`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 55
`Entered: October 15, 2020
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IPA TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background and Summary
`
`
`
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”)1 filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 7,036,128 B1 (“the ’128 patent,” Ex. 1001).
`
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenges the patentability of claims 22, 41,
`
`42, 44, and 45 of the ’128 patent. We instituted an inter partes review of all
`
`challenged claims on all proposed grounds of unpatentability. Paper 14, 39.
`
`IPA Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)2 filed a Response to the Petition.
`
`Paper 37 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 47, “Pet. Reply”) and
`
`Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 51, “PO Sur-reply”). An oral hearing
`
`was held on June 4, 2020, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the
`
`record. Paper 54 (“Tr.”).
`
`
`
`This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 22, 41, 42, 44, and 45 of
`
`the ’128 patent are unpatentable.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`
`
`One or both parties identify, as matters involving or related to the
`
`’128 patent, IPA Technologies Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 1:18-cv-00318
`
`(D. Del. Feb. 26, 2018); IPA Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:18-
`
`cv-00001 (D. Del. Jan. 2, 2018); IPA Technologies Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner identifies Google LLC as the real party-in-interest. Pet. 2.
`2 Patent Owner identifies as the real party-in-interest “Patent Owner, IPA
`Technologies Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wi-LAN
`Technologies Inc. . . . , which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wi-LAN
`Inc. . . . , which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Quarterhill Inc.” Paper 4,
`2; Paper 13, 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`et al., No. 1:16-cv-01266 (D. Del. Dec. 19, 2016); and Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board cases Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., IPR2019-00733,
`
`IPR2019-00735, and IPR2019-00736, and Microsoft Corporation v. IPA
`
`Technologies Inc., IPR2019-00838, IPR2019-00839, and IPR2019-00840.
`
`Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2; Paper 13, 2.
`
`C. The ’128 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’128 patent is titled “Using a Community of Distributed
`
`Electronic Agents to Support a Highly Mobile, Ambient Computing
`
`Environment” and describes “software-based architectures for
`
`communication and cooperation among distributed electronic agents to
`
`incorporate elements such as GPS or positioning agents and speech
`
`recognition into a highly mobile computing environment.” Ex. 1001,
`
`code (54), 1:23–27. Figure 4 of the ’128 patent is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 4 depicts the structure of an exemplary distributed agent system of
`
`the ’128 patent. Id. at 6:47–52. Figure 4 shows that system 400 includes
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`facilitator agent 402, user interface agents 408, application agents 404, and
`
`meta-agents 406. Id. The ’128 patent explains that system 400 is organized
`
`“as a community of peers by their common relationship” to facilitator
`
`agent 402 (id. at 6:50–52), which is “a specialized server agent that is
`
`responsible for coordinating agent communications and cooperative
`
`problem-solving” (id. at 6:54–57).
`
`
`
`The ’128 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 a facilitator; and (3) the facilitator
`
`coordinates the efforts of the appropriate service providers in satisfying
`
`these goals. Id. at 10:65–11:6. Such cooperation among agents is achieved
`
`via messages expressed in a common language, called the Interagent
`
`Communication Language (“ICL”). Id. at 10:66–11:1, 7–13.
`
`
`
`Referencing Figures 3 and 4, the ’128 patent describes a preferred
`
`embodiment for the operation of a distributed agent system. Id. at 7:34–60.
`
`The ’128 patent describes that, when invoked, a client agent makes a
`
`connection to a facilitator 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. Id. at 7:46–55. The client agent parses this
`
`request, processes it, and returns answers or status reports to the facilitator.
`
`Id.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`
`
`Referencing Figures 5 and 6, the ’128 patent describes an exemplary
`
`embodiment where user interface agent 408 runs on a user’s laptop, accepts
`
`user input, sends requests to facilitator agent 402 for delegation to
`
`appropriate agents, and displays the results of the distributed computation.
`
`Id. at 8:7–24. The ’128 patent illustrates that, when the question “What is
`
`my schedule?” is entered on user interface (UI) 408, UI 408 sends the
`
`request to facilitator agent 402, which in turn asks natural language (NL)
`
`agent 426 to translate the query into ICL. Id. at 8:25–37. 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.
`
`
`
`The ’128 patent also describes an embodiment directed to mobile
`
`users, such as those in a car. Id. at 30:23–54. According to the ’128 patent,
`
`“the present invention enables intelligent collaboration among agents
`
`including user interface agents for providing an ambient interface well suited
`
`for the mobile environment . . . , as well as location-aware agents providing
`
`current positional information through technologies such as Global
`
`Positioning System (‘GPS’).” Id. at 30:37–43. The ’128 patent explains
`
`that “[n]ew technology such as Global Positioning System (GPS), wireless
`
`phones, wireless internet, and electronic controls are currently available in
`
`cars to improve the way people drive and manage the time spent in
`
`automobiles.” Id. at 30:47–50. The ’128 patent states that the disclosed
`
`invention “manages this heavy flow of data and keeps the cognitive load as
`
`low as possible for the driver” by providing a speech-enabled touchscreen
`
`device. Id. at 30:50–54.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`
`
`
`Of the challenged claims of the ’128 patent, claims 22, 41, and 45 are
`
`independent claims. The remaining challenged claims depend directly from
`
`claim 41. Claims 22 and 45, reproduced below with emphasis added and
`
`bracketed annotations3 inserted, are illustrative.
`
`22.[pre] A method for providing a mobile, ambient computing
`environment utilizing a community of distributed electronic
`agents, the community of agents including one or more user
`interface agents and at least one location agent providing
`information as to a current physical location of a user, the
`method comprising the acts of:
`
`[22.a] (a) registering one or more capabilities for each of
`the electronic agents in an interagent communication language
`(ICL), wherein the interagent language includes a layer of
`conversational protocol defined by event types and parameter
`lists associated with one or more events, and wherein the
`parameter lists further refine the one or more events;
`
`[22.b] (b) receiving one or more user input requests
`presented in one or more mobile input types;
`
`[22.c] (c) using the one or more user interface agents to
`interpret said input request and generate a corresponding goal
`formulated in ICL;
`
`[22.d] (d) using a facilitator agent to delegate the ICL
`goal, in the form of one or more ICL sub-goals, to a selected
`one or more of the electronic agents based upon the registered
`capabilities of the agents;
`
`[22.e] (e) using the selected electronic agents to perform
`the delegated ICL sub-goals;
`
`[22.f] (f) in course of said performance by the selected
`electronic agents, generating one or more new ICL goals for
`processing by the facilitator agent in accordance with step (d);
`and
`[22.g] (g) iteratively performing the process of steps (d)–
`
`(f) until the original ICL goal is satisfied, wherein one or more
`
`
`3 We utilize Petitioner’s annotations for claim 1 but have retained the
`paragraph formatting from the issued patent.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`
`of the ICL sub-goals or the new ICL goals requires user
`location information provided by the location agent.
`
`45.[pre] A computer-implemented highly mobile, ambient
`computing environment utilizing a community of distributed
`electronic agents, the computer environment comprising:
`
`[45.a] a plurality of autonomous service-providing
`electronic agents associated with available resources, wherein
`one or more capabilities of the service-providing electronic
`agents are registered in the form of an interagent
`communication language and [45.b] wherein the interagent
`language includes a layer of conversational protocol defined by
`event types and parameter lists associated with one or more
`events, and [45.c] wherein the parameter lists further refine the
`one or more events;
`
`[45.d] a facilitator agent arranged to coordinate
`cooperative task completion utilizing the plurality of
`autonomous service-providing electronic agents; and
`
`[45.e] a mobile computer interface responsive to a
`plurality of user input types, the mobile computer interface
`being in bi-directional communication with the facilitator agent,
`the mobile computer interface operable to forward a user
`request for resource access to the facilitator agent for
`processing, the mobile computer interface further operable to
`provide the user the requested resource access as provided by
`the facilitator agent,
`
`[45.f] whereby the mobile user is capable of accessing
`both local and remote resources.
`
`Ex. 1001, 37:4–35, 38:62–40:8 (emphases added).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`E. Evidence
`
`Reference
`
`David L. Martin, Adam J. Cheyer, and 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) (“Martin”)4
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1011
`
`US 5,528,248; filed Aug. 19, 1994; issued June 18, 1996
`(“Steiner”)
`
`1028
`
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`(Ex. 1002) in support of its arguments. The parties rely on other exhibits as
`
`discussed below.
`
`
`
`4 Prior to institution, Patent Owner argued that the pertinent portions of the
`Martin reference (listing as authors Martin, Cheyer, and Moran) and the
`’128 patent (naming as inventors Julia and Cheyer) are the work of a
`common inventive entity and therefore cannot be used as prior art. See, e.g.,
`Paper 7 (Prelim. Resp.), 40 (section heading: “Martin . . . is Not the Work
`of Another”); id. at 46 (“Martin represents the work of joint-inventor Cheyer
`and should not be considered as a ¶ 102(a) reference.”); Paper 11 (Patent
`Owner’s pre-institution sur-reply), 1. Patent Owner does not raise that
`argument in its Patent Owner Response and has waived the issue. See
`Paper 32, 8 (Scheduling Order; “Patent Owner is cautioned that any
`arguments for patentability not raised in the response may be deemed
`waived.”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`(November 2019) 52 (citing In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016)).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`45
`
`103(a)
`
`Martin
`
`22, 41, 42, 44
`
`103(a)
`
`Martin, Steiner
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law
`
`
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability of
`
`the claims challenged in the Petition, and that burden never shifts to Patent
`
`Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
`
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019).
`
`
`
`A patent 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 said
`
`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) any objective evidence of obviousness
`
`or non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`
`B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Olsen, opines that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention of the ’128 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; see Pet. 5. Patent Owner
`
`does not dispute Dr. Olsen’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. PO Resp. passim.
`
`
`
`We find Dr. Olsen’s definition consistent with the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, we adopt Dr. Olsen’s definition of the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`In an inter partes review requested in a petition filed on or after
`
`November 13, 2018, we apply the same claim construction standard used in
`
`district courts, namely that articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See Changes to the Claim Construction
`
`Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018)
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`(amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now
`
`codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). In applying that standard, claim
`
`terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would
`
`have been 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. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim
`
`limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining
`
`the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution
`
`history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`
`Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1312–17).
`
`
`
`We determine that no claim terms require express construction in
`
`order to resolve the parties’ disputes. See Pet. 21 (“[T]he Board need not
`
`construe any terms of the challenged claims to resolve the underlying
`
`controversy, as any reasonable construction reads on the prior art.”); Paper 7
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”), 5–6 (Patent Owner stating, under the “Claim
`
`Construction” heading, “it is not necessary for the Board to construe any
`
`terms to determine whether it should institute review.”); PO Resp. i (Patent
`
`Owner’s table of contents lacking a section heading for “Claim
`
`Construction”).
`
`D. Asserted Prior Art References
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`efforts of distributed collections of autonomous agents.” Ex. 1011, 3555
`
`(Abstr.). According to Martin, “[c]ommunication and cooperation between
`
`agents are brokered by one or more facilitators, which are 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 359. Figure 1 also shows an Interagent Communication Language. Id.
`
`
`
`at 361, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`According to Martin, cooperation among the agents of an OAA
`
`system is achieved via messages expressed in a common language,
`
`Interagent Communication Language (ICL). Id. at 362. 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
`
`
`
`5 We, like Petitioner, cite herein to the page numbers in the Martin reference
`(Exhibit 1011) rather than the page numbers of the exhibit.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`
`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.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`According to Martin, all agents that are not facilitators are called
`
`client agents. Id. at 361. Martin describes that when invoked, a client agent
`
`makes a connection to a facilitator. Id. at 361–62. Upon connection, an
`
`agent informs the facilitator of the services it can provide. Id. at 362. 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.
`
`
`
`Martin discloses a “Multimodal Map application, in which a user
`
`issues commands on a map by drawing, writing and speaking[.]” Id. at 359.
`
`The Multimodal Map application is described as “Pen/Voice interface to
`
`distributed web data.” Id. at 360 (Table 1, “A partial list of applications
`
`written using OAA.”).
`
`2. Overview of Steiner (Ex. 1028)
`
`
`
`Steiner pertains to the use of a satellite-based location determination
`
`system, Global Positioning System (GPS), with a personal digital computing
`
`device (PDA). Ex. 1028, 3:16–17, 6:1–6. Steiner describes the disclosed
`
`device as follows.
`
`A Personal Digital Location Apparatus for displaying a
`geographical location as an icon on a map. The apparatus
`includes a GPS Smart Antenna for determining the
`geographical location, a personal computing device including a
`display, a processing system including a standard software
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`
`operating system . . . , and a map application program capable
`of running in the operating system.
`
`Id., code (57) (Abstr.).
`
`E. The Alleged Obviousness of Claim 45 Over Martin
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that Martin (Ex. 1011) would have rendered
`
`independent claim 45 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Pet. 22–41; see
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–96. Petitioner asserts that each limitation of claim 45 is
`
`disclosed or suggested by Martin, and, in the alternative, argues that certain
`
`limitations would have been obvious. E.g., Pet. 30, 32 (“Martin discloses or
`
`suggests this limitation [45.c]. . . . To the extent Martin does not explicitly
`
`disclose that the parameter lists further refine the one or more events
`
`discussed above . . ., it would have been obvious to configure Martin’s
`
`process to implement this feature.”). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has
`
`improperly relied on hindsight, has improperly relied on common sense to
`
`supply claim limitations, and has failed to provide adequately supported
`
`reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the
`
`claimed invention. PO Resp. 38–43.
`
`1. 45.[pre] A computer-implemented highly mobile, ambient
`computing environment utilizing a community of distributed
`electronic agents, the computer environment comprising . . .
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that the Open Agent Architecture (OAA) “is a
`
`computer-implemented, highly mobile, ambient computing environment
`
`utilizing a community of distributed electronic agents.” Pet. 22 (citing
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 68; Ex. 1011, Title). Petitioner asserts that, “because Martin’s
`
`community of distributed agents provide services to a user on a personal
`
`digital assistant (PDA), which is a mobile computing device, and because
`
`various inputs can be detected, Martin’s community of distributed agents
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`provides a highly mobile, ambient computing environment.” Id. at 26 (citing
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 73; Ex. 1011, 374). Patent Owner does not contest these
`
`assertions. Regardless of whether this preamble language is limiting, we
`
`find, based on the evidence cited by Petitioner, that it is disclosed in the
`
`asserted prior art. Id. at 22–27.
`
`2. [45.a] a plurality of autonomous service-providing electronic
`agents associated with available resources, wherein one or
`more capabilities of the service-providing electronic agents are
`registered in the form of an interagent communication
`language and [45.b] wherein the interagent language includes
`a layer of conversational protocol defined by event types and
`parameter lists associated with one or more events, and [45.c]
`wherein the parameter lists further refine the one or more
`events
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that Martin discloses that service providers register
`
`capability specifications with a facilitator and that every agent participant in
`
`an OAA-based system publishes capability declarations in ICL. Pet. 29
`
`(citing Ex. 1011, 355, 362, 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 79). Quoting the reference,
`
`Petitioner notes that “Martin states that ‘[t]he ICL includes a layer of
`
`conversational protocol [that] is defined by the event types, together with the
`
`parameter lists that are associated with certain of these event types.’” Id.
`
`at 30 (quoting Ex. 1011, 363) (emphasis omitted, alteration in original).
`
`
`
`As to limitation 45.c—“wherein the parameter lists further refine the
`
`one or more events”—Petitioner argues that “Martin discloses or suggests
`
`this limitation.” Pet. 30. Specifically, Petitioner argues that Martin explains
`
`that parameter lists refine the semantics of a request for service, which,
`
`according to Petitioner, is expressed by an “‘event’ in the nomenclature of
`
`ICL.” Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1011, 363, 367; Ex. 1002 ¶ 81).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not contest these assertions. We find, based on the
`
`evidence cited by Petitioner, that these limitations 45.a, 45.b, and 45.c are
`
`taught or suggested by Martin. Id. at 27–32.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also reasons that, if Martin does not expressly disclose the
`
`feature of limitation 45.c, it would have been obvious in light of Martin’s
`
`teachings and that which was common knowledge in the art. Id. at 32–33
`
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 83–84; Ex. 1011, 363; Ex. 1050 (Stroustrup), 153). In
`
`light of our findings here, we need not reach this alternative argument.
`
`3. [45.d] a facilitator agent arranged to coordinate cooperative
`task completion utilizing the plurality of autonomous service-
`providing electronic agents
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that Martin discloses that a facilitator agent
`
`coordinates the efforts of the appropriate service providers to satisfy goals
`
`and that Martin also discloses task completions, thereby disclosing a
`
`“facilitator agent [that] is arranged to coordinate cooperative task completion
`
`using the autonomous service providing electronic agents.” Pet. 33–35
`
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–86; Ex. 1011, 359, 362, 374, Fig. 1). Patent Owner
`
`does not contest these assertions. We find, based on the evidence cited by
`
`Petitioner, that this limitation 45.d is taught or suggested by Martin. Id.
`
`4. [45.e] a mobile computer interface responsive to a plurality of
`user input types, the mobile computer interface being in
`bi-directional communication with the facilitator agent, the
`mobile computer interface operable to forward a user request
`for resource access to the facilitator agent for processing, the
`mobile computer interface further operable to provide the user
`the requested resource access as provided by the facilitator
`agent,
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that “Martin discloses or suggests this limitation.”
`
`Pet. 35. Petitioner asserts that “Martin discloses that the Open Agent
`
`Architecture is used to provide ‘[m]obile interfaces (PDA with telephone) to
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`[an] integrated community of commercial office applications . . . and AI
`
`technologies . . . .’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1011, 360 (emphasis omitted;
`
`alterations in original)). Petitioner, citing the testimony of Dr. Olsen, asserts
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a PDA
`
`(personal digital assistant) is a type of mobile computer. Id. (citing Ex. 1002
`
`¶ 87). Petitioner explains how Martin discloses a mobile computer interface
`
`responsive to various input types, such as speech recognition and drawing,
`
`and asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that the interface is available in the applications in addition to the particular
`
`Automated Office application discussed explicitly. Id. at 36–37 (citing
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 88).
`
`
`
`Petitioner points to, inter alia, Martin’s Figure 1 as disclosure of the
`
`user interface agent that implements the recited mobile computer interface
`
`and that is in bi-directional communication with the Facilitator, and
`
`persuasively explains, relying on Dr. Olsen’s testimony, that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood Martin’s user interface agent
`
`to be operable to perform the recited “forward” and “provide” functions. Id.
`
`at 37–39 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1011, Fig. 1; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 89–92).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not contest these assertions. We find, based on the
`
`evidence cited by Petitioner, that this limitation 45.e is taught or suggested
`
`by Martin. Id. at 35–39.
`
`
`
`Petitioner further argues, in the alternative, that,
`
`[t]o the extent Martin does not explicitly disclose that the
`mobile computer interface is operable to forward a user request
`for resource access to the facilitator agent for processing, and
`further operable to provide the user the requested resource
`access as provided by the facilitator agent, it would have been
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`
`obvious to configure Martin’s mobile computer interface to
`implement such features.
`
`Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 93). Petitioner reasons that, based on Martin’s
`
`disclosure, the proposed configuration “would have been a mere
`
`combination of known components and technologies, according to known
`
`methods, to produce predictable results.” Id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 93;
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 416). In light of our findings here, we need not reach this
`
`alternative argument.
`
`5. [45.f] whereby the mobile user is capable of accessing both
`local and remote resources
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that “Martin discloses or suggests this limitation.”
`
`Pet. 40. Petitioner argues, relying on the testimony of Dr. Olsen, that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that a user of
`
`Martin’s ‘PDA with telephone’ (‘the mobile user’) is capable of accessing
`
`both local and remote resources.” Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 94). Patent
`
`Owner does not contest these assertions. We find, based on the evidence
`
`cited by Petitioner, that this limitation 45.f is taught or suggested by Martin.
`
`Id. at 40–41.
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues, in the alternative, that it would have been obvious to
`
`configure Martin’s computing environment to access both local and remote
`
`resources based on that which was known in the art. Id. at 41 (citing
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 96). In light of our findings here, we need not reach this
`
`alternative argument.
`
`6. Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Petitioner’s
`Alternative Positions
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner admits that several limitations are
`
`not disclosed in Martin and, based on this assertion, further argues that
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`Petitioner has erroneously relied on common sense to supply those missing
`
`limitations. PO Resp. 38–43 (referring to limitations 45.c, 45.e, and 45.f).
`
`
`
`We disagree. Petitioner did not admit that the identified limitations
`
`are missing from Martin. To the contrary, for each of the identified
`
`limitations, Petitioner first set out its position as to how Martin discloses or
`
`suggests the limitation, and, in the alternative, argued that it would have
`
`been obvious. E.g., Pet. 30, 32 (for limitation 45.c: “Martin discloses or
`
`suggests this limitation. . . . To the extent Martin does not explicitly
`
`disclose that the parameter lists further refine the one or more events . . ., it
`
`would have been obvious to configure Martin’s process to implement this
`
`feature.”); see also id. at 35, 39 (limitation 45.e), 40, 41 (limitation 45.f).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s primary assertions that the
`
`subject limitations are disclosed or suggested by Martin. See PO Resp. 38–
`
`43. Rather, Patent Owner incorrectly assumed that, “[f]or Ground 1,
`
`Petitioner admits Martin does not disclose several claim elements,” id. at 38,
`
`and then based its arguments against this ground on this erroneous
`
`assumption, id. at 39–43. Petitioner replies:
`
`Far from “admit[ting] [that] Martin does not disclose” claim
`elements [45.c], [45.e], and [45.f], Google affirmatively
`demonstrated that each were disclosed by Martin. (Pet. at 30-32
`(demonstrating that Martin discloses all of the features of claim
`element [45.c]), 35-39 (same for claim element [45.e]), 40-41
`(same for claim element [45.f]).) IPA does not challenge any of
`this analysis, rendering its criticisms of Google’s obviousness
`analysis irrelevant.
`
`Pet. Reply 8–9. Patent Owner had the chance to respond in its Sur-reply but
`
`chose not to do so. See PO Sur-reply ii (Table of Contents lacking a heading
`
`for Ground 1); id. at 1–2 (summary of the arguments focusing only on
`
`Steiner, the secondary reference in Ground 2).
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00734
`Patent 7,036,128 B1
`
`
`
`Based on our findings, we do not need to reach Petitioner’s alternative
`
`positions or, by extension, Patent Owner’s arguments as to why those
`
`alternative positions allegedly are lacking.
`
`7. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness
`
`
`
`Patent Owner doe