UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR 2014-0093
`Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE BY PATENT OWNER
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................... 4
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ........................................ 7
`
`III. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED. ...................................................... 8
`
`A. The Petition Fails To Explain the Relevance Of The References To The
`Claims As Required By 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5) ......................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`There Is No Reasonable Likelihood of the Claims Being Invalidated. ......... 11
`
`1. The Petitioner Fails to Construe and/or Incorrectly Construes Terms Material
`to all Claims ......................................................................................................... 11
`
`a) “Container” ................................................................................................. 12
`
`b)
`
`“Register” ................................................................................................ 14
`
`c) “Gateway” ................................................................................................... 15
`
`d)
`
`“Encapsulated”/”Encapsulating” ............................................................. 17
`
`e) “Acquire Register” ...................................................................................... 19
`
`2. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claim 15 Being Found To Be
`Anticipated By Zhang (Ex. 1102). ....................................................................... 19
`
`3. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claim 16 Being Found To Be
`Anticipated By Zhang (Ex. 1102). ....................................................................... 22
`
`4. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claim 15 Being Found To Be
`Anticipated By Cooper (Ex. 1103). .................................................................... 23
`
`5. There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claim 16 Being Obvious in View of
`Fortune (Ex. 1104). .............................................................................................. 27
`
`IV. CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 29
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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 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.
`
`Technology Background
`
`The ’536 patent describes a “System and Method for Creating and
`
`Manipulating Information Containers With Dynamic Registers.” The invention is
`
`directed at improving the processing of “containerized” data, such as the data that
`
`makes up web pages and documents. At the time of the invention, processing
`
`information resources on a computer network (e.g., the internet) was primarily
`
`static, in that the processing did not result in dynamic modifications that would
`
`improve future processing efforts. For example, the searching of data was
`
`“accomplished by individuals directing a search effort by submitting key words or
`
`phrases to be compared to those key words or phrases contained in the content or
`
`description of that information resource, with indices and contents residing in a
`
`fixed location unchanging except by human input.” Ex. 1001 at 1:22-28. As the
`
`’536 patent notes, this “static” information model was limited, because, inter alia,
`
`the information being processed did not evolve to reflect its actual utility to the
`
`people using it, and successful search strategies were not available to be used to
`
`process future searches. Ex. 1001 at 1:37-2:48. At most, the prior art allowed
`
`“hits” for a given web page to be tracked—a static process. See Ex. 1001, 2:8-13.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`an information element (e.g., an advertisement, article, or a text string), a plurality
`
`of registers, and a gateway. The plurality of registers for each container include
`
`(i) a unique identification register for that container; (ii) a second register
`
`governing the interactions of the container according to utility of the information in
`
`the information element relative to space or time; (iii) an active register controlling
`
`whether the container acts upon other containers according at a given time or
`
`location; (iv) a passive register controlling whether the container can be acted upon
`
`by other containers at a given time or location; and (v) a neutral register controlling
`
`whether a container may interact with other containers at a given time or location.
`
`“Gateways” are programmed with rules to enable the interaction among the various
`
`containers, gateways, and system components. Id. at 4:54-5:11.
`
`In the invention of the ’536 patent, information containers are populated
`
`with information elements and time- and space-based dynamic registers, thereby
`
`facilitating access to the information at appropriate times and in relation to
`
`pertinent locations. This facilitates access to information that is useful to the user.
`
`As users access the information containers, the dynamic registers are updated with
`
`information regarding their use, allowing them to evolve. This is made more
`
`evident in the claims of U.S. Patent 6,702,682, whose underlying application is a
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`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.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`according to utility of information in the information element relative to an
`
`external‐to‐the‐apparatus event time.” Claim 16, which is not at issue in this
`
`proceeding, recites a second register “designating space” and governing
`
`interactions of “the container” of which it is part “according to the utility of the
`
`information in the information element relative to three-dimensional space.”
`
`II. Overview of the Asserted Prior Art
`
`The petition for IPR2014-0093 relies upon four references:
`
`• Zhang, U.S. Patent No. 6,016,478 (Ex. 1102) (“Zhang”);
`
`• Cooper, U.S. Patent No. 5,737,416 (Ex. 11103) (“Cooper”); and
`
`• Fortune, U.S. Patent No. 6,073,090 (Ex. 1104) (“Fortune”) ; and
`
`• Veditz, U.S. Patent No. 6,496,793 (Ex. 1105) (“Veditz”) ; and
`
`Zhang and Cooper are the primary references asserted by the Petition, which
`
`contends these patents anticipate claim 15. The Petition also asserts that claim 16 is
`
`obvious over Cooper in view of Fortune. Veditz is cited as supporting the
`
`motivation to combine Cooper and Fortune.
`
`Zhang discloses a “Scheduling System With Method for Peer-toPeer
`
`Scheduling of Remote Users.” Cooper is directed to software products that have
`
`trial periods incorporated into them. Fortune is directed to software that uses
`
`location preferences to change software attributes (e.g., language). None of these
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`references is directed to the problem addressed by the ‘536 patent, and none of
`
`them discloses the invention of the ‘536 patent.
`
`III. The Petition Should Be Denied.
`
`The Petition is deficient and relies on prior art references that are entirely
`
`distinct from the ’536 patent. The Petition should be rejected for three 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
`
`relies on prior art that is cumulative of prior art considered during the prosecution
`
`of the underlying application. Third, even setting aside these critical defects, the
`
`Petition should be rejected on the merits, because it fails to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood of any claims being invalid—particularly because it relies on
`
`unreasonably broad constructions for and fails to show the presence of elements
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Specifically, the Petition (i) provides a deficient explanation of how the Zhang,
`
`Cooper, and Fortune references satisfy its proposed construction of “container,”
`
`which—under the construction proposed by Petitioner—requires the registers and
`
`information element “encapsulate” the elements within the container, and (ii) fails
`
`to adequately explain how the prior art references satisfy the limitation “acquire
`
`register controlling whether the container adds a register from other containers or
`
`adds a container from other containers when interacting with them.” In each of
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`these instances, the Petition merely asserts that these limitations are met, without
`
`construing them fully, and without explaining why and how the asserted prior art
`
`satisfies the limitations.
`
`A prime example of the Petition’s failure to explain how the cited references
`
`meet the limitations is its application of “plurality of containers . . . each
`
`comprising . . . an information element . . . , a first register . . . a second register . .
`
`. and an acquire register” to Cooper. The Petition construes “container” as “a
`
`logically defined data enclosure that encapsulates any element . . . .” (As will be
`
`discussed below, “encapsulates” is a term of art.) The Petition asserts that
`
`“plurality of containers” disclosed by Cooper are (i) the “software products” that
`
`are offered on a time-limited basis and (ii) the “file management program” that
`
`controls them. Petition at 30-31. But the Petition provides no explanation of why
`
`the “software products” or the single “file management program” “encapsulate”
`
`the alleged information elements (i.e., the “product key” and software “price”
`
`which the Petition states are “stored by the file management system” (id. at 30))
`
`and plurality of registers (i.e., the “machine identification code” and various
`
`“keys” utilized by the file management program). Instead, the Petition simply
`
`asserts that there are a “plurality of containers” each of which “encapsulates” all
`
`the above elements without any explanation or reasoning.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`B.
`
`There Is No Reasonable Likelihood of the Claims Being
`
`Invalidated.
`
`1.
`
`The Petitioner Fails to Construe and/or Incorrectly
`
`Construes Terms Material to all Claims
`
`The initial step in an analysis of whether to institute a trial is to determine
`
`the meaning of the claims. Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of
`
`the AIA, the Board interprets claims using the broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification in which they appear. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 CFR § 42.100(b). Claim
`
`terms are also given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is a
`
`“heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`“Plain meaning” refers to the ordinary and customary meaning the term would
`
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Such terms require no construction.
`
`See, e.g., Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp,
`
`Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding no error in non-construction of
`
`“melting”); Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d 1365, 1380
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding no error in court’s refusal to construe “irrigating” and
`
`“frictional heat”).
`
`A patentee may act as his own lexicographer by redefining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms away from their ordinary meaning, by clearly expressing
`
`that intent in the written description. See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals, 395 F.3d 1364, 1370, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005). If an inventor acts
`
`as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the specification
`
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
`
`Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`The Petition focuses on construction of the terms “container,” “register,” and
`
`“gateway.” In an attempt to construe the claims as broadly as possible and
`
`invalidate the claims of the ’536, Petitioner cherry-picks statements in the
`
`specification that, out of context, make these terms appear incredibly broad. As
`
`described below, these deficiencies are fatal to Petitioner’s arguments, and the
`
`constructions proposed by Petitioner are unreasonable.
`
`a)
`
` “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-
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`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
`
`encapsulates any element or digital segment (text, graphic, photograph, audio,
`
`video, or other), or set of digital elements.”
`
`The Petition proposes construing the term “container” as “a logically defined
`
`data enclosure that encapsulates any element or digital segment or set of digital
`
`segments, any system component or process, or other containers or sets of
`
`containers,” based on the specification use of that description. Patent Owner does
`
`not necessarily take issue with the language of this construction as Patent Owner
`
`understands it, but Patent Owner does object to Petitioner’s construction to the
`
`extent is uses the term “encapsulates,” which is another term whose construction is
`
`disputed (particularly in related petitions Nos. 2014-00079 and 2014-00080),
`
`without defining that term.
`
`“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
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`TCP/IP transmission); see also Ex. 1002 (IDS disclosing foreign patent describing
`
`hypermedia “objects” that “encapsulate” and control aspects of the hypermedia
`
`system). In contrast, as explained below, Petitioner appears to apply an
`
`unreasonably broad construction of “encapsulated” as simply “contained within” or
`
`“referenced by.” Petitioner’s construction is thus unreasonably broad.
`
`b)
`
`“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
`
`methods for manufacturing information on, upgrading the utility of, and
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`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 9-10. 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.
`
`c)
`
` “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.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`manipulation of programming on a computer. See, e.g., 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. 200x 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).
`
`d)
`
`“Encapsulated”/”Encapsulating”
`
`Although “encapsulates” is not used in the claims directly, it is a
`
`fundamental characteristic of a “container,” is used consistently in the patent to
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`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.
`
`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
`
`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 through gateways.1 See id.
`
`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 (a continuation of the ’536 patent) recites “searching . . .
`
`first container registers encapsulated and logically defined in a plurality of
`
`
`1 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.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`containers” and “encapsulating 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.
`
`e)
`
`“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.”
`
`2.
`
`There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claim 15 Being
`
`Found To Be Anticipated By Zhang (Ex. 1102).
`
`Claim 15 reads as follows:
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 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, and
`
`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;
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`a gateway attached to and forming part of the container, the
`
`gateway controlling the interaction of the container with
`
`other containers, systems or processes.
`
`Zhang discloses a “Scheduling System With Method for Peer-toPeer
`
`Scheduling of Remote Users.” Zhang describes “an electronic Personal
`
`Information Manager” (“PIM”) including a peer-to-peer group scheduling/calendar
`
`system.” Ex. 1002 at Abstract. Zhang’s system provides a group calendaring
`
`system for people who only have connectivity via email. Id. at 2:20-25. As taught
`
`by Zhang, a user creates an event and sends it as an email invitation to other users,
`
`as “simple text,” “HTML,” or “MIME” message. Id. at 2:59-3:17. A remote client
`
`having the scheduling system recognizes from an identifier attached to the message
`
`that the message is from another proprietary client and processes it. Id. at 3:1-3
`
`and 3:9-17. The individual events are stored in “GROUP_ITEM” data structures.
`
`Id. at 18:25‐47, 18:48‐19:28, 20:1‐28, 21:1‐22:17.)
`
`The Petition asserts that Zhang (Ex. 1102) anticipates claim 15. Petition at
`
`11-24. The Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this
`
`argument, because it fails to construe the claims properly and apply them to Zhang.
`
`First, the Petition fails to establish that Zhang discloses “containers” as used
`
`in the claims. More specifically, the Petition fails to establish that the
`
`“GROUP_ITEMS” are logically defined and encapsulated in accordance with the
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition’s proposed construction. As discussed above, encapsulation is a term of
`
`art that means ““to treat a collection of structured information as a whole without
`
`affecting or taking notice of its internal structure.” See Ex. 2001. The Petition fails
`
`to establish that the GROUP_ITEM is encapsulated in this sense.
`
`Second, the Petition improperly construes and applies the limitation “an
`
`acquire register or controlling whether the container adds a register from other
`
`containers or adds a container from other containers when interacting with them.”
`
`The attachment pointer cited by the Petition does not control whether the
`
`GROUP_ITEM container adds a register when (i.e., if) those two containers
`
`interact. To the contrary, to the extent it establishes any “addition,” it adds the
`
`attachment to the container, and thereby establishes that those two containers will
`
`interact under certain circumstances.
`
`3.
`
`There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claim 16 Being
`
`Found To Be Anticipated By Zhang (Ex. 1102).
`
`Claim 16 is identical to claim 15, except that it recites three-dimensional
`
`space instead of event time for the second register. Claim 16’s “container” and
`
`“acquire register” limitations are identical to that of claim 15. Because the Petition
`
`fails to establish the disclosure of those limitations in Zhang for claim 15, it
`
`similarly fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Zhang anticipates claim 16.
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`4.
`
`There Is No Reasonable Likelihood Of Claim 15 Being
`
`Found To Be Anticipated By Cooper (Ex. 1103).
`
`The Petition argues that Cooper anticipates Claim 15. According to the
`
`Petition, Cooper “describes techniques for ‘temporarily encrypting and s