`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR 2014-0082
`Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE BY PATENT OWNER
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................... 5
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART .......................................... 9
`
`III. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED ..................................................... 10
`
`A. The Petition Fails To Explain the Relevance Of The References To The
`
`Claims As Required By 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5)................................................ 11
`
`B. The Petition Violates Rule 42.6(a)(3) by Incorporating the Substance of its
`
`Arguments By Reference ................................................................................. 14
`
`C. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood of the Claims Being Invalidated. ........... 18
`
`1. Petitioner Fails to Construe and/or Incorrectly Construes Terms Material to
`
`all Claims .............................................................................................................. 18
`
`a. “Container” ................................................................................................. 21
`
`b. “Register” ................................................................................................... 23
`
`c. “Gateway” ................................................................................................... 25
`
`d. “Encapsulated”/”Encapsulating” ................................................................ 27
`
`e. “Active Time Register” / “Passive Time Register” / “Neutral Time
`
`Register” ............................................................................................................ 28
`
`f. “Acquire Register” ...................................................................................... 29
`
`2. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claims 1 or 3-15 Being Found To Be
`
`Anticipated By Katz (Ex. 1006). .................................................................. 30
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`3. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claims 1, 3, 4, or 8 Being Obvious in
`
`View of Katz (Ex. 1006) and “General Knowledge.” ................................... 34
`
`4. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claim 15 Being Found To Be
`
`Anticipated By Chou (Ex. 1007). ................................................................. 34
`
`5. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claims 5 and 7 Being Obvious in
`
`View of Chou (Ex. 1007) and “General Knowledge.” .................................. 38
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 39
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE BY PATENT
`OWNER UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`Patent Owner Evolutionary Intelligence LLC hereby respectfully submits
`
`this Preliminary Response to the Petition seeking inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,010,536.
`
`The Petition is deficient and relies on prior art references that are entirely
`
`distinct from the ’536 patent. The Petition should be rejected for three independent
`
`reasons. First, the Petition fails to explain the relevance of the prior art to the
`
`claims as required by 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5), including failing to establish that the
`
`prior art discloses all elements “arranged as in the claims.” Second, the Petition is
`
`deficient because it violates 37 C.F.R. 42.6(a)(3)’s strict prohibition against
`
`incorporating other arguments by reference. Third, even setting aside these critical
`
`defects, the Petition should be rejected on the merits, because it fails to
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of any claims being invalid—particularly
`
`because it relies on unreasonably broad constructions for and fails to construe
`
`terms that are material to all of the claims at issue. For at least these reasons, the
`
`Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of
`
`the challenged claims, and inter partes review should not be instituted.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`This filing is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, as it is
`
`being filed within three months of the October 29, 2013 mailing date of the Notice
`
`granting the Petition a filing date of October 23, 2013.
`
`I.
`
`Technology Background
`
`The ’536 patent describes a “System and Method for Creating and
`
`Manipulating Information Containers With Dynamic Registers.” The invention is
`
`directed at improving the processing of “containerized” data, such as the data that
`
`makes up web pages and documents. At the time of the invention, processing
`
`information resources on a computer network (e.g., the internet) was primarily
`
`static, in that the processing did not result in dynamic modifications that would
`
`improve future processing efforts. For example, the searching of data was
`
`“accomplished by individuals directing a search effort by submitting key words or
`
`phrases to be compared to those key words or phrases contained in the content or
`
`description of that information resource, with indices and contents residing in a
`
`fixed location unchanging except by human input.” Ex. 1001 at 1:22-28. As the
`
`’536 patent notes, this “static” information model was limited, because, inter alia,
`
`the information being processed did not evolve to reflect its actual utility to the
`
`people using it, and successful search strategies were not available to be used to
`
`process future searches. Ex. 1001 at 1:37-2:48. At most, the prior art allowed
`
`“hits” for a given web page to be tracked—a static process. See Ex. 1001, 2:8-13.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`The invention solved this problem through the use of “dynamic” information
`
`containers. The dynamic information containers include dynamic registers that
`
`attach to and form part of the container. Ex. 1001 at 2:66-3:5. Each container has
`
`an information element (e.g., an advertisement, article, or a text string), a plurality
`
`of registers, and a gateway. The plurality of registers for each container include
`
`(i) a unique identification register for that container; (ii) a second register
`
`governing the interactions of the container according to utility of the information in
`
`the information element relative to space or time; (iii) an active register controlling
`
`whether the container acts upon other containers according at a given time or
`
`location; (iv) a passive register controlling whether the container can be acted upon
`
`by other containers at a given time or location; and (v) a neutral register controlling
`
`whether a container may interact with other containers at a given time or location.
