Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 32
`
`
`UNITED STATE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`SQUARE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`4361423 CANADA INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`IPR2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 27, 2021
`__________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 32
`
`
`UNITED STATE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`SQUARE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`4361423 CANADA INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`IPR2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 27, 2021
`__________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`SCOTT McKEOWN, ESQ.
`Ropes and Gray LLP
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`(202) 508-4740
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`NIALL MACLEOD, ESQ.
`JASON S. JACKSON, ESQ.
`Kutak Rock LLP
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3400
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4018
`(612) 334-5004 (MacLeod)
`(303) 292-7798 (Jackson)
`niall.macleod@kutakrock.com
`jason.jackson@kutakrock.com
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, January
`
`27, 2021, commencing at 2:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`2:00 p.m.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Good afternoon, everyone. This is a consolidated
`
`oral hearing for IPR 2019-01625, IPR 2019-01627, and IPR 2019-01629.
`
`The Petitioner in all three proceedings is Square Inc., and the Patent
`
`Owner in all three proceedings is 4361423 Canada Inc. The involved
`
`patents are U.S. Patent 8,286,875 B2, for the 1625 proceeding, Patent
`
`8,281,998 B2 for the 1627 proceeding, and Patent 9,269,084 B2 for the 1629
`
`proceeding.
`
`I am Judge Jameson Lee, joined by Judge Robert Weinschenk and
`
`Judge Kevin Trock.
`
`Before we begin, we wish to thank you for your
`
`flexibility in conducting this hearing via video today. Given this is a
`
`departure from our normal practice, we start by clarifying a few items.
`
`First, our primary concern is your right to be heard. If at any time
`
`during the proceeding -- during the hearing, 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 you 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`
`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 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 the presentation of an
`
`accurate transcript of the hearing.
`
`Finally, please mute yourself when 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 90 minutes of total argument time for all three
`
`proceedings. Petitioner and Patent Owner may each reserve time for
`
`rebuttal. Petition will go first in its case. Thereafter, Patent Owner will
`
`argue its opposition. And if there's any rebuttal from Petitioner, we will
`
`hear it after Patent Owner's opposition. Finally, we will hear Patent
`
`Owner's rebuttal, if requested.
`
`Each time counsel speaks, he or she may address all three
`
`proceedings. The time is not divided by proceedings.
`
`We realize that the specification of the three involved patents are
`
`essentially the same and there are overlapping prior art references, so we are
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`
`going to assume that the representations pertain to all three patent
`
`specifications and the common prior art, unless counsel specifically tells us
`
`otherwise and gives us the reason why.
`
`I will provide you with a five-minute warning during each opening
`
`argument and a two-minute warning during each rebuttal and sur-rebuttal.
`
`Please also note that the arguments raised during rebuttal and sur-
`
`rebuttal must be in response to arguments raised by the opposing party.
`
`Neither period should be used to initiate new arguments.
`
`I have a couple more preliminaries and that is, at the end of the
`
`hearing, will counsel please stay online just a few more minutes to talk to the
`
`court reporter, because the court reporter may have some clarification he or
`
`she needs to make with counsel. The Panel will sign off, but counsel,
`
`please stay online and see if the court reporter has any questions for you.
`
`And, finally, Patent Owner -- we would like Patent Owner, after the
`
`hearing, to please submit another copy of the Patent Owner response in IPR
`
`2019-01627, because the original copy that's filed has no paper numbers.
`
`We would like to work with a copy with paper numbers, so please
`
`file another one that's exactly the same as the original, but only with paper
`
`numbers inserted. We don't want different pagination, different texting of
`
`any kind, just insert the paper numbers on the pre-existing pages. And you
`
`can title it Corrected Patent Owner Response.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`MR. MACLEOD: We will take care of that, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Now, I'm ready to get the appearances from counsel,
`
`starting with Petitioner, please.
`
`Oh, this is Judge Lee, I cannot hear clearly who's speaking and I
`
`cannot see anyone who's speaking. I think Petitioner's counsel should be
`
`introducing themselves right now.
`
`MR. ROGERS: Sorry to interrupt, judge. It looks -- I'm getting an
`
`IM from Scott McKeown and I think he's having some computer issues.
`
`Scott, this is Allan, can you hear us?
`
`MR. McKEOWN: I'm having connectivity issues, Your Honors, if
`
`you can hear me, I'm just going to dial in because I haven't heard any of the
`
`conversation thus far, if you can hear me.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Is that counsel for Petitioner that just spoke?
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Sorry, this is Scott McKeown.
`
`(Audio interference.)
`
`MR. ROGERS: Okay. It looks like he's going to try to dial in with
`
`another line.
`
`Hello, Scott, can you hear us now?
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Yes, sorry about that, some internet issues here
`
`in the District today.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. I can hear you, it's Judge Lee, but I can't see
`
`you on-screen, but we'll proceed like this, is that okay?
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Yeah, that's fine. I tried, but this is the best we
`
`can do, I guess.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. We were just wondering when did we lose
`
`you, how far into my introduction? What was the --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: I got --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- last thing you heard?
`
`MR. McKEOWN: I heard nothing, other than some choppy -- I
`
`basically got none of the content. So, again, apologies.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Well, okay. We don't have too much time today. I
`
`will just tell you the main important things here and that is, the specification
`
`of the three cases are essentially the same. So, when you're up and
`
`speaking, we're going to assume that everything you say pertains to all three
`
`specs, unless you tell us that's different. And the same thing applies to the
`
`common prior art, so you don't have to repeat yourself for three cases.
`
`And that each time you're up, you have the entire time for all three
`
`cases, the hearing is not divided up by proceeding. And I --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Okay.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- will give you a five-minute advance warning in
`
`each primary session up and then, two-minute warning for rebuttal and sur-
`
`rebuttal.
`
`And, finally, if you have technical difficulties, please tell the
`
`technical staff as soon as possible, because we don't want this to
`
`fundamentally undermine your right to be heard.
`
`Those are the essential points.
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Okay, thank you, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Yeah. We also asked Patent Owner to file another
`
`copy of the Patent Owner response that's exactly the same as the one already
`
`filed, but with page numbers. The one we have is without page numbers
`
`and we like to have a copy that has page numbers we can work with. All
`
`right.
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Very good.
`
`JUDGE LEE: All right. Counsel for Petitioner, go ahead and
`
`introduce you and your colleagues, please.
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Hello, this is Scott McKeown of Ropes and
`
`Gray for Petitioner, Square Incorporated.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. And counsel for Patent Owner?
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`MR. MACLEOD: Yes, Your Honor. This is Niall MacLeod for
`
`Patent Owner. And with me today is my partner Jason Jackson also from
`
`Kutak Rock.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Wonderful. So, each party has 90 minutes total
`
`argument time. Would either side want to reserve some for rebuttal and
`
`sur-rebuttal?
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Petitioner will reserve 30 minutes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. MACLEOD: Patent Owner would reserve 20 minutes, please,
`
`Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: All right. Any time you're ready, Mr. McKeown,
`
`you can begin. It's 2:13 right now.
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Thank you. Good afternoon, good morning to
`
`those of you on the West Coast. As I said, Scott McKeown of Ropes and
`
`Gray for Square Incorporated.
`
`A couple housekeeping issues. I'll be referring to the Petitioner
`
`demonstratives, probably the petition of the '875, '084, both of those patents,
`
`and then, finally, we may get into the Patent Owner demonstratives, just so
`
`their documents are available. If I should forget to reference what page
`
`number I'm on, by all means, interrupt me so that the record is clear.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Also, I'd like to point out the grounds that we're discussing today do
`
`not get into written description or intervening art the way that some other of
`
`these proceedings do, but since I am counsel on all of those, I just want to
`
`make clear that when I talk about certain claim considerations that I'm not
`
`conceding that written description support, but instead just addressing the
`
`grounds that predate the provisional, in any event, so I just want to put that
`
`on the record.
