Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`GOOGLE LLC, LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZIPIT WIRELESS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: December 8, 2020
`__________
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`GOOGLE LLC, LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZIPIT WIRELESS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: December 8, 2020
`__________
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019 01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019 01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ELISABETH HUNT, ESQ.
`RICHARD GIUNTA, ESQ.
`ANANT SARASWAT, ESQ.
`Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`(617) 646-8443
`ehunt-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`rgiunta-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`asaraswat-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`STEPHEN R. RISLEY, ESQ.
`CORTNEY S. ALEXANDER, ESQ.
`Kent & Risley, LLC.
`5755 North Point Parkway
`Suite 57
`Alpharetta, Georgia 30022
`(404) 585-2101
`steverisley@kentrisley.com
`cortneyalexander@kentrisley.com
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, December 8,
`
`2020, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1:01 p.m.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Good afternoon. This is a trial hearing for
`two inter-parties reviews, IPR 2019-01567, involving U.S. Patent Number
`7,292,870, and IPR 2019-1568, involving U.S. Patent Number 7,894,837.
`The petitioner is Google -- the petitioners are, sorry, Google LLC,
`LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. The patent owner is
`Zipit Wireless, Inc.
`I am Judge Jefferson, and with me are Judges Powell and Hamann. I
`want to, before I turn to Counsel for appearances, I want to ask if the court
`reporter can hear us, and if so far we are on the record with the court
`reporter.
`COURT REPORTER: Yes, I can hear you.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you. Let the court reporter know if
`there's any issues with your audio or feed. Obviously you have experience
`with this, but please let us know and we'll pause the proceedings and get it
`straightened out.
`So I'll turn to welcome and thank you all for your flexibility,
`obviously, and conducting hearings by teleconferences is new to us. Maybe
`not new to some of the members of the parties that are here today. But we
`know this is a departure, and we appreciate your help in getting these
`hearings underway.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`So let's turn to the -- before I turn to the parties for appearances, let
`me give a little other housekeeping stuff.
`Obviously our primary concern is that you're heard and present and
`on the record for the case that you're making. If, any time during the
`proceedings, you encounter technical or other difficulties, that you feel
`undermines your ability to adequately represent your client or the
`information being presented, please just let us know immediately.
`You should have been given contact information from our team
`members to help you maintain your connection. Please use those if your,
`you know, your communications with us teleconference-wise is interrupted.
`Second, when not speaking, please mute yourself. I think it helps
`with background noise, as well as helps the court reporter get a clean
`recording of our proceeding.
`Please identify yourself when you speak. That helps the court
`reporter, obviously, but it also helps us and gives the screen a little time to
`adjust if you're going to become the video portion for everyone here.
`Fourth, I believe we have the entire record, including demonstratives
`that the parties have filed, and referring to them, obviously, refer to the
`exhibit numbers or names.
`Please speak clearly and explicitly by slide or page number. It helps
`the transcript. Also helps us follow along. You can give us a few seconds to
`catch up, but you can anticipate that we are doing so.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Finally, our hearing's open to the public. I believe in our pretrial we
`talked a little bit about that, whether it's your own team members or others in
`the public that have requested lines, they have been given access.
`I'm not aware of any sealed or confidential information in this
`proceeding. Nonetheless, if you have some issue, please bring it to our
`attention.
`And now, at this time, I'll ask Counsel to introduce yourselves.
`Please let us also know who might be participating on your teams, either by
`audio or video. And we'll begin with Petitioner in that regard.
`MS. HUNT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Thank you. My name is
`Elizabeth Hunt, with Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, representing Petitioners.
`With me are Anant Saraswat and Richard Giunta, also from Wolf
`Greenfield. I plan to present a portion of our arguments today and Mr.
`Saraswat plans to present a portion as well.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you for that information. Helps with
`the court reporter as well. We'll turn to the Patent Owner. Please introduce
`yourselves, and as per the Petitioner's instructions, let us know who's
`participating with you, either online or on video.
`MR. RISLEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon. This is
`Steve Risley for the Patent Owner, Zipit Wireless, Inc. And with me today,
`as well, participating by video is Cortney Alexander. And we, too, will be
`splitting up the argument into two parts.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you. Let the parties know that
`certainly it's up to you, I'll let you decide how you split that up. I'll try to
`keep -- I will be keeping time.
`As you know from our pretrial order, each party has 75 minutes in
`total to present their arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing
`unpatentability of the challenged claims, and will proceed first, followed by
`the Patent Owner.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner may both reserve rebuttal time, which,
`by that ordering, would mean the Patent Owner gets to go last.
`I'll repeat for clarity again -- transcript is important, it's useful to us, I
`know, to all of us, so please state the slide number, exhibit, or page number
`you're referring to.
`And although we will review written objections and motions as we're
`deliberating, and usually those are answered in our appearances, feel free to
`highlight during your presentation if any of those issues matter to your
`particular arguments that you're making before us today.
`I will be the timekeeper, the ultimate timekeeper. As I think I
`indicated before I'm not a stickler with that. I'm certainly not interested in
`going over by a lot, but if there's additional information that can be brought
`out during our discussion, I certainly will allow some time to let it happen.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`But I will be keeping time. I encourage you and your partners to
`keep time as well, and I will let you know at the end of each portion of our
`presentation when we will -- how much time you have left.
`And importantly enough, this is not a marathon. Whether it's my
`fellow judges or you guys, we will take a break, a five-minute break. We're
`not trying to keep you separated -- to your seats.
`I think we're all working in interesting environments, as you can see
`from our own backdrops here, so if we have interruptions from little ones,
`and maybe that's an indication on my side, or otherwise, I will -- may take a
`suitable break.
`But I think we'll try to take a five-minute break, as appropriate, to let
`the parties stretch their legs and straighten things out, and get back on the
`record as soon as possible, because, again, it's not a marathon, but we're not
`trying to be here all day.
`And with that in mind, I think I've covered all of the important
`things. So again, if technical difficulties present themselves, please know
`you will all be given time, and we'll get through it.
`I'm going to also tell you now and repeat at the end, please stay on
`the line afterwards in case the court reporter has spellings or issues or
`portions they did not get. They might want to ask you some questions and
`we'd appreciate you sticking around.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Oh, and the last portion, of course, if you are going on break, I know
`sometimes you're chatting with your team, maybe they are remotely. Please
`mute yourselves.
`I don't want any inadvertent conversations to be shared with outside
`groups here when we're taking breaks. It's a little hard to take them
`virtually.
`So with that in mind, Petitioner, you start, and you will -- would you
`like to reserve time? And then once you tell me that, you certainly can begin
`when you're ready.
`MS. HUNT: Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Again, Elizabeth Hunt
`for the Petitioners. We are hoping to reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you. Noted. And you may begin,
`again, when you are ready.
`MS. HUNT: All right. Thank you. I know Your Honors have been
`familiar with the Zipit patents, so I will start on Slide 5 of our
`demonstratives.
`And on Slides 5 and 6, we've summarized the petition's grounds and
`references for the two patents, and we plan today to discuss just the issues
`that are disputed.
`I plan to cover the challenged independent claims, including
`addressing secondary considerations, and then Mr. Saraswat will address the
`one dependent claim in each patent that's separately disputed.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Now, the independent claims are challenged under two grounds
`each. A combination based on Van Dok, and a combination based on Zaner.
`Slide 7. There are only a few disputed limitations in the independent
`claims. Each patent has a limitation involving a data entry device, and
`graphical symbols, like emoticons. And then the '870 patent also has
`disputed limitations about connection loss.
`I'll start with the '837 Claim 11, which has only one disputed
`limitation. And I'll start with the Van Dok-based ground, where there's only
`one disputed issue, and that's whether Van Dok uses a data entry device of a
`handheld instant messaging terminal.
`Going to Slide 9, this is a claim construction issue, and it's
`dispositive. Zipit's only argument against how this ground meets the '837
`Claim 11 is that Van Dok doesn't say the data entry device of its handheld
`terminal is integrated in the housing of the handheld.
`But Zipit's claim construction just inserts the words, integrated into
`the -- sorry, integrated into the housing, into the claim language. And that's
`not a construction. It's not construing any term in the claim. It's just adding
`words, which is blatantly importing limitations.
`Your Honors were correct to reject this at institution, and Zipit gives
`you no supportable reason to reconsider now.
`Slide 10. As our reply pointed out, Zipit made the affirmative choice
`not to limit Claim 11 to an integrated data entry device. They chose to
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`
`include that limitation in the other independent claim, Claim 1. And they
`chose not to put it in Claim 11.
`And the federal circuit said, in Kara Tech, this means the latter
`independent claim is not limited the way the first one is, and it would be
`error to import the limitation. And Zipit did not even try to respond to this
`point that we made in our reply, so this point is unrebutted.
`Slide 11. The only argument Zipit made for Your Honors to
`reconsider their claim construction is, they allege that the prosecution history
`disclaimed non-integrated data entry devices.
`But as our expert explained, Zipit mischaracterizes the prosecution's
`statements. They allege that in distinguishing Rucinski, the Applicant said
`the data entry device has to be integrated in the handheld's housing.
`But the applicant never talked about the data entry device, which, in
`this case, is a keyboard. That is undisputed, that Rucinski already had an
`integrated keyboard. You can see that in Rucinski's Figure 3. And Zipit's
`expert agreed.
`So contrary to Zipit's suggestion, an integrated keyboard was not part
`of their basis for distinguishing Rucinski. What Rucinski did that was
`different was Rucinski had a separate computer do some of the IM protocol
`processing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`So Zipit distinguished Rucinski by saying that this IM protocol stuff
`had to be done in the handheld, and that's completely unrelated to the
`keyboard, and it's the only aspect discussed in the '837 file history.
`Slide 12. It's the same in the '870 file history. The distinguishing
`arguments were all about the protocol processing. Rucinski did that in a
`separate computer, and Zipit distinguished by saying the protocol processing
`had to be done in the handheld.
`Now, Zipit points to some passing mentions of data entry, where the
`applicant was saying that unlike Rucinski, Zipit's system does the protocol
`processing in the same handheld that supports the data entry and display
`functions.
`That's not saying the keyboard is integrating in the housing. Again,
`Rucinski already had an integrated keyboard, so there was no reason the
`prosecution would be talking about that.
`The applicant's distinction with Rucinski was that all the software
`processing happens in the handheld, so you don't need a whole separate
`computer to be involved.
`And you see that here on Slide 12, and you'll see the same when
`Zipit shows you the snippet they put on their Slide 8. The applicant refers to
`the, quote, processing, identified in the claim.
`And that software processing includes protocol processing, wireless
`access, and display and data entry functions, which, if you look at our Slide
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`
`13, both experts testified that data entry always involves software drivers in
`the handheld's processor that receive and interpret signals from other
`devices, like keyboards.
`So the data entry software function is in the housing, regardless of
`whether the keyboard is integrated or connected to those functions by a wire.
`That just doesn't matter, and it didn't matter in prosecution. The keyboard
`wasn't a distinguishing feature.
`Again, Rucinski had the same keyboard that Zipit does. The remarks
`in the file history all about software processing functions, and not about
`what peripherals those functions get signals from.
`So Dr. Abowd explained that a POSA wouldn't see any disavowal of
`nonintegrated keyboards here, let alone a clear and unambiguous disavowal
`as the law requires for disclaimer.
`So Zipit's construction requiring an integrated data-entry device is
`entirely unsupported. If Your Honors reject it as you did at institution, that's
`determinative for the '837 Claim 11 on the Van Dok ground.
`The only other issue affecting that ground is secondary
`considerations, and I'll discuss those at the end. When we get there, one
`thing to remember is that Zipit's only patentability argument on this ground
`was claim construction.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`
`
`Zipit didn't dispute the petition's combination or motivation to
`combine, and they don't cite any cases suggesting that secondary
`considerations would be relevant to claim construction.
`Slide 14. Briefly, also, before moving on from the '837 claim, even
`if Zipit's incorrect claim construction were adopted, both experts have
`testified that the term handheld device tells the POSA that the handheld data
`entry device is integrated in its housing.
`And Van Dok says that all the techniques it discloses can be
`practiced in a handheld device configuration. So a POSA would've
`understood, that configuration meets even Zipit's construction.
`Again, this testimony from both experts is unrebutted. The only
`response in Zipit's sur-reply, Page 4, is attorney argument citing their own
`patent as saying that a handheld could use a detachable keyboard.
`But Dr. Abowd addressed that in his reply declaration, Paragraph 10,
`cited in our '837 reply, Page 5. He explained that the reference Zipit's patent
`cites describes detachable keyboards only as additional options where the
`handhelds also have integrated data entry devices.
`It's completely consistent with both experts' testimony that handheld
`device, which is what Van Dok discloses, means its data entry device is
`integrated.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`
`
`And Your Honors, unless there are questions on '837 Claim 11 with
`Van Dok, I will look at the '870 patent next, staying with the Van Dok
`grounds.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: This is Judge Jefferson. Just to be clear, is
`Zipit's argument directed only to the integration, the sort of integral nature of
`the keyboard not being attached, the input device not being attached?
`As I understand it, the parties have no dispute or discussion over
`whether, you know, as in the Rucinski reference, some of the -- what I'll call
`software or driver information is done on or off board.
`That's not a dispute at all, because the claims, as I read them, are
`directed toward the inputting of data and the quote-unquote integrated nature
`of whether that part is somehow combined in a single housing of some sort.
`Right?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`There's no dispute about the other sort of software-based functions
`that you were talking about with Rucinski.
`MS. HUNT: Yes, as I understand Your Honor's question, there's no
`dispute that the IM protocol processing, wireless access, all the software
`processing functions, are happening within the handheld in the petition's
`combination.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay. Thank you.
`MS. HUNT: All right. So Slide 16. Moving to the '870 Claim 20,
`and staying with the Van Dok grounds, the '870 Claim 20 has a similar
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`
`limitation, reciting a data entry device of a handheld terminal. And Zipit
`argues the same integrated data entry device construction here, as well. That
`fails for all the reasons we just discussed.
`Now, for this claim, there's one additional issue about the entering
`graphical symbols limitation in blue on this slide, before we get to the other
`highlighted limitations.
`On Slide 17, Van Dok discloses that the user types the sequence
`colon-parenthesis to produce the graphical smiley by an automatic
`conversion.
`And Zipit argues that's not entering a graphical symbol. Your
`Honors correctly rejected that argument at institution, where you said it
`improperly requires limitations from the specification's embodiments to be
`read into the claim.
`Van Dok clearly discloses a graphical emoticon being entered into an
`instant message by using a keyboard, which is a data entry device. So Van
`Dok meets the claim, plain language.
`Slide 18. Zipit's own patents describes that same technique as a way
`graphical emoticons can be, quote, entered, which is exactly the claim
`language that Zipit now says somehow excludes this.
`The spec says, graphical emoticons, quote, can be entered by
`depressing their standard key sequence, unquote, just like Van Dok does.
`And both experts agree, this is what the spec discloses.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`So contrary to Zipit's sur-reply, the spec doesn't say that this entry
`method is less preferred than using emoticon keys. The spec says, in
`Columns 19 to 20, that the invention includes both, because there are a lot of
`emotions to support. So Zipit's argument against Van Dok is inconsistent
`with their own spec.
`Slide 19. We pointed out this specification embodiment in the
`petition, and Zipit's POR completely ignored it. They never argued that the
`claim doesn't cover this embodiment.
`After we pointed out this waiver in our reply, their sur-reply then
`belatedly argued that you should interpret Claim 20 to exclude the
`embodiment in their own spec.
`That's an improper new argument they should've raised in their POR,
`and instead they waived it, so Your Honors shouldn't consider it. But even if
`you do consider it, it's baseless.
`Slide 20. The claim says, entering graphical symbols. And the spec
`says, graphical symbols can be entered by typing their text sequence. It
`couldn't be clearer that the claim language covers what the spec says that
`very language covers.
`Zipit's new attorney argument, that the claim was amended in
`prosecution to the symbol displayed is the same symbol that was entered,
`they say that can't encompass what their spec describes, but that's not true.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`The claim talks about entering graphical symbols to form instant
`messages. So the entering in the claim is about what's going into the instant
`message.
`And in both Zipit's spec and in Van Dok, that's the graphical symbol.
`The claim doesn't limit what buttons are pressed on the keyboard to create
`that graphical symbol that's entered in the message.
`And their own spec says that the text sequence can be what's pressed.
`In fact, if it follows Zipit's new logic that you have to display exactly the
`same data that came through the keyboard. It wouldn't read on any
`embodiment, even the ones that have a dedicated emoticon key.
`Zipit's expert testified that the data from the keyboard is always
`different from what gets displayed, because a keyboard just generates a
`coordinate code that some software always has to interpret into some
`character or symbol for display.
`So Zipit's argument for excluding their own embodiment, first, its
`attorney argument is unsupported by any expert testimony on what a POSA
`would've understood.
`And second, it just makes no sense. It's inconsistent with the plain
`claim language, the same language in the spec, and their expert's testimony
`about how keyboards work.
`Slide 21. Those are their only arguments for the entering limitation.
`So if Your Honors agree with us on entering and on construction of data
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`
`entry device, then Van Dok meets this blue limitation, 20A. If there aren't
`questions on that, I'll move on to 20F and 20G.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Continue.
`MS. HUNT: All right. So Slide 22. Limitation 20F says, displaying
`conversation histories for active conversations terminated by a loss of a
`network connection. The petition showed that McCarthy teaches this
`limitation, and then combined McCarthy with Van Dok and with Zaner.
`McCarthy discusses an IM user's status going passive, which means
`that they temporarily can't send messages. And McCarthy shows that the
`conversation histories continue to be displayed during passive status.
`And McCarthy says, one way this can happen is when there's a loss
`of connection. That's the top quote here on Slide 22. Zipit doesn't dispute
`this. What Zipit argues is that the connection McCarthy says is lost is not a
`network connection.
`But McCarthy is explicit. The interaction status, which can be
`passive or active, can reflect, quote, a current network connection status,
`because it indicates whether the user is connected, quote, via a network
`connection, end quote.
`So there's two ways McCarthy says you can go passive, in the top
`quote on Slide 22. You can deliberately choose to switch to passive status.
`And you can also be forced passive because you lost your connection.
`Either way, your conversation histories are still displayed.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Now, Zipit argues that because the client connects specifically to a
`thread server over the network, then McCarthy must be talking about losing
`the server connection, rather than the network connection.
`That's all a red herring. Everyone agrees that a server connection
`requires a network connection. The client connects to the server through the
`network. So when the client loses its network connection, of course it loses
`its connection to the server.
`It doesn't matter if you could also lose a server connection some
`other way, like if the server somehow goes down. McCarthy doesn't talk
`about that problem. It doesn't mention ways you could lose your server
`connection without losing your network connection.
`What McCarthy talks about is dealing with problems with the client's
`connection to the network. You can see on --
`JUDGE HAMANN: Counsel? This is Judge Hamann. Just a quick
`question. How would you characterize what a server connection is, versus
`what a network connection is?
`MS. HUNT: So a client's connection to a network allows the client
`to communicate with many devices that may be accessible over the network.
`And then in McCarthy, in one embodiment, there is a server hosting the
`instant messaging that the client will communicate with over the network.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay, so I'm not sure I fully appreciate the
`distinction being drawn. I think I do, but I'm just trying, for the record, to
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`
`have a better understanding of Petitioner's position as to the difference
`between server connection and a network connection, the context of this
`reference.
`MS. HUNT: To be honest, Your Honor, it's a distinction that Zipit is
`drawing, and not Petitioners. So McCarthy is talking about a network
`connection.
`Over and over and over, McCarthy talks about a client being
`connected to devices via a network connection. And there's a server that it
`can receive communications from, over the network.
`But McCarthy -- what McCarthy discusses explicitly is network
`connection problems, and the client having to be connected via network
`connection, and then a loss of connection causing passive status, where they
`can't receive communications.
`So if you look, for example, on Slide 24, McCarthy's introduction
`says that its goal is to maintain communications through problems with
`intermittent connectivity in client devices, like portable Wi-Fi devices.
`And Dr. Abowd explained, this is talking about the client's network
`connection. Zipit didn't dispute that. So Zipit makes this allegation that
`network connection loss is not McCarthy's concern, and it's clearly wrong.
`Addressing client devices -- sorry, go ahead, Your Honor.
`JUDGE HAMANN: No, no, I didn't mean to cut you off. If you
`want to finish that point, and then I'll ask my question right after that.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`MS. HUNT: I was just saying that addressing clients' devices
`network connection problems is exactly McCarthy's concern, as it explicitly
`states right here.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. Well, then, in McCarthy, is there a
`teaching that the point of attachment to the network is the server? Or is it a
`different point of attachment to the network from the device?
`MS. HUNT: The client device -- so, for example, in this quote from
`McCarthy at Column 2 on our Slide 24, it talks about devices having
`connectivity, for example, Wi-Fi-enabled laptops or cellular telephones or
`portable computing devices.
`So a POSA understands, in reading that, that a client's connection is
`to -- for example, a Wi-Fi connection is going to be to a Wi-Fi access point.
`Right? Not to the specific server that is sending, you know, particular
`instant messaging conversations, facilitating those conversations going
`between devices. Right?
`The server will also need to be connected to the network in order for
`them to communicate with each other. But what McCarthy doesn't talk
`about is, well, what if the server loses its connection so the client can't hear
`from it anymore?
`What McCarthy talks about is, we're trying to deal with client
`devices that have problems with connectivity to the network, because they're
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`
`Wi-Fi, they're portable. POSAs understood that these types of devices,
`they're moving around. It's hard for them to maintain a stable connection.
`And then McCarthy says, so it would be beneficial to have this
`messaging system that doesn't, in the user experience, doesn't disrupt the
`messaging experience while the user's client device is experiencing
`connectivity problems. Another --
`JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you.
`MS. HUNT: Yes, thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Counsel, this is Judge Jefferson.
`MS. HUNT: Yes.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Let me ask a piggyback off my colleague's
`question. Patent Owner seems to be saying that network connection in the
`'837 -- I'm sorry, in the '870, is directed specifically to, in the claims,
`network connection is connected specifically to a wireless or managing a
`wireless network kind of access.
`So it's a break in that particular kind of connection. Do you agree
`with that, that the claims themselves are directed solely to that?
`MS. HUNT: So the claim recites a connection to -- a wireless
`connection. In the petition's combination, the network connection that's
`being made, based on Sinivaara, is a wireless access point connection to a
`local network. Right?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01567 (Patent 7,292,870 B2)
`IPR2019-01568 (Patent 7,894,837)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`
`
`So that limitation was established, that it was met, and Zipit didn't
`dispute that, through their reliance on Sinivaara. McCarthy is completely
`consistent with that, in that McCarthy talks about portable, for example, Wi-
`Fi client devices. Those would be connecting to the same sort of local
`network.
`And then McCarthy says that these client devices' network
`connection can be lost. So in the combination, that's the network connection
`that's being lost.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay. Thank you.
`MS. HUNT: I want to mention -- this was also mentioned in our
`papers, for example, in our reply at Page 8. McCarthy also says at Column
`9, Lines 22 through 30, also there, that its purpose is maintaining
`communications during passive status when a client, quote, is not currently
`connected to other computing devices, end quote.
`So it's saying that client is not connected to any other devices. And
`that means the network connection loss. That client lost its connection to the
`network which all the devices are on.
`If
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
