UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`d/b/a TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES POWER EQUIPMENT,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 18, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and JOHN F. HORVATH,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`d/b/a TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES POWER EQUIPMENT,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 18, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and JOHN F. HORVATH,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DION M. BREGMAN, ESQUIRE
`ALEANDER B. STEIN, ESQUIRE
`Morgan Lewis
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOSHUA A. GRISWOLD, ESQUIRE
`KARL RENNER, ESQUIRE
`DAN SMITH, ESQUIRE
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`1717 Main Street
`Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, January
`
`18, 2018, at 2:42 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Madison
`Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before Walter
`Murphy, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE ARBES: This is the second oral hearing of the day in case
`IPR2017-00214 involving Patent 7,196,611. As per the Trial Hearing Order,
`in this case as well each party will have 40 minutes of total time to present
`arguments, and we’ll proceed in the order as set forth in the Trail Hearing
`Order. Counsel for Petitioner, you may proceed and would you like to
`reserve --
`MR. BREGMAN: Yes. I can I reserve the same, seven minutes if
`you can give maybe a ten or fifteen minute warning, that’d be great. Thank
`you.
`
`All right. So now we’re turning to the second IPR for the ’611 patent.
`Alex, can you jump to slide 2 here for me. So the first set of claims that we
`looked at were apparatus claims that dealt with diagnostics, and this set of
`claims are method claims that deal with the learning mode. Slide 2 shows
`the road map again. We’re going to talk about the ’611 patent, we’re going
`to talk about the primary reference which is Schindler, the instituted
`grounds, the claim construction, and then really focus most of our attention
`on the dispute.
`Slide 4 is the patent. You’ve already seen that, we can skip it. Slide 6
`is from the abstract again, and we’re referring to a different figure here. You
`can see the figure, it’s got -- this is what’s on the head unit that you normally
`see on the top of your garage and this allows an installer or user to perform
`certain functions -- and for these claims the functions are teaching the
`controller to do things. So, a learn mode, and you can see a couple 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`different LED’s on the right side that we have highlighted that display
`different various things to the user.
`The second part of the highlighted text here, that I have, the controller
`cooperates with the user to learn operating parameters, the controller guides
`and corrects the necessary actions by the user. And then the patent on slide
`7, the ’611 patent, describes one example with respect to these particular
`claims. It’s setting a max run timer. You can see the citation there if you
`want to read it in detail, but the way that it works is to set the max run -- and
`that’s how long the motor runs for before an error condition is displayed --
`so you need to set how long the motor’s return for its travel to be to the
`bottom of the door and to the top of the door. What it does is it first
`determines -- it needs the door to be in a closed position for this learn mode
`to work. It determines -- is the door in the closed position? If it’s not it
`flashes some lights to tell the user to close it. If it is in the closed position, it
`tells the user to open it and that’s it, that’s how it sets these different
`parameters.
`Now the prior art, the Schindler patent, just like the Crimmins patent
`we mentioned earlier, is another Chamberlain patent, another patent that
`they failed to disclose to the Patent Office during prosecution. This one is a
`lot earlier. This goes back to 1984, almost two decades earlier. It teaches
`the same thing as the ’611 patent.
`If we look at slide 9 it’s got this head unit that we’re talking about a
`little bit earlier. There’s a switch on that, we circled that in red reference
`numeral 38. After, and I’m reading from the text,
`“After the garage door opener has been installed, it is placed in a
`program mode by moving the switch 38 to the program position.”
`4
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`
`So that’s how you put the Schindler garage door opener into its learn
`mode or program mode.
`Slides 10, 11 and 12, I’m really just going to show you the figures
`here. The text is on the slides, and the citations are on the slides if you want
`to look at in more detail, but in essence Schindler has this wall-control unit.
`It’s got three buttons on it. It’s got a down switch, an up switch and the
`switch that’s shown in orange is the command switch. It’s got two different
`LED’s on it, the vacation light 28 and work light 31, and once you put it into
`the learn mode or the program mode, if you go to slide 11, it flashes one of
`the LED’s to tell the user now you’re going to set the down limit, and down
`limit is a little bit different to the max run timer. The max run timer is how
`long the motor should run for, I think it’s revolutions of the motor, whereas
`the down limit is at what position must the door be for it to close, and you’ve
`got to program it, at what position should it be for it to be up. Every garage
`door may have a slightly different opening, it may be installed differently so
`you need to set these two parameters.
