`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
` Entered: November 21, 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`RICOH AMERICAS CORPORATION and XEROX CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, and
`KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
` Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Ricoh Americas Corporation and Xerox Corporation, filed a
`
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,986,426. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, MPHJ Technology Investments LLC,
`
`did not file a Preliminary Response. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a):
`
`THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 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.
`
`Pursuant to the defined threshold under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Board
`
`institutes an inter partes review of claims 1-11 of the ’426 Patent.
`
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’426 Patent is involved in a declaratory
`
`judgment action, Engineering & Inspection Services, LLC v. IntPar, LLC, No. 13-
`
`0801 (E.D. La., Oct. 10, 2013), and, with related patents, is also the subject of a
`
`consumer protection lawsuit, Vermont v. MPHJ Tech. Investments LLC, No. 282-5-
`
`13 (Ver. Sup. Ct., May, 2013) (MPHJ filing notice of removal to D. Vt., June 7,
`
`2013 (No. 2:13-cv-00170)). See Pet. 3. The ’426 Patent is related to U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,771,381, which is the subject of inter partes review IPR2013-00309.
`
`B. The ’426 Patent
`
`The ’426 Patent describes the “Virtual Copier” (VC) system. The system
`
`enables a personal computer user to scan paper from a first device and copy an
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`electronic version of it to another remote device, or integrate that electronic version
`
`with a separate computer application in the network. See Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`According to the ’426 Patent, “VC can be viewed as a copier. Like a copier,
`
`VC takes paper in, and produces paper going out. The only difference is that VC
`
`does not distinguish between electronic and physical paper.” Id. at col. 70, ll. 37-
`
`39.
`
`VC extends from “its simplest form” to its “more sophisticated form”:
`
`In its simplest form it extends the notion of copying from a process
`that involves paper going through a conventional copier device, to a
`process that involves paper being scanned from a device at one
`location and copied to a device at another location. In its more
`sophisticated form, VC can copy paper from a device at one location
`directly into a business application residing on a network or on the
`Internet, or [vice] versa.
`
`Id. at col. 5, ll. 48-55.
`
`The VC includes “five essential modules”: input module, output module,
`
`process module, client module, and server module. “Each module is a counterpart
`
`to an aspect that is found on a conventional copier.” Id. at col. 70, ll. 41-43.
`
`Notwithstanding that the latter sentence refers to each module, the ’426 Patent
`
`ambiguously states that “[t]here is no counterpart to VC’s Server Module on a
`
`conventional copier.” Id. at col. 71, ll. 26-27. In any event, the other four modules
`
`have “counterparts” on “conventional” copiers: “The Input Module manages paper
`
`or electronic paper entering VC. . . . The counterpart to VC’s Input Module on a
`
`conventional copier is the scanner subsystem.” Id. at col. 70, ll. 47-53. “The
`
`Output Module manages paper or electronic paper exiting VC. . . . The counterpart
`
`to VC’s Output Module on a conventional copier is the printer or fax subsystem.”
`
`Id. at ll. 54-61. “The Process Module applies processing to the electronic paper as
`
`it is being copied. . . . The counterpart to VC’s Process Module on a conventional
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`copier is the controller.” Id. at l. 61 – col. 71, l. 3. “The Client Module presents
`
`the electronic paper as it is being copied, and any relevant information related to
`
`the input or output functions. . . . The counterpart to VC’s Client Module on a
`
`conventional copier is the panel.” Id. at col. 71, ll. 4-12. “Unlike conventional
`
`copiers, VC’s Server Module is a unique subsystem that can communicate with the
`
`other modules as well as third-party applications.” Id. at ll. 13-15.
`
`Figure 28 of the ’426 Patent, reproduced below, represents an embodiment
`
`of VC:
`
`
`
`Figure 28 depicts various peripheral devices attached to a Virtual Copier on
`
`
`
`a network. See id. at Abstract.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`
` C. Exemplary Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1-5 and 9-11 are independent. Challenged
`
`claims 1, 5, and 10 follow:
`
`1. A computer data management system including at least one
`
`of an electronic image, graphics and document management system
`capable of transmitting at least one of an electronic image, electronic
`graphics and electronic document to a plurality of external
`destinations including one or more of external devices and
`applications responsively connectable to at least one of locally and via
`Internet, comprising:
`
`at least one scanner, digital copier or other multifunction
`
`peripheral capable of rendering at least one of said electronic image,
`electronic graphics and electronic document;
`
`at least one memory storing a plurality of interface protocols for
`
`interfacing and communicating;
`
`at least one processor responsively connectable to said at least
`
`one memory, and implementing the plurality of interface protocols as
`a software application for interfacing and communicating with the
`plurality of external destinations including the one or more of the
`external devices and applications,
`
`wherein the computer data management system includes
`
`integration of at least one of said electronic image, electronic graphics
`and electronic document using software so that said electronic image,
`electronic graphics and electronic document gets seamlessly
`replicated and transmitted to at least one of said plurality of external
`destinations.
`
`
`
`
`5. A computer data management system including at least one
`
`of an electronic image, graphics and document management system
`capable of transmitting at least one of an electronic image, electronic
`graphics and electronic document to a plurality of external
`destinations including one or more of external devices and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`
`wherein the software application comprises:
`
`applications responsively connectable to at least one of locally and via
`Internet, comprising:
`
`
`
`at least one scanner, digital copier or other multifunction
`peripheral capable of rendering at least one of said electronic image,
`electronic graphics and electronic document;
`
`
`
`at least one memory storing a plurality of interface protocols for
`interfacing and communicating;
`
`
`
`at least one processor responsively connectable to said at least
`one memory, and implementing the plurality of interface protocols as
`a software application for interfacing and communicating with the
`plurality of external destinations including the one or more of the
`external devices and applications,
`
`
`
`at least one input module managing data comprising at least one
`
`of paper and electronic input to the computer data management
`system, and managing said at least one scanner, digital copier or other
`multifunction peripheral, and managing the electronic input from at
`least one third-party software application;
`
`
`
`at least one output module managing the data output from the
`computer data management system, managing at least one imaging
`device to output the data to at least one of a standard windows printer,
`an image printer, and a digital copier, and managing the output of the
`data to the third-party software application;
`
`
`
`at least one process module applying at least one data
`processing to the data comprising the at least one of the paper and the
`electronic input as it is being copied, applying additional functionality
`including at least one of workflow and processing functionality to the
`data comprising the at least one of paper and electronic input as it is
`being copied, and applying multiple processes to a single virtual copy;
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`
`at least one client module presenting the data comprising the at
`
`least one of paper and electronic input as it is being copied, and
`information related to at least one of input and output functions; and
`
`
`
`at least one server module communicable with said at least one
`input, output, client, and process modules and external applications,
`and capable of dynamically combining the external applications with
`at least one of digital capturing devices and digital imaging devices.
`
`
`10. A computer data management system including a server
`
`module comprising:
`
`enable virtual copy operation means for initiating, canceling,
`
`and resetting at least one operation managed by said computer data
`management system;
`
`
`
`maintain list of available module means for maintaining a list of
`input, output, and process modules that can be used in said computer
`data management system, said list being used by at least one module
`object accessible by said server module;
`
`
`
`maintain currently active modules means for maintaining input,
`output, and process modules currently being used for a current
`computer data management system operation in a program object; and
`
`maintain complete document information means for
`
`maintaining information regarding a current file.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`
`D. References Relied Upon1
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Ohkubo, U.S. Patent No. 5,123,063 (June 16, 1992) (Ex. 1004);
`
`Salgado, U.S. Patent No. 5,872,569 (Feb. 16, 1999, filed Oct. 30, 1995) (Ex.
`1005);
`
`Harkins, U.S. Patent No. 5,513,126 (Apr. 30, 1996, filed Oct. 4, 1993) (Ex.
`1006);
`
`Motoyama, U.S. Patent No. 5,818,603 (Oct. 6, 1998, filed Mar. 29, 1996)
`(Ex. 1007);
`
`Xerox Network Systems Architecture General Information Manual (1985)
`(Ex. 1002, “XNS”); and
`
`Xerox 150 Graphic Input Station Operator and Reference Manual, Parts I
`(“GIS 150-1”) and II (“GIS 150-2”) (1985) (Ex. 1003).2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The ’426 Patent claims priority by continuation to U.S. Provisional Application
`60/108,798 (filed November 13, 1998), and claims priority by continuation-in-part
`to several provisional applications (filed October 18, 1996). Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 7-
`35. The filing and publication dates of the references upon which this inter partes
`review is instituted, respectively, Salgado and XNS, predate October 18, 1996.
`Therefore, it is not necessary to determine if the involved claims are entitled to
`priority benefit back to October 18, 1996.
`2 Petitioner refers to “GIS 150” to show inherent features of the Xerox 150
`Scanner, which is described in XNS. Pet. 13-14. However, GIS 150 consists of
`Parts I and II, each of which employs the same chapter numbers (“4-3,” etc.). For
`clarity, the Board delineates the first and second parts, GIS 150-1 and GIS 150-2,
`respectively.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102 and 103:
`
`Claims 1-11 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by XNS;
`
`Claims 1-11 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Ohkubo;
`
`Claims 1-11 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Salgado;
`
`Claims 1-11 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), or (e) by Harkins;
`
`Claims 3, 5-9, and 11 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ohkubo and
`
`Admitted Prior Art;
`
`Claims 3, 5-9, and 11 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Salgado
`
`Admitted Prior Art; and
`
`Claims 1-8 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Harkins and
`
`Motoyama.
`
`See Pet. ii.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Claim Construction). Under the
`
`broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 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). In the absence of such a special
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`definition or other consideration, “limitations are not to be read into the claims
`
`from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`The Board construes the following claim phrases and terms:
`
`At least one, at least one of, and related phrases
`
`The claims recite the phrase “at least one of,” or “at least one,” in a number
`
`of places. The phrase “at least one” means “one or more.” See Rhine v. Casio,
`
`Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Use of the phrase ‘at least one’ means
`
`that there could be only one or more than one.”).
`
`Petitioner does not propose a definition for phrases of the type, “at least one
`
`of A and B.” Under Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters. Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 886
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004), the plain meaning of “at least one of A and B” is “at least one of
`
`A and at least one of B.” Quoting a “common treatise on grammar,” Superguide
`
`focuses on an example wherein the preposition “in” precedes a list (i.e., “‘[i]n
`
`spring, summer, or winter’ means ‘in spring, in summer, or in winter’”), and
`
`reasons that the phrase “‘at least one of,’ modifies each member of the list, i.e.,
`
`each category in the list.” Id. (quoting example in W. Strunk, Jr. & E.B. White,
`
`The Elements of Style 27 (4th ed. 2000) (brackets from Superguide)). However,
`
`Superguide points out that the specification involved there does not enlarge the
`
`scope of the plain meaning, and reasons that each term in the list embraces a
`
`different category, each of which must take on a chosen value: “Every disclosed
`
`embodiment teaches that the user must choose a value for each designated
`
`category.” Id. at 887 (“Importantly, the flow chart uses a conjunctive criteria list,
`
`i.e., the system’s user must choose at least one value for each designated criteria,
`
`or the logic would be inoperable.”).
`
`Accordingly, Superguide has been distinguished on the basis that the normal
`
`conjunctive meaning does not apply when the specification or claims imply a
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`broader meaning. See Joao v. Sleepy Hollow Bank, 348 F. Supp. 2d 120, 124
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 2004) (a conjunctive reading of the phrase, “wherein the banking
`
`transaction is at least one of a clearing transaction, a check clearing transaction, an
`
`account charging transaction, and a charge-back transaction,” would be
`
`nonsensical because a single banking transaction cannot be all four).3
`
`Following the principles outlined supra, the claim 5 phrase, “at least one
`
`input module managing data comprising at least one of paper and electronic input,”
`
`is reasonably broad enough to encompass one input module managing data from
`
`electronic paper, such as from a software application. A conjunctive reading is not
`
`required, because the claim does not reference, implicitly or explicitly, different
`
`categories of paper, or different categories of electronic paper.
`
`Similar remarks apply to similar claim phrases in other claims. For
`
`example, claim 1 recites “[a] computer data management system including at least
`
`one of an electronic image, graphics and document management system.” The
`
`’426 Patent does not describe three different types of computer data management
`
`systems, and a document management system appears to include, or overlap with,
`
`an electronic image management system.
`
`Moreover, the ’426 Patent indicates the intent to treat different inputs and
`
`outputs, and perform the other recited functions, in the alternative, using separate
`
`input modules for each type of input, and separate output modules for each type of
`
`
`3 At least one practitioner describes an established contrary view of the plain
`meaning prior to Superguide, which published after the effective filing date
`involved here: “It is therefore better practice to avoid the word ‘or.’ Several
`accepted techniques for doing this were developed in the past. One was to recite
`‘at least one of element A and element B,’ which is equivalent to ‘or’ but avoids
`the troublesome word itself.” Allen Wood, Drafting Patent Claims for use in the
`United States in Mechanical and Electrical Cases 23 (2003),
`http://www.awoodpatents.com/claims_booklet_(rev._nov_28__03).pdf.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`output. In other words, at least one or more modules perform at least one or more
`
`of certain functions. Each module is tailored specifically to one type of device or
`
`application:
`
`[I]n order to support outputting to a third-party application, an Output
`Module is developed that is unique to that third-party application.
`Likewise, an Input Module is developed that is unique to a third-party
`application in order to support reading images from that application.
`It is the optional Input and Output Modules that render VC
`extendable. For each third-party application there is a unique pair of
`Input and Output Modules that understand the third-party application,
`and how to copy images to and from that application. . . . In this
`way[,] Virtual Copier can grow indefinitely, to support any number of
`third-party applications.
`
`The significant point is that the Input and Output Modules have
`their own interface, and can be developed independently from any
`other module. As long as the input and output Module conforms to
`the API specified in this document it will plug-and-play with VC. VC
`will be able to mix and match the custom Input and Output Module
`with its standard and other custom Input and Output Modules.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 17-36.
`
`Other examples also refer to modules and their functions in the alternative:
`
`“The Input Module manages paper or electronic paper entering VC. This module
`
`manages imaging devices to input paper through, scanners, MFPs, or the new
`
`breed of digital copiers. The Input Module also manages reading electronic paper
`
`from third-party or proprietary applications.” Id. at col. 8, ll. 8-14 (emphases
`
`added). The Specification also states that the Virtual Copier’s “GO button can
`
`copy paper, whether physical or electronic, from one device and[/]or application to
`
`another device and/or application.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 44-46; col. 46, ll. 30-33. In
`
`other words, the Specification consistently reveals an intent to treat choices
`
`alternatively, and in some cases, blurs distinctions, by grouping “and” and “or”
`
`together.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`
`Accordingly, the claim 5 phrase, “at least one input module managing data
`
`comprising at least one of paper and electronic input to the computer data
`
`management system, and managing said at least one scanner, digital copier or other
`
`multifunction peripheral, and managing the electronic input from at least one
`
`third-party software application,” is interpreted to embrace one or more input
`
`modules each having either paper or electronic input, and each managing one or
`
`more of the recited peripherals, and managing one or more third-party software
`
`applications. Although claim 5 recites “at least one scanner, digital copier or other
`
`multifunction peripheral,” which may seem to imply a distinction over phrases that
`
`use “and,” such as “at least one of paper and electronic input,” as discussed, the
`
`’426 Patent, and the claim phrases, indicate an intent to blur any such distinction.
`
`As another example, claim 8 recites “maintaining a first list of available input,
`
`output, and process modules.” That claim phrase omits the antecedent phrases “at
`
`least one” or “at least one of” directly preceding the word “available,” thereby
`
`generally indicating an intent to read phrases conjunctively in the absence of “at
`
`least one” and “at least one of.”
`
`Claim 5 also recites the phrase “at least one server module communicable
`
`with said at least one input, output, client, and process modules and external
`
`applications, and capable of dynamically combining the external applications with
`
`at least one of digital capturing devices and digital imaging devices.” The phrase
`
`requires the “at least one module” to be communicable with at least one input
`
`module, output module, client module, or process module, or external application.
`
`As noted, the term “at least one” means “one or more,” and the preposition “of” is
`
`not recited, unlike the claims at issue in Superguide. Hence, the above-listed
`
`phrase in claim 5 means one or more modules communicable with one or more
`
`input, output, client, or process modules, or external applications.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`
`The Specification supports the interpretation, by stating that the server
`
`module functions to create a variety of systems in the alternative, as follows:
`
`Server Module - Unlike conventional copiers, VC’s Server
`Module is a unique subsystem that can communicate with the other
`modules as well as third-party applications. . . . A virtual copier can
`be created by combining a scanner with a printer; or by combining a
`scanner with an application; or by combining an application with an
`image printer. . . . There is no counterpart to VC’s Server Module on a
`conventional copier.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 42-56.
`
`In general, as noted, phrases of the type “at least one of A and B” appear
`
`throughout the claims and Specification, usually in terms of functions performed
`
`by “one or more modules.” Based on the foregoing discussion, unless otherwise
`
`noted, at this juncture, phrases of the type discussed here, “at least one of A and
`
`B,” and “at least A and B,” are interpreted in the alternative, “one or more A or B.”
`
`Applications
`
`The term “applications,” recited in the claim 1 phrase “external devices and
`
`applications,” does not preclude software programs that reside in printers,
`
`scanners, or other devices. The Specification refers to “third-party” software as
`
`“proprietary” software. See Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 13-14. It also refers to “business
`
`applications (such as Microsoft Office, Microsoft Exchange, Lotus Notes).” See
`
`id. at col. 6, ll. 58-60; col. 45, ll. 44-46. The Specification also refers to copying
`
`from “one device and[/]or application to another device and/or application,”
`
`thereby broadly blurring any distinction between a device and a device having a
`
`software application. See id. at col. 6, ll. 44-46; col. 46, ll. 30-33. Therefore, the
`
`term means a program that may or may not be stored on a device such as a printer
`
`or scanner.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`
`Managing
`
`Claim 5 requires that the input module manages data. The Specification
`
`does not specify what “managing,” in the context of data means. Managing may
`
`include “conventional copier . . . scanner subsystem” commands. See id. at col. 8,
`
`ll. 14-15. In other words, managing may require receiving or transferring the data,
`
`and possibly, but not always, transforming the data to conform to a specific format.
`
`See id. at ll. 8-24 (generally using the term “manages”). As noted in the discussion
`
`of “at least one of,” each disclosed module is tailored as a specific plug-and-play
`
`module, indicating that each module may perform a custom transform function.
`
`See also Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 20-21 (input module “is unique to a third-party
`
`application in order to support reading images from that application”). Therefore
`
`“managing” means sending or employing signals to facilitate receiving or
`
`transmitting data, or transforming data, or both.
`
`Seamlessly
`
`Claim 1 recites the phrase “wherein the computer data management system
`
`includes integration . . . so that [at least one of] said electronic image, electronic
`
`graphics and electronic document gets seamlessly replicated and transmitted to at
`
`least one of said plurality of external destinations.” Relying on an expert
`
`declaration, the Melen Declaration, Ex. 1008, Petitioner proposes that “seamlessly”
`
`means “[a] low amount of effort.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 27). Dr. Melen
`
`provides a trade dictionary definition and points to the Specification to support the
`
`proposed definition. Ex. 1008 ¶ 27. The ’426 Patent refers to delivering “paper
`
`processing to existing Intranet and client-server business processes without any
`
`fuss.” Ex. 1001, col. 45, ll. 64-66. Petitioner’s proposed definition tracks the cited
`
`trade definition and the ’426 Patent Specification. The Board adopts Petitioner’s
`
`definition.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`
`Module
`
`Claim 5 recites a software application comprising at least five modules: “at
`
`least one input module,” “at least one output module,” “at least one process
`
`module,” “at least one client module,” and “at least one server module.” Petitioner
`
`does not propose a definition for these module terms.
`
`One plain meaning of “module” is “[a] distinct and identifiable unit of a
`
`computer program for such purposes as compiling, loading, and linkage editing.”
`
`MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS 1285 (5th Ed.
`
`1994) (Ex. 3001). Another plain meaning of “module,” which is similar, but
`
`broader slightly, is “a logically separable part of a program. Note: The terms
`
`‘module,’ ‘component,’ and ‘unit’ are often used interchangeably or defined to be
`
`sub-elements of one another in different ways depending upon the context. The
`
`relationship of these terms is not yet standardized.” IEEE 100 THE
`
`AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS TERMS SEVENTH EDITION 704
`
`(2000), available at
`
`http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4116801 (last visited
`
`Sept. 19, 2013).
`
`The ’426 Patent states that the disclosed input and output modules are
`
`unique to each third party printer or scanner application, and “understand the third
`
`party application, and how to copy images to and from that application.” Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 49, ll. 7-10. The ’426 Patent also states that “[t]he Client module is generally
`
`simply an interface to the Server Module.” Id. at col. 49, ll. 30-32. As noted
`
`supra, the modules have “counterparts” in prior art copier or scanner systems. In
`
`other words, modules may include other modules and may overlap in functionality.
`
`In addition, the ’426 Patent states that modules “all support COM-based
`
`interfaces for simple and direct support from all major Windows development
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`environments.” Id. at col. 9, ll. 55-57. On the other hand, the ’426 Patent indicates
`
`that the “standard COM component” constitutes a mere example, and that modules
`
`can have different structure:
`
`The computer architecture is implemented, for example, as a
`standard COM component, as an ActiveX control; the specifications
`designed by Microsoft, published in the technical literature, and
`incorporated herein by reference. ActiveX control (COM) support is
`currently available within any Microsoft 32-bit Windows operating
`environment. ActiveX controls are supported by all OLE-based
`applications, including all of Microsoft’s end-user products (e.g.,
`Microsoft Office, Word, Access, Powerpoint, Access), the main
`Internet Browsers (Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Netscape’s
`Navigator--the latter with an add-in product and by 4Q97 directly),
`most other name-brand end-user Windows products (e.g., Lotus
`Notes), and all major development environments (e.g., Microsoft
`Visual Basic and Visual C++, Delphi, Borland C++, Power Builder).
`By implementing the architecture as, for example, an ActiveX control,
`complex technologies can be programmed by virtually any Windows
`or Intranet user or developer. Of course, other component
`specifications may also be used.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 52, ll. 45-63 (emphasis added). In addition to embracing “standard
`
`COM components” and “other component specifications,” the ’426 Patent
`
`embraces “many other languages (e.g. Java) and distributed architectures (e.g.,
`
`COBRA).” Id. at col. 52, ll. 66-67. The ’426 Patent also indicates that typically,
`
`in the prior art, “[e]very engine, such as text retrieval or an OCR (Optical
`
`Character Recognition) engine, has a unique interface. This interface is generally a
`
`‘C’-level API (Application Program Interface).” Id. at col. 53, ll. 1-4. However,
`
`the ’426 Patent does not specify that a module must have a unique or a generic
`
`interface. Claim 10 in the related ’381 Patent supports this interpretation, by
`
`specifically claiming “at least one server module application programmer interface
`
`(API).”
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`
`According to the foregoing discussion, the ’426 Patent Specification is
`
`consistent with both ordinary meanings of a module. Therefore, a “module,” as
`
`recited in claim 5, is a logically separable part of the recited software application,
`
`and may include another module and may overlap with another module in
`
`functionality.
`
`Go operation
`
`Claim 3 recites “wherein the computer data management system includes an
`
`interface that enables copying of at least one of said electronic image, electronic
`
`graphics and electronic document between two or more of said external devices
`
`and applications using a single GO operation.” Claim 11 similarly recites the “GO
`
`operation.”
`
`The ’426 Patent describes employing the “GO operation” as similar to using
`
`a “START” button on a conventional copy machine. Ex. 1001, col. 46, l. 24;
`
`Ex. 1008 ¶ 28 (quoting and discussing Ex. 1001, col. 46, ll. 36-43). Further,
`
`according to the ’426 Patent, “[t]his Go button can copy paper, whether physical or
`
`electronic, from one device and[/]or application to another device and/or
`
`application,” Ex. 1001, col. 46, ll. 30-33, and “the user simply has one sequence to
`
`execute: select From, select To, and then press GO,” id. at ll. 53-54. Dr. Melen,
`
`relying on the ’426 Patent, concludes that the term means “[a]n operation that
`
`begins a process.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 28). The ’426 Patent supports, and the
`
`Board adopts, the proposed definition.
`
`Modules object, program object, document object, and system management
`
`event object
`
`Claim 8 recites “at least one server module application programmer
`
`interface” including “at least one modules object maintaining a first list of
`
`available input, output, and process modules.”
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426 B1
`
`
`The ’426 Patent does not provide a definition for a “modules object.” The
`
`’426 Patent states that “a preferred embodiment . . . has, for example the following
`
`structure illustrated in FIG. 36, however, alternative structures and/or functionality
`
`may optionally be used for this object and/or other objects used in the present
`
`invention.” Ex. 1001, col. 73, ll. 34-38 (emphasis added). Figure 36 portrays a
`
`box with the