Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
` Paper No. 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,010,536
`Issued: March 7, 2006
`Filed: January 28, 1999
`Inventor: Michael De Angelo
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING AND MANIPULATING
`INFORMATION CONTAINERS WITH DYNAMIC REGISTERS
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00086
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW .............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Certification the ‘536 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner ............ 1
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a)) ............................................. 1
`B.
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b)) ............................................... 2
`1.
`Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ........................................... 2
`2.
`Other Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................... 2
`3.
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel ................................. 3
`4.
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4)) ............................................ 3
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)) ........................................ 3
`D.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`(§ 42.104(B)) .................................................................................................. 3
`III. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`PATENT ......................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’536
`Patent .................................................................................................... 4
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 4
`Construction of Terms Used in the Claims .......................................... 4
`1.
`Container .................................................................................... 5
`2.
`Register ...................................................................................... 6
`3.
`Gateway ..................................................................................... 7
`4.
`“Active Space Register” / “Passive Register For
`Identifying Space” / “Neutral Space Register” .......................... 9
`5. Means Elements (Claims 9-12) ................................................ 10
`IV. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 12
`A.
`Claim 2 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) ...................................... 12
`B.
`Claim 3 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) ...................................... 19
`C.
`Claim 4 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) ...................................... 20
`D.
`Claim 5 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) ...................................... 21
`
`B.
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`Claim 6 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) ...................................... 21
`E.
`Claim 7 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) ...................................... 22
`F.
`Claim 8 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) ...................................... 23
`G.
`Claim 9 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) ...................................... 24
`H.
`Claim 10 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .................................... 25
`I.
`Claim 11 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .................................... 26
`J.
`Claim 12 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .................................... 27
`K.
`Claim 13 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .................................... 28
`L.
`M. Claim 14 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .................................... 29
`N.
`Claim 16 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .................................... 30
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 31
`
`
`V.
`
`Attachment A. Proof of Service of the Petition
`
`Attachment B. List of Evidence and Exhibits Relied Upon in Petition
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Certification the ‘536 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner
`Petitioner certifies that U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536 (the ’536 patent) (Ex.
`
`1001) is available for inter partes review. Petitioner certifies that it is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review of the claims of the ’536 patent on
`
`the grounds identified in this Petition. Neither Petitioner, nor any party in privity
`
`with Petitioner, has filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the
`
`’536 patent. The ’536 patent has not been the subject of a prior inter partes review
`
`by Petitioner or a privy of Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner also certifies this petition for inter partes review is filed within
`
`one year of the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement of a patent.
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’536 and ‘682
`
`patents on October 23, 2012, which led to Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00783-LED in
`
`the District of Eastern District of Texas. Ex. 1007. Subsequently, Civil Action
`
`No. 6:12-cv-00783-LED was transferred to the Northern District of California and
`
`became Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-4201-WHA. Because the date of this petition is
`
`less than one year from October 23, 2012, this petition complies with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(b).
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))
`
`B.
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 CFR § 42.15(a)
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`to Deposit Account No. 50-1597.
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b))
`Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`1.
`The real party of interest of this petition pursuant to § 42.8(b)(1) is Apple
`
`Inc. (“Apple”) located at One Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014.
`
`2. Other Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’536 patent is the subject of civil action Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-
`
`04201-LB, served on Petitioner on October 23, 2012, and naming Petitioner as
`
`defendant. It is also the subject of the following cases: (1) Evolutionary
`
`Intelligence LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4202-JSC; (2) Evolutionary
`
`Intelligence LLC v. FourSquare Labs, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4203-EDL; (3)
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4204-LB; (4)
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. LivingSocial, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4205-EDL;
`
`(5) Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Millennial Media, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-
`
`4206-HRL; (6) Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-
`
`4207-KAW; and (7) Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp. et al.,
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-4513-JCS. These actions were originally filed in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas but have been transferred to the Northern District of California.
`
`The ‘536 patent is also the subject of three other IPRs filed concurrently
`
`with this one. Those IPRs are numbered: IPR2014-00082, IPR2014-00083, and
`
`IPR2014-00085.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`3.
`Lead Counsel
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Reg. No. 43,401
`jkushan@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8914
`(202) 736-8711 (fax)
`
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Douglas I. Lewis
`Reg. No. 39,748
`dilewis@sidley.com
`(312) 853-4169
`(312) 853-7036 (fax)
`
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4))
`
`4.
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Sidley
`
`Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. The fax numbers for
`
`lead and back up lead counsel are shown above.
`
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a))
`D.
`Proof of service of this petition is provided in Attachment A.
`
`II.
`
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (§ 42.104(b))
`Claims 2-14 and 16 of the ’536 patent are unpatentable as being anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by U.S. Patent No. 5,836,529 to Gibbs (Ex. 1006).
`
`(i)
`
`Claims 2-14 and 16 are anticipated under §§ 102(e) by U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,836,529 to Gibbs (Ex. 1006)
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of the contested claims, the evidence relied
`
`upon, and the precise reasons why the claims are unpatentable are provided in
`
`§ IV, below. The evidence relied upon in support of this petition is listed in
`
`Attachment B.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`III. Relevant Information Concerning the Contested Patent
`A. Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’536 Patent
`The ’536 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/284,113, filed
`
`January 28, 1999. The ‘113 application claims priority to Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/073,209, filed on January 30, 1998. The disclosures of the ‘113 and ‘209
`
`applications differ, and whether the latter supports the claims under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 has not been established. Nonetheless, only for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding, Petitioner has assumed that the earliest effective filing date of claims
`
`2-14 and 16 of the ’536 patent is not earlier than January 30, 1998.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`B.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ‘536 patent would
`
`have been someone with a good working knowledge of computer programming,
`
`data structures, and object oriented programming. The person would have gained
`
`this knowledge either through an undergraduate education in computer science or
`
`comparable field, in combination with training or several years of practical
`
`working experience. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 48.
`
`C. Construction of Terms Used in the Claims
`In this proceeding, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. 37 CFR § 42.100(b). The broadest
`
`reasonable construction should be determined, in part, by taking into account the
`
`subject matter Patent Owner contends infringes the claims and the constructions
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent Owner has advanced in litigation. Also, if Patent Owner contends terms in
`
`the claims should be read to have a special meaning, those contentions should be
`
`disregarded unless Patent Owner also amends the claims compliant with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 to make them expressly correspond to those contentions. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48764 at II.B.6 (August 14, 2012); cf. In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012). In the proposed constructions below, Petitioner identifies subject
`
`matter which falls within the scope of the claims, read in their broadest reasonable
`
`construction, which Petitioner submits is sufficient for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Container
`
`1.
`The ‘536 patent explains that a “container” is “a logically defined data
`
`enclosure which encapsulates any element or digital segment (text, graphic,
`
`photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital segments, or referring now to
`
`FIG. 3C, any system component or process, or other containers or sets of
`
`containers.” Ex. 1001, 8:64-9:2. It continues by stating a container “at minimum
`
`includes in its construction a logically encapsulated portion of cyberspace, a
`
`register and a gateway” and that it “at minimum encapsulates a single digital bit, a
`
`single natural number or the logical description of another container, and at
`
`maximum all defined cyberspace, existing, growing and to be discovered,
`
`including but not limited to all containers, defined and to be defined in
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`cyberspace.” Ex. 1001, 9:2-9. It also states a container “contains the code to
`
`enable it to interact with the components enumerated in 2A, and to reconstruct
`
`itself internally and manage itself on the network 201.” Ex. 1001, 9:9-12
`
`The broadest reasonable construction of “container” therefore encompasses
`
`a logically defined data structure that contains a whole or partial digital element
`
`(e.g., text, graphic, photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital segments,
`
`or any system component or process, or other containers or sets of containers. See
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 54-55.
`
`Register
`
`2.
`The ‘536 patent states:
`
`Registers 120 are user or user-base created or system-created values
`or ranges made available by the system 10 to attach to a unique
`container, and hold system-set, user-set, or system-evolved values.
`Values may be numeric, may describe domains of time or space, or
`may provide information about the container 100, the user, or the
`system 10. Registers 120 may be active, passive or interactive and
`may evolve with system use.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:23-30. The ‘536 patent also indicates that “[c]ontainer registers 120
`
`are interactive dynamic values appended to the logical enclosure of an information
`
`container 100 and serve to govern the interaction of that container 100 with other
`
`containers 100, container gateways 200 and the system 10, and to record the
`
`historical interaction of that container 100 on the system 10.” Ex. 1001 at 9:14-19.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`The ‘536 patent observes that “Container registers 120 may be values alone or
`
`contain code to establish certain parameters in interaction with other containers
`
`100 or gateways 200.” Ex. 1001, 9:19-23. The broadest reasonable construction
`
`of “register” thus would encompass a value or code associated with a container.
`
`See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 56-59.
`
`The ‘536 patent claims recite several kinds of registers (e.g., a first register,
`
`second register, an active time register, a passive time register, a neutral time
`
`register, an active space register, a passive [space] register, a neutral space register,
`
`a container history register, a system history register, a predefined register, a user-
`
`created register, system-defined register, and an acquire register). The context
`
`used each claim provides guidance regarding the nature of each register being
`
`referred to (e.g., by specifying the kinds of information that may be stored in the
`
`register or how the register might be used). Each of these registers is discussed in
`
`connection with application of prior art to it below.
`
`3. Gateway
`The ‘536 patent does not expressly define the term “gateway.” However, its
`
`usage of this term indicates that the term is being used generally to refer to an
`
`interface between processes, system components and data files (e.g., “container” or
`
`“registers”). For example, the ‘536 patent observes:
`
`Gateways gather and store container register information according to
`system-defined, system-generated, or user determined rules as
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`containers exit and enter one another, governing how containers
`system processes or system components interact within the domain of
`that container, or after exiting and entering that container, and
`governing how containers, system components and system processes
`interact with that unique gateway, including how data collection and
`reporting is managed at that gateway. Ex. 1001 at 4:58-66.
`
`The ‘536 patent also states that “Container gateways 200 are logically
`
`defined gateways residing both on containers 100 and independently in the system
`
`10” and “Gateways 200 govern the interactions of containers 100 within their
`
`domain, and alter the registers 120 of transiting containers 100 upon ingress and
`
`egress.” Ex. 1001, 9:23-28. See also Ex. 1001, 15:44-49.
`
`Patent Owner has contended in litigation that “gateways” can be algorithms
`
`and Application Program Interfaces (APIs), with respect to time, are “attached to
`
`and forming part of the Event, EventStore, Alarm, and Reminder containers” (Ex.
`
`1005 at 58) and with respect to space, “attached to and forming part of the
`
`CLLocation, CLLocationManager, CLPlacemark, CLRegion, and CLHeading
`
`containers.” (Ex. 1005 at 81). In other words, Patent Owner has alleged that code
`
`that executes by calling objects via an API will be a “gateway” within the meaning
`
`of the claims.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`The broadest reasonable construction of “gateway” thus would encompass
`
`code that governs interactions between containers and that can alter registers
`
`associated with containers. See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 60-62.
`
`4.
`
`“Active Space Register” / “Passive Register For Identifying
`Space” / “Neutral Space Register”
`
`Claim 1 recites three “register” elements, stating: (i) “an active space
`
`register for identifying time at which the container will act upon other containers,
`
`processes, systems or gateways”; (ii) “a passive register for identifying time at
`
`which the container can be acted upon by other containers, processes, systems or
`
`gateways” and (iii) “a neutral space register for identifying time at which the
`
`container may interact with other containers, processes, systems or gateways.”
`
`The ‘536 patent does not expressly define any of these registers.
`
`In its infringement contentions, Patent Owner has identified the same
`
`features of the Apple iOS operating system as being all three types of “registers”
`
`specified in claim 1. Compare Ex. 1005 at 43 (for the active register: “the
`
`‘allDay’, ‘endDate’, and/or ‘startDate’”) to Id. at 48 (for the passive register:
`
`same); compare also Id. at 44 (active register: “‘completionDate’,
`
`‘dueDateComponents’, and/or ‘startDateComponents’”) to Id. at 49 (passive
`
`register: same).
`
` Notably, Patent Owner does not show how any of the objects in iOS being
`
`identified have parameters that allow anything to act upon them, in the ordinary
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`sense of that phrase. For example, Patent Owner identifies “reminders” as being
`
`passive and neutral registers, even though reminders generally cause action on
`
`other portions of the system rather than provide a time on which an action can
`
`happen to them.
`
`Petitioner believes that these terms are ordinary English words and do not
`
`need to be construed to understand their broadest reasonable construction. But in
`
`understanding the prior art, consideration should be given to Patent Owner’s
`
`reading of these claim terms on Petitioner’s products.
`
`5. Means Elements (Claims 9-12)
`Claims 9-12 each contain a means plus function claim elements:
`
`• means for acting upon another container, the means for acting upon
`
`another container using the plurality of registers to determine whether
`
`and how the container acts upon other containers (claim 9)
`
`• means for allowing interaction, the means for allowing interaction
`
`using the plurality of registers to determine whether and how another
`
`container can act upon the container (claim 10)
`
`• means for gathering information, the means for gathering information
`
`recording register information from other containers, systems or
`
`processes that interact with the container (claim 11)
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`• means for reporting information, the means for reporting information
`
`providing register information to other containers, systems or
`
`processes that interact with the container (claim 12)
`
`Means elements are construed to include the structure disclosed in the
`
`specification for performing the claimed function, and “the corresponding structure
`
`for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm
`
`disclosed in the specification.” Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. V Int’l Game
`
`Tech, 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008), quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.,
`
`417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For claims 9-12, however, the only
`
`“means” identified in the ’536 Patent is a processor 18 which can execute
`
`programmed instruction steps. (Ex. 1001, 7:58-65). The ‘536 patent, however,
`
`identifies no algorithm that performs the particular function associated with each
`
`“means” element, and does not otherwise identify any other particular structure
`
`corresponding to these means elements. Claims 9 to 12, thus, do not comply with
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112.1 Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338 (a patent that fails to disclose an
`
`algorithm for a computer-implemented function is invalid for “lack[ing] sufficient
`
`disclosure of structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and [is] therefore indefinite under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.”). In order to provide some basis for evaluating these claims
`
`
`1 Petitioner reserves its right to assert that claims 9-12 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in
`any court action relating to the ‘536 patent.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`against the prior art, Petitioner assumes that the means specified in each of claims
`
`9 to 12 must at least be a processor that performs the specified function for each
`
`means element when the claims are considered using the broadest reasonable
`
`construction in view of the specification.
`
`IV. Precise Reasons for Relief Requested
`U.S. Patent No. 5,836,529 to Gibbs (Ex. 1006) has an effective filing date of
`
`at least October 31, 1995, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) to claims 2-14
`
`and 16 of the ‘536 patent. A general summary of Ex. 1006 is provided at Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶¶ 68-106.
`
` Claim 2 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs)
`
`A.
`Ex. 1006 describes a system and process for monitoring and managing the
`
`operation of a railroad system. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 69. The railroad management system
`
`operates on a computer system and its components are connected via a network.
`
`The network transmits messages to and from devices, such as wayside occupancy
`
`detectors deployed in the railroad network, to a central computer system. Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶¶ 70, 75. The system is object oriented and uses objects to represent important
`
`aspects of a railroad system such as trains, car, locomotives and tracks. Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶¶ 73-75. The railroad management system also uses objects to display and
`
`transmit information to the user, such as through maps and reports. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶¶ 89, 96. The railroad management system also describes use of a control
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`management object, which allows the user to provide instructions to the
`
`management system. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 88. These objects are stored in object
`
`libraries within the computer system. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 77, 87. The objects used by
`
`the Ex. 1006 railroad management system are examples of logically defined data
`
`enclosures, and are “containers” as specified in claim 2 of the ‘536 patent. Ex.
`
`1006 thus shows “[a]n apparatus for transmitting, receiving and manipulating
`
`information on a computer system, the apparatus including a plurality of
`
`containers, each container being a logically defined data enclosure and
`
`comprising:” as specified by claim 2. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 107-111.
`
`The railroad management system shown in Ex. 1006 utilizes a large number
`
`of objects, each having large amounts of data associated with the object
`
`(information). For instance, 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. Each object in the
`
`railroad management system has at least four distinct types of data: locational
`
`attributes, labeling attributes, consist attributes, and timing attributes. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 81. These attributes can include information such as a unique ID, the physical
`
`location of the object, and object specific data. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 82-84. The object
`
`specific data varies by object, but for a train, for example, the object might contain
`
`information such as the 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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 85. Ex. 1006 thus shows “an information
`
`element having information” as specified in claim 2. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 112-114.
`
`Each object in the Ex. 1006 system is a separate entity within the system and
`
`contains a number of different data fields divided into at least four separate types
`
`of information. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 78-81. The individual data fields include
`
`information such as an object’s unique ID, the physical location of the physical
`
`equipment or facility to which it refers, a train name, a train length, the number of
`
`cars in the train, and the train direction. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 82-83, 85. Each different
`
`object type has different data fields representing different information about the
`
`real world object to which it refers. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 82-85. These objects are stored
`
`within object libraries, which reside on the computer system running the railroad
`
`management system shown in Ex. 1006. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 77, 87. Ex. 1006 thus
`
`shows “a plurality of registers, the plurality of registers forming part of the
`
`container and including” as specified in claim 2. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 115-117.
`
`The objects used in the railroad management system each have a unique ID
`
`which corresponds to the physical equipment or facility that is associated with the
`
`object. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 82. Ex. 1006 thus shows “a first register for storing a
`
`unique container identification value” as specified in claim 2. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 118-
`
`119.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Each object in the system contains a field with a value representing the
`
`location of the corresponding physical equipment or facility. The railroad
`
`management system uses location detectors such as wayside occupancy detectors
`
`to transmit location information from physical equipment and enter that
`
`information into the appropriate object for that equipment. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 83-84.
`
`The physical railroad network and the equipment and facilities that make it up are
`
`all located within a three-dimensional space located outside the railroad
`
`management system. The transport objects interact with the map and report
`
`objects to display information relating to the physical equipment and facilities that
`
`the transport objects represent. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 90. For instance, the user can zoom
`
`the map he wants to see in or out. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 93. This zooming requires the
`
`map object to determine which transport objects are within the selected map area.
`
`Ex. 1003 at¶¶ 93. In another example, the user can request a train report that will
`
`display each car in a train along with those cars’ content. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 98. This
`
`requires the report object to interact with the appropriate train and car transport
`
`objects. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 86, 89-95, 96-98. A user can also use a “context menu
`
`object” to interact with map and report objects by inputting information and setting
`
`parameters for those objects. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 88. Ex. 1006 thus shows “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” as specified in claim 2. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 120-124.
`
`The user can set up alerts and warnings which will be automatically
`
`displayed to the user when specified conditions regarding particular objects are
`
`met. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 103-106. Ex. 1006 describes monitoring the value of a data
`
`item in real time in order to properly trigger the audible or visual alert. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 106. One data item that can be included in a map or report is the physical
`
`location of a train. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 90-94. Thus, the user can set a warning or
`
`alarm to continuously monitor a train’s physical location. If this location exceeds
`
`the parameters set by the user, the railroad management system will generate an
`
`audible or visual alarm. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 103-106. The alerts also will directly
`
`trigger action through the railroad management system’s output device in response
`
`to a parameter such as an object’s location exceeding a boundary set by the user.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 103, 105. The map object also actively displays the location of
`
`each type of train that is selected by the user for display. This location is updated
`
`whenever the train’s location is updated. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 94-95. Ex. 1006 thus
`
`shows “an active space register for identifying space in which the container will
`
`act upon other containers, processes, systems or gateways” as specified in claim 2.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 125-129.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`A user can generate a map which only contains part of the railroad network.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 93. The user does this by restricting the geographic boundaries of
`
`the map, or zooming in. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 93. When the user is zoomed in, the map
`
`object responsible for displaying the map accesses and display transport objects
`
`that are within the geographic boundaries. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 93. The report objects in
`
`the railroad management system record information based on the location of
`
`various transport objects. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 98-99. For instance, a train report object
`
`can generate a report which lists each car associated with a specific train. Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶ 98. The report further lists the contents of each car. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 98. Finally,
`
`a graphical representation of the entire train, with each car and its contents, can be
`
`displayed to the user. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 98. The cars and their contents are recorded
`
`into the consist report based on their location, which is attached to the train for
`
`which the report was requested. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 98. Similarly, a user can generate a
`
`terminal status report which contains the number of trains that are in both the
`
`arrival and departure yards of a terminal. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 99. Thus, the transports
`
`objects for those trains are selected based on their physical locations, e.g., in either
`
`the arrival or departure yards. Ex. 1006 thus shows “a passive register for
`
`identifying space in which the container can be acted upon by other containers,
`
`processes, systems or gateways” as specified in claim 2. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 133-137.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1006 describes instances in which transport, map, and report objects
`
`intersect. For instance, a train consist report display a graphical image that shows
`
`the location of multiple cars, and the contents of those cars, within a train object.
`
`Thus, the train object and the car objects intersect via the report object. See Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 98. Also, the description of the “active register” in ¶¶ 125-132, that
`
`identifies where a container can act, and the “passive register” in ¶¶ 133-137, that
`
`identifies where a container can be acted upon, also will inherently describe where
`
`a container may “interact.” Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 125-137. Ex. 1006 thus shows “a
`
`neutral space register for identifying space in which the container may interact
`
`with other containers, processes, systems, or gateways” as specified in claim 2.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 138-140.
`
`Each object in the railroad management system has program instructions and
`
`routines which allow it to interact with other objects. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 86, 90, 97.
`
`For instance, the routines in a transport object are used to retrieve data from the
`
`central computer through a network and a gateway. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 86. The
`
`program instructions and routines are used to obtain and update data for each piece
`
`of information in an object. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 78, 86. The map and report objects
`
`also contain program instructions and routines. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 90, 97. These
`
`instructions and routines are used to gather information from the various transport
`
`objects in order to generate and modify maps and reports for the user. Ex. 1003 at
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`¶¶ 90, 97. The program instructions and routines are means by which the various
`
`objects in the railroad management system interact with each other. Ex. 1006 thus
`
`shows “a gateway attached to and forming part of the container, the gateway
`
`controlling the interaction of the container with other containers, systems or
`
`processes” as specified in claim 2. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 141-144.
`
`B. Claim 3 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs)
`The railroad management system described by Gibbs stores and displays
`
`historical data such as performance statistics. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 101. For instance, a
`
`train object keeps track of the physical train’s status and performance. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 101. A map or report object then uses this historical data as part of the
`
`determination of whether to display the train, or other transport object, on an
`
`output list to the user. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 102. The historical information is also used to
`
`determine whether to trigger an alert or warning to the user. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 101-
`
`102.