Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: June 18, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`VIMEO, INC. and IAC/INTERACTIVECORP,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Thursday, June 4, 2020
`
`
`
`Before JESSICA C. KAISER, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: June 18, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`VIMEO, INC. and IAC/INTERACTIVECORP,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Thursday, June 4, 2020
`
`
`
`Before JESSICA C. KAISER, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ROBERT L. HAILS, JR., ESQUIRE
`T. CY WALKER, ESQUIRE
`BAKER HOSTETLER LLC
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT FOR PETITIONER:
`
`ED FERGUSON
`JOHN FOGELMAN
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JEFFREY P. ARMSTRONG, ESQUIRE
`DANIEL A. BOEHNEN, ESQUIRE
`MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF, LLP
`300 S. Wacker Drive
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`DR. JANE TATESON
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, June 4,
`2020, commencing at 11:00 a.m. MT, by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Hello. This is Judge
`Raevsky. Welcome to the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board.
` MR. HAILS: Good afternoon.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: We're here today for oral
`arguments in inter partes review number
`2019-00833, the case in which Vimeo and
`IAC/Interactivecorp are the petitioners and
`British Telecommunications is the patent owner.
`At issue is U.S. Patent Number 7,974,200.
` The panel for the hearing today includes
`myself, Judge Kaiser, and Judge Ullagaddi.
` I'd like to start by getting appearances
`of counsel. Who do we have on behalf of
`petitioner?
` MR. HAILS: Good afternoon. This is Bob
`Hails representing petitioner. I'm joined by Cy
`Walker, our co-counsel. He's on the holding line.
`We also have two client representatives I wanted
`to introduce, Mr. Ed Ferguson from IAC and John
`Fogelman from Vimeo.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you, Mr. Hails.
` And who do we have on behalf of patent
`owner?
` MR. ARMSTRONG: On behalf of the patent --
`
`
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`Excuse me. Good afternoon. On behalf of the
`patent owner, there's Jeff Armstrong from
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff. With me is
`my partner Daniel Boehnen. On the listen-only
`line, I believe that a representative from BT,
`Dr. Jane Tateson, is also listening in.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.
` Thank you all for joining us. I've got a
`few administrative details I'd like to go over
`before we get started. First of all, thank you
`all for your patience with our IT system as we do
`this hearing telephonically rather than by video.
`We've had some IT issues this week, so we just
`wanted to make sure everything went smoothly and
`skipped the video.
` On that note, if at any time during the
`hearing you encounter technical difficulties that
`you feel would undermine your ability to
`adequately represent your client, please let us
`know immediately by contacting the two members who
`provided you with connection information.
` Also, when you're not speaking, please
`kindly mute yourself. And, also, identify
`yourself each time you speak for the benefit of
`the court reporter. Please also stay on the line
`at the end of the hearing so the court reporter
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`can ask any questions for clarification.
` When you're referring to a demonstrative
`slide, please tell us the slide number so we can
`follow along. And, finally, please be aware that
`members of the public may be listening to this
`hearing in addition to those you mentioned.
` Each party will have 30 minutes to argue
`its case. We're going to hear from petitioner
`first and then from patent owner.
` Petitioner, would you like to reserve any
`time for rebuttal today?
` MR. HAILS: Yes, please. Let's say seven
`minutes for rebuttal.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Okay. Seven minutes is
`fine. Mr. Hails, you have 23 minutes for your
`primary case. When you're ready, you may begin.
` MR. HAILS: Thank you. Okay. Maybe we
`should set the stage a little bit and just kind of
`walk through where we are.
` As you've seen in briefing, our petition
`proposed two grounds of invalidity. We call them
`grounds one and two. The board accepted all
`proposed invalidity challenge with one exception,
`and that was claim 4.
` So, our presentation today is going to
`really be organized into these two buckets, 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`ones for which, let's say, the board accepted
`review and then claim 4 for which there's the
`hang-up.
` The -- in briefing, there's separate
`patentability arguments for the ground two claims.
`So, all claims, with the exception of claim 4,
`sort of rise and fall together.
` I'm happy to walk through our presentation
`materials, but I wanted to ask at the outset if
`there are any questions from the board that you
`would like to have us address before going into
`the basic structure of our argument.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Please proceed, and we'll
`jump in with questions when we're ready. Thank
`you.
` MR. HAILS: Happy to, yeah. Okay. So,
`maybe it makes sense to start at slide 13 of our
`demonstratives. This is the first supplement
`slide dealing with claim 1 and its accompanying
`claims.
` In this slide, we've just laid out the
`text of claim 1 and kind of given a brief recap of
`where we are in briefing. These claims were
`challenged over the three prior art references,
`Lippman and Chou and Muroi. We're now setting
`aside the ground to additional prior art for
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`discussion here. And these are the claims for
`which the board accepted review.
` BT's argument here is that there is no
`motivation to combine the teachings of the
`references. And we will go through that in depth.
` Maybe it makes sense to point out at the
`outset, however, that there's no claim
`construction dispute before the board. There's no
`dispute over the level of skill. There's been no
`secondary considerations evidence presented to the
`board. And -- and there really is no argument
`that if -- if the references were considered in
`the way that petitioners propose, that it fails
`somehow to meet the elements of these claims for
`which a review was accepted.
` Really what BT is arguing is that the
`references that are being proposed to combine are
`so different from each other that there's no
`motivation to combine. And we think that's wrong
`and invite you to reject that argument.
` So, motivation is really the topic of the
`day, I think, on these first sets of claims.
` Let's move to slide 14, if we can. These
`are just excerpts from KSR from briefing. The
`most pertinent one for the first set of claims is
`the second excerpt. I -- you've heard it probably
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`in a million IPRs already. "If a technique has
`been used to improve one device, and a person of
`ordinary skill would recognize that it would
`improve similar devices in the same way," so, for
`example, if Chou improves his device and it would
`improve Lippman's device in the same way, then
`using that technique is obvious unless its actual
`application is beyond the level of skill in the
`art.
` So, there's no allegation or argument that
`it would be beyond the level of skill to apply
`Chou teachings to Lippman, for example, or that it
`would be beyond the level of skill to apply
`Muroi's teachings to Lippman.
` On slide 15, we have some discussion of
`the teachings that drive our obviousness
`challenge. Chou has a very clear teaching that
`start-up delays of 2 to 10 seconds are annoying
`and intolerable.
` In video streaming, what happens is when
`a -- when a device sends video to a player device
`or to a client device, that client device does not
`start decoding immediately. What happens is the
`data that is received is put into a buffer -- this
`is in the common case -- and decoding is delayed
`until that buffer reaches, for lack of a better
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`word, a critical mass.
` And so that the delay that occurs is the
`buffer fill-in time, and Chou is identifying these
`kinds of delays of this magnitude, 2 to 10
`seconds, as annoying and intolerable.
` If you're a worker of skill in the art and
`you see that, and you also see Lippman's
`disclosure that says, "I have buffer times of
`1.5 -- 1.7 to 5.8 seconds," of course you're going
`to be very interested in the teachings of Chou for
`an application like Lippman.
` If we can move to slide 16, we have a
`description of the solution. Chou proposes to
`solve these kinds of delays to modulate the coding
`rates of the data that is sent to the player
`device. So, at the very beginning, he sends data
`that is coded at, let's call it, "a low coding
`rate" for discussion purposes, but he sends it at
`a transmission rate that is much faster.
` And, so, what happens is the data hits the
`player device, and the data can be decoded
`immediately and, essentially, it goes into the
`buffer and it drains from the buffer
`simultaneously. And because the transmission rate
`is what we call "faster than realtime," the
`buffer -- the decode can happen immediately and
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`the buffer continues to fill. So, he gets the
`benefit of both operations.
` At some point, the buffer reaches a
`critical mass, and then Chou proposes to switch
`over to another coding of the same video with a
`higher coding rate. It comes with higher quality.
`And that's how he solves this annoying, intolerable
`start-up delay.
` This is, in our view, exactly what KSR is
`talking about. You know, Chou proposes a
`technique to improve his device, his own. Right?
`And then a person of skill would recognize that it
`would improve a similar device, Lippman's, in
`exactly the same way.
` So, using this technique is obvious unless
`the application is beyond the level of skill, and
`there's no allegation or argument that that
`occurs. So, the combination is obvious, in our
`view.
` If we can move to slide 19 --
` JUDGE KAISER: Counsel, this is Judge
`Kaiser. Can you -- can you hear me?
` MR. HAILS: Yes. Yes, I can. Thank you.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. How -- how do you
`respond to patent owner's argument that,
`essentially, making this combination of Chou and
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`Lippman changes the principle of operation of
`Lippman because Lippman sort of makes the choice
`to sacrifice faster start-up for higher video
`quality and, so, making this combination sort of
`undermines that purpose in Lippman?
` MR. HAILS: We don't think that those kind
`of statements are -- that Lippman has any -- any
`kind of statement that indicates he is making a
`sacrifice. There's a lot of characterizations
`from BT that implies, for lack of a better word,
`that there's some type of conscious choice of
`Lippman, and Lippman is almost like saying, "Well,
`I want the absolute highest quality, and I don't
`care what start-up delays I'm going to have to
`incur." And that's not supported by the reference
`at all.
` All -- all he says is he describes that he
`buffers a pre-roll amount -- I can't remember the
`exact phraseology. I don't want to get it
`wrong -- but he -- he buffers a certain amount,
`and then he begins playback once it happens.
` But there's no statement of criticality,
`for example, in Lippman, that the absolute highest
`quality at the absolute first instance somehow is
`important or a priority or anything along those
`lines.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
` I think he just describes pre-roll in the
`ordinary way, and Chou says that the ordinary way
`of doing it has these annoying and intolerable
`delays.
` So, we don't say that it's changing the
`principle of operation in that way -- in any way,
`as BT has alleged.
` I've now found the statement. It's on --
`it's on the first page of Lippman page -- I think
`it's 780. It says, "The player collects a certain
`minimum amount of packets and then starts to
`decode the packets and combine the decoded results
`in a multimedia presentation."
` Quality of the video is -- is not the
`absolute goal of -- of Lippman. He wants a -- a
`quality experience, absolutely, but the quality of
`the video at all times is not -- is not supported
`by the reference itself. And we think those are
`just misstatements of the art.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Counsel, this is Judge
`Raevsky.
` MR. HAILS: Yes.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: This is Judge Raevsky.
`Thank you, counsel, for that explanation. Given
`the short time, if it's okay with you, I'd like to
`jump to Lippman and Muroi.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
` MR. HAILS: Sure.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: And one question I have is
`that patent owner responds -- analogizes the facts
`here to Ex parte Rinkevich, which is a board
`decision, and your reply says the facts here are
`different from Rinkevich but doesn't appear to
`explain how, at least on my read. So, how do you
`view this case as being different from Rinkevich?
` MR. HAILS: Oh, sure. So -- so, in
`Rinkevich, the board is responding to patent
`office analysis from an examiner. The examiner
`said, basically, "Hey, there's this problem with
`this primary reference. I think it's called
`Savill. And to solve that problem, somebody would
`look to Wu to overcome it."
` The board looked at Savill itself and
`said, "There is no problem here. Savill actually
`provided the functionality." And here, it's a --
`the issue is measuring bandwidth. He says he
`wants to measure bandwidth. He doesn't explain
`how. And -- but the secondary reference, Muroi,
`he does. He explains how to -- to get things --
`how to get the measure -- the bandwidth
`measurements done and how to have the system
`understand what that is.
` So, in terms of achieving Lippman's goal,
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`if you're a worker of skill, you're not going to
`see that Lippman's disclosure -- and BT agrees
`with this -- explains the functionality to how --
`of how to contain that.
` The lack of disclosure was never a driving
`consideration in Rinkevich. It was -- I think
`there was a -- you know, they -- they're going to
`have in their presentation this chart with all
`sorts of things that they think that drove that
`decision, but if you read the decision itself,
`it's not driven by that understanding.
` So -- and, so, the board rejected the
`argument on that basis.
` And, again, we think -- we think the
`circumstances are closer to the Unwired Planet,
`and we think that the circumstances actually
`are -- are very similar to the KSR model.
` Again, the same thing about finding a
`solution to -- to improve your device, Muroi has
`the solution for measuring bandwidth, and he
`explains how to get it done. And I think under
`the KSR rubric, the question is would a person of
`ordinary skill recognize that it can improve other
`devices. And I think the answer with respect to
`Lippman is yes.
` So, it is -- we think there is motivation
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`to combine. And the Unwired Planet case that we
`identified is -- is driven by those same kinds of
`things.
` There's a primary reference Brohoff that
`didn't go down to the Nth level of detail on
`certain things, and they thought it was fine to
`look to a secondary reference, I think it's called
`Galitz, for teachings of subject matter in that
`family of functionality.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you. If you want to
`talk about Unwired Planet just a bit, I think that
`I might be mistaken on this, but I believe patent
`owner's position might be that the primary
`reference in Unwired Planet didn't really talk
`about that feature at all that the secondary
`reference is used for and that it's just
`complimentary. Can you speak to that.
` MR. HAILS: That's not a factor that
`drives the Unwired Planet decision. The case talks
`about these things called "service zones" and the
`statement -- the case states that in this primary
`reference Brohoff, they agreed that they were
`disclosed as being in a certain ordering called
`"near first." Brohoff does not explain how the
`service providers are prioritized within their
`zone groups. In the improvement as provided by
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`Galitz, the board -- and this is an affirmance of
`a board analysis -- the board recognized that
`Galitz disclosed prompt benefits of various
`ordering techniques and, yes, it -- ways to use
`them in combination and said it was fine and,
`again, as I said, cited to the same KSR reasoning
`that it's something that -- something that a
`person of ordinary skill would recognize and find
`appropriate to adapt in another system, Brohoff in
`that case.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you.
` MR. HAILS: The other thing I would note
`is that Rinkevich is identified as
`nonprecedential, is a nonpublished opinion, and
`certainly if there's any conflict between its
`reasoning and Unwired Planet, I think the board is
`required to follow federal circuit authority, of
`course.
` Okay. So, that's kind of -- and that's,
`actually, what we wanted to cover in Muroi. Your
`Honor, you sort of stole a little bit of my
`thunder but, again, Muroi is disclosing a
`technique to improve your device. A person of
`ordinary skill would recognize that it would
`improve a similar device, such as Lippman's. And
`that technique going to be considered obvious
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`unless it's beyond a level of skill in the art,
`and it's not here.
` I would note that BT acknowledges these --
`this material from the prior art, these kind of
`teachings. We have a slide 18 that cites to their
`sur-reply where they acknowledge that the delays
`in Lippman -- that Lippman suffers all kinds of
`delays that Chou addresses.
` They acknowledge, I think in their
`sur-reply at pages eight and nine, that Muroi
`teaches how to measure bandwidth but Lippman does
`not.
` So, these -- this material, I think, is
`really undisputed. Again, BT is making all sorts
`of inferences from other parts of the material on
`what we consider the ancillary off-point features
`to try to support its argument that there's no
`motivation.
` We don't have time to go through them all,
`but I would ask you to turn to slide 33 of the
`presentation and I'll give you a flavor for at
`least one.
` This is the idea about who controls stream
`switching. This excerpt here on slide 33 says
`that Lippman, for lack of a better word, has
`asserted a centralized, server-controlled scheme
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`where a video server determines whether to switch
`between different versions of video, and it's
`based upon the video server's estimate of network
`bandwidth between the client and the device and --
`the client and the server.
` But if you look at the actual text of
`Lippman, which we've excerpted for you here, it's
`much more -- it doesn't ascribe functionality to
`the server in the same way that BT infers. They
`talk about "our approach" measures available
`bandwidth, does not ascribe it to the server.
`That's in the first excerpt shown here on slide
`33.
` The third excerpt shows "our approach to
`maximizing quality." You know, it performs this
`balancing act. Again, it's not attributable --
`it's not attributed to the server in Lippman
`whereas BT is drawing these inferences.
` There are occasional statements that
`ascribe operations to either the server or to the
`player, and we cited to a statement that the
`player will switch to a lower or higher bandwidth
`stream when conditions are appropriate.
` You know, we think these inferences are
`wrong. I would also point out we think that
`they're just completely irrelevant to 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
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`teachings that matter and -- and certainly for the
`claim language.
` So -- so, this server control argument is
`the groundwork to say that Lippman and Muroi, we
`are so totally different that nobody would ever do
`these things; they would never consider these
`teachings in combination.
` The decision to institute, we think,
`properly recognized that there is no
`incompatibility, that the teaching really is how
`to -- the relevant teaching that matters is how to
`measure bandwidth, and we think the art is fine on
`those issues.
` That's what I wanted to cover on claim 1
`and its related claims. I'm happy to move to
`claim 4 unless there are questions.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Go ahead.
` MR. HAILS: Okay. Thank you.
` All right. So, the discussion on claim 4
`begins on slide 39, and we have the same kind of
`approach here in description. The description of
`our argument -- in the decision against two, the
`hang-up was this element that we labeled 4.6C, and
`what it says is there are these things called
`"second encoding rate data packets," and they are
`transmitted at a second transmission rate which is
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`higher than the first transmission rate.
` So, a little bit of context -- the claim
`talks about, you know, what's called low coding
`rate packets at the beginning, you know, just for
`use -- utility purposes and then second coding
`rate.
` So, the first packets are coded at a
`relatively low encoding rate, essentially. They
`are transmitted at our first transmission rate.
`And then when you switch over to the second coding
`packets in this element 4.6C, they are not only
`coded at a higher coding rate, but they are
`transmitted at a higher transmission rate than the
`first packets. And that was -- that was the thing
`that gave the board pause.
` We -- there's no -- so, we addressed it in
`our -- patent owner, sorry, did not address it in
`its patent owner response. We addressed it in our
`reply. It's probe-lose throttle argument that we
`had argued in our petition. And then we have a
`list of the arguments here at the bottom of slide
`39 from the surreply.
` So, let's walk through the petition, if we
`can, and we'll show you how we made this argument,
`and we'll start at slide 40, please.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Just so you know, counsel,
`
`
`
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`you have little more than five minutes remaining.
` MR. HAILS: Thank you. So, the '200
`patent is directed to video streaming over the
`internet, and our petition argued that the skilled
`worker would understand the basic operational
`protocols over the internet. BT's expert agreed.
` Oh, the internet is this packet based
`delivery network that operates according to a best
`effort model. That means the internet is going to
`try to send packets but may have to drop your
`packets if problems exist.
` We explained that there are lots of
`protocols for sending data over the internet,
`including TCP and UDP. And TCP included protocols
`to manage congestion over the internet.
` The probe-lose throttle principle in our
`petition is described at the bottom of the slide.
`When a packet loss is discovered, source devices
`on the internet reduce their transmission rates
`for a time and then gradually increase their
`transmission rate in an effort to determine if
`higher rate transmissions can be supported.
` We cited to the patent and to the article
`Lee in support, and they are shown on slide 41.
`Both of these references disclose, basically, the
`same thing. They show that data transmission
`
`
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`rates are steadily increased until a packet loss
`is detected, and then a data rate is reduced.
` And it repeats cyclically. So, you
`increase rates by probing a network; a packet loss
`occurs; and then you throttle, you reduce the
`transmission rates, when that happens.
` The patent identifies this operation as
`prior art. Excuse me?
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Counsel, this is Judge
`Raevsky again. You mentioned Lee, and I think in
`a moment you're probably going to get to the
`Rejaie reference. How do you respond to patent
`owner's argument that discussing those in your
`reply is an untimely new reply argument?
` MR. HAILS: We think it is -- we think the
`Rejaie reference corroborates everything that
`Dr. Reader and that our petition was saying at the
`outset. Right? The point of that is -- I mean it
`has a nice graphic to show you how easily -- how
`this is integrated, but all of this material is
`shown here, we were going through it, in these
`slides in the demonstrative but in our petition.
` So, we cited this material in pages 11 to
`12. In ground one, maybe we could skip ahead just
`to slide 42, we describe the operation of the
`protocol, the source quench and slow start
`
`
`
`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
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`operations, and then we identified six different
`references that describe TCP being applied to
`internet video. This is in the petition, and this
`is for ground one, and this is for the claim 4.
` The Rejaie reference, maybe if we -- I
`could show you -- let's skip ahead to 46, it
`corroborates the operation of the source quench
`and it corroborates operation of the slow start
`protocols that are described by Dr. Reader.
` Dr. Reader says that -- that the protocol
`is designed so that you cannot just suddenly
`inject copious amounts of data into the network.
`You'd have to start from a slow level. And Rejaie
`shows that graphically. Right? You see the red
`line starting essentially from a zero transmission
`rate.
` Dr. Reader, in the petition, says these --
`the system's always probing for increases in
`transmission rate. And you can see that in these
`references.
` So, Rejaie doesn't add anything new. The
`point of Rejaie is that everything that Dr. Reader
`said is actually corroborated even by the material
`that BT provided in its patent owner response.
` And the point, also, is we had deposed
`their expert, Dr. Polish, on these same issues,
`
`
`
`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
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
`Rejaie and then that Lee reference, and he
`confirmed that -- that it operates as Dr. Reader
`told you in the petition.
` So, these are not -- these are not new
`arguments. What these arguments are -- show is
`that everything that Dr. Reader and the petition
`has said are -- were correct.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: And thank you. Is it also
`your position that you're not relying on Lippman,
`Chou, or Muroi specifically for the probe-lose
`throttle principle; you're only relying on the
`background knowledge of one of ordinary skill?
` MR. HAILS: Yeah, we had said in ground
`one on the petition on page 27, a skilled worker
`would recognize that the techniques that you
`described, the Lippman, Muroi, Chou techniques,
`can be used cooperatively with TCP friendly flow
`protocols described widely in literature.
` So, this is on slide 42 of our
`demonstratives, right, and we identified both the
`RFC materials, which codify TCP IP, but also six
`references that describe applications of the TCP
`friendly flow protocols to internet video.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Okay. I believe your time
`is almost up, counsel. Is there anything else --
` MR. HAILS: Yeah.
`
`
`
`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
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: -- you'd like to wrap up
`with?
` MR. HAILS: I think we have pretty much
`covered the basics. So, why don't I turn it over
`to BT and reserve my time for rebuttal.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Okay.
` MR. HAILS: Thank you.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you.
` Mr. Armstrong, would you like to reserve
`any time for surrebuttal today?
` MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, please. I'll reserve
`seven minutes, as well.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Okay. Thank you. When
`you're ready to begin, please go ahead.
` MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay. All right. So,
`the -- I can start walking through our
`presentation, as well, unless you would prefer --
`unless you'd prefer that we fast forward to some
`of the points that were raised during the counsel
`for petitioner's presentation.
` JUDGE RAEVSKY: Counsel, whatever you're
`most comfortable with, go ahead. I would like you
`to address what we heard about.
` MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Maybe we can fast
`forward to -- to those points. I believe the
`first one was with respect to In re Rinkevick.
`
`
`
`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
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00833
`Patent 7,974,200 B1
` So, the -- maybe we can go to slide number
`11 of the patent owner's demonstrative exhibits.
`In there, we have an excerpt from Rinkevich, a
`person of skill in the art applying common sense
`would not be motivated to modify a primary
`reference, the teachings of a separate reference,
`for the purpose of solving a problem that is
`already solved by the primary reference.
` So, slide number 12 summarizes the three
`table -- the two cases that petitioner was
`discussing, the Rinkevich case and Unwired Planet
`case. And the facts of this case are squarely in
`line with Rinkevich.
` I believe counsel -- opposing counsel
`cited KSR in a number of places in support of its
`arguments. In re Rinkevich is post-KSR case
`that actually cites to KSR for support in the
`conclusion.
` But the primary reference, Savill, in
`Rinkevich, disclosed a commercially available
`product, this NTsu product, and that description
`of the NTsu product in Savill said that here's the
`product that will allow a system administrator to
`start applications in a new account without having
`to close all the open applications and log off.
` So, NTsu said here's a product that
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
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
