`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 24
`
` Entered: August 31, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: August 11, 2020
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KAMRAN JIVANI, and JOHN HAMANN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`DANIEL BLOCK, ESQUIRE
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`STEPHEN T. SCHREINER, ESQUIRE
`Carmichael IP, PLLC
`8000 Towers Crescent Drive
`13th Floor
`Tysons Corner, VA 22182
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, August
`11, 2020, commencing at 9:31 a.m., EDT, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, by video/by telephone, before Donna Jenkins, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` - - - - -
`
`
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: This is the consolidated hearing for
`
`IPR 2019-00823, 824, and 826. The hearing's been cons olidated
`
`but the cases remain separate. I'm Judge Hamann on the panel
`
`also are Judges Medley and Jivani. I'd like to begin by having
`
`the parties introduce themselves and I'd like to begin if
`
`Petitioner could please introduce who's on the line on its beh alf.
`
`
`
`MR. BLOCK: Good morning, Your Honors. This is Daniel
`
`10
`
`Block on behalf of Petitioner Apple from the law firm of Sterne,
`
`11
`
`Kessler, Goldstein & Fox. With me today is Michael Spec ht and
`
`12
`
`Steven Pappas also of Sterne Kessler.
`
`13
`
`
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you. A nd for Patent Owner, if
`
`14
`
`you could please introduce who's on the line for Patent Owner's
`
`15
`
`behalf. You may need to unmute yourself, Patent Owner.
`
`16
`
`
`
`MR. SCHREINER: Thank you, Your Honor. Good
`
`17
`
`morning, Your Honors. My name is Stephen Schreiner from
`
`18
`
`Carmichael IP hear on behalf of MPH Technologies OY and I'm
`
`19
`
`joined here by my colleague, Jim Carmichael.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. CARMICHAEL: Good morning, Your Honors.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Good morning. Thank you and good
`
`22
`
`morning to everyone. I'd also like to note there is a public aud io
`
`23
`
`line today so we welcome the folks that may be listening in on
`
`24
`
`that. To begin, a reminder we're obviously participating via
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`video conference and so when you begin speaking certainly if
`
`you're going to reference -- when you begin speak ing make
`
`certain that you're unmuted and if you could mute yourself when
`
`you're not speaking, that would be helpful. Also please try to
`
`endeavor to identify in the record if you're -- a specific cite if
`
`you're referring to something or certainly by slide number, if
`
`you're -- what slide if you're referring to a slide that'll make for
`
`a clear record and allow us to follow along more readily.
`
`
`
`The Hearing Order sets 90 minutes for arguments for each
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`side. That includes rebuttal and surrebuttal. Petitioner bears the
`
`11
`
`burden for unpatentability and so we're going to begin with
`
`12
`
`Petitioner and then Patent Owner will have an opportunity to
`
`13
`
`respond and then any rebuttal and surrebuttal. I'm going to ask
`
`14
`
`when each party begins their initial presentation, if how much
`
`15
`
`time they would like to reserve, if any, for rebuttal or
`
`16
`
`surrebuttal. So let's begin, again with Petitioner bearing the
`
`17
`
`burden. We’ll begin with Petitioner and Mr. Block, how much
`
`18
`
`time would you like to reserve for rebuttal?
`
`19
`
`
`
`MR. BLOCK: Thank you, Your Honor. I would like to
`
`20
`
`reserve 40 minutes for rebuttal.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Forty of your ninety?
`
`MR. BLOCK: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you, and we'll certainly
`
`24
`
`endeavor to give you a time warning when you're towards the
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`end but to the extent you can track your time yourself too, I
`
`think that would be helpful. With that, please proceed.
`
`
`
`MR. BLOCK: May it please the Board. As I mentioned
`
`earlier, my name is Daniel Block on behalf of Petitioner Apple.
`
`The Board should find unpatentable all of the c hallenged claims
`
`in the 494, 502, and 362 patents because they are rendered
`
`obvious by the combination of RFC3104 and Grabelsk y.
