Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 43
`Entered: June 14, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VAPORSTREAM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 43
`Entered: June 14, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VAPORSTREAM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 6. This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, we determine that
`Snap Inc. (“Petitioner”) has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
`claims 1 and 6 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,306,885 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’885 patent”) are unpatentable.
`
`A. Procedural History
`Petitioner filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1 and 6 of
`the ’885 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Petitioner provided a Declaration of
`Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002) to support its positions. Vaporstream,
`Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8), supported by
`the Declaration of Michael Shamos, Ph.D. (Ex. 2001). Pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), on June 18, 2018, inter partes review was instituted on
`the following grounds:
`whether claims 1 and 6 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) in view of Namias1, PC Magazine2, Saffer3, and Smith4; and
`whether claims 1 and 6 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) in view of Namias, PC Magazine, RFC 28215, and Hazel6.
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2002/0112005 A1, published Aug. 15, 2002
`(Ex. 1003).
`2 Neil J. Rubenking, Disabling Print Screen, P.C. MAGAZINE, Aug. 1988, at
`450 (“PC Magazine”) (Ex. 1033).
`3 U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2003/0122922 A1, published July 3, 2003
`(Ex. 1004).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,192,407 B1, issued Feb. 20, 2001 (Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`See Paper 13 (“Inst. Dec.”). Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp.”), along with a Declaration of
`Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D. (Ex. 2009) to support its positions. Petitioner
`filed a Reply (Paper 27, “Pet. Reply”) to the Patent Owner Response, along
`with a Reply Declaration of Dr. Chatterjee (Ex. 1043), and Patent Owner
`filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 30, “PO Sur-Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Motion
`to Exclude (Paper 32), to which Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 34).
`An oral hearing was held on March 27, 2019. A transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 41 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’885 patent is the subject of the following
`district court proceeding involving Petitioner and Patent Owner:
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00220-MLH-KS (C.D.
`Cal.). Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1.
`Petitioner filed nine additional petitions for inter partes review of
`various other patents owned by Patent Owner, “each of which claims
`priority to the same priority application as the ‘885 patent” (Paper 7, 1):
`Cases IPR2018-00200, IPR2018-00369, IPR2018-00397, IPR2018-00404,
`IPR2018-00408, IPR2018-00416, IPR2018-00439, IPR2018-00455, and
`IPR2018-00458. See Paper 7, 1–2; Pet. 1. Inter partes review was instituted
`in each of these proceedings.
`
`
`5 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, Network Working Group, Request for
`Comments 2821 (J. Klensin ed., AT&T Labs), published April 2001
`(Ex. 1008).
`6 PHILIP HAZEL, EXIM: THE MAIL TRANSFER AGENT (2001) (Ex. 1011).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`
`C. The ’885 Patent
`The ’885 patent is titled “Electronic Message Send Device Handling
`System and Method with Media Component and Header Information
`Separation,” was filed on December 17, 20147, and issued April 5, 2016.
`Ex. 1001, at [22], [45], [54]. The ’885 patent relates to an electronic
`messaging method “with reduced traceability.” Id. at [57]. The ’885 patent
`notes that “[t]ypically, an electronic message between two people is not
`private.” Id. at 2:7–8. For example, messages may be intercepted by third
`parties; logged and archived; or copied, cut, pasted, or printed. Id. at 2:8–12.
`“This may give a message a ‘shelf-life’ that is often uncontrollable by the
`sender or even the recipient.” Id. at 2:13–14. The challenged claims are
`directed to an “electronic message send device handling . . . method” for
`reducing traceability of an electronic message. See id. at 1:67–2:3, 2:27–29,
`18:58–19:24, 19:45–48.
`
`
`7 The ’885 patent claims priority, through a chain of continuation
`applications, to application No. 11/401,148, filed on April 10, 2006, and
`provisional application No. 60/703,367, filed on July 28, 2005. Ex. 1001, at
`[60], [63]. The specific priority date of the challenged claims is not at issue
`in this proceeding, and we need not make any determination in this regard.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’885 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 3, above, illustrates an example of a messaging system according to
`the ’885 patent. Id. at 10:62–63. System 300 includes user computers 315,
`320 and server computer 310, connected via network 325. Id. at 10:63–66.
`Electronic message 330 is communicated via this system using a method
`detailed below. Id. at 10:66–67. Reply electronic message 340 also is
`illustrated, but is not discussed in further detail herein. Id. at 10:67–11:1.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`
`Figure 5 of the ’885 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 5, above, is a flow chart of an exemplary method of the ’885 patent.
`Ex. 1001, 3:43–44. In step 510, the user inputs a recipient address on a
`screen. See id. at 11:41–45, 11:53–56, Fig. 8. A recipient address identifies
`a particular desired recipient and “may be a unique identifier (e.g., a screen
`name, a login name, a messaging name, etc.) established specifically for use
`with [this] system” or it “may be a pre-established [e-mail] address, text
`messaging address, instant messaging address, Short Messaging Service
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`(SMS) address, a telephone number . . . , BLACKBERRY personal
`identification number (PIN), or the like.” Id. at 7:7–19.
`After the recipient address has been entered, the system will proceed
`to step 515 and display another screen where the user may input the content
`of an electronic message. Id. at 11:53–60, Fig. 9. “An electronic message
`may be any electronic file, data and/or other information transmitted
`between one or more user computers.” Id. at 7:50–52. The electronic
`message may include text, image, video, audio, or other types of data. Id. at
`7:52–60. In one embodiment, “the recipient address and the message
`content are entered on separate display screens.” Id. at 11:59–60. This
`separate entry “further reduces the traceability of an electronic message by,
`in part, reducing the ability of logging at computer 315,” for example, by
`preventing screenshot logging from capturing the recipient address and
`message content simultaneously. Id. at 9:20–22, 11:62–65.
`At step 520, the message content is communicated to server 310. Id.
`at 12:5–8. The recipient address is communicated to the server separately
`from the corresponding message content, in order to reduce the ability to
`intercept the entire message during communication to the server. Id. at
`12:8–12. “[A] correlation (e.g., a non-identifying message ID . . . ) may be
`utilized to associate the two components.” Id. at 7:2–4. In this regard, “at
`step 530, system 300 generates a message ID for associating the separated
`message content and header information [(which includes the recipient
`address)] of electronic message 330. Server 310 maintains a correspondence
`between the message content and header information.” Id. at 12:37–41,
`6:57–65; see also id. at 13:28–32 (“A message ID [is] used to maintain
`correspondence between the separated components of electronic message
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`330.”). The ’885 patent describes an example in which the message ID is
`included both in the Extensible Markup Language (XML) file storing the
`header information and in the XML file storing the message content. See id.
`at 13:43–14:26.
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`We instituted review based on challenges to independent claim 1 and
`dependent claim 6. Claims 1 and 6 of the ’885 patent are reproduced below.
`1. A computer-implemented method of handling an
`electronic message at a sending user device in a networked
`environment, the electronic message including an identifier of a
`recipient and a message content, the sending user device having
`access to electronic instructions, the electronic instructions
`being stored at the sending user device and/or at a server
`computer, the method comprising:
`including a media
`associating a message content
`component with the electronic message via a first display at a
`sending user device;
`associating an identifier of a recipient with the electronic
`message via a second display at the sending user device, the
`first and second displays being generated by the electronic
`instructions such that the first and second displays are not
`displayed at the same time via the sending user device, the
`electronic instructions acting on the displays at the sending user
`device such that the media component is not displayed with the
`identifier of a recipient via the second display preventing a
`single screen capture of both the identifier of a recipient and the
`media component;
`transmitting the message content including a media
`component from the sending user device to a server computer;
`and
`
`transmitting the identifier of a recipient from the sending
`user device to the server computer, said transmitting the
`message content including a media component and said
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`
`transmitting the identifier of a recipient occurring separately,
`the identifier of a recipient and the message content including a
`media component each including a correlation to allow the
`identifier of a recipient and the message content including a
`media component to be related to each other at a later time by
`the server computer.
`Ex. 1001, 18:58–19:24.
`6.
` A computer-implemented method according to
`claim 1, wherein the media component includes information
`selected from the group consisting of an image, video, audio,
`and any combinations thereof.
`Id. at 19:45–48.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Principles of Law
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims,
`Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the
`challenged claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(d). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from
`the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
`petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never
`shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in
`inter partes review).
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousness if, to one of ordinary skill in
`the pertinent art, “the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). The
`question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.8
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness
`analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
`matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
`and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; accord In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of
`proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements,” but “must
`instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record” to support
`an obviousness determination. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`1364, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner also must articulate a reason
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art
`references. In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. 2016).
`At this final stage, we determine whether a preponderance of the
`evidence of record shows that the challenged claims would have been
`rendered obvious in view of the asserted prior art. We analyze the asserted
`grounds of unpatentability in accordance with these principles.
`
`
`8 The parties have not asserted or otherwise directed our attention to any
`objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`We review the grounds of unpatentability in view of the
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in
`software engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with at
`least two years of experience in the design and implementation of systems
`for sending and receiving messages over a communications network, such as
`the Internet (or equivalent degree or experience).” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 13–16). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Almeroth, “generally agree[s]”
`with Petitioner’s characterization of the person of ordinary skill with the
`caveat “that such a person of ordinary skill would also have a working
`knowledge of design principles for software user interfaces. Such
`knowledge often would be learned in an undergraduate course in Human
`Computer Interaction (HCI).” Ex. 2009 ¶ 21; see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 14 (Patent
`Owner’s previous declarant, Dr. Shamos, also was in general agreement with
`Petitioner’s description of one of ordinary skill). We agree, as the ’855
`patent discusses the design of an interface that purports to reduce the
`traceability of electronic messages. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:66–3:21. In the
`Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed description of the
`person of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 10–11. Based on the record
`developed during trial, including our review of the ’885 patent and the types
`of problems and solutions described in the ’885 patent and cited prior art,
`we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s description of the person of ordinary
`skill in the art, with the caveat that such an individual would have had a
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`working knowledge of design principles for software user interfaces, which
`may be achieved via study of human-computer interaction (HCI).
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable constructions in light of
`the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2018)9. “In claim construction, [our reviewing] court gives
`primacy to the language of the claims, followed by the specification.
`Additionally, the prosecution history, while not literally within the patent
`document, serves as intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction.”
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`Otherwise, under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms
`are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007).
`Patent Owner seeks construction of the phrase “message content
`including a media component” and the term “correlation.” PO Resp. 22–26.
`Petitioner does not seek express construction of any term of the ’885 patent,
`but responds to Patent Owner’s proposed constructions in its Reply. Pet. 9;
`Pet. Reply 1, 10–11, 22. For purposes of this Decision, we need only
`
`9 The recent revisions to our claim construction standard do not apply to this
`proceeding because the new “rule is effective on November 13, 2018 and
`applies to all IPR, PGR and CBM petitions filed on or after the effective
`date.” Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims
`in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg.
`51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`discuss the construction of the phrase “message content including a media
`component.”10 See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only
`construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`Claim 1 recites various limitations pertaining to a “message content
`including a media component.” For example, claim 1 recites “associating a
`message content including a media component with the electronic message
`via a first display at a sending user device,” “transmitting the message
`content including a media component from the sending user device to a
`server computer,” where this transmission occurs separately from the
`“transmi[ssion of] the identifier of a recipient from the sending device to the
`server computer,” and where “the identifier of a recipient and the message
`content including a media component each includ[e] a correlation to allow
`the identifier of a recipient and the message content including a media
`component to be related to each other at a later time by the server
`computer.”
`Patent Owner contends that “‘message content including a media
`component’ encompasses media content included in the message via a
`publicly-accessible [Uniform Resource Locator (URL)].” PO Resp. 24. In
`
`10 We need not interpret “correlation” because Patent Owner’s arguments
`regarding the term pertain only to the asserted ground based on Namias,
`PC Magazine, RFC 2821, and Hazel, which we do not address in this
`Decision. See PO Resp. 25–26, 50–52; infra § II.E. Patent Owner does not
`dispute Petitioner’s contention that the recited “correlation” is taught by the
`combination of Namias, PC Magazine, Saffer, and Smith. See Pet. 38–44;
`infra § II.D.5.f.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`support of this construction, Patent Owner relies on a passage from
`the ’855 patent, which states that “a message content of an electronic
`message may include an attached and/or linked file.” Ex. 1001, 7:62–63
`(cited at PO Resp. 23). Patent Owner also directs us to testimony from
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Chatterjee. PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 107
`n.23). Patent Owner characterizes Dr. Chatterjee’s testimony as “mak[ing]
`clear [that] passing the actual content and passing a link that provides access
`to that content, such as a URL, are both examples of ‘passing information.’”
`Id. Thus, in Patent Owner’s view, the recited “message content including a
`media component” broadly includes both a URL in a message (linking to
`content accessible via that URL) and a file attached to the message. See id.
`at 22–24.
`Petitioner responds by arguing that “although the specification states
`that [the] ‘message content’ may include a ‘linked file,’ it never states that
`the link itself is ‘message content.’” Pet. Reply 10 (internal citations
`omitted, emphasis Petitioner’s). In addition, Petitioner directs us to a further
`statement in the specification, that “[t]ypically, a message content, such as
`message content 140 does not include information that in itself identifies the
`message sender, recipient, location of the electronic message, or time/date
`associated with the electronic message.” Ex. 1001, 7:66–8:3 (cited at Pet.
`Reply 11) (emphasis added). Petitioner explains that “[t]he URL (Uniform
`Resource Locator) in the proposed combination [of Namias and Saffer]
`therefore does not qualify as ‘message content’ because it identifies ‘the
`location of’ the video message on the video server in Saffer.” Pet. Reply 11
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 28). According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would “think of a URL as a pointer to content,” i.e., “how you get to
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`the content” rather than “the content itself.” Tr. 23:12–24:5. In short,
`Petitioner contends that “[i]t’s . . . the file that’s the content, not the link
`itself.” Id. at 23:6 (emphasis added).
`We agree with Petitioner’s arguments. The specification of the
`’885 patent states that
`[i]n one example, a message content of an electronic message
`may include embedded information. In another example, a
`message content of an electronic message may include an
`attached and/or linked file. In such an example with an
`attached and/or linked file, the attached and/or linked file may
`be automatically deleted from the messaging system after being
`viewed by a recipient.
`Ex. 1001, 7:60–66. Thus, the specification indicates that message content
`may be communicated to the user via embedded information, attached files,
`or linked files. Embedding, attaching, and linking are three ways to provide
`access to information. In other words, the email recipient may gain access to
`the information or content in a variety of ways, however, the method of
`providing access to information or content is not the same thing as the
`underlying information or content. In the passage quoted above, privacy
`may be enhanced by automatically deleting “the attached and/or linked file”
`from the messaging system after the file is viewed. Id. at 7:64–66. The
`specification makes no provisions for deleting the URL or link to the file,
`but rather the focus is on the information itself. That information, or
`“message content,” is located in the file itself regardless of the method by
`which the recipient accesses that information. Contrary to Patent Owner’s
`assertion, Dr. Chatterjee’s testimony cited by Patent Owner also supports
`this conclusion. See PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 107 n.23).
`Dr. Chatterjee testifies that there is a “distinction between transmitting the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`actual content to the recipient in a message, versus transmitting just a URL
`that points to or is an address for the content.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 107 n.23
`(emphases added). Dr. Chatterjee’s testimony makes clear that “actual
`content” is distinct from “just a URL” that points to the content.
`Thus, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`phrase “message content including a media component” does not encompass
`a URL in a message (linked to content accessible via that URL). No further
`express interpretation of this phrase is necessary for the purposes of this
`Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness in View of Namias, PC Magazine, Saffer,
`and Smith
`Petitioner contends that claims 1 and 6 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Namias, PC Magazine, Saffer, and
`Smith. Pet. 4, 16–50. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Chatterjee, Petitioner
`asserts that the combined references teach or suggest the subject matter of
`the challenged claims and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have combined the teachings of the references in the manner asserted. Id.;
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–138. Patent Owner, relying on the testimony of
`Dr. Almeroth, disputes Petitioner’s contentions. PO Resp. 26–50; Ex. 2009
`¶¶ 79–115. For the reasons discussed below, we determine Petitioner has
`established the unpatentability of these claims by a preponderance of the
`evidence.
`
`1. Overview of Namias (Ex. 1003)
`Namias relates to a “method and apparatus for providing a video
`e-mail kiosk for creating and sending video e-mail messages such as full
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`motion videos or still snapshots.” Ex. 1003, at [57]. The video e-mail kiosk
`of Namias includes a digital processor, a touch-sensitive screen monitor, a
`digital video camera, a microphone, audio speakers, a credit card acceptor, a
`cash acceptor, and a digital network communications link. Id. ¶ 31. The
`kiosk displays an inactive screen until a user starts a transaction. Id. ¶ 34.
`Upon activation of the kiosk, a record screen is shown on the kiosk display
`and the user may create a video recording or still image from this screen. Id.
`¶ 35. A preview screen is displayed after the user has recorded a full motion
`video or still snapshot message. Id. ¶ 36.
`Figure 4A of Namias is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 4A, above, illustrates “a preview screen that is displayed after a user
`has recorded a video message.” Id. ¶ 25. Preview screen 400 allows the
`user to review the recorded video or still image and decide whether the
`message is acceptable. Id. ¶ 36. If the user is satisfied with the message,
`then the user may press send button 450 and proceed to address screen 500.
`Id. ¶¶ 37, 40.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`
`Figure 5 of Namias is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 5, above, illustrates an address screen on which a user is prompted to
`enter a recipient’s e-mail address. Id. ¶ 27. “The address is a unique
`identifier which instructs routing computers where to send the message.” Id.
`¶ 5. The user presses add address button 510 and then may use a keyboard
`to input the e-mail address of the recipient. Id. ¶ 40. Once the e-mail
`address(es) have been entered, the user may press send button 540 to move
`to the next step in the process. Id. “[F]inal screen 700 . . . is displayed at the
`end of the process after payment has been made and the video or
`photographic e-mail has been sent to the intended recipient or recipients.”
`Id. ¶ 42.
`
`2. Overview of Saffer (Ex. 1004)
`Saffer relates to a “computer implemented system and method in
`which a user can send e-mail messages that include full-motion video and
`audio (or, alternatively, audio only), along with (if desired) the text
`messages to an e-mail recipient.” Ex. 1004, at [57]. In Saffer, a user
`composes a message, records a video, and then hits the send button. Id. ¶ 4.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`The sender’s computer retrieves a video ID from the server for that
`compressed video. Id. ¶¶ 4, 29, Fig. 3 (step 100). Software on the sender’s
`computer compresses the video and transmits the compressed video to a
`server. Id. ¶¶ 4, 44, Fig. 3 (steps 102, 108). The sender’s computer inserts
`the video ID (with a link or network address to the video server) into an
`email message, which is then sent to the recipient. Id. ¶¶ 4, 46, 47, Fig. 3
`(step 112).
