trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-00635, Paper No. 54
`May 26, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`----------
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`---------
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner,
`V.
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`----------
`Case IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`--------
`Oral Hearing held: Tuesday, April 26, 2016
`
`
`Before HONORABLE BARBARA A. BENOIT, LYNNE E.,
`PETTIGREW, and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`Hearing in the above matter was held at the U.S. Patent &
`Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Madison Building, 9th
`Floor, Hearing Room D, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia,
`commencing at 2:00 p.m..
`
`REPORTED BY: ELIZABETH MINGIONE, RPR
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-00635, Paper No. 54
`May 26, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`----------
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`---------
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner,
`V.
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`----------
`Case IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`--------
`Oral Hearing held: Tuesday, April 26, 2016
`
`
`Before HONORABLE BARBARA A. BENOIT, LYNNE E.,
`PETTIGREW, and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`Hearing in the above matter was held at the U.S. Patent &
`Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Madison Building, 9th
`Floor, Hearing Room D, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia,
`commencing at 2:00 p.m..
`
`REPORTED BY: ELIZABETH MINGIONE, RPR
`
`
`
` A
`
` P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L:
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ARRIS GROUP, INC.:
` ANDREW R. SOMMER, ESQUIRE
` WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
` 1700 K Street, Northwest
` Washington, D.C. 2006
` (202) 282-5000
` asommer@winston.com
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.:
`
`MICHAEL J. TURTON, ESQUIRE
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street, Northeast
`Suite 2800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4528
`(404) 815-6500
`mturton@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER, C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC:
`
`IPR2015-00635, Paper No. 54
`May 26, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
` WALTER E. HANLEY, JR., ESQUIRE
` SHEILA MORTAZAVI, ESQUIRE
` KENYON LAW FIRM
` One Broadway
` New York, New York 10004-1007
` (212) 425-7200
` whanley@kenyon.com
` smortazavi@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(2:00 p.m.)
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Good afternoon,
`
`everyone.
`
`I'm Judge Pettigrew. With me in the
`hearing room is Judge Benoit. And Judge Quinn is
`joining us by video from our Dallas office.
`This is a hearing for IPR 2015- 00635,
`ARRIS Group v. C-Cation Technologies, challenging
`U.S. Patent Number 5,563,883. A second proceeding,
`IPR 2015- 01796, in which Cox Communications
`challenges the same patent, has been joined with this
`proceeding.
`
`Each side has 60 minutes to argue.
`Petitioners have the ultimate burden of
`establishing unpatentability and will argue first.
`Petitioners also may address their motion to exclude, if
`you choose, in your opening argument. Patent Owner
`then will respond to Petitioner's arguments and may
`address its own motion to exclude, if you choose to do
`so.
`
`Next, Petitioner may use any time it has
`reserved for rebuttal to respond to Patent Owner's
`arguments. And, finally, Patent Owner, if you do
`address the motion to exclude in your opening argument,
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`you may reserve some time for rebuttal to respond only
`to Petitioner's arguments on that issue.
`Judge Quinn is joining us by video from our
`Dallas office, and will not have the benefit of visual
`cues in the room. So, please, when you speak about an
`exhibit or demonstrative, begin by identifying it with
`specificity, including the particular page or slide
`number. Also please be sure to speak into the
`microphone so that Judge Quinn can hear you.
`Counsel, when you begin your argument,
`please identify yourself for the record and the party you
`represent.
`
`Petitioner, you may begin when ready. And
`would you like to reserve any rebuttal time?
`MR. SOMMER: Yes, Judge Pettigrew. I
`would like to reserve 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: All right. You may
`
`begin.
`
`MR. SOMMER: May it please the Board,
`Andrew Sommer on behalf of ARRIS Group, Inc. Today
`I'm here with Michael Turton, who is here on behalf of
`Cox Inc.
`
`We have a copy of the demonstrative slides
`in hard copy, if the panel would like them, at least 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
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`panel that's present here. I understand the remote judge
`will have them electronically. Would you like them?
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: I would like a copy.
`MR. SOMMER: Okay. May I approach?
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Yes.
