throbber

`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PRISUA ENGINEERING CORP.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`Held: August 22, 2018
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. PARVIS, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
`TERENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 B2
`
`HEATH J. BRIGGS, ESQUIRE
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`The Tabor Center
`1200 17th Street
`Suite 2400
`Denver, CO 80202
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONR:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHN CAREY, ESQUIRE
`BRIAN WILSON, ESQUIRE
`Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP
`1395 Brickell Avenue
`Suite 700
`Miami, FL 33131
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, August
`22, 2018, commencing at 1 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before Merinda Evans, Notary
`Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE PARVIS: Please be seated. Good afternoon everyone,
`welcome to the Board. This is an oral argument in IPR2017-01188. The
`challenged patent is U.S. patent No. 8,650,591 B2. Petitioner is Samsung
`Electronics America, Incorporated, Patent Owner is --
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: Can you hear me?
`JUDGE PARVIS: Can you hear me? Patent Owner is --
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Judge McMillin, this is Judge Clements. I can
`hear you, but Judge Parvis we cannot hear anything going on.
`JUDGE PARVIS: You can't hear me? Okay, hold on.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: We can hear you now. Thank you.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Petitioner is Samsung Electronics, America,
`Incorporated. Patent Owner is Prisua Engineering Corporation. I'm
`Administrative Patent Judge Parvis. Judges Clements and McMillin are
`appearing remotely. At this time we'd like counsel to introduce yourselves,
`your partners and your guests starting with Petitioner. Please use the
`microphone.
`MR. BRIGGS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Heath Briggs,
`counsel for Petitioner Samsung from the law firm Greenberg Traurig. With
`me is co-counsel, Steve Ullmer, also of Greenberg Traurig. We also have
`Chris Burrell from Samsung and his guest. I'm going to mess up your name,
`so.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MR. PARK: Jong Chul Park.
`MR. BRIGGS: Jong Chul Park. Thank you.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you. Patent Owner.
`MR. WILSON: Hi, good afternoon, Your Honors. I'm Brian Wilson
`for Patent Owner, Prisua Engineering. With me is my colleague John Carey
`with the firm Carey Rodriguez Gonya & Milian, and we don't have any
`guests today.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you. Before we begin we want to remind
`the parties that guidance for this hearing was provided in our Trial Hearing
`Order of July 31, 2018. As you know from that Trial Hearing Order, each
`side has been given 45 minutes total time for oral argument. Petitioner bears
`the ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner's claims at issue in this
`review are unpatentable. Petitioner therefore will proceed first to present its
`case with respect to the challenged claims and grounds for which the Board
`instituted trial. Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner's
`presentation. Petitioner may reserve some rebuttal time to reply to the
`arguments presented by the Patent Owner.
`We have a few other reminders. This hearing is open to the public
`and a full transcript of it will become part of the record. Also please
`remember to speak into the microphone at the podium so that all judges,
`including the remote judges, can hear you and please speak into the
`microphone information to identify any document projected on the screen as
`that document will not be viewable by anyone reading the transcript or the
`judge appearing remotely. Because two judges are remote today in the
`interest of maintaining a clear record, when you refer to a demonstrative
`please refer to the slide number so that it will appear in the record and so the
`remote judges can follow along. They have copies of your demonstratives.
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`Does Petitioner have any questions?
`MR. BRIGGS: We do not.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Patent Owner.
`MR. WILSON: Yes, Your Honor, we have one question.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Yes.
`MR. WILSON: Would you like me to come to the podium?
`JUDGE PARVIS: Yes, please.
`MR. WILSON: Your Honor, there were amendments to the Trial
`Practice Guide published subsequent to the Trial Order in this case --
`JUDGE PARVIS: Yes.
`MR. WILSON: -- and those amendments state that Patent Owners
`can reserve some time for a surrebuttal at the oral hearing and we'd like to
`reserve a small amount of our 45 minutes for a surrebuttal.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Do either of the other judges have any -- would
`you like to ask any questions? Does Petitioner have any objections to that?
`MR. BRIGGS: We have no objections to that.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Okay. You may.
`MR. WILSON: Thank you.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Petitioner, would you like to reserve some rebuttal
`
`time?
