IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`PATENT TRIAL & APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Colin Donald Smith et al.
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,333,973
`Issue Date:
`December 25, 2001
`Appl. No.:
`
`08/842,020
`Filing Date:
`April 23, 1997
`Title:
`
`Integrated Message Center
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR NADER MIR, Ph.D.
`
`(1.)
`
`I am Professor Nader F. Mir. I submit this report on behalf of Google
`
`in connection with its request for inter partes review of Claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,333,973 (“the ’973 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Qualifications
`
`(2.) My professional career has spanned close to 28 years. During these
`
`years, I have continually gained extensive experience in design, analysis, testing,
`
`teaching, research, and performance evaluation in general fields of computer
`
`networks and communications systems.
`
`(3.)
`
`I am currently a tenured Full Professor of Electrical Engineering at
`
`San Jose State University in San Jose, California. I was previously the Associate
`
`Chairman of the Electrical Engineering Department at San Jose State University. I
`
`am also the Director of a graduate program that San Jose State University offers to
`
`Lockheed-Martin Space Systems Corporation in Sunnyvale, CA.
`1
`
`
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 1
`
`
`PATENT TRIAL & APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Colin Donald Smith et al.
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,333,973
`Issue Date:
`December 25, 2001
`Appl. No.:
`
`08/842,020
`Filing Date:
`April 23, 1997
`Title:
`
`Integrated Message Center
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR NADER MIR, Ph.D.
`
`(1.)
`
`I am Professor Nader F. Mir. I submit this report on behalf of Google
`
`in connection with its request for inter partes review of Claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,333,973 (“the ’973 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Qualifications
`
`(2.) My professional career has spanned close to 28 years. During these
`
`years, I have continually gained extensive experience in design, analysis, testing,
`
`teaching, research, and performance evaluation in general fields of computer
`
`networks and communications systems.
`
`(3.)
`
`I am currently a tenured Full Professor of Electrical Engineering at
`
`San Jose State University in San Jose, California. I was previously the Associate
`
`Chairman of the Electrical Engineering Department at San Jose State University. I
`
`am also the Director of a graduate program that San Jose State University offers to
`
`Lockheed-Martin Space Systems Corporation in Sunnyvale, CA.
`1
`
`
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 1
`
`
`
`(4.)
`
`I was awarded a Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering, with a focus
`
`on computer networking and communication systems and protocols, from
`
`Washington University in St. Louis in 1995. I received a Masters of Science
`
`(M.Sc.) degree in electrical engineering from Washington University in St. Louis
`
`in 1990 and my Bachelors of Science (B.Sc.) degree (with honors) in electrical
`
`engineering from Polytechnic University in 1985.
`
`(5.) For close to 28 years, I have studied, designed, and worked in the
`
`general fields of computer networks and communications systems. Based on my
`
`extensive research, engineering, and teaching experience in computers and
`
`communications I have been recognized as a specialist in the areas of computer
`
`and communication networks, networking devices and protocols such as telephone
`
`networks, computer networking, network communication, call management, and
`
`network server organization and operations, and topics that include PSTN, SIP,
`
`Proxy, fundamentals of TCP/IP, voice over IP (“VoIP”), wired and wireless
`
`multimedia networks, switching systems, modems, switches, and routers,
`
`telephone circuit-switched and SS7 networks, content delivery networking, etc.
`
`(6.) Prior to my current position as a professor of electrical engineering, I
`
`was an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky in Lexington and, from
`
`1994 to 1996, I was a research scientist at the Advanced Telecommunications
`
`
`
`2
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 2
`
`
`
`Institute, Stevens Institute of Technology, working on the design of advanced
`
`communication systems and high-speed computer networks.
`
`(7.) From 1990 to 1994 I worked at the Computer and Communications
`
`Research Center at Washington University in St. Louis as a research assistant on
`
`the design and analysis of high-speed switching systems.
`
`(8.) From 1985 to 1988 I worked with Telecommunication Research &
`
`Development Center (TRDC), Surrey, as a telecommunications system research &
`
`development engineer, participating in the design of a high-speed digital telephone
`
`Private Branch Exchange (PBX).
