Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 30
`Entered: April 17, 2024
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINTIV, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
` IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`Held: April 10, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: MICHAEL R. ZECHER, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JONATHAN R. BOWSER, ESQUIRE
`Haynes And Boone, LLP
`800 17th Street NW
`Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20006
`jon.bowser.ipr@haynesboone.com
`(202) 654-4500
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRANDON R. THEISS, ESQUIRE
`Volpe Koenig
`30 S 17th Street
`18th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19103-4005
`BTheiss@vklaw.com
`(201) 953-0854
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on April 10, 2024,
`commencing at 1:30 p.m. ET, via video teleconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Good afternoon, or good morning as the case
`
`may be in your particular location. My name is George Hoskins and I'm an
`
`Administrative Patent Judge with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`We're here today for oral argument in two related proceedings. They are
`
`Inter Partes Review Number 2023-00398, which is challenging U.S. Patent
`
`Number 10,438,196. And the second proceeding is IPR2023-00399, which
`
`is challenging U.S. Patent Number 9,208,488.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Our Petitioner in these cases is Apple Inc., and our Patent Owner is
`
`11
`
`Fintiv, Inc., and I'm joined today by my two colleagues on the panel for
`
`12
`
`these cases, and they are Michael Zecher and Juliet Dirba. So, with that
`
`13
`
`brief introduction, let me get some appearances from counsel please, and
`
`14
`
`we'll start with counsel for Petitioner.
`
`15
`
`MR. BOWSER: Your Honors, this is Jonathan Bowser. I am
`
`16
`
`counsel for Petitioner. Lead counsel, Andrew Ehmke, is unable to make this
`
`17
`
`particular hearing. He had a health procedure, and he emailed the Board and
`
`18
`
`let the Board know that he was unable to make it. With me is Jordan
`
`19
`
`Maucotel, also counsel for Petitioner.
`
`20
`
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Thank you, Mr. Bowser, and welcome to the
`
`21
`
`Board today. Can we have an appearance from counsel for Patent Owner,
`
`22
`
`please?
`
`23
`
`MR. THEISS: Yes. Brandon Theiss, lead counsel for the Patent
`
`24
`
`Owner, and also with me is Dan Golub.
`
`25
`
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Thank you, and welcome also today to the
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Board, Mr. Theiss. Before we turn to the argument, there's a preliminary
`
`issue that we need to address, and that is the late filing of Patent Owner's
`
`demonstrative exhibits yesterday afternoon. We had an order in place for
`
`this hearing that required the demonstrative exhibits to be filed by Thursday
`
`of last week, and so the filing yesterday was untimely. So, let me just ask
`
`Mr. Bowser for Petitioner whether you have anything you want to say in this
`
`regard.
`
`MR. BOWSER: So, Your Honor, counsel for Patent Owner
`
`reached out to us today earlier and asked if we would object to them using
`
`10
`
`the demonstratives. I asked them to confirm that the demonstratives that
`
`11
`
`they served to us were identical, they've confirmed that, and so Petitioner
`
`12
`
`does not object to using the demonstratives -- for Patent Owner using the
`
`13
`
`demonstratives, despite their late filing.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Thank you, Mr. Bowser. And, Mr. Theiss, do
`
`15
`
`you have anything you would like to say?
`
`16
`
`MR. THEISS: We apologize for the oversight of the Board. It
`
`17
`
`was a clerical error on our behalf. We're prepared to present either way. I
`
`18
`
`think having the demonstratives will make some of the issues clearer to the
`
`19
`
`Board, but we do understand that we missed the deadline.
`
`20
`
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Thank you for that. We're going to go ahead
`
`21
`
`and let you use your demonstratives today. But given kind of a short time
`
`22
`
`that Petitioner had to take a look at them before the hearing, we're going to
`
`23
`
`give them a little bit of time to file any objections that they might want to
`
`24
`
`file that might be new argument in your -- in the Patent Owner
`
`25
`
`demonstratives. So, Mr. Bowser, you have until Friday to file any of those
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`kinds of objections if you want to do so. And follow the format. There's in
`
`our order, it kind of talks about the format that those objections should take.
`
`So, follow that format, and if you do file an objections, we're not going to
`
`give Patent Owner an opportunity to respond. It'll just be the objections.
`
`Then they'll be in the record, and we'll consider that when it comes time to
`
`issue our final written decision.
`
`So, are there any questions about the demonstrative exhibit issue
`
`before we turn to the arguments?
`
`MR. THEISS: Your Honor, can I just make one point of
`
`10
`
`clarification there? We did exchange demonstratives of opposing counsel
`
`11
`
`pursuant to the scheduling order. So, I think we're in agreement as to that.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Okay. So, they've had them. So, then
`
`13
`
`Petitioners had the exhibits for a week or so then?
`
`14
`
`15
`
`MR. THEISS: That's correct. Well, we exchanged last Monday.
`
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Okay. So, the only thing that was late was
`
`16
`
`the filing with the Board. Yes, sir.
`
`17
`
`MR. THEISS: That's correct, Your Honor. It was merely just a
`
`18
`
`ministerial clerical filing error. Again, we apologize, and if opposing
`
`19
`
`counsel wants to object, we have no problem with that, but we did we did
`
`20
`
`exchange.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Okay. Well, thank you for that. So, with that
`
`22
`
`information, you know, I guess there's really no need then for the
`
`23
`
`opportunity to file more objections. So, we'll just take the demonstratives.
`
`24
`
`Both parties can use their demonstratives today, and then we'll go forward
`
`25
`
`on that basis. Thank you for that.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Okay. So, then I can turn to my general introductory remarks that
`
`we use for all hearings. So, the first one is, please remember to mute your
`
`microphone when you are not speaking. The second one is when are making
`
`your argument, please remember to talk about the slide numbers that you are
`
`presenting. Even if you're using the little window where you can point us to
`
`the exhibit, the demonstrative exhibits directly, please go ahead and refer to
`
`those slide numbers. It's important for the record that gets generated when
`
`we're done here today. The third point is please do not interrupt the
`
`opposing counsel when they're making their argument. You'll have a chance
`
`10
`
`to make your argument when your turn comes around. The one exception to
`
`11
`
`that is if you're having connectivity issues. So, if you have trouble hearing,
`
`12
`
`if you have trouble seeing, please raise that as soon as possible even if your
`
`13
`
`opposing counsel is making their presentation. We are familiar with the
`
`14
`
`issues and the record in this case, so there's not a huge need to go over kind
`
`15
`
`of background issues, feel free if you think it helps your argument to do so,
`
`16
`
`but there's no need to do so.
`
`17
`
`According to the order that we previously entered, the arguments
`
`18
`
`will proceed in four stages. Petitioner makes their case-in-chief, Patent
`
`19
`
`Owner then makes their case-in-chief and whatever rebuttal that they want to
`
`20
`
`make from what Petitioner said, then Petitioner will have an opportunity for
`
`21
`
`rebuttal of what Patent Owner says, and then finally Patent Owner will have
`
`22
`
`an opportunity for sur-rebuttal. So, at the beginning of each of your
`
`23
`
`principal arguments, I will ask for a reservation for those rebuttal periods of
`
`24
`
`time. We've given both sides 70 total minutes. You can reserve up to half
`
`25
`
`of that for rebuttal if you want. Just so you understand how that works, the
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`reservation is not set in stone. So, what happens is when you reach that
`
`point in your clock, we will give you as gentle a reminder as we can.
`
`Sometimes it's a little bit before the reservation, sometimes it is a little bit
`
`after, depending on how the argument is going. And then you'll have the
`
`option then to continue arguing in your principal case, and kind of eating
`
`into your rebuttal time if that's what you choose to do, or you can just at that
`
`time choose to stop your argument and reserve the remainder for rebuttal.
`
`So, it's not set in stone. It's just kind of a when we ask for your
`
`reservation, it is just an opportunity for us to stop it at the time and see
`
`10
`
`where we are. So, with those brief introduction remarks, let me just ask, are
`
`11
`
`there any questions about the procedure today, and I'll start with Mr.
`
`12
`
`Bowser, please.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`MR. BOWSER: None from Petitioner, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Thank you. And Mr. Theiss?
`
`MR. THEISS: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Okay. Then, Mr. Bowser, we're ready to go.
`
`17
`
`So, would you like to reserve any of your time for the rebuttal?
`
`18
`
`MR. BOWSER: Yes, Your Honor. I would like reserve 20
`
`19
`
`minutes, and if I may, I would like to also just share the demonstratives on
`
`20
`
`the screen.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Sharing the demonstratives would be great.
`
`22
`
`That's your election. We do have everything here in front of us, and I can
`
`23
`
`see then now the demonstratives. So, with your reservation of 20 minutes,
`
`24
`
`you may begin with your argument when you are ready, and when we do
`
`25
`
`begin we'll start your 70 minute clock and try to give you a reminder when
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`you're 50 minutes in. Thank you very much.
`
`MR. BOWSER: Okay. Thank you very much, Your Honor. So,
`
`this is Jonathan Bowser, and I will be presenting for Petitioner Apple Inc. In
`
`this particular case, as you indicated before, this is two consolidated
`
`proceedings. I will be focusing mainly in terms of discussions on the '488
`
`patent, the parent, because there are claim elements in '488 that are unique to
`
`the '196. Moving to slide 2, just giving a very brief overview. So, what we
`
`have on the righthand side is Figure 2. We have a subscriber with a mobile
`
`wallet, and it can conduct transactions with an agent terminal, which is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`indicated in red. And the agent terminal often can have a point-of-sale
`
`11
`
`system. Now, the transaction is conducted through a cloud-based
`
`12
`
`transaction system, so the cloud-based transaction system in the claims, it's
`
`13
`
`referred to as a computing system, and we're going to talk about Figure 1
`
`14
`
`today, and that's an embodiment of the computing system.
`
`15
`
`So, just real quickly, I moved on to slide 3. We can see that both
`
`16
`
`claims have 20 -- sorry, both patents have 22 claims, and the challenges for
`
`17
`
`both of the IPRs are the same, Dill, Vadhri, and Akashika. So, what's in
`
`18
`
`dispute between the parties is only the disclosure of Dill. Patent Owner has
`
`19
`
`not contested any of the teachings with respect to the Vadhri, Akashika, or
`
`20
`
`why a POSITA would have been motivated to modify the references.
`
`21
`
`Moving to slide 4, we can see here I've reproduced the disputed
`
`22
`
`claim limitations amongst the different patents, and the limitations are
`
`23
`
`generally very similar to each other, and I tried to denote that here with the
`
`24
`
`color-coded annotations. The one difference between the two claims is that
`
`25
`
`in the '488 patent, on the lefthand side, we can see that the mobile wallet
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`application is installed on a SIM card. So, I'm going to as I go through my
`
`presentation, Your Honors, I'm going to focus sort of in modules where I
`
`talk about specific claim construction issues and then turn to why the prior
`
`art teaches those specific limitations. I am going to skip ahead because the
`
`mobile wallet and mobile wallet application and mobile device, those
`
`constructions are really not in dispute. And it doesn't seem like there's too
`
`much of a dispute between the parties.
`
`So, I'm going to move to slide 11, which discusses why Dill
`
`teaches both the mobile wallets and a mobile device that executes the mobile
`
`10
`
`wallet. So, on the righthand side of slide 11, we see Dill's figure 9. This is
`
`11
`
`cited throughout the petition, and this is the main drawing of Dill that we've
`
`12
`
`referred to. So, in the money transfer facilitator 140, you'll see there's a
`
`13
`
`transfer option module. And we're going to talk later about -- but all
`
`14
`
`throughout the petition, that corresponds to the integration tier that's recited
`
`15
`
`in the claims. Now, we can also see that the integration tier is for
`
`16
`
`conducting transactions with mobile wallets. We have both a sender's
`
`17
`
`mobile wallet on the bottom of Figure 9, it's 125, and that's a mobile wallet
`
`18
`
`for the sender, 105.
`
`19
`
`And then we have a mobile wallet 130 for the recipient. And the
`
`20
`
`money transfer facilitator we can see in paragraph 100 on the lefthand side
`
`21
`
`of slide 11, it's for receiving transaction information from mobile wallet
`
`22
`
`applications. And right there, Patent Owner has sort of focused on this about
`
`23
`
`the use of the 121, the element 121. What this really refers to is the fact that
`
`24
`
`mobile wallet application 121 it's encompassing the overall mobile wallets
`
`25
`
`within the same mobile device, sorry, within like the sender's mobile wallet
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`and the recipient's model wallet. But when Dill is talking about the mobile
`
`wallet application, it is referring to the sender's mobile wallet or to
`
`recipient's mobile wallet.
`
`Moving to slide 12, we can see here in paragraph 57, Dill is very
`
`clear that the idea behind, you know, one of the concepts behind Dill is to
`
`have a structured settlement between the sender's mobile wallet, 125, and the
`
`receiving -- the recipient's, mobile wallet, 130. So, we have transactions that
`
`can be conducted between two different individuals, each having their own
`
`respective mobile wallet. The other point is the fact that one of things Patent
`
`10
`
`Owner has raised is that the mobile wallets are not actually stored on mobile
`
`11
`
`devices. Well, that's incorrect, that argument the Patent Owner has had,
`
`12
`
`because Dill is very clear that the mobile device, each instance of a mobile
`
`13
`
`device is executing a mobile wallet application. We can see in paragraph 10
`
`14
`
`and Claim 13. So, on the mobile device is stored a mobile wallet
`
`15
`
`application.
`
`16
`
`I want to next move to probably the most contentious issue
`
`17
`
`between the parties, and that is the construction of integration tier including
`
`18
`
`web services communications mechanisms. Now, this is the issue I think
`
`19
`
`that is probably the most dispositive and I'm going to show why you should
`
`20
`
`not adopt Patent Owner's construction. So, I'm moving to slide 14, Your
`
`21
`
`Honors, and we can see in the top of slide 14 where there's the claim
`
`22
`
`language and it's essentially identical between the '488 patent and the '196
`
`23
`
`patent, right, for purposes of what we're going to talk about.
`
`24
`
`Now, first off, the Board, you don't have to actually construe this
`
`25
`
`particular claim term, because the prior art teaches it, and I'm going to show
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`you how it teaches it. But I am going to address Patent Owner's specific
`
`construction, alright? So, before I do that, I think a little bit of background
`
`is helpful in terms of the integration tier. So, if you look at the '488 patent,
`
`the term integration tier is mentioned three times in one short paragraph. It's
`
`mentioned in column 9, lines 48, sorry, 45 to 63 of the '488 patent. And the
`
`integration tier is simply described as being configured to manage mobile
`
`wallet sessions and maintain the integrity of financial transactions. And it's
`
`not shown on Figure 1, but if you look, I'm sorry on slide 14, but if you look
`
`at Figure 1 in the patents, the '488 and '196 patents, it's very clearly shown
`
`10
`
`what's described in Figure 1 is a quote, platform functional architecture.
`
`11
`
`So, what we see really in Figure 1 is the block diagram of a
`
`12
`
`software configuration of what is happening inside the server, the cloud-
`
`13
`
`based server. So, the reason that that's important is because what Patent
`
`14
`
`Owner has tried to do is, because of the word including in the claims, they've
`
`15
`
`tried essentially to draw a box inside the integration tier, inside this software
`
`16
`
`component, and say that the web services communication mechanisms has to
`
`17
`
`be part of the integration tier. If you can kind of follow my mouse, basically
`
`18
`
`what Patent Owner is doing is they're trying to draw a box where one doesn't
`
`19
`
`appear, and it says inside the integration tier. But the word include does not
`
`20
`
`require part of.
`
`21
`
`So, a more appropriate construction would be that the integration
`
`22
`
`tier interfaces with web services. And the reason for that, there's a couple
`
`23
`
`reasons. Number one is, so I just want to point out, the specification doesn't
`
`24
`
`use the term web services communication mechanisms. This was a term that
`
`25
`
`was added during prosecution. There's no instance of this particular term in
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`the specification at all. The only instance that we have is web services API.
`
`And I've reproduced the only two instances where that's disclosed or
`
`described in the '488 and '196 patents. We see a web services API, the
`
`integration tier can include a communication web services API, same thing
`
`as notification services, 102.
`
`Now, I should point out that Patent Owner hasn't contested that the
`
`web services API is what corresponds to the claimed web services
`
`communication mechanisms. In fact, Patent Owner, when they refer to the
`
`specification, they refer the -- the Web Services API. Well, what is a Web
`
`10
`
`Services API? It's simply an interface. That's it. API stands for interface,
`
`11
`
`right? So that's important to keep in mind. The other reason is that we have
`
`12
`
`here in Figure 1 on the righthand side of slide 14, we had two instances
`
`13
`
`where there's a web services API, and I've reproduced those portions of the
`
`14
`
`specification. The web services API can be in the notification services, or it
`
`15
`
`can be -- and it can in the integration tier. So, when you have a web services
`
`16
`
`API, for example, inside the integration tier, as Patent Owner, you know,
`
`17
`
`wants to argue, then the notification services would have to go outside into
`
`18
`
`the integration tier. But that's not shown in Figure 1.
`
`19
`
`So, the more appropriate construction, Your Honors, if you do
`
`20
`
`construe this particular term, is simply that the integration tier interfaces
`
`21
`
`with the web services communication mechanism. And what I mean by that,
`
`22
`
`Your Honors, is so when we talked earlier about Patent Owner is trying to
`
`23
`
`draw a box inside the integration tier, if you're going to draw a box, what
`
`24
`
`you should draw a box around is the integration tier to include that at the
`
`25
`
`top, but also the interface lines that are between the web and the integration
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`tier. That is the more appropriate construction.
`
`So, I want to move to slide 15, Your Honors. And here we see Dr.
`
`Shamos. This is Patent Owner's expert saying simply because of the word
`
`including, it has to be part of. Well, that's not shown in the specification.
`
`That's not shown on the drawings. So, we have Dr. Houh explaining simply
`
`that the web services communication mechanism interfaces with the
`
`integration tier. And what's also important, I think it's helpful to me at least
`
`to see, let's look at the '488 patent on the left. I'm on slide 16. And then let
`
`us look at Dill on the righthand side. Other than the way that there is a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`different characterization in terms of how it is illustrated, this other
`
`11
`
`configuration is identical to each other. We can see the integration tier, a
`
`12
`
`software component, there's an interface, a line between it, the integration
`
`13
`
`tier, and the web. Same thing as in Dill. We can see the transfer options
`
`14
`
`module 145. It's connected through the double-edged arrow to the web
`
`15
`
`interface. That's the same thing. It is the same configuration.
`
`16
`
`So that's why we believe that no construction is necessary because
`
`17
`
`Dill teaches this feature and it's unnecessary to resolve this. And just to be --
`
`18
`
`sorry, excuse me. I'm on slide 16 again. Just to clear, in the reply in
`
`19
`
`response to Patent Owner's arguments, we've pointed out that while the
`
`20
`
`Petition draws this web interface here, it's the arrows as well that partly
`
`21
`
`encompasses the interface. So that's on page 11 of the '488 reply, and on
`
`22
`
`page 9 of the '196 reply. But if we can see, if this is really what Patent
`
`23
`
`Owner wants to do in terms of having a box drawing exercise, the box
`
`24
`
`drawing exercise should also encompass the actual interfaces. So, moving to
`
`25
`
`slide 18, it's related here. This is why Dill teaches the integration tier,
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`including the web services communication mechanisms. So, what we see --
`
`JUDGE DIRBA: Counsel?
`
`MR. BOWSER: Yes?
`
`JUDGE DIRBA: This Judge Dirba. Apologies for interrupting
`
`with a question. But you mentioned that you -- so you said that in your
`
`reply, you made the argument that -- actually, let me ask a question this way.
`
`So, you're saying that the integration tier is the transfer options module 145.
`
`Is that correct?
`
`MR. BOWSER: Yeah, I'm going back to slide 16 to answer your
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`question. Yes, that is correct.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE DIRBA: Perfect. And does -- are there any alternative
`
`12
`
`contentions about what the integration tier can be or would be that Petitioner
`
`13
`
`presented in one of its briefs?
`
`14
`
`MR. BOWSER: No, Your Honor. All throughout we have argued
`
`15
`
`that the integration tier in the claims is the transfer options module 145.
`
`16
`
`JUDGE DIRBA: Okay. And then for the web services
`
`17
`
`communication mechanisms, that was mapped to Web 137, correct?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`MR. BOWSER: Yes.
`
`JUDGE DIRBA: Were there alternative contentions for what the
`
`20
`
`web service communication mechanism could be?
`
`21
`
`MR. BOWSER: Well, yes. In our reply, which is what I was
`
`22
`
`referring to, I'll just read this. We pointed out that the communication
`
`23
`
`channel, so if you follow my mouse, between Dill's transfer option module
`
`24
`
`145 and the web interface is how those two components interface with each
`
`25
`
`other. We have not changed the overall construct or the interpretation as
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`what constitutes the web services, but we've just pointed it out, if you're
`
`going to get in this box drawing exercise, it's really these two components
`
`together that are interfaced between each other.
`
`JUDGE DIRBA: And I think I understand that piece. I looked at
`
`page 9 for what it's worth of the reply, in the 399, and I didn't see where you
`
`had had this argument, but I'll double check the transcript and go look at the
`
`right portion. But just to make sure that I'm understanding, are you saying
`
`that even under -- so there's a dispute between the parties about the
`
`construction of this claim language that you have highlighted in purple on
`
`10
`
`the slide that you have up right now. And you're saying that, in short,
`
`11
`
`including doesn't necessarily mean including, it could mean just interfacing
`
`12
`
`with. Patent Owner disagrees with that. Are you also now saying, that even
`
`13
`
`under Patent Owner's construction, Dill teaches this claim limitation, or are
`
`14
`
`you making a different argument right now?
`
`15
`
`MR. BOWSER: What we're saying -- so let me correct the record
`
`16
`
`here. Just so what you referred to on page 9 of the reply, that is in the '196
`
`17
`
`reply. I was referring to page 11 in the '488 reply.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`JUDGE DIRBA: Okay. Thank you.
`
`MR. BOWSER: Okay. Sure. And then so under Patent Owner's
`
`20
`
`construction about having the -- it being part of. Now, it's unclear whether
`
`21
`
`Patent Owner actually means that it is entirely -- the web services
`
`22
`
`communication mechanism has to be entirely part of, but even if that's the
`
`23
`
`case, all that is required is an interface. And that interface would then be
`
`24
`
`part of the transfer options module 145. And what we've pointed out is
`
`25
`
`simply that this is just the line. It's an interface. Let me go back to slide 14,
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`and we can see the language. What does Patent Owner refer to for the web
`
`service communication mechanism? They refer very clearly to the Web
`
`services API. What's an API? It is an interface. So, what we're saying is
`
`that even if you are going to construe according to Patent Owner's incorrect
`
`construction, the interface would still be part of it. And I'm going to show
`
`you here what we mean by that in terms of slide 18.
`
`So here, the transfer options module 145, there's an interface
`
`between that and the Web interface 137. And we can see on the lefthand
`
`side, in paragraph 101, it's very clear that Dill says that the transfer options
`
`10
`
`module can communicate with any of these types of interfaces, and one of
`
`11
`
`which is a Web interface. So, we have Web services communication
`
`12
`
`mechanisms. Yes, we've labeled it outside the box of the transfer options
`
`13
`
`module 145. But if you are going to interpret this claim other than it's plain
`
`14
`
`and ordinary meaning, you should interpret it as simply being where the
`
`15
`
`integration tier interfaces with the Web services, where the Web services,
`
`16
`
`may in part, be external to the integration tier.
`
`17
`
`JUDGE DIRBA: Okay. And can you real quick, just to make sure
`
`18
`
`the record is clear, can you read to me briefly from the portion of your reply
`
`19
`
`that made this argument?
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`MR. BOWSER: So, we said --
`
`JUDGE DIRBA: You said it's on page 11 of the 399 IPR?
`
`MR. BOWSER: Yes. So, there's one sentence, one, two, three,
`
`23
`
`four, five lines down. It says the communication channel between Dill's
`
`24
`
`transfer option module 145 and Web interface 137 is how the two
`
`25
`
`components interface with one another.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE DIRBA: Okay. So, and just to make sure that I'm 100
`
`percent clear on it, you're still, even in here, you are still saying that Web
`
`interface 137 is the web services communication mechanism, you're
`
`showing that it meets the claim limitation under your construction because,
`
`as shown by that line that you have highlighted here, there is an interface
`
`between web 137 and transfer option 145?
`
`MR. BOWSER: That's correct.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Mr. Bowser, this is Judge Zecher. Can I
`
`follow up on this argument? So, I guess what I struggled with here is the
`
`10
`
`way you kind of want us to read this disputed limitation. I don't know how
`
`11
`
`to phrase this, but I feel like a canon of claim construction is that we need to
`
`12
`
`give effect to all claims, all words in the claim, right? And in this particular
`
`13
`
`disputed limitation, you go back, I think, to slide 12. I don't remember
`
`14
`
`where you have a … right.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`MR. BOWSER: It's slide 14.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Yeah. You have the word “including.” So,
`
`17
`
`what do you suggest we do with that word in this context? Because I think
`
`18
`
`if we were to just say it gets its plain and ordinary meaning, an integration
`
`19
`
`tier, including a web service communication mechanism, would mean that it
`
`20
`
`needs to be part of the integration tier. That is the web services
`
`21
`
`communication mechanism needs to be at least part of, or somehow included
`
`22
`
`within something like that. I think that is Patent Owner's argument
`
`23
`
`regarding the integration tier. So, you seem to be suggesting that we don't
`
`24
`
`even consider this word “including.” So, I'm just, maybe you can add some
`
`25
`
`clarity here because I am just struggling with that aspect of it.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. BOWSER: So, we're not saying that you shouldn't consider
`
`the word including, we are saying that it doesn't mean, including does not
`
`mean that the web services communication mechanism has to be entirely
`
`within the integration tier. What we've shown, and I think you also need
`
`to -- and you pointed out, Your Honor, as being what's referred to in the
`
`spec. But what does the spec say? It says the integration tier can include a
`
`web services API. What is an API? It's an interface. And that's all that's
`
`required, right? It doesn't -- I mean, what our argument all along has been is
`
`simply that Patent Owner wants to get in this box drawing exercise where
`
`10
`
`they say that the web service communication mechanism has to be entirely
`
`11
`
`within the integration tier.
`
`12
`
`And we're saying it doesn't have to be entirely integration tier.
`
`13
`
`There are interfaces. In fact, the integration tier, again, like let me just point
`
`14
`
`out to remind you that this is a software configuration. These are not
`
`15
`
`hardware discrete components. These are interfaces. So how does the
`
`16
`
`integration tier interface with the web? It does so because there's an
`
`17
`
`interface. This line right here between the web and the integration tier. It's
`
`18
`
`exactly what Dill discloses. We have a line going between the transfer
`
`19
`
`options module and the web, and we can show this on slide 16. Same thing.
`
`20
`
`It is an identical configuration. We are talking essentially about a wire for
`
`21
`
`interfacing and a software and wire. That's what we are referring to, Your
`
`22
`
`Honor. So, we're not saying you shouldn't consider include, but we're saying
`
`23
`
`that include does not require part of or entirely part of it, which is effectively
`
`24
`
`what Patent Owner is arguing.
`
`25
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: So, can I ask another question? I think the
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00398 (Patent 10,438,196 B2)
`IPR2023-00399 (Patent 9,208,488 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`focus of what we've looked at on this slide 16 is really the Figure 9 of Dill
`
`here and what it illustrates to us. I did read the specification, or excuse me,
`
`Dill's disclosure, not specification. And I looked a paragraph 101, and in
`
`that paragraph it talks about the transfer options module and how it's
`
`communicatively coupled with the on