`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`FEDEX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
` Held: April 26, 2018
`____________
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and JOHN A.
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ALEXANDER M. BOYER, ESQUIRE
`DANIEL C. TUCKER, ESQUIRE
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 21090
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN MCNISH, ESQUIRE
`ALAN S. KELLMAN, ESQUIRE
`Desmarais, LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, April 26,
`2018, at 10 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Madison Building
`East, 600 Delany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before Walter Murphy,
`Notary Public.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`THE USHER: All rise.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Please be seated. Good morning everyone.
`Welcome to the Board. This is an oral argument in IPR2017-00729. The
`challenged patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581 B2. Petitioner is FedEx
`Corporation. Patent Owner is Intellectual Ventures II, LLC. I'm
`Administrative Judge Parvis. Judge McKone is appearing remotely from the
`Detroit office and Judge Hudalla is here with me.
`At this time we'd like counsel to introduce yourselves, your partners
`and guests, starting with Petitioner. Please use the microphone.
`MR. BOYER: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning. May it
`please the Board, Alex Boyer on behalf of Petitioner. With me at counsel's
`table is Daniel Tucker. Also present at the hearing is lead counsel Jeffrey
`Berkowitz and Chris Cherry, Chief IP counsel for Petitioner, FedEx Corp.
`I'd like to reserve ten minutes of my presentation today for rebuttal. Today
`Petitioner will --
`JUDGE PARVIS: We're going to allow the Patent Owner to
`introduce themselves --
`MR. BOYER: Pardon me. Absolutely.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you. Patent Owner.
`MR. MCNISH: Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the
`Board. I am Kevin McNish, counsel for Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC. With me today is lead counsel Alan Kellman.
`MR. KELLMAN: Good morning.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Good morning.
`
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`
`MR. MCNISH: I also have James Hietala, Tim Seeley, and Chuck
`Ebertin from Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, with me today.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you. Before we start, as the parties no
`doubt are aware, the Supreme Court issued its decision SAS Institute, Inc. v.
`Iancu on Tuesday. We decided not to contact the parties prior to today given
`how close in time the decision is to the hearing. In the instant proceeding, as
`you're aware, we instituted on claims 1 through 17 but not on claims 18
`through 24, so we will need to address claims 18 through 24 as part of the
`final decision process. If the parties have any brief thoughts today we
`welcome them now. However, we'd like the parties to meet and confer and
`send a joint email with times both parties are available for a call with the
`panel next week. We will give the parties a chance to briefly comment.
`We'll start with the Patent Owner, and then I will have some other
`preliminary guidance before we start the presentations. Patent Owner,
`would you like to make a few brief comments on the Supreme Court
`decision?
`MR. MCNISH: Yes, Your Honor, we would. As you mentioned,
`Your Honor, the Supreme Court held that when claims are challenged all the
`claims if trial is instituted must be subject to a final written decision. It is
`our view that should claims 18 through 24 be subject to a final written
`decision in this proceeding they should be found patentable over the prior art
`submitted in the petition.
`The Petitioner's case in chief closed when the petition was filed. The
`Board held that, the Petitioner having submitted its case in chief, could not
`establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. A reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing is a lower standard of proof than a preponderance of the evidence.
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`So by not establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, it necessarily
`follows that Petitioner cannot establish by a preponderance of the evidence
`the claims are invalid.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Have you had an opportunity to meet and confer
`with the Petitioner?
`MR. MCNISH: We have not, Your Honor.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Okay. Do you have ideas about whether Patent
`Owner will be wanting to file any additional briefing?
`MR. MCNISH: Your Honor, if the panel believes it helpful we would
`be happy to file additional briefing (indiscernible.)
`JUDGE PARVIS: Okay. We recommend that you meet and confer
`with the Petitioner and then be prepared during the call to talk to us about
`whether you think additional briefing makes sense and if so, what would you
`like to brief.
`MR. MCNISH: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you. Petitioner.
`MR. TUCKER: Thank you, Your Honor. Daniel Tucker on behalf of
`the Petitioner. I'd just like to briefly respond to Mr. McNish's points.
