trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2016-00055, Paper No. 33
`January 11, 2017
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`TELIT WIRELESS SOLUTIONS INC., TELIT
`COMMUNICATIONS PLC, SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC.,
`SIERRA WIRELESS, INC., and RPX CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`Technology Center 2600
`
`
`Before: KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES,
`and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN (via video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`December 5, 2016, at 1:33 p.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`REPORTED BY RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR, CRR,
`
`RDR
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2016-00055, Paper No. 33
`January 11, 2017
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`TELIT WIRELESS SOLUTIONS INC., TELIT
`COMMUNICATIONS PLC, SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC.,
`SIERRA WIRELESS, INC., and RPX CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`Technology Center 2600
`
`
`Before: KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES,
`and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN (via video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`December 5, 2016, at 1:33 p.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`REPORTED BY RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR, CRR,
`
`RDR
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER TELIT WIRELESS:
`
`DAVID A. LOEWENSTEIN, ESQ.
`
`
`MILO EADAN, Patent Agent
`
`Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP
`
`1500 Broadway, 12th Floor
`
`New York, New York 10036
`
`646-878-0800
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER SIERRA and RPX:
`
`JENNIFER HAYES, ESQ.
`
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`
`300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-3151
`
`213-629-6000
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`JEFFREY N. COSTAKOS, ESQ.
`
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`777 East Wisconsin Avenue
`
`Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-5306
`
`414-297-5782
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:33 p.m.)
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: You may be seated. All
`right. Welcome back, everybody. We are here now for
`IPR2016- 00055 concerning the same patent, Patent Number
`8,648,717. This is Telit Wireless v. M2M.
`Let's have our appearances. First who do we have
`from Petitioner?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: I'm David Loewenstein. I
`represent the Petitioner, Telit Wireless. And this is my
`colleague, Milo Eadan, who is the brains of the operation. I
`like to think of him as the microcontroller.
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: Thank you.
`MR. COSTAKOS: Jeff Costakos, Foley & Lardner,
`for the Patent Owner, M2M Solutions LLC.
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: All right. Thank you.
`MS. HAYES: And good afternoon, Your Honors.
`Jennifer Hayes for Petitioners Sierra Wireless, Inc., Sierra
`Wireless America, and RPX Corp. who are joined into this IPR
`proceeding.
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Just a quick matter of
`housekeeping. I guess we thought that Judge Galligan would
`be able to see this electronically. And I'm not sure if the
`version that you have has page numbers on it.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: I have the slides you sent
`and let me see if they have page numbers. I have it open right
`now. I can just, if you tell me the PDF page, I will just go to
`that. That's fine.
`MR. EADAN: There's a cover page.
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: We'll work it out.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Thank you.
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: In the name of
`housekeeping, let me finish my beginning speech. I'm Judge
`Deshpande. To my right is Judge Arbes and on the screen is
`Judge Galligan. This is all for transcript purposes.
`Petitioner bears the burden of proof. Each party
`has been granted an hour for arguments. Petitioner, you may
`reserve time for rebuttal. Once Petitioner has presented
`arguments, Patent Owner presents their arguments following,
`and then Petitioner can continue with the rebuttal if they
`choose.
`
`Are there any questions before we continue?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Now that you have
`reminded me, I wanted to reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: Okay. Why don't we go
`ahead and begin. Petitioner, you may begin when you are
`ready.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`Again, I'm David Loewenstein. I'm representing the
`Petitioners here. And we have prepared these demonstratives.
`The first couple is sort of introductory information
`about the technology at issue and sort of how this device sort
`of morphed into what we spoke about this morning, the hot
`link controller.
`And so the idea was to protect kids, right, and so
`you had this what they call incoming caller lists. And if, you
`know, the mother was on the list. She would call in and the
`number would get checked against the list. And if it was on
`the list, it was permitted and it went through. And so that
`would happen, you know, with any number of people who were
`on the list.
`And the idea, of course, was to protect the child
`from unwanted contact, which is what the patent refers to.
`And so that seems to be a fairly obvious situation. You have
`some unknown caller, that person is blocked. And the reason
`you have that on the incoming caller list is because there are
`tens, probably now hundreds of millions of cell phones or land
`lines, whatever, out there and you don't want them all
`arbitrarily calling your child.
`And so that's how this whole thing started. It
`started with this hot link thing. The concept is now changed
`in this patent to the outgoing caller list. And it is similar.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`The important part of this hot link device -- I'm trying to use
`the laser pointer which isn't showing up so well here -- but,
`anyway, there is a call button on the device. It has no keypad
`and it has no display.
`So if the kid is lost or in trouble or whatever, the
`kid just pushes one button, it looks to the list, and it makes
`that call. So there is not another level of screening that is
`required on the outbound calls. Right? There is one button,
`no keypad, and even if the kid wanted to call another number,
`the kid could not do it. And that carries through to this
`programmable controller.
`And I will show you in some later slides also the
`CELL-EYE reference. Neither of them had keypads. And so
`the possibility of making these sort of spurious calls,
`international calls, whatever, just doesn't exist. Right? This
`has no way to make these calls that are not on the list. These
`are just following rules. They are following instructions they
`have been programmed to follow. They call the number on the
`list, and that's that. So you don't need another level of
`screening.
`So there is our little animation and it shows that
`the call goes out. So, now, to program the list -- I think that
`Judge Galligan was following along here, so I'm on the next
`slide, Your Honor, called Program Outgoing Caller List. And
`the way this is described is the device starts with the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`programming transmitter. It then sends a coded number. And
`if that coded number is authenticated in this step down here --
`and for some reason the laser pointer doesn't work on that
`screen -- then it is allowed to pass.
`And you will see there are a number of phrases that
`you all have seen in the papers about one or more
`transmissions, plural, and at least one of the numbers contains
`the coded number. So there is no requirement, certainly no
`requirement that this is only a single transmission. And we
`will talk some more about that in a minute.
`And so this remote monitoring device is intended
`to be a flexible device. It is supposed to exist sort of in the
`space between, say, a home alarm and this remote device
`which could be a cell phone or a computer. So the
`programmable communicator sits in the middle there and on
`one side is some sort of monitored technical device, a house, a
`car, a vending machine, a refrigerator, whatever it is.
`And the point of these introductions is also to
`emphasize that this is all built with existing technology.
`There is nothing that the alleged inventor created here. This is
`pulling stuff from a parts bin. So the transmitter, the receiver,
`the ability to authenticate calls, SMS messages, everything,
`GPRS, that was all in the prior art.
`So I just put up a couple of slides. I'm sure you
`guys are familiar with the law but I will just repeat it.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`Briefly, the bedrock principle here is that the claims control.
`And the last sentence here, the last two, if you start including
`additional elements in the claim, who knows where to stop?
`And the claims that are in the patent are the sole measure of
`the grant. And so that has been the law for well over 100
`years.
`
`And this is a case that M2M has cited. And the
`last part is instructive because in this IPR proceeding the
`Board is not able to get into issues, 112 issues like written
`description and enablement. So you look at the claim
`language. If it is reasonably clear, like more than one
`transmission, or transmissions, plural, there is no reason to go
`to the specification and try to read the limitation in.
`And, again, these are a couple of cases that say the
`same thing a bit more succinctly. The analytical focus starts
`with the claims, is centered on the claims, and the ambiguity,
`undue breadth, vagueness, and so forth, are all 112 matters.
`So that leads us to the issue of one or more
`transmissions. And the claim language says what it says.
`Right? One or more transmissions, plural, and at least one
`transmission containing a coded number. Transmissions,
`plural, include the at least one telephone number. There is
`nothing in here that says this should be a single transmission.
`And the Board's decision was correct. I'm now on
`slide 17. This is entitled "Board's Decision." And there is no
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`reason that at least one telephone number or IP address and
`coded number needs to be in a single transmission. As the
`Patent Owner contends, we believe that is correct.
`And if you look at M2M's infringement contentions
`in the District Court, again, they say if one or more
`transmissions, or a device, you look to see by determining if
`they, plural, right, if they contain the required PIN2 password.
`And if it receives one or more of these AT commands, the
`TCP/IP transmissions that contain these AT commands, well,
`then you determine if at least one of those, plural,
`transmissions contains the PIN password coded number.
`So in the litigation they said, well, it could be
`more than one transmission. The language says more than one
`transmission. The Board says more than one transmission.
`And that's sort of the beginning and end of it.
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, I'm sorry, before you
`move on, can we talk about the litigation. Obviously we
`talked about it this morning, but the Defendants in the
`litigation took a different position than what you are taking
`today, correct?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Well, so what I recall
`happening in the litigation was we said that it was an
`exclusive list. And the reality of this, and going back to the
`introductory slides, the list that's in the device is the list for
`outbound calls --
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ARBES: I'm sorry, I was talking about the
`single wireless transmission, if we're talking about the
`transmission issue.
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Oh, okay, right. So in that
`case I think we said that it could be more than one -- I think
`we said it was a single transmission and they said the
`opposite.
`
`So we switched positions, the two parties have
`switched, and we believe ours is correct because it is a broader
`reasonable interpretation. We say it could be single or
`multiple and that seems to be a broader interpretation based on
`the language of the claims.
`JUDGE ARBES: If I could point you to Exhibit
`1108 at page 4. It does seem, at least in the documents that
`we have, that Defendants proposed a single wireless
`transmission and M2M, the Plaintiff, agreed with the
`Defendants' proposed construction. Do I have that correct?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Right. And I think the way
`that shook out was that we said if you are going to make this
`into a broader claim than the 112 problem, and they then
`agreed with us and said it was a single transmission. But like
`I said before, we can't reach that issue here.
`JUDGE ARBES: Well, I guess I will ask you the
`same question I asked this morning: Why is there a difference
`between broadest reasonable interpretation and Phillips here?
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Well, I think the reason is
`because we looked at the claim language in this case and we
`did feel like we were constrained under 112 of the written
`description or enablement requirements. If we look at the
`plain language it says one or more transmissions, plural,
`throughout the claim. And you look at the language, then it is
`one or more transmissions.
`JUDGE ARBES: But why would that not apply
`under Phillips equally?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Well, in Phillips I think we
`have to deal with a presumption of validity. And ultimately I
`think we said if you take a broader transmission, then there is
`a 112 issue in the litigation.
`JUDGE ARBES: I guess what is, frankly,
`concerning me about some of these interpretations are that
`there are two diametrically opposed interpretations that are
`being proposed, one to the District Court and one to the Board.
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: I understand the concern. I
`don't think they are quite so diametrically different but I
`understand your point. I think that the issue was that we felt,
`and this is our group of Defendants, felt like we were
`constrained to take a narrower interpretation in the District
`Court, and we believe in the Patent Office that we are entitled
`to take a broader interpretation.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`I would also like to point out, and I believe it is on
`page 12 of our petition, if we want to stick with the District
`Court interpretations, we are happy to do it, because in the
`District Court the Patent Owner took these extremely broad
`interpretations regarding capability.
`So it didn't matter that our device did something or
`didn't do something. There was no evidence that our device
`did any of this stuff. They found all of this information in a
`software manual, the AT manual, that has 500 different AT
`commands. And they said it doesn't matter if you do it or not.
`What matters is if the device is capable of doing it.
`So if you want to take an exceptionally broad
`interpretation like the Patent Owner did in the District Court,
`we're happy to do it, but they are now backed off that and they
`are now advancing very narrow interpretations here. So they
`are doing the inverse.
`So we think we are doing what the case law says is
`appropriate, which is to take a broader construction, and it
`may be different than the one in the District Court. But we're
`happy to deal with the capability arguments. If that's what the
`Patent Owner wants to stick with here, we'll deal with it.
`JUDGE ARBES: I would like to focus on just the
`claim language about the single transmission requirement for a
`while. I think you had said it is your belief that the plain
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`meaning, the plain language here allows for more than one
`transmission?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Right.
`JUDGE ARBES: But you also said the plain
`meaning goes to a single wireless transmission to the District
`Court. I mean, you are arguing plain meaning in both cases
`then.
`
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: I think what we did in the
`District Court was we looked at the specification which talks
`about a single transmission. And we said if you want to have
`a valid claim in the District Court considering 112, it has to be
`a single transmission.
`And if the 112 issue were something that we could
`address here, we would point that out, that there is written
`description defect and perhaps enablement. But that's the
`rules that we were required to live under in the District Court.
`And we believe the broadest reasonable interpretation is either
`single or multiple and we believe that there is support in the
`claims as, you know, we just put up here that says it's multiple
`transmissions.
`And, in fact, if you think about it -- and I think
`this is one of the questions you asked earlier today -- how
`could they have made this clearer? Well, if they really wanted
`to have a single transmission, they would have said a single
`transmission with A and B. They didn't do it. They didn't say
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`this is a single transmission with a coded number and a phone
`number. They went through all of these other contortions to
`say at least one transmission, multiple transmissions, if at
`least one of the transmissions has some information in it.
`So it would have been a very simple matter really,
`if they wanted to protect a single transmission, to write the
`claim that way, and they obviously didn't do it and they did it
`for a reason.
`JUDGE ARBES: How exactly would they have
`written the claim?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: The codes are very simple,
`because it says a single transmission with a coded number and
`a telephone number. That would be a single transmission. But
`they didn't use that language and they did it for a reason.
`They tried to get broad claims so that they could use them for
`an infringement claim and now they are trying to get narrow
`claims to protect the invalidity.
`JUDGE ARBES: Where, if you have a copy of the
`claims, where would that have been inserted?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: They could have put it in a
`couple of different places. I mean, you know, a single
`transmission, so authenticating a single transmission sent from
`the programmable transmitter and received by the
`programmable communicator by determining if that single
`transmission had a coded number, and if the transmission
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`included the phone number and the IP address it would have
`been authenticated. So it would have been very easy to write
`that claim.
`JUDGE ARBES: I guess if we can focus on just
`the clause in 1d. If the processing module authenticates the at
`least one of the transmissions, including the at least one
`telephone number or IP address and the coded number, why
`does that not imply that we are talking about one transmission
`with both?
`I mean, I understand what you are saying,
`transmissions is plural, but doesn't the including clause refer
`to the at least one of the transmissions?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: I think it relates to the
`previous word, the transmission, "if one of the transmissions
`including the."
`So, I mean, there are a number of places you could
`put in the language that I just mentioned, that it would be a
`single transmission. And the fact that they didn't write it in
`that way to me is strong evidence that they are really trying to
`cover something broader than that.
`If I could, I mean, I was about to discuss really the
`bottom line issue here, I think, which is that it is a design
`choice, so there is no contradictory evidence. Right?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ARBES: I'm sorry, if I could just ask one
`more question on claim interpretation before we move on to
`the merits.
`There was, on page 7 of your reply brief, you had
`said that the claim language here is starkly contrasted with the
`parent, the '010 patent, which does explicitly recite a single
`transmission requirement. And the language there is the at
`least one transmission including a coded number and at least
`one telephone number or Internet Protocol, IP, address.
`Why is that language any different than the
`language we are talking about here?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: I'm trying to find the
`language but I believe in that case it was in the singular tense.
`It says where there is one transmission, singular.
`JUDGE ARBES: Well, no, it does say the at least
`one transmission.
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Right, but it still says
`transmission, singular, without the "s." It's not plural,
`transmissions.
`JUDGE ARBES: So it is your position that this
`argumen t comes down to the fact that the Patent Owner used
`the at least one of the transmissions instead of the at least one
`transmission?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: I think that was the intent
`when they wrote the claim, was to change it from one
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`transmission to multiple transmissions. That's why they put
`the language in. It wasn't an accident.
`JUDGE ARBES: Is there any case law that you are
`aware of that there is a difference between someone saying at
`least one of something and at least one something?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: I can't point to a case off
`the top of my head, but it seems to me as a matter of sort of
`grammatical construction, if you use the plural noun for some
`description, you are talking about more than one.
`So if you are talking about at least one of the
`transmissions, you are talking about more than one. If you are
`talking about at least one transmission, you could have six
`transmissions that have both pieces of information, the coded
`number and the phone number. If you are talking about at
`least one of the many transmissions, it means that the coded
`number could be in one and the phone number could be in
`another.
`
`I mean, I'm not sure if I have answered your
`question. If I haven't, then please let me know.
`JUDGE ARBES: No, I'm wondering if there is
`really any difference between the two. They both -- the scope
`of both is exactly the same, correct?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: It is not, though, if you
`consider that that plural form changes the meaning of the
`claim. Right? It is talking about at least one transmission.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`And in the '010 patent it meant, as we understood it, to have
`both pieces of information. So the coded number together
`with the phone number or the IP address as a single
`transmission. At least one of those transmissions had the
`proper coded number and that would get authenticated.
`In this, again, it is not an accident that they put in
`the "s" six times, I mean not six times, but, whatever, three or
`four times, and if they had done it once maybe it would have
`been an accident. Maybe they didn't mean to do it. Maybe it
`was a typographical error.
`But this is a, you know, this is a well thought
`through thing. This is probably the sixth or seventh patent in
`the string of patents that they have gotten. So, you know,
`every time they file a new patent they tinker with the language
`and they wanted to get a broader interpretation.
`JUDGE ARBES: So just to make sure I understand
`your position correctly, if I have claim language that says at
`least one of the widgets and at least one widget, the scope of
`those individually is the same but how they are used in the
`claim with the surrounding language matters and that impacts
`whether this is a single transmission or not. Do I understand
`that correctly?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: I think you are right. I
`think ultimately the question is can you read that language that
`is up on the board as requiring a single transmission, which I
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`think is what the Patent Owner is saying. And I don't see that.
`I don't see that, you know, it jumps off the paper at you and
`says, well, this must be a single transmission. I think what the
`Board said was right. It could be a single transmission or it
`could be more than one. And that's kind of where we're at
`here. Right? We have prior art that has more than one
`transmission and we believe that claim reads on it.
`JUDGE ARBES: Is there anything that you would
`point us to in the prosecution history of either patent that we
`are talking about that would illuminate this issue to say that
`there is some sort of difference between what the Patent
`Owner was claiming in the '010 patent and the '717 patent?
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: I don't recall that in the
`'010 or in this patent that issue came up. In one of the
`predecessor patents, which I believe was the '802 patent, the
`Patent Examiner said that you can't have more than one
`transmission. And then they abandoned that and refiled it with
`the language we are looking at now. It is in one of the slides
`coming up and I believe it is in our papers as well.
`JUDGE ARBES: Okay.
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Do we have a cite for the
`file history? We may have a cite for the statement in the file
`history that I've overlooked and my colleague may be able to
`alert you to. Shall I move on?
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: Go ahead.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: I understand the dilemma
`between the single and the multiple transmissions, but the
`point I would like to make, the final point I think on this
`topic, is that ultimately this is really a design choice. So if
`you want to have a secure system, if you are protecting a bank
`or Fort Knox or something else, then you might want to have
`the password together with the phone number in each and
`every transmission.
`But that would require the user to enter the
`password every single time. And so that could be considered
`an inconvenience and somebody may not want to do that. So
`there is no technological impediment. There is no requirement
`of any of the pieces of this prior art device or the patent that
`allow or don't allow more than one transmission.
`So this is really just an engineer deciding that it
`makes more sense in some circumstances to have the coded
`number and the password -- and the phone number in one
`transmission or to spread it out.
`So maybe in some circumstances, like a car loan,
`for example, you don't need ultra secure transmissions. You
`put in the coded number of one and a minute later you add the
`phone number. And for that application maybe it is sufficient.
`But if you want to lock it down and you want to
`have a different application, you put both pieces of
`information in every transmission. That's a routine
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`engineering decision that people make all of the time. There
`is no contrary evidence to that.
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: Are you suggesting there is
`a reason why someone would actually put these in separate
`transmissions? It could be a design choice. We would want
`one or the other for different reasons.
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Right. So suppose you
`want to make it more convenient. Suppose you just want to
`enter the password once, then you are sending ten subsequent
`messages. You don't want to enter it each time.
`And the inverse could be true, too. Right? If you
`are granted that somebody is going to hack into your
`communication, you may want to have the password and the
`coded number in every single transmission to prevent that.
`So there is no, again, there is no technological
`impediment to this. This is the kind of thing that people do all
`of the time. And we have our expert saying that. There is no
`expert testimony that is adverse to that, that is inconsistent to
`that.
`
`The next slide is a fellow that they used in the
`District Court named Konchitsky. He says he thinks, you
`know, having both pieces of information will provide better
`security. So there is no contradictory evidence, you know,
`that one form of the transmission is better or worse than the
`other. It is just a design choice. It is just, you know, what
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`somebody wanted to build into their system. It is not a
`patentable invention.
`I mean, you can envision a situation where I'm an
`inventor and I come to my, you know, patent lawyer and I say
`I've just come up with this great invention. I'm going to put
`the password in one transmission and the coded -- and the
`phone number in the other. I want to get a patent on that.
`You know, I would get laughed out of the office.
`That's not a patentable invention. You can't get a 17- year
`monopoly on having a password in one transmission together
`with the information or spread them apart. It is just not a
`patentable invention. It is not a patentable distinction.
`JUDGE ARBES: But, counsel, if there are
`particular reasons to do it that way that are well known.
`MR. LOEWENSTEIN: Right, if there are, but
`there aren't. I mean, there are plenty of reasons you would do
`it either way. And in the prior art that we cited it says that
`you send them separately. And if you read the claim language
`it says, you know, more than one transmission. It does not say
`a single transmission.
`I was going to move on to this other topic, the
`configured to and permitted to. Okay? So I'm on slide -- it
`looks like we are on 22. So we mentioned this in our papers
`here. Figure 2 is for incoming calls and that uses the term
`permitted caller. And I think I explained this in the
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`introduction. There is every reason to have call screening on
`the inbound calls. Really the genesis of it was to protect the
`child.
`
`For outbound calls you don't really have that
`problem. Right? The device has a list of phone numbers. If
`there is an alarm it follows the instruction and says call those
`numbers. So you don't need a second level of screening, if
`that is what is meant by exclusive or whatever, it's not in this
`patent. There is no hint in this patent that there is a second
`level of screening for outbound calls.
`So, again, we show that, you know, for the '717
`patent it talks about a change in status. It calls a number. The
`Van Bergen reference, which I will talk about in a little bit
`more detail, does the same thing. There is an alarm. You send
`outgoing messages to a stored number.
`A couple other points on this outgoing message
`situation is, the District Court mentioned it, there is no
`permitted -- there is no mention of permitted caller for the
`outbound calls. In their papers in this proceeding Patent
`Owner said the permitted caller term is not in the '717 patent.
`There is no reason for it. Right? There is no
`keypad. And the only reason you have a permitted caller on
`the inbound side is to prevent unwelcome contact, which is
`what the patent says, to the child. And this bit about
`preventing children from dialing overseas is really a function
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-00055
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`of the lack of a keyboard. Right? You know, there is not any
`likelihood that somebody is goi
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