`
`MR. BRIGGS: Yes. We'd like to reserve half of our time, Your
`Honor.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Half of your time?
`MR. BRIGGS: Yes,
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Okay. So any time you're ready counsel for
`Petitioner, you may proceed.
`MR. BRIGGS: Your Honor, did you need a hard copy of the
`demonstratives?
`JUDGE PARVIS: I do not.
`MR. BRIGGS: Okay.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you.
`MR. BRIGGS: Good afternoon. Again, I'm Heath Briggs, law firm
`Greenberg Traurig. With me is co-counsel Steve Ullmer. If it please the
`Court, Petitioner would like to cut right to the chase and address the key
`disputes between the parties as we see it but Petitioner is happy to discuss
`any issues that the panel would like and in any order.
`Slide 5, please. So in Petitioner's view there are four key disputes
`between the parties. The first is whether Patent Owner's use of the word
`apparatus in its preamble distinguishes over the prior art cited by Petitioner
`in this case. The second key dispute is whether the prior art discloses
`displaying the original video stream to the users. The third dispute is
`whether the prior art discloses the spatially matching limitation of the claims
`and the fourth dispute surrounds the Supreme Court's SAS decision, this
`patent's IPXL claims and the Board's statutory requirement under 318(a) to
`address all challenged claims in this final written decision.
`Slide 6, please. So key dispute No. 1 as I mentioned relates to the
`apparatus preamble of Patent Owner's claims and whether that word is
`sufficient to distinguish over the prior art cited in the petition. It is not
`sufficient.
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`Slide 7, please. In essence Patent Owner's argument is that its
`apparatus is limited to a single unitary device or what I like to call the
`package. Everything's packaged into this device. This is evidenced by
`Patent Owner's testimony as here and Patent Owner's briefing on the subject
`in this case.
`Slide 8, please. But Patent Owner's argument is wrong for several
`reasons. First and foremost, that the claim does not limit the device to a
`single device. In fact, multiple devices are listed in the claim. So we can
`see here an image capture device, an image display device, a data entry
`device, so the argument that a single unitary device is required is expressly
`denied by the plain language of the claims. The claim also requires an
`external memory device, external, so the claims apparatus is not limited to a
`single unitary device or the package. Patent Owner's argument is also
`incorrect because it asks this Board to read limitations from the specification
`that are not actually in the claims, while terms such as hand held, portable,
`stand alone, are recited in the specification of the 591 patent they are
`nowhere in the body this claim.
`Slide 9, please. And in fact the approach offered by Patent Owner here
`has been already denied in the case of In re Walter that we cited in our
`briefing where there the Patent Owner, as of here, asked that their apparatus
`claims be limited to a unitary device in a physical location sense and CCPA
`said that's not how this works. We are asked to read limitations into the
`claims which are not here, and that's exactly what Patent Owner's asking this
`panel to do in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`Slide 11, please. In reality it doesn't matter whether the word is
`apparatus or system. They are the same thing for purposes of determining
`patentability in this case. That is recognized in In re Walter and other cases
`on the subject. In fact, Patent Owner cites no authority that a patent has ever
`been allowed or granted or upheld when plainly using the word apparatus
`over prior art systems. So Patent Owner's contention on this point is wrong.
`Slide 13, please. I'd like to now move to the second key dispute
`between the parties which is whether limitation 1B is disclosed by the prior
`art. This limitation requires an image display device displaying the original
`video. This is what I like to call Patent Owner's walled off argument in that
`the users are walled off from ever seeing the original video, even though
`they are selecting who they want to replace in that original video.
`Slide 14, please. So this is figure 1 of Sitrick. On the right hand side
`is the edited video. There's no dispute that that edited video is displayed to
`the users. The dispute surrounds around whether the program video 120 is
`displayed to the users.
`Slide 15, please. And for purposes of clarity there is no dispute that
`the program video of Sitrick is the same thing as the original video stream of
`the limitation 1B. 17, please. And it's clear from Petitioner's briefing that
`Sitrick discloses user select portions of the predefined audio visual
`presentations. So portions, if you're going to select a portion you view it.
`That's the natural reading of Sitrick and this is confirmed by our
`experts, slide 18, please, who explained in his initial declaration and again in
`his supplemental declarations why Sitrick discloses this limitation and Patent
`Owner has never actually taken on our arguments on paragraph 13 of Sitrick
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`and why, if you're going to select a portion, you would view the video.
`Patent Owner skirts the issue, they never take it on, so this means that our
`argument is now left unaddressed and unrebutted and we should win on the
`facts then.
`Moving on to Senftner, slide 20 please. Similar to Sitrick, in the
`petition we cited figure 10 which shows a computer and a requester sitting at
`that computer who requests content in the video library to personalize. I'm
`going to request content, I'm going to personalize it.
`Next slide, please. As also recited in the petition, the user looks at
`that content and selects a target in the original digital video to be replaced by
`a target replacement. Again, natural reading, I'm sitting at a computer, I get
`the original video, I look at it so I can make the target selection.
`Slide 22, please. And again, Petitioner's expert's testimony on this is
`they're saying that this is the natural reading of the reference. You look at
`the video if you're going to make a selection and Petitioner's expert has
`never been cross-examined in this case so his testimony is left unchallenged.
`Slide 23, please. The next key dispute between the parties is the
`spatially matching limitation of the claims. Patent Owner disputes that
`Sitrick and Senftner disclose this limitation.
`Slide 24, please. But Patent Owner admits that spatially matching is
`known in the art. Slide 25, please. And this is just another example of
`Patent Owner admitting that spatially matching is done and may be done in
`a variety of well-known ways.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Is spatially matching performed by the digital
`processing unit in Petitioner's view?
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`MR. BRIGGS: In Petitioner's view, the prior art of Sitrick and
`Senftner the computers perform the spatially matching operation. That's our
`view.
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: So in claim 1 the digital processing unit does the
`functions, for example, of spatially matching; is that correct?
`MR. BRIGGS: Correct.
`JUDGE PARVIS: And what structure other than unit is recited in
`claim 1, for example, for performing this function?
`MR. BRIGGS: Can we put claim 1 up, please? It's Exhibit 1001.
`JUDGE PARVIS: I think it's one of your first slides also.
`MR. BRIGGS: This is slide 6, and we're sorry for the very small text,
`but this is also Exhibit 1001, column 7, lines 14 through 54 approximately.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Yes. So --
`MR. BRIGGS: So the question was, Your Honor, what structure is in
`the digital processing unit?
`JUDGE PARVIS: What structure is recited in claim 1 other than the
`word unit for performing the functions, for example, of identifying,
`extracting, storing, spatially matching, all the functions?
`MR. BRIGGS: I understand, Your Honor. The structure for
`performing those particular operations are not recited in the claim.
`JUDGE PARVIS: So if the only structure there is recited in claim 1,
`to the extent there's any structure, is unit?
`MR. BRIGGS: As far as Petitioner can tell, yes.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Okay. Thank you.
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`MR. BRIGGS: You're welcome. We're at slide 26, I believe.
`Regarding Sitrick, the Board has already found that Sitrick explicitly
`discloses the transforms that align a set of pixels in a spatial domain and
`Patent Owner has never addressed this argument in any of its briefing. It
`skirts the issue, goes to another paragraph or this or that and the other thing,
`but never takes on this argument that Sitrick's transforms align the pixels and
`set it in the spatial domain.
`Slide 28, please. And the same thing applies for Senftner. In Senftner
`we recited in the petition various paragraphs including this one that says you
`match up the two images and a substantial match occurs when the
`personalized video presents a convincing illusion that the new actor was
`actually presented when the video was created. If you're going to align two
`images in a spatial domain to achieve a substantial match, that is aligning
`pixels in a spatial domain and, again, Patent Owner has no arguments to the
`contrary on this particular topic. So, again, Petitioner's argument in the
`petition is left unrebutted.
`And the final item, Your Honors, we'd like to discuss today on our
`side is, slide 34, please, is the IPXL indefiniteness of the claims and SAS,
`and how it relates to all the grounds and claims that Petitioner asked to
`challenge in the original petition and those grounds are listed here. Claims
`1 through 4 and 11 request to be invalidated.
`Slide 31, please. Petitioner asks this panel to do exactly what was
`done in Vibrant Media. In Vibrant Media very similar to the situation here,
`IPXL claims but they reached the decision of 102 and 103 based off the
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`ability to construe the claims for patentability purposes as opposed to
`infringement purposes and we asked the Court to do the same thing here.
`Slide 32, please. And this approach has not only been endorsed by
`one PTAB panel, it's also been endorsed by the Federal Courts. I know this
`is an old case but it's cited by the Vibrant panel, In re Collier, CCPA case
`says you can reach the determination of obviousness even though the claims
`are indefinite. In Petitioner's view that is the course of action that should be
`taken by this panel in view of SAS and the requirements under the statute
`that all claims be addressed regarding patentability.
`Slide 37, please. Under SAS if for some reason the panel believes
`that they're unable to do, despite the IPXL indefiniteness of the claims, reach
`the patentability decision in 102, 103, you have to say so in the final written
`decision under SAS and Section 318.
`If there are no further questions, Petitioner would like to reserve --
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Counsel, before you sit down let's go back to
`the personalized video point.
`MR. BRIGGS: Okay.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: And let's see if there's a particular slide of
`yours, well what I really want to go to is the petition. So at pages 19 to 20 of
`the petition where you have the image display device displaying the original
`video stream limitation, this is with respect to Senftner, ground one. You
`say Senftner at column 21, lines 6 to 8, where it says the personalized video
`may then be presented to user 650 by means of display device and then the
`next sentence in the petition says figure 10 also shows a computer 670 with
`a monitor that may be used to display the original video data stream, and so I
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`just want to understand because for ground one there is an anticipation
`allegation and an obviousness allegation and at least when I look here at
`what's cited for Senftner it doesn't explicitly appear to disclose displaying
`the original video data stream. The explicit disclosure seems to be about
`displaying a personalized video and then there seems to be an additional
`argument, maybe this is the obviousness allegation, that the display device --
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the display device
`could be used to display the original video data stream too.
`So what exactly is Petitioner's contention with respect to this
`limitation? Are you still relying on anticipation saying that Seftner
`explicitly discloses the image display device displaying the original video
`data stream?
`MR. BRIGGS: Your Honor, that is our position that the reference
`discloses it and it's not just this short paragraph here. Claim 1 is very long
`and we have a whole story that we told as you go through claim 1 how the
`reference meets all of the limitations. In the interest of space this is a
`paragraph on how the image display device displays the original video
`stream. We thought it was pretty self-evident that when you're going to
`select that you're going to see this original video stream. Patent Owner has
`now contested that. We provided rebuttal evidence why that is true that the
`user selects the -- when the selecting is done the user looks at the video.
`That's the natural read of it, so it's our opinion that the reference still
`discloses the limitation even though this says figure 10 also shows a
`computer. This is in the context of the whole read of claim 1 where we set it
`up with the preamble and why you do the selecting and why Seftner wants to
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`personalize videos. It just makes no sense that you're never going to view
`the video if you want to personalize it.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: I agree that that's true. I was just curious, so is
`there somewhere else in the preamble analysis that cites to a portion of
`Senftner that explicitly discloses a display device displaying the original
`video stream?
`MR. BRIGGS: So I would like to turn to page 16 through 17 which
`does relate to the preamble and it talks about how images that target actor
`are replaced and substantial matching. Again, to complete the analysis of --
`just give me a second, Your Honor.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Sure, no hurry.
`MR. BRIGGS: I'm going to go back to slide 21, Your Honor. So
`slide 21 relates to our disclosure to page 27 of the petition where you do the
`selecting and also relates to Dr. Delp's declaration where he discusses why,
`if you're going to do the selecting, you know you're viewing the video so,
`again, the story of claim 1 as we told is that you view it when you do the
`selecting and the record evidence for that is at different portions of it. This
`is also cited at page 16 of our petition where we cite Exhibit 1006 at 241 to
`51 when explaining how you do the target replacement, and again at page 17
`of our petition in the footnote, Exhibit 1006 at 241 to 46.
`So the story here we told relative to claim 1 is you've got a computer,
`the user sitting at the computer, they're going to make a selection. The
`person of ordinary skill in the art reading that knows that you're going to be
`seeing the video. That the reference doesn't say you see the video explicitly
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`does not mean it's not disclosed. The person of ordinary skill in the art reads
`the reference and knows it's disclosed.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: So here's my trouble. In the petition you didn't
`say anything about inherency but it sounds more of a little bit like an
`inherency argument.
`MR. BRIGGS: It's not an inherency argument, Your Honor. We
`believe a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the reference knows that
`the person or people are viewing videos.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. BRIGGS. You're welcome.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: The other question I had related to the first
`point about the system apparatus and you cited a Federal Circuit case,
`actually a CCPA case In re Walter, and I haven't had a chance to read that
`case in detail yet, but my question is was there anything specific about the
`use of the term system or apparatus in that specification that made the
`decision idiosyncratic to that patent at issue in that case, and likewise is
`there anything, you know, does the spec in the 591 patent use the word
`apparatus in a kind of idiosyncratic way that would make In re Walter not
`apply?
`MR. BRIGGS: It is okay if I deal with your second question first,
`Your Honor?
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Yes, sure. Any order.
`MR. BRIGGS: The 591 specification makes no specific claims that
`apparatuses are special. They have a system diagram as figure 1. They say
`apparatus can be used but there's nothing special about the word apparatus in
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`the specification of the 591 patent. In Walter it was seismic -- they were
`doing seismic testing and this is 1968 and computers were new back then,
`and so they went to try and patent their algorithm that related to how you do
`seismic testing and they had method claims that were rejected under 101 and
`they had apparatus claims that were rejected on other grounds and in doing
`that decision they said there's nothing in the body of your claim that limits
`this device in the physical sense the way you want us to read it and we can't
`do that here, and it doesn't matter in view of the prior art then. Does that
`answer your question?
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Yes, I think it does. Thank you.
`MR. BRIGGS: Okay.
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: And then so my final question relates to the
`point about spatial matching and Patent Owner had argued in their Patent
`Owner response, not the supplemental Patent Owner response but the
`original corrected Patent Owner response, that Sitrick wouldn't have
`rendered this limitation obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art
`wouldn't have understood that the various transforms disclosed in Sitrick
`result in two areas that would have equal length and width, and that was, I’m
`reading from page 26 of the corrected Patent Owner response, and they cited
`I think Dr. Prieto's testimony at the end of the paragraph there. It spans over
`to page 27 of the Patent Owner response. I know you addressed it in your
`reply and said that it was unsupported by evidence but I just want to give
`you a chance to address that here at the hearing. I'd like to hear it in your
`own words.
`MR. BRIGGS: What's the question, Your Honor? I'm not quite sure.
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: So why would a person of ordinary skill in the
`art have understood what -- those transforms that Sitrick discloses -- why
`would a person of ordinary skill in the art have understood those to result in
`equal lengths and widths?
`MR. BRIGGS: A couple of things on that, Your Honor. The purpose
`of Sitrick, again as we told in the story of our claims is to how to target
`replacement exactly to replace the original actor and I'm just going to quote
`paragraph 9 of Sitrick right now.
`"There is a resulting need for an entertainment system that facilitates
`realistically integrating a user's image into a video or audio visual program."
`If you have that goal in mind and if you want to realistically replace,
`and the first image has one side and you can replace that first image with a
`second image, you want it to be the same size otherwise it doesn't look
`realistic. So that's what we're saying.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you. I have no further
`questions.
`JUDGE PARVIS: I have one other question relating to the Vibrant
`Media case.
`MR. BRIGGS: Yes.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Is there anything in the prosecution history that
`Petitioner is pointing to to say that something in the prosecution history
`should assist us in reading claim 1 as a method or an apparatus or we can
`interpret it either way?
`MR. BRIGGS: So you're asking about the prosecution history --
`JUDGE PARVIS: Yes.
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`MR. BRIGGS: -- of the 591 patent?
`JUDGE PARVIS: Yes.
`MR. BRIGGS: There's not. It went through several rounds and the
`last round it went in and was allowed, so we don't really know from the
`examination what the Patent Examiner was thinking or why certain claims
`had certain meanings because it was just a brand new claim set, but that was
`allowed after the final decision.
`JUDGE PARVIS: But Petitioner's position is that the prosecution
`history is not helpful to us (indiscernible)?
`MR. BRIGGS: That's our position.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. BRIGGS: Thank you.
`JUDGE PARVIS: No further questions?
`JUDGE MCMILLIN: No, Thank you.
`MR. CAREY: May I proceed, Your Honor?
`JUDGE PARVIS: Yes.
`MR. CAREY: Good afternoon everyone. I'm John Carey on behalf
`of the Patent Owner. I'm mainly going to be addressing the legal authorities
`that we believe are applicable to this proceeding and my colleague, Mr.
`Wilson, I'll turn it over to him and he'll be addressing for the most part the
`prior art references that are at issue in the proceedings.
`But before I begin and just because it's fresh in everyone's mind I
`wanted to follow up on Judge Clements' question to Petitioner about the
`claim limitation in claim 1 for the display device displaying the original
`video data stream. It's first of all important to just realize this was a claim
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`limitation that's not in claim 11, it's in claim 1 and of course it's incorporated
`in the claims that are dependent on claim 1 but this limitation is not present
`in claim 11 and so the original Institution decision in this case didn't analyze
`this limitation.
`This only has come up in the supplemental briefing and when we
`look, as Judge Clements did properly so, to the petition to see what is
`Petitioner saying about how this limitation is supposedly met, here's what we
`find on pages 19 and 20 of the corrected petition. There's a citation here to
`Senftner at column 2, lines 37 and 39 and Your Honors will notice when you
`read that citation it does not even say what's been quoted. That's totally off
`point and doesn't get them anywhere on this limitation.
`Then we transition to the next allegation which is that the
`personalized video is presented to the user by means of a display device.
`Okay. Well here we do have a display device and we've got it playing a
`personalized video but the limitation in question requires the display of the
`original video data stream. Claim1 of the 591 patent has three distinct video
`data streams, the original, the user input and the edited. The edited is the
`resulting edited one that includes the replacement image. That corresponds
`to this personalized video in Senftner which they're talking about in their
`petition at page 20.
`That's the personalized video. That's not the original video. The
`undisputed claim construction in this case -- all right, undisputed -- we have
`an undisputed claim construction for the original video data stream. In fact,
`they have a slide on it, I think it's slide 96. But I can tell you what it is. It's
`original video data stream is stipulated by the parties to have the following
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`claim construction: a sequence of images that is to be modified. That is to
`be modified. So that's what you start with and that's what you want to
`change. Once you change it, that's your personalized video in the words of
`Senftner or in the words of the 591, that's your edited stream. All right.
`The only disclosure in Senftner, the only display device that exists in
`Senftner that is taught in Senftner is the display device for the personalized
`video that's already been edited. There is no disclosure of a display device
`with that original stream, and there's a reason for that. Mr. Wilson, if he has
`time will get into it more because Senftner is a very different system. It's a
`back end system for post-processing mainly movies. The inventor is a
`Hollywood person. But in the event, we pointed this out to them. We said
`in our supplemental reply which was the first time this limitation was active
`in this proceeding. We said well the personalized video of Senftner, that's
`not the original stream and, in effect, conceding that what they put in the
`corrected petition does not disclose this limitation, they come in on
`supplemental Petitioner reply where Dr. Delp now has a new theory for how
`this limitation is allegedly met and what he says is in his supplemental reply
`very recently submitted, he says oh, well, if Senftner displayed a
`personalized video that didn't include any replacement images, for example,
`Senftner didn't replace anything, then the output would be the original. That
`is what he shifted to once we pointed out that the personalized video
`disclosure of Senftner does not correspond to the original video data stream.
`But unfortunately, for Dr. Delp at least, that doesn't fly because the
`original video data stream is, again, we've stipulated claim construction is
`the sequence of images that is to be modified. If you don't modify it with
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`

`

`IPR 2017-01188
`Patent 8,650,591 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
`
`the replacement, then it's not an original video data stream and so under Dr.
`Delp's last gasp theory that if we display a video that hasn't been changed, it
`sa

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket