`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`INTEGRATED GLOBAL CONCEPTS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`J2 GLOBAL, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`CASE IPR2014-01028
`
`Patent 6,020,980
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`AMENDED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF US PATENT NO. 6,020,980
`
`Claims 1-12, 21-24 and 26-35
`
`
`
`- i -  
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. .. 1
`
`I.
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF AN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF AN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`PETITION ................................................................................................................. 1
`PETITION ............................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`A. Grounds for Standing: Certification That Patent May be Contested .............. 1
`A. Grounds for Standing: Certification That Patent May be Contested ............ .. l
`
`B. Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)) ....................................... 2
`B. Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.l5(a)) ..................................... .. 2
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)) ....................................................... 2
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)) ..................................................... .. 2
`
`1. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ............................................ 2
`1. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(l)) .......................................... .. 2
`
`2. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ..................................................... 2
`2. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................................... .. 2
`
`3. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) .................................... 2
`3. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) .................................. .. 2
`
`4. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .............................................. 3
`4. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ............................................ .. 3
`
`5. Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)) ................................................... 4
`5. Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.l0(b)) ................................................. .. 4
`
`III. IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED ........................... 4
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED ......................... .. 4
`
`III.
`
`A. Identification of Prior Art and Challenged Claims ......................................... 4
`A.
`Identification of Prior Art and Challenged Claims ....................................... .. 4
`
`B. Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For the Challenge .................................... 5
`B. Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For the Challenge .................................. .. 5
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘980 PATENT .............................................................. 5
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘98O PATENT ............................................................ .. 5
`
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ‘980 Patent ......................................................... 5
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ‘980 Patent ....................................................... .. 5
`
`B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 6
`B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................... .. 6
`
`C. Brief Description of the ‘980 Patent ............................................................... 6
`C. Brief Description of the ‘980 Patent ............................................................. .. 6
`
`D. Summary of the ‘980 Patent’s File History .................................................... 6
`D. Summary of the ‘98O Patent’s File History .................................................. .. 6
`
`1. Original Prosecution History ....................................................................... 6
`1. Original Prosecution History ..................................................................... .. 6
`
`2. Ex Parte Reexamination Prosecution History ............................................. 8
`2. Ex Parte Reexamination Prosecution History ........................................... .. 8
`
`E. Proposed Claim Constructions ...................................................................... 10
`E. Proposed Claim Constructions .................................................................... .. 10
`
`- ii -  
`
`

`
`1. Subscriber, Subscribers, Subscriber’s and Subscribers’ ............................ 11
`
`2. Subscriber Selected File Translation Format(s)/Specification ................... 12
`
`3. Means For Transmitting a Converted Facsimile Transmission ................. 14
`
`4. A Subscriber Directory … For Storing Subscriber Information, For
`Generating Record Formats … And For Providing The Record Formats To
`Said Facsimile Server ....................................................................................... 14
`
`5. Means For Translating ............................................................................... 15
`
`6. Means For Changing a Destination ............................................................ 16
`
`7. Means For Changing Subscriber File Translation Specifications .............. 17
`
`F. Petition Organization: Common Base Limitations ....................................... 17
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................ 18
`
`A. The RightFAX References ........................................................................... 18
`
`B. Cohn .............................................................................................................. 20
`
`C. Marshall ........................................................................................................ 21
`
`D. RFC 1521 ...................................................................................................... 21
`
`E. General Motivation to Combine .................................................................... 22
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR OBVIOUSNESS OF
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ‘980 PATENT ..................................... 22
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 22 and 26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
`being unpatentable over RightFAX Admin Guide in view of RightFAX
`Gateway Guide .................................................................................................... 24
`
`1. Common Base Limitations Found in All Independent System Claims ..... 25
`
`2. Independent Claim 22 – Text File [C’’] ..................................................... 36
`
`3. Independent Claim 26 ................................................................................ 37
`
`- iii -  
`
`

`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 2-3, 6-12, 22, 26-28, 30 and 35 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over RightFAX Admin Guide in view of
`RightFAX Gateway Guide in further view of Cohn .......................................... 38
`
`1. Claim Chart for Dependent Claims 2-3 and 6-12 ...................................... 38
`
`2. Independent Claim 22 – Text File [C’’] ..................................................... 43
`
`3. Independent Claim 26 ................................................................................ 44
`
`4. Claim Chart for Dependent Claims 27-28 and 30 ...................................... 47
`
`5. Independent Claim 35 – Received Directly from Subscriber [G] .............. 48
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 21 and 31-34 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
`being unpatentable over RightFAX Admin Guide in view of RightFAX
`Gateway Guide in further view of Marshall ........................................................ 50
`
`1. Independent Claim 21 – One of Multiple Software Formats [C’] ............. 50
`
`2. Independent Claim 31 – Graphics Application Program Format [F] ......... 51
`
`3. Claim Chart for Dependent Claims 32-34 ................................................. 53
`
`D. Ground 4: Claim 29 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`unpatentable over RightFAX Admin Guide in view of RightFAX Gateway
`Guide in further view of Cohn and Marshall ....................................................... 55
`
`1. Claim Chart for Dependent Claim 29 ........................................................ 55
`
`E. Ground 5: Claims 4-5 and 23-24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`as being unpatentable over RightFAX Admin Guide in view of RightFAX
`Gateway Guide in further view of Cohn and RFC 1521 .................................... 56
`
`1. Claim Chart for Dependent Claims 4-5 and 23-24 .................................... 56
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -  
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 US Patent No. 6,020,980 (“the ‘980 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. US 6,020,980 C1
`
`(“Reexamination Certificate”)
`
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos (“Shamos Declaration”)
`
`Ex. 1004 RightFAX Installation & Administration Guide, Version 3.51, 1994
`
`(“RightFAX Admin Guide”)
`
`Ex. 1005 RightFAX E-mail Gateway Guide, Version 3.51, 1994 (“RightFAX
`
`Gateway Guide”)
`
`Ex. 1006 US Patent No. 5,740,231 (“Cohn”)
`
`Ex. 1007 US Patent No. 6,396,597 (“Marshall”)
`
`Ex. 1008 Borenstein, N., and N. Freed, “MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
`
`Extensions): Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing the
`
`Format of Internet Message Bodies,” Request for Comments 1521,
`
`September 1993 (“RFC 1521”)
`
`Ex. 1009 US Patent No. 6,020,980 File History (“Original Prosecution File
`
`History”)
`
`Ex. 1010 Ex Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/012,650 File History (“Ex
`
`Parte Reexam File History”)
`
`- v -  
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Integrated Global
`
`Concepts, Inc. (“Petitioner”), petitions for inter partes review of claims 1-12, 21-
`
`24 and 26-35 of US Patent No. 6,020,980 (“the ‘980 Patent,” Exhibit 1001). The
`
`‘980 Patent was originally assigned to MCI Communications Corporation and was
`
`subsequently assigned to j2 Global, Inc. after passing through Verizon Patent and
`
`Licensing Inc. j2 Global, Inc. is hereafter referred to as “Patent Owner” in this
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`This Petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in this
`
`Petition and thus a trial for inter partes review must be instituted. Evidence in this
`
`Petition demonstrates that claims 1-12, 21-24 and 26-35 of the ‘980 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner respectfully requests claims 1-12,
`
`21-24 and 26-35 of the ‘980 Patent be rejected and cancelled.
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF AN INTER
`
`PARTES REVIEW PETITION
`A. Grounds for Standing: Certification That Patent May be
`
`Contested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the ‘980
`
`Patent is available for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred or
`
`  
`
`- 1 -  
`
`

`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the claims of the ‘980
`
`Patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a))
`
`Petitioner has previously submitted the required fees specified by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) concurrently with the Original Petition filed June 23, 2014.
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b))
`1.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real party in interest for this Petition is Integrated Global Concepts, Inc.
`
`(“IGC”) having offices at 1501 N. Cleveland Ave., Chicago IL, 60610.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`This Petition requests review of system claims 1-12, 21-24 and 26-35. A
`
`second Petition for inter partes review of the ‘980 Patent is being filed
`
`contemporaneously and requests review of method claims 13-20, 25 and 36.
`
`The ‘980 Patent is presently asserted against IGC in an on-going patent
`
`infringement lawsuit brought by Patent Owner in j2 Global, Inc. v. Integrated
`
`Global Concepts, Inc., Case No. 13-02971, filed in the United States District Court
`
`for the Northern District of California on June 27, 2013. Patent Owner asserts that
`
`IGC infringes “one or more claims of the ‘980 Patent, including but not limited to
`
`Claims 1,” and others may be asserted at a later date.
`
`- 2 -  
`
`

`
`  
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Michael DeSanctis
`USPTO Reg. No. 39,957
`Hamilton, DeSanctis & Cha LLP
`225 Union Blvd., Suite 150
`Lakewood, Colorado 80228
`Phone: (303) 856-7155
`Fax: (303) 856-7264
`mdesanctis@hdciplaw.com
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Robert J. Schneider
`USPTO Reg. No. 27,383
`Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
`111 E. Wacker Dr., Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL, 60601
`Phone: (312) 836-4154
`Fax: (312) 527-4011
`rschneider@taftlaw.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`James M. Heiser
`Pro Hac Vice to be requested upon grant
`of authorization
`Chapman and Cutler LLP
`111 W. Monroe St.
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Phone: (312) 845-3877
`Fax: (312) 701-2361
`heiser@chapman.com
`
`Petitioner hereby requests authorization to file a motion for James Heiser to
`
`appear pro hac vice, as Mr. Heiser is an experienced litigating attorney, and is lead
`
`counsel for IGC, respectively, in the above-referenced litigation matter, and as
`
`such has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding. Petitioner intends to file such motion once authorization is granted.
`
`4.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`The email and mailing addresses provided above can be used for service and
`
`all communications with counsel.
`
`- 3 -  
`
`

`
`5.
`
`Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b))
`
`A Power of Attorney was filed contemporaneously with the Original
`
`Petition.
`
`III. IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b), the Petitioner requests a
`
`judgment by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) cancelling claims 1-12,
`
`21-24 and 26-35 of the ‘980 Patent as being unpatentable for one or more of the
`
`following reasons.
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Identification of Prior Art and Challenged Claims
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 22 and 26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) as being unpatentable over RightFAX Admin Guide in view of RightFAX
`
`Gateway Guide.
`
`2.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 2-3, 6-12, 22, 26-28, 30 and 35 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over RightFAX Admin Guide in
`
`view of RightFAX Gateway Guide in further view of Cohn.
`
`3.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 21 and 31-34 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) as being unpatentable over RightFAX Admin Guide in view of RightFAX
`
`Gateway Guide in further view of Marshall.
`
`- 4 -  
`
`

`
`4. Ground 4: Claim 29 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over RightFAX Admin Guide in view of RightFAX Gateway Guide
`
`in further view of Cohn and Marshall.
`
`5.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 4-5 and 23-24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) as being unpatentable over RightFAX Admin Guide in view of RightFAX
`
`Gateway Guide in further view of Cohn and RFC 1521.
`
`B.
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For the Challenge
`
`The evidence to support the above challenges and the identification of where
`
`each claim limitation is found in the prior art references is provided below.
`
`Attached to this Petition as Exhibit 1003 is the declaration of Michael
`
`Shamos (Ex. 1003, Shamos Declaration). Dr. Shamos’ declaration in combination
`
`with the arguments presented herein demonstrate the lack of patentability of the
`
`challenged claims. Dr. Shamos’ Curriculum Vitae is included as an appendix to
`
`the Shamos Declaration.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘980 PATENT
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ‘980 Patent
`
`The ‘980 Patent issued from US Patent Application No. 08/723,750 filed on
`
`September 30, 1996. Based on the record, there is no reason to believe that the
`
`priority date of any claims of the ‘980 Patent is earlier than September 30, 1996.
`
`- 5 -  
`
`

`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ‘980 Patent in 1996
`
`would have been someone with at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`electrical engineering or an equivalent level of knowledge and ability concerning
`
`transmission of information across communications networks using facsimile
`
`machines and electronic mail systems from working in the communications
`
`industry for at least one year. See Shamos Declaration at ¶ 21.
`
`C.
`
` Brief Description of the ‘980 Patent
`
`The ‘980 Patent generally relates to systems and methods for delivering
`
`facsimile messages to recipients via email. Received facsimile messages are
`
`converted into a predetermined format selected by the recipient. See ‘980 Patent at
`
`Abstract.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of the ‘980 Patent’s File History
`1. Original Prosecution History
`
`The patent application that ultimately issued as the ‘980 Patent was filed on
`
`September 30, 1996 and was assigned US Application No. 08/723,750 (“the ‘750
`
`Application”). A copy of the ‘750 Application file history is attached as Exhibit
`
`1009.
`
`A first Office Action was issued on May 6, 1998, rejecting claims 1-12 and
`
`26 based on US Patent No. 5,913,110 of Jones et al. and US Patent No. 4,941,170
`
`- 6 -  
`
`

`
`of Herbst, and indicating claims 13-25 contained allowable subject matter. The
`
`Applicant filed an Amendment and Response on June 29, 1998 to place the claims
`
`into the condition indicated to be allowable by cancelling claims 1-12 and 26,
`
`amending claim 13 and adding new claims 27-34.
`
`A second Office Action was issued on September 28, 1998, rejecting claims
`
`13 and 27-34 based on US Patent No. 5,675,507 of Bobo II, Jones and Herbst, and
`
`indicating claims 14-25 contained allowable subject matter.
`
`The Applicant filed an Amendment and Response on December 18, 1998 to
`
`place the claims into the condition indicated to be allowable by amending claims
`
`13 and 27.
`
`A Notice of Allowance was issued on January 4, 1999 allowing claims 13,
`
`15-25 and 27-34, indicating claim 13 (which corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘980
`
`Patent) and claims 15-25 were allowed because the prior art of record did not show
`
`the recited subscriber directory and indicating claim 27 (which corresponds to
`
`claim 13 of the ‘980 Patent) and claims 28-34 were allowed because the prior art of
`
`record did not show “… retrieving a record format associated with the telephone
`
`number, the record format including a subscriber’s electronic mail address and
`
`selected file translation specification to determine the subscriber’s selected file
`
`translation specification… and converting the stored object file into a preselected
`
`file format based upon the subscriber selected file translation specification.”
`
`- 7 -  
`
`

`
`2.
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Prosecution History
`
`On September 14, 2012, the Patent Owner filed a petition requesting ex
`
`parte reexamination of claims 1 and 13 of the ‘980 Patent based on the RightFAX
`
`references relied upon herein and a 1996 version of the RightFAX E-mail Gateway
`
`Guide (not relied upon herein) (collectively, the “Applied References”). The ex
`
`parte reexamination was assigned control no. 90/012,650. A copy of the Ex Parte
`
`Reexam File History is attached as Exhibit 1010.
`
`A non-final Office Action was issued on January 31, 2013, rejecting claims
`
`1 and 13 as obvious over the Applied References. The Patent Owner filed an
`
`Amendment and Response on April 1, 2013, amending claims 5, 7-9 11-12 , 15-20
`
`and adding new claims 21-36, and concurrently submitted a declaration by Justin
`
`Douglas Tygar (“Tygar Declaration”) to support the Patent Owner’s asserted
`
`narrow constructions of the claim term “subscriber” and claim phrases “subscriber
`
`selected file translation format[s]” and “subscriber selected file translation
`
`specification” (the “Subscriber Selected Format”). See Ex Parte Reexam File
`
`History at pp. Ex. 1010 – 79 – Ex. 1010 – 87 and Ex. 1010 – 94 – Ex. 1010 – 103.
`
`Notably, the claim constructions of “subscriber” and the Subscriber Selected
`
`Format limitations offered by the Tygar Declaration were based on flawed logic,
`
`read limitations from the specification into the claims and included what appear to
`
`be purposefully misleading statements. For example, despite the fact that the
`
`- 8 -  
`
`

`
`independent claims lack any indication of operation or control of the recited
`
`methods and systems by a “service provider” and fail to recite either “privacy” or
`
`“security,” the Tygar Declaration concludes “privacy and security is [sic] an
`
`important feature [sic] of the system” and therefore “a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand that the service provider would be expected to maintain
`
`the security of the facsimile-to-email system that the service provider operates, to
`
`at least protect the privacy of its subscribers.” See Tygar Declaration at ¶¶ 28 and
`
`30. Layered on top of this flawed logic, Tygar concludes that forms of the word
`
`“subscriber” must be narrowly construed as “a customer of the facsimile-to-email
`
`service provider” that “does not have administrative access or privileges for
`
`operating the facsimile-to-email system.” See Tygar Declaration at ¶ 32.
`
`Emphasis added. Similarly, despite the lack of any requirement by the context of
`
`the claims or otherwise, Tygar concludes the Subscriber Selected Format
`
`limitations “refer to a file format that is selected by a subscriber based on the type
`
`of file that the subscriber can view using his or her own computer.” See Tygar
`
`Declaration at ¶ 32. Emphasis added.
`
`In the Amendment and Response of April 1, 2013, the Patent Owner took
`
`the narrow construction of the Subscriber Selected Format limitations even further,
`
`inferring such limitations required the selection to be received directly from or set
`
`directly by a subscriber. See Ex Parte Reexam File History at p. Ex. 1010 – 83
`
`- 9 -  
`
`

`
`(contrasting the Subscriber Selected Format limitations with use of the RightFAX
`
`FaxAdmin program in which “RightFAX administrators … set file formats for
`
`facsimile messages routed to e-mail.” Emphasis added.)
`
`Ultimately, the Examiner accepted the narrow claim constructions asserted
`
`by the Patent Owner and allowed the reexamined claims by issuing a Notice of
`
`Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate on May 3, 2013, indicating with
`
`reference to claims 1, 21, 22, 26, 31 and 34, for example, “[t]here is not taught or
`
`disclosed in the prior art including [sic] a facsimile-to-electronic mail system,
`
`which includes a subscriber selected format, a subscriber selected file translation
`
`format and/or a subscriber selected file translation specification.” See Ex Parte
`
`Reexam File History at p. Ex. 1010 – 8. Emphasis in original.
`
`As such, it is clear from the Ex Parte Reexam File History that the claims
`
`were allowed over the Applied References only as a result of the unduly narrow
`
`constructions of the claim term “subscriber” and the Subscriber Selected Format
`
`limitations and that all other claim limitations are disclosed by the Applied
`
`References.
`
`E.
`
`Proposed Claim Constructions
`
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions and supporting evidence for construed
`
`claim terms are set forth below pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and 42.104(b)(3). Even in the situation
`
`- 10 -  
`
`

`
`where the patent claims have been previously construed by a district court using a
`
`different standard, the PTO is nevertheless required to apply the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001). The proposed claim constructions below are not binding upon Petitioner
`
`beyond this inter partes review. Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions are
`
`offered only to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) and for the sole purpose of this
`
`Petition, and thus do not necessarily reflect the claim constructions proposed by
`
`Petitioner or adopted by the Court in the above-referenced litigation matter where a
`
`different claim construction applies.
`
`1.
`
`Subscriber, Subscribers, Subscriber’s and Subscribers’
`
`The terms “subscriber,” “subscribers,” “subscriber’s” and/or “subscribers’”
`
`appear in claims 1-5, 7-22, 25-32 and 35. As noted above, contrary to the Patent
`
`Owner’s mischaracterization of these limitations during the ex parte
`
`reexamination, since the independent claims are not expressly limited to a private,
`
`secure system run by a service provider, it should be clear the Patent Owner’s
`
`previously asserted justification for a narrow construction was and remains
`
`unsound.
`
`The Petitioner respectfully asserts equating a “subscriber” with a “user” is
`
`more fitting given the broad applicability of the claims both within and outside of a
`
`service provider context. Notably, the ‘980 Patent uses the terms “subscriber” and
`
`- 11 -  
`
`

`
`“user” interchangeably. See, e.g., ‘980 Patent at col. 23-30, col. 6, ll. 29-34, col. 7,
`
`ll. 54-56, col. 10, ll. 41-54 and col. 11, ll. 19-21. See also Shamos Declaration at ¶
`
`22. In view of the foregoing, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a
`
`“subscriber” in the context of the methods and systems as claimed by the ‘980
`
`Patent to encompass any “user” of such methods and systems. See Shamos
`
`Declaration at ¶ 21.
`
`2.
`
`
`Subscriber Selected File Translation
`Format(s)/Specification
`
`The phrases “subscriber selected file translation format[s]” or “subscriber
`
`selected file translation specification” appear in claims 1, 13, 21, 22, 25, 26, 31, 35
`
`and 36 (the “Subscriber Selected Format”). Notably, the ‘980 Patent uses the
`
`phrase “subscriber selected” to broadly describe a selection, decision or choice
`
`made by a subscriber from among various formats supported by his/her computer
`
`system, for example, that can be communicated to the service provider or
`
`otherwise stored in the system. See ‘980 Patent at col. 9, ll. 60-66. While the
`
`specification of the ‘980 Patent describes embodiments in which an interactive
`
`voice response unit (IVR) or voice recognition unit (VRU) are possible
`
`mechanisms for directly receiving a subscriber selected format from the subscriber
`
`to establish a file format in which the subscriber’s facsimiles are to be delivered,
`
`there is no requirement in any of independent claims 1, 13, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 31
`
`- 12 -  
`
`

`
`that the “file translation format[s]/specification” be received from or set by a
`
`subscriber. The plain language of all of the independent claims (with the exception
`
`of independent claims 35 and 36) merely requires the file translation
`
`format[s]/specification to represent a selection, decision or a choice made by one
`
`or more subscribers. As noted above, contrary to the Patent Owner’s
`
`mischaracterization of these limitations during the ex parte reexamination, the
`
`modifier “subscriber selected” should be interpreted consistent with its ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as “chosen by the subscriber” - regardless of from whom
`
`(e.g., a system administrator or a subscriber of the service provider) information
`
`regarding the selection, decision or choice is “received” and regardless of who
`
`(e.g., a system administrator or a subscriber of the service provider) ultimately
`
`causes corresponding specification codes to be “set” or “stored” within the
`
`subscriber directory of the facsimile-to-electronic mail system. See Shamos
`
`Declaration at ¶ 23. Based on the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the Subscriber Selected Format limitations are met so long as the
`
`file translation format/specification is a result of a cognitive decision-making
`
`process (i.e., a selection, decision or choice) made by a user and it is of no
`
`consequence how or from whom the facsimile-to-electronic mail system receives
`
`information regarding that selection, decision or choice. See Shamos Declaration
`
`at ¶ 23.  
`
`- 13 -  
`
`

`
`3. Means For Transmitting a Converted Facsimile
`
`Transmission
`
`Claims 1, 21, 22, 26, 31 and 35 recite a “means for transmitting a converted
`
`facsimile transmission to a subscriber electronic mail address.” Such limitations
`
`must be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. See MPEP 2181 and
`
`Shamos Declaration at ¶ 26. With respect to structure corresponding to the
`
`transmitting function, the specification of the ‘980 Patent describes executing a
`
`“message-transmit function” of “an e-mail system with which” the facsimile server
`
`has an account “to send the message” to the subscriber. See ‘980 Patent at FIG. 3B
`
`(step 318), col. 9, ll. 19-53 and col. 12, ll. 25-27. As such, the structure for the
`
`“means for transmitting” should be construed to encompass use of an email system
`
`or equivalents thereof for transmitting a converted facsimile transmission. See
`
`Shamos Declaration at ¶ 26.  
`
`4.
`
`
`
`A Subscriber Directory … For Storing Subscriber
`Information, For Generating Record Formats … And For
`Providing The Record Formats To Said Facsimile Server
`
`Claims 1, 21, 22, 26, 31 and 35 recite a “a subscriber directory coupled to
`
`said facsimile server for storing subscriber information, for generating record
`
`formats comprising the subscriber information and for providing the record
`
`formats to said facsimile server.” Notwithstanding the absence of the word
`
`“means,” such limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 because they merely claim
`
`the underlying functions (e.g., storing, generating and providing) without recitation
`
`- 14 -  
`
`

`
`of sufficient structure for performing those functions. See MPEP § 2181 and
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1463, 45 USPQ2d
`
`1545, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The specification of the ‘980 Patent describes
`
`corresponding structure for the recited functions in terms of storing subscriber
`
`selections “in a memory associated with facsimile server 122, such as subscriber
`
`directory 126.” The ‘980 Patent describes the “record format” as including “an e-
`
`mail address associated with the dialed telephone number and a subscriber-selected
`
`file translation specification.” See ‘980 Patent at col. 6, ll. 13-15. The ‘980 Patent
`
`also describes retrieving such record formats by querying “a database, such as
`
`subscriber directory 126.” See ‘980 Patent at FIG. 1, FIG. 2, col. 8, ll. 25-26 and
`
`col. 8, ll. 32-34. FIG. 3B (step 318), col. 9, ll. 19-53 and col. 12, ll. 25-27. As
`
`such, the structure for the “subscriber directory” should be construed to encompass
`
`a database or other memory associated with a facsimile server used for the recited
`
`functions. See Shamos Declaration at ¶ 27.
`
`5. Means For Translating
`
`Claim 3 recites a “means for translating subscriber-specific facsimile
`
`receiving telephone numbers into subscriber electronic mail addresses.” This
`
`limitation must be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. See Shamos
`
`Declaration at ¶ 28. The specification of the ‘980 Patent describes corresponding
`
`structure for the translating function in terms of querying “a database, such as
`
`- 15 -  
`
`

`
`subscriber directory 126, for a record format containing … a subscriber e-mail
`
`address” associated with the dialed facsimile number. See ‘980 Patent at FIG. 3B
`
`(step 312), col. 8, ll. 29-35, col. 8, ll. 52-63 and col. 11, ll. 60-67. As such, the
`
`structure for the “means for translating” should be construed to encompass a table,
`
`a database or equivalent data structure for mapping a telephone number to a
`
`corresponding email address. See Shamos Declaration at ¶ 28.  
`
`6. Means For Changing a Destination
`
`Claim 7 recites a “means for changing a destination to which facsimile
`
`transmissions are to be forwarded to.” This limitation must be construed in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. See Shamos Declaration at ¶ 29. The
`
`specification of the ‘980 Patent describes structure corresponding to this changing
`
`function as an “interactive voice response unit (IVR) or voice recognition unit
`
`(VRU)” th