`
`No. 15-1307
`
`Judge Victor J. Wolski
`
`)))))))))))))))))))))
`
`CELLCAST TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`and
`
`ENVISIONIT, LLC
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`THE UNITED STATES,
`
`Defendant,
`
`and
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
`CORP.,
`
`Third-Party Defendant
`
`DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE
`CORPORATION’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`In accordance with the Court’s July 20, 2016 Scheduling Order, Defendants the United
`
`States and International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) provide the following
`
`“Response Charts” containing a disclosure of Defendants’ invalidity contentions for the asserted
`
`claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,693,938 (“the ’938 patent”); 8,103,719 (“the ’719 patent”);
`
`8,438,221 (“the ’221 patent”); 8,438,212 (“the ’212 patent”); and 9,136,954 (“the ’954 patent”)
`
`(collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2010, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Identification of Prior Art References
`
`Table 1(a) – U.S. Patents
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,029,290
`
`First Named
`Inventor/Abbreviation
`Parsons
`
`Issue/Publication Date
`July 2, 1991
`
`5,565,909
`
`5,628,050
`
`5,875,401
`
`5,995,553
`
`6,112,074
`
`6,112,075
`
`6,392,538
`
`6,505,123
`
`6,594,345
`
`6,603,405
`
`6,653,689
`
`6,704,295
`
`6,816,878
`
`6,915,134
`
`7,053,753
`
`7,054,612
`
`7,184,744
`
`7,194,249
`
`7,725,256
`
`Thibadeau
`
`McGraw
`
`Rochkind
`
`Crandall
`
`Pinder
`
`Weiser
`
`Shere
`
`Root
`
`Vinson
`
`Smith
`
`Kelly
`
`Tari
`
`Zimmers
`
`Atkin
`
`Kacalek
`
`Patel
`
`Schnabel
`
`Phillips
`
`Marsh
`
`Oct. 15, 1996
`
`May 6, 1997
`
`Feb. 23, 1999
`
`Nov. 30, 1999
`
`Aug. 29, 2000
`
`Aug. 29, 2000
`
`May 21, 2002
`
`Jan. 7, 2003
`
`July 15, 2003
`
`Aug. 5, 2003
`
`Nov. 25, 2003
`
`Mar. 9, 2004
`
`Nov. 9, 2004
`
`July 5, 2005
`
`May 30, 2006
`
`May 30, 2006
`
`Feb. 27, 2007
`
`Mar. 20, 2007
`
`May 25, 2010
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`18
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2010, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`7,233,781
`
`First Named
`Inventor/Abbreviation
`Hunter
`
`Issue/Publication Date
`June 19, 2007
`
`7,299,050
`
`Delaney
`
`Nov. 20, 2007
`
`7,480,501
`
`7,617,287
`
`Petite
`
`Vella
`
`Jan. 20, 2009
`
`Nov. 11, 2009
`
`2002/0176545
`
`Schweitzer
`
`Nov. 28, 2002
`
`2002/0184346
`
`Mani
`
`Dec. 5, 2002
`
`2003/0001371
`
`Goldberg
`
`Jan. 3, 2002
`
`2003/0141971
`
`Heiken
`
`July 31, 2003
`
`2003/0142797
`
`Troy
`
`July 31, 2003
`
`2003/0143974
`
`Navarro
`
`July 31, 2003
`
`2004/0103158
`
`Vella
`
`Mat 27, 2004
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`19
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2010, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`2004/0193617
`
`First Named
`Inventor/Abbreviation
`Adler
`
`Issue/Publication Date
`Sept. 30, 2004
`
`2005/0013418
`
`Chang
`
`Jan. 20, 2005
`
`2005/0037728
`
`Binzel
`
`Feb. 17, 2005
`
`2005/0060339
`
`McGee
`
`Mar. 17, 2005
`
`2005/0070247
`
`Larson
`
`Mar. 31, 2005
`
`2005/0261012
`
`Weiser
`
`Nov. 24, 2005
`
`Table 1(b) – Foreign Patents and Patent Applications
`
`Patent/Application No.
`WO 2003077063 A2
`
`First Named
`Inventor/Abbreviation
`Heelan
`
`Issue/Publication Date
`September 18, 2003
`
`Table 1(c) – Prior Art Publications, Public Uses, Sales, and Offers for Sale
`
`Description
`R. Sandhu et al., “Access Control: Principles and Practice,” IEEE
`Communications Magazine, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 40-48.
`
`Publication Date
`Sept. 1994
`
`Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FCC
`Report No. 94-288) (“1994FCC Report”)
`
`Dec. 9, 1994
`
`Parker, et al., “Flood warning systems under stress in the United
`Kingdom,” 4.3 Disaster Prevention & Management 32
`
`1995
`
`Page 4 of 8
`
`20
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2010, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`
`
`Description
`Wood, M. “Disaster Communications” APCO Institute, Inc.
`
`Imielinski & Navas, “Geographic Addressing, Routing, and Resource
`Discovery with the Global Positioning System,” Computer Science
`Department, Rutgers University
`
`Imielinski & Navas, “GPS-Based Geographic Addressing, Routing,
`and Resource Discovery: The Global Positioning System can be used
`to give every terminal a geographic address for multicasting to and
`from recipients within specified geographical areas,” 42(4) Comm’ns
`ACM
`
`Publication Date
`June 1996
`
`Oct. 19, 1996
`
`Apr. 1999
`
`Report of the Ministry of Interior, Finland “Information to the Public –
`Warning and Alarm System”
`
`2000
`
`Waples, “Pelmorex pitches emergency alert system,” Sudbury Star,
`July 17, 2000, at A3
`
`Working Group on National Disaster Information Systems, National
`Science and Technology Council, Effective Disaster Warnings
`
`July 17, 2000
`
`Nov. 2000
`
`FCC Emergency Alert System AM & FM Handbook
`
`FCC Emergency Alert System TV Handbook
`
`FCC Emergency Alert System Cable Handbook
`
`Broadwell, et al., “GeoMote: Geographic Multicast for Networked
`Sensors,” Department of Computer Science, University of California,
`Berkeley
`
`Christensen et al., “Wireless Intelligent Networking” Artech House,
`Inc.
`
`Coschurba & Rothermel, “A Fine-Grained Addressing Concept for
`GeoCast,” Institute of Parallel and Distributed High-Performance
`Systems (IPVR), University of Stuttgart
`
`Carzaniga, et al., “Design and Evaluation of a Wide-Area Event
`Notification System,” 19(3) ACM Transactions on Comp. Sys. 332
`
`Wireless Emergency Services Whitepaper, CMGWireless Data
`Solutions,
`
`2001
`
`2001
`
`2001
`
`2001
`
`2001
`
`2001
`
`Aug. 2001
`
`Nov. 2001
`
`Kerber, “Group seeks overhaul of public-warning system upgrade
`urged to respond to new threats of terrorism,” Boston Globe, Dec. 10,
`
`Dec. 10, 2001
`
`Page 5 of 8
`
`21
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2010, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Publication Date
`
`2001, at C1
`
`Schulzrinne & Arabshian, “Providing Emergency Services in Internet
`Telephony,” Department of Computer Science, Columbia University
`
`2002
`
`3GPP Standard (4.2.0)
`
`Report and Order (FCC Report No. 02-64) (“2002 FCC Report”)
`
`“Building a Better Warning System with Wireless,” Wireless Data
`News 10.5
`
`Schumacher & Stone, “Use the phone for urgent warnings” 84.2
`Public Management 21-2
`
`Mattson, “ON THE ALERT: Emergency warnings can now be sent
`by phone, e-mail,” Florida Times Union, July 23, 2002, at C1
`
`Business Editors, “Notify! By the Weather Channel Helps Subscribers
`Stay Ahead of the Storm; Trusted Weather Source Expands Business
`Model to Include Premium Weather Service,” Business Wire
`
`Caporuscio, et al., “Design and Evaluation of a Support Service for
`Mobile, Wireless Publish/Subscribe Applications,” Tech. Rpt. CU-CS-
`944-03, University of Colorado
`
`M. Wood, Cell Broadcast Broker System, Cell Alert Services Corp.
`(CELLCAST_WOOD_0000013–32)
`
`M. Wood, Cell Broadcast Broker System, Cell Alert Services Corp.
