throbber
Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`FEDEX CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00859
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`TITLE: SYSTEMS FOR TAGGED BAR CODE DATA INTERCHANGE
`Issue Date: June 2, 2015
`
`__________________
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC’S
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 1
`
`IV Exhibit 2105
`FedEx v. IV
`Case IPR2017-02043
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’586 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION .................................................................. 5
`
`A. Overview Of ANSI ................................................................................. 6
`
`B. Overview Of Ett .................................................................................... 7
`
`C. Overview Of UPS .................................................................................. 8
`
`D.
`
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ....................................................... 9
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10
`
`A. Means-Plus-Function Limitations ....................................................... 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“means for receiving an electronic document comprising
`a plurality of bar codes” ............................................................ 10
`
`“means for decoding the plurality of bar codes to recover
`the respective data tags and data items” ................................... 15
`
`V.
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION ON GROUNDS 2
`AND 3 BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY
`SHOWN THAT UPS WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE .............................. 18
`
`INSTITUTION ON ALL
`VI. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY
`GROUNDS AS TO CHALLENGED CLAIMS 16, 18, AND 19
`BECAUSE THE PRIOR ART DOES NOT TEACH, DISCLOSE, OR
`SUGGEST A “MEANS FOR RECEIVING AN ELECTRONIC
`DOCUMENT COMPRISING A PLURALITY OF BAR CODES” ............ 24
`
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION ON GROUND 1
`BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT
`OBVIOUS OVER ANSI IN VIEW OF ETT ................................................. 29
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`A.
`
`ANSI And Ett, Either Alone Or In Combination, Do Not Teach
`“Sending” Or “Receiving” “An Electronic Document Having
`[Or Comprising] A Plurality Of Bar Codes.” (All Challenged
`Claims) ................................................................................................ 30
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`ANSI pertains exclusively to printed documents, and
`therefore, does not teach, suggest, or disclose “an
`electronic document having a plurality of bar codes.” ............. 31
`
`Ett does not teach “an electronic document having or
`comprising a plurality of bar codes” or “sending” or
`“receiving” such an electronic document. ................................ 31
`
`i.
`
`
`
`
` ii.
`
`
`
` iii.
`
`iv.
`
`
`
`Ett does not teach—and indeed teaches away
`from—an “electronic document having a plurality
`of bar codes.” .................................................................. 32
`
`Ett’s “bit map” is not “an electronic document
`having [or comprising] a plurality of bar codes.” .......... 34
`
`Ett’s “decoded bar code information [] provided
`for display on a screen” is not “an electronic
`document having a plurality of bar codes.” .................... 37
`
`Ett’s “image of the code pattern [that] may be
`viewed as it is generated” is not “an electronic
`document having a plurality of bar codes” and it is
`not sent or received. ........................................................ 37
`
`B. A POSA Would Not Have Combined ANSI And Ett To Arrive
`At The Claimed Invention. .................................................................. 39
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated That ANSI And Ett Render
`Obvious The Challenged Claims As A Whole. .................................. 44
`
`VIII. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION ON GROUND 2
`BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT
`OBVIOUS OVER ANSI IN VIEW OF UPS ................................................. 45
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`A.
`
`ANSI And UPS, Either Alone Or In Combination, Do Not
`Teach All Of The Elements Of Any Challenged Claim In
`Ground 2 .............................................................................................. 45
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 7 and 16: “an electronic document having [or
`comprising] a plurality of bar codes.” ...................................... 45
`
`Claim 7: “A computer-readable storage device storing
`computer executable instructions that are executable by a
`computer system to cause the computer system to
`perform operations for data interchange” ................................. 47
`
`3.
`
`Claim 16: “a processor, for data interchange” .......................... 48
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated That ANSI And UPS Render
`Obvious The Challenged Claims As A Whole. .................................. 49
`
`IX. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION ON GROUND 3
`BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT
`OBVIOUS OVER ANSI IN VIEW OF ETT AND UPS ............................... 50
`
`X.
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION ON GROUNDS 2
`AND 3 AS REDUNDANT TO GROUND 1. ............................................... 52
`
`XI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 54
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`Cases
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 39
`
`Aker Biomarine AS v. Neptune Techs. & Bioresources, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00003, Paper No. 106 (PTAB July 8, 2015) ......................... 52
`
`CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-00636, Paper 97 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2016) ................................. 21
`
`Coalition for Affordable Drugs IV LLC v. Pharmacyclics, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01076, Paper 33 PTAB Oct. 19, 2015) ................................. 19
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`Case IPR2013-00505, Paper 9 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2014) .................................. 52
`
`Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.,
`Case IPR2013-00048, Paper 94 (PTAB May 9, 2014) ................................. 42
`
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelectronics Int'l, Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................... 30
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc. v. Pozen Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-00802, Paper 28 (PTAB Oct. 9, 2015) ........................... 33, 43
`
`Front Row Techs., LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P.,
`Case IPR2015-01932, Paper 7 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2016) ................................. 41
`
`Gracenote, Inc. v. Iceberg Indus. LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00551, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 28, 2014) .................................. 18
`
`HTC Corp. v. Cellular Comms. Equip. LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01503, Paper 7 PTAB Feb. 13, 2017) ................................... 18
`
`Hyundai Motor Co. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01477, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2017) ................................ 42
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`Case CBM2016-00087, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2016) ............................... 42
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 33
`
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 20
`
`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 39
`
`Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`Case IPR2016-00609, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2016) .......................... 41, 42
`
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2014) ................................. 46
`
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00690, Paper 43 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2015) ................................ 23
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. Rosetta-Wireless Corp.,
`Case IPR2016-01516, Paper 23 (PTAB Feb. 3, 2017) .................................. 19
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Inc.,
`Case CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ............................... 52
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 29
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Software, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01300, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 4, 2017) ........................... 19, 23
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC,
`662 Fed. App’x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) ............................. 41
`
`Otto Bock Healthcare LP v. Össur HF,
`557 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential) ................................. 11
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 29
`
`v
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................. 33, 42
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`357 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................. 44, 49
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP,
`Case IPR2014-00890, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 10, 2014) ................................. 23
`
`Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`752 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 19, 20
`
`Symantec Corp. v. The Trustees of Columbia Univ.,
`Case IPR2015-00370, Paper 13 (PTAB June 17, 2015) ........................ 18, 20
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1,
`Case IPR2016-01442, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2017) .................................. 41
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................ 19, 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................. 2, 44, 49
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ............................................................................................ 10, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`Rules
`
`FED. R. EVID. 801 ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`FED. R. EVID. 802 ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.57(d) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`vi
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 29
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) .............................................................................................. 52
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 .............................................................................................. 42, 46
`
`vii
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`IV Exhibit No.
`2001
`2002
`
`DESCRIPTION
`U.S. Patent No. 7,070,103 to Melick, et al.
`Declaration of Daniel W. Engels, Ph.D.
`
`viii
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“IV”) submits this preliminary
`
`response to the Petition (Paper 2, the “Petition”) FedEx Corp. (“Petitioner”) filed
`
`on February 2, 2017. The Petition challenges claims 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 19
`
`(collectively, the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586 (Ex. 1001,
`
`“the ’586 patent”) on three grounds of alleged unpatentability. Those grounds are:
`
`(1)
`
`obviousness of claims 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 19 over American
`
`National Standard for Material Handling—Unit Loads and Transport
`
`Packages—Two-Dimensional
`
`Symbols, ANSI MH10.8.3M1996
`
`(“ANSI”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,298,731 to Ett (“Ett”)
`
`(2)
`
`obviousness of claims 7, 12, 16, 18, and 19 over ANSI in view of
`
`Guide to Bar Coding with UPS For Customers Generating Bar Code
`
`Labels, Version III (“UPS”); and
`
`(3)
`
`obviousness of claims 8 and 13 over ANSI in view of Ett and UPS.
`
`IV has timely filed this preliminary response within three months of March 9,
`
`2017, the Notice of Filing Date Accorded. (Paper 5.)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In contrast to the ’586 patent, Petitioner’s references have nothing to do with
`
`facilitating and improving data interchange using electronic documents having a
`
`plurality of bar codes. Instead, those references relate to printed shipping labels
`
`with bar codes (ANSI and UPS) and converting two data streams into a single
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`printed bar code pattern (Ett). Those references do not, alone or in combination,
`
`render obvious the ’586 patent’s claims because they lack—and even teach away
`
`from—critical elements of all of the challenged claims. Accordingly, IV
`
`respectfully requests that the Board deny institution.
`
`As a threshold issue, Petitioner fails to show that at least one of its
`
`references (UPS) is a prior art printed publication. Notwithstanding that fatal
`
`deficiency, Petitioner also has not shown that it is reasonably likely to prevail on
`
`any of its three grounds. Significantly, Petitioner’s references do not teach or
`
`suggest every element of any challenged claim. For example, none of the
`
`references teaches “sending” or a “means for receiving” an “electronic document
`
`having [or comprising] a plurality of bar codes”—elements that every challenged
`
`claim requires. One of Petitioner’s references, Ett, even teaches away from “an
`
`electronic document having a plurality of bar codes” because Ett is directed to a
`
`system for combining two data streams—not electronic documents—to print one
`
`bar code. A person of ordinary of skill in the art, therefore, would not have relied
`
`on Ett in combination of either ANSI or UPS to arrive at the claimed invention,
`
`which requires “an electronic document having [or comprising] a plurality of bar
`
`codes.” Indeed, Petitioner’s approach on all three grounds is inconsistent with
`
`obviousness, which requires investigating the “claimed invention as a whole.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. None of the references Petitioner relies on in the Petition would
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`have taught, suggested, or motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine those references to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner is not likely to prevail on any of its
`
`three grounds. The Board should, therefore, deny the Petition in its entirety.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’586 PATENT
`
`The ’586 patent titled “Systems for Tagged Bar Code Data Interchange”
`
`issued on June 2, 2015. (Ex. 1001.) The application leading to the ’586 patent
`
`(No. 13/417,128) was filed on March 9, 2012 and claims priority to a provisional
`
`application (No. 60/294,375) filed on May 30, 2001.
`
`The ’586 patent provides novel systems and devices for bar code data
`
`interchange. (Ex. 1001, at 3:20-21; Ex. 2002 ¶ 31.) Those systems and devices
`
`are used to create electronic documents with a plurality of bar codes, capture and
`
`decode bar coded information (including tagged information should the bar codes
`
`include such tagged information), and input and store the bar coded information.
`
`(Id. at abstract; Ex. 2002 ¶ 31.) At bottom, they facilitate data interchange between
`
`a sender and a receiver of an electronic document who may be using different
`
`computers, software, and/or operating systems with minimal or no use of
`
`expensive and sophisticated middleware. (Id. at 3:20-21.)
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`In a preferred embodiment, a user creates an electronic document with
`
`tagged bar codes1—i.e., bar codes having data encoded into them. (Ex. 1001, at
`
`4:39-49.) Figure 2 depicts an example of such an electronic document having a
`
`plurality of bar codes:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, at Fig. 2.) Consistent with the preferred embodiment, each of the
`
`challenged claims requires a system or device that sends or receives an electronic
`
`document comprising a plurality of barcodes. (E.g., id. at claim 7 (“sending the
`
`1 The bar codes in the electronic document may be tagged by using a style sheet
`
`file, as depicted in Figure 3 of the patent. (Ex. 1001, at Fig. 3; Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 36-37.)
`
`That style sheet file defines the bar coded data tags. (Ex. 1001, at 3:37-47.) For
`
`example, in the style sheet depicted in Figure 3, “F01”, “F02”, and “F03” are data
`
`tags that encode information concerning customers’ first names, last names, and
`
`ages, respectively.
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`electronic document”); claim 16 (“means for receiving an electronic document
`
`comprising a plurality of bar codes”).
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION
`
`The Petition presents three grounds of alleged unpatentability:
`
` Ground 1: Obviousness of claims 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 19 over
`
`ANSI in view of Ett.
`
` Ground 2: Obviousness of claims 7, 12, 16, 18, and 19 over ANSI in
`
`view of UPS.
`
` Ground 3: Obviousness of claims 8 and 13 over ANSI in view of UPS
`
`and Ett.
`
`Those grounds are depicted as follows:
`
`Grounds
`
`Cl. 7 Cl. 8 Cl. 12 Cl. 13 Cl. 16 Cl. 18 Cl. 19
`
`Ground 1:
`
`ANSI + Ett
`
`Ground 2:
`
`ANSI + UPS
`
`Ground 3:
`
`ANSI + Ett + UPS
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`X
`
`
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`X
`
`
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`A. Overview Of ANSI
`
`
`
`ANSI provides a standardized format for two-dimensional bar code symbols
`
`that are printed on labels used in unit loads and transport packages. (Ex. 1002, §
`
`1.1.) ANSI specifies the structure, syntax, and coding of messages and data
`
`formats when using two-dimensional symbols. That standardized format includes
`
`an “enveloping structure” of an encoded data stream, which includes one or more
`
`“Message Envelopes.” Those message envelopes include one or more “Format
`
`Envelopes.” (Ex. 1002, at Fig. 1.) ANSI describes the rules used to encode data
`
`within that enveloping structure. (Ex. 1002, § 3.)
`
`Petitioner asserts, relying on what purports to be a separate factual
`
`declaration from its “expert” declarant Mark Reboulet (“the Second Reboulet
`
`Declaration”), that ANSI was “publicly available at least as early as August 1996.”
`
`(Petition at 12.) Although Petitioner has not met its burden to show that ANSI was
`
`a “printed publication” before the priority date of the ’586 patent as 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102 and 311 require, ANSI’s critical deficiencies do not require IV to address
`
`that failure of proof at this juncture because those deficiencies mean Petitioner is
`
`not reasonably likely to prevail on any ground.
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`B. Overview Of Ett
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,298,731 to Ett, titled “Method for Printing and Reading
`
`for Orthogonal Bar Code Patterns” issued on March 29, 1994. (Ex. 1003.) Ett
`
`issued from an application (No. 996,292) filed on December 23, 1992.
`
`Ett generally relates to a system and method for incorporating two data
`
`streams into a single, printed bar code pattern. (Ex. 1003, at 1:27-1:42; Ex. 2002 ¶
`
`48.) Ett’s purported invention is designed to combine known orthogonal (bar)
`
`coding approaches to allow for either (1) more bar coding characters in the same
`
`physical space or (2) permit conveying the same information for greater reliability.
`
`(Ex. 1003, at 1:27-1:42.) To achieve that goal, Ett describes inputting two data
`
`streams into a data processing system and supplying those streams “to the logic of
`
`a bar code generator which produces the required graphics code or control codes
`
`for an attached printer to print the desired code pattern” as a single bar code. (Id.
`
`at 1:61-2:4.) Ett’s system is specifically designed to combine two code streams—
`
`one code stream representing the linear domain along the code pattern (width of
`
`bars and spaces) and the other representing the vertical modulation (height of
`
`bars)—into one combined pattern. (See id. at 1:6-46; Ex. 2002 ¶ 50.) Ett offers
`
`two alternative ways of creating and printing that bar code pattern using a
`
`computer:
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`The data is converted into two streams of binary data if
`
`required, and supplied to either a graphic generator which
`
`produces a graphic image of the combined bar code for
`
`transfer to the printer via a device driver, or alternatively
`
`may generate a series of escape codes and character
`
`codes to permit the printer to print the bars in the
`
`prescribed location, width and height by means of a
`
`special character set stored in the printer.
`
`(Ex. 1003, at 2:20-27; Ex. 2002 ¶ 49.)
`
`C. Overview Of UPS
`
`UPS describes specifications for UPS customers who need to generate bar
`
`code and Maxicode labels to affix to packages for shipping. (Ex. 1004, at 3; Ex.
`
`2002 ¶ 57.) Those specifications generally provide the parameters for a shipping
`
`label, including font sizes and placement of various elements on the label. (Ex.
`
`1004; Ex. 2002 ¶ 57.) To that end, UPS provides information about different types
`
`of bar codes and the data that they encode. (E.g., Ex. 1004 at 8-15, 38-44.)
`
`Petitioner alleges that UPS is a printed publication that United Parcel
`
`Service (“UPS”) authored and published in January 1996. (Petition at 64.) In
`
`attempting to prove that UPS was publicly available prior to the effective filing
`
`date, Petitioner relies on an August 28, 2009 deposition transcript of Mark
`
`Lewis—a former UPS employee—in the unrelated case Bartex Research, LLC v.
`
`FedEx Corp., No. 6:07-cv-00385 (E.D. Tex.). (Petition at 64; Ex. 1012 (the
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`“Lewis Transcript”).) Based exclusively on the Lewis Transcript, Petitioner
`
`alleges that “UPS was published in January 1996, and 50,000 copies were
`
`distributed to third-party shipping system providers and customers with no
`
`restriction on distribution or requirement of confidentiality.” (Petition at 64 (citing
`
`Ex. 1012, at 59-60).) However, notwithstanding the hearsay issues associated with
`
`that deposition transcript, Petitioner completely fails to provide any proof that the
`
`Lewis Transcript even relates to UPS, Exhibit 1004 in this Inter Partes Review.
`
`As discussed further below in Section V, Petitioner has not met its burden of even
`
`a preliminary showing that UPS was a “printed publication” as of the priority date
`
`of the ’586 patent as 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311 require.
`
`D. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter
`
`“POSA”) at the time of the 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.” (Petition at 9-10.) While IV does not necessarily
`
`agree with that level of ordinary skill, for the purposes of evaluating the Petition,
`
`IV contends it does not meaningfully affect the analysis herein, and will apply it.
`
`IV reserves the right to challenge that definition should trial be instituted.
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`Aside from identifying and construing claim limitations governed by 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112(6), Petitioner does not offer any specific claim constructions for any
`
`terms. IV has not presented all of its claim construction and validity arguments in
`
`this preliminary response. If the Board institutes trial, IV reserves the right to raise
`
`claim construction arguments in its Patent Owner’s response.
`
`A. Means-Plus-Function Limitations
`
`There are two means-plus-function limitations in claim 16. (Petition at 11.)
`
`Petitioner purports to “identify the specific portions of the specification that
`
`describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.”
`
`(Id.) See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). But the structures that Petitioner identifies for
`
`each limitation are inconsistent with the ’586 patent specification and claims.
`
`1.
`
`“means for receiving an electronic document comprising a
`plurality of bar codes”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed list of structures for claim 16’s “means for receiving
`
`an electronic document comprising a plurality of bar codes” is incorrect.
`
`Petitioner identifies “high scan rate LED bar code reader,” “bar code scanner,”
`
`“computer,” and “software application” as the corresponding structures. (Petition
`
`at 11.) But the ’586 patent intrinsic record—which includes patents that the ’586
`
`patent specification incorporates by reference—demonstrates that the proper
`
`structures corresponding to that limitation are (i) a computer accessing a library
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`that may use a local hard drive, or a network hard drive, (ii) a computer accessing
`
`email, or (iii) a computer accessing an internet web page on a web server. (See
`
`Ex. 1001, at 5:10-15; Ex. 2001,2 at Abstract, 6:14-15.)
`
`Claim Term
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`Structures
`
`high scan rate LED bar
`code reader
`
`or
`
`IV’s Proposed Structures
`
`a computer accessing a library
`(which may use a local hard
`drive or network hard drive)
`(Ex. 1001, at 5:10-15; see also
`id. at 7:37-40)
`
`“means for receiving an
`electronic document
`comprising a plurality
`of bar codes”
`
`bar code scanner
`
`or
`
`or
`
`computer
`
`or
`
`software application
`
`a computer accessing email
`(Id.; see also id. at 7:23-40,
`7:54-58)
`
`or
`
`a computer accessing an
`Internet web page on a web
`server (Ex. 2001, at 6:14-15)
`
`
`2 The application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,070,103 to Melick et al. (Ex.
`
`2001) is incorporated by reference into the ’586 patent specification (Ex. 1001, at
`
`2:29-36), and helps define the corresponding structure for the “means for
`
`receiving.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(d); Otto Bock Healthcare LP v. Össur HF, 557 F.
`
`App’x 950, 955-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential) (“In fact, 37 C.F.R. 1.57(d)
`
`specifically envisions using a U.S. patent application incorporated by reference to
`
`define structure for the purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.”).
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’586 patent specification demonstrates that IV’s proposed structures are
`
`correct. First, a computer accessing a library that may use a local or network hard
`
`drive and a computer accessing email are expressly described in the ’586 patent
`
`specification itself as a means for receiving an electronic document having a
`
`plurality of bar codes. The patent describes opening electronic document “A”
`
`(which comprises a plurality of bar codes) in a computer window. (Ex. 1001, at
`
`5:14-15.) The patent describes how that electronic document was transmitted and
`
`ultimately, received:
`
`Electronic document “A” 103 is posted 104, to a
`
`library 110. Library 110 may use a local hard drive 111,
`
`or network hard drive 113 to store electronic document
`
`“A” 103. Optionally, electronic document “A” 103 may
`
`be e-mailed to a selected user 112.
`
`(Ex. 1001, at 5:10-13.) In other words, the patent describes the means for
`
`receiving the electronic document as a computer accessing a library (which may
`
`use a local hard drive or a network hard drive) or a computer accessing email. (See
`
`also id. at 7:23-40, 7:54-58.) Figure 1 depicts those corresponding structures:
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 21
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, at Fig. 1 (excerpted and annotations added).)
`
`
`
`Second, U.S. Patent No. 7,070,103 (“the incorporated ’103 patent”)
`
`discloses an additional structure for this limitation. Indeed, the incorporated ’103
`
`patent explains that “the electronic bar coded document [comprising a plurality of
`
`bar codes] could reside on an Internet web page on a web server.” (Ex. 2001, at
`
`6:14-15.)
`
`Importantly, IV’s proposed structures are consistent with the ’586 patent’s
`
`invention. The ’586 patent allows business to “be conducted on-line using e-mail
`
`transmissions of video displayed tagged bar coded information.” (Ex. 1001, at
`
`abstract.) For example, electronic document “A” which is described as an
`
`electronic document with tagged bar codes (see Ex. 1001, at 4:64-65, Fig. 2), could
`
`be “an electronic patient’s chart containing bar coded information . . . available on
`
`any computer display in the hospital.” (Ex. 1001, at 7:37-40 (emphasis added).)
`
`That application utilizes a computer accessing a library on a network hard drive or
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 2105 Page 22
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`
`
`
`
`
`a local area network to enable the doctor to “receive” the electronic document as he
`
`“makes his daily rounds.” (Ex. 1001, at 7:23-41; Ex. 2002 ¶ 38.) In a different
`
`application, electronic document “A” could be “an electronic prescription
`
`containing bar coded information . . . e-mailed to the pharmacy with bar coded
`
`information relating to the patient information and medication required.” (Ex.
`
`1001, at 7:54-58 (emphasis added).) Thus, the ’586 patent describes the “means
`
`for receiving an electronic document comprising a plurality of bar codes” as a
`
`computer accessing a library (using a local or network hard drive), a computer
`
`accessing email, or a computer accessing an Internet web page on a web server.
`
`By contrast, at least some of the structures Petitioner identifies (e.g., the “bar
`
`code scanner” and the “high scan rate LED bar code reader”) do not ever receive
`
`an electronic document. Instead, they decode the bar codes. That function—
`
`decoding—corresponds to a different means-plus-function element of claim 16:
`
`“means for decoding the plurality of bar codes to recover the respective data tags
`
`and data items.” Claim 12 itself confirms that the bar code scanner performs this
`
`different decoding function. Claim 12 requires that “sending the electronic
`
`document for decoding of the first one of the plurality of bar codes comprises
`
`sending the electronic document for decoding of the first one of the plurality of bar
`
`codes by a bar code scanner.” (Ex. 1001, at 10:52-56 (emphasis added); see also
`
`id. at 10:19-20 (dependent claim 4 li

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