`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TWITTER, INC. AND YELP INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR 2014-0092
`Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE BY PATENT OWNER
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`There Is No Reasonable Likelihood of Petitioner Prevailing As To A
`Challenged Claim of the ’536 Patent ..................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Technology Background .............................................................. 4
`
`II.
`
`Description of the Asserted Prior Art .................................................... 9
`
`III. The Petition Should Be Denied. ............................................................. 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Fails To Explain the Relevance Of The References
`To The Claims As Required By 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5) ............ 10
`
`Petitioner Fails to Construe and/or Incorrectly Construes Terms
`Material to all Claims ................................................................ 12
`1. “Container” .......................................................................... 14
`2. “Register” ............................................................................ 16
`3. “Gateway” ........................................................................... 17
`4. “Encapsulated”/”Encapsulating” ......................................... 19
`5. “A Plurality of Containers, Each Container . . . Comprising”
`and “The Container” .................................................................. 21
`6. “Acquire Register” .............................................................. 22
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response To Petitioner’s Invalidity
`Arguments .................................................................................. 22
`1. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claims 1-14 Being
`Found To Be Anticipated By Theimer (Ex. 1001). ................... 22
`2. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claims 15-16 Being
`Found To Be Anticipated By Theimer (Ex. 1002). .................. 27
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE BY PATENT
`OWNER UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Evolutionary Intelligence LLC hereby respectfully submits
`
`this Preliminary Response to the Petition seeking inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,010,536.
`
`The Petition is deficient and relies on prior art references that are entirely
`
`distinct from the ’536 patent. The Petition should be rejected for four independent
`
`reasons. First, the Petition fails to explain the relevance of the prior art to the
`
`claims as required by 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5), including failing to establish that the
`
`prior art discloses all elements “arranged as in the claims.” Furthermore, the
`
`Petition should be rejected on the merits, because it fails to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood of any claims being invalid—particularly because it relies on
`
`unreasonably broad constructions for and fails to construe terms that are material
`
`to all of the claims at issue. For at least these reasons, the Petition does not show a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims,
`
`and inter partes review should not be instituted.
`
`This filing is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, as it is
`
`being filed within three months of the October 30, 2013 mailing date of the Notice
`
`granting the Petition a filing date of October 23, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`I.
`
`There Is No Reasonable Likelihood of Petitioner Prevailing As To A
`
`Challenged Claim of the ’536 Patent
`
`“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 . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged . . . .” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a). As discussed below, all the anticipation rejections proposed in the
`
`Petition are deficient for failing to set forth each and every feature arranged as
`
`recited by the respective claims of the ’682 Patent, and thus do not establish a
`
`prima facie case of anticipation.
`
`Patent Owner has limited its identification of deficiencies in Petitioner’s
`
`argument in this Preliminary Response; no arguments are waived with respect to
`
`issues not addressed in this Preliminary Response.
`
`A. Technology Background
`
`The ’536 patent describes a “System and Method for Creating and
`
`Manipulating Information Containers With Dynamic Registers.” The invention is
`
`directed at improving the processing of “containerized” data, such as the data that
`
`makes up web pages and documents. At the time of the invention, processing
`
`information resources on a computer network (e.g., the internet) was primarily
`
`static, in that the processing did not result in dynamic modifications that would
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`improve future processing efforts. For example, the searching of data was
`
`“accomplished by individuals directing a search effort by submitting key words or
`
`phrases to be compared to those key words or phrases contained in the content or
`
`description of that information resource, with indices and contents residing in a
`
`fixed location unchanging except by human input.” Ex. 1001 at 1:22-28. As the
`
`’536 patent notes, this “static” information model was limited, because, inter alia,
`
`the information being processed did not evolve to reflect its actual utility to the
`
`people using it, and successful search strategies were not available to be used to
`
`process future searches. Ex. 1001 at 1:37-2:48. At most, the prior art allowed
`
`“hits” for a given web page to be tracked—a static process. See Ex. 1001, 2:8-13.
`
`The invention solved this problem through the use of “dynamic” information
`
`containers. The dynamic information containers include dynamic registers that
`
`attach to and form part of the container. Ex. 1001 at 2:66-3:5. Each container has
`
`an information element (e.g., an advertisement, article, or a text string), a plurality
`
`of registers, and a gateway. The plurality of registers for each container include
`
`(i) a unique identification register for that container; (ii) a second register
`
`governing the interactions of the container according to utility of the information in
`
`the information element relative to space or time; (iii) an active register controlling
`
`whether the container acts upon other containers according at a given time or
`
`location; (iv) a passive register controlling whether the container can be acted upon
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`by other containers at a given time or location; and (v) a neutral register controlling
`
`whether a container may interact with other containers at a given time or location.
`
`“Gateways” are programmed with rules to enable the interaction among the various
`
`containers, gateways, and system components. Id. at 4:54-5:11.
`
`In the invention of the ’536 patent, information containers are populated
`
`with information elements and time- and space-based dynamic registers, thereby
`
`facilitating access to the information at appropriate times and in relation to
`
`pertinent locations. This facilitates access to information that is useful to the user.
`
`As users access the information containers, the dynamic registers are updated with
`
`information regarding their use, allowing them to evolve. This is made more
`
`evident in the claims of U.S. Patent 6,702,682, whose underlying application is a
`
`continuation of the application leading to the ’536 patent. In the ’2,682 patent, “a
`
`search query may be run against a plurality of container registers encapsulated and
`
`logically defined in a plurality of containers to identify one or more container
`
`registers responsive to the search query,” and “a list characterizing the identified
`
`containers may be provided.” See U.S. Patent 6,702,682 at Abstract. The dynamic
`
`nature of the invention of the ’536 patent is also evident in its other continuation,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,873,682. The ’3,682 patent is directed to methods and systems
`
`using at least two information containers with dynamic registers to evolve
`
`information containers over time.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’536 patent is directed to “an apparatus for
`
`transmitting, receiving and manipulating information on a computer system”
`
`comprised of a plurality of dynamic containers, each having an information
`
`element, a plurality of registers, and a gateway. The plurality of registers for each
`
`container include the five types of registers discussed above.
`
`Claim 2, also an independent claim, is identical to claim 1, except that
`
`“space” and “three-dimensional space” replace “time” and “event time” in the
`
`second register. Claim 2 is not at issue in this proceeding.
`
`Claims 3-14 are multiply dependent from claims 1 and 2. These claims
`
`further comprise at least one “container history register” (claim 3); “system history
`
`register” (claim 4); “predefined register” (claim 5); “user-created register” (claim
`
`6);”system-defined register” (claim 7); “acquire register for controlling whether the
`
`container adds a register from other containers or adds a container from other
`
`containers when interacting with them” (claim 8); OR an apparatus wherein the
`
`gateway includes “means for acting upon another container” (claim 9); “means for
`
`allowing interaction (claim 10); “means for gathering information,” (claim 11);
`
`means for reporting information (claim 12); or “an expert system” (claim 13); OR
`
`an apparatus wherein the “information element is one from the group of text,
`
`graphic images, video, audio, a digital pattern, a process, a nested container, bit,
`
`natural number and a system” (claim 14).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Claims 15 and 16 of the ’536 patent are each directed to “an apparatus for
`
`transmitting, receiving and manipulating information on a computer system”
`
`comprised of a plurality of dynamic containers, each having an information
`
`element, a plurality of registers, and a gateway. The plurality of registers for each
`
`container includes (i) a unique identification register for that container, (ii) a
`
`second register designating time (claim 15) or space (claim 16) governing the
`
`interactions of the container according to utility of the information in the
`
`information element relative to event time (claim 15) or three-dimensional space
`
`(claim 16), and (iii) at least one acquire register controlling whether the container
`
`adds a register or container from another container.
`
`As with claims 1 and 2, claims 15 and 16 differ only with respect to each
`
`claim’s second register. Claim 15 recites a second register “having a
`
`representation designating time and governing interactions of the container with
`
`other containers, systems or processes according to utility of information in the
`
`information element relative to an external‐to‐the‐apparatus event time.” Claim
`
`16, which is not at issue in this proceeding, recites a second register designating
`
`“space” and governing interactions of “the container” of which it is part “according
`
`to the utility of the information in the information element relative to three-
`
`dimensional space.”
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`II. Description of the Asserted Prior Art
`
`The petition for IPR2014-0093 relies upon one reference:
`
`• Theimer et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,493,692 (Ex. 1002) (“Theimer”);
`
`The Petition contends Theimer anticipates claims 1-16 of the ’536 patent.
`
`Theimer is directed to “Selective Delivery of Electronic Messages in a
`
`Multiple Computer System Based on Context and Environment of a User.”
`
`Theimer builds on the concept of an “ubiquitous computing system” that tracks a
`
`user through a computing environment. See Ex. 1002 (citing prior art articles on
`
`ubiquitous computing). The invention describes a method for selectively
`
`delivering electronic messages to an identified user in a system of mobile and fixed
`
`devices, including multiple display devices and multiple users, where the identity
`
`and location of each device, display device, and user may be known to the system,
`
`based on the context of the system and the environment of the identified user. Ex.
`
`1002 at 4:27-33.
`
`III. The Petition Should Be Denied.
`
`The Petition should be rejected for two independent reasons. First, the
`
`Petition fails to explain the relevance of the prior art to the claims as required by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5), including failing to establish that the prior art discloses all
`
`elements “arranged as in the claims.” Second, the Petition should be rejected on the
`
`merits, because it fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of any claims being
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`invalid—particularly because it relies on unreasonably broad constructions for and
`
`fails to construe terms that are material to all of the claims at issue.
`
`A. The Petition Fails To Explain the Relevance Of The References
`
`To The Claims As Required By 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5) states (emphasis added): “the petition must set forth:
`
`. . . (5) The exhibit number of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the
`
`challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including
`
`identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge. The
`
`Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to
`
`state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the
`
`challenge.” In addition, in order to invalidate a claim, a prior art reference “must
`
`not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document,
`
`but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” See MPEP 2131;
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Failure
`
`to satisfy these requirements is grounds to dismiss an IPR petition in its entirety.
`
`See, e.g., Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR 2012-0041, Dkt. No. 16,
`
`12-13 (PTAB 2013) (declining to institute IPR due to petitioner’s failure to
`
`establish that elements were “arranged as in the claim”).
`
`The Petition fails to mention, let alone satisfy, these requirements. For
`
`example, the Petition provides no explanation of how Theimer shows each and
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`every element “arranged as required by the claim,” as required for a proper
`
`anticipation rejection. See id. Instead, the Petition consists of a series of
`
`conclusory statements that various elements of the claims are present in the
`
`asserted prior art. There is little or no explanation in the Petition of specifically
`
`how the claim terms are being applied by the Petitioner or why the highlighted
`
`language corresponds to (or is otherwise relevant to) the claim elements.
`
`Indeed, the Petition provides a deficient discussion and explanation of the
`
`relevance of Theimer to the identified claim elements with regard to the antecedent
`
`relationships of the claim limitations. For example, the claims require each of the
`
`plurality of registers to be part of one “container” of the “plurality of containers” of
`
`the apparatus. The Petition fails to explain exactly which putative “container” it is
`
`reading each of the “register” limitations onto. The Petition identifies three
`
`putative containers in Theimer: “UserAgents,” “DeviceAgents,” and
`
`“TerminalAgents.” Petition at 19. Even assuming that each of these “agents” is a
`
`“container,” the claims require that specific container (e.g., a particular
`
`UserAgent) to include all of the recited registers. But the Petition never identifies
`
`exactly which container it is reading the limitations onto.
`
`And a close read of the Petition and the asserted prior art shows that the
`
`Petition has not met (and cannot meet) its burden of showing a proper antecedent
`
`relationship between all the elements. When reading the claims onto the putative
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`“registers” of Theimer, the Petition generally references only the “user agent” as a
`
`container having these registers. See, e.g., id. at 26 (identifying preferences stored
`
`by the User Agent as the “second register” of the container of each plurality of
`
`containers). But the Petition never identifies “a first register having unique
`
`container identification” that is part of the “UserAgent” container. Instead, it cites
`
`generic statements that each physical object is represented by a “unique object”
`
`(such as a “DeviceAgent”), and that a “registration” (which is not shown to be part
`
`of the UserAgent or Device Agent) is used to track “unique names” for various
`
`objects. Id. at 22-23. (Theimer itself indicates that this is part of the “Name
`
`Service,” which is not part of any of the identified agents. See Ex. 1002 at 7:35-
`
`60.)
`
`But when considering details of the antecedent relationships between these
`
`elements (e.g., which container is acted upon in relation to the passive time/space
`
`register in claims 1-14, or the identity of the container to which the acquire register
`
`adds a register in claims 15-16) the Petition simply concludes that the antecedent
`
`element is the container affected, without showing exactly how Theimer discloses
`
`the antecedent relationship.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Construe and/or Incorrectly Construes Terms
`
`Material to all Claims
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`The initial step in an analysis of whether to institute a trial is to determine
`
`the meaning of the claims. Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of
`
`the AIA, the Board interprets claims using the broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification in which they appear. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 CFR § 42.100(b). Claim
`
`terms are also given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is a
`
`“heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`“Plain meaning” refers to the ordinary and customary meaning the term would
`
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Such terms require no construction.
`
`See, e.g., Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp,
`
`Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding no error in non-construction of
`
`“melting”); Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d 1365, 1380
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding no error in court’s refusal to construe “irrigating” and
`
`“frictional heat”).
`
`A patentee may act as his own lexicographer by redefining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms away from their ordinary meaning, by clearly expressing
`
`that intent in the written description. See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Pharmaceuticals, 395 F.3d 1364, 1370, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005). If an inventor acts
`
`as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the specification
`
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
`
`Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`The Petition focuses on construction of the terms “container,” “register” and
`
`“container register,” and “gateway.” In an attempt to construe the claims as
`
`broadly as possible and invalidate the claims of the ’682, Petitioner cherry-picks
`
`statements in the specification that, out of context, make these terms appear
`
`incredibly broad. Furthermore, the Petition fails to construe the term “information
`
`element.” As described below, these deficiencies are fatal to Petitioner’s
`
`arguments, and the constructions proposed by Petitioner are unreasonable.
`
`1.
`
` “Container”
`
`Within the field of computer science at the time the invention was
`
`conceived, the word “container” meant “an element that has content as opposed to
`
`one consisting solely of the tag name and attributes.” Ex. 2001. This parallels the
`
`description of “containers” used in the specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 8:64-
`
`9:2 (“The information container 100 is a logically defined data enclosure which
`
`encapsulates any element . . . .”). Patent Owner proposes that the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of “container” is “a logically defined data enclosure which
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`encapsulates any element or digital segment (text, graphic, photograph, audio,
`
`video, or other), or set of digital elements.”1
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction is facially identical to Petitioner’s
`
`construction. See Petition at 12. However, Patent Owner notes that its
`
`interpretation of “logically defined” and “encapsulated” is narrower than that of
`
`Petitioner. “Encapsulation,” which is discussed in more detail below, is a term of
`
`art, referring generally to “treat[ing] a collection of structured information as a
`
`whole without affecting or taking notice of its internal structure.” See Ex. 2001.
`
`Encapsulation can refer, for example, 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. See id. (discussing relevance of encapsulation to
`
`TCP/IP transmission); see also Ex. 1002 at 164, line 35 (foreign patent in IDS
`
`describing hypermedia “objects” that “encapsulate” and control aspects of the
`
`hypermedia system).
`
`In contrast, Petitioner applies an unreasonably broad construction of
`
`“logically defined” and “encapsulated” as simply “contained within.” The Petition
`
`miscites the IBM Dictionary of Computing, which defines “container” as “[i]n
`
`SAA [i.e., IBM’s Software Application Architecture] Common User Access
`
`
`1 Patent Owner notes that Facebook which filed an IPR petition relating to the ’536
`patent on the same day as Twitter and Yelp, also proposed construing “container”
`as “a logically defined enclosure that encapsulates any element . . . .”
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`architecture, an object that holds other objects. A folder is an example of a
`
`container object.” Ex. 1011. The Petition omits the modifying phrase “in [IBM]
`
`Software Application Architecture.” Since the ’536 patent never identifies and is
`
`not directed to the “IBM SAA Common User Access architecture,” Ex. 1011 is not
`
`probative of the proper construction of terms in the ’536 patent. Petitioner’s
`
`construction is thus unreasonably broad.
`
`2.
`
`“Register”
`
`“Register” is a common computing term that refers to computer memory,
`
`often programmed with a specific value. The 1996 Oxford Dictionary of
`
`Computing defines “register” as “a group of (usually) bistable devices that are used
`
`to store information within a computer system for high speed access.” Ex. 2002.
`
`Similarly, Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer Terms defines “register”
`
`as “a memory location within a microprocessor, used to store values and external
`
`memory addresses while the microprocessor performs logical and arithmetic
`
`operations on them.” Ex. 2003.
`
`The plain meaning of the term “register” is thus “a memory location within a
`
`computer that stores data.” This plain meaning comports perfectly with the
`
`specification of the ’536 patent, which describes “dynamic registers” as memory
`
`locations that are searched and updated with data according to interactions among
`
`various containers. Ex. 1101 at 2:66-3:5 (“The present invention is a system and
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`methods for manufacturing information on, upgrading the utility of, and
`
`developing intelligence in, a computer . . . by offering the means to create and
`
`manipulate information containers with dynamic registers.”); 3:14-15 (“The
`
`memory unit advantageously includes an information container made interactive
`
`with dynamic registers”); 3:29-32 (“A container . . . include[es] a minimum set of
`
`attributes coded into dynamic interactive evolving registers . . .”).
`
`This construction is somewhat similar to that proposed by Petitioner: “a
`
`value or code associated with a container.” Petition at 10. The difference is that
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is (likely intentionally) so broad and abstract
`
`that it could read onto unpatentable subject matter. In contrast, Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction is concrete and comports with both the specification and the
`
`claims. See, e.g., claim 1 (directed to “an apparatus for transmitting, receiving
`
`and manipulating information on a computer system” including “registers” and a
`
`“gateway”). Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed construction is unreasonable, and
`
`Patent Owner’s should be adopted.
`
`3.
`
` “Gateway”
`
`Without reading the ’536 Patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`conclude that a “gateway” is “a device that interconnects two networks . . . .” Ex.
`
`2002; see also Ex. 2004 (defining “gateway” as “A functional unit that
`
`interconnects two computer networks with different network architectures.”); Ex.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`2001 (“A device that connects networks using different communications protocols
`
`so that information can be passed from one to the other.”).
`
`In most respects, the ’536 patent’s use of “gateway” is within the scope of
`
`this commonly understood meaning. For example, “gateways” are capable of
`
`receiving and storing containers and data, as one would expect of devices that
`
`interconnect two networks. See claim 1 (reciting “a gateway attached to and
`
`forming part of the container, the gateway controlling the interaction of the
`
`container with other containers, systems or processes”). The specification
`
`explicitly identifies embodiments of “gateways” that fit the traditional definition of
`
`“gateway.” See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at Fig. 2B (showing gateways may be servers,
`
`workstations, intranets, or personal computers); id. at 4:54-55 (noting gateways
`
`may be “structurally integrated into containers” or “strategically placed at transit
`
`points”); id. at 22:45-50 (gateways may be placed “anywhere on the network that
`
`containers transit” and may reside on “any or all containers”). They also can have
`
`storage, are programmed with rules that control the interactions of containers that
`
`transit them, and can alter those containers. Id. at Fig. 2; 4:58-66; and 9:25-28.
`
`However, the ’536 patent’s specification expands upon the commonly
`
`understood meaning of “gateway” to include software that processes network data.
`
`For example, as described in the ’536 patent, gateways can be generated as part of
`
`the process of searching, which implies that a gateway can be created through
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`manipulation of programming on a computer. See, e.g.,’682 patent, claim 13
`
`(describing a method of claim 11 further comprising “generating a new gateway;
`
`and associating the container with the new gateway”). This establishes that
`
`gateways may be embodied by software that processes network data. Accordingly,
`
`the ’536 patent’s use of the term “gateway” is similar to the well-understood
`
`concept of Common Gateway Interface scripts, which process network data as it is
`
`communicated between information servers. See Ex. 2001.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner proposes that the proper construction of
`
`“gateway” is “a hardware device that facilitates the transfer of information between
`
`containers, systems and/or processes on two different networks or devices, or
`
`software that processes network data.” Patent Owner notes that this is consistent
`
`with the concept of “encapsulation” as a process that assists transmission of data
`
`over “gateways. See Ex. 2002 (“The encapsulated packet is sent over the network
`
`to a gateway.”) This construction is also consistent with the prior art considered
`
`during the examination of the ’536 patent. See Ex. 1008 at 416 (asserting §102
`
`rejection based on Chiussi, U.S. Patent No. 6,075,791, directed to a server which
`
`guarantees data transfer rates and data transfer delays).
`
`4.
`
`“Encapsulated”/”Encapsulating”
`
`Within the meaning of the ’536 patent, “encapsulate” refers to “treat[ing] a
`
`collection of structured information as a whole without affecting or taking notice
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`of its internal structure. Ex. 2001; see also Ex. 2002 (linking “encapsulation” to
`
`the process of “internetworking,” or wrapping data in a network-specific protocol
`
`so that it can be conveyed from one network to another without translation.) This
`
`type of “encapsulation” is used when transmitting information (e.g., web pages,
`
`emails) over networks.2 See id. Although “encapsulates” is not used in the claim
`
`directly, it is a fundamental characteristic of a “container,” is used consistently in
`
`the patent to define “containers,” and is in the proposed construction of
`
`“container” for the ’536 patent offered by Petitioners Yelp, Twitter, and Facebook
`
`in concurrently filed IPR Petitions Nos. 2014-0092 and 2014-0093. See note 3.
`
`The specification and claims are consistent with “encapsulating” as the
`
`process of preparing information for transmission over a network by treating it “as
`
`a whole, without affecting or taking notice of its internal structure.” See Ex. 2001
`
`(explaining that encapsulated data sent over TCP/IP is reassembled after
`
`transmission over a network to re-create the original message). See also Ex. 1001
`
`at 9:14-17 (noting a “container” has code allowing it “to reconstruct itself”).”
`
`Claim 1 of the ’682 patent recites “searching . . . first container registers
`
`encapsulated and logically defined in a plurality of containers” and “encapsulating
`
`
`2 In object-oriented programming, “encapsulation” refers to the process of defining
`objects so that details about how the object operates are hidden. See Ex. 2002 at
`165; 240.
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`the identified containers in a new container.” Claim 11of the ’682 patent recites
`
`“encapsulating the search query into a search container.”
`
`This construction of encapsulation is further supported by the very purpose
`
`of the patent—enabling one to search for information over the internet and other
`
`networks. In order to make such searching possible, the invention encapsulates
`
`data so that it can be transmitted as a whole, without affecting its internal structure,
`
`to another network (i.e., the network from which the search query was received).
`
`The Petition does not provide any construction for “encapsulation.” In fact,
`
`the Petition never directly addresses the concept. Accordingly, it is impossible to
`
`determine what the Petitioner believes “encapsulates” means.
`
`5.
`
`“A Plurality of Containers, Each Container . . .
`
`Comprising” and “The Container”
`
`The Petition fails to construe the phrase “a plurality of containers, each
`
`container being a logically defined data enclosure and comprising . . . .” The verb
`
`“comprising” modifies not only the apparatus as a whole, but the phrase “each
`
`container.” This is supported by the claim language, where the words “and
`
`comprising” complete the phrase “each container being . . . and comprising.”
`
`More specifically, it is supported by the use of “the container” in all of the register
`
`limitations. In each register limitation, “the container” refers back to the
`
`antecedent “each container.” See, e.g., claim 1 (“the plurality of registers forming
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`part of the container and including first register for storing a unique container
`
`identification value, a second register . . . governing interactions of the container
`
`. . ., an active time register for identifying times at which the container will act . . .,
`
`a passive register for identifying times at which the container will be acted upon,
`
`and a neutral time register for identifying times at which the container may interact
`
`. . .”). Accordingly, each container must comprise a plurality of registers,
`
`comprising at least the registers listed in the claims.
`
`6.
`
`“Acquire Register”
`
`The Petition fails to construe the limitation “acquire register for controlling
`
`whether the container adds a register from other containers or adds a container
`
`from other containers when interacting with them.” Patent Owner submits that this
`
`limitation should be construed according to its plain meaning and Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed constructions of “container” and “register.”
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response To Petitioner’s Invalidity
`
`Arguments
`
`1.
`
`There