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: IPR2014-00083
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`Scully (Ex. 1007) ................................................................................. 12
`1. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 1 Obvious ......................... 13
`2. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 3 Obvious ......................... 20
`
`Claims 1, 3-16 Are Rendered Obvious By the Combination of
`USP 4,866,611 to Cree (Ex. 1006) and USP 4,819,191 to
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`3. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 4 Obvious ......................... 21
`4. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 5 Obvious ......................... 22
`5. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 6 Obvious ......................... 23
`6. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 7 Obvious ......................... 24
`7. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 8 Obvious ......................... 25
`8. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 9 Obvious ......................... 27
`9. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 10 Obvious ....................... 28
`10. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 11 Obvious ....................... 31
`11. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 12 Obvious ....................... 32
`12. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 13 Obvious ....................... 33
`13. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 14 Obvious ....................... 33
`14. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 15 Obvious ....................... 34
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 35
`
`
`Attachment A. Proof of Service of the Petition
`
`Attachment B. List of Evidence and Exhibits Relied Upon in Petition
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`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.1008. 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, IPR2014-00082,
`
`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
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Douglas I. Lewis
`Reg. No. 39,748
`dilewis@sidley.com
`(312) 853-4169
`
`Service Information (§42.8(b)(4))
`
`4.
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Sidley
`
`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 rendered obvious under § 103 and § 102(b) by the
`combination of USP 4,866,611 (Cree) (Ex. 1006) and USP 4,819,191
`(Scully) (Ex. 1007);
`
`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.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`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
`
`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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`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
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`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
`
`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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`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
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`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, that 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
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`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. 1005 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). 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.
`
`Petitioner believes that these terms are ordinary English words and do not
`
`need to be construed to understand their broadest reasonable construction. But in
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`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)
`
`• 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
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`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, 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 35 U.S.C. § 112.1 Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d at
`
`1333 (“In cases involving a computer-implemented invention in which the inventor
`
`has invoked means-plus-function claiming, this court has consistently required that
`
`the structure disclosed in the specification be more than simply a general purpose
`
`computer or microprocessor.”). In order to provide some basis for evaluating these
`
`claims against the prior art, Petitioner has assumed solely for this proceeding that
`
`the means specified in each of claims 9 to 12 must at least be a processor that
`
`performs the specified function in each means element under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of the specification.
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`IV. Precise Reasons for Relief Requested
`A. Claims 1, 3-16 Are Rendered Obvious By the Combination of USP
`4,866,611 to Cree (Ex. 1006) and USP 4,819,191 to Scully (Ex.
`1007)
`
`USP 4,819,191 to Scully (Ex. 1007) is a patent that issued from Patent
`
`Application 8,039 filed January 29, 1987. Ex. 1007 issued on April 4, 1989. Ex.
`
`1007 is therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`USP 4,866,611 to Cree (Ex. 1006) is a patent that issued from Patent
`
`Application 8,249 filed January 29, 1987. Ex. 1006 issued on September 12, 1989.
`
`Ex. 1006 is therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Both Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 are assigned to International Business Machines
`
`Corporation. Ex. 1006 at 1; Ex. 1007 at 1. Keith Scully is also an inventor on both
`
`patents. Id. Both patents refer to the other in their specifications as “related
`
`applications”: Ex. 1006 references Ex. 1007 at Ex. 1006, 1:28-37, and Ex. 1007
`
`references Ex. 1006 by application number at Ex. 1007, 1:38-48. Both patents
`
`describe the same system, including many of the same data structures and
`
`functionality. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 66-67.
`
`One of skill in the art would have reason to combine the Ex. 1007 and Ex.
`
`1006. First, one of the inventors is common to both patents. Second, the patents
`
`reference each other, which would lead one of skill in the art to combine the two.
`
`Third, the patents describe some different portions of what appears to be the same
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`system, making it obvious for one of skill in the art to combine the two patents.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 66. Fourth, the teachings of the two patents are interrelated in that
`
`both teach portions of the same system with numerous commonalities. Ex. 1003, ¶
`
`67.
`
`A concise summary of the systems and processes described in Ex. 1006 and
`
`Ex. 1007 is provided at ¶¶ 64-150 of Ex. 1003.
`
`Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 Render Claim 1 Obvious
`
`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
`
`apparatus including a plurality of containers, each container being a logically
`
`defined data enclosure.” Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 each contain the same description
`
`of an IBM computer system that is an apparatus for transmitting, receiving, and
`
`manipulating information. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 64-68. Both patents also describe using a
`
`network environment where information is transmitted, received, and manipulated.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 69. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 each disclose various data structures that
`
`hold information about a calendar event, including the calendar data (CAD)
`
`structure and its substructures. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 91, 108-129. Each calendar event has
`
`an instance of a calendar data structure, which is information contained in the
`
`memory of the IBM personal computer disclosed in the patents. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 79,
`
`99, 108. The combination of Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 therefore shows “[a]n
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`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, ¶¶ 154-156.
`
`Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 describe a user interface that allows a user to provide
`
`information about the calendar entry, including the time of the calendar event,
`
`whether to trigger an action based on that event, and what action to take once the
`
`event occurs. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 93-99, 101-107. The resulting data is stored in the
`
`memory of the personal computer in the structures disclosed in the patents and
`
`represents information elements that having information about the task. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶¶ 108-114. The combination of Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 therefore shows “an
`
`information element having information.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 157.
`
`The calendar data structure (CAD) described in Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007
`
`contains multiple data structures that describe aspects of a calendar entry. These
`
`data structures contain a variety of data elements related to a calendar event,
`
`including the time of the event, the location of the event, the user who created the
`
`event, etc. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 108-129. The combination of Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007
`
`therefore shows “a plurality of registers, the plurality of registers forming part of
`
`the container.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 158.
`
`Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 each describe storing a unique identifier for each
`
`calendar event. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 88-89. In particular, Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 each
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`show that every calendar event will have a unique ID number and date stamp
`
`associated. See, e.g., ¶ 88-89. Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 therefore show “a first
`
`register for storing a unique container identification value.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 159.
`
`Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 each describe use of time information in several
`
`places. First, the user interface screens where the user enters data about the
`
`calendar event obtain time information for the meeting or appointment
`
`corresponding to the calendar event. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 93-99, 101-107. Second, the
`
`user interface obtains time information about the trigger time. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 96-98,
`
`103-106. Third, several data structures in the patents hold other times as well,
`
`including a time stamp. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 130-131. The time designated for the trigger
`
`is compared to the current time, which is external to the computer, to determine
`
`when to execute the message or process identified for the trigger. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 79-
`
`83, 93-99, 101-107, 117. The combination of Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 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, ¶¶ 160-161.
`
`Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 each show that the time designated by the user via
`
`the user interface for the trigger to perform the identified action identifies a time
`
`that the calendar event data structure acts upon the identified process or message
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`representing the action the trigger performs. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 79-83, 93-99, 101-107,
`
`117. Those processes and messages include playing audio, showing a text
`
`message, and running an application program. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 80, 97, 105, 118. The
`
`combination of Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 therefore shows “an active time register for
`
`identifying times at which the container will act upon other containers, processes,
`
`systems or gateways.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 162.
`
`Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 each describe a time stamp being associated with
`
`various data structures in the calendar data structure, including the meeting data
`
`structure and the trigger data structure. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 88-89, 119-121. The time
`
`stamp records the time at which the data structure was modified. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 119,
`
`126, 128. The calendar data structure and its component data structures are thus
`
`acted upon by processes or other programs that write the time stamp. Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`88, 119-121, 130, 138. In addition, when reconciling a calendar owner’s master
`
`and personal calendars, the reconciliation process compares the time stamp on
`
`different versions of a calendar entry on each such calendar. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 73-77,
`
`100, 138-140. The older calendar entry is deleted in favor of the newer calendar
`
`entry. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 138-140. The time stamp thus identifies a time upon which the
`
`container is acted upon. In addition, Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 each describe times
`
`that the owner of a calendar entry will be unavailable and available for meetings.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 132-135. When a third party sets a meeting, these times control when
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`the calendar data structure can be acted upon by the program implementing the
`
`request for a meeting or appointment, or to change a scheduled meeting or
`
`appointment. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 79, 86, 100, 102, 107. A calendar event on a local
`
`computer can only be created that meets these criteria. Ex. 1007 further explains
`
`that at the time set as the Trigger, the computer sends the trigger and marks the
`
`Trigger as sent. Ex. 1003, ¶ 146. As such, the time for the Trigger is the time on
`
`which the calendar data structures are acted upon to mark the Trigger as sent. The
`
`combination of Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 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, ¶¶ 163-166.
`
`Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 describe other times at which a calendar entry
`
`interacts with other aspects of the system. For example, the time set in the trigger
`
`data structure is a time when, by performing the action set for the trigger, the
`
`calendar data structure interacts with other parts of the system, including by
`
`starting a process, playing audio, or putting a message on the screen. Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`79-83, 93-99, 101-107, 117. Other times in the data structures disclosed in each of
`
`Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 interact with other data structures or other parts of the
`
`computer include the time stamps in the calendar data structure and the trigger data
`
`structure. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 88, 119-121, 126, 128. These times represent times at
`
`which the data structure was created or modified by interacting with other
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`processes on the computer (like the user interface that allows creating or modifying
`
`a calendar event) or with other calendar data structures (such as in the
`
`reconciliation process). Id. Also, the patents describe using more than one trigger
`
`time, where one trigger would be the active time register and another the neutral
`
`time register. ¶¶ 98, 106.
`
`In addition, each of Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 describes using a time stamp in
`
`various data structures within the calendar data structure, including the meeting
`
`data structure and the trigger data structure. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 88, 124-126, 119-121,
`
`126, 128. The time stamp records the time at which the data was modified. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶ 120-121. The calendar data structure and its component data structures
`
`are thus acted upon by the processes or other programs that write the time stamp.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 72-77, 100, 138-140.
`
`In addition, when reconciling a calendar owner’s master and personal
`
`calendars, the reconciliation process compares the time stamp on different versions
`
`of a calendar entry on each such calendar. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 72-77, 100, 138-140.
`
`When a calendar entry is modified on two different places in a way that cannot be
`
`reconciled, the entries conflict and are presented to the user to resolve. Ex. 1003, ¶
`
`145. The conflicting events thus interact and are presented through a process to
`
`permit the owner to resolve the conflict.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`Patent Owner may contend that Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007 do not describe
`
`“neutral time register.” Such a contention is contradicted by the actual disclosure
`
`in Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007. Nonetheless, if it is found that this element is not
`
`described in Ex. 1006 and Ex. 1007, it would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art before January of 1998 ba