Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`DROPBOX, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WHITSERVE, LLC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 30, 2020
`__________
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER,
`and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`DROPBOX, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WHITSERVE, LLC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 30, 2020
`__________
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER,
`and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`YVONNE LEE, ESQ.
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP.
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`(617) 526-6000
`yvonne.lee@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ROBERT KEELER, ESQ.
`Whitmyer IP Group LLC
`600 Summer Street
`Stamford, Connecticut 06901
`(203) 703-0800
`rkeeler@whipgroup.com
`
`
`
` The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, July 30,
`2020, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EDT, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`(1:00 p.m.)
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Well, welcome. This is Judge Raevsky.
`Welcome to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`We are here today for oral argument in inter partes review number
`2019-01019, a case in which Dropbox is the Petitioner and Whitserve is the
`Patent Owner. At issue is U.S. Patent Number 8,812,437.
`Your panel for the hearing today includes myself and Judges
`Deshpande and Wormmeester.
`I'd like to start by getting appearances of counsel. Who do we have
`on behalf of Petitioners?
`MS. LEE: Your Honor, this is Yvonne Lee for Petitioner Dropbox,
`
`Inc.
`
`With me also on the line is lead counsel Monica Grewal, and also
`here is counsel for Dropbox, Elena DiMuzio.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you, Ms. Lee. And who do we have on
`behalf of Patent Owner?
`MR. KEELER: Your Honor, this is Robert Keeler for Patent Owner
`Whitserve, LLC.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Is that Keeler?
`MR. KEELER: Yes.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Could you spell that for the court reporter?
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`MR. KEELER: Sure. It's K-E-E-L-E-R.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you. And thank you all for joining us.
`Before we get started, I have a few administrative matters that I'd
`like to go over.
`First of all, we appreciate your patience with us as we do a video
`hearing instead of the normal procedure in a hearing room.
`If at any time during the hearing, you encounter technical difficulties
`that you feel would undermine your ability to adequately represent your
`client, please let us know immediately by reaching out to the people that
`gave you the contact information.
`When not speaking, please kindly mute yourself. And also please
`identify yourself each time you speak for the benefit of the court reporter.
`At the end of the hearing, please stay on the line until we dismiss
`you so that the court reporter can ask any questions to clarify.
`When you're referring to a demonstrative slide, please tell us the
`slide number so that we can follow along. And lastly, please be aware that
`members of the public may be listening to this hearing.
`We will first hear from Petitioner, then from Patent Owner.
`Ms. Lee, would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal today?
`MS. LEE: Yes, Your Honor. I'd just like to reserve 15 minutes,
`
`
`
`please.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Okay. Fifteen minutes is reserved. You will
`have 45 minutes for your primary case. When you're ready, you may begin.
`MS. LEE: Thank you very much, Your Honor. Good afternoon,
`Your Honors. My name is Yvonne Lee and I am representing Petitioner
`Dropbox, Inc. in this proceeding.
`This is IPR2019-01019, challenging U.S. Patent Number 8,812,437.
`Turning now to Slide 2. Slide 2 shows some of the topics that I'd
`like to cover today.
`I'd like to briefly cover a technology background in overview of the
`'437 patent, and spend a bit of time on claim construction issues because that
`is at one of the primary issues between parties.
`And then I'll address some of Patent Owner's argument, address a
`little bit of the obviousness of the claims, and then also end by additionally
`addressing some additional issues raised by Patent Owner.
`If at any time you would like me to jump to a particular topic or
`slide, please just let me know, and I can direct my argument there.
`Turning now to Slide 3.
`Just to set the context of what we're going to be discussing today, the
`technology at issue in this case involves client server architectures, and in
`particular, client server communication.
`As was known before the '437 patent at least by the mid-90s, for
`client server architectures and communications between client and servers,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`for example, clients could send a message or request to a server machine to
`cause certain operations to be performed, and the server machine could send
`a response back to the client machine, which could include a status of those
`operations or data in response to the request.
`The client request could include instructions to the server to modify
`or update information on the server, it could be a request to put information
`or documents onto the server, and it could also be a request to get documents
`back from the server.
`And again, the server would respond with that message. It's usually
`referred to as a response.
`Moving to Slide 4, this slide just shows a little bit more of what the
`request entails and what I just described.
`For example, the request could be to create, modify, or delete
`documents at the server.
`And then turning to Slide 5, this just shows that the request could
`also be to obtain a copy of data that's sitting at the server, and then have that
`data sent back to the client machine.
`Slide 5 also shows that, you know, it was known that before the '437
`patent, to have various browsers or editors that were used to perform these
`operations, and that data that was sent back from the server to the client
`would be saved at least in a browser, and could also be saved other locations
`on a client device.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`Now I'd like to turn to Slide 9 and discuss the '437 patent.
`Slide 9 shows two figures from the '437 patent. Both of these figures
`are marked prior art and are admitted prior art.
`So, Figure 2 shows the client computer requesting a backup of data
`from the server -- or as referred to in the '437 patent, the data backup system.
`So before the '437 patent, this was known. Getting a copy of data
`from the server.
`Figure 3 shows the client remotely processing data at the server, or
`asking the server to perform certain operations on the data at the server.
`This was also marked prior art and was also admitted by the '437
`patent as being known.
`The purported novelty of the '437 patent is the combination of these
`concepts.
`So, to modify data at the server, and then to get a backup copy of
`that modified data and save it locally on disk at the client side.
`I'd now like to turn to Slide 7.
`So, Slide 7 shows Figure 1 of the '437 patent. This is one
`embodiment of the '437 patent.
`Like we just saw in both the admitted prior art and in the brief
`technology background, this also involves client and server communication.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`So, this embodiment shows the client sending a request to the data
`processing system or the server, asking the -- that server to remotely perform
`operations, such as updating and deleting data at the server.
`Figure 1 also shows that data that has been updated and deleted at
`the server can be requested by the client and transmitted to the client as a
`backup copy.
`Turning now to Slide 8.
`Slide 8 is -- shows Figure 4 and the tests accompanying Figure 4.
`Figure 4 is the other figure, the other embodiment described in the
`'437 patent.
`And Figure 4 is very similar to Figure 1. Similar architecture of
`client and server or data backup systems.
`And I just wanted to point out a few additional features.
`Figure 4, as shown in green, also describes that data that is sent from
`the server to the client can be converted or reformatted before it's sent, and it
`can also be encrypted before it's sent back to the client.
`Figure 4 also shows two storage locations, one called database and
`the other called on-site backup.
`So, database 34, which is shown on the server side, if you take a look
`at the text that's accompanying Figure 4, although the word database is not
`used, we see that numeral 34, and database is referred to as data stored on
`the backup system, which the data backup system can access.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`If we then look at on-site backup, we see similarly on-site backup is
`where client data is stored, and if you see arrows going back and forth
`between client computer and on-site backup, this is also just where client
`data is stored and where the client can access that data at the client side.
`Turning now to Figure 10.
`So, other than the four figures that we just took a look at, and their
`accompanying description, the '437 patent also has some useful or relevant
`information in the background of the invention to explain the concepts and
`application of this invention.
`
`And I'd just like to point out two parts here on the slide for the
`background of the invention.
`So, one application contemplated by the '437 patent relates to
`outsourcing data processing for the purpose of developing and hosting a
`company's website.
`So, that means that you're going to outsource development for
`development of a website, of a web service out to the server to the third
`party.
`
`The second excerpt talks about difficulties companies face in
`considering outsourcing of data, and that's continuity of service.
`For example, if a third party were to go out of business.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`Just taken together, you know, one application of the '437 patent is
`you want to let companies or customers outsource development and hosting
`of all of their web data, if they're dealing with their website or web service.
`And then you need to be able to let them back up all of that data, you
`know, to maintain continuity of business in case other party goes out of
`business.
`
`Now, moving on to Slide 11.
`Slide 11 just shows an exemplary claim from this patent, Claim 1.
`And I'll go through certain of the implementations and terms in more detail
`later.
`
`I just wanted to note that what we just took a look at, the four figures
`and the description, plus the background section, that makes up a large
`portion of what is a relatively small spec for this patent.
`There are other sections that are common to patent applications,
`including the summary and abstract, but essentially, we went over a good
`chunk of the entirety of the disclosure of the '437 patent.
`Now, turning to Slide 13.
`Just to provide an overview of where we are now, Petitioner
`challenged all of the claims of the '437 patent on various grounds, and the
`Board instituted on these grounds.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`Ground 1 claims -- Petitioner challenged Claims 1 through 5, 8, 10,
`11, 13, 15, 16, and 18 through 20, as being obvious over Amstein alone, or
`in view of Amstein, Mantha, and Glenn.
`In Ground 2 Petitioner challenged Claims 6, 7, 12, and 14 as being
`obvious over Amstein and Chang, or in view of Amstein, Mantha, Glenn,
`and Chang.
`And in Ground 3, Claims 9 and 17 are obvious over Amstein, and
`you have Elgamal, or in view of Amstein, Mantha, Glenn, and Elgamal.
`And I would note that Your Honors instituted on all challenged
`claims and grounds, and found Petitioner would have a likelihood of success
`or succeeding with respect to all of these claims, with the possible exception
`of Claims 2 and 11, which I will go into more detail later in this
`presentation.
`Now, returning to Slide 15.
`I think I'll spend a bit of my time here discussing claim construction,
`and we just wanted to present the lay of the land in terms of claim
`construction and where we are now.
`Petitioner proposed construction -- expressed instructions for the
`terms backup copy and internet-based data, and the proposed instructions are
`here.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`I will not describe these in much detail today since they're really not
`at issue between parties. What is at issue is the construction of the term
`database.
`Petitioner in its petition argued that no further construction was
`needed of this term, and that it should be construed and understood
`consistent with the Phillips standard.
`Moving on to Slide 16.
`The -- when the Board instituted -- when Your Honors instituted,
`you also did not provide an explicit instruction of the term database, and did
`not find at that time that a construction was needed, and also applied that
`term consistent with the Phillips standard.
`In Patent Owner's response, Patent Owner argues the database
`should be construed as data records organized with tables.
`For at least the reasons I will discuss in the next few minutes, this
`construction should be rejected.
`It's inconsistent with the understanding of this term by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art or it would have been inconsistent with their
`understanding, and it's not consistent with the intrinsic record -- not
`supported by the intrinsic record or by extrinsic evidence.
`Moving on to Slide 17.
`I'd like to first go through why the intrinsic record does not support
`Patent Owner's construction of database.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`First, just beginning with the claims themselves, there's nothing
`about the claims that support Patent Owner's construction of database as data
`records organized with tables.
`Taking a look at the claims, they recite at least one database
`containing a plurality of data records accessible by central computers, and
`there's no mention of tables or database tables.
`Going to Slide 18.
`Dr. Mowry also opined on this issue, and gave an opinion about how
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would've understood the term database,
`or at least one database in the context of the claims.
`And there's -- according to Dr. Mowry and, as you see, his testimony
`and opinion here, there's nothing inherent in the term database, or at least
`one database, that would've suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`that database tables were required or that database tables must somehow be
`linked.
`
`You know, to the contrary, and as he has explained in his declaration
`and Petitioner in our papers, a POSA would've understood database to
`include any structured collection of data, and this would include, for
`example, hierarchical structures.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Ms. Lee, I have a question for you.
`MS. LEE: Yes, Your Honor?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: My understanding from Patent Owner is that
`they look at the term data record as according to one of ordinary skill in the
`art that that would mean rows in a database.
`And I'm reading in your briefing it appears that you had interpreted
`data records to mean all hosted data, according to one of ordinary skill in the
`art.
`
`I don't see a citation in that part of your brief to the record -- to the
`evidence supporting that interpretation.
`Can you point us to where in the record it supports that
`interpretation?
`MS. LEE: Yes, Your Honor. So, if you give me a moment, the --
`my connection here is a little bit slow to go through these other documents.
`But the -- I believe that was also -- we -- that -- Dr. Mowry,
`Petitioner's expert, provided an opinion supporting that assertion, and I
`believe we cited to some of the background context for database -- I'm sorry,
`for how the claims can be understood.
`For example, that the claimed invention would certainly apply to
`hosting of a company's website and the backing up of all of the data, the
`hosted content in that website.
`And so, understanding the term data records in context of that
`disclosure, in that application of the '437 patent, that's how we're getting to
`that understanding.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you.
`MS. LEE: And so, now moving to Slide 19.
`The intrinsic record -- just as another reason why the intrinsic record
`does not support Patent Owner's construction of database -- and now let's
`take a look at the specification.
`In the specification, there is no mention of tables or database tables.
`In fact, the word database appears twice, once in the specification --
`other than the claims, once in the abstract, and once in Figure 4.
`And as we see in Figure 4, the database is shown there with a
`numeral marked 34.
`And as we -- when we look at the specification, 34 refers to data
`stored on a data backup system that the data backup system can access.
`It's very broad. It just talks about a location where data is stored and
`is accessible by the data backup system.
`Moving on to Slide 20 now.
`And we can hear from Dr. Mowry again why the specification does
`not support Patent Owner's construction of data records organized with
`tables.
`
`In addition to that, it's that embodiment shown in Figure 4 of
`database just has a generic location where data at the server is stored.
`We go back to that application that we discussed in the background
`of the invention describing hosting of a company's website, and describing
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`how it'd be meaningful, or it would be necessary or useful to backup and
`retrieve a complete copy of that outsourced web data.
`And so, that is another reason why database should not be read
`narrowly as data records in tables.
`It would just -- it would not be feasible to back up all groups of data
`if it were so limited to being as -- construed as data records or rows
`organized with tables.
`Moving on to Slide 21.
`The extrinsic record also does not support Patent Owner's narrow
`construction of database.
`So, the two excerpts that I have on this slide are actually documents -
`- or definitions that were cited by Patent Owner.
`In the first dictionary definition, which is from a Microsoft
`Computer Dictionary, a database is defined versus loosely any aggregation
`of data.
`And that's consistent with the context the database has provided with
`the '437 patent.
`As we look at the second excerpt --
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Ms. Lee?
`MS. LEE: Yes, Your Honor?
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: How much weight should we give to a
`definition that's admittedly loose?
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`MS. LEE: So, I think that the '437 patent itself already provides
`enough context for the understanding of database because it would've been
`understood to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`This extrinsic evidence just supports that there is -- that that
`understanding is consistent with one understanding in a particular context of
`database to a person of ordinary skill in the art, according to these different
`extrinsic evidence excerpts.
`So, I agree loosely is maybe providing -- like saying as a broad
`umbrella of one definition.
`I'll also note that the definition of a row as described by Patent
`Owner describing it as a -- nothing more than a computerized recordkeeping
`system, is also consistent, and then maybe a tighter definition that was
`provided in dictionary definitions supplied that were cited in our reply, and
`in Dr. Mowry's declaration, which refer to database, either a structured set of
`data or a structured collection of data.
`Those definitions are all consistent with the way that database -- or at
`least certain embodiments of database are provided for the '437 patent.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Great.
`MS. LEE: Moving on to Slide 22.
`So, at the bottom of Slide 21, we saw a definition of database as a
`computerized recordkeeping system, and that was from a textbook by Mr. C.
`J. Date about database systems from 1983.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`Mr. Date published many more textbooks and many more editions of
`these textbooks as the years went on, including one in 1997, which is a little
`bit more contemporaneous to this '437 patent.
`In the 1997 textbook, Mr. Date still refers to databases as
`computerized recordkeeping systems.
`Mr. Date also distinguishes between different types of database
`systems.
`For example, in this textbook, Mr. Date refers to relational database
`systems as systems that see data as tables and nothing else.
`But it also describes that there are such things as non-relational
`database systems, which see other data structures and can see them instead
`of tables of relational systems.
`For example, hierarchical systems.
`So, Patent Owner's construction would improperly leave out various
`different types of databases that were known and would've been understood
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art as also being a database.
`Moving on to Slide 23.
`I'd just like to address some of Patent Owner's claim construction
`arguments and explain why they're not supported by intrinsic or extrinsic
`evidence.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that person of ordinary skill in the art would've
`understood the claim that database to be a relational database because a
`database would have tables, which are often linked or related to one another.
`Again, no mention of the tables or database tables and the fact that
`database appears twice. We see it once clearly in Figure 4, and in that
`description, in that embodiment, it's nothing more than data stored on the
`data backup system.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Counselor, can we pause for just a moment?
`MS. LEE: Yes.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: All right? Can we pause for just a moment?
`MS. LEE: Yes.
`(Simultaneous speaking.)
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: I apologize. I think we might be having
`someone who needs to dial back in.
`MS. LEE: And I just want to note from our audio test personnel,
`that if my audio is getting choppy, it's -- are you still able to hear me okay,
`or should I try another number?
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: I can hear you okay, but if you could just give
`us a moment, we'll see if we can sort it out.
`MS. LEE: Okay, great.
`(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 1:25
`p.m. and resumed at 1:28 p.m.)
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`MS. LEE: Now turning to Slide 24, we already saw earlier that Dr.
`Mowry opined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`thought that the (telephonic interference) of at least one database or database
`would mean that there had to have been tables, or that those tables had links.
`(Telephonic interference) that database can have different meanings in
`different contexts.
`So, the context that we're examining here in the '437 patent is a
`rather broad meaning of databases. There's nothing to suggest that we
`would have to limit this term to data records organized with tables.
`The second --
`(Simultaneous speaking.)
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Okay, counselor?
`MS. LEE: Yeah?
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: I apologize. It appears that one judge has lost
`video and one can't hear you very well. Hold on a moment, please.
`MS. LEE: Okay, no problem.
` (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 1:28
`p.m. and resumed at 1:32 p.m.)
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Counsel, whenever you're ready, you can
`proceed.
`MS. LEE: All right, thank you very much, Your Honor.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: And thank you for your patience.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`MS. LEE: Oh, no problem. This is actually going more smoothly
`than I -- than I've seen other events go, so.
`Now turning to Slide 25, addressing another one of Patent Owner's
`arguments.
`Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would've understood the claims that at least one database be a relational
`databases because relational databases allow for increases in computational
`ability, including scalability and manipulability.
`Petitioner's expert, Dr. Mowry has opined that, you know, these
`aspects are not unique to relational databases.
`Moreover, the '437 patent describes this in a context other than a
`relational database, and for example, that one context was described
`previously about outsourcing the development and management of a
`company's website development, which would store and require more data
`to be stored in a format not just in a relational database.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Counsel?
`MS. LEE: Yes?
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: One question. I don't believe either party has
`brought up the prosecution history when it comes to database.
`I don't know if it's relevant, but I wanted to get your thoughts. Is
`there anything in there that you could point us to that guides us to construe
`this term?
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`MS. LEE: So, the Patent Owner did not argue that over -- any other
`prior art reference over its teaching or non-teaching of a database. The
`prosecution history of the '437 patent was relatively brief. In the '007 Patent,
`you have a little bit more back and forth.
`This wasn't in our papers, but in response to Your Honor's question,
`the Patent Owner chose not to argue database as a potential distinction, even
`though there were references cited.
`For example, I believe Langford, which was not squarely -- portions
`were not squarely on and related to a relational databases, and they
`overcame that art for other reasons.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you.
`MS. LEE: And just to provide one clarifying note, I -- actually, I
`believe that the reference was Crawford, not Langford, where Crawford
`wasn't related to relational databases, and applicant did not distinguish over
`Crawford on that basis.
`And this was in the December 20, 2002 -- as a response to the
`December 20, 2002 office action in the '007 Patent prosecution history.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you.
`MS. LEE: You're welcome.
`Now, turning to Slide 26. Patent Owner argues that client
`identification number mentioned once in the abstract supports its
`construction of database.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`Again, there's not much description of client identifier numbers in
`the specification, and the claims actually recite client identifiers.
`And as Dr. Mowry explained, client identifier -- identification
`numbers, and more generally, client identifiers were not unique to relational
`databases, and were used in other storage systems, for example, in Amstein's
`file hierarchical system.
`And Petitioner has shown that to be the case in -- as mapped in the
`petition.
`Turning now to Slide 27.
`Patent Owner argues that the '437 patent uses the term records in the
`claims and once in the abstract.
`That refers to rows, and evidence as patentee's attempt to claim the
`database as data records organized as tables.
`Again, the term data records itself is not defined or limited in the
`'437 patent, and the '437 patent provides examples that are consistent with
`the broader meaning of the term, including hosting of a company's website.
`And this -- I also addressed this earlier in response to Your Honor's
`question.
`Another argument by Patent Owner, moving on now to Slide 28, is
`that the '437 patent description is internet-based order entry and payment
`billing system, generating reports and reformatting the data, also support its
`narrow construction, and if you take each -- a couple at a time.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`With reference to internet-based order entry and payment billing
`systems, it is accurate that the '437 patent has some examples of systems or
`applications where perhaps a relational database would've been used.
`But even assuming that you would've used relational databases for
`some of these applications, the '437 patent is not limited to these examples
`for at least the reasons I described earlier.
`And then in terms of generating reports, if we start running the data,
`those actions were common in systems that were not relational databases, for
`example, in the system described in Amstein.
`And again, these limitations are met and described in more detail in
`the petition.
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that extrinsic evidence, including
`dictionary definition and textbooks support its construction of the database
`and data records.
`Even the references that Patent Owner cites to provide alternate
`definitions and one which is broader and consistent with the way that the
`'437 patent envisions the term database, or at least provides embodiment for
`the term database.
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: Counselor, I might have missed it since --
`during this sort of choppiness of our video -- and I'm not sure whether you
`guys can hear me right now?
`MS. LEE: Yes, I can hear you, Your Honor.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: Okay. I just lost video again, so I'm like,
`oh, I don't know if I can -- all right, did you set forth the claim constructions
`for database in your reply?
`Or -- I see that we've spent several slides in a row now sort of
`disparaging what Patent Owner's claim construction for database is.
`But did you positively set forth the construction for database?
`MS. LEE: So, in the reply, we maintained the position that database
`should just be understood consistent with the Phillips standard and the plain
`and ordinary meaning of the term.
`But at the -- both in terms of the '437 patent use of the term as just a
`location where data is stored, in this case, at the server -- and Dr. Mowry's
`also opinion or definition that the database containing -- being a structured
`set of data, I think any of those definitions are consistent -- are all consistent
`with the construction, the plain meaning of database in light of the '437
`patent, use of that term.
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: Okay, thank you.
`MS. LEE: You're welcome. Now I'd like to move on to Slide 44,
`unless there are any other questions regarding claim construction?
`(No response.)
`MS. LEE: So, I'm not going to go through all of the claim
`limitations of the independent claims or the dependent claims, but I did want
`to walk through a couple that are in dispute between the parties.
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR2019-01019
`Patent 8,812,437 B2
`
`
`
`So but first, I wanted to just -- on Slide 44, show the similarities
`between Amstein, which is our -- Petitioner's primary cited reference, and
`Figure 1 of the '437 patent.
`Again, it's this client server architecture where the client can send a
`reque
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