`
`“Gateways” are programmed with rules to enable the interaction among the various
`
`containers, gateways, and system components. Id. at 4:54-5:11.
`
`In the invention of the ’536 patent, information containers are populated
`
`with information elements and time- and space-based dynamic registers, thereby
`
`facilitating access to the information at appropriate times and in relation to
`
`pertinent locations. This facilitates access to information that is useful to the user.
`
`As users access the information containers, the dynamic registers are updated with
`
`information regarding their use, allowing them to evolve. This is made more
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`evident in the claims of U.S. Patent 6,702,682, whose underlying application is a
`
`continuation of the application leading to the ‘536 patent. In the ’2,682 patent, “a
`
`search query may be run against a plurality of container registers encapsulated and
`
`logically defined in a plurality of containers to identify one or more container
`
`registers responsive to the search query,” and “a list characterizing the identified
`
`containers may be provided.” See U.S. Patent 6,702,682 at Abstract. The dynamic
`
`nature of the invention of the ’536 patent is also evident in its other continuation,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,873,682. The ’3,682 patent is directed to methods and systems
`
`using at least two information containers with dynamic registers to evolve
`
`information containers over time.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’536 patent is directed to “an apparatus for
`
`transmitting, receiving and manipulating information on a computer system”
`
`comprised of a plurality of dynamic containers, each having an information
`
`element, a plurality of registers, and a gateway. The plurality of registers for each
`
`container include the five types of registers discussed above.
`
`Claim 2, also an independent claim, is identical to claim 1, except that
`
`“space” and “three-dimensional space” replace “time” and “event time” in the
`
`second register. Claim 2 is not at issue in this proceeding.
`
`Claims 3-14 are multiply dependent from claims 1 and 2. These claims
`
`further comprise at least one “container history register” (claim 3); “system history
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`register” (claim 4); “predefined register” (claim 5); “user-created register” (claim
`
`6);”system-defined register” (claim 7); “acquire register for controlling whether the
`
`container adds a register from other containers or adds a container from other
`
`containers when interacting with them” (claim 8); OR an apparatus wherein the
`
`gateway includes “means for acting upon another container” (claim 9); “means for
`
`allowing interaction (claim 10); “means for gathering information,” (claim 11);
`
`means for reporting information (claim 12); or “an expert system” (claim 13); OR
`
`an apparatus wherein the “information element is one from the group of text,
`
`graphic images, video, audio, a digital pattern, a process, a nested container, bit,
`
`natural number and a system” (claim 14).
`
`Claims 15 and 16 of the ’536 patent are each directed to “an apparatus for
`
`transmitting, receiving and manipulating information on a computer system”
`
`comprised of a plurality of dynamic containers, each having an information
`
`element, a plurality of registers, and a gateway. The plurality of registers for each
`
`container includes (i) a unique identification register for that container, (ii) a
`
`second register designating time (claim 15) or space (claim 16) governing the
`
`interactions of the container according to utility of the information in the
`
`information element relative to event time (claim 15) or three-dimensional space
`
`(claim 16), and (iii) at least one acquire register controlling whether the container
`
`adds a register or container from another container.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`As with claims 1 and 2, claims 15 and 16 differ only with respect to each
`
`claim’s second register. Claim 15 recites a second register “having a
`
`representation designating time and governing interactions of the container with
`
`other containers, systems or processes according to utility of information in the
`
`information element relative to an external‐to‐the‐apparatus event time.” Claim
`
`16, which is not at issue in this proceeding, recites a second register designating
`
`“space” and governing interactions of “the container” of which it is part “according
`
`to the utility of the information in the information element relative to three-
`
`dimensional space.”
`
`II. Overview of the Asserted Prior Art
`
`The petition for IPR2014-0082 relies upon two references:
`
`• Katz, U.S. Patent No. 6,496,872 (Ex. 1006) (“Katz”); and
`
`• Chou, U.S. Patent No. 5,902,352 (Ex. 1007) (“Chou”).
