Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 64 PageID #: 24596
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 64 PageID #: 24596
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 64 PageID #: 24597
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 64 PageID #: 24597
`
`Patent No. 7,496,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,496,854
`
`Issue Date: February 24, 2009
`Title: METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR
`ADDRESSING HANDLING FROM A COMPUTER PROGRAM
`
`Inter Partes Review No.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`ARENDI 199613
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 64 PageID #: 24598
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 64 PageID #: 24598
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`NOTICES AND STATEMENTS ................................................................... 1
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’854 PATENT ............................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background Of The ‘854 Patent ........................................................... 4
`
`Prosecution History Of The ‘854 Patent ............................................... 6
`
`IV.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“Marking
`
`The First Information To Alert The User” ..................... 7
`
`Means~Plus—Function Limitations ...................... '. ................................. 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Independent Claim 13 And Dependent Claims 14—17 ............... 9
`
`Independent Claim 50 And Dependent Claims 51—55 ............. 12
`
`Independent Claim 100 ............................................................ 13
`
`Independent Claim 101 ............................................................ 14
`
`C.
`
`Remaining Claim Terms .................................................................... 15
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ....................................................... 15
`
`VI. GROUNDS BASED ON LIVEDOC/DROP ZONES .................................. 17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Background Of LiveDoc/Drop Zones ................................................ 17
`
`Ground 1: Anticipation By LiveDoc/Drop Zones ............................. 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Method Claims ......................................................................... 19
`
`Computer Readable Medium And System Claims .................. 25
`
`Ground 2: Obviousness based on LiveDoc/Drop Zones .................... 26
`
`Ground 3: Obviousness In View Of LiveDoc/Drop Zones And
`Moore ................................................................................................. 27
`
`VII. GROUND BASED ON DOMINI ................................................................ 28
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background Of Domini ...................................................................... 28
`
`Ground 4: Anticipation Based On Domini ........................................ 29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Method Claims ......................................................................... 29
`
`Computer Readable Medium And System Claims .................. 35
`
`i
`
`ARENDI 199614
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 64 PageID #: 24599
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 64 PageID #: 24599
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`VIII. GROUNDS BASED ON HACHAMOVITCH ............................................ 36
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background Of Hachamovitch ........................................................... 36
`
`Ground 5: Anticipation Based On Hachamovitch ............................ 37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Method Claims ......................................................................... 37
`
`Computer Readable Medium And System Claims .................. 44
`
`C.
`
`Ground 6: Obviousness In View Of Hachamovitch ......................... 44
`
`IX. GROUNDS BASED ON LUCIW ................................................................ 46
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background Of Luciw ........................................................................ 46
`
`Ground 7: Anticipation Based On Luciw .......................................... 47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Method Claims ......................................................................... 47
`
`Computer Readable Medium And System Claims .................. 55
`
`C.
`
`Ground 8: Obviousness In View Of Luciw ....................................... 55
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 57
`
`lat—1231369
`
`ii
`
`ARENDI 199615
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 64 PageID #: 24600
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 64 PageID #: 24600
`
`Exhibit List for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 7,4962854
`
`
`__ Exhibit Description
`
`,
`
`,
`
`,
`
`,
`
`Exhibit #
`
`
`U. S. Patent No. 7,496,854 in Hedloy
`1001
`
`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Affilflwme'nascé
`1002
`
`
`Amendment dated January 24, 2008
`1003
`
`.
`)—
`Amendment dated April 18, 2007
`1004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SIGCHI Bulletin (April 1998) at 51—63
`
`1005
`
`US. Patent No. 5,577,239 to Moore et al.
`1006
`
`.
`.
`US. Patent No. 6,085,206 to Domini et al.
`
`1007
`
`—)
`
`
`-
`-
`—)
`U. S. Patent No. 6,3 77,965 to Hachamovztch et al.
`1008
`
`
`U. S. Patent No. 5,644, 735 to Luciw et al.
`1009
`
`
`1010
`SIGCHI Bulletin (April 1998) at 53—63 (web version)
`
`
`iii
`
`ARENDI 199616
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 6 of 64 PageID #: 24601
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 6 of 64 PageID #: 24601
`
`Petitioners
`
`.Apple
`
`Inc, Google
`
`Inc,
`
`and Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`(collectively, “Petitioners”) respectfully petition for inter partes review of claims
`
`1—18, 36—56, 86—95, 97, 98, 100, and 101 of US. Patent No. 7,496,854 (“the '854
`
`patent” (EX. 1001))
`
`in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311—319 and 37 . C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100 er Seq.
`
`I.
`
`NOTICES AND STATEMENTS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Apple Inc. (“Apple”) is the real party-in—
`
`interest for Petitioner Apple. Google Inc. (“Google”) is the real party—in~interest
`
`for Petitioner Google. Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola Mobility”) is the real
`
`party—in-interest for Petitioner Motorola Mobility.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioners identify the following related
`
`matters. On November 29, 2012, the Patent Owner filed suit against Apple and
`
`Motorola Mobility, among others, in the US. District Court for the District of
`
`Delaware alleging infringement of several patents, including the '854 patent. See
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc, No. 1:12—cv~01596—LPS (D. Del.)', Arendi S.A.R.L. 'v.
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC, Case No. 1:12—cv-01601—LPS (D. Del). The Complaint
`
`was served on Motorola Mobility on November 30, 2012 and on Apple on
`
`December 3, 2012. Thus, this Petition has been filed within one year of Apple and
`
`Google (which owns Motorola Mobility) being served a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the '854 patent. 35 U.S.C. § 31,5(b); 37 CPR. § 42.101(b).
`
`ARENDI 199617
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 7 of 64 PageID #: 24602
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 7 of 64 PageID #: 24602
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3), Apple identifies the following counsel
`
`(and a power of attorney accompanies this Petition).
`
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner Apple
`9 Lead Counsel for Petitioner Apple
`
`David L. Fehrman
`
` Mehran Arjomand
`
`
`dfehrman @ mofo . com
`
`Registration No.: 28,600
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`marj omand@ mofo. com
`Registration No.: 48,231
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000
`
`707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000
`
`Los Angeles, California 90017—3543
`Tel: (213) 892—5601
`
`Fax: (213) 892—5454
`
`Los Angeles, California 90017-3543
`Tel: (213) 892—5630
`Fax: (323) 210—1329
`
`Google and Motorola Mobility identify the following counsel (and a power
`
`of attorney accompanies this Petition).
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners Google
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`
`smith @ turnerboyd.com
`Registration No.: 49,003
`Turner Boyd LLP
`2570 W. El Camino Real, Suite 380
`
`Mountain View, CA 94040
`
`Tel: (650) 265—6109
`Fax: (650) 5216931
`
`
`
`
`_ Backup Counsel for Petitioners
`* Google and Motorola Mobility
`Zhuanjia Gu
`gu@turnerboyd.com
`Registration No.: 51,758
`Turner Boyd LLP
`2570 W. El Camino Real, Suite 380
`E Mountain View, CA 94040
`I Tel: (650) 265—6109
`Fax: (650) 521—5931
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 CPR, § 42.8(b)(4), service information for lead and back-up
`
`counsel is provided above.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioners certify that the '854 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped
`
`ARENDI 199618
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 8 of 64 PageID #: 24603
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 8 of 64 PageID #: 24603
`
`from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`11.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The '854 patent is directed to a method, system, and computer readable
`
`medium for name and address handling from a computer program. For example, a
`
`user can type a name and address in a document being created with a word
`
`processing program. Through the use of a button, the document is searched and
`
`the name and address are detected. The detected information is then used with
`
`respect to a second application program, such as a database. For example, the user
`
`can add the name and address to an'address book as a new entry, or edit or add
`
`additional address information associated with the name if the name is already in
`
`the address book. If the user types only a name into the document and the database
`
`has the name and a corresponding address, the user can insert the address for the
`
`name into the document being created by the word processing program.
