UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. &
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC.
`Petitioner,
`v .
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Case IPR No.: Unassigned
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-80, 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS ................................. 1
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................... 1
`1.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ............................................................... 1
`2.
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 1
`3.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel ........................................................ 3
`4.
`Power of Attorney and Service Information .............................. 4
`Proof of Service .................................................................................... 4
`B.
`C. Grounds for Standing ........................................................................... 4
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER 37. C.F.R. §
`42.104(B) ........................................................................................................ 4
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................. 5
`A. Microsoft Windows NT Server version 3.5 TCPIP.HLP
`(“Microsoft Manual”) (Exhibit 1012) .................................................. 5
`Technical Standard: Protocols for X/Open PC Interworking:
`SMB, Version 2 (“NetBIOS”) (Exhibit 1014) ..................................... 6
`C. U.S. Pat. No. 5,375,068 (“Palmer”) (Ex. 1020) ................................... 8
`D. U.S. Pat. No. 5,533,110 (“Pinard”) (Ex. 1021) .................................... 8
`E.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,341,477 (“Pitkin”) (Exhibit 1015) ........................ 10
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 11
`V.
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’704 PATENT .......................................................... 11
`A.
`Point-to-Point Communications ......................................................... 16
`B.
`Look-Up Tables .................................................................................. 17
`C.
`Prior Proceedings ............................................................................... 18
`1.
`Prosecution of the ’704 Patent ................................................. 18
`2.
`The Sipnet Inter Partes Review ................................................ 20
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`A.
`
`“point-to-point communication link” (claims 1, 11-12, 14, 16,
`22-23, 27, 30-31 ................................................................................. 21
`“network protocol address” (claims 1, 11, and 22) ............................ 22
`“connected to the computer network” (claim 1) / “on-line
`status” (claims 11 and 22) .................................................................. 24
`“transmitting to the server a network protocol address received
`by the first process following connection to the computer
`network” (claim 1) .............................................................................. 30
`VIII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONER
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF
`THE’121 PATENT ....................................................................................... 32
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1, 11-12, 16, 22-23, 27, AND
`30-31 ............................................................................................................. 32
`A. Ground 1: The Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS renders
`obvious claims 1, 11-12, and 22-23 under § 103 ............................... 32
`B. Ground 2: The Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS and
`Palmer renders claims 11-12, 14, 16, 22-23, 27, and 30-31
`obvious under § 103 ........................................................................... 41
`C. Ground 3: The Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS, Palmer,
`and Pinard renders claims 11-12, 14, 16, 22-23, 27, and 30-31
`obvious under § 103 ........................................................................... 49
`D. Ground 4: The Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS, Palmer,
`Pinard, and Pitkin renders 1, 11-12, 16, 22-23, 27, 30, and 31
`obvious under § 103 ........................................................................... 53
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 55
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`

`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Ex parte Papst-Motoren
`1 USPQ2d 1655 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) .................................................. 21
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v Teleflex Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 33, 53
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 42.22 ..................................................................................................... 32
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................... 5, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................ 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .................................................................................................... 4, 55
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19................................................................................................... 1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................... 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 55
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`37. C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2143 ....................................................................................................... 53
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1011
`
`DESCRIPTION
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`File History for Reexamination Control No. 90/010416
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Intentionally Omitted
`Declaration of Robert Cowart
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 by
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. (filed Apr. 11, 2013)
`Institution Decision in Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group,
`Inc., IPR No. 2013-00246 (filed Oct. 11, 2013)
`1009 Markman Order, Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. v.
`Stalker Software, Inc., 2:12-cv-00009-RGD-TEM, ECF No. 48 (E.D.
`Va. Oct. 26, 2012)
`1010 Markman Order, Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Bandwidth.com, Inc.,
`et al., 1:13-cv-00932-AJT-IDD, Docket No. 107 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25,
`2014)
`Deposition Transcript of Shane Mattaway from Net2Phone v. eBay et
`al. (2-06-cv-02469 (D.N.J.))
`1012 Microsoft Windows NT version 3.5 TCPIP.HLP
`1013
`Droms, R., Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, RFC 1541 (Oct.
`1993)
`Technical Standard: Protocols for X/Open PC Interworking: SMB,
`Version 2
`U.S. Patent No. 5,341,477 (“Pitkin”)
`Comer, D.E., “Internetworking with TCP/IP, Vol. 1, Principles,
`Protocol, and Architecture, Second Edition,” (New Jersey: Prentice
`Hall, 1991)
`Postel, J., Ed., Transmission Control Protocol, DARPA Internet
`Program Protocol Specification, RFC 793 (September 1981)
`Postel, J., Ed., Internet Protocol, DARPA Internet Program Protocol
`Specification, RFC 791 (September 1981)
`i
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Declaration of Sandy Ginoza
`U.S. Patent No. 5,375,068 (“Palmer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,533,110 (“Pinard”)
`Preliminary Response for Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00230
`(filed Dec. 5, 2013)
`“Patent Owner’s Response Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120,” in Case
`IPR2013-00246, filed April 11, 2013
`“NT pricing: low-cost OS, Back Office ‘gotchas,’” PC Week, Vol. 11
`Issue 37 (Sept. 19, 1994)
`“Company News; Microsoft to Introduce New Windows NT,” New
`York Times (Sept. 17, 1994)
`“Beta users wowed by Dayton’s speed,” Network World (May 16,
`1994)
`Online Copyright Registration Record for “Microsoft Windows NT
`server : network operating system : version 3.5”
`Network Working Group, Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service
`on a TCP/UDP Transports: Concepts and Methods, RFC 1001 (March
`1987)
`Network Working Group, Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service
`on a TCP/UDP Transport: Detailed Specifications
`Declaration of Sandy Ginoza
`
`ii
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`I.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Petitioner”) hereby
`
`request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office proceed with an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1, 11-12, 14, 16, 22-23, 27, and 30-31 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,108,704 (“the ’704 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.1 et seq.
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)
`1.
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) are the
`
`real parties-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters
`
`2.
`The following would affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`(1) Petitioner’s inter partes review petitions contesting the validity of claims
`
`6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 (“’121 patent”) and claims 1-
`
`3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469 (“’469 patent”). The ’121
`
`and ’469 patents are continuations-in-part of the ’704 patent.
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`(2) Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00606 (E.D.Tx.) (“EDTX Litigation”) in which
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc., asserts against Samsung all of the claims in this
`
`petition and those petitions.
`
`(3) Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings Sipnet EU v. Straight Path,
`
`IPR2013-00246 (instituted Oct. 11, 2013) (reviewing ’704 patent claims 1-7, and
`
`32-42) (“Sipnet IPR”).
`
`(4) Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings Sony v. Straight Path for
`
`each of the ’121 patent (IPR2013-00229), the ’469 patent (IPR2014-00231), and
`
`the ’704 patent (IPR2014-00230) (all filed on Dec. 5, 2013 and terminated on May
`
`2, 2014 on a joint motion made after Straight Path’s preliminary response, but prior
`
`to a decision to institute a trial).
`
`(5) On August 1, 2014, Vonage Holdings Corp., Vonage America, Inc.,
`
`Vonage Marketing LLC, and Netflix Inc. filed inter partes review petitions for
`
`the ’704 patent, in addition to the following patents in the ’704 patent family: U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,701,365, 6,009,469, 6,513,066, and the ’121 patent (the “Vonage
`
`IPRs”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has not issued any decision whether or
`
`not to institute any or all of the Vonage IPRs.
`
`(6) Actions in which Straight Path (or one of its predecessor’s-in-interest)
`
`has asserted the ’704 patent, including Straight Path v. BlackBerry, 6-14-cv-00534
`
`(E.D.Tx.); Vizio v. Straight Path, 2-14-cv-00233 (E.D.Va.); Straight Path v.
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`Netflix, 6-14-cv-00405 (E.D.Tx.); Straight Path v. ZTE, 6-13-cv-00607 (E.D.Tx.);
`
`Straight Path v. Huawei, 6-13-cv-00605 (E.D.Tx.); Straight Path v. BlackBerry, 6-
`
`13-cv-00604 (E.D.Tx.); Straight Path v. Toshiba, 1-13-cv-01070 (E.D.Va.);
`
`Straight Path v. Toshiba, 3-13-cv-00503 (E.D.Va.); Straight Path v. Panasonic, 1-
`
`13-cv-00935 (E.D.Va.); Straight Path v. Sharp, 1-13-cv-00936 (E.D.Va.); Straight
`
`Path v. LG, 1-13-cv-00933 (E.D.Va.); Straight Path v. Sony, 2-13-cv-00427
`
`(E.D.Va.); Straight Path v. Vizio, 1-13-cv-00934 (E.D.Va.); Straight Path v. Sony,
`
`1-13-cv-01071 (E.D.Va.); ICTI v. Vivox, 2-12-cv-00007 (E.D.Va.); and ICTI v.
`
`Stalker Software, etc., 2-12-cv-00009 (E.D.Va); and, Net2phone v. Ebay, 2-06-cv-
`
`02469 (D.N.J.).
`
`Because the ’121, ’469 and ’704 patents are substantively similar, Samsung
`
`requests that, for efficiency and consistency, the Sipnet IPR panel be assigned to
`
`address Petitioner’s inter partes review petitions for the ’121, ’469 and ’704 patents;
`
`or, in the alternative, that the same panel be assigned to all three.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel
`
`3.
`Lead Counsel is: Brian Erickson (48,895) and Backup Counsel is Jeff Cole
`
`(56,052), both at the e-mail address: Samsung-SP-IPR@dlapiper.com. The postal
`
`and hand delivery address for both is DLA Piper LLP, 401 Congress Avenue, Suite
`
`2500, Austin, Texas 78701-3799; and, the telephone and fax numbers are 512-457-
`
`7000 (Phone) and 512-457-7001 (Fax).
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`Power of Attorney and Service Information
`
`4.
`Petitioner has submitted a power of attorney with this petition. Counsel for
`
`Samsung consents to service of all documents via electronic mail and further
`
`consents to service of any documents via hand delivery to the postal mailing
`
`address of respective lead counsel designated above.
`
`Proof of Service
`
`B.
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of this Petition in
`
`its entirety is being served to the Patent Owner’s attorney of record at the address
`
`listed in the USPTO’s records by overnight courier pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e).
`
`C. Grounds for Standing
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), the Petitioner certifies that the
`
`’704 patent is available for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims
`
`on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER 37. C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), inter partes
`
`review of claims 1, 11-12, 14, 16, 22-23, 27, and 30-31 of the ’704 patent is
`
`requested in view of the following grounds. The grounds for cancellation of the
`
`challenged claims are not redundant because they are based on different technical
`
`contexts.
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`(1) Claims 1, 11, 12, 22, and 23 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
`
`anticipated by Microsoft Windows NT Server version 3.5 TCPIP.HLP (“Microsoft
`
`Manual”) (Ex. 1012), or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
`
`Microsoft Manual in view of Technical Standard: Protocols for X/Open PC
`
`Interworking: SMB, Version 2 (“NetBIOS”) (Ex. 1014).
`
`(2) Claims 11-12, 14, 16, 22-23, 27, and 30-31 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 as obvious over the Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS and U.S. Patent
`
`No. U.S. Pat. No. 5,375,068 (“Palmer”) (Ex. 1020).
`
`(3) Claims 11-12, 14, 16, 22-23, 27, and 30-31 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 as obvious over the Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS, Palmer, and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,533,110 (“Pinard”) (Ex. 1021).
`
`(4) Claims 1, 11-12, 14, 16, 22-23, 27, and 30-31 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 as obvious over the Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS, Palmer, Pinard, and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,341,477 (“Pitkin”) (Ex. 1015).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Microsoft Windows NT Server version 3.5 TCPIP.HLP
`(“Microsoft Manual”) (Exhibit 1012)
`
`The Microsoft Manual was published by September 1994 and is prior art under
`
`at least § 102(a). (Ex. 1006 at ¶¶ 6, 9-11; see also Exs. 1024-1027.). The Microsoft
`
`Manual was not cited in the original prosecution or reexamination of the ’704
`
`patent.
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`The Microsoft Manual generally describes the Windows NT operating
`
`system’s TCP/IP networking capabilities, including Dynamic Host Configuration
`
`Protocol (DHCP) and Windows Internet Name Service (WINS). (Ex. 1012 at 4 and
`
`11-13). DHCP dynamically assigns IP addresses to computers, (Ex. 1012 at 62-64
`
`and 81-121), and WINS is a look-up table that maps computer names to IP
`
`addresses. (Ex. 1012 at 65-69 and at 122-167). The Microsoft Manual explains an
`
`important benefit of using DHCP and WINS:
`
`Furthermore, when dynamic addressing through DHCP results in new
`IP addresses for computers that move between subnets, the changes
`are automatically updated in the WINS database. Neither the user nor
`the network administrator needs to make manual accommodations for
`name resolution in such a case.
`
`(Ex. 1012 at 65; see also id. at 73 (“Although DNS may seem similar to WINS,
`
`there is a major difference: DNS requires static configuration for computer name-
`
`to-IP address mapping, while WINS is fully dynamic and requires far less
`
`administration.”).
`
`B.
`
`Technical Standard: Protocols for X/Open PC Interworking:
`SMB, Version 2 (“NetBIOS”) (Exhibit 1014)
`
`Network Basic Input/Output System (NetBIOS) is an interface and service
`
`first developed in the early 1980s that allows applications on different computers
`
`to communicate across a computer network, such as a local area network or the
`
`Internet. (Ex. 1014 at 375, 378; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 88.) In March 1987, the IETF
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`published RFC 1001, which “describes the ideas and general methods used to
`
`provide NetBIOS on a TCP and UDP foundation,” (Ex. 1014 at 375), and RFC
`
`1002, which “contains the detailed packet formats and protocol specifications for
`
`NetBIOS-over-TCP.” (Ex. 1014 at 443).1 In 1992, RFCs 1001 and 1002 were
`
`published as Appendices F and G in Technical Standard – Protocols for X/Open
`
`PC Interworking: SMB, Version 2 (Ex. 1014 at 368-437 (Appendix F) and 438-523
`
`(Appendix G)). Thus, NetBIOS is prior art under at least §§ 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`NetBIOS teaches point-to-point communications between nodes over a
`
`network, including between “[p]oint-to-point (or ‘P’) nodes,” (Ex. 1014 at 385),
`
`that use a directory look-up service called a “NetBIOS Name Server” (NBNS),
`
`(Ex. 1014 at 386-87). For example, the figure below shows “P”-nodes connected
`
`to the “Internet” (two directly and three through a gateway, “G’WAY”), each of
`
`which can communicate with a NBNS that also is connected to the Internet:
`
`
`1 Exhibit 1014 was relied upon for reexamination of the ’121 patent. Exhibit 1014
`
`incorporates as appendices Exhibits 1028 and 1029. Citations to the appendices
`
`found in Exhibit 1014 are interchangeable with Exhibits 1028 and 1029.
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioon for Interr Partes R
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`eview of UU.S. Patentt No. 6,1088,704
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1014 at 390)..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20) ”) (Ex. 102(“Palmer”Pat. No. 55,375,068 (
`
`
`
`
`
`C. U.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Palmer wass filed on Juune 3, 19992, and issuued on Deccember 20,, 1994, so
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`it is
`
`C P
`
`
`
`prior artt under §§ 102(a) andd 102(e). PPalmer wass not cited
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the origginal
`
`
`
`prosecuution or reeexamination of the ’7704 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PC runnning the MMicrosoft WWindows NT operatinng system,
`
`
`
`
`
`that “uss[es] standaard digital network trransport levvel protocools such ass Internet
`
`
`
`PPalmer desccribes a viddeoconfereencing appplication thhat can run
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on an IBMM
`
`(Ex. 1020
`
`at 7:5-11)
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TCP/IP and UDP//IP.” (Ex. 11020 at 5:333-37). Anny applicatiion that rann on Wind
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ows
`
`
`
`NT could use TCPP/IP and thhe Windowws Sockets
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`API to ressolve compputer namees
`
`
`
`into IP aaddress using the WIINS serverr. (Ex. 10122 at 10, 188-21, and 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. U.S. Pat. No. 55,533,110 ((“Pinard”)
`) (Ex. 102
`
`1)
`
`
`
`
`8-60).
`
`art under
`
`D P
`
`
`
`Pinard was filed on NNovember 229, 1994, aand is thereefore prior
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`102(e). During thhe original prosecutioon, the examminer citedd Pinard, bbut did not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31952.11
`WEST\24873
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`discuss Pinard or reject any claim in whole or in part based on Pinard. In the ex
`
`parte reexamination, rejections involving Pinard were withdrawn for reasons
`
`unrelated to Pinard as a reference, including a procedural technicality related to
`
`VocalChat. (Ex. 1003 at 1771).
`
`Pinard discloses a graphical interface for “any system in which a telephony
`
`application on a personal computer … in conjunction with a server operates.” (Ex.
`
`1021 at 2:44-46.) Pinard also discloses how icons can be dragged and dropped to
`
`control active calls; for example, during the phone call between Debbie and Mary,
`
`as seen in Fig. 12, “[t]o place Mary on hard hold, Debbie drags Mary’s icon 28 to
`
`hard hold icon 39.” (Ex. 1021 at 6:40-41; see also id. at Figs. 2-14, and 2:54-58
`
`(explaining that “[t]he state of the call can be changed merely by dragging icons to
`
`particular locations on the display” which “allows changing of the status of lines
`
`associated with parties to the call with certainty”)).
`
`Further, Pinard discloses that if Debbie wishes to add Mary to her ongoing
`
`call with John to create a conference call with Debbie, Mary, and John, she drags
`
`her icon to call setup icon 24, which places the line connected to the user John on
`
`hold (shown in Figure 4), drags Mary’s icon from directory 17 to call setup icon 24
`
`(shown in Figure 6), and drags John’s icon 21 to call icon 29 (Ex. 1021 at 5:5-37).
`
`Alternatively, she can establish separate calls with Mary and John, but switch
`
`between them, by dragging her icon back-and-forth, during which “the other party
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`is placed on hold.” (Id., 5:5-61, see also id. at 1:55-61 (“The present invention …
`
`provides a method for calls to be made between parties, to be placed on hold, to be
`
`dropped from hold, to be conferenced or to be dropped from a conference with
`
`clear indication to the user which of the parties to any call are being dealt with.”)
`
`and at 6:6-10, Fig. 7 (call waiting icon)).
`
`E. U.S. Patent No. 5,341,477 (“Pitkin”) (Exhibit 1015)
`Pitkin was filed on August 6, 1993 and issued on August 23, 1994, and is
`
`thus prior art to the ’704 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Pitkin discloses a computer network having a “broker mechanism [that]
`
`allocates a plurality of servers, each having an available resource capacity, to a
`
`plurality of clients for delivering one of several services to the clients.” (Ex. 1015
`
`at Abstract). The broker mechanism is responsible for “monitoring a subset of all
`
`available servers capable of delivering the requested service.” (Id.) In particular,
`
`the ’477 patent discloses that communication paths between the broker and the
`
`plurality of servers “allow[s] the broker to poll each coupled server (22, 23, 24, 26)
`
`to receive its status. The status of the servers 22, 23, 24, and 26 is stored in
`
`connection entries 922, 923, 924 and 926, respectively, within the server status
`
`block.” (Id. at 6:56-61.) In other words, a broker, or central server, sends messages
`
`(polls) to other servers (processes) within a computer network to determine the
`
`current status of each server within the computer network. (See id. at 2:36-38
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`(“The present invention is a broker method and apparatus which … monitors the
`
`dynamic status of a set of servers ….”); (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 116.)
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the ’704 patent would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or a related degree, and several years of experience in
`
`telecommunications and data networking. This person would have been capable of
`
`understanding and applying the prior art references discussed herein. (Ex. 1004 at
`
`¶¶ 16-18.)
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’704 PATENT
`The ’704 patent is generally directed towards Internet telephony protocols
`
`establishing point-to-point communication connections between “processing units”
`
`or “processes” over a computer network. (Ex. 1001 at Title, Abstract). The patent
`
`discloses two protocols to establish a connection. The first protocol registers users’
`
`email and IP addresses with a centralized database so that other users may “query”
`
`the database for the IP address associated with another user’s email address in
`
`order to establish a point-to-point connection (a “look-up” protocol), (id. at 1:63-
`
`2:9), and the second protocol uses E-mail signals to transmit a user’s IP address to
`
`other users (an “email” protocol), (id. at 2:10-21). Because all of the challenged
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitioon for Interr Partes R
`
`
`
`
`
`eview of UU.S. Patentt No. 6,1088,704
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claims rrelate to thhe look-up pprotocol, tthe email pprotocol is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`not discus
`
`sed in any
`
`depth.
`
`
`
`TThe specificcation refeers to “proccessing uniits” and thee claims ass filed refeerred
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`t
`to “proccessors” (fofor the challlenged claaims) and ““processingg units.” (EEx. 1002 at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`399-4111). Howeveer, the claiims were amended duuring proseecution to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim
`
`
`
`“processes.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WWhether beetween processing unnits or proccesses, eachh of the chhallenged
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`indepenndent claimms (1, 11, aand 22) folllows the saame generaal steps illuustrated inn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 88 to establiish a conneection:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CColumns 5 and 6 of thhe ’704 pattent describbe the stepps in Fig. 88. When a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`processing unit “loogs on to tthe Internett … [it] is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provided aa dynamicaally allocatted
`
`
`
`IP addreess by a coonnection sservice proovider.” (Exx. 1001 at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5:21-24).
`
`In Step 64
`
` of
`
`31952.11
`WEST\24873
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`Fig. 8, a user starts up their client process, which “automatically transmits its
`
`associated E-mail address and its dynamically allocated IP address to the
`
`connection server 26.” (Id. at 5:25-29; see also at 10:22-37). In Step 66 of Fig. 8,
`
`the connection server “stores these addresses in the database 34 and timestamps the
`
`stored addresses using timer 32.” (Id. at 5:29-31; see also at 10:22-37). “The
`
`connection server 26 includes a processor 30, a timer 32 for generating
`
`timestamps, and a memory such as a database 34 for storing, for example, E-mail
`
`and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of logged-in units.” (Id. at 3:18-21). The user
`
`is “thus established in the database 34 as an active on-line party available for
`
`communication using the disclosed point-to-point Internet protocol.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:31-34). In other words, users of the claimed point-to-point Internet protocol
`
`transmit their email and IP addresses to the connection server to log in and indicate
`
`that they are online, connected to the network, and available to connect at that IP
`
`address.
`
`After registering with the connection server, users may select the second
`
`user with whom they want to establish a connection in at least four ways (i)
`
`manually entering the second user’s “name or alias or IP address, if known,” (ii)
`
`“using the speeddial feature,” (iii) “double clicking on an entry in a directory,” or
`
`(iv) dragging and dropping the second user’s icon onto a line’s icon. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`9:26-42; see also id.at 5:45-54).
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`After selecting a second user, the first user’s client process “sends a query,
`
`including the E-mail address of the [second user], to the connection server 26.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 5:55-56). In Step 68 of Fig. 8, the server receives that query and
`
`“searches the database 34 to determine whether the [second user] is logged-in by
`
`finding any stored information corresponding to the [second user’s] E-mail address
`
`indicating that the [second user] is active and on-line.” (Id. at 5:57-60). “If the
`
`[second user] is active and on-line, the connection server 26 then performs the
`
`primary point-to-point Internet protocol [read: Step 70 and Step 72 of Fig. 8]; i.e.
`
`the IP address of the [second user] is retrieved from the database 34 and sent to the
`
`[first user].” (Id. at 5:60-64). “If the [second user] is not on-line when the
`
`connection server 26 determines the [second user’s] status, the connection server
`
`26 sends an OFF-LINE signal or message to the first processing unit 12.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 6:1-4). After receiving the second user’s IP address, the first user “may
`
`then directly establish the point-to-point Internet communications with the [second
`
`user] using the IP address of the [second user].” (Id. at 5:64-67).
`
`The ’704 patent asserts that temporary (i.e. non-permanent) IP addresses are
`
`the problem that the look-up protocol solves: “[d]ue to the dynamic nature of
`
`temporary IP addresses of some devices accessing the Internet, point-to-point
`
`communications in realtime of voice and video have been generally difficult to
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`attain.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:53-56). The final response before the notice of allowance
`
`summarizes the problem and the look-up protocol as a solution:
`
`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. The solution utilizes a
`client/server system. In the disclosed system, a client process contacts
`a dedicated address directory server and forwards to the server the
`network protocol address to which it has been assigned upon
`connection to the computer network, along with other identification
`information. The dedicated address directory server maintains a
`compilation or list of entries, each of which contain a process
`identifier and the corresponding network protocol address forwarded
`to the server by the process itself. Other processes wishing to contact
`a desired target process simply query the address directory server to
`determine whether the target process is on-line and the current
`network protocol address at which the target process is located. The
`server forwards the network protocol address of the target process to
`the querying process. The querying process utilizes the information to
`establish a point-to-point communication with the target process.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 412).
`
`This mapping names to IP addresses is known as “name resolution.” (See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1012 at 62-63 (including, “NetBIOS over TCP/IP is the session-layer
`
`network service that performs name-to-IP address mapping for name resolution”);
`
`Ex. 1014 at 396 (“Name query (also known as ‘resolution’ or ‘discovery’) is the
`
`WEST\248731952.11
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`procedure by which the IP address(es) associated with a NetBIOS name are
`
`discovered”); Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 67.) All of the challenged claims relate to using a
`
`look-up table