throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: August 7, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`____________
`
`Before MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`This is a preliminary proceeding to decide whether to institute an inter
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’748 patent”
`or “the challenged patent”). See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a)
`(delegating authority to institute trial to the Board). Institution of an inter
`partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the
`
`1
`
`Instacart, Ex. 1022
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`American Multi-Cinema, Inc.; AMC Entertainment Holdings,
`Inc.; Boston Market Corporation; Mobo Systems, Inc.; McDonald’s
`Corporation; McDonald’s USA; Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.; Panda
`Express Inc.; Papa John’s International, Inc.; Star Papa LP; and Papa John’s
`USA, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) and Starbucks Corporation1 filed a
`Petition (Paper 7, “Pet.”) seeking inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and
`19–22 of the challenged patent (“challenged claims”). Patent Owner, Fall
`Line Patents, LLC, filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 10, “Prelim. Resp.”)
`to the Petition.
`Having considered the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of
`the challenged claims, and we institute inter partes review as to all
`challenges presented in the Petition. At this stage of the proceeding, we
`have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any challenged
`claim or any underlying factual or legal issues.
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify a number of related litigations involving the
`challenged patent. Pet. 1–2; Paper 9, 2–3. As the parties state, the
`challenged patent was also reviewed in IPR2018-00043. Pet. 1–2; Paper 9,
`2–3. The parties further indicate that the challenged patent was the subject
`
`1 This proceeding has been terminated with respect to Starbucks
`Corporation. Paper 13.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`of the petition filed in IPR2018-00535, but that proceeding was terminated
`before an institution decision issued. Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 3. Petitioner
`further indicates that U.S. Patent No. 7,822,816, of which the challenged
`patent is a continuation, was the subject of Reexamination No. 90/012,829
`and was the subject of IPR2014-00140, the latter of which was terminated
`after institution. Pet. 3.
`B. Overview of the Challenged Patent
`The challenged patent is directed to a method of collecting data from a
`remote computing device, such as a handheld computing device, by creating
`and delivering a questionnaire to the remote computing device, executing the
`questionnaire on the remote computing device, and transmitting responses to
`a server via a network. Ex. 1001, at [57].
`Figure 1 of the challenged patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`Figure 1 is a diagram of the challenged patent’s system for data
`management. Ex. 1001, 6:57, 7:13–23. System 10 includes server 24;
`handheld computers 28, 30, and 32, which are operated remotely from server
`24; and computer 22, which provides for administration of the system and
`reviewing data collected by the system. Id. at 7:13–23, Fig. 1. Server 24 is
`connected to computer 22 via Internet 26, a local area network, or a private
`wide area network. Id. at 7:24–28, Fig. 1. Server 24 is connected to
`handheld computers 28, 30, and 32 via connections 34, 36, and 38,
`respectively. Id. at 7:24–26. Connections 34, 36, and 38 are loose network
`connections, meaning that handheld computers 28, 30, and 32 and server 24
`are tolerant of intermittent network connections. Id. at 7:59–62.
`Computer 22 is used for administrating system 10 and for reviewing data
`collected by the system. Id. at 7:21–23.
`
`Figure 2 of the challenged patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`Figure 2 is a diagram of system 10 as it is used for form creation. Ex. 1001,
`6:58–59; 8:11–17. Computer 22 has an interface that allows a user to create
`a form and distribute it to handheld devices using computer 22. Id. at 8:38–
`50. As the client enters questions and selects response types, server 24
`builds a stack of questions and responses, and assigns indices, or tokens,
`which point to each question or response. Id. at 8:53–56, 9:3–6. Each token
`can correspond to a logical, mathematical, or branching operation. Id. at
`8:56–59, 9:3–6. When questionnaire 40 is complete, server 24 sends the
`stack of questions and defined responses to the handheld devices (e.g.,
`handheld computer 28). Id. at 9:3–6. System 10 can incrementally update
`the questionnaire on the handheld devices. Id. at 9:14–18.
`For example, system 10 can track mystery shoppers at restaurant
`
`chains. Ex. 1001, 10:37–43. System 10 can track the time it takes a mystery
`shopper to go through a drive through window. Id. at 10:41–43. When the
`mystery shopper enters a parking lot for a franchise, a handheld device with
`a GPS receiver can identify the franchise. Id. at 10:55–59. The device can
`also record the amount of time it takes for the shopper to go through a drive
`through line. Id. at 10:55–11:21.
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 19–22 of the challenged
`patent, of which, claims 1, 7, 19, and 21 are independent. Claim 19 is
`reproduced below:
`19. A method for managing data comprising the steps of:
`(a) establishing communications between a handheld computing device
`and an originating computer wherein said handheld computing
`device has a GPS integral thereto;
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`(b) receiving within said handheld computing device a transmission of
`a tokenized questionnaire from said originating computer,
`said tokenized questionnaire including at least one question
`requesting location identifying information,
`said tokenized questionnaire comprising a plurality of device
`independent tokens;
`(c) ending said communications between said handheld computing
`device and said originating computer;
`(d) after said communications has been ended,
`(dl) executing at least a portion of said plurality of tokens
`comprising said questionnaire on said handheld computing
`device to collect at least one response from a first user, and,
`(d2) storing within said computing device said at least one
`response from the first user
`(d3) using said GPS to automatically obtain said location
`identifying information in response to said at least one
`question that requests location identifying information;
`(e) establishing communications between said handheld computing
`device and a recipient computer;
`(f) transmitting a value representative of each of said at least one
`response stored within said handheld computing device to said
`recipient computer; and,
`(g) after receipt of said transmission of step (f), transmitting a notice of
`said received value representative of each of said at least one
`response to a second user.
`D. Asserted Prior Art and Declaration
`Petitioner relies on the following references:2
`
`
`
`
`2The challenged patent is a continuation of Serial No. 10/643,516, filed
`Aug. 19, 2003, now U.S. Patent No. 7,822,816. Ex. 1001, at [63]. The
`challenged patent also claims the benefit of Provisional Application No.
`60/404,491, filed Aug. 19, 2002. Id. at [60].
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`Barbosa
`
`Hancock
`
`Bandera
`
`Falls
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,961,586 B2
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,202,023 B1
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,332,127 B1
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,991,771
`
`Issue Date
`Nov. 1, 2005
`
`Mar. 13, 2001
`
`Dec. 18, 2001
`
`Nov. 23, 1999
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Petitioner also submits a declaration from Kendyl Roman (Ex. 1005).
`E. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability based on
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1 and 19–22
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Barbosa3
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`1 and 19–22
`
`Barbosa and Bandera
`
`7
`
`Barbosa and Falls
`
`1, 2, 5, and 19–22 Hancock
`
`1, 2, 5, and 19-22 Hancock and Bandera
`
`7
`
`Hancock and Falls
`
` Pet. 5.
`
`F. Real Parties in Interest
`The Petition identifies American Multi-Cinema, Inc.; AMC
`Entertainment Holdings, Inc.; Boston Market Corporation; Mobo Systems,
`
`3 For Grounds 1 and 4, Petitioner also expressly relies on the knowledge of
`an ordinarily skilled artisan. Pet. 5.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`Inc.; McDonald’s Corporation; McDonald’s USA; Panda Restaurant Group,
`Inc.; Panda Express Inc.; Papa John’s International, Inc.; Star Papa LP; Papa
`John’s USA, Inc, and Starbucks Corporation as real parties in interest in this
`proceeding. Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies Fall Line Patents, LLC as its
`real party in interest. Paper 9, 2.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Constitutional Challenge
`Patent Owner objects to an inter partes review “because it is carried
`out by a final order issued by Administrative Patent Judges who have not
`been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.” Prelim.
`Resp. 52. According to Patent Owner, Administrative Patent Judges are
`“principal Officers” under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause (U.S.
`Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2), meaning they must be nominated by the President
`and confirmed by the Senate in order to exercise their authority
`constitutionally with respect to inter partes reviews. Id. In this Decision,
`we will not address this argument by Patent Owner. See Riggin v. Office of
`Senate Fair Employment Practices, 61 F.3d 1563, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`We note, however, that the issue is presently before the Federal Circuit in
`Polaris Innovations Limited v. Kingston Technology Company (No. 2018-
`1768).
`
`B. Discretionary Denial Under U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion and deny
`institution because: (i) Petitioner made inconsistent representations to the
`district court and the Board, (ii) the claims challenged in this proceeding and
`in another IPR overlap, and (iii) a related district court trial will occur before
`a final written decision is due in this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 50.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`First, Patent Owner argues that although Petitioner asserts here that its
`Petition is substantially different from the petition in IPR2018-00043 (“’043
`IPR”), Petitioner told the district court the opposite in seeking a stay.
`Prelim. Resp. 50. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner argued to the
`district court that there was substantial overlap in the challenged claims and
`claim language. Id. at 50–51. Patent Owner also notes that Petitioner
`argued to the district court that, in light of our Final Written Decision in the
`’043 IPR, it was a “near certainty” that this IPR would be instituted. Id. at
`51 (quoting Ex. 2004 at 4).
`Second, Patent Owner argues that we should deny institution because
`we already held some of the challenged claims unpatentable in the ’043 IPR.
`Prelim. Resp. 51. Patent Owner cites Nichia Corp. v. Document Security
`Systems, Inc., Case IPR2019-00397 (PTAB Apr. 19, 2019) (Paper 10), in
`support of this argument. Id.
`Third, Patent Owner argues that trial in a related district court case is
`set for May 18, 2020, which is well before a final written decision in this
`proceeding is due. Prelim. Resp. 52. Therefore, Patent Owner argues that
`under NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Technology., Inc., Case IPR2018-00752
`(PTAB Sep. 12, 2018) (Paper 8) (precedential), we should deny institution.
`Id.
`
`Petitioner asserts that we should not deny institution under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314 (a). Pet. 6–7. Petitioner argues that the parties who filed this IPR are
`not real-parties-in-interest with respect to the prior petitioners in the ’043
`IPR and IPR2018-00535. Id. Petitioner further asserts that its Petition
`addresses claims that were not addressed in the ’043 IPR. Id. Further,
`Petitioner argues that it did not plan to stagger its Petition with prior
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`petitions as Patent Owner did not sue the entities that comprise Petitioner
`until August 2018. Id. (The petitions in the ’043 IPR and IPR2018-00535
`were filed in October 2017 and January 2018, respectively. ’043 IPR, Paper
`1; IPR2018-00535, Paper 1.) Petitioner further argues that it did not delay in
`filing its Petition, but rather filed this Petition one week after Patent Owner
`served its infringement contentions in a related litigation. Id. at 7.
`We are not persuaded that we should exercise our discretion to deny
`institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Here, we agree with Petitioner that,
`after being sued, it filed its Petition within a reasonable time after it learned
`which claims Patent Owner was asserting in the district court. Patent Owner
`has not persuaded us that Petitioner’s arguments to the district court seeking
`a stay are sufficient to deny institution based on the allegedly conflicting
`nature of those comments.4 We find no error in Petitioner’s statements to
`the district court that there are some overlapping claims, which we discuss
`below, and some potential similarities on claim construction issues in the
`’043 IPR. See Ex. 2003, 8, Ex. 2004, 4.
`Patent Owner’s arguments based on Nichia (Prelim. Resp. 51) also do
`not persuade us that we should deny institution here because some of the
`challenged claims overlap with claims held unpatentable in the ’043 IPR. In
`Nichia, nine of the eleven claims challenged in the petition had been held
`unpatentable in a prior IPR, and three of the four asserted grounds related
`solely to claims previously held to be unpatentable. Nichia, IPR2019-00397,
`Paper 10, 6–7. Of importance in Nichia was that the limitations of the
`
`
`4 The basis for the contention that it was a “near certainty” that this
`proceeding would institute is unclear, but we do not find that contention
`warrants denying institution here.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`claims that were not challenged in the previous IPR had substantial overlap
`with the limitations of those previously challenged. Id. at 6. Here, three of
`the eight claims challenged were not challenged in the ’043 IPR. And here,
`none of the asserted grounds relate solely to the previously challenged
`claims (Pet. ii–viii), and the additional claims being challenged here have
`limitations that do not overlap with the previously challenged claims (e.g.,
`“transmitting at least a portion of said response from the user to a server in
`real time via a network,” recited in claim 1; “automatically transferring said
`questionnaire to a loosely networked computer,” recited in claim 7).
`Moreover, an appeal is currently pending in the ’043 IPR, which involves a
`different petitioner than those named here. ’043 IPR, Paper 45.
`Finally, Patent Owner’s arguments based on NHK Spring (Prelim.
`Resp. 52) do not persuade us to deny institution in view of the related
`litigation. In NHK Spring, the panel noted that the related district court
`proceeding, in which the petitioner had asserted the same prior art and
`arguments, was nearing its final stages, with expert discovery ending within
`a few months. NHK Spring, IPR2018-00752, Paper 8, 19–20. Although
`Patent Owner states that trial in a related district court proceeding is set for
`May 18, 2020 (Prelim. Resp. 52), the record is devoid of other evidence on
`the status of that case, such as the progress of fact and expert discovery.
`Additionally, there is no argument or evidence presented by Patent Owner as
`to any overlap of the asserted prior art and arguments in the district court
`case to that presented here. Therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion
`to deny institution on this basis.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill
`In the ’043 IPR, we determined that an ordinarily skilled artisan at or
`before the priority date for the challenged patent “would have a bachelor’s
`degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or
`a related subject, or equivalent industry or trade school experience in
`programming software applications.” ’043 IPR, Paper 34, 20 (“’043 Final
`Written Decision”). In this proceeding, Petitioner proposes that we add to
`that assessment the following phrase: “as well as significant working
`knowledge of developing applications for mobile devices that provide
`location-based services.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36–40). Patent Owner
`does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed assessment or propose an alternative
`assessment. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this point, neither party,
`however, has given us any reason to change the assessment for an ordinarily
`skilled artisan that we provided in ’043 IPR, which is consistent with the
`prior art of record here.5 Therefore, we apply the same assessment here.
`D. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review where, as here, the Petition was filed on or
`after November 13, 2018, we construe claim terms “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,”
`as the claims would be construed “in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).”
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial
`
`
`5 The ’043 Final Written decision issued after the Petition in this IPR was
`filed. We, however, provided the same assessment for an ordinarily skilled
`artisan in our ’043 Institution Decision, which issued before the Petition in
`this IPR was filed. ’043 IPR, Paper 6, 19 n.6.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340
`(Oct. 11, 2018) (codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). We presume that
`a claim term carries its “ordinary and customary meaning,” which “is the
`meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)); see also TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812
`F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Any special definition for a claim term
`must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Finally,
`only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 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).
`Petitioner requests that we construe three claim terms—“GPS integral
`thereto,” “token,” and “loosely networked”—and partially construe three
`additional claim terms—“originating computer,” “recipient computer,” and
`“central computer.” Pet. 12–17. Further, Petitioner proposes a construction
`for the term “questionnaire” in the event the Board finds that that term needs
`to be construed. Id. at 15–16. Patent Owner does not request that any term
`be construed. Prelim. Resp. 12–17.
`1. ’043 Institution Decision
`In our Institution Decision in the ’043 IPR (“’043 Institution
`Decision,” ’043 Paper 6), we construed several of the above-identified
`terms. In particular, we construed or partially construed: “GPS integral
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`thereto,” “token,” “originating computer,” “recipient computer,” and
`“central computer.” ’043 Inst. Dec. 12–18. In the ’043 Final Written
`Decision, we adopted the constructions for these terms set forth in the ’043
`Institution Decision. ’043 Final Written Decision, 21–24.
