[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:09] Speaker 02:
This patent, the 625, is a patent that deals with the problem of stale data.

[00:00:18] Speaker 02:
The inventors realized that in some applications video is a good example if there is a delay in the delivery of the data

[00:00:27] Speaker 02:
and the viewer in the case of video has moved on, it's not desirable or necessary to continue to struggle to transmit the missing data and therefore there should be a way to communicate the desire both at the transmitter and the receiver to discard that stale data.

[00:00:49] Speaker 01:
I think there are two problems with the argument.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
Let me see if I can identify them.

[00:00:53] Speaker 01:
One is it seems to me that

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
that claim doesn't require that all sequences be discarded just because they're out of order.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
The specification talks about significantly outdated packets.

[00:01:09] Speaker 01:
So that's problem one.

[00:01:10] Speaker 01:
Problem two, it seems to me you're arguing that this has to continually do this.

[00:01:18] Speaker 01:
In other words, that it isn't sufficient if data is discarded

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
that precedes the sequence number of one packet.

[00:01:26] Speaker 01:
But the claim itself says at least one packet.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
So if it's doing it with respect to preceding numbers with respect to one packet, why isn't that sufficient to satisfy the claim, even though there may be other instances in which data is not discarded with respect to other packets?

[00:01:45] Speaker 02:
Well, it's not a command to release an expectation of receiving outstanding packets.

[00:01:53] Speaker 02:
having sequence numbers prior to the at least one packet.

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

[00:02:02] Speaker 02:
Let's take an example.

[00:02:04] Speaker 02:
In headage, the allegedly invalidating reference, if the receiver receives delay PDU 5, skips over 6, and then receives packet 7, the receiver still expects to receive packet 6.

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
That demonstrates that it has not received a command to release expectation of receiving all packets prior to seven.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
That doesn't meet the requirement of the claim.

[00:02:39] Speaker 02:
What about all packets prior to five?

[00:02:42] Speaker 02:
It may release expectation of packets prior to five, but not seven.

[00:02:47] Speaker 02:
It still expects to receive, it still expects to receive packet six.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
So why does the claim require that?

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
Why isn't it sufficient that they're releasing things before packet five, before number five?

[00:03:01] Speaker 02:
Because it means that the transmitter will continue to expect to receive packet six.

[00:03:11] Speaker 02:
So admittedly, the delayed PDU of Hedich

[00:03:17] Speaker 02:
may result in a release of expectation to receive anything prior to packet five, but it won't release the expectation of receiving packet six, even though it did receive packet seven, which is the out of order packet.

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
Why does the claim say it has to do that?

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
How does the claim say it has to do that with respect to packet?

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
Well, because it requires the receiver

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
to release any expectation of receiving outstanding packets having sequence numbers prior to the at least one packet.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
In that example, the at least one packet is five.

[00:03:54] Speaker 01:
Seven.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
One.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
But it does it with respect to five.

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
It does it with respect to five, but not with respect to seven, so that there may be packets, in my example,

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
packet six transmitted and not received after the delay PDU packet of headage.

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
Well, it seems to me that under your theory, the claim should have said prior to any packet.

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
Well, I don't really follow that, Your Honor.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
It seems to me that prior to the at least one packet,

[00:04:36] Speaker 02:
It identifies, in the example that I gave, the most recently received packet, packet seven.

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
And the purpose and performance of the invention is to release the expectation of receipt of all of prior packets, whereas in the headage, there would be only a release of the packets prior to five.

[00:05:05] Speaker 01:
I understand what you're saying.

[00:05:06] Speaker 02:
And likewise, Heditch does not anticipate because, as in the same example I just gave, the transmitter does not discard packets for which acknowledgement has not been received and which have sequent numbers prior to the at least one packet.

[00:05:23] Speaker 02:
For those reasons, Your Honor, we believe that the Board was in error in finding that Heditch anticipates because it lacks those two elements.

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
Anything further?

[00:05:35] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Mr. Carlin.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
Mr. Massa.

[00:05:44] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:05:48] Speaker 03:
There was sufficient evidence for the Board to conclude that headache anticipates.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
The example just given by Wi-Fi 1, even if correct and it's not, is irrelevant.

[00:06:02] Speaker 03:
All the claims that are challenged are method claims.

[00:06:05] Speaker 03:
And method claims are infringed or invalidated if that method is performed.

[00:06:10] Speaker 03:
It doesn't have to be performed every single time, which goes to your Honor's point.

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
Wi-Fi 1's example was the delay PDU is received with a number 5.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
It skips 6, and then 7 is received.

[00:06:25] Speaker 03:
Even if Wi-Fi 1 were correct in what it described, that only is one way of performing the method.

[00:06:34] Speaker 03:
Wi-Fi One didn't address the situation, and what if the next packet were packet number six?

[00:06:40] Speaker 03:
And if the next packet were packet number six, then even under Wi-Fi One's interpretation, they would agree, because they didn't address this, as an example in their presentation, they would agree that all of the packets proceeding were commanded to be released.

[00:07:03] Speaker 03:
So the example that we put in our brief goes logically through the situation in which the delay PDU arrives.

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
The window is then shifted so that new packets can be received.

[00:07:20] Speaker 03:
And when that next packet in order is received, all the prior packets, the expectations of ever receiving those, has been released.

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
And Hedic says that's in the record

[00:07:32] Speaker 03:
832, it says that the receiver shifts the window and issues a corresponding acknowledgement.

[00:07:41] Speaker 03:
It says if the receiver receives a delayed PDU, it stops waiting for cells where the following applies for the number N less than or equal to RN.

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
RN was the requested packet.

[00:07:55] Speaker 03:
If the requested packet has been discarded, that the delayed PDU message is sent,

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
That is a command to release expectations of ever receiving anything prior to that delayed PDU packet.

[00:08:08] Speaker 03:
So for the N less than or equal to RN, all of those, in my final example, all the packets, one, two, three, four, and five, any of them prior to that, the command to receive has then released expectations of ever receiving those.

[00:08:29] Speaker 03:
So regardless of whether the next packet is 6 or the next packet is 7, Wi-Fi 1 doesn't even contest that.

[00:08:36] Speaker 03:
When the next packet is N plus 1, this claim is met.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
And because it's a method claim, it's anticipated by HEDC.

[00:08:43] Speaker 03:
Even if the next one received was 7, in Wi-Fi 1's example, the claim would have to be amended in order to require what they're saying.

[00:08:53] Speaker 03:
Instead of saying receiving

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
at least one packet having a sequence number that is not consecutive, it'd have to say all sequence numbers, or as Your Honor said, any sequence number.

[00:09:05] Speaker 03:
And the claim simply doesn't require that.

[00:09:06] Speaker 04:
The way this was addressed in the briefs, if I recall, was with focus on the problem.

[00:09:13] Speaker 04:
And this relates to the 567, but it was put, I think, in N plus 1 and N plus 2.

[00:09:18] Speaker 04:
That if N plus 2 arrives before N plus 1, that Hedich would not discard

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
N plus 1 that the patent would.

[00:09:28] Speaker 04:
Is that your understanding of the way the argument is set forth with respect to arguably what the difference is between the two?

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
That is the way in which the argument is set forth.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
That is Wi-Fi 1's example of 7 is received, what happens with number 6.

[00:09:47] Speaker 03:
They never address what happens time and time again, but what if 6 is received.

[00:09:51] Speaker 04:
But if taking that, I'm wondering why

[00:09:55] Speaker 04:
still n plus 1 is not at least one packet having a sequence number that is not consecutive.

[00:10:03] Speaker 04:
I mean, n plus 1 and n plus 2 are both fit that requirement, right?

[00:10:08] Speaker 04:
So do you not need to go to the argument that this infringes some of the time, or at least it operates in two different places?

[00:10:16] Speaker 03:
Certainly do not need that.

[00:10:17] Speaker 03:
That argument is not necessary.

[00:10:19] Speaker 03:
That argument rebuts Wi-Fi 1.

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
Their point of view is if

[00:10:24] Speaker 03:
if 7 is received and if 6 is never received.

[00:10:28] Speaker 03:
But the fact is that in operation 6 is received as the next logical packet.

[00:10:34] Speaker 03:
But I agree, when the window is shifted, there then becomes a group of packets whose sequence number is not consecutive with the previously received packet.

[00:10:46] Speaker 04:
You're not stuck with n plus 1 as being your

[00:10:49] Speaker 04:
at least one packet, right?

[00:10:50] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
The at least one packet is whatever is in the window n, n plus one, n plus two, etc.

[00:10:55] Speaker 03:
So even if it's five, right?

[00:10:59] Speaker 03:
I think it could be five.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
I think, let's say you have a window that has a span of five slots, and the way PDU number five is received, it then shifts the window to receive slots six through ten.

[00:11:12] Speaker 01:
Why isn't it sufficient that when you receive five that it discards

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
the sequence numbers before five?

[00:11:21] Speaker 03:
It's necessary, but maybe not sufficient, because then what needs to happen is the non-consecutive sequence numbers need to be received.

[00:11:33] Speaker 03:
And that could be the sequence number six, but it could also be seven, eight, nine, or ten.

[00:11:39] Speaker 03:
Anything in that would... Why couldn't it be four?

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
Why couldn't it be four?

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
You receive five, and then you receive four later.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
If you receive four, then the system will not accept it because it's no longer in the reception window.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
Say the window has a finite number of slots.

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
When the command to receive, the way PDU is received, it then shifts the window.

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
So what previously a window that would allow one through five to be received now excludes one through five, and any other number that doesn't fall in six through 10.

[00:12:12] Speaker 03:
But all of those numbers, the 6 through 10, and plus 1 and plus 2, those can all be received.

[00:12:18] Speaker 03:
Those are all out of sequence.

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
But before the window is shifted, if the window is 1 to 5 and the numbers before 5 are discarded, that would be infringing, wouldn't it?

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
When the window is 1 through 5.

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
You get 5 and then you get 4.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:12:39] Speaker 03:
If you receive five and you receive four, that's fine.

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
If you receive a delayed PDU with the number five, what it says is the receiver stops waiting for cells with numbers five and less.

[00:12:52] Speaker 03:
So if four came after a delayed PDU, it would not be received.

[00:12:57] Speaker 03:
But HEDX says you send the delayed PDU with the highest number of the discarded cells.

[00:13:04] Speaker 03:
And all cells prior to that were either received properly prior to that

[00:13:09] Speaker 03:
or were discarded.

[00:13:12] Speaker 03:
So if four arrives after the delayed PDU, it would not be received.

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
Is it that it would not be received or that it's been abandoned?

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
That the delayed PDU has said it's been discarded.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
So the second element of the claim is the transmitter discarding all packets for which an acknowledgement has not been received and which have a sequence number prior.

[00:13:34] Speaker 00:
If it discards them, can we say that it was received?

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
How can you discard something you haven't received?

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
So the transmitter, when the transmitter sends the delay PDU with the number five, it's saying that the receiver has either positively acknowledged receipt of those packets prior to five, or for those for which positive acknowledgement has not been received, the transmitter has discarded those packets.

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
So once the delay PDU of five comes and the window shifts,

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
Packet number four is not ever going to be transmitted because the second element of the claim says a transmitter discarding all packets for which an acknowledgement has not been received and which have the sequence numbers prior to the at least one packet.

[00:14:20] Speaker 03:
So everything with sequence number prior to the current window, so everything prior to five, five amp prior, would no longer be received because they're no longer being transmitted.

[00:14:38] Speaker 03:
Anything further?

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:14:43] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:14:44] Speaker 01:
Mr. Carlin?

[00:14:49] Speaker 02:
Just one point, Your Honor, and that is Broadcom's argument that, well, sometimes we do something or sometimes Headage performs the claim and sometimes it does not.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
The problem with that is that the claim uses the term commanding.

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
It's not a situation where it sometimes can be implemented, sometimes not.

[00:15:09] Speaker 02:
And the fact that Broadcom admits that Hedich sometimes does not means that there's not a command, unlike what's disclosed in the patent, where packet seven, for example, contains the bit commanding to release expectation of receipt.

[00:15:26] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you, Mr. Hawley.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
Thank both counsels.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
The three cases are submitted.