Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 25
`Entered: July 9, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC.; AMC ENTERTAINMENT
`HOLDINGS, INC.; BOSTON MARKET CORPORATION; MOBO
`SYSTEMS, INC.; MCDONALD’S CORPORATION; MCDONALD’S
`USA; PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.; PANDA EXPRESS
`INC.;PAPA JOHN’S INTERNATIONAL, INC.; STAR PAPA LP; and
`PAPA JOHN’S USA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Tuesday, April 28, 2020
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 25
`Entered: July 9, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC.; AMC ENTERTAINMENT
`HOLDINGS, INC.; BOSTON MARKET CORPORATION; MOBO
`SYSTEMS, INC.; MCDONALD’S CORPORATION; MCDONALD’S
`USA; PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.; PANDA EXPRESS
`INC.;PAPA JOHN’S INTERNATIONAL, INC.; STAR PAPA LP; and
`PAPA JOHN’S USA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Tuesday, April 28, 2020
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`RICARDO BONILLA, ESQUIRE
`FISH & RICHARDSON, PC
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 S. Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`(214) 747-5070
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`TERRY L. WATT, PhD, ESQUIRE
`CROWE & DUNLEVY
`500 Kennedy Building
`321 Boston Avenue
`Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
`(918) 592-9874
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, April 28,
`2020, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` JUDGE KENNY: This is Judge Kenny. With
`
` me today are Judge Wormmeester and Judge McShane.
`
` Our court reporter is also on the line.
`
` We're here for the oral hearing in IPR2019-0610.
`
` Today's hearing is being conducted by video.
`
` Counsel for petitioner, will you make your
`
` appearances.
`
` MR. BONILLA: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`
` This is Ricardo Bonilla, on behalf of the
`
` petitioners.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Is anyone else going to be
`
` joining you on today's call, today's conference?
`
` MR. BONILLA: There are several folks who
`
` have called in that are either counsel for
`
` co-petitioners or representing our clients, my
`
` clients, but I'll be the only one speaking on
`
` behalf of the petitioners.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Okay. And patent owner's
`
` counsel, can you make your appearance.
`
` MR. WATT: Yes, Your Honors. This is
`
` Terry Watt, W-a-t-t, for Fall Line. And no one
`
` else will be joining. It's just me.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: All right. A few logistical
`
` items before we start.
`
` We'll have -- both parties will be given
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` one hour for the argument. We may take some short
`
` breaks between various portions of the argument.
`
` We will have the parties file the demonstratives
`
` that they have provided to us. But what needs to
`
` be added to the demonstratives is the notations
`
` set forth in the oral hearing in the order in the
`
` order for the oral argument and about them being
`
` not merely demonstratives and not for evidence --
`
` exact phrase, you can find on page four of the
`
` order. So put that on -- you know, add that to
`
` the demonstrative exhibits, each slide, and then
`
` file it, you know, within a week.
`
` So, and then for today's hearing, because
`
` it is by video, please identify yourself before
`
` you start speaking. And, please, place yourself
`
` on mute if you're not speaking. When you refer to
`
` a demonstrative or an exhibit, be sure to
`
` expressly identify it and particularly the page or
`
` line, slide that you're referring to.
`
` All right. The petitioner, how much time
`
` would you like for rebuttal, to reserve for
`
` rebuttal?
`
` MR. BONILLA: I'd like to reserve
`
` 15 minutes for rebuttal.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Okay. Are there any
`
` questions at the outset, or are both of you ready
`
` to proceed?
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` MR. WATT: Ready to proceed.
`
` MR. BONILLA: Ready to proceed, Your
`
` Honor.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Okay. So petitioner, why
`
` don't you start.
`
` MR. BONILLA: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` May it please the Board, Ricardo Bonilla,
`
` on behalf of the petitioners.
`
` I want to start by -- I'm going to refer
`
` to the slides of the demonstratives that we
`
` e-mailed last week, and I'll refer to them by
`
` slide number. I do intend to at least touch on
`
` each of the slides and in the order that they are
`
` in.
`
` Certainly if you have any questions or you
`
` want to address some other portion of the
`
` presentation, I'm happy to do so.
`
` Now, this petition is directed to the
`
` challenged claims of patent '748, '748 patent.
`
` The '748 patent essentially is directed to a
`
` method that allows a questionnaire to be created,
`
` to be tokenized, that is to make the questions and
`
` the questionnaire device-independent tokens. That
`
` questionnaire is then sent in tokenized form over
`
` a server to a new device where those questions are
`
` answered on the device, and then those answers are
`
` sent back over to the server.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` Before I get into the prior references
`
` upon which we are relying and the grounds in the
`
` petition, I do want to address some crucial
`
` distinctions that have become important based on
`
` the parties' briefing, so I'm referring here to
`
` petitioner's slide number two.
`
` Specifically, the discussion from the
`
` patent owner that java as it existed in 2002, the
`
` priority dates of the challenged claims would not
`
` have been capable of practicing -- a person of
`
` ordinary skill in the art would not have been able
`
` to use java to practice these claims.
`
` And the distinction that I want to draw
`
` here is that petitioners are not relying solely on
`
` Java as an invalidating reference. What the
`
` petitioner relies on is use of an object-oriented
`
` programming language, and Java is an example of
`
` that. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
` have been aware of in 2002, but it is not the only
`
` object-oriented programming language that would
`
` have been available in 2002.
`
` For example, here on slide two, I have an
`
` excerpt from the petitioner's reply at page six
`
` which is quoting Barbosa, one of our primary
`
` references, discussing object-oriented program
`
` languages such as Java, Smalltalk, or C++. And
`
` there are others, such as COBOL, that folks would
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` have been aware of in 2002. So we are using Java
`
` as an example, but it is not the only
`
` object-oriented programming language that was
`
` available at the time.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Let me ask you, in the
`
` petition, did you identify any other languages,
`
` any other object-oriented languages other than
`
` Java?
`
` MR. BONILLA: So Barbosa does refer to
`
` Java, Smalltalk, and C++. We focused on Java, and
`
` that's specifically because the secondary
`
` references such as Bandera discuss Java, and Java
`
` would have been probably the most ubiquitous and
`
` well-known of the programming languages that could
`
` be used at the time, and so that's why I want to
`
` refer here on slide three the claims require these
`
` tokens to be device-independent or
`
` platform-neutral.
`
` And specifically on slide three, we're
`
` quoting -- I'm showing Mr. Roman's declaration
`
` where he quotes Bandera. And in Bandera, it
`
` discusses how Java was a portable and
`
` architecturally neutral language, and its source
`
` code could be compiled in a machine-independent
`
` format. So Java certainly is the best example.
`
` It's what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
` would have been aware of, and it is what we focus
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` on the most in the petition, but it's not the only
`
` programming language that a person of ordinary
`
` skill in the art could have used --
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Okay. What evidence did you
`
` put in with your petition that Smalltalk or C++
`
` would have been capable of handling the involved
`
` processes with mobile devices?
`
` MR. BONILLA: The only evidence to that
`
` point, Your Honor, is from Barbosa, noting that
`
` this -- that Barbosa was meant to be implemented
`
` using object-oriented programming language, and
`
` that that could have been Smalltalk or C++. But
`
` other than that, most of the evidence is directed
`
` to --
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Okay.
`
` MR. BONILLA: Moving to slide four, I do
`
` want to address one procedural point. There are
`
` some arguments from the patent owner in sur-reply
`
` that there are objectionable exhibits. However,
`
` that order did not serve or file any objections
`
` and did not file a motion to exclude, so we do
`
` think the Board should consider all the evidence
`
` submitted.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Well, let me ask you about
`
` those. I think it's Exhibits 1019 through 1021.
`
` It appears that you're relying on them basically
`
` for hearsay purposes; the documents come later --
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` or published later than the date for which they
`
` were -- you know, for which you're relying on the
`
` evidence of an event occurring.
`
` Why is it not inadmissible hearsay,
`
` putting aside the question of waiver for the
`
` moment?
`
` MR. BONILLA: So putting aside the
`
` question of waiver, Your Honors, if you can turn
`
` to slide 18 in the petitioner's slide, I address
`
` these particular exhibits, and one of them is
`
` JSR-179, which was a paper discussing the Java
`
` application programming interface, or API 2002.
`
` I want to stress that we're not relying on
`
` these exhibits as invalidating them. We're using
`
` them to explain that a person of ordinary skill in
`
` the art would have known in 2002 or around that
`
` time. Now --
`
` JUDGE KENNY: This document -- but this
`
` document wasn't published in March 2002, right?
`
` MR. BONILLA: That's correct, Judge.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: And you're relying on it for
`
` the fact that it was available as of March 2002.
`
` And I'm just asking, assuming we put aside
`
` the waiver issue, you know, this appears to be
`
` hearsay. The question is, is it inadmissible
`
` hearsay? Why would this be -- why would we be
`
` allowed to rely on this?
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` MR. BONILLA: You'd be allowed to rely on
`
` this, Your Honor, because our expert relies on it.
`
` Our experts are allowed to rely on hearsay
`
` evidence. And because we're not relying on these
`
` references in particular, what we want to use them
`
` is to show what Mr. Roman explained in his
`
` declaration, which is that in the 2002 time frame
`
` a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
` had this knowledge because one of the things that
`
` patent owner says is the Java applets were not
`
` available in the environment in 2002. And yet
`
` contemporaneously with the priority date for the
`
` challenged claims, Java applets actually were in
`
` use in those environments, and they were in use,
`
` for example, to collect GPS information, which is
`
` one of the limitations that are at issue here.
`
` So although the Board may consider the
`
` exhibit itself to be hearsay, the expert's
`
` declaration, what he relies on this information,
`
` combined with his knowledge of the state of the
`
` art at the time is admissible for the Board to
`
` consider and does support petitioner's point on
`
` those --
`
` JUDGE KENNY: And you're saying these
`
` documents, Exhibits 1019, 1020, and 1021, are the
`
` type of documents that an expert in this field
`
` would rely on in their ordinary course of
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` business?
`
` MR. BONILLA: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Okay.
`
` MR. BONILLA: So I'm going to just briefly
`
` reference the prior references upon which we are
`
` relying. So I'm looking at slide six from the
`
` petitioner's slide deck. This prior art reference
`
` is Barbosa. It is the primary reference for
`
` grounds one, two, and three, and it relates to
`
` systems for conducting field assessments.
`
` Essentially what it is is for somebody who needs
`
` to make assessments in the field. Think of, for
`
` example, a real estate agent who is sending a
`
` fieldworker out to make an appraisal of some real
`
` estate, that individual would be guided to the
`
` location where they need to go via GPS; they would
`
` have the questions they need to address in their
`
` appraisal on their device; and they would be able
`
` to submit answers on their device to then be sent
`
` back to the real estate agent at the central
`
` office. That's Barbosa.
`
` On slide seven, we have Hancock. Hancock
`
` is another primary reference for grounds four,
`
` five, and six. And it is directed to an
`
` Internet-based geographic location-referencing
`
` system. It is disclosing a system by which a user
`
` could be mobile, could be portable, and get
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` information tailored to them based on their
`
` location, based on the location of their device.
`
` So someone could be sitting in their car or street
`
` corner wanting to look up restaurants and their
`
` device would automatically send them the
`
` restaurants that are in the area. That's the
`
` device of Hancock.
`
` Moving on to slide eight, Bandera.
`
` Bandera, secondary reference, it was directed to
`
` the use of advertising objects to be displayed to
`
` a user based on their location or based on time of
`
` day. So similar to Hancock, we're talking about
`
` providing tailored information to users.
`
` And then finally on slide nine, I have the
`
` reference Falls, which is directed to systems
`
` and methods for facilitating distributed
`
` computing. And we relied on that in grounds four,
`
` five, and six.
`
` So I want to start with grounds one and
`
` two. Grounds one and two are Barbosa alone. On
`
` the 103 grounds, Barbosa and Bandera together
`
` under 103 grounds.
`
` And on slide 11 in the petitioner's slide
`
` deck, I have put up the five main arguments the
`
` patent owner makes in response to each ground.
`
` First, that Barbosa does not contemplate
`
` Java for handheld devices; second, that Java in
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` 2002 could not be both device-independent and used
`
` to acquire GPS information from an external
`
` source; third, that Java applets were not
`
` available in the J2ME environment in 2002; fourth,
`
` the combination of Barbosa and Bandera is
`
` inoperable; and fifth, that the prior art does not
`
` describe specific Java code for the tokenized
`
` questionnaire.
`
` So I'm going to go through each of these
`
` arguments in turn. The first, I'm looking at
`
` slide 12 here in the petitioner's slide deck,
`
` patent owner states that Barbosa does not
`
` contemplate Java for handheld device. This is
`
` simply incorrect.
`
` If we look here on slide 12, I have figure
`
` six from Barbosa which shows two handheld devices.
`
` They are annotated as 10 and 10’
`
` And below that, the excerpt from Barbosa that
`
` describes this figure that says figure six is an
`
` illustration of a basic operational environment
`
` for the handheld device.
`
` The point of Barbosa is for field
`
` assessors to be able to go out into the field with
`
` their handheld devices and access the information
`
` they need for the assessments. The entire point
`
` was to use handheld devices.
`
` So if we continue on to slide 13, in slide
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` 13, now patent owner is saying that Barbosa does
`
` not contemplate Java or handheld devices, and yet
`
` the excerpt on slide 13 from Barbosa says that the
`
` assessors are equipped with handheld devices and
`
` that the template that's sent to the handheld
`
` device can be operated in combination with
`
` programs that are either resident on the handheld
`
` computer or maybe accompanied by a computer
`
` program transmitted from the server, for example,
`
` in the form of a Java applet. So Barbosa
`
` explicitly discloses the use of Java in the
`
` handheld device environment.
`
` Additionally, turning to slide 14 in
`
` ground two, we're relying on Barbosa and Bandera.
`
` Bandera also gives (inaudible) Java applets in the
`
` mobile context. The first excerpt on slide 14 is
`
` from Bandera and says referring to page six, a
`
` Java applet running (inaudible) -- that is Java on
`
` a mobile -- it's Java in a handheld device.
`
` Further, petitioners pointed to the Green
`
` Project demonstration video on YouTube from 1992
`
` showing Java was originally written for use with
`
` handheld devices. And we have Mr. Roman's
`
` declaration in which he states that Java was
`
` originally written for use with handheld devices
`
` and was done so as early as 1992, just ten years
`
` prior to the priority date of the challenged
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` claims.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Counsel, why didn't you make
`
` that Green Project demonstration video an exhibit?
`
` MR. BONILLA: Because really the only
`
` reason we wanted to use the Green Project
`
` demonstration video was to show that it was
`
` being -- was contemplated for use on a handheld
`
` device as Java was and that it actually was used
`
` back then. We relied more on Mr. Roman's
`
` declaration considering his considerable
`
` experience and his own personal experience with
`
` the handheld devices and use of Java on them in
`
` the early '90s as opposed to the video itself.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Well, you're using it to
`
` support his testimony. And for all we know, this
`
` could get deleted on YouTube tomorrow, so that's
`
` why I'm asking, you know, why you didn't submit it
`
` as an exhibit so the record would be preserved.
`
` MR. BONILLA: Your Honor, I -- we could
`
` submit it if you'd like to after this hearing. We
`
` can download it and have it submitted as an
`
` exhibit. But really the most important point to
`
` take away from this exhibit and the information
`
` that it contains is Mr. Roman's declaration where
`
` he explains that Java was contemplated for use in
`
` handheld devices ten years prior to the priority
`
` date of the challenged claims.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Okay. And he explains why
`
` it would be reliable to rely on this particular
`
` video?
`
` MR. BONILLA: Yes. If you look at his
`
` declaration -- so I'm showing paragraph 12 from
`
` his reply declaration, if you look at that, he
`
` explains that this is consistent with his
`
` experience with Java in the early '90s.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Okay. He doesn't vouch for
`
` who the Green Project is or how this -- in other
`
` words, how do we know it's just not a random
`
` YouTube video that someone just made? In other
`
` words, is this the kind of thing an expert in his
`
` field would rely upon?
`
` MR. BONILLA: So he does not vouch for the
`
` Green Project video itself, but the Green Project
`
` video includes one of the earlier developers of
`
` Java, and it would have been something that a
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
` looked to considering this is the individual who
`
` came up with Java and the benefits from using it
`
` for handheld devices.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Okay.
`
` MR. BONILLA: So that's point one. Patent
`
` order says Barbosa does not contemplate Java for
`
` handheld devices, and that's incorrect.
`
` JUDGE MCSHANE: Mr. Bonilla, this is Judge
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` McShane. Just a question.
`
` Now, here, you know, petitioner's position
`
` appears to be that, you know, Java was
`
` contemplated in this reference and it's going to
`
` be used for the handheld devices, but then earlier
`
` on I was hearing that petitioner is not relying
`
` just on Java alone for the teachings related to
`
` the claims, that there's other object-oriented
`
` software.
`
` So let me ask you this: What is
`
` petitioner's position as to -- you know, let's
`
` look at this tokenized questionnaire. What is
`
` petitioner's position? Is the program that's
`
` being used for this tokenized questionnaire -- is
`
` it Java programmed or is it just any
`
` object-oriented program?
`
` MR. BONILLA: So for the use of the
`
` tokenized questionnaire, a person of ordinary
`
` skill in the art with the references before them
`
` would be compelled, would be able to use any
`
` object-oriented programming language that is also
`
` machine independent to create the tokenized
`
` questionnaire.
`
` Now, the example, the one that it was most
`
` prevalent at the time and that is the focus of the
`
` petition and the references themselves is Java.
`
` But the point of these references is what
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` these references would teach or suggest to a
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art. And in this
`
` case, that would be the use of Java or any
`
` object-oriented programming language that was
`
` machine independent for the tokenized
`
` questionnaire.
`
` So it can't just be any object-oriented
`
` programming language because you still have to
`
` have that device indifference, which is how claim
`
` one refers to the token, device-indifferent
`
` tokens. But as long as you got that, the person
`
` of ordinary skill in the art would be able to
`
` create and practice the claims.
`
` Judge MCSHANE: Thank you for the
`
` clarification.
`
` MR. BONILLA: So turning to slide 15, this
`
` is patent owner's second argument against the
`
` first two grounds, specifically that 2002 Java
`
` could not be device-independent and obtained GPS
`
` information. Again, that's incorrect.
`
` If we look on slide 15, the excerpt from
`
` Bandera specifically discusses the use of a Java
`
` applet running within a mobile web client and
`
` configured to communicate with a GPS. Bandera was
`
` filed in 1999 and issued in 2001, both dates prior
`
` to the 2002 priority date of the challenged
`
` claims.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` Further, this Board in its Institution
`
` decision at page 27 pointed out correctly that the
`
` claims do not require that a program obtain
`
` information from the GPS receiver in a
`
` device-independent manner. Instead, it requires
`
` the tokens in the questionnaire be device
`
` independent.
`
` So patent owner saying that everything has
`
` to be device independent, that's not what the
`
` claims require. And then even further, the
`
` argument from the patent owner appears to be
`
` illogical. It would make the purported invention
`
` inoperable.
`
` What they are saying is that the use of
`
` Java in 2002 were to get information from an
`
` external source, irrespective of what Bandera
`
` already disclosed in 1999, that that use would
`
` require a native function. And using a native
`
` function in 2000 would preclude device
`
` independence. That's only true because using
`
` native function ties that particular function to
`
` the external source that it's programmed for. So
`
` I liken this to, for example, a device that can
`
` make keys. A device that can make keys can make
`
` keys to open any kind of door. But once you've
`
` made a key, that key will only open certain doors.
`
` That does not make the key-making device at that
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` point inoperable for making keys to open other
`
` doors. It's just that that particular key on this
`
` analogy, the native function is tied to that
`
` particular external source.
`
` Further, here on slide 16 of petitioner's
`
` slide deck, the patent owner makes the argument
`
` that the OIS, the operating instruction system, of
`
` the patent is a layer that sits above the
`
` operating system and connects the operating system
`
` with various external sourcing.
`
` The OIS is not claimed in the challenged
`
` claims. Indeed, if we look here on slide 17, the
`
` only claim during the prosecution of this patent
`
` that included a reference to OIS is claim nine.
`
` Claim nine was canceled. So it is not in any of
`
` the claims that are in the patent and certainly
`
` not in any of the challenged claims.
`
` The third point from the patent owner --
`
` I'm looking now at slide 18 -- is that the Java
`
` applets were not available in 2002 environment for
`
` Java. Actually, I'll skip slide 18 because I've
`
` addressed briefly that a moment ago. Instead,
`
` I'll go --
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Actually, let's go to
`
` slide 18 for a moment.
`
` Now, I take it you're citing this that
`
` somebody as of March 2002 could have, you know,
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` used Java applets; is that right?
`
` MR. BONILLA: Correct, Your Honor, and use
`
` Java applets to connect to GPS external sources.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Okay. But this Java
`
` application programming interface began in --
`
` well, at least as early as March 2002. Doesn't
`
` mean it was available at that time, right?
`
` MR. BONILLA: That's true.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: So why does that show that
`
` one could have used, you know, the application
`
` programming interface in March 2002?
`
` MR. BONILLA: Well, it shows it for two
`
` reasons. The first is that this paper showing the
`
` work being done in March 2002 is contemporaneous
`
` with the priority date of the challenged claims
`
` and shows people of ordinary skill in the art
`
` actually applying Java applets within the
`
` environment to act as GPS information.
`
` The second --
`
` JUDGE KENNY: Go ahead.
`
` MR. BONILLA: I'm sorry. The second is
`
` the next slide, on slide 19, is Bandera.
`
` Now, Bandera --
`
` JUDGE KENNY: But let's go back. Let's
`
` stick to the one exhibit.
`
` So in other words, this just says the work
`
` began in March 2002. It doesn't say what -- you
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` know, it's just literally the beginning. How do
`
` we know the work began then these application --
`
` these APIs were available at that time?
`
` MR. BONILLA: So I think the question
`
` here, Your Honor, is what these references would
`
` have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in
`
` the art, and then based on the environment what a
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
` been capable of doing. I know we'll get to
`
` Bandera in a moment. But based on references like
`
` that, the use of Java applets connect to GPS
`
` information was in the public knowledge, was in
`
` the knowledge of person of ordinary skill in the
`
` art. And in the case --
`
` JUDGE KENNY: But if that was the case,
`
` why were they working on this then in March
`
` of 2002 if they were already available?
`
` MR. BONILLA: Because in this particular
`
` API for connecting to GPS information was one
`
` designed for this particular environment of this
`
` H2ME. But just the use of Java applets to connect
`
` to GPS, which is what a person of ordinary skill
`
` in the art would have known about, that was known
`
` at least three years prior, and we know that from
`
` Bandera.
`
` JUDGE KENNY: This exhibit itself doesn't
`
` prove that the APIs were available in March 2002?
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` You're saying Bandera -- let me get it right.
`
` In other words, this doesn't seem to prove
`
` that the relevant APIs were available in
`
` March 2002?
`
` MR. BONILLA: No, not -- yeah, not on --
`
` this is an example of a specific implementation
`
` that was occurring at the time. But really we
`
` want to focus on Bandera because in Bandera -- and
`
` this is on slide 19 -- explicitly discloses the
`
` use of a Java applet running within a mobile web
`
` client, configured to communicate with the GPS.
`
` So the use of Java applets communicating with GPSs
`
` was in existence at this time.
`
` Quickly on the other three points from the
`
` patent owner Barbosa, they say that Barbosa and
`
` Bandera are inoperable when put together, and so
`
` on slide 20 of the petitioner's slide deck we have
`
` case law and the petitioner's rely excerpt
`
` (inaudible) that it's not necessary for the
`
` teachings to be literally combinable. The
`
` question is, what do the teachings suggest to a
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
` But a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
` clearly as explicit as the references from
`
` Bandera, would be able to use Java and its applets
`
` to practice the claimed limitations.
`
` And the last point on these two grounds,
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
` Your Honor, patent owner -- I'm looking at slide
`
` 21 now of the petitioner's slide deck. Patent
`
` owner states that there is no disclosure of a
`
` specific Java code for the tokenized
`
` questionnaire. I want to break that down for a
`
` moment.
`
` The claims don't require specific code.
`
` The claims require only these tokens. And the
`
` Board in its Institution decision on page 16
`
` construe token as a distinguishable unit of a
`
` program, such as
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
