Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 41
`Entered: January 12, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: December 17, 2020
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
`SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 41
`Entered: January 12, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: December 17, 2020
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
`SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOHN M. BAIRD, ESQ.
`PATRICK D. MCPHERSON, ESQ.
`Duane Morris, LLP
`505 9th Street, NW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`202-776-7819
`pdmcpherson@duanemorris.com
`jmbaird@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`GREGORY GONSALVES, ESQ.
`ERIC Y. YOON, ESQ.
`Capitol IP Law Group, PLLC
`1918 18th Street, NW
`Unit 4
`Washington, DC 20009
`571-206-4847
`gonsalves@capitoliplaw.com
`yoon@capitoliplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`
`December 17, 2020, commencing at 1:01 p.m. EST, via Videoconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` 1:01 p.m.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon, this is the hearing for
`
`IPR2019-01655 between Unified Patents and Synkloud Technologies
`involving U.S. Patent number 9,098,526.
`
`I am Judge Medley and with me are Judges Kaiser and Raevsky. So,
`at this time we’d like the parties to please introduce Counsel for the record
`beginning with the Petitioner.
`
`MR. BAIRD: Good afternoon, Your Honors, my name’s John
`Baird. I’m lead Counsel for Petitioner, Unified Patents. On the line with me
`is Co-Counsel, Patrick McPherson.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thank you.
` MR. GONSALVES: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is
`Gregory Gonsalves representing the Patent Owner, Synkloud.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. All right; each party has 60 minutes
`total time to present arguments. Petitioner, you will proceed first and you
`may reserve some of your argument time to respond to arguments presented
`by Patent Owner. Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s
`presentation and you may reserve argument time for surrebuttal. Petitioner,
`do you wish to reserve some of your time to respond?
` MR. BAIRD: I would, Your Honor. I’d like to reserve 20 minutes.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. And, Patent Owner, would you
`like to reserve some of your time?
` MR. GONSALVES: Yes, I’ll reserve 15 minutes, please.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Fifteen minutes. Okay; all right, thank you.
`And just a reminder the hearing is public. There is a public line and there
`are participants on that line. Before we get started, I have a procedural
`question for the parties.
`On October 30th, Petitioner filed an updated mandatory notice paper
`indicating that claims 1 through 10 of the 526 Patent were invalidated under
`35 USC 101 in a related District Court proceeding.
`The question is for both parties, anybody can chime in, what is the
`status of that District Court proceeding, and have there been any settlement
`discussions in lieu of the District Court’s holding?
`MR. BAIRD: On behalf of Petitioner, there haven’t been any
`settlement discussions that we’ve been involved with. Petitioner’s not
`involved in that litigation so, Patent Owner would know more about that
`case so, I’ll defer to the Patent Owner.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Mr. Gonsalves, do you have anything to add to
`that please?
`MR. GONSALVES: I’m not aware of any settlement negotiations
`taking place at this time. I will also note that it’s my understanding that a
`101 decision by the District Court either has been or will be appealed to the
`Federal Circuit.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So, a judgment’s been entered in the
`case? Or is it continuing on with other issues?
`MR. GONSALVES: Because I don’t know for sure because that’s a
`matter for litigation Counsel, if you wish we could investigate it and then get
`back to you via email. But I don’t want to say something that I’m not
`certain on.
`
`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
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. That’s fine. Yes, so if you have an
`opportunity to do that -- that would be appreciated. And I just want to
`remind the parties that when you are not speaking to please mute your
`microphone. I hear a lot of background noise. So, with that in mind,
`Petitioner, you may begin.
`MR. BAIRD: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Board to
`turn to Slide 2 of my demonstratives. This IPR challenges all claims of the
`challenged patent, which is the 526 Patent based on two grounds.
`And to give a brief overview of where I’d like to go in the argument,
`I’ll turn first to the 526 Patent generally to give an introduction to that --
`then touch on the three-point construction issues that have been briefed in
`the papers. And then turn to arguments on Ground 1 and then Ground 2 and
`then wrap up briefly with the secondary considerations.
`So, turning to Slide 3, the highest level of the 526 Patent has three
`key components to it. There’s a wireless device in the background of the
`Patent. The Patent talks about if it was known in the prior art that wireless
`devices had limited storage until the invention was to provide the most
`storage for the wireless device.
`That amount of storage was affected by two components, a server
`and then the storage space itself. Server controls the storage spaces and one
`of the storage spaces is provided to each of the number of wireless devices
`that are using the storage space.
`So, looking at Figure 3 --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Excuse me, I’m sorry to interrupt you. I’m
`sorry. We are still hearing a lot of background noise. I’m wondering, Mr.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`Gonsalves, if you have not muted your phone because we’re still -- or
`computer -- we’re still hearing a lot of noise.
`MR. GONSALVES: Okay, let me try again.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. That’s better, I don’t hear anything
`now. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, please proceed, Mr.
`Baird.
`
`MR. BAIRD: Okay. So, looking at Figure 3 on the right-hand side
`there’s the wireless device that’s in red and there’s annotations on Figure 3,
`steps one, two, three and four, we’ll set those aside for a moment, we’ll get
`into that.
`But the wireless devices, the red on the right-hand side and it has a
`wireless to link, shown in the middle as the network, which is orange and
`that’s just the internet.
`And the wireless link-in and couple across what is shown there as
`path B to get to this storage server, which is in blue. And that storage server
`then interfaces with the individual storage spaces; that is shown in green on
`the bottom.
`Now the Patent describes the user being able to perform all of your
`normal file management operations, creating folders, deleting folders,
`moving files around, storing files directly from the wireless device over the
`network into the remote server’s storage space, retrieving files out of the
`remote storage space and bringing them to the wireless device; and that’s all
`described in Patent with respects to Figures 1 and 2. Now what we have
`here is that additional embodiment of Figure 3 and you can see the title of
`the Slide in the Patent is Wireless out-band download.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`And so, the specification describes this as an additional specific type
`of storing the files into the remote space, which is in green. And this is
`where the annotations come in. Patent describes the wireless device on the
`right-hand side, browsing a website.
`So, the top of Figure 3 you see in purple, you have an ISP internet
`service provider, a website that you’ve been browsing shown over Path A
`that’s going over the internet using a conventional web browser.
`The Patent refers to -- as a result of this browsing you have cache
`webpages. The cache webpages allow you to have download information
`about things on that -- that were on that website.
`Patent talks about sending that download information over Path B in
`Step 2 to the server, to blue, and then the server will interact with, over Path
`C out-of-band -- it’s out-of-band because it’s not related to the wireless
`device, so that you can get the file from the purple website and bring it down
`over Path C to the server and down into the storage system.
`Now all of the, Patent describes all this using conventional
`technologies, conventional web browser, conventional wireless device,
`conventional server and doesn’t go into any technology as to how to
`implement anything that’s described there.
`It's just a functional short description. And that’s fine because a
`person of ordinary skill in the art understands all this information and so you
`don’t need excessive detail.
`Now how does this all turn or get reflected in the claims that are at
`issue. If Your Honors will turn to Claim 4, we have claim -- sorry, Slide 4,
`which has Claim 1 on it. The Patent has 20 claims, there are two
`independent claims -- Claim 1 is here.
`
`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
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`Claim 11 is the other independent claim and that’s a computer-
`readable medium version of Claim 1 if Your Honors are interested, I have
`the text of Claim 11 on Slide 44 in the backup area.
`But sticking with Slide 4, this Claim 1 is representative and the
`parties don’t distinguish between the two in any of our arguments. The claim
`is directed -- these are apparatus claims -- is directed to the wireless device,
`which was the red in the figure.
`Some features of the wireless device has a cache storage, a wireless
`interface and a program code. And this is where this piece will come in is
`the program code has these two functions.
`First is establishing a wireless link to get out to the open internet to
`the storage space and I have a couple of pieces of texts highlighted in red.
`These correspond to the claim construction issues that we’ll get to in a
`moment.
`But that first one has the predefined capacity and the second one,
`you’re going to be coupling across the wireless link to carry out an operation
`for remote access.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Excuse me, I have a question.
`MR. BAIRD: Yes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: With respect to the couple claim construction
`issue, is that only with respect to Ground 1? It seems to me that it is?
`MR. BAIRD: That is correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. BAIRD: So, then in the couple limitation there’s this wherein
`clause that I have set off by indentations. That way, so when operation and
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`then it’s set off comprises storing or retrieving data object therein and then
`there’s a comma and then the whole element of a particular type of storing.
`This whole element that I have at the bottom of the slide, I’m going
`to refer to today as the out-of-band storing element and this really gets to the
`Figure 3 embodiment that we talked about. There’s an optional embodiment
`in the Patent.
`In terms of the relevance of these claim construction terms, Patent
`Owner makes an argument for predefined capacity and limitation against
`both Grounds directly.
`But for the capacity terms of the coupling and the compromises,
`those claim construction arguments, for it to impact the Grounds that are
`presented, those are both setups for the out-of-band storing elements and this
`idea in there that you’re utilizing download information for the file stored in
`said cache storage.
`So, that’s just a preview and if we can jump to, if we can get into
`those issues, if we can jump to Slide 6, the first claim term is the predefined
`capacity.
`So Slide 6, in the first bullet the Patent Owner is setting forward this
`construction of this predefined capacity. Now in the surreply they changed
`the term that’s being construed to be more of the phrase, but at least in the
`response they were defining just predefined capacity as all this verbiage.
`And regardless of what term your construing, the really punch line of
`what is at the issue is at the bottom of, the end of their construction but the
`amount of the storage having been set in advance of any interaction or
`negotiation between the server and the user.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`None of that, if we turn to the claim, none of that extra language is in
`the claim; there’s nothing about advance of any interaction with users. So --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I have a question. I’m sorry to interrupt you.
`So, it seems to me their construction, like at least with respect to the second
`Ground and Chaganti as the primary reference where the user can actually
`use the server to, it seems to me, to define the storage amount that will be
`used for the user that the user can use.
`
`And it seems to me that that, they were saying that’s no good
`under their construction. Is that your understanding also?
`MR. BAIRD: I think that’s an accurate characterization of their
`argument. I think the argument is wrong. If we want to jump ahead to Slide
`30 -- that’s where we discuss the Chaganti disclosure.
`If we look to the first bullet here with a quote from Chaganti and it’s
`coming out of Column 3, the user -- granted it says the user, we’ll get to that.
`The user allocates a predetermined amount of storage space on a
`storage device such as a hard disk and then the server is preprogrammed to
`automatically increase that as the need arises or after the user pays a
`subscription fee or a one-time fee for the space.
`So, I think nobody really disputes that whatever action the user is
`doing that’s through computer technology, it’s a server, et cetera, that’s
`carrying out vices.
`Now in terms of timing, the user is allocating a predetermined
`amount of storage. So, the amount of storage is determined before the user’s
`involved. Same thing --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Do you mean before the user actually uses the
`storage? Because if the user is the actual one that uses the server to define
`how much space they get --
`MR. BAIRD: Well, wouldn’t that, well I would say both. But let
`me take that in steps. First the claim goes to establishing a wireless link for
`access and then refers to the predefined capacity. So, I think that under the
`requirements of the claim, if your amount of capacity is defined at least in
`advance of the access you’ve satisfied the claim.
`Now turning to their construction and user involvement, even if you
`go to this quote here and says the user allocates a predetermined amount of
`storage, the text of what Chaganti’s disclosing is that the amount that the
`user is allocating was predetermined before the user was there.
`It’s like if you order a, go up to sign up for a storage room and you
`say I want medium storage space. Well, the company’s set up what a
`medium storage space was before the user was involved, the user is
`allocating, selecting a predetermined capacity.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thank you.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Counsel, I have a related question. That Slide
`30 refers to the text of Chaganti saying that the user allocates the
`predetermined storage and the claim says that the predefined capacity is
`assigned exclusively to a user.
`So, in your understanding of the claim, can assigned exclusively to a
`user encompass the user defining the storage?
`MR. BAIRD: I’m not sure if I follow the question, Your Honor. If
`you could clarify.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: I’d be happy to. So, what I’m really trying to
`figure out is whether the claim covers a situation where the user allocates a
`predetermined storage.
`The claim says it’s assigned to the user, so that suggests to me
`perhaps that someone else is doing the storing, sorry, someone else is doing
`the predefining rather than the user.
`
`So, to come around to a question, hopefully it’s a little more clear,
`does the claim encompass a user establishing or citing that predefined
`capacity?
`
`MR. BAIRD: I think I know the plain meaning of the claim, I think
`it does, I think it does. I don’t think there’s anything in the language of the
`claim that would require the user itself to be excluded from that process.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Thank you.
`
`JUDGE KAISER: Counsel, this is Judge Kaiser, I just want to
`verify you can hear me.
`
`MR. BAIRD: Yes, I can.
`
`JUDGE KAISER: Okay, great. So, playing off of Judge Raevsky’s
`question, I’m wondering what you think predefined adds to this claim?
`What does predefined do that wouldn’t be, would be different than just
`saying capacity assigned exclusively to a user?
`
`MR. BAIRD: So, I think that, turning to Slide 30 and Chaganti
`gives a good example that illustrates the difference. I think that if you were
`providing storage on an ad hoc basis where the storage level changes
`according to need then I would say that’s not predefined.
`
`But if you’re just setting up a predetermined capacity that is set
`independent of need and that you have to change that storage, for example,
`
`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
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`pay a different fee, et cetera, and reprogram as Chaganti speaks to
`reprogram, then you’re in the predetermined world.
`
`JUDGE KAISER: Thank you.
`
`MR. BAIRD: So, turning back to Slide 6, in terms of is the
`construction supportable as the Board found in the institution decision,
`there’s nothing in predefined or capacity. Those terms are not described in
`the specification.
`
`And the specification only gives examples of partitioning and
`assigning storage volume. I mean, there’s nothing restrictive in the language
`of the specification, which would justify bringing in, you know, this
`language before any negotiation or interaction with the user.
`
`So, this claim construction cannot, in my view, be supported by
`anything that’s in the specification because there’s nothing there that would
`hook it. I mean, even this Column 3 site, there’s just a reference to
`assigning a volume with a desired size.
`
`So, we think the construction is unsupported, it’s improper. There’s
`no need to construe because under any reasonable construction that we’ve
`set forward shows the term. If there are no questions, I’ll turn to the next
`term, coupling.
`
`So if we go to Slide 7, the Patent Owner discerned that coupling
`must be this high-performance coupling. They set out a link to form a
`relationship such that the coupled system is efficient, effective and
`interactive or at least that’s what their construction was at the time of the
`Patent Owner response.
`
`We took their expert’s deposition, sort of probed that and attacked
`that in our reply and now in the surreply they’ve come back and said oh, no
`
`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
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`we don’t actually, our construction doesn’t have this efficient, effective,
`interactive exchange of position. Our construction is: it’s actually coupling
`these links to form a relationship.
`
`That construction, to the extent it’s relevant at all to distinguish the
`grounds -- that term is not in the written description. Couple is not. This
`only applies to Prust. Prust expressly uses the term coupling.
`
`And it uses it with respect to email, which is the only argument that
`this is raised in connection with, so 526 Patent is being challenged doesn’t
`use the term.
`
`The prior art does use the term. And clearly this efficient, effective
`and interactive limitations to the extent the Patent Owners still pushing
`forward that construction but it’s highly ambiguous and improper.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Can I ask a question? You said that Prust
`specifically describes coupling. Is that with respect to the email
`embodiment?
`
`MR. BAIRD: It is, Your Honor. So, on Slide 20 you’ll see the top
`quote on Slide 20 has, describes this communicatively coupled description.
`And that’s at Column 134 and I don’t have it on this page, pardon me if I’m
`off camera, I’ll come right back. I’m just looking at (audio interference).
`
`So, we have this, the quote that’s on the slide and then around Line
`37 or so, the very next sentence says, more specifically, in order to store data
`files within the remote virtual storage area, the user sends an electronic mail
`message that includes the data files while she’s doing information target data
`file information.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`And so, it’s a little bit of a distraction whether an email itself is
`
`coupling. Prust says it’s coupling, that satisfies the claim but if you look at
`Slide 21 the art is on the left, the challenge Patent’s on the right.
`
`It’s the same structure; the wireless device is coupling across the
`internet to its assigned exclusive storage so that it can interact with its
`storage space so, the fact that you can send email commands and get files
`and send files et cetera, you can only do that because these are in Patent
`Owner’s construction, linked to form a relationship.
`JUDGE
`RAEVSKY: Counsel.
`
`MR. BAIRD: Yes.
`
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: If we were to adopt the surreply’s construction
`of coupling, would the primary still render the claim obvious?
`
`MR. BAIRD: Yes. For the reasons we just spoke to, this
`communicatively coupled, was expressively disclosed, performing the
`relationship. There’s the same relationship in the art as there is in the
`challenge Patent. If there’s any doubt about that I’m happy to answer
`questions.
`
`So, turning back, if there’s no more questions on the coupling term,
`I’ll turn back to the third term and we’ll go to Slide 8, which is this
`comprises storing a data object therein or retrieving a data object therefrom.
`
`On Slide 8, we have the claim language digested out a little bit
`starting off wherein the operation. And then that operation comprises, we
`have the storing element in purple or a retrieving element.
`
`And then the claim goes on and you have the whole outer band of
`storing detail for that. But in terms of just order of operations, that entire
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`bottom paragraph for element, it is all modifying and storing a data object
`therein.
`
`So, by the simple grammar and wording of the claim as written, this
`claim would be satisfied by either retrieving a data object therefrom or
`storing a data object therein and satisfying the out-of-band limitations in the
`purple element.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, if we agree with you that you have shown
`storing and retrieving, do we need to decide this issue?
`
`MR. BAIRD: No, you don’t.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And then I had one other question with
`respect to this construction that you’ve proposed. Are you aware of a claim
`construction advanced by any defendant or a determination in the related
`District Court cases that storing or retrieving means storing and retrieving?
`Do you know if anyone else has advanced the position that you’re taking
`here before us?
`
`MR. BAIRD: I’m not aware of that, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`
`MR. BAIRD: And just to be clear, Your Honor, the position that it
`requires an and is Patent Owner’s position.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Understood. Yes, thank you.
`
`MR. BAIRD: So, on Slide 9 the Patent Owner understands this
`issue. In their response they admit this, the grammar structure in the claims
`may not be perfect but the inventor really intended to claim.
`
`Well, that’s not the proper function of claim construction. We don’t
`redraft claims and change words to divine the intent of inventors.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`And in the surreply the Patent Owner sort of shifts its argument a
`
`little bit and almost argues that, well I’m not really saying and but what
`we’re saying is the storing has the out-of-bands stuff and then the retrieving
`of data, well you can’t retrieve unless you stored first.
`
`So, this device has to store so the storing has to be provided in
`accordance with this out-of-band object. That again is rewriting the claim
`and what’s important to remember is one, if you look back on Slide 8, base,
`it’s a data object for the storing or a data object for the retrieving.
`
`They’re not linked to each other. Moreover, there are a lot of things
`in the claim that might be, or in a wireless device that might be required.
`You might require a power supply for this to function.
`
`We don’t have to show in the prior art that the power supply is there
`because it’s not claimed. For the retrieving element, if we just look at the
`blue, data object therefrom, there’s no predecessor to explain how that data
`object got to the wireless device in the first point.
`
`It could have been an in-band storage. There’s nothing in the
`specification or the claim that would suggest oh, we always have to do out-
`of-band storage and that this is required.
`
`So, to your point earlier, Your Honor, the Board doesn’t need to
`construe this because the art does show both storing and retrieving and to the
`extent the Board were to construe it, it’d be fairly straightforward that the
`claim means what it means, this is or.
`
`On Slide 10 we have cites collected where we show both storing and
`retrieving for both Grounds going to the point that no construction’s
`necessary.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`If there’s no further questions on claim construction, I’ll turn to
`
`Ground 1, which is Prust in view of Major and we’ll skip over some of this
`material because we hit it during the claim construction discussion.
`
`If we look at Slide 12, you see Prust. The same architecture, the user
`computer is the wireless device, explicitly disclosed to be a PDA,
`communicating over a wireless link over the internet to a storage server.
`
`And then you have individual storage areas on storage devices in
`green, 225-I through 225-N and one of those is assigned exclusively to the
`user computer or yes, the wireless device.
`
`Prust has a robust disclosure of all that your file management,
`creating folders, deleting folders, moving files around, using the native
`operating system of the computer, using the browser of the computer and
`then also using email to affect out-of-band storage.
`
`Now, if we look at Slide 13 what Prust doesn’t explicitly describe is
`that the wireless device, the web browser on the wireless device has cache
`storage.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art knows it’s there but Major is our
`secondary reference, is our Research In Motion that makes the famous
`Blackberry and it confirms what a person of ordinary skill already knows,
`that conventional wireless browsers have web cache and that that is
`beneficial. And so, it had been obvious to use web cache in the wireless
`device of course.
`
`On Slide 14, these are the arguments that Patent Owner makes
`against the independent claims. There’s this issue in the out-of-band storing
`limitation about whether cache is disclosed for storing a URL.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`They’ve argued the predefined capacity issue. They argue the
`
`coupling issue. They argue the issue for some of the dependent claims and
`then they have motivation to combine Prust and Major.
`
`So, turning to the first issue about this web cache on Slide 15 and
`just, it’s important to remember that the details of cache in the 526 Patent,
`there’s no technical disclosure of a cache storage per se.
`
`All that is referenced is cache webpages. The original claim as it’s
`filed, there’s nothing about cache, it’s just cache webpages and one point in
`Column 5 of the Patent. And so, the only disclosure in the 526 Patent is a
`cursory disclosure relying on a person of ordinary skill in the art’s
`knowledge of web browser’s caching webpages. Against that background,
`these are some of the extreme positions that Patent Owner has taken on this
`term in the papers and these are in their response.
`
`This idea that web cache and storing webpages is totally foreign to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, trying to build up the cache in the 526
`Patent, that it’s some sort of special purpose cache and the only thing it does
`is store download information.
`
`I’ll note, on the 101 motion the District Court Judge found that all of
`this is conventional technology -- on the third bullet, the idea that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art wouldn’t know where to get a URL or how to store it
`in cache.
`
`And that using art URLs or storing URLs is wasteful and
`unnecessary. So, all these sort of extreme positions but if you turn to what
`Prust and what a person of ordinary skill in the art would know on Slide 16,
`Prust discloses a conventional web browser.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`Uses the term conventional web browser in several places that are in
`
`the cites. And both experts, our expert and Mr. Jawadi both agreed that
`conventional web browsing was known, web cache was common and well
`known and pervasive for wireless devices in the prior art.
`
`Again, there’s no disclosure in the 526 Patent about this, the details
`of it and this whole argument of cache in any event and how it’s used, that
`whole argument is only relevant if the Board agrees with the Patent Owner’s
`position on the retrieving or storing.
`
`Turning to Major on Slide 17: again, Major discloses conventional
`web browser, demonstrates that it is has web cache and discloses web cache
`being suitable for use for the PDA of Prust.
`
`Slide 18, the Patent Owner takes some, sort of mixes it together,
`motivation to combine with reasonable expectation of success and talks a lot
`about Prust and Major but the combination of Prust and Major is very
`straightforward, it’s very simple.
`
`It’s a web browser, a conventional web browser in Prust and Major
`teaches that and the benefits of it and it’s really only documenting what a
`person of ordinary skill already knows.
`
`And some of the arguments and for example, on Slide 18, some of
`the arguments that the Patent Owner takes is really extreme, you know,
`citing in their response that the entire point of Major, of this web caching, is
`to reduce wireless access.
`
`And then they try to contrast that, well with Prust the point of that is
`to increase the same because we want be able to up storage. That’s sort of
`like saying, coming up with a more efficient gas engine, teaches away from
`using gas engines.
`
`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
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01655
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`Well, they’re different concepts, they don’t teach away from each
`
`other. One benefits the ability to use the storage and use the, consume the
`resource efficiently.
`
`So, we talked about, on Slide 19, we talked about the predefined
`capacity but we talked about pred
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
