Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 29
`Entered: July 23, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 15, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 29
`Entered: July 23, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 15, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ERIKA H. ARNER, ESQ.
`JASON E. STACH, ESQ.
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRETT A. MANGRUM, ESQ.
`Ethridge Law Group
`2600 East Southlake Boulevard
`Suite 120-324
`Southlake, Texas 76092
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, July 15,
`2021, commencing at 3:00 p.m., EDT, by video.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE ZECHER: Good afternoon. My name is Judge Zecher. I
`
`have two colleagues with me today, Judge Medley and Judge Khan. This is
`a hearing for IPR2020-00756. At issue are Claims 9 through 12 of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,564,952.
`
`So I'm going to start today with the parties providing us with
`appearances. If possible for Petitioner and Patent Owner, please let us know
`who may be speaking today so the court reporter is aware of who you are so
`she can keep tabs of you during the hearing. So let's start with Petitioner,
`Google, please.
`
`MR. STACH: Thank you, Your Honor. This is Jason Stach on behalf
`of Petitioner, Google. I am joined by our lead counsel, Erika Arner, by
`video. We also have dialed in Charley Stiernberg who is IP counsel from
`Google and our back-up counsel, Benjamin Saidman. I will be presenting
`the argument today, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. Thank you.
`
`For Patent Owner, Uniloc?
`
`MR. MANGRUM: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honors. This is Brett
`Mangrum. I will be arguing today on behalf of Patent Owner. I'd like to
`also announce that Steve Pederson, in-house counsel for Patent Owner, is
`listening on the line.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. Thank you. So let me first start by just
`thanking the parties for agreeing to appear by video today. I want to make
`sure that if you have any technical difficulties you let us know immediately
`so we can make the appropriate remedies. We do have a public dial-in line
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`that we can use as a back-up.
`
`As far as how the proceeding is going to go today, Google as the
`Petitioner has the burden of persuasion so they're going to go ahead and
`present their case-in-chief. They can reserve some rebuttal time. After
`which Uniloc will present their case. They can also make use of some
`surrebuttal, so let's get started.
`
`Mr. Stach, how much time would you like for rebuttal today or --
`
`MR. STACH: Twelve minutes.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: -- to reserve for rebuttal?
`
`MR. STACH: Twelve minutes --
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Twelve minutes? All right.
`
`MR. STACH: -- please, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. So you have 45 minutes according to our
`hearing order in total, so I'll go ahead and set my timer at 33 minutes and
`you can begin when you're ready.
`
`MR. STACH: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate you all spending
`time with us today and I also appreciate that Judge Medley was on a back-
`to-back hearing. This is back-to-back with another hearing she was on, so I
`will try to keep this as interesting as possible recognizing it can be a long
`afternoon.
`
`So to that end, I'm actually going to skip right to the disputes between
`the parties. So if you wouldn't mind turning to Slide 14 of Petitioner's
`demonstratives and I'll give some background as we go through these
`disputes, but to sort of discuss that background as we talk about the different
`disputes.
`
`What we have on Slide 14 is Claim 9. This is the only challenged
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`independent claim in the '952 Patent. We also have challenged Claims 10
`through 12. Those are dependent claims, but Uniloc has not raised any
`specific disputes related to the language in those claims. All of the disputes
`between the parties relate to language that's in Claim 9, so that will be the
`focus today.
`
`Generally, the technology relates to a method of near field
`authentication of a source using sound waves and there's a number of
`different steps that are recited, the first being that the system will scan a
`plurality of predetermined frequencies for a free frequency. Then it will
`select the free frequency from that plurality of predetermined frequencies
`and from there it goes on to generate a message and a modulated carrier
`wave based on that message and then transmits that message.
`
`There are some additional details about how it generates the message
`and the modulated carrier wave and we'll get into those a bit later. But for
`now, I'd like to focus on the dispute over the first term that shows up in red
`on the slides, it's "scanning a plurality of predetermined frequencies."
