Trials@uspto.gov
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
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
