Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TWITTER, INC. AND YELP INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,010,536
`Filing Date: January 28, 1999
`Issue Date: March 7, 2006
`Inventor: Michael De Angelo
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING AND MANIPULATING
`INFORMATION CONTAINERS WITH DYNAMIC REGISTERS
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`CORRECTED
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................3
`
`FORMALITIES...............................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))......................................................3
`
`Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2)) ..............................................................3
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))..............................................4
`
`D. Designation of Lead Counsel and Request for Authorization (37
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))...............................................................................5
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4))........................................................5
`
`Power of Attorney .................................................................................6
`
`Standing to File Petition (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.101-42.103).......................6
`
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)) .........................................6
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED (§ 42.104(B))...7
`
`IV. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`PATENT ..........................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’536 Patent........7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Container.....................................................................................9
`
`Register .....................................................................................10
`
`Gateway.....................................................................................11
`
`“Active Space Register” / “Passive Register For
`Identifying Space” / “Neutral Space Register”.........................13
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 2 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .......................................17
`
`Claim 3 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .......................................23
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Claim 4 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .......................................24
`
`Claim 5 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .......................................25
`
`Claim 6 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .......................................26
`
`Claim 7 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .......................................27
`
`Claim 8 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .......................................27
`
`Claim 9 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .......................................28
`
`Claim 10 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .....................................30
`
`Claim 11 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .....................................30
`
`Claim 12 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .....................................32
`
`Claim 13 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .....................................33
`
`M. Claim 14 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .....................................33
`
`N.
`
`Claim 16 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs) .....................................34
`
`VI. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................35
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Through counsel, real parties in interest Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc.
`
`(“Petitioners”) hereby petition for initiation of inter partes review of claims 2-14
`
`and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536, entitled “System and Method for Creating
`
`and Manipulating Information Containers With Dynamic Registers” (“the ’536
`
`patent”). Ex. 1001.
`
`On April 25, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted-in-part the
`
`petition of Apple, Inc. for inter partes review of the ’536 patent in Case IPR2014-
`
`00086 (“Apple IPR”) finding there was “a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`would prevail in showing unpatentability of challenged claims 2-12, 14, and 16” as
`
`being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by U.S. Patent No. 5,836,529 to Gibbs
`
`(Ex. 1006). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b),
`
`Petitioners submit concurrently herewith a motion for joinder with the Apple IPR.
`
`II.
`
`FORMALITIES
`
`A.
`
`Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties in interest are Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’536 patent is the subject of the following civil actions:
`
`- Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Yelp Inc., Civil Action No.
`
`4:13-cv-03587 (DMR) (N.D. Cal.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`- Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-
`
`04201-WHA (N.D. Cal.);
`
`- Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No.
`
`3:13-cv-04202-JSC (N.D. Cal.);
`
`- Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. FourSquare Labs, Inc., Case
`
`No. 3:13-cv-04203-EDL (N.D. Cal.);
`
`- Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Case No. 3:13-
`
`cv-04204-LB (N.D. Cal.);
`
`- Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. LivingSocial, Inc., Case No.
`
`3:13-cv-04205-EDL (N.D. Cal.);
`
`- Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Millennial Media, Inc., Case
`
`No. 5:13-cv-04206-HRL (N.D. Cal.); and
`
`- Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 5:13-
`
`cv-04207-JSW (N.D. Cal.).
`
`Claims 2-12, 14, and 16 of the ‘536 patent are currently subject to
`
`inter partes review in the Apple IPR.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))
`C.
`This petition for inter partes review is accompanied by a payment of
`
`$23,000 and requests review of 13 claims of the ’536 patent. 7 C.F.R. § 42.15.
`
`Further, Petitioners authorize a debit from Deposit Account No. 20-1430 for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`
`whatever additional payment is necessary in granting this Petition. Thus, this
`
`petition meets the fee requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1).
`
`D.
`
`Designation of Lead Counsel and Request for Authorization
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel
`Vaibhav P. Kadaba
`Reg. No. 45,865
`wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com
`1100 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`(404) 815-6500
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Robert D. Tadlock
`Pro Hac Vice authorization
`requested
`rtadlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Two Embarcadero Center, Suite
`8000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 576-0200
`
`Lead counsel for Petitioners is Vaibhav P. Kadaba, U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office Registration No. 45,865. Petitioners hereby request
`
`authorization to file a motion for Robert D. Tadlock to appear pro hac vice, as Mr.
`
`Tadlock is an experienced litigating attorney, and is counsel for Petitioners in the
`
`above-referenced litigations and as such has an established familiarity with the
`
`subject matter at issue in this proceeding. Petitioners intend to file such a motion
`
`once authorization is granted.
`
`E.
`
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4))
`
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of the present
`
`petition, in its entirety, is being served to the address of the attorney or agent of
`
`record in the Patent Office as well as counsel of record for the Patent Owner in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`above-referenced litigations. Petitioners may be served at its counsel, Kilpatrick
`
`Townsend & Stockton LLP.
`
`F.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`Powers of attorney are being filed with the designation of counsel in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`G.
`
`Standing to File Petition (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.101-42.103)
`
`The Petitioners certify that the ’536 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting an inter
`
`partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this
`
`petition. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a), the timing of the Petition is proper.
`
`The ’536 patent was granted more than nine months ago on March 7, 2006. The
`
`timing of this Petition is also proper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The Apple IPR
`
`for which joinder is requested was instituted less than one month ago on April 25,
`
`2014, and this Petition is accompanied by a request for joinder filed as a motion
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22.
`
`H.
`
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a))
`
`Proof of service of this petition is provided in Attachment A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED (§
`42.104(B))
`Claims 2-14, and 161 of the ’536 patent are unpatentable as being anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by U.S. Patent No. 5,836,529 to Gibbs (Ex. 1006).
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of the contested claims, the evidence
`
`relied upon, and the precise reasons why the claims are unpatentable are provided
`
`in § IV, below. The evidence relied upon in support of this petition is listed in
`
`Attachment B.
`
`IV. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE
`CONTESTED PATENT
`A.
`Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’536
`Patent
`
`The ’536 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/284,113, filed
`
`January 28, 1999. The ‘113 application claims priority to Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/073,209, filed on January 30, 1998. The disclosures of the ‘113 and ‘209
`
`applications differ, and whether the latter supports the claims under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112 has not been established. Nonetheless, only for the purposes of this
`
`
`1 Petitioners recognize that the Board declined to institute Trial on claim 13.
`
`Petitioners include claim 13 in this petition solely to preserve their rights
`
`should claim 13 be included in the Trial as a result of a motion for rehearing
`
`or other procedure.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`
`
`proceeding, Petitioners have assumed that the earliest effective filing date of claims
`
`2-14, and 16 of the ’536 patent is not earlier than January 30, 1998.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’536 patent would
`
`have been someone with a good working knowledge of computer programming,
`
`data structures, and object oriented programming. The person would have gained
`
`this knowledge either through an undergraduate education in computer science or
`
`comparable field, in combination with training or several years of practical
`
`working experience. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 48.
`
`C.
`
`Construction of Terms Used in the Claims
`
`In this proceeding, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. 37 CFR § 42.100(b). The broadest
`
`reasonable construction should be determined, in part, by taking into account the
`
`subject matter Patent Owner contends infringes the claims and the constructions
`
`Patent Owner has advanced in litigation. Also, if Patent Owner contends terms in
`
`the claims should be read to have a special meaning, those contentions should be
`
`disregarded unless Patent Owner also amends the claims compliant with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 to make them expressly correspond to those contentions. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48764 at II.B.6 (August 14, 2012); cf. In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012). In the proposed constructions below, Petitioner identifies subject
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`
`
`matter which falls within the scope of the claims, read in their broadest reasonable
`
`construction, which Petitioner submits is sufficient for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`1.
`
`Container
`
`The ‘536 patent explains that a “container” is “a logically defined data
`
`enclosure which encapsulates any element or digital segment (text, graphic,
`
`photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital segments, or referring now to
`
`FIG. 3C, any system component or process, or other containers or sets of
`
`containers.” Ex. 1001, 8:64-9:2. It continues by stating a container “at minimum
`
`includes in its construction a logically encapsulated portion of cyberspace, a
`
`register and a gateway” and that it “at minimum encapsulates a single digital bit, a
`
`single natural number or the logical description of another container, and at
`
`maximum all defined cyberspace, existing, growing and to be discovered,
`
`including but not limited to all containers, defined and to be defined in
`
`cyberspace.” Ex. 1001, 9:2-9. It also states a container “contains the code to enable
`
`it to interact with the components enumerated in 2A, and to reconstruct itself
`
`internally and manage itself on the network 201.” Ex. 1001, 9:9-12
`
`The broadest reasonable construction of “container” therefore encompasses a
`
`logically defined data structure that contains a whole or partial digital element
`
`(e.g., text, graphic, photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital segments,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`or any system component or process, or other containers or sets of containers. See
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 54-55.
`
`2.
`
`Register
`
`The ‘536 patent states:
`
`Registers 120 are user or user-base created or system-
`
`created values or ranges made available by the system 10 to
`
`attach to a unique container, and hold system-set, user-set,
`
`or system-evolved values. Values may be numeric, may
`
`describe domains of time or space, or may provide
`
`information about the container 100, the user, or the system
`
`10. Registers 120 may be active, passive or interactive and
`
`may evolve with system use.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:23-30. The ‘536 patent also indicates that “[c]ontainer
`
`registers 120 are interactive dynamic values appended to the logical enclosure of an
`
`information container 100 and serve to govern the interaction of that container 100
`
`with other containers 100, container gateways 200 and the system 10, and to record
`
`the historical interaction of that container 100 on the system 10.” Ex. 1001 at 9:14-
`
`19. The ‘536 patent observes that “Container registers 120 may be values alone or
`
`contain code to establish certain parameters in interaction with other containers 100
`
`or gateways 200.” Ex. 1001, 9:19-23. The broadest reasonable construction of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`
`“register” thus would encompass a value or code associated with a container. See
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 56-59.
`
`The ‘536 patent claims recite several kinds of registers (e.g., a first register,
`
`second register, an active time register, a passive time register, a neutral time
`
`register, an active space register, a passive [space] register, a neutral space register,
`
`a container history register, a system history register, a predefined register, a user-
`
`created register, system-defined register, and an acquire register). The context used
`
`each claim provides guidance regarding the nature of each register being referred to
`
`(e.g., by specifying the kinds of information that may be stored in the register or
`
`how the register might be used). Each of these registers is discussed in connection
`
`with application of prior art to it below.
`
`3.
`
`Gateway
`
`The ‘536 patent does not expressly define the term “gateway.” However, its
`
`usage of this term indicates that the term is being used generally to refer to an
`
`interface between processes, system components and data files (e.g., “container” or
`
`“registers”). For example, the ‘536 patent observes:
`
`Gateways gather and store container register information
`
`according to system-defined, system-generated, or user
`
`determined rules as containers exit and enter one another,
`
`governing how containers system processes or system
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`
`
`components interact within the domain of that container, or
`
`after exiting and entering that container, and governing how
`
`containers, system components and system processes interact
`
`with that unique gateway, including how data collection and
`
`reporting is managed at that gateway. Ex. 1001 at 4:58-66.
`
`The ‘536 patent also states that “Container gateways 200 are logically
`
`defined gateways residing both on containers 100 and independently in the system
`
`10” and “Gateways 200 govern the interactions of containers 100 within their
`
`domain, and alter the registers 120 of transiting containers 100 upon ingress and
`
`egress.” Ex. 1001, 9:23-28. See also Ex. 1001, 15:44-49.
`
`Patent Owner has contended in litigation that “gateways” can be algorithms
`
`and Application Program Interfaces (APIs), with respect to time, are “attached to
`
`and forming part of the Event, EventStore, Alarm, and Reminder containers” (Ex.
`
`1005 at 58) and with respect to space, “attached to and forming part of the
`
`CLLocation, CLLocationManager, CLPlacemark, CLRegion, and CLHeading
`
`containers.” (Ex. 1005 at 81). In other words, Patent Owner has alleged that code
`
`that executes by calling objects via an API will be a “gateway” within the meaning
`
`of the claims. See Ex. 1007 at Ex. E, p. 46-47 and Ex. Q, p. 16-17.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`
`
`The broadest reasonable construction of “gateway” thus would encompass
`
`code that governs interactions between containers and that can alter registers
`
`associated with containers. See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 60-62.
`
`4.
`
`“Active Space Register” / “Passive Register For
`Identifying Space” / “Neutral Space Register”
`
`Claim 1 recites three “register” elements, stating: (i) “an active space register
`
`for identifying time at which the container will act upon other containers,
`
`processes, systems or gateways”; (ii) “a passive register for identifying time at
`
`which the container can be acted upon by other containers, processes, systems or
`
`gateways” and (iii) “a neutral space register for identifying time at which the
`
`container may interact with other containers, processes, systems or gateways.” The
`
`‘536 patent does not expressly define any of these registers.
`
`In its infringement contentions, Patent Owner has identified the same
`
`features of the Twitter and Yelp accused products as well as the Apple iOS
`
`operating system as being all three types of “registers” specified in claim 1.
`
`Compare Ex. 1005 at 43 (for the active register: “the ‘allDay’, ‘endDate’, and/or
`
`‘startDate’”) to Id. at 48 (for the passive register: same); compare also Id. at 44
`
`(active register: “‘completionDate’, ‘dueDateComponents’, and/or
`
`‘startDateComponents’”) to Id. at 49 (passive register: same). Compare Ex. 1007
`
`at 22 (for active register: “location.coordinate, location.coordinate.latitude,
`
`location.coordinate.longitutde, location.address, location.display_address,
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`location.city, location.state_code, location.postal_code, location.country_code,
`
`location.cross_streets, location.neighborhoods, altitude”) to Id. at 23 (passive
`
`register: same) to Id. at 25 (neutral register: same). Compare Ex. 1007 at 51-52
`
`(active register: discussing how Twitter uses location inforamtion) to Id. at 52-54
`
`(passive register: same) to Id. at 54-56.
`
`Notably, Patent Owner does not show how any of the objects in iOS being
`
`identified have parameters that allow anything to act upon them, in the ordinary
`
`sense of that phrase. For example, Patent Owner identifies “reminders” as being
`
`passive and neutral registers, even though reminders generally cause action on
`
`other portions of the system rather than provide a time on which an action can
`
`happen to them.
`
`Petitioner believes that these terms are ordinary English words and do not
`
`need to be construed to understand their broadest reasonable construction. But in
`
`understanding the prior art, consideration should be given to Patent Owner’s
`
`reading of these claim terms on Petitioner’s products.
`
`5. Means Elements (Claims 9-12)
`
`Claims 9-12 each contain a means plus function claim elements:
`
`• means for acting upon another container, the means for acting
`
`upon another container using the plurality of registers to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`
`
`determine whether and how the container acts upon other
`
`containers (claim 9)
`
`• means for allowing interaction, the means for allowing
`
`interaction using the plurality of registers to determine
`
`whether and how another container can act upon the container
`
`(claim 10)
`
`• means for gathering information, the means for gathering
`
`information recording register information from other
`
`containers, systems or processes that interact with the
`
`container (claim 11)
`
`• means for reporting information, the means for reporting
`
`information providing register information to other containers,
`
`systems or processes that interact with the container (claim
`
`12)
`
`Means elements are construed to include the structure disclosed in the
`
`specification for performing the claimed function, and “the corresponding structure
`
`for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm
`
`disclosed in the specification.” Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. V Int’l Game
`
`Tech, 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008), quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.,
`
`417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For claims 9-12, however, the only “means”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`
`
`identified in the ’536 Patent is a processor 18 which can execute programmed
`
`instruction steps. (Ex. 1001, 7:58-65). The ‘536 patent, however, identifies no
`
`algorithm that performs the particular function associated with each “means”
`
`element, and does not otherwise identify any other particular structure
`
`corresponding to these means elements. Claims 9 to 12, thus, do not comply with
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112.2Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338 (a patent that fails to disclose an
`
`algorithm for a computer-implemented function is invalid for “lack[ing] sufficient
`
`disclosure of structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and [is] therefore indefinite under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.”). In order to provide some basis for evaluating these claims
`
`against the prior art, Petitioner assumes that the means specified in each of claims 9
`
`to 12 must at least be a processor that performs the specified function for each
`
`means element when the claims are considered using the broadest reasonable
`
`construction in view of the specification.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,836,529 to Gibbs (Ex. 1006) has an effective filing date of
`
`at least October 31, 1995, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) to claims 2-14
`
`
`2 Petitioners reserve their right to assert that claims 9-12 are invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in any court action relating to the ‘536 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`
`
`and 16 of the ‘536 patent. A general summary of Ex. 1006 is provided at Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶¶ 68-106.
`
`A.
`
`Claim 2 is Anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Gibbs)
`
`Ex. 1006 describes a system and process for monitoring and managing the
`
`operation of a railroad system. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 69. The railroad management system
`
`operates on a computer system and its components are connected via a network.
`
`The network transmits messages to and from devices, such as wayside occupancy
`
`detectors deployed in the railroad network, to a central computer system. Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶¶ 70, 75. The system is object oriented and uses objects to represent important
`
`aspects of a railroad system such as trains, car, locomotives and tracks. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶¶ 73-75. The railroad management system also uses objects to display and
`
`transmit information to the user, such as through maps and reports. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶¶ 89, 96. The railroad management system also describes use of a control
`
`management object, which allows the user to provide instructions to the
`
`management system. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 88. These objects are stored in object
`
`libraries within the computer system. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 77, 87. The objects used by
`
`the Ex. 1006 railroad management system are examples of logically defined data
`
`enclosures, and are “containers” as specified in claim 2 of the ‘536 patent.
`
`Ex. 1006 thus shows “[a]n apparatus for transmitting, receiving and manipulating
`
`information on a computer system, the apparatus including a plurality of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`
`
`containers, each container being a logically defined data enclosure and
`
`comprising:” as specified by claim 2. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 107-111.
`
`The railroad management system shown in Ex. 1006 utilizes a large number
`
`of objects, each having large amounts of data associated with the object
`
`(information). For instance, Ex. 1006 describes a train object, a locomotive object,
`
`a car object, a crew object, a terminal object, a yard object, a shop object, a coal
`
`zone object, and many other objects. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 75-76. Each object in the
`
`railroad management system has at least four distinct types of data: locational
`
`attributes, labeling attributes, consist attributes, and timing attributes. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 81. These attributes can include information such as a unique ID, the physical
`
`location of the object, and object specific data. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 82-84. The object
`
`specific data varies by object, but for a train, for example, the object might contain
`
`information such as the train name, the number of cars in the train, the length of the
`
`train, the train direction, the train’s terminal of origin, and the train’s destination
`
`terminal. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 85. Ex. 1006 thus shows “an information element having
`
`information” as specified in claim 2. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 112-114.
`
`Each object in the Ex. 1006 system is a separate entity within the system and
`
`contains a number of different data fields divided into at least four separate types of
`
`information. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 78-81. The individual data fields include information
`
`such as an object’s unique ID, the physical location of the physical equipment or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`
`
`facility to which it refers, a train name, a train length, the number of cars in the
`
`train, and the train direction. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 82-83, 85. Each different object type
`
`has different data fields representing different information about the real world
`
`object to which it refers. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 82-85. These objects are stored within
`
`object libraries, which reside on the computer system running the railroad
`
`management system shown in Ex. 1006. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 77, 87. Ex. 1006 thus
`
`shows “a plurality of registers, the plurality of registers forming part of the
`
`container and including” as specified in claim 2. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 115-117.
`
`The objects used in the railroad management system each have a unique ID
`
`which corresponds to the physical equipment or facility that is associated with the
`
`object. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 82. Ex. 1006 thus shows “a first register for storing a unique
`
`container identification value” as specified in claim 2. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 118-119.
`
`Each object in the system contains a field with a value representing the
`
`location of the corresponding physical equipment or facility. The railroad
`
`management system uses location detectors such as wayside occupancy detectors
`
`to transmit location information from physical equipment and enter that
`
`information into the appropriate object for that equipment. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 83-84.
`
`The physical railroad network and the equipment and facilities that make it up are
`
`all located within a three-dimensional space located outside the railroad
`
`management system. The transport objects interact with the map and report objects
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`
`
`to display information relating to the physical equipment and facilities that the
`
`transport objects represent. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 90. For instance, the user can zoom the
`
`map he wants to see in or out. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 93. This zooming requires the map
`
`object to determine which transport objects are within the selected map area. Ex.
`
`1003 at¶¶ 93. In another example, the user can request a train report that will
`
`display each car in a train along with those cars’ content. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 98. This
`
`requires the report object to interact with the appropriate train and car transport
`
`objects. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 86, 89-95, 96-98. A user can also use a “context menu
`
`object” to interact with map and report objects by inputting information and setting
`
`parameters for those objects. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 88. Ex. 1006 thus shows “a second
`
`register having a representation designating space and governing interactions of
`
`the container with other containers, systems or processes according to utility of
`
`information in the information element relative to an external-to-the-apparatus
`
`three-dimensional space” as specified in claim 2. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 120-124.
`
`The user can set up alerts and warnings which will be automatically
`
`displayed to the user when specified conditions regarding particular objects are
`
`met. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 103-106. Ex. 1006 describes monitoring the value of a data
`
`item in real time in order to properly trigger the audible or visual alert. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 106. One data item that can be included in a map or report is the physical
`
`location of a train. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 90-94. Thus, the user can set a warning or alarm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`

`

`
`
`to continuously monitor a train’s physical location. If this location exceeds the
`
`parameters set by the user, the railroad management system will generate an
`
`audible or visual alarm. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 103-106. The alerts also will directly
`
`trigger action through the railroad management system’s output device in response
`
`to a parameter such as an object’s location exceeding a boundary set by the user.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 103, 105. The map object also actively displays the location of each
`
`type of train that is selected by the user for display. This location is updated
`
`whenever the train’s location is updated. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 94-95. Ex. 1006 thus
`
`shows “an active space register for identifying space in which the container will
`
`act upon other containers, processes, systems or gateways” as specified in claim 2.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 125-129.
`
`A user can generate a map which only contains part of the railroad network.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 93. The user does this by restricting the geographic boundaries of the
`
`map, or zooming in. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 93. When the user is zoomed in, the map
`
`object responsible for displaying the map accesses and display transport objects
`
`that are within the geographic boundaries. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 93. The report objects in
`
`the railroad management system record information based on the location of
`
`various transport objects. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 98-99. For instance, a train report object
`
`can generate a report which lists each car associated with a specific train. Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶ 98. The report further lists the contents of each car. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 98. Finally,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`

`

`
`
`a graphical representation of the entire train, with each car and its contents, can be
`
`displayed to the user. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 98. The cars and their contents are recorded
`
`into the consist report based on their location, which is attached to the train for
`
`which the report was requested. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 98.
`
`Similarly, a user can generate a terminal status report which contains the
`
`number of trains that are in both the arrival and departure yards of a terminal. Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 99. Thus, the transports objects for those trains are selected based on
`
`their physical locations, e.g., in either the arrival or departure yards. Ex. 1006 thus
`
`shows “a passive register for identifying space in which the container can be acted
`
`upon by other containers, processes, systems or gateways” as specified in claim 2.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 133-137.
`
`Ex. 1006 describes instances in which transport, map, and report objects
`
`intersect. For instance, a train consist report display a graphical image that shows
`
`the location of multiple cars, and the contents of those cars, within a train object.
`
`Thus, the train object and the car objects intersect via the report object. See Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 98. Also, the description of the “active register” in ¶¶ 125-132, that
`
`identifies where a container can act, and the “passive register” in ¶¶ 133-137, that
`
`identifies where a container can be acted upon, also will inherently describe where
`
`a container may “interact.” Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 125-137. Ex. 1006 thus shows “a
`
`neutral space register for identifying space in which the container may interact
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`

`

`
`
`with other containers, processes, systems, or gateways” as specified in claim 2. Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶¶ 138-140.
`
`Each object in the railroad management system has program instructions and
`
`routines which allow it to interact with other objects. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 86, 90, 97.
`
`For instance, the routines in a transport object are used to retrieve data from the
`
`central