Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: April 25, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON,
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, NEIL T. POWELL,
`and GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`On October 22, 2013, Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1 and 3-15 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,010,536 B1 (Ex. 1001 (“the ’536 patent”)). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). On January
`
`29, 2014, Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). 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), which provides as follows:
`
`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.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability of any challenged claim. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314, we do not institute an inter partes review for claims 1 and 3-15 of the
`
`’536 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`We are informed Petitioner was served on October 23, 2012, with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ’536 patent in Civil Action No. 6:12-
`
`cv-00783-LED in the Eastern District of Texas, which was transferred to the
`
`Northern District of California as Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-4201-WHA.
`
`Pet. 1. The ’536 patent is also the subject of several other lawsuits against
`
`third parties. Id. at 2.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`B. The ’536 Patent
`
`The ’536 patent is directed to developing intelligence in a computer or
`
`digital network by creating and manipulating information containers with
`
`dynamic interactive registers in a computer network. Ex. 1001, 1:11-20;
`
`3:1-5. The system includes an input device, an output device, a processor, a
`
`memory unit, a data storage device, and a means of communicating with
`
`other computers. Id. at 3:6-11. The memory unit includes an information
`
`container made interactive with, among other elements, dynamic registers, a
`
`search engine, gateways, data collection and reporting means, an analysis
`
`engine, and an executing engine. Id. at 3:15-23.
`
`The ’536 patent describes a container as an interactive nestable logical
`
`domain, including dynamic interactive evolving registers, which maintains a
`
`unique network-wide lifelong identity. Id. at 3:29-35. A container, at
`
`minimum, includes a logically encapsulated portion of cyberspace, a
`
`register, and a gateway. Id. at 9:2-4. Registers determine the interaction of
`
`a container with other containers, system components, system gateways,
`
`events and processes on the computer network. Id. at 3:43-46. Container
`
`registers may be values, alone, or may contain code to establish certain
`
`parameters in interaction with other containers or gateways. Id. at 9:19-22.
`
`Gateways are structurally integrated into each container or strategically
`
`placed at container transit points. Id. at 4:54-57. Gateways govern the
`
`interaction of containers encapsulated within their domain by reading and
`
`storing register information for containers entering and exiting that
`
`container. Id. at 4:57-66; 15:46-49.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`The system for creating and manipulating information containers is
`
`set forth in Figure 2B, which is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 2B illustrates a computer network showing nested containers,
`
`computer servers, and gateways, at Site 1 through Site 7. Ex. 1001, 10:59-
`
`62. Any of Sites 1 through 7 may interact dynamically within the system.
`
`Id. at 10:64-66. For example, Site 1 shows a single workstation with a
`
`container and gateway connected to an Intranet. Id. at 10:66-67. Site 2
`
`shows a server with a gateway in relationship to various containers. Id. at
`
`11:2-3. Site 3 shows an Internet web page with a container residing on it.
`
`Id. at 11:3-4. Site 4 shows a personal computer with containers and a
`
`gateway connected to the Internet. Id. at 11:4-6. Site 5 shows a
`
`configuration of multiple servers and containers on a Wide Area Network.
`
`Id. at 11:6-7. Site 6 shows a work station with a gateway and containers
`
`within a container connected to a Wide Area Network. Id. at 11:7-9. Site 7
`
`shows an independent gateway, capable of acting as a data collection and
`
`data reporting site as it gathers data from the registers of transiting
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`containers, and as an agent of the execution engine as it alters the registers of
`
`transient containers. Id. at 11:8-13.