`
`3. Overview of Smith (Ex. 1005)
`Smith relates to “[a] document delivery architecture [that]
`dynamically generates a private Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to
`distribute information.” Ex. 1005, at [57]. Smith’s private URLs
`(“PURLs”) are temporary, dynamically generated URLs that uniquely
`identify the recipient of a document, the document to be delivered, and
`optionally may include other delivery parameters. Id. at [57], 15:8–11.
`A sender forwards a document to a server and the server temporarily stores
`the document. Id. at 15:29–31. “The server dynamically generates a URL
`for each intended recipient of the document.” Id. at 15:31–33. The recipient
`is sent an email message that includes the PURL. Id. at 15:38–41. The
`recipient uses the PURL and the Web to retrieve the document (or set of
`documents). Id. at 14:48–50, 15:41–42. “PURLS avoid attaching
`information to e-mail messages to send documents, but rather attach a
`general reference to a document to be sent, and then enable the recipient to
`access a document via the reference.” Id. at 15:13–16. When the recipient
`accesses the document by using a PURL, a server can intercept the
`document access request and provide additional services, such as tracking
`and security. Id. at 15:16–19.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`
`4. Overview of PC Magazine (Ex. 1033)
`PC Magazine refers to an article in PC Magazine, titled Disabling
`Print Screen. Ex. 1033, 45011. The article describes how to prevent a user
`from activating Print Screen functionality. Id.
`
`5. Analysis of Petitioner’s Challenge to Claim 1
`
`We begin by assessing Petitioner’s arguments as to how the
`combination of Namias, PC Magazine, Saffer, and Smith teaches the
`limitations of claim 1, and then turn to Petitioner’s arguments regarding why
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
`the teachings of the references.
`
`a. “A computer-implemented method of handling an electronic
`message at a sending user device in a networked
`environment, the electronic message including an identifier
`of a recipient and a message content, the sending user
`device having access to electronic instructions, the
`electronic instructions being stored at the sending user
`device and/or at a server computer”
`Petitioner relies on kiosk 100 of Namias as teaching the claimed
`“sending user device” and on the video or picture message sent using the
`kiosk as teaching the claimed “electronic message.” Pet. 16–17 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 54). Petitioner further contends that Namias discloses including
`“the recipient’s email address (requested from the sender)” and “the
`(recorded) video or picture content” as part of the video or picture message,
`thus teaching the claim requirement that “the electronic message includ[es]
`an identifier of a recipient and a message content.” Id. at 17 (citing
`
`
`11 Citations to Exhibit 1033 are to the original pagination of the magazine.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00312
`Patent 9,306,885 B2
`
`Ex. 1003, at [57], ¶ 54; Ex. 1002 ¶ 54). According to Petitioner, “because
`the kiosk in Namias creates, records, and sends the video or picture message,
`one of ordinary skill would have understood that Namias discloses ‘handling
`an electronic message at a sending user device’” (id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 55)
`(emphasis omitted)); Namias “makes clear” that its method is “[a] computer-
`implemented method” (id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 31–33,
`Fig. 1)); because the kiosk sends the message via e-mail, it is “in a
`networked environment” (id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20, 31–33)); and
`one of skill in the art would have understood that the processor and memory
`of Namias’s kiosk teaches or suggests at least electronic instructions stored
`at the kiosk (id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20, 31–33; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 57–
`58)). We agree, for the reasons stated in the Petition.
`
`b. “associating a message content including a media
`component with the electronic message via a first display at
`a sending user device”
`Petitioner relies on Namias to teach this limitation. Pet. 20–22.
`Petitioner points to preview screen 400 of Figure 4A of Namias as teaching
`the claimed first display, via which message content (i.e., a video) is
`associated with the electronic message. Id. a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
