`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 24
`
` Entered: August 31, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: August 11, 2020
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KAMRAN JIVANI, and JOHN HAMANN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`DANIEL BLOCK, ESQUIRE
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`STEPHEN T. SCHREINER, ESQUIRE
`Carmichael IP, PLLC
`8000 Towers Crescent Drive
`13th Floor
`Tysons Corner, VA 22182
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, August
`11, 2020, commencing at 9:31 a.m., EDT, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, by video/by telephone, before Donna Jenkins, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` - - - - -
`
`
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: This is the consolidated hearing for
`
`IPR 2019-00823, 824, and 826. The hearing's been cons olidated
`
`but the cases remain separate. I'm Judge Hamann on the panel
`
`also are Judges Medley and Jivani. I'd like to begin by having
`
`the parties introduce themselves and I'd like to begin if
`
`Petitioner could please introduce who's on the line on its beh alf.
`
`
`
`MR. BLOCK: Good morning, Your Honors. This is Daniel
`
`10
`
`Block on behalf of Petitioner Apple from the law firm of Sterne,
`
`11
`
`Kessler, Goldstein & Fox. With me today is Michael Spec ht and
`
`12
`
`Steven Pappas also of Sterne Kessler.
`
`13
`
`
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you. A nd for Patent Owner, if
`
`14
`
`you could please introduce who's on the line for Patent Owner's
`
`15
`
`behalf. You may need to unmute yourself, Patent Owner.
`
`16
`
`
`
`MR. SCHREINER: Thank you, Your Honor. Good
`
`17
`
`morning, Your Honors. My name is Stephen Schreiner from
`
`18
`
`Carmichael IP hear on behalf of MPH Technologies OY and I'm
`
`19
`
`joined here by my colleague, Jim Carmichael.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. CARMICHAEL: Good morning, Your Honors.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Good morning. Thank you and good
`
`22
`
`morning to everyone. I'd also like to note there is a public aud io
`
`23
`
`line today so we welcome the folks that may be listening in on
`
`24
`
`that. To begin, a reminder we're obviously participating via
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`video conference and so when you begin speaking certainly if
`
`you're going to reference -- when you begin speak ing make
`
`certain that you're unmuted and if you could mute yourself when
`
`you're not speaking, that would be helpful. Also please try to
`
`endeavor to identify in the record if you're -- a specific cite if
`
`you're referring to something or certainly by slide number, if
`
`you're -- what slide if you're referring to a slide that'll make for
`
`a clear record and allow us to follow along more readily.
`
`
`
`The Hearing Order sets 90 minutes for arguments for each
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`side. That includes rebuttal and surrebuttal. Petitioner bears the
`
`11
`
`burden for unpatentability and so we're going to begin with
`
`12
`
`Petitioner and then Patent Owner will have an opportunity to
`
`13
`
`respond and then any rebuttal and surrebuttal. I'm going to ask
`
`14
`
`when each party begins their initial presentation, if how much
`
`15
`
`time they would like to reserve, if any, for rebuttal or
`
`16
`
`surrebuttal. So let's begin, again with Petitioner bearing the
`
`17
`
`burden. We’ll begin with Petitioner and Mr. Block, how much
`
`18
`
`time would you like to reserve for rebuttal?
`
`19
`
`
`
`MR. BLOCK: Thank you, Your Honor. I would like to
`
`20
`
`reserve 40 minutes for rebuttal.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Forty of your ninety?
`
`MR. BLOCK: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you, and we'll certainly
`
`24
`
`endeavor to give you a time warning when you're towards the
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`end but to the extent you can track your time yourself too, I
`
`think that would be helpful. With that, please proceed.
`
`
`
`MR. BLOCK: May it please the Board. As I mentioned
`
`earlier, my name is Daniel Block on behalf of Petitioner Apple.
`
`The Board should find unpatentable all of the c hallenged claims
`
`in the 494, 502, and 362 patents because they are rendered
`
`obvious by the combination of RFC3104 and Grabelsk y.
`
`The primary dispute between the parties here is whether or
`
`not RFC3104 discloses a mobile computer. But RFC3104
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`explicitly discloses a laptop which is used in a Roadwarrier
`
`11
`
`scenario. In other words, a situation where a laptop is travelling.
`
`12
`
`MPH tries to avoid this teaching by taking a shifting sands
`
`13
`
`approach with respect to the construction for a mobile computer
`
`14
`
`but the Board should reject all of MPH's constructions as they
`
`15
`
`are simply unsupported by the specification and contradicted by
`
`16
`
`the claims and, more importantly, even if the Board adopted
`
`17
`
`MPH's incorrect constructions the references still teach a mobile
`
`18
`
`computer, even under their constructions.
`
`19
`
`With respect to MPH's remaining arguments for the
`
`20
`
`dependent claims, MPH primarily relies on its improper
`
`21
`
`constructions for a mobile computer or raises hyper -technical
`
`22
`
`distinctions that are meaningless under an obviousness -type
`
`23
`
`challenge like we have here.
`
`24
`
`So with that, Your Honors, I would like to turn to slide 2 of
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`Petitioner's demonstratives and here I've set forth an agenda, and
`
`what I'll cover today is I'll first talk about the patents at issue,
`
`the challenged patents, and then we'll talk about how the
`
`combination renders the claims of those patents obvious and then
`
`we'll get into the primary dispute that I mentioned earlier about
`
`mobile computer, and then I'd like to cover a few other disputes
`
`as well; the 494 patent claim 4, 49 4 patent claim 9, 494 patent
`
`claim 11 and associated claims in any other patents, and so
`
`unless Your Honors have questions about some of the other
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`disputes that's what I'm planning on covering today in the
`
`11
`
`interests of time.
`
`12
`
`So turning to the patents at is sue, the challenged patents;
`
`13
`
`the 494, 502, and 362 patents and Petitioner's slide 3. On the
`
`14
`
`right hand side of slide 3 we have figure 2 and I think the
`
`15
`
`important thing to focus in on that figure are the three computers
`
`16
`
`that are listed on the top left. Th e first computer, the
`
`17
`
`intermediate computer , and the second computer. Host X isn't
`
`18
`
`relevant to the claims that are being challenged here, and what
`
`19
`
`the 494, 502, and 362 patents are talking about is that the first
`
`20
`
`computer is going to communicate with the second computer
`
`21
`
`using a secure communication and encrypted technology and it's
`
`22
`
`going to do that through the intermediate computer using the
`
`23
`
`intermediate computer as a proxy.
`
`24
`
`In other words, the first computer is going to send these
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`encrypted messages to th e intermediate computer and the
`
`intermediate computer is going to forward them to the second
`
`computer and visa-versa in the other direction. The second
`
`computer is going to send them to the intermediate computer,
`
`intermediate computer is going to forward them to the first
`
`computer, and the key, according to the challenged patents here,
`
`is the intermediate computer is going to be able to forward those
`
`messages without having to look at the encrypted messages. So
`
`it'll be able to figure out where to forward those messages
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`without having to decrypt -- to decrypt those messages which
`
`11
`
`makes the systems more secure.
`
`12
`
`So to understand how the system does that if we could just
`
`13
`
`turn to slide 4, which lays out independent claim 1 of the 494
`
`14
`
`patent which is an exemplary way that all the challenged patents
`
`15
`
`allegedly solve that problem, and it starts with step 1 on the left
`
`16
`
`hand side. The intermediate computer is going to connect
`
`17
`
`through a network and it's going to get assigned an address. The
`
`18
`
`intermediate computer is then going to receive a secure message
`
`19
`
`from the mobile computer in step 2. In step 3 the intermediate
`
`20
`
`computer is going to read as unique identities from the secure
`
`21
`
`message and the idea here is that you need that identity if it's not
`
`22
`
`encrypted but the rest of the message is. That's what our
`
`23
`
`intermediate computer can read that unique identity, and in step
`
`24
`
`4 using that unique identity the intermediate computer is going
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`to access it's translation table to figure out the correct
`
`destination to send the message and once it's figured out the
`
`correct destination, in step 5 it's going to forward that to that
`
`destination using an address of the intermediate computer.
