throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IP CO., LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 13, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, BRYAN F. MOORE, and TREVOR M.
`JEFFERSON Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`
`JAMES R. BATCHELDER, ESQUIRE
`MATTHEW W. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
`Ropes and Gray LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 4th Floor
`East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`GREGORY GONSALVES, ESQUIRE
`The Gonsalves Law Firm
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, November
`
`13, 2017, commencing at 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Good afternoon everyone. We are here for
`final argument in case IPR2016-01602, the caption of the case Emerson
`Electric Company versus IP Co., LLC involving patent number 6,249,516.
`All right counselors, may we get your appearances? Who is appearing today
`for the Petitioner first?
`
`MR. BATCHELDER: Good afternoon Your Honor. My name’s
`James Batchelder. I’m from the law firm of Ropes and Gray on behalf of
`Petitioner Emerson Electric. With me today are my colleagues Jim Davis
`and Matthew Shapiro.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Who will be making the presentation
`for the Petitioner, Mr. Batchelder?
`
`MR. BATCHELDER: I will and Mr. Davis.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. And who do we have today for the
`Patent Owner?
`
`DR. GONSALVES: Good morning, Your Honors. My name is Dr.
`Gregory Gonsalves and I will be representing the Patent Owner, IP Co.,
`LLC.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Dr. Gonsalves, thank you. Before we get
`started, let me just go over a couple of ground rules. Each side has 45
`minutes to present argument. The Petitioner will start. Petitioner may
`reserve rebuttal time to answer any arguments that are raised by Patent
`Owner. You may do that either at the beginning your presentation or if you
`prefer you may just reserve the balance of your time. Just let me know
`which you’re going to do. Both sides have provided us with demonstratives.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`We have the demonstratives that you have provided us. There are some
`extra copies up here, is that right? Some extra copies up here?
`
`MR. BATCHELDER: We did submit extra copies.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Did you want to submit anything for
`the Patent Owner?
`
`DR. GONSALVES: Your Honor, actually in my presentation I’ll be
`referring directly to the record. I think the slides will be useful to you just to
`give you an outline, but during my presentation I’ll refer to the record itself.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay, you won’t be using the slides during
`your presentation?
`
`DR. GONSALVES: That’s right. I do - -
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: We have them - -
`
`DR. GONSALVES: I do have extra copies if you want - -
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: That’s all right. We do have the copies that
`you’ve provided us by email. We have those available. I don’t think we’ll
`need the additional copies. All right, I do want to remind you though on the
`subject of demonstratives, if you do use demonstratives please refer to the
`number, the page number or the slide number so we have a clear record of
`what you are referring to. The demonstratives are not going to be filed.
`We’ve reviewed them and we’re not going to authorize filing of the
`demonstratives from either side but you can certainly use them as aids to
`argument, but I want to remind you they are not part of the record. The
`record of this hearing will be the transcript that’s going to be prepared by the
`Court Reporter, so if you want something in the record of the hearing, please
`put it on the record orally, don’t rely on the demonstratives. I don’t think I
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`have anything further. Do the parties have questions? Mr. Batchelder,
`anything further?
`
`MR. BATCHELDER: Just a couple of housekeeping (inaudible),
`Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Sure.
`
`MR. BATCHELDER: In terms of reservation of time, we will simply
`reserve the balance of time but to give the panel some sense of it, depending
`on questions, we would in tend to reserve roughly 20 minutes.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. So I will set the clock for 45 minutes
`and then I’ll try to give you some warning when you’ve reached the, I guess
`it would be the 25 minute point.
`
`MR. BATCHELDER: Thank you that would be helpful.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right, thanks Mr. Batchelder.
`
`MR. BATCHELDER: And then also in terms of how Mr. Davis and I
`intend to divide up the argument, I will be handling the claim instruction
`issues at the outset. Mr. Davis will handle the main 103 issues and
`(inaudible) needed comment on secondary considerations, I will address
`those.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay, thank you very much Mr. Batchelder.
`Dr. Gonsalves, do you have any questions?
`
`DR. GONSALVES: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right, so let me just set the clock up here
`and then we can get started. Mr. Batchelder, you may proceed whenever
`you’re ready.
`
`MR. BATCHELDER: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, James
`Batchelder on behalf of Petition (inaudible). I’m first going to address, as I
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`said, claim construction issues and if I may I’ll start with construction of
`path and link. And if we could turn to argument slide 6 within
`PetitionersConstruction, you’ll see the first bullet underneath various
`constructions says the specification consistently refers to the path as
`identifying each of the hops traversed by the data message packet. And we
`think that is true throughout the specification and in some definitional
`phraseology.
`
`So, for example the first box underneath that bullet has a couple of
`quotes from the abstract. It says that the path is either a direct path to the
`server or is an indirect path. And if it’s an indirect path it is through at least
`one of the remainder of the clients. So a path is something that goes through
`other clients unless it is a direct path to the server. And later on the abstract,
`again, refers to path or link reflecting that those are synonymous terms, and
`it says for example the process preferably optimizes the link to minimize the
`number of hops to the server. Again reflecting the path is comprised of hops
`from the client to the server. And then the last 2 boxes, for example on slide
`6, one from column 5, one from column 11 of the specification; the first
`from column 5 says a radio transmission path per a link. Again reflecting
`those are synonymous to the server and then says that this radio transmission
`path to the server is either a direct path (one hop) or an indirect path to the
`server (multi hop) through one or more other clients. So again definitional,
`it’s describing the path or the link as comprised of hops.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So, Mr. Batchelder let me just stop you.
`Would you please explain what you see as the difference between the
`construction that your client i putting forth versus the PatentOwner’s?
`Because they look pretty close to me.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`
`MR. BATCHELDER: I will say, Your Honor, that they are arguably
`quite close, but I think there’s some mischief in the wording of Patent
`Owners. And that mischief is the subject of slide 10 of Petitioner’s deck.
`One problem is it refers to the entire path of clients. And that could be read
`to mean multiple clients needs to share a given path, it’s not clear. But also
`Patent Owner’s construction would preclude a direct hop because it would
`always interpose, not just one client, but actually multiple clients between
`the client at issue and the server. Whereas Petitioner’s construction, we
`believe, is simply more precise by saying it’s an identification of each of the
`hops to be traversed of the data message packet on route to the server.
`
`It could be a direct hop or there could be interposed clients but they
`don’t have to be and so for each of those reasons - - although I agree read
`one way our constructions are quite close, we still think that ours is more
`precise. But perhaps to Your Honors’ point if we could put up Patent
`Owner’s slide deck slide 8, you’ll see in the second bullet from the bottom,
`even the Patent Owner says in its deck, and it said the same thing in its
`briefing, the specification clearly states that the link or path includes all the
`nodes along the path from the client to the server. That’s essentially our
`construction, again, we just say it a little more precisely by saying
`identifying teach of the hops.
`
`And then if we could look at Patent Owner slide 11, looking at that
`bottom bullet where Patent Owner itself quotes its own deposition question
`and answer. So suppose you you’d have described the forward link as C, B,
`A, S and it says how would you describe the corresponding reverse link? So
`Patent Owner itself in deposition questioning is defining the path in terms of
`the hops, from the client to B to A to S the server.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`
`Again, to Your Honors’ point, I think we’re all essentially on the same
`page. We believe that ours is more precise and more accurate. I will note
`that the Board’s construction as reflected on Petitioner slide 6 at the top, it
`appears to be pulled from the specification passage in which link is given
`alternative meanings. One is connection between adjacent notes that is
`client to client. And then the second is the entire path description from a
`given client to a given server and that language is actually on our slide 8.
`It’s in that first large box at the top of slide 8. You’ll see there from the
`specification in column 10 in the second paragraph, the term link is used to
`convey both A and B. So the connection to an adjacent client, that’s one
`definition, but I would just submit that in the claims, the terms path and the
`term link are always used in the second way that is to refer to the entire path.
`
`So we don’t think that including that definition of the adjacency
`between clients is helpful for this construction. And then the last language,
`the Board’s, as the preliminary construction referred to the entire path
`description from a given client to the server, and you see that’s the very last
`phrase in that quote. But that is preceeded by the phrase, all necessary links
`from that adjacent client to the server i.e. a link is the entire path. And so
`again definitionally the specification is saying that the entire path description
`is comprised of all necessary links which, again, and I think is another way
`of saying what we’ve said which is identifies each hop.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Thank you.
`
`MR. BATCHELDER: So if I can now turn to map of data packet
`transmission paths on argument slide 11 of Petitioner’s deck. Reading that
`phrase, the Board’s initial construction was that the claim map contains
`paths or links to a node in the network and that Patent Owner’s 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
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`refers to, as we highlight there in red, paths from the client. The problem
`with that is it suggests, and would require if imposed, that any given client
`have multiple paths in the claimed map. The claimed map does not require
`that language as simply maintaining a map of data transmission paths of a
`plurality of clients have said first network. So the map has to be directed to
`multiple clients and has to have multiple paths. There’s nothing in the claim
`that would preclude, for example, a given client to have only one
`corresponding path in the claimed map.
`I will say that the Patent Owner and its slide deck and its papers
`repeatedly suggest that Petitioner and the Board fail to recognize that paths
`with an “s” is a plural terms; not so. We make clear that paths is plural and
`in fact in our construction as in the Board’s, paths, and link, they both have
`“s”’s and they’re both intended to be plural.
`But the point is because there are multiple clients in the map, there are
`multiple paths in the map, our point is that the map does not require that for
`any given client there needs to be more than one path. And I would also just
`point out that in Patent Owner’s construction relatedly the client appears in a
`singular. It says paths from the client whereas in the claim language it is
`plural. The claim language is maintaining a map of data transmission paths
`of a plurality of clients, plural of said first network.
`So the fact that Patent Owner changes clients to client I think it is
`quite telling. They have rewritten the claim language and improperly so.
`Slide 12 addresses the last claim construction issue that I was going to speak
`to. And I will just say, it’s a long phrase but each of the words in that phrase
`is clear and the phrase itself is clear. The phrase, as reflected on the top of
`slide 12, is changing the transmission path from the client to the gateway, 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`that the path to gateway is chosen. Every word is clear, the phrase itself is
`clear, and the Federal Circuit has made clear that when language has plain
`meaning at the claim construction phase there certainly is no obligation to
`rewrite it and in fact doing so can result in mischief.
`And in fact here the Patent Owner has rewritten that language and
`then in its briefing it has, if you will, construed its own construction in a way
`that is confusing and does indeed create mischief, which heightens the point
`that leaving plain language alone is the right thing to do here just as the
`board did in its preliminary construction. So with that I will see the podium
`to Mr. Davis to address the mainstay 103 arguments.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Are you ready, Mr. Davis?
`
`MR. DAVIS: Yes, thank you Your Honor. James Davis for
`Petitioner. I’m on slide 13. As the Supreme Court found in KSR, when a
`patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function
`and been known to perform and yields no more than what one would expect
`from such an arrangement the combination is obvious. And that’s
`preciously the case we have here.
`The claims are merely directed towards the server acting as a gateway
`between two networks and these claim concepts are things that have been in
`the field for decades before the 516 patent was filed. The Patent Owner’s
`arguments are really directed towards four particular limitations. The first is
`optimizing paths from the clients in that first network to the server. The
`second is adding headers to packets going from the second network into the
`first. The third is maintaining the map of each client’s paths to the server in
`the first network. And the fourth is using TCP/IP in the second network.
`And we’ll address each of those in turn.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`At base though, unable to really avoid the un-patentability of each of
`these claims, Patent Owner’s arguments really fall into three categories: one
`is improperly reading limitations into the claims, two is misreading the
`references, and three is misunderstanding Petitioner’s arguments and the
`law. We’ll start off with the first limitation that I mentioned, changing the
`paths to optimize, that’s on slide 14 of Petitioner’s deck. Burchfiel discloses
`precisely this limitation. Burchfiel describes a station which corresponds to
`the server, and that storing what is called a connection table as reflected in
`the second box there. That connection table stores all the connections in the
`network and each of those connections contain a route to communicate
`between two points.
`The corresponding clients in the network of Burchfiel are the
`individual repeaters and terminals and as reflected in the bottom two quotes
`in slide 14, those terminals and those repeaters each have their own
`connections back up to the station. And the station as shown at the top quote
`there will reconfigure the paths by re-computing the minimum distance
`routes to the elements that are still active at that time and thus optimize.
`Patent Owner’s argument - - this is on slide 15, is that the paths only
`go from these station to the clients not vice versa as we just saw on slide 14,
`that’s precisely - - that’s simply incorrect. The repeaters and the terminals
`have their own connections back up to the station and they use those. And
`furthermore, Burchfiel expressly discloses as shown in the second quote here
`in the first white box, the PRN connection is bi-directional meaning it goes
`in both directions.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Could this network be useful if it were not bi-
`directional (inaudible)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`
`MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, I don’t think that’s been addressed in a
`briefing. I think it’s an implementation choice, perhaps whether or not you
`want to have the communications falling on direction or another but the
`point of the network and virtual is to have a communication flowing in both
`directions. So it wouldn’t make any sense to have the connections be
`directional.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, maybe I’ll save the question for Dr.
`Gonsalves.
`
`MR. DAVIS: With respect to slide 18, Patent Owner raises another
`argument that Burchfiel cannot possibly teach optimizing and initializing or
`component failure because no such path exists at that time. Again, that’s
`incorrect. There are at least three problems with that argument. First off, as
`we’ve already covered, Burchfiel is always optimizing, it is always re-
`computing the minimum distance routes relative to all possibilities reflected
`in the connectivity matrix. Second, when the component fails, the prior path
`that is stored in the connection table still exists. It’s no longer optimal
`because a component has failed and optimization then needs to occur to
`identify a minimum distance route. And third Burchfiel also optimized in
`other situations as well. Mr. Geier, in the second quote block there on slide
`18, refers to Burchfiel station optimizing at a couple different points, one of
`which is when the repeaters are reporting in.
`And this is Burchfiel at page 247, describes that idea of relabeling
`when those repeaters report in. And then again Burchfiel on page 250
`describes when there are changes in repeater terminal propagation
`connectivity, which is a little bit of a mouth full, but basically when there’s
`changes in which repeaters a terminal can speak to. Then those changes are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`reflected in the connectivity matrix and again a optimization it performed
`identifying the minimum distance routes.
`Turning to slide 20, at the remainder of this limitation, cites a
`Markush Group of four different optimization criteria; the least possible
`addition clients, the most robust additional clients, the least amount of
`traffic, or the fastest clients. And to be clear, because it is a Markush Group
`a disclosure of any one of those four options would be sufficient to meet the
`claims and render them un-patentable or at least disclose this particular
`limitation.
`And that’s precisely what Burchfiel does. Burchfiel addresses the
`first of those four different criteria. Burchfiel looks for the least possible
`number of additional clients, i.e. the minimum distance routes and optimizes
`accordingly. And more as a belt and suspenders, Schwartz discloses all four
`of the potential optimization criteria as options, as shown there on slide 20.
`That’s reflected in the petition as well from which that is an excerpt.
`Turning to slide 21, Mr. Geier addresses why a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have been motivated to apply these teachings, as shown
`in the first quote there. Because the Schwartz textbook advantageously
`provides additional criteria as well as specific implementation examples for
`how to implement these optimization criteria moving beyond the single
`choice in Burchfiel to four different possible choices for how to optimize.
`And this isn’t quoted on slide 21, but I direct the court to exhibit 1004
`paragraph 112, this was Mr. Geier’s opening declaration.
`Mr. Geier is of course our technical expert and he testified there that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it beneficial to look to
`Schwartz and apply Schwartz’s teachings of assigning a cost measure to,
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`“each link or possibly each note based on the context and priorities for a
`particular application.” Therefore depending on which optimization criteria
`is being selected from Schwartz, you apply the appropriate weight to the
`edges in the connectivity matrix and you make the calculation, depending on
`whatever is the least cost applying the algorithms directly disclosed in
`Schwartz.
`Patent Owner - - this is on slide 23, raises an argument and they raise
`this repeatedly actually ascertaining that algorithm A, which is the algorithm
`relied on by the Petitioners to show these different optimization criteria.
`Patent Owner argues that it is decentralized and again that is directly
`contrary to what Schwartz actually states. This is the in first white box there
`on slide 23, Schwartz discloses that algorithm A “lends itself to centralized
`computation.”
`And actually if we flip to Patent Owner slide 33 and the third bullet,
`what Patent Owner says there - - and we’ll get there in second, there we go -
`- second sentence, thus if centralized algorithm A. So even Patent Owner
`agrees, at least in some parts of their argument, in the third bullet second
`sentence that algorithm A is in fact centralized. If there aren’t any further
`questions on that limitation I’ll move to the next one of adding headers. So
`this is on slide 31, claims 5 and 10, recite limitations relating to adding
`specific types of headers to a packet as it comes in from the second network
`- -
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: I’m sorry, what slide was that?
`MR. DAVIS: Oh, 31.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: 31.
`MR. DAVIS: We just skipped a couple, 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
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: I have it.
`
`MR. DAVIS: Okay, thank you. So claims 5 and 10 recite 2 different
`items that need to be included in the header as it comes in from the second
`network into the first network. One as a data transmission path to a client of
`the first network, which is also called the reverse link in claim 10, and the
`second is an indicator packet type. And we’ll address each of those in turn.
`With respect to the first type of information that needs to be included,
`Petitioner has no objection to applying Patent Owner’s construction for
`purposes to these proceedings; it doesn’t make a difference here in the actual
`outcome for the terms reverse link. It’s undisputed that the route is included
`in the header of the packet as it is sent from the station to the individual
`nodes, that’s also reflected in figure 3 shown on slide 31. And it’s also
`described further in Burchfiel, at page 250 stating expressly that the route for
`that packet is included when it’s sent to a particular destination. And as Mr.
`Geier then explained this is shown at the bottom of slide 31, a packet routed
`from the station to a packet radio network includes a route that is the reverse
`of the route, used the label that repeater or provide a connection to the
`repeater or the terminal. Which, of course, only makes sense because as we
`discussed earlier these connections are bi-directional; they go in both
`directions.
`Therefore it is the link coming from the station to the client as the
`reverse of the link from the client back up to the station. Turning to slide 33,
`and that’s the second type of information that needs to be included in the
`header, is an indicator of a data packet type. What Burchfiel discloses is that
`there’s a function field included in Burchfiel headers that provides an
`address within the packet radio unit that does one of three things: it either
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`selects the control process, or the debugging process, or the measurement
`process this. That address is an indicator that the packet that it’s associated
`with - - that’s carrying that address is of a specific type, it’s either targeting
`towards a control process, debugging process, or a measurement process. Or
`if it doesn’t have an address, as Mr. Geier testified then it’s a packet that’s
`not intended for anyone of those particular processes in either, even the field
`itself is indication the data packet type.
`And again as more of a belt and suspenders here on slide 35,
`Petitioners have also put forth the Heart reference, which provides a
`disclosure of another example of a header that includes the data packet type.
`That’s shown there in figure 5 of Heart reflecting a number of different bits
`that could be used to indicate the data packet type depending on what those
`bits are set to. And just generally this is a well-known concept in this field
`of including some type of indicator in the data packet typ. As Mr. Geier
`testified, it would have been obvious to include that in implementing
`Burchfiel, Mr. Geier identifies the reason for that because it would be
`advantageous to the recipient. The packet they would then know what the
`particular data type is, whether it has a particular priority, if it’s an
`acknowledgement packet, what have you.
`If there aren’t any further questions on that limitation, I’ll move on to
`the third dispute, limitation of a map. Maintaining a map of data packet
`transmission paths of a plurality of clients. Mr. Batchelder addresses the
`appropriate construction for the terms earlier and we’ve already, frankly,
`discussed a lot of this in the beginning of our discussion. The connection
`table stores all the connections within the Burchfiel’s network. Those
`connections are maintained by Burchfiel’s station and updated to identify
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`minimum distance routes as we previously discussed. So for each client the
`connection table maps a path for a client back to the server again meeting
`the limitation that’s in dispute here.
`And if there aren’t any further questions on that I’ll move the fourth
`disputed limitations, which is on slide 42 and just that the second network
`needs to be a TCP/IP protocol network. It’s a fairly straightforward issue,
`the second network relied on bi-petitioners. The ARPANET back when
`Burchfiel was published, ARPANET wasn’t using TCP/IP at that time, later
`on in 1983 ARPANET switched over to TCP/IP. Such that a person of
`ordinary skill looking back in time at Burchfiel, would have understood that
`the second network ARPANET is using TCP/IP. And, therefore at
`minimum it would have been obvious to do so on our next encyclopedia,
`sort of historically record these facts, and thus if it’s necessary to combine a
`reference to apply this teaching online encyclopedia as it - -
`Unless there are any other further questions, I’ll see the podium to Mr.
`Batchelder to quickly address secondary considerations.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: You are at the 20-minute mark.
`
`MR. DAVIS: Thank you.
`
`MR. BATCHELDER: Thank you. In the interest of time, Your
`Honor, I will simply say for now and secondary considerations that the
`requirements for proving them have been black letter law for decades now.
`And specifically, you need to do three things: you need to focus on
`something that is claimed, you need to focus on something that is novel, so
`you can’t point to something claimed if it was in the prior art, and having
`pointed the claim novel thing, you have to demonstrate indexes between that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`claim novel thing and the secondary consideration you’re pointing to, like
`the long felt need or the fault of others.
`And Patent Owner here has failed on all three fronts, they’ve pointed
`to things that aren’t in the claims, they point to things that we’ve established
`in the prior art, and they’ve utterly failed to show indexes between what
`their pointing to and what they say was the long felt need or the failure of
`others. So for all three of those reasons the arguments fall short. The black
`letter law that we pointed to was laid out in many fellow circuit cases but the
`couple that we laid out in the briefer as examples: Ormco v. Align Case
`which is 463 F3d 1299 (2006) and the jump cite there is 1313 and we also
`pointed to the In re GPAC Case which is at 57 F3d 1573 and that’s a Federal
`Circuit 1995 case and that jump cite there is 1580. Thank you.
`(inaudible)
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Dr. Gonzalves, you may start whenever you’re
`ready.
`
`DR. GONSALVES: May it please the Board. My name is Dr.
`Gregory Gonzalves and it is my honor and privilege to represent the IP Co.;
`a company that was founded by David Petit, a Native American.
`
`The first topic that will discuss is the claim construction of the
`limitation that I’ll read as follows, the digital controller changes the
`transmission paths of clients to optimize the transmission paths including
`changing the transmission paths from the client to the gateway. And this is
`recited in independent claim 1, it’s actually a direct quote from independent
`claim 1 and it’s similarly recited in independent claim 10. So while I’m
`speaking you may find it beneficial to look at exhibit 1001, the claim
`language of claim 1 and 10 which of the 516 patent. Both the Petitioner and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01602
`Patent 6,249,516
`
`Patent Owner agree that the 516 patent is already expired accordingly the
`claim should be construed pursuant to the principles set forth by the court in
`Phillips and the PTO has expressly acknowledged that the principles set
`forth in Phillips will result in narrower claim constructions. And this is
`quote from MPEP 2666. 01 “once the patent expires a narrow claim
`construction is applied.” According to - -
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: That’s for patent examination correct? The
`MPEP is the guide for patent examiners?
`
`DR. GONSALVES: Correct, but I think in this - - given that the
`patent has expired in this forum, the same principles would be used in order
`to construe the claims of the 516 patent. The claim language itself of claim
`1 of this phrase claim limitation that I just read requires the controller within
`the server to change a transmission pat

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket