`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`Case IPR2017-01805
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................................ 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 3
`D.
`Service Information .............................................................................. 4
`E.
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ 4
`Fee Payment - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................................. 4
`II.
`III. Requirements for Inter Partes Review under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 and
`42.108 ............................................................................................................. 5
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 5
`B.
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ................................................ 5
`IV. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 6
`V.
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) .................................... 6
`A.
`“connection object messages” .............................................................. 7
`B.
`“communication platform system” ...................................................... 8
`VI. The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ..................................................... 9
`A.
`Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art ...................... 9
` 1.
`
`Overview of Zydney (Ex. 1103) ................................................ 9
`2.
`
`Overview of Shinder (Ex. 1114) .............................................. 13
`3.
`
`Overview of Hethmon (Ex. 1109) ........................................... 14
`
` 4.
`Overview of Microsoft (1991) (Ex. 1118) and Moghe
`(Ex. 1119) ................................................................................. 16
`B. Ground 1: Claims 4, 5, and 24-26 Are Obvious Over Zydney +
`Shinder + Hethmon ............................................................................ 20
` 1.
`
`Claim 3 (From Which Challenged Claims 4 and 5
`Depend), Obviousness Over Zydney in view of Shinder ........ 21
`(a)
`“A system comprising:” (Preamble, Claim 3) ............... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2.
`
`
`
` 3.
`
`
`
` 4.
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`(b)
`
`“a network interface connected to a packet-
`switched network;” (Claim 3[a]) ................................... 21
`(i)
`“a network interface” .......................................... 21
`(ii)
`“…connected to a packet-switched
`network;” ............................................................. 26
`“a messaging system communicating with a
`plurality of instant voice message client systems
`via the network interface; and” (Claim 3[b]) ................ 27
`“a communication platform system maintaining
`connection information for each of the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems indicating
`whether there is a current connection to each of the
`plurality of instant voice message client systems,”
`(Claim 3[c]) ................................................................... 31
`“wherein the messaging system receives an instant
`voice message from one of the plurality of instant
`voice message client systems, and” (Claim 3[d]) .......... 33
`“wherein the instant voice message includes an
`object field including a digitized audio file.”
`(Claim 3[e]) ................................................................... 34
`(i)
`“object field” ....................................................... 34
`(ii)
`“digitized audio file” ........................................... 36
`Claim 4 (Dependent): “The system according to claim 3,
`wherein the instant voice message includes an action
`field identifying one of a predetermined set of permitted
`actions requested by the user.”................................................. 37
`Claim 5 (Dependent): “The system according to claim 4,
`wherein the predetermined set of permitted actions
`includes at least one of a connection request, a
`disconnection request, a subscription request, an
`unsubscription request, a message transmission request,
`and a set status request.” .......................................................... 45
`Claim 24 (Independent) ........................................................... 46
`(a)
`“A system comprising:” (Claim 24, Preamble) ............. 46
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`“a network interface connected to a packet-switched
`network;” (Claim 24[a]) ................................................ 46
`“a messaging system communicating with a plurality of
`instant voice message client systems via the
`network interface; and” (Claim 24[b]) .......................... 46
`“a communication platform system maintaining
`connection information for each of the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems indicating
`whether there is a current connection to each of the
`plurality of instant voice message client systems,”
`(Claim 24[c]) ................................................................. 46
`“wherein the messaging system receives
`connection object messages from the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems,” (Claim
`24[d]) ............................................................................. 46
`“wherein each of the connection object messages
`includes data representing a state of a logical
`connection with a given one of the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems.” (Claim
`24[d1]) ........................................................................... 53
`Claim 25 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`24, wherein the connection object messages identifies at
`least one of a socket, a size of data to be transferred and a
`priority of the data.” ................................................................. 54
`Claim 26 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`24, wherein the communication platform system
`populates a connection list for the plurality of instant
`voice message client systems with the data in the
`connection object messages received from each of the
`plurality of instant voice message client systems.” ................. 54
`C. Ground 2: Claim 12 Is Obvious Over Zydney + Shinder +
`Microsoft (1991) + Moghe ................................................................. 57
`
`
`
` 5.
`
`
`
` 6.
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
` 1.
`
`
`
`
`Claim 12 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`3, wherein the communication platform system updates
`the connection information for each of the instant voice
`message client systems by periodically transmitting a
`connection status request to the given one of the plurality
`of instant voice message client systems.” ................................ 57
`VII. This Petition is substantively identical to IPR2017-01668, aside from
`sections VII-VIII ........................................................................................... 65
`VIII. The Board should institute in view of 35 U.S.C. §325(d) ............................ 65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1101 U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 to Michael J. Rojas (filed July 11, 2012,
`issued May 13, 2014)
`
`1102 Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`1103
`
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert Zydney et
`al. (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001 as WO
`01/11824 A2) (“Zydney”) (with line numbers added)
`
`1104 U.S. Patent No. 6,750,881 to Barry Appelman (filed February 24,
`1997, issued June 15, 2004) (“Appelman”)
`
`1105
`
`Excerpts from MARGARET LEVINE YOUNG, INTERNET: THE
`COMPLETE REFERENCE (McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2d ed. 2002)
`
`1106 N. Borenstein et al., Request for Comments (RFC) 1521: MIME
`(Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms for
`Specifying and Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies,
`September 1993 (“RFC 1521”)
`
`1107 U.S. Patent No. 6,757,365 B1 to Travis A. Bogard (filed October 16,
`2000, issued June 29, 2004)
`
`1108 U.S. Patent No. 6,725,228 to David Morley Clark et al. (filed Oct.
`31, 2000, issued April 20, 2004) (“Clark”)
`
`1109
`
`1110
`
`Excerpts from PAUL S. HETHMON, ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO HTTP
`(Manning Publications Co., 1997) (“Hethmon”)
`
`Excerpts from CRAIG HUNT, TCP/IP NETWORK ADMINISTRATION
`(O’Reilly, 2d Ed. 1998) (“Hunt”)
`
`1111 HTTP Working Group, Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1,
`Nov. 22, 1995 (draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-00.txt)
`
`1112
`
`Excerpts from MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (Microsoft Press,
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`3d ed. 1997)
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`Description
`
`1113
`
`1114
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`1117
`
`1118
`
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert Zydney et
`al. (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001 as WO
`01/11824 A2) (as-published version without added line numbers)
`
`Excerpts from DEBRA LITTLEJOHN SHINDER, COMPUTER
`NETWORKING ESSENTIALS (Cisco Press, 2002) (“Shinder”)
`
`Library of Congress stamped/dated copy of PAUL S. HETHMON,
`ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO HTTP (Manning Publications Co., 1997)
`
`Library date stamped copy of CRAIG HUNT, TCP/IP NETWORK
`ADMINISTRATION (O’Reilly, 2d Ed. 1998)
`
`Library of Congress stamped/dated copy of DEBRA LITTLEJOHN
`SHINDER, COMPUTER NETWORKING ESSENTIALS (Cisco Press, 2001)
`
`Excerpts from Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (1991)
`(“Microsoft (1991)”)
`
`1119 U.S. Patent No. 6,173,323 to Pratyush Moghe (filed Dec. 24, 1997,
`issued Jan. 9, 2001) (“Moghe”)
`
`1120
`
`1121
`
`Compare copy of the current Petition showing differences between
`the current Petition and the petition filed in IPR2017-01668
`
`Compare copy of the Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. (Exhibit
`1102), showing the differences between Exhibit 1102 and the
`Declaration as filed in IPR2017-01668
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`This is a petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 4, 5, 12, and 24-26 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 (Ex. 1101) (“’622 patent”).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) are the real party-in-interest to this inter partes
`
`review petition.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ’622 patent was the subject of two requests for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2017-00223 and IPR2017-00224) filed by Petitioner on November 14, 2016,
`
`which were denied by the Board on May 25, 2017. The ’622 patent is also the
`
`subject of two requests for inter partes review (IPR2017-01667 and IPR2017-
`
`01668) filed by Facebook, Inc. on June 22, 2017.
