Paper No. 41
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IPA TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811,
`IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813, IPR2019-00814
`(Patent 6,851,115 B1)
`
`and
`
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836,
`IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`_____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Monday, July 27, 2020 and Tuesday, July 28, 2020
`_____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, MINN CHUNG, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IPA TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811,
`IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813, IPR2019-00814
`(Patent 6,851,115 B1)
`
`and
`
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836,
`IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`_____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Monday, July 27, 2020 and Tuesday, July 28, 2020
`_____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, MINN CHUNG, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`JOSEPH MICALLEF, ESQUIRE
`SCOTT BORDER, ESQUIRE
`ETHAN PLAIL, ESQUIRE
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, NW
`Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`STEVEN HARTSELL, ESQUIRE
`SADAF ABDULLAH, ESQUIRE
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`1601 Elm Street
`Suite 4400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, July 27,
`2020, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, and Tuesday, July 28, 2020,
`commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: All right. Welcome,
`everybody. It looks like we have everybody
`online. I'm Judge Pettigrew. Judges Chung and
`Trock are also participating in this hearing by
`video.
` This is a consolidated oral argument for
`eight cases: IPR 2019-00810, 811, 812, 813, 814,
`835, 836, and 837.
` There are two challenged patents: Patent
`Number 6,851,115 and 7,069,560. Petitioner is
`Microsoft Corporation, and patent owner is IPA
`Technologies Inc.
` At this time we'd like counsel to
`introduce yourselves and all members of your team
`who are on the -- on the call, starting with
`petitioner, please.
` MR. MICALLEF: Thank you, your Honor.
` Good afternoon. This is Joe Micallef from
`Sidley Austin, and with me in the room is my
`partner Scott Border from Sidley and my associate
`Ethan Plail. I believe my client Rob Lytle from
`Microsoft has joined telephonically, although I
`understand there had been some technical
`difficulties, so I'm not 100 percent sure if he
`3
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`has made it in.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: All right. Thank you,
`counsel.
` And patent owner.
` MR. HARTSELL: Good morning, your Honor.
`This is Steven Hartsell, lead counsel for patent
`owner. With me here today in the room is my
`colleague Sadaf Abdullah. She'll be arguing for
`IPA today. And also with us on the line are
`several representatives of IPA, including
`Mr. Nicholas Wilson, Mr. Michael Zheng, Mr. Brian
`Rinaldi, and Mr. Sanco Faletta.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: All right. Thank you,
`counsel.
` We appreciate the parties' flexibility in
`conducting this video hearing today. We know this
`is a departure from our typical practice, at least
`before March or so, so we'll start with some
`general guidance.
` First, our primary concern is your right
`to be heard. So, if at any time during the
`proceeding you encounter technical or other
`difficulties that you feel undermine your ability
`to represent your client adequately, please let us
`know immediately, for example, by contacting the
`team member who provided you with connection
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`information.
` Second, when not speaking, please mute
`yourself, and we'll try to do the same.
` Third, please identify yourself when you
`begin speaking. This helps the court reporter
`prepare an accurate transcript.
` Fourth, as you know, we have the entire
`record, including the parties' demonstratives.
`When referring to demonstratives or papers or
`other exhibits, please do so clearly and
`explicitly by slide number or page number. Please
`also pause a few seconds to provide us time to
`find what you're referring to. This helps the
`preparation of an accurate transcript, as well.
` And, finally, please be aware that members
`of the public may be listening to this oral
`hearing today.
` And let's turn to the specifics for this
`hearing. As set forth in our hearing order, this
`consolidated hearing will take place over the
`course of two days with approximately two hours
`today and two hours tomorrow, beginning again
`tomorrow at 1 p.m. Eastern.
` The parties have conferred and agreed to a
`loose division of topics for the hearing, with
`some issues to be addressed today and others to be
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`addressed tomorrow.
` The parties have also agreed that if
`they're unable to address any issues they plan to
`cover today due to time constraints, they may
`address them tomorrow.
` It's also possible the panel will have
`some follow-up questions tomorrow regarding some
`issues that were addressed today.
` We also have one additional request. One
`of the topics for tomorrow or that the parties
`have proposed to address tomorrow is the prior art
`status of the FIPA97 reference. We would like you
`to address that issue tomorrow first in your
`presentations to ensure that there's sufficient
`time to cover it tomorrow.
` The parties have also proposed that each
`side have one hour of argument per day and be able
`to reserve rebuttal time on each day. We agree
`that's a reasonable way to proceed. So each day
`will begin with petitioner's opening presentation,
`followed by patent owner's presentation, followed
`by petitioner's rebuttal, and followed by patent
`owner's surrebuttal. Each party may reserve no
`more than half of its total time for rebuttal.
` There will be a single transcript for the
`entire hearing, beginning with today's arguments
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`and continuing with tomorrow's arguments. A full
`transcript of the hearing will become part of the
`public record.
` All right. Petitioner, you may begin when
`you're ready.
` MR. MICALLEF: I'm sorry, your Honor. I
`thought I had unmuted myself.
` Thank you. This is Joe Micallef for
`petitioner. I would like to reserve 20 minutes
`for rebuttal.
` Your Honors, we've prepared a large number
`of slides and filed them with the panel. I have
`no intention of going through every one of them.
`I put a lot of evidence on those slides, for the
`most part, just in case there were questions about
`various issues. There, obviously, are a number of
`issues treated in the briefs. But I will go
`through a number of them, and I'll try to direct
`the panel to where I'm speaking or where they
`should be focused.
` I'd like to start with just slide 2 and
`actually slide 2 or 3 -- 2 and 3. Slide 2 lists
`the grounds at issue with respect to the '115
`patent, and slide 3 lists the grounds at issue
`with respect to the '560 patent.
` As you can see in these slides, there are
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`a number of distinct grounds; however, the point I
`would like to make is they are all based on the
`same basic combination of the prior art Kiss
`patent and the prior art FIPA97 specification.
`And, so, my arguments, for the most part, are
`going to be, and I suspect all of the arguments
`today and tomorrow, are going to be focused on
`that particular combination.
` So, the next three slides are just roadmap
`slides, but what I'd like to do is just go right
`to an overview of these patents. So, if I could
`direct your attention to slide 7 -- of
`petitioner's demonstratives, obviously.
` So, the two patents, the '115 and the '560
`are related. The '560 is a continuation of the
`'115 patent, which was issued from an
`application filed in January 1999. They have the
`same disclosure, very similar claims. The patents
`are directed to -- basically directed to a
`computer system and architecture that employs
`software agents for cooperative problem solving.
` And, so, if I can ask you to look at slide
`8, this is figure 6 from the '115 patent. It's
`sort of a basic high-level functional diagram, if
`you will, of the system. And you can see here the
`system includes a number of different agents with
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`differing capabilities.
` So, just starting on the left-hand side of
`that figure, there's user interface agents,
`there's a speech recognition agent, a voicemail
`agent, et cetera. And you can -- and when you
`read the patent, of course, it explains how each
`of these agents have different capabilities that
`can be employed to solve problems.
` Now, in this figure, there's also a
`facilitator agent, which sort of sits in the
`middle of the system and coordinates communication
`and cooperative problem solving among the multiple
`agents.
` So, as it's explained in the patents, for
`example, a user may make a request of the system
`through the user interface agent or a user
`interface agent, for example, and that request
`will get translated into an interagent
`communication language and passed on to the
`facilitator agent.
` The facilitator agent in the relevant
`functionality will break up the request if it's
`complex enough into multiple sub-requests or
`sub-goals, will access an agent registry it has
`access to that lists all of the active agents in
`the system and their -- and the services or
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`capabilities those individual agents can provide,
`respectively, and will match agent capabilities
`with sub-request and then send off the sub-request
`to selected agents so that they can each use their
`capabilities to fulfill their request.
` That is the basic functionality, I will
`suggest to you, is underlying all the claims and
`that are -- that underlies a number of -- probably
`the vast number of the issues that we're going to
`be talking about here.
` So, if I could get you to turn to slide 11
`of our demonstratives, I just want to do a -- go
`over a brief overview of the prior art at issue
`here. The main reference is the Kiss patent, the
`prior art Kiss patent. It discloses an extremely
`similar system. You can see here in figure 8
`right in the middle of this slide is another --
`some, I guess, functional block diagram of the
`Kiss system.
` There are multiple agents in this system.
`There are, for example, in this figure, the user
`agent to the left; there's a meta-agent, 707, in
`the middle; and then there are a number of what
`the Kiss patent refers to as "knowledge agents" on
`the right-hand side there, a sales knowledge
`agent, a production knowledge agent, a marketing
`
`
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`knowledge agent, et cetera.
` And as Kiss explains, in this system, the
`request comes in from the user and, in this
`particular figure, it's in that big arrow, the
`example request that Kiss describes what is the
`effect of increasing sales by 20 percent. And
`that is submitted through a user interface agent
`to the meta-agent that makes use of what's called
`the "agent service layer," which includes an
`agent registry listing the agents in the system
`that are available and have registered and the
`capabilities of each such agent.
` And through a process, the meta-agent, in
`conjunction with the agent service layer, will
`break up the request into a number of
`sub-requests, find the correct agent to send the
`sub-requests to by matching the sub-request to the
`agent capabilities, and then send off the
`sub-request to the various knowledge agents in the
`system.
` And in Kiss, figures 8 through 20 is a
`very detailed description of how this would work,
`the back and forth between the agents in this
`example that's listed here in figure 8 and the
`example of the request for service that is what is
`the effect of increasing sales by 20 percent.
`
`
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
` If I can get you to move to slide 12, so
`we have -- Kiss, obviously, was before the
`examiner and the examiner used it to continually
`reject the claims until one aspect of the recited
`interagent communication language was amended and
`then the claims issued. So, our petitions don't
`proceed on Kiss alone but on the combination of
`Kiss with a specification from the Foundation for
`Intelligent Physical Agents or what we call
`FIPA97, or that's how I pronounce it, although
`some people call it "Fee' pa," and I don't really
`know what's right, but I'm going to go with "Fipe'
`pa."
` So, FIPA97 describes a similar system. As
`you can see here on slide 12, figure 2, it
`includes a number of different agents. Those are
`depicted in the square boxes, A, B, C, D, and E.
`They -- in some embodiments, they can be in
`different domains, but they're associated with
`what is called a "directory facilitator" or more
`than one, which is depicted there in the
`rectangular box with a "DF" in it.
` And the directory facilitator acts similar
`to the meta-agent and agent service layer in Kiss
`or the facilitator in the system in the '115
`system. It's a sort of a Yellow Pages. It lists
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`the available and registered agents in the system
`and their capabilities, and the directory
`facilitator uses it to match agent capabilities
`with the needs of a request from the user.
` Now, if I can get you to turn to slide 13
`of the petitioner's demonstratives, so, there are
`seven parts to the FIPA specification, or FIPA
`specification. Part 2 is directed to the agent
`communication language or ACL of FIPA, and this is
`sort of a core of our combination, although there
`were other aspects of the FIPA spec that we
`addressed and combined in the petitions.
` But you can see in figure 1 in the middle
`of slide 13 is an example of a message or event in
`a FIPA system as an event type, which in this case
`would be "inform." So, this is a message that would
`inform other agents, one or more other agents of
`something.
` There are a number of parameters --
`sender, receiver, in-reply-to, reply-with, language,
`ontology -- that say more about that event. And
`then there is a layer of content right there you
`can see in the middle. It says, "content," and in
`this particular case, I believe the interpretation
`of that is a -- the price of a certain bid that I
`believe is 150. I think that's how you would
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`interpret that particular example.
` In any event, we also pointed to a number
`of the event types or performatives that are
`described in the FIPA specification. One we'll
`talk about in a little bit is listed here on the
`right. It's the "call for proposal" performative.
`That it is, again, an event type, and I'll get
`back to that.
` So, that's the basic -- there's,
`obviously, there was more to it in the petitions,
`and for some claims, we relied on some tertiary
`references, I guess, but that's the basic
`combination.
` I wanted to right -- right off the bat
`discuss the justifications or reasons for
`combining these references as we described, as we
`set forth in the petitions. And if I could get
`you to look at slides 19 to 20, and the reason I
`am -- I'm doing this, and all I've listed here in
`sort of bullet summary format were all the
`different reasons to combine that we put in the
`petitions justifying the combination of the FIPA
`specification with the Kiss patent.
` And the reason I'm pointing this to you,
`pointing this out, is that the other side has made
`what I think is the extraordinary argument that we
`
`
`
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`did not advance any motivations to combine.
`It's -- I think that's just -- I'm a little
`surprised at how they can say that. We have --
`obviously, we pointed out this is analogous art,
`but we also pointed out that this would just be an
`arrangement of old elements with each performing
`its own function without any predictable results.
` Right out of KSR, that's a reason to make
`a combination. But far beyond that, a number of
`different motivations we identified in the
`petition and we supported by evidence in the prior
`art, evidence of publications and patents that
`say, for example, you want to use the common
`communications protocol between the different
`agents in the system so that they can inter-
`operate.
` There were statements -- if you look at
`slide 20, we had statements in the prior art about
`the known advantages of FIPA97. We pointed out
`that there were only a few at the time, only a few
`of these interagent communication languages that
`have been developed, and FIPA was one of them, so
`it would be obvious to try.
` My point here is that we have listed a
`number of different reasons to make this
`combination, and they have not -- they have not
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`addressed any of them with any specificity. They
`have just sort of waved their hand and said
`there's no motivation to combine, and I submit to
`you that that's not enough.
` So, just two more points on the
`combination, and then I'll get into some of the
`disputed issues. Slide 21, if I can ask you to
`turn to that slide, the facilitator agent in a
`number of -- is an element in a number of the
`claims and it is an element of the claims that is
`at the heart of some dispute.
` In our combination in the petitions, and I
`will address this more specifically in a moment, I
`want to make sure the panel understands what we
`accused as satisfy -- or pointed out as satisfying
`the claimed facilitator agent. It's on this page
`here.
` We say that the meta-agent, 707, of Kiss,
`in combination with the agent service layer of
`Kiss, was a facilitator agent as claimed. Now, we
`also said that these directory facilitators in
`FIPA would have had analogous functionality, so in
`the combination, it would be implemented in that
`same portion of the Kiss system. I'm not sure it
`adds much but, generally, it was the meta-agent
`combined with the agent service layer and the
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`principal reason for that combination is that Kiss
`discloses the agent registry to be in the agent
`service layer.
` Now, for some dependent claims, we also
`said that -- we pointed to certain aspects of a
`prior art paper describing a blackboard server,
`and we -- we argue that those aspects, it would
`have been obvious to include them, also.
` But the basic facilitator agent in the
`prior art combination that we point to in the
`petition is the -- is the meta-agent plus the
`agent service layer.
` And as you'll see, the reason I'm
`stressing that is because their arguments go
`solely to the meta-agent and they ignore the
`combination that we actually -- or the structures
`in Kiss that we actually identify in our view.
` Now, just one more point. Obviously,
`bodily incorporation is not the issue when it
`comes to an obvious combination in the prior art,
`but if you look at slide 22, we did point out that
`the Kiss patent has a functional block diagram for
`the agent architecture of its system, and it
`included a conversation manager, which is a
`portion -- as you might expect, a portion of the
`agent that would manage conversations in the
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`system and, of course, that was the logical place
`to put the interagent communication language
`functionality for FIPA that we would put into the
`agents of Kiss.
` So, if I could turn to a couple of the
`disputed issues, there are two claim construction
`issues that I wanted to address. The first one,
`if I could ask you to turn to slide 29. Excuse
`me.
` So, this is a -- there's a dispute as to
`the proper interpretation of the phrase "goal
`satisfaction plan." Our argument, our proposed
`interpretation is that it's a procedure for
`sending one or more requests for service to one or
`more agents in order -- in order to satisfy a
`goal.
` Their argument is a plan for the
`satisfaction of a complex goal expression in an
`optimal or near optimal manner that is consistent
`with any advice parameters or constraints.
` I want to start with, because there was
`some back and forth in the briefing, about the
`differences between procedure and plan. And I --
`or I should say for ours, a procedure to satisfy a
`goal, and theirs, plan.
` I want -- my main point is I don't think
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`there's any difference in this context for the
`issues that are raised in these proceedings
`between those two words. I think they are
`functionally equivalent. I don't think it changes
`anything. And if you wanted to use "plan" instead
`of "procedure," I don't think that changes
`anything. All of our evidence still -- still
`satisfies the claims.
` Why did we use "procedure" and not "plan,"
`very simply, in my view, if you're going to engage
`in claim construction, it should be something more
`than simply moving the words of the claim around.
`Right? We could have said, well, you should
`construe this to mean plan for satisfying a goal.
`But I don't see how something like that, which I
`think is very close to what they've done except
`for there's some extraneous limitations, I don't
`see how a construction like that is very helpful
`in any way.
` So, we tried to put a little bit more meat
`on the bones, but I don't think there's -- I
`submit to you there's no difference here between
`"plan" and "procedure," particularly where ours is
`a procedure to satisfy a goal.
` Now, the big points of contention here,
`obviously, are they say it has to be the optimal
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`or near optimal manner and consistent with any
`advice parameter strengths.
` JUDGE CHUNG: Counsel, this is Judge
`Chung. So, I have a question on this goal
`satisfaction plan. It's not a question per se on claim
`construction but, rather, whether we construe this
`claim limitation at all.
` As we stated in our decision, the
`independent claims expressly recite what a goal
`satisfaction plan includes. For example,
`claim 1 recites that a goal satisfaction plan
`includes a suitable delegation of sub-goal
`requests, et cetera, et cetera, and dispatching
`each of the sub-goals to a selected client agent
`for performance, et cetera, et cetera. And those
`are two long kind of sub-limitations.
` If we find, for the sake of argument,
`hypothetically, that, let's say, Kiss satisfies
`those limitations that -- that the claim expressly
`recites as including, that is, suitable delegation of
`sub-goal requests and dispatching each of the
`sub-goals, do we still need to find what a goal
`satisfaction plan means?
` MR. MICALLEF: If you were -- if you
`reject their extraneous limitations, you do not.
`So, what you just pointed to in claim 1, those
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`claim elements, if satisfied, I think, would
`satisfy our interpretation here, a procedure for
`sending one or more requests for service to one or
`more agents in order to satisfy a goal.
` Their extraneous limitations, however, add
`additional things that I'm not so sure you could
`find in those claim elements that you just
`identified.
` Does that answer your question, your
`Honor?
` JUDGE CHUNG: Yes.
` MR. MICALLEF: Thank you.
` So, very briefly, just to -- we briefed
`this out, but I will say in slide -- let me -- if
`I could direct your attention to slide 30. There
`is really -- there is only one primary example --
`there's only one example of this -- this
`functionality that's referred to here in this --
`for example, that you just read, your Honor, the
`constructing a goal satisfaction plan.
` It's described in the patent with respect to
`figure 11. I think it's at column 18 in the
`middle. That's the only example. In slide 30,
`that's what I have.
` If you read through that, you will see
`that what is described is a procedure for sending
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`one or more requests for service to one or more
`agents in order to satisfy a goal. And, so, my
`point with this slide is only that our
`interpretation, our proposed interpretation, is
`consistent with the -- with the primary disclosure
`that supports this claim language.
` I would point out that the language you
`just pointed me to, your Honor, is the claim
`language is also consistent, as I think a
`different way of saying the point I just made in
`responding to your answer, our interpretation is
`also consistent with that claim language.
` Now, on the other side of the table, if I
`could direct your attention to slide 32, what we
`have here on slide 32 is the patent owner's
`proposed construction. And on the right-hand
`side, this is the passage from the patent that
`they rely on principally about -- to read in these
`optimal and near optimal and advice parameter
`limitations.
` But as you can see, what we've said here,
`or what we've highlighted here, this passage is
`discussing a preferred embodiment. And in this
`day and age, the law in the federal circuit on
`claim construction on this kind of situation is
`pretty clear. You don't read in extraneous
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`limitations from the specification, even in a
`preferred embodiment, unless there's a clear
`definition or a clear and unambiguous disclaimer.
`Neither of these things are here. They're not
`even arguing they're here.
` So, the fact that these elements or these
`limitations are described with respect to a
`preferred embodiment is not sufficient
`justification to read them into the claim.
` Now, they've made another argument in
`their briefing about the prosecution history,
`about the -- there's a passage in the prosecution
`history of the '115 that talked about the
`procedure for making coffee, I think, roasting the
`beans, et cetera, and they seem to suggest that
`that is enough -- another basis or a different
`basis for reading these extraneous limitations in.
` And I would want to suggest to you that
`that is simply not the case. They haven't
`actually argued it to be a prosecution history
`disclaimer, nor could they. It doesn't say
`anything about optimal or near optimal. It
`doesn't say anything about advice parameters.
` The real argument they were making was
`that Kiss is just about looking for information
`from various databases. And the examiner, quite
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00810, IPR2019-00811, IPR2019-00812, IPR2019-00813,
`IPR2019-00814 (Patent 6,851,115 B1) and
`IPR2019-00835, IPR2019-00836, IPR2019-00837 (Patent 7,069,560 B1)
`
`correctly, continually rejected that argument and
`said there's nothing in your claim that would
`limit it in that manner, so I'm not going to buy
`that argument.
` So, we've got zero justification for
`limiting the claim language in that way, and
`either I would say you don't need to interpret
`that phrase or I think -- I would ask you to adopt
`our interpretation.
` Now, if I could go to slide 35 to deal
`with the other claim construction issue here, this
`is a "process characteristic." And starting with
`theirs, I think, once again, what they're doing
`here is sort of moving words of the claim language
`around. Characteris
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
