`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`APPLE INC. AND TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00687
`Patent 7,765,482
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,765,482
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`Submitted by:
`/Jason D. Eisenberg/
`Jason D. Eisenberg, Reg. No. 43,447
`February 4, 2015
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitionn for Inter PPartes Revview of U.SS. Patent NNo. 7,765,4482
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`INNTRODUCCTION ......................................................
`
`..................................
`
`OVERVIEWW .............
`
`..................................
`................
`
`..................................
`A. 
`
`
`
`
`The aalleged invvention of tthe ’482 paatent .........
`
`..................................
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`Relatted Reexammination ....................................
`
`..................................
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`State of the prioor art ..........................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`III.  LLEVEL OFF ORDINAARY SKILLL IN THE
` ART .......
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.................IV.  CCLAIM COONSTRUCCTION ......................
`..................................
`
`
`SUMMMARY OOF PRIOR AART TO TTHE ’482 PPATENT
`
`AA. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORMMING THHE BASIS OF THIS PPETITIONN ................................
`1. 
`Mattes ...
`
`..................................
`
`..................................
`................
`2. 
`
`..................................
`
`..................................
`Creamer
`................
`
`
`
`
`IDDENTIFICCATION OOF CHALLLENGE (3
`
`
`)) ..............7 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)
`
`
`
`AA.  Grouund 1: Claimms 13, 14,
`
`
`, 38, 40-422, 44, 45 annd 49
` 19, 21-23
`
`
`bvious oveer Mattes. ..................
`
`are innvalid as o
`
`..................................
`1. 
`
`3, 14, 19, and 21-23
`
`
`us over are invalidd as obviou
`Claims 1
`
`
`..................................................
`Mattes. ..
`
`..................................
`a)
`
`
`
`[133.P]: a commputer impplemented
`
`method off pre-
` 
`
`
`
`proocessing ddigital conteent in a cliient devicee for
`
`
`
`
`
`subbsequent eelectronic ppublishing
`
`..................................
`... 12 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[133.1]: receivving an ideentificationn of digitall content, ssaid
`
`
`
`
`
`
`diggital contennt includinng one or mmore of immage contennt,
`... 13 
`
`
`
`viddeo contennt, and audiio content
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[133.2.1]: pre-processinng said idenntified digiital contentt at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`saiid client deevice in acccordance wwith one orr more pree-
`arameters
`
`proocessing p
`that are re
`
`
`ceived fromm a devicee
`
`
`
`
`sepparate fromm said cliennt device tto produce
`
`pre-processsed
`
`..................................
`... 14 
`
`
`
`diggital contennt ..............................
`
`
`
`
`
`[133.2.2]: saidd one or mmore pre-proocessing pparameters
`
`
`
`
`
`controlling said client ddevice in aa placemennt of said
`r paration fororm in preppecified font into a spdiggital conten
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`puublication tto one or mmore devicees that are
`
`remote froom a
`... 15 
`
`
`serrver devicee and said
`
`
`client deviice .............................
`
`
`
`TABLE OOF CONTTENTS
`
`
`
`b)
` 
`
`c)
`
` 
`
`d)
` 
`
`i
`
`
`..... 1 
`..... 2 
`..... 2 
`..... 3 
`..... 3 
`..... 4 
`..... 5 
`
`..... 6 
`..... 6 
`..... 7 
`..... 9 
`
`... 12 
`
`... 12 
`
`O A B C
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`V. 
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitionn for Inter PPartes Revview of U.SS. Patent NNo. 7,765,4482
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e)
`
` 
`
`f)
` 
`
`g)
` 
`
`h)
` 
`
`i)
`
` 
`
`j)
`
` 
`
`k)
` 
`
`l)
`
` 
`
`b)
` 
`
`c)
`
` 
`
`d)
` 
`
`e)
`
` 
`
`2. 
`
`... 23 
`
`... 23 
`
`... 27 
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[133.3]: retrieeving informmation thaat enables iidentificatiion
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of f a user, saiid retrievedd informatiion being aavailable too
`
`
`
`
`
`saiid client deevice priorr to said recceived idenntification
`... 16 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[133.4.1]: trannsmitting aa message ffrom said cclient deviice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to said serverr device foor subsequeent publishhing devicee to
`
`
`
`saiid one or mmore devicces that are
`rver
`
` remote froom said se
`... 18 
`
`
`
`device and saaid client ddevice ......
`
`..................................
`g said pre-
`
`
`
`
`[133.4.2]: saidd transmittted messagge includin
`n
`
`
`
`
`
`proocessed diggital conteent and saidd retrievedd informatio
`... 19 
`
`
`
` .....................................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[144.1]: whereein said prre-processiing compriises reducinng a
`... 19 
`
`
`
`
`
`file size or coompressingg said digiital contentt................
`
`
`
`
`
`[199.1]: whereein said rettrieving coomprises reetrieving a
`
`
`
`user identifieer. ..............................
`
`..................................
`... 20 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[21.1]: whereein said rettrieving coomprises reetrieving inn a
`... 21 
`
`
`
`
`
`maanner that is transparrent to saidd user. ........................
`ssing
`
`
`
`[222.1]: whereein said onne or more
`pre-proce
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`content into a specifiedd form in ppreparationn for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`puublication tto one or mmore devicees on whicch said digiital
`... 21 
`
`
`
`
`
`content is to be electronnically dissplayed. ......................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[233.1] whereein said pree-processinng comprisses resizingg
`... 23 
`
`
`
`saiid digital ccontent. ......................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 38, 40-42, 444-46, andd 49 are invvalid as obvvious
`
`
`
`over Matttes .............................................
`
`..................................
`a)
`
`
`
`
`
`[388.P]: A commputer impplementedd method foor pre-
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`proocessing ddigital conteent in a cliient devicee for
`
`
`
`
`
`subbsequent eelectronic ddistributionn ................................
`
`
`
`[388.1.1]: inittiating by ssaid client
`device, a t
`ransfer of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`diggital contennt from saiid client deevice to a sserver deviice,
`... 24 
`
`
`
`… .................................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[388.1.2]: … ssaid digitaal content inncluding oone or moree of
`... 25 
`
`
`
`
`
`immage contennt, video coontent, andd audio conntent ........
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[388.2.1]: pre-processinng said digiital contentt at said cliient
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device in acccordance wwith one orr more pre--processingg
`
`
`
`paarameters…… ................................
`... 26 
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[388.2.2]: …ssaid one or r more pre--processingg parameteers
`
`
`being providded to said
`
`client deviice from a
`device
`
`
`
`
`
`.................… ..............nt device…m said cliensepparate from
`
`-o
`
`paarameters eenable saidd client devvice to placce said digiital
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitionn for Inter PPartes Revview of U.SS. Patent NNo. 7,765,4482
`
`
`
`
`
`f)
` 
`
`g)
` 
`
`h)
` 
`
`i)
`
` 
`
`j)
`
` 
`
`k)
` 
`
`l)
`
` 
`
`m)
`
` 
`
`n)
` 
`
`b)
` 
`
`
`
`BB. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[388.2.3]: saidd one or mmore pre-proocessing pparameters
`
`
`
`
`
`controlling said client ddevice in aa placemennt of said
`
`
`
`
`
`
`diggital contennt into a sppecified foorm in prepparation forr
`
`
`
`
`puublication tto one or mmore devicees that are
`
`remote froom a
`... 28 
`
`
`serrver devicee and said
`
`
`client deviice .............................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[388.3.1]: trannsmitting aa message ffrom said cclient deviice
`id
`
`
`
`
`
`to said serverr device foor subsequeent distribuution to sai
`
`
`
`
`
`onne or more devices thhat are remoote from saaid server
`... 30 
`
`
`
`device and saaid client ddevice ......
`
`..................................
`
`g said pre--
`
`
`
`
`[388.3.2]: saidd transmittted messagge includin
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`proocessed diggital conteent. ...........
`... 31 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[400.1]: receivving an ideentificationn of said diigital conteent
`... 32 
`
`
`
`
`
`forr transmisssion prior tto said pre--processingg ..............
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[41.1]:whereein said pree-processinng comprisses reducinng a
`... 33 
`
`
`
`
`
`file size or coompressingg said digiital contentt................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[422.1]: whereein said prre-processiing compriises resizinng
`... 33 
`
`
`
`saiid digital ccontent .......................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`[444.1]: whereein said traansmitted mmessage inncludes
`
`
`
`
`
`ideentifying innformationn for said ddigital conttent. .........
`... 34 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[455.1]: whereein said ideentifying iinformationn is retrievved
`... 35 
`
`
`
`
`
`froom storagee in said cliient devicee. ................................
`
`
`
`
`
`[499.1]: whereein said ideentifying iinformationn includes
`user
`... 36 
`
`infformation.
`
`.................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Grouund 2: Claimms 16, 17, 18, 20, 355 and 46 arre invalid aas
`
`
`
`
`obvioous over MMattes in viiew of Creaamer ........
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`KSR Ratiionale: the combinatiions applyy a known
`1. 
`
`
`(method, oor product)) ready
`
`
`techniquee to a knowwn device
`
`
`
`
`
`for improovement too yield preddictable reesults ..........................
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 16, 17, 18, 20, and 466 are invaliid as obvioous over
`
`
`
`Mattes inn view of CCreamer .....................
`
`..................................
`a)
`
`
`
`
`
`[166.1]: whereein said prre-processiing compriises pre-
` 
`pre-
`
`
`
`
`proocessing inn accordannce with onne or more
`
`
`proocessing parameters
`
`
`that have bbeen previiously
`
`
`doownloaded to said clieent device
`
`. .................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[177.1]: whereein said prre-processiing compriises pre-
`pre-
`
`
`
`
`proocessing inn accordannce with onne or more
`
`
`proocessing parameters
`
`
`that have bbeen downnloaded to
`said
`... 40 
`
`
`
`
`
`cliient devicee prior to saaid identifiication. ......................
`
`... 37 
`
`... 37 
`
`... 39 
`
`... 39 
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitionn for Inter PPartes Revview of U.SS. Patent NNo. 7,765,4482
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[188.1]: whereein said prre-processiing compriises pre-
`pre-
`
`
`
`
`proocessing inn accordannce with onne or more
`
`
`proocessing parameters
`
`
`
`that have bbeen storedd in memoory
`... 41 
`
`
`
`of f said clientt device prrior to said
`
`identificattion. .........
`trieving a
`
`
`
`
`[200.1] whereein said retrrieving commprises re
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`paassword. .....................................
`... 42 
`
`
`
`[466.1]: whereein said ideentifying iinformationn includes
`
`
`a
`... 43 
`
`
`
`file name ......................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 355 is invalidd as obviouus over Maattes in vieww of
`
`
`
`Creamer ..................................................
`
`..................................
`a)
`
`
`
`[355.P]: a commputer impplemented
`
`method foor pre-
` 
`
`
`
`proocessing ddigital conteent at a cliient devicee for
`
`
`... 43 
`
`
`
`subbsequent eelectronic ppublishing
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`[355.1.1]: receeiving a coommand thhat moves aa graphica
`l
`
`
`user interfacee element
`
`
`in a graphiical user innterface
`... 45 
`
`
`
`dissplayed at said clientt device ....
`
`..................................
`command
`
`
`[355.1.2]: saidd received
`
`
` enabling sselection oof
`... 46 
`
`
`
`diggital contennt ..............................
`
`..................................
`
`or more off
`
`
`
`
`[355.1.3]: saidd digital coontent incluuding one
`... 46 
`
`
`
`
`
`immage contennt, video coontent, andd audio conntent. .......
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[355.2.1]: pre-processinng said seleected digitaal content iin
`
`
`
`accordance wwith one orr more pre
`
`
`-processinng parameteers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`thaat are receiived from aa remote ddevice to prroduce pree-
`... 47 
`
`
`
`proocessed diggital conteent ............
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`[355.2.2]: saidd one or mmore pre-proocessing pparameters
`
`
`
`ennabling saidd client devvice to pla
`
`
`ce said diggital contennt
` one
`
`
`
`intto a specifiied form inn preparati
`
`on for pubblication to
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`or more deviices that arre remote ffrom a servver device
`... 49 
`
`
`
`saiid client deevice..........................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`VI.  MMANDATOORY NOTTICES (37 C.F.R. § 442.8(a)(1))
`
`..................................
`... 50 
`A. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Real Parties-In--Interest (337 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(11)) ..............................
`... 50 
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`Relatted Matterss (37 C.F.RR. § 42.8(bb)(2)) ........
`
`..................................
`... 50 
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`Desiggnation of Lead and BBack-Up CCounsel (3
`
`7 C.F.R. §§
`
`
`
`
`42.8((b)(3)) ........................................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`D. 
`
`
`Serviice Informaation (37 CC.F.R. § 422.8(b)(4)) .
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`VII.  SSTANDINGG (37 C.F.R. § 42.1004(a)) .........................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFFICATIONN OF SERVVICE (37 C.F.R. §§
`
`
`.................42.6(e), 422.105(a)) ..
`
`iv
`
`
`A B C D
`
`c)
`
` 
`
`d)
` 
`
`e)
`
` 
`
`3. 
`
`b)
` 
`
`c)
`
` 
`
`d)
` 
`
`e)
`
` 
`
`f)
` 
`
`... 43 
`
`... 51 
`... 52 
`... 52 
`... 53
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp.,
`72 F.3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 12
`
`Boston Scientific v. Cordis,
`554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................... 17, 30
`
`Ex parte Yamaguchi,
`88 USPQ 2d 1606 (B.P.A.I. 2008) ......................................................................... 8
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`In re Giacomini,
`612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 8
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`Leapfrog Enters, Inc.. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 11
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00547, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2014) ............................................... 8
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Virginia Innovation Sciences ,Inc.,
`IPR2013-00569, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. March 6, 2014) .............................................. 5
`
`SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharmaceutical Corp.,
`225 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 11
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................... 3, 51
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 7
`v
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................... 1, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a) ............................................................................................... 52
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`EXHIBIT LIST1
`
`Exh. No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482 to Wood et al., issued July 27, 2010
`(“the ’482 patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482, February 4, 2015 with
`Curriculum Vitae (“Lippman Dec.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,930,709 to Creamer et al., issued August 16,
`2005 (“Creamer”)
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/067,310 to Creamer,
`filed December 4, 1997 (“Creamer ’97”)
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/085,585 to Creamer,
`filed May 15, 1998 (“Creamer ’98”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,038,295 to Mattes, issued March 14, 2000
`(“Mattes”)
`Claim Construction Order, Summit 6 LLC v. Research in Motion
`Corp., CA No. 3:11-cv-367-O (N.D. Tex., May 21, 2012) (“Claim
`Constr. Order”)
`Partial File History of Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent
`7,764,482, Control No. 90/012,987 (“Reexam FH”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,612,515 to Wood et al., issued December 17,
`2013 (“the ’515 patent”)
`
`
`1 This Exhibit list covers two inter partes review petitions being filed against
`
`the ’515 patent and four inter partes review petitions being filed against the ’482
`
`patent. Not all exhibits are used in each petition or declaration, but to facilitate the
`
`Board’s review of the six petitions, Petitions have used the same exhibit numbers
`
`across all six petitions.
`
`vii
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`Exh. No.
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`Description
`
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 6,092,114 to Shaffer et al., issued July 18, 2000
`(“Shaffer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,223,190 to Aihara et al., issued April 24, 2001
`(“Aihara”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,875,296 to Shi et al., issued February 23, 1999
`(“Shi”)
`EP 0838774A2 Application (DE), published April 29, 1998 (“Ban-
`dini”)
`Godin, Seth, You’ve Got Pictures: AOL’s Guide to Digital Imaging,
`(1998) (“Godin”)
`Lu et al., eWorld – The Official Guide for Macintosh Users, Hay-
`den Books, 1994 (“eWorld”)
`Jain et al., The Design and Performance of MedJava, Proceedings
`of the 4th USENIX Conference, on Object-Oriented Technologies
`and Systems (COOTS), April 1998 (“MedJava”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,018,774 to Mayle et al., issued January 25, 2000
`(“Mayle”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,567,122 to Anderson et al., issued May 20, 2003
`(“Anderson ’122”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,118,480 to Anderson et al., issued September 12,
`2000 (“Anderson ’480”)
`Rose et al., NeXTSTEP Applications Manual (1990)
`U.S. Patent No.6,370,193 to Lee et al., issued April 9, 2002 (“Lee”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,075,528 to Curtis, issued June 13, 2000 (“Cur-
`tis”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,895,557 to Wood et al., issued May 17, 2005
`(“the ’557 patent”)
`Opening Claim Construction Brief of Plaintiff Summit 6, LLC,
`Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 7:14-cv-00014 (N.D. Tex. Dec.
`29, 2014) (“Op. CC Brief”)
`
`viii
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`Exh. No.
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`
`
`Description
`Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief, Summit 6 LLC v.
`HTC Corp., No. 7:14-cv-00014 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2014) (“Def.
`Op. CC Brief”)
`Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement,
`Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 7:14-cv-00014 (N.D. Tex. Jan.
`27, 2014) (“Joint Claim Constr.”)
`Ahuja, Jasmine J., Client-Server Applications in Java, Pace Univ.
`Dec. 1997 (“Ahuja”)
`
`ix
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. jointly petition for inter partes review of claims
`
`13, 14, 16-19, 20-23, 35, 37, 38, 40-42, and 44-46 of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482 to
`
`Wood et al. (“the ʼ482 patent”). The ʼ482 patent is provided as Exhibit 1001. This
`
`is the fourth of four petitions being filed against the ’482 patent. This fourth peti-
`
`tion presents two grounds:
`
`Ground 1: claims 13, 14, 19, 21-23, 38, 40-42, 44-46 are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 in view of Mattes.
`
`Ground 2: claims 16-18, 20, 35, and 46 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`in view of Mattes in combination with Creamer.
`
`The different grounds set forth in the four ’482 petitions are independent,
`
`distinct, and not redundant. The first petition requests cancellation of claims 1, 4,
`
`6, 8, 10, 12, 25, and 51 of the ’482 patent as being obvious over Creamer. The sec-
`
`ond petition requests cancellation of claims 13, 14, 16-23, 35, 37, 38, 40-42, 44-46,
`
`and 49 as being obvious over Creamer. The third petition requests cancellation of
`
`claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 25, 37 and 51 as being obvious over Mattes. And the
`
`fourth petition requests cancellation of claims 13, 14, 19, 21-23, 38, 40-42, 44-46
`
`as being obvious over Mattes and also asserts a second ground against claims 16-
`
`18, 20, 35, and 46 as being obvious over Mattes in view of Creamer. Petitioner
`
`minimized the petitions and references used to achieve a “just, speedy and inex-
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`pensive resolution” consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Accordingly, Petitioner
`
`requests full adoption of all proposed grounds in all four petitions.
`
`II. OVERVIEW
`A. The alleged invention of the ’482 patent
`The ’482 patent claims priority to U.S. Pat. No. 6,895,557 (“the ’557 pa-
`
`tent”), which has a filing date of July 21, 1999. The ’482 patent is directed to an
`
`“improved web-based media submission tool” that is “configurable to perform a
`
`variable amount of intelligent pre-processing on media objects prior to upload.”
`
`(’482 patent, Abstract.) As disclosed in the ’482 patent, the web-based media sub-
`
`mission tool comprises two primary components: (1) the media object identifier
`
`and (2) the media sender. (Id. at 3:12-14.)
`
`The primary task of the media object identifier is to place and associate a
`
`media object such as a digital image from a user’s computing device onto a web
`
`page external to that device. (Id. at 3:15-18.) First, one or more media objects (e.g.,
`
`digital images) are selected for submission and optionally tagged with identifying
`
`information by the user. (Id.) The media object identifier then pre-processes the
`
`images using “client-side intelligence.” (Id. at 4:46-47.) The ’482 patent identifies
`
`many examples of preprocessing, including resizing the image (by physical dimen-
`
`sions, pixel count, file size), compressing an image, changing the file format of an
`
`image (i.e., conversion to JPEG), changing the quality setting of the image, crop-
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`ping the image, adding text or annotations to an image, encoding the image, or ad-
`
`justing image values such as contrast or saturation. (Id. at 4:60-67.) The ’482 pa-
`
`tent also claims that the pre-processing parameters can be sent to the client device
`
`from a remote device such as a server (e.g., claim 1 of ’482 patent).
`
`Once the digital content (i.e., the digital images) has been pre-processed ac-
`
`cording to the parameters received from the remote device, the local device can
`
`transmit the images, along with identifying information, to the server, which pub-
`
`lishes them to the Internet. (’482 patent, 6:15-32.)
`
`B. Related Reexamination
`As mentioned previously, the ’482 patent is subject to a pending ex parte
`
`reexamination by the USPTO, in which all considered claims currently stand re-
`
`jected. Patent Owner has filed an Appeal Brief, to which the Examiner filed an an-
`
`swer on January 20, 2015. In the re-examination, the Office has found that claims
`
`38, 40, 44-46 and 49 are unpatentable on multiple grounds. Specifically, the claims
`
`have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Creamer (U.S.
`
`Patent 6,930,709) and by Mattes (U.S. Patent 6,038,295) (Ex. 1006).
`
`State of the prior art
`
`C.
`Long before the filing of the priority application that led to the ’482 patent,
`
`people used graphical user interfaces and web-browser applications for file transfer
`
`and sharing between devices, or for publishing on the Internet. (Lippman Dec. ¶
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`40.) Not only had the study of “distributed computing” become its own branch of
`
`computer science in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but transmitting parameters
`
`from one device to a second device in order to enable the second device to process
`
`files (e.g., media files) was a widely known and commonly used technique. (Lipp-
`
`man Dec. ¶ 40.) Indeed, the ’482 patent itself admits that such systems were known
`
`in the art. For example, the ’482 patent describes a system known as “Ac-
`
`tiveUpload” that “allows an arbitrary file to be dragged and dropped onto a web
`
`page control for upload to the web server.” (’482 patent, 1:55-56.) Other features
`
`claimed in the ’482 patent -- such as “transmitting identifying information associ-
`
`ated with a media file” and “retrieving/transmitting user-identifying infor-
`
`mation/authorization and access” (including caption and location information), as
`
`well as the combination of such features -- were also well known in the art long be-
`
`fore the alleged date of invention. Indeed, the prior art is replete with examples of
`
`them.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) is presumed to be aware of all
`
`pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordi-
`
`nary creativity. With respect to the ’482 patent, a POSA would typically have at
`
`least (a) a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science (or similar field, e.g.,
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`electrical engineering), or (b) at least or three to five years’ industry experience in
`
`the general field of software engineering and web design. (Lippman Dec. ¶ 55.)
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION2
`The ’482 patent claim terms must be given their broadest reasonable inter-
`
`pretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the
`
`disclosure. Although a district court’s construction of similar terms in the ’482 pa-
`
`tent may be informative (Ex. 1007), because the Board applies the broadest rea-
`
`sonable construction standard, the Board’s construction may not be the same as
`
`that adopted by that district court, which applies a different standard. See Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc., IPR2013-00569, Paper
`
`9 at 2 (P.T.A.B. March 6, 2014). The following terms and phrases from the claims
`
`of the ’482 patent might require construction based on arguments in the related lit-
`
`igations and reexaminations, and are construed below in accordance with these
`
`principles for the purpose of this inter partes review proceeding. The plain and or-
`
`dinary meaning should be applied to any claim terms that are not addressed below.
`
`
`2 Petitioner is currently litigating claim construction in concurrent district
`
`court litigation and reserves the right to assert and, in fact, has asserted different
`
`claim constructions in that litigation.
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
` “Pre-processing” should be construed as “modifying before further pro-
`
`cessing.” 3 (Lippman Dec. ¶¶ 60-71.)
`
`A.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’482 PATENT FORM-
`ING THE BASIS OF THIS PETITION
`1. Mattes
`U.S. Patent No. 6,038,295 to Mattes was filed June 17, 1997 and issued
`
`March 14, 2000. Therefore, Mattes is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`3 In the pending ex parte reexamination, Patent Owner contends that the
`
`term “pre-processing” must be limited solely to compressing the image for publica-
`
`tion and cannot be directed to unrelated objectives such as storage or archiving.
`This argument was rejected by the Examiner.
`
`Patent Owner has also argued that “receiving an identification” must be lim-
`
`ited to receiving a manual selection by a “user” of a “subset” of stored images via a
`
`“screen.” This argument does not comport with the broadest reasonable interpreta-
`
`tion standard. Other claims of the ’482 patent expressly specify a manual input by
`
`a user. (See, e.g., claim 5 (disclosing that “receiving an identification comprises re-
`
`ceiving a click command at said client device”).) Furthermore, neither the claims
`
`of the ’482 patent nor the specification specifies that the identification must be a
`
`“subset” of stored images and does not contain any language that would exclude
`the identification of any or all stored images.
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`Like the ’482 patent, Mattes relates to a device that (1) receives a parameter
`
`from another device, (2) uses that parameter to process digital content prior to
`
`transmission (“pre-process”), and (3) transmits
`
`that pre-processed digital content. FIG. 1 of the
`
`Mattes patent is reproduced here for reference.
`
`More specifically, in Mattes, Telephone
`
`Unit TE is a device that (1) receives a quanti-
`
`zation parameter from the Control Unit ST in-
`
`side Server S, (2) pre-processes a digital image
`
`captured by a camera in the telephone unit by using the received quantization pa-
`
`rameter to compress the digital image, and (3) transmits the compressed digital im-
`
`age to Server S for publication on the World Wide Web.
`
`Creamer
`
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,930,709 to Creamer was filed December 3, 1998 and is-
`
`sued August 16, 2005 (“Creamer,” Ex. 1003). The Creamer patent claims priority
`
`to U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 60/085,585, filed on May 15, 1998 (“Creamer
`
`’98,” Ex. 1005) and 60/067,310, filed on December 4, 1997 (“Creamer ’97,” Ex.
`
`1004). Therefore, Creamer is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Petitioner has provided both Creamer ’97 and Creamer ’98 provisionals and
`
`has provided parallel/dual citations to both Creamer and Creamer ’97 for each ’482
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitionn for Inter PPartes Revview of U.SS. Patent NNo. 7,765,4482
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent cclaim featuure, in ordeer to show tthe supporrt for each
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim featuure in Creaamer
`
`
`
`
`
`e effectivee date of thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`and perffect the § 1102(e) datee of Creammer with resspect to th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’482 paatent. See Inn re Giacoomini, 612 F.3d 1380
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, 1383 (Fe
`
`
`
`d. Cir. 20110); Ex parrte
`
`
`
`
`
`Yamaguuchi, 88 USSPQ2d 16006 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(prrecedentiaal); see alsoo Marvell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Semiconnductor, Innc. v. Intelllectual Venntures I LLLC, IPR20114-00547,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`
`
`
`(P.T.A.BB. Dec. 3, 2014).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LLike the ’4882 patent, CCreamer also relates
`
`
`
`to a devic
`
`
`
`e (an Interrnet cameraa 1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that (1) receives fifirmware annd parametters over thhe Internett, the firmwware and p
`
`
`
`a-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rameterrs includingg image prrocessing pparameters
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such as coompressionn parameteers,
`
`
`
`(2) pre-processes a digital immage, for eexample, too compresss a digital iimage withh the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compression pa-
`
`
`
`rameterrs, and (3)
`
`
`
`transmitts the
`
`ssed digi-
`compre
`
`
`
`tal imagge over
`
`
`
`the Internet to a wweb server ffor publicaation. An aannotated vversion of FFIG. 4A off the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Creameer patent is reproduceed here for reference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LLike the ’4882 patent, CCreamer ddiscloses reeceiving paarameters ffrom a remmote
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device tto process images. Crreamer discloses thatt a “full sett of operat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ional paramme-
`
`
`
`ters” can be downnload from an ISP serrver 304.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`Creamer also discloses using pre-processing parameters received from a re-
`
`mote device. The image parameters, including the compression parameters, are re-
`
`ceived from the Internet or from a setup PC. (Creamer, 27:30-47 (“In step S120,
`
`the microcontroller 200 receives and writes from the remote source . . . a new set
`
`of parameters to be written to the structure of FIG. 5.”); see also Creamer ’97,
`
`39:3-11.) In fact, all the firmware for the microcontroller 200 is received in the
`
`same way, so all aspects of processing the image are received from another device.
`
`(Id. at 39:3-5 (“may write or overwrite the firmware in the NVRAM 242”).)
`
`Finally, Creamer discloses transmitting the pre-processed digital image
`
`along with identifying information such as an associated user name/login infor-
`
`mation to a server or directly to remote computers via the World Wide Web.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 13, 14, 16-19, 20-23, 35, 38, 40-
`
`42, 44-46, and 49 of the ʼ482 patent on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: claims 13, 14, 19, 21-23, 38, 40