Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 32
`Entered: August 19, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held virtually: Thursday, July 29, 2021
`____________
`
`
`Before STACEY G. WHITE, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 32
`Entered: August 19, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held virtually: Thursday, July 29, 2021
`____________
`
`
`Before STACEY G. WHITE, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOSEPH PALYS, ESQUIRE
`NAVEEN MODI, ESQUIRE
`RUBIN RODRIGUEZ, ESQUIRE
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`321 NORTH CLARK STREET, SUITE 3000
`Chicago, ILLINOIS 60654-4762
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ELEY THOMPSON, ESQUIRE
`GEORGE BECK, ESQUIRE
`YAR CHAIKOVSKY, ESQUIRE
`DAVID OKANO, ESQUIRE
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`2050 M STREET NW
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday July 29,
`2021, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
` (Proceedings begin at 1:00 p.m.)
` JUDGE BEAMER: Good afternoon. This is Judge
`Beamer. Are we all ready to start?
` With me are Judges White and Wormmeester.
` This is Fitbit Inc. v. Philips North America
`LLC, IPR 2020-783.
` Could the parties introduce themselves and
`spell their name.
` MR. PALYS: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
` This is Joseph Palys for petitioner. My last
`name is spelled P-a-l-y-s.
` And today I'm joined with my colleagues Naveen
`Modi, Yar Chaikovsky, and David Okano.
` MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, I believe that
`that, if I'm not mistaken, was everybody for the
`petitioner, and in such case, I'm pleased to introduce
`myself. My name is Eley Thompson of Foley & Lardner on
`behalf of the patent owner, Philips North America.
` And with me from my firm are Rubin Rodriguez,
`and you see G. Beck there, but that's George Beck on
`the boxes on the video. So the three of us are
`appearing on behalf of the patent owner.
` I will be presenting or arguing.
` JUDGE BEAMER: Thank you.
` So this is a video hearing and our first
`priority is to make sure everyone can be heard. So if
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`at any time anyone has difficulties or is disconnected,
`please speak up, or if you are disconnected, you may
`need to contact the team who originally provided you
`with the connection information.
` If you do drop off, try to note where things
`were being discussed at the time so we can pick up at
`the proper point.
` Anyone who is not speaking, please mute your
`mic and only unmute when you are speaking, and identify
`yourself when you speak so that the transcript reflects
`the speaker correctly.
` When referring to an item on the record or a
`slide in your presentation, please specify the slide
`number or the citation so the panel can follow along
`and so the transcript is clear.
` I understand this is a public line so there
`may be members of the public listening in.
` So petitioner will go first. Each party has
`one hour.
` Petitioner, do you wish to reserve any time
`for rebuttal?
` MR. PALYS: Yes, Your Honor. We're going to
`shoot for 20 minutes for rebuttal.
` JUDGE BEAMER: Okay. So you may begin when
`you're ready.
` MR. PALYS: May it please the Board.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
` If we turn to our petitioner demonstratives
`that I assume that Your Honors have in front of you, we
`can turn to Slide 2, and I will begin.
` In this proceeding, the challenged claims, as
`you know, are at issue across seven grounds, and the
`grounds are split up, basically, across two primary
`references, and that's Jacobsen and Say.
` Based on how trials progress and given the
`issues that have been identified through patent owner's
`papers, the issues have been really narrowed down to a
`few items.
` If we go to Slide 3.
` Therefore, for purposes of today, Your Honors,
`I'd like to first focus on the security mechanism term
`and discuss how the prior art discloses and/or suggests
`that feature, and then, depending on how much time is
`left, I'll try to respond to the patent owner's
`arguments with respect to the dependent claims.
` Of course, the Board is driving the bus here,
`so if any questions, kind of, divert from this intended
`path, obviously, I'll do my best to answer those
`questions.
` So with that, let's turn to Slide 6, please.
` And on Slide 6 we see Claim 1 of the '233
`patent, and that's the sole, independent claim at issue
`here.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
` Now, patent owner's main argument against
`Jacobsen and Say is really based on the security
`mechanism that you see highlighted at the bottom of
`Claim 1 on this slide.
