Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`Paper No. 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 7,010,536
`Issue Date: March 7, 2006
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING AND MANIPULATING
`INFORMATION CONTAINERS WITH DYNAMIC REGISTERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR: IPR2014-00082
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,010,536
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION
`
`Certification the ‘536 and ‘682 Patents May Be Contested by
`
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................................................. 1
`A.
`Petitioner ............................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a)) ............................................... 1
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b)) ................................................ 2
`1. Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ................................................ 2
`2. Other Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2)) .................................................... 2
`3. Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel ...................................... 3
`4. Service Information (§42.8(b)(4)) ................................................... 3
`D.
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)) ......................................... 3
`II.
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (§ 42.104(b)) ........................... 3
`III. Relevant Information Concerning the Contested Patent .......................... 4
`A.
`Effective Filing Date of the ‘536 patent ................................................ 4
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 4
`C.
`Construction of Terms Used in the Claims ........................................... 4
`1. Container ......................................................................................... 5
`2. Register............................................................................................ 6
`3. Gateway ........................................................................................... 7
`4. “Active Space Register” / “Passive Register For Identifying
`Space” / “Neutral Space Register” .................................................. 9
`5. Means Elements (Claims 9-12) .....................................................10
`IV. Precise Reasons for Relief Requested ........................................................ 12
`A.
`6,496,872 to Katz (Ex. 1006) .............................................................. 12
`1. Ex. 1006 (the ‘872 Patent) Anticipates Claim 1 ...........................12
`2. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 3 .......................................................17
`
`Claim 1, 3-15 Are Anticipated or Rendered Obvious By USP
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`3. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 4 .......................................................18
`4. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 5 .......................................................19
`5. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 6 .......................................................21
`6. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 7 .......................................................21
`7. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 8 .......................................................22
`8. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 9 .......................................................24
`9. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 10 .....................................................25
`10. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 11 .....................................................27
`11. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 12 .....................................................28
`12. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 13 .....................................................29
`13. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 14 .....................................................30
`14. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 15 .....................................................30
`15. Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1006 in
`View of General Knowledge in the Field .....................................32
`16. Claim 3 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1006 in
`View of General Knowledge in the Field .....................................33
`17. Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1006 in
`View of General Knowledge in the Field .....................................33
`18. Claim 8 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1006 in
`View of General Knowledge in the Field .....................................34
`1007 (Chou) ......................................................................................... 35
`1. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 1 .......................................................35
`2. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 3 .......................................................40
`3. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 4 .......................................................40
`4. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 5 .......................................................41
`5. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 6 .......................................................42
`6. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 7 .......................................................43
`7. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 8 .......................................................44
`8. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 9 .......................................................45
`
`Claims 1, 3-15 Are Anticipated or Rendered Obvious By Ex.
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`9. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 10 .....................................................45
`10. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 11 .....................................................46
`11. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 12 .....................................................47
`12. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 13 .....................................................48
`13. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 14 .....................................................49
`14. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 15 .....................................................50
`15. Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1007 in
`View of General Knowledge in the Field .....................................52
`16. Claim 7 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1007 in
`View of General Knowledge in the Field .....................................53
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 54
`
`
`Attachment A. Proof of Service of the Petition
`
`Attachment B. List of Evidence and Exhibits Relied Upon in Petition
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Certification the ‘536 and ‘682 Patents May Be Contested by
`Petitioner
`Petitioner certifies it is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536 (the ’536 patent) (Ex. 1001). Neither
`
`Petitioner, nor any party in privity with Petitioner, has filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of any claim of the ’536 patent. The ’536 patent has not
`
`been the subject of a prior inter partes review by Petitioner or a privy of Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner also certifies this petition for inter partes review is filed within
`
`one year of the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement of a patent.
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’536 and ‘682
`
`patents on October 23, 2012, which led to Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00783-LED in
`
`the District of Eastern District of Texas. Ex. 1010. Subsequently, Civil Action
`
`No. 6:12-cv-00783-LED was transferred to the Northern District of California and
`
`became Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-4201-WHA.
`
`Because the date of this petition is less than one year from October 23, 2012,
`
`this petition complies with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))
`
`B.
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 CFR § 42.15(a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 18-1260.
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b))
`Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`1.
`The real party of interest of this petition pursuant to § 42.8(b)(1) is Apple
`
`Inc. (“Apple”) located at One Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014.
`
`2. Other Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`The ‘536 patent is the subject of a number of civil actions. These actions
`
`were originally filed in the Eastern District of Texas but have been transferred to
`
`the Northern District of California. These cases include: (1) Evolutionary
`
`Intelligence LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4202-JSC; (2) Evolutionary
`
`Intelligence LLC v. FourSquare Labs, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4203-EDL; (3)
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4204-LB; (4)
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. LivingSocial, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4205-EDL;
`
`(5) Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Millennial Media, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-
`
`4206-HRL; (6) Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-
`
`4207-KAW; and (7) Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp. et al.,
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-4513-JCS.
`
`In addition, the ‘536 patent is the subject of another IPR, IPR2014-00083,
`
`IPR2014-00085, and IPR2014-00086. The related ‘682 patent is the subject of
`
`IPR2014-00079 and IPR2014-00080.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`3.
`Lead Counsel
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Reg. No. 43,401
`jkushan@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8914
`4.
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Sidley
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Douglas I. Lewis
`Reg. No. 39,748
`dilewis@sidley.com
`(312) 853-4169
`Service Information (§42.8(b)(4))
`
`Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. The fax number for
`
`lead counsel is (202) 736-8711 and for backup counsel is (312) 853-7036.
`
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a))
`D.
`Proof of service of this petition is provided in Attachment A.
`
`II.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (§ 42.104(b))
`Claims 1, 3-15 of the ’536 patent are unpatentable as being anticipated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) & (e), and/or for being obvious over the prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. Specifically:
`
`(i)
`
`Claims 1, 3-15 are anticipated under § 102(e) by USP 6,496,872
`(Katz) (Ex. 1006);
`
`(ii) Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 are rendered obvious under § 103 and § 102(e)
`by USP 6,496,872 (Katz) (Ex. 1006);
`
`(iii) Claims 1, 3-15 are anticipated under § 102(e) by U.S. Patent
`5,902,352 (Chou) (Ex. 1007); and
`
`(iv) Claims 5 and 7 are rendered obvious under § 103 and § 102(e) by U.S.
`Patent 5,902,352 (Chou) (Ex. 1007).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of the contested claims, the evidence relied
`
`upon, and the precise reasons why the claims are unpatentable are provided in
`
`§ IV, below. The evidence relied upon in this petition is listed in Attachment B.
`
`III. Relevant Information Concerning the Contested Patent
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ‘536 patent
`The ‘536 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 09/284,113, with a PCT
`
`filing date of January 28, 1999. The ’113 application claims priority to Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/073,209, filed January 30, 1998. For the purpose of this
`
`Petition, Petitioner is assuming that the priority date for the ‘536 patent is January
`
`30, 1998.
`
`In the ‘536 patent, claims 1, 2, 15, and 16 are independent claims.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`B.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ‘536 patent would
`
`have been someone with a good working knowledge of computer programming,
`
`data structures, and object oriented programming. The person would have gained
`
`this knowledge either through an undergraduate education in computer science or
`
`comparable field, in combination with training or several years of practical
`
`working experience. Ex. 1003, ¶ 59.
`
`C. Construction of Terms Used in the Claims
`In this proceeding, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. 37 CFR § 42.100(b). The broadest
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`reasonable construction should be determined, in part, by taking into account the
`
`subject matter Patent Owner contends infringes the claims and the constructions
`
`Patent Owner has advanced in litigation. Also, 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. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48764 at II.B.6 (August 14, 2012); cf. In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012). In the proposed constructions below, Petitioner identifies subject
`
`matter which falls within the scope of the claims, read in their broadest reasonable
`
`construction, which Petitioner submits is sufficient for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Container
`
`1.
`The ‘536 patent explains that a “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 segments, or referring now to
`
`FIG. 3C, any system component or process, or other containers or sets of
`
`containers.” Ex. 1001, 8:64-9:2. It continues by stating a container “at minimum
`
`includes in its construction a logically encapsulated portion of cyberspace, a
`
`register and a gateway” and that it “at minimum encapsulates a single digital bit, a
`
`single natural number or the logical description of another container, and at
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`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. It also states a container “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.” Ex. 1001, 9:9-12. The
`
`broadest reasonable construction of “container” therefore 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. See Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶ 50-51.
`
`Register
`
`2.
`The ‘536 patent states:
`
`Registers 120 are user or user-base created or system-created values
`or ranges made available by the system 10 to attach to a unique
`container, and hold system-set, user-set, or system-evolved values.
`Values may be numeric, may describe domains of time or space, or
`may provide information about the container 100, the user, or the
`system 10. Registers 120 may be active, passive or interactive and
`may evolve with system use.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:23-30. The ‘536 patent also indicates that “[c]ontainer registers 120
`
`are interactive dynamic values appended to the logical enclosure of an information
`
`container 100 and serve to govern the interaction of that container 100 with other
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`containers 100, container gateways 200 and the system 10, and to record the
`
`historical interaction of that container 100 on the system 10.” Ex. 1001 at 9:14-19.
`
`The ‘536 patent observes that “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, 9:19-23. The broadest reasonable construction
`
`of “register” thus would encompass a value or code associated with a container.
`
`See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 52-55.
`
`The ‘536 patent claims recite several kinds of registers (e.g., a first register,
`
`second register, an active time register, a passive time register, a neutral time
`
`register, an active space register, a passive [space] register, a neutral space register,
`
`a container history register, a system history register, a predefined register, a user-
`
`created register, system-defined register, and an acquire register). The context
`
`used each claim provides guidance regarding the nature of each register being
`
`referred to (e.g., by specifying the kinds of information that may be stored in the
`
`register or how the register might be used). Each of these registers is discussed in
`
`connection with application of prior art to it below.
`
`3. Gateway
`The ‘536 patent does not expressly define the term “gateway.” However, its
`
`usage of this term indicates that the term is being used generally to refer to an
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`interface between processes, system components and data files (e.g., “container” or
`
`“registers”). For example, the ‘536 patent observes:
`
`Gateways 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 at 4:58-66. The ‘536 patent also states that “Container gateways 200 are
`
`logically defined gateways residing both on containers 100 and independently in
`
`the system 10” and “Gateways 200 govern the interactions of containers 100
`
`within their domain, and alter the registers 120 of transiting containers 100 upon
`
`ingress and egress.” Ex. 1001, 9:23-28. See also Ex. 1001, 15:44-49.
`
`Patent Owner has contended in litigation that “gateways” can be algorithms
`
`and Application Program Interfaces (APIs), with respect to time, are “attached to
`
`and forming part of the Event, EventStore, Alarm, and Reminder containers” (Ex.
`
`1005 at 58) and with respect to space, “attached to and forming part of the
`
`CLLocation, CLLocationManager, CLPlacemark, CLRegion, and CLHeading
`
`containers.” (Ex. 1005 at 81). In other words, Patent Owner has alleged that code
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`that executes by calling objects via an API will be a “gateway” within the meaning
`
`of the claims.
`
`The broadest reasonable construction of “gateway” thus would encompass
`
`code that governs interactions between containers and that can alter registers
`
`associated with containers. See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 56-58.
`
`4.
`
`“Active Space Register” / “Passive Register For Identifying
`Space” / “Neutral Space Register”
`
`Claim 1 recites three “register” elements, stating: (i) “an active space
`
`register for identifying time at which the container will act upon other containers,
`
`processes, systems or gateways”; (ii) “a passive register for identifying time at
`
`which the container can be acted upon by other containers, processes, systems or
`
`gateways” and (iii) “a neutral space register for identifying time at which the
`
`container may interact with other containers, processes, systems or gateways.”
`
`The ‘536 patent does not expressly define any of these registers.
`
`In its infringement contentions, Patent Owner has identified the same
`
`features of the Apple iOS operating system as being all three types of “registers”
`
`specified in claim 1. Compare Ex. 1004 at 43 (for the active register: “the
`
`‘allDay’, ‘endDate’, and/or ‘startDate’”) to Id. at 48 (for the passive register:
`
`same); compare also Id. at 44 (active register: “‘completionDate’,
`
`‘dueDateComponents’, and/or ‘startDateComponents’”) to Id. at 49 (passive
`
`register: same).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
` Notably, Patent Owner does not show how any of the objects in iOS being
`
`identified have parameters that allow anything to act upon them, in the ordinary
`
`sense of that phrase. For example, Patent Owner identifies “reminders” as being
`
`passive and neutral registers, even though reminders generally cause action on
`
`other portions of the system rather than provide a time on which an action can
`
`happen to them.
`
`Petitioner believes that these terms are ordinary English words and do not
`
`need to be construed to understand their broadest reasonable construction. But in
`
`understanding the prior art, consideration should be given to Patent Owner’s
`
`reading of these claim terms on Petitioner’s products.
`
`5. Means Elements (Claims 9-12)
`Claims 9-12 each contain a means plus function claim elements:
`
`• means for acting upon another container, the means for acting upon
`
`another container using the plurality of registers to determine whether
`
`and how the container acts upon other containers (claim 9)
`
`• means for allowing interaction, the means for allowing interaction
`
`using the plurality of registers to determine whether and how another
`
`container can act upon the container (claim 10)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`• means for gathering information, the means for gathering information
`
`recording register information from other containers, systems or
`
`processes that interact with the container (claim 11)
`
`• means for reporting information, the means for reporting information
`
`providing register information to other containers, systems or
`
`processes that interact with the container (claim 12)
`
`Means elements are construed to include the structure disclosed in the
`
`specification for performing the claimed function, and “the corresponding structure
`
`for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm
`
`disclosed in the specification.” Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. V Int’l Game
`
`Tech, 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008), quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.,
`
`417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For claims 9-12, however, the only
`
`“means” identified in the ’536 Patent is a processor 18 which can execute
`
`programmed instruction steps. (Ex. 1001, 7:58-65). The ‘536 patent, however,
`
`identifies no algorithm that performs the particular function associated with each
`
`“means” element, and does not otherwise identify any other particular structure
`
`corresponding to these means elements. Claims 9 to 12, thus, do not comply with
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112.1 Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338 (a patent that fails to disclose an
`
`algorithm for a computer-implemented function is invalid for “lack[ing] sufficient
`
`disclosure of structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and [is] therefore indefinite under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.”). In order to provide some basis for evaluating these claims
`
`against the prior art, Petitioner assumes that the means specified in each of claims
`
`9 to 12 must at least be a processor that performs the specified function for each
`
`means element when the claims are considered using the broadest reasonable
`
`construction in view of the specification.
`
`IV. Precise Reasons for Relief Requested
`A. Claim 1, 3-15 Are Anticipated or Rendered Obvious By USP
`6,496,872 to Katz (Ex. 1006)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,496,872 to Katz (Ex. 1006) issued from Application
`
`08/242,957 filed May 16, 1994. The ‘872 patent is therefore prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e). The ‘872 patent is assigned to petitioner Apple Computer, Inc. A
`
`concise summary of the systems and processes described in the ‘872 patent is
`
`provided at ¶¶ 62-120 of Ex. 1003.
`
`Ex. 1006 (the ‘872 Patent) Anticipates Claim 1
`1.
`The preamble of claim 1 of the ‘536 patent reads “[a]n apparatus for
`
`transmitting, receiving and manipulating information on a computer system, the
`
`
`1 Petitioner reserves its right to assert that claims 9-12 are invalid under 35
`U.S.C. § 112 in any court action relating to the ‘536 patent.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`apparatus including a plurality of containers, each container being a logically
`
`defined data enclosure.” Ex. 1006 describes a computer system, an Apple
`
`Macintosh computer, which can transmit, receive, and manipulate information.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 63. Ex. 1006 also describes using computers within a network
`
`environment, in which information is transmitted, received, and manipulated. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 66. Ex. 1006 describes a task file that holds information about each task
`
`and a task folder that holds multiple task files (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 85-93) and information
`
`stored in trigger objects and a trigger instance list (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 100-101). The
`
`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 computer in Ex. 1006 and thus are “containers” within
`
`the meaning of the ‘536 patent. Ex. 1006 therefore shows “[a]n apparatus for
`
`transmitting, receiving and manipulating information on a computer system, the
`
`apparatus including a plurality of containers, each container being a logically
`
`defined data enclosure.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 121-123.
`
`Ex. 1006 discloses a user interface that a user interacts with to provide
`
`information about a task, including the triggering event (e.g., a particular time) and
`
`the action to be taken once the triggering event occurs. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 76-93. The
`
`resulting data is stored in the task file and represents information elements having
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`information about the task. Ex. 1003, ¶ 86. Ex. 1006 therefore shows “an
`
`information element having information.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 124.
`
`The task file described in Ex. 1006 contains a plurality of data about a task.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 85-93, 96. Multiple task files for multiple tasks are stored in a folder,
`
`with each file representing a task. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 91- 94. Each task file contains a
`
`plurality of data for a task. Ex. 1003, ¶ 91. The information within the task files
`
`and within the trigger objects and trigger instance list are “registers” within the
`
`meaning of the ‘536 claims. Ex. 1006 therefore shows “a plurality of registers, the
`
`plurality of registers forming part of the container.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 125.
`
`Ex. 1006 describes storing a task file in a folder. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 91- 94. All
`
`files in the Macintosh operating system at the time of the ‘536 patent had names,
`
`and the combination of that name with the folder, and its location in the folder
`
`hierarchy in which the file resides, would be unique. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 91, 94-95. The
`
`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.
`
`¶¶ 91-92, 94-95. Ex. 1006 therefore shows “a first register for storing a unique
`
`container identification value.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 126.
`
`Ex. 1006 describes capturing time information via user interface screens to
`
`define attributes of tasks and storing that information in a task file, including the
`
`trigger for the task. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 79-80. The user assigns a time to the task (e.g.,
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`when the user wishes an event to occur), which can be an arbitrarily time value
`
`unrelated to computer events (e.g., “midnight” or 5:00 p.m.). Id. The captured
`
`time information governs when the task (as well as the data structures like the
`
`trigger instance list that are created from the task) will interact with executables
`
`and other objects on the computer. Ex. 1003, ¶ 79. The time designated for the
`
`task and stored in the task file is compared to the current time, which is external to
`
`the computer, to determine when to execute the action identified for the task. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶ 98-111. The times entered by the user are relate to the clock time, to
`
`which those times are ultimately compared, and the clock time is an external to the
`
`apparatus event time. Ex. 1006 therefore shows “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.” Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 127.
`
`The time designated by the user via the user interface for the task to perform
`
`the identified action identifies when the task file and the trigger instance list will
`
`act upon the launcher instance and upon the object representing the action the task
`
`performs, such as a program or a message. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 98-111. This time value
`
`is stored in the task file (which is a folder with other task files) as well as in the
`
`trigger object and trigger instance, each of which is an “active time register”
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`according to the ‘536 patent claims. Ex. 1006 therefore shows “an active time
`
`register for identifying times at which the container will act upon other containers,
`
`processes, systems or gateways.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 128.
`
`Ex. 1006 also describes setting a time via an operating system service, which
`
`notifies the trigger instance when the time of interest occurs. Ex. 1003, ¶ 111.
`
`When the operating system notified the trigger instance, the trigger instance starts
`
`the process of executing the action associated with task. ¶¶ Ex. 1003, 98-111. The
`
`trigger instance is thus acted upon by the operating system service at a particular
`
`time. The time value(s) provided to the operating system service and stored by that
`
`service is a “passive time register” according to the ‘536 patent claims. Ex. 1006
`
`therefore shows “a passive time register for identifying times at which the
`
`container can be acted upon by other containers, processes, systems or gateways.”
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 129.
`
`Ex. 1006 describes times at which the trigger instance interacts with the
`
`background instance, behavior instance, and the launcher instance. Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`98-111. These times are stored in the task file as well as the trigger objects and the
`
`trigger instance list. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 86-88, 98-111. These time values stored in the
`
`task file, trigger objects and trigger instance list are each a “neutral time register”
`
`within the meaning of the ‘536 claims. Ex. 1006 therefore shows “a neutral time
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`register for identifying times at which the container may interact with other
`
`containers, processes, systems or gateways.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 130.
`
`Ex. 1006 describes invoking a launcher instance, which causes the action
`
`specified for the task to occur, such as playing a sound recording or running a
`
`program to, for example, copy files onto a backup disk. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 98-111. In
`
`addition, when the task has been completed, the behavior instance invokes a
`
`notification instance to notify the user as requested that the computer has
`
`performed the task. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 102, 106. The interactions mediated by the
`
`launcher instance or the behavior instance are “gateways” within the meaning of
`
`the ‘536 patent claims. Ex. 1006 therefore shows “a gateway attached to and
`
`forming part of the container, the gateway controlling the interaction of the
`
`container with other containers, systems or processes.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 132.
`
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 3
`
`2.
`Claim 3 contains all the elements of claim 1 and adds a claim element that
`
`specifies “wherein the plurality of registers includes at least one container history
`
`register for storing information regarding past interaction of the container with
`
`other containers, systems or processes, the container history register being
`
`modifiable.” Ex. 1006 describes the computer as logging tasks that have
`
`interacted with the Macintosh system and the processes tha