`And it flashes this light as we’ve shown here on slide 11 to tell the
`user okay, we’re now going to program the down limit. The user uses the up
`and down buttons to move the garage door into the position that they would
`like it to be for the down, and then they hit the switch 25 and then that
`toggles it to the other one. Now it says okay, we’ve got to program the up
`limit and it flashes the up limit to tell the user that that’s what’s being
`programmed and the user uses these up and down buttons until the door is in
`a satisfactory position and it can then hit button 25 or just exit the program
`mode. So you can see they’re very similar. They flash different LED’s 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`instruct the user how to move the door in certain directions so that these
`different parameters can be stored.
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, do you have to do them in that order or
`
`not?
`
`MR. BREGMAN: No. So it actually completely in the Schindler
`patent it depends on the direction that the door last travelled. So if you
`pushed the door up, you know, manually you pushed it down and it’s in the
`down position, it will then tell you okay, program the up limit. But if you
`installed it and it’s in the up position, then it’ll tell you to start inputting the
`down limit and then you program the up limit.
`Okay. So turning to slide 14, we’ve got extremely strong positions for
`this particular IPR. There are only two defenses that are raised, they’re very
`easily dealt with. There are two grounds -- anticipation by Schindler for all
`of the claims, and then obviousness with respect to claims 23 and 24 based
`on Schindler and Liftmaster. Patent Owner hasn’t raised any arguments
`with respect to the obviousness combination so that’s unrebutted and we’re
`really going to focus just on the first ground.
`Claims 18 to 25, this set of claims have two independent claims, claim
`18 and claim 21. The examiner raises two different arguments, one
`argument for claim 18 and another one for dependent claim 19 which also
`applies to claim 21, but no other separate arguments for claim 21. With
`respect to claim 18, the Patent Owner argues that Schindler doesn’t teach
`multiple activities. We’ll get into what that means in a moment. Of course
`it does and we’ll show you how. The other argument relates to, as I said,
`claim 19 and we’ll also discuss that in a moment.
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`
`If we skip to slide 16, this is claim 18, the independent claim, and this
`very second to the last penultimate claim element is the second identifying
`step. This is the only step that they dispute is missing in Schindler and what
`does it do? It identifies by the controller the activities, plural, to be
`completed by user of the barrier movement operator. So it has to identity
`more than one activity that the user needs to complete.
`Again, turning to claim construction, slide 18. We asked Patent
`Owner’s expert, so did you consider the Institution decision? And he said he
`read it but it wasn’t relevant to any of his opinions at all, which is
`interesting, obviously not dispositive of any issue.
`Slide No. 19. At the end of the first bullet point we have the Patent
`Owner’s argument here. They say the Petitioner attempts to sweep
`identification of a single activity into the claim without claim construction
`positions. Absolutely not true. Our two claim construction positions are
`shown at the bottom here in grey. Both of them talk about -- the first one
`talks about multiple activities, the second one, which is from claim 21, deals
`with multiple actions. We never, ever said that it only involves one activity
`and one action. Aand by the way, we’ll look at it later, but their expert has
`admitted that the two claims -- the words activities and actions means the
`same thing-- so there’s no difference between those two.
`The Board, Your Honors, declined to provide any claim constructions,
`which we have adopted. There’s just one claim construction issue that’s still
`open that I think we would still like you to address and that is we think
`there’s an error in the claim that needs to be corrected. The first element of
`the claim, as we’ve underlined here in red, says, “It reduces the
`predetermined activities by a user,” and then in the third element of the
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`claim it says, “The activities,” using the definite article “the.” Well, which
`activities? Is it talking about the predetermined activities? We believe that
`it is. We believe that the correct interpretation here should be -- for the
`activities -- should be the predetermined activities introduced early in the
`claim. But even if it’s some other activities that’s not the predetermined
`activities, we also show that Schindler teaches it either way. So it doesn’t --
`JUDGE ARBES: The interpretation that you offered in the petition is
`slightly different from the interpretation that you’re showing from the reply.
`Why the difference, and does it matter?
`MR. BREGMAN: I apologize if it’s different. Our intention was
`really just to fix up the activities here. The activities -- we just intended it to
`be the predetermined activities. That’s the only error that we’ve seen in the
`claim and it just adds a little bit more work for us because we had to show
`well, maybe there’s some other activities in the petition to these
`predetermined activities in Schindler. We show that, but I just don’t think
`it’s necessary. I think by using the definite article they were referring back
`to the predetermined activities and I think that should be corrected.
`JUDGE ARBES: So there’s no difference between your
`interpretation that impacts the analysis?
`MR. BREGMAN: No, absolutely not. So let’s jump to slide 29, and
`this is our unrebutted analysis of claim 18. So their main argument here is
`that claim 18 -- their sole argument for claim 18, independent claim 18 -- is
`that Schindler doesn’t teach multiple activities. Well, there are a couple of
`select quotes from Schindler talking about multiple activities. “The limit
`program is such to allow the user to program the limit (plural) of door travel
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`easily.” Next one, “The up and down limits are set by the homeowner.”
`The next one, “Upper and lower limits are set in a program mode.”
`Of course Schindler describes there are multiple limits. In fact, when
`we asked Patent Owner’s expert -- this is on slide 31 -- so during the
`program mode of Schindler is the user able to set multiple limit positions
`including a down limit position and an up limit position, he said as
`independent actions, yes. You can set an up limit and you can set a down
`limit. Turning to slide 32.
`.JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, before you move on to that, can I just ask
`a general question?
`MR. BREGMAN: Yes.
`JUDGE ARBES: The activities that we’re talking about, the actual
`physical thing that is to be completed by a user, is just pressing a button,
`right? It’s just pressing a switch 27 and 29?
`MR. BREGMAN: Correct.
`JUDGE ARBES: That’s the only activity --
`MR. BREGMAN: Well there actually are some other activities that
`we described later.
`JUDGE ARBES: What are those?
`MR. BREGMAN: The other activities, let me just jump to it in the
`slide. I think that was it actually. I think that was just pushing the buttons,
`oh, you may have to clear some errors I think possibly but it is really just
`pushing the buttons. You’re absolutely right.
`JUDGE ARBES: Pushing --
`MR. BREGMAN: Pushing the buttons.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ARBES: -- to set the up limit constitutes an activity of
`pressing one of the switches, and then to set the down limit constitutes
`pressing the other switch.
`MR. BREGMAN: It’s a little bit more complicated because you can
`toggle it. You can move your door up and move it and move it until you’re
`happy with that limit. You can use up and down until you’re happy with it
`and then you can hit this command switch and that’s it. So there’s three
`buttons really you press before you set that limit. You don’t have to hit the
`command switch. You can just exit the program mode if you wanted it and
`it would store that position. But if you wanted to toggle to set the down limit
`then you would hit the command switch and then you would go up, down,
`up, down until you’re happy with it and then hit the command switch or exit
`and it would be the down limit. So there are multiple button presses, it
`doesn’t just have to be one.
`JUDGE ARBES: Okay. So if I’m in the phase where I’m setting the
`up limit, I move the door up and down to where I’m happy with the position
`using switches 27 and 29 and then when I’m ready I press switch 15?
`MR. BREGMAN: Correct.
`JUDGE ARBES: That’s the activity?
`MR. BREGMAN: That’s the activity.
`JUDGE ARBES: Okay.
`MR. BREGMAN: And as I showed you a little bit earlier, the
`activities in the ’611 patent -- just taking a step back to the example that they
`gave -- was, was the door in the right position? So I determine is it up or is
`it down. If it’s up tell the user to put it down, so the user pushes it down.
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`That’s the activity, and if it’s already down just tell the user to push it up and
`the user pushes it up. So it’s very, very similar.
`Back to slide 32. Determining whether to set an up limit or a down
`limit is an identification of two -- so we know that there are two activities.
`Now the claim requires identification of two activities, right? Before you do
`these activities the code or the controller has to identify the two activities
`and this is what Petitioner’s expert said. He said to choose between two
`options, i.e., deciding whether to indicate to the user to start setting the up
`limit or start setting the down limit. The decision maker, i.e., Schindler’s
`controller, necessarily identifies both options and he gives a simple analogy
`which I think is pretty good. He says if a person decides whether to wear
`their red hat or a blue hat to a sporting event, that person necessarily needs
`to know, they need to identify, that the red hat and the blue hat are two
`available options. This is particularly the case with code. If you’ve got
`some code and you’ve got two different options that you could choose, of
`course the code when it executes knows that it can choose option A or it can
`choose option B and that is shown in the code itself on page 33. I’m not
`going to spend too much time on it.
`I prefer looking at slide 34 and this was part of a flow chart that one of
`our experts, Mr. Baer, prepared to give -- show in a graphical form how the
`code in Schindler works. Patent Owners have objected. They said there’s
`one part that is wrong in this diagram. It’s a single line for a loop. It’s not
`this portion, and we’ll get on to that later. This part is undisputed by the
`Patent Owner as accurately represented in the code and as you can see here -
`-
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, before you move on to the slide if you
`could go back.
`MR. BREGMAN: Yes.
`JUDGE ARBES: At the point in time of step 104, I see your point
`about identifying two different activities that could take place. I could set
`the up limit, I could set the down limit, but once I choose those and I enter
`into the phase I’m only selecting one activity that the user has to do. The
`user only -- I’m in the up phase -- the user has to move it up and down and
`then press the button to set the up limit. That’s only one activity.
`MR. BREGMAN: That’s performing one activity and that goes as
`planned and you hit this little button. It’ll loop back through again, and then
`it’ll tell you to do the other one because once you’ve hit this command
`switch it flips this little bit and says okay, go do the other now. So now it
`will start to flash the other one and say, okay, go and program the other limit
`now.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: But the claim says identifying the activities to be
`completed by a user. At the point in time of 104 when I’ve decided which
`phase I’m going to go in, I’ve only identified one activity.
`MR. BREGMAN: Yes, sir. So let’s go back a slide maybe, Alex, to
`the code itself. So you look at the code here and this is for checking the
`programming up limit, when it gets down to this command JB5, this jump
`command, it’s a conditional jump instruction that represents a decision. And
`that’s what we show in this decision block. Now if it gets here, and let’s say
`it’s looking to see if bit 5 is high, right? If bit 5 is high then it goes and it
`jumps to some certain location. This bit 5 it says JB5 workup. So it says if
`that bit 5 is high, so that’s a one, jump somewhere else. So that would be if
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`it was high it would just jump somewhere else and that would be, as you say,
`it’s just jumping somewhere else and maybe doing one decision.
`But if it’s not high, if it’s low, it’s making a determination is it high?
`Okay, it’s not high. That’s one activity that we’re checking, and if it’s not
`high then go to -- and then it skips that and it jumps down to indiscernible),
`so an on vacation LED. So in the instance where it’s not high, it has to
`determine two things. It first has to do a check, am I high? If I’m not high,
`then go do something else. What is the something else? Program the,
`whatever, I think is the down limit. So it has to at least, in one of those,
`make a decision to check if something, to check if the bit is high. That’s one
`activity. And then go and tell the user to program the other mode which is
`the other activity.
`JUDGE ARBES: But in terms of activities to be completed by the
`user, once I’ve selected which one of those I’m going to be in, you would
`agree there’s only one activity to be completed by the user at that point even
`--
`
`MR. BREGMAN: Only one until the user gets the command and
`comes back around again. The user has to set both limits and I can read you
`out of the specification where it says the door won’t operate unless the limits
`have both been set. So the user has to set both limits, so it necessarily has to
`go around twice. It necessarily has to come round again and tell the user to
`do the other thing, set the other one.
`JUDGE ARBES: Well, in terms of disclosing identifying the
`activities to be completed by a user, you’re relying on two different points in
`time. One where I first go through the up phase and then a second when I go
`through the down phase.
`
`
`
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`
`MR. BREGMAN: No. So it could be that, but when it comes through
`and looks to see whether the bit is high, so it’s identifying whether the bit is
`high, and then if it is high it jumps somewhere else. If it isn’t high the thing
`goes and says okay, I’m identifying the next activity which is not the high
`activity, it’s the low activity which is go program the door down.
`JUDGE ARBES: But if I get to that point the activity to be completed
`by the user is setting the down limit, it’s not setting the up limit.
`MR. BREGMAN: So it sets the down limit. Now you set the down
`limit, you come all the way through, you hit the command switch, it comes
`back around and now the bit gets flipped and now it flashes the other one,
`automatically just flashes the other one for you and says okay, now program
`the up limit.
`JUDGE ARBES: At a different point in time?
`MR. BREGMAN: At a different point in time.
`JUDGE ARBES: Okay. And that’s okay in the claim language --
`MR. BREGMAN: That’s perfectly okay. And we’ve got testimony
`from their expert, I don’t know if we can pull it up, that says there’s no
`requirement that it needs to be simultaneous. You can perform the activities,
`and in fact their activities in the ’611 patent, Your Honor, are performed at
`different times as well, right? They are performing, you’re not performing
`both activities at once. If the door is not in the down position it tells you,
`move it to the down position. You move it to the down position, once
`you’ve done that, it says okay, move it to the up position, then you move it
`to the up position. So it’s very, very, very similar to what Schindler
`describes.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`
`Slide 40 if we wanted to jump there quickly just to show Your Honor,
`and this is from Patent Owner’s expert, and we asked him does Claim 18
`require identifying multiple activities at the same point in time by the
`controller. He said it requires identifying multiple activities by the
`controller and he’s silent on any timing requirement. So he’s says there’s no
`timing requirement. Those are his words.
`So jumping back to slide 35. Actually we can jump this, this is just
`Mr. Lipoff explaining how the code works. Slide 36. Our evidence on this
`actually is unrebutted. Patent Owner declined to cross-examine Mr. Lipoff
`in his deposition on anticipation of claim 18 for whatever reason. We of
`course then filed our reply. We had an additional declaration with Mr.
`Lipoff, they declined to take his deposition at all on that and they didn’t
`dispute the technical accuracy of Mr. Baer’s determination at that step 104 at
`all.
`
`What’s also interesting here, and you’re going to see in their slides in
`a moment, they’re going to make a big deal saying ah, if it does one or the
`other, that “or” -- and they’re going to circle this word “or” -- they’re going
`to say if it’s there as an “or,” that means it’s only doing one or the other.
`This is a quote from the ITC when they tried to make their infringement case
`and the judge -- quoting what the Patent Owner said -- we of course don’t
`have access to all the documents because there’s a protective order -- but this
`was in a public document, and Judge Pender quoted the Patent Owner saying
`the following,
`“The controller” they’re talking about the ’611 patent, “the controller
`identifies the steps to be completed by the user.”
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`
`Okay. Well what is that? How does the ’611 patent identify the steps
`to be completed? And this is what they say.
`“Either to correct the status or to continue with the learn mode.” It’s a
`decision, I either do one thing or I do something else.
`And on slide 38 our expert agrees with that 100 percent. He says,
`:The second identifying operation works in the exact same way as
`what’s described in Schindler. A controller chooses between two identified
`options and Schindler, that’s the prior art reference, should the user start
`setting an up limit or start setting the down limit? In the ’611 patent, the
`challenged patent, should the user correct the status by moving the door to a
`closed position or continue with the learn mode by moving the door to an
`open position? And by making this choice, the controller has identified
`both.
`
`And you’ll see on their slides 17 and 18 in a moment, that they say oh,
`if you’ve got an “or” in there it completely sinks our argument.
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, if you can go back to slide 37?
`MR. BREGMAN: Yes.
`JUDGE ARBES: I just have one question about this. So either to
`correct the status or to continue with the learn mode --
`MR. BREGMAN: Sorry, I can translate that for you into the actual
`physical operation.
`JUDGE ARBES: Well, let me ask the question. So going down
`either of those paths, isn’t it the case that both of those paths consist of
`multiple activities, right? The learn mode is multiple activities.
`MR. BREGMAN: In the ’611 patent?
`JUDGE ARBES: Yes.
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`
`MR. BREGMAN: No. So the decision block here is sort of the door
`has to start in the closed position in the ’611 patent, so the decision is, is the
`door in the closed position? If it’s not in the closed position, tell the user to
`move it to the closed position. I push the button until it’s in the closed
`position, right? Then it’s in the closed position, that’s it. Or to continue
`with the learn mode, if it’s already in the closed position, so that’s the other
`side of the decision block, is the door in the closed position? If it’s already
`in the closed position, just tell it to move it open. Then they just hit the open
`button and it moves over.
`So it’s exactly the same thing. It’s a decision between two different
`options. And that’s the way that they described it for infringement. And of
`course it’s a party admission, albeit in a different forum that’s adverse or
`contradicts the statements that they’re making here.
`Let’s turn to their defense, and this is on slide 21. So they make two
`different arguments on slide 22. The multiple activities argument and, then
`we’ll get to it later -- that’s for claim 18 -- and we’ll get to it later this no
`loop argument for claims 19 and 21.
`So jumping to slide 24, this relates to the multiple activities argument.
`Patent Owner, this is their statement.
`“In the relied upon text, Schindler clearly establishes that its controller
`identifies a single activity, either sets the up limit or” -- there you see the
`“or” -- “or it sets the down limit.”
`Well what support do they provide for that? It’s completely
`conclusory. Turn to the next slide please. This is their entire argument on
`this multiple activities. We’ve highlighted in red the only citations that they
`provide. They cite to Your Honor’s decision saying there’s no claim
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`construction. They cite to our petition, and then they cite to our petition as
`well, that’s “see id., No. 2,” the footnote just cites to our petition. They do
`not once cite to their expert. They do not once cite to Schindler. They just
`make a conclusory argument that there’s no multiple activities and expect us
`to believe that.
`Jumping to slide 27 here, our evidence based analysis, or Petitioner’s
`evidence based analysis, is completely unrebutted. And based on controlling
`case law on this, anything that is not addressed at least with evidence is
`admitted. So that’s the end of the entire claim. That’s the only argument
`that they raise with respect to claim 18 and I think it’s clear that Schindler
`behaves in a very similar, almost identical manner to what the ’611 patent
`does.
`
`Let’s jump to slide 45. This is jumping to their other argument. So
`the other argument here relates to claim 19. Claim 19, dependent claim,
`says the barrier movement operator according to claim 18 comprising
`receiving indications of activities performed by a user during the learn
`mode. They don’t dispute either of those, but they dispute this last one--
`annunciating the next activity to the user after the performance of a prior
`activity by the user. When the prior activity meets the predetermined
`parameters, I’ll sort of parse that out a little bit. It says tell the user to
`perform the next activity when the previous one worked properly, and there
`weren’t errors on the previous one. So, you know, move the door down to
`the close limit. If that worked okay and there were no errors, tell them to
`move the door to the upper location.
`And what is their entire argument on this? This is on slide 47. They
`say the petition relies on figure 1 of the Baer declaration to address the
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00214
`Patent 7,196,611 B2
`
`annunciating element of claim 19. The petition doesn’t rely on figure 1 of
`the Baer declaration to address the annunciating element. The petition has
`over eight pages that stand completely independent of the Baer declaration.
`Pages 46 to 52, and I just want to read a couple of excerpts from that to Your
`Honors. So the places for you to look, page 43 -- Alex is pulling it up for
`me -- page 43. Schindler also teaches, so this is about a loop or sorry, this is
`not about a loop. The claim says nothing about a loop but just says after you
`finish telling the user to do the first activity and everything went well, tell
`them to do the second activity. The claim doesn’t require a loop at all, and
`this is what we say on page 43 of the brief, of the petition.
`“Schindler also teaches that a user presses the command switch 25,
`also referred to as the control push button 25, to switch from setting one
`limit setting to a different setting, stating that after setting a down limit,
`switch 25 is pressed to allow the up limit to be adjusted.”
`So as Your Honor actually repeated to me a few moments ago, how
`do you go about setting a different limit in Schindler? Once you’ve finished
`setting one setting and everything goes well, you click on this command
`switch and you can then set the other limit. That’s described in the text of
`Schindler and in the code. It doesn’t rely on the Baer figure at all.
`Completely independent of the Baer figure. Another good place to look is
`page 50. Look at page 50, there’s another great quote.
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, just to remind you, you have 13 minutes
`remaining.
`MR. BREGMAN: Yes
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
