trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00501, Paper No 47
`June 3, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`____________
`
`Held: May 5, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: MICHAEL W. KIM, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, May 5,
`2015, commencing at 1:30 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00501, Paper No 47
`June 3, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`____________
`
`Held: May 5, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: MICHAEL W. KIM, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, May 5,
`2015, commencing at 1:30 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOHN C. ALEMANNI, ESQ.
`
`
`MITCHELL STOCKWELL, ESQ.
`
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend
`
`
`1001 West Fourth Street
`
`
`Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOHN KING, ESQ.
`
`
`BRENTON R. BABCOCK, ESQ.
`
`
`TED CANNON, ESQ.
`
`
`Knobbe Martens
`
`
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`
`
`Irvine, California 92614
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE KIM: Good afternoon, everyone, please be seated.
`
`It looks like everyone is ready, so how much rebuttal time would you
`
`like to reserve?
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: Ten minutes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE: Great. You can begin when you're ready.
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: Good morning, Your Honor, or good
`
`afternoon. As Mr. Alemanni mentioned, I'm Mitch Stockwell, I
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`represent the Petitioner, Motorola Mobility. I want to start with just
`
`11
`
`reviewing what is disputed and what is not disputed. What's not
`
`12
`
`disputed is that the Ayyagari references that we rely on disclose all the
`
`13
`
`features of claims 1 and 3. It's also not disputed that motivation to
`
`14
`
`combine the Ayyagari White Paper with the IEEE 802.11-1999
`
`15
`
`standard exists that renders claim 10 obvious. So, the only issue as to
`
`16
`
`these claims would be whether the Ayyagari references are prior art,
`
`17
`
`not the substance of the references themselves.
`
`18
`
`With respect to the remaining claims, there are disputes,
`
`19
`
`there are several different disputes. We've grouped the claims into
`
`20
`
`four different groups, groups A through D, based on the limitation that
`
`21
`
`the Patent Owner contests as being absent in the Ayyagari references,
`
`22
`
`and I'm going to spend probably five minutes just giving a little bit of
`
`23
`
`an overview and then 10 minutes each on groups A and B, a few
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`minutes on the group C and D claims, and then on the last issue,
`
`whether the Ayyagari references are prior art, just a few minutes.
`
`I wanted to give you that overview because obviously to the
`
`extent that the Board has any questions, I think that's our principal job
`
`here is to answer your questions. Just in terms of the overview,
`
`obviously the IEEE 802.11-1999 standard, the WiFi standard, allowed
`
`for the carrier sense mechanism. That was the mechanism by which
`
`before you sent a data message, you would listen on the medium, find
`
`the idle period and then send the message if another station was
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`attempting to grab that transmission opportunity, and you got a
`
`11
`
`collision, it would run a backoff before attempting a retransmit.
`
`12
`
`What 802.11 did not have, and what Mr. Wentink described
`
`13
`
`in his declaration, and this is on slide 7 of Patent Owner's slides, for
`
`14
`
`the record, Exhibit 1021, as Mr. Wentink said in his declaration, in
`
`15
`
`attempting to submit evidence of conception, diligence and reduction
`
`16
`
`to practice, he was working with the IEEE Task Force and he said
`
`17
`
`specifically, the mission of the task force was to address quality of
`
`18
`
`service issues within the 802.11 standard, and the reason for that was
`
`19
`
`that at the time that he began his work on the task force, the 802.11
`
`20
`
`standard had stations that essentially had one queue, so there was no
`
`21
`
`way of prioritizing traffic and giving QoS, and in fact, this is also the
`
`22
`
`problem that Mr. Ayyagari and his co-authors were focused upon,
`
`23
`
`Exhibit 1005, at page 3, in explaining the approach, the Ayyagari
`
`24
`
`authors explained that a QoS guarantee for real-time application data
`
`25
`
`traffic is currently not available in the IEEE 802.11 standard.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, that was the problem that both Mr. Wentink and his
`
`co-inventors and Mr. Ayyagari and his co-authors were each facing.
`
`And we think the approach that both groups took to the problem was
`
`the same.
`
`In the case of the '392 patent, there were essentially two
`
`approaches to the problem. The first approach was to add queues so
`
`that you would have multiple queues and thereby you could
`
`differentiate your traffic. You could have a queue for high-priority
`
`video traffic, and a separate queue for low-priority data traffic.
`
`10
`
`Once you had the queues, though, you then had to ensure
`
`11
`
`that you gave preferential access to the communications channel,
`
`12
`
`those transmission opportunities, to higher priority traffic. And the
`
`13
`
`mechanism by which, and this is on slide 9, Exhibit 1021, the
`
`14
`
`mechanism by which the '392 patent provided that preferential access
`
`15
`
`was to specify contention windows and define those contention
`
`16
`
`windows by reference to the priority level of the queue. And by
`
`17
`
`setting up the contention window timing for each queue, you could
`
`18
`
`ensure that higher priority messages received preferential access over
`
`19
`
`lower priority messages.
`
`20
`
`I want to jump to slide 11 and talk a little bit about what
`
`21
`
`Ayyagari disclosed in terms of that group's approach to the problem.
`
`22
`
`And it was the same. At the top of the slide, you can see that they
`
`23
`
`expressly discussed grouping packets with similar priority levels into
`
`24
`
`queues so that you would have multiple queues. That's also
`
`25
`
`referenced in the Ayyagari White Paper that you would have to
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`establish multiple queues. They would use the carrier sense
`
`mechanism, CSMA/CA, and I'm just going to refer to that as carrier
`
`sense rather than the algorithm, in the IEEE 802.11 to look for the
`
`transmission opportunity, and at the bottom of Exhibit 1021, 11, they
`
`discussed providing preferential access by manipulating the
`
`contention windows based on the priority level of the packet. So, as it
`
`says here, the time interval size delay, the CW, is a function of the
`
`priority level of the packet.
`
`So, that's the general background in terms of the two group's
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`approach to the IEEE problem, and it brings us really to our first
`
`11
`
`dispute, and this is the claim language on slide 12, this is claim 4. The
`
`12
`
`group A claims 4 through 6, 8, 13 through 15 and 19 through 21 have
`
`13
`
`similar limitations, and generally, what this limitation discusses is,
`
`14
`
`attempting to initially transmit a message data unit, and in essence, for
`
`15
`
`this particular scenario, the message data unit is coming out of a
`
`16
`
`low-priority queue. If you imagine the timers for the low and
`
`17
`
`high-priority queue expire at the same time and they're each trying to
`
`18
`
`grab the transmission opportunity, you want to defer to the
`
`19
`
`high-priority queue and as the claim limitation at the end says, you
`
`20
`
`treat the low-priority message as superseded and as if an unsuccessful
`
`21
`
`attempt to transmit the message had occurred, i.e., you back it off.
`
`22
`
`That's what the claim language says, and the specification
`
`23
`
`explains the claim language. Here at the top, I've got a cite on slide
`
`24
`
`13 from Exhibit 1001, this is the column 7 cite and the column 11 cite,
`
`25
`
`but just focused on the top cite here, so it talks about what happens
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`when there's a collision within the same station, it says the lower
`
`priority colliding queues behave as if there were an external collision
`
`on the wireless medium.
`
`So, that "as if" language in the claim is describing the
`
`behavior of the lower priority queue when there's this internal
`
`collision, and effectively what that behavior amounts to is the lower
`
`priority queue is superseded and delayed, as the next quote makes
`
`clear.
`
`So, that's the basic set-up for the group A claim limitations.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Where are the disputes? Well, slide 14 summarizes that. The
`
`11
`
`Ayyagari references, according to the Patent Owner, don't teach this
`
`12
`
`claim limitation, and the Patent Owner's primary argument there
`
`13
`
`seems to be that the reference in Ayyagari to superseding the lower
`
`14
`
`priority queue and even if -- and then treating it as if backed off, is
`
`15
`
`only a possibility. We obviously disagree with that. We believe when
`
`16
`
`both queues contend for the transmission opportunity, the Ayyagari
`
`17
`
`'508 clearly describes superseding the lower priority queue and
`
`18
`
`backing it off.
`
`19
`
`So, this is the first substantive dispute between the parties.
`
`20
`
`If you go to slide 15, this is the language that the parties have focused
`
`21
`
`on and the parties' experts have focused on in Ayyagari, the second
`
`22
`
`bullet point. The first bullet point just refers to some other language
`
`23
`
`in the Ayyagari '508 patent that talks about what happens when an
`
`24
`
`external collision, that is, when two different stations try to grab the
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`same transmission opportunity, basically each of those stations are
`
`randomly backed off before they try to transmit again.
`
`The second bullet point, though, explains what happens if
`
`these queues within a station each try to grab the same transmission
`
`opportunity. So, it starts with a packet with higher priority than a
`
`packet waiting here in step 640, and that packet waiting is the lower
`
`priority packet, may be transmitted if the higher priority packet has a
`
`shorter wait time, even if it results in the superseded packet, that's the
`
`lower priority one, being forced into another backoff state.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`And as you can see, in slide 16, this is the language that
`
`11
`
`Dr. Roy explained teaches one of skill in the art the limitations of the
`
`12
`
`group A claims, the "attempting to transmit" limitations.
`
`13
`
`So, one of the things that I want to focus on is the Patent
`
`14
`
`Owner challenges this language and says it's insufficient to show a
`
`15
`
`disclosure of the "attempting to transmit as if" limitation. What I
`
`16
`
`would like to do is turn to the Patent Owner's response.
`
`17
`
`Ms. Gray, if you could pull that up, it's paper number 8.
`
`18
`
`And if we could go to page 46 in the PDF version of that, page 41 of
`
`19
`
`the actual document. If you could blow up claim 4. Thank you.
`
`20
`
`So, this is the Patent Owner's response, and it's the portion
`
`21
`
`of the response where the Patent Owner lays out a comparison of the
`
`22
`
`claim language to the exhibits to Mr. Wentink's declaration that was
`
`23
`
`submitted during the original prosecution to establish conception -- an
`
`24
`
`attempt to establish diligence and reduction to practice. And this
`
`25
`
`claim chart comparison was put together by Dr. Tewfik, who opined
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`that the documents showed conception, that is they would have
`
`identified to skilled persons how to build the image and to
`
`demonstrate possession by the inventor.
`
`And I want to focus on some of the language that Dr. Tewfik
`
`and Intellectual Ventures acknowledge necessarily disclose the
`
`limitations of claim 4, and if you look at the middle paragraph, I'll
`
`read it so that Your Honors who do not see the screen can hear this.
`
`It's a cite to Exhibit 1002, that's Mr. Wentink's declaration at 224,
`
`that's one of the attachments to the declaration. It says, "A collision
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`between local accesses are resolved locally. The higher priority frame
`
`11
`
`will be send" -- I think that means sent -- "first, while the lower
`
`12
`
`priority it collided with should act as if it is to defer on a Tx-Opp" --
`
`13
`
`that's a transmission opportunity -- "so would do another backoff."
`
`14
`
`Now, that language, the language about forcing the lower
`
`15
`
`priority message into another backoff is the identical disclosure that
`
`16
`
`we see in the Ayyagari '508 patent. Now, Patent Owner contends that
`
`17
`
`this does not matter, because the "even if" language in the Ayyagari
`
`18
`
`reference somehow indicates that Ayyagari's backoff of the lower
`
`19
`
`priority packet in favor of the higher priority packet merely indicates a
`
`20
`
`possibility, okay? And we take issue with that because what the "even
`
`21
`
`if" language indicates is what happens when a particular condition
`
`22
`
`occurs? Obviously there's -- when you're dealing with a multiple
`
`23
`
`queue station, some queues may be empty, and may not have
`
`24
`
`high-priority packets to transmit. You may not have low-priority
`
`25
`
`packets to transmit. There may be no internal collision.
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`If a queue is empty, and you're simply sending messages out
`
`of a single queue, the condition at which a collision will occur so that
`
`the lower priority packet will then be forced into a backoff state,
`
`doesn't happen, but when both queues are full, their timers expire or
`
`they're otherwise seeking to engage on the same transmission
`
`opportunity. The Ayyagari reference discloses that in that instance, in
`
`that condition, we are going to supercede the lower priority packet,
`
`send the higher priority packet, and push the lower priority packet into
`
`a backoff state.
`
`10
`
`That is not an indication of possibility, that is a description
`
`11
`
`of what happens under the conditions as noted when the queues
`
`12
`
`expire.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`JUDGE KALAN: Counsel, can you hear me?
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: Yes?
`
`JUDGE KALAN: So, are you reading the "may be
`
`16
`
`transmitted" language as is transmitted effectively?
`
`17
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: I'm sorry, I'm not sure which "may be
`
`18
`
`transmitted" language you're referring to.
`
`19
`
`JUDGE KALAN: In the cited section on page 15 of your
`
`20
`
`slides.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: If you could jump back to that.
`
`JUDGE KALAN: "A packet waiting during step 640 may
`
`23
`
`be transmitted." Are you saying that's not conditional or are you
`
`24
`
`reading it as is transmitted, even if it results in the superseded packet
`
`25
`
`being forced into another backoff state?
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: Okay, so the "may be transmitted?"
`
`JUDGE KALAN: Um-hmm.
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: That's not conditional, that's
`
`explaining what happens when this condition occurs, in our view. So,
`
`a packet with higher priority, that's the packet that may be transmitted.
`
`JUDGE KALAN: But you're not going so far as to say it is
`
`transmitted, it's just talking about this condition?
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: Well, but that's exactly, it's not talking
`
`about it in a conditional sense, it's saying when this condition occurs,
`
`10
`
`then we're going to send the higher priority packet. That's the whole
`
`11
`
`reason for having higher priority packets. And, in fact, Patent Owner
`
`12
`
`does not urge that the "may be transmitted" here is what, in their
`
`13
`
`argument, creates this possibility. They urge that it's this "even if it
`
`14
`
`results" language. They say that's what suggests this is a mere
`
`15
`
`possibility.
`
`16
`
`Our explanation, and Dr. Roy's explanation is, no, you have
`
`17
`
`two queues. You know one queue is higher priority than the lower
`
`18
`
`queue. You know that sometimes those queues will engage for the
`
`19
`
`same transmission opportunity. When that happens, the higher
`
`20
`
`priority queue may be transmitted even if you end up putting the
`
`21
`
`lower priority queue into a backoff state.
`
`22
`
`So, what Dr. Roy explained is this segment here explains the
`
`23
`
`conditions under which that internal collision occurs, and what
`
`24
`
`happens. And in this case, the superseded packet is delayed, forced
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`into a backoff state, it behaves as if it had been subject to an earlier
`
`transmission.
`
`Did I answer your question?
`
`JUDGE KALAN: Yes, thank you.
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: I'm going to skip forward and deal
`
`with the next group of claims, this is the group B claims, because I
`
`think the other Ayyagari White Paper references are largely the same.
`
`The only thing I would like to say about the Ayyagari White Paper is,
`
`with respect to the group A claims, and this is on slide 17, Patent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Owner's position on this disclosure, which Dr. Roy also explained,
`
`11
`
`met the "attempting to transmit as if" limitation, is essentially that this
`
`12
`
`language in the second bullet point on slide 17, the first in/first out
`
`13
`
`priority queue, is talking about a single queue and therefore somehow
`
`14
`
`the Ayyagari White Paper cannot disclose this internal collision that
`
`15
`
`occurs and the delay of the packet. And we think that's absolutely
`
`16
`
`incorrect.
`
`17
`
`If you look at the Ayyagari White Paper, at page 7, it
`
`18
`
`expressly says, "define multiple FIFO buffers, one for each priority
`
`19
`
`level," bridging between pages 5 and 6 on Exhibit 1005. It talks about
`
`20
`
`"in order to minimize the complexity of the network, we suggest the
`
`21
`
`use of the non-gated head-of-line priority scheme using simple FIFO
`
`22
`
`priority queues."
`
`23
`
`So, what the disclosure and what Dr. Roy explained is,
`
`24
`
`clearly there are multiple queues in the Ayyagari White Paper, the
`
`25
`
`description of the first in/first out priority queue, and sending the
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`highest priority messages explains and teaches the skilled person the
`
`"attempting to transmit" limitation.
`
`I'm going to now talk a little bit about the group B claims,
`
`the dispute here deals with this limitation that's shown on slide 20, it's
`
`the means for sensing the communication medium for an opportunity
`
`to transmit message data units without interference. And we have
`
`essentially two disputes here. If we look at slide 21, one of them is a
`
`claim construction dispute. It's a straight-up what is the appropriate
`
`Section 112, 6 structure that informs the mean of the "means for"
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`language, and the other is a dispute as to whether or not the Ayyagari
`
`11
`
`references teach the means for sensing.
`
`12
`
`So, with respect to the first issue, if we go to slide 22 --
`
`13
`
`excuse me for a moment, I'm going to grab some water.
`
`14
`
`In the middle of the slide, we have set forth the algorithm
`
`15
`
`that the Board noted was the appropriate algorithm for the means for
`
`16
`
`sensing. It's the six-part algorithm outlined in the specification.
`
`17
`
`Leading up to this initial finding by the Board, the parties were
`
`18
`
`disputing the appropriate structure for means for sensing, largely the
`
`19
`
`parties agreed that the means for sensing included the transceiver in
`
`20
`
`terms of a structure for sensing the carrier mechanism, and a CPU,
`
`21
`
`then the debate was whether the CPU -- whether the specification
`
`22
`
`disclosed a precise algorithm for programming the general purpose
`
`23
`
`CPU. And this is the Board's finding as to what the algorithm is.
`
`24
`
`Now, the Patent Owner now contends that there is some
`
`25
`
`additional structure that should inform the means for sensing element,
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`specifically they contend that there are multiple schedulers shown in
`
`one of the figures that should be part of the structure.
`
`Well, that is certainly not within the Board's construction as
`
`articulated with respect to the algorithm. We went back and looked at
`
`each one of the citations that the Board has. The first citation, I've put
`
`a portion of it just below, at the very bottom of the slide, the citation
`
`number 1 to column 6 really just describes the carrier sense
`
`mechanism function that was known in IEEE 802.11 standard. The
`
`remaining references, as to the second reference, starts out with
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`column 6, that describes the coordinated scheduling function and the
`
`11
`
`CW, the contention window parameters.
`
`12
`
`The third reference discloses -- talks about the carrier sense
`
`13
`
`mechanism again, that's the column 7, lines 6 through 10. The fourth
`
`14
`
`reference, again, a column 7 reference, describes allowing the station
`
`15
`
`to transmit if the carrier sense mechanism locates an idle slot and the
`
`16
`
`backoff period for a queue has expired.
`
`17
`
`The fifth citation discusses the unique contention window
`
`18
`
`parameters for each queue, based on the priorities of the queue. The
`
`19
`
`sixth citation talks about a per queue backoff calculation that creates
`
`20
`
`the contention window for a particular priority queue. So, that's the
`
`21
`
`six-part algorithm that the Board identified.
`
`22
`
`If you notice, there's some overlap between the algorithm,
`
`23
`
`and in essence, what I derive from that algorithm is that first, you've
`
`24
`
`got to be using a carrier sense mechanism. You've got to have the
`
`25
`
`coordinated scheduling function, because that's what helps apply the
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`rules, and you have to have these contention window parameters
`
`involved in applying the rules.
`
`All of those materials are plainly disclosed in the Ayyagari
`
`references. Turning to slide 24, the Ayyagari reference, the '508
`
`patent, clearly discloses the carrier sense mechanism. It expressly
`
`talks about listening to the medium, being free for a predetermined
`
`interval. There's no dispute that it also discloses a CPU and a
`
`transceiver, and if you look at Dr. Roy's testimony, as well as the
`
`claim charts we submitted, there's also absolutely no dispute that the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Ayyagari references disclose a coordinated scheduling function, and
`
`11
`
`rules in the form of these contention window parameters. I showed
`
`12
`
`you those right at the beginning going through the background, and
`
`13
`
`that's true for the White Paper as well.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`JUDGE KIM: Counsel, what about figure 3?
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: Okay. So, figure 3, let's jump to
`
`16
`
`figure 3. This is on slide 27. So, this is the Patent Owner's
`
`17
`
`contention, that the boxes in figure 3, we have a CF schedule, and I'm
`
`18
`
`sorry, I can't read that, but there are multiple boxes labeled CF
`
`19
`
`schedule in figure 3, but they're all part of this media access control
`
`20
`
`part.
`
`21
`
`This is what the Patent Owner contends should be part of the
`
`22
`
`structure, and they say, well, there have to be multiple separate
`
`23
`
`schedulers, one for each queue, okay? First off, we don't believe that
`
`24
`
`was part of their contention early on, when they made their
`
`25
`
`preliminary response. It's not clear what the Patent Owner means by
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`this is part of the structure. In their preliminary response, at page 15,
`
`the structure they identified in terms of physical components was a
`
`computer and a transceiver.
`
`The schedulers are not the algorithm, at least these boxes
`
`don't seem to be the algorithm. To the extent the Patent Owner is
`
`contending that schedulers have to be hardware, we don't think that's
`
`supported. And, in fact, if you look at the quote to the right there, it
`
`says, "figure 3 is a block diagram depicting the software
`
`implementation of the media access control in accordance with an
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`illustrative embodiment."
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`JUDGE KIM: So, what are they, then?
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: Sorry?
`
`JUDGE KIM: What are the CF boxes?
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: What are the CF boxes?
`
`JUDGE KIM: Why are there multiple CF boxes?
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: Well, because CF boxes represent
`
`17
`
`logically that each queue will have associated with it a particular rule
`
`18
`
`in the form of a particular contention window parameter. It's a logical
`
`19
`
`diagram that lays out that for queue zero, let's suppose that's the
`
`20
`
`high-priority queue, it's going to have associated with it a rule that
`
`21
`
`says you're a high-priority queue, the rule being implemented via
`
`22
`
`these contention window parameters. But it's not a physical device
`
`23
`
`that schedules for that queue. It's simply a software logic diagram that
`
`24
`
`depicts each queue will have these rules associated with it.
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE KALAN: Where is the association on the diagram
`
`between each queue and its respective CF schedule?
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: I don't think there is an association on
`
`the diagram in that. I think you have to read the description to
`
`understand the -- that the queues -- that the rules for the contention
`
`windows relate back to each of these boxes. There's not a whole lot of
`
`disclosure in the specification about this.
`
`In fact, most of the specification talks about if you look at
`
`that second quote, on the slide, most of the specification stresses that
`
`10
`
`what's really happening is there's a coordination function implemented
`
`11
`
`in a scheduler 52, okay? And it talks about there being these multiple
`
`12
`
`boxes, and it talks about being multiple queues, and it talks about
`
`13
`
`having particular contention window parameters based on priority and
`
`14
`
`access level.
`
`15
`
`Frankly, I can't recall a portion of the specification where it
`
`16
`
`links all of those three pieces together, so I infer that when you look at
`
`17
`
`the diagram and you read the description and you've got a scheduler,
`
`18
`
`you know, the overall scheduler, and you've got these logic boxes, the
`
`19
`
`logic boxes represent queue 1 with a particular rule and a particular
`
`20
`
`contention window, but I don't recall any place in the specification
`
`21
`
`where that's really clearly laid out. As I said, largely because it
`
`22
`
`focuses on the notion that there's this coordination function in a
`
`23
`
`scheduler.
`
`24
`
`JUDGE KIM: So, what you're saying is this diagram is sort
`
`25
`
`of a non sequitur and it needs to be determined by the function solely?
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: Well, what I'm saying is the
`
`following: First off, let's go back to basic principles. We know we
`
`have a means for sensing and we've got all that language in the
`
`functional part of the clause, okay? And we know that the job of
`
`claim construction is to determine the portions of the specification that
`
`are linked to that means, and that are sufficient. You don't have to add
`
`everything in that the specification discloses in order to perform the
`
`function, but you just have to add enough structure sufficient to
`
`perform the recited function.
`
`10
`
`There is nothing in the specification that the Patent Owner
`
`11
`
`has identified that says in order to sufficiently perform the functional
`
`12
`
`recitation in the means for language, you've got to have multiple
`
`13
`
`schedulers. Instead, the Patent Owner simply says, oh, figure 3 shows
`
`14
`
`what they contend to be multiple schedulers and, therefore, the means
`
`15
`
`for clause requires this. There's no link back to why, you know, as the
`
`16
`
`specification says, this is an illustrative embodiment, there's not a lot
`
`17
`
`of description as to these boxes being actually -- there's no description
`
`18
`
`that they're physical hardware.
`
`19
`
`So, there's nowhere the patentee has identified anything that
`
`20
`
`says, well, you have to have this notion of having multiple boxes, one
`
`21
`
`for each queue, schedulers, as they would say, and they have to be
`
`22
`
`separate and independent in order to perform the function. We have
`
`23
`
`not seen them identify that.
`
`24
`
`JUDGE KIM: I have a problem with the sufficient
`
`25
`
`language, because, you know, that's difficult to define. I mean, I think
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`it would be easier if you're doing 112, 6, saying, okay, what is the
`
`thing that does this in the spec, and to me, it would merely jump out
`
`that. So, whatever it is, you get that, and you get the equivalent of
`
`that. I think when you put in the sufficiency language, you sort of --
`
`you're parsing hairs.
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: Well, I understand that may be the
`
`case, but there are Federal Circuit decisions, and I think the one that
`
`comes to mind for me is the Abbott case, where the Federal Circuit
`
`has said, you can't go too far in putting too much stuff from the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`specification in in order to construe a "means for" language. And
`
`11
`
`that's my argument, and the way you draw the line is you look at
`
`12
`
`linking language in the specification and try to figure out what is
`
`13
`
`necessary to perform the function.
`
`14
`
`I would also say, even apart from the -- this claim
`
`15
`
`construction debate, what Dr. Roy explained, and what our position is,
`
`16
`
`is look, what actually does -- going back to your fundamental
`
`17
`
`question, what does this, you know, what is it that does this? The
`
`18
`
`boxes are not the important part. What's important is a coordination
`
`19
`
`function implemented in a scheduler, exactly as said in the
`
`20
`
`specification, and that scheduler manages rules for each of the queues.
`
`21
`
`So, you've got to have a coordinated scheduler, and you've got to have
`
`22
`
`rules applicable to each of the queues. And the question is, does the
`
`23
`
`Ayyagari reference have that, and the answer is absolutely. And
`
`24
`
`Dr. Roy tied up where that was in the Ayyagari reference.
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE KIM: Just so you know, counsel, you have about
`
`five minutes.
`
`MR. STOCKWELL: Yes, thank you. I want to just finish
`
`up this argument with another reference to the Patent Owner's
`
`preliminary response. Ms. Gray, if you could pull that up. It's the
`
`page -- it bridges pages 18 and 19 of the response. It's PDF pages 25
`
`and 26.
`
`So, the top part of this is on one of the Patent Owner's slides,
`
`and this is the Patent Owner's argument as to what algorithmic
`
`10
`
`structure performs the second part of the claim function in the means
`
`11
`
`for, and I'm going to read the part that bridges pages 18 and 19. After
`
`12
`
`talking about the coordination scheduling function modules when
`
`13
`
`executed by the CPU, Patent Owner says, "Each output queue
`
`14
`
`competes for transmission opportunities (Tx-Opp;) using a
`
`15
`
`coordinated scheduling function. Each coordinated scheduling
`
`16
`
`function details a set of rules that differs for each traffic classification
`
`17
`
`and, hence, each queue. The set of rules in the scheduling function
`
`18
`
`further specifies a contention window CWmin from which a random
`
`19
`
`backoff is computed for each queue."
`
`20
`
`In other words, we believe the Patent Owner initially agreed
`
`21
`
`with us that what's critical for performing the algorithm is a
`
`22
`
`coordinated scheduling function, and for each queue, you have a set of
`
`23
`
`rules that differ per traffic classification that are implemented via this
`
`24
`
`CWmin parameter, all of which are disclosed in Ayyagari.
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00501
`Patent 7,136,392
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`I want to talk briefly about the prior art issue, if
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
