`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 5, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, PATRICK M. BOUCHER and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
` LIONEL M. LAVENUE, ESQUIRE
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner, LLP
` Two Freedom Square
` 11955 Freedom Drive
` Reston, Virginia 20190
` (571) 203-2700
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
` DANIEL BLOCK, ESQUIRE
` Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, and Fox PLLC
` 1100 New York Avenue Northwest
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 371-2600
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, October
`
`5, 2017, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Good morning everyone. We are here for a
`final hearing in case IPR 2016-01404, Unified Patents versus Intellectual
`Ventures II. I'm Judge Giannetti, I will be presiding over the hearing today.
`On the screen to my left are the two other members of the panel appearing
`remotely, Judge Jivani --
`JUDGE JIVANI: Good morning.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: -- and Judge Boucher. I will note that because
`we have two remote judges today it's important that you make sure that
`you're speaking into the microphones so that they can hear you, and also
`when you refer to your demonstratives please use the page numbers. They
`have copies of the demonstratives and they'll be able to follow along. All
`right, so let me get your appearances. Who's appearing today for Petitioner?
`MR. LAVENUE: Petitioner, Lionel Lavenue,
`Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So, will you be making presentation for the
`Petitioner, sir?
`MR. LAVENUE: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Thank you, and who's here for the Patent
`Owner?
`MR. BLOCK: Daniel Block, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: I'm sorry, Block, is it?
`MR. BLOCK: Daniel Block, B-L-O-C-K, from Sterne, Kessler, with
`me is also Lori Gordon.
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right, that's fine. So, to go over a few
`ground rules and then we can get started, we have alloted 60 minutes per
`side for argument today, that is a time limit. You are not required to use all
`60 minutes. The Petitioner can reserve time for rebuttal and you may do that
`either at the beginning of your presentation or if you prefer you can use the
`balance of your time. I will be keeping time and I'll try to give you a
`warning when you get into your rebuttal time, a few minutes before.
`I want to make a comment about demonstratives. Both sides have
`submitted demonstratives, we've reviewed them. We will not authorize
`them to be filed at this stage but you can use them as aids to your argument,
`but I want to caution and remind you the record of the hearing will be the
`transcript that the court reporter will prepare and will be uploaded to the case
`file and not the demonstratives. They are not evidence in this proceeding.
`So, before we began do you have any questions, either side? Petitioner, any
`questions, Patent Owner, any questions?
`MR. BLOCK: No questions from Patent Owner.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right, I think we're ready to begin. Let me
`just get organized here for a second. Petitioner, you may proceed.
`MR. LAVENUE: All set, Your Honor?
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: You can proceed when you're ready, sir.
`MR. LAVENUE: Thank you. I have a printout for you, Your Honor,
`do you need a printout?
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, I have them but I'm always happy to
`take a binder if you handthem up.
`MR. LAVENUE: Thank you, and I also have one for the court
`reporter I'll hand to her after the hearing. So, Your Honor, I'd like to reserve
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`10 minutes for rebuttal and mainly for the warning because I think that I will
`conclude well within my 50 minutes, so just in case.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: You can proceed, sir.
`MR. LAVENUE: Thank you. Your Honor, if we go to page 2 of our
`presentation, 2 of 39, we can see the summary of the instituted grounds and
`the references you see on the left side, Bensimon and -- Bensimon and
`Takahashi, and then the challenged claims are on the right. Basically this
`dispute boils down to issues about claim consideration and about the
`disclosure of Bensimon.
`Takahashi is not really at issue either in the briefing or in the
`argument as far as we can tell. If it does come up then we'll deal with that in
`the rebuttal. The summary of the issues is on the next page and basically we
`have four issues that we believe need to be resolved during this hearing.
`Each one of these issues, we believe, is an issue that the outcome is strongly
`in favor of the Petitioner and you'll see that as we explained we believe that
`there are strained arguments that are presented by the Patent Owner in order
`to try to create issues for purpose of the hearing.
`The first issue is the construction of device-specific security
`information, that is a claim term that is disputed between the parties. The
`issue is whether or not that claim term has to have the word unique in it and
`we submit that the answer is, no. That the claim, device-specific security
`information, does not have to have the word included in it and we will
`explain why. The second --
`JUDGE JIVANI: Counsel, related to that issue before you continue
`on, we did not see a head-on discussion of which claim construction
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`standard applies. It looks like from your briefing that you'd like us to apply
`broadest reasonable interpretation, BRI, is that correct?
`MR. LAVENUE: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JIVANI: We know that Patent Owner applies Phillips, do
`you have any reason for us to apply Phillips to your knowledge?
`MR. LAVENUE: We do not, Your Honor, we believe BRI is the
`proper standard.
`JUDGE JIVANI: And I take it you believe that the patent has not
`expired, correct?
`MR. LAVENUE: That's correct.
`JUDGE JIVANI: Thank you.
`MR. LAVENUE: Thank you, Your Honor. So the next issue, issue
`number 2 in our summary of issues, page 3 of 39, is does Bensimon's
`read-write password alone or in combination with the password flag disclose
`the claim device-specific security information. So, basically issue number 2
`boils down to, well, issue number 1 was claim construction and that is, is
`unique required within the claim term at issue in issue
`number 1.
`Issue number 2 is, well, depending on how the claim construction
`pans out, whether or not the Petitioner's claim construction or the Patent
`Owner's claim construction is used then that resolves whether or not there is
`a disclosure in Bensimon. But we submit that using either claim
`construction, either the Petitioner's claim construction that does not have
`unique or the Patent Owner's claim construction that does have unique,
`Bensimon does disclose the required device-specific security information
`and we will get into that in more detail as well, so that's the second issue.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`The third issue is does Bensimon disclose adding a write-protection
`password or what I refer to as a read-only password and not a read-write
`protection password to the storage device. This is one of the limitations of
`the claims which is required to be met and so the Patent Owner disputes
`whether or not Bensimon has this disclosure. We will show that Bensimon
`clearly does have this disclosure and we will explain why. Finally, the
`fourth issue is does Bensimon's host computer prevent write access to the
`storage device.
`Again, this is another claim limitation that we have to satisfy by
`showing it in Bensimon and we believe that we can show that in spades. So,
`we will go through each one of these four and deal with those one by one. If
`we go to the next slide, slide 4 of 39, we can see an overview of the issues of
`the first issue and that is the parties construction of device-specific security
`information. The issues that we'll see are outlined in section 3, which is the
`correct construction does not require a device-specific security information
`to be unique. This is the hotly debated issue about which I will spend
`approximately 45 percent of my talk today based upon my previous
`calculations. So, the three points at the bottom, we'll get to those --
`JUDGE JIVANI: Counsel, I understand you're going to spend about
`45 percent of your time on that and we appreciate that if that's the allocation
`you'd like to use. I'm also interested in Petitioner's construction of
`information that is specific to the storage device. I wonder candidly,
`counsel, what the use of specific in the construction adds, if anything,
`because it appears to simply restate the claim language without clarifying.
`MR. LAVENUE: That is true, we do restate the claim language
`without giving a further construction, but the reason we do that is because 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`the way that the claim is distinguished from a claim that would have unique
`in it. So, if we look in the specification there are examples where, for
`example, it says, unique device-specific security information, so it puts the
`word unique in front of device-specific security information.
`And there are examples in the specification of unique device-specific
`security information, for example, encryption techniques. So, that would be
`a very unique device-specific security information. But then, Your Honor,
`there's also examples of device-specific security information that is not as
`unique as encryption, for example, the manufacturing data or the
`manufacturing date, or the formatting information about the device-specific
`security information.
`Those would be specific because they have a date or a format
`configuration that is specific, but it's not to the level of uniqueness that an
`encryption would be. So, that's why we use in our claim construction
`specific as opposed to unique because that's the distinguishing factor that's
`made between the Patent Owner and the Petitioner.
`JUDGE JIVANI: So, counsel, what I think I understand you saying is
`the latter set of examples that you just went through are particular to a
`device in that they're related to that individual device, but they are not
`unique across multiple devices? That is, they could be repeated from one
`device to the next, is that correct?
`MR. LAVENUE: That's correct but it's only required in the claim to
`be device-specific security information not to be unique device-specific
`security information. That's exactly the point that the Patent Owner is trying
`to pull into this claim and that's why we make the distinguishing factor that
`you have a broad concept of specific. But within that you have unique so
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`unique, it assumed within specific, but that does not mean that we are
`limited only to unique which the Patent Owner is trying to say.
`JUDGE JIVANI: Are you able to articulate for us what that broad
`concept of specific is?
`MR. LAVENUE: Well, we would cite that the broad concept of
`specific is all of the examples that are mentioned in the specification that are
`not unique. So if we use the specification as our guide we have those
`examples that we can pull from the specification which include, as I noted,
`the manufacturing date, the formatting data, all of these example which are
`actually in the specification which gives us an idea of what would not be
`unique but would be specific.
`I can even point you, Your Honor, to the patent itself. The '459
`patent, column 5, lines 47 through 54, and here it notes, for example, in one
`embodiment a laser etches a unique serial number. Well, now that is unique
`so that's within the Patent Owner's definition. Or run a number or a date
`stamp on the storage device during manufacturing, so that's specific. So
`that's the Petitioner's example of the broader concept between unique and
`specific. So just within that section of the patent that I've cited to you we
`can see both examples, both the specific and the unique illustrated with a
`particular embodiment within the specification itself. That's where we
`would distinguish those as far as the definition for purposes of claim
`construction.
`JUDGE JIVANI: Counsel, you did not mention user-specific
`information but would the use of user-specific information in your mind also
`be broader than, I suppose, using unique user information?
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`MR. LAVENUE: Well, you are right, Your Honor, that the Patent
`Owner points to user-specific information but that seems to be something
`that would be in addition to what we're looking at here which is
`device-specific security information. Because if you're looking specifically
`in the claim and the claim is referring to device-specific security information
`then when you get to user-specific, such as a retinal scan or a fingerprint,
`then that is not necessarily the same as device-specific security information.
`So, for purposes of our claim construction we're looking at the
`device-specific aspects not the user-specific aspects.
`JUDGE JIVANI: Sure, I understand that. I'm trying to also
`understand if there's a correlation or consistency of the word specific as
`between device-specific, drive-specific, user-specific as used in the patent.
`MR. LAVENUE: I see. Well, frankly, I have not analyzed it from the
`user-specific perspective as Your Honor is questioning. I just don't have a
`specific answer to that other than to state that I can contrast the
`device-specific from the user-specific in that everything I've analyzed has
`dealt with the device. Frankly, I have not analyzed everything with respect
`to the user but if you're saying do we have a consistency in our construction
`between device-specific and user-specific I would say the answer is, yes,
`because when you look at the way the device-specific information is
`described in the specification there is clearly a line between specific and
`unique, and we can see that line, and we can point to examples in that line.
`When we get to user-specific that's a different term. I'm not sure if we can
`find the same line and frankly I haven't spent hours with my expert going
`over that and so I don't have a specific answer. That's as close as I can get
`for you, Your Honor.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: Thank you.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Can I just clarify my understanding of the
`claim, because I'm not sure I fully appreciated this before, but you gave an
`example of device-specific security information as being a manufacturing
`date, is that right?
`MR. LAVENUE: That is correct, Your Honor, from the specification
`
`--
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So if that's the case then, is the consequence
`that Claim 1, for example, would be in a full access mode or a restricted
`access mode depending only on whether it senses a manufacturing date?
`MR. LAVENUE: For purposes of the claim itself the operation of the
`computer in the full access mode when the storage device has the
`device-specific security information, if that device-specific security
`information is in the patent as opposed to in Bensimon and any of these
`which are given in the embodiment then the answer would be, yes, including
`the manufacturing date.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. LAVENUE: So, if I proceed I would go to page 5 of 39 and
`here, Your Honors, we have this key phrase, device-specific security
`information, within our claims and we can see that the method claim, the
`computer-readable medium claim, and the computer comprising claim of the
`three independent claims all have this particular term and so this is why
`we're fighting over this particular term and the claim construction of that
`term.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So, counsel, just to confirm your reading of
`this claim is that it sets forth a system or a method with two modes of
`operation, is that correct?
`MR. LAVENUE: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: And one is a full access mode which would be
`the ability to both read and write on the media?
`MR. LAVENUE: Correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: And then the other would be the restricted
`access mode which I think you referred to as read-only?
`MR. LAVENUE: Correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So, there are two modes of operation, one,
`which is full access and the other which is restricted access and one security
`code, correct?
`MR. LAVENUE: Correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: The antecedent in the last part of that claim,
`the operating step, do you see that?
`MR. LAVENUE: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: That's referring to the same device-specific
`security information as the operating step, is that right?
`MR. LAVENUE: Yes, Your Honor. That was an excellent summary,
`Your Honor, I wish that I had given that summary in my presentation, thank
`you. I should have said all of that for slide 5. Going to slide 6, Your Honor,
`slide 6 has the dispute, the claim construction dispute that we just referred
`to. Which is the Petitioner submits that the claim construction is specific
`and the Patent Owner submits that the claim construction is unique.
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`So, on the next two slide, slide 7 and slide 8, we basically go through
`the law that we used to apply the claim construction. It is improper to
`import limitations into the claims, we all know that. Different terms used in
`a claim are presumed to have different meanings, we all know that, these are
`refreshers. Page 8, it is improper to read a recited goal into the patent, so
`each -- I have these three cases because each one of these three cases lay the
`ground work for what we believe are the three errors by the Patent Owner's
`claim construction which are illustrated on page 9 of 39.
`So, on page 9 of 39, subsections B, C, and D are basically those three
`errors that we cited the case law for. The Patent Owner's construction is
`wrong first because it reads the word specific out of the claims which we've
`already talked about with Judge Jivani. Number 2 or B, the Patent Owner's
`claim construction improperly imports embodiments from the specification.
`So what the Patent Owner does is they take the examples -- Judge Jivani and
`I, we discussed certain examples in the specification -- they take the
`examples from the specification which are unique but they do not use the
`examples which are specific, so that is the error in the Patent Owner's
`construction which we'll look at in more detail.
`Subsection C, they, the Patent Owner, ignores dependent claims.
`There are dependent claims in this set of patent claims which are not before
`the Board but which are in the set of claims which actually use the word
`unique. So, the Patent Owner clearly knew when and how to use the word
`unique as opposed to specific when the patent was being written. And, in
`fact, there are claims that have the word unique so that, again, distinguishes
`that fact that the Patent Owner is trying to take an overly aggressive
`approach to these patent claims, Your Honors.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`Then finally subsection D, it's improper to import a purpose, and we'll
`look at the error that the Patent Owner submits us to that. So slide 10 is
`basically a summary of what we've discussed before which it's improper to
`read specific out of the claims which is exactly what the Patent Owner is
`doing. And if we look at slide 11, we have -- this is the expert for the
`Petitioner, this is Dr. Franzon-- and he notes -- this is a quotation, "I believe
`that unique is more narrow than specific."
`And, Judge Jivani, this is what I was referring to earlier that in order
`to give a proper claim construction, a proper claim scope in our review, we
`have to use the word specific. I mean, yes, could we have found another
`word other than the word specific, maybe we could have, right. But there
`has to be something that is broader than unique and this is what our expert
`has explained. In fact we believe that even the Patent Owner's expert would
`understand that distinction and did so in his testimony in his deposition.
`So, if we go to slide 12, we note that the specification does not require
`uniqueness, and Judge Jivani and I also spoke about that. Here under the
`first bullet point we note that, the system can use format information that is
`unique to the removable storage device, manufacturing-specific information
`that is etched on the storage device. And, note, this is preambled by
`depending on the necessary level of security. So, there are various
`embodiments which refer to in one embodiment or depending on the various
`levels of security and usually when the patent specification is referring to
`depending to levels of security it's referring to encryption and encryption is
`another set of claims which are in this patent which, again, are not before the
`Board.
`
`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
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`So, we're only looking at a particular set of claims which are dealing
`with specific -- device-specific security information. We're not looking at
`those claims that deal with unique and we're not looking at those claims that
`deal with encryption. If we go to page 13, all examples of the allegedly
`unique device-specific information are prefaced with some sort of limiting
`language. You'll find nothing in the patent that says that the device-specific
`security information always has unique information or requires unique
`information.
`And, in fact, with Judge Jivani we pointed out examples where it is
`specific and not unique. And at this point I actually, Judge Jivani, read a
`quotation from the patent where I was going to show you these different
`illustrations of unique and specific but I've already gone over that so I'll skip
`that. But that is the patent at column 5, lines 46 through 54.
`JUDGE JIVANI: We appreciate that, thank you.
`MR. LAVENUE: Thank you, Your Honor. So, on the next slide,
`slide 14, we note that it's wrong to import examples from the specifications
`into the claim. In one embodiment is not the same as in all embodiments.
`And, in fact, under the second bullet point on page 14 we note that even if
`there were only one example -- even if there were only one embodiment in
`the specification even then it would be improper to limit the scope of the
`claims just to that one embodiment.
`But that's not what we have here because we have multiple different
`examples, some with unique, some with specific, and so this illustrates
`further why the Patent Owner's construction is too narrow, too limited. Slide
`15, the '459 patent never states that it must be unique and this is, frankly, my
`favorite argument here. My co-counsel always tells me -- when we were
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`practicing yesterday said, don't say it's your favorite argument because they
`may not agree, but I have to say it.
`So my favorite argument is on slide 15, and we can see that the patent
`specification specifically says, a unique device-specific security information
`can be generated from the unique characters of the underlying storage
`medium, and then there's also another reference to a unique device-specific
`key. Well, see both of these examples clearly show that when the Patent
`Owner wanted to use the word unique they used the word unique in the
`specification, but even more so unique is further defining device-specific
`security information here.
`So, this is taking the broad concept of device-specific security
`information and it is narrowing it down to a very specific example of a
`unique-specific security information. This clearly shows that the patent --
`the applicant, the Patent Owner here knew what was happening, how to
`write these claims, and how to write the specification. Next, if we go to
`slide 16.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Can I just interrupt you there for a second?
`MR. LAVENUE: Yes, Judge.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: I think the Patent Owner's pointing to this
`language at the bottom of column 3 of the patent, of the '459 patent, where it
`says that device-specific security information is derived from the unique
`format information. I inserted the word, is, there. But would you at least
`agree that device-specific security information is derived from unique format
`information?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`MR. LAVENUE: I think that when it's referring to unique format
`information it's merely referring to one embodiment and one example. I
`don't think that that is referring to all examples, and also --
`JUDGE BOUCHER: I'm not sure about that. I mean you may be
`right but I'm not sure because the sentence begins, depending upon the
`selected security level, but I understand that limitation to be referring to how
`you generate the key by combining difference pieces of information. But it
`seems to me that in subpart 1 there it is saying that device-specific security
`information is derived from unique format information.
`MR. LAVENUE: Well, two answers to that, Your Honor. Number
`one is, that that is referring to the encryption example and, number 2 is,
`when you're referring to the encryption example it says depending on the
`level of security that is being applied. So, if you're using encryption then
`usually that is how the patent applicant describes the use of device-specific
`security information, as the unique example as opposed to the specific more
`general example that Judge Jivani and I were discussing earlier. So, those
`would be my two responses to that. One, this is narrowly construed to the
`embodiment of encryption and number 2, that preface of depending on the
`level of security that is similar to in one embodiment. Those are the two
`responses to that, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Counsel, in column 4, around line 13, 14
`there's another example of device-specific security information, you see
`that? Refers to it as a hash of the address of the bad sector of the storage
`device, but in which of the categories of device-specific information does
`that fall, is it unique or not?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`MR. LAVENUE: If you continue on, Your Honor, it specifically
`explains the answer to that under lines 15 through 19. It says, because it is a
`function of the physical characteristics of the actual storage medium within
`the storage device the format information is inherently unique to each
`storage device, 151. So, that would be the example of the unique as opposed
`to the example of the specific.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So, there's no possibility that two storage
`devices would have the same -- it's so improbable to havethe same bad
`sectors and therefore assuming that this hashingwas working, no possibility
`of that being the same?
`MR. LAVENUE: Well, I don't want to dispute the inventor but I
`believe that's what the inventor believed.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: The inventor believed that?
`MR. LAVENUE: That's right.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: That the occurrence of these bad sectors being
`the same on two disks is so improbable that effectively it would be
`inherently unique.
`MR. LAVENUE: That's how I read the inventor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: That's your reading of it?
`MR. LAVENUE: That's my reading of the inventor here, Your
`Honor, yes.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Thank you.
`JUDGE JIVANI: Counsel, on the same embodiments that we're
`looking at in the paragraph it starts the first -- the first full paragraph of
`column 4, the prior paragraph you distinguished as directed to encryption.
`Would you say that this passage is also directed to encryption or not?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`MR. LAVENUE: This is directed to an encryption-like because it's a
`hash for generating a unique device-specific security information, so it's an
`encryption-like. I mean as you know, Your Honor, there are various
`examples throughout this embodiment of different ways of creating
`device-specific security information both unique and specific and there's no
`question that the majority of the examples are generated -- are intended to be
`for the unique example, I meant that's a fact. But that doesn't mean that the
`claim construction should be limited only to those examples or the majority
`of the examples.
`JUDGE JIVANI: I'm not sure I understand what encryption-like
`means.
`MR. LAVENUE: Well, a hash in order to create a inherently unique
`device-specific security information to me would be encryption-like. I mean
`using a hash is similar to encryption because your goal --
`JUDGE JIVANI: I see, but the paragraph begins, counsel, in order to
`automatically detect whether a storage device is a secure device, that sounds
`pretty parallel to Claim 1, for instance, and not necessarily addressed to the
`notion of selecting a security level for encryption like we looked at the
`bottom of column 3.
`MR. LAVENUE: Well, again, Your Honor, I don't dispute the
`specification has many examples and that those examples all can work
`within the context of the claims but just because there are a majority of
`examples that are geared toward unique does not mean that they all are
`geared toward unique and therefore that the claim should be limited to
`unique.
`JUDGE JIVANI: Thank you, Counsel.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01404
`Patent 6,968,459 B1
`
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: That line that Judge Jivani was looking at at the
`beginning of that paragraph where it says, in order to automatically detect
`whether a storage device is a secure device, isn't that really kind of the point
`of the invention? And my concern is your claim construction captures
`something where the security mode is going to depend on the ability to sense
`something as innocuous as the manufacturing date -- that might sound like
`an unreasonably broad construction to me.
`MR. LAVENUE: Well, let me try to improve upon my prior answer.
`So, if we're looking at column 4, lines 5 through 19 and, Your Honor, if you
`look the first sentence does start out with -- as Judge Jivani noted -- in order
`to automatically detect whether a storage device is a secure device, and then
`goes on. But then look what happens at the very next sentence, the very next
`sentence says, in one embodiment the d
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
