Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 46
`Entered: August 3, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. and PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: June 9, 2021
`
`
`
`Before CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 46
`Entered: August 3, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. and PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: June 9, 2021
`
`
`
`Before CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ANDREW RADSCH, ESQ.
`JAMES R. BATCHELDER, ESQ.
`MARK D. ROWLAND, ESQ.
`SCOTT A. MCKEOWN, ESQ.
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, California 94303
`(650) 617 4018
`
`ADAM A. ALLGOOD, ESQ.
`JOSEPH EDELL, ESQ.
`ALAN M. FISCH, ESQ.
`BILL SIGLER, ESQ.
`JEFFREY SALTMAN, ESQ.
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`(202) 362-3500
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ALLEN BULLWINKEL, ESQ.
`MICHAEL HEIM, ESQ.
`CHRIS LIMBACHER, ESQ.
`Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP
`1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
`Houston, Texas 77002
`(713) 221-2024
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`David Saunders, Esq., Juniper Networks
`George Simion, client representative
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, June 9,
`
`2021, commencing at 3:01 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: I'm Judge Boudreau. This is the
`hearing for cases IPR2020-00338, '339, and '486, all captioned
`as Juniper Networks, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.
`Packet Intelligence LLC, concerning U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,839,751 and 6,954,789.
` I'm joined this afternoon by my colleagues, Judges
`Hamann and Sawert.
` Can we please have counsel introduce themselves for
`the record, starting with Petitioner's counsel.
` MR. RADSCH: Hi, this is Andrew Radsch for
`Petitioner, Ropes & Gray. I'm joined in our Silicon Valley
`office by my colleagues, Jim Batchelder and Mark Rowland, and
`from our Washington, D.C. office, Scott McKeown. And we have
`on the lines Palo Alto Networks' Client Representatives,
`George Simion and (inaudible) --
` MR. ALLGOOD: Adam Allgood, with Fisch Sigler, also
`for Petitioner. And with me today on the phone are lead
`counsel for these IPRs, Mr. Joe Edell, Mr. Alan Fisch, Mr.
`Bill Sigler, Mr. Jeff Saltman, all from Fisch Sigler. And
`then also Director of Litigation for Juniper Networks, Mr.
`David Saunders.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you. And who will be
`presenting on behalf of Petitioner?
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
` MR. RADSCH: Your Honor, this is Andrew Radsch. I
`will be addressing claim construction at this hearing. Mr.
`Allgood will be addressing the issues with respect to
`conversational flow and state, and if we get to them, I'll be
`happy to address flow-entry database and associative cache.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
` And would counsel for Patent Owner please introduce
`yourselves.
` MR. BULLWINKEL: Yes, this is Allan Bullwinkel on
`behalf of Packet Intelligence LLC. With me today are Michael
`Heim and Chris Limbacher, and I'll be arguing on behalf of
`the Patent Owner.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
` So as set forth in the hearing order in this case,
`Petitioner will have 60 minutes of total argument time, as
`will Patent Owner. And each may reserve time for rebuttal
`from that -- from the total allotment.
` And also, again, before we adjourn at the end of the
`hearing, I'd like to ask everyone to stay on the line to
`briefly answer any questions that the court reporter might
`have.
` One other housekeeping matter. In the oral hearing
`earlier today in cases IPR2020-00336 and 2020-00337,
`involving related patents and overlapping issues with the
`current proceedings, the parties agreed that the Panel may
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`enter the transcript of that hearing into the record of this
`case. Unless there are any objections, we would similarly
`like to enter a copy of the transcript from this hearing into
`the record of the '336 and '337 cases.
` I just want to confirm, does Petitioner have any
`objection?
` MR. RADSCH: No objection, Your Honor.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
` And Patent Owner?
` MR. BULLWINKEL: No objection, Your Honor.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
` All right. Well, with that, unless anyone has any
`questions, we can begin.
` Mr. Radsch, how much -- would you like to reserve any
`time for rebuttal, and if so, how much time?
` MR. RADSCH: Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Petitioner
`would like to reserve the balance of its time for rebuttal,
`at least 15 minutes for rebuttal, please.
` JUDGE BOUDREAU: Okay. Thank you. And I will give
`you a warning about five minutes before the initial 45
`minutes is up then.
` All right. Well, with that, you may proceed whenever
`you're ready.
` MR. RADSCH: Thank you, and may I please the Board.
`Again, this is Andrew Radsch for Petitioner.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
` I will be referring today to Petitioner's
`demonstrative exhibits that had been filed as Exhibit 1113
`for each of the three proceedings. I'll also reference to
`Patent Owner's demonstratives; as well as to the two patents
`at issue in this proceeding; as well as to the '099 patent.
`I may refer to other matters in the record.
` I would like to start today with claim construction,
`and specifically with the construction of the term,
`conversational flow, as that is only term in dispute. And I
`would like to turn to Petitioner's slide number 9.
` So each of the -- each of the challenged claims in
`this proceeding recite recognizing a packet as part of the
`conversational flow. Not recognizing conversational flows
`generally, but recognizing the packet as part of the
`conversational flow.
` The Board has adopted a preliminary construction.
`Patent Owner has proposed a different construction. We want
`to make clear that the prior art grounds render obvious the
`claims under either instruction. So while there are maybe
`questions today, and there was lot of briefing about the
`meaning of that term, either way, prior art clearly discloses
`recognizing a packet for a conversational flow.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Counsel, this is Judge Sawert. I have
`a question about your construction of conversational flow.
` As I recall, if I could recall correctly, you had 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`different construction in your Petition than the one that the
`Board adopted at the Institution Decision. Can you either
`confirm or -- can you confirm that the construction that the
`Board adopted preliminarily in the instruct -- in the
`Institution Decision is the construction that you agree with?
` MR. RADSCH: I -- so Your Honor, I thank you for the
`question.
` We had -- the Petitioner had in its Petitions
`proposed a different, somewhat narrower construction based
`upon statements that Patent Owner had made in prior art IPR
`proceedings that we had said rose to the level of disclaimer.
`However, for the purposes of the proceeding, we are adopting
`the -- the Board's preliminary construction based upon the
`specifications lexicography. And the prior art meets any of
`those constructions. That is Petitioner's construction, the
`Board's preliminary construction, and the Patent Owner's
`construction.
` JUDGE SAWERT: So just to be clear, you no longer
`challenge -- you do not challenge the Board's construction
`adopted in the Institution Decision?
` MR. RADSCH: Well, for the purposes of these
`proceedings, we're not challenging that -- that -- that claim
`construction. There is a parallel State District Court
`proceeding where claim constructions have not been rendered,
`and those are, you know --
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
` JUDGE SAWERT: Yeah, I --
` MR. RADSCH: -- issues there --
` JUDGE SAWERT: -- understand. I'm just looking for
`yes for this IPR, these IPRs. Okay. Thank you.
` MR. RADSCH: For these -- for these proceedings, we're
`not challenging that construction.
` So with that, I would like to turn to slide 10 of
`Petitioner's demonstratives. And where we had set forth the
`Board's construction, which is based upon the specifications
`lexicography that the term, conversational flow, is a coined
`term; it is not a term of art. Applicants chose to coin that
`term in the specification. They did so, as we pointed out
`here in the '099 specification, which is incorporated by
`reference into the specification of the patents that we're
`here on today. The Board adopted that construction because
`of its lexicography. And omitted the exemplary language
`which we believe is correct to do because it's exemplary.
`And as the Board knows in cases such as Catalina Marketing,
`exemplary language is not limiting as a matter of law.
` And as the Board may take note, in related patents,
`the '646 patent, for example, claim 1 also defines the term,
`conversational flow in a manner consistent with the
`highlighted portion on slide 10 of the specifications
`definition. Omitting any of that exemplary language, and
`importantly, not limiting conversational flow in any way, as
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`the Patent Owner argues today, which is that it must be
`client-specific.
` So what I'd like to do is turn to slide 11, and focus
`on the Patent Owner's arguments about conversational flow,
`and why they're incorrect based on the facts and based on the
`law.
` So the Patent Owner argues that a conversational flow
`must be limited to a particular or user client activity. And
`it bases that position off of the exemplary language from the
`specifications lexicography, which, again, does not appear,
`for example in '646 claim 1 definition of conversational
`flow. But in any event, the specification makes it clear
`that a specific client activity is merely an example of an
`activity. It states, For instance, running of an application
`on a server as requested by a client.
` And what the Patent Owner seeks to do is to turn that
`exemplary language into a claim limitation, and yet, it
`focuses only on the aspect of a client. If -- if the Board
`were to read this in as a limitation, it would require only a
`communication between one client and one server. Which would
`exclude the PointCast example from the provisional
`application, and that patentee itself as pointed to as an
`example of conversational flow, because a PointCast is a
`communication between a client and multiple servers. We know
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
` JUDGE SAWERT: Counsel I would like to discuss those
`examples that you're relying on for -- and -- and now I'm
`leaning more toward whether or not Riddle reads on
`conversational flow. And what I would like to do is -- my
`understanding is that you're relying on these two examples as
`teaching -- as embodiments teaching more than one client or
`more than one activity. Is that correct?
` And can we go through those examples that you're
`using, and can you explain to me how they teach more than one
`client or more than one activity?
` MR. RADSCH: Certainly, Your Honor. And if you turn
`to slide 14 of Petitioner's demonstratives, we include the
`language from the provisional application that is
`incorporated by reference into the two patents we're dealing
`with in this proceedings, '789 and '751. And it is in this
`language that the provision, the applications discuss the
`SAP, the Service Advertising Protocol, or a print service.
`What this --
` JUDGE SAWERT: Wait a minute. I am -- I'm lost. You
`said slide 14?
` MR. RADSCH: Of -- yes, slide 14 of Petitioner's
`demonstrative.
` JUDGE SAWERT: And that is “'789 patent associative
`cache claim”?
` MR. RADSCH: No, Your Honor, it should be titled --
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`slide 14 should be titled “Limiting conversational flow to a
`particular user or client device with embodiments.”
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. Very good. I'm looking at the
`wrong slide. One minute, please.
` MR. RADSCH: Certainly.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Slide 14. Okay. I'm there.
` MR. RADSCH: Okay. Thank you.
` JUDGE SAWERT: I have a question --
` MR. RADSCH: So again --
` JUDGE SAWERT: -- about this, actually. And it's
`very intriguing to me your position on this. This is the
`first time I've come across -- so please let me know what cases
`you're relying on. It seems to me that you're using a
`provisional that was incorporated by reference, information
`in that provisional to confirm the meaning of a claim in this
`patent. And I'm just wondering, what cases are you relying
`on? Do you have any incorporation-by-reference cases or
`anything along those lines that say that we can do that?
` MR. RADSCH: Your Honor, I don't have any in my
`prepared text. We'll be happy to provide something on
`rebuttal.
` The same example does also appear in the
`specification of the '099 patent, for example, at column 3.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Yeah, see, that's the problem I have
`is that it's not in every patent, correct? And when I look
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`at your reply, I see that -- for instance, in some of your
`footnotes, you recite -- for instance, I'm looking at
`IPR2020-00339. And I see in some of your footnotes, you're
`citing '099, which, for this patent in this IPR, is not helpful
`at all for me, because I'm not looking at the '099 patent.
`I'm looking at the '789 patent.
` And so it kind of, for me, brings up another issue,
`which is, why didn't you tell me for this IPR, and for this
`patent, where the particular -- if you're relying on this
`example, where is it in that patent relevant to this IPR?
` MR. RADSCH: So I think I understand your question,
`Your Honor. I think there's two answers to that, is that the
`'789 patent incorporates-by-reference expressly disclosure of
`both of the provisional and of the '099 patent. And so it's
`our position that a person ordinary skilled in the art
`reading this specification would also necessarily turn to
`those other disclosures to understand the claim language
`because they're expressly incorporated by reference into the
`disclosure of the '789, '789 patent. And for those reasons,
`we both -- both parties to the proceeding, have pointed to
`the other materials incorporated-by-reference into the '789
`patent, and it's the '751 patent.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. And then, my other point about
`this particular IPR, do you have a response to that? I'm
`just wondering why you didn't add the cites for the '789
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`patent.
` MR. RADSCH: Your Honor, for -- the answer is as to
`overlapping disclosure because of the -- the
`incorporation-by-reference, I believe both parties cited
`primarily to the '099 patent because the disclosures were
`overlapping. There are some differences as to the background
`information. So for example, that's why in the '099, this
`SAP example is included. The background is a little bit
`different in the '751 patent, for example. And but in any
`event, because it's incorporated-by-reference, a person
`ordinarily skilled in the art would reference that material
`in understanding the scope and meaning of the claims. That's
`what --
` JUDGE SAWERT: So you don't -- so you don't think we
`should take anything from the fact that, as to the patent
`itself, just putting aside their incorporation-by-reference
`issue, as to the patent itself, some of these patents have
`this SAP example, for instance, and some do not. We
`shouldn't take anything from that as far as what these
`patents are teaching, and how we should construe
`conversational flow?
` MR. RADSCH: I don't think -- I don't think the Board
`should take anything from that for a couple of reasons.
`Putting aside whether, you know, that that information is
`incorporated-by-reference. There are examples of what 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
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`conversational flow can be. As the Board knows, those
`examples are not limiting, but they are illuminating as to
`the scope of conversational flow.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. Well, let's -- let's talk about
`those two examples.
` MR. RADSCH: Okay. Happy to do so.
` And starting with slide 14, where we set forth this
`is -- the service, the Service Advertising Protocol example,
`the use for print service. The language of this -- of the
`provisional, which is also found in column 3, I believe, of
`the '099 patent, similar language, explains that, A first
`client may make a request to a print service to identify the
`print service on that -- to a print server to identify the
`print service on that server. That same client may then send
`a separate request or a separate connection to use the print
`service.
` And the specification explains in the highlighted
`portion in the middle that those are two disjointed
`connections. First, to establish the identity of the print
`service. The second, to use it. It says, Those two packet
`exchanges would then be correctly identified as being part of
`the same flow if the clients are the same. What it's saying
`is those two disjointed connections would be -- recognizes
`the same conversational flow because the clients ares the
`same. It then says, It ou would even be recognized if 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
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`clients were not the same.
` So saying an example where you have a different
`client using the print service after the first client has
`identified that address. Those disjointed connections from
`the first client to establish a print service, the second
`client to use it, those together would be recognized as a
`conversational flow.
` JUDGE SAWERT: I guess the problem I'm having now is
`that when you go, for instance, to the '789 patent, it
`doesn't say that. It doesn't say they would even be
`recognized if the clients were not the same. And it seems to
`me that maybe I should take something from that; that even
`though the -- the -- this provisional was incorporated by
`reference, it purposefully omits the information that they
`would even be recognized if the clients were not the same.
`Which is why I'm -- I'm looking for something, I'm looking
`for some case or something that's telling me I can, I guess,
`so to speak, include what's in the provisional, even though
`it -- it's not in the patent itself, but seems to, like I
`said, purposefully omit it.
` MR. RADSCH: I -- so I think the answer -- first of
`all, to provide you with the case cite for a Federal Circuit
`case that does allow for the incorp -- the reliance on the
`incorporated by materials -- materials
`incorporated-by-reference, rather, would be a Hollmer v.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`Harari case, 681 F.3d 1351.
` And so we do think it's proper and permissible, and
`in fact, those materials must be taken into account in
`interpreting the scope of the claims. And I don't think
`there's any dispute by the Patent Owner here that both the
`'099 specification, which includes this similar language, as
`well as the provisional. Their disclosures are
`incorporated-by-reference into the '789 patent. And all of
`those materials in the aggregate would need to be considered
`when understanding the scope of this term.
` And again, I -- to -- to -- to come back to a point
`we've made earlier, in some respects, with an activity where
`conversational flow is limited to a specific client, or it
`could encompass activities of multiple clients, is somewhat
`academic in that the Prior Arts, Riddle and Yu, expressly
`discloses recognizing client-specific uses of applications.
`Client-specific conversational flows.
` But I'd be happy --
` JUDGE SAWERT: You mean non-client-specific?
`Client-specific --
` MR. RADSCH: So Riddle --
` JUDGE SAWERT: -- or non-client-specific?
` MR. RADSCH: Riddle and Yu both expressly disclose
`client-specific conversational flows.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. Thank you.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
` MR. RADSCH: Again, our position is even if the Board
`adopts the narrowing construction proposed by Patent Owner,
`art meets the -- meets the claim.
` Just to stay on 514 for a moment, and on the -- on
`this example, what the Patent Owner states is that the
`language, they would even be recognized if the clients were
`not the same, references only the second connection. But
`that word, they, is important in that sentence because they
`refers back to the two packet exchanges. Meaning the first
`connection, and then the second connection by the second
`client. What this is teaching us is that conversational flow
`is focused on the activity being performed, which is the
`application being used.
` And if we turn to -- if you have more questions about
`an example, I'll be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I'll
`turn to the Patent Owner's arguments about the meaning of
`activity.
` JUDGE SAWERT: You said there was a second example.
`So I understand the first example is SAP printing example.
`And what is your other example that you're relying on?
` MR. RADSCH: So this is -- this is -- this is the a
`primary example that we've relied upon in specification.
`There being examples of multiple clients involved in the same
`activity. But there's also examples we pointed to in our
`briefing of Remote Procedure Calls, RPCs, where there may be
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`an advertised -- based on server announcement flow, an
`advertised service that multiple clients can use.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Do you have a slide for that?
` MR. RADSCH: I do not, Your Honor. We -- for this
`proceeding, we focused just on the -- on the provisional
`discussion of the service advertising protocol. That's where
`most of the briefing is focused. But I'd be happy to walk
`through that example if that would be helpful.
` JUDGE SAWERT: That would probably be helpful in case
`I'm not sold on this SAP example.
` MR. RADSCH: Okay. Yes, and would be -- I would be
`happy to do that, Your Honor. I think that this example is
`frankly a little bit clearer. But and again, I want to come
`back to the point that the prior art, you know, discloses
`client-specific conversational flows where you identify a
`client, you identify a server, the specific activity
`occurring. So in many respects, this is, as we've said,
`academic.
` So the other example --
` JUDGE SAWERT: Maybe. Maybe not.
` MR. RADSCH: Understood. Understood.
` So the other point we pointed to is the -- is the RPC
`example, where there again are multiple connections by --
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. Can you --
` MR. RADSCH: -- different clients.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
` JUDGE SAWERT: Can you start by picking, for
`instance, the '789 patent? Tell me where that example is.
` MR. RADSCH: Certainly. In our briefing in our -- in
`our reply brief, we've addressed the page as 4 to 5 of our
`reply, and we cited to again to the '099 patent because
`that's where this example was discussed.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay.
` MR. RADSCH: The reason again we did that was because
`it was incorporated-by-reference. And that's at column 31
`from lines 31 to 40 of the '099 patent.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Give me a minute to get there.
` Okay. Please go ahead.
` MR. RADSCH: Okay. Certainly. And what this -- what
`this example explains is that it's an -- it's what they refer
`to as an R -- a send RPC Bind Lookup Request. So a client
`may make a request to a server. It says here, Client 1
`requests a port mapper assignment with an -- with a RPC port
`mapper reply.
` So a client sends a request to a server, and there's
`a reply received. It says, Then some other client, say
`client 2, might see that request, and therefore, know that
`this particular server, server 2, port number with the
`specific port number associated with this specific
`application service program.
` And then, it says, It is desirable -- this is two
`
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`different clients communicating with the same server with the
`same activity, clients 1 and client 2. It says, It is
`desirable for the network monitor to be able to associate any
`packets to server 2 using that port number with that
`application program.
` And so what this example is explaining it is
`desirable for the monitor to be able to aggregate those
`disjointed flows as relating to the same application program.
`And throughout the specification, I'm including throughout
`column 7 of the '099 patent, for example, the -- the
`applicant repeatedly refers to the application programs
`conversational flow. Application programs have
`conversational flows. Not only users or clients. If you
`look at, for example --
` JUDGE SAWERT: I have one question about this RPC
`Bind Lookup Request. So let's say for -- for argument's sake
`that I agree with you that it's two different clients, and
`that two disjointed flows are considered conversational flow
`here, but what is the activity here? Is it one activity or
`is it multiple activities?
` MR. RADSCH: So activity here is broad -- use of
`activity in the specification is broad enough to encompass
`both of these client requests communications with the server,
`because the activity is focused on the application involved.
` And that's consistent with how Patent Owner in prior
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`proceedings argued the meaning of conversational flow, and
`then focused on aggregating elections involved with the same
`application program. Here, again, the activity, the use of
`activity in its ordinary sense and specification is broad
`enough to encompass the same application program or same
`service being used. It's not -- it is no -- an applicant has
`not pointed to any lexicography or disclaimer on the
`specification that would limit the word, activity, to being
`one that's user or client-specific.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. I understand. Thank you.
` MR. RADSCH: And just to give you just couple of
`cites in the '751 patent, column 7, for example, at line 17,
`sort of get a drawback to that column, in column 7, The
`applicants refer to the conversational flow associated with a
`particular application.
` So what this is teaching a person ordinarily skilled
`in the art is that conversational flows are, or can be,
`associated with application programs, not merely with a
`specific client or a specific user. You certainly can define
`conversational flow that way, but it's not so limited.
` The '751 patent also states in its background, and
`this is not in the '099 patent, this is one different -- one
`difference. And this is a point that the Patent Owner
`haven't pointed to. But at column 1, starting at line 57, it
`says that there is a -- In particular, there is a need for 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
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00338 (Patent 6,839,751 B1)
`IPR2020-00339 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`IPR2020-00486 (Patent 6,954,789 B1)
`
`realtime network monitor that can provide details as to the
`application programs being used.
` And so the need that is being expressed here is to
`understand the application being used, not to understand some
`client-specific usage. And that is consistent with the
`notion of conversational flow as defined in the
`specification, as defined in the '646 patent and used
`throughout has to do with the sequence of that packets
`resulting from an activity. Example, application program
`usage.
` If there's no further -- more -- more question about
`claim construction, I would turn to Mr. Allgood to address
`the prior art. And I'm happy to answer any more questions
`about claim construction.
` MR. ALLGOOD: Thank you, Mr. Radsch. Thank you.
` Adam Allgood for the Petitioners.
` Let's -- if we could just reset and -- and turn to
`Petitioner's slide 20.
` We're talking about the prior art disclosing
`conversational flows. Riddle describes the mapping packet
`network flows to traffic class based on certain selectable
`information. And here, table 2 provides examples of
`components of the
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
