UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_________
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 18, 2018
`
`___________
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KEN B. BARRETT, and JEFFREY S.
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_________
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 18, 2018
`
`___________
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KEN B. BARRETT, and JEFFREY S.
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`THEODORE M. FOSTER, ESQUIRE
`DAVID MCCOMBS, ESQUIRE
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2505 N. Plano Road
`Suite 4000
`Richardson, Texas 75082
`
`1 23
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`BRETT MANGRAUM, ESQUIRE
`Mangrum Law Group, PLLC
`1515 N Town East Blvd
`Suite 138
`Mesquite, TX 75150
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`DINA BILKSHTEYN, ESQUIRE
`KEVIN K. MCNISH, ESQUIRE
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing Thursday, January
`18, 2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`2
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`JUDGE SMITH: Please be seated.
`(Pause.)
`JUDGE SMITH: Good afternoon. Welcome to the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board. We're here this afternoon for a hearing in two
`inter-parties review matters IPR2016-00058 and 2017-00198. The case
`in which Cisco Systems is the Petitioner and Uniloc Luxembourg is the
`Patent Owner. I'd like to start by getting appearance of Counsel.
`Petitioner, please step up to the podium and make your
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`appearance.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`MR. MCCOMBS: Hello, Your Honors. I'm David
`11
`McCombs, I'm lead counsel in this case. With me is my partner Theodor
`Foster who will be making the presentation today. Also here on behalf of
`Cisco is Kevin McNish and Dina Blikshteyn.
`JUDGE SMITH: Welcome. Who do we have on behalf of
`Patent Owner?
`MR. MANGRAUM: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My
`name is Brett Mangraum, I'll be representing Patent Owner, Uniloc
`Luxembourg. With me is partner Jim Etheridge of Etheridge Law Group.
`JUDGE SMITH: Thank you. I'd like to --
`MR. MANGRAUM: And I will --
`JUDGE SMITH: Oh. Go --
`MR. MANGRAUM: I will be presenting today, Your
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
`MR. MANGRAUM: And I'm also lead counsel.
`
`3
`
`24
`
`Honor.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`JUDGE SMITH: Thank you. I'd like to go over a few
`administrative details quickly before we begin, just about the start of the
`hearing today. Our trial hearing order indicated that there will be 30
`minutes of argument for each side. Petitioner, you'll go first presenting
`your case. Patent Owner will then be allowed to respond to Petitioner.
`Petitioner, if you wish, you may reserve time for rebuttal. Do you wish
`to do so?
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`MR. FOSTER: Yes. Your Honor, can I reserve ten minutes
`for rebuttal, please?
`JUDGE SMITH: Ten minutes for rebuttal. Thank you. One
`more administrative detail. When you reference your slides, please
`11
`identify the particular slide number so that we can keep track of which
`slide you're discussing here during the hearing. And also when we
`review the transcript, it makes it easier to read the transcript.
`Petitioner, when you're ready, you may begin.
`MR. FOSTER: Good afternoon, and may it please the
`Board. First, just a minor housekeeping matter. To clarify, I believe the
`proceeding number for both of these the year should be 2017.
`JUDGE SMITH: Oh. My mistake. I'm sorry.
`MR. FOSTER: Each party made a slight typo in their cover
`sheets on their demonstratives.
`JUDGE SMITH: I see.
`MR. FOSTER: But it's 2017 for both cases. Both these
`cases involve technology for transitioning from written communication to
`spoken or voice communication. And, specifically, for transitioning from
`exchange of instant messages to a conference call. And that same idea,
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`4
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`that same transition, from instant messaging to conference calling is
`discussed and disclosed in both of the references in ground 1 of each of
`these proceedings, Hamberg and Lamb.
`And so I'd like to start today's discussion by addressing how
`Hamberg describes the message format and making that transition, how
`Lamb describes the one click button makes that initiation very easy, and
`then why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
`to combine their teachings and arrive at the claim subject matter.
`Skipping to slide 5, the first topic I'd like to go over relates
`to Hamberg's description of the communication system where users are
`initially exchanging instant messages and then they move on to a
`11
`conference call when one of those users can send a short call alias
`message.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Looking at slide 6, I have here the abstract from Hamberg
`which describes this key idea of setting up a conference call from an
`exchange of instant messages and moving, quote, "from message chatting
`to conference calling by sending a predefined message to the server,"
`close quote. And so that message that Hamberg describes provides the
`indication to the server that the users would like to leave instant
`messaging and move on to conference calling.
`Looking at slide 7, Hamberg is -- also describes the rather
`unremarkable idea that not everyone is available all of the time. And as
`Hamberg's example provides, and it's just an example, Hamberg has an
`example user names Max who has set his status to be absent, and then the
`note indicated in Hamberg's figure shows that he is apparently asleep.
`So, obviously, Max has indicated he does not want to take part in a
`
`5
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`possible conference call that might be set up, and that's what Hamberg's
`description provides. I'd also note that the example in Hamberg also
`provides a smaller group labeled group G1.
`JUDGE SMITH: Yeah. See -- okay. Just real quickly. The
`guy Max labeled absent, is he still connected to the network or is he
`offline? Is he online or offline?
`MR. FOSTER: So Hamberg's description indicates that
`Max's mobile device, his cell phone or his access device, will continue to
`receive messages.
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
`MR. FOSTER: So in that sense, he is receiving instant
`11
`messages but --
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
`MR. FOSTER: -- obviously, since Max the person is asleep,
`he's unlikely to be sending any.
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
`MR. FOSTER: The group G1 shown in Hamberg is another
`example group, and in that group Max is excluded. It's just three users,
`Henry, Lisa, and Anne. And the indication from Hamberg is that most
`likely those users are all available, and are logged in, connected, and
`ready for a conference call if one should be initiated for group 1. Moving
`onto slide 8. And --
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Group 1 is Henry, Lisa, and John, isn't
`it? No, you said Anne?
`MR. FOSTER: Yes. I'm sorry, I misspoke. Group 1 is
`Henry, Lisa, and John.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`6
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay.
`MR. FOSTER: That's correct. I'm sorry, I misspoke.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: That's okay. I just wanted to make
`sure I understand where we're going.
`MR. FOSTER: Certainly. So on slide 8 I have a portion of
`Hamberg in column 4 where Hamberg describes the message format that
`the user can use to indicate that request to initiate a conference, to leave
`instant messaging and transition over to a conference call. In that format
`that Hamberg provides is -- it calls it the call alias message. And the alias
`portion can indicate the identities of the users who are requested to be in
`the conference call. And so that corresponds with some of the claim
`11
`limitation requiring that the conference call request indicate the potential
`targets, the requested participants in the conference call.
`Now I know Patent Owner has argued that the combination
`would require removing this call alias functionality that the user would
`no longer to be able to make such a request. But the combination doesn't
`require removing anything, it's simply providing a new mechanism, the
`call button from Lamb, a new mechanism for generating a message of
`this format. The ability of the user to manually type in such a message
`would remain completely unchanged, there's no removing of
`functionality.
`JUDGE SMITH: Is there -- just real quickly before you
`move on. The call message itself, wouldn't that, just by definition,
`identify everybody who's available? I mean, I guess the claim limitation
`that you're talking about is identifying each of the potential targets for
`said conference call request, wouldn't just the plain call message by itself
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`7
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`do that or no?
`MR. FOSTER: So Hamberg -- I think you're referring to
`Hamberg has two different message formats --
`JUDGE SMITH: Right. That's right.
`MR. FOSTER: -- one is the call message and the call alias
`
`message.
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE SMITH: And the call alias, right. That's right.
`MR. FOSTER: And so the call message would indicate a
`request -- it's a request to set up a conference call just the same, but the
`call message itself does not include the identities or the names of the
`users requested to be in the conference call. That determination is made
`11
`by Hamberg's quick message server based on the user's statuses. And so
`--
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Okay.
`MR. FOSTER: Moving to slide 9, and the second topic I'd
`like to bring up, and that relates to Lamb, our secondary reference, which
`provides multiple descriptions of buttons that can be used to trigger the
`initiation of a conference call from an instant messaging communications
`session.
`
`And looking at slide 10, there is -- the first example that we
`highlighted in the petition, the conference now button, of the conf now
`button highlighted on slide 10. This is an annotated copy of figure 12
`from Lamb, it was annotated by our expert declarant. The conference
`now button, as Lamb describes, is a mechanism for creating a conference
`call at the current moment, instantaneously with just that one input of
`selecting that button.
`
`8
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`The figure 12 of Lamb also shows some additional features.
`And, in particular, some user interface components such as showing the
`status information of other users so that the user using this user interface
`shown in figure 12 would see, for instance, that Fred is logged in, and
`Mary is out to lunch. That's examples of what's shown there.
`And as we put forward in the petition, we think that these
`additional features, these user interface (indiscernible) that make this
`system easier to use and more functional for the user being able to see
`presence information for other users would also be obvious to incorporate
`into Hamberg's system, make it more functional and easier to use.
`JUDGE SMITH: Is there -- in this figure, is there -- I mean,
`11
`what it shows that Hamberg doesn't have? It shows displaying the status
`of the users, it shows that. But then the conference now button, is that
`any different than the call alias feature? So in Hamberg, you type in the
`word call and then you type in the names of the people you want to call
`for the call alias; is that right?
`MR. FOSTER: That's what we understand Hamberg
`described, yes.
`JUDGE SMITH: And isn't -- is this conference now button
`the same thing? You press the conference now button and then you type
`in the names of the people you want to call?
`MR. FOSTER: That's not how Lamb describes the
`conference now button.
`JUDGE SMITH: How does Lamb describe it?
`MR. FOSTER: Lamb describes the conference now button
`as being a button that creates the conference call at the current moment.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`9
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`JUDGE SMITH: What page of Lamb is that?
`MR. FOSTER: So that's in Lamb at column 60.
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay. So Lamb says -- I'm reading
`column 60 -- it looks like lines 38 to 40, "The conference now feature of
`the interface 250 allows the user interface 250 to create a conference at
`the current moment." Is that what you're talking about?
`MR. FOSTER: Yes.
`JUDGE SMITH: And you take that to mean you just press
`the button and it automatically calls people, is that what it means?
`MR. FOSTER: Yes. I believe --
`JUDGE SMITH: How does it know -- how does it know
`11
`who to call if you don't type in who to call?
`MR. FOSTER: Well, as you can see in figure 12 of Lamb
`just above the conference now button, there's an indication of the -- of
`individuals available for a conference. It says, "Available people are
`Mary, Bob, Jim, Mike, and Frank." And so I believe by pressing the
`conference now button that would be an indication that you want to start
`a conference call with those individuals.
`JUDGE SMITH: And all that comes from that one sentence,
`or are there other parts of Lamb that also discuss it, or is it only coming
`from this one sentence?
`MR. FOSTER: Yes. Lamb's description of the conference
`now button is (indiscernible).
`JUDGE SMITH: Is coming from this one sentence?
`MR. FOSTER: Yes.
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Okay.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`10
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Can you -- the next sentence says that
`it's going to be used the -- I'll just quote it so we don't keep the record --
`I'll try to keep the record clear, but it says, "This feature was used to
`create the current conference between the user" -- "of the user/client
`interface 250 and the other participants, Joe, Sue, Seth, and Bill." And if
`we look at figure 12, or on your slide 10, we have the current
`participants, Joe, Sue, Seth, and Bill. So I was thinking that meant when
`you press conference now you would call them, but you're saying those
`are just the people that are in the chat. Is that -- or, how are you -- can
`you explain that for me, please?
`MR. FOSTER: Well, I believe, as you said, Lamb describes
`11
`Joe, Sue, Seth, and Bill as being in a conference call. I believe they are --
`they're in a conference call.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Is that -- well, what about the -- well,
`so are they in a current conference call and then you're going to -- next
`time you're going to call Mary, Bob, Jim, Mike, and Frank, or? Because I
`thought you said we were going to call those people.
`MR. FOSTER: Well, but if you press the conference now
`button now, the individuals available would be Mary, Bob, Jim, Mike,
`and Frank.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Oh, okay.
`MR. FOSTER: But at some point in the past, the conference
`now button was used, and at that point in time the available individuals
`were Joe, Sue, Seth, and Bill.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: I see. Okay.