`
`So that's how the patents work in a nutshell and if Your
`
`Honors -- unless Your Honors have any other questions about the
`
`challenged patents I would like to move on to the combinations
`
`of RFC3104 and Grabelsk y. So if we can --
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Just counsel, real quick. Obviously
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`you referred to I think slide 4 and claim 1 and then referred to
`
`11
`
`these elements as steps, but this is not a method claim, right?
`
`12
`
`MR. BLOCK: That's correct, Your Honor. We've broken
`
`13
`
`up the steps just to explain what's really going on here but that's
`
`14
`
`correct, Your Honor. If we turn to slide 5 --
`
`15
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: Mr. Blo ck, if I could just pause you for
`
`16
`
`just one more minute too, if you don't mind. It's Judge Jivani
`
`17
`
`and I would like to know just before we get into the substance
`
`18
`
`with regard to the 826 case for the 362 patent, I don't see a
`
`19
`
`position on whether we should add ress the disclaimed claims in
`
`20
`
`our final written decision in your papers. I see a statement that
`
`21
`
`if we do address them they ought to be found unpatentable but do
`
`22
`
`you have a position on whether we should address them?
`
`23
`
`MR. BLOCK: I think our position is tha t we do agree with
`
`24
`
`Patent Owner in that regard in that because they're disclaimed
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`there's nothing to really address. They're no longer in the patent.
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: Okay. Thank you. And then, Mr. Block,
`
`I do have one more question with regard to that ca se in
`
`particular, are you lead counsel in that case?
`
`MR. BLOCK: I'm -- I think Mr. Specht is lead counsel in
`
`all of the cases but I'm going to arguing all of them.
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: And is he on the line?
`
`MR. BLOCK: Yes, he is.
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: Great. Thank you. I missed his
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`appearance. I appreciate that.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`MR. BLOCK: Apologies on that if I didn't introduce him.
`
`
`
`(Pause, due to technical difficulties .)
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: So I believe we are ready to proceed
`
`14
`
`Mr. Block. You have used seven minutes, so you have forty
`
`15
`
`three minutes left.
`
`16
`
`MR. BLOCK: Okay. And I don't remember where I stood
`
`17
`
`with Judge Jivani. Was there another question, Your Honor?
`
`18
`
`JUDGE JIVANI: No, you answered all of them. Thank
`
`19
`
`you.
`
`20
`
`MR. BLOCK: Okay. Thank you. So getting back to slide
`
`21
`
`5, if we could turn to slide 5. So just briefly before I move on to
`
`22
`
`how RFC3104 and Grabelsk y applies to the claims, I just wanted
`
`23
`
`to quickly talk about the differences between the claims in this
`
`24
`
`case. Apple's position is that if Your Honors find the 494 p atent
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`claim 1 and the dependent claims unpatentable so too with all the
`
`other challenged claims with the other patents. Those would also
`
`be unpatentable because the analysis effectively is the same.
`
`There are some differences though. The 502 patent clai m is a
`
`little bit more -- it's written from the perspective of a mobile
`
`computer. It doesn't recite the translation table.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Mr. Block, let me just interrupt you if
`
`I could again. You were starting to get a little, I think clipping
`
`is the term that was used. Is -- is the court reporter able to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`follow along?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`(Pause, due to technical difficulties.)
`
`MR. BLOCK: So getting back to slide 5 again in the 502
`
`13
`
`patent claim 1, so again that's written from the perspective of the
`
`14
`
`mobile computer and it 's a little bit broader in that it doesn't
`
`15
`
`recite the translation table, 362 patent claim 1, as Judge Jivani
`
`16
`
`pointed out, that is one of the disclaimed claims. For that's not
`
`17
`
`at issue but the dependent claims still are but it's worth noting
`
`18
`
`that's the broadest in the sense that it doesn't recite the
`
`19
`
`translation table and it doesn't recite a mobile computer either.
`
`20
`
`So again, unless Your Honors have other questions about the
`
`21
`
`claims I would like to move on to slide 7 and the combination of
`
`22
`
`RFC3104 and Grabel sky.
`
`23
`
`Okay. So just like the challenged patents here, RFC3104
`
`24
`
`also recites the three computer set up. It recites an RSIP client,
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`an RSIP server which is the intermediate computer , and a host
`
`which is the mobile computer and there's been a lot of dispute
`
`about mobile computer, but just to explain why RFC3104
`
`discloses that there is a mobile computer there's two reasons.
`
`The first is that we're talking about the time frame of 2002 and a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`any of these clients here could have been a mobile computer like
`
`a (indiscernible) or a laptop, but also it's a mobile computer and
`
`RFC3104 explicitly discloses that, and if we turn to slide 8 we
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`can see why that is.
`
`11
`
`As I mentioned earlier, there's a Roadwarrior scenario that
`
`12
`
`is disclosed in RFC3104 and the Roadwarrior scenario discloses
`
`13
`
`that either the RSIP client or the non -RSIP client can be a
`
`14
`
`laptop, i.e., a mobile computer, so that's why RFC3104 explicitly
`
`15
`
`discloses a mobile computer and we'll get into the di spute of
`
`16
`
`mobile computer in a few minutes.
`
`17
`
`Turning to slide 9. This is sort of the meat of the RSIP --
`
`18
`
`of how RSIP operates and the way RSIP operates is the RSIP
`
`19
`
`client and the RSIP server are first going to negotiate some
`
`20
`
`parameters that the RSIP client is going to use. Three of those
`
`21
`
`parameters are listed below. They're the protocol, SPI , and
`
`22
`
`destination IP address. Those are also called demultiplexing
`
`23
`
`fields and after the RSIP client and RSIP server negotiate those
`
`24
`
`fields, it's going to create this t hing called a binding which is
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`stored on the RSIP server and that binding is what is ultimately
`
`used to figure out where to direct the messages and RSIP, and so
`
`RSIP works in both directions. That is the RSIP client can send
`
`messages to the host and the h ost can send messages to the
`
`client.
`
`Of most relevance for today's dispute is the direction from
`
`the host to the client but I'm going to talk about both because I
`
`do think it provides helpful context as to how RSIP operates. So
`
`going from the direction fr om RSIP client to the host, the way
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`RSIP works is the client when it wants to send a message to the
`
`11
`
`host is going to create a message, an IP Sec message. In that
`
`12
`
`message it's going to include a couple of those demultiplexing
`
`13
`
`field parameters and again, we' re on slide 9, and it's going to
`
`14
`
`include a few of those parameters and in particular with the
`
`15
`
`protocol and the SPI number, and then it's also in that packet
`
`16
`
`going to set the source as the intermediate computer and the
`
`17
`
`destination of the mobile computer. T hen what happens is using
`
`18
`
`RSIP, that packet is tunneled to the RSIP server. The RSIP
`
`19
`
`server then extracts the packet that the RSIP client created and
`
`20
`
`sends it off to the host. So that's how it works from X to Y.
`
`21
`
`Now as I mentioned earlier, Y to X is most relevant for this
`
`22
`
`case, and it's a little bit more complicated. So what happens in
`
`23
`
`the direction from Y to X is Y is going to send an IP Sec message
`
`24
`
`to the intermediate computer. The source of that message is
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`going to be Y. The destination IP address of that message is
`
`going to be the intermediate computer and one of those IP
`
`addresses, and when the intermediate computer receives that
`
`message it's going to look at that -- it's going to try to find the
`
`binding that we talked about earlier, and the way it does that is
`
`it's going to look at the protocol , SPI, and the destination IP
`
`address of the message the mobile computer sent to the
`
`intermediate computer and using that it's going to locate the
`
`appropriate binding and once it finds the binding it's going t o tell
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the intermediate computer what the IP address is that the
`
`11
`
`message needs to be forwarded on to. In this case it would be
`
`12
`
`the RSIP client X. So that's how the intermediate computer
`
`13
`
`knows how to appropriately forward messages from the direction
`
`14
`
`from Y to X, and it's also why --
`
`15
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: I'm sorry, Mr. Block, just real quick
`
`16
`
`and I think you touched on it earlier or just mentioned it but I
`
`17
`
`want to understand where in the record it's supported. Looking
`
`18
`
`on slide 9, and this is -- the figure that's shown is, I'm not sure
`
`19
`
`which figure this is, I'm sorry. It is --
`
`20
`
`MR. BLOCK: It is the primary figure from RFC3104, it's
`
`21
`
`that top one. I don't know if they have an actual figure for it but
`
`22
`
`--
`
`23
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: I think you have. It says here page 2
`
`24
`
`and obviously on your slide you annotated but, you know, there's
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`a host and a RSIP client are --
`
`MR. BLOCK: Uh-huh.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: -- two ends of the communication
`
`shown in the figure and you, here the host is annotated as the
`
`mobile computer. But my understandi ng is you stated that either
`
`the client or the host could be a mobile computer or not, and then
`
`either one. Let me rephrase this. The RSIP client could be a
`
`mobile computer, the host could be a mobile computer, either of
`
`them could be; is that correct?
`
`MR. BLOCK: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Where in the record is there support
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`for either the client or the host being the mobile computer?
`
`13
`
`MR. BLOCK: So if we turn to slide, I'm just trying to find
`
`14
`
`the right slide, if we turn to slide 19. He re we have a larger
`
`15
`
`excerpt from the Roadwarrior scenario which is page 16 of
`
`16
`
`RFC3104 and there's a few things that are worth noting about
`
`17
`
`this diagram and I do think that's part of the -- this is a different
`
`18
`
`diagram than the first diagram and it's importa nt to keep in mind
`
`19
`
`this is in some ways reversed from that top diagram because the
`
`20
`
`public internet is on the left hand side and the private internet is
`
`21
`
`on the right hand side. I just mentioned that just to keep in
`
`22
`
`mind, but most importantly at the bottom of this diagram it
`
`23
`
`explains that this scenario could also be reversed in order to
`
`24
`
`allow the internal system Y to initiate and establish an IPSec
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`session.
`
`So let's sort of play that out. In the standard scenario
`
`RSIP client X is noted to be a remote user with a laptop and so,
`
`that's in the standard scenario. If it's reversed, well then the
`
`RSIP client is the IPSec user's desktop and the non-RSIP client
`
`is the -- is what is now known as Y. So that would be still a
`
`laptop. So if we turn back to slide --
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Just -- while we're on, Mr. Block,
`
`while we're on slide 19 I believe the figure you were referring to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`is, at least here, the slide notes it's on page 16 of RFC3104; is
`
`11
`
`that right?
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`MR. BLOCK: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Thank y ou.
`
`MR. BLOCK: And so again, so what this reversal scenario
`
`15
`
`is talking about is how in that scenario the RSIP client X would
`
`16
`
`no longer be an RSIP client, it would be the non -RSIP client to
`
`17
`
`the IPSec peer Y's RSIP client. So if we took that teaching and
`
`18
`
`applied it back to the original figure in figure 7, that's how Y in
`
`19
`
`that figure, which is the non -RSIP client, would be a laptop.
`
`20
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: You say non -RSIP client, you mean
`
`21
`
`host in the context of these figures?
`
`22
`
`MR. BLOCK: Yes. In other words, in tha t figure on page
`
`23
`
`7, the host would be the non -RSIP client and X is the RSIP
`
`24
`
`client, and so when you look at the Roadwarrior scenario and
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`you're talking about the reversal of the Roadwarrior scenario the
`
`reversal of the Roadwarrior scenario is the laptop is effectively
`
`the host Y as it applies to the figure 7.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. You said figure 7 and referring
`
`to the figure on --
`
`MR. BLOCK: Page --
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: -- page 2 of the reference. Okay.
`
`Thank you, Mr. Block.
`
`MR. BLOCK: Yes. And I appreciate that's a little bit
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`confusing as we're going through both those figures so glad you
`
`11
`
`asked the question because I wanted to make sure I can be
`
`12
`
`clarifying that. If we -- just getting back to the RFC3104 and,
`
`13
`
`give me one moment.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: And also, Mr. Block, I think obviously
`
`15
`
`the discussion of references is helpful but obviously the
`
`16
`
`construction of mobile computer is something that's in dispute
`
`17
`
`and that may help further frame some of the discussion of the
`
`18
`
`references, so I'll note (indiscernible) --
`
`19
`
`20
`
`MR. BLOCK: Absolutely, yes.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: -- so to -- you want to focus on that
`
`21
`
`shortly, I think that would be helpful.
`
`22
`
`MR. BLOCK: Absolutely, Your Honor. So why don't we
`
`23
`
`get to that right now and if we could turn to slide 13, and we
`
`24
`
`have set forth on sli de 13 the construction set forth by both
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`parties for mobile computer and I think at the outset it's worth
`
`noting that Apple's position is that even if Your Honors were to
`
`adopt Patent Owner's construction as they set forth in the POR,
`
`the references still teach a mobile computer because they're still
`
`teaching a laptop that can move between networks in this
`
`Roadwarrior scenario. But we also think Patent Owner's
`
`construction is wrong and as we mentioned here, we think the
`
`proper construction is either plain and ordinary meaning or to the
`
`extent a construction is needed, it's a computer that's capable of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`moving between networks or physical locations.
`
`11
`
`Why is that? Well if we turn to slide 14 -- to slide 15, we
`
`12
`
`can see why that is. This is sort of the primary text of the
`
`13
`
`challenged patents I think both parties are disputing over and I'd
`
`14
`
`like to read that -- this text and give you our position on it which
`
`15
`
`is starting with the term mobility and mobile terminal does not
`
`16
`
`only mean physical mobility and I want to s top there. What does
`
`17
`
`that mean? Well that means that the term mobility and mobile
`
`18
`
`terminal does in fact mean physical mobility, and then it goes on
`
`19
`
`to say it also means in the first hand "moving from one network
`
`20
`
`to another can be performed by a physicall y fixed terminal as
`
`21
`
`well." So Apple's position here is that if you have a construction
`
`22
`
`that doesn't take into account this idea that physical mobility is
`
`23
`
`part of mobility, then that construction is presumptively
`
`24
`
`incorrect and that's one reason why all of Patent Owner's
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`constructions set forth in these proceedings are incorrect because
`
`they don't recognize the fact that physical mobility alone
`
`qualifies as mobility as this definition sets forth in the
`
`specification.
`
`Now I mentioned all of Patent Owner's con structions. If we
`
`turn back to slide 14, as I talked about earlier there's a shifting
`
`sands approach really going on with respect to claim
`
`construction here. In the Patent Owner preliminary response,
`
`Patent Owner said that it was a computer that's capabl e of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`moving. I mention that only because if you read Patent Owner's
`
`11
`
`Sur-reply they criticize Petitioner for this capability point, yet
`
`12
`
`their own construction in the POPR had the same capability point
`
`13
`
`inside of it and I also put forth Patent Owner's const ruction from
`
`14
`
`the Sur-reply because we think that's improper as well. I mean
`
`15
`
`for the first time in the SReply it does appear as if Patent Owner
`
`16
`
`has come up with a brand new construction that is substantively
`
`17
`
`different from the construction that they'v e set forth in the Patent
`
`18
`
`Owner Response and that was at a time where Petitioner doesn't
`
`19
`
`have the ability to respond to it. But as I mentioned, it's also
`
`20
`
`wrong because it doesn't include this physical mobility point.
`
`21
`
`There are some other reasons why all of the constructions
`
`22
`
`are wrong as well. If we turn to slide 16. Here we have claim 1
`
`23
`
`in the 502 patent. We've highlighted a portion of that claim
`
`24
`
`which we think is very relevant to this analysis. The claim
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`explains that the mobile computer that's being talked about in
`
`that claim is the mobile computer in that the address of the
`
`mobile computer changes. So how does that bode for the rest of
`
`these patents that don't have that limitation in it? Well that
`
`would imply that the mobile computer of those clai ms would be
`
`one that potentially the address doesn't change. In other words,
`
`it would be a mobile computer that has a static secure connection
`
`or a mobile computer that's potentially not moving between
`
`networks. So a construction for all three of these p atents that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`doesn't -- that only limits it to the possibility where the address
`
`11
`
`would change is presumptively incorrect from a differentiation
`
`12
`
`perspective.
`
`13
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: So Mr. Block, to make sure I'm
`
`14
`
`following this. So you're suggesting that a mobile co mputer, any
`
`15
`
`proper mobile computer construction should include the concept
`
`16
`
`that the mobile computer can physically move but not change
`
`17
`
`networks; is that correct?
`
`18
`
`MR. BLOCK: Where -- that's exactly right and let me just
`
`19
`
`clarify that. Let me clarify that p oint. So the construction
`
`20
`
`should include physical mobility without changing networks and
`
`21
`
`that's why that construction makes sense, for example, with
`
`22
`
`respect to this 502 patent because here basically what we're
`
`23
`
`saying if your construction is either physica l mobility or moving
`
`24
`
`between networks, the 502 patent limitation here is saying hey,
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`we're talking about the situation where it's the moving between
`
`networks, right? And so that's why the construction needs to be
`
`broader to include those scenarios so that would make sense with
`
`respect to the 502 patent.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Well, I mean -- this is Judge Hamann
`
`again -- so obviously if you're talking about physical mobility,
`
`you know, I think that suggests you're not talking a couple of
`
`feet, you're talking poten tially a significant distance and doesn't
`
`that at least suggest you're changing networks if you've moved
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`significant distance?
`
`11
`
`MR. BLOCK: It's certainly in some circumstances true but
`
`12
`
`I think it's worth noting, the Patent Owner also criticizes the
`
`13
`
`construction. They mention this handheld calculator example,
`
`14
`
`right, and it is worth noting that you have to put the mobile
`
`15
`
`computer in the context of the claims as well . So even if the
`
`16
`
`mobile computer would include this physical mobility it would
`
`17
`
`still need to operate with the rest of the limitations and the
`
`18
`
`claims, right, that include things like being able to connect to
`
`19
`
`networks and things like that. So I'm not sure that it -- I think
`
`20
`
`you could have physical mobility of just potentially a few feet
`
`21
`
`and it might still be a mobile computer. I'm not sure there's a
`
`22
`
`distance requirement in terms of the physical mobility but I think
`
`23
`
`it's also worth noting that there are other limitations in the
`
`24
`
`claims that would limit in what types of things to ultimately
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00823 (Patent 9,712,494 B2)
`IPR2019-00824 (Patent 9,712,502 B2)
`IPR2019-00826 (Patent 9,838,362 B2)
`
`qualify as a mobile computer when it's applied in the claims.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. And then just one more thing.
`
`In Petitioner's construction one of the things that's included is
`
`the capability, a computer that is capable and the dispute seems,
`
`at least part of th e dispute seems to be on whether a mobile
`
`computer needs to move or just has that capability. Obviously
`
`you cited to a portion of the 494 patent, I think it's column 4,
`
`lines 34 to 38. What else in the record supports that a mobile
`
`computer is a capabili ty as opposed to actually moving?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`MR. BLOCK: So we can turn -- we can stay on slide 16
`
`11
`
`that I have here in front of us because I do think this illustrates
`
`12
`
`why the claims support that construction as well. So before I get
`
`13
`
`into the claims though I think it 's worth noting, right? I have a
`
`14
`
`cell phone, right? It's on the desk here . It's still a mobile phone
`
`15
`
`whether it's moving or not, right? And I think the construction
`
`16
`
`for mobile computer need s to take into accou
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
