trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116, Paper No. 38
`IPR2016-00161, Paper No. 42
`IPR2016-00173, Paper No. 39
`February 24, 2017
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`ALARM.COM INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`VIVINT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - - -
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`Technology Center 2600
`Oral Hearing Held: Tuesday, January 31, 2017
`
`
`Before: MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES B. ARPIN (via
`video link), and CHARLES J. BOUDREAU (via video link), Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`January 31, 2017, at 1:00 p.m., in Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116, Paper No. 38
`IPR2016-00161, Paper No. 42
`IPR2016-00173, Paper No. 39
`February 24, 2017
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`ALARM.COM INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`VIVINT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - - -
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`Technology Center 2600
`Oral Hearing Held: Tuesday, January 31, 2017
`
`
`Before: MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES B. ARPIN (via
`video link), and CHARLES J. BOUDREAU (via video link), Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`January 31, 2017, at 1:00 p.m., in Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAM H. MANDIR, ESQ.
`BRIAN K. SHELTON, ESQ.
`Sughrue Mion PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20037-3213
`202-663-7959
`
`RICHARD J. STARK, ESQ.
`TINA-ANN V. SANKOORIKAL, ESQ.
`MAX W. ABEND, ESQ.
`MARC J. KHADPE, ESQ.
`Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
`Worldwide Plaza
`
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, New York 10019-7475
`212-474-1784
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT GREENE STERNE, ESQ.
`JASON D. EISENBERG, ESQ.
`RYAN RICHARDSON, ESQ.
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`202-371-2600
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:00 p.m.)
`JUDGE ZECHER: Let's go on the record. This is
`an oral argument for three cases, Cases IPR2016-00116,
`IPR2016-00161 and IPR2016-00173.
`As the parties are aware in our oral argument order,
`we've allotted two hours for this hearing. Each party was
`given an hour for their oral arguments, which they can divide
`accordingly, for the three cases, so we will give you flexibility
`in that regard.
`As you can see, we are in Hearing Room B. We did
`our best to try to accommodate the parties to get Hearing Room
`A, but, unfortunately, due to another oral argument involving a
`large family, we were unable to do that today.
`So to begin I think it is best if the parties introduce
`themselves. Let's start with the Petitioner, please.
`MR. MANDIR: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`William Mandir from Sughrue Mion in Washington, D.C. on
`behalf of the Petitioner, Alarm.com. With me from Sughrue
`also is Mr. Brian Shelton.
`And we also have with us from the Cravath firm in
`New York City, Mr. Richard Stark, Teena Sankoorikal, Max
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`Abend, and Marc Khadpe. Also from Alarm.com we have
`Mr. Dan Ramos.
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Thank you. And for Patent
`
`Owner?
`
`MR. STERNE: Good morning, Your Honor. This
`is Robert Sterne from Sterne Kessler representing the Patent
`Owner, Vivint. And today I have with me Jason Eisenberg
`from my firm, as well as Ryan Richardson.
`We also have from the Patent Owner, Vivint, Paul
`Evans and Sean Ricks from Salt Lake City, Utah.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Thank you very much. Okay.
`The Panel realizes there is significant overlap on the issues in
`these cases. So, like I said, we're going to give you some
`leeway in your presentation.
`So, Petitioner, we will turn the floor over to you.
`We don't know if you want to stick to an individual case or you
`want to argue things together.
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: Your Honor, we have copies
`of our presentation. If I may approach?
`JUDGE ZECHER: Certainly. Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: Good afternoon, Your
`Honors. My name is Teena Sankoorikal. And my colleague
`and I, Rich Stark, will be arguing on behalf of Petitioner,
`Alarm.com, in the three IPRs at issue relating to the '601
`patent, the '654 patent, and the '123 patent.
`Alarm.com's slide 2 shows the various grounds that
`were instituted with respect to each of the three IPRs at issue.
`In each of the IPRs, Shetty is the base reference for an
`obviousness combination.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Counsel, just real quick, for
`timing purposes are you going to argue everything together?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: Yes. I apologize. For
`timing purposes I would like to reserve 13 minutes for rebuttal.
`We will be arguing by topic across the three IPRs , so we will
`lump the issues together that relate to all of the various patents
`together.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. So just so I'm clear, your
`case- in-chief is going to be 47 minutes, all three cases, 13
`minutes for rebuttal?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: That's correct.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: Slide 3 shows the issues
`that are in dispute between Alarm.com and Vivint. I will be
`arguing the first two issues, which relates to the proper
`construction of the message profile term and whether Shetty
`renders obvious or discloses remote configuration of the
`message profile.
