Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`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 IPR2014-00083
`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
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`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 IPR2014-00083
`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 IPR2014-00083
`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 (Ex. 1001 (“the ’536 patent”)).1 Paper 1 (“Pet.”). On January 29,
`
`2014, Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary
`
`Response. Paper 8 (“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
`
`
`1 The Petition includes headers on pages i and 12 stating that claims 1 and 3-
`16 are obvious over the cited references, but the Petition contains no
`substantive discussion of claim 16.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`Northern District of California as Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-4201-WHA.
`
`Pet. 1. The ʼ536 patent is also the subject of several other lawsuits against
`
`third parties. Id. at 2.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`storing register information for containers entering and exiting that
`
`container. Id. at 4:57-66; 15:46-49.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`data reporting site as it gathers data from the registers of transiting
`
`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:
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`1. An 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 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Reference
`
`Description
`
`Filing Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`Cree
`
`Scully
`
`
`
`E.
`
`US 4,866,611
`
`Jan. 29, 1987
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`US 4,819,191
`
`Jan. 29, 1987
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Alleged Ground of Unpatentability2
`
`Petitioner alleges the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Grounds
`
`Reference[s]
`
`1 and 3-15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Cree and Scully
`
`
`
`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.
`
`2007). A claim term will not be given its ordinary and customary meaning,
`
`
`2 Page 3 of the Petition states that “[c]laims 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.” No other portion of
`the Petition mentions or discusses anticipation of the challenged claims.
`See, e.g., Pet. 12-36. Accordingly, we treat the Petition as challenging the
`claims only under § 103.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`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 set of containers.” Pet. 6.
`
`Patent Owner relies on the same portion of the ’536 patent
`
`specification as does Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 20 (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
`
`(text, graphic, photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital
`
`elements.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner acknowledges that the parties’ proposed constructions
`
`differ in that Petitioner inserts the term “contain” for encapsulate. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 21. Patent Owner’s proposed construction is narrower because of
`
`Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation of the terms “logically defined” and
`
`“encapsulated.” Id. at 21-22. 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
`
`21 (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
`
`limitations. Therefore, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “logically
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`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”)). Pet. 6-7 (citing Ex. 1001; 9:19-23, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52-
`
`55).
`
`Patent Owner contends that “register” is a “common computing term
`
`referring to computer memory, often programmed with a specific value.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 22. 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 22-23 (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 23 (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 IPR2014-00083
`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 a 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.” Pet. 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.”
`
`Pet. 8 (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 IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`that interconnects two networks.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Patent Owner also
`
`contends that the ’536 patent refers also to “gateways” as embodied in
`
`software. Id. at 25 (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
`
`“hardware devices” for communicating across two different networks, or
`
`limited to software that processes network data. Prelim. Resp. 25. Indeed,
`
`in the ’536 patent, gateways may be integrated into each container, which is
`
`logically defined. Ex. 1001, 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 entities of an information container
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`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.
`
`1. Cree Overview
`
`Cree discloses an electronic calendaring method in a data processing
`
`system. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, Abstract. Cree’s method involves a calendar
`
`owner using and modifying a portable copy of the user’s calendar when the
`
`user does not have access to a master copy of the calendar, such as when the
`
`user is traveling. Id. Cree’s method allows the user to reconcile
`
`automatically the portable and master copies of the calendar upon return
`
`from a trip. Id.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`An example of a process of reconciling the two calendars is illustrated
`
`in Figure 5, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 5 is a flowchart illustrating a method of reconciling two
`
`calendars. See Ex. 1006, 6:40-41, 30:61-64. As part of its method, Cree
`
`discloses storing various data elements in certain data structures, including a
`
`“calendar data (CAD) structure field (SF),” a “meeting (MTG) structure,” a
`
`“names list (NML) data structure,” a “trigger (TGR) structure,” and various
`
`other data structures. See e.g., Ex. 1006, 10:17-12:67.
`
`To reconcile entries on the two copies of the calendar, Cree’s system
`
`identifies old calendar entries and new calendar entries based on time stamps
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`stored in the entries. Id. at 5:1-14. The system takes some action with each
`
`corresponding pair of old entries on the two calendars. If an old entry has
`
`been deleted from the portable copy of the calendar, the system deletes the
`
`corresponding old entry from the master copy of the calendar. Id. at 5:11-
`
`14. If an old entry has been deleted from the master copy of the calendar,
`
`the system ignores the old entry on the portable copy. Id. at 5:15-21. If one
`
`or both of a pair of old entries on the two calendars have been modified, the
`
`system transfers the later-modified entry from one calendar to the other,
`
`combines data from the old entries, or flags the calendar entries for
`
`presentation to the user. Id. at 5:26-54. New entries on the portable copy
`
`are transferred to the master copy. Id. at 58-60.
`
`2. Scully Overview
`
`Scully discloses an electronic calendaring method in a data processing
`
`system. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, Abstract. Scully facilitates the use of reminder
`
`alarms associated with calendar events. Id. Scully discloses implementing
`
`the reminder alarms with a trigger that “float[s]” with an associated event, so
`
`that multiple users can employ a reminder alarm automatically. Id.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`An example of a process of distributing triggers is illustrated in Figure
`
`4 of Scully, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of Scully is a flowchart illustrating a process of distributing
`
`triggers to users. Ex. 1007, 5:35-37, 25:38-43. As part of its method, Scully
`
`discloses storing various data elements in certain data structures, including a
`
`“calendar data (CAD) structure field (SF),” a “meeting (MTG) structure,” a
`
`“names list (NML) data structure,” a “trigger (TGR) structure,” and various
`
`other data structures. See e.g., Ex. 1007, 9:4-14:67.
`
`3. Claims 1 and 3-14
`
`Claim 1 recites “a plurality of containers, each container . . .
`
`comprising: an information element . . . ; a plurality of registers, . . .
`
`including a first register . . . , a second register . . . , an active time
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`register . . . , a passive time register . . . , a neutral time register . . . ; and a
`
`gateway.” Ex. 1001, 30:8-29 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Cree and Scully shows these
`
`limitations. Pet. 12-20. Noting that Cree and Scully disclose “various data
`
`structures,” Petitioner argues that Cree and Scully disclose a plurality of
`
`containers. Id. at 13-14. Petitioner identifies various data elements
`
`disclosed by Cree and Scully as allegedly constituting the information
`
`element, the various registers, and the gateway recited in claim 1. See id. at
`
`14-20. For example, Petitioner asserts that, in Cree’s and Scully’s
`
`disclosures, “the trigger” constitutes many of the registers and the gateway
`
`recited in claim 1. See id. at 15-20.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not identify any
`
`specific one of the various data structures in Cree and Scully that includes
`
`each of the various data elements alleged to constitute the claimed
`
`information element, various registers, and the gateway. Prelim. Resp. 12,
`
`29. The Petition mentions various data structures and then states that “[t]he
`
`combination of [Cree and Scully] therefore shows ‘[a]n apparatus . . .
`
`including a plurality of containers.’” Pet. 13-14. When addressing the
`
`claimed information element, registers, and gateway, the Petition does not
`
`identify consistently any one data structure as a container that includes each
`
`of these elements. Instead, the Petition variously refers to a “calendar event”
`
`(id. at 14-15, 17-18), a “calendar entry” (id. at 14, 16-18), a “calendar data
`
`structure (CAD)” (id. at 14), a “calendar event data structure” (id. at 15),
`
`“data structures” (id. at 14-18), and a “calendar data structure, including the
`
`meeting data structure and the trigger data structure” (id. at 16) as
`
`purportedly including various of the registers recited in claim 1. Claim 1
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`recites each container comprising an information element, the recited
`
`registers, and a gateway. The Petition provides no clear indication of one
`
`specific container that includes each of the subsequent elements of the claim.
`
`For example, the Petition does not identify clearly one data structure
`
`that contains all three of the “first register,” the “active register,” and the
`
`“gateway” recited in claim 1. The Petition argues that each “calendar event”
`
`of the cited references includes the “first register.” Id. at 14-15. The
`
`Petition appears to suggest that “the trigger” of Cree and Scully constitutes
`
`the claimed “active register” and “gateway.” See id. at 15-16, 19-20.
`
`These contentions do not identify any specific container that includes
`
`the “first register,” the “active register,” and the “gateway” because
`
`Petitioner does not demonstrate that “the trigger” is included in the same
`
`container as the “calendar event” in Cree and Scully. In discussing the
`
`“trigger” that allegedly constitutes the “active time register” and the
`
`“gateway,” the Petition cites paragraphs 79-83, 93-99, 101-107, 115-123,
`
`162, and 172 of the Houh Declaration. Pet. 15-16, 19-20. Paragraphs 79-82
`
`fall within the section of the Houh Declaration titled “calendar event
`
`triggers.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78-83.
`
`The evidence cited in this section suggests that “triggers” are separate
`
`from “calendar events” in the cited art. For example, paragraph 79 of the
`
`Houh Declaration quotes Scully as disclosing, inter alia, that “[t]he official
`
`ID of the event that is to be triggered is included in the Trigger data
`
`structure,” such that “[t]he method allows the Trigger to ‘float’ with the
`
`identified event.” Ex. 1007, Abstract (emphasis added). Similarly,
`
`paragraph 82 of the Houh Declaration quotes Scully as disclosing that “[t]he
`
`Trigger which was established by the caller of the Meeting is also sent to the
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`meeting invitees along with the meeting notice.” Id. at 25:27-29. These
`
`disclosures suggest that a “trigger” accompanies a “calendar event,” rather
`
`than being included in the “calendar event.” And the other cited paragraphs
`
`of the Houh Declaration do not establish otherwise.
`
`In sum, Petitioner does not provide a persuasive showing that
`
`identifies any one data structure or other data enclosure of Cree or Scully as
`
`a container that includes the information element, all of the registers, and the
`
`gateway, much less demonstrate that Cree or Scully includes a plurality of
`
`such containers. Petitioner does not provide any other reason to conclude
`
`that it would have been obvious in view of Cree and Scully to configure an
`
`apparatus with a plurality of containers that each includes the information
`
`element, all of the registers, and the gateway recited in claim 1. Thus,
`
`Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the
`
`challenge of claim 1 as obvious in view of Cree and Scully.
`
`Claims 3-14 depend from independent claim 1 and necessarily include
`
`the limitations of claim 1. Petitioner’s arguments regarding dependent
`
`claims 3-14 address the specific limitations added by these claims and do not
`
`cure the deficiencies in the arguments regarding independent claim 1. See
`
`Pet. 20-35. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above in connection with
`
`claim 1, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in
`
`the challenge of claims 3-14.
`
`4. Claim 15
`
`Independent claim 15 recites a plurality of containers that each
`
`comprise the same information element, many of the same registers, and the
`
`same gateway that claim 1 recites. Ex. 1001, 31:46-32:21; see also id. at
`
`30:7-30. Petitioner addresses the limitations of claim 15 that are common to
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`claim 1 by referring to the arguments advanced regarding claim 1. Pet. 34-
`
`35. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in connection with claim 1,
`
`Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in the
`
`challenge of claim 15 as obvious over Cree and Scully.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the information
`
`presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1 and 3-15 of the
`
`’536 patent.
`
`For the reasons given, it is hereby
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to claims 1 and 3-15 of the
`
`’536 patent.
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Sidley Austin LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Anthony J. Patek
`Todd Kennedy
`Gutride Safier LLP
`anthony@gutridesafier.com
`todd@gutridesafier.com
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
