`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROMPTU SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`Case IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`Case IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`Case IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 28, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
`ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JAMES L. DAY, ESQ.
`DANIEL CALLOWAY, ESQ.
`Farella, Braun & Martel
`Russ Building
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JACOB A. SCHROEDER, ESQ.
`JOSH GOLDBERG, ESQ.
`DANIEL F. KLODOWSKI, ESQ.
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`Stanford Research Park
`3300 Hillview Avenue, 2nd Floor
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1203
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, January
`
`28, 2019, commencing at 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE KINDER: Please be seated. All right, good afternoon,
`everyone. I am Judge Kinder, and with me today in Alexandria is Judge
`Jameson Lee, and remote from California is Judge Alex Yap.
`If we could have your appearance. For Petitioner?
`MR. DAY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Day, Farella,
`Braun & Martel, for Petitioner Comcast. I am joined by my partner, Daniel
`Callaway.
`JUDGE KINDER: Okay. For Patent Owner?
`MR. SCHROEDER: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jacob
`Schroeder from Finnegan on behalf of Promptu. And with me at counsel
`table is Cory Bell and lead counsel Joshua Goldberg as well.
`JUDGE KINDER: All right. This is a proceeding for Comcast
`Cable Communications, LLC as the Petitioner, versus Promptu Systems
`Corporation, the Patent Owner. This afternoon we're going to cover IPR
`2018-00342, 343, involving U.S. Patent Number -- it's a reissue, so
`RE44326. And also proceedings IPR2018-00344 and 345, involving U.S.
`Patent Number 7,047,196.
`Before we went off for lunch, I asked the parties to consider
`whether the Board could use transcripts from the morning proceedings in
`some areas where there's overlapping. So I'll ask Petitioner's counsel first
`if -- did the parties reach any agreement?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`
`
`
`MR. DAY: Yes, Your Honor. We agree that the transcripts from
`this morning's proceeding could be used in these IPRs and that the transcript
`from this afternoon could be used in this morning's IPRs. Just to be clear,
`our understanding is that means we can't touch on some topic this afternoon
`just because it was touched on earlier today.
`JUDGE KINDER: That is correct. It's really for our benefit how
`we can write the cases up and what we can cite to. So just for the record,
`this morning's proceedings were IPR2018-00340 and 341. So those are -- so
`the parties have agreed to allow interchangeability for the Board when
`writing up the final written decisions to cite from transcripts from either
`proceeding.
`MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE KINDER: Or either transcript, I should say. Excuse me.
`All right. This afternoon for these four proceedings, I think we've
`given the parties a total of 75 minutes of argument time. The parties may
`allocate that time at their discretion over the four cases, but again, 75
`minutes total. Petitioner will go first. Patent Owner will then have the
`opportunity to respond. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time to respond to
`the Patent Owner arguments, and then the Patent Owner, again, is allowed a
`brief surrebuttal if it decides to reserve time.
`As I mentioned this morning, no new issues or arguments for
`rebuttals, just covering what has already been addressed. And as I
`mentioned this morning, too, Judge Alex Yap is remote, so please mention
`the transcript -- or excuse me, the demonstrative slide number or exhibit
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`number when you're presenting something so he can follow and we can also
`have a clean record of that.
`Are there any questions at this time from either party?
`MR. DAY: No, Your Honor.
`MR. SCHROEDER: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE: All right. Petitioner, how much time would you like to
`reserve for your reply?
`MR. DAY: Your Honor, I'd like to reserve 10 minutes, again,
`reserve whatever time is left of the 75.
`JUDGE KINDER: So I'll split you 65 and 10, approximately.
`MR. DAY: That would be great. Thank you.
`JUDGE KINDER: All right.
`MR. SCHROEDER: Your Honor, we would like to reserve 10
`minutes for our surrebuttal as well.
`JUDGE KINDER: All right. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Day.
`MR. DAY: All right. Good afternoon, Your Honors. This
`afternoon, we're talking about two patents in four different IPRs, it's the '326
`patent and the '196 patent. I'd like to start by talking about the '196 patent.
`It's the earlier issued patent. It's at issue in the 344 and 345 patent
`proceedings.
`Let's talk about this patent. It's based on a different specification.
`It's not related to the patent that we talked about earlier today, the '538. It's a
`different specification. And the '196 patent talks about a method system --
`I'm on slide 3 -- just talking about the abstract. It says system for
`recognizing over a back channel from multiple users, to recognize the voice
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`commands from multiple users in a network attainable over a cable TV
`and/or video.
`The focus here is really on what's happening. The patent refers to a
`wireline node, what's happening at the wireline node. That's the head-end.
`The wireline node would be the head-end.
`And we asserted grounds of obviousness based on Julia as the
`primary prior art reference, also Murdock as primary prior art reference, and
`I'll start with Julia. We talked about Julia earlier today. So I'm now at slide
`6. Here the preamble talks a bit about what Claim 1 is covering. It says,
`they're using a back channel containing multiplicity of identified speech
`channels from a multiplicity of user sites.
`The language is a little bit convoluted, but what it's talking about is
`the back channel, that's the upstream channel in a cable network. It goes
`from the set-top box back out to the head-end. And what it is talking about
`is at the head-end, you're going to receive that upstream channel back
`channel, and over that channel, you can have voice commands coming from
`lots of different set-top boxes. That's what we're talking about.
`Then presenting to a speech processing system at the wireline
`node. That's what's presented to the wireline node for speech processing and
`then this network can deliver television or video.
`We talked earlier today about Julia, it's a voice-controlled TV
`system. On slide 7, we talk or we cite some of Julia where it says per
`alignment well suited for the home entertainment setting, has a voice remote
`control, a set-top box. The signal is sent out to this remote server 108 that
`we talked about earlier, and that remote server 108, we have voice data
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`processed by request to process in legend 300. You take the voice request,
`you apply a speech recognition processing to figure out what it is the user
`asked for.
`And then on slide 8, we cite some of Julia saying once the desired
`information has been retrieved so you understand the request, you retrieve
`what they've asked for, you transmit it back to the set-top box for displaying
`on the display device 112, and shows it to them on their television.
`Again, here on slide 9, we show Figure 1A that we talked about
`earlier, and now it talks about a multiplicity of user sites. Julia explicitly
`says that multiple users have their own claim input device. That's the remote
`control. And so multiple users can send simultaneous voice commands. It's
`not shown in Figure 1A, but Julia explicitly says, even though it's not shown
`there, there can be lots of different, you know, people, like you see in Figure
`1A, all sending their own voice commands simultaneously or otherwise.
`So we get past the preamble and you get to this first element, and
`this is where we have some dispute. The claim starts with a step, receiving
`said back channel to create and receive back channel. And first, what's back
`channel? It's the upstream channel in a cable network. Julia explicitly says
`you can implement this invention in a cable network.
`And our expert in this case is Dr. Schmandt. So the upstream
`channel at 106, that's the back channel. On slide 12, we cite his testimony
`setting out that point. It goes through and says here's how Julia works.
`And let me move ahead a little bit. The dispute here is that Patent
`Owner is saying that this receiving step requires two different things, you
`receive the back channel and then you do this second thing, you create some
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`new thing called receive back channel. And that's not what the claim means,
`and in our reply declaration, Dr. Schmandt addresses why that's not a claim.
`Let me explain.
`What it's saying is you receive the back channel, that's all of these
`voice commands coming over the back channel that are received by the
`remote server, that is the receiving step. And now we're going to refer to
`that as the received back channel, as opposed to some other back channel.
`JUDGE KINDER: So it's more timing. Is that right?
`MR. DAY: I think it's more labeling.
`JUDGE KINDER: Labeling?
`MR. DAY: This is similar, if you look at Claim 7, it has a step --
`it's a dependent claim that has a step of identifying a user to create and
`identify the user. It's really just saying we've identified somebody, now let's
`call them the identified user. What this is saying is, we're going to receive
`all these signals over a back channel and we're going to do this receiving
`step. Now we're going to refer to that as the received back channel.
`JUDGE KINDER: And that's after the receiving step is complete?
`MR. DAY: Yes, yes, exactly. Now, the next step is going to act
`on that thing that we're now calling the received back channel. That's how
`we read the claim. Dr. Schmandt talked about that. We responded in our
`reply declaration to this argument. It's pretty clear, the received back
`channel is created in the sense that it has been received by the speech
`processing system. It's not creating some new thing, there's no support for
`that in the specification, there's no thing described as the received back
`channel that's somehow different.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`
`
`
`When Patent Owner cites to Dr. Chaiken to say that he says our
`product practiced these claims, he didn't say anything about creating a
`received back channel. This is -- it's simpler than that. You have to receive
`the back channel, you have to receive these voice commands over the back
`channel.
`Now, from now on in the claim, we're going to call that the
`received back channel.
`JUDGE LEE: While we're on the subject of oddities of language,
`that starts with in many of these communications patents, you will see the
`language "receiving a channel" or "sending a channel." To a lay person, that
`would be odd, because you're really talking about sending information on a
`channel or receiving information on a channel, but is the fact that you see
`typically in these communications patents, you do see recitations of
`receiving a channel and sending a channel. That means just sending
`information over a channel. That's typically called sending a channel, and
`receiving information on a channel is called receiving a channel.
`MR. DAY: That's certainly the way we understand these claims,
`but the language is a bit stilted. The way that Dr. Schmandt understood the
`claim language based on the specification and the way he analyzed it was to
`say receiving the back channel, that's when you're receiving the spoken voice
`commands from lots of different people that are sent on this upstream
`channel when the head-end unit or in this case the wireline node receives --
`when it's receiving those voice commands, that is performing the step of
`receiving the said back channel.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: So that's how you read it, receiving a channel means
`received the information on the channel?
`MR. DAY: On the channel, yes.
`JUDGE LEE: And there is no dispute between the parties on that
`aspect of sending and receiving a channel?
`MR. DAY: I can't speak for the Patent Owner, Your Honor. I
`don't believe that's a dispute. That's exactly the way that the patent talks
`about what happens. You speak into a voice remote, that's sent over a back
`channel to a speech recognition processing located somewhere else. That's
`the -- you know, it's the voice command that's being sent.
`JUDGE LEE: That's the reading, then, once you've received
`information on a channel, that that becomes a received channel. So I don't
`know what it's missing, if they don't dispute that receiving a channel means
`receiving information of a channel.
`MR. DAY: Again, I can't speak for the Patent Owner. I think
`that's -- that is the reading that we have applied to this patent. Dr. Schmandt
`is very clear about that. I think perfectly clear in his declaration initially to
`the extent there was any confusion, is very clear in his reply to say that's
`exactly the way that he analyzed the claims.
`The back channel -- so here on slide 15, in his reply declaration,
`the received back channel is not data, it is -- it's the upstream
`communications channel that's carrying the signal. So it's the back channel
`is the thing that's carrying the commands. It's not more complicated than
`that.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`
`
`
`Quickly, I just want to point out, again, I made this point earlier
`today. The Patent Owner's expert didn't try to define the terms of the '196
`patent. He didn't try to define the term "received back channel." So when
`they say it means something in particular, it's really just lawyer argument.
`When they're trying to define the term "back channel." And again, I asked
`him, did you look at the prior art and independently analyze it? That wasn't
`part of his job.
`And so when you go to weigh the evidence on one side, you've got
`an expert who's done a thorough job analyzing the patent, the claims, and
`also looking at the prior art and comparing the two, mapping the two, and
`has provided a very detailed analysis. And on the other hand, you've got
`somebody who basically says I'm not convinced by your argument, but I
`haven't tried to understand what the claims mean and I haven't tried to
`understand what the prior art is disclosing.
`We get into these next few steps. The next step is partitioning.
`Now, we've just received basically a pipe full of a lot of different voice
`commands from a lot of different people. And the partitioning step is you've
`got to disaggregate that. You've got to take it apart so you can try to
`recognize each individual request. And Julia says first that you can have
`simultaneous requests, but Julia says, look, a practitioner would know how
`to handle simultaneous requests. A practitioner would understand queueing
`and multitasking and how to handle this. But Julia doesn't describe how to
`do it.
`
`So we combine Julia with some other prior art. And here's, on
`slide 21, we point to some testimony by our expert who says basically what I
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`just said. And he provides an example, you could multiplex together a
`bunch of commands and then demultiplex them at the head-end. That's one
`example that would be partitioned. There's no dispute on that.
`When we get to slide 22, we talk about this combination of Julia
`with first we talked about Nazarathy. That's a hybrid fiber coaxial cable
`network, the same thing we're talking about a cable network. It has upstream
`and downstream channels. It can use TDMA, which is a form of
`multiplexing. WDM or TDM multiplexing can be used to send signals
`upstream from lots of different cable modems to the head-end.
`And then if you look at slide 23, the quote at the bottom says, "The
`operations of TDM or WDM multiplexing are undone at the HDE," that
`means head-end, "by corresponding demultiplexers." So Nazarathy tells you
`how to do the partitioning step.
`Quigley also tells you how to do the partitioning step. On slides 24
`and 25 we quote some language talking about using timing to basically
`sequence the commands so that the head-end can interpret which voice
`command it's acting on next.
`And again, there's really no dispute that this partitioning step is
`disclosed by Quigley. There are two different combinations. Our expert
`talked about how Quigley and Nazarathy would be combined with Julia.
`Here on slide 26, I think the main point here is he's offering
`opinions, but they're grounded directly in Julia, Nazarathy, Quigley, he's not
`just asserting in a cursory fashion, Dr. Schmandt is looking at these prior art
`references and offering an opinion based on specific things in the patents.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`
`
`
`Basically the point here on slide 26 is he's saying a person of
`ordinary skill who read Julia and wanted further detail about how you handle
`the simultaneous input from lots of different set-top boxes, you would
`naturally consider these type of patents, Nazarathy and Quigley.
`And here on slide 27, we have the motivation to combine, what's
`the benefit. I'll say that the discussion in this declaration is significantly
`longer than the bit I've quoted here, and it all comes down to his opinion
`that's at the bottom of slide 27 that this is just combining prior art elements
`according to their -- according to known methods to yield predictable results,
`which we know is evidence of obviousness.
`We get down to the processing step. Processing means now you've
`taken apart all these various voice commands that have come in over the
`back channel, you've sort of separated them out in a partitioning step, now
`you process them. You turn them into something you can recognize. So it
`comes in as an acoustic audio signal, and you have to do some voice
`recognition processing. Julia talks about that, that's what Julia is all about.
`It says, the spoken request is initially received at the remote server, it's raw
`acoustic voice data, and that voice data is received from the user, then it's
`interpreted in order to understand the user's request.
`So that's the processing step. We get down to this responding step,
`I don't think there's any dispute on. Julia says, once I figure out what the
`voice command is, I find the content the user has asked for and I send it back
`to them so that they can display it on their television.
`And we talked about this earlier today, I think, again, there's no
`need to speak to 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
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`
`
`
`So again, what we've got is the combination of Julia with
`Nazarathy, the combination of Julia with Quigley discloses each of the
`elements of Claim 1.
`Now, I want to talk about dependent Claim 5. So it depends from
`Claim 2, there's no disputes in Claim 2. So I want to focus in on Claim 5.
`This is on slide 32. So Claim 5 has two steps. There's an assessing step and
`a billing step. In the assessing step, the first thing you do is you assess the
`voice command, the thing you've just interpreted, and then based on that,
`you crate a financial consequence. So you assign a price or something like
`that. And then the next step is you bill the user for whatever it is they just
`bought.
`
`Now, Patent Owner's argument is based on a false premise that in
`our petition we never showed or even asserted that Gordon or Banker
`disclosed both steps, the assessing step and the billing step. And that's
`incorrect.
`On slide 32, I have language that goes from our petition that says,
`yes, it starts by saying Julia alone renders Claim 5 obvious, but then it says,
`in addition, Julia can be combined with either Banker or Gordon to disclose
`both the assessing step and the billing step.
`Now, what you see here is, this is later in our brief, and it refers
`back to an earlier discussion in connection with Murdock. An earlier
`discussion of Gordon and Banker, it cites you to that section in our petition.
`It also cites to two paragraphs where Dr. Schmandt addressed these two prior
`art references, Gordon and Banker.
`
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`
`
`
`Now, there was some confusion in the institution decision, because
`Patent Owner said, no, no, no, they're just relying on Julia for that assessing
`step. They're creating a financial consequence as part of this, and they didn't
`cite you to the two paragraphs I have here on slide 32 where Dr. Schmandt
`talks about Gordon and Banker. They cited you to and the institution
`decision cites a different paragraph where he only talks about Julia. It's easy
`to see how there was confusion, but the fact is that both in our petition and in
`our initial expert declaration, we showed that Gordon and Banker disclosed
`both steps.
`If you look in our petition, and you go up to the section that I just
`noted there at the top of slide 32, Section VII.B.1, there's a discussion of
`Gordon and citations to Gordon and an explanation of Gordon. And it sends
`by saying, "Thus, Gordon discloses the assessing and billing steps." So
`we're not relying just on Julia, the combination exposes both steps.
`JUDGE KINDER: Let me ask a procedural question, and this is
`more looking at the claims and how you've set up your grounds here. You
`have Claim 5 is obvious in light of Julia alone, or with Gordon or Banker,
`but what if we determine that Claim 1 is not obvious in light of Julia alone,
`would we need to add either this Nazarathy or Quigley for Claim 1? You
`don't have that combination for Claim 5.
`MR. DAY: Oh, I think we do. In the petition, it's Julia, it actually
`in the institution decision, there's a long list of the different grounds, because
`you need Julia and Nazarathy plus Gordon, or Julia and Nazarathy plus
`Banker, or Julia and Quigley plus Gordon, or Julia and Nazarathy plus
`Banker.
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE KINDER: So you set that up in the petition?
`MR. DAY: That's in the petition. So either way. And again, I just
`want to circle back, because I think there was some confusion in the
`institution decision about what we were intending and I don't want that to
`sneak through. I want to be very clear and I'm hoping this slide 32 makes
`very clear that we've always been contending that Banker and/or Gordon
`disclosed both steps.
`I'm not going to dwell too much on the substance because the
`substance of that is really not disputed. It's this underlying premise where
`there's some dispute, and I don't think it's a reasonable dispute.
`Julia talks about implementing its system on lots of different types
`of television systems. Basically, you can add voice recognition to lots of
`different things, including the Diva Systems, video-on-demand system.
`That's on slide 32. I'm sorry, 33 that I'm talking about now. And our expert
`said, a person of ordinary skill would understand from that that you could
`implement Julia to create a financial -- you know, to have spoken requests
`that lead to financial consequences by implementing Julia on a Diva Systems
`video-on-demand system.
`So Julia is suggesting Diva. Gordon is a Diva patent. So Julia is
`suggesting -- is suggesting Gordon. And what Gordon talks about is doing
`what it calls a subscription on-demand service. So you could have a
`subscription to a couple of different channels or a couple of types of movies
`and it might have limitations on the days or the length of time, something
`like that, or it might just be you can watch a certain channel any time you
`want without paying more, but when it -- Gordon says, what it explicitly
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`discloses is, any time the user requests a title, the system is going to -- so
`after -- I'm sorry, I'm on slide 37.
`After receiving a title selection, so when a user picks something to
`watch, the video session manager determines the final price. So it's going to
`figure out what this thing is going to cost the user.
`If you look at slide 38, Gordon talks about Figure 8, which is
`basically you pick something you don't already have. Gordon says, all right,
`we're going to pop up a screen and say, if you want to watch KidsTV, you're
`going to have to pay $5.95 a month. Yes or no? That's more than teaching
`explicitly disclosing creating a financial consequence.
`And when you press yes, Gordon talks about sending you a bill for
`your subscriptions. So you're going to get billed for $5.95 every month.
`That's disclosed in Gordon. Gordon discloses both the assessing and billing
`steps.
`
`Baker also satisfies or discloses both steps. Baker talks about this
`is a user friendly front end for a subscription cable TV system. It says you
`can order things like pay-per-view events and if you want to watch some
`boxing that you have to pay a lot, you can do that. It has a buy button to
`create -- starts a buy sequence, talks about what that sequence is.
`You use a key to purchase an event. Purchasing an event is
`creating a financial consequence. And here on slide 41, we can point to
`Figure 6E, I believe, from Banker that shows you, if you want to buy this
`pay-per-view event, push buy. And Banker says, if you buy it, you're going
`to get billed. You're going to get billed for any pay-per-view and other
`impulse buys you make.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`
`
`
`Well, Banker discloses both steps of Claim 5. And I want to make
`a point -- so that's the combinations. We've got them on the combinations.
`It's clear that these two -- that the combinations we've set out satisfy the
`steps of Claim 5. And these same steps are found in other dependent claims,
`the same arguments apply. There's no distinction between the other claims
`that have that assessing step in them.
`But one last point I want to make, we did also say Julia alone
`discloses or suggests and teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art that just
`based on Julia, you could issue a voice command and be told you're going to
`have to pay for that, pay for it and be billed, because Julia talks in a lot of
`places about video-on-demand, on-demand movies, that type of delivery.
`And what Dr. Schmandt said is, given the time frame, a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would know that includes paying for it. You asked
`for it. In his reply declaration, he particularly says, there's no -- at that time,
`I think he would say today, but certainly at that time, there was no specific
`distinction between what pay-per-view means and video-on-demand. And as
`an example, he said, look, if you were in a hotel room at that time and you
`wanted to pull up a movie on your TV, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`might call that video-on-demand. Certainly you have to pay for it.
`So there's no -- the notion that video-on-demand doesn't require
`financial consequence is not -- is contrary to what Dr. Schmandt has said.
`It's also not supported by the evidence. I understand the point of --
`JUDGE YAP: Counsel, sorry to interrupt. Before we get any
`further, earlier you said that in your petition, it is clear that for the assessing
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00342 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00343 (Patent RE44,326)
`IPR2018-00344 (Patent 7,047,196)
`IPR2018-00345 (Patent 7,047,196)
`
`step, to create a financial consequence, the petition is clear and has pointed
`to Julia alone, and Julia in combination with Banker or Gordon.
`So I'm looking at page -- I 62 of the petition. And perhaps I'm
`missing something here, but 62 --
`MR. DAY: I understand your point, Your Honor. I understand the
`confusion, and I understand how this mistake happened. In our petition,
`what we did is we said, here's Claim 5, the first step is assessing, here's how
`Julia does it. Here's billing, here's how Julia does it. And in addition, you
`could also take Julia and combine it with Banker or Gordon to do both steps.
`And so as -- perhaps it was a confusing way to organize our
`discussion, but we put the discussion of Banker all in one place and we put
`the discussion of Gordon all in one place, and it's not under the heading
`assessing. So I see where the confusion comes from. The fact of the matter
`is the language is there saying that both -- that Gordon and Banker disclose
`both steps, but given the headings, the headings are confusing.
`If you read the entire section on Claim 5, read the section of Claim
`5 from start to finish, then all of this is disclosed.
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
