throbber
DOCKET NO: 435984US
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PATENT: 8,086,678
`
`INVENTOR: HEREDIA ET AL.
`
`TITLE: DEVICE CENTRIC CONTROLS TRIAL NO.: UNASSIGNED
`FOR A DEVICE CONTROLLED
`THROUGH A WEB PORTAL
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ARTHUR T. BRODY
`
`1.
`
`I, Dr. Arthur T. Brody, make this declaration on behalf of BlackBerry
`
`Corp. (“BlackBerry” or “Petitioner”) in connection with the petition for inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,086,678 (“the ’678 patent,” attached as Exhibit
`
`1001 to the petition). I am over 21 years of age and otherwise competent to make
`
`this declaration. Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing this
`
`declaration, the opinions herein are my own, and I have no stake in the outcome of
`
`the inter partes review proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`Attachment A to this declaration is my curriculum vitae. As shown in
`
`2.
`
`my curriculum vitae, I have over thirty years of experience in the
`
`telecommunications and audio/video-related industries. This experience includes
`
`performing or managing systems engineering, marketing and sales, new product
`
`1
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 1
`
`

`
`development, corporate strategy consulting, product management, and competitive
`
`assessment functions. Much of this experience is in the area of video technologies
`
`and wireless networking. Some relevant projects in the 1999-2005 timeframe
`
`include:
`
` Working with Columbia University in evaluating research for
`
`commercial potential from the electrical engineering and computer
`
`science departments, including:
`o networking architectures for the backhaul portion of the radio
`
`access network;
`o server systems for multimedia delivery;
`o “Internet” protocols including IP, RTP, RTSP and SIP for
`
`multimedia sessions; and
`o electronics improvements as applied to cell phones.
`
` Working with other major corporations and research organizations in
`
`reviewing technologies and patents portfolios for commercial
`
`applications including:
`o audio player technology; and
`o server systems for multimedia delivery.
`
` Serving as Chief Marketing Officer for SIPComm, Inc., a start-up
`
`focused on commercializing communications products based on SIP.
`
`2
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 2
`
`

`
` Working with wireless vendors on engineering and network operations
`
`tools for wireless technology.
`
` Authoring technology/market reports for Insight Research on VoIP and
`
`IP-based applications including instant messaging.
`
`3.
`
`I have used my education and years of experience working in the
`
`telecommunications, networking and audio/video-related industries, and my
`
`understanding of the knowledge, creativity and experience of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art in forming the opinions expressed in this report, as well as
`
`any other materials discussed herein.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`4.
`
`I have read the ’678 patent and its prosecution history (attached as
`
`Exhibits 1001 and 1002, respectively, to the petition). I have also reviewed U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0257209 to Adams et al. (“Adams,”
`
`Exhibit 1004 to the petition); U.S. Patent No. 7,996,005 to Lotter et al. (“Lotter,”
`
`Exhibit 1005 to the petition); Exhibit C to Patent Owner’s Infringement
`
`Contentions dated May 2, 2014 in Zipit Wireless Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited et al.,
`
`C.A. No. 6:13-cv-2959-JMC (D.S.C.) (attached as Exhibit 1006 to the petition);
`
`and Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1997) (attached as Exhibit 1007 to the petition).
`
`3
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 3
`
`

`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`5.
`
`For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about
`
`certain aspects of patent law that are relevant to my analysis and opinions, as set
`
`forth in this section of my declaration.
`
`A.
`
`6.
`
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that the disclosure of patents and prior art references are
`
`to be viewed from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention (“PHOSITA”). Unless I state otherwise, I provide
`
`my opinion herein from the viewpoint of a PHOSITA at the earliest alleged
`
`priority date for the ’678 patent, which I have been informed is September 24,
`
`2007.
`
`7.
`
`The ’678 patent pertains to the field of monitoring and controlling
`
`communications, e.g., instant messaging (“IM”), from a computer network
`
`communication device.
`
`8.
`
`In determining whom a PHOSITA would be, I considered the ’678
`
`patent, the types of problems encountered in monitoring and controlling computer
`
`network communications, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapid pace
`
`of innovation in the fields of computer network communications, the sophistication
`
`of computer network communications, and the educational level of workers active
`
`in the field. Based on these factors, I have concluded that a PHOSITA would have
`
`an accredited bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a
`4
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 4
`
`

`
`related discipline that included coverage of computer network communications,
`
`and also at least two years of industry experience. In lieu of specific academic
`
`training, a PHOSITA may draw upon appropriate industry experience to meet the
`
`foregoing requirements. Given my extensive industry experience, I exceed the
`
`requirements needed to be a PHOSITA.
`
`B.
`
`9.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`I understand that “claim construction” is the process of determining a
`
`patent claim’s meaning. I also have been informed and understand that the proper
`
`construction of a claim term is the meaning that a PHOSITA would have given to
`
`that term.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that claims in inter partes review proceedings are to be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, which is
`
`what I have done when performing my analysis in this declaration.
`
`C.
`
`11.
`
`Anticipation
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as anticipated if a
`
`PHOSITA would have understood a single prior art reference to teach every
`
`limitation of the claim. The disclosure in a reference does not have to be in the
`
`same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must be described
`
`in enough detail, or necessarily implied by or inherent in the reference, to enable a
`
`PHOSITA looking at the reference to make and use at least one embodiment of the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`5
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 5
`
`

`
`D.
`
`12.
`
`Obviousness
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as obvious if the
`
`subject matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a PHOSITA as
`
`of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that the following factors must
`
`be evaluated to determine whether the claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) the difference or differences, if any, between
`
`the scope of the claim of the patent under consideration and the scope of the prior
`
`art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that prior art references can be combined to reject a claim
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when there was an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the references, which includes,
`
`but is not limited to: (A) identifying a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combine prior art references; (B) combining prior art methods according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results; (C) substituting one known element for
`
`another to obtain predictable results; (D) using a known technique to improve a
`
`similar device in the same way; (E) applying a known technique to a known device
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (F) trying a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`or (G) identifying that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations
`
`of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`6
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 6
`
`

`
`other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`14. Moreover, I have been informed and I understand that so-called
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness (also known as “secondary considerations”)
`
`like the following are also to be considered when assessing obviousness: (1)
`
`commercial success; (2) long-felt but unresolved needs; (3) copying of the
`
`invention by others in the field; (4) initial expressions of disbelief by experts in the
`
`field; (5) failure of others to solve the problem that the inventor solved; and (6)
`
`unexpected results. I also understand that evidence of objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. I am
`
`not aware of any objective indicia of non-obviousness for the ’678 patent.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND ON THE STATE OF THE ART
`
`15. Restricting telecommunications services available to users is a well-
`
`established practice. At least as early as the 1970s, private branch exchange
`
`(“PBX”) systems could place code restrictions on calls based on the identification
`
`of the device (i.e., the PBX extension) from which the call was made. These
`
`restrictions result in restriction by area code and central office. See, e.g., Exhibit
`
`1010 at 318. By the mid-1990s, this feature had evolved into a series of features
`
`that could block, for example: outgoing calls, toll calls, calls using certain
`
`facilities, calls to certain inter-exchange carriers, or international calls from certain
`
`extensions. See, e.g., Exhibit 1011 at 1-7 and 2-88.
`7
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 7
`
`

`
`16.
`
`These features were not limited to PBXs. While the PBX equipment
`
`was based on the customer premise, equivalent features could be obtained by using
`
`Centrex services from the telephone service providers. Centrex services were
`
`controlled out of the telephone company’s central office providing the customer
`
`with a “virtual” PBX. See, e.g., Exhibit 1012 23-1 and 23-4.
`
`17. As wireless technology and Internet access rapidly expanded in the
`
`1990s and early 2000s, the need to control access to the extended range of services
`
`provided increased as well. Much of this focus was on children. There was
`
`concern with content that would be inappropriate for children. See, e.g., Ex. 1013.
`
`There was concern with whom children might contact on the cellular phones. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1014. Moreover, cell phones with web browsers appeared that would
`
`combine both of the above concerns for children. See, e.g., Ex. 1015.
`
`18.
`
`Parental controls to address the above concerns were implemented in
`
`numerous ways. For example, wireless access point/router suppliers built devices
`
`with parental controls that could limit which device could access the Internet,
`
`when a device could access the Internet, or which web sites could be accessed. Ex.
`
`1016. Similarly, other companies provided control software for the PC that could
`
`perform the same functions. Ex. 1017. Where there service could be accessed
`
`both via a computer or a cell phone via a browser, companies like AOL instituted
`
`its parental control on the AOL servers. Ex. 1018.
`
`8
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 8
`
`

`
`19. As demonstrated above, the concept of controlling access to particular
`
`services has a rich history, and by the early 2000s, was a well-established
`
`discipline for both wired and wireless access. Control of children’s access to
`
`services, commonly referred to as “parental control,” was an integral part of this
`
`discipline.
`
`V.
`
`THE ’678 PATENT
`
`20.
`
`The ’678 patent generally relates to systems and methods for
`
`managing network communication devices using a remote regulation/support site.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:7–9.) Specifically, a “control site 20” regulates operations on one or
`
`more “communication device[s] 34.” (Ex. 1001, 4:52–55.) As the ’678 patent
`
`notes, “[c]ommunication terminals for receiving textual and graphic messages are
`
`well-known.” (Ex. 1001, 1:42–43.)
`
`21.
`
`The ’678 patent describes a system where the communication device
`
`attempts to send a data message, e.g., an instant message (“IM”), over the internet.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 9:11–15.) Prior to sending the IM, the communication device sends a
`
`“monitor message” to the control site to determine if the communication device is
`
`allowed to send the message. (Ex. 1001, 9:11–15.) Once the communication
`
`device receives feedback that the action is allowed or disallowed, the device takes
`
`the appropriate action, i.e., it allows or blocks the IM. (Ex. 1001, 9:36–40.)
`
`22.
`
`The control site may be a parental control site. The control site
`
`receives the “monitor message” from the communication device and determines
`9
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 9
`
`

`
`whether to allow the communication device to complete the desired action, e.g.,
`
`send the IM. (Ex. 1001, 9:42–45.) The control site makes this determination by
`
`first determining whether the device has a parental control account set-up for the
`
`communication device. (Ex. 1001, 9:42–45.) This step is accomplished by
`
`comparing some unique device ID to a list of unique device ID’s stored at the
`
`control site in a “device database.” (Ex. 1001, 9:42–45.) After the control site
`
`verifies that the device is registered, the control site determines whether or not to
`
`allow the communication device’s action. (Ex. 1001, 9:52–59.) The control site
`
`makes this determination by comparing information in the “monitor message,”
`
`which describes the communication device’s desired action, to a set of rules or
`
`policies established by the administrator of the device’s parental controls and
`
`stored in a “control database.” (Ex. 1001, 5:13-15 and 9:52–59.)
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`23.
`
`In comparing the claims of the ’678 patent to the known prior art, I
`
`have carefully considered the ’678 patent and its file history based upon my
`
`experience and knowledge in the relevant field. In my opinion, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claim terms of the ’678 patent is generally
`
`consistent with the terms’ ordinary and customary meaning, as a PHOSITA would
`
`have understood them. That said, for purposes of this proceeding, I have applied
`
`the following constructions when analyzing the prior art and the claims:
`
`10
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 10
`
`

`
`24. Database: The term “database” refers to a collection of information
`
`stored for retrieval and use by a computer system. This construction is consistent
`
`with the ’678 patent’s teaching the control site compares the information that
`
`stored in both the device database and the control database to data received from
`
`mobile communication devices. (Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:3.) This construction is also
`
`consistent with Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in concurrent litigation.
`
`(Ex. 1006, pp. 5–10.)
`
`VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`
`25.
`
`Overview of Lotter’s Teachings
`
`Lotter teaches a system for monitoring communications to and from a
`
`mobile communication device. “[E]ach of the data services on a mobile
`
`communication device may be monitored against rules stored in a central
`
`repository.” (Ex. 1005, Abstract.) As with the ’678 patent, Lotter’s system may be
`
`controlled by an administrator or parent. (Ex. 1005, 2:60–61.)
`
`26.
`
`Lotter’s communication device can be “a cell phone, a Smartphone, or
`
`a personal digital assistant (PDA),” for example. (Ex. 1005, 1:61–65.) Such
`
`communication devices have “a memory configured to store programs and data”
`
`and a “processor, coupled to the memory, configured to run the programs stored in
`
`the memory.” (Ex. 1005, 3:24–28.) As was well-known at the time of the
`
`invention, such communication devices were designed to communicate over the
`
`Internet, via an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”). (Ex. 1005, 5:7-13.) The
`11
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 11
`
`

`
`communications device has applications including, for example, “a SMS Text
`
`Application 24 for sending or receiving SMS text messages, [or] an Instant
`
`Messaging Application 25 for sending or receiving instant messages.” (Ex. 1005,
`
`6:10–25.)
`
`27.
`
`The communication device further contains a “data monitoring
`
`program” that monitors the data service usage of the communication device. (Ex.
`
`1005, 5:1–7.) The data monitoring program “capture[s] information regarding the
`
`use of the data service including, for example, the unique Device ID of Mobile
`
`Communications Device 20, the date/time stamp, the originating or destination
`
`phone number, email address, or username, and/or the contextual content of the
`
`data packet.” (Ex. 1005, 12:49-55.) The data monitoring program then sends a
`
`monitor message to a control site by “format[ing] a data packet which includes the
`
`collected information (Activity Record) and send[ing] one or more data packets to
`
`the central repository located in Data Center 17.” (Ex. 1005, 12:56 –60.) Based
`
`upon the policy information stored at the data center in association with the
`
`communication device, the data center sends a command message to the
`
`communication device either allowing or blocking the request operation. (Ex.
`
`1005, 12:63–13:6.) Upon receiving the approval or blocking command message
`
`from the data center, the communication device will process the command
`
`12
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 12
`
`

`
`message and, accordingly, block or allow the communication device to conduct the
`
`operation. (Ex. 1005, 12:63–13:6.)
`
`28.
`
`The “data center 17,” i.e., the control site, contains “Data gateway 30
`
`and Alert Monitor 70… [which] may represent one or more computers (e.g.,
`
`servers or other processor-based system).” (Ex. 1005, 5:34 –37.) The data
`
`gateway/alert monitor server determines whether the communication device’s
`
`requested operation is allowed by storing the monitor message in an “activity log,”
`
`i.e., a “device database,” and then comparing the stored monitor message to the
`
`“permissions database,” i.e., a “control database.” The data gateway/alert monitor
`
`server verifies that the unique device information stored in the “activity log,”
`
`matches a unique device identifier in the device database portion of the
`
`permissions database. (Ex. 1005, 5:14–25, 12:60–63, Figs. 3H, 6A and 6B.)
`
`Because the policy information is associated with a particular device in the
`
`permissions database, the data gateway/alert monitor server must look-up the
`
`unique device identifier in a list of devices, i.e., a “device database.” (Ex. 1005,
`
`5:14–25, 12:60–63, Figs. 3H, 6A and 6B.) As seen in Figures 4 and 5, Lotter
`
`provides exemplary structures for the activity log and permissions database, which
`
`include an “Acct ID,” i.e., a unique device ID. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 4, Fig. 5.)
`
`29.
`
`The rules/policies located in the permissions database are established
`
`by a system administrator via an administrative account. (Ex. 1005, 2:59–65.)
`
`13
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 13
`
`

`
`However, the administrative account can only be established if the permissions
`
`database’s device database listing contains the unique device identifier to correlate
`
`the rules created to a monitored device. (Ex. 1005, 2:59–65, 5:23–25, 7:10–17,
`
`12:60–63.)
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Adams’ Teachings
`
`30. Adams teaches a system for controlling a “wireless mobile
`
`communication device” by using “owner application control information,” i.e., a
`
`set of rules/policies, which are correlated to the device’s unique device identifier.
`
`(Ex. 1004, Abstract, ¶¶ 15, 91, 118.)
`
`31.
`
`The communication device can be any known communication device
`
`such as a “cellular telephone” or “laptop or desktop computer system with a
`
`wireless modem.” (Ex. 1004 ¶20.) The communication device would have,
`
`among other well-known components, a processor and memory. (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 136,
`
`143.) As was well-known at the time of the invention, the communication device
`
`would be designed to communicate over the Internet, via an Internet Service
`
`Provider (“ISP”), using messaging clients “such as Microsoft Outlook™, Lotus
`
`Notes™, Yahoo!™ Messenger, AOL Instant Messenger, or other client-server, or
`
`peer-to-peer, or similar messaging clients.” (Ex. 1004 ¶17.)
`
`32. Additionally, Adams teaches that the communication device would
`
`“transmit a request to the remote server,” i.e., a monitor message, to verify the
`
`policy information “associated with a particular electronic device.” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶
`14
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 14
`
`

`
`91, 118.) Based upon the policy information stored at the remote server in
`
`association with the communication device, the remote server “would transmit to
`
`the device either an approval or a denial as appropriate.” (Ex. 1004 ¶91.) Upon
`
`receiving the approval or denial command message from the remote server, the
`
`communication device will process the command message and, accordingly, deny
`
`or allow the communication device to conduct the operation. (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 91, 123
`
`and Fig. 6.)
`
`33.
`
`The “remote server,” i.e., the control site, determines whether the
`
`communication device’s requested operation is allowed by comparing the monitor
`
`message to the “owner control information,” i.e., a “control database.” The remote
`
`server first verifies that the unique device information stored in the “owner
`
`information store,” i.e., a “device database.” (Ex. 1004 ¶123, Fig. 6 (Step 112).)
`
`The remote server then compares the requested operation to “policy information …
`
`associated with a particular electronic device.” (Ex. 1004 ¶118.) Because the
`
`policy information is “associated with a particular device,” the remote serve must
`
`look-up the unique device identifier in a list of devices, i.e., a “device database.”
`
`Based on the comparison between the monitor message and owner control
`
`information, the remote server “would transmit to the device either an approval or
`
`a denial as appropriate.” (Ex. 1004 ¶118.)
`
`15
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 15
`
`

`
`34.
`
`The rules/policies located in the owner control information database
`
`are established by a system administrator via an administrative account. (Ex. 1004,
`
`Claims 40–42, ¶¶ 72–73.) However, a PHOSITA would have understood that the
`
`administrative account could only be established if the device has “owner
`
`information,” i.e., a unique device identifier stored in the “owner information
`
`store.” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶38, 61.) Additionally, the administrative account can only be
`
`established if the unique device identifier is stored in the “device database” section
`
`of the “owner control database.” (Ex. 1004 ¶91.)
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS
`
`35.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 are anticipated by Lotter and
`
`Adams. At the request of counsel, I have broken up claim 1 into elements denoted
`
`[a], [b], [c], etc. to correspond to the discussion of the same elements in the
`
`Petitions for inter partes review. Claim 1, as annotated, reads as follows:
`
`[Preamble] A system for controlling computer network communication
`
`devices that communicate over a computer network comprising:
`
`[a] a computer network communication device having a non-volatile
`
`memory containing a unique device identifier;
`
`[b] a controller operatively connected to a memory in which programmed
`
`instructions are stored within the computer network communication
`
`device,
`
`16
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 16
`
`

`
`[c] the controller being configured to execute the programmed
`
`instructions to implement a communication module that generates a data
`
`message for use with a service provided by an Internet Service Provider
`
`in response to a command entered by a user,
`
`[d] to generate a monitor message containing the unique device identifier
`
`and data corresponding to the command entered by the user, and
`
`[e] to parse command messages received by the computer network
`
`communication device; and
`
`[f] a control site comprising a server operatively connected to a device
`
`database and a control database,
`
`[g] the server being configured to compare data in the monitor message
`
`received from the communication module in the computer network
`
`communications device to control data stored in the control database
`
`[h] in response to the monitor message received from the communication
`
`module in the computer network communications device having the
`
`unique device identifier that is also stored in the device database and
`
`[i] to establish an administrative account for a device in response to the
`
`unique device identifier corresponding to a device identifier stored in the
`
`device database.
`
`17
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 17
`
`

`
`A.
`
`CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, and 7 ARE ANTICIPATED BY LOTTER
`
`Claim 1 [Preamble]: “A system for controlling computer network
`communication devices that communicate over a computer network
`comprising”
`
`36.
`
`Lotter is “directed to monitoring the communications to and from a
`
`mobile communication device” for comparison “against rules stored in a central
`
`data center repository.” (Ex. 1005, Abstract.) The “mobile communication
`
`device[s]” disclosed in Lotter are, for example, “a cell phone, a Smartphone, or a
`
`personal digital assistant (PDA).” (Ex. 1005, 1:63–64.) Lotter further discloses
`
`that the mobile communication devices can communicate over variety of networks
`
`“including for example PIN-to-PIN, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Personal Area Networks,
`
`Local Area Networks, and/or Public Networks (e.g., cellular networks, satellite
`
`networks, and/or the Internet).” (Ex. 1005, 5:10–13.) Thus, the preamble of claim
`
`1 is disclosed by Lotter.
`
`Claim 1[a]: “a computer network communication device having a
`non-volatile memory containing a unique device identifier”
`
`37.
`
`Lotter teaches that the mobile communication device “includes a
`
`memory configured to store programs and data.” (Ex. 1005, 3:24–28.)
`
`Furthermore, Lotter discloses that each mobile communication device has a
`
`“unique Device ID.” It was well known at the time of the ’678 patent’s priority
`
`date that all mobile communication devices would contain both volatile and non-
`
`volatile memory, which is needed for standard phone operations. A mobile
`
`18
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 18
`
`

`
`communication device’s non-volatile memory stores information intended for
`
`long-term persistent storage. Therefore, Lotter’s disclosure of a “memory” and a
`
`“unique Device ID” would inform a PHOSITA that the mobile communication
`
`device’s unique device ID would be stored in the device’s non-volatile memory.
`
`Thus, claim element 1[a] is disclosed Lotter.
`
`Claim 1[b]: “a controller operatively connected to a memory in
`which programmed instructions are stored within the computer
`network communication device”
`
`38.
`
`Lotter teaches that the mobile communication device “includes a
`
`memory configured to store programs and data; a processor, coupled to the
`
`memory, configured to run the programs stored in the memory….” (Ex. 1005,
`
`3:24–28.) Lotter’s “processor…configured to run the programs stored in memory”
`
`is an example of a “controller,” as claimed in the ’678 patent. Thus, claim element
`
`1[b] is disclosed by Lotter.
`
`Claim 1[c]: “the controller being configured to execute the
`programmed instructions to implement a communication module
`that generates a data message for use with a service provided by
`an Internet Service Provider in response to a command entered
`by a user”
`
`39.
`
`Lotter teaches that the mobile communication device’s processor is
`
`configured to execute programs that implement a communication module.
`
`Specifically, as seen in Figure 2 reproduced below, Lotter discloses various
`
`communication modules implemented by the mobile communication device’s
`
`19
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 19
`
`

`
`processor, for example: a phone application, and email application, a SMS text
`
`application, and an instant messaging application. (Ex. 1005, 6:11–25.)
`
`(Ex. 1005, Figure 2.)
`
`40.
`
`Lotter further teaches that the communication module applications
`
`generate data messages for use with an Internet Service Provider (ISP). Lotter
`
`teaches that the wireless devices can use the Internet. (Ex. 1005, 5:7-13.) Lotter
`
`teaches that the mobile communication device contains applications that use
`
`standard communication protocols (e.g., TCP/IP) to send and receive digital data
`
`packets over the Internet. (Ex. 1005, 6:2–6.) A mobile communication device that
`
`is accessing the Internet must do so through an ISP because accessing the Internet
`
`requires an ISP to provide the Internet service to a user.
`
`20
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 20
`
`

`
`41.
`
`Furthermore, Lotter teaches that the data message is generated in
`
`response to a command entered by the user. As described in Figure 3H, Lotter
`
`discloses that the mobile communication device contains an instant messaging
`
`application for sending and receiving data messages. (Ex. 1005, 6:12–18.)
`
`(Ex. 1005, Fig. 3H.)
`
`42. An inherent function of the instant messaging application is that data
`
`messages are typed and then sent by the user pressing some sort of “send” key.
`
`The “send” command is necessary in all IM applications because that is the only
`21
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 21
`
`

`
`way that the program knows to send the IM to the intended recipient. Thus,
`
`element 1[c] is disclosed by Lotter.
`
`Claim 1[d]: “the controller being configured … to generate a
`monitor message containing the unique device identifier and data
`corresponding to the command entered by the user”
`
`43.
`
`Lotter teaches that the mobile communication device “include[s]
`
`memory and a processor configured to run various programs (e.g., software
`
`applications) stored in the memory, including respective Data Monitoring program
`
`tools….” (Ex. 1005, 4:64–67.) As seen in Figure 6A, the Data Monitoring
`
`program tool “capture[s] information regarding the use of the data service
`
`including, for example the unique Device ID of the Mobile Communication
`
`Device, the date/time stamp, the originating or destination phone number, email
`
`address, or username, and/or the contextual content of the data packet.” (Ex. 1005,
`
`12:51–55.)
`
`22
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 22
`
`

`
`(Ex. 1005, Fig. 6A.) Figure 2, also shows all of the application programs
`
`communicating through the Data Monitoring program. As stated previously, the
`
`“unique Device ID of the Mobile Communication Device” corresponds to “the
`
`unique device identifier” as claimed in the ’678 patent. Furthermore, the
`
`“contextual content of the data packet” corresponds to “data corresponding to the
`
`command entered by the user” because the data packet referred to is the data
`
`packets sent in respond the user’s send command when using the IM application.
`
`The Data Monitoring program tool then “formats a data packet which includes the
`
`collected information (Activity Record) and sends one or more data packets to the
`
`23
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 23
`
`

`
`central repository located in Data Center 17.” (Ex. 1005, 12:57–60.) These data
`
`packets containing the unique Device ID and other collected information constitute
`
`a monitor message because the system uses the data packets to monitor commands,
`
`as explained below with respect to claim 1[h]. Thus, claim element 1[d] is
`
`disclosed by Lotter.
`
`Claim 1[e]: “the controller being configured … to parse
`command messages received by the computer network
`communication device”
`
`44.
`
`Lotter teaches that the control site (Data Center 17) sends a command
`
`message back to the mobile communication device’s Data Monitor program tool in
`
`response to the monitor message sent from the Data Monitoring program tool. (Ex.
`
`1005, 12:63–13:6.) If the control site determines that the requested operation is
`
`allowed, e.g., sending an IM through an IM application, the command message
`
`will inform the Data Monitoring program tool that it is authorized to complete the
`
`requested operation. (Ex. 1005, 12:63–13:6.) Conversely, if the requested
`
`operation is not authorized, the command message will inform the Data
`
`Monitoring program tool that the requested operation should be canceled. (Ex.
`
`1005, 12:63–13:6.) Therefore, as seen in Figure 6B, the mobile communication
`
`device’s processor must parse the received command message to determine
`
`whether to allow or deny a command. In order for the electronic device to
`
`determine whether to allow or deny the requested operation, the approval or denial
`
`message had to have been parsed by the electronic device’s processor. In fact, all
`24
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1003, pg. 24
`
`

`
`network communication devices parse messages upon receipt. Parsing messages is
`
`simply the act of taking the message and determining what action to take. This is
`
`an inherent characteristic of the electronic device, that is, once the electronic
`
`device receives the command message, it must analyze the message and determine
`
`whether remote server has returned an “allow” or “deny” command. (Ex. 1005,
`
`12:63–13:6.)1
`
`1 To the extent that parsing is narrowly defined as the act of identifying the
`
`parts/fields of a data packet, this feature is inherent in Adams. All electronic
`
`devices that receive data packets must identify the fiel

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket