UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 6,108,704
`Filing Date: September 25, 1995
`Issue Date: August 22, 2000
`Title: POINT-TO-POINT INTERNET PROTOCOL
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`Formalities ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`Formalities ..................................................................................................... ..2
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`
`B
`
`C.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party in Interest ............................................................................. 2
`Real Party in Interest ........................................................................... ..2
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`
`Related Matters .................................................................................... ..3
`
`Fee ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`Fee ....................................................................................................... ..3
`
`D. Designation of Lead Counsel and Request for
`D
`Designation of Lead Counsel and Request for
`Authorization ......................................................................................... 3
`Authorization ....................................................................................... ..3
`
`E.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`F.
`
`G.
`G.
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 4
`
`Service Information ............................................................................. ..4
`
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................. 4
`Power of Attorney ............................................................................... ..4
`
`Standing ................................................................................................. 4
`Standing ............................................................................................... ..4
`
`III.
`III.
`
`Statement of Relief Requested ........................................................................ 4
`Statement of Relief Requested ...................................................................... ..4
`
`IV. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 5
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ ..5
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`V.
`
`Full Statement of the Reasons for the Relief Requested ................................. 8
`Full Statement of the Reasons for the Relief Requested ............................... ..8
`
`VI. Claim Charts .................................................................................................. 33
`
`Claim Charts ................................................................................................ ..33
`
`VI.
`
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 59
`
`VII. Conclusion ................................................................................................... ..59
`
`
`
`i
`
`i
`
`
`
`65352612V.1
`
`65352612V.1
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001: U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 (“the ‘704 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002: Form PTO-SB/42 (“IDS”)
`
`Exhibit 1003: NetBIOS “Technical Standard – Protocols for X/Open PC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Interworking: SMB, Version 2” [includes Appendix F “RFC1001, Protocol
`
`Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP Transport: Concepts and
`
`Methods” & Appendix G “RFC1002, Protocol Standard for a NETBIOS Service
`
`on a TCP/UDP Transport: Detailed Specifications.”] (“NetBIOS”)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1004: Windows NT 3.5 "TCP/IP User Guide, September 21, 1994
`
`(“WINS”)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.5 [Wikipedia
`
`entry establishing Sept. 21, 1994 as release date of Windows NT 3.5] (“WINS
`
`Release Date”)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1006: Susan Thomson, et al., DNS Dynamic Updates, IETF
`
`DNSIND Working Group (Jul. 14, 1994) (DNS 1)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1007: Susan Thomson, Yakov Rekhter, et al., DNS Dynamic Updates,
`
`Foils (July 1994) (DNS 2)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1008: Claim Construction Order in ICT v. Vivox and Stalker (“Claim
`
`
`
`
`
`Construction Order”)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1009: Joint Claim Construction Chart in Net2Phone Inc. v. eBay Inc.,
`
`Skype Technologies, et al. (“Claim Construction Chart”)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1010: Digital Equipment Corporation Patent 5,483,652 , filed Jan 24,
`
`1994 (“DEC ‘652”)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1011: Ryan, “LAN Manager 2.0," 1990 (“Messenger - Ryan”)
`
`Exhibit 1012: Robert Cowart, et al. “Windows NT Unleashed”, March 1994
`
`(“Messenger - NT Unleashed”) [Exhibits 1011 & 1012 together are “Messenger”].
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1013: P. Mockapetris, “RFC1034. DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS
`
`AND FACILITIES” (“DNSOrig”).
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1014: “VocalTec ware lets users make voice calls over ‘Net,”
`
`Network World, Feb. 13, 1995 (“VocalTec”).
`
`Exhibit 1015: Taligent Patent 5,566,278 (“Taligent ‘278”).
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Introduction
`Petition Eligibility. Through counsel, real party in interest Sipnet EU
`
`S.R.O. (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for initiation of inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,108,704 (“the ‘704 Patent”), with an assignment from the previous
`
`owners to Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. (all owners collectively
`
`referred to as “Patent Owner”), recorded in the U.S. Patent Office Database. The
`
`‘704 Patent issued on August 22, 2000, more than nine months prior to the filing of
`
`this petition. The ‘704 Patent is currently asserted in a co-pending litigation,
`
`against third parties not affiliated with petitioner. See Exhibit 1006. Petitioner has
`
`not been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ‘704 Patent. Thus,
`
`the ‘704 Patent is eligible for inter partes review.
`
`Summary. The ‘704 Patent claims are directed to computers registering an
`
`internet address with a name server over a network (e.g., Internet) so they can
`
`initiate point-to-point communication (e.g., text messaging).
`
` In previous
`
`prosecution, Patent Owner acknowledged that such registration and point-to-point
`
`communication is in the prior art, but claimed that determining that the computers
`
`are online is new, by providing dynamic addressing that tracks new addresses for
`
`the same computer each time it connects to the network. In particular, the
`
`NetBIOS prior art submitted in the ex-parte reexamination was argued to not have
`
`1
`
`dynamic addressing.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`The WINS prior art (not previously considered) was designed EXPLICITLY
`
`to provide a NetBIOS "name server" function in a DHCP (dynamic addressing)
`
`environment, and thus teaches what is claimed, alone or in combination with
`
`NetBIOS.
`
`Patent Owner has previously argued that prior art only shows addresses
`
`being registered, not “dynamically” determining that a process (program) is
`
`“online.” However, the only way taught in the ‘704 Patent to determine if a
`
`process is online is if it has provided an address to the name server. Patent Owner
`
`has also argued that prior art shows registering a computer, not a process
`
`(program) on that computer. However, NetBIOS and WINS contemplated
`
`registering processes, and the submitted Messenger prior art is an example of such
`
`a process.
`
`In addition, other combinations of prior art teach the invention, with its
`
`dynamic nature, as described below.
`
`
`
`Formalities
`A. Real Party in Interest
`
`The real party in interest, Sipnet EU S.R.O. is a limited liability Czech
`
`company with its headquarters and principal business address at T. G. Masaryka,
`
`859/18, 360 01 Karlovy Vary, Česká republika.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`B. Related Matters
`
`
`
`The ‘704 Patent has been involved in ex-parte reexamination No.
`
`90/010,416 and the following lawsuits:
`
`Net2Phone, Inc. v. eBay Inc., Skype Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 06-2469
`
`(D. New Jersey, filed 6-1-2006) [the “Skype litigation”]
`
`Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. v. Stalker Software, Inc.,
`
`etc. U.S. District Court, Docket No. 2:12-cv-00009-RGD-TEM; v. ooVoo, LLC,
`
`Docket No. 2:12-cv-00008-RGD-DEM; and v. Vivox, Inc., Docket No. 2:12-cv-
`
`00007-RGD-LRL (all E.D. Virginia, all filed 1-4-2012) [collectively the “Stalker
`
`litigation”]
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Fee
`
`This petition for inter partes review is accompanied by a payment of
`
`$24,200 and requests review of claims 1-7 and 32-42 of the ’704 patent. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15. Thus, this petition meets the fee requirements under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(1).
`
`D. Designation of Lead Counsel and Request for Authorization
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner is Paul C. Haughey, U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office Registration # 31,836, of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. Back-up
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`counsel for Petitioner is Michael T. Morlock Registration # 62,245 of Kilpatrick
`
`Townsend & Stockton LLP.
`
`E.
`
`Service Information
`
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of the present
`
`petition, in its entirety, is being served to the address of the attorney or agent of
`
`record. Sipnet EU S.R.O. may be served at its counsel, Kilpatrick Townsend &
`
`Stockton LLP, Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-
`
`3834.
`
`F.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`A power of attorney is being filed with the designation of counsel in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`G.
`
`Standing
`
`The Petitioner certifies that the ‘704 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter
`
`partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this
`
`petition.
`
`
`
`Statement of Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, this petition requests cancellation of claims 1-7
`
`and 32-42 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by each of the following
`
`4
`
`references:
`
`
`
`

`
`• Messenger
`
`• NetBIOS
`
`• WINS
`
`• DNS (DNS 1, 2, Orig.)
`
`
`
`In addition, this petition requests cancellation of claims 1, 2 and 4-6 as being
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by DEC ‘652.
`
`In the alternative, this petition requests cancellation of claims 1-7 and 32-42
`
`as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Messenger and
`
`NetBIOS or WINS, NetBIOS and WINS, DNS Orig., DNS1 and DNS 2, or DNS
`
`(Orig, 1, 2) and any one of VocalTec, Taligent ‘278, ‘704 Patent admitted prior art
`
`and DEC ‘652.
`
`Claim Construction
`In inter partes review, claim terms are interpreted under a “broadest
`
`
`
`reasonable construction” standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In compliance with
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.42.104(b)(4) and for the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner
`
`states that in general the claim terms are presumed to take on their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.
`
`“Connected to the computer network”/”online.” This was not construed by
`
`the court in any of the litigations. Ex. 1007 is the Joint Claim Construction Chart of
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`the parties in the Skype litigation, showing the side-by-side proposed claim
`
`constructions of
`
`the parties.
`
` The plaintiff’s proposed construction of
`
`“connected/online” is simply “online.”
`
`Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`
`modified by extrinsic evidence (the patent and file history) and extrinsic evidence.
`
`Dictionary definitions of “online” merely say “connected to a network” (see, e.g.,
`
`http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/online), which
`
`is consistent with
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation, which treats “connected” and “online” as
`
`equivalent. As described in the ‘704 patent, this is determined by examining
`
`whether a computer has registered with the name server (see Col. 5, lines 24-33:
`
`“Upon the first user initiating the point-to-point Internet protocol when the first
`
`user is logged on to Internet 24, the first processing unit 12 automatically
`
`transmits its associated E-mail address and its dynamically allocated IP address to
`
`the connection server 26. The connection server 26 then stores these addresses in
`
`the database 34 and timestamps the stored addresses using timer 32. The first user
`
`operating the first processing unit 12 is thus established in the database 34 as an
`
`active on-line party available for communication using the disclosed point-to-point
`
`Internet protocol.”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`“Identifier of a process.” This was not construed by the court in any of the
`
`litigations. Patent Owner, in its claim construction brief in the Skype litigation,
`
`said it was an email address or other distinguishing name.
`
`The following terms were construed as set forth in the Claim Construction
`
`Order of Ex. 1006 from the Stalker litigation:
`
`“Process” is “a running instance of a computer program or application.”
`
`“Point to point” is “communications between two processes over a computer
`
`network that are not intermediated by a connection server.”
`
`“Dynamically assigned network protocol address” is “a network protocol
`
`address assigned to a host for a limited period of time (or until the host explicitly
`
`relinquishes the address).”
`
`Means plus function elements.
`
`The only “means plus function” element in the contested claims is the
`
`following element of claim 2:
`
`means, responsive to a query from the first process, for determining the on-
`
`line status of the second process and for transmitting a network protocol address
`
`of the second process to the first process in response to a positive determination of
`
`the on-line status of the second process.
`
`The ‘704 Patent specification describes connection server 26 storing
`
`addresses in database 34 as the elements which establish the on-line status (Col. 5,
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`lines 25-37). The response to a query about online status by server 26 is described
`
`in Col. 5, lines 55-67.
`
`The interpretation and/or construction of the claims in the ‘704 patent
`
`presented either implicitly or explicitly herein should not be viewed as
`
`constituting, in whole or in part, Petitioner’s own interpretation and/or construction
`
`of such claims, but instead should be viewed as constituting an interpretation
`
`and/or construction of such claims as may be raised by Patent Owner or the Office
`
`through a broadest reasonable claim construction. Petitioner does not agree with
`
`Patent Owner’s own interpretation of the claims, and expressly reserves the right to
`
`present other interpretations of any of the ‘704 patent claims at a later time, which
`
`interpretation may differ, in whole or in part, from that presented herein.
`
`
`
`Full Statement of the Reasons for the Relief Requested
`
`Summary
`
`The below chart summaries claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent. The other
`
`independent claims are similar, and the dependent claims do not add any novel
`
`features. As noted earlier, Patent Owner acknowledges that the prior art shows
`
`registration and point-to-point communication, but asserts that determining online
`
`status (dynamic addressing) is new.
`
`“Permanent IP addresses of users and devices accessing the Internet readily
`
`support point-to-point communications of voice and video signals over the
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Internet. For example, realtime video teleconferencing has been implemented
`
`using dedicated IP addresses and mechanisms known as reflectors. Due to the
`
`dynamic nature of temporary IP addresses of some devices accessing the Internet,
`
`point-to-point communications in realtime of voice and video have been generally
`
`difficult to attain.” (‘704 Patent, col. 1, lines 48-56).
`
`Plain English Summary
`Software for point-to-point
`communication over the Internet
`or other network.
`
`Computer code.
`
`A 1st computer connects to the
`network (e.g., Internet), is
`assigned a network address, and
`provides that address to an
`address server.
`The 1st computer asks the
`address server whether a 2nd
`computer is online.
`The 2nd computer also provides
`its address to the address server
`when it connects to the network
`(Internet).
`The 1st and 2nd computers
`establish point-to-point
`communication using the address
`of the 2nd computer.
