[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session.

[00:00:06] Speaker 03:
God save the United States and this honorable court.

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
We'll hear argument first in number 19-1766, NRA Advanced Media Networks, Mr. Ostrow.

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors, and good morning.

[00:00:20] Speaker 00:
Hopefully you can all hear me, but if at any time you have trouble hearing me, please let me know.

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
I'll see if I can make an adjustment on my end.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
So, again, my name is Seth Astral.

[00:00:32] Speaker 00:
I represent the Patent Owner Advanced Media Networks.

[00:00:35] Speaker 00:
We are appealing a ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board confirming and validation of all claims of patent number 6445777 over a variety of different prior art references.

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
And we went through in the lengthy briefs and the even lengthier, quite lengthy appendix

[00:00:59] Speaker 00:
The fact that this patent and its parent patent, 5960-074, the 074 patent, have both undergone substantial prior re-examinations as well as inter-party review petitions.

[00:01:16] Speaker 00:
And in all the previous instances, there were eight previous re-examinations total and seven IPR petitions.

[00:01:24] Speaker 00:
In all of those cases, the examiners and or the board reached a conclusion that these claims were patentable over much of the same prior art that's presented now in this appeal.

[00:01:37] Speaker 00:
There are one or two new references, but for the most part, the prior art is more or less the same as it was in all of these various prior proceedings.

[00:01:46] Speaker 00:
And the main reason why, as far as we can tell, this particular re-examination is coming out differently

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
is boils down to what we view as a claim construction issue.

[00:01:58] Speaker 00:
And it's a claim construction issue that we do not believe the board addressed at all, and certainly not to any standard that meets the Administrative Procedure Act.

[00:02:09] Speaker 00:
And it boils down to what I'll use claim one of the 777 patent as my example, although essentially the argument is the same for the other claims.

[00:02:19] Speaker 00:
The claim has three elements.

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
There's a satellite communication subsystem,

[00:02:23] Speaker 00:
a wireless local area network.

[00:02:25] Speaker 00:
I'm paraphrasing for the sake of time.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
And then we get to this third element of a mobile unit.

[00:02:31] Speaker 00:
And the mobile unit has to be configured, according to the claim, to transfer broadband information as a single nomadic transmission reception point between the satellite communication subsystem and the wireless LAN using an Ethernet packet switching protocol.

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
So those are kind of a mouthful, but it is that element

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
that we believe is being interpreted by the examiner in this ex parte re-examination, and then the board, and then even the director in this responsive appeal brief, differently than it ever was interpreted in any of the prior proceedings.

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
So as such, we believe it conflicts with all of those prior proceedings, doesn't follow them as precedent, and is incorrect.

[00:03:12] Speaker 00:
There are three things about this element that we believe.

[00:03:15] Speaker 01:
Prior proceedings are not precedent, are they?

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
Well, we believe that the board's own ruling in the IPR acts as precedent.

[00:03:25] Speaker 00:
We understand that the board is not bound by previous examiner findings, but we believe the board should be bound by its own previous findings.

[00:03:42] Speaker 00:
The three main issues that go to the heart of the claim construction of this element is, one, whether to even give it any patentable weight at all.

[00:03:49] Speaker 00:
So one of the problems that has arisen is that first the examiner and then the board do not really give patentable weight to this element.

[00:03:57] Speaker 00:
The origination for this was at first the examiner took a new position that had never been taken before that the phrase immobile unit was a nonce word and therefore had to be interpreted under section 112 paragraph six.

[00:04:10] Speaker 00:
That was incorrect and the board changed that.

[00:04:13] Speaker 00:
But the result of that was that the examiner

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
considered essentially the rest of the claim as the function being performed by that means element and didn't get any patentable weight, meaning to say if he could find prior art that showed that structural element, it didn't matter whether it performed the function.

[00:04:33] Speaker 00:
Even though the board overruled that issue and concluded that it should not be treated as Section 112, paragraph 6 elements, they still essentially are not giving any patentable weight

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
to the rest of the claim.

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
And in the director's brief, that error is compounded by the director repeatedly arguing that anything in the prior art that is capable of, quote unquote, capable of performing this function therefore meets the element.

[00:05:04] Speaker 00:
That's not correct.

[00:05:05] Speaker 00:
We have argued both to the board and now to this court that the mobile unit in this element must be, as a structural matter, must be configured

[00:05:16] Speaker 00:
to perform the function of transferring the information using this particular protocol to both of these wireless networks.

[00:05:26] Speaker 00:
And if the claim, if there were a mobile unit that was not so configured, it would not meet this limitation.

[00:05:35] Speaker 00:
So when it's properly interpreted to include this limitation, as I indicated,

[00:05:41] Speaker 00:
all the previous, the board itself and the previous IPRs and the previous examiners all concluded that this element distinguished over all the prior art, including, for example, the Kubler patent, which is one of the main references being asserted here, through its parent patent, which we refer to as the NORAN patent at the assignee, which was an earlier patent in the same family, which had all the same relevant disclosure.

[00:06:09] Speaker 00:
The board found this claim patentable over that, but now we're dealing with the same reference and now it's not patentable.

[00:06:17] Speaker 00:
Similarly, the claims were found patentable over most of the other references, the Rebeck patent, the Eng patent and article, the Norm Oil article.

[00:06:31] Speaker 00:
All of those were found to be distinguishable because of this, when this element was given patentable weight.

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
Another aspect of the claim construction issue that we believe the board simply failed to address and has gotten wrong is, when I say failed to address, they failed to address it explicitly and provide any justification for why they're reading the claim this way, is that this element requires that the mobile unit be configured to transfer information, again I'm paraphrasing, between these two wireless networks.

[00:07:04] Speaker 00:
The wireless networks are the satellite communication subsystem

[00:07:07] Speaker 00:
and the wireless LAN.

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
As such, the claim inherently requires that that be done on a wireless basis.

[00:07:18] Speaker 00:
The mobile unit could not connect or transfer information between two wireless networks unless it was doing so wirelessly.

[00:07:25] Speaker 00:
This was always understood to be the case in all of the previous proceedings, but here it seems to have dropped out that somehow if there were a wired connection, that would satisfy it.

[00:07:36] Speaker 00:
Well, again, yes, in some of the prior art, there are structural similarities with wired connections in which, for example, TCPIP is used.

[00:07:46] Speaker 00:
But that doesn't show a wireless connection, an end-to-end wireless connection bridging the two wireless networks.

[00:07:54] Speaker 00:
A third aspect of this element, which, again, we believe is a claim construction issue that the board simply failed to justify and is incorrect about.

[00:08:05] Speaker 04:
Excuse me, this is Judge Stoll.

[00:08:07] Speaker 04:
You know, when I look at the board's analysis, for example, I mean, I'm sorry, the examiner's analysis, for example, I mean, he seems to be addressing the wireless claim element and saying that norm oil, for example, shows a wireless mobile ethernet, wireless LAN, which I understand you might disagree with that assertion, as a matter of fact, by the examiner.

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
But I'm having a hard time understanding your position that the claims were construed to not require wireless.

[00:08:43] Speaker 00:
Thank you for asking that question, Your Honor.

[00:08:45] Speaker 00:
It allows me to clarify that what I am arguing, what we are arguing is that it is the wireless connection on both sides that needs to be shown in the prior art.

[00:08:55] Speaker 00:
There is prior art, as you mentioned, norm oil being one, that does show a wireless LAN.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
We did not invent wireless LANs.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
Certainly, it's in the prior art.

[00:09:04] Speaker 00:
But what we are arguing is that this function that's required of the mobile unit has to be done wirelessly on both ends.

[00:09:11] Speaker 00:
And if the prior art doesn't show that, it doesn't contain, it doesn't disclose this element.

[00:09:18] Speaker 00:
Since you raised the norm oil reference, the problem from our perspective about norm oil

[00:09:24] Speaker 00:
is that the same protocol, and this segues into the third issue that I wanted to raise, which is that this element requires that the same protocol, this Ethernet packet switching protocol, has to be used in the transfer of information on both sides of the network.

[00:09:39] Speaker 00:
So as between the mobile unit and the satellite system, and between the mobile unit and the wireless LAN, have to use the Ethernet packet switching protocol, the same Ethernet packet switching protocol

[00:09:53] Speaker 00:
to transfer information, this is just what the claim says in our view, between these two wireless networks.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
Normoil does not disclose that.

[00:10:01] Speaker 00:
In Normoil, again I'm only discussing that to be honest as you raised it, as we've argued, there's a protocol converter in their hub system that converts the protocol from what it is on one side to what it needs to be on the other side and then back again.

[00:10:18] Speaker 00:
Our claim does not require any protocol conversion.

[00:10:21] Speaker 00:
This is a key distinction over really all the prior art, the norm while included, because what we're claiming is that the mobile unit uses the same, I added the word same, but in our view that's the claim construction issue, the same Ethernet package switching protocol on both sides.

[00:10:37] Speaker 00:
The reason this is important from an inventiveness point of view, a non-obviousness point of view, is that this allows

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
The fact that an Ethernet packet switching protocol is being used, the same protocol on both sides, allows users of the wireless LAN to go end-to-end communication with the same protocol with servers, for example, connected over the satellite communication system.

[00:11:07] Speaker 00:
The use of the Ethernet packet switching protocol in particular facilitates an Internet connection.

[00:11:12] Speaker 00:
So back when this was filed in 1996, the parent application of priority date, this wasn't done.

[00:11:21] Speaker 00:
Now, of course, we take this for granted because we've all been on airplanes and had internet access or boats or trains, maybe not nowadays because of restrictions.

[00:11:31] Speaker 00:
But in normal times, we ride all of these vehicles and we're able to get onto the internet.

[00:11:38] Speaker 00:
And it's this invention that facilitates that.

[00:11:41] Speaker 00:
So in all of the prior art references, Riebeck, Kugler, there is either a proprietary protocol, as we pointed out, or different protocols that have to be used and converted.

[00:11:54] Speaker 00:
And they would not facilitate the use of this protocol, which makes seamless communication over the internet while traveling in a vehicle possible.

[00:12:05] Speaker 04:
And do you also contend that Duda does not disclose an ethernet packet switch protocol

[00:12:12] Speaker 00:
It may disclose a packet switch protocol, but it is not an Ethernet packet switching protocol.

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
Now, there are many different types of packets, packet networks.

[00:12:25] Speaker 00:
For example, there are packet networks that are circuit switched.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
You could send data.

[00:12:31] Speaker 00:
Let me try to wrap up quickly.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
There are networks where data could be transmitted packets in a connected oriented way, such as a circuit switch network, or

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
more relevant for Duda and other references, an ATM network.

[00:12:45] Speaker 00:
So in an ATM network, there's a dedicated transmission path for the transmission of packets.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
That's not how the internet works.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
So that would not facilitate a user's connection to the internet in that prior art.

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
Oh, OK.

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
Do you want to save the rest of your time for rebuttal?

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
As long as I answered your honor's question to her satisfaction, yes.

[00:13:10] Speaker 00:
Yes, thank you.

[00:13:11] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
then yes, I'll reserve the rest of my time.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Mr. Astro.

[00:13:16] Speaker 01:
Mr. Lamarca?

[00:13:19] Speaker 02:
May it please the Court, William Lamarca for the PTO.

[00:13:22] Speaker 02:
Your Honors, it looks like I'm going to try to do my best to respond to what Appellant has focused on.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
His main focus seems to be that the claimed protocol Ethernet packet switching protocol is not in the priority.

[00:13:38] Speaker 02:
Apparently, that's his main

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
concern, and also the way the term was construed.

[00:13:43] Speaker 02:
Well, first of all, I'd just like to point out, and we pointed out this in our brief, that the interpretation of that phrase, Ethernet packet switching protocol, there was a proposed construction provided by Advanced Media in their brief to the board at page appendix 1440.

[00:14:00] Speaker 02:
And if I can just read you that construction that they proposed, their argument was that

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
An ordinary artisan would have interpreted, quote, Ethernet packet switching protocol, close quote, as a protocol for communication between devices over a network via a shared connectionless transmission medium in which data to be transmitted is divided into formatted packets for individual transmission and subsequent reassembly at the intended destination.

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
This gives meaning to all of the words in the phrase, quote, Ethernet packet switching protocol

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
quote, quote, and is consistent with the findings of the office in previous reexaminations.

[00:14:40] Speaker 02:
So that's what they argued for the board.

[00:14:43] Speaker 02:
Now, if you look at the examiner's final action, if you look at the examiner's answer, what you'll find is the examiner followed that exact interpretation of that that was proposed by the appellant.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
So there is no real dispute over how to construe that phrase.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
And when you read that phrase, what you find is the prior art, Riebeck, for example, one of the

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
The anticipatory reference that we're focused on here indeed shows a wireless network.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
It does show wireless connections between a satellite, between a mobile unit, and between a local area network, all of that's disclosed in Webex.

[00:15:18] Speaker 02:
The only thing that Webex does not expressly state is it doesn't expressly mention Ethernet packet switch protocol.

[00:15:25] Speaker 02:
Nevertheless,

[00:15:26] Speaker 02:
Rebic does talk about using protocols, adapting to use varying protocols to be adaptable so they can communicate with various different networks, and they specifically disclose the use of protocol converters to help them achieve that.

[00:15:39] Speaker 02:
So accordingly, what the examiner did was he looked at that disclosure and looked at this definition of Ethernet packet switching protocol, the claim language that was provided by appellant.

[00:15:49] Speaker 02:
And the examiner found, yes, Rebeck has everything disclosed except for the express mention of the use of this particular type of protocol, Ethernet Package Switching Protocol.

[00:16:00] Speaker 02:
From the examiner's view, he found that if the prior art was capable of using that protocol as one of the various protocols that Rebeck talks about, that would be sufficient to therefore qualify as an anticipatory prior art reference.

[00:16:15] Speaker 02:
But the examiner went further and said, even if that's not good enough,

[00:16:18] Speaker 02:
it would have been obvious.

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
And that's where the secondary references come in, like Duda and Normoil.

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
And I believe Judge Stoll asked about Duda, which does mention packet switching protocols, but it doesn't mention Ethernet packet switching protocols.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
But then the examiner went further, and he pointed to the Normoil reference.

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
And if you look at the Normoil reference, you'll see citations there.

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
And I can provide them here if you want me to, but they're in our brief that specifically mention Ethernet

[00:16:46] Speaker 02:
packet switch protocols.

[00:16:48] Speaker 02:
In fact, they even cite IEEE reference numbers like 802.

[00:16:52] Speaker 02:
I can't remember the exact numbers, but they cite specifically Ethernet packet switching protocol used in a wireless context.

[00:17:01] Speaker 02:
Now, on top of all of that, there's no dispute here that Ethernet packet switching protocols were known at the time of the invention.

[00:17:09] Speaker 02:
In fact, during oral hearing before the board, I believe, you know,

[00:17:16] Speaker 02:
Advanced Media's attorney at oral hearing before the board asked that specific question.

[00:17:20] Speaker 02:
They said, well, can you tell us, are these ethernet packet switching protocols, is that something new?

[00:17:26] Speaker 02:
And let me read you a quote from page appendix 1784 from one of the APJs, Judge Jeffrey, question, is an ethernet packet switching protocol a known technique in a wireless local area network generally?

[00:17:41] Speaker 02:
but just in general could it be said that that was a known technique the answer from the attorney for advance media yes we certainly did not invent connectionless protocol so what i'm trying to point out here your honor is that there is no

[00:17:54] Speaker 02:
This is a known communication protocol.

[00:17:57] Speaker 02:
The whole purpose of communication protocols is to create consistency of communications between varying networks.

[00:18:04] Speaker 02:
Webex shows all the features of the claim except it doesn't expressly mention a known protocol that was known at the time.

[00:18:12] Speaker 02:
The examiner's finding, it would have been capable to use a known protocol because it talks about using protocols and it talks about using protocol converters.

[00:18:20] Speaker 02:
And even if it weren't true, that even if you didn't buy that finding and didn't accept that,

[00:18:24] Speaker 02:
the examiner went further and basically supported the fact that secondary references like Duda, like Normoil, which also show wireless communication networks at the time in the same field, in the same field of endeavor, same type of art, they do use these types of protocols.

[00:18:44] Speaker 02:
So I think that's fundamentally why the claim was rejected.

[00:18:48] Speaker 04:
This is Judge Stoll.

[00:18:49] Speaker 04:
I have a quick question, which is,

[00:18:52] Speaker 04:
I think one of the contentions being made here may be that there is no discussion of a reason to modify Rebecca's view of Duda and Laura Morrill to have the Ethernet protocol.

[00:19:06] Speaker 04:
Where do you think that is best addressed in the board's opinion or maybe in the decision... Yeah.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
I think we... Your Honor, I understand.

[00:19:16] Speaker 02:
Thanks for the question.

[00:19:18] Speaker 02:
And I understand we did try to address that in our brief as well.

[00:19:21] Speaker 02:
And let me take you to a few sections where we find that the examiner indeed, he did articulate reasons why you would use the features from the secondary references with, for example, the Rebeck reference.

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
And if I can take you, let's see now, to a few of those pages, I'll try to find that for you here.

[00:19:41] Speaker 02:
Let's just go.

[00:19:42] Speaker 02:
To make it easy here, I can probably take you right to our brief because we've gone through this in our brief.

[00:19:49] Speaker 02:
At page 49 of our red brief, you'll see a section entitled, substantial evidence supports the finding that there was motivation to combine the prior art.

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
And we go through here, and we give citations to what the reasons would have been.

[00:20:03] Speaker 02:
And we also talk about their argument.

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
But let's just see here if I can get you to, at the bottom of page.

[00:20:13] Speaker 04:
Are any of those sites the board's opinion?

[00:20:16] Speaker 02:
Well, what the board does, Your Honor, and I understand

[00:20:19] Speaker 02:
that this is a problem for appellant, the board, what they do is they simply point to the examiner's determination.

[00:20:25] Speaker 02:
So what we really have to do is take the board's decision as a roadmap to just get us back into the examiner's final action and the examiner's answer, because that's where most of the specific findings are made.

[00:20:37] Speaker 02:
And then what the board is basically doing is responding to arguments and explaining that they either were or were not persuaded.

[00:20:44] Speaker 02:
and then they point to the examiner.

[00:20:45] Speaker 01:
So really, you're not going to find them... This particular argument, if I recall correctly, was not raised in the briefing to the board, the motivation to combine argument.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
I think that's correct, Your Honor.

[00:20:55] Speaker 02:
So you're not going to see much talk of it, but what we've done in our brief is we've gone back to the examiner's answer as well as the examiner's final action to point out where the examiner did indeed make motivation to combine

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
a rationale.

[00:21:10] Speaker 02:
Those are in the examiner's papers.

[00:21:12] Speaker 02:
And that's all I'm trying to find here for you now.

[00:21:14] Speaker 02:
It is a voluminous record, and I apologize if I'm a little slow getting to it for you.

[00:21:19] Speaker 04:
That's okay.

[00:21:20] Speaker 04:
I see it in your brief.

[00:21:22] Speaker 04:
Let me ask you a different question, Mr. Lamarcar.

[00:21:24] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:21:25] Speaker 04:
Which is just, I heard advanced media's counsel saying that if this claim were interpreted as a 1-12-6 paragraph claim, then the functional language in the claim could be ignored when doing a validity analysis.

[00:21:38] Speaker 04:
I don't think that's correct.

[00:21:39] Speaker 04:
What do you think?

[00:21:40] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I think... Do you think that is the proper way to analyze the claim?

[00:21:44] Speaker 04:
Well, no.

[00:21:46] Speaker 04:
Assuming for a minute that it's in 1-12-6 paragraph format.

[00:21:49] Speaker 02:
Well, right.

[00:21:51] Speaker 02:
Currently, well, I mean, I don't know, let me make sure I got the question correctly.

[00:21:56] Speaker 02:
What happened here was the examiner initially did attempt to treat the claims as 112-6 claims, and the board overruled that and said, no, examiner, those are not 112-6 claim phrases because there's sufficient structure in the claim, and therefore we're not going to treat them as 112-6 paragraph.

[00:22:12] Speaker 02:
there is functional language in the claim or statements of intended use in the claim, and that's what the examiner did treat as functional language for evaluating the patentability of these claims.

[00:22:24] Speaker 02:
I don't know if that answers your question or if you're asking me something a little different, Your Honor.

[00:22:28] Speaker 04:
Well, let me just answer in a little bit more simpler way.

[00:22:31] Speaker 04:
The functional language in the claim should be given weight, right?

[00:22:34] Speaker 04:
And the examiner gave it weight and addressed it, and so did the board, right?

[00:22:39] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:22:40] Speaker 02:
And the way we see that is if you look at claim one, for example, which is on the inside of our red brief, just to make it easy, you'll see at the end of the claim there it says, communication subsystem in the wireless LAN using an ethernet packet switching protocol.

[00:22:57] Speaker 02:
So the way the examiner read that and the way the board read that is, yes, you've got this network, a wireless network of all these devices, and it uses an ethernet protocol, which is simply a communication protocol.

[00:23:09] Speaker 02:
Different protocols can be used on the same network.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
The protocol is really the way the data is processed so the data can communicate with another network that you're trying to reach.

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
So these we view, the agency views, and the board and the examiner both view those as

[00:23:24] Speaker 02:
really functional language or statements of intended use.

[00:23:28] Speaker 02:
So that's not ignoring the language.

[00:23:31] Speaker 02:
It's just treating it as functional language.

[00:23:33] Speaker 02:
It was a little different than a structural component.

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
So I don't think that the office ignored the language.

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
They recognized that there indeed was functional language in the claim.

[00:23:43] Speaker 02:
And the examiner analysis follows that.

[00:23:46] Speaker 02:
And if you go through the examiner's analysis, you'll see that the examiner does indeed find prior art references and find rationales why

[00:23:55] Speaker 02:
the claimed use would have been used on the prior art networks, or it's either disclosed, and if it's not expressly disclosed, it would have been obvious to be there, or it's either that, or it's capable of being used that way.

[00:24:07] Speaker 02:
This is basically the examiner's analysis with all of these features.

[00:24:11] Speaker 02:
So we would disagree that the examiner ignored the language.

[00:24:15] Speaker 02:
He treated it as functional language, that's all.

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, Your Honor, do you have another question there?

[00:24:28] Speaker 04:
No, I didn't say anything.

[00:24:30] Speaker 02:
The only other point that I'd like to make that was raised by Appellant, and I'm probably getting very close to the end of my time, he did talk about prior proceedings, and yes, there were prior proceedings where a related patent called the 074 patent was brought up, and in that 074 patent, indeed, there was a petition for an IPR, and I believe they brought this up in their brief, and in that petition for the IPR,

[00:24:54] Speaker 02:
that it was denied.

[00:24:55] Speaker 02:
It was not instituted based on, I believe, the Kubler reference.

[00:24:59] Speaker 02:
However, we point out in our brief that the board actually dealt with that at the hearing and clarified that point and said, you know, the board never said this Kubler reference didn't have these features.

[00:25:12] Speaker 02:
The board simply said that that petition wasn't sufficient, so they denied institution.

[00:25:16] Speaker 02:
So that's one example of a prior proceeding where appellant has raised where, in their view,

[00:25:24] Speaker 02:
a particular reference that i think i hear was denied therefore we could never ever look at that reference here in this case we don't agree with that we think the issues were different the board pointed out that the reason for the denial was not a statement about the reference to just they felt the petition was inadequate furthermore the issues here are quite the same we have different combinations of references with different um...

[00:25:46] Speaker 02:
teachings that are being referred to, so we don't think we're bound by any of those prior proceedings that the appellant references, Your Honor.

[00:25:55] Speaker 03:
Can I ask this?

[00:25:56] Speaker 03:
This is Judge Toronto.

[00:25:58] Speaker 03:
Would it also be the case that issue preclusion, for example, would not apply to an IPR petition denial since under the statute that's not reviewable on appeal and issue preclusion doesn't

[00:26:13] Speaker 03:
apply when the decision is not reviewable on appeal?

[00:26:19] Speaker 02:
Well, yeah.

[00:26:19] Speaker 02:
Well, first of all, it's not a final written decision.

[00:26:22] Speaker 02:
So there really is no final decision by the agency.

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
It's just simply a denial that they didn't meet the initial threshold to have the agency institute a proceeding.

[00:26:33] Speaker 02:
But you're right.

[00:26:34] Speaker 02:
I mean, we don't see that issue of preclusion would apply in that instance.

[00:26:36] Speaker 02:
However, that doesn't mean the agency doesn't strive for consistency.

[00:26:40] Speaker 02:
I think they do.

[00:26:41] Speaker 03:
Right, I guess that's all I was really trying to get straight.

[00:26:46] Speaker 03:
The Blue Brief talks about binding, and it seems to me that ordinarily when you hear the word binding, you at least, one thinks of a variety of preclusion type doctrines, whether Raichu de Cádiz, your preclusion, the law of the case, and whatnot, and I guess it feels to me like none of those actually map on

[00:27:09] Speaker 03:
to this in particular because the one being supposedly bound is the decision-maker as opposed to some adversary.

[00:27:16] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:27:17] Speaker 02:
Well, we wouldn't have been a, quote, party to the case like in an adversarial proceeding.

[00:27:21] Speaker 02:
Furthermore, the issues wouldn't have been fully and fairly litigated, which is some of the requirements for a stopple or some type of issue preclusion to apply.

[00:27:30] Speaker 02:
None of that occurred here.

[00:27:32] Speaker 02:
So I don't see how this case really is independent of those cases is the way we see it.

[00:27:38] Speaker 02:
And there are findings here and we believe there's substantial evidence here.

[00:27:42] Speaker 02:
And we've done our best to provide a roadmap to point you to the evidence in the record that supports the findings by the examiner and the board.

[00:27:49] Speaker 02:
And accordingly, in our view, that's why these claims are impassable.

[00:27:57] Speaker 01:
I really have, I'm sorry, your honor.

[00:28:00] Speaker 02:
Anything further, Mr. Lamarca?

[00:28:02] Speaker 02:
I have nothing further, your honor, unless there's anything else from the court.

[00:28:07] Speaker 01:
Hearing no further questions, thank you.

[00:28:10] Speaker 01:
Mr. Ostrow?

[00:28:12] Speaker 00:
Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:13] Speaker 00:
Let me just address a few of those points.

[00:28:14] Speaker 00:
I only have a couple of minutes anyway.

[00:28:17] Speaker 00:
So Mr. Lamarca indicated that we had admitted that Ethernet packet switching protocols were disclosed in the prior art.

[00:28:26] Speaker 00:
Well, of course they were.

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
We did not invent those.

[00:28:28] Speaker 00:
That's not the issue.

[00:28:29] Speaker 00:
The issue is the combination of having a mobile unit

[00:28:35] Speaker 00:
that uses such protocols to transfer information between these two wireless networks, the same protocol on both sides without having to convert it, as in the REBEC or norm oil references and other prior art, whether that application is not obvious.

[00:28:50] Speaker 00:
Again, in all the prior proceedings, when that element was given full patentable weight as a structural limitation and not just some function, all the examiners and the board found that it was patentable.

[00:29:03] Speaker 00:
Again, with respect to REBEC, which came up during Mr. Lamarco's comments in a little bit more detail, there's a protocol converter.

[00:29:12] Speaker 00:
There's a few things to point out.

[00:29:15] Speaker 00:
Clearly, there was a protocol converter.

[00:29:16] Speaker 00:
There's not the same Ethernet packet switching protocol or the same protocol at all being used on both wireless networks.

[00:29:24] Speaker 00:
The Ethernet packet switching protocols in REBEC, as we've indicated, as we've argued in the brief,

[00:29:29] Speaker 00:
and other places are only on the wired portion.

[00:29:33] Speaker 00:
So the way Rebeck works is that there's a truck driver in the other little suitcase and he drives around and he collects information and he goes back.

[00:29:41] Speaker 00:
When he gets back to the factory with the delivery place, he can then, the suitcase transmits messages to the land in the factory.

[00:29:50] Speaker 00:
That land may use TCP IT, but nowhere else in Rebeck is that used in the wireless portion.

[00:29:56] Speaker 00:
TCPIP being an example according to the 777 patent of an Ethernet package switching protocol.

[00:30:03] Speaker 00:
So as long as this element is interpreted in our view correctly, it's clearly distinguishable from everything, including the Revec reference.

[00:30:17] Speaker 00:
And again, I point out even now during Mr. Lamarco's comments, he's still arguing that if the prior art shows that something is capable of carrying those protocols,

[00:30:26] Speaker 00:
that would meet the element.

[00:30:28] Speaker 00:
And our position is that the claim has never been interpreted that way, and it is not a correct interpretation.

[00:30:33] Speaker 00:
And the board did not provide any rationale for such an interpretation.

[00:30:38] Speaker 00:
It's not sufficient for a component to be capable of carrying protocols.

[00:30:42] Speaker 00:
Protocols, as Mr. Larkin said, are just data.

[00:30:47] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:30:47] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Mr. Ostrow.

[00:30:48] Speaker 01:
Thank both counsel.

[00:30:49] Speaker 01:
The case is submitted.