`U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MASABI LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BYTEMARK, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`____________
`
`Oral Hearing Held: August 22, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, NEIL T. POWELL, and BARRY L.
`GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DOUGLAS P. LALONE, ESQUIRE
`THOMAS E. DONOHUE, ESQUIRE
`Fishman Stewart PLLC
`39533 Woodward Avenue, Suite 140
`Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
`
`JENNIFER MEREDITH, ESQUIRE
`Meredith & Keyhani PLLC
`125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor
`New York, New York 10017
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, August
`
`22, 2018, commencing at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Good morning. Please be seated. We'll go
`off the record for just a minute while we get our computers to wake up.
`(Discussion off the record)
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: This is a hearing in IPR 2017-01449. I ask
`
`each party to make their appearances officially for our transcript. We'll start
`with the Patent Owner and then Patent Owner can sit down and when the
`Petitioner comes up, you can begin iour argument.
`
`And Petitioners, when you get up, you'll have an opportunity to
`reserve rebuttal time. So, if you'll let us know what rebuttal time you would
`like. Patent Owner, you have a motion to exclude some evidence. If you'll
`want to argue that during your time, you can save rebuttal time only on the
`motion to exclude where you have the burden; and then they can address
`that; and then you can, after the final say, if you want to reserve some time;
`and if you want to address it in the hearing.
`
`MS. MEREDITH: I can make it easy. I was going to just rest on the
`papers for that. I want to take all the time for the prior art.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Take the podium to make your appearance,
`and then we'll ask Petitioner to come up to the podium.
`
`MS. MEREDITH: I'm Jennifer Meredith from Meredith & Keyhani
`for Patent Owner, Bytemark, Inc.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Petitioner?
`
`MR. LALONE: Good morning, Your Honor. My name is Douglas
`Lalone, for Petitioner, Masabi. My colleague, Mr. Thomas Donohue, will be
`arguing the papers 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
`25
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Would you like to reserve any time for
`
`rebuttal?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to reserve 20
`minutes.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Each side, as we had a conference call on
`Monday to go over just some of the basic ground rules. As we explained in
`that call, each side will have 60 minutes. The timer should let you know
`when you will get your signaled time. I'll try and remind you. You can see
`the yellow light go on; and you can proceed whenever you'd like. One thing
`that I'd like you to do is, if you're going to use some of your demonstrative
`slides, as you refer to them, make sure you identify them sufficiently for the
`transcript, so that the transcript knows what slide you're on, and when we
`look at the transcript a month from now, we'll be able to figure out what
`slide you've pointed out. So with that, you can begin when ready.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court,
`I'd direct them to start at slide 1 which is just an overview of what we are
`hoping to accomplish today.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Also to remind you, we have a complete
`record, electronically, in front of us on the screen, so, at least for me, from
`time-to-time you'll see me looking at the screen. I also have all your
`demonstratives in front of me with notes. So, if I'm not looking at you, it
`doesn't mean I'm checking my emails or doing something like that, it's just
`I'm looking at the record on the screen rather than on the big screen.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Thank you. So, anyway, let's go back -- what our
`approach today is going to be, just give an outline of our general case and
`what's going on. We believe that the nature of both the '967 Patent
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`specification and claims, as well as the prior art, does not need nor is it
`justified to give the undue complexity that sort of been thrown into both this
`IPR and in the attempt at understanding the claims and what's going on.
`
`So, for the first part, we'd like to just give a general overview, even
`though I'm sure you're all aware of patent and prior art of what our
`understanding of basics of what's happening in these patents; what they're
`directed to; the nature of the claims; and the nature of their disclosure to sort
`of pierce through the lengthy verbiage, without accurately portraying what
`they're doing, but to try to simplify it because we don't believe this case
`deserves the in depth analysis interpretation that it appears to be headed
`towards.
`
`We'll discuss the central three claim construction issues we believe are
`more at the heart of the anticipation positions and the anticipation defense on
`behalf of the Paten Owner; and we believe that these three issues if, you
`know, sort of taken and resolved correctly, will drastically simplify both
`what we're looking at, as well as the ability to, you know, pierce through
`what the disclosures are both in the '967 Patent as well as these prior art
`references.
`
`We will, hopefully, show to you, establish that the claims for the '967
`Patent are properly put forth by the Petitioner as being anticipated by Terrell,
`Cruz, and Dutta references; and we will attempt to show that the positions
`on claims 2 and 19 were sort of top level asserted in the Petition with, what
`we believe is adequate support, can be clarified to the point that it really
`does make it clear of what's going on. Because, again, we believe this is
`more of a case of reading and attempting to add complexity where none is
`deserved.
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`So, if we could go to slide 2. For an overview of the '967 Patent and,
`
`again, we do realize you're aware of the contents here; but the '967 Patent
`specification claims, despite apparent complexity, really are directed
`towards the simple process of validating a ticket of a user on a mobile device
`after the time when the electronic ticket was purchased. This claim system
`is very simple and is an electronic ticketing system that displays a visual
`validation display element, which is simply an element that the ticket taker
`can look at and have some reliability or indication of a ticket's validity to let
`you into an event.
`
`So, when a user purchases the ticket, the unique number referred to as
`a token in the '967 Patent, it's sent to the user device, and that same token is
`stored in the ticketing database. In the '967 Patent sets an explicitly plea
`(phonetic) in column 2, lines 45 to 48. They talk about the purchase on a
`website -- in the process of purchasing, it assigns a unique number to the
`ticket; sends one to the mobile device and one to the servers shown in the --.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's the same unique number, right? It
`sends one to the mobile device and one to the server? It's the same number?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: That's the way that particular discussion in the '967
`Patent says. It says you buy it; it generates a unique number; it sends that
`number to the mobile device; and sends it to the database. So, the clear
`discussion there is yes, it's the same token. When a user goes to activate the
`ticket in the '967 Patent, they request an activation. The token that was sent
`to the mobile device is now sent back to the server system. It then,
`according to the language of the '967 Patent, matches the token that was sent
`back to that stored in the database -- which logically makes sense -- it's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`comparing and if they are the same and they match, then it turns around and
`authorizes and delivers the visual validation ticket to the mobile device.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And that in your slide, I think, what that
`visual (inaudible) delivers the visual validation? Is that your understanding
`of what is referred to as the ticket payload?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Yes.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: The bottom two boxes in slide 2 on the left
`side?
`MR. DONOHUE: Yes.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Would it be incorrect to try and simplify? So,
`
`when we're talking about the token --
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Yeah.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- there's one on the mobile device, the same
`one is there, is there essentially a password so that when the mobile device
`user wants to now access their ticket and validate it, they were given what I
`might say, overly simplify as a password. They don't know what it is; but
`that's what the token is. They send that password back to the server; the
`server says you've got the right password; I'm going to send you the
`validated ticket, which is the ticket payload.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: You can use that. Loosely, it's -- my only
`hesitation with that is the general descriptor is throughout the process
`between Masabi and Bytemark, there's been a long history of a loose
`definition of what the token is; and is it the password to log in; is it some
`sort of user ID, so when I attach it, you know, it looks me up in the database
`and finds this. The reality is under the language of the '967 Patent, if you
`want to use the term password, it's fine; but the reality is when you log in
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`and request a ticket and it sends this ticket back, it's a value that is
`representative of that particular ticket -- maybe that seed (phonetic) may be
`what it is -- because in reality, the user will have -- if it's an even mildly
`successful system -- multiple tickets on there for multiple events, or multiple
`trips. When you go to select one, it's not an opt to say, you know, its Tom
`Donohue; it's not an opt to say this is Tom Donohue's phone. It's a ticket-
`specific identifier.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: I understand; it's not a user password; the user
`doesn't select it. The system picks some random number that it assigns to
`that ticket;
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Yeah.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- and then it sends it to the user and just
`when you're ready to ask for your ticket or when it's time to ask for us to
`validate it or to download the ticket payload --
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- we're going to use that token number?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And if it doesn't match the same number that's
`in our system, we're not sending you the ticket?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: In a similar vein -- if you go to slide 9, Doug -- the
`Terrell reference that we rely on is a very similar process. It is a ticketing
`system directed towards the delivery of electronic tickets to a mobile device.
`When the user seeks to activate the ticket, the mobile service requests begin
`from the server, validation of a particular ticket having a specific ticket
`number. When that is validated, it, in return, delivers the ticket package. It
`
`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
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`sends back the ticket package that includes ticket data that includes high-
`readable data for inspection purposes.
`
`So, in the large scale, top of the line, it is contacting the server;
`picking a specific ticket that needs to be identified. Terrell talks about
`validating that request and returning, essentially, a visual validation object
`for inspection of the ticket taker.
`
`Can we go to slide 12? Cruz, again, is disclosing an electronic
`ticketing system that discusses, essentially, modular tickets where tickets are
`sent in more than one portion to the user; so it's not necessarily delivered all
`to you at once, but it comes in modular sections. Yet, again, refers to a user
`seeking a validation by sending a request to the server, which is in paragraph
`90 of Cruz. In checking that data, compared to historic data, results in the
`putting together a ticket data object 403 that can include optically or
`visually-recognizable patterns and send that to the mobile device, which is in
`paragraph 61 of Cruz.
`
`So, again, Cruz, like Dutta, and the '967 Patent are all about,
`essentially, delivering this visual confirmation or validity element back to
`the phone after a request from the mobile device you're using that identifies
`the ticket in some fashion.
`
`And finally, Dutta -- if you want to go to slides 10 and 11. Dutta,
`again, is directed towards an electronic ticketing system that responds to a
`redemption request that by identifying the electronic ticket under column 7,
`lines 62 to 66, by returning a rapid-verification object which includes scrap-
`filled (phonetic) elements for human recognition.
`
`If you want to go to the next slide? Sorry, slide 11. And, obviously,
`there's animations, there's indications. This is, again, something merely
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`delivered to the mobile device in order to get some indication of validity to
`the ticket taker; and these are commonly used, and often used, in what we
`call low-cost fare situations like buses, trains, subways; wherein the value of
`the ticket itself isn't such that it justifies the complex network of scanning
`and having each ticket scanned and confirmed digitally by the server that
`this is the one and only use of this particular serial number, and once it's
`registered, it's done. Instead, these are visual indicators of validity that
`allow, without a network connection, people to pass through and for
`relatively low fares everything taken care of just by the visual indication of
`the ticket taker.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, may I ask a question?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Sure.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: In the institution decision you construed digital
`validation displayed object, from your perspective, do we need to
`(inaudible).
`
`MR. DONOHUE: No. Our decision is you do not. We believe that,
`you know, any of these can be tweaked; ours was just slightly different than
`your own; but it's just, essentially, an indicator as you've put forth in yours.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Well, at this point, I don't own a construction, so
`I'm asking you to tell me what the construction is.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Okay; fair enough, thank you. Our proposed
`construction is virtually the same as that adopted by the Board, and we,
`generally, agree with the Board's construction.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Just to reinforce what Judge Cocks said, you
`want to say adopted by the Board; but we don't really have one yet.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Okay.
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: We have a placeholder that was in our
`
`decision to institute under a reasonable likelihood standard because in order
`to decide whether we're going to institute, we have to know what the claims
`mean.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: But for purposes of that first step, we came up
`with a construction, but that's not any construction that we have adopted.
`Now, you have one in your petition; the Patent Owner has a different one --
`had one in their preliminary response; they have a different one in their
`actual response.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And I understand how the references all
`generally do the same thing, the issue is do the references anticipate what's
`claimed in the patent?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right. And to that degree that's why, again, why I
`started out with the concept that these three terms that we've put forth as
`needing construction, or have gone back and forth, really put a box around
`both what we're discussing and what the prior art is; and there we're going to
`want to allow an intelligent and rational decision on anticipation. So, I think
`these are very important. Our original proposed construction was any object
`that is readily-recognizable from human observation. The Board's
`preliminary construction strictly for the purpose of institution was a display
`object that is readily-recognizable from human observation and validates a
`ticket.
`
`One of the issues the Patent Owner had with this was the term -- and
`I'm not speaking for you -- but mentioned in their reply was that the concern
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`was with the human observation and validates. In other words, that there
`was some proactive thing. In line with that, what we would suggest and
`prefer, is a display object that is readily-recognizable from human
`observation and provides an indication of the ticket's validity. And the logic
`behind that is -- as you'll find out as we go into this and we go through our
`full discussion here on claim construction -- is the Patent Owner has started
`to introduce in their construction of addresses (phonetic) new terms
`redefining objects. Now, all of sudden we have verified authenticity rather
`than validates. There's this gigantic discussion of what's valid; what's
`authentic; what's inspected in this attempt to generate all kinds of differences
`where none actually exists. So, our preference is one, to remain as close to
`the Board's initial -- we have no problem with instead of validates, we would
`suggest that gives an indication of validity would be a much more apt
`description of what is actually going on.
`
`And part of that too is any visual object can only give an indication of
`validity. When you digitally scan a barcode or something like that and
`communicate back to the server, you're actually taking an individual number
`or an individual identity from this ticket and comparing it to the server; and
`at the same time -- because you're connected in this way -- you can check it
`off. So, even if it is copied perfectly, at least you can't do it a second time.
`With this visual validation display object you're requesting a ticket taker to
`look and make a judgment based on it -- no matter how complex -- that he
`sees it's valid.
`
`As far as authentication goes, you can't truly authenticate visually if
`it's a pure copy, exact copy -- and with digital technology, you can copy
`colors, pictures, animations, you name it. It's all well within, you know,
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`people's capacity nowadays, which is why these systems, both the prior art
`reference, as well as the '967, utilizes delayed delivery of request to activate
`that you can change or wait to give this visual indicator to the ticket taker at
`a time period where they don't have periods of time to hack the system, or
`copy it, or what have you.
`
`But, at the end of the day, the visual indicator is just that. The visual
`validation display element can only ever amount to an indication of validity
`or an assurance of validity because there is no sort of level of authentication
`that the human can do without actually having referenced the database to see
`that it was actually assigned to this person; it was only used once; etc. So is
`our data, it can only be communicated with specific numbers and interaction
`between server system and that nullifies it.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: So, the nuisance difference between the
`construction and the position to institute that said it validates, and your
`proposed modification is a (inaudible).
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Yes.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's just that all that the visual validation
`displayed object is a picture, or something, something visual?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: An animation or something. And if for some
`reason someone be able to counterfeit that, the ticket taker at the gate will
`see the code visual and will let the person in whether it's a valid ticket or
`not?
`
`
`
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right.
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
`MR. DONOHUE: Yeah.
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: So, it's not technical -- so you're saying we're
`
`not technically from saying valid, technically you're saying that it's an
`indicator that indicates (inaudible)?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right; and the reason why we also went down that
`road is because of the proposed construction elements proposed by the
`Patent Owner; and, basically, they made the assertion in their Paper 19, page
`5, that really the term validation should be authentication because it's really
`authenticating, and valid just means it can -- you know, valid can mean that
`it's authentic or it could mean that it's still operationally good; and something
`can be authentic but invalid; or invalid but authentic -- you know, if the time
`period's up. We think this is, one, it's a bad idea. For one, it's introducing
`authentication term into the language of the patent where the only -- there
`was one precise use of the term authentication in the '967 Patent that had
`nothing to do with the visual validation display element. It was talking
`about authenticating the token as it came back to the server to check whether
`it was any good. The entire rest of the time it uses validation.
`
`And the other reason why we don't think this is a useful direction to
`go down either is it is somewhat immaterial. They've used validities is used
`throughout the Patent; but two, when it comes down to it, when the ticket
`taker is looking at the visual validation to let you in or not, if the visual
`validation is accurate, it means it's a valid ticket to get in, which implies that
`it's still good and it gives enough indication of validity that it thinks it's
`authentic. If it's expired -- even the '967 Patent talks about disabling the
`visual validation display object. So, the fact is if it's there, it works both
`functions. Is the ticket good is the essential question, you know, which
`
`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
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`includes both a time and a period as well as, you know, a time period where
`it should be activated, as well as some assurance that it is not a counterfeit.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: I want to ask you a question about your
`suggested proposed modification in your reply on a token?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Yeah.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Everybody agrees in the first part of the
`definition that it's displayed and is readily-recognizable from human
`observation. And then you add the phrase, and provides an indication. Is
`what you're saying is it's the display object that provides the indication?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Yes.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's not something different than the display
`object?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: No.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Right. So, I'm trying to make sure as in all
`claim construction, you're looking for precision of what the claims actually
`mean; and so when you say and provides an indication, it's really and the
`display object that's referred to in the first part of that sentence that provides
`the indication; it's not something different? And I ask because, for example,
`Terrell used up two indicators -- he includes a visual indicator and an
`electronic indicator.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And it gives you the option of using a barcode
`reader or not.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And it's on the same page (phonetic); and that
`
`is different from a construction -- so that provides an indication of the
`(inaudible).
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: But you're using a barcode. But what you're
`talking about in your construction, I think, is that it is the display object that
`has two requirements. One is that it's readily recognizable from human
`observation; and the display object also provides an indication of
`(inaudible).
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Correct.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is that correct?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: That's correct. So, the second part that we've
`moved on in the slide to the term token; but before we do that, I'd like to
`stress one more thing that the visual validation display object. Can you go
`back one? So, the second issue that I'd just like to briefly address is this
`addition of recently secured so as to avoid piracy. That is unsupported; and
`we don't believe that this moves forward any intelligent interpretation of
`what is or what is not a visual validation display object, not for the least of
`which is the '967 Patent has no metes or bounds to give any indication of
`what it is to be reasonably secured so as to avoid piracy; and that can arrange
`from all these simply delivering it in a contemporaneous manner from the
`request to activation so you don't have it at any time. Is that reasonably
`secured? It's not encrypting it on the way; it just is we don't believe that it's
`necessary or productive.
