Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
` Paper No. 3
`
`
`
`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
`Issued: March 7, 2006
`Filed: January 28, 1999
`Inventor: Michael De Angelo
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING AND MANIPULATING
`INFORMATION CONTAINERS WITH DYNAMIC REGISTERS
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00085
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW .............................................................................. 4
`A.
`Certification the ‘536 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner ............ 4
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a)) ............................................. 4
`B.
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b)) ............................................... 5
`1.
`Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ........................................... 5
`2.
`Other Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................... 5
`3.
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel ................................. 6
`4.
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4)) ............................................ 6
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)) ........................................ 6
`D.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`(§ 42.104(B)) .................................................................................................. 6
`III. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`PATENT ......................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’536
`Patent .................................................................................................... 7
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 7
`Construction of Terms Used in the Claims .......................................... 8
`1.
`Container .................................................................................... 8
`2.
`Register ...................................................................................... 9
`3.
`Gateway ................................................................................... 11
`4.
`“Active Space Register” / “Passive Register For
`Identifying Space” / “Neutral Space Register” ........................ 12
`5. Means Elements (Claims 9-12) ................................................ 13
`IV. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 15
`A.
`Claims 2-14 and 16 Are Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Anderson) .......... 15
`1.
`Claim 2 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ......................................... 15
`2.
`Claim 3 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ......................................... 19
`3.
`Claim 4 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ......................................... 20
`
`B.
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`Claim 5 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ......................................... 21
`4.
`Claim 6 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ......................................... 22
`5.
`Claim 7 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ......................................... 22
`6.
`Claim 8 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ......................................... 23
`7.
`Claim 9 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ......................................... 24
`8.
`Claim 10 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ....................................... 24
`9.
`10. Claim 11 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ....................................... 25
`11. Claim 12 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ....................................... 26
`12. Claim 13 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ....................................... 27
`13. Claim 14 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ....................................... 28
`14. Claim 16 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005 ....................................... 29
`Claim 2 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1005
`(Anderson) in View of General Knowledge in the Field ................... 30
`Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1005
`(Anderson) in View of General Knowledge in the Field ................... 31
`Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1005
`(Anderson) in View of General Knowledge in the Field ................... 32
`Claim 6 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1005
`(Anderson) in View of General Knowledge in the Field ................... 34
`Claim 7 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1005
`(Anderson) in View of General Knowledge in the Field ................... 35
`Claim 8 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1005
`(Anderson) in View of General Knowledge in the Field ................... 36
`Claim 13 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1005
`(Anderson) in View of General Knowledge in the Field ................... 37
`Claim 16 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Ex. 1005
`(Anderson) in View of General Knowledge in the Field ................... 38
`Claims 2-14 and 16 Are Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ............. 38
`1.
`Claim 2 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ......................... 38
`2.
`Claim 2 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ......................... 43
`3.
`Claim 4 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ......................... 44
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`Claim 5 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ......................... 44
`4.
`Claim 6 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ......................... 45
`5.
`Claim 7 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ......................... 45
`6.
`Claim 8 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ......................... 45
`7.
`Claim 9 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ......................... 46
`8.
`Claim 10 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ....................... 47
`9.
`10. Claim 11 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ....................... 48
`11. Claim 12 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ....................... 49
`12. Claim 13 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ....................... 49
`13. Claim 14 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ....................... 50
`14. Claim 16 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Dussell) ....................... 50
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 51
`
`
`V.
`
`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 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner
`Petitioner certifies that U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536 (the ’536 patent) (Ex.
`
`1001) is available for inter partes review. Petitioner certifies that it is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review of the claims of the ’536 patent on
`
`the grounds identified in this Petition. 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`to Deposit Account No. 50-1597.
`
`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 civil action Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-
`
`04201-LB, served on Petitioner on October 23, 2012, and naming Petitioner as
`
`defendant. It is also the subject of the following cases: (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. These actions were originally filed in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas but have been transferred to the Northern District of California.
`
`The ‘536 patent is also the subject of three other IPRs filed concurrently
`
`with this one. Those IPRs are numbered: IPR2014-00082, IPR2014-00083, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00086.1
`
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`3.
`Lead Counsel
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Reg. No. 43,401
`jkushan@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8914
`(202) 736-8711 (fax)
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Douglas I. Lewis
`Reg. No. 39,748
`dilewis@sidley.com
`(312) 853-4169
`(312) 853-7036 (fax)
`
`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 numbers for
`
`lead and back up lead counsel are shown above.
`
`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 2-14 and 16 of the ’536 patent are unpatentable as being anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) & (e), and/or for being obvious over the prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically:
`
`(i)
`
`Claims 2-14 and 16 are anticipated under §§ 102(a) and 102(e) by
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,684,476 to Anderson (Ex. 1005);
`
`
`1 On October 22, 2013, Petitioner inadvertently filed a copy of the petition in
`IPR2014-00086 as the petition in this proceeding (IPR2014-00085). This was an
`error made during the electronic filing of the petition. Petitioner is filing this
`petition as the corrected petition in IPR2014-00085.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`(ii) Claims 2, 4-8, 13 and 16 would have been obvious under § 103 based
`
`on Ex. 1005 in view of general knowledge in the art.
`
`(iii) Claim 2-14 and 16 are anticipated under § 102(e) by U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,938,721 to Dussell (Ex. 1006).
`
`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 support of this petition is listed in
`
`Attachment B.
`
`III. Relevant Information Concerning the Contested Patent
`A. Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’536 Patent
`The ’536 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/284,113, filed
`
`January 28, 1999. The ‘113 application claims priority to Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/073,209, filed on January 30, 1998. The disclosures of the ‘113 and ‘209
`
`applications differ, and whether the latter supports the claims under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 has not been established. Nonetheless, only for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding, Petitioner has assumed that the earliest effective filing date of claims
`
`2-14 and 16 of the ’536 patent is not earlier than January 30, 1998.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`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 at ¶ 48.
`
`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
`
`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,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`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
`
`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, ¶¶ 54-55.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`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
`
`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” would thus encompass a value or code associated with a container.
`
`See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 56-59.
`
`The ‘536 patent claims recite several kinds of registers (e.g., first register,
`
`second register, active space register, passive [space] register, neutral space
`
`register, container history register, system history register, predefined register,
`
`user-created register, system-defined register, and an acquire register). The context
`
`used in 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`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 the
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`and forming part of the Event, EventStore, Alarm, and Reminder containers” (Ex.
`
`1007 at 58) and with respect to space, “attached to and forming part of the
`
`CLLocation, CLLocationManager, CLPlacemark, CLRegion, and CLHeading
`
`containers.” (Ex. 1007 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, ¶¶ 60-62.
`
`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. 1007 at 43 (for the active register: “the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`‘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. 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`• 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112.2 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. Claims 2-14 and 16 Are Anticipated by Ex. 1005 (Anderson)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,684,476 (Anderson) has an effective filing date of at least
`
`December 30, 1993, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) to claims 2-14 and
`
`16 of the ‘536 patent. A summary of Ex. 1005 is provided at Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 70-96.
`
`Claim 2 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005
`
`1.
`Ex. 1005 describes a system and processes for guiding the movements and
`
`actions of a vehicle within a particular geographical area using a location system
`
`that comprises a processor, storage and other computer system elements. Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶¶ 71, 75, 97. Ex. 1005 shows the location system will send, receive and
`
`manipulate information. For example, the location system will receive location
`
`2 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`information from sensors or other devices that communicate with the processor of
`
`the location system. Likewise, the location system will analyze information it
`
`receives, in conjunction with stored information (e.g., from a global information
`
`system (GIS) database), to make determinations and direct actions of the vehicle.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 72-80, 81-96, 98-101. The location system also will transmit
`
`information to a display or to elements of a vehicle to trigger specified actions
`
`(e.g., release of an herbicide at a particular location). Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 89, 96, 101.
`
`Also, to perform its actions, the location system uses information stored in data
`
`structures, such as a GIS database, to direct the actions of the vehicle. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 100. Ex. 1005, thus, discloses 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.”
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 97-103.
`
`Ex. 1005 discloses systems that use particular types of information stored
`
`within a data structure. For example, Ex. 1005 shows use by the location system
`
`of individual elements of information from the GIS database (e.g., checkpoint
`
`values) or which it obtains while a vehicle is on a particular run (e.g., location
`
`coordinates from a GPS unit reporting position). Ex. 1005 thus describes “an
`
`information element having information.” Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 104-107.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 shows that the GIS database stores records containing data
`
`elements specifying locations where actions may be required to be taken by the
`
`vehicle. The values of these data elements are used by the location system to
`
`direct actions of a vehicle. Ex. 1005, thus, describes an apparatus comprising “a
`
`plurality of registers, the plurality of registers forming part of the container.” Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶¶ 108-111.
`
`Ex. 1005 shows that the location system will associate position values of a
`
`vehicle with data in the GIS database. The position values are stored in the GIS
`
`database, which thereby creates an index into the GIS database. For each run by a
`
`vehicle, a unique index will be generated and stored. Ex. 1005 therefore shows an
`
`apparatus comprising “a first register for storing a unique container identification
`
`value.” Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 112-113.
`
`Ex. 1005 describes a location system that uses a GIS database, which will
`
`contain geographic location information for a particular geographic area. Ex. 1003
`
`¶¶ 114-116. Each record in the GIS database contains information that indicates
`
`how the vehicle is to interact with locations corresponding to these entries in the
`
`GIS database. Id. When the vehicle approaches a location specifying action based
`
`on values of a record in the GIS database, the location system uses the information
`
`in the GIS database to cause the vehicle to perform the action specified for that
`
`location. Id. Ex. 1005, thus, describes an apparatus comprising “a second register
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`having a representation designating space 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
`
`three-dimensional space.”
`
`Ex. 1005 describes processes whereby the current location of a vehicle will
`
`trigger actions by the vehicle based a determination by the location computer that
`
`the current location matches a specified entry in the GIS database. Ex. 1005 thus
`
`describes an apparatus that comprises “an active space register for identifying
`
`space in which the container will act upon other containers, processes, systems or
`
`gateways.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 117-120.
`
`Ex. 1005 also shows the location system will store historical location values
`
`that are not used further in the course of a particular run by a vehicle (e.g.,
`
`locations where actions were taken by the vehicle). The historical location values
`
`can be analyzed subsequently for various reasons, such as regulatory compliance.
`
`Ex. 1005, thus, describes an apparatus that comprises “a passive register for
`
`identifying space in which the container can be acted upon by other containers,
`
`processes, systems or gateways.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 121-125.
`
`Ex. 1005 explains that the GIS database will contain certain location values
`
`that are used during a particular run by a vehicle, as well other location values that
`
`are not used in that run. The latter types of entries may identify the location of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`obstacles or areas that are not on a planned path of the vehicle. These latter types
`
`of values are not intended to be used, but if the vehicle were to encounter them,
`
`would be used to trigger action (e.g., a warning on a display). Ex. 1005 thus
`
`describes an apparatus that comprises “a neutral space register for identifying
`
`space in which the container may interact with other containers, processes,
`
`systems, or gateways.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 126-130.
`
`Ex. 1005 explains the location system can cause actions by the vehicle being
`
`controlled. It also shows these actions may be effected by interactions between the
`
`location system and components of the vehicle, such as actuators that cause the
`
`vehicle to take actions (e.g., to release herbicides). Also, Ex. 1005 shows the
`
`location system provides a user interface and a display, which allows the user to
`
`interact with the system, as well as log or review messages and alerts. Ex. 1005
`
`therefore describes an apparatus comprising “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 ¶¶ 131-134.
`
`Because Ex. 1005 describes an apparatus having all of the elements
`
`specified in claim 2, it anticipates this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Claim 3 is Anticipated by Ex. 1005
`
`2.
`Ex. 1005 describes a location system which records information to a record
`
`contained in a GIS database based on the location contained in that record. Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`1003 at ¶¶ 90-92. For instance, the location system updates each location record in
`
`the GIS database with information on chemicals used at that location. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 90. The system can also record any waste dumping for each location to the GIS
`
`database. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 91. The location system also can record any actions taken
`
`by the vehicle at each location to the location records of the GIS database. Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 92. Ex. 1005 shows recording historical data may be important to
`
`comply with regulatory requirements from the EPA. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 90, 93. Ex.
`
`1005 thus shows “[t]he apparatus of c