`MR. SOMMER: So this proceeding
`challenges the validity of U.S. Patent 5,563,883. In
`turning to slide 2 of our demonstrative, we have a couple
`of graphics from the '883 patent to just provide, by way
`of overview. We think the institution decision actually
`has a fairly accurate summary of what the patent itself is
`about.
`
`This particular patent has three claims that
`are being challenged. They are all method claims.
`Those claims pertain to the use of a particular type of
`system that has a central controller, a plurality of remote
`terminals, and a shared transmission means.
`And the central controller and the remote
`terminals are allocated particular types of channels
`called signaling data channels. And those channels are
`initially assigned according to the method, and they can
`be reassigned by the central controller, according to the
`claim method.
`Here we have some figures on the
`right- hand side of slide 2 that show the difference
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`between two types of channels discussed by the patent.
`There are bearer channels, which carry primarily user
`data, according to the patent, and then there are
`signaling data channels, which carry signaling data.
`They are also referred to as control channels.
`The '883 patent includes a number of flow
`charts, but this is just one exemplary flowchart. And
`this is one that the expert testimony refers to as a
`process that shows the reassignment and assignment of
`terminals, as well as several other processes that are
`described in the patent.
`This particular figure starts with a terminal
`request. And if you follow the various flows down
`through the bottom, it ends with the issuance of a
`command to the terminal to either tune or retune to a
`particular channel. And the step of terminal assignment
`is shown here in 230.
`Now, this particular figure was annotated
`for the purposes of Dr. Heegard's deposition. You'll
`note that the figure in the patent doesn't actually have
`these numbers. It just provided a convenient way to
`facilitate discussion about this particular figure.
`So '883 patent, claim 1, this is slide 4 of the
`demonstratives. This claim is the only independent
`claim that is being challenged here. There's a rather
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`lengthy preamble. And it defines the type of system that
`this method needs to be performed in. It says in a
`multiple-access communications system.
`We are going to have a central controller, a
`shared transmission means, and a plurality of remote
`terminals. And then there's going to be a method of
`allocating signaling data channels between the central
`controller and the plurality of remote terminals from a
`plurality of communication channels, and of assigning
`those terminals, comprising a number of steps which
`we've called in our briefing steps 1A through 1E.
`The first of the steps is establishing
`communications between the central controller and the
`plurality of remote terminals via a plurality of signaling
`data channels. And each of the terminals needs to be
`initially assigned to a pair that's predetermined. And we
`can discuss how our proofs meet that. But one example
`is the single hand -- single-channel hunt sequence
`followed by normal operation in that the remote terminal
`performs a single channel hunt based on what's stored in
`its memory, and attempts to communicate on that
`channel using the process described by the MPT
`specifications.
` Step B is monitoring the status of a
`plurality of signaling data channels in use between the
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`central controller and the plurality of remote terminals,
`and they monitor for usability of those channels. Step
`C, determining whether one of said plurality of remote
`terminals needs to be reassigned to a different signaling
`data channel other than the predetermined signaling data
`channel. This is a particular limitation that the parties
`dispute.
`
`It's fairly clear to me that the dispute is
`really one of claim construction. And the question here
`is does this step need to be performed by a central
`controller, which we'll get to that in our discussion this
`afternoon.
`
`Step D, determining whether a different and
`suitable signaling data channel is available, other than
`the predetermined signaling data channel. And then the
`final step, which is another disputed step, reassigning by
`said central controller, said remote terminal to a
`different and suitable signaling data channel for
`communications henceforward.
`So this particular limitation is another one
`that the parties have disputed the meaning of and ha ve
`disputed whether the actual proof that has been put in
`actually satisfies this limitation.
`JUDGE QUINN: Counsel?
`MR. SOMMER: Yes.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`JUDGE QUINN: Just a question regarding
`the claim construction of terms. We understand that
`there has been at least one claim construction in District
`Court, but we are not aware of others, other than Exhibit
`1004.
`
`Are there any additional orders on claim
`construction regarding the terms in dispute here?
`MR. SOMMER: It is my understanding that
`there is a second claim construction order that is coming
`out of the Eastern District of Texas. I'm happy to put
`that on file with the panel, if they would find that
`helpful.
`
`JUDGE QUINN: We'll discuss that and let
`
`you know.
`
`MR. SOMMER: Okay.
`JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
`MR. SOMMER: Yes. So the reassigning by
`said central controller has to reassign something
`specific.
`
`The claim says it has to reassign said
`remote terminal.
`What is the remote terminal reassigned to?
`It's reassigned to a different and suitable
`signaling data channel. And why is it reassigned? It's
`reassigned for communication henceforward.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`So claim 3 is a dependent claim. And it
`further limits the steps of the monitoring of the status of
`the plurality of signaling data channels for Step B of
`claim 1. It requires a number of other processes. This
`claim is subject to ground 2 of the channel on which the
`Board had instituted trial. And on this particular claim,
`we've shown how MPT, the three MPT specifications in
`view of Zdunek and Dufresne render obvious this
`particular claim.
`And then Claim 4 is another dependent
`
`claim.
`
`It refines Step 1C of Claim 1. And it
`requires a sensing of the status for overloading to
`determine whether the remote terminal needs to be
`reassigned, and sensing the status of the signaling data
`channels for failure to determine if the remote terminal
`needs to be reassigned.
`So, one of the big disputes that has come up
`in the briefing are whether the MPT specifications
`constitute printed publications. We submit they
`absolutely do. The evidence shows that these were
`copyrighted first in 1988, revised and reprinted in 1991,
`and that there is substantial evidence showing that not
`only were they actually printed, but the RA or the
`radiocommunication agency, which is an agency under
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`the Department of Trade and Industry in the United
`Kingdom, made these available for free in its library.
`They were available upon written request.
`There's a phone number, a 24- hour number, if it's that
`urgent to get a copy of these particular specifications.
`And the document itself says the specifications are
`published by between April 1, 1991, and March 31,
`1992, well before the 102(b) critical date.
`So, these specifications were not some
`well- kept secret that was lurking in a library in Peru and
`never indexed and sitting on a shelf. The prior art
`shows a number of instances in which the MPT
`standardization process, regardless of whether I
`understand that there's a question of whether, well, of do
`these particular references reference the '91 version that
`we've put into evidence, or do they refer to the earlier
`1988 version.
`We submit that that's really not the relevant
`question as to why we are using these particular pieces
`of evidence. It shows that those skilled in the art were
`aware that the radiocommunications agency h ad
`promulgated standards. They knew the standards body
`that was involved in the standardization process, so that
`would have naturally led them to the RA to see if there
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`were updated versions, which the evidence shows were
`freely available.
`These particular standards were discussed
`during FCC rule-making proceedings for trunked radio in
`the United States. And that's Exhibit 1032. And this is
`slide 10. At the bottom, we see that there's a footnote.
`Some of the telecommunications industry stalwarts were
`discussing whether or not MPT should be used here in
`the United States as well.
`This document is dated 1989, obviously
`cannot be referring to the 1991 version of the standard.
`But, nevertheless, it shows the awareness to those
`skilled in the art about the standardization of these
`standards and where to go to get them. The British
`Department of Trade and Industry had promulgated these
`standards. So we submit that the standards themselves
`are printed publications.
`So the overview of the MPT functionalities,
`we've got a number of slides. These are discussed in the
`petition and the supporting declaration in some level of
`detail, some of them up to six pages of discussion. So
`we obviously don't have time to repeat all that here, but
`I'll hit the highlights.
`The MPT functionalities define two real
`primary pieces of equipment. There are others like base
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`stations in the network, but the TSC is the brains behind
`the operation. It is the trunk system controller, trunking
`system controller. And that talks to radio units that are
`distributed throughout the network.
`And there are a number of ways these
`networks can be set up. There are a lot of options in the
`standards, but one of those ways is to distribute them
`among different fleets and different populations so that
`the radio units can be moved from one area or one set of
`frequencies to another, for example, or multiple fleets
`can be operated on a single network based on use of
`different frequencies.
`And here you see that there are forward
`channels and return channels, just like in the patent.
`There are forward control channels and reverse control
`channels. And they are always used in pairs. And that's
`because the frequencies need to be separated. And that's
`what we are showing here in this demonstrative.
`So, this is a bit of a -- bit of a spaghetti
`mess here. But what I will submit is that this chart
`shows the flow of various processes with citations to the
`individual sections of the standard, to help the Board
`navigate exactly how these pieces fit together. And we
`do so -- we explain this in the petition, pages 10 through
`16, in fairly exhaustive detail.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`This particular diagram shows all three of
`the types of functionality that are really at play in the
`two use cases that we've articulated in the petition.
`The first is the single-channel hunt
`sequence, which appears in top right of slide 12. And it
`goes over into the registration process.
`If registration is granted, we have normal
`operation, which is in the big white box on the
`right- hand side of slide 12.
`And then we have fallback operation which
`appears on slide 12 in the lower left- hand corner. And it
`shows how fallback mode operation can result from a
`switch from normal operation and can be exited by going
`back and performing channel hunt procedures by the
`remote terminals. We'll get into a couple more of the
`more relevant functionalities here in a moment.
`This is another flow chart that you'll find in
`the petition. The petition articulates exactly what this is
`showing, but, suffice it to say, this is particularly
`relevant. This is slide 13. And it's particularly relevant
`to the MPT functionality at issue for use case 1, which
`is our single-channel hunt theory, followed by normal
`operation.
`
`And these are a series of decisions that the
`remote terminal has to perform before it can even ask to
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`communicate on a control channel, which is the series of
`steps to the right- hand-most side of this demonstrative.
`So, skipping ahead a few slides in our deck.
`JUDGE QUINN: Counsel, I don't see a
`more detailed explanation of the fallback operation or
`the fallback procedures.
`Are you only relying on the single-channel
`hunt sequence now?
`MR. SOMMER: Not at all, Your Honor.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
`MR. SOMMER: Not at all. The way that
`the briefing breaks down as to the fallback mode is that
`there are two primary arguments as to why
`single-channel hunt does not meet the claims. One is
`that it doesn't meet Step 1C, and one that it does not
`meet Step 1E. We obviously contest that, but the same
`arguments are made with respect to the fallback mode.
`There's only one unique argument as to
`fallback mode. And that is that step C must depend
`upon the output or the result of the monitoring Step B.
`So as to that particular argument, and as we've submitted
`in our reply, that argument seems to exclude
`embodiments from the specification inappropriately and
`rests solely on expert opinion as to why that needs to be
`the case.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`For example, there is an example given in
`Figure 6C. And we can get back to that. Figure 6C of
`the patent, Exhibit 1001, we can look at slide 3, has an
`example in which the terminal makes a request. And if
`it's a registration request, the process flows down the
`right- hand side of the figure. And it determines whether
`it's a newly registered terminal.
`In the instance in which the central
`controller says this is not a newly registered terminal, I
`already hold a registration for this terminal, it makes an
`assumption. And the assumption is that the terminal had
`had a channel failure. And, therefore, is requesting a
`new registration because of that channel failure.
`And so it goes into the block that was
`actually renumbered during Dr. Heegard's deposition as
`180. But you can see it's also in Exhibit 1023, which
`was put in the record as part of our reply. And that is
`channel failure processing in which it goes down into
`the second half or the bottom half of the figure. And it
`then reassigns that terminal to a different and suitable
`channel based on this failure processing.
`So we submit that that embodiment would
`be excluded by requiring Step B to feed into Step C,
`notwithstanding the language of the claim which really
`doesn't suggest that on its face.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Well, does a claim
`have to include every embodiment in the patent?
`MR. SOMMER: Not necessarily. If there is
`a good reason not to include an embodiment within the
`patent, or if there's a reason to include that the inventor
`claimed distinct embodiments in distinct claims, you
`obviously do not construe the claim as trying to cover
`every embodiment because you can end up with
`unreasonable claim constructions.
`But on the language of the claim, and
`particularly Step C, there's really no reason to read Step
`B or an output of the monitoring step into Step C, which
`is simply a determination that it needs to be reassigned.