`
`If we go to Slide 15, we can see that a primary dispute between the
`parties is whether the Paulson reference which is a reference that also uses
`sound waves to communicate information. It's like the '952 Patent in that
`regard. In fact, both Paulson and the '952 talk about the reason for using
`sound waves is largely because the hardware for communicating these in
`sound waves is often found already on devices that people already have.
`
`So for example, a loud speaker can transmit the sound wave and then
`there can be a microphone on the receiving device that if it's able to sample
`at appropriate rates and so forth, can then pick up that sound wave and
`demodulate it.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`So Paulson is right in the same wheelhouse as the '952 Patent and
`
`there hasn't been really any dispute about issues like combinability of
`Paulson, the relevance of Paulson. The focus really for the parties when it
`comes to "scanning a plurality of predetermined frequencies," is whether
`Paulson, in fact, does scan that predetermined -- or that plurality of
`predetermined frequencies.
`
`We can see on Slide 15 there's actually two paths. We have two
`competing views that are before the Board right now. One is Google's view
`which is supported by expert testimony. It's the only expert testimony of
`record and actually there's two declarations that Google's expert provided,
`one with the petition and then an additional declaration post-institution with
`Google's reply.
`
`Uniloc did not cross-examine Google's expert or otherwise introduce
`its own expert testimony in support of its view. And also Uniloc did not
`introduce any exhibits after institution. So I know often times the Board's
`institution decisions and, in fact, here talk about preliminary findings based
`on the current record. Well, from an evidentiary standpoint, the record
`really has not changed post-institution. There are new arguments that
`Uniloc has raised, certainly. Those are attorney arguments, but they have
`not provided additional evidence that would support those arguments.
`
`So we have the view from Google and its expert about how one of
`ordinary skill would have interpreted Paulson and then we have the view
`from Uniloc from its attorney argument that interprets it somewhat
`differently. But either way, under either interpretation we end up with
`Paulson rendering obvious in combination with Surprenant, the secondary
`reference, rendering the claims obvious.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`And I'll get into more of an explanation. First we'll look at Google's
`
`interpretation and its expert's interpretation of Paulson. So we can go to
`Slide 17, please. We can see that a central aim of Paulson is trying to
`increase the reliability of these sound wave transmissions. They're trying to
`make sure that if there's noise in the environment that could interfere with
`the soundwave transmissions and the reception of those in particular, that --
`Paulson wants to try to minimize the likelihood that noise could actually
`interfere.
`
`So what it does is it initially looks at the device capabilities. So we
`have here an excerpt of Paulson's Figure 4 on Slide 17 and we can see at
`Step 402 it initializes a set of sonic transmission frequencies for transmitting
`a sonic carrier's signal. What it does there, if we look at the corresponding
`text that goes along with that, it talks about how that initial set is determined
`by looking at the capabilities of the transmit device and its loud speaker and
`the received device and its microphone and what they're capable of
`transmitting and receiving, and so it's looking for that overlap.
`
`When you see what the overlap is between the frequencies that the
`transmit device is capable of transmitting and the receive device is capable
`of receiving, then you can see the range of theoretical frequencies that could
`be used between those devices to communicate. Now, that's all in the
`absence of noise because once noise gets introduced, Paulson recognizes that
`it may not be possible to use all of those different frequencies.
`
`So the initial determination is really happening based on the
`capabilities of the devices in the absence of noise. Then Paulson moves to
`Step 404 on Slide 17 and it creates a noise characteristic and that's a term I
`think that may be somewhat unique to Paulson, but the idea of the noise
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`characteristic is to scan the frequencies that the devices could theoretically
`communicate across and determine whether there is noise on any of those
`frequencies such that the system would not want to use those.
`
`They want to find a free frequency that is devoid of noise or at least
`has a signal to noise ratio, has a low enough amount of noise that the devices
`could communicate reliably, so that's what this noise characteristic does.
`And then there's a determination that's made at Step 406 where it asks the
`question in Step 406, "Could noise interfere with demodulating data from
`the set of sonic transmission frequencies?"
`
`So at that point we're then now looking at the information that we've
`learned from the noise characteristic and we're comparing that with what is
`the theoretical set of frequencies the devices could use. Now we're deciding
`which of those should we use based on that noise characteristic. And if it
`turns out that noise would not interfere, then it can proceed and it selects a
`signal of frequency that it would then use to send the soundwaves and
`communicate the data.
`
`If there is noise, then Paulson discloses we can wait and see if the
`noise goes away. There's an example of a coffee grinder, for example. A
`temporary noisy environment can cause issues. So what it can do is
`suspend transmission and that's what we see in Step 408 there and feedback,
`and then recreate the noise characteristic. This isn't something that's static
`because noise can change in the environment. It will regenerate that and it
`will keep iterating until it's able to find a time and a frequency that is free
`that it can then communicate.
`
`So that's how Paulson scans a plurality of predetermined frequencies
`and we'll get to the dispute --
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Mr. Stach, this is Judge Zecher. Just so I'm clear,
`
`and thanks for that explanation. I do appreciate it, but if we're talking about
`just focusing on the claim language specifically at issue here, the "scanning
`a plurality of predetermined frequencies," would you say that's done in Step
`402 based on this initial determination of frequencies between the receiving
`and transceiving device and then this iterative process on 404, 406, 408 of
`finding a frequency that's not -- has noise interference is finding that free
`frequency within the initial determination that you made in 402?
`
`MR. STACH: Yeah. So I would say that this scanning is not what
`happens in 402. The defining the predetermined frequencies happens in 402,
`so looking at that range of overlap between what the transmit device can
`send and what the received device can receive, that's where the
`predetermined set of frequencies is defined and then in 404 there is a
`scanning that occurs across at least those frequencies and that's where the
`parties do have a dispute, is whether the noise characteristic is generated
`only for those frequencies that were predetermined in Step 402 or whether it
`encompasses additional frequencies or a completely different set of
`frequencies, that's where the parties have their primary dispute on scanning,
`but my take is that it happens more in 404 scanning those frequencies that
`were initially determined in 402.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. So 402, Step 402, is really defining the
`predetermined frequencies and then the iterative process that's in 404, 406,
`408, if we need to go that way, is the scanning for that free frequency?
`
`MR. STACH: That's correct, Your Honor. And the --
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. Thank you.
`
`MR. STACH: When it creates the noise characteristic, what it's doing
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`is it's looking at the gain levels at a number of different frequencies to try to
`decide, to try to see how much noise and what the amplitude of that noise is
`at these different frequencies and that's how it determines what's free. It
`looks for something that has a low amount of noise or as small amount of
`noise as possible and then selects that frequency for transmission later.
`
`If we go to Slide 20 now if you would please, we can see the -- a
`central aim of Paulson and it's talked about all throughout Paulson, is that it
`wants to "reduce the probability of conflict with ambient noise in the
`environment," and that's -- I'm reading from the title of Paulson. And then
`Figure 4 which we saw an excerpt of is described as providing "strategies
`that reduce the probability of interference from noise."
`
`And then there are other statements throughout Paulson as well. This
`one is particularly good, I think, "In noisier environments. Aspects of the
`present invention continue to achieve robust communication through careful
`selection of the sonic transmission frequencies and timing of the
`transmission."
`
`The idea being that when we've looked at the range of frequencies that
`the devices could theoretically communicate across, we want to make sure
`that at the very least the scanning that happens looking for noise happens on
`those frequencies. Now, if it also scans additional frequencies which I think
`is what Uniloc is saying, that's not really relevant to the claim language and
`I'll get to that in a moment.
`
`But if -- it's a little bit unclear to me whether Uniloc is saying that the
`noise characteristics encompasses just additional frequencies beyond those
`that are identified in 402 or if they're saying that the frequencies that are
`scanned in the noise characteristic are completely exclusive of 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
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`frequencies that were identified in 402.
`
`So our take is that if there's any overlap between the scanned
`frequencies and those that were predetermined in 402, then that's sufficient
`to meet the claims and the idea that you might scan for noise on a
`completely different set of frequencies than those that the devices could
`theoretically communicate across just doesn't make sense in the context of
`Paulson where Paulson needs that data. It needs to know is there noise on
`the frequencies that the devices could actually theoretically use so it can
`make the determinations that are talked about and reduce that probability of
`conflict with that noise.
`
`So our expert has opined on this. It's unrebutted. I say "unrebutted,"
`meaning he wasn't cross-examined. There's no contrary expert testimony
`discussing how one of ordinary skill would have understood Paulson.
`Certainly, Uniloc is making attorney arguments that I think they believe may
`rebut it, but there's really no -- the best evidence that the Board has in front
`of it is the expert testimony saying, "Here's how one of ordinary skill in the
`art would have understood Paulson," and it's all consistent with this where
`you have this overlap between what's scanned and the predetermined
`frequencies. We can see some of that testimony --
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Mr. Stach, this is Judge Zecher again. Can I drill
`down a little bit on this? Can we go to your Slide 23 and --
`
`MR. STACH: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: -- I think you've highlighted really the sentence
`that Uniloc points out consistently in their briefing. What is your take as to
`what this particular sentence means here in the context of Step 406?
`
`MR. STACH: Sure. Yes, this is the primary statement that they point
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`to in their briefing and rely on. And as I understand their argument, they are
`pointing to it to say that the frequencies that are scanned do not overlap with
`or are not the same as the predetermined frequencies and what they say is --
`so this language, I'll just read it. It says, "In one instance, the sonic
`transmission frequencies available according to the noise characteristic may
`be too high for the received device to sample and demodulate."
`
`Uniloc has said that what that means is that if in Step 402 we've
`already looked at what the devices are capable of, you will never end up in a
`situation at Step 404 and later in 406 where the available frequency is
`somehow too high for the received device to sample and demodulate.
`
`I don't think that's a correct reading of this statement. The reason is
`because there's two steps that need to go into this process. The first is let's
`look at what the devices theoretically do. Could they communicate over a
`range that -- in the absence of noise, they could theoretically use a certain
`range of frequencies to communicate. We then run the noise characteristic
`and we see, "Oh, there's some level of noise."
`
`Now, there are some received devices that even in the presence of
`noise they are going to be able to sample and demodulate a signal. They
`might have highly sensitive received circuitry. They might just be
`configured differently than other received devices where a different received
`device might not actually be able to sample and demodulate the signal now
`that we know there is a certain amount of noise at the frequency.
`
`So what ends up happening is we look at the theoretical range of
`frequencies the device could use to communicate and Paulson says we're
`going to try to use the highest of those frequencies. We want to start there
`because that has the lowest likelihood of creating issues in terms of users in
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`the environment hearing the sound and being annoyed by it, things like that.
`So it's looking at the highest frequencies is where it's going to hopefully land
`and find a free frequency.
`
`But once we taken into account the noise characteristic, we can see
`then and we know, "Well, there is some level of noise at those highest
`frequencies," for example, potentially. We don't know that. I'm just saying,
`you know, one of the things that could come from the noise characteristic is
`just to say that those high end frequencies may have some level of noise and
`we need to do a secondary check then to say, "Okay. Does this received
`device have circuitry that is sensitive enough to sample reliably and
`demodulate that signal in the presence of that noise?"
`
`It is possible that it's too high, that the -- that what ends up being
`available according to the noise characteristic and taking into account that
`related signal-to-noise ratio, that that may still be too high for the received
`device to sample and demodulate the data. So we see that actually in
`Paulson.
`
`If we look at the next slide on Slide 24, Paulson specifically talks
`about the signal-to-noise ratio and it says that -- it talks about it in a positive
`sense saying that, "If the signal-to-noise ratio at these frequencies is higher
`than a predetermined threshold," so meaning that you have a signal that has
`a high amplitude and maybe a really low small amount of noise. So the
`difference between a signal and a noise can be easily interpreted and
`understood by a received device then it says that, "It is probable that the
`received device could demodulate data when the sonic carrier signals are
`transmitted."
`
`The flipside is also true though where if the noise level and the signal
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`are too close together and you end up with a device that's not sensitive
`enough to differentiate between that signal and the noise, then it may be that
`even though the devices theoretically could have communicated with one
`another in the absence of noise, we may now know that that frequency is
`too high for the received device to actually sample and demodulate the data
`and as the frequency goes up, it gets more difficult for received devices to do
`that. You need more sensitive circuitry, you need faster circuitry because it's
`trying to sample at twice the frequency and so there may just be hardware
`limitations and things where this received device just can't differentiate.
`
`When that signal gets too close to the noise level and that signal to
`noise ratio becomes really small or smaller, it becomes less reliable to then
`sample and demodulate. So that's what the -- that paragraph or that sentence
`on Slide 23 that Uniloc points to is really talking about. It's not suggesting
`that the scanned frequencies are completely different from the initially
`predetermined frequencies. For Paulson to work, you look at the
`predetermined frequencies that the devices could theoretically use and then
`you look for noise at least in those frequencies and make a decision, can we
`use them or do we need to wait until the noise goes away.
`
`So that's my interpretation and that's what our expert talked about as
`well and we have testimony. Uniloc raised that in its Patent Owner response
`and so that's addressed in the reply declaration from Google's expert. Does
`that answer your question, Your Honor?
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Yes. Thank you for that explanation.
`
`MR. STACH: If we turn to Slide 25, I'd like to now talk about
`Uniloc's interpretation. And as I said, it's not 100 percent clear to me if
`they're just saying that the scanning that happens is additional frequencies
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`beyond what the devices could use to communicate or if it's in a fully
`exclusive set so there's no overlap and I'll show you a Venn diagram in a
`moment to help clarify that.
`
`But if we go to the claim language first on Slide 26, you can see that
`the language just says, "scanning a plurality of predetermined frequencies
`for a free frequency." So that really just says we're scanning two or more
`frequencies and they have to be predetermined frequencies and we see that
`in 402.
`
`So if we go to Slide 27, the Venn diagram shows where that
`intersection happens. You have your predetermined frequencies and I'm not
`suggesting that this is what Paulson discloses. I'm saying that on Slide 27
`this is what the claims require. You have a set of predetermined frequencies
`and as long as you scan a plurality of those frequencies even if you don't
`scan all of them, but if you scan a plurality of them then you have scanned a
`plurality of predetermined frequencies.
`
`What we believe Paulson discloses is if you were to take this figure
`and you were to take those predetermined frequencies and put them fully
`inside the scanned frequencies, actually they're coextensive circles. The
`scanned frequencies would be the same as the predetermined frequencies, at
`the very least.
`
`Now, it may be that you could create the noise characteristic and scan
`even more frequencies and so you would have a -- the predetermined
`frequencies would be a smaller circle that fits fully within the scanned
`frequency circle. Either way, whether they're perfectly coextensive or the
`predetermined frequencies just fit within the scanned frequencies, that meets
`the language of the claims.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`The claims are much more permissive is what I'm saying when it
`
`comes to which frequencies you scan. You really only need to scan two or
`more of the predetermined frequencies to meet the language of the claims
`and Paulson suggests much more than that.
`
`We do have expert testimony on Slide 28 that talks about how, at the
`very least, the frequency ranges need to overlap. So what's scanned needs to
`overlap with the originally determined set of frequencies. That testimony is
`unrebutted. We have additional testimony on Slide 29, but unless there are
`other questions about the scanning component, I'd like to shift briefly to the -
`- to Slide 30.
`
`Are there any other questions on scanning?
`
`Okay. And when I say "shift to the" -- this also involves scanning,
`actually. This is more about scanning for a free frequency. If we look on
`Slide 30, this is the second dispute that Uniloc raised. And if we go to Slide
`31, we can see their argument from their surreply where they contend that if
`you are scanning for noise and determining which frequencies you cannot
`use and hence they're unusable.
`
`That's distinguishable from scanning for a free frequency, but this is
`really two sides of the same coin. I mean, when Paulson is scanning for
`noise, it's looking for the presence of noise and for the absence of noise.
`What it's really looking for is the absence of noise. Its hope is to find
`frequencies where noise would not conflict.
`
`And so it may be a semantic difference, I'm not sure exactly, but when
`you look at how Paulson operates it really, it's goal is to get down to that
`free frequency. It wants a frequency that either has no noise or has a low
`enough level of noise relative to the signal that we have a good signal to
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`noise ratio and the received device is likely to actually be able to receive and
`demodulate the data.
`
`And to the extent that Uniloc's argument is focused more on the fact
`that sometimes Paulson might initially fail to find a free frequency because
`maybe all of the frequencies that the devices could use to communicate have
`too much noise on them. If we go to Slide 32, we can see that the system
`can just wait and then try again and it continues to do this iterative loop
`recreating the noise characteristic until it does find that free frequency that it
`wants to transmit on.
`
`Unless there are any questions on that, I'd like to turn now to Slide 33,
`please. And this is a limitation in red. It says, "Wherein, the content
`includes device identification data including a bit array derived from user-
`configurable and non-user-configurable data specific to the audio transceiver
`computing device."
`
`All of this relates to what type of information actually gets transmitted
`using these soundwaves and when you generate a message, the claim tells us
`that the content portion, so what we might think of as the payload and a
`network message, for example, that the actual content, the meaningful
`component of the message that we're trying to send, that content needs to
`include this device identification data and it has to be generated using these
`two types of information, these other two types of data; user-configurable
`and non-user-configurable.
`
`And when we look at Uniloc's arguments, they haven't really disputed
`the user-configurable portion here. What they're disputing is that the
`references disclose or render obvious the non-user-configurable data
`component that's in this claim. If we go to Slide --
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Mr. Stach, this is Judge Zecher. I just wanted to
`
`give you a heads up on your timing. You have about five minutes before
`you're going to start eating into your rebuttal time.
`
`MR. STACH: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`On Slide 34, we have identified -- we actually provided three different
`ways that the prior art renders obviously both the -- it's the combination of
`user-configurable and non-user-configurable data using that to generate this
`bit array. One of them relies on Surprenant and its disclosures. Second path
`involves using the background knowledge of one of ordinary skill as
`evidenced by the '952 Patent specification and the third is -- relies on a
`reference called Beenau.
`
`Each of these paths independently is sufficient to result in finding the
`claims unpatentable. So, but we've presented numerous different ways to
`get there. And first, just I think maybe briefly I'll just mention if we go to
`Slide 38 there is expert testimony, again unrebutted, that talks about how
`there's something in Surprenant, and maybe I'm saying the name wrong, but
`Surprenant talks about having an AMP ID.
`
`"AMP" stands for Acoustic Modulation Protocol and it has this
`identifier, and Surprenant says that the AMP ID is a unique identification
`string that's disclosed as being specific to the transmit device 101 and it
`doesn't provide a lot of detail about what that ID would be, but because it's
`unique and because it's specific to the transmit device, it would have been
`obvious to one of ordinary skill reading that, that it would have taken the
`form of something like the device's serial number. That helps ensure the
`uniqueness.
`
`We know that Surprenant separately disclosed the user-configurable
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00756
`Patent 9,564,952 B2
`
`component where it can generate this ID using credentials that are provided
`by a user and Uniloc has not disputed the user-configurable component, but
`when you read Surprenant and you see, "Okay. It's got this user-
`configurable component," but the it still is calling this AMP ID unique.
`Well, users can configure things. You could say -- you could choose the
`same password or the same code for 10 different devices. You don't end up
`necessarily with a unique identification string from something that's solely
`generated from user-configurable data.
`
`This is part of the reason why when you look at this and you look at
`our expert's testimony, it would have been obvious that you want something
`that can help the AMP ID become unique and so one of ordinary skill
`reading it would have interpreted that to mean something like a serial
`number and that's backed up by information that we have in the knowledg
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