`
`We're going to move onto the next slide.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: When you say not necessary or not supported,
`
`in anything by the specification?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Both. I mean, you know, that there is a brief
`mention of, you know, that the visual validation object can be or should be
`recently secured in one sentence, but it doesn't provide that as a basis for
`reading that into the term visual validation from a product's reasonable
`standard., or product's reasonable construction, as used in the claim or the
`rest of the specification. So, because of the fact it has vague language, I
`would argue it's also not supported properly either to give anyone a concrete
`idea of what is actually being claimed if that's put into the claim
`construction.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: The claim construction -- where we switched
`the token --
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Yeah.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- is exactly where you were going. Is there
`anything in the District Court litigation where they construed these claims
`that we should know about?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: The claims --
`
`MR. LALONE: I'm not sure I can add anything to that; I'm not sure.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: I'm not recalling at the moment. I don't believe so.
`Certainly, these claim constructions, either one proposed -- but, actually, I
`shouldn't say that -- the original proposal -- well, actually, I'm looking at the
`wrong one, that's why -- no, the court's, Plaintiff's construction, original
`construction, Petitioner's proposed construction are all what were set forth,
`lodged more or less -- you know, I can't promise word-for-word, but more or
`less -- a look in the Eastern District of Texas, the newly proposed
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`construction is not anything that has been come up or addressed, to my
`knowledge, in the Eastern District case.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: I mean I like to say, you know what's
`proposed when you're talking about the Patent Owner's --
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Yes.
`
`JUDGE GRIMES: -- (inaudible) proposed that's on your slide
`number 5?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Yes.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And because I ask if these things -- you also
`have a (inaudible) proposed, which is in your reply.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Yes; that is true; fair enough; thank you, Your
`Honor. Moving to token, slide number 6, the Petitioner reasserts that the
`construction of token -- their construction or our construction, sorry -- is the
`most broadest reasonable construction; and that is an electronic information
`that represents a ticket. It's essentially a placeholder. It's in line with the
`common usage of the term token, meaning something that's an impression or
`representation of something else, which Dr. Sigurd's declaration and support
`of our reply, Exhibit 1018, paragraph 40 supports.
`
`The '967 Patent also provides different examples of tokens within the
`specification that include "the unique number" or a number related to seating
`information, which is in the '967 Patent, paragraph 39. And, again, I won't
`go through, we just talked about it; you know, the website -- it talks about
`the website sending the unique number referred to a token to the mobile
`device in column 2, 45 to 48; and it says each seat has a data record that has
`an unique show identifier and a ticket token, which includes the identity of
`the seat itself, which is in column 5, 13 to 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
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`We believe the broad meaning of token is appropriate in this case as a
`
`representative value. We disagree with both the Patent Owner's original
`proposed construction and we vehemently disagree with the Patent Owner's
`latest proposed construction.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: What about the placeholder construction -- I'll
`call it -- in the decision to institute that we used where we assigned a
`function to the word token where we said it is electronic information that
`causes validation of the purchased ticket. Now, that sort of maybe you
`looked into it for what it does once it's in a process of validating --
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- that's the payload.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's how it's used; and I understand that is a
`functional thing that we put in there. In your proposed construction, it's just
`a random number, it's just any kind -- random, unknown indicator -- that the
`computer knows but nobody else knows what it is. What it's used for at that
`point might be irrelevant to its -- maybe to find in other clauses of the claim
`-- but the function of the token -- you're separating the function of the token
`from what the actual token is. It's just some electronic information.
`
`MR. DONOHUE: Right. I would argue it doesn't necessarily even
`mandate that it's, you know, unknown. You know, there's plenty of ways of
`delivery. It could be, you know, it doesn't have to be some, you know. It is
`a representative number; it represents a particular ticket; it represents, you
`know, what was purchased, etc. And, so, of course, keeping it from public
`view would be beneficial, but for the broadest reasonable definition of token,
`I'm not sure it, necessarily, requires that it be "unknown." There are plenty
`
`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
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Appeal IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`of methodologies of delivering it in a fashion that could be known and yet
`not accessible by the individual to fool the system.
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: The only thing that we require it being known
`(inaudible). If it's said in the claim that a token -- I'm sorry, the server --
`over whether the wording that was in the specification so as we're looking
`through the correct instructions of the token, based on the specification,
`whether the specification says. Are you aware; is there anything in the
`specification that refers to the token as an unknown?
`
`MR. DONOHUE: No; yes. No, I am not aware of any. The closest, I
`think, the Patent Owner might come back with this in one embodiment they
`talked about it being a randomly generated value. T
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
