Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WHATSAPP, INC. AND FACEBOOK, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-00740
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,475
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WHATSAPP, INC. AND FACEBOOK, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-00740
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,475
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`COULOMBE RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1, 12, 23, 37, 39
`AND 41…………………………………………………………………….. 3
`A.
`Claim 1 Does Not Require Selection from a Fixed Set
`of Choices…………………………………………………………… 3
`B. A Narrow Construction Does Not Distinguish Coulombe .................. 9
`III. COULOMBE IN VIEW OF DRUYAN AND TITTEL RENDER OBVIOUS
`CLAIMS 6, 9, 17, 18, 28, 40 AND 42…………………………………..…11
`A.
`“Template” ......................................................................................... 11
`B.
`“Predefined Layout” ........................................................................... 14
`
`i. The Patent Owner’s Interpretation is Incorrect ........................... 14
`
`ii. The Prior Art Renders Obvious the “Predefined Template” ...... 16
`
`The Prior Art Is Properly Combinable ............................................... 18
`i. Messaging vs. Web Browsing Technologies .............................. 19
`ii. XSLT vs. CSS Style Sheets in Combination with
`Coulombe ........................................................................................... 21
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 25
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`
`Title of Document
`
`Reply Declaration of David Klausner
`Transcript of the Deposition of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D. (taken on
`March 22, 2016)
`The New Oxford American Dictionary, Oxford University Press,
`(2d ed. 2005), p. 1536
`Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (2d ed. 2001), p.
`1734
`Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1999), p. 1000
`U.S. Patent No. 8,181,104 to Russ Helfand et al.
`Ken Slovak, Absolute Beginner’s Guide to MicroSoft Office 2003
`(2004), pp. 20-21, 68-70
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0116415 to Rabindranath Dutta et
`al.
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0257142 to Cheng-Shing Lai et al.
`Hans Bergsten, JavaServer Pages (3d ed. 2004), pp. 3-10
`Duane K. Fields, et al., Web Development with JavaServer Pages
`(2d ed. 2002), pp. 483-485
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0050454 to Aidon Jennery et al.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The patent owner’s opposition presents only a limited challenge to the
`
`instituted grounds of review. With respect to representative claim 1, the patent
`
`owner’s sole argument is that Coulombe does not disclose a media block
`
`“configured to select, before transmitting, at least one message format and message
`
`layout.” The patent owner’s argument rests on a narrow construction of the term
`
`“select” that would require that the message format and layout be chosen “from a
`
`fixed set of choices.” As explained in detail in Part II.A below, the patent owner’s
`
`argument is unsupported by the plain claim language and refuted by the intrinsic
`
`record. The patent owner’s construction, in fact, would exclude embodiments in
`
`the specification in which format and layout are dynamically chosen based on
`
`instructions in the message itself, rather than from a fixed set of choices built-in to
`
`the messaging system.
`
`With respect to representative claim 6, the patent owner does not dispute that
`
`the prior art discloses each limitation with the exception of the “template” and
`
`“predefined layout” limitations, for which the patent owner relies on impermissibly
`
`narrow constructions. As explained in Part III.A below, however, the style sheets
`
`in Druyan and Tittel meet the “template” limitation because they define the user
`
`interface (including the layout and appearance) for presenting the content.
`
`Contrary to the patent owner’s arguments, the claimed “template” need not contain
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`the actual content of the message nor a visually displayed interface.
`
`With respect to the “predefined layout” limitation, the patent owner argues
`
`that the layout must be defined before the message is received. But reminiscent of
`
`its argument about the term “select,” the patent owner’s argument cannot be
`
`reconciled with the intrinsic record. The specification expressly discloses that the
`
`message layout may be predefined based on information received with the message
`
`itself, thus refuting the patent owner’s position. A “predefined layout” must
`
`simply be defined before it is used. Thus, the patent owner’s argument fails.
`
`Finally, the patent owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have combined Coulombe with the style sheet teachings of Druyan and
`
`Tittel because, according to the patent owner, the former pertains to messaging and
`
`the latter to web browsing. However, the patent owner’s argument ignores the fact
`
`that HTML and style sheets are not “web” technologies at all—they are generic
`
`technologies for organizing and presenting content through HTML documents.
`
`These technologies exist separate and apart from the web, and as the patent
`
`owner’s expert conceded, HTML documents can be transmitted through e-mail or
`
`other types of messaging systems. The patent owner’s “web vs. messaging”
`
`distinction is therefore without merit. For all of the reasons set forth below, and in
`
`the original Petition, all challenged claims should be found unpatentable.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`II. COULOMBE RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1, 12, 23, 37, 39, AND 41
`The patent owner treats claim 1 as representative of claims 12, 23, 37, 39,
`
`and 41, and thus, relies only on its arguments pertaining to claim 1. (Resp. at 55-
`
`56; see also Pet. at 9-10.) The patent owner relies on only one argument with
`
`respect to these claims. Specifically, the patent owner asserts that Coulombe fails
`
`to disclose or render obvious a media block “configured to select, before
`
`transmitting, at least one message format and message layout . . . .” (Id. at 33
`
`(emphasis in original); see also id. at 34.) The patent owner rests this argument
`
`entirely on a narrow interpretation of the word “select.” According to the patent
`
`owner, “this limitation requires that the media block be configured to select a
`
`format and layout from a fixed set of layout and format choices.” (Id. at 33
`
`(emphasis added); see also id. at 25-29.) As shown below, the patent owner’s
`
`argument fails for two reasons. First, the proper construction of “select” does not
`
`require a fixed set of layout and format choices. Second, even if the Board were to
`
`adopt the patent owner’s construction, it would not distinguish Coulombe.
`
`A. Claim 1 Does Not Require Selection from a Fixed Set of Choices
`
`It is well-settled that claim terms should normally not be interpreted “in a
`
`way that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.” Oatey Co. v. IPS
`
`Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008). But that is exactly what the patent
`
`owner’s proposed construction would do. As explained below, the specification
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`expressly discloses an embodiment in which the messaging system selects the
`
`message format and layout dynamically based on information provided with the
`
`message—instead of from a “fixed set of format and layout choices.” This
`
`embodiment would be excluded under the patent owner’s proposed construction of
`
`“select.” The term “select” as recited in claim 1 is therefore synonymous with
`
`“decide” or “determine,” and does not require selection from a fixed set of choices.
`
`In particular, the specification explains that the messaging system 16 makes
`
`a “delivery decision” on how a received message should be handled before
`
`delivery to the destination. (’475, Ex. 1001, 16:51-63; see also id. Fig. 6.) The
`
`claimed selection of the message format and layout is encompassed within this
`
`“delivery decision.” As the specification explains:
`
`The delivery decision comprises delivery instructions with regard to
`destination device(s) and/or content and/or format and/or layout of the
`message to be delivered. The delivery instructions or parts thereof
`may be received with the message (e.g. contained in the metadata),
`extracted and provided accordingly, and/or may be predefined in the
`system (e.g. in a form of a lookup table providing matching between
`originating device and/or destination device and format and/or layout
`of the message to be converted for delivery).
`
`(’475, 16:63-17:4 (underlining added).) This passage discloses at least two
`
`alternative techniques for selecting a format and layout for a received message: (1)
`
`relying on instructions “received with the message (e.g. contained in the
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`metadata),” “or” (2) using instructions “predefined in the system” such as a lookup
`
`table for matching an intended destination device to appropriate format and layout.
`
`(Id.) The first way (1), in which format and layout may be selected based on
`
`information carried in the message itself, is clearly not selection “from a fixed set
`
`of layout and format choices.” Because the possible choices of format and layout
`
`“predefined in the system” may be augmented—even replaced—by instructions or
`
`metadata received with the message, the messaging system is clearly not restricted
`
`to selecting from a set of formats and layouts predefined, built-in, or otherwise
`
`“fixed” by the messaging system. (Klausner Reply Decl., Ex. 1013, ¶ 8.) In fact,
`
`the messaging system could select a new format and layout that it first learns about
`
`upon receipt of the message. (Id.) One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore
`
`have understood that the set of formats and layouts the messaging system selects
`
`from can contain any number of format and layout options. The ’475 patent places
`
`no limits on the type of delivery instructions that “may be received with the
`
`message (e.g. contained in the metadata), extracted and provided accordingly.”
`
`(’475, 17:66-17:1; see also Klausner Reply Decl., ¶ 9.)
`
`By requiring selection of format and layout from a “fixed set of choices,” the
`
`patent owner’s construction would exclude all embodiments involving format and
`
`layout options not pre-programmed into the messaging system, including
`
`embodiments in which the format and layout are selected based on information
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`received with the message itself. See Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00631, Paper 50 (Final Written Decision), at 12-14 (PTAB
`
`Aug. 19, 2015) (citing Oatey Co. and declining to adopt the patent owner’s
`
`proposed narrower construction of “selecting” where it would exclude certain
`
`embodiments disclosed in the specification).
`
`The patent owner relies on the second embodiment (2) in which the format
`
`and layout may be predefined and identified through a lookup table. But this is
`
`just one embodiment and not a claim limitation. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification
`
`often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly
`
`warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Nothing in the
`
`claims, specification, or prosecution history suggests that the applicant intended to
`
`limit the claims to the “lookup table” embodiment. A person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would
`
`therefore
`
`interpret claim 1 under
`
`its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation to cover selection from both the fixed choices in a lookup table
`
`predefined in the messaging system, and the selecting format and layout
`
`dynamically based on instructions or metadata provided with the incoming
`
`message itself. (Klausner Reply Decl., Ex. 1013, ¶ 11.)
`
`The dictionary definitions cited by the patent owner do not prove otherwise.
`
`(Resp. at 26.) Although they suggest a choice from among alternatives, they fall
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`short of requiring that the alternatives be predefined, static, or otherwise “fixed” in
`
`any way. The patent owner has also ignored other definitions of “select” that
`
`simply mean “to choose” or “make a choice.” (See Klausner Reply Decl. ¶ 12
`
`(citing Ex 1015, at 1536; Ex 1016, at 1734; Ex 1017, at 1000).)
`
`In any event, the intrinsic evidence is far more valuable here than dictionary
`
`definitions for ascertaining what it means to “select” a format and layout under
`
`claim 1. See, e.g., Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1335
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Intrinsic evidence, that is the claims, written description, and the
`
`prosecution history of the patent, is a more reliable guide to the meaning of a claim
`
`term than are extrinsic sources like technical dictionaries, treatises, and expert
`
`testimony.”). As explained above, the specification equates the claimed selection
`
`with a “delivery decision,” and makes clear that the decision can be based either on
`
`dynamic information carried with the received message itself, or a predefined set
`
`of choices. (’475, 16:63-17:4.) In either case, the word “select” as used in the
`
`claim is synonymous with “decide” or “determine,” which both connote making a
`
`choice or decision about the format and layout to use for the message.
`
`Moreover,
`
`the
`
`’475 patent describes a
`
`template-based messaging
`
`embodiment that confirms that the layout of a message may be selected based on
`
`information that is not fixed or predefined in the messaging system:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`
`Accordingly, for template-based messaging the delivery instructions
`with regard to layout of the message are based on predefined layout of
`message matching to template unique identifier and capabilities of
`destination device. The
`layout may be further predefined
`in
`accordance with information to be obtained with regard to certain
`filled field, format of selected media items, etc.
`(’475, 21:1-8 (underlining added).) As the patent owner’s expert confirmed, the
`
`underlined text above refers to information (such as the content of fields that were
`
`filled in or the format of media items accompanying the message) that is provided
`
`with an incoming message, and therefore, unknown by the messaging system until
`
`receipt of the message. (Surati Depo., Ex. 1014, at 60:23-62:11.) Because this
`
`embodiment would be excluded, the patent owner’s proposed construction of
`
`“select” cannot be the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`Finally, the definition proposed by the Petitioner is supported by the way in
`
`which the word “select” is used in other parts of claim 1. For example, a
`
`subsequent limitation in claim 1 recites conversion of the message “in accordance
`
`with at least one criterion selected from a group comprising,” followed by three
`
`identified criteria. (’475, 23:23-34 (emphasis added).) This language would have
`
`indicated to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the applicant knew how to use
`
`the verb “select” in the narrower context of choosing from a limited set of options.
`
`(Klausner Reply Decl., ¶ 17.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`
`B. A Narrow Construction Does Not Distinguish Coulombe
`
`Even assuming that the term “select” were construed to require a fixed set of
`
`choices, it would not distinguish Coulombe. The patent owner contends that a
`
`fixed set of format and layout choices “would be contrary to” Coulombe because,
`
`according to the patent owner, Coulombe provides a “flexible design in which
`
`format and layout adaption can encompass any incoming message characteristics,
`
`any destination device characteristics, and user preferences.” (Resp. at 34.)
`
`But this conclusion derives from the false premise that a Coulombe system
`
`would be capable of an infinite variety of format and layout adaptations. (Klausner
`
`Reply Decl., ¶ 20.) To the contrary, Coulombe teaches a computer-based system,
`
`and as such, the messaging system can only carry out the operations it is
`
`programmed to perform, and the system must provide software (or equivalent
`
`functionality) to carry out each adaptation described. (Id.; see also Coulombe, ¶¶
`
`0081, 0092, 0093.) Unlike the ’475 patent, Coulombe does not suggest that
`
`instructions provided by system software for selecting format and layout may be
`
`augmented by instructions provided with the received message. Thus, the
`
`available choices of adaptations in a Coulombe system are necessarily “fixed” and
`
`limited to those enabled by system software, and accordingly, the system is not so
`
`“flexible,” as the patent owner claims, so as to enable format and layout adaptation
`
`for “any incoming message characteristics, any destination device characteristics,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`and user preferences.” (Klausner Reply Decl., ¶ 21.) Coulombe itself expressly
`
`recognizes the existence of limitations to adaptation choices by acknowledging that
`
`there may be situations in which the “[t]he Message Adaptation Engine returns . . .
`
`the original message” because adaptation was unsuccessful. (Coulombe, ¶ 0083.)
`
`In fact, the format and layout choices in Coulombe are more “fixed” than
`
`those in the ’475 patent because, as discussed above, the ’475 patent allows format
`
`and layout to be selected based at least in part on instructions and metadata
`
`provided with the received message itself. (Klausner Reply Decl., ¶ 22.) This
`
`obviates the need to rely on fixed formats or layouts built-in to the messaging
`
`system. (Id.) Moreover, in light of the broad definitions in the ’475 specification,
`
`Coulombe cannot be said to be any more “flexible” than the ’475 patent with
`
`respect to incoming message characteristics, destination device characteristics, or
`
`user preferences. (See ’475, 10:43-55 (a message can be “any kind of
`
`communication objects capable to be exchanged between communication devices”
`
`and media items can be “in any available formats”); 10:27-42 (supported devices);
`
`15:7-14 (support for “sender’s and/or receivers’ preferences, if any, related to
`
`destination device, message layout and/or format, etc.”) (emphases added).)
`
`Accordingly, a narrow construction of “select” would not distinguish
`
`Coulombe from claim 1. For the reasons stated in the Petition, therefore, claims 1,
`
`12, 23, 37, 39, and 41 would have been obvious over Coulombe.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`III. COULOMBE IN VIEW OF DRUYAN AND TITTEL RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 6,
`9, 17, 18, 28, 40 AND 42
`
`As noted, the patent owner treats claim 6 as representative of claims 9, 17,
`
`18, 28, 40 and 42, and thus, limits its arguments solely to those raised for claim 6.
`
`(Resp. at 56; see also Pet. at 9-11.) The patent owner takes issue with only two
`
`limitations in claim 6—“template” and “predefined layout.” (Resp. at 35-39.) The
`
`patent owner also contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`
`been motivated to combine Coulombe with either Tittel or Druyan. (Id. at 39-55.)
`
`The patent owner’s arguments on these issues are without merit.
`
`A.
`
`“Template”
`
`According to the patent owner, the style sheets in Druyan and Tittel are not
`
`“templates” because neither qualifies as a “predefined user interface.” (Resp. at
`
`36.) However, it is undisputed that a style sheet specifies the appearance of an
`
`HTML document, including its style and layout. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 88-89, 92, 100.)
`
`As the patent owner’s expert conceded, a style sheet can specify, among other
`
`things, how elements are arranged on the screen, the color, size and fonts
`
`associated with those elements, the screen background and foreground colors, and
`
`a number of other visual properties. (Surati Depo., at 28:17-29:17.) A style sheet
`
`can even be used to prevent objects from being shown when the HTML document
`
`is displayed. (Id. at 29:18-30:3.) These are clearly “user interface” properties
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`because they affect how the information will be presented to the user. (Klausner
`
`Reply Decl., ¶ 26.) The style sheet, in other words, defines the user interface for
`
`presenting the content and/or layout in the underlying HTML document to the user.
`
`(Id.) A style sheet therefore qualifies as a “template.” (Id.)
`
`The patent owner relies on a narrow interpretation of the phrase “predefined
`
`user interface” in its attempt to exclude style sheets from the definition of
`
`“templates.” According to the patent owner, “a ‘predefined user interface,’ . . . has
`
`to include a visually displayed interface consisting of actual data elements of
`
`interest and not just the fonts or colors to apply to the elements in an HTML
`
`document.” (Resp. at 36-37.) The only statement from the specification the patent
`
`owner cites in support is: “Typically the template comprises a pre-existing text,
`
`and/or spaces to be filled and/or media items and/or menu elements.” (Id. (quoting
`
`’475, 11:11-14) (emphasis added).) But this statement just describes one example
`
`and expressly qualifies itself by the word “typically,” indicating an exemplary
`
`rather than a limiting description. Further, the requirement that the “template”
`
`contain actual content (“has to include . . . actual data elements of interest”)
`
`contradicts the patent’s express definition of “template” that makes clear that a
`
`template may relate to only layout and need not include the underlying content.
`
`(’475, 11:8-11 (“. . . related to content and/or layout . . .”) (emphasis added).)
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`
`Moreover, even if there were some merit to the patent owner’s assertion that
`
`the term “template” requires a “visually displayed interface” employed to create
`
`the content or layout information, it would not alter the ultimate conclusion of
`
`obviousness. (Klausner Reply Decl., ¶ 29.) Figure 2 in Coulombe clearly
`
`discloses a user interface showing the content of an initial message. (Surati Depo.,
`
`at 86:2-13; see also Coulombe, Ex. 1003, ¶ 0094 (“The original message is shown
`
`on the left.”).) One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
`
`content shown in this user interface (to the left of Figure 2) can be created using a
`
`“visually displayed interface” of the sending terminal. (Klausner Reply Decl., ¶
`
`29.) It was also well-known to persons of ordinary skill in art prior to 2005 that a
`
`created message akin to what is shown to the left of Figure 2 can be formatted as
`
`an HTML document having a layout defined using CSS. (Id. (citing U.S. App.
`
`Pub. No. 2005/0257142 (filed May 13, 2004), Ex. 1021).)
`
`Prior to 2005, it was also well-known that a software program commonly
`
`referred to as a text editor could have been used to create CSS files. (Klausner
`
`Reply Decl., ¶ 30; Surati Depo., Ex. 1014, at 83:6-84.) Text editing software
`
`included programs with graphical user interfaces, including word processors (e.g.
`
`Microsoft Word) and more rudimentary text editors (such as Microsoft Notepad).
`
`(Id.) It would have been common knowledge and apparent to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art that the style sheets in Tittel and Druyan (which disclose the
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`“template” in claim 6) could have been created through a text editor program that
`
`provides a user interface for typing in and/or editing style sheet text. (Id. (citing
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,181,104 (filed Aug. 31, 2004), Ex. 1018).) Thus, the prior art
`
`discloses and renders obvious the “template” limitation in claim 6.
`
`B.
`
`“Predefined Layout”
`
`The patent owner next contends that the prior art does not disclose “at least
`
`one predefined layout,” as recited in claim 6, because the term “predefined layout,”
`
`according to the patent owner, requires the layout to be “created prior to the
`
`incoming message being received.” (Resp. at 37; see also id. at 29.) As shown
`
`below, the patent owner’s arguments are based on an impermissibly narrow
`
`interpretation of “predefined layout.” And even if such an interpretation were
`
`adopted, the prior art would still render obvious the claimed “predefined layout.”
`
`i.
`
`The Patent Owner’s Interpretation is Incorrect
`
`The problems with the patent owner’s interpretation of “predefined layout”
`
`mirror the patent owner’s flawed logic with respect to the term “select” from claim
`
`1. As with the term “select,” the specification makes clear that a “predefined
`
`layout” does not need to be defined before receipt of the message by the messaging
`
`system. This is because the layout may be “predefined” based on information
`
`received with the incoming message itself:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`
`Accordingly, for template-based messaging the delivery instructions
`with regard to layout of the message are based on predefined layout of
`message matching to template unique identifier and capabilities of
`destination decide. The
`layout may be further predefined
`in
`accordance with information to be obtained with regard to certain
`filled field, format of selected media items, etc.
`
`(’475, 21:1-8 (underlining added).) As confirmed by the patent owner’s expert, the
`
`“information to be obtained with regard to certain filled field,” as well as “selected
`
`media items,” is transmitted along with the message that is received by the
`
`messaging system. (Surati Depo., Ex. 1014, at 61:2-18, 62:1-11.) Because this
`
`passage makes clear that the layout may be predefined by information first
`
`obtained by the messaging system after receipt of the message, the patent owner’s
`
`definition of “predefined layout” is too narrow. See Oatey Co., supra, 514 F.3d at
`
`1276 (“We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes
`
`embodiments disclosed in the specification.”). The correct interpretation of
`
`“predefined layout,” in light of the specification, is a layout that is created or
`
`defined prior to being used. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 118, 119.)
`
`The patent owner cites the specification’s description of “look up tables”
`
`used to select the applicable layout (Resp. at 29-30), but as explained above in
`
`connection with the term “select,” this is just one embodiment. There is no basis in
`
`the intrinsic record to limit the claim to the look up table embodiment. See
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`Phillips, supra, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[W]e have repeatedly warned against confining
`
`the claims to those embodiments.”).
`
`The patent owner further contends that “a construction of ‘predefined
`
`layout’ allowing for the layout to be generated ‘on the fly’ would improperly
`
`render the word ‘predefined’ superfluous.” (Id. at 29). But it would not. As noted
`
`above, the specification clearly discloses that “[t]he layout may be further
`
`predefined” based on information first received with the incoming message.
`
`(’475, 21:1-8 (underlining added).) This confirms that creating a layout after
`
`receipt of the message is entirely consistent with the “predefined layout.”
`
`Moreover, other language in claims 1 and 6 indicates that the inventors knew
`
`how to draft claim limitations having a “before” temporal requirement. Claims 1
`
`and 6, for example, recites that the media block is “configured to select, before
`
`transmitting, at least one message format and a message layout.” Had the
`
`inventors intended to require that the layout be defined before receipt of the
`
`message, they certainly could have specified in the claim language.
`
`ii.
`
`The Prior Art Renders Obvious the “Predefined Template”
`
`Moreover, the patent owner’s narrow definition of “predefined layout,” even
`
`if adopted, would not alter the obviousness analysis. Druyan specifically discloses
`
`that a derivative style sheet may be created “manually” (Druyan, 3:37-41), which
`
`as the patent owner’s expert acknowledged, would occur before the receipt of a
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`request for the web page. (Surati Depo. at 72:3-73:11.) Indeed, it would make no
`
`sense to manually create a derivative style sheet “on the fly” in response to a web
`
`page request. (Klausner Reply Decl. ¶ 36.)
`
`Moreover, it would have been obvious to create the derivative style sheet in
`
`Druyan (the “predefined layout”) by the messaging system prior to receiving an
`
`incoming message because the messaging system in Coulombe can “pre-register”
`
`information about the capabilities of the destination device prior to receipt.
`
`(Klausner Reply Decl., ¶ 35; see also Coulombe, ¶ 0117.) If the system knows the
`
`capabilities of the destination device and the type of content it will receive, as the
`
`patent owner’s expert acknowledged, it could pre-create the derivative style sheet.
`
`(Surati Depo. at 77:8-15.) This would be particularly useful for the HTML
`
`spreadsheet documents in Druyan, which have consistent and predictable
`
`“spreadsheet” format with well-defined columns carrying particular types of
`
`information. (Druyan, Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 5A, 5B, 5C; Klausner Reply Decl., ¶ 35.)
`
`Druyan could therefore reuse the derivative style sheet upon receipt of an HTML
`
`document containing new data for the spreadsheet. (Klausner Reply Decl., ¶ 35.)
`
`The patent owner claims that “[t]he derivative style sheets in Druyan are
`
`generated at the time of the device user’s request for the web page” (Resp. at 22-
`
`23), but the actual statement in Druyan is: “In Step 610, in response to receiving a
`
`request to restyle the web page, first derivative XSLT style sheet file 310 . . . is
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`generated.” (Druyan, 5:43-46.) A “request to restyle the web page” is not
`
`synonymous with a web browser request for the page. (Klausner Reply Decl., ¶
`
`37.) And a request to restyle a web page could happen before or after a request for
`
`the particular web page has been received. (Surati Depo., at 73:18-74:14.)
`
`In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have assigned no
`
`particular significance in the timing of the creation of a derivative style sheet. For
`
`example, the system in Druyan could “cache” a previously-created style sheet and
`
`then reuse that previously-created style sheet as a “predetermined style sheet” for a
`
`subsequent request. (Surati Depo. at 102:2-103:11.) The use of such caching
`
`techniques, including creating and retrieving web page files, was well-known to
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art prior to 2005. (Id. at 103:21-23.) In fact,
`
`Coulombe specifically describes a caching technique for the purpose of reusing
`
`capabilities information obtained from a destination device for “future messages.”
`
`(Coulombe, ¶ 0082; see also id. ¶ 0117.) Therefore, the timing of the creation of
`
`the derivative style sheets to be used for a particular request would have been
`
`regarded as a trivial implementation detail. (Klausner Reply Decl., ¶ 38.)
`
`C.
`
`The Prior Art Is Properly Combinable
`
`The patent owner presents a series of arguments challenging whether a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine
`
`Coulombe with Druyan and Tittel. (Resp. at 39-55.) These arguments lack merit.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00740
`
`
`i. Messaging vs. Web Browsing Technologies
`
`One of the recurrent themes and arguments articulated by the patent owner is
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine (a) a
`
`messaging system such as Coulombe with (b) a system concerned with web
`
`browsing, such as Druyan, because messaging and web browsing allegedly present
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
