Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`inContact, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Microlog Corp.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-00560
`Patent 7,092,509
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`inContact, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Microlog Corp.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-00560
`Patent 7,092,509
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I. MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION DOES NOT APPLY ....................................... 1
`A.
`The Term “Queuing Component” Conveys Structure ......................... 1
`B.
`The Term “Routing Component” Conveys Structure .......................... 6
`C.
`The Patent Owner has not Provided Sufficient Evidence to
`Overcome the Presumption ................................................................ 10
`Petitioner’s Arguments are Consistent with its Position on
`Abstract Idea ....................................................................................... 13
`Corresponding Structure .................................................................... 14
`E.
`II. HAIGH DISCLOSES THE “QUEUING COMPONENT” ......................... 17
`III. HAIGH DISCLOSES THE “ROUTING COMPONENT”.......................... 21
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`‐i‐
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`Currently Filed
`
`Title of Document
`
`Declaration of David Klausner (“Klausner Decl.”)
`
`The Penguin Concise Dictionary of Computing (2003), pp. 359,
`380, 394-95
`
`Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering (1999), pp.
`524, 557
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2006), pp. 1436, 1518
`
`A Dictionary of Computing (5th ed. 2004), pp. 424, 432, 457-58
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3rd ed. 1996), pp. 392, 415
`
`Plaintiff Microlog Corp.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief 1:14-
`cv-00047-LPS, Document 47 (“PO Opening Claim Construction
`Brief”)
`
`
`Previously Filed
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`Title of Document
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509 to John C. Mears et al. (the “’509” or
`“’509 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,793,861 to Steven Paul Haigh (“Haigh”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,903,877 to Patricia Ann Berkowitz et al.
`(“Berkowitz”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,465,286 to William K. Clare et al. (“Clare”)
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1005
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`Title of Document
`
`File Wrapper of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509
`
`IBM Dictionary of Computing (10th ed. 1994), pp. 550-51
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3rd ed. 1996), pp. 106-07, 392-93
`
`Exhibit A in support of Plaintiff Microlog Corp.’s Response to
`Defendant InContact Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
`1:14-cv-00047-LPS, Document 35-1
`
`InContact Inc.’s Opening Brief in Support of its Motion for
`Judgment on the Pleadings, 1:14-cv- 00047-LPS, Document 31
`
`InContact Inc.’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Judgment
`on the Pleadings, 1:14-cv-00047- LPS, Document 38 (“Pet. Reply
`Brief”)
`
`Plaintiff Microlog Corp.’s Response to Defendant InContact Inc.’s
`Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 1:14-cv-00047-LPS,
`Document 35 (“PO Response Brief”)
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`The Petitioner respectfully submits the following Reply:
`
`I. MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION DOES NOT APPLY
`A limitation devoid of the word means gives rise to the presumption that
`
`means-plus-function interpretation is not appropriate. See Williamson v. Citrix
`
`Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The presumption is overcome
`
`only where “the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite
`
`sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient
`
`structure for performing that function.’” Id. at 1349 (emphasis added).1 Patent
`
`Owner has not made such a showing here with respect to claim terms “queuing
`
`component” and “routing component,” and as such, the terms should be accorded
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning. See Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd. v. Autolive
`
`ASP, Inc., Case IPR2014-01006, Final Written Decision, Paper No. 48 at 12
`
`(PTAB Jan. 6, 2016).
`
`A. The Term “Queuing Component” Conveys Structure
`Patent Owner contends that “[t]he claim term ‘queuing component’ lacks a
`
`widely recognized structural definition.” Patent Owner Response (“Response”), at
`
`7. Patent Owner further contends that “[t]he term ‘component’ alone also is
`
`widely recognized as not connoting a definite structure.” Id. at 8-9.
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
` Hereinafter, any bolding and underlining indicates emphasis added.
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`The analysis cannot end here, however. Even assuming that the term
`
`“component,” by itself, fails to connote sufficient structure, “[a] limitation will not
`
`invoke . . . pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph if there is a structural modifier
`
`that further describes . . . the generic placeholder.” MPEP § 2181(I)(C). This
`
`principle has been recognized time and again by the Federal Circuit. See, e.g., Flo
`
`Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos, 697 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Apple
`
`Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`In this case, the term “component” is preceded by the term “queuing,” a
`
`structural modifier that prevents the application of § 112 ¶ 6. See Greenberg v.
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that the
`
`term “detent mechanism” did not invoke § 112 ¶ 6 because the structural modifier
`
`“detent” denotes a type of structural device with a generally understood meaning in
`
`the mechanical arts). Numerous dictionaries—including one put forward by Patent
`
`Owner—show that the term “queue” has a reasonably well-understood meaning as
`
`a name for a structure. See Flo Healthcare, 697 F.3d at 1374 (citing a dictionary
`
`definition to conclude that “the noun ‘adjustment,’ which modifies ‘mechanism’
`
`here, has a reasonably well-understood meaning as a name for a structure”); see
`
`also, e.g., Hyundai Mobis, Paper No. 48 at 11 (citing a dictionary definition for the
`
`term “holder” to conclude that the term “holding feature” is not subject to means-
`
`plus-function interpretation); Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`Sys., LLC, Case IPR2015-01585, Decision, Paper No. 11 at 8-9 (PTAB Jan. 29,
`
`2016) (citing a dictionary definition for the term “synthesizer” to conclude that the
`
`term “voice synthesizing device”
`
`is not subject
`
`to means-plus-function
`
`interpretation). Specifically, both technical and non-technical dictionaries define a
`
`“queue” as a data structure that stores multiple elements that can be removed
`
`according to a particular order. See, e.g., Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Ex.
`
`2002/1011, at 392 (“[a] multi-element data structure from which (by strict
`
`definition) elements can be removed only in the same order in which they were
`
`inserted; that is, it follows a first in, first out (FIFO) constraint. There are also
`
`several types of queues in which removal is based on factors other than order of
`
`insertion—for example, some priority value assigned to each element”); The
`
`Penguin Concise Dictionary of Computing, Ex. 1007, at 359 (“[a] data structure
`
`with the property that the first element that can be removed is the first one that was
`
`put in. . . .”); Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering, Ex. 1008, at
`
`524 (“a data structure maintaining a first-in-first-out discipline of insertion and
`
`removal. Queues are useful in many situations, particularly in process and event
`
`scheduling”); The American Heritage Dictionary, Ex. 1009, at 1436 (“A data
`
`structure from which the first item that can be retrieved is the one stored earliest”).
`
`In the context of the ’509 patent, as expert David Klausner explains, the queue
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be implemented in
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`hardware such as memory. Declaration of David Klausner (“Klausner Decl.”), Ex.
`
`1006, at ¶ 16; see also, e.g., A Dictionary of Computing, Ex. 1010, at 432 (“Like a
`
`pushdown stack, a queue can be implemented in hardware as a specialized form of
`
`addressless memory, . . .”); Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering,
`
`Ex. 1008, at 524 (“See also FIFO memory.”). Accordingly, the term “queuing
`
`component” designates a class of structures in the form of hardware that
`
`implement a data structure storing multiple elements that can be removed
`
`according to a particular order. This conclusion is confirmed by the testimony of
`
`Mr. Klausner. Klausner Decl., at ¶¶ 15-18; see also Lighting World, Inc. v.
`
`Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that
`
`“evidence from experts may be relevant”).
`
`The Federal Circuit has found other similar hardware-based structure to be
`
`outside the ambit of § 112 ¶ 6. See Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 453
`
`F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2006), rev’d on other grounds, 553 U.S. 617 (2008)
`
`(finding the limitation of “a control unit for controlling the communication unit,
`
`wherein the control unit comprises a CPU and a partitioned memory system” to
`
`provide sufficient structure in the form of “a CPU and a partitioned memory
`
`system”). The PTAB has also reached similar conclusions post-Williamson. See,
`
`e.g., Hyundai Mobis, Paper No. 48 at 12 (“a releasable temporary holding feature”
`
`not subject to § 112 ¶ 6); Nissan North America, Paper No. 11 at 8-9 (“voice
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`synthesizing device”); Crestron Elecs., Inc. v. Intuitive Bldg. Controls Inc., Case
`
`IPR2015-01460, Decision, Paper No. 14 at 9 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2016) (“input
`
`device”); Silicon Labs., Inc., v. Cresta Tech. Corp., Case IPR2014-00809, Final
`
`Written Decision, Paper No. 56 at 12 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2015) (“signal processor”);
`
`see also Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc., Case IPR2015-01422, Decision,
`
`Paper No. 8 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 16, 2015) (“controller means” not subject to § 112 ¶
`
`6 in part because “the recited ‘controller’ is also a structure that is sufficient to
`
`perform any recited or implicit function of the ‘controller means.’”).
`
`Further, the “intrinsic record” confirms that Patent Owner cannot “rebut[]
`
`the presumption” in this instance. See Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams.
`
`Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The ’509 specification describes
`
`“software and related hardware” that “provide unified queuing of all media types,
`
`such as e-mail, telephony, web chat, and web call back into a single unified
`
`queue.” ’509, 10:17-19. The specification also discloses that these contacts (of
`
`different media types) are added to the “‘in memory’ queue,” where they are
`
`maintained prior to being routed to agent workstations. Id. at 47:10-11. As Mr.
`
`Klausner testifies, one skilled in the art would understand the “‘in memory’ queue”
`
`to be a data structure implemented in memory hardware. Klausner Decl., at ¶ 17.
`
`The structural nature of the term “queuing component” also finds support in
`
`the prior art of record. See MPEP § 2181(I)(C) (“To determine whether a word,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`term, or phrase coupled with a function denotes structure, examiners should check
`
`whether: . . . (3) the prior art provides evidence that the term has an art-recognized
`
`structure to perform the claimed function.”). For example, Haigh discloses a
`
`hardware platform referred to as “a transaction processing system 12 having a
`
`memory 14 for storing transactions in at least one queue 16.” Haigh, Ex. 1002,
`
`2:10-12. As another example, Berkowitz discloses a “transaction processing
`
`platform 10 [] provided with an ACD system,” where each “transaction request is
`
`in the queue in [the] transaction processing platform 10.” Berkowitz, Ex. 1003,
`
`3:34-35, 5:44-45. Similarly, Clare discloses a “processing unit including: . . .
`
`associated memory including a queue of queued inbound calls.” Clare, Ex. 1004,
`
`22:9-14. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a
`
`“queuing component” is a name that indicates a class of structures—hardware that
`
`implement a data structure storing multiple elements that can be removed
`
`according to a particular order. See Hyundai Mobis, Paper No. 48 at 10.
`
`The Term “Routing Component” Conveys Structure
`
`B.
`Like “queuing component,” the term “routing component” contains a
`
`structural modifier that bars treatment under § 112 ¶ 6. The same dictionaries that
`
`prove the structural nature of the term “queue” also show that the term “router” has
`
`a reasonably well-understood meaning as a name for a structure. See, e.g., The
`
`Penguin Concise Dictionary of Computing, at 380 (“[a] hardware device that
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`connects two or more networks or network segments together to form a single
`
`internetwork, by forwarding data packets from one network into another”);
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Ex. 1011, at 415 (“[a]n intermediary device on a
`
`communication network that expedites message delivery”); The American
`
`Heritage Dictionary, at 1518 (“[a] device in a network that handles message
`
`transfers between computers.”); Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical
`
`Engineering, at 557 (“a node, connected to multiple networks, that forwards
`
`packets from one network to another”); A Dictionary of Computing, at 457 (“[a]
`
`unit that supports the low-level linking of several regions of a single network”).
`
`Thus, as Mr. Klausner testifies, one skilled in the art would understand “routing
`
`component” to designate a class of structures for forwarding data packets within
`
`one or more networks. Klausner Decl., at ¶¶ 19-20.
`
`No evidence intrinsic to the ’509 patent casts doubt on this conclusion. The
`
`’509 patent discloses that the contact center system includes “software and related
`
`hardware. Specifically, the software and related hardware provide unified queuing
`
`of all media types, . . . The software and associated hardware also provide skills-
`
`based and priority-based routing of these contacts to agents within the contact
`
`center.” ’509, 10:14-22. As such, the written description confirms that “routing
`
`component” indicates structure (e.g., hardware related to certain software) for
`
`forwarding data packets (e.g., contacts) within one or more networks (e.g., contact
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`center). Klausner Decl., at ¶ 21.
`
`The prior art of record provides further support. As discussed above, Haigh
`
`discloses a hardware platform referred to as “a transaction processing system 12
`
`having a memory 14 for storing transactions in at least one queue 16, a transaction
`
`controller 18, and an identifier generator 20.” Haigh, 2:10-13. Haigh further
`
`teaches that “[t]he sources [of transactions] may be connected directly to the
`
`transaction processing system 12 for processing and routing to appropriate stations
`
`32, 34 through the network 30.” As another example, Berkowitz discloses a
`
`“transaction processing platform 10 [] provided with an ACD system,” where the
`
`ACD system can route the customer transaction requests in queue in the
`
`transaction processing platform 10 to an appropriate service agent. Berkowitz,
`
`3:34-35, 5:44-46, 3:47-48. Similarly, Clare discloses “automated call distribution
`
`(ACD) systems” that “route inbound telephone calls to telephone stations assigned
`
`to specific personnel or inbound agents.” Clare, 1:27-29.
`
`Notwithstanding, Patent Owner argues that “[w]hile ‘routing component’
`
`carries the connotation of some type of structure, it lacks sufficiently definite
`
`structure to avoid means-plus-function treatment.” Response, at 8; see also id. at
`
`10-11, n.1. Patent Owner apparently contends that the class of structures denoted
`
`by this term is not “sufficiently definite structure” because “the definitions do not
`
`provide sufficient details on these structures.” Id. As the Federal Circuit has
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`expressly observed, however, “[t]he limitation need not connote a single, specific
`
`structure; rather, it may describe a class of structures.” Apple Inc., 757 F.3d at
`
`1300. Thus, any argument based on an alleged lack of detail in the definitions is
`
`belied by Patent Owner’s own admission that “‘[r]outing components’ are
`
`recognized in the art to specifically denote a class of structures,” which is all that
`
`is required to avoid means-plus-function interpretation. Response, at 8. This is
`
`confirmed by numerous Federal Circuit opinions that have cited definitions short
`
`on detail to conclude that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. See, e.g., Flo Healthcare, 697
`
`F.3d at 1374 (citing the following definition for “adjustment”: “a device, as a knob
`
`or lever, for adjusting: the adjustments on a television set”); CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Greenberg, 91 F.3d at
`
`1583. Likewise, the PTAB has relied on definitions lacking in detail to reach the
`
`same result. See, e.g., Hyundai Mobis, Paper No. 48 at 11 (citing the following
`
`definition for “holder”: “[a] device for holding: for example, a towel holder”)
`
`(internal brackets omitted); Nissan, Paper No. 11 at 8 (citing the following
`
`definition for “synthesizer”: “[a]n electronic instrument that combines simple wave
`
`forms to produce more complex sounds, such as those of various other
`
`instruments”). Thus, Patent Owner’s argument fails for a lack of legal support.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`C. The Patent Owner has not Provided Sufficient Evidence to
`Overcome the Presumption
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to the terms “queuing component”
`
`and “routing component” also fail for a lack of sufficient evidence. See
`
`Personalized Media Comm’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 704
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998) (declining to construe “digital detector” as a means-plus-function
`
`limitation where “neither intrinsic nor extrinsic evidence” rebutted the presumption
`
`that a “detector” connoted structure to those of skill in the art). Unlike Petitioner,
`
`whose arguments find ample support through the intrinsic record, dictionaries,
`
`prior art, and expert testimony, Patent Owner has presented almost no evidence to
`
`support its ultimate conclusion that the terms are subject to means-plus-function
`
`interpretation. Indeed, Patent Owner relies on two purportedly “major computing
`
`dictionaries” to show that “[t]he claim term ‘queuing component’ lacks a widely
`
`recognized structural definition.” Response, at 7. But, as outlined above, no fewer
`
`than five dictionaries, including one of the two cited by Patent Owner, support the
`
`opposite conclusion. Likewise, the sole piece of evidence produced by Patent
`
`Owner in connection with “routing component” (Ex. 2003)—as Patent Owner
`
`admits—supports Petitioner’s position that the term defines a class of structures.
`
`See PO Response Brief, Ex. 2006, at 15-16 (citing Ex. 2003 to argue that “the term
`
`‘routing component’ is a term used in the industry that connotes to one skilled in
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`the art a variety of computer structures known as ‘routing components.’ In other
`
`words, these limitations recite structure because they define a class of products
`
`known as ‘routing components’”).
`
`Moreover, the limited support put forward by Patent Owner has little if any
`
`persuasive value because they are directly contradicted by Patent Owner’s own
`
`statements made in district court. See Agila Specialties Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2015-00503, Decision, Paper No. 10 at 13 (PTAB July 20, 2015) (“Patent
`
`Owner may not, after obtaining the challenged patent based on that assertion, take
`
`an inconsistent position without presenting persuasive evidence.”). Specifically,
`
`Patent Owner has—on multiple occasions and in no uncertain terms—presented
`
`“queuing component” and “routing component” as “well defined structures” and
`
`“structural limitations.” See, e.g., PO Response Brief, Ex. 2006, at 7 (“[T]he
`
`Asserted Claims are directed to specific, defined, special-purpose hardware and
`
`software components . . .”); id. (“[C]laims 1 through 6 of the ’509 Patent recite
`
`improvements to well defined structures including a “queuing component,” and
`
`“routing component.”); id. (“The patent further specifies novel improvements to
`
`these defined components, . . .”); id. at 8 (“These defined components . . .”); id.
`
`(“The recital of these structural components . . .”); id. at 10 (“[T]he Asserted
`
`Claims . . . explicitly recite defined hardware and software components . . .”); id. at
`
`15-16 (“These limitations are structural, not merely functional descriptions. For
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`example, the term “routing component” is a term used in the industry that connotes
`
`to one skilled in the art a variety of computer structures known as “routing
`
`components.” In other words, these limitations recite structure because they define
`
`a class of products known as “routing components.” Thus, one skilled in the art
`
`would understand these terms to be structural limitations . . . Because these
`
`components are structural . . .”); id. at 16 (“Plaintiff asserts that the claimed routing
`
`and queuing components as specifically modified by the claims would be
`
`understood as structure limitations . . .”); id. (“Plaintiff is entitled to expert
`
`discovery to demonstrate that one skilled in the art would understand the claims to
`
`be structural . . .”). This position remained apparently unchanged by the
`
`Williamson decision, handed down on June 16, 2015, for Patent Owner chose not
`
`to argue for means-plus-function interpretation in its Opening Claim Construction
`
`Brief dated July 31, 2015. See PO Opening Claim Construction Brief, Ex. 1012.
`
`Under these circumstances, “[t]here is insufficient evidence in this record to
`
`overcome the presumption.” Silicon Labs., Paper No. 56 at 12, n.11.2
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Similarly, because Patent Owner presents no analysis and no evidence for the
`
`term “contact handling component,” the presumption against means-plus-function
`
`must remain undisturbed. See Response, at 12-13, n.2.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments are Consistent with its Position on
`Abstract Idea
`
`Patent Owner contends
`
`that “[b]y characterizing both
`
`the ‘routing
`
`component’ and ‘queuing component’ as purely functional, generic language” in §
`
`101 briefing, “Petitioner acknowledged that these terms are subject to claim
`
`construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).” Response, at 10. However, while
`
`“functional, generic language” may indeed run afoul of § 101, it does not
`
`necessitate in every circumstance the application of § 112 ¶ 6. According to the
`
`Federal Circuit, “a drafter’s decision to define ‘a particular mechanism in
`
`functional terms is not sufficient to convert a claim element containing that term
`
`into a ‘means for performing a specified function’ within the meaning of section
`
`112(6)’ because ‘many devices take their names from the functions they perform.’”
`
`Flo Healthcare, 697 F.3d at 1374. And contrary to what Patent Owner would have
`
`the Board believe, the Petitioner never foreclosed the possibility that “queuing
`
`component” and “routing component” are structural limitations. See Pet. Reply
`
`Brief, Ex. 2005, at 6 (“Patent Owner’s Response does not once address
`
`independent claim 8, which is devoid of any structural components or the allegedly
`
`limiting language of claim 1.”). This stands in stark contrast to Patent Owner’s
`
`explicit and unequivocal position that the terms are “well defined structures” and
`
`“structural limitations.” PO Response Brief, Ex. 2006, at 7, 15-16.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the terms “queuing component” and
`
`“routing component” should be accorded their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`E. Corresponding Structure
`In the event the Board is inclined to construe the disputed terms under § 112
`
`¶ 6, Petitioner sets forth its proposals for each term below.
`
`Patent Owner contends, based on Figure 65, that the “‘queuing component’
`
`is a routing manager, route request broker, assignment manager and agent manager
`
`and equivalents thereof.” Response, at 11. Patent Owner additionally contends,
`
`based on Figure 67, that the “‘routing component’ comprises a media proxy,
`
`routing manager, assignment manager, agent manager and agent Java interface and
`
`equivalents thereof.” Id. at 12. However, both proposed constructions improperly
`
`incorporate structures disclosed in a mere embodiment that are “not necessary to
`
`perform the recited function[s].” Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc.,
`
`239 F.3d 1225, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains
`
`Chem. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (§ 112 ¶ 6 does not “permit
`
`incorporation of structure from the written description beyond that necessary to
`
`perform the claimed function”). This error can be gleaned from a number of
`
`embodiments that do not include all of the elements put forward by Patent Owner.
`
`See, e.g., ’509, 41:66-42:1 (“The components associated with the receipt, queuing
`
`and routing of telephone calls are shown in the diagram of FIG. 51, . . .”); 42:38-
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`40 (“The components associated
`
`with the receipt, queuing and
`
`routing of IVR telephone calls
`
`are shown in the diagram of FIG.
`
`53,
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.”); 46:2-4
`
`(“The
`
`components associated with the
`
`receipt, queuing and routing of
`
`e-mails
`
`are
`
`shown
`
`in
`
`the
`
`conceptual diagram of FIG. 63, . . .”). As the figures illustrating these
`
`embodiments demonstrate (above left), “[t]he components associated with the
`
`receipt, queuing and routing” of certain different media-type contacts (i.e.,
`
`telephone calls, IVR telephone calls, and e-mails) need not include (1) a “route
`
`request broker,” “assignment manager,” and “agent manager,” as proposed by
`
`Patent Owner for the “queuing component,” and (2) an “assignment manager,”
`
`“agent manager,” and “agent Java interface,” as proposed by Patent Owner for the
`
`“routing component.” See Response, at 11-12. Because these aforementioned
`
`elements are not found in certain embodiments describing “[t]he components
`
`associated with . . . queuing and routing,” one skilled in the art would understand
`
`these elements to be unnecessary for performing the claimed functions of
`
`“queuing” and “routing.” Klausner Decl., at ¶ 24; see also Micro Chem, 194 F.3d
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`at 1258 (“When multiple embodiments in the specification correspond to the
`
`claimed function, proper application of § 112, ¶ 6 generally reads the claim
`
`element to embrace each of those embodiments.”).
`
`Instead, the figures each include a media proxy (e.g., ACD proxy, IVR
`
`proxy, e-mail proxy) and a routing manager. This is consistent with the structures
`
`proposed by Patent Owner, which, when stripped of their unnecessary elements,
`
`result in (1) a routing manager for the “queuing component” and (2) a media proxy
`
`and routing manager for the “routing component.” See Response, at 11-12.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner submits that the appropriate corresponding structure for the
`
`term “queuing component”
`
`is a routing manager, and
`
`the appropriate
`
`corresponding structure for the term “routing component” is a media proxy and
`
`routing manager. See Klausner Decl., at ¶¶ 22-28.
`
`The specification confirms that the routing manager performs the recited
`
`function of “queuing.” See, e.g., ’509, 42:34-36 (The routing manager then begins
`
`the process of adding the contact to the common queue . . .”); 43:49-51 (same);
`
`44:19-21 (same); 44:62-64 (same); 45:24-25 (same). The specification also
`
`confirms that the media proxy and routing manager perform the recited function of
`
`“routing.” See, e.g., ’509, 42:33-34 (“The ACD proxy then routes the contact to
`
`the routing manager . . .”); 43:48-49 (web proxy); 44:18-19 (web proxy); 44:61-
`
`62 (ACD proxy); 45:21-22 (VoIP proxy); 47:25-27 (“[T]he routing manager
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`continuously performs the routing cycle to continuously route the queue contacts
`
`out of the queue and to the appropriate agents.”).
`
`II. HAIGH DISCLOSES THE “QUEUING COMPONENT”
`
`As outlined above in Section I.A, the term “queuing component” should be
`
`accorded its customary and ordinary meaning. Thus, Haigh discloses this term for
`
`all of the reasons previously set forth in the Petition. See Petition, at 22-25.
`
`To the extent the Board is inclined to construe the term under § 112 ¶ 6,
`
`Haigh discloses the appropriate corresponding structure of a routing manager in the
`
`form of a “transaction processing system 12.” Haigh, 2:10-11. The transaction
`
`processing system 12 includes “a memory 14 for storing transactions in at least one
`
`queue 16” and “a transaction controller 18.” Id., 2:10-12. Like the routing
`
`manager, which adds contacts to the common queue, “[u]pon receiving a
`
`transaction, the transaction controller 18 [of the transaction processing system 12]
`
`queues the transaction in at least one queue 16.” Id., 2:34-36; see also, e.g., 2:61,
`
`6:40-45. Furthermore, as Haigh explains, the transaction controller 18 of the
`
`transaction processing system 12 can “include[] . . . an ‘INTEL’ ‘PENTIUM’-
`
`based central processing unit (CPU).” Id., 2:14-16. Therefore, one skilled in the
`
`art would understand the transaction processing system 12 to be a server or part of
`
`a server. Klausner Decl., at ¶ 29; see also The Penguin Concise Dictionary of
`
`Computing, at 394 (server: “In the context of hardware, a computer that is designed
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`to provide shared services to other computers on a network (called workstations), .
`
`. .”). As the routing manager taught by the ’509 patent is also a part of a server
`
`(i.e., “contact center server 122”), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`the transaction processing system 12 to disclose a routing manager, and therefore a
`
`“queuing component.” Klausner Decl., at ¶ 29.
`
`Even assuming arguendo that the appropriate corresponding structure is the
`
`one proposed by Patent Owner—i.e., routing manager, route request broker,
`
`assignment manager, and agent manager—the transaction processing system 12
`
`nevertheless discloses an “equivalent[] thereof.” § 112 ¶ 6. It is well settled that
`
`structural equivalence exists “if the assertedly equivalent structure performs the
`
`claimed function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same
`
`result as the corresponding structure described in the specification.” Odetics, Inc.
`
`v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Furthermore,
`
`“structures with different numbers of parts may still be equivalent,” because “[t]he
`
`individual components . . . of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed
`
`function are not claim limitations.” Id. at 1268. Therefore, structural equivalence
`
`does not “command a component-by-component analysis.” Id.
`
`Here, there can be no question that the transaction processing system 12
`
`performs exactly the claimed function. See Petition, at 22-25 (Section VII.A.1.a)
`
`(explaining how the transaction processing system 12 discloses the limitation “a
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`queuing component, adapted to receive said different media-type contacts and
`
`maintain said contacts in a common queue while said contacts are awaiting routing
`
`to said workstations” under its plain and ordinary meaning). Similarly, there can
`
`be little doubt that the transaction processing system 12
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