`
`Patent 6,108,704
`1. A computer program product for use with a
`computer system, the computer system
`executing a first process and operatively
`connectable to a second process and a server
`over a computer network, the computer
`program product comprising:
`a computer usable medium having program
`code embodied in the medium, the program
`code comprising:
`program code for transmitting to the server a
`network protocol address received by the first
`process following connection to the computer
`network;
`
`program code for transmitting, to the server, a
`query as to whether the second process is
`connected to the computer network;
`program code for receiving a network protocol
`address of the second process from the server,
`when the second process is connected to the
`computer network; and
`program code, responsive to the network
`protocol address of the second process, for
`establishing a point-to-point communication
`link between the first process and the second
`process over the computer network.
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`It is important to note that the only way described in the ‘704 Patent to
`
`“dynamically” determine that a process (computer) is online is by determining if it
`
`has provided an address to the name server. In previous proceedings, patent owner
`
`has tried to obfuscate and shift the focus by arguing the prior art doesn’t show
`
`anything more, but the ‘704 Patent also doesn’t show anything more. The prior art
`
`can’t be held to a higher standard of enablement than the patent itself.
`
`Overview of invalidity analysis
`
`NetBIOS. NetBIOS (Network Basic Input/Output System) was originally
`
`developed for IBM's PC-Network in the early 1980s. NetBIOS is a software
`
`interface that allows applications on different computers to communicate within a
`
`computer network, such as a local area network or the Internet. In general,
`
`NetBIOS enables point-to-point communications between two or more "point-to-
`
`point" nodes through a dedicated directory service provided by a "NetBIOS Name
`
`Server."
`
`The claims of the ‘704 Patent are directed to learning the network address of
`
`another party for a point-to-point communication (e.g., video call). A network
`
`name server keeps this data, and provides the numerical address in response to a
`
`query for a party. In the ex-parte reexaminations, it was shown that the prior art
`
`NetBIOS did this, but the Patent Owner argued that the invention was doing this
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`for dynamic addresses (e.g., where a different address is assigned each time a node
`
`goes “online”).
`
`The Patent Examiner agreed that NetBIOS provides the same address
`
`determining mechanism as described in the patent, but an expert declaration argued
`
`that “bringing dynamic addressing into a NetBIOS type system would create a new
`
`set of obstacles that would need to be solved that are not obvious in view of the
`
`combination of references.” What the expert failed to mention was that the
`
`obstacles had already been overcome, and they had nothing to do with registering
`
`an address.
`
`WINS. The WINS (Windows Internet Name Service) prior art (which was
`
`not considered in the ex-parte reexaminations) is the Microsoft implementation of
`
`a NetBIOS "Name Server". The WINS server was designed EXPLICITLY to
`
`provide a NetBIOS "name server" function in a DHCP (dynamic addressing)
`
`environment. Thus, it is clearly obvious to combine the dynamic addressing of
`
`WINS with NetBIOS to produce the invention, and this was in fact done.
`
`Messenger. OS/2 LAN Manager 2.0 released in 1990, and Microsoft
`
`Windows NT (including Windows NT 3.5 released in 1994) came with the
`
`Messenger Service (which was not considered in the ex-parte reexaminations).
`
`Messenger was an application that allowed point-to-point communication using
`
`NetBIOS and WINS. The Messenger Service process detects when the computer
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`connects to the network ("gets online") and sends the NetBIOS name registration
`
`request (sent to the WINS name server in a WINS environment). When a message
`
`is to be exchanged, a query is sent to the WINS name server to find out if the
`
`destination is online and to learn its network address. If the destination is online, a
`
`message is sent to the retrieved network address. It is received with the
`
`Messenger Service process on the receiving computer and displayed there in a pop-
`
`up window. the claims of the ‘704 patent do not require two-way communication,
`
`but even so, it would be obvious to enable a response, as received data packets
`
`include the sender’s network protocol address.
`
`Dynamic DNS. Dynamic DNS (Domain Name Service) is essentially the
`
`same as WINS Name Server for NetBIOS, but for the standard Internet Domain
`
`Name System. Dynamic DNS allows a client system to connect to the DNS server
`
`and to update its DNS records, such as linking the system identifier (domain name)
`
`with the assigned IP address. The Dynamic DNS drafts were submitted to the
`
`Patent Office during the ex-parte reexamination, but were buried in the 100s of
`
`submitted references and were never pointed out to the Examiner nor commented
`
`on by the Examiner. It is clear the Examiner did not read it. Further, 37 CFR 1.2
`
`requires that all Office business be transacted in writing. Thus, the Office cannot
`
`presume that a prior art reference was previously relied upon or discussed in a
`
`prior Office proceeding if there is no basis in the written record to so conclude
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`other than the examiner’s initials or a check mark on a PTO 1449 form, or
`
`equivalent, submitted with an information disclosure statement.
`
`“Online” simply means registered. The showing of dynamic addressing by
`
`WINS or DNS is sufficient to show determining when a process is online. While
`
`claim 1 refers to “when the second process is connected to the network,” some of
`
`the claims (e.g., claim 2) use the term "online." The only description in the ‘704
`
`Patent of how it is determined that a process is online is that it has registered, since
`
`the process must go online in order to get an assigned address and register it (i.e.
`
`there is a record in the name server database and this record has not expired).
`
`Thus, any argument that “online” means more than this would make the claims
`
`invalid as not enabled. Thus, prior art (e.g., WINS, dynamic DNS), which shows a
`
`registration that hasn’t been deleted, in fact shows determining the process is
`
`online as described in the ‘704 Patent.
`
`Per the ‘704 Patent, the process is presumed to stay online until it is de-
`
`registered. The patent does describe de-registering when a process logs off, but
`
`this simply shows when a process is offline, not online. The ‘704 Patent teaches
`
`that client processes may send an "off-line message" to the connection or name
`
`server upon logout, which results in the client's directory entry being deleted from
`
`the server's database or being flagged as off-line ('704 patent, col. 6:6-16). The
`
`patent also describes a time-stamp, but this simply says when it registered and was
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`online, not whether it continues to be online. Dependent claims 3 and 7 add the
`
`time stamp and off-line status limitations, thus these clearly aren’t required for the
`
`connection or online status of the independent claims. Also, this is consistent with
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction, as well as comments in the ‘704
`
`Patent and file history, e.g.:
`
` “…when the first user is logged on to Internet … transmits its …
`
`dynamically allocated IP address…. The connection server 26 then stores these
`
`addresses in the database 34 and timestamps the stored addresses…. The first user
`
`… is thus established in the database 34 as an active on-line party available for
`
`communication using the disclosed point-to-point Internet protocol.” (Col. 5, lines
`
`24-33 – full quote under claim construction above)
`
`“As discussed previously, the reporting or “logging-in” of a client process
`
`with an address directory to provide the server with the current network protocol
`
`address at which the process can be located is not shown in the prior art.” [March
`
`4, 1999 amendment, p. 16, lines 7-10].
`
`Patent Owner has argued that the prior art doesn’t show more than the ‘704
`
`Patent about how to determine a process is online. Throughout the ex-parte
`
`reexamination and the various litigations, Patent Owner has adopted a strategy of
`
`trying to divert attention and make things seem more complex than they are. The
`
`declaration of expert Ketan Mayer-Patel, for example, says the NetBIOS prior art
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`“active” status doesn’t mean it is online, and that the NetBIOS LISTEN doesn’t
`
`mean a process is online. These extra steps are irrelevant, since the ‘704 patent
`
`doesn’t teach anything beyond registration as indicating online status. What is
`
`sufficient for enablement of the ‘704 Patent is sufficient for the prior art.
`
`Other Patent Owner arguments. The Patent Owner has made a series of
`
`other arguments in the prior reexamination and the litigations. None of the
`
`litigations has proceeded to judgment, and thus no judge or jury has agreed with
`
`any of these arguments. The common thread is an argument that the prior art
`
`doesn’t show more than the ‘704 Patent itself claims or shows. In particular:
`
`1. NetBIOS and Dynamic DNS are protocols/interfaces, not applications.
`
`True but irrelevant. Both are clearly directed to enabling dynamic addressing and
`
`point to point communications, and describe the use by applications, thus enabling
`
`applications. The only description in the ‘704 Patent claims is how the application
`
`uses such a protocol/interface, not other aspects of an application. Also,
`
`Messenger clearly is such an application.
`
`2. NetBIOS and Dynamic DNS register a computer, not an application
`
`running on the computer. This is just what the ‘704 Patent does. The claims don’t
`
`describe anything more than registering the computer. There is no recitation of
`
`any lower level address information. The claims refer to registering a “network
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`protocol address.” As noted above under claim construction, the one court to
`
`construe terms said this was the address of the host, not an application on the host.
`
`The ‘704 Patent does variously describe a session number and sockets,
`
`which could correspond to an application, as opposed to a process. However, this
`
`is information exchanged between applications, not registered with the network
`
`address. As noted in the ‘704 Patent, this was a standard technique in the prior art:
`
`After the initiation of either the primary or the secondary point-to-point
`
`Internet protocols described above in conjunction with FIGS. 1-2, the point-to-
`
`point communication link over the Internet 24 may be established as shown in
`
`FIGS. 3-4 in a manner known in the art. (Col. 7, lines 60-64).
`
`The Windows Messenger service registers both the computer name (such as
`
`"Joe's Desktop"), and the user name (such as "Joe T-Rex Smith"), and can register
`
`any other unique name using NetBIOS name server such as WINS.
`
`While the DNS "A-records" are originally designed to name hosts, there is
`
`no requirement to do so, and there are special domains which are designed for a
`
`particular application. For example,
`
`there can be a DNS A-record
`
`"joe.company.com" which is a generic A-record for Joe's computer. At the same
`
`time, the DNS name "joe-trex-smith.voipcompany.com" name can be registered by
`
`a VoIP application (manufactured by some VoIPCompany, Inc.) on the
`
`16
`
`"voipcompany.dom."
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`With respect to Messenger, it clearly is a registered application, not a
`
`computer.
`
`3. NetBIOS was limited to a LAN, and only later expanded to a WAN with
`
`limited success. There is no limitation on the size of the network in the ‘704 Patent
`
`claims.
`
`4. All addresses may not be available in NetBIOS or Dynamic DNS. Patent
`
`Owner has variously argued that NetBIOS allows different “scopes” where a
`
`computer on a different scope may not be discoverable. There is nothing in the
`
`‘704 Patent claims specifying any requirement that all computers be reachable, or
`
`any speed requirement, or any mechanism for accomplishing that.
`
`In any event, in the '704 Patent, if there are several groups of applications
`
`with separate "connection servers", there is no teaching of how the applications in
`
`different groups can locate each other. In contrast, both NetBIOS and Dynamic
`
`DNS provide means for the processes employing the same or different Name
`
`Servers to locate each other.
`
`5. The Patent Owner argued that DNS database changes may not be
`
`propagated fast enough. However, there is no requirement under patent law for
`
`prior art to work all the time, or in any contemplated situation. Also, DNS
`
`propagation takes place only when so called “secondary” or “caching” DNS
`
`servers are involved. When all registration information is stored with a single name
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`server (as described in the ‘704 Patent and its preferred embodiments), no DNS
`
`change propagation takes place, and all changes are effective immediately.
`
`A. Claims 1-7 and 32-42 should be cancelled under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
`anticipated by Messenger (Exhibits 1011 & 1012) or obvious from
`Messenger
`
`Claim 1
`
`A computer program product for use with a computer system, the computer
`
`system executing a first process and operatively connectable to a second process
`
`and a server over a computer network, the computer program product comprising:
`
`Messenger Service discloses a computer program product for use with a
`
`computer system. The Messenger Service is used to send a real-time message to
`
`other users, computers, or messaging names on the network. If the message is sent
`
`to a username, that user must be logged on and running the Messenger Service to
`
`receive the message ("Messenger -NT Unleashed”, p. 678”)
`
`a computer usable medium having program code embodied in the medium,
`
`the program code comprising:
`
`When started, the Messenger Service code (as any other executable
`
`computer program code) is loaded into random access memory, which is a
`
`computer usable medium, and executed by a computer processor.
`
`program code for transmitting to the server a network protocol address
`
`received by the first process following connection to the computer network;
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`The Messenger Service application includes a program code which detects
`
`when the computer connects to the network ("gets online") and sends the NetBIOS
`
`name registration request (in the WINS environment, the name registration request
`
`is sent to the WINS name server).
`
`These name registration requests contain an identifier, and the service type
`
`0x03 - "Messenger service", registering that process (as opposed to the entire
`
`computer) with the NetBIOS Name Server (WINS), which plays the role of the
`
`'704 "connection server".
`
`program code for transmitting, to the server, a query as to whether the
`
`second process is connected to the computer network;
`
`The Messenger Service application includes program code which sends a
`
`request to the NetBIOS Name Server (WINS), for the specified username and the
`
`required service type (0x03 - messenger service).
`
`program code for receiving a network protocol address of the second
`
`process from the server, when the second process is connected to the computer
`
`network;
`
`If the NetBIOS server returns a positive response, that response contains the
`
`address of the "service process."
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`program code, responsive to the network protocol address of the second
`
`process, for establishing a point-to-point communication link between the first
`
`process and the second process over the computer network.
`
`The Messenger Service app