Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`Entered: September 24, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BOT M8, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: September 9, 2021
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`Entered: September 24, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BOT M8, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: September 9, 2021
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JASON R. MUDD, ESQ.
`ERIC A. BURESH, ESQ.
`Erise IP, P.A.
`7015 College Boulevard, Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`AARON M. FRANKEL, ESQ.
`JEFFREY H. PRICE, ESQ.
`JEFFREY G. ENG, ESQ.
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10036
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`
`September 9, 2021, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` (Proceedings begin at 1:00 p.m.)
` JUDGE TARTAL: Good afternoon, and welcome.
` We are here for a virtual hearing by videoconference
`in an interparty review case captioned Sony Interactive
`Entertainment LLC, Petitioner, v. BOT M8, LLC, Patent Owner.
`Case IPR2020-00922 concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,078,540 B2.
` First, let me begin by introducing the panel. I am
` joined by Judge Hagy and Judge Deshpande, and I am Judge
` Tartal.
` May we please have the parties' appearances? Who do
` we have appearing on behalf of petitioner today?
` MR. MUDD: Your Honor, Jason Mudd on behalf of
`petitioner, and also with me is Eric Biresh.
` JUDGE TARTAL: Good afternoon, counsel, and welcome.
` And now for patent owner. Who do we have appearing
` today?
` MR. FRANKEL: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
` Aaron Frankel from Kramer Levin, joined by my
`colleagues Jeffrey Price and Jeffrey Eng.
` JUDGE TARTAL: Okay. Thank you, and welcome.
` And just to clarify, do we have the name of the
`patent owner correct? Is it Bot M8, or do you pronounce that
`differently?
` MR. FRANKEL: It's pronounced Bot Mate.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
` JUDGE TARTAL: Bot Mate. Thank you.
` MR. FRANKEL: Yes. Bot Mate.
` JUDGE TARTAL: We set forth the procedure for
`today's hearing in our trial order, and as a reminder, each
`party will have 60 minutes of total time to present arguments
`in the case.
` Petitioner has the burden of proof and will go
` first. Patent owner will then present opposition arguments
` for the case. And then, to the extent petitioner has
` reserved time, petitioner will present arguments in reply
` for the case. Finally, if patent owner has reserved time,
` it may present surreply arguments.
` We will try to provide a reminder of the time
` remaining but also ask each party to keep track of the time
` they have available as well.
` Counsel, are there any questions in that regard for
` petitioner?
` MR. MUDD: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE TARTAL: Or for patent owner?
` MR. FRANKEL: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE TARTAL: For clarity in the transcript, when
`you refer to an exhibit, please state for the record the
`exhibit and page number, or for demonstratives, the slide
`number to which you are referring.
` When you are not speaking, we ask that you please
` mute your connection to improve the audio quality.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
` We'll remind each party that under no circumstances
` are they to interrupt the other party while that party is
` presenting its arguments and demonstratives. You will have
` an opportunity to respond in your reply and surreply
` argument times.
` Are there any additional questions on behalf of
` patent owner at this time?
` MR. FRANKEL: No questions, Your Honor.
` JUDGE TARTAL: And are there any additional
`questions from petitioner at this time?
` MR. MUDD: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE TARTAL: Petitioner, how much time would you
`tentatively like to reserve of your 60 minutes for reply?
` MR. MUDD: 10 minutes, please.
` JUDGE TARTAL: Okay. Then we will endeavor to give
`you a heads up when we are approaching the 50-minute mark.
` Petitioner, you may proceed when you are ready.
` MR. MUDD: Thank you, Your Honor.
` May it please the Board, Jason Mudd for petitioner,
`Sony Interactive Entertainment.
` Turning to Slide 2.
` The Board has instituted these three grounds raised
`by petitioner in this proceeding: First, in Ground 1, that
`Claims 1 and 4 are obvious over Johnson in view of Martinek;
`second, in Ground 2, that Claims 2 through 3 and 5 through 6
`are obvious over Johnson in view of Martinek in further view
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
`of Diamant; and third, in Ground 3, that Claims 1 and 4 are
`obvious over Morrow '952 in view of Morrow '771 and Diamant.
