`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ________
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GOOGLE INC. and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.
`alleged Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent 6,323,853
`
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET. SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ I
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................ III
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL ................................................. 1
`
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST .......................................... 1
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS .................................................................... 1
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION............................................................ 1
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................................................................ 2
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................ 2
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................. 2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 3
`
`A. Declaration of Dennis Allison ............................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`Technical Background ........................................................................... 3
`
`1. Overview of the '853 Patent................................................................ 3
`
`II.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AT THE CLAIMED PRIORITY DATE ............. 5
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIMS AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES ......... 8
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAIMS .....................................................11
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1, 9, 11, 23-29, and 38-46 — "input device" .......................... 13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims 15 and 16 — "perform[ing] the steps recited in one of claims
`1-14" 13
`
`Claims 6, 12 and 47-56 — "first information includes an identification
`of a list of addressees" ......................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY. ..........................................................................................14
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1-9, 11, 13-29, 38-45, 57-64, 66, 68-75, 77 and 79 are
`invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Goodhand. ................ 14
`
`Ground 2. Claims 6, 10, 12, 21, 27, 30-37, 42, 46-56, 61, 65, 67, 72, 76
`and 78 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
`Goodhand and Padwick. ...................................................................... 37
`
`REASONS TO COMBINE GOODHAND AND PADWICK ............................38
`
`Ground 3. Claims 1, 2, 7-11, 13-17, 22-23, 28-30, 35-38, 43-46, 57, 62-66,
`68, 73-77, and 79 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
`Allen. ................................................................................................... 44
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................58
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,323,853 ("the '853 patent")
`
`Declaration of Dennis Allison
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,923,848 ("Goodhand")
`
`Padwick, et al., "Using Microsoft Outlook 97" (Microsoft Press)
`
`1996 (Chapters 1, 8-9, 12-13, 19-20, 22, 24 only)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,026,410 ("Allen")
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,644,735 ("Luciw")
`
`Bonura and Miller, "Drop Zones An Extension to LiveDocs",
`
`SIGCHI Bulletin Volume 30, Number 2 April 1998.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dennis Allison
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,306 ("Taylor")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,790,532 ("Sharma")
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,859,636 ("Pandit")
`
`Magnanelli, et al., "ACADEMIA: An Agent-Maintained
`
`Database based on Information Extraction from Web
`
`Documents", 14th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems
`
`Research on April 15, 1998.
`
`1013
`
`Structure of the LC Control Number,
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/lccn_structure.html
`
`1014
`
`Preliminary Infringement Analysis for Defendant Google, U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 7,496,854 (highlighting added)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Motorola Mobility LLC and Google Inc.:
`
`Lead Counsel: Matthew A. Smith (Reg. No. 49,003); Tel: 650.265.6109
`
`Backup Counsel: Zhuanjia Gu (Reg. No. 51,758); Tel: 650.529.4752
`
`Address: Turner Boyd LLP, 702 Marshall St., Ste. 640
`
`Redwood City, CA 94063. FAX: 650.521.5931.
`
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST
`
`The real-parties-in-interest for this Petition are Google Inc. for Petitioner
`
`Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC for Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC.
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,323,853 ("the '853 patent") at issue has been asserted in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in the following cases: 1-12-cv-
`
`01601, 1-12-cv-01602, 1-12-cv-01599, 1-12-cv-01598, and 1-12-cv-01595, all
`
`filed on Nov. 29, 2012, and 1-13-cv-00919 and 1-13-cv-00920, filed May 22,
`
`2013. The patent was previously asserted in the U.S. District Court for the District
`
`of Rhode Island in case no. CA No. 02-343-T, filed on July 31, 2002.
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the addresses shown
`
`above. Petitioners also consent to electronic service by email at the following
`
`addresses: smith@turnerboyd.com, docketing@turnerboyd.com,
`
`gu@turnerboyd.com, kent@turnerboyd.com, turner@turnerboyd.com.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the patent for which review is sought is available
`
`for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in the petition.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 1-79 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,323,853 ("the '853 patent") (Ex. 1001) be canceled based on the following
`
`grounds of unpatentability, explained in detail in the next section:
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1-9, 11, 13-29, 38-45, 57-64, 66, 68-75, 77 and 79 are
`
`invalid under 35 USC § 103 as obvious over Goodhand.
`
`Ground 2. Claims 6, 10, 12, 21, 27, 30-37, 42, 46-56, 61, 65, 67, 72, 76 and 78
`
`are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Goodhand and Padwick.
`
`Ground 3. Claims 1, 2, 7-11, 13-17, 22-23, 28-30, 35-38, 43-46, 57, 62-66, 68,
`
`73-77, and 79 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Allen.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`This petition presents "a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition". 35 USC
`
`§ 314(a), as shown in the Grounds explained below.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Declaration of Dennis Allison
`
`The declaration of Dennis Allison is attached as Exhibit 1002.
`
`B.
`
`Technical Background
`
`1. Overview of the '853 Patent
`
`The disclosure of the '853 patent relates to the computerized handling of contact
`
`information. Contact information is information that is related to a person—such
`
`as the person's name, telephone number, postal address, email address, etc. Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶ 46.
`
`The '853 patent "handles" such contact information with a system that facilitates
`
`interaction between programs that use text documents (like word processors) and
`
`databases of contact information. Ex. 1002 at ¶ 46. Such databases can be called
`
`"contact databases" or "address books". Ex. 1002 at ¶ 46. These databases can
`
`contain information relating to people, such as their names, telephone numbers,
`
`email addresses, postal addresses, and notes relating to the person. Id.
`
`The interaction between programs like word processors and contact databases
`
`can be illustrated with reference to Figures 3 and 4 of the '853 patent. These
`
`figures depict screens that a person might see when using a word processing
`
`program. Id. The relevant portions of the figures are shown side-by-side here:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 3
`
`Fig. 4
`
`
`
`Figure 3 on the left shows a word processor window, in which a user has
`
`entered a name. The name is processed by the '853 patent system after the user
`
`clicks the "OneButton" 42 in the upper right part of the window. Clicking the
`
`"OneButton" causes the system to "retrieve the name… from the document" and
`
`"search[] a database for the name….". Ex. 1001 at 5:64-65. Assuming that the
`
`search finds an address associated with the name, the system then inserts the
`
`address into the word processing document, as depicted in Fig. 4 on the right. Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶47.
`
`The bulk of the '853 patent relates to a high-level description of operations like
`
`these. The specification describes the user taking certain actions in a GUI, which
`
`result in operations being performed on contact information. These actions can
`
`include adding a contact to a contact database, or sending an email based on the
`
`contact information. Ex. 1002 at ¶48.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`The specification of the '853 patent, however, relates mainly to the end-result of
`
`contact information handling, that is, what the user of the computer system
`
`experiences as he or she uses the system. Exactly how these end-results are
`
`achieved is described only at the highest level. For example, the '853 patent
`
`provides no source code or pseudo code. High-level flowcharts for some
`
`embodiments are included, Ex. 1001 at Figs. 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b, but each of these is
`
`limited to a general description of the desired functionality, with no
`
`implementation detail. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶48-49.
`
`In fact, the '853 patent relies on existing word processors and existing databases
`
`to implement its contact management method, assuming that the person of ordinary
`
`skill can fill in the detail. The methods of the '853 patent are implemented on
`
`standard well-known operating systems and ordinary commodity computer
`
`hardware, all of which were readily available well before the filing of the
`
`application leading to the '853 patent. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶48-60.
`
`II.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AT THE CLAIMED PRIORITY DATE
`
`In the years leading up to earliest possible priority date (Sep. 1998), numerous
`
`systems existed that used personal computers to manage personal contact
`
`information. These systems integrated sophisticated contact database technology
`
`available at the time with applications like word processors and applications that
`
`performed communications (such as email applications). Ex. 1002 at ¶26-44.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`For example, systems like the one in U.S. Pat. No. 5,923,848 ("Goodhand")(Ex.
`
`1003) had been developed for analyzing text in a document, and assisting the user
`
`in taking appropriate actions
`
`based on the information
`
`discovered. Goodhand taught
`
`identifying (upon command)
`
`nicknames or shorthands for
`
`email addresses, and then
`
`searching a contact database for
`
`corrected contact information to
`
`insert. Figures 6a-6c of
`
`Goodhand are shown at right,
`
`with highlighting added by the
`
`Petitioners to shown how
`
`correct contact information is found and inserted into the document. Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶¶42-44.
`
`Another such system is taught in U.S. Pat. No. 6,026,410 ("Allen")(Ex. 1005)
`
`which dealt with the Lotus NotesTM application. Allen taught a system that
`
`analyzed text entered in an intelligent note editor, and identified certain keywords.
`
`These keywords were then mapped to contact information and other useful system
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`datasets. In Figure 7 (at right,
`
`highlighting added), shows the Allen
`
`system recognizing the keyword
`
`"Paul", matching the keyword with
`
`the contact database entry for "Paul
`
`Jones", and displaying the results to
`
`the user. Ex. 1002 at ¶45.
`
`In another example, U.S. Patent No. 5,644,735 to Luciw (Ex. 1006) describes a
`
`system for detecting structures in text and using a template-based system to offer
`
`the user options for handling the data so identified. Figures 6a and 6b, which
`
`illustrate a user entering a name and having the system provide a full name, are
`
`shown below. Ex. 1002 at ¶28.
`
`
`
`
`
`Another example was the "Drop Zones" system described in an article by
`
`Bonura and Miller (Ex. 1007). Drop Zones integrated a text recognition approach
`
`akin to Luciw into common applications like word processors. The text
`
`recognition system of Drop Zones identified things like names, telephone numbers
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`and email addresses, and allowed the designer of the system to create arbitrary
`
`tasks. The Drop Zones system also used an electronic address book to convert
`
`between different kinds of contact information, and allowed the applications to
`
`update the address book with identified contact information. Fig. 2 of the Bonura
`
`article is shown below, and depicts how a name identified in a document can be
`
`used to cause a lookup on a name to retrieve an email address, thereby allowing an
`
`email to be sent. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶29-30.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIMS AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES
`
`The '853 patent has 79 claims, but only one independent claim. Independent
`
`
`
`claim 1 provides:
`
`A computerized method for information handling within a
`
`document created using an application program, the document
`
`including first information provided therein, the method comprising:
`
`providing a record retrieval program;
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`providing an input device configured to enter an execute command
`
`which initiates a record retrieval from an information source
`
`using the record retrieval program;
`
`upon a single entry of the execute command by means of the input
`
`device:
`
`analyzing the document to determine if the first information is
`
`contained therein, and
`
`if the first information is contained in the document, searching, using
`
`the record retrieval program, the information source for second
`
`information associated with the first information;
`
`and when the information source includes second information
`
`associated with the first information, performing at least one of,
`
`(a) displaying the second information,
`
`(b) inserting the second information in the document, and
`
`(c) completing the first information in the document based on the
`
`second information.
`
`As explained in the Allison Declaration, the dependent claims can be
`
`conceptually divided into three groups: claims 2-14, claims 15-16 and claims 17-
`
`79. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶61-75.
`
`Claims 2-14 are dependent from claim 1, and each specify a different
`
`limitation.
`
`Claims 15 and 16 attempt, using only two claims, to convert method claims 1-
`
`14 into "system" and "storage medium" claims. Claim 15 recites "a computer
`
`system configured to perform the steps recited in one of claims 1-14." Likewise,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`claim 16 recites "a storage medium storing a program for performing the steps
`
`recited in one of claims 1-14." Ex. 1002 at ¶¶61-75.
`
`Claims 17-79 repeat the limitations of claims 8-14 in different dependency
`
`relationships. The dependency relationships are done in blocks. For example, in
`
`the first block of claims 17-22, each claim has the same limitation as claim 8, but is
`
`dependent from a different claim. Claim 17 is dependent from claim 2, claim 18 is
`
`dependent from claim 3, and so forth, up to claim 22 being dependent from claim
`
`7. Because the content of claim 8 cannot be dependent from claim 8, the first
`
`block ends there. The next block of dependent claims is 23-29. Each of claims 23-
`
`29 recites the same limitation as claim 9, but is dependent on a different claim.
`
`Claim 23 is dependent from claim 2, claim 24 is dependent on claim 3 and so forth,
`
`up to claim 29 being dependent on claim 8. The second block ends there.
`
`Similarly, there are third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh blocks, corresponding to
`
`the content of claims 10-14. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶61-75.
`
`The result of this claiming is shown in the following table:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Content
`of
`Claim:
`
`
`
`Dependent From Claim:
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`17 18 19 20 21 22
`
`
`
`23 24 25 26 27 28 29
`
`
`
`
`
`30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
`
`46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
`
`55
`
`56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
`
`65
`
`66
`
`67
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
`
`76
`
`77
`
`78
`
`79
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`For example, in the chart above, highlighted claim 43 is dependent from claim
`
`7, and has the same content as claim 11. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶61-75.
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAIMS
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the "broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification." See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). As stated by the Federal
`
`Circuit in the case In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc.:
`
`"[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
`
`consistent with the specification. Therefore, we look to the
`
`specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
`
`otherwise apply a broad interpretation."
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In particular, claims in inter partes
`
`review should not be limited by party argument (whether in this or a prior
`
`proceeding). To the extent that the Patent Owner desires a claim term to be
`
`interpreted more narrowly than its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification, the Patent Owner must show that the specification provides an
`
`express definition for the relevant portions of the claims, or amend the claims. See
`
`SAP v. Versata, CBM2012-00001, Pat. App. LEXIS 3788, *8 (PTAB June 11,
`
`2013). As found by the en banc Federal Circuit:
`
`"If, in reexamination, an examiner determines that particular claims
`
`are invalid and need amendment to be allowable, one would expect an
`
`examiner to require amendment rather than accept argument alone."
`
`Marine Polymer Tech., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012)(en banc).
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding, claim terms are presumed to take on their
`
`broadest reasonable ordinary meaning. This meaning is explained in certain
`
`instances in the following subsections. The Petitioners note that the standard of
`
`claim construction used in district courts differs from the standard applied before
`
`the USPTO. Any claim constructions in this Petition are directed to the USPTO
`
`standard, and are not necessarily the constructions that the Petitioners believe
`
`would be adopted in court. The Petitioners do not acquiesce or admit to the
`
`constructions reflected herein for any purpose outside of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`A. Claims 1, 9, 11, 23-29, and 38-46 — "input device"
`
`In the '853 patent, the term "input device" includes a GUI element on screen,
`
`and is thus not limited to only hardware devices. Ex. 1002 at ¶78.
`
`B. Claims 15 and 16 — "perform[ing] the steps recited in one of
`claims 1-14"
`
`Claims 15 recites "15. A computer system configured to perform the steps
`
`recited in one of claims 1-14." Claim 16 recites "16. A storage medium storing a
`
`program for performing the steps recited in one of claims 1-14."
`
`These claims are not multiple dependent claims, because do not further limit
`
`any of a group of superior claims. Rather, claims 15 and 16 are independent
`
`claims that incorporate as body elements only "one of" claims 1-14. The broadest
`
`reading for these claims results by choosing claim 1 as the "one of claims 1-14".
`
`Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, claims 15
`
`and 16 recite system and storage medium claims respectively, each having the
`
`body elements of claim 1. Ex. 1002 at ¶79.
`
`C. Claims 6, 12 and 47-56 — "first information includes an
`identification of a list of addressees"
`
`Claims 6, 12 and 47-56 recite that the "first information includes an
`
`identification of a list of addressees". This phrase is ambiguous. It could mean
`
`that, in the document, there must be a name of a list. It could also mean that the
`
`first information identifies addressees in a list. Ex. 1002 at ¶80. The specification
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`does not use the phrase "list of addressees" nor the phrase "identification of a list".
`
`Ex. 1002 at ¶81. The phrase "mailing list" is used (4:14-15 and 4:38-42), but it is
`
`unclear whether this is the name of a list or the list itself. Ex. 1002 at ¶81. Under
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation, then, the phrase "[the] first information
`
`includes an identification of a list of addressees" should mean "[the] first
`
`information is sufficient to identify multiple addressees". Ex. 1002 at ¶83.
`
`V. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY.
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1-9, 11, 13-29, 38-45, 57-64, 66, 68-75, 77 and 79 are
`invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Goodhand.
`
`Claims 1-9, 11, 13-29, 38-45, 57-64, 66, 68-75, 77 and 79 are invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Pat. No. 5,923,848 ("Goodhand") (Ex. 1003).
`
`Goodhand was filed on May 31, 1996 and issued on July 13, 1999, making it prior
`
`art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Ex. 1002 at ¶85.
`
`Goodhand teaches a "system and method for resolving email recipients' names."
`
`Ex. 1003 at Title. The background technology of Goodhand's system is an email
`
`application, for example Microsoft Outlook. Ex. 1003 at 8:37-43. Petitioner notes
`
`that in a co-pending litigation, the Patent Owner has asserted a related patent (U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 7,496,854), which is a continuation of the patent at issue here. Claim 1 of
`
`the '854 patent similarly requires information handling in a "document", which the
`
`Patent Owner reads on an "email document" in Gmail. This is shown in the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`attached Exhibit 1014, which is the relevant portion of the Patent Owner's
`
`infringement contentions, with highlighting added on page 1 by the Petitioners.
`
`Ex. 1014 at 1.
`
`In the Goodhand email document, a user is allowed to enter some first text. The
`
`first text should be text related to a person to whom the user would like to send the
`
`email. Ex. 1002 at ¶90. When the user enters an execute command, the system
`
`analyzes the document, takes some of the text input, searches a database, and
`
`comes up with second text. Ex. 1002 at 91-104. The second text is a name or
`
`email address of the person to whom the email is being sent, and is used to correct
`
`or supplement the first text. The insertion of a proper recipient allows the email to
`
`be sent. This process is called "address resolution". Ex. 1003 at 16:48-52; 2:17-
`
`25; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶88-104.
`
`Figures 6a-6c of Goodhand (at right) show the
`
`process of address resolution. A user enters one
`
`or more names (here "billb", "sm henry" and
`
`"patterson") in the "To:" field. When the user exits
`
`the field (or alternatively, clicks a specific button),
`
`the system analyzes the user-entered text, breaking
`
`it up into smaller pieces. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶101, 122.
`
`It then recognizes "billb", "sm henry" and
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`"patterson" as unresolved addresses, and searches for them in an external address
`
`book. Ex. 1003 at 17:22-30. The system tries to match each of "billb", "sm henry"
`
`and "patterson" with specific address book entries. Ex. 1003 at 17:34-37; Ex. 1002
`
`at ¶¶88-114.
`
`If the search for any text string results in one unambiguous hit in the address
`
`book, the full name of the person located by the search will be inserted in the "To:"
`
`line (here: "sm henry" is replaced with "Henry Smith" and "patterson" is replaced
`
`with "Roger Patterson" in Fig. 6b). Ex. 1003 at 17:37-40. If the search result is
`
`ambiguous (as was the case for "billb"), the user is given several options to resolve
`
`the ambiguity. Ex. 1003 at 17:53-62; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶88-114.
`
`Thus, like the '853 patent, the Goodhand system responds to a user input
`
`command (e.g., the "check names" command), analyzes text in an email document
`
`(the user-entered text string) to find "first information" (the text string subdivided
`
`into tokens that can be used to search a database), uses the first information to
`
`search a separate address book, returns the results of the search in the form of an
`
`improved name or email address (second information), and inserts the improved
`
`name or email address in the document, thereby correcting, completing and
`
`displaying the improved name or email address.
`
`Goodhand anticipates the claims challenged in this ground. The ground
`
`presents Goodhand under 35 U.S.C. § 103, however, for two reasons. First, claim
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1 of the '853 patent requires a "record retrieval program", and requires "initiat[ing]
`
`a record retrieval from an information source using the record retrieval program".
`
`In Goohand, the information source is contained in one or more address books.
`
`These address books can be searched. In the case of Goodhand, the search is done
`
`by first analyzing text in an address line of an email to identify one or more search
`
`terms (called "display names"). These search terms are used to search the address
`
`book(s), in order to obtain better addressing information. Goodhand states:
`
`"As mentioned above, 'resolving' the names means attempting to
`
`match the display names in the address field to specific user
`
`aliases that are included in a centralized address book or
`
`directory, which is typically stored on a remote server, such as
`
`remote memory storage device 33 (FIG. 1)." Ex. 1003 at 17:29-41
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1002 at ¶118.
`
`There is no doubt from the above that a record retrieval is carried out, and that
`
`that the retrival is done by program code. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶96, 118. However, to the
`
`extent that the Patent Owner argues that Goodhand does not teach a separate
`
`"record retrieval program", it would have been obvious to provide one. Goodhand
`
`notes that its email system is conceptually divided into several components:
`
`"Like many personal information managers, the preferred application
`
`program is divided into several modules, including a calendar
`
`manager, a task list manager, a contact manager, a message
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`manager (e-mail), and a notes manager." Ex. 1003 at 8:45-49; Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶118.
`
`A person of ordinary skill would have understood the "contact manager" to
`
`have an address book function, and to be separate from the "message manager
`
`(email)". Ex. 1002 at ¶¶35, 118. Such a "contact manager" (like most databases)
`
`would have a data structure to contain information, and program code to access
`
`and modify the information. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶96, 118.
`
`Goodhand further emphasizes that the different modules (including the contact
`
`manager) can be separated and distributed:
`
`"In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be
`
`physically located in different local and remote memory storage
`
`devices. Execution of the program modules may occur locally in a
`
`stand-alone manner or remotely in a client/server manner." Ex.
`
`1003 at 8:58-62; Ex. 1002 at ¶118.
`
`In fact, as shown in the quote above on page 17, the information that the system
`
`searches for is "included in a centralized address book or directory, which is
`
`typically stored on a remote server…." Ex. 1003 at 17:29-41 (emphasis added);
`
`Ex. 1002 at ¶118. The fact that the address book is on a remote server suggests
`
`that it is its own program.
`
`Moreover, Goodhand states that access to address books is provided through a
`
`Messaging Application Programming Interface (MAPI). The MAPI is part of the
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`operating system, not part of the email program. Goodhand states:
`
`"The preferred operating system incorporates the Messaging
`
`Application Programming Interface (MAPI). The MAPI architecture
`
`is designed to make it easy for programmers to write messaging-
`
`enabled applications that are independent of the underlying messaging
`
`system. MAPI provides high-level function that can be used to
`
`implement sophisticated messaging features with a relatively small
`
`amount of code. The code deals only with functions for sending,
`
`receiving, and addressing messages. The underlying messaging
`
`system is completely transparent. MAPI also provides other
`
`message-related functionality, such as access to address books."
`
`Ex. 1003 at 12:37-49; Ex. 1002 at ¶118.
`
`Goodhand further expressly states that searching of address books is done
`
`through MAPI functions:
`
`"If, at step 915 the computer determines that there are additional
`
`display names to resolve, the computer goes to step 930 and
`
`attempts to resolve the remaining display names. In the preferred
`
`e-mail program, this is accomplished by calling the appropriate
`
`MAPI functions, such as MAPIResolveName. Those skilled in the
`
`art will appreciate that this MAPI function handles the addressing
`
`chore of resolving informal names with actual e-mail aliases." Ex.
`
`1003 at 19:41-48 (emphasis added); Ex. 1002 at ¶118.
`
`In this sense, the preferred embodiment of Goodhand facilitates communication
`
`between the email system and the address book at least through MAPI functions in
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`the operating system, as opposed to the email program directly accessing the data
`
`structure that contains the contact information. Ex. 1002 at ¶118.
`
`Thus, the inclusion of a separate record retrieval program would probably have
`
`been considered disclosed in the Goodhand system by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, but is at a minimum trivially obvious over Goodhand's teachings. Ex. 1002
`
`at ¶118. This is especially true given the level of skill in the art. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶19-
`
`60.
`
`The second reason for presenting this ground under § 103 is that claim 1 of the
`
`'853 patent requires "analyzing the document to determine if the first information is
`
`contained therein". In Goodhand, the "first information" consists of partial names
`
`or email addresses (called "display names") that a user enters into an address line
`
`in an email document. Ex. 1003 at 17:15-20; Ex. 1002 at ¶122. This is shown in
`
`Fig. 6a, which is reproduced with highlighting added to show each item of "first
`
`information" (display name):
`
`
`
`Here the user has entered three "display names", which are partial (or simply
`
`incorrect) names or email addresses. Ex. 1003 at 17:15-20; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶89-90.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Goodhand's system takes each display name individually and checks it against a
`
`nickname list (Ex. 1003 at 19:24-40). If the name is not resolved, the system uses
`
`a MAPI function to perform an address book search using the current entered
`
`display name. Ex. 1003 at 19:42-54; Ex. 1002 at ¶118.
`
`Goodhand's system must also analyze the text in the To: line to determine if
`
`there is anything there to process at all. Ex. 1002 at ¶122. Furthermore, Goodhand
`
`expressly discloses that the system is using each display name separately to
`
`perform searches. Therefore, the system must be correctly identifying each display
`
`name, or it would not be able to use the name as a search term. Ex. 1002 at ¶122.
`
`Therefore, it is inherent in Goodhand's disclosure that the system "analyz[es]
`
`the document to determine if the first information is contained therein". Ex. 1002
`
`at ¶122. At a minimum, however, this would have been trivially obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, because performing that analysis would allow
`
`the system to use the identified display names in the searches expressly taught by
`
`Goodhand. Ex. 1002 at ¶122.
`
`Goodhand renders obvious claims 1-9, 11, 13-29, 38-45, 57-64, 66, 68-75, 77
`
`and 79. An element-by-element mapping of these claims is provided in the
`
`following:
`
`'853 Claims
`
`Goodhand Disclosure
`
`1. A
`computerized
`
`Goodhand discloses a computerized method for
`information handling within a document created using an
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`'853 Claims
`
`method for
`information
`handling
`within a
`document created
`using an
`application
`program, the
`document
`including first
`information
`provided therein,
`the method
`comprising:
`
`[1a] providing
`a record retrieval
`program;
`
`Goodhand Disclosure
`
`application program. Ex. 1002 at ¶116. Specifically,
`Goodhand teaches "a method for resolving a display na