`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 21
`Entered: October 1, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`and ERICCSON, INC.,1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 9, 2020
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and MICHELLE N.
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner from IPR2020-00376 has been joined to this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DERRICK W. TODDY, ESQUIRE
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`
`121 SW Salmon Street
`Portland, OR 97204
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JEFFREY STEPHENS, ESQUIRE
`Etheridge Law Group, PLLC
`2600 East Southlake Boulevard
`Suite 120-324
`Southlake, TX 76092
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`September 9, 2020, commencing at 1:00 p.m., EDT, at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, by video/by telephone, before Walter Murphy, Notary
`Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` - - - - -
`JUDGE LEE: Good afternoon everyone. This is the Oral Hearing
`
`for IPR 2019-01116. The initial Petitioner is Microsoft Corporation and the
`Patent Owner is Uniloc 2017 LLC. Ericcson, Inc., the Petitioner from IPR
`2020-00376 has been joined as a party Petitioner. The involved patent is
`U.S. patent 7,016,676 B2 and the involved claims are claims 1 and 2. Now
`there is a public audio line open for this hearing. Just want counsel for each
`party to know that.
`
`I am Judge Jameson Lee joined by Judges Kevin Turner and Michelle
`Wormmeester. Before we begin we wish to thank counsel for your
`flexibility in conducting this hearing via video today. Given this is a
`departure from our normal practice, let me start by clarifying a few items.
`First, our primary concern is your right to be heard. If at any time during the
`proceeding you encounter technical difficulties that fundamentally
`undermine your ability to adequately represent your client please let us know
`immediately, for example by contacting the team member who provided
`with connection information. Second, for the benefit of the judges and
`opposing counsel, as well as the court reporter, please identify yourself when
`you begin your argument and speak clearly into your microphone. Please do
`not speak when others, such as the judges, are speaking. Third, we have the
`entire record including the demonstratives. When referring to
`demonstratives, papers or exhibits please do so clearly and explicitly by
`slide or paper number. Please also pause a few seconds after identifying it to
`provide us time to find it. This helps with the preparation of an accurate
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`transcript of the hearing. Finally, please mute yourself when you're not
`speaking. Please bear in mind the purpose of the Oral Hearing is to present
`your case based on the arguments and evidence of record. You may not
`introduce new evidence or arguments.
`
`Each party will have 60 minutes of total argument time. Petitioner
`and Patent Owner may each reserve time for rebuttal. Petitioner will go first
`and present its case, thereafter Patent Owner will argue its opposition and if
`there is any rebuttal from Petitioner we will hear it after Patent Owner's
`opposition and finally we will hear Patent Owner's surrebuttal, if requested.
`I will endeavor to provide each party with a five minute warning during
`opening arguments and a two minute warning during rebuttal and
`surrebuttal. Please also note that arguments raised during rebuttal and
`surrebuttal must be in response to arguments raised by the opposing party.
`Neither period should be used to initiate new arguments. So, now who is
`appearing on behalf of Petitioner?
`
`MR. TODDY: Thank you, Judge Lee. This is Derrick Toddy on
`behalf of Petitioner Microsoft Corporation.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. And who is here for Patent Owner?
`
`MR. STEPHENS: This is Jeffrey Stephens appearing on behalf of
`Uniloc 2017 LLC.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. I just want to know if any chance counsel for
`Ericcson is also here on the public line? I'm talking to the technical staff, I
`wouldn't be able to hear anything coming through, is that right?
`
`TECHNICAL STAFF: That would be correct, Judge.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. So I'm going to assume that if Ericcson's
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`counsel wanted to hear they would be on the public line.
`
`TECHNICAL STAFF: Yes, probably. The public audio line is muted
`upon entry.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay, thank you. Now would Petitioner like to reserve
`time for rebuttal and how much time?
`
`MR. TODDY: Yes, Your Honor. We would request 20 minutes.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. And Patent Owner?
`
`MR. STEPHENS: Yes, Judge Lee, 20 minutes as well for Patent
`Owner.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. Are there any other questions you'd like to talk
`about before we begin, counsel?
`
`MR. TODDY: None for Petitioner, Your Honor.
`
`MR. STEPHENS: None for Patent Owner. Thank you.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. Let me see. It's now 1:06 and here we go. You
`may start any time, Mr. Toddy.
`
`MR. TODDY: Thank you, Judge Lee. May it please the Board. The
`676 patent purported to solve the problem of stations operating in
`accordance with different radio interface standards sharing a common
`frequency band including by using a central controller to allocate time for
`those stations. The 676 patent acknowledges that it was known for such
`stations to share a band and also admits that it was known to have a central
`controller.
`
`However, the 676 patent stated in its specification that with the
`described embodiments,
`"Different radio systems may be made compatible" and further
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`"without the implementation of the new method this is only possible with
`respective exclusively used radio channels."
`That is in the 676 patent at column 5, lines 11 through 18 as cited in
`the petition, page 13.
`I'm referring now to slide 2 in Petitioner's demonstratives. As shown
`in the petition this assertion by the 676 patent regarding the state of the art is
`simply untrue. The petition cited four references coming out of the HomeRF
`Working Group over a year before the first U.S. application was filed for the
`676. HomeRF was an organization of 100 companies representing PC,
`telecommunications and consumer electronics industries and its goal was to
`improve interoperability between wireless, voice and data.
`The primary references that are seen there on slide 2 are an article
`published in IEEE Personal Communications from February of 2000 which I
`will refer to for the remainder of this presentation as HomeRF and the
`patent, the first named inventor of whom was also an author on the HomeRF
`publication, Jim Lansford, I'll refer to this going forward as the Lansford
`patent or Lansford.
`The petition also cites, and these are seen on slide 3 two additional
`HomeRF publications that were uploaded to the IEEE LAN/MAN Standards
`Committee website in 1998 and 1999 respectively. These references show
`how a POSITA would have understood certain of HomeRF's teachings.
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. Toddy, it's Judge Lee here. You only have 40
`minutes. We have reviewed -- read all the papers so you can spend your
`time any way you want but I'd really like you to focus on what constitutes a
`radio interface standard because I have a difficult time understanding the
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`Petitioner's position on what in HomeRF constitutes a radio interface
`standard. The discussions in the petition seemed very vague to me at least
`and Petitioner did not propose a construction for radio interface standard and
`when the Patent Owner proposed a construction in the Patent Owner
`response I was looking forward to seeing the reply but in the reply the
`Petitioner sidestepped the question. So as of right now the Petitioner still
`does not indicate what is a radio interface standard. In the reply the
`Petitioner simply says that, hey, operating according to a standard does not
`require implementation of the entire standard. Well, that doesn't really
`answer the question of what is a standard. Rather, it directs the inquiry to a
`different question.
`But really the fundamental question is what is an interface standard
`and then we can consider about whether or not an operation is according to
`that standard. This is a long way to ask a question but I really have literally
`20-30 questions on the same subject and I think the best way is for me to
`really have my own talk on this and you can understand what's troubling me
`and then you can just go on and take it apart and maybe you can answer a
`host of my questions just by responding. So I'm going to talk on.
`Now in the decision on Institution I thought you were arguing that
`TDMA is a standard and CSMA or CSMA/MA is another standard, and at
`DI, we agreed with you. But then the Patent Owner in the Patent Owner
`response says no, no, that's all incorrect because TDMA and CSMA are just
`access methods. They do not themselves constitute an entire standard. It's
`just an individual feature that might be adopted in a standard. So -- but in
`the reply you didn't disagree. You didn't say oh, no, TDMA is a standard
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`and CSMA is a standard. So right now I take it that Petitioner and Patent
`Owner are in agreement that TDMA by itself or CSMA or CSMA/MA by
`itself is not radio interface standard. Can we at least start with that
`clarification?
`MR. TODDY: Your Honor, that's a great place for me to start a
`discussion of what we understand to be a standard and I actually think Patent
`Owner and Petitioner are likely in agreement as to things that we would
`agree are standards and I think that we can start with 802.11 which is a
`standard that is mentioned both in the petition as well as in the 676 patent
`itself. 802.11(a) is an example of a standard and I think it's one that would
`be unremarkable.
`In the 676 patent there's an example given of another standard called
`HiperLAN2. HiperLAN2 is similar in a number of ways to the 802.11
`standard. They operate in the same band. They operate, according to the
`676 patent at least, according to approximately the same radio transmission
`method but they employ different transmission protocols. HiperLAN2 uses
`a reservation-based method and 802.11 uses a method where the radio
`stations listen and assume that the band is available after a certain time
`period passes where that band is unused. So I think those the examples of
`standards and they're examples of standards that I think both parties would
`agree on.
`As far as HomeRF, HomeRF makes clear that it is derived from two
`different standards. One is the same 802.11 standard we just talked about.
`HomeRF states that its second stations use a method that's derived from
`802.11 and/or OpenAir which is another similar standard that relies on 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
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`CSMA/CA method that we talked about where stations listen and just
`assume the band is unused before they transmit, after a given time they
`assume that the band is available.
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. Toddy, I'm sorry to interrupt but everything you
`just said I understand that perfectly but you're not answering my question.
`The question is not whether I know from reading the spec that 802.11(a) is a
`standard. Yes it is.
`MR. TODDY: Sure.
`JUDGE LEE: I don't think Patent Owner disagrees and I don't think
`they disagree whether HiperLAN2 is a standard so that's not where the
`problem is. The problem is why you have -- the petition has confused the
`issue by inserting the word TDMA in front of every or most mention of
`802.11. That caused confusion on my part. And why you insert CSMA in
`front of the name of another standard? So I want you to start by telling us --
`MR. TODDY: Sure.
`JUDGE LEE: -- whether TDMA by itself is a standard and whether
`CSMA itself is a standard. Patent Owner says no, they're not and you don't
`seem to disagree in your reply. I wanted at least to tie that down first. Yes
`or no?
`MR. TODDY: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE LEE: By themselves are they a standard or not?
`MR. TODDY: Your Honor, by themselves they are not in and of
`themselves standards. They are important characteristics of respective
`standards. The standard --
`JUDGE LEE: But so a standard may include it, right? Like a
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`standard might say I'm going to use TDMA so then it's part of that standard
`if it were included. But does TDMA by itself with nothing else is not a
`standard, right?
`MR. TODDY: Our position is we have not taken a position that it is a
`standard. I'm not sure I'm -- I'm not sure that we have an opinion that it isn't
`a standard but we are not relying on the Board's finding that those are in and
`of themselves standards. But the reason --
`JUDGE LEE: But if they say it's not, what's your response? Do you
`agree or disagree?
`MR. TODDY: If taken in isolation divorced from the standards from
`which they come, they are not standards. So --
`JUDGE LEE: And the same -- same with CSMA and CSMA/MA?
`MR. TODDY: That's right. Divorced from some standard they are
`not in and of themselves standards and Petitioner's position and the reason
`that we replied in the manner that we did is that we have not pointed to those
`access mechanisms, if you will, as standards in and of themselves but rather
`tie them or HomeRF has tied them to respective standards as part of those
`standards. So DECT is the one that I have not mentioned yet. Instead of the
`first radio interface standard being HiperLAN as it is in the 676, the first
`identified radio interface standard in the petition is DECT and the reason
`that we continued to mention those access mechanisms --
`JUDGE LEE: Oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry.
`MR. TODDY: That's all right.
`JUDGE LEE: See where the petition was confusing? I agree it makes
`more sense if you identify DECT as the standard but throughout the --
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`MR. TODDY: Right.
`JUDGE LEE: -- petition it's prefaced by TDMA. I mean you can go
`to it and you can see 20-30 repetitions where you say TDMA/802.11(a).
`You know, why insert TDMA in front of what's clearly a standard and then
`that really muddles things up?
`MR. TODDY: I'll tell you the reason for referring to both TDMA and
`to CSMA repeatedly throughout the petition is that is how HomeRF speaks
`about them after it's introduced them. So there is a lengthy paragraph that's
`cited in the petition where it talks about both the standards from which
`HomeRF is derived and then goes on to discuss the access mechanisms used.
`So I would refer the Board to slide 18 and slide 18 quotes from the
`petition at 30 and Mr. Rysavy's declaration at paragraph 81 and explains
`both of the underlying standards that we are arguing satisfy these claim
`elements. First is the DECT standard and the second is, on the right you can
`the IEEE 802.11 and OpenAir.
`JUDGE LEE: So now you're clarifying and I want to make sure I get
`it right. Literally I need you to help me understand what are the two
`standards you're actually saying. The first one absolutely you're clarifying is
`D-E-C-T for voice, right?
`MR. TODDY: That is the standard, correct.
`JUDGE LEE: Doesn't matter what terms you use in the petition
`whether you prefaced it with TDMA, really what you're saying is hey, for
`the voice devices the standard is DECT; is that right?
`MR. TODDY: That's correct.
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. And then for the other one, for the data devices
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`the standard you're identifying is either IEEE 802.11 or OpenAir?
`MR. TODDY: That's also correct.
`JUDGE LEE: So that if you pursue it this way you don't need to
`construe a standard because you're relying on what's previously recognized
`as standards. So if we agree with you that yes, you know, half the devices
`use DECT and the other half use either 802.11 or OpenAir, then you would
`have made your case?
`MR. TODDY: I agree that that is true. I believe that the access
`mechanisms are helpful in understanding how those standards function
`differently. I think that difference is an important one and again I do
`apologize for any confusion as to the position of DECT versus TDMA, but
`most of the discussion in the 676 patent and most of the discussion in
`HomeRF, parallel discussions, talk about the differences between different
`standards and the access mechanisms they use and then the problems that
`those present and in particular the problem presented is that the second radio
`interface standard stations don't get a chance to talk if the station is occupied
`-- or if the channel is occupied for the whole time by the first radio interface
`standard stations simply because of their access mechanisms.
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel --
`JUDGE LEE: We'll get to that but I’m not smart enough to follow
`you, you go too fast. So first things first --
`MR. TODDY: Okay. I'm sorry.
`JUDGE LEE: -- we need to know what are the standards and then we
`look at what the differences are. So your first standard is supposed to be
`DECT and your second standard is supposed to be either the 802.11 or the
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`OpenAir, correct? And then we can talk about differences.
`MR. TODDY: Yes, I agree, that's correct.
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. Now help us understand why what you show on
`your slide here and which is quoted from HomeRF, why does this tell us that
`for the voice devices it's actually using DECT and why for the data devices
`it's actually using either 802.11 or OpenAir? When I read it it doesn't tell me
`that.
`
`MR. TODDY: So let me start with the 802.11 and OpenAir. If you
`look at the quoted portion and look at the highlighted portion on slide 18, the
`CSMA/CA service provided by HomeRF it expressly states that that is
`derived from wireless LAN standards that we mentioned.
`JUDGE LEE: No. But you don't explain what derived means. I don't
`know what that means. Derived could be -- why couldn't derived mean I
`changed it a whole lot, you know, I derived it from that but I've changed it
`such that it no longer is the 802.11 or OpenAir? You know, I started from
`that but I tinkered with it. I changed this; I changed that; I changed that
`other thing. So out of the original 100 things now there's only 50 that are the
`same and the other 50 are now different. Why is the end product still what
`you started out with if you've made substantial changes to it?
`MR. TODDY: Well I think HomeRF -- the way that HomeRF
`describes the CSMA/CA service as it's implemented is consistent with the
`way that it's described in the 802.11 standard and it's consistent with the way
`that that standard itself is characterized in the 676 patent. So I think we go
`down a little bit if we start talking about the implementation of a complete
`standard because there are, you know, standards are lengthy, lengthy
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`documents and there are all types of provisions in the standard for all sorts
`of things that may be completely irrelevant to the patent at issue and the
`patent at issues --
`JUDGE LEE: I understand but where do you draw the line? And
`sometime let's say there's a 1,000 things, you know. They don't all have to
`be followed and you can still say it's according to that standard. But let's say
`out of 1,000 things you only do one, the other 999 are all different. Now at
`that point would you still say it's still in accordance to that standard when it's
`mostly different?
`MR. TODDY: If it's mostly different from the standard but it's still
`operating in accordance with the standard for a given element of the claim,
`then I think that's where you would draw the line. If you're talking about
`some feature that is not being followed by a prior art reference that has --
`let's just say there were some stated additional features of 802.11 and the
`HomeRF reference said expressly we're not adopting these three features,
`well if those features have nothing to do with the claims at issue or the claim
`elements at issue then I don't think there would be a concern. I think the
`concern would come if there was some way that there was a change from the
`standard that was relevant to whatever it is, in this case method steps you're
`performing, that you're supposed to be performing on stations that are
`operating in accordance with the standard.
`JUDGE LEE: So what you're saying is it doesn’t matter if it's
`different in a whole lot of other ways, if HomeRF doesn't care about them
`then it doesn't matter whether they're the same or different; is that pretty
`much the argument?
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`MR. TODDY: Well, or if the patent doesn't care about them more
`appropriately, right, if there are things that don't take anything away from
`the prior art reference teaching what it is the patent itself describes in claims.
`I mean here the functions it's striking that the similarities between the
`functions performed by HomeRF on these two different standards using
`these two different access mechanisms and very parallel standards and
`access mechanisms in the 676 itself right down to the --
`JUDGE LEE: Right. So if the only thing you're concerned is access
`mechanism, then you'd be saying hey, I do it the same -- I adopt the same
`access method as is adopted in this standard so I'm doing, I'm operating
`according to the standard regardless of how different other things might be.
`MR. TODDY: I think in that respect that I agree with that, Your
`Honor I think, you know, it would not be an appropriate response for, you
`know, a patent owner to point to some feature that wasn't operating in
`accordance with the standards without somehow specifically tying it to the
`claim and saying, you know, because this feature functions in a way that the
`standard itself does not function they're not practicing the claim if there's
`nothing in the claim about that feature if it's a completely unrelated feature
`or if, for example, 802.11 there's a number of different versions of that
`standard, you know, those standards may have a number of differences that
`have nothing to do with the claims at issue. So I don't think merely --
`JUDGE LEE: I understand, okay. But then the problem is why is it a
`standard then? A standard seems to be, I don't know, nobody provided
`definition. It seems to me a standard is something that's recognized by a lot
`of people, right? So let's say you only pick out the access method and 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
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`may or may not be used in a whole lot of standards. Let's say ten different
`standards use that, how can you say that using this access method which
`happens to be used by 20-30 different standards and I can say that this is in
`accordance with any one of those standards which happens to use the same
`access method. It doesn’t make sense to me that you'd be able to say that.
`MR TODDY: I think if they had said something different than what
`they said and had said, you know, I use TDMA and hadn't said where it was
`derived from or, you know, I use CSMA and hadn't said where it was
`derived from, again that might be an issue. Patent Owner brings up the point
`of some standards use both of these standards or adapt these access
`mechanisms for a single standard. But again I think the issue here is that we
`start with two underlying different standards with different access
`mechanisms and the HomeRF describes, as the 676 patent attempts to as
`well, how to make what are different standards with different access
`mechanisms compatible.
`JUDGE LEE: I see. I understand. Now for the DECT your argument
`is the same, that because it uses a subset of DECT it necessarily is in
`accordance with DECT insofar as access mechanism is concerned?
`MR. TODDY: Insofar as the access mechanism is concerned
`specifically because it says it uses TDMA service, not just because it said --
`if it just said it uses a subset of DECT and didn't mention an access
`mechanism, no, but because it says it uses a subset of DECT and specifies
`the access mechanism and because a POSITA would understand that that is
`DECT's access mechanism as Mr. Rysavy has pointed out, that's why
`throughout the balance of the petition we use those terms interchangeably
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`because that's really the point. That's really the point that the 676 patent's
`claim is getting at is how do you take these two different standards with two
`different access mechanisms and make them work together.
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. I think -- thank you for the explanation, I think I
`understand what you're arguing. I don't know if I agree with it; I don't know
`yet. But I now at least I know what you're arguing. The question is --
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel, can I ask a related question? I'm sorry, I
`didn't mean to interrupt, Judge Lee.
`JUDGE LEE: No, no problem. Go ahead.
`MR. TODDY: Yes, Your Honor Please.
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel, yes can you -- this is Judge Turner,
`thank you. Can you go to Petitioner's slide 38 which I think is sort of
`emblematic and I think in one slide here captures all of perhaps, and maybe
`it may be wrong for me to say, but I think captures all of Judge Lee's
`concerns because we have in quotes here a subset of the DECT standard and
`then we have derived from the 802.11 OpenAir standards, so I know he
`asked this question but I don't really feel like we got a good enough answer.
`If it's a subset and it's derived from how far away can we be, you know, and
`still be according, you know, in accordance with a radio interface standard?
`I mean how far away, I mean 802.11(a) is different than 802.11(b). They're
`different standards but there's a lot of overlap so you could say well it's in
`accordance with this standard or that standard, it's a little hard to sort of
`understand when we're not using sort of something that's, you know, purely
`according to that standard but it's derived from or a subset. Maybe you've
`already answered this and I didn't quite get it but I'll let you answer what I
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`think my question is.
`MR. TODDY: Your Honor, I think this is where in our initial petition
`we had offered a construction for the longer phrase to operate in accordance
`with a radio interface standard because I don't think there's really any issue
`that there are underlying radio interface standards set forth here in HomeRF.
`The question is, is HomeRF operating, are its I-nodes operating in
`accordance with the DECT standard when it uses TDMA? Are the A-nodes
`operating in accordance with 802.11 or OpenAir, or both when using
`CSMA? And our position is, and that was where our construction came in,
`that they are operating in accordance with that standard and it's hard to
`answer the well, how far away can you get from the standard and still follow
`the standard.
`I would go back to the claims, you know, the claims are the name of
`the game and the touchstone and so if, you know, the portions of the claim
`that address what those various standard stations have to be doing are being
`performed and they're being performed in a way that is by all accounts
`unmodified from the way those standards would function, then I think that
`should be sufficient.
`So, you know, maybe the longer construction, you know, or the longer
`phrase, the more complete phrase that we offered a construction for is
`necessary to give color to that because I don't think if you just stop at saying
`we need to construe radio interface standard as Patent Owner has done, I
`think that misses something as well because if you start with a radio
`interface standard and you say you operate in accordance with it and there
`seems to be this implicit suggestion that you can't modify the standard in any
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`way, as Mr. Rysavy testified in his supplemental declaration, that's not even
`how the 676 patent itself works. You know, there's no way that you can take
`these 802.11 stations that operate simply by waiting for silence and send
`them a beacon with information on what times they're allowed to use, you
`know, that's not set forth in the standard. That's a change to the standard.
`That is the nature of the 676. It's not taking these standards as, you know,
`wholly fully formed standards and allowing them to operate in an
`unmodified way. There's a required modification to make them compatible.
`So that's why I'm a little hesitant to point to some line in the sand
`where you can denigrate a certain amount from a standard and, you know,
`smf say it's this much but I would say that if it's operating in accordance
`with the standard in all ways that are relevant to the claims at issue, then I
`think that should satisfy the claim as it should be construed. I'm happy to
`discuss, you know, our claim construction position on that. We, in our
`reply, agreed with the Board that there are clearly standards here and so, you
`know, didn't feel that we needed to go further but if the Board feels that
`construction is necessary I think we have a construction on Petitioner's side
`that actually is tied to the patent and we have a construction that Patent
`Owner's offered that really is divorced from the patent because there is no
`complete radio interface standard practice going on with the two radio
`interface standards that the patent identifies. Those second stations can't
`function according to their standard in its complete form because there are
`aspects that are being introduced that are not set forth in that standard.
`JUDGE LEE: This is Judge Lee. I'm trying to understand your
`arguments but the problem I see is, you know, standards are something that's
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`supposed to be recognized and approved by certain bodies. So they may go
`oh, TDMA is good, I want to use that. But also -- but it should be used
`together with this other technique and that other technique. So it's TDMA
`plus X and Y and Z. That's why we want to have all those in our standard,
`and then you come along and say well, I only want to use TDMA and you
`see look at that standard, they use TDMA so I'm working in accordance with
`that standard but we don't know whether that standard's organization is
`saying you should use TDMA but only together with X, Y and Z and
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