`
`The primary dispute between the parties here is whether or
`
`not RFC3104 discloses a mobile computer. But RFC3104
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`explicitly discloses a laptop which is used in a Roadwarrier
`
`11
`
`scenario. In other words, a situation where a laptop is travelling.
`
`12
`
`MPH tries to avoid this teaching by taking a shifting sands
`
`13
`
`approach with respect to the construction for a mobile computer
`
`14
`
`but the Board should reject all of MPH's constructions as they
`
`15
`
`are simply unsupported by the specification and contradicted by
`
`16
`
`the claims and, more importantly, even if the Board adopted
`
`17
`
`MPH's incorrect constructions the references still teach a mobile
`
`18
`
`computer, even under their constructions.
`
`19
`
`With respect to MPH's remaining arguments for the
`
`20
`
`dependent claims, MPH primarily relies on its improper
`
`21
`
`constructions for a mobile computer or raises hyper -technical
`
`22
`
`distinctions that are meaningless under an obviousness -type
`
`23
`
`challenge like we have here.
`
`24
`
`So with that, Your Honors, I would like to turn to slide 2 of
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`Petitioner's demonstratives and here I've set forth an agenda, and
`
`what I'll cover today is I'll first talk about the patents at issue,
`
`the challenged patents, and then we'll talk about how the
`
`combination renders the claims of those patents obvious and then
`
`we'll get into the primary dispute that I mentioned earlier about
`
`mobile computer, and then I'd like to cover a few other disputes
`
`as well; the 494 patent claim 4, 49 4 patent claim 9, 494 patent
`
`claim 11 and associated claims in any other patents, and so
`
`unless Your Honors have questions about some of the other
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`disputes that's what I'm planning on covering today in the
`
`11
`
`interests of time.
`
`12
`
`So turning to the patents at is sue, the challenged patents;
`
`13
`
`the 494, 502, and 362 patents and Petitioner's slide 3. On the
`
`14
`
`right hand side of slide 3 we have figure 2 and I think the
`
`15
`
`important thing to focus in on that figure are the three computers
`
`16
`
`that are listed on the top left. Th e first computer, the
`
`17
`
`intermediate computer , and the second computer. Host X isn't
`
`18
`
`relevant to the claims that are being challenged here, and what
`
`19
`
`the 494, 502, and 362 patents are talking about is that the first
`
`20
`
`computer is going to communicate with the second computer
`
`21
`
`using a secure communication and encrypted technology and it's
`
`22
`
`going to do that through the intermediate computer using the
`
`23
`
`intermediate computer as a proxy.
`
`24
`
`In other words, the first computer is going to send these
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`encrypted messages to th e intermediate computer and the
`
`intermediate computer is going to forward them to the second
`
`computer and visa-versa in the other direction. The second
`
`computer is going to send them to the intermediate computer,
`
`intermediate computer is going to forward them to the first
`
`computer, and the key, according to the challenged patents here,
`
`is the intermediate computer is going to be able to forward those
`
`messages without having to look at the encrypted messages. So
`
`it'll be able to figure out where to forward those messages
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`without having to decrypt -- to decrypt those messages which
`
`11
`
`makes the systems more secure.
`
`12
`
`So to understand how the system does that if we could just
`
`13
`
`turn to slide 4, which lays out independent claim 1 of the 494
`
`14
`
`patent which is an exemplary way that all the challenged patents
`
`15
`
`allegedly solve that problem, and it starts with step 1 on the left
`
`16
`
`hand side. The intermediate computer is going to connect
`
`17
`
`through a network and it's going to get assigned an address. The
`
`18
`
`intermediate computer is then going to receive a secure message
`
`19
`
`from the mobile computer in step 2. In step 3 the intermediate
`
`20
`
`computer is going to read as unique identities from the secure
`
`21
`
`message and the idea here is that you need that identity if it's not
`
`22
`
`encrypted but the rest of the message is. That's what our
`
`23
`
`intermediate computer can read that unique identity, and in step
`
`24
`
`4 using that unique identity the intermediate computer is going
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`to access it's translation table to figure out the correct
`
`destination to send the message and once it's figured out the
`
`correct destination, in step 5 it's going to forward that to that
`
`destination using an address of the intermediate computer.
`
`So that's how the patents work in a nutshell and if Your
`
`Honors -- unless Your Honors have any other questions about the
`
`challenged patents I would like to move on to the combinations
`
`of RFC3104 and Grabelsk y. So if we can --
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Just counsel, real quick. Obviously
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`you referred to I think slide 4 and claim 1 and then referred to
`
`11
`
`these elements as steps, but this is not a method claim, right?
`
`12
`
`MR. BLOCK: That's correct, Your Honor. We've broken
`
`13
`
`up the steps just to explain what's really going on here but that's
`
`14
`
`correct, Your Honor. If we turn to slide 5 --
`
`15
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: Mr. Blo ck, if I could just pause you for
`
`16
`
`just one more minute too, if you don't mind. It's Judge Jivani
`
`17
`
`and I would like to know just before we get into the substance
`
`18
`
`with regard to the 826 case for the 362 patent, I don't see a
`
`19
`
`position on whether we should add ress the disclaimed claims in
`
`20
`
`our final written decision in your papers. I see a statement that
`
`21
`
`if we do address them they ought to be found unpatentable but do
`
`22
`
`you have a position on whether we should address them?
`
`23
`
`MR. BLOCK: I think our position is tha t we do agree with
`
`24
`
`Patent Owner in that regard in that because they're disclaimed
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`there's nothing to really address. They're no longer in the patent.
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: Okay. Thank you. And then, Mr. Block,
`
`I do have one more question with regard to that ca se in
`
`particular, are you lead counsel in that case?
`
`MR. BLOCK: I'm -- I think Mr. Specht is lead counsel in
`
`all of the cases but I'm going to arguing all of them.
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: And is he on the line?
`
`MR. BLOCK: Yes, he is.
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: Great. Thank you. I missed his
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`appearance. I appreciate that.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`MR. BLOCK: Apologies on that if I didn't introduce him.
`
`
`
`(Pause, due to technical difficulties .)
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: So I believe we are ready to proceed
`
`14
`
`Mr. Block. You have used seven minutes, so you have forty
`
`15
`
`three minutes left.
`
`16
`
`MR. BLOCK: Okay. And I don't remember where I stood
`
`17
`
`with Judge Jivani. Was there another question, Your Honor?
`
`18
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: No, you answered all of them. Thank
`
`19
`
`you.
`
`20
`
`MR. BLOCK: Okay. Thank you. So getting back to slide
`
`21
`
`5, if we could turn to slide 5. So just briefly before I move on to
`
`22
`
`how RFC3104 and Grabelsk y applies to the claims, I just wanted
`
`23
`
`to quickly talk about the differences between the claims in this
`
`24
`
`case. Apple's position is that if Your Honors find the 494 p atent
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`claim 1 and the dependent claims unpatentable so too with all the
`
`other challenged claims with the other patents. Those would also
`
`be unpatentable because the analysis effectively is the same.
`
`There are some differences though. The 502 patent clai m is a
`
`little bit more -- it's written from the perspective of a mobile
`
`computer. It doesn't recite the translation table.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Mr. Block, let me just interrupt you if
`
`I could again. You were starting to get a little, I think clipping
`
`is the term that was used. Is -- is the court reporter able to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`follow along?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`(Pause, due to technical difficulties.)
`
`MR. BLOCK: So getting back to slide 5 again in the 502
`
`13
`
`patent claim 1, so again that's written from the perspective of the
`
`14
`
`mobile computer and it 's a little bit broader in that it doesn't
`
`15
`
`recite the translation table, 362 patent claim 1, as Judge Jivani
`
`16
`
`pointed out, that is one of the disclaimed claims. For that's not
`
`17
`
`at issue but the dependent claims still are but it's worth noting
`
`18
`
`that's the broadest in the sense that it doesn't recite the
`
`19
`
`translation table and it doesn't recite a mobile computer either.
