UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VEVEO, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 23, 2018
`_________________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, MINN CHUNG, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VEVEO, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 23, 2018
`_________________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, MINN CHUNG, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, COMCAST:
` FREDERIC M. MEEKER, ESQ.
` BANNER WITCOFF
` 1100 13th Street, Northwest
` Suite 1200
` Washington, D.C. 20006-4051
` (202) 824-3116
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT, VEVEO:
` MARK D. ROWLAND, ESQ.
` ROPES & GRAY
` 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
` East Palo Alto, California 94033-2284
` (650) 617-4016
`
` JOSEF B. SCHENKER, ESQ.
` ROPES & GRAY
` 1211 Avenue of the Americas
` New York, New York 10036-8704
` (212) 596-9000
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on April 23, 2018,
`commencing at 10:04 a.m., at the Silicon Valley U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 26 S 4th Street, San Jose, California 95112.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` USHER: Appellate No. 164, IPR 2017-00715, Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, versus Veveo, Inc.
` CLERK: IPR 2017-00715.
` JUDGE TROCK: Good day, everyone. I'm Judge
`Trock. To my left is Judge Chung. And on the monitor, appearing
`from Alexandria, is Judge Chang.
` This is Case IPR 2017-00715 relating to Patent No.
`8,433,696, Comcast versus Veveo.
` Counsel, would you like to make appearances? Let's
`start with Petitioner.
` MR. MEEKER: Fred Meeker with the law firm of Banner and
`Witcoff representing Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE TROCK: And Patent Owner?
` MR. ROWLAND: Mark Rowland of Ropes & Gray on behalf of
`Patent Owner Veveo, and with me is Josef Schenker, also of Ropes &
`Gray.
` JUDGE TROCK: Okay. Good day, Counsel.
` So just a couple of things. I believe we, in our
`order, gave 45 minutes to each side to make their arguments. When
`you speak here, it's important to speak at the podium into the
`microphone. When you're projecting something or talking about one
`of your slides, please identify them by slide number because Judge
`Chang is not going to be able to follow you. She has her own set,
`but she's not going to be able to see what you're putting on this
`
`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 IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`wall. Okay?
` I believe you have 45 minutes. Petitioner, would
`you like to reserve any time?
` MR. MEEKER: 20 minutes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE TROCK: All right. With that, would you like to
`begin?
` MR. MEEKER: May it please the Court, I'd like to go to
`Slide 2, just to review the grounds that have been instituted on.
`So claims 1 to 10, 12 to 24, 26 to 31 have been instituted on
`Grove in view of Smith. Claims 11 to 25 are Grove in view of
`Smith and further in view of Robarts.
` I think I unplugged it and I messed it up.
` Okay. That's Slide 2. Moving on to Slide 3, what's
`undisputed in this case, Grove, Smith, and Robarts are each prior
`art of the '626 Patent. Claim 1 is representative of the two
`independent claims, and Patent Owner does not separately contest
`any dependent claim.
` There's a significant amount of claim construction still
`at issue. Much of the Patent Owner's response brief was devoted to
`claim construction. There's two primary issues: Content item and
`direct mapping. Those are highlighted on Slides 8 and 9. I'm
`sorry; 7 and 8.
` The Patent Owner does not dispute that Grove Smith or
`Grove Smith Robarts teaches the construed terms under the Board's
`preliminary claimed construction. We believe any -- I'm sorry; go
`ahead. Oh.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
` We believe any such arguments have been waived. We
`agree with the Board's claimed construction --
` JUDGE TROCK: Let me back you up, Counsel. What do you
`mean by that? Which particular arguments do you think are waived?
` MR. MEEKER: With respect to contesting whether or not
`the limitations of direct mapping or content item are met by the
`Board's construction. So they contested the construction. They
`didn't address whether those terms are met under the Board's
`construction.
` JUDGE TROCK: Right. But if the construction changes --
` MR. MEEKER: The construction -- it's a preliminary
`construction. If you change your construction and go with a
`different construction, that's a different issue.
` JUDGE TROCK: So that strikes me that's the issue in the
`case then.
` MR. MEEKER: It is the issue in the case of whether or
`not you should change that preliminary construction. We believe
`that construction is correct for a number of different reasons.
`Starting in Slide 10 is the Board's construction, which is
`preliminary construction, direct mapping to be mapping each
`alphanumeric character of the descriptor identifying a content
`item with his corresponding numeric key equivalent on an
`overloaded keyboard.
` So --
` JUDGE CHUNG: Counsel, can I just interrupt you?
` MR. MEEKER: Yes, sir.
`
`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 IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
` JUDGE CHUNG: Can you make sure your microphone is on?
`
` MR. MEEKER: I apologize. I apologize. It was not on;
`you are correct. So thank you very much.
` Okay. So Slide 19 deals with -- and so, you know, just
`to bring you up to speed, we just went through the initial claim
`construction arguments and the undisputed facts on the slides. So
`Slide 19, in the district court, the Patent Owner argued that the
`independent claims required directly mapping overloaded key
`strings to content item descriptors. So Judge Trock, we believe
`that their arguments in district court are consistent with the
`Board's construction of direct mapping. And this is on Slide 19.
` On Slide 15, the Patent Owner's own expert admitted that
`the term "Tom Hanks" is a term, not a content item, and it's
`significant because of the mapping in Figure 5. So the mapping in
`Figure 5 is two descriptors, not the content items. And it's the
`only mapping shown in the case. Also, that's consistent with the
`Board's preliminary claim construction. So the Patent Owner's own
`litigation position and their own expert is consistent with the
`Board's preliminary claim construction.
` So the Patent Owner's own expert also supports a broad
`construction of direct mapping. "Is it fair to say, sir, that
`Figure 7 does not show selecting and presenting a first of the
`subsets of content items; correct, sir?"
` "THE WITNESS: Figure 7 is not intended to show that,
`no."
`
`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 IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
` So their entire support that the Board's construction is
`wrong is Figure 5 and Figure 7. Under cross-examination, their
`own expert admitted that those figures do not support their
`position that the Board's construction is incorrect.
` Going to Slide 13, the Patent Owner relied on Figure 5
`and 7 as supporting their proposed construction, but Figures 5 and
`7 and their corresponding disclosure support the Board's
`construction and not Patent Owner's construction. It's
`descriptors that match to the search query, not content item. And
`that's consistent with what the Board held.
` So if we turn to Figure 5, you'll see on the left,
`"Toon, Tom, and Tommy" are the terms. On the right are the
`numeric equivalents: 886, 866, 8666, and 86669. And, quite
`frankly, the only mapping shown in this patent is in Figure 5, and
`that mapping is between terms and descriptors, just as the Board
`held.
` JUDGE TROCK: Does Figure 7 show mapping as well?
` MR. MEEKER: Figure 7 shows that -- it doesn't really
`show the mapping, Your Honor, so there's two arrows. One is top
`end results, which is just a storage location. That's the primary
`storage location for the descriptors that are mapped into it.
` JUDGE TROCK: So your position is that 704 will not be
`content items.
` MR. MEEKER: We do not believe they're content items and
`their own expert admitted they're not content items. Those are
`descriptors stored in storage locations.
`
`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 IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
` And if you look up their definition of "content
`items" -- and we'll get to that in a minute -- but implicitly,
`they tried to say the content items don't even include an
`identification or a descriptor, and that's contrary to the Board's
`definition.
` And quite frankly, Your Honor, how do you store a file
`or anything without a descriptor? A file name program
`identification is -- quite frankly, it's impossible. The
`construction they have taken is so narrow, it's like a perpetual
`motion machine. I don't think you can store a file without some
`sort of identification or descriptor, and implicit in their
`argument is content item doesn't have either. The Board's
`construction is open, and I think their own construction, if you
`read it, they don't say it excludes a descriptor or an
`identification, and they argue that in district court. So down
`here, they're telling the court go really narrow, and in district
`court, they have gone extremely broad. The PTAB has drawn a
`middle ground between those positions.
` So, again, it's the terms "Tommy Boy" are what's stored
`in the top end memories. And, also, the direct mapping is not
`what they say it is, Your Honor, because if you can't get enough
`terms in top end results, if it doesn't have enough terms, it then
`goes to secondary storage 706, and there's a very complicated
`algorithm for determining how those results actually get
`displayed, which ones get displayed on screen on Figure 8-A. So
`it's not direct by any means. If you look at the description on
`
`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 IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`how that works, they basically go to top end. If enough results
`aren't there, they go to 706. If enough results aren't there,
`then they take some sort of algorithm to combine them. So the
`mapping is actually shown in Figure 5. This is preparing the
`results to be shown on Figure 8.
` So the '696 Patent never mentions direct mapping. The
`term "direct mapping" was added via amendment, so the first patent
`in this chain published years before direct mapping was added.
`Direct mapping has to be something; right? So when they added
`direct mapping, if you look at the comments, they had a piece of
`art which was a -- essentially an auto completion. So you typed
`in a couple of letters of the prefix, it would complete the full
`word of all possible word combinations and then match that to the
`descriptors.
` So what they came back and argued is, we have a direct
`match between the prefixes and the descriptors, and they used the
`term "match", m-a-t-c-h. Even though they amended the claims to
`say "mapping," they actually, in their argument, used the term
`"match", m-a-t-c-h. And that's inconsistent what they're arguing
`here.
` So they were looking at, did you have an exact match
`between a term and a descriptor? And when they amended their
`claims, though, they said it was direct mapping. And so now they
`have tried to attribute all these attributes to mapping. It can
`only use one file when their own embodiment uses two. It has to
`be direct with no descriptors in between. All of 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
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
` JUDGE TROCK: Right. So let me interrupt you. What
`about their argument that our construction is creating an indirect
`mapping? That somehow we're misconstruing the
`ordinary understanding of the word "direct"?
` MR. MEEKER: So we don't know what direct mapping is in
`this spec --
` JUDGE TROCK: Well, I'm look -- proposing it's a
`one-to-one correspondence, and there are no intervening
`descriptors or other forms of language in the middle.
` MR. MEEKER: It's incompatible with their specification.
`Their specification doesn't enable such a structure. It doesn't
`describe such a structure. And, in fact, if you take their
`construction to the extreme where there are no descriptors or
`anything identifying that content, I would submit to Your Honor
`it's inoperative.
` So not only is it inconsistent with their specification,
`every embodiment in their specification -- and we cited some case
`law that says that's rarely, if ever, the correct construction.
`If you take it to the extreme and say there can't be any
`descriptors or any identification of that content, I would submit
`it's inoperative. They don't say, How do you identify something
`without a descriptor or a file name, a file allocation table, a
`program identification number? Their expert admitted that, Your
`Honor.
` This entire patent, this mapping to descriptors, the
`Board got it right in that construction. And if you look at what
`
`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 IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`they said and when they added direct mapping, it wasn't done as a
`CIP; it was done via amendment of a claim, and they said
`"matching". And what was the "matching"? They were talking about
`terms to descriptors. That's the matching that we're talking
`about. The reference showed auto completion of the words, and
`they said, no, ours is to the terms to the descriptors. You know,
`not without the auto completion step. That's what they were
`talking about, the direct.
` JUDGE TROCK: Do you have a citation to that?
` MR. MEEKER: I do, Your Honor.
` JUDGE TROCK: You can give it to us later.
` MR. MEEKER: This citation is Exhibit 1002, page 10,
`line 11, the very end of that paragraph.
` JUDGE TROCK: And then, while I'm at it, asking about
`citations -- maybe one of your colleagues can assist you on
`this -- the reference you gave earlier about their argument in
`district court, do you have a citation for that as well?
` MR. MEEKER: I do. It's actually on the slides, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE TROCK: What slide number?
` MR. MEEKER: Slide 19, Your Honor. Slide 19. It's on
`the screen. So that's Exhibit 1010, paragraph 434, and that's the
`complaint. Paper 25 on pages 7 to 8. It's the complaint they
`filed in district court.
` And there's a similar citation in their claim
`construction brief as well. And if we could just --
`
`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 IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
` John, do you have a clean copy of this without mark-ups?
` If we could go to the Elmo.
` So I put the prosecution history on the board. Let me
`see if I can --
` JUDGE TROCK: You need to identify what you're --
` MR. MEEKER: Okay. So this is the --
` JUDGE TROCK: -- referring to for Judge Chang.
` MR. MEEKER: Judge Chang, I have put on the board
`Exhibit 1002, page 76 of that exhibit, Your Honor, which states in
`pertinent part, Verbeck. So Verbeck is the auto completion
`art. It further states that, when presented with this ambiguous
`search query, a search engine would identify potential results.
`So those are all the words that might match -- that match any of
`these potential words.
` So, basically, it's matching descriptors to potential
`words in its match. Not (indiscernible), mapping. They say we're
`matching descriptors to potential words, and they said, Well,
`wait, that's not us. We're not matching descriptors to potential
`words. We're matching descriptors to search terms, to prefix
`search terms. And they said that's how we distinguish over this
`art.
` They didn't talk about direct mapping or how the mapping
`works. They were completely silent about that, Your Honor. And
`this is perfectly consistent with the Board's construction. In
`fact, the Board went right to the heart of the issue with its own
`construction, identified that construction as being with
`
`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 IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`descriptors and consistent with the prosecution history. I think
`the Board got it right, Your Honor.
` Okay. And that takes us to Slide 24, which is content
`item construction. The Board preliminarily construed content item
`to mean an item which contains information and is identifiable and
`selectable from a set of items through the use of a search query.
`We agree with that. And Patent Owner's own litigation position is
`consistent with the Board's construction.
` In the Patent Owner's litigation position, they said the
`'696 Patent -- oh, I'm sorry, we're on Slide 27. We just left
`Slide 24. On Slide 27, we're talking about Exhibit 1011 at 14
`which is Paper 25, page 10. So the '696 Patent specification
`describes how selecting and presenting a television content item
`includes displaying the titles of the television content items.
` So, here, they said that the television content items
`include displaying titles of the television content items that
`matched the search entry which can then be selected to view the
`item. So the Board said it's selectable and detectable. They
`didn't exclude, you know, descriptors being part of the content
`item, and neither did Rovey (ph) in their construction that they
`have asked the Board, although implicitly, if you look at their
`argument -- their implicit argument is that content item excludes
`both descriptors and what the Board said a way to identify the
`content items. But what they argued in district court is that
`displaying titles -- television titles, which are descriptors in
`this patent, is the displaying -- the selecting and presenting of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`content items.
` So the Patent Owner's litigation position is consistent
`with the Board's construction.
` JUDGE TROCK: Okay. So
`what document is this from? I see it says 1011, but what is 1011?
` MR. MEEKER: 1011 is an exhibit. It's the Southern
`District of New York.
` JUDGE TROCK: Because 1010 was the complaint; correct?
` MR. MEEKER: 1010 was the complaint. This is a claim
`construction motion from the Southern District of New York
`proceeding. So, basically, at the district court, they're telling
`the district court the exact opposite of what they're telling the
`PTAB. So the PTAB basically construed these claims consistent
`with what they said in the district court and not what they're
`telling the PTAB here. And I believe it to be correct, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE CHUNG: Counsel, but the standard for claim
`construction is different between the court and the PTAB.
` MR. MEEKER: You're absolutely right, Your Honor, but,
`here's the distinction. They're taking an extremely broad
`position in district court, and then when they come to the PTAB,
`they're taking such a narrow position that it's not enabled --
`described by their specification or, if you look at their implicit
`arguments, it's not even operative. So they have turned the
`standard claim construction on its head. So when they go to the
`district court, they say, Your Honor, it reads on everything.
`
`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 IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`Right? Content items mean titles. Mapping means incorrect
`mapping. It means descriptors. But when they come down here,
`it's the exact opposite story.
` And if you looked at their specification, even without
`regard to district court, there's several cases we have cited that
`a claim construction that is inconsistent with the only embodiment
`of the specification is rarely, if ever, correct. We think the
`construction that the PTAB offered is the correct construction in
`this case, Your Honor.
` And, I'm sorry, so 1010 -- I'm afraid I misspoke. So
`1010 is the first amended complaint for patent infringement,
`Southern District of New York document 68 in the docket, and
`that's dated April 25th, 2016. Robey's claim construction reply
`brief, also consistent with their arguments here, is Document 293
`in the Southern District of New York, and that's Case 16-9278.
` JUDGE TROCK: But (indiscernible) --
` MR. MEEKER: Docket No. 293.
` JUDGE TROCK: -- 1011 what you have here on Slide 27,
`that's a claim construction issue?
` MR. MEEKER: 1011 is the claim construction reply brief,
`yes, Your Honor. And that's on Slide 27.
` JUDGE TROCK: So they propose, I believe, a different
`construction for content item than their response; correct?
` MR. MEEKER: They did, yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE TROCK: What's wrong with their construction?
` MR. MEEKER: So here's the 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
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`It's on Slide 29. So, I'm sorry, their actual construction is on
`Slide 38, Your Honor. Patent Owner construes content item as,
`quote, "An identifiable and searchable item, having one or more
`associated descriptors".
` So what they're trying to do is say descriptors are
`different than content items. So we know that's not the case. I
`mean, that's --
` JUDGE TROCK: Well, why isn't that the case? I mean,
`you just argued to us earlier that a digital file is different
`than the name of the file or the descriptor of the file and that,
`without those descriptors -- without that language, you could
`never find the file; right?
` MR. MEEKER: I agree with that.
` JUDGE TROCK: So they are different, are they not?
` MR. MEEKER: I would say they were different but
`overlapping, and let me give the Court an example.
` JUDGE TROCK: Well, not to interrupt you, but I think
`your argument is that you need to have these descriptors, these
`items, these labels in order to find what you're looking for, the
`items. They're necessary as part of the search procedure, because
`we're using language here.
` MR. MEEKER: That's true, Your Honor.
` JUDGE TROCK: You have got a user with a concept: I
`want to watch a particular movie, "To Kill a Mockingbird," I have
`an overloaded keypad, I start typing in "Gregory Peck," I start
`typing in "Mockingbird." Sooner or later, I get the results 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
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`are going to direct me to what I want, which is the movie. So
`because we're using this language, you're going to have to have
`descriptors. You're going to have to use labels, strings,
`prefixes, whatever you want to call them, but they are different
`than the object you're looking for; are they not?
` MR. MEEKER: They are, and it's -- they're somewhat
`overlapping. I mean, if you want to make sense of this whole
`specification, sometimes they have used content item and
`descriptor interchangeably. So, like, there's Claim 31; there's
`other places where they say displaying content item. And it's a
`little confusing, if you read their spec, but I think it's like
`the desk here, Your Honor. So if I took my book and I can lay it
`directly on the desktop, I have also put it on the desk. So the
`desktop is distinct from the desk. The desk has a lot of other
`items. Content item has a lot of other stuff. It would have an
`MPEG file, AVD file, all kinds of stuff. I could call that a desk
`or a desktop. I still put my book on the desk.
` So I would say that they have leveraged some imprecise
`language in their specification to blow things completely out of
`proportion and made one argument in this court and a completely
`different argument --
` JUDGE TROCK: Okay. I understand that. But is their
`proposed construction necessarily wrong or incorrect?
` MR. MEEKER: So it's the way they --
` JUDGE TROCK: So, here, we have this -- follow my logic.
`We're starting -- the content item is what we want.
`
`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
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
` MR. MEEKER: Correct.
` JUDGE TROCK: It's what the user wants.
` MR. MEEKER: Yes, ultimately.
` JUDGE TROCK: Whatever you want to call it. It's got to
`be identifiable. In other words, the user needs to recognize
`that's what I want.
` MR. MEEKER: I agree.
` JUDGE TROCK: It's got to be searchable because you have
`a bunch of these content items. You want to find it amongst this
`group.
` MR. MEEKER: And the question is, How do you find it?
` JUDGE TROCK: How do you do that? Right. And so it
`has -- they're saying it has one or more associated descriptors.
`Is that not true? If I'm looking for --
` MR. MEEKER: It is true.
` JUDGE TROCK: If I'm looking for the film "To Kill a
`Mockingbird," Gregory Peck would be one of the associated
`descriptors.
` MR. MEEKER: It is true.
` JUDGE TROCK: Same with (indiscernible). Whatever it
`happens to be, it's going to have some association with this
`language that the user would use to find the content item. So how
`does that make their construction wrong?
` MR. MEEKER: So I would say, all our art, it doesn't
`matter. Right? Because we found the art that actually searches
`on words in a content item, a document -- a Word document, and it
`
`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 IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`searches on titles in the same work document. So we found art
`that does both.
` So I don't think it matters in this case. I think we
`win under either construction. So under their construction, I
`think searching for descriptors like words in the document may not
`fall under their construction because they're saying -- they're
`saying the descriptors, the things that you search on can't be
`part of the content item and yet, their claim requires searching
`on things that are part of the content item, a direct mapping to
`the content item. You can't have it both ways.
` So if their construction of content item excludes all
`descriptors --
` JUDGE TROCK: Well, I don't think it does, does it? It
`says it's the -- the content item isn't -- the content item is an
`item which is -- can be identified and searched, but it has one or
`more associated descriptors.
` MR. MEEKER: Yes. So I guess the question is --
` JUDGE TROCK: So there's an association between the two.
` MR. MEEKER: Yes.
` JUDGE TROCK: They're related to each other. Not that
`they're necessarily the same thing, but there is a relationship
`there.
` MR. MEEKER: I agree with that, but we would say the
`Venn diagram is bigger. So content item includes -- you know,
`could potentially include some descriptors, and the definition of
`descriptor could potentially include some content item. I think
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`that's how their specification works, Your Honor. That's as
`best -- look, it's imprecise language. We're trying to interpret
`the direct mapping term, which isn't in the specification, and,
`you know, we have to try and make some sense out of it so it
`actually operates.
` JUDGE TROCK: So then are you good with either
`construction? Either the one we're -- we used preliminarily or
`the one they're proposing?
` MR. MEEKER: We would certainly prefer the Board's
`construction on that because their construction, I think, is
`intended to exclude descriptors from any sort of content item, and
`it makes you do more gymnastics on this claim. So it's not so
`much what's written on the paper. It's what they have -- it's
`their implicit construction based on their arguments that a
`content item can't have an identification for a descriptor. We
`think that's incorrect. But it's mainly because how they argued
`it, not what's written on that paper, if that makes sense.
` I don't know how I'm doing on time here, so....
` JUDGE TROCK: I have 17 minutes left.
` MR. MEEKER: Okay. So does the Court have any
`additional questions or....
` JUDGE TROCK: Judge Chung, do you have any questions?
` JUDGE CHUNG: No, nothing from me.
` MR. MEEKER: Okay. I'll reserve the rest of my time for
`rebuttal, Your Honor.
` JUDGE TROCK: Okay. Thank you.
`
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
` Counsel, if you could identify yourself for the record.
` MR. SCHENKER: Good morning, Your Honors. My name is
`Josef Schenker for Patent Owner. I'm going to address the claim
`construction disputes, and then my colleague, Mr. Rowland, is
`going to get up and discuss, first, why the claim limitations are
`not disclosed by Petitioner's proposed combinations and second,
`why Poseto (ph) would not have been motivated to make the proposed
`combinations.
` And I guess picking up where you just left off, I think
`the -- I mean, one of the questions here is the construction of
`content item and the extent to which Petitioner is suggesting that
`Patent Owner says that it excludes descriptors, and I don't think
`that's the position that Patent Owner put forward. And I think,
`for context, I'd like to --
` JUDGE TROCK: For the record, why don't you tell us what
`is the position that Patent Owner is putting forth.
` MR. SCHENKER: The position is that a descriptor in and
`of itself -- a title, for example -- is not, itself, a content
`item, but the content item, like Your Honor said earlier, is an
`object. It's, for example, the program that you're trying to get
`to, it has associated descriptors. The use of descriptors to
`refer to it, you use the descriptors to present their
`representation of it, perhaps, and you use the descriptors, you
`know, in those contexts.
` And the reason, I think, that we need to address it and
`why we asked the Board to modify its original preliminary
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00715
`Patent 8,433,696 B2
`
`construction comes from the deposition transcript of Dr. Fox,
`Petitioner's expert.
` And how do we turn on the Elmo?
` UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do you need the projector, sir?
` MR. SCHENKER: Yeah.
` UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Sure.
` JUDGE TROCK: So
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
