`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 21
`Entered: October 1, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`and ERICCSON, INC.,1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 9, 2020
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and MICHELLE N.
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner from IPR2020-00376 has been joined to this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DERRICK W. TODDY, ESQUIRE
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`
`121 SW Salmon Street
`Portland, OR 97204
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JEFFREY STEPHENS, ESQUIRE
`Etheridge Law Group, PLLC
`2600 East Southlake Boulevard
`Suite 120-324
`Southlake, TX 76092
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`September 9, 2020, commencing at 1:00 p.m., EDT, at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, by video/by telephone, before Walter Murphy, Notary
`Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` - - - - -
`JUDGE LEE: Good afternoon everyone. This is the Oral Hearing
`
`for IPR 2019-01116. The initial Petitioner is Microsoft Corporation and the
`Patent Owner is Uniloc 2017 LLC. Ericcson, Inc., the Petitioner from IPR
`2020-00376 has been joined as a party Petitioner. The involved patent is
`U.S. patent 7,016,676 B2 and the involved claims are claims 1 and 2. Now
`there is a public audio line open for this hearing. Just want counsel for each
`party to know that.
`
`I am Judge Jameson Lee joined by Judges Kevin Turner and Michelle
`Wormmeester. Before we begin we wish to thank counsel for your
`flexibility in conducting this hearing via video today. Given this is a
`departure from our normal practice, let me start by clarifying a few items.
`First, our primary concern is your right to be heard. If at any time during the
`proceeding you encounter technical difficulties that fundamentally
`undermine your ability to adequately represent your client please let us know
`immediately, for example by contacting the team member who provided
`with connection information. Second, for the benefit of the judges and
`opposing counsel, as well as the court reporter, please identify yourself when
`you begin your argument and speak clearly into your microphone. Please do
`not speak when others, such as the judges, are speaking. Third, we have the
`entire record including the demonstratives. When referring to
`demonstratives, papers or exhibits please do so clearly and explicitly by
`slide or paper number. Please also pause a few seconds after identifying it to
`provide us time to find it. This helps with the preparation of an accurate
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`transcript of the hearing. Finally, please mute yourself when you're not
`speaking. Please bear in mind the purpose of the Oral Hearing is to present
`your case based on the arguments and evidence of record. You may not
`introduce new evidence or arguments.
`
`Each party will have 60 minutes of total argument time. Petitioner
`and Patent Owner may each reserve time for rebuttal. Petitioner will go first
`and present its case, thereafter Patent Owner will argue its opposition and if
`there is any rebuttal from Petitioner we will hear it after Patent Owner's
`opposition and finally we will hear Patent Owner's surrebuttal, if requested.
`I will endeavor to provide each party with a five minute warning during
`opening arguments and a two minute warning during rebuttal and
`surrebuttal. Please also note that arguments raised during rebuttal and
`surrebuttal must be in response to arguments raised by the opposing party.
`Neither period should be used to initiate new arguments. So, now who is
`appearing on behalf of Petitioner?
`
`MR. TODDY: Thank you, Judge Lee. This is Derrick Toddy on
`behalf of Petitioner Microsoft Corporation.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. And who is here for Patent Owner?
`
`MR. STEPHENS: This is Jeffrey Stephens appearing on behalf of
`Uniloc 2017 LLC.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. I just want to know if any chance counsel for
`Ericcson is also here on the public line? I'm talking to the technical staff, I
`wouldn't be able to hear anything coming through, is that right?
`
`TECHNICAL STAFF: That would be correct, Judge.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. So I'm going to assume that if Ericcson's
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`counsel wanted to hear they would be on the public line.
`
`TECHNICAL STAFF: Yes, probably. The public audio line is muted
`upon entry.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay, thank you. Now would Petitioner like to reserve
`time for rebuttal and how much time?
`
`MR. TODDY: Yes, Your Honor. We would request 20 minutes.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. And Patent Owner?
`
`MR. STEPHENS: Yes, Judge Lee, 20 minutes as well for Patent
`Owner.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. Are there any other questions you'd like to talk
`about before we begin, counsel?
`
`MR. TODDY: None for Petitioner, Your Honor.
`
`MR. STEPHENS: None for Patent Owner. Thank you.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. Let me see. It's now 1:06 and here we go. You
`may start any time, Mr. Toddy.
`
`MR. TODDY: Thank you, Judge Lee. May it please the Board. The
`676 patent purported to solve the problem of stations operating in
`accordance with different radio interface standards sharing a common
`frequency band including by using a central controller to allocate time for
`those stations. The 676 patent acknowledges that it was known for such
`stations to share a band and also admits that it was known to have a central
`controller.
`
`However, the 676 patent stated in its specification that with the
`described embodiments,
`"Different radio systems may be made compatible" and further
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`"without the implementation of the new method this is only possible with
`respective exclusively used radio channels."
`That is in the 676 patent at column 5, lines 11 through 18 as cited in
`the petition, page 13.
`I'm referring now to slide 2 in Petitioner's demonstratives. As shown
`in the petition this assertion by the 676 patent regarding the state of the art is
`simply untrue. The petition cited four references coming out of the HomeRF
`Working Group over a year before the first U.S. application was filed for the
`676. HomeRF was an organization of 100 companies representing PC,
`telecommunications and consumer electronics industries and its goal was to
`improve interoperability between wireless, voice and data.
`The primary references that are seen there on slide 2 are an article
`published in IEEE Personal Communications from February of 2000 which I
`will refer to for the remainder of this presentation as HomeRF and the
`patent, the first named inventor of whom was also an author on the HomeRF
`publication, Jim Lansford, I'll refer to this going forward as the Lansford
`patent or Lansford.
`The petition also cites, and these are seen on slide 3 two additional
`HomeRF publications that were uploaded to the IEEE LAN/MAN Standards
`Committee website in 1998 and 1999 respectively. These references show
`how a POSITA would have understood certain of HomeRF's teachings.
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. Toddy, it's Judge Lee here. You only have 40
`minutes. We have reviewed -- read all the papers so you can spend your
`time any way you want but I'd really like you to focus on what constitutes a
`radio interface standard because I have a difficult time understanding 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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`Petitioner's position on what in HomeRF constitutes a radio interface
`standard. The discussions in the petition seemed very vague to me at least
`and Petitioner did not propose a construction for radio interface standard and
`when the Patent Owner proposed a construction in the Patent Owner
`response I was looking forward to seeing the reply but in the reply the
`Petitioner sidestepped the question. So as of right now the Petitioner still
`does not indicate what is a radio interface standard. In the reply the
`Petitioner simply says that, hey, operating according to a standard does not
`require implementation of the entire standard. Well, that doesn't really
`answer the question of what is a standard. Rather, it directs the inquiry to a
`different question.
`But really the fundamental question is what is an interface standard
`and then we can consider about whether or not an operation is according to
`that standard. This is a long way to ask a question but I really have literally
`20-30 questions on the same subject and I think the best way is for me to
`really have my own talk on this and you can understand what's troubling me
`and then you can just go on and take it apart and maybe you can answer a
`host of my questions just by responding. So I'm going to talk on.
`Now in the decision on Institution I thought you were arguing that
`TDMA is a standard and CSMA or CSMA/MA is another standard, and at
`DI, we agreed with you. But then the Patent Owner in the Patent Owner
`response says no, no, that's all incorrect because TDMA and CSMA are just
`access methods. They do not themselves constitute an entire standard. It's
`just an individual feature that might be adopted in a standard. So -- but in
`the reply you didn't disagree. You didn't say oh, no, TDMA is a standard
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`and CSMA is a standard. So right now I take it that Petitioner and Patent
`Owner are in agreement that TDMA by itself or CSMA or CSMA/MA by
`itself is not radio interface standard. Can we at least start with that
`clarification?
`MR. TODDY: Your Honor, that's a great place for me to start a
`discussion of what we understand to be a standard and I actually think Patent
`Owner and Petitioner are likely in agreement as to things that we would
`agree are standards and I think that we can start with 802.11 which is a
`standard that is mentioned both in the petition as well as in the 676 patent
`itself. 802.11(a) is an example of a standard and I think it's one that would
`be unremarkable.
`In the 676 patent there's an example given of another standard called
`HiperLAN2. HiperLAN2 is similar in a number of ways to the 802.11
`standard. They operate in the same band. They operate, according to the
`676 patent at least, according to approximately the same radio transmission
`method but they employ different transmission protocols. HiperLAN2 uses
`a reservation-based method and 802.11 uses a method where the radio
`stations listen and assume that the band is available after a certain time
`period passes where that band is unused. So I think those the examples of
`standards and they're examples of standards that I think both parties would
`agree on.
`As far as HomeRF, HomeRF makes clear that it is derived from two
`different standards. One is the same 802.11 standard we just talked about.
`HomeRF states that its second stations use a method that's derived from
`802.11 and/or OpenAir which is another similar standard that relies on that
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`CSMA/CA method that we talked about where stations listen and just
`assume the band is unused before they transmit, after a given time they
`assume that the band is available.
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. Toddy, I'm sorry to interrupt but everything you
`just said I understand that perfectly but you're not answering my question.
`The question is not whether I know from reading the spec that 802.11(a) is a
`standard. Yes it is.
`MR. TODDY: Sure.
`JUDGE LEE: I don't think Patent Owner disagrees and I don't think
`they disagree whether HiperLAN2 is a standard so that's not where the
`problem is. The problem is why you have -- the petition has confused the
`issue by inserting the word TDMA in front of every or most mention of
`802.11. That caused confusion on my part. And why you insert CSMA in
`front of the name of another standard? So I want you to start by telling us --
`MR. TODDY: Sure.
`JUDGE LEE: -- whether TDMA by itself is a standard and whether
`CSMA itself is a standard. Patent Owner says no, they're not and you don't
`seem to disagree in your reply. I wanted at least to tie that down first. Yes
`or no?
`MR. TODDY: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE LEE: By themselves are they a standard or not?
`MR. TODDY: Your Honor, by themselves they are not in and of
`themselves standards. They are important characteristics of respective
`standards. The standard --
`JUDGE LEE: But so a standard may include it, right? Like 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
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`standard might say I'm going to use TDMA so then it's part of that standard
`if it were included. But does TDMA by itself with nothing else is not a
`standard, right?
`MR. TODDY: Our position is we have not taken a position that it is a
`standard. I'm not sure I'm -- I'm not sure that we have an opinion that it isn't
`a standard but we are not relying on the Board's finding that those are in and
`of themselves standards. But the reason --
`JUDGE LEE: But if they say it's not, what's your response? Do you
`agree or disagree?
`MR. TODDY: If taken in isolation divorced from the standards from
`which they come, they are not standards. So --
`JUDGE LEE: And the same -- same with CSMA and CSMA/MA?
`MR. TODDY: That's right. Divorced from some standard they are
`not in and of themselves standards and Petitioner's position and the reason
`that we replied in the manner that we did is that we have not pointed to those
`access mechanisms, if you will, as standards in and of themselves but rather
`tie them or HomeRF has tied them to respective standards as part of those
`standards. So DECT is the one that I have not mentioned yet. Instead of the
`first radio interface standard being HiperLAN as it is in the 676, the first
`identified radio interface standard in the petition is DECT and the reason
`that we continued to mention those access mechanisms --
`JUDGE LEE: Oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry.
`MR. TODDY: That's all right.
`JUDGE LEE: See where the petition was confusing? I agree it makes
`more sense if you identify DECT as the standard but throughout 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
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`MR. TODDY: Right.
`JUDGE LEE: -- petition it's prefaced by TDMA. I mean you can go
`to it and you can see 20-30 repetitions where you say TDMA/802.11(a).
`You know, why insert TDMA in front of what's clearly a standard and then
`that really muddles things up?
`MR. TODDY: I'll tell you the reason for referring to both TDMA and
`to CSMA repeatedly throughout the petition is that is how HomeRF speaks
`about them after it's introduced them. So there is a lengthy paragraph that's
`cited in the petition where it talks about both the standards from which
`HomeRF is derived and then goes on to discuss the access mechanisms used.
`So I would refer the Board to slide 18 and slide 18 quotes from the
`petition at 30 and Mr. Rysavy's declaration at paragraph 81 and explains
`both of the underlying standards that we are arguing satisfy these claim
`elements. First is the DECT standard and the second is, on the right you can
`the IEEE 802.11 and OpenAir.
`JUDGE LEE: So now you're clarifying and I want to make sure I get
`it right. Literally I need you to help me understand what are the two
`standards you're actually saying. The first one absolutely you're clarifying is
`D-E-C-T for voice, right?
`MR. TODDY: That is the standard, correct.
`JUDGE LEE: Doesn't matter what terms you use in the petition
`whether you prefaced it with TDMA, really what you're saying is hey, for
`the voice devices the standard is DECT; is that right?
`MR. TODDY: That's correct.
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. And then for the other one, for the data devices
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`the standard you're identifying is either IEEE 802.11 or OpenAir?
`MR. TODDY: That's also correct.
`JUDGE LEE: So that if you pursue it this way you don't need to
`construe a standard because you're relying on what's previously recognized
`as standards. So if we agree with you that yes, you know, half the devices
`use DECT and the other half use either 802.11 or OpenAir, then you would
`have made your case?
`MR. TODDY: I agree that that is true. I believe that the access
`mechanisms are helpful in understanding how those standards function
`differently. I think that difference is an important one and again I do
`apologize for any confusion as to the position of DECT versus TDMA, but
`most of the discussion in the 676 patent and most of the discussion in
`HomeRF, parallel discussions, talk about the differences between different
`standards and the access mechanisms they use and then the problems that
`those present and in particular the problem presented is that the second radio
`interface standard stations don't get a chance to talk if the station is occupied
`-- or if the channel is occupied for the whole time by the first radio interface
`standard stations simply because of their access mechanisms.
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel --
`JUDGE LEE: We'll get to that but I’m not smart enough to follow
`you, you go too fast. So first things first --
`MR. TODDY: Okay. I'm sorry.
`JUDGE LEE: -- we need to know what are the standards and then we
`look at what the differences are. So your first standard is supposed to be
`DECT and your second standard is supposed to be either the 802.11 or 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
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`OpenAir, correct? And then we can talk about differences.
`MR. TODDY: Yes, I agree, that's correct.
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. Now help us understand why what you show on
`your slide here and which is quoted from HomeRF, why does this tell us that
`for the voice devices it's actually using DECT and why for the data devices
`it's actually using either 802.11 or OpenAir? When I read it it doesn't tell me
`that.
`
`MR. TODDY: So let me start with the 802.11 and OpenAir. If you
`look at the quoted portion and look at the highlighted portion on slide 18, the
`CSMA/CA service provided by HomeRF it expressly states that that is
`derived from wireless LAN standards that we mentioned.
`JUDGE LEE: No. But you don't explain what derived means. I don't
`know what that means. Derived could be -- why couldn't derived mean I
`changed it a whole lot, you know, I derived it from that but I've changed it
`such that it no longer is the 802.11 or OpenAir? You know, I started from
`that but I tinkered with it. I changed this; I changed that; I changed that
`other thing. So out of the original 100 things now there's only 50 that are the
`same and the other 50 are now different. Why is the end product still what
`you started out with if you've made substantial changes to it?
`MR. TODDY: Well I think HomeRF -- the way that HomeRF
`describes the CSMA/CA service as it's implemented is consistent with the
`way that it's described in the 802.11 standard and it's consistent with the way
`that that standard itself is characterized in the 676 patent. So I think we go
`down a little bit if we start talking about the implementation of a complete
`standard because there are, you know, standards are lengthy, lengthy
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`documents and there are all types of provisions in the standard for all sorts
`of things that may be completely irrelevant to the patent at issue and the
`patent at issues --
`JUDGE LEE: I understand but where do you draw the line? And
`sometime let's say there's a 1,000 things, you know. They don't all have to
`be followed and you can still say it's according to that standard. But let's say
`out of 1,000 things you only do one, the other 999 are all different. Now at
`that point would you still say it's still in accordance to that standard when it's
`mostly different?
`MR. TODDY: If it's mostly different from the standard but it's still
`operating in accordance with the standard for a given element of the claim,
`then I think that's where you would draw the line. If you're talking about
`some feature that is not being followed by a prior art reference that has --
`let's just say there were some stated additional features of 802.11 and the
`HomeRF reference said expressly we're not adopting these three features,
`well if those features have nothing to do with the claims at issue or the claim
`elements at issue then I don't think there would be a concern. I think the
`concern would come if there was some way that there was a change from the
`standard that was relevant to whatever it is, in this case method steps you're
`performing, that you're supposed to be performing on stations that are
`operating in accordance with the standard.
`JUDGE LEE: So what you're saying is it doesn’t matter if it's
`different in a whole lot of other ways, if HomeRF doesn't care about them
`then it doesn't matter whether they're the same or different; is that pretty
`much the argument?
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`MR. TODDY: Well, or if the patent doesn't care about them more
`appropriately, right, if there are things that don't take anything away from
`the prior art reference teaching what it is the patent itself describes in claims.
`I mean here the functions it's striking that the similarities between the
`functions performed by HomeRF on these two different standards using
`these two different access mechanisms and very parallel standards and
`access mechanisms in the 676 itself right down to the --
`JUDGE LEE: Right. So if the only thing you're concerned is access
`mechanism, then you'd be saying hey, I do it the same -- I adopt the same
`access method as is adopted in this standard so I'm doing, I'm operating
`according to the standard regardless of how different other things might be.
`MR. TODDY: I think in that respect that I agree with that, Your
`Honor I think, you know, it would not be an appropriate response for, you
`know, a patent owner to point to some feature that wasn't operating in
`accordance with the standards without somehow specifically tying it to the
`claim and saying, you know, because this feature functions in a way that the
`standard itself does not function they're not practicing the claim if there's
`nothing in the claim about that feature if it's a completely unrelated feature
`or if, for example, 802.11 there's a number of different versions of that
`standard, you know, those standards may have a number of differences that
`have nothing to do with the claims at issue. So I don't think merely --
`JUDGE LEE: I understand, okay. But then the problem is why is it a
`standard then? A standard seems to be, I don't know, nobody provided
`definition. It seems to me a standard is something that's recognized by a lot
`of people, right? So let's say you only pick out the access method and that
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`may or may not be used in a whole lot of standards. Let's say ten different
`standards use that, how can you say that using this access method which
`happens to be used by 20-30 different standards and I can say that this is in
`accordance with any one of those standards which happens to use the same
`access method. It doesn’t make sense to me that you'd be able to say that.
`MR TODDY: I think if they had said something different than what
`they said and had said, you know, I use TDMA and hadn't said where it was
`derived from or, you know, I use CSMA and hadn't said where it was
`derived from, again that might be an issue. Patent Owner brings up the point
`of some standards use both of these standards or adapt these access
`mechanisms for a single standard. But again I think the issue here is that we
`start with two underlying different standards with different access
`mechanisms and the HomeRF describes, as the 676 patent attempts to as
`well, how to make what are different standards with different access
`mechanisms compatible.
`JUDGE LEE: I see. I understand. Now for the DECT your argument
`is the same, that because it uses a subset of DECT it necessarily is in
`accordance with DECT insofar as access mechanism is concerned?
`MR. TODDY: Insofar as the access mechanism is concerned
`specifically because it says it uses TDMA service, not just because it said --
`if it just said it uses a subset of DECT and didn't mention an access
`mechanism, no, but because it says it uses a subset of DECT and specifies
`the access mechanism and because a POSITA would understand that that is
`DECT's access mechanism as Mr. Rysavy has pointed out, that's why
`throughout the balance of the petition we use those terms interchangeably
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`because that's really the point. That's really the point that the 676 patent's
`claim is getting at is how do you take these two different standards with two
`different access mechanisms and make them work together.
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. I think -- thank you for the explanation, I think I
`understand what you're arguing. I don't know if I agree with it; I don't know
`yet. But I now at least I know what you're arguing. The question is --
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel, can I ask a related question? I'm sorry, I
`didn't mean to interrupt, Judge Lee.
`JUDGE LEE: No, no problem. Go ahead.
`MR. TODDY: Yes, Your Honor Please.
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel, yes can you -- this is Judge Turner,
`thank you. Can you go to Petitioner's slide 38 which I think is sort of
`emblematic and I think in one slide here captures all of perhaps, and maybe
`it may be wrong for me to say, but I think captures all of Judge Lee's
`concerns because we have in quotes here a subset of the DECT standard and
`then we have derived from the 802.11 OpenAir standards, so I know he
`asked this question but I don't really feel like we got a good enough answer.
`If it's a subset and it's derived from how far away can we be, you know, and
`still be according, you know, in accordance with a radio interface standard?
`I mean how far away, I mean 802.11(a) is different than 802.11(b). They're
`different standards but there's a lot of overlap so you could say well it's in
`accordance with this standard or that standard, it's a little hard to sort of
`understand when we're not using sort of something that's, you know, purely
`according to that standard but it's derived from or a subset. Maybe you've
`already answered this and I didn't quite get it but I'll let you answer what 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
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`think my question is.
`MR. TODDY: Your Honor, I think this is where in our initial petition
`we had offered a construction for the longer phrase to operate in accordance
`with a radio interface standard because I don't think there's really any issue
`that there are underlying radio interface standards set forth here in HomeRF.
`The question is, is HomeRF operating, are its I-nodes operating in
`accordance with the DECT standard when it uses TDMA? Are the A-nodes
`operating in accordance with 802.11 or OpenAir, or both when using
`CSMA? And our position is, and that was where our construction came in,
`that they are operating in accordance with that standard and it's hard to
`answer the well, how far away can you get from the standard and still follow
`the standard.
`I would go back to the claims, you know, the claims are the name of
`the game and the touchstone and so if, you know, the portions of the claim
`that address what those various standard stations have to be doing are being
`performed and they're being performed in a way that is by all accounts
`unmodified from the way those standards would function, then I think that
`should be sufficient.
`So, you know, maybe the longer construction, you know, or the longer
`phrase, the more complete phrase that we offered a construction for is
`necessary to give color to that because I don't think if you just stop at saying
`we need to construe radio interface standard as Patent Owner has done, I
`think that misses something as well because if you start with a radio
`interface standard and you say you operate in accordance with it and there
`seems to be this implicit suggestion that you can't modify the standard in any
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`way, as Mr. Rysavy testified in his supplemental declaration, that's not even
`how the 676 patent itself works. You know, there's no way that you can take
`these 802.11 stations that operate simply by waiting for silence and send
`them a beacon with information on what times they're allowed to use, you
`know, that's not set forth in the standard. That's a change to the standard.
`That is the nature of the 676. It's not taking these standards as, you know,
`wholly fully formed standards and allowing them to operate in an
`unmodified way. There's a required modification to make them compatible.
`So that's why I'm a little hesitant to point to some line in the sand
`where you can denigrate a certain amount from a standard and, you know,
`smf say it's this much but I would say that if it's operating in accordance
`with the standard in all ways that are relevant to the claims at issue, then I
`think that should satisfy the claim as it should be construed. I'm happy to
`discuss, you know, our claim construction position on that. We, in our
`reply, agreed with the Board that there are clearly standards here and so, you
`know, didn't feel that we needed to go further but if the Board feels that
`construction is necessary I think we have a construction on Petitioner's side
`that actually is tied to the patent and we have a construction that Patent
`Owner's offered that really is divorced from the patent because there is no
`complete radio interface standard practice going on with the two radio
`interface standards that the patent identifies. Those second stations can't
`function according to their standard in its complete form because there are
`aspects that are being introduced that are not set forth in that standard.
`JUDGE LEE: This is Judge Lee. I'm trying to understand your
`arguments but the problem I see is, you know, standards are something that's
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`supposed to be recognized and approved by certain bodies. So they may go
`oh, TDMA is good, I want to use that. But also -- but it should be used
`together with this other technique and that other technique. So it's TDMA
`plus X and Y and Z. That's why we want to have all those in our standard,
`and then you come along and say well, I only want to use TDMA and you
`see look at that standard, they use TDMA so I'm working in accordance with
`that standard but we don't know whether that standard's organization is
`saying you should use TDMA but only together with X, Y and Z and