`
`Concurrent with the filing of this Petition, the Petitioner is filing another
`
`petition for inter partes review to address claims not covered by the present
`
`Petition. More specifically, the present Petition addresses claims 4, 5, 12, and 24-
`
`26, whereas the other petition addresses claims 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14-23, 27-35, 38,
`
`and 39. The Petitioner filed its challenges against these claims in two separate
`
`petitions to provide a more complete and thorough treatment of each claim.
`
`The ’622 patent is also the subject of one pending litigation involving the
`
`Petitioner: Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00638-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`(E.D. Tex. June 14, 2016 and served July 21, 2016), which has been consolidated
`
`for pretrial purposes with Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00642-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Currently, this litigation is stayed
`
`pending the outcome of other IPR petitions filed by Petitioner.
`
`The Petitioner is also aware of the following additional pending litigations
`
`involving the ’622 patent: Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Blackberry Corporation et al.,
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-00639-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Snap Inc.,
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-00696-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. AOL Inc.,
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-00722-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Green Tomato
`
`Limited, Case No. 2:16-cv-00731-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Sony
`
`Interactive Entertainment LLC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00732-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. Avaya Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00777-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. Telegram Messenger, LLP, Case No. 2:16-cv-00892-JRG (E.D.
`
`Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. HTC America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00989-JRG
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Kyocera America, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-
`
`cv-00990-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-00991-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00992-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v.
`
`ZTE (USA), Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00993-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc.
`
`et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00994-JRG (E.D. Tex.);
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00214-JRG (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00224-JRG (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00231-JRG (E.D. Tex.);
`
`and Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. KIK Interactive, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00347-JRG
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Hike Ltd., Case No. 2:17-cv-00349-JRG
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. WhatsApp, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00645-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
`
`00728-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Although the Petitioner is not a party to those other
`
`litigations, because they involve allegations of infringement of the ’622 patent,
`
`they may be impacted by a decision by the Board in this IPR proceeding.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg (Reg. No. 43,447)
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202.772.8645
`Fax: 202.371.2540
`Email: jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Michael D. Specht (Reg. No. 54,463)
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202.772.8756
`Fax: 202.371.2540
`Email: mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Trent W. Merrell (Reg. No. 73,771)
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202.772.8519
`Fax: 202.371.2540
`Email: tmerrell-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`This Petition is being served to the current correspondence address for the
`
`’622 patent, Legacy Town Center, 7160 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380, Plano, Texas
`
`75024. The Petitioner consents to electronic service at the addresses provided
`
`above for lead and back-up counsel with a courtesy copy to ptab@skgf.com.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`E.
`Filed concurrently in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`II.
`
`FEE PAYMENT - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`This Petition requests review of six claims and addresses one unchallenged
`
`independent claim (claim 3) from which three challenged claims depend. A
`
`payment of $23,000 is submitted herewith, based on a $9,000 request fee (for up to
`
`20 claims), and a $14,000 post-institution fee (for up to 15 claims). This Petition
`
`meets the fee requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1). If additional fees are due at
`
`any time during this proceeding, the Director is hereby authorized to charge such
`
`fees to deposit account number 19-0036 (Customer ID No. 45324).
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104
`AND 42.108
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`The Petitioner certifies that the ’622 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioner is not barred or otherwise estopped from requesting
`
`inter partes review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`The Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board initiate inter partes
`
`review on the following grounds (bold underlining showing the independent
`
`claim):
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`Claims
`4, 5, 24,
`25, 26
`12
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103) in view of Shinder
`(Ex. 1114) and Hethmon (Ex. 1109) under § 103(a)
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103) in view of Shinder
`(Ex. 1114), Microsoft (1991) (Ex. 1118), and Moghe
`(Ex. 1119), under § 103(a)
`Grounds 1 and 2 challenge dependent claims 4, 5 and 12, which depend
`
`from independent claim 3. As explained in Part I.B, the Petitioner is concurrently
`
`filing a separate petition that addresses other claims of the ’622 patent. That
`
`Petition challenges independent claim 3 as being obvious over Zydney (Ex. 1103)
`
`in view of Shinder (Ex. 1109), and as such, the present Petition does not directly
`
`challenge that claim. Nevertheless, because claims 4, 5, and 12 depend from – and
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`thus incorporate the limitations of – claim 3, this Petition will also set forth the
`
`invalidity analysis of claim 3 from the other Petition to provide a foundation for
`
`Grounds 1 and 2 as to claims 4, 5, and 12.
`
`Part VI below explains why the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`
`on the grounds identified above. The references cited above were not cited during
`
`the original prosecution of the ’622 patent, and were not cited in the separate IPR
`
`petitions filed by Petitioner (IPR2017-00223 and IPR2017-00224) that were denied
`
`by the Board on May 25, 2017. Submitted with the Petition is the Declaration of
`
`Tal Lavian, Ph.D. (Ex. 1102) (“Lavian”), a technical expert with decades of
`
`relevant technical experience. (Lavian, Ex. 1102, ¶¶1-10, Ex. A.)
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`As explained by Dr. Lavian, a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes
`
`of the ’622 patent would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering with at least two years of
`
`experience in development and programming relating to network communication
`
`systems (or equivalent degree or experience). (Lavian, ¶¶13-15.)
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`The constructions below provide the broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the specification to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`“connection object messages”
`A.
`The Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board interpret “connection
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`object messages” in the context of claim 24 of the ’622 patent as “messages
`
`containing data representing the state of the connection and code (one or
`
`more methods) for establishing and maintaining the logical connections
`
`between an instant voice messaging server and instant voice messaging
`
`clients.” This is the construction to which the Patent Owner have stipulated in the
`
`concurrent litigation, and is also consistent with the meaning of “connection object
`
`messages” based on the specification. (Lavian, ¶¶66-68.)
`
`The proposed construction comes almost directly from the specification of
`
`the ’622 patent, which provides the following description of connection objects:
`
`Connection objects maintain the logical connections between the IVM
`server 202 and IVM clients 206, 208 connected to the IVM server
`202. More specifically, a connection object comprises data
`representing the state of the connection and code (one or more
`methods) for establishing and maintaining the logical connections
`between the IVM server 202 and the IVM clients 206, 208 within the
`IVM system 200 of FIG. 2. The connection object can contain both
`data and/or commands, including information that describes the
`socket, the size of the data to be transferred, and the priority of the
`transfer (e.g., high, normal, low, unknown). On start up the local
`IVM server 202 generates and maintains a list for each IVM
`client 206, 208. The local IVM server 202 then waits to receive
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`connection objects from the IVM clients 206, 208 that are stored in
`the respective lists, decodes the received connection objects to obtain
`specific requests, and then services the specific requests from the IVM
`clients 206, 208.
`
`(’622, 14:47-63.)1 The Board should therefore construe “connection object
`
`messages” as “messages containing data representing the state of the
`
`connection and code (one or more methods) for establishing and maintaining
`
`the logical connections between an instant voice messaging server and instant
`
`voice messaging clients,” which tracks the underlined text above.
`
`“communication platform system”
`
`B.
`Claims 3 and 24 recite “a communication platform system maintaining
`
`connection information for each of the plurality of instant voice message client
`
`systems indicating whether there is a current connection to each of the plurality of
`
`instant voice message client systems.”
`
` The specification describes
`
`the
`
`“communication platform” as being a part of the IVM server 202. (Lavian, ¶¶64-
`
`65 (citing ’622, 13:46-55, Fig. 4 (item 402).) Accordingly, the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of
`
`this
`
`term
`
`is a “system of the server which relays
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all underlining or boldface type in quotations
`
`appearing in this Petition has been added for emphasis.
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`communications and/or tracks client connection information,” which is
`
`consistent with the description of the function of the communication platform
`
`system in the claim. (Lavian, ¶¶63-65.)2
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`The challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds identified in
`
`Part III.B above. This Petition will first provide an overview of each prior art
`
`reference and will then describe the proposed grounds in detail.
`
`A. Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art
` Overview of Zydney (Ex. 1103) 1.
`
`Zydney is a published PCT application that describes a system for voice
`
`communication that enables a user to send instant voice messages, which Zydney
`
`calls “voice containers.” (Zydney, Ex. 1103, 2:2-3.) The system transmits the
`
`voice containers “instantaneously or stored for later delivery,” depending on
`
`whether or not the recipient is currently online. (Id., 1:19-22, 15:8-21.) Zydney
`
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`
`2 The Petitioner does not contend that any term herein, under its broadest
`
`reasonable construction, is a “means-plus-function” limitation subject to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶6 (pre-AIA). The Petitioner reserves the right to argue that terms are
`
`indefinite under narrower litigation claim construction standards.
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`The Petitioner also note that the Zydney reference contains page numbers
`
`but does not contain line numbers. Accordingly, for convenience of the Board and
`
`ease of reference, Exhibit 1103 to this Petition contains a copy of Zydney in which
`
`line numbers have been added to the left of each page (beginning on page 1), to
`
`facilitate precise citation to the passages of the reference cited in this Petition. Any
`
`citations to line numbers of Zydney in this Petition and in the Lavian Declaration,
`
`therefore, refer to these added line numbers as shown in Exhibit 1103. A copy of
`
`the original Zydney reference without line numbers is submitted as Exhibit 1113.
`
`The system of Zydney is generally shown in Figure 1A, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`
`(Zydney, Fig. 1A (highlighting added).)
`
`Three key components of
`
`the system
`
`include
`
`the “SENDER PC
`
`SOFTWARE AGENT” shown on the left (22), the “RECIPIENT PC SOFTWARE
`
`AGENT” shown on the right (28), and the “CENTRAL SERVER” shown in the
`
`middle (24) of Figure 1A. (Id., 10:19-11:1.) Zydney explains that the sender and
`
`recipient software agents may work on any suitable client device such as “a
`
`personal computer, wireless handheld computer such a personal data assistant
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`(PDA), digital telephone, or beeper.” (Id., 11:14-20.) Central server (24)
`
`facilitates instant voice messaging between the sender and the recipient. (Id.,
`
`10:20-11:1.) The sender, recipient, and central server communicate with each
`
`other over a network, as shown with the bottom cloud of Figure 1A labeled
`
`“INTERNET.” (Id., Fig. 1A; see also id., 5:4-5, 5:15-18, 10:11-14, 14:2-5.)
`
`Sending an instant voice message from a sender to a recipient in Zydney is
`
`straightforward. A message sender (originator) “selects one or more intended
`
`recipients from a list of names that have been previously entered into the software
`
`agent.” (Id., 14:17-19.) The sender also “digitally records messages for one or
`
`more recipients using a microphone-equipped device and the software agent. The
`
`software agent compresses the voice and stores the file temporarily on the PC if the
`
`voice will be delivered as an entire message.” (Id., 16:1-4; see also id., 20:11-14,
`
`21:11-16 (describing “the recording of one or more voice packet messages on a
`
`personal computer” as “voice files [that] can be played and recorded using voice
`
`container enabled devices.”).) The voice message is placed into a “voice
`
`container,” which can be transmitted to the destination. (Id., 10:20-11:3.) Once
`
`the recipient’s software agent receives the voice container, it unpacks the voice
`
`container and presents it to the recipient. (Id., Fig. 18, 35:20-22.) The software
`
`agent can then audibly play the voice message to the recipient through the speakers
`
`or headset attached to the device. (Id., 13:19-22, 14:14-16, 16:10-14.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Overview of Shinder (Ex. 1114) 2.
`
`Shinder, entitled “Computer Networking Essentials,”
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`is a
`
`textbook
`
`published by Cisco Systems, a well-known supplier of networking equipment.
`
`(Lavian, ¶81.) The book was written to provide an overview of the fundamentals
`
`of computer networking. (Shinder, Introduction, p.xxii.) This Petition cites
`
`Shinder primarily in connection with the “network interface” recited in
`
`independent claim 3 that facilitates communication with a network. Shinder
`
`qualifies as prior art to the ’622 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`Zydney does not specifically describe the computing hardware for
`
`connecting clients and the central server to a network. This Petition accordingly
`
`cites Shinder to demonstrate that providing a “network interface” in the manner
`
`recited in the claims was well-known and obvious. For example, one well-known
`
`example of a network interface was known as a network interface controller
`
`(“NIC”), which was widely available. (Shinder, p.195.) Shinder further teaches:
`
`Some sort of network interface is always required to communicate
`over a network. . . . The NIC is the basic hardware component of
`network communications. It translates the parallel signal produced by
`the computer into the serial format that is sent over the network cable.
`The 1s and 0s of binary communications are turned into electrical
`impulses, pulses of light, radio waves, or whatever signaling scheme
`is used by the network media.
`
`(Id., pp.195-196.) Shinder confirms that the claimed “network interface” is a
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`well-known and off-the-shelf computing component that provides no meaningful
`
`distinction over Zydney. Shinder confirms, in fact, that a networked system such
`
`as the voice instant messaging system of Zydney could not even function without a
`
`network interface for connecting to the network. (Lavian, ¶¶82, 114-116.)
`
` Overview of Hethmon (Ex. 1109) 3.
`
`Hethmon, entitled “Illustrated Guide to HTTP,” is a book published in 1997
`
`that describes the HyperText Transfer Protocol version 1.1 (HTTP/1.1). This
`
`Petition cites Hethmon in connection with the “action field” limitations of claims
`
`4-5 and the “connection object messages” limitations of claims 24-26. As this
`
`Petition will demonstrate, these limitations recite nothing more than basic features
`
`that were built into HTTP and were known to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Hethmon qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`HTTP is a well-known protocol used to send and receive messages between
`
`clients and servers on the Internet. (Lavian, ¶95.) Although HTTP is commonly
`
`used in connection with requesting and delivering pages from the World Wide
`
`Web, it is a generic protocol not limited to the delivery of web pages. (Id., ¶313,
`
`n.15.) As Zydney explains, HTTP “is a generic, stateless, object-oriented protocol
`
`which can be used for many tasks, such as name servers and distributed object
`
`management systems, through extension of its request methods (commands). A
`
`feature of HTTP is the typing and negotiation of data representation, allowing
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`systems to be built independently of the data being transferred.” (Zydney, 7:21-
`
`8:3.) HTTP was the subject of published standards, including an Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (IETF) document cited by and incorporated-by-reference
`
`in Zydney. (Id., 8:3-6.)
`
`Although Zydney discloses the use of HTTP, it does not disclose the details
`
`of how HTTP operates, presumably because those details were already well-known
`
`as noted. (Lavian, ¶95.) This Petition accordingly cites Hethmon for its explicit
`
`teachings of those HTTP details, which show that the “action field” and
`
`“connection object messages” limitations in claims 4-5 and 24-26, respectively,
`
`are nothing more than features that were built-in to HTTP/1.1.
`
`HTTP is commonly referred to as a “request-response” protocol, which
`
`refers to a communications protocol in which a client application sends a “request
`
`message” to a server, which responds by sending back a “response message.”
`
`(Hethmon, p.10.) This basic interaction is illustrated Figure 2.2 of Hethmon:
`
`(Hethmon, Figure 2.2 at p.11.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`A key aspect of HTTP for purposes of this Petition is the HTTP “request
`
`message” shown in the figure above. Hethmon explains that each HTTP request
`
`message contains a “Request-Line,” which contains a field known as a “Method.”
`
`Hethmon explains that the Method is a keyword “to indicate the type [of] action
`
`the request is asking the server to execute.”