`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 52
`Entered: September 19, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., and
`VOLVO CAR USA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 22, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, HYUN J. JUNG, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`RYAN C. RICHARDSON, ESQ.
`MICHAEL D. SPECHT, ESQ.
`TIMOTHY L. TANG, ESQ.
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC
`1100 New York Ave, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JONATHAN LAMBERSON, ESQ.
`HALLIE KIERNAN, ESQ.
`JOHN P. SCHEIBELER, ESQ.
`White & Case, LLP
`1221 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10020
`(212) 819-8830
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, July 22,
`
`2022, commencing at 3:16 p.m. EDT, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, Madison Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, 9th Floor,
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE ARBES: Good afternoon. This is the second oral hearing
`of the day, Case IPR2021-00721 involving Patent
`8,166,081.
` Can counsel again please state your names for the
`Record?
` MR. RICHARDSON: Ryan Richardson, from Sterne
`Kessler Goldstein & Fox, on behalf of Petitioner,
`Volkswagen Group of America. And also with me is Tim Tang
`and Michael Specht, from the same law firm.
` JUDGE ARBES: Patent Owner?
` MR. LAMBERSON: Jonathan Lamberson, from the law
`firm of White & Case, for Patent Owner, StratosAudio. And
`with me today is Hallie Kiernan and John Scheibeler, from
`the same firm.
` JUDGE ARBES: Per the Trial Hearing Order, the
`parties will each have 60 minutes of total time to present
`arguments. Again, we'll follow the same order and
`procedures.
` Any questions from the parties before we begin?
` MR. RICHARDSON: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE ARBES: Counsel for Petitioner, you may
`proceed. And would you like to reserve time for rebuttal?
` MR. RICHARDSON: 20 minutes again, Your Honor.
`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
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
` Good afternoon, Your Honors. As just mentioned,
`this portion of today, we're going to be discussing the
`'081 Patent, which again is assigned to StratosAudio. In
`this particular instance, the '081 Patent is a
`continuation of the '405 Patent that we discussed for the
`last couple hours today. So the concepts that we
`introduced in the previous proceeding are the same
`concepts that are introduced here. Namely, both patents
`are directed towards a media enhancement system configured
`to associate a secondary media signal to a primary media
`signal.
` And the key difference here between the
`challenged claims of the '081 Patent and the claims of the
`'405 Patent that we previously discussed is that the '081
`Patent claims a system and the '405 Patent claims a
`method.
` With the claims here being directed to a system,
`the claims now include a couple additional elements that
`are going to be the focus of the majority of today's
`presentation. Those elements are a first and a second
`receiver module. They're configured to receive the first
`and second media. And an output to output that media.
` As we'll discuss here today, a majority of Patent
`Owner's arguments in this proceeding are based on what we
`believe to be faulty claim constructions for these two
`system limitations. Patent Owner's proposed construction
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`are not only unsupported by the specification of '081
`patent, but are, in fact, directly contradicted. They are
`directly contradicted by definitions provided for these
`terms in the patent.
` Specifically, it's Patent Owner's position that
`the first and second receiver modules must be separate and
`distinct, and that the output system must include a
`different output on each of the separate and distinct
`modules. So Petitioner strongly disagrees and disputes
`Patent Owner's constructions, but there's two important
`things to keep in mind as we go through today's
`presentation. First is that Patent Owner never once in
`any of its papers to date disputes Petitioner's prior --
`whether Petitioner's prior art references disclosed those
`two modules and the output system when the plain and
`ordinary meaning of those terms is applied, as Petitioners
`have alleged and have set forth in their papers.
` Number 2 is that Petitioner's prior art
`references nonetheless disclose both of those
`constructions for the term, module and output system. So
`they disclosed it under the plain and ordinary meaning,
`and also under the more narrow construction being offered
`by Patent Owner.
` So Patent Owner's claim construction arguments,
`which again is going to be the foundation for the majority
`of today's discussion, is not only incorrect but they
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`don't change the end result. They don't change the result
`of whether the two primary references that we'll discuss
`here today anticipate and disclose the claims, the
`challenged claims of the '081 Patent. Therefore, as we
`did with the '405 Patent, Petitioner here, through its
`papers, and what will be reiterated here today,
`respectfully present that the challenged claims of the
`'081 Patent should be found unpatentable over both of the
`references that we'll discuss here today.
` So if we can turn to slide 4, please.
` This should look pretty familiar to what we
`started the presentation for the '405 Patent with. Not
`going to go through the whole system again, but this is
`the same Fig. 3 that we saw for the '405 Patent, and the
`very similar disclosure on the left-hand side. And again,
`the system here in the '081 Patent, and the system in the
`'405 Patent are designed to achieve the same objective,
`which is to receive two media signals, associate them, and
`concurrently present them to the user.
` And as note here, the same color coordinating
`scheme that we used in the '405 Patent will also be
`applied here during today's -- this portion of the
`presentation to again hopefully keep the elements separate
`and reinforce common concepts.
` So moving to slide 5.
` These are the four grounds at issue in today's
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`proceeding. And you can see there's only two references
`that we're going to discuss today. It's the Mackintosh
`reference and the DeWeese reference.
` On slide 6, we see independent claim 9. Much
`like the '405 Patent, independent claim 9 here of the '081
`Patent is the only independent claim challenged in this
`proceeding. There's a number of terms that are high --
`not highly, but bolded on slide 6 here. These are the
`terms that relate to the claim construction disputes that
`you're going to hear today and that have been briefed
`during this proceeding. And we're going to address each
`one of those as we go forward in the presenting.
` Now, on slide 7, just as we did in the earlier
`hearing, we're going to give a brief overview of the two
`references that will make up today's discussion. The
`first is the Mackintosh reference. The Mackintosh
`reference was also a reference that served as a large
`portion of the discussion in yesterday's proceedings
`relating to additional StratosAudio patents. As we see on
`slide 7, we see a very similar system to what is described
`and what was illustrated from the '081 Patent.
`Specifically, starting with Fig. 5 on the left-hand side
`of slide 7, we see a couple of different elements. We
`have a user terminal, which is highlighted in red. It's a
`user device. And that terminal is designed to receive two
`types of media signals. The first, which is highlighted
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`in blue comes from a broadcast Internet service provider,
`and can be things such as tracks of music, advertisements,
`and promotional materials.
` Additionally, user terminal is designed to
`receive what it calls supplemental materials. Materials
`that are supplemental but also enhanced what is being
`received in that radio broadcast. Now, there's a number
`of different pieces of supplemental information that
`Mackintosh outlines, and it talks about how they're
`displaying what they do. But the user terminal is
`designed to receive both of those, and we're going to show
`on the next slide how they are designed to be received,
`processed and presented.
` Importantly, what we're also told here on the
`slide is that the user terminal includes a player that is
`used to play the broadcast material downloaded by the
`Internet. The player can be a general purpose audio
`player or an audio video player, capable of playing both
`those types of media. The first type, which is the
`broadcast material, and the second type, which is the
`supplemental materials.
` Now, if we go to slide 8, we see in Fig. 8, we
`see a representation of the player, of the player that's
`included in the user terminal. And in slide 8, we see
`that the player includes a number of different functional
`modules. We see at the top, we have a received module
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`404. That module is designed to receive the broadcast
`material, the broadcast streams that we saw in the
`previous slide. The get data module 414, that's designed
`to receive the supplemental material. Supplemental
`material then enhances that broadcast strength.
` We also see in Fig. 8 that we have a couple
`different display outputs. We have a display 410 for
`visual representation, and we have a speaker 412 for audio
`representation. And Fig. 12 on the right-hand side shows
`one example embodiment of what that display could look
`like, and populated along that -- that Fig. 12 is a number
`of different pieces of supplemental information.
` Slide 9, please.
` So on slide 9, just as we did with the previous
`hearing -- excuse me -- here, the key elements from claim
`9 are matched up with the disclosure from Mackintosh.
`Again, this is the -- the elements from the Mackintosh
`disclosure that had been mapped to the corresponding
`elements from independent claim 9 in Petitioner's papers.
`Again, using that common color coding as we saw before.
` Now if we can go to slide 10.
` This is the second of the two references that
`we'll talk about today. And this is the DeWeese
`reference. So again, DeWeese reference, just like
`Mackintosh, just like the '081 Patent follows a very
`similar format, both structurally and -- and its
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`functionality.
` So we have Fig. 1A on the left-hand side of slide
`10. And we see a number of different elements. The first
`of which is a set-top box, highlighted in red, and
`designed to receive two types of media content. The first
`type of media content here is television programming, from
`what's called a television distribution facility. It's
`highlighted in blue. The second type of media is realtime
`check communications or chat requests. Two terms used to
`refer to the same type of media. And that comes from chat
`equipment 22. Those two types of media content can both
`be received by the set-top box. They can both be received
`by the set-top box processed and displayed accordingly.
` And we see on the next slide on slide 11 is an
`example of how the DeWeese system can output and display
`those two types of media. We see that DeWeese's system
`has a screen 200, highlighted in green. And on that
`screen, that screen can be partitioned into many different
`sections. This was really similar to what we saw in Fig.
`3 of the '081 Patent where we had a flip cell phone, and
`that screen could be partitioned into different pieces.
`So that is what DeWeese is doing here. And in two of those
`particular partitioned sections, we see on the top
`right-hand portion the television program can be
`displayed. And the middle portion, portion 206, those
`realtime communications, which are those chat requests and
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`chat communications, can also be displayed.
` And again, on slide 12, the correlation between
`the elements of DeWeese and their corresponding elements
`from independent claim 9. So much like we did for the --
`the '405 Patent and our presentation there, on the next
`slide, we present the list of issues that are undisputed
`in this particular proceeding. We have all the elements
`from the independent claim 9.
` And on the next slide on slide 14, we have
`certain elements or certain dependent claims, claim 11 and
`23, which have not once been disputed by Patent Owner at
`any point in these proceedings.
` So much like we did earlier, unless Your Honors
`have any questions about these undisputed issues, we'll
`move forward in the presentation to the issues that are in
`dispute.
` And so with that, we'd like to move to slide 30.
` So slide 30 provides the summary of the outline
`of the issues that are in dispute. The first two bullet
`points here really coalesce into a single issue resolved
`-- or revolving around claim construction, and we're going
`to start our discussion with that.
` And then, there's a couple limitations from the
`independent claim that are disputed with respect to
`Mackintosh, some more that are disputed with respect to
`DeWeese, and then, also claim 10 is in dispute for both
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`references.
` So if we move to slide 32. So on slide 32, we
`see a representation of the claim construction disputes
`that are at issue in this proceeding. There three of
`them. Number 1 and number 2 are almost two sides of the
`same coin. They go together. Number 3 is somewhat
`separate, but we'll walk through each one of these three.
` The first one which we highlighted in the
`beginning of the presentation here relates to the first
`and second receiver modules. Now, it's Petitioner's
`position that those terms as they show up in the claim on
`the left-hand side, element 9(a) and 9(b), should be given
`their plain and ordinary meaning.
` Conversely, Patent Owner believes that an
`additional meaning should be applied to these, which is
`that these two modules need to be separate and distinct
`from one another. But what that means, what separate and
`distinct, means, as Patent Owner presents it, we don't
`know, and we're not given any guidance in the '081 Patent.
`We don't know if this is hardware separation, software
`separation, if there's any overlap being allowed. We
`don't know if it's separate devices. And we partly don't
`know that because it's been a moving target during
`Petitioner's -- excuse me, during Patent Owner's papers.
` In some instances, they say that it does not
`require separate devices, but in other instances, when
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`they argue against the particular references that we
`presented here, they do say that there needs to be a
`second device.
` The second claim construction argument, which
`again is somewhat intertwined with the first one, relates
`to the output system. And we see that in limitation 90.
`Here we have an output system configured to present
`concurrently the first media content and the second media
`content on an output of the first receiver, or the second
`-- first receiver module or the second receiver module.
`Patent Owner here again believes that this requires
`separate and distinct modules, but not only that, that you
`also need to have individual displays, or excuse me,
`individual outputs on each of those separate and distinct
`modules.
` We don't believe that you need separate and
`distinct modules by any stretch, regardless of how that's
`-- that phrase is construed, nor do we believe that two
`separate outputs, one existing on each of these separate
`and distinct modules is required. Instead, a single
`device having a single output system has shown in Fig. 3
`of the '081 Patent is sufficient.
` JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, why does the claim not
`require that each module have an output? I can see your
`argument if this was a method claim, and it used -- used
`the word, or, one would satisfy that -- that step 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
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`method. This is a system claim that says the output
`system is configured to present concurrently information
`on an output of the first receiver module or the second
`receiver module.
` MR. RICHARDSON: Uh-hum. Yes. So reading this
`correct, we think that the plain and ordinary meaning of
`that centers around the term -- the use of the term, or,
`in the last line of limitation 90 where it talks about an
`output of the first receiver module or the second. We're
`not told in this limitation or any other limitation of
`claim 9 that there is some sort of functionality within
`this device that makes some sort of assessment of whether
`to output to one output versus the other. So what we're
`told is as long as you concurrently output the first and
`second media on one -- one of these outputs, either it
`needs to be on a first module or a second module, that
`serves the purpose, the goal that's explained in the
`abstract in the background and the expressed written
`language of the claim.
` JUDGE ARBES: But why does the claim not require
`that two outputs exist? I -- I can see your point about
`not making the determination, but it -- it does seem to
`be that the claim requires that two outputs exist in
`order to have an output system that is configured to
`present the information on one or the other. They both
`have to exist, right?
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
` MR. RICHARDSON: Absolutely. Yes.
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay.
` MR. RICHARDSON: And -- and so I think what the
`confusion is whether they exist or whether they exist
`separately on separate devices or separate and distinct
`modules. And so --
` JUDGE ARBES: Whether or not they have to be on
`separate devices we'll deal with when we deal with whether
`the modules have to be separate, but they both have
`to be of the module, right? So we have one output that is
`of the first module, and another output that is of the
`second module, right?
` MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, I think that's a fair
`reading.
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay.
` MR. RICHARDSON: And I think maybe, just to give
`an illustrative context to that. If we can go back to --
`if we can go back to -- sorry, slide 4. And this is where
`we had Fig. 3 shown from the '081 Patent. Again, an
`example embodiment on what we're talking about in the
`claims here. So Fig. 3 shows us a couple things. A
`couple things that could be conceived as outputs. We have
`a display, we also show -- are showing that that display
`is partitioned. And the top half can show one type of
`information, and the bottom half can show another. We
`also have a speaker.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
` So in theory, we have three, maybe there's other
`ways to -- to segment the number of displays that we have
`here in a number of outputs. And absolutely one is
`configured to present a received media audibly through the
`speaker, and another is configured to receive media
`visually on the screen. We think that's all that's
`required. Whether you call that a single output system, a
`single output, you have two out -- two things that output
`a first media content and a second media content.
` JUDGE ARBES: Two or three?
` MR. RICHARDSON: So this is -- this is an example
`where it's partitioned. I don't see anywhere in the '081
`Patent where it says you need to partition and use those
`two partitions differently. But here is an example where
`I'm told that I can output some information on the
`display, some information on the speaker. That is a -- in
`the particular embodiment in Fig. 3, that is a way to
`output the first media content, which is the radio
`broadcast through the speaker, and a way to output the
`second media, which would be the advertisement, which is
`what they explained here.
` JUDGE ARBES: But theoretically, behind that,
`there would be a first module and a second module.
`Whether those have to be entirely separate is a different
`issue, but there would be a first module so that the green
`output would be of the first module, and the blue output
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`would be of the second module, right?
` MR. RICHARDSON: Absolutely.
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay.
` MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. So there would need to be
`some communication path that would take that received
`signal and put it to the accrue -- appropriate output.
` JUDGE ARBES: Can you address Patent Owner's
`argument that this recitation of different modules is a
`bit different than maybe other situations that recite the
`word module, in isolation, because there is structure
`here? There is structure by virtue of an output of the
`module. So and -- that that implies maybe some more
`distinctness than a claim that uses just the word module.
` MR. RICHARDSON: So I don't interpret anything
`from independent claim 9 as requiring the recited modules
`to take any type of shape or form. I believe -- I read
`claim 9 and particularly in the context of the definition
`of module that's provided in the specification, to allow
`that module to be hardware or software. And particularly,
`and if we can go to slide 36, please. Sorry, slide 35.
` And particularly, when we're told that generally,
`generally, most cases, generally, the modules described
`herein refer to logic modules that may be combined with
`other modules or subdivided into submodules. So without
`context in the plain language of claim 9, Petitioner does
`not read in any requirement that this needs to be 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
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`hardware module of any kind. And if it did, that it could
`not share any hardware components with a different module
`within the device.
` JUDGE ARBES: What about the language, received
`discretely, in claim 9, does that not imply some
`separateness as well? I believe that the art that we
`talked about in the previous hearings did have two
`different interfaces talking to two different providers.
` MR. RICHARDSON: Referring to the Fig. 3 from the
`'081 Patent?
` JUDGE ARBES: Referring to some of the art that
`we -- that we discussed earlier in the previous hearing that did
`have two interfaces that received information from -- from
`two different sources, of two different data types. Does
`-- does the words, received discretely, imply some
`separateness or distinctness between the modules?
` MR. RICHARDSON: It does not, because received
`discretely belongs with the signals and not with the
`modules. So received discretely is for the signal that is
`received, how it's presented, and how -- how it's
`transmitted and how it's received. If the patentee wanted
`to use the term, separate and discrete, or received
`discrete, or existing discrete, to refer to the modules,
`it could have done so. It -- it knows how to use the
`term, discrete, but they have it elsewhere in the claim,
`but they chose not to. And so all we're left with is 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
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`construe the terms as if they exist without the word,
`discretely, in the context of the definition in the
`specification.
` And I will add on to that that while we believe
`that's the appropriate construction for this, is that
`there can -- these can be software modules that can be
`submodules of one another, and they can overlap. The
`references that Petitioner has presented in this
`proceeding do, in fact, still disclose the more narrow
`interpretation where you need to be able to show
`functional separability. And we'll talk about that --
`unless Your Honors would like to jump to that, we can talk
`to that within the next 20 minutes or so of the
`presentation.
` So if we can go to one slide earlier, to slide
`34.
` So this idea about these modules needing to be
`separate and distinct is not something new to the Patent
`Owner Response. It was in the Patent Owner preliminary
`response, and it was addressed in Your Honors' Institution
`Decision. A couple instances of that are shown on slide
`34. But most importantly, no new evidence has been
`provided in this case since those original discussions to
`change that outcome, to change that calculus. Instead,
`it's the same argument supported only by Patent Owner's
`expert and no corroborating evidence to support their --
`
`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
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`their understanding of the first and second module. But
`instead, as we looked at slide 35, again, we have a module
`that is expressly describe -- expressly defined in the
`patent. So any separate and distinctness or discreteness
`that could have potentially been read into the terms,
`first and second module, because they carry that prefix,
`first and second, goes away when we read that in the
`context of the specification. There are significant line
`of cases that were in the Institution Decision, and some I
`believe were also cited in Patent Owner's briefs that
`talks about this being a fact-dependent inquiry. Whether
`module -- or whether things that are recited as a first
`and a second in the claim, it's a fact inquiry as to
`whether they can be represented by the same or overlapping
`things, or whether you need to show separate things.
` The fact inquiry, the first fact to look at is
`what does the specification say, and it defines it. And
`so there's nothing in the record anywhere that would
`override this definition in the specification. And just
`to be clear, we've talked about separate and discrete. We
`still don't -- even if that was a construction that
`ultimately was adopted, we don't know what that means.
`Does it mean separate devices? Does it mean separate
`hardware components within one device? Does it mean
`separate software?
` We know at least from Dr. Moon who was Patent
`
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`Owner's expert, when he was asked in his deposition, Is it
`possible for a single device to have two receiver modules?
`He said, Yes. So we know, at least we believe one piece
`of evidence that they don't have to be separate devices.
`That's not what Patent Owner alleges when we get to some
`of the references like DeWeese, but we know at least from
`their own expert, it does not need to be separate devices.
` JUDGE ARBES: But counsel, you could
`theoretically have a -- have one device that has two
`pieces of hardware that are totally distinct within it,
`right?
` MR. RICHARDSON: Yes.
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay.
` MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. So and that's the point,
`Your Honors, is that the claim is broad enough to cover a
`single device, separate devices, a single device with
`separate functional components, or a single device with
`separate hardware components. It's broad enough to cover
`any of those instances.
` And so we've touched on a number of the elements
`why we think that our -- our plain and ordinary meaning of
`first and second module is appropriate. But one
`additional thing before we move on is if we go to slide
`37, there's other independent claims in the '081 Patent
`that we can ignore when we are reading claim 9, and what
`claim 9 means in the context of the patent.
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
` We see that claims 1 and 12, we have represented
`claim 1 on this slide, recite a plurality of user devices.
`And that different things happen on each of those devices.
`Claim 9 doesn't recite different devices. It recites
`modules. And we know under claim differentiation that if
`you used different terms and different claims, they're
`intended or they're thought to mean different things
`unless shown otherwise. And so with this claim
`differentiation, and with the definition of specification,
`we again believe that the first and second receiver
`modules can overlap, can be subcomponents of one another,
`could be hardware and/or software.
` So with that, I'm going to move to slide 40. And
`so slide 40, this is the first issue that's in dispute
`with respect to the Mackintosh reference. And this
`relates to the existence of a second receiver module and
`flows from the claim construction argument that we were
`just having.
` So Petitioners have identified the communication
`interface 724 as the second receiver module from the
`claim. It's also shown in Fig. 13.
` If we go to slide 42. We see Patent Owner's
`arguments as to why that's not sufficient. And again,
`this is the mere image of their claim construction
`argument where we see that Mackintosh does not disclose
`two receiver modules. That's -- that's the crux 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
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`Patent 8,166,081 B2
`
`argument that Patent Owners have presented.
` So next slide, slide 43.
` Again, we believe that Your Honors came out to
`the con -- correct conclusion in the Institution Decision
`that a single element in the art may disclose multiple
`claim features. But beyond that, if we go to the next
`slide on slide 44, we see that Mackintosh does more. It
`describes more for us. It talks about this player that we
`talked about earlier that clearly just shows two separate
`and distinct modules. However you want to construe the
`term, separate and distinct. Mackintosh at least has that
`level of disclosure because they're illustrated separately
`and they're talked about as having different functions.
` JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, a couple questions
`regarding this. One, why is this a proper argument to now
`argue the modules in blue and yellow in slide 44, which is
`different than what you mapped the first receiver module
`and second receiver module to in the Petition?
` MR. RICHARDSON: So I wouldn't s