throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 32
`Entered: May 8, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BILLJCO LLC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 14, 2023
`____________
`
`Before THU A. DANG, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`LARISSA BIFANO, ESQ.
`JOSEPH WOLFE, ESQ.
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`One Liberty Place
`1650 Market Street, Suite 5000
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`COURTLAND C. MERRILL, ESQ.
`SAUL EWING
`33 South 6th Street
`Suite 4750
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 225-2943
`
`BRIAN LANDRY, ESQ.
`SAUL EWING
`131 Dartmouth Street, Suite 501
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 912-0969
`
`JOSEPH M. KUO, ESQ.
`SAUL EWING
`161 North Clark
`Suite 4200
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 876-7151
`
` The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, April 14,
`2023, commencing at 10:15 a.m. EDT, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE BAER: Okay. We are back. This is going to be now our
`
`second hearing. This will be our hearing for IPR 2022-426 addressing the
`
`‘804 patent and IPR 2022-310 addressing the ‘868 patent. This is between
`
`Petitioner, Apple, and Patent Owner BILLJCO.
`
`Again, just for the record, I’m Judge Baer. Judges Dang and Browne
`
`are also here. Just for the record, if we can get the parties appearances
`
`again, please, for petitioner?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`MS. BIFANO: Larissa Bifano, from DLA Piper, on behalf of
`
`11
`
`Petitioner, Apple; and with me is Joseph Wolfe, also from DLA Piper.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JUDGE BAER: And you both will be presenting, correct?
`
`MS. BIFANO: Yes. So, Mr. Wolfe will be presenting on ‘868, and
`
`14
`
`I’ll present on the ‘804.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`JUDGE BAER: Thank you, Ms. Bifano. And for patent owner?
`
`MR. KUO: Joe Kuo, on behalf of BILLJCO; with me is Courtland
`
`17
`
`Merrill, who presented today, and Brian Landry.
`
`18
`
`JUDGE BAER: Thank you, Mr. Kuo, and you’ll be presenting the
`
`19
`
`entire argument, is that correct?
`
`20
`
`21
`
`MR. KUO: Correct.
`
`JUDGE BAER: Great. The information we said earlier will apply, so
`
`22
`
`you have all of that information referencing slide numbers, as you speak,
`
`23
`
`that sort of thing. With that, we are ready to begin. Ms. Bifano, the parties
`
`24
`
`are going to each have 45 minutes. We’re going to add an additional 15
`
`25
`
`minutes because of petitioner’s participating in our LEAP program, which
`
`26
`
`we appreciate.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Ms. Bifano, how much time would you like to reserve?
`
`MS. BIFANO: We’re going to reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE BAER: Great, I will put 45 minutes on the clock. You’re
`
`welcome to split the time however you like. And Mr. Wolfe, you’re
`
`welcome to consult with Ms. Bifano at any time, if there is anything you
`
`need, please just let us know.
`
`So, with that, we’ll put 45 minutes on the clock, and you may begin
`
`whenever you’re ready.
`
`MR. WOLFE: Good morning, my name is Joe Wolfe. I’m
`
`10
`
`representing petitioner Apple, and I’m here to talk about the ‘868 patent,
`
`11
`
`which is the 310 IPR. The ‘868 patent is titled, “Location-Based Exchange
`
`12
`
`Permissions.” It is very similar to the ‘267 patent that we discussed two
`
`13
`
`months ago.
`
`14
`
`The technology is generally directed to a system and method for
`
`15
`
`providing location-based services to mobile data processing systems. It is
`
`16
`
`very similar to the ‘367. The difference is that when the transmitters or the
`
`17
`
`sending devices send wireless data records to these mobile devices, the
`
`18
`
`mobile devices are only going to take some action on these wireless data
`
`19
`
`records if the information corresponding to the wireless data records
`
`20
`
`matches two out of three identifiers.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`JUDGE BAER: And Mr. Wolfe, what slide are you on?
`
`MR. WOLFE: Oh, I’m sorry. This is slide 63.
`
`JUDGE BAER: Sixty-three?
`
`MR. WOLFE: Yes.
`
`JUDGE BAER: Thank you.
`
`MR. WOLFE: So, going to slide 64. So, this is a very long and
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`detailed claim, but I try to emphasize portions of the claim that are relevant
`
`to today’s discussion. So, a user-specified location-based of then
`
`configuration, the three identifiers that I mentioned: a first identifier; a
`
`second identifier; and a third identifier, and the identifier data of the wireless
`
`data record.
`
`So, moving onto slide 65, let’s start with Ground 2 because that’s the
`
`simplest ground. So, Ground 2, we are submitting that the claims are
`
`obvious over the combination of Haberman and Boger.
`
`So, first, let’s talk about Haberman. Again, Haberman is the same
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`reference that we relied on for the ‘267 patent. Haberman is entitled,
`
`11
`
`“Transmitter at Specific Address, Transmitting Address-Specific
`
`12
`
`Informational Content.” As you will see in Figure 14, on the right of slide
`
`13
`
`66, you have your mobile device (1402) that can communicate or receive
`
`14
`
`transmissions or broadcasts from these transmitters.
`
`15
`
`The mobile device (1402) has stored on it a preferences profile
`
`16
`
`(1404). The preferences profile includes the users’ preferences on the
`
`17
`
`broadcast that the mobile device will present to the user. So, as I am sure
`
`18
`
`you know, in a transmitter of mobile devices environment, transmitters are
`
`19
`
`going to transmit wireless data records.
`
`20
`
`They don’t transmit them directly to mobile devices, but they’re just
`
`21
`
`broadcasts within the vicinity of a mobile device and whether or not the
`
`22
`
`mobile device will present that information to the user or takes some sort of
`
`23
`
`other action is defined by the preferences profile (1404).
`
`24
`
`Now, it’s important to note that the preferences profile (1404) must be
`
`25
`
`followed. So, if I have a preference that says I want to receive information
`
`26
`
`X, the mobile device is going to present me with information X. Similarly,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`if I say, I do not want to see information X, the mobile device is not going to
`
`present me with information X, if it’s in that broadcast.
`
`So, Boger. Boger is a patent that is directed to a masterless slave
`
`master roll switch any Bluetooth piconet. The invention of Boger is very
`
`interesting and it’s about how a master device is replaced in a Bluetooth
`
`piconet, if the master device slave is XXXI THINK 8:00:8XXX a Bluetooth
`
`piconet. But for our grounds, we are relying entirely on the background of
`
`Boger, where Boger describes what a conventional piconet topology of
`
`Bluetooth is.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`So, what’s not at issue on Ground 2? So, essentially, all of the
`
`11
`
`identifiers are not at issue. We submit that Boger teaches the first identifier
`
`12
`
`and the third identifier, and this is never challenged by the patent owner.
`
`13
`
`We also submit that Haberman teaches the claim second identifier. This is
`
`14
`
`also not challenged by the patent owner.
`
`15
`
`So, assuming that the claim construction issues that we’ll discuss in
`
`16
`
`Ground 1 are satisfied, the only issue that remains is whether a person of
`
`17
`
`ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Boger with
`
`18
`
`Haberman.
`
`19
`
`‘So, our position is that, you know, Haberman, as I discussed, you
`
`20
`
`know, you have these transmitters, and these transmitters can transmit these
`
`21
`
`data records or messages to mobile devices that are in the vicinity.
`
`22
`
`Haberman provides, you know, multiple types of wireless communication
`
`23
`
`protocols that can be used.
`
`24
`
`As you see in paragraph 73 of Haberman, one of the protocols is a
`
`25
`
`Bluetooth protocol. So, the transmission from the sending device in
`
`26
`
`Haberman can be via Bluetooth transmission and that is exactly what we
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`stated in our petition.
`
`Similarly, as I have discussed, Boger discusses a traditional Bluetooth
`
`piconet and the topology of a Bluetooth piconet, specifically, how the
`
`packets are formed and what’s in the packets when they’re sent from the
`
`master device to one of the slave devices.
`
`Our position is that it wouldn’t [SIC] have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art that any Bluetooth implementation of Haberman, to
`
`include the manner in which the packets are formatted as described in Boger.
`
`Because in Boger, as I said before, we’re relying on the first identifier, and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the third identifier in Boger, which we have mapped to AM address of the
`
`11
`
`recipient device, as well as the access code of the piconet.
`
`12
`
`So, the patent owner’s sole rebuttal is that there are conflicting
`
`13
`
`objectives between Haberman and Boger, specifically, the patent owner
`
`14
`
`alleges that Haberman states that no network is created among the devices
`
`15
`
`and Boger discusses the creation of a network.
`
`16
`
`And, essentially, as you see, on the bottom left of slide 71, on page 37
`
`17
`
`of the patent owner response, the patent owner says that no IP Address is
`
`18
`
`assigned to the mobile device (108) by the transmitter (102), as occurs when
`
`19
`
`a wireless device registers with a WAN computer network. On the right, in
`
`20
`
`the Sur-reply, the patent owner said the same thing.
`
`21
`
`So, the fundamental issue with the patent owner’s response is they are
`
`22
`
`referring to the wide area network embodiment described in Haberman and
`
`23
`
`not the Bluetooth network. So, if you go back to slide 71, what is
`
`24
`
`specifically stated in paragraph 119 of Haberman is that no IP address is
`
`25
`
`assigned to the mobile device by the transmitter, as occurs when a wireless
`
`26
`
`device registers with a wide area network (WAN) computer network.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, the examiners -- or the examiners -- (laughter) -- the patent
`
`owner’s entire premise is based off the wrong network between the two
`
`devices. So, even though Haberman says that no network is created that is
`
`only in the WAN environment, and we are relying entirely on the Bluetooth
`
`embodiment.
`
`Any questions about Ground 2 before I move to Ground 1? (No
`
`response) Awesome.
`
`So, now, moving to Ground 1, is obviousness over Haberman alone.
`
`And I’m on slide 73, and moving to slide 74, so there are about four issues
`
`10
`
`in Ground 1. Of course, you know, the first is whether Haberman discloses
`
`11
`
`the user-specified location base, and then configuration, whether Haberman
`
`12
`
`discloses the identifier data; whether what we relied on in Haberman
`
`13
`
`discloses the claim first identified, so that’s the IP address for the GPS
`
`14
`
`coordinates; and then whether the broadcast identifying information
`
`15
`
`described in Haberman discloses the claim third identifier.
`
`16
`
`What is not at issue whether Haberman discloses the user-specified
`
`17
`
`location-based event configuration or identifier data under its plain and
`
`18
`
`ordinary meaning; whether the transmitting party identification discloses the
`
`19
`
`claim second identifier because the patent owner has not challenged our
`
`20
`
`analysis of what constitutes the second identifier, as well as the patentability
`
`21
`
`of the dependent claims.
`
`22
`
`So, let’s first focus on identifier data. So, again, it’s a very long claim
`
`23
`
`but I try to just excerpt the relevant portions. Essentially, the identifier data
`
`24
`
`corresponds to information in or corresponding to the wireless data record.
`
`25
`
`So, if you look at the portion of slide 77, on the left, it’s including whether
`
`26
`
`identifier data determined by the mobile data processing system for a
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`wireless data record received for processing.
`
`So, patent owners Constructions. So, patent owners taking a narrow
`
`construction of identifier data and alleges that the identifier data must
`
`identify a grantee and a grantor grantee relationship. This is similar to what
`
`we discussed in the ‘267 patent two months ago for a different claim
`
`element.
`
`Our position is plain and ordinary meaning, no construction required.
`
`So, based off of our read of patent owners Construction, it’s our position that
`
`they improperly read in limitations from the specification. Essentially, the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`patent owner has cherry-picked 13 lines of text from nearly 150-page
`
`11
`
`specification to arrive at this plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`12
`
`Even still, even if we apply the patent owner’s construction,
`
`13
`
`Haberman discloses identifier data, as going back two slides to their
`
`14
`
`construction, on page -- slide 78. “It is a grantee identity in the context of a
`
`15
`
`permission granted from a grantor identity to a grantee identity.”
`
`16
`
`In Haberman, there are certain preferences on the slide 80 that the
`
`17
`
`user can put in their preference profile. So, if you look at paragraph 26 of
`
`18
`
`Haberman, one of the preferences is a broadcaster identification which, by
`
`19
`
`which broadcaster is screened or a transmitting identification by which
`
`20
`
`broadcaster is screened.
`
`21
`
`So, essentially, what the user is doing in Haberman is granting the
`
`22
`
`broadcaster or the transmitting party the ability to have their information
`
`23
`
`presented on the mobile device. So, even under their construction,
`
`24
`
`Haberman still teaches this identifier data.
`
`25
`
`JUDGE BAER: Mr. Wolfe, is this the exact same issue that we dealt
`
`26
`
`with in the previous cases that we have heard in Arizona? Is this the exact
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`same issue? Is there something different about it in this case?
`
`MR. WOLFE: I would say it’s 98 percent the exact same issue, the
`
`two percent being that I think it’s even stronger in this case because of the
`
`broadcasts, and broadcaster identification, and the transmitting party
`
`identification. There is an overt grant of a permission to these parties to
`
`have their information presented on the mobile device here.
`
`So, I think it’s even stronger in this case. But, yes, it’s essentially the
`
`same issue. Any questions about identifier data before moving on? (No
`
`response) Awesome. So, moving to slide 81, so first identifier. So, again,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`there are multiple identifiers used in the claim.
`
`11
`
`The first identifier is the only identifier that’s indicative of the mobile
`
`12
`
`device. So, essentially, the first identifier is an identifier that is indicative of
`
`13
`
`the mobile device that received the wireless data record. If you look at the
`
`14
`
`excerpt on slide 82, the language that I am going to be focusing on is
`
`15
`
`indicative of.
`
`16
`
`So, Haberman’s First Identifier. So, we identified multiple options in
`
`17
`
`Haberman, the IP address and internal identifier, but I’m going to focus on
`
`18
`
`the GPS information that’s described in Haberman. As part of Haberman’s
`
`19
`
`preferences profile, the user of the mobile device can create a preference
`
`20
`
`based off of proximity.
`
`21
`
`So, it’s not enough to just be in wireless range of a transmitter, but
`
`22
`
`one of the preferences has to be, okay, well, if I’m within 20 feet of this
`
`23
`
`transmitter I want this information to be presented to me. And the way that
`
`24
`
`Haberman is able to make this determination is by utilizing GPS data.
`
`25
`
`So, Haberman is going to receive some sort of GPS data that identifies
`
`26
`
`its coordinates. If you look at paragraph 33 of Haberman, the GPS
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`coordinates include longitudinal, latitudinal, and elevational coordinates of
`
`the mobile device.
`
`So, moving to slide 84. So, the patent owner’s entire rebuttal for this
`
`GPS information for the first identifier is that GPS information essentially
`
`does not equally identify the mobile device, saying that GPS information
`
`does nothing more than indicate longitude and latitude for the GPS-enabled
`
`device, and it does not actually identify the device.
`
`And our position is that, you know, it seems like what the patent
`
`owner wants is a unique identification for the first identifier or even a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`identify. But, as the claim states, the claims says, “first identifier indicative
`
`11
`
`of the mobile data processing system.”
`
`12
`
`GPS coordinates are indicative of whatever is at that location. So, if
`
`13
`
`we have longitude and latitude information that if you look at the longitude
`
`14
`
`and latitude coordinates on slide 84, those longitude and latitude coordinates
`
`15
`
`are indicative of the Empire State Building.
`
`16
`
`Does it uniquely identify the Empire State Building? No, but it’s
`
`17
`
`indicative of the Empire State Building. The claims don’t require a unique
`
`18
`
`identification. I’m sorry?
`
`19
`
`JUDGE DANG: So, are you saying that identifies something that’s a
`
`20
`
`mobile also, like, if I -- if the mobile -- if the, you know, the phone, the
`
`21
`
`mobile phone is at the Empire State Building and it has a certain longitude
`
`22
`
`and latitude to it, but then it goes into the Brooklyn Bridge and then it has
`
`23
`
`another longitude and latitude is still identifying the phone even though it’s
`
`24
`
`at two different locations?
`
`25
`
`MR. WOLFE: It is still indicative of the phone even though it’s at
`
`26
`
`two different locations. So, what I can say is, you know, everyone here I can
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`call judges, you know. If I say, “Judges,” Judges isn’t a unique identifier of,
`
`you know, any of Judge Dang, Judge Baer, or Judge Browne, but it is
`
`indicative of the three of you, and that is what the claim language kind of
`
`provides here is that the first identifier has to just be indicative of what -- of
`
`the mobile data processing system.
`
`So, our position is that the GPS coordinates are indicative of a mobile
`
`data processing system, just like if there is a, you know, a white Ford
`
`mustang outside and I say, “the white car,” that’s still indicative of the white
`
`Ford mustang outside, even though there may be 10 other white cars outside.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE DANG: But, I mean, the white is going to still be there, even
`
`11
`
`if you go from the, you know, Empire State Building or the Brooklyn
`
`12
`
`Bridge. But when you’re talking about the coordinates, right, or the GPS,
`
`13
`
`are you talking about the GPS capability itself? We’re looking at, we’re
`
`14
`
`talking about GPS data, right? So how is that indicative if it, I guess, you
`
`15
`
`know, dependent on where the Park Place is -- I mean, device is, so it’s more
`
`16
`
`indicative of where the device is versus [] the device itself, no?
`
`17
`
`MR. WOLFE: Right, but I would say if we think about it, if we’re -- I
`
`18
`
`think it’s easier for a fixed object. So, if we think about it as an Empire
`
`19
`
`State Building, clearly, those coordinates are indicative of the Empire State
`
`20
`
`Building. I think if the Empire State Building moves, you know, the new
`
`21
`
`coordinates are still indicative of the Empire State Building. The old
`
`22
`
`coordinates would not be indicative of the Empire State Building, but --
`
`23
`
`JUDGE DANG: Right. So, I mean, I guess, like, for instance, if, you
`
`24
`
`know, you are 9-1-1 operator, or something, and then, like, okay, and the
`
`25
`
`mobile device is this coordinate. It identifies that, but if the GPS is not on
`
`26
`
`this, it’s not indicative of that mobile device, right?
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`I guess what’s indicative is it has to be to that device, right? And so,
`
`this seems like the coordinate is where that device is at the time, but it’s not
`
`-- yeah, I’m trying to understand. I guess you are saying indicative is where
`
`is at that time, but it has to -- it has to -- well, I mean suppose you remove
`
`the GPS capability from the phone and I’ll argue put it somewhere else, I
`
`guess I’m trying to see how is that tie -- the GPS is tied to the phone itself to
`
`be indicative of this?
`
`MR. WOLFE: Well, again, they’re just like identifiers, so it’s just
`
`another identifier corresponding to the mobile device. Again, we could say,
`
`10
`
`oh, we could have a lotta of words or identifiers that describe a certain
`
`11
`
`device whether that be by, you know, the OS, the hardware, the color of the
`
`12
`
`phone, the model of the phone, and the location of the phone still is
`
`13
`
`indicative of the phone itself.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE DANG: That’s my question because I couldn’t identify my
`
`15
`
`phone as at home right now.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`MR. WOLFE: Correct.
`
`JUDGE DANG: And then I went somewhere else, and somebody
`
`18
`
`said, what’s the identification of your phone, and I give it my previous
`
`19
`
`coordinates that would not be an identifier, my phone.
`
`20
`
`MR. WOLFE: Well, that is correct. It would not be the identifier of
`
`21
`
`the phone if you move the phone from the coordinates, it was at, but while
`
`22
`
`the phone is at that location, and I provide the coordinates of that phone at
`
`23
`
`that location those coordinates would be indicative of. The claims don’t
`
`24
`
`state that the first identifier is static.
`
`25
`
`JUDGE DANG: Okay, right, that’s my point. So, you’re arguing that
`
`26
`
`-- your point is that identifier could be a changing thing. It doesn't have to
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`be a static identifier.
`
`MR. WOLFE: Correct, correct. So, again, if right now those
`
`coordinates are indicative of the Empire State Building, let’s say, somehow
`
`it moves two blocks over, those coordinates would no longer be indicative
`
`of, but the new coordinates would be indicative of the Empire State
`
`Building.
`
`JUDGE DANG: Okay, I guess, yeah, I understand your point, thank
`
`you.
`
`MR. WOLFE: Okay. Okay. So, again, one of the other rebuttals
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`from the patent owner is that our expert stated that GPS coordinates are not
`
`11
`
`indicative of the mobile device but that is not the case. I highlighted
`
`12
`
`portions on slide 85, on the right, from Dr. LaPorta’s testimony that say that
`
`13
`
`GPS can be used to be indicative of the mobile device identity; the same
`
`14
`
`thing with slide 86, just another highlight.
`
`15
`
`Okay, moving on to the third identifier. Any questions about the first
`
`16
`
`identifier before I move on? (No response) Awesome. So, slide 87 starts
`
`17
`
`the third identifier. Okay. So, what is the third identifier? Again, the claim
`
`18
`
`says a lot. But, essentially, the third identifier is, “some identifier indicative
`
`19
`
`of the system that sent the wireless data record.”
`
`20
`
`So, what do we rely on as the third identifier? We rely on
`
`21
`
`Haberman’s teaching of the broadcast identifying information. In paragraph
`
`22
`
`-- in at least paragraph [27] of Haberman, the broadcast identifying
`
`23
`
`information includes a broadcaster identification that represents the author of
`
`24
`
`the information -- of the informational content of a broadcaster.
`
`25
`
`Moving on to slide 90. So, patent owner’s rebuttal is that the
`
`26
`
`transmitting party identification, which we equate to the second identifier
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`and the broadcasting identification, which we equate to the third identifier,
`
`identify different devices, simply not true. Haberman discloses there is no
`
`teaching in Haberman that states that the transmitting party identification
`
`and the broadcasting identifying information identified different devices.
`
`I’m sure the patent owner is going to come up here and provide
`
`various examples of the transmitting party identification and the
`
`broadcasting identifying information identifying different devices. But there
`
`are also examples of them identifying the same device. Let’s say there is a
`
`transmittal at Starbucks. The informational content of the transmissions
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`from Starbucks would be generated by Starbucks and sent out.
`
`11
`
`In that case, the author and the transmitter would both be Starbucks.
`
`12
`
`There could be another example that I’m sure the patent owner is going to
`
`13
`
`bring up where the transmitter is not located at Starbucks, but the
`
`14
`
`information in the transmission is related to Starbucks. In that example, they
`
`15
`
`would identify different devices. But I think it is equally as likely for, you
`
`16
`
`know, just as likely that they can identify the same device as different
`
`17
`
`devices. Both examples work and both examples are consistent with
`
`18
`
`Haberman.
`
`19
`
`Any questions before that one? (No response) Awesome. All right.
`
`20
`
`So you specify location base event configuration. So, again, what is this?
`
`21
`
`Essentially, it is used for screening wireless data records.
`
`22
`
`So, Patent Owner’s Construction. So, se submit that user-specified
`
`23
`
`location-based event configuration should be construed under as plain and
`
`24
`
`ordinary meaning. The patent owner wants to state that this is privileged
`
`25
`
`data where privilege means are granted users program to process these
`
`26
`
`services to perform certain functions on a computer not a preference.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, essentially, this relitigating the issue of the ‘267, whether
`
`Haberman's preferences are the same as privilege. So, our position is that,
`
`you know, the patent owner is simply commented (Phonetic) its construction
`
`based off of a typographic error in the petition that the petitioner notified the
`
`patent owner of during the expert deposition.
`
`We incorrectly labeled subheaders, “Limitations Recited Configuring
`
`Privileged Data,” and the patent owner has jumped on this and said that we
`
`are construing a user-specified location-based event configuration as
`
`privileged data, we are not . We never referred to privilege or privilege data
`
`10
`
`in the arguments. It was simply a typo in the subheadings.
`
`11
`
`Despite, you know, the patent owner’s statements to the contrary, the
`
`12
`
`petitioner cannot change the language of the claim itself. But as discussed in
`
`13
`
`the copending IPR-131, Haberman’s preferences are the same as privileges.
`
`14
`
`And I’m happy to answer questions but I feel like, you know, if we want to
`
`15
`
`discuss Haberman’s preferences versus privileges, I have a couple of more
`
`16
`
`slides.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`JUDGE DANG: Nothing, thank you.
`
`MR. WOLFE: Okay. All right, then, with that, I’ll give it to Larissa
`
`19
`
`for the next one.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`JUDGE BAER: We paused your time, so take your time.
`
`MS. BIFANO: Oh, okay. Great. Are you ready?
`
`JUDGE BAER: Yes.
`
`MS. BIFANO: Okay, great. All right. So I am going to discuss the
`
`24
`
`‘804 patent, so moving -- so now we’re back to -- we’re on slide 39 of our
`
`25
`
`slides. So, what the ‘804 patent is, again, we’re talking about a beacon
`
`26
`
`that’s going to be transmitting data to a mobile device, and it has a bunch of
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`data records. So, basically, the claim discusses, you can compile a bunch of
`
`information, then you create a message, and then you beacon it out
`
`according to specific configuration. That’s really what the ‘804 patent is
`
`about.
`
`So, moving to slide 40, we see a big claim that basically is saying, if
`
`you get any four pieces of information prepare a message with four pieces of
`
`information and transmit it, and then the other aspect is maintaining this
`
`configuration for one to perform the beaconing.
`
`But you see the things that are issue are really in this transmitting
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`section of the claim, and it’s whether the references are beaconing; and that
`
`11
`
`whether this broadcast unidirectional wireless data record for receipt by a
`
`12
`
`plurality of receiving mobile device processing systems is matched by the
`
`13
`
`prior art.
`
`14
`
`So, the issues we’ll talk about are basically this when it’s beaconing;
`
`15
`
`whether the combination of Himmelstein and Myr are two references,
`
`16
`
`disclose that, and then whether it discloses that transmitting limitation.
`
`17
`
`So, moving to slide 43, Himmelstein. Himmelstein is a reference that
`
`18
`
`relates to assist in the method for providing information to users based on
`
`19
`
`the user’s location. This is used for vehicle communication systems. So,
`
`20
`
`you have a bunch of cars moving around. You have also these transmitters.
`
`21
`
`You want to get important information to those cars and, like, for an
`
`22
`
`emergency situation, and you have different ways .
`
`23
`
`There is a bunch of -- there is multiple different embodiments and
`
`24
`
`how these messages can be transmitted. So you can do a broadcast, or you
`
`25
`
`can do a point-to-point message; you can send it multiples can communicate
`
`26
`
`with other multiples; multiples communicate to the base station; the base
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`station can send it out. There is a bunch of -- there are several different
`
`ways it can be done.
`
`So, I think that gets a little confusing, especially, when we get into the
`
`patent owners’ arguments because I think they’re confusing the different
`
`embodiments of Himmelstein. But to be clear, we’re relying on the
`
`embodiment where a mobile device is going to be transmitting to plurality of
`
`other mobile devices.
`
`Now, what can it send? It can send a lot of different things. So there
`
`is a lot of fields that are disclosed by Himmelstein that can be transmitted
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`and those -- the disclosure of the transmission of the message itself is not
`
`11
`
`what’s at issue here. What’s at issue -- oh, and then, I’m sorry.
`
`12
`
`The Myr reference is another reference we’re relying on, and just to
`
`13
`
`be clear, the only thing we’re relaying on Myr for is this periodic
`
`14
`
`configuration. So, Myr discloses you can preset a configuration from when
`
`15
`
`it’s going to be beaconed, and then that can be set at such as one or three
`
`16
`
`minutes and that was the only aspect of Myr we’re relying on for this
`
`17
`
`combination.
`
`18
`
`All right. So, beaconing, what is a beacon? The patent owner has
`
`19
`
`had a lot of proposals for what a beacon can be, and this is on slide 46. We
`
`20
`
`think it’s a plain and ordinary meaning. But let me just, like, short circuit all
`
`21
`
`of this because we could talk all day about what’s a beacon, and what’s not a
`
`22
`
`beacon; let me give you this example, let me give you that example.
`
`23
`
`But even looking at patent owner’s narrowest construction of a
`
`24
`
`beacon, which is this last one, on slide 46, a beacon is a transmission sent
`
`25
`
`with the intent that it can be used to locate the transmitter. Himmelstein
`
`26
`
`discloses that because Himmelstein sends a message, broadcasts a message
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`
`
`to other mobile devices with the location of the transmitter, so it’s disclosed.
`
`So, we don’t need to go -- I’m happy to answer lots of hypotheticals about
`
`what a beacon is, and what’s

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket