UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner,
`
`Case IPR 2014-00086
`Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`TWITTER, INC. and YELP INC.
`Joining Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner,
`
`Case IPR 2014-00812 (Consolidated)
`Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE ................................... 3
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................. 6
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ...................................... 10
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. .......................................................................... 14
`A.
`Previously Construed Terms .......................................................................... 14
`B.
`Terms Requiring Further Construction .......................................................... 16
`1. “First Register Having a Unique Container Identification Value” ................ 16
`2. “Neutral Space Register” ............................................................................... 19
`V. ANALYSIS OF GIBBS UNDER § 102. ........................................................ 22
`A. Background and Summary Of Argument ...................................................... 22
`B. Neither the Transport Objects Nor Service Objects of Gibbs is a Plurality of
`Containers Comprising All the Registers of the Claims ......................................... 24
`C. Gibbs Does Not Disclose a “Transport/Map/Report Object Subsystem” that
`Expressly Anticipates the Claims ............................................................................ 30
`D. Apple Cannot Be Permitted To Argue At This Juncture that Gibbs Inherently
`Discloses a “Transport/Map/Report Object Subsystem” Comprising the Registers
`of Claims 2-12, 14, and 16. ..................................................................................... 37
`E. Gibbs Does Not Inherently Disclose a “Transport/Map/Report Object
`Subsystem” .............................................................................................................. 38
`The Purported “TMR Subsystem” Does Not Have A First Register Having a
`F.
`Unique Container Identification Value. .................................................................. 41
`G. None of the “Containers” Disclosed by Gibbs Includes an Active Space
`Register .................................................................................................................... 43
`H. Gibbs Does Not Disclose a Plurality of Containers Each Comprising a
`Passive Space Register ............................................................................................ 48
`I. Gibbs Does Not Disclose a Neutral Space Register ......................................... 50
`J. Gibbs Does Not Disclose an Acquire Register ................................................. 54
`VI. CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE BY PATENT
`OWNER UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`Patent Owner Evolutionary Intelligence LLC respectfully submits this
`Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536, and
`
`the Decision to Institute Trial. This Response is filed in both IPR2014-00086 and
`
`consolidated proceeding IPR 2014-00812. The term “Petitioners” is used to refer
`collectively to Apple Inc. and joining parties Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc.1
`The evidence in the record demonstrates that Gibbs does not anticipate the
`
`’536 patent. The claims of the ’536 patent are directed to an apparatus for
`
`transmitting, receiving, and manipulating information, comprised of a plurality of
`
`containers, each container comprising an information element, a number of
`
`specific registers, and a gateway. The invention implements intelligent information
`
`containers that enable, among other things, presentation and use of information
`
`within appropriate spaces (for example, by presenting information on restaurants
`
`that are near the user’s physical location). It does so by providing in each
`
`information container a set of registers that specify a unique identifier for the
`
`container, as well as spatial information that governs how that container will
`
`interact with other containers, systems, processes, and gateways according to the
`
`utility of the information. These registers also include either information about
`
`
`1 All citations to the “Petition” are to the Petition filed by Apple in IPR 2014-
`00086, but are intended to refer to the comparable portion of Twitter and Yelp’s
`
`Petittion, which is identical to Apple’s in all relevant respects.
`
`

`

`
`
`where that container will act upon other containers, can be acted upon by other
`
`containers, and may interact with other containers (claim 2), or information
`
`controlling when information is added to a given information container from other
`
`containers (claim 16). The existence of each of these registers is essential to the
`
`functionality and efficiency of the claimed invention. Gibbs does not disclose the
`
`claimed apparatus. What Gibbs does disclose is an object-oriented railroad
`
`management system with a variety of software objects that represent physical
`
`objects in the railroad system, capable of drawing maps of the railroad system and
`
`generating reports summarizing specific aspects of its components. Gibbs does not
`
`disclose any object that includes all the specified registers in the ’536 patent.
`
`In its Preliminary Response (IPR 2014-00086, Dkt. #6), Patent Owner noted
`that Apple and Dr. Houh failed to identify a single object that possesses all the
`
`registers required to anticipate the claims of the ’536 patent—a critical
`
`shortcoming because the claims of the ’536 patent require all of the registers to be
`
`part of each “container” and specify that the apparatus is made up of plurality of
`
`such containers. In deposition, Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Henry Houh, admitted that
`he had never even considered whether any of the individual objects disclosed by
`
`Gibbs has all of the required registers. There is therefore no support for the
`
`anticipation argument made in the Petition.
`
`In an attempt to avoid the demise of Petitioners’ case, Dr. Houh used his
`
`deposition to change his position regarding anticipation and to advocate a new
`
`theory that was not disclosed in the Petition or his declaration. Under the new
`theory, the “plurality of containers” disclosed by Gibbs is a plurality of previously
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`unidentified “transport object/map object/report object subsystems” (“TMR
`
`subsystems”) that are located on the workstations in Gibbs’ railroad management
`
`system. But Gibbs never identifies or even mentions the alleged TMR subsystem,
`
`nor is this imaginary subsystem inherent in Gibbs’ disclosure.
`
`Dr. Houh testified that the undisclosed TMR subsystem “must be” present in
`
`Gibbs, meaning that instead of express anticipation, he is now advocating inherent
`
`anticipation. Even if it were proper for Petitioners to change their theory at this
`
`stage (which it is not), Petitioners still cannot demonstrate inherent anticipation,
`
`because the imagined TMR subsystem still fails to include each of the information
`
`registers required by the ‘536 patent. Notably, the proposed TMR subsystem
`lacks, among other things, a first register for storing a unique container
`
`identification value, active/passive/neutral space registers, and an acquire register
`for controlling whether the container adds a register from other containers or adds
`a container from other containers when interacting with them. Accordingly, Gibbs
`
`does not anticipate claims 2-12, 14, and 16 of the ’536 patent, either expressly or
`
`inherently.
`
`This filing is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, as it is
`
`being filed by July 18, 2014, pursuant to the PTAB’s scheduling order in this case
`
`and the parties’ stipulated extension.
`I.
`Statement of Material Facts in Dispute
`
`Patent Owner identifies the following list of material facts in dispute:
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`1. Whether Apple violated rules 37 C.F.R. 42.6 and 104(b)(5) by incorporating
`all the detail of its arguments from the Declaration of Henry Houh in a manner that
`
`exceeded the page limit for its petition.
`
`2. Whether “container” is correctly construed as “a logically defined data
`enclosure which encapsulates any element or digital segment (text, graphic,
`
`photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital elements.” (Denied.)
`
`3. Whether “gateway” is correctly construed as “hardware or software that
`facilitates the transfer of information between containers, systems, and/or
`
`processes.” (Denied.)
`
`4. Whether “register” is correctly construed as “value or code associated with a
`container.” (Denied.)
`
`5. Whether “a first register having a unique container identification value” is
`correctly construed as “first register having a value that uniquely identifies the
`
`given container.”
`
`6. Whether “neutral space register” is correctly construed as “a neutral space
`register for identifying space in which a container may interact with other
`
`containers, systems, processes, or gateways.”
`
`7. Whether the Board correctly concluded that “neutral space register” is
`superfluous once an active and passive register are present. (Denied.)
`
`8. Whether any “transport object” disclosed in Gibbs contains all the registers
`
`required by claims 2-12, 14, and 16. (Denied.)
`
`9. Whether any “service object” disclosed in Gibbs contains all the registers
`required by claims 2-12, 14, and 16. (Denied.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`10. Whether any “report object” disclosed in Gibbs contains all the registers
`required by claims 2-12, 14, and 16. (Denied.)
`
`11. Whether Petitioners can argue that any single “transport object,” “map
`object,” or “report object” disclosed in Gibbs anticipates claims 2-12, 14, and 16,
`
`in light of deposition testimony by Dr. Houh that he never even considered
`
`individual objects. (Denied.)
`
`12. Whether Gibbs explicitly discloses a “transport object/map object/report
`object subsystem” that is a container of all the Gibbs transport, map, and report
`
`objects. (Denied.)
`
`13. Whether Gibbs inherently discloses a “transport object/map object/report
`object subsystem” that is a container of all the Gibbs transport, map, and report
`
`objects. (Denied.)
`
`14. Whether Petitioners are barred by 37 C.F.R. 42.23 and 37 C.F.R. 42.123
`from introducing evidence of inherent disclosure in their Reply, because they did
`
`not raise the argument in their Petition and did not file supplemental evidence
`
`supporting that theory within one month of instituting trial.
`
`15. Whether, if Gibbs discloses a plurality of “transport object/map object/report
`
`object subsystems,” each of those containers has a first register having a unique
`
`container identification value.” (Denied.)
`16. Whether Gibbs discloses any active space register for identifying space in
`which the container will act upon other containers, processes, systems or
`gateways. (Denied.)
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`17. Whether Gibbs’ generic statement that its system may “prompt the user to
`specify a value or range of values for any selected map or report data item” is a
`
`disclosure of an “active space register,” given that none of the examples in Gibbs
`
`of prompting users to select data items disclose selection of registers that identify
`
`space. (Denied.)
`18. Whether Gibbs discloses any passive space register for identifying space in
`which the container can be acted upon by other containers, processes, systems or
`gateways. (Denied.)
`19. Whether Gibbs discloses any neutral space register for identifying space in
`which the container can be acted upon by other containers, processes, systems or
`gateways. (Denied.)
`20. Whether Gibbs discloses a plurality of containers, each having at least one
`acquire register for controlling whether the container adds a register from other
`containers or adds a container from other containers when interacting with them
`
`as required by claims 8 and 16. (Denied.)
`
`.
`II. Technology Background
`The ’536 patent describes a “System and Method for Creating and
`
`Manipulating Information Containers With Dynamic Registers.” The ’536 patent is
`
`directed to developing automated 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 invention is
`
`directed at improving the processing of “containerized” data, such as the data that
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`makes up web pages and documents. At the time of the invention, information
`
`resources on the Internet were generally static, in that their processing did not
`
`result in dynamic modifications that would improve future processing efforts.
`
`The invention solved this problem through the use of dynamic information
`
`containers. The ’536 patent describes an embodiment in which the container is an
`
`interactive nestable logical domain, including dynamic interactive evolving
`registers, which maintain 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. The claims of the ’536 require an 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 (including a set of registers defined by each claim), 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.
`
`In the described embodiment, registers for a given container 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 contain only values, or they may contain code establishing
`certain parameters in interaction with other containers or gateways. Id. at 9:19-22.
`
`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. In the invention of the ’536 patent, information
`
`containers are populated with information elements and time- and space-based
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`dynamic registers, thereby facilitating access to the information at appropriate
`
`times and in relation to pertinent locations, making the information more useful to
`
`the user. As users access the information containers, the dynamic registers are
`
`updated with information regarding their use, allowing them to evolve without
`
`direct human input.
`
`Claims 2 and 16 are the two independent claims challenged in this
`
`proceeding. 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 space register for identifying space in which the container
`
`can be acted upon by other containers, processes, systems or gateways,
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`Claim 16 is identical to claim 2, except that the active, passive, and neutral
`space registers are eliminated and replaced with “at least one acquire register for
`controlling whether the container adds a register from other containers or adds a
`
`container from other containers when interacting with them.”
`Claims 3-14 are multiply dependent from claims 1 and 2.2 These dependent
`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 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
`
`
`2 Claim 1, which is not addressed in this IPR, replaces the “space” registers of
`
`claim 2 with “time” registers that indicate times which govern the interactions of
`
`“the container” with other containers, systems, processes, or gateways.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`group of text, graphic images, video, audio, a digital pattern, a process, a nested
`
`container, bit, natural number and a system” (claim 14).
`III. Overview of the Asserted Prior Art
`The Petition for IPR2014-0086 relies on one reference: Gibbs et al., U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,836,529 (Ex. 1006) (“Gibbs”). Gibbs is directed to “An Object Based
`
`Transportation Network Management System and Method.” Gibbs discloses a
`distributed system for railroad management, including a “central computer 26” and
`a number of “transportation workstation network 34.” The central computer
`
`maintains a database of information regarding trains and their contents, which is
`
`updated periodically. Information is fed to the central computer from a variety of
`
`“nodes,” including wayside detectors, a computer aided dispatch system, field
`
`locations, an EDI (“electronic data interchange”), and an operations center. For
`
`example, wayside detectors generate a latitude and longitude for trains as they pass
`
`the detector, and they send that data to the central computer via the computer-aided
`
`dispatch system. Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶¶ 68-81); Ex. 1006, 3:65-4:10; 5:12-
`
`14. The central computer stores the information so it can later be transmitted to the
`“TWS network 34.” Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶ 77.
`
`The TWS network is made up of transportation workstations (i.e., “TWS’s
`40, 42, and 44”) connected to the TWS network 34, which connects to the central
`computer 26 via a gateway 36. Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶¶ 80-85. Each TWS is a
`
`personal computer. Id. The TWS sends requests for information to the central
`computer and receives information from the central computer. Id. The TWS has a
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`“TWS management system 59” that comprises the executable instructions for
`launching and operating the TWS 40. Id.; Ex. 1006 at 6:29-31.
`
`Also loaded onto each TWS are two distinct object libraries: a “transport
`object library 64” and service object library 66.” Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶¶ 86-94.
`
`These libraries each include a number of software module objects, each of which
`
`performs a particular operation. Id. Each “object” disclosed by Gibbs within these
`
`libraries is an archetype. Ex. 1008 (Houh Tr.) at 48:15-49:4; 55:1-13; 57:8-63:21.
`
`In the real world, a system such as that described by Gibbs would include specific
`
`“instances” or “instantiations” of each type of object. Id., Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶
`
`90. So, for example, Gibbs discloses a library of transport objects that includes a
`
`class of object called a “locomotive object.” In practice, the system of Gibbs would
`
`have a number of specific locomotive objects, each corresponding to a specific
`locomotive. Id.
`
`The various libraries and objects disclosed by Gibbs have different
`
`structures and attributes. Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶¶ 86-112. Gibbs explicitly notes
`that they are all treated as “discrete entities” by the system. Id.; Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) at
`
`7:24-27; 8:20-23; 8:48-52; 9:27-31.
`
`Transport objects within the “transport object library 64” are “data objects”
`corresponding to real world objects (e.g., a train). Id. at Fig. 5; 6:66-8:15.
`“Transport object library 64” includes twelve species of actual transport objects,
`
`including: terminal object 70, train object 72, locomotive object 74, yard object 76,
`crew object 78, car object 80, end of train device object 82, shop object 84,
`division object 86, cola zone object 87, transportation network object 88, and
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`computerized train control object 89. “Each of the transport objects (70 through
`89) comprises a set of references to a transport object data structure 98, described
`
`in detail in Fig.7 . . . and program instructions.” Id. at 7:21-24. Those program
`
`instructions comprise “routines for obtaining data items from the central computer
`26 every 30 minutes or upon a specific user request and storing the data items with
`
`the transport object data structure 98.” Id. at 7:27-32. Each transport object has an
`associated transport object data structure 98. Id. at 9:58-10:4. The data structure 98
`comprises data fields for storing the transport objects’ (70 through 89) locational
`
`attributes 100, labeling attributes 102, consist attributes 104, and timing attributes
`106. Id. The actual data items stored within each transport object’s data fields vary
`depending on the specific transport object. Id. Gibbs’ disclosure of the transport
`
`object library and those objects’ data attribute fields are shown in Figures 5 and 7,
`
`reproduced below.
`In contrast to the transport object library, the service object library 66
`
`comprises a set of “service objects that represent various user interface, map
`generation and report generation capabilities with the TWS 40 that pertain to the
`operation of the transportation network 20” (e.g., drawing a map, printing a report).
`
`Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶¶ 103-112; Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) at 6:54-59. Gibbs describes
`
`the service object library in memory as “a service object comprising program
`
`instructions for generating graphical representations of transport locations,
`
`transport status statistics, and transport performance statistics upon the output
`
`device corresponding to both the set of mobile transports and a set of fixed
`transports.” Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) at Abstract. The service object library 66 includes a
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`context menu object (CMO) 90, a map object library 92, and a report object library
`96. Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶¶ 103-112.
`
`The CMO 90 is treated as one discrete entity within the object oriented
`
`programming structure. It acts as the intermediary between the user and the various
`
`service and transport objects. Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) at 8: 20-31.
`
`The map object library 92 contains a “set of map objects (400 through 412)
`
`which generate or modify various maps.” Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶¶ 103-109; Ex.
`
`1006 (Gibbs) at 8:53-63. Specifically, the map object library discloses six classes
`
`of map objects, including transportation network map object 400, train map object
`404, terminal map object 406, coal car map object 408, locomotive map object
`410, and computerized train control map object 412. Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶¶
`
`103-109; Ex. 1006 at Figure 6b and 8:42-9:21.
`The report object library 96 consists of “report objects (414 through 420).”
`
`Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶¶ 110-111; Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) at 9:24-31. Each of these
`
`objects comprise both program instructions and data items, and “are treated by the
`processing unit 48 as discrete entities.” Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) at 9:27-31. The report
`
`objects’ program instructions describe “routines for obtaining and retaining data
`
`items from the transport objects (70 through 89) and then respectively generating
`an appropriate report in response to a user request received from the CMO 90.” Id.
`at 9:31-36. The report object library 96 contains four species of object classes,
`
`including train report object 414, terminal report object 416, coal report object 418,
`and locomotive report object 420. Id. at Fig. 6c and at 9:22-57. In essence, the
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`“reports” are windows on a computer screen with summaries of data relating to the
`
`railroad system.
`
`While Gibbs states that the map objects and report objects retrieve data from
`
`the transport objects, Gibbs does not disclose the map or report objects adding the
`
`transport objects to a new logically defined data enclosure, nor adding those
`
`objects to the service objects. Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶¶ 106-126; Ex. 1006
`
`(Gibbs) at 9:58-10:4 (noting data is retrieved from transport object data structures
`98 to effect maps and reports). To the contrary, Gibbs very explicitly notes that
`
`service objects pass queries to transport objects, and that the transport objects then
`return the appropriate value to the service object. See, e.g., id. at 8:58-63 (map
`
`objects’ “program instructions effect this map generation or modification by
`
`sending an information request to an appropriate set of transport objects and after
`
`receiving the requested information, generating or modifying the user requested
`
`map”; 13:64-14:4 (noting terminal map object “retrieves” values from terminal
`
`object’s 70 locational attributes data field 100; Ex. 2006 (Green Decl.), ¶¶ 111-
`
`112, 154-155.
`IV. Claim Construction.
`Previously Construed Terms
`A.
`The Board has construed the terms “container,” “register,”
`
`“[active/passive/neutral] space register,” “acquire register,” and “gateway.” Those
`
`constructions are as follows:
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`• container – “a logically defined data enclosure which encapsulates
`any element or digital segment (text, graphic, photograph, audio,
`
`video, or other), or set of digital elements.”
`• register – “value or code associated with a container.”
`• active space register – a register “for identifying space in which the
`container will act upon other containers, processes, systems or
`
`gateways . . .”
`• passive space register – a register “for identifying space in which the
`container can be acted upon by other containers, processes, systems or
`
`gateways”
`• neutral space register – a register “for identifying space in which the
`container may interact with other containers, processes, systems, or
`
`gateways . . .”
`• acquire register – a register “for controlling whether the container
`adds a register from other containers or adds a container from other
`
`containers when interacting with them.”
`• gateway – “hardware or software that facilitates the transfer of
`information between containers, systems, and/or processes.” 3
`
`
`3 Although Patent Owner respectfully disagrees with portions of the Board’s
`
`constructions and reserves the right to appeal them, Patent Owner applies the
`
`constructions adopted by the Board in this Response.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`Terms Requiring Further Construction
`
`“First Register Having a Unique Container Identification
`1.
`Value”
`During cross-examination of Dr. Houh, it became apparent that Petitioners
`were applying a construction of the limitation first register having a unique
`container identification value that was not advanced in their petitions and that is
`
`not consistent with the patent. “First register having a unique container value”
`means a register that uniquely identifies “the container” of which it is part. In
`
`contrast, Dr. Houh (and by extension Petitioners) advanced a new construction in
`which the first register could have a unique identification value for any container.
`
`Ex. 1008 (Houh Tr.) at 106:21-109:8. Dr. Houh’s proposed construction was not
`
`described in either his declaration or Petitioners’ petitions but was first advanced
`
`during his deposition. See id.; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 110-11.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the first register
`having a unique container identification value refers to a unique identification
`
`value for “the container.” The register has a “container identification value,” and
`the antecedent container is “the container” of which the first register is a part.
`
`While the limitation uses the word “a” rather than “the,” this is a necessitated by
`
`the fact that the limitation as a whole is appearing for the first time, which requires
`
`use of “a” because there is no antecedent occurrence of the phrase “unique
`
`container identification value.”
`
`Construing the first register as having a unique identifier for the container of
`
`which it is part is the only reasonable interpretation in view of the specification and
`
`prosecution history. The specification refers repeatedly to each container having a
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`register with a “unique network-wide lifelong identity” for the given container. Ex.
`1001 at 3:29-39; see also id. at 3:57-64 (system-defined registers may include “an
`
`identity register maintaining a unique network wide identification and access
`
`location for a given container”); 14:43-55 (pre-defined registers comprise “an
`identity register 114000 maintaining a unique lifelong identification and access
`
`location for a given container”); 17:15-21 (“When input is received from the user
`
`choosing “finished,” the container is created with a unique network identity . . . .”).
`
`Furthermore, the original claims submitted with the application for the ’536 patent
`
`included claims to methods in which a first and second container exchanged their
`
`respective unique identification registers as a first step in determining whether they
`would interact. See Ex. 1002 at 50-51 (original claim 30, “determining
`
`identification information” for a first and second containers by “reading respective
`
`identification registers of the first and second containers”). Those claims, which
`
`are part of the original disclosure, make no sense if the “unique identification
`
`value” is construed as identifying containers other than those interacting, because
`
`the entire point of the exchange was to compare unique identifiers to see if
`
`interaction between the two containers would be allowed.
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction is so unreasonable that no one—not even
`Petitioners—asserted it in a petition for inter partes review. Of the six petitions for
`inter partes review filed against the ’536 patent, involving at least 16 different
`
`prior art references, not one argued that the first register could identify another
`
`container. To the contrary, all four petitioners facially treated the first register
`
`having a unique identification value as identifying “the container” of which it is
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`part. See, e.g., IPR2014-00082 at 14 (asserting file name and file path for task file
`
`on computer system was “unique identification value” for that task file) and at 37
`
`(asserting “Action Identification” fields in scheduling item database were “unique
`
`identification values” for each “action” asserted to be a container); IPR2014-
`
`00083, Dkt. 1 at 14-15 (asserting “every calendar event will have a unique ID
`
`number and date stamp associated”); IPR 2014-00085, Dkt. 1 at 17 (asserting
`
`position values within index were unique container identifiers); IPR2014-00093,
`
`Dkt. 1 at 19-20 (alleging dwEventID 1 and dwEventID2 uniquely identified
`
`GROUP_ITEM object in which they were located) and at 40-41 (asserting “unique
`
`machine identification code” of file management system “is stored within the file
`
`management system”); IPR2014-00092, Dkt. 1 at 19-20 (alleging “name” registers
`
`uniquely identifying user agent “containers” and device agent “containers” were
`
`stored in each respective agent).
`
`Even Dr. Houh originally treated the first register as referr