`(ITU-01-000006-013)
`
`M. Wood, Cell Broadcast Broker System (CBBS) Overview, V3.2
`(ITU-01-000154-158)
`
`Partnership for Public Warning, A National Strategy for Integrated
`Public Warning Policy and Capability
`
`D. Gundlegård, “Automotive Telematics Services based on Cell
`Broadcast,” May 8, 2003 (Linkoping University, Norrkoping Sweden)
`(“Gundlegård”)
`
`Business Editors/High-Tech Writers, “Industry Rallies to Establish
`Interoperability Standards to Better Prepare for and Respond to
`Emergencies,” Business Wire
`
`Jan. 11, 2002
`
`Feb. 26, 2002
`
`Feb. 27, 2002
`
`Mar. 2002
`
`July 23, 2002
`
`Nov. 4, 2002
`
`Jan. 2003
`
`Feb. 18, 2003
`
`Feb. 18, 2003
`
`Feb. 10, 2003
`
`Feb. 2003
`
`May 8, 2003
`
`Aug. 12, 2003
`
`Page 6 of 8
`
`22
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2010, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`
`
`Description
`Bunge, Disseminating National Weather Service Watches and
`Warnings Using the XML Based RSS and CAP Formats, National
`Weather Service
`
`McGregor, “Radio network provides warnings,” Chatham Daily News,
`Jan. 12, 2004, at 15
`
`Collins, “Utah agencies soon to get new way to contact public,”
`Deseret News
`
`OASIS, Common Alerting Protocol, v. 1.
`
`Brooks, Connecting the Dots: CAP and WSRP, XML 2004
`Proceedings by SchemaSoft
`
`Publication Date
`Jan. 2004
`
`Jan. 12, 2004
`
`Feb. 2, 2004
`
`Mar. 2004
`
`Specific prior art systems in public use or on sale referenced in the above publications
`
`include:
`
`(cid:120) Emergency Alert System (“EAS”), as evidenced by the attached charts of the
`
`1994 FCC Report, the 2002 FCC Report and 47 C.F.R. § 11 et seq. (2002) (“FCC
`
`Part 11”), and by the FCC Emergency Alert System Radio, TV and Cable
`
`Handbooks.
`
`(cid:120) Consequence Management Interoperability Service (“CMIS”) / Disaster
`
`Management Interoperability Services (“DMIS”)
`
`(cid:120) GeoCast
`
`(cid:120) ComCare Alliance (COMCARE-01-000001 to -098)
`
`Prior description in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, or known to others,
`
`in public use or on sale in this country:
`
`(cid:120) Wood Presentation and White Paper to ITU (February 2003) (ITU-01-000001 to -
`
`-262) (see, e.g., ITU-01-000006 (“Cell Alert is working now to negotiate with
`
`Page 7 of 8
`
`23
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2010, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Invalidity in View of Art of Record in the Prosecution Histories of the
`Patents-in-Suit
`
`The Asserted Claims are invalid as anticipated by and/or obvious in light of the art before
`
`the Patent Office during prosecution of the applications that resulted in the Patents-in-Suit, at
`
`least for the reasons expressed by the Patent Office in the Office Actions of:
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`’221 patent Prosecution History, April 24, 2012 Non-Final Office Action; and
`
`’954 patent Prosecution History, July 31, 2014 Non-Final Office Action
`
`The motivation to combine these references is inherent in the Patent Office’s citation of
`
`the art in connection with an Office Action, as well as in the obviousness rejections.
`
`A.
`
`Invalidity In View of References Cited in Petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`On November 1, 2016, Defendant United States served Plaintiff with the following
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review, filed by Defendant United States before the Patent Trial &
`
`Appeal Board of the United States Patent & Trademark Office:
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`IPR2017-00160 (regarding the ’221 patent)
`
`IPR2017-00180 (regarding the ’954 patent)
`
`IPR2017-00183 (regarding the ’938 patent)
`
`IPR2017-00185 (regarding the ’212 patent)
`
`IPR2017-00186 (regarding the ’719 patent)
`
`These Petitions set forth detailed grounds for unpatentability of the Asserted Claims in
`
`view of identified printed publications, copies of which were also served on Plaintiff.
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference the grounds for unpatentability and associated rationales
`
`identified the United States’ Petitions.
`
`Page 8 of 8
`
`34
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2010, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`