Paper No. 6
`
`Filed: May 4, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`PETITIONER,
`
`V.
`
`IPA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00476
`U.S. Patent No. 6,757,718
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE ................................ 1 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`II. 
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................... 2 
`III. 
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’718 INVENTION .................................................... 2 
`IV. 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 9 
`V. 
`STANDARD FOR GRANTING INTER PARTES REVIEW ...................... 10 
`VI. 
`PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`VII. 
`LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING .......................................................................... 11 
`A.  Legal Standard for Printed Publications ...................................................... 13 
`B.  The Critical Date .......................................................................................... 15 
`C.  Petitioner Fails to Demonstrate that Cheyer is a Printed Publication .......... 16 
`1.  Petitioner Offers No Testimonial Evidence in Support of Its Assertions
`that Cheyer is a Printed Publication ............................................................ 17 
`2.  The Date on Cheyer’s Front Page is Not Evidence of Dissemination or
`Publication Prior to the Critical Date .......................................................... 17 
`3.  Petitioner Submits No Evidence of Distribution or Publication of Cheyer
`at the CMC/95 Conference ......................................................................... 21 
`4.  The Internet Archive / SRI Website Exhibits Fail to Show Cheyer is a
`Printed Publication ...................................................................................... 26 
`5.  The Petition’s Evidence of a Citation to Cheyer in Another Publication
`Does Not Establish Public Accessibility ..................................................... 38 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 42 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC,
`IPR2015-01951, Paper 107 (PTAB March 23, 2017) .................................. 30, 37
`Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. LP, v. Praxair Technology, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01074, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 26, 2015) ............................................... 25
`American Megatrends, Inc. et al. v. Kinglite Holdings Inc.,
`IPR2015-01191, Paper 40 (PTAB Nov. 4, 2016) ................................................ 38
`Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Management, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00369, Paper 14 (Aug. 12, 2015) ......................................................... 18
`Apple Inc. v. Saint Lawrence Communications LLC,
`IPR2017-01075, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2017) ................................................ 40
`AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Labs., Inc. (In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.),
`490 F. Supp. 2d 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) .................................................................. 20
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 14
`Celltrion, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. et al.,
`IPR2017-01230, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 12, 2017) ............................ 13, 20, 30, 36
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (Aug. 29, 2014) ......................................................... 11
`CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc.,
`584 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................................... 19
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 14
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137318 (E.D. Tex.
`Aug. 25, 2017) ...................................................................................................... 15
`Ford Motor Company v. Versata Development Group, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01019, Paper 9 (Oct. 4, 2016) .............................................................. 25
`Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC,
`CBM2013-00033, Paper 51 (PTAB Dec. 17, 2014) ............................................ 32
`Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`271 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Mich. 2003) ............................................................... 19
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,
`IPR2017-01980, Paper 9 (Feb. 27, 2018) ............................................................ 16
`Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc.,
`849 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 22
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 15
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ....................................................................... 14, 40
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 19, 40
`In re Wyer,
`655 F.2d 221 (CCPA 1981) .................................................................... 15, 16, 25
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 11
`International Business Machines Corp. v. Envisionit, LLC,
`IPR2017-01251, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2017) .................................... 13, 31, 40
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 14
`Laird Technologies Inc., v. A.K. Stamping Company Inc.,
`IPR2017-02038, Paper 6 (March 14, 2018) ............................................ 12, 20, 31
`Luma Corp. v. Stryker Corp.,
`Nos. 1:02-1132, 1:02-1479, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50836 (S.D. W.
`Va. July 24, 2006) ................................................................................................ 15
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. AB Fortia,
`774 F.2d 1104 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 25
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Harman Int’l Indus.,
`584 F. Supp. 2d 297 (D. Mass. 2008) .................................................................. 14
`Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC,
`IPR2015-01435, Paper 15 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2015) ....................................... 30, 33
`Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 25
`Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-04910-JD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110963 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
`19, 2015) .............................................................................................................. 19
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Biogen, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01166, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2017) ................................................ 13
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 10
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC,
`IPR2017-01903, Paper 9 (PTAB March 19, 2018) ................................ 12, 23, 24
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC,
`IPR2017-01904, Paper 12 (PTAB April 30, 2018) ...................................... 12, 24
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC,
`IPR2017-01904, Paper 9 (PTAB March 12, 2018) ...................................... 13, 24
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC,
`IPR2017-01944, Paper 9 (PTAB March 12, 2018) ............................................. 24
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd.,
`IPR2017-00099, Paper 32 (PTAB April 23, 2018) ...................................... 32, 34
`Sandoz Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.,
`IPR2017-01823, Paper 16 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2018) ................................................. 22
`Servicenow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`IPR2015-00707, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2015) .............................................. 13
`Servicenow, Inc., v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`IPR2015-00716, Paper 13 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2015) .............................................. 12
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys. Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................... 14, 19, 34
`Standard Innovation Corporation v. Lelo, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2015) ............................................... 19
`Thorner v. Sony Comp. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 10
`Toshiba Corp. v. Optical Devices LLC,
`IPR2014-01447, Paper 34 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2016) ................................................ 18
`Unified Patents Inc., v. Cuica, LLC,
`IPR2016-01644, Paper 16 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2017) ............................................... 10
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 10
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................... 30, 32, 35
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Biomedical Enterprises, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00786, Paper 7 (PTAB Aug. 10, 2015) ................................................ 18
`
`
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 13
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................................ 11
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .......................................................................................... 1, 2, 10
`
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 2001 Search results from web.archive.org available at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20170705053640/ftp.ai.sri.com/pub/p
`
`apers/cheyer-cmc95.ps.gz (last visited April 10, 2018). This is the
`
`Internet Archive page that is presented when one clicks
`
`"PostScript: 171K" in Ex. 1030.
`
`Exhibit 2002 Search results from web.archive.org available at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/*/ftp.ai.sri.com/pub/papers/cheyer-
`
`cmc95.ps.gz (last visited April 10, 2018). This is searching the
`
`entire Internet Archive for the file that is at "PostScript: 171K" in
`
`Ex. 1030.
`
`Exhibit 2003 Archived copy of SRI website from web.archive.org available at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970516140126/www.ai.sri.com/~oa
`
`a (last visited on April 10, 2018).
`
`Exhibit 2004 Archived copy of SRI website from web.archive.org available at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970516140126/www.ai.sri.com/~oa
`
`a (last visited on April 10, 2018).
`
`Exhibit 2005 Search results from web.archive.org for
`
`https://webarchive.org/web/*/http://www.ai.sri.com:80/vgi-
`
`bin/pubs/* (last visited April 10, 2018).
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit 2006 Archived copy of www.ai.sri.com/~OAA from May 16, 1997 from
`
`web.archive.org at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970516064551/http://www.ai.sri.co
`
`m/~oaa/ (last visited April 10, 2018).
`
`Exhibit 2007 Archived copy of www.ai.sri.com/~OAA from October 16, 1997
`
`from web.archive.org at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/19971016073945/http://www.ai.sri.co
`
`m/~oaa/ (last visited April 10, 2018).
`
`Exhibit 2008 Archived copy of www.ai.sri.com/~OAA from February 6, 1998
`
`from web.archive.org at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/19980206223059/http://www.ai.sri.co
`
`m/~oaa/ (last visited April 10, 2018).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`
`Petitioner Google Inc. (“Google”) did not submit a statement of material
`
`facts in its Petition for Inter Partes Review. Paper 1 (Petition or “Pet.”).
`
`Accordingly, no response to a statement of material facts is due pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(a), and no facts are admitted.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner IPA Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) respectfully submits
`
`this Preliminary Response under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a), which
`
`is timely filed on or before May 6, 2018. 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b).
`
`“The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted
`
`unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed
`
`under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`
`the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board should deny
`
`institution because Petitioner fails to establish that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`it will prevail on its invalidity arguments. Specifically, while there are many
`
`deficiencies in the Petition, the focus of this preliminary response is Petitioner’s
`
`failure to establish that Cheyer (Ex. 1012) is a printed publication under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`The Petition’s shortcomings and procedural failings are fatal to Petitioner’s
`
`institution request. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), Patent Owner respectfully
`
`requests that the Board deny institution of a trial on all challenged claims (i.e.,
`
`claims 1-27) of the ’718 Patent.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`For the purpose of whether to institute review only, Patent Owner agrees
`
`with Petitioner that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art as of the [critical] date of
`
`the ’718 patent (‘POSITA’) would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and one to two
`
`years of work experience in user interfaces for computer systems (including
`
`speech-based interfaces), networked computer systems, or a related area…More
`
`education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa.” (Pet. at 5-6,
`
`citations omitted.)
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’718 INVENTION
`The ’718 Patent was filed on June 30, 2000, and claims priority to and
`
`incorporates by reference U.S. Application No. 09/524,095 (now U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,742,021) and U.S. Patent Application No. 09/225,198 (now U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,851,115). The ’718 Patent also claims priority to and incorporates by reference
`
`Provisional Application Nos. 60/124,718; 60/124,719; and 60/124,720 filed on
`
`March 17, 1999. (Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`The claimed inventions in the ’718 Patent are directed are directed to
`
`specific methods, systems, and programs that improve speech-based navigation of
`
`electronic databases, rather than merely disclosing an aspiration or result of that
`
`technology that would preempt the use of, or innovations in, speech-based
`
`navigation of electronic databases. The “Background of Invention” section of the
`
`’718 Patent states that as the universe of electronic data potentially available to
`
`users continues to expand, “there is a growing need for information navigation
`
`technology that allows relatively naïve users to navigate and access desired data by
`
`means of natural language input.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:27-33.) For example, with the
`
`explosion of electronic content in important markets like home entertainment and
`
`mobile computing, the proliferation of high-bandwidth communications
`
`infrastructure enables delivery of movies and other interactive multimedia content.
`
`However, “for users to take full advantage of this content stream ultimately
`
`requires interactive navigation of content databases in a manner that is too complex
`
`for user-friendly selection by means of a traditional remote-control clicker.” (Id. at
`
`1:40-44).
`
`Allowing users to utilize spoken natural language requests to access
`
`electronic data provides the benefit of “rapidly searching and accessing desired
`
`content” and “is an important objective” both for “successful consumer
`
`entertainment products,” that offer “a dizzying range of database content choices,”
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`and “navigation of (and transaction with) relatively complex data warehouses,”
`
`when using “the Internet/Web or other networks for general information,
`
`multimedia content, or e-commerce transactions.” (Id. at 1:49-53). Then existing
`
`prior art “navigational systems for browsing electronic databases and data
`
`warehouses (search engines, menus, etc.) have been designed without navigation
`
`via spoken natural language as a specific goal,” and as a result the world was full
`
`of electronic data navigation systems that were not designed to be navigated with
`
`natural spoken commands, but assumed navigation with “text and mouse-click
`
`inputs (or in the case of TV remote controls, even less).” (Id. at 1:60-61.)
`
`Prior art systems that simply recognized voice commands using an
`
`extremely limited vocabulary and grammar were insufficient, in part because such
`
`systems did not accept spoken inputs in a user-intuitive manner and required users
`
`to learn highly specialized command languages or formats. (Id. at 1:59-65.) For
`
`example, prior art systems tended to require users to speak “in terms of arbitrary
`
`navigation structures (e.g., hierarchical layers of menus, commands, etc.) that are
`
`essentially artifacts reflecting constraints of the pre-existing text/click navigation
`
`system.” (Id. at 2:7-10.) Moreover, the use of spoken natural language inputs for
`
`navigation of electronic data resources typically presented a variety or errors and
`
`ambiguities, such as garbled and unrecognized words, and under-constrained
`
`requests, that could not be resolved in a rapid, user-friendly, non-frustrating
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`manner. In addition, solutions to the prior art’s limitations faced the problem that
`
`they needed to be compatible with the constraints imposed by multi-user,
`
`distributed environments such as the Internet and high-bandwidth content delivery
`
`networks, because a solution contemplating one-at-a-time user interaction at a
`
`single location would be insufficient.
`
`The disclosed inventions, on the other hand, achieve a fundamental
`
`technological advance over the then-existing state of the art of navigating network-
`
`based electronic information because it enables “users to speak directly in terms of
`
`what the user wants—e.g., ‘I’d like to see a Western film directed by Clint
`
`Eastwood’[.]” (Id. at 2:3-7.) A further disclosed benefit of the inventions that
`
`improves the functioning of computer technology is that they can function as a
`
`voice interface on top (or on the front end) of a pre-existing non-voice navigational
`
`system, i.e., “a voice-driven front-end atop an existing, non-voice data navigation
`
`system, whereby users can interact by means of intuitive natural language input not
`
`strictly conforming to the step-by-step browsing architecture of the existing
`
`navigation system, and wherein any errors or ambiguities in user input are rapidly
`
`and conveniently resolved.” (Id. at 2:19-26; 10:20-48.)
`
`One aspect of the inventions disclosed and claimed in the ’718 Patent relates
`
`to formulating a navigation query after the system has interpreted the spoken
`
`request. For example, if responding to a user’s interpreted request requires
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`navigating a structured relational database, an embodiment of the invention could
`
`construct an appropriate Structured Query Language (SQL) query to select a
`
`relevant portion of that electronic data source.
`
`The benefits of the inventions include not only increased convenience, but
`
`improvements to computer functionality and technological processes including
`
`increased efficiency and speed—and they achieve these technological benefits by
`
`fundamentally changing the manner in which a user interfaces and interacts with
`
`computer technology itself, as described in the following two examples:
`
`It will be apparent, in light of the above teachings, that preferred
`embodiments of the present invention can provide a spoken natural
`language interface atop an existing, non-voice data navigation system,
`whereby users can interact by means of intuitive natural language
`input not strictly conforming to the linear browsing architecture or
`other artifacts of an existing menu/text/click navigation system. For
`example, users of an appropriate embodiment of the present invention
`for a video-on-demand application can directly speak the natural
`request: “Show me the movie ‘Unforgiven’”—instead of walking
`step-by-step through a typically linear sequence of
`genre/title/actor/director menus, scrolling and selecting from
`potentially long lists on each menu, or instead of being forced to use
`an alphanumeric keyboard that cannot be as comfortable to hold or
`use as a lightweight remote control. Similarly, users of an appropriate
`embodiment of the present invention for a web-surfing application in
`accordance with the process shown in FIG. 5 can directly speak the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`natural request: “Show me a one-month price chart for Microsoft
`stock”—instead of potentially having to navigate to an appropriate
`web site, search for the right ticker symbol, enter/select the symbol,
`and specify display of the desired one-month price chart, each of those
`steps potentially involving manual navigation and data entry to one or
`more different interaction screens.
`(Id. at 10:20-48.)
`As the title of the ’718 Patent suggests, an important aspect of the inventions
`
`that improves computer technology itself is multi-modal error corrections and
`
`clarifications of the user’s spoken request when errors and ambiguities arise:
`
`Instead of simply rejecting such input and defaulting to traditional
`input modes or simply asking the user to try again, a preferred
`embodiment of the present invention seeks to converge rapidly toward
`instantiation of a valid navigational template by soliciting additional
`clarification from the user as necessary,…via multimodal input, i.e.,
`by means of menu selection or other input modalities…in addition to
`spoken input.
`(Id. at 2:59-3:1.)
`The benefits of this multi-modal error correction/clarification are, as stated
`
`above, an accelerated instantiation of a valid navigational template, at least in part
`
`because the system is attempting new methods or means to obtain additional
`
`clarifying or necessary information that was not provided by a prior spoken
`
`request, and therefore avoids simply repeating a prior inquiry that was incomplete
`
`or otherwise erroneous. A further specified benefit is that “[t]his clarifying, multi-
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`modal dialogue takes advantage of whatever partial navigation information has
`
`been gleaned from the initial interpretation of the user’s spoken request.” (Id. at
`
`3:1-4.)
`
`The increased convenience, efficiency, accuracy, and speed improve the
`
`capacity of the navigation system as a whole. The improvements to the computer
`
`technology underlying the inventive spoken/natural language query for a database
`
`with multi-modal clarification versus prior art navigation systems are confirmed
`
`per the following example from the ’718 Patent:
`
`Consider again the example in which the user of a video-on-demand
`application wishes to see “Unforgiven” but can only recall that it was
`directed by and starred Clint Eastwood. First, it bears noting that
`using a prior art navigational interface, such as a conventional menu
`interface, will likely be relatively tedious in this case. The user can
`proceed through a sequence of menus, such as Genre (select
`“western”), Title (skip), Actor (“Clint Eastwood”), and Director
`(“Clint Eastwood”). In each case—especially for the last two items—
`the user would typically scroll and select from fairly long lists in order
`to enter his or her desired name, or perhaps use a relatively couch-
`unfriendly keypad to manually type the actor's name twice.
`Using a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the user
`instead speaks aloud, holding remote control microphone 102, “I want
`to see that movie starring and directed by Clint Eastwood. Can’t
`remember the title.” At step 402 the voice data is received. At
`step 404 the voice data is interpreted. At step 405 an appropriate
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`online data source is selected (or perhaps the system is directly
`connected to a proprietary video-on-demand provider). At step 406 a
`query is automatically constructed by the query construction
`logic 330 specifying “Clint Eastwood” in both the actor and director
`fields. Step 407 detects no obvious problems, and so the query is
`electronically submitted and the data source is navigated at step 408,
`yielding a list of several records satisfying the query (e.g.,
`“Unforgiven”, “True Crime”, “Absolute Power”, etc.).
`Step 409 detects that additional user input is needed to further refine
`the query in order to select a particular film for viewing.
`At that point, in step 412 query refinement logic 340 might preferably
`generate a display for client display device 112 showing the
`(relatively short) list of film titles that satisfy the user's stated
`constraints. The user can then preferably use a relatively convenient
`input modality, such as buttons on the remote control, to select the
`desired title from the menu. In a further preferred embodiment, the
`first title on the list is highlighted by default, so that the user can
`simply press an “OK” button to choose that selection.
`(Id. at 11:35-12:6.)
`The ’718 Patent contains three independent claims, and a total of 27 claims,
`
`covering various methods, systems, and computer programs.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner admits that given the ’718 Patent would expire during the
`
`pendency of this proceeding if instituted, any claim terms in need of construction
`
`should be construed pursuant to the standard outlined in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). (Pet. at 10); see also Thorner v. Sony
`
`Comp. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Patent Owner
`
`agrees. However, given the issue to which Patent Owner’s preliminary response is
`
`directed, it is not necessary for the Board to construe any terms to resolve the
`
`parties’ dispute over whether the Board should institute review. See Unified
`
`Patents Inc., v. Cuica, LLC, IPR2016-01644, Paper 16 at 15 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2017)
`
`(citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999) (explaining that only those claim terms or phrases that are in controversy
`
`need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`
`VI. STANDARD FOR GRANTING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A petition for inter partes review may only be granted when “the
`
`information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged
`
`in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The burden of
`
`proof lies with the Petitioner to show that the statutory threshold has been met. See
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A petition must provide “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief
`
`requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence
`
`including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.22(a)(2); see also Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper 12 at 11 (Aug. 29, 2014) (stating that a Petitioner must “focus on concise,
`
`well organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable
`
`evidence of record.”); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
`
`821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that
`
`petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition
`
`identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the
`
`challenge to each claim.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Further, “[u]nlike
`
`district court litigation—where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop
`
`their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material—the
`
`expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their
`
`case in their petition to institute.” Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1369.
`
`VII. PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING
`
`While it is not required to file a preliminary response, Patent Owner takes
`
`this limited opportunity to explain specific reasons why the Board should not
`
`institute trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a).
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Petition should be denied because
`
`Petitioner fails to make even a threshold showing that the Cheyer reference (Ex.
`
`1012), relied upon as the lead reference in each of the grounds, was publicly
`
`accessible prior to the ’718 Patent’s critical date. (See Pet. at 2.) Because Petitioner
`
`bears the burden of establishing that any reference it relies upon is prior art, the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition must make a threshold showing that Cheyer was a publicly accessible
`
`printed publication before the ’718 Patent’s critical date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b). See Servicenow, Inc., v. Hewlett-Packard Co., IPR2015-00716, Paper 13
`
`at 8 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2015) (“Petitioner has the burden to establish in its Petition a
`
`reasonable likelihood of success, including, among other things, making a
`
`threshold showing that the Collaborate References are “printed publications”
`
`within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 311(b).”); see also Power
`
`Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC, IPR2017-01904,
`
`Paper 12 at 10 (PTAB April 30, 2018) (it is “not Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response that trigger[s] the need for Petitioner to make a threshold showing that [a
`
`reference] is a printed publication” — that showing must be made in the Petition.).
`
`The Board routinely declines to institute review based on Petitions that do
`
`not make a sufficient showing that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.
`
`Here, Petitioner’s conclusory arguments that Cheyer is a printed publication are
`
`insufficient to institute review. See, e.g., Laird Technologies Inc., v. A.K. Stamping
`
`Company Inc., IPR2017-02038, Paper 6 at 9-17 (March 14, 2018) (denying
`
`institution where petitioner failed to make a threshold showing that the reference in
`
`question is a printed publication); Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor
`
`Components Industries, LLC, IPR2017-01903, Paper 9 at 11-20 (PTAB March 19,
`
`2018) (denying institution where there was insufficient showing of public
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`accessibility for one reference and an insufficent showing regarding the factual
`
`circumstances of a conference where a second reference was allegedly
`
`disseminated); Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries,
`
`LLC, IPR2017-01904, Paper 9 at 9-17 (PTAB March 12, 2018) (same); Power
`
`Integrations, IPR2017-01904, Paper 12 at 6 (denying rehearing and noting that
`
`petitioner must make a threshold showing that a reference is a “printed
`
`publication” in the petition, stating that “whether it ‘would be reasonable to
`
`conclude’ that certain facts exist, Petitioner did not make these arguments in its
`
`Petition…”); International Business Machines Corp. v. Envisionit, LLC, IPR2017-
`
`01251, Paper 7 at 12-16 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2017) (denying institution where