throbber
Case IPR2015-00089 Paper 44
`Patent 6,546,002 B April 25, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`
`
`Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Background
`A.
`International Business Machines Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a
`Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute inter
`partes review of claims 1–24 of U.S. Patent No. 6,546,002 (“the ’002 patent,”
`Ex. 1004). Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Based on these submissions, on April
`27, 2015, we granted the Petition and instituted trial for claims 1, 2, 4, 6–12,
`14, and 16–24 of the ’002 patent. Paper 8 (“Institution Decision” or “Dec.
`Inst.”).
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response.
`Paper 19 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 27 (“Pet. Reply”). In
`addition, the parties rely upon expert testimony. Petitioner proffered the
`Declaration of Henry Lieberman (“Lieberman Declaration,” Ex. 1001). Patent
`Owner proffered the Declaration of Dr. Tim Williams (“Williams
`Declaration,” Ex. 2005). A transcript of the deposition of Dr. Williams
`(“Williams Dep.,” Ex. 1032) was submitted by Petitioner. A transcript of the
`deposition of Mr. Lieberman (“Lieberman Dep.,” Ex. 1026) taken by Patent
`Owner was filed as an exhibit by Petitioner.
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`(“Motion,” “Mot.,” Paper 32). Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude (“Opposition,” “Opp.,” Paper 37), and Patent
`Owner filed a Reply to the Opposition to Motion (“Reply to Opposition,” “PO
`Reply,” Paper 38). The Motion is denied for the reasons set out below.
`An oral hearing was held on January 15, 2016. The transcript of the
`consolidated hearing for this case and IPR 2015-00092 has been entered into
`the record. Paper 43 (“Tr.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). We conclude for the
`reasons that follow that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 6–12, 14, and 16–24 of the ʼ002 patent are
`unpatentable.
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`Petitioner advises us that Patent Owner (“IV” in the case listing that
`follows) has asserted the ’002 patent in the following seven patent
`infringement lawsuits, none of which name Petitioner as a defendant: (1) IV v.
`PNC Fin. Servs.Grp., Inc., 2:13-cv-00740 (W.D. Pa.); (2) IV v. Capital One
`Fin. Corp., 8:14-cv-00111 (D. Md.); (3) IV v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc.,
`2:14-cv-00832 (W.D. Pa.); (4) IV v. Citigroup, Inc., 1:14-cv-04638
`(S.D.N.Y.); (5) IV v. Erie Indem. Co., 1:14-cv-00220 (W.D. Pa.); (6) IV v. Old
`Republic Gen. Ins. Grp., Inc., 2:14-cv-01130 (W.D. Pa.); and (7) IV v.
`Highmark, Inc., 2:14-cv- 01131 (W.D. Pa.). Pet. 1. Petitioner also filed a
`separate petition for an inter partes review of claims 25–49 of the ’002
`patent.1 Id.
`
`C. The ’002 Patent
`The ’002 patent describes a system and method for using a mobile
`interface agent to access information of a user. Ex. 1004, Abstract. The
`’002 patent describes using a mobile interface agent that allows a user to
`“access documents, files, programs, applications, URL bookmarks, IP
`addresses, telephone numbers, television channels, radio stations, and other
`
`
`1The co-pending petition is IPR2015-00092.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`menu items from any computer.” Id. The information accessed is specific to
`
`the user. Id.
`Figure 15 of the ’002 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 15 is a block diagram showing profile managers of multiple
`communication networks connected by a gateway. Ex. 1004, 5:41–44. Figure
`15 shows Mobile Interface Agent (“MIA”) 102a running on a Windows 95 PC
`and MIA 102b running on a cellular telephone. Id. at 16:36–54. The MIA of
`the ’002 patent allows access to “[a user’s] menu items (e.g., software
`programs, applications, files, folders, documents, telephone numbers, radio
`stations, and television channels), URL bookmarks, and user profile data.” Id.
`at 5:58–61.
`The MIA may also “periodically update or query user profile data,
`facilitate the sharing of memory and data structures between
`applications/services both local and remote, allow various types of user
`interfaces to be attached (voice menu system, human-like graphical icon, etc.)
`and perform intelligent multi-platform conversion of application data.” Ex.
`1004, 5:62–67. The MIA “can be accessible using any computer from any
`geographical location so long as the computer can be connected to a network.”
`Id. at Abstract. For example, “[t]he mobile interface agent can be accessible
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`using a computer, cable set top box, cellular phone, or other device from any
`
`geographical location.” Id. at 4:44–46.
`The ’002 patent further explains that, during the process of initializing
`and creating a MIA, “MIA 102 downloads the appropriate information such as
`user profile, URL links, applications registered, etc. Some of the information
`downloaded may depend on the platform, geographical location, etc. that
`corresponds to the user’s connection location.” Ex. 1004, 14:50–54. “For
`example, if a user has purchased a Windows 98 only license for MS Word and
`moved to an Apple MacOS device, then the MS Word menu item may be
`disabled or not downloaded.” Id. at 14:54–57.
`Figure 1B is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1B illustrates a menu used by the MIA once a user has logged on to the
`computer. Id. at 5:1–3. The set of menu items included in a MIA are
`“associated with a user’s specific configuration and profile.” Id. at 14:33–34.
`The “menu items/pointers shown in the user interface can be used to access
`and retrieve user specific resources and information.” Id. at 6:14–16.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`D. Illustrative Claims
`
`
`Method claims 1 and 11 are the two independent claims of the
`challenged claims and are reproduced below.
`
`1. A method for retrieving user specific resources and
`information stored either on a local device or a network server,
`the method comprising the steps of:
`retrieving a mobile interface from the network server to the local
`device;
`displaying the mobile interface on the local device, the mobile
`interface including a plurality of pointers corresponding to the
`user specific resources and information; and
`retrieving the user specific resources and information using the
`plurality of pointers displayed on the mobile interface.
`Ex. 1004, 17:9–21.
`
`11. A method for retrieving user specific resources and
`information stored either on a local device or a network server,
`the method comprising the steps of:
`displaying the mobile interface on the local device, the mobile
`interface including a plurality of pointers corresponding to the
`user specific resources and information;
`retrieving user profile and configuration data from the network
`server to the local device, wherein the user profile and
`configuration data is used to update the data associated with the
`mobile interface;
`retrieving the user specific resources and information using the
`plurality of pointers displayed on the mobile interface.
`Id. at 17:54–67.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`E. Grounds Upon Which Trial was Instituted
`
`Inter partes review was instituted on the following grounds:
`(1)
`claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 18 as anticipated under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 by Richardson;2
`(2)
`claims 4 and 14 as obvious over under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Richardson and Pezzullo;3
`(3)
`claims 6 and 16 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Richardson and Davis;4
`(4)
`claims 9, 19, and 21–23 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Richardson and Arnold;5
`(5)
`claims 10 and 20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Richardson and Pocock;6
`(6)
`claim 24 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Richardson,
`Raman,7 and Arnold;
`(7)
`claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, and 18 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 by Murray;8
`
`
`2Tristan Richardson, et al., Virtual Network Computing,
`IEEE INTERNET COMPUTING, Vol. 2, No. 1, 33–38 Jan./Feb. 1998
`(“Richardson,” Exs. 1006 and 1007 (proof of publication)).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,615,257 to Pezzullo, et al., issued Mar. 25, 1997
`(“Pezzullo,” Ex. 1011).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,473,692 to Davis, issued Dec. 5, 1995 (“Davis,” Ex. 1012).
`5 Int’l App. Publ. No. WO 98/12833 to Arnold et al., published Mar. 26, 1998
`(“Arnold,” Ex. 1013).
`6 Eur. Patent No. 0396062 B1 to Pocock et al., published Oct. 23, 1996
`(“Pocock,” Ex. 1014).
`7 T.V. Raman, Emacspeak–A Speech Interface, PROC. OF THE SIGCHI
`CONFERENCE ON HUMAN FACTORS IN COMPUTING SYSTEMS, 66–71 (Apr. 1996)
`(“Raman,” Exs. 1018 and 1019).
`8 Mark Murray and Troy Roberts, Effective Use of Individual User Profiles
`with Software Distribution, Digest of the Large Scale System,
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`(8)
`claims 6 and 16 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Murray
`
`and Davis;
`claims 7 and 17 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Murray;
`(9)
`(10) claims 9, 19, and 21–23 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Murray and Arnold; and
`(11) claim 24 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Murray, Raman,
`and Arnold. Dec. Inst. 36.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`A.
