Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 72
`Date: December 26, 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Patent of PROXYCONN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case No. IPR2012-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`____________
`
`Held: November 18, 2013
`____________
`
`Before SALLY G. MEDLEY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and MITCHELL
`G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOHN D. VANDENBERG, ESQUIRE
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`One World Trade Center
`121 Southwest Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon 97204-2988
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GREG W. MEYER, ESQUIRE
`BRYAN K. WHEELOCK, ESQUIRE
`Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
`7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
`St. Louis, Missouri 63105
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, November
`18, 2013, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`- - - - -
`
`J U D G E G I A N N E T T I : O k a y , g o o d m o r n i n g ,
`
`17
`
`e v e r y o n e . W e ' r e h e r e f o r o u r f i n a l h e a r i n g i n t h e s e c a s e s ,
`
`18
`
`a n d , C o u n s e l , m a y I h a v e y o u r a p p e a r a n c e s , f i r s t f o r t h e
`
`19
`
`p e t i t i o n e r ?
`
`20
`
`M R . V A N D E N B E R G : Y e s , g o o d m o r n i n g , Y o u r
`
`21
`
`H o n o r , J o h n V a n d e n b e r g o f K l a r q u i s t S p a r k m a n f o r
`
`22
`
`p e t i t i o n e r M i c r o s o f t C o r p o r a t i o n , a n d w i t h m e i s i n - h o u s e
`
`23
`
`c o u n s e l , S t a c e y K w a n , f r o m M i c r o s o f t C o r p o r a t i o n .
`
`24
`
`J U D G E G I A N N E T T I : G o o d m o r n i n g a n d
`
`25
`
`w e l c o m e . P a t e n t o w n e r ?
`
`26
`
`M R . C U T L E R : G o o d m o r n i n g , Y o u r H o n o r ,
`
`27
`
`M a t t h e w C u t l e r f o r p a t e n t o w n e r P r o x y C o n n , I n c . , a n d
`
`28
`
`w i t h m e i s m y c o l l e a g u e , B r y a n W h e e l o c k f r o m H a r n e s s
`
`29
`
`D i c k e y , a n d G r e g W . M e y e r f r o m H a r n e s s D i c k e y a s w e l l .
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`1
`
`J U D G E G I A N N E T T I : G o o d m o r n i n g . A n d w e
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Good morning. And we
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`\DOOQGUl-PUJNr—t
`[\JNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tNHOOOOQONUI-PUJNHO
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`p u t o u t a n o r d e r a b o u t t h e o r d e r o f p r o c e e d i n g t o d a y . T h e
`put out an order about the order of proceeding today. The
`
`p e t i t i o n e r w i l l s t a r t f i r s t . Y o u e a c h h a v e a n h o u r . T h e
`petitioner will start first. You each have an hour. The
`
`p e t i t i o n e r w i l l s t a r t f i r s t , f o l l o w e d b y p a t e n t h o l d e r . Y o u
`petitioner will start first, followed by patent holder. You
`
`c a n e a c h r e s e r v e t i m e f o r r e b u t t a l . T h e r e b u t t a l o f t h e
`can each reserve time for rebuttal. The rebuttal of the
`
`p a t e n t o w n e r w i l l b e l i m i t e d t o t h e m o t i o n t o a m e n d , b u t
`patent owner will be limited to the motion to amend, but
`
`y o u a r e e x p e c t e d t o a d d r e s s i n y o u r i n i t i a l t i m e .
`you are expected to address in your initial time.
`
`A n y t h i n g f u r t h e r , a n y q u e s t i o n s b e f o r e w e
`Anything further, any questions before we
`
`p r o c e e d ?
`proceed?
`
`M R . V A N D E N B E R G : N o , Y o u r H o n o r , i f I m a y ,
`MR. VANDENBERG: No, Your Honor, ifI may,
`
`I w o u l d l i k e t o h a n d u p , I h a v e c o l o r p r i n t o u t s o f o u r
`I would like to hand up, I have color printouts of our
`
`d e m o n s t r a t i v e E x h i b i t 1 0 2 8 , w h i c h i s b a s i c a l l y t h e s l i d e
`demonstrative Exhibit 1028, which is basically the slide
`
`d e c k t h a t I h o p e t o g o t h r o u g h t o d a y , i f I c o u l d h a n d u p
`deck that I hope to go through today, if I could hand up
`
`t h r e e c o p i e s .