`
`(9.)
`
`I have designed and implemented a hardware/protocol for use in high-
`
`speed computer communication networks as described in U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,012,895.
`
`(10.) I hold several technical editorial positions for various journals, such as
`
`the IEEE Communication Magazine. As a Technical Editor of the IEEE
`
`Communication Magazine I am responsible for making decisions regarding the
`
`acceptance or rejection of scientific articles submitted to the journal in the areas of
`
`computer networking and communication systems. I am a senior member of the
`
`IEEE and have served as a member of the technical program committee and the
`
`steering committee for a number of major IEEE communications and networking
`
`conferences.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 3
`
`
`
`(11.) I have published a textbook through Pearson Prentice Hall Publisher,
`
`New Jersey, entitled “Computer & Communication Networks,” which is now an
`
`internationally-adopted university textbook. The book has been translated into
`
`several languages. The 2nd Edition of this book has been contracted with the
`
`publisher. The book covers fundamentals and advanced topics in telephone
`
`networks, computer networking, network communication, call management, and
`
`network server organization and operations, and spans topics that include, voice,
`
`video, data, FAX networks, PSTN, SIP, Proxy, voice message systems, paging
`
`systems, TCP/IP, VoIP, content delivery networking, wired and wireless
`
`multimedia networks, switching systems, etc.
`
`(12.) I have published numerous refereed technical journal articles and
`
`conference papers, all in the field of communication systems and computer
`
`networking. The full list of my publications can be found in my CV.
`
`(13.) I have received a number of prestigious university, national, and
`
`international awards. In particular, I have received a number of research grants
`
`from private, state, and governmental funding agencies for conducting research in
`
`the fields of computers and communication networks. I am also the recipient of a
`
`university teaching recognition award and a research excellence award. Further, I
`
`am the recipient of a number of outstanding presentation awards from leading
`
`international conferences.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 4
`
`
`
`(14.) I have been invited to a number of talks at both national and
`
`international conferences. My speeches at conferences have focused on a variety
`
`of topics in computer networking including topics on TCP/IP, VoIP, phone
`
`systems, networked servers, wireless multimedia networks, switching systems, and
`
`networking user interfaces.
`
`(15.) I make this declaration based on personal knowledge and I am
`
`competent to testify about the matters set forth herein.
`
`(16.) A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached to this
`
`declaration as Appendix A.
`
`B. Basis of My Opinion and Materials Considered
`
`(17.) I have reviewed the ’973 patent and its file history. I have reviewed
`
`the prior art and other documents and materials cited herein. My opinions are also
`
`based in part upon my education, training, research, knowledge, and experience.
`
`For ease of reference, the full list of information that I have considered is included
`
`in Appendix B.
`
`C. Understanding of Legal Standards
`
`1.
`
`Anticipation
`
`(18.) A patent claim is “anticipated” if each and every limitation of the
`
`claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference. Section 102 of the Patent Statute
`
`
`
`5
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 5
`
`
`
`was amended on March 16, 2013. The earlier version of Section 102 applies to the
`
`patent at issue given its filing date.
`
`(19.) Each element of a patent claim may be disclosed by a prior art
`
`reference either expressly or inherently. Further, my understanding is that even an
`
`“express” disclosure does not necessarily need to use the same words as the claim.
`
`An element of a patent claim is inherent in a prior art reference if the element must
`
`necessarily be present and such would be recognized by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. However, I understand that inherency cannot be established by mere
`
`probabilities or possibilities.
`
`2. Obviousness
`
`(20.) A patent claim is invalid if the differences between the patented
`
`subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. I am informed that this standard is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`(21.) When considering the issues of obviousness, I am to do the following:
`
`(i) determine the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) ascertain the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue; (iii) resolve the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the pertinent art; and (iv) consider objective evidence of non-obviousness. I
`
`appreciate that secondary considerations must be assessed as part of the overall
`
`
`
`6
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 6
`
`
`
`obviousness analysis (i.e. as opposed to analyzing the prior art, reaching a tentative
`
`conclusion, and then assessing whether objective indicia alter that conclusion).
`
`(22.) Put another way, my understanding is that not all innovations are
`
`patentable. Even if a claimed product or method is not disclosed in its entirety in a
`
`single prior art reference, the patent claim is invalid if the invention would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In
`
`particular, I understand that a patent claim is normally invalid if it would have been
`
`a matter of “ordinary innovation” within the relevant field to create the claimed
`
`product at the time of the invention.
`
`(23.) In determining whether the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time that the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art, I have been informed of several principles regarding the combination of
`
`elements of the prior art:
`
`a. First, a combination of familiar elements according to known
`methods is likely to be obvious when it yields predictable results.
`
`b. Second, if a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a
`“predictable variation” in a prior art device, and would see the
`benefit from doing so, such a variation would be obvious. In
`particular, when there is pressure to solve a problem and there are
`a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions, it would be
`reasonable for a person of ordinary skill to pursue those options
`that fall within his or her technical grasp. If such a process leads to
`the claimed invention, then the latter is not an innovation, but more
`the result of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 7
`
`
`
`(24.) The “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test is a useful guide in
`
`establishing a rationale for combining elements of the prior art. This test poses the
`
`question as to whether there is an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the
`
`prior art to combine prior art elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention.
`
`Though useful to the obviousness inquiry, I understand that this test should not be
`
`treated as a rigid rule. It is not necessary to seek out precise teachings; it is
`
`permissible to consider the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (who is considered to have an ordinary level of creativity and is not
`
`an “automaton”) would employ.
`
`II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND THE
`RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`(25.) I have carefully reviewed the ’973 patent and its file history.
`
`(26.) Based on my review of this material, I believe that the relevant field
`
`for the purposes of the ’973 patent is telecommunication devices and
`
`networking/communication systems. In particular, the networking and
`
`communication of incoming user messages to a telecommunication device and the
`
`resulting graphical display of such messages on that device. I have been informed
`
`that the relevant timeframe is on or before April 23, 1997.
`
`(27.) As described in Section I above and as shown in my CV, I have
`
`extensive experience in the field of electrical engineering, computer networks, and
`
`
`
`8
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 8
`
`
`
`communication systems. Based on my experience, I have a good understanding of
`
`the relevant field in the relevant timeframe.
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT
`FIELD IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`(28.) I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`field” is a hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign
`
`a routine task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully
`
`carried out. I have been informed that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by
`
`prior art references. The prior art discussed herein demonstrates that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the field, at the time the ’973 patent was aware of integrated
`
`messaging systems for viewing notifications corresponding to different types of
`
`messages in a single selectable list. Moreover, as shown by the prior art, such a
`
`person was aware that such a system was most efficient where the interface for
`
`communicating such messages has independent connections with different
`
`bandwidths for different types of messages.
`
`(29.) Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed
`
`many such persons over the course of my career. Further, I had those capabilities
`
`myself at the time the patent was effectively filed.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 9
`
`
`
`IV. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY
`AND THE STATE OF THE ART AS OF APRIL 1997
`(30.) I will sometimes refer to the state of the art as “before the ’973
`
`patent.” I have been informed that the relevant timeframe is on or before April 23,
`
`1997. Accordingly, when I speak about the state of the art “before the ’973
`
`patent,” I mean at least before April 23, 1997.
`
`A. Overview of Communication Networking prior to 1997
`(31.) In 1997, the infrastructure of communication networks was well
`
`established, both theoretically and experimentally, to the extent that they were
`
`practical and in use by public. The communication networking media in 1997
`
`consisted of two distinct and separate networks: (i) The public-switched telephone
`
`networks (PSTN), and (ii) packet-switched networks (PSN). PSTN and PSN have
`
`fundamentally different operational infrastructures. In terms of communication
`
`medium type, the communication systems were further classified into wireless
`
`systems and wireline systems.
`
`(32.) PSTN is the basis of our conventional telephone system and has been
`
`in use since the early telephone systems. In fact, it was the only existing personal
`
`communication system prior to the invention of packet-switched networks in the
`
`1970’s leading to the Internet. The main objective of creating public-switched
`
`telephone network was the creation of a medium for voice communications. But
`
`
`
`10
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 10
`
`
`
`later, other applications such as transmission of telex, facsimile (FAX) and data
`
`(e.g. e-mails) through this medium were added to it.
`
`(33.) Long before the ‘973 patent, it was known that to transmit a message
`
`over PSTN, a dedicated portion of telephone network resources, called a “circuit,”
`
`is established between two users and guaranteed for the duration of the
`
`communication. This implies that the two users have exclusive use of the
`
`dedicated resources until the communication is complete, and the connection is
`
`released. The exclusive and dedicated use of the circuit is a unique characteristic
`
`of switched telephone networks.
`
`(34.) It was also known that the transmission of a message (facsimile,
`
`voice, or data) over PSTN requires its own set of communication rules—these
`
`rules are called protocols. Each message is handled by corresponding protocols
`
`that contain defined rules for communicating information between a pair of devices
`
`over telephone networks. For a facsimile message transmission, facsimile
`
`protocols are used; or for voice communication, voice protocols are required.
`
`(35.) The operation of packet-switched networks (PSN), which began about
`
`1970, led to creation of the Internet. The TCP/IP protocol stack PSN employs was
`
`and is fundamentally different from telephone networks. RFC (Request for
`
`Comment) 791, by DARPA Internet Program, released in September 1981,
`
`entitled: “Internet Protocol,” is one of the milestone references presenting the
`
`
`
`11
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 11
`
`
`
`fundamentals of the Internet operation. It was also well known prior to the ’973
`
`patent that, unlike a public-switched telephone network, a packet-switched network
`
`does not require a dedicated connection be established between each pair of users
`
`for the entire duration of the communication to transmit a message. Rather, a
`
`message is fragmented into smaller units called packets. Each packet is appended
`
`with a header to specify routing and control information, such as the source and
`
`the destination addresses. In some circumstances, a packet may be required to be
`
`further fragmented, forming new smaller packets known as frames requiring
`
`multiple headers to carry out multiple tasks in multiple layers of a network. Once
`
`messages are converted to packets they are routed and delivered to their
`
`destinations.
`
`(36.) There are and were, before the ’973 patent, different protocols for
`
`routing packets in packet-switched networks. In one of the commonly used
`
`protocols, packets are and were forwarded over a route with several stopping
`
`points between a source and a destination. In each stopping point, the network
`
`keeps packets in its queue until the remaining route becomes free. In some
`
`protocols, packets belonging to a same message require re-sequencing if they
`
`arrive out of order at the final destination. Finally, at the end of the route, all
`
`packets belonging to a same message are stripped from their headers, and
`
`combined to form the original image.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 12
`
`
`
`B. Overview of Messaging Systems prior to 1997
`(37.) The concept of messaging systems was well known and well
`
`established in 1997. Prior to the ’973 patent, messaging systems were commonly
`
`available to public for use. Those messaging systems were capable of processing
`
`messages expressed in one or more plurality of media, such as text, fax, binary file,
`
`voice, and motion video. Messaging systems could be of type single medium or
`
`integrated media depending on the complexity and application of the system.
`
`Examples of messaging systems from the 1997 time period include, but are not
`
`limited to, paging systems, voice message systems, electronic mail (e-mail)
`
`systems, and FAX systems. I will provide a summary of each single messaging
`
`system existed prior to the ’973 patent in the following paragraphs.
`
`(38.) Paging systems were well known in 1997. One of skill at that time
`
`was well aware that a pager is a wireless device for receiving short messages by
`
`the pager’s user who is not near his/her telephone set. Such a person was also
`
`aware that, in paging systems, data in the form of packets is transferred between
`
`two paging terminals. The data packets contain paging messages and are sent from
`
`a paging terminal to a paging transmitter and thereby to the receiving pagers. The
`
`first personal pager products were made by Motorola in 1995. The Motorola pager
`
`was a small receiver that delivered wireless messages in radio frequency range to
`
`receiving pagers. Paging systems prior to the ’973 patent were messaging systems
`
`
`
`13
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 13
`
`
`
`comprising of mobile pagers, paging terminals at PSTN, and a network of base-
`
`stations geographically located over a paging service area. Between a base-station
`
`and a pager, messages were broadcast using a specific radio frequency (RF). An
`
`example of paging system invention is U.S. Patent No. 5,311,516, granted to
`
`William J. Kuznicki, et al., filed on Nov. 23, 1992, entitled: “Paging System Using
`
`Message Fragmentation to Redistribute Traffic.” (Ex. 1121.)
`
`(39.) Voice messaging systems were also well-known and well-established
`
`prior to the ’973 patent. Voice messages could either be directly transmitted
`
`through PSTN or packaged and sent through an IP-based PSN backbone such as
`
`the Internet. An example of such systems is presented in U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,697,060 granted to Masaaki Akahane, et al., filed on Mar’ 25, 1996, entitled:
`
`“Portable Voice Message Terminal Capable of Transmitting Pre-set Text-based
`
`Information.” (Ex. 1122.) There are two systems of voice messaging: one-way
`
`systems and two-way systems. Both one-way and two-way messaging systems
`
`were quite popular prior to the ’973 patent. Two-way messaging systems allowed
`
`a user to transmit a message to a receiving terminal and also had the capability of
`
`responding to such transmitting terminal with a response voice message or text
`
`message. An example of voice messaging system is US Patent No. 5,724,410
`
`granted to Adrian Parvulescu et al. filed on Dec 18, 1995, “Two-way voice
`
`messaging terminal having a speech to text converter.” (Ex. 1123.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 14
`
`
`
`(40.) FAX messaging systems were commonly used by people prior to
`
`the ’973 patent and were well known to those of skill in the art. A FAX messaging
`
`system could process texts or images by converting them into a bitmap, and then
`
`transmit them through PSTN, and thereby to an output device. The bitmap format
`
`is and was a mapping from some domain as a range of integers to bits. The
`
`receiving FAX machine would print a paper copy after reconverting the coded
`
`image. U.S. Patent No. 5,291,302 granted to Gordon et al, filed in 1992, entitled:
`
`“Facsimile Telecommunications System and Method” discloses an example of a
`
`pre-1997 system and method for facilitating FAX transmission using one or more
`
`store and forward facilities, wherein a subscriber to the system delivers an
`
`outgoing FAX message to the store and forward facility (SAFF) with which it is
`
`associated. (Ex. 1124.)
`
`(41.) E-mail messaging systems in 1997 were based on the packet-switched
`
`network technology I described above. PSTN as the communication carrier could
`
`also carry e-mails. As was known to one of skill in the art at that time, an e-mail
`
`protocol belongs to application of TCP/IP protocol stack where each email user has
`
`a mailbox located in user’s associating mail servers. A mailbox of a user was
`
`known to be an area of storage on a mail server where e-mails are placed and saved
`
`for the user. Accordingly, when the user received an e-mail, the mail server would
`
`automatically save it in the mailbox of the user. In order to see and use an email,
`
`
`
`15
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 15
`
`
`
`an e-mail program called mail user agent was installed on user’s host. The mail
`
`user agent could then further allow the user to download and store e-mail messages
`
`to hosts and read or write them offline. Prior to the ’973 patent, there were a
`
`number of these types of protocols that were developed for e-mail communications
`
`between two servers. One of the most practical ones in this category used heavily
`
`in the Internet is the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) described in RFC 821
`
`published in 1982 by Jonathan B. Postel. An example of inventions using such e-
`
`mail messaging systems prior to 1997 is US Patent No. 5,937,161 granted to
`
`Geoffrey C. Mulligan; et al. filed on Apr 12, 1996 entitled “Electronic message
`
`forwarding system.” (Ex. 1125.) This patent presents method and apparatus for
`
`forwarding electronic messages based upon user-defined parameters, such as the
`
`time that the message is received. In this patent, the method and apparatus
`
`facilitates communications between different customers by providing flexible
`
`options as to message delivery addresses. The invented system was capable of
`
`converting a message that originates as one type or class of message into another
`
`appropriate class of message for delivery to the intended recipient.
`
`C.
`Integration of Messaging Systems Prior to 1997
`(42.) As I discussed in the beginning of the previous section, prior to
`
`the ’973 patent, messaging systems were capable of handling messages expressed
`
`in one or more of a plurality of media. People and businesses began receiving
`
`
`
`16
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 16
`
`
`
`messages over various types of media systems such as the phone, FAX, e-mail,
`
`text, pager, etc. Integrated messaging systems then provided a way of informing a
`
`user that an incoming message, directed to them, had been received, regardless of
`
`media type. So-called “unified messaging” – the presentation of multiple types of
`
`messages (email, fax, voicemail, etc.) in a single message list – was already well-
`
`known by 1997. Many messaging systems already offered unified inboxes
`
`collecting paging messages, voicemails, facsimiles, and e-mails. For example,
`
`AT&T’s Unified Messaging Service (“UMS”) offered unified messaging since at
`
`least 1986. (Ex. 1103.) AT&T’s UMS system included a unified mailbox that “is
`
`the one access point for all messages regardless of their type or the sender’s
`
`system,” (id. at 30), including email and voicemail. (Id. at Fig. 2.) This unified
`
`messaging approach was a common-sense approach to market trends: By 1997, it
`
`was common for people and businesses to receive many different types of
`
`messages, such as phone, fax, e-mail, pager, and the like. Integrated messaging
`
`systems were a natural way to inform a user of an incoming message in any one of
`
`these categories. These integrated messaging systems generally included a
`
`notification feature to notify the user of incoming messages.
`
`(43.) U.S. Patent No. 5,333,266 granted to Boaz, entitled “Integrated
`
`Messaging System” (Ex. 1111) is another example of an integrated messaging
`
`system. It was well known in 1997 that messages originating from different
`
`
`
`17
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 17
`
`
`
`devices could be sent in different formats, and they could in turn be sent from a
`
`variety of different devices (e.g., telephone, fax machine, pager, or computer).
`
`(44.) Prior to the ’973 patent, it was also known that variety of incoming
`
`message types could be processed by a single processing device. For example,
`
`Boaz’s patent recites a messaging system that integrates various types of messages,
`
`including text, voice, facsimile, video, and image for the user. (Ex. 1111,
`
`Abstract.) Boaz’s system can display such messages in the user’s in-basket, a
`
`single selectable list of integrating e-mail, voicemails, facsimile, image mail, and
`
`text mail. (Id.) Boaz further presents a list of icons for identifying the type and
`
`content information of the messages including sender id or node id, date and time,
`
`short description, and/or designated areas of the message. (Id. at 19:24–61.) Such
`
`systems were known by those of skill prior to 1997.
`
`(45.) It was also known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that, prior to
`
`the ’973 patent, allowing users to view messages in a format different from the one
`
`that the message originated in was quite possible and could be beneficial.
`
`Accordingly, such a person was aware that certain notification systems could
`
`naturally be designed to allow the user to choose a viewing format that best suited
`
`the user at the time the message was received (see e.g., id. at 16:28–35.)
`
`(46.) Another example of a pre-1997 integrated messaging system that
`
`integrated various types of messages was presented in US Patent No. 5,448,759
`
`
`
`18
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 18
`
`
`
`granted to Krebs “Method for Efficient Bandwidth Utilization When Transceiving
`
`Varying Bandwidth Messages.” (Ex. 1112.) Krebs discloses a messaging system
`
`for use in a user’s telecommunications equipment. Krebs’ describes a method for
`
`more efficiently utilizing the available bandwidth when transmitting and receiving
`
`messages. Resources in Krebs’ invention are preferably time slots or portions of
`
`time slots in a time division.
`
`(47.) Yet another invention appeared in U.S. Patent No. 5,568,540 granted
`
`to Greco and filed on April 14, 1995 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Selecting
`
`and Playing a Voice Mail Message” (Ex. 1109) shows an integrated messaging
`
`system similar to the one reported in the ’973 patent. Greco presents a graphical
`
`user interface (GUI) for displaying a user’s voicemail messages, e-mail messages,
`
`and fax messages merged into a single selectable list. (See, e.g., Ex. 1109, Fig. 2,
`
`1:40–56.)
`
`(48.) As evidenced by Boaz’s, Krebs’, and Greco’s patent specifications,
`
`integrated messaging systems for use in both wireline and wireless fashions were
`
`available prior to the ’973 patent and were known to those of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`(49.) In view of the pre-1997 integrated messaging systems, like Boaz,
`
`Krebs, and Greco, and their high volume of applications among people prior to
`
`the ’973 patent, the use of “integrated” messaging systems began to be preferable
`
`
`
`19
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 19
`
`
`
`among people and businesses. Such integrated messaging systems were known to
`
`be advantageous over multiple single messaging systems since a central integrated
`
`system could receive all types of messages received from all of different media
`
`collected in one central device instead of multiple devices leading to provision of
`
`faster and more efficient message retrieval. The integration of messaging was
`
`known by those of skill in the art to be advantageous, particularly for the
`
`integration of voice mail and e-mail because of their relative prevalence at the
`
`time.
`
`(50.) In fact, the integration mechanisms of the pre-1997 messaging
`
`systems continued the desire of users to see messaging system products become
`
`simpler to use and to have a more compact user interface. Some customers wished
`
`all messages to be accessible from one screen and one list without flipping through
`
`different screens for different types of messages. Several pre-1997 innovations
`
`were representative of this. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,579,472 granted to
`
`Keyworth, filed on Nov. 9, 1994, entitled “Group-Oriented Communications User
`
`Interface” (Ex. 1108) discloses, in part, an integrated messaging system run on an
`
`apparatus. (See, e.g., Ex. 1108, 4:22–30, Fig. 3.) The system used in the
`
`Keyworth patent can be a personal computer (portable or desktop) or a personal
`
`digital assistant – handheld PDA. (Id. at 2:18–24, 3:33–44.)
`
`
`
`20
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 20
`
`
`
`D. Transmission of Messages and Bandwidth Usage Prior to 1997
`(51.) Any person of skill in the art prior to 1997 would have known that the
`
`bandwidth allocated between a pair of voice nodes in a PSTN-related system
`
`follows a standard rate. One of the commonly known and utilized standards was
`
`called T1. The T1 standard specified the maximum bandwidth, and thus the
`
`number of available voice channels, between a pair of nodes as 1.544 Mb/s and 23
`
`voice channels respectively. This bandwidth was a simple calculation that could
`
`have been performed by one of skill in the art using known properties of telephone
`
`line connections. Prior to 1997, by the telecommunication standard, each phone
`
`connection used 4 KHz bandwidth from an audio spectrum such as the human
`
`voice. With a T1 line known to carry 23 such multiplexed phone channels, each
`
`channel occupying 4 KHz of the voice spectrum at a typical sampling rate of 2 per
`
`Hz, and a typical digital encoding of 8 bits per sample, the bandwidth of a T1 line
`
`could be easily calculated by one of skill to reach close to 1.544MB/s including the
`
`bandwidth required for control of channels’ communication. In other words, one
`
`of skill could have easily calculated the bandwidth calculation of a T1 line as:
`
`×
`× ×
`+
`(4KHz 2) 8 23 control = 1.544Mb/ s
`
`.
`
`(52.) Figure 5 of the ’973 patent presents a block diagram of the elements
`
`included in the network service provider of Figure 1. The Voice Mail Server
`
`(5600) in this figure is connected to internetworking function (IWF) (5500)
`
`
`
`21
`
`Google Ex. 1107, pg. 21
`
`
`
`through a T1 line. Considering the above calculation of a T1 line’s bandwidth, a
`
`person of skill in the art would clearly realize that the dedication of 1.544 MB/s
`
`data rate on the connection between Voice Mail Server (5600) and IWF (5500) was
`
`simply based on the fact that multiple voice communications are carried over the
`
`T1 line between the (5600) and (5500) units.
`
`(53.) A person of skill in the art would also perceive that if there is only
`
`“one” such a voice call carried over a link, instead of 23, and thus control was not
`
`required, the required bandwidth would have been similarly calculated as
`
`×
`× ×
`(4KHz 2) 8 1 = 64kb/ s
`
`. This bandwidth, in Figure 5 of the ‘973 patent
`
`indicated between IWF (5500) and TRAU (5200), thus would have been obvious
`
`to one of ordinary
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
