Filed January 21, 2020
`
`Filed on behalf of: Amazon.com, Inc.
`By:
`Joseph R. Re
`Colin B. Heideman
`Jeremy A. Anapol
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: 206-405-2000
`Facsimile: 206-405-2001
`Email: BoxSEAZNL1623LP@knobbe.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00460
`U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,264,483
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Amazon.com, Inc.
`By:
`Joseph R. Re
`Colin B. Heideman
`Jeremy A. Anapol
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: 206-405-2000
`Facsimile: 206-405-2001
`Email: BoxSEAZNL1623LP@knobbe.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00460
`U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,264,483
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(A)(1) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) -------------------------- 1
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) --------------------------------- 1
`C.
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) --------------------- 1
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ---------------------------- 2
`E.
`Payment of Fees Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ------------------------ 2
`F.
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) --------------------- 2
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’483 PATENT --------------------------------------- 3
`A. Overview ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`B.
`Prosecution History ---------------------------------------------------------- 4
`C.
`Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`D.
`Priority ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`E.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art------------------------------------------ 6
`F.
`Claim Construction ---------------------------------------------------------- 6
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ------------------------- 7
`A. Grounds ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`B.
`Status of References as Prior Art ------------------------------------------ 9
`IV. SPECIFIC PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REJECTION --------------------- 10
`A. Ground 1a: Claims 1-28 Are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Maes. ----------------------------------------- 10
`1.
`Overview of Maes --------------------------------------------------- 10
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`Claim 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 12
`a.
`Limitation [a]: One or More Communication
`Devices -------------------------------------------------------- 13
`i.
`Limitation [a][i]: communication
`device “adapted to communicate a
`request to establish a communication
`session over the first communication
`link” ---------------------------------------------------- 14
`Limitation [a][ii]: the device
`“comprising a thin-client software
`program that provides processing
`services to an application
`substantially executed at a location
`remote from the at least one
`communication device” ----------------------------- 16
`Limitation [a][iii]: “wherein the first
`communication link comprises a data
`connection” ------------------------------------------- 18
`Limitation [b]: “one or more application
`servers coupled to the first communication
`link and operable to receive the request
`communicated over the first communication
`link” ----------------------------------------------------------- 18
`Limitation [c]: One or More Repositories ---------------- 19
`i.
`Limitation [c][i]: the repository
`“coupled to at least one of the one or
`more application servers and operable
`to communicate with the one or more
`application servers” ---------------------------------- 19
`Limitation [c][ii]: a repository
`“having access to one or more
`applications maintained in a database
`coupled to the at least one repository” ------------ 20
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`ii.
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`d.
`
`iii.
`
`Limitation [c][iii]: “the at least one
`repository adapted to communicate
`the identified application over a
`second communication link to the at
`least one application server” ------------------------ 23
`Limitation [d]: “wherein the at least one
`application server is adapted to execute the
`identified application remote from the at
`least one communication device and to
`establish the communication session with
`the at least one communication device” ------------------ 23
`Limitation [e]: “wherein the at least one
`application server communicates a request
`for processing service to the at least one
`communication device -------------------------------------- 24
`Limitation [f]: “wherein the request for
`processing service is communicated to the at
`least one communication device over the
`data connection” --------------------------------------------- 24
`Limitation [g]: “wherein the request for
`processing service comprises one or more
`queries for information from a user.” --------------------- 25
`Claim 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- 25
`3.
`Claim 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- 27
`4.
`Claims 2 and 13 ------------------------------------------------------ 29
`5.
`Claims 3 and 14 ------------------------------------------------------ 30
`6.
`Claims 4 and 15 ------------------------------------------------------ 30
`7.
`Claims 5 and 16 ------------------------------------------------------ 31
`8.
`Claims 6, 17, and 25 ------------------------------------------------ 31
`9.
`10. Claims 7 and 18 ------------------------------------------------------ 32
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`11. Claim 8, 20, and 26 ------------------------------------------------- 32
`12. Claims 9, 21, and 27 ------------------------------------------------ 33
`13. Claim 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- 34
`14. Claims 12, 24 -------------------------------------------------------- 35
`15. Claim 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- 36
`16. Claim 23 -------------------------------------------------------------- 37
`17. Claim 28 -------------------------------------------------------------- 37
`Ground 1b: Claims 1-28 Are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Maes and Bookman. ------------------------ 38
`1.
`Bookman Discloses the Claimed Repository. ------------------- 38
`2. Motivation to Combine --------------------------------------------- 39
`Ground 1c: Claims 1-28 Are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Maes, Maes 2, and Optionally
`in Further view of Bookman. ---------------------------------------------- 41
`D. Ground 2: Claims 1-28 Are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Bharedwaj and Salomon. ------------------ 42
`1.
`Overview of Bharedwaj -------------------------------------------- 42
`2.
`Overview of Salomon ----------------------------------------------- 44
`3.
`Claim 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 45
`a.
`Limitation [a]: one or more communication
`devices coupled to a first communication
`link ------------------------------------------------------------- 45
`i.
`Limitation [a][i]: a communication
`device “adapted to communicate a
`request to establish a communication
`session over the first communication
`link” ---------------------------------------------------- 46
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`Limitation [a][ii]: the device
`“comprising a thin-client software
`program that provides processing
`services to an application
`substantially executed at a location
`remote from the at least one
`communication device” ----------------------------- 47
`Limitation [a][iii]: “wherein the first
`communication link comprises a data
`connection” ------------------------------------------- 48
`Limitation [b]: One or More Application
`Servers -------------------------------------------------------- 48
`i.
`Limitation [b][i]: the server “coupled
`to the first communication link and
`operable to receive the request
`communicated over the first
`communication link” -------------------------------- 48
`Limitation [c]: “one or more repositories …
`having access to one or more applications
`maintained in a database … [and] adapted to
`communicate … to the at least one
`application server” ------------------------------------------- 49
`i.
`Bharedwaj --------------------------------------------- 49
`ii.
`Salomon ----------------------------------------------- 50
`iii. Motivation to Combine ------------------------------ 51
`Limitation [d]: “wherein the at least one
`application server … to establish the
`communication session with the at least one
`communication device” ------------------------------------- 54
`Limitation [e]: server request for processing
`service to communication device -------------------------- 54
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Limitation [f]: request communicated to
`device over data connection -------------------------------- 55
`Limitation [g]: request comprises query for
`information from user --------------------------------------- 55
`Claim 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- 56
`4.
`Claim 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- 58
`5.
`Claims 2 and 13 ------------------------------------------------------ 59
`6.
`Claims 3 and 14 ------------------------------------------------------ 61
`7.
`Claims 4 and 15 ------------------------------------------------------ 61
`8.
`Claims 5 and 16 ------------------------------------------------------ 62
`9.
`10. Claims 6, 17, and 25 ------------------------------------------------ 62
`11. Claims 7 and 18 ------------------------------------------------------ 62
`12. Claims 8, 20, and 26 ------------------------------------------------ 63
`13. Claims 9, 21, and 27 ------------------------------------------------ 63
`14. Claim 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- 64
`15. Claims 12 and 24 ---------------------------------------------------- 65
`16. Claim 23 -------------------------------------------------------------- 66
`17. Claim 28 -------------------------------------------------------------- 67
`Ground 2b: Claim 19 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) in view of Bharedwaj, Salomon, and Salesky. ------------------ 67
`1.
`Claim 19 Would Have Been Obvious in view of
`Bharedwaj and Salomon. ------------------------------------------- 67
`Claim 19 Would Have Been Obvious in Further
`view of Salesky. ----------------------------------------------------- 68
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ------------------------------------------- 70
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 72
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY FACTORS FAVORING INSTITUTION —————————————— 70
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY FACTORS FAVORING INSTITUTION -------------- 70
`VII. CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------- 72
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`-Vii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITES
`
`Page(s):
`
`Acronis, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2018-00706, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2018) -------------------------------- 72
`Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Oyster Optics, LLC,
`IPR2017-02146, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018) ------------------------------- 71
`Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Oyster Optics, LLC,
`IPR2018-00070, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. May 10, 2018) ------------------------------ 71
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) -------------------------------------------------------- 8
`FitBit, Inc. v. BlackBird Tech, LLC,
`IPR2017-02012, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018) -------------------------------- 71
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016–01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) -------------------------- 70, 71
`Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 6:19-cv-00355 (W.D. Texas, filed June 6, 2019) ------------------------------ 1
`Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`6:19-cv-00356 (W.D. Tex., filed June 6, 2019) ------------------------------------- 1
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) --------------------------------------------------------------- 22, 53
`Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ------------------------------------------------------- 70
`Microsoft Corporation v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`IPR2018-00023, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. April 11, 2018) ------------------------------- 71
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) -------------------------------------------------------- 7
`In re Nilssen,
`851 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1988) -------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Certified Measurement,
`IPR2018-00548, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2018) --------------------------------- 70
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) --------------------------------------------------------- 9
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) --------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Statutes and Rules:
`§ 325(d) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 72
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1, 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`37 C.F.R. §42.104 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`
`
`
`
`-ix-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483 (“the ’483 patent”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`Declaration of Philip Greenspun, Ph.D.
`CV of Philip Greenspun, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,934,756 (“Maes”)
`International Appl. No. PCT/US99/23008 (“Maes 2”)
`International Appl. No. PCT/US01/17274 (“Bharedwaj”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0051125 (“Salomon”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0080504 (“Salesky”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,761,673 (“Bookman”)
`VoiceXML Version 2.0, W3C (March 16, 2004)
`VoiceXML Version 1.0, W3C (May 5, 2000)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0101122 (“Da Palma”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0085562 (“Blaho”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0091825 (“Shuster”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,963,859 (“Stefik”)
`Multimedia Messaging Service Encapsulation Protocol, Open
`Mobile Alliance (July 15, 2004)
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 1
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`1030
`
`Excerpts from Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions in Ham-
`mond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00355
`(W.D. Texas, filed June 6, 2019) (“Infringement Contentions”).
`Bruce Schwartz, Microsoft has the edge in battle of the browsers,
`USA Today (August 21, 1996)
`Excerpts from James H. Pence, How to Do Everything with
`HTML, Osborne/McGraw-Hill (2001)
`Excerpts from Handbook for the PalmTM TungstenTM T3
`Handheld, Palm (2003)
`Excerpts from Using Your Palm Treo 700w Smartphone, Palm
`(2005)
`Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Mo-
`bile Execution Environment (MExE); Service description, Stage
`1: (Release 6), 3rd Generation Partnership Project (2005)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,845,077 (“Fawcett”)
`Joel F. Bartlett, W4 - the Wireless World Wide Web, Workshop on
`Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, IEEE Computer
`Society Press 176 (December 8-9, 1994)
`Todd Courtois, Portal: A PDA-to-World-Wide-Web Interface, 3
`PDA Developers (January/February 1995)
`Michael Moeller, Motorola Newton device set to take wireless
`Notes, MacWeek (October 24, 1994)
`GloMop: Global Mobile Computing By Proxy, GloMop Group
`(1995)
`U.S. Patent No.6,343,318 (“Hawkins”)
`U.S. Patent 7,383,303 (“Bort”)
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 2
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`Tim Berners-Lee, World-Wide Web: The Information Universe, 2
`Elec. Networking 52 (1992)
`Tim Berners-Lee, The World-Wide Web, 37 Commc’ns. of the
`ACM 76 (1994)
`Steve R. White, ABYSS: A Trusted Architecture for Software
`Protection, IEEE 38 (April 1987)
`U.S. Patent 4,425,099 (“Naden”)
`U.S. Patent 3,278,685 (“Harper”)
`U.S. Patent 4,799,171 (“Cummings”)
`U.S. Patent 4,783,803 (“Baker”)
`Bruce Lucas, VoiceXML
`for Web-Based Distributed
`Conversatonal Applications, 43 Commc'ns. of the ACM 53
`(September 2000)
`Michael F. McTear, Spoken Dialogue Technology: Enabling the
`Conversational User Interface, 34 ACM Computing Surveys 90
`(March 2002)
`Philip R. Cohen, The role of voice input for human-machine
`communication, 92 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. USA 9921 (October
`1995)
`Jazz greats will be performing, USA Today (September 12, 1997)
`E. A. Johnson, Touch display—a novel input/output device for
`computers, 1 Elec. Letters 219 (October 1965)
`Brian Dear, The Friendly Orange Glow, The Untold Story of the
`PLATO System and the Dawn of Cyberculture, Pantheon Books
`(2017)
`
`Oracle Announces Oracle8i; cites Oracle8i adoption as fastest of
`any previous release, M2 Presswire (November 16, 1999)
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 3
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1045
`
`1046
`1047
`
`Simon Says “Here’s How!”: Simon Users Manual, IBM (Febru-
`ary 1994)
`U.S. Patent 5,546,538 (“Cobbley”)
`Joel F. Bartlett, Experience with a Wireless World Wide Web Cli-
`ent, IEEE COMPCON95 (March 5-9, 1995)
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 4
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of
`
`Claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483 (“the ’483 patent”), which is purportedly
`
`owned by Hammond Development International, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “PO”).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), the mandatory notices identified in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b) are provided below as part of this petition.
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Amazon is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`Patent Owner asserted the ’483 patent against Petitioner in Hammond Dev.
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00355 (W.D. Tex., filed June 6, 2019).
`
`Patent Owner separately asserted the ’483 patent against Google LLC in Hammond
`
`Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:19-cv-00356 (W.D. Tex., filed June 6, 2019).
`
`Google LLC filed an IPR petition on October 11, 2019, challenging certain claims
`
`of the ’483 patent. (See IPR 2020-00020.)
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`Amazon provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`Lead Counsel
`Colin B. Heideman (Reg. No. 61,513)
`2cbh@knobbe.com
`BoxSEAZNL1623LP@knobbe.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: (206) 405-2000
`Facsimile: (949) 760-9502
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Joseph R. Re (Reg. No. 31,291)
`2jrr@knobbe.com
`Jeremy A. Anapol (Reg. No. 75,686)
`2jaa@knobbe.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`2040 Main St., 14th Fl.
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: (949) 760-0404
`Facsimile: (949) 760-9502
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this peti-
`
`tion. The above-identified lead and backup counsel are registered practitioners as-
`
`sociated with Customer No. 20,995 listed in that Power of Attorney.
`
`D.
`
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`Service information above. Petitioner consents to electronic service by email
`
`to BoxSEAZNL1623LP@knobbe.com.
`
`E.
`
`Payment of Fees Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this petition has been paid. The
`
`undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional fees that may be due in
`
`connection with this petition to be charged to Deposit Account 11-1410.
`
`F. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Amazon certifies that the ’483 patent is available for IPR and that Amazon is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR. This petition is being filed within one
`
`year of service of the original complaint against Amazon in the district court litiga-
`
`tion.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ’483 PATENT
`A. Overview
`The ’483 patent describes a conventional client-server communications sys-
`
`tem for remotely executing applications. The system includes a client connected to
`
`an “application server” via a conventional network:
`
`(Ex. 1001, FIG. 1D (annotated).)
`
`The system 10 includes clients 18a-n [orange] coupled to a network 12
`
`through a communications link 32. (Id., 3:54-58.)1 A remote application server 24
`
`
`
`
`1 Citations to patents are provided in column:line format. Where possible,
`
`citations to applications are provided in page:line format.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`[yellow] executes applications 28, such as a conventional Voice XML or HTML
`
`applications. (Id., 3:12-16, 4:31-34.) The application server retrieves the applica-
`
`tions using repository 20 [green], which may access applications stored in a database
`
`22 [red]. (Id. at 4:12-24.)
`
`The ’483 patent discloses that a client can send a request to the application
`
`server. (Id., 5:57-62.) The application server notifies the repository, which sends
`
`the desired application to the application server. (Id., 6:17-24.) The application
`
`server executes the application and begins a communication session with the client.
`
`(Id., 6:22-24.) For example, the application server can send a request that the user
`
`respond to a query. (Id., 6:49-54.) The user’s response (e.g., speech or touch input)
`
`is sent back to the application server. (Id., 6:55-67.)
`
`The ’483 patent suggests that a potential benefit of this distributed system is
`
`the same benefit enjoyed by conventional client-server systems for decades, namely
`
`that the client devices “require less processing power and memory” than devices that
`
`execute all of the applications. (Id., 10:66-11:2, 7:51-55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶35-46.)
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`The Examiner repeatedly rejected the original claims of the ’483 patent as
`
`obvious. (Ex. 1002, 84-92, 101-107, 121-132, 149-151.) The Board reversed the
`
`rejections because the Examiner failed to show that the particular prior art reference
`
`at issue disclosed an application server that (a) remotely executes an application and
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`(b) establishes a communication session with the client. (Id., 214-219.) The Exam-
`
`iner amended the claims to recite these features and allowed the claims. (Id., 231-
`
`236.) The references relied on herein were never submitted to, or considered by, the
`
`Examiner.
`
`C. Claims
`Claims 1-28 are challenged in this petition. Claim 1 recites a communication
`
`system having four conventional components, namely a client communication de-
`
`vice, an application server, a repository, and a database:
`
`A communication system capable of enabling one or more communi-
`1.
`cation devices to remotely execute one or more applications, comprising:
`[a] one or more communication devices coupled to a first communica-
`tion link, [i] at least one of the one or more communication devices adapted
`to communicate a request to establish a communication session over the first
`communication link, [ii] the at least one communication device comprising a
`thin-client software program that provides processing services to an applica-
`tion substantially executed at a location remote from the at least one commu-
`nication device, [iii] wherein the first communication link comprises a data
`connection;
`[b] one or more application servers coupled to the first communication
`link and operable to receive the request communicated over the first commu-
`nication link; and
`[c] one or more repositories [i] coupled to at least one of the one or
`more application servers and operable to communicate with the one or more
`application servers, [ii] at least one of the one or more repositories having
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`access to one or more applications maintained in a database coupled to the at
`least one repository, [iii] the at least one repository adapted to communicate
`the identified application over a second communication link to the at least one
`application server;
`[d] wherein the at least one application server is adapted to execute the
`identified application remote from the at least one communication device and
`to establish the communication session with the at least one communication
`device, [e] wherein the at least one application server communicates a request
`for processing service to the at least one communication device, [f] wherein
`the request for processing service is communicated to the at least one commu-
`nication device over the data connection, [g] and wherein the request for pro-
`cessing service comprises one or more queries for information from a user.
`Priority
`The ’483 patent does not claim priority to any other patent or application.
`
`D.
`
`Thus, its earliest possible priority date is its filing date of July 18, 2007.
`
`E.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ’483 patent would
`
`have had at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering, Com-
`
`puter Science, or equivalent engineering discipline, and approximately three years
`
`of experience working on client-server systems for operating applications, including
`
`HTML and voice dialogue applications. (Ex. 1003 ¶¶30-32.)
`
`F. Claim Construction
`Although the parties may propose constructions for certain terms in the litiga-
`
`tion for purposes of determining infringement, no claim terms require construction
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`to resolve the obviousness challenges here.2 Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`
`Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For purposes of this
`
`proceeding, Petitioner has interpreted the claims consistent with PO’s assertions in
`
`its Infringement Contentions in the co-pending litigation (Ex. 1018).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Grounds
`Petitioner requests that the Board cancel claims 1-28 for the following rea-
`
`sons:
`
`Ground 1a: Claims 1-28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`
`of Maes.
`
`Ground 1b: Claims 1-28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`
`of Maes and Bookman.
`
`Ground 1c: Claims 1-28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`
`of Maes and Maes 2, optionally in further view of Bookman.
`
`Ground 2a: Claims 1-18 and 20-28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`in view of Bharedwaj and Salomon.
`
`
`2 In the litigation, the parties dispute whether some challenged claims are in-
`
`valid under 35 U.S.C. § 112. For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner as-
`
`sumes that the claims are not invalid under § 112.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`Ground 2b: Claim 19 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`
`Bharedwaj, Salomon, and Salesky.
`
`Grounds 1a-1c rely upon disclosure in Maes as well as disclosure in Maes 2,
`
`which Maes incorporates by reference. (Ex. 1005, 29:9-14.) These disclosures are
`
`considered a single reference for purposes of invalidity. Callaway Golf Co. v.
`
`Acushnet Co, 576 F.3d 1331, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Maes identifies with detailed
`
`particularity what specific material it incorporates, “the architecture and operation
`
`of the speech browser,” indicates where the material is found, and states that the
`
`material is “fully incorporated herein by reference.” (Ex. 1005, 29:9-14.) Thus,
`
`Maes and Maes 2 are considered a single reference.3 Regardless, because Grounds
`
`1a and 1b are based on obviousness, not anticipation, the claims are unpatentable
`
`even if Maes and Maes 2 are not considered a single disclosure. (Ex. 1003 ¶75.)
`
`Out of an abundance of caution, Petitioner has separately included Ground 1c, which
`
`is based Maes and Maes 2 being considered entirely distinct and separate references.
`
`
`3 For ease of reference, Petitioner refers to certain disclosures in the Maes and
`
`Maes 2 publications; however, any sentence in Ground 1a and 1b that indicates that
`
`“Maes” discloses or renders obvious a certain limitation refers to Maes with Maes 2
`
`incorporated into it.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`The Declaration of Dr. Philip Greenspun, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003), a professor of
`
`computer science who teaches at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Ex.
`
`1004, 1), provides further support.
`
`B.
`
`Status of References as Prior Art
`The relied-upon references are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because they
`
`published more than one year before the ’483 patent’s priority date (July 18, 2007):
`
`(i) Maes issued on August 23, 2005; (ii) Maes 2 published on April 13, 2000; (iii)
`
`Bookman issued on June 2, 1998; (iv) Bharedwaj published on November 29, 2001;
`
`(v) Salomon published on February 27, 2003; and (vi) Salesky published on April
`
`29, 2004.
`
`These references constitute analogous art because they are from the same field
`
`of endeavor as the ’483 patent, e.g., remotely executing applications. Unwired
`
`Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2016); (Ex. 1001, Title;
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶66.) They are also reasonably pertinent to a particular problem with which
`
`the inventor was involved, e.g., remotely executing applications. (Id.) As these
`
`references are analogous art, a POSITA is presumed to have been aware of them. In
`
`re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`IV. SPECIFIC PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REJECTION
`Claims 1-28 are unpatentable. Long before the ’483 patent was filed in 2007,
`
`servers could retrieve applications from a repository, execute those applications, and
`
`establish communication sessions with remote clients.
`
`A. Ground 1a: Claims 1-28 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) in view of Maes.
`1. Overview of Maes
`
`Maes is one in a family of interrelated patents assigned to IBM. (Ex. 1005.)
`
`It discloses a client-server system for speech-enabled client devices. Maes explained
`
`that the computing world was evolving towards an era in which billions of client
`
`devices interact with powerful information servers (id., 1:21-23) and in which users
`
`interacted conversationally with the devices (id., 1:55-67, 2:5-13). Thus, Maes de-
`
`scribes systems and protocols for implementing distributed speech applications over
`
`a network. (Id., 1:15-19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶67-69.)
`
`Maes describes the same client-server system described and claimed in the
`
`’483 patent. For examp
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