`Obviously we disagree that the claims are patentable over the –
`JUDGE MCKONE: Could you speak up?
`MR. TUCKER: Sure. We obviously disagree that the claims are
`patentable over the prior art references. However, we are willing to meet and
`confer just as the Board would like us to and be prepared to discuss the
`proper procedure on the call, and hopefully the parties can knock something
`out to alleviate the Board's concerns and if not, we can address our particular
`sides and include the Board on that call.
`5
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Okay. Thank you. So today we will focus on
`claims that both parties are prepared on, claims 1 through 17. Before we
`begin we want to remind the parties that the guidance for the hearing, as well
`as the other hearings that we're having here today -- there's four total –
`between the parties was provided in our Oral Hearing Order of April 2nd,
`2018. As you know from that order, this is the first of the four hearings.
`Each side will be given 30 minutes total for oral argument. The next hearing
`in IPR2017-00741 will begin right after this hearing. After the hearing in
`the 741 case, around noon the parties will be given about an hour for lunch,
`an hour break. Then after lunch we will conduct the remaining two
`hearings. The full schedule is the same as what we set forth in our Oral
`Hearing Order, as well as the order of presentations, Petitioner first, Patent
`Owner, and then Petitioner may reserve some time.
`We also have a few other reminders. As set forth in our Oral Hearing
`Order, this hearing is open to the public and a full transcript of it will
`become part of the record. Also please remember to speak into the
`microphone at the podium so that all judges, including the remote judge, can
`hear you and please speak into the microphone information to identify any
`document presented on the screen. As you're aware, the documents on the
`screen are not viewable to anyone reading the transcript or the remote judge,
`so please speak into the microphone information identifying a document.
`Okay. So now at this time, anytime you're ready Petitioner, you may
`proceed.
`MR. BOYER: Thank you, Your Honor. Alex Boyer on behalf of
`Petitioner. Petitioner will explain today that claims 1 through 17, the
`instituted claims in this petition, are obvious over prior art references,
`6
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`Rappaport, DeLorme and Wright. In particular a skilled artisan would have
`understood that the features of these references could have been combined in
`order to arrive at the claims of the 581 patent and that combination teaches
`or suggests all limitations of the instituted claims.
`Turning to the primary reference in this petition, the 063 reference to
`Rappaport, Rappaport discloses systems and methods for using a handheld
`device in the field in communication with a remote server computer and
`describes concepts that are precisely that which are embodied in the 581
`patent. Particularly, Rappaport discloses providing information and support
`to remote resources, technicians in the field using handheld devices in the
`context of deploying, maintaining and optimizing wireless networks.
`Rappaport's disclosure includes technicians who use portable
`handheld computers to collect data including location data, sending that data
`over a network to a remote server computer, the remote server computer
`having a program in which a model of the wireless network can be generated
`based off of the data received from the field and that data in the form of an
`updated model being sent back to the technician via his or her handheld
`device. This is precisely what is contemplated in the 581 patent.
`Turning to the 581 patent, the 581 patent relates to using a handheld
`device in the field and receiving information from a remote computer,
`exactly as Rappaport contemplates. The 581 patent's disclosure is broader
`and includes not just implementing wireless networks as disclosed in
`Rappaport, but generally providing information to those in the field, as the
`abstract discloses, assisting field operations. The abstract continues by
`stating that it assists field workers by providing real time access to remote
`programs assistance and more information to assist in field operations.
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`
`Turning to slide 7 of the Petitioner's demonstratives, a skilled artisan
`would have understood that Rappaport's features could have been combined
`to arrive at the claims of the 581 patent. The Petitioner outlines several
`reasons for why this is. Most notably, Rappaport discloses multiple features
`throughout its disclosure that a skilled artisan would understand could be
`combined to arrive at the 581 patent because all of those features are all
`aspects of the same system, the same handheld computer server
`communication system.
`JUDGE PARVIS: In one of the early slides in Patent Owner's
`demonstratives Patent Owner highlights part of the specification of the 581
`patent. It's column 8, I think on slide 6 of Patent Owner's presentation, on
`that slide there's an indication that the handheld provides a list of questions
`to someone in the field. Does Rappaport teach that list of questions,
`providing a list of questions to someone in the field?
`MR. BOYER: So Rappaport does not disclose providing questions
`but the 581 patent is not limited to providing questions or templates. It
`describes more broadly providing information to those in the field to assist
`in their field operations. The entire summary of the invention of the 581
`patent does not describe any inputs or questions, but describes more broadly
`providing information and solutions to assist those in the field. The 581
`patent also discloses that even experienced personnel would require
`information in the field.
`JUDGE PARVIS: So the Petitioner's position is that the language in
`response to in the element the collecting field data limitation, that in
`response to is broader and you're relying on that position rather than say, a
`teaching of presenting a list of questions; is that correct?
`8
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`
`MR. BOYER: Correct. We believe that the claim is not limited to
`providing any specific input. The claim does not say providing instructions
`or providing a question and answer response, but simply says collecting field
`data in response to an assessment program. The claim does not say whether
`that input is an instruction or otherwise and the disclosure supports our
`position that the 581 contemplates just sending information to the user to
`assist his or her activities in the field.
`JUDGE PARVIS: So the information in Rappaport that you're relying
`on is -- you'll probably get to that later? You relied on the -- it's in the reply.
`It repeats the entire cycle, is there --
`MR. BOYER: Right, exactly.
`JUDGE PARVIS: -- is there other information that you'd like to
`highlight in the petition or the reply that you're relying for the in response to
`limitation, because the data does have to be collected in response to an
`assessment program?
`MR. BOYER: Correct. It's our position that Rappaport's disclosure
`of the server computer receiving information from the handheld device in
`the form of data about the wireless network and measurement data, and
`location data, updating and optimizing a model and then sending an updated
`model to the handheld device and then the user in the field receiving that
`updated model and then taking additional measurements or changing
`features of the wireless network. That cycle as described in Rappaport
`fulfills the limitation of collecting field data in response to the assessment
`program. The information provided is that updated model.
`JUDGE PARVIS: 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`
`MR. BOYER: Turning to some of the other limitations of claim 1.
`Rappaport discloses a handheld device in the field and a remote computer
`that is geographically remote from the handheld device. As the Board
`recognized in its Institution decision, Rappaport at many locations discloses
`the handheld device being in the field and describes the remote computer as
`a server computer or a desk top PC or server PC that receives the
`information over wire or wireless network.
`JUDGE PARVIS: There's a lot of discussion about the Palm 3 that
`pertains somewhat to the obviousness argument. The Petitioner's position is
`that you're pointing to other devices in addition to the Palm 3?
`MR. BOYER: That's correct. Thank you, Your Honor. Patent
`Owner's argument boils down to a teaching away argument. The Patent
`Owner identifies or isolates an individual embodiment within Rappaport as
`disclosed in its figures but the Palm 3C embodiment and, according to Patent
`Owner, would have been impractical to both communicate wirelessly and
`collect data in the field or measurement data because doing so would require
`two separate attachments of the same device which would be impractical.
`It is our position that this argument takes too narrow a view of the
`disclosure of Rappaport. Rappaport discloses more broadly that its handheld
`computer can be devices other than the Palm 3C device, in particular it
`describes a handheld device as including other PDAs. It could include a
`cellular phone which a skilled artisan would understand would have an
`integrated wireless feature which would necessarily negate its practical
`limitation and not only that, a specific embodiment in Rappaport discloses
`that its handheld computer can at the same time collect data and transmit it
`wirelessly. In particular Rappaport discloses a feature, it describes a real
`10
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`time data collection and transfer feature that would preclude the patent from
`being limited to solely the Palm 3C device. In order to achieve this
`functionality the handheld device would necessarily need to communicate
`wirelessly while it is collecting information or measuring data from the
`wireless network. So we believe that this defeats Patent Owner's practicality
`argument.
`Finally, we believe that Patent Owner's argument is just simply not
`the law. The Patent Owner advances an argument that is essentially a bodily
`incorporation argument which is not the test for obviousness. The test for
`obviousness is whether the claimed invention, when its disclosure is viewed
`as a whole, would be obvious to one of skill in the art, not necessarily
`whether particular embodiments could be incorporated into the other.
`JUDGE MCKONE: Are you on slide 10?
`MR. BOYER: I'm on slide 10, thank you, Your Honor. Turning to
`claim 7 of the 581 patent, claim 7 is the second independent claim of those
`instituted. Claim 7 requires communication model that is configured to
`download a field management program that is stored remotely on the
`computer device. As Petitioner explained in the petition, this feature is
`rendered obvious by the collective teachings of Rappaport.
`JUDGE PARVIS: This is slide 18?
`MR. BOYER: This is slide 18. I apologize.
`JUDGE MCKONE: Yes. Would you please keep in mind I can't see
`what's on the screen so I don't know when you switch to something else.
`MR. BOYER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MCKONE: Or what you switch 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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`
`
`
`MR. BOYER: Thank you. Petitioner believes that Rappaport renders
`this feature obvious based on its collective teachings. Rappaport discloses
`that there is software on the handheld device. Rappaport also discloses
`communicating with the remote computer using wire or wireless
`communications and it discloses transferring applications generally and it
`describes a specific example of transferring Palm OS applications and
`databases through a serial link and also describes that data can be transferred
`by means other than a serial link including wireless connections. So we
`believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from these
`disclosures that it would have been obvious to implement these teachings for
`the specific application of downloading a field management program or
`downloading the program on Rappaport's handheld device that enables its
`features of viewing an updated model and collecting data from the field.
`Turning to slide 21. I would like to turn the second ground of the
`instituted grounds in the petition which is the combination of Rappaport and
`DeLorme. Petitioner submits that the combination of Rappaport and
`DeLorme render obvious claim 16. Claim 16 introduces or depends from
`claim 9 and claim 7, and introduces the limitation of providing navigable
`instructions via the handheld device. The prior art reference DeLorme
`teaches exactly that. It teaches use of PDAs. It teaches a PDA that is GPS
`enabled, as does Rappaport. Rappaport discloses use of PDAs and the
`ability to determine location using GPS. The addition of DeLorme would
`have been obvious and introduces turn by turn navigations. DeLorme talks
`about providing navigable instructions along a destination. That destination
`it describes could be long distance between cities but also it describes short
`distance travel on foot.
`
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`
`And turning to slide 23. To this point, Patent Owner makes another
`argument that is essentially a teaching away argument. Patent Owner
`submits that a skilled artisan would not combine the teachings of DeLorme
`with Rappaport because in Patent Owner's view DeLorme is limited to long
`distance travel. But we believe, again, this is taking an overly narrow view
`of the teachings of DeLorme, where DeLorme explicitly contemplates
`shorter trips on foot and therefore Patent Owner's limitations or teaching
`away is simply not in accord with the teachings of DeLorme. Rappaport's
`technicians could employ these turn by turn instructions in order to find a
`particular location in which they're deploying or optimizing a network in the
`field and we believe that a skilled artisan would be undeterred in combining
`these two references.
`Turning to slide 24. Patent Owner also insists that, again, it would
`have been impractical to combine the turn by turn functionality of DeLorme
`with a system of Rappaport because doing so, according to Patent Owner,
`would require more power from the handheld device and greater memory
`requirements would allegedly drain the battery or memory capacity of the
`handheld device. But again we believe that these practical reasons for not
`combining this teaching away argument is purely speculative. Nothing in
`either of these references limits the handheld device to a device that cannot
`handle the additional functionalities and we believe that it's simply not the
`law.
`
`Going back to slide 10. You know, a particular combination does
`need to be preferred or desirable in order for it to be considered obvious by a
`skilled artisan, so we believe that these practical limitations to the extent that
`they exist, would not deter a skilled artisan from combining the turn by turn
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`navigation of DeLorme into the system of Rappaport, as described in the
`petition.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Well, Dr. Lavian, he considered DeLorme; is that
`correct?
`MR. BOYER: That's correct. Dr. Lavian -- well Patent Owner
`submits in their Patent Owner response that the Board should give no weight
`to Dr. Lavian's testimony and Petitioner disagrees. You know, Dr. Lavian
`testified and provided in his declaration that he read and considered the
`reference DeLorme. He answered numerous questions on DeLorme and to
`Patent Owner's one point he was asked to affirm a negative proposition.
`You know, what does DeLorme not teach and in response to that he said that
`he did not consider all of DeLorme to answer that question. This does not
`rise to the level of not being available to testify. We believe that in Dr.
`Lavian's seven hour deposition, Dr. Lavian was very receptive and available
`to questions from Patent Owner and therefore the Board should afford his
`testimony the weight that it deserves.
`JUDGE PARVIS: You're probably familiar with slide 22 Patent
`Owner's slides with Dr. Lavian's testimony. So Petitioner's position is that
`that testimony pertains to just the particular question asked. He says I didn't
`read the reference carefully; is that correct?
`MR. BOYER: Can you repeat that, I'm sorry?
`JUDGE PARVIS: I'm sorry. At slide 22 of Patent Owner's slides,
`Patent Owner cites to Dr. Lavian's testimony and he testifies, it's one
`question in his deposition, that he didn't read the reference carefully. That's
`DeLorme he's referring to?
`MR. BOYER: That's correct.
`
`14
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: And Petitioner's position then is that it pertains to
`just that particular question; is that --
`MR. BOYER: That's correct. Dr. Lavian answered numerous
`questions, not just the single question about DeLorme and, again, he was
`asked to affirm a negative proposition. Does DeLorme not teach providing
`directions inside of a building? Dr. Lavian testified for seven hours. He
`answered numerous questions on the DeLorme reference and he expressly
`stated in the record that he considered DeLorme's features.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Can you point to that in your briefs?
`MR. BOYER: Point to Dr. Lavian --
`JUDGE PARVIS: In the briefs where he says -- in your reply brief
`where.
`MR. BOYER: Yes.
`JUDGE PARVIS: You can pull it out later if you want.
`MR. BOYER: So pages 22 through 23 of Petitioner's reply brief lays
`out all of the reasons why Dr. Lavian's testimony should be considered .
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you.
`MR. BOYER: And with that, unless the Board has any additional
`questions, I will reserve the rest of the time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Claim 17 that Petitioner is relying on, the
`combination of Wright and Rappaport; is that correct?
`MR. BOYER: That's correct.
`JUDGE PARVIS: And there was -- Patent Owner cited to some
`testimony of Dr. Lavian that the server computer stores the field
`management program. Is it actually the handheld that's stored in the field
`management program?
`
`15
`
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`
`MR. BOYER: That's correct. Patent Owner identifies one portion of
`Dr. Lavian's testimony to advance an argument that Dr. Lavian was being
`contradictory. Dr. Lavian testified numerous times that he understood that,
`according to claim 7, after the field management program is downloaded it is
`on the handheld device. Before it downloaded it's on the server computer,
`and he testified to that clearly I think one of the points of contention was
`Rappaport discloses a method of collecting data using what he calls an
`automatic mode. The automatic mode is the handheld device a user can
`walk through a wireless network and it automatically collects the data.
`Patent Owner attacks Petitioner's position and says that Dr. Lavian is
`being inconsistent because Dr. Lavian says that in that particular instance the
`handheld device, the field management program is "controlling" the data
`collection and that necessarily cannot be what claim 1 requires because the
`data collection has to be in response to the remote program.
`Petitioner submits that Dr. Lavian was not being inconsistent. He
`agreed that the data collection was being controlled by a program on the
`handheld device but that doesn't necessarily negate that collection being in
`response to a signal from the remote program.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Yes. I think the testimony was cited in the
`question pertaining to claim 17. The field management program includes an
`inventory program accessible from the handheld device. So is it Petitioner's
`position then that the inventory program of Wright is obvious to download?
`Is that --
`MR. BOYER: Right. Similar to claim 7 in which you have a
`program that is on the computer and then it's downloaded to the handheld
`device, it's a client server environment in which you have functionalities on
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`the handheld device, functionalities on the server computer and the two
`share the load and programs and data can be shared. It's the Petitioner's
`position that it would have been obvious to implement Wright's inventory
`program on the handheld device of Rappaport, incorporate it into the field
`management program pf Rappaport.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Okay. So Petitioner is not taking the position that
`the inventory program itself somehow, that claim 17 is broad enough to
`encompass an inventory program on a server; is that correct?
`MR. BOYER: No, that's not our position.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. MCNISH: Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the
`Board. The challenged claims are patentable over Rappaport and DeLorme
`and Rappaport and Wright. My presentation today is going to focus
`principally upon two limitations in the challenged claims and if there's time
`I'll address the motivation to combine arguments you heard Petitioner raise.
`For claim 1 and its dependent claims, claims 2 through 6, I'll be
`focusing on the collecting field data in response to the assessment program
`limitation. For claim 7 and its dependent claims 8 through 17 I'll be
`focusing on downloading a field management program for a remote
`computer limitation. There are several other reasons the claims are
`patentable as you've seen in our briefing but we're going to be focusing on
`those two limitations today, and the reason for that is we win every claim
`based on those two limitations and on motivation to combine arguments.
`Judge Parvis, you asked some questions about what in response to
`means and I want to actually turn to that so we can discuss some of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`issues you raised during Petitioner's presentation. I'm going to be turning to
`slide 6 of Patent Owner's presentation.
`As you mentioned, Judge Parvis, one of the things that the 581 patent
`describes is providing questions to a handheld user that's out in the field
`that's collecting this field data. Now, that's actually one of the goals, one of
`the purposes of the invention of the 581 patent. Frank Barbosa, one of the
`inventors of the patent, was experiencing difficulties with his operators out
`in the field for his HVAC and construction business and one of the things
`that he realized is if he can provide guidance prompting instructions
`questions to assist users in collecting data while they're out in the field, that's
`something that would be very helpful and useful to them.
`So you actually saw from Petitioner's slide 3 what the title of the
`invention is, right? It's Management of Mobile Field Assets and the
`specification explains that mobile field assets includes personnel and of
`managements taking place via these handheld data management devices.
`Similarly, if you take a look at the specification of the 581 patent, column 1
`lines 23 through 31,
`"The field of the invention describes managing people."
`And it continues, the 581 patent. For instance, one of the objects of
`the invention, column 3 lines 45 through 47, the 581 patent describes,
`"Managing is the object of the invention."
`At column 5 lines 38 through 40,
`"Aspects of the invention are directed to assisting people in the field
`with operating in the field."
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`
`And then finally when you continue toward the end you find out what
`the real focus of the invention is. Column 13 lines 11 through 31 of the 581
`patent,
`"Facilitating user operations in the field remote from his/her enterprise
`is the focus of the invention."
`And at column 13, 19 through 22, the 581 patent describes how that's
`accomplished by guided interactive data collection. So there's a common
`thread between all of these things. Managing, assisting, facilitating, guiding,
`instructing personnel as they're out in the field collecting field data and that's
`the solution to the problem that the patent 581 identifies, that there are these
`untrained personnel, these inexperienced personnel, this personnel that
`simply may not have the expertise to collect field data that's useful and
`effective.
`Now there are several ways this is accomplished in the 581 patent. As
`one example, you've got column 7 lines 34 through 36 of the 581 patent
`that's instructions. In the example shown in Patent Owner's slide 6 the
`excerpt column 9 lines 20 through 31, you have questions. Questions are
`being asked to the user of the handheld to provide answers, and as you heard
`Rappaport doesn't disclose questions.
`Continuing, there are other examples. Column 9 lines 29 through 34,
`completing a task list or a punch list. Column 10 lines 49 through 67,
`completing a template with tasks for the worker. Column 11 lines 18
`through 40, completing a checklist for equipment readiness for a pilot.
`Column 11 lines 59 through 62, completing a checklist of legal elements for
`a legal investigation.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Quick question for the Patent Owner.
`19
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00729
`Patent 8,494,581 B2
`
`
`
`
`MR. MCNISH: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE PARVIS: What about receiving the optimized predictions?
`So the handheld receives the optimized predictio
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