`If it had said something like it needs to be
`reassigned based on the monitoring, that would be an
`entirely different circumstance than we have here.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: So that argument is
`based on the plain language of the claim, rather than the
`fact that it excludes an embodiment?
`MR. SOMMER: Well, our argument is
`based first on the plain language of the claim, following
`the Phillips rubric of claim construction. We look first
`to the language of the claim. The name of the game is
`the claim. I think we put that at the beginning of our
`reply.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`We steadfastly believe that in this case that
`doctrine really resolves pretty much all of the disputes
`as to whether the prior art fits within the claim. But
`beyond that, the intrinsic evidence of the specification,
`which is highly persuasive in claim construction, does
`suggest that excluding that embodiment, you probably
`need a very good reason to do so.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Thank you.
`MR. SOMMER: You are welcome. So,
`moving on, to -- Judge Quinn, did I answer your
`question about fallback mode?
`JUDGE QUINN: Yes. Thank you.
`MR. SOMMER: Now I would like to move
`on to the proofs regarding Step C. And this can be
`found on slide 20, which is really just a collection of the
`record cites that we have for our support for this -- I'm
`sorry, actually, I would like to focus on slide 19. So it's
`the single-channel hunt.
`As I said, I think the dispute on Step C
`really boils down to the same dispute but for that C
`depends on B argument that we just spoke about. So in
`single-channel hunt, the radio unit is confirmed and
`operating on a control channel because it's confirmed it.
`It's obtained a registration or determined it
`did not need to register. And it's monitoring the channel
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`for usability criteria, such as code word sample error
`events or performing a background search, looking at
`other frequencies that the radio unit itself can hear to
`say, you know, is there a better channel for me out
`there.
`
`And if there is, it makes a decision, which
`is a computer-implemented process that's contemplated
`expressly by the standard, to leave the control channel.
`I'm going to let go of this control channel, and I'm going
`to go find another one. And there are a number of
`criteria expressed by the standard.
`For example, a number of unsuccessful
`attempts to communicate. If it's on a channel, and it
`makes a request to say send a data message to another
`user, and it tries that a number of times, it can say I've
`been unsuccessful so many times. I'm going to look for
`a new channel. There must be a problem here.
`And so in that respect the remote terminal
`is making a determination of whether one of said
`plurality of remote terminals needs to be reassigned to a
`different signaling data channel other than the
`predetermined signaling data channel.
`So moving ahead to sl ide 21, and as I
`foreshadowed in the argument here, the real argument is
`does the central controller need to perform the
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`determination step, because as you've he ard, the remote
`terminal or the radio unit of MPT is performing the
`functionality that we've identified in petition. I don't
`think there's really any dispute about that.
`JUDGE QUINN: I want to ask you about an
`argument that Patent Owner has made that you've taken
`the position in District Court that the central controller
`is the key element of all of the steps that are claimed in
`the independent Claim 1.
`MR. SOMMER: So --
`JUDGE QUINN: And you made that
`statement in connection with your claim construction
`hearing. I would like to hear your response to that.
`MR. SOMMER: So the statement made
`during the claim construction hearing, and my
`recollection of that particular statement was during an
`exchange with the judge about the claims. And let me
`find that particular statement. It says the central
`controller plays a key role in Steps A through E.
`To the extent that that was actually adopted
`by the District Court, which we submit it wasn't, you
`know, that might raise a different question here. But
`whether or what is a central role in this step, we submit
`that that doesn't mean that the central controller actually
`has to perform the determination. Obviously the central
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`controller is part of the claim. It does play a role in the
`various steps.
`In the determination, it's emanating the
`signals that are being sensed for error. So this
`particular statement we submit, first of all, is
`ambiguous, but in any event, certainly not binding or a
`reason to construe claim limitation 1C as being
`performed by the central controller.
`And the intrinsic record I think is very
`telling on this particular limitation. And specifically if
`we look at Claim 1, Claim 1 only says that a particular
`step needs to be performed by a particular piece of
`equipment that is the central controller one time. That
`is limitation E. That was added by amendment,
`intentionally, by the inventor during prosecution to
`distinguish over some prior art.
