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
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2014-01367
`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUBMISSION OF BRIEFING FROM STRAIGHT
`PATH IP GROUP, INC. V. SIPNET EU S.R.O., No. 15-1212 (FED. CIR.)
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01367
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`On March 27, 2015, the Board issued a Conduct of the Proceeding Order
`
`(the “Order”) in the above captioned case authorizing Patent Owner Straight Path
`
`IP Group, Inc. (“Straight Path”) to submit briefing in the pending Federal Circuit
`
`appeal Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., No. 15-1212 (Fed. Cir.),
`
`which is Straight Path’s appeal of the Final Written Decision in related case Sipnet
`
`EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., IPR2013-00246. Pursuant to the Order,
`
`attached as Attachment A is the Brief of Appellant Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`
`which was filed with the Federal Circuit on March 13, 2015. Straight Path’s
`
`attached opening brief is the only briefing currently on file. Straight Path will
`
`submit additional briefing to the Board as it is filed with the Federal Circuit.
`
`Dated: April 8, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/William Meunier/
`William A. Meunier (Reg. No. 41,193)
`Matthew Durell (Reg. No. 55,136)
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky
`and Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Telephone: (617) 348-1845
`Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
`StraightPathIPRs@mintz.com
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01367
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of Patent Owner’s Submission of Briefing from Straight
`
`Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., No. 15-1212 (Fed. Cir.) is being served
`
`by electronic mail on the following counsel for the Petitioners:
`
`Brian Erickson (Reg. No. 48,895)
`brian.erickson@dlapiper.com
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, Texas 78701-3799
`P: 512-457-7000 F: 512-457-7001
`
`Jeff Cole (Reg. No. 56,052)
`jeff.cole@dlapiper.com
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, Texas 78701-3799
`P: 512-457-7035 F: 512-457-7001
`
`Dated: April 8, 2015
`
`40689563v.1
`
`3
`
`/Matthew Durell/
`Matthew Durell (Reg. No. 55,136)
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky
`and Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Telephone: (617) 348-1615
`Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
`StraightPathIPRs@mintz.com
`
`

`
`Attachment A
`
`Attachment A
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`2015-1212
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`Appellant,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`SIPNET EU S.R.O.,
`Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board, No. IPR2013-00246.
`
`BRIEF OF APPELLANT STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES M. WODARSKI
`WILLIAM A. MEUNIER
`MICHAEL C. NEWMAN
`SANDRA J. BADIN
`NICHOLAS W. ARMINGTON
`MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS
`GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC
`
`1 Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`
`(617) 542-6000 Telephone
`
`Attorneys for Appellant
`
`March 13, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNSEL PRESS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (888) 277-3259
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.4, counsel of record for Appellant
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. certifies as follows:
`
`1. The full name of every party represented by me is:
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`
`2. The name of the real party in interest represented by me is:
`
`Not applicable
`
`3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent
`
`or more of the stock of the party represented by me are:
`
`Straight Path Communications Inc.
`
`4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for
`
`the party now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected
`
`to appear in this court are:
`
`• Davidson Berquist Jackson + Gowdey, LLP:
`
`o Michael R. Casey
`o J. Scott Davidson
`• Fisch Hoffman Sigler LLP:
`
`o Alicia M. Carney
`o Michelle M. Chatelain
`o Alan M. Fisch
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`o Jason F. Hoffman
`o Patrick J. Lee
`o R. William Sigler
`• Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo P.C.:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ William A. Meunier
`William A. Meunier
`James M. Wodarski
`Michael C. Newman
`Sandra J. Badin
`Nicholas W. Armington
`Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and
`Popeo P.C.
`1 Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`
`Attorneys for Appellant Straight Path
`IP Group, Inc.
`
`o Nicholas W. Armington
`o Sandra J. Badin
`o Matthew D. Durell
`o William A. Meunier
`o Michael C. Newman
`o Adam P. Samansky
`o James M. Wodarski
`Dated: March 13, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ................................................................................. i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... vi
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .................................................................... ix
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................................................................... 1
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`THE ’704 PATENT ................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Problem Identified By The ’704 Patent: Determining
`Whether A Computer Program Is Currently On-Line,
`And If So, Its Address At The Time The Connection Is
`Sought. ........................................................................................ 4
`
`The ’704 Patent’s Solution: An Internet Protocol That
`Tracks The Current On-line Status Of A Computer
`Program And Its Current Network Address. .............................. 5
`
`3.
`
`The Challenged ’704 Patent Claims. .......................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`THE IPR PROCEEDINGS ........................................................................ 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The NetBIOS And WINS References. ..................................... 14
`
`The Parties Disputed The Proper Construction Of
`“Process” And “Connected To The Computer Network”
`And Whether NetBIOS And WINS Disclosed Those
`Required Claim Elements. ........................................................ 19
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................ 24
`
`V. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 27
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW ........................................... 27
`
`THE CORRECT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD ............................... 28
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 5 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`C.
`
`THE BOARD ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE NETBIOS AND WINS
`REFERENCES DISCLOSE THE CLAIMED “PROCESS,” AS REQUIRED
`BY EACH CHALLENGED CLAIM. ........................................................... 30
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Board Erred By Not Construing The Critical And
`Disputed Claim Element “Process.” ......................................... 31
`
`Under The Proper Construction Of The Term “Process”
`Neither NetBIOS Nor WINS Anticipate Or Render
`Obvious Any Claim Of The ’704 Patent Because Neither
`Reference Discloses A Computer Program Querying The
`On-Line Status Of Another Computer Program. ...................... 38
`
`This Court Should Exercise Its Authority To Construe
`The Term Process And Adopt The Construction
`Previously Adopted By The Eastern District Of Virginia. ....... 40
`
`D.
`
`THE BOARD ERRED IN CONSTRUING THE CLAIM ELEMENT
`“CONNECTED TO THE COMPUTER NETWORK” NOT TO REQUIRE
`A DETERMINATION THAT A SECOND PROCESS IS CURRENTLY
`ON-LINE AT THE TIME OF THE QUERY. ............................................... 41
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Challenged Claims Expressly Require A
`Determination That The Second Process Is “Connected
`To The Network” At The Very Instant In Time When
`The First Process Queries Whether The Second Process
`Is Available. .............................................................................. 43
`
`The Specification Does Not Teach That The Mere Act Of
`Registering An Address Demonstrates The Claimed
`Connection To The Computer Network; Rather It
`Discloses A Two-Step Process, Which Tracks Both
`When A Process Is Logged In And Logged Off So That
`One Process Can Query And Determine Whether A
`Second Process Is, At That Moment, On-line And
`Available To Communicate. ..................................................... 46
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 6 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Prosecution History Expressly Addressed And
`Distinguished The NetBIOS Reference, Including An
`Explanation As To Why The Registration Of A Name
`With A Server Does Not, By Itself, Allow The First
`Process To Determine The Current On-line Status Of
`Another Process, As Required By The Challenged
`Claims. ...................................................................................... 49
`
`The NetBIOS And WINS References Expressly
`Acknowledged That A Computer’s Registration With A
`Name Server Does Not Demonstrate Whether The
`Computer, Let Alone An Application On The Computer,
`Is Currently Running, i.e., On-line And Available For
`Communication. ........................................................................ 50
`
`E.
`
`NETBIOS AND WINS DO NOT ANTICIPATE OR RENDER
`OBVIOUS THE CLAIMS OF THE ’704 PATENT. ...................................... 56
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 56
`
`ADDENDUM
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 7 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Company,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 43
`
`Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................... 32, 34
`
`Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp.,
`441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................ 34, 35, 37
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. One StockDuq Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2013-00235, Paper 30 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2014)… ......................................... 30
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc.v. AIP Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2014-00247, Paper 20 (PTAB July 10, 2014)… .......................................... 29
`
`ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc.,
`668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 28
`
`Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Elkay Mfr. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co.,
`192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 38
`
`Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc.,
`67 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ...................................................................... 31, 32
`
`Ericcson, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00921, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 16, 2014)… ..................................... 29-30
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC,
`582 Fed. Appx. 864 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 29
`
`Graco, Inc. v. Binks Mfg. Co.,
`60 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................. 32, 33, 34
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 8 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 28, 29
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse, Inc.,
`183 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 43
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`No. 2014-1301, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) ............................................... 28
`
`In re Gartside,
`203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 27
`
`In re Kotzab,
`217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 28
`
`In re Rambus,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 29
`
`Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab.,
`IPR2013-00064, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 30, 2013)… ......................................... 29
`
`Intellectual Ventures Mgmt., LLC v. Xilinx, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00019, Paper 33 (PTAB Feb. 10, 2014)… .................................... 28, 29
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 44
`
`Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp.,
`121 F.3d 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1997)… ...................................................................... 56
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)… ...................................................................... 56
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 44
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 28
`
`Proveris Sci. Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.,
`739 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 32, 34
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 9 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`743 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 29
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Bandwidth.com, Inc.,
`No. 1:13-cv-932, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25394 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25,
`2014) ............................................................................................................. 11, 40
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 27
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) .......................................................................................... 28
`
`Toshiba Corporation v. Imation Corporation,
`681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 30
`
`Trebro Mfg. v. FireFly Equip., LLC,
`748 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 38
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)… ...................................................................... 40
`
`Wavetronix v. EIS Elec. Integrated Sys.,
`573 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 31, 40
`
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2013)….. ......................................... 28
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) ......................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 6 .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 319 and 141 .......................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 10 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(a), Appellant Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`
`(“Straight Path” or “Patent Owner”) certifies that no other appeal from the same
`
`proceeding in the United States Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “the
`
`Board”) is or was previously before this Court or any other appellate court.
`
`Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b), the Court’s decision in this appeal may
`
`affect the following judicial and administrative matters:
`
`• Petitions for inter partes review of the patent at issue in this appeal or of
`
`related patents:
`
`1. Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 by LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., et al., IPR2015-00209 (filed on October 31, 2014);
`
`2. Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 6,131,121 by LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., et al., IPR2015-00196 (filed on October 31, 2014);
`
`3. Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 6,009,469 by LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., et al., IPR2015-00198 (filed on October 31, 2014);
`
`4. Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 by
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., IPR2014-01366 (filed on August 22,
`
`2014);
`
`5. Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 by
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., IPR2014-01368 (filed on August 22,
`
`2014);
`
`ix
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 11 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`6. Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469 by
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., IPR2014-01367 (filed on August 22,
`
`2014).
`
`• United States District Court actions involving the patent at issue in this
`
`appeal and related patents:
`
`1. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., C.A. No. 5:14-cv-
`
`04561, United States District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California (filed on October 13, 2014);
`
`2. Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`
`C.A. No. 6:13-cv-00606, United States District Court for the Eastern
`
`District of Texas (filed on August 23, 2013); case stayed pending the
`
`outcome of this appeal and PTAB Case Nos. IPR2014-01366;
`
`IPR2014-01367; IPR2014-01368 (Dkt. No. 109);
`
`3. Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. VIZIO, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 1:13-cv-
`
`00934, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
`
`(filed on August 1, 2014); case stayed pending the outcome of this
`
`appeal and PTAB Case Nos. IPR2015-00196; IPR2015-00198;
`
`IPR2015-00209 (Dkt. No. 183).
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 12 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`The Board had jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6 over the petition for inter
`
`partes review brought by Sipnet EU S.R.O. (“Sipnet” or “Petitioner”). The Board
`
`issued its Final Written Decision on October 9, 2014 . (A0036). Straight Path
`
`timely filed its notice of appeal on November 12, 2014. (A0036). This Court has
`
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 319 and 141.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`The ’704 patent is directed to a system for enabling realtime point-to-point
`
`communications between two processes that are connected to a computer network.
`
`1. Whether the Board erred in finding that the NetBIOS and WINS
`
`references disclose the claimed “process,” as required by each challenged claim,
`
`where (i) the Board failed to construe the disputed claim term, and (ii) under the
`
`proper construction, no substantial evidence supports a conclusion that the
`
`references disclose the claimed “process.”
`
`2. Whether the Board erred in its construction of “connected to the
`
`computer network” by ignoring the necessary temporal element of that connection,
`
`and interpreting the claim element so that it does not require a determination of
`
`whether the second process is currently on-line when the first process queries if it
`
`is available to communicate.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 13 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`This is an appeal from the Board’s Final Written Decision in IPR2013-
`
`00246, concluding that claims 1-7 and 32-42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 (“the
`
`’704 patent”) are unpatentable as anticipated and/or obvious in light of two
`
`references: (1) Technical Standard Protocols for X/OpenPC Interworking: SMB
`
`Version 2 with Appendices F&G (“NetBIOS”) and (2) Windows NT 3.5 TCP/IP
`
`User Guide (“WINS”). (A0025).
`
`In its petition for inter partes review, Sipnet alleged that eleven references
`
`anticipated and/or rendered the challenged ’704 patent claims obvious. (A0044-
`
`45; A0174-75). Rejecting all but two of the references presented, the Board
`
`instituted inter partes review with respect only to NetBIOS and WINS. (A0192-
`
`3). These are the only references at issue in the present appeal.
`
`A. THE ’704 PATENT
`The ’704 patent concerns a system for enabling “realtime point-to-point
`
`communications” between running computer programs and applications1
`
`connected to the same computer network, such as programs and applications for
`
`allowing “realtime video teleconferencing” or other “point-to-point
`
`
`1 As will become clear in the discussion that follows, the terms “computer
`program” and “application” are both instances of the “processes” referenced in the
`challenged claims. For ease of reference, “computer program” is used to refer both
`to computer programs and computer applications.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 14 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`communications in realtime of voice and video.” (A0693 at 1:10-13;1:50-56;
`
`A0696 at 7:-32-41; 8:21-22). Many different computer programs can be installed
`
`on a computer, but not all of them are typically running and available at the same
`
`time. At any given time, even if a computer is itself connected to a network such
`
`as the Internet (i.e., is “on-line”), at least some of the computer’s programs may
`
`still be off-line and unavailable for communication over the network. Because
`
`real-time point-to-point communications between computer programs can only be
`
`established between programs that are on-line at the time the desired
`
`communication is sought (A0695 at 6:14-16), the ’704 patent discloses a realtime
`
`point-to-point Internet communications protocol that enables: (1) a first computer
`
`program to query a connection server to determine if a second computer program is
`
`currently connected to the network, and (2) if the second computer program is
`
`connected, to obtain its existing network address so that the desired point-to-point
`
`communication can be established at the time it is sought. (A0693 at 1:63-2:10;
`
`A0694 at 3:40-54; A0695 at 5:15-6:16; A0697 at 10:4-37; A0698-9 at claims 1, 2,
`
`4, 32, 33, 38).
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 15 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`1.
`
`The Problem Identified By The ’704 Patent: Determining
`Whether A Computer Program Is Currently On-Line, And
`If So, Its Address At The Time The Connection Is Sought.
`The ’704 patent application was filed on September 25, 1995.2 (A0685).
`
`The specification explains that the increased popularity in the early 1990s of on-
`
`line services such as America Online spurred the development of computer
`
`programs that provide on-line services such as realtime video conferencing.
`
`(A0693 at 1:9-20, 1:48-56; A0696 at 7:32-41, 8:21-22).
`
`As explained in the ’704 patent, devices and computer programs providing
`
`on-line services may communicate with one another over a network by using their
`
`respective network “addresses” (such as Internet Protocol addresses), which are
`
`used to route communications to and from the associated device or computer
`
`program. (A0693 1:21-26). The specification describes that the prior art made it
`
`possible to create point-to-point communications between devices and programs
`
`that had permanent Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses. (A0693 at 1:48-52). But
`
`some devices and computer programs do not have a permanent and stable address
`
`on the Internet. Instead, they repeatedly log on and off of the Internet and may
`
`receive a new, temporary (or “dynamically allocated”) IP address each time they
`
`reconnect to the network. (A0693 at 1:35-47; A0695 at 5:14-29, 6:6-16).
`
`
`2 The ’704 patent issued on August 22, 2000. (A0685).
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 16 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`Unlike permanent IP addresses that do not change, these “dynamic” IP
`
`addresses made it difficult to establish realtime point-to-point voice and video
`
`communications between computer programs that (a) are not permanently
`
`connected to the network and (b) may have a new, as-yet-unknown IP address
`
`when they reconnect to the network. (A0693 at 1:48-56). The ’704 patent solved
`
`these two problems. (A0693 at 1:63-2:10; A0695 at 5:15-6:16; A0696 at 7:32-36;
`
`A0670 at claims 33, 38; A0697 at 10:4-37; A0698 at claims 1, 2, 4; A0699 at claim
`
`32).
`
`2.
`
`The ’704 Patent’s Solution: An Internet Protocol That
`Tracks The Current On-line Status Of A Computer
`Program And Its Current Network Address.
`
`The ’704 patent solved the problem of realtime point-to-point
`
`communications between voice and video computer programs that are not
`
`permanently connected to a network and may have a new, as-yet-unknown IP
`
`address when they reconnect to a network by providing a real-time point-to-point
`
`Internet communications protocol for: (1) determining whether a specific, targeted
`
`computer program is currently running and connected to a network;
`
`(2) determining that computer program’s address on the network at the time the
`
`communication is sought; and (3) establishing a point-to-point communication
`
`with that computer program. (A0693 at 1:63-2:10; A0695 at 5:15-6:16; A0696 at
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 17 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`7:32-36; A0697 at 10:4-37; A0698 at claims 1, 2, 4; A0699 at claim 32; A0670 at
`
`claims 33, 38).
`
`In one embodiment, the disclosed protocol works as follows: a first user who
`
`is connected to the Internet or other computer network (the caller) and who wishes
`
`to communicate with another user over the Internet launches a program on her
`
`computer or her Personal Digital Assistant (“PDA”) and connects that program to
`
`the network. (A0694 at 3:40-46, 4:26-32; A0695 at 5:21-24; A0697 at 10:4-9).
`
`This done, the then-current dynamic IP address of the first user’s computer
`
`program is transmitted to a “connection server,” which, among other things, may
`
`then determine whether programs are on-line and available for communication and,
`
`if so, facilitate communications between different on-line programs. (A0695 at
`
`5:25-31, 5:55-6:15; A0697 at 10:4-21). From this initial transmission, the
`
`connection server obtains and stores the first user’s then-current dynamic IP
`
`address in a database. (A0695 at 5:25-31). This initial transmission also
`
`establishes the first user’s computer program as an “active on-line party” in the
`
`connection server database. (A0695 at 5:31-34, 5:55-60, 6:1-16).
`
`But the first user’s computer program may later disconnect from the
`
`network, and therefore no longer be an “active on-line party” available for a point-
`
`to-point communication. (A0695 at 6:1-14). Accordingly, to enable determining
`
`whether the user’s program is actually connected to the network and available for
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 18 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`communication at a particular time, the specification discloses that “[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 off-line.” (A0695 at 6:6-14). The
`
`user’s status is updated when she logs off because the real-time point-to-point
`
`Internet communications disclosed in the patent require that users be connected to
`
`the Internet at the time the desired communication is sought, and “an off-line user
`
`is effectively disabled from making and/or receiving point-to-point Internet
`
`communications.” (A0695 at 6:6-14).
`
`Like the first user, a second user (the callee) may also start a computer
`
`program on his connected computer or PDA, thereby storing his then-current IP
`
`address in the connection server database and establishing his computer program as
`
`active and on-line. (A0695 at 5:34-38; A0697 at 10:4-7). The first user’s
`
`computer program can attempt to initiate a point-to-point connection with the
`
`second user’s computer program by sending a request to the connection server.
`
`(A0694 at 3:40-43; A0695 at 5:45-56; A0697 at 10:7-10, 28-32).
`
`In response to the first user’s request, the connection server will search its
`
`database to determine if the second user’s computer program is on-line. (A0695 at
`
`5:57-60; A0697 at 10:28-34). If it is on-line, the connection server will then
`
`forward the IP address of the second user’s computer program to the first user’s
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 19 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`computer program, which then uses that IP address to establish the point-to-point
`
`communication between itself and the second user’s program (without
`
`intermediation by the connection server). (A0694 at 3:40-42; A0695 at 5:60-67;
`
`A0697 at 10:12-18, 32-37). If, however, the second user’s computer program is
`
`not on-line at the time the first computer program makes its query, then the
`
`connection server checks its database, determines that the second computer
`
`program is not currently on-line, and sends the first user’s program an “off-line”
`
`signal or message. (A0695 at 6:1-16; A0697 at 10:14-21). The connection server
`
`will send the first user’s computer program an “off-line” signal or message when
`
`the second user’s program is not currently connected to the network and is flagged
`
`as off-line, even if that second program’s name and address remain stored in (or
`
`registered with) the connection server. (A0695 at 6:1-16; A0697 at 10:14-21).
`
`Thus, as described in the ’704 patent specification, whether a computer program is
`
`currently on-line is not and cannot be determined by whether its name and address
`
`are registered with a connection server, for the program may be so registered and
`
`yet be off-line. (A0695 at 6:1-14).
`
`During ex parte reexamination of the ’704 patent3, the applicants addressed
`
`whether the active on-line status of a process, i.e., its status of being currently
`
`
`3 The ex parte reexamination request was filed on February 17, 2009; the
`reexamination certificate was issued on October 26, 2010. (A2848).
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 23 Page: 20 Filed: 03/13/2015
`
`connected to a network—is the same as the status of having been on-line at some
`
`point in the past to establish an active name registration. (A2879-80). This is the
`
`question presented by the NetBIOS reference at issue in this appeal. Applicants
`
`submitted an Office Action Response explaining that the active name registration
`
`disclosed in NetBIOS is not the on-line status disclosed in the patent claims
`
`because having registered a name with a name server at some previous time does
`
`not indicate that the registered computer is currently on-line:
`
`While NetBIOS uses name entries with ‘active’ statuses as part of its
`name management process, an analysis of how that “active” status is
`used shows that “an active name” is not synonymous with “an on-
`line status” with respect to the computer network. An active name
`simply refers to a name that has been registered and that has not
`yet been de-registered, independent of whether the associated
`computer is or is not on-line.
`
`(A2874 (emphasis added)). The PTO subsequently affirmed the patentability of
`
`each of the claims at issue in this appeal. (A2863).
`
`The Challenged ’704 Patent Claims.
`
`3.
`Each of the challenged claims at issue in this appeal concerns a method,
`
`apparatus, or “computer program product” for establishing a point-to-point
`
`communication between a first (or caller) process and a second (or callee) process.
`
`(A0698-7