Paper No. 37
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Thursday, July 16, 2020
`____________
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Thursday, July 16, 2020
`____________
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`
`MARK WEINSTEIN, ESQUIRE
`HEIDI KEEFE, ESQUIRE
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`650-843-5007
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`CRAIG DEUTSCH, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL HAWKINS, ESQUIRE
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`60 South 6th Street
`3200 RBC Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`612-278-4514
`
`
`
`
` The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, July 16,
`2020, commencing at 9:09 a.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
`
`
` (On the record at 9:09 a.m.)
` JUDGE QUINN: Hello. Welcome.
` This is -- are we on the record?
` THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Perfect.
` Welcome to the oral argument for
` IPR2019-00925 concerning Patent No. 8,209,634. The
` caption of this case is Facebook, Inc., Instagram,
` LLC, and WhatsApp, Inc. Versus Blackberry Limited.
` Presiding over this hearing today is Judge
` Rob Kinder, Judge Gregg Anderson, and myself, Miriam
` Quinn. We have allotted 45 minutes of time for each
` side, and both sides may reserve time for rebuttal.
` We have an open line right now to the public, and
` there are persons signed on to that line. At this
` time, I want to confirm that this hearing will not
` have any confidential information that you wish to be
` sealed, by either side.
` Petitioner?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: That's correct, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. And that was Mr. --
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Mark Weinstein from Cooley
` for Petitioner.
` JUDGE QUINN: Mark Weinstein. Yes, and I'm
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` just -- that's so the court reporter can ascribe to
` you your statement.
` And for Patent Owner, is that acceptable?
` MR. DEUTSCH: Yes, it is. Thank you, Your
` Honor. This is Craig Deutsch of Fish & Richardson
` for Patent Owner, Blackberry Limited.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` All right. At this point, I'd like to note
` for the record who is attending the hearing on both
` sides.
` We heard from you, Mr. Weinstein. Can you
` tell us who's on for Petitioner?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.
` Myself, Mark Weinstein, from Cooley. Also
` on is Heidi Keefe, who is the lead counsel in this
` case. And additionally, Nikki Vo, that's spelled
` N-I-K-K-I, V-O, from Facebook in-house legal, she's
` on the line as well.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` And for Patent Owner, who do we have on the
` record
` -- or appearing?
` MR. DEUTSCH: This is Craig Deutsch of
` Fish & Richardson. Also with me is Michael Hawkins
` of
` Fish & Richardson. And I believe on the line are
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` Luke Stafford and Ned Siegel, in-house counsel for
` Blackberry Limited.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Perfect.
` All right. So we just have a couple of
` housekeeping measures before we begin. The first is,
` you know, via video, we want you to mute yourself
` when you're not speaking, and unmute yourself only
` when you're speaking. We had earlier some issue with
` audio, so I want to make sure that, you know, we have
` the sound under control here.
` The court reporter may ask questions at the
` end of the hearing concerning any spellings or any
` other things that may have been said to attribute
` them to the right speaker. So if you can stay on the
` line after the hearing concludes and answer any
` questions she may have, that would be greatly
` appreciated.
` Another item I'd like to discuss is, I
` didn't notice any objections filed in the record
` concerning the demonstratives, and I want to confirm
` that we are go for launch on those demonstratives
` from both sides.
` Petitioner?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Mark Weinstein for
` Petitioner. We agree. We're not aware of any
` objections filed by us or by them.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` Patent Owner, you concur?
` MR. DEUTSCH: I do, that's correct. No
` objections.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Perfect.
` As you know, if anything comes up in there
` and you object to the other side's presentation for
` any reason, you -- there are no speaking objections
` allowed in this proceeding, so you may address
` whatever objections you have during your own time.
` Okay. Please keep this efficient. If
` you're referring to any exhibits, please give us a
` little bit of time after you say the exhibit number
` so we can go find it before you dive into the
` exhibit, so we can follow along with you. That --
` it's for exhibits in particular. Of course, we have
` the slides with us, and we can follow along with you
` on the slides if you tell us what slide number you're
` on. But with exhibits, we have a little bit of delay
` because we have to go somewhere else to go and look
` at those.
` I'll be keeping time here on a device and I
` have the ability to set the time for rebuttal for
` you. Although I can't show you the full timer on the
` screen, I can give you some notification as to how
` you're doing on your time and, you know, we can take
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` it from there.
` Now, for Petitioner, how much time would you
` like to reserve for rebuttal?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: 20 minutes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: 20 minutes. Okay.
` And before I forget, Patent Owner, how much
` time would you like to reserve for rebuttal?
` MR. DEUTSCH: I don't wish to reserve any
` time for rebuttal, but if there is time, I may ask to
` use that time.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Well, you can let me
` know before you start if you change your mind.
` That's fine.
` MR. DEUTSCH: Okay.
` JUDGE QUINN: All right.
` Okay. I think we're ready to start whenever
` you are ready.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
` This is Mark Weinstein from -- for the
` Petitioner.
` In talking today, we're are going to be
` referring to the demonstratives slides that we've
` filed with the Board. And for the record, that is
` Facebook's Exhibit 1131. And to the extent there are
` citations, I'm going to hope that the citations -- I
` think they are actually included in the slides, so
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` hopefully, we can just stay on the slides for most of
` the presentation, unless a question calls for a
` particular exhibit.
` If Your Honors, by reference to the slide,
` the Board instituted IPR on four
` grounds; those are identified on Slide 3 of the
` demonstrative presentation. For the vast majority,
` the arguments, though, are really directed to Ground
` 1. And primarily, the motivations to combine.
` On Slide 4, we have reproduced, really, the
` only two claims that are relevant. Independent Claim
` 1 and Dependent Claim 6, and, obviously, those are
` repeated. There are other analogs to those claims,
` but those are the two primary claims. There's no
` argument made about any other dependent claim, other
` than 16 -- other than Claim 16 and its corresponding
` points.
` The point --
` THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, excuse me --
` excuse me, Counsel.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: -- arguments by the Patent
` Owner focus on one issue, which is the motivation to
` combine the references. There isn't really a serious
` dispute that the combination of the references
` discloses all elements of the claim. I don't really
` see an argument from them about that. There's no
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` arguments about claim construction the parties are
` proposing. It's all focused on, is there a
` motivation to combine those references to arrive at
` the --
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, I think that that's not
` actually accurate, right? I mean, they are
` contending that no single reference discloses the
` number of counts being visually displayed. You are
` relying on a combination to disclose both the visual
` modification with the right number. So that is
` disputed that there's no reference that discloses
` that limitation.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: It -- they do argue that no
` single reference discloses that limitation. I think
` what I was -- the point I was making was they're not
` arguing that the combination of the references -- the
` instituted combination discloses the majority --
` discloses all limitations.
` I agree that they are arguing that that
` limitation is disclosed by the Combination 2
` references, but they're not disputing that those two
` references disclose that limitation. They're
` primarily arguing that you wouldn't be motivated to
` combine the two references.
` JUDGE QUINN: Let me ask you about the Strom
` grounds because they don't seem to be relevant at all
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` anymore.
` What is your take on that?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: The Strom grounds were
` originally put in because, at the time, the Patent
` Owner was taking the position that the claim required
` a small-screen wireless device. They have since
` abandoned that position.
` So the Strom grounds aren't directly
` relevant to the claim construction position anymore.
` They do provide additional motivations to combine,
` with respect to a
` small-screen device. And we make arguments that a
` small-screen device is the motivation to combine,
` even if it's not required by the claim per se. But
` that's the only, sort of, context in which they're
` relevant.
` JUDGE QUINN: So are you --
` MR. WEINSTEIN: So, again, if you would --
` JUDGE QUINN: You're not dropping those?
` You're continuing to assert them, even though it's
` not disputed anymore?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Well, the dispute about the
` claim construction isn't an issue; the dispute over
` the motivation to combine still is. I think -- but
` the cleanest way to start our position is if Grounds
` 1 and 2 are sufficient to provide motivations 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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` combine, 3 and 4 become completely ancillary. If you
` find Grounds 1 and 2 aren't sufficient -- that the
` motivations aren't sufficient, there are additional
` grounds -- there are additional motivations to
` combine Crumlish with Strom.
` I mean, we don't want to create any more
` work for the Board. We understand the Supreme Court
` saying you have to resolve all grounds. But to be
` clear, if you find the motivations to combine are
` sufficient in the first two grounds, we agree you
` don't have to consider the Strom grounds. That would
` be the basis in which it would become irrelevant.
` THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Can you
` hear me?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Your Honor, if we go --
` obviously, we have more slides we can cover today, so
` we're going to jump straight to Slide 8, which is an
` overview of the Ording reference. And Ording
` describes --
` THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: -- the feature that I --
` Ording was filed in 1999, but I think everyone in the
` world -- I don't think you can find a tablet, or
` iPhone, or android in the world that doesn't have
` this feature. It discloses what's called the userbar
` on the bottom of the screen -- or it could be
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` anywhere, but in the bottom of the screen, for
` example, that shows icons for applications.
` And in the passage we have cited here on
` Slide 8, which is from Ording, Column 13, Line 21 --
` I'm sorry, 12 through 21, Exhibit 1103, it talks
` about the fact that Ording can have an icon for a
` messaging application. And it goes on and says you
` can have a number representing the number of new
` messages in the inbox. And it goes on to talk about
` the fact that the number can be updated and changed,
` increased or decreased to affect changes in the
` status.
` So Ording punches through a lot of the
` limitations in the claim in terms of the icon, the
` numeric character, and visually modifying that
` character up and down, based on status.
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, I think the issue for us
` -- and let's just jump right through it -- is that
` even though yeah, so Ording has the slide bar, and
` has a tile that you have equated to the icon, and it
` has a number. You are only relying on Ording -- at
` least, as you walk through your contentions in the
` petition, you did it in the order in which the
` limitations appear in the claim, and it appeared, at
` first, that you're relying on Ording as the,
` quote/unquote, primary reference.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` But then when you really look at it -- I
` didn't appreciate this before -- is that you're
` really relying on Ording for the icon, but not the
` e-mail program that Ording may or may not have.
` So aside from the icon, what else in Ording
` are you relying on to meet the claims, other than the
` icon and the number?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: The petition goes through
` the limitations there. The primary limitations are
` the icon and the number, which is, frankly, the
` majority of the claim elements. In fact, the entire
` third element is about that. So relying on Ording is
` essentially, like, the userbar technique. I mean,
` the claim doesn't actually have limitations dealing
` with what the e-mail program looks like.
` We're still using Abiko's e-mail program,
` but the claim is agnostic to the user interface of
` the e-mail program. But we are relying, you are
` correct, on the Abiko e-mail program because Ording's
` is agnostic. It can say -- it can be any e-mail,
` both parties agree. It's not limited for using
` Ording as the e-mail program you would use in order
` to create the claimed combination. And we have
` motivations to combine on that, which we can get --
` which we're going to get to, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, I agree that -- I think
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` it's important. I agree, seeing both sides of your
` arguments and your experts, that there's no dispute
` that Ording had e-mail programs, Abiko had an e-mail
` program. But your combination relies on taking
` Abiko's e-mail program and using the icon of Ording,
` or the icon mechanisms -- notification mechanisms of
` Ording.
` And what I'm left with is, if you're not
` using Ording's e-mail program, you're using Abiko's
` program, how does the notification get to the icon?
` Who's sending that notification now? Is it Abiko's
` e-mail program? Is there something else in Ording
` that is doing the notification?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Ording talks about the fact
` that the notification, it interfaces with the
` applications, whatever the applications can be. And
` to be clear, Ording specifically says that one of the
` applications can be an e-mail application, but it
` pretty much stops right there. And there is
` discussions in Ording of how you communicate the
` information back and forth between the application
` and the userbar to display the information.
` I think what we're saying is that under the
` combination here, you'd use the Abiko program because
` that gets you to the next issue, which is instead of
` using a number of new messages, you want to use 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
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` number of senders. And that's, kind of, why we
` didn't use just any e-mail program, we used Abiko
` because it provides the motivation to make that
` adaptation.
` Ording already discloses you can report the
` number from an e-mail program, that number of
` messages. The adaptation we have to show is it would
` be obvious to change that number from new messages to
` number of senders. And that's why Abiko is the
` reference that was chosen.
` JUDGE QUINN: So in your combination,
` Abiko is the e-mail program. It does what you want it
` to do, which is to sort the e-mails received by
` sender, and then Abiko's
` e-mail program would be the one providing this number
` to the Ording icon or whatever notification mechanism it uses
` to display the number on the icon, displayed in the
` tile bar. Is that a fair assessment?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: It is, Your Honor. In terms
` of physically implementing the system as an actual
` working system, my reading of Ording is that's
` exactly how you would implement it in an actual
` working system, is just in the way you described.
` And so I want to move to Slide 9 because
` Slide 9 is where we talked about Abiko. And Abiko is
` sort of, you know, a key part of the analysis because
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` it gives you that tie-in for why you would change the
` number from new messages to senders.
` On Slide 9, we show the fact that there is a
` sender table, and Abiko describes, in great detail,
` how it's -- it's actually very straightforward. It
` goes through every single message in your received
` message folder, it extracts address information, and
` every time it finds a new sender, it increments a
` value by one. It creates this sort of ordinal list
` of one to X, X being the whatever the total number of
` senders is, and that list can be displayed.
` Now, just so we're clear, the particular
` embodiments here shows the mail volume. Dr.
` Chatterjee explained in his opening declaration,
` there are actually three different sender menus in
` Abiko. The one just shows the sender name with the
` number, the No. Ordinal value. The second one shows
` the sender number with the sender name, with the
` date. The third one shows the sender number with the
` sender, with the mail volume, like this one.
` So there's three different embodiments in
` Abiko, but every single one of them has this
` numerical value that goes from one to whatever the
` number is. And in all cases, if the is four, in that
` case -- the number is going to be the same because
` the number of senders is different. The only
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` difference between the three embodiments is that they
` sort the list in a slightly different way, and they
` optionally present additional information.
` There's no dispute, Your Honor, that
` post-institution, the No. Column is going to
` represent the number of distinct senders.
` Pre-institution, they made an argument about, well,
` maybe it wouldn't represent it. Maybe you can have a
` user with two devices. I read that they've dropped
` that argument, and they don't seem to be pursuing
` that.
` So there's no dispute that the number --
` whatever that last number is in the sender menu of
` Abiko's is going to represent the distinct number of
` senders of e-mail messages.
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, let me ask you this,
` because I think most of the arguments that I'm seeing
` from the other side are somewhat in the legal realm
` of what do you need to show in order for a proper
` explanation to be accepted by the Board, in light of
` Polaris and Cutsforth and In re Lee. And I want to
` give you plenty of opportunity to respond to those
` arguments, because they came in in the sur-reply,
` concerning particularly the application of Polaris,
` which, you know, it is what it is, and I want to know
` what your take is on that, as you didn't address
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` Polaris yet.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Thank you, Your Honor. I
` mean, I think there's two issues here. They make a
` legal argument about the level of granularity you
` have to have on motivations to combine, and I think
` we made this clear in our reply. The legal issue
` doesn't really matter because even at that level of
` granularity, we have those motivations on a
` feature-by-feature basis, and I'll walk through them.
` On the legal question, I think the answer to
` the question about Polaris is, like everything else
` in KSR, because it's so flexible, totality and fact
` specific, do you need modifications -- motivations on
` every feature? The answer in the KSR is, it depends.
` Under Polaris -- the Polaris decision, they
` had modifications that were totally unrelated. In
` that case you had the location of a front drive shaft
` of the vehicle. And the other limitation was the
` location of the gas tank. These are limitations that
` really don't connect to each other, that certainly
` they can be -- they can actually be -- one can exist
` without the other. They're totally independent
` limitations. So in that situation, it does make
` sense that it's incumbent upon the petitioner to
` explain why you would do them because the reasons for
` adding the drive shaft may have nothing to do with
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` the reasons for adding the fuel tank.
` But on the factual question, Your Honor, we
` have motivations to combine on every one of their
` supposed modifications. And I can walk through
` those, Your Honor, because they're clearly in the
` petition, and there's pages and pages about them in
` the petition.
` I can start with Slide 21, Your Honor. And
` that's where --
` JUDGE QUINN: So let me just -- so you're
` saying that Polaris is particular to the facts of
` that case, in which you had two potentially unrelated
` limitations that needed to be analyzed independently
` versus here, where all of these pieces respond to one
` limitation, the visually-modifying limitation; is
` that what I'm hearing?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: In some cases, yes. I think
` Abiko is brought in for two reasons. One, it's
` brought in for the wireless communications
` capabilities because Ording doesn't expressly
` disclose it. It says it can be any device with a
` processor. It's brought in for that, the wireless
` features, the wireless e-mail program, and it's
` brought in for the numeric value.
` But I'm not necessarily saying that Polaris
` and Arctic Cat is limited to totally unrelated
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` limitations. I think, in this case, though, there
` are limitations that are clearly intertwined. The
` wireless capabilities of Abiko are part and parcel
` with the e-mail. If you look at Paragraph 4 of
` Abiko, it talks about wireless -- you know, mobile
` communications being ubiquitous and commonly being
` used for e-mail.
` I mean, Abiko is not a program about a
` hardware. It's not a program about wireless devices.
` It's a program about e-mails on a wireless device.
` So, again, we have a separate motivation to combine
` on the Abiko e-mail program, but the wireless one
` still would apply to that as well.
` JUDGE QUINN: So let me ask you, because
` that seems to be more concerned with the structure of
` your petition on how you set it out. That may be the
` confusing part in that you have a section in your
` petition right after you discuss the preamble in --
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Correct.
` JUDGE QUINN: -- which you have reason --
` Rationale, or motivation to combine, that's the
` section. And I think you meant for that section to
` be all of the reasons by which you could modify
` Ording and Abiko for the entire claim, not just a
` preamble or the program; is that right?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Not exactly, Your Honor. I
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` think the way we structured the petition is that we
` didn't draft it with a single section on motivation
` to combine because, well, you get accused of
` hand-waving when you do that because oftentimes,
` these sections don't tie in with the claim elements.
` So there's actually -- if you look at Slide
` 21, that's where what you're talking about exists,
` the motivation to combine Ording and Abiko, and
` that's about the wireless communications. If you go
` to Slide --
` JUDGE QUINN: I understand that, but let me
` just tell you that we're going to walk through your
` petition, and what I'm hearing from Patent Owner is
` that you're trying to piece together your case now in
` retrospect with different portions of your petition
` dealing with different limitations to try to shoehorn
` a motivation that should've been provided more
` specifically with a particular limitation. So I'm
` trying to understand what you meant by your petition.
` I read your --
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Understood.
` JUDGE QUINN: -- slide. I get that you're
` -- you have stuff there, it's just how it was
` presented, so that we can take whatever Patent
` Owner's going to say next and have that in context.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Okay. Your Honor, the way
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` that this was drafted was that every time Abiko is
` brought in for a limitation, to add additional detail
` or additional disclosures, there's a separate section
` -- you can see that on Slide 23, where there's
` another section on motivation to combine.
` Because in the preamble discussion, the only
` thing Abiko is being used for in that section of the
` analysis is the wireless device. The preamble simply
` recites a method of notification that's -- of unread
` messages on a wireless device.
` Ording discloses that entire limitation,
` with the exception of the wireless device. So it
` actually doesn't make sense to start talking about
` the benefits of Abiko's e-mail program, it's -- how
` it's sender centric. It doesn't make sense to
` discuss it there because that's not even relevant to
` this discussion, the preamble.
` So if you look at Slide 23, Your Honor,
` that's where Dr. Chatterjee is saying -- now, later
` down in the claim, we're getting more into the guts
` of the actual claims that talk about the e-mail
` program, the notifications, and what the visual
` numerical value has to describe.
` And here, Dr. Chatterjee says, "Although I
` provided a full explanation of the rationale and
` motivation to combine Ording and Abiko in my analysis
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` above" -- this claim from Paragraph 104 --
` "additional motivations can be identified in
` connection with this limitation" -- again, this is
` the limitation talking about the numerical identifier
` -- "that further strengthen the combination." And he
` goes on for five pages.
` He organized it that way because it wouldn't
` make sense to have this discussion in the preamble
` because the preamble -- none of this discussion of
` the numerical value, how it organizes messages, how
` it -- it proves that you could use all the
` motivations to identify, but it wouldn't make sense
` in the discussion of the preamble.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: So there's a lot of --
` JUDGE QUINN: I understand that. So here's
` where I think the gap is. You first start with the
` preamble saying, Ording and Abiko, the combination
` would be a wireless device, right?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes.
` JUDGE QUINN: And so that gives you the
` motivation to combine the two teachings to give you a
` device that has wireless capabilities. You don't
` discuss the e-mail program in Abiko until the
` displaying limitation, in which now you --
` MR. WEINSTEIN: That's correct.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` JUDGE QUINN: -- now we hear the contention
` in the displaying limitation that you want to use the
` icon in Ording with the e-mail program in Abiko.
` And --
` MR. WEINSTEIN: That's correct. That's
` because that's what -- yes, exactly. Go ahead. I'm
` sorry, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: And what we don't have right
` after that is what now I'm thinking you waited until
` the very end to do, is in that section explain why
` would you put in the e-mail program of Abiko with
` Ording's tile.
` MR. WEINSTEIN: Right.
` JUDGE QUINN: And what has come out is, it
` could be any program. You could have multiple
` programs; Apple Mail versus other mail. I mean, that
` came after the petition. So I'm asking, if we're
` looking for that in the petition, we have to go to
` that section you refer to -- actually, that was the
` expert declaration, but it's on Page 45 you said of
` the petition?
` MR. WEINSTEIN: 45 through around 47 is the
` description. It's very similar. It's a slight
` paraphrase but very similar to what's in the
` declaration. If you look at our slides, Slide 21
` through 26, we have citations both to Dr.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634 B2
`
` Chatterjee's declaration as well as the petition.
` And, yes, we did provide a motivation to
` combine with respect to the actual Abiko e-mail
` program. That's shown on Slide 25. That's shown --
` you know, that's a direct quo
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
