UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ACER INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, ASUSTEK
`COMPUTER INC., ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, GOOGLE
`INC., MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 28, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. McKONE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and KAMRAN
`JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ACER INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, ASUSTEK
`COMPUTER INC., ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, GOOGLE
`INC., MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 28, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. McKONE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and KAMRAN
`JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`AARON P. MAURER, ESQUIRE
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`725 12th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JUSTIN J. OLIVER, ESQUIRE
`JASON M. DORSKY, ESQUIRE
`Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
`975 F Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1462
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`February 28, 2018, commencing at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Good morning, everyone. This is a
`hearing for IPR2017-00386. Let's start with appearances. And when you
`make your appearance, please step up to the center podium. Who do we
`have for petitioner?
`MR. MAURER: Good morning, Your Honors. Aaron Maurer on
`behalf of petitioner, Google, Inc. With me here today is my colleague, Chris
`Suarez, and also John Colgan from Google.
`MR. McKEEVER: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick
`McKeever on behalf of the Microsoft petitioners in the joined proceedings.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Who do we have for patent owner?
`MR. OLIVER: Good morning, Your Honor. Justin Oliver of
`Fitzpatrick Cella. With me at counsel table is Jason Dorsky, also of
`Fitzpatrick Cella, on behalf of patent owner.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Thank you. So just a few housekeeping
`matters, first. As you can see, Judges McKone and Jivani are appearing
`remotely. So when you make your presentations, please step up to the center
`podium so they can hear you. Please also refer to any slide numbers in your
`demonstratives so they can follow along.
`Per our order, each side will have 45 minutes to make their
`presentation. We'll start with petitioner and then follow up with patent
`owner. Petitioner, before you begin, just let us know how much time, if any,
`you would like to reserve for rebuttal. You can 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
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`MR. MAURER: Good morning, Your Honors. I would like to
`reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal.
`Let's start, if we can, with slide 2, which is claim 1 of the reissued
`'413 [sic] patent. It's not disputed that every element of this claim except for
`the last element is found in the prior art Sakata II reference. So if I may, I
`would like to start with the primary question facing the Board, which is
`would a person of ordinary skill in the art have been motivated to modify the
`Sakata II reference to remove its character substitution step, thereby
`satisfying the "returning the keypad to the default state" element of the claim
`of the '913 patent. As shown by the evidence here, the answer is absolutely
`yes.
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: Counsel, I understand that you would like to
`start at that position, but since you have put the language of the claim up in
`front of us, I wonder if you might instead address, please, patent owner's
`position on construction of the term "secondary character." I understand
`from their briefing that their position is that a secondary character can only
`be displayed in a second state. It's not particularly clear for me from your
`briefing what petitioner's position is on that proposition.
`MR. MAURER: Sure. So the plain meaning as to the -- there's
`actually two claim terms. I would like to address them together. I think that
`makes sense since they are related.
`JUDGE JIVANI: Please.
`MR. MAURER: There's two terms at issue here. One is "primary
`character" and the second is "secondary character." And we respectfully
`request they be given their plain meaning, which is that the primary
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`characters are ones that appear in the default state, and the secondary
`characters are ones that appear in the secondary state.
`I think there's two distinctions between our construction, the plain
`meaning construction, and what the patent owner suggests. With respect to
`the primary character, they suggest that the primary character is -- can be
`selectable in either the default state or in the secondary state. And that is
`incorrect. And then they suggest that the secondary characters are only
`selectable in the secondary state. I think they are putting a lot of weight on
`that word "only" in their proposed construction.
`Let's take a look at how this patent works. Let's look at Figure 1, if
`we can, slide 5. So this is the default state as described in the patent. When
`you look at Figure 1, if you long press on one of these keys, the patent uses
`the 5 key as the example, you then switch to a secondary state.
`So let's look at, if we could, slide 6, which is Figure 2, which is a
`secondary state that's associated with long press of the 5 key. And where
`does Figure 2 come from? Well, the patent describes that it comes from a
`key character table. And they provide an example of that in table 2, which
`we have in slide 13. The patent says that the key character table provides
`the information to build out that display in Figure 2.
`If you look at table 2, there's two columns. The left column is key,
`and that refers to the position on the telephone keypad. And then the second
`column is display secondary character, and that is the actual character that is
`then displayed, enabled for selection. Table 2 clearly labels all of those as
`secondary characters. Patent owner would suggest that the 5 key here would
`be a primary character, but that is contrary to what table 2 shows.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: So under your argument, an individual character
`could be both a primary and secondary character? The number 5, for
`instance?
`MR. MAURER: The plain meaning of this is if it shows up on a --
`in the second state, its's a secondary character. If it shows up in the default
`state, it's a primary character.
`JUDGE JIVANI: But are those things mutually exclusive?
`MR. MAURER: Let me see if I understand your question. Let's
`take the 5 key here since it shows up in both. Let's go back to Figure 2,
`which is slide 6, if we could. In this slide, in Figure 2 our construction is
`that 5 key is a secondary character because it's shown in the secondary state.
`And the reason that we know that is if we look at the claim language that we
`are addressing here -- this is slide 2, which is the language from claim 1. I'm
`going to refer now to the second half of this. In the second state is where it
`starts. The claim requires in the second state display each of the secondary
`characters associated with the first selected key in a respective display area.
`So when we had up there the 5 key, that there is the second state, and the
`claim is referring to it as a secondary character.
`The claim then continues detecting a second key selection and then
`selecting for input the secondary character associated with the second key
`selection.
`Here in the example that we are looking at with the 5 key, there is
`no doubt that if the user presses the 5 key, that is what will be input. And I
`would refer Your Honors to the patent at column 3, line 58, which says a
`second key selection from the keypad selects the character displayed 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
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`input. That means that the 5 key, when it's in the second state, has to be a
`secondary character per the express language.
`JUDGE JIVANI: Counsel, let's try this another way. Is the
`primary character -- actually, let's just do it this way. In Figure 1, is the
`number 5 a primary character?
`MR. MAURER: Yes.
`JUDGE JIVANI: In Figure 2, is the number 5 a secondary
`character?
`MR. MAURER: Yes.
`JUDGE JIVANI: Thank you.
`MR. MAURER: If you have nothing further on the claim
`construction --
`JUDGE JIVANI: Nothing further. You may move on.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Mr. Maurer, before you move on, do
`any of these constructions matter in terms of the arguments that patent
`owner has presented with respect to the asserted grounds of patentability?
`MR. MAURER: We do not believe so. They haven't made any
`arguments that we were able to identify where it impacts that for the same
`reasons Your Honors discussed in the institution decision at page 14. But
`also, I asked their expert, Mr. Porter, in deposition his opinions are not
`dependent on the claim construction, he admitted. And he couldn't identify
`how the claim construction that he proposed was relevant to his opinions.
`So we would suggest that they are not relevant.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So we could address the issues in this
`case without construing those terms?
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`MR. MAURER: Your Honor, yes. So let me go back to then I
`think which is the primary question facing the Board, which is would a
`person of skill in the art be motivated to remove the character substitution
`step from Sakata II. And the evidence here is that, yes, they would. Both
`the '913 patent and Sakata II are directed to efficient entry of text on a small
`screen device. They both solved that problem in the same way, by having an
`alternate character set available to the user that appears with a long press on
`the key where the user can then select one of those characters.
`I think it's notable that this alternate character display scheme
`which shows up on a long press was the grounds, which during the
`prosecution of the reissue, the patentee distinguished incorrectly the Sakata I
`reference, and returning the keypad to the default state was not mentioned as
`a grounds of distinction.
`So the difference then between Sakata II embodiment on which we
`rely and the '913 patent's claims boils down to this further step of character
`substitution. Why would a person of skill in the art be motivated to change
`it? Well, Sakata II's character substitution step is added for what it says are
`reasons of efficiency. If you look at paragraph 51 of Sakata II, that's
`Exhibit 1004, it says when the same special character or symbol is selected
`again, selective input can be carried out quickly without having to perform
`the dragging operation.
`So why would a person of skill in the art be motivated to change
`it? Well, as explained by Dr. Cockburn, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand that it's not always efficient to make that substitution. He
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`addresses this at paragraphs 146 and the following paragraphs of his
`declaration, paragraph 177 and the following paragraphs.
`JUDGE McKONE: Is that your only evidence here is the expert
`testimony or is there any other evidence the expert considers that we ought
`to be considering here?
`MR. MAURER: He certainly provides a reasoned explanation in
`those paragraphs as to why a person of skill in the art would understand this
`to be the case. But I also asked Mr. Porter, patent owner's expert, and he
`agreed that depending on the context of what the user is doing, there are
`situations where it would be efficient to change the character and there
`would be situations where it would not. We cite these portions of the
`deposition at page 12 of our reply. So a person would be motivated for that
`reason.
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Is this evidence that at the time of the filing of
`the challenged patent? We need to be careful about hindsight here.
`MR. MAURER: Absolutely. And I think the evidence of record
`makes it clear that this is one of those fundamental basic truths that a person
`of skill in the art would understand. There are certain characters that are
`going to be used more than other characters. And Dr. Cockburn provided
`reasoning for that, he provided the logic behind that, he provided examples
`of for instances when that might be true.
`JUDGE McKONE: Just to be clear, we would need to rely pretty
`much exclusively on your expert testimony as the evidence that supports the
`notion that at the time of the invention a person would have made this
`substitution?
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`MR. MAURER: Yes. I certainly think our expert provides that
`testimony. And again, I think that if you refer to the deposition cites of
`Mr. Porter that I referred to in our reply on page 12, there too, he allows that
`it is the case that in certain situations it will be efficient to switch and in
`certain situations it will not, which puts us, I think, squarely in the world of
`the quintessential case where the modification here is one of a very few, two
`in this case, potential solutions to the problem. That makes the modification
`obvious to try and renders this claim obvious.
`First, just to get this out of the way, there's no dispute that a person
`of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`modifying Sakata II. Dr. Cockburn testified to that, and Mr. Porter, patent
`owner's expert, admits that as well. I would refer you to --
`JUDGE McKONE: Now, when you say reasonable expectation of
`success, do you mean one could have implemented so it worked or one
`would have had a reasonable expectation that it would have been more
`efficient with the substitution?
`MR. MAURER: With respect to the reasonable expectation of
`success here, I'm talking about the second prong which is you could do it
`without an issue. Certainly I think there is the motivation as well. And the
`motivation here falls, at the very least, under the obvious to try rubric. It's as
`we just discussed, a person of skill in the art would understand that there are
`certain cases it would be efficient to remove the character and switch it out.
`In certain cases it would be efficient to keep it the same. And for that
`reason, Dr. Cockburn testified that removing the substitution step would
`have been among the predictable solutions that the person of skill in the art
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`with Sakata II would have envisioned to efficiently input text on the small
`display.
`That is, here there is a design need based on consistency and
`efficiently principles and a finite number of potential solutions, two
`solutions. One is to make the change which the Sakata II embodiment on
`which we rely does, and the other is not to make the change. And
`Dr. Cockburn's testimony is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have immediately recognized that as an option. And in the --
`JUDGE McKONE: Now, why is this argument more than a
`common sense argument?
`MR. MAURER: It's more than a common sense argument because
`it is supported by the -- the argument is premised on the person of skill in the
`art recognizing that in certain cases it would be efficient to change the
`character; in certain cases it would not be efficient to change the character.
`The evidence to support that, as we just discussed, Dr. Cockburn provides in
`his declaration. We asked Mr. Porter about it.
`And certainly the Board is entitled to rely on it. The board and
`courts routinely rely on expert testimony to inform the scope and content of
`the prior art. Dr. Cockburn's opinions in this regard are grounded in his
`experience. They are grounded in a reasonable and logical explanation.
`And if we want to turn to the Arendi case, and I'll quote from the
`Arendi case, 832 F.3d 1361: We stated in Perfect Web that common sense
`has long been recognized to inform the analysis if explained with sufficient
`reasoning.
`
`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 IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`We think this goes beyond common sense. But even if you believe
`that it is just common sense, the reasoning here provided by the expert as to
`the scope and content of the prior art makes it reliable, cogent evidence on
`which this Board can base an opinion.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Mr. Maurer, let me ask you a question.
`In looking at Sakata, I kind of understand this to be teaching a keyword
`that's dynamic in the sense that when you press on something and select a
`different character, it's constantly modifying and updating the keyboard to
`be dynamic as to how you are using it. Now you're telling us, oh, well, it
`would be obvious to just completely stop doing that and leave it static. That
`seems -- we have to read the combination in light of what the references
`actually teach. Why would it be obvious to take the whole design of Sakata,
`which is to make it dynamic, and scrap that? That's the trouble that I'm
`having.
`
`MR. MAURER: Let's take a look at Sakata. Let's look at slide 16,
`if we can. I think the premise that Sakata is all about character substitution,
`respectfully, is an incorrect premise. Sakata is addressed to the problem of
`more efficient character entry, when you have got too many characters to fit
`on the small screen. And the way it proposes to solve that is the use of these
`popup drag menus. If you look at paragraph 1 of Sakata which talks about
`what the invention is, the description of the problems in the prior art at
`paragraphs 6 through 8 of Sakata, the objective of the Sakata invention in
`paragraph 9, the solution to the problem in paragraph 10, all of that is
`discussing the issue of what you do when you have too many characters to
`fit on the small screen and what is the best way for a user to efficiently put
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`those in. That is Sakata's main thrust. And that's supported by the
`independent claims, which do not require a character substitution step. It's
`supported by the abstract, which we have up here on slide 16.
`If you read here, when it talks about the purpose of the invention
`and the solution to the problem here, it doesn't talk about the character
`substitution step. That is one aspect of one embodiment. It's true we are
`relying on that embodiment because that embodiment spells out in specific
`detail all of the elements of the claim, but it just adds an extra step. And
`what we are saying is it would be obvious to a person of skill in the art, and
`this is more than adequately supported by Dr. Cockburn's testimony, in his
`declaration and the admissions from Mr. Porter, it's more than obvious to
`remove that step. At the very least, it's a one of two predictable solutions.
`I would like to, if I can, address briefly the argument that Sakata
`II -- and I think this is related to your question, Judge Weinschenk, that
`Sakata teaches away from modifying that step. Teach away is -- there's a
`specific test for this recognized in the case law. A teach away is where a
`user would be -- a person of skill in the art would be discouraged from
`following the path set out in the reference. This is the Galderma Labs case
`that we cite in our papers. A reference that merely expresses a general
`preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or
`otherwise discourage investigation doesn't teach away. That is the state of
`the law.
`And when we look at Sakata II, Sakata --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Also, to be fair, the law also does say that
`something can teach away if it leads in a direction divergent from the
`invention; isn't that right?
`MR. MAURER: If it would discourage a person of skill in the art
`from pursuing that.
`JUDGE McKONE: That's two different things. Lead in a
`direction divergent and discourage are two different things, are they not?
`MR. MAURER: I think those are -- I took them to be the same.
`But even if it is, we don't have discouragement here. We don't have leading
`someone else in a different direction for several reasons. As we just
`discussed, the focus of Sakata II is on its use of the drag menu as a more
`efficient way to input characters on the small screen devices. We know that
`from the independent claims which do not require the character substitution
`step which only comes in at the dependent claims. We know that from the
`specification. We know that from the abstract, which we have on the screen
`here on slide 16, which doesn't mention substitution. We know that from the
`teachings in paragraph 25 where it says not that the keyboard must be
`changed but that the keyboard may be changed. And we know that this extra
`step, as according to Sakata, is an added convenience from paragraph 51.
`So it's not the case that --
`JUDGE JIVANI: Counsel, what about with regard to
`paragraph 51, what about paragraph 56 where the character substitution step
`is specifically praised by Sakata? Paragraph 56 reads, When a character or
`symbol is selected and entered using only the character symbol shown on the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`soft keyboard 20, a drag menu is not displayed. Therefore, a user selection
`operation becomes simple.
`You are asking us to accept that this teaching which extols the
`benefit of character substitution does not teach away from ignoring character
`substitution. Why would we do that?
`MR. MAURER: That is a discussion of that particular
`embodiment.
`JUDGE JIVANI: On which you rely.
`MR. MAURER: That's absolutely correct, that's an embodiment
`on which we rely. But we rely on Sakata II as a whole as well.
`JUDGE JIVANI: So you are relying on all of the embodiments of
`Sakata II?
`MR. MAURER: We are relying on Sakata II as our primary
`reference. In particular, we are relying on the embodiment that is tied to
`those paragraphs in Figure 8. I'm not denying that. But that doesn't make
`the rest of Sakata II irrelevant. It still teaches a person of skill in the art.
`And what it teaches is that this step, this character substitution step is just an
`added efficiency which does have some benefits. But as Dr. Cockburn
`testified, a person of skill in the art would understand that that's not always
`true, that those benefits are not always true. But even if you were to find
`that Sakata II's disclosure would lead a person of skill in the art to think that
`character substitution was a better option based on Sakata II than not
`substituting, that doesn't change the result. It's still obvious.
`And here I would refer you to the Bayer case that we cite. It's 874
`F.3d at 1328 they say obviousness does not require that the motivation 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
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art
`didn't teach away. And it's clear that there's no teaching away here. In the
`context of the same argument as the patent owner is making here, the
`Federal Circuit in Bayer held that, quote, when there are only two possible
`formulations and both are known in the art at the time, that there are reasons
`a skilled artisan would prefer one over the other does not amount to a
`teaching away from the lesser preferred but still workable option. And they
`found the claims obvious. That's at worst, at the very worst, that's where we
`are, clear that this is a workable option, clear that a person of skill in the art
`would understand it.
`If I may, I would like to briefly address the claim 4 and the key
`character table. Patent owner has raised the question of whether Sakata II,
`despite having a disclosure that's essentially on all fours with the '913
`patent's disclosure adequately describes the structure of the key character
`table. It clearly does. The structure that we are talking about here as agreed
`to correspond to the claimed functions in claim 4, has some hardware
`components, including a memory which includes a computer program and
`one or more key character table. The role of the key character table, as the
`'913 patent describes it, is to provide information to the processor relating to
`the keypad to be displayed and also the characters to be selected. This is at
`column 4, line 52.
`Let's look at, if we can, slide 12. And they provide in the '913
`patent in table 1 and table 2 which we looked at previously, an example of a
`key character table where you have got the key position, you've got the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`primary character and then table 1 has some secondary characters that
`optionally can be displayed in the default display as well.
`It's clear that such a structure is also present in Sakata II. If we
`look at slide 19, this is Figure 2 of Sakata, and it is a grouping of symbols
`which list the alternate characters and then maps them to a primary
`character. And I refer you to the Sakata description, Exhibit 1004 at
`paragraphs 19 through 25 where it describes exactly what this table is and
`how it maps those characters to a primary character for display when that
`primary character is long pressed on.
`JUDGE JIVANI: So counsel, do we need in Sakata II description
`of how the memory of Sakata is structured?
`MR. MAURER: I don't believe that we do. The role as the '913
`patent describes the KCT is to provide information to the microprocessor as
`to what character is displayed where and how to know which one is selected.
`Clearly the description of Sakata II does that. But even if we need a table,
`per se, if we look at the abstract, which is slide 16, it describes it as a table.
`Right in the solution, a similar character or similar group is allocated to one
`to plural preliminarily-defined specific positions in a table of a plurality of
`characters.
`Porter, Mr. Porter, patent owner's expert, and I'm referring now to
`his deposition at 67, lines 20 through 25, describes a table as just a type of
`data structure that's stored in a device's and memory. And the function of
`that table, Mr. Porter agrees, is to hold data in a way a computer can access
`it in order to use it. That's at 84, line 8. So it's clear that Sakata II meets
`that. In order for Sakata II to function, the key information has to 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
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`accessed and used to display the keys as well as determine the key that was
`selected for input.
`But at the very least, Sakata II describes an equivalent. Even if
`you decide that it doesn't disclose a key character table, it clearly discloses a
`data structure of some sort that functions in the same way to reach the same
`result. I'd point you to pages 105 through 107 of Mr. Porter's deposition
`where we went into that in detail.
`Let me turn, then, if you don't have any further questions on that,
`to Buxton. The patentee has argued that the reliance on Buxton as a
`reference is misplaced. I think that reflects a misunderstanding as to the
`reasons why Dr. Cockburn is relying on Buxton. Buxton is very similar to
`the '913 patent and Sakata II. It's a system for text entry of alternate
`characters using a popup display that appears on a long press. Dr. Cockburn
`relies on it to reinforce that returning to a default state after display of a
`popup menu was a known and desirable option in the art. He cites in
`particular support for the point that consistency was recognized as important
`to a person of skill in the art, in particular, the teaching of leaving a
`keyboard unaltered upon removing an overlaid menu.
`I respectfully point the Board to, I think, the institution decision at
`page 18 where this issue is addressed. I don't think the positions of the
`parties have changed since then and that that is still correct. In particular,
`the cite, In re Keller, which the test for obviousness is not whether the
`features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
`structure of the primary reference instead of what the combined teaching
`would suggest to a person of skill in the art. And the combined teaching
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`would suggest to a person of skill in the art here, as Dr. Cockburn testified,
`that you would not want to change the character or at the very least that that
`was an alternative option not to change them.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Isn't Buxton a little different, though, in
`that what's coming up in the popup menu is not a character, though, right?
`MR. MAURER: Let's look at 21, if we can. I have put Buxton on
`the screen with the popup menu there. And what you have is when you
`press it, you then get this marking menu. And if you move your key to the
`up, you get an upper case A in this instance. If you move it to the right, you
`get the control A. Buxton is clear that this is a character. When you do this
`and you move it up, you get an upper case A. That's a character. And when
`you move it to the right, you get a control A which is a character. That's
`what it describes it as.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: I think in the display, the second
`display, which is the popup there, is not actually a character, right? The
`thing that says upper case is a word. Not a character.
`MR. MAURER: Upper case is a word, but it refers to a character.
`Whether you consider upper case a character or not, I think is, again
`respectfully, not relevant to the point that Dr. Cockburn is using this for,
`which is to say that when you have something that pops up which describes
`an alternate character you could be entering, that certainly describes it even
`if it isn't one, then you remove it and you returned to the default keyboard.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: I think the point that patent owner is
`trying to make is that in a situation like this where you are displaying a word
`or a function like upper case, it makes a lot more sense not to change the
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00386, IPR2017–01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`display to upper case, then. Whereas, when you have Sakata, which is
`characters, maybe it makes more sense to change the display.
`MR. MAURER: Well, I mean, I understand their argument, but I
`think the testimony on record of this is that when this is popped up, it is
`referring to a character that the person of skill in the art would understand so
`that when you move it to the right, even if it's not the character A that pops
`up, you understand when you are moving it to a control, you are entering th
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