` Turning to Slide 3.
` The '540 patent at issue in this proceeding
`generally relates to a gaming machine that relies on gaming
`information stored on a storage medium to operate. The
`specification explains that, in the prior art, the purported
`problem was that only the storage medium itself was
`authenticated and not the gaming information that was stored
`on the storage medium. So the stated purpose of the '540
`patent is to authenticate gaming information stored on a
`storage medium rather than only authenticating the storage
`medium itself, and this authentication is done to verify
`that the gaming information has not been manipulated or
`tampered with in some way.
` The '540 patent describes the problem it sought to
`address at Column 2, lines 14 to 20, by stating, "However,
`in the conventional examples described in the aforementioned
`publications, there is a problem in that only the storage
`medium itself is authenticated, whereas authentication of
`the actual gaming information is not performed. In other
`words, it is not checked and verified that the gaming
`information stored on the storage medium has not been
`manipulated in some way."
` The prior art relied on by petitioner in this
`proceeding, however, demonstrates that this purported
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
`problem had already been solved.
` Turning to Slide 4.
` Both the Johnson and Martinek references teach
`authenticating gaming information stored on a storage medium
`rather than just authenticating the storage medium itself.
` Johnson states, at Column 3, lines 5 through 12, "To
`overcome the limitations in the prior art described above
`and to overcome other limitations that would become apparent
`upon reading and understanding the present specification,
`the present invention discloses a method for verifying the
`contents of a mass storage device before granting access to
`computer-readable data stored on the device."
` So, in other words, Johnson verifies the gaming
`information stored on the mass storage device and not just
`the mass storage device itself, and Johnson verifies this
`gaming information, including program files and data, before
`access is allowed by the system to these files and data.
` Similarly, Martinek states at the bottom of Slide 4
`that, "The gaming system 100 includes a unique system and
`method for preparing a game dataset for authentication in
`authenticating a game used in the gaming system 100. The
`gaming system 100 includes a process which securely verifies
`that the gaming dataset, including program files, have not
`been altered, either intentionally or unintentionally,
`changing the outcome of a game played on the gaming
`system 100."
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
` So Martinek similarly teaches authenticating the
`gaming information itself and not just the storage medium on
`which it's stored, so the prior art already addressed the
`purported problem laid out by the '540 patent.
` Turning to Slide 5.
` Like the '540 patent, Johnson teaches storing
`authentication program and a gaming program on the same
`storage medium. Specifically, Figure 3 of Johnson depicts
`the contents of Johnson's mass storage device.
` As shown in the figure, the mass storage
`verification module 330, which is the authentication program
`highlighted in green, is stored on the mass storage device
`along with the application module 320, which is the game
`program highlighted in red.
` Johnson teaches that the verification module checks
`and verifies that files stored on the mass storage device
`are valid. It does so by determining a set of computed
`verification data for the files.
` And Johnson teaches that the verification module
`ensures that the game application performs as advertised and
`has not been tampered with by anyone.
` Turning to Slide 6.
` Like the '540 patent, Johnson's computing system has
`another memory highlighted in green, which is at system
`RAM 225, for storing the authentication program from the
`mass storage device so it can be executed by Johnson's CPU.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
` Importantly, while Johnson's mass storage device is
`depicted in the figure as being a CD-ROM, this is not the
`only type of read-only memory that the mass storage device
`is limited to. Instead, Johnson teaches at the bottom of
`the slide, Slide 6, at Column 6, lines 48 to 51, that, "One
`skilled in the art will recognize that the present invention
`may be used with any mass storage device attached to any
`computing system without deviating from the spirit and scope
`of the invention."
` As set forth in the petition, given the ubiquitous
`use of circuit board memory at the time, it would have been
`obvious to use a memory board as Johnson's mass storage
`device based on Johnson alone.
` In the alternative, Johnson also would have
`expressly motivated a PHOSITA to look to known memory board
`storage devices such as that taught by Martinek.
` Martinek teaches techniques to verify and
`authenticate data, such as game information or code in mass
`storage, and gives examples of its mass storage as being a
`hard drive, a flash disk, or a read-only memory board.
` Turning to Slide 7.
` As shown in Slide 7, Martinek teaches a read-only
`memory board 502 with memory elements 501 and a connector
`508 to connect to a motherboard.
` And memory elements 501 of Martinek's ROM board 502
`store game code.
`
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
` Further, the ROM board 502 may be a single board
`that combines board 504 and it contains a memory element 507
`of restoring an authentication program.
` So like the '540 patent, Martinek's memory board
`stores both a game program and an authentication program.
` As set forth in the petition, a PHOSITA would have
`been motivated by Johnson's teaching that any mass storage
`device may be used to use Martinek's ROM board mass storage
`device containing a game program and an authentication
`program.
` Importantly, both Johnson and Martinek address the
`very same problem as the '540 patent in that they both store
`an authentication program and a game program on the same
`storage medium and the authentication program is used to
`authenticate the stored game program and not just the
`storage medium itself.
` Turning now to focus on the specific issues that
`have been raised by patent owner in this proceeding.
` Turning to Slide 8.
` Patent owner has raised these issues listed on
` Slide 8. I won't read through all of them, but this
` provides a roadmap for the order that I'll be addressing
` these issues in.
` JUDGE TARTAL: Counsel, can I just interrupt for a
`moment? This is Judge Tartal.
` MR. MUDD: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
` JUDGE TARTAL: Is there a position petitioner has on
`whether Johnson is sufficient in its disclosure alone, or
`what is it about Johnson that's missing that leads petitioner
`to necessarily turn to Martinek? Is the disclosure in
`Johnson of any mass storage device insufficient?
` MR. MUDD: Well, our contention is that Johnson
`alone, by teaching any mass storage device, would cause a
`PHOSITA to look to known mass storage devices at the time
`and, as laid out in the petition, circuit-board-based memory
`was ubiquitous at the time and used for mass storage. So
`petitioner has laid out a position that it would be obvious
`over Johnson alone -- over Johnson's teaching alone to use a
`memory board, but in the alternative, Martinek is also being
`combined for teaching a read-only memory board expressly.
` JUDGE TARTAL: Thank you.
` MR. MUDD: Turning now to Slide 9.
` The first issue raised by patent owner pertains to
`claim construction and the proper construction of the term
`read.
` This is somewhat of an unusual claim construction
`because it's not one that patent owner ever really appears
`to apply to its patentability arguments. Patent owner never
`really says that the prior art fails to teach the term read
`based on their construction, but nonetheless, patent owner
`proposes to construe the term read as meaning to transfer
`data from memory into the central processing unit, CPU.
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
` Patent owner's proposing to construe the term read
`in this manner so as to limit it to a fragment of the
`definition for read provided in the Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary. Patent owner labels this fragment of the
`definition as the read ii definition or, as I'll call it,
`the read, little 2, or ii definition.
` The definition of the verb form of read in the
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary is, "To transfer data from an
`external source, such as from a disk or a keyboard, into
`memory or from memory into the central processing unit,
` CPU."
` Patent owner, in its patent owner response,
` misquotes this definition by inserting a little 1 and a
` little 2 to purport to split this definition into two parts.
` As can be seen, a little 1 and little 2 do not exist in the
` Microsoft definition.
` Importantly, the definition encompasses both
` scenarios. It encompasses both transferring data from an
` external source into memory as well as transferring data
` from memory into the CPU, the definition does not divide
` itself into these two separate meanings.
` In any event, patent owner provided no basis for why
` the term read should be construed to exclude transferring
` data from an external source into memory and should instead
` be limited to transferring data from memory into the CPU.
` JUDGE HAGY: Counsel, I have a question.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
` MR. MUDD: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE HAGY: Sorry. I have a question.
` So I think you alluded to this, and you'll probably
`get into this in more detail in your argument, but are you
`saying that this claim construction dispute is not material
`because the prior art does, in fact, teach transferring data
`from the memory into the CPU?
` MR. MUDD: I'm contending that there is no term “read”
`in the claim language that patent owner is contending is not
`met by the prior art. The language that the patent owner
`focuses on is the term “authenticate the game program in the
`memory of the board,” and the term “read” doesn't show up
`anywhere in that statement.
` There is a term “read” that's used in the
`specification which talks about reading data four bytes at a
`time, and I think that's what this claim construction
`ultimately is getting at is how the term “read” may be used in
`the specification, which is why I'm saying it's kind of an
`odd claim construction issue. I don't believe it's material
`because I don't think patent owner has argued that the prior
`art fails to teach “read” as construed.
` So absent a clear intent in the spec, such as clear
` lexicography or disclaimer by the patentee, a claim term
` should be afforded its full plain and ordinary meaning.
` Here, there's been no lexicography or disclaimer to
` limit “read” in the manner proposed by patent owner. As such,
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
` it should be afforded its full plain and ordinary meaning,
` to the extent the Board even construes this term, because,
`as mentioned, patent owner never applies this construction
`in its patentability arguments to suggest the prior art does
`not satisfy the term read.
` Turning to Slide 10.
` The next claim construction issue raised by patent
`owner is the proper construction of the term “configured to.”
` Patent owner proposes to construe it to mean
`requiring structure designed to or configured to accomplish
`the specified objective, not simply that they can be made to
`serve that purpose.
` But as the Federal Circuit cases cited by patent
`owner indicate, the term “configured to” has been construed to
`mean things simply such as adapted to, made to, or designed
`to, not patent owner's construction.
` Further, patent owner's construction is circular and
`unhelpful because it uses the term “configured to” in
`construing the term “configured to.”
` But most importantly, the presence of the term
`“configured to” in Claim 1 is not an invitation to read in the
`requirement of some type of special, specific, or unique
`hardware configuration from the specification such as what
`patent owner refers to as a special signal path that patent
`owner argues is lacking in the prior art.
` We'll see in a moment that patent owner is relying
`
`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
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
`on the term “configured to” to suggest that a special signal
`path is required by Claim 1, such as one that uses both a
`PCI and an IDE interface, and patent owner then argues that
`the prior art does not teach the special or non-standard
`hardware configuration.
` So the term “configured to” is not like a
`means-plus-function claim term that allows one to read in
`the structure from the specification, but that's exactly
`what patent owner purports to do based on this appearance of
`the term “configured to” in the claim.
` So to the extent the Board construes this term, the
`Board should confirm that the term “configured to” does not
`limit Claim 1 to only the specific structure disclosed in
`the '540 specification. Beyond that issue, the term is not
`otherwise in dispute and no construction would be necessary.
` Turning to Slide 11.
` The next issue raised by patent owner is a brief
`argument that a PHOSITA would not have been motivated to
`combine Johnson with Martinek.
` First, again, Johnson provides an express motivation
` to look to known mass storage devices, such as those taught
` by Martinek, because Johnson states that, "One skilled in
` the art would recognize that this invention may be used with
` any mass storage device attached to any computing system."
` That, again, is from Column 6, lines 48 to 51 of Johnson.
` Further, as our expert explained, "a read-only
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
` memory board, such as Martinek's, would have been understood
` to be easily expandable to help address Johnson's need for
` storage."
` Johnson explains that a single ROM element may not
` individually be enough to store all of the desired audio and
` graphics data, but Martinek contemplates multiple ROM memory
` elements, which a PHOSITA would have recognized is a common
` and preferrable implementation to other mass storage devices
` where storage space is a concern.
` JUDGE HAGY: Counsel, I have another question, just
`real quick.
` MR. MUDD: Sure.
` JUDGE HAGY: As long as we're getting into the level
`of ordinary skill in the art, I understand that petitioner
`and patent owner are proposing different levels of ordinary
`skill in the art, whereas petitioner is proposing one or more
`years of experience in the field, patent owner proposes three
`to five years and experience particularly in computer systems
`designs.
` Do you know how the parties' differing definitions
` would impact, for example, the motivation to combine, if at
` all?
` MR. MUDD: Your Honor, I don't believe the parties
`have a dispute over how the differing proposed definitions of
`the level of ordinary skill in art would affect the
`motivation to combine, I think the motivation to combine
`
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
`analysis could be the same under either definition proposed
`by either party. That's petitioner's position on that issue.
` JUDGE HAGY: Are you aware of how the parties'
`differing constructions are material in any way to the issues
`that are before us?
` MR. MUDD: In terms of the term “configured to,” like
`I just mentioned, I don't see how it is material to the
`dispute. The same with the construction of “read.” I don't
`feel like it's material to the dispute on both accounts.
` The only thing I'd mentioned on “configured to” is,
` again, that to the extent it needs construction, and we only
` need construction for the Board to confirm that the term
`“configured to” does not limit the claim to only the specific
`structure disclosed in the specification, it's not like a
`means-plus-function claim term.
` So with regard to the motivation to combine, another
`point raised that petitioner laid out in the petition is
`that Johnson and Martinek also teach similar
`computer-implemented gaming machines that are both designed
`to verify the contents of a memory device, including a
`stored game program, so as to verify that it's not been
`manipulated or tampered with.
` And a PHOSITA would have recognized it as a simple
`choice of one form of memory element on a similarly
`disclosed mass storage device as suggested by Johnson
`itself, but those are just some of the motivations to
`
`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
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
`combine as set forth in the petition.
` Turning to Slide 12.
` Patent owner argues that a PHOSITA would not have
`been motivated to combine Martinek's validation scheme with
`Johnson's verification scheme.
` But first, as far as noting that petitioner was not
`proposing to bodily incorporate Martinek's validation scheme
`with Johnson's scheme, bodily incorporation is not required
`by the law. As noted, Martinek was primarily being combined
`for its read-only memory board for Johnson's mass storage
`device.
` But in any event, Johnson and Martinek's schemes are
`consistent with each other and complementary, they are not
`inconsistent.
` And this is from the middle of Slide 12.
` Johnson emphasizes that its verification is
`performed before permitting an initial access to the data on
`its mass storage device. Johnson states, "Before permitting
`an initial access to the computer-readable data from the
`mass storage device, contents of the mass storage device is
`verified by executing the instructions contained within the
`mass storage verification module."
` Martinek similarly emphasizes the same thing.
`Martinek states, "Security and validation are performed
`advantageously to data prior to loading it into various
`memory devices in the gaming machine, such as RAM 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
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
`NVRAM."
` So in both Johnson and Martinek, verification is
`performed first before the game data on the storage medium
`is accessed by the gaming device, thus, they are consistent
` and complementary verification schemes.
` Patent owner also makes an argument that Martinek is
` incompatible with Johnson because Martinek allegedly
` excludes post-computer involvement in the authentication
` process, but Martinek teaches to the contrary. Martinek
` states that, "Authentication can be performed entirely
` within the gaming engine or system without any external
` reading or implements, or a specific design of a system may
` use or require external access, activation, or
` intelligence."
` So it may use or require external access, activation
` or intelligence.
` And as noted in our reply brief, at page 8, patent
` owner's expert admitted during cross that this external
` intelligence could include an external CPU.
` Thus, patent owner is incorrect to suggest that
` Martinek excludes post-computer involvement in its
` verification process. An external CPU can, in fact, be
` involved.
` JUDGE TARTAL: Counsel, so -- counsel, this is Judge
`Tartal. Sorry to interrupt.
` MR. MUDD: That's okay.
`
`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
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
` JUDGE TARTAL: This goes to my prior question to
`some degree, which is, you're discussing various additional
`disclosures of Martinek.
` Are you relying on those additional disclosures in
`the combination with Johnson or for some element or feature
`not disclosed by Johnson, or is Martinek only included to
`provide the express example of a type of memory device that
`would include what is claimed?
` I think some of the confusion in terms of the
`rationale for the combination stems from whether or not
`Martinek is being used to supplement some other teaching that
`Johnson lacks.
` So I guess, to clarify, my question: Is there a
`teaching absent from Johnson that you are relying on as
`having been taught by Martinek beyond the specific storage
`device being claimed?
` MR. MUDD: There's also an alternative argument
`where patent owner makes an argument that I'll get to
`momentarily arguing that the game program can't be read to
`RAM prior to authentication.
` We contend that a PHOSITA would understand that
`Johnson teaches this, but we also argue in the alternative,
`that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to look to Martinek
`for teaching that same teaching, that authentication is
`performed prior to the game program being written to RAM.
` So that's another example that I'll get to in 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
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
`moment of an argument where we are relying on Martinek in the
`alternative in the event that Johnson were found not to have
`such an express teaching.
` And turning to Slide 13.
` The next issue raised by patent owner is that patent
` owner next argues that Johnson in view of Martinek does not
` authenticate the game program in a memory of the board, and
` this is because patent owner argues that Johnson does not
` perform a byte-level read of the game program by the CPU
` from memory during authentication.
` But Claim 1 merely recites, "Execute the
` authentication program stored and set on another memory in
` the process A, and then authenticate the game program in the
` memory of the board based upon the executed authentication
` program."
` Notably, this claim limitation does not contain the
` term “read,” nor does it refer to any byte-level read.
` The concept of a byte-level read is not present in
`the claim language, instead, this is a concept the patent
`owner pulls from the '540 patent specification.
` Specifically, as shown at the bottom of Slide 13, at
`Column 9, lines 45 to 50, it recites that, "The main CPU 21
`then operates as the reading unit of the present invention
`and reads out gaming information, in other words, a gaming
`program 30A and a game system program 30B from the memory
`card 30."
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
` In this case, the main CPU 21 reads out four bytes
`of data constituting the gaming information at a time. That
`concept of reading out four bytes of data at a time is only
`in the specification and not in the claim language, thus,
`the claim language, "Authenticate the game program in the
`memory of the board," does not require a byte-level read
`directly to the CPU during authentication.
` Turning to Slide 14.
` There was some suggestion by patent owner in its
`surreply that patent owner was not requiring a byte-level
`read during authentication, but this is clearly what patent
`owner was arguing.
` As shown on pages 43 to 44 of the patent owner
`response, patent owner distinguished Johnson on this basis.
`Specifically, in summing up its argument, patent owner
`stated, "In other words, Johnson does not teach the
`byte-level reading operation directly to the CPU as
`described in the '540 patent. More specifically, Johnson's
`verification process does not authenticate the game program
`in the memory of the board."
` So as can be seen, patent owner is, indeed,
`requiring a byte-level reading operation for this
`limitation, and patent owner attempted to distinguish
`Martinek on this basis as well.
` This is from page 46 of the patent owner response,
`the middle of Slide 14. Patent owner states, "Martinek,
`
`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
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00922
`Patent 8,078,540 B2
`
`which does not disclose a byte-level reading operation
`either, cannot cure Johnson's deficiencies."
` And at the bottom of the slide, patent owner's
`expert likewise admitted on cross examination that he and
`patent owner were requiring a byte-level read for this
`limitation.
` He was asked:
` "Q. So unless the prior art discloses a bit-level
` or byte-level read operation during authentication, prior
` art cannot disclose Claim 1?"
` And his answer was:
` "A. That is my understanding of Claim 1."
` So patent owner's incorrect to suggest that patent
` owner's not requiring a byte-level reading operation for
` this limitation, that's precisely what patent owner is
` contending is required because of the presence in this term
` in the memory of the board.
` Turning to Slide 15 --
` JUDGE HAGY: Yeah. I have a question, and maybe
`you'll get to it with this slide.
` But Johnson, in some way or the other, the CPU is
`interacting with the information, so how does that differ
`from a byte-level read, what Johnson discloses in terms of
`the CPU interacting with the data?
` MR. MUDD: Yeah. I don't know whether it does. I
`think patent owner is simply arguing that Johnson doesn't
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