`In inter partes review, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`interpretation in light of the Specification in which they appear. See 37
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and
`customary meaning. See Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the
`claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent
`with the specification and prosecution history.”); In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term
`must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the
`absence of such a special definition or other consideration, “limitations are not
`to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`Petitioner and Patent Owner both propose constructions for the terms
`“mobile interface” and “pointer” as recited in claims 1 and 11. Pet. 5–8; PO
`
`
`Administration of Windows NT Workshop, 1−9 (Aug. 1997) (“Murray,” Exs.
`1008 and 1009 (proof of publication)).
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`Resp. 9–13.
`
`1. “mobile interface”
`Independent claim 1 recites “retrieving a mobile interface from the
`network server to the local device” (emphasis added). Independent claim 11
`includes a similar recitation, “displaying the mobile interface on the local
`device, the mobile interface including a plurality of pointers corresponding to
`the user specific resources and information” (emphasis added). In the
`Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed “mobile interface” to mean “a
`user interface accessible on different computing devices.” Dec. Inst. 9.
`Petitioner agrees with our construction from the Institution Decision
`and argues against adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Pet.
`Reply. 2–4. Patent Owner proposes “mobile interface” be construed as “a user
`interface accessible on different computing devices and capable of
`dynamically accessing user-specific data on a network server and local
`device.” PO Resp. 9–10.
`Patent Owner’s support for including “dynamically accessing” user-
`specific data as part of its proposed construction includes the following
`citation from the Specification:
`The present invention is further directed to a mobile interface
`agent that can be used to dynamically access resources stored
`either locally in the computer device or across a network
`including programs, applications, bookmarked URLs, user
`profiles, IP addresses, telephone numbers, television channels,
`radio stations, and the like that are specific to a user via any
`computer device.
`
`PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:11–16). Patent Owner also relies on the
`Williams Declaration and other portions of the Specification that describe
`periodically updating and synchronizing the “profile data” and adjusting a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`pointer when the user moves from a Windows 95 machine to an Apple
`
`Macintosh machine. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:61–62, 7:52–55, 13:21–27;
`Ex. 2005 ¶ 39). Patent Owner concludes that “[t]he Board’s construction
`encompasses any interface—even those that are incapable of dynamically
`accessing data from different devices, locations, and computing platforms.”
`Id. at 12; see also Ex. 2005 ¶ 41 (“the Board’s construction encompasses any
`interface”).
`Our preliminary construction is consistent with the Specification. For
`example, the Specification describes a “mobile interface agent” (“MIA”),9
`which “allows the user to access documents, files, programs, applications,
`URL bookmarks, IP addresses, telephone numbers, television channels, radio
`stations, and other menu items from any computer that is connected to a
`network.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:49–54 (emphasis in Petition); id. at 5:58–
`61). The Specification also explains that the interface is “mobile” because it is
`accessible by a user from “any computer type device connected to the
`network.” Ex. 1004, 4:21–24.
`The parties appear to agree that the “mobile interface” is an interface
`that is accessible on different computing devices. Patent Owner’s proposal
`includes the additional language “dynamically accessing user specific data on
`a network server and local device.” Although the term “dynamically access”
`is used in the Specification of the ’002 patent, the meaning of that term is not
`explained. Also, the type and location of the data being accessed already is
`specified in the various claims of the ’002 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 17:9–
`
`
`9 Patent Owner states that “mobile interface” is sometimes referred to as
`“mobile interface agent.” Tr. 35, 9–15. Our review of the Specification
`supports the conclusion that the terms are used synonymously. See, e.g., Ex.
`1004, Abstract.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`11, 19:15–18, 19:33–35. Thus, we are not persuaded that the term “mobile
`
`interface” is appropriately limited by the method of data access or by the type
`and location of the data being accessed.
`During oral argument Patent Owner was asked why insertion of
`“dynamically accessing” would not constitute reading a limitation from the
`Specification into the claims. Patent Owner argues support is found at column
`1, lines 11 through 16, of the ’002 patent reproduced above, which describes
`the “present invention.” See PO Resp. 10, Tr. 53:23–54:22. Petitioner points
`out that “the ’002 [patent Specification] refers to the ‘present invention’ 62
`times to describe aspects of the mobile interface and potential uses.” Pet.
`Reply 3. Dr. Williams’s deposition includes testimony that his construction of
`“mobile interface” is based on the phrase “the present invention” in the
`Specification. Ex. 1032, 52:9–54:13. The use of “dynamically accessing” in
`association with “the present invention” at one place, in the Specification does
`not rise to the level of a special definition set forth with clarity, deliberateness,
`and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.
`Patent Owner does not explain why the ’002 patent’s descriptions of
`periodically updating, synchronizing, and adjusting pointer data10 are relevant
`to “dynamically accessing” user specific resources. See PO Resp. 11. The
`Williams Declaration does not include testimony that might support Patent
`Owner’s position. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 36–41. Rather, the Williams Declaration
`repeats the citations to the Specification and lacks any discussion of what a
`
`
`10 “To the user, this process would be automatic and transparent since the user
`can simply click a data file, which is pointer data in his/her mobile interface
`agent.” Ex. 1004, 3:5–8 (emphasis added). The term “pointer data” is not a
`claim term and has not been construed.
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood about the term
`
`“mobile interface.” Id.
` Finally, our preliminary construction is not so broad as to encompass
`“any interface” but rather only an interface that is “accessible on different
`computing devices.” We are not persuaded that it should be narrowed by
`inclusion of “dynamically accessing.”11 As such, our preliminary construction
`is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification.
`Thus, we adopt our preliminary construction of “mobile interface” as our final
`construction, namely we construe “mobile interface” to mean “a user interface
`accessible on different computing devices.”
`2. “pointer”
`Independent claims 1 and 11 both recite “the mobile interface including
`a plurality of pointers corresponding to the user specific resources and
`information.” Ex. 1004, 17:14−17 and 57−60 (emphasis added). In the
`Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed “pointer” as “a link or
`shortcut to an item.” Dec. Inst. 10.
`Petitioner agrees with our preliminary construction of “pointer.” Pet.
`Reply 4. Patent Owner contends “[t]he inventor of the ’002 Patent acted as
`his own lexicographer, defining pointer: ‘A pointer in this context is a
`reference to a type of menu item that can be accessible on the computer, PDA
`or a server.’” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:36–38, 10:8–10). According
`
`
`11 A district court likewise did not include “dynamically accessing” in its
`construction and construed “mobile interface” as recited in the claims of the
`’002 patent as “[a] user interface, accessible on various computing devices,
`allowing a user to access files and other data from various computing
`devices.” Ex. 1031, 6 (Final Order Regarding Claim Construction and Patent
`Summaries, IV v. Citigroup, Inc., 1:14-cv-04638 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2015),
`ECF No. 90).
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`to Patent Owner, our preliminary construction is “incomplete.” Id. Patent
`
`Owner cites a portion of the Specification that we relied on for our
`preliminary construction (Ex. 1004, 9:62–11:4).12 Id. Notwithstanding that,
`Patent Owner continues to argue that when a user activates a pointer it
`“accesses the corresponding item.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:10–16).
`Patent Owner then argues the Specification explains that the accessed item
`“can be accessible on the computer, PDA or a server,” thereby supporting its
`proposed construction. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:36–38, 10:8–10).
`The Specification states “[a] user interface in an [Operating System
`(OS)] generally includes ‘pointers’ to software programs, applications, files,
`folders, documents, and other menu items. A pointer in this context is a
`reference to a type of menu item that can be accessible on the computer,
`[Portable Digital Assistants (PDA)] or a server.” Ex. 1004, 1:34–38
`(emphasis added). The Specification describes that pointers are found on the
`“Start” menu bar and provide “a link to folders, files, and programs (e.g., a
`word processing program).” Id. at 1:39–47. The Specification concludes
`with: “As discussed earlier, a pointer is a link/shortcut to an item such as a
`file, URL, IP address, telephone number, television channel, radio station,
`application, or service.” Id. at 10:8–10 (emphasis added).
`We are not persuaded that the construction proposed by Patent Owner
`represents the broadest reasonable construction of the term “pointer,” as
`described in the ’002 patent. The ’002 patent discusses a broad array of
`electronic devices that may be used in conjunction with the mobile interface
`agent, including “a computer, cable set top box, cellular phone, or other
`device.” Id. at 4:44–45. Patent Owner does not explain why the description
`
`
`12 Dec. Inst. 10 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:8–10).
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`of a “pointer” in one particular “context,” i.e., on a computer or PDA,
`
`indicates a clear intent to require that all pointers be “a reference to a type of
`menu item” or “accessible on a computer, PDA, or server.” Accordingly, we
`apply the broadest definition of the term provided in the ’002 patent: “a link
`or shortcut to an item.” Ex. 1001, 10:8–10 (“As discussed above, a pointer is
`a link/shortcut to an item such as . . . .”).
`At oral argument, Patent Owner represented that “a proper
`understanding” of our preliminary construction can “get you to the same
`place” as our preliminary construction. Tr. 37:4–8. Additionally, counsel
`argued it is important that there be a “reference” to an item, rather than only “a
`visual representation of an icon.” Id. at 37:14–21, 36:2–5. We do not adopt
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “pointer” and disagree that our
`preliminary construction requires a “reference” to an item. Neither do we
`agree that “a visual representation of an icon” is unequivocally not an icon.
`To say that our preliminary construction requires a “reference” is another way
`of reading one isolated sentence of the Specification into the construction. We
`decline to import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See, e.g.,
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
`2004).
`The record also includes extrinsic evidence that a pointer is understood
`in the computer field to mean “[a] data item that specifies the location of
`another data item.” IEEE Dictionary, 785 (6th Ed., 1996), Ex. 2001. It is
`unnecessary to rely on extrinsic evidence to reach our construction when the
`term can be “understood from a careful reading of the public record.” See
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`In sum, adopting Patent Owner’s construction requires importation of
`limitations from the Specification which are unnecessary to achieve the
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`correct construction. Thus, our preliminary construction is the broadest
`
`reasonable construction consistent with the Specification and we adopt our
`preliminary construction of “pointer” as our final construction. Specifically,
`we construe the term “pointer” to mean “a link or shortcut to an item.”
`B. Analysis of Anticipation Grounds Based on Richardson
`
`In order for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory reference, it
`must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
`inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We must
`analyze prior art references as a skilled artisan would. See Scripps Clinic &
`Res. Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (to
`anticipate, “[t]here must be no difference between the claimed invention and
`the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of
`the invention”), overruled on other grounds by Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As the Federal Circuit has held:
`This modest flexibility in the rule that “anticipation” requires
`that every element of the claims appear in a single reference
`accommodates situations where the common knowledge of
`technologists is not recorded in the reference; that is, where
`technological facts are known to those in the field of the
`invention, albeit not known to judges. It is not, however, a
`substitute for determination of patentability in terms of § 103.
`Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268–69 (Fed. Cir.
`1991).
`1. Richardson (Ex. 1006)
`Richardson describes a Virtual Network Computing (“VNC”) system
`where an entire desktop environment can be accessed from any Internet-
`connected machine. Ex. 1006, 33.13 A Network Computer (“NC”) “aims to
`
`
`13 Page references are to the page numbers in Richardson and not the exhibit
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`give users access to centralized resources from simple inexpensive devices.”
`
`Id. In the VNC system, the server is accessed in the same way as a NC but the
`server also supplies “an entire desktop environment that can be accessed from
`any Internet-connected machine using a simple software NC.” Id.
`“The technology underlying the VNC system is a simple protocol for
`remote access to graphical user interfaces.” Id. at 35. Because it works at the
`framebuffer level, the protocol “applies to all operating systems, windowing
`systems, and applications—indeed to any device with some form of
`communications link.” Id.
`Figure 1 of Richardson is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the VNC architecture. The VNC client interacts with the
`display and/or input devices. Ex. 1006, 35. The VNC server is the endpoint
`where changes to the framebuffer originate. The client inputs to the server
`when the “user presses a key or pointer button.” Id.
`Figures 2(b) and 2(c) of Richardson are reproduced below.
`
`
`page numbers provided by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2(b) illustrates “a Windows 95 desktop from an X viewer. Ex. 1006,
`36. Figure 2(c) illustrates “a Unix desktop from a Java applet within Internet
`Explorer.” Id.
`The viewers may access the user’s personal computing environment.
`Ex. 1006, 36. Richardson provides various examples of user desktops being
`accessed from different viewers using the VNC system. Id. at Fig. 2. Any
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`user interface may be accessed, including CDs, video recorders, telephone
`
`answering machines, and car stereos or GPS receivers. Id. at 36–37. Using
`the remote access protocol, a mobile phone could be used to access the
`devices. Id. at 37.
`2. Independent Claims 1 and 11 as Anticipated by Richardson
`Patent Owner identifies two limitations from claims 1 and 11 and an
`additional limitation from claim 11 that Patent Owner argues are not disclosed
`by Richardson. See PO Resp. 13. As to the remaining limitations of claims 1
`and 11, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown sufficiently that they are
`present in Richardson. See Pet. 12–19, 20–23 and 25–26 (claim chart); Ex.
`1001 ¶¶ 62–94. Our analysis of Patent Owner’s arguments relative to claims 1
`and 11 are addressed below.
`a. “the mobile interface including a plurality of pointers”
`Both claims 1 and 11 recite “the mobile interface including a plurality
`of pointers” (“the pointer limitation”). Petitioner cites Richardson’s disclosure
`of retrieving the “entire desktop environment” from the VNC server, i.e.,
`“network server,” to the client or viewer, i.e., “local device.” Pet. 14 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 33, 35). According to Petitioner, the recited “mobile interface” is
`met by the user’s desktop because it “can be accessed from any Internet-
`connected machine.” Id.
`Premised on the user’s desktop being the “mobile interface,” Petitioner
`argues Figure 1 of Richardson (shown above) depicts “the VNC viewer
`(client) is the local device that displays the user’s mobile desktop.” Pet. 15
`(citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 1; Ex. 1001 ¶ 75). Richardson’s Figure 2(b) depicts
`using the VNC system to access a Windows 95 desktop, including a number
`of icons such as “My Computer” and “Internet Explorer.” Id. (citing Ex.
`1006, 36, Fig. 2). Citing the preceding disclosure, Petitioner contends “[o]ne
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the icons on the
`
`Windows desktop are pointers because they provide links such that when the
`user clicks on an icon, the computer retrieves the corresponding resources and
`information.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 78).
`Patent Owner argues Richardson does not disclose the “pointer
`limitation” and cannot anticipate claims 1 and 11. PO Resp. 13, 16, 18–22;
`Tr. 36:15–22, 40:17–43:17. Patent Owner identifies two reasons supporting
`its position. First, Patent Owner argues “the VNC desktop displayed at the
`VNC client—the alleged ‘mobile interface’—does not include pointers.” PO
`Resp. 18. Second, “the VNC desktop displayed at Richardson’s VNC client
`does not dynamically access user-specific data.” Id. These arguments are
`based, in part, on Patent Owner’s proposed constructions of “pointer” and
`“mobile interface.” As discussed above, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s
`proposed constructions.
`Patent Owner argues Richardson operates differently than the claimed
`invention because “[w]hen the VNC client user clicks on an icon, the client
`computer does not retrieve resources and information; it merely transmits a
`click event for a given x-y display coordinate.” PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2005
`¶ 53). If any “changes occur as a result of the click event,” the VNC server
`only sends updated screenshots to the VNC client. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex.
`2005 ¶ 53). Patent Owner argues Richardson’s VNC client transmits an x-y
`coordinate “regardless of whether the click coincides with an icon or menu
`item.” Id. Based on the preceding, Patent Owner argues Richardson does not
`disclose a “pointer” under our construction of “pointer” as “a link or shortcut
`to an item.” Id. at 20.
`The Williams Declaration testimony is that a VNC system, such as
`Richardson, takes messages from a client mouse or keyboard and
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00089
`Patent 6,546,002 B1
`communicates “screen change rectangles” between the VNC client and server.
`
`Ex. 2005 ¶ 56. Relying on this testimony, Patent Owner argues that the use of
`the x-y coordinates in Richardson are not “pointers” but merely “graphics
`primitives.” PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1006, 35; Ex. 2005 ¶ 56). Thus,
`Patent Owner concludes the VNC system of Richardson, i.e., the “mobile
`interface,” also does not include pointers. Id. at 22.
`In sum, Patent Owner argues that “a visual representation of an icon
`that, when resolved elsewhere–at the server, for instance” is not a pointer. See
`Tr. 37:22–38:5; see also id. at 41:8–21 (Richardson’s information “resides at
`the server”), 45:13–46:2 (Richardson does not bring the “resource down to the
`mobile interface”). Part of Patent Owner’s contention regarding Richardson is
`that “the client computer does not retrieve the MS Word document when the
`icon is clicked, nor does the icon refer to the MS Word document.” PO Resp.
`7 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 57).
`These arguments are not persuasive because the claims do not specify
`where the “pointer” is resolved. Thus, the location where an application is
`resolved or executed, whether it is the client or the server, does not distinguish
`Richardson from the claims. For example, claim 1 recites that the “pointers
`correspond[] to the user specific resources and information.” See Ex. 1004,
`17:14–17. Indeed, the Specification states that “pointer data” “may exist
`either locally in the computer device or may exist as a resource accessible
`across a network.” See Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:42–44, Fig. 15
`(depicting remote database 136 storing “pointer dat

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