`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 2001417-00158US1
`Filed on behalf of
`
`Vonage Holdings Corp., Vonage
`America, Inc., and
`Vonage Marketing LLC by:
`Grant K. Rowan, Reg. No. 41,278
`Victor F. Souto, Reg. No. 33,458
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering
` Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email:
`grant.rowan@wilmerhale.com
`vic.souto@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`Netflix, Inc. by:
`
`Stacy S. Chen, Reg. No. 62,609
`Matthias Kamber (pro hac vice pending)
`Keker & Van Nest LLP
`633 Battery St.
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel.: (415) 391-5400
`Email:
`schen@kvn.com
`mkamber@kvn.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP., VONAGE AMERICA, INC., VONAGE
`MARKETING LLC, and NETFLIX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR No.: To be assigned
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1, 11-12, 14, 16, 19, 22-23, 27, and 30-31
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`851771
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`II. Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest .............................................................................. 3
`B.
`Related Matters ....................................................................................... 3
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information ........................................................... 4
`III. Certification of Grounds for Standing .............................................................. 5
`IV. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................................. 5
`V. Overview of the ’704 patent (Ex. 1001) ........................................................... 7
`A.
`Summary of the Alleged Invention ........................................................ 7
`1.
`Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned IP
`Addresses ....................................................................................... 9
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses and
`Identifiers with a Connection Server ............................................. 9
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to
`Connection Server, Which Returns IP Address of Second
`Processing Unit ............................................................................ 10
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address to
`Establish Point-to-Point Communication with Second
`Processing Unit ............................................................................ 11
`5. Using a “User Interface” to Control the Process ......................... 11
`Original Prosecution of the ’704 Patent ............................................... 12
`B.
`Prior Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’704 Patent ................................ 12
`C.
`The Sipnet Inter Partes Review for the ’704 Patent (Ex. 1010) .......... 14
`D.
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References .............................................. 14
`A.
`The Microsoft Manual (Ex. 1003) ........................................................ 14
`1.
`Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned IP
`Addresses from DHCP Servers ................................................... 15
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses and
`Identifiers with the WINS Server ................................................ 18
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to WINS
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`851771
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`4.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Server and Receives the IP Address of the Second
`Processing Unit ............................................................................ 22
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address to
`Establish Point-to-Point Communication with Second
`Processing Unit ............................................................................ 23
`NetBIOS (Ex. 1004) ............................................................................. 23
`1.
`Step 1: Processing Units Have Assigned IP Addresses .............. 25
`2.
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses and
`Identifiers with the NBNS ........................................................... 25
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to the
`NBNS and Receives the IP Address of the Second
`Processing Unit ............................................................................ 27
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address to
`Establish Point-to-Point Communications with Second
`Processing Unit ............................................................................ 28
`Pinard (Ex. 1020) .................................................................................. 29
`C.
`VII. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 32
`A.
`“Point-to-Point Communication Link” (Claims 1, 10-12, 14, 16, 19,
`21-23, 27, 30-31) .................................................................................. 32
`“[Program Code for / Program Logic Configured to]
`Transmitting/Transmit to the Server a Network Protocol Address
`Received By the First Process Following Connection to the Computer
`Network” (Claims 12-14) ..................................................................... 33
`“Connection To The Computer Network” (Claim 3, 9-14) / “Connected
`To The Computer Network” (Claims 4, 6-8, 13) ................................. 34
`VIII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 34
`IX. Specific Grounds for Petition ......................................................................... 35
`A. Ground 1: Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious Over the Microsoft
`Manual and NetBIOS. .......................................................................... 35
`1. A Person Skilled in the Art Would Have Been Motivated
`to Combine the Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS ........................ 35
`2. Claim 1 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled. ............................. 36
`Ground 2: Claims 11-12, 14, 16, 19, 22-23, 27, and 30-31 Would
`Have Been Obvious Over the Microsoft Manual, NetBIOS, and Pinard44
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`851771
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`1. One Skilled in the Art Would Have Been Motivated to
`Combine the Microsoft Manual, NetBIOS, and Pinard .............. 44
`2. Claim 11 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled. ........................... 45
`3. Claim 12 (Depends from Claim 11) Should Be Cancelled. ........ 50
`4. Claim 14 (Depends from Claim 11) Should Be Cancelled. ........ 50
`5. Claim 16 (Depends from Claim 11) Should Be Cancelled. ........ 52
`6. Claim 19 (Depends from Claim 11) Should Be Cancelled. ........ 53
`7. Claim 22 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled. ........................... 54
`8. Claim 23 (Depends from Claim 22) Should Be Cancelled. ........ 56
`9. Claim 27 (Depends from Claim 22) Should Be Cancelled. ........ 56
`10. Claim 30 (Depends from Claim 22) Should Be Cancelled. ........ 57
`11. Claim 31 (Depends from Claim 30) Should Be Cancelled. ........ 57
`X. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`851771
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 32
`
`
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`Federal Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 32
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`851771
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Vonage Holdings Corp., Vonage America, Inc., Vonage Marketing LLC,
`
`and Netflix, Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”) request Inter Partes Review of claims
`
`1, 11-12, 14, 16, 19, 22-23, 27, and 30-31 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 (“the ’704
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001)1 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.
`
`The ’704 patent is directed to establishing “point-to-point communications”
`
`between two processes (e.g., computers) over a computer network. The ’704
`
`patent inventors did not claim to invent point-to-point communications, which they
`
`conceded were already “known in the art.” Instead, they alleged that prior art
`
`point-to-point communications were “impractical” when the initiating process did
`
`not know the specific network address of the other process; for example, in the
`
`case of processes with dynamically assigned addresses that can change over time.
`
`To address that alleged problem, the ’704 patent inventors disclosed a
`
`simple look-up feature involving a “server” that tracks the currently assigned
`
`network address and other identifying information (e.g., name) of registered
`
`processes. In response to a query received from a first process (e.g., using the
`
`name of a second process), the server sends the current network address of the
`
`1 Petitioner has numbered each page of the Exhibits in the format “Petitioner
`
`Vonage Holdings Corp. et al. - Exhibit 10__ - Page ___”. All page number cites
`
`are to the numbers added by Petitioner.
`
`851771
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`second process to the first process, and the first process then uses that retrieved
`
`address to establish point-to-point communication with the second process. The
`
`’704 patent also claimed a need to implement these basic features by using a
`
`“current graphic user interface technology associated with computer software.”
`
`But by September 1995 (the claimed priority date of the ’704 patent), others
`
`had solved the same problem using the same basic lookup feature. For example, in
`
`1994, Microsoft published a user manual for Version 3.5 of its Windows NT
`
`Server software (“the Microsoft Manual”) (Ex. 1003). Just like the ’704 patent, the
`
`Microsoft Manual teaches (1) a name server implementing the NetBIOS protocol
`
`that tracks the current dynamically assigned network address and name of each
`
`registered process; and (2) a first process that sends a name query for a second
`
`process to the name server, and then uses the network address received in response
`
`to the query to establish point-to-point communications with the second process.
`
`The prior art also disclosed the “user interface” aspects of the alleged
`
`invention. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,533,110 to Pinard et al. (“Pinard”) (Ex.
`
`1020), filed in November 1994, teaches a software user interface that mimics a
`
`traditional telephone, including icons to represent “communication lines” and for
`
`functions such as placing a call on hold.
`
`Therefore, as detailed below, the Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS protocol
`
`(Ex. 1004) render obvious claims 1, and also render obvious claims 11-12, 14, 16,
`
`851771
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`19, 22-23, 27, and 30-31 in combination with Pinard.2
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Vonage Holdings Corp., Vonage America, Inc., Vonage Marketing LLC and
`
`(collectively “Vonage”) Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) are the real parties-in-interest and
`
`are the Petitioner.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Straight Path has asserted a claimed descendent of the ’704 patent, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,009,469 (“the ’469 patent”) against Vonage in the District of New
`
`Jersey (2:14-cv-00502-JLL-JAD); and the ’704 patent against Netflix and other
`
`parties in the Eastern District of Texas (6:13-cv-00604-KNM; 6:13-cv-00605-
`
`KNM; 6:13-cv-00607-KNM; 6:13-cv-00606-KNM, 6:14-cv-00405-KNM; 6:14-
`
`cv-00534-KNM). Netflix has moved to intervene in the Eastern District of
`
`Virginia (1:13-cv-933-AJT-IDD; 1:13-cv-934-AJT-IDD), and VIZIO has filed a
`
`complaint against Straight Path in the Eastern District of Virginia (No. 2:14-cv-
`
`00233-HCM-DEM) concerning the ’704, ’469, and ’121 patents. Petitioner also is
`
`filing Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the ‘469 patent and U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`2 Because the Microsoft Manual explicitly incorporates the NetBIOS protocol, see
`
`infra § VI(A), they are a single anticipatory reference. But for purposes of this
`
`Petition, Petitioner has treated the references as an obviousness combination.
`
`851771
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`6,513,066 (“the ’066 patent”), 6,701,365 (“the ’365 patent”), and 6,131,121 (“the
`
`’121 Patent”); the ’121, ’469, ’066, and ’365 patents all name the same alleged
`
`inventors and claim to descend from the ’704 patent.
`
`On October 11, 2013, the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-7
`
`and 33-42 of the ’704 patent. See Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, IPR
`
`No. 2013-00246. (Ex. 1011.) For the sake of efficiency and consistency,
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board assign the Sipnet panel to address this petition.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel for Vonage:
`
`Grant K. Rowan (Registration No. 41,278)
`
`grant.rowan@wilmerhale.com
`
`Backup Counsel for Vonage: Victor F. Souto (Registration No. 33,458)
`
`vic.souto@wilmerhale.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Netflix:
`
`Stacy S. Chen (Registration No. 62,609)
`
`schen@kvn.com
`
`Backup Counsel for Netflix: Matthias Kamber (pro hac vice pending)
`
`mkamber@kvn.com
`
`Post and hand delivery for
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`Vonage:
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`851771
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Post and hand delivery for
`
`Keker & Van Nest LLP
`
`Netflix:
`
`633 Battery Street
`
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Telephone for Vonage:
`
`202-663-6000
`
`Telephone for Netflix:
`
`415-391-5400
`
`Fax for Vonage:
`
`Fax for Netflix:
`
`Fax: 202-663-6363
`
`Fax: 415-397-7188
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Powers of attorney are submitted with this Petition. Counsel for Petitioner
`
`consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies under Rule 42.104(a) that the ’704 patent is available for
`
`inter partes review and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter
`
`partes review challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 11-12, 14, 16, 19, 22-23, 27, and
`
`30-31 of the ’704 patent (“the challenged claims”) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103. This Petition, supported by the accompanying Declaration of Dr. Bruce M.
`
`Maggs (Ex. 1002), demonstrates there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`challenged claims are not patentable and that Petitioner will prevail with respect to
`
`at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`851771
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner’s challenge is
`
`based on the following references:
`
`1.
`
`The Microsoft Manual (Ex. 1003), which Microsoft Corporation
`
`published and publicly distributed to customers no later than September 1994, is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).3 The September 1994
`
`publication date for the Microsoft Manual is further confirmed, for example, by:
`
`(1) Exhibit 1007, a copyright registration notice that lists September 19, 1994 as
`
`the date of first publication for “Microsoft Windows NT Server, Version 3.5”; (2)
`
`Exhibit 1006, a printout of the “TCPIP.HLP” file (bearing a “Date modified” of
`
`September 4, 1994) that was distributed with Microsoft Windows NT Server 3.5
`
`bears a 1994 copyright date, and is substantively identical to the Microsoft Manual
`
`(except it does not include the “Glossary”) (Decl. of Jason H. Liss Regarding
`
`Microsoft Windows NT Server 3.5 (Ex. 1005) ¶¶ 4-10); and (3) Exhibit 1008, a
`
`book titled Microsoft Windows NT Networking Guide containing the relevant
`
`portions (except for the “Welcome” and “Glossary” sections) of the Microsoft
`
`Manual and was first published in February 1995, as confirmed by the copyright
`
`registration notice (Exhibit 1009). (Ex. 1005). The “TCPIP.HLP” file is prior art
`
`
`3 The Microsoft Manual is before the Board as Exhibit 1004 in the ongoing Sipnet
`
`inter partes review (discussed further below in Section V(D)).
`
`851771
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b) and the Microsoft Windows NT
`
`Networking Guide is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`2.
`
`Technical Standard – Protocols for X/Open PC Interworking: SMB,
`
`Version 2, including Appendices F and G (respectively, Internet Engineering Task
`
`Force RFC Nos. 1001 (“Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP
`
`Transport: Concepts and Methods”) and 1002 (“Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS
`
`Service on a TCP/UDP Transport: Detailed Specifications”)) (Ex. 1004)
`
`(collectively, “NetBIOS”) was published and made publicly available
`
`in
`
`September 1992, and is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).
`
`3.
`
`Pinard (Ex. 1020) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’704 PATENT (EX. 1001)
`A.
`Summary of the Alleged Invention
`The ’704 patent concedes that, in the prior art, a first processing unit could
`
`establish “point-to-point communications” with a second processing unit using the
`
`network address of the second processing unit, “in a manner known in the art.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:21-23 (“[D]evices interfacing to the Internet and other online services
`
`may communicate with each other upon establishing respective device
`
`addresses.”); id., 1:48-50, 7:60-64 (“Permanent IP addresses of users and devices
`
`accessing the Internet readily support point-to-point communications of voice and
`
`video signals over the Internet” “may be established as shown in FIGS. 3-4 in a
`
`851771
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`manner known in the art”); id., 8:20-22 (point-to-point communications “may be
`
`conducted in a manner known in the art between the first and second users through
`
`the Internet 24”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 32.)
`
`According to the ’704 patent, however, point-to-point communication was
`
`“difficult to attain” between processing units with “temporary IP addresses” (i.e.,
`
`dynamically assigned IP addresses) that “may be reassigned or recycled” over
`
`time. (Ex. 1001, 1:35-56.) The ’704 patent represented that a need therefore
`
`existed for a way to establish point-to-point communications between computers
`
`with dynamic IP addresses. (Id.; see also Ex. 1021 [3/4/99 Amendment] at 14
`
`(“The problem is: How can a global network user be located if he/she has no
`
`permanent network address? …. Applicants have disclosed a solution to the above-
`
`described problem.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 33.)
`
`The ’704 patent claimed to solve that supposed “problem” through the basic
`
`lookup feature described in Figure 8:
`
`851771
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, Fig. 8; Ex. 1002 ¶ 34.)
`
`1. Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned IP
`Addresses
`
`When a “processing unit” (the term used in the specification of the ’704
`
`patent) or “process” (the term used in the claims)4 “logs on to the Internet …, the
`
`[processing unit] is provided a dynamically allocated IP address by a connection
`
`Service Provider.” (Ex. 1001, 5:21-24; 4:7-16; Ex. 1002 ¶ 35.)
`
`2.
`
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses and
`Identifiers with a Connection Server
`
`After receiving its address, a processing unit “automatically transmits … its
`
`dynamically allocated IP address to the connection server 26,” which “stores these
`
`addresses in the database 34….” (Ex. 1001, 5:25-31; id., 10:23-27 (“[C]onnection
`
`server 26 … timestamp[s] and store[s] E-mail and IP addresses of logged-in users
`
`
`4 For convenience, the term “processing unit” is used in Sections V and VI.
`
`851771
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`and processing units in the database 34.”).) Connection server 26 keeps “relatively
`
`current” “on-line status” of registered processing units, e.g., it may confirm that a
`
`processing unit remains online after “predetermined time periods, such as a default
`
`value of 24 hours.” (id., 5:39-44.) Alternatively, “[w]hen a user logs off or goes
`
`off-line from the Internet 24, the connection server 26 updates the status of the user
`
`in the database 34; for example, by removing the user’s information, or by flagging
`
`the user as being offline.” (Ex. 1001, 6:6-9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 36.)
`
`3.
`
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to
`Connection Server, Which Returns IP Address of Second
`Processing Unit
`
`To establish point-to-point communications with a second processing unit,
`
`“the first processing unit…sends a query … to the connection server 26” that
`
`includes “the name or alias … of a party to be called.” (Ex. 1001, 5:55-67, 9:26-
`
`33, 10:4-11, 10:28-32; Ex. 1002 ¶ 37.)
`
`The connection server then “searches the database 34 to determine whether
`
`the [second processing unit] is logged-in by finding any stored information …
`
`indicating that the [second processing unit] is active and on-line.” (Id., 5:57-61.)
`
`“If the [second processing unit] is active and on-line … the IP address of the
`
`[second processing unit] is retrieved from the database 34 and sent to the first
`
`[processing unit].” (Id., 5:60-64; id., 10:21-37 (Connection server 26 “retriev[es]
`
`the IP address of the specified user from the database 34 … and send[s] the
`
`851771
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`retrieved IP address to the first processing unit 12.”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 38.)
`
`4.
`
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address to
`Establish Point-to-Point Communication with Second
`Processing Unit
`
`After receiving the IP address of the second processing unit, “[t]he first
`
`processing unit may then directly establish point-to-point Internet communications
`
`with the [second processing unit] using the IP address of the [second processing
`
`unit].” (Ex. 1001, 5:64-67; id., 10:34-37 (Connection server 26 “send[s] the
`
`received IP address to the first processing unit … to establish point-to-point
`
`Internet communications with specified second user”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 39.)
`
`The ’704 patent does not claim to invent point-to-point communications, or
`
`even a new type of point-to-point communications. Rather, it admits the claimed
`
`point-to-point communications “may be established as shown in FIGS. 3-4 in a
`
`manner known in the art” and “may be conducted in a manner known in the art
`
`between the first and second users through the Internet 24”) (Ex. 1001, 7:60-64,
`
`8:20-22 (emphasis added).); Ex. 1002 ¶ 40.)
`
`Using a “User Interface” to Control the Process
`
`5.
`The ’704 patent discloses implementing communication features using
`
`graphic user interfaces that “may be displayed on a display of a personal computer
`
`(PC) or a PDA in a manner known in the art.” (Ex. 1001, 8:35-40, Figs. 5-6; see
`
`generally id., 8:35-10:3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 41.)
`
`851771
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The caller “may switch between multiple calls in progress on respective
`
`lines”; e.g., “[d]ragging the reduced icon 46 to any one of line icons L1-L4
`
`transfers the called party in use to the selected line, and dragging the reduced icon
`
`46 to any one of conference line icons C1-C3 adds the called party to the selected
`
`conference call.” (Ex. 1001, 9:38-42.) In addition, “the HLD icon 44 may be
`
`actuated to place a current line on hold.” (Id., 8:57-58; id., 28:8-10; Ex. 1002 ¶
`
`42.)
`
`B. Original Prosecution of the ’704 Patent
`The original application for the ’704 patent contained 20 claims and claims
`
`21-53 were added. All 53 claims were rejected by the Examiner. After
`
`amendments, the Examiner ultimately allowed 44 of the claims. This Petition does
`
`not rely on prior art cited during the original prosecution. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 43)
`
`C.
`In February 2009, a
`
`Prior Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’704 Patent
`third party—Skype, Inc.—requested ex parte
`
`reexamination of claims 1-7 and 10-44 of the ’704 patent. Skype argued that these
`
`claims were anticipated and/or rendered obvious in view of multiple prior art
`
`references including, among other references, NetBIOS and Pinard. The PTO
`
`found that there were substantial new questions of patentability affecting claims 1-
`
`7 and 10-44 based on prior art cited in the reexamination request. The PTO’s
`
`initial office action rejected claims 1-7 and 10-44 of the ’704 patent. (Ex. 1002 ¶
`
`851771
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`44)
`
`However, the examiner was later persuaded by an expert declaration arguing
`
`that “bringing dynamic addressing into a NetBIOS type system would create a new
`
`set of obstacles” such that “one of ordinary skill in the art would [not] have been
`
`motivated to combine NetBIOS and [DHCP].” (Ex. 1022, 2010-05-11 Office
`
`Action] at 11; Ex. 1023 at 5-7; Ex. 1002 ¶ 45).
`
`The expert declaration failed to note that prior art, including the Microsoft
`
`Manual, disclosed using dynamic addressing in a NetBIOS-type system. (E.g., Ex.
`
`1003 at 69 (“[W]hen dynamic addressing through DHCP results in new IP
`
`addresses for computers that move between subnets, the changes are automatically
`
`updated in the WINS database,” which “is based on and is compatible with the
`
`protocols defined for [NetBIOS Name Server] in RFCs 1001/1002…”); id. at13
`
`(DHCP servers allow “users [to] take advantage of dynamic IP address allocation
`
`and management.”); id. at 62 (“DHCP offers dynamic configuration of IP
`
`addresses for computers.”); id. at 41 (“Microsoft Windows networking provides
`
`dynamic name resolution for NetBIOS computer names via WINS servers and
`
`NetBIOS over TCP/IP.”); id. at 65 (“WINS is a NetBIOS over TCP/IP mode of
`
`operation defined in RFC 1001/1002 as p-node.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 46.)
`
`Relying on the flawed declaration, the Examiner confirmed claims 1-7 and
`
`32-42, allowed claims 11-20 and 22-31 as amended, and cancelled claims 10, 21,
`
`851771
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`43, and 44. (Ex. 1022 at 3, 7-10; Ex. 1002 ¶ 47.)
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`D. The Sipnet Inter Partes Review for the ’704 Patent (Ex. 1010)
`In April 2013, a third party (“Sipnet”) initiated an IPR seeking cancellation
`
`of certain claims of the ’704 patent based on, inter alia, the Microsoft Manual and
`
`NetBIOS. (Ex. 1010.) On October 11, 2013, the Board instituted an IPR for all
`
`challenged claims and found a reasonable likelihood that the Microsoft Manual and
`
`NetBIOS each anticipated most claims and the remaining claims were been
`
`obvious over the Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS. (Ex. 1011 at 20-21.) The Board
`
`conducted a hearing on July 11, 2014.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A. The Microsoft Manual (Ex. 1003)
`In 1994, Microsoft published and publicly distributed the Microsoft Manual,
`
`which “describes how to install, configure, and troubleshoot Microsoft TCP/IP on
`
`a computer running the Microsoft Windows NT Workstation or Windows NT
`
`Server operating system,” including “the software to support new dynamic
`
`configuration and name resolution services.” (Ex. 1003 at 12.) The Microsoft
`
`Manual teaches how a processing unit (e.g., a computer running the Windows NT
`
`or Windows for Workgroups operating system) or process (e.g., the Windows NT
`
`or Windows for Workgroups operating system running on a computer) can initiate
`
`point-to-point communications with other processes using the same lookup feature
`
`851771
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as in the ’704 patent:
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Step 4
`
`Step 1
`
`Step 2
`
`Step 3
`
`Step 5
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶ 49.)5
`
`1.
`
`Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned IP
`Addresses from DHCP Servers
`
`The Microsoft Manual explains that each processing unit participating on a
`
`
`5 The Microsoft Manual explains that Windows NT v3.5 uses the TCP/IP protocol
`
`“to communicate with Windows NT systems, with devices that use other Microsoft
`
`networking products, and with non-Microsoft systems, such as UNIX.” (Ex. 1003
`
`at 18, 19 (TCP/IP allows Windows NT to “connect to the Internet” and to “private
`
`internetworks”); id. at 27-28 (examples of compatible non-Microsoft networks); id.
`
`at 55-56 (outlining history and general operation of TCP/IP); Ex. 1002 ¶ 49, n. 2.)
`
`851771
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Windows NT network “must be assigned a unique IP address” and that Windows
`
`NT networks can use a DHCP server to assign IP addresses automatically to
`
`processing units at start up—including dynamically. (Ex. 1003 at 57-58; id. at 62
`
`(manually “[a]ssigning and maintaining IP address information can be an
`
`administrative burden” and “[DHCP] was established to relieve this administrative
`
`burden … through centralized management of address allocation” and “dynamic
`
`configuration of IP addresses for computers”); id. at 13 (“When DHCP servers are
`
`installed on the network, users can take advantage of dynamic IP address allocation
`
`and management.”); id. at 23 (Windows TCP/IP supports RFC 1541, the “Dynamic
`
`Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)”); id. at 83 (“A [DHCP] server is a Windows
`
`NT Server computer running Microsoft TCP/IP and the DHCP-compatible server
`
`software” which “is defined in [RFCs] 1533, 1534, 1541, and 1542.”); id. at 85-
`
`120 (DHCP software and configuration options, including for “small LAN” and
`
`“large enterprise network”); id. at 113 (“Allocation of IP addresses for distribution
`
`by DHCP servers can be done dynamically … [which] allows a client to be
`
`assigned an IP address from the free address pool.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 50.)
`
`“During system startup,” each processing unit sends a “discover message” to
`
`all DHCP servers, each of which “responds with an offer message containing an IP
`
`address and valid configuration information for the client that sent the request.”
`
`(Ex. 1003 at 63.) After the processing unit chooses one of the DHCP server offers,
`
`851771
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`“[t]he selected DHCP server sends a DHCP acknowledgment message that
`
`contains the [IP] address first sent during the discovery stage, plus a valid lease for
`
`the address.” (Id. at 64; id. at 84 (“When a DHCP client computer is started, it
`
`communicates with a DHCP server to receive the required TCP/IP configuration
`
`information… include[ing] at least an IP address and submask plus the lease
`
`associated with the configuration.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 51.)
`
`The register processing unit can then partici