecy or security or encryption, and that would include the use of
`a shared passkey on the two devices. And again, that's what is
`described is in the ’698 patent. It's also consistent with the general
`meaning of something that's cryptographic, crypt, referring to secrecy
`of some sort.
`Cellspin's construction, I guess the construction itself is
`actually not limiting. It just says there's a verification, and it says,
`"including by use of encryption and decryption involving an
`algorithm". By its expressed terms, it's not necessarily requiring that.
`To the extent that that's how they're reading it, again, there's no
`
`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 IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`disclosure in the ’698 patent of using an algorithm beyond what is
`inherent in Bluetooth. There just is discussion of Bluetooth. In fact,
`again, if you go back and look through the specifications, there is,
`indeed, such an algorithm that is used as part of this pairing process.
`So, Bluetooth pairing is necessarily going to meet the construction, if
`you want to read that, read the sort of algorithm requirement into it.
`If there are no further questions on this issue of pairing and
`cryptographic authentication, I'd like to turn to the other disputed
`issues.
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Let me just ask you one thing,
`Counselor.
`MR. PEARCE: Sure.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: I think this is a follow up to what
`Judge Margolies said a minute ago, so the comparison between the
`disclosures of Mashita and the ’698 patent. What you're really -- what
`we ultimately want to get to, of course, are the claims.
`MR. PEARCE: Sure.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: So can you articulate a little more
`precisely how that evidence relates to the claims just so we have a
`good -- have our arms around that in the right way?
`MR. PEARCE: Absolutely, Your Honor. The disclosure in
`the ’698 patent that I've been referring Your Honors to today is the
`only disclosure in the patent of pairing or cryptographic authentication
`of the identity. That's a description of the exemplary embodiment and
`it tells an exemplary way to do that using Bluetooth.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`That method is clearly within the scope of the challenged
`claims no matter how those claims are construed and that's not an
`issue that I believe Cellspin is or could dispute. The challenged claims
`certainly are covering this Bluetooth pairing method that's described
`in the specification.
`So the reason why we're looking at that today is just a simple
`comparison here. If what Mashita is describing is effectively the same
`thing as the ’698 specification, then that has to be within the scope of
`the claims. And therefore, Mashita has to be disclosing this limitation.
`Again, we pointed out other evidence and other reasons in our
`petition and also in the reply. There is further support on this issue
`but, in some ways, looking at the comparison between the
`specification and Mashita we submit is there the simpler way to do
`things because we don't have to go wading through the details of the
`Bluetooth specification documents, for instance.
`So let me turn to some of the other issues that Cellspin has
`brought up as bases for why they say the challenged claims are not
`unpatentable. If I could turn to Slide 40. Slide 40 we're talking now
`about the second contested issue which relates to what we've given the
`nomenclature imitation G.
`Go to Slide 41. Limitation G, if I could paraphrase it, talks
`about the camera is receiving a data transfer request from the cellular
`phone over the Bluetooth connection for a new media file which could
`be, for example, an image file. That new media file has to have been
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`Patent 9,258,698 B2
`
`created by an individual camera before the transfer request is
`received.
`We have relied on the combination of Mashita and Hiraishi for
`this reference. As shown here on the right-hand slide, this is quoting
`from paragraph 61 and 64 of Mashita. Mashita has a file transfer
`program on the cellular phone which will initiate the transfer
`operation. And there is, of course, the connection, which we've talked
`about, and the phone will receive the image file.
`What Mashita doesn't expressly talk about here is, it says the
`program on the phone is initiating the overall process. It doesn't say
`expressly that there is a specific data transfer request from the phone.
`It also isn't expressly clear that that transfer happens for a file that was
`created before the request was sent.
`If you go to Slide 42, Hiraishi has both those elements. As it
`says here in Hiraishi which is again Exhibit 1010, paragraph 17, upon
`receiving a command from the OS or dedicated software installed in
`the PC -- and by the way, Hiraishi says elsewhere that the PC can be a
`mobile phone. So when you see PC here, you can think cellular
`phone. So it has the specific command for the data transfer request.
`And then it says that the image input device, the camera, will transfer
`data that's already been stored in its memory.
`So combining those two disclosures, we get to Limitation G
`and we explained there are really two different ways you coul
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
