`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`FedEx Corp.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`_________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 1
`
`IV Exhibit 2120
`FedEx v. IV
`Case IPR2017-02039
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................ iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... vi
`
`I.
`
`
`II.
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged ............... 5
`
`A.
`
`
`B.
`
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ............................................... 5
`
`Statutory Grounds.................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
` The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Institute this Petition ................ 6 III.
`
`III.
`
`’586 Patent Overview ...................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
` The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..........................................................12 IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................12
`
` Ground 1: The combination of Bushnell and Multicode renders VI.
`
`
`Obvious Claims 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................17
`
`
`
` Overview of Bushnell ..........................................................................17 A.
`
`
`
` Overview of Multicode ........................................................................22 B.
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine Bushnell and
`Multicode .............................................................................................34
`
`The Combination of Bushnell and Multicode Renders Obvious
`Each Element of Claims 16, 18, and 19 ..............................................38
`
`
`
` Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................78 VII.
`
`A.
`
`
`B.
`
`
`C.
`
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................78
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................78
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel ...................................................................78
`
`–ii–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 2
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`Service Information .............................................................................80
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
` Grounds for Standing .....................................................................................80 VIII.
`
`
`
` Fee Payments .................................................................................................80 IX.
`
`X.
`
`
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................80
`
`
`
`
`
`–iii–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 3
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586 to Melick et al. (“the ’586 patent”).
`
`Exhibit 1002.
`
`RICHARD D. BUSHNELL AND RICHARD B. MEYERS, GETTING
`STARTED WITH BAR CODES: A SYSTEMATIC GUIDE (1999)
`(“Bushnell”).
`
`Exhibit 1003.
`
`RPS MULTICODE BAR CODE LABEL GUIDE (1996)
`(“Multicode”).
`
`Exhibit 1004.
`
`Expert Declaration of Mark Reboulet.
`
`Exhibit 1005.
`
`Exhibit 1006.
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`v. FedEx Corp. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00980 (Aug. 31, 2016).
`
`Exhibit E to Infringement Contentions of January 17, 2017,
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp. et al., No. 2:16-cv-
`00980 (Aug. 31, 2016).
`
`Exhibit 1007.
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/417,128.
`
`Exhibit 1008.
`
`Exhibit 1009.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586,
`FedEx Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II, IPR2017-00859,
`Paper 2 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2017).
`
`Exhibit B to Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement of June 30, 2017, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v.
`FedEx Corp. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00980 (Aug. 31, 2016).
`
`Exhibit 1010.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,070,103 to Melick et al.
`
`Exhibit 1011.
`
`Exhibit C to Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement of June 30, 2017, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v.
`FedEx Corp. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00980 (Aug. 31, 2016).
`
`Exhibit 1012.
`
`Institution Decision, FedEx Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II,
`IPR2017-00859, Paper 7 (PTAB Aug. 10, 2017).
`
`Exhibit 1013.
`
`Declaration of Richard B. Bushnell.
`
`Exhibit 1014.
`
`Declaration of Mark Reboulet.
`
`–iv–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 4
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1015.
`
`Declaration of Theresa Kist.
`
`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`Exhibit 1016.
`
`Declaration of Emily R. Florio.
`
`Exhibit 1017.
`
`Declaration of Donald McKee.
`
`Exhibit 1018.
`
`Declaration of Timothy Jones.
`
`–v–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 5
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Proctor & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506,
`Paper 25 at 3-4 (Dec. 10, 2014) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) .........................................................................................13
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................12
`
`Microsoft v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................13
`
`See Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Party Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328,
`1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d
`1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................... 12, 40, 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ....................................................................................................5, 80
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b) ....................................................................................... 5
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..........................................................................................13
`
`–vi–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 6
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`Introduction
`Petitioner FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”) requests inter partes review of
`
`I.
`
`
`claims 16, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586 (“the ’586 patent”) (Ex. 1001),
`
`assigned in public records to Intellectual Ventures II, LLC (“IV2” or “Patent
`
`Owner”). The Board should institute review and cancel all of the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`The
`
`’586 patent describes “a method and apparatus
`
`for creating
`
`electronic...documents with tagged bar coded information.” (E.g., Ex. 1001, 1:20-
`
`22.) As shown in Figure 2 of the ’586 patent, reproduced as Figure A below, the
`
`electronic document includes “a plurality of bar codes,” each of which “encodes
`
`respective data tags and data items.” (Id., 4:1-2, 10:33-35.)
`
`
`
`Figure A: ’586 Patent Figure 2
`
`–1–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 7
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`The data tags are “used to identify data.” (Id., 6:4.) For example, the data tag
`
`for the data item “Bruce” is “F01,” which identifies the data item “Bruce” as a
`
`“First Name.” (Id., 6:15-18.) Similarly, the data tag for the data item “Smith” is
`
`“F02,” which identifies the data item “Smith” as a “Last Name.” (Id.) When the
`
`electronic document is sent for decoding, one or more of the bar codes may be
`
`decoded to recover the encoded data tags and data items. (Id., 11:11-12.) For
`
`example, a “parsing and data cache application” may “use logic and computer
`
`routines to identify the scanned bar coded data by…tag[], match the scanned bar
`
`coded data to [an] appropriate field in [an] electronic document [],…strip
`
`the…tag[], and input the stripped bar coded data into the appropriate field in [the]
`
`electronic document.” (Id., 5:40-48.)
`
`But bar codes encoding data tags and data items were known before the
`
`filing date of the ’586 patent. (Ex. 1004, [12].) Multicode, for example, describes
`
`bar codes that encode data tags, known as “Application Identifiers,” and data.
`
`(Ex. 1004, [12]; Ex. 1003 at, e.g., 17, 21.) According to Multicode, the Application
`
`Identifiers “identify[] the intended use of [the] data in a bar code symbol.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, [12]; Ex. 1003, 35.) Bushnell likewise describes Application Identifiers,
`
`teaching that they “are used to tell [a] computer application what data is being
`
`presented to it.” (Ex. 1004, [67]; Ex. 1002, 248.)
`
`–2–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 8
`
`

`

`Moreover, electronic documents including bar codes were similarly well-
`
`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`known before the filing date of the ’586 patent. Bushnell, for example, describes a
`
`“bar code data collection system” that includes “software” at a “personal
`
`computer.” (Ex. 1004, [63]; Ex. 1002, 121.) The “personal computer (PC),”
`
`Bushnell explains, “is useful both as the source of data for printed bar codes as
`
`well as the software used to drive the printer.” (Ex. 1004, [63]; Ex. 1002, 122-23.)
`
`The data in Bushnell may take the form of a “data file,” and the PC can “print from
`
`this file to produce bar coded labels or other forms.” (Ex. 1004, [63]; Ex. 1002,
`
`131.)
`
`The receipt of such electronic documents was further known, as Bushnell
`
`illustrates. In Bushnell, the “data stored in the PC which drives the printer can
`
`be…obtained from the host application via a down-load of data to produce the
`
`proper bar coded label and/or printed forms.” (Ex. 1004, [14]; Ex. 1002, 123.)
`
`Thus, “[t]he functions performed by the PC…include: Receive a data file (down-
`
`load a file) to the PC hard disc from the host application” and “print from this file
`
`to produce bar coded labels or other forms.” (Ex. 1004, [14]; Ex. 1002, 131.)
`
`Finally the decoding of bar codes to recover data tags and data items was
`
`also known. Bushnell contemplates each of a “scanner” that “optically converts
`
`optical information into electrical signals” and a “decoder,” namely, “[t]he
`
`electronic package which receives the signals from the scanning function, performs
`
`–3–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 9
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`the algorithm to interpret the signals into meaningful data and provides the
`
`interface to other devices.” (Ex. 1004, [15]; Ex. 1002, 196.) According to Bushnell,
`
`“[t]he scanner reads the bar code and transmits the number which it sees to other
`
`computer-related hardware” and “the information is logged to build a file.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, [15]; Ex. 1002, 32.)
`
`The Application Identifiers, Bushnell explains, “indicate to the scanning
`
`system what kind of information is being presented in the field of data being
`
`scanned.” (Ex. 1004, [15]; Ex. 1002, 46.) The Application Identifiers “appear as
`
`the first few…characters in a bar code symbol,” Bushnell teaches, and “the balance
`
`of the symbol contains the data value which uniquely identifies a particular person,
`
`place, or thing.” (Ex. 1004, [67]; Ex. 1002, 248.)
`
`The bar codes including Application Identifiers and data elements, as
`
`described in Multicode and Bushnell, render the claimed bar codes encoding
`
`respective data tags and data items obvious to a skilled artisan. (Ex. 1004, [12].)
`
`Moreover, the “data file” described in Bushnell to be received into a “PC hard disc
`
`from [a] host application” and “print[ed] to produce bar coded labels,” renders the
`
`claimed electronic document including such bar codes obvious to a skilled artisan.
`
`(Ex. 1004, [13].) Bushnell’s teaching that the “personal computer” “[r]eceive[s]
`
`[the] data file” and “print[s] from this file to produce bar coded labels” renders the
`
`claimed “means for receiving” obvious to a skilled artisan. (Ex. 1004, [14];
`
`–4–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 10
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`Ex. 1002, 123, 131.) And the claimed decoding the bar codes to recover the data
`
`tags and data items would have been obvious to a skilled artisan based on
`
`Bushnell’s discussion of using Application Identifiers to “indicate to the scanning
`
`system what kind of information is being presented in the field of data being
`
`scanned.” (Ex. 1004, [15]; Ex. 1001, 46.)
`
`As explained below, combinations of Bushnell and Multicode disclose or
`
`render obvious every limitation of claims 16, 18, and 19 of the ’586 patent.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the Board institute review of the ’586 patent
`
`and cancel these claims.
`
`II.
`
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged
`
` Claims for Which Review Is Requested A.
`Petitioner requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 16, 18, and 19 of
`
`the ’586 patent and cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds
`
`B.
`
`Claims 16, 18, and 19 of the ’586 patent are unpatentable and should be
`
`cancelled in view of the following grounds and prior art references:
`
`Prior Art References
`
`Ref. 1: Bushnell (Ex. 1002); published 1996; prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(a) and (b).
`
`–5–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 11
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`Prior Art References
`
`Ref. 2: Multicode (Ex. 1003); published February 1996; prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).
`
`
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Bushnell and Multicode render obvious claims 16, 18, and 19 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
` The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Institute this Petition III.
`
`
`Petitioner filed a prior IPR petition (Ex. 1008) regarding the ’586 patent for
`
`which review of claims 16, 18, and 19 was not instituted (Ex. 1012). The Board
`
`should exercise its discretionary power to institute review of these claims here.
`
`Whether the Board should exercise its discretionary power to grant a second
`
`petition depends on the circumstances of the case. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see also
`
`Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Proctor & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506, Paper
`
`25, 3-4 (Dec. 10, 2014). As explained below, many reasons justify institution of
`
`this petition.
`
`This petition presents a single, focused ground based on two new prior art
`
`references that convincingly disclose and/or render obvious the claimed “means for
`
`–6–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 12
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`decoding the plurality of bar codes to recover the respective data tags and data
`
`items” on which the Board stated its decision not to institute “hinge[d].” (Ex. 1012,
`
`6.)
`
`The disclosures and arguments in this Petition are substantially different
`
`from the first petition. In the Decision, the Board found that the structure Petitioner
`
`proposed in construing the claimed “means for decoding” was deficient for failing
`
`to address the algorithm disclosed in the ’586 patent. (Ex. 1012, 8.) The Board
`
`concluded that a proper construction of the claimed “means for decoding”
`
`includes, as its structure, the algorithm described at 5:40–48 of the ’586 patent.
`
`This Petition adopts the construction deemed proper by the Board and relies on two
`
`new references, Bushnell and Multicode, to demonstrate that, under this
`
`construction, the systems recited by claims 16, 18, and 19 would have been
`
`obvious to a skilled artisan.
`
`Because neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner explicitly advanced a claim
`
`construction position requiring this algorithm in the first petition, Petitioner did not
`
`seek art to address this algorithm. Addressing a construction of an element from a
`
`first petition using new art in a second petition does not amount to harassment of
`
`the Patent Owner. To the extent Patent Owner argues that this Petition is a “second
`
`bite[] at the apple,” this alone is insufficient to deny a petition based on new art.
`
`See Institution Decision, Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.
`
`–7–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 13
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2015-01872 at 15-16 (P.T.A.B. March 14, 2016)
`
`(Paper 10). Petitioner, therefore, respectfully requests that the Board consider the
`
`Petition on the merits and exercise its discretion to institute review.
`
`III.
`
`’586 Patent Overview
`
`The ’586 patent was filed on March 9, 2012, as U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 13/417,128. (Ex. 1001.) Its earliest claimed priority date is May 30, 2001. (Id.)
`
`The ’586 patent describes methods and systems for “creating electronic
`
`and/or printed documents with tagged bar coded information” that can be “decoded
`
`from a variety of video displays and/or printed media.” (Ex. 1004, [35]-[36];
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:19-24.) Such “tagged bar codes,” the ’586 patent teaches, may
`
`facilitate “data interchange” between a sender and a receiver. (Ex. 1001, 3:20-21.)
`
`The bar codes of the ’586 patent may take linear or two-dimensional
`
`formats. (Id., 4:35-38.) The ’586 patent expressly contemplates the bar codes
`
`taking “standardized” formats. (Id.)
`
`According
`
`to
`
`the ’586 patent, a sender may “create an electronic
`
`document...with tagged bar codes.” (Id., 4:50-65.) An electronic document is a
`
`“document,” created using “software,” that “contain[s] electronic representations
`
`of bar coded information.” (Id., 5:1-3.) The sender may use “MICROSOFT
`
`EXCEL or WORD on a PC to create an electronic document.” (Id., 4:65-5:1.)
`
`“[S]uch software,” the ’586 patent teaches, “creates electronic documents...through
`
`–8–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 14
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`the use of bar code fonts that reside on the local computer and are commonly
`
`available today.” (Id., 5:1-6.)
`
`According to the ’586 patent, the tagged bar codes include “data tags” that
`
`are “used to identify data.” (Id., 6:3-4.) The identified data are referred to as “data
`
`items.” (Id., 6:3-4; Ex. 1004, [36].)
`
`An example electronic document is shown in Figure B. (Ex. 1001, Figure 2;
`
`Ex. 1004, [37]-[40].) Figure B depicts data tags in the form of “function key tags.”
`
`Data
`Tag
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Data
`Field
`Data
`Tag
`
`Data
`Field
`
`Data Item
`
`Data Item
`
`Bar Code
`
`Bar Code
`
`Figure B: Annotated ’586 Patent Figure 2
`Depicting Data Tags, Data Items, Data Fields, and Bar Codes
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 15
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`As shown, the data tags (annotated in green) include the function key tags
`
`“F01” and “F02,” and the data items (annotated in orange) include the data
`
`“Bruce” and “Smith.” (Ex. 1004, [37]-[40].)
`
`In particular, the data tag for the data item “Bruce” is “F01,” and the data tag
`
`for the data item “Smith” is “F02.” (Id.) The data items may take the form of data
`
`used to populate “data fields” (annotated in purple), including “first name” and
`
`“last name.” (Id.) The data tags and data items are encoded into bar codes
`
`(annotated in red). (Id.)
`
`The ’586 patent also teaches that the data tags may take the form of
`
`alphabetical tags, as illustrated in Figure C. (Id., [41]-[43].)
`
`Data Tag
`
`Data Tag
`
`Data Item
`Data Item
`
`Figure C: Annotated ’586 Patent Figure 8
`Depicting Data Tags and Data Identifiers
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 16
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`As shown, the data tag (annotated in green) for the data item “Smith”
`
`(annotated in orange) is “DAB,” and the data tag (annotated in green) for the data
`
`item “John” (annotated in orange) is “DAC.” (Id.)
`
`The ’586 patent teaches that a receiver may “scan...documents with a...bar
`
`code reader to capture tagged bar coded information.” (Ex. 1001, 5:62-64.) A
`
`“parsing and data cache application” then “use[s] logic and computer routines to
`
`identify the scanned bar coded data by…tag[],’” (e.g., the data tags annotated in
`
`green above), “match the scanned bar coded data to the appropriate field in
`
`[another] electronic document,” “strip the…tag[]” (e.g., the data tags annotated in
`
`green above), and “input the stripped bar coded data into the appropriate field in
`
`[the other] electronic document.” (Id., 5:43-48; Ex. 1004, [45]-[46].)
`
`The claims of the ’586 patent recite receiving and decoding electronic
`
`documents including these well-known tagged bar codes. (11:4-12 (claim 16),
`
`11:16-18 (claim 18), and 11:19-21 (claim 19)).
`
`Claim 16, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, recites:
`
`16. A system, comprising a processor, for data interchange, the system
`comprising:
`
`means for receiving an electronic document comprising a plurality of
`bar codes, wherein the plurality of bar codes encode respective
`data tags and data items, and wherein at least one of the data tags
`includes an identifier identifying one of the data items; and
`
`–11–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 17
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`means for decoding the plurality of bar codes to recover the respective
`data tags and data items.
`
` The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art IV.
`
`
`Factors defining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the types of
`
`problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`(3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of
`
`technology; and (5) the educational level of active workers in the field. See In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`Based on these factors, a person of ordinary skill at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’586 patent would have held at least a Bachelor’s Degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Supply Chain or Logistics
`
`Management, or the industry equivalent thereof, and approximately two or more
`
`years of industry experience in the field of bar code technology, or the academic
`
`equivalent thereof. (Ex. 1004, [50].) Such a person would have been familiar with
`
`the standardized bar code symbologies and formats in use at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’586 patent. (Id.)
`
` Claim Construction V.
`
`
`A claim in an unexpired patent “shall be given its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`–12–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 18
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in the context of the specification. Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`
`2131, 2142 (2016). “The PTO should also consult the patent’s prosecution history
`
`in [IPR] proceedings.” Microsoft v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015).
`
`In this proceeding, Petitioner submits that the claim terms of the ’586 patent
`
`should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the disclosure.1
`
`Claim 16 contains means-plus-function limitations. (Ex. 1001, 11:4-12.) The
`
`tables below provide Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these limitations.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), Petitioner identifies the portions of the
`
`specification that “describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each
`
`claimed function” in the tables below. Where the function is implemented by a
`
`computer, the corresponding structure identifies the algorithm disclosed in the
`
`specification. See Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Party Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d
`
`
`1 While FedEx believes that additional claim terms may warrant
`
`construction, any such terms do not affect the analysis in this Petition. Additional
`
`terms may be construed in the related district court litigation.
`
`–13–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 19
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241,
`
`1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`For the Board’s reference, the tables below provide, in addition to
`
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions for this petition, constructions previously
`
`advanced by Petitioner in an earlier petition (Ex. 1008) and by Patent Owner and
`
`Petitioner in the related district court litigation (Exs. 1009, 1011).
`
`–14–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 20
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`Term: “means for receiving an electronic document comprising a plurality
`of bar codes, wherein the plurality of bar codes encode respective
`data tags and data items, and wherein at least one of the data tags
`includes an identifier identifying one of the data items”
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction in Earlier Petition
`Ex. 1001, 5:62-63 (“high scan rate LED bar code reader”); 10:52-56 (“bar
`code scanner”); Ex. 1001, 5:14-18 (“computer”); Figure 7 (“software
`application”). (Ex. 1008, 11.)
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction in District Court
`Function: receiving an electronic document comprising a plurality of bar
`codes
`Structure: a computer accessing a library (which may use a local hard drive
`or network hard drive), a computer accessing email, or a computer accessing
`an Internet web page on a web server
`(Ex. 1009, 45.)
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction in District Court
`Function: receiving an electronic document comprising a plurality of bar
`codes.
`Structure: a computer configured with software to open an electronic
`document from a hard drive, an email, or an Internet web page on a web
`server
`(Ex. 1011, 63-65.)
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction in this Petition
`Function: receiving an electronic document comprising a plurality of bar
`codes.
`Structure: a computer configured with software to open an electronic
`document from a hard drive, an email, or an Internet web page on a web
`server
`Ex. 1001, 3:20-27, 4:6-8, 4:13-15, 4:18-20, 5:9-19, 7:23-40, 7:54-58, Claims
`1, 16 and Figs. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and accompanying disclosure. Ex. 1010,
`6:14-15.
`
`
`–15–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 21
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`Term: “means for decoding the plurality of bar codes to recover the
`respective data tags and data items”
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction in First Petition
`Ex. 1001, 5:40-42, Figure 6, and Figure 9 (“parsing and data cache
`application”). (Ex. 1008, 11.)
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction in District Court
`Function: decoding the two or more bar codes to recover the respective data
`tags and data items.
`Structure: parsing and data cache application in combination with a bar
`code scanner or a high scan rate LED bar code reader.
`(Ex. 1009, 47-48.)
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction in District Court
`Function: decoding the plurality of bar codes to recover the respective data
`tags and data items.
`Structure: bar code scanner or high scan rate LED bar code reader
`connected to a computer configured with a parsing and data cache
`application that identifies the scanned bar coded data by data tag, matches
`the scanned bar coded data to the appropriate field in another electronic
`document, strips the data tag, and inputs the stripped bar coded data into the
`appropriate field in the other electronic document .
`See Ex. 1011, 65-66.
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction for this Petition
`Function: decoding the plurality of bar codes to recover the respective data
`tags and data items.
`Structure: bar code scanner or high scan rate LED bar code reader
`connected to a computer configured with a parsing and data cache
`application that identifies the scanned bar coded data by data tag, matches
`the scanned bar coded data to the appropriate field in another electronic
`document, strips the data tag, and inputs the stripped bar coded data into the
`appropriate field in the other electronic document.
`Ex. 1001, 3:20-28, 3:37-47, 4:39-49, 5:20-53, 5:62-63, 6:37-39, Claims 12,
`13, 16, 19, Figs 1, 4, 6, 9 and accompanying disclosures. Ex. 1010, 5:61-63.
`
`
`–16–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 22
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
` Ground 1: The combination of Bushnell and Multicode renders Obvious
`VI.
`Claims 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
` Overview of Bushnell
`A.
`Bushnell is a printed publication
`i.
`
`Bushnell was published in 1999 by Quad II, Inc., as indicated on its title
`
`page. (Ex. 1002, Title Page.)
`
`Filed with this petition is a declaration from Richard D. Bushnell, a co-
`
`author of Bushnell. (Ex. 1013) Mr. Bushnell declares that Bushnell was published
`
`by his company, Quad II, Inc., in 1999. (Id., [2]-[3].) Mr. Bushnell declares that he
`
`has personal knowledge that, in 1999 and 2000, Bushnell was provided to
`
`approximately thousands of professionals in the telephone industry who attended
`
`seminars and lectures and to approximately hundreds of professionals who
`
`attended by industry educational events sponsored by the Material Handling
`
`Institute and the Automatic Identification Manufacturers. (Id., [4]-[5].) Mr.
`
`Bushnell approximates that several thousand copies of Bushnell were sold. (Id.,
`
`[6].)
`
`Also filed with this petition is a declaration of Mark Reboulet. (Ex. 1014).
`
`Mr. Reboulet declares that in 1999 and 2000, he coordinated several United States
`
`Air Force Bar Code Seminars attended by members of the Air Force and other
`
`members of the Armed Services working in the area of bar code technology,
`
`including members of the Air Force Automatic Identification Technology Program
`
`–17–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 23
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`Office and contractors working on Air Force and Department of Defense automatic
`
`identification and data capture projects. (Id. [3]-[4].) According to Mr. Reboulet,
`
`these seminars were additionally attended by other industry professionals working
`
`in bar code technology, including professionals from Intermec Corporation,
`
`Symbol Technologies Inc., and CDO Technologies. (Id.) Per Mr. Reboulet’s
`
`records, the seminars welcomed 267 attendees in 1999 and 345 attendees in 2000
`
`and, as Mr. Reboulet declares, these attendees were provided with a copy of
`
`Bushnell. (Id., [5]-[6].)
`
`Also filed with this petition is a declaration of Emily R. Florio, Director of
`
`Library Services at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP.
`
`(Ex. 1016.) Ms. Florio declares that, based on a Machine-Readable Cataloging
`
`(“MARC”) records obtained from the Rochester Institute of Technology Wallace
`
`Memorial Library (“RIT”) (attached as Exhibit A to her declaration) and from the
`
`Stony Brook University Library (attached as Exhibit B to her declaration),
`
`Bushnell was catalogued and publicly available at each of RIT and Stony Brook in
`
`August 1999. (Id., [9]-[16].)
`
`Using Bar Codes for Data Interchange
`ii.
`
`Bushnell is a “guidebook…to assist anyone who is contemplating the
`
`implementation of a bar code system.” (Ex. 1002, 1.) According to Bushnell, bar
`
`codes permit “[e]nhanced electronic communication.” (Id., 27.)
`
`–18–
`
`Exhibit 2120 Page 24
`
`

`

`Paper No. ____
`United States Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`Bushnell describes the “purpose” of “bar code” as “providing computer-to-
`
`computer communication that reduces the human factor and is in a form acceptable
`
`for direct entry into the receiving computer.” (Ex. 1004, [60]; Ex. 1002, 151.) For
`
`instance, Bushnell teaches, “[t]he bar code can be produced (printed) by Computer
`
`A and then read into Computer B without error.” (Ex. 1002, 151.) In this manner,
`
`bar codes “avoid[] the cost, lag time and errors associated with manual data entry.”
`
`(Id., 174.)
`
`Bushnell describes using bar codes in a number of applications, including
`
`“shipping” and “receiving.” (Ex. 1004, [61]; Ex.