`
`Both references are directed to internal event triggers on a computer system.
`
`Katz discloses a “Computer System for Automatically Instantiating Tasks
`
`Designated by a User,” while Chou discloses a “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Scheduling Tasks Across Multiple Execution Sessions.” In both cases, the “tasks”
`
`are executable system events such as backups. Katz provides examples based on
`
`an Apple Macintosh computer system, while Chou provides examples on a
`
`Windows operating system.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petition asserts Katz and Chou as anticipatory references for all the
`
`claims involving time (claim 1 and claims 3-15). The Petition also asserts that
`
`certain claims (claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 for Katz; claims 5 and 7 for Chou) are obvious
`
`in view of each respective reference and “general knowledge in the field.”
`
`Presumably, Petitioner does this because it believes that its allegations of
`
`anticipation are weak for each of these claims in view of the asserted prior art.
`
`III. The Petition Should be Denied
`
`The Petition should be rejected for three independent reasons. First, the
`
`Petition fails to explain the relevance of the prior art to the claims as required by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5), including failing to establish that the prior art discloses all
`
`elements “arranged as in the claims.” Second, the Petition is deficient because it
`
`violates 37 C.F.R. 42.6(a)(3)’s strict prohibition against incorporating other
`
`arguments by reference. Third, even setting aside these critical defects, the Petition
`
`should be rejected on the merits, because it fails to demonstrate a reasonable
`
`likelihood of any claims being invalid—particularly because it relies on
`
`unreasonably broad constructions for and fails to construe terms that are material
`
`to all of the claims at issue.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The Petition Fails To Explain the Relevance Of The References
`
`To The Claims As Required By 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5) states (emphasis added): “the petition must set forth: .
`
`. . (5) The exhibit number of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the
`
`challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including
`
`identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge. The
`
`Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to
`
`state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the
`
`challenge.” In addition, in order to invalidate a claim, a prior art reference “must
`
`not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document,
`
`but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” See MPEP 2131;
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Failure
`
`to satisfy these requirements is grounds to dismiss an IPR petition in its entirety.
`
`See, e.g., Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR 2012-0041, Dkt. No. 16,
`
`12-13 (PTAB 2013) (declining to institute IPR due to petitioner’s failure to
`
`establish that elements were “arranged as in the claim”).
`
`The Petition fails to mention, let alone satisfy, these requirements. For
`
`example, the Petition provides no explanation of how Katz and Chou show each
`
`and every element “arranged as required by the claim” as required for a proper
`
`anticipation rejection. See id. Instead, the Petition consists of a series of
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`conclusory statements that various elements of the claims are present in the
`
`asserted prior art. There is little or no explanation in the Petition of specifically
`
`how the claim terms are being applied by the Petitioner or why the highlighted
`
`language corresponds to (or is otherwise relevant to) the claim elements. Even the
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh (Ex. 1003), upon which the Petition is based, contains
`
`many conclusory statements that elements are met, but fails to provide the
`
`explanation required by the PTO’s regulations.1
`
`A prime example of the Petition’s failure to explain how the cited references
`
`meet the limitations is the Petition’s assertion that Katz discloses of “an apparatus
`
`including a plurality of containers, each container . . . comprising [the other
`
`elements].” The Petition asserts that Ex. 1006 discloses “containers,” including a
`
`“task file, task folder, trigger objects, and trigger instance list.” Petition at 13. But
`
`the Petition does not specify which of these containers it is using as the antecedent
`
`“the container” which includes the other elements of the claim (e.g., the
`
`information element and the various registers). In the following discussion, the
`
`Petition primarily discusses the “task files,” but bounces back and forth between
`
`discussion of various “containers.” For example, in relation to the “passive time
`
`register,” the Petition cites “setting a time via an operating system service,” yet
`
`1 The supporting declaration of Apple’s expert also repeatedly omits the “arranged
`as required by the claim” requirement for anticipation. See Ex. 1003 at ¶ 28
`(representing that § 102 is satisfied because “every element” is present, without
`addressing how the elements are arranged).
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`provides no discussion of how or why this amounts to a register within the
`
`antecedent container (i.e., the task file). Id. at 16. Instead, the Petition leaves it to
`
`the PTAB to figure out why and how “setting a time via an operating system
`
`service” amounts to a passive time register that is “logically defined and
`
`encapsulated” within the “task file.”
`
`Similarly, with regard to Katz’s disclosure of “a first register having a
`
`unique identification value,” the Petition cites the “combination of [the task file’s
`
`name] and the folder [in which the file resides],” (Petition at 14), yet never
`
`establishes that this allegedly unique combination is part of the “task file”
`
`container, as opposed to being a plurality of registers external to the task file.
`
`Again, this is a failure to explain adequately the Petition’s application of the claim
`
`language to Katz.
`
`Accordingly, just like the petition at issue in Synopsis, which the PTO
`
`rejected (see IPR 2012-0041, Dkt. No. 16, 12-13 (PTAB 2013)), the instant
`
`Petition fails to satisfy § 104(b)(5)’s requirement that “the Petition must set forth . .
`
`. the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised,” and the instant Petition
`
`should also be rejected. See Synopsis.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Violates Rule 42.6(a)(3) by Incorporating the
`
`Substance of its Arguments By Reference
`
`Rule 42.24 of the PTAB’s Rules for Trial Practice limits petitions for inter
`
`partes review to 60 pages. The PTO adopted this page limit after substantial
`
`public commentary, in an attempt to reduce the burden of petitions for review on
`
`the PTAB and patent owners. To ensure that Petitioners adhere to this page limit,
`
`the PTO explicitly prohibits incorporation of arguments by reference. See 37
`
`C.F.R. 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one
`
`document into another document.”) (emphasis added); see also Rules of Practice
`
`for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board Decisions (“Rules of Practice”), Fed. Reg. 77, No. 157, p.
`
`48617 (noting that, under § 42.6, petitions are subject to Fed. R. App. Proc. 32,
`
`which prohibits incorporation by reference). As the PTO explained:
`
`incorporation by reference
`The prohibition against
`minimizes the chance that an argument would be
`overlooked and eliminates abuses
`that arise from
`In DeSilva
`incorporation
`and
`combination.
`v.
`DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999), the
`court rejected ‘‘adoption by reference’’ as a self-help
`increase in the length of the brief and noted that
`incorporation is a pointless imposition on the court’s time
`as it requires the judges to play archeologist with the
`record. The same rationale applies to Board proceedings.
`Cf. Globespanvirata, Inc. v. Tex. Instruments, Inc., 2005
`WL 3077915, *1 (D. N.J. 2005) (Defendants provided
`cursory statements in motion and sought to make its case
`through incorporation of expert declaration and a claim
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`chart. Incorporation by reference of argument not in
`motion was held to be a violation of local rules governing
`page limitations and was not permitted by the court). . . .
`
`The PTO noted that that Board applied page limits to both arguments and findings
`
`of fact because the failure to do so resulted in “abuses of the system.” Fed. Reg.
`
`77 at 48620. The PTO noted that patent cases before the PTAB are no exception to
`
`the standards of district courts, where motion practice does not require federal
`
`judges to “shovel through steaming mounds of pleonastic arguments in Herculean
`
`effort to uncover a hidden gem of logic.” Id.
`
`Despite this prohibition on incorporation by reference, the Petition violates
`
`incorporates most of the 123 pages of the supporting declaration by reference.
`
`See., e.g., Petition at 12 (stating “[a] concise summary of the systems and
`
`processes described in the ’872 patent [Ex. 1006] is provided at ¶¶62-120 of Ex.
`
`1003.”), 15 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 79, 98-111 and 127), 35 (stating “[a] concise
`
`summary of the systems and processes described in Ex. 1007 is provided at ¶¶192-
`
`235 of Ex. 1003.”), and 37 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶203-212, 223-224, and 239- 241). In
`
`fact, the Petition itself never directly cites either of the two asserted prior art
`
`references.
`
`The Petitioner’s failure to abide by the regulations is not merely technical; it
`
`directly impacts the substance of the issues in the Petition. Because the Petitioner
`
`moved all of the actual evidence into the declaration (Ex. 1003 , ¶¶ 62-241), it is
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`very difficult to understand the Petitioner’s arguments. This enabled the Petitioner
`
`to disguise various logical leaps and mischaracterizations. A prime example of the
`
`Petition’s abuse of incorporation by reference is its allegation that Katz discloses
`
`“a passive time register.” The Petition states this limitation is met because Katz
`
`“describes times at which the trigger instance interacts with the background
`
`instance, behavior instance, and the launcher instance.” Petition at 15. The
`
`Petition asserts that these times are “stored” in the “task file,” but provides no
`
`explanation why the registers in the task file control these interactions. Instead, the
`
`Petition cites 15 paragraphs spanning 9 pages of the Houh Declaration. See
`
`Petition at 15 (citing “Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 98-111, and 129).” These paragraphs
`
`reference numerous different processes and files, including” script files, trigger
`
`instances, trigger lists, trigger objects, behavior instances, etc. But the Petition
`
`never clearly states whether any of these “act upon “the task file,” nor establishes
`
`exactly which register of the “task file” (i.e., the putative container within which
`
`the passive register is supposed to be encapsulated (or under Apple’s proposed
`
`construction, “contained”), acts as the “passive time register that controls that
`
`action.
`
`Another example of how the Petition uses incorporation by reference to hide
`
`the speciousness of its arguments is its use of incorporation by reference to
`
`disguise its attribution of disclosures of Ex. 1008 (“Inside Macintosh”) to Ex. 1006
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`(Katz) in order to establish a “first register” having “unique container
`
`identification value”. See Petition at 14 (citing Ex. 1003 at 91 (citing Ex. 1008)).
`
`Not only does the Petition itself never identify that it is using Ex. 1008 in
`
`combination with Ex. 1006, it uses the incorporation by reference to hide its sleight
`
`of hand. Even if the Petition were arguing inherent anticipation, it is required to
`
`explicitly state that fact and address the requirements for inherent anticipation.
`
`Furthermore, as discussed above, the Petition cites the “combination of [the task
`
`file’s name] and the folder [in which the file resides]” as the “first register having
`
`a unique container identification value” (Petition at 14), yet never establishes that
`
`this allegedly unique combination is “a register” or part of the “task file” container,
`
`as opposed to being a plurality of registers external to the task file.
`
`Walking the PTAB through every Byzantine argument presented by
`
`Petitioner would require parsing 102 pages of Ex. 1003 in addition to the Petition,
`
`which would exceed the page limit for this Preliminary Response. This creates an
`
`unreasonable amount of work for the PTO, is unfair to the Patent Owner, and
`
`violates § 42.6 of the PTAB’s Rules of Practice for Inter Partes review
`
`proceedings. In light of this violation by Petitioner, the Petition should be denied.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`C. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood of the Claims Being
`
`Invalidated.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Construe and/or Incorrectly Construes
`
`Terms Material to all Claims
`
`The initial step in an analysis of whether to institute a trial is to determine
`
`the meaning of the claims. Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of
`
`the AIA, the Board interprets claims using the broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification in which they appear. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 CFR § 42.100(b). Claim
`
`terms are also 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). There is a
`
`“heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`“Plain meaning” refers to the ordinary and customary meaning the term would
`
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Such terms require no construction.
`
`See, e.g., Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp,
`
`Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding no error in non-construction of
`
`“melting”); Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d 1365, 1380
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding no error in court’s refusal to construe “irrigating” and
`
`“frictional heat”).
`
`A patentee may act as his own lexicographer by redefining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms away from their ordinary meaning, by clearly expressing
`
`that intent in the written description. See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals, 395 F.3d 1364, 1370, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005). If an inventor acts
`
`as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the specification
`
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
`
`Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`The Petition urges the Board to utilize two additional rules in construing the
`
`claims, neither of which has any support in the law. First, Petitioner asserts that
`
`the “[t]he broadest reasonable construction should reflect subject matter that Patent
`
`Owner contends literally infringes the claims, as well as constructions proposed by
`
`Patent Owner in past or concurrent litigation.” Petition at 8. No law is cited to
`
`support this position, because there is no legal support for this position. In fact, the
`
`Federal Circuit has explicitly ruled that legal opinions offered by patentees during
`
`litigation warrant no deference during claim construction. Howmedica Osteonics
`
`Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 985 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc)
`
`(“[I]t is not unusual for there to be a significant difference between what an
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`inventor thinks his patented invention is and what the ultimate scope of the claims
`
`is after allowance by the PTO.”); Reexamination No. 95/000,639, Action Closing
`
`Prosecution, 8-9 and 21-22 (declining to construe claims in accordance with patent
`
`owner’s positions taken in litigation).2
`
`Next, the Petition asserts that, “if Patent Owner contends terms in the claims
`
`should be read to have a special meaning, those contentions should be disregarded
`
`unless Patent Owner also amends the claims compliant with 35 U.S.C. § 112 to
`
`make them expressly correspond to those contentions.” Petition at 8, (citing 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48764 at II.B.6 (August 14, 2012) and In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335,
`
`1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). The authorities cited by Petitioner, however, simply do not
`
`establish that that any such amendments are necessary.
`
`In addition to misunderstanding the proper legal standard for claim
`
`construction, the Petition completely fails to construe the terms “encapsulates”—a
`
`term that is material to every claim in the ’536 patent. Rather, the Petition merely
`
`concludes, without any support, that these limitations are present in the asserted
`
`prior art.
`
`2 The Declaration of Henry Houh states explicitly that Apple’s expert Henry Houh
`construed the claims “taking into account the matter Patent Owner contends
`infringes the claims and constructions the Patent Owner has advanced in
`litigation.” Ex. 1003 at 15. Accordingly, the PTAB should assume that Dr. Houh
`used an incorrect legal standard in construing the claims. No proposed claim
`constructions have been submitted in the concurrent litigation as of this date, and
`only preliminary infringement contentions, provided without benefit of any
`discovery or expert testimony, have been submitted.
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Ignoring the term “encapsulates,” the Petition instead focuses on the terms
`
`“container,” “register,” “active space register”/“passive register for identifying
`
`space”/ “neutral space register,” and “gateway.” In an attempt to construe the
`
`claims as broadly as possible and invalidate the claims of the ’536, Petitioner
`
`cherry-picks statements about these terms from the specification that, out of
`
`context, make these terms appear much broader than they actually are. As
`
`described below, these deficiencies are fatal to Petitioner’s arguments, and the
`
`constructions proposed by Petitioner are unreasonable.
`
`a.
`
` “Container”
`
`Within the field of computer science at the time the invention was
`
`conceived, the word “container” meant “an element that has content as opposed to
`
`one consisting solely of the tag name and attributes.” Ex. 2001. This parallels the
`
`description of “containers” used in the specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 8:64-
`
`9:2 (“The information container 100 is a logically defined data enclosure which
`
`encapsulates any element . . . .”). Patent Owner proposes that the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of “container” is “a logically defined data enclosure which
`
`encapsulates any element or digital segment (text, graphic, photograph, audio,
`
`video, or other), or set of digital elements.”
`
`The Petition proposes construing the term “container” as “a logically defined
`
`data enclosure that contains a whole or partial digital element (e.g., text, graphic,
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`photograph, audio, video, or other) or set of digital segments, any system
`
`component or process, or other containers or sets of containers.” Petition at 9. The
`
`Petition cites a description of “container” from within the ’536’s specification, but
`
`substitutes the verb “contains” for the specification’s use of “encapsulates.”
`
`Compare id. with Ex. 1001 at 8:64-9:2.
`
`As an initial matter, defining “container” as something that “contains” other
`
`things is circular and unhelpful. In addition, the Petitioner’s proposed construction
`
`is incorrect because it ignores the relationship between “containers” and
`
`“encapsulation.” “Encapsulation,” which is discussed in more detail below, is a
`
`term of art, referring generally to “treat[ing] a collection of structured information
`
`as a whole without affecting or taking notice of its internal structure.” See Ex.
`
`2001. Encapsulation can refer, for example, to the process of wrapping data in
`
`protocols that allow its transmission from one network to another, as occurs when
`
`a web page is sent using HTML. See id. (discussing relevance of encapsulation to
`
`TCP/IP transmission); see also Ex. 1002 at 164, line 35 (foreign patent in IDS
`
`describing hypermedia “objects” that “encapsulate” and control aspects of the
`
`hypermedia system). Patent Owner notes that Facebook, Twitter, and Yelp, who
`
`filed IPR petitions for the ’536 patent on the same day as Apple, proposed
`
`construing “container” as “a logically defined enclosure that encapsulates any
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`element . . . .”3 By deleting the word “encapsulates” from its proposed
`
`construction, Petitioner seeks to broaden the construction of “container” beyond
`
`what the specification reasonably conveys to anything that “contains” something
`
`else in the broadest sense of the word (e.g., a “folder”), so that it can assert
`
`anticipation based on non-analogous prio