`
`20
`
`So again, unless Your Honors have other questions about the
`
`21
`
`claims I would like to move on to slide 7 and the combination of
`
`22
`
`RFC3104 and Grabel sky.
`
`23
`
`Okay. So just like the challenged patents here, RFC3104
`
`24
`
`also recites the three computer set up. It recites an RSIP client,
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`an RSIP server which is the intermediate computer , and a host
`
`which is the mobile computer and there's been a lot of dispute
`
`about mobile computer, but just to explain why RFC3104
`
`discloses that there is a mobile computer there's two reasons.
`
`The first is that we're talking about the time frame of 2002 and a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`any of these clients here could have been a mobile computer like
`
`a (indiscernible) or a laptop, but also it's a mobile computer and
`
`RFC3104 explicitly discloses that, and if we turn to slide 8 we
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`can see why that is.
`
`11
`
`As I mentioned earlier, there's a Roadwarrior scenario that
`
`12
`
`is disclosed in RFC3104 and the Roadwarrior scenario discloses
`
`13
`
`that either the RSIP client or the non -RSIP client can be a
`
`14
`
`laptop, i.e., a mobile computer, so that's why RFC3104 explicitly
`
`15
`
`discloses a mobile computer and we'll get into the di spute of
`
`16
`
`mobile computer in a few minutes.
`
`17
`
`Turning to slide 9. This is sort of the meat of the RSIP --
`
`18
`
`of how RSIP operates and the way RSIP operates is the RSIP
`
`19
`
`client and the RSIP server are first going to negotiate some
`
`20
`
`parameters that the RSIP client is going to use. Three of those
`
`21
`
`parameters are listed below. They're the protocol, SPI , and
`
`22
`
`destination IP address. Those are also called demultiplexing
`
`23
`
`fields and after the RSIP client and RSIP server negotiate those
`
`24
`
`fields, it's going to create this t hing called a binding which is
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`stored on the RSIP server and that binding is what is ultimately
`
`used to figure out where to direct the messages and RSIP, and so
`
`RSIP works in both directions. That is the RSIP client can send
`
`messages to the host and the h ost can send messages to the
`
`client.
`
`Of most relevance for today's dispute is the direction from
`
`the host to the client but I'm going to talk about both because I
`
`do think it provides helpful context as to how RSIP operates. So
`
`going from the direction fr om RSIP client to the host, the way
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`RSIP works is the client when it wants to send a message to the
`
`11
`
`host is going to create a message, an IP Sec message. In that
`
`12
`
`message it's going to include a couple of those demultiplexing
`
`13
`
`field parameters and again, we' re on slide 9, and it's going to
`
`14
`
`include a few of those parameters and in particular with the
`
`15
`
`protocol and the SPI number, and then it's also in that packet
`
`16
`
`going to set the source as the intermediate computer and the
`
`17
`
`destination of the mobile computer. T hen what happens is using
`
`18
`
`RSIP, that packet is tunneled to the RSIP server. The RSIP
`
`19
`
`server then extracts the packet that the RSIP client created and
`
`20
`
`sends it off to the host. So that's how it works from X to Y.
`
`21
`
`Now as I mentioned earlier, Y to X is most relevant for this
`
`22
`
`case, and it's a little bit more complicated. So what happens in
`
`23
`
`the direction from Y to X is Y is going to send an IP Sec message
`
`24
`
`to the intermediate computer. The source of that message is
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`going to be Y. The destination IP address of that message is
`
`going to be the intermediate computer and one of those IP
`
`addresses, and when the intermediate computer receives that
`
`message it's going to look at that -- it's going to try to find the
`
`binding that we talked about earlier, and the way it does that is
`
`it's going to look at the protocol , SPI, and the destination IP
`
`address of the message the mobile computer sent to the
`
`intermediate computer and using that it's going to locate the
`
`appropriate binding and once it finds the binding it's going t o tell
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the intermediate computer what the IP address is that the
`
`11
`
`message needs to be forwarded on to. In this case it would be
`
`12
`
`the RSIP client X. So that's how the intermediate computer
`
`13
`
`knows how to appropriately forward messages from the direction
`
`14
`
`from Y to X, and it's also why --
`
`15
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: I'm sorry, Mr. Block, just real quick
`
`16
`
`and I think you touched on it earlier or just mentioned it but I
`
`17
`
`want to understand where in the record it's supported. Looking
`
`18
`
`on slide 9, and this is -- the figure that's shown is, I'm not sure
`
`19
`
`which figure this is, I'm sorry. It is --
`
`20
`
`MR. BLOCK: It is the primary figure from RFC3104, it's
`
`21
`
`that top one. I don't know if they have an actual figure for it but
`
`22
`
`--
`
`23
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: I think you have. It says here page 2
`
`24
`
`and obviously on your slide you annotated but, you know, there's
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`a host and a RSIP client are --
`
`MR. BLOCK: Uh-huh.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: -- two ends of the communication
`
`shown in the figure and you, here the host is annotated as the
`
`mobile computer. But my understandi ng is you stated that either
`
`the client or the host could be a mobile computer or not, and then
`
`either one. Let me rephrase this. The RSIP client could be a
`
`mobile computer, the host could be a mobile computer, either of
`
`them could be; is that correct?
`
`MR. BLOCK: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Where in the record is there support
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`for either the client or the host being the mobile computer?
`
`13
`
`MR. BLOCK: So if we turn to slide, I'm just trying to find
`
`14
`
`the right slide, if we turn to slide 19. He re we have a larger
`
`15
`
`excerpt from the Roadwarrior scenario which is page 16 of
`
`16
`
`RFC3104 and there's a few things that are worth noting about
`
`17
`
`this diagram and I do think that's part of the -- this is a different
`
`18
`
`diagram than the first diagram and it's importa nt to keep in mind
`
`19
`
`this is in some ways reversed from that top diagram because the
`
`20
`
`public internet is on the left hand side and the private internet is
`
`21
`
`on the right hand side. I just mentioned that just to keep in
`
`22
`
`mind, but most importantly at the bottom of this diagram it
`
`23
`
`explains that this scenario could also be reversed in order to
`
`24
`
`allow the internal system Y to initiate and establish an IPSec
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`session.
`
`So let's sort of play that out. In the standard scenario
`
`RSIP client X is noted to be a remote user with a laptop and so,
`
`that's in the standard scenario. If it's reversed, well then the
`
`RSIP client is the IPSec user's desktop and the non-RSIP client
`
`is the -- is what is now known as Y. So that would be still a
`
`laptop. So if we turn back to slide --
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Just -- while we're on, Mr. Block,
`
`while we're on slide 19 I believe the figure you were referring to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`is, at least here, the slide notes it's on page 16 of RFC3104; is
`
`11
`
`that right?
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`MR. BLOCK: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Thank y ou.
`
`MR. BLOCK: And so again, so what this reversal scenario
`
`15
`
`is talking about is how in that scenario the RSIP client X would
`
`16
`
`no longer be an RSIP client, it would be the non -RSIP client to
`
`17
`
`the IPSec peer Y's RSIP client. So if we took that teaching and
`
`18
`
`applied it back to the original figure in figure 7, that's how Y in
`
`19
`
`that figure, which is the non -RSIP client, would be a laptop.
`
`20
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: You say non -RSIP client, you mean
`
`21
`
`host in the context of these figures?
`
`22
`
`MR. BLOCK: Yes. In other words, in tha t figure on page
`
`23
`
`7, the host would be the non -RSIP client and X is the RSIP
`
`24
`
`client, and so when you look at the Roadwarrior scenario and
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`you're talking about the reversal of the Roadwarrior scenario the
`
`reversal of the Roadwarrior scenario is the laptop is effectively
`
`the host Y as it applies to the figure 7.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. You said figure 7 and referring
`
`to the figure on --
`
`MR. BLOCK: Page --
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: -- page 2 of the reference. Okay.
`
`Thank you, Mr. Block.
`
`MR. BLOCK: Yes. And I appreciate that's a little bit
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`confusing as we're going through both those figures so glad you
`
`11
`
`asked the question because I wanted to make sure I can be
`
`12
`
`clarifying that. If we -- just getting back to the RFC3104 and,
`
`13
`
`give me one moment.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: And also, Mr. Block, I think obviously
`
`15
`
`the discussion of references is helpful but obviously the
`
`16
`
`construction of mobile computer is something that's in dispute
`
`17
`
`and that may help further frame some of the discussion of the
`
`18
`
`references, so I'll note (indiscernible) --
`
`19
`
`20
`
`MR. BLOCK: Absolutely, yes.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: -- so to -- you want to focus on that
`
`21
`
`shortly, I think that would be helpful.
`
`22
`
`MR. BLOCK: Absolutely, Your Honor. So why don't we
`
`23
`
`get to that right now and if we could turn to slide 13, and we
`
`24
`
`have set forth on sli de 13 the construction set forth by both
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`parties for mobile computer and I think at the outset it's worth
`
`noting that Apple's position is that even if Your Honors were to
`
`adopt Patent Owner's construction as they set forth in the POR,
`
`the references still teach a mobile computer because they're still
`
`teaching a laptop that can move between networks in this
`
`Roadwarrior scenario. But we also think Patent Owner's
`
`construction is wrong and as we mentioned here, we think the
`
`proper construction is either plain and ordinary meaning or to the
`
`extent a construction is needed, it's a computer that's capable of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`moving between networks or physical locations.
`
`11
`
`Why is that? Well if we turn to slide 14 -- to slide 15, we
`
`12
`
`can see why that is. This is sort of the primary text of the
`
`13
`
`challenged patents I think both parties are disputing over and I'd
`
`14
`
`like to read that -- this text and give you our position on it which
`
`15
`
`is starting with the term mobility and mobile terminal does not
`
`16
`
`only mean physical mobility and I want to s top there. What does
`
`17
`
`that mean? Well that means that the term mobility and mobile
`
`18
`
`terminal does in fact mean physical mobility, and then it goes on
`
`19
`
`to say it also means in the first hand "moving from one network
`
`20
`
`to another can be performed by a physicall y fixed terminal as
`
`21
`
`well." So Apple's position here is that if you have a construction
`
`22
`
`that doesn't take into account this idea that physical mobility is
`
`23
`
`part of mobility, then that construction is presumptively
`
`24
`
`incorrect and that's one reason why all of Patent Owner's
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`constructions set forth in these proceedings are incorrect because
`
`they don't recognize the fact that physical mobility alone
`
`qualifies as mobility as this definition sets forth in the
`
`specification.
`
`Now I mentioned all of Patent Owner's con structions. If we
`
`turn back to slide 14, as I talked about earlier there's a shifting
`
`sands approach really going on with respect to claim
`
`construction here. In the Patent Owner preliminary response,
`
`Patent Owner said that it was a computer that's capabl e of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`moving. I mention that only because if you read Patent Owner's
`
`11
`
`Sur-reply they criticize Petitioner for this capability point, yet
`
`12
`
`their own construction in the POPR had the same capability point
`
`13
`
`inside of it and I also put forth Patent Owner's const ruction from
`
`14
`
`the Sur-reply because we think that's improper as well. I mean
`
`15
`
`for the first time in the SReply it does appear as if Patent Owner
`
`16
`
`has come up with a brand new construction that is substantively
`
`17
`
`different from the construction that they'v e set forth in the Patent
`
`18
`
`Owner Response and that was at a time where Petitioner doesn't
`
`19
`
`have the ability to respond to it. But as I mentioned, it's also
`
`20
`
`wrong because it doesn't include this physical mobility point.
`
`21
`
`There are some other reasons why all of the constructions
`
`22
`
`are wrong as well. If we turn to slide 16. Here we have claim 1
`
`23
`
`in the 502 patent. We've highlighted a portion of that claim
`
`24
`
`which we think is very relevant to this analysis. The claim
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`explains that the mobile computer that's being talked about in
`
`that claim is the mobile computer in that the address of the
`
`mobile computer changes. So how does that bode for the rest of
`
`these patents that don't have that limitation in it? Well that
`
`would imply that the mobile computer of those clai ms would be
`
`one that potentially the address doesn't change. In other words,
`
`it would be a mobile computer that has a static secure connection
`
`or a mobile computer that's potentially not moving between
`
`networks. So a construction for all three of these p atents that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`doesn't -- that only limits it to the possibility where the address
`
`11
`
`would change is presumptively incorrect from a differentiation
`
`12
`
`perspective.
`
`13
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: So Mr. Block, to make sure I'm
`
`14
`
`following this. So you're suggesting that a mobile co mputer, any
`
`15
`
`proper mobile computer construction should include the concept
`
`16
`
`that the mobile computer can physically move but not change
`
`17
`
`networks; is that correct?
`
`18
`
`MR. BLOCK: Where -- that's exactly right and let me just
`
`19
`
`clarify that. Let me clarify that p oint. So the construction
`
`20
`
`should include physical mobility without changing networks and
`
`21
`
`that's why that construction makes sense, for example, with
`
`22
`
`respect to this 502 patent because here basically what we're
`
`23
`
`saying if your construction is either physica l mobility or moving
`
`24
`
`between networks, the 502 patent limitation here is saying hey,
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`we're talking about the situation where it's the moving between
`
`networks, right? And so that's why the construction needs to be
`
`broader to include those scenarios so that would make sense with
`
`respect to the 502 patent.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Well, I mean -- this is Judge Hamann
`
`again -- so obviously if you're talking about physical mobility,
`
`you know, I think that suggests you're not talking a couple of
`
`feet, you're talking poten tially a significant distance and doesn't
`
`that at least suggest you're changing networks if you've moved
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`significant distance?
`
`11
`
`MR. BLOCK: It's certainly in some circumstances true but
`
`12
`
`I think it's worth noting, the Patent Owner also criticizes the
`
`13
`
`construction. They mention this handheld calculator example,
`
`14
`
`right, and it is worth noting that you have to put the mobile
`
`15
`
`computer in the context of the claims as well . So even if the
`
`16
`
`mobile computer would include this physical mobility it would
`
`17
`
`still need to operate with the rest of the limitations and the
`
`18
`
`claims, right, that include things like being able to connect to
`
`19
`
`networks and things like that. So I'm not sure that it -- I think
`
`20
`
`you could have physical mobility of just potentially a few feet
`
`21
`
`and it might still be a mobile computer. I'm not sure there's a
`
`22
`
`distance requirement in terms of the physical mobility but I think
`
`23
`
`it's also worth noting that there are other limitations in the
`
`24
`
`claims that would limit in what types of things to ultimately
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`qualify as a mobile computer when it's applied in the claims.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. And then just one more thing.
`
`In Petitioner's construction one of the things that's included is
`
`the capability, a computer that is capable and the dispute seems,
`
`at least part of th e dispute seems to be on whether a mobile
`
`computer needs to move or just has that capability. Obviously
`
`you cited to a portion of the 494 patent, I think it's column 4,
`
`lines 34 to 38. What else in the record supports that a mobile
`
`computer is a capabili ty as opposed to actually moving?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`MR. BLOCK: So we can turn -- we can stay on slide 16
`
`11
`
`that I have here in front of us because I do think this illustrates
`
`12
`
`why the claims support that construction as well. So before I get
`
`13
`
`into the claims though I think it 's worth noting, right? I have a
`
`14
`
`cell phone, right? It's on the desk here . It's still a mobile phone
`
`15
`
`whether it's moving or not, right? And I think the construction
`
`16
`
`for mobile computer need s to take into accou