Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 90
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held May 1, 2019
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 90
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held May 1, 2019
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOHN C. ALEMANNI, ESQ.
`DAVID A. REED, ESQ.
`COURTNEY S. DABBIERE, ESQ.
`MICHAEL MORLOCK, ESQ
`Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`404-420-1724
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`TED M. CANNON, ESQ.
`JOHN R. KING, ESQ.
`Knobbe Martens
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`949-760-0404
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT, OBSERVING:
`
`
`Mishima Alam - Google
`James Hietala - Intellectual Ventures
`Nita Gray - Kilpatrick Townsend
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, May 1,
`2019, commencing at 2:52 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`USPTO Madison Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` (Proceedings begin at 2:52 p.m.)
`JUDGE SCANLON: Okay. All right, welcome back.
`This is a supplementary hearing for IPR2014-00787, which
`involves patent number -- oh, I'm sorry. Judge Kalan is not
`quite ready, so let's just wait a few more moments. Okay.
`Let's go ahead and get started.
` This is a supplemental hearing for IPR2014-00787
`which involves Patent No. 6,121,960. I'm Judge Scanlon and
`joining me on the panel are Judge Kim and Judge Kalan. For
`the record, let's start again with appearances.
` Could Petitioner's counsel please step to the podium
`and introduce yourselves?
` MR. MORLOCK: Yes, thank you, Your Honor. I'm
`Michael Morlock, backup counsel for Petitioner Google. With
`me also is Courtney Dabbiere, and lead counsel, John Alemanni,
`and also Mishima Alam from Google.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Okay. Thank you.
` And Patent Owner?
` MR. CANNON: Yes, Your Honors. I'm Ted Cannon for
`Intellectual Ventures. I'm the lead counsel for Intellectual
`Ventures. With me is John King and an IV representative,
`James Hietala.
` JUDGE SCANLON: All right. Very good. Each party
`will have 45 minutes to present supplemental arguments as
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`limited in the hearing order. Petitioner will present its
`case first and may reserve any time -- or may reserve some of
`that time for rebuttal. Patent Owner will then present its
`case, after which Petitioner can use any of its reserved time
`for rebuttal. And finally Patent Owner will -- can present a
`sur-reply if they would like to.
` So with that, I'll let Petitioner take the podium,
`and you can begin when you are ready.
` MR. MORLOCK: Thank you, Your Honor.
` First, Judge Kim, would you like a paper copy of the
`demonstratives?
` JUDGE KIM: Sure. Thank you.
` JUDGE SCANLON: And Mr. Morlock, do you intend to
`reserve any time for rebuttal?
` MR. MORLOCK: Yes, thank you, Your Honor. I
`estimate the presentation will take between 25 and 30 minutes,
`and I'd like to reserve the remainder for rebuttal.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. MORLOCK: Your Honor, once again, I'm Michael
`Morlock, and I'm going to demonstrate that the ’960 Patent is
`invalid.
` ’960 Patent was previously heard. Claims 19 through
`22 and 24 through 30 were invalidated by this panel, and that
`decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. So there's no
`additional issue on those claims.
` Can we go to Slide 2, please, Ms. Gray?
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
` What we are going to discuss is two previously
`instituted grounds, as well as one newly instituted ground.
`The two previously instituted grounds are, first, an
`anticipation ground in view of Gough, and, second, an
`obvious misground and view of Buxton. Those two grounds
`were both heard previously in view of these same challenged
`claims, and the panel found those claims to be valid. That
`decision was vacated and remanded by the Federal Circuit.
` With respect to Martin, that ground was in the
`petition but found to be cumulative, and so not instituted.
`And after the remand post-SAS, the Board went on and
`instituted to comply with the Supreme Court ordered in SAS.
` Could we move on to Slide 3, please?
` So this is the one independent claim at issue in
`this proceeding. This is Claim 1. Claim 1 generally
`describes a method for image blending. You have a main image,
`and then that's laid over another image -- or another image is
`laid over the main image, and those two images are combined
`and displayed; very simple claim.
` With respect to the two previously instituted
`grounds, Buxton and Gough, there's only one issue on which the
`parties are currently in dispute. One issue, the Board found
`these claims patentable previously, and that's the logical
`operators limitation, shown highlighted here on Slide 3.
`It's generally the last element of Claim 1.
` Can we move on to Slide 4, please Ms. Gray?
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
` The Board has previously construed logical
`operators. I have put the Board's construction up here. We
`do not dispute the Board's construction. We think that's
`correct. That's laid out in our briefing. Patent Owner has
`proposed slightly modified construction for this claim term,
`including the negative limitation that the claim term would
`exclude arithmetic operators.
` We don't agree that that's the correct construction.
`We laid that out in our briefing why there's no basis in the
`plain meaning of the claim or in the record to include this
`negative limitation under Phillips, but we don't think it
`matters either way. This claim is ultimately invalid in view
`of Buxton or anticipated by Gough.
` So first, let's go to Slide 5. The Board -- Buxton
`is the first reference I'm going to address, and this is an
`obviousness ground. There's two embodiments in Buxton I'm
`going to walk through. The first is an alpha blending
`equation used by Buxton.
` This was presented previously. The Board found that
`Petitioner didn't establish that the alpha blending equation
`used logical operators. That decision was vacated by the
`Federal Circuit.
` Saying that though the Board made fact findings with
`respect to Buxton, it did not sufficiently explain how the
`alpha blending equation does not use logical operators, and it
`also didn't explain how logical operators differ from an
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`arithmetic operator. And I'm going to explain now why under
`any instance this claim is invalid in view of the alpha
`bonding equation.
` Could we go to Slide 6, please Ms. Gray?
` So Slide 6 shows Column 17 of Buxton Exhibit 1009.
`This is an alpha blending equation. So, again, a relatively
`simple equation. You have a resulting color intensity I that
`is generated based on I-1, a foreground image pixel, an I-2, a
`background image pixel, and then the value Alpha is the
`specified transparency level ranging between zero and one.
`Relatively simple.
` And there's no dispute here that this is an
`arithmetic equation or we agree it is. The dispute here is
`whether or not this also uses logical operators.
` If we could move on to Slide 7.
` As Mr. Ward testified, Paragraph 60 of Exhibit
`1020, at the heart of any equation that involves addition or
`other arithmetic operators such as multiplication, division
`are logical operators. That's just how a computer works.
`You're going to use AND, OR, XOR, and NAND, basic logic gates
`to use a computer. Thus --
` JUDGE KIM: All right. Are you saying that any
`computer operation then is by nature a logical operation?
` MR. MORLOCK: I'm saying that a -- that's a good
`question, Your Honor. I'm not saying any computer operation
`is, but this operation certainly uses logical operators 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`order to be implemented. And we know that if we go to Slide
`8. Patent Owner has, in its infringement contentions,
`identified the exact same equation as meeting this claim
`element. Under Patent Owner's own interpretation of the
`claim, this alpha blending equation meets the claim.
` Now, this is written out in prose, it's not the same
`numeric value or alphanumeric as it was written out in Buxton,
`but the equation remains the same. It's an alpha channel of
`the destination, plus 1 minus the alpha channel of the source.
`It's the exact same equation.
` Can we move on to Slide 9, please, Ms. Gray?
` So even if that equation within Buxton didn't render
`the claim obvious, Buxton also discloses using XOR to blend
`images. This was, again, addressed in the final written
`decision, and the Board found the petition didn't explain
`sufficiently how XOR in Buxton disclosed the programming
`technique.
` Now, if we could, I'd like to pull up the petition
`and show where this XOR embodiment is fully described.
` So if we go to Paper 1, please, Ms. Gray? And could
`we pull up Page 46? Thank you very much. And can we
`highlight the paragraph -- the last paragraph at the bottom of
`Page 42?
` 46 is the PDF page. 42 is the page on the brief,
`Your Honor.
` Now, we see here in the petition, there is an
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`express description of Buxton describing discrete and
`continuous algorithms. The discrete algorithm is XOR. That's
`how it's characterized within Buxton. The continuous
`algorithm is the alpha blending equation we just discussed.
` Can we go to Slide 40 or to the next page, please,
`Ms. Gray? And can we highlight the top paragraph?
` That's the continuation paragraph we just discussed.
` We have quotes directly out of Buxton. Here, within
`the petition, as discussed herein, any algorithm capable of
`producing only specific discontinuous transparency levels is
`discrete and go on most of these algorithms create a
`transparency effect using methods called dithering, stippling,
`or XOR-ing.
` This is in the petition. This is where this
`argument is fully laid out in the petition.
` Could we go back to our presentation, please, Ms.
`Gray, and go to Slide 10?
` So this is the discrete algorithms embodiment in
`Buxton. Again, laid out, this is quote directly out of
`Buxton, Transparency effects are created using the logical
`operator XOR. And there's no dispute here between Petitioner
`and Patent Owner that XOR is a logical operator. There's
`simply no basis to suggest this claim is not obvious in view
`of this disclosure or the alpha blending equation both within
`Buxton.
` JUDGE KIM: Well, their argument here though is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`right -- is that it's an on-off operation, hence, it could go
`blending operation.
` MR. MORLOCK: That's a good question, Your Honor.
`That -- I believe that is their argument. They may say
`something differently. I -- I can explain to you why that's
`incorrect.
` If we could pull up Patent Owner's Slide 11?
` So, this is a slightly broader quote Patent Owner
`has pulled out of Buxton. First, if we could pull up the
`area, that's the second highlighted area, they've highlighted
`turning off and on various pixels.
` Just note for the record, Your Honor, they seem to
`be ignoring that the first word of that sentence is most. It
`not all. Second --
` Can we zoom back out, Ms. Gray? And let's go below
`the second highlighting or the third highlighting, rather;
`sort of, the bottom part of the page. There.
` So, here, there is additional description of --
`there we go, that's exactly what I wanted to see -- of a 4-bit
`mask that is using multiple bits, you know, four discrete
`possible values to show various levels of blending, right?
` What we're talking about here is blending multi-bit
`pixels. If you're blending multiple bits within a pixel, it's
`not necessarily all-on-all-off because if you have four bits,
`you're combining those four bits together. So you're not
`necessarily just turning one off and turning another on. And
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`thank you for that, Your Honor.
` Can we go back to our presentation? And I believe
`we were going to Slide 11.
` So a second way this claim is shown in another
`reference is the Gough reference, and Gough anticipates this claim
`element.
` Again, Gough was addressed previously, and the Board
`found that Petitioner didn't describe how Gough expressly
`discloses logical operators. And vacating that decision, the
`Federal Circuit was critical of the word, expressly, basically
`indicating it's not an ipsis verbis test. It's what a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
`looking at the reference.
` If we can go to Slide 12, please? This is the
`reference -- can we go ahead and highlight the lower left
`corner, please, Ms. Gray?
` So, Your Honor, this is an example from Gough Figures
`10-C through 10-F, and what you see here is the combination of
`two pixels. Now, Mr. Ward reviewed this and looked at it,
`said, Okay, if I look at 10-C, for example, yet we have off-
`off-off-on, and that's combined with on-off-off-on. So the
`output, one way or the other here, is if it's on, we always
`get an on. If both are off, we always get an off. If both
`are on, we get on. That's an OR operation. If either is
`high, output is high.
` Now, Patent Owners criticized this example
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`indicating that, well, you see the hash marks face up or face
`down, or in the output, if both are high, you have two hash
`marks. That's just an example of a 2-bit number. 2-bit
`number has four possible options, right? 0-0, 0-1, 1-0, or 1-
`1. That's exactly what we see here. An option where the
`hashing is facing down is 0-1. One where it's facing up is 1-
`0. When they're both present, it's 1-1. It's a 4-bit number.
`That's what Mr. Ward explained in his declaration.
` And what you see here is an OR operation to blend
`two pixels that are each -- made up of four 2-bit numbers.
`Ultimately, that's blending two 8-bit pixels.
` If we could go -- zoom back out, highlight the
`patent.
` We see the embodiment described in the patent.