`
`And then, for the court reporter, as I get to some of these references,
`
`I'll spell them out for your benefit. Hopefully, I'll remember to do that.
`
`And if I say anything that's unclear, please interrupt me and I'll repeat it.
`
`So, with those housekeeping issues out of the way, let's just get into
`
`the Petitioner demonstratives, and I'll start with Slide 2, which is, as the
`
`panel has recognized, lists all three of these related patents. I'm referring to
`
`them as the Tang patents, Tang being the first named inventor.
`
`I will discuss generally the '875 and the '998 together, as their claim
`
`sets are substantially overlapping, as all of these patents are, but those two
`
`are very close. And I've highlighted on the right-hand side of this slide
`
`some of the -- not all of the differences, but at least some of the ones that I
`
`believe we'll be focusing on here today.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`And then, finally, the '084 patent, which is a little bit different from
`
`the other two, at least in terms of the input interface, whether it's a magstripe
`
`card or a smart card or a contactless smart card.
`
`So, generally, two classifications that I'll be addressing today, the
`
`'875 and '998 being the first, and the '084 being the second group of claims,
`
`so to speak.
`
`With that, I'll go to Slide 3 of the Petitioner's demonstratives. And
`
`you can see, on the right-hand side, we have Claim 1 of the '875 patent,
`
`along with the two architectures that are described in all of these patents.
`
`And I'll just explain them at a general level before talking about the claim
`
`language.
`
`And you'll see that in Figure 2, we have what is on the left-hand side
`
`referred to as a point of sale or POS device. This is the typical point of sale
`
`terminal that you would see in a business for swiping a credit card through
`
`that slot, 39.
`
`And then, that credit card data is provided on the link, which is
`
`identified as 30, to the mobile phone, identified as 14, which then transmits
`
`that information out over a mobile network.
`
`Of note here, the connection or the link here, 30, requires a specific
`
`format of signal, that being an audio format, and the mobile phone requiring
`
`a specific physical connector, which is identified as a hands-free jack.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`So, that, at a high level, is the architecture of Figure 2. Figure 7 is
`
`varying only with respect to the point of sale terminal, where 38 is just a
`
`simple card reader with no functionality other than to provide the raw credit
`
`card signal onto line 30.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. McKeown --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: So, with that, I'll flip over --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- it's Judge Lee. What is the described controller in
`
`the Patent Owners patent?
`
`MR. McKEOWN: The described controller in the patents, I don't
`
`know that they identify, for example, a particular manufacturer, but I believe
`
`they refer to it as, and I'm looking at Column 6, the controller is a
`
`microprocesser, MPU, microcontroller, MCU. I believe that is as detailed
`
`as they get.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. So, I ask because as far as I can tell, there's
`
`not a modem, right? I didn't find a description of a modem that's a part of
`
`that controller. It looks like it's just described as a processor of some sort --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- that outputs the audio.
`
`MR. McKEOWN: That's correct, Your Honor. The modem in a
`
`point of sale terminal would be separate circuitry.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`JUDGE LEE: Yeah. So, he doesn't describe the modem as a
`
`controller, all right. We don't have a lot of time today, so I'll go straight
`
`into a lot of the questions that we have.
`
`What I'm finding, when reading all the papers, is that, I feel as
`
`though we've been asked by Petitioner to fill in a lot of the gaps. Now, you
`
`may disagree, but I'd like to ask you about them so you can tell us whether,
`
`yes, there are some gaps to be filled or there are not. And if there are gaps
`
`to be filled, maybe you can say, well, they're not so large that you should
`
`lose on that basis.
`
`So, one quick question I have is, when you combine the Vrotsos
`
`controller and you say --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Right.
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- you want to include that into Proctor, I don't get
`
`from your petition what's the resulting configuration? Like, does it replace
`
`the modem or is the modem in Proctor still there? Or is the Vrotsos
`
`controller, when moved into Proctor, has an output that's connected to the
`
`Proctor modem?
`
`Like, I don't know what's the resulting configuration, I can't figure it
`
`out, it doesn't seem like the petition tells us. So, that seems like a gap to
`
`me. Can you respond to that?
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Sure.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`JUDGE LEE: Tell me what I'm missing or, yes, indeed, you didn't
`
`tell us that?
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Sure, my pleasure. So, just to be clear, we're
`
`talking about the Proctor grounds. And Proctor -- and I'll give you a
`
`citation for this, so this is at -- well, it's a paragraph, actually, since it's a
`
`publication.
`
`So, I'm looking at paragraph 10 of Proctor and it reads, the converter
`
`includes the connector 34, which connects to a conventional credit card
`
`verificational -- verification terminal.
`
`And what Proctor explains is inside that terminal, it's very minimal,
`
`he explains it as circuitry, including a modem, which of course a point of
`
`sale terminal includes.
`
`And so, to get to your specific question, when we explained the
`
`Proctor reference, what we said is, well, it's a conventional point of sale
`
`terminal.
`
`And to the extent it doesn't explicitly tell you that the circuitry
`
`includes a processor, Vrotsos shows that it's known in the art to, of course,
`
`use a processor, which is an essential building block of any electronic
`
`circuit, which is on page 23 of our petition.
`
`And if you could indulge me for a second, I'll reference my slide 4,
`
`which I would submit is probably the most important page in this record
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`because it cuts through all of these issues that are not gaps at all. In fact,
`
`they're admitted, and perhaps that's why it's a little bit -- the record is not as
`
`clear, because these are not things that we expected to be argued.
`
`That is, when you have a point of sale terminal and you say it's
`
`conventional, and going to slide 4, and right around, I want to say it's --
`
`looks like -- I don't have the line numbers here, but in the yellow highlight
`
`there, that first full paragraph, these point of sale devices include a
`
`processor.
`
`So, Proctor describes a conventional point of sale terminal. The
`
`Patent Owner tells us that there's a processor in there. What we've said in
`
`our grounds is, Proctor is written for one of skill in the art, it just generally
`
`refers to circuitry and it focuses more on the modem because that's what it's
`
`describing, communications, the controller is not really important.
`
`And so, how do we know that there's a processor in Proctor? Well,
`
`we know that because Vrotsos, in the same exact context, uses a processor
`
`and we know that from the record, because the Patent Owner has already
`
`told us that conventional point of sale terminals include a processor.
`
`So, yes, you're correct, there is a lot of briefing on the importance of
`
`the controller and how a controller can't be a modem, but I would submit
`
`that that is a strawman argument.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`When you look at our petition, we are pointing to the circuitry,
`
`which includes a modem, but what we're saying here -- and what is also
`
`explained in that yellow highlight on slide 4 -- is that the point of sale
`
`devices include a processor to receive and process information from a
`
`transaction card.
`
`So, we know it's there and we --
`
`JUDGE LEE: But -- I'm sorry, but I don't recall this line of
`
`argument in your petition, though. You seem to tell us, Proctor expressly
`
`describes the terminal as essentially a modem, it doesn't refer to including a
`
`processor.
`
`So, when you rely on Proctor, I don't recall all the arguments you're
`
`telling us now, that, hey, if you look at Patent Owner's patent, point of sale
`
`terminals are supposed to include a processor and, therefore, we're going to
`
`assume Proctor's terminal includes such a processor.
`
`I really don't recall reading anything of that sort. Rather --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Well, I would --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- what I recall is, you saying, well, we think the
`
`modem and whatever is there constitutes a processor. But to the extent it
`
`does not, Vrotsos has a processor and it would have been obvious to take
`
`that processor from Vrotsos and put it -- and include it in Proctor's terminal.
`
`That's what I recall.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Well, let me reference you directly to the claim
`
`chart. So, on page 25 of the '875 petition, what we say is Proctor discloses
`
`a controller, paren, conventional credit card verification circuitry, which
`
`includes a modem.
`
`And I want to make that clear, Proctor does not describe its terminal
`
`as essentially a modem, it says it includes circuitry that is essentially a
`
`modem, in addition to the conventional credit card verification circuitry.
`
`And we confirmed this with the Patent Owner's expert, that a
`
`conventional credit card verification terminal, a POS, just as explained in the
`
`background, includes a processor for doing these things.
`
`So, this isn't the case where we're taking a controller from another
`
`reference and combining it. What we're saying is, the circuitry is not
`
`described in detail, but it's known to use processors in this context.
`
`And on page 23, we say, indeed, a person of skill in the art would
`
`have recognized that controllers and processors were staple components of
`
`electronic devices and, you know, et cetera, it goes on from there, in terms
`
`of what --
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. Which case number is that, the petition
`
`you're reading from, which case number?
`
`MR. McKEOWN: This is the '875 petition, so 1625 proceeding.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. So, okay, I --
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`MR. McKEOWN: And also --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- understand. So and you're only referring to
`
`Vrotsos as, what, a further example? So, you don't really need it? So --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Right, exactly.
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- I don't understand it.
`
`MR. McKEOWN: So, instead of saying, look, the Proctor is a point
`
`of sale terminal and it's, of course, inherent that there's a processor in there
`
`in that described circuitry, what we've said is, Proctor includes this
`
`verification circuitry and to the extent you need an explicit teaching of a
`
`processor being used in this context, here it is.
`
`And then, on page 23, as I said, we also say -- and this is backed up
`
`by our declarant -- is that controllers and processors, certainly that's not the
`
`invention here, and that's why I highlight the background of the invention,
`
`which states that these point of sale terminals include a processor.
`
`There can be no dispute where there's an admission in the record.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. So, I understand you have a similar argument
`
`in the other two cases as well, 27 and 29? You just read --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: That's correct.
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- from the 25, but you have similar arguments there?
`
`All right. So, let's assume we go that route, but you still don't meet the
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`claim, though, because the claim requires the controller to output the analog
`
`audio signal.
`
`So, according to what you just told me, the terminal includes a
`
`processor, which is not explicitly described, but let's assume it's there, right?
`
`But the output is from the modem and the modem is not a part of the
`
`processor. So, you still don't have a controller that outputs analog audio
`
`that's suitable for transmission to the hands-free jack of a wireless
`
`communication device.
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Well, I want to be clear, which particular ground
`
`are you referencing when you say the --
`
`JUDGE LEE: Proctor --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: -- output is coming --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- plus Vrotsos.
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Okay.
`
`JUDGE LEE: And claim 1 --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Well, this --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- of 1627, it requires the controller to output analog
`
`audio suitable for transmission to the hands-free jack of a wireless
`
`communication device.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Sure. And let me make sure I understand the
`
`specific claim language you're talking about. So, I'm going back to
`
`Petitioner's slide 3.
`
`Are you talking about the language where it says that the controller
`
`converts the card information into said analog audio format signal and
`
`transmits?
`
`JUDGE LEE: Yeah, you can look at that. So, yeah, the output of
`
`the controller has to be analog audio suitable for transmission to the hands-
`
`free jack.
`
`And you don't have that, even based on what you told us today,
`
`because the output in your combination still comes from the modem, not
`
`from whatever controller or processor that's inside the terminal.
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Well, let me tackle that question second, but I
`
`want to just make sure when you say that the controller doesn't provide the
`
`output, I'll agree with you that the claim states that the controller transmits,
`
`but I want to be sure I understand if you're saying the controller must
`
`directly transmit it without any intermediate circuitry?
`
`JUDGE LEE: Well, just look at your slide, it says a controller for
`
`converting the captured card info into a signal having an analog audio
`
`format that is suitable for transmission. So, that obviously is coming from
`
`the modem.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Well, let's go to slide 5 and we can get into the
`
`specifics. In some cases it may come from the modem, in some cases it
`
`may not. But let me start with, before I get to Proctor, just quickly, the
`
`Eisner ground, because I think it helps highlight some of these issues.
`
`So, the way that Eisner works -- and I'm looking at the lower left-
`
`hand corner of slide number 5 of the Petitioner's grounds -- is we have a
`
`point of sale terminal, just like we do on the Tang patents above, and what is
`
`unique about Eisner is you'll see -- I believe it's block 38 -- there's a DTMF
`
`generator.
`
`So, what Eisner is doing is it's taking a magnetic stripe, it's reading --
`
`JUDGE LEE: I'm sorry --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: -- that credit card --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- I have to interrupt you. That's nothing to do with
`
`Eisner, I'm talking about the ground that's primarily based on Proctor.
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Okay. We can -- let's talk about Proctor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: And, essentially --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: So, there's --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- you don't really use Vrotsos for anything, because
`
`you're saying Proctor's terminal 36 already has the controller. But I'm
`
`pointing out to you that Proctor's controller, the way you have it, does not
`
`output an analog audio signal. And if you --
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Well, let's --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- and if you use Vrotsos' controller, it doesn't do that
`
`either. So, it seems to support Patent Owner's position.
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Well, I'll disagree with that and let me explain
`
`Proctor in a little more detail.
`
`So, looking at Proctor, you've got a conventional point of sale
`
`terminal -- at least in the figure that's illustrated here on slide number -- and
`
`it receives the credit card data and it provides that credit card data at least --
`
`and we're talking about the specific embodiment in the figure on the screen,
`
`it outputs what is called audible stream of tones.
`
`So, the controller in that point of sale terminal is transmitting an
`
`audible stream of tones. Now, whether or not --
`
`JUDGE LEE: No, no, no --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: -- it goes through the modem --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- I have to stop you right there. No, I can't agree
`
`with that, because you haven't told us why. It says it's essentially a modem,
`
`so we have to assume it's a modem, it's coming from the modem. You can't
`
`just replace modem with controller, just -- even if we agree with you that
`
`somewhere in there is a controller.
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Right, Your Honor. And that's why I asked if
`
`you were interpreting the language for the controller to -- when a controller
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`
`is in a device and it's sending out a signal on a line, the controller is usually
`
`getting that signal from somewhere, in this case it would be the modem.
`
`But it is the controller that is managing the transmission. And the
`
`claim doesn't require, for example, the controller to manufacture the signal
`
`and transmit it directly.
`
`What we're explaining in our grounds is that, of course a point of
`
`sale terminal includes a processor, a point of sale terminal -- at least a
`
`conventional one -- will include a modem. So, that modem operates based
`
`upon the management of the controller and the modem signal is put out on a
`
`line. That's how --
`
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Mr. McKeown?
`
`MR. McKEOWN: -- modems operate.
`
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Mr. McKeown --
`
`MR. McKEOWN: Yes?
`
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: -- this is Judge Weinschenk. I wonder if
`
`I can rephrase it.
`
`So, the claim says that we need a controller for converting. So, in
`
`the claim, the controller has to do the converting and the converting is into
`
`an analog audio format. What in Proctor does the converting? It certainly
`
`seems like it's the modem, not the controller. I think that's the issue. Is the
`
`modem doing the converting or is the controller doing the converting?
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01625 (Patent 8,286,875 B2)
`IPR 2019-01627 (Patent 8,281,998 B2)
`IPR 2019-01629 (Patent 9,269,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`MR. McKEOWN: And the answer to that, Your Honor, is it
`
`depends on the embodiment, and I'll explain the three embodiments in a
`
`second.
`
`But I also want to highlight here, yes, the claims recite that the
`
`controller does the converting, but -- and this is a theme you'll see a lot in
`
`the briefing -- the '875 patent isn't spec
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