`three copies.
`
`J U D G E G I A N N E T T I : T h a t ' s f i n e , w e ' v e a l r e a d y
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: That's fine, we've already
`
`s e e n i t , w e h a v e l o o k e d a t i t f r o m y o u r s u b m i s s i o n , b u t i f
`seen it, we have looked at it from your submission, but if
`
`y o u w a n t t o h a n d u p c o p i e s , t h a t ' s f i n e .
`you want to hand up copies, that's fine.
`
`M R . V A N D E N B E R G : I d o n ' t p l a n o n p r o j e c t i n g
`MR. VANDENBERG:
`I don't plan on projecting
`
`o n t h e s c r e e n , s o I w a n t e d y o u t o h a v e t h e p a p e r c o p y .
`on the screen, so I wanted you to have the paper copy.
`
`T h r e e c o p i e s .
`Three copies.
`
`J U D G E G I A N N E T T I : T h a n k y o u ,
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Thank you,
`
`22
`
`M r . V a n d e n b e r g .
`Mr. Vandenberg.
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`1
`
`M R . V A N D E N B E R G : A n d c o u n s e l f o r p a t e n t
`MR. VANDENBERG: And counsel for patent
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`\DOOQGUl-PUJNH
`[\JNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tUJNr—KOOOOQONUI-PUJNr—KO
`
`o w n e r h a s c o p i e s o f t h e s a m e . I w o u l d l i k e t o r e s e r v e 3 0
`owner has copies of the same.
`I would like to reserve 30
`
`m i n u t e s .
`minutes.
`
`J U D G E G I A N N E T T I : S o , y o u ' r e s t a r t i n g a t
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So, you're starting at
`
`1 0 : 0 5 . S o , t h a t w i l l b r i n g y o u t o 1 0 : 3 5 , M r . V a n d e n b e r g ,
`10:05. So, that will bring you to 10:35, Mr. Vandenberg,
`
`a n d y o u m a y p r o c e e d w h e n y o u ' r e r e a d y .
`and you may proceed when you're ready.
`
`M R . V A N D E N B E R G : T h a n k y o u . M a y i t p l e a s e
`MR. VANDENBERG: Thank you. May it please
`
`t h e B o a r d , I p l a n o n g o i n g t h r o u g h v e r b a l l y t h e p o i n t s t h a t
`the Board, I plan on going through verbally the points that
`
`w e h a v e o u t l i n e d i n o u r s l i d e d e c k , b u t , o f c o u r s e , I ' m
`we have outlined in our slide deck, but, of course, I'm
`
`h a p p y t o a d d r e s s a n y q u e s t i o n s t h e B o a r d h a s o n a n y o f t h e
`happy to address any questions the Board has on any of the
`
`g r o u n d s t h a t w e h a v e a s s e r t e d , a n y o f t h e c l a i m s , a n y o f
`grounds that we have asserted, any of the claims, any of
`
`t h e p r i o r a r t a s s e r t i o n s .
`the prior art assertions.
`
`T u r n i n g t o o u r s l i d e d e c k , w h i c h i s E x h i b i t 1 0 2 8 ,
`Turning to our slide deck, which is Exhibit 1028,
`
`a n d s l i d e n u m b e r 2 , j u s t a n o v e r v i e w , t h e p r i o r a r t t h a t w e
`and slide number 2, just an overview, the prior art that we
`
`a r e a s s e r t i n g h e r e r e a l l y d o e s a d d r e s s t h e s a m e p r o b l e m
`are asserting here really does address the same problem
`
`a n d p r o v i d e s t h e s a m e s o l u t i o n . S o , w h a t w a s t h e
`and provides the same solution. So, what was the
`
`p r o b l e m ?
`problem?
`
`S o , t h e p r o b l e m i s , i f y o u h a v e s o m e s o r t o f d a t a
`So, the problem is, if you have some sort of data
`
`o b j e c t , c o u l d b e a f i l e , c o u l d b e s o m e t h i n g e l s e , a n d y o u
`object, could be a file, could be something else, and you
`
`h a v e a l o c a l c o p y o f t h a t s t o r e d , p e r h a p s c a c h e d , s o y o u
`have a local copy of that stored, perhaps cached, so you
`
`h a v e a l o c a l c o p y c a c h e d o f t h e d a t a o b j e c t , b u t t h i s d a t a
`have a local copy cached of the data object, but this data
`
`o b j e c t i s d y n a m i c . I t ' s a n o b j e c t t h a t c o u l d c h a n g e i n s o m e
`object is dynamic.
`It's an object that could change in some
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`r e m o t e l o c a t i o n .
`remote location.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`1
`
`T a k e , f o r i n s t a n c e , m y s l i d e d e c k . I ' m f r o m
`Take, for instance, my slide deck.
`I'm from
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`\DOOQGUl-PUJNH
`#UJNr—KOOOOQONUI-PUJNr—KO
`
`[\JNNNNHr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`O r e g o n ; m y s l i d e d e c k m a s t e r v e r s i o n o f t h e s l i d e d e c k i s
`Oregon; my slide deck master version of the slide deck is
`
`b a c k i n o u r o f f i c e s i n P o r t l a n d . L e t ' s s a y I ' m w o r k i n g o n
`back in our offices in Portland. Let‘s say I‘m working on
`
`i t i n t h e h o t e l h e r e i n D . C . , a n d l e t ' s s a y c h a n g e s a r e b e i n g
`it in the hotel here in D.C., and let's say changes are being
`
`m a d e t o i t . I h a v e a l o c a l c o p y o f i t o n m y l a p t o p , a n d t h e
`made to it.
`I have a local copy of it on my laptop, and the
`
`q u e s t i o n i s , y o u k n o w , h a s i t c h a n g e d ? H o w d o I k n o w
`question is, you know, has it changed? How do I know
`
`t h a t t h e c o p y I h a v e o n m y l a p t o p i n t h e h o t e l i s u p t o
`that the copy I have on my laptop in the hotel is up to
`
`d a t e ?
`date?
`
`A n d , o f c o u r s e , o n e c o u l d j u s t d o w n l o a d i t a g a i n
`And, of course, one could just download it again
`
`e v e r y t i m e y o u w a n t t o u s e i t , b u t t h a t c o u l d r i s k
`every time you want to use it, but that could risk
`
`r e d u n d a n t t r a n s m i s s i o n s o f t h e e x a c t s a m e d a t a . S o , t h a t
`redundant transmissions of the exact same data. So, that
`
`w a s t h e p r o b l e m . L o c a l l y c a c h e d c o p y o f d y n a m i c d a t a ,
`was the problem. Locally cached copy of dynamic data,
`
`y o u w a n t t o k n o w h o w d o I k n o w i t ' s u p t o d a t e , w i t h o u t
`you want to know how do I know it's up to date, without
`
`h a v i n g u n n e c e s s a r y r e d u n d a n t t r a n s m i s s i o n s .
`having unnecessary redundant transmissions.
`
`T h e s o l u t i o n , a s s e t f o r t h i n s l i d e 2 , w a s t h e
`The solution, as set forth in slide 2, was the
`
`s a m e i n P e r l m a n , i n Y o h e , i n D R P , a n d i n S a n t o s , a n d t h e n
`same in Perlman, in Yohe, in DRP, and in Santos, and then
`
`i n t h e ' 7 1 7 , a n d I ' v e l i s t e d t h o s e i n c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r .
`in the '717, and I‘ve listed those in chronological order.
`
`A n d t h e s o l u t i o n w a s f o r t h e s e n d e r , s a y m y o f f i c e b a c k i n
`And the solution was for the sender, say my office back in
`
`P o r t l a n d , t o , i n s t e a d o f s e n d i n g t h e e n t i r e d a t a o b j e c t , t h e
`Portland, to, instead of sending the entire data object, the
`
`e n t i r e s l i d e d e c k , i t s e n d s a d i g e s t .
`entire slide deck, it sends a digest.
`
`F o r i n s t a n c e , a n M D 5 h a s h . I t s e n d s t h a t t o m e
`For instance, an MD5 hash.
`It sends that to me
`
`i n m y h o t e l . M y l a p t o p , m y r e c e i v e r , i n D . C . , t h e l o c a l
`in my hotel. My laptop, my receiver, in D.C., the local
`
`r e c e i v e r , t h e n c o m p a r e s t h a t d i g e s t o f t h e s l i d e d e c k t o t h e
`receiver, then compares that digest of the slide deck to the
`
`24
`
`d i g e s t o f t h e s l i d e d e c k t h a t I h a v e o n m y l o c a l c o p y . I f
`digest of the slide deck that I have on my local copy.
`If
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`i t ' s a m a t c h , t h e n I k n o w t h e s l i d e d e c k i s u p t o d a t e a n d I
`it‘s a match, then I know the slide deck is up to date and I
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`\DOOQGUl-PUJNr—t
`[\JNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tUJNHOOOOQONUI-PUJNHO
`
`c a n u s e i t . I f t h e r e ' s n o t a m a t c h , t h e n o b v i o u s l y I a s k f o r
`can use it.
`If there's not a match, then obviously I ask for
`
`t h e m a s t e r c o p y t o b e s e n t . A n d i n s o m e i t e r a t i o n s , I m a y
`the master copy to be sent. And in some iterations, I may
`
`b e m o r e f i n e - t u n e d a n d g e t a d i g e s t f o r e a c h p a g e o f t h e
`be more fine-tuned and get a digest for each page of the
`
`s l i d e d e c k , d o t h e c o m p a r i s o n , a n d r e a l i z e t h a t o n l y s l i d e 3
`slide deck, do the comparison, and realize that only slide 3
`
`h a s c h a n g e d , a n d t h e r e f o r e I a s k f o r s l i d e 3 a n d s l i d e 3 i s
`has changed, and therefore I ask for slide 3 and slide 3 is
`
`d o w n l o a d e d t o m e .
`downloaded to me.
`
`S o , t h a t ' s t h e s o l u t i o n t o t h e p r o b l e m , t h a t ' s t h e
`So, that‘s the solution to the problem, that's the
`
`s o l u t i o n t h a t M r . G o l d s t e i n s u g g e s t e d i n h i s p a t e n t , b u t
`solution that Mr. Goldstein suggested in his patent, but
`
`t h a t a l l o f t h i s o t h e r p r i o r a r t h a d s u g g e s t e d e a r l i e r . A n d
`that all of this other prior art had suggested earlier. And
`
`t h i s i s e x p l a i n e d i n D r . L o n g ' s d e c l a r a t i o n , h i s f i r s t
`this is explained in Dr. Long's declaration, his first
`
`d e c l a r a t i o n , a n d h i s s e c o n d d e c l a r a t i o n i n s u p p o r t o f t h e
`declaration, and his second declaration in support of the
`
`p e t i t i o n s .
`petitions.
`
`S o , t u r n i n g , p l e a s e , t o s l i d e 3 , t h i s i s t h e c h a r t
`So, turning, please, to slide 3, this is the chart
`
`t h a t o u t l i n e s e a c h o f o u r p r o p o s e d c h a l l e n g e s t o - - o r e a c h
`that outlines each of our proposed challenges to -- or each
`
`o f o u r c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e c l a i m s , a n d I ' v e i d e n t i f i e d t h e f o u r
`of our challenges to the claims, and I've identified the four
`
`g r o u p i n g s t h a t I h o p e t o f o c u s o n t o d a y . W e a s k t h e B o a r d
`groupings that I hope to focus on today. We ask the Board
`
`t o c a n c e l e a c h o f t h e c l a i m s o n e a c h o f t h e g r o u n d s t h a t
`to cancel each of the claims on each of the grounds that
`
`w e ' v e a s s e r t e d , b u t i f n o t , a t t h e v e r y l e a s t , w e a s k t h e
`we've asserted, but if not, at the very least, we ask the
`
`B o a r d t o c a n c e l t h e c l a i m s o n a t l e a s t t w o g r o u n d s ,
`Board to cancel the claims on at least two grounds,
`
`p r e f e r a b l y a n t i c i p a t i o n a n d o b v i o u s n e s s , f o r e a c h c l a i m ,
`preferably anticipation and obviousness, for each claim,
`
`b e c a u s e w e t h i n k t h a t w o u l d d e c r e a s e t h e c h a n c e s o f a n y
`because we think that would decrease the chances of any
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`r e m a n d .