`Here, source paint is an OR of two 8-bit pixels. You have S
`OR'd with D, so source at the top, OR'd with destination also
`at the top. The output that you see under the result side of
`this slide is the result of S OR'd with D. That's the output
`of that 8-bit OR operation. It's the exact same thing here.
`And Gough, as it -- well, it's the exact same disclosure in the
`patent as you see in Gough.
` Could we move to Slide 13, please?
` So we move on to the newly instituted ground, which
`is an anticipation ground in view of the Martin reference.
`Now, with respect to the independent claims, there's two
`disputed elements. There's also two dependent claims, Claim 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`and 9, which my colleague, Ms. Dabbiere, is going to address.
` With respect to the independent claim, the dispute
`is, first, whether there's a touch-activated input device,
`and, second, whether there are blending merging effects. Now,
`I'm going to address those in order.
` First, with respect to the touch-activated input
`device. If we go to Slide 14, please, Ms. Gray?
` On Slide 14, we've pulled some excerpts out of
`Martin, you see, first, is Figure 1. And this shows
`combination digitizing tablet and display 12. That's directly
`out of Martin's disclosure. Column 4, lines 33 through 35
`describes these are combination components. Later in Column
`5, it says a flat panel display that is physically integrated
`with a digitizing tablet.
` Now, Patent Owner has proposed a construction for
`the claim term, but they agree that their construction doesn't
`exclude devices such as a touchscreen, and then include
`multiple layers that are fused together.
` So the word fused is nowhere on this specification.
`There's no indication where that term came from, but there's
`no basis to suggest that a PET flat panel display that is
`physically integrated with a digitizing tablet, doesn't meet
`this definition. If it doesn't exclude devices, then include
`multiple layers.
` Can we move on to Slide 15, please?
` So what Patent Owner seems to be arguing is there's
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`other embodiments within Martin where the tablet is -- like
`something I played with an elementary school where you had a
`tablet on your desk you drew on, and that would appear on the
`screen. And those are embodiments described in Martin. But
`what Patent Owner is improperly trying to do is limit Martin
`to the other embodiments and not consider the full disclosure
`of Martin, which clearly discloses Figure 1, a combination
`digitizing tablet and display.
` Move to Slide 16, please?
` So last, with respect to the independent claim, to
`discuss this dedicated simultaneously limitation. Now, Martin
`describes, again, Column 3, a user interface that logically
`overlays but does not interfere with the operation of a pre-
`existing program. So straightforward. You've got keyboard
`overlay as shown in Figure 10, for example, that doesn't
`interfere with what is displayed underneath it.
` Well, Martin discloses that this keyboard overlay
`can be made transparent. That's explained further if we go to
`Slide 17. But Mr. Ward's testimony, where he explains Exhibit
`1015, Paragraph 91, that Martin discloses techniques for
`overlaying the simulated keyboard image by combining it with
`pixels of the application image using logical operators.
` Now, Mr. Ward cites here two sections of Column 9.
`If we go to Slide 17, I'll show you what those are. And what
`Martin is describing here is selection among image combining
`arrangements such as AND, OR, XOR, NOR, and NAND, all of
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`which, there's no dispute they're logical operators.
` Further -- Ms. Gray, can we go ahead and highlight
`the last part of the first quote? Sure. Thank you very much.
` And, here, you see after the highlighted part, it
`specifically distinguishes this from simply selecting between
`the VGA, i.e., the regular application image and the ink data,
`that's the overlay. So Martin expressly distinguishes between
`an image combining arrangement that allows you to see both and
`simply selecting between one or the other.
` JUDGE KIM: But I think their argument here is it's
`not disclosed from the keyboard tool specifically.
` MR. MORLOCK: So you may be correct, Your Honor.
`Figure 10 expressly discloses a keyboard. That's just right
`within the disclosure of Martin. I think this is another
`example of Patent Owner trying to exclude this embodiment
`because it's not directly described as an example with respect
`to that keyboard shown in Figure 10, of which is simply
`incorrect.
` JUDGE KIM: Well, keyboard in 10 is not transparent,
`right?
