`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RPX CORPORATION AND VIMEO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LINK ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: May 8, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before RAMA G. ELLURU, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and DANIEL J.
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ANDREW M. MASON, ESQUIRE
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`One World Trade Center
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Suite 160
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`TIMOTHY M. SALMON, ESQUIRE
`Empire IP, LLC
`90 East Halsey Road
`Suite 202B
`Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`
`
`May 8, 2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`JUDGE ELLURU: Good afternoon. We have our final hearing
`in IPR2017-00886, RPX and Vimeo against Link Engine Technologies,
`LLC. I'm Judge Elluru. And Judge Daniels is appearing remotely
`from New Hampshire and Judge Galligan remotely from Dallas.
`Let's get the parties' appearance on the record, please. Who do
`we have for petitioner?
`MR. MASON: For petitioners, RPX and Vimeo, Andy Mason
`of Klarquist Sparkman.
`JUDGE ELLURU: And for patent owner?
`MR. SALMON: Tim Salmon for patent owner, Link Engine
`Technologies.
`JUDGE ELLURU: Thank you, counsel. We set forth the
`procedure for today's hearing in our trial order, but let me just remind
`everyone how it will work today. Each party will have 45 minutes of
`total time to present arguments for this case, IPR2017-00886. Each party
`may reserve rebuttal time. Please keep in mind that whatever is projected
`on the screen will not be viewable by Judges Daniels and Galligan, so
`when you do refer to an exhibit on the screen, please state for the record
`the exhibit and page number or for demonstratives, the slide number to
`which you are referring. This is also important for clarity of the
`transcript.
`Moreover, please remember that because of limitations of our
`microphones, if you step away from the microphone at the podium, the
`judges may not be able to hear your argument.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`Petitioner has the burden on the original claims and will go first
`and may reserve time for rebuttal on the original claims and respond to
`the motion to amend in IPR2014-00886 [sic] at the start of its argument.
`Patent owner will then have the opportunity to present its response on the
`original claims as well as argument on the motion to amend. Patent
`owner also can reserve rebuttal time limited only to the motion to amend.
`Should petitioner choose to have a rebuttal on the original claims,
`petitioner may present rebuttal arguments regarding patent owner's
`proposed amended claims and patent owner can use its rebuttal time in
`support of the motion to amend.
`I'll give each counsel a warning when you are reaching the end
`of your argument time. Does counsel have any questions at this time?
`MR. SALMON: No, Your Honor.
`MR. MASON: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ELLURU: Thank you. I'll remind each party that
`under no circumstances are they to interrupt the other party while that
`party is presenting its arguments and demonstratives. If a party believes
`that a demonstrative or argument presented by the other party is
`objectionable for any reason, that objection may be raised only during the
`objecting party's argument time, meaning, for example, that if patent
`owner has an objection to any slides presented or arguments made by
`petitioner, patent owner may only raise that objection during patent
`owner's allotted time to speak. If a party wishes to raise an objection to
`the demonstrative or argument presented by the final party to speak, it
`may request the opportunity to object before we adjourn the hearing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`With that, Mr. Mason, you may start.
`MR. MASON: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon and
`may it please the Board, Andy Mason on behalf of petitioners, RPX and
`Vimeo. The issues today, Your Honors --
`JUDGE ELLURU: First let me ask you if you would like to
`reserve any rebuttal time.
`MR. MASON: Yes, Your Honor, I would like to reserve
`20 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE ELLURU: Thank you. I'll put 25 minutes on the
`
`clock.
`
`MR. MASON: Thank you. The issues today all revolve around
`this term "playlist engine" as it's found in both the original claims and the
`proposed amended claims of patent owner. And what I will go through is
`that all the evidence shows, and patent owner does not dispute, that these
`playlist engine terms in both the original and the amended claims
`encompass the '694 patent's preferred JavaScript embodiment. And that's
`the same JavaScript embodiment disclosed in both prior art references.
`JUDGE ELLURU: So Mr. Mason, with respect to patent
`owner's argument that you are relying on three different alternatives,
`what is your response to what specific disclosure in Quimby and Lenz
`teaches the claimed playlist engine?
`MR. MASON: I'll turn the Board to -- bear with me for a
`second. With respect to Quimby, if we look at slide 14, this is a good
`spot to start with respect to that. So in Dr. Greenspun -- and this was
`cited in our petition, original petition, Dr. Greenspun explained how
`
`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 IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`Quimby functions. Quimby has the client -- and if we just step back for a
`second, too, Quimby is what discloses providing a slideshow to users. So
`users request a web slideshow to be presented, and then that is shown to
`them through their web browser.
`So what happens, as explained by Dr. Greenspun, this is on
`slide 14, in paragraph 70 of his original declaration, Exhibit 1010, he
`walked through how first the client requests this slideshow, the server
`generates this JavaScript, HTML/JavaScript file which he had referred to
`as the generated file. And then in step 3, that generated file is returned
`back to the client where the client browser integrates with and processes
`that generated file in order to provide the slideshow. And he explains
`how that works in step 4 of paragraph 70 in his declaration.
`If we step back to slide 13, in that same paragraph of his
`declaration, Dr. Greenspun explains how the HTML/JavaScript file is
`returned to the client for processing by the client browser in Quimby.
`And that's just like Appendix B of the 694 patent. So Appendix B of the
`'694 patent is also a JavaScript file. The '694 patent explains how that
`JavaScript file is integrated with the browser in order to carry out the
`alleged invention.
`And then --
`JUDGE DANIELS: Mr. Mason, can we even take a step
`farther back and let me make sure I'm understanding. I understand,
`having read the petition a number of times, what patent owner's issue is.
`There seems to be some looseness to the terms. And I understand that's
`sort of par for the course, perhaps, in computer terminology and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`sometimes. But let's step back. to the very basics of – JavaScript, is a
`programming language, correct?
`MR. MASON: Correct.
`JUDGE DANIELS: If someone writes a web page that I go to,
`that we can go to on the internet, that is -- there may be other languages,
`but they are written in Java or JavaScript by a programmer or a web
`developer; is that right?
`MR. MASON: JavaScript is -- my understanding is JavaScript
`is one way that web pages are created. And it may be created by a user
`or there may be actual software that creates the JavaScript as well. And
`you may also have JavaScript resident on a device as well.
`JUDGE DANIELS: Sure. So we have an application -- and I
`want to make sure we are using these terms right. I'm just going to use
`application or an application or a web page are written in JavaScript, and
`they exist somewhere else besides on a client or a local server. Am I
`right in using client and local server? Like my computer here, that's what
`this is?
`
`MR. MASON: What I would refer to is I think I would -- and
`this might be what you are saying, Judge Daniels, but the client device is
`where the browser is. And then the server is oftentimes the remote
`device. It might also be a local server. But typically you have this client
`device where the browser is and where the user is working. And then the
`server device is somewhere else or could be adjacent to the client device.
`But that's typically somewhere else, if that answers your question.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Yes, thank you. So let's call it the client
`device. So I have the browser on the client device, and in order to read or
`understand the web page, what is on my browser that allows me to go out
`-- and I think the word in the claim is retrieve. What allows my browser
`to go retrieve a web page or something that was written in JavaScript?
`MR. MASON: So within the browser there's -- the browser has
`typically some sort of Java compiler is my understanding. I'll address
`this at a high level and then I'll turn to the '694 patent's explanation of
`this. But at a high level, my understanding is there's some kind of Java
`compiler. And what happens is the Java code then gets integrated into
`the browser. The browser stores it in the browser memory and processes
`that JavaScript file in order to carry out that JavaScript module or
`program, whatever you want to call it. The browser processes that in
`order to carry out the functionality.
`And if we turn to, let's see, slide 9, this is the '694 patent
`explains this to some degree in columns 11 and 12. And slide 9 has
`column 11, beginning at line 53. It talks about this playlist that's saved as
`an HTML/JavaScript file. And then it goes on to explain that the second
`portion of highlighted language, a modified version of the computer
`program of the invention is capable of being integrated with the standard
`browser.
`So what it's describing here is that you have this JavaScript file.
`The JavaScript file is integrated with your browser in order to carry out
`the alleged invention. So that's how the '694 patent describes it. That's
`how Dr. Greenspun described JavaScript generally functioning, this idea
`
`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 IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`that the file is integrated -- the JavaScript file is integrated with the
`browser to carry out the functionality. And if you'll recall what claim 1
`recites is this computer device executing an internet browser. So we
`have a browser executing. It's processing the JavaScript file in order to
`carry out the functionality.
`Then if we turn to slide 10, this is column 12 of the '694 patent,
`and it explains it a little further how this JavaScript file works. If we
`focus, I guess, more on the middle portion beginning, This preferred form
`enhanced data file contains HTML and contains it JavaScript. And that
`JavaScript and HTML provide the necessary user functionality in the '694
`patent to carry out the alleged invention. And it's also discussed up at the
`top as well that this data file is intended for use with the internet browser.
`We contend, we submit that it's of the internet browser, that the
`browser comprises this file when it's carrying out the alleged invention.
`So hopefully that answers the Board's questions for now with respect to
`just how JavaScript works in general.
`And I have gotten into now the '694 patent and this JavaScript
`embodiment. So if we look at column 11, column 12, it contemplates
`that this browser is integrated with the JavaScript file. And
`Dr. Greenspun testified that based on looking at this intrinsic evidence,
`looking at the claim in the context of columns 11 and 12 -- and also
`column 15, too, is important. I'll just go back briefly to slide 10. Column
`15 refers to example HTML Q file in Appendix B. And you might recall
`that Dr. Greenspun explained that Appendix B contains JavaScript, it
`contains HTML, and when the Appendix B file is processed or integrated
`
`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 IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`with the browser of the alleged invention, it carries out this playlist
`engine functionality.
`So slipping back to slide 8, looking at the intrinsic evidence,
`Dr. Greenspun testified that a skilled artisan would understand this
`language executing an internet browser comprising a playlist engine to
`encompass a standard web program -- web browser program that is
`running or executing a JavaScript program.
`Now, patent owner did not depose Dr. Greenspun. They did
`not challenge his testimony in any way. Nor, stepping back, big picture,
`patent owner has not disputed that this JavaScript embodiment of the '694
`patent is encompassed by this claim language "executing an internet
`browser comprising a playlist engine."
`And that's one of the first points. If we go back to slide 5,
`there's two points I want to make. And that's the first point, that as a
`matter of claim construction, undisputed matter of claim construction,
`this playlist engine language encompasses the JavaScript integrated
`browser embodiment of the '694 patent.
`And then the second point that I would like to turn to, which I
`think will address Judge Elluru's question, is that this same type of
`JavaScript implementation is disclosed in each primary prior art
`reference, Quimby and Lenz. Those two points are dispositive of the
`patentability of the original claims, and that's on slide 5.
`JUDGE ELLURU: So you are referring to a combination of
`elements as teaching the claimed playlist engine?
`MR. MASON: A combination, I'm not sure I understand.
`
`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 IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ELLURU: Are you referring to a combination of
`disclosed elements, the internet browser, the JavaScriptfile, plus the
`HTML data file as constituting --
`MR. MASON: That's a good question. And I don't know that
`it's important which one you focus on. What happens is you have got the
`internet browser, and the internet browser that's executing relies on this
`JavaScript file. It integrates with the JavaScript file. So we would
`submit that they essentially become one in order to carry out the
`invention. So whether you want to say it's the browser, technically
`speaking, it's the browser that actually is carrying out these functions, but
`it's the browser integrated with the JavaScript file. So I don't know that
`it's important to -- I mean, I don't think there's -- whether you want to call
`it the browser itself or the browser integrated with the JavaScript file, it's
`ultimately the browser that's carrying this out. I think that patent owner
`has pointed to some, what it considers, confusion. We respectfully
`disagree and submit that we've laid out very carefully how this works.
`I was trying to come up with analogies. I mean, if I explain -- I
`make pancakes with my kids every Saturday morning. And if I told you I
`have this great pancake recipe, you take the flower and you take the
`cornmeal, you add the eggs and the milk, would you say, well, eggs,
`milk, I don't want eggs or milk; I want pancakes? No, I mean, what you
`want is -- you understand that it's all these things coming together that
`ultimately make your batter that carries out the functionality. And that's
`what I submit we explained in detail what Dr. Greenspun testified to in
`the petition and the original declaration.
`
`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 IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Is that your answer, essentially? Just to
`follow-up, and sort of on that question, what -- is that your answer to --
`they are complaining that the lack of specificity or these essentially three
`arguments, these three different elements that you have cited to, and
`that's what we are trying to get our heads around, whether or not, you
`know, that's a valid point on their part or if you are telling us that all
`these things are working together.
`MR. MASON: I don't think it's a valid point on their part. I
`think we were specific. I think it is these things working together. I
`mean, in order to fully explain how this browser carries out the playlist
`engine functionality, again, I'll turn to the Greenspun declaration.
`Fourteen is helpful to illustrate this. This is slide 14 with respect to
`Quimby. He explained, yes, we have JS Performer, which I think is one
`thing that patent owner alleged that we pointed to. We explained that JS
`Performer generates this JavaScript file, much like in the '694 patent, a
`JavaScript file is generated. And then it provides that file back to the
`client and then the client processes the generated file.
`But I think if we look at the petition -- and this portion was
`cited by the Board, so I think at least preliminarily the Board understood
`this argument. If we look on slide 15, petition paper 3 at 17, we say on
`processing the generated file, the client browser then retrieves page
`addresses from a generated file and displays. So that's the retrieve and
`display functionality of the playlist engine. Then we conclude that
`paragraph by saying the client browser, thus, satisfies the playlist engine
`recited by this element.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`I think if you look at patent owner's slides, patent owner
`actually cites to this paragraph here, but all they cite to is the last yellow
`highlighted portion. They focus on that one sentence, the client browser
`thus satisfies the playlist engine recited by this element, and they say, oh,
`who knows what they are accusing. Are they accusing the client browser
`or are they accusing the JS Performer? I think here we are clearly saying
`the client browser is what carries out this functionality. It retrieves and it
`displays, but it does so when it processes that generated file, when it's
`processing that JavaScript file.
`I think I may say this a million times today, but I think it's
`important to note that patent owner does not dispute that this
`implementation in Quimby is the same implementation that is a preferred
`embodiment of the '694 patent. That Appendix B of the '694 patent is the
`same as the generated file of Quimby.
`So we've explained this further in the petition. Here is slide 16.
`This is the petition at 14. We are discussing how -- you know, we
`mention JSPerformer.asp and we note that this generates and sends to the
`user's browser this JavaScript file. But again, that concludes that
`JavaScript file configures the browser to perform all the steps of claim 1.
`And maybe something that might be helpful for the Board is
`that the reason we explained JS Performer and how JS Performer works
`is, if you recall, Quimby, this was a source code appendix for Quimby.
`And Dr. Greenspun analyzed that source code appendix and had to
`explain, okay, this is what JS Performer is putting into this file. It's
`putting in something that will retrieve pages, something that will display
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`the pages. And that's why we have this thorough explanation of how it
`works, because ultimately that's the evidence, that's the proof that this
`generated file carries out and satisfies the playlist engine functionality.
`And then here too, slide 17, I'll just focus on the top. This is the
`Greenspun declaration, Exhibit 1010, paragraph 85. He notes that his
`explanation explains how this configured with HTML and JavaScript
`internet browser also performs all other elements of claims 1, 7 and 28.
`So again, it's this browser configured with the HTML and JavaScript file
`that carries out the claim elements.
`The institution decision, as I noted, this is slide 18, referred
`back to our explanation and quoted our statement that I'm processing the
`generated file the client browser retrieves and displays as called for by
`the claims. So patent owner was on notice of this. I think we reflected in
`the petition, the Board reflected in the institution decision, and again,
`patent owner did not dispute this. The patent owner does not dispute that
`the client browser, when integrating with the JavaScript file, performs the
`retrieving and displaying functions. They never address this head on.
`And because of that, Quimby, as in grounds 1 through 6, renders all
`challenged claims unpatentable.
`If there are no --
`JUDGE DANIELS: Mr. Mason, you may have wanted to get to
`it earlier, you may have been headed in that direction or maybe you are,
`but I did want to ask you if the preamble language is going to make any
`difference here. I think your argument from a grammatical standpoint is
`interesting as to the computer device being the subject of, to the extent a
`
`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 IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`claim is a sentence or the preamble is a sentence, that may be true to an
`extent. But does it matter -- and I think you said no before when you
`were talking about the internet browser doing these functions. Does it
`really matter which one is comprising these functions?
`MR. MASON: Your Honor, at the end of the day, I don't think
`it matters. I think under either construction or either understanding of
`that preamble, the playlist engine terminology encompasses these
`JavaScript embodiments. So whether it's the computer device that
`comprises the playlist engine or it's the internet browser that comprises
`the playlist engine, I think either one of those would encompass this
`JavaScript embodiment. So to the extent the Board finds that this
`JavaScript embodiment of the '694 patent, this preferred embodiment is
`encompassed by the claims and that that same embodiment is in the prior
`art, as we submit it does and is, then the Board need not reach that
`preamble claim construction issue.
`JUDGE DANIELS: Thanks.
`MR. MASON: But we do still maintain that is one of our -- I
`don't want to call it secondary arguments. We do think that's the proper
`construction of the claim, but we understand the Board need only
`construe the claims as necessary to resolve these disputes. So if the
`Board construes the claim to encompass the JavaScript embodiment, as
`the evidence supports and patent owner does not oppose, then that's the
`same thing that's disclosed by both prior art references.
`Turning now to Lenz, this is on slide 19, and the institution
`decision found that the Vayu Web client module, which is what we
`
`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 IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`referred to in the petition, we referred to -- the petition in Lenz referred to
`software on the user device, on the client device satisfying the playlist
`engine functionality. And we identified the Vayu Web client module.
`The Board understood it as much and found that description to be
`commensurate with the claimed playlist engine. It essentially found that
`this Vayu Web client module, at least preliminarily, satisfied the retrieve
`-- or disclosed the retrieve and display functions of the claim.
`And patent owner did not dispute that finding, that preliminary
`finding with respect to Lenz. Instead what patent owner did is the patent
`owner focused on where this Vayu Web client module is. It said there's
`this Figure 11 that shows Vayu Web client web module as separate from
`the browser, and because of that, it can't possibly be part of the browser.
`But patent owner ignored the description in Lenz of Figure 11.
`Specifically, Figure 11 is described as the memory of this client device
`and how these things are stored in the memory of the client device. And
`it describes this Vayu Web client module and it says we'll describe the
`operation of these modules in greater detail below. This is slide 20. I
`apologize for not noting that before.
`Moving to slide 21, Lenz then further goes on to explain how
`this Vayu Web client module can be implemented. It expressly teaches
`implementing this module as JavaScript, just like the '694 patent. So
`what Lenz is teaching is that in order to carry out this playlist engine
`functionality, you create a JavaScript file. And we know from
`Dr. Greenspun in his explanation as to how JavaScript files work, when
`that JavaScript file is integrated with the browser in Lenz, the browser
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`carries out this playlist engine functionality, retrieves and displays the
`web pages.
`Dr. Greenspun discussed this also in his second declaration in
`paragraph 7. This is shown on slide 22 where he stated or he testified
`that Lenz teaches a browser receiving and interpreting JavaScript causing
`the browser to carry out the recited playlist engine functions. Again,
`patent owner does not dispute that Lenz teaches this and does not dispute
`that the same type of implementation is what's encompassed by the
`playlist engine claim language of the '694 patent.
`And slide 23 we also cited to Greenspun's original declaration
`and the second declaration describing how this playlist engine would
`have been implemented in JavaScript as taught by Lenz. And so because
`all the evidence shows that Lenz discloses the same type of JavaScript
`implementation as the '694 patent, the Lenz grounds, 7 through 13, also
`render all original claims unpatentable.
`If there's no additional questions on the original set of claims,
`I'm just going to turn briefly to the motion to amend. And that begins on
`slide -- actually, I'll just jump to slide 25. So patent owner's proposed
`motion to amend includes exemplary proposed claim 34. And what the
`motion to amend proposes is amendments to the claims that recite a
`playlist engine of the internet browser. So that underlined language, "of
`the internet browser," is what's been added. Now, I don't think the Board
`needs to decide how or even if this changes the scope of the claims, but I
`think what's important is that this amendment or proposed amendment
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`does not change that the playlist engine language here encompasses the
`JavaScript preferred embodiment of the '694 patent.
`And again, the points, going back now to slide 24, the points
`that I would like to make for the motion to amend are essentially the
`same as for the original claims. We've got this preferred JavaScript
`embodiment of the '694 patent that teaches that JavaScript file is
`integrated with the browser and that's what carries out your playlist
`engine functionality. That's claim point 1. Patent owner, again, with
`respect to the motion to amend, in our opposition, we clearly stated this
`language encompasses your JavaScript embodiment. Patent owner did
`not oppose that. They did not dispute that.
`Turning to our second point, as already discussed, both Quimby
`and Lenz disclose the same type of JavaScript integrated within a web
`browser implementation of the playlist engine. And accordingly, both
`disclose this playlist engine limitation.
`And finally, the third point, which I don't think is disputed, is
`patent owner does not contest petitioner's position as set forth in the
`opposition at all, the grounds set forth why all other limitations of the
`amended claims are unpatentable. And as a result, these three points are
`dispositive as to the proposed amended claims and show why the amend
`claims are unpatentable, and the motion to amend should be denied.
`JUDGE DANIELS: Mr. Mason, so on your first point, your
`issue, what I think you are saying is it seems to be your strongest point
`with respect to these proposed amended claims, and that is that 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
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`additional language "of an internet browser" isn't changing the scope of
`this patent at all. Is that your point?
`MR. MASON: I think that's probably what I would submit. I
`don't even know that the Board needs to go as far as to say it doesn't
`change them at all. The patent owner certainly hasn't suggested any way
`in which this changes the claims. But I would agree with that statement,
`with what you just said, Judge Daniels. But I think all the Board needs to
`decide is that this amended claim language still encompasses the
`JavaScript browser implementations that are disclosed by each primary
`prior art reference. I think that's the important point, yeah.
`I think if we look at slide 25, I'm not sure how that language
`changes the scope of the claims. In some ways it renders the claims
`potentially more ambiguous. It's hard to say what of the internet browser
`means. I do know that, as we've shown in the papers and the evidence
`supports and Dr. Greenspun testified to, that a skilled artisan would
`understand this language also to encompass the JavaScript browser
`implementation. And we've already gone through the intrinsic evidence
`on that point. I just want to point the Board to slide 29 which is the
`second Greenspun declaration, Exhibit 1035 at paragraph 12. He again
`walks through that evidence and explains a skilled artisan -- and testifies
`a skilled artisan would understand this JavaScript browser embodiment to
`be encompassed by the proposed amended claims.
`And for that reason -- again, patent owner did not depose
`Dr. Greenspun, has not disputed his testimony or challenged his
`testimony in any way. It has not challenged or disputed the bigger
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`picture of what the claims encompass, and for that reason, these claims
`should be found unpatentable and the motion should be denied. I'll
`reserve the remainder of my time.
`JUDGE ELLURU: Thank you, counsel. You have 20 minutes
`
`left.
`
`MR. SALMON: May it please the Board, I'm Tim Salmon on
`behalf of Link Engine Technologies. The petition should be denied for
`two reasons, and I think one of those reasons, the first reason is the lack
`of specificity that Judge Daniels addressed in some of his questions and
`Judge Elluru alluded to in terms of specificity in terms of the legal
`grounds being argued, whether this is express disclosure or obviousness
`or inherent disclosure, and then specificity as to what the petitioners are
`pointing to in the record, in Quimby, in Lenz, in Greenspun that allegedly
`fulfill the elements of the claim 1 of the '694 patent. And I will only be
`addressing claim 1 today.
`The second reason is that the petitioner's arguments --
`JUDGE ELLURU: Counsel, I should have asked you at the
`beginning, do you reserve any time for rebuttal?
`MR. SALM
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