`So where the inventor wanted to say that a
`particular step needed to be performed, the step of
`determining, for example, he knew how to do it. If he
`wanted Step 1C to be limited to being performed by
`central controller, it was a simple matter of claim
`drafting. He left the claim broad.
`Claim 2 shows us the same thing. You've
`got polling by a central controller, sensing by a remote
`terminal, and a step of responding to the polling by the
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`central controller. And the response is from the remote
`terminal.
`
`So, we have a number of steps here in which
`the inventor intentionally made reference to the specific
`piece of network equipment that needed to perform the
`given step.
`
`Step C, we have that missing. So the claims
`themselves suggest that Step 1C is not so limited. We
`submit that the patent also, the specification also
`supports this construction that the inventor didn't intend
`to limit the claims on the determining whether the
`terminal needs to be reassigned to an embodiment in
`which the central controller must do the reassignment.
`And that is in Figure 6. In discussing this
`particular text, Dr. Heegard, Patent Owner's expert, was
`asked what types of examples, and this is from the
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and
`this can be found on slide 23. From a perspective of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, what kinds of
`terminal requests does this process in Figure 6 of the
`patent receive?
`And one of the things that it receives is a
`request for reassignment. And so the remote terminal
`can request reassignment. It has that right. It could ask
`to be reassigned. And in that instance, it's the remote
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`terminal that's making the determination that it needs to
`be reassigned.
`Additionally, I would like to point out that
`while Dr. Heegard in this particular proceeding has
`submitted some testimony saying that Step C needs to be
`performed by the central controller, he's taken a
`different position when testifying under oath in 2013, as
`to the interpretation of the claims.
`And he was asked during deposition: Can
`you tell me, in your understanding of the claim, what
`other steps in Claim 1 must be performed by the central
`controller?
`
`And his answer was: Well, we talked
`earlier that the monitoring has to be available to the
`central controller. The only thing definitely the central
`controller does is reassigning, because it explicitly says
`that.
`
`And I think he stated our position exactly
`right. Where the claim says what needs to do a
`particular step, the claim is so limited. But where it
`doesn't, it's not limited to any particular piece of
`network equipment performing that step.
`And he made an assumption when he
`actually applied this in his infringement analysis. He
`didn't assume that any of the other limitations were to be
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`limited in the way that they now submit the claim should
`be limited.
`
`So we submit that the claim construction
`that was adopted in the i nstitution decision is consistent
`with the intrinsic record, and that the extrinsic record
`certainly doesn't justify deviating from that claim
`construction.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Mr. Sommer, doesn't the
`question in Step C, determining whether one of said
`plurality of remote terminals, doesn't that suggest that
`the central controller would be making that
`determination?
`MR. SOMMER: We submit that it doesn't.
`It's simply a determination about one of the terminals.
`And things can make determinations about themselves
`all the time. I made a determination that I am going to
`show up here today and make this argument. I
`determined that I was going to go to law school. And
`that allowed me to be here.
`But, you know, my car determines it needs
`an oil change every 3,000 miles. It lets me know. My
`computer determines that it needs to reboot after
`receiving a software update. These types of things
`happen all the time in systems. And they can make
`determinations about themselves.
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`I don't think that the language of Step C is
`so strong as to preclude a self-determination by one
`remote terminal. If it had been about multiple remote
`terminals in the context of this patent, that might have
`been a very different circumstance.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: I think we
`understand -- I see you have got slides now with respect
`to Step D. I think we understand the arguments with
`respect to Step D. You may want to move on to Step E,
`which I think is a major point of contention.
`MR. SOMMER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`So, Step E, we've got some discussion here on slide 28.
`And as I mentioned at the beginning, in focusing on the
`language of the claim, the claim requires reassigning by
`the central controller. So a central controller has to
`perform this step of reassigning.
`What is reassigned? The remote terminal.
`And where is it reassigned to? A different and suitable
`signaling data channel for the purpose of
`communications henceforward.
`And so focusing on the analysis presented
`in the petition as to how single channel hunt followed by
`normal operation on a control channel actually meets
`this particular limitation, Petitioner submits that the
`registration process itself leads the TSC to reassign the
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`remote terminal because it gives the remote terminal
`access to that channel.
`Now,
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
