`U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORP., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 8, 2019
`__________
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`JOSHUA M. RYLAND, ESQ.
`of: Calfee, Halter & Griswold, LLP
`The Calfee Building
`1405 East Sixth Street
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114
`216-622-8437
`jryland@calfee.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`MICHAEL W. DE VRIES, P.C.
`of: Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, California 94104
`213-680-8590
`michael.devries@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, February 8,
`2019, commencing at 3:00 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`3:30 p.m.
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: And we're back on the record.
`We're here for case number IPR 2018-00176, Patent No. 6,591,111.
`Hytera Communications is the Petitioner, Motorola Solutions is the
`Patent Owner.
`I believe this is our third and final hearing for the day with the
`parties. I'll dispense with most of the preliminary issues, you have
`60 minutes per side. You can reserve time for rebuttal for the
`Petitioner, and I will try to keep track of the time up here.
`Petitioner, please make your appearances.
`MR. RYLAND: Josh Ryland, Calfee Halter, representing
`Petitioner Hytera, and with me is my colleague, Josh Friedman.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Welcome. And Patent Owner?
`MR. DE VRIES: Thank you very much, Your Honors. My
`name is Mike De Vries from the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis,
`representing Patent Owner here, Motorola Solutions.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you. Parties may begin.
`MR. RYLAND: I'm sorry?
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Petitioner may begin.
`MR. RYLAND: Thank you. I'm going reserve 25 now.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`MR. RYLAND: Maybe try to even beat that. I realize
`that we're at the end of the day, a long day and a lot of patents, so I'm
`going to try to move pretty quickly today.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: We will certainly try to do our best to
`help you with that.
`MR. RYLAND: I know that there's nothing between Friday
`night and everybody in this room but the '111 patent, but this one
`should move pretty quickly. I think this one has been crystallized
`pretty well by the parties.
`This is also a departure from the other two. While the '991
`and '284 were on the minutia of time slots and things like that, with
`the '111, we're going to go big, and that's really all the '111 patent
`does. Josh, if you could turn to slide 2.
`The idea behind the '111 patent is, it takes known networking
`components and networks them together to make a bigger network,
`and that's the essence of obviousness. These are all known
`components, they put it together to expand the scope, and the patent
`flatly admits that actually, for most of the components that are in the
`claims, the claim elements, those are admitted prior art, and for the
`very few that are still in dispute at this point in time, we believe that
`the prior art cited adequately obviates the remaining claim elements.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`Now, if you look at figure 1, and it's eerily similar to the one
`we just looked at in Ganucheau, both Motorola patents, but in contrast
`to what we discussed earlier where there were satellites beaming
`things down across the globe, really what is claimed in the claims at
`issue today are Claim 1, Claims 6 and 7, Claims 11, 12, and 13, and
`Claims 15 and 16. None of those require satellite interaction or
`anything Star Wars-esque like figure 1.
`What it is -- and Josh, if you could turn to slide 3 -- you look
`on the right side there, the patent tells you exactly what it's doing. It
`takes an existing packet-switched network and couples it with an
`existing group of radio sub-networks or sub-network, and in this case
`of at least two, and it makes a bigger network. And that is what
`we're talking about being the essence of obviousness here.
`Next slide, please. Now, if we were combining known
`components in getting something unique, novel, unexpected,
`something like, that would be perhaps a better situation for Motorola,
`but in this instance, all we're really doing is taking known networks
`and patching them together to do exactly the same thing the known
`networks do. We just get an expanded point-to-multi-point
`communication network.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`And as the patent also admits, point-to-multi-point
`communication has long been practiced. So again, we have more
`evidence of admitted prior art in what these claims cover.
`If you could turn to slide 4.
` I'll go into a little bit of overview, but again, I know that
`we're at the end of the day here, and I really, really want to cut to the
`chase. There are two independent claims at issue, and there are
`really three issues left in those independent claims.
`Claim 1 is the system claim, and at this point in time after the
`sur-replies and everything else that we've received in this case, the
`only real dispute that I can say between the parties is whether the last
`claim element, the radio sub-network controllers configured to resolve
`conflicts in the radio sub-network is present in the prior art or not.
`We obviously believe that it is; in fact, clearly disclosed in the prior
`art. And so that's going to be a focus for Claim 1.
`And with respect to Claim 13, it's simply the routing and
`converting elements, and that's really it. I mean, we will talk about a
`little bit of the dependent claims that are what I would consider the
`design choice claims because they talk about overlapping or non-
`overlapping, and there's really only two options in those instances, but
`we're going to boil down today to whether or not conflict resolution
`exists, and whether or not routing and converting exists in Claim 13.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`Next slide, Josh, if you could go to slide 8, please. I'll cut
`through some of this.
`The other issue that we'll discuss in the context of '111 today
`that at least seems to persist into the sur-reply from Motorola is this
`incompatible communication protocol. Again, this is one of those
`ones that we call a design choice. I either have a compatible
`protocol or I don't, and a system designer has many, many options for
`that. And beyond that statement, incompatible or overlapping
`networks, there's absolutely nothing in the patent that describes what
`that would be other than the word incompatible.
`Can we go to the next slide, please, slide 10?
`So the brief background on what is claimed in the '111, and
`again, I'll move through this quickly because this is really hard for
`Motorola to dispute. It talks about a first and second radio sub-
`network configured to implement point-to-multi-point
`communications. Well, that is known. The patent admits it's
`known.
`If you look at column 3, lines 12 through 15, radio sub-
`networks may be provided by substantially -- and you're going to hear
`this word a lot today because the patent uses it a lot -- conventional
`radio sub-networks, which are configured, and these conventional
`sub-networks are actually very important because Motorola's patent
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`gives an example of what an acceptable or conventional radio sub-
`network is, and it's the iDEN-branded network that they sell.
`This is critical when you take a look at both the Stubbs
`reference and the Grube reference, which, incidentally, is another
`Motorola patent. Both of those disclose the basic building blocks of
`those communication networks as being the iDEN system.
`Next slide, please.
`The next component that's claimed in both Claim 1 and
`discussed in other claims is the group controller. The group
`controller was construed by the court, and I don't think the parties
`have any dispute as to what that construction was from managing
`point-to-multi-point communications and the actual structure in the
`system itself is incredibly simple. It's a computer. So, again, this is
`very conventional stuff that's being combined together for a
`conventional result.
`Next slide, please.
`Next thing in the list is the packet switched communication
`network. As you can see by the highlight on the slide, patent at
`column 4, lines 28 and 29 discloses far from the big satellite system.
`It can be the Internet, and I don't think that Motorola is going to claim
`that they had anything to do with inventing the Internet. In fact, I
`think I saw the hall of fame standup in the lobby today. In the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`inventor hall of fame gift shop, there's a cardboard cutout of the
`pioneer for TCP/IP, so I don't think that's going to come up.
`Next, please.
` Now, we're going to get into the last two components where
`most of the action seems to be after depositions and after the reply and
`sur-reply process.
`Converters are just that. There is not much meat on those
`bones when it comes to the '111 patent. The converters do one thing:
`they convert stuff from the radio sub-networks in a way that the
`packet switched network can read it, and vice versa.
`It's a converter, and as Mr. Davies, the expert from Hytera in
`this case -- and I believe this is uncontroverted -- is that the converter
`and controller are disclosed as being basic and generic components.
`Next slide, please.
`And then lastly, and probably where a lot of the fun today and
`perhaps some of the questions will come from is the conflict
`resolution piece in Claim 1, and that applies only to Claim 1 in this
`case, and that's where we're having our dispute.
`But conflict resolution in and of itself is nothing new and
`novel. In fact, the iDEN system and the manual for the iDEN system
`that's disclosed as a radio sub-network talks about conflict resolution
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`or prioritization, and you're probably going to see probably two or
`three words in conjunction with conflict resolution.
`The concept is simple; who gets priority on a call? And
`you'll see conflict resolution, you'll see arbitration, and in this instance
`it's prioritization for emergency calls. But the idea that someone can
`break in when there's more than one call, and there's a system or a set
`of rules or some priority established is actually known and known
`long before the '111 patent.
`Next slide, please.
`In fact, the real action here is where conflict resolution occurs.
`In this patent, the '111 and Claim 1 it talks about conflict resolution,
`particularly in Claim 1 at the radio sub-network level. That too was
`known in the art, and we're not talking about a terribly heady concept.
`That's actually the Kent reference, which is combined with Stubbs
`here, but Kent discloses decentralizing conflict resolution.
`If you've got a network, you can place conflict resolution at
`various points within the network, and Kent talks about the benefits
`and the drawbacks of not having a decentralized conflict resolution,
`including bottlenecks or single points of failure, and Kent pre-dates us
`here by about five years on the '111 patent.
`Next slide, please.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`And that's really, as far as an overview, what the problem is
`with the '111. It takes known components, admitted prior art,
`component after component after component, jams them into a big
`claim to get a bigger communication system. It's not a different
`communication system, it's not a better communication system. The
`advantage is, and as described in the patent, to expand the
`communication network, and as KSR tells us, that's the essence of
`obviousness.
`If I take three Legos, and I stack one Lego on top of the other
`Lego and stack another Lego on top of the Lego, I have a bigger Lego.
`I don't have a new kind of Lego.
`So, Josh, if you could skip to slide 18.
`One other topic that I wanted to touch on before we dive into
`what I think are probably the three or four disputed claim elements at
`this point in the case, there's a term that's been used since Motorola's
`preliminary response. It's the hierarchical arbitration topology, and
`that is a term that appears nowhere in the patent. It's not in the
`claims, it's not in the specification; it is a construct that Motorola
`came up with to try to do something to get around the Kent reference
`and the Shepherd reference and those references that showed
`decentralized conflict resolution at the radio sub-network level.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`You'll see -- and these are several of the examples in the
`response on page 46 -- it says, The '111 patent, which requires a
`hierarchical arbitration topology. Well, actually, no, it doesn't.
`And if you can turn to the next slide, please -- Motorola's
`expert confirmed that there is no hierarchical arbitration topology in
`the patent. He sat there and reviewed the patent, couldn't come up
`with it.
`
`Next slide, please.
`The concept of hierarchical arbitration topology is actually --
`it gets more interesting is, what they're trying to do, what Motorola is
`trying to do is salvage their patent. It's to create an obligation, a
`requirement, a claim requirement that there's conflict resolution at the
`radio sub-network and at the group controller level. There's a
`hierarchy of conflict resolution or arbitration.
`Again, that appears nowhere in Claim 1, which is at issue.
`And so we asked Dr. Almeroth, who is Motorola's expert in this
`case, where conflict resolution was required by the group controller,
`and he didn't believe that it was.
`Next slide.
`Asked one more time: So hierarchical arbitration topology
`doesn't require two levels of conflict resolution? He says, I don't
`know that there needs to be a separate level of conflict resolution as
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`opposed to managing communication and facilitating communication
`at the group controller level.
`So as you'll see, the arguments that are being made about
`arbitration, conflict resolution at multiple levels are false. There is
`no requirement that that exists. There's a requirement that a group
`controller manages communication between radio sub-networks as the
`Board construed, and there's a requirement for conflict resolution
`at the radio sub-networks as required in Claim 1.
`Slide 26, please.
`I don't think I'm saying anything controversial or mysterious
`when I say we're going to focus on Stubbs and Kent in this case today.
`It was pretty clear in the institution decision what we should be
`looking at, and in Stubbs, if you could turn to slide 26 -- I was looking
`for a picture of Stubbs. Perfect.
`Stubbs, the sub-network that's disclosed in Stubbs, and the
`second sub-network that's disclosed in Stubbs is actually identified as
`also being an iDEN network or an iDEN backbone, and all that Stubbs
`does is explain exactly what's explained in the '111 patent with the
`exception of a real clear distinction on conflict resolution.
`Stubbs can hook to the circuit switch. It can do virtual
`communications and data, and it puts a layer on top of existing
`communication networks and can expand that network then by
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`communicating with an external -- and it says specifically in the
`patent -- an external packet switched network.
`So the combination there is almost every single component
`that's in the '111, but there needs to be a clear statement with respect
`to conflict resolution for Claim 1, and that's where we get into Kent.
`So, Josh, if you could skip to slide 39.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Actually, before you do that, I just
`wanted to confirm that you are not, in fact, making an inherency
`argument with respect to the BSC in Stubbs.
`MR. RYLAND: An inherency argument as to whether the
`BSC inherently resolves conflict?
`JUDGE BOUCHER: That's right.
`MR. RYLAND: Yes, Your Honor. We are not making that
`argument.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay, thanks.
`MR. RYLAND: But to clarify that, Your Honor, we are
`making the argument that there is a conflict resolution when you
`combine Stubbs and Kent.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Right.
`MR. RYLAND: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I'm
`being clear.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: No, it seemed to me that when your
`expert was cross-examined, he used the word inherent, and it was not
`clear to me that as a technical expert, he intended that in the legal
`sense. But the Patent Owner made a point of highlighting it, and so I
`just wanted to confirm that you are not -- I want it for the record that
`you are not, in fact, making an inherency argument.
`MR. RYLAND: Absolutely, and I do know that Patent
`Owner has highlighted that. I share your view of that, and I don't
`think that he meant the term inherency, but at the same time, that's not
`what our argument was anyway, with respect to Stubbs and Kent
`disclosing conflict resolution at the radio sub-network levels.
`Thank you; I appreciate you clarifying that.
`Pardon me, Your Honor. I've got lots of slides today, but I'm
`trying to skip ahead and get to the best stuff. If you could skip to
`slide 29, or actually slide 34. Perfect.
`We've gone back and forth, Patent Owner and Petitioner here
`on what constitutes, what is the conflict resolution here, and we boiled
`down to, Kent discloses it, and now Motorola states that Kent resolves
`conflict from the network as a whole; therefore, it can't be the
`conflict resolution element at the radio sub-network, and that's a real
`problem here.
`Josh, if you could put up Motorola slide 23.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`While he's doing that, the issue is that Motorola is looking at
`the disclosure in Kent and saying, Well, this resolves the conflicts on
`the whole network, and instead of finding any evidence in the record,
`anything in Kent that shows that that's what's going on, it relies on
`using the predetermined common arbitration scheme.
`It says, Because Kent discloses a predetermined common
`arbitration scheme -- which actually in the Kent patent, there's
`numerous examples, but the one in the embodiment discussed is, First
`Call Wins -- and an arbitration scheme is not the same as the location
`of where arbitration occurs.
`Just because there's a common arbitration scheme in radio
`sub-networks doesn't mean that they don't occur in a radio sub-
`network. If 10 different radio sub-networks used a common
`arbitration scheme, that would mean they would use the same set of
`rules, not that they are located in different spots.
`In fact, this is one of those cases of really good highlighting.
`The portion that's not highlighted talks about where the approach to
`contention arbitration wherein each site interfaced autonomously
`determines which calls should be given priority and contention based
`upon, again, this common arbitration scheme.
`So that's a distinction that I really want to emphasize today;
`that there is a big difference between the rules of arbitration which,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`for example, in the '111 patent they talk about token grants. There's
`first call in Kent; there's also a series of other disclosures in Kent that
`explain other rules that you could apply from emergency priority or
`anything else.
`To be perfectly clear, Claim 1 in the '111 requires a where.
`Does conflict resolution occur at the radio sub-network level; not a
`specific set of rules or a specific scheme be applied.
`One last thing, if you could go back to that for a second.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: What slide are you on?
`MR. RYLAND: I'm sorry, this is slide 34. I just want to
`point this out because we've got a pretty fulsome record here, and
`there's a fair amount of briefing on this recently, and at least in the
`sur-reply and a couple of times stated in the response brief, this
`scheme as a whole, there's no cite ever on the as a whole that appears
`in Patent Owner's briefing.
`They talk about the common arbitration scheme, but they're
`trying to make as a whole a where, a location thing, when the
`common arbitration scheme is the rules that are applied for conflict
`resolution. So that's our key dispute between the parties right now.
`I would say after sur-replies, on Claim 1.
`Josh, if you could go to slide 43, please.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`The second key argument that we have relates to Claim 13,
`and this has gone back and forth and back and forth, and the
`arguments for Motorola have changed several times.
`They now claim that they're in the -- the contention is that the
`routing through the group controller element in Claim 13 is not met by
`Stubbs. The original argument which was in the response and the
`reply was that because the packet handler is responsible for copying
`packets, it's not doing the function required in routing through the
`group controller. But that's exactly what it says a group controller
`does in the '111, and we did the side-by-side so you could see that.
`Now the argument is slightly different. Now the argument is
`that routing occurs only within the radio sub-networks between the
`SSGN in Stubbs and the GGSN, the infrastructure inside the radio
`sub-network, and therefore we are not routing through the packet
`handler.
`This argument is, again, a mischaracterization of the reference,
`and I just want to briefly show you -- Josh, if you could show me page
`15 and 16 of the Stubbs reference -- there is certainly encapsulation,
`decapsulation, conversion occurring at the radio sub-network level,
`but at the same time, what Motorola is arguing and what it ignores is
`that pages 15 and 16, if you start at the bottom of page 15 on line 15,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`that traces data moving through the entire radio sub-network system to
`where it ends at the packet handler 48.
`And just so everyone's sure and for good measure -- Josh, if
`you could go down to 16, please -- the top of page 16 traces data back
`out from the packet handler out to the radio sub-network.
`So I don't know how we get to the point where data is not
`being transferred through the packet network, through the group
`controller, through and to the next radio sub-network.
`If you could go to slide 48, please.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: Counselor, this is Judge Fishman.
`Just to clarify, you were referring to the original page numbers, not
`the exhibit page numbers?
`MR. RYLAND: I'm sorry. Yes, yes, I was. I'm sorry.
`That was the original page numbers on the Stubbs reference. If you
`need, I can look up when Opposing Counsel's going if you need the
`exhibit numbers for the --
`JUDGE FISHMAN: I have it, thank you.
`MR. RYLAND: Perfect, thank you. The last claim element
`in dispute in Claim 13 is the converting element. It's really, are we
`converting -- actually, Josh, if you could go back to slide 5. I just
`want to make sure that everybody can read the actual claim language.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`Converting said point-to-point monolog into packets for
`distribution through said packet switched network. What Patent
`Owner is arguing at this point in time is that the monolog is something
`other than a monolog. It has to be voice. It has to something
`different, and the patent doesn't give it those metes and bounds. In
`fact, its expert agrees -- and Josh, if you could go back to slide 48,
`please -- with respect to Claims 6 and 7, conversion has to be voice to
`data. Motorola's expert concedes, No, I don't see those specific
`words.
`With respect to the point-to-point monolog that's discussed in
`13, it's your opinion that a point-to-point monolog requires voice? I
`don't see that requirement in the claims. So Motorola's initial line of
`argument that a voice needs to be converted into packet data is
`incorrect, according to their own experts.
`The second line is that because there may be packet switching
`in the radio sub-network itself, there can't be any conversion for the
`external packet switched network, which appears nowhere in the '111
`patent.
`
`In fact, their own expert concedes that you can have -- and
`Josh, if you could turn to slide 53, I believe -- Motorola's expert
`concedes that you can have packet-switched radio sub-networks and
`still have a radio sub-network.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`The fact is, that conversion occurs in the Stubbs patent, and
`there may be data packets being used in the radio sub-network, but
`there's an extensive discussion of conversion in the GSM, the GSM,
`and at the SSGN, there's a conversion to send data across the radio
`sub-network, a conversion at the GGSN to prepare the data and put it
`in a format that can be used in the external, and it's clearly an external
`as described, packet-switched network.
`So that leaves us with the last dispute under Stubbs/Kent,
`which is -- if you could turn to slide 59, please -- Motorola is arguing
`-- and these are for the dependent claims -- that they are not
`incompatible protocols disclosed. And what an incompatible
`protocol is has been changing throughout this case for them.
`But to be clear, Stubbs reference does talk about two
`incompatible protocols as admitted by their expert. It says, The
`embodiments in mobile terminal 700, and this is Stubbs reference at
`page 27, lines 4 through 7, that the mobile terminals can operate with
`both a virtual connection mode and GPRS or a conventional circuit
`switch mode.
`And when asked -- Josh, would you take me to the next slide -
`- would a conventional analog and a packet-switched network be
`incompatible protocols, Motorola's own expert concedes, I think that
`would be a good example.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`Now, when it comes to the sur-reply, there's some at least
`dispute as to what is compatible and what is incompatible, and what
`does that mean, because the Stubbs reference references a GPRS
`backbone or GPRS infrastructure.
`I'm going to refer, and this again is going to be the page
`number of the actual reference, not the exhibit, I'm sorry, Your Honor;
`this is page 30 of the Stubbs reference. The argument that Motorola
`is trying to make is that because something requires a GPRS
`infrastructure is that it can't have anything but a single protocol, and
`the GPRS protocol is not limited to a single protocol.
`And at the end of the Stubbs disclosure and the specification,
`it talks about GSM-type systems, and it gives several examples of
`different protocols that could be used, including the UMTS and the
`SC standard.
`I think I'm going to be pretty close to my 25 minutes here, so
`let me see what I can do to get through this a little quicker. If you
`could turn to slide 61. Thank you so much.
`The motivation issue here has really boiled down to two
`salient points. There is motivation that was disclosed that was in the
`initial institution decision. They are, at least with respect -- and I'm
`going to talk about Stubbs/Kent right now, since that's what the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`institution decision focused on -- Stubbs discloses an iDEN network.
`An iDEN network is also what is disclosed in the '111.
`Kent discloses the conflict resolution and the
`decentralization of the conflict resolution. There is structural
`similarity between the structures doing the radio sub-network conflict
`resolution in Kent and the structures that are disclosed in Stubbs.
`And given all that, the two arguments that are being raised
`now are -- and if you could turn to slide 66 -- frankly, they're both
`unavailing. First, Motorola relies on the hierarchical arbitration
`topology which, as we discussed earlier, is not a requirement in the
`patent. It is not a requirement of Claim 1, and therefore to say that
`the references would teach away from something that's never in the
`patent to begin with would be incorrect, and we don't believe that
`argument is appropriate.
`The second -- Josh, if you would turn to slide 68, please -- is
`the incompatibility argument that was raised in the echo chamber with
`their experts. In their response brief, they claim that the systems in
`Kent and the systems in Stubbs were incompatible, but there's no
`evidence to support that.
`There's a statement that is almost verbatim in the declaration
`and in their response that says that these are incompatible. In the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`reply that Petitioner filed, our expert, Mr. Davies, made clear that that
`is not the case.
`If you could, slide 71, please.
`This is Mr. Davies' opinion in the reply, that there was nothing
`that would prevent implementing the arbitration scheme in a multi-site
`trunked radio frequency communication network and combining it
`with the GSM/GPRS system.
`Notably, Motorola did file a sur-reply, and there was nothing
`else on this. They didn't add a declaration, nor did they seek to
`depose Mr. Davies on this issue. So we believe that this is
`uncontroverted, and at this point in time, the incompatibility argument
`is without any factual support.
`Two quick points, and I realize that I'm jumping around here,
`but I'm trying to make sure that we get through a few things and can
`use some time to discuss anything that Patent Owner has to say.
`On Grube and Shepherd, this wasn't part of the institution
`decision, but we believe that Grube and Shepherd also invalidates all
`of the challenge claims in the '111 patent. You may or may not hear
`argument today from Opposing Counsel on this, but the key is, with
`the Grube patent, their key argument is that it violates the court's
`claim construction with respect to the radio sub-networks, the first and
`second radio sub-network need a controller.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`Their interpretation of that is that every time there is a radio
`sub-network, they have to have a radio sub-network controller, which
`is not what the claim construction is. The claim construction is a
`first and second radio sub-network, and each of the first and second
`radio sub-networks have a radio sub-network controller.
`Grube discloses that and more. There are at least two radio
`sub-netwo
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
