Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`Entered: July 30, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held virtually: July 15, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
`SHIELA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`Entered: July 30, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held virtually: July 15, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
`SHIELA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOSHUA L. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
`ERIKA H. ARNER, ESQ.
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRETT A. MANGRUM, ESQ.
`Ethridge Law Group
`1100 Queensboro Boulevard, Unit 200
`Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
`
`Also Present, Observing:
`
`JOE SHEERER
`STEVE PEDERSEN
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, July 15,
`
`2021, commencing at 1:01 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` (Proceedings begin at 1:01 p.m.)
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon.
` This is the hearing for IPR2020-00755 between
`Google LLC and Uniloc 2017 LLC involving U.S. Patent No.
`6,366,908.
` I am Judge Medley, and with me are Judges Droesch
` and McShane.
` At this time, we'd like the parties to please
` introduce counsel for the record, beginning with the
` Petitioner.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
` This is Joshua Goldberg for Petitioner Google.
` With me I have my lead counsel Erika Arner, and on
`the phone, Joe Sheerer, IP counsel at Google.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: And Mr. Goldberg, you will be
`arguing? Presenting argument?
` MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thank you.
` And for Patent Owner, who do we have?
` MR. MANGRUM: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
` This is Brett Mangrum for Patent Owner. I'd like to
`also announce that Steve Pedersen, in-house counsel for
`patent owner, is listening on the line. And I will be
`arguing today on behalf of Patent Owner.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thanks so much.
` All right. So each party, as you know from our
` order, has 45 minutes total time to present your arguments.
` Petitioner, you'll proceed first and may reserve
` some of your argument time to respond to arguments presented
` by the Patent Owner.
` Thereafter, the Patent Owner will respond to
` Petitioner's presentation and may reserve argument time for
` surrebuttal.
` Mr. Goldberg, do you wish to reserve some of your
` time to respond, and how much?
` MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, Your Honor. I will reserve 20
`minutes.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you.
` And Mr. Mangrum, would you like to reserve time, and
`how much?
` MR. MANGRUM: Yes. I'd like to reserve time. I
`anticipate needing no longer than 10 minutes.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thank you.
` Okay. Mr. Goldberg, when you're ready, we're ready
`for you.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, Your Honor.
` I'd like to start with Slide 2.
` As you may recall from the Institution Decision,
`Google had eight grounds in its Petition. All of them were
`instituted.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` There are seven of those grounds, however, that
`Uniloc has not presented any arguments for other than saying
`because Ground 1 fails, those other grounds fail, so today
`I'm going to focus on just the first ground, that is that
`Claims 6 to 12 are unpatentable as obvious over
`Braden-Harder in view of Grossman.
` Turning to Slide 3.
` There are actually a very limited number of issues
`that the Board needs to decide here.
` The level of ordinary skill in the art is not
`disputed by Uniloc. They have not presented an alternative
`so there's no need for the Board to address any dispute
`there.
` As for the step-plus-function terms, although there
`was a dispute as to whether the terms in Claim 6 are
`governed by step-plus-function or not, the outcome, as the
` Board recognized in its Institution Decision, does not turn
` on that.
` Regardless of whether the claims are interpreted
` under step-plus-function or not, Google has shown that the
` claims are unpatentable and, therefore, again, the Board
` really doesn't need to decide that issue.
` In addition, the claim construction of the term
` keyfact is another one where, either way, whether keyfact is
` interpreted under Uniloc's original litigation construction
` or interpreted under its much narrower new construction that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` it introduced in its Patent Owner Response, either way we've
` shown that the claims are unpatentable.
` And I just want to pause for a second. I'm hearing
` some kind of background noise. I want to make sure the
` judges can hear me okay.
` Okay, thank you.
` JUDGE DROESCH: I'm sorry. This is Judge Droesch
`speaking.
` And I believe somebody does not have themselves on
`mute. If everybody could just doublecheck that you're on
`mute. I hear some background noise.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Turning to the last point here.
