Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19
`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 6, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`WhatsApp Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 12–15 and 18–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,049,574 B2
`
`(Ex. 1101, “the ’574 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). TriPlay, Inc. (“Patent
`
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Taking
`
`into account the arguments presented in the Preliminary Response, we
`
`determined that the information presented in the Petition established that
`
`there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`
`challenging claims 12–15 and 18–20 of the ’574 patent on the basis that
`
`these claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314, we instituted this inter partes review on March 13, 2017, as to all the
`
`challenged claims. Paper 7 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`
`Upon instituting this proceeding, a conference call was held on
`
`August 1, 2017, between the panel and counsel for the respective parties,
`
`during which Patent Owner confirmed that it waived its right to file a
`
`Response. Paper 18, 2–3. As discussed during the call, the record now
`
`before the panel reflects that the arguments and supporting evidence in the
`
`Petition stand unopposed as a part of the trial that was instituted. Id.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final
`
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of claims
`
`12–15 and 18–20 of the ’574 patent. For the reasons discussed below, we
`
`hold that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that claims 12–15 and 18–20 of the ’574 patent are unpatentable under 35
`
` 2
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties state that the ’574 patent is the subject of a pending
`
`district court case captioned TriPlay, Inc. v. WhatsApp Inc., No. 1:13-cv-
`
`1703-LPS (D. Del.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2. Claims 1–6 and 9–11 of the ’574
`
`patent are the subject of related Case IPR2016-01660. Petitioner states that
`
`the Board found unpatentable, all challenged claims of related U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,332,475 B2 in Case IPR2015-00740 (Paper 61). Pet. 1. Petitioner
`
`further states the parent of the ’574 patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,874,677 B2, is
`
`the subject of two pending inter partes reviews, Cases IPR2016-0717 and
`
`IPR2016-00718. Pet. 1–2. Petitioner has also filed petitions for inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 9,055,416 in Cases IPR2016-01661 and IPR2016-
`
`01662. Pet. 2.1
`
`C. The ’574 Patent
`
`The ’574 patent is titled “Messaging System and Method,” and is
`
`directed to “cross-platform messaging” and, in particular, a messaging
`
`system that converts the formats and layouts of messages sent between
`
`communication devices that may have different communication and display
`
`capabilities. Ex. 1101, at [54], [57], 8:53–60; 11:53–56. Figure 1 of the
`
`’574 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`1 Final Written Decisions in each of Cases IPR2016-01660, IPR2016-01661
`and IPR2016-01662 are issued concurrently with this Decision.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a network architecture in which the messaging system
`
`
`
`may be used and depicts various communication devices 11 (e.g., cell phone,
`
`personal computer (“PC”)) connected to a data network such as Internet 12,
`
`Cellular Operator Network 13, or Landline Operator Network 14. Id. at
`
`11:30–40; 10:27–35. Messages from an originating device to a destination
`
`device pass through messaging system 16, where at least one of the devices
`
`is assigned to a user registered in the system. Id. at 12:12–13. Messaging
`
`System 16 supports a variety of message formats, such as text, audio, video,
`
`and image. Id. at 12:16–21. Message content may include a text and/or one
`
`or more media items, such as text files, image files, video, audio, and
`
`hyperlinks, to be transmitted to the other party. Id. at 10:51–55. Figure 2 of
`
`the ’574 patent is reproduced below.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a block diagram of messaging system 16 supporting
`
`communication devices 11 and third party applications 29. Id. at 12:16–23.
`
`Messaging system 16 comprises access block 21 operatively coupled with
`
`media block 23 and other functional blocks. Id. at 12:62–67. Access block
`
`21 includes users’ gateway 211 and third party applications gateway 214
`
`supporting communications, via corresponding network(s) that operate in
`
`available communication standards, systems and/or protocols. Id. at 13:4–
`
`12.
`
`Media block 23 comprises transcoder 232 operatively coupled with
`
`message manager 231 that may comprise a template module coupled with
`
`database 26. Id. at 16:21–24. Figure 6 of the ’574 patent is reproduced
`
` 5
`
`
`
`below.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 depicts an example of the messaging system’s operation,
`
`where Subscriber A composes a message at one of the assigned
`
`communication devices and sends the message to Subscriber B and Non-
`
`subscriber C. Id. at 16:46–49. Messaging system 16 receives the message
`
`and analyzes 61 originating and destination addresses comprised in the
`
`message. Id. at 16:51–53. If the destination device is assigned to a
`
`subscriber, the system analyzes the destination device 62 and takes a
`
`delivery decision 63 accordingly. Id. at 16:53–58. The delivery decision
`
`comprises delivery instructions (e.g., the content, format and/or layout of the
`
`message to be delivered). Id. at 16:63–17:4.
`
`In accordance with the delivery decision, the system provides
`
`transcoding of the message format 64 and/or adapting message layout 65 and
`
`appropriate repackaging 66, if necessary (e.g., if limitations of the
`
`communication media or destination device require deleting or replacing
`
`some of the media items in the message). Id. at 17:6–12. The converted
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`message and/or notification thereof are delivered 67 to the destination
`
`device, and the transaction is registered 68 in the system. Id. at 17:13–15.
`
`The described process may be provided in a similar manner for several
`
`destination devices. Id. at 17:16–20.
`
`The ’574 patent further describes facilitating composing messages
`
`using “pre-defined templates.” Id. at 19:48–50. The ’574 patent describes
`
`different template “types,” each having different “Content Structures.” Id. at
`
`19:60–20:14 (Table 1). The messaging system supports different types of
`
`templates, each of which is provided with a unique identifier recognizable
`
`by the messaging system. Id. at 19:51–56. The layout of templates depends
`
`on “capabilities of [the] destination device as . . . illustrated in Table 2.” Id.
`
`at 20:63–65.
`
`Table 2 describes a “General” template type with different layouts for
`
`PC, Web, and cellphone display, all of which include a “[l]ist of clickable
`
`media.” Id. at 21:20–67 (Table 2). For layout for PC and Web, each type of
`
`template also includes the sender’s avatar. Id. For audio/video media, the
`
`cellphone layout contains “clickable icons into” the audio. Id. Message
`
`layout is based on the template’s unique identifier and the capabilities of the
`
`destination device. Id. at 21:2–6. Figure 12 of the ’574 patent (as annotated
`
`by Petitioner) is reproduced below.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`Figure 12 illustrates a layout of a message displayed on a PC screen. Id. at
`
`9:35–37, 22:5–7. The sender’s avatar is shown at the upper left portion of
`
`
`
`the PC screen.
`
`D. The Challenged Claims
`
`
`
`Of the challenged claims, claim 12 is the only independent at issue.
`
`Claim 12 is illustrative of the challenged claims, and is reproduced below:
`
`12. A messaging system, comprising:
`
`an access block operatively coupled to a media block,
`wherein:
`
`the access block is configured to receive an initial message
`sent by an originating communication device to a destination
`communication device, the initial message being characterized,
`at least, by message format, an initial message layout, and data
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`indicative of at least one receiver associated with the initial
`message, wherein the initial message includes an audio file;
`
`the media block is configured to:
`
`i)
`
`before delivery to the destination communication
`device associated with the at least one receiver,
`generate a notification of the initial message that
`includes the audio file, the notification being an
`adapted version of the initial message,
` provide at least an image icon based on an avatar
`of a sender of the initial message, and
`determine an adapted layout for the notification, the
`adapted layout comprising the image icon based on
`the avatar of the sender of the initial message and a
`clickable icon that represents the audio file and that
`is clickable to request the messaging system to
`transmit an adapted version of the audio file to the
`destination communication device; and
`
`ii)
`
`iii)
`
`ii)
`
`iii)
`
`
`the access block is configured to:
`
`i)
`
`to
`
`the
`
`the notification
`facilitate delivery of
`destination communication device,
`receive a request to transmit an adapted version of
`the audio file to the destination communication
`device resulting from selection of the clickable icon
`that represents the audio file in the notification; and
`based on the request to transmit an adapted version
`of the audio file to the destination communication
`device, facilitate delivery of an adapted version of
`the audio file to the destination communication
`device.
`
`Ex. 1101, 24:45–25:13.
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted trial on the following grounds (Dec. on Inst. 25):
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Claim[s] Challenged
`
`Bellordre,2 Han,3
`Coulombe,4 and Ruppert5
`
`Bellordre, Han, Coulombe,
`Ruppert, and Huynh6
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`12, 13, 15, and 18–20
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`14
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we took note that all claim terms are
`
`generally presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the ’574 patent.
`
`Dec. on Inst. 9. With that presumption in mind, we determined that it was
`
`unnecessary, at that time, to make explicit the meaning of any claim term.
`
`Id. at 11. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we make that same
`
`determination.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`
`2 US 2006/0176902 A1 (publ. Aug. 10, 2006) (“Bellordre”; Ex. 1103).
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 7,464,337 B2, PCT filed Feb. 26, 2001, issued Dec. 9,
`2008 (“Han”; Ex. 1104).
`
`4 US 2003/0236892 A1 (publ. Dec. 25, 2003) (“Coulombe”; Ex. 1105).
`
`5 US 2001/0054073 A1 (publ. Dec. 20, 2001) (“Ruppert”; Ex. 1106).
`
`6 US 2005/0060381 A1 (publ. Mar. 17, 2005) (“Huynh”; Ex. 1107).
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The
`
`question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`
`determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`
`of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations).7 Graham v. John Deere Co. of
`
`Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze this asserted ground
`
`based on obviousness with the principles identified above in mind.
`
`C. Level of Skill in the Art
`
`There is evidence in the record before us that enables us to determine
`
`the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s
`
`declarant, Mr. David Klausner provides the following testimony:
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art as of August 2005 would
`possess at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or
`computer science (or equivalent degree or experience) with at
`least two years of experience in the design and implementation
`of systems for sending and receiving messages over a
`communication network, such as the Internet.
`
`Ex. 1102 ¶ 16. We adopt Mr. Klausner’s assessment because it is consistent
`
`with the ’574 patent and the asserted prior art, and apply it to our
`
`obviousness evaluation below.
`
`
`
`
`7 No evidence pertaining to “secondary considerations” has been offered by
`either party in connection with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`D. Claims 12, 13, 15, and 18–20
`
`Petitioner cites to the Declaration of Mr. Klausner (Ex. 1102), and
`
`contends that claims 12, 13, 15, and 18–20 would have been obvious over
`
`Bellordre, Han, Coulombe, and Ruppert. Pet. 24–64.
`
`1. Bellordre (Ex. 1103)
`
`Bellordre is titled, “Method of Processing a Multimedia Message, a
`
`Storage Medium, and an Associated Processing System,” and relates to “a
`
`method of processing a multimedia message” containing “at least one audio
`
`or video multimedia object.” Ex. 1103, [54], [57], ¶ 1. Multimedia
`
`messages may contain text, picture, audio, and/or video objects. Id. ¶ 4.
`
`Bellordre’s message-processing system receives a multimedia message from
`
`a receiver, extracts any audio or video object from the message, “adapt[s]
`
`the format, sound and size of the audio and video objects to the technical
`
`features of the destination terminal,” and stores the adapted message. Id.
`
`¶¶ 17–19, 47, 57, 69. Figure 1 of Bellordre is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a functional block diagram of a messaging system,
`
`with telecommunications terminal 2 of a party sending a multimedia
`
`message, multimedia message server 4, application server 6, streaming
`
`server 8, and telecommunications terminal 10 of the recipient of a
`
`multimedia message. Id. ¶¶ 37, 41–42. Multimedia message server 4 sends
`
`messages from terminal 2 to application server 6, and sends substitute
`
`messages from application server 6 to telecommunications terminal 10. Id.
`
`¶ 45. Figures 3 and 4 of Bellordre are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`Fig. 3 Fig. 4
`
`Figures 3 and 4 are block diagrams depicting an initial multimedia
`
`
`
`message and a substitute message. Id. ¶¶ 46–47. Figure 3 depicts
`
`multimedia message 21 comprising identification element 23 identifying the
`
`terminal receiving the message, audio or video object 24, and text object 25.
`
`Id. ¶ 46. Figure 4 depicts substitute message 26, which retains identification
`
`element 23 and text object 25, and further contains sequence 27 and “SDP
`
`[session description protocol] definition file 28 replacing the audio or video
`
`object 24.” Id. ¶ 47. Sequence 27 is an object comprising one or more
`
`representative extracts from the audio or video object, such as one or more
`
`pictures from a video (animated graphics interchange format (GIF)) or a
`
`musical excerpt. Id. ¶ 48. SDP definition file 28 contains uniform resource
`
`locator (URL) hyperlink address 29 of the storage location of the object.
`
`Id. ¶ 49.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`2. Han (Ex. 1104)
`
`Han is titled, “Multimedia Communication Method Using Virtual
`
`World Interface in Mobile Personal Computers,” and generally describes a
`
`method of communication between an instant messenger program and a
`
`virtual world interface. Ex. 1104, [54], [57], 1:8–12. Han notes that “it is
`
`the current reality that an instant messenger program runs only on either
`
`desktop computers or notebook computers,” and states “it is an object of the
`
`present invention to provide a multimedia communication method using a
`
`virtual world interface in mobile personal computers.” Id. at 1:45–47, 1:64–
`
`66. Han’s method uses avatars:
`
`The present multimedia communication method is based
`on avatar and space concepts such that users, which are targets of
`a personal information inquiry function and other functions, can
`be distinguished from other users according to the outer
`appearances of avatars as well as text [identifiers], and users
`participating in chatting can dispose their avatars in desired places
`in a virtual world and change the positions of the avatars during
`chatting. Further, in addition to text and voice, users can express
`actions with feelings through avatars, so that they can more
`realistically and intimately chat with one another.
`
`Id. at 6:44–54. Figure 5 of Han is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5 depicts a selection of avatars, which represent clients connected to a
`
`messaging server. Id. at 4:24–26.
`
`3. Coulombe (Ex. 1105)
`
`Coulombe is titled, “System for Adaptation of SIP Messages Based on
`
`Recipient’s Terminal Capabilities and Preferences.” Ex. 1105, [54].
`
`Coulombe describes a system for adaptation of session initiation protocol
`
`(SIP) messages based on the recipient’s terminal capabilities and
`
`preferences. Id. at [57]. Coulombe states that “[i]nteroperability is of
`
`paramount importance in messaging,” and discloses that the described
`
`invention “tries to overcome the problem of interoperability between
`
`terminals and to improve the end user experience by providing a framework
`
`for making SIP messages conform to the recipient’s terminal capability and
`
`characteristics.” Id. ¶¶ 2, 7. For example, Coulombe describes message size
`
`reduction and format adaptation for delivery to the destination terminal. Id.
`
`¶ 7.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Coulombe is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows a message flow for SIP message adaptation using
`
`system 10. System 10 includes SIP proxy/registrar 12, Capability
`
`Negotiation Manager 16, and Message Adaptation Engine 20. Id. ¶ 54.
`
`Coulombe discloses that, when new message 18 arrives at proxy/registrar 12
`
`from another entity, such as sending terminal 19, proxy 12 obtains the
`
`terminal capabilities or user preferences of intended recipient’s terminal 15
`
`already stored in the registrar, adapts the message (using Message
`
`Adaptation Engine 20), and sends adapted message 22 to recipient’s terminal
`
`15. Id. ¶ 58. Capability Negotiation Manager 16 is responsible for resolving
`
`terminal capability information. Id. ¶ 59.
`
`Message Adaptation Engine 20 is responsible for adapting the
`
`message for recipient terminal 15, by performing adaptation operations
`
`including format conversion (such as conversion of layout formats),
`
`presentation or layout adaptation, media characteristics adaptation, message
`
`size reduction, and encapsulation adaptation. Id. ¶¶ 63, 85–91. Coulombe
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`further discloses that “adaptation is any manipulation or modification of the
`
`message content based on the terminal capabilities, user preferences,
`
`network conditions, or any characteristics of the user, his terminal or his
`
`environment.” Id. ¶ 63.
`
`4. Ruppert (Ex. 1106)
`
`Ruppert is titled, “Method and System for Handling E-Mail Messages
`
`in a Communication System,” and generally describes techniques for
`
`handling file attachments in email messages and, in particular, replacing
`
`attachments with links represented by icons. Ex. 1106, at [54], ¶¶ 11, 29–
`
`33. Figure 4 of Ruppert is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 illustrates an email with document link 400, represented by
`
`an icon, giving the user direct access to an attachment. Id. ¶¶ 32, 33.
`
`5. Discussion—Claims 12, 13, 15, and 18–20
`
`For independent claim 12, Petitioner contends that Bellordre teaches
`
`“an access block operatively coupled to a media block,” by disclosing an
`
`access block including at least multimedia server 4 and streaming server 8,
`
`and a media block including at least application server 6. Pet. 25–27 (citing
`
`Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 44, 50, 57, 109).
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`Petitioner contends that Bellordre discloses that the “access block is
`
`configured to receive an initial message sent by an originating
`
`communication device to a destination communication device,” by
`
`disclosing terminal 2 sending a multimedia message to terminal 10. Pet. 28–
`
`29 (citing Ex. 1103, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 42, 45).
`
` Petitioner also contends that Bellordre teaches or suggests the
`
`remainder of this limitation, which recites “the initial message being
`
`characterized, at least, by message format, an initial message layout, and
`
`data indicative of at least one receiver associated with the initial message,
`
`wherein the initial message includes an audio file.” Pet. 30–33 (citing
`
`Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 63–69, 71, 144; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 4, 46, 57, 65, 71 109). Petitioner
`
`contends it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that
`
`Bellordre’s disclosure of code for Synchronized Multimedia Integration
`
`Language (“SMIL”) could describe an initial layout for an initial multimedia
`
`message. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 67–69, 144; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 46, 65).
`
` Petitioner argues that Bellordre’s identification element, which
`
`identifies a destination terminal belonging to the recipient of the multimedia
`
`message, teaches the limitation’s recitation of “data indicative of at least one
`
`receiver associated with the initial message.” Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1103,
`
`Fig. 3, ¶¶ 46, 64). Petitioner further contends Bellordre discloses the recited
`
`initial message including an audio file. Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 46, 109;
`
`Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 71, 144).
`
`Petitioner further argues that Bellordre discloses the limitation
`
`regarding the media block, which recites that the media block is configured
`
`to, “before delivery to the destination communication device associated with
`
`the at least one receiver, generate a notification of the initial message that
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`includes the audio file, the notification being an adapted version of the initial
`
`message.” In particular, Petitioner cites to Figure 4 of Bellordre and its
`
`substitute multimedia message (a notification), which differs from (i.e., is an
`
`adapted version of) the multimedia message of Figure 3. Id. at 33–35 (citing
`
`Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 46–47). Bellordre’s substitute message also includes a
`
`hyperlink to an audio file. Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 49, 71).
`
`Petitioner next contends that the combination of Bellordre and Han
`
`teach or suggest the limitation wherein the media block is configured to
`
`“provide at least an image icon based on an avatar of a sender of the initial
`
`message,” in that Han describes avatars and image icons based on avatars.
`
`Id. at 38–41 (citing Ex. 1104, Figs. 5, 6; 6:44–48, 4:24–28, 4:32–34, 4:65–
`
`67). Petitioner also proposes that the next part of the “generate a
`
`notification” element, “determining, by the messaging system, an adapted
`
`layout for the notification,” is disclosed by Bellordre’s changes to its SMIL
`
`description code (Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 46, 47, 65), and also by Coulombe’s express
`
`disclosure of adaptation of layout of messages. Id. at 43–45 (citing Ex. 1105
`
`¶¶ 85–91, 118).
`
`For the remaining part of the “generate a notification” element,
`
`the adapted layout comprising the image icon based on the
`avatar of the sender of the initial message and a clickable icon
`that represents the audio file and that is clickable to request the
`messaging system to transmit an adapted version of the audio file
`to the destination communication device,
`
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Bellordre and Ruppert teach or
`
`suggest this element. Bellordre discloses a hyperlink representing an audio
`
`file, which is clickable, and Bellordre also discloses modifying audio objects
`
`(i.e., creating an adapted version of the audio file for transmission to the
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`destination device). Pet. 47–52 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 49, 57, 61, 62, 71, 90,
`
`92, 96–98, 105–109). Ruppert discloses a clickable icon in its link
`
`“represented by an icon” giving a user direct access from an email to an
`
`attachment, which can include a multimedia (e.g., audio) file. Pet. 48–49
`
`(citing Ex. 1106 ¶¶ 5, 29–33).
`
`Lastly, Petitioner contends that Bellordre teaches or suggests the
`
`remaining limitations regarding the access block being configured to:
`
`facilitate delivery of the notification to the destination device, receive a
`
`request to transmit the adapted version of the audio file after selection of the
`
`clickable icon, and based on the request, facilitate delivery of the adapted
`
`version of the audio file. Pet. 53–55 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 44, 45, 57, 61, 62,
`
`90, 92, 96, 107–109.)
`
`Petitioner also maintains that one of ordinary skill would have had
`
`adequate reason to combine the teachings of Bellordre with Han, Coulombe,
`
`and Ruppert. Pet. 41–43, 45–46, 49–51 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 82–89, 93–95,
`
`101, 102). In particular, for combining the teachings of Bellordre with
`
`those of Han, Petitioner explains the following:
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
`inserting an image icon of the sender’s avatar [of Han] into the
`notification could have improved the system of Bellordre by
`providing the advantages of more realistic and intuitive
`communication. (Klausner Decl., ¶ 161.)
`
` A
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art would have perceived no
`technical obstacle to making this combination. (Id., 162.) In fact,
`Bellordre specifically notes that the substitute multimedia
`message 26 can include “picture objects.” (Bellordre, ¶ 0047.) A
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this
`picture object capability could have been used to provide an
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`
`image icon based on the user’s avatar with the substitute message
`26.
`
`Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 160–162).
`
`For combining the teachings of Bellordre and Han with those of
`
`Coulombe, Petitioner contends that the references are analogous and that
`
`Coulombe “provides express motivations to combine.” Pet. 45–46 (citing
`
`Ex. 1102 ¶ 95 (“Coulombe [¶¶ 2, 89] recognized that messaging terminals
`
`may have different displays, and therefore, ‘layout adaptation’ may need to
`
`be performed”). For combining the teachings of Bellordre, Han, and
`
`Coulombe with those of Ruppert, Petitioner also contends that the references
`
`are analogous and that Bellordre and Ruppert “both disclose similar
`
`processes of modifying messages before delivery to their recipients that
`
`includes replacing originally-attached objects with links to those objects.”
`
`Pet. 49–51 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 101, 102).
`
`Dependent claims 13, 15, and 18–20 recite additional features of
`
`claim 12’s messaging system, including trans-coding of the initial message,
`
`characteristics of the adapted message layout, and aspects of the image icon.
`
`Ex. 1101, 25:14–18, 26:1–11, 26:16–22. Petitioner presents evidence and
`
`arguments as to how the teachings of Bellordre, Han, Coulombe, and the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, accounts for the limitations of
`
`these claims, and why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`
`or modified the references. Pet. 55–64 (citing Exs. 1102, 1103, 1004, 1105).
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence
`
`regarding all of the limitations of claims 12, 13, 15, and 18–20, and we agree
`
`with and adopt them as our own. We have also reviewed Petitioner’s
`
`reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01659
`Patent 9,049,574 B2
`
`sufficient reasons to combine or modify the teachings of the references, and
`
`we agree with and adopt them as our own. As noted above, Patent Owner
`
`elected not to file any Patent Owner Response, and, as a result, the
`
`Petitioner’s positions on the unpatentability of claims 12, 13, 15, and 18–20
`
`stand unopposed as a part of this trial. Based on the record developed during
`
`trial, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`those claims would have been obvious over the combination of Bellordre,
`
`Han, Coulombe, and Ruppert.