`As set forth below, for the terms “token,” “originating computer,”
`“recipient computer,” and “central computer,” Petitioner proposes that we
`provide the same constructions as in the ’043 IPR. For “GPS integral
`thereto,” Petitioner proposes a narrower construction. Neither party,
`however, directly addresses the claim construction analysis we set forth in
`the ’043 IPR.
`In the ’043 IPR, we gave claim terms their broadest reasonable
`interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`’043 Inst. Dec. 11; ’043 Final Written Dec. 20. As mentioned, in this
`proceeding, due to an intervening change to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we must
`construe those terms “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,” as the claims would be
`construed “in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b). Changes to the Claim
`Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018)
`(codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). As discussed below, we do not
`find that this rule change affects the constructions to be given for specific
`claim terms identified above, and no party has specifically argued otherwise.
`2. “GPS integral thereto”
`In the ’043 IPR, we construed “GPS integral thereto” to be “Global
`Positioning System equipment integral thereto.” ’043 FWD 21–22.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`Petitioner proposes a narrower construction here: “GPS receiver integral
`thereto.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not address the construction of this
`term. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`Petitioner argues that the term “GPS integral thereto” is recited in
`independent claims 7, 19 and 21 in the context of a handheld computing
`device that “has a GPS integral thereto.” Pet. 13. Petitioner further argues
`that the specification of the challenged patent (“Specification”) does not use
`the phrase “GPS integral thereto” or define the acronym “GPS.” Id.
`Petitioner asserts, however, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`understood the term “GPS” to be the acronym for “Global Positioning
`System.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 106). Further, Petitioner argues that an
`ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that the entire Global
`Positioning System, including multiple satellites, would not be integral to a
`handheld computing device. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 107). Petitioner
`continues by arguing that the Specification does not refer to any hardware
`other than a GPS receiver for using GPS to determine GPS coordinates, and
`an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood a “GPS receiver” to be
`any device or module that is capable of receiving GPS signals and
`determining GPS coordinates therefrom. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 107).
`Petitioner concludes that, therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`understood that the term “GPS integral thereto” would mean “GPS receiver
`integral thereto.” Id.
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. For the reasons
`expressed in our ’043 Institution Decision, we agree with Petitioner that the
`term “GPS integral thereto” would not require that the entire Global
`Positioning System be in a handheld device. ’043 Inst. Dec. 12–13. We do
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`not agree, however, that the term “GPS integral thereto” should thus be
`limited to be a “GPS receiver integral thereto.” Even if we were to accept
`Petitioner’s argument that a GPS receiver is the only type of GPS equipment
`disclosed in the Specification, “limitations from the specification are not to
`be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d
`1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we
`construe “GPS integral thereto” to be “Global Positioning System equipment
`integral thereto.” ’043 Inst. Dec. 12–13.
`3. “token”
`In our ’043 Institution Decision, we construed “token” as “a
`distinguishable unit of a program, such as an index, an instruction, or a
`command that can represent something else such as a question, answer, or
`operation.” ’043 Inst. Dec. 16–17. Petitioner argues that we should provide
`the same construction here. Pet. 15.
`Patent Owner does not expressly address the construction of this term,
`and we do not read the Preliminary Response as implicitly proposing a
`construction of the term even though Patent Owner discusses the
`Specification’s use of the term “token.” See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 5. To avoid
`any possible confusion in any further briefing, if a party wants to propose a
`construction for any term, the party should do so expressly (e.g., by
`identifying the term to be construed and providing an express construction).
`For the reasons provided in our ’043 Institution Decision, we construe
`“token” as “a distinguishable unit of a program, such as an index, an
`instruction, or a command that can represent something else such as a
`question, answer, or operation.” ’043 Inst. Dec. 16–17. In that Institution
`Decision, we cite two exhibits providing dictionary definitions: ’043
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`Exhibits 1016 and 1017. We designate those exhibits, respectively, as
`Exhibits 3001 and 3002 in this proceeding.6
`4. “originating computer”/“recipient computer”/“central computer”
`In our ’043 Institution Decision, we construed “central computer,”
`“originating computer,” and “recipient computer” as encompassing a
`computer having the ability to perform functions associated with an
`originating computer, a recipient computer, and/or a central computer. ’043
`Inst. Dec. 18. Petitioner argues that we should provide the same
`construction here. Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not address the construction
`of this term. See generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly for the reasons
`provided in the ’043 Institution Decision, we construe “central computer,”
`“originating computer,” and “recipient computer” as encompassing a
`computer having the ability to perform functions associated with an
`originating computer, a recipient computer, and/or a central computer. ’043
`Inst. Dec. 18.
`
`5. “loosely networked”
`Petitioner argues that “loosely networked” should be construed to as
`“tolerant of intermittent network connections and tolerant of the type of
`network connection available.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not address this
`proposed construction or provide its own proposed construction for the term.
`See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`
`6 Given its claim construction position, Petitioner might have submitted
`these dictionary excerpts as exhibits in this proceeding. Neither party,
`however, submitted any dictionary excerpts to support a proposed
`construction. Pet. xi; Prelim. Resp., iv. Accordingly, we designate these
`dictionary excerpts as exhibits.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction has intrinsic support. As Petitioner
`notes, the Specification uses the term “loosely networked” “to describe a
`networked computer system wherein devices on the network are tolerant of
`intermittent network connections and, in fact, tolerant of the type of network
`connection available.” Ex. 1001, 5:3–7. The Specification also provides
`some more specificity regarding the meaning of the term, specifying, “In
`particular, if any communication connection is available between devices
`wishing to communicate, network transmissions occur normally, in real
`time. If a network connection is unavailable at that moment, the information
`is temporarily stored in the device and later transmitted when the connection
`is restored.” Ex. 1001, 5:7–12.
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed
`construction.
`
`6. “questionnaire”
`Petitioner set forth a proposed construction for the term
`“questionnaire” in the event we need to construe the term. Pet. 15–16.
`Patent Owner does not propose a construction for questionnaire, and neither
`party has demonstrated a need for us to construe the term. See generally
`Prelim. Resp.; Pet. 15–16. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we
`do not need to construe “questionnaire.”
`E. Analysis of the Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1. Principles of Law
`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
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`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) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations.7 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966). Further, “[t]o satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a
`petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must
`instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support
`the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze the asserted grounds
`with these principles in mind.
`2. Asserted Obviousness over Barbosa
`Petitioner argues that claims 1 and 19–22 would have been obvious
`over Barbosa. Pet. 18–38. We determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this assertion.
`a. Barbosa
`Barbosa relates to systems for conducting field assessments utilizing
`handheld data management devices, such as personal digital assistants,
`handled computers, two-way pagers, and Web/WAP enabled telephony.
`Ex. 1002, 1:10–16.
`
`
`7 Patent Owner does not contend that such secondary considerations are
`present. See generally Prelim. Response.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`Figure 6 of Barbosa is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 illustrates “an environment for extended operation/communication
`between a handheld device 10 (client) and remote management system 58
`(e.g., server, desktop PC).” Ex. 1002, 7:23–26.
`Barbosa discloses that a user in the field may utilize handheld device
`10 for assessment of a field problem by executing an industry-specific
`program on the handheld device related to the problem being addressed.
`Ex. 1002, 7:42–47. During program execution, the user may access remote
`resources (e.g., information, data, and assistance) via wireless
`communication systems 51 and networks 55. Id. at 7:48–51. Information
`may be obtained from server 58 located at the user's enterprise or from other
`network 55 resources available to the user (e.g., Web pages
`provided/obtained over the Internet). Id. at 7:51–54.
`Barbosa further discloses that “the handheld device may also be
`equipped within a position module 46 to enable the handheld device to
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`utilize positioning systems or methods known in the art such as satellite
`position (e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS)) or signal triangulation
`techniques.” Ex. 1002, 6:40–44.
`b. Claim 19
` (i) A method for managing data
`Petitioner argues that Barbosa teaches the preamble recitation of
`claim 19 because Barbosa describes “methods of cond

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