` MR. MORLOCK: The keyboard shown in Figure 10, Your
`Honor?
` JUDGE KIM: Yes.
` MR. MORLOCK: In that figure, that's correct.
` JUDGE KIM: Right.
` MR. MORLOCK: It's not shown to be transparent.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
` JUDGE KIM: So you're asking us to make the leap
`between -- connection between the two, right? And, of course,
`they're going object saying it's not on petition. Do you have
`a pinpoint site for that anywhere?
` MR. MORLOCK: A pinpoint site for which, Your Honor?
` JUDGE KIM: Combining this disclosure with Figure
`10.
` MR. MORLOCK: For combining this disclosure? I can
`get that for you.
` JUDGE KIM: That's fine.
` MR. MORLOCK: And provide it for you in rebuttal.
`That, if there are no other questions, just to conclude this
`segment by saying, this claim element is -- well, all the
`elements in the independent claims are invalid in view of
`Buxton and Gough. They're also invalid in view of Martin. My
`colleague, Ms. Dabbiere, is going to explain why the Claims 8
`and 9 are also invalid in view of Martin.
` MS. DABBIERE: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name
`is Courtney Dabbiere. And as my co-counsel said, I'm going to
`address Claims 8 and 9, and explain how they are anticipated
`by Martin.
` First, I just want to point out that Patent Owner
`does not dispute that if the Board finds that Claim 1 is
`invalid based on the Gough ground or the Buxton ground, that
`these claims would also be invalid under either of those
`grounds.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
` Nevertheless, Martin also anticipates these claims.
`Claims 8 and 9 relate to a bit-block-type transfer operation,
`also called a BITBLT operation, which the Board previously
`construed as a programming technique that transfers or moves
`blocks of bits from one area of memory to another.
` With respect to Claim 8, the only dispute is whether
`Martin discloses a programming technique for the BITBLT
`operation. And with respect to Claim 9, the only dispute is
`whether Martin discloses combining three sets of pixels, and
`that one of those three sets is optionally an image mask. For
`each of these claims, I will first explain how Martin
`discloses the claim limitations, and then, second, I will
`address Patent Owner's arguments and explain why they fail.
` If you could move to Slide 20, please?
` So Martin anticipates Claim 8 because it discloses
`the same BITBLT operation to combine images as the one
`disclosed in the ’960 Patent, as Mr. Ward testified.
` The ’960 Patent describes using a source paint
`operation, which is an OR operation for combining images. The
`Martin reference discloses using the same OR operation to
`combine images, as Mr. Ward pointed out in Exhibit 1008,
`Column 9, lines 8 through 17. Therefore, Martin teaches the
`same BITBLT operation combined images and anticipates this
`claim limitation.
` Patent Owner's only argument is that this disclosure
`in Martin is related to a hardware embodiment, and that the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`Board's construction requires a programming technique, so it
`must be a software embodiment.
` First, there's nothing in the Board's construction,
`or the claim limitation, or the specification that would
`exclude using a hardware embodiment as a programming technique
`for this operation. But even if it were so limited, Martin
`also expressly discloses a software embodiment of a BITBLT
`operation. As you can see on Slide 20, Martin, at Columns 49
`to 50, expressly discloses a BITBLT operation in the
`pseudocode, and therefore discloses a software embodiment of a
`BITBLT operation.
` Because Martin discloses both the same OR operation,
`same BITBLT operation for combining images, and a software
`embodiment of a BITBLT operation, Martin anticipates this
`claim.
` JUDGE KIM: Well, I think they have the same
`position for this one, right, where they're saying, you have
`that pseudocode function, but it's not specific to the
`keyboard representation.
` MS. DABBIERE: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KIM: What's your response to that?
` MS. DABBIERE: That's correct. And as my co-counsel
`previously pointed out, the anticipation doesn't require that
`the prior art reference disclose the same embodiment in the
`same combination. It just has to be apparent from reading the
`reference as a whole to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`that this combination -- this could be a combination. And
`specifically, the Federal Circuit in Kennametal, which is 780
`F. 3d 1376 (2015), specifically states, a reference can
`anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out all
`limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person
`of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once
`envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.
` And so here, Martin clearly discloses using a BITBLT
`operation for combining the images, and it's also pointing to
`a single software embodiment. But it's not limited to just a
`single software embodiment. This is just an example in the
`pseudocode of Martin. And even so, we maintain that the
`Board's construction of a programming technique does not
`exclude a hardware embodiment, so Martin's express disclosure
`anticipates the claim.
` We can jump back to Slide 19, I'll address Claim 9.
` So as I said before, Claim 9 requires combining
`three sets of pixels. And the only dispute here is whether
`the Martin discloses the third set, the image mask, and this
`dispute centers around the term optionally. And there is a
`claim construction dispute with respect to that term.
` And our position is that optionally means, not
`required, as we set forth in our briefing. And this is
`consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning, as well as the
`specification. And so under that construction of not
`required, this means that a system that includes an image mask
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`as a third set of pixels would anticipate this claim.
` And if we go to Slide at 21, here's an excerpt from
`Martin Exhibit 1008, Column 3, lines 37 to 49, where Martin
`expressly discloses those three sets of pixels. So first is a
`display plane, which should be the first set of the main
`image. Second is the ink plane, which should be the set for
`the key, and then third is the mask plane, which is the image
`mask. So under our construction, Martin anticipates this
`claim.
` If we jump up to Slide 19, Patent Owner's
`construction of optionally is that the system be capable of
`using an image mask for some operations and capable of not
`using an image mask for other BITBLT operations. However,
`Patent Owner's construction seems to require that we -- that
`the system is able to turn the image mask on and off, rather
`than just requiring a third set of pixels. So turning that
`off would just be incorrect in light of the claim requiring
`that there be a combination of three sets of pixels. So for
`this additional reason, Martin anticipates this claim.
` And if there are no further questions, we'd like to
`reserve the rest of our time for rebuttal.
` JUDGE SCANLON: All right. Thank you.
` MS. DABBIERE: Thank you.
` MR. CANNON: Judge Kim, may we approach with the
`hardcopies of the slides?
` JUDGE KIM: Yes, please.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
` JUDGE SCANLON: Okay. Please proceed when you're
`ready.
` MR. CANNON: Thank you, Your Honors.
` With respect to the ’960 Patent, we're going to
`start on Slide 2 with patentability over Buxton and Gough, the
`originally instituted grounds.
` As you know, the reason that we're readdressing the
`originally instituted grounds is that the patent has expired,
`and so there's a need to consider whether a transition to a
`Phillips claim construction have an effect on the analysis.
` So move to Slide 3, and that slide shows you the
`logical operators for blending limitation. It has two
`portions of the limitation that are highlighted. Both of them
`are important, both of them are required. Not just one or the
`other, but both have to be in there.
` The first is highlighted in yellow. That's the
`logical operators limitation, so you'll have to use logical operators. The
`second portion is in green, and that is what
`the logical operators do; they have to provide different
`blending and merging effects.
` What does blending mean? Blending means that a
`single pixel has a portion from the foreground and a portion
`from the background. You take a single pixel and blend a
`foreground and a background image. It's not combining the
`entire image where you take some pixels from the foreground
`and other pixels from the background. It's a single pixel,
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`has a contribution from both foreground and background.
` Again, you have to meet both. Something that just
`has logical operators, but not blending, doesn't satisfy the
`limitation. Something that blends but doesn't have logical
`operators does not meet the limitation.
` Now, staying on this slide, let's talk a little bit
`about --
` JUDGE KIM: I guess -- sorry.
` MR. CANNON: Yes, Your Honor?
` JUDGE KIM: Back to that. Could you explain how
`that works in an OR operation? Because in an OR -- I mean, OR
`operation seems binary, but then you're saying there's
`blending, which means to me more than two states. So how does
`that work?
` MR. CANNON: How that works -- and our patent
`describes a scenario in which you would use an OR operation
`for blending. How that works is you would OR all of the bits
`together on a bit-by-bit process.
` And so an OR means that if you have a zero and a one
`in either position, the blended bit would be one for
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
