UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`____________
`
`Oral Hearing Held:
`August 23, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and STACY B.
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`____________
`
`Oral Hearing Held:
`August 23, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and STACY B.
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`FREDERIC M. MEEKER, ESQUIRE
`JOHN HARRIS CURRY, ESQUIRE
`Banner & Witcoff, LTD.
`1100 13th Street, N.W.
`Suite 1200
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3116
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`MARK D. ROWLAND, ESQUIRE
`STEVEN PEPE, ESQUIRE
`SCOTT TAYLOR, ESQUIRE
`Ropes & Gray, LLP
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`
`
`August 23, 2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE BENOIT: Good afternoon. We are convened for
`supplemental oral argument for IPR2017-00941 which challenges U.S.
`patent 9,172,987. I'm Judge Benoit. With me in Alexandria is Judge
`Margolies. And on the phone, as you heard, is Judge Easthom.
`On June 6, 2018, we previously heard argument concerning
`grounds instituted in our September 11, 2017 decision to institute. Today
`we will hear oral argument concerning grounds added pursuant to our
`post-SAS orders, papers 32 and 38. We would like to thank both parties for
`their professionalism and courtesy in establishing a schedule and executing
`it so these grounds could be well-briefed by the parties. The panel plans to
`issue a final written decision in this case as well as IPR2017-00939, which
`also challenges the same patent, the same day and by the 12-month statutory
`deadline of September 11, 2018.
`With that preliminary information, I'll start with appearances by
`petitioner.
`MR. MEEKER: Your Honor, Fred Meeker with the law firm of
`Banner & Witcoff representing Comcast Cable Communications, LLC.
`With me are John Curry, who will be arguing the motion to exclude, as well
`as Adam Banes and Jordan Bodner. And thank you so much, Your Honor,
`for granting us this supplemental hearing. We very much appreciate that.
`JUDGE BENOIT: You are welcome. Patent owner?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`MR. ROWLAND: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Mark Rowland
`of Ropes & Gray on behalf of the patent owner. With me today is Steve
`Pepe and Scott Taylor. Scott Taylor will be arguing on our behalf. This is
`his first argument before the Board.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Welcome. Each side will have 45 minutes to
`argue. Petitioner has the ultimate burden of establishing unpatentability and
`will proceed first to argue its case and may reserve rebuttal time. If patent
`owner argues its motion to exclude, patent owner also may reserve rebuttal
`time but only to respond to any arguments petitioner makes regarding patent
`owner's motion to exude.
`Also, as you know, the Patent Office has had problems in the last
`week with their information technology systems, and as far as we are aware,
`neither party filed objections to the other parties' demonstratives; is that
`correct? For the record, petitioner?
`MR. MEEKER: Correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Patent owner?
`MR. ROWLAND: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you for making the record clear. Now,
`with all those preliminaries without of the way, petitioner you may begin
`when ready.
`MR. MEEKER: Thank you, Your Honor. We would like to
`reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal time. And I have copies to hand up to the
`Board.
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Excellent. Thank you.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`MR. MEEKER: And for Judge Easthom --
`JUDGE BENOIT: I'll take it and we'll get it to him.
`MR. MEEKER: Thank you so much.
`JUDGE BENOIT: And he has a copy of the demonstratives
`already.
`MR. MEEKER: May it please the Board, again for the record,
`Fred Meeker with the law firm of Banner & Witcoff representing Comcast
`Cable Communications LLC. Turning to slide 4 --
`JUDGE BENOIT: Before you get into your slides, Mr. Meeker, I
`wanted to ask a procedural issue question for you. And I'll also ask the
`patent owner the same one. The supplemental briefing that both parties
`addressed dependent claim 11 which has the same limitation as dependent
`claim 3 that was not included in the Kamada/Pedrizetti ground, is there any
`reason that we should not apply the briefing that both parties presented with
`regard to claim 11 to claim 3?
`MR. MEEKER: I think procedurally under the APA -- I don't
`know the answer to that question. They are equivalent claims. They have
`made a whole bunch of new arguments that they didn't make previously.
`They have had a lot more page count. So I haven't really thought of the
`procedural aspects of that, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you.
`MR. MEEKER: Proceeding to slide 4, slide 4 shows what issues
`are undisputed. With respect to the Kamada grounds, patent owner has not
`disputed that Kamada and Wang teach each and every limitations of claim 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`and 15. With respect to the Gerba grounds, the patent owner has only
`argued whether there was a motivation to use Gerba's HTML in combination
`with Straub's Java applets and ActiveX controls. The patent owner has
`made no other arguments with respect to the Gerba grounds, including with
`respect to any of the offered -- other offered motivations to combine.
`Turning to slide 7, slide 7 lists the issues in dispute. For the
`Kamada grounds, the first issue is whether Kamada teaches the second
`program function causes a display of the display item to change in response
`to a user input.
`Turning to slide 8, slide 8 shows display items can be any one of a
`number of things, essentially anything that is displayed.
`Turning to slide 9 --
`JUDGE BENOIT: Can I ask you a question about “anything that
`is displayed.” I understand that you have not constrained that to an electrical
`device context, but do you agree that the display item is anything that is
`displayed in an electrical device context as opposed to, say, a trophy case
`that has trophies?
`MR. MEEKER: Yes, Your Honor. We are limited to a set-top box
`displaying something on a display. I think both experts would agree with
`that based on their testimony.
`Slide 9 shows that Kamada has many different examples of display
`items. In the original petition, petitioner pointed to the numerals plus
`associated description and/or function as the display item. The patent owner
`mischaracterized the petition by arguing that only a single numeral 2 is 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`display item. In response, petitioner argued that even if patent owner was
`correct and the display item was limited to the number 2, that the claims
`were still met by the references. And Kamada shows different types of
`display items even under the patent owner's own expert testimony, including
`an entire screen, a single numeral, numeral plus description and characters
`plus images.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Can I ask you to expand on how your petition
`characterized your display element display, because when I looked at the
`pages that you cited, particularly 25, 29, 30 and 31, they tended to say
`expressly that button identifier 2 is a display element or the display element.
`And if you could help me understand how that means it was the button
`identifier numeral 2 itself as well as the text with the display item which I
`now understand is what you had argued in your petition. So if you could
`help me understand that.
`MR. MEEKER: Certainly. If we could go to slide 11, slide 11
`talks about the petition. So the first quote talks about the remote button
`identifier 2 is a display item that when button 2 on the remote is selected,
`selects the navigator hot-spot, and navigator, all quotes, is the text next to
`the item 2, and activates the hot-spots corresponding to the web browser,
`causing display of an initial home page screen. So we have always paired
`the numeral 2 with the corresponding hot-spot identifier.
`So turning to slide 12, it says when the home page is retrieved after
`the navigator -- and navigator, all quote, exactly as it is in the reference, is
`selected in the IMS, the textual description of the hot-spots, and 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`corresponding icons assigned to the display button identifiers are updated to
`describe new hot-spots derived from the home page. So in context, we are
`using the numeral 2 plus navigator.
`Again, in referring to Figure 9, it says in Kamada remote control
`button 2 is used to select the traffic hot-spot Figure 1 activating the traffic
`link function thereby receiving a traffic HTML page reassigning button
`identifiers based on the traffic HTML page and displaying a traffic page
`with newly assigned button identifiers.
`And so the petition at the bottom says each time a new HTML
`page is presented, text and icons for the hot-spots are changed to reflect the
`hot-spots in a new HTML page. I would submit, Your Honor, in context we
`are arguing it's the numeral 2 plus the function associated with it. Selecting
`that takes you to a new page and has new function associated with that, Your
`Honor.
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: So despite the fact that the only term you talk
`about is the display item, the only time that you use the text that says this is
`a display item refers to the button identifier, the fact that you have paired it
`consistently in your petition with its text and how you talk about the fact that
`it changes across different screens, then that's what I'm to understand that
`you are arguing and have always argued it's the button identifier and the
`text?
`
`MR. MEEKER: That's exactly correct, Your Honor. We think our
`position has been consistent across our original petition and our reply. We
`think the declaration, original declaration is consistent with what it is today.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`But we did address their response where they said, well, it can only be the
`number 2. And given that, we have addressed that as well to say even if it is
`only the number 2, it's still met.
`And I would say if you look at the '987 patent -- John could you
`bring up, I think it's Figures 4 and 5 where they change from grid to list, if
`we go to the '987 patent and go to the only description that's not abstracted
`in their patent, they go from a grid view --
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: I'm sorry --
`MR. MEEKER: I'm sorry, Figure 4 is on the screen. If you could
`blow that up, John. So Figure 4 of the '987 patent and Figure 5 are the only
`non-abstracted example of where a display item is changed. And so
`Figure 4, according to this patent, is the same display item as Figure 5. And
`if you are caught up --
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Do you have a cite in the spec describing
`
`that?
`
`MR. MEEKER: We will get you a cite for that. It's basically the
`description of going from a grid view to a list view. And I'll provide that for
`you in a moment, Judge Margolies. But the bottom line is Figure 4 shows a
`grid view, which is the display item, basically the whole grid and associated
`buttons that then can be controlled to select programs. And if you notice
`The Blues Brothers, that's down on Channel 48 at 10:00 p.m., It runs from
`10:00 through 11:00 p.m.
`So now, John, if you switch to the list view, now you have the
`same display item. Now, the same display item has many different texts,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`and even The Blues Brothers has been changed. So on Figure 4, it said
`Blues Brothers. On Figure 5 it says The Blues Brothers. And other things
`have been changed as far as the list contains very different data. In this
`patent it's still the same display item even though the text has changed, been
`reformatted, restructured, et cetera.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: Getting back to your explanation for your
`petition, what about page 22 of your petition where you have a red circle
`around the numeral 2 and in the textual description under that you say, for
`example, button identifier 2 circled in red above, and again, you are only
`circling the numeral?
`MR. MEEKER: So 2 is an example of a display item associated
`with that. 2 is what continues as you move through the menu structure. So
`underlying the display item of 2, colon, and whatever function, whether it's
`traffic or navigator associated with that, that 2 continues in a data structure
`underneath. So both experts have said that the display item may not even be
`what is shown on the screen. So for example, if you go from grid to a listing
`display with different data shown, you don't have continuity in data. So
`underlying this navigator or traffic is a data structure that effectively evokes
`the menus as you step down through the screens. So the button identifier 2
`is then assigned a new function, whether it's traffic or navigator. It works
`essentially just like their embodiments in the '987 patent.
`JUDGE BENOIT: But you define display item as “anything that's
`displayed.” And now I hear you talking about the data structure underneath
`as being the display item. Did I misunderstand 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`MR. MEEKER: You didn't, Your Honor. So a display item does
`need to be displayed, but accompanied with it is not -- a display item has to
`have some function associated with it, right. So there's a structure that
`underlies that display item in order to invoke the function and to modify that
`function. So there's a structure underneath of that.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Just to clarify, so is your position that your
`petition is always identifying the button identifier with the text as the display
`item, and so the text is an attribute of the display item, button identifier 2?
`And so that changes across screens, like The Blues Brothers information
`changes across --
`MR. MEEKER: It would change across screens. There is
`consistency there. Underlying it is the data structure where 2 now takes on a
`different function as you step up and down through the menu structure. So
`that is correct, it describes the function that's associated with the number 2 as
`it changes throughout the menu structure. So the function is traffic or
`navigator. 2 is the numeral that associates with the -- is bound to the key
`number 2, and that function changes as you navigate through the menu
`structure.
`JUDGE BENOIT: But in terms of your display item, you are
`saying it's both the 2 and the text?
`MR. MEEKER: So we think the display item encompasses the 2,
`the text and the associated function with it or whatever describes that
`function. It's more than just the number 2. If you just had the number 2 on
`the screen, you know, the display items here have underlying functions 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`are assigned to them. It includes a data structure. And I think that's
`consistent with the expert testimony in this case, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: So the data structure would be the button
`identifier and whatever function is going to be evoked by that menu when
`the button identifier is pressed?
`MR. MEEKER: Correct. And without the descriptive text, you
`don't know when you activate 2 what you are going to get. You need to
`have something to inform the user on any change of function. And the 2
`provides a visual indication in the display item on what function is going to
`occur. And there's a data structure underlying that. Now the number 2 and
`its key button is now assigned a different function that is also displayed in
`connection with the number 2 to indicate to the user a new function has been
`assigned.
`JUDGE BENOIT: So you say that the 2 plus the text is the display
`item like The Blues Brothers example in Figures 4 and 5, and you'll get us
`the cite that describes the grid as a display item. So in the same way that
`The Blues Brothers changes information associated with it across screens 4
`and 5, the same way the button identifier 2 changes the information
`associated with it across Figures 9 and 1?
`MR. MEEKER: Yes, Your Honor, that's an exact articulation of
`our position. And we believe we have been consistent since day one on that
`petition -- in our recitation of that position. Even though I would say some
`of the wording may not be as artful as we might have liked, I think if you
`read it fairly, that's in our petition, Your Honor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Now you also argue in response to patent
`owner's contentions in their supplemental patent owner response that even if
`it were just the numeral 2 identifying the button identifier, that 2 changes as
`required by claim 11 because it's placed in a different position or size in the
`different screens?
`MR. MEEKER: That's exactly correct, Your Honor. Claim 11
`says the display item must change, and so that's a dependent claim from the
`independent claim. So patent owner's position is the display item cannot
`change. Yet, claim 11 says the display item must change in this patent. So
`we believe that the display item does not have to be the exact same -- it
`doesn't have to show the same thing before and after the function is
`assigned. And in fact, when you go from grid to list, the display item
`changes. It's the only example in their patent. Our example is consistent
`with that example, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Is there anything that you depend on that says
`in claim 11 causes a display of the display item to change? It doesn't cause
`the display item to change, but it's one removed, that it's a display of the
`display item. Does that have any relevance to your argument here?
`MR. MEEKER: I don't think it does, Your Honor. I mean, it
`causes the display of the display item to change, it gives all kinds of
`examples in the patent of what that means. And I think it means what it
`says, the display changes, right. I mean, how the display item has changed
`in some -- you know, how the display item is displayed has in some way
`changed. The patent is extremely broad on that, and that's taught at slide 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`And it can really be anything that changes. I mean, their examples are the
`subscribe button, logo changes, a menu change, program listings from grid
`to list, video window elements, text window elements, buttons change,
`overlays. Those are really broad concepts, Your Honor, and we think it's
`claimed very broadly, and it's really just an update of an HTML page. Just
`like any other web page, you update it, you are going to get changes to the
`display. There's going to be some underlying data structure that's going to
`have continuity. That's how this patent teaches and how it works.
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: I'm really curious about getting the
`answer to the question I had before about describing Figure 4 compared to
`Figure 5, because I'm wondering if the purpose of this is just to show the
`different formatting as opposed to the content of what's shown changing as
`well.
`
`MR. MEEKER: Yes, Judge Margolies. So if you turn to column
`6, lines 12 to 13, it says Figure 4 illustrates the display of program listings in
`a program grid format. And then 56 to 57, program listings may be
`displayed for the user in Figure 5, illustrated program listing display screen
`having program listings displayed in accordance with the principles of the
`invention. Figure 5 is the list format, and down below that scrollable
`program listings, plural. So it's a list of programs, and it's in accordance
`with the invention.
`Figure 4 and Figure 5 are the transition. It's the transition
`discussed in the dependent claims. There's nothing in these patents limiting
`the change from a format. There's all kinds of examples of given 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`items and of the change. And the format, we believe, is a made-up
`limitation that's simply not in those claims. And even if it is what they say,
`it's still shown, and we show that in our rebuttal, even if you were to import
`all of these limitations into the claim that they are trying to add, it's still
`shown by the reference.
`JUDGE BENOIT: So on slide 8 you say a program's listing grid or
`list is a non-limited example of display items. And you point to column 7, 1
`through 3.
`MR. MEEKER: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: So that does say display element such as
`programs listing grid.
`MR. MEEKER: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you. I just wanted to confirm that.
`MR. MEEKER: Okay. So I'm wondering, do you have an area,
`since we are short on time, that you would like to discuss in more detail?
`Because I think probably the most efficient use of our time may be to jump
`to the Gerba grounds unless there's any other questions on the Kamada
`grounds.
`JUDGE BENOIT: I had one more question on Kamada. The “4
`GUIDE” in Figure 1, patent owner has argued that that's a travel guide
`function, and so your motivation to combine Kamada with Wang is not
`sufficient because that's not an electronic program guide, but it's a travel
`guide.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`MR. MEEKER: I would say that there is no description in
`Kamada limiting it to a travel guide. Kamada is a set-top box. It's
`undisputed that set-top box have electronic program guide. Kamada also
`talks about multimedia programs being in Kamada. So when it says guide,
`there's nothing in Kamada that doesn't -- that limits that to a travel guide.
`That's brought out of whole cloth by their expert. It's not in the reference.
`The reference is a set-top box that displays multimedia programs. It says it's
`a guide. So that is just a guide button, just an example of one button of a
`menu structure that then activates another function.
`So even if what they said was true, Kamada still teaches high-level
`menu structures for activating other functions such as Wang's electronic
`program guide. And the evidence in this case is that set-top boxes have
`electronic program guides. That's taught by the references. Wang provides
`an example of that electronic program guide.
`We think that Kamada is fairly combinable with Wang. Even if
`that guide were to refer to a travel guide, they are not so different that they
`can't be combined. We don't think that's correct. We don't think that's
`consistent with the references, but even if it were, they would still be
`combinable and it would still be obvious, Your Honor. That's our position
`on that.
`
`So turning now to the Gerba grounds, which is slide 44, I would
`like to address specifically, Judge Benoit, I think in your decision, you had
`pointed to a Cutsforth decision by the Federal Circuit. And that decision has
`some strong language that says essentially if it's a design choice, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`potentially would be just impermissible on obviousness. So I would say if
`you look at Cutsforth, if you look at the facts in that case, that's a case where
`they didn't have a reference that taught a spring on the mounting member.
`So in that case, there was no reference that taught the missing feature.
`And I would distinguish that by our case. So our case, Straub does
`teach an HTML document that includes Java applets or ActiveX controls.
`So in Cutsforth they didn't have a reference to fill the gap. In this case, it's
`undisputed that every limitation of the claim is in the references. So that's
`the first distinction between those two cases.
`The second distinction is in Cutsforth, the claim 5 recitation that
`you recited in that recitation, the petitioner had no expert testimony
`whatsoever that you could mount the spring -- put the spring on the
`mounting block. So not only did they lack an explicit teaching of it, they
`also had zero expert testimony on it. They only had lawyer argument, and
`the Board adopted that lawyer argument with zero expert testimony without
`a reference on point.
`I would contrast that to our case where we have a reference that
`shows that exact feature and it teaches integrating Java into HTML. So our
`primary document, Gerba, teaches a program guide built in HTML. So the
`only thing that's missing is whether Java or applets are used, non-markup
`language applets are used to implement GUI functionality. That is
`specifically taught by Straub. So the feature that was missing in the
`Cutsforth application is not missing from our combination of references.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`We have an explicit teaching in Straub that for HTML you use applets, Java
`applets or ActiveX applets to implement GUI functionality.
`So if you have a complex HTML page where you are moving
`cursors around and so forth, you -- typically what the testimony is, you
`implement that in applets such as Java applets. And I would say their own
`expert agrees. He said Java was not rare for doing that function at the time.
`So we have two experts that both agree Java applets were used in HTML to
`implement graphical user interface function. So we don't even have a
`dispute amongst the experts that that was the art at the time. So we would
`say we have an explicit teaching of that.
`And if you look at the '987 patent, the '987 patent says, well, you
`can use applets to do GUI functionality and update those applets. So the
`'987 patent recognizes that applets were known in the art at the time for
`implementing GUI functionality. So we have an admission by the patent
`owner in their patent. We have both experts agreeing that this is the case,
`and we have a reference that teaches that exact element. So I would submit,
`Your Honor, that we are not under the Cutsforth scenario. The fact
`scenarios are completely different between that case and our case. I would
`say even though the Board can rely on anything, and certainly we appreciate
`that, but this is a nonprecedential opinion of the Federal Circuit. And I think
`it's distinguishable on its facts is the main point.
`JUDGE BENOIT: So say we agree that it's distinguishable on the
`facts and we agree that Straub teaches using applets in Java for a GUI. KSR
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`requires some reason why one of skill in the art would use Java, and that is
`what seems to be missing on pages 58 and 59 of the petition.
`MR. MEEKER: We would say that Straub provides an explicit
`teaching of using the Java applets or ActiveX controls, basically the applets
`in HTML. So we would analogize this to a chair. So if you have a chair
`with a flat seat and four legs, you could combine those legs to the chair
`using a bolt, a nut, a screw, a nail, glue. So there could be more ways to do
`it, but there's a finite number. And what Straub teaches is you use a nail to
`do it. So that would be a design choice between a nail and a screw and
`something else, but they teach a nail and a bolt are the two things. So that
`would be analogous to Java and ActiveX.
`So we have an explicit reference that provides that teaching. And I
`think under KSR you don't have to show an advantage. So we could have
`said it's Java because Java is cross-platform independent. But that is not
`required and, I think, is probably not true to the combination in this case. I
`think a screw, a bolt, a nut, a nail, glue, are all known methods for
`implementing GUI interfaces in HTML. And that's equivalent to a screw, a
`nut, a bolt or glue. People skilled in the art understand how to stick legs on
`chairs. It was done commonly. It was done throughout the industry. That's
`not in dispute that this is a common way to implement functionality in an
`HTML document, Your Honor.
`So we think that's what KSR was about. We think KSR did away
`with assigning some arbitrary advantage to that combination. We believe
`KSR allows you to state it was commonly done; that's how everyone did it at
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`the time. And that's in fact, not in dispute in this case. We think KSR allows
`us to do that, and that's what we did in our petition, and we believe it's
`sufficient under KSR.
`JUDGE BENOIT: That's not a circular argument and it's not
`looking to minimize or eviscerate the requirement that there's an articulated
`reason for doing it? Because there's no evidence, right, that -- there's no
`evidence that you set forth in your petition that I saw in anything you cited
`that that was the common way to do it and everybody did it that way.
`MR. MEEKER: No, no, I think our petition does say that. So on
`page 54 I do believe that we did make that argument that specifically that
`using -- that Straub provides the motivation for using Java in Gerba's
`HTML. So Straub actually talks about HTML, and it says you can also use
`executable software, for example, Java or ActiveX. So they are saying,
`look, you can use executable software. Whether it's Visual Basic, Java,
`ActiveX, you can use all of this executable software to implement functions
`in HTML. That's an explicit, express teaching. I believe -- well, in our
`papers certainly, we argue that's an express teaching. You can't get any
`better motivation to combine than that. It comes directly from the reference.
`It's an absolute explicit direct teaching in line with what KSR says we can
`use.
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: And where do you say that in your petition?
`MR. MEEKER: So the petition is on the left. So it says --
`JUDGE MARGOLIES: What slide are you on?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00941
`Patent 9,172,987 B2
`
`
`MR. MEEKER: We are on slide 54. It's petition '941, page 56. It
`says Straub discloses generating an operating GUI, including channel guide
`display. The GUI is generated using received HTML data to specify themes
`to finding layout and functions and using embedded executable software
`such as Java applets and ActiveX controls. And we cite to column 10, lines
`31 to 53. And that's shown in the brown box. That's column 10, lines 31 to
`53. That's what we just read. So our petition says that's the motivation to
`combine. It's specific motivation to combine. We cite to the portion in the
`refere
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
