Filed on behalf of Medtronic, Inc.
`By: (cid:9)
`David K.S. Cornwell (davidc-PTAB@skgf. corn)
`Richard D. Coller III (rcoller-PTAB@skgf.corn)
`Kyle E. Conklin (kconklin-PTABskgf corn)
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 371-2600
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. To Be Assigned
`Patent 7,870,249
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PAR TES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7 98709249
`
`Medtronic, Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 3-5, 9, 10, and 14-
`
`29 of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,249 to Brown, titled "Networked System for
`
`Interactive Communication and Remote Monitoring of Individuals." The ’249
`
`Patent is provided as exhibit MDT 1001. A complete list of exhibits is provided as
`
`Appendix C.
`
`1
`
`Bosch Ex. 2020
`Cardiocom v. Bosch IPR2013-00451
`
`

`

`I. (cid:9)
`II. (cid:9)
`
`III. (cid:9)
`IV. (cid:9)
`
`V. (cid:9)
`
`VI. (cid:9)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Mandatory Notices...........................................................................................3
`A. (cid:9)
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................3
`B. (cid:9)
`Related Matters......................................................................................3
`1.
`Original Cardiocom Matters .......................................................3
`2.
`Original Medtronic Matters.........................................................4
`Service Information...............................................................................4
`C. (cid:9)
`Lead and Backup Counsel.....................................................................4
`D. (cid:9)
`Grounds for Standing.......................................................................................
`5
`5
`Identification of the Challenge ........................................................................
`Citation of Prior Art...............................................................................6
`A.
`Statutory Grounds for the Challenge.....................................................7
`B.
`Claim Construction................................................................................8
`C.
`"Script Program " ......................................................................... 8
`1.
`"Data Merge Program" ...............................................................9
`2.
`"Pointer ........................................................................................ 9
`3.
`"Script Assignor" .....................................................................10
`4.
`Overview of the ’249 Patent.........................................................................10
`The ’249 Patent Disclosure ................................................................10
`A.
`Prosecution History of the ’249 Patent...............................................13
`B.
`Post Grant Challenges of the ’249 Patent...........................................14
`C.
`The Prior Art Renders the Challenged Claims Obvious ..............................14
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art......................................................15
`A.
`GROUND 1: Claims 3-5, 9 1 10, 14-21 , and 23-29 are obvious over
`B.
`Goodman, Kaufman, Lyons, and Wahlquist. ..................................... 15
`Goodman discloses monitoring elements [1.0], [14.0],
`1.
`[23.0], and [27.0]......................................................................15
`Kaufman discloses audio interface elements [1.1], [3. 0],
`[4.0], [5.0], [8.0], [9.0], [14.1], [14.3], [15.0], [16.0], [23.7],
`[25.0], [27.9], and [27.10]........................................................16
`
`2.
`
`2
`
`

`

`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Goodman and as modified by Kaufman discloses script
`generator elements [1.2], [1.7], [14.5], [23.1], and [27.1].......18
`Lyons discloses data merge elements [1.3], [1.8], [14.6],
`[23.2], and [27.2]......................................................................20
`Wahlquist discloses script assignor elements [1.4], [1.12],
`[14.7], [23.3], and [27.6]..........................................................23
`Goodman discloses biometric sensor elements [1.5] and
`[14.4]........................................................................................ 25
`Goodman discloses network communication elements [1.6],
`[14.8], and [23.9]......................................................................26
`Goodman discloses health information elements [1.9],
`[14.9], (cid:9) [23.4], (cid:9) and (cid:9) [27.3].......................................................... 27
`Goodman discloses message elements [1.10], [14.10],
`[23.5], (cid:9) and (cid:9) [27.4]...................................................................... 27
`10. Wahlquist discloses program identifier elements [1.11],
`[14.11], (cid:9) [23.6], (cid:9) and (cid:9) [27.5]........................................................ 28
`11. Goodman discloses script program transmission elements
`[1.13], [7.0], [14.8.B], [18.0], [24.2], [27.7], and [28.0]......... 29
`12. Goodman discloses script program execution elements
`[1.14], (cid:9) [14.2], (cid:9) [23.8], and (cid:9) [27.8].............................................. 30
`13. Goodman discloses response transmission elements [24.3]
`and[27.11]............................................................................... 31
`14. Goodman discloses report generator elements [17.0],
`[27.12], and [29.0]....................................................................32
`15. Goodman as modified by Kaufman disclose query-based
`script generation element [24.1]...............................................32
`16. Goodman discloses notification elements [10.0] and [19.0]... 33
`17. Goodman discloses biometric monitor element [20.0]............33
`18. Goodman discloses multiple-remote-apparatuses elements
`[21.0] and [26.0].......................................................................34
`GROUND 2: Claim 22 is obvious over Goodman, Kaufman,
`Lyons, Wahiquist, and Bittorf . ........................................................... 34
`GROUND 3: Claims 3-5, 9, 10, 14-21, and 23-29 are obvious over
`Goodman, Kaufman, Wright, and Wahlquist.....................................35
`
`9.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`11 3
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`7.
`
`Goodman discloses monitoring elements [1.0], [14.0],
`[23.0], and [27.0]......................................................................35
`Kaufman discloses audio interface elements [1.1], [3. 0],
`[4.0], [5.0], [8.0], [9.0], [14.1], [14.3], [15.0], [16.0], [23.7],
`[25.0], [27.9], and [27.10]........................................................36
`Goodman as modified by Kaufman disclose script generator
`elements [1.2], [1.7], [14.5], [23.1], and [27.1]....................... 36
`4. Wright discloses data merge elements [1.3], [1.8], [14.6],
`[23.2], (cid:9) and (cid:9) [27.2]...................................................................... 36
`5. Wahlquist discloses script assignor elements [1.4], [1.12],
`[14.7], (cid:9) [23.3], (cid:9) and (cid:9) [27.6].......................................................... 39
`Goodman discloses biometric sensor elements [1.5] and
`[14.4]........................................................................................ 39
`Goodman discloses network communication elements [1.6],
`[14.8], (cid:9) and (cid:9) [23.9]...................................................................... 39
`Goodman discloses health information elements [1.9],
`[14.9], (cid:9) [23.4], (cid:9) and (cid:9) [27.3].......................................................... 39
`Goodman discloses message elements [1.10], [14.10],
`[23.5], (cid:9) and (cid:9) [27.4]...................................................................... 40
`10. Wahiquist discloses program identifier elements [1.1 1],
`[14.11], (cid:9) [23.6], and [27.5]........................................................ 40
`11. Goodman discloses script program transmission elements
`[1.13], [7.0], [14.8.B], [18.0], [24.2], [27.7], and [28.0].........40
`12. Goodman discloses script program execution elements
`[1.14], [14.2], [23.8], and [27.8]..............................................40
`13. Goodman discloses response transmission elements [24.3]
`and[27.11]...............................................................................41
`14. Goodman discloses report generator elements [17.0],
`[27.12], and [29.0]....................................................................41
`15. Goodman as modified by Kaufman discloses query-based
`script generation element [24.1]...............................................41
`16. Goodman discloses notification elements [10.0] and [19.0]... 41
`17. Goodman discloses biometric monitor element [20.0]............41
`
`6.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`111 4
`
`

`

`E.
`
`F.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`18. Goodman discloses multiple-remote-apparatuses elements
`[21.0] and [26.0].......................................................................42
`GROUND 4: Claim 22 is obvious over Goodman, Kaufman,
`Wright, Wahlquist, and Bittorf . .......................................................... 42
`GROUND 5: Claims 3-5, 9, 10, 14-21, and 23-29 are obvious over
`Goodman, Kaufman, Jeacock, and Wahiquist. .................................. 42
`Goodman discloses monitoring elements [1.0], [14.0],
`1.
`[23.0], and [27.0]......................................................................42
`Kaufman discloses audio interface elements [1.1], [3.0],
`[4.0], [5.0], [8.0], [9.0], [14.1], [14.3], [15.0], [16.0], [23.7],
`[25.0], [27.9], and [27.10]........................................................43
`Goodman as modified by Kaufman discloses script
`generator elements [1.2], [1.7], [14.5], [23.1], and [27.1].......43
`Jeacock discloses data merge elements [1.3], [1.8], [14.6],
`[23.2], and [27.2]......................................................................43
`Wahiquist discloses script assignor elements [1.4], [1.12],
`[14.7], [23.3], and [27.6]..........................................................46
`[1.5] and
`Goodman discloses biometric sensor elements
`[14.4]........................................................................................46
`Goodman discloses network communication elements [1.6],
`[14.8], and [23.9]......................................................................46
`Goodman discloses health information elements [1.9],
`[14.9], [23.4], and [27.3]..........................................................46
`Goodman discloses message elements [1.10], [14.10],
`[23.5], and [27.4]......................................................................47
`10. Wahlquist discloses program identifier elements [1.1 1],
`[14.11], [23.6], and [27.5]........................................................47
`11. Goodman discloses script program transmission elements
`[1.13], [7.0], [14.8.B], [18.0], [24.2], [27.7], and [28.0].........47
`12. Goodman discloses script program execution elements
`[1.14], [14.2], [23.8], and [27.8]..............................................47
`13. Goodman discloses response transmission elements [24.3]
`and[27.11]...............................................................................48
`14. Goodman discloses report generator elements [17.0],
`[27.12], and [29.0]....................................................................48
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`lv 5
`
`

`

`15. Goodman as modified by Kaufman discloses query-based
`script generation element [24.1]...............................................48
`16. Goodman discloses notification elements [10.0] and [19.0]... 48
`17. Goodman discloses biometric monitor element [20.0]............48
`18. Goodman discloses multiple-remote-apparatuses elements
`[21.0] and [26.0].......................................................................48
`G. GROUND 6: Claim 22 is obvious over Goodman, Kaufman,
`Jeacock, Wahlquist, and Bittorf. ........................................................ 49
`VII. Conclusion ....................................................................................................49
`VIII. Appendix A - Annotated Claim Chart .........................................................50
`IX. Appendix B - Claim Element Mapping Chart .............................................54
`X.
`Appendix C - Exhibit List............................................................................61
`
`6
`
`

`

`I. (cid:9)
`
`Introduction
`
`The challenged claims of the ’249 Patent cover methods and systems for
`
`remote monitoring of individuals(cid:151)including remote health care monitoring of
`
`patients(cid:151)using simple scripting software. But the technologies underlying the
`
`methods and systems of the challenged claims were well known long before the
`
`’249 Patent’s effective filing date. As a result, the challenged claims cover more
`
`than the Patent Owner is entitled to.
`
`The ’249 Patent describes how a server and a remote apparatus can
`
`communicate using standard networking technologies to achieve desired remote
`
`monitoring functions. In the disclosed health care monitoring embodiments, the
`
`remote apparatus can capture patient biometric information and communicate this
`
`information to the server. But as the ’249 Patent itself acknowledges and as
`
`Petitioner will show, such systems predate the ’249 Patent.
`
`The ’249 Patent also describes how simple scripting software running on the
`
`server can be used to create a message for a specific remote individual. The
`
`message(cid:151)which can include health care information(cid:151)can be transmitted to the
`
`remote apparatus via a "script program" that is executable by the remote apparatus.
`
`But once again, as the ’249 Patent itself acknowledges and as Petitioner will show,
`
`suitable scripting software tools predate the ’249 Patent.
`
`-1- 7
`
`

`

`Finally, the ’249 Patent further provides a limited, high-level description of
`
`"data merge" and "script assignor" features of the scripting software for
`
`customizing a script program. The data merge feature is used to combine personal
`
`data (e.g., the individual’s name) with other data to provide the customized script
`
`program. An exemplary result is simple, obvious, and well known: a message
`
`communicated to a patient named "Dan" recites the patient’s name
`
`("Dan, your lab
`
`results for hemoglobin are 6.74"). The script assignor feature, which is merely used
`
`to associate a script program with a specific individual, is equally intuitive. An
`
`exemplary result is that the system makes sure that Dan’s message is sent to Dan,
`
`instead of someone else.
`
`In view of the ’249 Patent’s prosecution history, as well as a prior Board
`
`decision involving the ’249 Patent, the critical question is whether elements akin to
`
`the claimed "data merge" and "script assignor" were features of scripting software
`
`that predate the ’249 Patent. As shown below, not only was individual-specific
`
`script program customization well known at the relevant time period, but elements
`
`akin to the claimed "data merge" and "script assignor" features were, in fact,
`
`central features of many simple scripting software tools, including those used in
`
`network communication systems.
`
`A Declaration from Robert T. Stone, Ph.D. is provided as MDT 1009 to
`
`support the grounds of unpatentability of the challenged claims outlined below.
`
`-2- 8
`
`

`

`II. Mandatory Notices
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Medtronic, Inc. is the real party-in-interest for Petitioner.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The following may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding.
`
`1. (cid:9)
`
`Original Cardiocom Matters
`
`Cardiocom, LLC is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petitioner Medtronic.
`
`Petitioner acquired Cardiocom, LLC only after the following matters involving the
`
`’249 Patent or related patents were initiated:
`
`District Court Matters:
`
`Case
`Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. v.
`Cardiocom, LLC, et al., 2:13-cv-349 (EDTX)
`Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. v.
`Cardiocom,LL(cid:231) 5:12-cv-3864 (ND Cal)
`
`Patents in Suit
`7,516,192; 7,587,469; 7,769,605;
`7,840,420; 7,870,249; 7,921,18J
`6,368,273; 6,968,375; 7,252 1 636;
`7,941,327; 8,015,025; 8,140,663
`
`Board Matters:
`
`Case
`1PR2013-00460
`1PR2013-0043 1
`1PR2013-00449
`1PR2013-0451
`1PR2013-468; 1PR2013-469
`
`CRU Matters:
`
`Status
`institution denied on 01/16/14
`trial initiated on 01/16/14
`trial initiated on 01/16/14
`trial initiated on 01/16/14
`(joined) trial initiated on 01/28/14
`
`Patent
`7,870,249
`7,921,186
`7,840,420
`7,587,469
`7,516,192
`
`Reexam Control No.
`90/012,474
`95/002,276; 95/002,172
`95/002,237
`
`Patent No.
`6,368,273
`8,015,025
`6,968,375
`
`Examiner
`Patel, Hetul
`Wehner, Cary
`Patel, Hetul
`
`Status
`In Progress
`In Progress (Merged)
`In Progress
`
`-3- 9
`
`

`

`Reexam Control No.
`95/002,178; 95/002,221
`95/002,199
`95/002,192; 95/002,234
`90/013,104
`90/013,105
`90/013,167
`90/013,175
`
`Examiner
`Patent No.
`8,140,663
`Patel, Hetul
`7,941,327 Escalante, Ovidio
`7,252,636
`Patel, Hetul
`7,252,636
`Patel, Hetul
`8,14003 Ahmad, Salman
`TBD
`7,769,605
`TBD
`7,587,469
`
`Status
`In Progress (Merged)
`In Progress
`In Progress (Merged)
`In Progress
`In Progress
`Pending Order
`Pending Order
`
`2. (cid:9)
`
`Original Medtronic Matters
`
`Medtronic initiated the following matters after the acquisition of Cardiocom:
`
`Board Matters:
`
`Case
`1PR2014-00436
`1PR2014-00488
`1PR2014-00607
`
`Status
`initiation decision pending
`initiation decision pending
`initiation decision pending
`
`Patent
`7,587,469
`7,769,605
`7,870,249
`
`C.
`
`Service Information
`
`Please address correspondence to counsel as shown below. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service by email to all counsel.
`
`D.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`Petitioner designates as its lead counsel and back-up counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`David K.S. Cornwell
`Reg. No. 31,944
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein
`& Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-772-8580
`Fax: 202-371-2540
`davidc-PTAB (skgf. corn
`
`Backup Counsel
`Richard D. Coller III
`Reg. No. 60,390
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein
`& Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-772-8764
`Fax: 202-371-2540
`rcoller-PTAB (skgf.com
`
`Backup Counsel
`Kyle E. Conklin,
`Reg. No. 59,425
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein
`& Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-772-8512
`Fax: 202-371-2540
`kconkiin-PTAB @skgf. com
`
`10
`
`

`

`III. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’249 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`inter partes
`
`review challenging the claims of the ’249 patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`Petitioner is not estopped from requesting review of claims 3-5, 9, 10, and
`
`14-29 based on Case 1PR2013-00460 because the Board never issued a final
`
`written decision (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)) and because Petitioner was not in
`
`privity with Cardiocom at the time. (Decision, Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
`
`Corp., Case 1PR2012-00042, 12 (Feb. 19, 2014). This petition seeks
`
`inter partes
`
`review different claims than those sought in Case 1PR2014-00607. Thus, even if a
`
`final written decision was issued in that Case 1PR2014-00607, Petitioner would not
`
`be estopped from seeking review of the currently requested claims.
`
`IV.
`
`Identification of the Challenge
`
`Petitioner petitions for inter partes review of claims 3-5, 9, 10, and 14-29 of
`
`the ’249 Patent, which are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the reasons set
`
`forth below, Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.’
`
`1 Though only claims 3-5, 9, 10, and 14-29 are presently challenged, the limitations
`
`of claims 1, 7, and 8 are also addressed because challenged claims 3-5, 9, and 10
`
`depend from claims 1, 7, and/or 8 and therefore include their limitations.
`
`-5- 11
`
`

`

`A. (cid:9)
`
`Citation of Prior Art
`
`The following prior art references are applied in the below grounds:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,827,180 to Goodman (MDT 1002) is a continuation of an
`
`application filed August 24, 1995. Thus, Goodman has an effective filing date of
`
`August 24, 1995, more than one year before the ’249 Patent’s March 28, 1997
`
`earliest claimed effective filing date. Goodman is § 102(e) prior art.
`
`European Pub. No. 0 342 859 to Kaufman et al. (MDT 1003) published on
`
`November 23, 1989. Kaufman’s publication date predates the ’249 Patent’s earliest
`
`claimed effective filing date by over seven years. Kaufman is § 102(b) prior art.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,623,656 to Lyons (MDT 1004) was filed on December 15,
`
`1994. Lyons’ disclosure predates the ’249 Patent’s earliest claimed effective filing
`
`date by over two years. Lyons is § 102(e) prior art.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,367,667 to Wahiquist et al. (MDT 1005) issued on
`
`November 22, 1994. Wahiquist predates the ’249 Patent’s earliest claimed
`
`effective filing date by two and one-half years. Wahlquist is § 102(b) prior art.
`
`Teaching Resources for Dermatology on the WWW - Quiz System and
`
`Dynamic Lecture Scripts using a HTTP-Database Demon by Bittorf et al. (MDT
`
`1006) was published in 1996. Bittorf is § 102(a) prior art.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,704,029 to Wright, Jr. (MDT 1007) was filed on May 23,
`
`1994. Wright predates the ’249 Patent’s earliest claimed effective filing date by
`
`S 12
`
`

`

`three years. Wright is § 102(e) prior art.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,014,630 to Jeacock el al. (MDT 1008) was filed on
`
`August 26, 1993. Jeacock predates the ’249 Patent’s earliest claimed effective
`
`filing date by three and one-half years. Jeacock is § 102(e) prior art.
`
`Each applied reference is analogous art to the claimed invention at least
`
`because it (1) falls within the ’249 Patent’s stated field of "systems for remote
`
`monitoring individuals" (’249 Patent, 1:37-43), and/or (2) is reasonably pertinent
`
`to one of the apparent problems allegedly solved. (Stone Decl. ¶J 68-93.)
`
`B. (cid:9)
`
`Statutory Grounds for the Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 3-5, 9, 10, and 14-29 of the
`
`’249 Patent on the following statutory grounds:
`
`GROUND 1: Claims 3-5, 9, 10, 14-21, and 23-29 are obvious under §
`
`103(a) over Goodman, Kaufman, Lyons, and Wahiquist; GROUND 2: Claim 22 is
`
`obvious under § 103(a) over Goodman, Kaufman, Lyons, Wahlquist, and Bittorf
`
`GROUND 3: Claims 3-5, 9, 10, 14-21, and 23-29 are obvious under § 103(a) over
`
`Goodman, Kaufman, Wright, and Wahiquist; GROUND 4: Claim 22 is obvious
`
`under § 103(a) over Goodman, Kaufman, Wright, Wahiquist, and Bittorf;
`
`GROUND 5: Claims 3-5, 9, 109 14-21, and 23-29 are obvious under § 103(a) over
`
`Goodman, Kaufman, Jeacock, and Wahlquist; and GROUND 6: Claim 22 is
`
`obvious under § 103(a) over Goodman, Kaufman, Jeacock, Wahlquist, and Bittorf.
`
`-7- 13
`
`

`

`C. (cid:9)
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The ’249 Patent claim terms must be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with
`
`the disclosure. For the purpose of this inter partes review only, Petitioner submits
`
`that the following remarks are relevant to the construction of certain terms.
`
`1. (cid:9)
`
`"Script Program"
`
`The term "script program" appears in claims 1-3, 14, 23, 24, 27, and 28, and
`
`should be construed as "an interpreted software program (as opposed to compiled),
`
`whose program files comprise commands, written in ASCII text, and which must
`
`be read by an interpreter in order to be executed." (MDT 1009, Stone Decl. ¶J 39-
`
`45.) This construction was adopted by the Central Reexamination Unit Director
`
`after careful consideration in reexamination Control No. 90/012,474 of related U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,368,273. (MDT 1013, Reexam Decision, p. 10.) The CRU’s adopted
`
`definition of "script program" departs from the definition adopted by the Board in
`
`terminated Case No. IPR-2013-00460 involving the ’249 Patent (MDT 1012,
`
`Decision, Case 1PR2013-00460, p. 7), as well as in other proceedings involving
`related patents. 2 But the Board panels in those cases did not have the benefit of the
`
`CRU Director’s carefully considered construction, which issued only after
`
`Cardiocom filed petitions seeking inter partes review in those cases. Moreover, the
`
`2 See Case Nos. 1PR2013-00431, 1PR2013-00468, and 1PR2013-00469.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Board’s definition in those cases is overbroad because it encompasses non-script
`
`programs. (Stone Deci. ¶J 43-44.)
`
`2.
`
`"Data Merge Program"
`
`The term "data merge program" appears in claims 1, 14, 23, and 27, and
`
`should be construed as "a program that combines two or more sets of data into
`
`one." (Stone Dccl. ¶46.) The Board adopted this construction in a terminated
`
`proceeding involving the ’249 Patent. (MDT 1012, Decision, Case 1PR2013-
`
`00460, p. 8.) The ’249 Patent states that a data merge program merges personal
`
`data with a generic script program to create a customized script program. (’249
`
`Patent, 12:59-13:15.) Merging involves "combining two or more sets of items into
`
`one, usually in a specified sequence." (MDT 1014, IEEE Dictionary, p. 583.)
`
`Patent Owner also conceded that "the data merge program is analogous to a mail
`
`merge program." (MDT 1011, POPR, Case 1PR2013-00460, p. 13.)
`
`3.
`
`"Pointer"
`
`The term "pointer" appears only in claim 1, and should be construed as "an
`
`identifier that indicates the location of an item." (Stone Deci. ¶47.) The Board
`
`adopted this construction in a terminated proceeding involving the ’249 Patent.
`
`(MDT 1012, Decision, Case 1PR2013-00460, p. 9.) The ’249 Patent does not
`
`define "pointer," but uses the term with respect to storing and retrieving a script
`
`S 15
`
`

`

`program. (’249 Patent, 9:40-47.) Indeed, a pointer is "an identifier that indicates
`
`the location of an item of data." (MDT 1015, IEEE Dictionary, p. 703.)
`
`4. (cid:9)
`
`"Script Assignor"
`
`The term "script assignor" appears in claims 1, 14, 23, and 27, and should be
`
`construed as "a program that associates a script program with an individual."
`
`(Stone Deci. ¶48.) The Board adopted this construction in terminated Case No.
`
`1PR2013-00460 involving the ’249 Patent. (MDT 1012, Decision, Case 1PR2013-
`
`00460, p. 9.) The ’249 Patent explains that a "script assignor" assigns a script
`
`program to a patient, e.g., by creating a pointer to associate the script program with
`
`a unique identification code for the patient. (’249 Patent, 13:63-14:1.)
`
`V. (cid:9)
`
`Overview of the ’249 Patent
`
`A. (cid:9)
`
`The ’249 Patent Disclosure
`
`The ’249 Patent discloses methods and systems for remote monitoring of
`
`individuals(cid:151)including patient health care monitoring(cid:151)using simple scripting
`
`software. (’249 Patent, 4:8-63.) While many disclosed embodiments relate to
`
`remote health care monitoring of patients, the ’249 Patent makes clear that "the
`
`invention is not limited to [the] remote monitoring of patients" (4:13-14) and that
`
`the alleged invention has applications "outside [of] the healthcare industry" (19:42-
`
`45; 1:37-43; 19:62-20:2; 20:8-20). The ’249 Patent describes how a server and a
`
`-10- 16
`
`

`

`remote apparatus can communicate using standard networking technologies to
`
`achieve desired remote monitoring functions. (4:20-46; FIGS. 2 and 16.)
`
`In the disclosed health care monitoring embodiments, the remote apparatus
`
`can capture patient biometric information and communicate this information to the
`
`server. (4:47-63; FIG. 2.) While much of the disclosure of the ’249 Patent focuses
`
`on remote health care monitoring systems involving a server, standard networking
`
`technologies, and a remote patient apparatus that can capture patient biometric
`
`information with standard sensors, the ’249 Patent acknowledges that such systems
`
`were generally known before the ’249 Patent’s effective filing date. (1:49-2:8.)
`
`The ’249 Patent also describes how simple scripting software running on the
`
`server can be used to create a message for a specific individual. (4:20-46; FIGS.
`
`16-18.) The message(cid:151)which can include health care information(cid:151)can be
`
`transmitted to the remote apparatus of the individual via a "script program" that is
`
`executable by the remote apparatus. (4:64-5:14; FIG. 16.)
`
`The server includes a database for storing the script programs. (4:64-5:14;
`
`FIG. 16.) In one embodiment, script programs conform to the standard UNIX file
`
`formats. (7:6-13.) The ’249 Patent notes that many other scripting languages and
`
`specific script commands may be used to implement the alleged invention.
`
`(7:55-
`
`57; 19:33-41.) Critically, the ’249 Patent itself acknowledges that suitable scripting
`
`software was well known before the ’249 Patent’s effective filing date.
`
`(5 :61-62.)
`
`-11- 17
`
`

`

`The ’249 Patent further provides a limited, high-level description of certain
`
`software modules that provide individual-specific script program customization.
`
`These modules include a script generator, a data merge program, and a script
`
`assignor, which are each defined in a circular, functional manner with few details.
`
`(12:59-14:10; FIG. 16.) For example, the ’249 Patent explains that a script
`
`generator "generates a script program from the information entered in the screen,"
`
`such as information from a health care provider. (8:66-67.)
`
`In disclosed data merge program software module embodiments, this feature
`
`is described as being used to combine personal data (e.g., the individual’s name)
`
`with other data to provide a customized script program. (12:59-14:10; FIGS. 16-
`
`19.) For example, when test results need to be communicated to a patient named
`
`Dan, the disclosed system could start with a generic template related to test results
`
`reporting and insert Dan’s name into the template, resulting in a custom message(cid:151)
`
`"Dan, your lab results for hemoglobin are 6.74" (emphasis added)(cid:151) embodied in a
`
`script program. (See, e.g., FIGS. 18, 19.) The ’249 Patent notes that this simple
`
`functionality operates "much like a standard mail merge application."
`
`(12:59-62.)
`
`In disclosed script assignor software module embodiments, the ’249 Patent
`
`explains that the script assignor "is used to assign script programs 40 to the
`
`patients." (8:10-11.) For example, this functionality enables the system to relay
`
`Dan’s lab results to Dan instead of to someone else. (See 13:63-14:10.)
`
`- 12- 18
`
`

`

`As noted above, a script program including a customized message for the
`
`patient can be communicated to a remote apparatus via conventional network
`
`communications and executed to output messages. (5:48-62; 9:60-10:4;
`
`10:11-25;
`
`12:47-57.) The ’249 Patent notes that techniques for interpreting and executing
`
`script commands are "well known in the art." (5:61-62.)
`
`Finally, user responses to messages are collected by the remote apparatus
`
`and transmitted back to the server, which generates a report from the data. (10:26-
`
`67.) The ’249 Patent notes that these report generating techniques are also "well
`
`known in the art." (8:39-41.)
`
`B. (cid:9)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’249 Patent
`
`The application that matured into the ’249 Patent was filed on June 12, 2006,
`
`as U. S. Patent Application No. 11/451,275. (MDT 1010, ’249 History.)
`
`After a series of rejections, the applicant amended the claims to require,
`
`inter alia, that the claimed server have a data merge program, and argued that the
`
`reference cited did not teach associating a custom script to a particular person.
`
`(’249 History, Amendment dated 8/16/10.) Specifically, the applicant argued that
`
`the "server having the data merge program, which customizes a script with
`
`personal data, and the script assignor, which associates a custom script to a
`
`particular person, would appear to clearly distinguish the presently claimed
`
`invention." (Id.) This prompted the Examiner to issue an allowance.
`
`(Id.)
`
`- 13 - 19
`
`

`

`C. (cid:9)
`
`Post Grant Challenges of the ’249 Patent
`
`Cardiocom previously sought inter partes review of claims 1-29 of the ’249
`
`Patent. (See MDT 1012, 1PR2013-00460 Decision.) Denying trial institution, the
`
`Board found that Cardiocom failed to show that the Fu, Goodman, or Wahlquist
`
`disclosed the recited "data merge program."
`
`(Id., 12-14.) Petitioner itself recently
`
`sought inter partes review of only claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 11-13 of the
`
`1 249 Patent in
`
`Case No. 1PR2014-00607. The present petition only seeks
`
`int