`
`An example of a configuration the containers may have is provided in
`
`Figure 4, included below:
`
`
`
`Figure 4 shows container 100, which includes containerized elements
`
`01, registers 120, and gateway 200. Ex. 1001, 12:65-67. Registers 120
`
`included in container 100 include, among others, active time register
`
`102000, passive time register 103000, neutral time register 104000, active
`
`space register 111000, passive space register 112000, neutral space register
`
`113000, and acquire register 123000. Id. at 14:31-39.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1 and 15 are the challenged independent claims. Claim 1 is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. An apparatus for transmitting, receiving and manipulating
`information on a computer system, the apparatus including a plurality of
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`containers, each container being a logically defined data enclosure and
`comprising:
`
`an information element having information;
`
` a
`
` plurality of registers, the plurality of registers forming part of the
`container and including
`
` a
`
` first register for storing a unique container identification value,
`
` 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,
`
`
`an active time register for identifying times at which the
`container will act upon other containers, processes, systems or gateways,
`
`
`a passive time register for identifying times at which the
`container can be acted upon by other containers, processes, systems or
`gateways, and
`
`
`a neutral time register for identifying times at which the
`container may interact with other containers, processes, systems or
`gateways; and
`
` a
`
` gateway attached to and forming part of the container, the gateway
`controlling the interaction of the container with other containers, systems or
`processes.
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Reference
`Katz
`Chou
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Filing Date
`Description
`US 6,496,872 B1 May 16, 1994 Ex. 1006
`US 5,902,352
`Aug. 11, 1997 Ex. 1007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner alleges the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Reference(s)
`Grounds
`Claims
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Katz
`1 and 3-15
`1, 3, 4, and 81 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Katz
`1 and 3-15
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Chou
`5 and 72
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Chou
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). 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
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`1 The Petition includes a header stating that “claims 1, 3-15 are anticipated
`or rendered obvious by USP 6,496,872 to Katz (Ex. 1006).” Pet. 12
`(emphasis added). The Petition substantively discusses anticipation of all of
`these claims by Katz (id. at 12-31), but does not substantively discuss
`obviousness of most of these claims over Katz. The Petition discusses
`obviousness over Katz only with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, and 8. Id. at 32-
`35. Accordingly, we treat the Petition as challenging only claims 1, 3, 4, and
`8 as obvious over Katz.
`2 The Petition includes a header stating that “claims 1, 3-15 are anticipated
`or rendered obvious by Ex. 1007 (Chou).” Pet. 35 (emphasis added). The
`Petition substantively discusses anticipation of all of these claims by Chou
`(id. at 35-51), but does not substantively discuss obviousness of most of
`these claims over Chou. The Petition discusses obviousness over Chou only
`with respect to claims 5 and 7. Id. at 52-53. Accordingly, we treat the
`Petition as challenging only claims 5 and 7 as obvious over Chou.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`2007). A claim term will not be given its ordinary and customary meaning,
`
`however, when an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, defining the
`
`term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`
`1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`1. “container”
`
`Independent claims 1 and 15 recite the term “container.” Ex. 1001,
`
`30:8-30, 32:1-22. As discussed above, the ’536 patent specification
`
`describes a container as an interactive nestable logical domain, including
`
`dynamic interactive evolving registers, which maintains a unique network-
`
`wide lifelong identity. Id. at 3:29-35. Petitioner argues that the ’536 patent
`
`specification further defines container as “a logically defined data enclosure
`
`which encapsulates any element or digital segment (text, graphic,
`
`photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital segments, or referring
`
`now to FIG. 3C, any system component or process, or other containers or
`
`sets of containers.” Pet. 5 (quoting Ex. 1001, 8:64–9:2). Petitioner argues
`
`that the broadest reasonable construction of “container” in light of the
`
`specification “encompasses a logically defined data structure that contains a
`
`whole or partial digital element (e.g., text, graphic, photograph, audio, video
`
`or other), or set of digital segments, or any system component or process or
`
`other containers or sets of containers.” Id. at 6.
`
`Patent Owner relies on the same portion of the ’536 patent
`
`specification as does Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:64–
`
`9:2). Patent Owner proposes that “container” be interpreted as “a logically
`
`defined data enclosure which encapsulates any element or digital segment
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`(text, graphic, photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital
`
`elements.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
`
`Patent Owner acknowledges that the parties’ proposed constructions
`
`differ in that Petitioner inserts the term “contain” for “encapsulate.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 22. Patent Owner’s proposed construction is narrower because of
`
`Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation of the terms “logically defined” and
`
`“encapsulated.” Id. at 22-23. Patent Owner argues that “encapsulation”
`
`refers to “treat[ing] a collection of structured information as a whole without
`
`affecting or taking notice of its internal structure” and further refers “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.” Id. at
`
`22 (citing Ex. 2001).
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions. The ’536
`
`patent states that “[a] container 100 at minimum includes in its construction
`
`a logically encapsulated portion of cyberspace, a register and a gateway” and
`
`“[a] container . . . at minimum encapsulates a single digital bit, a single
`
`natural number or the logical description of another container, and at
`
`maximum all defined cyberspace, existing, growing and to be discovered,
`
`including but not limited to all containers, defined and to be defined in
`
`cyberspace.” Ex. 1001, 9:2-9. The ’536 patent also states that “container
`
`100 contains the code to enable it to interact with the components
`
`enumerated in 2A, and to reconstruct itself internally and manage itself on
`
`the network 201.” Id. at 9:9-12. The ’536 patent does not describe the terms
`
`“logically defined” or “encapsulated” as limited to the “structured
`
`information as a whole” regardless of its internal structure or “wrapping
`
`data” in preparation for transmission. The claims do not require such
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`limitations. Therefore, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “logically
`
`defined” or “encapsulated” requires anything more than simply “contained
`
`within.”3
`
`Accordingly, based on the proposed construction of “container” by
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner, and for purposes of this decision, we construe
`
`“container” to mean “a logically defined data enclosure which encapsulates
`
`any element or digital segment (text, graphic, photograph, audio, video, or
`
`other), or set of digital elements.”
`
`2. “register”
`
`Petitioner contends that the broadest reasonable construction of
`
`“register,” as recited in the claims, “would encompass a value or code
`
`associated with a container.” Pet. 7. Petitioner’s construction relies on the
`
`’536 patent specification and the Declaration of Henry Houh (Ex. 1003, the
`
`“Houh Declaration”). Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 9:19-23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52-55).
`
`Patent Owner contends that “register” is a common computing term
`
`referring to computer memory. Prelim. Resp. 23. Patent Owner cites two
`
`dictionaries in support of a contention that the plain meaning of the claim
`
`term “register” is “a memory location within a computer that stores data.”
`
`Id. at 23-24 (citing Exs. 2002, 2003). Patent Owner also contends that the
`
`discussion in the’536 patent specification of “dynamic registers” as part of
`
`containers comports with this proposed construction. Id. at 24 (citing Ex.
`
`1001, 2:66–3:5; 3:14-15, 29-32).
`
`
`3 Related U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682 B2, the patent at issue in IPR2014-
`00079 and IPR2014-00080, recites the terms “logically defined” and/or
`“encapsulated” in independent claims 1 and 19-23. Our interpretation of
`these terms is consistent with our analysis in IPR2014-00079 and IPR2014-
`00080.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`The ’536 patent specification, including the claims, does not use
`
`“register” in the limited sense proposed by Patent Owner. The ’536 patent
`
`describes “container registers” as
`
`interactive dynamic values
`Container registers 120 are
`appended
`to
`the
`logical enclosure of an
`information
`container 100, and serve to govern the interaction of that
`container 100 with other
`containers 100,
`container
`gateways 200 and the system 10, and to record the historical
`interaction of that container 100 on the system 10. Container
`registers 120 may be values alone or contain code to establish
`certain parameters in interaction with other containers 100 or
`gateways 200.
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:14-23. Thus, we are not persuaded that “register” is limited to
`
`“a memory location within a computer,” as Patent Owner contends. We are
`
`persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the broadest reasonable construction
`
`of “register” is a “value or code associated with a container.”
`
`3. “gateway”
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’536 patent does not expressly define
`
`“gateway” as a standalone term but refers to it as an interface between
`
`processes, system components, and data files, such as containers or registers.
`
`Pet. 7-8 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:58-66). Petitioner argues that container
`
`gateways are defined expressly as “logically defined gateways residing both
`
`on containers 100 and independently in the system 10.” Id. at 8 (quoting Ex.
`
`1001, 9:23-28). Petitioner argues that the broadest reasonable construction
`
`of “gateway” “would encompass code that governs interactions between
`
`containers and that can alter registers associated with containers.” Id. at 9
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56-58).
`
`Patent Owner cites a computing dictionary in support of an assertion
`
`that the term “gateway” has a commonly understood meaning as “a device
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`that interconnects two networks.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Patent Owner also
`
`contends that the ’536 patent refers also to “gateways” as embodied in
`
`software. Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1001, claim 13). Thus, Patent Owner
`
`proposes that the correct construction of “gateway” is “a hardware device
`
`that facilitates the transfer of information between containers, systems
`
`and/or processes on two different networks or devices, or software that
`
`processes network data.” Id.
`
`The ’536 patent states that “unique gateways” are “structurally
`
`integrated into each container, or strategically placed within a network at
`
`container transit points” (Ex. 1001, 4:54-56), such that these
`
`[g]ateways gather and store container register information
`according
`to system-defined, system-generated, or user
`determined rules as containers exit and enter one another,
`governing how containers system processes or system
`components interact within the domain of that container, or
`after exiting and entering that container, and governing how
`containers, system components and system processes interact
`with that unique gateway, including how data collection and
`reporting is managed at that gateway.
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:58-66. Gateways are described as being “nestable in a
`
`hierarchical or set and class network scheme.” Id. at 4:56-57. Accordingly,
`
`we do not agree that, as used in the ’536 patent, gateways are limited to a
`
`particular network, or that they are limited to “hardware devices” for
`
`communicating across two different networks. Indeed, in the ’536 patent,
`
`gateways may be integrated into each container, which is logically defined.
`
`Id. at 4:54-57.
`
`Additionally, we disagree with Petitioner’s construction, which
`
`focuses on the gateway only as it relates to containers and registers. Indeed,
`
`the ’536 patent describes gateways as described as entities of an information
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`container system in Figure 3C (Ex. 1001, 12:28-58), and as part of a
`
`conventional computer network shown in Figure 2B (Ex 1001, 10:59–
`
`11:13).
`
`Based on the record before us, the broadest reasonable construction of
`
`“gateway” is hardware or software that facilitates the transfer of information
`
`between containers, systems, and/or processes.
`
`B. Anticipation of Claims 1 and 3-15 by Katz
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1 and 3-15 are anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) by Katz. Pet. 12-31. To support this position, Petitioner
`
`presents the testimony of Henry Houh (Exhibit 1003, the “Houh
`
`Declaration”). For reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not established a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that claims 1 and
`
`3-15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Katz.
`
`1. Katz Overview
`
`Katz discloses a system for automatically executing tasks on a
`
`computer. Ex. 1006, Abstract. Katz discusses examples of the system
`
`implemented on a Macintosh® brand computer manufactured by Apple
`
`Computer, Inc. Id. at 3:26-29. Katz discloses that its system may store task
`
`information in task files located in a folder of scheduled items. Id. at 8:38-
`
`46; 10:16-26.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`Katz illustrates the architecture for controlling instantiation of tasks in
`
`a block diagram shown in Figure 12, reproduced below:
`
`Figure 12 is a block diagram showing various elements used to
`
`instantiate tasks, including task files 66 stored in folder 82. Ex. 1006, 3:8-9;
`
`10:25-26. Katz discloses that:
`
`
`
`[A]ll of the task files 66 are stored in a folder 82 of scheduled
`items. The files in this folder are monitored by a process 84 that
`runs in the background, i.e., its operation is transparent to the
`user. In operation, the background process scans each file in the
`scheduled tasks folder to identify behavior resources that
`describe the what, when and notification specifications.
`
`Id. at 10:25-32. For each behavior resource, background process 84 creates
`
`and stores a behavior instance or behavior object 85 in memory 86. Id. at
`
`10:37-39.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`Katz discloses that a behavior instance relates to trigger instance 88 in
`
`the manner shown in Figure 14, reproduced below:
`
`Figure 14 is a block diagram of a behavior instance. Ex. 1006, 3:11-12;
`
`10:40-45. The system “reads the trigger instance data from the behavior
`
`resource file.” Id. at 11:57-60. The system subsequently creates a trigger
`
`object, and adds a reference to this trigger object to a trigger object list. Id.
`
`
`
`at 12:5-16.
`
`2. Anticipation of Claims 1 and 3-14 by Katz
`
`Claim 1 requires “a plurality of containers, each container . . .
`
`comprising: . . . a plurality of registers, the plurality of registers forming
`
`part of the container and including a first register for storing a unique
`
`container identification value, [and] a second register.” Ex. 1001, 30:8-14
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, claim 1 requires that each container include each
`
`of the plurality of registers, including the first register and the second
`
`register.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Katz’s “task file, task folder, trigger objects, and
`
`trigger instance list are logically defined data structures that store
`
`information and are contained within the memory associated with the Apple
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`computer in [Katz,] and thus are containers within the meaning of the ’536
`
`patent.” Pet. 13. Petitioner also asserts that Katz “shows ‘a first register for
`
`storing a unique container identification value.’” Id. at 14. In support of
`
`this assertion, and because Katz refers to a Macintosh computer, Petitioner
`
`cites the Houh declaration (Ex. 1003), which cites Exhibit 1008, a
`
`publication titled “Inside Macintosh” (hereafter, “the Macintosh
`
`publication”). Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91-95 (citing Ex. 1008)). Because
`
`Katz refers to a Macintosh computer, the Houh Declaration asserts that
`
`Katz’s disclosure of storing task files refers to using the Macintosh operating
`
`system disclosed in the Macintosh publication to store the task files.4
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91-92. In combination with this assertion, the Houh Declaration
`
`cites the Macintosh publication as disclosing that all files in this Macintosh
`
`operating system had names, and that the combination of a file’s name and
`
`its location within the file hierarchy would be unique. Id. ¶¶ 94-95. Thus,
`
`Petitioner suggests that, in Katz, the combination of a task file’s name and
`
`its location within the file hierarchy constitutes the “first register for storing
`
`a unique container identification value.” See Pet. 14.
`
`
`4 Because Petitioner discusses only anticipation of claim 1 by Katz (Pet. 12-
`16), Petitioner must demonstrate that Katz, itself, discloses the limitations of
`claim 1. Thus, Petitioner’s citation of the Macintosh publication is relevant
`to the challenge only to the extent that it may demonstrate what Katz means
`when discussing operation of its system. In addition to the issues discussed
`below, we do not agree with Petitioner’s assumption that, merely because
`Katz refers to a Macintosh computer, Katz’s disclosure of storing files refers
`to using the Macintosh operating system discussed in the Macintosh
`publication. This constitutes another reason we are not persuaded by
`Petitioner, as Petitioner’s contention that Katz discloses a unique container
`identification value rests on this assumption.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that Katz also discloses “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,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 15. In support of this
`
`assertion, Petitioner discusses various time-related information that Katz’s
`
`system uses in executing a task. Id. at 14-15.
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions. Petitioner fails to
`
`“establish that the prior art discloses all elements ‘arranged as in the
`
`claims.’” See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008)(“[A]nticipation requires the presence in a single prior art
`
`disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the
`
`claim.”)(citations omitted). Petitioner does not demonstrate that Katz
`
`discloses any one container that includes each of the registers recited in
`
`claim 1, much less that Katz discloses a plurality of such containers. See id.
`
`at 12-13. After asserting that Katz’s task file, task folder, trigger objects,
`
`and trigger instance list constitute a plurality of containers, Petitioner does
`
`not explain persuasively how any specific one of these alleged containers
`
`includes all of the registers recited in claim 1.
`
`For example, Petitioner does not identify which portion of Katz’s
`
`system allegedly constitutes the “container” that includes the claimed
`
`“second register,” or which portion of the system allegedly corresponds to
`
`the claimed “second register.” Instead, Petitioner discusses various time-
`
`related data that Katz’s system includes in its system and then generally
`
`concludes that “[Katz] therefore shows ‘a second register . . . .’” Pet. 14-15.
`
`In this discussion, Petitioner cites paragraphs 79, 80, 98-111, and 127 of the
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`Houh Declaration. Id. Like the Petition itself, these portions of the Houh
`
`Declaration do not identify which portion of Katz’s system allegedly
`
`corresponds to the claimed “second register,” or to the claimed “container”
`
`that includes the second register. Paragraphs 79, 80, and 98-111 of the Houh
`
`Declaration discuss various aspects of Katz’s system without discussing
`
`their relationship to the challenged claims. Paragraph 127 of the Houh
`
`Declaration offers the same vague discussion that the Petition offers
`
`regarding the relationship between Katz’s system and the claimed “second
`
`register.” See Pet. 14-15.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner does not demonstrate that each of a plurality
`
`of the alleged containers of Katz includes the claimed “first register for
`
`storing a unique container identification value.” Even if we accept
`
`Petitioner’s contention that the combination of a file’s name and its location
`
`in a folder hierarchy constitutes a unique container identification value (Pet.
`
`14), Petitioner does not demonstrate that Katz includes this value in each of
`
`a plurality of the alleged containers of Katz. See Prelim. Resp. 30-31.
`
`Petitioner asserts that “[t]he location of a file on a volume managed by the
`
`Macintosh operating system was stored as a value comprised of a pathname
`
`and file name pointing to the task file.” Pet. 14. This does not purport,
`
`much less demonstrate, that both the name and the location of a file are
`
`stored in any one, or each, of the elements Petitioner points to as constituting
`
`the “plurality of containers,” i.e., the task file, task folder, trigger objects,
`
`and trigger instance list.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood it would prevail in its challenge of claim 1 as anticipated by Katz.
`
`Claims 3-14 depend from claim 1 and necessarily include the elements
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`found lacking in the challenge of claim 1 as anticipated by Katz.
`
`Accordingly, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail in the challenge of claims 3-14 as anticipated by Katz.
`
`3. Anticipation of Claim 15 by Katz
`
`Independent claim 15 recites “a plurality of containers, each container
`
`. . . comprising: . . . a first register for storing a unique container
`
`identification value,” just as claim 1 does. Ex. 1001, 32:1-7. Petitioner
`
`addresses these limitations by referring to the arguments advanced regarding
`
`the same limitation of claim 1. Pet. 31. For the reasons discussed above,
`
`these arguments do not explain persuasively how Katz meets these
`
`limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would prevail in the challenge of claim 15 as anticipated by Katz.
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 over Katz
`
`In the challenge of claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 as obvious over Katz,
`
`Petitioner refers to the arguments regarding anticipation by Katz to address
`
`most claim limitations, including the claim 1 limitation of “each container
`
`. . . comprising: . . . a first register for storing a unique container
`
`identification value.” See Pet. 32-35. Accordingly, for the reasons
`
`discussed above, we are not persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`Petitioner would prevail in the challenge of claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 as obvious
`
`over Katz.
`
`D. Anticipation of Claims 1 and 3-15 by Chou
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1 and 3-15 are anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) by Chou. Pet. 35-51. To support this position, Petitioner
`
`relies on the Houh Declaration. For reasons discussed below, Petitioner has
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that
`
`claims 1 and 3-15 would be unpatentable as anticipated by Chou.
`
`1. Chou Overview
`
`Chou relates to scheduling tasks in computer systems. Ex. 1007,
`
`1:10-12. Chou discloses an apparatus and method for scheduling tasks
`
`across multiple execution sessions. Id. at 2:5-6. Chou’s apparatus and
`
`method use a system architecture that includes a number of databases,
`
`including scheduling database 155, log database 160, checkpoint database
`
`165, and registration database 170. Id. at 4:9-13; 5:11-15; Fig. 1. Chou also
`
`discloses that its system architecture includes InstantON servicing agent
`
`140, which serves as an interface between applications. Id. at 4:43-45.
`
`Chou provides a simplified block diagram of its system architecture in
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below:
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the relationships between various components of
`
`Chou’s system architecture, including InstantON servicing agent 140,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00082
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`scheduling database 155, log database 160, checkpoint database 165, and
`
`registration database 170. See Ex. 1007, 2:30-31, 4:9-18, 5:11-22.
`
`2. Anticipation of Claims 1 and 3-14 by Chou
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “a plurality of containers, each container
`
`. . . comprising: an information element . . . ; a plurality of registers, . . .
`
`including a first register . . . , a second register . . . ; and a gateway attached
`
`to and forming part of the container.” Ex. 1001, 30:8-29 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner contends that Chou’s “scheduling database is the container
`
`as used in the claims of the ʼ536 patent.” Pet. 36. Additionally, Petitioner
`
`points to the scheduling database as including, and/or being associated with,
`
`the information element, each of the registers, and the gateway recite