Filed: September 16, 2022
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Microsoft Corp.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IPA Technologies Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Case IPR2019-00811
`U.S. Patent 6,851,115 B1
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`PETITIONER MICROSOFT’S REMAND OPENING BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Microsoft Corp.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IPA Technologies Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Case IPR2019-00811
`U.S. Patent 6,851,115 B1
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`PETITIONER MICROSOFT’S REMAND OPENING BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Authorities ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`Claims 8–10 and 63 of the 115 Patent and Claim 28 of the 560 Patent 1
`1.
`Claims 8–10 of the 115 Patent .................................................... 2
`2.
`Claim 63 of the 115 Patent and Claim 28 of the 560 Patent ...... 5
`Claims 86 – 89 of the 115 Patent .......................................................... 7
`B.
`Claims 10 and 11 of the 560 Patent ...................................................... 8
`C.
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 9
`Certificate of Service .............................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation hereby submits this brief on the limited
`
`issues remanded to the Board from the Federal Circuit. The remand requires the
`
`Board only to address “any remaining” issue and reach the obviousness merits.
`
`Because either the Board or the Federal Circuit has already addressed the few
`
`arguments relating to these issues that Patent Owner raised in its Patent Owner
`
`Response, there is little left for the Board to decide. As explained below, the
`
`petitions demonstrated that it would have been obvious to combine the Kiss patent
`
`(EX1005) with the FIPA97 publication (EX1006-1011) and that such a
`
`combination rendered the claims at issue in this remand obvious, and therefore
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Claims 8–10 and 63 of the 115 Patent and Claim 28 of the 560
`Patent
`
`The Federal Circuit “revers[ed] the Board’s finding that Microsoft ha[d] not
`
`persuasively shown how or why Kiss and FIPA97 would have been combined to
`
`generate the subject matter of claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28
`
`of the ’560 patent,” and remanded for the Board to “address any remaining
`
`obviousness disputes concerning these claims.” Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs.
`
`Inc., No. 2021-1412, 2022 WL 989403, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2022). As
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`demonstrated in the petitions, each of these claims are rendered obvious by the
`
`combination of Kiss and FIPA97. See IPR2019-00810, Petition, §VI.A.6-8 (115
`
`Patent, Claims 8-10); IPR2019-00814, Petition, §VI.A.3 (115 Patent, Claim 63);
`
`IPR2019-00835, Petition, §VI.A.6 (560 Patent, Claim 28).
`
`1.
`
`Claims 8–10 of the 115 Patent
`
`Trigger Declarations: Claims 8 requires an agent registry that includes “at
`
`least one trigger declaration for one active agent.” The ordinary meaning of a
`
`“trigger declaration” is a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics
`
`of a trigger, and the ordinary meaning of “trigger” is a general mechanism for
`
`requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.
`
`EX1003,¶371.
`
`Part 6 of FIPA97 discloses an example in which agents of an Audio/Video
`
`Entertainment and Broadcasting system use “contract nets”—i.e., methods for
`
`multiple agents to negotiate with a “manager agent” to optimize how a given
`
`protocol will be conducted, EX1007, 46—to determine which agents are best
`
`utilized to facilitate that protocol. EX1011, 21; EX1003,¶372.
`
`The disclosed contract net example represents a negotiation between a
`
`“Control Agent,” or “CA” agent and a “Guide Agent, or “GA” that uses a content
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`index to respond to requests from the CA and is thus an “agent registry.” EX1011,
`
`21; EX1003,¶373.
`
`FIPA97 discloses “trigger declarations” within the “Guide Agent” (“GA”).
`
`EX1011, 21. For example, FIPA97 discloses a FIPA-AVEB-Request-Notification
`
`contract-net that is used to obtain a notification when the schedule for a particular
`
`AV program is modified. EX1011, 10, 11, 14, 21; EX1007, 46; EX1003,¶¶372,
`
`373. The modification of such a schedule is a “trigger” and the statement of it in
`
`the content index is a “trigger declaration.” EX1003,¶¶374-376.
`
`FIPA97 also discloses that the CA of that contract-net will set a trigger with
`
`a precondition (“preconditions2”) within the GA (“agent registry”). EX1011, 21.
`
`The GA will then monitor for changes over a given time period (“Deadline”) and
`
`inform the CA of any changes that conform to the precondition within that period.
`
`EX1011, 21; EX1003,¶374. That precondition is a “trigger” and the statement
`
`setting it within the content index is a “trigger declaration.” EX1003,¶¶374-376.1
`
`Task Declaration/Process Characteristics: Claims 9 and 10 recite: “at
`
`least one task declaration, and process characteristics for each active agent” and
`
`
`
`1 Moreover, such functionality is available for every active agent, so that the agent
`
`registry must include declaration functionality for all such triggers. EX1003,¶374.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“at least one process characteristic for each active agent,” respectively. The
`
`ordinary meaning of a “task declaration” is a statement in a program that specifies
`
`the characteristics of a task. EX1003,¶378.
`
`In Kiss, the agent service layer (“agent registry data structure”) includes a
`
`“task declaration” in the “Capabilities” column of Table 1 for “each active
`
`agent”—each element characterizes the tasks agents are capable of performing.
`
`EX1005, 12:1-18, Table 1 (e.g., showing that an agent having the “Marketing”
`
`knowledge module (i.e., a Marketing Agent) is capable of providing “Market
`
`Price,” thus characterizing the task that agent can carry out). EX1003,¶379.
`
`The ordinary meaning of “process characteristics” is additional information
`
`that may refine how a process is conducted. EX1003,¶380. When registering an
`
`agent in FIPA97, various “process characteristics” may be included in the
`
`registration for each active agent. For example, FIPA97 discloses the Agent
`
`Management Object “fipa-man-df-agent-description” which contains a registry
`
`parameter “interactionprotocols” which “[c]haracterises the protocols supported by
`
`the agent. This can include both standardised and/or non-standard protocols.”
`
`EX1006, 33. The “protocols” refine how the interactions with a given agent are
`
`conducted. EX1003,¶380. Moreover, in the combined system of Kiss and FIPA97
`
`the features of both agent registries would be combined. EX1003,¶¶217-219.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the combination discloses “at least one task declaration, and
`
`process characteristics for each active agent” and “at least one process
`
`characteristic for each active agent.”
`
`2.
`
`Claim 63 of the 115 Patent and Claim 28 of the 560 Patent
`
`Claim 63 of the 115 Patent and Claim 28 of the 560 Patent each recite a “[a]
`
`facilitator agent . . . wherein the agent registry includes a symbolic name, a
`
`unique address, data declarations, trigger declarations, task declarations, and
`
`process characteristics for each active agent.” For these claims, the Petitions
`
`demonstrated not only that it would have been obvious to combine Kiss and
`
`FIPA97, but also that it would have been obvious to combine the agent registry
`
`techniques of the two references in the combined system. IPR2019-00814,
`
`Petition, §VI.A.3 (115 Patent, Claim 63); IPR2019-00835, Petition, §VI.A.6 (560
`
`Patent, Claim 28). Such a combined agent registry satisfies these claims.
`
`For example, Table 1 of Kiss depicts an “agent registry” that includes a
`
`“symbolic name,” such as “Labor” or “Marketing,” for each registered agent which
`
`are non-unique and can identify the agent. EX1005, 3:40-43, 12:1-18;
`
`EX1003,¶¶362-364, 538, 684; EX1050,¶¶570-571.
`
`Moreover, FIPA97 discloses a support IIOP (Internet Inter-Orb Operability
`
`Protocol) “as a default method of communication.” EX1006, 12. Under IIOP, each
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`agent has a “unique identifier also known as its GUID. An agent name is a
`
`concatenation of its HAP communication address and a unique name within that
`
`AP,” EX1006, 13, i.e., “a unique address.” EX1003,¶539; EX1050,¶572.
`
`The “agent registry” in Kiss “identifies each agent's capabilities and
`
`interests,” EX1005, 3:40-43, and includes a “data declaration” in the form of the
`
`“Interests” column. EX1005, 12:1-18. Each “Interest” relates to the characteristics
`
`of a specific set of data that the agent can access and is therefore a “declaration” of
`
`that characteristic within the entire system. This disclosure is analogous to the
`
`disclosure of the 115 and 560 Patents, which use the phrase “data declaration” to
`
`refer to the type of data the agent registry indicates an agent can handle. EX1001,
`
`17:2-5, Fig. 7; EX1003,¶366; EX1050,¶¶573-576.
`
`FIPA97 discloses the use of “trigger declarations” in the agent registry for
`
`each active agent for the reasons explained above, including the “preconditions2”
`
`trigger declaration that is analogous to the “trigger declaration” disclosure in the
`
`115 Patent. EX1001, 17:5-9, Fig. 7; EX1011, 10, 11, 14, 21; EX1007, 46;
`
`EX1003,¶¶372-376; EX1050,¶¶577-581.
`
`Further, in Kiss, the agent service layer (“agent registry”) includes a “task
`
`declaration” in the “Capabilities” column—each element characterizes the tasks
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`each agents is capable of performing. EX1005, 12:1-18; EX1003,¶¶378-379;
`
`EX1050,¶¶584-585.
`
`FIPA97 also discloses the use, in the agent registry, of “process
`
`characteristics for each active agent” for the reasons set forth above. EX1006, 33;
`
`EX1003,¶380; EX1050,¶¶586-587.
`
`Accordingly, the combination of Kiss and FIPA97 disclose “[a] facilitator
`
`agent . . . wherein the agent registry includes a symbolic name, a unique address,
`
`data declarations, trigger declarations, task declarations, and process
`
`characteristics for each active agent” as recited in claim 63 of the 115 Patent and
`
`claim 28 of the 560 Patent.
`
`B. Claims 86 – 89 of the 115 Patent
`
`The Federal Circuit also “reverse[d] the Board’s finding that Microsoft’s
`
`petition did not sufficiently demonstrate with particularity the evidentiary support
`
`for the grounds for the challenge to claims 86–89 of the ’115 patent,” and
`
`remanded for the Board to “reach the obviousness merits.” Microsoft Corp. v. IPA
`
`Techs. Inc., No. 2021-1412, 2022 WL 989403, at *8 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2022).
`
`With respect to those obviousness merits, the Federal Circuit explained that
`
`both it and the Board have already determined that “(1) the combination of Kiss
`
`and FIPA97 teaches a facilitator and (2) Kiss’s meta agent constructs a goal
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`satisfaction plan,” id. (citing id., at § II.A and Final Written Decision, IPR2019-
`
`00814, 2020 WL 6532192, at *53–54 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2020); Final Written
`
`Decision, IPR2019-00835, 2020 WL 6106141, at *31–33 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2020)),
`
`which were the only aspects of the Petition’s analysis of claims 86-89 disputed by
`
`Patent Owner. The Board should therefore find these claims obvious over the
`
`combination of Kiss and FIPA97.
`
`C. Claims 10 and 11 of the 560 Patent
`
`Claim 10 of the 560 Patent recites “[a] computer architecture as recited in
`
`claim 8 wherein the ICL syntax supports explicit task completion advisory
`
`suggestions within goal expressions,” and claim 11 of the 560 Patent recites “[a]
`
`computer architecture as recited in claim 5 wherein the ICL syntax supports
`
`explicit task completion advisory suggestions within goal expressions.”
`
`The Federal Circuit “reverse[d] the Board’s implicit claim construction” of
`
`“advisory suggestions” and “remand[ed] to the Board to take the necessary next
`
`steps, which depend on what, if any, issues remain under the correct claim
`
`construction.” Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs. Inc., No. 2021-1412, 2022 WL
`
`989403, at *10 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2022). In particular, the Federal Circuit
`
`“conclude[d] that the fairest meaning of ‘advisory suggestions’ is ‘advice
`
`parameter,’ not a meaning that excludes ‘constraints.’” Id., at *9.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petition demonstrated that FIPA97 includes such advice parameters,
`
`including “constraints.” IPR2019-00836, Pet. at 62. For example, FIPA97
`
`discloses the directory performative “search” to search local or remote directories
`
`for relevant resources. EX1006, 20; EX1050,¶¶430-431.
`
`
`
`
`
`The “search” performative may contain “Constraints+”, such as the
`
`Directory Facilitator Depth (“df-depth”) and Required Number of Records
`
`(“recsreq”). EX1006, 21-22. The Directory Facilitator Depth constraint is similar
`
`to the level_limit “Advice Parameter” disclosed in the 115 Patent, as both define
`
`how many directory facilitators should be searched to locate specific agents.
`
`EX1006, 21-22. Constraining a directory search impacts the results of a search and
`
`how the base goal is interpreted. For example, this parameter can be used to limit
`
`the search to only a single directory for efficiency.
`
`Therefore, FIPA97 discloses an ICL syntax that supports “explicit task
`
`completion advisory suggestions.” EX1050,¶¶432-434.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should find claims 8-10 and 63 of the
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`115 Patent, claim 28 of the 560 Patent, claims 86-89 of the 115 Patent, and claims
`
`10 and 11 of the 560 Patent unpatentable.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 16, 2022
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/ Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Attorney for Petitioner Microsoft Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on this 16th day of
`
`September, 2022, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`and any accompanying exhibits by e-mail on the following counsel:
`
`Steven W. Hartsell
`Alexander E. Gasser
`Sarah E. Spires
`Paul J. Skiermont
`Sadaf R. Abdullah
`Mieke K. Malmberg
`IPA_SDTeam@skiermontderby.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 16, 2022
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/ Scott M. Border/
`Scott M. Border
`Reg. No. 77,744
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Attorney for Petitioner Microsoft Corp.
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
