Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 59
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INGENICO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IOENGINE, LLC, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 31, 2020
`____________
`
`Before ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 59
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INGENICO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IOENGINE, LLC, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 31, 2020
`____________
`
`Before ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ROBERT M. ASHER, ESQUIRE
`TIMOTHY M. MURPHY, ESQUIRE
`KERRY L. TIMBERS, ESQUIRE
`SHARONA HAKIMI STERNBERG, ESQUIRE
`LENA M. CAVALLO, ESQUIRE
`Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers, LLP
`125 Summer Street,
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110,
`617-443-9292
`rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`tmurphy@sunsteinlaw.com
`ktimbers@sunsteinlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MICHAEL A. FISHER, ESQUIRE
`DEREK J. BRADER, ESQUIRE
`Dechert, LLP
`Circa Center
`2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
`215-994-2222
`michael.fisher@dechert.com
`derek.brader@dechert.com
`
`NOAH M. LEIBOWITZ, ESQUIRE
`GREGORY T. CHUEBON, ESQUIRE
`Dechert, LLP
`Three Bryant Park
`1095 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10036
`212-698-3538
`noah.leibowitz@dechert.com
`greg.chuebon@dechert.com
`
`MICHAEL H. JOSHI, ESQUIRE
`Dechert, LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 650
`Palo Alto, California 94306
`650-813-4814
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, March 31,
`2020, commencing at 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE HOWARD: Good afternoon, everyone. This is an Oral
`
`Hearing in Case Number IPR 2019-00416, between Petitioner Ingenico Inc.,
`and Patent Owner IOENGINE, LLC, concerning United States Patent
`8,539,047.
`I'm Judge Howard, and joined with me are Judges Roesel and
`McShane. Just a few administrative matters before we begin.
`Per our hearing order, both sides will each have 60 minutes to present
`its case. Petitioner, who bears the burden on unpatentability, will proceed
`first. You may reserve up to half your time for rebuttal. Once Petitioner has
`finished its initial presentation, Patent Owner may proceed with its case. If
`Petitioner reserves time for rebuttal, Patent Owner can reserve time for a
`brief sur-rebuttal. Rebuttal will be limited to addressing issues raised in
`Patent Owner's opening argument, and sur-rebuttal will be limited to issues
`raised by Petitioner in its rebuttal.
`Because the hearing is remote, and also for clarity of the record, when
`you're referring to any of your slides in your demonstratives, please refer to
`the slide number so that the Judges will know what slides you're referring to
`and can turn to it, as well as when we're going back and looking at the
`transcript we can make sure we're at the correct page.
`Also, because this is a remote hearing, we request that if you're not
`speaking, if you can go and keep your microphone on mute, to try and cut
`down on any background noise that would make the Court Reporter's job
`more difficult.
`As for objections, we ask that you do not interrupt each other during
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`the proceedings. If you have any objections, please save them till your time
`and you can raise them then, and we'll address them.
`At this time, we'd like to have Counsel introduce yourselves, and
`identify who also is attending the hearing remotely. Petitioner, why don't
`you begin?
`MR. ASHER: Yes. This is Robert Asher with Petitioner Ingenico. I
`have with me my colleagues Kerry Timbers, Timothy Murphy, Sharona
`Sternberg and Lena Cavallo.
`JUDGE HOWARD: Thank you. And for Patent Owner?
`MR. FISHER: Mike Fisher from Dechert, LLP, for Patent Owner,
`IOENGINE. Also joining us for IOENGINE are, Noah Leibowitz, Greg
`Chuebon, Derek Brader and Michael Joshi. Mr. Leibowitz will be
`presenting for IOENGINE.
`JUDGE HOWARD: Okay.
`MR. LEIBOWITZ: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`JUDGE HOWARD: Good afternoon. Petitioner, how much time
`would you like to reserve for your rebuttal?
`MR. ASHER: I think 15 minutes, 15 minutes would make sense. Do
`we have a Court Reporter?
`JUDGE HOWARD: Yes, we do.
`MR. ASHER: Thank you.
`JUDGE HOWARD: And just so you know, the Court Reporter has
`been also provided with copies of the slides to help with any transcription
`and spellings of words. Okay. I will be keeping time here. I will go and
`give you a warning when you're approaching five minutes away from the
`time that you’ve designated for your initial presentation. I'll let you know
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`when that time is up, and to the extent you go into your rebuttal time I will
`give you warnings. And with that, Petitioner, you may begin.
`MR. ASHER: The alleged invention when originally filed was a
`tunneling client access point that connects with a computer, make use of the
`computer's display and networking interface. The parent patent issued with
`claims to a tunneling storage and processing apparatus requires the USB
`conduit and the ability to encrypt and decrypt communications. The 047
`Patent is the first of a whole series of continuation patents that are going to
`provide a broader scope of coverage for assertion against companies who
`actually make and sell products.
`Since the claimed portable device itself, as disclosed by Iida, many of
`the issues being addressed today do not involve the alleged invention, but
`rather, externalities such as the interface on the terminal at the
`communications' network.
`I'll begin by addressing the meaning of the phrase "interactive user
`interface" which appears only in the claims. Referring to the summary of
`invention which is produced on slide 2 of our Exhibit 1038, we see that the
`TCAPs, that's the tunneling client access point, is the focus. To the extent
`an interface is mentioned, the summary points out that the TCAP can make
`use of a traditional user interface. So in this context we're asked to
`determine how a POSITA would understand the phrase "interactive user
`interface" point in the claims.
`Turning to slide 3, in the middle, our expert, Mr. Geier, assists by
`explaining that a POSITA would have understood that a user interface is an
`interface that enables the user to interact with a computer. This is confirmed
`by the computer glossary excerpt below that at Exhibit 1019.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`
`At the top of the slide it is Petitioner's position that: interactive user
`interface means a presentation which a user may interact -- which a user may
`interact to result in the computer taking action responsively.
`So, Patent Owner raised two issues with this, and they contend that
`this construction should be more narrowly construed to require, number one,
`interface elements, and number two a requirement that the responsive
`computer is limited to the terminal. A discussion of the interface elements
`in the specification is so broad and vague it would be of no value to the
`claim construction.
`Taking a look at the next slide 4, here's an excerpt from the 047
`Patent, Interface elements are analogized to automobile elements including
`speedometers. Speedometers provide information on which a driver can
`base his or her actions. Input devices may include an accelerator, a brake or
`a clutch. There's no direct engagement with the speedometer. The computer
`interaction interface elements include menus which display information
`including choices from which a user can make a selection. Again, no direct
`engagement is required. It would be of no clarifying value to include the
`term “interface elements” in a definition of interface -- interactive user
`interface.
`According to the intrinsic evidence further includes the patent
`prosecution. The phrase "interactive user interface --"
`JUDGE HOWARD: Under your construction would there be a
`difference between a user interface and an interactive user interface?
`MR. ASHER: A user interface, as the computer glossary states, may
`include the mice, the touchscreens, the keyboards, but the interactive user
`interface is a presentation that changes in response to the actions of the user.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`
`JUDGE HOWARD: Thank you.
`MR. ASHER: Okay. So turning to slide 5, we see where interactive
`user interface was first introduced in an amendment filed in the parent patent
`application. As shown in slide 5, the amendment included new claims that
`help establish the scope of this newly-added term which we've identified in
`the claims. Interactive user interface broadly includes at least a graphic user
`interface as set forth in claim 89, and also an audio user interface as set forth
`in claim 95.
`The interactive user interface may be a conventional graphic user
`interface, and that's how it was represented in the specification. Now, of
`course with respect to the audio user interface, there's no direct engagement
`with interface elements, for example, in response to an audio menu, select
`one for option A, select two for option B, select three for option C, and the
`user would respond to an input device that may be a keyboard, a mouse, or a
`microphone, for example, and there's no direct engagement with the audio
`menu which is gone as soon as it is spoken. So this is another reason that
`interface elements do not belong in the claim construction for interactive
`user interface.
`As used in the claims of the 047 Patent, the presentation is a display,
`and the computer that takes action is the portable device. Neither the
`specification, the claims, nor the petition support Patent Owner's position
`that the terminal must be the one responding to user interactions in an IUI.
`Turning to slide 6 --
`JUDGE ROESEL: Excuse me, Petitioner. I thought that I just heard
`you say that an interactive user interface was a presentation that changes in
`response to the user interaction. So, in that case, isn't it in the context of
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`these claims, it the terminal or rather the output component of the terminal
`that's really reacting to the user interaction? Is that true?
`MR. ASHER: Well, in these claims there's a display, there's a
`monitor, and what is displayed on the monitor change in response to -- yeah,
`change in response to the user interaction.
`JUDGE ROESEL: So, why then would you put portable device in the
`construction, rather than terminal, or terminal output component?
`MR. ASHER: I would put computer in the definition, and specifically
`it's the portable device that responds to the user interaction causing a change
`in what is displayed on the terminal's display.
`So, as seen in slide 7, the petition made the point that a number of
`interfaces -- we made the point in our petition that a number of the interfaces
`in the 047 responded to text inputs, and when we did so we identified a few
`examples from the specification, and one is at column 7, line 54-57, which is
`reproduced at the bottom of slide 6. There it states that if -- and this is in
`response to user interaction entering registration information in the
`interactive user interface, particularly the interactive user interface that was
`identified by Dr. Butler as one of the examples.
`"If the user did not properly fill out the registration information, or if
`another user is already registered, the TCAP can provide an error message to
`such a fact." So it is the TCAP that is responding to the user interaction in
`this example.
`So claim construction is centered on the claims, and turning to page 7
`we can see claim 1: As set forth in the first program code “the interactive
`user interface is configured to enable the user to cause the portable device
`processor to execute program codes stored on the portable device memory."
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`
`So, it is essential that the interacted user interface that's called for in
`the claims, they continue to enable the user to cause the portable device
`processor to execute the program code. And that's repeated again in the
`third program code which is the code that is executed by a portable device
`processor in response to a communication resulting from user interaction.
`So these are essential to the claim and these define interactive user interface
`as used in the claims and those are not found anywhere else in the
`specification.
`If there are no other questions with regard to interactive user interface,
`I'll move on to communicating through. So referring to --
`JUDGE ROESEL: I do have another question. And that is, if this
`portable device response to the user interaction is recited elsewhere in the
`claim, why is it necessary to read it into the definition of interactive user
`interface?
`MR. ASHER: I wouldn't necessarily read it into the definition of user
`-- or interactive user interface, the definition we give is that a computer
`reacts in response to a user interaction. So, it's not specific as to what
`computer is going to interact in response to user interaction, but in the claim
`it specifies that the computers that interact -- that respond to use the portable
`device processor. Does that answer your question?
`JUDGE ROESEL: Yes. Thank you.
`MR. ASHER: So, at slide 8, we address the issue of communicating
`through. Patent Owner seeks to incorporate notions of an encrypted
`communication or tunneling into the claim language to communicate
`through. Encryption was part of the issue claims in the 006 Patent, and it
`was intentionally not included in the claims of the 047 Patent. 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
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`specification has numerous references to tunneling, but tunneling was
`intentionally omitted from the claims of the 047 Patent.
`As seen in slide 8, the specification refers to tunneling data through,
`tunnel data through, tunnel access through, and "through" has its ordinary
`lay meaning. The term "tunneling" was left out of the claims. For example -
`- and then "through" was used in the patent throughout in its ordinary
`meaning.
`And that's seen again at the bottom excerpt, "Input and output
`mechanisms through which data may pass into and out of a computer," the
`statement at column 1, lines 36-40, having nothing to do with tunneling.
`The intent and meaning of the claims is clear that "through" has its ordinary
`meaning and that "tunneling" and "encryption" were intentionally omitted
`from the claims.
`All right, having addressed claim construction, we go on to Iida which
`anticipates because it discloses all the recited elements including first,
`second and third program codes. Iida provides its camera and portable
`device, with program code that permits the user to interact during and
`managing his or her photos.
`Iida illustrates the photographing system with a variety of sample
`image diagrams. But I could take you quickly through these diagrams and
`so you can see how a user can interact, where you can just flip, to next page,
`next page, as I go along.
`Starting at slide 9, the user may choose to check photographed images
`from the menu. Slide 10, the user may choose one from the photos that are
`displayed. Slide 11, the user can choose to save the photograph in My Scene
`folder at the network node of the image server. Slide 12, a message
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`indicates that the photo has been saved. On slide 13 we start over again at
`the main menu. The user may choose to browse the photos and store it on
`the network. Slide 14, the photographs are displayed and user may choose
`one. Slide 15, the user may choose to print the photo. In slide 16, the user
`may choose to erase the photo from the remote storage.
`So we learn a few points in going through these image diagrams.
`First, the screens are interactive, whereas for you today you were just
`clicking from one page to the next, for Iida it is the user, in conjunction with
`what is displayed on the screen that will determine what image will appear
`next. The user's input to the main menu determines which of the three
`available paths are followed. We see one path when the menu item check, a
`photograph image was selected; and another path when the menu item
`browse, My Scene folder is selected.
`And each of these paths offers also a number of traces which alter
`what gets displayed to the user along the way. The Iida user does not
`experience a predetermined series of images that's needed, but rather images
`determined by the users' interaction with the display.
`Second, we learn that the interaction is with the display user interface.
`We saw a user select a two in the main menu of slide 9. The two does not
`have a fixed meaning throughout. Its meaning is a function of what is
`displayed in the user interface. Two on page 9 produces a display of photos.
`A two on page 10 produces a selection image featuring the second photo. A
`two on page 15, slide 15, declined for print request, and produces an "erase
`request" screen. The user's inputs to the system have a meaning due to the
`interface being displayed, and with which the user is engaging.
`And third, we understand that a POSITA would clearly understand
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`that these are example sketches that illustrate the flow of Iida's
`photographing system. They're not intended as actual screens, because those
`would have displayed real camera photos, and interfaces affected by the
`characteristics of the terminal and its particular display capabilities. So Iida
`discloses an interactive user interface, and user interaction with that
`interactive user interface.
`JUDGE HOWARD: If we adopted at least a part of Patent Owner's
`construction of required interface elements, has Petitioner argued that Iida
`discloses it under Patent Owner's construction; and if so, why?
`MR. ASHER: Yes. So even if you did include interface elements in
`your claim construction, Iida certainly discloses those interface elements.
`Number one, it discloses menus and the user called out specifically in the
`047 Patent as an interface element. Iida most definitely discloses menus,
`and the user engages with the menus to interact or determine what will
`appear next.
`The menus are engaged even more directly than interfaces such as the
`speedometer, which only provides information for the user. The menu
`provides more than information; it gives functional meaning to the various
`inputs such as the number two, as we went through the series of slides.
`I think it's important in reviewing this case that we have a fair
`understanding of what Iida discloses. In slide 17, let's just assume what Iida
`--
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Excuse me, Counsel?
`MR. ASHER: Yes.
`JUDGE McSHANE: For instance, Patent Owner makes the argument
`that Iida's -- the screen display is static, okay. So, for instance, if you look at
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`slide 9, for instance, okay, is that display -- excuse me -- a static display?
`MR. ASHER: That is a patent drawing, that's what that is. It's a
`patent drawing, sketch. Static does not appear anywhere, any place in the
`Iida patent, that's something that they conjured up. The Iida patent has to
`adapt itself to use with it any variety or number of terminals. We know that
`Iida explicitly says that its camera can interact with PDAs, mobile
`computers as well as cell phones.
`We also know that Iida's specifically states that included in the device
`may be a touchpad which is known to move cursors around the screen. And
`the PDAs are known to have touchscreens. The PDAs are known to have
`touchscreens as stated in the 047 Patent, and as illustrated in Exhibit 1034,
`page 73, which was referred to by Dr. Butler in his Exhibit 2099, paragraph
`136.
`
`Thus, Iida is not -- Iida is showing the flow of this photographing
`system for allowing someone to manage their photographs on a remote site.
`But made no attempt to illustrate exactly how it would look on an actual
`terminal. So, just as the teaching of Iida is not limited to stick-figure photos,
`it's by no means limited to use with terminals that rely on the 10-keys, that's
`another misconception that Patent Owners are providing. As Iida illustrates
`--
`
`JUDGE ROESEL: But Counsel, we're talking about anticipation here,
`right? So there has to be either an express or inherent disclosure of the claim
`element. So what, you know, Iida may suggest is really not an issue on your
`anticipation ground, right?
`MR. ASHER: In regards to interactive user interface you mean?
`JUDGE ROESEL: Yes.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`
`MR. ASHER: Well, I just went through those slides, they're
`completely interactive, and the meaning of any entry input by the user is
`depending on what is displayed on the screen, so what Iida discloses and
`presents is interactive user interfaces. The fact that Iida discloses
`touchscreens and PDAs perhaps -- you're right, it goes more to the Genske's
`obviousness argument, and we'll get to that eventually. But it also goes to
`the fact that Patent Owner is creating a misconception about what Iida would
`disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I think it's important that in
`understanding the prior art, what it teaches, we correct that misconception.
`For example, at slide 17, just as the teaching is not limited to stick-
`figure photos, it's by no means limited to relying on 10-keys. As Iida
`explicitly states on page 17, Iida paragraph 144, at the bottom of the slide,
`"The portable telephone is being used as an example. The present invention
`is not restricted to the portable telephone, and it is also possible to employ,
`for example, a PDA, a wearable computer, or a mobile computer as a
`portable terminal."
`The first input component of the terminal in the 047 Patent
`corresponds in Iida to, in the middle of the slide, an operating unit 64,
`comprising a 10-keys touchpad or the like. This sentence, this is the only
`mention of the potentially-available input units on the many variety of
`terminals that may be used with the disclosed photographing system, the
`Patent Owner has created the false impression that Iida only disclosed the
`use of the 10-keys, whereas that --
`JUDGE HOWARD: Where does Iida discuss how you would use, for
`example, the touchpad with the menus that are shown?
`MR. ASHER: Yeah. It doesn’t go into detail. When Iida says:
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`should input a number, and then other places in this patent, they input a
`scrolling instruction, it doesn’t go into detail about what that scrolling
`construction would be. Would it be an arrow press? Would it be a swipe on
`the touchscreens? Would it be some -- really that -- some number displayed,
`some coded-number or something displayed? It doesn’t say what scroll
`instruction would be, but one of ordinary skill in the art would know to make
`it all work with whatever terminal that they (crosstalk) --
`JUDGE HOWARD: But for anticipation isn't it beyond what
`someone -- we're not supposed to be looking at what someone skilled in the
`art would do, or know how to do. We're supposed to look at what the
`reference discloses. Either what's literally there or what's inherently there.
`So, what I'm looking for is something in the disclosure on how this thing
`would operate. Is there anywhere where it would be something besides just
`using the key numbers to get 1 and 2, for example 1 or 2 to move?
`MR. ASHER: Yes. There's a touchpad disclosed, and I don't think
`we need to disclose how many different ways there are to do it. The input
`device is a part of the claim, and that is outside by the disclosure of an
`operating unit 64, and that may be any of the 10-keys, the touchpad, or the
`like. So the operating unit 64 satisfies that aspect of the claim, the
`interactive user interface is satisfied as a (inaudible) of different sides. Both
`sides demonstrate that the different screens displayed on the Iida user's
`terminal are interactive.
`You see, the Patent Owner (inaudible) claim at first the key presses,
`but there's absolutely no mention of pressing a number key in Iida. Iida
`refers to inputting a number. A POSITA would understand that it's
`accomplished in different ways, by different input devices on different
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`terminals. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner's citation to Iida's single
`passing reference to a touchpad is of no moment.
`Well, then it must be equally true, as we point out at the top of page
`17, the Petitioner's citation, "The Iida's single passing reference to 10-keys is
`also of no moment. Iida discloses an input component. The touchpad is just
`as permanent in the Iida disclosure as 10-keys.
`So, now I can turn to the three program codes that are disclosed by
`Iida. The first program code causes an IUI to be presented. For example, at
`slide 20, on block 204 it says, "Display menu screen on display unit." All
`the code, all the Figure 4 -- all Figure 4 and Figure 5 flow charts in Iida are
`executed on the portable device, the camera. At block 204 the camera
`causes the display of a menu screen, specifically that main menu on the
`display unit. And the claim 1 goes on: wherein the IUI is configured to
`enable the user to cause the portable device processor to execute the
`program codes stored on the portable device memory.
`Now, Iida corresponds exactly to that claim where the user is making
`a selection at 206, 208 and the camera executes the code according to the
`selection, whether it be the code, code A, B and C, and each of A, B and C
`are shown separately in Figures 4B, 4C and 4D. Those are different
`program codes that will be executed on the camera.
`The second program code enables the portable device to number one,
`receive a communication resulting from user interaction with the IUI, and
`two, to cause a communication to be sent through the terminal network
`interface to a communications node.
`One example of this is on slide 18, it says, 4C of Iida. As seen at step
`234: the portable device is enabled to receive an instruction from the user
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`viewing the interactive user interface, showing a display of various photos.
`The second code continues with steps 242 to 246 in that same flow: access
`point determination and login processing perform the function of securing a
`communication line to the image server enabling the portable device to
`cause, in step 246, image data to be sent through the terminal to the image
`server which is a node on the internet.
`So without steps 242 and 244 the camera would not be connected to
`the image server, upon executing those steps, the user ID, and password of
`the camera have been accepted by the image server, and the image data has
`been able to be communicated to the image server. This satisfies the second
`program code.
`Addressing Patent Owner's argument, the fact that other things must
`happen to complete the communication link between the portable device and
`the image server does not dispel the fact that the code has been disclosed by
`Iida for enabling the communication. Of course the image server has to be
`powered on and connected to the network, and the image server needs to
`analyze, and recognize, and approve the user ID and password.
`Also, the terminal needs to have power and be connected to the
`network for communicating with the image server. Yes, these are the things
`that need to happen, but the claim recites the program code that takes a
`portable device from being unable to communicate with the network node,
`to being enabled to communicate with that network node, and Iida discloses
`doing just that.
`So that takes us to the third program code, which is executed by the
`portable device processor in response to a communication resulting from the
`user interaction with the interactive user interface, causes a communication
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`to be transmitted to the communication network node. And there were many
`examples of this in Iida.
`For example, going back to page 16, this is just one example, when a
`user interacts with the menu of choices to erase the image, the user's
`interaction will cause code to run in the camera at Figure 4D, which is slide
`21, step 278 has "Inquires the user about erasing data." Step 280 receives
`that interaction from the user to be erased, and if yes, they ask for it to be
`erased then instruct -- the camera instructs the image server to erase data so
`that it's the communication from the camera to the image server. That is
`slide 103 (phonetic) program codes. I don't believe there are any other
`issues in dispute. Rather, Iida anticipates the challenged independent claims.
`JUDGE ROESEL: Counsel, has Petitioner addressed the preliminary
`finding in the institution decision on page 79, that says that we're not
`sufficiently persuaded the user interacts with the menu on the display of the
`portable terminal and, instead at this junction it appears the user the user is
`interacting with the numeric keyboard, which is not part of the display. Did
`Petitioner address that in the reply?
`MR. ASHER: Did we address it in the reply? Oh. Yes, it was shown
`that there's an input device in the claim, and there's an input device that is
`required for any interaction between the user and the user interface, and that
`is true in the 047 Patent as it is true in Iida. In the 047 Patent whether you
`use a keyboard or a mouse to interact with the user interface, that that is how
`the interaction takes place. To say that one needs a touchscreen in order to
`interact directly with the screen with the display is not what the patent is
`about, and it's not how a proper interpretation of user interaction should
`result.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`
`The user is always going to be interacting through the input device,
`and the input device is not a part of the interactive user interface, the
`interactive user interface is something that is presented by the output device,
`the terminal output device which is, in most instances, described here, a
`monitor.
`JUDGE ROESEL: So is it Petitioner's position that the preliminary
`finding is incorrect?
`MR. ASHER: That's correct. That was a misconception that was not
`properly understood at the time of the institution decision.
`JUDGE ROESEL: And what underlies it in Petitioner's view, is an
`inco
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
