throbber
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK
`
`InCompliance with 35 US.C § 290 and/or 15 US.C § 1116you are hereby advised thatacourtaction has been
`Eastern District of Texas
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`on the following
`0 Trademarks or
`~Patents. ( 0 the patent action involves 35 U.S. C.§ 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:17 -cv-228
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DATE FILED
`3/24/2017
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg SA
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Web Services, Inc.
`
`PATENTOR
`TRADEMARK NO.
`
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`l 7,804,948 82
`
`9/28/2010
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg SA
`
`2 7,853,000 82
`
`3 8,571,194 82
`
`12/14/2010
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg SA
`
`10/29/2013
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg SA
`
`4
`
`5
`
`In the above--entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`PATENTOR
`TRADEMARK NO.
`
`INCLUDED BY
`
`0 Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`0 Answer
`
`0 Cross Bill
`
`0 Other Pleading
`
`HOLDEROFPATENTORTRADEMARK
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`In the above--entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
`
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT
`
`I (BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`Copy 1-Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3-Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2-Upon filing llocument adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4--Case file copy
`
`Page 1 of 353
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1018
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00228-JRG Document5 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1o0f1PagelD#: 110
`AO 120 (Rev. 08/10}
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1456
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`|
`
`:
`
`REPORTON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENTOR
`
`in Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or £5 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`Eastern District of Texas on the folowing
`
`filed in the U.S, District Court
`[] Trademarks or
`ff Patents.
`( (1 the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292}:
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:17-Gv-228
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DATE FILED
`Be4/2017
`
`I
`
`U.S, DISTRICT COURT
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`| Amazon.com, inc., and Amazon Web Services, inc.
`
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK NO.
`
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`ATWRIADEE
`we
`DATER
`CE
`=n
`.
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`7,804,948 B2
`
`9/28/2010
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg $.A.
`
`2 7,853,000 BS
`
`12/14/2010
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`3 8,571,184 B2
`
`10/29/2013
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`PATENTOR
`TRADEMARK NO.
`
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`Ci Cress Bill
`
`[-] Other Pleading
`
`In the above—-entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
`DECISIONJUDGEMENT
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`Copy i-—Upon initiation of action, mai this copy te Director Copy 3--Upon terramation of action, man this copy te Director
`Copy 2—-Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy te Birector Copy 4-—Case file copy
`
`Page 2 of 353
`
`Page 2 of 353
`
`

`

`TRADEMARK
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and TrademarkOffice
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATIONOF AN
`ACTION REGARDINGA PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
`onthe following
`LiTrademarksor
`[fPatents.
`( (1 the patent action involves 35 U.S.C.§ 292.)
`
`DATE FILED
`12/28/2015
`
`DOCKET NO.
`6:15-cv-1168
`PLAINTIFF
`UNILOC USA,INC., and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`
`
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
`DEFENDANT
`AVAYAINC.
`
`TRADEMARKN0.
`
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`ATTCOdSC“(Csti‘“‘CrdrS
`Es
`
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`
`INCLUDED BY
`(J Amendment
`PATENT OR
`DATE OF PATENT
`TRADEMARK NO.
`OR TRADEMARK
`po
`
`(1 Answer
`O CrossBill
`(1 Other Pleading
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT (BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`2
`
`po
`
`4
`
`PC
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upontermination ofaction, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling documentaddingpatent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`Page 3 of 353
`
`Page 3 of 353
`
`

`

`TRADEMARK
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and TrademarkOffice
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliancewith 35 U.S.C.§ 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
`on the following
`(3 Trademarksor
`(JZ Patents.
`( (J the patentaction involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKETNO.
`6:15-cv-1169
`PLAINTIFF
`UNILOC USA,INC., and
`
`DATE FILED
`12/28/2015
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
`DEFENDANT
`SHORETEL, INC.
`
` UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`PATENT OR
`
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`1 7,804,948
`
`2 7,853,000
`
`3 8,571,194
`
`9/28/2010
`
`42/14/2010
`
`10/29/2013
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG,S.A.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG,S.A.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG,S.A.
`
`SOTOUTC—OS
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`PATENT OR
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`OO Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`(1 Answer
`
`OD Cross Bill
`
`( Other Pleading
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT (BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`
`Copy 1-—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—-Upontermination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling documentadding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4-—Casefile copy
`
`Page 4 of 353
`
`Page 4 of 353
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-01175 Document 2 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #: 96
`AO 120 (Rev.08/10
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`TO:
`.
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`filed in the U.S.District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
`on the following
`
`LJ Trademarks or
`Patents.
`( [1 the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DATE FILED
`12/30/2015
`
`DOCKETNO.
`6:15-cv-1175
`PLAINTIFF
`UNILOC USA,INC., and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`Te
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
`DEFENDANT
`CISCO SYSTEMS,INC.
`
`eT
`BT
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK NO.
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`
`INCLUDED BY
`(J Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`O Answer
`CO CrossBill
`OO Other Pleading
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`po
`
`
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`
`
`
`
` eseT
`DECISION/IUDGEMENT
`
`
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy te Director Copy 3—Upon termination ofaction, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling documentadding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`Page 5 of 353
`
`Page 5 of 353
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00566-RWS Document5 Filed 05/30/16 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #: 115
`
`Mail Stop 3
`Director of the U.S. Patent and TrademarkOffice
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDINGA PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas
`on the following
`
`{([] Trademarks or
`Patents.
`( 0 the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`DOCKET NO.
`DATE FILED
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`2:16-cv-566
`5/28/2016
`PLAINTIFF
`
`Uniloc USA,Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`GOOGLE,INC.
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`
`
`
`2|SS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`PATENT OR
`
`TRADEMARK NO.
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been imcluded:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`(0 Amendment
`OR TRADEMARK
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`(1 Answer
`(] Cross Bill
`(1 Other Pleading
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`ll
`
`In the above-—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
`
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`Copy |—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination ofaction, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`Page 6 of 353
`
`Page 6 of 353
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 6
`Entered: April 11, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG,5.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM,KEN B. BARRETT,and
`JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`Page 7 of 353
`
`Page 7 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitionerfiled a Petition for inter partes review ofclaims 1, 2, 5—10,
`
`12, 18-26, 29, 30, 36, 37, 49-53, 65, and 66 of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the *948 patent”). Paper 2 (“‘Pet.””). Patent Ownerfiled a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter
`
`partes review may not be authorized bystatute “unless .
`
`.
`
`. the information
`
`presented in the petition . .. and any response .
`
`.
`
`. showsthat there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`1 of the claims challengedin the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.108.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`
`are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonablelikelihoodthatit
`
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12,
`
`18-26, 29, 30, 36, 37, 49-53, 65, and 66 of the 948 patent. Accordingly,
`
`weinstitute an inter partes review.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`Oneor both parties identify, as matters involving or related to the
`
`’948 patent, the following:
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00566 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), filed March 28, 2016. Pet. 1.
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Huawei Enterprise USA, Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv-
`
`00099 (E.D. Tex.), filed March 4, 2016. Pet. 1.
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-1175 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), filed Dec. 30, 2015. Pet. 1.
`
`Page 8 of 353
`
`Page 8 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Avaya, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-01168 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed Dec. 28, 2015. Pet. 1.
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ShoreTel, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-01169 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), filed Dec. 28, 2015. Pet. 1.
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. GENBAND US LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-01169
`
`(E.D. Tex.), filed April 30, 2015. Pet. 1.
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:14-cv-01040 (E.D.
`Tex.), filed Nov. 13, 2014. Pet. 1.
`
`The °948 patent wasalso asserted against Cisco Systems,Inc.,
`
`Huawei Device USA,Inc., NEC Corporation of America, Shoretel, Inc.,
`
`Unify, Inc., Tangome,Inc. d/b/a Tango, Facebook,Inc., Viber Media S.a.r.1.,
`
`and WhatsAppInc., ooVoo, LLC,in civil actions related to lead case Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. Avaya, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-01168, in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas. Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice, Paper 4.
`
`B. The ’948 Patent
`
`The ’948 patent relates generally to a methodforinitiating a
`
`conference call between two or more users, and more particularly to
`
`initiating a voice conference call between two or more users using a central
`
`server to communicate parameters for the call and forinitiating the call
`
`itself. Ex. 1001, 1:13-17. Conference calls are initiated via an instant
`
`messaging (IM) system to reduce the effort requiredto initiate and manage
`
`the call. Jd. at Abstract. The system uses an IM connection between a
`
`requesting party and a conferencecall server to inform the conferencecall
`
`serverof the desireto initiate the conference call. Jd. The conferencecall
`
`serverinitiates the conference call by having involved parties called by a
`
`Page 9 of 353
`
`Page 9 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`conference bridge, thus reducing the effort required by the parties to join the
`
`call. Id. Figure 4 of the °948 patent is reproduced below.
`
`Conference Request Processor
`
`Telechone Networks
`
`
`Acoouent, User,
`History, Provider
`
`Database
`
`
`IM Communications Procasser
`412
`
`
`
`
`4108
`
`410b
`
`.
`
`Figure 4 above showsa block diagram of a system for accomplishing
`
`the initiation of conference calls. Ex. 1001, 9:13-14. Conferencecall server
`
`402 is connected to network 404. /d. at 9:14-15. Database 406, associated
`
`with conference call server 402, stores account information, user
`
`information, and call management information. Jd. at 9:15—18. The
`
`conferencecall server can be connected directly to telephone network 408,
`
`or indirectly through third party conference bridge 410. Id. at 9:22-25.
`Shared application server 412 can also be connected to allow information
`generated during a shared application session to be accessed by the
`
`conference call server as required, such as to determinea list of parties
`
`involved in a shared application session. Jd. at 9:26-30. The users connect
`
`Page 10 of 353
`
`Page 10 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`to the system via network access device (NAD) 414, which may be any
`
`network communicable device having the appropriate IM software service
`
`access. Id. at 9:39-41.
`
`During an IM session involving User A, User B, and User C, a
`
`conference call requester (User A) requests a conference call through User
`
`A’s NAD. Id. at 7:27-34. The IM service in communication with User A’s
`
`NAD is aware of the IM session, and determinesthe list of conference call
`
`targets from thelist of parties presently in the IM session. Jd. at 7:34-38.
`
`The conferencecall server sends a conferencecall invitation to User B and
`
`User C. Id. at 7:64-66. If User B and User C accept the conferencecall
`
`invitation, the conference call server prompts User B and UserC,via the IM
`
`functionality, to verify their phone numbersfor the conferencecall. Jd. at
`
`7:66-8:10. The conference call server then initiates a conference call bridge
`
`between the conference requester and the targets. /d. at 8:11-12.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 23, and 51 of the challenged claims of the °948 patent are
`
`independent. Claim1is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`
`1. A method for initiating a conference call, comprising
`the steps of:
`providing a conference call requester with a network
`access device, said network access device communicating via an
`instant messaging service, said instant messaging service being
`adapted to communicate conference call request information
`with a conference call server;
`
`establishing a communications connection from said
`networkaccess device to the conference call server;
`
`presenting said conference call requester with a display
`showing a plurality of potential targets then being connected to
`
`5
`
`Page 11 of 353
`
`Page 11 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`said instant messaging service and participating in a given instant
`messaging session with the conference call requester and with
`whom a conference call may beinitiated;
`generating a conference call request responsively to a
`single request by the conference call requester, said conference
`call request identifying each of the potential targets for said
`conferencecall request;
`from said
`request
`transmitting said conference call
`network access device to said conferencecall server; and
`
`automatically establishing a conference call connection to
`said conference call requester, said conference call connection
`initiated by said conference call server, said conference call
`connection further being connected to each of the potential
`targets.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:58—-12:17.
`
`D. References
`
`
`
`
`
`US6,747,970 BI
`
`US6,237,025 B1
`
` May22, 2001
`
`Petitionerrelies on the following references. Pet. 9-10.
`
`
`
`
`Mar. 14, 2002|Ex. 1005
`
`
`WO 02/21816 Al
`
`
` June 8, 2004
`(filed Mar. 21,
`
`
` Ex. 1007
`
`
`
`US 2003/0086411 Al May8, 2003|Ex. 1008
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 5—10, 12, 18-26, 29, 30, 36, 37,
`
`49-53, 65, and 66 of the 948 patent are unpatentable based on the following
`
`specific grounds:
`
`Page 12 of 353
`
`Page 12 of 353
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims
`Basis
` Hamberg and Lamb
`
`§ 103(a)|1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 18, 19,
`21-25, 29, 30, 49-51,
`
`65, and 66
`
`Hamberg, Lamb, and Ludwig
`
`and 53
`Hamberg, Lamb, and Vassilovski|§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`
`
`References
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 214446 (2016)
`
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the
`
`claim interpretation standard to be applied in inter partes reviews).
`
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`
`presumedto havetheir ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context ofthe entire patent
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from
`
`its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Zn re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Petitioner proposcs constructionof the claim terms “network access
`
`device”(recited in all claims), “address” (recited in claim 18), “automatic
`
`numberidentifier” (recited in claim 19), and “VoIP address”(recited in
`
`claim 20. Pet. 6-9. Patent Ownerproposes construction of the claim terms
`
`Page 13 of 353
`
`Page 13 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`“instant messaging”(recited in all claims) and “VoIP address”(recited in
`
`claim 20). Prelim. Resp. 8-12. At this stage of the proceeding,neither party
`
`has identified a dispositive term for construction. For purposesofthis
`
`Decision, no terms need an explicit construction to resolve a controversy at
`this preliminary stage. See Vivid Techs., Inc.v. Am Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy
`
`need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy). We further determine that none of the other terms require
`
`express constructionatthis stage.
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness Over Hamberg and Lamb: Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12,
`18, 19, 21-25, 29, 30, 49-51, 65, and 66
`
`Petitioner, relying on the Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh (Ex. 1003),
`
`challenges claims1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 18, 19, 21-25, 29, 30, 49-51, 65, and 66
`
`as obvious over the combination of Hamberg and Lamb.Pet. 11-60.
`
`1. Hamberg (Ex. 1005)
`
`Hambergrelates to setting up a conferencecall in digital
`
`communications systems. Ex. 1005, 1:3-4. Figure 1 of Hambergis
`
`reproduced below.
`
`Page 14 of 353
`
`Page 14 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`mox [msg
`
`.
`
`Ann [Ms1)
`“LT
`tony fas] — Vv
`
`FIG. 1
`
`
`
`y
`
`lisa
`
`John
`
`Figure 1 above shows a general communication system. Jd. at 2:18.
`
`Five subscribers, Ann, Henry, Lisa, John, and Max have corresponding
`
`mobile stations MS1, MS2, MS3, MS4, and MSS, connected to a
`
`communications system, such as a Global System for Mobile
`
`Communications (GSM). Jd. at 2:19-22. The mobile stations can be
`
`equipped with an instant message service. Jd. at 2:25-30. The GSM system
`
`can be connecteddirectly to the Internet and to a quick message server. Id.
`
`at 2:34-3:4. The quick message server can also be connected to an
`
`intelligent network service control point (SCP), in which case the quick
`message server can initiate a conference call in the GSM network. Id. at
`3:4-8. A database DB represents a database residing in the quick message
`server. Jd. at 3:16-17. Figure 2 of Hamberg is reproduced below.
`
`Page 15 of 353
`
`Page 15 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`Group 2: 050-123456-2
`
` Group 1: 050-123456-1;
`
`Figure 2 above shows an example of a more detailed structure of the
`
`database DB. Jd. at 3:18-19. Henry, Lisa, and John have registered into
`
`chat group I, and Henry, Lisa, John, Max, and Ann haveregistered into chat
`
`group 2. Jd. at 3:19-21. Henry, Lisa, John, and Ann havesent an activating
`
`LOGIN messageto the second group’s telephone number shown in Figure 2,
`
`so they are in active chat status. Jd. at 4:10-12. Max has sethis status to
`
`absent, to indicate he does not want to participate in a conferencecall, but
`
`text messages can be sent to him. /d. at 4:12—-15.
`
`2. Lamb (Ex. 1006)
`
`Lambis related to providing advanced telecommunicationsservices
`
`using a connectionless network host for service implementation, while using
`
`connection-based network equipmentfor transport ofat least a portion of a
`
`telecommunications session. Ex. 1006, 1:10-16. A telecommunications
`
`system uses hosting agents that operate on behalf of users in a hosting server
`
`to control call connections. Jd at Abstract. A conference now feature ofa
`
`10
`
`Page 16 of 353
`
`Page 16 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`user interface allows a user to create a conferencecall at the current
`
`moment. Jd. at 60:37-41; Fig. 12.
`
`The userinterface can be a MetaTelclient user interface thatis
`
`installed onto a user’s computer. Jd. at 64:16-19. A MetaTel view allows a
`
`userto see availability of colleagues, send messages, and place phonecalls
`
`instantly. fd. at 109-110. A user can press a call button to set up an instant
`
`conference call. Jd.
`
`3. Analysis of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12,
`18, 19, 21-25, 29, 30, 49-51, 65, and 66
`
`a. Independent Claims 1, 23, and 5]
`
`Petitioner contends “providing a conference call requester with a
`
`network access device,” as recited in independentclaim 1, is disclosed by
`
`Hambergin describing subscribers provided with mobile stations connected
`
`to a GSM system. Pet. 20-21 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 1; 2:19-22, 4:29-32).
`
`Petitioner contends “said network access device communicating via
`
`an instant messaging system,”as recited in claim 1 is disclosed by Hamberg
`
`in describing mobile stations equipped with an instant messageservice. Id.
`
`at 21-22 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:25-33, 3:11-12).
`
`Petitioner contends “said instant messaging service being adapted to
`
`communicate conferencecall request information with a conferencecall
`
`server,” as recited in claim 1 is disclosed by Hambergin describing a CALL
`
`ALIASmessagesent to the server, where the ALIASrepresents the names
`
`of the group membersthat the sender of the message wants to call. /d. at
`
`22-24 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:27—32, 6:1-2, 6-7).
`
`Petitioner contends “establishing a communications connection from
`
`said network access device to the conference call server,” as recited in claim
`
`1 is disclosed by Hamberg in describing a LOGIN messagesent from the
`
`1]
`
`Page 17 of 353
`
`Page 17 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`mobile station to the quick message server to indicate whether a subscriber’s
`
`status is set to logged or absent during the group chat session. Jd. at 24—25
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 4:10-13).
`
`Petitioner contends “presenting said conference call requester with a
`
`display showinga plurality of potential targets then being connected to said
`
`instant messaging service,” as recited in claim 1 is taught by the combination
`
`of Hamberg and Lamb. Petitioner contends Hamberg describes a database
`
`including a user name, telephone number, status data such as logged or
`
`absent, and notable matters, for each group member. Jd. at 25—26 (citing Ex.
`
`1005, Fig. 2; 4:10-19, 5:19-22). Accordingto Petitioner, the list of users
`
`who haveregistered with the group using the LOGIN message describes “a
`
`plurality of potential targets then being connected to said instant messaging
`
`service.” /d. (emphasis omitted). Petitioner contends Lambdiscloses
`
`“presenting said conference call requester with a display showinga plurality
`
`of targets then being connected to said instant messaging service,”as recited
`
`in claim 1, in describing displaying status information in a user agent
`
`interface. Id. at 26-29 (citing Ex. 1006, Figs. 9, 12; 59:3-7, 59:22-35,
`
`60:25—26, 64:15-17).
`
`Petitioner relies on testimony from Dr. Houh and contendsthat
`
`incorporating Lamb’s display of status information into Hamberg’s mobile
`
`stations and workstations would have madeit easier for Hamberg’s users to
`
`communicate with each other. /d. at 29 (citing Ex. 1003, pp. 49-50).
`
`Accordingto Petitioner, Hamberg’s stations would benefit from a display of
`
`chat group members, such as members in G1 or G2, along with the
`
`members’ status information, because a conference call requester would
`
`know which members are available for a conferencecall, and avoid
`
`12
`
`Page 18 of 353
`
`Page 18 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`attempting to initiate a call with members whoare not available, for whom a
`
`conference call would be an unwanted disturbance, or those whoare not
`
`connectedto the instant messaging service. /d. at 29 (citing Ex. 1003,
`
`pp. 49-50).
`
`Dr. Houhtestifies that
`
`[a] POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Lamb’s
`display that includes status information into Hamberg’s mobile
`stations and workstations to facilitate communication between
`Hamberg’s group members. Hamberg’s stations would benefit
`from a display that displays chat group members, such as
`members in group GI or group G2, along with the members’
`status information. For example, by looking at a display
`displaying that information, a conference call requester would
`know which group members are available for a conferencecall.
`As such, when a conference call requester views the status
`information for group G2, a conference call requester would
`know that Max would not be available for a conference call, and
`that the conferencecall could be initiated with Henry, Lisa, John,
`and Ann. Thus,
`the conference call
`requester could avoid
`attemptingto initiate a call with members whoare notavailable,
`such as those who do not want to participate, those for whom a
`conference call would be an unwanted disturbance, or those who
`are registered into the chat group but are not connected to the
`instant messaging service.
`
`Ex. 1003, pp. 49-50.
`Petitioner contends “[presenting said conferencecall requester with a
`display showinga plurality of potential targets then being connectedto said
`
`instant messaging service and] participating in a given instant messaging
`
`session with the conference call requester and with whom a conference call
`maybeinitiated,” as recited in claim 1, is taught by the combination of
`
`Hamberg and Lamb. Pet. 29-33.
`
`13
`
`Page 19 of 353
`
`Page 19 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`Petitioner contends Hamberg describes that when the membersofthe
`
`group G1 communicate with each other, only the members ofthe group are
`
`allowedto participate. /d. at 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:23-24). Petitioner
`
`contends Hamberg describes in group G2, Max’s status of absent indicates
`
`that text messages can be sent to him,but since heis not in active status, he
`
`does not want to take part in a possible conference call. Jd. (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`4:10-15). According to Petitioner, in Hamberg’s group G1, Henry, Lisa,
`
`and John are the membersparticipating in a given instant messaging session
`
`with the conference call requester, and with whom a conference call may be
`
`initiated. Jd. (citing Ex. 1003, pp. 50-51). Also accordingto Petitioner, in
`
`group G2 of Hamberg, members Henry, Lisa, John, and Ann are
`
`participating in a given instant messaging session with the conferencecall
`
`requester, and with whom a conferencecall maybe initiated. Jd.
`
`Petitioner contends Lambdiscloses a MetaTelclient user interface
`
`displaying messages from an instant messaging session between twousers,
`
`andalso displaying a call buttonto initiate a phone call.
`
`/d. at 31-32 (citing
`
`1006, Fig. 9; 64:15-17). Petitioner contends that although the MetaTel
`
`client interface shows only two participants in the instant messaging session,
`
`Lambalso discloses an instant messaging session involving a group of
`
`colleagues, one of whompressesthe call button to set up a conferencecall.
`
`Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1006, cols. 109 and 110).
`
`Petitioner relies on testimony of Dr. Houh to contend incorporating
`
`Lamb’s display ofpotential targets into Hamberg’s mobile stations and
`workstations allows a group memberwhoinitiates a conference call to see
`
`which group membersare available for a conference call, and avoid
`
`attempting to initiate a call with group members whoarenot presentin the
`
`14
`
`Page 20 of 353
`
`Page 20 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`instant messaging session or whohave indicated they do not wish to
`
`participate in the conference call. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003, p. 53).
`
`Dr. Houhtestifies that
`
`Hamberg’s mobile stations and workstations would benefit from
`a display that displays chat group members of group G1 or G2
`that are participating in the respective instant messaging sessions
`because the group member whoinitiates the conference call
`would be able to see which group membersare available for a
`conference call by the group member’s presence in the instant
`messaging session. For example, the conference call requester
`of group G2 would be able to see that Henry, Lisa, and Ann are
`available for a conference call, while Max is not available and
`may initiate a conference call where Max is not an essential
`party. Alternatively, when Max is an essential party to the
`conferencecall, the conference call requester may notinitiate a
`conferencecall with other members of group G2 because Max is
`not available. Thus, the conference call requester could avoid
`attempting to initiate a call with group members whoare not
`present in the instant messaging session and do not wish to
`participate in the conference call, or avoid making a conference
`call altogether when the group membernotices that one or more
`group members whoare essential to the conference call are not
`available for a conferencecall.
`
`Ex. 1003, p. 53.
`Petitioner contends “generating a conference call request responsively
`
`to a single request by the conference call requester,” as recited in claim 1 is
`
`taught by the combination of Hamberg and Lamb.Pet. 33-36.
`
`Petitioner contends Hamberg describes a CALL ALIAS message used
`
`to initiate a conference call, and also describes that the group member who
`
`sends the CALL ALIAS messageis a conference call requester. Pet. 33
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 3:4-8). According to Petitioner, the CALL ALIAS
`
`message describes a conference call request. /d. at 33.
`
`15
`
`Page 21 of 353
`
`Page 21 of 353
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`Petitioner contends Lamb’s MetaTelclient interface includesa call
`
`button that, when pressed, triggers a setup of an instant conferencecall. Pet.
`
`33 (citing Ex. 1006, 109-110). Petitioner also contends the conference now
`
`button of Lamballowsthe user to create a conference at the current moment.
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 12, 60:38-39). According to Petitioner, pressing
`
`either the call button or the conference now button of Lamb describes a
`
`single request by the conferencecall requester. Jd.
`
`Petitioner relies on testimony of Dr. Houhto contend incorporating
`
`the call button or the conference now button of Lambinto the userinterface
`
`of Hamberg provides the benefit of informing the user that the conference
`
`calling feature is available, relieves the user from needing to rememberthe
`
`correct commandwordfor initiating a conferencecall, and reduces the effort
`
`required ofa userto initiate a conference call. Jd. at 33-34 (citing Ex. 1003,
`
`pp. 54-56).
`
`Patent Owner contendsthat using the call button or the conference
`
`now button of Lamb requires multiple requests, including selecting the
`
`button itself and separately selecting each one of the namesto be included in
`
`the conference call. Prelim. Resp. 18-19. Patent Owneralso contends the
`
`combination of Hamberg and Lamb would teach a “conference call request”
`
`that relies on multiple distinct requests by a conference call requester,
`including the button press and manual selection of each participant in Lamb,
`and Hamberg’s multiple, manually-inputted alias names, but would not teach
`
`“a single request by

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