Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 32
`
` Entered: February 24, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SQUARE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`4361423 CANADA INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 10, 2021
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DAVID M. TENNAT
`GRACE WANG
`White & Case
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
` Washington, D.C. 20005-3807
`(203)626-3600
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`NIALL A. MacLEOD, Esquire
`JASON S. JACKSON, Esquire
`Kutak Rock, LLP
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3400
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-5004
`(612) 334-5004
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`February 10, 2021 commencing at 12:45 p.m. EDT, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
` JUDGE LEE: Good afternoon everyone. This is a consolidated oral
`
`hearing for IPR 2019-01651, IPR 2019-01652, IPR 2019-01653, and IPR
`
`2019-01654. The Petitioner in all three proceedings are Square, Inc., and
`
`Patent Owner is 4361423 Canada Inc. The involved patents are U.S. Patent
`
`9,443,239 B2, for the 1651 case, 9,613,351 B2 for the 1652 case, and
`
`9,818,107 B2 for the 1653 case, and also for the 1654 case.
`
`I am Judge Jameson Lee, joined by Judge Robert Weinschenk and Judge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Kevin Trock.
`
`11
`
`Before we begin we wish to thank the parties for their flexibility in
`
`12
`
`conducting this hearing via video today. Given this is a departure from our
`
`13
`
`normal practice we start by clarifying a few items. First, our primary
`
`14
`
`concern is the parties’ right to be heard. If at any time during the proceeding
`
`15
`
`you encounter technical difficulties that fundamentally undermine your
`
`16
`
`ability to adequately represent your client, please let us know immediately.
`
`17
`
`For example, like contacting the team member who provided you with
`
`18
`
`connection information.
`
`19
`
`Second, for the benefit of the judges and opposing counsel, as well as
`
`20
`
`the court reporter, please identify yourself when you begin your argument,
`
`21
`
`and speak clearly into your microphone. Please do not speak when others
`
`22
`
`are speaking.
`
`23
`
`Third, we have the entire record, including demonstratives. When
`
`24
`
`referring to demonstratives, papers, or exhibits, please do so clearly and
`
`25
`
`explicitly by slide or paper number. Please also pause a few seconds after
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`identifying it to provide us time to find it. This helps the preparation 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
`
`four proceedings. Petitioner and Patent Owner may each reserve time for
`
`rebuttal. Petitioner will go first, thereafter Patent Owner will argue its
`
`opposition, and if there is any rebuttal from Petitioner we will hear it after
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner’s opposition. Finally, we will hear Patent Owner’s surrebuttal
`
`11
`
`if requested.
`
`12
`
`Each time counsel speaks he or she may address all four proceedings.
`
`13
`
`The time is not divided by proceeding unless counsel says certain
`
`14
`
`representation is only for a particular proceeding, we assume that it is for all
`
`15
`
`four proceedings if the issue is applicable. I’ll provide each party with five-
`
`16
`
`minute warning during open arguments and a two-minute warning during
`
`17
`
`rebuttal and surrebuttal.
`
`18
`
`Please also note that arguments raised during rebuttal or surrebuttal
`
`19
`
`must be in response to arguments raised by the opposing party. Neither
`
`20
`
`period should be used to initiate new arguments.
`
`21
`
`At the end of the hearing will counsel please stay on line to talk to the
`
`22
`
`court reporter to answer any questions the court reporter may have. At that
`
`23
`
`time the judges will sign off already.
`
`24
`
`Let’s begin with the parties’ appearance. Who is appearing on behalf
`
`25
`
`of Petitioner?
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`MR. TENNAT: David Tennat and Grace Wang from White & Case
`
`for Square Inc.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. Who’s appearing for Patent Owner?
`
`MR. MacLEOD: Niall MacLeod and Jason Jackson from the law
`
`offices of Kutak Rock, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Are there any questions from the parties at this time?
`
`MR. TENNAT: Not from Petitioner.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. Counselor for Petitioner, do you want to reserve
`
`any time for your rebuttal?
