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,
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., and AVAYA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v .
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-013671
`Patent 6,009,469 C1
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 IPR2015-01007 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`2.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`PATENT OWNER IS ESTOPPED FROM MAKING CERTAIN
`ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................... 2
`“PROCESS” CLAIM ELEMENT .................................................................. 2
`A.
`The Claims Do Not Require the Registration of a “Process
`Name” at the Server ............................................................................. 3
`The Claimed “Process” Does Not Exclude Operating Systems .......... 5
`The Specification Makes Clear that a Process is Connected to
`the Network When the Processing Unit Running the Process
`Registers its IP Address ........................................................................ 6
`The Microsoft Manual in View of NetBIOS Discloses
`Connecting a “Process” to the Network ............................................... 8
`“CONNECTED TO THE NETWORK” / “ON-LINE STATUS” /
`“ACCESSIBLE” CLAIM ELEMENTS ....................................................... 12
`A.
`Claim Construction of the “Connected to the Computer
`Network” / “On-Line Status” / “Accessible” Limitations ................. 12
`1.
`PO’s Argument that the Claims Require a “Guarantee” is
`Not Supported by the Claim Language .................................... 13
`PO’s Proposed “Guarantee” Directly Contradicts the
`Teachings and Language of the Specification ......................... 15
`a.
`PO’s “Guarantee” Requirement Excludes All
`Disclosed Embodiments ................................................ 15
`The Specification Teaches that “Connected to the
`Computer Network” and “Available” to Respond
`are Distinct Concepts ..................................................... 17
`The Prosecution History Does Not Support PO’s
`Proposed Construction ................................................... 17
`These Limitations Encompass Registering with the
`Server ............................................................................. 18
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`The Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS Discloses the
`“Connected to the Computer Network” / “On-Line Status” /
`“Accessible” Claim Elements ............................................................ 19
`THE MICROSOFT MANUAL IN VIEW OF NETBIOS AND
`PALMER DISCLOSES AN “INTERFACE ELEMENT
`REPRESENTING A FIRST CALLEE PROCESS” LIMITATION ............ 20
`A.
`The Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS Discloses an
`“Interface Element Representing a First Callee Process” .................. 20
`The Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS and Palmer
`Discloses an “Interface Element Representing a Second Callee
`Process” .............................................................................................. 21
`VI. THE MICROSOFT MANUAL IN VIEW OF NETBIOS
`DISCLOSES THE “UNIQUE IDENTIFIER” LIMITATION .................... 23
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Page
`
`
`CASES
`
`Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.
`616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................16, 18
`
`Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc.
`555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .........................................................................................21
`
`MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc.
`780 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................................18
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................15, 17
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .........................................................................................18
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3) .............................................................................................. 2
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`September 1, 2015, deposition of Dr. Stuart Stubblebine, Ph.D.
`
`Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Appellee SipNET EU S.R.O.
`Urging Affirmance of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Decision
`in IPR2013-0246 in Case No. 2015-1212 in the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`1038
`
`Final Written Decision in IPR2013-0246 before the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The asserted prior art makes the asserted claims obvious for the reasons
`
`shown in the Petition, but it also teaches a system that is identical in all relevant
`
`respects to the only embodiment disclosed in the specification. Patent Owner’s
`
`(“PO”) four arguments in its Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”) should be rejected
`
`because they are wholly without merit.
`
`First, PO makes the untenable argument that because the claims recite
`
`“process” the connection server must register a “process name” as opposed to any
`
`other name, like a computer name. The claims do not require the registration of a
`
`process name, and the Board should not create such a limitation because it would
`
`exclude all disclosed embodiments, which register an E-mail address instead of a
`
`process name.
`
`Second, PO makes the equally untenable argument that the claims require a
`
`“guarantee” that the called process is “running” and “available” to respond at the
`
`time of the query. Again, the claims do not require any such limitations, and the
`
`Board should not create them because doing so would exclude all disclosed
`
`embodiments, which, at most, rely on “relatively current” information.
`
`Third, PO argues that the references do not make the claimed “user
`
`interface” elements obvious, but the express teachings of the references and the
`
`uncontested testimony of Petitioner’s expert establishes clearly that those
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`limitations are obvious.
`
`Fourth, PO argues that the prior art does not disclose “unique” enough
`
`identifiers, but its argument is contradicted by its own expert’s testimony and
`
`would exclude the disclosed E-mail identifiers.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER IS ESTOPPED FROM MAKING CERTAIN
`ARGUMENTS
`
`The Final Written Decision in IPR2013-00246 (“Final Written Decision”)
`
`decided several issues adverse to PO. See Paper 62 in IPR2013-00246 (Ex. 1038),
`
`including that both the NetBOIS reference and the Microsoft Manual disclose
`
`“processes” even under the PO’s improperly narrow constructions. Ex. 1038 at 17,
`
`22. The Final Written Decision is currently being appealed to the Federal Circuit.
`
`By the time the Board issues its final written decision in this IPR, PO may be
`
`precluded from contesting the above adverse findings under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.73(d)(3). Regardless of any legal estoppel, PO has provided no reason for the
`
`Board to make inconsistent factual findings in this IPR.
`
`III. “PROCESS” CLAIM ELEMENT
`There is no material dispute that the prior art at issues discloses computers
`
`that comprise the combination of hardware and running computer programs, i.e.,
`
`processes. Petition at 5-10. The dispute regarding “process” involves how the
`
`Board should construe phrases like “the second process is connected to the
`
`computer network” and, specifically, whether it includes registering a computer
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`name that runs the process, or whether it is limited to registering a “process name”
`
`at the server. The Board properly held in its Institution Decision that “the claim
`
`limitations ‘connected to the network’ and ‘on-line’ encompass registering an
`
`address for a computer or process with the server.” Paper 12 at 15 (emphasis
`
`added). The Board should reject PO’s attempt to construe the claims to require the
`
`registration of a “process name” at the connection server, as such a limitation is not
`
`required by the claims, and doing so would exclude all disclosed embodiments.
`
`A. The Claims Do Not Require the Registration of a “Process Name”
`at the Server
`
`PO repeatedly alleges there is a difference between a “process” and a
`
`“computer,” but fails to propose a construction or explain how that alleged
`
`difference is relevant to the claims. PO’s real claim construction position is finally
`
`revealed when PO argues that, to connect a process to a network, the connection
`
`server must register a “process name.” PO does not reveal this argument until
`
`footnote 7 at page 32 of the POR, wherein PO argues that registering a “process” is
`
`different from registering a “computer” because registering a “process” requires
`
`registering a “process name” at the connection server. Specifically, PO attempts to
`
`distinguish DNS registration of a computer name and IP address from registering a
`
`process by arguing that in DNS “a host name – not an application’s name – is
`
`mapped to an IP address.” POR at 32, note 7. PO then repeats this argument on
`
`page 34 of the POR to attempt to distinguish NetBIOS by arguing that NetBIOS
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`registers a “computer name, not the name of any computer program or application
`
`running thereon.” POR at 34. Thus, all of PO’s attempts to distinguish in the
`
`abstract a “process” from a “processing unit,” culminates in PO’s argument that the
`
`connection server must register a “process name” to practice the claims.
`
`Registering a “process name” is not claimed expressly in any claim. Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:27-50 (claim 1 of Reexamination Certificate). The claims never discuss
`
`sending, registering, or using process-specific names or addresses that would
`
`distinguish in any way between a process and a processing unit or user. To the
`
`contrary, the claims relate to a single identifier for a process, processing unit, and
`
`user, all of which are tied to a single network protocol address.
`
`Moreover, a construction that requires the registration of a process name (to
`
`distinguish registering a processing unit running the process or a user using the
`
`process) should be rejected because it would exclude every embodiment disclosed
`
`in the specification. The specification discloses registering an E-mail address and
`
`an IP address, which the specification teaches are associated with a “processing
`
`unit” and not exclusively with a process. Ex. 1001 at 5:24-28 (“first processing
`
`unit 12 automatically transmits its associated E-mail address and its dynamically
`
`allocated IP address . . .”). Thus, no process is ever explicitly registered with the
`
`connection server in any disclosed embodiment.
`
`PO then argues that Dr. Houh testified there was a difference between
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`connecting a process and connecting a processing unit, which simply is not true.
`
`POR at 34 (citing Ex. 2022 at 174:12-175:24). The cited portions of Dr. Houh’s
`
`testimony discusses a hypothetical example of an “FTP client” running on top of
`
`WINS, such that the WINS components of the network stack “would be part of the
`
`FTP actually running.” Ex. 2022 at 174:22-175:10. In that situation, Dr. Houh
`
`testified that you could name the computer “FTP client 1, and then you would see
`
`in the database it would say FTP.” Ex. 2022 at 175:21-23. Dr. Houh testified that
`
`the Microsoft Manual actually teaches this style of naming where it teaches
`
`inclusion of “NT” in the registered name to indicate the computer is running
`
`Windows NT. Ex. 2022 at 284:12-21; see also Ex. 1012 at 10-12 (teaching the
`
`elements of Windows NT including, among others, WINS, NetBIOS, and telnet).
`
`The Claimed “Process” Does Not Exclude Operating Systems
`
`B.
`PO does not argue that “process” requires application level software, as the
`
`PO’s proposed construction of “process” expressly includes application or
`
`computer program. POR at 9. PO does not dispute that NetBIOS, the Microsoft
`
`Manual, and Palmer disclose computers running a computer program. POR at 14-
`
`16. However, PO’s expert at his deposition attempted to distinguish NetBIOS and
`
`the Microsoft Manual from the claimed “process” by arguing the disclosed
`
`programs were operating systems and not “applications.” Ex. 1036 at 84:7-85:25.
`
`There is no basis for distinguishing an operating system from the claimed
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`“process,” and an operating system is clearly within PO’s proposed construction
`
`that includes any “computer program.” Moreover, running applications often
`
`incorporate and rely on functions provided by the operating system, like the
`
`networking stack, or user interface elements, as input and output operations usually
`
`are controlled by operating systems. Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 23-25; Ex. 2022 at 172:7-
`
`178:7. This is consistent with the specification’s disclosure of using operating
`
`systems for the graphical user interface elements. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 5:52-61.
`
`C. The Specification Makes Clear that a Process is Connected to the
`Network When the Processing Unit Running the Process Registers
`its IP Address
`
`The specification only discusses connecting “processing units” and “users”
`
`to the network. Ex. 1001 at FIGS. 1-4 (“processing unit”); 4:28-30 (“processing
`
`unit” and “user”); 12:15-18 (“users and processing units”); 7:5-9 (“processing
`
`unit” and “user” and “party”). The specification never describes connecting a
`
`“process” to the network at all, much less in a way that would distinguish it from
`
`the disclosed protocol for connecting a processing unit and user to the network.
`
`PO’s description of the ’469 patent specification in the POR at Section
`
`II.A.2. (pages 4-7) proves there is no distinction between connecting a “process”
`
`and connecting its “processing unit” and “user” to the network in the context of the
`
`’469 patent. These pages of the POR walk through the only disclosed embodiment
`
`in the patent from column 5, line 18 to column 7, line 13, and simply replaces the
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`specification’s use of the words “processing unit” and “user” with the PO’s use of
`
`the words “process” or “computer program.” POR at 4-8. Thus, PO’s entire
`
`argument regarding “process” is founded on citations to “processing unit” or
`
`“user” in the specification, which simply confirms there is no distinction between
`
`them. This act of paraphrasing the specification and replacing processing unit and
`
`user with process is precisely what PO did when amending the claims during
`
`prosecution. As explained in the Petition at 27-29, PO cannot now argue there is a
`
`difference between connecting a process, and connecting a processing unit.
`
`In fact, PO’s expert admits that the ’469 patent uses the term “processing
`
`unit” and “process” interchangeably. Ex. 2023 at ¶ 26 (“Further, the specification
`
`states that the claimed ‘process,’ also referred to as a ‘processing unit’ in the
`
`specification . . . .”).
`
`PO also cites to 5:18-32; 6:56-7:59 in the POR at page 3. These portions of
`
`the specification disclose that the processing unit can (optionally) run software to
`
`perform the functionality of connecting the processing unit to the computer
`
`network. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 6:11-14 (“The functions represented by these
`
`blocks may be provided thought the use of either shared or dedicated hardware,
`
`including, but not limited to, hardware capable of executing software.”). Nothing
`
`in these passages discloses connecting a “process” to a network or distinguishes it
`
`from connecting a “processing unit” or “user” to the network.
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`In all disclosed embodiments, the process, processing unit, and user are all
`
`identified by the same E-mail address and use the same IP address. See., e.g., Ex.
`
`1001 at 7:1-3. There is simply no way to distinguish between connecting a
`
`process, the processing unit running that process, and the user using that process,
`
`in the context of the claimed invention and specification. Thus, no matter how PO
`
`attempts to characterize the issue, the query (E-mail address) and the answer (IP
`
`address, if registered/online) is always the same. Thus, the Board properly
`
`construed the larger phrases at issue to “encompass registering an address for a
`
`computer or process with the server.”
`
`D. The Microsoft Manual in View of NetBIOS Discloses Connecting
`a “Process” to the Network
`
`PO argues that the Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS “do not describe a
`
`system for registering names for individual computer programs running on those
`
`computers.” POR at 16. PO’s argument is without merit for at least two reasons.
`
`First, as established above, the claims do not require the registration of a “process
`
`name” for individual programs (plural) running on those computers. Second, as
`
`this Board correctly found in IPR2013-00246 (relating to the ’469 patent’s parent,
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,108,704), NetBIOS and the Microsoft Manual disclose registering
`
`processes. Ex. 1038 at 17.
`
`NetBIOS discloses “[a]n application, representing a resource, registers one
`
`or more names,” and, therefore, NetBIOS anticipates the claims even if the claims
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`were construed to require “application layer software.” Ex. 1014 at 379. NetBIOS
`
`further discloses that applications request names, and a session is a reliable
`
`message exchange between a pair of NetBIOS applications. Id. at 379-380.
`
`NetBIOS resources are referenced by name. Lower-level address
`information is not available to NetBIOS applications. An application,
`representing a resource, registers one or more names that it wishes to
`use.
`
`...
`
`Registration is a bid for use of a name. The bid may be for exclusive
`(unique) or shared (group) ownership. Each application contends with
`the other applications in real time.
`
`…
`
`The Name Service primitives are:
`
`
`
`1)
`
`Add Name
`
`The requesting application wants exclusive use of the name.
`
`Ex. 1014 at379. Thus the registered name identifies the NetBIOS application that
`
`is using that name. In addition, a NetBIOS application uses the name it registers to
`
`establish a session with another NetBIOS application that has also registered a
`
`name:
`
`A session is a reliable message exchange, conducted between a pair of
`NetBIOS applications . . .
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Multiple sessions may exist between any pair of calling and called
`names.
`
`The parties to a connection have access to the calling and called
`names.
`
`…
`
`Session Service primitives are:
`
`
`
`1) Call
`
`Initiate a session with a process that is listening under the specified
`name.
`
`Ex. 1014 at 380.
`
`This disclosure teaches that NetBIOS applications connected to the
`
`computer network receive a registered name from the server, query the server to
`
`determine whether other NetBIOS applications are connected to the computer
`
`network, and use the received registered name of other NetBIOS applications to
`
`establish a point-to-point communication link. PO simply ignores these teachings.
`
`Under any construction of “process,” NetBIOS discloses the claimed processes.
`
`WINS also discloses the claimed processes for the same reason. PO admits
`
`the WINS name registration process implements the NetBIOS process discussed
`
`herein. POR at 14-16. Moreover, the WINS reference itself provides additional
`
`disclosures of the claimed processes running on processing units, connecting to a
`
`network to register names with the WINS server, querying the server to find
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`registered names of other processes connected to the computer network, and
`
`establishing point-to-point communications links between them.
`
`For example, WINS is part of the Windows NT operating system process
`
`that runs on a Window NT computer.
`
`When WINS servers are in place on the network, NetBIOS over
`TCP/IP resolves names on a client computer by communicating with
`the WINS server. … In Windows NT 3.5, the NETBT.SYS module
`provides the NetBIOS over TCP/IP functionality that supports name
`registration and resolution modes.
`
`Ex. 1012 at 62. The NETBT.SYS software module is part of the WINS service
`
`which is part of the Windows NT operating system.
`
`The Windows Internet Name Service is a Windows NT service
`running on a Windows NT computer. The supporting WINS client
`software is automatically installed for Windows NT Server and for
`Windows NT computers when the basic operating system is installed.
`
`Ex. 1012 at 124. Accordingly, the WINS reference also discloses the claimed
`
`processes.
`
`The repeated statements in the POR that the Petition relies exclusively on
`
`the disclosure of “computers” as opposed to “processes” is incorrect. The Petition
`
`expressly cites to the disclosure of processes in these references as supporting the
`
`disclosure of these limitations. See, e.g., Petition at 36 (citing Ex. 1012 at 3, 62-63
`
`(discussing “computers running” Windows NT and NetBIOS programs); Ex. 1012
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`at 10-12 (disclosing the elements of Windows NT, including NetBIOS, WINS and
`
`telnet ). In fact, the Petition even cites the use of “NT_PC1” as the name that is
`
`registered and queried, which includes the name of the process “NT.” Petition at
`
`36. Dr. Houh testified that one of ordinary skill would understand that name meant
`
`“a Windows NT machine,” i.e., a machine running Windows NT. Ex. 2022 at
`
`284:12-21; see also Ex. 1012 at 10-12 (teaching the elements of Windows NT
`
`including, among others, WINS, NetBIOS, and telnet). Dr. Houh also testified that
`
`this name could reflect the name of other processes that incorporate the Windows
`
`NT network stack when running, such as an FTP application. Ex. 2022 at 170:10-
`
`178:7; Ex 1004 at ¶¶ 93-96; Petition at 44, 47.
`
`IV. “CONNECTED TO THE NETWORK” / “ON-LINE STATUS” /
`“ACCESSIBLE” CLAIM ELEMENTS
`A. Claim Construction of the “Connected to the Computer Network”
`/ “On-Line Status” / “Accessible” Limitations
`
`PO purports to propose an “ordinary meaning” of the “connected to the
`
`computer network” terms within the larger phrases like “a query as to whether the
`
`process is connected to the computer network at the time of the query.” POR at
`
`21. PO and PO’s expert admit that a process is connected to the network at the
`
`time of its registration at the server. POR at 5-6; Ex. 2023 at ¶ 17. Thus, the real
`
`dispute is how current the information must be at the server at the time of the
`
`query. In this regard, PO actually argues for an extremely narrow construction of
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`the claims by arguing the claims require a “guarantee” that the second process is
`
`“running” and “available” to respond at the moment of the query. PO then argues
`
`the prior art is “imperfect” because it does not provide such a “guarantee.” There is
`
`no support for PO’s interpretation of the claims. And, in fact, PO’s own expert
`
`admitted at his deposition that the degree of precision is “arbitrary” and would only
`
`have to be “reasonable” relative to the desired application. Regardless, any such
`
`interpretation should be rejected because it would exclude all disclosed
`
`embodiments.
`
`1.
`
`PO’s Argument that the Claims Require a “Guarantee” is
`Not Supported by the Claim Language
`
`PO argues that the claims require a “guarantee” that the second process is
`
`“running” and “available to respond” at the time of the query in its attempt to
`
`distinguish NetBIOS and the Microsoft Manual. For example, PO argues WINS
`
`servers do “not ensure” that a device is “currently running.” POR at 17, 48. PO
`
`similarly argues that NetBIOS does not practice the claims because it contains “no
`
`guarantee” that the called node is operating. POR at 20. PO argues the claims
`
`require a determination that “the second computer is, at that moment, on-line and
`
`available to communicate.” POR at 50. There is no support in the claims for PO’s
`
`arguments. The plain language of the claims only requires that the called process
`
`by connected to the network, which is accomplished upon registration with the
`
`connection server. Nothing in the claims state the process is “running” or
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`“available” to respond at the time of the query.
`
`PO’s expert initially took the same position in his declaration. PO’s expert
`
`rewrote the claim language to insert the word “only” to narrow the claims such that
`
`the server would return an address “only” when the second process is connected to
`
`the network. Ex. 2023 at ¶ 13. But no claim, and no proposed construction, inserts
`
`the word “only” into the claim. PO’s expert also testified in his declaration that
`
`WINS is different from the claims because WINS is “not perfect.” Ex. 2023 at
`
`¶ 46. And he testified in his declaration that the claimed invention requires a
`
`“guarantee” that the second process is running. Ex. 2023 at ¶ 51 (“Unlike the
`
`claimed invention, the query in WINS is only a name query, it is no guarantee that
`
`the queried computer is running.”). As examples of the lack of a guarantee, he
`
`testified that a computer running WINS could “crash” or the network connection
`
`could be removed, without WINS being properly shut down. Ex. 2023 at ¶ 52.
`
`However, when pressed at his deposition, PO’s expert admitted that the
`
`disclosed embodiment was subject to the same type of computer crashes. Ex. 2023
`
`at ¶ 52; 1033 at 66:2-23. PO then testified that the claims were broad enough to
`
`include a computer system that would check up at “arbitrary” intervals to make
`
`sure the information was current. Ex. 1036 at 58:23-59:11. PO then examined its
`
`own expert on this point, attempting to lead the expert into testifying that an
`
`interval of one day would be too long. Ex. 1036 at 86:18-88:18. But PO’s expert
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`stood his ground, and testified that the reasonableness of any interval would be
`
`relative to the desired application. Ex. 1036 at 88:19-89:10. PO’s expert’s
`
`testimony that the interval could be “arbitrary” and “reasonable” simply relates
`
`back to the disclosure of time stamps to ensure that the information is “relatively
`
`current” within 2 to 24 hours. Ex. 1001 at 7:14-19.
`
`There simply is no “guarantee” that distinguish the prior art at issue in the
`
`IPR, and any construction of the claim with a guarantee that is “arbitrary” or
`
`“reasonable” would be hopelessly indefinite.
`
`2.
`
`PO’s Proposed “Guarantee” Directly Contradicts the
`Teachings and Language of the Specification
`
`The contradiction between the plain language of the claims and Straight
`
`Path’s temporal requirement is even more clear when the claims are “read in view
`
`of the specification, of which they are a part.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The specification does not describe a single
`
`embodiment that meets Straight Path’s “guarantee” requirements. The
`
`specification therefore confirms that the temporal requirement should be rejected.
`
`a.
`
`PO’s “Guarantee” Requirement Excludes All
`Disclosed Embodiments
`
`All disclosed embodiments use “connected to the computer network”
`
`according to its full scope, which includes all processes that are registered or
`
`logged in to the server, even if there is no guarantee that the processes are
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`“available” to respond at the moment of the query by the first process. In fact, no
`
`disclosed embodiment can “guarantee” or “ensure” the availability of the second
`
`process at any given point in time. Thus, PO’s narrowing construction should be
`
`rejected because it excludes all disclosed embodiments. Adams Respiratory
`
`Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .
`
`The ’469 patent discloses that the connection server optionally “may” use
`
`timestamps to make sure “the on-line status information” is “relatively current.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 7:14-19. The ’469 patent discloses using 2 hours and 24 hours as the
`
`limits for timestamped registrations. Id. Regardless, PO argues that using time
`
`stamps of this relative magnitude is not sufficient to meet PO’s proposed
`
`construction of “guaranteed” availability. POR at 20-21. Thus PO’s construction
`
`would exclude this embodiment.
`
`The ’469 patent also discloses that a “user” (again, not a “process” or a
`
`“processing unit”) can log off or go off line and, if so, the “processing unit of the
`
`user” will send “an off-line message’ to the server. Ex. 1001 at 7:49-59. In
`
`response to the message, the server will then delete the “user’s” information or flag
`
`the “user” as being off-line. Notably, PO’s expert testified he had no opinion as to
`
`whether “user” in this passage related to a person, process, or processing unit. Ex.
`
`1036 at 70:10-24. Regardless, any such log off process suffers the same potential
`
`computer “crashes” and network interruptions that PO argues makes the prior art
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`lack the requisite guarantee. Thus, PO’s construction would also exclude this
`
`embodiment.
`
`b.
`
`The Specification Teaches that “Connected to the
`Computer Network” and “Available” to Respond are
`Distinct Concepts
`
`The specification’s use of very different terms to discuss whether a process
`
`is connected to the computer network and whether a process is available to respond
`
`precludes reading Straight Path’s “and available” limitation into the claim. See
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. For example, the specification expressly teaches that
`
`although connection server 26 is “operatively connected through the Internet 24” to
`
`processing units 12 and 22, connection server 26 may nevertheless be “non-
`
`responsive, inoperative, and/or unable to perform the primary point-to-point
`
`Internet protocol, as a non-responsive condition.” Ex. 1001 at 4:51-58; 7:60-66;
`
`Fig. 7, (Step 58 “Is the connection server in a responsive condition?”). Similarly,
`
`the specification teaches that a called process could be connected to the computer
`
`network, but still be “BUSY” and not available to respond. Ex. 1001 at 6:54-56,
`
`10:40-43. PO’s expert had no opinion how to resolve this inconsistency. Ex. 1036
`
`at 41:24-43:19.
`
`c.
`
`The Prosecution History Does Not Support PO’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`PO argues that this Board should follow the decision in reexamination that
`
`withdrew a rejection over NetBIOS. However, that decision was premised on an
`
`WEST\259112311.3
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`overly narrow reading of NetBIOS, which focused only on the fact that NetBIOS
`
`disclosed “permanent” registration. POR at 46 (quoting Ex. 1003, part 1 at 130).
`
`As established above, NetBIOS, and more importantly the Microsoft Manual
`
`(which was not at issue in the reexamination) also disclose the identical checks on
`
`“accessibility” that are disclosed in the specification of the ’704 patent,
`
`specifically, time stamping registrations and user log off procedures.
`
`In fact, the Microsoft Manual explicitly teaches that a static name-to-IP
`
`address mapping should not be assigned to “WINS-enabled computers.” Ex. 1012
`
`at 138. The Microsoft Manual also teaches that when a WINS name server is used
`
`with a DHCP server for dynamic addressing of IP addresses and dynamic name-to-
`
`IP address mappings, there is no permanent name-to-IP address mapping, and PO
`
`does not cite any evidence showing permanent name-to-IP address mappings when
`
`a DHCP server is used. Ex. 1012 at 59. None of this was before the Examiner
`
`during the reexamination.
`
`But most importantly, this qualified prosecution history is simply not
`
`sufficient to require a construction that would exclude all disclosed embodiments.
`
`MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1180-81 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (a
`
`construction that excludes a preferred embodiment “is rarely correct without any
`