` We, in our Petition, have argued that in that first
`ground, Braden-Harder in view of Grossman, that Heidorn and
`Messerly are incorporated into Braden-Harder.
` And again, there has been no dispute from Uniloc
`about whether that incorporation was proper, so again, that's
`another issue that the Board does not need to decide.
` Turning to Slide 4.
` The issues are also very limited here because
` Google's expert testimony remains unrebutted. Uniloc did
` not introduce any new evidence post Institution. The
` record, as it stood at the Institution Decision, is exactly
` the record as it stands today.
` Uniloc provided no expert declaration to rebut
` Dr. Jansen's expert testimony, Uniloc did not seek to depose
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` or cross examine Dr. Jansen, and Uniloc did not provide any
` other evidence to change the Board's reasoning in the
` Institution Decision. All Uniloc presented was bare
` attorney arguments.
` If we turn to Slide 5, we can see here an overview
` of Claim 6, the three big steps color-coded as they were
` in the Petition; keyfact extracting step, keyfact indexing
` step, and keyfact retrieving step.
` I'm going to focus today on the keyfact extracting
` step because that's really the only place that Uniloc has
` presented any new, meaningful arguments since the
` Institution Decision.
` They did have some arguments about the keyfact
` retrieving step, but they're identical to what the Board
` already saw and addressed at its Institution Decision so
` I'll leave those for now, unless the Board has specific
` questions on them.
` Turning to Slide 6, we can see a summary here of the
` different positions that exist for the term keyfact.
` As I noted earlier, Uniloc has a litigation
` construction for this that it argued to the District Court.
` They told the District Court that, "keyfact means a fact
` contained in sentences," and Google adopted --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Mr. Goldberg?
` MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Excuse me for interrupting. I have a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`question before we get into keyfact and what that means and
`all of that.
` I just want to go back to the -- I believe it's your
`position that the claims invoke 112-6?
` MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, Your Honor, that is our
`position, but we don't think that it's necessary for the
`Board to decide that because the claims are actually as noted
`in the Institution Decision. It's kind of a broader view
`when you don't look at the means-plus-function, so I think
`either way the claims have been shown unpatentable and the
`Board really doesn't have to make that decision.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. I'm trying to wrap my head
`around all of the issues raised by Patent Owner.
` It seems to me they're saying, well, it does matter
`because the way that you're construing the claims then is
`that the claims just contain function and that you look to
`the spec then for the corresponding acts. That they're sayingthe claims
`actually include the acts and that you don't address
`the acts that are in the claim language. I believe that's what
`they're saying.
` Is that really kind of form over substance so
`that, in respect, you have addressed the acts, you just do so by
`then looking to the specification; is that correct?
` MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, that's exactly correct, Your
`Honor. And let me actually jump to that and we can come back
`to the keyfact issue later.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` If you want to turn to our Slide 11, we have here
`Claim 6 and Claim 7 shown.
` And the main -- well, in fact, really the only part
`of the claim that Uniloc actually argues this for is for why
`our Petition is deficient in its mappings to the prior art
`as the analyzing step shown in blue, which is part of the
`keyfact extracting step of Claim 6.
` And we can see here the blue shown in Claim 6 and
`then the corresponding blue shown in Claim 7.
` And one of the key issues that I think it's
`important to recognize here is that Claim 7 does not refer
`to the act of Claim 6, and Claim 6 doesn't expressly recite
`any act.
` Claim 6 recites a series of steps, the keyfact
`extracting step is one of them.
` Claim 7 explains what some potential substeps are
`that are basically an embodiment of the keyfact extracting
`step from the specification.
` And if we turn to Slide 7, we can see how this
`actually impacts the analyzing, which, again, is the only
`one that Uniloc actually pointed to when it was disputing
`our Petition mappings.
` And on the right-hand side, you can see, at the top
`of the slide -- this is in the '908 patent at Column 5,
`lines 15 to 19 -- it talks about how analyzing a document is
`done, and it says, "The way you analyze a document is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`through the processes of morphological analysis."
