trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00527, PAPER NO.40
`May 1, 2015
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`- - - - - -
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`- - - - - -
`
`ERICSSON INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`- - - - - -
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`Technology Center 2400
`
`Patent No. 7,496,674 B2
`
`- - - - - -
`
`Oral Hearing Held: April 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Before: JOSIAH C. COCKS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, DAVID C.
`
`McKONE, (Via video), Administrative Patent Judges
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, April 15,
`
`2015 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street,
`
`Alexandria, Virginia in Courtroom A, at 1:30 p.m.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00527, PAPER NO.40
`May 1, 2015
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`- - - - - -
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`- - - - - -
`
`ERICSSON INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`- - - - - -
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`Technology Center 2400
`
`Patent No. 7,496,674 B2
`
`- - - - - -
`
`Oral Hearing Held: April 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Before: JOSIAH C. COCKS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, DAVID C.
`
`McKONE, (Via video), Administrative Patent Judges
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, April 15,
`
`2015 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street,
`
`Alexandria, Virginia in Courtroom A, at 1:30 p.m.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`SAMEER GOKHALE, ESQ.
`
`ROBERT C. MATTSON, ESQ.
`
`Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP
`
`1940 Duke Street
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`703-413-3000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STEVEN J. HAMPTON, ESQ., Ph.D.
`
`HERBERT D. HART, III, ESQ.
`
`JONATHAN R. SICK, ESQ.
`
`
`
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd.
`
`
`
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`312-775-8000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TIM R. SEELEY, Intellectual Ventures
`
`JAMES R. HIETALA, Intellectual Ventures
`
`SVEN RAZ, Intellectual Ventures
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:30 p.m.)
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Please be seated. Goo d
`
`afternoon. Welcome to the Board.
`
`This is oral argument for inter partes review
`
`proceeding IPR 2014 -00527 involving U.S. Patent 7,496,674.
`
`I would like to start by apologizing for the delay.
`
`We have had some technical difficulties in our Detroit office.
`
`Judge McKone, can you hear us?
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Yes, I can. Can you hear me
`
`okay?
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Yes, we can. Judge McKone, we
`
`do not have video of him, but he can hear the proceeding. That
`
`being said, we have a full house. Welcome. Let's start with
`
`having counsel introduce themselves, beginning with
`
`Petitioner.
`
`MR. MATTSON: Robert Mattson with the Oblon
`
`firm for Petitioner, Ericsson. And with me is my colleague,
`
`Sameer Gokhale. He will be presenting on behalf of Petitioner
`
`today.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Okay. Thank you. And for the
`
`Patent Owner?
`
`MR. HART: Yes, Your Honor, Herbert Hart, lead
`
`counsel for Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures. With me
`
`today is Steven Ha mpton, backup counsel, who will be
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`presenting the principal argument for the case, and also b ackup
`
`counsel, Jonathan Sick, also with my firm. And additional
`
`backup counsels Ja mes Hietala and Tim Seeley of Intellectual
`
`Ventures, and also Sven Raz of Intellectual Ventures.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Thank you, Mr. Hart. All right.
`
`As we set forth in the trial hearing order, each side
`
`has 60 minutes to present their case. The Petitioner bears the
`
`burden of showing unpatentability, so proceeds first. You ma y
`
`reserve rebuttal time. Patent Owner will give their
`
`presentation and the Petitioner will conclude. So that being
`
`said, the argument begins when you are all ready.
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Thank you.
`
`I have some exhibits, if I ma y provide them.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Yes, you ma y.
`
`MR. GOKHALE: I would like to reserve 20
`
`minutes for rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Thank you.
`
`MR. GOK HALE: Good afternoon. My na me is
`
`Sameer Gokhale for Oblon on behalf of Petitioner, Ericsson.
`
`We filed a petition against U.S. Patent 7,496,674. Given the
`
`number of, the number of grounds of rejection in this case, I
`
`just want to cut right to the issues .
`
`The first ground of rejection that we have presented
`
`was based on the reference Stadler, et al. It is directed to a
`
`gateway between a wired network and a wireless network.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`
`There are a couple main issues that the Patent
`
`Owners have presented with regards to the Stadler reference in
`
`difference to the independent claims. And I am going to use
`
`independent claim 1 as sort of the exemplary claim I a m going
`
`to be talking about during this hearing.
`
`Now, the Stadler reference describes, if you look at
`
`our Exhibits, 1003, it shows a picture 274. Sorry, figure 2 on
`
`page 274.
`
`And what this figure depicts is that a fixed user is
`
`communicating with a remote user. In the path of
`
`communication, there is a satellite link. Stadler describes
`
`using a WISE gateway at the boundaries at the satellite link.
`
`So the fixed user sends a packet of data destined
`
`for a remote user. It will be received by the WISE gateway.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, ma y I interrupt? Are we
`
`looking at a page of your demonstrative? Is that what you hav e
`
`directed us to?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: It is Exhibit 1003, Stadler.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: So the demonstratives have a
`
`particular page number itself?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: There is tabs in the binder.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Okay, thank you.
`
`MR. GOKHALE: And it is figure 2 shown on page
`
`274 of Stadler.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Please proceed.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Thank you. So what this picture
`
`shows is that you have a WISE gateway. This corresponds to
`
`the wireless base station in the claim.
`
`A fixed user will send a data packet destined for
`
`the remote u ser. And it is received at the WISE gateway. So
`
`that shows that it receives a packet over a wired network.
`
`The data is processed at the WISE gateway. And I
`
`will get more into that later. And the data is sent over the
`
`satellite link where it is received by the receiving WISE
`
`gateway. That is closer to the remote user. The remote user
`
`has all the information it needs to continue putting the packet
`
`back in proper form and sending it to the remote user over the
`
`remaining wired connection.
`
`Now, one of the issues in this case the Patent
`
`Owner has presented is that the same packets transmitted by
`
`the wire segments are not the same packets transmitted by the
`
`wireless segments.
`
`And their second argument is sort of based on this
`
`first argument, where they have a rgued that Stadler does not
`
`show applying a second security protocol to the first packet
`
`based on this idea of they don't interpret the same first packet
`
`received at the WISE gateway to be established to be the same
`
`first packet that is transmitted over th e satellite link.
`
`However, we believe that the interpretation that
`
`Patent Owner is taking with respect to the claim is not
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`warranted based on what is actually disclosed in the
`
`specification of the '674 patent. Now, in the method shown by
`
`claim 1, it descr ibes a first step called a receiving a first
`
`packet from a wired data network and a wireless base station as
`
`coupled to the wired data network.
`
`And then in the last step it includes applying a
`
`second protocol to the wireless first packet, that second
`
`security protocol being different than the first security
`
`protocol, which was on the received packet on the wired
`
`network.
`
`The Patent Owner argues that the packet requires a
`
`payload and header. And it appears that they are arguing that
`
`the same first packet th at is received is identical to the first
`
`packet that is transmitted on the wireless network.
`
`However, if we look at Exhibit 1001 --
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, ma y I ask you, are you
`
`saying that a packet can exclude a header? Is that your
`
`position?
`
`MR. GOKHAL E: In the definition provided in the
`
`'674 specification, they define a packet as not requiring a
`
`header. There is no strict definition of a packet.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Where is that definition?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: If you can turn to column 30,
`
`lines 33 to 36 in the '674 patent, it is shown as Exhibit 1001 in
`
`the binder.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Okay, column 30, what were the
`
`lines?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Lines 33 to 36. It starts with the
`
`phrase "packet switching breaks."
`
`JUDGE COCKS: We should read that as a
`
`definition of packet t hat excludes a header?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: It states, "packet switching
`
`breaks a media stream into pieces known as, for example,
`
`packets, cells or frames. Each packet can then be encoded with
`
`address information for delivery to the proper destination and
`
`can be sent through the network."
`
`So that's one instance in the actual specification to
`
`define a packet as not requiring the actual header before it is
`
`called a packet.
`
`They say the same, a similar thing on column 34,
`
`lines 9 to 12. It is also shown in our bi nder. In column 34,
`
`lines 9 to 12, it says the packet switching network instead
`
`breaks a message into pieces known as packets of information,
`
`such packets can then be encapsulated with a header which
`
`designates a destination address to which the packet mu st be
`
`routed.
`
`So the '674 specification does not provide a strict
`
`meaning to the word packet to require a header the way they
`
`are loosely describing it in the specification. That's one reason
`
`why we believe that this interpretation that the first packet
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`received in the first step of the claim is the same exact packet
`
`at the packet at the last step of the claim.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Counsel, what is your response to
`
`Patent Owner's position that claim 1 in the claim language
`
`states, "wherein the first packet compris es a header coded with
`
`address information identifying the target device"?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Our response is that this
`
`requirement is with respect to that step of the claim. This
`
`claim is open -ended. There is different steps included and in
`
`that determinatio n step Stadler has the header attached to the
`
`packet.
`
`And what essentially Stadler is doing is actually
`
`adding an additional step. It is not excluding any of the steps,
`
`but if you were to suppose the claim had an additional step
`
`before the applying step t hat said re moving the header from the
`
`packet prior to transmitting over the wireless link, that method
`
`would still read on their claim li mitations because all those
`
`steps are still included.
`
`And it is still consistent with the way that the term
`
`"first pack et" needs to be defined, to be consistent with their
`
`specification. I think it is also very clear to kind of look at the
`
`actual embodiment in the '674 patent specification itself.
`
`And I think that figure 17 of the '674 specification
`
`provides a good view o f what is actually happening in the '674
`
`patent. And this is in our exhibits for Exhibit 1001.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`
`Are you guys ready?
`
`So figure 17 shows a wireless base station, radio 2.
`
`It shows a wired portion of the network on the right side and
`
`the wireless portion of the network on the left side. Now, the
`
`packet that is received at the wireless base station is shown to
`
`be encrypted with the IPsec protocol.
`
`Now, what IPsec does in the description in the
`
`specification is it can encrypt both the original header
`
`informati on and the actual data of the packet. And my
`
`understanding of what IPsec does is it encapsulated with a
`
`different header that has not the original IP address
`
`information, destination IP address included in it. So that is
`
`what is received at the wireless base station in the Stadler is an
`
`IPsec packet.
`
`And in the claim t hey -- that's the first security
`
`protocol. And when they processed that first packet according
`
`to the first protocol, they are decrypting the packet. And what
`
`they need to do is they want to access the actual IP address
`
`information, the original header information, which is in
`
`encrypted form a nd not visible when the packet is first
`
`received at the wireless base station.
`
`And that is why in that determining step it appears
`
`that that is why th ey specify the header be included at that
`
`particular step because the actual received packet will 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`show that original header information based on its embodiment
`
`described in figure 17.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: So does that make it a different
`
`packet?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: It is literally not the same
`
`packet. If you have an IPsec packet, what you will see is
`
`perhaps the IPsec encapsulated header with encrypted data.
`
`That's received at the wireless base station.
`
`After that IPsec packet is processed and that IPsec
`
`header is presumably stripped away and discarded, you then
`
`reveal what was underneath there. And that is a different
`
`packet. That's the original IP packet unencrypted. If you
`
`compare the two of them, they are literally not the sa me thing.
`
`And that's designed to be that way. They are tr ying to hide
`
`that information through encryption.
`
`So literally the same first packet received is not the
`
`same first packet in the determining step corresponding to that
`
`e mbodiment of figure 17 where they use IPsec.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: S o, counsel, ma y I ask you, the
`
`act of encrypting a packet makes a new packet, is that what
`
`you are telling us?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Well, it applies a different
`
`header to an encrypted body. So the actual element received is
`
`distinct from the unencrypted packet t hat they revealed later in
`
`the process.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`
`You don't actually have that IP address information
`
`in the encrypted packet. Later you do. So if you actually look
`
`at the claim, if you were to take a strict interpretation of the
`
`term "first packet," it wouldn't b e clear then what they are
`
`talking about in the last step of the claim where they identify
`
`the first packet because is it the first packet that was received
`
`from the wired data network or the first packet that was in the
`
`determining step, which has that he ader information after you
`
`process the packet?
`
`So in order for this claim, this claim to make any
`
`sense under 112 second paragraph, 112 first paragraph, you
`
`know, with respect to the specification as well, that first
`
`packet has to be interpreted broadly be cause it is changing
`
`form within their own device shown in figure 17.
`
`It is clearly not the same exact thing. And that's
`
`essentially what they are arguing for Stadler. And Stadler does
`
`a very similar process. Stadler describes a situation where
`
`there is IPsec involved. It describes the problem that they
`
`want to be able to access the actual underlying information.
`
`So the solution they describe is virtually identical to the
`
`solution they describe in figure 17, that actual gateway must be
`
`a trusted host.
`
`And what they me an by that is that it has to have
`
`the ability to decrypt the header. Otherwise, it can't 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
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`information, which is the same thing that the embodiment of
`
`figure 17 is doing with that IPsec packet too.
`
`So literally from the first step, receiving the packet
`
`with the IPsec header, Stadler has that. Processing that packet
`
`with the first security protocol, Stadler has that. Once that
`
`underlying information was revealed, determining the address
`
`information, that is now in the decrypted pack et, Stadler
`
`clearly has that.
`
`So this packet is changing form throughout the
`
`process. It is not literally the same first packet any more. And
`
`the only wa y, you know, you can tell which first packet they
`
`are talking about in the claim is if this first pac ket is read
`
`broadly.
`
`And as we have seen from the specification, they
`
`take a broad view of the term "packet" itself. It makes clear
`
`that independent of the format it is, it should be independent of
`
`the type of header it has attached to it because in the i ncoming
`
`packet you are not going to see the header. And in the
`
`determining step they are talking about, you know, a different
`
`header than you can initially see when the packet is received.
`
`So the term "packet," you know, should receive a
`
`very broad interp retation. And as we have seen how similar
`
`Stadler is to all those steps. Any questions?
`
`JUDGE COCKS: No. Please proceed.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`
`MR. GOKHALE: And there was another issue
`
`raised in the Patent Owner response with respect to the last
`
`step when the packet is tran smitted over the wireless network.
`
`They argue that, you know, Stadler has changed the first packet
`
`because it is fragmentation of the data when it sends it over the
`
`satellite link.
`
`And when we actually looked into the '674 patent
`
`specification itself, it appeared to be doing something very
`
`similar to that as well. And --
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Counsel, before we get into
`
`fragmentation, what is your understanding of "established"?
`
`Does it always fragment or does it just fragment some of the
`
`time, but in other time s it will take the entire content of the
`
`packet and retransmit it over the wireless portion of the
`
`network?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Stadler only describes the
`
`e mbodiment where they use fragmentation over a satellite link.
`
`They do not envision another embodiment tha t just purely takes
`
`the IP header attached to the actual payload and sending that
`
`over the satellite link.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: So your understanding is in every
`
`instance, Stadler fragments?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: That's the only instance they
`
`have described. Clearly they have not described the instance
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`where they take IP header, plus packet data, and send that like
`
`one continuous chunk over the satellite link.
`
`And I want to bring your attention to, back to
`
`figure 17 of Stadler. And, you know, one thing about these
`
`protocol stack diagrams, they show the protocol stack layers,
`
`but sometimes they don't show exactly what is happening.
`
`They just kind of show what kind of protocols are being used
`
`at a given instance.
`
`When you go to the wireless portion of the link, it
`
`doesn't really explain very clearly how it is transmitting over
`
`the wireless portion. We took a look at the '674 patent, and in
`
`a couple instances they describe that the data packets are
`
`segmented and broken up for wireless transmission. And I will
`
`point your at tention to Exhibit 1001, the '674 patent, column
`
`48, lines 34 to 38.
`
`And they describe that as framer device segments
`
`and frames, the data packets of received IP flows into frames
`
`for transmission over the wireless medium. And then again on
`
`column 50, lin es 4 to 7, it describes that the framer breaks up,
`
`sequences, and fra mes the data packets for wireless
`
`transmission.
`
`We also noticed that in figure 12 -B of Stadler, it
`
`appears to show a TDMA airframe t hat shows that the airframe
`
`structure includes 16 slots in which the data is transmitted and
`
`the control packet in which the data is transmitted.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`
`And figure 12 -G shows the exemplary downstream
`
`PAC payload data unit. And it shows that there is a slot
`
`payload with a fixed size within that payload unit.
`
`So, you know, it was a little confusing to
`
`understand, you know, how in the '674 patent they actually
`
`describe sending a complete IP packet and header continuously
`
`over the satellite link when it appears to be breaking up the
`
`data for wireless transmission, in a s imilar manner as perhaps
`
`Stadler is doing.
`
`So we asked the Patent Owner's expert if he even
`
`considered what was going on in figure 12 -B. And in the
`
`deposition as Exhibit 1022, referring to page 40, line 19 to
`
`page 41, line 9, he indicated that he did not spend much time
`
`looking at that, but he did describe what he believes is
`
`happening with the satellite protocols in general. And he
`
`indicates in this passage that it is performing something
`
`similar to circuit switching.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: I' m sorry, counsel. What passage
`
`are we looking at?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: I' m sorry, this is page 40, line 19
`
`to page 41, line 9 of the deposition.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: And that is Exhibit --
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Exhibit 1022. So one thing he
`
`says is that, you know, those slots do not include he ader
`
`information in the slots. And that the slots are reasse mbled at
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`the other end of the link in order to receive packet using the
`
`sort of thing in a packet switching network.
`
`And --
`
`JUDGE COCKS: This is on page -- again, Judge
`
`McKone is on the audio, if you can perhaps articulate where
`
`you are reading from.
`
`MR. GOKHALE: I' m sorry, it is page 40, if you
`
`start at line 19. This is the deposition of Dr. Newman, the
`
`Patent Owner's expert.
`
`So he describes that that, those slots do not include
`
`the actual header information. So there is separation of the
`
`actual data to the actual header infor mation when they transmit
`
`over the wireless link.
`
`And we asked him also to explain figure 12 -G of
`
`the '674 patent. And on page 43 we asked him a question,
`
`starting on l ine 10, you know, with respect to figure 12 -G. "Is
`
`there necessarily a one -to-one correspondence between a
`
`packet in the WAN layer and the slot payload of the MAC PDU
`
`illustrated in figure 12 -G? " And he answered: "No."
`
`He continued on line 21 and he s aid that: "I
`
`haven't studied the '674 patent as regards this particular figures
`
`in sufficient detail to say whether there is a one -to-one
`
`correspondence between a WAN packet and payload of figure
`
`12-G or -- what the figure depicts there, but in general wi th
`
`satellite links that one -to-one correspondence does not exist."
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`
`So we asked the Patent Owner's expert if he
`
`considered what is actually happening over the wireless
`
`segment in the '674 patent. And he seemed to corroborate the
`
`very similar situation th at was happening in Stadler. They
`
`break up the data. There is no longer a one -to-one
`
`correspondence, and that it appears that the header is also
`
`separated for that transmission.
`
`And, you know, therefore, that idea of the first
`
`packet, you know, must be b road enough so that it still
`
`includes the idea of fragmentation over the satellite link. So
`
`with that in mind, it becomes more clear that Stadler, given all
`
`similarities to the e mbodiments of the actual '674
`
`specification, you know, has to be disclosed as a feature of this
`
`claim.
`
`Any questions? There is an additional issue in the
`
`Patent Owner's response arguing that Stadler does not disclose
`
`determining that the first packet is targeted at the target base
`
`station when the determining is performed by the w ireless base
`
`station.
`
`We asked Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Newman,
`
`about this as well. On page 57, line 6 of Exhibit 1022, we
`
`asked him to describe pages 274 and 275 of Stadler. And then
`
`on page 58, in response to our question starting on -- sorry, go
`
`backwards, here -- we asked him on line 23 on 57: "So isn't it
`
`clear in Stadler that the transmitting WISE server determined
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`the intended recipient for the receiving WISE server is
`
`informed of the intended recipient?"
`
`And he eventually answers the question on line 9:
`
`"Yes, I would say so." So we think this issue is disposed based
`
`on his response.
`
`So based on this interpretation that should be
`
`applied in the claims, it is clear that Stadler discloses all the
`
`features of the independent claims of the '694 p atent.
`
`Any questions?
`
`JUDGE CAPP: I have got at least one. The Patent
`
`Owner is going to argue that Stadler uses the same e ncryption
`
`on both the wired and the wireless portion or at least Stadler is
`
`silent as to whether the encryption on the wireless port ion is
`
`different from the first portion. And what is your response to
`
`that?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Stadler describes a situation
`
`where they use IPsec on the wired portion. They describe a
`
`separate situation where they use bulk encryption on the
`
`wireless link. Th is bulk encryption is different than the
`
`encryption provided in the IPsec.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Other than you saying that, what is
`
`your evidentiary support for that statement?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Our declaration from our expert.
`
`Do you want me to find it?
`
`JUDGE CAPP: No.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Please go ahead.
`
`MR. GOKHALE: All right. I want to turn to the
`
`Rai reference now. And now that we have talked heavily about
`
`the actual claim, I a m going to get right to the issues in the Rai
`
`reference.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Rai doe s not disclose a
`
`first security protocol under the wired data network. Now,
`
`what Rai discloses is a base station, which receives data that is
`
`encapsulated by something called the Xtunnel protocol, which
`
`is a tunneling protocol.
`
`We believe that the term se curity protocol should
`
`be interpreted very broadly based on the actual examples of
`
`protocols described in the '674 patent specification. And with
`
`regards to the independent claims, there is no specific
`
`requirements listed for what a security protocol requ ires.
`
`Therefore, under a broad interpretation, a security
`
`protocol, you know, should correspond to tunneling, given the
`
`numerous examples of different types of tunneling protocols
`
`that are described in the '674 patent specification.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: How does a tunneling protocol
`
`inhibit an eavesdropper from hearing a message? It is just
`
`tunneled. It doesn't have anything else other than tunneling
`
`provided to it.
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Well, we don't think that
`
`protecting necessarily eavesdropping is the standard for a
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`security protocol. I don't think the plain tunneling protocol
`
`probably doesn't encrypt the data or hide the data in that
`
`fashion.
`
`Tunneling protocol does in general with a lot of
`
`tunneling protocol, they will encapsulate the packet. The
`
`actual routing o f the packet will be done based on the
`
`algorithm encapsulated address, not the original destination IP
`
`header.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Let's forget about tunneling in
`
`general. Let's talk about the Xtunnel protocol that is in the
`
`Rai. What is it that Rai does that provides security?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Well, in Rai you have an end
`
`user that is going to move on the network. So when he moves
`
`to a new location, he needs to set up the Xtunnel protocol to
`
`allow data that is intended for him to find him in his new
`
`location. S o it is sort of essentially what a tunneling protocol
`
`can do. It can force packets into certain directions on the
`
`network so they don't get lost.
`
`Now, the Xtunnel protocol is described in the Rai
`
`specification as certainly an alternative to the Layer 2
`
`Tunneling Protocol. And they do describe a procedure with
`
`respect to the Xtunnel -- and I can point out the passages if
`
`you need them -- where there is a syste m in place to allow
`
`authentication to be performed before the tunnel is set up.
`
`And can I kind of point out the passages?
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`
`JUDGE CAPP: It is your time, counsel. You can
`
`use it as you see fit.
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Well, it describes a situation
`
`where there is authentication performed through another
`
`protocol called RADIUS, where it authenticates the user befo re
`
`it allows the Xtunnel protocol to be set up. So, you know, it
`
`does at least provide that measure of authentication, not
`
`directly, but there was a protocol in place in the Xtunnel
`
`description where you do have to do authentication before the
`
`actual Xtunnel protocol can be set up.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: What do you mean by
`
`"authentication"?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Meaning the user will provide his
`
`user name and password to the home network before that tunnel
`
`can be established.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, I have a question. In
`
`answering Judge Capp's question, you said eavesdropping is
`
`not the standard for a security protocol. Can you articulate
`
`what the standard is?
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Well, that's the thing, is that it is
`
`such a broad term, that it is, it shouldn't be defined as
`
`acquiring a certain level of protection. You know, it is -- we
`
`looked at the '674 specification to see what they can mean by a
`
`security protocol.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00527
`Application No. 11/502348
`
`
`And there is a section in the specification where
`
`they describe, you know, several different protocols which
`
`con tribute to forming a VPN. And they describe different
`
`protocols that don't have encryption, that don't have the
`
`software authentication in place, but they do allow you to
`
`perform that VPN where essentially the underlying IP address
`
`is shielded from being used on the network.
`
`And we actually a sked Dr. Newman about this in a
`
`little more detail, and kind of, you know, if this does -- we
`
`were trying to see if this can provide some measure of privacy.
`
`And --
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Measure of privacy, is that some
`
`sort of standard? Let me try this. An Xtunnel protocol of Rai,
`
`is a security -- fill in the blank -- is a security protocol because
`
`it does --
`
`MR. GOKHALE: Because it forces the underlying
`
`network to use the outer addressing of the tunnel. In addition,
`
`it does have an authentication feature applied to it as well.
`
`And so it essentially, what it can allow a user to do is make
`
`sure the IP address that is actually used to route a packet to the
`
`network is not the actual IP address of the actual destination
`
`user. This is why they are called virtual private networks
`
`because what the destination address that is going to be acted
`
`upon is the destination address of the tunneling protocol.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
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