`
`MR. TENNAT: Yes, we’ll reserve 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. And Patent Owner, how much do you want to
`
`12
`
`reserve?
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`MR. MacLEOD: Twenty minutes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Ten did you say?
`
`MR. MacLEOD: I said 20, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Twenty, okay. All right. It is now 12:50. Petitioner’s
`
`17
`
`counsel, you may begin any time you’re ready.
`
`18
`
`MR. TENNAT: Can everybody, except the Judges, there we go. I’m
`
`19
`
`getting feedback. Okay.
`
`20
`
`So good morning, Your Honors. Good afternoon, Your Honors,
`
`21
`
`thank you for attending today, we appreciate seeing you again. I’m here to
`
`22
`
`present for approximately 45 minutes, and my colleague, Dr. Wang, will
`
`23
`
`present for 25 minutes. That will cover the main thrust of our arguments,
`
`24
`
`and then we will have enough for rebuttal.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`On Slide 2, I’m going to refer you to our Demonstrative Slide 2. And
`
`this just gives an overview of the various hearings that we’ve had with you
`
`and the hearing that we’re here today to discuss.
`
`The first set, and I’ve outlined on this slide the notable differences
`
`between the groups of hearings in the patent subject in the past. As Your
`
`Honors know, the first group of patents, the notable feature on this patent
`
`had a hands-free jack and a controller. The next group of patents had a jack
`
`on the phone, it wasn’t a hands-free jack but its claims were limited to a
`
`smart card embodiment and also there was a sensor in those claims that
`
`10
`
`required producing and converting an analog signal.
`
`11
`
`The patents that we’re discussing today, and I think it’s actually
`
`12
`
`helpful to refer to Slide 3. And I can direct the Board’s attention to the
`
`13
`
`middle column in blue. It just shows the common terms of the three patents
`
`14
`
`across the four proceedings that we’re discussing today. If they require a
`
`15
`
`sensor, a controller, that controller needs to do two things. It needs to
`
`16
`
`convert the recorded information received from the sensor, and it needs to
`
`17
`
`transmit that information to the communication device.
`
`18
`
`The third element is a communication link. That is generic, it doesn’t
`
`19
`
`say if it’s hardwired or wireless, it’s just a communication link to the
`
`20
`
`communication device such as a mobile phone.
`
`21
`
`Now there are some various differences between the claims. Card
`
`22
`
`type is one. Some claims are directed to smart cards. Or other claims such
`
`23
`
`as the 1653 proceeding would be directed to either a smart card or a
`
`24
`
`magnetic stripe card. As you know, we have mapped 1653 to the various
`
`25
`
`magnetic strike embodiments to the prior art. Also the output of the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`convergent, depending on the patent claim, is either an encrypted signal or a
`
`form as suitable for the phone.
`
`And as for encryption, all the patents requiring encryption, the 239
`
`patent requires encryption in the independent claims whereas the other
`
`patents in the other proceedings recite encryption in the dependent claims.
`
`JUDGE LEE: It’s Judge Lee. In one of the associated hearings we
`
`had a few weeks ago, Patent Owner responded that controller means at least
`
`a processor. So it’s processor plus, maybe plus some other components, but
`
`it has to have at least a processor. Neither party expressly construed
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`controller but we are wondering if you agree with that position. Or what do
`
`11
`
`you think that controller is? Can we find it to be at least a processor?
`
`12
`
`MR. TENNAT: I think in order to meet the element, controller
`
`13
`
`element, and I’ll refer that was, let’s go to Slide 13 it sets out some of the
`
`14
`
`claim language that we’re discussing. The controller has to be coupled to
`
`15
`
`the center and it has to do two functions. It has to convert the recorded
`
`16
`
`information for this patent into an encrypted signal, and it also, it is shown
`
`17
`
`on this slide, but it has to transmit the recorded information to the
`
`18
`
`communication device. So provided that there are electronics that perform
`
`19
`
`those two functions in the prior art, that would satisfy the element of
`
`20
`
`controller. We believe it’s well within the skill of the art for disclosures in
`
`21
`
`the prior art if it’s electronic, so circuitry that performs those functions that
`
`22
`
`would satisfy the element of controller.
`
`23
`
`JUDGE LEE: I don’t understand. I don’t understand. You’re just
`
`24
`
`giving a functional definition. I don’t think you have testimony from any
`
`25
`
`expert that says oh, yes, this is what everyone knows a controller is. So are
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`you just giving me a functional definition? And if so, why should that be
`
`acceptable? Then it would be a means plus function term.
`
`MR. TENNAT: But we have to look to what the patent, what the
`
`Tang contact disclose. And the Tang contract disclose a controller can either
`
`be, I believe it was a microprocessor or a microcontroller. So in that context
`
`the controller is broader than just a processor. I think a processor is a subset
`
`of a type of controller. So as long as they identify the specific circuity
`
`hardware component that meets those functional elements of the claim, that
`
`would satisfy the claim limitation.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE LEE: Why? You’re not answering my question though. All
`
`11
`
`you’re giving is a functional definition. And if so, how is that acceptable?
`
`12
`
`MR. TENNAT: So it is acceptable -- I’m not giving only a functional
`
`13
`
`definition. As long as we identify a component, the hardware component in
`
`14
`
`the prior art that performs such due functions. At a minimum we would
`
`15
`
`have to have some type of component in the prior art. That component,
`
`16
`
`albeit circuitry, electronic processor, controller, provided that those two
`
`17
`
`things are --
`
`18
`
`JUDGE LEE: I know what you’re saying but you seem to be
`
`19
`
`avoiding the question. I mean why is that thing a controller? The circuitry is
`
`20
`
`generic. We don’t know what it is. It can be a black box, you know, well
`
`21
`
`good, give it a different name. Magic, we’ll call it Magic. And you’re going
`
`22
`
`to call Magic as a controller?
`
`23
`
`MR. TENNAT: Right. I would concede that a processor is one type
`
`24
`
`of a controller. I’m just hesitating a little bit because I don’t think the
`
`25
`
`specifications support process --
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE LEE: It doesn’t matter whether they support it or not, you
`
`still have to take the position. You can’t attack the written description in this
`
`proceeding. So I know that’s not here or there. So regardless whether they
`
`have support for it, their position is it has to have at least a processor.
`
`Maybe something else, you know, that’s the breadth of it. It’s not limited to
`
`a processor, and that seems to be to be a pretty good definition in light of the
`
`spec because both examples they gave is a processor. So I wonder why you
`
`disagree with it and how can you take simply a functional definition for it.
`
`If you take only a functional definition, haven’t you run afoul of our rules?
`
`10
`
`You’re supposed to give the claim construction according to our rules.
`
`11
`
`MR. TENNAT: I’m not running away from the definition of a
`
`12
`
`controller being at least a processor. In fact I’m agreeing with the Board that
`
`13
`
`it has to be, it would be some hardware components. But to the processor it
`
`14
`
`can be a microcontroller as well.
`
`15
`
`JUDGE LEE: All right. We’re short on time. Either you agree or
`
`16
`
`disagree. If you disagree, how are we going to write it? We say Patent
`
`17
`
`Owner thinks it’s at least a processor, Petitioner disagrees, Petitioner thinks
`
`18
`
`it’s any circuit that performs the function that satisfies controller. Is that
`
`19
`
`your position?
`
`20
`
`21
`
`MR. TENNAT: No, that’s not our position.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Do you agree or disagree with the Patent Owner that’s
`
`22
`
`at least a processor?
`
`23
`
`24
`
`MR. TENNAT: I think a processor is an example of a controller.
`
`JUDGE LEE: I know that, everyone knows that. That’s not my
`
`25
`
`question. Do you agree or disagree that it is at least a processor, requires a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`processor, then maybe you have something else, or you may not. And if you
`
`disagree, why? All you have left is a functional definition.
`
`MR. TENNAT: So I just, the reason I’m hesitating, I want to point
`
`the Board to, I apologize, I’m on the 667 patent, but there is a sentence in
`
`Column 6 that reads “The controller includes a microprocessor unit or
`
`microcontroller unit.” So it can be either or. So I’m comfortable with it
`
`being at least a processor or a controller unit. We can even say at least a
`
`microprocessor unit or a microcontroller unit. To say that it is --
`
`JUDGE LEE: But it isn’t. What’s the difference between that and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`what Patent Owner said? A processor, it can be a microcontroller, it can be
`
`11
`
`a controller, whatever it is, I think process or is broad and it seems like a
`
`12
`
`pretty good definition and I’m not understanding your position in not
`
`13
`
`agreeing to it and not giving us an acceptable alternative except to say that
`
`14
`
`anything that performs a function, as long as it’s a circuit, it’s good enough.
`
`15
`
`MR. TENNAT: So something you said there may clarify this and
`
`16
`
`help.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. TENNAT: When you said that the processor is broad and
`
`19
`
`includes a microprocessor and a microcontroller, those types of units. I
`
`20
`
`would agree. I was just very cautious. I didn’t want to read out a particular
`
`21
`
`embodiment that - -
`
`22
`
`JUDGE LEE: Still, a processor includes a microprocessor, you know,
`
`23
`
`it doesn’t matter what the prefix to it. It could be a pico processor. I mean
`
`24
`
`just processor generally.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. TENNAT: Yeah. In view of that, yes, I would agree that as long
`
`as the hardware provides processing function, if it’s in the form of a
`
`microcontroller or microprocessor I believe that would be a correct
`
`interpretation of the claim.
`
`JUDGE LEE: All right. Just briefly to Patent Owner’s counsel,
`
`because this is important. Mr. MacLeod, are you staying with the definition
`
`you gave us in the related hearing that you are satisfied that a controller is
`
`something that includes at least a processor?
`
`MR. MacLEOD: Yes, Your Honor, our construction of controller is
`
`10
`
`that it is a microprocessor or a microcontroller.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE LEE: No, no, no. In the last hearing you said it’s at least a
`
`12
`
`processor. Don’t change the definition because it’s really hard to wrangle
`
`13
`
`out an agreement from the other side already. You said it’s at least a
`
`14
`
`processor. In our view a processor is broad enough to include a
`
`15
`
`microprocessor. So, you know, let’s not just getting too fine on it. Do you
`
`16
`
`still take that position it’s at least a processor, you may or may not have
`
`17
`
`other components with it?
`
`18
`
`MR. MacLEOD: I believe we said it’s at least a microprocessor, a
`
`19
`
`microcontroller, but I’m not seeing a huge difference between the two, like
`
`20
`
`you pointed out.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE LEE: So you’re fine with controller being at least a
`
`22
`
`processor?
`
`23
`
`24
`
`MR. MacLEOD: Yes.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Yeah, because I don’t see argument in your brief
`
`25
`
`saying any time the reference shows a processor, I don’t see you arguing, oh,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`but that’s not a microprocessor, so that’s not a controller. You don’t have
`
`any arguments like that. So I don’t see a distinction between processor and
`
`microprocessor.
`
`MR. MacLEOD: I can’t think of one at the moment, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Exactly. So the parties are in agreement that the
`
`controller is at least a processor.
`
`MR. MacLEOD: I believe we are.
`
`JUDGE LEE: All right. Thank you. Okay, back to Petitioner. Thank
`
`you. That was important. Sorry to take up the time, but it was really
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`important.
`
`11
`
`MR. TENNAT: That’s okay. I think, as to Slide 4, I’d like to refer
`
`12
`
`you real quick, it’s just the grounds. I’m going to discuss Valliani, Vrotsos,
`
`13
`
`and Proctor. Dr. Wang will discuss the Bear grounds. We don’t have all
`
`14
`
`the grounds listed here because Bryant is not disputed. And so we rely on
`
`15
`
`our papers.
`
`16
`
`Your Honor, before I get into specifically the Valliani grounds, would
`
`17
`
`you permit the parties to submit a short briefing on the correct interpretation
`
`18
`
`of controller? The reason why I’m asking is because, you know, when we
`
`19
`
`consider interpretation we want to go back and look at the record entirety. I
`
`20
`
`would just request if we could have the opportunity to submit a short
`
`21
`
`briefing on the proper interpretation of controller.
`
`22
`
`JUDGE LEE: I thought we just, after that exchange you already
`
`23
`
`agreed to something and now you want to go back and submit additional
`
`24
`
`briefing. That’s an extraordinary remedy after you’ve discussed and agreed
`
`25
`
`to a construction. And you can’t articulate anything wrong with the other
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`side’s proposal and you just want to go back and take additional time while
`
`we suspend our deliberations to submit additional briefing.
`
` I don’t know. Let me ask my colleagues, but from my standpoint that
`
`is quite unreasonable. Because you can’t even articulate what you disagree
`
`with the position about.
`
`MR. TENNAT: Well, you know, it’s not that we disagree necessarily,
`
`it’s just that we would like to have some time to go back to look at the bio
`
`history as well as the arguments in the, or I should say the disclosures in the
`
`patent to determine if we’re in full agreement with that construction.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE LEE: I need to say that this is not the first time controller
`
`11
`
`came up. I don’t know how many proceedings we’ve had. This is the last
`
`12
`
`hearing we’re going to have in this family of patents. And the Petitioner is
`
`13
`
`supposed to, under our rules, propose a construction for all terms that are
`
`14
`
`supposed to be meaningful and determinative of the proceeding. I think it’s
`
`15
`
`pretty surprising for the Petitioner to be asking at the 11th hour to further
`
`16
`
`brief the term “controller,” which appears in every single independent claim
`
`17
`
`and I don’t know how many patents. I am just very surprised.
`
`18
`
`MR. TENNAT: Right, Your Honor, I’m sorry you’re surprised. We
`
`19
`
`indicated that the plenary meaning would apply to controller. And, you
`
`20
`
`know, the reason why we would like a short briefing is just to confirm, you
`
`21
`
`know, we haven’t given the administrative procedures exactly, haven’t had
`
`22
`
`the opportunity to fully brief and I’m just a little cautious to agree to that
`
`23
`
`construction on the fly at the hearing without giving due consideration to the
`
`24
`
`full history and intrinsic evidence before we finally agree on that.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`At the outcome we might fully agree, but the position by the Board
`
`that that is on.
`
`JUDGE LEE: I’m bothered by the request for briefing. It might make
`
`more sense for you to say well, Your Honors, I didn’t have that much time to
`
`think about it so I might go home and come back and tell you yes, I agree or
`
`no, we don’t. But why should we give you additional opportunity to come
`
`up with a new construction that you never offered? So the request is let me
`
`come back tomorrow or next week and confirm my agreement. I might
`
`think that’s reasonable but not, oh, let me, by the way let me give you a
`
`10
`
`whole new briefing. And then the other side’s going to submit additional
`
`11
`
`briefing. You’re asking for more briefing, not let me just confirm my
`
`12
`
`answer.
`
`13
`
`MR. TENNAT: I would like the opportunity to confirm the answer or
`
`14
`
`if we find there is anything in the intrinsic record that might lead us to
`
`15
`
`disagree or fine tune the construction --
`
`16
`
`JUDGE LEE: That’s additional briefing. You should either agree or
`
`17
`
`you say you don’t agree and the record has no reason why you disagree.
`
`18
`
`Because it’s the 11th hour. Anyway my colleagues are telling me to move
`
`19
`
`on because we can’t waste all the time on this question. So we’ll take that
`
`20
`
`question under advisement, we’ll let you know whether you can get
`
`21
`
`additional briefing.
`
`22
`
`Since you’re going to be talking about Valliani, let me ask you, is it
`
`23
`
`enough Valliani encrypts only the PIN. Is that enough to meet the claim
`
`24
`
`limitation of encrypting recorded information from the smart card?
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`MR. TENNAT: Thank you for the question, Your Honor. It’s a very
`
`good question. The simple answer is yes, that’s enough. And this was the
`
`argument that’s prevalent in Patent Owner’s brief, which I believe this is the
`
`reason why you’re asking the question.
`
`I’ll direct you to -- let me answer the question by saying what Valliani
`
`discloses in terms of the smart card. I’m on Slide 7, and the depiction on
`
`Slide 7 shows Valliani’s smart card. It’s a card 230, he calls it a smart card
`
`restoring data in the memory 225. The data that is stored in the memory is
`
`described at Column 7, Line 62.
`
`JUDGE LEE: What page and line?
`
`MR. TENNAT: I’m sorry, this is, I was actually reading from
`
`12
`
`Valliani. So I’m Slide 7, but I was directing Your Honor to a passage from
`
`13
`
`Valliani.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay.
`
`MR. TENNAT: And at Line 61 or 62 that’s sentence indicate that the
`
`16
`
`memory 225 makes for a lot of data, including preferably encrypted end
`
`17
`
`data. So when Villiani reads encrypted PIN data off the phone at the same
`
`18
`
`time. Now I will refer you back.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`JUDGE LEE: What column are you in? What column?
`
`MR. TENNAT: Column 7. That encrypted PIN data is Column 7,
`
`21
`
`Line 65.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay.
`
`MR. TENNAT: So I want to refer you back to Slide 5. And this is a
`
`24
`
`nice picture of the embodiment that we talked about right now. It’s Figure
`
`25
`
`7. And you can see from the picture of the smart card, which is outlined in
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`green, is inserted into the reader. That reader reads the data off the smart
`
`card, which is described in the passage I just quoted to you. The data that
`
`comes off includes re-encrypted data.
`
`The only thing the claim requires is that there is recorded information
`
`on the smart card, on the IC of the smart card rather. And Valliani says that
`
`part of that recorded data is the encrypted PIN information.
`
`JUDGE TROCK: Counsel, this is Judge Trock. I see your reference
`
`there in Valliani with respect to smart cards, but what we do with the claims
`
`that don’t involve smart cards? For example, let me direct you to Valliani
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Column 6, starting in Line 26, 27. Valliani states “As noted, card owner’s
`
`11
`
`PIN is not stored, encrypted or otherwise, in magnetic stripes, but may be
`
`12
`
`stored in memory.” If we have a claim that does not use a smart card, is the
`
`13
`
`argument you’re currently making effective or valid?
`
`14
`
`MR. TENNAT: Well we have a different argument for that, and
`
`15
`
`that’s applicable to the magnetic stripe or the magnetic stripe embodiment
`
`16
`
`where you just read. So if data is on the magnetic stripe of the card and that
`
`17
`
`data is read, then Valliani also discloses that as well. And I can direct your
`
`18
`
`attention, Your Honor, to Slide 21 of our Demonstratives.
`
`19
`
`And this is specific for this Claim, Patent Owner’s 7, claims 1 and 22.
`
`20
`
`And the element here requires the controller to be coupled to the sensor for
`
`21
`
`reading the transaction card information, which is the passage you just read.
`
`22
`
`So it reads it read from the magnetic stripe and for conversion into a format
`
`23
`
`suitable for transmission to the communication device.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE TROCK: That’s fine for the independent claim, but when we
`
`get down to Claim 3 where we now have encryption, how do you square
`
`that?
`
`MR. TENNAT: Right, Your Honor, good question. So this is on
`
`Slide 24. For encryption, when we get down to Claim 3, and also I think it’s
`
`Claim 24 too, we rely on Vrotsos. So Valliani doesn’t expressly disclose
`
`that the data coming off the magstripe is encrypted, although it does have
`
`broad statements on Slide 24 Valliani indicates there would be additional
`
`software in the card reader module that can perform data encryption.
`
`10
`
`JUDGE LEE: There’s another misreading there. It doesn’t say
`
`11
`
`additional software in module, that’s talking about the entire terminal. And
`
`12
`
`then there’s elsewhere text saying it’s software 35 and/or 45 that’s in the
`
`13
`
`wireless communication device. And it’s executed by CPU 20. I think, you
`
`14
`
`know, you misread the disclosure. I don’t think that additional software is
`
`15
`
`inside Module 200. If you look up the rest of that paragraph, it’s talking
`
`16
`
`about the entire terminal, which includes the wireless communication device
`
`17
`
`and the Module 200, so it’s iffy where that is. But if you read elsewhere in
`
`18
`
`the disclosure it’s talking about software inside the memory of the wireless
`
`19
`
`device and executed by CPU 20. So you have to tell us, it’s up to you to
`
`20
`
`prove that that software is inside the Module 200. You simply concluded
`
`21
`
`that it is.
`
`22
`
`MR. TENNAT: So actually that’s why we’re relying on Vrotsos,
`
`23
`
`Your Honor. So Valliani recognizes that Vrotsos --
`
`24
`
`JUDGE LEE: Look, I’m sorry, I can’t follow you at all because you
`
`25
`
`keep shifting your position. You know, before I asked the question you say,
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`oh, Module 200 has the software. And when I tell you no, no, no, Module
`
`200 doesn’t have the software and then you shift and you go oh, for that
`
`limitation we rely on Vrotsos. You know, if we catch you on something you
`
`either agree or disagree and say yes, I’m sorry I misread it, and then we can
`
`drop that. Not just shift your position and go somewhere else and leaving us
`
`in limbo as to your original position. You know, that’s why I kind of feel
`
`the whole presentation is messy here. Because I can never get you to focus
`
`on one thing.
`
`MR. TENNAT: Well, Your Honor --
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE LEE: Do you agree, do you agree that you misread the
`
`11
`
`disclosure. Additional software you have not shown resides in Module 200.
`
`12
`
`If you admit that then we can move on and see if Vrotsos supplies the
`
`13
`
`missing feature. But if you don’t admit it I want to know why.
`
`14
`
`MR. TENNAT: I don’t admit it, and let me tell you why. Referring
`
`15
`
`to Column 3 of Villiani, Line 4. It indicates that alternative embodiments
`
`16
`
`provide the module with the various things. And then it says that digital
`
`17
`
`software can also provide data encryption and decoding signature capture,
`
`18
`
`associate other transactions. So the signature capture is actually on the
`
`19
`
`module side. And so we were reading that sentence together, those two
`
`20
`
`sentences together to refer to that digital software fitting on the module.
`
`21
`
`But I think it’s not important entirely that where that encryption is
`
`22
`
`occurring. The fact that Valliani recognizes that it would be important to
`
`23
`
`encrypt data is helpful, that’s what leads one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`24
`
`Vrotsos. So we understand that can be an abstract only in embodiment of
`
`25
`
`Figure 2. There’s no express disclosure of encrypting the data from the
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01651 (Patent 9,443,239 B2)
`IPR2019-01652 (Patent 9,613,351 B2)
`IPR2019-01653 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`IPR2019-01654 (Patent 9,818,107 B2)
`
`magstripe. But broadly speaking, I agree, broadly speaking Valliani just
`
`refers to being an encryption.
`
`That leads us to Vrotsos. So if one of the ordinary skill of the art, and
`
`I want to step back. If one of ordinary skill in the art, I think it’s helpful just
`
`for the record to note that, you know, one of ordinary skill in the art has two
`
`years of experience, as you know, in four things; embedded systems, mobile
`
`communications, electronic payment, and encryption. So where to encrypt
`
`the data, at what point in the system to encrypt the data would certainly be
`
`within level of one of ordinary skill. But not to the extent that Valliani
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`doesn’t tell you in the magstripe embodiment. An