`remand.
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`1
`
`N o w , t u r n i n g t o s l i d e 4 , t h e i n i t i a l i s s u e i s s o m e
`Now, turning to slide 4, the initial issue is some
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`\DOOQGUl-PUJNH
`#UJNr—KOOOOQONUI-PUJNr—KO
`
`[\JNNNNHr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s u e s . S o , t h e s e a r e c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n
`claim construction issues. So, these are claim construction
`
`i s s u e s t h a t w e r e r a i s e d i n e s s e n c e , o n e w a y o r t h e o t h e r , b y
`issues that were raised in essence, one way or the other, by
`
`t h e p a t e n t o w n e r i n t h e p a t e n t o w n e r ' s r e s p o n s e t o t h e
`the patent owner in the patent owner's response to the
`
`c o m b i n e d p e t i t i o n .
`combined petition.
`
`O u r p o s i t i o n i s t h a t e a c h c l a i m i s a n t i c i p a t e d b y
`Our position is that each claim is anticipated by
`
`o n e o r m o r e r e f e r e n c e s , u n d e r a n y r e a s o n a b l e
`one or more references, under any reasonable
`
`i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e c l a i m , a n d w e s u b m i t t h e p a t e n t o w n e r
`interpretation of the claim, and we submit the patent owner
`
`h a s p r o p o s e d e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y , o r b y a p p l i c a t i o n ,
`has proposed either explicitly, or by application,
`
`u n r e a s o n a b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e s e f o u r c l a i m t e r m s t h a t
`unreasonable constructions of these four claim terms that
`
`w e s e e h e r e .
`we see here.
`
`J U D G E M E D L E Y : C a n I a s k y o u a q u e s t i o n ?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Can I ask you a question?
`
`Y o u h a d m e n t i o n e d t h a t y o u w a n t e d t h e B o a r d t o m a k e a
`You had mentioned that you wanted the Board to make a
`
`d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o e a c h g r o u n d t h a t t h e t r i a l
`determination with respect to each ground that the trial
`
`w a s b a s e d o n , b u t t h e n y o u h a d s u g g e s t e d , p e r h a p s , t h a t
`was based on, but then you had suggested, perhaps, that
`
`y o u w e r e p u r s u i n g t w o g r o u n d s . D i d y o u i d e n t i f y i n a n y
`you were pursuing two grounds. Did you identify in any
`
`o f y o u r p a p e r s w h i c h t w o t h a t w o u l d b e ?
`of your papers which two that would be?
`
`M R . V A N D E N B E R G : T h e g r o u n d s - - w e h a v e
`MR. VANDENBERG: The grounds -- we have
`
`n o t - - w e d i d n o t i d e n t i f y i n a n y o f o u r w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s ,
`not -- we did not identify in any of our written materials,
`
`s h o r t o f t h e d e m o n s t r a t i v e s t h a t w e s u b m i t t e d j u s t a f e w
`short of the demonstratives that we submitted just a few
`
`d a y s a g o , a n d a s w e s e e i n t h e c h a r t o n s l i d e 3 , w e h a v e
`days ago, and as we see in the chart on slide 3, we have
`
`i d e n t i f i e d t w o g r o u n d s f o r m a n y o f t h e c l a i m s , b u t w i t h
`identified two grounds for many of the claims, but with
`
`r e s p e c t t o t h e C l a i m s 6 , 7 , 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 4 , w e w o u l d a s k f o r
`respect to the Claims 6, 7, ll, 12, 14, we would ask for
`
`24
`
`b o t h - - w e ' v e o n l y a s s e r t e d t w o g r o u n d s , s o t h a t w o u l d b e
`both -- we've only asserted two grounds, so that would be
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`a n t i c i p a t i o n a n d o b v i o u s n e s s o v e r D R P , p l u s t h e
`anticipation and obviousness over DRP, plus the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`\DOOQGUl-PUJNH
`[\JNNNNHr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t#UJNHOOooqmm-hmwr—KO
`
`D R P / M a t t i s c o m b i n a t i o n .
`DRP/Mattis combination.
`
`S o , I c e r t a i n l y d o n ' t m e a n t o s a y a n y t h i n g t h a t
`So, I certainly don't mean to say anything that
`
`w e ' r e w a i v i n g a n y o f t h e g r o u n d s , b u t w e u n d e r s t a n d t h a t
`we're waiving any of the grounds, but we understand that
`
`t h e B o a r d m a y c h o o s e t o d e c i d e o n l y w h a t w a s n e c e s s a r y
`the Board may choose to decide only what was necessary
`
`t o d e c i d e t h e m a t t e r , a n d w e w e r e s i m p l y s a y i n g , y o u
`to decide the matter, and we were simply saying, you
`
`k n o w , i f i n t h a t c a s e , i f t h e B o a r d d o e s n ' t r e a c h e a c h
`know, if in that case, if the Board doesn't reach each
`
`g r o u n d , w e w o u l d a s k , f o r p u r p o s e s o f , y o u k n o w , r e m a n d ,
`ground, we would ask, for purposes of, you know, remand,
`
`d e c r e a s i n g t h e c h a n c e o f r e m a n d , t o a d d r e s s b o t h
`decreasing the chance of remand, to address both
`
`a n t i c i p a t i o n a n d o b v i o u s n e s s o n e a c h c l a i m .
`anticipation and obviousness on each claim.
`
`J U D G E M E D L E Y : O k a y , t h a n k y o u .
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thank you.
`
`M R . V A N D E N B E R G : S o , t u r n i n g t o t h e f i r s t
`MR. VANDENBERG: So, turning to the first
`
`c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s u e , a n d t h i s i s s l i d e 5 , s l i d e s 5 a n d
`claim construction issue, and this is slide 5, slides 5 and
`
`6 , o n d a t a a c c e s s . S o , d a t a a c c e s s i s a t e r m t h a t a p p e a r s i n
`6, on data access. So, data access is a term that appears in
`
`m a n y , i f n o t a l l o f t h e c l a i m s , a n d o u r p o s i t i o n ,
`many, if not all of the claims, and our position,
`
`p e t i t i o n e r ' s p o s i t i o n i s d a t a a c c e s s i s a b r o a d t e r m ,
`petitioner's position is data access is a broad term,
`
`e s s e n t i a l l y m e a n s d a t a a c q u i s i t i o n .
`essentially means data acquisition.
`
`T h e p a t e n t o w n e r , P r o x y C o n n , s u b m i t s t h a t t h e
`The patent owner, ProxyConn, submits that the
`
`w o r d " d a t a a c c e s s " e s s e n t i a l l y r e a d s i n a l i m i t a t i o n o f a
`word "data access" essentially reads in a limitation of a
`
`s p e c i f i c o r d e r o f s t e p s , a n d s p e c i f i c a l l y , w h a t t h e y s u g g e s t
`specific order of steps, and specifically, what they suggest
`
`i s t h a t w h e n y o u s e e d a t a a c c e s s , t h a t m e a n s t h a t t h e
`is that when you see data access, that means that the
`
`t r a n s a c t i o n b e g i n s w i t h t h e r e c e i v e r , a n d t h e r e c e i v e r
`transaction begins with the receiver, and the receiver
`
`i n i t i a t e s e v e r y t h i n g , s t a r t s t h e g a m e r u n n i n g w h e n , b y
`initiates everything, starts the game running when, by
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`r e q u e s t i n g t h e d a t a f r o m t h e s e r v e r .
`requesting the data from the server.
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`1
`
`A n d o u r p o s i t i o n i s t h a t i s n o t a r e a s o n a b l e
`And our position is that is not a reasonable
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`\DOOQGUl-PUJNr—t
`[\JNNNNHr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t#UJNHOOooqmm-hmwr—KO
`
`c o n s t r u c t i o n . A s w e s e e i n s l i d e 5 , a t l e a s t w i t h o n e o f t h e
`construction. As we see in slide 5, at least with one of the
`
`e m b o d i m e n t s , t h e e m b o d i m e n t o f F i g u r e 8 , i t i s s h o w n i n
`embodiments, the embodiment of Figure 8, it is shown in
`
`F i g u r e 8 a s b e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e s e n d e r , t h e f i r s t s t e p s h o w n
`Figure 8 as beginning with the sender, the first step shown
`
`i n F i g u r e 8 , i s t h e s e n d e r c a l c u l a t i n g a d i g e s t a n d s e n d i n g
`in Figure 8, is the sender calculating a digest and sending
`
`t h e d i g e s t . S o , t h i s w o u l d b e t h e P o r t l a n d , O r e g o n o f f i c e
`the digest. So, this would be the Portland, Oregon office
`
`m a c h i n e s a y i n g , o k a y , I ' m g o i n g t o s e n d o u t r e g u l a r
`machine saying, okay, I'm going to send out regular
`
`u p d a t e s , f o r i n s t a n c e , t o a l l t h e l a p t o p s , y o u k n o w , t h a t a r e
`updates, for instance, to all the laptops, you know, that are
`
`o u t o n t h e r o a d , a n d t h e s e n d e r i s g o i n g t o i n i t i a t e i t . I t ' s
`out on the road, and the sender is going to initiate it.
`It's
`
`g o i n g t o b e a p u s h , n o t a p u l l t y p e o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .
`going to be a push, not a pull type of implementation.
`
`T h e p l a i n t i f f - - a n d a s w e s e e h e r e , t h e ' 7 1 7
`The plaintiff -- and as we see here, the ‘717
`
`p a t e n t , t h e p a t e n t i n - - t h e p a t e n t a t i s s u e , a t c o l u m n 8 ,
`patent, the patent in -- the patent at issue, at column 8,
`
`l i n e s 3 7 t o 3 9 , s a y s , w i t h r e s p e c t t o F i g u r e 8 , t h a t t h e
`lines 37 to 39, says, with respect to Figure 8, that the
`
`t r a n s a c t i o n m a y a l s o b e g i n w i t h t h e r e c e i v e r s e n d i n g a
`transaction may also begin with the receiver sending a
`
`r e q u e s t .
`request
`
`S o , t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n i s c l e a r t h a t t h i s i s
`So, the specification is clear that this is
`
`o p t i o n a l . W h o s t a r t s t h e t r a n s a c t i o n i s o p t i o n a l . I t m a y b e
`optional. Who starts the transaction is optional.
`It may be
`
`t h e s e n d e r , a s w e s e e i n F i g u r e 8 , i t m a y b e t h e r e c e i v e r .
`the sender, as we see in Figure 8, it may be the receiver.
`
`P a t e n t o w n e r ' s e x p e r t , D r . K o n c h i t s k y , a d m i t t e d
`Patent owner's expert, Dr. Konchitsky, admitted
`
`i n d e p o s i t i o n , a n d t h i s w a s i n h i s t r a n s c r i p t , p a g e 6 9 , l i n e s
`in deposition, and this was in his transcript, page 69, lines
`
`1 5 t o 2 4 , t h a t i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n , t h e s e n d e r m i g h t i n i t i a t e
`15 to 24, that in the specification, the sender might initiate
`
`t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n . A n d a g a i n , a t t r a n s c r i p t 7 1 , l i n e s 8 t o
`the communication. And again, at transcript 71, lines 8 to
`
`2 2 , D r . K o n c h i t s k y a d m i t t e d t h a t i t m a y b e i m p l e m e n t e d a s
`22, Dr. Konchitsky admitted that it may be implemented as
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`a p u s h s y s t e m .
`a push system.
