Paper No. __
`Filed: August 25, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,552,124
`
`Page 1 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................... 2
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Proposed Grounds and Prior Art ........................................................... 2
`
`The Proposed Grounds are Not Redundant ........................................... 3
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 4
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’124 PATENT ............................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’124 Patent ..................................................................................... 5
`
`Prosecution History of the ’124 Patent ................................................. 5
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`“Operative Language” ........................................................................... 7
`
`B. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms ...................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Means For Receiving a High-Level Code . . .” .......................10
`
`Additional “Means For” Limitations ........................................11
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................14
`
`A. Ground 1: Maes and Preston Render Claims 1-10 Obvious ...............14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1 and 6 ...........................................................................14
`
`Claims 2 and 7 ...........................................................................41
`
`Claims 3 and 8 ...........................................................................41
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`Claims 4 and 9 ...........................................................................41
`
`Claims 5 and 10.........................................................................45
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`B. Ground 2: Pazandak, White, and Manson Render Claims 1-10
`Obvious................................................................................................46
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1 and 6 ...........................................................................46
`
`Claims 2 and 7 ...........................................................................69
`
`Claims 3 and 8 ...........................................................................70
`
`Claims 4 and 9 ...........................................................................70
`
`Claims 5 and 10.........................................................................72
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................73
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`CLIO USA, Inc. v. The Procter and Gamble Company,
`IPR2013-00448, Paper No. 15 (Feb. 4, 2014) .............................................. 18, 49
`
`Page(s)
`
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc.,
`No. 2015-1720, 2016 WL 3254734 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2016) ..................... 30, 58
`
`Gracenote, Inc. v. Iceberg Indus., LLC,
`IPR2013-00551, Paper No. 6 (Feb. 28, 2014) ................................................ 8, 11
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 37, 39
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .........................................passim
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00466, Paper No. 17 (Jan. 28, 2014) ............................................. 18, 49
`
`Süd-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Techs., Inc.,
`554 F.3d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 17, 48
`
`Upsher-Smith Labs, Inc. v. Pamlab, L.L.C.,
`412 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 18, 49
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 8, 11, 12
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................. 2, 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`35 U.S.C. § 371(c)(1) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 81
`
`

`

`
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jason Flinn, Ph.D.
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`Office Action dated July 27, 2010 in European Application No.
`05 752 631.1 - 1243
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,003,463 (“Maes”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0046061
`(“Preston”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,975 (“Pazandak”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0072918
`(“White”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,085,708 (“Manson”)
`
`IXI’s Supplemental Claim Chart
`
`PCT Application Publication No. WO 02/12982 to Applicant
`Object Services and Consulting, Inc. (“Object”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0182132
`(“Niemoeller”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,720 to Kennewick (“Kennewick”)
`
`Withdrawal dated January 12, 2011 in European Application
`No. 05 752 631.1 - 1243
`
`v
`
`Page 6 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Google Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-
`
`10 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124 (“the ’124 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001), which, according to PTO records, is assigned to IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd.
`
`(“Patent Owner”). For the reasons set forth below, the challenged claims should be
`
`found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Petitioner identifies the following as the real
`
`party-in-interest: Google Inc.
`
`Related Matters: The ’124 patent is at issue in the following cases: IXI
`
`Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al. v. BlackBerry Limited et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01883
`
`(E.D. Tex.); IXI IP, LLC et al. v. HTC Corp. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01884 (E.D.
`
`Tex.); IXI IP, LLC et al. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
`
`01885 (E.D. Tex.); IXI IP, LLC et al. v. ZTE Corp. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01886
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Google Inc. v. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-04173
`
`(N.D. Cal.).
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel for Petitioner is Naveen
`
`Modi (Reg. No. 46,224), and Backup counsel are (1) Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No.
`
`46,508) and (2) Daniel Zeilberger (Reg. No. 65,349) and (3) Arvind Jairam (Reg.
`
`No. 62,759). Service information is Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th St. N.W.,
`
`1
`
`Page 7 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`Washington, D.C., 20005, Tel.: 202.551.1700, Fax: 202.551.1705, email: PH-
`
`Google-IXI-IPR@paulhastings.com. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`The required fees are submitted herewith. The PTO is authorized to charge
`
`any additional fees due at any time during this proceeding to Deposit Account No.
`
`50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’124 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`A.
`Claims 1-10 of the ’124 patent should be canceled as unpatentable on the
`
`Proposed Grounds and Prior Art
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,003,463 (“Maes”) (Ex. 1005) and U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2003/0046061 (“Preston”) (Ex. 1006); and
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,027,975 (“Pazandak”) (Ex. 1007), U.S. Patent No. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2002/0072918 (“White”), and U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,085,708 (“Manson”).
`
`2
`
`Page 8 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`The earliest effective filing date of the ’124 patent is no earlier than June 17,
`
`2004. Ex. 1001, 1. Maes issued on February 21, 2006 from PCT No.
`
`PCT/US99/22925 with a 35 U.S.C. § 371(c)(1) date of June 25, 2001. Pazandak
`
`issued on April 11, 2006 and was filed on August 8, 2000. Manson issued on
`
`August 1, 2006 and was filed on June 18, 2001. Therefore, Maes, Pazandak, and
`
`Manson are prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Preston published
`
`on March 6, 2003. White published on June 13, 2002. Therefore, Preston and
`
`White are prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Maes, Preston, White, and Manson were not considered by the Examiner
`
`during prosecution of the ’124 patent. The Examiner cited Pazandak, but only for
`
`anticipation (not obviousness) rejections. Ex. 1003, 86-92 (Office Action dated
`
`September 22, 2006), 58-69 (Office Action dated June 4, 2007).
`
`The Proposed Grounds are Not Redundant
`
`B.
`Petitioner’s proposed grounds for institution are not redundant because there
`
`are several significant differences between the grounds. For example, the prior art
`
`addresses the claims in different ways, with different strengths. For instance,
`
`whereas Maes (the primary reference in Ground 1) discloses “determining level of
`
`complexity and implementation of the high-level code,” as recited in claim element
`
`1.g (and similarly recited in claim element 6.g) (see infra Part IX.A.1.g), Petitioner
`
`relies on a secondary reference, White, to address this claim element under Ground
`
`3
`
`Page 9 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`2 (where Pazandak is the primary reference) (see infra Part IX.B.1.g). This is
`
`especially true when considering Patent Owner’s representations regarding this
`
`ambiguous term in litigation, as explained below. Further, whereas Maes discloses
`
`the negative limitation recited in claim element 1.b based on that it does not require
`
`a user to provide input through the selection of a menu item (see infra Part
`
`IX.A.1.b), Pazandak explicitly discloses that there is no requirement to select from
`
`menu items (see infra Part IX.B.1.b).
`
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`adopt both of the proposed Grounds.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’124 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in
`
`computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar related field, as well as 1-2
`
`years of experience working with natural language programming.1
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Petitioner submits the declaration of Dr. Jason Flinn (Ex. 1002), an expert in the
`
`field of the ’124 patent. Ex. 1002, ¶¶1-10, 13-14.
`
`4
`
`Page 10 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’124 PATENT
`A. The ’124 Patent
`The ’124 patent, titled “Natural language for programming a specialized
`
`computing system,” is directed to a method and corresponding system for
`
`“programming a mobile communication device based on a high-level code
`
`comprising operative language.” Ex. 1001, Title, Abstract. A user provides “high-
`
`level code 150 [which] may comprise one or more sentences, wherein each
`
`sentence comprises at least one operative language (i.e. keyword) defining an
`
`instruction for a function or an operation to be performed.” Id., 4:10-21. “[I]f
`
`high-level code 150 comprises a complex set of instructions, then high-level code
`
`150 is transmitted to network server 100,” whereas “if high-level code 150
`
`comprises a less complex structure, then application software 1122 or a portion
`
`thereof is installed and executed on mobile device 120 to process high-level code
`
`150 to produce executable code 160, without the need for transferring high-level
`
`code 150 to a more powerful processing environment implemented on network
`
`server 100.” Id., 4:49-51, 4:58-64; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶15-23, 28-29.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’124 Patent
`
`B.
`The ’124 patent issued June 23, 2009, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/972,289 (“the ’289 application”), filed on June 17, 2004. Ex. 1001, Cover.
`
`During prosecution of the ’289 application, the Applicant amended the then
`
`5
`
`Page 11 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`pending claims in an attempt to overcome an anticipation rejection based on a prior
`
`art reference to Pazandak. Ex. 1003, 43-54. The Examiner allowed the claims
`
`without ever having made any obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and
`
`without ever rejecting the claims over any prior art other than Pazandak. Id., 25-
`
`28 (Notice of Allowance dated February 20, 2009).2
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final written
`
`decision is issued in an IPR receives the “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The
`
`’124 patent has not expired and will not expire before a final written decision will
`
`be issued. Thus, for purposes of this proceeding, the claims of the ’124 patent
`
`should be given their broadest reasonable construction.
`
`As set forth herein, Petitioner provides the broadest reasonable construction
`
`for certain claim terms below. Any term not interpreted below, including
`
`
`
` 2
`
` A foreign counterpart to Pazandak (Ex. 1011) was also at issue during
`
`prosecution of a European application related to the ’124 patent. Ex. 1004, 3.
`
`After the European Examiner found the claims to lack inventive step over the
`
`foreign counterpart to Pazandak in combination with another reference, the
`
`Applicant withdrew the European application. Id., 3-7; Ex. 1014, 1.
`
`6
`
`Page 12 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`interpretations that have been proposed by Patent Owner in district court and
`
`applied herein as explained in Part IX, should be interpreted in accordance with its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.3
`
`“Operative Language”
`
`A.
`Claims 1 and 6 recite the term “operative language.” For purposes of this
`
`proceeding, “operative language” should be interpreted to mean “language
`
`associated with one or more operations to be performed.”
`
`This understanding of “operative language” is consistent with the claims and
`
`specification of the ’124 patent. For example, the claims recite that “operative
`
`language” is “associated with controlling one or more operations of the mobile
`
`
`
` 3
`
` Because of the different claim interpretation standards used in this proceeding
`
`and in district courts, any claim interpretations submitted or implied herein for the
`
`purpose of this proceeding are not binding upon Petitioners in any litigation related
`
`to the ’124 patent. Specifically, any interpretation or construction of the claims
`
`presented herein, either implicitly or explicitly, should not be viewed as
`
`constituting, in whole or in part, Petitioner’s interpretation of such claims in any
`
`underlying litigations involving the ’124 patent. Moreover, Petitioner does not
`
`concede that the challenged claims are not indefinite, which is something that
`
`cannot be pursued in this proceeding under the Rules.
`
`7
`
`Page 13 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`communication device.” Ex. 1001, 9:2-4, 10:6-9. Similarly, the specification
`
`states that the “operative language” may “defin[e] an instruction for a function or
`
`an operation to be performed.” Id., 4:19-21; see also id., 4:25-28 (explaining that
`
`the “operative language” in the sentence “Transfer call to voice mail if call is from
`
`Bob” is “transfer”); Ex. 1002, ¶¶24-25.
`
`B. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms
`The “use of the word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792
`
`F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claim 6 of the ’124 patent recites several
`
`limitations as “means for . . .” (Ex. 1001 at 9:50-10:21), and thus those terms
`
`should be construed as means-plus-function terms under § 112, ¶6.
`
`Construing a means-plus-function claim term requires that the function
`
`recited in the claim term be first identified; then, the written description of the
`
`specification must be consulted to identify the corresponding structure that
`
`performs the identified function and equivalents thereof. See Williamson, 792 F.3d
`
`1339 at 1351; see also Gracenote, Inc. v. Iceberg Indus., LLC, IPR2013-00551,
`
`Paper No. 6 at 15 (Feb. 28, 2014).
`
`Below, Petitioner identifies the means-plus-function claim terms recited in
`
`claim 6, with the identified function highlighted in bold. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 14 of 81
`
`

`

`Claim 6 Term and Identified
`Function
`b. means for receiving a high-level
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`Corresponding Structure
`
`As explained below, the structure is a user
`
`code comprising one or more
`
`interface, including a keypad, pointing
`
`keywords
`
`device, touchscreen, keyboard,
`
`microphone, or equivalents thereof.
`
`c. means for parsing the high-level
`
`code for the keywords to recognize
`
`the operative language associated
`
`with controlling one or more
`
`operations of the mobile
`
`communication device
`
`d. means for determining at least
`
`one operation associated with the
`
`operative language
`
`e. means for determining whether
`
`high-level code comprises
`
`keywords defining one or more
`
`relationships and conditions
`
`corresponding to the operative
`
`As explained below, each of these elements
`
`recites function without sufficient structure
`
`for performing the function. However, for
`
`purposes of this proceeding, the structure
`
`should be software running on a processor
`
`configured to perform the identified
`
`functions or equivalents thereof.
`
`9
`
`Page 15 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`Corresponding Structure
`
`Claim 6 Term and Identified
`Function
`
`language
`
`f. means for producing an
`
`executable code
`
`g. means for determining level of
`
`complexity and implementation of
`
`the high-level code
`
`h. means for designation an
`
`application software to process the
`
`high-level code
`
`
`
`“Means For Receiving a High-Level Code . . .”
`
`1.
`As shown above, the identified function for this term in claim element 6.b is
`
`“receiving a high-level code comprising one or more keywords.” The ’124 patent
`
`specification provides an example where high-level code may be received by way
`
`of a mobile device’s “user interface.” Ex. 1001, 5:31-34. The specification
`
`provides examples of a user interface, such as a “keypad, pointing device, etc.”
`
`Id., 6:56-57. Patent Owner has also represented in district court that the claimed
`
`“high-level code” may be received “via a touchscreen, keyboard, or microphone”
`
`10
`
`Page 16 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`in the context of the ’124 patent.4 Ex. 1010, 15. Therefore, for purposes of this
`
`proceeding, the corresponding structure for the identified function for this term is
`
`“a user interface, including a keypad, pointing device, touchscreen, keyboard,
`
`microphone, or equivalents thereof.”
`
`Additional “Means For” Limitations
`
`2.
`A structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as corresponding structure
`
`only if it is clearly linked by the patent’s specification (or possibly the prosecution
`
`history) to performing the claimed function. See Default Proof Credit Card Sys.,
`
`Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Gracenote,
`
`IPR2013-00551, Paper No. 6 at 15. Where a means-plus-function term is directed
`
`to software, the specification must “disclose an algorithm for performing the
`
`claimed function.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352.
`
`The remaining means-plus-function terms in Claim 6 (claim elements 6.c to
`
`6.h) are directed to software running on a processor. Indeed, in all instances, the
`
`specification describes the alleged invention in terms of software or processes
`
`performed by computing devices involving a processor. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs.
`
`
`
` 4
`
` The ’124 patent does not recite these structures in its specification. As such,
`
`Petitioner does not necessarily agree with Patent Owner’s assertion and reserves
`
`the right to challenge it in district court.
`
`11
`
`Page 17 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`1, 3A-3B, 2:62-64, 3:1-4, 3:33-54, 4:8-14, 4:32-57, 6:51-8:7. For example,
`
`regarding the parsing features (claim element 6.c in the table above), the
`
`specification refers to application software that is implemented to parse high-level
`
`code for keywords in an attempt to recognize any data sources. Id., 5:44-51. It
`
`also identifies application software as the component that “determines the
`
`requested operation that is to be performed in accordance with the recognized
`
`keywords,” “determines
`
`the relationships and conditions,” and “produces
`
`executable code,” like that recited for claim elements 6.d-6.f. Id., 5:53-6:7. The
`
`specification also states that application software (executed on a mobile device,
`
`network server, or on a distributed environment, designated like in claim element
`
`6.h) performs the parsing and determining steps when the high-level code
`
`comprises a certain level of complexity, which relates to claim element 6.g. Id.,
`
`2:14-25; see also id., 5:18-30.
`
`Given the ’124 patent’s consistent description of the features of the alleged
`
`invention, including the functions identified above for claim elements 6.c to 6.h, as
`
`computer software, and given that none of these identified functions recited in
`
`claim 6 is a “generic function,” the corresponding structure for such terms requires
`
`an algorithm. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352. However, beyond repeating some
`
`claim language for some identified functions, the specification for the ’124 patent
`
`does not disclose any algorithm that corresponds to the identified functions of
`
`12
`
`Page 18 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`claim elements 6.c to 6.h. Thus, with respect to each of the identified functions for
`
`the means-plus-function terms discussed above, the ’124 patent simply discloses a
`
`“black box” that performs some function, “[b]ut how it does so is left undisclosed.”
`
`Blackbox Inc., 574 F.3d at 1383.
`
`Patent Owner has pointed to software running on a processor, such as a
`
`processor of a mobile communication device or of a server, as being the structure
`
`corresponding to the claimed functions for each of these terms in claim elements
`
`6.c to 6.h. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:58-5:4, 5:18-27, 6:23-30, 7:56-63. While
`
`Petitioner does not believe that software running on a processor of a mobile
`
`communication device or a server discloses sufficient structure under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112, for purposes of this proceeding, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(3),
`
`Petitioner submits that the corresponding structure for each of the above-identified
`
`functions of the means-plus-function terms of claim elements 6.c to 6.h should be
`
`software running on a processor configured to perform the identified functions or
`
`equivalents thereof.5
`
`
`
` 5
`
` Petitioner does not concede that claim 6 and its dependent claims are not
`
`indefinite. Instead, for purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner demonstrates below
`
`how the prior art discloses the “means for . . .” limitations of claim 6 by software
`
`13
`
`Page 19 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`A. Ground 1: Maes and Preston Render Claims 1-10 Obvious
`Claims 1 and 66
`1.
`“A [method / system] for programming a mobile
`a)
`communication device based on a high-level code
`comprising operative language, the [method / system]
`comprising:”
`
`To the extent the preambles of these claims are construed to be limiting,
`
`Maes discloses the limitations therein. For example, Maes discloses programming
`
`a mobile communication device (e.g., client device 100, which may be a
`
`smartphone) based on a high-level code (e.g., a command issued by a user)
`
`comprising language (e.g., keywords such as “dial,” “home,” “office,” or a
`
`person’s first or last name) associated with one or more operations to be performed
`
`
`
`running on a processor that is configured to perform the identified functions for
`
`these terms. See, e.g., Part IX.A.1.
`
`6 Petitioner addresses the method claims and systems claims of the ’124 patent
`
`together as those claims recite essentially the same features (e.g., functions,
`
`process steps). In doing so, Petitioner also addresses the structure of the means-
`
`plus-function limitations of claims 6-10 corresponding to the functions of each
`
`respective claim.
`
`14
`
`Page 20 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`(e.g., dialing a number). See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 10:59-62, 15:46-55; Ex. 1002, ¶64;
`
`see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶30-40.7
`
`Maes also discloses a “system” for programming a mobile communication
`
`device based on a high-level code comprising operative language, as shown below:
`
`
`
` 7
`
` This interpretation of Maes, as disclosing “high-level code,” is consistent with
`
`Patent Owner’s infringement positions in district court, where Patent Owner
`
`asserted that “high-level code” includes “spoken or written words” that a “user
`
`inputs via a touchscreen, keyboard, or microphone.” Ex. 1010, 4.
`
`15
`
`Page 21 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 1; see also id., Title; Ex. 1002, ¶64; see also citations and analysis
`
`below for claim elements 1(b)-1(l), 6(b)-6(l).
`
`Patent Owner may argue that “high-level code” requires natural language
`
`text input. Ex. 1001, 4:15-31. To the extent “high-level code” is construed in this
`
`way, the combination of Maes and Preston still would have rendered obvious the
`
`16
`
`Page 22 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`limitations of claims 1 and 6 for the reasons discussed below for claims 4, 5, 9, and
`
`10. Ex. 1002, ¶64; infra Part IX.A.4-5.
`
`b)
`
`“[means for] receiving a high-level code comprising one
`or more keywords, wherein the high-level code is
`provided by a user of a mobile communication device to
`control the operation of the mobile communication
`device without having to select from menu items
`provided by an operating system running on the mobile
`communication device;”
`
`Maes discloses receiving a high-level code (e.g., a command issued by a
`
`user) comprising one or more keywords (e.g., keywords such as “dial,” “home,”
`
`“office,” or a person’s first or last name in a command issued by a user in a natural
`
`language such as English). Ex. 1005, 10:59-62, 15:46-55; Ex. 1002, ¶64.
`
`Maes further discloses that the high-level code (e.g., a command issued by a
`
`user) is provided by a user of client device 100 to control the operation of client
`
`device 100 through commands without having to select from menu items provided
`
`by an operating system running on client device 100. Ex. 1005, 10:59-62, 15:49-
`
`55; see also id., 15:46-47 (“client device 100 is a smartphone”); Ex. 1002, ¶64.
`
`Indeed, nowhere does Maes require that a user provide input to device 100 through
`
`the selection of a menu item. Given that the “without” features recited in the claim
`
`constitute a negative limitation, Maes discloses such features. See Süd-Chemie,
`
`Inc. v. Multisorb Techs., Inc., 554 F.3d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (explaining
`
`that a prior art reference may adequately disclose a negative limitation if the
`
`17
`
`Page 23 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`reference does not otherwise require the feature to which the negative limitation is
`
`directed); Upsher-Smith Labs, Inc. v. Pamlab, L.L.C., 412 F.3d 1319, 1322 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (holding that, even where a prior art reference optionally includes a
`
`feature to which a negative limitation of a claim is directed, the prior art reference
`
`may anticipate the claim); CLIO USA, Inc. v. The Procter and Gamble Company,
`
`IPR2013-00448, Paper No. 15 at 3 (Feb. 4, 2014); Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc., IPR2013-00466, Paper No. 17 at 18 (Jan. 28, 2014).
`
`Maes also discloses the structure corresponding to the recited function in
`
`claim 6. See Part VIII.B.2. In particular, Maes discloses a user interface,
`
`including a microphone and keyboard. See Ex. 1005, 15:49-55 (disclosing voice
`
`command), 8:42-44 (“audio in capabilities, keyboard”). The microphone is used to
`
`receive the command that is provided by the user. See Ex. 1005, 15:49-55; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶64.
`
`c)
`
`the
`the high-level code for
`“[means for] parsing
`keywords to recognize the operative language associated
`with controlling one or more operations of the mobile
`communication device;”
`
`Maes explains in its background section that parsing is part of natural
`
`language understanding (NLU). Ex. 1005, 2:6-10; Ex. 1002, ¶64. Maes discloses
`
`that a conversational engine at a local client device or at a server includes a natural
`
`language understanding (NLU) engine. Id., 4:24-29, 4:57-62. Maes discloses that
`
`the local conversational engine or server conversational engine parses high-level
`
`18
`
`Page 24 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`code. Id., 2:66-10, 4:24-29, 4:57-62, 8:34-35, 11:23-33, FIG. 2 (showing local
`
`processing 202 and remote processing 205 of high-level code such as input speech
`
`received at step 200):
`
`19
`
`Page 25 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 26 of 81
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`Maes uses the above-described architecture to recognize operative language
`
`(e.g., “dial”) in the u