throbber
International Business Machines Corp. v.
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC
`
`IPR2015-00089 and IPR2015-00092 – January 15, 2016 Oral Argument
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,002
`
`1
`
`IBM v. IV, IPR2015-00089, IBM Ex. 1039
`
`

`
`Issues to be argued
`
` Ground 1: Murray
` § 102: claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 18, 25, 26, 31, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 47-49 by Murray
`
` § 103: claims 7, 17, 30, 36, 42 over Murray
`
` § 103: claims 6, 16, 39, 46 over Murray and Davis
`
` § 103: claims 9, 19, 21-23, 32, 37, 44 over Murray and Arnold
`
` § 103: claim 24 over Murray, Arnold, and Raman
`
`
`
` Ground 2: Richardson
` § 102: claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 25, 26, 30, 31, 34-36, 40-43, 47-49 by Richardson
`
` § 103: claims 4, 14, 28 over Richardson and Pezzullo
`
` § 103: claims 6, 16, 39, 46 over Richardson and Davis
`
` § 103: claims 9, 19, 21-23, 32, 34, 37 over Richardson and Arnold
`
` § 103: claims 10, 20, 33, 38, 45 over Richardson and Pocock
`
` § 103: claim 24 over Richardson, Arnold, and Raman
`
`2
`
`
`
`-89 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8 at 36); -92 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8 at 38).
`
`

`
`Anticipation and Obviousness Based on Murray
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Murray – Effective Use of Individual User Profiles with
`Software Distribution
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
` Murray (Ex. 1008 at 1, 3), cited in -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 38); -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 38, 40).
`
`

`
`Murray – Effective Use of Individual User Profiles with
`Software Distribution
`
` Murray:
`
`
`
` Murray (Ex. 1008 at 3), cited in -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 39); -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 39).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IV disputes just 3 issues for grounds based on Murray
`
` (1) Murray discloses a “mobile interface” (all claims)
`
`
`
` (2) Murray discloses “retrieving a mobile interface from the
`network server to the local device” (independent claim 1)
`
` Related issue: Murray discloses “wherein the mobile interface is
`permanently stored in the network server” (dependent claim 48)
`
`
`
`
`
` (3) Murray discloses “retrieving user profile and configuration
`data from the network server to the local device, wherein the
`user profile and configuration data is used to update the data
`associated with the mobile interface” (independent claim 11)
`
`
`
`-89 POR (Paper 19 at 38-44); -92 POR (Paper 19 at 42-45).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Broadest reasonable construction of “mobile interface”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8 at 9); -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 2); -89 POR (Paper 19 at 9-10);
`-92 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8 at 8-9); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 2); -92 POR (Paper 19 at 9-10).
`
`
`
`-89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 6); see also -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 6).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Broadest reasonable construction of “mobile interface”
`
` Institution Decision:
`
`
`
`-89 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8 at 9); see also -92 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8 at 9).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Broadest reasonable construction of “mobile interface”
`
`
`
` ’002 patent:
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 2-3); see also -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 2-3).
`
`
`
`’002 patent (Ex. 1004 at 8:7-22),
`cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 3); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Broadest reasonable construction of “mobile interface”
`
`
`
`
`
` District court’s construction:
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 4); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 4).
`
`
`
`
`
`IV v. Citigroup, Inc., 1:14-cv-04638 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 90 at 6 (Ex. 1031 at 6),
`cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 4); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 4).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Broadest reasonable construction of “mobile interface”
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 POR (Paper 19 at 9-10); see also -92 POR (Paper 19 at 9-10).
`
` IV:
`
`
`
` IBM:
`
`
`
` Institution Decision:
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 3-4); see also -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 4).
`
`
`
`-92 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8 at 22).
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`(1) Murray discloses a “mobile interface” (all claims)
`
`
`
` Murray discloses a “mobile interface”—“the user’s desktop, as
`defined by the roaming profile.”
`
`
`
`-89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 39-44); -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 38-41, 44-45, 47, 49-50).
`
` Murray (Ex. 1008 at 3), cited in -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 38-39); -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 38-39).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Murray:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`(1) Murray discloses a “mobile interface” (all claims)
`
` IV’s implicit claim construction argument is incorrect.
`
`
`
`-89 POR (Paper 19 at 40-41); see also -92 POR (Paper 19 at 44-45).
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 1); see also -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 1).
`
`
`
`
`
` IV:
`
`
`
`
`
` IBM:
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`(1) Murray discloses a “mobile interface” (all claims)
`
` IV argued (inconsistently) in district court:
`
`
`
`IV v. Citigroup, Inc., 1:14-cv-04638 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 86 (Ex. 1034 at 15),
`cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 8); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 8).
`
`
`
`’002 patent (Ex. 1004 at 2:35-46), cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 8); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 8).
`
`
`
`
`
` ’002 patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`(1) Murray discloses a “mobile interface” (all claims)
`
` IV argued (inconsistently) in district court:
`
`
`
` IV’s expert in this IPR admitted:
`
`
`
`IV v. Citigroup, Inc., 1:14-cv-04638 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 86 (Ex. 1034 at 14-15),
`cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 7); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 7).
`
` Williams Dep. Tr. (Ex. 1032 at 168:6-10), cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 7-8); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 8).
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`(1) Murray discloses a “mobile interface” (all claims)
`
`
`
`
`
` Murray:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Murray:
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 8-9); see also -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 9).
`
` Murray (Ex. 1008 at 3, 4), cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 9); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 9).
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`(1) Murray discloses a “mobile interface” (all claims)
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 9); see also -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 9).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`(2) Murray discloses “retrieving a mobile interface . . . .”
`(independent claim 1)
`
` IV misunderstands the issue when it states: “retrieving the roaming
`profile is not the same as retrieving the ‘mobile interface.’”
`-89 POR (Paper 19 at 41-42); see also -92 POR (Paper 19 at 45) (claim 48).
`
`
`
`
`
` IBM:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Murray:
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 10);
` see also -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 9-10) (claim 48).
`
` Murray (Ex. 1008 at 3), cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 10);
`see also -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 9-10) (claim 48).
`
` Murray discloses “the mobile interface is permanently stored in the
`network server” (claim 48)
` IV makes the same incorrect argument.
`
`
`
`-92 POR (Paper 19 at 45) (claim 48).
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`(2) Murray discloses “retrieving a mobile interface . . . .”
`(independent claim 1)
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 10-11).
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`(3) Murray discloses “retrieving user profile and
`configuration data . . . .” (independent claim 11)
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 11).
`
`
`
`
`
`’002 patent (Ex. 1004 at claim 11).
`
` Murray (Ex. 1008 at 3), cited in -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 47).
`
`
`
` Claim 11:
`
`
`
` Murray:
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`(3) Murray discloses “retrieving user profile and
`configuration data . . . .” (independent claim 11)
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 12-13).
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`Anticipation and Obviousness Based on Richardson
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`Richardson – Virtual Network Computing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Richardson (Ex. 1006 at 33, 35), cited in -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 12, 15); -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 16).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Richardson – Virtual Network Computing
`
` Richardson:
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Richardson (Ex. 1006 at Fig. 2(b)), cited in -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 16); -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 17).
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IV disputes 7 elements for grounds based on Richardson
`
`(1) Richardson discloses “pointers” (all claims)
`
`
`
`(2) Richardson discloses “retrieving” “user-specific resources and information”
`(independent claims 1, 11, 34, 49)
`
`
`(3) Richardson discloses “retrieving user profile and configuration data . . . .”
`(independent claim 11)
`
`
`
`(4) Richardson discloses “bookmarked URLs” and “user profiles” (dependent claims 2,
`12, 26, 35, 41)
`
`
`
`(5) Richardson discloses a “mobile interface” (independent claims 25, 34, 40, 49)
`
`
`
`(6) Richardson discloses “means for accessing the user specific resources and
`information using the plurality of pointers” (independent claim 25)
`
`
`
`(7) Richardson discloses a “local memory . . . includes user specific resources
`and information” (independent claim 40)
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 13-25); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 10-24).
`
`25
`
`
`
`

`
`Broadest reasonable construction of “pointer”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8 at 9-10); -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 4); -89 POR (Paper 19 at 12-13);
`-92 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8 at 9-10); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 4); -92 POR (Paper 19 at 12-13).
`
`
`
`
`
`’002 Patent (Ex. 1004 at 1:36-38, 10:8-10), cited in -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 7-8); -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 7-8).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ’002 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`
`(1) Richardson discloses “pointers”
`
` Richardson discloses “pointers”—“icons and menu items.”
`
` Richardson:
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 15-16); -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 17-19).
`
`
`
`
`
`Richardson (Ex. 1006 at Fig. 2(b)), cited in -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 16); -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 17).
`
`
`
`27
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`(1) Richardson discloses “pointers”
`
`
`
`-92 Reply (Paper 27 at 12); see also -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 13-14).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’002 patent (Ex. 1004 at 8:42-44), cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 14); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 12).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ’002 patent:
`
`
`
`28
`
`

`
`(1) Richardson discloses “pointers”
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 POR (Paper 19 at 7); see also -92 POR (Paper 19 at XX).
`
`
`
` Dr. Lieberman testified:
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 16); see also -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 14-15).
`
`
`
`29
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Richardson discloses “retrieving” “user-specific
`resources and information” (independent claims 1, 11, 34, 49)
`
`
`
` ’002 patent:
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 17); see also -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 19).
`
`
`
`’002 patent (Ex. 1004 at 13:48-52), cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 18); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 20).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`
`
`
`(2) Richardson discloses “retrieving” “user-specific
`resources and information” (independent claims 1, 11, 34, 49)
`
` IV admitted in district court:
`
`
`
`IV v. Citigroup, Inc., 1:14-cv-04638 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 55 (Ex. 1036 at 30),
`cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 18); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 20).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31
`
`

`
`(3) Richardson discloses “retrieving user profile and
`configuration data . . . .” (independent claim 11)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 20-21).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`32
`
`

`
`(4) Richardson discloses “bookmarked URLs” and
`“user profiles” (dependent claims 2, 12, 26, 35, 41)
`
`
`
` Richardson discloses “bookmarked URLs”—“Internet Explorer
`stores bookmarked URLs.”
`
`
`
` -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 23); -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 25).
`
` Richardson:
`
`
`
`Richardson (Ex. 1006 at Fig. 2(b)), cited in -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 23); -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 25).
`
`
`
`Lieberman Decl. (-89 Ex. 1001 ¶ 100), cited in -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 18);
`see also Lieberman Decl. (-92 Ex. 1001 ¶ 132), cited in -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 22).
`
`
`
` Dr. Lieberman:
`
`
`33
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`(4) Richardson discloses “bookmarked URLs” and
`“user profiles” (dependent claims 2, 12, 26, 35, 41)
`
` ’002 patent:
`
`
`
`’002 patent (Ex. 1004 at 2:22-31), cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 22); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 19).
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 22); see also -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 19).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`34
`
`

`
`(5) Richardson discloses a “mobile interface”
`(independent claims 25, 34, 40, 49)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-92 Reply (Paper 27 at 11).
`
`
`
`
`
`35
`
`

`
`(6) Richardson discloses “means for accessing the user specific
`resources and information using . . . pointers” (independent claim 25)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at claim 25; -92 POR (Paper 19 at 25).
`
`
`
` Institution Decision:
`
`
`
`-92 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8 at 13-14).
`
`
`
`-92 Reply (Paper 27 at 16).
`
`
`
`
`
` IBM:
`
`
`
`36
`
`

`
`(7) Richardson discloses a “local memory . . . includes
`user specific resources and information” (independent claim 40)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-92 Reply (Paper 27 at 16).
`
`
`
`Richardson (Ex. 1006 at Fig. 2(c)), cited in -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 27-28).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-92 Reply (Paper 27 at 16-17).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Richardson:
`
`
`
` IBM:
`
`37
`
`

`
`(7) Richardson discloses a “local memory . . . includes
`user specific resources and information” (independent claim 40)
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ’002 patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert:
`
`
`
`-92 Reply (Paper 27 at 17).
`
`
`
`
`
`’002 patent (Ex. 1004 at 1:10-16),
` cited in -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 17).
`
`
`
`Williams Dep. Tr. (Ex. 1032 at 145:4-9),
`cited in -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 17).
`
`
`
`
`
`38
`
`

`
`It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine
`Richardson with Arnold (claims 9, 19, 21-24, 32, 37, 44)
`
`
`
`
`
`Richardson (Ex. 1006 at 5), cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 23); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 22).
`
`
`
`Lieberman Decl. (-89 Ex. 1001 ¶ 206), cited in -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 33);
`see also Lieberman Decl. (-92 Ex. 1001 ¶ 202), cited in -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 34).
`
` Richardson:
`
`
`
` Dr. Lieberman:
`
`
`
`
`39
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine
`Richardson with Arnold (claims 9, 19, 21-24, 32, 37, 44)
`
`
`
` Arnold:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV’s Expert:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 22); see also -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 21). .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Arnold (Ex. 1013 at 14), cited in Williams Dep. Tr., (Ex. 1032 at 163:6-15),
`cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 23); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 22).
`
`
` Williams Dep. Tr. (Ex. 1032 at 163:6-15),
`cited in -89 Reply (Paper 27 at 23); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 22).
`
`
`
`40
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine
`Richardson with Davis (claims 6, 16, 39, 46)
`
` Dr. Lieberman:
`
`
`
`
`
`Lieberman Decl. (-89 Ex. 1001 ¶ 170), cited in -89 Pet. (Paper 2 at 30);
` see also Lieberman Decl. (-92 Ex. 1001 ¶ 226), cited in -92 Pet. (Paper 2 at 37).
`
`
`
`41
`
`

`
`It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine
`Richardson with Davis (claims 6, 16, 39, 46)
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 24); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 23).
`
` Davis (Ex. 1012 at 1:59-61), cited in-89 Reply (Paper 27 at 24-25); -92 Reply (Paper 27 at 23-24).
`
`
`
`
`
` Davis:
`
`
`
`42
`
`

`
`Motion to exclude: IV did not preserve its objection
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-89 Opp. to MTE (Paper 37 at 2); see also -92 Opp. to MTE (Paper 37 at 2).
`
`
`
`-89 Objs. (Ex. 2009 at 4); see also -92 Objs. (Ex. 2009 at 4),
`cited in -89 Opp. to MTE (Paper 37 at 2); -92 Opp. to MTE (Paper 37 at 2).
`
`
`
` IBM:
`
`
`
`
`
` IV’s objections:
`
`
`
`
`43
`
`

`
`Murray is prior art
`
`
`
`
`
` Murray (Ex. 1008 at 1), cited in -89 Opp. to MTE (Paper 37 at 4); -92 Opp. to MTE (Paper 37 at 4).
`
`
`
`
`
`44
`
`

`
`Murray is prior art
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proof of Publication (Ex. 1009 at 5-6), cited in -89 Opp. to MTE (Paper 37 at 4, 6); -92 Opp. to MTE (Paper 37 at 4, 6).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`45
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Wayback Machine (-89 Ex. 1022 at 4, 30; -92 Ex. 1020 at 4, 30),
`cited in -89 Opp. to MTE (Paper 37 at 6, 9); -92 Opp. to MTE (Paper 37 at 6, 9).
`
`Murray is prior art
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`46

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket