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