|PR2015-00055
`
`Patent No. 7,191,233
`
`IRON DOME LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v
`
`CRFD RESEARCH, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`for Oral Hearing
`
`Iron Dome, Exh. 1004
`
`

`
`
`
`The Challenged Patent ‘233 and Alleged Invention
`
`IJS-307 1 9' 1 23 3B2
`
`(121 United States Patent
`Miller
`
`(10) Patent No.:
`(45; Date of Patent:
`
`US 7,191,233 B2
`Mar. 13, 20-0’?
`
`(54) SYSTEM FOR .-'LI.JT‘O'h'IATED, ]|'IID—S'ESSI'C|'N,
`USER-DIRECTED, DEVICE—TD-DEVICE
`SESSION TRANSFER SYSTEM
`
`urorlcing Anchitectune Conterence Proceedings,
`Pisca.tavva‘§.-'. NJ. Apr. 12. I999. pp. 54-65.‘
`
`1999.
`
`IEEE.
`
`(751
`
`Inventor:
`
`hlichael J. Miller, Genltantcu-'11, MD
`{US}
`
`“ cited by examiner
`
`Primary .E'.ra'ri'n1'ncr—Pa1.l] H. Kong
`[74] ..«ii'.rorire_1,', Agent, or F'J'rrn:"|i'|-iilliain H. B-nlliuan
`
`['.-'.‘-l-] Assignee: Teleilolnmunjcatlon Syslnemrs, Inc..
`Annapolis. MD ('IJS_}
`
`(57;
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`[ 3 ] Notice:
`
`Subject to any disclaiiner. the ierrn ofthis
`patent is eattended or adjusted under 3-5
`U.S.-C‘. ]54|[b]I by T-‘(Ill days.
`
`(211 App]. No.: o9.r9s3,4ns
`
`(2.21
`
`[I55]
`
`Filed:
`
`Sep. 17, 21101
`
`Prior Publication Data
`US ZOCIZ.-"D0559?-'7 _-'%.1
`Mar. 20'. 2003
`
`[5 l ]
`
`Int. Cl.
`($6.01)
`Gt?6F IEI73
`{2006.I)])
`GQGF I5/16
`(52) U.S. CI.
`..................................... .. 1'Il]9.I'22T: '.-'-E19.-"223
`(53) Field of Clarsslfleation Search .............. ..
`?{)r'_-2|,-'2I}£l,
`‘?f.‘.l-$1.-"22‘.-‘, 228, 229, 23-0, 233, 223; 455E405,
`455E509
`See application file for complete search hist-or5«'.
`References Cited
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`[515]
`
`______________ _.
`II.-'2lIICI4 Wang et a1.
`5,32-5,613 BI "'
`II.-'2‘OI.’.‘II Leedorn. J1‘.
`2l.l|LI-l.-'lJt]-3683-5 Al "‘
`5.-‘I002 El-elfiope et al.
`.
`2l.l|LI-2.-'lJt}S*.-I425 Al "‘
`
`5."21IIU2 Griflith et al.
`2lI||C|'Za-'lJflfi5'D64 .-951*
`J0-"2002 Govind-nrajan cl: sl.
`2002-'0]43971 .-951*
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`
`‘ms.-'22?
`455.-‘S09
`'3"tII§|.-'225
`4555405
`'-"U9-"230
`
`Pinto. Alexandre 3., ""I'IN.'-'L—l:u-.1ser:l E.r1viro:n.rner1.t for Mobile ['u-'[uI-
`Iirnedia Services.“ I999. Telecoinnmnications lnfortnation Net-
`
`A session transfer lnodule ofa session server provides the
`capability-' to an user lo direct a transfer of‘ an o11—g-oing session
`from one device to another device while lnaintaining the
`session. The session transfer module is invoked by El user in
`a way consistent with the user interface of the client suppli-
`cation, including by st graphical user conlniantl, s cotmnand
`line prompt, or a voice command. The client provides a
`selection of possible devices that rna'_I,! receive the redirected
`session. The session transfer mo-dnle receives the selected
`device willl Ihe session redi_rec1 command over a commu-
`nication network. The comrnnnication nerworlc may be
`wired [e_g_., public switched telephone nerw-nrk_ [“PSTI'~T"}.
`Internet. etc.) a wireless network -[e.g.. digital telephone
`network. pager network, etc.,) or an combination of the wired
`and wireless networks. The session transfer n1-odule inay be
`configured to d.iscI:I-ntinue the session with the current device
`and to block any subsequent messages of the transferring
`session from reaching, the device. The session transfer
`module nuay he further configured to access a device 11-rofi]e
`from a device profile database to convert
`the blocked
`ntesssges into 3 fonnat compatible to the fnrrnst an-riu"or
`Inodality of the redirected device. The session transfer
`module rn.a}' be further configured to push the session to the
`redirected device in res]:-nnse to an activation [e.g.... log-on]
`of the redirected device by the user. Etlteniativelg-'.
`the
`session transfer rnodule rna}-' be further configured to push
`the session back to the device in response to a time-out in the
`activaticlt of the 1edirect-ed device.
`
`43 Claims. 4 Drawirg Sheets
`
`Lron Dome, Exh. 1004
`
`2
`2
`
`

`
`Petitioner requested cancellation of claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20, and 34
`(total of 17 claims) of the challenged patent for anticipation and/or
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`The Claims at issue are:
`
`Claim 1 is anticipated by Phan San Jose.
`Claims 4–6 and 8–11 are obvious over Phan San Jose in view of Phan Helsinki.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Thomas Phan et al., “A New TWIST on Mobile Computing: Two-Way
`Interactive Session Transfer” in the Proceedings of the Second IEEE Workshop
`on Internet Applications (WIAPP 2001). IEEE Computer Society 2000. Selected
`pages: Table of Contents, pp. 2-11 (‘Phan San Jose’ or ‘San Jose’)
`
`Thomas Phan et al., “Handoff of Application Sessions Across Time and
`Space” in volume 5 of the IEEE International Conference on Communications
`(ICC 2001). Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers 2001. Selected pages:
`Table of Contents, pp. 1367-72 (‘Phan Helsinki’ or ‘Helsinki’)
`
`4
`
`

`
`Claim 1 is anticipated by Phan San Jose.
`
`Claim 1. A method for redirecting an on-going, software
`based session comprising:
`conducting a session with a first device;
`specifying a second device;
`discontinuing said session on said first device; and
`transmitting a session history of said first device from
`said first device to a session transfer module after said
`session is discontinued on said first device; and
`resuming said session on said second device with said
`session history.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Claim 1 requires the following:
`• A first device;
`• A second device;
`• A discontinuing step;
`• A transmitting step;
`• A resuming step;
`• A session history
`
`Claim 1 must be interpreted using the “broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`[they] appear[]” 37 C.F.R. section 42.100(b); see Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012);
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1278-82 (Fed. Cir.
`2015).
`
`6
`
`

`
`Issue #1 “Push” and “Pull”
`
`“Push” is not a claim limitation.
`
`Patent Owner argues that:
`
`Phan San Jose’s session transfer mechanism does not work by a push
`•
`mechanism.
`
`Instead, Phan San Jose’s session transfer mechanism works by a pull
`•
`mechanism.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Issue #1 “Push” and “Pull”
`
`But this distinction is irrelevant because the “push” limitation is
`not in any of the claims under review, i.e. claims 1, 4–6, and 8–11.
`
`Claim 1. A method for redirecting an on-going,
`software based session comprising:
`conducting a session with a first device;
`specifying a second device;
`discontinuing said session on said first device;
`
`and
`
`transmitting a session history of said first
`device from said first device to a session transfer
`module after said session is discontinued on said
`first device; and
`resuming said session on said second device
`with said session history.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Issue #1 “Push” and “Pull”
`
`Conclusion
`
`Claim 1 encompasses any type of session transfer mechanism, whether
`push mode, pull mode, or any other type.
`
`Phan San Jose’s pull mode of session transfer operates by “transmitting a
`session history … after said session is discontinued.”
`
`Figure 5, Phan San Jose (Exh. 1002)
`)
`Corresponding text at pg. 11, right col.
`
`If the user selects a ‘Suspend’ operation,
`his session shall be saved back to the
`MWS,
`allowing
`the
`application
`to
`terminate, and at a later time the session
`can be reinstantiated by the Teaching File
`application
`running
`on
`the
`target
`machine.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Issue #2 Order of Steps
`
`No particular ordering of steps required.
`
`Patent Owner argues that:
`
` Figures 1-3 in Phan San Jose do not show “specifying a
`second device.”
`
` Implicit reasoning: The step of “specifying a second
`device” must occur before the step of discontinuing
`and saving the session.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Issue #2 Order of Steps
`
`Fig. 1
`
`specifying a 2nd device
`
`specifying a 3rd device
`
`Fig. 2
`
`Fig. 3
`
`11
`
`

`
`Issue # Order of Steps
`
`Patent Owner is arguing that “specifying a second device” must occur in
`a particular sequential order of the steps.
`
`The patent’s own specification contradicts this:
`
`In particular, although the method of the
`present invention has been described by
`examples, the steps of the method may be
`performed in a different order than illustrated
`or simultaneously.
`
`@col. 9, lns. 22-25
`(italics added).
`
`Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation requiring a specific ordering of
`steps contradicts the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 1.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Conclusion
`
`Claim 1 is anticipated by Phan San Jose
`
`13
`
`

`
`Claims 4-6 and 8-11 depend from claim 1. Since Phan Helsinki provides
`additional limitations recited in claims 4-6 and 8-11, hence Claims 4–6 and 8–
`11 are obvious over Phan San Jose in view of Phan Helsinki.
`
`No rebuttal for dependent claims 4-6 and 8-11.
`
`Patent Owner has no arguments specifically directed against
`the challenge to claims 4-6 and 8-11.
`
`The Board’s reasoning on the obviousness of claims 4-6 and 8-
`11 over Phan San Jose in view of Phan Helsinki is unrebutted.
`
`14