`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR 2014-0086
`Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE BY PATENT OWNER
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................... 5
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART .......................................... 9
`
`III. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED. .................................................... 10
`
`A. The Petition Fails To Explain the Relevance Of The References To The
`
`Claims As Required By 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5)................................................ 10
`
`B. The Petition Violates Rule 42.6 By Incorporating the Substance of Its
`
`Arguments By Reference ................................................................................. 14
`
`C. The Prior Art Raised in the Petition is Cumulative with the Prior Art Asserted
`
`by the Petitioner in Another Petition. .............................................................. 18
`
`D. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood of the Claims Being Invalidated. ........... 20
`
`1. The Petitioner Fails to Construe and/or Incorrectly Construes Terms Material
`
`to all Claims. ................................................................................................... 20
`
`a. “Container” ................................................................................................. 23
`
`b. “Register” ................................................................................................... 25
`
`c. “Gateway” ................................................................................................... 27
`
`d. “Encapsulated”/”Encapsulating” ................................................................ 29
`
`e. ““Active Space Register” / “Passive Space Register” / “Neutral Space
`
`Register” ............................................................................................................ 30
`
`f. “Acquire Register” ...................................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`2. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claims 2-14 or 16 Being Anticipated
`
`by Gibbs (Ex. 1006). ..................................................................................... 31
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE BY PATENT
`OWNER UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`Patent Owner Evolutionary Intelligence LLC hereby respectfully submits
`
`this Preliminary Response to the Petition seeking inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,010,536.
`
`The Petition is deficient and relies on prior art references that are entirely
`
`distinct from the ’536 patent. The Petition should be rejected for four independent
`
`reasons. First, the Petition fails to explain the relevance of the prior art to the
`
`claims as required by 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5), including failing to establish that the
`
`prior art discloses all elements “arranged as in the claims.” Second, the Petition is
`
`deficient because it violates 37 C.F.R. 42.6(a)(3)’s strict prohibition against
`
`incorporating other arguments by reference. Third, the Petition relies on prior art
`
`that is cumulative of prior art raised in another pending petition filed by Petitioner,
`
`as well as with prior art considered during the prosecution of the underlying
`
`application. Finally, even setting aside these critical defects, the Petition should be
`
`rejected on the merits, because it fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
`
`any claims being invalid—particularly because it relies on unreasonably broad
`
`constructions for and fails to construe terms that are material to all of the claims at
`
`issue. For at least these reasons, the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood
`
`of prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims, and inter partes review
`
`should not be instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`This filing is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, as it is
`
`being filed within three months of the October 29, 2013 mailing date of the Notice
`
`granting the Petition a filing date of October 23, 2013.
`
`I.
`
`Technology Background
`
`The ’536 patent describes a “System and Method for Creating and
`
`Manipulating Information Containers With Dynamic Registers.” The invention is
`
`directed at improving the processing of “containerized” data, such as the data that
`
`makes up web pages and documents. At the time of the invention, processing
`
`information resources on a computer network (e.g., the internet) was primarily
`
`static, in that the processing did not result in dynamic modifications that would
`
`improve future processing efforts. For example, the searching of data was
`
`“accomplished by individuals directing a search effort by submitting key words or
`
`phrases to be compared to those key words or phrases contained in the content or
`
`description of that information resource, with indices and contents residing in a
`
`fixed location unchanging except by human input.” Ex. 1001 at 1:22-28. As the
`
`’536 patent notes, this “static” information model was limited, because, inter alia,
`
`the information being processed did not evolve to reflect its actual utility to the
`
`people using it, and successful search strategies were not available to be used to
`
`process future searches. Ex. 1001 at 1:37-2:48. At most, the prior art allowed
`
`“hits” for a given web page to be tracked—a static process. See Ex. 1001, 2:8-13.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`The invention solved this problem through the use of “dynamic” information
`
`containers. The dynamic information containers include dynamic registers that
`
`attach to and form part of the container. Ex. 1001 at 2:66-3:5. Each container has
`
`an information element (e.g., an advertisement, article, or a text string), a plurality
`
`of registers, and a gateway. The plurality of registers for each container include
`
`(i) a unique identification register for that container; (ii) a second register
`
`governing the interactions of the container according to utility of the information in
`
`the information element relative to space or time; (iii) an active register controlling
`
`whether the container acts upon other containers according at a given time or
`
`location; (iv) a passive register controlling whether the container can be acted upon
`
`by other containers at a given time or location; and (v) a neutral register controlling
`
`whether a container may interact with other containers at a given time or location.