` The specification does not use the word
`governing information transmitted as you see in the
`term, instead, as I will explain and as is explained in
`our papers, the patent really describes the security
`mechanism in terms of examples and embodiments.
` Now, through its papers and the testimony of
`its expert, patent owner has raised, either directly or
`indirectly, interpretation issues with respect to the
`security mechanism in an attempt to distinguish the
`prior art.
` Now, from our perspective, patent owner's
`arguments somewhat generate some ambiguity in terms of
`what really its position is, but from our perspective,
`we believe how the prior art discloses this term is
`pretty straightforward.
` So let's turn to Slide 7, please.
` With respect to the '233 patent, Your Honors,
`when it comes to security, the specification describes
`various arrangements for governing information
`transmitted between the devices.
` For example, you can see in Exhibit 1001,
`Column 13, line 24 through Column 14, line 14, 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`patent presents a security section which describes
`possible, but not exclusive, embodiments for security.
` But in general, the patent states, as you can
`see here on the slide, "The ability to receive and
`transmit to and control the personal medical device, or
`PMD 100, requires some measure of security."
` And there are different ways, as the patent
`explains, how such security mechanisms can be
`implemented.
` So if we turn to Slide 8, we can see, for
`example, the '233 patent makes clear that the use of a
`password or a key is a contemplated security
`embodiment.
` You can see that, for example, in Column 8,
`lines 11 through 22 of Exhibit 1001 for explaining the
`use of passwords or other keys.
` Column 13, lines 41 through 54, how it
`explains how a user can enter a key to release
`information or access to authorized parties.
` And Claim 3 explains how the security
`mechanism in Claim 1 can employ authorization, which a
`password can facilitate.
` And, of course, Claim 4 explains that the
`security mechanism that's recited in Claim 1 can also
`employ a key that's entered by a user of the first
`personal device.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
` JUDGE BEAMER: Counsel, wouldn't that be --
` MR. PALYS: (Inaudible) not --
` JUDGE BEAMER: Counsel, wouldn't --
` MR. PALYS: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE BEAMER: -- the reference to a key be an
`encryption key as opposed to a password?
` MR. PALYS: Well, the patent describes both,
`Your Honor. It describes the use of the private key,
`public key type of aspect. It also -- in terms of a
`key that can be explained -- actually, if you stay on
`Slide 8, I believe there's some description of that.
`If you look at the top left box, Your Honor, in
`Column 8, lines 11 through 22, it's describing how a
`security password may be entered by using numeric or
`other keys on a phone, and at the bottom you can see
`the highlight where it gives an example of a security
`code when it's talking about entering keys and things
`of that nature.
` And then, of course, elsewhere where it
`describes encryption, which I'm about to get to, it
`talks about the private key, public key.
` So I agree with you, when you see key, it can
`include encryption, but there's also a disclosure of
`keys being associated in the same light as a --
`somewhat like a password or a credential.
` JUDGE BEAMER: Okay, thank you.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
` MR. PALYS: With that, unless you have any --
`yes, sir.
` We can move to Slide 9, which I highlighted
`that we're going to talk about encryption.
` So the patent also explains that encryption
`can be used and, indeed, standard encryption
`algorithms.
` Column 13, lines 41 through 46 of Exhibit 1001
`describes encryption.
` Column 13, lines 60 through 66, this is what I
`was referring to, Judge Beamer, with respect to public
`key and private key encryption techniques that can be
`used.
` And as we know, and a POSITA knows, for
`encryption to work, the data that's encrypted must be
`decrypted at the receiving end, which the patent also
`explains here in Column 13, lines 60 through 66.
` And more telling is Claim 2 which expressly
`indicates that the claim security mechanism in Claim 1
`encrypts the information.
` So we go to Slide 10.
` As the Board is aware, in its Institution
`Decision the Board recognized that passwords and
`encryptions fall within the claimed security mechanism
`of Claim 1, and that you can see excerpts from the
`Institution Decision at pages 15 and 36.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
` Now, if we transition to Slide 11, please.
` For its part, Your Honors, the patent owner's
`take on what encompasses the claimed security
`mechanism, from our perspective, seems to have been a
`moving target.
` Initially, as the Board recognized in its
`Institution Decision -- excuse me -- which excerpts are
`shown on Slide 11, which is citing to the preliminary
`response, the Board recognized that patent owner sought
`to distinguish the prior art by arguing that passwords
`and encryption do not govern or control, which was the
`construction they were pursuing, information.
` And patent owner also sought to incorporate a
`requirement that there was multiple levels of access
`that was required, and through its testimony of its
`expert, Dr. Martin, that argued that encryption would
`not satisfy the governing of information that was
`transmitted.
` Again, you can see the additional disclosures
`of that in the Institution Decision at 33 through 34,
`which was citing Dr. Martin's District Court claim
`construction declaration, which is Exhibit 2007 in this
`record.
` Turning to Slide 12.
` We can see later on in the proceeding in its
`patent owner response, the patent owner, from our
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`perspective, confusingly suggested that encrypting
`information may provide security in terms of
`establishing restrictions on information that is
`transmitted, and you can see that through the
`highlighted sections here from their patent owner
`response at page 8.
` Also, the patent owner acknowledged that a
`password is actually an example of a mechanism that
`governs information transmitted -- again, password
`transmitted -- between a first personal device and a
`second device, but also adds a disqualifier, as you can
`see that's highlighted in blue here on Slide 12, that
`that would require a particular level of access.
` Slide 13, please.
` In its patent owner response, the patent owner
`also made clear that encryption may be used to govern
`information that is transmitted between a first and
`second device, and you can see that on their patent
`owner response at 11.
` But then they also add a disqualifier there
`attempts to distinguish between encryption of the
`contents of the signal and using it to govern access by
`a device from encryption of the signal on an
`established network.
` This is admittedly a baffling argument from
`our perspective, Your Honor, because the 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
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`really doesn't articulate in its papers the distinction
`between encrypting the contents of a signal versus
`encrypting the signal which would require encryption of
`the contents of the signal.
` To the extent that the patent owner's
`qualifier is that encryption cannot occur on an
`established network, that's a requirement that we
`believe introduces even more ambiguity, and it's just
`something that's not even set forth in the claims.
` So we turn to Slide 14.
` Now, in its surreply, Your Honors, patent
`owner seems to pull a little bit away from its earlier
`positions to suggest that encryption does not encompass
`the claimed security mechanism because the claims
`require something significantly more.
` But requiring something significantly more --
`which we don't know what that means, it wasn't really
`explained -- than encryption to govern information
`transmitted seems to be at odds with the patent owner's
`other statements and what its expert actually stated in
`its declarations and deposition.
` Slide 15, please.
` Nonetheless, Your Honors, despite these
`varying positions from the patent owner and qualifiers
`of the use of passwords and encryptions, et cetera, the
`patent owner argues in its surreply -- you can see 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
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`here in their surreply, page 2 -- that it and its
`expert, Dr. Martin, rely solely on the plain meaning of
`security mechanism.
` Slide 16, please.
` Likewise, despite advocating that the use of a
`password required a particular level of access -- and I
`mentioned that in my reference to Slide 11 earlier --
`in its surreply, the patent owner is representing that
`the security mechanism does not require multiple levels
`of authorization now, and they actually are saying that
`the patent owner is not relying on that to distinguish
`the prior art. Again, this is from the surreply at
`page 10.
` Now, this last representation is interesting
`because their own expert, Dr. Martin, agreed during
`cross examination that the key advance of the '233
`patent beyond the prior art was the use of multiple
`levels of authorization. And you can see that
`testimony in Exhibit 1076 at page 74, line 19 through
`page 75, line 22, specifically page 75, 11 through 22.
` Nonetheless, if we turn to Slide 17, please.
` While Dr. Martin appeared to take the position
`that the plain and ordinary meaning applies, his other
`testimony and patent owner's reliance on it, for that
`matter, suggests that he and the patent owner are
`really advocating for additional features in its
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`interpretation of security mechanism, but as explained
`in our papers, Your Honors, these features are not
`supported, nor are they consistent with the plain
`meaning of security mechanism that's described in the
`context of the patent.
` Slide 18.
` Again, you can see here from excerpts from
`Dr. Martin's deposition testimony, while he stated he's
`taking the plain meaning of security mechanism, during
`cross examination his interpretation of that plain
`meaning requires that the security mechanism to be
`dependent on the threat that one tries to protect
`against, in other words, it's a moving target, it's
`subjective.
` You can see that in our papers and here, and
`let me get the excerpts for you, Exhibit 1076 at
`page 97, line 8 to 98, line 3; again, page 98 lines 5
`through 13; and page 98, line 15 through 99, line 5.
` Now, you can see through these excerpts -- and
`there's more actually on Slide 19 that I'm going to
`skip by -- but the point here is that we asked
`Dr. Martin multiple times about the plain meaning that
`he was relying on to support his opinions, and you can
`see it, in his view, it depended on the type of threat
`that you're trying to protect.
` Now, patent owner attempted in its surreply to
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`really rehabilitate that testimony, but we think
`Dr. Martin's deposition testimony actually speaks for
`itself.
` Again, Slide 19 just gives you some more
`excerpts along the same issue. That's Exhibit 1076,
`page 95, lines 14 through 96-1, and page 96, lines 7
`through 22.
` So turning to Slide 20.
` Dr. Martin, we can see, also confirmed during
`his cross examination that he relied on the abstract
`and the discussions related to Figure 5, and you can
`see the same type of positions in the patent owner
`response and in Dr. Martin's opening testimony. But
`they relied on these features to really interpret the
`security mechanism, basically, to require multiple
`levels of authentication to support his opinions in his
`declaration.
` But Your Honors, as explained in our papers,
`the prior art, Jacobsen and Say, for that matter,
`discloses this claimed security mechanism even under
`its plain meaning.
` It's interesting that Dr. Martin later
`admitted that the embodiment of Figure 5 that he relied
`on to support his plain meaning read was just one
`embodiment -- of course, he had to because that's what
`the patent explains -- and that Claim 1 is not
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`limited to that embodiment. And you can find that
`testimony in Exhibit 1076 at page 83, line 20 to
`page 84, line 4; some more on page 60, lines 2
`through 10; page 114, lines 2 through 23.
` But even if it did require levels of access
`that patent owner's expert seems to represent, the
`prior art discloses those features because Dr. Martin
`also admitted that having multiple levels of
`authentication can encompass where you either have full
`access or no access at all.
` With all this said, as a transition, Your
`Honors, one thing must be certain; the plain meaning or
`the interpretation, however the Board really wants to
`look at this term security mechanism, must encompass at
`least encryption and the use of a password or/key from
`our perspective.
` And as explained in our papers, and I'll turn
`to next, the prior art discloses these features.
` JUDGE BEAMER: Well --
` MR. PALYS: I don't know if there's any
`questions with that backdrop --
` Yes, sir.
` JUDGE BEAMER: So do you have -- what is your
`understanding of how Figure 5 works?
` In other words, you have a bystander who is
`near the victim, and they supposedly are not able to
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`gain full access to the information, whereas the
`responder is. So wouldn't that work with a simple
`password or a simple encryption with a key?
` MR. PALYS: Yeah. We believe that the
`password or key could work in Figure 5. Also,
`encryption could be used, but the flow in Figure 5
`specifically is talking about, you know, as Your Honor
`just mentioned, you have this intermediary between,
`like, the responder and the victim. So, in one sense,
`that could be like the first device and the second
`device with an intermediary.
` But the point here that patent owner seems to
`rely on with Figure 5, from our understanding -- it's
`the same arguments that they actually raised in
`District Court, which the two District Court judges has
`rejected -- is that the claims seem to be limited to
`this type of data flow, meaning that there has to be
`some level of access -- a particular level of access
`granted, in this case like the bystander not having
`access to information, even if -- as I understand
`patent owner's position, even if you use encryption,
`encrypting information that's going through, you know,
`the bystander, to the responder, et cetera, that you
`still have to have this level of access to prevent that
`particular bystander from getting access to certain
`information.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
` Whether that's using a password or whatever is
`one thing, but our point is -- and I believe the
`district courts even agreed with this, and Dr. Martin
`agreed with it, because I just showed you the
`testimony -- Claim 1 is not limited to that, this level
`of access.
` And, in fact, if they're going to pursue
`that -- which I believe they will as I've seen in their
`demonstratives -- Your Honor, this level of access
`argument, I showed you from the surreply at page, I
`believe it was 10 or 13, I'm sorry, I don't have the
`cite exact, they're not taking a position that multiple
`levels of access now are required. In fact, they
`expressly indicated that they're not using that to
`distinguish the prior art.
` So thus, our confusion. So we still see
`arguments about levels of access, but then they're
`saying that they're not relying on that.
` Did I answer your question, sir?
` JUDGE BEAMER: Yes, thank you.
` MR. PALYS: Thank you.
` Okay. So let's please turn to Jacobsen now.
`We can jump to Slide 22.
` Now, as I mentioned earlier, patent owner's
`sole argument against Jacobsen for Claims 1 and 7
`through 10 is really based on the security mechanism.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`And despite their representation that the plain meaning
`applies, they're still trying to distinguish Jacobsen
`based on implied interpretations of the security
`mechanism that really borders on claim construction,
`because those arguments rely on the term being
`interpreted to require or exclude certain features.
` Our position is that their position has no
`support in intrinsic evidence or any evidence
`demonstrating how and why Jacobsen actually discloses
`this feature.
` So we can turn to Slide 23. I'll just briefly
`touch on Jacobsen, Your Honors.
` You know, Jacobsen describes, which is -- we
`don't believe is disputed, a bidirectional wireless
`communication system and includes a first device --
`first personal device and a second device.
` The first device is the wrist unit 18, and the
`second device is that soldier unit 50.
` Now, if you turn to Slide 24, you can see in
`Figure 4A of Exhibit 1005, which is Jacobsen, you can
`see the wrist unit on the top left and the soldier unit
`50 that's on the top right, they communicate using
`these bidirectional communication modules, which we've
`highlighted in red here.
` Now, Slide 25, please.
` The petition explained how Jacobsen provides
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`these features. You can see that in our petition on
`pages, roughly, 36 through 38.
` But when it comes to the claimed security
`mechanism, the petition explained how Jacobsen provides
`for password security that governs the information
`transmitted between units 18 and 50.
` For example, you can see on the slide from
`Jacobsen, Column 15, lines 5 through 14, Jacobsen
`explains that each device includes a self-disabling
`means which requires entry of a password, and if an
`incorrect password is entered for more than one
`attempt, the device will disable.
` We can turn to Slide 26, please.
` As we explained in our papers, and recognized
`by the Board, you can see excerpts again from
`Exhibit 1001, Jacobsen's use of passwords is very
`similar to the '233 patent.
` Claim 4, as I mentioned, discusses how the
`security mechanism can employ a key entered by a user
`of the first personal device.
` Column 13, lines 25 through 26 and 52 through
`54 is actually showing you one of the embodiments of
`security where, again, the user of the personal device
`100 may have a security key that they can enter to
`release information or access to authorized parties.
` And, of course, the '233 patent mentions 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
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`use of passwords in Column 8, lines 11 through 22.
` Now, if we turn to Slide 27, let's go to
`patent owner's arguments.
` Patent owner arguments against Jacobsen is
`really based, in our view, because Claim 1 requires
`information to be transmitted -- that's one of the
`arguments that they raise -- and that somehow Jacobsen
`doesn't disclose these features.
` We believe that those arguments are misplaced,
`Your Honors, because the claims actually do not require
`security after an actual transmission, but even if it
`did, Jacobsen discloses that, so it's really -- it's
`not dispositive either way, from patent owner's
`perspective.
` First, patent owner's position is not a new
`claim construction argument as patent owner seemed to
`suggest in its surreply at page 13.
` We just simply responded to patent owner's
`argument at in their response at page 21 that the
`claims are limited to a security mechanism involving
`information that is transmitted. And we provided
`examples from the specification on that; namely, at
`Exhibit 1001, Column 13 to -- Column 13, line 55 to
`Column 14, roughly around line 6. Talking about
`biometrics and keys, et cetera, which is like a
`password, it's a credential that's entered by a user
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`and it allows a user to enter these credentials, and
`that can occur before any information is actually
`transmitted.
` What's key here is that the specification,
`again, at 13 -- Column 13, lines 52 through 54, says
`that a user of a PMD 100 can have a security key that
`he can enter to release information.
` That information is not even transmitted yet.
` Of course, the claims can encompass something
`that is transmitted, we don't dispute that, but it's
`not limited to that, and that's what patent owner is
`really trying to inject into the claim.
` And, of course, Claim 4, as I mentioned,
`describes a lot of these issues.
` Secondly, as I mentioned, even if the
`transition was required, as patent owner alleges,
`Jacobsen discloses this.
` In Jacobsen, you have this wrist unit --
`right? -- 18 that can both send and receive
`information. You can see that disclosure in
`Exhibit 1005, Column 11, 14 through 26.
` And, in fact, Jacobsen discloses, again, as I
`mentioned, each device. So the wrist unit 18 or the
`device soldier unit 50 can have this password
`mechanism.
` So even where unit 50 is receiving
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`information, like the sensor information from the wrist
`unit 18, that's information that's been transmitted.
` And vice versa. You know, again, a unit --
`soldier unit 50 can send information to wrist unit 18
`which can be displayed, that's information that's been
`transmitted. And when you use the password to gain
`access to that or block access, however, you can
`governing information transmitted between the first and
`second devices, just like it's claimed.
` And with respect to the transmitted argument,
`I'd just like to point out that in the California case,
`CDCA case, the patent owner took a conflicting position
`on this issue here. You can see this in the
`Exhibit 2023 at 13 and 14 where the District Court was
`rejecting the patent owner's positions, but they were
`taking the position that the security mechanism, "Must
`control whether information can be transmitted at all."
`They were contending that -- "The plaintiff appears" --
`this is Court saying this -- "Plaintiff appears to
`focus specifically on the issue of the ability of the
`security mechanism to make a determination about
`whether information can be actually transmitted between
`the claimed device or not," but that's what Jacobsen
`describes, as I mentioned.
` And also, again, it's reference to what I
`pointed out with respect to the specification 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
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`Claim 4.
` If we turn to Slide 28.
` I'd also like to point out that patent owner's
`suggestion that the security mechanism requires
`information to be transmitted is actually at odds with
`Dr. Martin's, its own expert's, testimony in District
`Court. You can see here at Exhibit 2025, at page 134,
`lines 12 through 22. In trying to distinguish
`encryption, Dr. Martin was actually indicating that the
`security aspects in the patent -- he's talking about
`controlling access to the device -- includes scenarios
`where no information is transmitted at all.
` We can go to Slide 30.
` Patent owner also argues that there's this
`first password scenario that they refer to. In other
`words, again, in Jacobsen, which expressly states that
`if you don't enter the password correctly the first
`time, you get a second shot, and then, if you enter it
`incorrectly a second time, that it will disable itself.
`That's the first password scenario that patent owner
`refers to in their surreply at page 13.
` They're saying that that doesn't govern the
`information transmitted, but in Jacobsen, it actually
`describes in Column 11, lines 14 to 26, how it is
`important for the wrist sensor/display unit 18 to be
`able to send -- both send and receive signals from 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
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00783
`Patent 7,088,233
`
`soldier unit 50, and that the communication mechanism
`224 of that wrist unit 18 has both a transmitter and
`receiver. And so Jacobsen disclosing that that wrist
`unit may display location information of actually other
`soldiers, which would have to receive from the unit 50,
`as I mentioned. And you can see excerpts from
`Exhibit 1005 on that point, Column 9, lines 24 through
`29, and also Column 6, lines 66 through Column 7,
`line 4.
` Now, when wrist unit 18 is having a password
`disabling feature, that means that the information
`transmitted from the unit 50 can be prevented from
`being accessed.
` And Dr. Martin, actually -- we asked
`Dr. Martin about this feature, and he explained how, if
`the wrong password is entered first, information can
`still be transmitted.
` So patent owner's position that even in this
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