`
`The claims of the '854 patent may be divided into two groups:
`
`(1) claims
`
`directed to performing an operation, such as updating a database with an address;
`
`and (2) claims directed to inserting information into the document, such as an
`
`address. This Petition addresses the second set of claims (17.6., claims 1—18, 36-56,
`
`86—95, 97, 98, 100, and 101). A related petition, filed concurrently, addresses the
`
`ARENDI 199619
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 9 of 64 PageID #: 24604
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 9 of 64 PageID #: 24604
`
`first set of claims (i.e., claims 19—35, 57—85, 96, and 99). Two other petitions, also
`
`filed concurrently, address related US. Patents Nos. 7,917,843 and 8,306,993.
`
`Petitioners present herein references (including several originating from
`
`Apple) that anticipate or render obvious the challenged claims of this Petition. The
`
`references make clear that the purported invention of the challenged claims was
`
`well known before the ‘854 patent. Section III of this Petition summarizes the '854
`
`patent and relevant aspects of its prosecution history. Sections V—IX set forth the
`
`detailed grounds for
`
`invalidity of the challenged claims.
`
`This showing is
`
`accompanied by the Declaration of Dr. Daniel A. Menascé (“Menascé Decl.,” EX.
`
`1002.) Accordingly, Petitioners respectfully request a Decision to institute inter
`
`partes review.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE '854 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Background Of The '854 Patent
`
`The '854 patent is directed to name and address handling within a document
`
`created by a computer program, such as a word processing program.
`
`(1219—27.)
`
`One aspect relates to inserting information from a database into a document. This
`
`is described in connection with the left side of the flow charts of Figs. 1 and 2 and
`
`Examples 1, 5 and 7. Another aspect relates to adding data from a document into a
`
`database. This is described in connection with the right side of Figs. 1 and 2 and
`
`ARENDI 199620
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 10 of 64 PageID #: 24605
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 10 of 64 PageID #: 24605
`
`Examples 2—4 and 6. Dr. Menascé’s Declaration (EX. 1002) includes highlighted
`
`copies of Fig. 1 corresponding to various examples.
`
`Example 1 relates to inserting an address into the document. Fig. 3 (below)
`
`illustrates a document into which. a name 40 has been entered.
`
`(5163—65.) The user
`
`presses a “OneB utton” button 42.
`
`(6:13—17; Fig. 1 at 2.) A program then analyzes
`
`What the user has typed into the document to detect certain types of information.
`
`(4:25-39; Fig.
`
`1 at 4.)
`
`There is no disclosure as to how this analysis is
`
`accomplished.
`
`in: Mar.'90at: wdid- garment?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Upon detection, the name is searched in a database.
`
`(5165—623; Fig. 1 at 12.) If the
`
`search returns one matching contact with. only one address, the address is inserted
`
`into the document, as shown in Fig. 4.
`
`(5:65—63; Fig. 1 at 22.) If multiple
`
`ARENDI 199621
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 11 of 64 PageID #: 24606
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 11 of 64 PageID #: 24606
`
`matching contacts are found, the user is prompted to select an address for insertion
`
`into the document.
`
`(7:33—49; Fig. 10; Fig. l at 20 and 22.)
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History Of The '854 Patent
`
`Throughout the prosecution of the '854 patent, Applicant argued that the
`
`distinguishable feature over the applied art was marking information or identifying
`
`information,
`
`such as a name and address
`
`in a document, “without user
`
`79
`
`intervention.
`
`For example, in an Amendment dated January 24, 2008, at 31 (Ex.
`
`1003), Applicant asserted:
`
`Thus, Pandit teaches a system where the user must select text prior to
`
`the system processing the “a selected text”, e.g. col. 5,
`
`line 56).
`
`Neither the AddressMate program nor Pandit teach the element of
`
`“marking without user intervention” or “identifying without user
`
`intervention or designation the first information” either alone or in
`
`combination.
`
`As
`
`set
`
`forth below,
`
`such marking or
`
`identifying information without user
`
`intervention was well—known in the art.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Petitioners provide constructions of a term and the means—plus—function
`
`limitations. See 37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioners note that a claim is given the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification” in inter partes
`
`review. See 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b). Furthermore, a number of claims contain
`
`means—plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, (H 6 (pre—AIA).
`
`ARENDI 199622
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 12 of 64 PageID #: 24607
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 12 of 64 PageID #: 24607
`
`A.
`
`“Marking
`
`The First Information To Alert The User”
`
`The recitation “marking
`
`the first information to alert the user” appears in
`
`numerous independent claims.
`
`(See Claims 1, 7, 13.) However, neither the term.
`
`“marking” nor the full recitation appears in the specification. The “854 patent is a
`
`continuation of application No. 09/189,626 filed on November 10, 1998, and the
`
`“marking” recitation was not added until the application that matured into the '854
`
`patent was filed years later in August 6, 2001. Therefore, the specification gives
`
`no guidance as to the meaning of this recitation. Accordingly, the plain meaning
`
`of the recitation is that the first information is detected without user intervention
`
`and has some form of marking or highlighting applied to it to draw the user’s
`
`attention to it. (Menasce Decl. ‘H 49.)
`
`During prosecution, Applicant attempted to provide an expansive reading of
`
`“marking” in order to demonstrate support for the recitation, and asserted that the
`
`program “marks the ‘first information’ in any of a variety of ways” and “may
`
`display the text (the ‘first information”) to the user.” (Amendment dated April 18,
`
`2007 (Ex. 1004), at 30—31.) The portions of the specification identified relate to
`
`generating another screen, e.g., Fig. 9, and not to any direct marking of the first
`
`information itself (which is already displayed in the document) to provide the
`
`recited alerting function. Therefore, because the only possible disclosure of
`
`marking to alert in the specification is provision of a separate dialog box, for this
`
`ARENDI 199623
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 13 of 64 PageID #: 24608
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 13 of 64 PageID #: 24608
`
`proceeding the marking to alert recitation should be construed to encompass both
`
`direct marking (e.g., highlighting or a pop—up at the information being marked) and
`
`display of the information in a separate dialog box.
`
`B. Means-Plus-Function Limitations
`
`For means—plusnfunction limitations, 37 CPR. §42.104(b)(3) requires the
`
`petition to identify the structure corresponding to each claimed function. However,
`
`a
`
`structure that
`
`is not actually disclosed in
`
`the specification cannot be
`
`corresponding structure. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp, 490 F.3d 946,
`
`948, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`In lPR2013—00152, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of
`
`an inter partes review because, among other reasons,
`
`the means—plus—function
`
`limitations were not amenable to construction. Specifically, the Board analyzed
`
`the specification and concluded that there was no corresponding structure disclosed
`
`in the specification to perform the recited function of various limitations.
`
`(Decision (Paper 8 dated August 19, 2013), at 12, 13, 20.)
`
`It is submitted that the
`
`same situation exists with respect to the claims in this Petition having means—plus-
`
`function limitations,
`
`i.e., Claims 13—18, 50-56, 100, and 101, which are only a
`
`subset of the total claims at issue in this Petition.
`
`ARENDI 199624
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 14 of 64 PageID #: 24609
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 14 of 64 PageID #: 24609
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 13 And Dependent Claims 14-17
`
`Claim 13 includes three limitations, which are all means-plus-function
`
`elements, with the recited functions underlined below.
`
`
`
`Limitation/Recited Function
`Corresponding Structure
`
`
`means for entering a first information in Keyboard along with its device driver at
`
`the first application program
`
`Fig. 16 and 9:37—39. (Menasce Decl. ‘][‘][
`
`51—54.)
`
`
`means for marking without user
`
`intervention the first information to alert
`
`the user that the first information can be
`
`None. Boxes 4, 6 and 4:25 —39 simply
`
`show desired results, with no algorithm
`
`disclosing what is done. (Menascé
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`utilized in a second application program Decl. ‘][‘][ 55—59.)
`
`
`means for responding to a user selection No structure disclosed in the
`'
`l
`
`by inserting a second information into
`
` the document the second information
`
`associated with the first information
`
`specification that corresponds to the
`
`claimed function. (Menascé Decl. (H
`
`60—65.)
`
`from a second application program
`
`
`Dependent claim 14 includes an additional means plus function limitation,
`
`with the recited functions underlined below.
`
`
`CorreSponding Structure
`_ Limitation/Recited Function -
`
`
`ARENDI 199625
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 15 of 64 PageID #: 24610
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 15 of 64 PageID #: 24610
`
`means for an activation of a device
`
`No structure disclosed in the
`
`
`
`
`
`selected from a group consisting of a
`
`touch screen, a keyboard button, a
`
`screen button, an icon, a menu, and a
`
`voice command device [The recited
`
`specification that corresponds to the
`
`, claimed function. (Menascé Decl. ‘J[‘J[
`
`66—70.)
`
`function is “activating a device ...”]
`L—____.._
`
`Dependent claim 15 includes three additional means plus function
`
`limitations, with the recited functions underlined below.
`
`Limitation/Recited Function
`Corresponding Structure
`
`means for initializing the second
`2
`I None. (Menasce Decl. ‘H 71—75.)
`
`-
`
`application program
`
`
`
`means for searching, using the second
`
`application program, for the second
`
`information associated with the first
`
`information
`
`Figs. 1 and 2 (steps 12 or 14) described
`
`‘ on 4:43—46 and 5:12—16; Examples 1, 2,
`
`4, 5, and 6 discussed in the
`
`specification. (Menascé Decl. W 76—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`80.)
`
`
`means for retrieving the second
`
`information.
`
`Figs. 1 (steps 18 and 20) 2 (steps 26 and
`
`30 or steps 26 and 27 or steps 29, 31,
`
`and 30) described on 4: 4349, 5: 23—53;
`
`
`10
`
`ARENDI 199626
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 16 of 64 PageID #: 24611
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 16 of 64 PageID #: 24611
`
`
`
`
`
`Examples 1 and 5 discussed in the
`
`specification. (Menascé Decl. ‘H 81—
`
`85.)
`
`Dependent claim 16 includes an additional means plus function limitation,
`
`with the recited functions underlined below.
`
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`
`Limitation/Recited Function
`
`
`means for performing the further step of
`
`‘ Figs. 1 and 2 (step 20) described on
`
`displaying the second information
`
`4:46—49 and 5:12—16; Example 5
`
`
`
`
`
`discussed in the specification. (Menascé
`
`Decl. M 86—88.)
`
`Dependent claim 17 includes an additional means plus function limitation,
`
`with the recited functions underlined below.
`
`Limitation/Recited Function
`‘ CorreSponding Structure
`
`means for completing at least one of the
`
`first and second information in the
`
`document
`
`
`
`
`
`No structure disclosed in the
`
`X specification that corresponds to the
`l
`
`claimed function. (Menascé Declcfl‘fl
`
`89—92.)
`
`
`
`ll
`
`ARENDI 199627
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 17 of 64 PageID #: 24612
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 17 of 64 PageID #: 24612
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claim 50 And Dependent Claims 51-55
`
`Claim 50 includes two means—plus—function limitations, with the recited
`
`functions underlined below.
`
`Corresponding Structure
`-
`Limitation/Recited Function
`
`
`means for identifying without user
`
`intervention or designation the first
`
`information
`
`means for responding to a user selection
`
`by inserting a second information into
`
`the document the second information
`
`associated with the first information
`
`
`
`
`
`g None. Boxes 4, 6 and 4:25—39 simply
`
`show desired results, with no algorithm
`
`disclosing what is done. (Menasce
`
`Decl. (M 93—97.)
`
`x No structure disclosed in the
`
`specification that corresponds to the
`
`claimed function. (Menascé Decl.‘][
`
`98.)
`
`
`
`from a second application program
`
`L___
`
`The analysis for claim’S 1 is the same as dependent claim 14. The analysis
`
`for claim 52 is the same as dependent claim 15.
`
`Claim 53 includes an additional means—plus—function limitation, with the
`
`recited functions underlined below.
`
`
` Limitation/Recited Function
`Corresponding Structure
`
`
`
`No structure disclosed in the '
`means for adding the second
`
`
`12
`
`ARENDI 199628
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 18 of 64 PageID #: 24613
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 18 of 64 PageID #: 24613
`
`
`
`information to the first information in
`
`specification that corresponds to the
`
`the document
`
`claimed function. (Menascé Decl. (M
`
`i
`
`103—108.)
`
`The analysis for claim 54 is the same as dependent claim 16. (Menasce
`
`Decl. ‘11 110.) The analysis for claim 55 is the same as dependent claim 17.
`
`(Menasce Decl. ‘11 112.)
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claim 100
`
`Independent claim. 100 includes three means—plus—function limitations, with
`
`the recited functions underlined below.
`
`Corresponding Structure
`.
`.
`Limitation/Recited Function
`
`
`
`
`(1) means for using a first computer
`
`program to analyze the document,
`
`without direction from the operator, to
`
`No structure disclosed in the
`
`specification that corresponds to the
`
`claimed function. (Menascé Decl. (M
`
`(2) means for using the identified name
`
`and a second computer program to
`
`Figs. 1 and 2 (step 12) described on
`
`4:43—46 and 5:12—16; Examples 1 and 5
`
`search the database and to locate contact é discussed in the specification. (Menasce
`
`
`
`‘ 113—117.)
`identify the name
`
`l_____._.
`
`
`
`related information associated with the
`
`11 ame
`
`Decl. ‘M 118422.)
`
`
`
`l3
`
`ARENDI 199629
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 19 of 64 PageID #: 24614
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 19 of 64 PageID #: 24614
`
`
`
`(3) means for inserting the contact
`
`related information into the document
`
`
`
`N0 structure disclosed in the
`
`specification that corresponds to the
`
`claimed function. (Menasce Decl. M
`
`123—128.)
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Independent Claim 101
`
`Independent claim 101 includes five means—plus-function limitations, With
`
`the recited functions underlined below.
`
`Limitation/Recited Function
`'
`‘ Corresponding Structure
`
`
`(1) means for using a first computer
`
`program to analyze the document2
`
`Without direction from the operator2 to
`
`identify text in the document that can be
`
`N0 structure disclosed in the
`
`specification that corresponds to the
`
`claimed function. (Menasce Decl. ‘H
`
`129—133.)
`
`used to search for related information
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) means for using a second computer
`
`Figs. 1 and 2 (step 12) described on
`
`program and the text identified in g 1} to a 4:43—46 and 5:12—16; Examples 1 and 5 i
`
`search the database and to locate related
`
`information
`
`discussed in the specification. (Menascé
`
`Decl. M 134—138.)
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`ARENDI 199630
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 20 of 64 PageID #: 24615
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 20 of 64 PageID #: 24615
`
`
`(3) means for inserting the information
`No structure disclosed in the
`
`located in g2! into the document
`
`specification that corresponds to the
`
`claimed function. (Menascé Decl. ‘H
`
`1 139—144.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Remaining Claim Terms
`
`Petitioners submit that the remaining claim terms should be accorded their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b), Petitioners respectfully request
`
`the
`
`cancellation of claims 1—18, 36—56, 86—95, 97, 98, 100, and 101 of the '854 patent
`
`based on the following references.
`
` l~ ' . Reference ‘ Designated Name/Exhibit N0.
`
`
`
`
`
`SIGCHI Bulletin (April 1998) at 51—63
`LiveDoc/Drop Zones (Ex. 1005)
`
`us. Patent NJ5,577,239 to Moore et al.
`Moore (ESE. 1006)
`
`
`US. Patent No. 6,085,206 to Domini et al.
`
`Domini (EX. 1007)
`
`_L
`U.S. Patent No. 6,377,965 to Hachamovitch Hachamovitch (EX. 1008)
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,644,735 to Luciw et al.
`
`et al.
`
`L___
`
`7—] Luciw (EX. 1009)
`
`.
`
`The statutory grounds for the challenge of each claim are set forth below.
`
`All the statutory citations are pre-AIA.
`
`15
`
`ARENDI 199631
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 21 of 64 PageID #: 24616
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 21 of 64 PageID #: 24616
`
`W
`m Claims W
`
`
`1,
`
`102(a)
`
`1—18, 36—56, 93—95, 98, and 101
`
`LiveDoc/Drop Zones 4
`
`
`2
`103(a)
`r“1—18, 36—56, 93—95, 98, and 101
`LiveDoc/Drop Zones
`
`3
`103(a)
`i 1—18, 36—56, 93-95, 98, and 101
`
`LiveDoc/Drop Zones and
`
`i Moore
`
`
`4
`
`5
`
`102(6)
`
`l~18, 36-38, 40—45, 49-52, 54—56, Domini
`
`93, 98, and 101
`
`102(e)
`1—18,36-56, 86, 87, 89, 93, 97, 98, Hachamovitch
`
`‘1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`100, and 101
`
`
`
`Tm— 3—19—11, 15—17, 3841,4548, 53, Hachamovitch
`
`88, 90, and 91
`
`
`7
`102(e)
`1—18, 36-56, 86—88, 90, 92—94, 97,
`Luciw
`
`a
`
`98, 100, and 101
`
`t
`
`8
`
`103(a)
`
`3—5, 941, 15—17, 3841,4548, STLuciw
`
`87, 89, 91, and 95
`
`
`Below is a discussion of why the challenged claims of the '854 patent are
`
`unpatentable under the statutory grounds raised, including claim charts specifying
`
`where each element of a challenged claim is met by the prior art.
`
`37 CPR.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4). The showing in these sections establishes a reasonable likelihood
`
`of prevailing as to each ground of invalidity with respect to the challenged claims
`
`16
`
`ARENDI 199632
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 22 of 64 PageID #: 24617
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 22 of 64 PageID #: 24617
`
`as to that ground. This showing is accompanied by the Declaration of Dr. Daniel
`
`A. Menascé (EX. 1002), as noted above.
`
`VI. GROUNDS BASED ON LIVEDOC/DROP ZONES
`
`A.
`
`Background 0f LiveDoc/Drop Zones
`
`The April 1998 issue of SIGCHI Bulletin was dedicated to Apple’s
`
`Advanced Technology Group. The Bulletin included an introduction section and
`
`two articles, by James Miller and Themas Bonura, describing an Apple technology
`
`that allowed documents to reveal structures for identification and action. The
`
`articles are entitled “From Documents to Object: An Overview of LiveDoc” and
`
`“Drop Zones: An Extension of LiveDoc” and are sequential in the SIGCHI
`
`Bulletin from pages 53—63 (collectively, “LiveDoc/Drop Zones”). LiveDoc/Drop
`
`Zones thus qualifies as prior art under § 102(a) based on the earliest alleged US.
`
`filing date of the '854 patent.
`
`LiveDoc/Drop Zones
`
`discloses
`
`creating
`
`a document
`
`and
`
`entering
`
`information into the document using a text entry application program, such as
`
`shown in Fig. 2 of LiveDoc below.1 (LiveDoc at 53-55.)
`
`‘ Fig. 2 is from a website posting (EX. 1010) of LiveDoc and is identical in content
`
`to the LiveDoc publication accompanying this Petition.
`
`l7
`
`ARENDI 199633
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 23 of 64 PageID #: 24618
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 23 of 64 PagelD #: 24618
`
`
`
`
`_
`
`‘
`
`
`
`
` tyle Sduncl
`
`
`'27: Netnay mite 2
`
`Date: Non, 5 New lQQ’?
`To: mushy-volunteers
`Fran: kar‘eraqésunom
`
`Subzect: Success!
`Dear Uol mteers ,
`lnc. held
`Cengratalations! Us Suttmdau. Flprll 26, Snort Ualleu,
`its third (and Final SnortSch-wls Matilda eventi Approxinutelu 3000
`comnurwitu wlunteefis and 72 mummies helped to network aver
`lOU
`. sehoois. Since Jnmcru 2996,
`the numbe“ of schools in Si] lean
`Uul leu with high-mead connections tn their“ clussmzons has junped
`fron 1915 to 782.
`the conounies and commonitu volunteers that
`THfillK WU to all
`' prouided tl'eiln caramel I.,u expertise mo‘ tine to make this project
`successful.
`'lou new; node a real difference tn the chlidr‘en of
`Sil icon UR! leul
`8 incerel Us
`Karen Gross
`Pro} at t “smear
`Snar U3 i Lu be tDuu
`ml*r’zdcicadukkalokzlskint:#:kkdokzhkmkfi»:Hokalakaézki-nldtwakksbkimkskk>l¢k>l>l<$d<k>k
`Koren Gross
`have
`
`iuwwéfs’f’ /
`Project Harmer
`httu‘
`
`
`
`784 To 555:??6?
`Snarttltu Net
`‘
`Dunkmurk in lntemetExplurer
`2529 Smith BM.
`Prefififi P5 9‘9???” .i
`Bflflmfirkifl “WWW "WWW
`Open in lntemet Explorer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`u ., ..
`
`.. .. ..
`
`Figure 2: A Sample interaction with lireDoct Note the lfigifiightmg of the discovered stmeturea,
`the menu efnctious available or the selected strumtu'e; and She nested highlighting ofnested
`stl‘uetmee
`
`Without user intervention, LiveDoc’s “structure detection” process runs in
`
`the background and highlights information in the document that can be used to
`
`perform a related action.
`
`(LiveDoc at 54-55.) Selecting a highlighted structure
`
`displays a menu of actions that can be performed.
`
`(103.) As just one example,
`
`LiveDoc can identify a molecular formula in a document and provide an action that
`
`presents a three—dimensional rendering of the molecule in the document itself.
`
`(LiveDoc at 57—58.)
`
`This would be achieved through searching a database
`
`containing the three—dimensional
`
`rendering based on the molecular formula
`
`identified in the document.
`
`18
`
`ARENDI 199634
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 24 of 64 PageID #: 24619
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-4 Filed 03/10/21 Page 24 of 64 PageID #: 24619
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1: Anticipation By LiveDoc/Drop Zones
`
`1. Method Claims
`
`Method claims 1—6, 36—42, and 93—95 are anticipated by LiveDoc/Drop
`
`Zones as set forth below.
`
`LiveDoc/Dro' Zones
`
`
`
`
`
`[la] 1. A method for
`information handling within a
`document created using a first
`application program
`comprising the steps of:
`'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LiveDoc discloses a document created using a
`first application program (e.g., a document as
`shown in Fig. 2 created using a text entry
`application program). See also LiveDoc at 53
`(“There is a real opportunity to advance the
`computing field here, by bringing these two
`worlds together: by enabling an ordinary
`docu