`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SQUARE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SENDSIG, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: To Be Assigned
`Patent No.: 6,564,249
`
`Filing Date: October 15, 2001
`Issue Date: May 13, 2003
`
`Title: Method and System for Creating and Sending Handwritten or
`Handdrawn Messages
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,564,249
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8: MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................. 1
`A. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest ......................................... 1
`B. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ................................................... 1
`C. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Identification of Counsel and Service
`Information ........................................................................................................ 1
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW........................................ 2
`A. Payment of Fees ......................................................................................... 2
`B. Grounds for Standing ................................................................................. 2
`III. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ............................................................ 2
`A. Statutory Grounds and Identification of Prior Art ..................................... 2
`B. How the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ......................................... 3
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’249 PATENT .............................................................. 3
`A. Summary of the ’249 Patent ...................................................................... 3
`B. Claims of the ’249 Patent .......................................................................... 7
`C. Claim Construction .................................................................................... 8
`D. The Priority Claim of the ’249 Patent is Deficient .................................. 13
` Legal Standard for Priority Based on a Provisional Application ........ 14
` The ’636 Provisional Fails to Provide Section 112 Support for the
`“Real-Time” Limitations ......................................................................... 15
`a. “Real-Time” is Required by All of the ’249 Patent Claims and
`Discussed Throughout the ’249 Patent Specification .......................... 15
`b. The ’636 Provisional does not describe or enable a system for
`“Real-Time” communication ............................................................... 16
` The Inventor’s Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 is Also
`Deficient ................................................................................................... 17
`V. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ........................... 20
`A. The Legal Standard for Obviousness ....................................................... 20
`B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................... 21
`C. Detailed Description of Grounds for Rejection ....................................... 22
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
` Ground 1 – Busey + Blakeslee ............................................................. 22
`a. Description of Ground 1 Prior Art ................................................ 23
`i. Busey .......................................................................................... 23
`ii. Blakeslee ..................................................................................... 26
`b. Motivation to Combine ................................................................. 29
`c. Claim Chart for Ground 1 ............................................................. 33
` Ground 2 – Szymansky + Busey ........................................................... 53
`a. Description of Ground 2 Prior Art ................................................ 53
`i. Szymansky .................................................................................. 53
`ii. Busey .......................................................................................... 57
`b. Motivation to Combine ................................................................. 58
`c. Claim Chart for Ground 2 ............................................................. 63
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 79
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
` 601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................... 15
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
` 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................ 14, 15, 17
`Coleman v. Dines,
` 754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985)............................................................................. 18
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
` 383 U.S. 1 (1966)................................................................................................ 21
`In re Nilssen,
` 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988)................................................ 60
`In re Steed,
` 802 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................... 18
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
` 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................... 20
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007)........................................................................................... 21
`New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co.,
` 298 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2002).......................................................................... 14
`Quake v. Lo,
` 928 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2019).......................................................................... 14
`Storer v. Clark,
` 860 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017).......................................................................... 15
`Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., No.
` 2019-1164 (Fed. Cir., May 5, 2020).................................................................. 32
`Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co.,
` 358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004)...................................................................... 14, 17
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)............................................................................................ 22, 53
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e).................................................................................................. 53
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).............................................................................................. 2, 20
`35 U.S.C. § 112................................................................................................ 14, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b)................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`Rules and Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100................................................................................................ 1, 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)............................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)…....................................................................................... 1, 3
`
` All emphasis used in quotations has been added unless otherwise noted.
`
` *
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 and Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Petitioner Square, Inc. requests Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, and 15 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,564,249 (“the ’249 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8: MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Square, Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters
`
`SendSig, LLC (“SendSig” or “Patent Owner”) asserted the ’249 Patent in
`
`SendSig, LLC v. Square, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03733-JPB (N.D. Ga.). This matter
`
`may affect, or be affected by, a decision in that proceeding.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Identification of Counsel and
`Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Sasha G. Rao
`Reg. No. 57,017
`srao@maynardcooper.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, LLP
`Transamerica Pyramid Center
`600 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415.646.4702
`Fax: 205.714.6420
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Brandon H. Stroy
`Reg. No. 73,166
`bstroy@maynardcooper.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, LLP
`Transamerica Pyramid Center
`600 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415.646.4703
`Fax: 205.714.6420
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`Petitioner submits a Power of Attorney with this Petition. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(b). Petitioner may be served at the offices of its counsel shown above.
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A.
`
`Payment of Fees
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fees required by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 504524. Any additional
`
`fees that might be due are also authorized.
`
`B. Grounds for Standing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’249 Patent is
`
`available for IPR and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A.
`
`Statutory Grounds and Identification of Prior Art
`
`1. Petitioner requests cancellation of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, and
`
`15 of the ’249 Patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 5,764,916 to Busey et al. (“Busey”) (Ex. 1008)
`
`in combination with PCT Publication No. WO 1997/023992 to
`
`Blakeslee (“Blakeslee”) (Ex. 1007);
`
`2. Petitioner requests cancellation of Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, and 15 of
`
`the ’249 Patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0099788 to
`
`Szymansky (“Szymansky”) (Ex. 1009) in combination with Busey.
`
`B. How the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), a detailed explanation of the reasons
`
`why the challenged claims are unpatentable is set forth in Section V.
`
`In support of this Petition, Petitioner provides the testimony of Dr. Narayan
`
`Mandayam. (Ex. 1002).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’249 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’249 Patent
`
`The ’249 patent describes “a real-time electronic messaging system, and
`
`related method” that “allow[s] a sender to input [and send] a handwritten or
`
`handdrawn message.” (Ex. 1001, Abstract). As shown in Figure 1A of the ’249
`
`patent, a user creates a handwritten or handdrawn image on a Pen Device
`
`connected to a first Client Computer 110. The message is then sent via the Internet
`
`to Server Computer 120. Server computer 120 then redirects the message to a
`
`second Client Computer 111, where the message is displayed on the computer
`
`monitor or on the connected Pen Device. (Ex. 1001, 3:40-45; Ex. 1002, ¶¶45-46).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`
`The ’249 specification describes six different “versions” or embodiments for
`
`enabling a handwriting messaging system, including two “real time” versions:
`
` Handwriting Java Client and Real Time Server
`Version (Fig. 4B); and
`
` Handwriting Client and Wireless Real Time Server
`Version (Modified Fig. 6).
`
`Because each of the ’249 claims includes a “real-time” limitation; the claims
`
`are only directed to these two “real-time” versions of the invention. (Ex. 1001,
`
`8:22-9:32; 10:55-12:36; Ex. 1002, ¶¶47-49).
`
`The real-time messaging server of the ’249 patent is shown in Figure 4B,
`
`annotated below. The alleged invention and asserted claims are composed of three
`
`main elements -- client computer 410 (sender), server computer 420 and client
`
`computer 430 (receiver).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`
`The Wireless Real Time Server Version is not shown in the patent, but is
`
`characterized in the specification as a modification of Figure 6, as shown in
`
`Petitioner-modified Figure 6 below (Ex. 1002, ¶53):
`
`Referring to Figure 4B, the client computer 410 (sender) includes a client
`
`component (e.g., Real time Handwriting Java Client 410a) for communicating with
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`a server component 420a of the real-time server 420. The client computer 410 also
`
`includes a handwriting input device, which can be an ordinary mouse, a
`
`touchscreen, or a stylus pad. (Ex. 1001, 4:20-32). The client component 410a of
`
`the client computer 410 is connected to the input device, captures the handwritten
`
`information as a graphical image in a data capture area or graphical image viewing
`
`area 720 (as shown in Fig. 7A reproduced below), and converts it into an
`
`appropriate format for digital transmission. (Ex. 1001, 2:26-32, 10:50-52; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶51-59).
`
`
`In both real-time embodiments, real-time communication is enabled by the
`
`system architecture (shown in Figure 4B, above) in which the client components
`
`are connected to, and in direct communication with, the real-time server. The ’249
`
`system is arranged such that “the handwriting client allows the user to see other
`
`users that are currently on-line and to initiate a private, real time communication
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`session with an on-line user.” (Ex. 1001, 11:23-26). This visibility is possible
`
`because both the sending and receiving client devices have downloaded versions of
`
`the “Handwriting Java Client software” that connects each device with the real-
`
`time server, authenticates them, and “displays a list of active and inactive users
`
`which is downloaded from the server.” (Ex. 1001, 8:41-53; See also Ex. 1001,
`
`11:23-26 (“The handwriting client allows the user to see other users that are
`
`currently on-line and to initiate a private, real time communication session with an
`
`on-line user.”); Ex. 1002, ¶¶54-59).
`
`B. Claims of the ’249 Patent
`
`The ’249 patent has 20 claims, of which claims 1 and 11 are independent.
`
`Independent system claim 1 recites:
`
`A real-time electronic messaging system comprising:
`
`(a) a server component operable on a server computer on a
`network with a real-time messaging server for receiving an
`electronic message sent from a sender and sending it to a
`recipient to whom it is addressed,
`
`(b) a remote client device for the sender connectable to the server
`computer through an online data connection to the network, and
`a client component operable on the remote client device for
`setting up a graphical data capture area in a visual interface of
`the remote client device, said client component including a
`graphical input device that is operatively coupled to the
`graphical data capture area for allowing the user to enter
`handwritten or handdrawn input through the graphical input
`device, and for capturing the handwritten or handdrawn input as
`graphical data and sending it as an electronic message to the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`server component via the network for sending to the recipient
`addressed, and
`
`(c) at least another remote client device for the recipient
`connectable to the server computer through an online data
`connection to the network, having a utility for receiving the
`electronic message sent to the recipient by the server
`component and viewing it as a handwritten or handdrawn
`message.
`
`Independent Claim 11 is directed to the corresponding method of claim 1.
`
`The dependent claims of the ’249 patent generally add limitations describing
`
`specific functionality. For example, claims 2 and 12 add the limitation that the
`
`“client component” also allows viewing graphical data; claims 4 and 14 add the
`
`limitation that the client device is an always-on type of wireless Internet messaging
`
`device; and claims 5 and 15 add the limitation that the “remote client device” is a
`
`mobile phone.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In an Inter Partes Review, claims are to be “construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`The ’249 claims have not yet been construed in the co-pending litigation,
`
`and the claim construction process has not begun. Petitioner filed a motion to
`
`dismiss in that litigation, and Patent Owner has responded. In their briefing, both
`
`parties advanced arguments regarding the ’249 claims. (Exs. 1015, 1016, 1017,
`
`1018).
`
`Specifically, Petitioner argued that the ’249 claims do not cover systems in
`
`which a client receives a message “via standard email, i.e. using ‘their personal
`
`email services’” where the receiving client device is not simultaneously connected
`
`to the same real time server as the sending client. (Ex. 1016, p.24; Ex. 1002, ¶¶72-
`
`76). In response, Patent Owner countered that the claims should be read to include
`
`all messaging sent to recipients’ ordinary, personal email accounts no matter
`
`whether the sender and receiver are connected to the same real time server. (Ex.
`
`1017, p.22). Under either party’s interpretation, however, Petitioner’s evidence
`
`and arguments in this Petition support institution on all challenged grounds.
`
`As noted above, the claims of the ’249 patent are directed only to the two
`
`“real-time” versions of the invention. (Ex. 1001, 8:22-9:32; 10:55-12:36). In
`
`either version, real-time communication requires both the sending and receiving
`
`client devices to be connected to the same real-time messaging server. The
`
`Handwriting Java Client and Real Time Server version is shown in annotated
`
`Figure 4B of the ’249 patent below. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶63-64):
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`
`
`And while the ’249 patent does not include a figure showing the “Handwriting
`
`
`
`Client and Wireless Real Time Server Version”, the specification describes this
`
`version as a modification of Figure 6:
`
`The version of the system in Fig. 6 may be modified for
`real-time messaging between PDAs and mobile
`communication devices of the “always on” type that are
`connected to a real-time server through an Internet
`Wireless Service Provider, rather than a WAP-type
`phone interface. (Ex. 1001, 10:56-60).
`
`Illustratively, in the Petitioner-modified version of Figure 6 below, the
`
`SMTP Gateway and Mail Server of Figure 6 are replaced with a real-time
`
`messaging server as described in the specification. (Ex. 1002, ¶65)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`
`In both figures, the sending and receiving client devices are both connected
`
`to the same real-time messaging server, consistent with the ’249 specification. The
`
`specification highlights the “Handwriting Client and Wireless Real Time Server”
`
`embodiment as having handwriting client software (e.g., Handwriting Java Client
`
`610a and Handwriting Java Client 631b) on both the sender and recipient devices
`
`(e.g., client computers 610 and 630b respectively) for enabling real-time person-to-
`
`person communication:
`
`The handwriting client allows the user to see other users
`that are currently on-line and to initiate a private, real
`time communication session with an on-line user. (Ex.
`1001, 11:23-26).
`
`This configuration, a unique feature of the claimed invention, in which the
`
`client devices are connected to a common real-time messaging server, is
`
`distinguishable from conventional email systems where both client devices are not
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`necessarily connected to the same messaging server. (Ex. 1001, 11:36-40). For
`
`example, where a sender and receiver use different email services (e.g., a Hotmail
`
`user sends an email to a Yahoo user), the client devices would be connected to the
`
`messaging servers of the respective email services. The client devices would not
`
`be connected to the same server.
`
`The messaging server (i.e., Hotmail server) has no interaction or connection
`
`with, or knowledge of the receiving client – only with the email server of the email
`
`service (i.e., Yahoo! Mail) to which the recipient is a subscriber. This type of
`
`communication – employing distinct servers for the sending and receiving clients
`
`respectively – is not covered by the claims. Where the sending client or the
`
`receiving client are not connected to the same server, the requirements of the ’249
`
`claims are not satisfied. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶72-76). In this case, there can be no “real
`
`time” communication between the client devices as required by the claims of the
`
`’249 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶74-76).
`
`While Petitioner’s interpretation takes into account the client/server
`
`connections (both on the sender and receiver side) necessary for real-time
`
`communication as disclosed by the ’249 patent, Patent Owner claims, in effect, that
`
`any two clients connected to any two different servers anywhere on the Internet
`
`could engage in “real time” communication as described by the ’249 patent. This
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`is not what is claimed, and thus Patent Owner’s interpretation is incorrect. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶55-56, 74-76).
`
`D. The Priority Claim of the ’249 Patent is Deficient
`
`The ’249 Patent issued on May 13, 2003 from application Ser. No.
`
`09/978,472, filed on October 15, 2001. (Ex. 1003). That application is a
`
`continuation-in-part application of Ser. No. 09/687,351 filed on October 11, 2000
`
`(Ex. 1005), which in turn claims priority to provisional Application No.
`
`60/159,636 (Ex. 1006, “the ’636 Provisional”), filed October 13, 1999. (Ex. 1001,
`
`Cover Page).
`
`During prosecution of the ’249 patent, the applicant relied on a Rule 131
`
`declaration in an attempt to antedate a prior art reference cited by the Examiner.
`
`That declaration alleges a conception date of October 14, 1998 and a reduction to
`
`practice on November 6, 1998, thereby attempting to claim a priority date earlier
`
`than the filing date of the ’636 Provisional. (Ex. 1003, p.066). The Rule 131
`
`declaration, however, is insufficient to show the earlier dates. It neither
`
`demonstrates conception nor reduction to practice as of the alleged dates and fails
`
`to corroborate the inventor’s claims with other evidence. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶90-100).
`
`Regardless, the Patent Owner’s reliance on the Rule 131 declaration is futile
`
`because the ’249 claims are not entitled to the priority date of the ’636 Provisional.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`The ’636 Provisional fails to provide adequate Section 112 support for the “real-
`
`time” limitations required by all of the ’249 claims. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶77-89).
`
`
`
`Legal Standard for Priority Based on a
`Provisional Application
`
`For a non-provisional application to be afforded the priority date of a
`
`provisional application, it must adequately describe the claimed invention in “full,
`
`clear, concise, and exact terms” to satisfy the written description requirement. New
`
`Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the disclosure of
`
`the provisional application must “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art
`
`that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). This
`
`is an “objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id.
`
`Moreover, “all of the elements and limitations” of the claimed invention
`
`must be described to show possession. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co.,
`
`358 F.3d 916, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). Mere descriptions
`
`of individual elements do not suffice if the claimed invention as a whole is not
`
`adequately described. See Quake v. Lo, 928 F.3d 1365, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Further, even if it can be shown that the claimed subject matter would be rendered
`
`obvious by the disclosure in a provisional application, the written description
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`requirement is not satisfied unless the claimed subject matter itself is described in
`
`“full, clear, concise, and exact terms”. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1345-46; see also
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`In addition to written description, a provisional application must also meet
`
`the enablement requirement of Section 112 to support a priority claim. Storer v.
`
`Clark, 860 F.3d 1340, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Enablement is relevant … to the
`
`issue of whether [a] provisional application is a constructive reduction to practice.”
`
`Id. at 1344.
`
`
`
`The ’636 Provisional Fails to Provide Section
`112 Support for the “Real-Time” Limitations
`
` The ’249 claims are not entitled to the priority date of the ’636 Provisional
`
`because it fails to provide adequate written description or enablement support for
`
`the “real-time” limitations.
`
`a.
`
`“Real-Time” is Required by All of the
`’249 Patent Claims and Discussed
`Throughout the ’249 Patent Specification
`
`“Real-time” communication is at the very heart of all claims of the ’249
`
`patent. Because both independent claims require a “real-time messaging server”,
`
`every claim of the ’249 patent requires one. (Ex. 1001, Claims 1, 11).
`
`The ’636 Provisional does not even mention the phrase “real-time.” In
`
`contrast, the ’249 specification provides a detailed 14-step recitation of how clients
`
`and the “real time messaging server” interact to provide “real-time” functionality,
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`including establishing that the Handwriting Java Client software has been
`
`downloaded onto the client devices, client devices identifying and communicating
`
`with the server, messages being transmitted to and stored in a repository on the
`
`server, and stored messages being transmitted to recipients on request from the
`
`recipient device. (Ex. 1001, 8:41-9:10, 10:66-11:35).
`
`b.
`
`The ’636 Provisional does not describe or
`enable a system for “Real-Time”
`communication
`
`Independent claims 1 and 11 of the ’249 patent recite not only a “real-time
`
`electronic messaging system”, but also a “real-time messaging server” as a
`
`component of that system that enables “real-time” communication. No such “real
`
`time” components or features are disclosed in the ’636 Provisional -- there is no
`
`description of how real-time messaging would be implemented and no mention of
`
`a real-time messaging server.
`
`The majority of the disclosure in the ’636 Provisional relates to a software
`
`application called STARMAIL, which is described as “an e-mail system where
`
`kids can choose to send text or art-based e-mail”, and supports sending handwritten
`
`or handdrawn emails. (Ex. 1006, pp.024, 034). There is a single mention of the
`
`word “LIVE” in reference to a feature called “Fun Time with E-Pen”. (Ex. 1006,
`
`p.024). But there is no description of what “live” messaging means or how one of
`
`skill in the art would enable “live” messaging. Even the section of the ’636
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`Provisional that describes the “Fun Time with E-Pen” feature provides no detail on
`
`how “real-time” messaging works, or even states that “real-time” messaging is
`
`possible. (Ex. 1006, p.041; Ex. 1002, ¶¶84-89).
`
`In short, the ’636 Provisional has no description or detail demonstrating that
`
`the inventor was in possession of the subject matter of the ’249 claims, which
`
`include at least the following elements as recited in claim 1: “a server component
`
`operable on a server computer on a network with a real-time messaging server”, “a
`
`remote client device for the sender connectable to the server”, and “another remote
`
`client device for the recipient connectable to the server computer.” See Univ. of
`
`Rochester, 358 F.3d at 926; Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352.
`
`Accordingly, the ’636 Provisional does not provide adequate written
`
`description for or enable the claims of the ’249 patent, because it does not
`
`adequately describe “real-time” messaging and how “real-time” messaging works,
`
`including specifically the required connections between the client devices and the
`
`real-time messaging server. The ’249 patent therefore cannot claim priority based
`
`on the filing date of the ’636 Provisional. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶84-89).
`
`
`
`The Inventor’s Declaration Under
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131 is Also Deficient
`
`To the extent that Patent Owner alleges a conception date of October 14,
`
`1998 and reduction to practice of November 6, 1998, the applicant’s Rule 131
`
`declaration is insufficient because the ’249 patent claims are not entitled to claim
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`priority to the October 13, 1999 filing date of the ’636 Provisional. Additionally,
`
`the inventor’s Rule 1.131 declaration does not provide adequate support or
`
`independent corroboration of these alleged dates. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶90-100).
`
`“When the issue of priority concerns the antedating of a reference, the
`
`applicant is required to demonstrate, with sufficient documentation, that the
`
`applicant was in possession of the later-claimed invention before the effective date
`
`of the reference. Demonstration of such priority requires documentary support,
`
`from which factual findings and inferences are drawn, in application of the rules
`
`and law of conception, reduction to practice, and diligence.” In re Steed, 802 F.3d
`
`1311, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The burden of proving priority lies with the party
`
`seeking the benefit of the claim. Id. at 1317-18.
`
`“Conception must be proved by corroborating evidence which shows that
`
`the inventor disclosed to others his completed thought expressed in such clear
`
`terms as to enable those skilled in the art to make the invention.” Coleman v.
`
`Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (internal citation omitted). While a
`
`“rule of reason” applies to determine whether inventor testimony has been
`
`corroborated, “the rule of reason … does not dispense with the requirement for
`
`some evidence of independent corroboration.” Id. at 360.
`
`The inventor’s Rule 131 declaration does not show that he conceived real-
`
`time messaging by October 14, 1998. The inventor refers to a “written description
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,564,249
`
`of the STARMAIL pilot system” as alleged corroboration of the October 14, 1998
`
`conception date. But by the inventor’s own admission, STARMAIL was not a
`
`real-time messaging application, and instead functioned like an ordinary email
`
`application with the ability to transmit handwritten messages or images. (Ex.
`
`1003, p.063). Indeed, the inventor’s “written description” of STARMAIL simply
`
`lists high-level features of a “handwritten e-mail system”, and contains no mention
`
`of “real-time” messaging. (Ex. 1003, pp.077-078; Ex. 1002, ¶95). As noted
`
`above, the ’249 specification provides a detailed description o