`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 46
`Entered: August 3, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. and PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: June 9, 2021
`
`
`
`Before CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ANDREW RADSCH, ESQ.
`JAMES R. BATCHELDER, ESQ.
`MARK D. ROWLAND, ESQ.
`SCOTT A. MCKEOWN, ESQ.
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, California 94303
`(650) 617 4018
`
`ADAM A. ALLGOOD, ESQ.
`JOSEPH EDELL, ESQ.
`ALAN M. FISCH, ESQ.
`BILL SIGLER, ESQ.
`JEFFREY SALTMAN, ESQ.
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`(202) 362-3500
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ALLEN BULLWINKEL, ESQ.
`MICHAEL HEIM, ESQ.
`CHRIS LIMBACHER, ESQ.
`Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP
`1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
`Houston, Texas 77002
`(713) 221-2024
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`David Saunders, Esq., Juniper Networks
`George Simion, client representative
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, June 9,
`
`2021, commencing at 3:01 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: I'm Judge Boudreau. This is the
`hearing for cases IPR2020-00338, '339, and '486, all captioned
`as Juniper Networks, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.
`Packet Intelligence LLC, concerning U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,839,751 and 6,954,789.
` I'm joined this afternoon by my colleagues, Judges
`Hamann and Sawert.
` Can we please have counsel introduce themselves for
`the record, starting with Petitioner's counsel.
` MR. RADSCH: Hi, this is Andrew Radsch for
`Petitioner, Ropes & Gray. I'm joined in our Silicon Valley
`office by my colleagues, Jim Batchelder and Mark Rowland, and
`from our Washington, D.C. office, Scott McKeown. And we have
`on the lines Palo Alto Networks' Client Representatives,
`George Simion and (inaudible) --
` MR. ALLGOOD: Adam Allgood, with Fisch Sigler, also
`for Petitioner. And with me today on the phone are lead
`counsel for these IPRs, Mr. Joe Edell, Mr. Alan Fisch, Mr.
`Bill Sigler, Mr. Jeff Saltman, all from Fisch Sigler. And
`then also Director of Litigation for Juniper Networks, Mr.
`David Saunders.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you. And who will be
`presenting on behalf of Petitioner?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
` MR. RADSCH: Your Honor, this is Andrew Radsch. I
`will be addressing claim construction at this hearing. Mr.
`Allgood will be addressing the issues with respect to
`conversational flow and state, and if we get to them, I'll be
`happy to address flow-entry database and associative cache.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
` And would counsel for Patent Owner please introduce
`yourselves.
` MR. BULLWINKEL: Yes, this is Allan Bullwinkel on
`behalf of Packet Intelligence LLC. With me today are Michael
`Heim and Chris Limbacher, and I'll be arguing on behalf of
`the Patent Owner.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
` So as set forth in the hearing order in this case,
`Petitioner will have 60 minutes of total argument time, as
`will Patent Owner. And each may reserve time for rebuttal
`from that -- from the total allotment.
` And also, again, before we adjourn at the end of the
`hearing, I'd like to ask everyone to stay on the line to
`briefly answer any questions that the court reporter might
`have.
` One other housekeeping matter. In the oral hearing
`earlier today in cases IPR2020-00336 and 2020-00337,
`involving related patents and overlapping issues with the
`current proceedings, the parties agreed that the Panel may
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`enter the transcript of that hearing into the record of this
`case. Unless there are any objections, we would similarly
`like to enter a copy of the transcript from this hearing into
`the record of the '336 and '337 cases.
` I just want to confirm, does Petitioner have any
`objection?
` MR. RADSCH: No objection, Your Honor.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
` And Patent Owner?
` MR. BULLWINKEL: No objection, Your Honor.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
` All right. Well, with that, unless anyone has any
`questions, we can begin.
` Mr. Radsch, how much -- would you like to reserve any
`time for rebuttal, and if so, how much time?
` MR. RADSCH: Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Petitioner
`would like to reserve the balance of its time for rebuttal,
`at least 15 minutes for rebuttal, please.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Okay. Thank you. And I will give
`you a warning about five minutes before the initial 45
`minutes is up then.
` All right. Well, with that, you may proceed whenever
`you're ready.
` MR. RADSCH: Thank you, and may I please the Board.
`Again, this is Andrew Radsch for Petitioner.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
` I will be referring today to Petitioner's
`demonstrative exhibits that had been filed as Exhibit 1113
`for each of the three proceedings. I'll also reference to
`Patent Owner's demonstratives; as well as to the two patents
`at issue in this proceeding; as well as to the '099 patent.
`I may refer to other matters in the record.
` I would like to start today with claim construction,
`and specifically with the construction of the term,
`conversational flow, as that is only term in dispute. And I
`would like to turn to Petitioner's slide number 9.
` So each of the -- each of the challenged claims in
`this proceeding recite recognizing a packet as part of the
`conversational flow. Not recognizing conversational flows
`generally, but recognizing the packet as part of the
`conversational flow.
` The Board has adopted a preliminary construction.
`Patent Owner has proposed a different construction. We want
`to make clear that the prior art grounds render obvious the
`claims under either instruction. So while there are maybe
`questions today, and there was lot of briefing about the
`meaning of that term, either way, prior art clearly discloses
`recognizing a packet for a conversational flow.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Counsel, this is Judge Sawert. I have
`a question about your construction of conversational flow.
` As I recall, if I could recall correctly, you had a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`different construction in your Petition than the one that the
`Board adopted at the Institution Decision. Can you either
`confirm or -- can you confirm that the construction that the
`Board adopted preliminarily in the instruct -- in the
`Institution Decision is the construction that you agree with?
` MR. RADSCH: I -- so Your Honor, I thank you for the
`question.
` We had -- the Petitioner had in its Petitions
`proposed a different, somewhat narrower construction based
`upon statements that Patent Owner had made in prior art IPR
`proceedings that we had said rose to the level of disclaimer.
`However, for the purposes of the proceeding, we are adopting
`the -- the Board's preliminary construction based upon the
`specifications lexicography. And the prior art meets any of
`those constructions. That is Petitioner's construction, the
`Board's preliminary construction, and the Patent Owner's
`construction.
` JUDGE SAWERT: So just to be clear, you no longer
`challenge -- you do not challenge the Board's construction
`adopted in the Institution Decision?
` MR. RADSCH: Well, for the purposes of these
`proceedings, we're not challenging that -- that -- that claim
`construction. There is a parallel State District Court
`proceeding where claim constructions have not been rendered,
`and those are, you know --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
` JUDGE SAWERT: Yeah, I --
` MR. RADSCH: -- issues there --
` JUDGE SAWERT: -- understand. I'm just looking for
`yes for this IPR, these IPRs. Okay. Thank you.
` MR. RADSCH: For these -- for these proceedings, we're
`not challenging that construction.
` So with that, I would like to turn to slide 10 of
`Petitioner's demonstratives. And where we had set forth the
`Board's construction, which is based upon the specifications
`lexicography that the term, conversational flow, is a coined
`term; it is not a term of art. Applicants chose to coin that
`term in the specification. They did so, as we pointed out
`here in the '099 specification, which is incorporated by
`reference into the specification of the patents that we're
`here on today. The Board adopted that construction because
`of its lexicography. And omitted the exemplary language
`which we believe is correct to do because it's exemplary.
`And as the Board knows in cases such as Catalina Marketing,
`exemplary language is not limiting as a matter of law.
` And as the Board may take note, in related patents,
`the '646 patent, for example, claim 1 also defines the term,
`conversational flow in a manner consistent with the
`highlighted portion on slide 10 of the specifications
`definition. Omitting any of that exemplary language, and
`importantly, not limiting conversational flow in any way, as
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`the Patent Owner argues today, which is that it must be
`client-specific.
` So what I'd like to do is turn to slide 11, and focus
`on the Patent Owner's arguments about conversational flow,
`and why they're incorrect based on the facts and based on the
`law.
` So the Patent Owner argues that a conversational flow
`must be limited to a particular or user client activity. And
`it bases that position off of the exemplary language from the
`specifications lexicography, which, again, does not appear,
`for example in '646 claim 1 definition of conversational
`flow. But in any event, the specification makes it clear
`that a specific client activity is merely an example of an
`activity. It states, For instance, running of an application
`on a server as requested by a client.
` And what the Patent Owner seeks to do is to turn that
`exemplary language into a claim limitation, and yet, it
`focuses only on the aspect of a client. If -- if the Board
`were to read this in as a limitation, it would require only a
`communication between one client and one server. Which would
`exclude the PointCast example from the provisional
`application, and that patentee itself as pointed to as an
`example of conversational flow, because a PointCast is a
`communication between a client and multiple servers. We know
`that --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
` JUDGE SAWERT: Counsel I would like to discuss those
`examples that you're relying on for -- and -- and now I'm
`leaning more toward whether or not Riddle reads on
`conversational flow. And what I would like to do is -- my
`understanding is that you're relying on these two examples as
`teaching -- as embodiments teaching more than one client or
`more than one activity. Is that correct?
` And can we go through those examples that you're
`using, and can you explain to me how they teach more than one
`client or more than one activity?
` MR. RADSCH: Certainly, Your Honor. And if you turn
`to slide 14 of Petitioner's demonstratives, we include the
`language from the provisional application that is
`incorporated by reference into the two patents we're dealing
`with in this proceedings, '789 and '751. And it is in this
`language that the provision, the applications discuss the
`SAP, the Service Advertising Protocol, or a print service.
`What this --
` JUDGE SAWERT: Wait a minute. I am -- I'm lost. You
`said slide 14?
` MR. RADSCH: Of -- yes, slide 14 of Petitioner's
`demonstrative.
` JUDGE SAWERT: And that is “'789 patent associative
`cache claim”?
` MR. RADSCH: No, Your Honor, it should be titled --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`slide 14 should be titled “Limiting conversational flow to a
`particular user or client device with embodiments.”
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. Very good. I'm looking at the
`wrong slide. One minute, please.
` MR. RADSCH: Certainly.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Slide 14. Okay. I'm there.
` MR. RADSCH: Okay. Thank you.
` JUDGE SAWERT: I have a question --
` MR. RADSCH: So again --
` JUDGE SAWERT: -- about this, actually. And it's
`very intriguing to me your position on this. This is the
`first time I've come across -- so please let me know what cases
`you're relying on. It seems to me that you're using a
`provisional that was incorporated by reference, information
`in that provisional to confirm the meaning of a claim in this
`patent. And I'm just wondering, what cases are you relying
`on? Do you have any incorporation-by-reference cases or
`anything along those lines that say that we can do that?
` MR. RADSCH: Your Honor, I don't have any in my
`prepared text. We'll be happy to provide something on
`rebuttal.
` The same example does also appear in the
`specification of the '099 patent, for example, at column 3.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Yeah, see, that's the problem I have
`is that it's not in every patent, correct? And when I look
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`at your reply, I see that -- for instance, in some of your
`footnotes, you recite -- for instance, I'm looking at
`IPR2020-00339. And I see in some of your footnotes, you're
`citing '099, which, for this patent in this IPR, is not helpful
`at all for me, because I'm not looking at the '099 patent.
`I'm looking at the '789 patent.
` And so it kind of, for me, brings up another issue,
`which is, why didn't you tell me for this IPR, and for this
`patent, where the particular -- if you're relying on this
`example, where is it in that patent relevant to this IPR?
` MR. RADSCH: So I think I understand your question,
`Your Honor. I think there's two answers to that, is that the
`'789 patent incorporates-by-reference expressly disclosure of
`both of the provisional and of the '099 patent. And so it's
`our position that a person ordinary skilled in the art
`reading this specification would also necessarily turn to
`those other disclosures to understand the claim language
`because they're expressly incorporated by reference into the
`disclosure of the '789, '789 patent. And for those reasons,
`we both -- both parties to the proceeding, have pointed to
`the other materials incorporated-by-reference into the '789
`patent, and it's the '751 patent.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. And then, my other point about
`this particular IPR, do you have a response to that? I'm
`just wondering why you didn't add the cites for the '789
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`patent.
` MR. RADSCH: Your Honor, for -- the answer is as to
`overlapping disclosure because of the -- the
`incorporation-by-reference, I believe both parties cited
`primarily to the '099 patent because the disclosures were
`overlapping. There are some differences as to the background
`information. So for example, that's why in the '099, this
`SAP example is included. The background is a little bit
`different in the '751 patent, for example. And but in any
`event, because it's incorporated-by-reference, a person
`ordinarily skilled in the art would reference that material
`in understanding the scope and meaning of the claims. That's
`what --
` JUDGE SAWERT: So you don't -- so you don't think we
`should take anything from the fact that, as to the patent
`itself, just putting aside their incorporation-by-reference
`issue, as to the patent itself, some of these patents have
`this SAP example, for instance, and some do not. We
`shouldn't take anything from that as far as what these
`patents are teaching, and how we should construe
`conversational flow?
` MR. RADSCH: I don't think -- I don't think the Board
`should take anything from that for a couple of reasons.
`Putting aside whether, you know, that that information is
`incorporated-by-reference. There are examples of what a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`conversational flow can be. As the Board knows, those
`examples are not limiting, but they are illuminating as to
`the scope of conversational flow.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. Well, let's -- let's talk about
`those two examples.
` MR. RADSCH: Okay. Happy to do so.
` And starting with slide 14, where we set forth this
`is -- the service, the Service Advertising Protocol example,
`the use for print service. The language of this -- of the
`provisional, which is also found in column 3, I believe, of
`the '099 patent, similar language, explains that, A first
`client may make a request to a print service to identify the
`print service on that -- to a print server to identify the
`print service on that server. That same client may then send
`a separate request or a separate connection to use the print
`service.
` And the specification explains in the highlighted
`portion in the middle that those are two disjointed
`connections. First, to establish the identity of the print
`service. The second, to use it. It says, Those two packet
`exchanges would then be correctly identified as being part of
`the same flow if the clients are the same. What it's saying
`is those two disjointed connections would be -- recognizes
`the same conversational flow because the clients ares the
`same. It then says, It ou would even be recognized if the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`clients were not the same.
` So saying an example where you have a different
`client using the print service after the first client has
`identified that address. Those disjointed connections from
`the first client to establish a print service, the second
`client to use it, those together would be recognized as a
`conversational flow.
` JUDGE SAWERT: I guess the problem I'm having now is
`that when you go, for instance, to the '789 patent, it
`doesn't say that. It doesn't say they would even be
`recognized if the clients were not the same. And it seems to
`me that maybe I should take something from that; that even
`though the -- the -- this provisional was incorporated by
`reference, it purposefully omits the information that they
`would even be recognized if the clients were not the same.
`Which is why I'm -- I'm looking for something, I'm looking
`for some case or something that's telling me I can, I guess,
`so to speak, include what's in the provisional, even though
`it -- it's not in the patent itself, but seems to, like I
`said, purposefully omit it.
` MR. RADSCH: I -- so I think the answer -- first of
`all, to provide you with the case cite for a Federal Circuit
`case that does allow for the incorp -- the reliance on the
`incorporated by materials -- materials
`incorporated-by-reference, rather, would be a Hollmer v.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`Harari case, 681 F.3d 1351.
` And so we do think it's proper and permissible, and
`in fact, those materials must be taken into account in
`interpreting the scope of the claims. And I don't think
`there's any dispute by the Patent Owner here that both the
`'099 specification, which includes this similar language, as
`well as the provisional. Their disclosures are
`incorporated-by-reference into the '789 patent. And all of
`those materials in the aggregate would need to be considered
`when understanding the scope of this term.
` And again, I -- to -- to -- to come back to a point
`we've made earlier, in some respects, with an activity where
`conversational flow is limited to a specific client, or it
`could encompass activities of multiple clients, is somewhat
`academic in that the Prior Arts, Riddle and Yu, expressly
`discloses recognizing client-specific uses of applications.
`Client-specific conversational flows.
` But I'd be happy --
` JUDGE SAWERT: You mean non-client-specific?
`Client-specific --
` MR. RADSCH: So Riddle --
` JUDGE SAWERT: -- or non-client-specific?
` MR. RADSCH: Riddle and Yu both expressly disclose
`client-specific conversational flows.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
` MR. RADSCH: Again, our position is even if the Board
`adopts the narrowing construction proposed by Patent Owner,
`art meets the -- meets the claim.
` Just to stay on 514 for a moment, and on the -- on
`this example, what the Patent Owner states is that the
`language, they would even be recognized if the clients were
`not the same, references only the second connection. But
`that word, they, is important in that sentence because they
`refers back to the two packet exchanges. Meaning the first
`connection, and then the second connection by the second
`client. What this is teaching us is that conversational flow
`is focused on the activity being performed, which is the
`application being used.
` And if we turn to -- if you have more questions about
`an example, I'll be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I'll
`turn to the Patent Owner's arguments about the meaning of
`activity.
` JUDGE SAWERT: You said there was a second example.
`So I understand the first example is SAP printing example.
`And what is your other example that you're relying on?
` MR. RADSCH: So this is -- this is -- this is the a
`primary example that we've relied upon in specification.
`There being examples of multiple clients involved in the same
`activity. But there's also examples we pointed to in our
`briefing of Remote Procedure Calls, RPCs, where there may be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`an advertised -- based on server announcement flow, an
`advertised service that multiple clients can use.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Do you have a slide for that?
` MR. RADSCH: I do not, Your Honor. We -- for this
`proceeding, we focused just on the -- on the provisional
`discussion of the service advertising protocol. That's where
`most of the briefing is focused. But I'd be happy to walk
`through that example if that would be helpful.
` JUDGE SAWERT: That would probably be helpful in case
`I'm not sold on this SAP example.
` MR. RADSCH: Okay. Yes, and would be -- I would be
`happy to do that, Your Honor. I think that this example is
`frankly a little bit clearer. But and again, I want to come
`back to the point that the prior art, you know, discloses
`client-specific conversational flows where you identify a
`client, you identify a server, the specific activity
`occurring. So in many respects, this is, as we've said,
`academic.
` So the other example --
` JUDGE SAWERT: Maybe. Maybe not.
` MR. RADSCH: Understood. Understood.
` So the other point we pointed to is the -- is the RPC
`example, where there again are multiple connections by --
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. Can you --
` MR. RADSCH: -- different clients.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
` JUDGE SAWERT: Can you start by picking, for
`instance, the '789 patent? Tell me where that example is.
` MR. RADSCH: Certainly. In our briefing in our -- in
`our reply brief, we've addressed the page as 4 to 5 of our
`reply, and we cited to again to the '099 patent because
`that's where this example was discussed.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay.
` MR. RADSCH: The reason again we did that was because
`it was incorporated-by-reference. And that's at column 31
`from lines 31 to 40 of the '099 patent.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Give me a minute to get there.
` Okay. Please go ahead.
` MR. RADSCH: Okay. Certainly. And what this -- what
`this example explains is that it's an -- it's what they refer
`to as an R -- a send RPC Bind Lookup Request. So a client
`may make a request to a server. It says here, Client 1
`requests a port mapper assignment with an -- with a RPC port
`mapper reply.
` So a client sends a request to a server, and there's
`a reply received. It says, Then some other client, say
`client 2, might see that request, and therefore, know that
`this particular server, server 2, port number with the
`specific port number associated with this specific
`application service program.
` And then, it says, It is desirable -- this is two
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`different clients communicating with the same server with the
`same activity, clients 1 and client 2. It says, It is
`desirable for the network monitor to be able to associate any
`packets to server 2 using that port number with that
`application program.
` And so what this example is explaining it is
`desirable for the monitor to be able to aggregate those
`disjointed flows as relating to the same application program.
`And throughout the specification, I'm including throughout
`column 7 of the '099 patent, for example, the -- the
`applicant repeatedly refers to the application programs
`conversational flow. Application programs have
`conversational flows. Not only users or clients. If you
`look at, for example --
` JUDGE SAWERT: I have one question about this RPC
`Bind Lookup Request. So let's say for -- for argument's sake
`that I agree with you that it's two different clients, and
`that two disjointed flows are considered conversational flow
`here, but what is the activity here? Is it one activity or
`is it multiple activities?
` MR. RADSCH: So activity here is broad -- use of
`activity in the specification is broad enough to encompass
`both of these client requests communications with the server,
`because the activity is focused on the application involved.
` And that's consistent with how Patent Owner in prior
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`proceedings argued the meaning of conversational flow, and
`then focused on aggregating elections involved with the same
`application program. Here, again, the activity, the use of
`activity in its ordinary sense and specification is broad
`enough to encompass the same application program or same
`service being used. It's not -- it is no -- an applicant has
`not pointed to any lexicography or disclaimer on the
`specification that would limit the word, activity, to being
`one that's user or client-specific.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. I understand. Thank you.
` MR. RADSCH: And just to give you just couple of
`cites in the '751 patent, column 7, for example, at line 17,
`sort of get a drawback to that column, in column 7, The
`applicants refer to the conversational flow associated with a
`particular application.
` So what this is teaching a person ordinarily skilled
`in the art is that conversational flows are, or can be,
`associated with application programs, not merely with a
`specific client or a specific user. You certainly can define
`conversational flow that way, but it's not so limited.
` The '751 patent also states in its background, and
`this is not in the '099 patent, this is one different -- one
`difference. And this is a point that the Patent Owner
`haven't pointed to. But at column 1, starting at line 57, it
`says that there is a -- In particular, there is a need for a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`realtime network monitor that can provide details as to the
`application programs being used.
` And so the need that is being expressed here is to
`understand the application being used, not to understand some
`client-specific usage. And that is consistent with the
`notion of conversational flow as defined in the
`specification, as defined in the '646 patent and used
`throughout has to do with the sequence of that packets
`resulting from an activity. Example, application program
`usage.
` If there's no further -- more -- more question about
`claim construction, I would turn to Mr. Allgood to address
`the prior art. And I'm happy to answer any more questions
`about claim construction.
` MR. ALLGOOD: Thank you, Mr. Radsch. Thank you.
` Adam Allgood for the Petitioners.
` Let's -- if we could just reset and -- and turn to
`Petitioner's slide 20.
` We're talking about the prior art disclosing
`conversational flows. Riddle describes the mapping packet
`network flows to traffic class based on certain selectable
`information. And here, table 2 provides examples of
`components of the