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`1
`
`T u r n i n g t o s l i d e 6 , w e a l s o s e e t h a t C l a i m 1 1 ,
`Turning to slide 6, we also see that Claim 11,
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`\DOOQGUl-PUJNH
`#UJNr—KOOOOQONUI-PUJNr—KO
`
`[\JNNNNHr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`o n e o f t h e c h a l l e n g e d c l a i m s , i s a m e t h o d p e r f o r m e d b y t h e
`one of the challenged claims, is a method performed by the
`
`s e n d e r , a n d i t ' s c a l l e d a m e t h o d f o r i n c r e a s i n g d a t a a c c e s s .
`sender, and it's called a method for increasing data access.
`
`S o , t h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e s e n d e r m a y p e r f o r m a m e t h o d f o r
`So, this indicates that the sender may perform a method for
`
`d a t a a c c e s s . A n d i n C l a i m 1 1 , t h e r e i s n o s t e p o f t h e
`data access. And in Claim 11, there is no step of the
`
`r e c e i v e r i n i t i a t i n g t h e t r a n s a c t i o n .
`receiver initiating the transaction.
`
`A n d , i n f a c t , n o n e o f t h e c h a l l e n g e d c l a i m s
`And, in fact, none of the challenged claims
`
`r e q u i r e s t h e r e c e i v e r t o i n i t i a t e t h e t r a n s a c t i o n b y
`requires the receiver to initiate the transaction by
`
`r e q u e s t i n g t h e d a t a . O n e o f t h e n o n - c h a l l e n g e d c l a i m s ,
`requesting the data. One of the non-challenged claims,
`
`C l a i m 3 2 , d o e s p r o v i d e t h a t t h e c l i e n t r e q u e s t t h e d a t a
`Claim 32, does provide that the client request the data
`
`o b j e c t , a n d l i s t s t h a t a s t h e f i r s t s t e p , b u t t h a t ' s n o t o n e o f
`object, and lists that as the first step, but that's not one of
`
`t h e c h a l l e n g e d c l a i m s .
`the challenged claims.
`
`S o , w e s u b m i t t h a t g i v e n t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n
`So, we submit that given that the specification
`
`s a y s t h i s i s a n o p t i o n a l f e a t u r e , g i v e n t h a t n o n e o f t h e
`says this is an optional feature, given that none of the
`
`c l a i m s r e c i t e i t , g i v e n t h a t o n e o f t h e n o n - c h a l l e n g e d
`claims recite it, given that one of the non-challenged
`
`c l a i m s d o e s r e c i t e i t , i t w o u l d b e u n r e a s o n a b l e t o r e a d i n t o
`claims does recite it, it would be unreasonable to read into
`
`t h e s i m p l e t e r m " d a t a a c c e s s " a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e
`the simple term "data access" a requirement that the
`
`r e c e i v e r i n i t i a t e t h e t r a n s a c t i o n , a s p a t e n t o w n e r a s k s .
`receiver initiate the transaction, as patent owner asks.
`
`T u r n i n g t o s l i d e 7 , t h i s i s t h e s e c o n d c l a i m
`Turning to slide 7, this is the second claim
`
`c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s u e , a n d t h i s i s t h e o n e , t h i s i s o n e t h a t t h e
`construction issue, and this is the one, this is one that the
`
`B o a r d a l r e a d y a d d r e s s e d , a t l e a s t a s a n o n - f i n a l m a n n e r .
`Board already addressed, at least as a non-final manner.
`
`T h e m e a n i n g o f s e n d e r a n d c o m p u t e r . S e n d e r a n d
`The meaning of sender and computer. Sender and
`
`c o m p u t e r a n d r e c e i v e r c o m p u t e r , a n d , y o u k n o w , w e s t a n d
`computer and receiver computer, and, you know, we stand
`
`24
`
`b y t h e i n i t i a l p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t t h e B o a r d i n i t i a l l y
`by the initial proposed construction that the Board initially
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`10
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00026
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Case No. IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`a c c e p t e d , w e t h i n k t h e w o r d " s e n d e r " a n d " r e c e i v e r " d e f i n e
`accepted, we think the word "sender" and "receiver" define
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`\DOOQGUl-PUJNr—t
`[\JNNNNHr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—t#UJNHOOooqmm-hmwr—KO
`
`t h e m