Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`Entered: October 25, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 15, 2023
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`Entered: October 25, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 15, 2023
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JEREMY J. MONALDO, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1000 Maine Ave SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`PHILIP J. GRAVES, ESQ.
`Graves & Shaw LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave, Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, September
`
`15, 2023, commencing at 12:58 p.m., via video teleconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE JUNG: Hello. This is Judge Jung, and with me are Judge
`Engels and Judge Korniczky. This is the oral hearing for IPR2022-01004.
`In this proceeding, Petitioners Samsung and Apple challenge Claims 1
`through 9 and 12 through 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,614,943, or the ’943
`Patent. The ’943 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. MONALDO: Thank you, Your Honor. This is Jeremy
`Monaldo for Petitioner, Samsung. I’m joined by my colleagues Karl Renner
`and Sangki Park. Clint Wilkins is participating from the Haynes and Boones
`Firm, and Philip Lee from Samsung is joined on the public line.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you, Mr. Monaldo.
`MR. GRAVES: Philip Graves for Patent Owner, Smart Mobile
`Technologies, LLC. I’m joined today by my colleagues, Greer Shaw and
`Rex Hwang.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you, Mr. Graves. A few quick reminders
`for this hearing, same as the others. First, if you encounter any technical
`difficulties, please let us know immediately, even if you have to interrupt.
`Second, if you’re not speaking, please mute yourself. Third, please identify
`yourself each time you speak, to help make the transcript clear. Fourth,
`when you refer to demonstratives, papers, or exhibits, do so by slide or page
`number. And lastly, I have been told that there is a public connection.
`As we described in the hearing order, each party has 60 minutes of
`total time to present its arguments, and each party may reserve time for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`rebuttal. I will again track time, interrupt you -- and interrupt you when you
`only have a few minutes remaining. But also, as described in the oral
`hearing order, we will proceed first with 1004, and then take a short break,
`and then move on to 1005. With all that said, Mr. Monaldo, you may
`proceed when you’re ready.
`MR. MONALDO: Thank you, Your Honor. And for
`housekeeping, I’m hoping to reserve about 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay, 20 minutes. Thank you.
`MR. MONALDO: All right. Great. Thank you, Your Honors,
`and may it please the Board. Unless there are any questions at the outset,
`my plan is to jump right into the first issue, related to the processing of data
`streams in the Byrne reference. Moving to our demonstrative slide 14, on
`slide 14 you see the only limitation in the independent claims that Patent
`Owner contends is missing from the prior art. As shown by the highlighting
`added on slide 14, that limitation recites a processor that is configured to
`process a first data stream and a second data stream in parallel.
`Patent Owner makes two arguments for why it contends this
`limitation is missing from the Byrne reference. Patent Owner’s first
`argument is that Byrne’s microprocessor does not process data
`(INDISCERNIBLE). Patent Owner’s second argument is that even if
`Byrne’s microprocessor processes data, it does not process two data streams
`in parallel.
`I’ll start with the first argument and discuss why a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood and found obvious that
`Byrne’s microprocessor processes data. Moving to slide 15, at the left side
`of slide 15 you’ll see Byrne’s system depicted in figure 2. As shown, Byrne
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`describes a dual mode telephone that operates as both a cordless telephone
`and a cellular telephone. The cordless components of Byrne’s system are
`shown at the left side of Byrne’s figure 2, and highlighted in yellow. The
`cellular components of Byrne’s system are shown at the right side of
`Byrne’s figure 2, and highlighted in blue. In the center of Byrne’s figure 2,
`and highlighted in green, you see Byrne’s microprocessor.
`Now, Patent Owner does not dispute that Byrne’s phone processes
`a first data stream, the cordless data stream, or that Byrne’s phone processes
`a second data stream, the cellular data stream. What Patent Owner contends
`is that the processing of these two data streams in Byrne is performed by
`some other component, not Byrne’s processor. That contention does not
`accord with Byrne’s disclosure, or how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have interpreted Byrne’s figure 2.
`As shown by the yellow highlighting, Byrne’s figure 2 quite
`clearly depicts a double-sided arrow between the processor and the cordless
`transceiver. As shown by the blue highlighting, Byrne’s figure 2 quite
`clearly depicts a similar double-sided arrow between the processor and the
`cellular transceiver. These arrows demonstrate that communications are
`flowing back and forth between the processor and the transceiver in Byrne’s
`phone. And we know that Byrne’s phone is processing data streams
`transmitted and received by each of these receivers.
`As Dr. Jensen explained, the most natural and obvious place where
`this processing occurs is at the component in Byrne’s figure 2 that is
`connected to the transceivers, and that is designed for processing, Byrne’s
`processor. From this disclosure alone, a person of skill would have
`considered Byrne’s processor as the component in Byrne’s phone that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`processes data. Now, in addition to this straightforward interpretation of
`Byrne’s figure 2, Byrne’s specification also confirms that Byrne’s processor
`is the component that processes data.
`Moving to slide 16, as shown on slide 16, you see disclosure from
`Byrne regarding the cordless processing performed by Byrne’s processor.
`As shown by the yellow highlighting at the left side of slide 16, Byrne
`describes it as, microprocessor monitors signals from the cordless receiver,
`indicating received signal strength and for detecting received data.
`Receiving signal to detect data. As shown by the green highlighting, Byrne
`also discloses that its microprocessor monitors control signals from the
`cordless transceiver for detecting incoming calls, security codes, and
`broadcast information, control signals that are different from the broader
`signals referenced above. (CROSSTALK) --
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Monaldo?
`MR. MONALDO: Yes, Your Honor?
`JUDGE JUNG: This is Judge Jung. Just to be clear, so that
`everyone understands, your asserted data stream is both the voice data and
`the control signals; is that correct?
`MR. MONALDO: That is correct, Your Honor. We believe both
`of those types of signals constitute data streams that are processed by the
`processor. It’s the voice signals that are described and highlighted in yellow
`that Byrne’s processor uses to receive data, and it’s also the control signals
`that include broadcast information. Each of these represents data streams
`that are processed by micro -- Byrne’s microprocessor. Does that answer
`your question, Your Honor?
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes, it does. Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`
`MR. MONALDO: Great. So through this description, Byrne
`confirms that its signals are broader than its control signals, and a person of
`skill would have, as I’ve discussed, interpreted both the data signals and the
`control signals as data that is being processed by Byrne’s microprocessor.
`Nothing in the ’943 Patent puts any limitations on the claim’s data streams,
`or does anything to exclude the control data or broadcast information from
`the scope of the claims.
`So even though Byrne describes certain of its signals as control
`signals, a person of skill would have still viewed these signals as including
`data, broadcast information that is processed by Byrne’s microprocessor.
`Now, from this description, and coupled with the illustrations in Byrne
`figure 2 that we just discussed, the natural and obvious conclusion is that
`Byrne’s microprocessor processes cordless data.
`Now moving to slide 17, Byrne describes similar data processing
`operations for its cellular communications. As shown by the yellow
`highlighting at the left of slide 17, Byrne describes that its microprocessor
`controls the CCT in a similar way when operating as a cellular telephone,
`but appropriately modified for a signaling protocols and data encryption
`used in the cellular system. Here, Byrne explicitly contemplates
`modification of its processor, so that the processor can perform the
`processing required by the protocols and data encryption used in Byrne’s
`well-known cellular communications.
`As Dr. Jensen explained, a person of skill would have understood
`that microprocessors perform the type of data encryption described by
`Byrne. You can see this at the right side of slide 17, where Dr. Jensen cites
`to multiple corroborating references to show how a person of skill would
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`have understood and found it obvious that it’s Byrne’s microprocessor that is
`performing this type of data encryption, processing data in the cellular
`communications transmitted by the receiver.
`Now, these descriptions shown on slide 16 and 17 confirm the
`understanding of figure 2 that we earlier discussed. From Byrne’s figures
`and description, the natural and obvious place for Byrne’s phone to process
`data is at its component designed for processing, Byrne’s microprocessor.
`Now unless Your Honors have any questions on whether or not
`Byrne’s processor processes data, I’ll turn us to slide 25 to discuss Patent
`Owner’s second argument related to the data processing limitations of the
`independent claims.
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Monaldo --
`MR. MONALDO: Now, as --
`JUDGE JUNG: -- this is --
`MR. MONALDO: Yes, Your Honor?
`JUDGE JUNG: -- Judge Jung again. Just to confirm, so when you
`say Byrne is processing the data stream, are you just referring to the
`processing of the control signal part of the data stream, and not the voice
`data?
`
`MR. MONALDO: No, Your Honor. We’re actually -- we think
`both are being processed by the microprocessor, for sure. And I think this
`description on slide 17 really confirms that. If you want to take a look back
`at slide 17, you can see that Byrne’s description, explicit here, it says that its
`processor controls the CCT in a similar way when operating as a cellular
`phone, but appropriately modified. So it’s appropriately modified. The
`processor is modified for the signaling protocols and data encryption used in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`the cellular system. Data encryption. It’s right there. It’s data.
`And that’s what the processor is modified to handle. There’d be
`no reason for any modification to the processor, if it was not the component
`that was performing the data encryption and decryption. We know from
`cellular communications, and as discussed by our expert, that these
`communications are encrypted, and Byrne tells you right here that those
`voice communications are encrypted and decrypted using the processor.
`Otherwise, you would need no modification for it. Does that answer your
`question, Your Honor?
`JUDGE JUNG: Oh, yes, it does. I do have a follow-up. So do
`you have any reason why it might not be done in the actual -- let’s see -- the
`cellular receiver? Why doesn’t the cellular receiver decrypt the data?
`MR. MONALDO: And that’s a good question, Your Honor, and I
`think my answer to that is there’s no evidence of record, nothing in Byrne
`that says that encryption is performed at a transceiver. I think in our
`briefing, we’ve highlighted testimony from Patent Owner’s expert that
`transceivers were not known to perform that type of data processing, and we
`certainly have to contend with the description shown on slide 17, where it’s
`clearly talking about the processor that’s modified to perform the data
`encryption. It’s not talking about the transceiver being modified to perform
`data encryption.
`As I mentioned, if there was a transceiver that was doing
`encryption of data and decryption, there’d be no reason to modify the
`processor. That transceiver is separate from the processor, and you’d need
`no modification to it if it was performing encryption and decryption.
`There’s nothing in the record that tells us that the processing would be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`performed by the transceiver. And with all of that said, we’re working under
`an obviousness theory, and certainly an obvious -- or something that would
`be obvious to a person with skill would be that the processing and the data
`encryption is performed by the processor.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Can we turn back to your slide 15, so we
`can look at Byrne’s figure 2 again?
`MR. MONALDO: Yes, that’s all right, Your Honor. Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. So let’s talk about the cellular signal, so
`the blue shading.
`MR. MONALDO: Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: The signal comes in through the antenna, it goes
`through the filter, and then it goes over to the receiver. And then what do
`you think happens inside the receiver to that signal?
`MR. MONALDO: Yes. It goes through the blue highlighted
`double arrow box down to the processor. It gets decrypted, and it’s passed
`back up to the cellular -- through the components, back to the cellular audio,
`and then output at the audio switch.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. So what happens along the way?
`MR. MONALDO: So what happens along the way is that the
`receiver receives a signal. It passes to the -- to the microprocessor. That
`signal is processed. It’s decrypted.
`JUDGE JUNG: It’s decrypted? It’s decrypted in there? Okay.
`MR. MONALDO: It’s decrypted in the microprocessor. As we
`talked about, the content on slide 17. Passed back through the transceiver
`component through the cellular audio box 250, to the audio switch and its
`output.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And for the control signal aspect, what
`would happen in the receiver versus the microprocessor?
`MR. MONALDO: Yes. So that’s a good question again, Your
`Honor. So for control signals, what happens is the receiver receives those
`control signals. Those control signals will pass directly down to the
`microprocessor. The processor interprets those control signals, processes the
`data, the broadcast information we talked about, and then can perform
`control operations based on that information. Some of those operations
`include selecting which of the two types of networks is optimal for current
`communication and things like that.
`So in those control signals it's a similar flow, where the data comes
`in, passes through the receiver, goes to the processor. The processor looks at
`it, interprets it, processes it, and then makes decisions based on that
`processing.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And then kind of a -- kind of a silly
`question, but the data that comes in through the antenna is shown by, you
`know, a single black line, but then all of the sudden there’s this fat arrow
`between the receiver and the microprocessor. Do you think that Patentee,
`Byrne, intended to highlight some kind of difference between what’s
`happening on that black line, versus the fat arrow, in the microprocessor?
`MR. MONALDO: I don’t think so, Your Honor. I don’t. I think
`it’s probably convenience in how this drawing was rendered by the person
`that was rendering it. There’s nothing in the description that makes any
`distinction between the different types of arrows. And it was an interesting
`point, and if you see in our briefing, we actually asked Petitioner’s -- or
`Patent Owner’s expert about the line that’s going between the processor and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`the LCD. You see the thicker arrow?
`JUDGE JUNG: Mm-hmm.
`MR. MONALDO: And we said, hey, is that -- that line, what’s it
`transmitting there? Is it transmitting data? And his answer was yes, it’s
`transmitting data. So per Patent Owner’s own expert, these lines really don’t
`signify that you have control versus data, or there’s really any difference
`between what’s happening in figure 2, based on which type of arrow was
`used to illustrate a connection.
`JUDGE JUNG: All right. Thank you, Mr. Monaldo.
`MR. MONALDO: Okay. Great. Any further questions on that?
`Or otherwise I’ll move to slide 25. All right. So as shown on slide 25,
`Patent Owner’s second argument relates to whether Byrne’s microprocessor
`processes these data streams in parallel. So moving to slide 26, you can see
`that Byrne clearly describes simultaneous or parallel processing.
`On the left side of slide 26, you see disclosure from Byrne, and at
`the uppermost highlighted sentence, you see disclosure from Byrne
`contemplating three modes of operation for its telephone. Those three
`modes include a cordless telephone, a cellular telephone, or a cellular
`cordless telephone. So Byrne’s phone operates as a cordless phone only, a
`cellular phone only, or as both a cellular and cordless telephone at the same
`time.
`
`In the cellular cordless mode, Byrne’s phone performs both
`cellular and cordless operations in parallel. Byrne explicitly confirms this,
`in the passage of Byrne shown on slide 26. As you can see by the text
`identified in the upper red box, Byrne’s phone operates simultaneously as a
`cellular telephone and a cordless telephone.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`
`As shown by the text identified in the lower red box, in Byrne,
`cellular and cordless operations are in progress at the same time, explicit
`disclosure of parallel cellular and cordless processing. Byrne explicitly tells
`you that the processing is happening simultaneously and at the same time. A
`person of skill would have understood and found obvious that simultaneous
`and at the same time involves parallel processing. From this disclosure
`alone, a person of skill would have found it obvious that Byrne’s
`microprocessor processes cellular and cordless data in parallel.
`Now moving to slide 26, as shown on the left side of slide -- or
`slide 27. Excuse me. As shown on the left side of slide 27, you see criteria
`that Byrne uses to select which one of its networks, cordless or cellular, is
`best to use for communication. As shown by the yellow highlighting, Byrne
`considers the received signal strength, whichever is greatest, and the bit or
`frame error rate, whichever is lowest, as factors to consider in selecting
`which network is best suited for communication at a given time.
`As Dr. Jensen explains at the right side of slide 27, to compare the
`signal strength and the bit or frame error rate, a person of skill would have
`understood and found it obvious that Byrne’s system maintains parallel
`connections to both the cellular and cordless networks, and processes the
`signals received over those parallel connections to assess current signal
`strength and error rate of data presently being conveyed over each network.
`To perform these comparisons and get an accurate view of which network is
`presently the best to select, Byrne’s phone compares each network at the
`same time, by receiving and processing data from both networks in parallel,
`further evidence that Byrne’s phone processes cellular and cordless data in
`parallel.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`
`Now moving to slide 28, as shown at the left side of slide 28, you
`see that Byrne also describes a process for automatic handover between
`cordless and cellular services. The automatic handover occurs when Byrne’s
`phone moves between areas that are suitable for cordless connection, and
`areas that are suitable for cellular connection. This handover is automatic
`and performed behind the scenes, such that the user is unaware that the
`phone is switching networks. In fact, the goal of an automatic handover is to
`make it as seamless as possible, so that the user is able to continue his or her
`conversation without interruption.
`To accomplish a seamless handover, a person of skill would have
`found it obvious that Byrne’s phone establishes connections on both cellular
`and cordless networks at the same time. By establishing connections on
`both networks at the same time, Byrne’s phone is able to quickly and
`seamlessly transition from one network to the other. This makes sense,
`because it provides the quickest way to automatically hand over a call
`without interruption.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that it
`would have been undesirable to completely end one call on a first network,
`and then initiate a new call on the second network. That technique would
`induce a noticeable and unwanted delay in the handover that would be
`undesirable to a user. For these reasons, a person of skill would have
`interpreted Byrne’s disclosure of automatic handover as involving
`establishment of parallel connections to both the cordless and cellular
`networks, to enable a quick and seamless handover between the two.
`Byrne confirms this through reference to counterpart British
`applications that are identified at the end of the paragraph shown on slide 28.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`Moving to slide 29, you can see disclosure from one of these British
`applications that describes Byrne’s process for automatic handover. As
`shown on the upper right of slide 29, Byrne’s British application describes
`that after the establishment of the connection is completed, the mobile
`station part informs the cordless telephone part about the matter, and the
`latter releases the radio path of the cordless telephone system, clear
`disclosure that the handover does not occur until after the establishment of
`the cellular or mobile connection.
`Specifically, the mobile or cellular part of the phone informs the
`cordless part that its connection is up and running, and only then does the
`phone release the cordless connection, clear description that both
`connections are established in parallel, prior to the automatic handover.
`Through these descriptions, a person of skill would have understood and
`found obvious that when Byrne says that its cellular and cordless operations
`occur simultaneously and at the same time, that’s what Byrne means -- that
`data is processed over cellular and cordless connections in parallel.
`I’ll pause there and see if there are any questions on Byrne’s
`satisfaction of the data processing limitations of the independent claims, but
`if not, I’ll turn to slide 33 to discuss the second issue listed in our
`demonstratives.
`JUDGE JUNG: I have no questions.
`MR. MONALDO: So moving to slide 33, as shown on slide 33,
`the second issue relates to a combination of the Byrne and WO748
`references, and addresses a limitation that’s found in dependent Claim 3.
`See the language of Claim 3 on slide 34. Claim 3 simply states that the
`device of Claim 1 is further in communication with the network switchbox,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`configured with parallel ports and configured to connect to a plurality of
`networks to forward packets between different networks, and join a virtual
`network.
`Patent Owner does not dispute that the WO748 reference discloses
`a network switchbox with a plurality of ports that is configured to connect to
`and forward packets between different networks. Instead, Patent Owner
`focuses on the last few words of Claim 3, related to joining a virtual
`network. Notably, Claim 3 simply recites joining a virtual network. The
`claim does not recite any details on how to join the virtual network, or
`provide any limitations on what a virtual network might be.
`Similarly, the ’943 Patent provides limited details on how a device
`joins a virtual network, and largely relies on the state of the art, and
`knowledge of a person of skill for its disclosure of how to join a virtual
`network. With this limited description in the ’943 Patent, the ’943 Patent
`did not invent virtual networks, or contribute to the state of the art of how
`virtual networks work, or how you join them.
`Now moving to slide 35, you’ll see that Dr. Jensen confirms that
`virtual networks were well-known prior to the ’943 Patent. As shown by the
`uppermost highlighted text from Dr. Jensen’s declaration on slide 35, Dr.
`Jensen explained how virtual networks and VPNs were well-known and
`could be conveniently implemented, such that a person of skill would have
`found it obvious to consider use of VPNs in such a network as WO748,
`given their strong demand, prevalent use, and known benefits, such as taking
`advantage of the efficiencies of a common communications infrastructure,
`and communications privacy.
`You’ll also see that Dr. Jensen cited evidence to corroborate his
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`testimony, Exhibit numbers 1072 and 1073. The benefits that Dr. Jensen
`referred to were direct quotes from these corroborating references that Dr.
`Jensen relied on to support his opinions. From this evidence and Dr.
`Jensen’s testimony, the record is clear that virtual networks were well-
`known, and were known to offer benefits that would complement the types
`of networks described in Byrne and WO748.
`Moving to slide 36, you see additional corroborating evidence
`confirming that virtual networks were well-known, and part of the general
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. At the lower left of slide
`36, you have an excerpt from the book Virtual Private Networking, the
`Flexible Approach. At the right side of slide 36, you have an excerpt from
`the Paulsen reference explaining known benefits of virtual networks,
`additional evidence that virtual networks were well-known, and not invented
`by the ’943 Patent.
`Moving to slide 37, on slide 27 you’ll see a representation
`provided by Dr. Jensen for how a VPN would have been implemented in the
`WO748 system. The support is understanding Dr. Jensen cited to the
`Paulsen reference as an example VPN. As shown at the lower left of slide
`37, you see Paulsen’s figure 2, which depicts a virtual provide network 40,
`that sits between a private network 42 and a public network 44. In this
`example, the VPN allows nodes and private networks 42 to privately
`communicate with client 46 across the public network 44.
`As Dr. Jensen illustrates, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have found Paulsen’s example of a VPN as conventional and well-known
`technology, that is directly applicable to the network of WO748. As Dr.
`Jensen illustrates at the right side of slide 37, a person of skill would have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`viewed the building portion of WO748’s network as corresponding to
`Paulsen’s private network, which, as shown at the lower right portion of
`slide 37, would communicate with clients over a public network, as
`described in Paulsen.
`Based on a person of ordinary skill in the art’s general knowledge,
`as evidenced by Paulsen and other references, a person of skill would have
`found it obvious to implement Paulsen’s VPN to allow devices in the
`building portion of WO748’s network to privately communicate through
`WO748’s infrastructure with a remote client, such as Paulsen’s client 46,
`over a public network, such as Paulsen’s public network 44.
`As Paulsen and other references confirm, VPNs were well-known,
`and would have -- and it would have been well within the skill and
`capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a VPN in the
`combination of Byrne and WO748.
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Monaldo, this is Judge Jung. Let’s say we
`agree with you that virtual private networks are well-known, and adding it
`was well within the skill, a level of ordinary skill. Can you clarify how you
`brought your virtual network into your proposed combination in the
`petition’s argument?
`MR. MONALDO: Yes. That’s a great question, Your Honor. So
`in the petition we reference some of these exhibits that we cited, and we
`spoke to a person of ordinary skill in the art’s general knowledge and
`capabilities. That’s appropriate to do so in obviousness combinations, and
`we explained how these features were so well-known and so obvious that an
`expert, or a person of skill looking at these references would have
`immediately understood that virtual networks were known, something that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`were desired to be used, and would have found it obvious to consider
`implementing them in these references.
`JUDGE JUNG: So is your reason why a virtual network would
`have been added was because it was known? Is that it, or is it --
`MR. MONALDO: It was known --
`JUDGE JUNG: -- more to that --
`MR. MONALDO: -- and there were benefits to it. As we
`discussed earlier on slide 35, there are benefits to efficiencies of common
`communication infrastructure, and communications privacy. There were
`certain benefits that were offered by virtual networks that were well-known
`in the art, as demonstrated by corroborating references where these quotes
`came from. And a person of skill would have known that, and they would
`have been motivated to implement a virtual network as an obvious
`improvement of a device that’s ready for improvement, a network that did
`not otherwise explicitly mention a VPN.
`JUDGE JUNG: And just to clarify, the quotes you have on slide
`35, they are from filings after the Patent Owner Response, or were those
`quotes also part of the Petition’s argument?
`MR. MONALDO: Yes. Those quotes were from references that
`were cited in the Petitioner Reply, Your Honors, to buttress the opinions that
`were set forth by Dr. Jensen in the petition.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Monaldo.
`MR. MONALDO: Thank you, Your Honor. So with that, unless
`there are any questions on the Claim 3 and joining a virtual network, I’ll turn
`to slide 38 to just briefly discuss the third issue, which is the combination of
`Byrne and WO748. So the third issue is shown on slide 38, and it relates to
`
`1
`2
`3
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
