UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`_______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
` Held: May 21, 2018
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and TERRENCE
`W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`_______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
` Held: May 21, 2018
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and TERRENCE
`W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`GEORGE C. BECK, ESQUIRE
`ANDREW CHESLOCK, ESQUIRE
`Foley & Lardner
`Washington Harbour
`3000 K Street, N.W.
`Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20007
`
`KEVIN ORMISTON, ESQUIRE
`BENJAMIN J. HODGES, ESQUIRE
`Foster Pepper
`1111 Third Avenue
`Suite 3000
`Seattle, WA 98101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, May 21,
`2018, at 1 p.m, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Madison Building
`East, 600 Delany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before Gary Euel, Notary
`Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`
`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
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE ARBES: Good afternoon. This is the oral hearing in Case
`IPR2017-01127 involving Patent 8,583,027. Can counsel please state your
`names for the record?
`MR. BECK: Thank you, Your Honor. It's George Beck for the
`Petitioner and I'm here with my colleague Andrew Cheslock.
`MR. HODGES: Thank you, Your Honor. Ben Hodges and Kevin
`Ormiston here on behalf of Patent Owner.
`JUDGE ARBES: Thank you. Per the Trial Hearing Order in this
`case, each party will have 45 minutes of time to present arguments. The
`order of presentation is first Patent Owner will proceed to present its case
`with regard to whether its Motion to Amend meets the requirements set forth
`in Section 42.121. You may reserve time for rebuttal. Petitioner then will
`respond to Patent Owner's arguments regarding the requirements for a
`Motion to Amend and may present its arguments regarding the patentability
`of the proposed substitute claims. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time to
`respond to arguments presented by Patent Owner regarding the patentability
`of those claims. The Patent Owner may then use any remaining time to
`respond to Petitioner's presentation and finally Petitioner may use any
`remaining time solely to respond to Patent Owner's arguments regarding
`patentability.
`A few reminders before we begin today. One, to ensure that the
`transcript is clear and because we have two judges participating remotely,
`please only speak at the podium and try to refer to your demonstratives by
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`slide number. Also, if either party believes that the other party is presenting
`an improper argument, I would ask you to please raise that in your own
`presentation rather than interrupting the other side. Finally, we received the
`list of objections to Petitioner's demonstrative exhibits and will not preclude
`either party from using the demonstrative exhibits that were submitted today.
`We do remind the parties however that demonstrative exhibits are merely
`visual aids to assist a party's presentation at the hearing. They're not briefs
`and they're not evidence. The panel will also be able to determine whether
`any arguments made at the hearing today are improper and, if so, those
`arguments will not be considered. Any questions before we begin?
`MR. BECK: No, Your Honor.
`MR. HODGES: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel for Patent Owner, you may proceed and
`would you like to reserve time for rebuttal?
`MR. BECK: Yes. I will do a quick introduction, and then, yes.
`JUDGE ARBES: I can start the clock for you.
`MR. BECK: Okay. I think we would like to try to spend 25 minutes
`here and then 20 minutes for our reply/rebuttal time.
`JUDGE ARBES: Okay. You may proceed.
`MR. HODGES: Thank you, Your Honors. My name is Ben Hodges.
`I'm joined by my colleague, Kevin Ormiston, and we're here representing the
`Patent Owner Front Row Technologies. I will primarily be speaking in
`rebuttal regarding patentability and Mr. Ormiston is going to deal with
`whether Patent Owner met the requirements of 121 for its Motion to Amend.
`So with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Ormiston.
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`MR. ORMISTON: Good afternoon, Your Honors. As has been said,
`my name is Kevin Ormiston and I represent Front Row Technologies, and
`I'd like to discuss with Your Honors today Front Row's Motion to Amend
`and its compliance with Rule 42.121.
`As we know, the rule has four basic requirements and Patent Owner
`met these. First, Patent Owner offered a reasonable number of substitute
`claims. Six original claims, Petitioner originally raised six original claims,
`Patent Owner offered six substitute claims, 121. That's all I'm going to say
`about that, that's per se reasonable. Second, these new claims are narrower
`in scope. Third, the new claims are responsive to grounds of unpatentability
`raised in the petition and Institution decision, and finally if the new claims
`do not introduce new subject matter and are directly supported by both the
`231 specification which led to the 027 patent, as well as the priority
`document which we'll be discussing today, the 776, which you'll find is
`Exhibit 1006.
`As is stated, Your Honors, these claims have been substantially
`narrowed. Patent Owner understood the opportunity that this Motion to
`Amend process gave it and specifically substantially narrowed these claims
`in order to preserve them. Patent Owner did this through two means. First,
`Patent Owner wanted to narrow these claims in order to get over any art
`raised in the petition and second, Patent Owner narrowed these claims in
`order to more specifically tie them to the specification.
`As you will see, both independent claims have grown by over 2X and
`this is not a situation of just adding fluff to the claims. This is pulling
`specific portions of the specification tied to specific embodiments taught in
`the original 027 patent and narrowing them down.
`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
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, in addition to the language that was
`added, there was language that was removed from the claims, right?
`MR. ORMISTON: That's a perfect segue, Your Honor, I appreciate
`that. So there has been some contention about removed pieces and in fact
`nothing has actually been removed. For example, Petitioner claims that the
`subscriber limitation which was originally found in original claims 3 and 9
`has been removed from the new claims. That's incorrect. In fact, that phrase
`has been promoted into new independent claims 19 and 22. Specifically,
`original claim 3 required,
`"Wherein said at least one user comprises a subscriber."
`And you'll see on the slide here that limitation is exactly in claims 19
`and 22. So as before in the original claims this was simply dependent, it is
`now in every single claim through dependency.
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, before we talk about the subscribers
`individually, you would acknowledge that this isn't a situation where a
`limitation wholesale, all of the language was taken and moved somewhere
`else in the claim. The exact language, the last wherein clause and the
`subscribers plural term, those no longer appear in the claims, right?
`MR. ORMISTON: I'll start with the subscribers limitation, Your
`Honor. So it is true. The original claim 1 contained the word subscribers,
`with an S plural, but as you'll see in our briefing and as I'll state here the
`term subscribers is not one of number but instead one of class. Specifically,
`if I refer you back to claim 3, and this is jumping back one slide, you'll see --
`I'm sorry, original claim 3 is not up there, but the limitation is exactly the
`same -- it says,
`"Wherein at least one user comprises at least one subscriber."
`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
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`If original claim 1 required two subscribers, original claim 3 would
`make literally no sense. Further -- this is jumping ahead one slide again –
`further the specification supports that the subscribers term is one of class,
`not of number. For example, the specification clearly states that in some
`embodiments the user can, for example, be a subscriber. And so what we
`have here is a situation where subscribers cannot import a numerical
`limitation on to the number of users.
`For example, in claim 1 the number of users is defined as at least one
`and we see that exactly again in new claims 19 and 22. We have at least one
`user and therefore certainly there could be multiple subscribers in both
`original claim 1 and 19, new claim 19, but there's no requirement that there
`be multiple subscribers for example. So in that way these claims are exactly
`consistent with respect to that.
`JUDGE ARBES: Can we talk about the exact limitation in original
`claim 1?
`MR. ORMISTON: Sure.
`JUDGE ARBES: Claim 1 originally said,
`"Wherein streaming video captured by at least one video camera
`operating within at least one entertainment venue is processed for delivery to
`subscribers of the at least one service."
`MR. ORMISTON: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ARBES: Why does that claim language not require
`streaming video being processed for delivery to plural subscribers?
`MR. ORMISTON: Again, Your Honor, I would argue that
`subscribers is a class. It would be like saying -- and that's supported again
`by claim 3 -- that limitation wouldn't make sense it if it's requiring
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`distribution to subscribers, meaning people, because that would be
`inconsistent with the claim language. Instead, it's just saying the streaming
`service must be capable of delivering to who subscribers. A class of people,
`specific subclass of users. It's not --
`JUDGE ARBES: But it isn't being capable of being processed for
`delivery -- it says is processed for delivery.
`MR. ORMISTON: Correct. So is processed for delivery to
`subscribers, again a class of users, not subscribers to subscribers class,
`which certainly could be one and it would make sense in this original claim,
`for example, where it is at least one, could be two. So grammatically it
`makes sense because you could certainly have plural subscribers. I believe
`again, Your Honor, that that's supported by both original claim 3 and the
`specification that subscribers simply refers to a class.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Counsel, if subscribers refers to a class, how
`should we understand original claim 3 which would have said wherein said
`at least one user comprises a subscriber. I mean is the at least one user is a
`class?
`MR. ORMISTON: No, Your Honor. In that case the at least one user
`actually is a subscriber. In original claim 1, for example, the limitation
`process for delivery to subscribers doesn't necessarily require the user in that
`claim to be a subscriber. So, in original claim 3 it's now telling you that that
`user is in fact a subscriber and you'll see that that limitation in claim 3 is
`now in new claim 19. So new claim 19 has been narrowed, bring that
`limitation up again, and now every user must be a subscriber according to
`the new claims.
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, if the user in claim 1 does not need to be a
`subscriber, what meaning is there then to the subscribers limitation at all? It
`seems like it would have no meaning then.
`MR. ORMISTON: Respectfully, Your Honor, the original claims,
`whether or not there's meaning to the terms subscribers in the original claims
`there certainly is in new claim 19. I mean new claim 19 specifically requires
`the user to be a subscriber, again moving that limitation up from claim 3 into
`new claim 19 promoting that independent for that dependent limitation into
`an independent claim and I think all it would say is that this -- yeah.
`The other thing we'd like to discuss again with respect to broadening
`or narrowing the claims needing to be narrow is the based on location as
`determined language. So if we look at the new claims you'll see that the
`Wherein clause has been substantially narrowed in the new claims. I
`apologize for this doesn't include the specific Wherein clause we're talking
`about, but in the new claims the Wherein clause authorizing said wireless
`hand held computing device based on has been added to substantially.
`There's a fair amount of language after that. It has been contended that this
`new Wherein clause gets rid of, based on said location as determined by said
`wireless data communications network. In fact has not. This Wherein
`clause just gets plugged in directly before as determined by said wireless and
`communication network.
`JUDGE ARBES: Again, counsel, it's not plugged in wholesale. In
`claim 1 there is another clause at the end of what you're showing in the slide
`there of “based on said location determination by said data communication
`network.”
`MR. ORMISTON: That's correct.
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`JUDGE ARBES: That portion of the clause was not moved up.
`MR. ORMISTON: I would argue the original claim 1 was basically
`redundant, so if you move this clause in new claim 19 up, you'll see that the
`Wherein piece does not include location as determined by said wireless data
`communications network. So if you plug this in it does include the entire
`requirement. For example, everything in this new Wherein clause has to be
`based on said location. New claim 19 further limits what that location can
`be as determined by said wireless data communications network. So the
`Wherein clause doesn't get rid of the limitation it's describing, but I guess it's
`not redundant as in original claim 1 either.
`JUDGE ARBES: There's also a slight difference in language. So the
`original claim in the authorizing step had based on said location as
`determined, then the last limitation of the claim said based on said location
`determination. Now we have three different phrasings. We have based on
`said location as determined, based on said location, and we don't have based
`on said location determination. Is there any difference between those three
`that -- why the difference?
`MR. ORMISTON: Your Honor, I've argued there's no difference.
`The important piece here is how is this determination being made. Well, the
`claim tells you it's based on a location, right, and then the Wherein clause
`further defines that location and that location must still be as determined by
`said wireless communications network.
`JUDGE McMILLIN: Counsel, the location that you're determining,
`in original claim 1 it was determining a location of at least one user.
`MR. ORMISTON: That's correct.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`JUDGE McMILLIN: In claim 19 it's determining a location of said
`wireless hand held computing device. Isn't the determination different?
`MR. ORMISTON: I don't believe so, Your Honor. If we move up to
`the determining step which is one claim phrase above the authorizing step,
`you'll see that the device is associated with at least one user, so we're really
`determining the user's location. I mean even in the old claim you would be
`determining the device's location, I mean theoretically if the device was
`separated from the user you wouldn't actually know where the user himself
`was, you'd only know where the device is. So again, we're still locating the
`user. We're just specifying that it is in fact the device associated with the
`user for increased clarity.
`JUDGE McMILLIN: But perhaps that determination is made some
`other way?
`MR. ORMISTON: It certainly could be, Your Honor, but the claim
`specifically requires a location determined in a very specific way in the
`location determination step, for example, and then also the types of locations
`determined in the authorizing step are, again, very specific and pulled
`directly from the specification.
`So, Your Honor, moving on to additional requirements these new
`claims are directly responsive to the grounds of unpatentability raised in
`both the petition and the Institution decision. Again, Patent Owner offered
`over 15 pages of explanation of why these new claims overcome the grounds
`of unpatentability raised in the petition and specifically we describe six
`different limitations that were not taught by the combination of Rittmaster
`and Van Zoest. There is also the issue of Maloney. Maloney is not a prior
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`art document, Your Honors, and Patent Owner responded to Maloney in two
`ways.
`
`First, we provided extensive citations to priority documents both
`claim by claim and limitation by limitation and second, in narrowing these
`claims we were careful to pull directly from the specification in order to
`insure that priority would be kept in there for Maloney, but not the prior art.
`And finally, Your Honors, I'd like to discuss with you the written
`description support for these claims, and with respect to written description
`if you would, I'm going to kill two birds with one stone and I'm going to
`refer back to the 776 application, the priority document. The 776
`application is basically the same as the 231 but includes a little less and so
`anything that is in the 776 would be in the 231, and so priority in this case
`really is fairly dispositive, so we'd like to do that. So again the new claims
`were drafted to have as close as possible in hoc verba support in these new
`claims.
`First I'd like to discuss support for the authorization based on location
`step. So if I could have Your Honors review page -- this is a page number
`and then line number, Exhibit 1006 -- if I could have you review page 22 in
`the section line 7 through 27. I'm going to be referring to a piece about
`halfway down that.
`JUDGE ARBES: Sorry counsel, if you could give us that cite one
`more time?
`MR. ORMISTON: Yes. Page 22, this is line 7 through 27, and I'm
`going to be referring a little further down. I'm going to start with the phrase
`that starts security unit 36, and so Your Honors this phrase specifically states
`that the security unit 36 can be configured with routines or subroutines, we
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`know that that's software, that are processed by the CPU and which prevent
`wireless data from being transmitted and received from the hand held
`device.
`So we know, based on this phrase that the security unit can prevent
`the reception or transmission of data to the hand held device and now you
`may ask well, that's not necessarily streaming video, that's just wireless data.
`But again I'll have you now move to page 31, columns 5 through 13, that
`tells us that wireless data can include specifically wireless real time video
`data which is exactly what we're talking about here and specifically that
`phrase states that,
`"Hand held device 60 can be configured to receive wireless real time
`video data transmitted from the cameras through a data transmitter to the
`server and thereafter to wireless data transmitters and receivers."
`So there we know that the wireless data transmitter and receivers are
`capable of receiving a subset of wireless data, specifically real time video
`data. So again going back to the authorizing based on location. So we know
`that the security unit can authorize and we know that it can authorize the
`reception or transmission of wireless video data, how does it do this? This is
`227 through 27 towards the end. It does this based on, if you're beyond a
`particular frequency range outside of a particular geographical area
`associated with a local wireless network or absent the authorization codes,
`so decryption, and you'll find that two of these requirements are specifically
`recited in the Wherein clause in claim 19. So what we have here is a secure
`unit capable controlling reception and transmission of video data based on at
`least two specific criteria explicitly recited in claim 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
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, how do you tie this language to the
`specific language in the claims about determining a location? I see the
`language you're pointing to outside of a particular geographical area --
`MR. ORMISTON: That's right.
`JUDGE ARBES: -- but that's associated with a local wireless
`network. So how do you tie this language to the more general concept of
`determining location and authorizing based on that?
`MR. ORMISTON: Certainly, Your Honor. So the determining step
`above the authorization step is one specific way of determining location.
`That must always be done in this claim. For example, that claim goes
`through having a determined location and it says,
`"Determined at least in part according to the wireless hand held device
`computing information associated with the at least one user."
`And so that's one way that must always be done in this claim, and that
`method of determining location may be co-extensive with the two examples
`I've given here. Specifically beyond a particular frequency range or outside
`of a particular geographic area associated with a wireless network.
`However, it's not the only way required by the claim. For example, the
`location you've determined in the determining step might not be up to date
`and so you might also determine this way, or that location you've determined
`may be exactly the same as outside a particular geographical area associated
`with a wireless network.
`JUDGE ARBES: But doesn't the authorizing and preventing step in
`the claim have to be done based on the location determination recited earlier
`in the claim?
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`MR. ORMISTON: Yes, but there's no explicit order to the method
`steps, Your Honor. I mean it could be done exactly at the same time. It
`could be authorizing based on location and it's determining a location at the
`exact same time.
`JUDGE ARBES: But that determination of location is done by
`looking at the network database, as the other limitations you have in the
`claim --
`MR. ORMISTON: Correct.
`JUDGE ARBES: -- and then what the security unit has to do,
`according to the claim, is authorize and prevent based on that determination.
`So what I'm looking for is where is that described in the specification?
`MR. ORMISTON: Again, Your Honor, I would point to 227 through
`27 which is saying that two ways you can prevent reception of data is based
`on those two things, specifically two examples it gives of a determining step
`would be beyond a particular frequency or beyond a frequency range outside
`an area.
`Jumping ahead, Your Honor, real quickly, I'd just like to say with
`respect to the beyond a particular frequency range which we've discussed a
`little bit here that Patent Owner's BRI of this claim is correct. This claim
`explicitly calls out location a number of times. The Wherein clause uses the
`word location I believe four or five times and the only proper BRI of this
`claim is that the user's location is simply outside of the range and if you
`follow the cite here 2816 through 22, you'll see that the specification
`explicitly contemplates where you would control the gain of the signal as it
`deems in order to make sure the signal reaches your intended target and
`that's what we're talking about here.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, why use the full term frequency range
`then? Why not just say range?
`MR. ORMISTON: Well, again, in the specification here specifically
`it states that, this is at 28:16 through 22,
`"Impress onto a signal on to a radio frequency carrier of the correct
`frequency by immediately adjusting its frequency phase or amplitude,
`thereby providing enough gain to the signal to project it to its intended
`target."
`And again, Your Honor, we wanted to make sure this was tied as
`close to the specification as possible. The specification uses that exact
`phrase so we felt it was necessary to use it as well.
`Finally really quickly, Your Honors, I would just like to discuss
`support for streaming. Petitioner has raised that streaming is not taught in
`this patent and I would say that that's just not true at all. They cite to two
`specific sentences that do use the term streaming data, however if you read
`the specification as a whole instead of limiting yourself to those two specific
`phrases you'll see that nearly everywhere in the specification it explicitly
`contemplates what it describes as real time video data. For example, here in
`figure 6 you see a video image coming in being processed, sent to the server,
`distributed to the hand held device where it's watched by the user. Again, in
`figure 9 we have the exact same thing. In this case it's wireless instead of
`being sent over line to the server, it's wireless throughout, images taken in
`sent, and viewed. This is explicitly streaming wireless data.
`And I believe I am out of, I guess I have four minutes. So the last
`thing I'd like to discuss, Your Honor, is support for the phrase in response
`for user request, the claim language is here, wherein the software module in
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`response to a user input request selects a network from the group consisting
`of, and provides three examples there. Now, I'd like to discuss why this
`phrase is the way it is.
`So it is true that in prior proceedings between the parties before you
`today that a different claim phrase was struck down. That claim phrase did
`the opposite. In that claim phrase the user selected the network and that was
`deemed inappropriate, so we redrafted the claim phrase. The user does not
`select the network. The user does an action in response to that action and
`the network is selected, and interestingly in Petitioner's own briefing their
`expert says that this is supported. He specifically says that the disclosed
`system, not the user, selects the network. That's exactly what we've claimed
`here.
`
`JUDGE McMILLIN: Counsel, can you point -- I know you refer to
`the file history in the application, but can you point in Exhibit 1001 to the
`description of a security unit.
`MR. ORMISTON: Is -- I don't have the --
`JUDGE McMILLIN: What I want is the patent, is the 027 patent.
`MR. ORMISTON: I'm not sure I have those exact numbers but I will
`tell you that that section I quoted is literally the same in the 776 and I would
`go to our Motion to Amend itself and it will have those numbers there for
`you, Your Honor. But, again, it's literally exactly the same language is
`included in that specification as in the priority specification.
`JUDGE McMILLIN: Is there structure disclosed?
`MR. ORMISTON: For the security unit, Your Honor? I believe --
`JUDGE McMILLIN: Yes.
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`MR. ORMISTON: -- I believe Mr. Hodges is going to discuss that
`with Your Honors if it would be okay.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Counsel, I think Judge Arbes asked this
`question but I just wanted to make sure I understood your answer.
`MR. ORMISTON: Of course.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: The term frequency range within that larger
`phrase beyond a particular frequency range.
`MR. ORMISTON: Yes, sir.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: You know, if I heard frequency range in
`isolation I would think it referred to a range of frequencies. It seems like
`what you're saying is it actually refers to the range of a particular frequency?
`MR. ORMISTON: That's exactly, Your Honor. So the first step in
`any claim analysis, what does the claim itself say, and here we have beyond
`or within a particular geographic area or in the location beyond the particular
`geographic area further comprises a location selected from the group of
`locations comprising a location beyond a particular frequency range. It
`seems pretty clear from the claim language that what that's discussing is that
`you are beyond that frequency's range and the specification explicitly
`supports that in saying that one of the ways you can control things here is
`you can adjust the gain of the signal in order to make sure it gets to your
`intended target and the specification other points talks about range of
`Bluetooth or range of hand held devices and that sort of thing, and that's
`what we're claiming here.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: The range is not inherent to the frequency,
`right? I mean it depends on many things like the variables identified in the
`spec and the priority application, frequency phase, gain. So what does it
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`mean to be beyond a frequency range when there's no range inherent in the
`frequency itself?
`MR. ORMISTON: Again -- let's see if I have that cite for you. That
`piece of the specification explicitly contemplates deciding how far the signal
`is going to be distributed. A very normal example I guess we've all sort of
`experienced is you're driving over the mountains and all of a sudden your
`radio station goes away, right. That frequency simply can't make it to you
`and that operator could decide I only want to distribute my frequency to a
`certain area. For example, if you're at a sporting arena you could decide I
`want to only distribute my signal X range and then you would know whether
`or not your user is within range, you would know their location as a yes or a
`no, are they within your range or are they outside of your range? And that's
`exactly what's been (indiscernible) here.
`JUDGE McMILLIN: Counsel, you referred to the specification.
`Where in the specification?
`MR ORMISTON: Yes, Your Honor. Let me grab that for you real
`quick. So I would draw your attention to page 28, this is in the 776, it's
`Exhibit 1006, 2816 –
`JUDGE McMILLIN: I'm sorry. Can you give me that cite in Exhibit
`1001?
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: I think it's column 10, lines 8 to 17 basically.
`JUDGE McMILLIN: Thank you.
`MR. ORMISTON: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate that. Yes,
`this says explicitly these components when offering together impress on to a
`signal a radio frequency carrier blah blah blah providing enough gain to the
`signal to project it to its intended target, e.g., hand held device located within
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01127
`Patent 8,583,027 B2
`the venue. That's exactly what we're talking about here. And with that,
`Your Honors, if there's no other questions I'm going to wrap up and we'll
`save the remainder of our time for Mr. Hodges and any time for reply.
`Thank you.
`MR. BECK: Good afternoon. George Beck for the Petitioner. Your
`Honors, I'll first start by addressing the points counsel just made in terms of
`the rule --
`JUDGE ARBES: Would you like to take a break, counsel?
`MR. BECK: Yes, thank you. I appreciate that, Your Honor.
`(Break.)
`MR. BECK: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm going to f
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