`
`“Gateways” are programmed with rules to enable the interaction among the various
`
`containers, gateways, and system components. Id. at 4:54-5:11.
`
`In the invention of the ’536 patent, information containers are populated
`
`with information elements and time- and space-based dynamic registers, thereby
`
`facilitating access to the information at appropriate times and in relation to
`
`pertinent locations. This facilitates access to information that is useful to the user.
`
`As users access the information containers, the dynamic registers are updated with
`
`information regarding their use, allowing them to evolve. This is made more
`
`evident in the claims of U.S. Patent 6,702,682, whose underlying application is a
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`continuation of the application leading to the ’536 patent. In the ’2,682 patent, “a
`
`search query may be run against a plurality of container registers encapsulated and
`
`logically defined in a plurality of containers to identify one or more container
`
`registers responsive to the search query,” and “a list characterizing the identified
`
`containers may be provided.” See U.S. Patent 6,702,682 at Abstract. The dynamic
`
`nature of the invention of the ’536 patent is also evident in its other continuation,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,873,682. The ’3,682 patent is directed to methods and systems
`
`using at least two information containers with dynamic registers to evolve
`
`information containers over time.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’536 patent is directed to “an apparatus for
`
`transmitting, receiving and manipulating information on a computer system”
`
`comprised of a plurality of dynamic containers, each having an information
`
`element, a plurality of registers, and a gateway. The plurality of registers for each
`
`container include the five types of registers discussed above.
`
`Claim 2, also an independent claim, is identical to claim 1, except that
`
`“space” and “three-dimensional space” replace “time” and “event time” in the
`
`second register. Claim 2 is not at issue in this proceeding.
`
`Claims 3-14 are multiply dependent from claims 1 and 2. These claims
`
`further comprise at least one “container history register” (claim 3); “system history
`
`register” (claim 4); “predefined register” (claim 5); “user-created register” (claim
`
`6);”system-defined register” (claim 7); “acquire register for controlling whether the
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`container adds a register from other containers or adds a container from other
`
`containers when interacting with them” (claim 8); OR an apparatus wherein the
`
`gateway includes “means for acting upon another container” (claim 9); “means for
`
`allowing interaction (claim 10); “means for gathering information,” (claim 11);
`
`means for reporting information (claim 12); or “an expert system” (claim 13); OR
`
`an apparatus wherein the “information element is one from the group of text,
`
`graphic images, video, audio, a digital pattern, a process, a nested container, bit,
`
`natural number and a system” (claim 14).
`
`Claims 15 and 16 of the ’536 patent are each directed to “an apparatus for
`
`transmitting, receiving and manipulating information on a computer system”
`
`comprised of a plurality of dynamic containers, each having an information
`
`element, a plurality of registers, and a gateway. The plurality of registers for each
`
`container includes (i) a unique identification register for that container, (ii) a
`
`second register designating time (claim 15) or space (claim 16) governing the
`
`interactions of the container according to utility of the information in the
`
`information element relative to event time (claim 15) or three-dimensional space
`
`(claim 16), and (iii) at least one acquire register controlling whether the container
`
`adds a register or container from another container.
`
`As with claims 1 and 2, claims 15 and 16 differ only with respect to each
`
`claim’s second register. Claim 15 recites a second register “having a
`
`representation designating time and governing interactions of the container with
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`other containers, systems or processes according to utility of information in the
`
`information element relative to an external‐to‐the‐apparatus event time.” Claim
`
`16, which is not at issue in this proceeding, recites a second register designating
`
`“space” and governing interactions of “the container” of which it is part “according
`
`to the utility of the information in the information element relative to three-
`
`dimensional space.”
`
`II. Overview of the Asserted Prior Art
`
`The petition for IPR2014-0083 relies upon one reference:
`
`• Gibbs et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,836,529 (Ex. 1006) (“Gibbs”).
`
`The Petition asserts that Gibbs anticipates claims 2-14 and 16. Gibbs is
`
`directed to “An Object Based Transportation Network Management System and
`
`Method.” Gibbs discloses a database that creates a library of “transport objects”
`
`representing different aspects of a railroad network (e.g., trains, locomotives, cars,
`
`crew, etc.) within a geographic region, which interacts with a library of distinct
`
`“service objects” (e.g., various maps). See Ex. 1006 at Fig. 5 (listing exemplary
`
`“transport objects”); Fig. 6b (listing exemplary “service objects”), 2:37-47
`
`(describing database and general function). Gibbs describes a preferred
`
`embodiment of the “transport objects” as having “locational attributes.” See Ex.
`
`1006 at Fig. 7 (listing preferred attributes of “transport objects” as “locational,”
`
`“labeling” “consist,” and “timing.”) Gibbs’ preferred embodiment of “locational
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`attributes” for a train includes “a geographic location, a division code and a name
`
`of the corridor.” Id. at 10:46-48.
`
`III. The Petition Should Be Denied.
`
`The Petition should be rejected for four independent reasons. First, the
`
`Petition fails to explain the relevance of the prior art to the claims as required by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5), including failing to establish that the prior art discloses all
`
`elements “arranged as in the claims.” Second, the Petition is deficient because it
`
`violates 37 C.F.R. 42.6(a)(3)’s strict prohibition against incorporating other
`
`arguments by reference. Third, the Petition relies on prior art that is cumulative of
`
`prior art raised in another pending petition filed by Petitioner, as well as with prior
`
`art considered during the prosecution of the underlying application. Finally, even
`
`setting aside these critical defects, the Petition should be rejected on the merits,
`
`because it fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of any claims being
`
`invalid—particularly because it relies on unreasonably broad constructions for and
`
`fails to construe terms that are material to all of the claims at issue.
`
`A. The Petition Fails To Explain the Relevance Of The References
`
`To The Claims As Required By 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5) states (emphasis added): “the petition must set forth:
`
`. . . (5) The exhibit number of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the
`
`challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including
`
`identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge. The
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to
`
`state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the
`
`challenge.” In addition, in order to invalidate a claim, a prior art reference “must
`
`not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document,
`
`but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” See MPEP 2131;
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Failure
`
`to satisfy these requirements is grounds to dismiss an IPR petition in its entirety.
`
`See, e.g., Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR 2012-0041, Dkt. No. 16,
`
`12-13 (PTAB 2013) (declining to institute IPR due to petitioner’s failure to
`
`establish that elements were “arranged as in the claim”).
`
`The Petition fails to mention, let alone satisfy, these requirements. For
`
`example, the Petition provides no explanation of how Gibbs shows each and every
`
`element “arranged as required by the claim,” as required for a proper anticipation
`
`rejection. See id. Instead, the Petition consists of a series of conclusory statements
`
`that various elements of the claims are present in the asserted prior art. There is
`
`little or no explanation in the Petition of specifically how the claim terms are being
`
`applied by the Petitioner or why the highlighted language corresponds to (or is
`
`otherwise relevant to) the claim elements. Even the Declaration of Henry Houh
`
`(Ex. 1003), upon which the Petition is based, contains many conclusory statements
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`that elements are met, but fails to provide the explanation required by the PTO’s
`
`regulations.1
`
`A prime example of the Petition’s failure to explain how Gibbs meet the
`
`limitations is the Petition’s total failure to explain the relation between the various
`
`elements in relation to their antecedent elements. The Petition identifies at least
`
`nine different types of alleged containers. See Petition at 11 (“Ex. 1006 describes a
`
`train object, a locomotive object, a car object, a crew object, a terminal object, a
`
`yard object, a shop object, a coal zone object, and many other objects. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶¶ 75-76.”).2 But the Petition does not indicate which of these nine “objects” is
`
`“the container” of the claims.
`
`Even assuming that each of objects disclosed by Gibbs is a “container,” the
`
`Petition has the burden of showing that at least one of those containers has all the
`
`required attributes of the “containers” set forth by the claim (i.e., an information
`
`element, a first register, a second register governing interactions of the container
`
`according to the utility of information in the information element, the active,
`
`passive, and neutral space registers, and a gateway).
`
`
`1 The supporting declaration of Apple’s expert also repeatedly omits the “arranged
`as required by the claim” requirement for anticipation. See Ex. 1003 at ¶ 28
`(representing that § 102 is satisfied because “every element” is present, without
`addressing how the elements are arranged).
`2 The Petition did not include page numbers. For reference purposes, Patent
`Owner has assumed that the first page of the Petition after the Table of Contents is
`page 1, and assigned subsequent page numbers accordingly.
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`But the Petition’s discussion of which “objects” “contain” all of the registers
`
`is not consistent. When discussing the “information element” and “plurality of
`
`registers” of claim 2, the Petition references the “train object,” as “the container.”
`
`But when the Petition discusses the “second register” of “the container,” it
`
`switches to a generic discussion of location-related processing performed by the
`
`system through interaction between “transport objects” and “map objects” and
`
`“report objects.”
`
`And there is no apparent way to read the “second register” onto the few
`
`specific disclosures from Gibbs that the Petition identifies in a way that satisfies
`
`the entire limitation of “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.” For example, the Petition identifies the following “information elements”
`
`for a “train object”: “train name, the number of cars in the train, the length of the
`
`train, the train direction, the train’s terminal of origin, and the train’s destination
`
`terminal.” The Petition never identifies a “second register” of the train object that
`
`represents space and controls interactions of the “train object” based on the utility
`
`of the train’s name, number of cars, length, origin, or destination. Instead, the
`
`Petition asserts “second registers” of other objects, such as the “report” objects.
`
`This does not establish anticipation of claim 2.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petition similarly fails to connect the dots regarding the “passive
`
`register identifying space in which the container can be acted upon.” The petition
`
`identifies a number of generic computer functions that involve representations of
`
`space, but doesn’t specifically identify the antecedent container that is being acted
`
`upon, nor the exact register that controls being acted upon. The same is true for
`
`the neutral register. Instead, the petition discusses different “reports.” But the
`
`“report” is not “the container “onto which the Petition read the earlier limitations.
`
`Accordingly, just like the petition at issue in Synopsis, which the PTO
`
`rejected (see IPR 2012-0041, Dkt. No. 16, 12-13 (PTAB 2013)), the instant
`
`Petition fails to satisfy § 104(b)(5)’s requirement that “the Petition must set forth . .
`
`. the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised.” Accordingly, the instant
`
`Petition should also be rejected. See Synopsis.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Violates Rule 42.6 By Incorporating the Substance of
`
`Its Arguments By Reference
`
`Rule 42.24 of the PTAB’s Rules for Trial Practice limits petitions for inter
`
`partes review to 60 pages. The PTO adopted this page limit after substantial
`
`public commentary, in an attempt to reduce the burden of petitions for review on
`
`the PTAB and patent owners. To ensure that Petitioners adhere to this page limit,
`
`the PTO explicitly prohibits incorporation of arguments by reference. See 37
`
`C.F.R. 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one
`
`document into another document.”) (emphasis added); see also Rules of Practice
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board Decisions (“Rules of Practice”), Fed. Reg. 77, No. 157, p.
`
`48617 (noting that, under § 42.6, petitions are subject to Fed. R. App. Proc. 32,
`
`which prohibits incorporation by reference). As the PTO explained:
`
`incorporation by reference
`The prohibition against
`minimizes the chance that an argument would be
`overlooked and eliminates abuses
`that arise from
`In DeSilva
`incorporation
`and
`combination.
`v.
`DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999), the
`court rejected ‘‘adoption by reference’’ as a self-help
`increase in the length of the brief and noted that
`incorporation is a pointless imposition on the court’s time
`as it requires the judges to play archeologist with the
`record. The same rationale applies to Board proceedings.
`Cf. Globespanvirata, Inc. v. Tex. Instruments, Inc., 2005
`WL 3077915, *1 (D. N.J. 2005) (Defendants provided
`cursory statements in motion and sought to make its case
`through incorporation of expert declaration and a claim
`chart. Incorporation by reference of argument not in
`motion was held to be a violation of local rules governing
`page limitations and was not permitted by the court). . . .
`
`The PTO noted that that Board applied page limits to both arguments and findings
`
`of fact because the failure to do so resulted in “abuses of the system.” Fed. Reg.
`
`77 at 48620. The PTO noted that patent cases before the PTAB are no exception to
`
`the standards of district courts, where motion practice does not require federal
`
`judges to “shovel through steaming mounds of pleonastic arguments in Herculean
`
`effort to uncover a hidden gem of logic.” Id.
`
`Despite this prohibition on incorporation by reference, the Petition
`
`incorporates at least 47 pages of the 78-page supporting declaration by reference.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petition itself never directly cites either of the two asserted references.
`
`Instead, it cites the supporting declaration, which then often cites other portions of
`
`itself before finally citing actual language from the underlying patents.
`
`The Petitioner’s failure to abide by the regulations is not merely technical; it
`
`directly impacts the substance of the issues in the Petition. The Petition’s use of
`
`incorporation by reference enabled the Petitioner to assert conclusions without
`
`having to show that the underlying references actually make the asserted
`
`disclosures. And by moving all actual evidence into 47 pages of argument in the
`
`declaration, the Petition disguises its leaps in logic and mischaracterizations.
`
`For example, the Petition states that Gibbs discloses an “an active space
`
`register for identifying space in which the container will act upon other containers,
`
`processes, systems or gateways.” Petition at 15. The Petition asserts this based on
`
`Gibbs’ disclosure that users can set up alerts and warnings which will be
`
`automatically displayed to a user when specified conditions regarding particular
`
`objects are met. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 90-94 and 103-106):
`
`• Paragraph 90 cites Ex. 1006 at 8:53-63, which describes “map
`
`objects” retrieving data from “transport objects.”
`
`• Paragraph 91-93 redundantly cite Ex. 1006 at 12:49-13:12, which
`
`describes how the system constructs a map of a railroad based on
`
`railpoints. There is no discussion of a “train object” or the “transport
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`object” discussed in ¶ 90. Paragraph 94 shows the map thus
`
`generated.
`
`• Paragraph 103 cites Ex. 1006 at 2:26-35 for a general disclosure that
`
`the system may be used to generate warnings. There is no discussion
`
`of any registers in any of the “objects” asserted as containers.
`
`• Paragraph 104 cites Ex. 1006 at 22:16-21, which again states
`
`generically that “warning” criteria can be set by map and report
`
`objects.
`
`• Paragraph 105 cites Ex. 1006 at 6:3-7 and 22:36-47 to establish that
`
`visual and audible signals can be generated as part of the warnings.
`
`• Paragraph 106 cites Ex. 1006 at 12:33-48, which explains in general
`
`terms that warnings can be triggered when values of a given data item
`
`deviate from criteria set by the user. But there is again no discussion
`
`of triggers based on location.
`
`The Petition also asserts that zooming on a map “requires” the map object to
`
`determine which transport objects are within the selected area, citing Ex. 1003 at ¶
`
`93. An examination of ¶ 93 of Ex. 1003 presents a quotation of Gibbs (Ex. 1006)
`
`at 12:61-13:12. The quoted portion of Ex. 1006 does not even mention transport
`
`objects. In short, the actual text of Gibbs never discloses an apparatus comprised
`
`of the elements set forth by the claims of the ’536 patent.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`These are exactly the kinds of abuses that § 42.6’s prohibition against
`
`incorporating by reference was designed to prevent. Walking the PTAB through
`
`every Byzantine argument presented by Petitioner would require parsing over 78
`
`pages of Ex. 1003 and the Petition, which would exceed the page limit for this
`
`Preliminary Response. The Petition never once presents a direct quotation of any
`
`evidence in the asserted prior art. Instead, the Petition presents all the actual
`
`disclosures of the prior art in Ex. 1003. The overwhelming bulk of Petitioner’s
`
`argument—even more than the 23 pages that Petitioner had left at its disposal—is
`
`in the underlying declaration and incorporated by reference. This creates an
`
`unreasonable amount of work for the PTO, is unfair to the Patent Owner, and
`
`violates § 42.6 of the PTAB’s Rules of Practice for inter partes review
`
`proceedings. In light of this violation by Petitioner, the Petition should be denied.
`
`C. The Prior Art Raised in the Petition is Cumulative with the Prior
`
`Art Asserted by the Petitioner in Another Petition.
`
`The prior art asserted in this case is cumulative with the prior art asserted by
`
`Petitioner in its petition for inter partes review in case No. 2014-0085. The prior
`
`art asserted here in Petition No. 2014-0086, U.S. Patent No. 5,836,529 (“Gibbs”) is
`
`directed to an “Object Based Railroad Transportation Network Management
`
`System and Method.” The references asserted in Petitioner’s concurrent Petition
`
`No. 2014-0085 (Anderson and Dussell) are asserted as anticipatory based on their
`
`disclosure of location-based databases that interact with devices in the real world
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`based on location. The Gibbs patent similarly discloses the use of an object-
`
`oriented database in combination with external devices (e.g., railroad cars, stations,
`
`and cargo).
`
`The basic functionality disclosed by the prior art asserted in this petition is
`
`identical to the basic functionality disclosed by Anderson and Dussell, at least
`
`insofar as it is material to the ’536 patent. In both petitions, the Petitioner
`
`essentially contends that (i) any software file is a container (location records in
`
`Anderson and Dussell; location, crew, and locomotive objects in Gibbs), (ii) any
`
`location-based software action satisfies all four space-based limitations in claims
`
`2-14, and (iii) any process that adds anything to any file proves the existence of at
`
`least one “acquire register” in claim 16. In petition 0085, Petitioner contends that
`
`Anderson and Dussell anticipate claims 2-14 and 16. In petition 0086, Petitioner
`
`contends that Gibbs anticipates these same claims. In essence, the two petitions
`
`are identical in their allegations.
`
`Patent Owner submits that it is inefficient to initiate two proceedings to
`
`answer the question of whether prior art that discloses location-based databases
`
`interacting with objects in the real world invalidates claims 2-14 and 16 of the ’536
`
`patent. Accordingly, Patent Owner submits that even if the PTO decides that the
`
`Petitioner has carried their burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`on at least one claim in both petitions (Nos. 2014-0085 and 2014-0087), it would
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`be within the PTO’s discretion to choose one petition on which to proceed and
`
`deny the other.
`
`D. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood of the Claims Being
`
`Invalidated.
`
`1.
`
`The Petitioner Fails to Construe and/or Incorrectly
`
`Construes Terms Material to all Claims.
`
`The initial step in an analysis of whether to institute a trial is to determine
`
`the meaning of the claims. Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of
`
`the AIA, the Board interprets claims using the broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification in which they appear. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 CFR § 42.100(b). Claim
`
`terms are also given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is a
`
`“heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`“Plain meaning” refers to the ordinary and customary meaning the term would
`
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Such terms require no construction.
`
`See, e.g., Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp,
`
`Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding no error in non-construction of
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`“melting”); Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d 1365, 1380
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding no error in court’s refusal to construe “irrigating” and
`
`“frictional heat”).
`
`A patentee may act as his own lexicographer by redefining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms away from their ordinary meaning, by clearly expressing
`
`that intent in the written description. See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals, 395 F.3d 1364, 1370, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005). If an inventor acts
`
`as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the specification
`
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
`
`Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`The Petition urges the Board to utilize two additional rules in construing the
`
`claims, neither of which has any support in the law. First, Petitioner asserts that
`
`the “[t]he broadest reasonable construction should reflect subject matter that Patent
`
`Owner contends literally infringes the claims, as well as constructions proposed by
`
`Patent Owner in past or concurrent litigation.” Petition at 8. No law is cited to
`
`support this position, because there is no legal support for this position. In fact, the
`
`Federal Circuit has explicitly ruled that legal opinions offered by patentees during
`
`litigation warrant no deference during claim construction. Howmedica Osteonics
`
`Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 985 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc)
`
`(“[I]t is not unusual for there to be a significant difference between what an
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`inventor thinks his patented invention is and what the ultimate scope of the claims
`
`is after allowance by the PTO.”); Reexamination No. 95/000,639, Action Closing
`
`Prosecution, 8-9 and 21-22 (declining to construe claims in accordance with patent
`
`owner’s positions taken in litigation).3
`
`Next, the Petition asserts that, “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.” Petition at 8, (citing 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48764 at II.B.6 (August 14, 2012) and In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335,
`
`1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). The authorities cited by Petitioner, however, simply do not
`
`establish that that any such amendments are necessary.
`
`In addition to misunderstanding the proper legal standard for claim
`
`construction, the Petition completely fails to construe the terms “encapsulates”—a
`
`term that is material to every claim in