Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 19
`Entered: September 29, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 23, 2020
`____________
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, BRYAN F. MOORE, and CHRISTA P.
`ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 19
`Entered: September 29, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 23, 2020
`____________
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, BRYAN F. MOORE, and CHRISTA P.
`ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`BRIAN K. ERICKSON, ESQUIRE
`JEFF R. COLE, ESQUIRE
`DLA Piper, LLP
`401 Congress Avenue
`Suite 2500
`Austin, Texas 78701-3799
`
`
`JAMES M. HEINTZ, ESQUIRE
`DLA Piper, LLP
`One Fountain Square
`11911 Freedom Drive
`Suite 300
`Reston, Virginia 20190-5602
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRIAN M. KOIDE, ESQUIRE
`Etheridge Law Group, PLLC
`2600 East Southlake Boulevard
`Suite 120/324
`Southlake, Texas 76092
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`July 23, 2020, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EDT, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE ZADO: All right, good morning, and good afternoon,
`everyone, depending on where you are, this mor -- right now. This is a
`hearing in IPR 2019-00918. I am Judge Zado. I have with me on video
`today, Judges Moore and Smith. Before we begin, I first want to get the
`appearances of the party. So, we will begin with Petitioner. Who do we
`have?
`MR. ERICKSON: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Brian Erickson,
`with the Law Firm of DLA Piper, representing Petitioner, Apple. With me
`on the phone is backup counsel, Jim Heinz, and Jeff Cole, also with DLA
`Piper. I believe Matt Clements, from Apple, is also attending, via the public
`promo.
`JUDGE ZADO: Okay, thank you, and who do we have on the line for
`Patent Owner, today?
`MR. KOIDE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Brian Koide, of
`the Etheridge Law Group, on behalf of Uniloc. I am the only attorney on,
`for our side, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ZADO: Okay, well, well, thank you. Before we get started, I
`want to do a little housekeeping because today our hearing is being done by
`video, and, so, I just wanted to go over a few things. The first thing is that
`when you begin presenting for your side, please identify yourself for the
`court reporter, so that your court reporter will have your name, and will
`know who is speaking, and the other thing is that when you’re not speaking,
`we ask that your please mute your phone, so that we can avoid any
`background noise, and that also can make it easier for the Judges and 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`court reporter to hear, and, also, when the hearing ends today, we ask that
`counsel for each side remain on the line to answer any questions the court
`reporter may have about spellings or particular words that may have been
`spoken during this hearing.
`So, Petitioner will go first and followed by Patient Owner. Each side
`will have 60 minutes today, and Petitioner may reserve time for rebuttal, and
`Patent Owner may reserve some time for surrebuttal. Before we get started,
`are there any questions about the hearing, or about what just -- for the
`hearing, and I’ll begin with Petitioner. Do you have any questions before we
`begin?
`MR. ERICKSON: No, Your Honor, thank you.
`JUDGE ZADO: And the same question for Patent Owner’s counsel.
`Do you have any questions before we begin?
`MR. KOIDE: No, Your honor.
`JUDGE ZADO: Okay, so, Mr. Erickson, are you the one who’s going
`to be arguing today?
`MR. ERICKSON: Yes, Your Honor, and I’d like -- yes?
`JUDGE ZADO: I was going to ask -- I think you’re about to answer
`my question, which was would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal
`today?
`MR. ERICKSON: Yes, Your Honor, I’d like to reserve 30 minutes.
`JUDGE ZADO: Okay, well, then, whenever you’re ready, you may
`begin.
`MR. ERICKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Brian Erickson, for
`Petitioner, Apple. And may it please the Board, moving to slide two, I intend
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`to briefly address each of the items listed on the Table of Contents, of slide
`two, of course, subject to the Board’s directions and questions.
`Moving to slide to three. The petition sets forth a number of grounds.
`I wanted to touch briefly on this, though, because there are very few
`disputes, all of which relate primarily to the architecture laid out in the
`primary reference, Charbonnier. Charbonnier mentions TCP and SMS, and
`we rely on the TCP and SMS specifications to flush out additional details.
`There’s no dispute that would have been obvious to combine those
`references, as set forth in ground one of the petition. Ground two and the
`other even-numbered grounds rely on term, to the specification to enable
`match reversal, and ground three relies on the DECT speakerphone, for the
`user interface elements of the stationary terminal.
`The grounds four -- I’m sorry, grounds five thru eight, at Lee, which
`is a reference that shows that a cellular telephone can conduct a TCP VoIP
`communication, over the GSM Network, itself. So, there is no dispute in
`this -- well, at least, Patent Owner has not disputed that it would have been
`obvious to combine all of these references in the way set forth in the
`petition. There are only a few disputes related to the architecture of
`Charbonnier.
`Moving first to the mobile device limitation, and going to slide six,
`you see the approximate mobile device is introduced in the first limitation,
`and there’s an express requirement, that wherein the approximate mobile
`device operates within a cellular wireless network system.
`Moving to slide seven, Petitioner contends that this term is entitled to
`its ordinary meaning, i.e., a device that is mobile. Patient Owner certs that
`the terms should be narrowed, in a number of ways, which we refer to as
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`simply a smartphone construction. There were several different proposed
`formulations of this, proposed by Patent Owner in its response. In its
`surreply, it appears to be focused on the formulation that’s presented here,
`on slide seven. None of these extra limitations find support in the claims or
`the specification.
`Moving to slide eight. Patent Owner asserts that the claims require a
`smartphone-like device. There is no such limitation in the claims. The
`claims do require that the mobile device operate within a cellular wireless
`network system. There are no other limitations directly on the mobile device
`itself. It’s certainly true that there are other independent functions recited in
`this claim, that this mobile device must perform, but they’re not the
`limitations that would require changing the construction of the mobile
`device itself, such as opening a listening port, receiving and sending certain
`transmissions—none of those limit the mobile phone, itself, to a smartphone.
`Moving to slide nine. We’ve reproduced on slide nine, the single
`portion of the specification, the only portion of the specification relied on by
`Patent Owner, for its narrowing construction, and as you can see, from the
`highlights of that quote on slide nine, this list provided in the specification,
`is a non-limiting exemplary list. This type of language in the specification is
`not a definition. It’s not a disclaimer. It provides no basis to narrow the
`term mobile device from its ordinary meaning. The Board addressed a very
`similar argument, in its institution decision, where the Patent Owner was
`attempting to narrow the term stationary terminal, and it relied on similar
`non-limiting examples in the specifications. The Board properly rejected
`that proposed construction, the same law, and the same rationale to lead 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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`Board to reject Patent Owner’s attempt to narrow the construction of mobile
`device.
`Finally, moving to slide ten. The mobile device in Charbonnier is the
`Mobile Phone 8, which is expressly disclosed as a mobile phone. It’s
`operable in a cellular wireless network, specifically GSM Network 102. It
`also can be knocked VoIP Communications over the DECT Wireless
`Interface. It will receive instant messages, specifically SMS. So, it --
`JUDGE SMITH: Can you -- excuse me. Excuse me. She’s there. I
`thought we lost Judge Zado. Are you -- did you hear --?
`JUDGE ZADO: Yes, yes, I heard everything. Thank you. Thank
`
`you.
`
`JUDGE SMITH: We lost your video. Did you hear everything?
`Okay, all right, sorry for the interruption.
`MR. ERICKSON: Okay. So, even if the Board were inclined to
`narrow mobile device from its ordinary meaning, we think that the mobile
`device, as disclosed in Charbonnier, and as set forth in the petition, would
`satisfy even a more narrow construction. It’s not cited on this particular
`slide, but the petition, at pages 35 and 36, set forth the disclosure in
`Charbonnier, about the programable computer-readable medium logic, that
`is within the mobile phone, and, so, in fact, it even cites the portions of
`Charbonnier, that say that those represent communication applications.
`So, even if the Board were to narrow mobile telephone, in some way,
`to a smartphone-like device, as proposed by Patent Owner, we think it would
`still be disclosed, or, in fact, obvious over Charbonnier. If there are no
`questions on there, I’ll move to stationary terminal.
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`
`Okay. Hearing none, we’ll jump to slide 12. This is a highlighted
`version of claim one. Stationary terminal exists there in the establishing
`limitation. It’s also introduced in the preamble, which in not highlighted on
`claim -- on slide 12.
`Moving to slide 13. Prior to institution, the Patent Owner, in its
`preliminary response, asserted a narrow construction of stationary terminal.
`The Board, at length, addressed that contention, in its decision, at pages 11
`to 21. The Board correctly resolved the three identified claim construction
`disputes, specifically the three ways the Patent Owner was attempting to
`narrow the meaning of stationary terminal. Those three issues are
`reproduced here on slide 13.
`The Board then correctly declined to further construe the term, citing
`the law that terms are only to be construed to the extent that are in dispute.
`Moving to slide 14. In response, post institution, the Patent Owner
`dropped and abandoned any alternative construction of stationary terminal.
`It simply did not dispute the Board’s resolution of the three claim
`construction disputes. So, the Board should maintain its original preliminary
`holding, and construe or, like, hold that stationary terminal is not limited, in
`the way originally proposed by Patent Owner. Again, the law cited on slide
`14, stands for the proposition that Patent Owner has waived any alternative
`construction and that the Board need not construe terms to the extent they’re
`no longer a dispute.
`Moving to slide 15. The DECT Base Station Seven is a stationary
`terminal relied on, for grounds one thru two, and five thru six, and then
`supplemented with the DECT Speakerphone User Interface elements, 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`grounds three and four, and seven and eight. If there are no questions about
`stationary terminal, I’ll move on to the next point.
`JUDGE ZADO: Counsel, I have one question because even though
`Patent Owner, in the Patent Owner response, does not expressly construe the
`term stationary terminal, Patent Owner, at page 13 of the response, does
`raise an argument, and says that the DECT Telephone Base is not a
`stationary terminal, and then goes on to say a DECT Telephone Base is not
`capable of short-range wireless communications, such as Bluetooth, it may
`be employed by computers, and so, does the Board -- do you think that the
`Board needs to construe whether or not a stationary terminal -- do we need
`to go into construction, as to what sort of short-range wireless
`communications capabilities a stationary terminal needs to have, in order to
`address Patent Owner’s argument?
`MR. ERICKSON: No, Your Honor, we do not believe The Board
`needs to address it in this context. The next limitation that’s in dispute is
`whether, in fact, there is a short-range wireless communication established,
`and we think that Patent Owner’s statement there is conflated into two
`distinct claim requirements. So, I think the Board needs to address whether
`the DECT Base Station, in fact, establishes a short-range communication,
`wireless link, and we need to do that with respect to the following limitation.
`We do not think that requires construction of the term stationary terminal.
`JUDGE ZADO: Okay, thank you.
`MR. ERICKSON: So, moving to slide 17. It’s the limitation we were
`just eluding to, establishing a communication link to a short-range wireless
`technology, between the stationary terminal and approximate mobile device.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`
`Turning to slide 18. We’ve reproduced the claim language, at the top
`of this slide. The petition establishes that the DECT, local DECT Radio
`Link, is a short-range wireless technology. It is a communication link, with
`reference to the testimony of Dr. Ho, and the ETSI Standards, that support
`the fact that DECT is a general radio access technology, for short-range
`wireless telecommunications, and Charbonnier, itself, states that the mobile
`phone uses DECT when it is in the coverage area of its base. So, it -- so,
`thus showing with the testimony of Dr. Ho. Clearly, it establishes that the
`mobile phone and stationary terminal, disclosed in Charbonnier, established
`a communication link, specifically a local DECT radio link, that is a short-
`range wireless technology. Patent Owner makes two arguments to the
`contrary, each of which are without merit.
`Moving to slide 19. The first argument the Patent Owner makes is
`that there is some aspect of a DECT radio link that is too preconfigured or
`too preestablished. I think initially, in Patent Owner’s response, it says there
`was always -- that the link always existed. Well, that’s clearly not the case.
`As established in the Petition, it’s a communication link of limited range,
`and we think what the Patent Owner is doing is conflating two distinct
`concepts; one, de-pairing or a trusted relationship, that may be
`preprogrammed into these communication devices, and two, the relevant
`aspect, which is when is the claimed communication link actually
`established.
`You can see the difference between these on slide 21. This is a
`reproduction of columns three, lines 21 to 33, of the 298 Patent, and it’s
`discussing this initial step. You see, the first highlighted passage states that
`when the mobile device, 110, is within sufficient short-range proximity to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`the laptop, 125, then, second highlighted portion, they establish a Bluetooth
`or other short-range wireless technology communication link. So, the
`relevant link is the actual radio communication link that is established when
`the devices come within range of each other. That’s different from the
`trusted relationship. We see, in the third highlighted section, that it states
`that they may establish or may have already established, through prior
`communications, a trusted relationship.
`So, we think Patent Owner’s arguments that there is some amount of
`pre-configuration with these two components completely -- it is completely
`irrelevant to the claim’s step, which requires establishing an actual
`communication link, which can only happen when the devices are literally
`within radio range of each other.
`Finally, moving to slide 21. Patents Owner’s other argument is also
`without merit. It tends to argue -- it appears to argue that the DECT’s type
`of radio link is not common enough. The Patent Owner agrees that the claim
`is not limited to only the Bluetooth Radio Technology, but yet is -- Patent
`Owner still attempts to say that, for some reason, DECT is not common
`enough. There’s just no support in the claim to require any amount, or
`commonality, or popularity of the short-range wireless technology. The
`claim merely states that it must be a short-range wireless technology. So,
`whether it’s common, standardized, proprietary, even unique, the claim is
`simply not limited in a way that would distinguish how common the short-
`range wireless technology is.
`And, finally, even if the Board were inclined to narrow it in some
`way, the Petition establishes that DECT is a general radio access technology.
`It’s standardized by FC’s. It’s essentially European Wi-Fi. It’s certainly a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`common communication technique. Are there any questions from the Board
`on stationary terminal, before I move on? Okay.
`Hearing none, I will move on to establishes a virtual reliable
`connection. Moving to slide 23. The disputed portion of the last limitation
`is highlighted, on slide 23, and you can see step 1B is actually a very long
`step, and so, I think, it’s worth stepping back, for just a moment, to put
`things in context, and show how the petition is establishes the entire
`limitation is disclosed.
`So, moving to slide 24. We have highlighted, here, the DECT Radio
`Link between the Mobile Phone 8 and DECT Base Station 7. Mobile Phone
`8 previously received the address and IP address and Port Number, via an
`SMS message over the GSM Network 102, and the next step is that mobile
`phone transmits that received address and port number over to the DECT
`Radio Link, to the Base Station 7. That satisfies the first two phrases, in step
`1D of transmitting that address and port, and that it’s received by the
`stationary terminal. Those aspects are -- do not appear to be in dispute.
`Moving to slide 25. The next step is the stationary terminal transmits
`a response to that network address and port, which is related to the initiating
`remote device. As highlighted here, on slide 25, and this is straight from an
`annotated figure in the petition itself, at page 51, the DECT Base Station 7
`sends the TCP response out over the Internet 100, through the two service
`providers, at three and four. It’s received at the DECT Base Station 1 and
`transmitted to the DECT Mobile Phone 6, and then, we come to the part
`that’s in dispute, whether, in fact, the stationary terminal has established a
`virtual reliable connection with the initiating remote device.
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`
`Moving to that issue. Patent Owner’s argument is not commensurate
`with the scope of the claim. Patent Owner is focused on where the TCP
`endpoints are terminated. There’s simply nothing in the claim that requires
`that the TCP endpoints terminate at the stationary terminal in the -- or
`initiating Mobile Phone 6. Regardless of that, Charbonnier discloses,
`clearly, that the communication logic, here, the TCP Communication Staff
`are communicating over the Internet, can be in either or both of the devices.
`Paragraph 27, which is not reproduced here, on slide 26, but it is cited,
`establishes that the programmable logic block can be in the phone, and then
`paragraph 52 states that the programmable logic blocks can be in the base, or
`they can be shared by both. So, this is not a mutually exclusive situation
`where the blocks can only be in one device. Charbonnier expressly states
`and teaches that the communication part of the logic can be in both or either.
`JUDGE ZADO: Counsel, I have a question about this. This is Judge
`Zado. I’m looking at claim one, and I’m looking at the actual claim
`limitation that we’re talking about here, and the limitation states that the
`stationary terminal establishes a virtual reliable connection with the
`initiating remote device. So, for the virtual reliable connection, I just want
`to see if I have Petitioner’s position correctly. Is Petitioner arguing that the
`link, the DECT Radio Link, is part of the virtual reliable connection?
`MR. ERICKSON: No, Your Honor. The reliable -- virtual reliable
`connection, that Petitioner is relying on is the connection between the DECT
`Base Station 7 and the Mobile Phone 6, which is, for that -- for that length of
`that connection is at least one or more TCP Connections all the way. So,
`we’re not relying on any aspect of the DECT Radio Link, providing the
`virtual reliable portion of the connection.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ZADO: Well, then, because now I’m looking at DECT 5 and
`Mobile -- and the Handset 6, and so, the link between DECT 5 and Handset
`6, are you saying that that is part of the TCPIP connection, that those are not
`communicating via a DECT Radio Link?
`MR. ERICKSON: Yes, thank you for that follow-up question, Your
`Honor. So, TCP is the transport layer of the connection. The physical layer
`of that connection does rely on the DECT Radio, and, so, my answer to your
`previous question was probably not as precise as it should have been. What
`we’re relying on for the virtual reliable connection aspect is the TCP nature -
`- the TCP Layer of that communication, but you’re absolutely correct that
`the radio technology, on which that rests is at a different layer of the
`protocol, so, that would be at the DECT Radio layer.
`JUDGE ZADO: And, so, your saying there’s a TCPIP connection
`between DECT 7 and Handset 6?
`MR. ERICKSON: Correct, yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ZADO: And, then, can you identify in the record exactly
`where the documents show that that’s the TCPIP connection actually
`connects from DECT 7 all the way to Handset 6?
`MR. ERICKSON: Yes, Your Honor. If we move to slide 27, this is
`where we are lying out at the petition at page 52, the -- what we call the first
`configuration. Recall that Charbonnier already expressly disclosed that the
`phone, itself, can have the VoIP Communication Logic within it, and that is
`consistent with the standards themselves, cited there on slide 27, which is
`cited in the petition, on those pages, that the IP stats, specifically the TCP
`stat, can be in the phone itself.
`
`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
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`
`So, we have Charbonnier’s express disclosure that the VoIP
`Communication Logic can be in the phone, we have the standards,
`confirming it can be in the phone, and we have the testimony of Dr. Ho,
`saying that would have been an obvious configuration, to have the TCP
`Connection reach all the way to the phone.
`JUDGE ZADO: Okay, thank you for that clarification.
`MR. ERICKSON: Yeah, and I would add, moving to slide 28, in the
`second configuration, it still terminates in the phone, on that end of the
`connection. It’s just on the other end of the connection where using the stat
`that’s in this Base Station, for a variety of reasons, as set forth in the
`individual grounds, but the relevant cites in the petition there are, again, in
`page 52, and other portions of the DECT Standard that make clear, that
`confirm what’s already taught in Charbonnier, that the TCP stat can be in the
`Base as well.
`Moving to slide 29. The independent claims do not require a TCP
`Connection at all. They require some kind of virtual reliable connection, but
`they do not require a TCP Connection. In limitation for C, which is a
`dependent claim, it states that the virtual reliable connection comprises,
`though it includes, it doesn’t consist of, it does not consist essentially of, it
`comprises A, in other words, one or more TCP connection. So, certainly, a
`connection that includes a TCP Connection is sufficient, but it certainly does
`not have to be a TCP connection for the independent claim, and it doesn’t
`have to be a single TCP connection, with endpoints that terminate in specific
`devices as asserted by Patent Owner.
`Moving to slide 30.
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`
`JUDGE SMITH: Can you -- I have a question before you move on,
`just, real quick, about this establishes a virtual reliable connection. Can you
`tell me, what’s the difference between establishing a connection and
`establishing a virtual reliable connection?
`MR. ERICKSON: That’s an excellent question, Your Honor. It’s not
`discussed in the record, yet.
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
`MR. ERICKSON: I think, that --
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay, that’s -- go ahead, sorry. I was just
`wondering if you had something to -- that would clarify it. If not, that’s fine,
`you know.
`MR. ERICKSON: I think, just in response to your question, a virtual
`connection, generally, is defined somewhere other than a circuit switch
`network, where you’d have a physical path established. So, I think, just on
`the ordinary meaning of virtual, there would have be some kind of program
`adequately defined connection, which is how the Internet basically works,
`inherently, just over -- anything over IP, so, and then reliability certainly -- a
`TCP is certainly -- a TCP connection would certainly satisfy any type of
`reliability requirement. There’s a retry, if you drop a packet, things like that,
`but, again, this has not been addressed in the record.
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Okay, thank you.
`MR. ERICKSON: Yep. Moving to slide 30. There are obviously a
`number of grounds in the petition, and Judge Zado, it reminds me that my
`answer to your previous question was incomplete because I didn’t address
`grounds five through eight, but I’ll come back to that. In -- as highlighted
`here, at the bottom of slide 30, several of the grounds satisfy even 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
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`Owner’s narrow interpretation, where the TCP connection must have
`endpoints that terminate at the DECT Base Station and the Mobile Phone 6.
`Specifically, those (audio skip) grounds, configuration two, within ground
`one, and grounds three, five, and seven, that rely on the DECT
`Speakerphone, where the user is picking up, answering the call, on the
`DECT Speakerphone, so, it will terminate there, and grounds five thru eight,
`that rely on Lee, because Mobile Phone 6 is not using it’s DECT Base
`Station, for it’s TCP connection. Mobile Phone 6, there, is using the GSM
`Network, for its end of the TCP connection. So, we’ll talk about both of
`those briefly.
`Moving to slide 31. Ground three, and the grounds that incorporate it,
`rely on the DECT Speaker Phone. Patent Owner argues in its surreply that
`Charbonnier is limited to the situation where you have two users engaged in
`a phone call already, and they’re going to switch to IP. That’s not the only
`disclosure in Charbonnier. There’s also a disclosure in Charbonnier at
`paragraph 48, where the first user here, Mobile Phone 6, desires to start a
`call with an IP call, and so, it sends the SMS message, and then there’s an
`audible warning, to both users. We all know what that is, telephone ringing,
`and the second user can pick that up at the DECT Speakerphone. Again,
`that was set forth in ground three, uncontested testimony of Dr. Ho supports
`that that would have been obvious.
`Moving to slide 33. And this is to complete my answer to your earlier
`question, Judge Zado. In ground three, we established that Charbonnier,
`expressly teaches that the phones will use the best available network. So,
`it’s possible that Mobile Phone 6 would be out of range of it’s DECT Base
`Station, and by the time of this patent, the GSM Network supported TCPIP,
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`that’s disclosed in the Lee Reference, and, so, it would have been obvious if
`the users wanted to conduct a VoIP Call, for the Mobile Phone 6, itself, to be
`determinants of that TCP connection, such that when the Base Station 7
`sends that TCP response to the IP address, it will go out to the Internet, out
`to the GSM Network, and then straight to Mobile Phone 6, and, so, there you
`have the TCP endpoints being the DECT Base Station, perhaps the DECT
`Speakerphone for those rounds, and then communicating directly with the
`Mobile Phone 6, with TCP connection that terminates at those two
`endpoints.
`All right. Are there any other questions about limitations, before I
`move on to the term? Okay, hearing none, we’ll move on to the last round.
`I’m sorry, the last issue, which is the Turn Relay Server, and I’ll move to
`slide 37.
`This is the SMS invitation, that’s sent from Mobile Phone 6 to Mobile
`Phone 8, and I want to direct the Board to the claim limitation in the open,
`broadly claimed relationship, between the address port and the initiating
`remote device. Here, the claim states that the address and port are quote,
`“related to the initiating remote device.” They’re not of the device. Other
`aspects of the claim state that, with respect to the approximate mobile
`device, there’s a port on that device. Here, we have the more expansive
`language of, related to the initiating (inaudible) device. So, the term grounds
`address the fact that these devices are likely operating in private IP address
`bases, that’s certainly a possibility, and it would have been obvious to
`person with ordinary skills to support that possibility.
`So, as you see in the figure here on slide 37, there are ISP’s three and
`four, those are internet service providers, you could have Verizon, or ATT,
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00918
`Patent 8,369,298 B2
`
`or someone’s business, and, behind that, it could be -- have a private address
`base, and, so, you could not send -- Mobile Phone 6 could not send its
`private IP address to Mobile Phone 8 because it would be useless to Mobile
`Phone 8. So, what happens is Mobile Phone 6 reaches out to the Internet,
`100, and asks the term server to allocate at public IP address and port, so that
`the term server, which is on Internet 100, will then respond to Mobile Phone
`6, and say, you can use this Public address and port. If I receive anything at
`this Public address and port, I will forward it to you. That’s what a relay
`server does, okay?
`So, that IP address and port is related to the initiating remote device,
`Mobile Phone 6, that’s uncontested, as set forth in the petition, uncontested.
`So, then we go to the response, so moving to slide 38. Here, the response
`from the Stationary Terminal 7, actually, is addressed to the term server. So,
`that’s a TCP Connection, that would go from the Stationary Terminal 7. If
`there’s a knot between a Network Address Translation Unit, between the
`Stationary Terminal 7, and the TURN Server, that first TCP Connection
`would terminate at the NAT. The NAT would swap out the headers and the
`addresses and sent it on to the TURN Server. That second TCP connection
`would terminate at the Term Server, and there would be another TCP
`connection, from the TURN Server going forward, and so forth, prog
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
