`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 82
`
`Date: June 1, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IPA TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision on Remand
`Determining Remaining Challenged Claim Unpatentable
`Denying In Part and Dismissing In Part Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 318
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`This Remand Decision is a final written decision on remand from the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which vacated and
`remanded our original Final Written Decision in this inter partes review.
`See Google LLC v. IPA Techs. Inc., 34 F.4th 1081, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2022);
`Paper 73 (“Final Dec.”). The Federal Circuit remanded to address whether a
`cited reference was prior art under § 102(a) to the challenged claims of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,069,560 B1 (“the ’560 Patent,” Ex. 1001). Id.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6, and we issue this Final
`Written Decision on Remand under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.73. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the remaining challenged claim 28 of the
`’560 patent is unpatentable by a preponderance of evidence.
`
`A. Background
`Petitioner, Google LLC (“Google”), filed a Petition challenging
`claims 26–35, 47, and 48 (“the original challenged claims”) of the ’560
`Patent (Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”), 4–5), and IPA Technologies Inc.
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6). We instituted trial
`on all grounds of unpatentability. Paper 11 (“Dec. on Inst.”), 34–35. Patent
`Owner filed a Request for Rehearing of our decision granting institution
`(Paper 13) that was denied by our Decision Denying Patent Owner’s
`Request (Paper 40). Patent Owner’s request for Precedential Opinion Panel
`(POP) review was also denied (Paper 26).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 41, “PO
`Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 58, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner
`filed a Sur-reply (Paper 65, “PO Sur-reply”). Patent Owner filed a Motion
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`to Exclude (Paper 66) and Petitioner filed an opposition (Paper 69) to which
`Patent Owner replied (Paper 71). A combined oral hearing for this inter
`partes review and related cases (IPR2019-00728, IPR2019-00730, IPR2019-
`00733, and IPR2019-00734) was held on June 4, 2020, a transcript of which
`appears in the record in each case. Paper 72 (“Tr.”).
`We issued a Final Written Decision finding that Petitioner Google had
`not established that the Martin1 reference that was asserted in all challenged
`grounds was prior art under § 102(a). Final Dec. 26. Accordingly, we found
`that Google failed to show any of the challenged claims were unpatentable
`as each of the challenged grounds rely on the Martin reference. Id. at 26, 30.
`On May 19, 2022, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion vacating and
`remanding our Final Written Decision finding that “the Board did not
`complete the full . . . analysis” required by Duncan Parking Technologies,
`Inc. v. IPS Group, Inc., 914 F.3d 1347, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019), with respect
`to the § 102(a) prior art status of the asserted reference. Google, 34 F.4th at
`1087. Specifically, with respect to the Martin reference, the Federal Circuit
`instructs us that,
`“to decide whether a reference patent is ‘by another’ . . . , the
`Board must”:
`(1) determine what portions of the reference patent
`were relied on as prior art to anticipate the claim
`limitations at issue, (2) evaluate the degree to
`which those portions were conceived ‘by another,’
`and (3) decide whether that other person’s
`contribution is significant enough, when measured
`
`1 David L. Martin, Adam J. Cheyer, Douglas B. Moran, Building Distributed
`Software Systems with the Open Agent Architecture, PROCEEDINGS OF THE
`THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF
`INTELLIGENT AGENTS AND MULTI-AGENT TECHNOLOGY 355 (1998)
`(Ex. 1011, “Martin” or” the Martin reference”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`against the full anticipating disclosure, to render
`him a joint inventor of the applied portions of the
`reference patent.
`Id. at 1085 (quoting Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358 (quoting pre-AIA 35
`U.S.C. § 102(e)) (alteration in original)). On June 28, 2022, the Federal
`Circuit issued its mandate. See Paper 77. With our authorization (Paper 79),
`in September 2022, the parties filed additional briefing limited to addressing
`the remanded prior art issue. See Petitioner’s Brief on Remand (Paper 81,
`“Pet. Remand”); Patent Owner’s Responsive Remand Brief (Paper 82, “PO
`Remand”).
`
`B. Remaining Challenged Claim
`On May 16, 2023, following the completion of related inter partes
`review proceedings, a Certificate issued cancelling claims 1–27, 29–49, and
`52 of the ’560 patent. Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs. Inc., IPR2019-00835,
`Paper 53 (PTAB May 16, 2023) (835 Trial Certificate). 2 The cancellation of
`claims 1–27, 29–49, and 52 of the ’560 patent removes claims 26, 27, 29–
`35, 47, and 48 from the present case. See id. Therefore, claim 28 is the sole
`remaining claim at issue in this remanded proceeding.
`Analyzing the full record in view of the Federal Circuit’s remand
`decision, we address the remaining ground at issue in this Remand Final
`Written Decision below, which is summarized in the following table:
`
`
`2 See Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs. Inc., No. 2021-1412, 2022 WL 989403
`at *1 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2022) (nonprecedential); Microsoft Corp. v. IPA
`Techs. Inc., IPR2019-00835, Paper 42 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2020) (Final Written
`Decision); Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs. Inc., IPR2019-00836, Paper 50
`(PTAB Dec. 22, 2022) (Final Written Decision on Remand); Microsoft
`Corp. v. IPA Techs. Inc., IPR2019-00837, Paper 42 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2020)
`(Final Written Decision).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`28
`
`103(a)
`
`Martin, 3 Farley4
`
`
`See id.; Dec. on Inst. 7–9, 35; see Pet. 4–5.
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`The parties inform us that the ’560 patent is presently the subject of
`the following district court litigation: IPA Techs. Inc. v. Google LLC, No.
`1:18-cv-00318 (D. Del.); IPA Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:18-cv-
`00001 (D. Del.); and IPA Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-
`01266 (D. Del.). Pet. 1–2; Paper 4, 2. The Petition was filed concurrently
`with petitions filed in IPR2019-00731 and IPR2019-00732, and various
`petitions filed against U.S. Patent No. 6,851,115 (“the ’115 patent”), from
`which the ’560 patent is a continuation. Pet. 2–3; Paper 4, 2–3; see
`Ex. 1001, [63]. Institution of an inter partes review was denied in IPR2019-
`00732. As noted above, the ’560 patent was also addressed in Microsoft
`Corp. v. IPA Techs. Inc., No. 2021-1412, 2022 WL 989403, at *1 (Fed. Cir.
`Apr. 1, 2022) (nonprecedential); Microsoft Corp, IPR2019-00835, Paper 42
`(PTAB Oct. 15, 2020) (Final Written Decision); Microsoft Corp., IPR2019-
`00836, Paper 50 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2020) (Final Written Decision on
`
`
`3 David L. Martin, Adam J. Cheyer, Douglas B. Moran, Building Distributed
`Software Systems with the Open Agent Architecture, PROCEEDINGS OF THE
`THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF
`INTELLIGENT AGENTS AND MULTI-AGENT TECHNOLOGY 355 (1998)
`(Ex. 1011, “Martin”).
`4 Jim Farley, JAVA DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING, 1st ed., 1998 (Ex. 1020,
`“Farley”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`Remand); Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs. Inc., IPR2019-00837, Paper 42
`(PTAB Oct. 15, 2020) (Final Written Decision)
`
`D. The ’560 Patent and Illustrative Claims
`The ’560 patent is titled, “Highly scalable software-based architecture
`for communication and cooperation among distributed electronic agents”
`and describes “software-based architectures for communication and
`cooperation among distributed electronic agents” using “interagent
`communication languages enabling client agents to make requests in the
`form of arbitrarily complex goal expressions that are solved through
`facilitation by a facilitator agent.” Ex. 1001, 1:20–25. Figure 4 of the ’560
`patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`Figure 4 depicts the structure of an exemplary distributed agent system of
`the ’560 patent. Id. at 6:38–44. Figure 4 shows that system 400 includes
`facilitator agent 402, user interface agents 408, application agents 404, and
`meta-agents 406. Id. The ’560 patent describes that system 400 is organized
`“as a community of peers by their common relationship” to facilitator agent
`402 (id. at 6:41–44), which is “a specialized server agent that is responsible
`for coordinating agent communications and cooperative problem-solving”
`(id. at 6:46–48).
`The ’560 patent discloses that cooperation among agents is structured
`around a three-part approach as follows: (1) providers of services register
`their capabilities specifications with a facilitator; (2) requesters of services
`construct goals and relay them to the facilitator; and (3) the facilitator
`coordinates the efforts of the appropriate service providers in satisfying
`these goals. Id. at 10:53–61. Such cooperation among agents is achieved
`via messages expressed in a common language, called the Interagent
`Communication Language (“ICL”). Id. at 10:61–11:7.
`Referencing Figure 3 (not reproduced herein) and Figure 4, the ’560
`patent describes a preferred embodiment for the operation of a distributed
`agent system. Id. at 7:24–50. The ’560 patent describes that, when invoked,
`a client agent makes a connection to a facilitator, e.g., facilitator agent 402,
`and registers with the facilitator a specification of the capabilities and
`services it can provide. Id. For example, a natural language agent may
`register the characteristics of its available natural language vocabulary. Id.
`When facilitator agent 402 receives a service request and determines that
`registered services 416 of one of its client agents will help satisfy a goal of
`the request, the facilitator sends that client a request expressed in ICL 418.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`Id. at 7:36–45. The client agent parses this request, processes it, and returns
`answers or status reports to the facilitator. Id.
`Referencing Figures 5 and 6 (not reproduced herein), the ’560 patent
`describes an exemplary embodiment where user interface (UI) agent 408
`runs on a user’s laptop, accepting user input, sending requests to facilitator
`agent 402 for delegation to appropriate agents, and displaying the results of
`the distributed computation. Id. at 7:64–8:14. The ’560 patent illustrates
`that, when the question “What is my schedule?” is entered on UI agent 408,
`UI agent 408 sends the request to facilitator agent 402, which in turn asks
`natural language agent 426 to translate the query into ICL. Id. at 8:15–28.
`The translated ICL expression is then routed by facilitator agent 402 to
`appropriate agents, e.g., calendar agent 434, to execute the request. Id.
`Finally, results are sent back to UI agent 408 for display. Id.
`Claim 28 depends from independent cancelled claim 26. Claims 26
`and 28 are reproduced below.
`26. A distributed facilitator agent functionally distributed
`across at least two computer processes, the distributed facilitator
`agent arranged to coordinate cooperative task completion within
`a distributed computing environment having a plurality of
`autonomous service-providing electronic agents, the distributed
`facilitator agent comprising:
`an agent registry that declares capabilities of service-providing
`electronic agents currently active within
`the distributed
`computing environment; and
`a facilitating engine operable to parse a service request in order
`to interpret a compound goal set forth therein, the service request
`formed according to an Interagent Communication Language
`(ICL), the ICL including a layer of conversational protocol
`defined by event types and parameter lists associated with one or
`more of the events, wherein the parameter lists further refine the
`one or more events, the facilitating engine further operable to
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`generate a goal satisfaction plan associated with the compound
`goal, wherein the goal satisfaction plan involves:
`using reasoning to determine sub-goal requests based on non-
`syntactic decomposition of the base goal and using said
`reasoning to co-ordinate and schedule efforts by the service-
`providing electronic agents for fulfilling the sub-goal requests in
`a cooperative completion of the base goal.
`
`28. A facilitator agent as recited in claim 26 wherein the agent
`registry includes a symbolic name, a unique address, data
`declarations, trigger declarations, task declarations, and process
`characteristics for each active agent.
`Ex. 1001, 32:26–51, 32:58–61.
`
`A. Testimonial Evidence
`In support of its unpatentability contentions, Petitioner relies on the
`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr. (Ex. 1002) and the Declaration of
`Dr. Douglas B. Moran (Ex. 1007). Petitioner submits Patent Owner’s cross-
`examination deposition testimony of Dr. Moran (Ex. 1153), who is named as
`an author of the Martin reference. Patent Owner deposed and Petitioner
`cross-examined Mr. Adam J. Cheyer (Ex. 2037) and Mr. David L. Martin
`(Ex. 2038), who are both listed as co-inventors on the ’560 patent and named
`as co-authors of the Martin reference. In addition, both parties cite the
`37 C.F.R. § 1.132 declarations of Messrs. Cheyer and Martin submitted in
`the prosecution history of the ’560 patent. Ex. 1004, 221–24 (37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.132 declarations); Ex. 2039 (37 C.F.R. § 1.132 declarations).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Relevant Principles of Law
`To prevail in challenging Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim is
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`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 never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–
`27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof).
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter
`pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). 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 skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, objective indicia of
`non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). 5
`An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a skilled
`artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art
`references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’”
`
`
`5 With respect to the fourth Graham factor, the parties do not present
`arguments or evidence regarding objective indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–
`68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (holding
`that in an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”). Further,
`“[t]o satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ
`mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific
`reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of
`obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In our Final Written Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal
`consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art
`of record. Final Dec. 8 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355
`(Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). On
`appeal the parties did not challenge this finding and we see no reason to
`depart from this determination on remand. See generally PO Resp. Thus,
`we continue to find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention of the ’560 patent 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 networked computer systems or a related
`area. Ex. 1002 ¶ 14.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we apply the same claim construction
`standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b),
`following the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); 83 Fed. Reg.
`51340, 51,340–41, 51,343 (Oct. 11, 2018). In applying this standard, claim
`terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would
`be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the
`invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415
`F.3d at 1312–13. The parties do not propose a construction for any claim
`term. Petitioner avers that no express constructions are required (Pet. 17),
`and Patent Owner concurs and provides no express constructions (Prelim.
`Resp. 5; PO Resp.).
`Based on the final record, we determine no claim terms require
`express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in
`controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid
`Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).
`
`D. Asserted Prior Art Overview
`1. Overview of Martin (Ex. 1011)
`Martin relates to the Open Agent Architecture (OAA), which “makes
`it possible for software services to be provided through the cooperative
`efforts of distributed collections of autonomous agents.” Ex. 1011, 106
`(Abstract). According to Martin, “[c]ommunication and cooperation
`between agents are brokered by one or more facilitators, which are
`
`
`6 The page numbers for the Martin reference refer to Petitioner’s inserted
`page numbers in the bottom, left-hand corner of each page.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`responsible for matching requests, from users and agents, with descriptions
`of the capabilities of other agents.” Id.
`Figure 1 of Martin is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts the structure typical of a small OAA system, showing a user
`interface agent, several application agents, and meta-agents, organized as a
`community of peers by their common relationship to a facilitator agent. Id.
`at 14. Figure 1 also shows an Interagent Communication Language (“ICL”).
`Id. at 16, Fig. 1.
`According to Martin, cooperation among the agents of an OAA
`system is achieved via messages expressed in a common language, ICL. Id.
`at 17. Martin describes “Mechanisms of Cooperation” as follows.
`Cooperation among the agents of an OAA system is achieved via
`messages expressed in a common language, ICL, and is normally
`structured around a 3-part approach: providers of services
`register capabilities specifications with a facilitator; requesters of
`services construct goals and relay them to a facilitator, and
`facilitators coordinate the efforts of the appropriate service
`providers in satisfying these goals.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`Id.
`
`According to Martin, all agents that are not facilitators are called
`client agents. Id. at 16. Martin describes that when invoked, a client agent
`makes a connection to a facilitator. Id. at 16–17. Upon connection, an agent
`informs the facilitator of the services it can provide. Id. at 17. When the
`agent is needed, the facilitator sends it a request expressed in ICL. Id. The
`agent parses this request, processes it, and returns answers or status reports
`to the facilitator. Id.
`
`2. Overview of Farley (Ex. 1020)
`Farley is a publication titled JAVA Distributed Computing. Ex. 1020.
`Farley describes agents or objects distributed across multiple processes. Id.
`at 4. Farley discloses that the term “agent [is used in] a general way to refer
`to significant functional elements of a distributed application. . . . Agents
`can be distributed across multiple processes, and can be made up of multiple
`objects and threads in these processes.” Id. at 3.
`
`E. Martin as Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`1. Martin Reference Background
`The Martin reference discussed above is a conference paper titled
`“Building Distributed Software Systems with the Open Agent Architecture,”
`and was published in 1998. Ex. 1011, 1, 10. Martin was “authored by three
`SRI employees—the two inventors of the ʼ560 patent (Cheyer and Martin)
`and their [SRI] co-worker (Moran).” PO Resp. 1; Ex. 1011. “Both the ’560
`patent and Martin relate to work done on the Open Agent Architecture
`project at SRI, and large portions of the ’560 and Parent ’115 application
`and the Martin reference are identical or almost identical.” PO Resp. 1;
`compare Ex. 1001, with Ex. 1011, 10–29.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`Martin was considered during prosecution of the parent ’115 patent.
`The Examiner initially rejected claims of the application that issued as the
`’115 patent under § 102(a) based on Martin. Ex. 1004, 453, 454–68. Patent
`Owner overcame the rejection by submitting Rule 1.132 declarations from
`the named inventors, Messrs. Cheyer and Martin, attesting that they alone
`invented the subject matter disclosed and claimed in the ’115 application.
`Pet. 12; Ex. 1004, 221–24 (§ 1.132 declarations), 212–13. Cheyer and
`Martin also attested that Dr. Moran was not an inventor of the subject matter
`disclosed and claimed in the ’115 and ’560 patent. Ex. 1004, 221–24. The
`Examiner withdrew the rejections based on Martin in the next Office Action.
`Id. at 187–202.
`In support of Petitioner’s contention that Martin is the work of another
`and lacks a common inventive entity with the ’115 and ’560 patents,
`Petitioner relies on a Declaration from Dr. Moran (Ex. 1007) describing his
`contributions to the Martin reference. Pet. 11–15. Dr. Moran’s declaration
`states that he worked on the Open Agent Architecture project at SRI in 1994,
`becoming the project leader in August 1994. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23, 27. Dr. Moran
`testified that he co-authored the Martin reference with his colleagues David
`Martin and Adam Cheyer. Id. ¶ 35. Regarding authorship, Dr. Moran
`testified that “[m]uch of the writing in the OAA paper [the Martin reference]
`is mine, either directly borrowed from or derived from papers, presentations
`and proposals that I wrote.” Id. ¶ 37. Dr. Moran also states that based on
`his experiences he “contributed to the conception of distributed technologies
`that are at the core of the OAA paper [the Martin reference],” including
`“various networking-related concepts described in the [Martin reference],”
`the “distributed technologies that are at the core of the [Martin reference]
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`. . . , as described at Sections 2.5 and 3,” and “the distributed agent-based
`approach, and in particular using a facilitator, as described in the [Martin
`reference] at Section[s] 4 and 4.1–4.5.” Id. ¶ 39.
`Following institution, Patent Owner cross-examined Dr. Moran
`(Ex. 1153). Patent Owner deposed and Petitioner cross-examined
`Mr. Cheyer (Ex. 2037) and Mr. Martin (Ex. 2038).
`2. Our Final Written Decision and The Federal Circuit’s Decision
`In our Final Written Decision, we determined that Petitioner provided
`insufficient evidence to establish that the Martin reference was the work of
`another. Final Dec. 23–25. Specifically, we found the evidence insufficient
`to credit Dr. Moran’s declaration and testimony regarding his contribution to
`the Martin reference over Patent Owner’s competing evidence and testimony
`from Messrs. Cheyer and Martin that asserted that Dr. Moran did not make a
`technical contribution to the Martin reference. Id. In so doing, we found
`that Petitioner did not carry its burden to establish Dr. Moran’s sufficient
`contribution to the Martin reference to qualify as a joint inventor. Id.
`The Federal Circuit found “no error with the Board’s requiring that
`Petitioner establish the Martin reference was prior art ‘by another’ by
`showing that Dr. Moran made a significant enough contribution to the
`portions relied on to invalidate the challenged patents to qualify as a joint
`inventor of those portions.” Google, 34 F.4th at 1086. However, the
`Federal Circuit found that in finding the testimony of Dr. Moran,
`Mr. Martin, and Mr. Cheyer credible (Final Dec. 15 n.6), we failed to
`resolve the various conflicts in testimony and make certain findings of fact
`under the Duncan analysis to credit Messrs. Cheyer and Martin or
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`Dr. Moran with respect to the joint inventor inquiry for the Martin reference.
`Google, 34 F.4th at 1086.
`With respect to the joint inventor inquiry into the Martin reference,
`the Federal Circuit states that:
`Joint inventors need “not physically work together or at
`the same time, . . . make the same type or amount of contribution,
`or . . . make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of
`the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 116(a). A joint inventor must simply:
`(1) contribute in some significant manner to the
`conception or reduction to practice of the invention,
`(2) make a contribution to the claimed invention
`that is not insignificant in quality, when that
`contribution is measured against the dimension of
`the full invention, and (3) do more than merely
`explain to the real inventors well-known concepts
`and/or the current state of the art.
`In re VerHoef, 888 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting
`Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`Accordingly, “to decide whether a reference patent is ‘by
`another’ . . ., the Board must”:
`(1) determine what portions of the reference patent
`were relied on as prior art to anticipate the claim
`limitations at issue, (2) evaluate the degree to which
`those portions were conceived ‘by another,’ and
`(3) decide whether that other person’s contribution
`is significant enough, when measured against the
`full anticipating disclosure, to render him a joint
`inventor of the applied portions of the reference
`patent.
`Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358 (quoting pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(e)).
`Google, 34 F.4th at 1085. Having reviewed the record and the Final Written
`Decision, the Federal Circuit focused on Dr. Moran’s claim of contributions
`to the facilitator concept recited in Section 4.5 (Facilitation) of the Martin
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`reference, which found their way into the specification of the challenged
`patents. Id. at 1087 (comparing the Martin reference and the challenged
`patent’s specification) (citing Ex. 1011, 23–24 (Section 4.5); U.S. Patent No.
`7,069,560 B1 (“the ’560 patent”), 19:14–62); see Ex. 1001, 18:56–19:36. In
`further addressing the testimony and evidence, the Federal Circuit
`characterized the joint inventorship inquiry as requiring Google to “show[]
`that Dr. Moran made a significant enough contribution to the portions [of the
`Martin reference] relied on to invalidate the challenged patents to qualify as
`a joint inventor of those portions.” Google, 34 F.4th at 1086.
`Thus, the Federal Circuit instructs us that the issue on remand is
`“whether [Dr. Moran’s] testimony should ultimately be credited over Cheyer
`and Martin’s conflicting testimony during the IPR proceedings” (id. at 1088)
`as “[t]he § 1.132 declarations by Martin and Cheyer [in the prosecution
`history], standing alone, were insufficiently focused on the Duncan question
`to raise a fact issue” (id. at 1088 n.5).
`3. Parties’ Contentions on Remand
`With respect to the Duncan analysis, the parties do not dispute the
`portions of Martin that Petitioner cites and relies upon in the Petition. See
`Pet. Remand 3–4; PO Remand 2. Accordingly, we focus our inquiry on the
`second and third prongs of Duncan: “(2) . . . the degree to which those
`portions were conceived ‘by another,’ and (3) decide whether that other
`person’s contribution is significant enough, when measured against the full
`anticipating disclosure, to render him a joint inventor of the applied portions
`of the reference patent.” Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358.
`Petitioner argues that under Duncan Parking, a preponderance of the
`evidence supports that Dr. Moran contributed to the facilitator in Martin.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`Pet. Remand 1. Petitioner asserts that Dr. Moran identified that he
`contributed to and helped conceive of Sections 2.5, 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4,
`and 4.5 of the Martin reference and that these sections were extensively
`relied on in the Petition. Id. at 3–4 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1007 ¶ 39;
`Pet. 18–23 (relying on Sections 2.5, 3, 4.1, and 4.5)). With respect to the
`second requirement of the Duncan Parking inquiry, Petitioner argues that
`the evidence, properly credited as discussed by the Federal Circuit, supports
`the degree to which Dr. Moran conceived of the portions of the Martin
`reference. Pet. Remand 5–8 (citing Ex. 1011 (listing Dr. Moran as coauthor
`of Martin); Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 5–22, 23–34, 35–39 (background on the OAA
`project and the Martin reference); Ex. 1174, 1–2 (article describing the OAA
`system including the facilitator and listing Dr. Moran as the lead author,
`Mr. Cheyer as second author, but not including Mr. Martin)). In addition,
`Petitioner argues that the last prong of Duncan Parking (the significance of
`the contribution measured against the full disclosure) is met, as Dr. Moran’s
`contribution was substantial and instrumental in development of the
`facilitator. Pet. Remand 12 (citing Ex. 1011, 14).
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner fails to show any substantive
`analysis concerning the second and third Duncan steps, i.e., steps that
`demonstrate Dr. Moran’s specific contributions to the facilitator in the
`Martin reference or in the aspects relied on in the Petition. Pet. Remand 1.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has failed to cure the deficiency in the
`Petition by ignoring the central inquiry, by failing to “identify[] to what
`degree (if any) Dr. Moran conceived of specific aspects of the facilitator
`described in Martin that are also relied upon in the petition.” Id. at 3.
`Unlike the analysis in Duncan, where there was detailed testimony of the
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00731
`Patent 7,069,560 B1
`inventive contribution at issue (Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1359), Patent
`Owner argues that Petitioner’s evidence and