`MR. FOSTER: If there aren't further questions about figure
`
`11
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`12, I'll go on to slide 11 and Lamb's other example of the one click button
`for initiating a conference call from instant messaging. And this is from
`Lamb's appendix, which is in a series of columns towards the end of
`Lamb.
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`JUDGE SMITH: Wait. Which -- the highlighted text you
`have up there, which column is that from?
`MR. FOSTER: The highlighted text, I believe, is from
`columns 109 and 110.
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
`MR. FOSTER: And Lamb's description is that it's providing
`essentially the easiest possible way of starting a group call with, quote, "a
`11
`group of colleagues." And that mechanism is to get them in an instant
`messaging session by sending a quick message, and then pressing the call
`button to set up an instant conference call. And the call button is
`depicted in the instant messaging interface shown in figure 9, which is in
`columns 85 and 86 of Lamb.
`And that call button -- the text is a little bit hard to read on
`the screen there, but we've highlighted it with a red box, it says call. And
`it's described as being the mechanism for transitioning from this instant
`messaging session where we see two users, and the specific example here
`are exchanging messages, and then either of them could hit that call
`button to trigger a conference call between them. And, obviously, from
`Lamb's later discussion in columns 109 and 110, the same mechanism
`works just the same for more than two users, it could work for an entire
`group of colleagues.
`JUDGE SMITH: But in column 109 the figure that it's
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`12
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`discussing is figure 25, which looks like -- you know, again, it's not really
`clear what it's showing, but it looks like it's showing a list of, I don't
`know, maybe 10 to 15 people, and then their status logged in or not
`logged in. And then the description says, "Check on availability of
`colleagues, send them a message to see if they want to talk, and then
`press the call button to set up an instant conference call."
`I mean, again, does that one sentence mean when you press
`the call button you're calling everybody that's available, or you press the
`call button and then you select from the list of people who are available
`and willing to talk?
`MR. FOSTER: I think it -- the indication is that the call
`11
`button will set up an instant conference call with everyone in that instant
`messaging session. And so the selection of who to chat with and who to
`put into a group instant message session is a separate question from who
`to request to be put into the conference call. And the call button --
`JUDGE SMITH: In figure 9, right. In figure 9 the button
`that you press is for the person you're chatting with.
`MR. FOSTER: That's correct. And I believe it would be --
`JUDGE SMITH: And the text that you have quoted from
`column 109 says you do two things before you press the call button. You
`check on who's immediately available, and then you send them a quick
`message to see if they're willing to talk. And then you press the call
`button to set up the conference call. So it's seems to be saying that when
`you press the call button you're not calling everybody that's available,
`you're calling the people that are available and that want to talk. Or let
`me ask you this. What does it mean to do those two things before you
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`13
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`press the call button? What does that mean to see if they're available and
`then ask them if they want to talk?
`MR. FOSTER: I mean, in terms of the claim language, I
`don't think it means anything because the claim language just requires
`that you have -- you are at some point in an instant messaging
`conversation. That you have an exchange of instant messages with some
`group of people. And you have some single request mechanism, such as
`clicking the call button, to transition the group from instant messages to
`conference call. And so what the content of the messages were, and what
`people were saying during the instant messaging, and how many
`messages they exchanged and for how long, I don't think is relevant to
`11
`the question of whether or not there's a mechanism.
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay. So what you're saying -- let me just
`make sure I understand what you're -- so what you're saying is you have a
`mechanism to go from chat to voice call, which is figure 9, and then, in
`addition to that, you have a mechanism to set up a conference call with
`multiple people which is column 109. So the chat in figure 9 -- what
`you're saying is the chat in figure 9, if it's with more than one other
`person you could still press the one call button and go to a conference
`call with everybody in the chat room?
`MR. FOSTER: That's correct.
`JUDGE SMITH: That's what you're saying Lamb is?
`MR. FOSTER: Yes.
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
`MR. FOSTER: Now on this, I think in a moment here we're
`going to hear Patent Owner discussing this same idea, and arguing with
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`14
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`their slide 5 that Lamb and Hamberg each have a manual input step and
`that you can't take two manually inputted requests and combine them in
`the -- with the claim language. But I'd point out that even in the Patent
`Owner response, the Patent Owner characterized this interpretation of the
`combination as being nonsensically redundant, the idea that the user
`would have to request the conference call through two manual
`mechanisms.
`And on that basis I think a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would not think of combining these references in this very mechanical
`automaton-like way, they would look at -- Hamberg is describing the
`message format that is used to initiate a conference call, Lamb describing
`11
`a user interface technique for the user to indicate the desire for a
`conference call, and the combination then is using Lamb's user interface
`and using Hamberg's message format behind the scenes, and having a
`really easy mechanism then for the user to automate that generation of a
`call alias message with the format described in Hamberg. And that's
`what our obviousness position is. Is that that combination of Lamb and
`Hamberg in that way, not the idea that teaches mechanically couple these
`two systems.
`I see I'm running into my rebuttal time. If there are no
`further questions, I'll reserve the remainder of the time.
`JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. MANGRAUM: Good afternoon, again, Your Honors,
`and thank you for the opportunity to be heard. May it please the Court.
`I'm going to circle back to some things that were said before I start to my
`slides. And Your Honors asked some questions that were highly relevant
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`15
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`to the topics I'll be discussing. And just as a generally overview, I want
`to say that in your questions you legitimately asked could these
`references not be interpreted this way.
`And I would pause it that it can be interpreted in the way
`you questioned. I'm going to direct you in a moment to portions of the
`declaration which was filed in my response that addresses that, and show
`that through that testimony, and through that record, that the speculation
`that was just offered by my colleague is not supported by the reference,
`and certainly not necessarily the only inference that can be drawn from
`the reference.
`So going to the slides, I'm going to start -- so, slides 1 and 2
`11
`are just the claim -- example claim language for ease of reference if you
`need to scroll back to that. So I'm going to start in on slide number 3.
`And as with my colleague --
`JUDGE SMITH: I'm sorry. It's slide number 4.
`MR. MANGRAUM: Slide number 4, thank you. It's hard
`for me to see from here. And I don't have a monitor right in front of me,
`so I'm going to have kind of crane my neck to make sure I'm on topic.
`So for slide number 4. My colleague focused a lot on the
`generating step and I will as well. It's important to understand the
`generating step in the context -- the fuller context of the claim. And by
`the generating step, I'm referring to claim 1 in both of the challenged
`patents in these consolidated (indiscernible).
`And the generating step, I recited claim on both the 000 and
`the 948 patents expressly requires -- and I highlighted three things here
`that are common to both
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`16
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`claims -- two distinct requests. You have a conference call request that is
`automated and a single request by the conference call requester, so that's
`explicitly inputted by the requester. But you also have an explicit
`interrelationship between those two requests. The network access to
`(indiscernible) generates the conference call request responsibly to the
`single request by the conference call requester.
`And then the third point I want to bring up to the Board is
`that the conference call request (indiscernible) by each of the potential
`targets, and that's defined earlier in the claim language as those who are
`being connected to said instant messaging service and participating in a
`given instant messaging session with the conference call requester. So
`11
`there's a difference between the session and the service. They're online
`with the service but they're actually in a session, an instant messaging
`session with the conference call requester. Those points are common to
`both claim 1 of the 000 patent, and claim 1 of the 948 patent. I'm moving
`now to slide 5 of the presentation.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Before you move on --
`MR. MANGRAUM: Yes.
`JUDGE BARRETT: -- just so I understand your position, if
`you have one, is that you just pointed out the potential targets. Is the
`generated conference caller's request, is that everybody that's chatting at
`the moment in your view?
`MR. MANGRAUM: Yeah.
`JUDGE BARRETT: It's an all or nothing kind of thing?
`MR. MANGRAUM: It's for those -- that's a good question,
`I think it's explicit in the claim language. It must be those -- all those,
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`17
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`because it says "each" -- all those who are participating in the conference
`call session with the conference call requester.
`JUDGE BARRETT: So it wouldn't be a subset of the people
`you were texting with, it would be all the people you were texting with.
`MR. MANGRAUM: That's correct, Your Honor. And if
`you read the patent, there's a reason for that. It's the assumption -- the
`fact that it's automated, the system's not going to know subjectively a
`subset of people that might want to speak, so the system automates
`selection by having each person in the session be included in that
`generated conference call request. And the subsequently as my colleague
`recognized, that information's transmitted. So what you have to have
`11
`transmitted is the potential parties, there's a transmission that has each of
`those people.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Okay.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Is that transmission what satisfies the
`identifying clause?
`MR. MANGRAUM: I'm not sure I understand the question.
`There's a transmitting step.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Oh. Okay. I was asking about the
`step in the generating clause that says, "Said conference call request
`identifying each of the indicated potential targets." And you told us that
`the conference call request is going to call everybody that's already
`connected in the instant messaging session.
`MR. MANGRAUM: That is correct, Your Honor. What I'm
`saying is, what we have here is the benefit of the definition within the
`claim itself where it further describes what is the conference caller.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`18
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Right. So my question is, what is the
`identifying step doing then? What is that actually accomplishing? My
`question is, is the identifying the act of setting up this conference call
`request -- in other words, the act of connecting these people up with a
`call, or do you have to show the user a list of the people you're calling?
`MR. MANGRAUM: Well, it's the -- the request itself is
`what identifies. So the request that's being transmitted must itself
`identify each of the potential targets. Now the connection happens later
`on, there's an automatic --
`JUDGE EASTHOM: How does it identify it? What does
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`that mean?
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`MR. MANGRAUM: Well, in the example there's like user
`A, B, and C in the specification are each participating in the IM session.
`So user A, B, and C are then identified in the conference call -- the
`automated conference call request that's been generated.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: How is that -- how are they identified
`in the conference call request?
`MR. MANGRAUM: By an alias, by whatever -- there's user
`name discussion in the specification --
`JUDGE EASTHOM: You're saying they have to be
`displayed then, or?
`MR. MANGRAUM: Oh, no, not displayed. Just the actual
`digital content of the message itself that's -- no, the request itself, the
`digital content identifies each of the potential targets.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: So it's -- they're identified in the
`digital message that goes out to connect them now as part of a call, is that
`
`19
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`what you're saying?
`MR. MANGRAUM: That's what I'm saying.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay.
`MR. MANGRAUM: The message that's sent to the server --
`incidentally, this is not disputed, this is why at the disposal of the
`Hamberg reference was a call message and a call alias message. And the
`Petitioner focused exclusively on the call alias message because that's the
`only of the two messages that has an identification of individuals. But
`I'm going to explain in a minute why that does not render the claim --
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Well, that's kind of my question. I
`don't even understand why you have to identify them by putting them up
`11
`on a screen or anything because you just told me that identifying them
`simply involves sending a digital message out to connect them up to a
`call.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`MR. MANGRAUM: Yeah. That's -- when I say identify
`them, I'm not talking about a display on the screen I'm talking about --
`the message itself in
`Hamberg --
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay.
`MR. MANGRAUM: -- is -- you actually type in call, space,
`followed by a series of names. That text message with the names is
`what's transmitted to the server.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay.
`MR. MANGRAUM: So independent of what's displayed.
`What they've identified in Hamberg is the message where you have all
`the names identified. What the specification says, and what the claims
`
`20
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`45
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`1 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`require, is that you generate a conference call request that identifies each
`person. Has to be each, and that the request itself must identify. And
`that, incidentally, is not disputed.
`JUDGE BARRETT: So they identify -- not to beat a dead
`horse here -- but the identifying there could just refer to something not
`human readable but something the computer understands? A phone
`number, a web address, something like that, that would be identifying
`each of the potential targets?
`MR. MANGRAUM: I don't think it's -- it's specific in the
`patent, I think that would be a reasonable interpretation of the possible
`construction.
`11
`Okay. I'm going to move on now to slide -- oh. I'm going to
`-- slide 5 here. And so what is important are -- an important distinction
`between this and the proposed combination is that there is an automated
`request, one that's generated responsibly, and then there is a single
`request by the conference call requester. I think it's very important, and
`as you look at the prosecution history confirms, the word single is
`important. It's specifying that
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
