throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket