throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
`
` Entered: March 6, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`____________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively,
`
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1,
`
`11, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23, 27, 30, and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’704 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that
`
`an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the
`
`Preliminary Response, and associated evidence, we conclude that Petitioner
`
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability of all the challenged claims. Thus, we authorize institution
`
`of an inter partes review of claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23, 27, 30, and 31 of
`
`the ’704 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’704 patent is the subject of the
`
`proceedings in Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd., No. 6:13-cv-00606 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1–2. Petitioner further indicates
`
`that the ʼ704 patent was the subject of Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP
`
`Group, Inc., IPR2013-00246 (PTAB) (“Sipnet”). Id.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner indicates that this Petition is related to
`
`IPR2014-01367 and IPR2014-01368. Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`
`B. The ʼ704 Patent
`
`The ’704 patent (Ex. 1001) is titled “Point-to-Point Internet Protocol”
`
`and generally relates to establishing a point-to-point communication link.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:53–57. The patent explains that a first processing unit
`
`automatically transmits its associated e-mail address, and its IP address, to a
`
`connection server. Id. at 5:25–38. The connection server stores the
`
`addresses in a database and, thus, the first processing unit is established as
`
`an active on-line party available for communication. Id. The first
`
`processing unit sends a query to the connection server, which searches the
`
`database to determine whether a second processing unit is active and on-line.
`
`Id. at 5:55–60. If the callee is active and on-line, the connection server
`
`sends the IP address of the callee from the database to the first processing
`
`unit, i.e., performs a point-to-point Internet protocol communication. Id. at
`
`5:60–64. The first processing unit then directly establishes the point-to-
`
`point Internet communications with the callee using the retrieved IP address.
`
`Id. at 5:64–67.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’704 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 above illustrates the architecture between first processing unit 12,
`
`second processing unit 22, and connection server 26. Id. at 5:15–29.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23, 27, 30, and 31 of
`
`the ’704 patent. Pet. 20–55. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue and
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`1. A computer program product for use with a computer
`system, the computer system executing a first process and
`operatively connectable to a second process and a server over a
`computer network, the computer program product comprising:
`
`a computer usable medium having program code
`embodied in the medium, the program code comprising:
`
`program code for transmitting to the server a
`network protocol address received by the first process
`following connection to the computer network;
`
`program code for transmitting, to the server, a
`query as to whether the second process is connected to
`the computer network;
`
`program code for receiving a network protocol
`address of the second process from the server, when the
`second process is connected to the computer network;
`and
`
`program code, responsive to the network protocol
`address of the second process, for establishing a point-to-
`point communication link between the first process and
`the second process over the computer network.
`
`D. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth proposed grounds
`
`of unpatentability of claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23, 27, 30, and 31 of the
`
`’704 patent as follows (see Pet. 20–55):1
`
`
`1 Petitioner supports its challenge with four declarations. Ex. 1006
`(Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D., executed August 22, 2014); Ex. 1006
`(Declaration of Robert Cowart, executed August 20, 2014); Ex. 1019
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`Microsoft Manual2
`Microsoft Manual and
`NetBIOS3
`Microsoft Manual,
`NetBIOS, and Palmer4
`Microsoft Manual,
`NetBIOS, Palmer, and Pinard5
`Microsoft Manual,
`NetBIOS, Palmer, Pinard, and
`Pitkin6
`
`§ 102(a)
`
`1, 11, 12, 22, and 23
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 11, 12, 22, and 23
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`11, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23, 27,
`30, and 31
`11, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23, 27,
`30, and 31
`
`1, 11, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23,
`27, 30, and 31
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The Board will interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`(Declaration of Sandy Ginoza, executed August 7, 2014); Ex. 1030
`(Declaration of Sandy Ginoza, executed August 19, 2014).
`2 MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT 3.5, TCP/IP USER GUIDE (1994) (Ex. 1012,
`“Microsoft Manual”).
`3 THE OPEN GROUP, TECHNICAL STANDARD, PROTOCOLS FOR X/OPEN PC
`INTERWORKING: SMB, VERSION 2.0 (1992) (Ex. 1014, “NetBIOS”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,375,068, issued Dec. 20, 1994 (Ex. 1020, “Palmer”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,533,110, issued July 2, 1996 (Ex. 1021, “Pinard”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,341,477, issued Aug. 23, 1994 (Ex. 1015, “Pitkin”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech. Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Patent Owner argues that the “broadest reasonable interpretation”
`
`standard does not apply here because “the ʼ704 patent will expire
`
`September 25, 2015, before the Board’s rendering of a final written decision
`
`in this matter if the Board were to institute a trial.” Prelim. Resp. 33–34.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner because for the purposes of this
`
`decision, the ʼ704 patent is not expired and, therefore, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard is applied. However, at the time of the
`
`final written decision, the ʼ704 patent will have expired, most likely, and we
`
`will apply the district court standard for claim construction as outlined in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner should address the differences, if any, between
`
`the broadest reasonable construction and the construction applied by a
`
`district court so that we can address them when we render a final written
`
`decision.
`
`1. “connected to the computer network” / “on-line status”
`
`Petitioner contends that the terms “connected to the computer
`
`network” and “on-line status” mean “on-line, e.g., registered with the
`
`server.” Pet. 24–30. Petitioner further contends that this construction is
`
`consistent with its usage in the ’704 patent specification, the ʼ704 patent
`
`prosecution history, and the construction as determined by a person with
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:31–38).
`
`Patent Owner argues that because the ʼ704 patent expires on
`
`September 25, 2015, the claims are construed “similar to that of a district
`
`court.” Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Cisco Sys., Inc. v. AIP Acquisition, LLC,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`Case IPR2014-00247, slip op. at 2 (PTAB July 10, 2014) (paper 20)).
`
`However, as discussed above, for the purposes of this decision, we will
`
`apply the broadest reasonable interpretation standard to the claim terms.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the ordinary and customary meaning of “on-line”
`
`is “connected to or accessible by means of a computer or computer
`
`network.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 2008, 3; Ex. 2009, 4). Patent Owner argues
`
`that this ordinary and customary meaning is consistent with the ʼ704 patent
`
`specification. Id. at 37–38 (citing 2:60–65, 4:56–58, 5:34–38, 5:55–6:5,
`
`6:6–8). Patent Owner further argues that, consistent with the ʼ704 patent
`
`specification, the ʼ704 patent prosecution history, and as would be construed
`
`by a person with ordinary skill in the art, “connected to a computer network”
`
`and “on-line status” do not mean “registered with the server” because
`
`“whether something at some point in time registered its name or IP address
`
`with a server does not mean that it is now on-line.” Id. at 39–41 (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:6–16; Ex. 1003, 1124–25). Patent Owner’s expert in Sipnet,
`
`Dr. Ketan Mayer-Patel, testified that, although “a processing unit is active
`
`and on-line at registration, it may subsequently go off-line and become
`
`inactive, but the process may maintain its registered status.” Sipnet,
`
`Ex. 2018 ¶ 22.
`
`We agree with Petitioner that “connected to the computer network”
`
`encompasses being “on-line,” which can be done by registering an address
`
`with the server. The ’704 patent specification and claims do not limit the
`
`scope of “connected to the computer network.” Furthermore, the ’704 patent
`
`specification discloses “the second processing unit 22, upon connection to
`
`the Internet 24 through a connection service provider, is processed by the
`
`connection server 26 to be established in the database 34 as an active on-line
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`party.” Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 35–38. Thus, the context of “connected to the
`
`computer network,” as disclosed in the specification, includes storing the
`
`processing unit address in the connection server database, and storing the
`
`address establishes the processing unit as active and on-line.
`
`This is consistent with our determination in Sipnet. Sipnet, Paper 62
`
`at 5–7. On this record, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence or
`
`rationale sufficient for us to disturb that claim construction. As discussed in
`
`Sipnet, Patent Owner and Dr. Ketan Mayer-Patel agree that a second
`
`processing unit is “active and on-line at registration.” Sipnet, Paper 30 at 26;
`
`Ex. 2018 ¶ 22. Although Patent Owner argues that a process “being on-line”
`
`does not encompass registering an address because the process “may
`
`subsequently go off-line” (Prelim. Resp. 41), Patent Owner has not provided
`
`any persuasive rationale or evidence to demonstrate that the limitation
`
`“connected to the computer network,” or any other claim limitation, requires
`
`a specified duration of time that a processing unit is “active and on-line.”
`
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the proper scope of the limitation
`
`“connected to the computer network” precludes a processing unit that is
`
`“active and on-line” but “may subsequently go off-line.” Therefore, on this
`
`record, we are persuaded that “connected to the computer network”
`
`encompasses a processing unit that is “active and on-line at registration.”
`
`2. “transmitting to the server a network protocol address
`received by the first process following connection to the
`computer network”
`
`Claim 1 recites, inter alia, program code for transmitting an address
`
`“following connection to the computer network.” Ex. 1001, 11:12–14.
`
`Petitioner contends that although Patent Owner argues that this limitation
`
`requires that the network protocol address must be dynamically assigned, the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`ʼ704 patent specification states that the invention operates “whether the
`
`current IP addresses were permanent (i.e., predetermined or preassigned) or
`
`temporary (i.e., assigned upon initiation of the point-to-point
`
`communication).” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:36–41). Patent Owner does
`
`not provide a construction for this limitation in its Preliminary Response.
`
`On this record, we agree with Petitioner that the address received
`
`“following connection to the network” encompasses any type of assignment
`
`of address. Consistent with our Final Decision in Sipnet, claim 1 does not
`
`require the “dynamic” assignment of addresses, whereas claims 33–37
`
`positively recite a method “for locating processes having dynamically
`
`assigned network protocol addresses.” Sipnet, Paper 62 at 7–9 (quoting
`
`claim 33 (emphasis added)). Also, we initially determined that independent
`
`claim 1 does not limit how network addresses are received, stored, or
`
`assigned. Independent claim 33, on the other hand, limits how network
`
`addresses are received, stored, or assigned because independent claim 33
`
`positively recites that addresses are “dynamically assigned.” Id.
`
`Our construction of the limitation “following connection to the
`
`computer network” is also consistent with the ʼ704 patent. The ʼ704 patent
`
`explains that the primary point-to-point protocol operates when a “callee
`
`processing unit does not have a fixed or predetermined IP address.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:15–17. The ʼ704 patent further explains an alternative,
`
`secondary point-to-point protocol that utilizes an e-mail that includes the
`
`current IP address, where the current IP address can be either a temporary or
`
`permanent IP address. Id. at 6:17–36. The ʼ704 patent explains that:
`
`Realtime point-to-point communication of audio signals
`over the Internet 24, as well as video and voicemail, may thus
`be established and supported without requiring permanent IP
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`
`addresses to be assigned to either of the users or processing
`units 12, 22. For the duration of the realtime point-to-point
`link, the relative permanence of the current IP addresses of the
`processing units 12, 22 is sufficient, whether the current IP
`addresses were permanent (i.e. predetermined or preassigned)
`or temporary (i.e. assigned upon initiation of the point-to-point
`communication).
`
`Id. at 7:32–41 (emphases added). Accordingly, the ʼ704 patent contemplates
`
`addresses that are predetermined, pre-assigned, fixed, or static, and contrasts
`
`these static addresses with temporary or dynamic addresses. Based on these
`
`descriptions of both static and dynamic addressing in the ʼ704 patent, Patent
`
`Owner has not persuaded us to limit the scope of “following connection to
`
`the computer network” to only “dynamic address allocation.”
`
`3. “point-to-point communication link”
`
`Petitioner contends that “point-to-point communication link” means
`
`“a connection between two processes over a computer network that is not
`
`intermediated by a server.” Pet. 21–22. Patent Owner does not provide a
`
`construction for this term.
`
`We agree with Petitioner’s construction of “point-to-point
`
`communication link.” The ’704 patent specification and claims do not
`
`provide for a specific definition of “point-to-point communication link.”
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “point-to-point” means a first point
`
`directly linked to a second point.7 The plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“communication link” includes any software or hardware that allows for
`
`communication.8 Accordingly, we construe “point-to-point communication
`
`
`7 See point-to-point, DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING (2008) available at
`http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/acbcomp/point_to_point/0
`(last visited Feb. 6, 2015) (“A direct link between two devices.”).
`8 See communication link, WILEY DICTIONARY OF COMMUNICATIONS
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`link” to include direct communications between two processes over a
`
`computer network that are not intermediated by a server.
`
`B. Claims 1, 11, 12, 22, and 23 — Obvious over Microsoft
`Manual and NetBIOS
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 11, 12, 22, and 23 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS.
`
`Pet. 32–41.
`
`1. Microsoft Manual (Ex. 1012)
`
`Microsoft Manual discloses how to install, configure, and
`
`troubleshoot Microsoft TCP/IP on a computer running the Microsoft
`
`Windows NT Workstation or Windows NT Server operating system.
`
`Ex. 1012, 3.9 When a computer’s name is registered with the Windows
`
`Internet Name Service server, the Windows Internet Name Service server
`
`accepts the entry with a timestamp, an incremental unique version number,
`
`and other information. Id. at 67–69. A name query request is received by
`
`the Windows Internet Name Service server and allows a client to establish a
`
`session based on the address mapping received from the Windows Internet
`
`Name Service server. Id. at 67–68. For example, if a first computer wants
`
`to communicate with a second computer, the first computer queries the
`
`Windows Internet Name Service server for the address of the second
`
`computer. Id. at 62–63. When the first computer receives the appropriate
`
`
`TECHNOLOGY (1998) available at http://search.credoreference.com/content/
`entry/wileycommtech/communication_link/0 (last visited Feb. 6, 2015)
`(“The software and hardware, to include cables, connectors, converters, etc.,
`required for two devices such as a computer and terminal to communicate.”).
`9 Ex. 1012 includes page numbers indicated by the publication itself, and
`different page numbers provided by Petitioner. Our references are to the
`page numbers provided by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`address from the Windows Internet Name Service server, it connects directly
`
`to the second computer. Id.
`
`2. NetBIOS (Ex. 1014)
`
`NetBIOS (“Network Basic Input/Output System”) is a software
`
`interface that allows applications on different computers to communicate
`
`within a computer network, such as a local area network or the Internet, and
`
`was originally designed for IBM’s PC-Network. Ex. 1014, 378. 10 NetBIOS
`
`applications employ mechanisms to locate resources, establish connections,
`
`send and receive data with an application peer, and terminate connections.
`
`Id. A NetBIOS session is the exchange of messages between a pair of
`
`NetBIOS applications. Id. at 380.
`
`The NetBIOS name service is the collection of procedures through
`
`which nodes of a network acquire, defend, and locate the holders of
`
`NetBIOS names. Id. at 376. A node registers a name with the NetBIOS
`
`Name Server, which stores the registered name in a database. Id. at 403–04,
`
`413. A name query transaction can be initiated by an end-node in an attempt
`
`to obtain the IP address associated with a NetBIOS name. Id. at 407–08. If
`
`the NetBIOS Name Server has information regarding a queried node, the
`
`NetBIOS Name Server transmits a positive response. Id. at 408–09. If the
`
`NetBIOS Name Server does not have information regarding a queried node,
`
`the NetBIOS Name Server transmits a negative response. Id. Once the
`
`IP addresses have been found for a target name, a NetBIOS session service
`
`
`10 Ex. 1014 includes page numbers indicated by the publication itself, and
`different page numbers provided by Petitioner. Our references are to the
`page numbers provided by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`begins. Id. at 416. The NetBIOS session service involves directed (point-to-
`
`point) communications. Id.
`
`3. Analysis
`
`The evidence set forth by Petitioner indicates there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 1, 11, 12, 22,
`
`and 23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Microsoft
`
`Manual and NetBIOS. Pet. 32–41. For example, claim 1 recites “a
`
`computer program product for use with a computer system, the computer
`
`system executing a first process and operatively connectable to a second
`
`process and a server over a computer network.” Ex. 1001, 11:2–5.
`
`Petitioner argues that Microsoft Manual discloses how to install, configure,
`
`and troubleshoot Microsoft TCP/IP on a computer running Microsoft
`
`Windows NT, and the software allows for a first computer to communicate
`
`with a second computer by querying a server for the address of the second
`
`computer and establishing a direct connection with the second computer
`
`using the received second computer address. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1012, 3, 62–
`
`63). Petitioner further contends that NetBIOS discloses NetBIOS
`
`applications that allow for point-to-point communication between nodes. Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1014, 378, 384).
`
`Claim 1 further recites “a computer usable medium having program
`
`code embodied in the medium.” Ex. 1001, 11:7–8. Petitioner contends that
`
`Microsoft Manual discloses that the software is installed on a hard disk.
`
`Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1012, 24–26). Claim 1 additionally recites “program
`
`code for transmitting to the server a network protocol address received by
`
`the first process following connection to the computer network.” Ex. 1001,
`
`11:9–11. Petitioner contends that Microsoft Manual discloses a computer
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`that receives a dynamically-assigned IP address from the server and the
`
`computer registers its IP address with the WINS server. Pet. 35–36 (citing
`
`Ex. 1012, 59–63). Petitioner argues that NetBIOS discloses a name
`
`registration request that is submitted by an end-node to a NetBIOS Name
`
`Server, and the server replies with a positive response. Id. at 35 (citing
`
`Ex. 1014, 385).
`
`Claim 1 also recites “program code for transmitting, to the server, a
`
`query as to whether the second process is connected to the computer
`
`network” and “program code for receiving a network protocol address of the
`
`second process from the server, when the second process is connected to the
`
`computer network.” Ex. 1001, 11:12–18. Petitioner argues that Microsoft
`
`Manual discloses a first computer queries the WINS server for the address of
`
`a second computer, the WINS server determines whether the second
`
`computer has been registered, and returns the address of the second
`
`computer to the first computer if the second computer has been registered.
`
`Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1012, 62–63). Petitioner argues that NetBIOS
`
`discloses a name query (discovery) that is initiated by end-nodes to obtain
`
`the IP addresses and other attributes associated with a NetBIOS name. Id. at
`
`36–38 (citing Ex. 1003, 396).
`
`Claim 1 additionally recites “program code, responsive to the network
`
`protocol address of the second process, for establishing a point-to-point
`
`communication link between the first process and the second process over
`
`the computer network.” Ex. 1001, 11:19–23. Petitioner argues that
`
`Microsoft Manual discloses that the first computer goes directly to the
`
`second computer upon receiving the address of the second computer.
`
`Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1012, 62–63). Petitioner also argues that NetBIOS
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`discloses the use of point-to-point nodes that communicate using only
`
`directed UDP datagrams and TCP sessions. Id. (citing Ex. 1014, 384–85).
`
`Petitioner contends that “WINS is an implementation of NetBIOS”
`
`and, therefore, Petitioner contends that “one having skill in the art would
`
`have known about and been motivated to combine the Microsoft Manual
`
`with NetBIOS. Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 90–92). We are persuaded by
`
`Petitioner that the conclusion is reasonable because Microsoft Manual
`
`demonstrates that Microsoft TCP/IP has combined the elements of NetBIOS
`
`and Microsoft Manual in the same manner that Petitioner proposes to
`
`combine NetBIOS and Microsoft Manual. Ex. 1012, 3.
`
`Patent Owner argues that this alleged ground of unpatentability is
`
`redundant with our holding in Sipnet with respect to claim 1. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 17–18. We disagree with Patent Owner. In Sipnet, we held claim 1
`
`anticipated by WINS (the paper copy of Ex. 1012) and NetBIOS,
`
`respectively. Here, Petitioner asserts that claim 1 is obvious over Microsoft
`
`Manual and NetBIOS. Accordingly, we do not find an obviousness ground
`
`to be redundant to two separate anticipation grounds. Furthermore, we had
`
`not considered this ground with respect to claims 11, 12, 22, and 23 in
`
`Sipnet.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that the combination of Microsoft
`
`Manual and NetBIOS fails to disclose the “interface element representing a
`
`first callee process,” as recited by claim 10 and incorporated by reference by
`
`claim 11. Prelim. Resp. 19–21. Petitioner argues that Microsoft Manual
`
`discloses a telnet client that opens a “connect” dialog box when the
`
`“connect” button is selected, where the “connect” dialog box is a user
`
`interface element representing a first callee process, “i.e., the telnet
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`service/daemon running on that host system.” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1012, 249–
`
`50). Patent Owner first asserts that the term “represented” means “serve as a
`
`sign or symbol of . . . serve as a counterpart or image of.” Prelim. Resp. 19
`
`(quoting Ex. 2007, 3). Patent Owner then argues that the dialog box of
`
`Microsoft Manual does not represent a first callee process because (1) a
`
`remote host system is not a process and (2) the dialog box in no way
`
`represents a particular host system, based on Patent Owner’s definition of
`
`“represent.” Id. at 21.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner
`
`argues the telnet dialog box meets the claim limitation of an “interface
`
`element” that represents the telnet “process.” Patent Owner
`
`mischaracterizes Petitioner’s argument by substituting the “remote host
`
`system” as the callee process. Petitioner asserts that the dialog box is an
`
`“interface element” representing a telnet “callee process” and does not rely
`
`on the remote host system to meet the claim limitations. Pet. 39.
`
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS fail to
`
`disclose the limitation “connected to the network” and “on-line” based on
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed constructions of these terms and limitations.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 32–44. We disagree with Patent Owner. As discussed above,
`
`we determine that the claim limitations “connected to the network” and “on-
`
`line” encompass registering an address for a computer or process with the
`
`server. As also discussed above, both Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS
`
`disclose that a computer registers with a server as active and on-line.
`
`Ex. 1012, 59–63; Ex. 1014, 385. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
`
`Patent Owner’s argument. Furthermore, we are persuaded that Petitioner
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`sufficiently establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail in showing that claims 1, 11, 12, 22, and 23 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS.
`
`C. Claims 1, 11, 12, 22, and 23 — Anticipated by Microsoft Manual
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 11, 12, 22, and 23 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Microsoft Manual. Pet. 5.
`
`Petitioner specifically argues that “Microsoft Manual is based on NetBIOS,
`
`compatible with the NetBIOS protocol specifications, and interoperable with
`
`other NetBIOS-compliant implementations,” and, therefore, Microsoft
`
`Manual and NetBIOS should be treated as a single anticipatory reference.
`
`Pet. 32–33, 32 n.4. Although Petitioner lists this ground in the Petition
`
`(Pet. 5), contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104, Petitioner does not provide any
`
`evidence, argument, or discussion as to how these claims are anticipated by
`
`Microsoft Manual. We, accordingly, are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in this challenged
`
`ground.
`
`D. Claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23, 27, 30, and 31 — Obvious over
`Microsoft Manual, NetBIOS, and Palmer
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23, 27, 30, and 31
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Microsoft
`
`Manual, NetBIOS, and Palmer. Pet. 41–49.
`
`1. Palmer (Ex. 1020)
`
`Palmer discloses multi-way video teleconferencing among networked
`
`computer workstations. Ex. 1020, 1:34–35. Palmer discloses a graphical
`
`user interface for controlling a video conferencing session, where when a
`
`user invokes the application to begin a video conference, a session window
`
`appears on the user’s workstation monitor. Id. at 16:48–65. The session
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`window includes “pushbuttons” that cause the creation of a second level
`
`pop-up window to offer the user next level of functional choices associated
`
`with the “pushbutton.” Id. at 17:3–31. A “connections” pushbutton
`
`establishes video teleconference connections between workstations. Id. at
`
`18:36–38. The selection of the “connections” pushbutton causes the creation
`
`of a second level “call list” pop-up window that allows a user to add, delete,
`
`activate, or modify network video teleconferencing connections to other
`
`networked workstations. Id. at 18:38–43. To establish a connection with
`
`another workstation, a user enters the target workstation host name in to the
`
`“network host” field and activates the corresponding “connect” pushbutton.
`
`Id. at 19:22–27.
`
`2. Analysis — Claims 14, 16, 27, 30, and 31
`
`The evidence set forth by Petitioner indicates there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 14, 16, 27, 30,
`
`and 31 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Microsoft
`
`Manual, NetBIOS, and Palmer. Pet. 45–46, 48–49. For example, claim 14
`
`recites “the method of claim 10.” Ex. 1001, 12:64. As discussed above, we
`
`determined that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`combination of Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS teaches or suggests
`
`claim 11, which incorporates the limitations of claim 10. Claim 14 further
`
`recites “providing a user interface element representing a second callee
`
`process” and “establishing a conference point-to-point communication link
`
`between the caller process and the first and second callee process, in
`
`response to the user associating the element representing the second callee
`
`process with the element representing the first communication line.” Id. at
`
`12:66–13:6.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01366
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`
`Petitioner contends that Palmer discloses a “call list” that includes a
`
`list of workstations; a user can enter the target workstation host name to
`
`establish a connection. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1020, 19:19–27, Fig. 20).
`
`Petitioner asserts that a three-way video teleconference between three
`
`workstations can be established via a connection between two workstations
`
`and joining the third workstation to the call. Id. (citing Ex. 1020, 24:3–36).
`
`Petitioner further contends that Palmer describes a videoconferencing
`
`application for the Windows NT operating system and uses transport lev

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket