Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: April 25, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON,
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, NEIL T. POWELL,
`and GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`On October 22, 2013, Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 2-14 and 16 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,010,536 (Ex. 1001, “the ’536 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). On January
`
`29, 2014, Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC (“Evolutionary Intelligence” or
`
`“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability of challenged claims 2-12, 14, and 16. Accordingly,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we institute an inter partes review of the ’536
`
`patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner states that on October 23, 2012 it was served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ’536 patent in Civil Action No. 6:12-
`
`cv-00783-LED in the District of Eastern District of Texas (Ex. 1007), which
`
`was transferred to the Northern District of California as Civil Action No.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`3:13-cv-4201-WHA. The ’536 patent is also the subject of several other
`
`lawsuits against third parties. Pet. 2.1
`
`B. The ’536 Patent
`
`The ’536 patent is directed to developing intelligence in a computer or
`
`digital network by creating and manipulating information containers with
`
`dynamic interactive registers in a computer network. Ex. 1001, 1:11-20;
`
`3:1-5. The system includes an input device, an output device, a processor, a
`
`memory unit, a data storage device, and a means of communicating with
`
`other computers. Id. at 3:6-11. The memory unit includes an information
`
`container made interactive with, among other elements, dynamic registers, a
`
`search engine, gateways, a data collection and reporting means, an analysis
`
`engine, and an executing engine. Id. at 3:15-23.
`
`The ’536 patent describes a container as an interactive nestable logical
`
`domain, including dynamic interactive evolving registers, which maintains a
`
`unique network-wide lifelong identity. Id. at 3:29-35. A container, at
`
`minimum, includes a logically encapsulated portion of cyberspace, a
`
`register, and a gateway. Id. at 9:2-4. Registers determine the interaction of
`
`that container with other containers, system components, system gateways,
`
`events, and processes on the computer network. Id. at 3:43-46. Container
`
`registers may be values alone or contain code to establish certain parameters
`
`in interaction with other containers or gateways. Id. at 9:19-22. Gateways
`
`are structurally integrated into each container or strategically placed at
`
`
`1 The Petition does not include page numbers. We have assigned page
`numbers beginning with page 1 at heading I.A. and concluding with page 31
`at heading V. The assigned page numbers appear to correspond to page
`numbers in the Table of Contents. Patent Owner adopted the same
`convention. Prelim. Resp. 12 n.2.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`container transit points. Id. at 4:54-57. Gateways govern the interaction of
`
`containers encapsulated within their domain by reading and storing register
`
`information of containers entering and exiting that container. Id. at 4:58-66;
`
`15:46-49.
`
`The system for creating and manipulating information containers is
`
`set forth in Figure 2B as follows:
`
`
`
`Figure 2B illustrates a computer network showing nested containers,
`
`computer servers, and gateways at Site 1 through Site 7. Id. at 10:59-62.
`
`Any of Sites 1 through 7 may interact dynamically within the system; for
`
`example, Site 1 shows a single workstation with a container and gateway
`
`connected to an Intranet. Id. at 10:64-67. Site 2 shows a server with a
`
`gateway in relationship to various containers. Id. at 11:2-3. Site 3 shows an
`
`Internet web page with a container residing on it. Id. at 11:3-4. Site 4 shows
`
`a personal computer with containers and a gateway connected to the
`
`Internet. Id. at 11:4-6. Site 5 shows a configuration of multiple servers and
`
`containers on a Wide Area Network. Id. at 11:6-7. Site 6 shows a work
`
`station with a gateway and containers within a container connected to a
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`Wide Area Network. Id. at 11:7-9. Site 7 shows an independent gateway,
`
`capable of acting as a data collection and data reporting site as it gathers data
`
`from the registers of transiting containers and as an agent of the execution
`
`engine as it alters the registers of transient containers. Id. at 11:8-13.
`
`An example of the configuration the containers may have is provided
`
`in Figure 4 as follows:
`
`
`
`Figure 4 shows an example of container 100 that includes
`
`containerized elements 01, registers 120, and gateway 200. Id. at 12:65-67.
`
`Registers 120 included in container 100 include, inter alia, active time
`
`register 102000, passive time register 103000, neutral time register 104000,
`
`active space register 111000, passive space register 112000, neutral space
`
`register 113000, and acquire register 123000. Id. at 14:31-39.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 2 and 16 are the two independent claims challenged. Claim 2
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`2. An apparatus for transmitting, receiving and
`manipulating information on a computer system, the apparatus
`including a plurality of containers, each container being a
`logically defined data enclosure and comprising:
`
`an information element having information;
`
` a
`
` plurality of registers, the plurality of registers forming
`part of the container and including
`
`
`a first register for storing a unique container
`identification value,
`
` a
`
` second register having a representation
`designating 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,
`
`an active space register for identifying space in
`which the container will act upon other containers, processes,
`systems or gateways,
`
` a
`
` passive resister for identifying space in which the
`container can be acted upon by other containers, processes,
`systems or gateways,
`
` a
`
` neutral space register for identifying space in
`which the container may interact with other containers,
`processes, systems, or gateways; and
`
` a
`
` gateway attached to and forming part of the container,
`the gateway controlling the interaction of the container with
`other containers, systems or processes.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the prior art reference Gibbs, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,836,529, filed October 31, 1995 (Ex. 1006). Pet. 3.
`
`E. The Alleged Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner alleges Gibbs anticipates claims 2-14 and 16 of the ’536
`
`patent and renders them unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 3.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). 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). If not, the terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`1. “container”
`
`Independent claims 2 and 16 recite the term “container,” as do several
`
`of the dependent claims, e.g., claims 5 and 7. As discussed above, the ʼ536
`
`patent specification describes a container as an interactive nestable logical
`
`domain, including dynamic interactive evolving registers, which maintains a
`
`unique network-wide lifelong identity. Ex. 1001, 3:29-35.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`Petitioner cites to the ’536 patent specification explaining 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.” Pet. 5
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 8:64-9:2). Petitioner then argues that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of a “container” is “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.” Pet. 6
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54-55). Patent Owner proposes that the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of “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 elements.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 23.
`
`Patent Owner, however, argues that defining “container” as something
`
`that “contains,” as Petitioner proposes is circular and unhelpful. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 24. Further, Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s proposed construction
`
`ignores the relationship between “containers” and “encapsulation.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner also argues “encapsulation,” refers to “treat[ing] a collection
`
`of structured information as a whole without affecting or taking notice of its
`
`internal structure” and “encapsulation” further refers “to the process of
`
`wrapping data in protocols that allow its transmission from one network to
`
`another, as occurs when a web page is sent using HTML.” Id. at 24 (citing
`
`8
`
`Ex. 2001).
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. The ’536 patent
`
`states that a container “at minimum includes in its construction a logically
`
`encapsulated portion of cyberspace, a register and a gateway” and a
`
`container “at minimum encapsulates a single digital bit, a single natural
`
`number or the logical description of another container, and at maximum all
`
`defined cyberspace, existing, growing and to be discovered, including but
`
`not limited to all containers, defined and to be defined in cyberspace.” Ex.
`
`1001, 9:2-9. The ’536 patent does not limit the terms “logically defined” or
`
`“encapsulated” to “structured information as a whole” regardless of its
`
`internal structure or “wrapping data” in preparation for transmission. The
`
`claims also do not require such limitations. Accordingly, we do not agree
`
`with Patent Owner that “logically defined” or “encapsulated” require
`
`anything more than “contained within.”2
`
`Accordingly, based on the proposed construction of “container” by
`
`both Petitioner and Patent Owner, and for the purposes of this decision, we
`
`construe “container” to mean “a logically defined data enclosure which
`
`encapsulates any element or digital segment (text, graphic, photograph,
`
`audio, video, or other), or set of digital elements.”
`
`2. “register”
`
`Independent claims 2 and 16 recite “a plurality of registers, the
`
`plurality of registers forming part of the container.” Petitioner proposes that
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of “register” is “value or code
`
`2 Related U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682 B2, the patent at issue in IPR2014-
`00079 and IPR2014-00080, recites the terms “logically defined” and/or
`“encapsulated” in independent claims 1 and 19-23. Our interpretation of
`these terms is consistent with our analysis in IPR2014-00079 and IPR2014-
`00080.
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`associated with a container” based on the context of “register” in the ʼ536
`
`patent specification, where container registers “may be values alone or
`
`contain code to establish certain parameters in interaction with other
`
`containers 100 or gateways 200.” Pet. 6-7 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:19‐23).
`
`Patent Owner argues that the term “register,” based on dictionary
`
`definitions, encompasses “a group of (usually) bistable devices that are used
`
`to store information within a computer system for high speed access” and “a
`
`memory location within a microprocessor, used to store values and external
`
`memory addresses while the microprocessor performs logical and arithmetic
`
`operations on them.” Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Exs. 2002, 2003). Based on
`
`these dictionary definitions, Patent Owner proposes that “register” means “a
`
`memory location within a computer that stores data.” Id. at 26. Patent
`
`Owner acknowledges that its proposed construction is similar to Petitioner’s
`
`construction, but argues that Petitioner’s construction is unreasonably broad
`
`and may encompass unpatentable subject matter. Id.
`
`We disagree with Patent Owner. Specifically, we do not agree with
`
`Patent Owner that “register” must require “a memory location within a
`
`computer.” The ’536 patent specification and claims do not impose such a
`
`limit to the meaning of “register.” The ’536 patent broadly describes
`
`“container registers” as follows:
`
`Container 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. Container registers 120 may
`be values alone or contain code to establish certain parameters
`in interaction with other containers 100 or gateways 200.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:14-23. We see no reason to limit the scope of “register” to
`
`include limitations neither described by the specification nor required by the
`
`claims. Therefore, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the
`
`broadest reasonable construction of “register,” as it is used in the ʼ536 patent
`
`is “value or code associated with a container.”
`
`3. “active space register”/“passive space register”/
`“neutral space register”
`
`The terms “active space register,” “passive space register,” and
`
`“neutral space register” appear in independent claim 2.
`
`Petitioner references Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the
`
`copending litigation as subject matter for consideration, but argues that the
`
`words should be given their broadest reasonable construction. Pet. 9-10.
`
`Similarly, after noting that the terms are not defined expressly in the
`
`Specification of the ’536 patent, Patent Owner states only that the terms be
`
`construed in accordance with their plain meaning. Prelim. Resp. 30-31.
`
`The Specification of the ’536 patent states, at several locations, that
`
`the registers are “dynamic” and “interactive.” See Ex. 1001, 7:25-30. As
`
`discussed above, registers are user-created and attach to a unique container.
`
`Id. at 14:23-26. Registers may be of different types, including pre-defined
`
`registers. Id. at 14:1-3. Pre-defined registers are immediately available for
`
`selection by the user, within a given container. Id. at 14:3-6. Pre-defined
`
`registers may be active, passive, or interactive and may evolve with system
`
`use. Id. at 14:29-30. In the context of predefined registers, “active space,”
`
`“passive space,” and “neutral space” are part of the system history. Id. at
`
`14:30-42, Fig. 4. The Specification does not describe further any of the
`
`11
`
`terms.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`The claim 2 elements, “active space register,” “passive space
`
`register,” and “neutral space register,” each expressly defines the function of
`
`the element in claim 2.
`
`The “active space register” is:
`
`“for identifying space in which the container will act upon other
`containers, processes, systems or gateways . . .” (emphasis added).
`
`The “passive space register” is:
`
`“for identifying space in which the container can be acted upon by
`other containers, processes, systems or gateways . . .” (emphasis
`added).
`
`The “neutral space register” is:
`
`“for identifying space in which the container may interact with other
`containers, processes, systems, or gateways . . .” (emphasis added).
`
`The term “register” has been construed to mean “value or code
`
`associated with a container.” The modifiers “active,” “passive,” and
`
`“neutral” serve to distinguish the claimed registers that are defined
`
`functionally in claim 2.
`
`4. “acquire register”
`
`Petitioner does not interpret “acquire register,” which appears in
`
`claims 8 and independent claim 16. Patent Owner proposes the plain
`
`meaning of the term. Prelim. Resp. 31. The “acquire register [is] for
`
`controlling whether the container adds a register from other containers or
`
`adds a container from other containers when interacting with them.” Id.
`
`The Specification describes the acquire register as “enabling the user to
`
`search and utilize other registers residing on the network.” Ex. 1001, 15:27-
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`29. This is consistent with the claim language itself. No further
`
`interpretation is required.
`
`5. “gateway”
`
`Independent claims 2 and 16 recite “a gateway attached to and
`
`forming part of the container, the gateway controlling the interaction of the
`
`container with other containers, systems or processes.” Petitioner argues
`
`that gateways “gather and store container register information according to
`
`system-defined, system-generated, or user determined rules . . . governing
`
`how containers, system components and system processes interact with that
`
`unique gateway, including how data collection and reporting is managed at
`
`that gateway.” Pet. 7-8 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:58-66). Based on this
`
`description from the ’536 patent, Petitioner proposes that “gateway” means
`
`“code that governs interactions between containers and that can alter
`
`registers associated with containers.” Id. at 9.
`
`Patent Owner argues that a person with ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that a “gateway” is “a device that interconnects two networks.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2002). Patent Owner further argues that this
`
`definition is consistent with the ’536 patent claims, where claim 1 recites the
`
`“gateway controlling the interaction of the container with other containers,
`
`systems or processes.” Id. Patent Owner also argues that this definition is
`
`consistent with the ’536 patent specification, where the specification
`
`describes that a “gateway” is a server, is structurally integrated into
`
`containers, and includes software to process network data. Id. at 27-28
`
`(citing Ex. 1001,3 Fig. 2B; claims 1, 13; 4:54-55). Accordingly, Patent
`
`Owner proposes that “gateway” should be construed as “a hardware device
`
`
`3 Patent Owner mistakenly referes to “Ex. 1101.”
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`that facilitates the transfer of information between containers, systems
`
`and/or processes on two different networks or devices, or software that
`
`processes network data.” Id. at 28.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that “gateway” requires these
`
`additional limitations.
`
`We disagree with Patent Owner. The ’536 patent describes
`
`[g]ateways gather and store container register information according
`to system-defined, system-generated, or user determined rules as
`containers exit and enter one another, governing how containers
`system processes or system components interact within the domain of
`that container, or after exiting and entering that container, and
`governing how containers, system components and system processes
`interact with that unique gateway, including how data collection and
`reporting is managed at that gateway.
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:58-66. The ’536 patent further describes that gateways are
`
`described logically as being “nestable in a hierarchical or set and class
`
`network scheme.” Id. at 4:54-57. Thus, we do not agree with the Patent
`
`Owner that a “gateway” is limited to a hardware device. We further do not
`
`agree with Patent Owner that a “gateway” facilitates only the transfer of
`
`information on two different networks or devices, because the’536 patent
`
`provides an example of a gateway governing the interaction of two
`
`containers regardless of whether the containers are on two different
`
`networks or devices.
`
`Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner and construe “gateway” to
`
`mean “hardware or software that facilitates the transfer of information
`
`between containers, systems, and/or processes.”
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`6. means elements
`
`Claims 9-12 each contain means plus function elements. Petitioner
`
`contends there is no disclosed structure in the form of a programmed
`
`instruction step, i.e., an algorithm, as required by Aristocrat Techs. Austl.
`
`PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Pet. 10-11. Thus, the claims are invalid for “‘lack[ing] sufficient disclosure
`
`of structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and therefore indefinite under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.’).” Id. Our jurisdiction in inter partes review does not
`
`include grounds that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. § 112. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 311(b).
`
`Petitioner proposes that, absent the required algorithm, 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.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner does not express a position.
`
`For purposes of this inter partes review, Aristocrat requires an
`
`algorithm for a means step. The ’536 patent lacks an algorithm. What is
`
`described in the system of the ‘536 patent is “an input device, an output
`
`device, a processor, a memory unit, a data storage device, and a means of
`
`communicating with other computers, network of computers, or digital-
`
`based, supported or enhanced physical media forms or public or published
`
`media.” Ex. 1001, 3:5-10. The preceding are generic computer devices.
`
`Absent any disclosed algorithm, the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification is a processor that performs the specified
`
`function for each means element of claims 9-12.
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`B. Anticipation of Claims 2-14 and 16 by Gibbs
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 2-14 and 16 of the ʼ536 patent are
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Gibbs. Pet. 12-31. To support this
`
`position, Petitioner cites the testimony of Henry Houh (Exhibit 1003, “Houh
`
`Declaration”).
`
`For reasons discussed below, Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that claims 2-12, 14, and 16
`
`would be unpatentable as anticipated by Gibbs.
`
`Gibbs Overview
`
`Gibbs describes a system and process for monitoring and managing
`
`the operation of a railroad system. Ex. 1006, 3:65-4:10. The railroad
`
`management system operates on a computer system and its components are
`
`connected via a network. Id. at 5:12-14.
`
`Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`Figure 1 is an object based railroad transportation network management
`
`system. As shown in Figure 1, central computer 26 organizes and stores this
`
`railroad system information so that it can later retransmit the information in
`
`response to a request from any node 24, 28, 29, 30, 32, or 34. Ex. 1001,
`
`5:28-31.
`
`The system is object oriented and uses objects to represent important
`
`aspects of the railroad system such as train object 72, locomotive object 74,
`
`crew object 78, car object 80, end-of-train object 82, and computerized train
`
`control object 89. Id. at 7:5-8. A map object library contains map objects to
`
`generate a transportation network map object and to display and transmit
`
`information in response to a user request. Id. at 8:53-63. A control
`
`management object allows the user to activate any object within the map
`
`object library. Id. at 8:20-31.
`
`Each object in the railroad management system has at least four
`
`distinct types of data: locational attributes, labeling attributes, consist
`
`attributes, and timing attributes. Id. at 9:28-10:4, Fig. 7. These attributes
`
`can include information such as a unique ID, the physical location of the
`
`object, and object specific data. Id. at 10:46-51. Each object contains
`
`references to its associated data structure, i.e., the four data types described
`
`above, and program instructions. Id. at 7:21-27.
`
`1. Claims 2-7 and 14
`
`Petitioner argues the objects used by Gibbs’ railroad management
`
`system are examples of logically defined data enclosures. The objects are,
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`therefore, the “containers” specified in the preamble of claim 24 of the ’536
`
`patent. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 107-111).
`
`Petitioner argues Gibbs discloses the claimed “information element
`
`having information” because Gibbs discloses that each transport object
`
`contains a number of sections that store various attributes of the object,
`
`including “locational attributes,” “labeling attributes,” “consist attributes,”
`
`and “timing attributes.” Pet. 13-14 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 75-76, 81-85, and
`
`112-114). Petitioner further contends that Gibbs discloses a “plurality of
`
`registers” because objects have different data fields representing different
`
`information about the real world object to which it refers. Id. at 14.
`
`Petitioner also contends the railroad management system of Gibbs also
`
`discloses the claimed “plurality of registers” because it includes a number of
`
`libraries. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 82-85, 87, 115-117). Petitioner argues
`
`the “first register” of claim 1 is disclosed in Gibbs because objects in the
`
`train management system of Gibbs have unique IDs which correspond to the
`
`object. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 82, 118-119).
`
`Claim 2 recites a second register “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.”
`
`The train objects of Gibbs contain in the locational attributes field “a
`
`geographic location, a division code and a name of the corridor” for the
`
`physical train with which it is associated. Ex. 1006, 10:46-48. Additionally,
`
`data items from the transport objects generate or modify an appropriate map
`
`4 The preamble forms an antecedent basis for “containers” as used in the
`claims and will be given weight. See, Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`in response to a user request received from the context menu object
`
`(“CMO”). Id. at 8:53-63. Petitioner specifically contends that the transport
`
`objects of Gibbs disclose the above second register limitation. Pet. 15.
`
`Petitioner argues that the railroad network and equipment and facilities are
`
`outside the railroad management system. Id. Petitioner further argues a user
`
`can use the “context menu object” to interact with map and report objects
`
`through inputs and setting parameters. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 88).
`
`Claim 2 additionally recites an “active space register,” which, among
`
`other things, “will act upon other containers, processes, systems or
`
`gateways.” Gibbs discloses that map objects obtain and retain data items
`
`from the transport objects. Ex. 1006, 8:53-64. Program instructions in the
`
`map object generate or modify an appropriate map in response to a user
`
`request received from the CMO 90. Id. The map and report objects monitor
`
`a set of warning criteria for the various transport objects, which are included
`
`in the selected maps and reports. Id. at 22:16-21. These warning criteria can
`
`either be user-defined or system-defined. Id. Petitioner argues the
`
`preceding disclosures of Gibbs meet the “active space register” limitation.
`
`Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90-95, 103-106).
`
`Claim 2 further recites “a passive register for identifying space in
`
`which the container can be acted upon by other containers, processes,
`
`systems or gateways.” Gibbs discloses that a user can generate a map,
`
`which only contains part of the railroad network, i.e., limits the geographic
`
`boundaries by zooming in and out on the map object. Ex. 1006, 12:61-
`
`13:12. More specifically, the transportation network map object prompts the
`
`user for a zoom increment and the creation of a set of zoom boundaries. Id.
`
`Apart from the foregoing, the train report object can be used to display a
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`variety of information to the user, including a graphical output showing a
`
`train, the cars of that train, and the contents of each car. Id. at 16:53-17:4.
`
`Gibbs also discloses allowing the user to generate a terminal status report,
`
`which includes, among other things, the number of trains in the arrival yard,
`
`as well as the number of trains in the departure yard. Id. at 18:9-18.
`
`Petitioner cites to the multiple disclosures above as each showing the
`
`claimed “passive space register.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93, 98-99).
`
`Claim 2 recites a “neutral space register for identifying space in which
`
`the container may interact with other containers, processes, systems, or
`
`gateways.” Gibbs discloses a train consist report. Ex. 1006, 16:53-17:4. To
`
`generate a train consist report a particular train is selected. Id. A train report
`
`object retrieves data from the train object and car object of the selected train.
`
`Id. The train report object allows the user to graphically see the positioning
`
`of the cars in the selected train. Id. Petitioner alleges the train object and
`
`car object therefore intersect in the report object. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶
`
`98). In addition, Petitioner cites the disclosures related to the active and
`
`passive space registers, as meeting the neutral space register limitation.
`
`Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 138-140). Dr. Houh concludes “the train object
`
`and the car objects intersect via the report object.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 138.
`
`Claim 2 further recites a “gateway attached to and forming part of the
`
`container, the gateway controlling the interaction of the container with other
`
`containers, systems or processes.” Petitioner contends each object in the
`
`railroad management system of Gibbs has program instructions and routines
`
`that allow it to interact with other objects. Pet. 18. As an example,
`
`Pet