`And, time permitting, I will also address the
`Britton issue, number 4. My colleague, Rick Stark, will be
`addressing the remaining issues.
`And as I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of the
`issues cut across all three patents. I will refer to it as the '601
`patent, but I intend to address each of the IPRs when I refer to
`the '601 patent. If an argument relates to a specific patent,
`then I will so indicate.
`All three of the Sandelman patents are directed to a
`system and method for monitoring remote equipment by means
`of a computer server. Based on incoming messages from
`connected remote equipment, see 2 through 5 here, the
`computer server routes outgoing messages about the remote
`equipment to communications devices based on message
`profiles.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`The first issue I mentioned is a proper construction
`of the term " message profile containing outgoing message
`routing instructions" and whether Shetty discloses such a
`message profile. The message profile term appears in each of
`the independent claims of all three patents. And I have
`displayed on slide 6 the competing constructions between the
`Board and Patent Owner's construction.
`Across the three patents, there is a slight variation
`in the constructions for the '601, the '123, and the '654, but the
`portion that is in dispute is identical across all three patents.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, before you go on, what
`demonstratives are you talking about? They are filed in all
`three cases. You are going to take about all three cases
`together. Which set of demonstratives am I supposed to be
`looking at?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: I apologize. The '601, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`116.
`
`
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: The '601?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: The '601, which is case
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: So with regard to slide 6, I
`put up on the board the competing constructions between the
`Board's construction and Patent Owner's construction.
`As part of its Institution Decision, the Board found
`that a message profile was a data record including instructions
`specifying at least one communication device to which an
`outgoing message can be routed in response to an incoming
`exception message.
`Alarm.com offered a different construction in its
`Petition but does not dispute the Board's construction. Vivint,
`on the other hand, disagrees with this construction and has
`proposed a narrower construction in which a profile must
`specify which communication device associated with which
`individuals a message must be routed.
`Turning to slide 7, the Board's construction, we
`contend, is the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
`with the language of the claims and the specification. Slide 7
`contains an excerpt of claim 1 of the '601 patent. If you
`notice, the claim language requires only that the user-defined
`message profile specify one or more devices that are to receive
`an outgoing message in the event of an incoming exception
`message.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`Vivint's construction, on the other hand, as I
`mentioned, requires specifying which communication devices
`are associated with which individuals a message can be routed.
`Vivint's construction is problematic for several reasons.
`First of all, the claim language does not support
`that construction. There is no mention of individuals in the
`claim language. In addition, the only reference to user is the
`user setting up a user profile.
`Secondly, Vivint's construction reads for
`individuals and, as the claim language says, it is to specify,
`ignoring the fact that there is a difference between individual
`and device, the secondary problem is that it precludes the plain
`reading of claim 1 in that it is limited to at least one device, a
`device, one device or more, and individuals is necessarily
`plural, and the claim is a device.
`The second reason why Vivint's proposed
`construction should fail is that it imports the specification into
`the claim. Vivint proposes and cites to two passages in the
`patent from column 2 and column 4 as well, but neither are
`definitions and neither involved mandatory or definitional
`language.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`Rather, both passages teach what may be a message
`profile, not what must be a message profile. And for that
`reason, Vivint's proposed construction is also wrong.
`The third reason why Vivint's proposed
`construction is wrong is that, to the extent the passages that
`they cite are definitional in nature, then they should include all
`aspects of the definition. And Vivint's proposed construction
`fails to do so.
`Specifically, for instance, with regard to column 4,
`lines 39 to 47, there are aspects missing from Vivint's proposed
`construction, like an account, accessing the account via the
`Internet, specification of the types of media. If, in fact, it
`were a definition, then all of that would need to be included in
`the definition of a message profile.
`In contrast, the Board's construction neither
`imports the specification under the claim nor claims that the
`specification defines the term message profile. However, it is
`broad enough to include the embodiments that are included
`within the specification and is correct for that additional
`reason as well.
`Finally, as I mentioned earlier, Vivint's proposed
`construction is incorrect because it does not comport with the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation. It is narrower than the
`claim language, for instance.
`So for all of these reasons, the Board's construction
`is the proper construction of the message profile term.
`Turning to slide 8 --
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, before you turn to
`slide 8, you said that their construction is narrower than the
`specification.
`Is it narrower than our proposed construction?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: It is narrower than your
`proposed construction.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Is it encompassed by our
`construction?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: Well, the Board's proposed
`construction focuses on what the claim focuses on, which is a
`device. Certainly within the Board's construction what Vivint
`claims should be included can be an embodiment within that
`construction.
`However, Vivint focuses on connection to an
`individual. So it can fall within the scope of the construction
`that the Board proposes.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you, counselor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: Turning to slide 8, Shetty
`expressly teaches storing a user profile that defines a set of
`events, and I quote, "a set of events which must occur before
`the user is notified." And as admitted by Denning, the routing
`instruction's there to send a notification, and Denning is
`Vivint's expert. So for that reason, Shetty teaches message
`profiles under the Board's construction.
`But even if Vivint's construction is accepted, which
`is specifying which communication devices are associated with
`which individuals, Shetty meets that construction as well.
`Shetty talks about users, and users are individuals,
`and each user has a user -- at least one user profile, and the
`user profile is tied to a specific device. And for that reason it
`is associated with the individuals. The device is associated
`with individuals. So for that reason --
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, did I understand you to
`say that an individual and a user are the same thing?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: An individual and a user
`may be colloquially the same thing.
`JUDGE ARPIN: But if I am a user of the terminal
`that is in front of me and someone is sending something to this
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`terminal, they are not necessarily sending it to me. I'm the
`individual, correct?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: That's correct.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you, counselor. Please
`
`continue.
`
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: So, as I mentioned, Shetty
`meets the construction even under Vivint's construction.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Counselor, aren't the profiles in
`Shetty associated with a single individual and not, plural,
`individuals, because I read their construction as associated
`with individuals, plural?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: That is correct, but Shetty
`allows for multiple user profiles.
`JUDGE ZECHER: But each individual profile only
`has one individual contact, correct, not more than one
`individual?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: A user may have multiple
`profiles and there may be multiple user profiles. Are you
`asking whether a particular profile can be linked to multiple
`individuals?
`JUDGE ZECHER: Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: I don't know that Shetty
`expressly states that multiple individuals have a single user
`profile.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: So what you are saying is Shetty
`states that individuals may have multiple profiles. My
`question is whether one individual profile can be linked to
`multiple individuals?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: It depends on how the
`database is set up. But certainly an individual -- the same
`people could be set up -- linked to the same profile if the
`instructions are set that way in the database.
`JUDGE ZECHER: But does Shetty teach or suggest
`
`that?
`
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: Shetty teaches a flexible
`and customizable message profile, so I would argue that Shetty
`does teach that.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Would Shetty allow for
`multiple users to be notified of a single exception event?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: Yes, Shetty would.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Where is that supported by
`
`Shetty?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: So Shetty teaches -- the
`question is whether Shetty allows for multiple individuals to be
`notified of a single event -- so the user sets up a profile in
`which it specifies both the event that is going to be notified
`about as well as the device to which the user would receive
`notification.
`If a specific event occurs, all of the users that are
`keyed under that event, they would all be notified. So, yes, all
`of those users would be alerted if a particular event occurred
`because that's the way the user profile is set up.
`So turning to -- I'm sorry?
`JUDGE ZECHER: Sorry about that. I think there
`is some echo today. Don't let it distract you.
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: Turning to issue 2, whether
`Shetty discloses or renders obvious a remote configuration or
`modification of the message profile. As you can see by
`looking at F igure 1, which is in slide 9, I have Figure 1 of both
`Sandelman and Shetty displayed in F igure 9. And they have
`the same architecture.
`Both of them have a data -- a computer server,
`which in Shetty is 100 -- I'm sorry, the numbers are very
`small -- is the data manager 100. In Sandelman, it is the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`computer server 1. And they both are connected to remote
`equipment. In Sandelman, it is 2 through 5, and, in Shetty, it
`is 118.
`
`They both have interface units that are attached to
`the remote equipment: 10 in Sandelman and 120 in Shetty.
`They both have external user interfaces: 121 in Sandelman and
`110 in Shetty. Shetty's is actually connected also to the event
`database and the user profile database.
`And both have external equipment devices to
`which -- sorry, devices to which the notifications are routed.
`In the case of Sandelman, it is e-mail, fax, pager and voice, 6,
`7, 8, and 9, and, in Shetty, it is 122, 114, and 116, which are
`fax reports, e- mails, and pager reports. So the architectures
`between Sandelman and Shetty are very similar.
`Regarding the issue of configuration, turning to
`slide 10, Shetty teaches -- and I quote -- that "the user
`interface 110 allows access to both the user profile database
`106 and the event database 108." Alarm.com argued that a
`PHOSITA would have understood from Shetty's disclosure of
`access that Shetty taught configuration and modification of the
`user profile database, as indicated in slide 10, and Vivint's
`arguments to the contrary are wrong.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`Vivint argues that access is not necessarily write
`access and could be limited to read only access, but the issue is
`not what the system could be, but what Shetty actually
`discloses, and what a PHOSITA would have understood by that
`disclosure. And the answer is clear. Shetty teaches access that
`includes write access.
`There is no dispute, as indicated in slide 11, that
`the plain meaning of access encompasses both reading and
`writing. Both general and technical dictionaries -- and I have
`examples of some listed up there -- show that reading and
`writing are forms of access.
`And, indeed, Vivint's Exhibit 2015 authored by
`Elmasri, teaches the same. Mr. Denning, Vivint's expert, also
`agrees.
`
`Furthermore, with respect to Shetty itself there is
`no mention of read only access capabilities and there is no
`indication in Shetty that there are definitional or restrictions
`that would imply a different interpretation of access than the
`plain and ordinary meaning of access in Shetty.
`In addition, Shetty actually expressly teaches write
`access. Shetty teaches the user's ability to input data into the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`fleet and machine database and input is write access. Vivint's
`expert, Mr. Denning, agrees.
`As indicated in slide 12, I have excerpted the
`relevant testimony from Mr. Denning where he agrees that
`"that would cause the data to be written to the fleet machine
`database 104?" "Yes." " So users at least have write access to
`the fleet and machine database?" "Yes."
`So write access in Shetty is expressly disclosed and
`Shetty does not disclose any restrictions on the user profile
`database. And for that reason Shetty discloses configuration
`and modification capabilities.
`Stepping back for a moment, Shetty's entire
`purpose is a customizable notification system. And write
`capabilities are entirely consistent with such a customizable
`system.
`
`As shown on slide 13, Shetty identified two
`problems with the art. One was an unimaginable amount of
`data to be analyzed. And the second was different persons may
`have need for different information. And Shetty states that its
`intention is to overcome these problems.
`Shetty, therefore, teaches a customizable system
`for that purpose, and a PHOSITA reading Shetty and Shetty's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`purpose would, therefore, also understand that access is
`intended to mean configuration of the user profile database.
`In addition, as I mentioned earlier, Shetty teaches
`customizable, flexible profiles consistent with this purpose of
`a customizable system. Shetty taught that a user may have
`more than one profile, profiles for multiple users, that a profile
`can define one or more events, that a profile can define one or
`more modes of communication.
`And a POSA would have understood that Shetty
`disclosed access to these flexible profiles for the purpose of
`configuring or modifying them, which is entirely consistent
`with Shetty's disclosure of a customizable system.
`Further, as explained by Mr. Zecher, there is no
`dispute that users can input data into the fleet and machine
`database. Mr. Zatarain explained that it would have been
`pointless to allow users to add machines to a fleet and machine
`database and not allow -- and I apologize, I meant Mr.
`Zatarain, not Mr. Zecher -- Mr. Zatarain, Alarm.com's expert,
`Mr. Zatarain explained that it would have been pointless to
`have allowed write access and inputting and modifying the
`fleet and management database if at the same time one couldn't
`modify or configure the user database accordingly.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`So basically you would add machines or take
`machines away from the fleet and machine database and then
`have no ability for the users to receive notifications related to
`that machine, which doesn't make a lot of sense and a
`PHOSITA would not read Shetty that way.
`The next issue, turning to slide 20, is remote
`workstations and whether Shetty teaches remote configuration.
`As I described earlier in slide 9, in connection with Shetty's
`figure 1, Shetty teaches a user interface 110 and that user
`interface is connected to a user profile 106, which is actually
`contained within the data manager 100.
`Shetty also discloses an embodiment in which users
`remotely access a data manager from a remote workstation as
`shown in slide 15. In F igure 4 --
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, turning to your slide
`10 for a moment, how do we know that the user interface 110
`is remote?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: We know that it is remote --
`you mean from figure 1? Figure 1 in conjunction with F igure 4
`and the associated text tells us that it is remote.
`Turning to F igure 4, we see that 410, for instance,
`receives --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, before you turn to
`Figure 4, am I to understand that everything outside of the
`dotted line encompassing the five elements of element 100, or
`the five sub-elements of element 100, is all that remote?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: All that is remote. It can --
`yeah, all of that is remote.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you very much, counselor.
`Please continue.
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: So turning to F igure 4, as I
`mentioned, you have 402 and 404 which receive information
`relating to the remote equipment and transmit that information
`to 410, and 410, in turn, transmits event information to
`connected user devices.
`Because of that, 410, as Mr. Zatarain explained, is
`a data manager. And connected to that data manager are 422
`and 420, and, therefore, they are connected remotely. In fact,
`as the text says, users can access data stored on a third
`workstation 406 -- which is supposed to be 410 -- and receive
`electronic e-mail via the first and second remote workstations
`420 and 422, so Shetty discloses remote access to a data
`manager 410 via remote workstations and it uses the language
`remote workstations.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Counselor, as I understand
`Patent Owner's arguments, F igure 4 relates only to e-mail
`notifications.
`So going back to F igure 1, those would be
`represented by e-mail report 114 on the left side of Figure 1?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: Correct.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: How would you respond to
`that argument that Figure 4 really relates only to the
`notifications and not to the user interface 110?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: That's not -- so our position
`is that's not an incorrect reading, first of all, of the sentence
`itself. It is not limited -- the remote workstations are not
`limited to receiving electronic mail. That's not how the
`sentence is written.
`But, also, the context of this entire passage is
`talking about communications between remote workstations
`and remote machinery. So that reading is not a correct reading
`either in the context or the plain English reading of that
`sentence.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: So just to be clear, you are
`saying that that sentence is not limited to be construed as just
`receiving notification via e-mail?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: That is correct.
`JUDGE ZECHER: There is also an access of some
`data which then you are pairing with configuration from a
`separate part of it?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: That is correct. That is
`correct. The remote workstations not only receive e-mail but
`they access the data stored on the third workstation and that's
`the proper way to read that sentence. The sentence is not --
`does not start in the middle of the sentence. So the remote
`workstation can access both.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Just to be clear, which
`sentence are you referring to?
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: I'm referring to the
`sentence on slide 15 which is the first slide in the lower -- the
`first sentence in the bottom left box of slide 15 which is
`located in Shetty Exhibit 1103 at column 4, lines 9 to 15.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
`MS. SANKOORIKAL: So Petitioner's position is
`that Shetty expressly discloses remote access and configuration
`of user profiles. But even if that weren't the case, it would
`have been routine and simple to have extended Shetty so that
`such capabilities existed.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`
`First of all, all of the elements necessary to extend
`Shetty were disclosed in Shetty. Vivint admits that Shetty
`taught configuration of the fleet and management data. So
`configuration is plainly taught in Shetty.
`Vivint also admits that at least e-mails could have
`been received remotely. So all we are doing here, to the extent
`it is not expressly disclosed -- and Petitioner's position is that
`it is expressly disclosed -- but to the extent it is not, all that
`we're doing here is reconfiguring -- we're just combining these
`known elements, these expressly-stated elements, differently so
`that there is access to the user profile database. That's all that
`is happening here.
`In addition, Shetty's entire purpose is
`customization of a message profile. That is the purpose of it.
`That is a second reason why it would have been routine to
`extend Shetty in this manner.
`Third, Shetty describes users of remote
`workstations that received remote notifications.
`And, fourth, remote configuration of notification
`systems like alarm auto- dialers were common before 1999.
`Finally, extending Shetty would have only required
`the use of known techniques to achieve known results and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the
`art and, indeed, Vivint's own evidence supports that as well.
`The Elmasri treatise, Exhibit 2015 offered by
`Vivint, in its introductory pages shows that remote write
`access was common. And Exhibit 2016, the "Using HP-UX"
`guide, expressly states that the "rlogin" utility enables running
`any program remotely.
`So for all of these reasons it would have been
`routine and simple to extend Shetty, such that these
`capabilities were found within Shetty even if they weren't
`expressly disclosed.
`At this point, if you have no questions, I will turn
`over the floor to Mr. Stark who will address the remaining
`issues.
`
`MR. STARK: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`Richard Stark for Alarm.com. I'm going to address first off the
`issue relating to communication device identification codes.
`This relates to the '601 and '123 patents.
`I would like to start at a point where I think there
`is really no disagreement between the parties and, that is, as to
`what Shetty discloses in this regard. Shetty discloses user
`profiles, each of which defines a method of communication.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`
`And those methods include communication to devices such as
`pagers, fax machines, and e-mail boxes.
`The other side's, Vivint's expert, Mr. Denning,
`admits that within Shetty the addresses for these devices,
`namely phone numbers for pagers, phone number for fax,
`e-mail address for e-mail, all of those things would have to be
`stored in Shetty, and that's admitted.
`So there is no -- nothing contested here as to what
`Shetty shows. It shows user profiles with communication to
`these different kinds of devices using identifie
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
