Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper No. 37
`Entered: October 17, 2023
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 27, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, HYUN J. JUNG, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JEREMY MONALDO, ESQUIRE
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`100 Maine Ave SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`ADAM FOWLES, ESQUIRE
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`6000 Headquarters Drive, Suite 200
`Plano, TX 75024
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`PHILIP J. GRAVES, ESQUIRE
`Graves & Shaw LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`NATHAN LOWENSTEIN, ESQUIRE
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`1016 Pico Blvd
`Santa Monica, CA 90405
`
`COLETTE WOO, ESQUIRE
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`1016 Pico Blvd
`Santa Monica, CA 90405
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on July 27, 2023,
`commencing at 3:00 p.m., via video teleconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE JUNG: This is the oral hearing for IPR2022-00807 in this
`
`proceeding. Petitioner, Samsung, and Apple challenge certain claims of
`
`U.S. Patent Number 9,756,168, or the ’168 Patent. And the ’168 Patent is
`
`owned by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC. Starting with Petitioner’s
`
`counsel, and followed by Patent Owner’s counsel, please state your names
`
`for the record.
`
`MR. EHMKE: Your Honor, this is Andrew Ehmke on behalf of
`
`10
`
`Petitioner, Apple. I am lead counsel. Joining me today is Adam Fowles,
`
`11
`
`and Mr. Fowles will be presenting on behalf of Petitioner.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you, Mr. Ehmke.
`
`MR. LOWENSTEIN: This is Nathan Lowenstein, Your Honor, on
`
`14
`
`behalf of Patent Owner. I’m joined by my colleague, Colette Woo, and lead
`
`15
`
`counsel, Kenneth Weatherwax is also dialed in.
`
`16
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lowenstein. All right.
`
`17
`
`Petitioner has 45 minutes of total time to present its argument, and Patent
`
`18
`
`Owner in this proceeding has 60 minutes of total time to present its
`
`19
`
`arguments because Ms. Woo is a LEAP practitioner. Each party may
`
`20
`
`reserve time for rebuttal. I will again track time and interrupt you when you
`
`21
`
`only have a few minutes remaining. And with that said, Mr. Fowles, when
`
`22
`
`you are ready you may proceed. Mr. Fowles, you are muted. You’re still
`
`23
`
`muted.
`
`24
`
`MR. EHMKE: Your Honor, this is Andrew Ehmke. We seem to
`
`25
`
`be having technical difficulty.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`
`MR. EHMKE: Mr. Fowles does not indicate that’s he’s muted on
`
`his end, so we’ll try to endeavor to fix this. Your Honor, what I think we
`
`will do is since my system is working, Mr. Fowles will come to my office,
`
`and he’ll be able to present from here. So if we could have one minute for
`
`him to come to my office, we’ll do that switch.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Looks like we lost Mr. Ehmke, or no I
`
`see -- you were frozen for a moment.
`
`MR. EHMKE: So I have -- I’m -- since Mr. Fowles will be
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`working from my computer, I’m trying to get it all configured for him to
`
`11
`
`use --
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Oh, I see.
`
`MR. EHMKE: -- as seamlessly as possible. So I apologize for my
`
`14
`
`silence. And his office is located on the exact opposite end of the building
`
`15
`
`from me. Here he is.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`MR. FOWLES: Okay. I believe you can all hear me now.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes, I can hear you. Thank you.
`
`MR. FOWLES: Thank you. So I’d like to reserve 10 minutes for
`
`19
`
`rebuttal, if I can.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`
`MR. FOWLES: And with that, if we could move to slide 2. The
`
`22
`
`parts of the ’168 Patent relevant to this proceeding involve a system that
`
`23
`
`includes a wireless device, a wireless carrier, and a server described
`
`24
`
`throughout the ’168 Patent as Server C. Now the Server C stores software
`
`25
`
`from multiple wireless devices and provides that software to the wireless
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`devices. Well Server C also stores wireless profiles. These concepts were
`
`already known, however, as demonstrated by the teachings of Sainton and
`
`Baker. So moving to slide 3, I’ll first address why a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been motivated to combine Sainton and Baker.
`
`Sainton teaches a wireless device that is in communication over the air with
`
`a carrier. The wireless device includes a library expandable to include third
`
`party application programs. Baker in turn provides details about a server
`
`that stores applications and provides them to requesting devices.
`
`Now, the issue raised by Patent Owner is whether Sainton and
`
`10
`
`Baker are properly combinable, and this leads us to slide 4. Looking first at
`
`11
`
`what Sainton brings to the table, Sainton teaches that it was desirable for that
`
`12
`
`library at the wireless to be updated from the carrier. Sainton further teaches
`
`13
`
`that the library can be expanded to include third party application programs
`
`14
`
`with hardware powerful enough to support it. So we see that Sainton
`
`15
`
`envisioned wireless devices capable of running third party application
`
`16
`
`programs as part of their libraries.
`
`17
`
`But Sainton left the implementation details about the third-party
`
`18
`
`application programs up to a person of ordinary skill in the art, which would
`
`19
`
`motivate that person of ordinary skill in the art to turn to another reference
`
`20
`
`for details about adding third party application programs to wireless devices.
`
`21
`
`Baker provides just such details. And moving now to slide 5. Baker
`
`22
`
`describes an approach for third party application programs that includes how
`
`23
`
`to store them, how to provide them to requesting wireless devices, and how
`
`24
`
`to track them.
`
`25
`
`Baker refers to these programs that it stores and sends as soft --
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`excuse me -- service objects. Baker teaches storing these service objects at a
`
`lookup service on the server for other wireless devices to search for,
`
`download, and use. So a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to turn from Sainton to Baker for Baker’s implementation detail
`
`teachings for adding Sainton’s third party application programs to a device’s
`
`library, as well as how to maintain those application programs on a
`
`centralized server at a carrier.
`
`Moving now to slide 6. This is a predictable combination. Baker
`
`provides the exact answer to the question of how to store and provide those
`
`10
`
`applications to the wireless device from a server that maintains such
`
`11
`
`programs. Combining Baker’s server and service object teachings with
`
`12
`
`Sainton’s wireless device and library updating teachings, would have
`
`13
`
`provided the very kinds of benefits that Sainton envisioned with the addition
`
`14
`
`of third-party application programs. And both references together taught
`
`15
`
`making the framework light enough to operate on Sainton’s wireless devices
`
`16
`
`with sufficiently powerful hardware to support it.
`
`17
`
`Patent Owner, in their briefing, opted to set up their own
`
`18
`
`combination of Sainton and Baker to then knock down. The problem with
`
`19
`
`this though is that it ignores how the Petition actually used the teachings of
`
`20
`
`Sainton and Baker. Let’s move to slide 7. For example, Patent Owner
`
`21
`
`argued that the Petition proposed replacing Sainton’s over the air
`
`22
`
`supplementing of its library with Baker’s lookup service. But the Petition
`
`23
`
`did not propose replacing Sainton’s over the air updating. Patent Owner’s
`
`24
`
`argument is pushing a bodily incorporation that we did not suggest. The
`
`25
`
`Petition instead explained that Sainton has a library to be updated with third
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`party application programs, and Baker provides a teaching of a server that
`
`provides third party applications for Sainton to implement for its over the air
`
`updates to a library from the carrier.
`
`In short, Patent Owner’s arguments are against a combination that
`
`we did not present, and there’s certainly a combination that was presented
`
`from the beginning, and it’s not a new argument in reply. Moving now to
`
`slide 8, there’s another reason that a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine Baker with Sainton, and that’s because Baker is analogous art to
`
`the claimed elements of the ’168 Patent.
`
`10
`
`Moving to slide 9, the ’168 Patent explains that its aim is to
`
`11
`
`provide wireless communication and control systems for a universal wireless
`
`12
`
`device. Independent Claim 2’s subject matter relates to a system with a
`
`13
`
`remote server, and wireless device that communicate with each other, with
`
`14
`
`the wireless device being tunable to different frequencies to operate in
`
`15
`
`different environments. Independent Claim 4 relates to a wireless device
`
`16
`
`that engages in wireless communication, and likewise involves a server, and
`
`17
`
`also involves a wireless device being tunable to different environments.
`
`18
`
`This describes the field of wireless networking. Baker is also in this field of
`
`19
`
`wireless networking.
`
`20
`
`Let’s move to slide 10. If we look at the full scope of Baker’s
`
`21
`
`disclosure, it describes ways to expand traditional concepts of computer
`
`22
`
`networks to cellular phones, and other types of small footprint devices so
`
`23
`
`that the services can be shared among wireless devices. For example, Baker
`
`24
`
`describes a customer entering a shopping mall with their personal data
`
`25
`
`assistant. The PDA connects with the local network by a wireless
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`connection, and while their advertisers can take advantage of a lookup
`
`service providing data about the customers to push advertisements or other
`
`information to that customer’s PDA for the customer’s consideration. And
`
`these concepts all fall within the field of wireless networking. Slide 11 now.
`
`Patent Owner disagrees instead of arguing that the ’168 Patent’s field of
`
`endeavor is wireless communication between wireless mobile devices and
`
`networks. This describes in so many words wireless networking.
`
`Regardless of that, Baker is in Patent Owner’s identified field as
`
`well. And it’s for the same basic reasons that Baker is in the field of
`
`10
`
`wireless networking because Baker describes wireless communication
`
`11
`
`between wireless mobile devices, and small footprint devices like PDAs,
`
`12
`
`smart cellular phones, GPS receivers and so on, and the networks that those
`
`13
`
`devices connect with like in the example of a mall’s wireless network. So if
`
`14
`
`we were to adopt Patent Owner’s characterization of the field of endeavor,
`
`15
`
`Baker still meets it. So moving now to slide 12, even though the analogous
`
`16
`
`art test is met by just one of the two prongs of the test, Baker is also
`
`17
`
`reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the ’168 Patent is involved.
`
`18
`
`The ’168 Patent describes the problem of a proliferation of devices for a user
`
`19
`
`to carry around. And moving to slide 13, Baker is reasonably pertinent to
`
`20
`
`that problem of proliferation of devices.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Fowles, --
`
`MR. FOWLES: Yes.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: -- this is Judge Jung. Question about your
`
`24
`
`reasonably pertinent analysis. Is it true, as Patent Owner says, that there was
`
`25
`
`no argument in the Petition about why Baker is reasonably pertinent?
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. FOWLES: Yes. We did not explicitly discuss the reasonably
`
`pertinent prong in the Petition. Instead, consistent with the case law from
`
`the Federal Circuit recently, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMVH v. Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals, 2023 WL 3311549, where it says a petitioner is not
`
`required to anticipate and raise analogous arguments in its petition, we
`
`answered the argument that Patent Owner raised in our Reply.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Are we stuck with the field of endeavor analysis,
`
`or can we also go on to reasonably pertinent prong?
`
`MR. FOWLES: The field of endeavor test is sufficient. The
`
`10
`
`reasonably pertinent prong we believe is met, and we believe it’s appropriate
`
`11
`
`for this panel to rely upon reasonably pertinent as well as not being too late
`
`12
`
`raised.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fowles.
`
`MR. FOWLES: Yeah. We believe that Baker is reasonably
`
`15
`
`pertinent to that problem just because it enables one device to achieve off
`
`16
`
`device services without having to actually have that other device. So, the
`
`17
`
`’168 Patent’s problem would benefit directly from the approach that Baker
`
`18
`
`describes. Moving now to slide 14, I’ll next discuss why Claim 2’s remote
`
`19
`
`server limitation is obvious.
`
`20
`
`Looking at slide 15, the remote server recited in Claim 2 is
`
`21
`
`configured to store wireless device software for different functions and
`
`22
`
`applications, or applications, excuse me, send that software to wireless
`
`23
`
`devices, and sort profiles. Sainton alone, and additionally Sainton combined
`
`24
`
`with Baker, renders that remote server obvious. I’ll just first explain why
`
`25
`
`Sainton alone renders the remote server obvious to a POSITA, and then why
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`the combination with Baker also renders it obvious.
`
`So looking at slide 16 now. Sainton teaches a wireless device in
`
`communication with the carrier, and further that the library of the wireless
`
`device could be updated by transmissions from the carrier. Well, a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that that information
`
`had to come from somewhere. Some device that the carrier is sending that
`
`information.
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that a well-known source of that information from the carrier would be a
`
`10
`
`server storing that information for the carrier. And this is what Dr. Kotzin
`
`11
`
`testified to in his declaration. So Sainton alone was one reason that remote
`
`12
`
`server is obvious, and Baker is evidence that demonstrates that knowledge of
`
`13
`
`a POSITA. Beyond that, combining with Baker is a second reason why the
`
`14
`
`remote server is obvious.
`
`15
`
`Let’s move to slide 17 now. Baker teaches a lookup service, the
`
`16
`
`source of service objects for wireless devices residing on the server. Baker
`
`17
`
`also illustrates this in Figure 3 where there is a smart cellular phone and
`
`18
`
`wireless communication with a lookup service on a network server. Baker
`
`19
`
`teaches the lookup service providing requested service objects to the
`
`20
`
`requesting wireless devices. The claim’s remote server is obvious in view of
`
`21
`
`Baker’s teachings of a server as a source of applications in a network in
`
`22
`
`combination with Sainton’s teachings of a wireless device receiving third
`
`23
`
`party application programs from a carrier over the carrier’s wireless
`
`24
`
`network. Baker’s server teachings provide an example of a server that
`
`25
`
`would be implemented by Sainton’s carrier.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Now, moving to slide 18, Patent Owner argues that the claim’s
`
`remote server must be physically remote relative to the wireless device.
`
`Aside from never really explaining what qualifies as physically remote, there
`
`are other reasons why this interpretation is insufficient, and at the least does
`
`nothing to resolve the issue because remote server is obvious either way.
`
`So for example, Patent Owner points to the examples in Figures
`
`2A to 2C from the ’168 Patent, pointing to that Server C as a remote server
`
`per the claim. Figure 2A relates to a public
`
`
`
`10
`
` carrier environment where the wireless device in the example is
`
`11
`
`not in the home environment. Figure 2B relates to a local office loop where
`
`12
`
`Server C can be in communication with what it calls local servers. And
`
`13
`
`Figure 2C relates to a home loop which can also include what the patent
`
`14
`
`calls a home server.
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner doesn’t explain why these examples of Server C
`
`16
`
`would require the remote server of the claim to be limited to these alleged
`
`17
`
`properties of Figures 2A to 2C that presumably require the server to be
`
`18
`
`physically remote from the wireless device. Instead, Patent Owner seems to
`
`19
`
`be seeking to limit the remote server to avoid prior art, but in doing so
`
`20
`
`contradicts their own Specification. When we look at the ’168 Patent, the
`
`21
`
`Specification describes locations where the Server C can be. And that
`
`22
`
`includes home, office, or other locations.
`
`23
`
`So moving now to slide 20. Let’s say that we choose to adopt
`
`24
`
`Patent Owner’s position that it must be physically remote, that would not
`
`25
`
`change the results of the prior art relative to this limitation. Again, Sainton
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`teaches that its library at a wireless device is updated from the carrier. The
`
`Petition combine the teachings of Baker server as an example of a server at
`
`Sainton’s carrier. That’s, again, not a new argument, it’s not a change in any
`
`combination. Rather, it’s how the Petition laid out how a POSITA would
`
`combine these things. Further, Patent Owner’s own argument is that typical
`
`carriers have vast coverage areas. Taken together then by Patent Owner’s
`
`own argument, a server, and a carrier per the combination, would qualify as
`
`physically remote from the wireless device. Since this is what the
`
`combination was anyway, prior art renders the remote server obvious even
`
`10
`
`under Patent Owner’s implicit construction.
`
`11
`
`Now unless there are any other questions relative to the remote
`
`12
`
`server limitation, we will move on to the next issue. Let’s move to slide 21.
`
`13
`
`The next issue is why Sainton, as well as the combination of Sainton and
`
`14
`
`Baker, renders obvious the claimed profiles of user information. Let’s look
`
`15
`
`at slide 22. Independent Claim 2 recites the remote server stores profiles of
`
`16
`
`user specific information. Independent Claim 4 in turn recites that the
`
`17
`
`software is associated with a user and the device stored in a profile.
`
`18
`
`Our discussion will hue more towards Claim 2’s language with the
`
`19
`
`understanding that by demonstrating that, Claim 4’s recitation is obvious
`
`20
`
`too. I’ll first address why Sainton renders the user profiles obvious to a
`
`21
`
`POSITA, and then second, why the combination with Baker also renders
`
`22
`
`obvious the user profiles. So moving to slide 23. The profiles of user
`
`23
`
`specific information are obvious in view of Sainton alone based on how a
`
`24
`
`POSITA would have read and understood Sainton’s disclosure. So again,
`
`25
`
`Sainton teaches that different criteria for a particular user are collected and
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`stored in the user profile. These can be changed to be particular selection
`
`parameters and preferences for the user. Now in Sainton’s example, that is
`
`at the wireless device. Elsewhere in Sainton, Sainton also teaches that it was
`
`desirable to facilitate price competition between carriers.
`
`As part of this, Sainton teaches a carrier dynamically updating its
`
`prices to maximize its revenue. Sainton does so using a dynamic demand
`
`curve. Now Sainton also teaches the desirability of load level maintenance,
`
`including the use of pricing to influence the load at any given point in time.
`
`Viewing these teachings together, and moving to slide 24, a POSITA would
`
`10
`
`have found it obvious to further store Sainton’s user profiles at a server for
`
`11
`
`the carrier.
`
`12
`
`Now a POSITA would have done so because of Sainton’s
`
`13
`
`teachings of price competition and load level maintenance. Placing
`
`14
`
`Sainton’s user profile at the server of the carrier would allow the carrier to
`
`15
`
`have further information to know what criteria different users would rely
`
`16
`
`upon to choose or not choose the carrier based at least on price. This
`
`17
`
`additional information would improve the server’s maintenance, modeling,
`
`18
`
`and decisions. And Dr. Kotzin’s testimony on this point was supported by
`
`19
`
`tertiary evidence to demonstrate how a POSITA would have understood the
`
`20
`
`extent of Sainton’s teachings.
`
`21
`
`Moving to slide 25, as an example, Obhan, which is Exhibit 1031,
`
`22
`
`taught the maintaining of profiles at a centralized server location for multiple
`
`23
`
`wireless devices. In Obhan, the spectrum yield management system collects
`
`24
`
`real-time and potential loading information for the system. And that system
`
`25
`
`uses this information, which can include information specific to individual
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`subscribers in the system for load management.
`
`These teachings demonstrate the background knowledge of a
`
`POSITA when reading Sainton, leading to the conclusion that Dr. Kotzin
`
`provided that a POSITA would have found it obvious to store Sainton’s
`
`profile information at the server as well. Now on top of the obviousness of
`
`Sainton’s teachings alone, the user profiles would have also been obvious in
`
`view of the combined teachings of Sainton and Baker. So we move to our
`
`second reason that this is obvious. Looking at slide 26 now. Sainton’s
`
`library can be updated over the air by the carrier, as we’ve mentioned
`
`10
`
`multiple times already, including third party application programs. Baker
`
`11
`
`further renders obvious keeping track of what programs have been
`
`12
`
`downloaded by which users.
`
`13
`
`Looking to slide 27, Baker in particular teaches that when a
`
`14
`
`requestor is looking for a particular service module, again, that is Baker’s
`
`15
`
`phrasing for Sainton’s third party application programs, and a lookup service
`
`16
`
`in Baker will try to match the request with the desired service module. If
`
`17
`
`Baker’s lookup service locates a match, the requestor is registered as a user
`
`18
`
`of the requested service module. Thus, Baker teaches storing information
`
`19
`
`about the user of the service module, and that is Baker’s exact phrasing is
`
`20
`
`that it’s a user of the module. The requestor here is the user, and therefore,
`
`21
`
`since the information is about that individual requestor, it is user specific
`
`22
`
`information. And that was presented in the original Petition.
`
`23
`
`Further, Baker teaches that the requestor can be a requestor module
`
`24
`
`operating on a client device such as a cellular phone. Baker teaches keeping
`
`25
`
`track of all users and service modules, including other requesting modules.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So Baker’s teachings, therefore, render obvious the user profile limitation
`
`because the server stores specific information about a specific user.
`
`Moving to slide 28, Patent Owner’s effort to discredit Baker’s
`
`teachings are misplaced because they focus on the wrong elements of Baker.
`
`Patent Owner insists that Baker’s teaching of registering a requestor as a
`
`user must fail because the requestor is a device not a user of the device.
`
`That’s simply not true though. Baker’s actual teaching is not registering a
`
`client device as a user but registering the requestor module in a client device
`
`as a user. Here’s just one simple example from Baker. Baker describes a
`
`10
`
`web browser module on a client device desiring a print service from another
`
`11
`
`device that is offered a print service module for others to use. The print
`
`12
`
`service module would then be provided to the web browser module on the
`
`13
`
`client device that the web browser module is operating on for the web
`
`14
`
`browser to use the print service.
`
`15
`
`So that’s just one simple example of a requestor module being
`
`16
`
`registered as a user. So those are two distinct reasons why the user profile
`
`17
`
`limitations are obvious in view of the prior art. If there aren’t any questions,
`
`18
`
`we’ll move on to the next issue.
`
`19
`
`Let’s move to slide 29. The only dependent claim that the Patent
`
`20
`
`Owner argues separately was Dependent Claim 19. So we’ll look at that
`
`21
`
`next. On slide 30 we see Claim 19. According to Claim 19, a wireless
`
`22
`
`device sends a request for a URL, or a website, and then responds to that
`
`23
`
`request, receives an indicator of a software application to download from the
`
`24
`
`remote server. Sainton, combined with Baker alone, is one reason why this
`
`25
`
`Claim 19 is obvious. A second reason is in further combination with Hsu,
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`and we’ll cover both here.
`
`Looking first at the combination of Sainton and Baker alone,
`
`moving to slide 31, Baker teaches a client device requesting a service object
`
`from the lookup service. As in the example before, it will be on behalf of a
`
`requestor module in the client device using a description of what the client
`
`device wants. The lookup service sends a service object back to the client
`
`device. So Baker’s client device is downloading the service object,
`
`receiving the actual software responsive to the client device’s request means
`
`that the client device receives an indicator of the software that it requested.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Further, Baker provides the Jini network as an example of the network being
`
`11
`
`used. At the time, it was known for Jini networks to use IP as the network.
`
`12
`
`And thus websites and URLs.
`
`13
`
`And that is evidence that we presented in the original Petition. In
`
`14
`
`fact, Patent Owner’s own evidence in the record is that Jini uses URLs. So
`
`15
`
`what Baker is teaching is a system of using URLs to access and retrieve
`
`16
`
`service objects. That renders obvious using URLs to receive an indicator to
`
`17
`
`download software.
`
`18
`
`Moving to slide 33, beyond what the combination of Sainton and
`
`19
`
`Baker teaches, we have a combination with Hsu, H-S-U, that shows Claim
`
`20
`
`19 is obvious even more directly. Hsu teaches a wireless device using a
`
`21
`
`URL to access a server in order to receive a URL for another server where
`
`22
`
`software the wireless device wants to download is located. So, Hsu teaches
`
`23
`
`to a POSITA the use of a URL to access a server for information about
`
`24
`
`where to locate software to download, as well as using a URL to indicate
`
`25
`
`where to find the desired software for download. It’s these teachings of Hsu
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`that are combined with the Sainton and Baker teachings to render Claim 19
`
`obvious.
`
`Moving to slide 34, Patent Owner’s arguments here again miss the
`
`point. Patent Owner argues that Hsu’s particular update server would not be
`
`aware of Baker’s lookup service. But this is an irrelevant issue. The
`
`combination relies upon the teachings of Hsu about using a URL to access a
`
`server and receiving another URL identifying where to locate software to
`
`download. This is just one more example of Patent Owner setting up in an
`
`attack in a position that Petitioner’s do not actually take. The question
`
`10
`
`instead is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested
`
`11
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`12
`
`So, in conclusion, the challenged claims of the ’168 Patent
`
`13
`
`shouldn’t have been issued because the concepts they recite were already
`
`14
`
`well-known. Are there any questions from the panel? Otherwise, I’ll
`
`15
`
`reserve the rest of our time for rebuttal. Thank you.
`
`16
`
`MR. LOWENSTEIN: May I begin, Your Honors? Judge Jung, I
`
`17
`
`don’t believe I can hear you. You may be muted.
`
`18
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Oh, thank you. I was muted. Mr. Fowles, I just
`
`19
`
`wanted to tell you that you have 19 minutes left for your rebuttal arguments,
`
`20
`
`and Mr. Lowenstein you may proceed when ready.
`
`21
`
`MR. LOWENSTEIN: Can I share my screen? I’m the first to do
`
`22
`
`it. Okay.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes. I hope it goes well.
`
`MR. LOWENSTEIN: Okay. So, can you see my screen now?
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. LOWENSTEIN: Okay. I heard a lot from Mr. Fowles about
`
`what they argued in the Petition, and what their combination was, and we’re
`
`saying things that they didn’t. What I can actually see in his presentation
`
`was in the actual statement from their Petition. Never did they actually say,
`
`here’s our combination, and here’s why it’s what we say, and not what Mr.
`
`Lowenstein says. So I think this is not something where you have to take
`
`my word or his word. I think it’s something where we could just go back to
`
`the Petition and let’s look at what they argued. They didn’t argue that Claim
`
`2, for instance, was met by Sainton alone, nor did they rely upon Sainton for
`
`10
`
`some unnamed server in Sainton, as the alleged remote server. Their
`
`11
`
`combination was, as we see from page 21, Sainton and Baker, and they say
`
`12
`
`at page 22, Sainton discloses a wireless device. Baker in turn teaches a
`
`13
`
`server that provides service objects. The shoe fits, as you will.
`
`14
`
`Then they say a POSITA would have been motivated to turn to
`
`15
`
`Baker to add service objects to Sainton’s library from Baker’s server.
`
`16
`
`Twenty-four. The combination is nothing more than the combination of
`
`17
`
`known elements, Baker’s server providing service objects, and Sainton’s
`
`18
`
`cellular phone executing third party applications. But maybe that was just
`
`19
`
`an offhand statement from him. Let’s look at the actual claim when they
`
`20
`
`talk about remote server. They say, page 27, Sainton combined with Baker
`
`21
`
`renders obvious this limitation. They don’t say Sainton alone, but maybe
`
`22
`
`they’ve just misspoken. Maybe they clarified elsewhere.
`
`23
`
`Let’s continue on. Page 61, with the Sainton-Baker combination
`
`24
`
`of Sainton’s wireless device interacting with Baker’s server providing
`
`25
`
`applications. Is there more? Let’s see. Sixty-eight. With the Sainton-Baker
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00807
`Patent 9,756,168 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`combination of Sainton’s wireless device interacting with Baker’s server
`
`providing applications. Sixty-nine. More of the same. The Sainton-Baker
`
`combination provides a framework for a mobile device to request a service
`
`from Baker’s lookup service, and receive the corresponding service --
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Lowenstein? This is Judge Jung. Can you
`
`move back up to page 22 of the Petition? All right. In that paragraph that
`
`starts with the seconds, it seems like Mr. Fowles’s argument is in that last
`
`sentence, Sainton leaves implementation details up to the POSITA providing
`
`an express motivation to turn to Baker for details about adding third party
`
`10
`
`application programs. Isn’t that where it seems like the Petitioner is relying
`
`11
`
`on how they bring in Baker for implementation details, not actually bodily
`
`12
`
`incorporating Baker’s lookup service?
`
`13
`
`MR. LOWENSTEIN: I don’t see how we can reach that
`
`14
`
`conclusion. What I think I just showed at least five times where they’ve said
`
`15
`
`the combination is nothing more than Sainton’s device and Baker’s server.
`
`16
`
`If we as Patent Owners how are we supposed to understand that? If they
`
`17
`
`said, this is obvious over Sainton alone, an (INDISCERNIBLE) if you want
`
`18
`
`to loo