` And then we can see in Claim 6, you've got analyzing
`the document. You go down to Claim 7, and there's the
`analyzing morphology, which is the way that you analyze a
`document.
` So by showing that these different parts of Claim 7,
`which, you know, in fact, we actually ended up mapping them
`in the context of Claim 6 as well because we were arguing
`for a means-plus-function -- a step-plus-function
`construction there-met by the Braden-Harder reference.
` And we can see further, if we want to look at the
`case law in this type of issue, if we go to Slide 13, we
`have this Realtime Data case from the Federal Circuit that
`has claims that are essentially identical to the claims that
`are at issue in the '908 patent.
` On the left side we can see an independent claim
`that recites a method with a series of steps. One of those
`steps is maintaining a dictionary, and there's a dependent
`claim that specifically talks about what that step is.
` It says, "Wherein the step of maintaining a
`dictionary comprises the steps of," and then it recites a
`series of steps.
` This is identical in form to what we're dealing in
`the '908 patent. We can see on the right side Claim 6 has a
`keyfact extracting step.
` Claim 7 using identical language to what was in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`Claim 4 in the Realtime case, says that, "Wherein said step
`of keyfact extracting comprises the steps of," and then it
`recites the series of steps.
` And we can see here from the Federal Circuit, the
`claim elements introduced in Dependent Claim 4 with
`comprising language are properly understood as giving
`details sufficient to constitute a particular embodiment,
`and that's exactly what we just saw when we went to the
`specification of the '908 patent. The morphological
`analysis that's happening in Claim 7 is just the way that
`you do the analyzing that is happening in the keyfact
`extracting step from Claim 6.
` And if we turn to Slide 14, we can see how there
`were some mappings done for this in the Petition and by
`Dr. Jansen. The analyzing a document, we mapped that to
`Braden-Harder. You can see, again, that the color coding,
`the blue in Figure 10A and Figure 11. Dr. Jansen's
`completely unrebutted expert testimony that Braden-Harder's
`triple generation process 1100 separately analyzes textual
`phrases in the document and constructs a corresponding
`set of logical form triples for that document within
`dataset 1030, so there we've got analyzing a document.
` Uniloc has also complained that somehow we're only
`addressing a document. They're only addressing a user
`query. Well, that's not the case, we addressed both.
` We can see on Slide 15. Again, completely
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`unrebutted testimony from Dr. Jansen. Braden-Harder teaches
`this similar retrieval process Step 1245 for analyzing a
`user query to yield logical form triples.
` And again, we have the, in blue, Figure 12A, some
`annotations there.
` If we go to Slide 16, we can see, when you start
`bringing in the Claim 7, analyzing morphology, we
`additionally have further citations to the Dr. Jansen
`declaration, and also to Braden-Harder. That completely
`unrebutted testimony from Dr. Jansen that Braden-Harder's
` morphological analysis stems or normalizes differing word
` forms, for example, verb tense and singular-plural noun
` variations to a common morphological form for use by a
` parser.
` We can see down at the bottom right, again, in blue
` there, corresponding to the tag sequences with different
` part of speech in blue, examples there of various forms; you
` have nouns, verbs.
` So we're hitting all of the limitations of these
` claims, and therefore, I really --
` I think Your Honor said something about maybe
` Uniloc's argument was kind of a form over substance thing. I'm
` not sure whether it even rises to that. I think it's just a
` legally and factually incorrect argument that they're
` making, and under a proper analysis of the claims, and
` looking at Braden-Harder, it clearly discloses everything
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` that is in these analyzing steps that Uniloc is mapping to.
` Returning back to --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thank you. Just a quick
`question.
` What is your take on Claim 6, which you say invokes
` 112-6? We have keyfact extracting step for doing something,
` for example. What is your take on that, and then Claim 7
` recites "a step of". What is the difference there?
` I mean, we know sep for is --
` MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- that's, sort of, the trigger.
` But then is this just sloppy claim drafting or is it
`that that's an intent that Claim 6 is not -- does not invoke
`112-6?
` MR. GOLDBERG: So first of all, just to make sure we
`all on the same page here, we had argued Claim 6, which
`should be interpreted as step-plus-function, but we did not
`argue that the dependent claims should be interpreted as
`step-plus-function.
` As for the difference between the use of "for" and
` the use of "of" between the two claims, I think that that is
` actually indicative of what is happening because of the
` means-plus-function in Claim 6 and not in 7.
` In Claim 6, we're talking about keyfact extracting
` step for and we're reciting functions, and then we look to the
` specification and we see what are the corresponding acts.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` Now, it happens to be that the acts end up matching
` up to what is in Claim 7, and therefore, that Claim 7 is --
`under a step-plus-function type of analysis, it's
`essentially reciting what the keyfact extracting step
`becomes under means-plus-function.
` But I'll note that Uniloc had argued about claim
`differentiation, and under claim differentiation, when
`you're in step-plus-function, it's not something that
`becomes an issue because you're stuck with the independent
`claim says what it says and it doesn't matter whether the
`dependent claim says something different.
` Now, as a result of Dependent Claim 7 then
`introducing what corresponds effectively to the
`means-plus-function -- sorry -- step-plus-function
`interpretation of the keyfact extracting step, we see that,
`again, it's just showing what is in the specification, it's
`an embodiment.
` And either way, Google showed that these various
`steps in Claim 7 are taught by Braden-Harder, so therefore,
`they're all met, and it really doesn't matter which way you
`look at this analysis because, either way, everything in
`Claim 6 and everything in Claim 7 are taught by
`Braden-Harder.
` Does that answer your question?
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes, thank you. You can continue,
`please.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I'll just actually note one
`more thing on that point.
` Uniloc, I think, also argued that the Board should
` essentially just treat that word "for" as "comprising", even
` though it says the word "for". If the word had been
` "comprising" then that would be a different situation, but,
` of course, that's not how the claim was actually written.
` So going back to the keyfact issue now again on
` Claim 6.
` As I mentioned earlier, Uniloc had argued in the
` litigation that, "Keyfact means a fact contained in
` sentences."
` Google adopted that construction for purposes of
` this IPR and specifically proposed using that construction
` in this IPR.
` Uniloc then, in its Patent Owner Response, came up
` with a completely new construction that is much narrower
` than what it had argued in the litigation and said that,
` "Now it needs to be a factual extraction of a sentence which
` expresses semantic relation between words and a sentence in
`the form of object, property."
` I'll note that this object, property part seems to
`be what they're mainly focusing on, that it needs to be in
`that specific format, and I also note that Uniloc did not
`present any arguments under its litigation construction.
` So in the instance that the Board was defining that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`keyfact means fact contained in sentences, and then it's
`Uniloc's argument supply because they're all based on their
`new narrower claim construction.
` But it doesn't really matter whether the Board
`construes it as fact contained in sentences or Uniloc's much
`narrower construction, and the Board, for that reason, in
`our view, doesn't even really have to construe it.
` Either way, Google has shown that this is taught by
`Braden-Harder.
` If we turn to Claim 7, the reason that Google got
`into this object, property form in the Petition is because,
`as we just discussed, Uniloc -- I'm sorry -- Google had
`argued that it would be a step-plus-function in its
`Petition, and under a step-plus-function analysis, you then
`need to look to the specification to see exactly what the
`acts are, and in that step-plus-function world, we would
` agree that you need to be having this object, property type
` format.
` We can see on Slide 7 the, again, color coding that
` shows how all of the different parts of even Uniloc's new
` construction were addressed in the Petition.
` We can see in green, Petition at 34, that the
` logical form triples, which, equivalent to the claimed
` keyfacts, are facts contained in sentences and provide a
` concept-based retrieval, so we've got the factual part.
` As for the extraction of the sentence part,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` Petition, page 45, we can see logical form triples are
` extracted based on the semantic relationships of the nouns
` with other words in the sentence, so we've got that part.
` As far as the orange goes --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: And just to let you know, you're --
`if you want to still have 20 minutes left, that time comes up
`at 1:28 according to my clock, just to let you know.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
` On the orange part, I want to note a slight
` difference here and explain it.
` Uniloc had said object, property. You'll see at
` Petition, page 47 -- this is on the bottom left of the
`slide -- we had said object, modifier.
` The difference between property and modifier is
`inconsequential. We can see from the '908 patent at the
`bottom right that the property is the modifier, those are
`the same things so that is a distinction without a
`difference.
` But looking at the full construction again, we can
`see at Petition, page 47, and again, this is to the extent
`the limitation requires generating keyfacts that have the
`forms object, property under 112-6, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have understood that Braden-Harder
`generates logical form triples where the case of a
`constituent with noun modifiers, such as “Nadj” and “Mods”
`relations which exhibit the semantic relationship of 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
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`form object, modifier.
` It's not just Google saying this, and we also have
`support from our expert, Dr. Jansen. If we turn to Slide 8.
`And again, this is completely unrebutted. Uniloc didn't put
`in its own expert testimony, it also did not even seek to
`depose Dr. Jansen.
` He explains, as we just discussed, how a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
` Braden-Harder generates logical form triples for the case of
` a constituent with non-modifiers, such as “Nadj” and “Mods”
` relations that exhibit the semantic relationship of form
` object, modifier, and included is relations of an express
` part of the tuple object, mods, modifier.
` Moreover --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Can I ask a question, just to clarify
`the record --
` MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- or for me.
` On your Slide 8, out of those eight listed there,
`then what would be the object and then what's the property?
` MR. GOLDBERG: So if you look at the bottom right
`where it has the “Mods” examples, you could think about it as,
`looking at the first “Mods” example, that “BOWL” would be the
`object and “SHARK” would be the modifier for the property.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
` MR. GOLDBERG: And --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you.
` MR. GOLDBERG: -- Dr. Jansen goes on to explain
`that, because Braden-Harder generates logical form triples
`for non-modifiers, Braden-Harder generates keyfacts having
`the forms object, modifier.
` Now, this is perfectly fine, and we could stop here,
` but Dr. Jansen actually went even further and explained, if
` we turn to Slide 9, how even if you needed it to literally
` be in this exact form of object and property, and that's it
` and nothing else is allowed, and there's nothing in the
` specification of the '908 patent that says anything about
` not allowing anything else to be involved in the keyfact,
` but even if that was a requirement, he testifies that it
` would have been obvious to generate other logic forms that
` do not include their relations.
` So in other words, it gets rid of that mod that's in
` the middle of the tuple.
` And from the Braden-Harder reference itself, it
` recognizes that it can readily utilize any other form that
` can portray a semantic relationship. And it talks about
` how, in doing the searching and the matching that it does,
` these things can be relaxed to encompass paraphrases.
` If we go to Slide 10, we have further testimony from
` Dr. Jansen talking about how this modification works and how
` it's so simple. He says that, "A person of ordinary skill
` in the art would have been capable of implementing
`
`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
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` Braden-Harder to extract in other logics forms because doing
` so would require minimal modification without undo
` experimentation."
` Uniloc had no arguments about this in its Patent
` Owner Response. It in no way disputed that this would be
` obvious.
` Uniloc instead, in its Sur-reply for the first time,
` improperly introduced new arguments. We don't think the
` Board should get to those because Uniloc raised them too
` late and they really shouldn't be considered, but even if
` the Board does consider Uniloc's new Sur-reply arguments,
` even in that case those arguments fail. Uniloc had argued,
` for example, in its Patent Owner response that --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Mr. Goldberg, could you please
`identify exactly where in the Sur-reply you are asserting that
`those -- that's the new arguments, where they are?
` MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. Give me one second.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you.
` MR. GOLDBERG: So for example, Your Honor, in the
`Sur-reply, the entirety of Section III.A.4.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thank you.
` Okay, you can continue. I'm just letting you know
`you're going into your 20 minutes.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, I realize that, Your Honor. I
`will be quick about it.
` So one of their arguments was that somehow doing
`
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` this modification would render Braden-Harder unable to
` fulfill its intended purpose.
` First of all, that's just bare attorney argument.
` They have no expert testimony about this.
` Secondly, they don't explain why that's the case.
` And thirdly, we have, as we just went over -- in
` Braden-Harder itself it recognizes that other forms are
` possible, and we have the testimony from Dr. Jansen
` completely unrebutted explaining how simple this would be so
` there's no issue with it rendering it inoperable for its
` intended purpose.
` Uniloc also made an argument that somehow this would
` make it so that other Google arguments related to other
` limitations of the claims would no longer be feasible
` because we relied on that relationship label.
` We did not rely on that relationship label for a
` semantic relationship, which is what they're saying we
` relied upon it for.
` I'll note that the claims don't recite semantic
`relation. Even if you go by Uniloc's narrow construction
`and say that maybe they do, we still didn't point to that
`label in making our arguments.
` Instead, the Petition explains that, "Semantic rules
`are used to provide a pattern representing the sentence in
`logical form." This is at Petition 45. "And graph walk
`rules are used to extract the triples based on semantic
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`relationships of the nouns with other words in the
`sentence," still in Petition, 45.
` And what this effectively means is that these rules,
`these patterns, it's the act of doing the process, that is
`what’s making it so that there are semantic relationships that
`are being analyzed, they're semantic relationships that are
`being represented by the triples. That's what Braden-Harder
`is all about.
` And with that, unless there's any questions, I'll
`reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thank you.
` You have approximately 17 minutes left.
` And just one moment. Let me reset.
` Okay. Mr. Mangrum, when you're ready, you may
` begin.
` MR. MANGRUM: Thank you. Brett Mangrum for Patent
`Owner.
` And I'm prepared to take our positions and
` highlights from our demonstratives in order. However, in
` view of Judge Medley's questioning, it might make sense to
` start with the step-plus-function issue, and I'm happy to do
` it in whatever way would be the most helpful for Your
` Honors.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: That's fine. It's your time.
`However you want to divide it up is fine.
` MR. MANGRUM: Okay. Let me do it in reverse order
`
`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
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`from the slides then in view of the questioning.
` I'm going to first address the step-plus-function
` issue. I don't believe it was accurately characterized, the
` issue itself, by opposing counsel.
` And I do think -- it is important to ask whether or
` not this is a form-over-substance question -- that was Judge
` Medley's question -- and it's not.
` And in fact, when we heard arguments today, it only
` underscored the problems with the constructions applied in
` the Petition, and that was specifically in relation to a
`comparison of Claims 6 and Dependent Claim 7, and I'm going
`to emphasize that from our slides.
` So if Your Honors can turn with me to Slide 7,
`that's where we start addressing -- I'm sorry, Slide 7 of
`Patent Owner's demonstratives is where we start addressing
`the step-plus-function issues.
` We highlighted some points from the brief in
`Slide 7, and the important takeaways I want Your Honors to
`focus on here is that, of course, the preliminary holding
`that Claim 6 recites acts in connection with each of the
`three fundamental, what are introduced as, steps.
` So for context, we'll go back to Slide 7, but why
`don't you turn with me to Slide 1 where the claim language
`is reproduced.
` What we've done here is indented essentially the
`three paragraphs of Claim 6 in Slide 2.
`
`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
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
` You see a keyfact extracting step for, and then there
`are a series of acts that are recited.
` A keyfact indexing step for, and that's followed by a
`series of acts. And each of these acts are introduced by
`verbage and, like, such as extracting, analyzing,
`et cetera.
` And we agree with the Board's preliminary assessment
`that those are acts and that that takes us out of the mean
`or step-plus-function rubric, or law, case law.
` What's impor
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
